HopefulPsych21
Full Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Yup, I was quite surprised at some of these.
Clinical Psych PhD App Increase?
Started by just_a_cigar
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Happy holidays everyone! I’m back with some stats now that I have done a first pass on all my 2021 apps. I would say these are semi-final data as I am going to go back over things before I make interview decisions, but I wanted to at least lay eyes on all these apps before taking a break and I thought I'd share this info before the holidays in case anyone was lurking on SDN and looking for something to think about 🙂 .
Some background (hopefully sufficiently de-identified): I am junior faculty in a clinical psych PhD program at an R1 public university. The program has been APA accredited for longer than I have been alive and I think/hope it has a general reputation as being solid. Small cohorts, full funding, and no one hasn’t matched to an APA site in recent memory. We had 1 fewer person accepting apps this year vs last year and given the career stages/academic famousness (😉) of who was and wasn’t accepting apps this year I would have expected a decrease in apps.
Overall apps were up around 50% over last year. I keep personal records on apps to my lab, so the stats below are only using those (i.e. not the full program), though I do get a disproportionate percentage of program apps (about twice what you'd expect just given # of apps/n of faculty accepting apps) so this is probably at least somewhat reflective of the pool in general. Comparisons between 2020 and 2021 assume that I am consistent in my ratings across years (which may not be correct given general 2020-ness and the big increase in volume, plus I refine my process each year I do this). Also, I should note a few people are represented in both samples because they applied to me both last year and this year, though may not have been rated the same because of changes on their end (e.g., more experience).
We use a rubric to score apps. The range for app rubric scores in typical years is roughly -20 to +30. We included points for GRE scores last year but did not accept GREs this year so I tried to correct for that by adding mean 2020 GRE points to the total 2021 rubric numbers. This is imperfect, but seems better than nothing re: comparing samples and I can’t get into a major deep dive on this right now 😊. Providing a few stats that were easy to compile and seemed meaningful, plus an overall indication of the competitiveness of each pool (total rubric scores).
2020
29% with masters
33% with postbac/master’s paid research experience
13% other than non-Hispanic white
Undergrad GPA M = 3.7
Rubric points for research experience M = 2.4
Total scores on rubric M = 12.3 (for reference, the M for people I interviewed was 22.3)
2021
30% with masters
18% with postbac/master’s paid research experience
39% other than non-Hispanic white
Undergrad GPA M = 3.7
Rubric points for research experience M = 1.9
Total (adjusted with 2020 GRE M) scores on rubric M = 7.9
My takeaways, both from my app review experience and these data, indicate a higher proportion of applicants who identify as something other than non-Hispanic/Latinx white (seems good!) and also those with less research experience (less good!) this year. In fairness, I think I was harder on rating letters than I was last year in an effort to try to separate the rock stars from the generally good apps. This may have depressed total scores a little, but the research experience points and % with post-degree research employment are objective data points that point to a legitimate shift. I did not get a single app that I would classify as "I was a psych major and am now unemployed so I'll try to go to grad school" as we had hypothesized. Rather, I saw more people who were current undergrads and/or master's level clinicians who maybe had some research experience but not enough to be competitive for my lab. I get applicants like this every year, but I think there was more growth in apps from this segment than others. I did also see growth in solid applicants with great research experience, so just more of everything.
Not sure if this helps applicants feel any better- I would say that the pool is not saturated entirely with more super qualified apps, but also that it doesn't seem to be all noise either. Interested to hear what people think, and I'm happy to answer questions (within the bounds of maintaining my anonymity and not being too detailed about specific applicants or internal program processes).
Last edited:
HopefulPsych21
Full Member
Thank you so much for your detailed response. So it seems from your data that people applied with less research experience, which I figured would happen. I’m very excited to apply to programs next year, and this was a really helpful way of getting a feel of what certain faculty are looking for. Do you have any insight about the GRE next cycle? I know that certain schools have done away with it for a few years.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
representwitpixels
Full Member
@AlmostaPhD (I can tell you haven't updated your name on here) thank you very much for opening the veil here a little bit! Can you share, generally speaking, where your line is between "some research experience but not enough to be competitive" and "solid applicants with great research experience?" This gray area represents a central question for me as a non-traditional applicant without a typical PI/Advisor to provide that frame of reference (and I imagine I'm not alone in wondering...)
Thanks again for sharing the generalized info and stats~
Thanks again for sharing the generalized info and stats~
Last edited:
I personally am advocating that we just dump the GRE because it was never that prominent in my admissions decisions and it's a barrier for some people. I think many programs want to see how this year goes, though, before determining if they feel comfortable going forward without the GRE. It probably also depends on whether the pandemic affects access to GRE testing sites again next year (though I certainly hope things are better by next summer/fall!).
LOL, yeah I signed up in grad school but am not super active now and never saw a reason to change my name.
I'm sure this varies based on program/lab but here are some general guidelines based on my experience. These are examples for each category, I'm not saying someone needs to have all of the things under "likely" to be competitive, just that those things would stand out in their package and up their odds.
Not enough to be competitive in my lab
Undergrad in a lab for a semester or two
No conference presentations or manuscripts
Only one (or no) letters can speak to research skills/experience
Possibly competitive, depends on overall package
Current undergraduate student
At least one academic year in at least one lab
Conference presentation(s) at a university/regional conference
Undergraduate honors thesis or similar (small) independent project
Likely to be competitive
Paid research position post-degree and/or research-oriented master's
RA/lab manager in multiple labs and has letters from multiple PIs who supervised research
National conference presentation(s)
Author on peer-reviewed paper(s) (particularly if in my area)
Received funding for research (grant/fellowship, not travel award)
I do consider things like diversity and access to research activities (i.e., if they came from a SLAC or other school where there is less research) but it's hard to gauge someone's research potential from things like grades so more often than not I am ranking folks with demonstrated research experience (papers, conference presentations) and with strong letters that discuss their research activities above others. Also remember that this is a clinical PhD program at an R1, YMMV.
I am curious about potential unintended consequences, though. Do you believe that more emphasis will be placed on research experience? If so, couldn't you argue that obtaining meaningful experience also disadvantages certain populations, perhaps as much or moreso than the GRE?
Yeah, it could. I think people using a year or two as test cases could hopefully help us see what the impact of dropping the GRE is on who gets interviewed/admitted. As I said in my last post (possibly written while you posted this), I really weigh research experience heavily and I know that it's easier for some people to get that than others, but I would not feel comfortable making decisions without that kind of data (which is how some people feel about the GRE). People who don't get significant research experience during their undergrad, for whatever reason, may need to work as an RA or go to a research master's program to a greater extent than folks who attend R1s and can do a few semesters in a high-performing lab do, but public R1s still seem like a better equalizer to me than the GRE because lots of folks from underrepresented backgrounds (though certainly not all) can be found at R1s as undergrads. I've worked with students at my R1 who work a lot outside of school, have a kid, are non-traditional students, etc. and have managed to get decent research experience so I think it's possible if you're in that environment. Students at regional universities, etc. are disadvantaged but, like I said, I think can still have a path by picking up that experience post-graduation.
