clinical psych grad program acceptance rates!?

[DrGachet]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I was so bored out of my mind, I started looking at a few different grad programs, and to my surprise, clinical psychology was the most selective of the bunch! Unfortunately, many non-psych programs don't keep data on incoming students, GRE scores, GPA, etc. So it's hard to compare.

Regardless, the only program I found that was more selective, was philosophy--and not always. My "sample" was so small that it is best I do not generalize from my "findings." But I am curious if anyone knows if these sorts of comparisons have been made in a more systematic way, by a researcher or perhaps a grad student with nothing better to do. Could clinical psych really be THE most selective grad program?!

This is particularly interesting because I am well aware of the high GRE scores required by, say, physics grad programs. In fact, a former classmate of mine constantly boasts that physics grad students--like himself--are the smartest grad students, period. If clinical psych is even more selective, does it necessarily follow that we're the smartest ones, and that our mothers were right, that we are indeed, special?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I know other posters have mentioned looking into the selectivity of clinical psych programs, especially in comparison to med school. However, I don't know if anything large-scale has ever been done. Also, there are significant variations between programs (especially between funded Ph.D. programs and non-funded Ph.D. and Psy.D. programs) with respect to acceptance rates.

One thing to keep in mind, though, regarding clinical psych vs. other graduate disciplines (e.g., physics, chemistry) is that our departments generally tend to receive significantly more applications despite taking at or near the same number of students as other areas, which would of course decrease the acceptance rates.

In terms of where we "stack up" vs. other disciplines' students, I have no idea. I'd imagine that our quant GRE scores, for example, are lower than students in the natural sciences and math, while our verbal scores are likely higher. As for who's smarter, that could open up another debate entirely.

Edit: One thing I will say with certainty is that we've gotta be in the upper echelon of all graduate programs for quantity and pervasiveness of intra-departmental gossip.

 

[KillerDiller]

I used to belong to an online community of students applying to all types of graduate programs. It was generally acknowledged there that clinical psych and English lit (I think, can't remember for sure) were the two most selective fields. At least part of this selectivity comes from the fact that psych is not a particularly difficult major at most universities. It is very frequently one of the most popular majors to have. Many of these students end up disliking research and think that going the clinical route is the answer to 1) finding a well-paying job and 2) not having to do that icky research stuff. Consequently, there is a very large pool of applicants.

I would guess that accepted applicants have similarly impressive credentials to doctoral students from other academic disciplines, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the average psych applicant is not as impressive as the average physics applicant, for example.

 

[wigflip]

I'm researching psych coming from a doc program in another social science. It seems to me that psych applicants (at least competitive ones) are much more together than folks in a variety of other fields.

Also, some non-psych disciplines/programs shy away from using strict GRE/GPA cutoffs. I suggested this as a starting point for screening applicants in my program and you'd think I'd advocated for cannibalism.

 

[Ollie123]

I've gotten the impression psych students are generally more "focused" due to the competitiveness, though that doesn't necessarily translate to more intelligent/capable/etc.. Even in other graduate programs, it seems not entirely uncommon for people to be applying with perhaps a general topic area not much narrower in scope than the degree itself, a strong interest in the field, but not necessarily much experience, etc. The folks getting into psychology programs seem to have more of a "young professional" feel - the majority already have pretty extensive experience in the field, often in the exact area they want to study, etc. Many people apply to med school with little in mind beyond a desire to be a physician...maybe some notion of what specialties they might prefer. I've heard that's actually a good thing and it can come across badly if someone already has their exact residency/fellowship/etc. in mind at the interview stage. Admission standards also seem to have that in mind...experiences tend to be broad, place greater emphasis on things like test scores, number of "hours" in x, y, z, and less emphasis on the relative experiences in each. I can't tell you how many RAs we've had who get their research experience for med school in our lab, and their focus is completely different from those planning careers in psych. It seems to be about the number of hours they spend, even if it is on the most meaningless, mind-numbing tasks. Whether they learn anything seems largely irrelevant to most of them. In contrast, the psych RAs are more focused on the research itself, learning things that are directly relevant to what they want to do in grad school, etc. They are usually not as thrilled to work extra hours😉 Obviously there are exceptions on both sides, but it holds true in general.

Psych definitely does get more applications than many programs. My girlfriend is in biostats...there are simply not that many people who want to be biostatisticians. From what I've heard from our faculty, psychology does get a reasonable number of "junk" applications, particularly in certain areas (e.g. "I like kids! I want to be a child psychologist!").

RE: scores, I actually don't find them to be a heavy emphasis for most programs. The bar usually tends to be set pretty reasonably at most schools and I suspect the vast majority of competitive applicants would be above that anyways (I say this as someone whose GRE killed his application at many of the places I applied). Many programs seem to use a "soft" cutoff, where if you are over a threshold on objective criteria you will get looked at automatically, but someone still goes through those below a certain cutoff and pulls in the applications from those with otherwise impressive credentials. While not ideal, I'm hard-pressed to think of many realistic ways the admissions system could be dramatically improved.

 

[PsychPhDone]

yep, def smartest

 

[DrGachet]

Yeah, I'm talking about APA accredited funded PhD programs. Obviously, other programs are much less selective.

I have tried to do a quick search for any studies re intelligence (IQ) and academic field of study, but did not find anything useful. No doubt, some programs like English can be just as selective as clinical psych. It is also true that there are almost too many applicants for clinical psych grad school. I assume it may have to do with the fact that getting a job with just a bachelor's degree in psych is much harder than with a degree in physics, comp sci, or engineering. English and philosophy majors don't have it any easier.

Also, after physics, philosophy grad school applicants have potentially the highest combined V+Q of all other majors. Philosophy programs are almost as selective as ours, the few I looked at. There were definitely some similarities, similar GRE scores, etc. Then again, a case can be made that to get a 3.75 GPA based on mostly philosophy courses, as opposed to psychology courses, is not quite the same. Assuming that my experience is typical, undergrad philosophy courses are more intellectually demanding. Same can be said about computer science (I had to drop out of my course because of all the homework), physics, chem, and even to some extent, biology.

 

[PsychPhDone]

we'd have a rough time with IQ studies unless you get the students early enough, before they learn the IQ tests. 🙂

also, we are the best looking. i can't believe nobody commented about that yet.

 

[deadmau5]

it depends on how good your application is... if you have better stats in all areas, amazing letters, you will have a much better chance (e.g. hearing from 50% of the schools you applied to). If your package is less and less stellar, then your odds of hearing back get lower and lower.

 

[spafticus]

As an extra note, if you plan to compare by GRE scores, make sure to compare percentile rankings. Even though they both have a score of 1200, a 500Q+700V is not the same as 700Q+500V

 

[cara susanna]

I dunno, philosophy classes in my undergrad were super easy. Either that or I'm just really good at philosophy. 😉

Biology, on the other hand...

 

[wigflip]

I recently TAed the large introductory class in my social science discipline. Each day after our class, the giant lecture hall filled up with Psych 1 students.

The third day of the term I thought I left something behind in the lecture hall. I came back, and the next class was already underway. I had to sit through the remainder of the Psych lecture so my search of the front row area where I'd been sitting wouldn't be disruptive.

Third day of psych class: already well into neuroanatomy. Dense lecture--I would have been scribbling madly if I were a student. Third day of the class for which I was TAing: still not much happening, besides the prof sucking up to the undergrads by running around the lecture hall with the cordless mic, asking UGs "what they think." You haven't taught them anything yet--what should they think besides "this is a BS class"?!?

On the other hand, the only person I know who got through undergrad with a 4.0 GPA (we were both psych majors) was a great test taker...who couldn't write an intelligible sentence.

 

[DrGachet]

I dunno, philosophy classes in my undergrad were super easy. Either that or I'm just really good at philosophy. 😉

You smart, smart, bastard. 🙂

 

[deleted176373]

This is particularly interesting because I am well aware of the high GRE scores required by, say, physics grad programs. In fact, a former classmate of mine constantly boasts that physics grad students--like himself--are the smartest grad students, period. If clinical psych is even more selective, does it necessarily follow that we're the smartest ones, and that our mothers were right, that we are indeed, special?

So, now that depends on how you define smart. If you define smart as being the results of an IQ test or the GRE. Well, you've limited your definition...

What about emotional intelligence, "common sense", or even fashion IQ? Not sure that many physicists are regular readers of GQ or vogue for instance. I could be wrong, but anecdotal evidence would suggest otherwise.

I think I would define smart differently and make it a bit more context specific and relate it back to skills important to the prosperity of the person within the context of their environment. After all how can you consider IQ norms valid for an inner city person who has to function in a completely non-academic environment vs the academic who is pursuing a Ph.D. in Physics? Many people are smart, but measuring that intelligence, that can be difficult.