How important is a Ph.D. program's orientation (research and/or practice)?

[mgoldy91]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'm applying to Ph.D. programs this fall and am starting to think about which schools I want to apply to. I think I'm interested in becoming a scientifically-trained practitioner: I'm currently leaning toward practice but definitely want my clinical work to be grounded in an empirical background, and I want to keep the research/teaching option open.

I've been using the Insider's Guide to Graduate Programs in Clinical and Counseling Psychology, which rates each school's orientation on a 7-point scale (1-3 = practice-oriented, train practitioners; 4&5 = equal-emphasis, train scientist-practioners; 6&7 = research-oriented, train clinical scientists). I'm wondering how important this rating is within the 4-7 range (which comprises virtually all Ph.D. programs and virtually no Psy.D. programs). Would I be miserable at a place like Harvard or Yale, with a rating of 7, if I want to become a clinician, or should I take the ratings with a grain of salt and find out more about individual schools--e.g., by asking students/graduates of a given school for their opinion, or looking at what percentage of dissertations from a given school seem to involve more clinical work? What does it really mean if a Ph.D. program is more research- or practice-oriented? Does it refer to the number of research/practice opportunities offered, quality of these opportunities, or something else? Is there an unbearable attitude of contempt toward aspiring clinicians at research-oriented schools? It's hard for me to automatically rule out the most prestigious schools just because most of them are rated 7. Also, I'm still figuring out my areas of interest within clinical psychology, but what if I find that I'm extremely drawn to the work of a faculty member at a research-oriented school?

I'd really appreciate any insight and/or advice!

 

[Ollie123]

It definitely matters, and someplace like Yale seems pretty unlikely to accept you if they get a sense you aren't 100% committed to a research career. Many 7's will even outright say this on their website (not sure if Yale does or not, been awhile since I looked). That said, if you really can see yourself going down either path I think its reasonable to apply to such places and let the cards fall as they may.

It obviously varies by school, but I'm at a very research-heavy school. I wouldn't say there is contempt towards clinciians by any stretch of the imagination. However, the program is clearly designed with the idea that students will go on to be researchers. Students who "want" to take more clinical paths will find they are usually getting extra clinical experiences on their own time because the "expectation" is that they will be productive, contributing members of the labs when they are accepted. Our clinical training is solid, but the research opportunities I've gotten faaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrr outnumber and outweigh the clinical opportunities available. Of course, part of that is that they are also very clear on what constitutes appropriate clinical training and many of the "clinical opportunities" the other local school (Argosy) has we would simply not be allowed to do.

Keep in mind that prestige means little and is much more narrowly defined. Yale is "prestigious" because it has a great reputation of producing top-notch researchers. If that's not your goal, I'm not sure how much that prestige is likely to get you.

 

[mgoldy91]

Thanks so much! Do you know anything about internship match rates at research-oriented vs. equal-emphasis Ph.D. programs? I'm curious not just about the percentage who get a match, but also about the percentage who get an APPIC- or APA-accredited internship, the percentage who get their first choice, what kind of internships people get, etc.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

My guess is that many top notch programs won't allow you to complete your degree if you do not obtain an APA internship. My program (on paper a balanced program, but in practice more research-driven) would not grant a degree to you unless you went to an APA internship.

Also, I said this in another thread, programs who want to produce researchers can be very unfriendly towards people who want to be clinicians. I started my program with the goal of being a professor and switched mid-program to wanting a more clinically oriented career. Thsi caused many faculty to become much less invested in me and my future. I know that other people had this experience in my program as well.

I should say that my program was in many, many ways a very unhealthy environment. Perhaps this is not the case in other places. I did want to share my experiences as a heads up to the possibility.

Dr. E

 

[mgoldy91]

Thanks a lot! If either of you, or anyone else who writes on this thread about his/her experience at a given school, feels comfortable telling me the name of the school, I'd really appreciate it.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Our clinical training is solid, but the research opportunities I've gotten faaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrr outnumber and outweigh the clinical opportunities available. Of course, part of that is that they are also very clear on what constitutes appropriate clinical training and many of the "clinical opportunities" the other local school (Argosy) has we would simply not be allowed to do.

Keep in mind that prestige means little and is much more narrowly defined. Yale is "prestigious" because it has a great reputation of producing top-notch researchers. If that's not your goal, I'm not sure how much that prestige is likely to get you.

What kind of clinical opportunities are you talking about? Do you mind sharing, even if it's a description of the type, rather than specific sites?

Do you know anything about internship match rates at research-oriented vs. equal-emphasis Ph.D. programs? I'm curious not just about the percentage who get a match, but also about the percentage who get an APPIC- or APA-accredited internship, the percentage who get their first choice, what kind of internships people get, etc.

To extend this question further, I'm also wondering how competitive internship applicants are when they haven't had as much clinical as research experience? Obviously it doesn't affect match rates, so they must be competitive. However, does this mean that the extra hours of clinical practicum experience in other programs is superfluous when it comes to internship applications??

Edit to add: I'm asking because I am starting an equal-emphasis program and many of the current students have emphasized the importance of getting as much clinical experience as possible to be competitive for internship. Well, I'd MUCH rather spend my time in research pursuits, quite frankly, if the extra experiences don't truly matter as much.

 

[cara susanna]

Just remember, even if the program is balanced, you have to give up something. And most research-oriented schools do offer solid clinical training. A lot of them don't even care if you want to be a clinician. It can be harder to get good research experience at a clinically-oriented school.

 

[Ollie123]

Oh lots of things. I know someone whose "externship" basically consisted of being the secretary in someone's private practice for a year. If it were my program that would have lasted about a week, I'd have told my DCT and they would have moved mountains to find me something else, banned this individual from working with our students, blacklisted them from many future department activities, etc. That kind of crap would never, ever fly.

Similarly, they have externships at places that are known for doing all the sorts of whacky, non evidence based, totally random "therapy" we always make fun of here. Their assessment externships seem more like "Testing" externships...I could go on. Some of it relates to how the program itself is set up (including coursework, etc.)...all their students can flawlessly administer and score a Rorschach by hand, but I'm not sure they could tell you what a confidence interval is.

In summary, quality of externships > quantity of externships. They make a big deal about how "many" they have. This is largely achieved by them letting students work at places our program long ago decided were not capable of providing quality training.

 

[mgoldy91]

Just remember, even if the program is balanced, you have to give up something. And most research-oriented schools do offer solid clinical training. A lot of them don't even care if you want to be a clinician. It can be harder to get good research experience at a clinically-oriented school.

But doesn't this go the other way, too, so that you are giving up some of the time/quality of clinical training if you choose a research-oriented Ph.D. program? Or do you feel like one sacrifices research experience by going to an equal-emphasis school more than one sacrifices clinical experience by going to a research-oriented school?

 

[Psychadelic2012]

I know someone whose "externship" basically consisted of being the secretary in someone's private practice for a year.

Wow! No kidding. That's kind of unbelievable. It seems useless as far as logging direct hours for internship. Who would do that?!

Their assessment externships seem more like "Testing" externships...I could go on. Some of it relates to how the program itself is set up (including coursework, etc.)...all their students can flawlessly administer and score a Rorschach by hand, but I'm not sure they could tell you what a confidence interval is.

Okay, more detail again, please. What do you consider the difference between testing and assessment in this case? Do you mean that they are just administering and scoring, and not writing the report?

 

[mgoldy91]

Ollie, you say your research-oriented school provides solid clinical training, that there's no contempt for clinicians, and that internship options are more limited only because they are of higher quality. So in what ways would it be unwise for a person primarily interested in practice as a career to attend a research-oriented program? Is it just that a person who expresses an interest in practice is less likely to be admitted to a research-oriented program? Because there's always the option of prevaricating a bit in an application or interview....

 

[Ollie123]

Okay, more detail again, please. What do you consider the difference between testing and assessment in this case? Do you mean that they are just administering and scoring, and not writing the report?

These have technical definitions, but what you say basically gets at the meat of it. Their knowledge is not deep. They can administer tests very well (likely far better than I can) but that's not exactly a doctoral level skill. Given time and any need to do so, I'm sure I could catch up on that front quite easily...likely just by reading the manuals and practicing. Writing a report is a part of it, but interpretation is the key component that seems to be necessary. Their interpretation skills seem at best on par with software-generated interpretation (hard & fast rules that were memorized and are implemented blindly) and at worst like I described above...not even able to understand critical components necessary for proper interpretation. I'm a far cry from an assessment guru, its actually one of the weaker areas of my training (in my eyes anyways). However, it seems leagues beyond what folks from this other program are trained to do. To me, it seems like the difference between a degree in "programming" from a technical school and a degree in computer science from, I dunno, MIT. The former is trained to follow instructions laid out by others, and might be able to do so very well. The person from MIT might not have memorized the functions for whatever given programming language is involved, but they can breeze through the documentation when they need to and figure it out, and if a unique problem needs solving, or a weird bug arises and needs a workaround, or a process needs to be made more efficient....its pretty clear which person one would look to.

Edit: I just added that last part thinking it would make this more clear, than I realized that references to computer programming likely mean nothing to just about everyone here. This is what I get for being the one social science person among a group of engineers as an undergrad.

Ollie, you say your research-oriented school provides solid clinical training, that there's no contempt for clinicians, and that internship options are more limited only because they are of higher quality. So in what ways would it be unwise for a person primarily interested in practice as a career to attend a research-oriented program? Is it just that a person who expresses an interest in practice is less likely to be admitted to a research-oriented program? Because there's always the option of prevaricating a bit in an application or interview....

Well yes, they'd certainly be less likely to be admitted. While experiences vary somewhat across labs, I'd never recommend anyone not intending to go into research apply to my lab. We've had folks who did exactly that and were miserable. They couldn't do certain externships because it would interfere with their research activities. Our theses would easily qualify as dissertations at many places, and our dissertations would likely be considered substantive undertakings for faculty members at many schools. We are encouraged to get quality clinical training, but it is made abundantly clear it should not interfere with our research activities. Advisors have some say in the process, and if a student is not holding their own research-wise, they can and will discourage students from taking on additional clinical work.

Basically, it boils down to the amount of knowledge one can learn as a clinical grad student is virtually infinite, whereas time is very much finite. Its a situation that means sacrifices must be made somewhere. When they must happen, it is very clear here that they should be made on the clinical front. I'll likely never give a projective test. Now there are a variety of reasons for that (evidence-base, etc.), but even putting that aside, if I was planning to become a clinician I would likely at least want to learn more about it. Yet learning that might mean I wouldn't be able to learn how to do fourier transformations in Matlab (last week's adventure). The view of the school is quite clear in that the latter is a far better use of my time....and I agree. Someone who did not would be in a tough position.

Even for someone clinically-focused, I'd certainly recommend this program over the other local (FSPS) program I am describing. However, I have a number of colleagues in balanced programs. If my goal was to be a clinician, I would absolutely prefer to go to a program like that. Could I make it work at either? Sure. Cara makes a good point that if one is unsure, it may be better to err on the side of research...it is likely somewhat easier for me to get good clinical training than it would be for someone at a balanced program to get experience working on major NIH grants. However, there are a range of balanced programs and places like here, let alone schools like Yale,, Wisconsin, etc. (which are a whole league beyond where I am in terms of the research game) are probably not the best choice for someone on the fence or leaning towards clinical work.

 

[mgoldy91]

Thank you so much!

 

[cara susanna]

Keep in mind I'm speaking from the perspective of someone at a balanced program who started out wanting to be a clinician and now wants to be a researcher. It's been more difficult for me to get the kind of research productivity that I need for my hopeful future career because my program is more used to producing clinicians.

 

[Pragma]

Practicum hours are generally much more defined than the time you put into research in a balanced or research-focused program. IMO, you aren't sacrificing anything clinically by attending a research-oriented program if you select good externship sites. Generally an externship is 20 hours per week, 12 months.

The exception would be if your program doesn't have good connections or if they have an in-house clinical training program that leaves a bit to be desired.

I went to a balanced program and was research-focused. My clinical training was predictable. If I wanted more personal time it would have been at the expense of publishing fewer papers.

While externships are certainly important and provide an important foundation, I also believe that you really develop most on internship and postdoc clinically. Fewer distractions, more ability, and full time work helps hone your skills the most.

 

[mgoldy91]

My clinical training was predictable.

Predictable in what way?

Pragma, what would be your advice, re: program orientation, to a person who's leaning toward clinical work but wants a strong foundation in research and wants to leave the research option open?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Predictable in what way?

Pragma, what would be your advice, re: program orientation, to a person who's leaning toward clinical work but wants a strong foundation in research and wants to leave the research option open?

Not to butt in on Pragma's response, but I'd say that for me personally, I'd aim for a balanced program that still has relatively strong research opportunities (e.g., professors with large grants, labs with strong productivity records for current/recently-graduated students, at least a few grads have gone on to tenure-track positions, etc.). You can of course also aim for some of the more research-heavy/clinical science programs as well, although as Pragma mentioned, looking into what types of clinical experiences they do offer could be worthwhile.

One thing that comes to mind for me with respect to internship matching is if students at programs that are known to be research-heavy are essentially weeded out from certain internship spots. Not that they wouldn't necessarily be competitive, but I wonder if internship site X, which is highly clinical and knows the applicant's program to be research-heavy, might say to itself, "we really don't think this person is going to be happy here; they're probably better off at research-focused internships, and might just be looking at us as a 'safety.'"

That's COMPLETE conjecture on my part, though, Ollie and others from research-heavy programs can speak to their experiences and perceptions on the matter to a much more educated extent than can I.

 

[mgoldy91]

Thanks for the suggestion, and you make a great point re: internships that I hadn't thought of!

 

[Pragma]

Predictable in what way?

Pragma, what would be your advice, re: program orientation, to a person who's leaning toward clinical work but wants a strong foundation in research and wants to leave the research option open?

I think I'd second AA and say go for a balanced program. "Balanced" meaning that they still will want you to do empirical research and probably publish your thesis/dissertation, at least.

You'll never run short of academic opportunities, even in a balanced program. But just be sure the "balanced" program has faculty that are actively conducting research (e.g., getting funding, publishing papers this year, etc). The benefit of a research-oriented program, in my view, is solely for fast-tracking your academic career. You may have more funding resources, better name recognition, and an easier time on the academic job market.

I wouldn't rule out research-heavy places, but they call it "balanced" for a reason - it sounds like it suits you.

Oh and regarding internships - I'd say it probably varies by site a lot. I certainly never felt that having a clear academic focus hurt me when I applied to sites, and people generally commented on it as an asset (that one was able to juggle a lot on top of clinical duties, etc). If you can do all of your coursework and clinical training AND be active publishing, they aren't going to be worried that you won't be able to handle the workload. But, my program wasn't a research-heavy Ivy league type of place, so there could be a stigma attached to that that I am not aware of.

 

[Ollie123]

Certain internships absolutely seem to "weed out" research-heavy applicants...or at least it seems to happen to us. The question is -would you want to go there anyways when you have better options? These are generally CMHCs, second-rate VAs, and other places...in short, the places students DO apply to as there "safeties" and are usually walking in planning to rank at or close to last.

The costs vastly outweigh the benefits, in my opinion.

I agree with the above. Look for "balanced" programs, keeping in mind that there is still a range of things that count as balanced. Some of the schools mentioned (Yale, Wisconsin, Berkeley) are likely not a great fit, but there are plenty of schools that provide adequate focus on both and are happy to have students pursue either path.

 

[mgoldy91]

Thank you, everyone, for the very useful advice!!!

 

[Psychadelic2012]

To me, the elephant in the room in this conversation is where someone is accepted. I mean, if you have stellar GREs, GPA, tons of research experience/publications in your area of interest, and appropriate clinical experience, then maybe you can have your pick of where to go. But isn't it more about where you happen to get an interview and whose eye you happen to catch, all things being on-par? I had to go to a balanced program by default, because I wasn't competitive for highly research-focused programs. I didn't have that choice. Plus, I think a sinker for me was the clinical experience on my CV--I look too clinical to the research programs, even though I insisted that research was my focus. They didn't seem to care what I said, only what my history was. Sucks. Bottom line is that this process begins WAY before one chooses which school to go to. You need to establish your interest early on, or it will be decided for you. So much for exploring and trying to figure it out as you go...doesn't work that way, in my experience. They choose you.

 

[wigflip]

Also, I said this in another thread, programs who want to produce researchers can be very unfriendly towards people who want to be clinicians.

This was my experience when I was trying to figure all this mess out as an undergrad. My psych TAs expressed one of four attitudes:

1. "Applied work? Ewwww!" (Yes, this is a direct quote).

2. "Clinical skills? You can pick that up later. Anyone can do that."

3. "When do you tell your advisor that you're going to become a clinician? At the hooding ceremony!...You have for fight for your clinical training."

4. "After this term, I'm leaving the program and going home. I can practice with my masters in my home state." (spoken by my best TA).

Perhaps needless to say, the profs were even more plainspoken in their derision for students interested in anything other than a pure academic path.

I thought about the first half of #3 long and hard. But my desire for authenticity really couldn't accommodate the prospect of concealing my interests in clinical work for the duration of a research-focused program. Now, years later, of course, I know how many shenanigans go on in academia, the idea of feeling bad about concealing my true interests is a joke. Even so, I don't think I could have tolerated those kinds of attitudes. It wore on me as an undergraduate who wasn't even directly affected! And it's not just the top-ranked schools either. The folks I know in a so-called balanced program say that the same stigma prevails there.

 

[mgoldy91]

To me, the elephant in the room in this conversation is where someone is accepted. I mean, if you have stellar GREs, GPA, tons of research experience/publications in your area of interest, and appropriate clinical experience, then maybe you can have your pick of where to go. But isn't it more about where you happen to get an interview and whose eye you happen to catch, all things being on-par? I had to go to a balanced program by default, because I wasn't competitive for highly research-focused programs. I didn't have that choice. Plus, I think a sinker for me was the clinical experience on my CV--I look too clinical to the research programs, even though I insisted that research was my focus. They didn't seem to care what I said, only what my history was. Sucks. Bottom line is that this process begins WAY before one chooses which school to go to. You need to establish your interest early on, or it will be decided for you. So much for exploring and trying to figure it out as you go...doesn't work that way, in my experience. They choose you.

Yes, the program decides whether you're accepted before you choose whether to go, but before either of those you have to choose where to apply, and that's the stage I'm at now. It is true, though, that there's no point applying somewhere where you have virtually no chance, but I think I'm a pretty competitive applicant.

This was my experience when I was trying to figure all this mess out as an undergrad. My psych TAs expressed one of four attitudes:

1. "Applied work? Ewwww!" (Yes, this is a direct quote).

2. "Clinical skills? You can pick that up later. Anyone can do that."

3. "When do you tell your advisor that you're going to become a clinician? At the hooding ceremony!...You have for fight for your clinical training."

4. "After this term, I'm leaving the program and going home. I can practice with my masters in my home state." (spoken by my best TA).

Perhaps needless to say, the profs were even more plainspoken in their derision for students interested in anything other than a pure academic path.

I thought about the first half of #3 long and hard. But my desire for authenticity really couldn't accommodate the prospect of concealing my interests in clinical work for the duration of a research-focused program. Now, years later, of course, I know how many shenanigans go on in academia, the idea of feeling bad about concealing my true interests is a joke. Even so, I don't think I could have tolerated those kinds of attitudes. It wore on me as an undergraduate who wasn't even directly affected! And it's not just the top-ranked schools either. The folks I know in a so-called balanced program say that the same stigma prevails there.

Wow, that's depressing. And even in a "balanced" program! Guess I'll develop pretty thick skin.

 

[roubs]

To me, the elephant in the room in this conversation is where someone is accepted. I mean, if you have stellar GREs, GPA, tons of research experience/publications in your area of interest, and appropriate clinical experience, then maybe you can have your pick of where to go. But isn't it more about where you happen to get an interview and whose eye you happen to catch, all things being on-par? I had to go to a balanced program by default, because I wasn't competitive for highly research-focused programs. I didn't have that choice. Plus, I think a sinker for me was the clinical experience on my CV--I look too clinical to the research programs, even though I insisted that research was my focus. They didn't seem to care what I said, only what my history was. Sucks. Bottom line is that this process begins WAY before one chooses which school to go to. You need to establish your interest early on, or it will be decided for you. So much for exploring and trying to figure it out as you go...doesn't work that way, in my experience. They choose you.

Yep I found this to be true for me as well, though I almost didn't apply at all because I went to a top research school for undergrad and their burnt out & bitter grad students turned me off to the whole enterprise. Discovering more balanced programs helped get me to apply to grad school instead of med school. I was so indecisive I had completed the pre-reqs for both 😛

 

[dumbledoresgirl]

To me, the elephant in the room in this conversation is where someone is accepted. I mean, if you have stellar GREs, GPA, tons of research experience/publications in your area of interest, and appropriate clinical experience, then maybe you can have your pick of where to go. But isn't it more about where you happen to get an interview and whose eye you happen to catch, all things being on-par? I had to go to a balanced program by default, because I wasn't competitive for highly research-focused programs. I didn't have that choice. Plus, I think a sinker for me was the clinical experience on my CV--I look too clinical to the research programs, even though I insisted that research was my focus. They didn't seem to care what I said, only what my history was. Sucks. Bottom line is that this process begins WAY before one chooses which school to go to. You need to establish your interest early on, or it will be decided for you. So much for exploring and trying to figure it out as you go...doesn't work that way, in my experience. They choose you.

I think you're definitely right in terms of where you get interviews--you don't really have a choice in that matter. But once you've gotten the interview, I think there is at least a little bit that is under your control. My CV also didn't get me interviews at any research-heavy universities, but the interviews I did get were all at balanced programs. And I didn't feel like I had to try too hard to convince anyone that my focus was research or that I was interested in both research and clinical work. In fact, I had no prior research experience in the field I am going into...only clinical experience. And my advisor absolutely believed that my research interests stemmed from the clinical experience I had (and any knowledge I have about the literature comes from doing the clinical work...which means I got me some reading to do 😀). Another professor at my school told me that "they don't hold it against you if you don't have research experience in x field, because not everyone has the opportunity to do undergraduate research in a field that just so happens to be what they want to study for the rest of their lives."

So while I do think you're right in that you have to "prove yourself" in your personal statement to get interviews in the first place (and hopefully you're able to convey your undying love for research in your SOP), once you're at the interview I think there's a wide range of responses you can get, and most people (at least in my experience) will not judge you if you have clinical experience on your CV just as long as you also have a strong research background. Just my thoughts.🙂

 

[Psychadelic2012]

I think you're definitely right in terms of where you get interviews--you don't really have a choice in that matter. But once you've gotten the interview, I think there is at least a little bit that is under your control.

So while I do think you're right in that you have to "prove yourself" in your personal statement to get interviews in the first place (and hopefully you're able to convey your undying love for research in your SOP), once you're at the interview I think there's a wide range of responses you can get, and most people (at least in my experience) will not judge you if you have clinical experience on your CV just as long as you also have a strong research background. Just my thoughts.🙂

I didn't have that experience, though, at least at one program where my main research mentor lives. I will grant that my mentor got me the interview. It was a collaborative acceptance effort among all faculty, so although I had strong research experience which included that very school (in that very department), they didn't even entertain me with discussing my interests. The final determination was that I was too practice-oriented. Well, no one even asked me. I get that others have different experiences, but I ultimately ended up in a program that reflected the totality my prior experiences and NOT what I really, truly want to do. I wouldn't have believed this previously, but I just don't think the personal statement is enough. They look at everything and some things you can't hide. If I wouldn't have gotten the interview I first mentioned, I would have only interviewed at balanced programs, period.

 

[dumbledoresgirl]

I didn't have that experience, though, at least at one program where my main research mentor lives. I will grant that my mentor got me the interview. It was a collaborative acceptance effort among all faculty, so although I had strong research experience which included that very school (in that very department), they didn't even entertain me with discussing my interests. The final determination was that I was too practice-oriented. Well, no one even asked me. I get that others have different experiences, but I ultimately ended up in a program that reflected the totality my prior experiences and NOT what I really, truly want to do. I wouldn't have believed this previously, but I just don't think the personal statement is enough. They look at everything and some things you can't hide. If I wouldn't have gotten the interview I first mentioned, I would have only interviewed at balanced programs, period.

I'm sorry you had that experience--I didn't, but maybe I just got lucky in terms of the schools I applied to. I definitely felt that the interviews allowed me to convey my interests much better than my SOP and professors asked about my interests beyond what I had written about. But I will say that for research-heavy schools, even a little bit of practice-oriented interests will lead them to say you're "too practice-oriented." I hope that you are able to pursue your interests despite not necessarily being at the program of your choice!

 

[Psychadelic2012]

I will say that for research-heavy schools, even a little bit of practice-oriented interests will lead them to say you're "too practice-oriented."

Yes, exactly! Not only interests, but background.

 

[Pragma]

Yes, exactly! Not only interests, but background.

Maybe if clinical experience is all over your CV and is way out of proportion to your research accomplishments.

I had a clinical job for a year before going to grad school and held multiple part time clinical positions during undergrad. But I also published. Never was questioned on interviews about being too clinical. But I didn't apply to the hardcore research places either, only balanced programs.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Maybe if clinical experience is all over your CV and is way out of proportion to your research accomplishments.

I had a clinical job for a year before going to grad school and held multiple part time clinical positions during undergrad. But I also published. Never was questioned on interviews about being too clinical. But I didn't apply to the hardcore research places either, only balanced programs.

Well, yes, that is true, and ultimately I ended up with bites/acceptances at balanced programs. However, the research match at my current program is luke warm at best. I had just as much research experience as other applicants to the hardcore research place, with a great match to one POI, but my extra clinical experience made the cut there. Ridiculous. I am an older student without a BA in psych (I have a masters in psych) who decided upon entering the MA program (which took me 4 years) that I wanted to apply to PhD. I needed a way to make a living if I didn't get in, and I ended up shooting myself in the foot, apparently. In that way, my experience makes me think the research-intensive programs are really only designed for younger students with less 'other' experience--personally, I think that's crazy because older people with varied experiences can contribute so much to research. If I could go back, I would have found a way to leave my clinical experiences out of the application as much as possible. In the end, I'm glad that I can still collaborate with my mentor at the research-intensive program and continue doing research that I want to do, even if it's not part of my program (no one has me on a leash)--I have such solid research experience that I'm able to continue collaboration relationships, which is great 😉.

I'm not necessarily saying all of this to keep carping or to vent. I'm content now, I've accepted my fate, but perhaps it will be helpful to other applicants who come after me. I just really do think that maturity has helped me to see that life unfolds in unexpected ways and that things tend to work out anyway, despite 'dreams' or desires.

 

[dumbledoresgirl]

Well, yes, that is true, and ultimately I ended up with bites/acceptances at balanced programs. However, the research match at my current program is luke warm at best. I had just as much research experience as other applicants to the hardcore research place, with a great match to one POI, but my extra clinical experience made the cut there. Ridiculous. I am an older student without a BA in psych (I have a masters in psych) who decided upon entering the MA program (which took me 4 years) that I wanted to apply to PhD. I needed a way to make a living if I didn't get in, and I ended up shooting myself in the foot, apparently. In that way, my experience makes me think the research-intensive programs are really only designed for younger students with less 'other' experience--personally, I think that's crazy because older people with varied experiences can contribute so much to research. If I could go back, I would have found a way to leave my clinical experiences out of the application as much as possible. In the end, I'm glad that I can still collaborate with my mentor at the research-intensive program and continue doing research that I want to do, even if it's not part of my program (no one has me on a leash)--I have such solid research experience that I'm able to continue collaboration relationships, which is great 😉.

I'm not necessarily saying all of this to keep carping or to vent. I'm content now, I've accepted my fate, but perhaps it will be helpful to other applicants who come after me. I just really do think that maturity has helped me to see that life unfolds in unexpected ways and that things tend to work out anyway, despite 'dreams' or desires.

A couple questions for you...

If research is what you want to do, why did you accept at a school where you describe the research match as "luke warm as best"? Why not hold out for a better program?

My other question--are you absolutely sure that it was your "extra clinical experience" that kept you out of programs? How can you be certain that it wasn't just being unlucky or that there were other qualified applicants? Did a professor specifically tell you that your clinical experience was too much and it outweighed the research experience you had?

 

[Psychadelic2012]

A couple questions for you...

If research is what you want to do, why did you accept at a school where you describe the research match as "luke warm as best"? Why not hold out for a better program?

First of all, I don't think the program I am in is worse. I got accepted to a great program and will have great opportunities--quite possibly better than I would have had in the research-heavy program. It's just that it's not the best research match and I will have to create the research myself now. Also, since this was my second year applying and I've learned how this works (older, non-psych BA, terminal masters degree = not appealing to research programs for multiple reasons), I realize that this is the best possible path for now. I'm in my mid-30's and I refused to go through the application process again, mostly because it meant that I would have to continue volunteering and spending money in an attempt to get in, which I refuse to do because I have to support myself. I've realized that part of being a grown-up is taking my heart in my hands and accepting what life ends up giving out, rather than chasing a dream that may not be satisfying anyway (been there, done that).

My other question--are you absolutely sure that it was your "extra clinical experience" that kept you out of programs? How can you be certain that it wasn't just being unlucky or that there were other qualified applicants? Did a professor specifically tell you that your clinical experience was too much and it outweighed the research experience you had?

It was only the one program, but yes, she told me that the committee said I was "too clinical" for their research-heavy program. It wasn't that it outweighed the research experience (I had a lot of research exp.), just the fact that I spent so much time (relatively speaking to other applicants) in clinical activities, it looked like that was what I wanted on paper. Other, similar, programs likely weeded me out based on the criteria I mentioned above, in addition to sheer number of applicants and not-high GRE scores.

Not trying to generalize to everyone, but I think these are important things for some to consider.

 

[dumbledoresgirl]

First of all, I don't think the program I am in is worse. I got accepted to a great program and will have great opportunities--quite possibly better than I would have had in the research-heavy program. It's just that it's not the best research match and I will have to create the research myself now. Also, since this was my second year applying and I've learned how this works (older, non-psych BA, terminal masters degree = not appealing to research programs for multiple reasons), I realize that this is the best possible path for now. I'm in my mid-30's and I refused to go through the application process again, mostly because it meant that I would have to continue volunteering and spending money in an attempt to get in, which I refuse to do because I have to support myself. I've realized that part of being a grown-up is taking my heart in my hands and accepting what life ends up giving out, rather than chasing a dream that may not be satisfying anyway (been there, done that).



It was only the one program, but yes, she told me that the committee said I was "too clinical" for their research-heavy program. It wasn't that it outweighed the research experience (I had a lot of research exp.), just the fact that I spent so much time (relatively speaking to other applicants) in clinical activities, it looked like that was what I wanted on paper. Other, similar, programs likely weeded me out based on the criteria I mentioned above, in addition to sheer number of applicants and not-high GRE scores.

Not trying to generalize to everyone, but I think these are important things for some to consider.

Thanks for sharing--it makes sense now. I can only imagine how difficult it must be to have to create the research you want to do for yourself rather than having an advisor help you with it, but I think it's great that you are still able to pursue what you want and you're not letting that stop you. And it sounds like you're happy with your program, it just maybe wasn't what you initially wanted? Either way, it's really unfortunate that the program you interviewed with has such an odd (in my opinion) view of what makes an applicant qualified. I would have thought that someone with ample research experience AND clinical experience would have been a shoe in (given the right scores / grades, etc).

 

[Ollie123]

I think it varies widely across particular faculty members and situations so I wouldn't assume anything is "definite" in this process. We've had students come in with clinical MAs here (research-heavy program) and I've heard from some that it can initially be a knock against them, but like many things it can also be "overcome".

I don't know that the issue is as much with clinical experience being "bad" to have, but rather that for reasons discussed in this very thread, sometimes people are "suspicious" of such applications. People's goals and motivations differ, and many will say anything to get in....including "I want to go into research" with no intentions of ever doing so. Such students may not be a good fit with the program, might be less productive, etc.

As a result - schools won't necessarily take at face value what an applicant says in a PS/interview and there is a great deal of "trying to read between the lines" that happens in these situations. With less competition, this probably wouldn't factor in as much, but given how competitive programs are, it doesn't take much "doubt" on behalf of the school for it to end up costing the person a chance at admission.

 

[Pragma]

I think it varies widely across particular faculty members and situations so I wouldn't assume anything is "definite" in this process. We've had students come in with clinical MAs here (research-heavy program) and I've heard from some that it can initially be a knock against them, but like many things it can also be "overcome".

I don't know that the issue is as much with clinical experience being "bad" to have, but rather that for reasons discussed in this very thread, sometimes people are "suspicious" of such applications. People's goals and motivations differ, and many will say anything to get in....including "I want to go into research" with no intentions of ever doing so. Such students may not be a good fit with the program, might be less productive, etc.

As a result - schools won't necessarily take at face value what an applicant says in a PS/interview and there is a great deal of "trying to read between the lines" that happens in these situations. With less competition, this probably wouldn't factor in as much, but given how competitive programs are, it doesn't take much "doubt" on behalf of the school for it to end up costing the person a chance at admission.

+1

Slots in funded programs are of huge value and are a big investment among faculty members, particularly at research-heavier places. These schools generally follow a mentorship model as opposed to have multiple lab experiences, so the selection is often based on your mentor's level of risk-averseness and personal preferences. If they put a large amount of money into you and you end up blowing off what you said to get in, they look bad, presumably lose some productivity they expected out of you, and maybe even look bad to their peers. Heck, some programs even say right on their website not to apply if you don't want a research career.

Addressing a different point, in my program we had plenty of older students and their experiences/ideas were highly valued. I am sure this varies a bit from program to program.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

I can only imagine how difficult it must be to have to create the research you want to do for yourself rather than having an advisor help you with it, but I think it's great that you are still able to pursue what you want and you're not letting that stop you.

To be clear, I am working with advisers--the independent project advisers are just not at my new school (they are the POI/mentor with whom I've worked previously and I applied to work at her program, and my masters program research mentor). All are open to collaboration, so I'm hoping for very rich and challenging research opportunities. I'm just not going to have it land in my lap.

 

[dumbledoresgirl]

To be clear, I am working with advisers--the independent project advisers are just not at my new school (they are the POI/mentor with whom I've worked previously and I applied to work at her program, and my masters program research mentor). All are open to collaboration, so I'm hoping for very rich and challenging research opportunities. I'm just not going to have it land in my lap.

Gotcha. Thank you for clarifying 🙂

 

[srabiee]

I'm in the OP's boat and made a thread to ask similar questions, though in a much more long-winded backstory. I feel much more informed than I was from the responses, and I think balanced programs are the best fit for me. I got the impression that research-oriented schools will toss your application if they think you're interested in being a clinician (I am), but that balanced programs, especially those that are well-funded, still want to hear that you're interested in going into academia/research. So I'm still confused about whether I should prevaricate in my SOPs. I feel like they'd see right through me. Does anyone have a good list of balanced programs that don't mind if you express clinical ambitions? I have a few in mind from searching around here, but any information helps. (I'm also still baffled by what kind of people Teacher's College at Columbia wants. Their website information seems really ambiguous)

 

[snowcherries]

I'm in the OP's boat and made a thread to ask similar questions, though in a much more long-winded backstory. I feel much more informed than I was from the responses, and I think balanced programs are the best fit for me. I got the impression that research-oriented schools will toss your application if they think you're interested in being a clinician (I am), but that balanced programs, especially those that are well-funded, still want to hear that you're interested in going into academia/research. So I'm still confused about whether I should prevaricate in my SOPs. I feel like they'd see right through me. Does anyone have a good list of balanced programs that don't mind if you express clinical ambitions? I have a few in mind from searching around here, but any information helps. (I'm also still baffled by what kind of people Teacher's College at Columbia wants. Their website information seems really ambiguous)

Northern Illinois University and University of Texas--Southwestern Medical Center are two truly balanced clinical programs I personally visited during my interview cycle. By truly balanced, I mean that they emphasize both clinical and research training, with some variance according to advisor. If folks reading this thread have any interest in child psych, I'd strongly recommend school psych programs, as several of the top programs in the field could be described as balanced (several couldn't, though). Orientation can be tough to determine until you actually visit a program.

 

[cara susanna]

I don't have an exact research match at my program, either. It's been difficult but I've managed to work on projects with different profs that tie into my interests.

 

[PsychPhDone]

Plenty of people have weighed in so far, so this is just my opinion: It depends on the program. I go to a school that, if I recall correctly, was a 6 or 7. I am researched-focused, but I have a few classmates (in other labs primarily) that want to be clinicians. We get good enough clinical training to get good internships and have a high match rate. However, you have to do lots of research to get by here. If you'd be happy doing several research projects and devoting at least 20 hours a week to research, you can leave here a well-trained clinician and consumer of research. However, you might be happier at a program with a lower research load. I'd recommend checking to see what students do when graduating from programs you're potentially applying to.

 

[mgoldy91]

I got the impression that research-oriented schools will toss your application if they think you're interested in being a clinician (I am), but that balanced programs, especially those that are well-funded, still want to hear that you're interested in going into academia/research. So I'm still confused about whether I should prevaricate in my SOPs. I feel like they'd see right through me.

Yup, I'm wondering the same thing! Found these:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=852957&highlight=balanced+phd+programs
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=470471&highlight=balanced+phd+programs

Does anyone have a good list of balanced programs that don't mind if you express clinical ambitions? I have a few in mind from searching around here, but any information helps. (I'm also still baffled by what kind of people Teacher's College at Columbia wants. Their website information seems really ambiguous)

Just curious what programs you've found from searching near you. Also, you may find these threads helpful:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=735417&highlight=balanced+phd+programs
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=654660&highlight=balanced+phd+programs
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=623946&highlight=balanced+phd+programs
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=899297&highlight=balanced
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=520507&highlight=equal-emphasis

 

[srabiee]

Thanks a lot! With a search on here, I'd found the second and third threads (that's what I meant by searching around, haha), but I hadn't seen those others