Clinical Psych Program Concerns

[psychologica]

Hello! I've received a fully funded offer from a clinical psych PhD program, but I have a few reservations about the program that I was hoping to get some insight on. I will most likely end up accepting the offer, as it's my only one and it seems like a good program overall, but I wanted to know how bad these concerns actually are:

1. It's a scientist practitioner program and seems clinically focused. I am much more interested in the research side of things and hope to pursue a career in academia.
2. The licensure rate seems low for a scientist-practitioner program (<50%). This isn't super important to me, but I worry it might speak to the quality of the training (?)
3. The EPPP pass rates that I can find also seem low (<70%).
4. The research match isn't perfect (e.g. the lab doesn't use some of the methods I'm interested in). However, there's still some good overlap, and I really like the PI.
5. Average time to graduate is 7-8 years.

Please let me know if I'm just overthinking this, as well as how I can make the most of my time in the program despite these concerns. Thank you!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[summerbabe]

How exclusively focused are you on academia? Like would you consider quitting this field if a full-time clinical job was your only option? Or would you likely still be happy even if academia is a bust?

I'm a clinician but I think your ability to meet your career goals will significantly depend on the mentoring your PI can provide and your ability to bolster your CV under their guidance. Have they mentored others who are now in academia? if so, that could be a great person(s) to reach out to. Are you coming into the program with a strong CV already or are you still early in that process? Are they productive? Do they have active research programs/data you can use immediately? Can they help you network in your focus area?

1. It's a scientist practitioner program and seems clinically focused. I am much more interested in the research side of things and hope to pursue a career in academia.

The primary goal for every program is still to prepare each graduate for clinical licensure so I wouldn't be overly concerned unless there are other warning signs.

3. The EPPP pass rates that I can find also seem low (<70%).

What is the n? Google up some previous EPPP pass rate release dumps and see if it's a trend or a blip. I'd have concerns if this was a long-term trend because it would place your program below the level of some notorious diploma mill schools. And this could also help explain the low licensure rate.

5. Average time to graduate is 7-8 years.

That is a bit longer than the norm, which could suggest that people are potentially not matching for accredited internships, not finishing dissertation in a timely fashion, or other systematic issues. Are you in touch with any current students? Or can reach out to former graduates? Another question is whether your funding is guaranteed the entire time or only for a certain number of years/semesters. Good luck!

 

[cara susanna]

I think that if you want a research career, the PI matters almost more than the program does. My program was balanced, leaning more clinical I'd say, and we've had some people end up in research or faculty positions (and I myself got a research post doc, even though I ended up going full time clinical in the end). The most important thing is working with faculty who are productive, IMO.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yeah, lab/PI is more important. My program varied quite a bit in research productivity depending on career interests and PI match up.

 

[Ollie123]

PI trumps all. I know some powerhouse folks who got recruited for high-ranking positions at less-research-focused universities. Their students do fine. Yes the ideal from a professional standpoint is to work for the most productive person at Harvard, but that's not necessary nor is it realistic.

That said, some of those stats concern me. 50% licensure rate is pretty bad. Extremely research-focused clinical science programs are often wayyyy above that. EPPP pass rate is also low-ish. 7-8 years sounds really long, especially for a more clinically focused program. Its easier to justify a long time to graduation if you are more research-focused.

I'd do some digging. Where do these students end up? How much (and where) are the faculty publishing?

 

[WisNeuro]

I'd echo concerns about the EPPP rates (if consistently that low) and the licensure rate, which should be the 2-10 year numbers. It is fully funded, so that's a good thing. Just make sure that the funding is guaranteed for all or most of the program.

 

[psychologica]

How exclusively focused are you on academia? Like would you consider quitting this field if a full-time clinical job was your only option? Or would you likely still be happy even if academia is a bust?

I'm a clinician but I think your ability to meet your career goals will significantly depend on the mentoring your PI can provide and your ability to bolster your CV under their guidance. Have they mentored others who are now in academia? if so, that could be a great person(s) to reach out to. Are you coming into the program with a strong CV already or are you still early in that process? Are they productive? Do they have active research programs/data you can use immediately? Can they help you network in your focus area?

The primary goal for every program is still to prepare each graduate for clinical licensure so I wouldn't be overly concerned unless there are other warning signs.

What is the n? Google up some previous EPPP pass rate release dumps and see if it's a trend or a blip. I'd have concerns if this was a long-term trend because it would place your program below the level of some notorious diploma mill schools. And this could also help explain the low licensure rate.

That is a bit longer than the norm, which could suggest that people are potentially not matching for accredited internships, not finishing dissertation in a timely fashion, or other systematic issues. Are you in touch with any current students? Or can reach out to former graduates? Another question is whether your funding is guaranteed the entire time or only for a certain number of years/semesters. Good luck!

These are great questions for me to think about! Research is definitely where my heart is. I don't think I could ever see myself in a full-time clinical position. I'm also in undergrad, so building up my CV is a big priority for me. That's why I was worried about the program model, but it sounds like it depends more on the mentor. My PI is actually pretty productive, and I know at least one of their former students is currently in academia so that's reassuring to me.

It looks like 2016 and 2017 was when the pass rate was low (n=9). It was around 88% in 2012, but I can't find any other data. Where can I find more recent scores?

I'm planning to reach out to current students once I accept and will definitely ask them about the graduation time and funding. Thank you so much for the detailed answer!

 

[psychologica]

I think that if you want a research career, the PI matters almost more than the program does. My program was balanced, leaning more clinical I'd say, and we've had some people end up in research or faculty positions (and I myself got a research post doc, even though I ended up going full time clinical in the end). The most important thing is working with faculty who are productive, IMO.

Yeah, lab/PI is more important. My program varied quite a bit in research productivity depending on career interests and PI match up.

Good to know! My PI seems to be pretty productive and publishes every year so that eases my worries a lot!

 

[psychologica]

PI trumps all. I know some powerhouse folks who got recruited for high-ranking positions at less-research-focused universities. Their students do fine. Yes the ideal from a professional standpoint is to work for the most productive person at Harvard, but that's not necessary nor is it realistic.

That said, some of those stats concern me. 50% licensure rate is pretty bad. Extremely research-focused clinical science programs are often wayyyy above that. EPPP pass rate is also low-ish. 7-8 years sounds really long, especially for a more clinically focused program. Its easier to justify a long time to graduation if you are more research-focused.

I'd do some digging. Where do these students end up? How much (and where) are the faculty publishing?

Yes I was surprised to see these stats and wish I'd looked into this more when applying. I would say about half of the faculty seem to be actively publishing, while the rest are less consistent. I'm not sure how to find more info about former students however.

 

[psychologica]

I'd echo concerns about the EPPP rates (if consistently that low) and the licensure rate, which should be the 2-10 year numbers. It is fully funded, so that's a good thing. Just make sure that the funding is guaranteed for all or most of the program.

I could only find data for three years, and in two of those years rates were low. I'm pretty sure funding is guaranteed at least for 4 years, and they're almost always able to find funding for students after that.

 

[Ollie123]

Former students are usually easy to track down. Look at the professor's publications over the last 5-10 years, then google co-authors who had the same affiliation at the time of publication. If they are now a post-doc or assistant professor at XYZ, chances are good they were a trainee of some kind. Ain't perfect, but it will give you a general sense of things.

If everyone seems to be in a clinical position, this is a bad sign (assuming you strongly prefer the academic path). Not necessarily a catastrophic one - they could all be people who happened to prefer that path and the professor was supportive, but would be equally supportive of pursuing an academic one. But academia is tough enough and I do think whether someone has a track record of mentoring people into professorships is something that warrants strong consideration in the decision process.

If all of the professors publications are solo-authored or with other faculty members and no apparent students, this is a VERY bad sign and I would probably consider other programs. Only exception might be if your mentor is a brand new assistant professor who hasn't had much opportunity to build a track record yet.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I wouldn't even necessarily say that PI is super important. I basically ran my own body pf research in my PhD program with a national network of collaborators (including my PhD advisor), and I had faculty from my program on the minority of my ~40 articles when I graduated. Of the 32 articles, I published during my PhD program (the other 8 being from my undergrad and masters), program faculty were authors on maybe 10 of them.

 

[psychologica]

Former students are usually easy to track down. Look at the professor's publications over the last 5-10 years, then google co-authors who had the same affiliation at the time of publication. If they are now a post-doc or assistant professor at XYZ, chances are good they were a trainee of some kind. Ain't perfect, but it will give you a general sense of things.

If everyone seems to be in a clinical position, this is a bad sign (assuming you strongly prefer the academic path). Not necessarily a catastrophic one - they could all be people who happened to prefer that path and the professor was supportive, but would be equally supportive of pursuing an academic one. But academia is tough enough and I do think whether someone has a track record of mentoring people into professorships is something that warrants strong consideration in the decision process.

If all of the professors publications are solo-authored or with other faculty members and no apparent students, this is a VERY bad sign and I would probably consider other programs. Only exception might be if your mentor is a brand new assistant professor who hasn't had much opportunity to build a track record yet.

This is amazing advice, thank you! I'm pretty much deadset on academia or some kind of research career, so this is really good info to have. I know at least one of their recent students is an assistant professor, and at a glance, they seem to publish pretty frequently with current students. I will definitely do some more research!

 

[psychologica]

I wouldn't even necessarily say that PI is super important. I basically ran my own body pf research in my PhD program with a national network of collaborators (including my PhD advisor), and I had faculty from my program on the minority of my ~40 articles when I graduated. Of the 32 articles, I published during my PhD program (the other 8 being from my undergrad and masters), program faculty were authors on maybe 10 of them.

Wow that's super impressive! I doubt I'll be that productive haha but it's good to know it's possible! Can I ask how you connected with so many collaborators from other institutions? I'm interested in certain methods that faculty in this program don't really use and would love to be able to find a collaboration where I can incorporate these methods into my research.

 

[Spydra]

It looks like 2016 and 2017 was when the pass rate was low (n=9). It was around 88% in 2012, but I can't find any other data. Where can I find more recent scores?

I want to know this too. It seems absurd that data from 2018 and 2019 are not already available.

 

[WisNeuro]

I want to know this too. It seems absurd that data from 2018 and 2019 are not already available.

I'm starting to wonder if the work on PSYPACT and EPPP changes are slowing other projects down.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Good to know! My PI seems to be pretty productive and publishes every year so that eases my worries a lot!

Check how often their grad students publish, and how often they publish as lead authors. Thats more important than what the PI does.

 

[Spydra]

I'm starting to wonder if the work on PSYPACT and EPPP changes are slowing other projects down.

Perhaps. On the other hand it seems like there would be enough people interested in assisting all of these projects or that new opportunities could be created to bring more people to the table.

 

[WisNeuro]

Perhaps. On the other hand it seems like there would be enough people interested in assisting all of these projects or that new opportunities could be created to bring more people to the table.

As someone currently involved in PSYPACT legislation at the state level, I can assure you that it is cash and resource (manpower) intensive