SocDevMum

As someone who was in that spot last year - take the time to breathe and enjoy yourself! Read some non-academic books, take a weekend getaway (if your area allows travel), indulge in some hobbies, go out with friends and family.  Because the next 5+ years will not allow you to do nearly as much of any of that as you would like! 
Then, yes, start scouting for housing in your new city, maybe make some connections both within and outside your academic program to ease the transition.  
Congratulations!

As someone who was in that spot last year - take the time to breathe and enjoy yourself! Read some non-academic books, take a weekend getaway (if your area allows travel), indulge in some hobbies, go out with friends and family.  Because the next 5+ years will not allow you to do nearly as much of any of that as you would like! 
Then, yes, start scouting for housing in your new city, maybe make some connections both within and outside your academic program to ease the transition.  
Congratulations!

I have found academic twitter really helpful. Particularly @Psychchatter and @PsychinOut

My next step is to find a place to live. I've already contacted grad students with the kind of place I'm looking for and they provided many helpful suggestions. I've also had my post-acceptance meeting with my PI so I have plans in that regard too.

Hi all! I recently was accepted into a Clinical Psychology PhD program and have accepted my offer, so I figured I'd start a thread for people in a similar boat! What do you all plan to do until we attend? Are there resources/tools you plan on using to prepare for the change? Congratulations to everyone in a similar boat!

Totally. This has been a huge factor for me. My plan was to apply to clinical master’s programs if I didn’t get in anywhere this cycle. The program I liked the best was at Boston University and would’ve required me to take out over $100,000 in loans. The idea of taking on that much debt was slightly horrifying... I think it would have caused me years of financial stress. I now have one offer from a PhD program that isn’t a perfect research fit by any stretch (it wasn’t my top choice), but it’s fully-funded and a lot of its graduates have gone on to clinical careers (even though it’s a research-heavy clinical science program). It’s really no question for me now...I could not fathom paying for a master’s instead even if I already knew I were more interested in clinical work than in research. Anyway, if it were easier to become a therapist (social worker, mental health counselor) without owing thousands of dollars in tuition, I’m sure more people would go that route.

I think the biggest issue is that psychology is not a high demand field (in terms of job outlook which is 3% or average) whereas social work, mental health counseling and many adjacent fields related to mental health clinical work are in high demand.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics put the job outlook of adjacent fields at 8% for school counselors, 22% for marriage and family therapists, 13% for social workers and 25% for Substance Abuse, Behavioral Disorder, and Mental Health Counselors. All of these are well above average job outlooks. 
 
Schools are therefore focusing on fields that are in demand and desperately need practitioners whereas fields like clinical psych (which don’t have enough internship sites for many more PhD or PsyD students) are only growing slowly. 
 
The talent may be wasted but I think what the field of psychology needs to do a better job at is convincing applicants that they don’t need to get a PhD or PsyD to do what they want. There are so many other routes to be a mental health clinician and reducing our field to only a few options means that it will be so much more competitive and grueling. 

In my current department and where I trained people sometimes (rarely) get sent from clinical to experimental if they do not seem to be able to meet clinical expectations but I've never seen it happen the other way.
I also think it's important to think about not just career interests but also job markets. I personally didn't want to do therapy and knew I wanted to be in academia but wanted the clinical degree to have flexibility because the academic job market is so tough. It's much harder to get an academic job as a social psychologist or health psychologist based on my (limited) observation, whereas clinical psychologists can work in traditional universities but also academic medical centers, VAs, etc. where they have some combination of training/research/clinical activities. Most of the people I know who got PhDs in experimental or social psych work in industry doing things like marketing stats or helping develop instruments for test publishers (which might be of interest to you, but is not clinically-relevant research). In my state you also need to be licensed to supervise graduate students clinically, so if you ever want PhD students you'd likely be limited to a non-clinical program in some states.
On the plus side, I know folks with experimental psych training who do work in clinically relevant research and just have to employ clinical folks on their team. So it's possible if you want to be in an environment like an AMC with a lot of soft money and big research groups, but that lifestyle isn't for everyone.

I've been thinking about this a lot. The funding for graduate study in clinical psychology is so often tied to funding for grants in individual laboratories. So long as that is the system, admit rates will be very low, in accordance with flow of grant money, and based on alignment of interests with grant needs. The APA needs to think long and hard about its requirement that licensing for clinical psychologists flow through these narrowly focused grant-based programs. For example, wouldn't it relieve a lot of pressure if more top universities embraced PsyD programs--with the support of mental health grant funding-- that trained outstanding clinicians, and stopped denigrating them as somehow less worthy than their academically focused counterparts? Imagine a medical school that looks down its nose at those who seek to treat patients, or a law school that turns away those who admit to wanting to represent clients. Yet this is the situation for many applying to psychology programs. So strange. The attempt to combine academia, scientific funding and professional licensing all under one roof has, it seems to me, created a great identity crisis and nearly insurmountable hurdles for most applicants.

Exactly what are your career goals? What is it about clinical psych that you are so passionate about? As mentioned previously, if you aren't interested in holding a license that would enable you to diagnose and treat, you just want to do research, then this could be a great option. There is quite a bit of overlap between the different specializations - cognitive/neuro and developmental especially seem to have a lot in common with the topics that clinical researchers also study, so you may find fulfillment in something that is adjacent to the field. 
All that said, if you just absolutely know that you want to complete the training and apply for licensure, you would be doing yourself (and the program) a disservice by taking this spot this year. You mentioned that you don't have a lot of direct clinical experience - is that something you would want to work on for another year, to improve your chances for the next application season? 
I've heard of people with exisiting PhDs in cogntive or developmental going back to school for a few years to get a second PhD in Clinical, but man that seems like a lot time and money to spend (waste!) if you already know you want a Clinical degree.....

Just to echo previous answers - yep, they should not take offense with the question. Also, in practice, it is difficult for programs to lose accreditation. I think it's harder to get accredited and easier to get renewed. Also, in order to lose it, I think they would be placed on some sort of "probation" - check their site for programs on probation. If nothing really bad has happened in the past 10 years and the program maintains similar standards and stats, I wouldn't really worry much about it (I speak as someone who was present when a program was renewing their accreditation, APA in that case).

A woman in my lab accepted her offer of admission to the joint program last week, under PI SG I think, if that helps

Okay, I started a thread if you want to add your voice there, too! 
 

How bad it is really depends on the circumstances. Are you certain no one else accepted an offer? That's the most common reason I have seen for rejections after interviews. 
However, there are so many other reasons people get rejected and it is not always because they were a bad candidate or didn't interview well. I encourage you to reach out to the PI for feedback because that will be the most instructive. If they interviewed you, they should be open to have some further conversation for feedback at the very least. 
Sometimes unusual things can come up after the interview that impact your status but have little to do with you or your interview performance. For example, they could find out funding they were counting on getting is no longer available or that an older student who is in the program won't be graduating on time. This then could make it impossible to admit a new student no matter how wonderful they are. It could also just be a matter of fit with the program or PI which speaks more to finding the right program/PI for your interests than it does to you as a candidate. The list of possibilities can go on.
So, although poor performance on the interview could be one factor, it could be plenty of other things that contribute to decisions. This processes are very complex, beyond what any of us on the other side can begin to imagine. I would encourage you not to get too defeated by the rejection before you get more info as to the circumstances. 

I'm just bumping this for visibility AND to make the point that, at the moment, the top ten threads in this forum include Quantitative Psych, Clinical & Counseling Psych, Industrial Organizational Psych, Cognitive Psych/Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental Psych, and Social & Personality Psych.
Sorry, School Psych. You just missed the top ten. ?

FYI, I have emailed admin to inquire about the change. 

As an aside, if they intend to open new boards for different psych fields, that's a huge error in judgment. We need interdisciplinary contact, even if it's at the application stages.
I think someone goofed. They leapt on an idea and didn't really think it through.

As a developmental/education/quant psych person, I feel excluded

is it me or did they change the name of this forum "clinical psychology forum"? Feeling the erasure of  social/dev/IO psych ?

I'm a big fan of Academic Twitter, less so LinkedIn. LinkedIn is much less active, and often seems to only be useful for head hunters. I use Twitter to interact directly with PIs, early career academics and fellow grad students, not just in my field but also in those that are adjacent to my focus; I study sexual violence and LGBT issues, so I follow a lot of Sociology academics, for example. This has enabled me to keep up on research at all stages, from initial data collection through to paper or conference submission. Essentially, you can see what the most recent research is, as it is happening, which is priceless considering how far behind the publishing process really is.  Twitter has also allowed me to interact with scholars in other countries - for some this may be less relevant I suppose, but if there is cool work happening in Europe or Asia in your field, Twitter makes it easy to connect and keep up. This has opened up opportunities to talk not just about international research, but also potential post-doc or job openings in places other than the U.S. Given the sorry state of the U.S. academic job market I think this is super important. It's been my pleasure to get to know academics all over, and while we are not what I would call friends, it's been a blast to sit in a conference or committee meeting and have the speaker say "hey, I know you, what do you think?" I have met several early career or grad student folks who are in their current position because they "met" someone on Twitter, and through that person were able to make the connections to get an interview, write that grant or land that post-doc spot. 
Let's face it - academia is as much about who you know as what you know. If you have already interacted with a fellow scholar via Twitter, it makes it infinitely easier to reach out and chat IRL. You can create your own opportunities for joint projects, make plans to meet at conferences, ask for more details about a study or instrument they created; it's all about relationship building. Academic Twitter is an excellent tool for building a network outside of your home institution. Yes, you have to put some work into curating your Twitter. Some people keep a separate personal Twitter; it's a choice about how much you want to share with others. Obviously your frat party photos probably shouldn't be included, for example. And you have to invest some time into it. Not to say you need to spend hours a day on the app   but you do have to be willing to actually read some links, share posts for study recruitment or post-doc/job opportunities, leave comments or questions when you read something interesting, and yes, do the social stuff like say congratulations when someone is celebrating an achievement.  It's no good if you are strictly a passive follower. 

I'm a big fan of Academic Twitter, less so LinkedIn. LinkedIn is much less active, and often seems to only be useful for head hunters. I use Twitter to interact directly with PIs, early career academics and fellow grad students, not just in my field but also in those that are adjacent to my focus; I study sexual violence and LGBT issues, so I follow a lot of Sociology academics, for example. This has enabled me to keep up on research at all stages, from initial data collection through to paper or conference submission. Essentially, you can see what the most recent research is, as it is happening, which is priceless considering how far behind the publishing process really is.  Twitter has also allowed me to interact with scholars in other countries - for some this may be less relevant I suppose, but if there is cool work happening in Europe or Asia in your field, Twitter makes it easy to connect and keep up. This has opened up opportunities to talk not just about international research, but also potential post-doc or job openings in places other than the U.S. Given the sorry state of the U.S. academic job market I think this is super important. It's been my pleasure to get to know academics all over, and while we are not what I would call friends, it's been a blast to sit in a conference or committee meeting and have the speaker say "hey, I know you, what do you think?" I have met several early career or grad student folks who are in their current position because they "met" someone on Twitter, and through that person were able to make the connections to get an interview, write that grant or land that post-doc spot. 
Let's face it - academia is as much about who you know as what you know. If you have already interacted with a fellow scholar via Twitter, it makes it infinitely easier to reach out and chat IRL. You can create your own opportunities for joint projects, make plans to meet at conferences, ask for more details about a study or instrument they created; it's all about relationship building. Academic Twitter is an excellent tool for building a network outside of your home institution. Yes, you have to put some work into curating your Twitter. Some people keep a separate personal Twitter; it's a choice about how much you want to share with others. Obviously your frat party photos probably shouldn't be included, for example. And you have to invest some time into it. Not to say you need to spend hours a day on the app   but you do have to be willing to actually read some links, share posts for study recruitment or post-doc/job opportunities, leave comments or questions when you read something interesting, and yes, do the social stuff like say congratulations when someone is celebrating an achievement.  It's no good if you are strictly a passive follower. 

I'm a big fan of Academic Twitter, less so LinkedIn. LinkedIn is much less active, and often seems to only be useful for head hunters. I use Twitter to interact directly with PIs, early career academics and fellow grad students, not just in my field but also in those that are adjacent to my focus; I study sexual violence and LGBT issues, so I follow a lot of Sociology academics, for example. This has enabled me to keep up on research at all stages, from initial data collection through to paper or conference submission. Essentially, you can see what the most recent research is, as it is happening, which is priceless considering how far behind the publishing process really is.  Twitter has also allowed me to interact with scholars in other countries - for some this may be less relevant I suppose, but if there is cool work happening in Europe or Asia in your field, Twitter makes it easy to connect and keep up. This has opened up opportunities to talk not just about international research, but also potential post-doc or job openings in places other than the U.S. Given the sorry state of the U.S. academic job market I think this is super important. It's been my pleasure to get to know academics all over, and while we are not what I would call friends, it's been a blast to sit in a conference or committee meeting and have the speaker say "hey, I know you, what do you think?" I have met several early career or grad student folks who are in their current position because they "met" someone on Twitter, and through that person were able to make the connections to get an interview, write that grant or land that post-doc spot. 
Let's face it - academia is as much about who you know as what you know. If you have already interacted with a fellow scholar via Twitter, it makes it infinitely easier to reach out and chat IRL. You can create your own opportunities for joint projects, make plans to meet at conferences, ask for more details about a study or instrument they created; it's all about relationship building. Academic Twitter is an excellent tool for building a network outside of your home institution. Yes, you have to put some work into curating your Twitter. Some people keep a separate personal Twitter; it's a choice about how much you want to share with others. Obviously your frat party photos probably shouldn't be included, for example. And you have to invest some time into it. Not to say you need to spend hours a day on the app   but you do have to be willing to actually read some links, share posts for study recruitment or post-doc/job opportunities, leave comments or questions when you read something interesting, and yes, do the social stuff like say congratulations when someone is celebrating an achievement.  It's no good if you are strictly a passive follower. 

I would definitely be interested in hearing perspectives on this! Social media is not something that’s typically covered in (my experience) traditional application advice, but I found it useful to be following PIs on Twitter, for example, because they often post about their interests, current projects, or any lab meet and greets. But that’s something I picked up on maybe 6 months ago. I want to help future applicants navigate these tools effectively. 

Do you know if that program has sent out formal interview invitations or acceptances yet? If they have, then she might be less likely to respond to emails - typically counting on you to receive the standard mass rejection email and therefore not having to address it herself. If they haven’t made any decisions, she probably hasn’t responded because she has nothing new to say other than “keep waiting.” 
If you know decisions haven’t gone out yet, I think you are OK to email her once more (at least 10-14 days after your last email though) to follow-up. Keep the email relatively brief but enthusiastic. Faculty are overly burdened right now with COVID-19, budget cuts, online classes, new university initiatives, etc. and emails are often the last thing they want to deal with at the end of a long day. Faculty are often better at responding to shorter and more direct messages (think 30-seconds or less to read in full).
Alternatively, if you interviewed or talked with any other faculty members, you could try contacting them instead. They likely have some amount of information and then you reduce the risk of adding extra burden to the primary person you spoke with and already tried to contact. 
One thing more broadly to consider: Do you want to work with someone long-term who’s not great at communicating or responding to emails? I realize now that a lot of the experiences I had with potential advisors were indicative of how they currently advise their students (for both good and bad). I’ve since found out that some of the faculty members who were a little evasive of my emails and questions are relatively hands off as advisors (which is fine for some people but wasn’t what I was looking for). My current advisor was really receptive, flexible, and enthusiastic throughout my application process. To this day my advisor is the most responsive faculty member I’ve ever met and will drop almost anything if a student really needs help. I’m not saying this is definitely the case here, but it is important to be mindful of the broader message a set of behaviors might be hinting at.  
 

Most years, by SPSP most programs have sent out first round decisions. At this point, if you have received no updates at all (check your spam box!), it is probably reasonable to start reaching out to faculty to ask if they have more information. If you're on their waitlist, they're typically honest about that fact. Also, this is all the more reason for those with multiple acceptances to release offers they don't plan on taking so others can come off the waitlist (as @Faculty Full Prof stated).