Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Psychology [Psy.D. / Ph.D.]' started by biogirl215, May 4, 2007.
I was just curious as to your thoughts regarding the quality of this program.
I applied to it this past year. I like the program and someone there was doing my area of research. I ended up withdrawing from the interview, though, when I got in at a school higher on my list.
It's kind of isolated. I don't think they have an airport-- I was told that the best way to get there would be to drive the whole way (I live in Winnipeg), since I'd just have to rent a car if I flew into Denver anyhow.
Not much for diversity or multiculturalism in the area (so I was told by my prospective prof), so your practicums might suffer a bit due to that.
Financial situation is good. I'd have had full funding and was told that everyone there does, too.
Its not a bad school, but as was mentioned, it is isolated. Not for city people, but I'm flexible so I applied.
Its heavy clinical training, at least as far as PhD programs go. There are very few grants in the entire department, which is bad news if you are into research.
I decided I'd rather not attend even if I wasn't accepted elsewhere, but that was only because I had doubts of my POI getting tenured given his current research seems small-scale, undirected, and one is even purely qualitative! They also have no physio equipment. At all.
It wasn't for me, but despite the above it does seem a solid program overall. If you want to teach at a top-tier research university I'd look elsewhere. If you want to practice or teach at 4 year schools I think you could do a lot worse. It also has one of thehighest acceptance rates of the places I applied, so it isn't too bad to get into. I think it loses a lot of prime candidates because of the location, which is a shame.
This is not really relevant to psychology at all, but the University of Montana (and the wildlife in the area) is the subject of a NY Times article today, if you're interested: