What kind of research experience do grad schools look for?

[ExpressYourself]

I'm kind of panicking when I read about how many of you have co-authored publications.and I don't know if the research experience I have is good enough.

I started volunteering as a research practicum student last month at a behavioral health hospital, but my supervisor says that it takes 12-16 months to get a study ready for publication....And I would like to apply to Ph.D programs this fall/winter with the deadlines in Dec./Jan.


Then, there's my senior thesis in undergrad and I did a poster presentation for that. I don't know if this counts either, but I worked at a place called the National Research Organization of Chicago (NORC) as a phone interviewer/data entry, but the research studies were medical in nature.


What else is there to do? I wish I knew about volunteering at the hospital last year, so at least I could have co-authored something by now....Maybe I will e-mail my supervisor at my diagnostic practicum and see if she can help me hop on to a project. I think my intership site does research studies as well. Are there any student psychology magazines that will take student submissions..I don't know if that helps lol.


Any advice would be appreciated, thanks.


P.S. I like to get everything done on time, so I don't think I'm someone who wants to take a year off after getting my master's degree to help build up credentials. I would rather just stick with my Psy.D program at Argosy instead of taking a year off.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JockNerd]

RA work and a thesis is the extent of most people's research work, in my experience, especially those applying right out of University. The story might be different for people applying with a Master's degree. Your poster presentation and volunteer RA work will look really good.

What do you mean by student research journals? Students are free to publish in regular journals. I know a few students who send in half the stuff they ever write for classes to journals.

 

[ExpressYourself]

I know a few students who send in half the stuff they ever write for classes to journals.

Wouldn't it have to be thesis work though and not just in-depth paper assignments (like writing a 10-15 APA style page paper on a particular topic?) The only thesis I have is my undergrad, and I don't even know where that is.

Someone on facebook said they have a student psychology online magazine, but I don't know submitting something for that will look as good.

Argosy's master's program doesn't do a master's thesis. It's all about doing 800 practicum hours or so and taking the MA comprehensive exam, because there's more of a clinical focus.

But, some research experience is better than nothing I guess. I just e-mailed my practicum supervisor about doing research work at my internship site, so let's see what she says.

 

[ExpressYourself]

Oh, and here's the website for the online social psychology magazine run by students..They emphasize that they're not a journal, but they take student submissions and you can join their staff supposedly. I e-mailed the editor for more information how their site works and what kind of submissions are they looking for.

http://www.in-mind.org/index.php

 

[JockNerd]

Wouldn't it have to be thesis work though and not just in-depth paper assignments (like writing a 10-15 APA style page paper on a particular topic?) The only thesis I have is my undergrad, and I don't even know where that is.

Someone on facebook said they have a student psychology online magazine, but I don't know submitting something for that will look as good.

Review papers get published all the time. The things that my friends submit are usually detailed review papers of an area that doesn't have any really good reviews done yet, or at least not recently, that they completed as part of a class assignment. Reviews are often done by leaders in the field, but when you submit the reviewers don't know who wrote the thing, so it can get published. I didn't say their success rate was high, mind you! Just that they did it.

Peer-reviewed publications are the only thing that really count. If you wrote for gradPsych or something like that, you might include it, maybe. E-zine.... probably not, sorry!

 

[psychanon]

1) You do NOT need to have a publication to get into grad school. It is extremely rare to have one. Of course, having one is great and will help, and if you can get one you should, but don't go around feeling hopeless if you don't.
2) Programs want you to have relevant experience for what you want to do. Part of that is general orientation to research-- knowing how labs run, doing data entry, basic entry-level stuff. Part of that is gaining skills that you will use later. Doing interviews is GREAT-- it is an important research and clinical skill that is highly useful for many labs. If you are trained in any particular interviews (e.g., SCIDs) that are used in the particular lab you are applying for, that is a big help as well.
3) The few months of research experience that you will have by application time may not be sufficient.
4)

P.S. I like to get everything done on time, so I don't think I'm someone who wants to take a year off after getting my master's degree to help build up credentials. I would rather just stick with my Psy.D program at Argosy instead of taking a year off.

I find this attitude very strange. You would rather go to a sub-standard program and go into massive amounts of debt and likely suffer discrimination for being perceived as having an inferior degree for the REST OF YOUR CAREER rather than spend one or two years getting the experience you need to get into a school that will actually allow you to meet your career goals? Just because of a notion that you must "get things done on time"? What does "on time" mean, anyway? The vast majority of people who go into clinical psych programs take at least one year off, often more. There's nothing "off time" about taking time off. This idea is very short-sighted-- you'll need to start thinking differently to be successful in your career.

 

[RayneeDeigh]

I find this attitude very strange. You would rather go to a sub-standard program and go into massive amounts of debt and likely suffer discrimination for being perceived as having an inferior degree for the REST OF YOUR CAREER rather than spend one or two years getting the experience you need to get into a school that will actually allow you to meet your career goals? Just because of a notion that you must "get things done on time"? What does "on time" mean, anyway? The vast majority of people who go into clinical psych programs take at least one year off, often more. There's nothing "off time" about taking time off. This idea is very short-sighted-- you'll need to start thinking differently to be successful in your career.

I disagree, and I think that's a value judgment about PsyD programs. Some Argosy programs are viewed pretty well in the field, this was discussed in a thread last week I think.

To the OP, I can relate to wanting to stay "on time", and I'm sure you mean "on time" with your own personal timeline which most people have, even if they vary greatly from person to person. Your idea isn't shortsighted if it's something you feel strongly about, and you're well within your right to want to stay in line with your time goals!

As for research, poster presentations definitely do count (my undergraduate advisor even considered poster presentations to be more impressive than verbal presentations because of the organization required). You don't need to be publish to get in to grad school. Just keep getting research experience. If you've spent 10 years in the field and haven't published yet that would look a little odd, but where you are right now is completely normal and acceptable. Just keep putting in time and effort and it will pay off. In your statements of purpose, stress your research experience and I wouldn't even mention a lack of publications. If you sell the skills you HAVE picked up along the way, you'll be just fine.

 

[Ollie123]

I got into what seems to be a very good program without a publication, or even an empirical poster so you're a step ahead of me I too, feel some anxiety over it, but if it didn't happen, it didn't happen. Pubs will come later, just make sure you're getting them as a grad student.

That being said, I'm actually going to have to side with psychanon on this one (sorry Raynee!). Even ignoring my personal views on professional schools.

I can understand the idea of having a timeline. And if you WANT to go to Argosy, far be it for me to say you should not. However, I would strongly discourage you from picking a school based off "Its what I could get into right away". I know you didn't say that exactly....but I sort of got the impression that some day you might look back on it and feel like you "settled". This is exactly what I did for my undergrad and I will probably regret that for the next 20 years or so, so please excuse me if I'm projecting a little

Please pardon me if this is none of my business, but can I ask what about your "timeline" would be thrown off by working for a year before graduate school? Is it concern over marriage/children/family/etc, or professional concerns? I ask because I had the same view that you did (i.e. wanted to go straight from undergrad to grad, didn't know why people would wait). Yet now I've realized that if I had applied straight from undergrad I'd have been much more limited in terms of where I had applied (if I had hope of getting in ANYWHERE that is), and wouldn't be NEARLY as comfortable with myself and what I think I am capable of doing in graduate school. I'm not saying you aren't ready, I'm just saying to give it serious thought. Its not just a matter of where you'll get in, but how productive you'll be when you're there. Remember that grad school is NOTHING like undergrad. In undergrad, people are basically given the equivalent of a grocery list of things they need to accomplish and they just check it off as they go. In grad school, you have to write that list yourself, and a year or two in the field will help you know what to include on that list. Don't want it to be dissertation time and realize you forgot to buy the milk

So that was a weird analogy but I'm pretty tired, so I hope it made SOME sense. I'm not saying don't go to Argosy. I'm not saying you SHOULD take time off. I'm just saying be VERY careful about it, and speaking as someone who also had a definite timeline up til senior year of college, I don't think long-term timelines are that useful. Something always interferes, and you'll always end up looking back thinking "What if I had taken an extra day/month/year and gone in a completely different direction..."

Best of luck with your decision.

 

[ExpressYourself]

I find this attitude very strange. You would rather go to a sub-standard program and go into massive amounts of debt and likely suffer discrimination for being perceived as having an inferior degree for the REST OF YOUR CAREER rather than spend one or two years getting the experience you need to get into a school that will actually allow you to meet your career goals? Just because of a notion that you must "get things done on time"? What does "on time" mean, anyway? The vast majority of people who go into clinical psych programs take at least one year off, often more. There's nothing "off time" about taking time off. This idea is very short-sighted-- you'll need to start thinking differently to be successful in your career.

I did take a year off after I got my bachelor's degree.

I made a thread about my specific Argosy campus/Illinois School of Professional Psychology, and I was told that it's known to be one of the better Argosy's and people on this forum who have met the Psy.D graduates from my campus say they are doing just fine in the field. From what I've experienced so far, I don't feel that the education I'm receiving is of poor quality.

I can see how it's a plus to attend a reputable university, but then again my primary goal is to help clients in clinical settings and not to impress them with where I went.

It did bother me a lot at first on how some people look down on Argosy, but then I realized that these people aren't going to be my clients. Shouldn't I be worried about my clients viewing me as a competent therapist instead?

Since this is an anonymous forum,I've seen psychologists who I thought were awful at what they were doing and I told everyone in my support group to never see these psychologists. It didn't matter to me at age 16 whether they went to Yale or Argosy, or whether they have a Ph.D or a Psy.D. All what mattered to me as a client was whether the psychologist could help me or not since I was in a terrible state in terms of mental deterioration.

In situations like that, it makes me think what's the point of getting a Ph.D at Yale if your clients are going to view you in that manner? Then, that psychologist loses clients. Trust me, word spreads around about what kind of a therapist someone is. Or am I being too politically correct and idealistic with my "As long you can help people and do your best, that's all what matters" mentality?

I will definitely accept a Ph.D offer if I get one, but if I don't...then well right now my gut is telling me to stick with Argosy.

I might consider applying to a few university based Psy.D programs though as well.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Just a point of clarification, a PsyD is not below a PhD, they are both doctorates...though with different foci. There seems to be a tone that a PhD is 'better' and I don't believe that to be the case, it all depends on what the person wants out of the degree.

Just my 2 cents.

-t

 

[psychanon]

Since this is an anonymous forum,I've seen psychologists who I thought were awful at what they were doing and I told everyone in my support group to never see these psychologists. It didn't matter to me at age 16 whether they went to Yale or Argosy, or whether they have a Ph.D or a Psy.D. All what mattered to me as a client was whether the psychologist could help me or not since I was in a terrible state in terms of mental deterioration.

In situations like that, it makes me think what's the point of getting a Ph.D at Yale if your clients are going to view you in that manner?

....because if you're more well-trained, you'll be more likely to be able to actually help your clients.

It's not good enough for your clients to view you as effective-- you need to actually be effective. Plenty of people believe in fortune telling and whatnot, but we're not all in line to go to schools for that.

Not that going to Yale will guarantee that you become a great therapist (in fact, Yale's clinical training is minimal). There are some innate qualities that you need no matter where you go. But you also need training grounded in empiricism, given by faculty who are well-trained themselves, who value scientific evidence.

It is also true that it's less important to aim for the very top programs when you want a fully clinical career. That's because programs are typically ranked according to their research productivity, not their clinical training. But you don't want to sink so low that you're not getting quality training.

 

[ExpressYourself]

....But you don't want to sink so low that you're not getting quality training.

Out of curiosity, how would you define quality clinical training? And, how would you describe a sub-standard program? Argosy-Schaumburg is the only graduate program I've been exposed to, so I obviously don't have anything else to compare.

I don't know if you saw my thread on "Why is there a negative view towards Argosy?", where people gave differing opinions.

I'm not turning this into a Ph.D vs Psy.D debate, btw.

 

[GiantSteps]

I'm kind of panicking when I read about how many of you have co-authored publications.and I don't know if the research experience I have is good enough.

I made a thread about my specific Argosy campus/Illinois School of Professional Psychology, and I was told that it's known to be one of the better Argosy's and people on this forum who have met the Psy.D graduates from my campus say they are doing just fine in the field. From what I've experienced so far, I don't feel that the education I'm receiving is of poor quality.

I will definitely accept a Ph.D offer if I get one, but if I don't...then well right now my gut is telling me to stick with Argosy.

I might consider applying to a few university based Psy.D programs though as well.

ExpressYourself,

Why are you so troubled by possibly not having enough research experience (from what people are writing, you have at least, if not more, than the average) if you are more interested, based on what you wrote, in going to a Psy.D. program, i.e. where research should be valued less than a Ph.D. program (of course, even Ph.D. programs vary in their orientation)? You have to remember that while many people on SDN Psychology have a more applied orientation in mind, there are many others who are aiming for purely research careers (at least they think so). So why are you not worrying instead, if you have enough applied experience to get into a Psy.D. program (unless you did already - I was not clear on that)?

 

[ExpressYourself]

ExpressYourself,

Why are you so troubled by possibly not having enough research experience (from what people are writing, you have at least, if not more, than the average) if you are more interested, based on what you wrote, in going to a Psy.D. program, i.e. where research should be valued less than a Ph.D. program (of course, even Ph.D. programs vary in their orientation)? You have to remember that while many people on SDN Psychology have a more applied orientation in mind, there are many others who are aiming for purely research careers (at least they think so). So why are you not worrying instead, if you have enough applied experience to get into a Psy.D. program (unless you did already - I was not clear on that)?

Hi giant steps,

Sorry for not clarifying, but I mentioned in another thread that I'm looking to apply to mostly Ph.D programs. I'm in a Psy.D program as of now at an Illinois Argosy campus, and am considering stopping at the master's degree. People are saying it's better to attend a university-based Psy.D program, so I MIGHT add a few of those to my list of schools I'm applying to.


Some of the Ph.D programs I'm looking at place an equal emphasis on research and clinical skills (according to the Insider's guide), but whatever it takes to make me look competitive will help.

Sorry for sounding so antsy and confuddled as this forum, but I bet a lot of you felt this way at one point.

I guess I can make as many threads as I can, but I will just have to send the applications in and see what happens for the next several months..........

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

ExpressYourself,

Feel free to keep asking questions, because that is what we are here for. I always tell people that if you have a question, there is probably someone else who has a similar question.

-t

 

[psychanon]

Out of curiosity, how would you define quality clinical training? And, how would you describe a sub-standard program? Argosy-Schaumburg is the only graduate program I've been exposed to, so I obviously don't have anything else to compare.

I don't know if you saw my thread on "Why is there a negative view towards Argosy?", where people gave differing opinions.

I'm not turning this into a Ph.D vs Psy.D debate, btw.

I'll admit, I don't have any personal experience with professional schools, so my evidence is based on anecdotes and hearsay. I have known people who have gone to Argosy and similar schools, and they were very nice people who appeared to know very little for people with doctoral level training. I've also known people who have had more exposure to Argosy et al.'s grads, and they've had the same impression as me. I admit this isn't the most scientific of evidence, but it's not encouraging. It also bugs me that Argosy is a for-profit enterprise. That means that (by law) they have the stockholder's interests at heart ahead of the student's.

Quality clinical training is difficult to define. That's one of the challenges in comparing programs. I think one of its core elements is solid training in scientific methodology-- so one can objectively evaluate the treatment outcome literature, without being persuaded by inefficacious fads.

 

[psychwanabe]

....because if you're more well-trained, you'll be more likely to be able to actually help your clients.

I've met and worked with a number of highly-trained, very intelligent individuals who are terrible with people. Training is certainly a part of what's important, but not all.

 

[psychanon]

I've met and worked with a number of highly-trained, very intelligent individuals who are terrible with people. Training is certainly a part of what's important, but not all.

Yes-- I mentioned that in one of my above posts. Definitely there are some innate qualities important to being a therapist, things that cannot be taught. But if they cannot be taught, then they're irrelevant to the discussion. There are other important skills that can be taught, and I would argue that some training programs do a better job of that than others.

 

[psychwanabe]

Yes-- I mentioned that in one of my above posts. Definitely there are some innate qualities important to being a therapist, things that cannot be taught. But if they cannot be taught, then they're irrelevant to the discussion. There are other important skills that can be taught, and I would argue that some training programs do a better job of that than others.

You are so right. I didn't mean to imply that some programs aren't better at training than others, they certainly are. I just seem to get hit with a lot of a "don't you know who I am and where I was trained?" attitude by people who are as personable as brick walls! ...I guess my bias was hanging out!

 

[ExpressYourself]

I'll admit, I don't have any personal experience with professional schools, so my evidence is based on anecdotes and hearsay. I have known people who have gone to Argosy and similar schools, and they were very nice people who appeared to know very little for people with doctoral level training. I've also known people who have had more exposure to Argosy et al.'s grads, and they've had the same impression as me. I admit this isn't the most scientific of evidence, but it's not encouraging. It also bugs me that Argosy is a for-profit enterprise. That means that (by law) they have the stockholder's interests at heart ahead of the student's.

Okay thanks for your input. Do you mind me asking which Argosy campuses these people hailed from, if you know by any chance?

I did hear that some Argosy campuses aren't even APA-accredited.(mine's is), so I'm wondering if there is a misconception that all Argosy's aren't accredited. Does anyone know when the Illinois School of Professional Psychology turn into Argosy? I have to look that up.

I don't want this continue to go off topic though, so I'm going to calm down and prepare my applications and see how it goes...then I will worry about what I want to do in Feb.-April of 2008 if I don't get in.


P.S. My internship supervisor is letting me hop on a project of hers..I will discuss it with her in Aug. and see how far I can go with it...She said she's willing to help me build up my research experience as much as possible.

 

[psychanon]

One was from Argosy Tampa. Others were not from Argosy, but were from other professional schools or lower tier PsyDs.

Returning to your original question, your research experience could be sufficient, esp for more clinically oriented programs, but it may not be. It's worth a shot, I think.

 

[ExpressYourself]

^A classmate of mine is from Florida, and she said the Argosy florida campuses aren't that great...which is why she moved up to the Illinois one, because she said she read good things about it online.


The Ph.D programs I'm looking have a clinical emphasis, at least according to the Insider's guide.

 

[ExpressYourself]

You would rather go to a sub-standard program and likely suffer discrimination for being perceived as having an inferior degree for the REST OF YOUR CAREER rather

I did some lurking around Illinois private practice and some of these clinicians have graduated from my school and are working side by side with Ph.D's. It turns out a DOT at the hospital I'm volunteering at is also a Psy.D who attended my school, but I"m working as an RA for one of the Ph.D's.

So, how is it suffering from discrimination if you got hired and are doing the job that you wanted to do and went to school for? My ultimate goal is to be in private practice.