Psyche007

I need to read that study, haha. I'm a terrible procrastinator and I just tried your technique. I think it helped. It certainly lessened the anxiety associated with an unpleasant or unstimulating task, anxiety that as you stated is typically soothed by procrastination.

Bravo, phenomenal! This is exactly the sort of introspection I was interested in. That was not boring at all. You make a compelling argument, surely from all the intensive logic LSAT preparation, haha! I also wasn't trying to be discouraging, just honest and frank. As an aside: Psychology is increasingly politicized as well. It's beyond 'liberal' (as a UK-immigrant, I resentfully apply that term to American left-wing politics). To me, a sort-of centrist libertarian, it's bordering on 'leftist'. Professors openly discuss politics in class, including their extreme disapproval of parties, policies, and candidates. This is reflected in the treatment guidelines provided by the American Psychological Association. It's also reflected in our textbooks. You might be interested in Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE). A senior student and his mentor from my programme have been working on complex PTSD and implications for treatment: https://apatraumadivision.org/files/51.pdf https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/contextual-trauma-therapy

PsychApplicant2 is right - don't constrain yourself unless you absolutely have to. If I had applied nationally, I would have had to live away from wife and daughter for a few years. That wasn't something I wanted to do, so I had to apply to a single programme. It meant ignoring fully-funded programmes, which nearly everyone on here will tell you NOT to do, and for good reason. It meant ignoring R1 schools, which nearly everyone on here will tell you NOT to do, unless you have NO chance of an R1 even as a dream school. It meant not spending 2 years on a Master's degree to get formal research experience, posters, and publications. I basically did everything 'wrong', but my life circumstances dictated it. You have to ask yourself if once it's all said and done, will you be satisfied with the choices you've made? If you're applying locally, see if you can go to an open house and talk to some of the students. I did with my programme and it was invaluable. I made contacts and friends that have continued into my 2nd year. If you have mentors/POIs narrowed down, see if you can arrange five minutes to discuss their work and how it aligns with your interests. Be bold. Make it happen. At the end of the day, they still have to accept YOU and not just your credentials.

"As I got closer, seeing the state of our society, I don't think the law is going to be the vehicle for social benefit I thought it would. I think they've ruined it." What do you mean by this? How has law been ruined? What social benefit do you desire to bring about? How will clinical psychology achieve that? One of my motivations for admission to a clinical psychology PhD was because I think the discipline has been greatly damaged by ideology and influenced by activism. I entered in a (potentially naive) attempt to eventually offer some balance. It is an on-going struggle, but one I believe will ultimately be worthwhile. Your suitability for admission aside, I think analysis of this statement is critical in determining if switching to a clinpsych PhD will be satisfying for you, because this will translate into 'goodness of fit' when you start applying for doctoral programmes. I came to mine with an Applied Psychology BS and about 8+ years of clinical experience in various mental health fields at that level. I was over 40. I had no formal research experience. I had walked out of a MHC Master's after a single semester to earn another BS, one to prepare me for a physician assistant programme. However, I was able to narrate my journey and the logic of my decisions well. Due to familial obligations, I had geographical restraints that meant, after looking for potential mentors/supervisors, I could only apply to a single programme. You 'on paper' is one thing, and the others here can speak to that strategy. You showing up on interview day and the connection you create with a potential mentor is something else. Your passion and desire will need to come through in order for you to have the best possible shot. "Suddenly, I want to pursue psychology. Without any background in psychology or research, I sense I will need to get a master's first." These questions are important before you commit yourself to a course of action that might not be satisfying for you, especially you've already spent years dedicating yourself to a field only to find out it's not what you wanted it to be. This post will probably attract some ire from one or two of the regulars because it will be interpreted as questioning your life goals and somehow invalidating them, but by your own admission, you don't have any kind of background in the field. I'm not assuming that you haven't thought this out fully. I'm just not seeing this addressed in your post and I think it's vital to clarify this before suggesting how to go about becoming a suitable candidate.

Being in Florida, I looked at this programme before deciding on clinical psychology. Welcome to Integrative Biology and Neuroscience at FAU & MPFI! Doctoral Degree in Integrative Biology-Neuroscience Integrative Biology-Neuroscience is a joint FAU-Max Planck Florida Institute for Neuroscience program. The program, which admitted its first students in Fall 2011, is housed within the Department of Biological Sciences. Completion of the neuroscience concentration provides students with both knowledge and practical experience in the neuroscience field at an advanced level. In the evolving and growing field of neuroscience, students who complete the IBNS concentration will have the appropriate training to succeed both within and outside of academia. The neuroscience curriculum focuses strongly on knowledge-based and experimental-based neuroscience courses and includes training in scientific methodologies. IBNS faculty are active experts in their respective neuroscience fields and will support development of the students who can focus on a number of research areas, including neuronal circuitry, learning and memory, neurodegeneration, drug discovery, stress neurobiology, neurogenetics and/or neurodevelopment. The Scripps Research Institute of Florida has partnered with FAU and also contributes expertise to this program. The neuroscience concentration falls under the umbrella of the Integrative Biology major and students accepted to the concentration are subject to all Integrative Biology policies and regulations as well as additional regulations that are specific to each concentration. Participants in the Integrative Biology Ph.D. Program are also eligible to complete an en passant Master's degree (along the way). Additional information about Integrative Biology concentration options and the Master's Along the Way (MALW) option can be found here. http://biology.fau.edu/academics/graduate/phd-biology-degree-programs-ibn.php Comprehending the full function of the brain, in health and disease, requires the understanding of sub-cellular processes in single neurons, signal integration by the brain and cognitive function. Neuroscience faculty members are tackling many of the cutting edge questions in neuroscience through the integration of multiple disciplines, different model systems and a broad spectrum of technologies. The Integrative Biology Ph.D. Program of FAU has teamed up with the Max Planck Florida Institute (MPFI) to create a Program in Integrative Biology and Neuroscience (IBNS). The IBNS program is a Ph.D. in Integrative Biology with an emphasis in Neuroscience offering a broad range of training by faculty members and practical workshops in advanced methods offered by staff of excellent core facilities. The Department also offers Masters degrees. The Department of Biological Sciences, in a joint program with FAU’s Department of Psychology, also offers a B.S. in Neuroscience and Behavior. Research opportunities for both graduate and undergraduate students are offered with select faculty from MPFI, FAU and Scripps Florida. Name Area of Emphasis Claiborne, Brenda J. Neuronal development in human hippocampal formation and learning in aged individuals Dawson-Scully, Ken Neurobiology of cellular stress and neuroprotection using live cell imaging, electrophysiology and behavior genetics Godenschwege, Tanja Molecular and cellular neuroscience, neurodevelopment, cellular basis of neurological disorders and drug discovery Jia, Kailiang Molecular regulation of aging Keene, Alex Neurogenetics and the evolution of behavior Milton, Sarah L. Vertebrate anoxia tolerance, marine turtle physiology Murphey, Rod Development and degeneration of synapses http://biology.fau.edu/research/neuroscience.php

Yes - the RDoC was welcome news because it has the potential to usher in some long-overdue basic research. But at least in my programme, it's not being taught to clinical psychologists, so their research continues to be built around DSM diagnostic categories with questionable validity, instead of improving the fundamental understanding necessary for biologically-based psychopathological constructs and interventions. This is why the RDoC is a research framework - they can't displace the DSM as a diagnostic tool without risking serious pushback. Removing its credibility as a research tool is the first step. I think any APA-accredited programme is supposed to be evidenced-based, no? My programme is accredited and they talk about evidenced-based this and that all the time. For example, EMDR is evidenced-based. All that means it that someone studied it and interpreted the results to indicate efficacy. Beyond that, adherents becomes cult-like in their devotion to the protocol. There is no proposed mechanism of action and it is not grounded in science. Read the research. The methodology is laughable. In your patient population, is the stroke itself the pathological etiology (i.e., the actual change in structure and function directly causing depression and anxiety) or is anxiety and depression a response to loss of function and subsequent adaption (making the stroke a catalyst but not the true cause)? I've looked at plenty of research regarding psychiatric medication. There isn't a single psychiatrist alive who can tell you the role that serotonin plays in depressed mood, and by that, I mean the underlying mechanism of mood. The 'chemical imbalance' hypothesis has become an urban legend, widely accepted, poorly supported. SSRIs do help some people, some times. We don't have a clear understanding into the neurology of affective response. The best understood emotional experience at the neural level is fear and that hasn't yet translated from affective neuroscience into falsifiable theory that has real clinical utility. I originally considered neuroscience because I wanted to help answer some of the fundamental questions of the discipline. What is consciousness? Do we have free will? How do we perceive pain? What is intelligence? However, I have a real interest in and talent for clinical work. I felt that clinical psych could do with some people trying to push for reform from within. The gap between clinical psychology and other disciplines, such as cognitive, is bad enough as it is. I doubt I'll be successful, but I'll have a frustratingly fun time trying.

Not all evidence is created equally. We have some serious issues with how psychopathology is constructed. It's why the NIMH moved away from the DSM for guiding research: "It became immediately clear that we cannot design a system based on biomarkers or cognitive performance because we lack the data. In this sense, RDoC is a framework for collecting the data needed for a new nosology. But it is critical to realize that we cannot succeed if we use DSM categories as the “gold standard.”2 The diagnostic system has to be based on the emerging research data, not on the current symptom-based categories. Imagine deciding that EKGs were not useful because many patients with chest pain did not have EKG changes. That is what we have been doing for decades when we reject a biomarker because it does not detect a DSM category. We need to begin collecting the genetic, imaging, physiologic, and cognitive data to see how all the data – not just the symptoms – cluster and how these clusters relate to treatment response." https://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/directors/thomas-insel/blog/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml It sounds like your programme is prescriptive in nature. Do you forgo theoretical orientation in favour of an integrative approach based purely on the most effective intervention for a specific diagnosis?

What do you think of science-based treatment as opposed to evidence-based treatment? How does a reliable and valid diagnosis influence your intervention? How do you interpret subclinical symptoms?

I can appreciate the use of assessments to help patients track their progress. Did the assessment results influence your choice of intervention or conceptualization?

My question is just directed at your thoughts, and you provided your thoughts, so you were helpful. ?

Has anyone been directed to use specific assessments during their clinical work, in practica, internship, or otherwise? I'm not concerned with concentrations like neuropsychology or forensics, but general clinical work. I was discussing the clinical competency exam with my supervisor asked her if assessments were required. She said that many students use them because they're simple and easy, but you don't have to, as long as you can justify their exclusion. I'm just curious. Anyone have any thoughts?

Some schools allow consideration for other programmes with a single application. For example, as part of the clinical psych PhD app at my programme, there was an option to also be considered for the clinical psych PsyD programme. That's information you should be able to find out with a phone call.

Oof, tough situation, I'm sorry to hear it. The first thing that jumps out to me is the likelihood of being accepted into another programme next cycle. If you knew that you might not be able to get in for perhaps 2-3 years, would that change your perspective? Have you identified any other programmes of interest? Is there a way to speak to anyone to develop a sense of how leaving a programme looks on an application to their application committee? Finally, how do your research interests stay within clinical psych? Is it possible that you would benefit from an adjacent psychological discipline that is purely research based? If that turns out to be true (for example, switching from clinical to social) I suspect that might be viewed more favorably than a switch from one clinical psych programme to another.

I might not be similar enough to you for my input to be useful, but here it is anyway. Context: I'm a 40+ y/o 2nd year clinical psych PhD student, 2x Bachelor of Science degrees, no Master's degree, married to a career-professional wife with whom I have an adult daughter. I have 8+ years professional experience working in various mental health/substance abuse settings in both private practice and community organizations. I am an immigrant who moved to US approximately 20 years ago. 1. What is 1 thing you wish you knew before starting grad school (either terminal masters or PhD)? The hardest thing about grad school seems to be getting in. Once you're there, success is HEAVILY based on how organized and disciplined you are, not how intelligent. Consistent effort and scheduled self-care is extremely important to maintain motivation. Pick your schools carefully and don't be afraid to create your own opportunities. Be appropriately assertive. 2. Biggest challenge returning to school after many years Being organized and disciplined. Dealing with boredom. Learning how to balance the various demands of family, coursework, and research. Motivating myself to care about elements of the course that are banal and/or frivolous. Adjusting to a heavily bureaucratic administration that wouldn't be able to survive in a normal business environment (and I worked in some state-funded departments that were incredibly frustrating to navigate). That last part might be institution-dependent, but I doubt there's much variance in academia. 3. Biggest misconception you had about returning to school (dream v reality)? I honestly though it would be far more intellectually demanding that it actually is. I was always told during undergrad that grad school was the place to challenge orthodoxy and develop deeper insight into the fundamental concepts and philosophies of psychology in general, theoretical orientations of psychotherapy, constructs of psychopathology, etc. This isn't the case, at least not yet. There's a lot of memorization and regurgitation with specific application. Challenge isn't usually well-received, no matter how academic the discussion. I also thought that my cohort would generate a much more camaraderie than has actually occurred. There is a tendency to engage in a lot of drama, just like I imagine high school to be. I've ended up making friends with senior PhD students and some 2nd year PsyD students, some of whom are closer to my own age. If you're 27 or so, you might not experience much of this, as there is probably a generational element involved.

Your interests in quantifying symptomolgy are absolutely vital to the field. If you do pick clinical psychology, it sounds like you might want to focus on health or neuropsychology as a specialty, if you enjoy assessment, testing, and biofeedback. I don't know how many clinical psychology departments have ready access to fMRI, so pick your programmes carefully. I think you can connect your interests to clinical psych easily, just make sure you've reviewed all curriculum and clinical requirements for every programme you want to apply for to ensure you will be happy when you start attending. Again, you come across very well and I suspect you'll be a great candidate for any programme you apply to. I'm only going on about this because 'goodness of fit', for you and the programme, is extremely important. If you're interested in the NIMH RDoC as opposed to DSM, for example, you might find coursework infuriating in a clinical programme.

This is valuable insight. Trainees are expected to participate in about 2 years worth of clinical practica, then internship, and finally post-doc in order to qualify for licensure. Anyone who isn't interested in licensure and especially clinical practice might find their time better spent in a different programme.

Just a general question: why clinical psych and not another specialty like cognitive or developmental psych or even a neuroscience programme? Do you have clinical experience? While you look like a great candidate in general, I am not seeing a connection to clinical psych in the information you posted. That would be something you're expected to expand on in your application and certainly in interviews.

I realize some time has passed but I'm just seeing this now. I had a patient die while working as a counselor in a methadone clinic. I'm happy to be an informal resource, share my experience, or just listen. Feel free to DM.

@Belkis This adds a great deal of colour to your position and makes a lot of sense. A general audience may well be more impressed by an author that includes PhD after their name, although I admit I don’t know how much attention a general audience pays to academic pedigree outside of the Ivies. Personally, I tend to be skeptical of authors that do that, because it communicates an appeal to authority. Of course, I am not part of your target audience. The experts that write books I read don’t include their education after their names, but granted they’re not self-help. That genre may have a ‘credibility issue’ as you’ve already mentioned. I don’t think ‘selfless’ is the right way to conceptualize the approach for earning an PhD. Like I said earlier, it is a two-way investment. There is more to a lot of these tasks than cheap labour. Some is tradition, hazing, and life lessons. Those of us with life experience don’t always need them, but there is other value involved. Ultimately, it sounds like earning a PhD is marketing tool that will also enrich your personal knowledge. TL;DR: I think your best bet is to cultivate a relationship with an academic capable of supervising you in your area of interest. You’re bound to find someone who can support you in that way and won’t see you as future competition (as an author). Although I am only vaguely familiar with how publishing works, if you haven’t already thought of it, perhaps you could approach this initially by co-writing a book with an evo-psych as ‘consultant’, especially to build a close working relationship. You’d have to do a cost-benefit analysis. It might be a decent intermediate step and could be valuable for crystallizing your future goals.

A PhD is a bidirectional investment. It shouldn't be seen as a ‘product’, but as a process. Poke, your response is an excellent summary.

I think your reaction could tell you a lot about yourself, if you care to develop the insight.

If anything, I hope my response serves as a way for you to gauge how not to frame it. I could only evaluate what was presented to me. I certainly believe that you have plenty to offer, but it just wasn't presented here. I'm in my programme for a radically different reason than pretty much every other student, a reason that certainly goes against the grain of the mainstream. I'm also older than you are, by a smidge. I've gone about this the non-traditional way, too. It might serve you to cultivate a relationship with the academics you're interested in working with, because you might be surprised how a programme could be tailored to your needs and interests, but that's a different conversation than talking about how being self-funded releases you from programme obligations. If you're already considered an expert in your field, it's going to be a significant consideration for anyone willing to supervise you. I just think that waiting until programme acceptance to discuss this kind of thing seems like misrepresentation. While some people might feel like obscuring their intentions, a mature and honest person will work to find the right place for them with integrity.

Wow, nice wall of text. You're assuming a great deal. I am asking a real question: What does the author bring to the table? It's not an unreasonable question considering a valuable spot is on the line. How do you know they write well? Have you read their work? You may be right, but unless you have, you're making assumptions. I'm basing everything on what I was able to read. You may think it's an uncharitable take, and that's fine. But it's not unwarranted. I don't have the luxury of viewing a completed application, just a couple of posts on a forum. It's not wrong to want one for elevated status, but it's probably not the most attractive quality in an applicant. I'm not full of anything: the author said "Maybe I'm just being silly and going through the process is not that bad." This indicates previous judgement regarding the process. I'm not making a decision, I'm reflecting what I see. I'm open to being wrong, but this certainly triggered you in the worst way. There are indeed different perspectives. I offered an honest one. Right or wrong, it's acceptable to do, even if you don't like it and feel compelled to react in such a hostile and immature way.

If you are looking for greater independence, you may consider an institution that doesn't offer funding at all. You will sacrifice pedigree for independence, however. I'm reading a lot about what you want from a programme and how you'd like to be exempt from certain requirements, but I'm not seeing what you bring to the table. What will you contribute? I see you want the programme to give you authority and reputation but you want to maintain distance from it, not become part of it. When I read what you wrote, I get a sense that you feel you're "above" a lot of these things, due to your prior success and financial situation. Am I reading too much into it? From this information alone, you don't seem invested in the process enough to be worth accepting as a student. You're obviously more than capable of doing all the learning and work by yourself. The degree is just a way of elevating your status.

Does she publish? Look at her publications and see if she has a quant person listed amongst the authors, ask her if you can consult with them for guidance. If she doesn't, there's got to be someone in the institution that consults with faculty on research methods and stats (in my programme, that's my supervisor). As this sounds like a common theme, you could even reach out to former students of hers who do work in research, see how they coped. Your supervisor can't be everything to you. You have to network and locate your own resources, while being mindful and respectful of academic politics.