This is what $200K in student loans looks like

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Jon Snow said:
Fellow is a pro at blame shifting. I liked the system blame. The system encouraged him. No, the private school encouraged him (no kidding) and his family encouraged him. The government, by subsidizing his loans and via student loan rules, enabled him.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Stories like this frustrate me because they paint so many student loan borrowers in a bad light. Yes, there is something unsustainable about the way in which we fund public education on the backs of students and families, but $200,000 is absurd, and the writer should have known better. He reeks of arrogance and entitlement. Even when he was trying to be grateful by acknowledging that "I was educated at elite schools," that statement reveals an overinflated ego that keeps him from seeing that a big portion of the problem lies in him (and his parents, apparently, who kept him far too sheltered).

When I was a high school senior, I also did pretty well in my class, and I had the opportunity to attend Johns Hopkins University, unfunded, or attend a lesser-known state school with about 30% of the cost of a 4-year-education covered by a scholarship. Did I want to go to Johns Hopkins? Of course. Could my family afford it? No. Did I feel resentful, entitled, jealous, etc.? Yes, but I was a teenager who thought the world revolved around me. EVEN SO, I made the more responsible decision and went to the lesser-known school because I didn't want to place undue financial burden on myself, my parents, and, by extension, my younger brothers. I worked hard, and five years later I was offered admission to a funded Ph.D. program in clinical psych. Have my years of schooling resulted in significant debt? Yes, but only to the tune of about $30,000, which will be very manageable when I graduate.

The point is, so many of these stories come from students who fail to take responsibility for their actions, even AFTER they are no longer self-centered teens. Yes, college costs are astronomically higher than they should be, and many for-profit schools prey upon naive students and families. But this author's attitude of snubbing state schools because they are not "elite" makes me want to scream.
 
I had somewhat similar decision. Attend a more prestigious school, much more expensive, not as much funding, or attend a (still fairly good) public state university in which my academic scholarships would cover 2 1/2 years of full tuition and room and board. Easy decision to make for me. Too often people choose the shiny over the pragmatic.
 
"After finishing my master’s degree in 2008, I found out—as in, I didn’t already know—that I had $200,000 in student debt."

Wait, what? Who signs the promissory notes again? How can you get to the end of your education without knowing how much you've borrowed? I can only answer this one way, and it does not reflect well on the author.

I sympathize to a small degree, because I too made some poor judgment calls that resulted in a higher student loan burden than I should have had. But at 17, still a high school senior, I received my first bill from the highly selective private school where I'd been accepted, and I realized then it was not going to work out for me and my working class family. So I bailed and was educated at public schools from that point forward, all the way through my doctorate.
 
I agree that this guy pretty much got what he deserved, but the larger point for my posting is to provide an additional reality check for people who think that amassing $200K in loans to "follow [their] dream" to become a psychologist is a reasonable decision.
 
LSM2016 said:
I agree that this guy pretty much got what he deserved, but the larger point for my posting is to provide an additional reality check for people who think that amassing $200K in loans to "follow [their] dream" to become a psychologist is a reasonable decision.
Click to expand...
But, but, I want to be a Doctor! Even if I'm not quite sure what that entails.
 
Jon Snow said:
Fellow is a pro at blame shifting. I liked the system blame. The system encouraged him. No, the private school encouraged him (no kidding) and his family encouraged him. The government, by subsidizing his loans and via student loan rules, enabled him.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but --- Doesn't make his observations wrong. For the money you'll shell out in loan repayment, you could be living in a really nice house and driving a really nice car... You'll get to the really nice house and really nice car -- but the longer you can delay those items, the healthier you'll be financially.
 
I wanted to see what a bioethicist makes and google came back with 120k for a bioethics attorney. I also found this statement:
No single average salary is available for a bioethicist because it is not an independent field. Bioethicists will also be doctors, lawyers, nurses and college professor who specialize in bioethics.
Click to expand...
Makes me question the reasoning capabilities of the person in the article.
 
I think there are a lot of systemic issues with student loans, but the article author is not very sympathetic IMO. Especially when he's like, oh, I could have gone to UW Madison--which is far cheaper and, as the comments point out, has a stronger reputation than the school he attended.
 
The thing that shocked me about it was that apparently his parents took out six-figures in private loans without having a lengthy discussion about how that was a terrible, terrible idea (or at least what it would mean for him). Also, could his parents really have taken out private loans in his name without him knowing?
 
I think this article highlights the role of parenting in making these decisions, which I believe is strongly supported by data (i.e., the relationship between parent modeling and financial decision making). I do not put much stock in the ability of an 18 year old to plan and comprehend the consequences of loans without parental involvement. His parents dropped the ball.

Once a student gets going down that road, its difficult to change. I think we see a lot of people come around here with that mindset. If you have already racked up 200k loans from a school similar to Connecticut College (btw, never even thought this was a desirable school), adding to that with a for-profit, unfunded education seems like a much better alternative to hitting the workforce with saddling debt and a BA in Psych.

I completely agree with others, I do not have a lot of sympathy for the author. I am product of a state uni and went to a fully funded state uni PhD program. However, I was fortunate to have parents that told me that I cannot go to that high ranked private school that cost 40k a year. It was out of the question. Maybe the best financial decision my parents ever made for me.

I would love to see the relationship between debt, financial decision-making, and the selection of program types for doctoral psych applicants.
 
DynamicDidactic said:
I think this article highlights the role of parenting in making these decisions, which I believe is strongly supported by data (i.e., the relationship between parent modeling and financial decision making). I do not put much stock in the ability of an 18 year old to plan and comprehend the consequences of loans without parental involvement. His parents dropped the ball.

Once a student gets going down that road, its difficult to change. I think we see a lot of people come around here with that mindset. If you have already racked up 200k loans from a school similar to Connecticut College (btw, never even thought this was a desirable school), adding to that with a for-profit, unfunded education seems like a much better alternative to hitting the workforce with saddling debt and a BA in Psych.

I completely agree with others, I do not have a lot of sympathy for the author. I am product of a state uni and went to a fully funded state uni PhD program. However, I was fortunate to have parents that told me that I cannot go to that high ranked private school that cost 40k a year. It was out of the question. Maybe the best financial decision my parents ever made for me.

I would love to see the relationship between debt, financial decision-making, and the selection of program types for doctoral psych applicants.
Click to expand...
I have seen some stats on debt load related to degree and as expected the PsyD is quite a bit higher than the PhD. The salary survey from APA in 2009 indicates that PhDs makes about 84k and PsyDs about 74k. It is not difficult to ascertain which group made a better financial decision. I belong to the poor decision making group, but am trying to make up for that by making more money. 😉
 
WisNeuro said:
I had somewhat similar decision. Attend a more prestigious school, much more expensive, not as much funding, or attend a (still fairly good) public state university in which my academic scholarships would cover 2 1/2 years of full tuition and room and board. Easy decision to make for me. Too often people choose the shiny over the pragmatic.
Click to expand...

There is a reason some things are shiny.

No need to knock those who chose shiny. Some have done very well for the very reason that they chose a more prestigious school.
 
bburr said:
No one makes anyone take out $200,000 in student loans. A loan is a loan, it's not "free money," you know you have to pay it back. This could not be more basic knowledge.
Click to expand...

Wait, haven't you heard? After 10 years all my loans will be forgiven! It *is* free money! (/sarcasm)
 
madeincanada said:
There is a reason some things are shiny.
No need to knock those who chose shiny. Some have done very well for the very reason that they chose a more prestigious school.
Click to expand...

Plenty of reason to knock the hollow trinkets some choose. In terms of undergrad choice, prestige of school means little. Some have done well, yes, but more have just done average, or worse, and have a lot of zeroes following other digits in loan balances now.
 
cara susanna said:
I think there are a lot of systemic issues with student loans, but the article author is not very sympathetic IMO. Especially when he's like, oh, I could have gone to UW Madison--which is far cheaper and, as the comments point out, has a stronger reputation than the school he attended.
Click to expand...
I didn't get his statement there, because he claims that Connect College's grant funding made the cost between the two not that big and yet with the amount of debt he had, it had to have been fairly large. Does anyone know what UW-Madison in-state cost in 2003? Even now tuition, fees, room, board , and books are about $20k per year in-state, less than half of what Connecticut College was in 2003. It couldn't have cost more than $16k a year instate back then. Even if he took 5 years to graduate from UW, it would still be half or less of what four years at Connecticut College cost.

Edit: I looked it up, and UW was about $11k a year in-state in 2003. He would have definitely saved a ton of debt by going there.

I'm kind of surprised by all the Connecticut College shade here, though--I've always thought of it as a pretty good, pretty well-respected LAC. It's not worth huge debt, but I don't think Wesleyan would be worth that debt, either, or Hopkins (as someone mentioned upthread).
 
There is a reason why people who choose shiny things that they can't possibly afford are often financially miserable. Of course there are circumstances where it might be worth it but the whole decision-making process by the author of that article (and his family) was just stupid. For the life of me I cannot see how any of his reasoning was sound, and just because I desperately want a brand-new expensive car, doesn't mean I should take out loans to buy it. And if I do, other people or organizations shouldn't have to foot the cost or be responsible for the payment, just so I can get everything I want. Come on, where is this entitlement coming from?

And all this is not to say that only the rich should be able to go to "elite" (however you want to term that, personally I think there is way too much emphasis on the name of an institution and that our "elite" institutions are insanely overrated but that's a different convo) colleges - far from it - many elite colleges consider your income bracket when offering financial support (grants not loans), and I just read in the news that Stanford is making their college tuition free for anyone whose family makes <125k with under 300k in assets. And this isn't just brand-new stuff, it's been going on for years.

Anyway, he and his family made a dumb decision and that's all it is, plain and simple. And who chooses CT College over Wisco if they're looking at purely academic "eliteness" of school? Stupid.

To sum up, if I chose the school where I had to pay over $60k a year, I would fully expect to have to pay that money back on my own once I graduated. That is often upwards of $250,000. That is a LOT of money. Yes, your foresight and decision-making skills are usually not the best when you're a kid, so the fact that his parents encouraged him to do this (to attend a school that isn't even objectively "better" than his state-school) is just dumb. The fact that he's whining about it as a 30-year-old or whatever and blaming others is even dumber.
 
Last edited:
bburr said:
Anyway, he and his family made a dumb decision and that's all it is, plain and simple. And who chooses CT College over Wisco if they're looking at purely academic "eliteness" of school? Stupid.
Click to expand...
I agree it was a dumb decision, but a lot of people are really drawn-in by LACs' small classes, small campuses, "closeness to professors," etc. Even if he wanted a smaller environment, he could have gone to a UW branch campus, though, as one of the smartest people I know did. I think a lot of 17-18 year olds get caught up in the amenities of colleges (pretty campus, nice dorms, great tour, etc) and lack the life experience to realize just how expensive it truly is and what that means.
 
I agree with everything you're saying. I think there is something great to be said about smaller environments and "closeness to professors", something that my large public school often lacked unless you were very resourceful (but sometimes you have to be in life and it's a good reason to start early). Though like you said, there are always other options. Sometimes people need to think through their decisions before making them.
 
madeincanada said:
No need to knock those who chose shiny. Some have done very well for the very reason that they chose a more prestigious school.
Click to expand...

In some fields such as law, business, etc. that's absolutely possible. Maybe it's true in psychology if you stay within the insular world of prestige schools and the people/institutions who love them. But in most places once you start grad school you're back to square one. One student in my graduate school cohort went to an Ivy for undergrad and no one in our program (large public R1) cared nor was this person the strongest student in the cohort.
 
Long story short, no one gives a **** what the name of your school was in the grad school application process. They're looking at your experience and letter writers. Ask around to people researching different areas and see where the big names of these people are, by and large, they are not at the Ivies.
 
MamaPhD said:
In some fields such as law, business, etc. that's absolutely possible. Maybe it's true in psychology if you stay within the insular world of prestige schools and the people/institutions who love them. But in most places once you start grad school you're back to square one. One student in my graduate school cohort went to an Ivy for undergrad and no one in our program (large public R1) cared nor was this person the strongest student in the cohort.
Click to expand...

I would wholeheartedly agree that attendance at a prestigious institution does not guarantee success, nor does it mean the student is better than one who did not attend such a "shiny" school.

WisNeuro said:
Plenty of reason to knock the hollow trinkets some choose. In terms of undergrad choice, prestige of school means little. Some have done well, yes, but more have just done average, or worse, and have a lot of zeroes following other digits in loan balances now.
Click to expand...

I'd re-think your statement. These trinkets are not always just for show.

Example 1: Washington Post article. The headline: "This chart shows how much more Ivy League grads make than you"

Example 2: US News article. Even the evidence supporting your statement has to be qualified. Though the headline says "The Ivy League Earnings Myth" the author goes on to say: "There were some students who did fare better financially if they attended elite schools. The students who fell into this category were Latino, black, and low-income students, as well as those whose parents did not graduate from college." Why do they hypothesize this to be the case? The researchers explain "While most students who apply to selective colleges may be able to rely on their families and friends to provide job-networking opportunities, networking opportunities that become available from attending a selective college may be particularly valuable for black and Hispanic students and for students who come from families with a lower level of parental education."
 
The analysis is meaningless when you are considering that we are talking about a very small subset of students, mostly psych undergrads and a smaller percentage of those from other majors applying to graduate school. I'd like to see the data about how well they are doing and the comparative debt load. Additionally, this is not a decision that solely affects that individual, especially when public loans are concerned. That money that is eventually discharged comes from somewhere. I'd rather it go to actually help people rather than reinforce poor financial decision making.
 
Those are also very misleading articles because in "other schools" they're including a large amount of people who couldn't get into an Ivy League school. There are lots of people who could get into Ivy League schools who chose to get their education elsewhere because of the prohibitively expensive cost of attending an ivy without financial aid and are making just as much. Sure for some graduate schools, like someone mentioned for law and business schools, your earnings/job opportunities are sometimes very dependent on where you get your law/business degree. But for undergrad, that's really not the case. What really matters is what you do while you're in school, what connections you make, your relationships with professors, etc. Sometimes like you said, this is easier for underrepresented minorities to do if attending an ivy, but sometimes it's not at all.
 
bburr said:
Those are also very misleading articles because in "other schools" they're including a large amount of people who couldn't get into an Ivy League school. There are lots of people who could get into Ivy League schools who chose to get their education elsewhere because of the prohibitively expensive cost of attending an ivy without financial aid and are making just as much. Sure for some graduate schools, like someone mentioned for law and business schools, your earnings/job opportunities are sometimes very dependent on where you get your law/business degree. But for undergrad, that's really not the case. What really matters is what you do while you're in school, what connections you make, your relationships with professors, etc. Sometimes like you said, this is easier for underrepresented minorities to do if attending an ivy, but sometimes it's not at all.
Click to expand...

Additionally, this dataset does not consider that individuals who are going to an Ivy League school, on average, are from higher SES backgrounds. That variable alone leads to more opportunity and greater earning potential.

http://www.businessinsider.com/tom-friedman-it-doesnt-matter-if-you-went-to-yale-2013-5
 
In the narrow confines of many areas of professional psychology, prestige is obviously measured quite differently than in the rest of the society so in some ways we are talking apples and oranges. In many areas image and branding are important and my graduate program has good name recognition and that has been a plus for me. How much that is worth financially depends on a lot of variables and it sure as heck isn't 200k. On the other hand, most funded programs usually have a certain reputation outside the field so you can get that without paying for it. I could have paid even more to attend a professional school that no one outside of psychology had heard of and those in the field have a negative opinion of. That would have been really bad.
 
I *just* (as in, today) picked up Julie Posselt's expose-ish book, "Inside Graduate Admissions: Merit, Diversity, and Faculty Gatekeeping." I've read only the first couple of chapters, so this obviously doesn't reflect the entire analysis,* but this may be relevant to the "shiny" discussion:

"Of the three strongest determinants of access to graduate education -- college grades, GRE scores, and the reputation of a student's undergraduate institution -- the latter two are part of a conventional notion of student quality that fails on at least two counts."

She then goes on to expand further on why this, among other biases, is a problem.

So I guess my point is that you may benefit from a shiny undergraduate institution, but you probably shouldn't.

*other caveat: she researched admissions in astrophysics, physics, biology, economics, political science, sociology, classics, philosophy (2 universities), and linguistics (all doctoral programs, I believe). No psychology.
 
biscuitsbiscuits said:
*other caveat: she researched admissions in astrophysics, physics, biology, economics, political science, sociology, classics, philosophy (2 universities), and linguistics (all doctoral programs, I believe). No psychology.
Click to expand...

I think that caveat is the important part. When I've been involved in these decisions in the past, it wasn't the institutions that was discussed, it was the letter writers and who's lab they've worked with in the past.
 
smalltownpsych said:
In the narrow confines of many areas of professional psychology, prestige is obviously measured quite differently than in the rest of the society so in some ways we are talking apples and oranges. In many areas image and branding are important and my graduate program has good name recognition and that has been a plus for me. How much that is worth financially depends on a lot of variables and it sure as heck isn't 200k. On the other hand, most funded programs usually have a certain reputation outside the field so you can get that without paying for it. I could have paid even more to attend a professional school that no one outside of psychology had heard of and those in the field have a negative opinion of. That would have been really bad.
Click to expand...

I, too, have heard on more than one occasion that the graduate program reputation does matter for internship, fellowship and even beyond.
 
I think its silly to pretend prestige doesn't matter at all. It matters some amount, at some times, to some people in some fields. The question is - when is it worth an extra 100-200k pricetag? This is a quantitative, not a qualitative discussion. I think most would agree paying an extra 5k for the "Harvard" name would be worthwhile. An extra 500k? Probably not.

Generally speaking, I think the answer is: when you can afford it (either through personal means or because someone else is paying for it). There are exceptions. For instance, at the graduate level I would strongly recommend shelling out an extra 100k to attend Yale over a mediocre state law school. The job market for lawyers right now will likely make that a logical choice (whether attending law school at all makes financial sense these days is a separate matter). I'd make the same case for many MBA programs.

What is absolutely silly is not accounting for these factors, going to an expensive school without any consideration of the financial implications of doing so and going for prestige without any plans for how to pay for it (or even knowing what you are paying for it). I think sometimes prestige can be a worthy investment. Like any investment, I think it makes sense to do homework on it. You wouldn't tell a real estate agent to sell you a random property in city X because your brother lived there four years ago and you want an investment property. Not if you plan to remain solvent anyways. Prestige and price are by no means perfectly correlated and as others have pointed out - CT College is not exactly prestigious. Doesn't mean its a bad school. Its just not Harvard/Yale/Princeton/etc. SLACs have pros and cons and those should be accounted for too. Financial ROI is not the only consideration. However, it definitely is ONE consideration and ignoring it is a huge mistake.

Disclosure: State schools and scholarships all the way through. Paid less than 10k total in tuition expenses my entire education. Now on faculty at a school that costs more per semester than my undergrad did total.
 
Last edited:
Ollie123 said:
I think its silly to pretend prestige doesn't matter at all. It matters some amount, at some times, to some people in some fields.
Click to expand...
This is in my opinion the most reasonable and accurate answer. If you are an undergrad without a ton of research or the drive to really push, then yeah, it's probably better to have no publications at Stanford than no publications at whatever rural state school. Will you get accepted everywhere? Of course not. But if that's the only feather in your cap, then there are some PIs, particularly at second tier schools and especially (in my experience) very new faculty that will look at it favorably. Prestigious does not always equal ivy, Stanford, Hopkins etc are not ivies but they are no less expensive or prestigious, and you're still paying for the name. If I was going to be a medium quality applicant to a middle quality school then I'd rather my diploma have a fancy school than a cheap one.
 
I would never say "prestige doesn't matter," but I would also not say that it is often worth shelling out a quarter of a million dollars to attend an ivy league or private institution when you could attend a school like UVA, UC Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, Michigan, UNC, University of Washington, etc. Though I do recognize sometimes you live in a state where you don't have such a high-caliber public institution at in-state tuition cost.

Also, personally, I think in certain circumstances if I had the chance I would shell out the money for maybe HYP/MIT/CalTech/Stanford (because the name could matter depending on what my career goals were) but then when you're comparing schools like CT College and Wisconsin for a liberal arts degree...??? Or even like Brown vs. Michigan- I really don't see the point in going to a school like Brown just because it's private, it's ivy, when you could go to Michigan at in-state tuition. Just my personal opinion.

And I don't think you necessarily get a better education at some of those schools which also depends on again, what your career goals are. If you're going to a school for business or engineering undergrad, then yeah the name can matter a lot (based on reputation of the college)

All that to say, I pretty much agree with all the prior sentiments :cigar:.
 
Last edited:
WisNeuro said:
I think that caveat is the important part. When I've been involved in these decisions in the past, it wasn't the institutions that was discussed, it was the letter writers and who's lab they've worked with in the past.
Click to expand...
Exactly. That is what is important for students pursuing a degree in psychology to understand. If you are going into politics, then maybe ivy league is a big plus. In psychology doctoral programs, being involved in solid research is the plus. In my program (even a non-research focused university-based PsyD) no one ever talked about what your undergrad was but we talked a lot about research that you were involved in. I think we all mentioned what school we went to the first day during introductions, after that who cares? I don't recall where any of my cohort went to undergrad, but I could tell you what research some were involved in. Being in a lab that was conducting neuroimaging and cognitive assessments of meth users was one that was particularly impressive. The colleague involved in EMDR, less so.
 
Last edited:
Psychology could very well be the exception, but I doubt there's complete indifference to UG program. I think what she's trying to get at in the book (which, granted, doesn't include psych programs) is implicit bias in the admissions process. I don't think anyone is wholly immune to that. Doesn't mean you're like "Harvard? SAY NO MORE!" Unless, like someone said, it's an mba program or something.
 
Jon Snow said:
All other things being equal, I'm going to find it impressive that someone went to an Ivy league school or MIT or Cal Tech or U Chicago, etc. . . Why? Because it is freaking hard to get into those schools.

Getting into state u. Not so impressive.
Click to expand...

Interesting. All other things being equal (presentations, publications, GPA, etc.) I would assume that the state u candidate had to work harder and be more resourceful to accomplish the same.
 
MamaPhD said:
Interesting. All other things being equal (presentations, publications, GPA, etc.) I would assume that the state u candidate had to work harder and be more resourceful to accomplish the same.
Click to expand...
*i tried to make a point but it didn't make sense 🙂
 
Last edited:
Jon Snow said:
I think prestige matters.

All other things being equal, I'm going to find it impressive that someone went to an Ivy league school or MIT or Cal Tech or U Chicago, etc. . . Why? Because it is freaking hard to get into those schools. If your med background is: Harvard Undergrad, Johns Hopkins Medical School, Mayo residency, it is a good bet, not even looking at anything else, that you are elite. Of course that matters.

Getting into state u. Not so impressive. More common. So I have to look further in evaluating you.
Click to expand...
For psych, though? I've seen apps from Harvard with nothing impressive on them. I have seen one or two that appear to think that alone is sufficient accomplishment to get into grad school. Whereas getting into State U and getting into Rockstar Lab as an RA is super impressive. So many of our field's powerhouses are in state schools.

Prestige definitely matters in some fields (e.g., law) but even that depends on what job you want (e.g., if you don't want to be in a firm and want to be an estate/property lawyer in small town Iowa, doesn't matter).
 
MamaPhD said:
In some fields such as law, business, etc. that's absolutely possible. Maybe it's true in psychology if you stay within the insular world of prestige schools and the people/institutions who love them. But in most places once you start grad school you're back to square one. One student in my graduate school cohort went to an Ivy for undergrad and no one in our program (large public R1) cared nor was this person the strongest student in the cohort.
Click to expand...
Agreed. My undergraduate degree was from a decent (but not stellar, i.e., no-name) state school in the south. But, I had a full academic scholarship (i.e., no loans). I then went to another state school (in a different state), APA-accredited, full tuition plus stipend, and again no loans. I was the only one in my cohort to finish in four years, which included two Ivy grads and several Big 10 and prestigious smaller colleges. I now employ several Ivy League and other grads from institutions that have more "name brand" recognition than anywhere that I ever attended. And I am at an R1 AMC that everyone in this forum has heard of.
 
It's really not a zero-sum game. There are bright kids at ivies and there are bright kids at state schools. I read an Atlantic-style article (can't remember where it was) about this a year or so ago, around the time that the Frank Bruni book came out, and there was a quote from a professor who had taught at a range of schools. This is paraphrased, but he said something like: You're going to see just as many bright kids at state schools as you do at ivies; the only difference is that there are other kids at the state schools, too.

It seems like this is turning into a sharks vs. jets kind of thing with assumptions like state school kids work harder (some do, some don't) or ivy kids are smarter (some are, some aren't)... these are biases. There might be some trends there, but if you're looking at two applicants where "all else is equal" except for the prestige of the school, then you're looking at two equal applicants.
 
Jon Snow said:
So, in clinical psychology, your best and brightest are not at the ivies in graduate programs for clinical psychology because there are no graduate programs in clinical psychology at those schools.
Click to expand...
Actually, four of the eight Ivy League universities have PhD programs in Clinical Psychology: Penn, Yale, Columbia (Teacher's College), and, more recently, Harvard (accredited by APA in 2008).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
What does a successful career look like that features no therapy caseload work?
2 3
Replies
106
Views
4K
Sanman
Sanman
flowerpsych
Just got into a PsyD.. what's my life going to look like for the next 4-5 years?
Replies
8
Views
2K
Dazen
Dazen
P
Is this real? State of Texas creating their own EPPP?
Replies
19
Views
1K
Therapist4Chnge
T
psych2869
What do you all think of this - especially VA providers.
Replies
15
Views
2K
Sanman
Sanman
singasongofjoy
international student for practicum between universities?
Replies
2
Views
282
PsyDr
PsyDr
Top