Working Together to Re/apply to Grad School

[Sharewithme]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hello,

For those who have been admitted this year to APA accredited programs that you've applied for and interviewed with, congratulations! I'm truly happy for you 🙂 You've worked hard, and this is a major accomplishment.

For those who haven't been admitted this year, I empathize. I didn't get admitted this year, and rejection feels lousy. You may be in a similar position. You probably worked hard, too. There can be a lot of disappointment getting rejected from graduate school, and please remember that you're not alone.

At the same, I'm determined to try again and reapply for graduate programs. You may be, too. We may have similar or different research and practice interests. Whatever the case, I think there's a lot of value in helping in each other. This Fall 2018 I plan to apply for APA accredited Ph.D. counseling psychology programs and master's programs as a backup. I need more information on what APA is deciding to do about accrediting master's programs in psychology. I'd like to start a program in Fall 2019. What about you?

People who are new to the APA application/admissions process are welcome to join in! I don't want to give anyone the wrong idea. Applying for programs is not doom and gloom. Some people do get admitted on their first try.

I want to hear more about your programs of interest and goals. Please let me know if you want to work together. I know there are individual posts expressing interest in applying for grad school, and I contacted several of you via the personal message feature. It may be more organized and easier to manage if we kept our communications in one or a few threads rather than many different threads. What are your opinions? Thanks.

Best Regards,
Sharewithme

 

[artsyann]

Hello,

For those who have been admitted this year to APA accredited programs that you've applied for and interviewed with, congratulations! I'm truly happy for you 🙂 You've worked hard, and this is a major accomplishment.

For those who haven't been admitted this year, I empathize. I didn't get admitted this year, and rejection feels lousy. You may be in a similar position. You probably worked hard, too. There can be a lot of disappointment getting rejected from graduate school, and please remember that you're not alone.

At the same, I'm determined to try again and reapply for graduate programs. You may be, too. We may have similar or different research and practice interests. Whatever the case, I think there's a lot of value in helping in each other. This Fall 2018 I plan to apply for APA accredited Ph.D. counseling psychology programs and master's programs as a backup. I need more information on what APA is deciding to do about accrediting master's programs in psychology. I'd like to start a program in Fall 2019. What about you?

People who are new to the APA application/admissions process are welcome to join in! I don't want to give anyone the wrong idea. Applying for programs is not doom and gloom. Some people do get admitted on their first try.

I want to hear more about your programs of interest and goals. Please let me know if you want to work together. I know there are individual posts expressing interest in applying for grad school, and I contacted several of you via the personal message feature. It may be more organized and easier to manage if we kept our communications in one or a few threads rather than many different threads. What are your opinions? Thanks.

Best Regards,
Sharewithme

Very nice post! I did not get into any doctoral programs. I knew my little research experience was probably not enough. I was correct. I am instead starting an experimental psychology master’s this Fall. I am excited to be working with my advisor on a topic I am thoroughly interested in. I plan to reapply for doctoral programs in 2 years. I was also limited by geography this application season because my younger child will still be in high school. We did not want to relocate her for her last two years of high school. I won’t be limited my geography the next time I apply, so I think that will help. I am also revisiting if I want to apply for clinical programs at all. I may focus more on Law and Psychology or Social Psychology.

 

[Sharewithme]

Very nice post! I did not get into any doctoral programs. I knew my little research experience was probably not enough. I was correct. I am instead starting an experimental psychology master’s this Fall. I am excited to be working with my advisor on a topic I am thoroughly interested in. I plan to reapply for doctoral programs in 2 years. I was also limited by geography this application season because my younger child will still be in high school. We did not want to relocate her for her last two years of high school. I won’t be limited my geography the next time I apply, so I think that will help. I am also revisiting if I want to apply for clinical programs at all. I may focus more on Law and Psychology or Social Psychology.

Yes, applicants' research experience matters a lot if not most to Ph.D. programs in psychology. I'm glad you like your research, and it's great to hear your plan! Planning is very important, I agree. It gives we applicants some control in the application/admissions process. Because you mentioned law and social psych, I'm thinking you'd like to apply for Ph.D. and not Psy.D.? You can always apply to a mix, clinical Ph.D. and Psy.D. whatever your interests, law, and social psych.

I do not have children, but my sister is in her junior year of high school. It makes a big difference if upper classmen can finish their high schooling where they started it, kind of earned their turf. I'm sure your child is grateful.

 

[FuturePsyD_]

Hello! This is a wonderful post. I was admitted to an APA accredited PsyD program and will be attending this fall, but I would love to share what helped me throughout the process in hopes it can be helpful for anyone else applying.

First, I highly recommend purchasing the Insider's Guide to Graduate Programs in Clinical and Counseling Psychology if you haven't done so already. It was a lifesaver for me and really helped me narrow down programs and see what kind of chance I had at each school. The book gives a ton of info for every step of the process, but the part I liked the most was their description of each school. It gives them a rank of 1 (no research emphasis) to 7 (very research oriented) which was helpful for me because my experience is more clinically focused.

Second, if you're having trouble finding research jobs or positions (as was the case for me) try looking for psychometrician/psychometrist postions. I currently administer neuropsych tests and I absolutely love it and it really helped me narrow down my interests in psychology.

The application process was beyond stressful and I think it's a wonderful idea to try to form a group to work together to support one another. I would have loved that when I was applying. Good luck to you all and please feel free to reach out to me if there's anything I can help with!

 

[Psychologist_dreamer]

Love the idea of this post !

I got into 1 APA accredited phd program but did not receive full funding.

It really is a shame that with how many people are coming out of undergrad and MA that want to be in the field, there are so few spots.

The biggest bit of advice I have for other people is to be really proactive about getting not only research experience; but authorship, publications, and conference presentations. The fully funded spots want academics and don't care about much else ,so you probably won't get a funded spot without indication on your resume you will be a productive academic. There are too few funded spots for them to gamble that you will, when others can prove they can.

I didn't get those opportunities from my mentors or advisors, and I was too shy to keep hounding them about it when it seemed like they weren't that interested.

So if I have any advice to other people this cycle, is to get into a lab and program where your advisors will help you on those endeavors. Ask students in that lab beforehand if they are successful in getting those opportunities, because you don't want to find out too late that you spent all this time helping mentors with their research, and they wont give you the time of day for yours. That will hurt you big time on applications.

Also I think having research publications, authorship, and at least conference presentations is more competitive than clinical experiece. I thought they would rank about the same, but they don't seem to unfortunately. So if you're in the position of choosing between using your time to get clinical experience, or focus on publication/conferences; I would use the time for research instead, because at the end of the day that's what's going to fund your spot.

 

[WisNeuro]

The biggest bit of advice I have for other people is to be really proactive about getting not only research experience; but authorship, publications, and conference presentations. The fully funded spots want academics and don't care about much else ,so you probably won't get a funded spot without indication on your resume you will be a productive academic. There are too few funded spots for them to gamble that you will, when others can prove they can.

Also I think having research publications, authorship, and at least conference presentations is more competitive than clinical experiece. I thought they would rank about the same, but they don't seem to unfortunately. So if you're in the position of choosing between using your time to get clinical experience, or focus on publication/conferences; I would use the time for research instead, because at the end of the day that's what's going to fund your spot.

This is not accurate for balanced programs. They definitely want some research experience, but most people are coming in with a poster or two and more rarely, a pub or two. The R1 powerhouses definitely want to see an academic minded applicant, because they are in the business of training R1 researchers, but balanced clinical psych programs are far from this. I do agree that, in general, research experience is much higher yield than clinical experience. The types of clinical experience available to applicants are not very applicable to what they will be doing later as clinicians, whereas the research experience is usually directly transferrable skills.

So yes, people should probably prioritize quality research experiences over some other things, get good GRE scores (>80%), and look around for good fits in balanced programs if they are looking for a clinical career.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Research experience makes you stand out because it provides an opportunity to demonstrate important skills relative to the practice of scientific psychology. I would encourage folks to be very transparent about goals in working in a lab early on. Numerous students I talk to will say "can I work in your lab?" but not "I am wanting to get a graduate degree in [clinical, counseling, dog catching, etc.]. To do this I need to gain research experience and would like to work in your lab and contribute to your research because your research in XXX aligns with my interests and will promote my future training. I've got XXX background skills that may be of contribution and use, and I'm willing to learn others as needed. I'm willing to work hard to make sure my contribution level is of substance and would welcome any task or challenge given to me." After discussing length of time in the lab and agreeing to be part of it steady for a period of time (short experience is just us training you, which reduces how much contribution you can offer) perhaps even something akin to "My goal in volunteering for a research lab is to keep open a conversation about how my level of contribution can, at some point, result in my part of research products to demonstrate my capacity to graduate training programs." Getting clear expectations with research productivity is a huge part of it. Ask "Do undergraduates have an opportunity to be part of posters/manuscripts", "What will I need to do to be part of a poster/manuscript", etc.

Being clear, upfront, and understand that you are there to prove you offer contribution to the lab. This means do a great job and not a 'good job'. Go above and beyond. Expect that you will commit time to it and that if you are unsure, seek resources and show your independence. If I am reading letters, I want to see evidence of (1) professionalism and maturity, (2) independence and a capacity to think through problem solving on their own, (3) a hard-working attitude of 'do more' rather than 'skip by', and (4) complex thought.

Here is the rationale behind balanced programs valuing clinical knowledge: Having research-minded but clinically career-focused students provides an opportunity for the academic (research-focus) to balance and have the project conceptualized from the practical, boots on the ground level.

Here is the rationale for wanting students with research experience: training students to engage in statistical practice and research methods (an important part of a scientific field) takes substantial work. The hours put into clinically training are substantial already (take a look at the prac contact hours for match, etc.) and are an introduction to a new set of skills that students weren't able to do before graduate training. Having the leg up and being able to engage in research is helpful because it (1) it reduces the length of time needed to train someone in that aspect of their training, (2) previous research engagement and production is directly transferable into the graduate research training domain, and (3) it provides a lens into your independence and graduate capacity because it entails thoughtful, concise, clear, and explicit comprehension and digestion of academic literature and concepts (being successful in academic level research is not the same as writing a 400-level paper or a psych research method proposal).

The expectation and competitiveness will also vary by region. Geographic choice matters. I've known folks who have been very successful with less previous research experience based on openness in that regard.

In my opinion, for whatever that is worth, there is a certain attitude which helps promote the most successful applicants, students, etc. Lots of people want lots of things in life. Not everyone gets what they want. This is both unfortunate and a natural part of life. If you want to be successful, be planful, mindful, and intentional in developing NOW what you want to be capable of doing in the future. You may not be able to do that exact thing (as WisNeuro mentioned with clinical experiences), but find out "what skill/knowledge translates into what I do want to be able to do" and then "how can I make sure I really know that thing so when it transfers I'm not just ok at it, I'm great at it.". Never assume that tomorrow or later is when you will learn something or have the opportunity to do something.

And on that note.

 

[Sharewithme]

Hello! This is a wonderful post. I was admitted to an APA accredited PsyD program and will be attending this fall, but I would love to share what helped me throughout the process in hopes it can be helpful for anyone else applying.

First, I highly recommend purchasing the Insider's Guide to Graduate Programs in Clinical and Counseling Psychology if you haven't done so already. It was a lifesaver for me and really helped me narrow down programs and see what kind of chance I had at each school. The book gives a ton of info for every step of the process, but the part I liked the most was their description of each school. It gives them a rank of 1 (no research emphasis) to 7 (very research oriented) which was helpful for me because my experience is more clinically focused.

Second, if you're having trouble finding research jobs or positions (as was the case for me) try looking for psychometrician/psychometrist postions. I currently administer neuropsych tests and I absolutely love it and it really helped me narrow down my interests in psychology.

The application process was beyond stressful and I think it's a wonderful idea to try to form a group to work together to support one another. I would have loved that when I was applying. Good luck to you all and please feel free to reach out to me if there's anything I can help with!

Thank you! Congratulations on the PsyD program admission!

I've found this book, and you're right, it's golden.

I think I've found a good research job, but thanks for mentioning the psychometrician/psychometrist option.

Having support through all the stress is the point 🙂 You got it right, again.

I'll keep your name in mind as I'm planning to apply and preparing my applications. Thank you so much!

 

[Sharewithme]

Love the idea of this post !

I got into 1 APA accredited phd program but did not receive full funding.

It really is a shame that with how many people are coming out of undergrad and MA that want to be in the field, there are so few spots.

The biggest bit of advice I have for other people is to be really proactive about getting not only research experience; but authorship, publications, and conference presentations. The fully funded spots want academics and don't care about much else ,so you probably won't get a funded spot without indication on your resume you will be a productive academic. There are too few funded spots for them to gamble that you will, when others can prove they can.

I didn't get those opportunities from my mentors or advisors, and I was too shy to keep hounding them about it when it seemed like they weren't that interested.

So if I have any advice to other people this cycle, is to get into a lab and program where your advisors will help you on those endeavors. Ask students in that lab beforehand if they are successful in getting those opportunities, because you don't want to find out too late that you spent all this time helping mentors with their research, and they wont give you the time of day for yours. That will hurt you big time on applications.

Also I think having research publications, authorship, and at least conference presentations is more competitive than clinical experiece. I thought they would rank about the same, but they don't seem to unfortunately. So if you're in the position of choosing between using your time to get clinical experience, or focus on publication/conferences; I would use the time for research instead, because at the end of the day that's what's going to fund your spot.

This is excellent advice for we prospective students and applicants, thank you! The research/clinical experience question is exactly what I was wondering about. I'm just getting involved in both as much as I can. I feel like if I focus on one and not the other, my applications, and if I'm fortunate to be invited, interviews won't come across as well as if I did both. Congrats on your PhD program admission! Do you have some form of financial assistance? What are you going to be studying? Are you going to a clinical or counseling psych program?

 

[Sharewithme]

This is not accurate for balanced programs. They definitely want some research experience, but most people are coming in with a poster or two and more rarely, a pub or two. The R1 powerhouses definitely want to see an academic minded applicant, because they are in the business of training R1 researchers, but balanced clinical psych programs are far from this. I do agree that, in general, research experience is much higher yield than clinical experience. The types of clinical experience available to applicants are not very applicable to what they will be doing later as clinicians, whereas the research experience is usually directly transferrable skills.

So yes, people should probably prioritize quality research experiences over some other things, get good GRE scores (>80%), and look around for good fits in balanced programs if they are looking for a clinical career.

R1 researchers being in the business of training R1 researchers is a good way to think about it! I like when logic is pointed out in terms of practicality, how it really is on a daily, weekly, yearly, etc. basis in addition to theory. Not everyone who attends an R1 school comes out an R1 researcher, though. I know you know this, I just wonder if when applicants are applying to R1 schools the ones who admitted all mentioned wanting to be a researcher or professor at an R1 school for their career? When the phrase "balanced programs" is used, does that mean R2, R3, or simply not R1 automatically?

"Quality" research experiences, "good fits" in balanced programs, and "GRE scores (>80%)". It sounds like GRE scores can be very important, and in terms of the clinical career, I wonder what the scores of ABPP members were?

Thank you for this post! With each of the replies, your points are excellent, and you all are getting me thinking further, which I really like and am thankful for.

 

[Sharewithme]

Research experience makes you stand out because it provides an opportunity to demonstrate important skills relative to the practice of scientific psychology. I would encourage folks to be very transparent about goals in working in a lab early on. Numerous students I talk to will say "can I work in your lab?" but not "I am wanting to get a graduate degree in [clinical, counseling, dog catching, etc.]. To do this I need to gain research experience and would like to work in your lab and contribute to your research because your research in XXX aligns with my interests and will promote my future training. I've got XXX background skills that may be of contribution and use, and I'm willing to learn others as needed. I'm willing to work hard to make sure my contribution level is of substance and would welcome any task or challenge given to me." After discussing length of time in the lab and agreeing to be part of it steady for a period of time (short experience is just us training you, which reduces how much contribution you can offer) perhaps even something akin to "My goal in volunteering for a research lab is to keep open a conversation about how my level of contribution can, at some point, result in my part of research products to demonstrate my capacity to graduate training programs." Getting clear expectations with research productivity is a huge part of it. Ask "Do undergraduates have an opportunity to be part of posters/manuscripts", "What will I need to do to be part of a poster/manuscript", etc.

Being clear, upfront, and understand that you are there to prove you offer contribution to the lab. This means do a great job and not a 'good job'. Go above and beyond. Expect that you will commit time to it and that if you are unsure, seek resources and show your independence. If I am reading letters, I want to see evidence of (1) professionalism and maturity, (2) independence and a capacity to think through problem solving on their own, (3) a hard-working attitude of 'do more' rather than 'skip by', and (4) complex thought.

Here is the rationale behind balanced programs valuing clinical knowledge: Having research-minded but clinically career-focused students provides an opportunity for the academic (research-focus) to balance and have the project conceptualized from the practical, boots on the ground level.

Here is the rationale for wanting students with research experience: training students to engage in statistical practice and research methods (an important part of a scientific field) takes substantial work. The hours put into clinically training are substantial already (take a look at the prac contact hours for match, etc.) and are an introduction to a new set of skills that students weren't able to do before graduate training. Having the leg up and being able to engage in research is helpful because it (1) it reduces the length of time needed to train someone in that aspect of their training, (2) previous research engagement and production is directly transferable into the graduate research training domain, and (3) it provides a lens into your independence and graduate capacity because it entails thoughtful, concise, clear, and explicit comprehension and digestion of academic literature and concepts (being successful in academic level research is not the same as writing a 400-level paper or a psych research method proposal).

The expectation and competitiveness will also vary by region. Geographic choice matters. I've known folks who have been very successful with less previous research experience based on openness in that regard.

In my opinion, for whatever that is worth, there is a certain attitude which helps promote the most successful applicants, students, etc. Lots of people want lots of things in life. Not everyone gets what they want. This is both unfortunate and a natural part of life. If you want to be successful, be planful, mindful, and intentional in developing NOW what you want to be capable of doing in the future. You may not be able to do that exact thing (as WisNeuro mentioned with clinical experiences), but find out "what skill/knowledge translates into what I do want to be able to do" and then "how can I make sure I really know that thing so when it transfers I'm not just ok at it, I'm great at it.". Never assume that tomorrow or later is when you will learn something or have the opportunity to do something.

And on that note.

Attitude matters so much! I'm glad you mentioned this. I'm the type of person who works hard naturally, and remembering to convey this in research experiences is important. Thank you!

 

[WisNeuro]

R1 researchers being in the business of training R1 researchers is a good way to think about it! I like when logic is pointed out in terms of practicality, how it really is on a daily, weekly, yearly, etc. basis in addition to theory. Not everyone who attends an R1 school comes out an R1 researcher, though. I know you know this, I just wonder if when applicants are applying to R1 schools the ones who admitted all mentioned wanting to be a researcher or professor at an R1 school for their career? When the phrase "balanced programs" is used, does that mean R2, R3, or simply not R1 automatically?

"Quality" research experiences, "good fits" in balanced programs, and "GRE scores (>80%)". It sounds like GRE scores can be very important, and in terms of the clinical career, I wonder what the scores of ABPP members were?

Thank you for this post! With each of the replies, your points are excellent, and you all are getting me thinking further, which I really like and am thankful for.

Balanced just means that the program focuses just as much, if not more, on clinical training than research focus. Even R1s can be balanced/clinically focused. My doctoral institution was R1 and I'd consider it balanced/flexible in that regard. My advisor knew from day 1 that I had never planned on an academic career.

GRE scores are important in that it's what gets you in the door. When programs receive >100 applications for 5-10 spots, they need quick and easy ways to cut some applications, GREs are a good way to make a first cut as they are generally the only standardized numbers across all applicants. After getting in, they don't mean much, just an indirect measure if g, which in itself is only so predictive.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Balanced just means that the program focuses just as much, if not more, on clinical training than research focus. Even R1s can be balanced/clinically focused. My doctoral institution was R1 and I'd consider it balanced/flexible in that regard. My advisor knew from day 1 that I had never planned on an academic career.

GRE scores are important in that it's what gets you in the door. When programs receive >100 applications for 5-10 spots, they need quick and easy ways to cut some applications, GREs are a good way to make a first cut as they are generally the only standardized numbers across all applicants. After getting in, they don't mean much, just an indirect measure if g, which in itself is only so predictive.

Agreed with all of the above. My program was an R1 and I would've classified it as slightly more research-focused, but it provided a lot of clinical training for those interested, and has still churned out a fair number of clinically-oriented graduates (myself being one).

And yes, GRE scores help in getting your foot in the door. As predictive or non-predictive as they may be, they provide a standardized metric to compare across applicants, particularly when coupled with other less-standardized metrics (e.g., GPA, letters of rec).

 

[futureapppsy2]

I think that truly research-intensive students are relatively rare in clinical/counseling psych doctoral programs overall, honestly. APPIC data shows that most internship applicants don't have any peer-reviewed publications at all when they apply for internship, and even when you take out PsyD students, a solid third of internship applicants from PhD programs still have no publications at the time of internship application. Having 5 publications at internship applications puts you in the top 7%-10% of all applicants in terms of publication productivity. Keep in mind that this is all after 4-5 (or more) years of doctoral study.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Agreed with others. The R1 designation is a better gauge of how research is added to training rather than clinical experience is subtracted from it. Most R1s are balanced programs (in my view) because a majority of R1 graduates go on to become clinicians, and very solid ones. There are exceptions to this and R1s are more likely to produce academics than non-R1s (again, speaking to the addition of research experience), but this does not reduce the clinical expertise not does it represent a majority of R1 graduates.

The pressures at a R1 are more research focused because of the tenure demands for the academics. This isn't a bad thing. It means that instead of having one dimension of training (clinical), models emphasize two (clinical,research). The result of being a R1 is that (speaking for my state specifically here although I suspect the same is true for other states) the research intensive universities get access to a larger pot of state funding, which results in greater funding for students, the department, and the university as a whole. The end result is that the faculty want to recruit students who can help in that domain, and emphasize a training model which is inclusive of those skills - because the end result is a more funded, larger, and more vibrant training. At no point does this result in a discussion where folks devalue clinical training or say anything akin to "they aren't good at clinical work but its ok because their research skills are great".

 

[psych.meout]

Agreed with all of the above. My program was an R1 and I would've classified it as slightly more research-focused, but it provided a lot of clinical training for those interested, and has still churned out a fair number of clinically-oriented graduates (myself being one).

And yes, GRE scores help in getting your foot in the door. As predictive or non-predictive as they may be, they provide a standardized metric to compare across applicants, particularly when coupled with other less-standardized metrics (e.g., GPA, letters of rec).

From discussing this with faculty after we interviewed and selected applicants for admission, GRE scores may have further uses beyond this. One was that they were used as somewhat of a "tie-breaker" to help to decide between two candidates who otherwise appeared relatively equivalent and seemed to be equally goods matches for the program and POI. Another use was for funding. Our university has graduate fellowships for which programs compete across disciplines. These fellowships provide larger stipends than the assistantship, come with extra funding for research purposes, and don't require any work commitments (e.g., TA or RA).

I think that truly research-intensive students are relatively rare in clinical/counseling psych doctoral programs overall, honestly. APPIC data shows that most internship applicants don't have any peer-reviewed publications at all when they apply for internship, and even when you take out PsyD students, a solid third of internship applicants from PhD programs still have no publications at the time of internship application. Having 5 publications at internship applications puts you in the top 7%-10% of all applicants in terms of publication productivity. Keep in mind that this is all after 4-5 (or more) years of doctoral study.

If remember correctly, those numbers don't specify that they be first author publications. They are technically for any level of authorship, which really casts it in a different light.

 

[Justanothergrad]

If remember correctly, those numbers don't specify that they be first author publications. They are technically for any level of authorship, which really casts it in a different light.

Agreed. It seems a bit odd to me that most grad students would not have done a sufficient amount of research contribution to justify some authorship on a publication during their careers. After all, if the argument is that research competency is important for our field and that publishing is the best way to demonstrate research skills, that seems like a useful benchmark for demonstrating your learning in that domain.

I admit I am inclusive rather than exclusive.

 

[psych.meout]

Agreed. It seems a bit odd to me that most grad students would not have done a sufficient amount of research contribution to justify some authorship on a publication during their careers. After all, if the argument is that research competency is important for our field and that publishing is the best way to demonstrate research skills, that seems like a useful benchmark for demonstrating your learning in that domain.

I admit I am inclusive rather than exclusive.

I agree as well, especially since the survey doesn't even specify that the publications were completed during their grad program, which significantly expands the time interval in which people could obtain authorship.

What seems even odder to me is that the modal number of conference presentations is zero, which includes state and regional level conferences.

 

[WisNeuro]

What seems even odder to me is that the modal number of conference presentations is zero, which includes state and regional level conferences.

Lot of diploma mill and less than reputable programs out there.

 

[psych.meout]

Lot of diploma mill and less than reputable programs out there.

And people defending these programs wonder why we are critical of them.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Having 5 publications at internship applications puts you in the top 7%-10% of all applicants in terms of publication productivity. Keep in mind that this is all after 4-5 (or more) years of doctoral study.

This blows my mind....still.

Looking at poster presentations was similarly surprising.

Even more clinically leaning training programs should strive for each student to have 1-2 pubs and at least 2-3 poster presentations.

I know that sounds like a lot, but it isn’t even when you are using a carve out of a larger data set. It’s valuable to go through the publication and presentation processes.

 

[bcliff]

As a student in a balanced program, I have found that the quality of research mentorship is often mixed. There appears to be an assumption on the part of faculty that (a.) research experience and productivity are not major factors when applying to internship, (b.) students should be highly independent in carving out their own programs of research, (c.) the bulk of our "research training" should occur via didactic coursework (i.e., stats, methods) or (d.) should already be well established at baseline when entering the program.

Few faculty at my institution have ongoing projects from which students can work and gain experience, rather faculty are often "happy to support" students in pursuing our own research interests. While seemingly a good idea (and demonstrably "good" [i.e., trial and error learning, implementing a research project from start to finish] from a training perspective), this often results in students developing unwieldy or unpublishable thesis projects (that take the better part of three years to complete), which then inform more wieldy or publishable dissertation projects (often initiated and completed in years three, four, and five). With most students not defending their dissertations until after having already applied to internship, and in the absence of larger-scale "lab" projects from which to work, it is then unlikely that we, as students, would have an opportunity to publish any data prior to internship applications. We do often present subsets of data from these milestone projects at various conferences (i.e., I've probably presented 3-4 talks/posters from various projects at local and nat'l conference per year), but it's generally rare (without outside involvement) for students to successfully publish their research while enrolled in our program.

Few students or faculty at my institution appear markedly bothered by this arrangement, but it has often been a frustration of mine, and one that has prompted me to seek out supplemental research training and involvement from other, external sites. I'm curious to know if this is consistent with other training programs as well? Additionally, by design, our "comprehensive exam" is not well suited for publication either. Preparation for and completion of this "exam" (in addition to teaching and performing various other administrative and clinical responsibilities) often eats up a large portion of our doctoral training as well (i.e., 6-12mos), which further delays/prevents research publication.

Have others had different experiences with regard to research training in the context of a balanced clinical PhD program?

 

[tiy123]

As a student in a balanced program, I have found that the quality of research mentorship is often mixed. There appears to be an assumption on the part of faculty that (a.) research experience and productivity are not major factors when applying to internship, (b.) students should be highly independent in carving out their own programs of research, (c.) the bulk of our "research training" should occur via didactic coursework (i.e., stats, methods) or (d.) should already be well established at baseline when entering the program.

Few faculty at my institution have ongoing projects from which students can work and gain experience, rather faculty are often "happy to support" students in pursuing our own research interests. While seemingly a good idea (and demonstrably "good" [i.e., trial and error learning, implementing a research project from start to finish] from a training perspective), this often results in students developing unwieldy or unpublishable thesis projects (that take the better part of three years to complete), which then inform more wieldy or publishable dissertation projects (often initiated and completed in years three, four, and five). With most students not defending their dissertations until after having already applied to internship, and in the absence of larger-scale "lab" projects from which to work, it is then unlikely that we, as students, would have an opportunity to publish any data prior to internship applications. We do often present subsets of data from these milestone projects at various conferences (i.e., I've probably presented 3-4 talks/posters from various projects at local and nat'l conference per year), but it's generally rare (without outside involvement) for students to successfully publish their research while enrolled in our program.

Few students or faculty at my institution appear markedly bothered by this arrangement, but it has often been a frustration of mine, and one that has prompted me to seek out supplemental research training and involvement from other, external sites. I'm curious to know if this is consistent with other training programs as well? Additionally, by design, our "comprehensive exam" is not well suited for publication either. Preparation for and completion of this "exam" (in addition to teaching and performing various other administrative and clinical responsibilities) often eats up a large portion of our doctoral training as well (i.e., 6-12mos), which further delays/prevents research publication.

Have others had different experiences with regard to research training in the context of a balanced clinical PhD program?

That doesn't sound super balanced to me. Do faculty members have active labs with RAs, post-docs, and grants? Or do they mostly just teach?

 

[bcliff]

That doesn't sound super balanced to me. Do faculty members have active labs with RAs, post-docs, and grants? Or do they mostly just teach?

Active labs? Yes -- Some faculty have large, ongoing, grant-funded projects. These labs are generally staffed by students (doctoral, masters, and undergraduate). However, like I mentioned, most faculty do not have large, ongoing projects but rather mentor their students' smaller "milestone" projects. In these instances, the onus is often placed on students to build their projects "from the ground up," which, like I said, is a generally positive training exercise but not one that is super conducive to cranking out publications.

 

[Justanothergrad]

That doesn't sound super balanced to me. Do faculty members have active labs with RAs, post-docs, and grants? Or do they mostly just teach?

No faculty at a doctoral granting institution "just teaches". I would describe my lab in a similar manner and I don't have any active grant support or post-docs. So, this sounded well balanced to me, but again, I read it as "this is how we ADDED research to our training" not "look at how we do research and DON'T do clinical practice".

This blows my mind....still.

Looking at poster presentations was similarly surprising.

Even more clinically learning training programs should strive for each student to have 1-2 pubs and at least 2-3 poster presentations.

I know that sounds like a lot, but it isn’t even when you are using a carve out of a larger data set. It’s valuable to go through the publication and presentation processes.

Agreed. And having your name on papers is different from being a first author on 1-2. I put part of the blame on faculty as well. There are some who don't push students to do it because they view it as optional, or that are not inclusive enough with respect to the work students are doing.

 

[Grenth]

As a student in a balanced program, I have found that the quality of research mentorship is often mixed. There appears to be an assumption on the part of faculty that (a.) research experience and productivity are not major factors when applying to internship, (b.) students should be highly independent in carving out their own programs of research, (c.) the bulk of our "research training" should occur via didactic coursework (i.e., stats, methods) or (d.) should already be well established at baseline when entering the program.

Few faculty at my institution have ongoing projects from which students can work and gain experience, rather faculty are often "happy to support" students in pursuing our own research interests. While seemingly a good idea (and demonstrably "good" [i.e., trial and error learning, implementing a research project from start to finish] from a training perspective), this often results in students developing unwieldy or unpublishable thesis projects (that take the better part of three years to complete), which then inform more wieldy or publishable dissertation projects (often initiated and completed in years three, four, and five). With most students not defending their dissertations until after having already applied to internship, and in the absence of larger-scale "lab" projects from which to work, it is then unlikely that we, as students, would have an opportunity to publish any data prior to internship applications. We do often present subsets of data from these milestone projects at various conferences (i.e., I've probably presented 3-4 talks/posters from various projects at local and nat'l conference per year), but it's generally rare (without outside involvement) for students to successfully publish their research while enrolled in our program.

Few students or faculty at my institution appear markedly bothered by this arrangement, but it has often been a frustration of mine, and one that has prompted me to seek out supplemental research training and involvement from other, external sites. I'm curious to know if this is consistent with other training programs as well? Additionally, by design, our "comprehensive exam" is not well suited for publication either. Preparation for and completion of this "exam" (in addition to teaching and performing various other administrative and clinical responsibilities) often eats up a large portion of our doctoral training as well (i.e., 6-12mos), which further delays/prevents research publication.

Briarcliff I see a lot of similarities between your program and mine and your first four points match my experience word for word. My program is a university-based, funded, PhD with a 100% intern match rate. The faculty expect students to be very independent researchers from year one and if you are that you are set up to succeed if you aren't it's an additional job to try on your own to get the mentorship/supervision/direction needed for conducting your own research. I will say that my lab culture is perhaps the worst about this but most labs are similar. I think this deficit in training falls off faculty/admin radar because the students who come in with enough experience to start their own research programs are quite productive and the mean number of 1st author pubs is 5, however, the modal number of publications is not one I have ever seen my program advertise though and I believe that is closer to 1. As a second year, I have one 2nd author pub and a few posters, and I expect one first author pub by the time I graduate but I feel like I'm going to leave this program without the depth of skills I want or could have expected to gain. I also want to note I asked about research/mentorship/publication extensively before I accepted my offer and I feel I was somewhat misled or oversold.

 

[futureapppsy2]

This article analyzes and summarizes the APPIC publication data in depth, FYI:
Lund, E. M., Bouchard, L. M., & Thomas, K. B. (2016). Publication productivity of professional psychology internship applicants: An in-depth analysis of APPIC survey data. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 10(1), 54.

 

[CatsFan]

Having 5 publications at internship applications puts you in the top 7%-10% of all applicants in terms of publication productivity. Keep in mind that this is all after 4-5 (or more) years of doctoral study.

Interesting, I’ve never heard this before! Just curious, for those who have been on internship selection committees, would you view someone with 5 pubs as different from someone with 3-4? Or is it one of those things where as long as someone meets the minimum expectation (whether that’s 0, 1, 2, etc), that’s all that matters?

 

[Justanothergrad]

Interesting, I’ve never heard this before! Just curious, for those who have been on internship selection committees, would you view someone with 5 pubs as different from someone with 3-4? Or is it one of those things where as long as someone meets the minimum expectation (whether that’s 0, 1, 2, etc), that’s all that matters?

Very broadly speaking, Five is better than three. But in my experience reviewing apps and hearing folks talk on those committeees, applicants were grouped into "have done some" and "have not" to help think though quality of an applicant's research training. Now, the site was a clinical site and didn't have a research component. There tended to be other factors to consider with the pubs when you compare people who publish (clinical training background, fit, journal impact, authorship, etc.). The biggest thing is to have done it and not be the 13th author.

 

[Psychologist_dreamer]

This is excellent advice for we prospective students and applicants, thank you! The research/clinical experience question is exactly what I was wondering about. I'm just getting involved in both as much as I can. I feel like if I focus on one and not the other, my applications, and if I'm fortunate to be invited, interviews won't come across as well as if I did both. Congrats on your PhD program admission! Do you have some form of financial assistance? What are you going to be studying? Are you going to a clinical or counseling psych program?

no problem! yeah that was what i was doing too. i didn't realize though that spending more time focusing on a pub instead of clinical would be what made me more competitive.

i'm happy with my choices though, because i learned so much in that clinical volunteering i did that's really a wonderful platform for me going forward clinically, and i will never forget the families i worked with. they left huge imprints in my heart and it really confirmed for me that all of what i was doing was worth it. i always said to myself "all the debt, all the time, all the hardwork; will be worth it if i can help even 1 person". i actually reached that goal during my volunteering! it was a special moment where a child made some really wonderful developmental progress we had been working on, and when i commented to the parent, she had said herself and a SW noticed also..and when the SW commented on the developmental progress of the child, the mother said she told them 'it's from the work they've been doing with (me) at therapy". i was floored!
so i'm happy that i did the work i did and the choices i made, even if it cost my a fully funded spot lol.

but as far as my applications, saying a mommy told me i made a difference doesn't go as far as saying a journal said i made a difference LOL. and we can debate about why that is all day, but, it is what it is.

i have a bit of financial assistance, but there is still tuition i will have to pay, and i will have to account for living expenses as well. i have the ability to get a little more assistance through teaching, but it will never increase enough to waive tuition fully or cover living expenses unfortunately.
and i am going to a clinical program!

 

[Psychologist_dreamer]

Research experience makes you stand out because it provides an opportunity to demonstrate important skills relative to the practice of scientific psychology. I would encourage folks to be very transparent about goals in working in a lab early on. Numerous students I talk to will say "can I work in your lab?" but not "I am wanting to get a graduate degree in [clinical, counseling, dog catching, etc.]. To do this I need to gain research experience and would like to work in your lab and contribute to your research because your research in XXX aligns with my interests and will promote my future training. I've got XXX background skills that may be of contribution and use, and I'm willing to learn others as needed. I'm willing to work hard to make sure my contribution level is of substance and would welcome any task or challenge given to me." After discussing length of time in the lab and agreeing to be part of it steady for a period of time (short experience is just us training you, which reduces how much contribution you can offer) perhaps even something akin to "My goal in volunteering for a research lab is to keep open a conversation about how my level of contribution can, at some point, result in my part of research products to demonstrate my capacity to graduate training programs." Getting clear expectations with research productivity is a huge part of it. Ask "Do undergraduates have an opportunity to be part of posters/manuscripts", "What will I need to do to be part of a poster/manuscript", etc.

this is very good advice on how to approach mentors. i'm sort of shy, and certain mentors have really intimidated me. i sort of assumed that anyone in a lab is there because they want to go on for a phd, and simply saying you want a phd is not the same as saying you want to work on producing publications or being involved in authorship. i think had i been more proactive in seeking those opportunities, instead of waiting for a mentor or doctoral student to award me with the opportunity, i might have gotten them. i'll never forget the sting when i realized someone else in my cohort was working with a doctoral student on coding something for her dissertation, and would probably get authorship..and it was something in my area of interest too. i commented that i would be interested in helping with that, too late, and the doctoral student said "oh i didn't know!" at first i was like, yeah well you didn't ask me to get involved in it so how would you. but upon further thought i was like yeah, this is where me being shy and sort of not very confident came in. i thought i had made it clear what my interests were, but really only a couple times in large meetings. not really directly, and not enough.

so definitely blurt out your interests often. loudly. ask to get involved in projects, often. loudly.
this field has a lot of rejection, and it stings.
but you have to ask for your opportunities because i learned, no one is going to offer you any. even if you are a hard worker or good at what you do. you need to really make it clear what you want and ask for it, over and over again. you have to be ok with possibly being seen as "annoying". better to be the annoying one who gets asked to contribute than the shy one who doesn't get asked.

 

[WisNeuro]

Interesting, I’ve never heard this before! Just curious, for those who have been on internship selection committees, would you view someone with 5 pubs as different from someone with 3-4? Or is it one of those things where as long as someone meets the minimum expectation (whether that’s 0, 1, 2, etc), that’s all that matters?

Quality of pubs matters more than quantity a lot of the time. Some applicants "fluff" up their pub list with trash that we really wouldn't consider a publication. So, we don't just look at a tally of how many pubs/posters someone has, we'll also look at what they're doing. It's one reason Nova has fallen in stature in recent years, they've started doing a lot of "research" with Amen, someone who is widely considered a shyster of the nth degree. That, and their letters of rec are identical.

 

[Justanothergrad]

you need to really make it clear what you want and ask for it, over and over again. you have to be ok with possibly being seen as "annoying". better to be the annoying one who gets asked to contribute than the shy one who doesn't get asked.

Being annoying is not a good idea. You can be professional without risking being annoying. I highly, highly advise you don't come off as annoying to people you want letters of reference from - I'm doubtful that letter works out better. Asserting yourself and trying to be involved is not the same thing.

 

[Sharewithme]

Balanced just means that the program focuses just as much, if not more, on clinical training than research focus. Even R1s can be balanced/clinically focused. My doctoral institution was R1 and I'd consider it balanced/flexible in that regard. My advisor knew from day 1 that I had never planned on an academic career.

GRE scores are important in that it's what gets you in the door. When programs receive >100 applications for 5-10 spots, they need quick and easy ways to cut some applications, GREs are a good way to make a first cut as they are generally the only standardized numbers across all applicants. After getting in, they don't mean much, just an indirect measure if g, which in itself is only so predictive.

Thank you again!

 

[Sharewithme]

Agreed with all of the above. My program was an R1 and I would've classified it as slightly more research-focused, but it provided a lot of clinical training for those interested, and has still churned out a fair number of clinically-oriented graduates (myself being one).

And yes, GRE scores help in getting your foot in the door. As predictive or non-predictive as they may be, they provide a standardized metric to compare across applicants, particularly when coupled with other less-standardized metrics (e.g., GPA, letters of rec).

It's great to hear this because I really am a scientist-practitioner, I love research and practice, and want to apply both in my career. At some R1's, I wouldn't have to give up training in either, and that matters so much to me.

 

[MCParent]

Interesting, I’ve never heard this before! Just curious, for those who have been on internship selection committees, would you view someone with 5 pubs as different from someone with 3-4? Or is it one of those things where as long as someone meets the minimum expectation (whether that’s 0, 1, 2, etc), that’s all that matters?

2 pubs with a hard to reach population, or doing an intervention, or whatever hard thing, esp. related to your clinical interest/in a high tier journal, is better than 10 on something fluffy/unfundable with a convenience sample unrelated to your clinical interests in a low tier journal. It's not an exact science but its not just counting pubs.

 

[Sharewithme]

I think that truly research-intensive students are relatively rare in clinical/counseling psych doctoral programs overall, honestly. APPIC data shows that most internship applicants don't have any peer-reviewed publications at all when they apply for internship, and even when you take out PsyD students, a solid third of internship applicants from PhD programs still have no publications at the time of internship application. Having 5 publications at internship applications puts you in the top 7%-10% of all applicants in terms of publication productivity. Keep in mind that this is all after 4-5 (or more) years of doctoral study.

Thank you! I don't think it has to be all or nothing, no publications or 4-5. What about 2-3? It's a theoretical question but also one I want to see if can be practically applied, become one of the new norms for APPIC data. It'd be a way to get more clinically oriented students getting involved in research, no?

 

[Sharewithme]

Agreed with others. The R1 designation is a better gauge of how research is added to training rather than clinical experience is subtracted from it. Most R1s are balanced programs (in my view) because a majority of R1 graduates go on to become clinicians, and very solid ones. There are exceptions to this and R1s are more likely to produce academics than non-R1s (again, speaking to the addition of research experience), but this does not reduce the clinical expertise not does it represent a majority of R1 graduates.

The pressures at a R1 are more research focused because of the tenure demands for the academics. This isn't a bad thing. It means that instead of having one dimension of training (clinical), models emphasize two (clinical,research). The result of being a R1 is that (speaking for my state specifically here although I suspect the same is true for other states) the research intensive universities get access to a larger pot of state funding, which results in greater funding for students, the department, and the university as a whole. The end result is that the faculty want to recruit students who can help in that domain, and emphasize a training model which is inclusive of those skills - because the end result is a more funded, larger, and more vibrant training. At no point does this result in a discussion where folks devalue clinical training or say anything akin to "they aren't good at clinical work but its ok because their research skills are great".

Wow, I'm so glad to see this!

 

[Sharewithme]

From discussing this with faculty after we interviewed and selected applicants for admission, GRE scores may have further uses beyond this. One was that they were used as somewhat of a "tie-breaker" to help to decide between two candidates who otherwise appeared relatively equivalent and seemed to be equally goods matches for the program and POI. Another use was for funding. Our university has graduate fellowships for which programs compete across disciplines. These fellowships provide larger stipends than the assistantship, come with extra funding for research purposes, and don't require any work commitments (e.g., TA or RA).


If remember correctly, those numbers don't specify that they be first author publications. They are technically for any level of authorship, which really casts it in a different light.

Thank you for recognizing faculty making decisions "between two candidates who otherwise appeared (emphasis my own) relatively equivalent and seemed (emphasis my own) to be equally good matches for the program and POI". Not every applicant who is a hard worker, committed to getting faculty tenured or on a much stronger, faster route to it by his/her assisting with faculty research, and will both produce research and provide APA ethical clinical practice upon graduation are noticed. THANK YOU for the validation to those people, particularly the ones rejected from APA accredited program admission.

Fellowships being dependent on GRE scores is another part of the deal with APA accredited program admissions offers, I understand. That some fellowship awards are based on certain GRE scores is a long-standing practice I'm not sure I could change in the next year or two so that the fellowship opportunities are fairer to all applicants.

You're looking to get people more money via fellowship is greatly appreciated, at the same time. - Yes, I think this deserves a sentence.

Good point, too, about a different picture being represented by the APPIC data not mentioning level of authorship.

 

[Sharewithme]

Agreed. It seems a bit odd to me that most grad students would not have done a sufficient amount of research contribution to justify some authorship on a publication during their careers. After all, if the argument is that research competency is important for our field and that publishing is the best way to demonstrate research skills, that seems like a useful benchmark for demonstrating your learning in that domain.

I admit I am inclusive rather than exclusive.

What do you mean by "inclusive rather than exclusive"?

 

[Sharewithme]

And people defending these programs wonder why we are critical of them.

I wonder how much the thinking vs. feeling dimension of the Myers-Briggs personality indicator is coming into play here. I wonder how many people defending diploma mills score high on the feeling dimension, therefore feeling criticized by the way their lack of students' research activity is being presented. Then, on the other side, I wonder if the people who are critical of diploma mills not getting students involved in research score high on the thinking dimension, using their logic to reason that not being skilled in research is a downfall. Not being involved in research means less likely to advance knowledge in the psychology field and perhaps less likely to earn money later on because many jobs pay for research related duties.

 

[WisNeuro]

Oh man, don't open up the MBTI can o' worms, this is headed for a quick derailment.

 

[Sharewithme]

This blows my mind....still.

Looking at poster presentations was similarly surprising.

Even more clinically leaning training programs should strive for each student to have 1-2 pubs and at least 2-3 poster presentations.

I know that sounds like a lot, but it isn’t even when you are using a carve out of a larger data set. It’s valuable to go through the publication and presentation processes.

I just made the 1-2 or 2-3 comment when replying to an earlier post. It's not all or nothing, zero pubs or 4-5 +.

 

[Justanothergrad]

What do you mean by "inclusive rather than exclusive"?

Inclusive refers to a tendency to extend authorship to more people involved in the project in different ways rather than limited to substantial contributions in which only primary faculty advisors / students are credited for the work. For instance if I am running AMA lingering study in which a student is responsible for conducting all of the research with participants and offers feedback about how things are going and any issues that arise, I am likely to consider that person having made a substantial contribution and include them in any manuscript. In my mind if people contribute numerous skilled hours (simple data entry doesn't fall into this), it is reasonable to credit them for their work. This is my personal view. It doesn't diminish the work of others

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I just made the 1-2 or 2-3 comment when replying to an earlier post. It's not all or nothing, zero pubs or 4-5 +.

I just skimmed the comments, so I likely missed it. My point was that an important aspect of training *is* learning how to navigate the publication/presentation aspect of the field. Even if students never do either the rest of their career, going through the peer-review process and having the experience of presenting to peers in a formal setting is good professional development.

 

[Sharewithme]

no problem! yeah that was what i was doing too. i didn't realize though that spending more time focusing on a pub instead of clinical would be what made me more competitive.

i'm happy with my choices though, because i learned so much in that clinical volunteering i did that's really a wonderful platform for me going forward clinically, and i will never forget the families i worked with. they left huge imprints in my heart and it really confirmed for me that all of what i was doing was worth it. i always said to myself "all the debt, all the time, all the hardwork; will be worth it if i can help even 1 person". i actually reached that goal during my volunteering! it was a special moment where a child made some really wonderful developmental progress we had been working on, and when i commented to the parent, she had said herself and a SW noticed also..and when the SW commented on the developmental progress of the child, the mother said she told them 'it's from the work they've been doing with (me) at therapy". i was floored!
so i'm happy that i did the work i did and the choices i made, even if it cost my a fully funded spot lol.

but as far as my applications, saying a mommy told me i made a difference doesn't go as far as saying a journal said i made a difference LOL. and we can debate about why that is all day, but, it is what it is.

i have a bit of financial assistance, but there is still tuition i will have to pay, and i will have to account for living expenses as well. i have the ability to get a little more assistance through teaching, but it will never increase enough to waive tuition fully or cover living expenses unfortunately.
and i am going to a clinical program!

The passion is clear from you're work with the child, and I get how it can feel positively amazing to know you've truly made a difference. You did, and you got recognized for it! This is wonderful. I think if you want to go into clinical practice after you graduate, you have the temperament already to help you do well.

Yes, at the end of the day research experience does seem to be what matters most in APA accredited program applications.

I'm sorry your financial support is the best that it could be. I'm glad you have some assistance. After you earn your doctorate, you'll be able to earn more in most jobs than with what you could without a doctorate.

 

[Sharewithme]

Quality of pubs matters more than quantity a lot of the time. Some applicants "fluff" up their pub list with trash that we really wouldn't consider a publication. So, we don't just look at a tally of how many pubs/posters someone has, we'll also look at what they're doing. It's one reason Nova has fallen in stature in recent years, they've started doing a lot of "research" with Amen, someone who is widely considered a shyster of the nth degree. That, and their letters of rec are identical.

Yes, it's good to produce good quality work.

 

[Sharewithme]

Being annoying is not a good idea. You can be professional without risking being annoying. I highly, highly advise you don't come off as annoying to people you want letters of reference from - I'm doubtful that letter works out better. Asserting yourself and trying to be involved is not the same thing.

Would you please give an example of how to sound assertive rather than annoying? How would you phrase your questions about how to get involved in research?

 

[Sharewithme]

this is very good advice on how to approach mentors. i'm sort of shy, and certain mentors have really intimidated me. i sort of assumed that anyone in a lab is there because they want to go on for a phd, and simply saying you want a phd is not the same as saying you want to work on producing publications or being involved in authorship. i think had i been more proactive in seeking those opportunities, instead of waiting for a mentor or doctoral student to award me with the opportunity, i might have gotten them. i'll never forget the sting when i realized someone else in my cohort was working with a doctoral student on coding something for her dissertation, and would probably get authorship..and it was something in my area of interest too. i commented that i would be interested in helping with that, too late, and the doctoral student said "oh i didn't know!" at first i was like, yeah well you didn't ask me to get involved in it so how would you. but upon further thought i was like yeah, this is where me being shy and sort of not very confident came in. i thought i had made it clear what my interests were, but really only a couple times in large meetings. not really directly, and not enough.

so definitely blurt out your interests often. loudly. ask to get involved in projects, often. loudly.
this field has a lot of rejection, and it stings.
but you have to ask for your opportunities because i learned, no one is going to offer you any. even if you are a hard worker or good at what you do. you need to really make it clear what you want and ask for it, over and over again. you have to be ok with possibly being seen as "annoying". better to be the annoying one who gets asked to contribute than the shy one who doesn't get asked.

I understand how sometimes it can be difficult to approach people. I wish you could have gotten what you wanted with research right off the bat, but I give you props for being more outgoing in asking for what you want!

 

[Sharewithme]

2 pubs with a hard to reach population, or doing an intervention, or whatever hard thing, esp. related to your clinical interest/in a high tier journal, is better than 10 on something fluffy/unfundable with a convenience sample unrelated to your clinical interests in a low tier journal. It's not an exact science but its not just counting pubs.

Good to know!