PhD/PsyD Presentations and Conferences

[xXIDaShizIXx]

So as you guys know, I'm in a Psy.D. program. I'm a research assistant and probably will be until I graduate. The project I'm working on now is a preliminary study and will probably result in other studies. How many conferences, seminars, presentations, should a graduate student reasonably attend and participate in? I would say I'm a little limited financially, so I can't fly everywhere, but can present and attend conferences within reason. Also is there any sort of specific training or certifications I should be looking for to add to my CV? I will be TAing as well, member of a few groups on campus, working on my dissertation proposal, etc. Anything else I should be doing? Just trying to make sure when it comes time for internships and stuff, a few years down the road I don't look like a deer in the headlights when they ask me what I've accomplished. Thanks guys.

EDIT: I will be doing this regardless if the military selects me or not for the HPSP.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

I think if you can do one national conference a year, preferably something in your niche area and not just APA, that'll be doing pretty well. ABCT was usually my conference each year and I made sure to have 2-3 things to present each year so that I got bang for my buck.

However, more important than just presentations is that you'll also want to make sure that pubs result from them. Someone with tons of presentations but no pubs ends up looking like they can't actually follow through on a project to get it published.

Yeah I have one publication from undergraduate and the professor I'm working under now is a publication machine so I don't think that will be too much of a problem. Any other recommendations of things to beef up my CV and generally be productive? Thanks!

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I think if you can do one national conference a year, preferably something in your niche area and not just APA, that'll be doing pretty well. ABCT was usually my conference each year and I made sure to have 2-3 things to present each year so that I got bang for my buck.

However, more important than just presentations is that you'll also want to make sure that pubs result from them. Someone with tons of presentations but no pubs ends up looking like they can't actually follow through on a project to get it published.

I second everything in this post. One national-level conference per year would be solid, as would 2-3 posters per trip there and at local conferences. I don't remember what my numbers were when I applied for internship, but they certainly weren't staggering--I think I had 10-12 posters + a couple published abstracts, 3 manuscripts, and maybe a book chapter or something.

As for what else to do, it sounds like you're doing quite a bit already. Specialty area will determine whether there are any certifications that are worthwhile, but with military/HPSP interests, I'd think any extra trainings you could receive in PTSD (particularly for CPT and PE) would be ideal.

 

[WisNeuro]

The inter/national conferences, especially your niche conferences, are a big deal, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the most important is that you are networking with people in your field and they are getting to know you and your product. Next, this comes up when you apply to internship/postdoc. On selection committees, we look at where people have presented. If they have only presented at local/regional conferences, it only gets them so far. They have limited exposure to their field, and these conferences usually accept anything that is submitted to them. This is why we will stress looking at a school's financial package. Included in that package is whether or not they will fund research travel. Many schools like my old one will let you apply for travel awards, they were pretty easy to get and I probably nailed down about 2500 over the years to offset conference travel.

As for the pubs, make sure they are quality publications. Are they in known journal? We also check this on a selection committee. Far too often, students will publish in something, and when we look it up, it happens to be a school's research publication, or something that is not a refereed journal. Publishing is great, but quality far outweighs quantity.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

Thank you guys. I think I'm well on my way and should be able to look presentable when it is time to apply for internships.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Thank you guys. I think I'm well on my way and should be able to look presentable when it is time to apply for internships.

I'm a little confused by this last sentence because in my experience, the internship sites are less concerned about research, presentations, and publications than they are about clinical experience. As I was reading the thread, i thought you were talking about later work in an academic setting. It sounds like your experience with conferences and pubs is solid but the internship sites are going to be more concerned about how well you work with others in a clinical setting. Not saying that you don't have solid experience in that area either, just wanted to clarify that.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I'm a little confused by this last sentence because in my experience, the internship sites are less concerned about research, presentations, and publications than they are about clinical experience. As I was reading the thread, i thought you were talking about later work in an academic setting. It sounds like your experience with conferences and pubs is solid but the internship sites are going to be more concerned about how well you work with others in a clinical setting. Not saying that you don't have solid experience in that area either, just wanted to clarify that.

At least where I've been involved the selection, research is certainly factored into the equation, and not by an insignificant amount. It wasn't always weighted as heavily as clinical experience, but scholarly productivity was definitely seen as a big plus; conversely, minimal or absent scholarly activity (e.g., zero, one, or two posters and nothing else) was almost always a red flag.

 

[WisNeuro]

At least where I've been involved the selection, research is certainly factored into the equation, and not by an insignificant amount. It wasn't always weighted as heavily as clinical experience, but scholarly productivity was definitely seen as a big plus; conversely, minimal or absent scholarly activity (e.g., zero, one, or two posters and nothing else) was almost always a red flag.

Agree, the thing is, the people with not enough, or poor clinical experience, are weeded out at the outset. We don't even really review those files. The people that are left all have fairly extensive clinical experience these days at good internships. After that, we need some way to differentiate quality of applicant. That's where your research, and to some extent your LORs, come in. Remember, you're in a large pool of people, most of those people will have the clinical hours and prac placements, a much smaller amount have the extra quality research. Get that into your CV and you stand above the crown of homogeneity.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Agree, the thing is, the people with not enough, or poor clinical experience, are weeded out at the outset. We don't even really review those files. The people that are left all have fairly extensive clinical experience these days at good internships. After that, we need some way to differentiate quality of applicant. That's where your research, and to some extent your LORs, come in. Remember, you're in a large pool of people, most of those people will have the clinical hours and prac placements, a much smaller amount have the extra quality research. Get that into your CV and you stand above the crown of homogeneity.

I guess what I was trying to say is that I wouldn't want the OP to overlook the importance of having adequate clinical experience at good sites. Too many people in my cohort worked at the school's counseling clinic and that limited their chances. On the other hand, I seem to recall that the people with the most research experience in my cohort all matched. I guess in a highly competitive situation, you don't want to be in the bottom half of any of the key categories.

 

[WisNeuro]

Of course, I agree, you should have good clinical experience. But that is rarely the differentiating factor where I've been reviewing apps. Most people have that, so once you hit a certain threshold, it's diminishing returns. Far fewer people stand out in the research realm, that is what will get your application to stand out. Some people freak about about not having enough clinical hours and go overboard. The person who has 1000 intervention hours doesn't look better than the person with 500. Especially if they obviously shirked any research to get to that 1000 hours.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

I'm a little confused by this last sentence because in my experience, the internship sites are less concerned about research, presentations, and publications than they are about clinical experience. As I was reading the thread, i thought you were talking about later work in an academic setting. It sounds like your experience with conferences and pubs is solid but the internship sites are going to be more concerned about how well you work with others in a clinical setting. Not saying that you don't have solid experience in that area either, just wanted to clarify that.

Sorry, I see the confusion. That will be covered as well. I'm just trying to bolster up the parts of my CV that some Psy.D. students usually lack in.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

Agree, the thing is, the people with not enough, or poor clinical experience, are weeded out at the outset. We don't even really review those files. The people that are left all have fairly extensive clinical experience these days at good internships. After that, we need some way to differentiate quality of applicant. That's where your research, and to some extent your LORs, come in. Remember, you're in a large pool of people, most of those people will have the clinical hours and prac placements, a much smaller amount have the extra quality research. Get that into your CV and you stand above the crown of homogeneity.

Right, this is what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to cover all of my bases from the beginning, so I'm not lacking when it comes time for internship/ postdoc applications.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

Of course, I agree, you should have good clinical experience. But that is rarely the differentiating factor where I've been reviewing apps. Most people have that, so once you hit a certain threshold, it's diminishing returns. Far fewer people stand out in the research realm, that is what will get your application to stand out. Some people freak about about not having enough clinical hours and go overboard. The person who has 1000 intervention hours doesn't look better than the person with 500. Especially if they obviously shirked any research to get to that 1000 hours.

How many hours in each area (above the required amount) is generally enough to be considered a stellar applicant (after all other factors are considered)?

 

[WisNeuro]

It varies depending on site, and if you are going for a specialty track or not. I'd say 500 intervention would put you in the upper area. As for assesment >150 for general track people, >300 for neuropsych tracks. That's a general guideline, and will vary from site to site.

 

[Ollie123]

Second everything above. For most places, if you have even 1-2 publications (assuming they are "legit" publications, as WisNeuro indicated above) you should be fine...its just the 25ish big-time research places that want to see more.

Clinical numbers seem spot on. I had ~600 intervention and ~250 assessment if memory serves, applying for general tracks. The types of hours were fairly diverse though and I had a lot in my specialty area. If it was 600 of nothing but straight outpatient in a counseling center...probably wouldn't look nearly as good.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

And one other thing, should I join professional groups early on? I'm already a member of APAGS. I'm interested in joining divisions 40 and 22 as a student.

 

[Stannis]

Go to conferences you want to go to; as long as you go to some, no one cares how many. Have fun with abstracts, preliminary data analyses, travelling, and meeting people. This for me has been the most fun. Then, show people you see things through by publishing, a lot.