salparadise
-
Posts
24 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by salparadise
-
-
Absolutely. No way I could have gotten the interviews (and offers) I did without having done my master's first. It matters how much you did in undergrad, and I just did not hit my groove during those years. So I did my master's at a school which offers both research and clinical experiences, and I had a really successful application season with top name programs.
(Correlation =/= causation???)
-
From what I read online from various sources, I think it refers to the school's ranking based on high importance criteria (e.g. funding, pub rate) vs low importance criteria. S rankings are drawn from survey responses in each field, so the relative weight of each criterion is different for each discipline.
So, Harvard in this case would rank #1 on criteria considered important by faculty in your field and #3 on measures considered less important.
Awesome, thanks for the input.
-
Can someone explain the "S-Rank High" vs. "S-Rank Low" for me? E.g., what does it mean when Harvard is ranked #1 as the former and #3 as the latter?
-
How are the NRC rankings calculated?
-
Do they use evidence-based treatments? Are they data-driven? Lots of programs I've seen promote therapies such as Gestalt, psychodynamic, etc., which rarely rely on science in the slightest.
-
Also I think it is important to acknowledge and re-emphasize the tradeoff aspect of this. It's 100% a cost-benefit analysis and there are thresholds for both rank and fit, where one can outweigh the other depending on what "level" each one is at. Perfect research fit at an institution ranked 100 vs. a decent/mediocre research fit at an institution in the top 5? I'd go more towards the latter, of course. But once we're within the top 25, I really don't think rank matters that much at all.
Clinical example: Boston University (26) vs. UNC (2) - if someone has a 10/10 fit with BU an a 6/10 fit at UNC, I'd probably urge them to consider BU more deeply. As fit for UNC increases, however, then it gets trickier.
-
IMO - Status, though you can put a number on it like # of pubs or % students who graduate, is something you should consider if being objective about which program would best benefit you.
Idk, maybe between those, google stalking their former students and seeing how many pubs they co-author with their students would help. I definitely think rank is a relevant factor; they're flawed, yes, but have some basis in reality.
It just depends on which ranking system. US News? All they did was ask people about their opinions, I believe. I don't think they used any objective indices. I'd give it about 5% of the "meaningful" outcome variance of what matters, if we're putting statistics to it. If that.
I'd be more interested in things like number of publications, impact factors of the publications typically pursued by the department, collaborative relationships among other institutions/departments, how active professors are in influential organizations (e.g. presidents of certain groups), grants, certification/dual degree opportunities, etc. These are more objective and, in my opinion, far more relevant than US News rankings.
For the record: I am interviewing at UNC Chapel Hill, which is ranked #2 by US News. My "less rational" side of me is clearly very influenced by that, but objectively I know it shouldn't really matter since they earned that #2 spot based on opinions.
-
I would contend that fit is significantly more important than ranking. In addition, I would expand the definition of "fit" to not only include research interests, but also research productivity within the lab you are applying to. If you're working with a researcher who is doing work you are most interested in at a school ranked #20 and they can get you on 5+ publications per year, vs. a researcher at a school in the top 5 with similar research interests though not as strong as the former and they'll likely only get you on 2-3 publications per year, that's pretty significant.
That said, I am struggling with this as we speak. One school I am interviewing at is very easily top 5, the other is more like top 10, the latter has a closer research match while the former's researcher is maybe the most famous for his research area in the field today. Objectively I know where I should lean towards, but it's definitely hard to get the status side of things out of my head.
-
Has anyone heard any updates about interview invites??
I'm assuming UCLA has sent all theirs out. It sounded like this was their week.
-
I spoke with my POI from UW-Milwaukee about 10 days ago or so over the phone, and he asked if I would be willing to arrange some additional phone calls with faculty which would constitute as my formal interview as I had already committed to another interview the same weekend as theirs (which is next weekend). I have not heard from him since, though, so I'm not sure what happened there but I would have turned it down anyways given that I am focusing on my top schools which UW-Milwaukee is not.
-
Does anyone have any info on the following (i.e., have all invites been sent out already?):
UC Boulder
University of Denver
Wisconsin-Madison
This is my first year in this process and it is bruuuuuuutal. Huge congratulations to anyone who's still sane, let alone interviewing.
UC Boulder interview is next weekend, so I assume they're done.
-
Hey,
Does anyone know if all interview invites have been extended?
Did anyone hear from Chorpita?
I know I posted in the other thread, but anyone who received an interview willing to PM me their POI would be greatly appreciated.
(Mine isn't Chorpita, haha)
-
I would love to hear POIs for those invited to interview at UCLA-clinical! If willing to share.
-
Anyone want to claim the UT Austin post and PM me their POI?
Same here, if you're willing!
-
We probably wouldn't even need this thread/topic if people included POI on the Results Search page "comments" section, and then it would still be anonymous for people who wanted it to be. Hmm... Is there a reason why people WOULDN'T want to include POI on the Results Search itself?
Maybe as a group we should try to do that if we're comfortable (and yes, as a student of social psychology, I know how pointless it might be to put out an all-call requesting this to the group; bystander effect, anyone?).
It seems like it would resolve a lot of confusion, no? Or am I just coming off as a know-it-all?...
I think it just makes a little too much sense to do that. I wonder, how many people who submit results are actively posting as well? Maybe whoever runs the site would be willing to throw that stipulation up somewhere, making it clear that this would be anonymous. I'd be much quicker to share POI information doing that.
-
-
From looking at the survey results from previous years, it looks like they call everyone regarding interview invites on the same day around the 20th of January.
If they are consistent with the last two years, invites would be sent out this upcoming Wednesday (1/21/2015). We'll see if they are consistent, though!
-
Salparadise, I did get an interview, my POI is Mitch Prinstein. Did you get an interview? Who is your POI?
So in your case, the DCT is your POI then! And yes, I got an interview. I'd be more comfortable sharing POI details over private message, though (I'll just say my POI is not yours, hah).
Chapel Hill isn't too bad, though I don't know your basis for comparison. There's a lot of smaller neighborhoods in the area that can sometimes have less rent if you're willing to make the 10-20 minute commute, too.
-
Did you get an interview? If so, would you be able to ask your POI/DCT?
-
psychface: you know, what continues to surprise me in clinical psychology is the number of folks who seem to be in need of a therapy session or two. The individual I described was obviously someone who liked testing folks out like that, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't putting on an act.
I guess once you make it as a professor, especially in clinical psychology, where folks would put up with almost anything for a chance of getting in, you suddenly have all the power in the world over students -- and you know it. 'Power trip' might be a useful term to describe some individuals in psychology, and the best thing we can do is not to act like that towards folks more junior than ourselves once we get in.
So, IMHO, the best we can do is just not be intimidated, and believe in ourselves no matter what (ahh, so corny!) when dealing with professors and graduate students.
I just don't know if I'd want to work with someone like that for 5-6 years, haha. The main people I have been interviewing with have been so kind and down-to-earth.
-
Not yet for me. I've got invitations to interview at 2 of my top 3, but UCLA is the third. No word yet :x
-
Any word on UCLA clinical psychology?
No one hear anything on this yet?
-
Any word on UCLA clinical psychology?
Adler University
in Psychology Forum
Posted
This.