PsyDuck90

Please note, my response is relevant to the US system. I cannot speak to other countries. A psychologist is a protected term reserved for those with doctoral degrees in psychology. A therapist is a term used to describe any licensed clinician (LCSW, MFT, LPC, PhD or PsyD in clinical/counseling/school psychology). A school psychologist, by and large, will work in a school, although they sometimes do private practice. I believe this may in part depend on if they meet the licensing requirements to get a clinical license to practice as a clinical psychologist. Check out this link to learn more about the types of things school psychologists do from the NASP. A counselor is a broad term, just like therapist, clinician, and psychotherapist that encompasses anyone who does therapy. A clinical psychologist is someone who holds a doctorate in clinical psychology (counseling psychology doctorates also function in similar ways to clinical psychology doctorates). Clinical psychologists can provide therapy, conduct and interpret assessments (masters level clinicians cannot interpret certain assessments, like those related to cognitive functioning). Clinical psychologists are also trained as academics and researchers, so they can be full-time professors and researchers if they so choose. There are a lot of paths. School psychologists, clinical psychologists (with a specialization in children), and even master's level clinicians can all work with children. ABA is typically done by BCBA's, which is a separate licensure all together. In the US, play therapy is considered a form of therapy, just like Cognitive-Behavioral, Psychodynamic, and so on. There is no special license needed to conduct play therapy, but it is something you would most likely have to seek out additional training for, as I don't think it's really built into a lot of graduate curriculums. Based on what you described, a master's in social work (LCSW) or LPC (master's in counseling) may be good fits. You can also pursue a PhD or PsyD in clinical child psychology, but it doesn't sound like you are too interested in research, which would be required as part of the training. These programs will often expect students to have research experience upon entry to the program as well. Lastly, I suggest you read Mitch's Uncensored Advice for Applying to Graduate School in Clinical Psychology, which provides a nice overview of different careers in mental health and the application process for a PhD in Clinical Psychology. I've attached it to this post. I think I answered all the questions you posted, but let me know if you have any more! MitchGradSchoolAdvice.pdf

As previous posters have said, your lack of clinical experience shouldn't be a big deal, especially for schools like Stony Brook. While you can get your license and practice after graduating Stony Brook's program, they pretty much train academic researchers (as can be depicted on their website and I've heard from graduates/current students). Not super familiar with the other programs on your list. Programs that are PCSAS accredited are going to value research experience above all else.

Not every professor replies. Some make it a rule. Others just miss the email. I would still apply.

Depending on the nature of the research, COVID may not completely ruin things (online/telehealth based stuff). If you have the funds, it wouldn't hurt to apply this round, but I would definitely try to find an RA position for 1-2 years, which should really make you more competitive after the fact.

How many posters do you have and how many years of research in undergrad? Counseling psych and clinical psych programs are not that all that different in terms of their competitiveness. Development Psychology programs are purely research oriented degrees. You would not be able to get a clinical license after completing one. Because of that, I think they may be slightly less competitive, but again, they are research only so I'm assuming they would still want a pretty strong research background. Is it possible for you to get an RA position or volunteer in a lab for a year to gain more experience?

I don't know about Italy, but in the U.S., the field of psychology pretty universally looks down on online training. Also, I would assume a PhD in neuroscience would involve research that doesn't lend itself to online platforms (such as a lot of cognitive testing or brain imagining).

Yeah, that is why I said earlier that it is important to have a strong understanding of research methodology and stats and such so you can make sense of the research and critically evaluate it. With EMDR, the reason it's effective, when you look at dismantling studies, is the exposure component (so seem reason why PE is so effective). The eye movement stuff is really just smoke and mirrors. It works, but the mechanism of change is not what the creators purport it to be. From what I've read thus far, it can be one or the other or both. Often times, the level of awareness they have of their condition is a clear indication of whether it is due to the physiological changes resulting from stroke or the response to loss of functioning. If they are unaware of their cognitive deficits or that they have had a stroke (or really any brain injury) but are presenting with new symptoms of anxiety or depression, the likely culprit is the stroke itself. You can also sometimes discern based on imaging of where the stroke was located in the brain (for instance, cerebellar stroke probably not bio-based, but if there is a lesion in the amygdala or hippocampus...more likely). Post-stroke anxiety/depression is also very common, even in people who have no history of mental illness, again suggesting a potential biological change. Epidemiological studies suggest that around a third of stroke survivors experience post-stroke depression. From what I've learned thus far in my several years of training, the answer to pretty much every question in psych is "it depends." When it comes to the brain, we still know so little. Yeah, I love neurobiology and neuroscience as well, but have a passion for clinical mental health work. The brain is so incredibly complex and simultaneously delicate and resilient (by means of neuroplasticity). We're still not at a point in science of understanding exactly how the brain influences our perceived environment and how the environment impacts our brain function. We know a bit, but only like....a micron worth of information lol. That's why I like the bio-psycho-social model because I think all those aspects impact behavior and affect in some way, and certain combinations of things can create a perfect storm that leads to maladaptive functioning.

There are definitely many flaws with the current DSM system and clustering people into symptom categories. And yes, being able to assess MH on a more biological level, as we do for medical diseases will be wonderful. But we aren't there yet, so we need to make the best of what we have at our disposal. So yes, not all evidence is created equal (which is why having a strong understanding of research methodology and statistics is important to be able to assess published studies), but there is still some pretty solid evidence for using certain protocols to treat certain issues, such as the evidence base for PE or CPT for PTSD, for instance. Right now I primarily work with individuals coping with post-stroke anxiety/depression, and so it is often very clear what the biological basis is for their current affective difficulties. However, aside from adaptations made to accommodate any other cognitive impacts of the acquired brain injury, the treatments that are effective for anxiety and depression in this population (with a clear organic cause) are by and large the same treatments that are effective in treating affective disorders in non-medically complicated patients. My program markets itself as an evidence-based program. Courses focus on teaching a wide range of theoretical orientations (CBT, DBT, Psychodynamic, etc), which is complimented by an assortment of practicum sites that offer varied, and often integrative, approaches. I personally am a big fan of the bio-psycho-social model, and looking at client concerns from that conceptual lens. I think it's also important to separate out the research ideals and what is currently available. Your article even says this, when the author writes, "RDoC, for now, is a research framework, not a clinical tool." While I anxiously await a time period where our diagnostic system is more in line with the rest of medicine, the IDC/DSM is what we got, and in the world of managed care, insurance companies want to see an F-code in order to pay out (which is another discussion for another day lol). Even when you look at the science behind psychotropic medication, most psychiatrists can't tell you why it works. They just know it does. We know serotonin is involved with depression, and SSRIs help. Researchers figured out (usually by accident) that certain drugs work for certain disorders and then hope they can work backward to figure out why. Research hasn't been able to definitively prove the serotonin deficiency theory, but we run with it because we know it works (for a lot of people). From a pure science perspective, mental health care has a looooooong way to go before it is anywhere near close to the scientific basis for standard medical care, so we use what we have at our disposal now. And then even further away from it being functional in a clinical setting.

I'm not quite sure how you differentiate science-based from evidence-based. The evidence is science-based. From what I have been taught, your intervention should be derived from the effective and efficacious treatments for that diagnosis. Typically, since most clients will have more than 1 concern, I will conceptualize all the concerns that the person is presenting with and figure out what the underlying problems are and, in part with a collaborative discussion with the client, will come up with a treatment plan that specifically targets what is believed to be the most pressing/underlying concerns. As far as subclinical symptoms, those would factor into the case conceptualization as well, but most often (in my experience) those will extinguish once you have addressed the primary problems. If not, then they are addressed after the larger concerns have been addressed if the client is interested/insurance/time allows.

Yes, I agree with the other 2 posters. Assessments are a good way to measure progress, as long as you are using validated measures. When I did a practicum at a college counseling center, we used the CCAPS (Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms) bi-weekly to track changes/progress, and at my current site we use the PHQ-9 and a mini mental status exam because of the population I work with. Insurance companies, from what I've been told, also like seeing assessments, even self-report ones like the PHQ-9 or BDI, because they are tangible scores so that measurable change can be seen. If you are doing evidence-based treatment, you should be using some sort of validated measure to assess symptom changes over time. Also, there is plenty of research that shows that using semi-structured interviews like the SCID or the DIAMOND is more reliable/valid than pure clinical judgement in providing diagnoses.

Some schools explicitly prohibit this, so it depends on the school. I would reach out to someone in admissions if possible to find out.

Can you maybe contact your undergrad institution? I'm assuming you aren't the 1st graduate to apply to grad school. They may be able to tell you how others have navigated that. Otherwise, I have no idea since I went to a state school with a standard grading system, so I have limited advice in that aspect.

I agree with the advice @SoundofSilence gave above. Do a search in Google Scholar and/or look through articles of interest you've saved and start there. Since you seem particularly interesting in programs with a Clinical Science lean, maybe also check out the PCSAS accredited list and see what faculty fit with your interests: https://www.pcsas.org/accreditation/accredited-programs/.

Yikes, which programs are these? That honestly sounds like a red-flag of the program, in that they might not be too focused on providing evidence-based training.

Your credentials seem pretty solid. I wouldn't worry about the lack of clinical experience. Unless you have a master's, very little clinical experience available post-bacc is actually anything remotely similar to what a psychologist does. You have a good number of presentations, and it isn't expected to have multiple publications without an advanced degree. I have to respectfully disagree with EyelandPsychePhD about publishing in open access journals by yourself. PIs want to see that you are open to learning how to properly conduct and disseminate research. Publishing something in a low impact open-access pay to play journal won't necessarily signal the right message, and can instead backfire. They may think you feel you do not need mentorship since you are striking out on your own at this early stage of the game, they may question your academic/scientific standards, etc. While these may in no way represent you, these are just some pre-conceived notions PIs may develop from the limited information they have about you. I don't know how far a publication in 1 of those journals will bump you up, and there is a likelihood it'll bump you down. In terms of school selection, faculty research fit should be #1. Honestly, location should be dead last. While it is understandable that you may want to live somewhere "more exciting" like New England or California, so does everyone else. Those schools get hundreds more applications simply for their location, so the competition is much steeper. In terms of culture, even universities in more mid-western areas are typically going to have small city/college town vibes that have things like coffee shops, music venues, etc. on the off chance you actually have some free time (chances are, you won't have very much of it anyway). Plus, this field is one where relocation is more the rule than the exception. You will also likely have to relocate again for internship and possibly for post-doc and your 1st job (if you want to go TT academia, you will almost 100% have to relocate for your 1st job. Given your interest in some clinical science programs like Harvard and UC Berkeley, I'm assuming a research-oriented career is your goal). Also, interviews are just as important for the applicant as for the program. If you apply to a program in a "less desirable" geographic location but a good research fit and are granted an interview, it is fine to go in with the open question of "can I see myself here for 5-6 years?" Chances are that your stipend will go further and make it easier to afford COL in those areas anyway.

At the bottom of my CV, I have a section called "Skills" where I put things like "Proficient in SPSS, Qualtrics," etc. and other things that don't fit elsewhere (such as assessments I am able to administer, but that will be applicable once you're in a program). That may be an option for you to include all of those programs you are familiar with. I honestly wouldn't worry too much about your undergrad GPA if you have an MA. They are going to care about that one more, along with your GRE scores. I would definitely add the EEG stuff, but trim down that description. There is a lot of filler that does not need to be there, such as the explanation of everything the EEG does or that the project was "playfully" titled. Just be as concise as you can be. Like, I would just have "As an undergraduate, received a grant in the amount of $300 with a team of three other students to purchase an EPOC EEG 14-channel Neuroheadset for a project titled 'Telepathically Responsive Virtual Reality.' The project was a creative art piece investigating computer game design, cognition, and EEG feedback." I think that could go under research experience. I'm assuming you collected data in order to present this in some way, correct?

Yep, basically. That's why many people will apply multiple cycles before getting in.

Actually, it kind of is. Research has shown that the frontal lobe isn't fully formed until approximately 25 years of age, so people in their early 20s are still developing in terms of emotion, personality, and executive functioning. This is why research has branded college age "emerging adulthood" because it is distinctly different, developmentally, from adolescence (where there is significant brain growth similar to that of infancy) and adulthood. While the development isn't as drastic from 18-22 as it is from 13-18, there is still significant growth developmentally that is occurring, especially because it's focused almost exclusively on the brain, while human development in adolescence is also evident in other areas.

Just FYI, I am also on SDN, and a DCT of a program posted this about the GRE in a thread: "I thought I would come back and re-post here because it is amazing what can change in a week. We found out that since we have made our GRE optional our graduate school won't forward any GRE scores regardless of whether or not you send them. It sounds like this has become the default choice for a lot of schools over the last week. Thus, there may be no incentive for sending GRE scores at all now. Just thought I would pass that along."

Chicago School has a pretty poor reputation, so I would steer clear of that one. The size of their last year's incoming cohort is larger than my entire PsyD program's entire program....including staff. At minimum, you want a program that is connected to a university. Those tend to have better training programs versus the ones that are a business such as Chicago School and Alliant (Argosy was the biggest, but they were shut down recently).

Any program that has a CBT orientation should provide some training on ERP, as it kind of falls under the umbrella of CBT-based treatments (technically more strictly behavioral but I think you'd be hard pressed to find any programs that focus exclusively on behavioral models). Overall, I'm not sure how involved you can get into treatment-based research on a master's level since programs are usually 2 years. It kind of sounds like a PhD in clinical psychology would be a better fit for your interests.

I think your time would be better spent volunteering for a research lab relevant to your interests. Also, I would really try to spend some time narrowing down your interests because they are so broad. Your research fit with a POI is 1 of the most important factors in your application and you want your SOP to have a clear goal. It's ok to have multiple interests (and you can explore some of them in grad school), but you want to present 1 clear line of research in your materials.

Not every undergrad, but significantly more than grad students. There are some who will get apartments in later years, but there are still many who live on campus all 4 years. If you don't live on campus, you are also going to be less likely to hang around if you aren't there for a specific responsibility like class or something, so if you aren't eating in the dining halls with undergrads or taking classes with them; then logistically you aren't really going to be interacting with/hanging out with them unless you purposefully seek out those interactions. There isn't anything inherently wrong with doing so, but it is just more likely that you will have to put in the extra effort to seek out and spend time with undergrads over people you will already be interacting with.

Master's thesis. Even if you don't register for the course until later on, most people start work on it much earlier to ensure they graduate in a timely fashion. In the US, it varies by location/university. I don't really know what the stats are, but I knew plenty of people who lives on campus throughout all of undergrad. I went to a university in a major US city that didn't have dorms, so my experience was always off-campus housing. I have no idea what college life is like in Canada though.

There's usually just less interaction. You very likely won't have any undergrads in your classes. Most grad students don't live on campus. There just aren't that many spaces in which grad students and undergrads co-mingle so it is less likely that the two groups will hang out.