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

[msc545]

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.

OK - do you prefer "preference" ?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[psych.meout]

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.

OK - do you prefer "preference" ?

It makes zero sense that they would be biased and reject someone simply for completing STEM classes and having research experience. Even preferring applicants without research experience makes no sense because there is still a dissertation requirement for all doctoral programs, regardless of the rigor of that milestone at some of the lower quality programs. Why would they prefer someone with no research experience over someone who has at least some? The former is less likely to be able to complete the dissertation than the latter.

The more likely culprits are the "fine" recommendations that OP read, the one that they were not allowed to read at all, and their personal statement (if they articulated goals and interests anything similar to what they've said here).

 

[psych.meout]

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?

Last year I interviewed at an internship site that had a land acknowledgement at the very beginning of the day before saying anything about the program. They also spent considerable amounts of time talking about DEI, self-care, etc. At the end of the day there was the usual discussion between just applicants and current interns, no faculty/supervisors allowed. The interns were miserable. They spoke about how burned out they were, how many of them considered quitting internship in the first few months, how poorly they were paid and how expensive the cost of living was, how there was no parking anywhere near the clinics, etc. And quite a few of the interns were from minoritized groups, too....

 

[MCParent]

idk about the focus on the letters of rec. I have trouble seeing one lukewarm letter break all of the op’s apps. tbh to the op, I’d get people to read the personal statements again. And by people I mean people who have sat on selection committees. A lot of personal statements are not very good even though the writers think they are fine at writing. And people who have never read them have no idea what constitutes a good or a weak essay, so their feedback on anything more than finding typos isn’t helpful.

Palo Alto got over 600 apps last year, glancing at their web site. I’m suggesting the personal statement bc it sounds to me like something resulted in op’s file being moved to reject pretty early in the process. Idk the other programs listed; op emphasized Spalding as being a surprise rejection but I didn’t see number of applicants per year listed in their disclosure data.

I would definitely not de-emphasize any level of research experience. Simple enough to say in a line in the personal statement, “and that research experience was also valuable in informing me that my passion is in direct service psych” or whatever.

 

[Sanman]

Last year I interviewed at an internship site that had a land acknowledgement at the very beginning of the day before saying anything about the program. They also spent considerable amounts of time talking about DEI, self-care, etc. At the end of the day there was the usual discussion between just applicants and current interns, no faculty/supervisors allowed. The interns were miserable. They spoke about how burned out they were, how many of them considered quitting internship in the first few months, how poorly they were paid and how expensive the cost of living was, how there was no parking anywhere near the clinics, etc. And quite a few of the interns were from minoritized groups, too....

Sounds awesome. It's important that they acknowledge their historical abuse of minorities before beginning their current abuse of minorities. Maybe they could spend some money fixing the parking situation and ensuring work/life balance, but that would take time and cost actual money.

Next they will use DEI as a cover to hire more minority adjunct professors. It is that they want to help minorities, it is not that anyone with better choices would never take such a "well-paying and prestigious" position.

 

[psych.meout]

Sounds awesome. It's important that they acknowledge their historical abuse of minorities before beginning their current abuse of minorities. Maybe they could spend some money fixing the parking situation and ensuring work/life balance, but that would take time and cost actual money.

Next they will use DEI as a cover to hire more minority adjunct professors. It is that they want to help minorities, it is not that anyone with better choices would never take such a "well-paying and prestigious" position.

The best part is that it's not like it's a CMH site with zero funding or resources. It's a massive, prestigious AMC and they spent so much time drilling this into applicants as an asset during the program overview with zero awareness of how this looks juxtaposed to how their interns are treated.

idk about the focus on the letters of rec. I have trouble seeing one lukewarm letter break all of the op’s apps. tbh to the op, I’d get people to read the personal statements again. And by people I mean people who have sat on selection committees. A lot of personal statements are not very good even though the writers think they are fine at writing. And people who have never read them have no idea what constitutes a good or a weak essay, so their feedback on anything more than finding typos isn’t helpful.

Palo Alto got over 600 apps last year, glancing at their web site. I’m suggesting the personal statement bc it sounds to me like something resulted in op’s file being moved to reject pretty early in the process. Idk the other programs listed; op emphasized Spalding as being a surprise rejection but I didn’t see number of applicants per year listed in their disclosure data.

I would definitely not de-emphasize any level of research experience. Simple enough to say in a line in the personal statement, “and that research experience was also valuable in informing me that my passion is in direct service psych” or whatever.

I was a bit perplexed by OP being so incredulous about getting rejected from Spalding, as if it was a diploma mill. I'm not familiar with their program, but looking at their outcome stats, it seems like it's not really different from the other PsyD programs they mentioned. Fine stats but far too expensive to be worth it.

https://spalding.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Student-Admissions_-Outcomes_-and-Other-Data.pdf

 

[MCParent]

The best part is that it's not like it's a CMH site with zero funding or resources. It's a massive, prestigious AMC and they spent so much time drilling this into applicants as an asset during the program overview with zero awareness of how this looks juxtaposed to how their interns are treated.

I was a bit perplexed by OP being so incredulous about getting rejected from Spalding, as if it was a diploma mill. I'm not familiar with their program, but looking at their outcome stats, it seems like it's not really different from the other PsyD programs they mentioned. Fine stats but far too expensive to be worth it.

https://spalding.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Student-Admissions_-Outcomes_-and-Other-Data.pdf

Thanks; for some reason I couldn’t find the disclosure doc on my phone!
Yeah the schools seem like incredibly-expensive-but-fine places-with-slightly-large-classes afaik. Not Alliants or Capellas anyhow. At the same time, I’m still a little surprised that op did not get any interviews with a good gpa and some research experience, so I wonder about PS quality.

 

[msc545]

It makes zero sense that they would be biased and reject someone simply for completing STEM classes and having research experience. Even preferring applicants without research experience makes no sense because there is still a dissertation requirement for all doctoral programs, regardless of the rigor of that milestone at some of the lower quality programs. Why would they prefer someone with no research experience over someone who has at least some? The former is less likely to be able to complete the dissertation than the latter.

The more likely culprits are the "fine" recommendations that OP read, the one that they were not allowed to read at all, and their personal statement (if they articulated goals and interests anything similar to what they've said here).

I agree relative to the most likely cause of the problem being the personal statement and the rec letters. However, I think that the likely research emphasis in the app cannot be entirely ruled out as at least a part of the problem. Perhaps the OP would share that material with us privately?

 

[psych.meout]

I agree relative to the most likely cause of the problem being the personal statement and the rec letters. However, I think that the likely research emphasis in the app cannot be entirely ruled out as at least a part of the problem. Perhaps the OP would share that material with us privately?

There's a huge difference between having research experience and STEM classes on their CV (which is what OP has stated thus far) vs. articulating a strong interest in doing research in grad school and their career. It's absurd to think that the former is going to hurt their chances at any of these reputable PsyD programs, but the latter could, e.g., saying that they want to be TT faculty.

 

[msc545]

There's a huge difference between having research experience and STEM classes on their CV (which is what OP has stated thus far) vs. articulating a strong interest in doing research in grad school and their career. It's absurd to think that the former is going to hurt their chances at any of these reputable PsyD programs, but the latter could, e.g., saying that they want to be TT faculty.

I would not go so far as to call it "absurd" given that we have no idea who is reading the applications. "Unlikely" perhaps.

 

[foreverbull]

OP (@rejectedeverywhere24 ), speaking of things that could be missing, you didn't mention any clinical experience. Do you have any experience in that domain at all? That would not necessarily be a red flag, but might. If we were talking applying to clinical PhDs here, it would be a different story, but PsyD programs value clinical experience.

 

[therow]

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 agree, I am a third-time applicant and was finally accepted into a PhD program that is unfortunately unfunded. My program accepts a small cohort, but the program's structure is different as we apply for the program as a whole instead of applying to a PI to work with. I feel like most of users on these forums were fortunate to have attended clinical psychology programs years ago when the competitiveness was not as high. I also applied for PSYD programs and I did not get in anywhere despite people saying that PSYD's are "easier" to get in.

I'm seeing a lot of shame and stigma towards attending unfunded programs but the reality is, programs now receive HUNDREDS of applicants, some of us have dreams and aspirations to become a clinical psychologist. The reality is current acceptance rates for funded programs are around 5% or even less, should this prevent us from achieving our career objectives?

Clearly, the burden of debt and financial expenses is a significant factor; however, I disagree with the widespread notion that choosing to enroll in a program without financial aid is a foolish decision.

 

[WisNeuro]

I agree, I am a third-time applicant and was finally accepted into a PhD program that is unfortunately unfunded. My program accepts a small cohort, but the program's structure is different as we apply for the program as a whole instead of applying to a PI to work with. I feel like most of users on these forums were fortunate to have attended clinical psychology programs years ago when the competitiveness was not as high. I also applied for PSYD programs and I did not get in anywhere despite people saying that PSYD's are "easier" to get in.

I'm seeing a lot of shame and stigma towards attending unfunded programs but the reality is, programs now receive HUNDREDS of applicants, some of us have dreams and aspirations to become a clinical psychologist. The reality is current acceptance rates for funded programs are around 5% or even less, should this prevent us from achieving our career objectives?

Clearly, the burden of debt and financial expenses is a significant factor; however, I disagree with the widespread notion that choosing to enroll in a program without financial aid is a foolish decision.

More applications does not necessarily equal "more competitive." Remember that a very good number of applications are really not seriously considered, for a variety of reasons. Is there another objective indicator of "competitiveness" that you are considering in your assertion here? As for <5% acceptance rate, that's been true for many programs dating very far back, if we're merely considering applications to spots. But, as anyone involved in admissions can tell you, the amount of considered applications to spots is a MUCH different number.

 

[Sanman]

I agree, I am a third-time applicant and was finally accepted into a PhD program that is unfortunately unfunded. My program accepts a small cohort, but the program's structure is different as we apply for the program as a whole instead of applying to a PI to work with. I feel like most of users on these forums were fortunate to have attended clinical psychology programs years ago when the competitiveness was not as high. I also applied for PSYD programs and I did not get in anywhere despite people saying that PSYD's are "easier" to get in.

I'm seeing a lot of shame and stigma towards attending unfunded programs but the reality is, programs now receive HUNDREDS of applicants, some of us have dreams and aspirations to become a clinical psychologist. The reality is current acceptance rates for funded programs are around 5% or even less, should this prevent us from achieving our career objectives?

Clearly, the burden of debt and financial expenses is a significant factor; however, I disagree with the widespread notion that choosing to enroll in a program without financial aid is a foolish decision.

The acceptance rate for most of the funded programs was about 5% when I applied as well, including the one I attended. While there are certain differences recently (pandemic grading, gre scores being optional/dropped, less access to in person research labs), this path has never been that easy to enter. The truth is the vast majority are turned down and always have been. The bias here is that we are the ones that beat the competition and got in. Congrats on your acceptance. You should be proud.

 

[WisNeuro]

The acceptance rate for most of the funded programs was about 5% when I applied as well, including the one I attended. While there are certain differences recently (pandemic grading, gre scores being optional/dropped, less access to in person research labs), this path has never been that easy to enter. The truth is the vast majority are turned down and always have been. The bias here is that we are the ones that beat the competition and got in. Congrats on your acceptance. You should be proud.

I checked the two programs I was involved in. In both cases, as applications went up, average GRE and GPAs went down, at least up until they stopped taking the GRE. So, at least for those objective indicators, it got easier to get in.

 

[MCParent]

The “5%” rate is misrepresented/misunderstood a fair bit (along with its cousin, “psych is harder to get into than medical school”). The program level rate accept is about 5%. But most people apply to many programs. And the distribution of offers is not equalized; some people get ten interviews and ten offers and others apply to ten and get no interviews.

 

[WisNeuro]

The “5%” rate is misrepresented/misunderstood a fair bit (along with its cousin, “psych is harder to get into than medical school”). The program level rate accept is about 5%. But most people apply to many programs. And the distribution of offers is not equalized; some people get ten interviews and ten offers and others apply to ten and get no interviews.

How dare you bring reason and an understanding of statistics and the admissions process into this?!?

 

[MCParent]

I agree, I am a third-time applicant and was finally accepted into a PhD program that is unfortunately unfunded. My program accepts a small cohort, but the program's structure is different as we apply for the program as a whole instead of applying to a PI to work with. I feel like most of users on these forums were fortunate to have attended clinical psychology programs years ago when the competitiveness was not as high. I also applied for PSYD programs and I did not get in anywhere despite people saying that PSYD's are "easier" to get in.

I'm seeing a lot of shame and stigma towards attending unfunded programs but the reality is, programs now receive HUNDREDS of applicants, some of us have dreams and aspirations to become a clinical psychologist. The reality is current acceptance rates for funded programs are around 5% or even less, should this prevent us from achieving our career objectives?

Clearly, the burden of debt and financial expenses is a significant factor; however, I disagree with the widespread notion that choosing to enroll in a program without financial aid is a foolish decision.

Dreams and aspirations are not qualifications.

 

[MCParent]

Btw, those of us who got in and completed funded programs did not have perfect processes. We were also on the back end of bizarre processes. I got into my fully funded ultra-reach and was offered an unfunded masters spot at a backup. There’s a lot of noise in the system.

 

[WisNeuro]

Btw, those of us who got in and completed funded programs did not have perfect processes. We were also on the back end of bizarre processes. I got into my fully funded ultra-reach and was offered an unfunded masters spot at a backup. There’s a lot of noise in the system.

And many of us did things like put in several years of volunteer lab work, learning several coding languages, become proficient at DOS batch coding for old EEG systems, and earned research productivity to build our CVs.

 

[MCParent]

become proficient at DOS batch coding

Is that like an old person thing?

 

[WisNeuro]

Is that like an old person thing?

More of an issue of the major EEG suppliers not modernizing until more recently. Also, the lab PI was very used to this particular system. I also taught myself how to repair the caps, instead of sending them in for costly repair work.

 

[RxPsych]

The “5%” rate is misrepresented/misunderstood a fair bit (along with its cousin, “psych is harder to get into than medical school”). The program level rate accept is about 5%. But most people apply to many programs. And the distribution of offers is not equalized; some people get ten interviews and ten offers and others apply to ten and get no interviews.

Wouldn't this also be true for med school, where applicants apply to a certain number of schools and some people get more interviews and offers than others? Thus, the average acceptance rate between clinical psychology PhD programs and med school would be roughly similar?

 

[MCParent]

Wouldn't this also be true for med school, where applicants apply to a certain number of schools and some people get more interviews and offers than others? Thus, the average acceptance rate between clinical psychology PhD programs and med school would be roughly similar?

I think the people who say it are simultaneously thinking of individual program accept rates for psych and overall matriculation rates in med + the anecdotal person info that they know many medical students and few psych doctoral students.

 

[Sanman]

I think the people who say it are simultaneously thinking of individual program accept rates for psych and overall matriculation rates in med + the anecdotal person info that they know many medical students and few psych doctoral students.

So the last APA graduate school study I looked at had clinical and counseling psych at 12% acceptance (including PsyD) and for med school were in the single digits. However, I think med school get a lot more hopeful apps than we do. The pdf below has a nice breakdown showing that chances are not that bad for competitive students. Above a 3.6 GPA and average MCAT scores are like a 30-40% chance of admission.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ChAWegQIDBAB&usg=AOvVaw3O1weQA7xQkOKcOIzUco6n

 

[The Cinnabon]

The “5%” rate is misrepresented/misunderstood a fair bit (along with its cousin, “psych is harder to get into than medical school”). The program level rate accept is about 5%. But most people apply to many programs. And the distribution of offers is not equalized; some people get ten interviews and ten offers and others apply to ten and get no interviews.

There was a paper published a few years back, could be a good read. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0098628319889537

I will also say, the median number of applications per applicant to medical school is likely much higher than 12 which was the highest number of applications per applicant this paper used for clinical psychology. But there are other nuances in this comparison such as in-state preference for MD applicants, making it harder to standardize relative difficulty imo.

 

[PsyDr]

take a look around, there is a ton of smack talk. I’m sure the NBA laughs at the G league, I’m sure MDs laugh at DOs, and…

I’m sure that the PhDs laugh at the PsyDs. Then someone claps back with some other metric.

It’s a meritocracy. It’s objectively harder to get into a phd program. They earned the right to brag.

Find your self worth in something meaningful. The worst psychologist in the world can bill exactly the same amount as the best psychologist.

Also, the lab PI was very used to this particular system. I also taught myself how to repair the caps, instead of sending them in …

And the alienist that trained sanman used to have him adjust the ice baths, and then the insulin comas.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

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

Yeah, that popped out at me too. I’m not sure when that happened. I know the Psych GRE wasn’t required at some programs, but now I am severely dating myself.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Yeah, that popped out at me too. I’m not sure when that happened. I know the Psych GRE wasn’t required at some programs, but now I am severely dating myself.

Primarily during and soon after COVID, in part initially because getting in to actually take the test was probably next to impossible.

 

[psych.meout]

Primarily during and soon after COVID, in part initially because getting in to actually take the test was probably next to impossible.

Yep, that's why my program dropped it. Last time I spoke to our faculty about it before I went on internship, they were strongly leaning towards bringing it back because of their experience doing admissions without it during COVID.

 

[psycho1391]

I'm seeing a lot of shame and stigma towards attending unfunded programs but the reality is, programs now receive HUNDREDS of applicants, some of us have dreams and aspirations to become a clinical psychologist. The reality is current acceptance rates for funded programs are around 5% or even less, should this prevent us from achieving our career objectives?

Here is the thing. Dreams and aspirations do not make you a good clinical psychologist. Also just because you have a dream/aspiration does not mean that you have the qualifications that makes you a good clinical psychologist. Would you want just anyone who dreams to be a clinician to be your clinician? There has to be standards in the field. Accepting people with low GPAs, letters, etc. is unfathomable for the field at large.

Sometimes, your dreams and aspirations don't come to fruition for a good number of reasons. That's why you pivot, get more experience, beef up your application, etc. Sometimes, it is not meant to be.

One of the reasons why most people on this board hound at unfunded programs is that a majority of them tend to be diploma mills. They do not create good psychologists.

At the end of the day, is it really worth it to sacrifice a ton of money and a good education for the sake of achieving your dream?

 

[MCParent]

Here is the thing. Dreams and aspirations do not make you a good clinical psychologist. Also just because you have a dream/aspiration does not mean that you have the qualifications that makes you a good clinical psychologist. Would you want just anyone who dreams to be a clinician to be your clinician? There has to be standards in the field. Accepting people with low GPAs, letters, etc. is unfathomable for the field at large.

Sometimes, your dreams and aspirations don't come to fruition for a good number of reasons. That's why you pivot, get more experience, beef up your application, etc. Sometimes, it is not meant to be.

One of the reasons why most people on this board hound at unfunded programs is that a majority of them tend to be diploma mills. They do not create good psychologists.

At the end of the day, is it really worth it to sacrifice a ton of money and a good education for the sake of achieving your dream?

Also…. There is a route. Funded doc programs don’t produce anything close to the needed number of frontline mental health providers. That’s why people on this forum suggest masters programs all the time for people who want to be therapists.

Unless the dream/aspiration is “I want to be called Dr.” Which is not a good aspiration.

 

[Sanman]

Here is the thing. Dreams and aspirations do not make you a good clinical psychologist. Also just because you have a dream/aspiration does not mean that you have the qualifications that makes you a good clinical psychologist. Would you want just anyone who dreams to be a clinician to be your clinician? There has to be standards in the field. Accepting people with low GPAs, letters, etc. is unfathomable for the field at large.

Sometimes, your dreams and aspirations don't come to fruition for a good number of reasons. That's why you pivot, get more experience, beef up your application, etc. Sometimes, it is not meant to be.

One of the reasons why most people on this board hound at unfunded programs is that a majority of them tend to be diploma mills. They do not create good psychologists.

At the end of the day, is it really worth it to sacrifice a ton of money and a good education for the sake of achieving your dream?

I would push this one step further and say that it makes you a worse clinician as it furthers the idea that it is okay to cut corners to achieve your own goals. When you sit in front of a patient and treat them, it is not about you. You often have to accept failure and not take it as an affront to your skills. I recently read a comment about a therapist that could not stand patients with treatment resistant depression. Why? Because it did not make the clinician feel good that the client was not making progress. This job is not about making you feel good. In fact, it is not about you at all. People have their own journey with their own illness. Failure is a part of life and does not make you a bad person.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Becoming a psychologist is extremely challenging. I was rejected by a weaker professional school and this was quite a few years ago. Maybe the assumption that getting in to even a weak program should be easy is part of the problem. I tend to get involved in some of these debates about funded vs unfounded and PhD vs PsyD and I have not heard anyone say that it was easy to get into the professional schools. Logically, those schools also need to have students who can pass the EPPP or they will lose the weak reputation that they already have. If they let in anyone, I’m thinking the pass rate and licensure rate would plummet.

 

[WisNeuro]

Becoming a psychologist is extremely challenging. I was rejected by a weaker professional school and this was quite a few years ago. Maybe the assumption that getting in to even a weak program should be easy is part of the problem. I tend to get involved in some of these debates about funded vs unfounded and PhD vs PsyD and I have not heard anyone say that it was easy to get into the professional schools. Logically, those schools also need to have students who can pass the EPPP or they will lose the weak reputation that they already have. If they let in anyone, I’m thinking the pass rate and licensure rate would plummet.

Logically, yes. But, for some of these professional schools, the numbers would suggest that they really do not care about their students' ability to pass the EPPP.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Logically, yes. But, for some of these professional schools, the numbers would suggest that they really do not care about their students' ability to pass the EPPP.

I assume they still want more than zero and might even need some benchmark to maintain APA accreditation?

 

[WisNeuro]

I assume they still want more than zero and might even need some benchmark to maintain APA accreditation?

Apparently the CSPP-LA had 34 students take the EPPP last year with a 0% pass rate. Many other schools have ~40% pass rates. I doubt there is any benchmark in place to keep accreditation. I'm sure that the only benchmark APA needs is whether or not that professional school monetarily sponsors something at the next convention.

 

[The Cinnabon]

Eliminating the gre was a bad idea. Forces consideration more heavily of the reputation of the undergrad program, the reputation of the letter writers, objective indicators of productivity (eg, publications), and participation in service.

As an undergrad, who knows which labs are high profile labs or even to think about that? Professors’ children. Physicians’ children. It’s the crowd where they’re told to contact specific professors as soon as they’re on campus. Throw in the dei programs who do that for students. And, the typical applicant of yesteryear figuring out that they want to do clin psych in their junior year with a high gre is basically shut out.

What does that do?

Weeds out the people with natural developed interest and high aptitude. Increases legacy, rich kids.

All of what you mentioned still mattered just as much pre-GRE. The GRE is never what got you into a program, but it certainly existed to keep people out who may not be ready for doctoral studies.

The people who scored high on the GRE by and large are the same people who usually have stellar letter writers, a decent amount of scholarly output during undergrad/post-bacc, and went to solid undergrad programs.

I can see arguments for why the GRE should be reimplemented, but the strongest arguments that hold up aren't really related to equity.

 

[Ollie123]

Apparently the CSPP-LA had 34 students take the EPPP last year with a 0% pass rate.

I am literally unable to comprehend how this is possible. If it was another school I would actually assume reporting error or something but with CSPP....maybe?

I'm pretty darn sure if I picked 34 random B+ or higher undergrad psych students who never took a grad class in their life, gave them study materials & incentivized them to study hard for a few months, I'd get at least a handful of passes.

 

[WisNeuro]

All of what you mentioned still mattered just as much pre-GRE. The GRE is never what got you into a program, but it certainly existed to keep people out who may not be ready for doctoral studies.

The people who scored high on the GRE by and large are the same people who usually have stellar letter writers, a decent amount of scholarly output during undergrad/post-bacc, and went to solid undergrad programs.

I can see arguments for why the GRE should be reimplemented, but the strongest arguments that hold up aren't really related to equity.

We definitely moved people up who had exceptional GRE scores, but may have been lower on research productivity/involvement or fewer opportunities for such depending on their undergrad institution.

 

[WisNeuro]

I am literally unable to comprehend how this is possible. If it was another school I would actually assume reporting error or something but with CSPP....maybe?

I'm pretty darn sure if I picked 34 random B+ or higher undergrad psych students who never took a grad class in their life, gave them study materials & incentivized them to study hard for a few months, I'd get at least a handful of passes.

If it were anywhere but CSPP, I'd be surprised.

 

[The Cinnabon]

What I am saying is that you get legacy plus dei. People groomed to be there. And, less chance for others to break in. While yes, those who come from highly educated families have an advantage on tests like the gre, the advantage is greater in the other areas.

Where are all of these legacy admits? I'm asking genuinely, but I haven't met a single "legacy" admit. For what it's worth, during my first year of undergrad I got involved in research without knowing a damn thing about research just by asking a professor. I come from a pretty middle of the road background and hadn't the faintest clue about clinical psychology as a profession until my junior year. I really don't think the GRE being phased out is making this some insurmountable task for regular joes.

I tried research out because it seemed cool to read about during a public health class, read more about it as a career on SDN and reddit of all places (which gave me insights into where more formal readings may be). Applied broadly, and will be going to an average state school for my PhD. If you put an ounce of effort into just googling something I think you can walk away with the knowledge on how to be a successful applicant.

 

[WisNeuro]

All of what you mentioned still mattered just as much pre-GRE. The GRE is never what got you into a program, but it certainly existed to keep people out who may not be ready for doctoral studies.

The people who scored high on the GRE by and large are the same people who usually have stellar letter writers, a decent amount of scholarly output during undergrad/post-bacc, and went to solid undergrad programs.

I can see arguments for why the GRE should be reimplemented, but the strongest arguments that hold up aren't really related to equity.

Admittedly, the GRE does not have the same level of research that undergrad admissions tests (SAT, ACT) do, but the data there is much more nuanced than one would think. I'll track it down, but the Cal system did a large study at some point that suggested that the tests helped increase diversity of admissions. There is some other recent work on how eliminating entrance exam options in some schools only increased enrollment marginally of students of color, but led to an increase in accepting students from high SES backgrounds, to the detriment of students of low SES backgrounds. With the GRE requirement gone, my suspicion is that admissions will almost certainly favor people who come from means and have connections at this point.

 

[The Cinnabon]

Admittedly, the GRE does not have the same level of research that undergrad admissions tests (SAT, ACT) do, but the data there is much more nuanced than one would think. I'll track it down, but the Cal system did a large study at some point that suggested that the tests helped increase diversity of admissions. There is some other recent work on how eliminating entrance exam options in some schools only increased enrollment marginally of students of color, but led to an increase in accepting students from high SES backgrounds, to the detriment of students of low SES backgrounds. With the GRE requirement gone, my suspicion is that admissions will almost certainly favor people who come from means and have connections at this point.

This does make sense!

 

[Sanman]

Where are all of these legacy admits? I'm asking genuinely, but I haven't met a single "legacy" admit. For what it's worth, during my first year of undergrad I got involved in research without knowing a damn thing about research just by asking a professor. I come from a pretty middle of the road background and hadn't the faintest clue about clinical psychology as a profession until my junior year. I really don't think the GRE being phased out is making this some insurmountable task for regular joes.

I tried research out because it seemed cool to read about during a public health class, read more about it as a career on SDN and reddit of all places (which gave me insights into where more formal readings may be). Applied broadly, and will be going to an average state school for my PhD. If you put an ounce of effort into just googling something I think you can walk away with the knowledge on how to be a successful applicant.

The few "legacy" admits (kids of psychologists) that I know have attended programs that are often not funded and at least one MSW grad that I can think of personally. Parents that are able to shell out six figure tuition certainly affect that more than GRE scores. Now, if @neothanos means children of college grads or other professionals, that is a different story. At the end of the day, that will often be true. Then again, I figured out what I had to do by using the internet and those resources are much more abundant now than when I was an undergrad.

 

[albatross_at_crossroads]

Admittedly, the GRE does not have the same level of research that undergrad admissions tests (SAT, ACT) do, but the data there is much more nuanced than one would think. I'll track it down, but the Cal system did a large study at some point that suggested that the tests helped increase diversity of admissions. There is some other recent work on how eliminating entrance exam options in some schools only increased enrollment marginally of students of color, but led to an increase in accepting students from high SES backgrounds, to the detriment of students of low SES backgrounds. With the GRE requirement gone, my suspicion is that admissions will almost certainly favor people who come from means and have connections at this point.

I have, in my small cohort of 5, two "legacies" (one of them a kid of a prof in psych but not clinical, and one kid from a "preeminent" local family of physicians). This is a highly competitive program that's fully funded.

Also, I have been suspecting the same thing about the GRE ever since they eliminated it. The kids with more privileged backgrounds got an upper hand and I saw that in our new cohorts. Which is why it doesn't surprise me that schools are trying to bring the GRE back, and that Yale and others want the SAT back. The data they looked at emphasizes exactly this aspect - the schools lose out on the kids they are actually trying to attract. I'm a good example of that - I came from a very underprivileged background and standardized testing helped me get scholarships, funding, and get noticed by profs; without that, there would probably be no way to stand out, even with all my hard work over the years.

While standardized testing is not the end-all, I think it has a place in admissions and we shouldn't be too quick to discount it.

 

[R. Matey]

I came from a very underprivileged background and standardized testing helped me get scholarships, funding, and get noticed by profs; without that, there would probably be no way to stand out, even with all my hard work over the years.

+1

It's one thing to work hard, it's another to work hard towards the 'right' indicators of success. Better or worse, the GRE can give a prospective committee a new data point that may elevate an otherwise middling application.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

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.

The GRE has been suspended? I didn't even realize that. So, no more GRE for graduate school admissions? I had heard about the no SAT/ACT for undergrad admissions anymore, but hadn't heard about abolishing the GRE. Interesting. Grades often mean very little anymore (with the 'ceiling effect' of everyone getting all (or almost all) 'A's').

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

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.

Which is incredibly interesting--considering the philosophical roots of their founding and proposed justification for the need for a separate doctoral-level degree in psychology as an alternative to the PhD.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

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.

Attempts to 'steer' or 'engineer' the outcomes of complex processes tend to have unpredictable results...often the opposite of what was intended.