Ph. D Clinical Psychology

[StepbyStep008]

Hello All,

I'm new to the forum and was wondering if anyone here was enrolled/graduated/attended Fielding Graduate University. If so, I'd be more than appreciative if you could share some of your experiences while you were there and your overall HONEST opinion of the program.

Also, how was the interviewing process and what kinds of questions were you asked? However, as far as interview questions are concerned, any and all examples are welcomed despite which schools you applied to/attended. I want to prep myself beforehand for interviews and the types of questions I should expect, as interviewing isn't one of my strengths.

Any experiences, advice or feedback, from current/recently graduated persons who majored in Clinical Psychology at the Ph.D or Psy.D level, are all welcomed.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

You likely won't get a whole lot of feedback from actual grads, many are not in the field any longer. You will, however, get a lot of honest feedback from many of us who make internship/postdoc/hiring decisions in that these applications are rarely seriously considered.

 

[Ollie123]

I would strongly advise you to not bother interviewing, reapply to other programs, make efforts to bolster your CV for other programs and/or consider alternate career paths if necessary.

 

[StepbyStep008]

I would strongly advise you to not bother interviewing, reapply to other programs, make efforts to bolster your CV for other programs and/or consider alternate career paths if necessary.

not bother interviewing, why?

 

[Ollie123]

Not worth your time to do it. This place probably has the poorest reputation of any program that regularly comes up and that is saying something. You are unlikely to be competitive for most serious doctoral level positions in the field after attending. Forget competitive, you will not even be in the running.

Do a forum search, but this place pretty regularly makes the list of places most of us would like to see shut down. Embarrassing for the field that hasn't happened yet.

 

[StepbyStep008]

Not worth your time to do it. This place probably has the poorest reputation of any program that regularly comes up and that is saying something. You are unlikely to be competitive for most serious doctoral level positions in the field after attending. Forget competitive, you will not even be in the running.

Do a forum search, but this place pretty regularly makes the list of places most of us would like to see shut down. Embarrassing for the field that hasn't happened yet.

wow, thanks for this feedback! i guess ill get on that forum search.

 

[Ollie123]

The simple fact that you are open to feedback almost assuredly means you can do better than Fielding.

 

[GradStudent2020]

wow, thanks for this feedback! i guess ill get on that forum search.

This forum has many regular posters that aren’t *actually* familiar with Fielding’s model or training expectations.

If you search through past threads you’ll see a lot of misinformation about the program. Sometimes corrected, sometimes not.

There’s a lot of bias here against Fielding, it’s not a great place to get information. I know some Fielding students and graduates (licensed clinicians, how about that!).

If you want to PM me I can put you in touch with current students or graduates well into their (successful) careers.

 

[PsyDuck90]

The numbers speak for themselves. They're internship match rates are abysmal (they can't even get 100% match rate when factoring in non-APA internships!). More than a quarter of their graduates do not get licensed (probably because they can't). And their EPPP pass rates are just as bad as their internship match rate (which is also probably why they can't get licensed). Sure, some people graduate and get licensed, but why pay $30K minimum for a 25% chance of failure?

 

[psych.meout]

This forum has many regular posters that aren’t *actually* familiar with Fielding’s model or training expectations.

If you search through past threads you’ll see a lot of misinformation about the program. Sometimes corrected, sometimes not.

There’s a lot of bias here against Fielding, it’s not a great place to get information. I know some Fielding students and graduates (licensed clinicians, how about that!).

If you want to PM me I can put you in touch with current students or graduates well into their (successful) careers.

By that logic, University of Phoenix is great because they have successful graduates.

The people you're baselessly criticizing not only have more experience than you do, but are actually in the positions of making internship, post doc, and hiring decisions.

 

[GradStudent2020]

By that logic, University of Phoenix is great because they have successful graduates.

The people you're baselessly criticizing not only have more experience than you do, but are actually in the positions of making internship, post doc, and hiring decisions.

They do? Hmmm. I didn’t know you had access to my CV.

There’s zero criticism in my post, baseless or otherwise.

OP, there are PLENTY of people in this field making internship, post-doc, and hiring decisions that love Fielding students and have no bias against the program. They don’t spend their days on SDN, but then again, most clinicians in our field at any level don’t.

 

[psych.meout]

They do? Hmmm. I didn’t know you had access to my CV.

Just a hunch that "GradStudent2020" has less experience than a board-certified neuropsychologist and a TT professor.

There’s zero criticism in my post, baseless or otherwise.

Really?

This forum has many regular posters that aren’t *actually* familiar with Fielding’s model or training expectations.

If you search through past threads you’ll see a lot of misinformation about the program. Sometimes corrected, sometimes not.

There’s a lot of bias here against Fielding, it’s not a great place to get information. I know some Fielding students and graduates (licensed clinicians, how about that!).

So, you wouldn't consider accusing other people of being "biased," spreading "misinformation," or not being familiar with the program in question as criticisms of these posters or their comments?

OP, there are PLENTY of people in this field making internship, post-doc, and hiring decisions that love Fielding students

Ok, cite your sources. Which specific internship sites, post docs, and employers "love" Fielding graduates?

https://www.fielding.edu/Clinical-Psychology/Student-Admissions-Outcomes-and-Other-Data.pdf

Their most recent internship match rate was 74%, with a whopping 14 students being unable to match to APA-accredited sites. This alone is absurd, especially in the current internship environment, but this was their highest ever rate and half their students couldn't match as recently as 3 years ago. This speaks volumes of what internship sites think of their students.

Or look at their attrition rates. They range as high as 46% in recent years. Their current 2nd year cohort has already lost 8% from its start, with 4 students dropping out in their first year.

Based on these statistics, it sure doesn't look like even their own students love the program, let alone people outside it making decisions about them.

and have no bias against the program.

Again, you're accusing these people of being biased. How is this not a criticism?

Regardless, the statistics aren't lying. Only 72% of the students have been licensed in the past 10 years. What are they doing with their degrees? It's not like degrees from this diploma mill are leading to research or TT faculty jobs where they don't need licenses. It's far more likely that they are unemployed because they are unable to pass the EPPP.

They don’t spend their days on SDN, but then again, most clinicians in our field at any level don’t.

Again, cite your sources. Who, specifically, "loves" graduates from this awful program?

 

[GradStudent2020]

Just a hunch that "GradStudent2020" has less experience than a board-certified neuropsychologist and a TT professor.



Really?



So, you wouldn't consider accusing other people of being "biased," spreading "misinformation," or not being familiar with the program in question as criticisms of these posters or their comments?



Ok, cite your sources. Which specific internship sites, post docs, and employers "love" Fielding graduates?

https://www.fielding.edu/Clinical-Psychology/Student-Admissions-Outcomes-and-Other-Data.pdf

Their most recent internship match rate was 74%, with a whopping 14 students being unable to match to APA-accredited sites. This alone is absurd, especially in the current internship environment, but this was their highest ever rate and half their students couldn't match as recently as 3 years ago. This speaks volumes of what internship sites think of their students.

Or look at their attrition rates. They range as high as 46% in recent years. Their current 2nd year cohort has already lost 8% from its start, with 4 students dropping out in their first year.

Based on these statistics, it sure doesn't look like even their own students love the program, let alone people outside it making decisions about them.
Again, you're accusing these people of being biased. How is this not a criticism?

Regardless, the statistics aren't lying. Only 72% of the students have been licensed in the past 10 years. What are they doing with their degrees? It's not like degrees from this diploma mill are leading to research or TT faculty jobs where they don't need licenses. It's far more likely that they are unemployed because they are unable to pass the EPPP.



Again, cite your sources. Who, specifically, "loves" graduates from this awful program?

Cute hunch.

You don’t think there’s bias on this forum against Fielding? I guess the OP can read past comments and draw their own conclusions.

Posters state that they have no experience with Fielding, don’t understand or are not familiar with how the model works, and then offer opinions about the training opportunities and quality. Where’s the criticism in acknowledging that this occurs?

My “sources”? I’m not submitting an article for publication, I’m offering a summary of my own experience. You can continue to imply I’m lying, but I have no need to provide a list of names/sites to you. The dozen or so regular posters on this board aren’t an accurate representation of the field as a whole. It’s ok, really.

I have theories about why internship match rates (one person didn’t match this last cycle), motivation towards licensure and/or participation in APA internships, etc, vary for Fielding versus traditional programs. Not everyone gets a doctorate in clinical psychology to be a licensed clinician. That’s not what the poster asked, and if they want to know my thoughts on that I’d be happy to discuss further via PM.

Maybe your energy would be better spent answering the OP’s questions, do you have some specific and relevant experience with Fielding students or graduates? Or maybe some relevant advice about interviews? Just a thought. Have a good night.

 

[psych.meout]

Cute hunch.

I mean, you could refute it with, I don't know, providing a little information about yourself, which we could then compare to the specific people you're criticizing.

You don’t think there’s bias on this forum against Fielding? I guess the OP can read past comments and draw their own conclusions.

No, I wouldn't characterize it as a "bias." Rather, I would describe it as a reasoned critique of the program based on a variety of factors, including the programs own outcome statistics.

Posters state that they have no experience with Fielding, don’t understand or are not familiar with how the model works, and then offer opinions about the training opportunities and quality. Where’s the criticism in acknowledging that this occurs?

I don't really understand why you're so resistant to admitting that you're criticizing other people. It's not an inherently bad thing. For example, many posters are criticizing the quality of the education at Fielding based on their experiences and/or the objective outcome statistics.

Regardless, while I can't say I have personal experience with Fielding or its grads, I don't see where WisNeuro or Ollie have stated that they aren't familiar with Fielding, its model, or other aspects of the program and its graduates.

My “sources”? I’m not submitting an article for publication, I’m offering a summary of my own experience. You can continue to imply I’m lying, but I have no need to provide a list of names/sites to you. The dozen or so regular posters on this board aren’t an accurate representation of the field as a whole. It’s ok, really.

Ok, but if you're going to assert that the people here are wrong and that you know of specific people and organizations that not only accept Fielding grads for internships, post docs, and jobs, but who actually "love" them, why not provide even one name? Is there some kind of harm in revealing this information? If you're trying to convince prospective students that they should give Fielding a second look, wouldn't this be important information to provide to them?

I have theories about why internship match rates (one person didn’t match this last cycle), motivation towards licensure and/or participation in APA internships, etc, vary for Fielding versus traditional programs. Not everyone gets a doctorate in clinical psychology to be a licensed clinician. That’s not what the poster asked, and if they want to know my thoughts on that I’d be happy to discuss further via PM.

And I'd assert that these are deflections and rationalizations for not meeting the minimum standard of training quality in the field. If these people aren't licensed, what, specifically, are they doing with their expensive doctoral degrees?

Maybe your energy would be better spent answering the OP’s questions, do you have some specific and relevant experience with Fielding students or graduates? Or maybe some relevant advice about interviews? Just a thought. Have a good night.

My advice is to avoid this program like the plague. The recommendations from experts in the field are that its terrible and this judgment is backed up by the outcome statistics, especially internship match, licensure, and attrition, as I previously noted. I'm going to go even a step further and assert that it's predatory. The program preys on people who, for whatever reason, can't go through the traditional path in the field. That they brag about targeting underserved groups on their website is even more galling.

 

[WisNeuro]

Many of us actually do have experience with Fielding students and grads, as well as their post-graduate certificates. But, as others have said, you should look at the actual raw numbers to tell you the story. The accredited match rate, attrition rate, EPPP pass rate, and tuition alone should tell you all you need to know, OP. Expensive degree to have to encounter barriers every step of the way.

 

[GradStudent2020]

I mean, you could refute it with, I don't know, providing a little information about yourself, which we could then compare to the specific people you're criticizing.



No, I wouldn't characterize it as a "bias." Rather, I would describe it as a reasoned critique of the program based on a variety of factors, including the programs own outcome statistics.



I don't really understand why you're so resistant to admitting that you're criticizing other people. It's not an inherently bad thing. For example, many posters are criticizing the quality of the education at Fielding based on their experiences and/or the objective outcome statistics.

Regardless, while I can't say I have personal experience with Fielding or its grads, I don't see where WisNeuro or Ollie have stated that they aren't familiar with Fielding, its model, or other aspects of the program and its graduates.



Ok, but if you're going to assert that the people here are wrong and that you know of specific people and organizations that not only accept Fielding grads for internships, post docs, and jobs, but who actually "love" them, why not provide even one name? Is there some kind of harm in revealing this information? If you're trying to convince prospective students that they should give Fielding a second look, wouldn't this be important information to provide to them?



And I'd assert that these are deflections and rationalizations for not meeting the minimum standard of training quality in the field. If these people aren't licensed, what, specifically, are they doing with their expensive doctoral degrees?



My advice is to avoid this program like the plague. The recommendations from experts in the field are that its terrible and this judgment is backed up by the outcome statistics, especially internship match, licensure, and attrition, as I previously noted. I'm going to go even a step further and assert that it's predatory. The program preys on people who, for whatever reason, can't go through the traditional path in the field. That they brag about targeting underserved groups on their website is even more galling.

Thanks for all this. You illustrated my point exactly.

 

[SportsNeuroPsych]

PhD in Psychology with an emphasis in Media & Technology

Where technology meets human experience. The Fielding PhD in Media Psychology prepares students to work at the intersection of psychology theories and media technologies. The Media Psychology curriculum blends the study of social behaviors, cognition, perception, and emotion with the research...

www.fielding.edu

I mean...what in the actual F?

Aside from all the very valid points already made, if a program is offering a PhD in "Media Psychology," this in itself should ring alarm bells to stay clear.

Don't do it. You are setting yourself up for a path that will be more difficult than grad school/internship/post-doc/licensure already is.

 

[GradStudent2020]

PhD in Psychology with an emphasis in Media & Technology

Where technology meets human experience. The Fielding PhD in Media Psychology prepares students to work at the intersection of psychology theories and media technologies. The Media Psychology curriculum blends the study of social behaviors, cognition, perception, and emotion with the research...

www.fielding.edu

I mean...what in the actual F?

Aside from all the very valid points already made, if a program is offering a PhD in "Media Psychology," this in itself should ring alarm bells to stay clear.

Don't do it. You are setting yourself up for a path that will be more difficult than grad school/internship/post-doc/licensure already is.

Oh, wow. Someone should alert division 46 that there is education available in their area of interest! Call APA!

The media psych program does not appear designed for clinicians, is not APA accredited, and does not prepare students for licensure. It’s almost like there are degrees out there for more career paths than LP?

The Fielding students/grads I know are from the APA accredited clinical psych. doctorate.

 

[PsyDr]

They do? Hmmm. I didn’t know you had access to my CV.

There’s zero criticism in my post, baseless or otherwise.

OP, there are PLENTY of people in this field making internship, post-doc, and hiring decisions that love Fielding students and have no bias against the program. They don’t spend their days on SDN, but then again, most clinicians in our field at any level don’t.

Criticizing someone on the internet, because they are on the internet....

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Mod Note: Let's try to keep the conversation related to the thread topic, please. Thanks all.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Criticizing someone on the internet, because they are on the internet....

I am not criticizing anyone for being on the internet, or using this forum. Just pointing out that most of our field isn’t *here*, in this online space.

 

[R. Matey]

Above all the usual reservations I have about professional school training, I'll offer that I've known Fielding graduates who have felt very unsupported by their program. One person I knew awhile back moved around a lot during their program and had trouble securing a practicum site. Another person I knew, went ABD after internship. This is a small N, sure, and I have lots of complaints about my own program, but my entire cohort is on track to finish in five years despite some significant life changes for individuals. Though our program sometimes felt like a three ring circus, we knew our faculty would step up for us if we needed them to. It appeared to me that the Fielding students who I have interacted with did not feel that way about their faculty.

To the OP, I'd suggest that you have both qualitative and quantitative data to indicate that there might be better fish in the sea for you than Fielding. I think that's worth taking seriously.

 

[Ollie123]

My first exposure to Fielding grads was my second (I think?) year of grad school when I went to a mentoring event at APA and was at a table with several of them and a few very senior faculty. They quickly turned discussion to how incredibly difficult it was to find a post-doc, how no one was offering positions, about the merits of doing a "volunteer" post-doc, etc.

The senior faculty were clearly confused and one even said "This is actually the first I have heard of anyone who couldn't find a post-doc. Normally it is a struggle to find ones to hire." I googled them later that day and found their CVs. Both were a full year out of grad school and both had worse CVs than a typical incoming student in my solid but certainly not top-tier grad program.

This was my first interaction with Fielding students/grads. It was far from my last. It was also far from the worst.

Call it bias if you like. Not overly concerned with what anyone thinks of my opinion of the school, feel free to take it or leave it.

 

[Phillyitzik]

I’m just gonna put my opinion out there. I was an applicant this year. 20 applications (clinical and counseling PHD & 2 psyd) / 9 interview offers /4 acceptances (only went to 4 interviews)

based on the statistics, the school’s reputation, and cohort size, this program is clearly a degree mill. Both in the psyd and phd level.

now if you are fine with that then cool.

Clearly, the OP has been scared off so this post is done with. Thanks for coming and maybe this be an example of:

BUYERS BEWARE (Doctorate edition)

 

[Spydra]

I've never been a student of Fielding and have no intention of changing that, but I have taken a graduate level course taught by a Fielding graduate and that was probably the worst teaching I've ever experienced. The instructor had no concept of professional ethics and frequently made discriminatory and microaggressive statements in class. When we inquired about clinical experience we learned their work experience from a non-clinical job working in a more administrative capacity was deemed acceptable by Fielding in lieu of an onsite or external practicum. Seemed odd to me. Now some of the in class behavior could have been due to individual characteristics, but I can't imagine that the largely online instruction and nonexistent clinical training helped. That instructor was soon fired and as far as I know isn't licensed or teaching anywhere. I wouldn't suggest anyone consider attending Fielding.

 

[GradStudent2020]

When we inquired about clinical experience we learned their work experience from a non-clinical job working in a more administrative capacity was deemed acceptable by Fielding in lieu of an onsite or external practicum.

This cannot be true if they were a graduate of the clinical psychology PhD. The program follows APA guidelines, there’s zero chance they weren’t required to do multiple, real, clinical practicums. (If it was the Clinical Ph.D).

Your experience sounds awful. Clearly someone not suited for teaching.

 

[WisNeuro]

This cannot be true if they were a graduate of the clinical psychology PhD. The program follows APA guidelines, there’s zero chance they weren’t required to do multiple, real, clinical practicums. (If it was the Clinical Ph.D).

Your experience sounds awful. Clearly someone not suited for teaching.

Considering how often they are on probation from APA, I'd say that chance is much greater than zero.

 

[R. Matey]

I just heard from a Fielding student that their program is giving them grief about counting tele-psychology hours for practicum due to COVID-19.

 

[str63]

Considering how often they are on probation from APA, I'd say that chance is much greater than zero.

This. We get internship applicants all the time from Fielding and I have yet to see a quality application from someone in that program. In my many years of being involved in recruitment, we have never invited a Fielding student to interview. We've seen some very concerning "clinical" experiences where there are students who actually didn't seem to have done much (if any) of their own clinical work. For example, all of their "face-to-face" hours were observing/shadowing/co-leading/etc. It's also very concerning that the program doesn't really have much oversight of the clinical experiences because these students are spread across the country and it's up to them to find their own sites to complete hours at. I don't like posting negative things on here; however, I would not ever recommend anyone consider this program.

OP, there are PLENTY of people in this field making internship, post-doc, and hiring decisions that love Fielding students and have no bias against the program. They don’t spend their days on SDN, but then again, most clinicians in our field at any level don’t.

For OP or anyone else considering the program, I cannot believe this is true. I've been an internship training director for years and have a lot of contact with other training directors across the country. I do not know of a single person involved in hiring decisions (internships, fellowships, or jobs) that loves Fielding students - and anytime "Fielding" comes up, the response is usually surprise that it is still in existence (because it has that bad of a reputation). Are there students from there who end up with jobs? Sure, but I'm also sure being from Fielding never helped them. There is absolutely no need to put yourself in this situation.

 

[GradStudent2020]

I just heard from a Fielding student that their program is giving them grief about counting tele-psychology hours for practicum due to COVID-19.

Isn’t that consistent with APA guidelines?

We still can’t count telehealth at my internship site as of today, but they anticipate that will change soon. Has anyone seen APA statements about telehealth or phone therapy?

 

[R. Matey]

Isn’t that consistent with APA guidelines?

We still can’t count telehealth at my internship site as of today, but they anticipate that will change soon. Has anyone seen APA statements about telehealth or phone therapy?

I think I wrote this in the other thread, but we're able to count these hours at my UCC. My home program doesn't have a problem with it.

 

[GradStudent2020]

I just heard from a Fielding student that their program is giving them grief about counting tele-psychology hours for practicum due to COVID-19.

I reached out to a Fielding friend and was told the DCT has already contacted all practicum and internship sites with Fielding students and encouraged sites to allow telehealth and telesupervision for the foreseeable future.

 

[R. Matey]

I reached out to a Fielding friend and was told the DCT has already contacted all practicum and internship sites with Fielding students and encouraged sites to allow telehealth and telesupervision for the foreseeable future.

Glad to hear it.

 

[EyelandPsychePhD]

Do a forum search, but this place pretty regularly makes the list of places most of us would like to see shut down. Embarrassing for the field that hasn't happened yet.
[/QUOTE]

Does this forum has lists dedicated solely to this topic? (Best Programs vs. Most deplorable programs?) I would love to take a look if so

 

[beantownpsych]

For OP or anyone else considering the program, I cannot believe this is true. I've been an internship training director for years and have a lot of contact with other training directors across the country. I do not know of a single person involved in hiring decisions (internships, fellowships, or jobs) that loves Fielding students - and anytime "Fielding" comes up, the response is usually surprise that it is still in existence (because it has that bad of a reputation). Are there students from there who end up with jobs? Sure, but I'm also sure being from Fielding never helped them. There is absolutely no need to put yourself in this situation.

+1. I'm also an internship TD. We do not seriously consider applications from Fielding. I have a cohort of other TDs I meet with regularly. None of them seriously consider Fielding applicants. Most of the time they just throw the applications out after a very cursory "review" (see the name --> in the trash). I will at least glance at the CV, but we have never extended an interview to a Fielding application.

 

[Dazen]

Does this forum has lists dedicated solely to this topic? (Best Programs vs. Most deplorable programs?) I would love to take a look if so

In addition to this, I’ve been curious about how the idea of top-tier, mid-tier, and lower-tier programs interplays with the idea of going to the school with the best research fit.

 

[AbnormalPsych]

How do you mean?

There aren't really tiers.

There are definitely predatory programs that provide awful training that are hard nos no matter the research fit (although unlikely these programs have good faculty with productive research labs and are bringing in research funds anyways)

 

[summerbabe]

There aren't really tiers.

Seconded.

If I'm trying to get a sense of clinical competency just from a CV, I'll look at if they went to a university-based program or a professional school, where somebody completed internship and how competitive that site might be, where or if they completed a postdoc and lastly, special training, research productivity, awards, etc.

If there are 'lower tier' university-based programs, they likely offer partial or non-guaranteed funding, which may suggest less institutional support for that program and potentially less ability to recruit/retain quality faculty.

One rough gauge of the quality of admitted students is to look at EPPP pass rates by program. Some sample sizes are pretty small but you can also look at previously published reports to get a longer trendline. The predatory programs have disproportionately higher # of test takers and lower passage rates.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Do a forum search, but this place pretty regularly makes the list of places most of us would like to see shut down. Embarrassing for the field that hasn't happened yet.

Does this forum has lists dedicated solely to this topic? (Best Programs vs. Most deplorable programs?) I would love to take a look if so
[/QUOTE]

The forum does not have an official or dedicated list that it maintains, as there is a degree of subjectivity to this type of list. However, if you search and browse, you should find numerous topics related to programs that are recommended (or not) for various research interests.

As for top- vs. mid- vs. low-tier, as folks above have said, there isn't really that type of fine-grained designation. There are certainly prestigious labs based on the area of study, although that relates more to the individual researcher/PI than to the university as a whole. If you know the area(s) in which you're interested for research and can begin browsing research articles in that/those topic(s), you'll probably start to see some of the same names pop up multiple times. The labs of those researchers would probably be well-respected in that area of interest. But as a very broad, and at times potentially inaccurate, rule of thumb, most large public universities will likely be viewed positively.

 

[summerbabe]

There are certainly prestigious labs based on the area of study, although that relates more to the individual researcher/PI than to the university as a whole.

This is my experience as well. For example, at my funded state university PhD, one of our profs was starting to get decently known their niche field so they tended to attract more and higher quality applicants than other faculty. But every admitted student received the same institutional support regardless of lab (e.g., access to paid assistantships and externships, guidance on internship match, access to university funds for conference travel, etc).

 

[Dazen]

Thanks for the responses, and for the link to EPPP pass rates. Certainly helped me feel better about the programs I’m planning to apply to. I had mostly heard tiers mentioned casually (including on this site) and they didn’t make a ton of sense to me, so this clears that up.

 

[EyelandPsychePhD]

Like many of you I have a copy of the Insiders Guide to Graduate Programs in Clinical & Counseling Psychology which provides an index with notable schools broken down by areas of research emphasis. This was very helpful. By the same token, I know that there are schools out there that I shouldn't even apply to because they are a "reach" (i.e. really hard to get into even if you are a match to the research faculty) vs. ones that I shouldn't even entertain (i.e. programs with terrible student support, little to no funding, or that are not seen favorably when applying to internships).

 

[AbnormalPsych]

Apply to your "reach" programs if they are a good fit for you. It does work out sometimes. It did for me.

 

[summerbabe]

Apply to your "reach" programs if they are a good fit for you. It does work out sometimes. It did for me.

I'll second that. On the flip side, I got an interview and then an offer at my 'reach' program but the visit made me realize that while this was a great program, it would not have been the best fit for me.

 

[PsychPhDone]

Like many of you I have a copy of the Insiders Guide to Graduate Programs in Clinical & Counseling Psychology which provides an index with notable schools broken down by areas of research emphasis. This was very helpful. By the same token, I know that there are schools out there that I shouldn't even apply to because they are a "reach" (i.e. really hard to get into even if you are a match to the research faculty) vs. ones that I shouldn't even entertain (i.e. programs with terrible student support, little to no funding, or that are not seen favorably when applying to internships).

While there are often many qualified applicants...many applications are not competitive, too. Apply if you're a good fit even if it seems like a very competitive program.

 

[WisNeuro]

While there are often many qualified applicants...many applications are not competitive, too. Apply if you're a good fit even if it seems like a very competitive program.

I would definitely agree here. My program was R1 state uni. We had a LOT of applications, but easily 50-75% could easily be discarded in any given year for poor application quality. So, if a program has say 120 applications, it's not like you are competing against all of those, maybe just like 40 of them. Though, that assumes you also have a good application..

 

[psych.meout]

I would definitely agree here. My program was R1 state uni. We had a LOT of applications, but easily 50-75% could easily be discarded in any given year for poor application quality. So, if a program has say 120 applications, it's not like you are competing against all of those, maybe just like 40 of them. Though, that assumes you also have a good application..

Exactly, though I think the opposite is true, too. Applicants mistakenly believe that higher admission rates and being in a less geographically desirable area means that it's easier to get in there and that it can be a safety school for them while they apply to programs with lower admission rates. Sure, it can mean that admissions are easier, but it is not necessarily true. These programs just get far less applications in general, because so many people would not deign to apply someplace they "can't see themselves living for so many years," which then inflates the admission rate relative to other programs without having anything to do with the quality or competitiveness of the program itself. Alternatively, if the university just doesn't have great name recognition, people just don't know it exists, especially compared to big name universities (e.g., Yale, UConn), thereby depressing the number of applications received.

People are just so caught up with "tiers" and other ways undergrad programs work without considering how different grad school is in general and how unique clinical psych PhD programs are in particular.

 

[EyelandPsychePhD]

I would definitely agree here. My program was R1 state uni. We had a LOT of applications, but easily 50-75% could easily be discarded in any given year for poor application quality. So, if a program has say 120 applications, it's not like you are competing against all of those, maybe just like 40 of them. Though, that assumes you also have a good application..

Thank you for your insight. It sounds like you have insight from the admissions side of things as well. Could you clarify some of the most notable features that would make an application "poor quality" vs what applications would be a "good application".

Obviously the list below could constitute a "poor app":
-Errors (spelling, grammar) in SOP
-Any of the "Kisses of Death" outlined in Appleby & Appleby (2006)- https://psychology.unl.edu/psichi/Graduate_School_Application_Kisses_of_Death.pdf
-Poor GRE scores
-Poor fit with faculty
-Not enough research experience

But aside from those which are obvious factors- what stands out to you in terms of poor application versus high-quality application?
I am also curious what is the preference- A Statement of Purpose that is pretty straightforward, gets right to the point talking about experience and interest in the program OR, a Statement of Purpose which accomplishes the same goals as the former, but also does so with a little more creativity and uniqueness, if you will (I mean well-written, and sans odd self-disclosure, arrogance, humor, etc *again, Appleby & Appleby 2006*)

Thank you! Very curious to hear your perspective.
Also, I would really appreciate your time if you have any. Would you be willing to take a look at my post in the WAMC: What are my Chances thread? I posted recently (Saturday 9/19 at 12:15 AM)

 

[EyelandPsychePhD]

Apply to your "reach" programs if they are a good fit for you. It does work out sometimes. It did for me.

Thanks, that's encouraging.

 

[WisNeuro]

Thank you for your insight. It sounds like you have insight from the admissions side of things as well. Could you clarify some of the most notable features that would make an application "poor quality" vs what applications would be a "good application".

Obviously the list below could constitute a "poor app":
-Errors (spelling, grammar) in SOP
-Any of the "Kisses of Death" outlined in Appleby & Appleby (2006)- https://psychology.unl.edu/psichi/Graduate_School_Application_Kisses_of_Death.pdf
-Poor GRE scores
-Poor fit with faculty
-Not enough research experience

Thank you! Very curious to hear your perspective.
Also, I would really appreciate your time if you have any. Would you be willing to take a look at my post in the WAMC: What are my Chances thread? I posted recently (Saturday 9/19 at 12:15 AM)

I'm a little removed from the grad school admissions side (>10 years) and now do mostly internship and postdoc application review, so take teh grad school stuff with a grain of salt, though I can't imagine it's changed that much. The Kisses of Death paper is probably the best summary of it. But, in general, poor GRE (which may be going by the wayside) and terrible GPA usually cut out a good number of apps right off the top. After that, there are a good number of apps, after reading, we have no idea why they applied to our program, let alone clinical psych graduate study. Those apps also get tossed from further consideration. Those would be the main points. As to the WAMC thread, I don't check it that often, if you's like to ask a specific question, feel free to PM me.