Please produce examples of "balanced PhD programs."
The scientist-practitioner model exists for this very reason. Have you heard of this term before?
Buy Norcross' book or Google "Scientist-Practitioner clinical psychology PhD."
When you mention "careers with some kind of clinical focus" I'm assuming you're equating that to what I want to do. In order to practice as a psychologist in many states, you need to become licensed. So on my journey to choosing grad schools, I looked at Licensure % from Student outcome data. In my search, I looked for Phd in clinical psych and Psyd programs within my ability to attend, the psyd programs presented with higher rates. If a school has a licenure % on the lower end, I assume either the prof/classes are not preparing the students well enough to pass the EPPP or the students graduating are not intereted in practicing ergo- they don't get licensed and pursue a non-clinically related field in psych.
What's the "lower end" of licensure?
You may not be interpreting these figures correctly. You can't necessarily just compare the absolute rates between PsyD and PhD programs 1-to-1. You have to consider what the missions and orientations of these programs are. PhD programs are simultaneously training their students as clinicians, consultants, teachers, clinical supervisors, researchers, research mentors, etc. Conversely, most (though not all) PsyD programs are strictly focused on training students for clinical roles, with other responsibilities being peripheral, at best. It's not the case that PhD programs are necessarily insufficiently preparing their students for the EPPP, licensure, or clinical practice, especially compared with PsyD programs. More accurately, PhD programs are preparing their students many different diverse roles, which graduates then choose based on their interests, goals, and priorities. Thus, you can't interpret lower EPPP and licensure rates as knocks against a given PhD program's clinical training. Conversely, you can potentially make this interpretation about PsyD programs on these metrics, because they are exactly the outcomes that these programs are supposedly training them for.
Let's take a look at a couple of PhD programs to get a better idea.
Here's University of Alabama-Birmingham, a fantastic, balanced, fully-funded PhD program:
https://www.uab.edu/cas/psychology/images/PDF/DISCLOSUREINFO2017.pdf
98% licensure
Here's University of Illinois-Chicago, a program with very strong clinical training, but is also a PCSAS program which prizes research:
Student Admissions, Outcomes, and other Data
82% licensure
Here's Indiana University-Bloomington, which is pretty much the archetypal PCSAS program. They explicitly discourage students from going into clinical practice and are very clear about training their students to be researchers, consultants, and TT faculty.
http://www.indiana.edu/~clinscnc/wp...nt-Admissions2c-Outcomes2c-and-Other-Data.pdf
40% licensure
Just from ones I have personal experience with? MSU, UWM, UH, MU, UW. Ask around, you'll get dozens more. These are also fully funded. As far as my own program, 100% accredited internship match rate, 95% licensure rate. These places are all over the place, and very widespread geographically.
Yep, my program is 100% match and mid-80s licensure, because we're clinical science and some grads go TT or research-only and choose not to get licensed.
