Conflicting Advice From Professors About Psy Ph.D programs

[ClinChildPsy13]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi there -

I seem to be getting conflicting advice from my 2 mentors about both the GRE score needed to apply to Ph.d. programs as well as the number of programs to apply to for Fall.

Does anyone have any suggestions on what the lowest score needed would be in order to apply to Ph.D. programs in psychology is? Is there really a 1200 cutoff? I am currently studying with a tutor so I am not sure of my final GRE score yet.

Also, how many programs do people typcially apply to? One professor told me between 15-20 another said choose 3-4 programs with the best fit. I had also wanted to apply to a couple MA programs as a back up, but I am not sure how many of those either. Any recommendations from previous applicants would be helpful...

 

[erg923]

1. 1200 is about the lowest you can go..although im sure people with 1100 have gotten in with other extraordinary credentials.

15-20. Any more get too harry and difficult to organize. With aceptwance rates at 1-6 percent....applying to only 3-4 would statistically foolish.

 

[deleted176373]

I agree in most part with ERG923:

1. You want a 1200 or better GRE score for MOST programs, the higher the better and although there are excellent programs that will consider scores as low as 1000, they are few and far between.

2. I have met people who have applied to 1 program and gain acceptance, I have also seen many that have applied to 15+ and got into 0 programs. I would say that fit is the most important consideration and you should have AT LEAST 5 programs that are a great fit. There is nothing wrong with picking another 10 programs that are a good to great fit. Your GRE scores should be no lower than 50 points below the average GRE score and your GPA should be no lower than 0.25 below the average GPA if you want a reasonable chance of getting an interview.

3. The most important criteria is going to be the elusive "fit", this is hard to really quantify, but your personal statement is critical to demonstrating that your selection would result in a productive match. I learned this lesson the hard way when I didn't get in ANYWHERE my first time around despite having a 1300 GRE, a 4.0 GPA, and applying to 15 schools. The second time around I could have applied to my top 5 (I applied to many more than that) and received 2 admissions and 4 interviews. I ended up getting into my #1 choice. That is how important "fit" is when applying to these programs.

Mark

 

[Psy01]

Where do people get this 1200 "cut-off" figure? I've seen program after program that explicitly states 1100 as a "preferred minimum" or that people with scores below that have "little chance of admission in the absence of compelling compensating factors." I've never once seen 1200.

Further, I've massive score ranges. Western Michigan, for example, I've seen a range within a lower end of 800, mean around 1100.

 

[erg923]

I think it comes from actual knowledge of how applicants are weeded out. Most of us are privy, at least in part, to the process during our time in our individual programs. Although below 1200 usually wont get you throw out on initial cut....as the pile get smaller and smaller and all the applicants have extraordinary credentials, experiences, letters, etc. they have to find some way to cut people. One way this is done is by GRE score

 

[ClinChildPsy13]

Thank you very much for the suggestions. And yes, I heard the 1200 cut off from several different professors. Thanks again!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

A low GRE (or GPA) is more likely to keep you out of a school than get you in. 1200 seems to be the bar to not get cut right away, though that doesn't mean you won't lose out to someone with a 1350 or 1450 down the road.

The ironic thing to all of this....once you are in, it really doesn't matter what you got in undergrad or grad school (as long as you got at least a 3.5, which is not hard to do). My transcripts now are purely for licensure requirements, and they don't care if I got a B in Stats!

 

[Psy01]

A low GRE (or GPA) is more likely to keep you out of a school than get you in.

Well, obviously. But this

1200 seems to be the bar to not get cut right away

simply restates what I was questioning, which is where that figure is coming from. Is it simply from word-of-mouth as suggested above? Again, I've never once seen this (1200) mentioned at any school's website. Anything I've ever seen was 1100 (mostly) or 1000-1050 (which I've seen a few times).

If this 1200 figure is as prevalent as it seems, then schools should be honest about that.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Is it simply from word-of-mouth as suggested above? Again, I've never once seen this (1200) mentioned at any school's website. Anything I've ever seen was 1100 (mostly) or 1000-1050 (which I've seen a few times).

If this 1200 figure is as prevalent as it seems, then schools should be honest about that.

Schools don't want to dissuade possibly stellar candidates with slightly lower GREs from applying, so they'd don't float the 1200 number. In reality the numbers posted for most programs are a guideline, and there can be some variance.

 

[VeggieDelight]

Is it simply from word-of-mouth as suggested above? Again, I've never once seen this (1200) mentioned at any school's website. Anything I've ever seen was 1100 (mostly) or 1000-1050 (which I've seen a few times).

If this 1200 figure is as prevalent as it seems, then schools should be honest about that.

Hmm. Most programs I've looked at do mention that they typically look for 600 in each portion of the test. They'll never come out and say that this is the "cut-off", but... ya know. As T4C said, it's a guideline. When it's already so competitive, I can see why they would use it as an easy screening tool. But of course, programs will use this criteria with varying degrees of stringency. I made the assumed cut-off and received 6/7 interviews. The program that flat out denied me told me my GRE scores didn't make the cut- POI actually provided me with my GRE rank both in the general and track-specific applicant pools!

 

[Ollie123]

Some schools also use a soft cutoff. For example, our "cutoff" is actually above 1200. In the first round, people look through and pull out anyone with a score below that, or below other benchmarks that were set. Applications above all of them are then given to POIs to review. Applications who don't make one or more cutoffs are then reviewed by someone on admissions and can be "pulled from the fire" and forwarded on to the POI if the other credentials are good. Someone who is marginal on other aspects of their application is toast. On the other hand, someone with a high GPA, years of great research experience, etc. who only had, say, an 1100 GRE might get pulled back into the pool. Still doesn't mean they would get an interview, but they are at least given consideration and the GRE is probably not going to be the deciding factor.

I suspect a number of schools operate that way, and it actually seems like a pretty fair system to me.

I will also say, don't read too much into mean numbers. Remember that all of these criteria are probably at least loosely correlated, so the numbers may be artificially inflated. Even if a school stopped requesting GRE scores, I doubt the means would drop by very much.

 

[Psy01]

Schools don't want to dissuade possibly stellar candidates with slightly lower GREs from applying, so they'd don't float the 1200 number.

I understand that, but I still maintain that they should be honest about it. If they're worried, they could say something like, "Applicants with GRE scores below 1200 have a lowered chance of admission, but applicants with otherwise strong credentials can still be admitted and we encourage them to apply."

That way, people can make a more informed decision about whether or not to invest the time, effort, and money towards applying.

I don't believe that the reliance on the GRE is part of a fair system. (And no, it's not bc I was rejected bc of GRE scores - I haven't applied anywhere.) Robert Sternberg (at least a number or years ago), is among those who studied the issue and expressed a similar opinion.

 

[deleted176373]

Well, obviously. But this


simply restates what I was questioning, which is where that figure is coming from. Is it simply from word-of-mouth as suggested above? Again, I've never once seen this (1200) mentioned at any school's website. Anything I've ever seen was 1100 (mostly) or 1000-1050 (which I've seen a few times).

If this 1200 figure is as prevalent as it seems, then schools should be honest about that.

Taken from our website:

Med/clinical psych:
"Applicants to this program must have career goals that are consistent with this highly research-focused track, have demonstrated evidence of motivation, and have the ability to pursue a research/academic career (e.g., publications, professional presentations). Undergraduate GPA of 3.2 or better and scores (Verbal + Quantitative) on the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) of 1200 (out of 1600) or above are preferred. The Advanced Test in Psychology is not required."

Mil/Clin psych:
"The minimum GPA is a 3.2. GRE scores (Verbal + Quantitative) of 1100 or greater are preferred. Of students admitted from 1994-1999, the average undergraduate GPA was 3.67 and the average Verbal and Quantitative combined score was 1238. "

And as you can see (in our program) while the preferred minimum is 1100 for the mil psych students, reality is 1238 is average. While our more research oriented med/clin psych track is probably averaging closer to 1350 average or higher. Our program was rated 92 by US News and World Report... so hardly a top 10 program, but representative of a quality Ph.D. program.

Mark

 

[Psy01]

Stated averages are one thing. Cut-offs are another.

 

[deleted176373]

Stated averages are one thing. Cut-offs are another.

I would interpret those "preferred minimums" as cut-offs, which for our clinical/medical tracks are 1200. It's a nice way of saying this is the cut-off but we reserve the right to make an exception if it suits us.

Mark

 

[krisrox]

I would interpret those "preferred minimums" as cut-offs, which for our clinical/medical tracks are 1200. It's a nice way of saying this is the cut-off but we reserve the right to make an exception if it suits us.

Mark

I agree. When in doubt (say, if your GRE score is close but still under) maybe you could email the DCT or your POI to see if they have a strict cut-off or if your app along with your scores is competitive.

 

[Psy01]

I would interpret those "preferred minimums" as cut-offs

But that just goes along with what I was saying. Even one of your examples above cites 1100, not 1200 as a preferred minimum.

The med/clin track cited now marks only the second I've seen that has specifically stated 1200 (I saw another earlier today).

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

But that just goes along with what I was saying. Even one of your examples above cites 1100, not 1200 as a preferred minimum.

The med/clin track cited now marks only the second I've seen that has specifically stated 1200 (I saw another earlier today).

It sounds like you'll have to accept that the majority of programs may have an "unofficial" cutoff but want to keep their flexibility. For better or worse we need to play their reindeer games. At the end of the day the GRE is just a small part of the application anyway.

 

[deleted176373]

But that just goes along with what I was saying. Even one of your examples above cites 1100, not 1200 as a preferred minimum.

The med/clin track cited now marks only the second I've seen that has specifically stated 1200 (I saw another earlier today).

Yes, they are two different programs... and two different examples. You said you could not find any... I provided one. More importantly is reality, the minimums don't matter, because they don't pick the worst performing students... they don't have to.

You might not like the reality that a 1200 GRE is practically a pre-requisite to being competitive, but that is what is going on. I had a 4.0 GPA with a 1300 GRE, and still I struggled to get in. So while a 1200 GRE doesn't guarantee anything, an 1100 or lower makes you far less competitive and if you don't have anything to mitigate it, you're toast.

The problem is that there is more supply of willing students than demand for them. If qualified students weren't applying "en masse" the standards would probably drop some, although I would expect to see some resistance to dropping the admissions standard.

You're not even gonna get on the radar at many prestigious schools with a 1200 GRE.

Mark

 

[Psy01]

My questioning where the oft-cited 1200 comes from has nothing to do with whether or not I accept or like it. It comes simply from the fact that I've looked at lots of programs, and VERY frequently have seen 1100, and only twice now have seen 1200.

I never doubted that 1100, as a "preferred minimum" (and perhaps a euphemism for "cut-off") is nonetheless lower than is generally necessary. But that still doesn't address the issue.

I would also have to strongly disagree that the GRE is a "small part" in the application. If good people get cut based solely on GRE scores (especially if that cut is done without even looking at the rest of their app), that is not a small part.

 

[deleted176373]

I would also have to strongly disagree that the GRE is a "small part" in the application. If good people get cut based solely on GRE scores (especially if that cut is done without even looking at the rest of their app), that is not a small part.

You see, it really is a small part of the application. I understand your point about people getting cut, but making it past the first round is just a small part of the process.

In order to make it to where you have a real shot (the interview), you've got a lot more involved than just the GRE/GPA cut. That is the first cut, where they weed many applicants out simply because the number of people applying per slot is relatively high.

Sure having a high enough GRE and GPA are necessary for admission to programs, but certainly not sufficient.

I will agree, that if your scores are too low to gain the attention of the program that you want to attend, then yes, it's a huge deal. For the majority of competitive applicants though (people with sufficient scores to get past the mass cut), letters of reference and personal statements are far more critical. It's all about getting to the interview and your GRE and GPA is basically ignored once you make that cut... it then becomes all about "fit".

Mark

 

[Psy01]

I understand all that, but as you note, it's a big part of getting through the first round of cuts. If you don't make that cut, you don't make it at all. So whatever is big in getting you through that is a big part of the application, regardless of its importance in later rounds.

 

[psich]

There are some students who do not even meet the 1100 minimum and still get accepted into doctoral programs as there are students with >1200 GRE scores who do not make it. So it isn't completely true that if you don't make the 1200 minimum cut you don't make it at all. I think programs don't put the disclaimer stating that 1200 is the cut off because they want to be flexible and not exclude good students.

The first cut is just a small part of the process. Once you make the cut, you have more important things to worry about: letters, interviews, statements, and fit.

 

[deleted176373]

Regarding the number of programs that have 1200 or greater GRE requirements, I found 4 in just a brief search. Indiana University, University of Colorado, Harvard, and UNC. Many universities state that they have "no minimum score", like Arizona State University or University of Maryland, but an 1100 won't cut it. University of Minn. claims no minimum but has only admitted 2 students out of 122 students (in ANY of their psychology graduate programs) with GRE scores under 1200 and both of them had GPA's between 3.75 and 4.00. Less than 15% of the admitted students had GRE's less than 1300.

There is little point in focusing on minimums, focusing on doing as well as you can on this artificial measure of student quality is the name of the game.

There are some students who do not even meet the 1100 minimum and still get accepted into doctoral programs.

This is pretty rare, if you think that you are that person who is the exception to the averages... go for it, because it does happen, just not very often. When it does happen, that person generally is not a native English speaker and has extremely high scores in all other areas (including the math section of the GRE) and the vita to really back it up.

Still, you're right... it does happen.

Mark

 

[Psy01]

Which UNC are you referring to?

Chapel Hill says 1100.


"Applicants not invited for an interview, or with marginal academic scores or records (i.e., GRE's below 1,100 or GPA's below 3.0)..."
http://www.unc.edu/depts/clinpsy/program/applying.html

 

[FadedC]

In general it's good to assume that everyone who applies will have exceptional GRE scores, grades and research experience. The important thing is in how you stand out, and standing out in a bad way as having low GRE scores is often going to be a death sentance unless you can make up for it in some exceptional way.

I will say that given the choice between having a 1500 GRE but being otherwise unremarkable compared to the other 300 candidates and having a 1100 GRE and having something exceptional about you which really stands out, I'd take the 1100. But ultimately you really want high GREs and to stand out.

It's also important to remember of course that on average exceptional candidates will tend to have high GRE scores. That is the whole reason why they are used in the first place. But it does make it harder to analyze acceptance records because we don't know if someone was taken (or rejected) because of their GRE or because of other traits that just tend to correlate with high GRE scores.

 

[deleted176373]

Which UNC are you referring to?

Chapel Hill says 1100.


"Applicants not invited for an interview, or with marginal academic scores or records (i.e., GRE's below 1,100 or GPA's below 3.0)..."
http://www.unc.edu/depts/clinpsy/program/applying.html

Let's quote the whole sentence.

"Applicants not invited for an interview, or with marginal academic scores or records (i.e., GRE's below 1,100 or GPA's below 3.0) may hear earlier that their application is no longer under consideration."

Chapel Hill is suggesting that scores below 1100 are NOT acceptable at UNC.

My mistake... I had looked at 5 programs and 4 had 1200 or better. My post got erased half-way through... so if UNC was the one with the 1100 I apologize, trust me, there are plenty of programs that specifically state 1200 or better.

Let's take University of Missouri at Kansas City: "At least a score of 1200 on the verbal and quantitative sections of the GRE is preferred. However, applicants with scores that do not meet this criterion will be considred if there is other exceptional evidence of promise for doctoral study."

Case Western University: "Preferred minimum scores for admission are: GRE-V+Q: 1200"

You are nitpicking at this point. I can come up with plenty of examples.

Mark

 

[Psy01]

Lighten up. I wasn't "nitpicking."

If you think I went through all the programs you cited, you're wrong. I didn't. I only double-checked Chapel Hill bc that is one that I have looked at in the past, and wanted to see if I had missed that. Upon seeing 1100, I wondered if there was another page that said differently, or whether you were referring to a program other than Chapel Hill.

 

[Ollie123]

Does anyone else feel like everyone mentions the (highly flawed) Sternberg paper when discussing the GRE but no one even acknowledges the wealth of other (better) literature on the topic...many of which are favorable to its utility? Certainly, it has advantages and disadvantages...I don't know anyone who would argue otherwise. That said, I get the impression a number of folks here haven't ever looked past the Sternberg paper. That wasn't the final word by any stretch of the imagination - there is plenty to suggest that it can be very useful. A discussion on the SSCP listserv recently produced this list of articles. I haven't gotten past the abstracts of most of them, but those I haven't made it through are in my ever-growing "Eventually" reading pile.

Boudreau, R. A., Killip, S. M., MacInnis, S. H., Milloy, D. G., & Rogers, T. B. (1983). An evaluation of Graduate Record Examinations as predictors of graduate success in a Canadian context. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 24, 191-199.
Credé, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills and attitudes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 425-453.
Dollinger, S. J. (1989). Predictive validity of the Graduate Record Examination in a clinical psychology program. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20, 56-58.
Edwards, W. R., & Schleicher, D. J. (2004). On selecting psychology graduate students: validity evidence for a test of tacit knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 592-602.
Electronic Testing Service. (2008). Understanding What the Numbers Mean: A Straightforward Approach to the GRE® Predictive Validity. Princeton, NJ: Bridgman, Burton, & Cline.
Katz, J. R., Chow, C, Motzer, S. A., Woods, S. L. (2009). The Graduate Record Examination: help or hindrance in nursing graduate school admissions? Journal of Professional Nursing, 25, 369-372.
Kline, T. J. B., & Sulsky, L. M. (1995). A policy-capturing approach to individual decision-making: a demonstration using professors' judgments of the acceptability of psychology graduate school applicants. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 27, 393-404.
Kuncel, N. R., Hezlet, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2001). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Record Examinations: implications for graduate student selection and performance. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 162-181.
Kuncel, N. R., Hezlet, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 148-161.
Kuncel, N. R., & Hezlet, S. A. (2007). Standardized tests predict graduate students' success. Science, 315, 1080-1081. (plus letters and response)
Kuncel, N. R., Wee, S., Serafin, L., & Hezlett, S. A. (2010). The validity of the Graduate Record Examination for master's and doctoral programs: a meta-analytic investigation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 340-352.
Love, K. M., Bahner, A. D., Jones, L. N., & Nilsson, J. E. (2007). An investigation of early research experience and research self-efficacy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 314-320.
Mupinga, E. E., & Mupinga, D. M. (2005). Perceptions of international students toward GRE. College Student Journal, 39, 402-408.
Powers, D. E. (2004). Validity of Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) general test scores for admissions to colleges of veterinary medicine. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 208-219.
Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1997). Does the Graduate Record Examination predict meaningful success in the graduate training of psychologists? A case study. American Psychologist, 52, 639-641.
Symons, D. K. (1999). GRE predictive validity in a master's program in clinical psychology. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 40, 71-73.

Psy01 - Please don't take this as me singling you out. You are in good company in mentioning Sternberg. I'm just posting this to share information on it, because I suspect a huge portion of the folks here aren't actually familiar with the literature on it, and this is a pet peeve of mine. My general GREs were mediocre at best for the sorts of schools I was aiming for and I know for a fact it kept me out of several of my top choice schools (was told this by POIs), but despite the negative consequences to me personally, when reading the literature I have to come down on the side of its continued use (alongside other measures of course). The reason multiple measures are used is because none are perfect by themselves...just like in research the idea is to look for converging evidence across multiple modalities on who the best candidates are.

 

[Psy01]

Psy01 - Please don't take this as me singling you out.

No problem. I didn't.

I'm just posting this to share information on it, because I suspect a huge portion of the folks here aren't actually familiar with the literature on it, and this is a pet peeve of mine.

I'm not, and freely admit that. Note, though, that I wasn't making any argument, I simply stated I don't believe reliance on the GRE is fair.


What about the psych GRE? I read in The Insider's Guide that this is more predictive?