Not all unfunded PsyD programs are easy to get into -- so much misinformation on these boards.

[rejectedeverywhere24]

I created this account specifically to share my experience with future applicants so that they don't end up in the same spot as myself. I've been browsing these boards as well as Reddit for a couple of years now, since I was a sophomore, and gathered a lot of information that turned out to be completely untrue.

A few things to start with: I have a 4.0 in the major and nearly a 3.9 as my cumulative GPA. I attend a top 50 national university and am in the honors program. I double majored in psychology and a STEM field (I came into college with over 30 credits taken as a high school student). I had average research experience -- nothing super-impressive, just your typical undergraduate assistant job at my university for 10-12 hours a week. Most of the PsyD programs I applied to do not accept GRE scores. I don't have a criminal/disciplinary record, in case anyone's wondering. Not going to claim I'm the best writer ever, but I'm pretty sure I'm not illiterate and my essays were fine.

I applied to 7 clinical psychology PsyD programs and felt pretty confident I'd get in somewhere, especially because so many posters on these boards (generally ppl in or aiming for funded PhD programs, I"m starting to gather) insisted that "anyone with a pulse can get in if you're willing to loan 200K" etc. Some conceded that not every PsyD program was easy to get into, but reserved that allowance only for funded programs such as Baylor or Rutgers.

Well, I am here to tell you that I have been rejected everywhere so far. Indianapolis. Xavier. Loyola. Georgia Southern. Palo Alto. Freakin' SPALDING University. I'm waiting on one more school, but considering it's in a highly desirable location, I don't have high hopes. I got rejected in the first round, meaning I didn't even make it to the interview stage.

So if you are applying to PsyD programs, please, for the love of God, apply to plenty, and have a backup plan in place in case things don't pan out. I was overly confident based on the derogatory posts re: PsyD programs on these boards (and what I thought was a relatively strong profile). Unless you're applying to a for-profit school like Argosy and the like, it is NOT easy to get into PsyD programs!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Where on SDN does someone make a claim that all PsyDs are easy to get into? The prevailing sentiment is that the diploma mills are just that, and that the legitimate PsyDs are pretty equivalent to PhDs in clinical/counseling psych. Where exactly is this misinformation?

 

[rejectedeverywhere24]

Over the last two years? There were plenty that alleged that unfunded PsyD programs were diploma mills, were a "scam," and were easy to get into. As I said, some conceded that Baylor/Rutgers were good, but the general sentiment was that if the program was unfunded, it was easy to get into. Completely false and people should know that.

 

[WisNeuro]

Over the last two years? There were plenty that alleged that unfunded PsyD programs were diploma mills, were a "scam," and were easy to get into. As I said, some conceded that Baylor/Rutgers were good, but the general sentiment was that if the program was unfunded, it was easy to get into. Completely false and people should know that.

I've never seen the blanket statement or anything near it. There have been numerous times where people acknowledged that some unfunded programs had good metrics, but that the debt load was untenable and pragmatically terrible choice for anyone who was not independently wealthy, but these blanket statements, if made at all, are exceedingly rare.

 

[Sanman]

Over the last two years? There were plenty that alleged that all unfunded PsyD programs were diploma mills, were a "scam," and were easy to get into. As I said, some conceded that Baylor/Rutgers were good, but the general sentiment was that if the program was unfunded, it was easy to get into. Completely false and people should know that.

1. Disagree that anyone would suggest all PsyD programs were easy to get into. Plenty of people on this board graduated with PsyDs, even those that are critical of them. Funded programs are harder to get into than unfunded programs, places like Argosy, Chicago School, William James, etc that take larger classes with no attached university are easier than those attached to more traditional university programs.

2. The suspension of the GRE over the past few years has increased competition since no one is weeded out and anyone with a good GPA and a dream will throw their application in. I think someone on here mentioned GWU PsyD got double the applications this year than in previous years (something like 700). Same thing is happening with the SATs and college admission. What was true in the recent past is not necessarily true today.

3. Free advice is always worth exactly what you paid for it.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

The GRE removal has to have impacted this in such a huge way. It wasn’t great….but was SOMETHING to weed out some folks who just likely wouldn’t be successful in certain programs.

 

[WisNeuro]

The GRE removal has to have impacted this in such a huge way. It wasn’t great….but was SOMETHING to weed out some folks who just likely wouldn’t be successful in certain programs.

I suspect it's having the opposite effect than was intended with the effort.

 

[rejectedeverywhere24]

That makes sense; I think a lot of the comments I read were outdated and based on previous numbers, before the GRE increased the # of applications. In particular, schools like "Spalding" were trashed on message boards, so I genuinely considered them safeties.

Funny enough, GW is the last school I'm waiting on... i.e. no chance in hell.

I do have a significant fund for school (family member died a few years ago and left me all his money), though that is irrelevant since I didn't get in anywhere.

 

[Justanotherpsychintern]

I will say - of course, hindsight is 20-20, but generally speaking the advice I had heard and followed for graduate program applications is that applying to 15 is a good and safe number, and you may want to apply to more. I myself was geographically limited for my programs and thus only applied to 3, and I did not get in the first year I applied. However I worked on getting some specific undergraduate courses and specific trainings that made me a better fit for my top choice and applied again next year, got all three interviews, and got my top choice.

Point being - apply next year, even to programs you were rejected from. There are so, so, so many factors which influence admissions, from advisor availability, peer fit, number of applications, etc. etc. I know it feels disappointing to not get in to places you really saw yourself but the thing is you can still be there in the future. Consider applying to more places and seeking out aspects to make your application stand out in the interim.

 

[iliketohelppeople]

Well, I am here to tell you that I have been rejected everywhere so far. Indianapolis. Xavier. Loyola. Georgia Southern. Palo Alto. Freakin' SPALDING University. I'm waiting on one more school, but considering it's in a highly desirable location, I don't have high hopes. I got rejected in the first round, meaning I didn't even make it to the interview stage.

I also think that for the most part (aside from Spalding, which I am unfamiliar with), these are some of the more reputable psyd programs (but perhaps not quite at the level of rutgers or baylor), at least compared to the diploma mills. Not surprised that it is tough to get into some of these places.

 

[Sanman]

That makes sense; I think a lot of the comments I read were outdated and based on previous numbers, before the GRE increased the # of applications. In particular, schools like "Spalding" were trashed on message boards, so I genuinely considered them safeties.

Funny enough, GW is the last school I'm waiting on... i.e. no chance in hell.

I do have a significant fund for school (family member died a few years ago and left me all his money), though that is irrelevant since I didn't get in anywhere.

Genuinely curious, even with a pile of money, why give it to a PsyD program when the same money can cover a mid-level program and the costs of opening your own office?

 

[EnPsychlopedia]

Echoing the comments here and also seconding the suggestion that your sampling of programs are mostly among the higher tier ones. Georgia Southern in particular is quite good, fully funded, and housed in a traditional academic department.

It’s not that all unfunded programs are bad—it’s that almost all bad programs are unfunded, and that unfunded programs are largely dominated by the bad programs. (And that even good unfunded programs are just absurdly more expensive than makes sense for people in our field to be wise to go into debt for. Stanford’s program, for instance, is probably pretty good, but there’s no way in hell that it makes sense more the vast majority of aspiring psychologists to take on that much debt.) There are exceptions, as you say, and much of the fervent push against unfunded programs as a general category comes from a strong dislike of the for-profit model and out of concern for students taking on massive debt that most will never be able to pay off.

Edit: And not all of the unfunded programs one might consider "bad" are even PsyD programs...

 

[rejectedeverywhere24]

Genuinely curious, even with a pile of money, why give it to a PsyD program when the same money can cover a mid-level program and the costs of opening your own office?

I don't want to do research/academia or have a private practice. (I agree that if my goal were the latter, it would make more sense to be an LPC/LCSW.) My goal is to work for a large health system. Don't want to out myself in case any adcoms are reading, but a large part of my motivation for going into this field is due to said death in my family that led me to the pile of $, and I would like to do something about that at the health system level (esp. in terms of care coordination, etc.).

I am reassessing my future plans at the moment and am trying to figure out if I should just get a master's degree the next two years and then reapply, or if I should try to find a FT research position after graduation.

To the other posters -- I was aware Loyola was hyper-competitive (despite its lack of funding), but my #s seemed in line with Indianapolis, Xavier, etc., and Spalding looked like a safety. I'd read multiple negative comments about GW and Indianapolis, which perhaps falsely bolstered my confidence. I definitely agree with the person who said that 15 was a better number!

 

[Sanman]

I don't want to do research/academia or have a private practice. (I agree that if my goal were the latter, it would make more sense to be an LPC/LCSW.) My goal is to work for a large health system. Don't want to out myself in case any adcoms are reading, but a large part of my motivation for going into this field is due to said death in my family that led me to the pile of $, and I would like to do something about that at the health system level (esp. in terms of care coordination, etc.).

I am reassessing my future plans at the moment and am trying to figure out if I should just get a master's degree the next two years and then reapply, or if I should try to find a FT research position after graduation.

To the other posters -- I was aware Loyola was hyper-competitive (despite its lack of funding), but my #s seemed in line with Indianapolis, Xavier, etc., and Spalding looked like a safety. I'd read multiple negative comments about GW and Indianapolis, which perhaps falsely bolstered my confidence. I definitely agree with the person who said that 15 was a better number!

You may want ro consider looking into organizational and community psych programs. Also an MPH. They might be more applicable to your goals at a larger level.

 

[MCParent]

Palo Alto is a great program, just bonkers expensive and in an expensive place. Idk those other ones much.

 

[Mama Bear]

The sentiment may mean that unfunded programs are easy to get into in comparison. Acceptance rates tend to be about 50% in unfunded give or take. That’s considered easier in our profession.

 

[summerbabe]

I'll just add that if somebody thinks they are a genuinely strong candidate for something (grad school, internship, postdoc, etc) and they're getting totally shut out (versus I got a couple of interviews but ultimately no offers), I would advise that person to dig deeper into their application.

It's possible that there were just so many quality applications that you got lost in the numbers game, especially if you didn't have anything that especially stands out that most of the pool doesn't have.

But......were your letters of rec maybe not quite as strong as you expected? Or even openly discussed possible red flags? Especially if you waived your right to see you letter and your writers also didn't share their letters with you.

Did you have any third parties who will give honest feedback review your written materials? I read lots of internship written materials and to be blunt, some people come off as unlikable via their written word (a know it all, whiny, unaware, unprofessional, etc). Even the most renowned authors in the world have editors for a reason.

This is obviously very subjective but admissions in our field is very subjective to begin with.

To the OP, sorry that admin decisions didn't go your way this cycle but hopefully you can regroup and end up where you need to be, whether it's a self-pay PsyD or another direction.

 

[rejectedeverywhere24]

2/3 recommenders shared their letters with me and they were fine. My university is pretty large, so it's not like the letters were glowing, but def. no red flags (my professors would not even know me well enough for that). The other one is my boss and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't write anything negative about me, especially since he's kept me around for a couple of years. I had some people read my essays. The one thing I did hear repeatedly was that I did not have impressive research experience. I will definitely be retooling and figuring out how to fix this.

That said, I've been on gradcafe and plenty of people with the same/better profiles as myself have been rejected from the same schools. Hence I wanted to post here just in case some over-optimistic undergrad finds this down the line. I genuinely thought, based on all the ragging over schools like GW et al, that getting good grades would suffice. Clearly, I underestimated the competition and should have applied to more schools and worked harder to get more experience. Lesson learned for next year!

 

[Sanman]

2/3 recommenders shared their letters with me and they were fine. My university is pretty large, so it's not like the letters were glowing, but def. no red flags (my professors would not even know me well enough for that). The other one is my boss and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't write anything negative about me, especially since he's kept me around for a couple of years. I had some people read my essays. The one thing I did hear repeatedly was that I did not have impressive research experience. I will definitely be retooling and figuring out how to fix this.

That said, I've been on gradcafe and plenty of people with the same/better profiles as myself have been rejected from the same schools. Hence I wanted to post here just in case some over-optimistic undergrad finds this down the line. I genuinely thought, based on all the ragging over schools like GW et al, that getting good grades would suffice. Clearly, I underestimated the competition and should have applied to more schools and worked harder to get more experience. Lesson learned for next year!

I actually think that the bolded is the most important part of your post. Plenty of people that post on here don't think research is important or want to do any. They assume a PsyD is a way to get out of this. This feedback shows that even PsyD programs care.

 

[EnPsychlopedia]

I actually think that the bolded is the most important part of your post. Plenty of people that post on here don't think research is important or want to do any. They assume a PsyD is a way to get out of this. This feedback shows that even PsyD programs care.

I will second this.

OP, as someone familiar with the Georgia Southern program, I will also note that they very intentionally designed their program as a PsyD not because they are necessarily ideologically committed to the practitioner-scholar model (some of the faculty may be, though I cannot say to what extent) but rather because they are very much trying to use their program to train highly competent doctoral clinicians who can close gaps in specialist mental healthcare in rural areas. The program still wants their graduates to be very adept at reading and applying research, and does have a dissertation requirement--their basis for adopting the PsyD was specifically to attract folks who expressly want to apply those competencies in rural mental healthcare as doctoral specialists. They also have a small cohort (~8 folks admitted per year). So while the program does have a stated goal of training clinicians rather than aspiring academicians/researchers, they still expect a fair amount of research experience at admission and incorporate a decent amount of it into the program work, and it is competitive as PsyD programs are concerned (hence the program being fully funded).

 

[jjz2]

I created this account specifically to share my experience with future applicants so that they don't end up in the same spot as myself. I've been browsing these boards as well as Reddit for a couple of years now, since I was a sophomore, and gathered a lot of information that turned out to be completely untrue.

A few things to start with: I have a 4.0 in the major and nearly a 3.9 as my cumulative GPA. I attend a top 50 national university and am in the honors program. I double majored in psychology and a STEM field (I came into college with over 30 credits taken as a high school student). I had average research experience -- nothing super-impressive, just your typical undergraduate assistant job at my university for 10-12 hours a week. Most of the PsyD programs I applied to do not accept GRE scores. I don't have a criminal/disciplinary record, in case anyone's wondering. Not going to claim I'm the best writer ever, but I'm pretty sure I'm not illiterate and my essays were fine.

I applied to 7 clinical psychology PsyD programs and felt pretty confident I'd get in somewhere, especially because so many posters on these boards (generally ppl in or aiming for funded PhD programs, I"m starting to gather) insisted that "anyone with a pulse can get in if you're willing to loan 200K" etc. Some conceded that not every PsyD program was easy to get into, but reserved that allowance only for funded programs such as Baylor or Rutgers.

Well, I am here to tell you that I have been rejected everywhere so far. Indianapolis. Xavier. Loyola. Georgia Southern. Palo Alto. Freakin' SPALDING University. I'm waiting on one more school, but considering it's in a highly desirable location, I don't have high hopes. I got rejected in the first round, meaning I didn't even make it to the interview stage.

So if you are applying to PsyD programs, please, for the love of God, apply to plenty, and have a backup plan in place in case things don't pan out. I was overly confident based on the derogatory posts re: PsyD programs on these boards (and what I thought was a relatively strong profile). Unless you're applying to a for-profit school like Argosy and the like, it is NOT easy to get into PsyD programs!

This has me wondering what are good "safety" PsyD programs? :/

 

[AcronymAllergy]

This has me wondering what are good "safety" PsyD programs? :/

I don't know if there are very many, if any, good "safety" programs in clinical/counseling psychology, in much the same way as there probably aren't many good "safety" medical schools.

I would think cutting the GRE necessarily increased requirements and expectations in other areas; it's led to what sound to be massive increases in applications at some/most programs, and as was mentioned above, there's now no longer that numerical data point available (e.g., for classifying applications, as an initial cut-off, etc.). Using research as an example, it's just a guess, but perhaps in the past, many of the mentioned programs may not have placed as much importance on it if they'd also had GRE scores to work with. Programs are probably also still tinkering around with what other metrics to evaluate sans GRE. I wonder if some may also ultimately go back to it, since grades can be so variable from one school to the next. I can say with near-certainty I wouldn't have gotten into my own program without the GRE.

 

[WisNeuro]

I don't know if there are very many, if any, good "safety" programs in clinical/counseling psychology, in much the same way as there probably aren't many good "safety" medical schools.

I would think cutting the GRE necessarily increased requirements and expectations in other areas; it's led to what sound to be massive increases in applications at some/most programs, and as was mentioned above, there's now no longer that numerical data point available (e.g., for classifying applications, as an initial cut-off, etc.). Using research as an example, it's just a guess, but perhaps in the past, many of the mentioned programs may not have placed as much importance on it if they'd also had GRE scores to work with. Programs are probably also still tinkering around with what other metrics to evaluate sans GRE. I wonder if some may also ultimately go back to it, since grades can be so variable from one school to the next. I can say with near-certainty I wouldn't have gotten into my own program without the GRE.

In our program, grades were not important, for the most part. We easily had 80+ applications with 3.85+GPAs. So, it was pretty much only useful as a cutoff for low GPAs on the front end. If anything, the GRE was an equalizer, as it would sometimes boost someone who had an impressive GRE, but was maybe lacking in some other areas. If anything, I see dropping the GRE as increasing inequity as now programs are likely relying on metrics and experiences more open to those with means (extensive research exp, ability to volunteer for multiple labs, connections, etc). Some of the early research returns suggest that may be the case, and in the case of the more prestigious universities and colleges (e.g., Ivies) there have been marginal increases in diversity of student body, but only in the highest SES brackets. So, increasing ethnic diversity, but decreasing socioeconomic diversity. So, we're still not really doing anything to help the disadvantaged.

 

[MCParent]

In our program, grades were not important, for the most part. We easily had 80+ applications with 3.85+GPAs. So, it was pretty much only useful as a cutoff for low GPAs on the front end. If anything, the GRE was an equalizer, as it would sometimes boost someone who had an impressive GRE, but was maybe lacking in some other areas. If anything, I see dropping the GRE as increasing inequity as now programs are likely relying on metrics and experiences more open to those with means (extensive research exp, ability to volunteer for multiple labs, connections, etc). Some of the early research returns suggest that may be the case, and in the case of the more prestigious universities and colleges (e.g., Ivies) there have been marginal increases in diversity of student body, but only in the highest SES brackets. So, increasing ethnic diversity, but decreasing socioeconomic diversity. So, we're still not really doing anything to help the disadvantaged.

Agree; probably nearly half the pool has a 3.9 or 4 gpa. The individual courses matter too; if the 4.0 doesn’t include any advanced stats, bio bases of behavior, etc., that’s honestly not very impressive. Also plenty of students struggle in first year; a lower gpa with the last two years and harder classes being As is typically just fine.

 

[foreverbull]

For some PsyD programs, isn’t a master’s degree encouraged? That is one way of ensuring clinical and sometimes research experience, and shows a track record of graduate success.

Also, I ‘d be curious to see if the oft-quoted 40% acceptance rate for PsyD programs overall holds post-Covid. Some of my former students who applied to grad school in 2020 and 2021 were panicking because they found out that programs were receiving 2-3x the normal amount of applications—maybe because more people go back to school during economic downturns? Dropping the GRE probably also affected things too.

Sounds like we need more updated numbers than the old 40% statistic.

 

[The Cinnabon]

I actually think that the bolded is the most important part of your post. Plenty of people that post on here don't think research is important or want to do any. They assume a PsyD is a way to get out of this. This feedback shows that even PsyD programs care.

For some PsyD programs, isn’t a master’s degree encouraged? That is one way of ensuring clinical and sometimes research experience, and shows a track record of graduate success.

Also, I ‘d be curious to see if the oft-quoted 40% acceptance rate for PsyD doctoral programs overall holds post-Covid. Some of my former students who applied to grad school in 2020 and 2021 were panicking because they found out that programs were receiving 2-3x the normal amount of applications—maybe because more people go back to school during economic downturns? Dropping the GRE probably also affected things too.

Sounds like we need more updated numbers than the old 40% statistic.

The numbers never got worse than 2021, most schools have "leveled off" back to pre-covid applicant numbers. Of course, certain years at certain schools may be better or worse, but I was relieved to see a majority of the schools I applied to went back to their previous numbers.

Now to OP. Your research experience, or lack thereof, does seem to be the biggest barrier. Nothing wrong with doing 1-4 post-bacc RA years while making money and enjoying life. You may get enough experience to instead be competitive for funded PhDs so long as you apply strategically.

I would also do a deep dive into your app materials.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

The more I learn and talk to elder colleagues, the best time to get a PsyD was prior to when the millennials overtook the student population (ie 2003-4ish). Some GenX PsyD folks only had to do 3 year programs straight out of undergrad. And the cost was exponentially less. The REALLY early PsyD people got the most out of it though. Right into PP where they were making essentially the same rates today, but 40 years ago with no managed care issues.

 

[msc545]

People in PsyD programs tend to be clinicians and counter-intuitive as it may seem, the combination of your STEM classes and research experience may have cast you as a "bad fit". Not every program likes or respects research experience. I would de-emphasize or omit this stuff in subsequent applications to PsyD programs. Remember that people in PsyD programs often are there to avoid doctoral dissertations, advanced stats, and an extra year of school.

Your letters of rec - especially the one that you have NOT been allowed to see - may be the source of the trouble. One bad or lukewarm letter will usually outweigh all the others, and not in a good way. There is a reason you have not been allowed to see that one. I would suggest you not use that letter again, and be very careful of the others.

 

[MCParent]

People in PsyD programs tend to be clinicians and counter-intuitive as it may seem, the combination of your STEM classes and research experience may have cast you as a "bad fit". Not every program likes or respects research experience. I would de-emphasize or omit this stuff in subsequent applications to PsyD programs. Remember that people in PsyD programs often are there to avoid doctoral dissertations, advanced stats, and an extra year of school.

Your letters of rec - especially the one that you have NOT been allowed to see - may be the source of the trouble. One bad or lukewarm letter will usually outweigh all the others, and not in a good way. There is a reason you have not been allowed to see that one. I would suggest you not use that letter again, and be very careful of the others.

My exp with the listed programs is limited, but the faculty I know at Palo Alto has multiple millions in nih grants and this would certainly not be the case for applying to them.

 

[bcliff]

I created this account specifically to share my experience with future applicants so that they don't end up in the same spot as myself. I've been browsing these boards as well as Reddit for a couple of years now, since I was a sophomore, and gathered a lot of information that turned out to be completely untrue.

A few things to start with: I have a 4.0 in the major and nearly a 3.9 as my cumulative GPA. I attend a top 50 national university and am in the honors program. I double majored in psychology and a STEM field (I came into college with over 30 credits taken as a high school student). I had average research experience -- nothing super-impressive, just your typical undergraduate assistant job at my university for 10-12 hours a week. Most of the PsyD programs I applied to do not accept GRE scores. I don't have a criminal/disciplinary record, in case anyone's wondering. Not going to claim I'm the best writer ever, but I'm pretty sure I'm not illiterate and my essays were fine.

I applied to 7 clinical psychology PsyD programs and felt pretty confident I'd get in somewhere, especially because so many posters on these boards (generally ppl in or aiming for funded PhD programs, I"m starting to gather) insisted that "anyone with a pulse can get in if you're willing to loan 200K" etc. Some conceded that not every PsyD program was easy to get into, but reserved that allowance only for funded programs such as Baylor or Rutgers.

Well, I am here to tell you that I have been rejected everywhere so far. Indianapolis. Xavier. Loyola. Georgia Southern. Palo Alto. Freakin' SPALDING University. I'm waiting on one more school, but considering it's in a highly desirable location, I don't have high hopes. I got rejected in the first round, meaning I didn't even make it to the interview stage.

So if you are applying to PsyD programs, please, for the love of God, apply to plenty, and have a backup plan in place in case things don't pan out. I was overly confident based on the derogatory posts re: PsyD programs on these boards (and what I thought was a relatively strong profile). Unless you're applying to a for-profit school like Argosy and the like, it is NOT easy to get into PsyD programs!

I'm really sorry that you're going through this - This process is very difficult. I take it that this is your first application cycle? I would say that at least half of my colleagues had to apply more than once to make it into a clinical psychology doctoral program, so don't give up hope.

When I applied around a decade ago (i.e., when things were a little less competitive than they are now), I applied to twice as many programs as you (all funded PhD programs, FWIW). Even though I applied to around a dozen programs, I still only got two interviews. So, had I applied to only seven programs, I would have likely had the same experience as you. I had a similar undergraduate background to you but also spent a few years between undergrad and PhD working in various psychology settings to build up my research and clinical CV - Many of your peers (i.e., competitors) have done the same thing.

Funded PhD programs generally accept fewer than 10% of applicants - I haven't crunched the numbers, but I would imagine that most unfunded PsyD programs are mathematically easier to get into as a result of (if nothing else) larger cohort sizes. Everything is a little slanted in discussions of competitiveness when discussing the topic with folks on either side of the 1:50ish odds associated with admittance to a funded PhD program.

Let me ask: What do you want to do in your career? - If seeking a less "competitive" application process for a degree that is also less demanding of your time and geographic preferences, then consider either an MSW or MPH program. Both set you up nicely for a variety of career paths and can also be a catalyst for doctoral training later on if interested.

Good luck in both this and future application cycles!

ETA - After reading through your other comments as well those from other posters, here are a few more notes:
-- You really need letters of recommendation from at least one or two folks who know you well enough to write an excellent, thorough, and "glowing" recommendation. A "fine" recommendation letter is a bad recommendation letter, IMO.
-- To this previous point, I would suggest taking a year or two off to work in a lab, clinic, etc. and build a relationship with a mentor who can write this letter. This will give you more experience to discuss in your written materials and will likely give you a more nuanced and possibly less personal grasp on clinical psychology, which might help your applications. Programs tend to wary of applicants interested in "me-search."
-- Please, please, please consider a fully funded clinical psychology PhD program *or* unfunded MSW/MPH program and INVEST your inheritance in something more useful than an unnecessarily expensive professional degree.
-- On the topic of research experience: Aim to have your name on 4-to-8 posters at national conferences by the time you apply and one published manuscript. I'm pulling these numbers out of thin air, but they seem like good heuristics.
-- Feel free to PM if interested in discussing further or in more detail.

 

[WisNeuro]

My exp with the listed programs is limited, but the faculty I know at Palo Alto has multiple millions in nih grants and this would certainly not be the case for applying to them.

I doubt it would be the case at most of the legitimate PsyDs. Research experience definitely still highly rated in experience, especially at several of the listed programs of OP. I would definitely NOT downplay that research experience in future applications.

 

[msc545]

My exp with the listed programs is limited, but the faculty I know at Palo Alto has multiple millions in nih grants and this would certainly not be the case for applying to them.

Having millions in grants somehow cures bias? Ok, if it isn't the research, then it is probably the rec letters. I am very suspicious of the one the OP was not allowed to see.

 

[Dazen]

I have limited experience, but I have never seen any of my rec letters and neither have the vast majority of current students and recent grad I’ve talked to in the field. I certainly had conversations with each of my recommenders about whether they could write me a strong letter, because I wanted to feel confident in what they would write, but I had also developed a strong relationship over multiple years with each through working in their labs and had received enough feedback from them through these experiences that I had a good idea what they would write.

Not sure if this is the norm in the field, but I would be more concerned about “fine” letters based on a minimal professional relationship generally than not having actually seen the letters.

 

[psycho1391]

My university is pretty large, so it's not like the letters were glowing, but def. no red flags (my professors would not even know me well enough for that).

Between your research experience and the letters not being glowing that could explain it. I would examine your personal statements as well.

 

[psycho1391]

You may want ro consider looking into organizational and community psych programs. Also an MPH.

Agree 100%. If you are thinking macro level stuff OP, then perhaps clinical psychology isn't for you? I think you really need to evaluate your career goals. From what you've said on here if you included some of that in your personal statements, then you may have not been a good fit when you have other folks wanting to provide clinical care, go into academia, etc.

 

[MCParent]

Having millions in grants somehow cures bias? Ok, if it isn't the research, then it is probably the rec letters. I am very suspicious of the one the OP was not allowed to see.

How would there be bias?
A small program takes 5 students. Getting a student who hates research but bluffed their way in would be bad, and represents 5 or so years during which the PI wouldn’t get the effort they want out of a lab member.
A large program that takes 40 people a year offering to a person who likes research is inconsequential to the program.

 

[PsyDr]

Wait, THERE'S NO GRE REQUIREMENTS ANYMORE?!?!

 

[WisNeuro]

Wait, THERE'S NO GRE REQUIREMENTS ANYMORE?!?!

Oh yeah, been a growing trend that picked up a good deal of steam post-pandemic.

 

[Sanman]

Wait, THERE'S NO GRE REQUIREMENTS ANYMORE?!?!

Dude, you are so not with the trends. Does your practice even have an apology to the public for failing to challenge discrimination? You probably still diagnose disorders? Where is your virtue signaling?

 

[summerbabe]

Somewhat tangentially but my internship program gets lots of Palo Alto apps each year due to geography.

I’ve seen students who have research CVs that compare to the people coming from the best funded programs.

But I also see people who do data set dissertations (that diploma mill PsyDs are known for) and basically didn’t participate in any labs. Hell, I’ve even seen applications with basically zero assessment experience (even though same year peers had plenty) because it seemed like they only wanted to do therapy.

My take has always been that if you can get in and afford their price tag, you can basically have whatever type of educational experience you want so the program will produce a much wider range of competence in their graduates (compared to a place like Baylor where everybody will meaningfully do research and get trained in EBPs).

So their top Palo Alto students could 100% be attending solid funded programs and the lower tier students may have some significant gaps in their doctoral level competencies.

 

[biscuitsbiscuits]

Clarifying question: Were GREs absolutely not accepted or were the programs test-optional? If the latter, by all means get a good score and send it.

 

[Justanotherpsychintern]

Clarifying question: Were GREs absolutely not accepted or were the programs test-optional? If the latter, by all means get a good score and send it.

Depends on the program. I was helping an RA look at some programs, some of which were PsyDs, and some say “GRE optional but no longer heavily considered”, some just straight up say “don’t send us these scores because we will not look at them.” I did find a couple of the more well-regarded programs still have the requirement, along with preferred scores, but most I saw explicitly say the GRE is no longer a part of the application.

 

[WisNeuro]

Dude, you are so not with the trends. Does your practice even have an apology to the public for failing to challenge discrimination? You probably still diagnose disorders? Where is your virtue signaling?

I self-flagellate in a public square monthly to atone for the sins of people not related to me who perpetrated injustices before I was ever born. I'm currently working on my hair shirt for times when I'm not engaging in self-flagellation.

 

[PsyDr]

Dude, you are so not with the trends. Does your practice even have an apology to the public for failing to challenge discrimination? You probably still diagnose disorders? Where is your virtue signaling?

Since we don't have any training in societal level interventions, how do they reconcile this requirement with the ethical requirement to only practice within your area of education and training?

What's the pay for that kind of stuff, and who do you bill?

Oh yeah, been a growing trend that picked up a good deal of steam post-pandemic.

Great. Let's remove all objectivity.

 

[WisNeuro]

Since we don't have any training in societal level interventions, how do they reconcile this requirement with the ethical requirement to only practice within your area of education and training?

What's the pay for that kind of stuff, and who do you bill?

Great. Let's remove all objectivity.

I mean, it's DEI-related, pretty par for the course there.

 

[Sanman]

Since we don't have any training in societal level interventions, how do they reconcile this requirement with the ethical requirement to only practice within your area of education and training?

What's the pay for that kind of stuff, and who do you bill?

Great. Let's remove all objectivity.

That's more a question for APA, they have been doing the apologizing and social justice stuff.

I just keep my head down and stay in my lane.


As for objectivity, we don't do that anymore. It's either non-judgment or fake news depending on your political beliefs.

 

[Sanman]

I self-flagellate in a public square monthly to atone for the sins of people not related to me who perpetrated injustices before I was ever born. I'm currently working on my hair shirt for times when I'm not engaging in self-flagellation.

Have you considered live streaming it on Tik-Tok or YouTube? Side hustle baby!

 

[WisNeuro]

Have you considered live streaming it on Tik-Tok or YouTube? Side hustle baby!

I'm afraid I'd somehow be either furthering my own unearned privilege or somehow engaging in cultural appropriation by doing so, because....reasons.

 

[Sanman]

I'm afraid I'd somehow be either furthering my own unearned privilege or somehow engaging in cultural appropriation by doing so, because....reasons.

Just donate all the proceeds to me. Problem solved.

 

[WisNeuro]

Just donate all the proceeds to me. Problem solved.

You cis white males are all the same 😉