Question from an overwhelmed lab manager

[psychealth]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi all,

I'm currently working as a lab manager before applying to grad school and expressed to the PI my concerns of not being competitive enough for clinical PhD programs (I lack in research products). Although I have a decent amount of experience working in several research labs, I know I need posters or pubs to show for it and just wanted to let my PI know that I want to devote some time to that (not at the expense of my lab manager duties of course). He seemed somewhat encouraging of me making time for a poster or two but ultimately said that pubs may not be realistic in my position. He said that admissions committees wouldn't expect me to have had any publications while holding a leadership role in a lab, but for some reason I am skeptical that that's true. I know, who am I to question the PI, but with how competitive these programs are, I am merely concerned about where I stand. Is what my PI said correct?

 

[WisNeuro]

Aside from perhaps some of the most competitive research-oriented R1 programs, most applicants are not coming in with pubs. It'll depend on the lab, but a publication is not required, and does not necessarily make one less competitive in general. Though, having a legitimate pub definitely does help in most situations. I would try to get some poster productivity if possible, as many more applicants are coming in with that on a CV as compared to a pub.

 

[summerbabe]

I think it really depends on which lab you're applying to. If a PI consistently produces students who successfully attain academic jobs after grad school, it's likely that quality pubs are a pre-req. If a PI's students typically go into clinical work, there may be less emphasis on journal pubs. And this expectation can vary wildly between PIs within the same department.

A few things to consider:
- Some PI lab webpages will have student profiles that may include their CVs. Or list alumni who may have CVs floating around the internet. This might give you a sense of what they entered grad school with.
- Some programs tend to draw more heavily from people with some type of MS degree while others look more at undergrad and postbacc experiences. Those with a MS degree are more likely to have a thesis product under review already or are working towards that goal.
- Fit is really important. And some subfields within psychology seem to be more competitive in terms of admissions pre-reqs given supply/demand issues.

 

[beantownpsych]

This is hard thing to answer b/c it depends on the school and the lab. The reality is that more students are coming in with publications and admissions is becoming increasingly competitive. It's unfair, but I also think there is an expectation to have presented first-author posters (at minimum) and/or have co-authored a publication particularly when people come from research labs. Some of this depends on the reputation of the PI the person is coming from (are they known to be generous with opportunities or are they a PI who publishes infrequently and rarely includes students?). Most of the applicants I have reviewed over the past several years have had multiple posters at national conferences and 1-3 coauthored publications (including book chapters). That being said, the major thing I care about is that productivity matches opportunity. Thus, if the person has faced some adversity (had multiple jobs d/t being underresourced) or simply hasn't had the opportunity (e.g., works in a lab where experiments take years) then I'm not going to hold the lack of "products" against them, however if someone is applying from a well-known, productive research lab with no evidence of productivity, they'll likely not make my cut for an interview.

 

[RejectClinical]

Yeah....it does really depend on the lab and PI. We had a PI in grad school that was really popular (and continues to be really popular). She will not interview a candidate unless they have a first author publication. She gets a ton of applications and decided there was no other way to get the applicant pool down. I assume this is the exception (and not the rule).

With that stated, the competitiveness of getting into a fully funded PhD program in Clinical Psych continues to get worse and worse each year. UCLA, for example, got 355 applications (and made 15 offers) in the 2019-2020 cycle. I haven't seen recent data for them, but I've heard rumors that they potentially got 1500 applications this past year. As another example, UNC got 959 applications (2020-2021 cycle) and made 11 offers.

I can't imagine the stress of applying to fully funded Clinical Psych PhD programs right now. I too worked in a research lab before graduate school and was not offered any opportunities for publications or posters. This was more than a decade ago. I agree with the above recommendations made by others, but do worry that as the applications increase, the expectation to have a publication and/or poster will probably increase. With that said, if you apply to a less popular program (and/or in a less desirable area of the country), this expectation will decrease. Sorry to be a downer.