getting accepted with clinical rather than research experience

[kestrelcry]

---

Members don't see this ad.

So, I’m getting a wee tad worried reading all the posts about the importance of research in getting accepted into programs. The only research experience I have is a self-designed study on diurnal rhythms that I did in undergrad. It did get me into Sigma Xi, but I don’t actually know if that’s worth anything either. On the other hand, I did work for almost two years as a case manager with chronically mentally ill adults, and can get a scintillatingly wonderful recommendation from my supervisor. On the oft-wished-for third hand, since I’m planning on doing couples counseling and am looking for related programs, the case management, ostensibly, isn’t really related. I’m going for a funded doctoral program, so it’s not likely I’ll be able to go the PsyD route. Will my clinical experience balance out my lack of research, or do I need to throw all plans up in the air and completely disrupt my life to try and find an RA position? I’d imagine I’d probably have to move to do so, since I live in Western Massachusetts in an itty-wee town, and since I just moved cross-country, I was really hoping to avoid further moving until school. Any thoughts?

 

[Psyclops]

Here's the problem as I see it. The short answer is you probably need more experience. Here is why. Everyone and thier cat wants to go into clincal psychology. I'm not sure why this is. Presumably it has something to do with the field sounding glamorous and the fact that it has a certain mystic (sp?). The problem is that the PhD, despite most PhDs still going into some form of practice, is a research degree partialy. And frankly I tihkn it should be, but there aren't many who want to do that part. They see it as tourture, and lacking in educational value. But, many are willing to lie, bear it, and get the degree so that they can practice. But, they presumably make worse graduate assistants if their heart isn't in it. So you want to have the research to convice them that you are one of those willing/excited to do the research.

 

[Logic Prevails]

Here's the problem as I see it. The short answer is you probably need more experience. Here is why. Everyone and thier cat wants to go into clincal psychology. I'm not sure why this is. Presumably it has something to do with the field sounding glamorous and the fact that it has a certain mystic (sp?). The problem is that the PhD, despite most PhDs still going into some form of practice, is a research degree partialy. And frankly I tihkn it should be, but there aren't many who want to do that part. They see it as tourture, and lacking in educational value. But, many are willing to lie, bear it, and get the degree so that they can practice. But, they presumably make worse graduate assistants if their heart isn't in it. So you want to have the research to convice them that you are one of those willing/excited to do the research.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything said above 👍

 

[LM02]

I'll actually respond to Psyclops' post from the other side of the coin...

Without really knowing what full-time research looks like, how will you know that you like it?

To commit to 5 or so years of a PhD, which requires research, is quite risky when you don't have a full idea of what you're getting yourself into. So I would argue that the additional RA experience is also beneficial for you, personally - to confirm that a PhD is the right route for you.

 

[Psyclops]

LM makes some very good points. Another thing to think, the research won't hurt you.

 

[positivepsych]

Everyone and thier cat wants to go into clincal psychology. I'm not sure why this is. Presumably it has something to do with the field sounding glamorous and the fact that it has a certain mystic (sp?).

I don't think its glamorous or has a mystique at all. I think most people (especially women, which dominate the % of students) think therapy is meaningful and relatively easy/enjoyable compared to other jobs.

 

[Psyclops]

I don't think its glamorous or has a mystique at all. I think most people (especially women, which dominate the % of students) think therapy is meaningful and relatively easy/enjoyable compared to other jobs.

Bullsh*t! Or at least half BS. Sorry, P^2, no offense intended. I agree with the bolded part. I would like to know what attracts so many touchy feely and huggy types to the field. It doesn't seem to be the case with other health-care or science doctorates. I think it is a variety of things, one of which is that people enjoy being in the power position of advice giver. Anyone entering the field should aske themselves if that is the reason, because if it is they should get out, IMO.

 

[positivepsych]

I don't think it's easy, I'm just saying that people preceive talk therapy to be relatively simple compared to comparable fields like medicine.

I wasn't saying I agree, I'm just saying that's the perception. Therapy will always draw "touchy feely and huggy types" to the field. However, I'm not sure this is ALL bad. I believe I heard somewhere that empathy was the biggest factor in the success of therapy, more than degree or years of experience.

 

[Psyclops]

They do say that don't they. It's a good point you make. I just can't get over how people say that the reserach component is useless, or they don't want to spend time doing that, so why should they. Just becasue something isn't absolutely facinating doesn't make it bad for you, or lessen the fact that it is good for you. I'm trying to think of a non mudcine analogy now but I can't, but it seems like if MDs just all decided they didn't want to learn chemistry or soemthing. Why, would they do that, well because they don't plan on producing new drugs. But the fact of the matter is that it helps them understand everything else.

 

[MeghanHF]

I think a lot of the touchy feely types actually lack real empathy. They get into the field to heal themselves and to feel needed by others. Few make it past the MA level because past that level, it's not all group process and hugs. Hence the importance of research, clinical experience, rigor, science, and real empathy - meaning you've worked through your own shyte.

 

[50960]

MeghanTF, You are right on!! I have often seen a more systemic reaction formation type approach where people actually HATE the touchy-feely because of their own bad experiences, but then overexpress that sentiment to their "clients"....lol. 😱

 

[Psyclops]

So, they are jerks to their "clients" because they were touched and feeled in therapy? Or because they were disolusioned by all the touching and feeling going on around them?

MTF, that pretty much sums it up.

 

[kestrelcry]

Here's the problem as I see it. The short answer is you probably need more experience. Here is why. Everyone and thier cat wants to go into clincal psychology. I'm not sure why this is. Presumably it has something to do with the field sounding glamorous and the fact that it has a certain mystic (sp?). The problem is that the PhD, despite most PhDs still going into some form of practice, is a research degree partialy. And frankly I tihkn it should be, but there aren't many who want to do that part. They see it as tourture, and lacking in educational value. But, many are willing to lie, bear it, and get the degree so that they can practice. But, they presumably make worse graduate assistants if their heart isn't in it. So you want to have the research to convice them that you are one of those willing/excited to do the research.

Oh bother, I knew I was going to be competing with everyone, but their cats as well? And you know cats almost always get what they want. Personally, I liked the research I’ve done, and I’m looking forward to the research part of grad school. That’s the thing really, I want to get started yesterday, if possible, I miss school; thus my hope that the clinical experience would be enough. I know I need to do the appropriate preparation to get in though – how long would an appropriate amount of pre-grad school RA-ing be? I was thinking about starting my applications well, now, and trying for the 07-08 school year. If I was lucky enough to find a position right away, would that be enough time, or would I be more sensible to hold off for the 08-09 year? Also, does a round of failed applications help or hurt your cause for the next year? I mean, I would have already come through the visuals, but in a negative sort of way. Finally, how important is it that the research be exactly related to the topics I want to study in grad school? Thanks all; I’d be going mad without you; this forum is a wonderful thing.

 

[clinpsychgirl]

how long would an appropriate amount of pre-grad school RA-ing be?

answer: In the research-based clinical phd programs, I'd say the "average" applicant (that makes it to the interview phase) has two years. Though, I've seen people with 3 or more, I've seen people with one, and even some who come straight out of undergrad. It's not impossible by any means- its just generally harder to compete against people who have had full time work experience in the field in addition to being stars in undergrad.

I was thinking about starting my applications well, now, and trying for the 07-08 school year. If I was lucky enough to find a position right away, would that be enough time, or would I be more sensible to hold off for the 08-09 year? Also, does a round of failed applications help or hurt your cause for the next year? I mean, I would have already come through the visuals, but in a negative sort of way.

answer: If money is not an issue for you, I think it's ok to start applying. But it is alot of headach to go through- its better if you are certain of the programs you are interested in and confident that you have the experiences that will make you a competitive applicant. But, really, the worst that can happen if you apply is that you won't get invited to interview. And, if that were to occur, I don't think it will hurt you to be a re-applicant. It may even be beneficial because it shows your committment to the field and your willingness to do what it takes to get in.

Finally, how important is it that the research be exactly related to the topics I want to study in grad school?

answer: I'd say its key. Remember, you wont just be a student, you will be performing a job for a given mentor (in research-based programs anyway). It helps to be well qualified for that job with prior research experience in that field. I'd imagine it would be hard to get to the interview phase without direct experience in that area. Professors will not only wonder "how you know" that is the area you are most interested, but they will have to take more time to train you- whereas someone with pre-existing lab experience in that area may need less training.

Anyway, just MHO- take with a grain of salt... good luck to you- whatever you end up doing in the next couple of years!

 

[cheltsie02]

Kestrelcry - This is the second of your posts that mirrors my situation! I'm planning on applying for 07-08 admission to Clinical PhD programs and some PhD/JD programs. I have research experience designing my own study as an undergrad (and not a very good one!), and I was an RA for two semesters (administering WIAT-II during home visits with kids and moms and entering data). Now, I'm a residential counselor for young adults with mental illnesses. By the time of admission (hopefully), I'll have two years at that job, plus three years experience as a rape crisis advocate. My interest area is adult clinical forensic; I get some forensic exposure as about half of my residents are on probation, etc. I'd like to get forensic research but there just aren't that many opportunities here (I just signed a 12-month lease, so can't move). The RA position I just interviewed for requires a 2-year commitment, which interferes with my plans for admission in 07-08. I'm checking with my current employer; they don't do much research and it's not at all forensic, but they offered to let me help on an outcome study of a vocational program. Is it possible to volunteer with someone's research lab? Or another agency's program? Or even the Mental Health Court?? I'm going to check into these opportunities. Does anyone have any other ideas for gaining research experience?

 

[Psyclops]

Voluteering would surely help, if you can. But, if you have experience working with the population of your interest, that can prove you have an organically developed interest, and you can do other research to show you are commited to the reasearch thing.

As for the CPGirl's post, I pretty much agree wholey.

 

[psychanon]

Also, does a round of failed applications help or hurt your cause for the next year? I mean, I would have already come through the visuals, but in a negative sort of way.

Not at all negative- it's just (as others have mentioned) a ton of work and money to invest, plus if you don't get in your pride takes a bit of a hit.

Finally, how important is it that the research be exactly related to the topics I want to study in grad school? .

I agree that this is ideal, but I'll add that most professors recognize that it's not always feasible to get experience in your exact research area. Just try to get experience in as closely related an area as possible. If you're interested in, for example, the nature and course of adult anxiety disorders, and you get a good RA job researching psychosocial treatments for adult depression, that will probably be OK. But if you instead get a job studying treatments for ADHD, people may not buy that you're really interested in anxiety-- unless you can make a very convincing case in your personal statement for how this job contributed to your interest in anxiety (working with anxious parents or something).