What is "a good fit"?

[userdefined]

Last year I applied to 10 of the highest ranked clinical psychology PhD programs in the US naively thinking that I would get into at least one of them. It's no surprise that I didn't get in to any programs. This year I'm applying to more schools in hopes of getting accepted, but I'm doing it a bit smarter this time, thinking about which ones are a good fit for me rather than just a school's ranking or reputation (and my then giant ego).

But what exactly comprises "a good fit?" Let me just put out the obvious answer now to avoid the thousands of redundant posts that will follow: "It depends!" I know that; I'm just trying to see what factors people look for when choosing a PhD/PsyD program. So far I'm looking at the following:

Of whether I can even get in:
-average GPA of accepted individuals
-average GRE of accepted individuals
-number of accepted individuals

important factors about the program:
-internship match rates
-Cost
-Location
-Ethnic Diversity (or lack of)
-Religious Diversity
-faculty and research of interest

Does anyone know if there's anything else that I should be looking at?

Also, if you know of a best way for finding out any given info (e.g. ethnic diversity via Insider's Guide), please share that info as well. Thanks in advance for all responses.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RayneeDeigh]

Honestly none of those matter if you don't have a good research fit. Sure it's great to go to a diverse campus and know where your GRE stats fit with the other applicants, but you have to be able to convince a professor that your interests line up well with his/hers. Once you've got a list of people (and schools) that study what you're interested in, THEN start narrowing it down based on those factors you mentioned.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Well....

A good research fit (area of interest, opportunity, personality of the POI).

A good clinical fit (support/encourage your orientation, have quality instruction, good theory, and opportunities to receive training in a setting I want)

-t

 

[Ollie123]

****-faculty and research of interest****

Thought I'd fix that for you

If you're going the PhD route, that should really be at the top of your list. Everything else pales by comparison. If you work with a legend at podunk university, you will be much better off coming out than someone working with new, unproductive faculty at the top-ranked universities. When people talk about fit, this is really the prime component. You need to have very clearly designed research interests, a very specific research plan in mind (even if you change your mind later) and buttloads of research experience if you want to be competitive at the top universities.

Other things to consider is how you get along with the faculty you'll be working with (do you need someone hands-on or do you want them to turn you loose and come to them when you need guidance), what kind of environment the school as a whole is (relaxed or very focused), etc.

There's so much to think about its really hard to say, but contact a few professors you want to work with and you'll quickly figure out the whole "fit" thing.

Edit: One last thing to note - it sounds like you are very caught up in applying to "schools" which is a common misnomer and based on everything I've heard and done, really the wrong way to go about the process. Apply to a professor. Everything else is secondary. The school usually doesn't make the decision, the faculty member you want to work with makes the final call. I get the impression you're focused on rankings and I understand the desire to go to a "good" school but its entirely the wrong way to think about things. Rankings don't matter. The right professor at school #50 is a better choice than a mediocre one at school #1. I mean, if there's someone whose research is EXACTLY your area and you get along well with at Penn/Yale/Wisc-Mad then go for it. Don't apply to them just because they are the "best" schools though. I'm sure they get alot of those applications and you just won't make the cut if you're applying because of the name of the school.

 

[JockNerd]

Edit: One last thing to note - it sounds like you are very caught up in applying to "schools" which is a common misnomer and based on everything I've heard and done, really the wrong way to go about the process. Apply to a professor. Everything else is secondary. The school usually doesn't make the decision, the faculty member you want to work with makes the final call. I get the impression you're focused on rankings and I understand the desire to go to a "good" school but its entirely the wrong way to think about things. Rankings don't matter. The right professor at school #50 is a better choice than a mediocre one at school #1. I mean, if there's someone whose research is EXACTLY your area and you get along well with at Penn/Yale/Wisc-Mad then go for it. Don't apply to them just because they are the "best" schools though. I'm sure they get alot of those applications and you just won't make the cut if you're applying because of the name of the school.

The single best advice any applicant can get. Great post!

And make sure that the prof you want to work with is actually taking someone on as a student! You can have all that great "fit" and still waste an application if the prof in question has a full lab for the year.

 

[Squarepants]

Does this mean we're supposed to be in constant communication (via email) with professors of various schools we're interested in?

 

[RayneeDeigh]

Whether it's "constant" or not really depends on the POI. Some won't even reply to you, otherwise will reply once, and some will reply multiple times. I wouldn't say that "constant" is the norm, most are very busy. It's definitely good to introduce yourself though.

 

[userdefined]

Seems pretty intense. Do you think its the same for PsyD programs? Although I will probably apply to a couple of PhD programs, I am strongly leaning towards becoming a clinician rather than a researcher. Sorry, I should have probably mentioned that earlier. =/

 

[RayneeDeigh]

Seems pretty intense. Do you think its the same for PsyD programs? Although I will probably apply to a couple of PhD programs, I am strongly leaning towards becoming a clinician rather than a researcher. Sorry, I should have probably mentioned that earlier. =/

Your interests (whether research or clinical) have to line up with the school's focus in order for them to consider you an asset to them. Even PsyD programs have "specialties" (marriage and family therapy, forensic, etc.) Do some poking around on school websites and you should be able to find some good info.

 

[Squarepants]

Bah. My primary interests are in school psychology, followed by clinical or counseling, with research coming up last. However, the overwhelming majority of psych programs that provide tuition waivers and assistanships/stipends are clinical ones - and by clinical ones, I mean research-focused programs that somehow keep calling themselves clinical programs.

It's quite the quandry.

 

[KillerDiller]

However, the overwhelming majority of psych programs that provide tuition waivers and assistanships/stipends are clinical ones - and by clinical ones, I mean research-focused programs that somehow keep calling themselves clinical programs.

It's quite the quandry.

It's truly a shame that there aren't more practice-focused programs that are funded. I caution you, though, not to go into your graduate career with the attitude that research and practice training are mutually exclusive. Learning the ins and outs of the research that is being done in the field aids in providing safe and effective therapy. As you are skeptical of programs that seem scant on the practice end, so should students use caution in selecting programs that don't offer a research component at all. Pretty much any clinical doctoral program will prepare you for licensure, give you clinical hours, and provide classes in giving therapy. That being said, and to return to the topic of the thread, it is definitely wise to select a program that emphasizes your area of interest in both research and practice, and that is its own quandary .

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Learning the ins and outs of the research that is being done in the field aids in providing safe and effective therapy. As you are skeptical of programs that seem scant on the practice end, so should students use caution in selecting programs that don't offer a research component at all.

Excellent advice! A balance is really required to be competent clinician (in my opinion).

-t

 

[Ollie123]

ahhh, this board is such an eye-opener. I always forget that if anything, the BULK of people go into clinical to do some kind of clinical work...with my undergrad experiences, and now my limited experiences with my grad program thus far, its easy to forget that and think everyone wants to be an academic and the question becomes "do you want to be a prof at a teaching school or a research school?"

I'd restate what KillerDiller said though. If a school is anti-research (and there are a few out there), I'd argue its inherently a terrible school and I think few would disagree with me. I think that it is very important for any good clinician to have a strong understanding of research. After all, you need to keep up on treatment outcome lit, if nothing else. I'm not saying everyone needs to spend 40 hours a week in a lab, but I am saying you should have to do SOME research for any doctoral-level degree. I'd say not doing so is as irresponsible as turning someone loose on the public with zero clinical hours.

BTW, even those of us at super-heavy research oriented schools are generally coming out with around 1000 clinical hours, so I think its still fair to call it a "clinical program"

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Are the clinical hours at a really research oriented uni's in assessment, therapy, combo, etc? I've heard there can be differences in hours and training going into internship, though I wasn't sure the breakdown in hours.

-t

 

[JockNerd]

Seems pretty intense. Do you think its the same for PsyD programs? Although I will probably apply to a couple of PhD programs, I am strongly leaning towards becoming a clinician rather than a researcher. Sorry, I should have probably mentioned that earlier. =/

I think it's like that for all mentorship-based programs, which includes nearly all funded PhD programs and probably the funded PsyDs as well.

If you want to be a clinician, there are still dozens and dozens of people across the country who do outcomes research!

 

[Ollie123]

Well, it is definitely a combo to some degree.

I ONLY applied to heavily research-oriented universities and no matter what, everyone was required to have at least a couple clients every year, starting with 2nd year. Many held more than a couple (again, even at super-research focus).

Alot of it ends up being assessments and the like. Many research studies screen with the SCID, and that can usually be counted towards clinical hours. There's almost always options for treatment studies too though, and they are usually all too happy to have an extra cousnelor to share the work with.

Really, its what you make of it. I'm striving for a balance of both and I'm sure if I wanted to, despite being at a research-oriented university I could rack up a LOT more hours. I'm already finding tons of opportunities to do so and we haven't even technically started yet (although I essentially have, because I'm a special kind of nerd). I'm sure I could do mostly assessments beyond the load of clients, or get it primarily in therapy. Depends what your advisor wants you working on, where your finding comes from, and what kind of research you are doing.

 

[Quynh2007]

Your interests (whether research or clinical) have to line up with the school's focus in order for them to consider you an asset to them. Even PsyD programs have "specialties" (marriage and family therapy, forensic, etc.) Do some poking around on school websites and you should be able to find some good info.

yep, a good way to know is to look at the school's mission and see if you really like it, and then see what ALL of the clinical faculty is doing. more than likely they are all doing variations of the same topic (ie if you want ADHD but only one prof is doing ADHD there....be careful about emphasizing your passion for ADHD at that school). i'm only saying this because on every application I had to do, I had to list 2 or 3 other profs I wouldn't have mind working for as well. you don't want to pick those alternate profs to be totally out of the realm of what you want to do with the main profs.