- Joined
- Jun 16, 2005
- Messages
- 13,152
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 4,571
- Medical Student
kent state represent!
LSU at 4!?!?!? WHAT!!!
Sanman
O.G.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2000
- Messages
- 6,921
- Reaction score
- 11,572
- Points
- 6,861
- Location
- Dreaming of Margaritaville
- Psychologist
Out of curiosity, In considering where this was published, I am wondering whether this only applies to those studying developmental disabilties and not other aspects of psych. That would explain SDSU being so low on the list.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2003
- Messages
- 2,271
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 4,551
mmonte4 said:
Hmm...bias? Authors' affiliation: Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA.
Here's the full abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16303581&query_hl=1
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2003
- Messages
- 2,271
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 4,551
Sanman said:
If this was a well-conducted, unbiased study on clinical psychology program rankings, it would not be published in some obscure journal on developmental disabilities. Some more mainstream clinical psychology journal (e.g., American Psychologist) would publish it. My take is that it's a bunch of self-interested Louisiana psychologists who needed an ego boost. Sheesh! As if getting RxP was not enough!
Personally, I find the following a much more interesting and relevant paper. And lo and behold, it's actually published in a clinical psychology journal!
Ilardi, S.S., Rodriguez-Hanley,A., Roberts-Michael, C., & Seigel, J. (2000). On the origins of clinical psychology faculty: Who is training the trainers? Clinical-Psychology:-Science-and-Practice, 7, 346-354.
In this study, the authors examined how many graduates from each program go on to secure faculty positions. Based on this methodology, the top 10 ranked programs (the list is much more extensive - read the paper) were:
Rank order of programs based on total # of clinical faculty members trained:
Univ. of Illinois - Champaign-Urbana
Stony Brook
Univ. of Michigan
Univ. of Minnesota
Univ. of Georgia
Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Indiana Univ.
UT-Austin
UCLA
Pitt
Programs that have trained 5 or more faculty members between 1988-1998:
Stony Brook
UCLA
Univ. of Georgia
McGill
Univ. of Washington
This looks more representative to me.
What's also nice about this paper is that it clarifies how certain programs have had major paradigm shifts within the past 10 years or so, and how the results of such would not be reflected in these numbers - yet. Two examples I remember were Temple and Univ. of Colorado-Boulder.
Ilardi, S.S., Rodriguez-Hanley,A., Roberts-Michael, C., & Seigel, J. (2000). On the origins of clinical psychology faculty: Who is training the trainers? Clinical-Psychology:-Science-and-Practice, 7, 346-354.
In this study, the authors examined how many graduates from each program go on to secure faculty positions. Based on this methodology, the top 10 ranked programs (the list is much more extensive - read the paper) were:
Rank order of programs based on total # of clinical faculty members trained:
Univ. of Illinois - Champaign-Urbana
Stony Brook
Univ. of Michigan
Univ. of Minnesota
Univ. of Georgia
Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Indiana Univ.
UT-Austin
UCLA
Pitt
Programs that have trained 5 or more faculty members between 1988-1998:
Stony Brook
UCLA
Univ. of Georgia
McGill
Univ. of Washington
This looks more representative to me.
What's also nice about this paper is that it clarifies how certain programs have had major paradigm shifts within the past 10 years or so, and how the results of such would not be reflected in these numbers - yet. Two examples I remember were Temple and Univ. of Colorado-Boulder.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Messages
- 237
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 4,571
Why in the hell would you judge the 'strength' of a program based on publications? This might just mean that the university is more academically focused. Academically focused universities don't necessarily produce the best clinicians.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Messages
- 223
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 4,531
Brad3117 said:
Your post indicates that you may be quite misinformed in terms of the responsiblities of a clinical psych PHD.
Hint: nowadays it is not to work as a clinician.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Messages
- 237
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 4,571
JatPenn said:
Good point.
Nonetheless, faculty productivity does not always equate with good mentorship and graduate training. Sad, but true.
In any case, I think the point is that there really needs to be a multilevel approach to evaluating the quality of any graduate program. Faculty, student outcomes, availability of research opportunities in different areas, etc.
For example, Temple is an excellent program if you're interested in a career focused on anxiety/mood disorders. But if you want training for a career focused on addictions research, it's not going to be a strong training program for you (as far as I can tell, anyway).
In any case, I think the point is that there really needs to be a multilevel approach to evaluating the quality of any graduate program. Faculty, student outcomes, availability of research opportunities in different areas, etc.
For example, Temple is an excellent program if you're interested in a career focused on anxiety/mood disorders. But if you want training for a career focused on addictions research, it's not going to be a strong training program for you (as far as I can tell, anyway).
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2004
- Messages
- 170
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Another problem with this ranking system is that it doesn't take into account the quality of publications. The faculty at my university have a philosophy that if something is not going to be published in JCCP, Abnormal, Psych Bull, or about 2-3 other prestigious journals they won't publish it at all. Odd but true!
