Insider's Guide rankings

[PizzaButt]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I've been studying the Insider's Guide extensively, and I made my school list based solely on the research scales in this book (and location). I want a balanced program (my eventual career goal is private practice only) so I am only applying to PhD programs that are ranked 4 or 5 on the Insider's Guide research scale (meaning a balanced approach).

My question is: how can I tell from a school's website whether or not the program really is a 4 or a 5? What type of classes should I be looking for the program to offer? Clinical programs? Anything else? Basically what I'm trying to confirm with the school's website is that the program really is equally balanced between research and clinical or leans more toward the clinical side (but I'm only applying to PhD). Are there other ways that checking the website and the Insider's Guide to determine this? I don't want to waste my time applying to a program that is more research-heavy. And I'm also wondering if you can rely 100% that the Insider's Guide research rankings are absolutely accurate.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Any kind of "Rankings" should be taken with a LARGE grain of salt. I think the Insider's Guide does a very good job of covering the basics of the programs, and give a great jumping off point for prospective students. It is up to the prospective student to then go from there and inquire further.

I called up schools and asked about the research/clinical split, and asked about what they thought was important, etc. In general I found the IG to be pretty accurate, but it is always best to do a little more leg work for yourself, since your graduate education is 6-7 years of your life.

-t

 

[psychanon]

The Insider's Guides research/clinical ratings are solely based on self-report. That is, directors of clinical training provide the ratings. This leads to several psychometric weaknesses of the measure. First, DCTs can say whatever they want to say, based on what they think will get them the students they want. They may have perfectly wonderful clinical training, but they don't want to put that because they don't want to attract the type of student who is going to end up hating research and not meeting requirements. Second, it's unclear what kind of anchors the respondents are using. They may be comparing their program to Psy.D. programs who do no research whatsoever, or to programs that provide almost not clinical training at all. These ratings are probably the best things out there, but you shouldn't base your decisions about where to apply without doing further research. Which it sounds like you're now doing, so good for you.

To answer your question, I'm not sure if there is a tell-tale sign of how clinically oriented a program is, but you could always ask. Email the DCT, tell them that you are really interested in research but that you ultimately want a career in clinical work. If it's the wrong program for you, they'll tell you.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

They may be comparing their program to Psy.D. programs who do no research whatsoever...

Uhm....just wanted to point out that PsyD do indeed do research, and many are quite balanced in their approach. I'd be VERY VERY wary of any program that excludes research or clinical experience. (There *are* programs that don't really do therapy, but the people applying to those don't really plan on ever doing therapy. Any program that excludes research should be axed, since therapeutic orientations are suppose to be BASED on research)

-t

 

[psychanon]

Right, didn't mean to imply that all Psy.Ds. do no research at all. That's certainly wrong- Psy.D.s vary in focus as do Ph.Ds. But there are some that do minimal research, which is what I meant to say.

 

[PizzaButt]

Email the DCT, tell them that you are really interested in research but that you ultimately want a career in clinical work. If it's the wrong program for you, they'll tell you.

Does DCT stand for director of clinical training? I'm unfamiliar with that appreviation.

Has anyone had an experience where they rankings said a program leaned in one direction, but then upon further research they found that this was not the case?

 

[psychanon]

Does DCT stand for director of clinical training? I'm unfamiliar with that appreviation.

yes 🙂

 

[socialcog]

I've used various rankings in a sort of backward kind of way. I initially chose the schools to apply to based on research compatibility and geography, and not by rank. Then after my faculty search I then pull out a rankings guide and see where my schools measured up. I used the guide as an informal measure of competitiveness. I assumed that a school ranked #3 (Stanford) is probably tougher to get into then say school ranked #44 (UC Davis). However, a school ranked #85 (University of Denver) is probably less competitive than Davis and Stanford.

I would rather attend a school ranked #85 where research interests match up perfectly, then to attend a top 10 school with poor research compatibility.

 

[Ollie123]

Good point SocialCog, but everyone else is talking about the 1 to 7 scale used by the Insider's Guide where 1 is a practice-oriented program and 7 is a research-oriented program😉

 

[amy203]

Just reading the general "about the program/admissions" page of most school websites will give you a pretty good feel, especially if you are interested in ultimately becoming a clinician. In fact, I saw plenty that actually said (in big bold letters) "If your ultimate goal is to become a clinician, this program is not for you." Beyond this, I second the idea of calling or emailing. There are plenty of schools that will, literally, shred your application without even looking at your qualifications if they read the dreaded phrase "My ultimate goal is to become a clinician" in your personal statement. Make sure you don't waste your time applying to any of these programs.