Clinical Ph.D. Admissions - Give me an honest answer

[perfektspace]

I have applied to a dozen schools and have been turned down for interviews at all (pending 1 still reviewing). I am going to be honest and just give you my basic credentials. I want to know if I am justified in feeling that I have had particularly bad luck or should not have even bothered to apply? Additionally, some schools have told me they may offer me an interview at a later time, after they review their "top" candidates. Is this legit or am I being politely rejected? Brutal honesty please.

Here are my "stats":

I had an undergrad GPA of 3.52 and a psych GPA of 3.6. My GRE General was a combined 1130 (I realize a little low) with an analytic score of 5.5. I have 3 years of research experience with a nationally known professor, with 7 poster presentations and first authorship of a publication in a prominent APA journal. My rec's were from 2 professors and the project director of the study I work for.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[HonieButterfly]

I have applied to a dozen schools and have been turned down for interviews at all (pending 1 still reviewing). I am going to be honest and just give you my basic credentials. I want to know if I am justified in feeling that I have had particularly bad luck or should not have even bothered to apply? Additionally, some schools have told me they may offer me an interview at a later time, after they review their "top" candidates. Is this legit or am I being politely rejected? Brutal honesty please.

Here are my "stats":

I had an undergrad GPA of 3.52 and a psych GPA of 3.6. My GRE General was a combined 1130 (I realize a little low) with an analytic score of 5.5. I have 3 years of research experience with a nationally known professor, with 7 poster presentations and first authorship of a publication in a prominent APA journal. My rec's were from 2 professors and the project director of the study I work for.

The research experiences you have had, do they match well with the faculty you want to work with in grad school? I realize that research match is extremely important and no matter how many years of research experience you have all or some needs to match with what you want to research in grad school. I have too done 3 years of research experience and is currently a undergrad and the most important part of it seems to have been my honors thesis because I was able to be way more independent, I did everything that a grad student does for their thesis, research matched and its totally different than just being a Research assistant on someone elses project. This is just from my own experience and some others that I know. If you have research match then I am not sure whats the deal. Either maybe your not conveying your interest the right way in your personal statement or maybe your recommenders were not that supportive. This is just my 2 cents as some possibilities. I feel you should have at least gotten 1 interview somewhere so I less so feel its bad luck. Hope this helps

 

[edieb]

Although you're strong in most areas, you are weak in the most important area -- GRE scores. In case you don't know, the minimum score that schools advertise, is usually way lower than the AVERAGE score an admitted applicant has. Where I attend, the minimum score advertised is 1100 but the average score is around 1300. Also, if you are not a member of the APA +AND+ your state psychological association (they call to verify) for at least 1 year before applying, you're rejected. I hear that a nice number of schools also hold it against you if you're not a member of at least the APA and your state association. These are tacit criteria that schools will not tell you!! You should take some of the time spent as an R.A. and spend it working on your GRE. Good luck

I have applied to a dozen schools and have been turned down for interviews at all (pending 1 still reviewing). I am going to be honest and just give you my basic credentials. I want to know if I am justified in feeling that I have had particularly bad luck or should not have even bothered to apply? Additionally, some schools have told me they may offer me an interview at a later time, after they review their "top" candidates. Is this legit or am I being politely rejected? Brutal honesty please.

Here are my "stats":

I had an undergrad GPA of 3.52 and a psych GPA of 3.6. My GRE General was a combined 1130 (I realize a little low) with an analytic score of 5.5. I have 3 years of research experience with a nationally known professor, with 7 poster presentations and first authorship of a publication in a prominent APA journal. My rec's were from 2 professors and the project director of the study I work for.

 

[perfektspace]

The research experiences you have had, do they match well with the faculty you want to work with in grad school? I have too done 3 years of research experience and is currently a undergrad and the most important part of it seems to have been my honors thesis because I was able to be way more independent, I did everything that a grad student does for their thesis, research matched and its totally different than just being a Research assistant on someone elses project.

I really appreciate your feedback.

I would say that 7 of the 12 are excellent matches with faculty interests (e.g., very closely related to my experiences), 4 are slightly different but in the same area (e.g., pediatrics) and the other 1 was more of a stretch although not totally unrelated. I gambled not doing an honors thesis in favor a conducting my own study in hopes of gaining 1st authorship of a publication and was able to do so.

 

[HonieButterfly]

Although you're strong in most areas, you are weak in the most important area -- GRE scores. In case you don't know, the minimum score that schools advertise, is usually way lower than the AVERAGE score an admitted applicant has. Where I attend, the minimum score advertised is 1100 but the average score is around 1300. Also, if you are not a member of the APA +AND+ your state psychological association (they call to verify) for at least 1 year before applying, you're rejected. I hear that a nice number of schools also hold it against you if you're not a member of at least the APA and your state association. These are tacit criteria that schools will not tell you!! You should take some of the time spent as an R.A. and spend it working on your GRE. Good luck

Wow I have never heard of that before. I know I am a sudent affiliate with apa for like 2 yrs but not with NY state although I am a intern as a crisis counselor. GRE scores are important but I dont believe she would be excluded for interviews at all schools based on that. I guess its depends on the type of schools you applied too. It is always good to apply to several with various difficult admission... Thanks for that information and good luck everyone

 

[smrt_n_frndly]

Yes your GRE's are a little low, sometimes schools do not have time to review all applications and they instead use their own unstated minimum criteria to pre-select who to review. I have heard that at least 1200 combined is necessary to get past this step. I do think your research experience is more than adequate especiailly with your presentations and publications, but I also agree that having your current research areas relate to what you want to study is important. Also, I have heard that your statement of intent is very important so they have a clear idea of your experiences, intent, and reasons for pursuing graduate study as well as a clear delineation of your goals once you are admitted.

I sympathize with you, I applied to 17 schools, some reach schools but others within my range. I have so far been denied first round interviews at all but 1 school. Keep the faith though, I just went this past weekend for that interview at University of Arizona and was offered admission today. It only takes one school, and hopefully you'll like wherever you end up. I do think it may be bad luck as well, did you contact schools/professors to see if they people you were interested in working with were accepting students? I did this and still it was just ultra competitive this year as it is every year.

 

[merideen]

Also, if you are not a member of the APA +AND+ your state psychological association (they call to verify) for at least 1 year before applying, you're rejected. I hear that a nice number of schools also hold it against you if you're not a member of at least the APA and your state association.

could you clarify what you meant by that? Also where did you hear/learn that?

 

[perfektspace]

Also, if you are not a member of the APA +AND+ your state psychological association (they call to verify) for at least 1 year before applying, you're rejected. I hear that a nice number of schools also hold it against you if you're not a member of at least the APA and your state association.

That's interesting. I'm not saying your incorrect, as perhaps some schools do this, but I checked with a few professors and they didn't seem to think this was common practice. Of all the current grad students in my lab none claimed to have any membership criteria prior to applying. I would like to hear some other opinions on this.

 

[HonieButterfly]

Yes your GRE's are a little low, sometimes schools do not have time to review all applications and they instead use their own unstated minimum criteria to pre-select who to review. I have heard that at least 1200 combined is necessary to get past this step. I do think your research experience is more than adequate especiailly with your presentations and publications, but I also agree that having your current research areas relate to what you want to study is important. Also, I have heard that your statement of intent is very important so they have a clear idea of your experiences, intent, and reasons for pursuing graduate study as well as a clear delineation of your goals once you are admitted.

I sympathize with you, I applied to 17 schools, some reach schools but others within my range. I have so far been denied first round interviews at all but 1 school. Keep the faith though, I just went this past weekend for that interview at University of Arizona and was offered admission today. It only takes one school, and hopefully you'll like wherever you end up. I do think it may be bad luck as well, did you contact schools/professors to see if they people you were interested in working with were accepting students? I did this and still it was just ultra competitive this year as it is every year.

Congrats! I totally agree with you. I applied to 8 schools ( 5 perfect match, 3 some what related). I got 2 rejections thus far and I havent heard from 5 other schools but its ok. I had one interview this past weekend ( my top choice) and I think it went very well and I have a good chance. All it takes is 1 admissions and I will feel awesome. So True!

 

[HonieButterfly]

That's interesting. I'm not saying your incorrect, as perhaps some schools do this, but I checked with a few professors and they didn't seem to think this was common practice. Of all the current grad students in my lab none claimed to have any membership criteria prior to applying. I would like to hear some other opinions on this.

I have never heard this before. I do not know if its true or not but if it is I am sure most schools do not follow that criteria- makes no sense to me but enlightening.

 

[JatPenn]

I also have not heard of this policy. To the OP - Retake the GRE and chalk it up as bad luck this round. Next time be sure you have good matches and contact your prospective advisors beforehand.

 

[edieb]

could you clarify what you meant by that? Also where did you hear/learn that?

I have three relatives, each at different major universities, who told me this when I applied to grad school 4 years ago. Additionally, I have also seen the GRE criteria + psychological association criteria in place at my school. They use it as a screener of sorts -- high sensitivity but low specificity (i.e., they pick a lot of people on these criteria and employ more specific criteria later on to make the second cut). What the earlier poster said earlier, about GREs being looked at first, was correct. If you make this cut, then they'll look at research interests. I am sure there are exceptions, but I am pretty sure this is the general rule.

 

[mmonte4]

I have three relatives, each at different major universities, who told me this when I applied to grad school 4 years ago. Additionally, I have also seen the GRE criteria + psychological association criteria in place at my school. They use it as a screener of sorts -- high sensitivity but low specificity (i.e., they pick a lot of people on these criteria and employ more specific criteria later on to make the second cut). What the earlier poster said earlier, about GREs being looked at first, was correct. If you make this cut, then they'll look at research interests. I am sure there are exceptions, but I am pretty sure this is the general rule.

just what was the GRE cutoff this yr at your school edieb?

 

[edieb]

I think it's around 1250

 

[Neuro-Dr]

Well, there are a couple of ways to look at this. If you are asking whether you have good enough stats, the average GPA fro Clincal PhDs last year was 3.58 and it was again ranked by department chairs as the most important factor in making decisions, then letters of rec and then personal statement, then research experience and then GRE. If you use your Peterson's guide, it should tell you the mean accepted GPA and GRE where you applied. You are in the ballpark.

I don't think that there is anything exotic going on here, your GREs need to be higher. The median last year for accepted was 1200, with 638 on the subject. You are missing the first cut (becasue you didn't get an interview) and this is why (in my opinion). IF you were missing at some schools and not others, it may be an issue of "fit", but this is not as likely. Luckily, you have some control over this, you can take them again. Also, you can consider the school's GRE accepted average when applying as well as other factors to determine more appropriate safety schools.

I can't tell you how much I understand what you are going through. This happened to me the first year I applied and my GPA and GREs were higher than the mean accepted for every school I applied to. I researched the faculty, my research with theirs, tailored letters, had pubs and expereince and still didn't get in. Now on the other side, we look at students who are clearly qualified and would probably do great, but we just don't have the room. Cuts are made based on more basic variables first. I got in the second year, but that time I added some MS/MA programs so I wouldn't have to sit out. It is a hard decision, but there will be a place for you. Good luck, keep your chin up.

 

[psy86]

I have applied to a dozen schools and have been turned down for interviews at all (pending 1 still reviewing). I am going to be honest and just give you my basic credentials. I want to know if I am justified in feeling that I have had particularly bad luck or should not have even bothered to apply? Additionally, some schools have told me they may offer me an interview at a later time, after they review their "top" candidates. Is this legit or am I being politely rejected? Brutal honesty please.

Here are my "stats":

I had an undergrad GPA of 3.52 and a psych GPA of 3.6. My GRE General was a combined 1130 (I realize a little low) with an analytic score of 5.5. I have 3 years of research experience with a nationally known professor, with 7 poster presentations and first authorship of a publication in a prominent APA journal. My rec's were from 2 professors and the project director of the study I work for.

My guesses would be:

1. Research match problems. Also, did you contact the profs you applied to to make sure they were taking students this year?

2. GRE's (are they an even split or is one really weak?)

3. A problem with your personal statement (see #1)

4. A problem with your recommendations. It would be better to have three from professors, in my opinion. Are you sure that the recommendations were unequivocally positive and sufficiently detailed?

As an FYI, I have *never* heard that thing about membership of psychological organizations, and I certainly don't believe that it affects the admissions process at many top research-based clinical programs.

 

[LM02]

For most research-oriented PhD programs, there will not be any APA membership requirement for admission. Due to the recent political factions, most faculty in research-oriented departments are pretty upset with APA these days. In fact, most faculty in my prior and current department aren't even APA members themselves.

Otherwise, I agree with everyone else. Hang in there - retake the GRE and reapply next year. Good luck!

 

[SaraL124]

Also, if you are not a member of the APA +AND+ your state psychological association (they call to verify) for at least 1 year before applying, you're rejected. I hear that a nice number of schools also hold it against you if you're not a member of at least the APA and your state association. These are tacit criteria that schools will not tell you!! You should take some of the time spent as an R.A. and spend it working on your GRE. Good luck

I'm pretty sure that's absolutely not true. I was accepted to 6 program last year and I was not a member of the APA or my state association. I have never heard this criteria before and I am POSITIVE it is not what kept you from being interviewed this year. The only thing I can say based on your stats is that the faculty were probably reviewing equally qualified individuals in terms of research, letters, etc but your GRES were low and that's probably where they drew the line. Just get them up for next year and I'm sure you won't have a problem getting interviews!

 

[perfektspace]

Thanks, your replies have been very helpful and I still have hope as some of my schools have yet to notify. I am also glad to hear this membership thing is BS. It wouldn't make any sense.

 

[perfektspace]

The consensus appears to be that my GRE scores are too low and that is possibly my downfall assuming that I didn't write a horrible personal statement, matched well, and that my rec's were solid. I am reasonably certain the latter three are not my problem. If thats the case so be it. I think what frustrates me is that I am hearing from people with little research or publication/presentation experience that they have several interviews. I have to believe that achieving 1st authorship in a very difficult to crack journal and presenting at conferences means something. If I can beat out over 50 PhD's and grad students for one of a half dozen spots in a special issue doesn't that prove I am "on the level"? There seems to be some sort of basic logical fallacy in this.

 

[Psyclops]

So perfect, you have a publication? That is still "excedingly rare" as I've heard it described. So kudos to you, you should be proud of that. From what I hear almost no one, and look at PhD students CVs to confirm this, has first author pubs. So what is keeping you from getting offers? Are you telling us everything? I'm sure you are but I also think you must know what is keepining you from this. As brutal as the process is, and it is brutal, what do you think you are missing? Honestly. What would you beef up if you could. You have a pub, you're not stupid what would you change?

 

[psypsypsy]

I have to agree with others that I've NEVER heard of that APA thing before. I'm a current clinical psych grad student, and was not a member of APA, and I recieved plenty of interviews, and I've never heard that given as advice.

My suggestion would be to retake the GREs. Although most schools don't claim to have "cut-offs", I think they mostly do. Practically, there just isn't time to for the admissions committee to review all the applications, so they make some sort of cut-off. My school has some sort of GRE/GPA formula that results in one number, and they don't look at applications below that. So, while you can't increase the GPA, you can definitely up the GRE score.

I think research match, a strong personal statement and recommendations letters are what really get you there. You've got great posters/publications! From what you've said, I think if you can get past the GPA/GRE stage, then you've got a really good shot. Unfortunately, that may be cutting you off sometimes before they can even see your research experience.

I also wouldn't agree with whoever said don't take a project director on principle. If they know you well, in a psych research context, and have a higher degree (PhD, MPH, MD) I think it can be great. Just make sure that they're experienced in writing letters, so they know what to do.

 

[perfektspace]

So perfect, you have a publication? That is still "excedingly rare" as I've heard it described. So kudos to you, you should be proud of that. From what I hear almost no one, and look at PhD students CVs to confirm this, has first author pubs. So what is keeping you from getting offers? Are you telling us everything? I'm sure you are but I also think you must know what is keepining you from this. As brutal as the process is, and it is brutal, what do you think you are missing? Honestly. What would you beef up if you could. You have a pub, you're not stupid what would you change?

Thanks for the response. At the least, it helps to get this off my chest. Aside from getting my GRE a few points higher I am not sure. Believe me it has been on my mind. Yes, I could retake the test but there doesn't seem to be a great deal of variance in those taking the test a number of times and I can't say I have ever done well on these types of test (e.g., SAT's). I reviewed my statement with a grad student and a professor and did my research on potential advisors by reviewing their current literature and making sure they were taking students.

The only non-professor rec. I had was from someone I worked with in a professional and academic context for about 3 years on excellent terms, perhaps it was weak. The other 2 came from the chair of the psychology department and the chair of a sub-department in the psychology program. Considering I was a transfer, perhaps not spending all four years at the same school was looked down upon. However, this couldn't be avoided for financial reasons.

Overall, anything I can think of is incremental and may or may not matter. If schools value a marginally higher test number over proof that an individual can perform at the graduate level through actual work, then I am reluctant to put myself through this again if I don't even get an interview.

 

[joetro]

I think there is often a set cut-off level, like maybe 1200, that you didn't meet, so no matter how strong your recommendations, research experience, etc. are, your application might not even have been read at all. I think if you were to raise those GREs, then all the strong points in your favor could be seen, and you would be a great candidate. Good luck.

 

[Psyclops]

I would recommend doing things the old fashioned way next time. Spend alot of time contacting the professors you are interested in workinig with and develop a dialogue. That way they will be looking for your applcation the next time around. I think that this process is like any other, contacts are important. I don't think thats being cynical. Professors are in the market for graduate students that will contribute and do well in thier program, and that they will work well with. Convince someone of that and you are in. It's not some draconian process designed to make potential graduate students misserable. It does, by thats not what it is meant to do.

 

[psychanon]

Psych admissions are a crapshoot. Every year lots of qualified people get rejected, and there's not always a discernable explanation.

Now that I'm more at the other end of the process, helping my advisor look at applications, I've noticed some things. 1) There are so many great applications, and it's very hard to differentiate them. 2) Sometimes research match means more than just having a general interest in what the professor advertises as his/her interests-- it can be a matter of skills needed in the lab (SCID training, familiarity with EEG equipment, etc.) or a need for a student with interests in a particular sub-area. 3) Sometimes faculty want to find someone who meets the criteria for a particular fellowship opportunity, so they don't have to fund them through the department. There are so many factors that you can't control.

Your GRE scores may well have gotten in the way-- it's possible that your application did not ever seriously get evaluated, which means that your publication and other credentials may have been overlooked.

I really don't think the APA thing is true at all. I didn't join APA until my second year of grad school -- and that was only because I had to in order to get liability insurance. It's not like joining the APA is an achievement-- all you have to do is send in a check.

Jon Snow's idea of going to conferences to meet professors is a good one-- I did that and it paid off in interviews.

 

[edieb]

Regarding your credentials specifically, I wouldn't necessarily say that you were underqualified for a ph.d program as a whole. However, in all honesty, the "hard numbers" posted would be a bit low for many of the more-selective universities out there. A general guideline that my undergraduate advising professor gave me was a 1300 GRE and upper 3's GPA. My GPA was actually right around 3.5 by the time I had graduated (4.0 psych) with a 1350 GRE, and I was summarily rejected by quite a few schools (9 or 10). It's rough, but worthwhile in the end.

Your research experience is great, though, as is having first author on a published paper. That will definitely be very useful once you make it past whatever pre-screening processes might occur.

As far as APA membership, I've never heard of that having any bearing on admissions decisions. I'm still not yet a student member of the APA, and neither are many of the other grad students in the program here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that some admissions boards don't take it into account, but none of my professors--here or at my undergrad university--ever mentioned anything about it.

If you end up being turned away this year, as others have said, chock it up to experience, continue building on your research work, re-take the GRE, and re-apply next year. Also, if you didn't this year, try contacting the professors of the various programs to which you're applying ahead of time. Ask them what projects they're currently working on, read a few of their past articles, and determine the appropriateness of the fit (also be sure that the professor you're interested in is actually accepting students). Keep at it, and I'm sure you'll succeed in time.

 

[50960]

All you new posters....please stay around and get involved in something here. We have alot of topics, and controversy...it is fun and a learning experience. WELCOME!!!

mod

 

[psychgeek]

Thanks for the response. At the least, it helps to get this off my chest. Aside from getting my GRE a few points higher I am not sure. Believe me it has been on my mind. Yes, I could retake the test but there doesn't seem to be a great deal of variance in those taking the test a number of times and I can't say I have ever done well on these types of test (e.g., SAT's).

It sounds like you are not terribly confident in your ability to bump up your GREs. First of all, a Kaplan course is probably good for about 70 points and I bet crossing the 1200 threshold will improve your chances of making it past the first cut by a lot.

If you are not able to cross the 1200 line, I wonder if it might be a good idea to let professors you’ve contacted (and with whom you have established some rapport) know that your GREs are a little low prior to submitting your application. I have never heard of anyone doing this, but I wonder if sometimes professors aren’t even getting the opportunity to look at your application. I know that in some programs the first cut is made by an administrative assistant who is instructed to set aside all those whose scores are below a certain threshold. I don’t think those applications are ever read. If a professor knew a strong candidate with low GREs were applying to their lab they might instruct the person making the first cut to go ahead and let you through.

Generally it is a terrible idea to highlight any weakness when making contact with professors, but maybe in this case it could be of benefit? See what other people say.

Good Luck

 

[konrad]

It sounds like you are not terribly confident in your ability to bump up your GREs. First of all, a Kaplan course is probably good for about 70 points and I bet crossing the 1200 threshold will improve your chances of making it past the first cut by a lot.

If you are not able to cross the 1200 line, I wonder if it might be a good idea to let professors you’ve contacted (and with whom you have established some rapport) know that your GREs are a little low prior to submitting your application. I have never heard of anyone doing this, but I wonder if sometimes professors aren’t even getting the opportunity to look at your application. I know that in some programs the first cut is made by an administrative assistant who is instructed to set aside all those whose scores are below a certain threshold. I don’t think those applications are ever read. If a professor knew a strong candidate with low GREs were applying to their lab they might instruct the person making the first cut to go ahead and let you through.

Generally it is a terrible idea to highlight any weakness when making contact with professors, but maybe in this case it could be of benefit? See what other people say.

Good Luck

Another possibility, if all else fails, is to consider completing an MA in general experimental psych before re-applying. I read on another thread that for some admission committees that use the GRE/GPA cutoff, they exempt masters applicants from the criteria. In other words, all applications by MAs are thoroughly reviewed.

However, speaking as one who is in the final stages of completing an MA on the way to a clinical program, it's not the quickest or easiest means to an end. It will help your application chances, but at the cost of 2 years of hard work...

 

[JatPenn]

However, speaking as one who is in the final stages of completing an MA on the way to a clinical program, it's not the quickest or easiest means to an end. It will help your application chances, but at the cost of 2 years of hard work...

Not to mention in some cases quite a bit of money.

 

[konrad]

Not to mention in some cases quite a bit of money.

There are a couple of programs that are fully funded (tuition + stipend), and I'm at one of them. Otherwise, I'm in agreement that it's not such a good idea to pursue a pay-as-you-go masters just to get into a PhD program.