PsyD Admission

Started by rnews2005
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
R

rnews2005

New Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Well I am planning to apply for Fall 09 PsyD program. I live in the bay area, and i really dont want to move. I just want to stay here in the bay area to further studies. I know UC berkely has PsyD program, but it is very hard to get into UC berkely PsyD program. Then i was considering other programs such as: John F Kennedy, Alliant Internationl University, Argosy University, California Institute of Integral Studies, The Wright Institute. how hard is it to get into these programs????? By attending one of these programs, I will be able to get a good job????
 
UC Berkley does not have a Psy.D program. They do have a Ph.D. program in clinical that is heavily research oriented. All Ph.D Programs are very competitive (good research experience in undergrad, GPA>3.5, GRE over 1200). Admissions rates are as low as 2% and as high as 15%. Psy.Ds from 5% to 30% depending on the programs. The professionals schools that offer Psy.Ds such as PGSP, Argosy, Alliant are generally less competitive but are not funded and will cost you an arm and a leg. PGSP is the only one in the bay area with a solid reputation and decent match rates for internship. I think their Psy.D is pretty competitve actually. You need to worry about more than job placement when researching programs. One needs to consider fit with the program, research interests that match with faculty (for Ph.D), goals and training model of the program, funding, APA accreditation, academic standards, reputation, quality/breadth of clinical training and experiences, and match rate statistics. Wright is heavily psychodynamic and CA Institute of Integral Studies is very "touchy-feely" and has an eastern philosophy slant. Not great in my opinion. Limiting yourself to one geographic region significantly decreases chances for admission in such an competitive field. The vast majority of Ph.D and Psy.D students have to relocate for grad school.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
"Heavily psychodynamic" sounds almost like a curse 🙂 Why is it bad for a school to promote a psychodynamic approach? I think each school has one approach that they mainly emphasize, and others are there but less emphasized. Am I wrong on this?
Perhaps the reason is that the field goes to the EST (empirically-supported treatment) direction and therefore mainstream embraces CBT, and psychodynamics is considered "an old school?".
I personally believe that understanding of psychodynamic approach is fundamental for therapy, even if your main approach is CBT, eclectic, etc. I also understand that CBT is effective to remove the symptoms, but when the issue is pre-verbal, CBT is not much of help. Am I completely deluded? I wonder what people think about this. Thank you.
 
I would argue that one needs firm theoretical foundations of all the various theories of personality/behavior (i.e., psychoanalytic, Behaviorist, etc) in order to understand the complex nature of the development of psychopathology. However, a program that holds rigidly to psychodynamic principles (like Wright does) fosters an environment that is largely out of step with mainstream clinical psychology. By openly admitting that this is their theoretical training model, they are ignoring (or at least not encouraging) the critical evaluation of theory and evidence that is the hallmark of a good psychologist. Accordingly, this training philosophy is likely to restrict a graduates appeal and qualification for many more "mainstream" internship sites. This in itself, is extremely limiting to ones career.

I wouldn't characterize it as "old school"....just lacking in empirical support and efficacy in many cases. Ethically, it is hard to justify a year or more of psychodynamic therapy when CBT or some other approach provides the same treatment outcome in 12 sessions. The literature is very clear on this.

The reality is that this strict "theoretical orientation" construct is very oversold in both its importance and clinical utility. Of course, we do need to understand underlying models/theories of normal behavior in order to understand pathological behavior, but the reality is none of these theories explain all psychopathology and its complex developmental pattern. It is ludicrous to assume that we should always do case formulations of our clients using our one chosen theoretical orientation. The modality of therapy is really going to depend on your patients characteristics, and the research base of the treatment. All this is while taking into account patient characteristics, impairment level, perceived locus of control, etc for refining treatment selection/modalities. This is the reality of how therapy works in the real world. A well rounded clinician is familiar with many different orientations and therapies, and utilizes what is likely to be the most effective for each individual client.
 
erg923 said:
UC Berkley does not have a Psy.D program. They do have a Ph.D. program in clinical that is heavily research oriented. All Ph.D Programs are very competitive (good research experience in undergrad, GPA>3.5, GRE over 1200). Admissions rates are as low as 2% and as high as 10%. Psy.Ds from 5% to 30% depending on the programs.
Click to expand...


People here like to exaggerate abit. For phd 10% is more like the average, not like the upper limit. The upper range is closer to 30% for the less selective places. For psyd the average is about 40%.

http://www.psichi.org/pubs/eye/vol_8/8_3_landrum_table1.jpg
 
I agree that it varies, but it's not an exaggeration. Some programs will have 100 applications and make 10 formal offers (10%). Some will receive 100 apps and make 15 offers (15%). Some places will receive 200 and accept 10 students (5%). Some will receive 200 applications and make 5 offers (2.5%)..its just varies. Florida for example often receives 300 apps for 10 or so spots. A Ph.d class is rarely over 15 students and a program rarely gets less than 100 apps (most get many more than that)...so I would say that for most Ph.D programs...15% is the absolute max. University based Psy.D are usually smaller than professionals schools and I know they are not accepting 40% of their applicants. Further, I know of no Ph.D programs that take 30% of its applicants.
 
I was told by a faculty member today that my program (PsyD) received 500-some applications this year. 500?! 😱 They accepted a little over 10%.
 
..."However, a program that holds rigidly to psychodynamic principles (like Wright does) fosters an environment that is largely out of step with mainstream clinical psychology. By openly admitting that this is their theoretical training model, they are ignoring (or at least not encouraging) the critical evaluation of theory and evidence that is the hallmark of a good psychologist. Accordingly, this training philosophy is likely to restrict a graduates appeal and qualification for many more "mainstream" internship sites. This in itself, is extremely limiting to ones career..."

FYI the Wright Institute in NO way "holds rigidly to psychodynamic principles". This might have been how they operated in the past but currently do not in any way advocate a single theoretical model - but rather attempt to inspire an integrationist approach. I will be attending in the Fall and investigated this with a lot of rigour as I am definitely not wanting a one sided training model. I have been reassured both by students and by faculty that, although a lot of the faculty have solid training in psychodynamics, they are encouraging other modalities with the intention of integrating or customising approaches for specific problems.
 
Fair enough. I just know this is how they operated in the past and how they are still perceived in the bay area. I know this is how they are viewed by my past practicum directors at UCSF med center and at the VA as well.
 
erg923 said:
Fair enough. I just know this is how they operated in the past and how they are still perceived in the bay area. I know this is how they are viewed by my past practicum directors at UCSF med center and at the VA as well.
Click to expand...
I do hope that I am correct, and that I have not been misled, as it would not be a good match for me if it was still purely psychodynamic.
 
Well I don't attend there, and I doubt they lied to your face. Im sure you'll be fine. However, that is their reputation in the bay area, and it will likely take a while to change. I would think this would limit your opportunities at certain high quality practicum sites that still view the program this way. Hopefully this will change over the next few years. Where do the Wright folks do externships and practicums btw? I have bumped into people from lots of programs while working in various clinics within the VA, Kaiser, Stanford, and UCSF, but never anyone from Wright.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I'm glad The Wright Institute has a bit more variety. I looked at the program ~5 years ago and I really liked it (particularly for the psychodynamic slant), but I didn't feel like they had enough 'other' training at the time....and their research stuff leaves something to be desired. I think of it much more in the mold of the 'institutes' that are/were popular for psychiatrists back in the day who wanted to learn therapy. Solid clinical training, and it seems like good interaction, though it felt very different than my other interviews at a variety of Uni's.
 
Where do the Wright folks do externships and practicums btw? I have bumped into people from lots of programs while working in various clinics within the VA, Kaiser, Stanford, and UCSF, but never anyone from Wright.
Click to expand...

Good question. Does anybody know? I've heard from several Wright students that they had their practicum and/or APA internship at the VA in Martinez, don't know about other sites/externships.
Just thinking that, geographically, commute to Stanford as a practicum site might be a way too long...
 
That's kinda true, although I work with someone from Alliant-Alameda campus who commutes to a research lab at Stanford med twice a week. That commute would suck I would think.....:laugh: I've never run into a Wright person in externships or research work, so I cant really access the program beyond reputation.
 
erg923 said:
I have bumped into people from lots of programs while working in various clinics within the VA, Kaiser, Stanford, and UCSF, but never anyone from Wright.
Click to expand...

I just met a Wright institute grad who works at Kaiser. She said most of her coworkers were Wright grads or CSPP grads. She's been out of school for many years though. I also visited the school last month. I talked to a current student and got the impression that most of the faculty is slanted towards Psychodynamic theory but are open to others as well. They do have advanced electives in empirically supported treatments etc.... They also seem to have their own clinic that specializes in the treatment of anxiety disorders using CBT. I thought this was interesting. It seems like it's hard for any program to just be Psychodynamic these days. There is too much evidence pointing in other directions.
 
"I work with someone from Alliant-Alameda campus who commutes to a research lab at Stanford med twice a week"

Erg 923, if you don't mind me asking, is this person from PhD or PsyD program? Just curious about the perception of PsyD programs by research institutions like Stanford (excluding, of course, PGSP-Stanford PsyD, as this is not your typical PsyD program and is Stanford-affiliated).
 
This persons research job at Stanford is not connected with the Alliant program. She is in her first year there and I'm pretty sure she had the job at Stanford before starting the program. Clinical practicums are competitive there, I only got mine because my adviser is an assistant PI on a grant in the med school. It's all about who you know! Like many of the academic med centers they do not think much of the Argosy candidates, but that's about all I know. Psy.Ds wont really be in the research activities there (just because of the nature of the degree), and the few I know are from the PGSP-Staford Consortium and have been brought in directly by faculty there, or the connections through PGSP faculty. Of course, anyone with good qualifications can apply as Research Assistant there, but most of those positions require full time work, and one couldn't do those jobs and attend grad school at the same time.
 
You'd probably be at least competitive at all Psy.D. programs assuming you have stoing letters with those stats.
 
erg923 said:
You'd probably be at least competitive at all Psy.D. programs assuming you have stoing letters with those stats.
Click to expand...

What about Clinical PhD programs, considering they're exceedingly harder to gain admission to?
 
Actually, Psy.D programs like Baylor and Rutgers are likely to be even more competitive than some middle of the road Ph.D programs. Those programs are very popular and they have fairly small incoming classes. Your GPA is a little on the low side considering the mean of those accepted, and your GRE is about right at the median, but you have decent stats. You might be considered competitive at middle of the road Ph.D. programs, but that really depends on your research interests and the nature of that clinical research you've had over the past 2 years. It has to be alot more than just entering data. Also depends on finding a good professor to match research interests with. Ph.D. programs are alot of research, if you're only "so-so" about research, you're gonna hate being in a Ph.D. program.
 
erg923 said:
That's kinda true, although I work with someone from Alliant-Alameda campus who commutes to a research lab at Stanford med twice a week. That commute would suck I would think.....:laugh: I've never run into a Wright person in externships or research work, so I cant really access the program beyond reputation.
Click to expand...

Alliant is not in Alameda, it's in San Francisco, so you wouldn't have to cross the bay.
 
That is a subjective judgment I suppose. Middle of the road really refers more to competitiveness than quality of the training. But generally, Tier I schools are large, well know research universities that typically receive well over 200 applicants for just a handful of spots. Places like Yale, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, UCLA, Indiana, Florida, Pitt, just to name a few. "Middle of the road" kinds of programs typically receive less applications, and are typically, less research heavy. Some great programs that come to mind are Kansas, Auburn, Louisville, Arkansas. All places that are moderately competitive by clinical program standards, and have outstanding training.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
erg923 said:
That is a subjective judgment I suppose. But generally, Tier I schools are large, well know research universities that typically receive well over 200 applicants for just a handful of spots. Places like Yale, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, UCLA, Indiana, Florida, Pitt, just to name a few. "Middle of the road" kinds of programs typically receive less applications, and are typically, less research heavy. Some great programs that come to mind are Kansas, Auburn, Louisville, Arkansas.
Click to expand...

those programs can still be plenty good though, so don't be turned off by them. in addition, there are programs that, due to location or other factors, are incredibly competitive (or get fewer applications) than their quality would warrant. there were several posts in another thread boosting for kansas as an underappreciated program, for example.
 
I should have been clearer (and i revised my post), those are great programs! Those are my list of under appreciated programs! Just, for whatever reasons, they get less apps than the quality warrants. Hence, "middle of the road" competitiveness, not in quality. When I was applying to programs, the ones with the absolute lowest amount of applications were new programs like Eastern Michigan, Wichita State, and University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC). None of these programs appealed to me, and I know that UMKC had alot of problems in its first few years, including a 0% match rate for the 2005 or 2006 match. Hope things have improved there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Freud’sMommy
PhD/PsyD .
Replies
0
Views
839
Freud’sMommy
Freud’sMommy
D
Nova Southeastern Clinical PsyD
Replies
11
Views
2K
chicandtoughness
chicandtoughness
M
PhD/PsyD Research Fit and Admissions
Replies
7
Views
1K
futureapppsy2
futureapppsy2
P
PhD/PsyD Postdoc Hunt in Ohio
Replies
3
Views
433
Doctor Eliza
Doctor Eliza
EnPsychlopedia
PhD/PsyD PTSD diagnosis and Criterion A
Replies
32
Views
2K
cara susanna
cara susanna