Gauging competitiveness of clinical programs

[psych.meout]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Is there a valid and reliable way of gauging the competitiveness and/or difficulty of getting admitted to given programs in clinical psych besides the ratio of admission offers to total applications and the quantitative stats (e.g. GPA and GRE) of admitted students?

It seems like there are many other equally or more important variables, like quantity and quality of research experience and "fit," that are mostly ambiguous. Is there any way to make these variables more concrete and specific to better gauge one's chances of admission at given programs?

I want to make sure that I apply to a diverse set of schools with well-matched POIs and programs and not end up getting rejected, because they're all "reach" or "dream" schools. The ratio of admission offers to total applications seems like an overly simplistic metric to gauge this, or am I wrong? Is there something else more valid and reliable?

Also, what's the significance of programs which routinely have significantly (e.g. 2x) more admission offers compared to matriculated students? Is this a sign of a less competitive or desirable school? Is this a warning sign I should be wary of?

 

[WisNeuro]

Outside of looking at traditionally reputable schools, fully funded, good track records with good internship placement rates and EPPP pass rates, there's not much besides fit that's going to give you a good number on your competitiveness. It's all very much dependent on a year to year basis. Some years, certain faculty members are not taking students, some years there are tons of very high quality applicants for a lab, some years a handful of top tier, etc.

The danger you get into with those figures that you want to interpret, is that you're interpreting them outside of any real context, taking into consideration the above factors, along with many others (geographical region and desirability of region, overall strength of applicant pool, etc, etc).

 

[Ollie123]

Its always tough to say exactly how to gauge competitiveness. It often even varies within schools (e.g. a particular program might not be that difficult to gain admission to, but if you want to work with one particular powerhouse faculty member there...that may be far more competitive than the overall program average).

I think the main ways are: 1) Just ensuring you apply to a reasonable number of schools (10-20); and 2) Running your application list past someone who knows the process well. A mentor/boss/advisor who knows the game and who the big names in your area of interest might be. I don't think many do #2, but I know I got input from a few of my faculty when I was applying and shifted my application plans around a bit as a result of those conversations.

 

[EmotRegulation]

You can up your chances of interview and admission by applying to places broadly and not thinking too much about geographic area (if you can). Programs in larger cities just get more applications, because those are more desirable areas, but you can get great training by going to farther-flung places. Newer faculty get fewer applicants, even though they could be awesome mentors, depends on if you want "a big name" or not. Also, and I am not even kidding around here, simply following the dang directions in an application will help your app get noticed. I can't tell you how many people don't pay attention to the instructions!!!

 

[CheetahGirl]

And no typographical errors. You have an equal chance to make a great first impression. Don't squander it with haste.

 

[temppsych123]

RE: ratio of offers to matriculated students: a higher ratio could be because a program has trouble filling its spots (e.g. a bad sign) OR it could be that the program attracts very competitive applicants, who are also more likely to get offers at other great places, and therefore their students have more choices than students who apply to less competitive programs (e.g. a good sign). Just one thing to consider supporting what others are saying (the numbers game is very hard to interpret without a lot of context)