Input please - planning my undergrad

[asiansmith]

I'd like to get the input of any PhD grad students/professors/psychologists for any questions from my list.

My background (relevant to questions): U.S. Army veteran who deployed to Afghanistan as a behavioral health specialist. 3.81 GPA - will be taking classes at Stanford as an incoming junior (transfer). Currently little research experience, presented a poster and separate abstract to a research conference. The abstract won an award and will be published. No papers published. I plan on working in a lab over the next two years, and separately completing a senior honors research thesis/project.

1. On making myself more competitive - with the above, should I apply to do a coterm masters in psych? I have to plan it out now if I want to do a coterm. The dilemma is it means another year of college, and students loans... But a third year of exp. in the same lab and possible publication.

2. After looking at exceptional programs I feel I would be a "fit" for, it seems that it's (nearly) impossible to enter straight from undergrad to a top grad school. Should I plan on doing RA work after I graduate?

3. I want to be active in the community after obtaining a PhD, while I'm doing regular research. Yet, it seems like many PhD programs frown on goals that aren't 100% research oriented. Input?

4. On research experience - should I narrow my research, say, to studying the veteran population -- or -- should I broaden my research experience over the next few years?

I've already gotten a lot of my questions answered by reading through the threads. Those were the only four I'm still unsure about. Thanks!

-Saamon

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

...1. On making myself more competitive - with the above, should I apply to do a coterm masters in psych? I have to plan it out now if I want to do a coterm. The dilemma is it means another year of college, and students loans... But a third year of exp. in the same lab and possible publication.

Seems like you've already got at least some research experience with the published abstract. Two years' worth of RAing can certainly be enough to get you into grad school, particularly if results in some productivity and is in the area you'd like to study further while pursuing your doctorate.

2. After looking at exceptional programs I feel I would be a "fit" for, it seems that it's (nearly) impossible to enter straight from undergrad to a top grad school. Should I plan on doing RA work after I graduate?

I don't know the numbers, but I'd imagine it may actually be the case that most people enter grad school straight from undergrad...or at least a significant minority do. I personally had a year between undergrad and grad school, but that's mainly because I didn't apply widely enough the first time. The work I did in that intervening year wasn't at all related to psychology, and I still somehow made it in the following year. Can working as an RA for a year or two after graduating strengthen your application? Definitely. Is it necessary? Generally no, especially if you can get a couple years' worth of strong research experience while in undergrad.

3. I want to be active in the community after obtaining a PhD, while I'm doing regular research. Yet, it seems like many PhD programs frown on goals that aren't 100% research oriented. Input?

The majority of folks graduating from PhD programs go on to focus primarily or entirely on clinical work after graduating. PhD programs hope that you'll be involved in research to at least some capacity, and particularly the clinical science programs will want your goals to be more aligned with academia, but wanting to practice while maintaining some active research should be compatible with most balanced PhD programs. You may not necessarily want to spout off about your intense desire to practice clinically during interviews, but once you're in, you'll likely find that those goals are similar to the majority of your classmates (again, depending on the particular program).

4. On research experience - should I narrow my research, say, to studying the veteran population -- or -- should I broaden my research experience over the next few years?

If you want to focus on working with veteran populations in grad school, then narrowing your interests to that area now could help, yes. Most professors aren't going to expect you to know exactly what it is you want to study right now, but if your research experiences are all over the place, it could be harder to describe why you're a good fit with their lab.

 

[CheetahGirl]

I'd like to get the input of any PhD grad students/professors/psychologists for any questions from my list.

My background (relevant to questions): U.S. Army veteran who deployed to Afghanistan as a behavioral health specialist. 3.81 GPA - will be taking classes at Stanford as an incoming junior (transfer). Currently little research experience, presented a poster and separate abstract to a research conference. The abstract won an award and will be published. No papers published. I plan on working in a lab over the next two years, and separately completing a senior honors research thesis/project.

4. On research experience - should I narrow my research, say, to studying the veteran population -- or -- should I broaden my research experience over the next few years?

The above-mentioned points are so in your favor (Veteran, first-authorship, award, plans for more RA'ing, attending Stanford). You will not be the typical applicant coming straight from undergrad, and I would have to assume your experiences have transformed you into a mature, responsible, independent adult (which is what programs need to see).

I agree w/ AcronymAllergy. I'd reiterate for #4 that programs want your research interests to fit w/ their current faculty interests. It will expand the university's output of research, bringing more attention to them (which is what they love & helps getting better-quality applicants that will further the research even more), especially if you're already comfortable submitting and presenting. You should expect to do the same once in their program, for instance, I've already presented my PhD's Masters thesis at several conferences (above & beyond my Masters coming in the program).

I say pick a specific topic (like trauma or psychological adjustment) and suggest that you'd like to further that area of research in the Veteran population. But, truth be known, you may not have access to a sample of veterans to run your research, so see if you can extrapolate the idea to the general population and then, focus on access to Veterans once you get into the program...and you begin to see the reality of available subject pools. Also, you could frame your goal as in "I see myself doing (say) trauma research and clinical work with Veterans in the future as I have a unique insight into Veterans' experiences." Your primary focus is the 'construct' and secondary emphasis is the population. It will help you be more specific.

Yes, and PhD programs in clinical psychology primarily want to make clinicians out of you, otherwise you'd seek doctoral programs in experimental, social, development (etc.) psychology.

Good luck!

 

[bpsydme]

Yes, and PhD programs in clinical psychology primarily want to make clinicians out of you, otherwise you'd seek doctoral programs in experimental, social, development (etc.) psychology.

Good luck!

I'm not sure which PhD programs these are, other than professional programs, but every program I applied and interviewed at primarily want to make researchers out of you, not clinicians. I feel this statement is a little misleading, because a PhD is a research degree. While it does allow for clinical practice, if you apply to research-heavy or even "balanced" programs stating you want to do anything less than research, your application most likely won't be considered.

Just my $0.02.

 

[FLpsychstudent]

1. Don't do the master's in psych at Stanford. It's not worth it IMO
2. I think it is better to do an RA after graduating, even if just for a year. You will be making money instead of paying money (for a master's), and you will have a lot more valuable experience. People know the Stanford thing is just an add-on and not that big of a deal. It is possible to go straight from undergrad, but a LOT of PIs look for people who have full-time RA experience.
3. Yes...most people (esp at competitive programs) want you to say you want to go into academia.
4. I would narrow, but not too narrow.

Also, the reason I wanted to reply to you is because if you are interested in working with veterans, you should try to volunteer with OR get a job after graduating as an RA at the VA Palo Alto. Specifically the VA Menlo Park does a ton of mental health research, and coming from Stanford, they would love to have you as an RA. If you are interested in PTSD or SUD especially, it would be a great fit. If not, you'd still get really good experience and many of the RA positions there allow you to work directly w/ veterans. I would message any PIs whose work you are interested in and see if they are needing volunteers/hiring RAs (look up Center for Health Care Evaluation and National Center for PTSD). PM me if you have questions.

 

[cara susanna]

I'm not sure which PhD programs these are, other than professional programs, but every program I applied and interviewed at primarily want to make researchers out of you, not clinicians. I feel this statement is a little misleading, because a PhD is a research degree. While it does allow for clinical practice, if you apply to research-heavy or even "balanced" programs stating you want to do anything less than research, your application most likely won't be considered.

I applied to only balanced programs and at all of the interviews I attended the faculty said it was fine if you wanted to be a clinician. You have to demonstrate interest and competence in research, but they're not all looking to churn out academics.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

I'm not sure which PhD programs these are, other than professional programs, but every program I applied and interviewed at primarily want to make researchers out of you, not clinicians. I feel this statement is a little misleading, because a PhD is a research degree. While it does allow for clinical practice, if you apply to research-heavy or even "balanced" programs stating you want to do anything less than research, your application most likely won't be considered.

Just my $0.02.

I agree. I went to a so called balanced program. You wouldn't get in with primarily clinical interests (or if they suspected you of having primarily clinical interests). If your interests changed during the program, faculty were suddenly not very interested in you and your education. The program turned out a lot of clinicians and the faculty members were unhappy about it.

Dr. E

 

[CheetahGirl]

I'm not sure which PhD programs these are, other than professional programs, but every program I applied and interviewed at primarily want to make researchers out of you, not clinicians. I feel this statement is a little misleading, because a PhD is a research degree. While it does allow for clinical practice, if you apply to research-heavy or even "balanced" programs stating you want to do anything less than research, your application most likely won't be considered.

Just my $0.02.

Alas, a PhD in clinical psychology is unique compared to other research degrees....we have to do clinical externships and internships, right? All PhD programs in clinical psychology have a 'clinical' component meaning you see patients as a therapist - I don't know of any that don't and please share if you know any because I won't be so definitive in the future. You don't have to continue your clinical work & some people find it’s not for them, but you have to understand this skill in order to research it...as a clinical psychologist. Plus, all clinical psychologists were PhDs before they created the PsyD degree (Vail model/ practitioner-scholar) in 1970s.

I was actually contradicting my own thoughts when I wrote the above-post by thinking of Stony Brook University (Boulder model/scientist-practitioner). They are very research-heavy, fully-funded and accept like 4 in their incoming class. Regardless, in order to research clinical psychology, you must understand the theories and practice behind it, and what better way than to do it? You don't have to end up in research or academics, but you have to know how to be a clinician...which is my main point in saying "PhD programs in clinical psychology primarily want to make clinicians out of you, otherwise you'd seek doctoral programs in experimental, social, development (etc.) psychology." Okay then, Boulder model PhD programs in clinical psychology don’t want to make clinicians out of you.

So, that's our $.04

I applied to only balanced programs and at all of the interviews I attended the faculty said it was fine if you wanted to be a clinician. You have to demonstrate interest and competence in research, but they're not all looking to churn out academics.

Yes, I agree. Speaking from the perspective of PhDs in clinical psychology, you MUST know how to understand theory and use empirically-based research in practice, and to differentiate between what's crap (i.e. Psychology Today) and what's not (i.e. New England Journal of Medicine)…that’s what the scholar–practitioner model states.

 

[asiansmith]

Thanks for the responses

Just to clarify, I do want to do research as my main job, but by community involvement I mean donate time to assisting/starting a veteran-focused non-profit on the side.

I've been looking at the UICI program (clinical-community) and it seems to fit my goal above (research oriented community involvement). Does anyone have experience/know anything about that program?

 

[CheetahGirl]

I agree. I went to a so called balanced program. You wouldn't get in with primarily clinical interests (or if they suspected you of having primarily clinical interests). If your interests changed during the program, faculty were suddenly not very interested in you and your education. The program turned out a lot of clinicians and the faculty members were unhappy about it.

Dr. E

Dr. E, you didn't happen to go to Stony Brook, did you?

My program is balanced, too - half go into research/academics and half do not, but we all are trained to be strong clinicans and formidable researchers (in my opinion). And most of the researchers/academics have private practices on the side.

PhD programs need evidence of your research interests/skills in order to evaluate your competence as a potential doctoral student. They need to see that you have what it takes to make it through the process of a clinical-doctorate. Clinical training + independent research is tough! I equate it to an MD/PhD - which I think is the toughest. My BFF has a PhD in microbiology and she sympathizes with me often. She didn't have an internship match to contend with after defending her dissertation.

 

[fresnel]

Asiansmith, I don't see GRE scores mentioned here. A unfortunate reality is that high GRE scores may open doors faster than anything else short of a 1st authorship on a Psych Bull article. And unlike for many competitive colleges (and SAT/ACTs) there is no cutoff after which reviewers don't really care. Higher is better and the highest is the best. Top notch GRE (general not subject) will get you looked at faster than another year or two of research experience or any other, for that matter. This is particularly true for the top PhD programs especially since you already have valuable experience. A mismatch between grades and GREs could be a problem except you seem to indicate you have good grades. For those top programs, good grades in math and science are particularly valued.