Disclosing clinical career goals in grad school

[psychra22]

This is not the typical 100% I hate research even though I know nothing about it post, so please stick with me

I have two years of full time post bac research assistant work under my belt and a very convincing statement of purpose that paints me to be a very passionate budding researcher ... that, you know, also wants clinical training to inform my future program of research.... But the truth is, I know research isn't for me long term. I find intellectual stimulation in research work, but know that I enjoy direct interaction with clients much more and find meaning in clinical work that I'm not sure I can find in research.

I'm wondering what the grad school experience is like for someone that has pretty solid clinical career goals (but appreciates research and is willing to contribute to research for 5 more years while training). Do you hide these clinical goals? Do you feel pressure to put on a facade of long term research goals to satisfy your mentor and fit in with your research career-oriented peers? I know I certainly can't parade this desire during grad school interviews.... but am curious what the protocol is for after you start your program. Any career clinicians out there want to weigh in? Or current grad students that appreciate research but desire clinical careers? I feel like this remains an unspoken narrative (in fully funded phd programs) until magically one day the student accepts a full time clinical position.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted343839]

I'm wondering what the grad school experience is like for someone that has pretty solid clinical career goals (but appreciates research and is willing to contribute to research for 5 more years while training). Do you hide these clinical goals? Do you feel pressure to put on a facade of long term research goals to satisfy your mentor and fit in with your research career-oriented peers?

This depends to a great extent on where you train. Some programs openly discourage applications from people who are mainly interested in clinical practice careers; others are more "balanced" or inclusive. I'm not sure why you would deliberately choose a program whose mission didn't include your training and career goals, at least nominally. This would make for a tough grad school experience. I'm reminded of someone I trained with who really wanted a practice career but nevertheless entered a very academically-focused program. She was a competent researcher but was miserable throughout grad school and received less clinical training than she wanted due to the structure of the program. Eventually she got the career she hoped for, but at the cost of 6 unhappy years and the aftermath thereof.

A lot of time and effort goes into developing an autonomous researcher, and during that process the student's "contributions" to research are generally modest at best. For some programs and faculty, the number of research/faculty careers they help launch is viewed as an indicator of success. Knowing that there are far more new Ph.D.s than tenure-track jobs, that's a high bar. Think carefully before you flout that. There are training programs that will not require you to hide your career goals.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Agreed that it'll depend in large part on where, and with whom, you train. My program, for example, leaned a bit more toward the scientist side of the scientist-practitioner model, but my advisor knew about and supported my later-developing interest in a clinical career. However, there was an advisor or two who likely would not have been quite so welcoming of that goal. Mind you, many of these other advisor's students also go on to primarily clinical careers, although they're honestly in the large minority compared to those opting for research/academic positions.

Another however, though, is that our program tended to provide a good deal of clinical experience despite being slightly more research-leaning. If this were something that you'd need to "make waves" to pursue, then that might be a bit different.

In my case, I honestly wasn't sure which way I wanted to go, and I mentioned as much in my interviews. I ended up getting an offer, so my advisor (who was unique in his own right) must not have been too put off by that.

 

[irish80122]

I am a DCT at a fairly balanced clinical program. I regularly ask our students what they want to do when they grow up and encourage them to be honest with me because their responses help determine the training opportunities they receive. For instance, one of our practicum placements is a neuropsychology private practice. If I have a student that I know wants to go into private practice I will place that student there because I know that the mentor trains the students not just on neuropsych but also on what it is like to have a private practice, things to consider, etc. This is invaluable because none of our faculty have private practices, so we really can't provide our students with much guidance there. Speaking as an advisor, I used to really want students who said they wanted to be researchers, but I have since moved from that to being open to any students. For me (and this is likely just for me and almost surely doesn't generalize to others), if a student is clinically-focused I worry a bit less about research match. For instance, I do adult and older adult work primarily. If I have an applicant who wants to do kid work and is research oriented, that is a problem for me because I don't do much of that, and I would feel that I would need to make accommodations because that student wants a research career and would need publications and experience in doing research with kids. On the flip side, if I have a student that is more clinically oriented and wants to work with kids, then their practicum experiences are far more important than the research they do, they just need a thesis and dissertation. Thus, these students typically do research that is pretty close to my research program for their thesis and dissertations and then focus the rest of their time on child practicum placements.

I think MamaPhD brings up a very good point: there are a lot more clinical jobs out there than faculty jobs. This is just my $.02, but if you are at a program that is training you just to be a faculty member to the detriment of the rest of your training it may be worth considering whether they have your best interest in mind. I have recently added an hour long case conference to our training program because many clinical jobs require an hour long case presentation as part of the job interview, thus not doing that is not preparing our students for a sizable number of jobs! Even the most research oriented person should be trained to be a competent clinician because you never know what is going to happen in the future, and you want to have all options available to you.

 

[Ollie123]

Agreed, this depends largely on the program. There are a great many scientist-practitioner programs that are fully or almost-fully funded that hold no expectations that everyone will go into academia. They still wants students to express interest in the science (which it sounds like you genuinely can) but not necessarily only those committed to academia.

I've also seen how it goes for students who go to extremely research-focused programs with minimal interest in research. Its rarely a pretty situation. Everyone ends up resentful...the student because they don't have the support they want and even if their mentor IS supportive, they generally aren't as well-informed about the paths. The fellow students in the lab who are generally taking on extra responsibilities for someone who isn't pulling their weight because their heart is in the clinic. The faculty member who at some level feels they were deceived on interview day. That's not to say folks who enter such programs don't change their mind (many do!) and still end up okay - I think that's usually a MUCH better situation than going to a prototypical PsyD program and trying to break into the research world. Nonetheless, I wouldn't plan on that being the path if its avoidable. That's also not to say its a good idea to walk in the door saying "I hate research and never want to see a number again after I graduate" but its not a good idea to say those things about the clinical side either (even at research-heavy programs). Find the right program, the right mentors and be open but honest about your goals.

 

[WisNeuro]

Depends on program and advisor. I was pretty up front that clinical work was always going to be the bulk of my career with my advisor and she was very supportive and helped me shape my training experiences around that. I still engage in research and publish, so I've never left the research behind. Also, having a very good understanding of research has made me a MUCH better neuropsychologist. I'm reminded of that when I see garbage in other poorly trained practitioners' reports who have no understanding of psychometrics or try to diagnose made up disorders (e.g., CTE and PCS).

 

[PsyDr]

Voice of dissent:

Keep your mouth shut and just parrot back whatever they want to hear. My goal was always to make a lot of money. You can guess how that went over with a group of people who had dedicated their lives to either research or helping people in a lower paying academic setting.

 

[WisNeuro]

Going along with PSYDR's post, I'll slightly edit mine. Read the room. Good skill to learn. Sometimes you can make this widely known and can get a lot of support, sometimes you will get some pushback. You can limit that by choosing one of the many dozens of balanced clinical PhD's out there. I would advise against gaining admission to a heavy R1 place. The big guide to clinical programs breaks down programs by how heavily they lean one way or another. Sounds like you want to be just slightly tilting to the side of clinical. Plenty of those out there.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Related to the above is just the general idea to pick your battles, which (like WisNeuro's suggestion for reading the room) is a valuable life skill. Sometimes this suck, and there isn't much we can (or perhaps should) do about it.

In my program, it was possible to (as PSYDR mentioned) keep your mouth shut, walk the party line, have your advisor assume your were going the academic route, and still get plenty of the clinical experiences you wanted. I didn't need to do this, but plenty of other folks did, and they made it through just fine. This isn't the case everywhere. As MamaPhD and Ollie have discussed, at some programs, you could end up very unhappy as a result.

Get a feel for the program and what experiences they'll offer all students, regardless of career goals. Speak with current students to see what they're willing to admit their goals are (and how happy them seem in general).

 

[Ollie123]

I don't know that the pieces of advice are mutually exclusive. Our initial feedback related primarily to deciding where to apply in the first place.

Once you are there - I agree it makes sense to read the room and tell them what they want to hear (for the most part). That's just good interviewing. If possible, you do want to find out whether or not its a place you would be happy and will help you achieve your career goals. That's just fundamental decision-making and life skills. Its not like you need to pick one or the other.

 

[MCParent]

I'd be great with a student who says "I want a practice career in area X and while I'm here I want to do research to become an expert on area X." I have a couple of those in my lab. They're very productive.

Training programs that purport to only want to train researchers make no sense to me. You're just asking to be lied to in the application, it's not viable in terms of market, and it ignores that people can just shift interests.

 

[deleted343839]

Training programs that purport to only want to train researchers make no sense to me. You're just asking to be lied to in the application, it's not viable in terms of market, and it ignores that people can just shift interests.

Some programs have defined that as their mission, though. If Psy.D. programs focus on training practitioners, why can't clinical science Ph.D. programs focus primarily on training future researchers? Students' interests can shift in any kind of training program. It happens in every field. But it doesn't entitle them to demand something of their training program that was never there to begin with.

It's no secret that only a certain percentage of graduates land a faculty job, but frankly if you're concerned about market viability it's the practice-oriented grads you should be worried about. The market isn't being flooded with clinical scientists. My program's class sizes were very small, by necessity. Even though some of our graduates filtered into clinical practice or alt-ac type jobs, nearly everyone landed pretty well.

 

[EmotRegulation]

I have zero problem if students want to be clinicians, provided they understand what they are getting into while in grad school (e.g., productive part of the lab, effort into publications and presentations, pushing forward on milestones). I think the world needs more research-informed clinicians! In truth, though, many students don't know what they want when they come into grad school. I've had students state interest in clinical and then pursue super research focused post-docs, and known other students who started strong in research but fell in love with clinical work and went in that direction. Most students don't have clinical experience coming in to grad school, so how can they know what they will like and not like going in?

That said, I echo others who have said that many faculty do not share this view. I think there's a sunk cost idea--faculty don't want to "sink" resources (time, training, feedback) if you won't be a collaborator and won't continue in the same path.

 

[MCParent]

Some programs have defined that as their mission, though. If Psy.D. programs focus on training practitioners, why can't clinical science Ph.D. programs focus primarily on training future researchers?

They can focus on it, and probably there are few enough clin-sci programs that those ones might really mean it, but I've seen that kind of goal stated by programs that are clearly not grant-generating research machines and it seems silly. Just encourages applicants to lie in applications.

Students' interests can shift in any kind of training program. It happens in every field. But it doesn't entitle them to demand something of their training program that was never there to begin with.

Not what I said.

 

[deleted343839]

They can focus on it, and probably there are few enough clin-sci programs that those ones might really mean it, but I've seen that kind of goal stated by programs that are clearly not grant-generating research machines and it seems silly. Just encourages applicants to lie in applications.

Ah. Point taken. If someone applies to a program where none of the faculty have strong records of external funding, high-impact publications, national prominence, etc., and that student expects to emerge with good prospects for a research career, that's probably not going to pan out well.