Seeking Advice/Opinions Again

[rEliseMe]

I'm having second thoughts about committing to a full AuD/PhD combined program without knowing truly what the program is like.

I admit it, I'm fully head-over-heels, stupid in love with the University of Iowa. I love the research, I love the faculty, I love the location, I love the resources available. But I'll be the first to admit that I've said this before about undergraduate institutions and ended up transferring out for one reason or another.

I'm just curious what you all think:
If you were intending to get both your AuD and your PhD, do you think you would prefer to go for your AuD first and then (based on how much you like/dislike the program) decide later about your PhD institution?

What are the benefits/drawbacks of completing both your AuD and PhD at the same institution?

Are there schools which are known primarily for their PhD programs but may be lacking for AuD?

Any advice you all might have will be accepted gratefully. I'm so glad I found this forum; y'all are beginning to feel like a second family already!
Ashley

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Cochlear]

Hey Ashley,

So from the sound of things, I'd say you're probably better off getting your PhD and not so much worrying about the AuD. You seem to have a much greater interest in research and aren't much of a fan of clinical, patient interaction. Of course, the upside is that if you do decide you want to go the clinical route, you can still always do so with the PhD.

There are PhD programs that say they incorporate a clinical aspect (I'm blanking on specifics sorry!) so you'd still get that experience and I doubt you'd even need the AuD. If you do a search here: http://hes.asha.org:8080/EdFind/Doctoral/DoctSearch.aspx
you can find programs that offer the PhD.

I hope this helps at least somewhat. I know the choice between AuD or PhD can seem overly complex but if you can get into a PhD program, you really have no need to worry. At this point in time, it seems to me the PhD is still considered the top paying degree, whether it should be or not.

 

[Raconteur07]

I'm taking the route of putting in four years toward an AuD and then going elsewhere for my PhD. I feel like earning degrees from separate institutions may allow you to be exposed to more aspects of the field -- based on what the faculty at each university specializes in -- while also helping you build more connections within the field.

I'm not sure what choice I would make if tuition for three of my AuD years weren't covered through assistantships, though. Money and loans are always a factor.

I wouldn't worry about rushing through school, if I were you. Go for the AuD first. You may just find that you're much more interested in clinical work than you previously thought.

It's good to see that others are as interested in research as I am. If it makes the decision easier, try to find a school that places emphasis on completing a strong dissertation and perhaps even publishing any findings before the AuD is earned.

Research is, after all, where it's at.

 

[rEliseMe]

You seem to have a much greater interest in research and aren't much of a fan of clinical, patient interaction. Of course, the upside is that if you do decide you want to go the clinical route, you can still always do so with the PhD.

You're right, I do have a greater interest in research. A lot of that stems, though, from how much (or how little, I suppose) I enjoy spending time around people. I'm not the kind of person who goes googoo over babies and can get along with anyone. I can put on a professional attitude and all, but I think that if that's all I had to look forward to for the rest of my life, I would probably burn out pretty quickly.

That said, I do still enjoy clinical application for research. I always try to think about exigence whenever I look into research in particular area. I think our profession definitely needs those people who have both the AuD and the PhD to bridge the gap between research and clinical application.

While it's tempting to cut down the study time and just go straight for the PhD, I think in the long run, having both degrees will definitely be beneficial. I'm just not sure about sequencing and/or location of each.

(#1) I feel like earning degrees from separate institutions may allow you to be exposed to more aspects of the field -- based on what the faculty at each university specializes in -- while also helping you build more connections within the field.

(#2) I'm not sure what choice I would make if tuition for three of my AuD years weren't covered through assistantships, though. Money and loans are always a factor.

(#3) Research is, after all, where it's at.

#1: I agree. That is one of the benefits I'm holding onto for considering two separate universities. I know all too well that networking is crucial in the professional world and without it, even the most brilliant scientist can get stuck in the sludge. Since I'm not completely personable to begin with, I think that I could definitely benefit with "forced networking," through attending a new school for my PhD.

#2: I'm unsure about how much will be covered by assistantships, for either degree. The economy, blah blah. Unfortunately, I've been told that schools don't know how much they've got to offer until it's almost too late to turn them down for that reason. I know for my top choice school, I would bite the bullet to go there, assistantship or not!

I do know that if I don't make it into my top school, and I'm unsatisfied with who does accept me, I may just relocate and take correspondence courses to bring up my GPA, all the while earning in-state tuition, which would make life so much easier! Have you (or anyone you know) done anything like that?

#3: Holla! Haha, but seriously, so true. Without research, we'd be a subjective profession like SLP! (Oooh, burn.)