Realistic Programs/Applying Next Year

[coloradocutter]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Any thoughts on the following on programs - I am looking for shorter time to completion and more emphasis on clinical (typically go hand in hand) - also realistic chances of getting into the program, close knit program, pleasant area of country, stipend is not as much of a concern - would be 2nd career, 1250 GRE, 6 W, 4.0 psych top 15 school, 3.5 law top 15 school, some research experience and clinical experience but work too much to do more now (am open to suggestions though of things that would help my application):

University of Wyoming PhD
University of Montana PhD
San Diego State/UCSD Combined PhD
University of Utah PhD
University of Nevada at Reno PhD
University of Denver PhD/PsyD
UC Boulder PhD
VA Consortium PsyD
Fuller PhD
UC Santa Barbara Combined PhD
Utah State Combined PhD

East Carolina University in NC (great med school and clinical opportunities) and UC Colorado Springs recently added PhD programs in health psych and geropsych respectively, but not accredited yet.
Any other ideas?

 

[Ollie123]

Have a friend at UC Boulder who adores it there. Great program and wonderful area. He's not in clinical but he's told me about their clinical program and it seems a good option.

I applied to U Montana, but blew off the interview since I sort lost faith in the school's ability to prepare me for what I want to do, and my POI. I think it might be a good fit for you though - the program itself seems fine it was just not right for me as I am quite deadset on a research career, and the school quite frankly doesn't have the resources that I would need for the research I want to do.

Pretty top notch clinical training from what I hear though. Only downside is that due to the area you don't exactly have a diverse population to work with. Beyond that though, I highly recommend it.

 

[JockNerd]

What sort of clinical population are you looking at getting involved with? I'd say that could be a major consideration. Check out the prof's websites at each school-- research and clinical interests often overlap. Plus, then, if you do end up doing some research it'll at least be in an area that interests you.

I applied and was given interviews at Montana and Utah. I declined both when I got into a higher-choice program, but both are GREAT from what I did see. Some neat work related to religion is happening in Utah.

IMO you have a pretty decent application profile. I'd say finding fit with a program should be a priority.

 

[LM02]

SDSU/UCSD has a very intense research orientation - with a separate comprehensive exam in statistics in addition to the standard grueling comprehensive exam. Students are also scattered throughout the two settings, resulting in the opposite of a "tight knit" experience. It's a great program - but perhaps not what you're looking for.

CU Boulder is also very research heavy. You will get excellent clinical training as well, but the faculty expectation will still be that you are there to be trained as a researcher. It's often difficult for students who want clinical careers to work in that environment (not specific to CU, but true for all research-focused programs) - as your goals will not mesh with the goals of your mentor and other faculty members. However, as a smaller program, it will certainly fit your "tight knit" criterion, and it also is in a very nice area of the country.

I don't know too much about the others, though my hunch is that Santa Barbara and the PsyD programs you listed will provide a lot of clinical training.

As for your GRE, do you have a minimum of 600 on each? With a 1250, you might, or you may have very uneven scores. For the research programs listed above, you will want a minimum of 600 on each to even be considered.

Finally, some of those programs are quite different in terms of what emphases they offer. For example, the DU clinical PhD program is almost entirely child-focused, whereas the CU PhD program is heavy on adults. In order to be competitive for admission, you will need to demonstrate a good fit with your interestes and the program.

 

[coloradocutter]

thanks everyone for your thoughts - my score is more heavy on math, but barely. when i took the GRE straight out of undergrad, it was more heavy on the verbal and better overall. i have problems taking the computer based test, i think.

do you think its worth taking a kaplan course? i used the books and did ok, but was hoping for a better score.

i am taking a psych class at UC-Boulder this summer, have been trying to find volunteer work that i could actually do given my schedule, but it is tough. i cannot quit my job as i am currently the main bread winner and i am trying to save money for school.

i don't think UC-Boulder is a realistic option because I did terrible on the psych GRE and don't know how I could improve. i wasn't a psych major. although i have requisite hours in psych - don't have developmental, history of psychology, learning theory and those seemed heaving on the GRE.

 

[Ollie123]

If you were one of us in the working world with naught but a psych BA and making barely over poverty I wouldn't recommend Kaplan. That being said, I know a lot of people who it helped, so if money is less of an issue I say go for it. Then again....time is probably more of an issue for you than most.

Taking a class at UC-Boulder is definitely a good start. Get to know that professor! Since you haven't been involved in psych in awhile you will probably need them to write a letter of rec for you.

Honestly, I WAS a psych major, but took none of the classes you listed and still scored in the 93%. My advice? Get a PSY101 textbook (I recommend Peter Gray's) and use those mad-memorization skills you lawyers need. You won't get a perfect, but you'll get a broad enough basis of information to do well. If you break 700 you're at least in the ballpark for everywhere except like, Penn.

You're on the right track, just keep at it and know that it won't be an easy road (especially with your schedule!). Just have to know that its worth it in the end.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Ollie is right about the Psych GRE....get an intro book to cover the basics. Then get a couple of review books, and get use to the types/formats of the questions, and then work it over until you are sweating Erikson's Dev Stages and all of that other random information.

-t

 

[Wrking4U]

University of Utah - I interviewed there and really liked the program, espeacially the child-track. The only major drawback is that it seems to take people a while to get through the program.

University of Montana - I really thought that this would be a great program for me but after the phone interview I found out that they do not offer tuition waivers to all of the students. So funding was an issue for me because I don't want to pay for school.

 

[irish80122]

I interviewed at Colorado at Colorado Springs for Clinical Geropsychology. Honestly it was a mixed experience. Overall the faculty seems very nice and they do have fairly good facilities given the size of the school. Additionally the stipends were good and they said they expected to be accredited in the very near future, and I think they will be.

Their focus is very clinical, which sounds like it would fit you but didn't fit me as much. Also, one thing that turned me off from the program is that the professors really seemed to be islands, there wasn't much cooperation and you got the sense that the advisor basically owned their graduate students, which doesn't work for me because I like to collaborate! However, the graduate students seemed happy and all were very friendly.

One last note on UCCS...they have weird admissions. I was turned down, which I was thankful for because I had a poor match, but I don't understand some of the people they turned down. It just didn't make sense. Also, IF YOU ARE NOT PASSIONATE ABOUT GEROPSYCHOLOGY, DO NOT APPLY TO UCCS.

 

[irish80122]

As for your GRE, do you have a minimum of 600 on each? With a 1250, you might, or you may have very uneven scores. For the research programs listed above, you will want a minimum of 600 on each to even be considered.

I disagree strongly with this point, it simply is not true. I applied to more research-heavy graduate programs and received 6 interviews out of 9 applications (and an acceptance...withdrew other applications) with a 550 verbal. I agree that balance is better, but you can be considered with less than a 600.

 

[Ollie123]

I too was accepted to a reasonably competitive research-oriented clinical PhD program (takes 10 people out of around 230 apps) with scores of 540 verbal, 710 quant, and 5.0 writing.

I was pretty terribly disappointed with those scores, especially since I normally do MUCH better on standardized tests, but it was enough to get me into what seems a solid program. I almost didn't apply because of them, but I'm glad I did.

Quant matters more than verbal and as long as you break 1300 your GRE scores probably won't HURT you anywhere aside from Yale, Penn, etc. Over 1300 would actually probably help at most schools.

 

[JockNerd]

thanks everyone for your thoughts - my score is more heavy on math, but barely. when i took the GRE straight out of undergrad, it was more heavy on the verbal and better overall. i have problems taking the computer based test, i think.

do you think its worth taking a kaplan course? i used the books and did ok, but was hoping for a better score.

I'd advise against the Kaplan course, unless you have money to burn. How did you use the book? My advice would be to do a practice test, then go back and code all the items you got wrong based on their subject area. Then, review those areas you're weak in ONLY. Don't waste time going over neuroanatomy of behaviourism if you know it all. Review your weaker points in a Kaplan or Princeton Review book (be sure to know researchers' names and what they did!!), and maybe pick up a text or two that's in your area of weakness. That was my strategy, and it boosted by Psych GRE mark by 200 from my first practice test to the real thing.

 

[LM02]

I disagree strongly with this point, it simply is not true. I applied to more research-heavy graduate programs and received 6 interviews out of 9 applications (and an acceptance...withdrew other applications) with a 550 verbal. I agree that balance is better, but you can be considered with less than a 600.

Of the two programs I referenced (UCSD/SDSU & CU Boulder), I know for a fact that this is the rule rather than the exception. Yes, there are certain exceptions to the rule (e.g., for a non-native English speaker) - but the exceptions are rare.

This may not be true for all research-heavy graduate programs, but I was speaking specifically about those 2.