Clinical applicant denied for being "too young"?

[thewesternsky]

Someone brought their mom to interview day--in the sense that she was following the applicant around. This impacted how the applicant was viewed and I don't think it would have mattered if the applicant was 17 or 27. Still, one could make the argument that this has little to do with the applicant's credentials.

...At the very least, I think it speaks to poor judgment and ignorance about professional etiquette--both of which are necessary in clinical psych programs. I assume the s/he was denied admission?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cara susanna]

I dunno, we have applicants bring their parents sometimes and I don't think it does them any harm. We're a lot more laid back as a department, though.

That said, if you want to argue "why not let her in and see?"... well, why don't you say that for all of the people who post on this forum that didn't get admitted, then? I'm sure they all have high GPAs and good GRE scores, too.

 

[thewesternsky]

I dunno, we have applicants bring their parents sometimes and I don't think it does them any harm. We're a lot more laid back as a department, though.

This seems really strange to me. I can see bringing your parents/partner to the city with you, but why on earth would you bring them to your interview day? Do the parents sit in on the interviews? If so, do they participate in the interview (awkward AND completely inappropriate) or just sit silently in a corner (also awkward...)?

 

[cara susanna]

Oh, I don't think they come to actual interview day, just the social events that we have during the weekend. It was slightly awkward though when I was sitting by them and was talking to the parents more than the prospective students.

 

[KillerDiller]

Oh, I don't think they come to actual interview day, just the social events that we have during the weekend. It was slightly awkward though when I was sitting by them and was talking to the parents more than the prospective students.

Better than bringing them to the interview, but still pretty weird in my opinion. Students want to use this time to get to know their future classmates, not their future classmates' parents . No wonder the millennials have the reputation of being dependent and entitled. (I say this knowing that I'm technically part of this generation as well).

 

[syzergy]

Oh, I don't think they come to actual interview day, just the social events that we have during the weekend. It was slightly awkward though when I was sitting by them and was talking to the parents more than the prospective students.

I can definitely relate to this. My mother is so psyched to travel with me to interviews (if I get any). I keep trying to explain to her that it will look poorly on me if my mom shows up and I'd really prefer she stayed home. But in my case my mom really just wants to excuse to take some time off work and travel. She plans to stay in a hotel and spend all day sightseeing and hanging out in the new cities. In fact, she told me that she really doesn't even want to see me all weekend, she just wants to go on vacation. She won't be coming with me to the school, interview, social events, etc. She might check out the campus but entirely on her own. I'll going to keep trying to get her to stay home but if I can't convince her, I don't want to be seen as a 23-year-old that can't spend a few days away from her parents. So not true.

 

[roubs]

Oh, I don't think they come to actual interview day, just the social events that we have during the weekend. It was slightly awkward though when I was sitting by them and was talking to the parents more than the prospective students.

Just to clarify, the case I was referring to was of a parent coming to actual interview day. And no they were not admitted :/

 

[cara susanna]

Sorry for misunderstanding.

And wow. I can see why that would be an issue.

 

[JuniperTree]

I dunno, we have applicants bring their parents sometimes and I don't think it does them any harm. We're a lot more laid back as a department, though.

Are these younger applicants or older applicants? Is this in a very out of the way program?

I can see taking a significant other, for moral support as much as to check the place out, but that would be pretty embarrassing. Unless there's a good reason like you're nursing a baby and need someone to be there to take care of the baby.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Um... I brought my parent to interview days in the sense that she traveled with me (airports and hotel rooms aren't the most handicapped accessible places, sadly), but she stayed away for anything and everything related to the program (dinners/social events, the actual interview day stuff, etc) and generally hung out at museums on campus. Might it have reflected poorly on me, if they got the sense they were there? I don't know--maybe. I don't think it's at all related to my maturity, though, IMO.

 

[cara susanna]

I can see taking a significant other, for moral support as much as to check the place out, but that would be pretty embarrassing. Unless there's a good reason like you're nursing a baby and need someone to be there to take care of the baby.

In their 20s. Yeah, it's a pretty remote area. I think most of the people who bring their parents are driving here, and they don't want to do it alone.

 

[JuniperTree]

Um... I brought my parent to interview days in the sense that she traveled with me (airports and hotel rooms aren't the most handicapped accessible places, sadly), but she stayed away for anything and everything related to the program (dinners/social events, the actual interview day stuff, etc) and generally hung out at museums on campus. Might it have reflected poorly on me, if they got the sense they were there? I don't know--maybe. I don't think it's at all related to my maturity, though, IMO.

I'm sure it's not related to maturity. I'm an undergrad and honestly if someone else had travelled with their partents, it might show they have a healthy relationship, unless I got the sense they needed them. But you didn't take her to the interview or introduce her to the DCT.

In their 20s. Yeah, it's a pretty remote area. I think most of the people who bring their parents are driving here, and they don't want to do it alone.

That makes a lot of sense. I'm applying in the tri-state area, and I get the feeling it it wouldn't fly here.

 

[roubs]

I think there is a pretty clear line here.

Travelling/sightseeing with family: Fine
Having family come with you to University interview/events: Not fine

In addition, travelling to interviews is a substantial expense, I would have gladly taken along a parent helping me to pick up the tab if I had the chance

 

[PsychPhDone]

My parents came with me to an interview but hung out elsewhere on campus during the actual interviews. They were hesitant about the area so this helped them see it wasn't as scary as they imagined, and given that this program was high on my list, I felt that winning their support was important. But yeah...definitely nobody from the program knew!

 

[cara susanna]

According to the College Confidential discussion, her dad is a professor at the university, in another department: Gustavo Caetano-Anolles.

I just looked it up on PsycInfo (I was bored, okay??) and I can't find any publications under her name, though maybe they're in press or something.

 

[paramour]

I wonder whether she completed her grammar/high school years with her peers or whether she was educated at home. I know a number of individuals who went to college and/or took college courses during their teen years. They did so for a number of reasons: because the school's courses simply weren't challenging, their parents educated them at home, they traveled extensively and could not make it to school, etc. (Interestingly, most of these individuals also had college faculty for parents.) This typically allowed these individuals to progress more quickly through their studies and into college at a young age. One of the posters on the link in the original post repeatedly mentioned that the individual in question had lived in seven countries, as if this is adequate "life experience" to prepare her for graduate school.

I've known people with comparable "life experiences" (at least as listed by this article). They certainly weren't ready for grad school by the age of 18, even though they had completed their undergraduate studies. One of these kids got into trouble during (a college) class for initiating a (physical) altercation over a Star Trek episode. But, y'know, he's done a bit of traveling, he's got a 'genius' IQ, and now that he's already got a college degree, let's put him in graduate school. I shudder to think of what might have happened had he been interested in psych. The others weren't much better.

I also wonder about the level of courses that she took to receive her GPA. I know a few individuals who earned a 4.0 GPA who took the easiest courses they could find so as not to "ruin" said GPA. And then they tested well. So the combination always looked good for them. I guess if they happen to test well, that must be all that matters, huh? What about the folks that bust their arses off to take more challenging courses in prep for grad school but don't have that 4.0? What about the folks who don't test quite as well for whatever reason?

I'm certainly not saying that ANY of the above apply to this individual. The gal may very well indeed be a bright individual who would be a welcome addition to a psych department in any graduate program. However, there also may be alternate explanations for the extremely limited information given in this article that some people seem to be using to justify why she "should" be given the opportunity to attend graduate school. Simply because one manages to graduate early with a 4.0 GPA means zilch. I've known folks with the same stats, and they're honestly not that impressive in person (then or now).

Now perhaps she is the exception to those folks. I will admit that possibility. If this is the case, then I would think that as a bright aspiring grad student, she would refer to um, I don't know, other factors that are actually relevant to grad school committees for admission to such programs in her argument. I agree with others in that I would perhaps be more sympathetic to her plight had anything relevant to grad school admissions been discussed in the article (e.g., research, clinical experiences, GRE scores even). Instead, we're going to refer to high school experiences, ACT scores, living in other countries (c'mon, really?!), and the fact that she graduated early. So. Frakkin. What.

I am sort of curious what she was actually told about the reason for her rejection, however. "Go backpacking across Europe" seems odd advice for someone who has lived in seven countries already. Unless she's not been to Europe yet?

 

[paramour]

According to the College Confidential discussion, her dad is a professor at the university, in another department: Gustavo Caetano-Anolles.

I just looked it up on PsycInfo (I was bored, okay??) and I can't find any publications under her name, though maybe they're in press or something.

Her father has a hefty CV, however. (He also has his own wiki page! )

 

[DrGachet]

However, I will say that admissions comittees "judge" all sorts of things about applicants that help to determine, in part, if they are a good fit for the program....and ultimately, whether they are admitted. To tell a program that they are not allowed to judge and then weigh "maturity" in their applicants is ludicrous. I mentioned that we disqualified someone from consideration a couple years ago because of their poor state of dress at the interview. We made judgements and inferences about the candidate based on this. Thus, he was tossed. Should we be sued for this?

I agree with the gist of what you're saying though I am perplexed by you using the pronoun "we." Are you on admission committee for her school? Regardless, the only real issue is that she was not provided a reason. Now, this is important because it touches on a number of very important concerns:

The admission process is somewhat subjective. Yale's site, for instance, states: "A fine academic record, strong GRE scores, and evidence of research experience and potential are weighed together in the admission decision process." There is no guarantee that a person with a 3.99 GPA and a 1550 GRE will get admitted. In most programs, there has to be a very good match between the applicant's interest and the prof's line of research. And the interview and letters of reference are important too. Someone who is extremely racist in a blatant way, is unlikely to get admitted.

And therein lies the problem. Admission decisions are not based on purely objectively criteria, especially when it comes to judging if a person is mature enough. It is one thing, if she had scored 8/15 on some "emotional maturity" scale. And that those with a score below 10/15, were, say, four times more likely to seriously and irreversibly harm a patient in grad school or during first five years after graduation. Or if there was a strong correlation between that scale and grad school attrition.

So what, you say? Well, the issue is that there is always the potential for bigotry, sexism, racism, etc, when we're dealing with subjective decisions. Women becoming doctors? Heck, they're "too emotional." What about admitting minority students? With a big pool of qualified applicants, should we risk it, given how costly attrition can be? You see where I'm going with this? It is not that some committees at some point actually wrote down, 1500 on GRE, +8 pts, Person of African Origin, -5 points! It's assumptions about who can do what--without lots of evidence for/against.

Again, it would be much easier if the program would share with her their reasoning. Tell her to go backpacking or whatever is obviously not very helpful. More useful would be, say, telling her that her views regarding abortion were overly simplistic and one-dimensional...or the various ways she failed the stress interview. Or that they question her maturity when she said: "I wanna become a psychologist, you know, cause it's kind of cool and stuff, you know?!"

Now, I don't know if the admission committee HAS TO provide her with any detailed info on why she was not accepted. For all know, they have excellent reasons...which they refuse to really share. But I certainly think that there is nothing wrong with her challenging the school. At the very least she will learn more about herself. It seems to me that she is a driven and bright young lady with political aspirations. Let her challenge away and maybe she'll win...maybe they'll name a law after her...I am behind her 100%. Maybe she can force programs to stop pretending that psychology is some hardcore science, and admit that we know more about what makes a pretty good researcher as opposed to pretty good clinician.

I look forward to your friendly reply.

 

[paramour]

I agree with the gist of what you're saying though I am perplexed by you using the pronoun "we." Are you on admission committee for her school? Regardless, the only real issue is that she was not provided a reason.

<clip>

Now, I don't know if the admission committee HAS TO provide her with any detailed info on why she was not accepted. For all know, they have excellent reasons...which they refuse to really share. But I certainly think that there is nothing wrong with her challenging the school. At the very least she will learn more about herself. It seems to me that she is a driven and bright young lady with political aspirations. Let her challenge away and maybe she'll win...maybe they'll name a law after her...I am behind her 100%. Maybe she can force programs to stop pretending that psychology is some hardcore science, and admit that we know more about what makes a pretty good researcher as opposed to pretty good clinician.

I look forward to your friendly reply.

I believe he was referring to a situation where his own program denied a student, not the student's program in the article.

As for her not being provided a reason or detailed information by the program, we don't really know this. We only know her version of what she is spamming all over the internet.

 

[deleted176373]

Now, let's think this through.

She applied to the same school she got her undergrad at, for grad school.
Daddy is a professor at the same school.
She's clearly quite smart and capable of studying elsewhere.

Why would you, as the admissions committee member:

1. Risk the appearance of impropriety. (e.g. - Daddy's influence)
2. Not diversify your graduate student population by pulling from other schools.
3. Accept a student who is unwilling to diversify their own experience. (She applied to one program.)

It very possible isn't her age that prevented her admission, but she did not examine any alternative hypotheses in her tirade. I'm sorry, but the young lady should examine the possibility that her age is not the only thing preventing her from getting admitted... Also, quite possibly given the current state of clinical psychology admissions, it is possible that she was simply bested by more qualified candidates.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The admission process is somewhat subjective. Yale's site, for instance, states: "A fine academic record, strong GRE scores, and evidence of research experience and potential are weighed together in the admission decision process." There is no guarantee that a person with a 3.99 GPA and a 1550 GRE will get admitted. In most programs, there has to be a very good match between the applicant's interest and the prof's line of research. And the interview and letters of reference are important too. Someone who is extremely racist in a blatant way, is unlikely to get admitted.

*not in response to this case, but admissions in general*

It isn't outside the realm of fair expectation that a student who wants to be a doctoral candidate do some leg work to better understand what is needed to get into a program. Being a solid research match is just expected; it is a degree that has a strong research component and 98% of them have a mentorship model. If a student doesn't understand that, I don't put the fault on the program, I put it on the student.

 

[roubs]

I am perplexed by you using the pronoun "we." Are you on admission committee for her school?

I think he meant at his own school. Also, I'm wondering if you are a MD? I'm asking cause I most typically hear "adcom" associated with med school. Many psych programs don't have an "admission committee", rather students are accepted generally into the lab and it's not uncommon to have current students informally interview prospective students.

 

[erg923]

Are you on admission committee for her school?

Not hers, no.

 

[erg923]

And therein lies the problem. Admission decisions are not based on purely objectively criteria, especially when it comes to judging if a person is mature enough.

Then, apparently, you must have a problem with the hiring/interview practices of every employer in this country? Not every decision is based on quantitative criteria...nor should it be. This is just the way the world works.

But I certainly think that there is nothing wrong with her challenging the school. At the very least she will learn more about herself. It seems to me that she is a driven and bright young lady with political aspirations. Let her challenge away and maybe she'll win...maybe they'll name a law after her...I am behind her 100%. Maybe she can force programs to stop pretending that psychology is some hardcore science, and admit that we know more about what makes a pretty good researcher as opposed to pretty good clinician.

Come on man, some woman throwing an histrionic tantrum is going to change the guiding paradigm (ie.,science) and admission policies/standards of this profession? What world are you in?

Moreover, you need to look at this a little more broadly. Actions, even if you feel they are justified, will have consequences. Maybe those consequences are extreme or unfair, maybe not. But the point is that that they exist, right? Now, given the current climate, how do you think her reaction and litigiousness makes her appear to other psychology doctoral programs? More appealing? Or less appealing? Be honest. If you were DCT of a program, would you really wanna take on the risk and possible ramifications of taking this student? Maybe she'll sue your program if she doesn't match for internship? Maybe her mom will storm into your office and make a nasty scene for god knows what. It doesn't really matter WHAT might happen. All we know is that, based on her passed behavior, she likes to cause a fuss (about things that she shouldnt in many peoples opinion) and likes to bring mommy and daddy and the media into it. Would you really wanna deal with that elevated risk? I wouldn't. And I dare say the university that employs you wouldn't really appreciate it either. Having been the student member of a Ph.D. admissions committee for several years while in grad school, I am confident that would be a pretty reasonable and popular opinion among academics.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I found this thread while searching for something else and googled the then-applicant out of curiosity. It looks like she got an MA in forensic psych from the Chicago School from 2011-2013 then went back to UIUC to get a PhD in biology/animal science with a focus on genetics (fairly closely aligned with what her father studies, it seems, though a different department) from 2013-2015 and is now a post-doc at a university in Korea. I'm a bit baffled about she managed to get a PhD in two years, especially in a field unrelated to her previous studies--no matter how smart, there just doesn't seem to be enough time in there to fit everything in (coursework, comps, dissertation)--but good for her.

 

[psydstudent2020]

I applied when I was 19. I don’t think age should be allowed to be a factor. If anything it shows success to have requirements done so quickly

 

[MCParent]

I applied when I was 19. I don’t think age should be allowed to be a factor. If anything it shows success to have requirements done so quickly

If you read the original article, it doesn’t look like age was a factor. The applicant was not competitive. Then when not accepted, she assumed it was because of her age and not lack of relevant experience.

 

[GradStudent2020]

I found this thread while searching for something else and googled the then-applicant out of curiosity. It looks like she got an MA in forensic psych from the Chicago School from 2011-2013 then went back to UIUC to get a PhD in biology/animal science with a focus on genetics (fairly closely aligned with what her father studies, it seems, though a different department) from 2013-2015 and is now a post-doc at a university in Korea. I'm a bit baffled about she managed to get a PhD in two years, especially in a field unrelated to her previous studies--no matter how smart, there just doesn't seem to be enough time in there to fit everything in (coursework, comps, dissertation)--but good for her.

Sooo, I saw this and found it interesting. She’s published some with her father, and the school she completed her PhD at has a lab named after him. Was she enrolled in a different department?

 

[DynamicDidactic]

the whole damn thing feels very greasy to me.

 

[Sanman]

I applied when I was 19. I don’t think age should be allowed to be a factor. If anything it shows success to have requirements done so quickly

Honestly, I would disagree. I applied at age 20 and was 21 just before starting my program. I can't imagine the isolation from my cohort if I wasn't legally aloud into a bar. In addition, can you see a going to a marriage counselor that never had an adult relationship? Life experience counts for something in this field.

 

[cara susanna]

I look super young (much younger than I am) and it definitely can present a barrier to clinical care. I've had patients request to transfer because of it.