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.

 

[foreverbull]

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."

I think these are valid points, and I appreciate you sharing your experience. I’m sorry hear that you’ve been challenged and doubted purely out of bias. It’s extremely frustrating that you have been/are questioned so often.

I think that the biases we see in selection aren’t justified much of the time, but an attempt at gatekeeping. In the end, I think faculty are terrible at choosing because you can’t necessarily get a sense of a person from one interview day, a personal statement, and a few rec letters. The reality is, I think selection committees aren’t always great at predicting which students will cause harm or be impaired (some students make wonderful first impressions and end up dropping out due to stress, etc.). And because of that, they rely on heuristics that may weed out great students, like the hypothetical person with MDD you mention. And, at the same time, there is that additional component of interpersonal intelligence that students still need to understand the rules of essays and sharing certain aspects of themselves and how it will be perceived—interpersonal skills are so critical for grad school in our field. I think that balance and moderation are needed (for students to keep in mind), but also for selection committees, rather than extremes.

And given that we have an often-shared article instructing students what not to do for essays and in applications, the “we’ve always done it that way” mindset is pervasive—especially in academia.

I think you’ve given folks in here (including me) a lot to think about because we have our own biases at times, which I still grapple with at times in my journey. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I think these are valid points, and I appreciate you sharing your experience. I’m sorry hear that you’ve been challenged and doubted purely out of bias. It’s extremely frustrating that you have been/are questioned so often.

I think that the biases we see in selection aren’t justified much of the time, but an attempt at gatekeeping. In the end, I think faculty are terrible at choosing because you can’t necessarily get a sense of a person from one interview day, a personal statement, and a few rec letters. The reality is, I think selection committees aren’t always great at predicting which students will cause harm or be impaired (some students make wonderful first impressions and end up dropping out due to stress, etc.). And because of that, they rely on heuristics that may weed out great students, like the hypothetical person with MDD you mention. And, at the same time, there is that additional component of interpersonal intelligence that students still need to understand the rules of essays and sharing certain aspects of themselves and how it will be perceived—interpersonal skills are so critical for grad school in our field. I think that balance and moderation are needed (for students to keep in mind), but also for selection committees, rather than extremes.

And given that we have an often-shared article instructing students what not to do for essays and in applications, the “we’ve always done it that way” mindset is pervasive—especially in academia.

I think you’ve given folks in here (including me) a lot to think about because we have our own biases at times, which I still grapple with at times in my journey. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

I think these are valid points, and I appreciate you sharing your experience. I’m sorry hear that you’ve been challenged and doubted purely out of bias. It’s extremely frustrating that you have been/are questioned so often.

I think that the biases we see in selection aren’t justified much of the time, but an attempt at gatekeeping. In the end, I think faculty are terrible at choosing because you can’t necessarily get a sense of a person from one interview day, a personal statement, and a few rec letters. The reality is, I think selection committees aren’t always great at predicting which students will cause harm or be impaired (some students make wonderful first impressions and end up dropping out due to stress, etc.). And because of that, they rely on heuristics that may weed out great students, like the hypothetical person with MDD you mention. And, at the same time, there is that additional component of interpersonal intelligence that students still need to understand the rules of essays and sharing certain aspects of themselves and how it will be perceived—interpersonal skills are so critical for grad school in our field. I think that balance and moderation are needed (for students to keep in mind), but also for selection committees, rather than extremes.

And given that we have an often-shared article instructing students what not to do for essays and in applications, the “we’ve always done it that way” mindset is pervasive—especially in academia.

I think you’ve given folks in here (including me) a lot to think about because we have our own biases at times, which I still grapple with at times in my journey. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

I think there’s important judicious decision-making about disclosure for sure, and like I said, our research on this very topic suggests strongly that the OP and other people with invisible disabilities (the suggestions are a bit more nuanced for people with visible disabilities) shouldn’t disclose. It’s the right decision in most circumstances.

Otoh, I think of this a bit like I do about being gay (and I’m gay, so I’ve experienced that). Are there many situations where it’s best to be closeted? 100%. Does that weigh negatively on queer people and reinforce homophobia? Also yes. Are there risks in coming out? Yes. Does people coming out, even at great risk to themselves, lead to progress for queer people as a whole over time? Yes. Is it okay if people choose not to take that risk for themselves? Yes. Where it gets iffy is what we see in this thread—basically the equivalent of people saying that gays should never come out because they are inherently inferior to straights and that they are proudly homophobic.

I had situation recently when a colleague emailed me and a bunch of other collaborators of mine she didn’t know and just straight-up said that she couldn’t collaborate on this grant app because her psychiatrist told her not to take on any new projects right now. Was I totally surprised that she mentioned having a psychiatrist in a professional email? Yep. Would I advise someone to do that? No, honestly. But it takes guts, and I respect her for putting her money where her mouth is and actually doing what she says in her work and treating mental health as health.

 

[smalltownpsych]

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."

This was very well put and I appreciated this clarification and insight as I have often struggled with how to articulate or even understand very well the flaws that are inherent in some of the perspectives people have towards those with disabilities. I have exceptionally good intuition and often recognize that things aren’t quite right, but am not always able to conceptualize why. I have always been the “risky choice” throughout my career and I only disclose the why when I have to. Mainly because I hear negative aspersions and judgements and misunderstandings cast on people like me all the time from colleagues and most of the time I am either afraid to challenge it or more often these days, know that it won’t really be effective to challenge it. Again, thank you for posting.

 

[PikminOC]

Op this shows you have insight into the field that other people don't have.

 

[PsyDr]

Funny, and undeniably smart, but lord if you aren't sometimes one of the biggest dicks I've seen on these boards over the years...

Personally, I think it is dick move to offer comfort instead of help.

America's Got Talent is full of people who are humiliated because their loved ones' have been giving them comforting lies. Maybe it would be nicer to let them know, "you are not a great singer" before it got to national television. It would give the performers autonomy. Medical ethics figured that out a long time ago.

but I am a dick.

 

[quickpsych]

I would not disclose this. Others have made some excellent points.

When I was in my program, had a fellow student who had very severe ADHD. They were quite open about it, this individual was extremely hyperactive as well as really struggled to keep track of things, concentrate, etc etc. They did complete a masters program but once in a doctoral program , you could tell they were really struggling. They failed at least one course, got put on probation, tried to challenge it but came across as just really highlighting how poorly managed their ADHD was. They continued to do worse academically. To the program's credit they did try to work with this student in terms of accommodations and recommendations. They continued to do poorly, were more disruptive in classes (more just over eager it seemed to show they could handle the demands of the program) , and were cautioned and asked to attend meetings with facility to discuss possible resolutions. They ended up missing multiple of these meetings which did not sit well with many of the facility. Combined with multiple C and lower final grades they eventually dismissed the student from the program. Some concerns , according to the student, the program cited were concerns about how this impacts clinical work, likelihood of actually finishing the program, then passing the EPPP and licensure requirements, etc etc.

Reputable programs have mechanisms in place to screen applicants and also review performance and behavior in the program for factors that could impair or impact their ability to be a competent psychologist. There's debate on how "far" these should or can really go. Good facility should not hold that against the student and will work with the student to see what can be done, but at the end of the day many facility will be by the book. Some outright might even ask "how do YOU think (if you disclosed it) your diagnosis might impact XYZ in your course of training and later with patients, supervisees, etc."

And of course they have a vested interest in ensuring they select students who will succeed in their program because, lets be real, a high attrition rate isn't good for a program. So when the above student got kicked out, it wasn't decided lightly I imagine.

Not saying this would happen to OP or trying to say this happens often. I know many therapists and psychologists who have ADHD and do fine overall. But, in my story above, the student felt pretty confident they could excel in the program but as the demands of the workload and program increased, their ability to keep up decreased further and further.

 

[quickpsych]

Personally, I think it is dick move to offer comfort instead of help.

America's Got Talent is full of people who are humiliated because their loved ones' have been giving them comforting lies. Maybe it would be nicer to let them know, "you are not a great singer" before it got to national television. It would give the performers autonomy. Medical ethics figured that out a long time ago.

but I am a dick.

A bitter pill for many to swallow perhaps. But you're right.

It's one thing to tell someone they can't do or achieve something flat out (looking at my former HS guidance counselor ) , but it's another thing to act like there aren't some times where a real, honest, and blunt assessment isn't what the person needs. I imagine many of can think of at least one mentor, supervisor, or professor along the way who gave , what some might have seen as "a dick move comment" , some non-sugar coated advise or feedback that looking back was what we needed to hear.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Not saying this would happen to OP or trying to say this happens often. I know many therapists and psychologists who have ADHD and do fine overall. But, in my story above, the student felt pretty confident they could excel in the program but as the demands of the workload and program increased, their ability to keep up decreased further and further.

Isn't this kind of saying "I know a lot of people with this diagnosis do well in this field, but I'm going to focus at length on this one person I knew with this diagnosis who didn't do well, because it fits my cognitive biases"? (and we know we all do this with various things, self-included).

 

[borne_before]

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."

This touches on an amazing, but often overlooked, aspect of disability. A disability only exists and an interaction between and individual and their environment.

Take someone who uses a mobility aid, like a wheel chair or gate trainer, etc. They can get around pretty damn good until they come up to stairs. But if there is a ramp or elevator, it's all the sudden no biggie.

Dudes, I've got dysgraphia. I freaking struggled in school until I hit college. I went from a 2.15 gpa in high school to making the Deans list my freshman year. The only things that changed were (a) using a laptop and typing most things and (b) getting editing help from my parents and girlfriends. I never even lobbied the DRC to use typed notes. However, when we did have bluebook exams, I did talk to the prof about my crappy handwriting. They were usually chill about it.

Now, I freaking dictate most things. It's so damn amazing.