PsyD Large Class Sizes

[UNCheer08]

Message Deleted by User

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[KillerDiller]

The main issue with larger class sizes, I would say, is lack of individual attention from the professors and staff. Having larger classes means there is less time to evaluate your individual progress and that you have fewer opportunities to ask questions during the lectures. Relatedly, it hampers class discussions and the typical seminar format that usually accompany graduate school courses. Lastly, large class sizes are an indication that the program is not very selective compared with programs that admit a smaller cohort.

As for the disadvantages of a smaller class size, there really aren't many. I suppose if you end up not getting along with the people in your class, then that can be disappointing.

 

[UNCheer08]

Message Deleted by User

 

[GradStudent87]

What would be considered a large class size? I know PhD's generally take 15 or less, PsyD's I think take around 15-30 I think? I'm not sure what is considered reasonable vs. what would be a red flag number?

 

[psychmama]

I can give you information about my psyd program, which has cohorts of about 16-18. I found that number to be fine. Many of the early classes I took, such as psychopathology, stats, foundations, were broken down into 2 sections, meaning there were fewer than a dozen in most of my classes. Most of my advanced seminars had between 6-10 students, which I found to be a nice size for having discussions. I took one class in the summer (psychopharmacology) that combined students from the psyd and phd program, and that class had about 30 students in it. I didn't like that much. It was mostly lecture format and kind of dull. I'm glad that I didn't have any other classes of that size in grad school.

Hope this helps.

 

[mshbe]

My PhD class at Nova is 20, which is a bit larger than average, and the PsyD class is much larger. In general I agree with KillerDiller, although I personally haven't felt that we don't have good individual attention or engaging class discussions. One thing I've realized I do like about the larger classes is the diversity of experience and opinion that everyone brings to the program. That said, I do think they should cut back on their numbers.

 

[deleted176373]

As for the disadvantages of a smaller class size, there really aren't many. I suppose if you end up not getting along with the people in your class, then that can be disappointing.

When you have really small class sizes (4 people) you cannot hide... you have to always be on your game, because if you don't keep up, it can be a little embarrassing. We all have our bad days (sick a few days in a row, sleep deprived, etc) and small class sizes can really highlight that.

Mark

 

[thewesternsky]

When you have really small class sizes (4 people) you cannot hide... you have to always be on your game, because if you don't keep up, it can be a little embarrassing. We all have our bad days (sick a few days in a row, sleep deprived, etc) and small class sizes can really highlight that.

Mark

This is true, and can be stressful. Good point.

It's not all bad, though-- You also get to know your profs and other students quite well (you interact closely almost every day), so they get a fairly accurate picture of your performance and personality that fortunately isn't based on just a few samples. So that's nice. (Usually... My grade in one course this year came with some feedback on my performance that mentioned that the professor enjoyed my 'self-deprecating sense of humour'; I still haven't figured out if that was a good, bad, or neutral thing!)

So, yes, it can be slightly embarrassing and stressful if you're having a bad day and everyone can tell, but I think the social support and personal attention more than make up for it most of the time.

 

[JockNerd]

Smaller classes also let each person talk and fully express/explain themselves, without as much concern for dominating a conversation.

In a PsyD program, given the emphases, I'd be MUCH more concerned with getting adequate supervision. I have trouble seeing how some of the large-class programs are able to provide a reasonable amount of supervision to every student. To me this seems important, since in the past year I think I grew as a counselor primarily through challenging and personal supervision. If my supervisors had even one more supervisee, I don't think it would have been nearly as good.

 

[ClinicalTrainee]

Let us also not forget the later implications of large incoming class sizes. Yes, the student/faculty ratio in class is important, as is supervisory attention, but there is also the effect of competing for resources.

Larger classes means more competition for external practica, and larger cohorts (I've heard above 20 floated around as a problematic number) means more people entering the internship application circuit at the same time. Typically, programs with larger incoming classes have poorer match rates, though be sure to look at match rates over a period of several years, because any one program may have an off year.

 

[psytudent]

While I agree that larger cohorts are undesirable because of the competition of resources within each program as well as the over-saturation of both the internship application process and the professional job market, I am a firm believer that the cream rises to the top, so to speak.

Proactive, quality students will seek-out or create opportunities to compensate for a larger cohort, while those who choose not to make the extra effort will suffer because of their general apathy and will subsequently professionally flounder. As it is in any vocation, there exists a broad spectrum of competency levels.

As an aside, I am a harsh critic of the manifest destiny-style of exponential growth in which many of the professional school have been engaging - including the one from which I was recently graduated. I think there needs to be some type of external pressure to humble their irresponsible growth, although I have yet to see a concerted, organized effort by any type of advocacy group to promote this change (I would appreciate learning of any that might exist). To be sure, I appreciate the political subtext inherent in increasing APA's clout through the manufacturing of clinical psychologists, but I am nevertheless frustrated that there is not more pressure placed on professional schools to tighten-up their admission standards.

Would a larger cohort be as much of an issue if it were comprised of individuals who each achieved an undergraduate cum. gpa of 3.6+ and a GRE score of 1300+?

 

[thewesternsky]

Would a larger cohort be as much of an issue if it were comprised of individuals who each achieved an undergraduate cum. gpa of 3.6+ and a GRE score of 1300+?

Are we also assuming that the school has enough resources to provide these students with excellent clinical supervision?

 

[psybee]

My cohort is 16--with one that size, while you do interact with everyone you also tend to break down into smaller groups of 3-6, and those folks you get very close to, just as if your cohort was only 3-6, except you are the one choosing those other students, in a way. i'm a very vocal, proactive type student, so i don't have a problem with larger classes. I wouldn't need to talk more in a smaller class, and I like the diversity of expereinces, although quieter students may find it easier to fade into the shadows and larger cohorts may be more of a negative expereince for them. professors can find it a challenge to mentor so many students, which could be a problem, unless you make sure that you are one of the students that gets the mentoring. supervision hasn't posed a problem because we have outside externships that have thier own set programs with include supervision, as well as our clinic practica with outside supervisors who provide an hour of supervision per client session, and then weekly group supervision with our cohort for our clinic cases, and we can always make an appt with the clinic director if we want more insight. competition for externship placements is no joke, but in my large city everything is competitive, but there are also lots of opportunities. in a smaller town or city, i see how having larger cohorts could pose a real problem for students not at the top of thier class.

 

[psytudent]

Are we also assuming that the school has enough resources to provide these students with excellent clinical supervision?

Well, like psybee mentioned, as far as I am aware, all externs receive focused individual and group supervision at their externship sites in addition to the supports and attention built-into the respective training programs.

Personally, in each of my three externship training sites, I received a total 2 hours of individual supervision each week - one hour each from two different licensed psychologists. I felt that these supervisory experiences were challenging and individually tailored to match my training needs, and it was impossible to "hide in the background" or "slip under the radar".

Whether the school has enough resources to provide "excellent" individual supervision ignores the fact that individually focused supervision is supplied by outside externship sites. Sure, the quality of the supervisors can vary, but if they are properly vetted by the school's training dept. those issues can be minimized.

 

[KillerDiller]

Whether the school has enough resources to provide "excellent" individual supervision ignores the fact that individually focused supervision is supplied by outside externship sites. Sure, the quality of the supervisors can vary, but if they are properly vetted by the school's training dept. those issues can be minimized.

I think that vetting externship sites can be an issue in and of itself for classes with large cohorts. It is a lengthy process to form the necessary working relationship with a site and also properly evaluate the supervision and training that goes on there. My program has cohorts of only 10-13, and even with that small of a class, we have one faculty member whose entire job is to vet new and old sites. Our DCT and one other professor also spend an ample amount of their time on this. For this reason, the resources of the school still come into play even if they aren't providing the supervision directly.

 

[psychmama]

Smaller classes also let each person talk and fully express/explain themselves, without as much concern for dominating a conversation.

In a PsyD program, given the emphases, I'd be MUCH more concerned with getting adequate supervision. I have trouble seeing how some of the large-class programs are able to provide a reasonable amount of supervision to every student. To me this seems important, since in the past year I think I grew as a counselor primarily through challenging and personal supervision. If my supervisors had even one more supervisee, I don't think it would have been nearly as good.

Regarding supervision and getting enough resources to do it well with larger cohorts...

My program has a strong network of alumni and other local contacts within clinical psychology. I'm not sure if this is typical, but the way my school handles the supervision issue is to lean heavily on the generosity of these volunteer psychologists. At least 50 % of my supervisors are in private practice or practice locally and see students in their spare time. The other 50% has been through my various practica. I feel confident that I've received very good supervision overall under this model. The only downside has been that I've had to drive all over the place to get to supervision. Still, this has been a small price to pay, IMHO.

 

[Ollie123]

Aren't you at a smaller program though psychmama? What you describe sounds like the norm (well, not necessarily private practice, but having people with primary appointments elsewhere) - I'm just not sure how easy/sustainable that would be with large schools.

 

[psychmama]

My program cohort is 16, so it's certainly smaller than the large Psyd programs. I do agree that it would be harder to arrange supervision along the lines we have in very large programs with 30 + students. The reason I mentioned how we do it is because only a fraction of us are supervised by core faculty. The school relies heavily on outside psychologists. I thought this might be different than in some traditional phd programs, but I'm not sure.

 

[Ollie123]

I think most programs have a fair number of core faculty as supervisors...I don't know that many schools have the ENTIRE in-house supervision done by core faculty. I think every school has external sites where you can get supervision. I think either extreme would be bad actually...having supervision only done by core faculty, unless its a gigantic department, would probably limit the kind of specialty experience you can get.

There's a big difference between a cohort of 10-20, and a cohort of 30+, 40+, 50+. Even at 30 I still could see it being manageable, but beyond that I think it would get dangerous and would tend to cause problems. I would then either think that supervision is going to be handled in huge groups (bad), or that quality of supervisor might be sacrificed for quantity (also bad).

 

[psychmama]

Ollie,

I don't disagree. I can't imagine being able to find that many quality supervisors for students. I know it's a challenge even in my much smaller program. I'd be interested in hearing how it actually is handled in those very large programs.

Anyone out there at a Psyd program with very large cohorts? How does your program deal with the supervision issue.

 

[JockNerd]

Yeah, my comment was more regarding the 30+ cohorts. 16 still sounds manageable. My program (full ride counseling psych PhD) has a few years where it took up to 11 people.

 

[Eruca]

^ Indeed, check out these cohort numbers for Wright. I met someone who graduated more recently (2008) and her cohort was closer to 70. Needless to say, there was some major competition for resources.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Did she say if she felt the large cohort negatively impacted her training?

 

[Eruca]

From what I recall from our conversation, she did say that she often felt disconnected. She also mentioned how brutal the competition for resources was (including competing for the 'good' supervisors). Also, at least 50 of them were applying for internship at the same time. That means that all 50 have to get letters of recs from many of the same people, and the DCT has to fill out the APPIC part 2 for all of them! I'm just guessing, but I'd think that could have an impact on the quality of the letters. In addition, most of the students wanted to stay in the Bay Area (which is partly why they went to Wright). When I met her, she had taken a non-funded internship and was working right beside funded interns. She was also in debt, very broke, and didn't seem that happy with her current prospects.

(please note, this is not indicative of all Wright students, I'm speaking about just one personal experience filtered through my own observations. I was trying to be polite and not too probing.)

 

[docjohng]

I came from Nova's PsyD program back when its class sizes were smaller. I think mine was around 35 - 40 in 1990 when I started. At that size, I found the resources available were very manageable and not overly competitive.

The number of practicum opportunities were large and diverse, ranging from CMHCs (Nova runs the CMHC system for Broward county), smaller practices, to international university counseling centers, to large VAs. That diversity was a big plus, because it meant you could really try out different types of roles to work within as a psychologist while you were still in training, and I appreciated that.

The other thing I appreciated about the "large" (although now it would be more of a "medium") class size is that inevitably, you are not going to get along with everyone in your class. In a larger class size, I found it easier to deal with this than if it was a smaller class size which forced more interactions. This really hit home for me on my internship, which was 8 students, 2 or 3 of which seemed to want to have nothing to do with the rest of us. Making for uncomfortable internship development meetings and the like.

But I think the continuous move to increase class sizes at some of these institutions, even Nova, is a definite negative. Local resources do have an upper limit based upon state and federal budgets and population, so eventually a program is going to hit that.

I also think it's easier to "hide" in a larger program, meaning some students who probably should've been weeded out in their first or second year make it all the way to year 4 before running into serious career development issues. The cynic in me says for-profit institutions like Nova do that somewhat on purpose; but I also think that because you're not being mentored as closely as you will be in a smaller program, you can fly under my supervisors' radars until it's basically too late.

John