when

Jenste is exactly right - in Canada almost all programs you apply to are MA/PhD programs, meaning the first two years of study are for completing the MA, and the remaining years are for completing the PhD portion (as long as all MA requirements are met). There are very few terminal MA programs. Again, if you simply want to do clinical work like a psychologist does and are looking for other routes, Counselling Psychology MAs (slightly less competitive but also less numerous) often also prepare you for accreditation as a Psychological Associate (e.g. see U of T's website at OISE). You do all the same arduous tests that are required for accreditation by the CPA and still do internship (I believe), except you can do this with just an MA. A friend of mine who's a clinical psychologist said that as long as regulations don't change (they were different when he became qualified, and may indeed change again), he sees no reason why anyone would elect to go the longer route of PhD, unless they want to get into research, teaching or simply want the title of Dr. A Psychological Associate colleague of mine also has her own company of related professionals and is enjoying a thriving client base. As for Counselling Psychologists, I believe in some provinces they can practice with just an MA, whereas not in others.

In some textbook I saw last year, a study of n = 90 found that GPA predicted graduate grades and so did GRE verbal and analytical writing to a lesser extent, while quantitative scores were not predictive of graduate grades and even less predictive of PhD completion (actually, there was a slight - but nonetheless insignificant - negative correlation with the latter, if I remember correctly). The GRE overall didn't predict PhD completion either, but did predict stipend acquisition, so I agree that in some ways it is useful. It's just interesting to note that it seems to be a useless indicator of how likely a person is to actually finish a PhD. Maybe *some* of the good GRE performers end up overextending themselves and not finishing their PhD? As for the verbal and analytical writing portions, I think they do reflect valuable academic skills and a good performer on both is likely to possess a lot of the necessary skills for writing for research, but the content and time limits are completely unlike in real research scenarios.

That's my feeling too. Completely different requirements and circumstances. But then the other two segments are no more relevant to what's done in grad school either. The whole test's a joke. An unnecessary, stressful, expensive joke.

I really can't say whether that would hurt or help, but I'm leaning towards it being a good thing if at least it shows you're capable of higher scores at various times. As for mentioning your poorer score in the statement of interest, Ihommependu is of course right that you should only be drawing attention to all the positives (and those that set you aside from the rest), so on second thoughts maybe an average score isn't something to highlight. I definitely had to highlight my utterly appalling quant score, however, because I felt it important to point out that it was completely misleading in terms of my actual ability (but I had evidence to support that).

I actually also assumed that because the tri-council awards are decided on in-house since last year, they would very much be aware of the status of my funding application when making considering making me an offer, but the program administrator offered me a place and asked me to let her know as soon as possible if I found out that I had won SSHRC (that is also assessed in-house). My letter of offer also stipulated what additional funding I would get if I won such-and-such funding and if I didn't (for the record, the SSHRC funding was topped up very generously). When I expressed my surprise to several faculty members about them not knowing the result of my SSHRC decision before I did, they said that the committee is a separate entity. Whether all this is true, I have no idea. But certainly they provide a decent amount of departmental funding for students with and without external funding.

Some of the feedback I have personally received from various supervisors is that it is one of the most important ones, as analytical writing will be important for research papers. But opinions seem mixed on that.

If you're not going to sit the test again and there are no automatic cut-off policies at the schools you're applying to, I would suggest creating a very strong statement of purpose/interest that demonstrates your writing skills and maybe even explicitly addresses your disappointment in that score, how it's not reflective of your usual quality of writing for research purposes etc. If you have publications or academic awards, that should also be evidence of your abilities, as all of that should involve some kind of analytical writing. Perhaps also ask whoever is writing your letters of recommendation to mention your writing, if they are indeed familiar with it and can say good things. Whether you should send your first set of results to your schools, I am not sure. I feel your pain, though; the GREs are such a stressful formality that pretty much everyone knows is, for the most part, an extremely poor indicator of future success in grad school.

I don't know if this link helps, but apparently these are all in small cities. Maybe play around with the search criteria. https://colleges.niche.com/search/cs-sm-city/m-psychology-and-counseling/d-doctoral/

I definitely agree. I'd say about half the students in my cohort are there because of connections. Not that that takes away from someone's merits; it simply means they're not just capable (which so many applicants are anyway), but they are known on a personal level and liked. And of course researchers know other researchers all around the country, so a little connection can open many doors. That has to be a huge edge.

In case it helps, I'll paste here what I wrote elsewhere on the board earlier. My personal GRE/grad school experience: I did really well on my verbal and pretty well on my analytical writing, but extremely poorly on quantitative (as in 25th percentile poorly). I got A+s in both my stats courses and my undergrad GPA was 4.0. I held a research scholarship in undergrad and worked in a number of labs. I won several academic awards throughout undergrad, as well as an award for my thesis. I was involved in many extracurricular activities, sat on committees, was very involved with the faculty etc. I had one poster and one conference presentation, but no publications. I'm sure my letters of recommendation were good, though of course I did not see them. I applied to the same school I did undergrad in for clinical psychology and got accepted the very first time I applied, and with external funding. BUT a LOT of it was down to luck and connections. My supervisor knew me well and believed in my potential, plus I had made the "right" connections with other decision makers. Even so, getting in was tough - my supervisor, though he wanted me, was on a waiting list. Also, the only other school I applied to did not even offer me an interview. Again, this was just my experience, but I would also add that I know several other students with very poor quantitative scores, plus faculty members who scoff at the idea that the GRE even predicts performance in grad school (which research shows it does not).

I think if you're keen on applying this year and can afford the expenses, go ahead. It's a good learning experiences, and although I agree that you would be extremely lucky to get into any clinical program without any research experience (not least because supervisors will be reluctant to take someone on who may just drop out because they have no idea what research is about), there is no harm in trying. And if you don't get admitted this time around, I would strongly suggest spending the next year volunteering in labs that do research in your area of interest and can write you good letters of recommendation.

In case this relieves the pressure a bit, I'll use myself as a case study, but of course you should be aware that this is just one person's experience. I did really well on my verbal and pretty well on my analytical writing, but extremely poorly on quantitative (as in 25th percentile poorly). I got A+s in both my stats courses and my undergrad GPA was 4.0. I held a research scholarship in undergrad and worked in a number of labs. I won several academic awards throughout undergrad, as well as an award for my thesis. I was involved in many extracurricular activities, sat on committees, was very involved with the faculty etc. I had one poster and one conference presentation, but no publications. I'm sure my letters of reference were good, though of course I did not see them. I applied to the same school I did undergrad in for clinical psychology and got accepted with external funding. BUT a LOT of it was down to luck and connections. My supervisor knew me and believed in my potential. Even so, getting in was tough - I was on a waiting list. Also, the only other school I applied did not even offer me an interview. Again, this was just my experience, but I would also add that I know several other students with very poor quantitative scores, plus faculty members who scoff at the idea that the GRE even predicts performance in grad school (which research shows it does not).

I did more or less what TakeruK did. That is, I spoke to a post doc who I had worked with in undergrad and proposed a plan of study with their guidance. As my actual MA thesis would depend entirely on where I would be accepted, the research I proposed was a complete fantasy project (but of course both novel and realistic, just not something that I would do). The post doc proofed it for me and helped me out a lot with even the supporting background research. This was last year, so I doubt the rules have changed around binding/non-binding (nor does it make sense to change them for MA). In any case, I won the award. Another thing is that you are unlikely to even find out whether you have won the award before you get an acceptance or rejection from your chosen schools, which means they don't know which students will come in with external funding either. Of course, they can look at your overall application and make general inferences on whether you're a likely or unlikely candidate for an award, but at this stage they just want to see that you've applied. I'm also in Toronto and going to school here, so let me know if you have any specific questions about applying in the City that I could possibly help with.

To add to the above post, you could also consider a PsyD program. They are a little bit easier to get into, apparently, and are more clinically focused as opposed to research focused. I'm not sure whether there is something comparable in the US, but in Canada you can be licensed as Psychological Associate with just an MA, and that (currently) gives you all the same "powers" as a clinical psychologist. Good luck with whatever you decide. I absolutely appreciate that all of this is very confusing. It was for me too.

What was their response during the Q & A session when it was brought up? Firstly, 49% really isn't bad (well, it's not bad at all; you're no worse than most test takers), and I absolutely believe it says nothing about your aptitude for doctoral studies. All the other parts of your application say far more about that, as you know. I agree that you should consider getting in touch with your POI again and expressing your concern that an arbitrary administrative process may result in their overlooking the real merits of your application. I would highlight your assets, mention your times restrictions due to your research commitments, and if your grades in statistics courses have been good, I would cite those too, to show that you're most definitely capable of the kind of quantitative work that actually matters for grad school. I may also ask if they suggest getting in touch with the department chair with this query. Finally, if it makes you feel better, I got in the 25% percentile in quant. (similar situation as you - I've been out of school for about 10 years and only had about two weeks to prepare) and still got accepted into a clinical program on my first try, plus I know several grad students who had quant. scores that were extremely poor as well. Obviously my saying this doesn't change their policy, but it does show that the people who would actually take you on don't really care about those scores (and that's something that's been echoed to me by several faculty members too).

I found out I got accepted just before sitting a neurology midterm, which of course I sat with zero anxiety and pressure, and ended up getting 100%. Of course! When it no longer matters! Geez... My non-professionally-related electives, however, have definitely succumbed to my laziness.

I think your chances are great! I really can't imagine there not being any offers that were declined. I got offered a position off a wait list somewhere else and I was definitely not next in line to begin with. Good luck!

bre333 raises some good points. Another reason it may not always be possible to give a wait list ranking is that one faculty member with no other existing grad students may have a spot roll to the next person on on their wait list if their first choice declines, whereas another faculty member who already has several grad students may be forced to defer to another faculty member with fewer existing students if their first choice declines. I was told this is often a factor in situations where not all faculty members can take new students. In this scenario you would hope your POI has few existing students and that the people declining their offers have POIs with lots of existing students.

At first I worried about the same thing while I was on the wait list, but since getting accepted, I really, really don't care; I'm just elated! You also don't know what happened behind the scenes i.e. it's not always the case that there is a preferred student before you - your POI may themselves be on a wait list. In any case, my program has an admission rate of only 5%, so I'd still be thrilled even if I was their very last choice!

I didn't believe how hard it was to get into Clinical when I first applied in December. I worked my butt off all throughout the past four years of undergrad, got perfect grades, worked in several labs, was heavily involved with the school and faculty, had great work experience, won several awards and scholarships, presented at a conference, worked on a publication, had a poster etc. I only applied to two universities because I didn't think I needed to apply to more. One of them didn't even invite me to their open house despite my apparently strong application. A LOT of professors and clinicians (some of them great researches or very successful therapists) that I know did not get in the first time around. Almost all grad students I know also didn't get in the first time around. Someone I know got 4 acceptances out of 10 applications this year, but last year got all rejections, despite applying to the same number of programs. And if you're straight out of undergrad apparently that's even harder. So much of it is about luck, things you can't control. I eventually did get accepted to my program of choice, but that was a fluke too; I was already working with my to-be supervisor on my thesis. Even then I was on a wait list because there were too many faculty and not enough spots for students, so he had to fight for me. I was extremely lucky that it worked out, even despite the fact that they knew me well and wanted me. But it was complete nepotism and also luck in the sense that this POI was looking for a grad student to continue the exact project that my thesis was on. PURE luck. Maybe that's what some people say when they talk about it being a game. All it takes is for each of your POIs to already have someone they know and like in mind. Or for politics between faculty members to ruin your chances. Or any number of things, of course. There's always a reason someone does get accepted, of course, but I would bet that most of the time it's not simply because a person has good grades or experience. Maybe their interests fall freakishly in line with the POI's like no one else's, maybe they knew the POI or were recommended by someone they trusted, maybe they just liked them as a person. All this does not mean that all of those who get rejected are not good applicants. Having said that, it's obviously wise to think about what you CAN do to improve your chances. Obviously it's more than about grades and research. It's about how you conduct yourself, who you know, how focused you are in your interests and how convincing you are about that, to name just a few things.

Got accepted from the wait list for my top program today! I honestly NEVER thought it would happen. Honestly. Never. I'd already started making plans with my year off. So there IS hope. Good luck to all!

That's an interesting situation that intrigues me. Is there going to be some sort of scramble on the April 15th when most decisions are due? Or, even worse, a potential stalemate i.e. if someone is holding their breath for a place at their dream school, at which school someone else already has an offer but is holding their breath for THEIR dream school, at which school there is someone else with an offer who's holding out for THEIR dream school, and so on and so on, surely there could be a scenario where come the 15th they just all accept the offers they already have because no one wants to make a move, never knowing how they're narrowly missing out on getting their top choice.

I've still heard nothing from York, which I think means the chance is gone, considering that they had their interview day last month. Had several interviews at Ryerson, though, and just waiting to hear either way. Anyone else had any results from Ryerson already?

I don't think I saw a thread for this, so I thought I'd start one. Has anyone applied to Canadian schools and heard back yet? I applied to York and Ryerson; heard nothing from York (and accordingly believe that ship has sailed) but had several interviews at Ryerson, but no word on acceptance or rejection. ETA: Nevermind, I JUST found another thread!!