lewin

Applying to programs based on how easy they are to get into rather than based on the research their faculty do is probably not going to result in a very successful admissions cycle. Being able to convincingly articulate fit was, at least in my experience, effectively what determined whether or not I got into a program. I had the same GRE scores you mentioned on the soc forum as well as 2-3 years of research experience and the programs I didn't get admitted to are the ones for which I was least excited about preparing my application. 
In other words, you're a strong applicant and worrying about which program is "easiest" to get into is kind of a waste of your time. You're better off perusing faculty rosters at any department which you think might be a good intellectual home for you until you've developed a list of programs whose faculty do work that really gets you excited. Geeking out a bit was what distinguished my successful SOPs from my unsuccessful SOPs. 
In any case, I'm not convinced that at the level of the top 5 or 10, programs across these disciplines are really any more competitive than one another. Maybe you can make a case for differences the quality of the "average" PhD student in that discipline, but I think that these differences are more rooted in the philosophical orientations of the disciplines themselves (and therefore the socialization structures they create) than in intrinsic differences between their students. Either that, or students self-select into disciplines based on these philosophical orientations. 

I mean clinical psych has a bigger pool of applicants than I/O psych but there are also a lot more of the programs for the former than the latter. So I guess you can say it's easier to get to the top of the pile in I/O but it's not easy in general.

Psych master's students - has anyone ever encountered the issue of unqualified professors and unresponsive administrators?
My story: I am in a general psych master's program. The academic rigor of my program is lacking, and I knew this when I entered. I'm nearly done with the program now, but last semester I came up against a class-wide altercation with a professor (who displayed associated inappropriate bxs on numerous occasions). Letters were written and submitted to the assistant dean, yet no action was taken. Now, I believe a different professor who has been selected to teach the program's pilot I/O into course this summer is woefully unqualified to do so (meaning teach any I/O course whatsoever in a graduate environment). On the basis of her CV and the quality of her education, several students do not believe her to be qualified (or competent, actually). The assistant dean to whom I reached out does not appear receptive and is defending their selection of this professor. Furthermore, he is "making me no promises" that someone other than this person is going to be teaching the course in the fall, which is when I am set to graduate. Therefore, I am either running the risk of waiting for the course to be taught by somebody qualified and then having to delay my graduation if they do not choose to select somebody else in the fall, or I am being forced to take the course with this person this summer.
Does anyone know if it's worth reaching out to Division 14/SIOP to inquire as to their standards in this case? Do they even have set standards for master's programs? Is there any way for me to trigger an independent review? Do I have any recourse whatsoever? Pardon my complete and total ignorance on this subject. 
PS. The majority students in my clinical-focused program are sadly plagued by apathy. Is this common too? How are you going to advocate for patients when you can't even advocate for yourself?
-- Desperate grad student

It's not just about the degree but which department you're studying in. Departments of education and psychology often have very different philosophies about epistemology and methodology. You'll get different training. If you want to do a PhD in psychology, whether it's counselling or clinical, do your masters in a psychology department.

I have the Microsoft Surface Book (bought the original version refurbished when I started my RA position 2 years ago). I've used a lot of different computers, including macs and more powerful pcs, but besides being light/small, having a beautiful screen, and top tier wireless connectivity, its pen and tablet mode paired with Microsoft OneNote has totally replaced my notebook (and habit of printing pdfs), providing an ideal space for just sitting down and *thinking* (or reading) about stuff, beyond the coding/writing tasks typically done on computers.
At least in my niche, either data analysis isn't very intensive at all, or programs that *do* use intensive data analysis (e.g. cognitive neuroscience, which often depends on performing complex analyses on high-dimensional data sets) tend to maintain computing clusters that run all the computations for you faster than any reasonable laptop might. More broadly, computing these days has become much more cloud-based. Activities like reading, organizing, and preparing papers, writing and executing code, and so forth all happen more and more often in your web browser or otherwise remotely instead of on your own system.
In this context where it's not so important to vest computing power in your own system, what's important? I'd say that it's a fast and comfortable interface with remote resources. You want a very good and fast internet, a screen that's sizeable and easy on the eyes, a responsive/comfortable keyboard, etc. I also prioritize portability, and have shed a much more powerful but bulkier laptop because a smaller laptop with poorer performance but better ergonomics did a better job. Oftentimes, the experience is actually most seamless with a desktop paired with a good/big monitor or set of monitors and keyboard. In this sense, the laptop just complements that by replacing the desktop when you're on the move. So I prioritize portability even more because of that.
One added functionality that I've additionally prized is being able to use my laptop as a notebook for taking notes, thinking through problems, or annotating papers/books! It's critical for science work imo and until I had the system I had now, I had to rely on less seamless alternatives - like paper or separate tablets requiring me to spend more time transferring information, printing/scanning things, or being dissatisfied with tech not really designed for the stuff I was trying to do. That's why I sprung for the surface book instead of a mac or other windows-based laptop. I think that the surface book is an amazing device; it's totally transformed my relationship with technology and ideas in general. The surface pen is the first I've used to actually feel *better* than using an actual pen on paper, and with Microsoft OneNote it's totally replaced my collection of Moleskins. Now that there are a lot of tools to interface Windows with unix/terminal systems (there's the Linux Subsystem for Windows, and more than that, Moba XTerm, which imo is better than any terminal tools I've found for the MacOS), I feel like I can recommend the surface book and devices like it wholeheartedly to anyone who'll listen.

I can think of a few reasons why profs might be reluctant to provide feedback. 
(a) lots of requests, very little time. May be harsh to say, but it's not the POI's job to mentor or coach applicants.
(b) sometimes the request is really an attempt at appealing the decision under the guise of asking for feedback. Replying is inviting an argument.
(c) sometimes people actually aren't receptive to candid feedback and respond rudely.
(d) the weakness might be something the candidate can't easily improve over a year like "your GPA is bad" or "you said something offensive in an email, and even if you don't do that next year we won't change our mind."
(e) profs are people too. The reason might be something they feel awkward telling you or that is hard to phrase. For example, being interpersonally awkward at the interviews, or you were good but not great. May also overlap with (d), e.g., "Get smarter" or "have a better personality" isn't terribly actionable and nobody wants to be a dream crusher.
(f) maybe your references weren't glowing and it would breach confidentiality to tell you that.
Some of these reasons overlap with more general reasons why employers don't like to provide feedback to rejected job candidates.
 
 

I can think of a few reasons why profs might be reluctant to provide feedback. 
(a) lots of requests, very little time. May be harsh to say, but it's not the POI's job to mentor or coach applicants.
(b) sometimes the request is really an attempt at appealing the decision under the guise of asking for feedback. Replying is inviting an argument.
(c) sometimes people actually aren't receptive to candid feedback and respond rudely.
(d) the weakness might be something the candidate can't easily improve over a year like "your GPA is bad" or "you said something offensive in an email, and even if you don't do that next year we won't change our mind."
(e) profs are people too. The reason might be something they feel awkward telling you or that is hard to phrase. For example, being interpersonally awkward at the interviews, or you were good but not great. May also overlap with (d), e.g., "Get smarter" or "have a better personality" isn't terribly actionable and nobody wants to be a dream crusher.
(f) maybe your references weren't glowing and it would breach confidentiality to tell you that.
Some of these reasons overlap with more general reasons why employers don't like to provide feedback to rejected job candidates.
 
 

I can think of a few reasons why profs might be reluctant to provide feedback. 
(a) lots of requests, very little time. May be harsh to say, but it's not the POI's job to mentor or coach applicants.
(b) sometimes the request is really an attempt at appealing the decision under the guise of asking for feedback. Replying is inviting an argument.
(c) sometimes people actually aren't receptive to candid feedback and respond rudely.
(d) the weakness might be something the candidate can't easily improve over a year like "your GPA is bad" or "you said something offensive in an email, and even if you don't do that next year we won't change our mind."
(e) profs are people too. The reason might be something they feel awkward telling you or that is hard to phrase. For example, being interpersonally awkward at the interviews, or you were good but not great. May also overlap with (d), e.g., "Get smarter" or "have a better personality" isn't terribly actionable and nobody wants to be a dream crusher.
(f) maybe your references weren't glowing and it would breach confidentiality to tell you that.
Some of these reasons overlap with more general reasons why employers don't like to provide feedback to rejected job candidates.
 
 

I can think of a few reasons why profs might be reluctant to provide feedback. 
(a) lots of requests, very little time. May be harsh to say, but it's not the POI's job to mentor or coach applicants.
(b) sometimes the request is really an attempt at appealing the decision under the guise of asking for feedback. Replying is inviting an argument.
(c) sometimes people actually aren't receptive to candid feedback and respond rudely.
(d) the weakness might be something the candidate can't easily improve over a year like "your GPA is bad" or "you said something offensive in an email, and even if you don't do that next year we won't change our mind."
(e) profs are people too. The reason might be something they feel awkward telling you or that is hard to phrase. For example, being interpersonally awkward at the interviews, or you were good but not great. May also overlap with (d), e.g., "Get smarter" or "have a better personality" isn't terribly actionable and nobody wants to be a dream crusher.
(f) maybe your references weren't glowing and it would breach confidentiality to tell you that.
Some of these reasons overlap with more general reasons why employers don't like to provide feedback to rejected job candidates.
 
 

I can think of a few reasons why profs might be reluctant to provide feedback. 
(a) lots of requests, very little time. May be harsh to say, but it's not the POI's job to mentor or coach applicants.
(b) sometimes the request is really an attempt at appealing the decision under the guise of asking for feedback. Replying is inviting an argument.
(c) sometimes people actually aren't receptive to candid feedback and respond rudely.
(d) the weakness might be something the candidate can't easily improve over a year like "your GPA is bad" or "you said something offensive in an email, and even if you don't do that next year we won't change our mind."
(e) profs are people too. The reason might be something they feel awkward telling you or that is hard to phrase. For example, being interpersonally awkward at the interviews, or you were good but not great. May also overlap with (d), e.g., "Get smarter" or "have a better personality" isn't terribly actionable and nobody wants to be a dream crusher.
(f) maybe your references weren't glowing and it would breach confidentiality to tell you that.
Some of these reasons overlap with more general reasons why employers don't like to provide feedback to rejected job candidates.
 
 

*Sigh* I’m wondering when the day will come, if ever, when people don’t assume that being in therapy + reading Freud/Jung = qualifications for a PhD in clinical psychology. 
 
Anyways, what everyone has said here is accurate. I’m thinking a 2 year psychology research masters with a thesis requirement would be most ideal to make you competitive even for RA jobs in clinical. Otherwise you are going up against people with qualifications of conceptual knowledge for the RA positions that you probably frankly do not have. 
 
If being a therapist is your goal, pursue a masters in counseling or a similar degree. It’s a much shorter path in this case. 

More IMO. This person's starting from scratch, basically. With zero psych classes, they'll likely need to ace the Psych GRE, too.

Even with perfect GREs, your chances are close to zero. "Helping people for a living" is a cliche for an application, and even if you write the most compelling narrative about how your personal experience and desire to help people led you to applying, you still won't have a shot. Talking about being in therapy is also shooting yourself in the foot for most applications. This is a ridiculously competitive job that you're applying for (unless you want to pay for a PsyD or masters). With zero psych knowledge, you will almost need a masters.
Definitely look at Mitch's guide, his two mentees' (someone can dig it up, I'm sure), checkingmyemail's post, the Insider's Guide, and this forum. Need years before you have a shot.

There are careers where you can do psychological research without working at a university. For example, I know psychologists who work for the military and research topics like team building, leadership, and entry/exit transitions. Here's one who studies judgment and decision making in the context of intelligence predictions. I know people who work at marketing firms doing market or public opinion research, and others who work at tech companies doing user experience research. All of those people are PhD experimental psychologists by training. But those careers are all slightly different than what you said, which is "your own lab and research topics". That independence is hard to come by outside of academia. 
And even in academia, absolute freedom to choose your research topics is a misconception. There are constraints because you need to pursue questions that produce fruitful results and are of interest to your peers (i.e., publishable, fundable, will count towards tenure). But that's another topic altogether....
 
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but you seem to be setting up a dichotomy between research and teaching. Almost all TT professors also teach, so it's perfectly reasonable to say that one wants a PhD to both research and teach.
Unless you mean a teaching-focused or teaching-exclusive position? For these jobs, a PhD is still a good idea because there are so many PhDs in the hiring pool for postgraduate jobs that any other degree is rarely competitive. Why hire an MA when you have PhDs applying? (Some fields excepted where a PhD isn't the terminal degree.)
 

1.) starting my own lab for sure and everything that comes with it, I fucking love science and would love to learn non-stop for a living
2.) teaching cool seminars on my area of interest
3.) helping with program admin (i.e., developing undergraduate/graduate curriculums and training opportunities)
4.) helping with undergraduate research, I'd love to arrange senior thesis stuff
I tend to get bored doing repetitive things and I like having my hand in a few different things at once, so I feel like TT academic work is a good idea for me at the moment. I understand its not glamorous, lots of hard work and its probably too much work for how little you're paid. That said, I'd still rather be stimulated in a challenging environment thats constantly shifting than to be stuck in complacency. 

I don't see why it would be a problem. You could mention in your cover letter that you've also applied to their PhD program and would prefer to be in the lab in that role, but are also interested in the post-bac position if that doesn't occur. Personally I think it's realistic, not accepting defeat.
 
 

FYI none are employed at Dartmouth anymore - either retired or were fired.

I don't know about LGBT issues in particular but I do know that three professors at Dartmouth just got put on leave because of sexual harrassment and rape allegations. 
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/15/us/dartmouth-title-ix-lawsuit/index.html
 

Try here

amthauer-ist.com/en/
 
It's free.

Intelligence Structure Test (IST)
The service offers online determination of your IQ by the method of the German psychologist Rudolf Amthauer.

AMTHAUER RUDOLF Born December 19, 1920 in Iserlohn;  September 30, 1989 in Frankfurt am Main, german psychologist, specialist in applied psychology, professional diagnostics.

The test is used to assess the level and structure of the intellectual abilities of people aged 13 to 60 years. The purpose of testing is professional orientation and professional selection.

Well when you apply to graduate programs they will require that you send official transcripts of every college and grad school you've previously attended.  Your best bet is to use your personal statement to address this and also explain why now you're certain that this program is right for you and that you intend to finish it.  It isn't common for applications to require a cover letter with your CV, but if you're asked for one you can use it to address the education issue.  If a cover letter is not requested then on your CV you can list all the schools in the order you attended them and for those you didn't earn degrees just state the number of units or credit hours you completed that way it is consistent with your transcripts.  After you finish your program you can revise your CV to only mention where you actually earned a degree since that is what employers will be more interested in.

You can put that you presented at that meeting on your CV under "presentations," but do not list a "published abstract" as a "publication."

Even if you don’t want to be practicing clinician, pursuing a PhD in Clinical can be wise. If your work involves clinical populations, there is significant value in learning assessment and treatment techniques, even if they don’t overlap with your interests. An example of this from my life is the study of neurodegnerative diseases, which isn’t exactly what most people think of when they think of clinical psych. However, many of these conditions have presenting components of anxiety, depression, etc., so me learning about this through clinical experience hands-on is important to me. 
 
I also think having more options after finishing a PhD is always better that less. Clinical gives you the flexibility to open a private practice or just do clinical work if you wind up hating research and the academic struggle-bus. This, to me, was valuable. 

Not arguing that this a general trend or typical, but in my experience at my graduate program, the married or long-term-coupled were more serious than the single grad students. They prioritized separation between work and home life because they wanted to guard their home time with their partner. As a consequence, they tended to have better time management, i.e., worked at work instead of goofing off. It also helps a lot with the bills. The real challenge is when you graduate and have to balance dual career/social/family commitments, because academia often means being willing to move anywhere a job is.
 
 

You have higher odds of getting hit by a meteorite. Believe me, even if that passage was terribly obvious plagiarism, professors barely have time to read papers for the first time to correct them, much to less go back and read old papers.

I'll be honest: I disagree with this. Why? Because it's a question people should not be asking. No one asks white men who study anything other than white men why they chose to study X group (whether that's women, Latinx populations, etc.). So sure, maybe @Adelaide9216should have such an intellectually reason for herself. But to the people asking? My response, if I were Adelaide9216, would be to ask them why they don't study the same population they're part of (making sure, in advance, that they don't). When they respond with surprise that you'd ask the question, then you can point out that it's simply the same question they asked you.