Teacher's College at Columbia- Clinical Psych PhD

[srabiee]

Here's my story, and I accept that may be lambasted here. I hope that some people will be sympathetic to my plight

3.78 GPA (3.92 psych) at a fairly prestigious West Coast school, double major in gender studies and psychology. GRE weren't great: 570 V 700 Q. I'm retaking and am determined to get the equivalent of a 650 in V. I know these stats will get me past the first toss-out at the top schools I plan on applying to. I was an RA in my junior and senior year coding videos for family studies research from a great professor. I spent last summer and will spend this summer working in a psychoeducational program for children with emotional issues... it amounts to 750 supervised clinical hours. I'm actually really mad because as I realized, through perusal of information on clinical psych programs, this falls under the category of "clinical" and won't help me nearly as much as I expected in my PhD applications.

I just graduated from undergrad and beginning in August I'm doing a year long Master's (essentially a research degree) which requires an empirical paper or extensive lit review (they call it a master's thesis, I think) that I have to finish by April of next year. My professor mentor researches Latino Mental Health and I want to work in his schizophrenia lab for my project.

I'm applying to clinical psych phd programs in the fall. I've spent much time deliberating, and I'm confident that this is the degree I want to obtain. The thing that makes this all so complicated is that my eventual goal is to practice. I understand the emphasis on research in clinical psychology programs and I'm prepared to do that work. I know that I'll be able to practice with the PhD, but I've been advised that the programs are designed to created research scientists. I know enough not to mention my goals in a personal statement. A PsyD is absolutely out of the question for me both because funding is a must. Also, though much more minor, I'm not too hot on how they're regarded.

My other issue is that, as of now, I have a broad range of interests in the field of psychopathology. I've been going through the Insider's Guide like nobody's business and got extremely excited looking at the range of research areas of professors. "Ooh, schizophrenia," "Ooh, eating disorders" "Ooh, gay and lesbian mental health," etc. I'd be perfectly happy studying a range of topics I've looked through, but I can't seem to focus on one. Along with this, since I'm not able to mention my desire to practice, how am I to write a PS?! This is the part of the application process that haunts my nightmares. I don't have deep knowledge of.. well, anything. Schizophrenia is what I'm most well versed in since I'm fascinated by it. Even my background isn't really viable to mention: I struggle with depression and my brother has Asperger's. These are the major factors that got me interested in the field, but I can't even be genuine about that. I've read enough to know that at least mentioning my issues won't be looked upon favorably.

Oh, I got really detail happy due to my high level of anxiety. My original question was about Columbia. The Insider's Guide gave them a 4- equal emphasis on research and practice. This excited me, although less so when I saw the funding situation (80% only get partial tuiton wavers). Yet on their website, clear as day "The program is not designed to meet the needs of those whose career goals are focused primarily on the practice of psychotherapy. " Yale (which is more understandable since it has a 7 for being fully research-oriented) has a similar disclaimer about their program not being a match for those who want to practice. Are they just trying to discourage people interested in practice as opposed to being in the broad category of "researchers?" Surely a clinical psych PhD from such a highly ranked place will allow me to practice, even though I will have to do a huge amount of research during the program. I guess I'm just wondering why they want to weed out scholars based on this. It's baffling when I read the job description of a clinical psychologist who are "often employed in hospitals, clinics, and private practice." Most of these sites have licensure information as well, indicating that some, if not many, do go on to practice. The whole thing really bothers me. No, I don't want an MSW or a PsyD, but how many hoops must I jump through? Counseling psychology doesn't really appeal to me as much because they work with more "normal" populations. I plan to apply to a couple anyway, as well as UCSB's mixed program

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

I have a clinical PhD from a supposedly balanced program and I work full-time as a licensed psychologist. My story is a little different than yours because when I started the program I did intend to become a professor. However, about half way through the program I changed my career goal.

If you have your heart set on a doctorate (which may not make sense, but it is up to you) I would encourage you to reconsider the PsyD. There are a handful that are university based and partially funded. On internship, several of my colleagues had gone to PsyD programs and their clinical coursework and opportunities were so far superior. For example, one of the interns had taken whole classes in couples therapy and DBT! Nothing like that was available for us. Also, although on paper our program claimed to be balanced (I don't think there was a insiders guide rating in those days) that was not at all the attitude of the faculty. Once it became known you wanted to primarily practice, they were much less interested in training you. Clinical work was considered to be distraction from working in their lab.

So my word of warning is this: even if PhD programs claim to be balanced, there is a reasonable chance that is just lip service.

I will be interested to know if others have had a similar experience.

Dr. E

 

[KillerDiller]

The Insider's Guide rating shouldn't be taken as hard fact. It's just a number that schools self-report, and so their interpretation of what is "balanced" or "research focused" can vary quite a bit. However, I disagree that you need to look at PsyDs. I think you are on the right track in looking at clinical PhD because it seems clear that you are interested in psychological research even if your primary goal is not to be a researcher. (If I'm wrong about your interest in research, I'd encourage you to consider masters degrees instead of doctorates). There are definitely PhD programs out there that are fine with accepting students who want to practice. Try searching the forum, because I know there are threads where several are listed. I go to one, so you can PM me if you want the name of my school.

Regarding applying for PhD programs, I have a couple pieces of advice:
1) Make sure you do an empirical paper at your masters program, even if they encourage another option. Writing an extended literature review is not going to do you any favors when it comes to getting admitted.

2) Narrow your research focus. Because you are interested in a lot of areas, I recommend simply narrowing it down to what you already have experience in (or what you will have experience in by the time you apply). That makes it very easy to "tell the story" of why you want to study a topic in your personal statement. It's fine to be interested in learning about a wide range of topics while in grad school, you just can't research all of them in depth during your training.

3) I would avoid the heavy hitting research institutions. I doubt you'd be happy in a clinical science model program. Yale probably isn't for you based on your goals. Stick to the Boulder Model programs. You may still have to do some tap dancing around your primary interest in practice when writing the personal statement, but the fact is that most graduates will go on to practice, so they can't be too shocked when that happens.

Hope that helps, good luck.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

You need some education on why PhD programs want research-oriented students and why this also correlates with funding for those students. Research universities are the prestigious ones, and they are so because they receive funding to conduct research which is either passed down to students in the form of assistantships or directly applied for by students. So, it makes perfect sense that a more balanced or practice-oriented program would not have as much funding. If you aren't interested in research (or, on some levels, teaching), you should not be surprised that there is little/no funding.

It is confusing to me, for this reason, that you are so interested in a clinical psych PhD. You really need to think long and hard about why you want this degree, especially if you can't even fathom writing a personal statement that would match you to a program!! If you are interested in psychotherapy primarily, you should consider a licensable masters degree. It seems to me that you are doing this all wrong for your interests--a 1-year, research-based masters will help to get you into a PhD program or find work as a research professional, but why do all of that if you want to be a therapist? You're wasting your time on very small chances of acceptance and/or rare jobs in research (which you don't want) with no upward mobility. Why would you NOT want a MSW or PsyD?? It sounds like that is exactly what you want. Sometimes people will stick their nose up at those degrees simply because of what it means to have the degree, not based on what they want to do with it--that is just plain silly. Don't let the snobbery of the mental health profession infect you. There are plenty of AMAZING mental health practitioners out there with PsyDs and masters-level licenses.

 

[KillerDiller]

There is a notable difference between saying "I want to help people and do therapy, but I hate research/stats" and saying "I am interested in providing therapy as a career, but wish to also engage with psychological research during training." We get quite a few of the former posts on this board and members logically refer those posters to masters programs. I think the OP is more in line with the second example. We need practicing clinicians who have a thorough understanding of research and theory. We need therapists who engage in evidence based practice. So why should we steer someone who has demonstrated an interest in clinical research away from PhD programs? Is it simply because that person wants a practice-oriented career? That seems extreme given that most PhDs end up practicing, not doing research.

 

[Ollie123]

Agree with the above. I do think there are plenty of balanced PhD programs out there though that may be perfectly appropriate for you - though at any school that will even be decent, you have to be "willing" to do research. I applied to U Montana and wound up withdrawing my app because after interviewing it was pretty clear they were far too clinically focused for me, but students were still expected to be actively engaged in research. You just have to do the legwork to find appropriate programs, and (as others have said) not take the Insider's Guide as any kind of guarantee.

That said, I also think its important to keep in mind it is very difficult to provide awesome training in everything. There is just too much to learn. Can you get licensed with a degree from Yale? Of course, and one could probably become an outstanding clinician. However, that doesn't change the fact that it is a research-focused school and the expectations will be on that front. This is a big difference between undergrad and grad that trips up a lot of people...in grad school you are much more a "part of a team". In undergrad, it doesn't matter what my goals are, it doesn't really affect anyone. In grad school, if I'm say, taking on an extra clinical practicum that takes time away from writing manuscripts, or learning about Fourier Transformations, or whatever else, that has a negative effect on my advisor, other students in the lab, etc. That doesn't mean we're counting hours or assigning blame or anything like that, it just speaks to the importance of "good fit" and why different schools are looking for different things in applicants.

There are definitely PhD programs out there that are appropriate for your goals, though I agree with others and would give serious thought to why you want the PhD. Some PsyDs may be great fits (e.g. Rutgers) though you need to be careful since a great many seem to just be diet-doctorates rather than offering enhanced clinical training.

Edit: What KD said just above this. x10.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

We need practicing clinicians who have a thorough understanding of research and theory. We need therapists who engage in evidence based practice. So why should we steer someone who has demonstrated an interest in clinical research away from PhD programs? Is it simply because that person wants a practice-oriented career? That seems extreme given that most PhDs end up practicing, not doing research.

+1.

I wish we had MORE clinicians who had a strong background in research but chose to do clinical work. There are definitely some great balanced programs out there, both for a Ph.D. and Psy.D. There are also some counseling programs that may be a good fit, depending on your area of research. UMKC, U of Kansas (1 of their 2 Ph.D. programs is balanced, the other is research heavy), and U of Washington are all solid programs that offer excellent research & clinical training. The latter two are quite competitive, but they offer good assistance and great training.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Otoh, I've known some students in PhD programs who openly stated their high dislike of research, and it truly baffled me. I've also known one PhD student who was truly, honestly, bad at research--on internship, she still didn't know how to design a workable study. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a PhD wanting to go into practice or having a primary interest in practice, and I agree that we need practitioners with a strong, solid understanding and background in research. However, there's a difference between research not being your preferred activity but still having a solid understanding of it and producing a solid thesis and dissertation and doing a slap-dash job of it because you don't care enough to get it a good understanding. Similarly, even people who don't like clinical work and want to go into non-clinical jobs should still strive for competence in that area.

I think balanced programs are great for many people. I do think some balanced programs tend to overstate their interest in research during the application process--I've known students who've gotten burned by that and ended up really unhappy because they thought there would be more research support than there was. Similarly, I think a sizable number of students overstate their interest in research during the application process when they really want to be primarily clinicians. I sometimes wonder if it might be better if both programs and students were more transparent about their focus in training--it seems like both sides are taught to scream "research" from the roof tops during the application process, when that may or may not be an accurate representation.

 

[psychology24]

+ 1. Well said.

There is a notable difference between saying "I want to help people and do therapy, but I hate research/stats" and saying "I am interested in providing therapy as a career, but wish to also engage with psychological research during training." We get quite a few of the former posts on this board and members logically refer those posters to masters programs. I think the OP is more in line with the second example. We need practicing clinicians who have a thorough understanding of research and theory. We need therapists who engage in evidence based practice. So why should we steer someone who has demonstrated an interest in clinical research away from PhD programs? Is it simply because that person wants a practice-oriented career? That seems extreme given that most PhDs end up practicing, not doing research.

 

[Pragma]

I sometimes wonder if it might be better if both programs and students were more transparent about their focus in training--it seems like both sides are taught to scream "research" from the roof tops during the application process, when that may or may not be an accurate representation.

I think it is difficult because there is so much within-program variability at balanced programs. I am sure most places want people to be productive scholars because there are tangible benefits to having students active in research.

Within my program, which I considered balanced, I had some students in my cohort who maybe published one thing and hit a handful of conferences, contrasted to some of us who were quite active at publishing. It was really up to us and the fit with our mentors. In my lab, we accepted people who were going to be productive scholars. In other labs, that was less important and they were more intervention focused.

So it would be tough to advertise as being less research focused, when by default I am sure they want their students to do as much as they can.

 

[srabiee]

Thanks for all your advice! It's really illuminating. Research is definitely in my cards, and I accept that. I know I have no business with a PhD if I'm not willing to make that my life for 6 years. I really don't think I'll mind... maybe I'll love it. I'm intelligent enough to do it at any rate, and if it will get me further, great. A PsyD does sound ideal in theory, but I really can't when I look at the programs. One of my goals is to get my education funded. I go to a notoriously expensive school for undergrad (now my Master's). Though I got a ton of financial aid that I'm happy with, times are tough and my financial support comes from my mom. It'd be nice to support myself/give her a break and I definite will not allow the possibility of graduating with 100K of loans. I'm not even considering Baylor because I could never live in Texas, much less go to a Christian school.

I'd like to hear from more people who have gone into practice if they're around. I'm mainly scared about the Statement of Purpose.. I read the prompt for UCLA and deflated so much. It asks what my future career plans are and what I want to focus on in research. Thanks to KillerDiller, I feel more confident about this latter part. I think landing on schizophrenia is a good idea, since it represents the sort of psychopathology I'd like to research. As a bonus, I'm hopefully going to be working on that in my Master's lab. I'm going to look for programs like the ones you all described (UMass Boston was looking good to me), but I do want to apply to some top-tier research oriented schools as well. On the career goals do I have to prevaricate and say that my eventual goal is to work in academia? Also what's weird is programs want you to pick professors who you'd like to work with- fine with me since I'm open to a variety of topics in psychopathology, but it seems odd if they want me to go into research focus.

Basically what attracts me about a PhD is I want to take my education to the highest level and also have many career options open to me, but it sounds like I need to have my life mapped out NOW. Who knows, maybe I'll love research so much that I'll prefer it to clinical settings. My mind is open to all sorts of things, and I feel that that this should be considered an asset in doctoral programs. Berkeley's SOP actually asks you to write a paragraph about an experimental question that has not been addressed in the literature that I'd like to answer! And that seems easier than the other things. And I need know I need to have some sort of statement of purpose prepared for my recommenders too. Honestly, I feel really sick about it all because I have no idea what to say other than really ambiguous statements. Even for a personal statement, I really want to expand on what got me interested in psychology (mental and developmental illnesses in the family). I could get a perfect score on my GREs, but it won't help if I can't figure this part out.

Also, as I write this and from these replies, I'm starting to think more in terms of fit and matching. It's starting to make sense why this is of the utmost importance.

 

[mewtoo]

I'm not even considering Baylor because I could never live in Texas, much less go to a Christian school.

Hey, whats wrong with Texas? :c

<---- from Texas

Also, you don't have to be Christian to go to a Christian school. If its the type of program that would be good for you you shouldn't worry about that sort of stuff. I'm atheist and I'd definitely go there if I wanted a psyD. Besides, from what I've heard from grad students, you don't see much more of the school than the building your program in housed in. 😛


Oh, and when you talked about how you noticed in your statement of purpose or whatever that you have to choose professors it is because you are basically applying to their lab. I've only seen a few programs that do a general admittance and you choose a mentor or a team later. You may want to search out those types of programs if you are not sure if you really want to commit to studying schizophrenia (or any other topic) for your grad career. So you are, essentially, already choosing a research focus.

Also, it may not be a good idea to elaborate about how you got interested in psychology by saying you have/had a mental disorder/developmental delay/whatever. That's generally seen as a huge red flag. And if you talk about a family member with a disorder or whatever, don't make it depressing either or hinge too much on it. I went to a grad school prep workshop at a conference and the speaker (the president of the whole organization just so you know) said that it the WORST thing you could do and he meant just in general. I'd imagine it's be even worse when applying to clinical programs.

 

[srabiee]

Oops, I missed a key word in there.. *don't really want to expand* I've heard it's a terrible idea, and I definitely wouldn't say anything about myself. I guess I could talk about my autistic brother, but ugh, I wish they wouldn't ask why I'm interested because how do you even explain why you're drawn to an area of study?

Most apps I've seen ask you to choose 1-3 of POIs but also want you to expand on your research focus. UCLA is slightly different but just as complicated. They're general admittance, want 3 POIs and ask about research focus for the SOP.

 

[KillerDiller]

Also, you don't have to be Christian to go to a Christian school. If its the type of program that would be good for you you shouldn't worry about that sort of stuff. I'm atheist and I'd definitely go there if I wanted a psyD. Besides, from what I've heard from grad students, you don't see much more of the school than the building your program in housed in. 😛

Well, it depends on the school. There are definitely some places (Catholic schools, in my experience) that are more laid back about the role religion plays in the university. Other schools have much more of a religious culture. I've had some clashes with Christian schools during various stages of graduate school. I've also heard from people who have interviewed at Baylor that it isn't a place that is friendly toward non-Christian populations.

 

[KillerDiller]

I guess I could talk about my autistic brother, but ugh, I wish they wouldn't ask why I'm interested because how do you even explain why you're drawn to an area of study?

Yeah, I agree. I never figured out how to answer that question. "Ummm...because I just like it." I don't get the presumed need for an elaborate backstory in which X research area killed my father or saved my friend's life or whatever.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Yeah, I agree. I never figured out how to answer that question. "Ummm...because I just like it." I don't get the presumed need for an elaborate backstory in which X research area killed my father or saved my friend's life or whatever.

"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

I think some programs/faculty may use that question to weed people out who are, say, going into psych to "find themselves" or "treat themselves" more than anything.

Personally, I hate the "weakness question." I know it's supposed to probe for insight and self-betterment, but I can't help but think, "This is an interview. I am trying to convince you I am the best candidate--why on earth would I want to highlight my shortcomings or weaknesses to the people I am trying to impress?"

I mean, I don't think Homer Simpson had the right idea here. 😉..

"Smithers: What would each of you say is your worst quality?
Man 1: Well, I a workaholic.
Man 2: I push myself too hard.
Homer: Well, it takes me a long time to learn anything, I'm kind of a goof-off...
Smithers: Okay, that'll do.
Homer: ... a little stuff starts disappearing from the workplace...
Smithers: That's enough!"

 

[thepug]

I see a lot of "Yale", "Columbia (It's TC btw, NOT Columbia)" "Insert prestigious name" from the OP.

Why? Like seriously why? This is an issue that needs to be confronted before you spend 2k on applications and plane tickets to long-shot programs.

Name is irrelevant. It's funding, location, and match. In that order. The majority of successful clinicians I see (making the big bucks) came from totally mediocre programs. So if that is what you're worried about maybe consider taking a business class and setting aside this, well elitism.

I'm being a little hard. But we all went through this. Someone needs to say it.

 

[srabiee]

Location plays a lot into it. UCLA and Berkeley come from me much preferring to stay in California. Teacher's College at Columbia initially actually caught my eye because it's in New York, but the supposed equal emphasis in the Insider's Guide really made me seriously consider it. If I'm going to work get a PhD, my mentality was that it should be from a top school. I'm not throwing out names for a blind devotion to prestige. Like i said, I'm starting to realize how important fit is. Bear in mind though that I haven't (and I'm assuming you all didn't either) had anyone really explain grad school to me or hold my hand through the process. The whole reason I joined here was because of how overwhelmed and confused I've been. So feel free to correct any errors I may have made in my assumptions because that is what I need.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

It's definitely a common tendency coming out of undergrad to aim for prestigious universities, but one caveat to keep in mind is that the more traditional big-name schools may not be quite as big-name when it comes to clinical/counseling/school psych doctoral programs. It's very dependent on the area of study (e.g., a school that is very highly regarded for neuropsych might not have much in the way of developmental disorders), and often on the particular lab/professor in question. This can, of course, make it much more difficult to figure out what the top tier/reach, mid tier, and lower tier/safety programs might be (although as with medical schools, other than a handful of exceptions, there really isn't much of a "safety schools" list for psych doctoral study, at least in the same sense as it applies to undergrad programs).

Edit: Another thing to keep in mind when coming up with your list of schools is that programs in high-desirability locations (e.g., NYC, nearly anywhere in CA, Chicago) are going to receive significantly more applications than many other programs for no other reason than where they're located. Thus, keeping a list of perhaps a half-dozen programs that are in less-popular geographic locales can be helpful (and this trend generally holds to some degree through internship, postdoc, and even job hunting as well).

 

[crim84]

"Columbia (It's TC btw, NOT Columbia)"

I go to TC and there is no difference here between TC and Columbia, at least not in the sense that anyone here would point out. It's the same students/researchers/colleagues and we're all living and working in the same place.

 

[thepug]

I go to TC and there is no difference here between TC and Columbia, at least not in the sense that anyone here would point out. It's the same students/researchers/colleagues and we're all living and working in the same place.

Columbia endowment = 7.8 billion

TC = 200 million

?

 

[NHPilot]

Aren't they really the same thing though?

 

[crim84]

The individual departments of any school have less funding than the school as a whole. TC is a department of Columbia U., the graduate school of education, and like the previous poster said, TC degrees are granted by CU.

 

[erg923]

Location plays a lot into it. UCLA and Berkeley come from me much preferring to stay in California. Teacher's College at Columbia initially actually caught my eye because it's in New York, but the supposed equal emphasis in the Insider's Guide really made me seriously consider it. If I'm going to work get a PhD, my mentality was that it should be from a top school. I'm not throwing out names for a blind devotion to prestige. Like i said, I'm starting to realize how important fit is. Bear in mind though that I haven't (and I'm assuming you all didn't either) had anyone really explain grad school to me or hold my hand through the process. The whole reason I joined here was because of how overwhelmed and confused I've been. So feel free to correct any errors I may have made in my assumptions because that is what I need.

You have no specific research focus and moreover, aren't even sure that you like research....and you you're applying to Berkely and UCLA?!

Your application won't even get in the door....

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I agree with erg in that particularly at the highly-regarded, research-intensive programs (e.g., UCLA), the expectation for having a well-defined area of research interest that is backed up by commensurate experience and productivity seems to be pretty stringent. At less research-focused programs, you could likely get away with something a bit more vague, but you'd still want to have the basics laid out (e.g., children vs. adults; general areas of interest such as mood disorders, phobias, neuropsych, substance abuse, trauma). And you'll also need to be able to tie these interests into those of the POIs you choose.

I was definitely an exception in that I somehow managed to secure an offer despite having a relatively poorly defined interest area and research experience that never went beyond interviewing and administration of cognitive psych tests. It can be a confusing process, but you still have time between now and the next application cycle to refine your interests a bit; try reading journal articles in a variety of areas, checking out the experimental methodologies, and thinking about which types of research really play at your interests. Beyond that, there are schools out there with websites that don't automatically dismiss interests related to practice (although few will generally say, "we want practice-only focused individuals").

As for personal statement, you don't need to have some sort of personal historical tie to mental illness or psychology per se. Rather, you just need to be able to put into words what it is about psychology that excites you and has made you decide that it's what you want to spend the rest of your life practicing, and the better part of the next decade training in.

 

[ClinicalABA]

You have no specific research focus and moreover, aren't even sure that you like research....and you you're applying to Berkely and UCLA?!

Your application won't even get in the door....

I'd take this a little further to say that if they don't know of or about you already (or at least know someone who does know of you), your chances at some to research places are very limited. Networking is huge.

 

[srabiee]

I agree with erg in that particularly at the highly-regarded, research-intensive programs (e.g., UCLA), the expectation for having a well-defined area of research interest that is backed up by commensurate experience and productivity seems to be pretty stringent. At less research-focused programs, you could likely get away with something a bit more vague, but you'd still want to have the basics laid out (e.g., children vs. adults; general areas of interest such as mood disorders, phobias, neuropsych, substance abuse, trauma). And you'll also need to be able to tie these interests into those of the POIs you choose.

I was definitely an exception in that I somehow managed to secure an offer despite having a relatively poorly defined interest area and research experience that never went beyond interviewing and administration of cognitive psych tests. It can be a confusing process, but you still have time between now and the next application cycle to refine your interests a bit; try reading journal articles in a variety of areas, checking out the experimental methodologies, and thinking about which types of research really play at your interests. Beyond that, there are schools out there with websites that don't automatically dismiss interests related to practice (although few will generally say, "we want practice-only focused individuals").

As for personal statement, you don't need to have some sort of personal historical tie to mental illness or psychology per se. Rather, you just need to be able to put into words what it is about psychology that excites you and has made you decide that it's what you want to spend the rest of your life practicing, and the better part of the next decade training in.

Thank you so much! that is incredibly helpful and makes me feel like it's doable. So my interests should still be broad enough to tie into a range of subjects? I know I can't just say "schizophrenia," but do I really need a specific question?

 

[crim84]

Probably don't need to be extremely specific unless it's a perfect match with a professor's interests. I was told by a professor at a top 20 program that she did not accept me because my interests were too specific, and that I should talk about my research interests more broadly.

 

[erg923]

Thank you so much! that is incredibly helpful and makes me feel like it's doable. So my interests should still be broad enough to tie into a range of subjects? I know I can't just say "schizophrenia," but do I really need a specific question?

You need a specific aspect (or 2) of schizophrenia that you are interested in. If it has to do with the pathophys...then you need to have an area and/or general explanatory model that you want to explore. If its schizophrenia and it effects..then you should again have a specific area that you want to explore. Suicide rate, creativity, cognition, affective control, etc. Below is an example, of how specific, yet sufficnetly open ones interests should probably be to "fit" into a lab like this. This is obviously not the place for aspiring clinicians...

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~akring/people.html

 

[srabiee]

But look at the licensure rate at Berkeley.. it's pretty high. I'm just trying to understand where all the good (practicing) clinical psychologists come from. Are they 200k in debt from a Psy.D program, did they go to balanced universities, or did they change their mind about going solely into research positions? What if I decided I wanted to do both practice and research, which is what I'm starting to lean toward? If I have kids in the future, should I press them to know exactly what they want to do by the end of high school to avoid this massive anxiety attack? :/

I hope I'm not coming off as too whiny. I completely understand the need to have at least a general research interest since that's the point of a Ph.D. It just seems insanely hard to get to where I want to be, especially since I barely know what that is. I'd really prefer to not put it off for another year but I guess I might have to.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The EPPP as an exam really has little to do with actual competency as a therapy-focused clinician. There are obvious "clinical/therapy" questions, but there are also questions about research, stats, I/O, etc.

Passing the EPPP (national licensure exam) is not a very high bar. A halfway decent program should have a 90% (or more) pass rate. CA is a very saturated market, and it probably is pretty bimodal because of the programs there. For every UC-B or UCLA student, there are 50 Alliant or Arogsy students who took 3+ times to pass.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

But look at the licensure rate at Berkeley.. it's pretty high. I'm just trying to understand where all the good (practicing) clinical psychologists come from. Are they 200k in debt from a Psy.D program, did they go to balanced universities, or did they change their mind about going solely into research positions? What if I decided I wanted to do both practice and research, which is what I'm starting to lean toward? If I have kids in the future, should I press them to know exactly what they want to do by the end of high school to avoid this massive anxiety attack? :/

Licensure rates from most reputable clinical psych programs are high for a variety of reasons, including increased professional flexibility and, in the case of tenure track positions, departmental expectations/demands (i.e., if you're a clinical psychology professor, even if you don't practice, your department will still likely want you to be licensed).

Most graduates from Ph.D. programs do go on primarily to clinical practice rather than academia. It's really a matter of attending a program that will meet your training needs and research interests; so yes, attending a more balanced program is likely your best bet. Could you graduate from a clinical science program and go into private practice? Sure, but if that was your intent from the beginning, your grad school experience (and the time you spent making yourself competitive for such a program) might end up being pretty miserable.

To answer one of your other questions: yes, interests can (and frequently do) change in grad school. I know quite a few individuals from my program who switched from research-only to practice-oriented career goals, and vice-versa, during grad school. In general, most people tend to make slight shifts rather than such radical changes, but complete shifts do happen.

 

[srabiee]

Ah, okay! I've been looking around... does anyone know much about American University/Boston U/UMass Boston? I'm still a little unclear about TC too, but re-reading this quote in the context of all the info I've gotten here, I understand this

"It should be noted, however, that those students whose career goal is full-time private practice will find our program----with its significant focus on research training----inappropriate for their needs."

in conjunction with their seemingly balanced ideology and claim that they produce effective practitioners. I guess they're saying that you should just have an interest in research or else you're not going to be happy in the program? It sounds from their website, like they wouldn't mind if you wanted to eventually practice, but it's a little hard to tell. If I'm right, it's way more palatable.

Also, this is probably a bizarre question, but I'm curious: did you guys spend years cultivating your research interests or did they hit you suddenly?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Ah, okay! I've been looking around... does anyone know much about American University/Boston U/UMass Boston? I'm still a little unclear about TC too, but re-reading this quote in the context of all the info I've gotten here, I understand this

"It should be noted, however, that those students whose career goal is full-time private practice will find our program----with its significant focus on research training----inappropriate for their needs."

in conjunction with their seemingly balanced ideology and claim that they produce effective practitioners. I guess they're saying that you should just have an interest in research or else you're not going to be happy in the program? It sounds from their website, like they wouldn't mind if you wanted to eventually practice, but it's a little hard to tell. If I'm right, it's way more palatable.

Also, this is probably a bizarre question, but I'm curious: did you guys spend years cultivating your research interests or did they hit you suddenly?

The quote you mentions basically says, "if you want to be a practicing clinician and not a full-time academic researcher....DO NOT APPLY." There is no two ways about it, anyone seeking to be a practicing clinician has no business apply to that program. They probably offer enough clinical training to qualify for APA-acred. sites (and later get licensed), but they are not producing clinicians to do private practice.

As for BU...they are very research-focused and they also happen to be one of the most competitive programs in the entire country. The last 3 years they have had between 600 to almost 700 applicants....for 8-10 spots. That is nuts. If they do not know you already (similar to a place like UCLA), then you probably do not even make the first cut. They average 7yrs to graduate, which tells me their students are heavily involved in research for 5+ of those years (1yr clinical internship).

 

[AcronymAllergy]

My take on the TC quotation was that it meant if you intended to go, as it said, into full-time private practice (rather than a more balanced position entailing some type of split between research and practice, for example), then it wouldn't be for you. But I could be wrong, as I'm not particularly familiar with TC's training philosophy.

I completely agree that BU, and most schools in the Boston and NY area in general, incredibly competitive. If you're restricting yourself to those sorts of local programs, then you're really shooting yourself in the foot in the long run.

 

[snowcherries]

Ah, okay! I've been looking around... does anyone know much about American University/Boston U/UMass Boston? I'm still a little unclear about TC too, but re-reading this quote in the context of all the info I've gotten here, I understand this

"It should be noted, however, that those students whose career goal is full-time private practice will find our program----with its significant focus on research training----inappropriate for their needs."

in conjunction with their seemingly balanced ideology and claim that they produce effective practitioners. I guess they're saying that you should just have an interest in research or else you're not going to be happy in the program? It sounds from their website, like they wouldn't mind if you wanted to eventually practice, but it's a little hard to tell. If I'm right, it's way more palatable.

Also, this is probably a bizarre question, but I'm curious: did you guys spend years cultivating your research interests or did they hit you suddenly?

My research focus came about gradually. I worked in several labs with distinct strengths and focuses and eventually honed in on a population of interest and a few questions that I was interested in. I think it's very important to narrow down your research interests before committing to a PhD program--from what grad students have told me, it's pretty miserable to spend 5-6 years working on a topic that turns out to not be your thing.

Programs and mentors vary a lot in the kind of research focus they're looking for in their students, but having interviewed at balanced programs I think all scientist-practitioner programs are looking for people with research passions and research goals. I definitely have goals for my clinical training during grad school, but the professors I'll be working with also know that it's important to me to present at conferences, publish papers, etc. because I consider that to be a valuable part of graduate training.

On the specific programs you mentioned, Boston University is highly, highly research oriented and has a reputation for working its students very hard, so it's probably not a good match for you.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I completely agree that BU, and most schools in the Boston and NY area in general, incredibly competitive. If you're restricting yourself to those sorts of local programs, then you're really shooting yourself in the foot in the long run.

I just looked at BU's Educational Outcome Data...and their most recent reported data (2010) listed:

680 applicants, 16 offers (2.35% acceptance rate)
Mean GRE: 1371
Mean Psych GRE: 754.

 

[erg923]

It just seems insanely hard to get to where I want to be, especially since I barely know what that is.

Yes. If it wasn't, everyone would get a ph.d.

 

[srabiee]

My take on the TC quotation was that it meant if you intended to go, as it said, into full-time private practice (rather than a more balanced position entailing some type of split between research and practice, for example), then it wouldn't be for you. But I could be wrong, as I'm not particularly familiar with TC's training philosophy.

Yeah, that's the impression I got from reading the rest of their page, unless I'm interpreting incorrectly (http://www.tc.columbia.edu/ccp/clinical/index.asp?Id=PhD+Information&Info=Program+Description). That's why I can't tell if it's a match or not.

The reason I asked about BU was that I thought someone on another thread said it was balanced (I think it was disputed by another person though. Or maybe they said Amherst now that I think about it). It sounds like a huge no. I think I'm going to apply to mostly balanced programs.

Wow, how are they supposed to know you? Through research? The professor I will be working on Master's thesis with used to teach/do research at UCLA, but I don't know if that has anything to do with anything. I see why people say this process is more competitive than med school

 

[erg923]

It sounds from their website, like they wouldn't mind if you wanted to eventually practice, but it's a little hard to tell. If I'm right, it's way more palatable.

Um, well its not the Army. Once you are out, you still have all your rights. One of those rights is not giving a **** what kind of job your former graduate school would like you to have and pursuing the one YOU want. The point of the statement is to let you know that that's not their training focus. And yes, if you dont really love research, you wont be happy there. And they wont be happy with you not being happy...so lets just call it a day, shall we?

Look at the way the Berkeley students wrote about themselves in that link I posted. All of the statements alluding to career goals used the word like "explore." None said, I cant wait to work at the local CMH and apply this neat stuff or anything about doing therapy with another human being...

But, thats Berkeley. Its a HUGE R1. The flagship UC. This same mentality is not seen at all university programs. I think the University of Louisville, for example, is pretty open about their love for practice. 😉

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I just looked at BU's Educational Outcome Data...and their most recent reported data (2010) listed:

680 applicants, 16 offers (2.35% acceptance rate)
Mean GRE: 1371
Mean Psych GRE: 754.

Wow. I'm sure a few of those 680 folks just applied to grad school for the heck of it, but I'd imagine a significant proportion would've been relatively competitive at most programs. Just another reason I'm glad that I hate cold weather and didn't even bother applying anywhere in the northeast.

 

[srabiee]

I definitely confused BU for Amherst, oops.

It almost seems like a lot of the people like me (who are interested in practice) are looking for an easy way out, but I see research and practice as connected. It's also kind of a stupid situation because I'm going to be just beginning my 1-year Master's/research degree as I apply to the schools. I guess the best strategy is to narrow down a focus and then apply to balanced programs. I'm really grateful to you all for your help and information. I don't think I would've been able to figure it out by myself.

Anyone heard anything about UCSB? It actually sounds pretty good, but I'm terrified of getting stuck in a joke program. It looks legit though... http://graddiv.ucsb.edu/programs/index.cfm?majorID=14

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

ANY UC program (which I assume would be APA-acred) is going to be a legit program. They have arguably the best university system in the country. If you stick to funded programs that are APA-acred and have an internship match rate of at least 80-85%...you'll be fine.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

ANY UC program (which I assume would be APA-acred) is going to be a legit program. They have arguably the best university system in the country. If you stick to funded programs that are APA-acred and have an internship match rate of at least 80-85%...you'll be fine.

👍 Any of the UC schools is going to be very strong, and is also likely going to be rather competitive (because let's face it, lots of folks want to live in CA).

 

[snowcherries]

I definitely confused BU for Amherst, oops.

It almost seems like a lot of the people like me (who are interested in practice) are looking for an easy way out, but I see research and practice as connected. It's also kind of a stupid situation because I'm going to be just beginning my 1-year Master's/research degree as I apply to the schools. I guess the best strategy is to narrow down a focus and then apply to balanced programs. I'm really grateful to you all for your help and information. I don't think I would've been able to figure it out by myself.

Anyone heard anything about UCSB? It actually sounds pretty good, but I'm terrified of getting stuck in a joke program. It looks legit though... http://graddiv.ucsb.edu/programs/index.cfm?majorID=14

UCSB's program is a very well-respected balanced program, although funding can be tight. I went to a super prestigious undergrad, and it was initially difficult for me to realize that the best PhD programs in my field (and the best PhD programs for me) were definitely not at the most prestigious undergrad institutions. Generally speaking, any scientist-practitioner program at a major state school will not be a "joke program," although I'm sure there are some exceptions. As T4C says, look at things like match rate and faculty publications/credentials to evaluate a program.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

I went to a super prestigious undergrad, and it was initially difficult for me to realize that the best PhD programs in my field (and the best PhD programs for me) were definitely not at the most prestigious undergrad institutions.

👍 Really, really good point!! Very common mistake to make, and probably one of the reasons why it's really best for most people to take some time after college before going to grad school (unless you've had some working years before college). Otherwise, imposter syndrome can lead to disillusionment--not guaranteed, but it's easy to get caught up in the excitement of going to a prestigious university and not following your passion/goals. Same goes for a university that is local, for the sake of attending locally. Humility and patience are virtues in this process, IMO.

 

[srabiee]

Thank you all! Actually that really makes sense in the context of my undergrad education. I don't go to an Ivy League or anything, but my school is pretty prestigious and selective. One of my friends used to drive me crazy talking about how he wanted his PhD in engineering from x prestigious school, but I don't think he was looking at engineering, just throwing out big names. I've done my homework in the top clinical psych schools (well, according to lists), but maybe I've been just as obsessed with names as that annoying kid was. Although my thing for Berkeley and UCLA also comes from the fact that I love their campuses/atmosphere and I love California. I guess it's something I have to work on!

 

[NYRangers1]

Counseling psychology doesn't really appeal to me as much because they work with more "normal" populations.

Can you explain that one for me?

 

[KillerDiller]

Can you explain that one for me?

Applicants who are interested in working with individuals who have severe mental illness are more likely to find this at clinical programs than counseling programs. Counseling programs, meanwhile, are more likely to focus on normative development.

 

[psigirl]

Applicants who are interested in working with individuals who have severe mental illness are more likely to find this at clinical programs than counseling programs. Counseling programs, meanwhile, are more likely to focus on normative development.

This difference is true historically, but the lines are blurring in recent years, and those from counseling programs are just as likely to work with severe mental illness as those from clinical programs (this really depends on where the particular student does his/her clinical practicum). Although, counseling programs are more likely to be based on a developmental model and study marginalized populations (e.g racial/sexual minorities, the poor) and clinical programs on a medical model.