PhD/PsyD Counseling vs. Clinical Psychology Ph.D.

[PsyHike]

Hello everyone,

After two failed application cycles to clinical psychology Ph.D. programs, I have started considering adding applications to counseling psychology Ph.D. programs in the next cycle. I'm trying to find information about the programs, but for some reason, there's significantly less information regarding counseling compared to clinical programs on universities' websites. I am interested in three questions:

1) Are counseling programs usually funded as much as clinical programs?
2) Is the licensure process the same for counseling and clinical psychology?
3) Do counseling programs choose students according to research interests fit with particular faculty?

If anyone has any insight into any of these questions, I will be grateful to hear them.

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Justanothergrad]

1. It depends on the program, just like it does for clinical (e.g., the funding at the program where I teach is identical to the clinical funding located within the same department while some funding opportunities were less at where I trained because of fewer graduate teaching positions available within schools of education)

2. Yes, and you will complete/compete for the same externships/internships/post-docs (depending upon specialty area). Following graduation, people may have no clue which you are. There is a movement towards calling both 'health service psychologists' which makes an argument about decreased distinction between them.

3. Yup. Counseling isn't distinct from clinical in terms of process for application. My most recent applicants were extremely competitive with GRE/GPA/research products.

 

[Sanman]

Both clinical and counseling psychology are on a spectrum in terms of funding and research. Check out the Insiders guide to Clinical and Counseling Psychology by Norcross et al. or something similar for more detailed info if you have not already.

 

[foreverbull]

Hello everyone,

After two failed application cycles to clinical psychology Ph.D. programs, I have started considering adding applications to counseling psychology Ph.D. programs in the next cycle. I'm trying to find information about the programs, but for some reason, there's significantly less information regarding counseling compared to clinical programs on universities' websites. I am interested in three questions:

1) Are counseling programs usually funded as much as clinical programs?
2) Is the licensure process the same for counseling and clinical psychology?
3) Do counseling programs choose students according to research interests fit with particular faculty?

If anyone has any insight into any of these questions, I will be grateful to hear them.

Thanks!

Yes to all three. "Licensed psychologist" at the board of psychology level is without respect to individual program (counseling vs. clinical); you are considered a "licensed psychologist" regardless of degree.

Just to clarify in case you were told misinformation, clinical psychology is not more competitive or "harder" to get into than counseling psychology, per APA data. The two doctorates are equally competitive and equally rigorous, there's just far fewer counseling psychology programs out there so less representation. Professionally, they're treated the same and seek the same jobs (with some variation in which jobs they tend to gravitate toward).

 

[964693]

Yes to all three. "Licensed psychologist" at the board of psychology level is without respect to individual program (counseling vs. clinical); you are considered a "licensed psychologist" regardless of degree.

Just to clarify in case you were told misinformation, clinical psychology is not more competitive or "harder" to get into than counseling psychology, per APA data. .

I'm a coun psyc phd and that's just objectively false. Clinical psyc phd is harder to get into than counseling psyc phd. When you stir psyd into the mix of course that changes things. But an average program has more applicants for the same number of slots in clinical.

 

[MCParent]

Professionally, they're treated the same and seek the same jobs (with some variation in which jobs they tend to gravitate toward).

That's probably overly optimistic. There are still some internship sites and post-docs that will exclusively take clinical psych folks (and then, not from every program either).

 

[Justanothergrad]

I'm a coun psyc phd and that's just objectively false. Clinical psyc phd is harder to get into than counseling psyc phd. When you stir psyd into the mix of course that changes things. But an average program has more applicants for the same number of slots in clinical.

I would put any of my advisee applicants up against any clinical applicant in any objective measure (presentations, pubs, obtained foundation grants, GPA, GRE, etc). My perception is that competitiveness varies by program just like it does with clinical and, when comparing similar region/university to similar region/university, there aren't major differences in rates. The issue, in my perception, is that the midwest is dominated more frequently by counseling psych and that area has less applicants in general. I don't think this is necessarily reflective of clinical v counseling, per se.

 

[964693]

The issue, in my perception, is that the midwest is dominated more frequently by counseling psych and that area has less applicants in general. I don't think this is necessarily reflective of clinical v counseling, per se.

This is extremely easily solved. Just take a sample of Midwestern universities that offer both, and compare them. I did and created an excel spreadsheet of literally every clinical and counseling program in the country (admittedly 5 years outdated now) and the applicants vs accepted was significantly tougher for clinical, your personal students notwithstanding. You mentioned there is APA data, and the apa data that exists does not support your conclusion. Many schools in TX such as A&M or Texas Tech offer both, take a quick look through their disclosure data.

 

[Justanothergrad]

This is extremely easily solved. Just take a sample of Midwestern universities that offer both, and compare them. I did and created an excel spreadsheet of literally every clinical and counseling program in the country (admittedly 5 years outdated now) and the applicants vs accepted was significantly tougher for clinical, your personal students notwithstanding. You mentioned there is APA data, and the apa data that exists does not support your conclusion. Many schools in TX such as A&M or Texas Tech offer both, take a quick look through their disclosure data.

I can speak 100% confidently for the comparability of current practices / outcomes at an institution in your example (as well as another meeting the same criteria). I stand by my statement. It will vary by program, department, area of study, and advisor more than it will for clinical versus counseling. Averages are misleading. Applicants applying to my lab have no lower bars, nor lower outcomes.

 

[MAClinician]

@NogitsuneX have you inquired why you weren’t a good fit for the past two cycles? Have you gotten any feedback about what would make you more competitive? Your posting history suggests 3 possible factors that could be working against you:
1. Being an international student (do you need a visa?)
2. Not having a clear idea of what you want to do day-to-day, and how a PhD in clinical psychology is needed
3. Not having a clear idea of what areas you are interested in studying. (Forensic, suicide, etc)

Have any of these changed for the positive?

 

[foreverbull]

I'm a coun psyc phd and that's just objectively false. Clinical psyc phd is harder to get into than counseling psyc phd. When you stir psyd into the mix of course that changes things. But an average program has more applicants for the same number of slots in clinical.

https://www.apa.org/education/grad/survey-data/2018-admissions-applications.pdf

Ummm...the data doesn't match what you're saying at all when we look at overall numbers. Where, may I ask, are you getting this false information?

Per APA: "At the doctoral level, the highest number of programs, applications, and acceptances were found in clinical psychology, but with an overall acceptance rate of 12%." Counseling overall acceptance rate = 11.4%, Clinical = 12.1%. Clinical has more programs and more applicants overall, but that doesn't change the fact that the acceptance rates are very close (counseling accepts fewer percentage-wise, if you want to get nitpicky on less than a percent).

Point being, they're equally competitive, and the stats bear this out.

 

[StellaB]

This is extremely easily solved. Just take a sample of Midwestern universities that offer both, and compare them. I did and created an excel spreadsheet of literally every clinical and counseling program in the country (admittedly 5 years outdated now) and the applicants vs accepted was significantly tougher for clinical, your personal students notwithstanding. You mentioned there is APA data, and the apa data that exists does not support your conclusion. Many schools in TX such as A&M or Texas Tech offer both, take a quick look through their disclosure data.

This measure does not appear to take into account the number of applicants who do not meet minimum criteria for acceptance. It seems quite possible that clinical psych programs could get more applications in general, particularly from underqualified candidates or those who did not research the field as thoroughly, simply because clinical psychology is more well-known to the public.

 

[foreverbull]

This is extremely easily solved. Just take a sample of Midwestern universities that offer both, and compare them. I did and created an excel spreadsheet of literally every clinical and counseling program in the country (admittedly 5 years outdated now) and the applicants vs accepted was significantly tougher for clinical, your personal students notwithstanding. You mentioned there is APA data, and the apa data that exists does not support your conclusion. Many schools in TX such as A&M or Texas Tech offer both, take a quick look through their disclosure data.

https://www.apa.org/education/grad/survey-data/2018-admissions-applications.pdf

Counseling acceptance overall = 11.4%, Clinical = 12.1%. This accounts for applicants vs. accepted, as well, so not sure why your data is so different than APA's....

 

[foreverbull]

That's probably overly optimistic. There are still some internship sites and post-docs that will exclusively take clinical psych folks (and then, not from every program either).

Yes, unfortunately, this bias still exists in some places, although I haven't experienced it in my area & niche.

 

[964693]

https://www.apa.org/education/grad/survey-data/2018-admissions-applications.pdf

Ummm...the data doesn't match what you're saying at all when we look at overall numbers. Where, may I ask, are you getting this false information?

Per APA: "At the doctoral level, the highest number of programs, applications, and acceptances were found in clinical psychology, but with an overall acceptance rate of 12%." Counseling overall acceptance rate = 11.4%, Clinical = 12.1%. Clinical has more programs and more applicants overall, but that doesn't change the fact that the acceptance rates are very close (counseling accepts fewer percentage-wise, if you want to get nitpicky on less than a percent).

Point being, they're equally competitive, and the stats bear this out.

As I said before, that is drastically inflated because of PsyDs and is not comparing only PhDs. You're embarrassing our field, please stop.

Even APA.org has it at about 8% clinical 11% counseling including PsyDs.
What are the acceptance rates for graduate psychology programs?

 

[foreverbull]

As I said before, that is drastically inflated because of PsyDs and is not comparing only PhDs. You're embarrassing our field, please stop.

Even APA.org has it at about 8% clinical 11% counseling including PsyDs.
What are the acceptance rates for graduate psychology programs?

I'm not seeing here on this page where PsyDs are excluded.

Your data is also 2 years older than the data I reported, so I'm not sure why you think yours is more accurate or relevant.

"Embarrassing our field?" You might want to check your data before putting it out there and insulting me. Not sure why you feel the need to get personal.

Counseling Psych also has PsyD programs that inflate their stats, although fewer percentage-wise than Clinical. Having said that, I'm still not seeing APA's reported data for acceptance in both types of programs without PsyDs included (across all APA-accredited programs across the country). Feel free to share that data if you have it.

 

[964693]

I'm not seeing here on this page where PsyDs are excluded.

Your data is also 2 years older than the data I reported, so I'm not sure why you think yours is more accurate or relevant.

"Embarrassing our field?" You might want to check your data before putting it out there and insulting me. Not sure why you feel the need to get personal.

Counseling Psych also has PsyD programs that inflate their stats, although fewer percentage-wise than Clinical. Having said that, I'm still not seeing APA's reported data for acceptance in both types of programs without PsyDs included (across all APA-accredited programs across the country). Feel free to share that data if you have it.

Counseling psych has a 10th of the PsyDs, they are just a national farm in the clinical world. Anyway username checks out.

 

[964693]

That's because that argument was silly. Your personal particular program is definitely more valuable than national numbers. Debate solved. Thanks.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I'm not making enough to explain moderators in an online forum.

 

[964693]

I'm not making enough to explain moderators in an online forum.

Or to anyone apparently, as you don't seem to understand them all that well.

 

[964693]

This measure does not appear to take into account the number of applicants who do not meet minimum criteria for acceptance. It seems quite possible that clinical psych programs could get more applications in general, particularly from underqualified candidates or those who did not research the field as thoroughly, simply because clinical psychology is more well-known to the public.

It's also possible they get the most competitive applicants because the most prestigious programs are clinical. Calm down, you are engaging in motivated reasoning.

 

[foreverbull]

Looks like someone came here to troll!

 

[964693]

Looks like someone came here to troll!

I'm not a troll. And honestly when APA used to post the data by phd vs psyd it made the argument clear. Anyway welcome to counseling psychology, where anecdotes and personal self-interest trump objectivity and clarity. OP, if this doesn't answer you question, nothing will.

 

[YoungFrancis]

Funding in reputable counseling programs seems to be a bit more tenuous than in reputable clinical programs (please correct me if I'm wrong). Most counseling programs are housed in the school of education, so I'm sure this plays a factor.

With that being said there are loads of very underrated counseling programs. These programs have great student outcomes but only get 60-120 applicants.

 

[964693]

Funding in reputable counseling programs seems to be a bit more tenuous than in reputable clinical programs (please correct me if I'm wrong). Most counseling programs are housed in the school of education, so I'm sure this plays a factor.

My coun psyc phd was in a college of Ed and was fully funded unlike the clinical program. I've heard that for funding it's better to be in Ed than Psyc, as some (i.e. UNT) are. Better to be top of the stack in ed than bottom in arts and sciences. That said yes I know more half-funded or unfunded counseling psycs, and almost no unfunded clinical psyc (I think the New School is one of the few I know of).

 

[foreverbull]

I'm not a troll. And honestly when APA used to post the data by phd vs psyd it made the argument clear. Anyway welcome to counseling psychology, where anecdotes and personal self-interest trump objectivity and clarity. OP, if this doesn't answer you question, nothing will.

Let's see, you come in here and:
1. Tell me "you're embarrassing our field" when I quoted the most recent APA acceptance rate data. (If that's embarrassing, I'm a little concerned about what you consider embarrassing in general).
2. Tell another poster to "calm down" after the poster rationally discussed another factor that could be involved in acceptance rates.
3. Insult me by telling me that my "username checks out" (Foreverbull).
4. Assert that clinical is more competitive, and we should believe it just because you know it to be so and somewhere is an elusive APA study that didn't include PsyDs that would show that you're right.

Seems troll-y to me! Also, emotionally reactive based on strong feelings about a topic, perhaps?

 

[Justanothergrad]

 

[StellaB]

Well that sure escalated unnecessarily

 

[erg923]

I called PsyDs a farm. The embarrassment continues.

Edit: and you quoted it twice? This thread makes me sick. Your arguments are so undeveloped and childish I feel like a bully acknowledging them. Arguing with you feels like kicking a disabled child in the face.

Arguments from the Interwebs shouldn’t make anyone sick. What’s your beef, stranger?

 

[964693]

Arguments from the Interwebs shouldn’t make anyone sick. What’s your beef, stranger?

My beef is that, as a counseling psychologist, my peers are putting their own self-image above objectivity. As doctoral professionals I feel that we are held to a higher standard than that.

 

[erg923]

As doctoral professionals I feel that we are held to a higher standard than that.

For Goodness sake (and I'm not just talking to you), can we PLEASE stop with this '"as highly educated professionals/psychologists/mental health professionals...we have to be/act like...blah blah blah." Psychologists are human, have biases, have varying opinions, personalities, values. etc.

Also, who really cares about all these admissions statistics you guys are fighting over? What does it matter? In the end, both become licensed psychologists and can have identical clinical careers and equally successful, if not identical, academic careers if one chooses that path in advance.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Also, nothing I said was wrong. Competitiveness varies by program, region, and advisor. You control for those factors and the people getting invited are not different. But hey, whatever makes you sleep better.

 

[964693]

You control for those factors and the people getting invited are not different

You have no evidence to support this claim.

 

[964693]

For Goodness sake (and I'm not just talking to you), can we PLEASE stop with this '"as highly educated professionals/psychologists/mental health professionals...we have to be/act like...blah blah blah." Psychologists are human, have biases, have varying opinions, personalities, values. etc.

Also, who really cares about all these admissions statistics you guys are fighting over? What does it matter? In the end, both become licensed psychologists and can identical clinical careers and equally successful if not identical academic careers if one chooses that path in advance.

If the salt should lose its flavor, with what will you flavor it? I think historically in society there is a need for a group of individuals dedicated to the preservation and advancement of knowledge. This is the foundation of the enlightenment, and the group that carries knowledge forward. If you have no concern for objective discovery of knowledge than don't impede those that do.

 

[erg923]

If the salt should lose its flavor, with what will you flavor it? I think historically in society there is a need for a group of individuals dedicated to the preservation and advancement of knowledge. This is the foundation of the enlightenment, and the group that carries knowledge forward. If you have no concern for objective discovery of knowledge than don't impede those that do.

what?

 

[964693]

what?

"For Goodness sake (and I'm not just talking to you), can we PLEASE stop with this '"as highly educated professionals/psychologists/mental health professionals...we have to be/act like...blah blah blah." Psychologists are human, have biases, have varying opinions, personalities, values. etc."

I could easily have become a stock broker or investment banker. I became a researcher because I believe in objectivity and the advancement of knowledge. I believe that as someone trained as a researcher I should maintain a standard of objectively identifying information, whether favorable to myself or otherwise, whenever possible. The other counseling psychologists in this thread do not appear to feel likewise.

 

[Justanothergrad]

You have no evidence to support this claim.

Do I have published data suggesting that applicants of different competitiveness apply to different mentors? no.
Do I need that for it to be true? Also no.
Individual labs don't publish outcomes for each professor. This doesn't mean this isn't true.
Third variable issues exist and are obviously greater than 'clinical versus counseling'

Stop being simplistic and looking at a national mean and think that it explains a distribution. That's not how central tendency works.


Let me demonstrate:
South Dakota (Clinical PhD) had 73 applicants (12 offers, 5 accepted) for 2017-2018. 155 (V) /151 (Q)
That's roughly 16% chance to get an offer if you apply (and ignore all the other factors)
https://www.usd.edu/arts-and-sciences/clinical-psychology/student-admissions

University of Memphis (Clinical PhD) had 214 applicants (7 offers, 7 accepted) for 2017-2018. 160(V)/155(Q)
That's roughly a 3% chance
https://www.memphis.edu/psychology/graduate/pdfs/2018_student_admissions_outcomes_and_other_data.pdf

University of Albany (Counseling PhD) had 103 applicants (9 offers, 7 accepted) for 2017-2018. GRE not listed
That's around a 9% chance
https://www.albany.edu/education/CPY_APA_data_Fa_18.pdf

Etc. Etc.

I picked those schools randomly, but when you contrast programs which are not alike, it doesn't make sense. Your argument that clinical is more competitive is not true as a generalization and those other factors like 'who you want to work with' matter too. Faculty do not all get an equal portion of the applicants, so saying someone has an equal chance because of a program number isn't accurate (no matter if that program is clinical or counseling). Here is a tough truth - some things are true if you want to believe them or not.

 

[964693]

Do I have published data suggesting that applicants of different competitiveness apply to different mentors? no.
Do I need that for it to be true? Also no.
Individual labs don't publish outcomes for each professor. This doesn't mean this isn't true.
Third variable issues exist and are obviously greater than 'clinical versus counseling'

Stop being simplistic and looking at a national mean and think that it explains a distribution. That's not how central tendency works.


Let me demonstrate:
South Dakota (Clinical PhD) had 73 applicants (12 offers, 5 accepted) for 2017-2018. 155 (V) /151 (Q)
That's roughly 16% chance to get an offer if you apply (and ignore all the other factors)
https://www.usd.edu/arts-and-sciences/clinical-psychology/student-admissions

University of Memphis (Clinical PhD) had 214 applicants (7 offers, 7 accepted) for 2017-2018. 160(V)/155(Q)
That's roughly a 3% chance
https://www.memphis.edu/psychology/graduate/pdfs/2018_student_admissions_outcomes_and_other_data.pdf

University of Albany (Counseling PhD) had 103 applicants (9 offers, 7 accepted) for 2017-2018. GRE not listed
That's around a 9% chance
https://www.albany.edu/education/CPY_APA_data_Fa_18.pdf

Etc. Etc.

I picked those schools randomly, but when you contrast programs which are not alike, it doesn't make sense. Your argument that clinical is more competitive is not true as a generalization and those other factors like 'who you want to work with' matter too. Faculty do not all get an equal portion of the applicants, so saying someone has an equal chance because of a program number isn't accurate (no matter if that program is clinical or counseling).

Have you ever taken an intro to research methods course? You cannot claim that "it is not true" or that it "isn't accurate." You can claim the data isn't identified by you to support the claim. APA has the data and used to publish it.

I honestly think in the next few months I will get the books of program admission data and type up the rates for every program in the country just to prove you two wrong. I would be willing to bet GPA and GRE scores for clinical are higher, and that clinical PhDs accept a smaller percentage of applicants than counseling. Want to identify a wager?

Edit: So let's clearly identify this claim, individual labs aside. My claim is that the average clinical program accepts a smaller percentage of applicants, with higher GRE and GPA, than counseling. Overall.
Your claim is like saying men aren't taller than women because you know one tall woman and one short man. There is a reason we use averages.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Mod Note: Posts that were not in keeping with the SDN's policies, including to remain professional and to avoid inflammatory content, have been removed from this thread.

 

[PsyHike]

@NogitsuneX have you inquired why you weren’t a good fit for the past two cycles? Have you gotten any feedback about what would make you more competitive? Your posting history suggests 3 possible factors that could be working against you:
1. Being an international student (do you need a visa?)
2. Not having a clear idea of what you want to do day-to-day, and how a PhD in clinical psychology is needed
3. Not having a clear idea of what areas you are interested in studying. (Forensic, suicide, etc)

Have any of these changed for the positive?

@MAClinician Thanks for the reply! I am an international student, nothing I can do about that so far – however, many international students get in the programs every year. The U.S. institutions (as opposed to the Canadian ones) usually have more than just government funding on their hands, making life somewhat easier for international applicants. Naturally, of course, the universities will first go for the local talent, and I understand that.

The understanding of the day-to-day and research interests have solidified, improved, and I got more experience in these while completing my Master's in the U.S., including publications, presentations, and RA and TA positions. I do think that my general GRE is still not high enough (taken two times so far), because the threshold keeps getting higher each year, and I'm not great with these general standardized tests about nothing (on the other hand, GRE psychology drastically improved on the second take). I understand that this is a necessary evil, but still can't help but feeling upset that this seems to be the main criteria for getting in (the GPA is fine).

 

[NeuroPsychosis]

Jeez, I didn't know the "professionals" in this community are that lethal. Let's all stop playing the "you will never become a psychologist" game and help everyone build their careers adequately.

Also,

I do think that my general GRE is still not high enough (taken two times so far), because the threshold keeps getting higher each year, and I'm not great with these general standardized tests about nothing

I believe the GREs shouldn't be putting you down completely, I also felt this way as a fellow applicant. But let me tell you, the number of programs not requiring GREs are increasing (but not drastically yet), especially the non-clinical PhD programs. Can we hope to see clinical/counseling programs follow the same steps!? I am also one of the believers that general GRE performance dosen't seem to be predicting rigid success in a doctoral program. I mean look at the content, to me, it looked like an IQ exam measuring your test taking skills rather than subject performance.

 

[niceman]

@MAClinician Thanks for the reply! I am an international student, nothing I can do about that so far – however, many international students get in the programs every year. The U.S. institutions (as opposed to the Canadian ones) usually have more than just government funding on their hands, making life somewhat easier for international applicants. Naturally, of course, the universities will first go for the local talent, and I understand that.

The understanding of the day-to-day and research interests have solidified, improved, and I got more experience in these while completing my Master's in the U.S., including publications, presentations, and RA and TA positions. I do think that my general GRE is still not high enough (taken two times so far), because the threshold keeps getting higher each year, and I'm not great with these general standardized tests about nothing (on the other hand, GRE psychology drastically improved on the second take). I understand that this is a necessary evil, but still can't help but feeling upset that this seems to be the main criteria for getting in (the GPA is fine).

Other posters have given you some useful answers for your three original questions so I'm not repeating them. There are other points that you may also want to consider as an international student (coming from an international student doing a PhD here in the U.S.):

1. Whereas some international students get into professional psych programs, I believe more students get into research PhD programs because of various reasons discussed below. And I've also seen more international students in self-funded programs rather than fully funded programs.
2. It's great that you did a master's in the U.S. with all the related experiences so your letter writers can speak for you. To begin with, local applicants had a lot more research and clinical opportunities in undergrad or post-bacc. GPAs in the U.S. are also a lot higher than many other countries (e.g., 3.5 may be first hons where I am from but is low among PhD applicants). It's hard to stand out among all these applicants with local experiences or supervisors who know the PIs they are applying to work with before the interview phase.
3. Cultural differences in letters of recommendation. I'm not sure where you're from, but letters written by my professors from other countries don't come close to those written by those in the U.S. in terms of raving (considering that I worked closely with both). Those letters may look less than strong.
4. Cultural differences in expectations. As one of the doctoral student interviewers, I've seen how some doctoral students or faculty have very mainstream expectations for applicants in terms of how they interact with people. That puts you at a disadvantage if only one person (think about how many students/faculty you meet with on an interview day) flags you as "quiet", "not participating in casual conversations", "awkward". Unless your PI is independently rich and really wants you, you likely need to "play the role" of who you are expected to be. This also reflects the comfort level of some students/faculty working with international students. After all, you may collaborate with other people and not everyone is comfortable working with people from another culture.
5. Language issues. Even if you're a native speaker of English, some people still don't expect it to be the case because of your skin color. If you're not a native speaker, there may be concerns about service delivery (after all, despite increased diversity, the majority of your clients are likely from the ethnic majority except for sites that specialize in minority health care). Some universities have set a requirement for TA based on international students' TOEFL speaking score.
6. Practicum/internship. Depending on the program, students have to apply for practicum every year and internship in the final year. Some APPIC/APA-accredited sites require U.S. citizenship, which makes them inaccessible to international students. And remember the possibility of getting "flagged" exists every single year when you apply for something.

Despite all these (potential) difficulties, I have had a great time studying here and working with some really amazing people. I applaud your dedication to pursuing what you want and I hope that you will find a program that you like and treasures what you have to offer. Good luck!