Why does this seem like such a crap shoot?

[Wildcat06]

Pardon the language but does anyone else agree??

One of my best friends from college is also applying to clinical psych PhD programs and I was very happy when I found out that she didn't apply to any of the same programs as me. Why? Because while we went to the same undergrad she had a higher GPA than me and she wrote an honors thesis (which I did not). I figured her for stiff competition especially since she has been working as an RA longer than I have.

Fast forward to today, and I've received 3 offers (2 clinical, 1 community) to my top choice programs and she hasn't received any and is understandably downhearted and confused.

What gives???

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ollie123]

Because in part it is, and in part it depends on a huge number of "soft factors" that aren't easily measured.

What profs are looking for can vary widely even among different labs within the same institution. You can have the second best application the program receives on any given year, but if the best application is someone interested in the same lab and they accept the offer, you might not get in, but the 30th best candidate who is interested in a different lab might. Some programs might make exceptions, some might try and find another lab willing to accept you. Often its up to individual faculty members to make that decision...some will, some won't.

Your friend might have awesome stats, but may not interview as well, or might have said she was interested in "x" while the faculty she was applying with were just thinking about moving away from that area. There's a huge amount of weirdness to this process, and its not at all like undergrad where you can look at GPA and SAT and say with some certainty what the chances are of getting into most schools.

 

[kh1264]

Obviously we can't look at your applications v. your friend's applications, but maybe it had something to do with being well matched with the programs you applied to? I mean, you'll never really know, in the end, but maybe you found programs that were a better fit? This is hard to say because you both applied to different schools, so you can't really compare. Also, I hate making general statements about such things but I think the "crap shoot" is narrowed much more when you reduce the odds of being rejected by applying to schools that you actually fit....but don't quote me on this

 

[cara susanna]

Did your friend apply to top programs rather than applying to a range of them? A lot of people with great stats tend to apply to those programs, which are VERY difficult to get into.

 

[CheetahGirl]

Congratulations on your offers. You have to remember that you're being interviewed by psychologists. Perhaps, interpersonally, you are more skilled than your friend.

It is a shot in the dark. But, some of us get it on the first try and some of us have to reapply. Encourage your friend to reapply if you think it's appropriate.

A very well-known faculty at a very prestigious university shared with me that she had to apply twice and got in off the waitlist the second time. She is very well-known in her field. Imagine that. I appreciated her encouragement. I do think "luck" plays a small part for many of us. It did for me.

 

[Wildcat06]

Thanks a ton for all the responses.

I think she and I had similar processes and we both applied to a couple of the top programs as well as others that were good fits. I suppose there are a lot of intangibles but it still seems strange...

Has anyone else had similar experience?

 

[alleycatpsych]

Yeah, everywhere I interviewed I heard that I was stellar on paper (and if I do say so myself I think I do have good credentials-- 3.77 GPA, 1400 GRE, almost 4 years of research in two diff labs, two independent research projects including an Honors thesis, etc.), but as yet I have no offers I'd really like to think that I am being edged out by people with Masters, post-bacc research experience, publications, better match, etc, and NOT that I have a horrible personality or something... I'm definitely getting pretty discouraged though

EDIT: wanted to add that I applied to programs I liked but not necessarily the top programs

 

[cara susanna]

Yeah, I had two places I interviewed where it seemed that they liked me, that I was a good fit, qualified, etc., and no offers at either.

In many ways, it is just like winning the lottery. :/

 

[dd123]

I think it looks like a crapshoot from our perspective. But we all know that the decision committees aren't flipping coins. We just don't know what exactly they're looking for, or who are competition really is.

 

[Wildcat06]

yeah, i guess that's what it comes down to. i know there are other criteria, but how can you make yourself a better candidate without knowing what they are??

 

[psykate09]

yeah, i guess that's what it comes down to. i know there are other criteria, but how can you make yourself a better candidate without knowing what they are??

That's why I'm trying to be an RA. I figure if I get 5 interviews as an undergrad with minimal experience, it can only get better.

Alot of my professors have been talking with us seniors trying to make us feel better. One had to reapply a second time, and the other only got in one school out of 12 applications. So to see that, from people with great professional careers now, it makes me feel alot more hopeful.

 

[irish80122]

Speaking as a grad student on the "other side" I can say it seems like more of a crap shoot to the applicants than it really is. The main thing is that you are applying to schools and you have no idea what they are looking for or what their funding looks like that year. For instance, my lab alternates between taking older adult applicants and suicide applicants depending on how the lab is balanced. When I applied, it was a suicide year, so I got in. If I had applied this year, honestly, I probably wouldn't have been interviewed. Likewise, at another school I was high on it was not a suicide researcher year, so no interview there. It seems random unless you know that it was a gero year, funding was down because a grant wasn't renewed, etc.

Someone once told me that less than 50% of the admissions decision is actually in your control. I think that is true. The decisions (at least at the program I am at) are not arbitrary, it just seems that way because you don't always know what the program is looking for.

 

[Wildcat06]

Hey Irish, thanks for the perspective.

 

[FranklinR]

Speaking as a grad student on the "other side" I can say it seems like more of a crap shoot to the applicants than it really is. The main thing is that you are applying to schools and you have no idea what they are looking for or what their funding looks like that year. For instance, my lab alternates between taking older adult applicants and suicide applicants depending on how the lab is balanced. When I applied, it was a suicide year, so I got in. If I had applied this year, honestly, I probably wouldn't have been interviewed. Likewise, at another school I was high on it was not a suicide researcher year, so no interview there. It seems random unless you know that it was a gero year, funding was down because a grant wasn't renewed, etc.

Someone once told me that less than 50% of the admissions decision is actually in your control. I think that is true. The decisions (at least at the program I am at) are not arbitrary, it just seems that way because you don't always know what the program is looking for.

Shouldn't the schools / professors / labs then specify clearly what they're looking for? What's the downside (aside from reduced application fees) to saying on the relevant web site "I'm planning on taking someone next year, and am looking for suicide researchers with prior research experience in suicide issues." If the funding falls through, say that. If you suddenly get new money, say that.

How is it an ethical act to have criteria for admission that you do not make clear to potential applicants prior to their application? It would be one thing if applying were cheap and easy, but it's not - applicants are limited in the number of schools to which they apply by their own time and money.

Having hidden criteria wastes those limited spots.

 

[Ollie123]

I can think of a couple reasons not to, most notably that applicants have been known to "fake it" to get into schools...whether "it" is pretending to be research-focused when you want to start a private practice, that whatever your advisor's research is must be the ABSOLUTE best thing in the world that you want to devote your life to. It sucks, but I can see why they wouldn't want to be too specific because then many people are going to write their personal statement to fit it regardless of what they actually plan on doing.

I also think people are hesitant to set hard and fast rules because they're worried about losing the exception to that rule. For example, if they say "I'm looking for suicide researchers with past suicide research experience", they're probably trying to avoid having someone not bother applying because even though they spent 5 years doing fantastic work in depression and would be a great fit for the lab, they didn't focus directly on suicidality. I'm not sure the motivation to hide it if funding isn't there and they aren't accepting anyone, though I realize the NIH timeline can complicate things since you might not be finding out about grants until well after applications are due and what seems like a sure thing before might end up being not so sure once the budget gets cut, it gets sent to different reviewers, etc.

Its not a great system, but I can understand why it works the way it does...plenty of applicants "just want to get in" and making it too transparent makes it easier for them to fake their way into a school. I'm not convinced there isn't more that could be done to make things easier, but I think schools are often in a rough position too - knowing that accepting the wrong person can mean 4 or more years of hell dealing with them, so I think schools are a little risk averse when it comes to doing things that make it easier for applicants but potentially more difficult for them to decide among them.

 

[deleted176373]

It's all about the elusive "fit", and many great prospects don't get in.

I can't tell you how many people with lower stats beat me in the first time around, but they were better fits for the programs in question. The second time around, I was a little more raw and disclosed more than I had previously, and that seemed to help.

I feel for the person with the great stats who didn't get any offers this year. Some days, it's just not your turn.

Mark

 

[cara susanna]

.

 

[Wildcat06]

I can think of a couple reasons not to, most notably that applicants have been known to "fake it" to get into schools...whether "it" is pretending to be research-focused when you want to start a private practice, that whatever your advisor's research is must be the ABSOLUTE best thing in the world that you want to devote your life to. It sucks, but I can see why they wouldn't want to be too specific because then many people are going to write their personal statement to fit it regardless of what they actually plan on doing.

I guess I just can't even fathom this. Why devote 5 or 6 years of your life to something you aren't interested in? And why do a research-oriented program when you really want to do clinical or vice versa?? I've spent so much time trying to decifer the fine points of my fit for these programs it just seems foreign...

 

[PsyGirl262]

I guess I just can't even fathom this. Why devote 5 or 6 years of your life to something you aren't interested in? And why do a research-oriented program when you really want to do clinical or vice versa?? I've spent so much time trying to decifer the fine points of my fit for these programs it just seems foreign...

Well the financial difference between doing a funded PhD or research-focused PsyD versus a clinical-focused program can be well over $100,000, so that's pretty good motivation right there...

I do wholeheartedly agree though that you need to love what you're working on to be successful in a research lab, though and I understand why professors go to great lengths to ensure they are accepting people who are motivated and interested.

 

[FranklinR]

I had a professor tell me they'd be supporting my admission and everything, so I'm wondering how badly I could have screwed up at the interview to only get waitlisted for that program. And not even at the top of the waitlist, too.

The lesson of this thread should be that it may well not be about you in any way you can control. The school may well (very probably does) have criteria for an offer that they aren't disclosing. The professor who supports you may have lost funding, or be out of political favor...

We make our applications as strong as we can then roll the dice, and the truth is that the result may have something to do with us (or our application), but it might not. So don't beat yourself up.

And Ollie, I appreciate your response and the school's position (the first more than the second.) I certainly agree that schools are risk averse, but it seems like the interview process could screen out the 'fakers.' And, for that matter, I'm not entirely sure what they're faking - interest in the subject matter? How would we meaningfully distinguish people who were faking an interest in the subject matter from those who changed their mind mid-training?

When I'm feeling bitter, I think about how this process makes the professors feel: to be overwhelmed with desperate supplicants, seeking their arbitrarily dispensed approval. If there were known or quantitative criteria, it would diminish the personal power of the professor, since his or her role would become that of accountant rather than that of judge. And to the schools, receiving applications from students who are on their face unqualified (due to not meeting implicit or explicit criteria) only helps them. Yes, they have to process them, but they receive the application fee, and schools do seem to enjoy having low acceptance rates (just look at how schools with high acceptance rated are excoriated on this board.)

But that's only when I'm feeling bitter. Other times, I empathize with professors who have few graduate students and fear getting stuck with an apparently qualified candidate who is just unlikable and schools trying to identify candidates who will give them the biggest bang for their limited buck.

I waffle.

 

[AryaStark]

Amen. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Speaking of waffles though, I'm hungry. See you all after lunch!

The lesson of this thread should be that it may well not be about you in any way you can control. The school may well (very probably does) have criteria for an offer that they aren't disclosing. The professor who supports you may have lost funding, or be out of political favor...

We make our applications as strong as we can then roll the dice, and the truth is that the result may have something to do with us (or our application), but it might not. So don't beat yourself up.

And Ollie, I appreciate your response and the school's position (the first more than the second.) I certainly agree that schools are risk averse, but it seems like the interview process could screen out the 'fakers.' And, for that matter, I'm not entirely sure what they're faking - interest in the subject matter? How would we meaningfully distinguish people who were faking an interest in the subject matter from those who changed their mind mid-training?

When I'm feeling bitter, I think about how this process makes the professors feel: to be overwhelmed with desperate supplicants, seeking their arbitrarily dispensed approval. If there were known or quantitative criteria, it would diminish the personal power of the professor, since his or her role would become that of accountant rather than that of judge. And to the schools, receiving applications from students who are on their face unqualified (due to not meeting implicit or explicit criteria) only helps them. Yes, they have to process them, but they receive the application fee, and schools do seem to enjoy having low acceptance rates (just look at how schools with high acceptance rated are excoriated on this board.)

But that's only when I'm feeling bitter. Other times, I empathize with professors who have few graduate students and fear getting stuck with an apparently qualified candidate who is just unlikable and schools trying to identify candidates who will give them the biggest bang for their limited buck.

I waffle.

 

[Ollie123]

I guess I just can't even fathom this. Why devote 5 or 6 years of your life to something you aren't interested in? And why do a research-oriented program when you really want to do clinical or vice versa?? I've spent so much time trying to decifer the fine points of my fit for these programs it just seems foreign...

Oh, I'm right there with you, but from talking to people I went to undergrad with, folks I met on the interview trail, etc. I know it happens. People want the school closest to their home, they want to live in a city they like, etc. And there's nothing wrong with that, and I'm sure some were "flexible" in their interests and are doing great. However I know at least one person I went to undergrad with who was open about fully intending to "game the system" to get in, so to speak, without any intentions of following through on what she said during interviews. She applied in the south because she was sick of snow, she applied to schools in "destination" cities without regard for whether the program was a fit, and wrote her applications to match the program. She's intelligent and managed to pull it off. This was an acquaintance so not anyone I've kept in touch with, but I can't imagine anyone being very happy with her in grad school.

Franklin - a lot can be screened out during the interviews, that's certainly true. But not all...so from the school's perspective, why take the risk? (Just to play devil's advocate). Faking research interests is just an example...I'm sure there's all sorts of things that could be added to that list. And of course, the line is blurry since ANY sort of application involves putting your best foot forward, and no one is going to put "I like this line work professor z does, but not this one" in a personal statement.

I'm not sure there is a good way to distinguish people who changed their minds from people who faked their interests to get in, although switching labs after your master's since your research interests shifted is vastly different from walking in the front door with a plan to go against the grain. I think what matters is that there's always a CHANCE that someones interests can shift...that's just life. Often times, it can work out fine for all involved if that person carries through on their responsibilities, etc. Realistically, not everyone is that mature about it I'm sure my acquaintance from college is not following through on her research responsibilities...she's avoiding the lab at all costs.

Of course, students are taking a chance to...that professor might shift their research emphasis, they may up and leave to accept an administrative position at another school! You never know. So the game becomes about minimizing risk and maximizing benefits...unfortunately its not easy. Its unfair to applicants at times, its unfair to schools at times - I think its just a generally difficult process and making it completely transparent would have disastrous results, but deciding where to draw the line in between transparency and mystery is an incredibly complicated decision and not one I'd want to have to make.

 

[cara susanna]

Franklin: Admittances aren't done per POI there, it's a committee that decides overall.

 

[Wildcat06]

Oh, I'm right there with you, but from talking to people I went to undergrad with, folks I met on the interview trail, etc. I know it happens. People want the school closest to their home, they want to live in a city they like, etc. And there's nothing wrong with that, and I'm sure some were "flexible" in their interests and are doing great. However I know at least one person I went to undergrad with who was open about fully intending to "game the system" to get in, so to speak, without any intentions of following through on what she said during interviews. She applied in the south because she was sick of snow, she applied to schools in "destination" cities without regard for whether the program was a fit, and wrote her applications to match the program. She's intelligent and managed to pull it off. This was an acquaintance so not anyone I've kept in touch with, but I can't imagine anyone being very happy with her in grad school.

Franklin - a lot can be screened out during the interviews, that's certainly true. But not all...so from the school's perspective, why take the risk? (Just to play devil's advocate). Faking research interests is just an example...I'm sure there's all sorts of things that could be added to that list. And of course, the line is blurry since ANY sort of application involves putting your best foot forward, and no one is going to put "I like this line work professor z does, but not this one" in a personal statement.

I'm not sure there is a good way to distinguish people who changed their minds from people who faked their interests to get in, although switching labs after your master's since your research interests shifted is vastly different from walking in the front door with a plan to go against the grain. I think what matters is that there's always a CHANCE that someones interests can shift...that's just life. Often times, it can work out fine for all involved if that person carries through on their responsibilities, etc. Realistically, not everyone is that mature about it I'm sure my acquaintance from college is not following through on her research responsibilities...she's avoiding the lab at all costs.

Of course, students are taking a chance to...that professor might shift their research emphasis, they may up and leave to accept an administrative position at another school! You never know. So the game becomes about minimizing risk and maximizing benefits...unfortunately its not easy. Its unfair to applicants at times, its unfair to schools at times - I think its just a generally difficult process and making it completely transparent would have disastrous results, but deciding where to draw the line in between transparency and mystery is an incredibly complicated decision and not one I'd want to have to make.

Very well put. Thanks Ollie!

 

[Wildcat06]

Well it's all become moot. The friend in question is in. Yay!

 

[Psych1212]

Oh, I'm right there with you, but from talking to people I went to undergrad with, folks I met on the interview trail, etc. I know it happens. People want the school closest to their home, they want to live in a city they like, etc. And there's nothing wrong with that, and I'm sure some were "flexible" in their interests and are doing great. However I know at least one person I went to undergrad with who was open about fully intending to "game the system" to get in, so to speak, without any intentions of following through on what she said during interviews. She applied in the south because she was sick of snow, she applied to schools in "destination" cities without regard for whether the program was a fit, and wrote her applications to match the program. She's intelligent and managed to pull it off. This was an acquaintance so not anyone I've kept in touch with, but I can't imagine anyone being very happy with her in grad school.

Franklin - a lot can be screened out during the interviews, that's certainly true. But not all...so from the school's perspective, why take the risk? (Just to play devil's advocate). Faking research interests is just an example...I'm sure there's all sorts of things that could be added to that list. And of course, the line is blurry since ANY sort of application involves putting your best foot forward, and no one is going to put "I like this line work professor z does, but not this one" in a personal statement.

I'm not sure there is a good way to distinguish people who changed their minds from people who faked their interests to get in, although switching labs after your master's since your research interests shifted is vastly different from walking in the front door with a plan to go against the grain. I think what matters is that there's always a CHANCE that someones interests can shift...that's just life. Often times, it can work out fine for all involved if that person carries through on their responsibilities, etc. Realistically, not everyone is that mature about it I'm sure my acquaintance from college is not following through on her research responsibilities...she's avoiding the lab at all costs.

Of course, students are taking a chance to...that professor might shift their research emphasis, they may up and leave to accept an administrative position at another school! You never know. So the game becomes about minimizing risk and maximizing benefits...unfortunately its not easy. Its unfair to applicants at times, its unfair to schools at times - I think its just a generally difficult process and making it completely transparent would have disastrous results, but deciding where to draw the line in between transparency and mystery is an incredibly complicated decision and not one I'd want to have to make.

Great post......This is why I always ask about faculty potentially leaving leaving when I interview for a program. I've seen an applicant interested in ADHD attend a program, and after the first year their mentor leaves, leaving behind virtually no opportunities for ADHD research. The student was forced to completely change their focus, which cost them another year in school.

Make sure to consider the possibility of faculty retiring or leaving for greener pastures...