Program cultures, and program prestige

[autumn7]

For those currently or recently in Clinical Psych PhD programs, can you speak to the experience of your program climate and culture? In hearing anecdotes from friends, I imagine I would feel less at home in the Clinical science programs, and I wonder if strong programs with a humanities emphasis still exist within the field.

I am also curious about the shifting concept of program prestige vs institutional prestige. How does this work in the field of psychology? Personal anecdotes preferred, about shifting your expectations about the school you hope to attend.

Edit: to clarify questions

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[psych.meout]

For those currently or recently in Clinical Psych PhD programs, can you speak to the experience of your program climate and culture? The descriptions of old-school humanities departments appeal to me, and I wonder if/where this still exists within the field, with both top-notch faculty and students.

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you give an example or one of these "descriptions?"

I am also curious about the shifting concept of program prestige vs institutional prestige. To put it bluntly, I am wondering about the experience of students pursuing a PhD at a school that may be experienced as less rigorous, and less well regarded than their undergraduate program. (I understand that college is different than graduate school. I also know that faculty members hail from all corners of the academic world.) Personal anecdotes preferred, about shifting your 'prestige' expectations.

Some have referred to academia as 'downwardly mobile', is this now also true of being a bright student pursuing niche interests within Clinical psych?

How are you operationalizing "prestige" and why does it matter?

 

[deleted343839]

The descriptions of old-school humanities departments appeal to me, and I wonder if/where this still exists within the field, with both top-notch faculty and students.

There are still programs with both top-notch faculty and students. I can't speak to the "old school" part except to say that students and faculty have become increasingly diverse, so in that sense the resemblance has faded.

I attended a clinical psychology program with a strong reputation, and it felt more like a science department (eg, people clustered by labs, emphasis on NIH/NSF funding) than a humanities department. I had a few friends in humanities PhD programs and I'm still not sure whether I could explain how they passed a typical day in their programs.

I am also curious about the shifting concept of program prestige vs institutional prestige. To put it bluntly, I am wondering about the experience of students pursuing a PhD at a school that may be experienced as less rigorous, and less well regarded than their undergraduate program.

Program reputation matters more than institutional reputation for sure. For example, U. Washington doesn't have Ivy-level cachet in the public eye, but in the field of clinical psychology a UW Ph.D. is very well regarded. Since grad school is nothing like undergrad, I'm not sure how you would experience a Ph.D. program as "less rigorous" anyway. No one cares where you went to undergrad once you've made the cut. Plenty of people who were stars as undergrads flame out in grad school. Grad school rewards a somewhat different set of talents and work habits.

Some have referred to academia as 'downwardly mobile', is this now also true of being a bright student pursuing niche interests within Clinical psych?

I don't know what exactly you mean by "downwardly mobile" but it comes off as classist. If you have a strong need for reinforcement as a member of a high-prestige occupation, clinical psychology may not be for you.

 

[foreverbull]

Tell us more so we can answer your questions more specifically (i.e. what exactly is "old-school humanities?" What are your main requirements when evaluating fit for a graduate program? What is prestige to you?). Your questions are a bit vague and seem to be stemming from some underlying beliefs/opinions that we aren't privy to.

 

[psych.meout]

There are still programs with both top-notch faculty and students. I can't speak to the "old school" part except to say that students and faculty have become increasingly diverse, so in that sense the resemblance has faded.

I attended a clinical psychology program with a strong reputation, and it felt more like a science department (eg, people clustered by labs, emphasis on NIH/NSF funding) than a humanities department. I had a few friends in humanities PhD programs and I'm still not sure whether I could explain how they passed a typical day in their programs.

Program reputation matters more than institutional reputation for sure. For example, U. Washington doesn't have Ivy-level cachet in the public eye, but in the field of clinical psychology a UW Ph.D. is very well regarded. Since grad school is nothing like undergrad, I'm not sure how you would experience a Ph.D. program as "less rigorous" anyway. No one cares where you went to undergrad once you've made the cut. Plenty of people who were stars as undergrads flame out in grad school. Grad school rewards a somewhat different set of talents and work habits.

I don't know what exactly you mean by "downwardly mobile" but it comes off as classist. If you have a strong need for reinforcement as a member of a high-prestige occupation, clinical psychology may not be for you.

Why must this "bright student" deign to attend a graduate program of less prestige than their undergrad?!?

 

[MCParent]

Why must this "bright student" deign to attend a graduate program of less prestige than their undergrad?!?

Psych is unusual from many other professions with how our "prestige" works. OP may have friends going into business or law, where this kind of thing can matter a LOT. So, they may have heard negative things about people who go to lower-ranked MBAs or JDs. It's not immediately obvious that psych would work differently.
OP--other are right that this does not work in psych like that. Program and individual mentor prestige matter much much more than university prestige.

 

[autumn7]

Psych is unusual from many other professions with how our "prestige" works. OP may have friends going into business or law, where this kind of thing can matter a LOT. So, they may have heard negative things about people who go to lower-ranked MBAs or JDs. It's not immediately obvious that psych would work differently.
OP--other are right that this does not work in psych like that. Program and individual mentor prestige matter much much more than university prestige.

This is helpful, thank you!

 

[autumn7]

There are still programs with both top-notch faculty and students. I can't speak to the "old school" part except to say that students and faculty have become increasingly diverse, so in that sense the resemblance has faded.

I attended a clinical psychology program with a strong reputation, and it felt more like a science department (eg, people clustered by labs, emphasis on NIH/NSF funding) than a humanities department. I had a few friends in humanities PhD programs and I'm still not sure whether I could explain how they passed a typical day in their programs.



Program reputation matters more than institutional reputation for sure. For example, U. Washington doesn't have Ivy-level cachet in the public eye, but in the field of clinical psychology a UW Ph.D. is very well regarded. Since grad school is nothing like undergrad, I'm not sure how you would experience a Ph.D. program as "less rigorous" anyway. No one cares where you went to undergrad once you've made the cut. Plenty of people who were stars as undergrads flame out in grad school. Grad school rewards a somewhat different set of talents and work habits.



I don't know what exactly you mean by "downwardly mobile" but it comes off as classist. If you have a strong need for reinforcement as a member of a high-prestige occupation, clinical psychology may not be for you.

Thank you for the description of your Clinical Science program. I have learned about these programs, and appreciate your perspective on the arrangements by lab, with NIH/NSF funding emphasis.

It makes good sense that top programs within the field are unfamiliar to the general public. I'm also interested in learning more about program reputations within the field, things like program climate, in addition to research output and number of NIH/NSF grants.

Ah, I agree that the the term 'downwardly mobile' has a classist tone. I first came across that phrase on this board, and I'm repeating it, perhaps naively, in order to seek clarification. Thanks for the input.

 

[Ollie123]

I'd assume "downwardly mobile" was a reference to the nature of the academic job market in humanities rather than a "class" issue as we typically think of it. Generally speaking, in (true) humanities it is nigh-impossible to get an academic job at Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Stanford/etc. unless you trained at such a place (and so on down the line). This is perhaps <slightly> true of some psychology departments, though I doubt to anywhere near the same extent it is true of humanities. In AMCs, I don't see it mattering much at all. Secure some grants and where you trained is largely irrelevant (of course - good luck getting those grants without solid training).

That said, I also don't have a great sense of what you are asking and what else you might mean by old-school humanities departments and what you are concerned about. Do you mean you want a program where folks just wander aimlessly around and chat philosophy in the hallways? That wouldn't describe any psychology departments I know. Its an intellectual environment for sure - but of a very different nature. There are some decent programs with more of a humanities spin (DePaul comes to mind), but they are rare. I imagine it would be quite limiting though. Not because of "downward mobility" but just because you wouldn't be a good fit for the overwhelming majority of departments.

 

[psych.meout]

I'd assume "downwardly mobile" was a reference to the nature of the academic job market in humanities rather than a "class" issue as we typically think of it. Generally speaking, in (true) humanities it is nigh-impossible to get an academic job at Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Stanford/etc. unless you trained at such a place (and so on down the line). This is perhaps <slightly> true of some psychology departments, though I doubt to anywhere near the same extent it is true of humanities. In AMCs, I don't see it mattering much at all. Secure some grants and where you trained is largely irrelevant (of course - good luck getting those grants without solid training).

That said, I also don't have a great sense of what you are asking and what else you might mean by old-school humanities departments and what you are concerned about. Do you mean you want a program where folks just wander aimlessly around and chat philosophy in the hallways? That wouldn't describe any psychology departments I know. Its an intellectual environment for sure - but of a very different nature. There are some decent programs with more of a humanities spin (DePaul comes to mind), but they are rare. I imagine it would be quite limiting though. Not because of "downward mobility" but just because you wouldn't be a good fit for the overwhelming majority of departments.

Well, if you look at their edit to their first post, OP seems to be contrasting "old school humanities" with clinical science programs. So, I guess they are conceptualizing "old school humanities" as being far less science and research oriented than clinical science programs. It reminds me of many other posts on this forum with the tone of "research is icky."

 

[deleted343839]

In hearing anecdotes from friends, I imagine I would feel less at home in the Clinical science programs, and I wonder if strong programs with a humanities emphasis still exist within the field.

I see you've clarified your initial post. There aren't many programs like this. On the very humanities-focused end of the spectrum are programs like University of West Georgia (UWG | PhD in Psychology - Consciousness and Society). I don't think their program leads to licensure, but if clinical practice is not your goal then you could consider something like this.

When you say "I wonder if strong programs with a humanities emphasis still exist," I feel a need to point out that this was never a dominant model of psychology training. The humanities have influenced psychology (and other sciences) over the years, but the underlying assumption of the field is that psychological knowledge comes from scientific methods of inquiry.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Many psychologists have a lot of interest in the humanities. It just typically is not part of our academic training during grad school since we don't have as much time to devote to that as we are learning how to be scientists and clinicians with varying degrees of emphasis on one or the other. Philosophizing and being well-read is more something that we do in our spare time.

 

[Jake0006]

When you say "I wonder if strong programs with a humanities emphasis still exist," I feel a need to point out that this was never a dominant model of psychology training. The humanities have influenced psychology (and other sciences) over the years, but the underlying assumption of the field is that psychological knowledge comes from scientific methods of inquiry.

It seems that it could be noted that the humanities approaches are often included in more CBT-oriented approaches... I use TF-CBT with clients suffering from PTSD, and while it calls itself a CBT model, and even feels like CBT, the core of the work that is done is built around a narrative therapy set of exercises, culminating with a sharing experience with the family. It seems that the narrative therapy parts and family therapy parts are indispensable, and really the main part of the therapy, but it is understood as a CBT Tx. A good way to see it is as a CBT conceptualization and model, that accomplishes exposure therapy by means of narrative therapy. There are other correlates, but I'll leave it at the one example rather than belaboring the point

 

[deleted343839]

I use TF-CBT with clients suffering from PTSD, and while it calls itself a CBT model, and even feels like CBT, the core of the work that is done is built around a narrative therapy set of exercises, culminating with a sharing experience with the family.

With the ever-proliferating list of therapy acronyms and buzz phrases, it's comforting to know that there is a much smaller list of known mechanisms of change.

Anyway, I'm not sure this is what the OP meant by programs with a "humanities emphasis."

 

[autumn7]

Well, if you look at their edit to their first post, OP seems to be contrasting "old school humanities" with clinical science programs. So, I guess they are conceptualizing "old school humanities" as being far less science and research oriented than clinical science programs. It reminds me of many other posts on this forum with the tone of "research is icky."

Oh no, I should clarify. I am very interested in research. I happen to be one of those people who loves research, but feels put-off by the culture of NIH/NSF research programs that function more like hard science departments. I see research as a critical part of the field. I have several friends in these hard science programs of physics, biology, etc, and as far as student anecdotes go, it sounds like sometimes the 'can't see the forest for the trees' issue arises as an impediment to both ethical research, and program culture.

I plan to continue involvement in clinical research. I appreciate these setting. I'd just like to find a place where the science v humanities divide is less stark. So perhaps, I'm creating a false divide in my question. Though, I appreciate knowing how my post reads.

 

[autumn7]

I see you've clarified your initial post. There aren't many programs like this. On the very humanities-focused end of the spectrum are programs like University of West Georgia (UWG | PhD in Psychology - Consciousness and Society). I don't think their program leads to licensure, but if clinical practice is not your goal then you could consider something like this.

When you say "I wonder if strong programs with a humanities emphasis still exist," I feel a need to point out that this was never a dominant model of psychology training. The humanities have influenced psychology (and other sciences) over the years, but the underlying assumption of the field is that psychological knowledge comes from scientific methods of inquiry.

Oh, this is different than the accounts I have heard. In talking with the generation of psychologists trained 30+ years ago (baby boomers and their parents), there has been a significant shift in program cultures. I learned that many Clinical psychology programs of 30+ years ago were more balanced and included substantial discussion of philosophy, and philosophy of social science. Though I imagine it is possible that this varied by geographic location, to some extent? I don't dispute the value and logic of nesting psychology between the hard sciences and social sciences, but it has always been a bridge between two worlds.

 

[autumn7]

It seems that it could be noted that the humanities approaches are often included in more CBT-oriented approaches... I use TF-CBT with clients suffering from PTSD, and while it calls itself a CBT model, and even feels like CBT, the core of the work that is done is built around a narrative therapy set of exercises, culminating with a sharing experience with the family. It seems that the narrative therapy parts and family therapy parts are indispensable, and really the main part of the therapy, but it is understood as a CBT Tx. A good way to see it is as a CBT conceptualization and model, that accomplishes exposure therapy by means of narrative therapy. There are other correlates, but I'll leave it at the one example rather than belaboring the point

This is a helpful and balanced response. The history of the CBT model is so interesting, and the application of it continues to flourish and branch out in various ways, both productively, and less so. The use of narrative therapy within trauma focused CBT is an important development in CBT treatment. I think TF-CBT is a helpful example of the current trends in the field -- using cognitive and behavioral science as a framework, and integrating dynamic, narrative, and relational aspects to address patient needs.

 

[deleted343839]

Oh, this is different than the accounts I have heard. In talking with the generation of psychologists trained 30+ years ago (baby boomers and their parents), there has been a significant shift in program cultures. I learned that many Clinical psychology programs of 30+ years ago were more balanced and included substantial discussion of philosophy, and philosophy of social science.

I've gotten a different impression from talking with senior colleagues who trained 30+ years ago, but no matter. Primary sources would be the best record of favored thought in the 1960s and 1970s, if you're that curious. Since I can speak more knowledgeably about the present day, I'll say this:

Philosophy of science should be important to all psychologists. It's still included in the curriculum of clinical science programs, where it probably matters most. If you're really interested in going further, it may be possible to fit in a formal course or two in philosophy during your studies. There is also a society and journal devoted to philosophical psychology, though you tend to see more overlap of philosophy with non-clinical psychology areas (cognition and perception, for instance). Within the clinical area, relational frame theory comes as close to a philosophy of language and behaviorism as I've seen in the mainstream clinical psychology literature, and it has informed some compelling critiques of the "C" in CBT. Unfortunately, I also see a lot of the "wielding poststructuralism like a battle axe in defense of a favored orientation/lazy eclecticism" sort floating around, and that's such a well trodden road it's now a cliché.

I've been talking more about content than form, in part because you haven't been clear about this program culture you're seeking. Good philosophy is a boon to the field, and I don't think you'll find many who would argue with you, but you might have trouble finding mentors who have the time/knowledge/skill/patience to work with it in depth. In short, I think this is more a mentor-level problem than a program-level one, but it's not insurmountable.