School Psychology PhD program rankings

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
T

TheMyron

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

I was wondering if anyone knew of a place to find a School Psychology PhD program rankings list? I know there are many "ranking" lists out there, but most are either Clinical or Educational, and wondered if there is a list directly for School Psych.

It be great too if everyone who is or going into School Psychology can also give their input about the ranking of the schools (if their isn't a ranking list) or how you institution may stack up against the rest. I'll be attending a School Psychology PhD program next year and wondered what others think on the subject!
Members don't see this ad.
 
+1 to T4C. on top of and to add a little of my thoughts to that:

here's a copy of the winter 2007 school psychologist that ranks program productivity. not a useful heurestic to judge a program, but it's something.

http://www.indiana.edu/~div16/publications/school_psychologist_winter2007.pdf (p. 16)

IMO, school psych phd programs should be (in part) evaluated in light of your goals. for example, if you want to study RTI and work on some of the big problems in education, U of Minnesota might be the #1 program for you. However, if you were interested in school mental heath services, UT-Austin might be your #1. Fit.

also, judge programs based on the congruence between where their grads go and your career goals (as mentioned before). this is less important if you want to be a practicing school psychologist only, but if you want to be a prof at a R1 University, ask them how many grads go there. do they have influential faculty who everyone in the field knows and would thus be a great reference? im speaking in generalities here and mainly saying make informed decisions. I think you can get anywhere you want to go if you do great work.


another thing i liked to think about was the structure of the department. is there good solid leadership? is this leadership possibly overbearing? is each faculty productive or are only a few of them? what's the relationship between the faculty? All of these things contribute to my subjective decision about what program is "my" #1 :). there's program "fit" creeping up again.

One factor that had a small but definite influence on my decision was the intellectual community around the school psych department. I took a look at US News' education department rankings, although I take them with a (teeny tiny) grain of salt.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...aduate-schools/top-education-schools/rankings

lastly, i dont like to say it but prestige matters. i dont like to say it because judging someone based on their program's prestige is probably more often than not nonsense. however, i think that when you're going for a job, the name of the school you went to probably opens doors, especially if you're planning to apply to/work at a place with high prestige. again, generalities.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
I definitely mirror the sentiments of previous posters--develop your own "self-ranking" scheme based on personal interests and goals.

For an individual program perspective--from what I (indirectly) know about Louisiana State's school psych program, there is a large emphasis on RTI. The students and faculty also seem to be fairly prolific in terms of publication. And one of the professors is spearheading a new teacher training model that is potentially being recommended for nationwide adoption.
 
AcronymAllergy said:
I definitely mirror the sentiments of previous posters--develop your own "self-ranking" scheme based on personal interests and goals.
Click to expand...

Speaking of personal interests, for those going or applying to School Psych programs, what are your future goals? Do you want to work in schools, research, get licensure to be a psychologist?

Also for people who applied to clinical programs and school programs, do you have interest in both areas or one over the others?

I was just interested because it seems that you can do a lot in school psych but a lot of people on here talk about working in schools specifically...
 
jnine said:
here's a copy of the winter 2007 school psychologist that ranks program productivity. not a useful heurestic to judge a program, but it's something.

http://www.indiana.edu/~div16/publications/school_psychologist_winter2007.pdf (p. 16)
Click to expand...

I would take those rankings with a grain of salt. Productivity isn't everything. For example, in that study University of Connecticut is ranked number one. I interviewed there and many other school psych programs, and while UConn is a good, solid program, I don't think I would consider it the best. Pretty much none of the students there go on to APA internships, for one. They're also currently having trouble providing funding. I'm not saying it's a bad program by any means, I actually liked it there, but the best? I wouldn't say so.

One of the programs I was extremely impressed with was Syracuse University's. They actually have more funding than they do students, productive faculty, diverse practica experiences, and most if not all of the students go on to APA internships. Yet, I never see Syracuse listed on those rankings. So, I mean.. just take the rankings lightly. I would never base where I go or where I would even apply to off of them. Look into all the programs and make an informed decision based on everything T4C mentioned above.
 
I was looking for something like this too out of curiousity, and I also reached the conclusion that it's really hard to judge. There was another version (or maybe another year?) of that article which also included the programs most searched for by applying faculty, I guess that's some measure of prestige, however useful it is.

I guess if a lot of people are applying to APA internships and either failing or succeeding then that tells you something. However you'll find a lot of programs where not many people apply for them at all, and that's less a sign of quality then career orientaton (which is still good to know). Meanwhile the productivity rankings might tell you something about the faculty research, but that's often less of a focus as well in school psychology.
 
Thanks for all the great input everyone! I also know funding, match rates, etc. are very important in making my "own" rankings of programs too, but just wanted to see what others had to say.

I'm attending Ball State next fall and see they are ranked very highly, with pubs by faculty, and have been told since 1990, it's been the number 1 program in the nation with graduates in academic jobs! With my goals of being a professor and practice, I knew it was an awesome fit for myself and also has a great neuropsychology "cognate" if I were to ever change my mind with the direction of research I want to do.
 
Yeah that sounds like the way to go. While number of pubs may not be as important for school psychology practice, if you want to get into academia then it's a much bigger deal because it should be easier to get some quality research experience. There's a pretty big demand for academics in school psych too. A lot of schools are trying to put together programs to meet the needs of the future but there's a shortage of faculty.

TheMyron said:
Thanks for all the great input everyone! I also know funding, match rates, etc. are very important in making my "own" rankings of programs too, but just wanted to see what others had to say.

I'm attending Ball State next fall and see they are ranked very highly, with pubs by faculty, and have been told since 1990, it's been the number 1 program in the nation with graduates in academic jobs! With my goals of being a professor and practice, I knew it was an awesome fit for myself and also has a great neuropsychology "cognate" if I were to ever change my mind with the direction of research I want to do.
Click to expand...
 
Like others have suggested, I'd be careful about using "guides" in determining the best school psych programs. School psychology is a very small area within doctoral level professional psychology (about 9%, according to the director at my program). School psychology is not "ranked" annually in guides, whereas guides do "rank" programs in clinical psych programs.

I remember when looking at doc programs to apply to that Ball State cited itself on its website as the #1 productive program (or something like that, it was over over 3 years ago that I was in the process of applying). Turns out the ranking was from a very out-of-date publication (not that I am suggesting that Ball St. is a bad program). Likewise, I remember the University of Wisconsin cited itself as the #1 ranked program in US News and World Report. When I actually tracked down the year that US News and World Report rated school psychology programs (the full citation was NOT cited on the Wisconsin website), it turned out to be from a 1995! I found it very, uh, disappointing, for the U-Wisconsin to engage in deceptive practices such as that.

The best indicators to look at, as others have suggested, are (in my opinion): facuty research interests and productivity, student APPIC placement rates (and I do think this is important, unless you are interested in just working in a school setting), and overall opportunities for student participation in research and the program itself, and practicum experience opportunities.

Good luck at Ball State!!!

TheMyron said:
Thanks for all the great input everyone! I also know funding, match rates, etc. are very important in making my "own" rankings of programs too, but just wanted to see what others had to say.

I'm attending Ball State next fall and see they are ranked very highly, with pubs by faculty, and have been told since 1990, it's been the number 1 program in the nation with graduates in academic jobs! With my goals of being a professor and practice, I knew it was an awesome fit for myself and also has a great neuropsychology "cognate" if I were to ever change my mind with the direction of research I want to do.
Click to expand...
 
aagman01 said:
I remember the University of Wisconsin cited itself as the #1 ranked program in US News and World Report. When I actually tracked down the year that US News and World Report rated school psychology programs (the full citation was NOT cited on the Wisconsin website), it turned out to be from a 1995! I found it very, uh, disappointing, for the U-Wisconsin to engage in deceptive practices such as that.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that Wisconsin stated that they were #1 in school psychology because they have been #1 (according to US News) in educational psychology for quite some time?

And, working on a degree in school psychology at Wisconsin leads to a PhD in Educational Psychology.
 
Soupy, where did you hear about the lack of funding at UConn? When I visited, it seemed they were pretty well funded and students weren't complaining. It actually was one of the few schools where masters students were offered funding also, most of them were except 2 that year. I was also told at another school, that UConn had better funding which I thought was odd, but maybe they knew I was going to look there also.
Is that something that might affect future students?
 
the talk about rankings brought up something that's been on my mind. i would like to play devils advocate for a brief second and state that no matter how bad we think the methodology behind US News and other published rankings is, at least they're research-based ranking systems, right? We tend to argue against them with an "in my expereince, this data is meaningless" type of argument, which contrasts the study with a person's subjective experience. These arguements are not strong enough to discount the research.

Rankings studies generally report empirical data (e.g. productivity) or complile opinions from a great number of people who are in the best position to comment (i.e. US News rankings). I'll argue that while these are not perfect, thay are valuable sources of data. To you, the reader, these publications should be more respected by you than my opinion, for instance. As the non-devil J9 (et al.) argued, everyone needs to form their own ranking system, but why not respect the research instead of arguing against it because we dont like what we see or it doesn't jive with our subjective expereince? Thus I argue that instead of giving these sources of data overwhelmingly negative feedback, they should instead be given some credibility. They should be seen for what they are- be it the number of faculty publications or a mishmosh of data compiled to rank the most selective and respected universities.

i guess one counterargument is that less informed individuals (i.e. people w/o backgrounds in measurment) will tend to overrely on these indicators, making strong arguments against them reasonable and even a good thing. There are also plenty of substantive places to attack the research (often on methodological grounds), as many people have in these forums. For example i think 15% of the education rankings' weight is decided by school superintendants' opinions. huh?

any thoughts appreciated :)
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think most people are saying that all published rankings are bad. They are just saying that school psychology programs don't have program quality rankings setup for them like clinical psychology programs have. The US news study for example is not studying school psychology programs, it's studying education programs. There's only one limited school psychology ranking study which has been done, and it makes no claims to being comprehensive.

jnine said:
the talk about rankings brought up something that's been on my mind. i would like to play devils advocate for a brief second and state that no matter how bad we think the methodology behind US News and other published rankings is, at least they're research-based ranking systems, right? We tend to argue against them with an "in my expereince, this data is meaningless" type of argument, which contrasts the study with a person's subjective experience. These arguements are not strong enough to discount the research.

Rankings studies generally report empirical data (e.g. productivity) or complile opinions from a great number of people who are in the best position to comment (i.e. US News rankings). I'll argue that while these are not perfect, thay are valuable sources of data. To you, the reader, these publications should be more respected by you than my opinion, for instance. As the non-devil J9 (et al.) argued, everyone needs to form their own ranking system, but why not respect the research instead of arguing against it because we dont like what we see or it doesn't jive with our subjective expereince? Thus I argue that instead of giving these sources of data overwhelmingly negative feedback, they should instead be given some credibility. They should be seen for what they are- be it the number of faculty publications or a mishmosh of data compiled to rank the most selective and respected universities.

i guess one counterargument is that less informed individuals (i.e. people w/o backgrounds in measurment) will tend to overrely on these indicators, making strong arguments against them reasonable and even a good thing. There are also plenty of substantive places to attack the research (often on methodological grounds), as many people have in these forums. For example i think 15% of the education rankings' weight is decided by school superintendants' opinions. huh?

any thoughts appreciated :)
Click to expand...
 
FadedC said:
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think most people are saying that all published rankings are bad. They are just saying that school psychology programs don't have program quality rankings setup for them like clinical psychology programs have. The US news study for example is not studying school psychology programs, it's studying education programs. There's only one limited school psychology ranking study which has been done, and it makes no claims to being comprehensive.
Click to expand...

I disagree that the clinical "quality" rankings are worthwhile. The USN&WR findings are based off of a very poorly designed study. It may offer a place to start, but trying to compare the #25th ranked program to #35th is not going to be a useful or accurate comparison.
 
hey didn't say "because they have been #1". The site did say they were ranked teh #1 school psychology (not educational) in the country by US News. That was 3 years ago, though.

I remember when finding out the facts that it was kinda shady but technically not incorrect information. Similar to what Ball State had on their website. They just did not provide all of the information so that the reader could clearly and immediately understand what they were saying.

FYI too....US News does rank educatinoal psychology programs - but school psychology, while often housed within departments of educational psychology, is far different in terms of competition. Ed Psych is generally less competitive than school psychology (at least when you compare the same school or comparable, because there is no professional licensure component, only research - obviously, a school psych program at a decent program or edpsych at harvard or stanford is a different story, for example).

ILGirl said:
Are you sure that Wisconsin stated that they were #1 in school psychology because they have been #1 (according to US News) in educational psychology for quite some time?

And, working on a degree in school psychology at Wisconsin leads to a PhD in Educational Psychology.
Click to expand...
 
I believe we had this schedule on another thread. I would just say that, with regards to programs in which there are few students who apply to APA/APPIC, that those programs are likely not gearing their students towards academic roles (since having that APA site is often required for faculty positions or, at the least, makes one that much more competitive for one) or more comprehensive roles of doctoral level school psychs (i.e. roles outside of the school). To me, that is teh sign of a program that is more traditional and less innovative. But, thats only my opinion :laugh:

FadedC said:
I was looking for something like this too out of curiousity, and I also reached the conclusion that it's really hard to judge. There was another version (or maybe another year?) of that article which also included the programs most searched for by applying faculty, I guess that's some measure of prestige, however useful it is.

I guess if a lot of people are applying to APA internships and either failing or succeeding then that tells you something. However you'll find a lot of programs where not many people apply for them at all, and that's less a sign of quality then career orientaton (which is still good to know). Meanwhile the productivity rankings might tell you something about the faculty research, but that's often less of a focus as well in school psychology.
Click to expand...
 
Well I agree that if you have fewer students that apply to APA that it's likely that the program focuses on work in a school rather then a clinical setting. I'm not sure that I agree that this makes the program less innovative though. It is a school psychology program after all. There is an enormous demand for school psychologists, they recieve higher pay and dramatically better employment opportunities and the majority of the graduates will work in a school. Putting your focus on preparing them for that is not a bad thing.

Not sure that APA internships are as important for school psychology academic positions though. I looked up several and didn't find a single one that required it. In fact they all seemed to emphasize experience in the schools and not be concerned at all with experience outside of them. But maybe if you wanted to teach at a more clinically focused place it would be more important.

aagman01 said:
I believe we had this schedule on another thread. I would just say that, with regards to programs in which there are few students who apply to APA/APPIC, that those programs are likely not gearing their students towards academic roles (since having that APA site is often required for faculty positions or, at the least, makes one that much more competitive for one) or more comprehensive roles of doctoral level school psychs (i.e. roles outside of the school). To me, that is teh sign of a program that is more traditional and less innovative. But, thats only my opinion :laugh:
Click to expand...
 
aagman01 said:
I believe we had this schedule on another thread. I would just say that, with regards to programs in which there are few students who apply to APA/APPIC, that those programs are likely not gearing their students towards academic roles (since having that APA site is often required for faculty positions or, at the least, makes one that much more competitive for one) or more comprehensive roles of doctoral level school psychs (i.e. roles outside of the school). To me, that is teh sign of a program that is more traditional and less innovative. But, thats only my opinion :laugh:
Click to expand...

I heard that LeHigh's match rate wasn't terrific, but a lot of their students go into academia, right. And, I seem to recall that while looking into Wisconsin's program that their APA match rate wasn't terrific either, and I thik many of them go into academia. So, I don't know APA-accredited internships and academia go hand in hand.

But, I do agree with your traditional and less innovative statement. I think that hits the nail on the head.
 
aagman01 said:
I believe we had this schedule on another thread. I would just say that, with regards to programs in which there are few students who apply to APA/APPIC, that those programs are likely not gearing their students towards academic roles (since having that APA site is often required for faculty positions or, at the least, makes one that much more competitive for one) or more comprehensive roles of doctoral level school psychs (i.e. roles outside of the school). To me, that is teh sign of a program that is more traditional and less innovative. But, thats only my opinion :laugh:
Click to expand...

im far from sure, but my expreience has been different. i visited a R1 school psych program that seems to churn out academics but doesnt send many of their students to APA itnernships (according to the data). i remember the prev thread and other opinions to the contrary. it's kind of confusing. i guess there's different paths?

trying to compare the #25th ranked program to #35th is not going to be a useful or accurate comparison.
Click to expand...

agreed there, had to stop myself from doing this.
 
To an extent what you are saying is certainly true. Some research heavy RIs don't push for APA, while others do (and have very high placements). There are strong R1 programs such as UT-Austin, South Carolina, or U Minnesota that I believe have high numbers going APA, while other R1s such as Madison that do not. I suppose it comes down to preference in that regard - to me, what is the point of even doing school psych if you are only interested 100% in the research end of things and do not desire to gain applied competencies? Why not just go to an experimental or social program or something of that sort? Personally, I'm at a R1 school that is research intensive but also pushes all students to complete practicum in at least 1 site outside of schools (most do at least 2 in addition to school prac) and apply to APA/APPIC internships. I suppose it comes down to personal interests and aspirations -


ILGirl said:
I heard that LeHigh's match rate wasn't terrific, but a lot of their students go into academia, right. And, I seem to recall that while looking into Wisconsin's program that their APA match rate wasn't terrific either, and I thik many of them go into academia. So, I don't know APA-accredited internships and academia go hand in hand.

But, I do agree with your traditional and less innovative statement. I think that hits the nail on the head.
Click to expand...
 
aagman01 said:
to me, what is the point of even doing school psych if you are only interested 100% in the research end of things and do not desire to gain applied competencies? Why not just go to an experimental or social program or something of that sort?
Click to expand...

I think a better question would be why WOULDN'T you want to go into school psych if your primary interest is in research. There is a huge demand for more research in the field, especially with the increased push for evidence based practice. It's also supposed to be much easier to land an academic position in school psychology then other fields.

But your right that it is an applied field so you shouldn't be afraid of doing applied work either.
 
Last edited:
aagman01 said:
To an extent what you are saying is certainly true. Some research heavy RIs don't push for APA, while others do (and have very high placements). There are strong R1 programs such as UT-Austin, South Carolina, or U Minnesota that I believe have high numbers going APA, while other R1s such as Madison that do not. I suppose it comes down to preference in that regard - to me, what is the point of even doing school psych if you are only interested 100% in the research end of things and do not desire to gain applied competencies? Why not just go to an experimental or social program or something of that sort? Personally, I'm at a R1 school that is research intensive but also pushes all students to complete practicum in at least 1 site outside of schools (most do at least 2 in addition to school prac) and apply to APA/APPIC internships. I suppose it comes down to personal interests and aspirations -
Click to expand...

I've found rankings (for education schools housing school psych programs) to be completely unreliable in my opinion; however, I think it helps to have some knowledge about the programs' reputations.
Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places, but I haven't been able to find anything about school psych programs outside of their own websites, so can you tell me what are some of the R1 programs in school psych?
 
I actually did a bit of "mini-research", and learned a little bit about the background on Research I universities. Schools that met certain research criteria were deemed by the Carnegie Foundation previously to be a Research I university. These schools had to annually collect a certain amount of federal and research funds, graduate a certain number of doctoral students per year, etc.

So, generally larger and more prestigious schools that had a heavy research basis fit into the R1 category (private universities such as NYU, as well as public universities such as the UCLA). So, the University of Minnesota is generally deemed a R1 university, while Minnesota State is not. Basically, what most people think of as the larger and elite private schools as well as the elite public institutions (schools such as Duke, Northwestern, Stanford on the private side, University of Illinois, University of Arizona, Rutgers University, etc on the public side) were all deemed Research I universities previously.

However, the Carnegie Foundation actually DROPPED the term Research 1 Universities to, as they put it, "avoid the inference that the categories signify quality differences." They now label larger universities as "Doctoral/research universities-extensive" . However, my understanding is that the grouping is broader than the previous Research I University distinction.

Fun times, eh :)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_I_university#cite_note-carnegie-2





school psych said:
I've found rankings (for education schools housing school psych programs) to be completely unreliable in my opinion; however, I think it helps to have some knowledge about the programs' reputations.
Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places, but I haven't been able to find anything about school psych programs outside of their own websites, so can you tell me what are some of the R1 programs in school psych?
Click to expand...
 
I was aware of that....I do/ the same. Just sharing that schools should no longer (technically) be referred to as "Research 1" or "Tier 2".

Therapist4Chnge said:
Everyone still calls them Tier-I or R1...:laugh:. It is an interesting list (HERE).
Click to expand...
 
I guess i'd call U of Minnesota and UW-Madison R1 school psych programs. I know many other programs have a strong emphasis on research (most of 'em?) but it seems like there's a strong professional focus in all programs (relative to research-focused clinical programs), even the ones listed above.
 
I almost went to Madison, but decided against it for a variety of reasons. If your sole desire is to become a researcher, its a great school (at least it seemed so to me). If you want to gain well-rounded reserach/practice skills/understanding, not so much (in my opinion). With that said, training is what you make of it too - you can go anywhere and get good training (you just may have to be a bit more independent and push for greater clnical experiences at a school like U Wisconsin). I personally wanted to go to a program that had active researchers but also supported strong clinical training, so I choose a different R1 school. Good luck!

jnine said:
I guess i'd call U of Minnesota and UW-Madison R1 school psych programs. I know many other programs have a strong emphasis on research (most of 'em?) but it seems like there's a strong professional focus in all programs (relative to research-focused clinical programs), even the ones listed above.
Click to expand...
 
It seems to be a general thought on this thread that the "rankings" out there are either outdated or shouldn't be a great use of people who are looking for a place to studiy the next several years. I know in my search for programs, my top priorities were research fit and the ways of how the program gives you opprotunities in practicum settings. Of course, I looked at the stats of previous applicants, but at every place i interviewed it seemed they pushed the individuals fit to the fit of the programs goals were the number one factor in admission. I LOVE research, but also want to be able to exp. practicum too, if I just wanted research exp, I would have appied to a Experimental type program.
 
TheMyron said:
at every place i interviewed it seemed they pushed the individuals fit to the fit of the programs goals were the number one factor in admission.
Click to expand...


after applying to grad school a bunch of times and interviewing at a fair number of programs, fit means a lot more to me than it used to. there's a lot of data out there that i overlooked the first (and second :rolleyes:) time around. generally speaking - the way the students' talk about their interests and what they stress tells you about the goals of the program. almost every word on the website is meaningful. the cohesiveness of the faculty is important in light of your goals. the titles of recent dissertations tell you what kind of work they have done in the past. fit is still kind of elusive sometimes but i found that i could wrap my head around it if i soaked everything in and compared/contrasted between programs. i guess there's also always wheather or not you hit it off with your potential POI...

...all these things should tie in to your personal ranking system, IMO
 
jnine said:
after applying to grad school a bunch of times and interviewing at a fair number of programs, fit means a lot more to me than it used to. there's a lot of data out there that i overlooked the first (and second :rolleyes:) time around. generally speaking - the way the students' talk about their interests and what they stress tells you about the goals of the program. almost every word on the website is meaningful. the cohesiveness of the faculty is important in light of your goals. the titles of recent dissertations tell you what kind of work they have done in the past. fit is still kind of elusive sometimes but i found that i could wrap my head around it if i soaked everything in and compared/contrasted between programs. i guess there's also always wheather or not you hit it off with your potential POI...

...all these things should tie in to your personal ranking system, IMO
Click to expand...

Agreed. One of my top choices is a top choice based on the fact that the faculty all seemed to get along really well, had a great sense of humor, seemed to really know their students.. and my potential POI and I hit it off really well. At my other interviews I was nervous but at this one I felt at ease and we laughed and chatted.
Obviously there are also things to factor in, but the general atmosphere of the program says a lot (at least in my ranking system)
 
school psych said:
Agreed. One of my top choices is a top choice based on the fact that the faculty all seemed to get along really well, had a great sense of humor, seemed to really know their students.. and my potential POI and I hit it off really well. At my other interviews I was nervous but at this one I felt at ease and we laughed and chatted.
Obviously there are also things to factor in, but the general atmosphere of the program says a lot (at least in my ranking system)
Click to expand...

I agree. That's really important. You make me want to go there, and I don't even know what school it is. :D

It just sounds like a great environment.
 
aagman01 said:
I actually did a bit of "mini-research", and learned a little bit about the background on Research I universities. Schools that met certain research criteria were deemed by the Carnegie Foundation previously to be a Research I university. These schools had to annually collect a certain amount of federal and research funds, graduate a certain number of doctoral students per year, etc.

So, generally larger and more prestigious schools that had a heavy research basis fit into the R1 category (private universities such as NYU, as well as public universities such as the UCLA). So, the University of Minnesota is generally deemed a R1 university, while Minnesota State is not. Basically, what most people think of as the larger and elite private schools as well as the elite public institutions (schools such as Duke, Northwestern, Stanford on the private side, University of Illinois, University of Arizona, Rutgers University, etc on the public side) were all deemed Research I universities previously.

However, the Carnegie Foundation actually DROPPED the term Research 1 Universities to, as they put it, "avoid the inference that the categories signify quality differences." They now label larger universities as "Doctoral/research universities-extensive" . However, my understanding is that the grouping is broader than the previous Research I University distinction.

Fun times, eh :)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_I_university#cite_note-carnegie-2
Click to expand...

Thanks. I was really curious where that term had come from. Interesting info.
 
What are the main differences between the School Psychology program at UC Santa Barbara and at UC Berkeley?

Thank you so much for your input!
 
Last edited:
Wow - it seems kinda late to still be in the deciding stages of all this for next fall.

With that said, I would look into the funding. I got accepted into the doc program at UC-Berkley a few years ago. Unfortunately, at least the year I was accepted, there was NO funding for ANY incoming students. If that is still the case, I would look at the UC-Santa Barbara program (unless independently wealthy, it would not exactly be easy to live in Berkley without funding). Regardless, my experience (3 years ago) indicates that (at least in the recent past) there have been funding issues/problems attracting funding at Berkley. Not good sign.

They are both good programs - if anything, in our field, I think Santa Barbara has a better name (at least I hear of more research coming out of that school than I do at Berkley).

Again, in the end the best overall "fit" for you is what matters. Good luck :)

SchoolPsyc said:
Hi! I would love to hear some advice about which doctorate program you all would suggest to study School Psychology in the fall. I have narrowed my choices down to UC Berkeley and UC Santa Barbara. If prestige and reputation of professors matter, then Cal wins. Cal also is located near San Francisco which means that there may be more opportunities to network. However, I got lucky and am being offered a fellowship which covers tuition along with a small stipend at UC Santa Barbara. UCSB also has the combined Clinical, Counseling and School Psychology which appeals to my interests in clinical psychology. (Embarrassingly, I can't really say where I would "fit" best. I don't have defined research goals that align to either program perfectly. Berkeley allows more freedom to explore, but the lack of clear mentorship frightens me. At the same time, I am worried about being forced into the research objectives of my adviser at UCSB without being able to explore my own interests.) What should I do? This decision has been so much more taxing than I had ever anticipated!

Thank you so much for your input!
Click to expand...
 
Can anyone explain the difference between a PhD in Educational Psychology and a PhD in School Psychology and the difference in jobs and career paths they lead to?

If your goal is to work in a school as a school Psychologist and possibly have a practice on the side or do child assessment on the side, what would be a program to get you to that goal?
 
Its kinda like the difference between experimental psychology and clinical psychology. They MAY research similar topics, but one is applied (clinical) and the other is strictly research (experimental). The applied speciality (clinical) can conduct research BUT can also apply for licensure as a psychologist.

Likewise, educational psychology itself is strictly experimental, whereas school psychology is applied. The applied speciality in this case (school psychology) can conduct research BUT can also apply for licensure as a psychologist (and as a school psychologist in this case).

However, to make things a bit more confusing:
--I would also mention that just as the doctoral program in clinical psychology will often grant a doctorate degree under the heading "psychology"
--So too will a school psychology doctoral program sometimes grant a doctorate under the title "educational psychology" (and sometimes also under "psychology" when housed in psych department).
-----However, in both cases, you would have a specialization noted in school or clinical psychology on your diploma. :laugh:

futureapppsy2 said:
Ed Psych PhDs do not lead to clinical licensure. For your interests, a PhD or PsyD in School Psych would fit.
Click to expand...
 
There can be some limitations for school psychologists in regard to their scope of practice and training, so make sure the programs you are considering meet your needs (this also applies the other way....clinical psychology programs and school psychology training). For instance, if you are interested in doing personality and/or neuropsychological assessment, most school psychology programs won't offer training in those areas. It is important to have an idea of where/what you want to practice, as that will dictate the right programs for you.
 
UCSB has a great program. And you have funding. Do not underestimate the regard for the UCSB program. And DO not underestimate the value of funding. Go and enjoy it!
 
There is no neuropsych within my school psych program - however, there are two doc studetns in my program with primary interests in neuro assessment. they do research with a prof in clinical psych, and have sought out and attained neuro practicum at the neighboring medical college.

There are "holes" in practice at any training program one attends. That can often be remedied by actively seeking out experiences in different ways (e.g. outside practicum, research, etc.).

Therapist4Chnge said:
There can be some limitations for school psychologists in regard to their scope of practice and training, so make sure the programs you are considering meet your needs (this also applies the other way....clinical psychology programs and school psychology training). For instance, if you are interested in doing personality and/or neuropsychological assessment, most school psychology programs won't offer training in those areas. It is important to have an idea of where/what you want to practice, as that will dictate the right programs for you.
Click to expand...
 
aagman01 said:
There is no neuropsych within my school psych program - however, there are two doc studetns in my program with primary interests in neuro assessment. they do research with a prof in clinical psych, and have sought out and attained neuro practicum at the neighboring medical college.

There are "holes" in practice at any training program one attends. That can often be remedied by actively seeking out experiences in different ways (e.g. outside practicum, research, etc.).
Click to expand...

Don't think there is any buiilt in neuropsych in my program either, however we do have an adjunct faculty member who is a pretty prominant in neuropsych assessment and who frequently takes students for practicum/externship. So yeah it's often possible to find the experience you want. My program definitely does have personality assessment training though.
 
Yep, had a 2 course sequence on personality assessment myself - one cognitive/behaviorally focused (basc/aseba/cdi/rcmas/etc etc) and personality II (which was more psychodynamically focused: projectives/tat/roberts/mmpi/ etc). We had the same breadth of training on personality assessment as the clinical program folks had at our school (plus a two course sequence on cognitive and academic assessment), and WAY more than the counseling program folks (who had 1 total assessment course, which in their case combined personality/cognitive/vocational into one course). And those are only the minimum required sequence - some take additional courses that are offered as well. So, while some school psych programs from my understanding do retain the traditional focus on cognitive/academic assessment - I would be careful on making such generalizations, as boundaries of training in the sub-fields of professional psych are blurring. :laugh:

FadedC said:
Don't think there is any buiilt in neuropsych in my program either, however we do have an adjunct faculty member who is a pretty prominant in neuropsych assessment and who frequently takes students for practicum/externship. So yeah it's often possible to find the experience you want. My program definitely does have personality assessment training though.
Click to expand...
 
I think that someone at your academic level should show a decent mastery of the English language grammar.
:confused:
 
What or whom exactly are you referring to? The last posting on this thread occurred in May. Your a little behind on the game my friend ;)

Suso said:
I think that someone at your academic level should show a decent mastery of the English language grammar.
:confused:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

D
City college PhD clinical psychology
Replies
0
Views
636
Dan1721
D
C
Clinical PsyD vs Clinical psychology PhD
Replies
7
Views
1K
cytomegalovirus123
C
B
Incoming Counseling Psychology PhD student
Replies
14
Views
1K
jdawg2017
J
The Cinnabon
Clinical Psychology vs. MD/PhD Psychiatry
Replies
26
Views
2K
Sanman
Sanman
The Cinnabon
OHSU Clinical Psychology PhD
Replies
8
Views
2K
NeuroPsychosis
NeuroPsychosis
Top