Is too much emphasis placed on research in the admissions process?

[futureapppsy2]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I was talking with two friends in two separate conversations the other day. In the first conversation, I mentioned that I'm applying to School Psych PhD programs next year, and she responded that her roommate will be applying to Counseling Psych PhD programs. I asked if her roommate does any research, and her response was "she hates it, but, yeah, she's working with a professor on a research project." In the second conversation, I was talking to my good friend about my plans for the summer (research!) and about how competitive grad school is, the huge emphasis on research in admissions, and how I'm not feeling so hot about my chances due to a lack of pubs/presentations. She asked me, "But you like research, don't you?" My response, "Yeah, but even if I didn't, I'd still have to do it... It's just necessary."

All this makes me question the model we have now, where to get into a respectable program, even with the aim of being a clinician, an applicant has to strive for excellent research experience. I understand the aim of the PsyD model in theory, but in practice, it seems to have fallen apart, resulting a hoard of over-priced professional schools where a majority or significant minority of the students can't match to accredited *clinical* internships, and therefore, have issues getting licensed and/or finding clinical post-docs and jobs. The "better," funded PsyD programs are the ones that place more emphasis on research in the admissions process, so that virtually any applicant that wants a financially viable, career-boosting doctorate in clinical or counseling psych better be a gungho researcher or at least be able to fake it well.

I agree, even from my very limited exposure as an undergrad, that research and clinical work can and do intersect and benefit one another. I agree that doing research makes you better at picking out the better designed studies from poorly designed ones. I legitimately and truly enjoy research and part of my decision to go for a doctorate (PsyD/PhD), in addition to scope of practice/licensure and funding, is that added research experience. I'm excited (well, as excited as one can be about it😉) about the prospect of doing a thesis and dissertation (that is, of course, if I get in) and would be very excited if I could do research part-time as a professional. That being said, however, I don't want to become a full-time researcher or academic, and the "heart" of what I want to do is clinical work. I like the theory of the scientist-practitioner model--training people to be excellent clinicians who can also contribute to their field in a meaningful way (wow, how naive do I sound?!)

Edit: I should also say that I'm a big fan of well-structured and funded PsyD programs that offer some research. But that's just because I want to be primarily a clinician, so YMMV.


Yet there's a professor at my school (in a "balanced" clinical program) who won't even talk to advisees about doctoral programs unless they are superstar researchers with publications and national presentations--RA work and even theses are pretty much useless in his mind unless they are published and/or nationally presented. He's hedgy about talking about doctoral programs with anyone who aspires to work anywhere but academia or academic medical centers. And he's probably right. Superstar researchers are the type who get into programs.

However, if the field really believes in the value of doctoral training in producing skilled clinicians, then should it really be solely research superstars and aspiring acadmics who enter quality doctoral programs? Furthermore, is there really much utility in having people fake an interest in research to get in? Though I have known some people who started out doing research to get in and found out that they really enjoyed it, I'm sure the opposite effect has also occured.

 

[schoolpsych1]

I have also heard of research haters that turned around and others that "love it!" grow to hate it.....maybe it was the number of hours, the advisor, the school, but they hated it and counted the days they would be done.
I also know a lot of students fake it, especially when they would fit a PsyD program better but can't get any funding. I think the schools know that too.
That said, when talking with a clinical psychologist yesterday, who works with drug addictions and related issues, he said "you do what you have to do, to get from point A to point B, but don't sell your soul". He was trying to talk me out of School Psych because he felt you don't see the fruits of your labor as much and there are just so many fields in Psych to go into now. If I didn't waver, (and he tried) he said that School Psych programs "usually" aren't as research oriented and they tend to give more leverage in experience. On a small scale of students, only a handful, I have seen that, they had very limited experience compared to students I know in straight clinical programs and they didn't have any hooks to speak of.
I wish the PsyD programs were better and more organized, because I feel more suited for it but don't have the money to support it.

 

[KillerDiller]

I always knew I wanted to do both research and clinical work, but I have actually been surprised since starting my program at exactly how much these two do go to together. It's not just about learning to discriminate credible research (although that is very important as well). Evidence based practice is truly a style of...well...practice. Clinicians should be using their knowledge of research to choose and design valid assessments. They should also be checking the progress of each of their clients regularly in addition to evaluating the overall effect of the therapy they provide. This is part of maintaining an ethical practice.

Anyway, I thought I'd share because I also felt that research and clinical work were separate before I started fully engaging in both. I know a lot less about school psych, but I assume the process is similar.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I always knew I wanted to do both research and clinical work, but I have actually been surprised since starting my program at exactly how much these two do go to together. It's not just about learning to discriminate credible research (although that is very important as well). Evidence based practice is truly a style of...well...practice. Clinicians should be using their knowledge of research to choose and design valid assessments. They should also be checking the progress of each of their clients regularly in addition to evaluating the overall effect of the therapy they provide. This is part of maintaining an ethical practice.

Anyway, I thought I'd share because I also felt that research and clinical work were separate before I started fully engaging in both. I know a lot less about school psych, but I assume the process is similar.

I totally agree. I just wonder sometimes about the wisdom/practice of only letting the "intense" researchers through...

 

[Wildcat06]

I think we're losing sight of the big picture here. A PhD is a doctorate of philosophy. We are being trained primarily as research scientists. PhD's in all other fields have to do research. And granted psychology obviously has more real world applications than a PhD in, say, Sociology, but it is still a PhD. You will have to do research, and lots of it. And the admissions committees need to see that you are willing and able to do the work.

Also, the reason PhD's are funded is because of research. Without grants, you wouldn't be getting a free (+ stipend) education. So again, they have to be sure you can help them pull in the money.

Just my two cents... 🙂

 

[irish80122]

I actually wish that they placed a little more emphasis on research. I am one of the few research lovers, I would love to just do research and not have to do clinical work (and I probably would be in a different type of program if my research wasn't clinical) so I feel that a Ph.D. is the proper fit for someone like me. However, there are people who don't want to do research, and there should be enough solid Psy.D. options for those individuals as well.

I wish there wasn't such a huge difference in funding between the two. I think a lot of people end up in Ph.D. programs when they would be much happier in a Psy.D. program. Both options should be viable and roughly equal (at least in a perfect world) so we don't have to have this debate, people could just go for the option which suits them best.

 

[cara susanna]

Agreed with Wildcat.

Also, I wouldn't call myself a superstar researcher, and I got into a PhD program. I mean, I know this is an n = 1 sample here, but that shows it is possible, even if it might be rare.

Oh, I should add that I finally saw for myself one of the reasons it is so important it is to be competant at research upon admission to a PhD program: they throw you into research right away. I mean, they were already talking to me about picking my thesis committee not even a day after I had accepted the offer.

 

[GradStudent87]

Well it's not even the importance of research that surprises me but the lack of apparent importance of clinical work that is necessary to get into a doctoral program. From most PhD's at least they say that research is a must but clinical work if you have time great it might help your application, if not it's not crucial. However just as you want competent researchers coming into a program that will force students to conduct research, you would think it would be necessary for someone to have at least had some kind of therapeutic experience(I realize you can't conduct therapy without certain degrees but at least spent some time around clinical populations or something) I think both clinical work and research experience should be emphasized as opposed to like 80% research and 20% clinical, I guess for PsyD's it's a little different but even for balanced PhD's I would think clinical/research experience should be more balanced in the review of applications then it is.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I wish there wasn't such a huge difference in funding between the two. I think a lot of people end up in Ph.D. programs when they would be much happier in a Psy.D. program. Both options should be viable and roughly equal (at least in a perfect world) so we don't have to have this debate, people could just go for the option which suits them best

This. I really enjoy research and am (allegedly) good at it, but I've known so many undergraduates and even a couple graduate students who will freely admit that they "suffer through" research just to get their clinical PhD. I couldn't imagine NOT doing research and that attitude confuses a lot of people.

I think one difference between clinical/counseling/school psych PhDs and all other PhDs is that in all other fields, a PhD more or less equals a career in research or consultation. For a good number of the people in the applied psych fields, a PhD can equal a solely or primarily clinical practice, and there's a substantial number of PhD psychologists who never do research after getting their PhD (I wonder if they miss it, myself... but maybe I'm just odd).

Again, I'm not arguing against research--it's a huge part of my life, I love it, and it will likely be one of the strongest points on my application.


cara susanna, true--maybe my professor's just jaded. (And, bizarrely, none of his current graduate students were published before grad school, and some weren't even first authors on posters, so...😕) (Oh, and enjoy picking your committee--that's actually quite fun in my experience! Seriously.🙂)

GradStudent87, I think the problem is that nothing at this level can really simulate actual clinical practice. I have what I think and have been told is a very, very clinical position for an undergraduate--coleading therapy/psychoed groups, including case notes, supervision, etc.--and I'm willing to bet that it only barely skims the surface of what the clinical practice of being a therapist is actually like. How would you assess people on something they cannot yet do?

 

[Wildcat06]

Hey Futureapp,

I agree wholeheartedly. I was just explaining the rationale of the admissions process. Also, if one truly has no interest in research, I believe they should go the PsyD route.

But I understand that funding and prestige can throw a wrench in the PsyD process and so people sometimes go for a PhD instead. But at any rate, if you are going to have to do hardcore research for 5+ years, you have to show you are prepared for it.

I guess I just can't imagine pursuing a PhD if you know you hate research...

 

[GradStudent87]

Hey Futureapp,

I agree wholeheartedly. I was just explaining the rationale of the admissions process. Also, if one truly has no interest in research, I believe they should go the PsyD route.

But I understand that funding and prestige can throw a wrench in the PsyD process and so people sometimes go for a PhD instead. But at any rate, if you are going to have to do hardcore research for 5+ years, you have to show you are prepared for it.

I guess I just can't imagine pursuing a PhD if you know you hate research...

Also if someone really hates Research that much and wants nothing to do with it but loves clinical work and can't afford the PsyD why not go for a MHC or a MCSW, get some work experience and money and then go on to a PsyD. They may not even have to go on for a PsyD if practice is all they want to do as it can be done now with masters level degrees.

 

[cara susanna]

I was told the reason that they don't care about clinical experience is that pretty much everyone who is applying has it.

 

[glasscandie]

I was told the reason that they don't care about clinical experience is that pretty much everyone who is applying has it.

I think that will be my downfall for my clinical apps (2 of them) - I did an internship at a psych. rehab. center and got some cool experience (participated in team meetings, led some classes, etc.) but it wasn't a formal clinical internship in the sense that I see other people doing on here. Ah well.

I ditto that it would be an excruciating process to go after a PhD if you didn't like research.

 

[GradStudent87]

GradStudent87, I think the problem is that nothing at this level can really simulate actiually clinical practice. I have what I think and have been told is a very, very clinical position for an undergraduate--coleading therapy/psychoed groups, including case notes, supervision, etc.--and I'm willing to bet that it only barely skims the surface of what the clinical practice of being a therapist is actually like. How would you assess people on something they cannot yet do?

What if someone has a MHC degree, then they probably have done some of the things that is required in a doctoral programs.

 

[heygirlhey211]

I was told the reason that they don't care about clinical experience is that pretty much everyone who is applying has it.

I'm not sure this is true...at least for PhD programs. I have almost no clinical experience and that wasn't even brought up during my interviews.

 

[okayroots06]

I'm not sure this is true...at least for PhD programs. I have almost no clinical experience and that wasn't even brought up during my interviews.

agreed. programs with a heavy emphasis on research will factor your research experience with greater weight than your clinical experience. clinical experience is extremely important and most times than not, you need to merge the two in order to become a successful researcher.

most top programs, will discount you and even cross you off their list and even a no-no if you mention that you are specifically interested in clinical work bec. the primary goal is to train you as a researcher.

however, there are clinical ph.d programs who emphasize less on research and you have a nice balance between research and clinical work.

it really depends on what you want to do, and you have to select what programs you are applying to accordingly.

 

[cara susanna]

Yeah, I was just told that, not sure if it's actually true. I applied to balanced programs and none of them brought up my clinical experience, aside from asking what my clincial interests were. But it's possible I wouldn't have gotten interviews there without it, so, again, no idea.

 

[AryaStark]

I was told that clinical experience is not important in the application process because :
The type of clinical experience that is important / the kind you will be doing in graduate school aren't one in the same. You just aren't competent to treat people before grad school. I do clinical work by performing neuropsychological assessments, however I could never get get any experience with treament, etc. I feel like the majority of clinical experience available to pre-grad students (where they are actually doing it themselves as opposed to shadowing) is assessment, however it is not readily available to many. I don't know if this makes sense/ if this is other people's experiences. That's just what I heard.

 

[starsinnight]

I was told that clinical experience is not important in the application process because :
The type of clinical experience that is important / the kind you will be doing in graduate school aren't one in the same. You just aren't competent to treat people before grad school. I do clinical work by performing neuropsychological assessments, however I could never get get any experience with treament, etc. I feel like the majority of clinical experience available to pre-grad students (where they are actually doing it themselves as opposed to shadowing) is assessment, however it is not readily available to many. I don't know if this makes sense/ if this is other people's experiences. That's just what I heard.

I would hope it's important depending on the school. Those applying with a Master's degree already in MHC will have grad level clinical experience with both a 1 year internship and 1 year outplacement externship.

My research also involves doing developmental assessments, and I do agree that it is not at all related to clinical experience besides undergrad level shadowing.

But the two are definitely separate components and I see them as equally important, but I guess that is why it is important to find a balanced program. I love research too - and I agree that if you don't like research you should definitely do a PsyD, so many people think that getting a PsyD is "less" than a PhD when it really isn't. Clinically speaking, I know many MHC's that have their own private practice, as well as PsyD's.

 

[GradStudent87]

I would hope it's important depending on the school. Those applying with a Master's degree already in MHC will have grad level clinical experience with both a 1 year internship and 1 year outplacement externship.

My research also involves doing developmental assessments, and I do agree that it is not at all related to clinical experience besides undergrad level shadowing.

But the two are definitely separate components and I see them as equally important, but I guess that is why it is important to find a balanced program. I love research too - and I agree that if you don't like research you should definitely do a PsyD, so many people think that getting a PsyD is "less" than a PhD when it really isn't. Clinically speaking, I know many MHC's that have their own private practice, as well as PsyD's.

Yea I was talking more so for a balanced PhD, i do believe that for PsyD's clinical experience is valued along with research experience. And yes if you don't like research there is no point in doing a PhD, the PsyD may be a little less prestigious but in the end you'll be able to do the same clinical work and make practically the same money from what i've read.

 

[deadmau5]

There's too much emphasis on marks, in my opinion.

 

[okayroots06]

There's too much emphasis on marks, in my opinion.

not necessarily. your undergraduate gpa, gre scores are the only objective marks the admission committee has. furthermore, you need to demonstrate you are capable of graduate level work, since for the university its an investment on their end.

i'm not saying you need a 3.9 gpa or a 1470 gre score. but you need decent grades and decent marks to make the first cut. after that, your research experience and rec. letters take over.

 

[GradStudent87]

not necessarily. your undergraduate gpa, gre scores are the only objective marks the admission committee has. furthermore, you need to demonstrate you are capable of graduate level work, since for the university its an investment on their end.

i'm not saying you need a 3.9 gpa or a 1470 gre score. but you need decent grades and decent marks to make the first cut. after that, your research experience and rec. letters take over.

gpa I totally agree, you need to demonstrate you are capable of understanding the material, GRE I've heard it both ways, some say it's a good indicator of graduate school success, some say not really, unfortunately it's the only truly objective method (although I would think the subject GRE should have more importance then the regular GRE but instead the regular GRE is more important) I may be a little biased because I'm not a great standardized test taker but I think while the GRE is valuable in showing the ability of some people, there are others that GRE scores probably don't mean much for, especially people with extremely high GPAS and experience in the field who have demonstrated they have what it takes to be a psychologist. If the GRE is to predict your ability to succeed at a given task, what's the logic if someone who let's say holds a masters degree with a very high gpa and has several publications has already proven they can succeed at the tasks that they will meet in graduate school.

 

[deadmau5]

Well, let me revise, I do support using marks as a general guide, but not as a strict cutoff. I also think strictly using cGPA is not the best way to measure someone's potential. My first year sucked, and after 4 years, I haven't been able to get it above 3.4, but does this have anything to do with my potential abilities in research or as a clinician? Not really. Same with GREs. It's a standardized test, will it predict my success, not really. For marks, how about asking us to report several types of GPA scores. I know some schools do this already, e.g. ask for Psych, last 3 years, last 10 full credits, etc. And schools probably also do their own various calculations.

I come from a school that has a GPA restriction rule by class. Only 20% of any class can get As and course averages are closely monitored. So, I'm not too fond of the GPA system... had I realized this before going there, I would have headed elsewhere.

 

[KillerDiller]

Ok, I'm going to try to turn this thread around somewhat. If admissions decisions shouldn't be based on research experience, GRE scores, or cummulative GPA (and also not use strict GPA cut-offs), then what should they be based on?

 

[cara susanna]

I'm fine with GPA cutoffs. I think using GRE cutoffs isn't necessarily a good idea, but I understand they get a ton of applications so you have to start somewhere.

 

[HEM0305]

I'm fine with GPA cutoffs. I think using GRE cutoffs isn't necessarily a good idea, but I understand they get a ton of applications so you have to start somewhere.

Why is GPA better than GREs? GPA's have way more variabiilty and trying to make comparisons across different standards of measurements makes no sense. At least with the GREs, it is a standardized measure - thus using them as a cutoff makes more sense.

 

[cara susanna]

I think the GRE is very flawed. College coursework should indicate academic ability, not a four hour test.

But like I said, I'm not sure what else they'd use. I'm also biased because I absolutely detested and struggled with the GRE.

 

[GradStudent87]

I think the GRE is very flawed. College coursework should indicate academic ability, not a four hour test.

But like I said, I'm not sure what else they'd use. I'm also biased because I absolutely detested and struggled with the GRE.

Yea I may be a little biased too because i struggled mightily with the GRE but I agree GPA is a better cutoff then GRE. GRE may actually be the best indicator of pure academic ability but that's really all it tells you imo. It doesn't tell you anything about the person other then their academic ability and some people are just not great standardized test takers, I have a 3.7 gpa in college and didn't do that well on the SAT which is supposedly a good predictor of college performance. I know what you mean that some cutoff needs to be used to cut down on applications, GPA is probably the best one(yes there is variability but it;s within limits, someone who gets below say a 3.2 is probably not ready for graduate level work regardless of their courses/professors/circumstances etc) It's possible to maybe cutoff anyone with no experience in the field (either clinical or research) you might say thats a given that people would have that experience but i'm sure their are applications from people who don't.

 

[twilson]

I have yet to take the GRE and i did OK on my ACT I do not remember my SAT scores..but in some instances GPA isnt that much better of an indicator..
I came out of freshman year with a 2.4 and havent gotten anything below a 3.5 beginning the first semester of my Sophomore year but that has left me with a 3.12 (hopefully higher now, just finished up Finals week).. I feel GPA would be relevant if more programs ONLY looked at grades from sophomore year on because I know many people who get nothing but 3.5+ now did horribly freshman year due to the transition of HS to college, learning the skill of time management, learning different study skills than needed for HS (i.e. learning them at all, who studied in HS?😛) etc

 

[futureapppsy2]

Ok, I'm going to try to turn this thread around somewhat. If admissions decisions shouldn't be based on research experience, GRE scores, or cummulative GPA (and also not use strict GPA cut-offs), then what should they be based on?

Easy--whatever puts that particular poster in the best light. 😉

Back to the original question, if most PsyD programs are diploma mills -> issues with internship -> issues with licensure -> issues with finding a job/clinical work, are most PsyDs truly options for people who want to practice clinically?

 

[starsinnight]

For the initial question that was just restated, yes PsyD's are definitely excellent options for those who want to practice cinically or open their own private practice. I didn't think this way until I was really scrutinizing the difference between a Clinical Psychologist, Counseling Psychologist, and a PsyD Psychologist (hmm... is there a technical term for them?). I got some advice from one the PhD students in the Counseling Psychology program, and she helped me realize that in the end... they are ALL psychologists.

With all 3, you CAN practice academia, you can practice clinically, and you can do research, technically speaking. You CAN. While each might have differences, you really can do what you want with the degree and while it may be tougher or you may be going against the odds, you can do what you want with the degree in the end.

Going to the other convo about criteria you should be screened with for the admissions process, I like the way it is with a large variety of different areas and skills to look at. I hope most schools are more balanced when they look at each (GRE, GPA, LOR's, statement letter, transcripts, experience, etc.), they might not be but in my opinion, they are all just as important.

I don't like the GRE, I don't like GPA alone, and I think that's why the others are included. They know that not everyone is the best test taker or did the best freshman year so that's why they probably ask for the rest. But it also depends on the school, some schools want the best of everything and the best test takers, some may be more leniant. Ok I better stop rambling now... 🙂

 

[deadmau5]

^ yeah, but the cutoff's are often judged by grades alone.

 

[psybee]

I always knew I wanted to do both research and clinical work, but I have actually been surprised since starting my program at exactly how much these two do go to together. It's not just about learning to discriminate credible research (although that is very important as well). Evidence based practice is truly a style of...well...practice. Clinicians should be using their knowledge of research to choose and design valid assessments. They should also be checking the progress of each of their clients regularly in addition to evaluating the overall effect of the therapy they provide. This is part of maintaining an ethical practice.

Anyway, I thought I'd share because I also felt that research and clinical work were separate before I started fully engaging in both. I know a lot less about school psych, but I assume the process is similar.

100% agree!!!