Disadvantage For Clinical Program Application?

[tamerlane]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm a cognitive psychology and computer science dual major at a major university in the Northeast. Unfortunately, the computer science curriculum at my university is alot more difficult than the psychology curriculum and has lowered my GPA a bit (still in the 3.4 range).

On top of that, my CS curriculum requires work experience in the form of extended internships on top of coursework so I really have had no time to develop any research experience.

I'm in my fourth year of a five year program, and am thinking that clinical psychology is the field I am most interested in. Reading alot of the threads in this forum and talking to my academic advisor have lead me to believe that it is next to impossible for me to get accepted to any remotely competitive graduate program for this particular field.

Here is my complaint:

If this is actually the case, I think this is a bit absurd. Computer Science and any engineering field in general are significantly more involved and challenging then any Psychology undergraduate curriculum. With many colleges asking for overall GPA as a primary stat for sorting purposes, how is this fact fair for dual/double majors?

I am reasonably confident that if I were strictly a psychology undergraduate, my GPA would be 3.8+ and I would have at least a year and a half of citable research experience. Instead, I am a CS dual major with a 3.4 GPA and 2 years of software engineering experience. In order to complete my degree program(s) I need to gain an additional 6 months of work experience and take some extremely challenging computer science courses. I am working my butt off now to try and attain a 3.6 with the little time I have left. I'm also attempting to get a weekend research position later this semester.

I'm wondering what the community consensus for this type of situation is.

Am I really screwed?

Will competitive graduate programs really ignore me for having a more involved undergraduate curriculum and thus a lesser GPA? Does practical semi-scientific work experience (as in my case mention above) count for anything on an application?

I'd appreciate any comments.

I'm really trying to determine if its even worth putting the money into applications and GREs if I'm only going to get laughed at when, I in fact worked just as hard, if not harder than any strictly psychology undergrad.

I'm sorry if I sound bitter. I've been receiving alot of negative feedback, and think its a bit cheesy considering my experience with my psychology undergrad peers.

Undergrad research experience in psychology at my university isn't particularly interesting to me, but I am more than positive that I have the technical skills necessary to be highly successful at it. That is another reason why I think the whole process is so superficial and frustrating to an individual in my position.

 

[JockNerd]

A 3.4 is not low. Well within normal ranges for people getting into programs. If you're looking at continuing in cognitive, that area is MUCH less competitive than the clinical/counseling psych numbers mentioned on the board (i.e. 30 applicants instead of 300). Edit: Durrrrr, read the headline, you're wanting into clinical, not cognitive. So, double what I wrote about research.

What would hold you back is not having psych research experience. If you were going into human factors or something, then the research experience you would have would make sense. If you're going into an area that has nothing to do with that, could be weirder.

The whole post is sort of odd to me, though. You don't find psych to be challenging but want to go into it? You don't like psych research going on around you but you know you want to do it? What are "technical skills" you think you have for research? Being good with programming would help in certain areas (Human factors, as mentioned above), but otherwise I'm not sure it would be much more than an interesting asset to have if someone has trouble with SAS.

 

[cara susanna]

I'm not exactly thrilled with the attitude this post has towards psych majors. I mean, how difficult a major is depends on where your skills lie, IMO.

And, yeah, I don't understand the desire to do psych research if you don't find it interesting.

 

[deleted176373]

The whole post is sort of odd to me, though. You don't find psych to be challenging but want to go into it?

Come on now, Undergrad psych classes were NOT challenging, even the honors classes didn't rise to near the level of my graduate level work. Challenging and fascinating are two entirely different things. I would however disagree with the statement that CS is any more challenging... for some people maybe, for myself, I would probably be better in the CS class than the psych class, however since I had a 4.0 psych GPA it would be a moot point to argue.

Tamerlane, really you should think about whether you want to make less money. Your CS degree is worth a lot more in the CS field than what many Psychology majors will ever see from their educational investment.

Mark

PS - Cara, don't take it personally... most computer nerds can't talk to humans to begin with. 😉

 

[cara susanna]

I know, my brother's one. He mostly spent his time ripping on business and philosophy majors, though, not psych. 😉

 

[erg923]

I agree with JockNerd here. Your GPA stats are right down the mid line. Not high, but certainly not low either. Probably right in the middle of the pack for clinical applicants, so I wouldn't fret about that. But, as JN suggested, you're missing the most important aspects here, from admissions committees point of view anyway. I never heard you talk about why you like psych, or what you are specifically interested in within clinical. Demonstrating enthusiasm and being a "good match" with a professor go a long way in the admissions process once your stats get you in the door. If you are so interested in psych, an admissions committee is going to wonder why this interest has not been evidenced in your history. That is, if you're so interested, why don't you have any clinically related research experience or otherwise been involved in psych related activities? You have to show at least some track record of a commitment specifically to the the field of psychology. And by the way, if you didn't find research interesting enough to get involved in, why would a program think you would get suddenly get into it during grad school? That's a big gamble for them, don't you think? If I were a faculty looking for a grad student for my lab, I would want to see a rec letter that said this is someone who lived and breathed it, right? In contrast, a letter that says "Well, he didn't particularly find it interesting in undergrad, but sounds like he might get into it" is alot less impressive and doesn't instill alot of confidence. From an admissions committee perspective, which of these applicants is likely to be the more productive researcher? If you really think about it, this is not "absurd." When you have 150 applicants for 10 spots, this choosiness becomes "effective quality control" and makes sure you get the best, most productive grad students possible. Moreover, why would you want to spend 5-6 years of your life doing something you didn't particularly care about as an undegrad? If you are not wild about research, you might want to consider Psy.D programs as well, although you didn't mention that you were particularly passionate about purely clincial work either, so I'm not sure.

Unless you are going into human factors, or are planning to apply to psychophys or fMRI labs, the advanced computer skills are of little benefit here. Clinical programs want to see focused applicants with corroborating evidence (i.e., a track record) that they are dedicated researchers and interested in working with those with mental illness.

 

[JockNerd]

Come on now, Undergrad psych classes were NOT challenging, even the honors classes didn't rise to near the level of my graduate level work. Challenging and fascinating are two entirely different things. I would however disagree with the statement that CS is any more challenging... for some people maybe, for myself, I would probably be better in the CS class than the psych class, however since I had a 4.0 psych GPA it would be a moot point to argue.

Main Entry:chal·leng·ing
Pronunciation: \-l&#601;n-ji&#331;\ Function:adjective Date:1842 1 : arousing competitive interest, thought, or action <a challenging course of study> 2 : invitingly provocative : fascinating <a challenging personality>



I meant it more in the second sense (which is apparently not different from fascinating 🙂).

Undergrad course work can be complete fluff or it can be quite stimulating, depending on the courses you take. Most students just tend to avoid the juicy neuro, more nuanced social stuff, or advanced stats in favor of the easy courses. My honours classes were about the same level as my current grad courses (they should have been, since they were also listed as grad-level courses).

 

[psychmama]

Here's what I don't get -- whose decision was it to be a double major anyway? Yours, correct? So why does it sound like you think life is treating you so unfairly? You obviously have talents in many areas -- I think you just need to figure out what to do with them. Maybe some time away from school and a bit of practical life experience would be useful in helping you sort this all out?

 

[irish80122]

If psychology isn't interesting to you, I guarantee that you don't have the tools you need to get through graduate school. I think the hardest part about grad school is just the process, it is a ton of work and you have a ton of responsibilities. If you don't really want to be here, you won't last.

I also was a double major with Psych and computers and I found it to be very helpful for some of the coding that is required for statistics software. It is definitely a good thing. However, just the computer skills won't get you through.

My recommendation is take the time to get a good amount of research experience. That will tell you if a PhD is worth getting. If you are going to hate the process, then why get the degree, it doesn't really change after graduation. Do something you are passionate about and want to do, regardless of what that is!

 

[psybee]

Here's what I don't get -- whose decision was it to be a double major anyway? Yours, correct? So why does it sound like you think life is treating you so unfairly? You obviously have talents in many areas -- I think you just need to figure out what to do with them. Maybe some time away from school and a bit of practical life experience would be useful in helping you sort this all out?

with your lack of clinical and research experience, yes, you have little chance of getting into a clinical phd program. you could likely get into a masters, though.but that's not absurd or unfair--you don't have enough experience. many programs put students in with clients the first year or that summer--are you really ready to do that? people who are depressed, sick, marriages failing, substance abuse, even suicidal ideation? and you start right away on research, so most profs want students who can jump right in, are familiar with thier area of research or can become acclimated swiftly, etc.

i had done a psych major, did several majors actually (140 credits in 4 years), was a total nerd, and still needed to put in my time working as an RA. i'm sure it made me look a bit more interesting to have several majors and to have a lot of non-psych experience, but at the same time, i was applying to psych programs--why should i get consideration over someone with more relevant experience when applying to psych programs, just because i had expertise in other areas? you could have a 150 IQ but even if you are smarter than every other applicant, without experience in the field you are pursing (and classwork is only a part of the experience you need), it doesen't matter.

when i decided i wanted to pursue psych, i got an RA job. i did it not just to get into programs, but to explore how i felt about research, what i like and didn't like, what were my interests. that was really important to me, and even though i had a professional life before becoming an RA, one that showed that i was capable of all the kinds of tasks a researcher does, that's totally different than doing it and developing a passion for it, and going into interviews, going to conferences, writing my PS's all with that passion for the work. and that's what helped get me in, i truly believe, not a 0.2 GPA difference or an extra 40 pts on the GRE or whatever. not just the lines on the resume but what those lines mean to you as a clinical scientist. You need the GRE/GPA stats, (which it sounds like you'll be fine on) but they won't do much without fit and commitment.

most of the folks in my phd program took at least a year off before applying, and i think that's common--it's not like other disciplines, where people often apply straight out of undergrad. i think maybe 1/5 of the students in my cohort are straight from undergrad, but they had been focused on this goal since freshman year, and came with lots of research and vol. clinical experience.

good luck!

 

[Cosmo75]

I have a B.A. in psych and a masters degree in information systems so I thought I'd share my experience in applying to schools.

First, I do think that computer science knowledge will help you with conducting research, mainly with the stats and analytical components. What I learned about programming, etc. really "switched on" a part of my brain that my undergrad psych classes didn't really.

Unfortunately, computer science experience does not equate to psychological research experience. It has nothing to do with rigor, but that they're 2 separate animals. Yes, there's some overlap in being able to break down and analyze problems to generate solutions. But writing code and conducting a research study are quite different. Your abilities in CS show that you are able to master challenging material, but with how competitive PhD programs in psych are I don't think that's enough. It will make your application a bit more unique, which I think is a plus. But maybe if you can take some time to gain some RA experience before you apply. You'll also be better able to determine if you really want to go into psychology.

I applied to 7 programs of varying competitiveness. 6 PhD and 1 PsyD. I limited myself geographically to the Chicago area and Milwaukee. I got 3 interviews and 2 acceptances. I ended up in the PsyD program because it seemed a better fit. My computer background came up in every interview, but I only had a marginal research background (undergrad honors thesis and a 3 month project after undergrad). I had no publications in psych, but had a couple of tech white papers. I put those on my CV 🙂 I also had 7 years of work experience. I do think that my lack of research limited me, and is probably why I didn't get interviews at my top choices.

 

[deleted176373]

Main Entry:chal·leng·ing
Pronunciation: \-l&#601;n-ji&#331;\ Function:adjective Date:1842 1 : arousing competitive interest, thought, or action <a challenging course of study> 2 : invitingly provocative : fascinating <a challenging personality>



I meant it more in the second sense (which is apparently not different from fascinating 🙂).

LOL, You got me!!! I surrender!

Mark

 

[tamerlane]

Just some clarifications -

I didn't say I don't find psychology research interesting, I said I don't find the research at my school interesting. There are no clinical research programs, and a good chunk of the research revolves around technical psychophysical things that can be used to develop quantitative models. I'm alot more interested in direct social contact with people, particularly through behavioral therapies. In terms of research, I'm fascinated by sleep studies, OCD studies, and anxiety and mood disorder studies.

I also never said psychology graduate work wasn't challenging. I said psychology undergraduate work wasn't challenging. That statement was also made with the point of comparison to computer science undergraduate coursework. In general, I think that psychology is probably fairly average in terms of difficulty. Additionally, I do find it fascinating, if I didn't I wouldn't be stuck in this position. My use of the word challenging was in the sense that it isn't difficult to intellectually grasp, and in general doesn't require large amounts of effort to do well (remember, we're talking undergraduate coursework, I wouldn't make that statement for graduate coursework).

I guess it's not exactly right to make a blanket statement like that, so for the sake of being more fair, I'll say that this is the case for me personally, and has been consistent through my own observations of my peers.

Someone mentioned that individuals may have different skill sets that better qualify them for different undergraduate programs. I can't argue with that.

I'm approaching my senior year, and am looking at advanced algorithms and data and artificial intelligence on my computer science side. On my psychology side there is a lab in cognition and a class on psychopharmacology. When thinking about grad school and those classes, I see B-, B, A-, A. In other words, I don't see enough to boost my GPA.

Another person made a great point. If I've never made that gamble in my undergraduate career, what's to say I'll even exhibit the motivation and dedication necessary to be a successful graduate student?

I don't have a good response to that. I can only say that I was pressured by certain financial providers (the ones that help pay for college) to study computer science. My interest in it is casual. I picked up a dual major so that I could satisfy greater personal interests. Unfortunately, computer science at my school mean 1.5-3 years of required work experience on top of extremely challenging coursework. It also means that since I'm listed primarily as a student in the college of computer science, I don't have the same accessibility to the benefits that psychology students get in terms of academic advising resources.

When I said that I think my work experience has helped develop a set of complimentary technical skills, I mean that I'm able to handle and be productive under high stress levels, manage enormous amounts of technical information while selectively utilizing it at the right times. Additionally, I've functioned effectively in a fast paced team-based environment. I've thrived under the tutelage of an older more experienced individual. I could go on and on about the list of complimentary skills that my work experience has provided me, but because it isn't psychologically centered, it means very little on any application. That is a personal gripe of mine.

I understand that some research experience is necessary to demonstrate self-motivation and active interest as well as to develop relationships and practical experience.

I guess there really is no practical solution to my problem.

I can either work beyond the point of exhaustion and blurry-eyedness to get a small consideration at competitive graduate schools, or I can piss and moan while I deal with a large workload and the dull ache of a lingering career in something I really don't care about.

I appreciate all of your input.

Maybe if you're lucky enough later in life you'll get me as a patient and get to hear about my low career satisfaction and regrets.

Oh and since I've seemed to talk myself in circles, the real intention of my original post was to see if anything in my experience would make up for my lack of research experience (also to express some personal gripes about the process as a whole). I think you've answered that.

 

[Thrak]

I'm sorry if I sound bitter. I've been receiving alot of negative feedback, and think its a bit cheesy considering my experience with my psychology undergrad peers.

This is part of the problem. People become psych majors for any number of reasons. Your applications aren't going to be compared to the theoretical applications of your undergraduate peers... they're going to be compared against those of people applying for doctoral degrees in clinical psychology. Most of those applicants have done psych research. It's not a question of what you've done in lieu of psych research, it's what everyone else actually has done.

GPA and GRE scores will only get you so far in the application process. Fit and research experience (and luck) is what is needed to seal the deal.

 

[erg923]

I see what you're saying here, but the fact remains that sometimes, in order to acquire basic resesrch skills (i.e., understanding statistical application in the social sciences, research methodology, process) you have to volunteer on studies on which the actual topic is not that fascinating to you. Its just the nature of the beast. Grad school is where you get to do what you really want to, ideally. Moreover, if you can not bare working on your faculty's projects, no ones has stopped you from volunteering at local hospitals or academic med centers on their resesrch projects, many of which will involve more clinically geared subject matter. If you want direct patient contacts in order to get a feel for working with psych pops, you should get a job as a nurses assistant or Mental Health Tech (MHT) at a psychiatric facility or on the psychiatric unit of a local hospital. These jobs do not require BAs, as I and many other aspiring psych people, worked at the local state hospital during undergrad.

Although you may feel you have skills sets that lend themselves nicely to graduate level work, how does an admissions committee know this? They cant just take your word for it. They have to see evidence. And the fact is, you have yet to show the commitment to the field or demonstrate the skills and experience that is vital to clinical work and clincial research.

Thrak makes a great point. You are not competing against a hypothetical ideal here. Lots of people have great records and complimentary skills. This is nice, and is desired, but it really nothing all that unusual or special. Your competition ARE the ones with 2-3 years of research in psych, clincial exposure, etc. This is what you have to keep in mind. This is why clinical programs can be so picky. Its the nature of the competition. And it works and their favor, because now they have the freedom to pick the ones who are mostly likely (statistically) to be the most productive grad student.

 

[psy86]

I can either work beyond the point of exhaustion and blurry-eyedness to get a small consideration at competitive graduate schools, or I can piss and moan while I deal with a large workload and the dull ache of a lingering career in something I really don't care about.

Okay, so your complaint is that you don't have time to do sufficient psych research as an undergrad because of your CS stuff? Fine. Most undergrad psych majors can't do sufficient psych research to be competitive for top research-oriented Ph.D. programs during college either. This is why obtaining a full-time research assistant position after undergrad (ideally for two years) is a common step in between undergrad and top research-oriented Ph.D. programs. You will be a great applicant for many RA positions because of your programming skills. (Especially in neuroimaging labs).

 

[cara susanna]

Wait, your school doesn't have any clinical research going on? I go to a small school and we even have that. Also, there isn't any social psychology research? That usually has to involve people, AFAIK.

On the plus side, being a CS major probably means you'll get an 800 on the quant GRE. 😉

 

[psybee]

When I said that I think my work experience has helped develop a set of complimentary technical skills, I mean that I'm able to handle and be productive under high stress levels, manage enormous amounts of technical information while selectively utilizing it at the right times. Additionally, I've functioned effectively in a fast paced team-based environment. I've thrived under the tutelage of an older more experienced individual. I could go on and on about the list of complimentary skills that my work experience has provided me, but because it isn't psychologically centered, it means very little on any application. That is a personal gripe of mine.

your experience does sound truly amazing, and it's great that you've done such high level work as an undergrad. unfortunately, it's not in the field of psych, and you want to go into psych. would a psych student (lets say cog sci or neuro) who's done tons of psych research and also taken many comp sci courses be as competitive for computer science jobs as you? of course not, because despite thier expertise in another field, all they have is academic experience in your field, and they'd lack the kind of rigorous experience you're getting in your program, with tons of intense, real practical experience. that's why many psych programs require an honors thesis to graduate-- the classes alone are incomplete training. even with an honors thesis, it's not really enough without solid research exp. behind it and some clinical esp. too (and some undergrad programs require that too).

it's not like your comp sci expereince will mean nothing, far from it--once you have research experience in the field and some clinically oriented experience too, i bet it will look great on your application and make you quite competitive. it's just not a substitute for having actually done real psych research.

 

[Boston2k]

Unfortunately, it's not like many other degrees where if you show industriousness and promise, you can make it in - the competition is so steep that often research experience is required. I'd agree that a CS degree in undergraduate is more often far more difficult, and you might make a better grad student than many psychology majors, but generally with the low odds, an RA job might be your best bet (many psych majors have to go this route also). It's not like law school where you're "well-rounded" if you come from a different field - if you have the psychology background, I think the CS degree will certainly help, but from a pragmatic admissions perspective, you may want to see an RA position.

 

[Thrak]

It's not like law school where you're "well-rounded" if you come from a different field - if you have the psychology background, I think the CS degree will certainly help, but from a pragmatic admissions perspective, you may want to see an RA position.

It's also not like law school in that your entire application will not ride on one standardized test score. It's true that a high GRE score will help, but high vs. really high doesn't matter too much. Same with GPA. For law school, LSAT is king, and the difference between a 175 and a 168 may be the difference between getting into Harvard, Yale, Stanford, NYU, Columbia, etc., and not. Meanwhile, a 3.4 cum gpa with a great "fit" (and great research experience) may beat out someone with a 3.9 cum gpa and a marginal-at-best fit for practically any psych program.

 

[deleted176373]

It's also not like law school in that your entire application will not ride on one standardized test score. It's true that a high GRE score will help, but high vs. really high doesn't matter too much. Same with GPA. For law school, LSAT is king, and the difference between a 175 and a 168 may be the difference between getting into Harvard, Yale, Stanford, NYU, Columbia, etc., and not. Meanwhile, a 3.4 cum gpa with a great "fit" (and great research experience) may beat out someone with a 3.9 cum gpa and a marginal-at-best fit for practically any psych program.

Yep, the wife just took the LSAT which is ridiculously correlated to law earnings.

http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/salary.htm

Hopefully she'll be above 165, maybe 170 if she's lucky. She's aiming for Georgetown or GW's IP program.

Mark

 

[psychmama]

Mark, you are right about the differences between Psych and Law. In a former life I was a lawyer. I found out the hard way that being smart, well-rounded and hard working is not enough to get into a doctoral program in clinical psych. I had to go back and take a year's worth of post-bac psych classes, study for and take the GRE, and figure out some way to package my clinical and research experience (which, to be honest was scant). I got rejected from lots of places, although I was lucky to find a school willing to take a chance on me.

Bottom line- getting into law school was easier. Still the process of becoming a lawyer is hell for a host of different reasons! Let's just say they don't call lawyers "sharks" for nothing. I really prefer clinical psychology (once you get in the door to a program, that is.) 😉

 

[alleycatpsych]

if you're concerned about any red flags your GPA might raise, talk about it in your SOP.