I've been lurking for a while, and finally decided to make an account to see if anyone else had thoughts about this subject.
I heard back from a professor I had applied to work with (but ultimately didn't get an interview with) about my application. And while most of the feedback was positive, part of what I asked was..."What put your top candidates ahead of the rest"? He mentioned in part, that they had "clearly defined interests in an academic research career versus a career that involved being both a clinician and doing research"
In my SOP, I spent a majority of a section talking about my research skills and interests and how I certainly want to be in academics, but did put that in addition to those research interests and goals I also "have a clinical interest in helping "X clinical population" with "X problem". My goal of a PhD is definitely not be solely a clinician, or to work in the private sector, or to have a career in a hospital, or anything that doesn't involve academics and research, I just have a very slight clinical interest that really goes hand-in-hand with my research goals. But I wonder if that statement put me down a couple of places?
I guess my question is: When pretty much every program is emphasizing (if not requiring you outright state) that you go into academia vs a career involving actual clinical work...why do they bother with accreditation which ensures you are on a track to become a clinician? Why do they expect you to do internships and practicums if they don't really want you to assess and work with patient populations?
And for those of you applying to/interviewing at/accepting spots in clinical programs this year: Why did you choose to go the clinical route instead of just applying for a program with a Health track, or Cognitive, etc.? Do you care about the clinical training, or is it just the research you are interested in?
Not trying to start a heated discussion, but just genuinely interested in thoughts and opinions. Perhaps they will help inform my decisions for applying next year!
I heard back from a professor I had applied to work with (but ultimately didn't get an interview with) about my application. And while most of the feedback was positive, part of what I asked was..."What put your top candidates ahead of the rest"? He mentioned in part, that they had "clearly defined interests in an academic research career versus a career that involved being both a clinician and doing research"
In my SOP, I spent a majority of a section talking about my research skills and interests and how I certainly want to be in academics, but did put that in addition to those research interests and goals I also "have a clinical interest in helping "X clinical population" with "X problem". My goal of a PhD is definitely not be solely a clinician, or to work in the private sector, or to have a career in a hospital, or anything that doesn't involve academics and research, I just have a very slight clinical interest that really goes hand-in-hand with my research goals. But I wonder if that statement put me down a couple of places?
I guess my question is: When pretty much every program is emphasizing (if not requiring you outright state) that you go into academia vs a career involving actual clinical work...why do they bother with accreditation which ensures you are on a track to become a clinician? Why do they expect you to do internships and practicums if they don't really want you to assess and work with patient populations?
And for those of you applying to/interviewing at/accepting spots in clinical programs this year: Why did you choose to go the clinical route instead of just applying for a program with a Health track, or Cognitive, etc.? Do you care about the clinical training, or is it just the research you are interested in?
Not trying to start a heated discussion, but just genuinely interested in thoughts and opinions. Perhaps they will help inform my decisions for applying next year!