konrad said:OK, I've got a new one for you all: I got an email from a prof at Oregon today. Interviews will be Feb 11th. This news comes after the grad secretary told me a couple of days ago that interview invitations wouldn't be extended until the end of this week. It's probably a variable prof-by-prof type of thing, so don't panic if you've been waiting by the phone.
I have another issue on my mind that maybe someone could help me with. I'm growing increasingly unsure about the criteria I should use to evaluate programs. My present advisor was speaking with a friend of hers that is a prof in a top 5 clinical program about the programs to which I was applying (one of them is the top 5 program, with the advisor's friend as the potential mentor, for obvious reasons). Anyway, the prof was telling my advisor that she didn't really understand why I was applying to most of the other programs that I had chosen, including some of my top choices. Most of these programs are top 25 (according to our trusty US News ranking), and feel like a decent match for me. The point is, it's a little frightening that I could be highly esteeming programs that don't have that great of a reputation in the eyes of a prominent clinical researcher. I suppose these kinds of evaluations are all basically subjective, and I know I'm just supposed to guage my "fit" with the program, but it makes me a bit nervous. Does anyone have a clue about how to get the real, down-and-dirty, of-course-everyone-knows-that kind of rankings of programs?
This is fairly ridiculous question, given that I've been reading this forum long enough to know the prevailing opinions on the issue. But I'm throwing it out there regardless. Advice, fellow applicants? Current clinical students?
Apologies for my long-windedness...
I have a possible explanation:
The professor may be surprised because the research match is not clear across programs. They may all be excellent, but for different reasons. So, for example, if you are proposing to study temperament/affect and depression (i.e., basic psychopathology research) with the potential advisor, and you've applied to another program where they are studying predictors of treatment response in CBT for depression (i.e., treatment research), the potential advisor may express confusion about what your research interests may be. In her world, these are different areas of research.
In the world of an applicant, however, they may not be. For an applicant who is still trying to hone in on his/her research interests, I think it's entirely appropriate to have a global interest in depression, acknowledging that there are several aspects of depression that may appeal to you (e.g., treatment efficacy, treatment predictors, basic psychopathology, etc.). Of course one professor isn't going to study ALL of these things, so you have no choice but to apply to different places where people study these different aspects of depression, and allow your research interests to develop over time.
Whereas you're applying to grad school to specialize, the potential advisor has already specialized.
In terms of making your decision, I think you should spend some time thinking about what your goals are for graduate study - that way, when you go on interviews, you can get your questions answered to see how well a program will be able to provide the kind of training experience you are looking for. It sounds like you've applied to programs that have excellent reputations, so I wouldn't rely on one person's subjective opinion about what's "good" and "bad." What may be a great program for one person, may be a horrible choice for another.
Good luck!