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

[smalltownpsych]

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.

That is pretty bad. To me that seems like more evidence of how APA is not doing a good job of protecting and promoting our profession. What is funny is that CSPP-LA was my “safety school” and they rejected my application. A few years later, I was in a practicum placement with some of their students and I’ll never forget the comment one made that although the four point difference between scores in a WAIS was not a significant difference but that it was a noticeable difference. Yes, because we can all see that the numbers are different and we don’t understand the basics of statistics. 😳

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MCParent]

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').

It’s a program level decision whether to include the GRE or not. A pretty large number of programs have dropped it.

 

[WisNeuro]

That is pretty bad. To me that seems like more evidence of how APA is not doing a good job of protecting and promoting our profession. What is funny is that CSPP-LA was my “safety school” and they rejected my application. A few years later, I was in a practicum placement with some of their students and I’ll never forget the comment one made that although the four point difference between scores in a WAIS was not a significant difference but that it was a noticeable difference. Yes, because we can all see that the numbers are different and we don’t understand the basics of statistics. 😳

Seems pretty on brand for the level of critical thought I'd expect from students in that program.

 

[Freud’sMommy]

Psych departments need to increase their GRE standards, not rid of them completely.

 

[WisNeuro]

Psych departments need to increase their GRE standards, not rid of them completely.

Meh, we'll soon be paid like midlevels, and at the level of expertise as midlevels, might as well decrease our entry standards to midlevel as well.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Psych departments need to increase their GRE standards, not rid of them completely.

Na, The GRE is a crappy measure for graduate capacity. Its bias and it doesn't reflect the field. Stronger math and lab requirements as part of B.S. / M.S. degrees are the better route. too many students are scared of statistics and making decisive decisions (stats, assessment, etc) and prefer a 'justify it all' approach

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.

1. They have lower requirements, this doesn't mean everyone gets in.
2. easy to get in or hard to get in isn't the argument against them as training sites - its 3 and 4, below
3. They have lower tier training and acceptance, which is why less qualified students apply (to any unfunded spot)
4. Yes, if you are taking on hundreds of thousands in debt, that is not worth going there.
5. As others said, funded PsyD and PhD produce the same tier training and are good programs.

 

[Sanman]

Na, The GRE is a crappy measure for graduate capacity. Its bias and it doesn't reflect the field. Stronger math and lab requirements as part of B.S. / M.S. degrees are the better route. too many students are scared of statistics and making decisive decisions (stats, assessment, etc) and prefer a 'justify it all' approach

The problem is that you won't get stronger standards across the board. Part of the reason that admissions has become so difficult when removing standardized tests is that you have no uniform measure of performance. The incentive is then to find the easiest way through school with the highest grades. Same thing happens in college admissions. You end up disincentivizing more challenging course work because no one wants to risk failure (or imperfection)

 

[Justanothergrad]

The problem is that you won't get stronger standards across the board. Part of the reason that admissions has become so difficult when removing standardized tests is that you have no uniform measure of performance. The incentive is then to find the easiest way through school with the highest grades. Same thing happens in college admissions. You end up disincentivizing more challenging course work because no one wants to risk failure (or imperfection)

I don't disagree. I used to want it optional (we don't require it now), but GRE doesn't predict outcomes and I'm not sure the use of a predictor with no criterion validity

 

[R. Matey]

I don't disagree. I used to want it optional (we don't require it now), but GRE doesn't predict outcomes and I'm not sure the use of a predictor with no criterion validity

How about a reference or two?

 

[Freud’sMommy]

Na, The GRE is a crappy measure for graduate capacity. Its bias and it doesn't reflect the field. Stronger math and lab requirements as part of B.S. / M.S. degrees are the better route. too many students are scared of statistics and making decisive decisions (stats, assessment, etc) and prefer a 'justify it all' approach

The GRE includes a math section... you're actually arguing for its importance lol. It's also the best predictor of EPPP pass rates.

 

[WisNeuro]

How about a reference or two?

My take on the lit was that GRE (in general) was weakly to moderately correlated with graduate GPA. Though, this suffers from a restriction of range issues as many grad programs have a "less than B is a fail" policy, so there's not a lot of spread. I've seen conflicting data on prediction of completion of degree. Again, this is tough as, outside of diploma mills, attrition is a relatively rare thing. And, within that small N group, studies lump in those who were dismissed for academic reasons, and those who left for non-academic reasons. There was a Psych Bull study, a little dated by now I'm sure, that showed a relationship with GRE scores and research productivity. As for EPPP, I believe that was a Sharpless paper like a decade ago.

 

[R. Matey]

My take on the lit was that GRE (in general) was weakly to moderately correlated with graduate GPA. Though, this suffers from a restriction of range issues as many grad programs have a "less than B is a fail" policy, so there's not a lot of spread. I've seen conflicting data on prediction of completion of degree. Again, this is tough as, outside of diploma mills, attrition is a relatively rare thing. And, within that small N group, studies lump in those who were dismissed for academic reasons, and those who left for non-academic reasons. There was a Psych Bull study, a little dated by now I'm sure, that showed a relationship with GRE scores and research productivity. As for EPPP, I believe that was a Sharpless paper like a decade ago.

You mean the Kuncel meta, right? Yeah, that was my take too. They also found that the subject tests were better predictors. There's also this one that suggests it doesn't do well predicting attrition or time to degree in STEM fields, but I was curious if there was anything more definitive that 'mixed' as the poster above is claiming. I agree that individual differences are likely at play that aren't adequately captured in moderator analyses.

 

[WisNeuro]

You mean the Kuncel meta, right? Yeah, that was my take too. They also found that the subject tests were better predictors. There's also this one that suggests it doesn't do well predicting attrition or time to degree in STEM fields, but I was curious if there was anything more definitive that 'mixed' as the poster above is claiming. I agree that individual differences are likely at play that aren't adequately captured in moderator analyses.

Wow, I was not aware of the attrition rates of the STEM PhDs. They make the clinical psych diploma mills look downright stable!

 

[R. Matey]

Wow, I was not aware of the attrition rates of the STEM PhDs. They make the clinical psych diploma mills look downright stable!

I know, right? My exp. with this is obviously limited, but working in a UCC at a very STEM-oriented R1 showed me just how awful some lab situations can really be.

 

[MCParent]

My take on the lit was that GRE (in general) was weakly to moderately correlated with graduate GPA. Though, this suffers from a restriction of range issues as many grad programs have a "less than B is a fail" policy, so there's not a lot of spread. I've seen conflicting data on prediction of completion of degree. Again, this is tough as, outside of diploma mills, attrition is a relatively rare thing. And, within that small N group, studies lump in those who were dismissed for academic reasons, and those who left for non-academic reasons. There was a Psych Bull study, a little dated by now I'm sure, that showed a relationship with GRE scores and research productivity. As for EPPP, I believe that was a Sharpless paper like a decade ago.

I thought the general finding was that dismal GRE scores were linked with generally bad performance, but good scores didn’t predict doing well (as in, in a scatterplot with GRE as x axis and academic performance as y axis, top left quadrant is mostly empty but bottom right still has people in it).

Which is how I’d always used it when we had it. I was probably not going to consider someone with a 4th percentile math score.

 

[Sanman]

You mean the Kuncel meta, right? Yeah, that was my take too. They also found that the subject tests were better predictors. There's also this one that suggests it doesn't do well predicting attrition or time to degree in STEM fields, but I was curious if there was anything more definitive that 'mixed' as the poster above is claiming. I agree that individual differences are likely at play that aren't adequately captured in moderator analyses.

Wow, I was not aware of the attrition rates of the STEM PhDs. They make the clinical psych diploma mills look downright stable!

Anecdotally, knowing several STEM PhDs, I feel like lack of stability and problems within labs and academia combined with very attractive salaries for post-masters folks in industry make for a very messy situation after the first couple of years.

 

[R. Matey]

I thought the general finding was that dismal GRE scores were linked with generally bad performance, but good scores didn’t predict doing well (as in, in a scatterplot with GRE as x axis and academic performance as y axis, top left quadrant is mostly empty but bottom right still has people in it).

Which is how I’d always used it when we had it. I was probably not going to consider someone with a 4th percentile math score.

Yeah, I think the GRE's probably good for folks who had mismatches between their GPA and general test scores for whatever reason (e.g., first gen). Not sure if N's are big enough to capture that.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

Those stem phd's legit gotta be looking at way more cash in the private sector right?

 

[Freud’sMommy]

I know, right? My exp. with this is obviously limited, but working in a UCC at a very STEM-oriented R1 showed me just how awful some lab situations can really be.

Yup. My university has a lab management/mentoring course available to any faculty member, but it's consistently 90% awful STEM advisors forced to attend as part of their reeducation in light of troubling infractions against their lab members.

 

[WisNeuro]

I thought the general finding was that dismal GRE scores were linked with generally bad performance, but good scores didn’t predict doing well (as in, in a scatterplot with GRE as x axis and academic performance as y axis, top left quadrant is mostly empty but bottom right still has people in it).

Which is how I’d always used it when we had it. I was probably not going to consider someone with a 4th percentile math score.

Yeah, for us it was one of the initial cutoffs to clear out the first group of apps, along with really low GPAs. After that, it really only helped people from backgrounds in which they may not have been able to get good research experience/productivity. As in someone with a phenomenal score, without a ton of research experience, would still get a long look.

 

[R. Matey]

Yeah, for us it was one of the initial cutoffs to clear out the first group of apps, along with really low GPAs. After that, it really only helped people from backgrounds in which they may not have been able to get good research experience/productivity. As in someone with a phenomenal score, without a ton of research experience, would still get a long look.

We've talked about this in reference to the GRE before, but really, I think having quality research experience prior to admission is the great dis-equalizer in psych admissions due to the resource limitations. I'd personally light the GRE on fire if I thought everyone had a fair shot in getting the lab exp. they need to be competitive.

 

[WisNeuro]

We've talked about this in reference to the GRE before, but really, I think having quality research experience prior to admission is the great dis-equalizer in psych admissions due to the resource limitations. I'd personally light the GRE on fire if I thought everyone had a fair shot in getting the lab exp. they need to be competitive.

Definitely varies by university/college. My undergrad was a large state uni with several grad PhD programs (clinical, social/personality, I/O, Community) so there were a ton of labs. We were recruiting every semester. We'd generally have a core that stayed on several years, but we'd always have students who were not asked back the following semester on account of them being terrible. It was pretty easy to get into to a few labs for varied experience if you were intelligent and motivated. Smaller, or private colleges, I can see bigger issues with getting good experience.

 

[MCParent]

We've talked about this in reference to the GRE before, but really, I think having quality research experience prior to admission is the great dis-equalizer in psych admissions due to the resource limitations. I'd personally light the GRE on fire if I thought everyone had a fair shot in getting the lab exp. they need to be competitive.

Someone should write a paper about that!

APA PsycNet

psycnet.apa.org

 

[WisNeuro]

Someone should write a paper about that!

APA PsycNet

psycnet.apa.org

Pssh, that paper is a bit dated now. And, I hear the lead author is a bit of a jerk

 

[Justanothergrad]

The GRE includes a math section... you're actually arguing for its importance lol. It's also the best predictor of EPPP pass rates.

but the math isn't the type we use, and Quant scores aren't related to GPA. so while I agree we need stronger stem training, I don't see a gre test score as a way to achieve that.

 

[Justanothergrad]

How about a reference or two?

Na not my lit review and im on conference vibe. But as others have noted the trend is not in favor of GRE. I will say that research goes back decades on this, and that recent metas have shown little utility. Jen Callihan has done some recent work on it and the EPPP, if I recall my authors right. it's sort of a given. meta estimates of 2 - 4% of variance explained.

 

[MCParent]

but the math isn't the type we use, and Quant scores aren't related to GPA. so while I agree we need stronger stem training, I don't see a gre test score as a way to achieve that.

the math gre section had (still has?) those awful qs like having a triangle look like a right triangle but it doesn’t have the little square at the right triangle so it’s not actually 90 degrees. I agree that’s irrelevant to grad education. It was okish to use to screen for people who bombed it horribly but those people often had other problems than a poor gre.

 

[MCParent]

Pssh, that paper is a bit dated now. And, I hear the lead author is a bit of a jerk

I’m not sure what to think of people other than me liking this post 😒😒😒

 

[Justanothergrad]

Pssh, that paper is a bit dated now. And, I hear the lead author is a bit of a jerk

hate that dude. don't tell. at least with internet he doesn't know who I am and what are the chances he's here!!!?!

the math gre section had (still has?) those awful qs like having a triangle look like a right triangle but it doesn’t have the little square at the right triangle so it’s not actually 90 degrees. I agree that’s irrelevant to grad education. It was okish to use to screen for people who bombed it horribly but those people often had other problems than a poor gre.

Yeh kinda like I screen out 2.0 GPA. not super informative

 

[R. Matey]

I’m not sure what to think of people other than me liking this post 😒😒😒

 

[Freud’sMommy]

but the math isn't the type we use, and Quant scores aren't related to GPA. so while I agree we need stronger stem training, I don't see a gre test score as a way to achieve that.

I'm in total agreement re: better stem training. The GRE isn't a way to achieve better math skills but to rather screen for those with prerequisite ability needed for advanced stats. I think the quant section is misrepresented a bit by your post. Are you referring to stats? Because it does include stats and probability questions. Algebra and geometry are prerequisite to building stats skills as well. For example, regressions in all forms are simply algebraic expressions. Finally, as convergent evidence, MIT found SAT quant performance to predict later performance in advanced math courses. This is the main reason why they brought back the SAT and partially why many universities are returning to standardized testing as part of their admissions processes.

 

[R. Matey]

Na not my lit review and im on conference vibe. But as others have noted the trend is not in favor of GRE. I will say that research goes back decades on this, and that recent metas have shown little utility. Jen Callihan has done some recent work on it and the EPPP, if I recall my authors right. it's sort of a given. meta estimates of 2 - 4% of variance explained.

My guess is that these metas don't capture the individual differences adequately. For some first gen/low SES folks, the GRE can be a lifeline. Not sure 'holistic review' is a adequate sub.

 

[Justanothergrad]

My guess is that these metas don't capture the individual differences adequately. For some first gen/low SES folks, the GRE can be a lifeline. Not sure 'holistic review' is a adequate sub.

given the extensive research y showing bias towards minorities, which over represent low ses and first gen, and the weak predictive power consistently over studies... why guess when we have data

 

[Justanothergrad]

I'm in total agreement re: better stem training. The GRE isn't a way to achieve better math skills but to rather screen for those with prerequisite ability needed for advanced stats. I think the quant section is misrepresented a bit by your post. Are you referring to stats? Because it does include stats and probability questions. Algebra and geometry are prerequisite to building stats skills as well. For example, regressions in all forms are simply algebraic expressions. Finally, as convergent evidence, MIT found SAT quant performance to predict later performance in advanced math courses. This is the main reason why they brought back the SAT and partially why many universities are returning to standardized testing as part of their admissions processes.

there is no evidence that quant section on GRE produces better stats outcomes. so why? like, I hear arguments, but the data doesn't support them.

 

[R. Matey]

given the extensive research y showing bias towards minorities, which over represent low ses and first gen, and the weak predictive power consistently over studies... why guess when we have data

I think you might need this: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17456916211055374

 

[Justanothergrad]

I think you might need this: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17456916211055374

yeh I've read that before. this isnt my first dive into the topic. claims of utility and fairness via GRE doesn't stack up against the empirical Studies to the contrary. heres a 2024 meta of over 200 Studies (one i referenced earlier), for instance.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00221546.2023.2187177

like I said. the data is not stacked in favor of your argument.

 

[R. Matey]

yeh I've read that before. this isnt my first dive into the topic. claims of utility and fairness via GRE doesn't stack up against the empirical Studies to the contrary. heres a 2024 meta of over 200 Studies (one i referenced earlier), for instance.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00221546.2023.2187177

like I said. the data is not stacked in favor of your argument.

More like it's a difference of opinion based on mixed findings. This paper also takes a very explicit critical lens. What a surprise that they found what they were looking for.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'd say we're probably arguing about a restriction of range problem here. Similar to GPA. At most decent programs, at least in clinical psych, you're probably looking at 3.5+ GPAs and 80%+ GREs. When people are already in the 80%+, small differences either way probably are not all that predictive of anything. Now, let's take a group with a 2.5 college GPA and <30th% GREs and compare them to the 3.5+GPA and 75th% plus group. I'd imagine some of our outcomes would be a little more stark there.

 

[Freud’sMommy]

yeh I've read that before. this isnt my first dive into the topic. claims of utility and fairness via GRE doesn't stack up against the empirical Studies to the contrary. heres a 2024 meta of over 200 Studies (one i referenced earlier), for instance.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00221546.2023.2187177

like I said. the data is not stacked in favor of your argument.

Here's a paper more specific to our field. Let me know if you need help interpreting the stats.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Here's a paper more specific to our field. Let me know if you need help interpreting the stats.

yeh please help me. I don't use them in my job. any good advice on how to learn?

 

[R. Matey]

I'd say we're probably arguing about a restriction of range problem here. Similar to GPA. At most decent programs, at least in clinical psych, you're probably looking at 3.5+ GPAs and 80%+ GREs. When people are already in the 80%+, small differences either way probably are not all that predictive of anything. Now, let's take a group with a 2.5 college GPA and <30th% GREs and compare them to the 3.5+GPA and 75th% plus group. I'd imagine some of our outcomes would be a little more stark there.

Both papers accounted for a restricted range. There was a correction to the second one to address this (it was actually published last year; but submitted in 2021, which is why it didn't cite the first) with minor changes to the originally reported figures. Kuncel and the ETS folks who repeated their work also corrected for RR in their original work.

 

[Sanman]

I’m not sure what to think of people other than me liking this post 😒😒😒

No one is going to put that together. Your username would not clue them in at all.

On the bright side, look at what we are arguing about. Not many of us were at the popular table in high school.

 

[MCParent]

No one is going to put that together. Your username would not clue them in at all.

 

[WisNeuro]

Here's a paper more specific to our field. Let me know if you need help interpreting the stats.

As I know who you are actually talking to, and having read their work, stop needlessly being a jackwagon.

 

[WisNeuro]

Both papers accounted for a restricted range. There was a correction to the second one to address this (it was actually published last year; but submitted in 2021, which is why it didn't cite the first) with minor changes to the originally reported figures. Kuncel and the ETS folks who repeated their work also corrected for RR in their original work.

My argument is that the RofR issue is heightened in Clinical Psych as opposed to other fields. Most of other work details a likely wider set of applicants. In Clinical Psych, the range of GPAs and GREs for non-diploma mill is pretty minimal.

 

[cara susanna]

I absolutely sucked at the GRE and do wonder how my application process might have differed if it weren't required by anyone.

 

[R. Matey]

My argument is that the RofR issue is heightened in Clinical Psych as opposed to other fields. Most of other work details a likely wider set of applicants. In Clinical Psych, the range of GPAs and GREs for non-diploma mill is pretty minimal.

Not a hill to die on, but idk why you would expect it functions differently in clinical psych, than say, doctoral programs in neuroscience or engineering.

 

[R. Matey]

I absolutely sucked at the GRE and do wonder how my application process might have differed if it weren't required by anyone.

I was the opposite. My GPA was fine, but my V/AW GRE was in 95 percentile for both clinical and counseling. It played a role in assistantship funding and scholarships for me.

 

[WisNeuro]

Not a hill to die on, but idk why you would expect it functions differently in clinical psych, than say, doctoral programs in neuroscience or engineering.

Not that it functions differently, moreso that those grad programs may admit a wider variability of scores. Granted, I don't know the data on those other grad specialties, and am just relying on anecdotal observation, so very willing to change my views in light of the actual data.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Mod Note: As an aside, please remember to remain courteous, helpful, and professional when responding. Thanks.