This will be my final application

[mmonte4]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hello all,

Last year I applied to 6 mid tier clincial psyc phd programs. Unfortunately, I didnt receive an interview. This was discouraging to say the least in light of the fact that I did everything I could in my final 2 yrs of undergrad to build an impressive resume. I have 5 poster presentations (first author on one) and have a good amount of reseach experience. My GPA over my final 2 yrs was a 4.0 and i feel like i did everything right in my application process (contacting professors preapplication, tailored letter, etc.). I know my GRE hurt my chances (1080) and I have been studying hard to get it up ( I havent made above 1180 yet though). Also, I plan to begin working as a research associate at biomedical research center starting next month.

I plan to apply again in Dec./Jan. But I have decided this is the last time. I cant do anymore to enhance my application. If my GRE score keeps me out, than that is how it is going to be. My plan this time around is to apply to 15 clinical schools.

I am going to jump ship if I dont get in and switch to I/O psyc. I imagine my chances of getting into a masters program in I/O are very good. Also, a masters is sufficient.

The fact of the matter is I have to get on with my life- I have a new baby and I need to move on.

 

[happydude007]

good luck with it. you will get in.

 

[perfektspace]

I understand your situation. My GRE's were below the magic 1200 (1130) even after extensive study. What can I say I suck at these things 👎 . Applied to 11 programs. Got 1 interview. Didn't get in. Have a good GPA, several posters and senior authorship in a big name journal. Its a ****ty thing to know that you have done the prep work but can't get a shot. Even more annoying is that I have to be careful where I apply next year because if they have a cut-off I might as well not bother.

I am thinking along the same lines as you. If I don't get an offer next year I will do something else. Clinical psych. is perfect for me but there are other ways to make a productive living, like being a ninja or a circus performer. From what I have heard from other students those who reapply often do pretty well, so best of luck to us both!

 

[Dagny52]

Best wishes to both of you. Although my GRE scores are 1270, I'm basically in the same boat as you are for different reasons. I don't fit the typical profile of a graduate school applicant and I'm finding that some schools have a very narrow idea of who they want to admit; I wasn't a psychology major as an undergrad and so did not have psychology professors with good connections who have worked with me as a student to write LORs. I do have a first-(and sole) author journal publication of a research project I did independently and several co-authored published articles and a decent GPA (3.6 as an undergrad/3.9 as a grad), 5+ years of professional research experience, and I can get references from well respected psychologists who know me and non-psychology professors I did research with, but that doesn't seem to be enough. Also being older (over 40) and female doesn't help, given the recent push to admit more males and the resistence to older students on the part of some programs and faculty.

I'm finding that in order to have a real chance because I don't fit the profile, my GRE scores and other qualifications would have to be far better than someone who does fit the typical undergrad profile, for me to even have a chance -- that's the unspoken political reality of the situation. I can understand not getting into the very competitive programs who selected people who did have better qualifications than I did; that was fair enough, but when I applied to other programs that admitted people who on average had lower GRE scores and GPAs than I did, where I was a great fit with the faculty, and met all the requirements and yet didn't even get invited to interview, that is very discouraging.

Like you guys, I am considering trying again for one more year, since I did come close to getting in at a few places. This time I'm going to have a back-up plan, though.

If it's any comfort, I had two faculty members who are psychologists who teach in highly ranked PhD programs and have made major contributions to the field of psychology (one in his 40s the other in his 60s), tell me that if they themselves were applying to a clinical psychology program today, they would not have stood a chance of getting in. I only wish that the powers that be in this profession would think about the implications of that and who is being lost to the profession because of the very narrow idea they have of what the ideal applicant should be. How much does the ability to be a whiz at high school algebra and geometry or knowing vocabulary that 99% of the population doesn't know, have to do with becoming a good psychologist? Only time will tell if the people who currently fit the ideal applicant profile will really make the best psychologists or if, perhaps, other qualities are being unrecognized and lost in their quest for academic perfection.

 

[positivepsych]

Yeah, except that the competition is not unique to psychology, its just as bad at the top medical, law, business schools, or any other disicipline. You have to realize that unlike 50 years ago, EVERYONE is expected to at least go to college. With education becoming more and more accessible and required for promotion (CEOs used to be high school grads, now an MBA is almost mandatory), that's just the reality these days. For an excellent article on this phenomenon, see Malcom Gladwell's "Getting In" article:
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/articles/051010crat_atlarge

Furthermore, as to you point about GREs and why you need to know vocab to be a psychologist... Why does a pre-med or a pre-dental students really need to know calculus or physics? They do it weed people out, there's only so many spots, funding, and jobs.

Finally, the bias against you is probably a pragmatic one. A 22-year superstar has 18 years more research productivity potential than a 40-year old. Furthermore, 22-40 is supposed to be one's most 'creative' years--that's why they only give a Field's Medal in mathematics (the Nobel of Math) to "aspiring young mathematicians under 40." I'm sure its nothing personal, but if the #1 goal of a graduate school is to produce the next generations of professors and leaders in the field of psychology (as one faculty member told me), they're going to have to look at 'future potential' not just 'accomplishments.'

I'm actually against this whole phenomenon of graduate schools in clinical psychology requiring years and years of post-college experience. In the end, these students have lives they want to get on with and want to start familes.

 

[Psyclops]

I don't know how I'm going to say this without sounding extreemely callous, but here it goes. This isn't personal mind you.

As we all should know by now, graduate school admissions and academic positions work just like everything else you have ever applied to, jobs, schools, whatever. Professors are looking for someone who is going to be a good employee, meaning that they will work hard, not complain, be reliable, contribute to the program, write grants if need be, teach classes, all of the pragmatics. In addition, they will be mentoring this person, so personality will matter to some degree, most likely to a high degree. Things like having contacts, LORs from trusted collegues, being interesting and interested are all going to help, just like they do in "real life". It isn't entirely a meritocracy per se, although it mostly is.

As for the GREs. One way you can look at it is they way some posters have, what does being good at algebra and geometry and vocab and reading comprehension tell you about someone. Well I agree with you, not very much. But, what does not being good at it tell you about someone who is a potential graduate student? They aren't able to master high-school math? How will they do with structural equation modelling? Or higherarchichal linear regression? If they struggle with vocab and reading comprehension on the test will they be able to understand the myriad of articles given to them each semester? Especially the difficult ones dealing with minute details of a theory? They'll probably only get to read each one once or twice at the most, will that be enough?

I think there are two sides to the coin of "the GRE's subject matter is bogus". That said, as you may or may not be aware of, the GRE is supposed to be pegged at a mean of 500 with 100 points indicating a standard deviation. Unfortunately, people like the engineers take it as well, which is why even if you got a 720 in quant you were still only in the 70th %. You should have been in the 99th.

I don't think they use these tests solely to weed people out. They do tap important constructs. Things that you need to be able to demonstrate are in place by the time you are going to grad school. Now, you might be able to make a valid argument about how they are administered or maybe the engineers shouldn't be taking them etc.

This is an extreemely competetive field, and it can be a heart breaker to not be able to pursue your dreams. But due to it's competetiveness, many who could succede aren't able to get the chance. But that isn't the programs or the GREs fault. At least not how I see it.

 

[Dagny52]

I don't know how I'm going to say this without sounding extreemely callous, but here it goes. This isn't personal mind you.

As we all should know by now, graduate school admissions and academic positions work just like everything else you have ever applied to, jobs, schools, whatever. Professors are looking for someone who is going to be a good employee, meaning that they will work hard, not complain, be reliable, contribute to the program, write grants if need be, teach classes, all of the pragmatics. In addition, they will be mentoring this person, so personality will matter to some degree, most likely to a high degree. Things like having contacts, LORs from trusted collegues, being interesting and interested are all going to help, just like they do in "real life". It isn't entirely a meritocracy per se, although it mostly is. .

Of course they are, as well they should be. The problem is that they seem to have a very narrow idea of what a "good employee" in terms of grad school is when they reject older applicants who don't fit the mold, but have lengthy track records of actually demonstrating being hard-working, pleasant, reliable and responsible employees with job duties that for some of us included grant writing, teaching, etc. What I'm saying is that there are people who display all the qualities you describe above, yet get rejected because they don't fit a certain prototype of the person who went the usual path.

As for the GREs. One way you can look at it is they way some posters have, what does being good at algebra and geometry and vocab and reading comprehension tell you about someone. Well I agree with you, not very much. But, what does not being good at it tell you about someone who is a potential graduate student? They aren't able to master high-school math? How will they do with structural equation modelling? Or higherarchichal linear regression? If they struggle with vocab and reading comprehension on the test will they be able to understand the myriad of articles given to them each semester? Especially the difficult ones dealing with minute details of a theory? They'll probably only get to read each one once or twice at the most, will that be enough?

We don't need to speculate because the data are in and they aren't very impressive as far as the predictive validity of GRE goes -- even the psychologists at schools who count them so heavily have conceded this. Scores beyond 1200 don't make any difference and even with the 1200 cut-off point, the predictive validity is limited. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any standards with GRE scores, but when it comes to taking someone with a score of 1500 over someone with a score of 1250, there is no empirical evidence that the superior score on that level beyond 1200 is predictive of anything.

This is an extreemely competetive field, and it can be a heart breaker to not be able to pursue your dreams. But due to it's competetiveness, many who could succede aren't able to get the chance. But that isn't the programs or the GREs fault. At least not how I see it.

Indeed, it is extremely competitive but that's not the only problem. I didn't say it was entirely the GRE's fault. My main point is that in my opinion, the standards of who will make a good psychologist the way selections are being done are too narrow, and elminate anyone who doesn't fit that mold and yes, that is a criticism I have of the programs that in my opinion needs some rethinking. When top psychologists who made valuable contributions to the field are saying they wouldn't stand a chance if they were applying today, something is very wrong, in my opinion.

 

[joetro]

Yeah but across the board, as was previously said, everything is getting tougher and more competitive - law school, medical school, etc. It's definitely frustrating, but I think you just have to try to do everything in your power to make as a strong as a case as you can. Don't give any place a reason to reject you, because they certainly will, because there are tons of people with what you have and more ... I'm speaking very generally here. I'm willing to bet that plenty of applicants with solid research experience, posters, publications, and 1500+ GRE scores didn't get in either, in fact, I was up against several such people for only one spot.

 

[Dagny52]

Finally, the bias against you is probably a pragmatic one. A 22-year superstar has 18 years more research productivity potential than a 40-year old. Furthermore, 22-40 is supposed to be one's most 'creative' years--that's why they only give a Field's Medal in mathematics (the Nobel of Math) to "aspiring young mathematicians under 40." I'm sure its nothing personal, but if the #1 goal of a graduate school is to produce the next generations of professors and leaders in the field of psychology (as one faculty member told me), they're going to have to look at 'future potential' not just 'accomplishments.'

I'd like to know what the actual evidence is to support that 22-40 are one's most "creative years". There are plenty of counter-examples of older people who did their best work in their 40s, 50s and beyond, that's for sure. Also, there is much evidence that people change careers often in life, so who's to say that the 22 year old superstar will stick it out and have a longer career, rather than have a mid-life crisis and change careers at age 40? The bottom line is that when people don't fall into lockstep with what they are "supposed" to be doing at a particular age, they pay the price in our society and I suppose what we're seeing in grad school admissions is just one more symptom of that larger issue. Look at what happened to Albert Ellis and the horrible treatment he was recently subjected to by people on his own board at his institute who tried (thankfully, unsuccessfully) to get him thrown out of his own institute because he broke the rules and refused to be put out to pasture.

 

[JatPenn]

Regardless, to the OP, don't ever allow any person to convince you that you will NEVER gain entrance into a clinical program because of something as silly as a GRE score. An excellent research match will trump all raw numbers.

That said, it is difficult to foster this match, and using the "shotgun" method and applying to 15+ schools doesn't always allow for maximum pre-application contact between the applicant and potential mentors.

Your final goal -- largely accomplished via such contact and a cohesive essay -- will be to tell a story about the development of your research interests that leads to a single convincing conclusion: that the logical next step in your academic quest is your inclusion in the lab to which you are applying. It should openly "make sense" to the prof reading your application why you are specifically applying to his/her lab -- not just because you say so but because you back it up with physical evidence. If you cannot make this connection at a particular school, I would argue that you should not apply to such a school.

One last bit of advice, take ALL the comments on this board with a grain of salt. I know some people can sound as if they've had tons of experience, and/or can make their opinions sound like the end-all be-all. But in the end, this is just an internet forum, ultimately follow the advice of those who truly wish that you succeed.

 

[Dagny52]

And just to add one more thing, the very top Ivy League schools such as Harvard, although highly selective, don't discrimminate when it comes to age. I spoke with one of the psychology professors there who told me that one of his very best doctoral students was a female in her mid 40s. They also take many people who majored in subjects other than psychology. Although Harvard is, of course, very hard to get into, their selection criteria are fair and are broader than most of the non-Ivy League schools I've seen.

 

[Psyclops]

One last bit of advice, take ALL the comments on this board with a grain of salt. I know some people can sound as if they've had tons of experience, and/or can make their opinions sound like the end-all be-all. But in the end, this is just an internet forum, ultimately follow the advice of those who truly wish that you succeed.

Good point JP, for the most part people are using samples of N=1 or 2 here. Or people often use annecdotal evidence. Or things they've "heard". I do it all the time. But for once I won't:

I've also always been under the impression that GRE had limited predictive validity, but I've never looked it up. Not wanting to argue from a vacuum and say "well maybe they aren't comparing it to the right things", I did a PsychINFO search. The results certainly were a little mixed, but seemed to lean towards GREs being a good predictor of graduate success. Here is an abstract of a metanalysis:

AN: 2003-95024-354
TI: The prediction and structure of graduate student performance.
PY: 2003
LA: English
AU: Kuncel,-Nathan-Richard
SO: Dissertation-Abstracts-International:-Section-B:-The-Sciences-and-Engineering. Vol 64(6-B) 2003, 2968.
PB: US: Univ Microfilms International
IS: 0419-4217
UM: AAI3095472
MT: Print
PT: Dissertation-Abstract
AB: A clear understanding of what comprises successful student performance and the individual difference determinants of performance can improve our ability to select and train successful students. The first objective of this thesis was to specify a general multidimensional model of graduate student performance. The second objective was to determine the predictive validity of four of the major predictors of graduate student performance. The first objective was accomplished by a review and synthesis of the existing literature. The resulting 10 dimension taxonomy should be useful for future research developing measures of student performance and evaluating predictors of student performance. The second objective was accomplished by conducting metaanalysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Record Exam General tests (GRE), the Graduate Record Examination Subject tests, the Miller Analogies Test (MAT), and undergraduate grade point averages (UGPA). The validity of the GRE and UGPA were estimated across 7 different criteria including degree attainment, grades, faculty ratings, publication record, and comprehensive examination scores. For the MAT meta-analyses, the validity of the MAT was estimated across 18 different criteria including all of the criteria examined in the GRE meta-analysis as well as measures of job performance and creativity which were included to establish the relevance of these measures for both academic and work performance. Overall, this study examined 6,743 correlations across samples totaling to 100,832 subjects. Results indicate several important findings. First, the GRE and MAT are valid predictors of most measures of academic performance including faculty ratings, degree attainment, research productivity, grades, and comprehensive examination scores. Second, across all academic criteria, the GRE Subject tests are the single best predictor of student performance. Third, the MAT, despite being an admissions measure, is a valid predictor of job performance and creativity suggesting that selecting students using standardized tests results is admitting students who will be successful in school and at work. This thesis represents the largest quantitative evaluation of these predictors ever conducted and provides compelling evidence that the GRE, MAT, and UGPA are all valid predictors of academic performance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)


But I think it is important to remember that any part of your application can be mitigated.

 

[perfektspace]

As for the GREs. One way you can look at it is they way some posters have, what does being good at algebra and geometry and vocab and reading comprehension tell you about someone. Well I agree with you, not very much. But, what does not being good at it tell you about someone who is a potential graduate student? They aren't able to master high-school math? How will they do with structural equation modelling? Or higherarchichal linear regression? If they struggle with vocab and reading comprehension on the test will they be able to understand the myriad of articles given to them each semester? Especially the difficult ones dealing with minute details of a theory? They'll probably only get to read each one once or twice at the most, will that be enough?
.

I would agree with you in most cases. I think what Dagny and myself are saying is that we have conducted the aforementioned statistical analysis and have first authorship and posters to prove it. There is no guesswork in that for an admissions committee. It's right there in front of their face versus an applicant who has higher scores but has little to show for their apparently higher aptitude. The same goes for reading and understanding current research. The proof is in the CV.

What makes these situations bizarre is that someone in our position has been judged, via peer-reviewed literature, to have produced work of a superior caliber to other submitting PhD's and grad students yet is apparently not worthy of studying with them at the grad level. I can't think of many fields where being a proven commodity is somehow inferior to potential. It is what it is, but that makes no sense.

 

[positivepsych]

I would agree with you in most cases. I think what Dagny and myself are saying is that we have conducted the aforementioned statistical analysis and have first authorship and posters to prove it. There is no guesswork in that for an admissions committee. It's right there in front of their face versus an applicant who has higher scores but has little to show for their apparently higher aptitude. The same goes for reading and understanding current research. The proof is in the CV.

What makes these situations bizarre is that someone in our position has been judged, via peer-reviewed literature, to have produced work of a superior caliber to other submitting PhD's and grad students yet is apparently not worthy of studying with them at the grad level. I can't think of many fields where being a proven commodity is somehow inferior to potential. It is what it is, but that makes no sense.

👎 👎 👎

Actually, you're wrong. In most of the other major fields, "potential" trumps being a "proven commodity." Law school takes people right out of undergrad, requires no pre-requisite coursework, and you don't even have to know anything about the law. Medical school also takes people right out of undergrad, and does not REQUIRE research or clinical experience. Same for dental school or pharmacy school. Business schools, while they do prefer 2-3 years experience, do so because an MBA is only 2 years. Interestingly, some of the top business schools are recently aggressively trying to recruit students straight out of college. Corporate jobs on Wall Street also require no business experience, I've had friends major in English who got jobs in Finance. I could go on and on here...

You're actually lucky that clinical psychology cares about being a 'proven commodity' much more than most other graduate schools/fields, where potential is the be all and end all. So your arguement is pretty unfounded, because a relative comparison shows that you actually have it good.

A clinical psych applicant with good but not stellar grades/scores and 2-3 years of research experience has a huge advantage over a stellar but unexperienced undergrad. However, a medical school applicant with good but not stellar grades/scores and 2-3 years of research/clinical experience has LITTLE TO NO advantage over a stellar undergrad.

If you reframe your argument, you're advocating that clinical psych admissions committes discriminate MORE against younger students who don't have as much research experience. I think that's wrong. I think it's great that you want to enter the field after so many years, but it shouldn't come at the expense of people who know what they want to do at a young age. Students should not have to have several poster/publications under their belt just to be competitive, and force them to put off their family lives until they're 30+.

Simply put, graduate schools should not expect candidates to already essentially BE graduate school students. Clinical psych is already the outlier here, compared to the other fields. Maybe that's why our field is so screwed up nowadays, has so much in-fighting, and can't protect its own turf against the degree-mills that degrade the profession.

 

[perfektspace]

Actually, you're wrong. In most of the other major fields, "potential" trumps being a "proven commodity." Law school takes people right out of undergrad, requires no pre-requisite coursework, and you don't even have to know anything about the law. Medical school also takes people right out of undergrad, and does not REQUIRE research or clinical experience. Same for dental school or pharmacy school. Business schools, while they do prefer 2-3 years experience, do so because an MBA is only 2 years. Interestingly, some of the top business schools are recently aggressively trying to recruit students straight out of college. Corporate jobs on Wall Street also require no business experience, I've had friends major in English who got jobs in Finance. I could go on and on here...

You're actually lucky that clinical psychology cares about being a 'proven commodity' much more than most other graduate schools/fields, where potential is the be all and end all. So your arguement is pretty unfounded, because a relative comparison shows that you actually have it good.

If you reframe your argument, you're advocating that clinical psych admissions committes discriminate MORE against younger students who don't have as much research experience. I think that's wrong. I think it's great that you want to enter the field after so many years, but it shouldn't come at the expense of people who know what they want to do at a young age. Students should not have to have several poster/publications under their belt just to be competitive, and force them to put off their family lives until they're 30+.

My argument has nothing to do with age so a reframing in not needed (I'm in my mid-20's). That was a different poster. Try reading a little more closely next time.

If your going to look at grad programs in general and say I have it good comparatively then you should also include the major differences in acceptance rates from medical to law school to Clinical Psych programs. Approx. half of those applying to med school get in and about 5 out of 100 in clin. psych. I would say they have it better, if you want to make that comparison. I find your comparison irrelevant and I shouldn't have made mine in the first place, which seems to be what your entire post is based upon.

So take out my statement about being a proven commodity versus potentially productive. I shouldn't have included it, given that it doesn't matter what other fields do. We are talking about one particular profession right? The best predictor of future success is past results and this is what is desired by clinical programs so it should count for something over test scores. That was the intent of the initial post.

 

[Psyclops]

I don't know how this will be taken but, I am amazed when I hear posters say that they were unable to get an offer of admission even after they had a publication, especially those claiming first author pubs in major journals. How is that possible? Unless everything else is abysmal, I do think that evidences great potential. I know it isn't a gurantee to get in, but it still is exceedingly rare.

 

[perfektspace]

I don't know how this will be taken but, I am amazed when I hear posters say that they were unable to get an offer of admission even after they had a publication, especially those claiming first author pubs in major journals. How is that possible? Unless everything else is abysmal, I do think that evidences great potential. I know it isn't a gurantee to get in, but it still is exceedingly rare.

Yes. That's all I'm trying to say. Several people have popped up on this board with similar situations and I find it odd when this is what research oriented programs are supposedly looking for. Not trying to be crybaby or garner sympathy. It just took me by surprise to be in this situation.

 

[butterfli73]

Just based on the people I came into contact with who applied to clinical programs this year, it seemed like a lot of people had some kind of publication (although not many were first authors). Maybe it's just becoming that much more competitive and so having one doesn't make you stand out as much as it used to?

I'm not sure how much merit this is but I know the Guide to Clinical and Counseling programs said having a publication is one of the sure fire ways to stand out, so I am also surprised that it didn't help as much this year.

 

[positivepsych]

Just based on the people I came into contact with who applied to clinical programs this year, it seemed like a lot of people had some kind of publication (although not many were first authors). Maybe it's just becoming that much more competitive and so having one doesn't make you stand out as much as it used to?

I'm not sure how much merit this is but I know the Guide to Clinical and Counseling programs said having a publication is one of the sure fire ways to stand out, so I am also surprised that it didn't help as much this year.

You're looking at it too simplistically. Having publications/posters will always make you look better than someone who doesn't. However, it's not gauranteed to get you in, because people who don't have them and still get in are usually extraordinary.

One of my friends who got in straight out of undergrad, although having no posters/pubs, had 2 years of research experience with one of the top professors in the world, wrote an award-winning senior thesis, has won several national-level scholarships and honors, has significant leadership experience, is graduating at the top of his class at one of the top universities in the world, has letters of rec from some of the leading scholars in the field proclaiming his potential to be an extraordinary thought leader, etc.

So yes, having pubs/posters will always make you look good. But sometimes its not going to trump someone coming straight out of undergrad or a year out of college that is truly extraordinary. Nor should it.

 

[butterfli73]

You're looking at it too simplistically. Having publications/posters will always make you look better than someone who doesn't. However, it's not gauranteed to get you in, because people who don't have them and still get in are usually extraordinary.

One of my friends who got in straight out of undergrad, although having no posters/pubs, had 2 years of research experience with one of the top professors in the world, wrote an award-winning senior thesis, has won several national-level scholarships and honors, has significant leadership experience, is graduating at the top of his class at one of the top universities in the world, has letters of rec from some of the leading scholars in the field proclaiming his potential to be an extraordinary thought leader, etc.

So yes, having pubs/posters will always make you look good. But sometimes its not going to trump someone coming straight out of undergrad or a year out of college that is truly extraordinary. Nor should it.

I absolutely agree with you, simply having a publication shouldn't trump someone who is more qualified. I was just speculating that this whole process is becoming more and more competitive and so having a publication these days may not be the be all end all.

 

[Dagny52]

You're looking at it too simplistically. Having publications/posters will always make you look better than someone who doesn't. However, it's not gauranteed to get you in, because people who don't have them and still get in are usually extraordinary.

I agree. I know of several people who had first-authored publications in good journals and had other stellar qualifications (high GREs, GPAs, good fit with faculty, good social skills, strong LORs) who nevertheless did not get in anywhere, especially if they only applied to top programs. It is no guarantee at all. The competition has become so great that there is virtually nothing that could guarantee a person's admission to a program. Also we need to keep in mind that there can be considerable variation in which criteria schools consider important. Some schools are known for heavily counting GREs while others count research experience and publications; it varies. The best advice I got was to apply to a range of schools, not just the top ones.

Also seemingly small things can sometimes be used to disqualify a person who might otherwise have been the perfect applicant. I've been told by certain faculty who make these kinds of decisions that if there's even the slightest hint in a personal statement that the applicant has a history of some kind of psychological problem (e.g. an eating disorder) that can disqualify a person in the eyes of some faculty.

 

[Psyclops]

The best advice I got was to apply to a range of schools, not just the top ones.

I disagree. I don't think you should count ranking much if at all good or bad. The three rules to picking a PhD program in clinical psychology should be 1) fit 2) fit 3) fit. And by that I mean research and mentor match. Not scenery, locale, name, etc.

I've been told by certain faculty who make these kinds of decisions that if there's even the slightest hint in a personal statement that the applicant has a history of some kind of psychological problem (e.g. an eating disorder) that can disqualify a person in the eyes of some faculty.

This should be a no-brainer. But apparently it isn't, this advice is given often, and I've been told by administrative assistants that there are consitently people who either haven't heard, or disregard this advice. I'm not sure if not offering admission based on MH issues should be considered discrimination. Many types might have an effect on you ability ro function as a productive graduate student. On the other hand, certain characteristics that are commonly seen within disordered populations are advantageous for a graduate student. In fact they say the MMPI profile that is best for a graduate student is 4/9 which essentially correspond to psychopathy/mania.

 

[positivepsych]

I've been told by certain faculty who make these kinds of decisions that if there's even the slightest hint in a personal statement that the applicant has a history of some kind of psychological problem (e.g. an eating disorder) that can disqualify a person in the eyes of some faculty.

Wow. It makes perfect sense that you wouldn't want someone with serious issues to be admitted because it might interfere with them completing the program, but the 'slightest hint' seems a little drastic to me. Who hasn't dealt with depression or anxiety at some point in their lives? It seems a little ironic to me that some people at the top of the mental health hierarchy are discriminating against problems they've dedicated their lives to addressing...

 

[Psyclops]

I think they would know if it would interfere or not. But I think the main point is, if a mental health issue is such a lare part of your life that you feel you must discuss it in a statment of purpose, then it most likely will interfere at some point during your duties. I don't think its that they are discriminating against those who have worked through issues so much as they are discriminating against those who feel the need to talk about it in a SOP.

 

[chaos]

I think they would know if it would interfere or not. But I think the main point is, if a mental health issue is such a lare part of your life that you feel you must discuss it in a statment of purpose, then it most likely will interfere at some point during your duties. I don't think its that they are discriminating against those who have worked through issues so much as they are discriminating against those who feel the need to talk about it in a SOP.

Then again, if it weren't such a large part of their lives, they might not be studying psychology. I have schizophrenia, and I don't intend to mention it on my statements of purpose, even though I want to go into schizophrenia reseach. To be honest, I wish I did feel comfortable mentioning it, not because I particularly want them to know, but because psychologists of all people should know better than to further stigmatize mental illness. Okay, so it's a liability, but I have a 4.0 GPA which I've managed to maintain despite several mid semester hospitalizations. That should attest to my character. The last thing I'd want would be a pity vote, but it would be nice to be able to mention it in passing without fear of repurcussion. On the other hand, at least times have changed enough that I won't be hauled off to have an ice pick inserted into my eye socket.

 

[positivepsych]

I think they would know if it would interfere or not. But I think the main point is, if a mental health issue is such a lare part of your life that you feel you must discuss it in a statment of purpose, then it most likely will interfere at some point during your duties. I don't think its that they are discriminating against those who have worked through issues so much as they are discriminating against those who feel the need to talk about it in a SOP.

I just have one thing to say: Kay Redfield Jamison.

She graduated from UCLA's clinical psych program, became a leading expert on manic depression, is a professor at Hopkins, wrote several best-sellers, won a McArthur 'Genius' Fellowship, was named one of the "Best Doctors in the United States," and was chosen by Time magazine as a "Hero of Medicine." All this despite having manic-depression herself.

I don't know if she mentioned it in her personal statement, but she was open about her condition with her professors, as mentioned in her book, "An Unquiet Mind." What a travesty it would have been if Jamison wans't allowed to pursue clinical psychology. Our field would have lost a truly important person.

 

[Psyclops]

I just have one thing to say: Kay Redfield Jamison.

She graduated from UCLA's clinical psych program, became a leading expert on manic depression, is a professor at Hopkins, wrote several best-sellers, won a McArthur 'Genius' Fellowship, was named one of the "Best Doctors in the United States," and was chosen by Time magazine as a "Hero of Medicine." All this despite having manic-depression herself.

I don't know if she mentioned it in her personal statement, but she was open about her condition with her professors, as mentioned in her book, "An Unquiet Mind." What a travesty it would have been if Jamison wans't allowed to pursue clinical psychology. Our field would have lost a truly important person.

Although I like to argue, I would find it distasteful to take the counterpoint to this argument. Especially in light of Chaos's sincere and thought provoking post. I think all would agree that there are many capable people who fall any number of places on the various dimensions of the human condition. What would you look for in an applicant if they were to apply to work with you?

 

[positivepsych]

Although I like to argue, I would find it distasteful to take the counterpoint to this argument. Especially in light of Chaos's sincere and thought provoking post. I think all would agree that there are many capable people who fall any number of places on the various dimensions of the human condition. What would you look for in an applicant if they were to apply to work with you?

Look, I'll be honest. If I was on the other side of the admissions table, seeing an applicant with psychological issues would be a red-flag if it was more serious than depression or anxiety. But if that's what inspired them to pursue psychology--not to heal themselves, but because its their passion, then I wouldn't count them out.

If they were truly a good canididate despite their condition, I would have an honest discussion with them about the demands of graduate schools and whether it was in their best interest. If I thought they could manage their condition and still flourish, I would take them. If I was hesitant, I would ask them to come be an RA and see how they do over the course of a year.

Maybe I'm a little more open about this issue since I have friends with disabilities and who have struggled with mental health, and I've seen them be discriminated against in job hiring.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the rest of the criteria, I would want a bright student that exhibits a sense of humanity and self-actualization, or what Maslow called "b-cogniton" (being-cognition, see his book, Towards a Psychology of Being). I don't know how to describe what that means to me, but its a blend of empathy, compassion, wisdom about life and the bigger questions, a true sense of curiosity and wonder about the world, a sense of meaning and purpose in their lives, etc.

Smart, accomplished, ambitious people are a dime a dozen. Individuals with b-cognition are rare. I would want a student that doesn't just care about the things he wants to do, but the person he wants to be. That kind of person is going to be a real leader.

 

[mmcarson]

I'm sorry to interrupt the discussion on MH in the SOP but I just wanted to add a bit of advice that I was given when I was applying. I mentioned in a previous post how important the SOP is in the admissions process, and when I was writing mine I received the following advice from my research advisor. Whether you have an extensive background in research or an extensive background in assesment, you want to describe it in such a way that you convey your skills and experiences without sounding like you are already an expert in the field. You don't need to mention your presentations and papers in the SOP, they can see that in your CV. You don't want it to sound like you already know all there is to know about research. Focus on what you can learn in their program and how your skills have prepared you for further education and training. In previous posts it sounds like a lot of outstanding applicants have not gained admission and I couldn't help but think that the SOP is what turned advisors off, especially if they didn't get interviews. Also, you have to keep in mind that admissions committees often have a student representative so you want to appeal to that person as well.

As far as the MH issues in the SOP, if you have a MH issue, I don't think the SOP is the appropriate time to express it. I agree with previous posters that it should not keep you from getting in to a program. It is better to talk about something like that with your advisor face to face rather than in an essay where space is already limited, and will probably only raise questions and concerns among committee members.

 

[Psyclops]

As for the rest of the criteria, I would want a bright student that exhibits a sense of humanity and self-actualization, or what Maslow called "b-cogniton" (being-cognition, see his book, Towards a Psychology of Being). I don't know how to describe what that means to me, but its a blend of empathy, compassion, wisdom about life and the bigger questions, a true sense of curiosity and wonder about the world, a sense of meaning and purpose in their lives, etc.

Smart, accomplished, ambitious people are a dime a dozen. Individuals with b-cognition are rare. I would want a student that doesn't just care about the things he wants to do, but the person he wants to be. That kind of person is going to be a real leader.

For the reccord, I'm not saying people who have MH issues shouldn't be allowed into school. I do think there are good ways to bring it up and bad ways. And depending on the way it is brought up might give off good or bad vibes to committees.

As for b-cognition, that is a tough construct to measure, especially given the limited amount of information they have to judge us on.

 

[Psyclops]

I'm sorry to interrupt the discussion on MH in the SOP but I just wanted to add a bit of advice that I was given when I was applying. I mentioned in a previous post how important the SOP is in the admissions process, and when I was writing mine I received the following advice from my research advisor. Whether you have an extensive background in research or an extensive background in assesment, you want to describe it in such a way that you convey your skills and experiences without sounding like you are already an expert in the field. You don't need to mention your presentations and papers in the SOP, they can see that in your CV. You don't want it to sound like you already know all there is to know about research. Focus on what you can learn in their program and how your skills have prepared you for further education and training. In previous posts it sounds like a lot of outstanding applicants have not gained admission and I couldn't help but think that the SOP is what turned advisors off, especially if they didn't get interviews. Also, you have to keep in mind that admissions committees often have a student representative so you want to appeal to that person as well.

THese are some very good points. During the application and interviewing process there is a tough tightrope to walk. Specifically you want to appear confident, but humble and eager. Don't self depricate, but don't brag either.