PhD/PsyD How to think about school rankings

[4371234998420]

Nearing April 15, I've been referencing the US News ranking list for PhD programs in Clinical Psych

What is gained / lost from going to an APA-accredited program in the:

Top 10
Ranked in top 50
Ranked 50 - 100
Below 100

Does this matter or is more about fit, internship placement success, etc.? Does this only matter for those seeking top-faculty / tenured professions or does it matter if you want to work as a psychologist in a medical or private practice setting? Does it impact the ability to get a job at a non-academic research institution? I'm thinking about how this will impact me professionally etc. to go to a lower ranked school. Is there a certain point where it makes sense to pursue a different degree (e.g., a masters or MSW) at a top 5/10 institution if you don't receive an offer to a program ranked above a certain level? Note - I'm asking specifically about funded, APA-accredited PhD programs.

Thanks all

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

The US News Ranking have about 2% relevance to anything related to clinical psych training. Fit and outcome stats are paramount here. For those who are going 100% tenure track, they are probably slightly more important, but fit is still a to of the equation there.

 

[4371234998420]

Thanks W - that is helpful. There are no breakpoints that are relevant? What about R1 / R2 / R3 distinctions?

 

[WisNeuro]

Nope. Fit matters more.

 

[singasongofjoy]

Yep, listen to WisNeuro. Considering you'er talking only about funded, APA programs as you stated, US News ranking is just noise. They do have some pretty pictures of campuses if you need a break from looking at outcome stats for programs but that's about all the utility they have.

 

[psych.meout]

US News and World Report rankings for clinical programs are incredibly obtuse and more about holding up the US News brand recognition for ranking schools than being accurate. There's so much nuance and complexity in comparing clinical programs that these kinds of rankings are just nonsensical. As WisNeuro said after accounting for quantitative outcomes (e.g., internship match rates, EPPP pass rates, licensure rates, funding, attrition, cohort sizes), it's really about "fit," which is itself a fairly complex idea. You want to fit well with your adviser and lab mates in both personality and research interests. You don't want to end up disliking or even just not meshing well with people with whom you will work for the better part of a decade, if not the rest of your career. You want to fit well with the structure of the program. E.g., If you're interested in peds, you don't want to attend a program with little to no coursework in pediatric populations or few to no practicum sites for peds. You want your career goals to fit well with the outcomes of the program. E.g., if you're interested in neuropsych, you want to make sure your program has a history of placing people into neuropsych internships and post docs and getting boarded. Different programs are strong in different areas and no single program is equally proficient in all areas.

You'd be surprised, many of the universities you've probably never heard of have some of the strongest programs in given areas of psychology and have great outcome stats.

 

[4371234998420]

Thanks so much everyone. I suspected what I'm hearing but it's good to get some additional data. It sounds like "name recognition" in school is a lot less relevant when applying for jobs than the body of work you create in grad school (which is I'm assuming is in part dependent on right level of fit) as long as they have good outcome data. I appreciate it!

 

[psych.meout]

Thanks so much everyone. I suspected what I'm hearing but it's good to get some additional data. It sounds like "name recognition" in school is a lot less relevant when applying for jobs than the body of work you create in grad school (which is I'm assuming is in part dependent on right level of fit) as long as they have good outcome data. I appreciate it!

Well, that's a related, but slightly different thing. When you look at potential future advisers, you want to see that the are productive, both in terms of publication and getting grant funding. Some tenured people nearing the ends of their careers might not be as productive as younger faculty, which could impact your ability to produce posters and publications.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

"Name recognition" of a program and/or a specific advisor is relevant to an extent for a variety of reasons, but US News rankings aren't really a good measure of that. And yes, what you actually do in grad school is (more often than not) going to be more important anyway.

 

[Lostinsunshine]

Well, just wanna say thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread because I had the same concern before, but now I am over it.