clinical PhD, law school, med school, dental school. Toughest admissions?

[mmonte4]

I'm sure that no one has first hand experience applying to ALL of these programs, but I'm just curious about how you think they rank as far as how tough it is to get in. I'm sure we all have friends applying to med, dental, etc. How tough do you think it is for them in comparison to us(clinical)?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[positivepsych]

I'm sure that no one has first hand experience applying to ALL of these programs, but I'm just curious about how you think they rank as far as how tough it is to get in. I'm sure we all have friends applying to med, dental, etc. How tough do you think it is for them in comparison to us(clinical)?

I think its pretty clear that clinical is the toughest just by percentages alone. I think if you look at the top 5 programs, the admissions rate is around 1%, while its around 10% for the top med and law schools. I have no idea what dental is like, but I'm sure its much easier than med.

And med school is much harder than law school, since anyone who can do well on the LSATs can get into a good law school since they can take any classes as long as they keep up the GPA (and no organic chemistry). They don't even have interviews, its a pure numbers game.

I think the more interesting question is why the admissions rate for clinical is so low? I'm guessing that there are only so many spots to be a clinical psych professor, so they want to make sure their graduates have jobs available to them. However, I think its a real shame that most of the better schools discourage their students from ever practicing and have relinquished that realm to the PsyD schools. Not everyone is able or willing to plunk down $100k in loans with the dismal prospect of a therapists' salary awaiting them. Furthermore, it discourages great students from ever venturing outside of academia.

 

[RainbowTVP]

Med programs have different requirements than clinical psych, so it's hard to really say. I think it is probably harder to get the high gpa needed for acceptance for either when in a premed program...

IOW- I would be more likely to get into a clinical psych program than med school, because I don't have quite the science background required for med school. But... that doesn't mean it is easier to get into clin psych, just that I am more prepared for psych... so how easy it is depends on the preparation.

But- I would say law school and med school are easier to get into in general just because there are more programs available and more slots available in each program. Tops med schools often have acceptance rates of 15+%... There aren't even many mediocre clin psych programs with acceptance rates that high!

I just think that you can't compare the programs, because there are too many variables.

Tara P

 

[mmonte4]

i would think that the pool of med school applicants as a whole would generally be better students than clinical psyc applicants.

Personally, I think an undergrad in biochemisty is much tougher than one in psychology.

 

[positivepsych]

i would think that the pool of med school applicants as a whole would generally be better students than clinical psyc applicants.

Personally, I think an undergrad in biochemisty is much tougher than one in psychology.

I generally agree that pre-med requirements are harder than psych classes, but remember that you don't have to major in science to be pre-med, just take the classes.

You also have to look at the profile of who applies. There are a TON of pre-meds who apply because their parents have ingrained it into them, or they want the prestige and money of being a physician. That makes the applicant field huge and I'd say a 1/3 of applicants really don't have what it takes, they're just applying because of their herd mentality. On the other hand, I think clinical psych applicants are more motivated by the field because its such a small and self-selecting group, and thus work harder to pursue their interests.

 

[twiggers]

I was premed before switching to applying to a PhD program...I heavily researched medical school and was preparing to take the MCAT course when I switched. I would say that applying to med school is a tougher process (MCATs are extremely difficult, and longer) and the med school process is much much more expensive. Although acceptance rates are higher at med schools you typically apply to between 15-20 schools (similar to clinical). Overall, I think both are equally difficult, but like mmonte said...the med school requirements, etc. are much much more difficult than clinical (or any psychology PhD program).

 

[Dr Trek 1]

I was a psych major who is currently in a counseling grad. program and also waiting to hear from med schools (Already interviewed) so I think I have some good insight.

I can say, without a doubt, that medical school admissions (both allopathic and osteopathic) and the most competitive of any graduate school. Even though clinical psych. grad programs may look to be very selective, one must remember that it is very easy to mislead and lie with statistics.

In medical schools, not only do they have the most applicants, but they also have the most QUALIFIED applicants. This is what makes it so competitive, on all fronts. In addition, medical school has many prereqs which are the most difficult(natural sciences, MCAT, clinical exposure, research, etc. etc.). Check out the AAMC website on applicant stats if you don't believe me.

Clinical psychology, for instance, tends to receive many more unqualified applicants. That is, they get many applicants of psych. majors who just think they want to be a stereotypical psychologist because they are the most well-known. many of these applicants don't have the research or academic experience to excel.

For law school, anyone with a BA or BS can apply as long as they sit for the 3 hour LSAT, which is much different than the 8 hour MCAT. Even if you have a BA/BS and sit for the MCAT, you still cannot apply to med school without doing lots of other stuff (prereqs, research, clinical exposure, etc.)

 

[mmonte4]

I was a psych major who is currently in a counseling grad. program and also waiting to hear from med schools (Already interviewed) so I think I have some good insight.

I can say, without a doubt, that medical school admissions (both allopathic and osteopathic) and the most competitive of any graduate school. Even though clinical psych. grad programs may look to be very selective, one must remember that it is very easy to mislead and lie with statistics.

In medical schools, not only do they have the most applicants, but they also have the most QUALIFIED applicants. This is what makes it so competitive, on all fronts. In addition, medical school has many prereqs which are the most difficult(natural sciences, MCAT, clinical exposure, research, etc. etc.). Check out the AAMC website on applicant stats if you don't believe me.

Clinical psychology, for instance, tends to receive many more unqualified applicants. That is, they get many applicants of psych. majors who just think they want to be a stereotypical psychologist because they are the most well-known. many of these applicants don't have the research or academic experience to excel.

For law school, anyone with a BA or BS can apply as long as they sit for the 3 hour LSAT, which is much different than the 8 hour MCAT. Even if you have a BA/BS and sit for the MCAT, you still cannot apply to med school without doing lots of other stuff (prereqs, research, clinical exposure, etc.)

I agree, what about clinical phd in comparison to dental school admissions?

 

[RainbowTVP]

I agree, what about clinical phd in comparison to dental school admissions?

Who cares? Not to be rude- but really? Is the motive for pride?

Because I can't imagine someone (though I suppose it is plausible) out there vacillating between clin psych and dental school...

Tara P

 

[ClinApp]

I don't really see the point of this discussion - given that you have entirely different groups of applicants with entirely different sets of admission criteria, it is really not a useful debate. Generally people tend to play to their strengths, so those applying to law school are often a group of people with a distinct set of skills and aptitudes from those applying to med school or clin psych programs - you don't "just" have to sit for the LSAT, it is a pretty difficult exam that not everyone can do well on. The MCAT is harder in that it has a lot of substantive questions, but you can't memorize all the information for the LSAT, so they are completely different types of tests; the GRE is a little closer to the LSAT on this scale. Anyway, who really cares? I can tell you that most med students and law students would not consider themselves to be in any way inferior to each other or to clin psych students, and vice versa. We're all smart and competent and have bright futures, all right?

The question was posed as to why grad schools accept so few applicants in clinical psych - for PhD programs, the biggest constraint is funding. Most people would not choose to pay tuition and living expenses for 5 years and then not have a job available to them afterwards. Law schools and med schools have large student bodies because the students pay for themselves and are willing to do this because they know they will have well-paying jobs awaiting them, or debt-forgiveness programs if they choose jobs in public interest. It is actually a very responsible practice, not to flood the market with excessive numbers of PhDs with large amounts of debt. (Still doesn't make it any less frustrating to want to be one of the few who get admitted to a given psych program, though.)

 

[RainbowTVP]

I think they can be compare in this way:

Law school, med school, dental school, clin psych grad school are the top levels of education for their fields. So... for the most part, attracting the best/most ambitious students in each.

Because people usually choose their field based on their interests and the requirements for individual programs varies, the groups and individuals can't compared.

For instance, the fact that a person in in dental school doesn't mean they weren't smart enough for med school... And someone might make it into a particular med school, but not make it into a particular clin psych program.

Tara P

 

[PeterEP]

I think its pretty clear that clinical is the toughest just by percentages alone. I think if you look at the top 5 programs, the admissions rate is around 1%, while its around 10% for the top med and law schools. I have no idea what dental is like, but I'm sure its much easier than med.

Just for the record, dental school has a 15-20% admittance rate as per the last few years so you decide if it's "much easier" than medical school.

 

[Dr Trek 1]

Just for the record, dental school has a 15-20% admittance rate as per the last few years so you decide if it's "much easier" than medical school.

I thought an intro. to statistics class was required for most clinical psych. grad programs...

Don't you know how easy it is to lie with statistics like that?? As I've said before, medical school is the most difficult to attain admissions to because it has the MOST qualified applicants for the LEAST available spots. Percentages mean nothing.

Using percentages alone is like me saying, "Well, at my state college they only accept 1% of applicants. It's much harder to get into than med school." What I'm not telling you is that at this hypothetical state college, 99% of their applicant pool has a combined SAT score of 1100 and they only take people with 1200 SAT scores and above. If everyone applied had a 1200 SAT score, then they'd have almost a 100% acceptance rate.

Using that same metaphor, medical school is like a million people applying to a school that requires a SAT score of 1200 for admission and has 1,000 spots, only most everyone who applies has an SAT score of 1500 or above. Now what? Things start getting competitive.

 

[toofache32]

Statistics are like a bikini: What they hide is much more interesting than what they reveal.....

 

[clinpsychgirl]

Statistics are like a bikini: What they hide is much more interesting than what they reveal.....

thats cute.

 

[positivepsych]

I thought an intro. to statistics class was required for most clinical psych. grad programs...

Don't you know how easy it is to lie with statistics like that?? As I've said before, medical school is the most difficult to attain admissions to because it has the MOST qualified applicants for the LEAST available spots. Percentages mean nothing.

Using percentages alone is like me saying, "Well, at my state college they only accept 1% of applicants. It's much harder to get into than med school." What I'm not telling you is that at this hypothetical state college, 99% of their applicant pool has a combined SAT score of 1100 and they only take people with 1200 SAT scores and above. If everyone applied had a 1200 SAT score, then they'd have almost a 100% acceptance rate.

Using that same metaphor, medical school is like a million people applying to a school that requires a SAT score of 1200 for admission and has 1,000 spots, only most everyone who applies has an SAT score of 1500 or above. Now what? Things start getting competitive.

How do you know med school applicants are more 'qualified' than clinical psych applicants?

 

[blotterspotter]

I thought an intro. to statistics class was required for most clinical psych. grad programs...

Don't you know how easy it is to lie with statistics like that?? As I've said before, medical school is the most difficult to attain admissions to because it has the MOST qualified applicants for the LEAST available spots. Percentages mean nothing.

Using percentages alone is like me saying, "Well, at my state college they only accept 1% of applicants. It's much harder to get into than med school." What I'm not telling you is that at this hypothetical state college, 99% of their applicant pool has a combined SAT score of 1100 and they only take people with 1200 SAT scores and above. If everyone applied had a 1200 SAT score, then they'd have almost a 100% acceptance rate.

Using that same metaphor, medical school is like a million people applying to a school that requires a SAT score of 1200 for admission and has 1,000 spots, only most everyone who applies has an SAT score of 1500 or above. Now what? Things start getting competitive.

dr drck, you are partially right and a total jerk for your statistics comment. Dental applicants have very similar stats compared to MD candidates and higher than DO candidates ON AVERAGE. I think it's very misleading to mischaracterize either profession. Interesting to note that you are in DO school..

 

[clinpsychgirl]

Positive psych makes a great point. How do you know that med students are a "better" pool of applicants than clinical psych applicants?

DrTreck, did YOU take intro to stats? Because, it's basic knowledge that you must operationalize your variables. Otherwise, it's as you say, easy to lie with statistics. Personally I don't think you can fairly compare a clinical psych applicant and a med school applicant.

But, humor me here, let's say that the "best applicants" for either clinical psych or med school have GPAs and standardized test scores in the 95th percentile or better. All have a background in the hard sciences and in psychology. All have atleast two years of post-bac research experience in their area of interest with prominant researchers. Let's say they also have adequate (or better) interpersonal skills too. Say this is the criteria for which people are weeded out for interviews for med school and clinical psych programs.

So you make the point that more people meet the criteria in med school proportionate the the number of spots offered per each school. I'm not arguing that.

However, among those who receive interviews (the top notch applicants) in either field, this is where the process gets interesting.

As a clinical psych applicant, you strive to not only pick a top program, but to work with a top notch mentor. You don't want to go to a program, "top" rate or not, and work with an unproductive researcher.

So, of 500 applicants who apply to university of X, 50 are easily indentified as the "top" applicants that they will interview. Say 20 of those fifty indentified an interest in working with that top notch mentor, who happens to have funding for 1 student that year. So, among the best of the best, your chances are still 1/20 or 5%. Simply put, there are the MOST qualified applicants for the LEAST amount of positions for the top notch clinical psych applicants.

What percentage of MD students are accepted to their top program after having received an interview? Because, I have a hard time believing that the top notch applicants for MD programs only have a 5% chance of acceptance after receiving an interview.

See, DrTrek, I think you are simply misinformed as to the admissions procedure in a doctoral level clinical psychology program. It's certainly not the same as a masters level program. Just think carefully when you make comparisons.

 

[RainbowTVP]

And again... people choose their major based on their interests... the fact that I was a psych major does not mean I could not have done just as well in a pre-med program.

In fact, considering I had straight A's when I was still a Bio-Chem major, before I switched to Psych, makes me think I could have been a competitive med school student (though I NEVER had an interest in med).

The fact is, you can't compare programs with such vastly different requirements and admissions procedures.

Tara P

 

[toofache32]

...The fact is, you can't compare programs with such vastly different requirements and admissions procedures...

True dat.

I bet I can pee farther than you people.

 

[clinpsychgirl]

Tara, I wholely agree with you. It's pretty pointless to compare. That actually should have been my last point. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Dr Trek 1]

Tara, I wholely agree with you. It's pretty pointless to compare. That actually should have been my last point. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

Hey clinipsych girl,

I agree with you and Tara. I think comparing med school application to clinical psych. grad school is pretty pointless, but I was trying to make a statistical and non-statistical point since the discussion had already been started to force such a comparison. The processes are very different not to mention the backgrounds. I recently was accepted to medical school and have worked in a clinical psych. graduate dept. for a few years so thought I'd have a unique input.

But as a psych. major and psych. grad student (MS level) and a future medical student, I understand the bias that is attached to psychology by natural science minded people. People think it is somehow "easier" and somehow not a serious topic for study. Always got me very upset how people don't understand that most people have particular fields of academic ability, very few excel in all fields. So a biologist, for instance, may not have the skills necessary to excel in psychology and vice versa. I just wish everyone had equal respect for all academic fields. Even on SDN, for isntance, there is predjudice against DOs and PsyDs, even though they are perfectly legit., qualified degrees. It's a shame that academics on SDN cannot have universal respect for other academics.

Even when I become a physician, I will certainly have plenty of respect for clinical psychologists-- they have plenty of skills that most doctors could learn volumes from.

 

[clinpsychgirl]

Hey clinipsych girl,

I agree with you and Tara. I think comparing med school application to clinical psych. grad school is pretty pointless, but I was trying to make a statistical and non-statistical point since the discussion had already been started to force such a comparison. The processes are very different not to mention the backgrounds. I recently was accepted to medical school and have worked in a clinical psych. graduate dept. for a few years so thought I'd have a unique input.

But as a psych. major and psych. grad student (MS level) and a future medical student, I understand the bias that is attached to psychology by natural science minded people. People think it is somehow "easier" and somehow not a serious topic for study. Always got me very upset how people don't understand that most people have particular fields of academic ability, very few excel in all fields. So a biologist, for instance, may not have the skills necessary to excel in psychology and vice versa. I just wish everyone had equal respect for all academic fields. Even on SDN, for isntance, there is predjudice against DOs and PsyDs, even though they are perfectly legit., qualified degrees. It's a shame that academics on SDN cannot have universal respect for other academics.

Even when I become a physician, I will certainly have plenty of respect for clinical psychologists-- they have plenty of skills that most doctors could learn volumes from.

You certainly do have an interesting background which provides good insight from both ends of the spectrum. And, I can't blame you for making the statistical argument- I did the same thing .

I think its great that, as a future doctor, you embrace the unique training perspective of a clinical psychologist. The PI of the research I am involved with is, in fact, a psychiatrist, and his team includes medical doctors, psychologists, social workers, and the like. He is truly a great role model in terms of the way he values his team members. As such, I look forward to continue work in a multi-disciplinarian work environment throughout my career. Hopefully, more professionals than not will share in our attitude!

 

[Electrophile]

Med school, law school, dental school...pffft...don't make me laugh. How about vet school?

I have a masters degree in biology (a 3 long year research based/thesis driven, not some chitzy little Plan B special "masters" program, which really should be more like a post-bacc). I was also pre-med until junior year of undergrad, where I switched to pre-law until my last year of grad school and took the LSAT twice. The LSAT, btw, is not a walk in the park...the GRE was cake compared to the LSAT. I will say hands down, vet school is the toughest for admissions (and I'll say toughest curriculum wise with the species variation!). Not only do you have to have a kick butt GPA and MCAT/GRE, but you have to have hundreds, if not thousands, of animal experience hours (especially under a vet) that you just don't have to have applying to med school. Shadowing helps you apply to med school. It is required for vet school. The admissions requirements for grades for the two "top" medical and vet schools (Harvard and Cornell respectively) are really quite similar and you take virtually identical prereqs (biochemistry is required for vet school, where it is not necessarily for med school, for instance).

There's a popular saying...didn't get into vet school? Try med school.

 

[Jon4PsyD]

From what I have been told, it's Vet School (D.V.M.) followed by Clinical Psychology Ph.D. programs (who would've though huh? lol, except all of us applying/waiting...)

Jon

 

[Anx73B]

Hey guys,
I agree with you who say comparisons are pointless. I just wanted to point out that for academics, it is pride (as opposed to greed) that is the most tempting.

 

[amy203]

Eh - the only thing that's really useful about this conversation is that it might allow some current clinical psych applicants to explain to their friends and family why applying for a phd is nothing like applying for med school or law school. The difference is the research match factor. With law or med school, you can look at your GPA and test scores and say with a fairly high level of certainty whether you will get in somewhere. You can't do this with clinical psych programs (at least not funded ones). Every year, there are people on this board with amazing stats who don't get in anywhere, and it's likely because of match. On the other hand, there are plenty of people with low GPA or GREs who still manage to get into pretty good programs because of their research experience. You just never know. As for picking a "first choice" program, there's really no point. The odds are just too low.

So if your application process is like mine was, and your in-laws keep saying "Oh, I'm sure you could get in anywhere sweetie, you're just being modest. Now tell us where you're planning on moving our son for the next 5 years," you can tell them "I'm not applying to med school people! Apples and oranges! Ahhh!"

Just to be clear - I have no idea which is more competitive, and I don't care. They're just very different.

 

[parto123]

In comparing top schools only, I think the level of difficulty of admission goes 1) med 2) clinical 3) law.

But if you go on pure numbers, surprisingly, law school is the most difficult. If you apply to a top medical school or psych program scoring in the 95% on the standardized exam puts you in the running with everybody else. For top law schools, it would get you automatically rejected. If you look at the median mcat/gre percentiles for the top handful of med and psych programs, its mostly in the 90-94th% range, for law, they are all in the 99th percentile.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think what is particularly problematic for clinical apps is so much more goes into consideration than test scores and GPA's....so even as a top 1%'er, if you don't have a good match, you are SOL....compared to Law and Med which doesn't care if you match up with the faculty, etc.

 

[Ollie123]

I think what is particularly problematic for clinical apps is so much more goes into consideration than test scores and GPA's....so even as a top 1%'er, if you don't have a good match, you are SOL....compared to Law and Med which doesn't care if you match up with the faculty, etc.

That's really the problem in comparisons.

If you have a 4.0 and a perfect LSAT, you can DEFINITELY go to law school somewhere, likely at one of your top choices.

For psychology, a 4.0 and a 1600 GRE might get you lots of interviews, but without lots of experience in something that meets the semi-arbitrary definition of "fit", you have near-zero chance of getting into most of the top programs, whereas someone with a 3.5 and a 1300 GRE might be a MUCH stronger candidate.

 

[psybee]

That's really the problem in comparisons.

If you have a 4.0 and a perfect LSAT, you can DEFINITELY go to law school somewhere, likely at one of your top choices.

For psychology, a 4.0 and a 1600 GRE might get you lots of interviews, but without lots of experience in something that meets the semi-arbitrary definition of "fit", you have near-zero chance of getting into most of the top programs, whereas someone with a 3.5 and a 1300 GRE might be a MUCH stronger candidate.

but how common is it for 4.0/1600 people from decent schools to apply to phd programs and not have seriously thought it out? can you get that far and do that well and have no insight into fit, or research?

i guess my thought is our top top applicants will by the very nature of wanting to apply to top programs and being the kind of people who graduate summa and get 99% on tests, will have the extra insight into the clin. phd process that is not as required for law -- that you also have to have research, and that you often apply to programs based on mentorship matches.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

but how common is it for 4.0/1600 people from decent schools to apply to phd programs and not have seriously thought it out? can you get that far and do that well and have no insight into fit, or research?

Yes. There are very book smart people who have little/no guidance in the process.....so they are utterly unprepared going into the process. I know when I went through the process I had no idea what I was getting myself into (pre-SDN clinical forum). My undergrad mentor had been out of school for 30+ years and my other supervisors had been out for awhile, so none were really up on all of the different options. I would have gone about it differently if I had known more about the process, and I know some stellar candidates who had to re-apply because they didn't know the in's and out's and how competitive it was....as they were under the assumption, "programs will fight for me with a 4.0, 1560, and X publications, etc".

 

[Thrak]

I can only compare my direct experience (PhD Social Psych) with my former co-worker (Med School) and my wife (Law School).

Med School is a lot of required courses, and tough ones at that. The MCAT as a test actually tests knowledge, which means you have to know more than 9th grade math and have a good vocabulary (like the GRE). From what I've been told, most med schools (not the very top or the very bottom) are comparatively good. You may have a preference, but when you get out, you're well-trained and should be able to find work no matter where you go.

Law School is a very different beast. Your income will more or less be dependent on the rank/tier of your school and probably the rank in your class. Bottom of your Yale/Stanford/Harvard class will still get you into a top firm at $160k a year, if that's what you want. Your rank becomes more of an issue when you get to programs ranked 4-14, then again from 15-50. Once you hit the second tier, you start to have certain doors closed to you (probably no Cravath, no Wachtell). And getting into these programs is mostly dependent on your LSAT score and your college grades. Law schools accept lots of people, though. I believe Harvard accepted something like 700 people to yield around 500 in 2005.

For psych, well, fit is key. I can't speak to clinical, but I don't think there were far more than 700 acceptances across all social psych phd programs in 2005 (unless my math is way off), and definitely yielded less than 500 (with multiple acceptances chipping away at the yield). Then again, most of those programs were fully funded... med schools and law schools typically don't give you a free ride.

It makes sense, though. If you're getting a PhD, the idea is you'll be contributing something to your field, advancing the state of knowledge. You don't have the same expectation as a lawyer, doctor, or vet. Your duty is to your clients/patients. For PhDs, your duty is also to your profession. At least, how I see it.

I'll be honest with you... I had a good profile, and I got into one social psych PhD program while applying to 8. I easily could have gotten into zero this round. Even with two years of prep, I probably couldn't have gotten into any med schools (and forget vet schools) since I lacked the prereqs and I really don't enjoy bio, chem, anatomy, or needles. Given a year of prep, I probably could have gotten into a T-14 program for law. My numbers were there for grades, and I could have broken 170 on the LSAT. I wouldn't have gotten into Yale, but I would have had an inside track on Harvard (assuming my wife counts as a legacy for me).

But that would have meant spending my life as a lawyer (or I-banker), instead of a researcher. And dammit, I want to be a researcher!

 

[parto123]

but how common is it for 4.0/1600 people from decent schools to apply to phd programs and not have seriously thought it out? can you get that far and do that well and have no insight into fit, or research?

i guess my thought is our top top applicants will by the very nature of wanting to apply to top programs and being the kind of people who graduate summa and get 99% on tests, will have the extra insight into the clin. phd process that is not as required for law -- that you also have to have research, and that you often apply to programs based on mentorship matches.

ust FYI, there are only a few dozen pysch phd applicants per year who score in the 99% (v&q) on th GRE, and only a couple hundred who score above the 96th percentile on the GREs- and there are well over 1000 phd spots. This is why numbers play a less important role in the phd applications and they look more heavily at other factors. If phd programs wanted to select only students with very strong numbers, after the best 400 or so spots were filled, there wouldn’t be any applicants to fill up the majority of the programs.

 

[psy86]

ust FYI, there are only a few dozen pysch phd applicants per year who score in the 99% (v&q) on th GRE, and only a couple hundred who score above the 96th percentile on the GREs- and there are well over 1000 phd spots. This is why numbers play a less important role in the phd applications and they look more heavily at other factors. If phd programs wanted to select only students with very strong numbers, after the best 400 or so spots were filled, there wouldn’t be any applicants to fill up the majority of the programs.

Can you cite a source for these statistics?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say in the first sentence. No one scores in the 99th %ile on the math section of the GRE, because the test is too easy; perfect scores of 800 are not at the 99th %ile. So it's not terribly surprising that not many psych applicants obtain scores at that percentile.

 

[PizzaButt]

I'm sure that no one has first hand experience applying to ALL of these programs, but I'm just curious about how you think they rank as far as how tough it is to get in.

Well, actually....I have applied to law school, med school and clinical psych (but not dentistry). That means I've taken the LSAT, MCAT and GRE! Woo hoo!

Anyhow, I do have a law degree, and my opinion is that law school is by far the easiest to get into. They don't care about your extra-curriculars or whether or not you have any "clinical experience" (I had absolutely none--I had never even talked to a lawyer before I went to law school). They just care about your GPA and LSAT scores.

I applied unsuccessfully to med schools after completing a post-baccalaureate pre-medical program. The problem was mainly my MCAT score, which I re-took a second time (and did not much better). I only applied once to med schools, and didn't get any interviews.

This cycle I applied to PhD programs. I got one interview and no acceptances. I think that for me, both med school and clinical psych will be about the same difficulty to get into. In both cases, my standardized test scores are the weakest part of my application. In both cases, I have excellent research and clinical experience and excellent grades.

The ironic thing is that when I applied to law school, I had no idea what it would be like and had absolutely zero clinical experience. I never worked in a law firm or legal organization, had no clue what lawyers did, and was completely unprepared about the application process. However, I got into a good law school.

With my med school and law school applications, I approached both with a very prepared and organized manner. I sought guidance and feedback from advisors and others, had research and clinical experience, had real-world work experience under my belt as well, and researched all the schools to ensure a great match. For my PhD applications, I was a great fit for all the schools I applied for, and I gave my research interests a lot of thought. However, for both med school and PhD clinical psych, I got zero acceptances.

I'm pretty bummed and disappointed about both, but particularly clinical psych, because I was a great fit for all the programs I applied to. I didn't even get on the waitlist.

I am considering applying to optometry school as a plan B in case I don't get into clinical psych next year, so that may be yet another standardized entrance exam I need to take. I'm also considering re-applying to med schools this summer.

 

[Ollie123]

but how common is it for 4.0/1600 people from decent schools to apply to phd programs and not have seriously thought it out? can you get that far and do that well and have no insight into fit, or research?

i guess my thought is our top top applicants will by the very nature of wanting to apply to top programs and being the kind of people who graduate summa and get 99% on tests, will have the extra insight into the clin. phd process that is not as required for law -- that you also have to have research, and that you often apply to programs based on mentorship matches.

Actually it happens more than you might think. Usually among people who decide later on they want to go into psychology since maybe they took a few psych electives and liked them. They'll think "I did really well in undergrad", nail the GREs, and apply thinking they have a chance.

That being said, I do see your point. My point was more that the test scores are a crappy comparison measure for this because even the top clinical psych programs don't care that much once you pass an arbitrary (relatively low) threshold. To Harvard Law, a difference of 5 points on the LSAT could make a big difference in your chances of acceptance. On the GRE, 50 points is unlikely to make a difference once you pass the initial bar, since its just not an important measure of what schools look for.

 

[parto123]

Can you cite a source for these statistics?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say in the first sentence. No one scores in the 99th %ile on the math section of the GRE, because the test is too easy; perfect scores of 800 are not at the 99th %ile. So it's not terribly surprising that not many psych applicants obtain scores at that percentile.

My bad. it wasnt the 99th or 96th percentiles, it was the top 1% and around the top 4% (which for the math section would be around 87th percentile). I have posted a few links about this in the past, ill go search for them. I dont remember the exact numbers but there was a large split between V and Q. Something like 500 applicants scored in the top 4% for verbal, but only about 85 for math. Obviously, for the top 1% the numbers are much much lower. These quant scores surprised me considering the need for strong understanding of mathematics in research and the relative easiness of the GRE math section. Also, there are approximately 2000 applicants accepted each year to clinical psych phd programs.

 

[ClinMixie]

My bad. it wasnt the 99th or 96th percentiles, it was the top 1% and around the top 4% (which for the math section would be around 87th percentile). I have posted a few links about this in the past, ill go search for them. I dont remember the exact numbers but there was a large split between V and Q. Something like 500 applicants scored in the top 4% for verbal, but only about 85 for math. Obviously, for the top 1% the numbers are much much lower. These quant scores surprised me considering the need for strong understanding of mathematics in research and the relative easiness of the GRE math section. Also, there are approximately 2000 applicants accepted each year to clinical psych phd programs.

FYI: according to the Insider's Guide to Graduate Programs in Clinical and Counseling Psychology (2006/2007 edition) approx. 1,400 PhD degrees in clinical psychology and 1,000 PsyD degrees are awarded each year. Presumably the number accepted each year would be pretty similar (at least for the PhD programs who generally have pretty low attrition rates...I'm not sure about the PsyD programs). Might be helpful to distinguish between the two, since the average entrance stats are probably somewhat different.

Anyhow, I'm not sure where you got your stats for the verbal and quantitative scores, but first off, I don't understand how people scoring in the top 4th percentile on Quant part would be equivalent to scoring in the 87th percentile. Wouldn't scoring in the 87th percentile mean that you were in the top 13th percentile for the quantitative section?
Also, I think its important to keep in mind that while yes, the math on the GREs is not supposed to be highly advanced and fewer people in psych may be scoring in the top percentile, thats also a PERCENTILE. Ie they could be doing really well, but automatically if you don't get a perfect score, you're not going to be in that top 4% you were talking about (since the highest percentile you can score is around the 94th percentile), so I'm not sure how much that stat youre citing would really tell us.
On top of that I think its important to keep in mind that while the MCATs and LSATs are specifically for people trying to get into med/law school, the GREs are required for many different graduate programs (ex. engineering, biology, english etc); so while having good scores are a good idea, needing to beat out the engineers to get into that top 4% you were talking about, doesn't seem like a very important thing...especially since, while yes, being able to understand stats is probably a good thing when youre dealing with them, I'm not sure how often things like geometry come up in psyc grad school.

 

[amy203]

My bad. it wasnt the 99th or 96th percentiles, it was the top 1% and around the top 4% (which for the math section would be around 87th percentile). I have posted a few links about this in the past, ill go search for them. I dont remember the exact numbers but there was a large split between V and Q. Something like 500 applicants scored in the top 4% for verbal, but only about 85 for math. Obviously, for the top 1% the numbers are much much lower. These quant scores surprised me considering the need for strong understanding of mathematics in research and the relative easiness of the GRE math section. Also, there are approximately 2000 applicants accepted each year to clinical psych phd programs.

Does this include unfunded programs? Whole different ball game.

Also, keep in mind that engineering majors have to take the GREs, which tends to skew the quant percentages. This is anecdotal, but I was told by an engineering major that they usually shoot for a perfect score. Plus, I don't buy that your quant score has much to do with how well you'll do at research - why would your understanding of geometry impact your understanding of statistics?

 

[smitten]

My bad. it wasnt the 99th or 96th percentiles, it was the top 1% and around the top 4% (which for the math section would be around 87th percentile). I have posted a few links about this in the past, ill go search for them. I dont remember the exact numbers but there was a large split between V and Q. Something like 500 applicants scored in the top 4% for verbal, but only about 85 for math. Obviously, for the top 1% the numbers are much much lower. These quant scores surprised me considering the need for strong understanding of mathematics in research and the relative easiness of the GRE math section. Also, there are approximately 2000 applicants accepted each year to clinical psych phd programs.

Something you have to keep in mind about the GRE: the same test is taken by applicants to virtually every discipline of graduate school. Psychology applicants are essentially competing with engineering and math applicants for percentiles on the quant section. Students of those disciplines are basically expected to get a perfect score and that kind of throws the whole percentile system off--hence a perfect score on the quant section is only in the 92nd percentile.

You can't really compare the GRE to professional schools' entrance tests for this reason. The MCAT is taken almost exclusively by med school applicants and ditto for the LSAT with law school. You might be able to compare percentiles across these tests to gauge med and law school applicants, but not so much with the GRE.

ETA: Guess others beat me to the point!

 

[amy203]

ust FYI, there are only a few dozen pysch phd applicants per year who score in the 99% (v&q) on th GRE, and only a couple hundred who score above the 96th percentile on the GREs- and there are well over 1000 phd spots. This is why numbers play a less important role in the phd applications and they look more heavily at other factors. If phd programs wanted to select only students with very strong numbers, after the best 400 or so spots were filled, there wouldn’t be any applicants to fill up the majority of the programs.

Again, I don't agree. The reason numbers are a less important factor is because research match is more of an issue.

Applying for phd programs is a lot like applying for a job (that about 50-100 people are also applying for), because you're typically only applying for 1 spot with 1 professor. Most med/law/dental schools are looking for similar traits in their applicants. For phd programs, different professors are looking for different things, so there's no formula that you can follow that will reliably increase your chances of admission. Some professors rely primarily on numbers, others rely on research match (and completely ignore GPA/GREs as long as they are above, say, 3.5/1250), others rely on your letters of rec (and whether they know your writers), while others look for particular skills (such as being able to speak a particular language or computer programming skills). Plus, if even one candidate is more qualified then you are, you're out. It's a weird, random process.

One final point: you're assuming that GRE scores for psych students are lower because that's all were capable of. Maybe most applicants just realize that they aren't the end all be all that they are for law or med school, and spend their time focusing on other parts of their app. If I were applying to law school, I would have spent months, maybe years, studying for the LSAT. But I knew the GREs would only be one part of my application, so I made the smart move of spending more time on publishing than studying. And it paid off.

 

[Ollie123]

Plus, I don't buy that your quant score has much to do with how well you'll do at research - why would your understanding of geometry impact your understanding of statistics?

I doubt that too. Well, unless someones interest is quant psych/psychometrics. That's a different story.

That being said, I'm not sure "GRE math" is all that related to what a math PhD will be doing either.

I think its more important for people to show they aren't in the "I'm afraid of numbers" category. You don't necessarily have to be a math genius, but I think anyone who REALLY struggles with numbers will have a really rough time getting through the 2 years of stats classes that at least the research programs often require (I'm not sure how much stats people typically take for a clinically-oriented program, though I can't imagine any less than 2 semesters cutting it since you won't even understand most papers). We're learning mathematical proofs and doing hand calculations in my stats class right now...I can't imagine doing so without at least a decent math background.

I'm also not terribly surprised the engineers shoot for a perfect score. Heck I know plenty of folks who WEREN'T engineering/math/etc. who were in that range!

 

[psychanon]

It's really stupid to compare. They're so different.

Numbers don't matter a whole lot in clin psych admissions because they don't predict anything. An applicant from Harvard with a 4.0 and a 1600 GRE would get rejected from every place they applied if they didn't have a lot of research experience and/or a strong match. That's because folks like that often end up sucking at research and dropping out because of the stress. It's also almost becoming a prerequisite to take about 2 years off post college to get sufficient research experience, and this is after years of research experience as an undergrad, honors thesis, etc. (although some people still get in straight from undergrad, although it's getting less common at the top schools). I don't think that's the case in law, med, vet, or dentistry. Also, with those other fields, I'm guessing anyone with tip-top test scores and a 4.0 GPA from a top school could be assured of getting in at least somewhere decent. That's not true in clinical psych. When schools are rejecting 295 out of their 300 applicants, lots of random variance gets introduced.

Lower tier schools are a whole different ballgame. Their bar is much lower.

 

[Electrophile]

If I may chime in once more about vet school, there are no "bad" or low tier vet schools. There are less than 30 in the US and Canada, compared to ~125 med schools, yes? The overall published acceptance rate to med school and vet school in American schools are practically identical (like 44% and 46% respectively). And I looked it up from what I mentioned up above. The latest published accepted class at Harvard Medical School GPA on their website was like 3.75 or 3.76? The latest class that is being interviewed and accepted at my vet school (University of Missouri, which is not ranked as high as Cornell, UC-Davis, and Colorado State) is 3.70. Not that different and virtually identical pre-reqs. Go vet school! The medicine is the same, the pay and the patients are not. It sucks being us. Kidding! Mostly...

 

[amy203]

If I may chime in once more about vet school, there are no "bad" or low tier vet schools. There are less than 30 in the US and Canada, compared to ~125 med schools, yes? The overall published acceptance rate to med school and vet school in American schools are practically identical (like 44% and 46% respectively). And I looked it up from what I mentioned up above. The latest published accepted class at Harvard Medical School GPA on their website was like 3.75 or 3.76? The latest class that is being interviewed and accepted at my vet school (University of Missouri, which is not ranked as high as Cornell, UC-Davis, and Colorado State) is 3.70. Not that different and virtually identical pre-reqs. Go vet school! The medicine is the same, the pay and the patients are not. It sucks being us. Kidding! Mostly...

But you get to work with puppies!

 

[Electrophile]

But you get to work with puppies!

This is true! However, the average person (even the average MD!) has no idea of the training that goes into a DVM: in the US, it's generally 4 years of undergrad, 4 years of vet school, and if you want to specialize and be board certified in say internal medicine, radiology, surgery, etc, 1-2 year internship, and 2-3ish year residency. Most people see their vet once a year for the yearly exam and perhaps some vaccinations or a routine spay/neuter. So the average person thinks that is just like a 2 year associates or technical degree or something because they think we just get to play with puppies and kitties, give some shots, and do castrations.

There are some (veterinary) residents and attending clinicians who go to do some comparative learning and teaching at medical teaching hospitals and even the MDs are surprised that we do hip replacement surgery, spinal surgery, even that dogs and cats get diabetes! Humans have this tendency to think we are a totally different being than the rest of the lowly animals and somehow our medicine and surgery is going to be so much different. Just cause they can't talk and the owners can't pay for 50-100K procedures doesn't mean it cannot or is not done. The human is just another animal.

 

[amy203]

But you get to work with puppies!

Kidding. I now have even more respect for my vet.

I think the important thing is that we all applied/are applying for grad school because we are passionate about something - helping people, helping animals, contributing to science, etc. Arguing about which type of program is more competitive is silly and completely beside the point!

P.S. - is the dog in the picture yours? It's completely adorable!

 

[parto123]

FYI: according to the Insider's Guide to Graduate Programs in Clinical and Counseling Psychology (2006/2007 edition) approx. 1,400 PhD degrees in clinical psychology and 1,000 PsyD degrees are awarded each year. Presumably the number accepted each year would be pretty similar (at least for the PhD programs who generally have pretty low attrition rates...I'm not sure about the PsyD programs). Might be helpful to distinguish between the two, since the average entrance stats are probably somewhat different.

Anyhow, I'm not sure where you got your stats for the verbal and quantitative scores, but first off, I don't understand how people scoring in the top 4th percentile on Quant part would be equivalent to scoring in the 87th percentile. Wouldn't scoring in the 87th percentile mean that you were in the top 13th percentile for the quantitative section?
Also, I think its important to keep in mind that while yes, the math on the GREs is not supposed to be highly advanced and fewer people in psych may be scoring in the top percentile, thats also a PERCENTILE. Ie they could be doing really well, but automatically if you don't get a perfect score, you're not going to be in that top 4% you were talking about (since the highest percentile you can score is around the 94th percentile), so I'm not sure how much that stat youre citing would really tell us.
On top of that I think its important to keep in mind that while the MCATs and LSATs are specifically for people trying to get into med/law school, the GREs are required for many different graduate programs (ex. engineering, biology, english etc); so while having good scores are a good idea, needing to beat out the engineers to get into that top 4% you were talking about, doesn't seem like a very important thing...especially since, while yes, being able to understand stats is probably a good thing when youre dealing with them, I'm not sure how often things like geometry come up in psyc grad school.

http://www.psichi.org/pubs/eye/vol_8/8_3_landrum_table1.jpg (numbers a bit old)

Clin Phd programs usually have a 65% matriculation rate, so if there are 1400 spots it means phd programs accept around 2200 applicants a year. Just by virtue of the number of applicants, it would only be possible for around 33% of acceptances to go to people with very strong numbers (and this is the upper upper limit). Outside the top phd programs, it very disingenuous for any program to claim that they arent "interested" in filling up their classes with high scoring students, when it would in fact be impossible for them to do so. It would be like the high school nerd claim he isnt "interested" in dating the head cheerleader.

If Harvard college would state that they aren't interested in students with 1500+ SAT scores ill believe them. Not so much if NYU made this claim.

 

[psychanon]

http://www.psichi.org/pubs/eye/vol_8/8_3_landrum_table1.jpg (numbers a bit old)

Clin Phd programs usually have a 65% matriculation rate, so if there are 1400 spots it means phd programs accept around 2200 applicants a year. Just by virtue of the number of applicants, it would only be possible for around 33% of acceptances to go to people with very strong numbers (and this is the upper upper limit). Outside the top phd programs, it very disingenuous for any program to claim that they arent “interested” in filling up their classes with high scoring students, when it would in fact be impossible for them to do so. It would be like the high school nerd claim he isnt "interested" in dating the head cheerleader.

If Harvard college would state that they aren’t interested in students with 1500+ SAT scores ill believe them. Not so much if NYU made this claim.

Your figures are incorrect. You're assuming that the 35% of accepted applicants that turn down an offer at a given school then decide not to go to grad school at all. In reality, almost everyone who turns down spots at Ph.D. programs do so because they got in somewhere else. So they number of applicants that are accepted to grad school is probably close to the matriculated number of 1400. Also, don't forget that a big bulk of that number are people who go to professional schools, which have much lower standards (not to start another conversation along those lines, but it's simply a fact). So if you include them in the equation, you get very different numbers than if you look only at the top programs.

Also, I didn't mean to imply that programs don't want to take people with good numbers. Of course someone with top grades and GREs would have an advantage over someone with low numbers, all other things being equal. I'm just saying that it's not the number one priority, and that there are other factors that are weighed much more heavily because they are generally more meaningful, and numbers only are helpful in getting you in if you are strong in other categories as well.