theman5141

I'd like to second that request. I recently completed a skype interview with my POI at FSU, and am curious whether those receiving in-person interviews differ as a function of research interests. I suspect there may be different timelines, but my nerves are getting the best of me.

Leaving the fall 2015 Clinical PhD application season empty-handed, I decided to apply to Villanova University's M.S. in general/experimental psychology and the M.A. in clinical psychology at the University of Dayton. I am thoroughly impressed with both programs' generous funding packages, quality research training, and purported outcomes for doctoral applicants. Without fail, Villanova is cited as one excellent path to the PhD, especially in a fully-funded scenario. However, I have seldom seen UD discussed on these message boards beyond its inclusion on lists of funded M.A. programs. Does anyone have experiences - either firsthand or indirect - attesting to the quality of UD as a preparatory program that they might be able to share with me? VU and UD offer a limited number of full tuition remission packages in combination with competitive stipends, making them attractive to students like myself who do not deem it smart to borrow for an M.A./M.S en route to a PhD.

I am almost certain that the Syracuse admissions committee is - at best - in the early stages of application review and well short of the invitation extension phase. Not a single posting under the results search for this cycle exists, coupled with the fact that they were sending out invites closer to mid-February last season.

Any UMD College Park and/or Syracuse clinical PhD applicants? Nothing in the results search for either program this application season. From archival searches, I am aware of the fact that Syracuse is more sluggish than most schools in sending out invitations. It's UMD that has me most uneasy.

What might the general consensus be for a clinical applicant who scores, say, a 168v and 155q? I ask because these preliminary scores will likely be the ones I see in my official score report. Much like OP, there's a clear discrepancy in the scoring - a middling quant score coupled with an extraordinary verbal effort. Let's assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the remainder of the application is stellar (3.8+ GPA, extensive research experience), but clearly bereft of some things (i.e. publications, significant work experience in the field). Roughly speaking, how would I fare against "competitive" applicants in tier 1 programs?