Fall 2021 Clinical & Counseling PhD/PsyD

[NotYourMothersGrad]

40 minutes ago, EileanDonan said:

Is anyone else surprised we haven't heard more concrete info from GSU? I keep vacillating between emailing them or leaving it.

I'd imagine GSU aren't sending out more invites. We had a mass invite email that wanted our confirmation between two dates, and the deadline to respond to that email was the 22nd. So they're most likely getting everything together now that they know who is attending when.

[missmusical]

1 hour ago, psicologa said:

Hello, no i'm not a troll. I received the rejection this morning. PI: RC. 

Good luck to you! 

oops! Sorry for the assumption >.<

I would also like to know if this was a generic mass email or if you heard from your PI directly?

[EileanDonan]

1 minute ago, Gavindorf said:

I'd imagine GSU aren't sending out more invites. We had a mass invite email that wanted our confirmation between two dates, and the deadline to respond to that email was the 22nd. So they're most likely getting everything together now that they know who is attending when.

That's what I thought, but I know some (including myself) received an email late last week stating they were still reviewing materials. It's a bit confusing. ?

Do you think it would hurt at this point to email for clarification?

Edited January 25, 2021 by EileanDonan

[kch16]

1 minute ago, EileanDonan said:

That's what I thought, but I know some (including myself) received an email late last week stating they were still reviewing materials. It's a bit confusing. ?

Do you think it would hurt at this point to email for clarification?

I got this email! I second the question regarding emailing for clarity.

[EyelandPychePhD]

10 minutes ago, anairakk said:

I remember looking at it early December and it was like that I can’t remember if it was like that months in advance though I applied mid November . Thank you though I will also post if I hear anything!! 

VERY interesting. Because on 1/8/21, the Admissions Point person said that the CSU Counseling PhD committee had not announced the official interview date yet..... so perhaps that 2/5 date is not correct afterall...

[NotYourMothersGrad]

2 minutes ago, EileanDonan said:

That's what I thought, but I know some (including myself) received an email late last week stating they were still reviewing materials. It's a bit confusing. ?

Do you think it would hurt at this point to email for clarification?

I'm not sure it would hurt? But I'm personally against asking those sort of updates unless you're stuck between dates or something. To me, asking about your place in the review process doesn't make it go any faster....other than to maybe recieve an official rejection early? That's just me though. 

[JoePianist]

6 hours ago, kch16 said:

Before things on the forum get too hectic I wanted to bring this back around. As a first-time applicant I am extremely disheartened by the way the field handles admissions. Have things only recently gotten this bad, or have they always been this way? Is there anything we could possibly do to address it as a concerned group (e.g. open letter)?

The admissions process appeared about as bad as when I had applied 4-5 years ago and finally received a single admissions offer to a PhD Clinical Psychology program. I applied for two consecutive admissions cycles. I agree that there needs to be an overhaul to the admissions process across all doctoral psychology programs. I’m unsure if there’s been any prior attempts for applicants coming together as a group to appeal for this level of change. 

In terms of who to contact with complaints about this admissions process: For doctoral Clinical Psychology programs, I think that the Council of University Directors of Clinical Psychology (CUDCP) may be a possible idea. For the broader psychology field, the American Psychological Association may be an organization to which groups can send complaints. 

Of course, the risk of sending such complaints (if not anonymous) could possibly be certain program directors choosing not to admit any applicants who who were a part of these complaints.

Edited January 25, 2021 by JoePianist

[Psy-aye-aye]

3 hours ago, PyschMama said:

Have you heard from Rutgers by any chance?

I wish! I’ve been checking my application status so frequently. 

[EileanDonan]

2 minutes ago, JoePianist said:

Of course, the risk of sending such complaints (if not anonymous) could possibly be certain program directors choosing not to admit any applicants who who were a part of these complaints.

I had thought of this too; it would hardly be the first time that the "powers that be" saw fit to retaliate. I'm sure some PIs/admins would be sympathetic to our plight, but some wouldn't feel so inclined to rock the boat if it's not their own boat that's sinking (at least from their perspective).

At the absolute minimum, concrete suggestions for change would need to be offered (i.e. don't just complain for the sake of complaining), but it's hard to identify which areas would see maximum improvement from realistic changes. Sure, removing the GRE would be an interesting place to start, but where does that leave those who use the test to "prove" their academic worth when their undergrad GPA is low? Some PI's can really fixate on the quant side of your app.

There are a multitude of issues implicated in all of this...

[anairakk]

11 minutes ago, EyelandPychePhD said:

VERY interesting. Because on 1/8/21, the Admissions Point person said that the CSU Counseling PhD committee had not announced the official interview date yet..... so perhaps that 2/5 date is not correct afterall...

I’m not like 100% sure but I checked their website religiously back when I was first applying and the beginning of December and could’ve sworn I saw that but I could always be wrong. It also might be like a holder date to try to give everyone a rough idea of when they actually are? It might be a possibility! 

[PsychProf]

6 hours ago, kch16 said:

Before things on the forum get too hectic I wanted to bring this back around. As a first-time applicant I am extremely disheartened by the way the field handles admissions. Have things only recently gotten this bad, or have they always been this way? Is there anything we could possibly do to address it as a concerned group (e.g. open letter)?

I'm a faculty member in a clinical PhD program and I appreciate that applicants have worked hard to get their information together and are motivated to join the field, but there are a couple of common problems:

1) lack of $$- petition your state legislatures and such to fund higher ed better. Even if we wanted to take 10 students in a year we wouldn't be able to pay them all tuition remissions/stipends and we don't have enough faculty to supervise them all without a revolt (PhD students do take a lot of work). If we had 15 faculty and funding for 10-15 students/year that would be a different story.

2) the nature of a clinical PhD program- somewhat related to the above, students need a lot of hands-on time and attention in both research and other training. Supervisors don't want to have 12 students on their practicum caseloads in a semester (we usually have 5-7), the people teaching you advanced techniques in therapy or assessment don't want 20-person classes, etc. because it's a lot of work and it's not pedagogically sound. These aren't lecture classes for undergraduates that can be scaled from 80 to 100 students with little difference. Again, if we had more faculty, responsibilities would spread out, but simply adding some student funding to the budget doesn't offset these issues. It's intensive training.

3) applicants not understanding what it takes to be competitive. I reviewed dozens of apps for my lab this year and many were people who had decent (3.4+) GPAs and interesting personal statements. Many were from diverse or nontraditional backgrounds and could contribute to the field because of that. BUT, my program is an S-P clinical psych program and I am looking for people with research experience and with interests very close to mine so I can collaborate with them on research for 5 years. You may not think that is the correct way to run the system, but it's how the system is for R1 faculty who are not exclusively trying to train clinicians. I ended up making decisions based heavily on research experience/interests with some acknowledgement of diversity and inclusion issues. Everybody doesn't need to have 3 publications or years of RA experience, but doing a poster on campus one time (or not even that) just doesn't provide evidence that you have the chops to do the research component of your work in a PhD program. If you don't have that experience or don't want to get it then you should consider PsyDs or master's programs.

That last point can be made across the board- clinical PhD programs have always been very competitive (dozens or hundreds of apps per spot) and it may be worse this year (my program's apps increased by 50%) but not all of those added apps were competitive for a clinical psych PhD program. Folks should make sure they are being geographically flexible, considering counseling or school psych PhDs if those might be a fit as they're less competitive on average, look into PsyDs that don't break the bank, and if you really only want to practice as a therapist just get a master's degree. The PhD won't make you much more money in a managed care system and it's a lot less investment of your time. Plus all the heartache of years of applications. I steer most of my undergraduate RAs into something other than clinical PhD programs because their interests don't really require a clinical psych PhD (and most of them over the years haven't built up the CVs to be competitive by graduation, anyway).

I know it's easy for me to say all of that given my position in this process, but I really find that applicants seem misguided about how things work and what their realistic options are. I hope this is helpful for someone.

Edited January 25, 2021 by PsychProf

[PsychApplicant2]

9 minutes ago, PsychProf said:

I'm a faculty member in a clinical PhD program and I appreciate that applicants have worked hard to get their information together and are motivated to join the field, but there are a couple of common problems:

1) lack of $$- petition your state legislatures and such to fund higher ed better. Even if we wanted to take 10 students in a year we wouldn't be able to pay them all tuition remissions/stipends and we don't have enough faculty to supervise them all without a revolt (PhD students do take a lot of work). If we have 15 faculty and funding for 10-15 students/year that would be a different story.

2) the nature of a clinical PhD program- somewhat related to the above, students need a lot of hands-on time and attention in both research and other training. Supervisors don't want to have 12 students on their practicum caseloads in a semester (we usually have 5-7), the people teaching you advanced techniques in therapy or assessment don't want 20-person classes, etc. because it's a lot of work and it's not pedagogically sound. These aren't lecture classes for undergraduates that can be scaled from 80 to 100 students with little difference. Again, if we had more faculty responsibilities would spread out, but simply adding some student funding to the budget doesn't offset these issues. It's intensive training.

3) applicants not understanding what it takes to be competitive. I reviewed dozens of apps for my lab this year and many were people who had decent (3.4+) GPAs and interesting personal statements. Many were from diverse or nontraditional backgrounds and could contribute to the field because of that. BUT, my program is an S-P clinical psych program and I am looking for people with research experience and with interests very close to mine so I can collaborate with them on research for 5 years. You may not think that is the correct way to run the system, but it's how the system is for R1 faculty who are not exclusively trying to train clinicians. I ended up making decisions based heavily on research experience/interests with some acknowledgement of diversity and inclusion issues. Everybody doesn't need to have 3 publications or years of RA experience, but doing a poster on campus one time (or not even that) just doesn't provide evidence that you have the chops to do the research component of your work in a PhD program. If you don't have that experience or don't want to get it then you should consider PsyDs or master's programs.

That last point can be made across the board- clinical PhD programs have always been very competitive (dozens or hundreds of apps per spot) and it may be worse this year (my program's apps increased by 50%) but not all of those added apps were competitive for a clinical psych PhD program. Folks should make sure they are being geographically flexible, considering counseling or school psych PhDs if those might be a fit as they're less competitive on average, look into PsyDs that don't break the bank, and if you really only want to practice as a therapist just get a master's degree. The PhD won't make you much more money in a managed care system and it's a lot less investment of your time. Plus all the heartache of years of applications. I steer most of my undergraduate RAs into something other than clinical PhD programs because their interests don't really require a clinical psych PhD (and most of them over the years haven't built up the CVs to be competitive by graduation, anyway).

I know it's easy for me to say all of that given my position in this process, but I really find that applicants seem misguided about how things work and what their realistic options are. I hope this is helpful for someone.

This is very helpful from a Professor's viewpoint, thank you. I just wonder if faculty remember that it's difficult for individuals to get research experience that is considered "competitive" if they went to a SLAC or something like that. It's a barrier for certain people to get "meaningful" research experience - and it's even more difficult to obtain a position in a lab or hospital, say, that is exactly in line with the professor's research interests that they might want to work with in grad school. I just wish it wasn't so hyper-competitive. It's sad to me when I see applicants on their 3rd, 4th round of applications who have put the work in and have the passion for it, and get rejected from programs.  

Edited January 25, 2021 by PsychApplicant2

[FingersCrossed58]

1 hour ago, ignace74 said:

Has anyone gotten an interview from Clark (PI:EC) University or knows their timeline? Thank you advance!  

Ugh, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I have an interview with Clark Clinical (different PI, though). Interviews are the first week of Feb. We've gotten a few emails from the department admin about scheduling so I'm under the impression the all invites are out.

Best of luck. ❤️

[EileanDonan]

Just now, PsychApplicant2 said:

This is very helpful from a Professor's viewpoint, thank you. I just wonder if faculty remember that it's difficult for individuals to get research experience that is considered "competitive" if they went to a SLAC or something like that. It's a barrier for certain people to get "meaningful" research experience - and it's even more difficult to obtain a position in a lab or hospital, say, that is exactly in line with the professor's research interests that they might want to work with in grad school. I just wish it wasn't so hyper-competitive. 

As someone coming from the same background, I would like to wholeheartedly second this.

Getting a lab position has been a nightmare for me, even before COVID. Even now, my current position isn't exactly the most robust experience compared to that offered through other labs. I can't afford an MA, and neither can many others. Unfortunately, these sorts of things don't come across in a CV, thus making you seem less "competent" compared to other applicants who were in the right place at the right time with their school/work.

[psiqua]

Hi all! I applied for the UCLA Clinical Psychology PhD program Fall 2021! Did anyone else apply? I saw some reporting that they got an interview invite last week on the 20th. I'm wondering if they'll send out more since their website mentioned that they would send out the invites two weeks prior the interview days (Feb 8-9)?

Edited January 25, 2021 by psiqua

[venus rose]

I emailed two faculty directly about whether my application was still under review, or if "the interview invites have been finalized," basically to know for sure if I have already been rejected (I'm anticipating it). Should I even wait for a response? I am not sure if the faculty bother responding to these questions lol. 

[PsychProf]

6 minutes ago, PsychApplicant2 said:

This is very helpful from a Professor's viewpoint, thank you. I just wonder if faculty remember that it's difficult for individuals to get research experience that is considered "competitive" if they went to a SLAC or something like that. It's a barrier for certain people to get "meaningful" research experience - and it's even more difficult to obtain a position in a lab or hospital, say, that is exactly in line with the professor's research interests that they might want to work with in grad school. I just wish it wasn't so hyper-competitive. It's sad to me when I see applicants on their 3rd, 4th round of applications who have put the work in and have the passion for it, and get rejected from programs.  

Yeah, I do get that. Unfortunately, I don't know how I would measure someone's research fit and aptitude without them having experience. I do count things like honors theses as positive, but I have wondered about the plight of folks from SLACs or non-R1 universities where the faculty aren't as research-active. This is also a diversity concern re: HBCUs where there is usually less research activity. My partner and I just happened to both go to R1 undergrads because of our interests in the overall experience (I changed my major to psych, so it wasn't like I had a long-term plan) and both continued our education immediately after. I would encourage my kids and any other kids to aim for an R1 if they think they might want to continue their education. There's just so many more opportunities. If you want to be a K12 teacher, work in marketing, be an accountant then I think you can get a bachelor's degree in a lot of places. But if you're going to need to use the undergrad time to gain experience for the next level, you're hindering yourself by going to most small or not research-focused schools.

I think it's pretty challenging to get a paid RA position right now with COVID, and maybe it always is in some places (e.g., Mass General), but my experience hiring RAs at my postdoc at a med school in a big but not coastal city was that we got a lot of brand new college grads with backgrounds in psych or something similar and it really wasn't that competitive (and only paid like 25k, to be fair). I encourage folks to look for postings all over the country for these positions because although you might have trouble at the most reputable hospitals and med schools, there are people with grants in Arkansas, Utah, and Georgia, too. (no shade on those states, just not NY/New England or CA). It is true that geographic flexibility is important with something this competitive and I know that can be hard for some applicants depending on their family situation, but I'm not sure what to do about that.

[eloisetheapplicant]

23 minutes ago, FingersCrossed58 said:

Ugh, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I have an interview with Clark Clinical (different PI, though). Interviews are the first week of Feb. We've gotten a few emails from the department admin about scheduling so I'm under the impression the all invites are out.

Best of luck. ❤️

Thank you for the update!! 

Edited January 25, 2021 by eloisetheapplicant

[kch16]

30 minutes ago, PsychProf said:

Yeah, I do get that. Unfortunately, I don't know how I would measure someone's research fit and aptitude without them having experience. I do count things like honors theses as positive, but I have wondered about the plight of folks from SLACs or non-R1 universities where the faculty aren't as research-active. This is also a diversity concern re: HBCUs where there is usually less research activity. My partner and I just happened to both go to R1 undergrads because of our interests in the overall experience (I changed my major to psych, so it wasn't like I had a long-term plan) and both continued our education immediately after. I would encourage my kids and any other kids to aim for an R1 if they think they might want to continue their education. There's just so many more opportunities. If you want to be a K12 teacher, work in marketing, be an accountant then I think you can get a bachelor's degree in a lot of places. But if you're going to need to use the undergrad time to gain experience for the next level, you're hindering yourself by going to most small or not research-focused schools.

I think it's pretty challenging to get a paid RA position right now with COVID, and maybe it always is in some places (e.g., Mass General), but my experience hiring RAs at my postdoc at a med school in a big but not coastal city was that we got a lot of brand new college grads with backgrounds in psych or something similar and it really wasn't that competitive (and only paid like 25k, to be fair). I encourage folks to look for postings all over the country for these positions because although you might have trouble at the most reputable hospitals and med schools, there are people with grants in Arkansas, Utah, and Georgia, too. (no shade on those states, just not NY/New England or CA). It is true that geographic flexibility is important with something this competitive and I know that can be hard for some applicants depending on their family situation, but I'm not sure what to do about that.

Thank you for your perspective as a faculty member. I really appreciate being able to understand your point of view. However, I do have some questions.

What if someone changes their major like yourself? Many R1 schools allow "undecided" or "exploratory" majors for the first two years of attending, as most 18 year olds have no idea what they want to study; what if you switch to psych and then you're beaten out of research positions by students who have been in the program since they were freshmen? What if you couldn't afford tuition at an R1 school? What if you have to work to support yourself and don't have the time to work in a lab? The point being that there are thousands of scenarios that are adjacent to going to an R1 school, doing research for years, and gaining the experience necessary to be "competitive".

Reiterating a point another poster made, there are countless applicants willing to give their lives to the field and serve the exponentially increasing mental health needs of the community. The expectation of having years of research or experience creates barriers for (racially, economically, etc.) diverse applicants. I understand your point about funding and finding students who meet your interests, and I think a lot of us are wondering whether this is the best method (i.e. only recruiting students for 10 faculty members' personal needs) of recruiting at all. 

Lastly, I think it is problematic that if your goals are to be a clinician, you either (i) spend half a decade doing research in a PhD program just because it's funded, or (ii) find yourself in $200k+ in debt (assuming you don't get into 1/5 funded PsyD programs). I realize this is a very black-and-white way of depicting things, but I think it's a clear indicator of the necessary restructuring we need in the field. 

Edited January 25, 2021 by kch16

[EileanDonan]

23 minutes ago, PsychProf said:

Yeah, I do get that. Unfortunately, I don't know how I would measure someone's research fit and aptitude without them having experience. I do count things like honors theses as positive, but I have wondered about the plight of folks from SLACs or non-R1 universities where the faculty aren't as research-active. This is also a diversity concern re: HBCUs where there is usually less research activity. My partner and I just happened to both go to R1 undergrads because of our interests in the overall experience (I changed my major to psych, so it wasn't like I had a long-term plan) and both continued our education immediately after. I would encourage my kids and any other kids to aim for an R1 if they think they might want to continue their education. There's just so many more opportunities. If you want to be a K12 teacher, work in marketing, be an accountant then I think you can get a bachelor's degree in a lot of places. But if you're going to need to use the undergrad time to gain experience for the next level, you're hindering yourself by going to most small or not research-focused schools.

I think it's pretty challenging to get a paid RA position right now with COVID, and maybe it always is in some places (e.g., Mass General), but my experience hiring RAs at my postdoc at a med school in a big but not coastal city was that we got a lot of brand new college grads with backgrounds in psych or something similar and it really wasn't that competitive (and only paid like 25k, to be fair). I encourage folks to look for postings all over the country for these positions because although you might have trouble at the most reputable hospitals and med schools, there are people with grants in Arkansas, Utah, and Georgia, too. (no shade on those states, just not NY/New England or CA). It is true that geographic flexibility is important with something this competitive and I know that can be hard for some applicants depending on their family situation, but I'm not sure what to do about that.

For what it's worth, I will echo that going to a school with excellent resources from the get-go is preferable.

Unfortunately, some people don't consider that as 17/18-year-old's. They might not even know to think of such a thing - it's not like most people understand what it takes to succeed in clinical psych fresh out of high school. Some parents don't know how to appropriately guide their kids in this way either.

Another major element is that some people may not have the choice to go to an R1, perhaps due to familial and/or geographical constraints. I didn't. Does this mean that some people shot themselves in the foot from the get-go without even realizing it? It's not like you can discuss these sorts of issues in your grad statement or interview. PI's never seem care about your life's story when it's directly pertinent to why you aren't as "accomplished" as some others. You never know what someone else may have had to go through to get "even this far." Trauma, health issues, family issues, financial difficulties, all the above...these have a very real, tangible impact on the paths of many aspiring clinicians and researchers.

RE: jobs, I would be very interested to see some stats on how many apps it takes to secure a decent position on average. I'm sure some folks (R1 grads) don't have too hard a time, but I can state that even with applying across the country I probably sent maybe ~250 apps(?) to no avail. I only even got my current one through volunteering, and it took quite some time before funding came through for me. If anything, I think it would be fantastic if faculty and admins across the field were more in-tuned to the experiences and sacrifices of those who come from a SLAC background or are otherwise disadvantaged.

Edited January 25, 2021 by EileanDonan

[toopsychedout]

2 hours ago, psicologa said:

Hello, no i'm not a troll. I received the rejection this morning. PI: RC. 

Good luck to you! 

Did you have a preliminary interview?

[psicologa]

2 hours ago, stressedha said:

Hi! Would you mind letting me know if it was a generic/mass email or directly from PI? 

Yeah, of course! It was from the chair of the program. Who is your POI?

[pomegranateleaves]

Hi Guys!

I haven't been on in a while (life got super busy vbidrgo) but I have gotten two interview invites so far! I'm very excited about them and am looking forward to meeting the faculty, grad students, and staff.

I just have a quick question and am looking for some advice? One of the PI's emailed me personally to extend the interview invite after I got the official invite, and she also told me that she would be happy to talk with me over the phone before interview day to answer any questions I may have and to help me learn more about the program and her lab. I'm guessing that it would be a really good idea and work strongly in my favor if I do call and talk with her before interview day especially because she seems to be really excited about that in the email. What things do you recommend that I should talk to her about, or ask? I don't want to use the questions I have prepared ahead of time for interview day itself.

Thanks!! And good luck everyone! This is such a hectic and chaotic application season, and I know that many of you are STILL anxiously waiting to hear back from programs. We've got this!

[missmusical]

13 minutes ago, psicologa said:

Yeah, of course! It was from the chair of the program. Who is your POI?

My poi is LF

[stressedha]

14 minutes ago, psicologa said:

Yeah, of course! It was from the chair of the program. Who is your POI?

mine is RB