Columbia University - Teachers College Question

Therapulse.ai - The AI Scribe for Mental Health
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
A

attackemu

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Hello!

So I'm applying to Columbia's clinical psych PhD program, which is done by the affiliated Teachers College. When you get your degree, it says it's from Columbia, but on wikipedia there are separate endowments listed for the two institutions.

Here's the question: Does anyone know how much faculty members in the clinical program are funded within the Teachers College? Does Teachers college share the research funding with the ultra-rich Columbia, which has something like 6 billion dollars of funding? Or does TC go off of its measly ~200 million dollar endowment? How does this affect the caliber of research done within the TC? And lastly, does anyone know how "separate" the two institutions are, in that people who attend TC might be considered separate from those who attend columbia?

Thanks!
Members don't see this ad.
 
I can't answer your question about funding, but I can tell you that although TC is affiliated with Columbia, it's not the same.
 
attackemu said:
Here's the question: Does anyone know how much faculty members in the clinical program are funded within the Teachers College? Does Teachers college share the research funding with the ultra-rich Columbia, which has something like 6 billion dollars of funding? Or does TC go off of its measly ~200 million dollar endowment? How does this affect the caliber of research done within the TC? And lastly, does anyone know how "separate" the two institutions are, in that people who attend TC might be considered separate from those who attend columbia?
Click to expand...

I'd worry less about the endowment level than how much you'll be funded at that school. I don't know a lot about Teacher's College, but from others, I know that the funding there is not as good as at other clinical PhD programs, and you don't necessarily get a full tuition waiver and stipend, which is standard at other schools of its same caliber. The student I know there is okay because she has a husband who works in the city, but she said many have extra outside jobs because living in NY is also incredibly expensive. Basically, I think it's an excellent program, but you're paying more to live in NY, and probably looking to go into more debt in the process.

In terms of research dollars, I would care more about how much research, and individual research dollars your individual faculty members are doing and bringing in. If you're applying to work with a faculty member with multiple grants, you'll be in a better position than one who doesn't have a lot actively going on. They're the ones who are paying for your salary and for most of your expenses. It's much different than undergrad to that extent. Columbia would obviously have more research dollars coming in than Teacher's College because there are more programs at Columbia (all the sciences, where the money really comes from) than at a school that's mostly education, psychology, and some humanities. That said, I don't know how the overall endowment affects the quality of the resources that you do have for your general department....that would be something to examine if you get an interview.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
First, TC is not Columbia. If the end degree didn't say "Columbia", TC would have far fewer applicants each year. There is a huge difference between attending TC vs attending Columbia. Anyone in the NY area certainly knows the difference and would laugh at you were you to suggest you attended Columbia, when in fact you went to TC. Elsewhere, probably not so many know how the affiliation works and how separate they are. Nor might they necessarily have even heard of TC.

Having TC as part of the Columbia system allows CU to, in the end, make more money via the affiliation. I would assume the endowments are totally separate. If I were an alumni of Columbia, why would I want some of my donated hard-earned $$ to go to Teachers if it had nothing to do with my education at CU? And the opposite is true too. Maybe a part of the CU budget gets allocated to TC.

Except for a couple of profs in the clinical program, the profs at TC are not well-funded for research. But keep in mind that TC is mostly psychodynamically oriented. All the clinical phd programs who share that approach likewise do not have a rich research endowment, because few psychodynamically-oriented professors do the kind of research, if at all, requiring big grant money. Though it appears this may be changing. As suggested in this thread, it's a thoughtful question for your interview. Though you can probably find your answer somewhere on google. Or, contact someone at TC and/or Columbia in the appropriate department (budgets?) for a better answer.
 
I agree with what thefall has said. TC =/= Columbia !

The clinical phd program doesn't have a strong reputation in the city, and the training ain't all that great. The benefit is that you will get to do some practicum (or "externship") in NYC-based hospitals so when you apply to internship, that will give you an edge (but note that most NYC-based clinical programs require that anyway so if you're in NYC, you will get that exposure). They do have their own clinic so you will get to see some patients that way. I believe they share patients with Master-level students. The counseling phd program on the other hand is much better. (Everyone who doesn't get into the doctoral program will be accepted into the MA program. Don't enroll! It's how they make $$$, and you have to fight your way to get the attention of grad students, because the professors are too busy with grad students or whatever that they do to notice the MA students!) My friends who are in the clinical phd program get minimal funding. They pay an arm and a leg for tuition (I think first year, you get 50% tuition and no stipend; hmmm that like 25K a year plus living in Morningside Heights or Manhattan is about 1.5-2 K / month for a 1BR). One or two students will get lucky and get TA'ships, but it sounds like you have to fight hard for it. It's fine if you have rich parents who don't mind supporting you, but I'd look elsewhere for a solid training Clinical PhD program, especially if your heart isn't set on NYC.
 
Thanks for the replies guys, really appreciate the feedback.

I'm definitely feeling a little less stoked about the program given all that info, but my POI - George Bonanno - is one of the few profs in any clinical program I've seen that does research in my interest area (memory, trauma, emotion) so I'm a bit conflicted.

Guess it won't hurt much to check out the program in more detail if I get an interview--if not, then problem averted!
 
On the contrary to the misinformation of those who posted, the degree awarded at teachers college is awarded by Columbia University. Teachers College is Columbia University's school of education and currently ranked 2nd in the nation. Carl Rogers is amongst the many notable alum. from the Clinical program.
 
aoshixnorb said:
On the contrary to the misinformation of those who posted, the degree awarded at teachers college is awarded by Columbia University. Teachers College is Columbia University's school of education and currently ranked 2nd in the nation. Carl Rogers is amongst the many notable alum. from the Clinical program.
Click to expand...

No one is suggesting that TC isn't affiliated with Columbia or that the degree doesn't say Columbia on it. Just that there is a difference in reputation, at least in NYC. TC is ranked second in the nation for what? I'm sure it wasn't for clinical psychology.

With all due respect to Carl Rogers, he obtained his degree in 1931.
 
I'm also not suggesting the clinical training is not good, though I've heard from colleagues that the program was disorganized.
 
From my friends who attend Columbia/ TC's clinical program in NYC, it is the most reputable and competitive program in New York. It has the highest publications and citations on average per faculty member over any other clinical program in the city and state. The Clinical students typically obtain the best internships and many are paid. I am not sure where you are getting your information from.
 
Harvard will typically boast of their famous faculty

B.F. Skinner 1931
Gordon Allport 1922


So mentioning Columbia/TC's historically famous Clinical faculty is a just defense from your aspersions

Carl Rogers Columbia/TC 1931
Albert Ellis Columbia/TC 1946


At TC itself -- Edward Thorndike founded the field of educational Psychology

Current notable clinical faculty include:

George Bonanno/ PHD/Yale.. World renowned professor of grief and loss featured in New york times, discovery health etc..
Lisa Miller/ PHD/ Yale.. . featured in A & E ,CNN, Fox News, Weekend Today Show .....Former head of APA division of Psychology and Religion
Barry Farber/PHD/ Yale ...amongst others.
 
aoshixnorb said:
From my friends who attend Columbia/ TC's clinical program in NYC, it is the most reputable and competitive program in New York. It has the highest publications and citations on average per faculty member over any other clinical program in the city and state. The Clinical students typically obtain the best internships and many are paid. I am not sure where you are getting your information from.
Click to expand...

Oh boy. Somebody is either misinformed or goes to TC and is in denial🙂
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Phipps said:
...or is employed there
Click to expand...

Good point! I'll shut up. Nothing to be gained from arguing anyway, especially since I already withdrew my TC application (post-inteview) in order to attend what must be, according to this poster, a far inferior NY program😉
 
bunderj said:
Good point! I'll shut up. Nothing to be gained from arguing anyway, especially since I already withdrew my TC application (post-inteview) in order to attend what must be, according to this poster, a far inferior NY program😉
Click to expand...

...welcome to the crowd...the rest of us 🙂
 
hmm i dont know about the phd program but i went to TC for my MA in psychology and when we graduate we get a diploma from Columbia not from TC. we were able to take classes at columbia, use their library etc. and our graduation is on the columbia campus not up the block at TC. TC is just another department within Columbia (like the columbia school of social work). also regarding funding, we were not given any funding because all scholarships etc are given to the doctoral students but i dont know any details other than that. hope that was helpful? 👍
 
PsychAndMusic said:
ps - professor bonnano is amazing 👍👍👍
Click to expand...


He certainly seemed like it, and definitely has an amazing reputation! Unfortunately it seems that he, along with maybe two other faculty members (Verdeli and Luthar) are doing most of the heavy lifting with regard to research productivity.
 
aoshixnorb said:
From my friends who attend Columbia/ TC's clinical program in NYC, it is the most reputable and competitive program in New York. It has the highest publications and citations on average per faculty member over any other clinical program in the city and state. The Clinical students typically obtain the best internships and many are paid. I am not sure where you are getting your information from.
Click to expand...

It's hard to find good objective measures of clinical psych programs, but the two that are often used (which are still flawed) are the EPPP rankings, and the US news rankings. By EPPP rankings, TC is a middling school, above a number of other NYC schools and below a number. By US news rankings it's more in the above average range, and does beat out the other schools in NYC itself (but loses to a number of schools in Long Island and NY state).

Of course all of these ratings are kind of questionable. But it sounds like TC is at the very least a solid school and as in most things in clinical psych your decision should be based more on best fit. In terms of competetiveness, while it is highly competitive, the same can be said for many other schools in NYC.

As a side note, while these rankings may be flawed, they are nowhere nearly as questionable as going by what your friends told you about how great their program is.
 
How is referencing the rich history of TC's Clinical program in denial?

Carl Rogers
Alber Elllis
Rollo May
Virginia Axline

Edward Thorndike


Also, TC's Clinical program does have the highest number of publications and citations per faculty member in NYC!

"A recent (2007) report in the journal Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice ranked the Teachers College Clinical Psychology program 14th in the country (of 166 clinical Ph.D. programs nationwide) based on the mean number of scholarly publications per faculty member"

USNWR- methodology based only on opinion surveys, a very poor way to rate academic productivity.
 
aoshixnorb said:
How is referencing the rich history of TC's Clinical program in denial?

Carl Rogers
Alber Elllis
Rollo May
Virginia Axline
Edward Thorndike
Click to expand...

Because they are all dead. Thus, they have no influence on the state/quality of the current progam. 🙄
 
Last edited:
aoshixnorb said:
USNWR- methodology based only on opinion surveys, a very poor way to rate academic productivity.
Click to expand...

Well obviously, just like academic productivity of professors is a poor way to measure opinion and quality of training. All of these things are important and only one piece of the puzzle.

TC does fine on intern match rate as well at 85%, and many on the boards view that as the most important measure. In NYC they are below City College but above the other PhD programs. Although many of the numbers are so close that it's unclear if there is really a statistically significant difference.
 
This is a very emotional reaction to a stolid riposte of fact.

-Columbia /TC does have the highest publications on average per faculty member of any other school in NYC. In fact 14th in the nation. (2007)
-Columbia/ TC does have a rich history and a very prestigous faculty.
 
Faculty and past "prestige" arent the sole, nor the most important factors for prospective students to consider when judging a clinical programs quality. For example, you could do the same thing with Harvard that you just did with TC (eg., citing the high productivity of current faculty and noting the big names that have previoulsy been associated with it), but I dont think many one here would consider Harvard's clinical program to be all that good. Thus, the points you keep driving home are in no way indicative, by themselves, that that the clinical program is anything special, or signficantly better/above others in the area. I think you're pushing the wrong metrics here.
 
Last edited:
Match rate is very subjective and varies immensely across school and year. Many years Columbia/TC has 100 percent match rate.
 
I'm reluctant to place much weight on any measure of scholarly productivity that doesn't address where articles are being published, how many people are citing them etc. Mean publications says almost nothing about what kind of researcher someone is...some of the worst research I've seen has been done by people who publish like fiends. I hate that the focus has often become on the sheer number of pubs.

I know little about their clinical program (beyond a friend's ranting about their MA program), which tells me that at least in the areas I study they likely don't have any strong faculty (or any at all) though that isn't really indicative of anything since no school has everything. From what I have heard I doubt it is in league with the top programs regardless of the publication rate, but that doesn't mean its a bad place to go depending on your particular goals and research match with faculty.

Personally, if I was going to apply to Columbia it would be for their neuroscience program🙂
 
Last edited:
I think several of us have tried to emphasize the flawed logic of relying on vague factors such as "publication rate of faculty", and the even more irrelevant issue of past faculty members. However, aoshixnorb doesn't seem to like to respond to the criticisms of his criteria and continues to simply reiterate them over and over. I'm not sure I really understand why, although I can only assume this is someone who is not currently in a doctoral program and thus has no real insight into all the factors prospective students should be thinking about when applying to programs. For example, I pointed out that the same metrics aoshixnorb seems to be so fond of can also be true of a place like Harvard. Does Harvard have a quality clinical program?.....not really. One doesn't necessarily follow the other.

Rogers, May, Ellis, and Thordnike are dead, and obviously they are unable to contribute to the program at this time. I have no doubt that their presence over the years helped to draw good faculty, however, as Ollie123 points out, no one want to be a lab that publishes garbage or publishes primarily in low impact journals. More importantly for a clinical program, whats the use of being in lab that publishes like crazy if your name isn't anywhere on the manuscripts and/or you aren't getting any REAL mentorship and advising? Some of the worst places to be are places where your name gets put on everything but no one ever actually mentors you or teaches you anything.

Aoshixnorb, let's start thinking deeper about the metrics and issues at play here and not fill the heads of prospective students with vague, often meaningless stats (eg., publication rates of the faculty) or irrelevant ones (e.g., faculty members during the 1930s).
 
Last edited:
aoshixnorb said:
Match rate is very subjective and varies immensely across school and year. Many years Columbia/TC has 100 percent match rate.
Click to expand...

85% is their average match rate over 10 years, so individual differences by year are accounted for. Like most colleges, Columbia has had years with a 100% match rate as well as years when their match rate was embarassingly low. This is what happens when you have a small sample size.
 
bunderj said:
He certainly seemed like it, and definitely has an amazing reputation! Unfortunately it seems that he, along with maybe two other faculty members (Verdeli and Luthar) are doing most of the heavy lifting with regard to research productivity.
Click to expand...


i definitley agree with you. there were certainly some teachers in the department that werent great but the ones you mentioned are terrific
 
erg923 said:
I think several of us have tried to emphasize the flawed logic of relying on vague factors such as "publication rate of faculty", and the even more irrelevant issue of past faculty names. However, aoshixnorb doesn't seem to like to respond to the criticisms of his criteria and continues to simply reiterate them over and over. I'm not sure I really understand why, although I can only assume this is someone who is not currently in a doctoral program and has no real insight into all the factors prospective students should be thinking about when applying to programs. For example, I pointed out that the same metrics aoshixnorb seems to be so fond of can also be true of a place like Harvard. Does Harvard have a quality clinical program?.....not really. One doesn't necessarily follow the other.

Rogers, May, Ellis, and Thordnike are dead and obviously they are unable to contribute to the program at this time. I have no doubt that their presence over the years helped to draw good faculty, however, as Ollie123 points out, no one want to be a lab that publishes garbage or publishes primarily low impact journals. More importantly for a clinical program, whats the use of being in lab that publishes like crazy if your name isn't anywhere on the manuscripts and/or you aren't getting any REAL mentorship and advising? Some of the worst places to be are places where your name gets put on everything but no one ever actually mentors you or teaches you anything.

Aoshixnorb, let's start thinking deeper about the metrics and issues at play here and not fill the heads of prospective students with vague, often meaningless stats (eg., publication rates of the faculty) or irrelevant ones (e.g., faculty members during the 1930a).
Click to expand...



Erg, citing publication output is not a "vague meaningless fact", as you have put it. I hope so for the sake of your institution. It is one of many matrices/criterion used to assess a program, I have not claimed otherwise.
The Journal of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, thought publication output was an important factor and used it as the sole criteria for their rating system. Perhaps, they have "flawed logic" as well.

TC/Columbia not only has the highest publication output of any school in NYC, they also publish in quality journals. There are so many quality publications.

Hobfoll, S. E., Mancini, A. D., Hall, B. J., Canetti, D., & Bonanno, G. A.(in press). The limits of resilience: Distress following chronic political violence in the Palestinian authority. Social Science and Medicine

Gupta, S., & Bonanno, G. A. (in press). Complicated grief and deficits in emotional expressive flexibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology

Watson, P. J., Brymer, M. J., & Bonanno, G. A. (in press). Post-disaster psychological intervention since 9/11. American Psychologist

Dekel, S., & Bonanno, G.A.(in press). Changes in trauma memory and patterns of posttraumatic stress. Psychological Trauma.

Ong, A. D., Fuller-Rowell, T. E., Bonanno, G. A., & Almeida, D. M. (in press). Spousal loss predicts alterations in diurnal Cortisol activity through prospective changes in positive emotion. Health Psychology

Ansary, N. A.. & Luthar, S. S. (2009). Distress and academic achievement among adolescents of affluence: A study of externalizing and internalizing problem behaviors and school performance. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 319-341

Yates, T. M., Tracy, A. J., Luthar, S. S. (2008). Nonsuicidal self-injury among "privileged" youth: Longitudinal and cross-sectional approaches to developmental processes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 52-62.

Luthar, S. S., &Goldstein, A. (2008). Substance use and related behaviors among suburban late adolescents: The importance of perceived parent containment. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 591-614.

Luthar, S.S., & Sexton, C. C. (2007).Maternal drug abuse versus maternal depression: Vulnerability and resilience among school-age and adolescent offspring. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 205-225.

Luthar, S. S., Suchman, N. E., & Altomare, M. (2007). Relational Psychotherapy Mothers Group: A randomized clinical trial for substance abusing mothers. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 243-261.

Yes, TC does have a rich history with many notable faculty, many deceased.
Just something interesting to add to the pie. Is this the sole criteria? No.
No one ever said it was. However, your myopic retort, is more of an attack then a meaningful assessment.

Carl Rogers
Alber Elllis
Rollo May
Virginia Axline

Were HUGE contributors to the field of Clinical Psychology/TC and worth noting.
Harvard will typically tout its legends.

Presently, TC's faculty are making very significant contributions.

"George Bonanno/ PHD/Yale.. World renowned professor of grief and loss featured in New york times, discovery health etc..
Lisa Miller/ PHD/ Yale.. . featured in A & E ,CNN, Fox News, Weekend Today Show .....Former head of APA division of Psychology and Religion
Suniya Luthar/PHD/ Yale ... featured New York Times...etc.
Barry Farber/PHD/ Yale ...amongst others."

Also, I would argue that Harvard's Clinical training program is good, although nascent. But since you disagree, please tout your institution instead.
 
aoshixnorb said:
But since you disagree, please tout your institution instead.
Click to expand...

Um, Ok. My institution rocks! There.

PS: Give me a break with the obtuse vocabulary, kid.
PSS: Yes, I think The Journal of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice used flawed logic for using it as the sole criteria. Many of us on here have argued that before.
 
Last edited:
:wtf:

If someone is proud of their program, what's the point of arguing with them? As long as it is not a troll or diploma mill recruiter spreading misinformation about their crappy program (recent rash of pro-argosy posts), then what is the problem? TC, by all metrics, is a solid program. If someone else wishes to think it is the best (cause we all know how important that is 🙄) in NYC, then good for them. Trying to disprove them is equally as silly.
 
Who tried to do that? All I see is disputing the relevance of some of the metrics the poster seemed so fixated upon.
 
erg923 said:
Who tried to do that? All I see is disputing the relevance of some of the metrics the poster seemed so fixated upon.
Click to expand...

Well, the point has been made several times that there is no single or most important metric for ranking a program. Big name alumni, current heavyweights in their respective fields, publication rates, journal impact factors, and match rates have been discussed. Each is followed with a quip like "well those people are dead"; "Harvard has big names, but aren't a good program" (not sure that was necessary or true); and comments about people publishing "garbage" in low impact journals... c'mon now. If aoshixnorb is trying to prove something by arguing TC's superiority, you guys are also trying to prove something by arguing it is not. At the end of the day it is insulting to the people who work really hard to gain admittance into whatever respectable program they attend.
 
These are genuine questions... what is the publication rate for grad students at TC? Number of NRSA recipients? What is the average time to completion of the doctorate? What percentage of students enter academia? Who is providing the clinical training and where?

Back in the day I was applying (which, to be fair, was a long time ago), I had a very senior and reputable professor tell me that there are "only 1-2 faculty at TC who are equipped to mentor dissertations" and that the majority of clinical training was farmed out to adjuncts and to externahip sites. I have also heard that the funding is not very good. All things considered, that was enough to remove that program from my list entirely.

Also, the statistic cited may be true for Manhattan, but I think that extrapolating to the entire state of NY is misleading. I would place Stony Brook, Binghamton, and maybe even Albany as schools that stand out as places where research most likely outpaces that of TC.
 
LM02 said:
These are genuine questions... what is the publication rate for grad students at TC? Number of NRSA recipients? What is the average time to completion of the doctorate? What percentage of students enter academia? Who is providing the clinical training and where?

Back in the day I was applying (which, to be fair, was a long time ago), I had a very senior and reputable professor tell me that there are "only 1-2 faculty at TC who are equipped to mentor dissertations" and that the majority of clinical training was farmed out to adjuncts and to externahip sites. I have also heard that the funding is not very good. All things considered, that was enough to remove that program from my list entirely.

Also, the statistic cited may be true for Manhattan, but I think that extrapolating to the entire state of NY is misleading. I would place Stony Brook, Binghamton, and maybe even Albany as schools that stand out as places where research most likely outpaces that of TC.
Click to expand...

Misinformation and stigma are misleading!
There are many qualified professors equipped for mentoring dissertations.

Columbia/ Teachers College....has the 14th highest publication/scholarly output per faculty member on average of all Clinical Programs in the US.

Here is the order for New York:

Columbia-Teachers College> University of Rochester>Stonybrook> Binghamton>Albany>Buffalo>Fordham>City College

Syracuse has the most.
http://www.psychology.pitt.edu/documents/clinical_psych_rankings.pdf
 
aoshixnorb said:
Misinformation and stigma are misleading!
There are many qualified professors equipped for mentoring dissertations.

Columbia/ Teachers College....has the 14th highest publication/scholarly output per faculty member on average of all Clinical Programs in the US.

Here is the order for New York:

Columbia-Teachers College> University of Rochester>Stonybrook> Binghamton>Albany>Buffalo>Fordham>City College

Syracuse has the most.
http://www.psychology.pitt.edu/documents/clinical_psych_rankings.pdf
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is disputing that publication rank is one piece of information useful to evaluating the quality of a graduate program (especially if you plan to go into academia). However, LM02 also asked about other areas that are equally important metrics (e.g., grad student publication rate and opportunities, average time to degree completion, percentage of graduates entering desired field of practice). Providing that information, if you happen to have access to any of it, could help you present a more well-rounded view of TC's merits than that offered only by mean faculty publication rate.
 
AcronymAllergy said:
I don't think anyone is disputing that publication rank is one piece of information useful to evaluating the quality of a graduate program (especially if you plan to go into academia). However, LM02 also asked about other areas that are equally important metrics (e.g., grad student publication rate and opportunities, average time to degree completion, percentage of graduates entering desired field of practice). Providing that information, if you happen to have access to any of it, could help you present a more well-rounded view of TC's merits than that offered only by mean faculty publication rate.
Click to expand...

I agree with this completely. I think can publication rate is useful to look at, when looking at it in the context of the whole program. As Acronym Allergy says, there are also a number of other important metrics, and to get this topic back on track, I think knowing about those would be helpful to those asking questions. For example, I've always heard that TC is a good program, but that it's funding was not nearly as good as other comparable institutions, and that students did not always receive tuition waivers and stipends (even leaving out that a stipend of $18,000 goes a lot further in other locations). I would be honestly interested in knowing if this is true (I'm a grad student now, but just curious), and I'm sure prospective students would be as well. Generally, the trend is that when researchers are highly productive, there is better student funding, because students can be RAs, the indirect costs of the grant support the program, etc. It would be suprising if the faculty were highly productive, and then there wasn't 100% funding....
 
aoshixnorb said:
Misinformation and stigma are misleading!
There are many qualified professors equipped for mentoring dissertations.

Columbia/ Teachers College....has the 14th highest publication/scholarly output per faculty member on average of all Clinical Programs in the US.

Here is the order for New York:

Columbia-Teachers College> University of Rochester>Stonybrook> Binghamton>Albany>Buffalo>Fordham>City College

Syracuse has the most.
http://www.psychology.pitt.edu/documents/clinical_psych_rankings.pdf
Click to expand...

Does this include all of the adjuncts? You also didn't answer any of my questions, all of which are metrics I would consider when selecting a school.

I would also want to know what kind of research funding the faculty have.
 
I'll start off by saying that I'm sure TC is a fine program. From what I was told by faculty and students at the interview, there is definitely some quality, well-funded research being done by a FEW faculty members, but they flat-out said that the program is more clinically-oriented as a whole. Sort of like one or two-outliers pulling up the mean, if you will. If you happened to get into a lab with Bonanno, for example, I think you would probably get excellent research training. The students also told us that the small amount of funding available was far from guaranteed, and that they all worked part-time and took out loans. So even if a faculty member or two is funded by NIMH, it doesn't seem to be trickling down. If one wants an academic career, TC would simply not be the best choice in New York. Not saying you couldn't do it, but a clinical-scientist (rather than a scientist-practitioner) program is going to provide more intensive research preparation. I was up-front about my desire to have an academic career, and the two faculty members I interviewed with at TC both told me that while they are trying to amp up the research component, it's frankly not there yet. That's fine, it is what it is, and people have different goals. The other problem I have with it, other than the lack of funding, is admittedly due to hearsay. I work in two research labs in NYC. One of the lab's POIs went to TC and has consistently discouraged her RA's from going there due to what she perceived as sub-par training. The other POI I work for did not go there, but worked with several of their current pre-doc interns, and has told me privately that she is unimpressed with their clinical skills. These accounts are obviously both anecdotal, and POI #1 was able to have a research career (non-academic) after doing her Ph.D. there, but these remarks, taken along with the funding and lack of research on the whole, was enough to make me wary, and ultimately why I decided to go elsewhere. Just my experience, so take it with a grain of salt. I'm definitely not saying one couldn't obtain decent training there, or that it is a "bad" program.🙂
 
I meant PI, not POI. I'm still in application mode, clearly🙄



bunderj said:
I'll start off by saying that I'm sure TC is a fine program. From what I was told by faculty and students at the interview, there is definitely some quality, well-funded research being done by a FEW faculty members, but they flat-out said that the program is more clinically-oriented as a whole. Sort of like one or two-outliers pulling up the mean, if you will. If you happened to get into a lab with Bonanno, for example, I think you would probably get excellent research training. The students also told us that the small amount of funding available was far from guaranteed, and that they all worked part-time and took out loans. So even if a faculty member or two is funded by NIMH, it doesn't seem to be trickling down. If one wants an academic career, TC would simply not be the best choice in New York. Not saying you couldn't do it, but a clinical-scientist (rather than a scientist-practitioner) program is going to provide more intensive research preparation. I was up-front about my desire to have an academic career, and the two faculty members I interviewed with at TC both told me that while they are trying to amp up the research component, it's frankly not there yet. That's fine, it is what it is, and people have different goals. The other problem I have with it, other than the lack of funding, is admittedly due to hearsay. I work in two research labs in NYC. One of the lab's POIs went to TC and has consistently discouraged her RA's from going there due to what she perceived as sub-par training. The other POI I work for did not go there, but worked with several of their current pre-doc interns, and has told me privately that she is unimpressed with their clinical skills. These accounts are obviously both anecdotal, and POI #1 was able to have a research career (non-academic) after doing her Ph.D. there, but these remarks, taken along with the funding and lack of research on the whole, was enough to make me wary, and ultimately why I decided to go elsewhere. Just my experience, so take it with a grain of salt. I'm definitely not saying one couldn't obtain decent training there, or that it is a "bad" program.🙂
Click to expand...
 
Since we're talking about people's vocabulary, I think you meant PPS (post post scriptum) instead of PSS

erg923 said:
Um, Ok. My institution rocks! There.

PS: Give me a break with the obtuse vocabulary, kid.
PSS: Yes, I think The Journal of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice used flawed logic for using it as the sole criteria. Many of us on here have argued that before.
Click to expand...
 
This thread has quickly devolved into a rather mean-spirited debate about program superiority and how posters go about proving it. Calm yourselves. The tone of some of these posts is condescending, sarcastic, and, at times, outright obnoxious. There's no need for this. The original poster asked a question about funding and affiliation, and I believe that has already been answered.

Moving right along...
 
bunderj said:
Good point! I'll shut up. Nothing to be gained from arguing anyway, especially since I already withdrew my TC application (post-inteview) in order to attend what must be, according to this poster, a far inferior NY program

Oh boy. Somebody is either misinformed or goes to TC and is in denial
Click to expand...


Dear Bunderj,

You comments have the underpinnings of an aggression toward the Columbia program.

Your further statements, admittedly based on "hearsay" are undermining to the integrity of Bonnano and the rest of his department.

I think you owe the Columbia faculty and students an apology.

George Bonanno is the newly appointed department head, I don't think he would be happy to read your thoughts. Especially, since you applied to work with him.

Here is his email.
George Bonanno
[email protected]
 
lVeritas said:
TC = Columbia
TC=Columbia's School of education
TC= Highest ranked department at Columbia ( tied w/ School of journalism)

USNWR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University

Poster=misinformed
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the metrics used by many ranking systems, especially something like US News & World Report, can be even murkier and less-meaningful for graduate programs than they are for undergrad.

Nothing for or against TC, just a general statement about the cited rankings as a whole.

As for bunderj needing to directly apologize to the TC program and its TD--I completely disagree. bunderj mentioned that the second point was due to heresay; if the same type of thing were said about my program, I would either attempt to support or refute it based on my own opinions, experiences, and (when available) data, but would not feel the need to ask for an apology. This is an internet forum, and people are allowed to post their own thoughts, experiences, and opinions just as readily as they are objective fact. Requesting that someone who's done so, and who's explicitly labeled their post as such, personally email the department head and all of a program's students to say "sorry" likely isn't going to help your cause.
 
I actually didn't apply to work with Bonnano. Did you just assume I applied to him because I respect his research? I applied to faculty members based on fit, and his interests don't overlap with mine. At any rate, I'm sure you're right...no faculty member, department head or not, would want to hear that someone has heard negative things about their program, or that one of their graduates feels that their training was subpar. Unfortunately this is the real world, and these things happen. People discuss their impressions of, and experiences with programs, especially on a forum such as this.

As I mentioned, I withdrew my application after interviewing, as I accepted an offer elsewhere. Regardless, I would happily say anything in my previous post to anyone at TC. I wasn't rude, I presented the experiences I had at the interview and what I have heard from members of the psychological community. I attempted to be objective and balanced in my analysis. I'm sorry that struck you as "aggressive toward the program."

Anywho, I'm in a program I'm happy with. You are clearly are happy with TC (whatever your affiliation with them may be), and that's great. Best of luck to you.







aoshixnorb said:
Dear Bunderj,

You comments have the underpinnings of an aggression toward the Columbia program.

Your further statements, admittedly based on "hearsay" are undermining to the integrity of Bonnano and the rest of his department.

I think you owe the Columbia faculty and students an apology.

George Bonanno is the newly appointed department head, I don't think he would be happy to read your thoughts. Especially, since you applied to work with him.

Here is his email.
George Bonanno
[email protected]
Click to expand...
 
I somehow missed your request that I apologize to the University. I have to tell you, that is completely absurd. It also undermines my ability to take your post as anything other than angry zealotry. I think your conduct on this forum would be far more alarming to the students and faculty at TC than mine, and perhaps you may want to take your own advice re: an apology. Associating yourself with their program then using this fanatical tone is not doing you or that program any favors.





aoshixnorb said:
Dear Bunderj,

You comments have the underpinnings of an aggression toward the Columbia program.

Your further statements, admittedly based on "hearsay" are undermining to the integrity of Bonnano and the rest of his department.

I think you owe the Columbia faculty and students an apology.

George Bonanno is the newly appointed department head, I don't think he would be happy to read your thoughts. Especially, since you applied to work with him.

Here is his email.
George Bonanno
[email protected]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NeuroPsychosis
PhD/PsyD Teachers college Columbia University?
Replies
1
Views
2K
WisNeuro
WisNeuro
Sanman
College enrollment crisis
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
Sanman
Sanman
S
Duquesne University Clinical Psychology PhD
Replies
5
Views
953
sb1129
S
D
City college PhD clinical psychology
Replies
0
Views
2K
Dan1721
D
K
DC Licensure Question
Replies
1
Views
448
R. Matey
R. Matey
Top