Planning to take more than 5 years for PhD?

[futureapppsy2]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi all,

Did/does anyone here plan to take more than 5 years (4 + internship) to complete their PhD/PsyD? It's something I've been mulling over for a while, as my soon-to-be program starts clinical experience relatively late (a year of "pre-prac" in the program clinic in year two and "full" community-based practica in years 3 and 4). Thus, I'm thinking it could be advantageous to get another year of practicum experience, finish my dissertation if needed, etc., and apply for internship in year 5, theoretically completing in 6 years.

Most (69%) of the students graduate in five years and match APA (typically, 80-100% per year match APA), and the program really seems to encourage students graduate "on time." About 20% graduate in six years.

I'd be curious to know if any of you are aiming for more than 5 years for a PhD, or if took a 5th (or more) year (planned or not) and if you found it beneficial or not and if so, how. I know I won't have the make any decisions for a few years, but I'd still be curious to hear your opinions and experiences.

Thanks!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I found it very beneficial. I was a much stronger candidate, which helped with interviews and my overall level of comfort during internship.

 

[CatoftheCanals]

I started graduate school aiming on the 6 year plan (5 at school, 1 at internship). This is still my plan.

My program has us start practicum in year 2, and from what we have been told by older students, not many hours are accrued in our first practicum experience. This knowledge can be stressful for those who want to complete everything in 5 years.

So yes, 6 years, so that I can have enough hours, take all the classes I want, and finish my dissertation prior to internship.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

So yes, 6 years, so that I can have enough hours, take all the classes I want, and finish my dissertation prior to internship.

Recently Dr. Ian R. Nicholson (Training Director), wrote a great response on the APPIC Listserv about the value of experience, training hours, and dissertation completion. The bolding is mine.

Before making my comments, I want to put them into the context of my experience. I am the Training Director of a program that receives over 100 applications a year and has 12 positions. I have been in this role since 1996. I have been active in accreditation and APPIC for a number of years.

I would suggest that the way you word your question sets you up for failure on the issue. As an internship director, I do not look at hours once they are above the minimum necessary for an internship. Past president of APPIC, Dr. Steve McCutcheon recently made the point at a large APPIC conference that students mistakenly believe that hours can be equated with competence. Thus, they often believe that if they gather more hours, they will be more competent, we can measure their competence through their hours, and therefore they focus on increasing their hours.

That is not the case. Certainly, someone with 1000 hours is likely to be more competent than someone with 100 hours, but are they necessarily less competent than someone with 1200 hours – who knows.

The question is not the sheer volume of hours. It never has been and it never will be.

The question is the quality and the nature of the experiences. Number of hours are a poor correlation with quality and nature of experiences.

For example, if you were on a practica and gave 20 WISCs. You are then given the choice of learning the new WIAT and giving 3 of them or giving another 10 WISCs. If you choose the WISCs, you will get more direct clinical hours. If you choose the WIAT, you get a broader range of experience. Our setting would preter the candidate (and rank their application higher) the candidate who chooses the new WIAT (greater breadth of relevant experience) over the candidate who chooses the familiar WISC (greater volume of relevant experience).

The issue is also not volume of hours but relevance of hours. Someone with 1600 hours of psychodynamic psychotherapy experiences of various forms in outpatient counselling service practice will not rank as high as someone with 800 hours of CBT experience with a range of clinical patients for an internship in an acute care hospital CBT practice. The basic question being how much does the internship fit between your background, training, and experience on one end and your career goals after internship on the other. Degree of fit is another factor that is much more important than volume of hours.

What internship directors look for has not changed that much over the years. However, a number of years ago we went to a standardized application form. It was designed to try and make a form everyone could use. In the past, every progam had their own form to fill out, each emphasizing different qualities of what the program saw as important in a resident. Hours was a often a question on the form but one of many. It was often asked in a way to ensure minimal accreditation requirements were met.

The current standardized form that started a number of years ago, the AAPI, is the equivalent of the definition of a camel – a horse designed by a committee. It has a little bit of everything. However, one of the biggest ways to slice and dice and report in the form that came out of the compromise form was counting the number of hours. Since it was an easy metric, APPIC used it as a measure for sites to report. However, while it is central on the form, it is rarely anything a site focuses on in its review of an application. The focus on hours in the form is part of the nature of the form, not the nature of the needs of internship programs.

Every year, we review and revise our application review form at our internship committee. The interns on the committee are routinely surprised to learn that, other than a question of meeting minimal number of hours, there is no reference to hours in our rating on any of the criteria for the applications to our site. Letters of reference, essays (definitely!), transcripts (not grades, which vary greatly between doctoral programs as much as match of coursework to internship activities), are among the factors given weight. Not volume of hours. These are what programs reviewed prior to the AAPI and what we still look at today. Although the form has changed and we use the common form, it has not changed what programs look for in candidates.

In fact, at its last annual meeting (earlier this month), the Canadian Council of Professional Psychology Programs voted to request that APPIC put a limit on the number of hours that can be entered into the new electronic form. The sense is that we need to get the message out that hours are not a primary focus for application reviews.

Related to the dissertation question, if we had two candidates with similar profiles but the differences were one had 1250 hours and the other had 1000 hours but was much further ahead on their dissertation, we would choose the candidate with 1000 hours. Dissertation completion is given a very high rating by most sites. It is not as important for applicants often because it is not a measurable number or reported on the APPIC listing. However, we realize that one of the biggest impediments to the learnings from an internship is the dissertation hanging over your head. Internship is a very, very draining experience. Working fulltime (or longer), pressure to learn and perform in a new area with under observation of possible future referees, dealing all day every day with the problems of people who are struggling to cope with life and may be suicidal, demented, dying , losing a child or spouse or job is a very, very draining time. Incredibly rewarding. Incredibly draining.

Add on that, trying to finish your dissertation. That project that you were once so very excited about beomces a millstone around your neck. An albatross hung there, weighing you down, fouling your life. Often, away from your lab, your university, your advisor and in another part of the city, another part of the province/state, another part of the country, perhaps even another country. At the end of the internship work day you are drained. At the end of the week, you are wrung out. It is so difficult to then put the type of energy and high-level reflective and analytic thought required of a dissertation. Yet, you also often have a deadline. They are called post-docs for a reason. I have had more than my share of students have to go back to their program after internship.

There are likely examples of people who have never graduated because they have not gotten an internship but I have never heard of any. I have heard, however, story after story after story of people who have not gotten their doctorate because they did not finish their dissertation. They can be many reasons for that but, the longer it goes on, the greater the likelihood of something arising to block it.

My advice, for what it is worth, is to put the time into finishing that thing.


Some good points made.

 

[docma]

I also direct an internship program and I entirely agree with Dr. Nicholsen. Having the dissertation complete or well along at application time is a significant advantage. The idea that one should be "through" a doctoral program and internship in 5 years is a new development and largely arises, I think, from professional schools "offering" that it is possible. Realistically, most students need 6 years to get the dissertation done and to be strong internship applicants I think so I think it is very sensible to start into the progression with that overall goal. You are likely to have a better time all along if you set that expectation.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I did 5+1 and it was far less stressful than the 4+1 people from my internship. They were constantly using down time to play with their data, weekends to write their Results section, holidays to do re-writes, etc. My site provided protected time to help them get things done, but most sites are not as accommodating. Being done also made interviewing for fellowships/post-docs much easier because prospective placements were very concerned with an applicants ability to start on time.

This past year I was involved with reviewing internship applications, and there was a strong preference given to those people who were far along and/or done with their research. Many internship sites follow a similar path because it does not look good for them to have interns stuck in limbo and unable to move on to post-doc.

 

[erg923]

I have fully intended on 4+1 and its going to stay that way. Lit review for the proposal is coming along slowly but surely and I will be able to defend just in time for the deadline my program sets for being able to apply to internships for this cycle. My practicum stating in August is much lighter than my one this past year (my clinical hours are right down the mid-line), so I think ill have enough time to collect my data and write it up before I head off...just barely i think. But still, this is important to me as a man who is married and wants to start a family (and actually have money) and who is getting quite sick of the student life/schedule.

 

[krisrox]

My program is designed to take 5 (4+int.), but most take 6 or 7 years total; only 1 in the past 3 years has graduated in 5. Also mentionable is my program's 100% match rate for the past 10 years...

 

[Ollie123]

I had originally intended to be on the timeline for my program (5+1) but realistically I think that is unlikely to happen anymore and I'm not sure I want it to. We don't publish a whole lot despite the volume of research we have going on and I'm concerned I won't be competitive on the job market if I venture out sooner - I'm currently on trajectory to emerge with 30ish conference presentations, but only a handful of peer-reviewed articles unless I get it together. That especially worries me given its pretty much "Research-heavy faculty job or bust" for me, given I would sooner go back for computer engineering than take a primary clinical job or work someplace I couldn't do research.

I think demonstrated productivity is most important. I wouldn't "plan" on anything necessarily - just see how things are going. If you have the kind of CV you want after 4 years, than great. If not, go ahead and stay. The reality is that absolutely no one is fully competent and "ready" in 8 years, let alone 4. Its just not possible, the volume of information is too great and learning has to be a lifelong process.

I say, stay until you are ready for the next step, and you think your CV reflects that.

 

[erg923]

I had originally intended to be on the timeline for my program (5+1) but realistically I think that is unlikely to happen anymore and I'm not sure I want it to. We don't publish a whole lot despite the volume of research we have going on and I'm concerned I won't be competitive on the job market if I venture out sooner - I'm currently on trajectory to emerge with 30ish conference presentations, but only a handful of peer-reviewed articles unless I get it together. That especially worries me given its pretty much "Research-heavy faculty job or bust" for me, given I would sooner go back for computer engineering than take a primary clinical job or work someplace I couldn't do research.

I think demonstrated productivity is most important. I wouldn't "plan" on anything necessarily - just see how things are going. If you have the kind of CV you want after 4 years, than great. If not, go ahead and stay. The reality is that absolutely no one is fully competent and "ready" in 8 years, let alone 4. Its just not possible, the volume of information is too great and learning has to be a lifelong process.

I say, stay until you are ready for the next step, and you think your CV reflects that.

I really admire people like you who are willing to stick it out to get a few more pubs and/or become a more seasoned researcher, but I just cant do it...

I hate that I live in 20k/year, I hate that my wife has to take me out when we get a chance, I hate that sometimes i have to stay up till 3am doing lit reviews, I hate the variable schedules, paperwork and signature forms for my program evaluations and deadline forms. I love the material still, but just want a more conventional life. 🙂

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Quality > Quantity for publications, so don't worry too much. 30 presentations would be great, particularly if you network while out. Have you secured external funding yet? Have you been successful with grant writing? If you have done both and have some decent pubs, I think you'll be in a good position post-internship.

 

[Ollie123]

Erg - If I had kids, I might feel somewhat differently, but believe me the urge for "normalcy" is still there. Though I'm not convinced pre-tenure faculty have normal lives either🙂 If I was less bent on a particular career path I might feel differently too, but I knew going in there were a very limited set of jobs I would even consider taking after graduation.

T4C - I definitely agree (see other thread😉 ) but I do think there needs to be balance. I'm obviously not looking to churn out crap, but you don't see people getting faculty jobs at the kind of schools I'd consider without at least 7 or 8 pubs in their area. I think some focused contributions that actually get out would be better for my career than my current "pseudo-hypomanic" approach to research where I get frustrated that we don't submit anything, get involved in more stuff that doesn't get submitted, and eventually have so much to do that I can't write myself😉 As for funding, I hope to get an F31 out this next academic year so time will tell. My advisor is on the review committee for the branch I'd likely go to, so while he won't have a direct say, I like to think he'll know what it takes to get funded🙂

Anyways, was trying to illustrate a point since I think this thread asks a good question, not covertly try to become the center of attention and derail the thread, so back to the regularly scheduled discussion....

 

[RejectClinical]

I'm so glad that he mentioned the idea of quality over quantity with regard to hours. At the program I'm starting at, they give us the BARE minimum of hours necessary to be competitive for internship and only one person in the history of the program has not matched.

I'm still shooting for a faculty position after this is all said and done so I don't even think I have the choice of 5 years. Moreover, I don't think anyone at my program has graduated in 5, so 6 it is but with the goal of having my dissertation done or near done prior to internship.

 

[LM02]

I think 5+1 is pretty much the standard these days, with a few people making the push for 4+1.

With that said, don't forget the importance of a solid postdoc... If you're competitive enough for internship at year 5, personally, I'd rather take the "extra" year on the postdoc side and at least make a little extra cash while I whip my CV into shape for a faculty position. I'd much prefer 5+1 and 3 years of postdoc over 6 or 7 +1 and a standard 2 year postdoc.

Also, don't forget that if you want to go for an academic medical center, the reality is that grant funding alone will score you the job. Obviously, you want to have a strong publication record to be competitive for grant dollars, but at the end of the day, money talks. You can always use a junior faculty position in an academic medical center to really beef up your CV, and then make the ultimate switch to hard money when it comes time to be hired at the associate level.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think 5+1 is pretty much the standard these days, with a few people making the push for 4+1.

With that said, don't forget the importance of a solid postdoc... If you're competitive enough for internship at year 5, personally, I'd rather take the "extra" year on the postdoc side and at least make a little extra cash while I whip my CV into shape for a faculty position. I'd much prefer 5+1 and 3 years of postdoc over 6 or 7 +1 and a standard 2 year postdoc.

It really depends though....because "competitive enough" for internship can be quite subjective, particularly when you are aiming for a top internship. It may be different for people seeking academic appointments (tenure track =TT), though on the clinical side I found my 5th year really gave me a leg up during my internship interviews. My research was done, I gained advanced assessment experience, and I felt much more polished and ready to step into internship.

The money is definitely better on the back end, though I'd want to look at short-term v. long-term money. In my case, I'm pretty sure that extra year (and better internship site) made the difference between being competitive for top fellowships v. a more middle of the road opportunity. I'd be concerned with getting stuck in "limbo", working non-TT positions and being perceived as unable to land a TT position after 3 years. My friend is stuck in the "work a year or two and re-evaluate for a more permenant position". He isn't in Psychology, but it seems to also happen in our area.

Also, don't forget that if you want to go for an academic medical center, the reality is that grant funding alone will score you the job. Obviously, you want to have a strong publication record to be competitive for grant dollars, but at the end of the day, money talks. You can always use a junior faculty position in an academic medical center to really beef up your CV, and then make the ultimate switch to hard money when it comes time to be hired at the associate level.

Grant funding definitely speaks loudly. I do believe there is something to be said for potential, particularly if someone has shown a track record to get into some of the better journals, though bring a grant into a university makes it much easier for them to take a chance on you. I think if a person has been part of winning grants and can show a strong understanding of the process, they may be able to negotiate funding for the first 12-18 months. A friend was able to get his 1st year covered + lab space, but he has to have funding lined up after that. Any academics have better insight into this?

I think checking out some junior faculty positions at academic medical centers is a good idea. There may be limitations with research dollars and the split of clinical/research hours, but there can also be wiggle room. When I was looking at fellowships, I saw a distinct difference between the "clinical" fellowships (80/20), "general" fellowships (70/30, 60/40), and "research" fellowships (10/90). I didn't even bother with the research fellowships, but I found there to be a lot more flexibility in the first two areas. Some places were very open to more research, even though they were advertised as "clinical" positions.

 

[LM02]

It really depends though....because "competitive enough" for internship can be quite subjective, particularly when you are aiming for a top internship. It may be different for people seeking academic appointments (tenure track =TT), though on the clinical side I found my 5th year really gave me a leg up during my internship interviews. My research was done, I gained advanced assessment experience, and I felt much more polished and ready to step into internship.

Sorry, I wasn't exactly clear. I got the sense that Ollie was suggesting that he might take more like 6 years + internship, and I was saying that if it is really a publication issue he may be better off sticking with 5+1 and taking an extra year of postdoc to get the pubs out.

I don't think 4+1 is very realistic for most people, especially for those aiming for academic jobs. The 5th year is critical to gaining some extra clinical hours (which may overall be lower for research-heavy grad programs) and to getting the diss completed before internship. 4+1 is not impossible, but it's probably not ideal for most.

I completed everything in 5+1, matched to my first choice, and defended my dissertation a month before I left for internship. It made the internship immensely more enjoyable than had I left with the diss hanging over my head...

Grant funding definitely speaks loudly. I do believe there is something to be said for potential, particularly if someone has shown a track record to get into some of the better journals, though bring a grant into a university makes it much easier for them to take a chance on you. I think if a person has been part of winning grants and can show a strong understanding of the process, they may be able to negotiate funding for the first 12-18 months. A friend was able to get his 1st year covered + lab space, but he has to have funding lined up after that. Any academics have better insight into this?

Well, I am a junior faculty member at a medical center. I'm completely funded through soft money - 100% research. It's a good deal if you can secure the funding.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Sorry, I wasn't exactly clear. I got the sense that Ollie was suggesting that he might take more like 6 years + internship, and I was saying that if it is really a publication issue he may be better off sticking with 5+1 and taking an extra year of postdoc to get the pubs out.

I don't think 4+1 is very realistic for most people, especially for those aiming for academic jobs. The 5th year is critical to gaining some extra clinical hours (which may overall be lower for research-heavy grad programs) and to getting the diss completed before internship. 4+1 is not impossible, but it's probably not ideal for most.

Sorry....I read that wrong. In this light, I'd do what you are suggesting, as long as he could land an appropriate internship spot.

I completed everything in 5+1, matched to my first choice, and defended my dissertation a month before I left for internship. It made the internship immensely more enjoyable than had I left with the diss hanging over my head...

Well, I am a junior faculty member at a medical center. I'm completely funded through soft money - 100% research. It's a good deal if you can secure the funding.

Internship was SOOOO much more managable with my research out of the way. I did some curriculum development and caught up on some reading, which I wouldn't have done if I still had my research hanging over my head.

Nice deal on the funding, as those positions seem to be tough to nail down, particularly with the cuts going around at many places. What kind of research do you do? Feel free to PM me if you are open to sharing, as I don't want to derail this thread.

 

[Ollie123]

I can understand the point, and I'm not worried at all about finding a post-doc - they seem virtually a dime a dozen in my area and I know at least two places where it sounds like all I need to do is ask. That said, there is no guarantee they would be any more productive so I'd hate for the problems to continue. Though I suppose an 8 year post-doc would still beat grad student salary! (and be shorter than what the basic science faculty end up doing!).