Disclosing ADHD diagnosis in Graduate Applications/Interviews?

[mitojohndria]

Hey everyone!

I'm a post-bac research fellow looking to apply to graduate programs in Clinical Neuropsych. I was recently diagnosed with ADHD (Inattentive) at 22. This was right after I finished undergrad, but I started the long process of screening and waitlisting during my senior year. The realization that I might have ADHD was liberating, and I performed better academically when I strategized appropriately for my deficits.

While this is a recent event, I feel like it is relevant to my narrative path toward Clinical Psych, especially Neuropsych. However, I am somewhat anxious about how this might affect an admission committee's perception of me. Does anyone have experience disclosing ADHD/ADD, or even ASD, in a similar way? Would love any advice! This wouldn't be central to my application and might just be something to discuss if my GPA is questioned (I have a 3.76, though). Thanks!

(I also understand ADHD is relatively common and not stigmatized to the level of many other conditions. Navigating an academic space with the diagnosis is new to me—probably overthinking!)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PsychPhDone]

Hey everyone!

I'm a post-bac research fellow looking to apply to graduate programs in Clinical Neuropsych. I was recently diagnosed with ADHD (Inattentive) at 22. This was right after I finished undergrad, but I started the long process of screening and waitlisting during my senior year. The realization that I might have ADHD was liberating, and I performed better academically when I strategized appropriately for my deficits.

While this is a recent event, I feel like it is relevant to my narrative path toward Clinical Psych, especially Neuropsych. However, I am somewhat anxious about how this might affect an admission committee's perception of me. Does anyone have experience disclosing ADHD/ADD, or even ASD, in a similar way? Would love any advice! This wouldn't be central to my application and might just be something to discuss if my GPA is questioned (I have a 3.76, though). Thanks!

(I also understand ADHD is relatively common and not stigmatized to the level of many other conditions. Navigating an academic space with the diagnosis is new to me—probably overthinking!)

I would not worry about your gpa. I also would not disclose your diagnosis. The stigma remains strong.

 

[neurotic_cow]

Things may have changed since I went through that whole process but I was told by advisors to not disclose personal mental health diagnoses in the application essays as a reason for why you want to be a psychologist. However, since ADHD isn’t necessarily like disclosing a significant mental health issue (e.g. severe and uncontrolled Bipolar disorder), it might be ok depending on how you present it? Me, personally, I would avoid it. But that’s just me.

 

[summerbabe]

This wouldn't be central to my application and might just be something to discuss if my GPA is questioned (I have a 3.76, though).

I really can’t imagine scenarios where your A average over 124+ academic credits would be seen as a red flag and prompt further questioning, even at the most competitive of programs.

If somebody with that GPA is not getting interviews or offers, I would imagine that factors such as research experience and fit are at fault. Or things like poor interviewing/interpersonal skills may also be playing a role.

Broadly speaking for disclosure during the application process, there are probably more ways where unintended effects/consequences result rather than intended effects/benefits so be thoughtful and intentional if choosing to disclose, since it is not required.

If via written statement, it might be helpful to get a handful of people (including strangers who don’t know you) to read it and give you their honest opinion of what is being conveyed, which may not match up with your intent. Good luck!

 

[Cam_Chai19]

I agree with others that I wouldn't disclose it. The reality is that most of us in this field have some sort of personal experience with mental illness or neurodevelopmental disorders ourselves or in close others that in part drew us to the field. But that alone is not enough to persevere through all of the tasks and roadblocks that come up in grad school. There should be enough other reasons relating to research experience and interests, course work, or clinical experiences that you can draw on to frame your narrative and personal statement. I would stick to the amount of personal information you would volunteer when applying to a job outside of psychology in order to frame why you're the best applicant. Both because of potential stigma and because an important competency for psychologists is strong personal boundaries, and some readers will consider disclosure of personal health conditions in a professional application a potential red flag for blurry personal/professional boundaries.

 

[jdawg2017]

I agree with the others that your GPA is fine! Disclosure is an iffy thing... there's probably a way to talk about cognitive strategies in a passing way if that's a research interest you want to pursue in grad school (e.g., cog rehab). Something along the lines of "I noticed when I started using X strategy, Y cognitive ability/outcome improved... this contributed to my interest in Z aspect of cognitive rehabilitation/compensatory strategies." That example doesn't require why you needed to use the strategy, because the truth is most people can benefit from the cognitive strategies we tend to recommend to people with ADHD.

In my personal statement I disclosed my grandmother's experience with dementia due to AD, but it was directly relevant to my main line of research pertaining to diagnostic accuracy of neuropsych tests. I think I spent two total sentences discussing this. I agree with the others, though, that you should draw on other aspects of your background, especially research and your current job, to frame your thesis as to why a PI should take you as their new mentee and why you would benefit from that program, specifically.

Good luck with your applications!

 

[BuckeyeLove]

Don't.

 

[PsyDr]

"In this highly competitive admissions process, I would like to unnecessarily disclose that it will be more difficult to teach me. That shouldn't affect my chances, right?"

 

[singasongofjoy]

as someone with ADHD- No. Don't. Jdawg above gave excellent advice about how to incorporate things you may have gained from self-insight if directly pertinent in a way that does not disclose dx.

I'm generally not in favor of disclosure of actual diagnoses in the workplace (or grad school) unless in pretty specific circumstances and after careful weighing of potential weight and probability of pros vs. cons. Otherwise, it's often plenty easy to simply state an explicit need / observation that leads to justification for doing something a bit differently without revealing diagnosis.

E.g., Stephen Shore gave a lovely example of productive non-disclosure in a talk - his first job, basically cubicle farm, dress code said no hats, fluorescent lights are very bothersome. touring the space w/ supervisor after being hired - "oh, btw I noticed the dress code said no hats. I also notice it's all fluorescent lights in here. I've learned that after a bit, that lighting tends to give me a headache (or something else reasonable, idk if that was the exact reason given). So.... would it maybe be OK if I wore a hat with a brim while working? I also like to reverse the colors on my screen - easier on the eyes." Supervisor - "sure, no problem." And done.

I eventually chose to disclose at work - but only after having proved my expertise/value and data to suggest it would not be negatively received (very strengths-based approach in our clinic; having developed good relationship with supervisor), and with a clear goal in doing so when taking on a new role. Disclosing seemed more efficient way to convey info to my supervisor - another psychologist - re: suggesting tweaks to workflow & requesting purchases for my office. So the pros/cons seemed much less likely to be a liability than disclosing with fairly vague purpose in an application to be read by people who truly don't even know you yet.

 

[erg923]

I would not worry about your gpa. I also would not disclose your diagnosis. The stigma remains strong.

I don't think its "stigma" at all. It is reality.

Why would you, without provocation or necessity, tell someone that you have a mental disorder that, by definition, may makes it hard for you to attend, produce, and/or be behaviorally regulated in a highly professional environment? No one tells their potential employer this at professional interview, lol!

If it is highly controlled and you are mature and resilient with appropriate compensatory strategies, it's no ones else's business. If not, you probably shouldn't be applying to graduate school in this field at this time.

 

[PsychPhDone]

I don't think its "stigma" at all. It is reality.

Why would you, without provocation or necessity, tell someone that you have a mental disorder that, by definition, may makes it hard for you to attend, produce, and/or be behaviorally regulated in a highly professional environment? No one tells their potential employer this at professional interview, lol!

If it is highly controlled and you are mature and resilient with appropriate compensatory strategies, it's no ones else's business. If not, you probably shouldn't be applying to graduate school in this field at this time.

An experience during graduate school that resulted in a disability changed my attitude around this. I agree there's a difference between a condition that is well managed and not. And I agree that mentors will generally want the person with the least challenges. But I don't think it's...that simple. At least not for me anymore.


*Edited because I still struggle to use the word "disability." Because I've seen the very real stigma that's there.

 

[foreverbull]

https://psychology.unl.edu/psichi/Graduate_School_Application_Kisses_of_Death.pdf

Disclosing personal mental health info/journeys is one of the main “kisses of death” in graduate school applications (makes them more likely to reject applications). Telling people that your X diagnosis or issue you struggled with is why you’re interested in a graduate degree may sound like a lovely essay idea, but is a HUGE red flag to selection committees.

Edit: And there is some irony in saying that in this field. But generally (this isn’t just in reference to your situation but all psych programs), some read it as:

1) a boundary issue—that you don’t know when it’s appropriate socially to disclose certain experiences and when to keep them to yourself, which may suggest lack of social/emotional intelligence (ethical/boundary issues) and/or
2) it may suggest that you are choosing this field mostly to seek to treat yourself rather than others (ethical/boundary issues), and/or
3) that you have mental illness that may crop up during grad school, which is an intense period of high, sustained stress (some folks have had psychotic breaks in grad school at the extreme and/or mental illness develops or worsens in grad school leading to quitting the program or worse).

Thus, because of the risks the program may face with the above scenarios, they’ll be more likely to choose a student who sounds like they handle stress well, is flexible and adaptive but driven, and doesn’t disclose a history of mental illness over someone who discloses it.

Until I really understood the risks that programs face, I just thought they were unfairly biased against folks who disclose, but now I can see from both sides.

 

[erg923]

An experience during graduate school that resulted in a disability changed my attitude around this. I agree there's a difference between a condition that is well managed and not. And I agree that mentors will generally want the person with the least challenges. But I don't think it's...that simple. At least not for me anymore.


*Edited because I still struggle to use the word "disability." Because I've seen the very real stigma that's there.

It is actually probably very simple for people that want graduate students in doctoral level training programs.

If a professor is going pick someone who is openly functionally impaired vs someone who is not...who do you they think they will pick?

Again, my experience is that you should not *openly* advertise your mental disorders/impairment(s) if you want to go into a highly intellectual field/career.

 

[PsychPhDone]

It is actually probably very simple for people that want graduate students in doctoral level training programs.

If a professor is going pick someone who is openly functionally impaired vs someone who is not...who do you they think they will pick?

Again, my experience is that you should not *openly* advertise your mental disorders/impairment(s) if you want to go into a highly intellectual field/career.

I think applicants shouldn't share this information because 1) personal history isn't really sufficient to drive an entire career and, 2) the stigma you are demonstrating very clearly.

I think as a field we are making some (relatively minor) strides in trying to recruit applicants from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, SES, etc. The reality is this path is so, so inaccessible without $$$. Would you dare say in public, "of course a mentor should want to admit a rich applicant over a poor one?" like it's totally fact and not stigma? What about a white student over a black student? What about a sighted student over a blind one?

We work with patients all the time who are dealing with anxiety, depression, ADHD, etc. Properly treated/managed, many (most?) are able to have fantastic careers and lives. It's not low IQ. OP might end up being a phenomenal graduate student, maybe even better than one without any sort of training or insight into their coping skills.

It's not unreasonable to want a perfect graduate student. I'm not saying we should admit people who can't do the work. But to say it's all reality and not stigma-related is willfully ignorant.

 

[msc545]

Don't!

The fact that you even need to ask this question is worrisome.

By revealing your apparent (no mention of what sort of practitioner diagnosed whatever) condition, you are telling the admission committee "my judgment is impaired" and also "don't expect too much from me" and in the worst case "I will need special treatment".

 

[futureapppsy2]

So, I’ve actually published a lot of the research on psychology trainees and psychologists with disabilities, including some stuff on disclosure. The general consensus is that when you have a disability that can be hidden to not disclose unless you absolutely need accommodations to do the job. If you have a disability you can’t hide, then the consensus leads more towards disclosure to have more control over the narrative. So, in your case, OP, I would recommend not disclosing.

With that said, the ableism in this field is screwed up and exhausting. I’m disabled. I also outpublished almost all of my faculty in grad school.

 

[mitojohndria]

Hey everyone!

I'm a post-bac research fellow looking to apply to graduate programs in Clinical Neuropsych. I was recently diagnosed with ADHD (Inattentive) at 22. This was right after I finished undergrad, but I started the long process of screening and waitlisting during my senior year. The realization that I might have ADHD was liberating, and I performed better academically when I strategized appropriately for my deficits.

While this is a recent event, I feel like it is relevant to my narrative path toward Clinical Psych, especially Neuropsych. However, I am somewhat anxious about how this might affect an admission committee's perception of me. Does anyone have experience disclosing ADHD/ADD, or even ASD, in a similar way? Would love any advice! This wouldn't be central to my application and might just be something to discuss if my GPA is questioned (I have a 3.76, though). Thanks!

(I also understand ADHD is relatively common and not stigmatized to the level of many other conditions. Navigating an academic space with the diagnosis is new to me—probably overthinking!)

Wow, this got a lot more attention than I was expecting. I appreciate everyone's advice and how respectful (most of) you were. It's nice to hear perspectives from current students and professionals.

I'll definitely leave it out. Some of the assumptions made about my academic capabilities from the very limited personal information I provided confirmed my worries about disclosure. I'll let my CV speak for itself. Again, appreciate the advice! Much love to anyone in a similar position.

 

[borne_before]

As someone with ADHD + a learning disability, don't freaking do it dude. Psychologists and academicians are all about lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion. But, behaviorally most don't see patients on medicaid and would react like a slug to salt for anything that may minorally inconvenience them (like having to accommodate or modify their standard operating procedure). To be brutally honest, most people find working with people who have ADHD and don't have their stuff together very obnoxious.

Also, and I get it brother or sister, you feel super validated about your diagnosis. All those years of struggle suddenly make sense. You feel like everything makes sense, and you get these "aha" moments. It's a new aspect to your life and you feel maybe even a little reborn. But, you are more than just a diagnostic label. You made it to 22 without getting a diagnosis. That speaks to some strengths that shouldn't be overshadowed by a diagnosis. I'd focus on those.

 

[borne_before]

I think applicants shouldn't share this information because 1) personal history isn't really sufficient to drive an entire career and, 2) the stigma you are demonstrating very clearly.

I think as a field we are making some (relatively minor) strides in trying to recruit applicants from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, SES, etc. The reality is this path is so, so inaccessible without $$$. Would you dare say in public, "of course a mentor should want to admit a rich applicant over a poor one?" like it's totally fact and not stigma? What about a white student over a black student? What about a sighted student over a blind one?

We work with patients all the time who are dealing with anxiety, depression, ADHD, etc. Properly treated/managed, many (most?) are able to have fantastic careers and lives. It's not low IQ. OP might end up being a phenomenal graduate student, maybe even better than one without any sort of training or insight into their coping skills.

It's not unreasonable to want a perfect graduate student. I'm not saying we should admit people who can't do the work. But to say it's all reality and not stigma-related is willfully ignorant.

OMG stahp. As someone with ADHD+LD, this guy is speaking the truth. We need honesty - not "shush idiot you're demonstrating stigma (bleep bloop - that's a thought crime)." These types of "shame on you" dialogues is pretty weak intellectually and it's funny that it's the first thing many reach for these days. We can handle honesty and bluntness. Erg is a compassionate, competent psychologist - he has guided my education and career on many levels by volunteering his honesty and time here - fo free.

If the goal is to coddle aspiring psychologists - that's fine. But, it's terrible advice.

 

[PsychPhDone]

OMG stahp. As someone with ADHD+LD, this guy is speaking the truth. We need honesty - not "shush idiot you're demonstrating stigma (bleep bloop - that's a thought crime)." These types of "shame on you" dialogues is pretty weak intellectually and it's funny that it's the first thing many reach for these days. We can handle honesty and bluntness. Erg is a compassionate, competent psychologist - he has guided my education and career on many levels by volunteering his honesty and time here - fo free.

If the goal is to coddle aspiring psychologists - that's fine. But, it's terrible advice.

I'm not looking to fight here and maybe I got too aggressive, so sorry about that erg if so. But please don't try to diminish my experience as someone with a disability in the field as well. After my disabilityI was bluntly told by a professor I should leave my program. I needed very reasonable accommodations, still graduated on time, successful career. But I was told that only people without "personal problems" should stay in academic psychology, point blank. On future situations, sites that knew about my disability rejected me. Matched to sites/got job offers where they did not. Others have posted similar accounts here and elsewhere. As a field we need to do a better job.

I think it shows poor judgment to self disclose in an application essay. Hard stop. The point I was trying to make is that we're super ableist as a field. We're also highly hypocritical, telling our patients that they can be successful with a mental illness, cognitive challenge, etc, but unwilling to deal with it in our own. If you disagree, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise further, but please don't invalidate my experiences.

 

[PsychPhDone]

Psychologists and academicians are all about lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion. But, behaviorally most don't see patients on medicaid and would react like a slug to salt for anything that may minorally inconvenience them (like having to accommodate or modify their standard operating procedure). To be brutally honest, most people find working with people who have ADHD and don't have their stuff together very obnoxious.

Look we totally agree here. I am just saying this is stigma, not necessarily the "right" thing to do just because it inconveniences us a little.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

Hey everyone!

I'm a post-bac research fellow looking to apply to graduate programs in Clinical Neuropsych. I was recently diagnosed with ADHD (Inattentive) at 22. This was right after I finished undergrad, but I started the long process of screening and waitlisting during my senior year. The realization that I might have ADHD was liberating, and I performed better academically when I strategized appropriately for my deficits.

While this is a recent event, I feel like it is relevant to my narrative path toward Clinical Psych, especially Neuropsych. However, I am somewhat anxious about how this might affect an admission committee's perception of me. Does anyone have experience disclosing ADHD/ADD, or even ASD, in a similar way? Would love any advice! This wouldn't be central to my application and might just be something to discuss if my GPA is questioned (I have a 3.76, though). Thanks!

(I also understand ADHD is relatively common and not stigmatized to the level of many other conditions. Navigating an academic space with the diagnosis is new to me—probably overthinking!)

Short answer - I'd probably not do it.

I find that we as psychologists love to espouse the themes of "de-stigmatizing" and being accepting of all forms of diversity factors in others, but these sentiments tend to fall short of reality. It's one thing to disclose this maybe after you've been accepted, but since they don't know you, if the information you give them about yourself comes off in a manner that could present yourself in a not-so-favorable image, then they may implicitly or overtly discriminate against you. Perhaps they view their efforts to deny you admission as their way of being gate keepers and aligning their responsibilities with the APA code of ethics regarding the standard on education and training. It wouldn't surprise me if someone did perceive their actions in that context. Thus, why would you take the chance in that happening? It's kind of like going on a first date with someone and just unloading on them all the quirks and problems one has. Would you blame them for not calling you back? Context is important, and I think unloading information that has the potential to be perceived as derogatory really side-steps the whole "context-appropriate" method of information processing. Wouldn't it be wonderful if every new person we meet had all of our life's stories available to them so that their decisions about someone else's character is decided upon in a representative and context-appropriate manner? The reality is this isn't possible.

BTW - in the spirit of disclosure, I have a history of moderate TBI when I was younger, plus ADHD and two SLDs. I really don't talk about these in formal settings, especially when applying to internships, jobs, etc.

 

[borne_before]

I'm not looking to fight here and maybe I got too aggressive, so sorry about that erg if so. But please don't try to diminish my experience as someone with a disability in the field as well. After my disabilityI was bluntly told by a professor I should leave my program. I needed very reasonable accommodations, still graduated on time, successful career. But I was told that only people without "personal problems" should stay in academic psychology, point blank. On future situations, sites that knew about my disability rejected me. Matched to sites/got job offers where they did not. Others have posted similar accounts here and elsewhere. As a field we need to do a better job.

I think it shows poor judgment to self disclose in an application essay. Hard stop. The point I was trying to make is that we're super ableist as a field. We're also highly hypocritical, telling our patients that they can be successful with a mental illness, cognitive challenge, etc, but unwilling to deal with it in our own. If you disagree, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise further, but please don't invalidate my experiences.

Now I am being a dick... I'm sorry. I actually disclosed on my personal statement, but in a vague way. I said like, "When I was in the third grade, I was made to go into a room, answer some questions, and do some puzzles. I did not know it at the time, but that was was the start of my experience with a LD..."

Sorry. But we agree alot. I just think the most effective way to changing things is not policing speech, but getting more psychs there with other disorders than anxiety.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Now I am being a dick... I'm sorry. I actually disclosed on my personal statement, but in a vague way. I said like, "When I was in the third grade, I was made to go into a room, answer some questions, and do some puzzles. I did not know it at the time, but that was was the start of my experience with a LD..."

Sorry. But we agree alot. I just think the most effective way to changing things is not policing speech, but getting more psychs there with other disorders than anxiety.

If we perpetuate environments where people can't disclose, however, we just perpetuate the idea that there aren't--and can't--be disabled psychologists. Look at the responses to this thread where some people flat out tell the OP "having ADHD means you're a worse applicant and grad student, and disclosing means you lack rational sense". If that isn't horrifically ableist, I don't know what is, and it's the modal attitude towards any disability (physical, cognitive, psychiatric, sensory, etc) in this field. I'm disabled. I honestly don't think that makes me bad at my job, and I don't think saying that makes me irrational, either.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

If we perpetuate environments where people can't disclose, however, we just perpetuate the idea that there aren't--and can't--be disabled psychologists. Look at the responses to this thread where some people flat out tell the OP "having ADHD means you're a worse applicant and grad student, and disclosing means you lack rational sense". If that isn't horrifically ableist, I don't know what is, and it's the modal attitude towards any disability (physical, cognitive, psychiatric, sensory, etc) in this field. I'm disabled. I honestly don't think that makes me bad at my job, and I don't think saying that makes me irrational, either.

Indeed. I'd love to see a world where people felt empowered to disclose this without either overt or covert prejudice, but the reality is, it exists, and will likely continue to exist. I try to balance idealism with being pragmatic. Who knows, maybe in the future this will largely be a moot topic, but for now, it still plagues us. As mentioned previously, I have several disabilities, but I do not disclose those in formal settings, or, to people whom do not know me well.

 

[borne_before]

Why is ableism a bad thing?

 

[erg923]

I am an ableist. Admission criteria are ableist. Timed licensing exams are ableist. The FAA are also ableist.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

Not to get into an oppression Olympics, but honestly feel our field sh*ts on personality stuff even more than neurodevelopmental when it comes to applicants/trainees. I'm guilty of this as well. Even though i get it to an extent. I'm not an academic, but i wouldnt want to have to be responsible for supervising someone who hasnt worked on their stuff and is putting patients / clients at risk as a result.

 

[ClinicalABA]

OP- you've gotten guidance from many above, and the consensus would seem to be "don't disclose." I would, however, encourage you to somewhat discount the advice of the other posters (includinge me, and I say "don't disclose) and give more weight to futurapppsy2, who has actually conducted research into this are. The fact that their suggestion (don't disclose something they can't see) is the same as everyone else's, doesn't mean it has the same weight. If all other poster had said "I think you should disclose" and futureapppsy2 said "I've actually done research and you shouldn't disclose," i'd be more lickely to follow their advice, even though it goes against the majority.

This issue can't be looked at in isolation from the that of the incredibly competitive, yet incredibly biased nature of the PhD application process. MANY candidates who would do just fine- even excel- in Grad school don't get admitted. Any perceived risk is a potential barrier to admission, whether it's real or not. It's a huge financial commitment for a mentor to accept a student. It's done using data that is inarguably biased (i.e. interview performance where physical appearance of the candidate is not only apparent, but altered beyond typical). I'd question the validity of even including a personal statement. How does ability to write a non-fact-checked few pages about yourself have anything to do with how successful you'll be as a graduate student/future psychologist? Which of the following scenarios do you think is more likely?:

A) application committee review materials; candidate has mediocre GPA, research experience; etc., but they wrote a killer personal statement. They get accepted, despite other applicants with better metrics

B) application committee reviews materials; candidate has great GPA, excellent researdh experience (including first author pub), etc. but somenthing was subjectively a little off in their personal statement. They are rejected in favor of another applicant with identical metrics and and a run-of-the- mill personal statement.

Here's my suggestion on the most appropriate (and likely least successful- seriously, don't do this IRL) personal statement for applying to graduate school:

"As you can see in my application materials, I have a history of success in academic settings. You can also see that I have a successful history with scientific research. My letters of recommendation should show that I show up when I am supposed to show up, get done what I am expected to get done, and- equally important- I don't get in the way of others doing the same. I have researched and made an informed decision on the career path I would like to take, and have determined that your program would provide me with the training and experience necessary to achieve my goals. Anything else about me is likely irrelevant to my ability to be succesful (or not) in your program. I appreciate the time it takes you to slog through these personal statements, and hopefully my appreciation for parsimony has made your job a little easier today."

 

[borne_before]

BTW - I partially disclosed in both of my personal statements for grad school (my MA in educational psychology, and my doc program, but not internship). My phd is in school psychology program - which aren't nearly as competitive and I had some really strong quantitative skills and experience following my ed psych degree. I'm also a huge believer of being genuine to find a match. I'm matching to them - they're matching to me.

Here it is, pretty much verbatim. It's a little cringe now, but it got me there. I also had some help in crafting it. And shoot, I just found a typo in it. lol.

"While in the first grade I was placed in a room and made to take look at a few pictures, rearrange a few puzzles, and tell what some things were. The stigma of being “special” and “disabled” lingered in my everyday life. Not only did my learning disability affect my academic progress, it had a profound effect on my self-concept and self-esteem. I had realized that things about school just didn't come as easy to me as they did my twin sister, friends, and classmates. What made me different? I cared about school. Was it my fault? Was I lazy? Was I stupid? Why did all the hours of after school tutoring while friends were out playing and hard seem to get me nowhere but frustrated and dejected.

Things began to change after a meeting at my school, my parents explained to me about my learning disability, which would cause me to leave class and go to a special room that they called the “Resource Room”. The nurturing teachers and fellowship of others with similar struggles was an oasis. I began to master strategies and experience academic success. While hard at first, it has been possible for me to succeed academically and overcome the challenge that my learning disability intrinsically set forth. It is my pleasure to report that my learning disability has been the stimulus for much personal growth and self-awareness. Like some soldiers have said about their combat experiences, I would never want to repeat my learning disability experience, but I wouldn’t trade it for anything. Overall, my learning disability has been a very positive experience educationally and psychologically."

Then I go into my qualifications.

But, I didn't disclose my adhd. I got asked some questions on specific strategies that I still do (I used this as an opportunity to discuss my support system, typing, using family as editors, etc.). I had like an 80% acceptance rate for grad school.

Did I need to disclose? Heck no. Would I still had been successful. Yes.

 

[erg923]

Not to get into an oppression Olympics, but honestly feel our field sh*ts on personality stuff even more than neurodevelopmental when it comes to applicants/trainees. I'm guilty of this as well. Even though i get it to an extent. I'm not an academic, but i wouldnt want to have to be responsible for supervising someone who hasnt worked on their stuff and is putting patients / clients at risk as a result.

Just to clarify again, my response was mostly based on the fact that that there is no reason for disclosure of private health information (PHI) in an application. That's why it is called PHI. The likelihood that it "adds' to your application and overall appeal is very, very small. And, I think, rightfully so.

But yes, also, I assume DSM criteria hold some validity, as does the functional impairment clause couched within it.

 

[futureapppsy2]

There are limited circumstances where disclosing may help you. For example, my university has an initiative where, if there are two very strong candidates for a tenure-track position, both can be hired if at least one is disabled, a racial URM (Black, Hispanic, or AI/AN), or a veteran. It's how I got my current job. Was I a bad hire? Considering that in three years, I've brought two $1 million-plus grants into the university, published over 40 articles, and massively increased the university's citation index, I don't think so, but people on this thread are proudly ableist, so maybe?

 

[futureapppsy2]

Why is ableism a bad thing?

Because it leads to the murder of disabled people. Because it leads to the mass unemployment of disabled people. Because it kills people and leaves them in ill health, despair, and poverty. I mean, seriously?

 

[WisNeuro]

While still likely a problem, I believe one of the issues at play in the current thread is how ableism is defined. Because I suspect at least some people are arguing about very different things.

 

[futureapppsy2]

While still likely a problem, I believe one of the issues at play in the current thread is how ableism is defined. Because I suspect at least some people are arguing about very different things.

Meh, that kindaa feels like saying "I'm not racist; I just think people from [insert racial/ethnic group here] are less smart, so we shouldn't admit them." It's still racist and very harmful, and the crap people are saying is still ableist and very harmful. I'm so tired of having to accomplish four times as much as similar non-disabled people to get half the respect, and the attitudes in this thread just perpetuate that.

 

[WisNeuro]

Meh, that kindaa feels like saying "I'm not racist; I just think people from [insert racial/ethnic group here] are less smart, so we shouldn't admit them." It's still racist and harmful, and the crap people are saying is still ableist and very harmful. I'm so tired of having to accomplish four times as much as similar non-disabled people to get half the respect, and the attitudes in this thread just perpetuate that.

And I don't doubt your experience for a second, but I do think that the term disability is somewhat similar to "trauma" in a way that it is used in a much wider context in the past, some in a good way, but some in a not great way for the term. And, as such, people may be arguing about different definitions of the term. Much in the same way that people argue about criterion A and trauma these days. It's hard to find agreement on issues when we're arguing about completely different things at times.

 

[smalltownpsych]

This discussion is an important one. I remember quite a few years back making the point of how the field of psychology was very biased against potential students with mental health histories. I have personally experienced this and have persevered through it. Why do we have to pretend that part of our interest in the field is because we might have some direct personal experiences with mental health? Are there really that many problems with people pursuing this for the wrong reasons or is this just an exaggerated fear that has become part of our lore. We all have to learn how to separate our stuff from the patients stuff. Heck, even in medicine the advice is when you come to a code, first take your pulse. If a doc says I wanted to go into cardiology because my dad died of a heart attack, would that be a red flag? i find it shameful that Dr. Linehan had to hide her own mental health experiences until she had accomplished the pinnacle of her success. Smart on her part, obviously, but a shame on us.

 

[borne_before]

Because it leads to the murder of disabled people. Because it leads to the mass unemployment of disabled people. Because it kills people and leaves them in ill health, despair, and poverty. I mean, seriously?

Not trying to be daft or not trying to out of good faith. But, can you please expand on murder part? I understand mass unemployment, reduced access to healthcare, poverty, and to some extent despair (although my "disabilities" which I don't view them as, are some of the best things to happen to me).

 

[borne_before]

This discussion is an important one. I remember quite a few years back making the point of how the field of psychology was very biased against potential students with mental health histories. I have personally experienced this and have persevered through it. Why do we have to pretend that part of our interest in the field is because we might have some direct personal experiences with mental health? Are there really that many problems with people pursuing this for the wrong reasons or is this just an exaggerated fear that has become part of our lore. We all have to learn how to separate our stuff from the patients stuff. Heck, even in medicine the advice is when you come to a code, first take your pulse. If a doc says I wanted to go into cardiology because my dad died of a heart attack, would that be a red flag? i find it shameful that Dr. Linehan had to hide her own mental health experiences until she had accomplished the pinnacle of her success. Smart on her part, obviously, but a shame on us.

I agree 100% with the sentiment here. But, mental health conditions can be very biasing/impairing. That's probably the cause of the historical bias against mental health histories. But, there is a huge difference between how things are, and how they should be. BTW - the field seems very tolerant of white women with anxiety disorders.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

It's like conducting police suitability evaluations - a candidate can have a history of a mental health disorder, but that in itself doesn't preclude them from being admitted as an officer, however, it's when that disorder prevents or disrupts their abilities to engage in the relevant/expected job functions as a police officer where folks can bring that diagnosis into question about their suitability. Same goes with fitness for duty evaluations (probably even more so considering that mental health concerns tend to be a huge reason for FFD evals).

 

[singasongofjoy]

There are limited circumstances where disclosing may help you. For example, my university has an initiative where, if there are two very strong candidates for a tenure-track position, both can be hired if at least one is disabled, a racial URM (Black, Hispanic, or AI/AN), or a veteran. It's how I got my current job. Was I a bad hire? Considering that in three years, I've brought two $1 million-plus grants into the university, published over 40 articles, and massively increased the university's citation index, I don't think so, but people on this thread are proudly ableist, so maybe?

Wait, both can be hired? How common is this initiative? Where does it originate - directly w the university? Where does this magical funding come from? Feel free to DM but this is riveting info given very recent hiring decisions at my AMC and I’ve been harboring big feels about it but prob not prudent to be more specific here.

 

[ccpsych16]

Wait, both can be hired? How common is this initiative? Where does it originate - directly w the university? Where does this magical funding come from? Feel free to DM but this is riveting info given very recent hiring decisions at my AMC and I’ve been harboring big feels about it but prob not prudent to be more specific here.

I know nothing about this specific policy, but it sounds similar to spousal hires, which also blow my mind. I’ve seen it happen where the spouse landed in a department that didn’t even have an open search, or in the same department as the applicant even if their degree was only tangentially related. Academia is funny business.

 

[borne_before]

I know nothing about this specific policy, but it sounds similar to spousal hires, which also blow my mind. I’ve seen it happen where the spouse landed in a department that didn’t even have an open search, or in the same department as the applicant even if their degree was only tangentially related. Academia is funny business.

My dad started a department in the 1970's. Over the course of 5 years they had three spousal hires come in and "ruin" it. Dynamics changed, the goal of the program changed, he ended up leaving the department when they didn't want to do something that would have benefited thousands of native people by getting them more services.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I know nothing about this specific policy, but it sounds similar to spousal hires, which also blow my mind. I’ve seen it happen where the spouse landed in a department that didn’t even have an open search, or in the same department as the applicant even if their degree was only tangentially related. Academia is funny business.

Spousal hires are increasingly rare, to the point where it's hard to get one unless you are a superstar these days, and even asking for one can easily lead to getting an offer pulled in some places.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I have to say, seeing how much some of you all openly hate disabled people--and disabled people being in this field specifically--really makes me wonder why *I* am in this field, because it really sucks to excel at something on merit and then have people tell you that you a) either don't deserve to be here or b) only got in through "funny business" that "blows your mind." Like, I've out-accomplished many (maybe most?) people at my career stage. I deserve to be here, and honestly, I had to be better than I should have been to get here, because of the attitudes in this thread.

 

[WisNeuro]

I thought the "blows my mind" and "funny business" lines were in relation to spousal hires. Of which, I would have to agree on. I've only seen it happen once, and it was an unmitigated disaster.

 

[ccpsych16]

I have to say, seeing how much some of you all openly hate disabled people--and disabled people being in this field specifically--really makes me wonder why *I* am in this field, because it really sucks to excel at something on merit and then have people tell you that you a) either don't deserve to be here or b) only got in through "funny business" that "blows your mind." Like, I've out-accomplished many (maybe most?) people at my career stage. I deserve to be here, and honestly, I had to be better than I should have been to get here, because of the attitudes in this thread.

I thought the "blows my mind" and "funny business" lines were in relation to spousal hires. Of which, I would have to agree on. I've only seen it happen once, and it was an unmitigated disaster.

Yes, my comment was specifically re: spousal hires. I’m an affirmative action/DEI-initiative proponent (when done well/meaningfully & not surface level sweet talk) and have benefitted from some of these programs and policies. Not sorry about it. I can relate to what I’ve seen @futureapppsy2 (and others) talk about often in terms of double standards & the need to overachieve and overextend just to be seen as “worthy” of success. And, specifically related to this thread, I relate to other posters who have to manage the “should I disclose or not” internal battle re: disability and accommodations.

I try to actively stop myself from making assumptions about others’ identities and experiences online. I appreciate the same treatment in return. You never know unless someone shares, and I don’t think people should need to disclose just to lend credibility to their opinions or to fend off accusations. The disclosure then feels cheap, to me, rather than willing and meaningful.

 

[borne_before]

I have to say, seeing how much some of you all openly hate disabled people--and disabled people being in this field specifically--really makes me wonder why *I* am in this field, because it really sucks to excel at something on merit and then have people tell you that you a) either don't deserve to be here or b) only got in through "funny business" that "blows your mind." Like, I've out-accomplished many (maybe most?) people at my career stage. I deserve to be here, and honestly, I had to be better than I should have been to get here, because of the attitudes in this thread.

Dear brother or sister, I want to let you know that I don't hate you or think you've made it through because of your disability. I don't think you've had it any easier than anyone else because of dual hiring thing. I'm glad they had a policy that has allowed your strengths to shine. You absolutely deserve to be here. I'm sorry if I communicated otherwise - I kind of suck at online messaging. I don't know what disability you have, but I am 100% sure you are breaking massive trail for those coming after you. I am impressed by you.

 

[foreverbull]

I have to say, seeing how much some of you all openly hate disabled people--and disabled people being in this field specifically--really makes me wonder why *I* am in this field, because it really sucks to excel at something on merit and then have people tell you that you a) either don't deserve to be here or b) only got in through "funny business" that "blows your mind." Like, I've out-accomplished many (maybe most?) people at my career stage. I deserve to be here, and honestly, I had to be better than I should have been to get here, because of the attitudes in this thread.

You have published more than most, if not all of the psychologists in this forum do in a lifetime, and I do think ableism is a part of these forums.

I think where the confusion lies for me about things like mental health and grad school is when I've seen folks with severe mental health issues and untreated personality disorders try to implicate other folks and make false accusations, bully peers, or become paranoid or threaten violence. It is hopefully rare, but I heard about multiple incidents in my program via friends in other cohorts, and I felt bad for the faculty having to deal with it. But maybe I'm just conflating untreated mental health issues in general with disclosing, which is a separate issue.

Certainly many folks deal with anxiety and depression in graduate school and still function decently well or don't harm others--it's extremely common. But I heard about the dark side of folks getting into substance use and some really poor judgment and impulsive behaviors due to mania, as well as a psychotic break that happened in my program prior to me joining--it was multiple individuals with different mental illnesses. I think programs want to avoid this kind of experience for themselves and their other students as much as possible, which is why they perhaps don't want to take on students who appear to openly share it in their personal statements. That said, we have biases regarding certain mental illnesses more than others, and consider certain ones to be more risky, I think, and these biases are at play in admissions, as well. And it isn't a fair system--I don't disagree at all.

My guess is that these folks in my program who struggled and made mistakes that affected others probably never disclosed their mental health conditions prior to admission, AND mental illness doesn't make you lie or threaten others, to be fair, so this is all moot anyway.

Not sure if this makes since--I'm thinking aloud, but I wanted to share my view of the "other side" of mental health and grad students from the faculty perspective, although certainly flawed.

Any thoughts? I welcome further discussion on this.

 

[futureapppsy2]

You have published more than most, if not all of the psychologists in this forum do in a lifetime, and I do think ableism is a part of these forums.

I think where the confusion lies for me about things like mental health and grad school is when I've seen folks with severe mental health issues and untreated personality disorders try to implicate other folks and make false accusations, bully peers, or become paranoid or threaten violence. It is hopefully rare, but I heard about multiple incidents in my program via friends in other cohorts, and I felt bad for the faculty having to deal with it. But maybe I'm just conflating untreated mental health issues in general with disclosing, which is a separate issue.

Certainly many folks deal with anxiety and depression in graduate school and still function decently well or don't harm others--it's extremely common. But I heard about the dark side of folks getting into substance use and some really poor judgment and impulsive behaviors due to mania, as well as a psychotic break that happened in my program prior to me joining--it was multiple individuals with different mental illnesses. I think programs want to avoid this kind of experience for themselves and their other students as much as possible, which is why they perhaps don't want to take on students who appear to openly share it in their personal statements. That said, we have biases regarding certain mental illnesses more than others, and consider certain ones to be more risky, I think, and these biases are at play in admissions, as well. And it isn't a fair system--I don't disagree at all.

My guess is that these folks in my program who struggled and made mistakes that affected others probably never disclosed their mental health conditions prior to admission, AND mental illness doesn't make you lie or threaten others, to be fair, so this is all moot anyway.

Not sure if this makes since--I'm thinking aloud, but I wanted to share my view of the "other side" of mental health and grad students from the faculty perspective, although certainly flawed.

Any thoughts? I welcome further discussion on this.

So, one thing we often talk about in the literature in this area is the idea of "essential function" with regards to competency. Interpersonal skills are an essential competency for grad school, and if someone can't fulfill that competency, then yes, they probably shouldn't be in the program or practicing, especially if it presents a danger to patients/clients. Otoh, the issue comes up when people assume that a disability equals a lack of competency, even when presenting with evidence to the contrary. As a personal example, I have a speech impairment as part of my disability and have frequently got the question of "how can you teach?" I talk about compensatory strategies, I show my high student eval ratings with high scores on "instructor communicates effectively," I show my very positive peer teaching observations--all strong evidence I can overall teach well. And yet some people still don't believe I can teach well. A mental health version of this might look like "oh, this internship applicant has recurrent MDD, so they probably can't do psychotherapy well, because we all know how depressive symptoms include interpersonal and cognitive impairment." Okay, but let's say that applicant has glowing clinical letters, strong evaluations from supervisors, etc--they can do the task well, and they also have MDD and may need occasional accommodations in a bad flare, during a rough medication change, etc.--but so might the non-disabled person you hire who gets the flu, COVID, norovirus, etc. But the applicant with MDD gets cast as a "risky choice" based solely on that information, whereas a non-disabled applicant may be a pain to work with interpersonally or an iffy therapist but not get that scrutiny and get much more benefit of the doubt despite an equal--or worse--interpersonal performance.

There's also the issue of "essential function" versus "we've always done it that way." For example, I have a colleague with a disability that prevents her from typing a lot due to pain. She got a lot of pushback in the vein of "how can you be a psychologist if you can't type documentation?" She has a private office and a speech to text program and does very well at her job, because the essential function of a psychologist isn't actually "typing notes"; it's "getting notes into a computer system." Many of the barriers disabled trainees and psychologists face aren't because they can't do the essential function but because sites, supervisors, etc., are unwilling to actually think about what the essential function actually is versus what is just "the way we've always done it."