Research emphasis

[McClinas]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Can someone get me a sense of how much emphasis there is on research at these clinical phd programs:

Penn State
University of Colorado
University of Washington

I used the insider's guide and have read their website but it is still pretty indistinct. In other words, how much pressure is there on grad students to publish? Could you achieve some balance of research and clinical work at these schools, or are they pretty much the hard-core research programs?

How would you compare these programs to the "average phd program" in terms of research emphasis/ how much time would be spend doing research vs. clinical training?

 

[krisrox]

Can someone get me a sense of how much emphasis there is on research at these clinical phd programs:

Penn State
University of Colorado
University of Washington

I used the insider's guide and have read their website but it is still pretty indistinct. In other words, how much pressure is there on grad students to publish? Could you achieve some balance of research and clinical work at these schools, or are they pretty much the hard-core research programs?

How would you compare these programs to the "average phd program" in terms of research emphasis/ how much time would be spend doing research vs. clinical training?

I don't know about any of these programs in particular, but I had the same questions and I actually e-mailed the faculty and grad students about it. I was surprised to hear the responses for some programs. E-mailing can't hurt.

 

[McClinas]

Also, what about University at Albany (SUNY)? How would these programs compare to each other on this research-emphasis dimension?

 

[erg923]

i would say above average for all three...penn state in particular

 

[Ollie123]

I would actually say Washington is way way more research-oriented than the other two. The faculty are somewhat more applied in their interests than many schools, but its right there alongside programs like Minnesota in terms of what they expect. Not that Penn State and Colorado are clinically-focused by any means, but Washington is really at the extreme.

Off their website "Our training program is primarily an apprenticeship for a career that will encompass making significant contributions to scientific clinical psychology. Our program is not a good fit for those interested solely in clinical practice." Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[SingingCow]

UW is very research-oriented. The entire school, from the doctoral program, internship, to post-doc...

They care about applicant-faculty match. It really counts if a faculty likes you and your actual research credentials (more than just interests).

In fact, the match is so important that they don't ever offer interviews (doctoral program or internship). That means you have to look very very good on paper.

 

[AnnoyedByFreud]

I would actually say Washington is way way more research-oriented than the other two. The faculty are somewhat more applied in their interests than many schools, but its right there alongside programs like Minnesota in terms of what they expect. Not that Penn State and Colorado are clinically-focused by any means, but Washington is really at the extreme.

Off their website "Our training program is primarily an apprenticeship for a career that will encompass making significant contributions to scientific clinical psychology. Our program is not a good fit for those interested solely in clinical practice." Seems pretty straightforward to me.

This. Only go to UW if you love research, seriously.

 

[cardamom]

UW is very research-oriented. The entire school, from the doctoral program, internship, to post-doc...

They care about applicant-faculty match. It really counts if a faculty likes you and your actual research credentials (more than just interests).

In fact, the match is so important that they don't ever offer interviews (doctoral program or internship). That means you have to look very very good on paper.

No, UW definitely offers interviews for their doctoral program (I had two phone interviews, and then there was an in-person interview round), and those interviews appear to be key part in the application process. The internship program apparently already decides though before inviting people, and just lets people come visit for the purpose of informing their rankings of programs.

 

[McClinas]

[QUOTE "Our training program is primarily an apprenticeship for a career that will encompass making significant contributions to scientific clinical psychology. Our program is not a good fit for those interested solely in clinical practice." Seems pretty straightforward to me.[/QUOTE]

This doesn't seem entirely clear to me. I would hope that just about in any phd program you would be encouraged to make "significant contributions to scientific clinical psychology." The latter half suggests to me that you shouldn't apply if your strictly looking for a career in private practice, that a psyd program might better fit these needs. Anyway, I feel like it is difficult to get an accurate impression of a school's research/clinical emphasis simply from what their website says.

 

[McClinas]

So the consensus seems to be that UW is significantly more research oriented than Penn State, University of Colorado, and University at Albany (SUNY)?

Please post if you agree or disagree. THANK YOU!!!! this is extremely helpful

 

[Ollie123]

All are research-oriented, but yes, I would say Washington is more so.

I think you're trying to read too much into it. Some websites aren't as clear, but Washington's basically shouts "Don't apply here unless you want to be a professor". They say clinical practice, not private practice. In other words, anyone who wants clinical work to be the main component of their career is not a good fit.

 

[childpsych479]

Ollie,

Thanks for making this distinction. It makes a lot of sense and is quite helpful!

 

[Wildcat06]

Another good way to make this distinction is how the programs qualify themselves. For instance, CU follows the "scientist/practitioner" model where as Washington is "clinical scientist." The latter meaning, as was stated above, "don't come here unless you want to be a professor."

But then again this distinction can be misleading as my school claims to be scientist/practitioner where it likely would be better described as clinical scientist. I would not even CONSIDER a clinical scientist program unless you are nearly certain you want to be a researcher.

 

[numbereight]

Related question: if a doctoral program with a "balanced" emphasis provides guidelines for your SOP but does not ask you to identify research interersts or faculty members who you would be interested in conducting research with, should you discuss these topics anyways? What if the SOP is only 2 pages double spaced? Im thinking no. Any thoughts or advice is appreciated.

 

[LM02]

From what I know about those programs, knowing graduates from each, they all emphasize research and identify their primary goal as training scientists in the field of clinical psychology.

For example, this was taken directly off the CU website:
"Through emphasizing competence in research and clinical training, the objective of the training program is to train clinical scientists who will produce and apply scientific knowledge in understanding, assessing, preventing, and treating emotional and behavioral problems."

With all of that said, I agree that the difference may be that there are more diverse clinical opportunities at PSU and CU, and there may be a bit more acceptance among the faculty of pursuing "extra" clinical training on top of the bare minimum.

I personally know graduates from each of those programs (4 from PSU. 4 from CU, and 1 from UW) who are currently junior level faculty at strong universities.