leading phd programs

http://psych.arizona.edu/apcs/members.php

look under "graduate programs"

 

Rankings can be skewed, but here are some links:

http://www.socialpsychology.org/clinrank.htm
Ranking of Clinical Psychology Programs in the U.S. and Canada

http://www.socialpsychology.org/ggradoth.htm#clinical
Ranking of U.S. Psychology Ph.D. Programs by Area

http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/doctoral.html
Accredited Doctoral Programs in Professional Psychology

BTW, if you didn't know, admission rates to PhD Clinical Psychology programs are around 15%.

 

Don't want to nit pick or anything, but admissions rates for Clinical PhD programs are typically closer to 5%.

 

Those ranking aren't so hot. Check down a bit on this forum. There are a few threads on rankings that aren't based on popular opinion.

Also check out the programs listed in the following link:

http://psych.arizona.edu/apcs/index.php

note: I see Jat Penn beat me to the punch. You can't go too wrong at one of those programs. Most will have full funding. They are all well recognized and have good faculty.

 

"By contrast, the average acceptance rate for clinical PhD programs is 11-15%. That is, 1 or 1.5 out of 10 applicants to a PhD program is accepted."

http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_171.asp

This table says 10.5%.

http://www.psichi.org/pubs/eye/vol_8/8_3_landrum_table1.jpg

Don't want to nit pick or anything.

I just want to provide an objective list (and by objective, I definately do not mean better, just using a method with data as opposed to one person's perspective) to contrast with just listed all the APCS, which I have heard very good things about.

By the way his question was phrased, I figured he was fishing for a rankings list. As a lot of us know, it is not how well regarded the program is or how high its rank, but how well it fits you.

Don't look for programs, look for faculty who are like-minded and are accomplished.




Edit: With that said, here's US News Rankings!!!

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=163603

 

The %10.5 percentage is a bit misleading as it includes all types of programs (i.e., professional schools are included).

Also, for those that aren't real clear on the process. There really aren't Ph.D. clinical neuropsychology programs. That is to say that the accepted path as supported by the professional boards of clinical neuropsychology and ins/division 40 guidelines do not sanction Ph.D. programs in clinical neuropsychology. If you run across a program that claims to offer a Ph.D. in clinical neuropsychology, be wary.

Those tables do illustrate one reason why we should be wary of expanding the scope of practice of masters level practioners. They have no admission standards. That Psy.D. rate is also alarming. Ugh.

 

I heard about this. Wasn't there an effort to have clinical neuropsychology training be independent of clinical psychology training a number of years ago? An epilepsy neuropsychologist that I met in Pittsburgh told me about this. He did intraoperative mapping and Wada testing. Apparently, much of the clinical psychology training (read: psychotherapy) is not at all relevant to the assessment work that most neuropsychologists do. Is this correct?

 

Yes, it failed.

It is and it isn't. Though I don't do psychotherapy, I think the psychotherapy training helps with patient interaction. Also, you really need to know the DSM-IV from a mental health perspective, even as a neuropsychologist.

 

Be aware that the "arizona" list is not just a list of quality grad programs. This is a list of "clinical scientist" model training programs. That is a training model that very much emphasizes research training instead of clinical training. Although these are very good programs, they may not be optimal for someone who is more interested in the clinical side of psychology.

 

This is an incorrect statement. Any of the APCS programs would be fine for someone interested in the clinical side of psychology, as long as that person was interested in clinical treatments that were empirically supported and wholly scientific in nature.