Safe Schools?

[kitcassidance]

I've heard a lot of talk of people applying to "reach" and "safe schools."  Maybe it's my GRE scores, but I feel like there are no "Safe Schools" in Clinical Psychology Ph.D. programs.  How are you all determining this? (This is my first time applying, and I'm trying to be more prepared in the event that I'm repeating the application cycle next year) 

Edited December 12, 2017 by kitcassidance

[Timemachines]

 There is a list (U.S. news) of rankings of clin psych PhD programs floating around online that helped me navigate the global competitiveness of a program. For example, I would consider something like Suffolk University (ranked 171) markedly less competitive than a top 5 like UC Berkley etc. My GRE's were really middle of the road so I applied to "reach" schools that average at a combined 320+ (which would be a bit of a reach for me due to my quant score) -but- accept a wider range of scores (some schools will explicitly say that they accept any scores above the 50th percentile, and so on). There are plenty of programs that consider the application in full regardless of scores, so that should be encouraging. I would recommend reaching out to Grad Coordinators within the department and doing your research on these factors early on so it can inform your decision to apply. 

Beyond this I would imagine that what feels safe about some programs is the general research fit. If the research fit is strong and your quantitative scores (GRE, GPA, Subject Test) are within range, it'll certainly feel safer than a dicier fit and quantitative scores that are outside the average range. Hope this helps and best of luck to you this application season!

[kitcassidance]

15 minutes ago, Timemachines said:

(ranked 171) markedly less competitive than a top 5 like UC Berkley

Got it!  I definitely applied to safe(r) schools and entirely avoided programs with clear cut-offs and averages far above my actual scores.  I actually started first with research fit, and narrowed down schools based on accepted applicant data - but with so much anxiety and competition, nothing feels safe haha!  I guess when I was reading "safety" schools, I was thinking "guaranteed" rather than "safer"  Thanks for your insight!  

[Timemachines]

4 minutes ago, kitcassidance said:

Got it!  I definitely applied to safe(r) schools and entirely avoided programs with clear cut-offs and averages far above my actual scores.  I actually started first with research fit, and narrowed down schools based on accepted applicant data - but with so much anxiety and competition, nothing feels safe haha!  I guess when I was reading "safety" schools, I was thinking "guaranteed" rather than "safer"  Thanks for your insight!  

Im right there with you! this whole process is difficult to navigate, but it sounds like you took a great route. best of luck!

[Guest joshw4288]

There really is no such thing as "safety schools" in social psych Ph.D. programs. There are so many non-quantifiable elements to the process that you could very well get into a school like Michigan, Ohio State, or Berkeley,  and be rejected from places like UTEP. I doubt you would find very large differences in acceptance rates between even the highest rated programs and those farther into the 100's. Other "top" programs I would probably stay away from anyway (e.g., Yale--I wouldn't touch John Bargh with a 10 mile pole). What is a top program anyway? One where its top social psychologist does shoddy social priming research that can't be replicated? I encourage you and others to think less about rankings and more about a) where your research interests fit; b). where you will get good training (conceptually and statistically--SEM, MLM, Bayes, R etc.; c) where you will have the opportunity to publish often. 

[TammyTams]

Hey! What schools did you apply too, if you don't mind me asking!

[lewin]

Saying there are no safety schools is accurate in the sense that acceptance rates are low regardless of program ranking.

But I'd be concerned if anybody came to the conclusion that all programs are equally difficult to get into, or that it's not important to attend a top 10 program or the best program you can. I can't speak for clinical paths, but for academia it's important to get into the highest prestige program that you can because academia is "downwardly mobile" and "a caste system" and "steeply hierarchical" where much of the faculty hiring comes from a small core of top programs. Put another way, on average, you're much more likely to move down than up in the BA-MA-PhD-Postdoc-Job progression--the study I linked found that only 9-14% of students will get job placements higher-ranked than their PhD institution, and that about 25% of institutions produce ~80% of the tenured faculty.

 

 

[lewin]

On 12/13/2017 at 7:55 PM, joshw4288 said:

Other "top" programs I would probably stay away from anyway (e.g., Yale--I wouldn't touch John Bargh with a 10 mile pole). What is a top program anyway? One where its top social psychologist does shoddy social priming research that can't be replicated?

Even taking your accusations about John Bargh at face value for sake of argument, one poor professor doesn't ruin a department and Yale's SP area is full of luminaries. Or should people make the same 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' argument about, say, J. Philippe Rushton?

 

 

[Guest joshw4288]

On 12/18/2017 at 5:16 PM, lewin said:

Even taking your accusations about John Bargh at face value for sake of argument, one poor professor doesn't ruin a department and Yale's SP area is full of luminaries. Or should people make the same 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' argument about, say, J. Philippe Rushton?

 

 

For the sake of argument, you could just empirically evaluate the replicability of social priming work and then you won't have to take anything at face value. Fortunately, it has already been done for you, some of which can be seen here at Uli's website: https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/11/28/before-you-know-it-by-john-a-bargh-a-quantitative-book-review/

You could also just pay attention to the replication failures of social priming research more generally. 

You're right, one professor certainly does not ruin a department but you seemed to have missed the point, which is reflected in the sentence directly after the part you seem concerned with:" I encourage you and others to think less about rankings and more about a) where your research interests fit; b). where you will get good training (conceptually and statistically--SEM, MLM, Bayes, R etc.; c) where you will have the opportunity to publish often."

More or less, what I am suggesting with the John Bargh comment is avoid people/places where the work is being tossed out (i.e., IAT, stereotype threat, social priming, ego depletion, power posing), even if they are prominent people at top tier schools. 

I'm not really sure what Rushton's work has to do with this conversation since a) he's dead, and b.) his work on IQ (brain size and IQ, IQ and heredity etc.) is still being replicated and c) to my knowledge Western's social program is up to speed on replication and preregistration (e.g., see Lorne Campbell). Heck, it even offers a class on open science. 

Edited December 21, 2017 by joshw4288

[Oshawott]

On 12/15/2017 at 3:07 PM, lewin said:

Saying there are no safety schools is accurate in the sense that acceptance rates are low regardless of program ranking.

But I'd be concerned if anybody came to the conclusion that all programs are equally difficult to get into, or that it's not important to attend a top 10 program or the best program you can. I can't speak for clinical paths, but for academia it's important to get into the highest prestige program that you can because academia is "downwardly mobile" and "a caste system" and "steeply hierarchical" where much of the faculty hiring comes from a small core of top programs. Put another way, on average, you're much more likely to move down than up in the BA-MA-PhD-Postdoc-Job progression--the study I linked found that only 9-14% of students will get job placements higher-ranked than their PhD institution, and that about 25% of institutions produce ~80% of the tenured faculty.

 

 

I think a caveat to this is to look at your specific POI's placement rate. Top schools have excellent placement rates because their professors have excellent placement rates. You want to be working with the faculty members who drive these effects.

Not to name names, but my undergrad advisors came from an ostensibly mid-ranged school and got into a school that was of a (substantially) higher ranking. He wasn't an exception in his lab as other individuals achieved this as well. This was driven exclusively by his supervisor who had excellent placement rates and was only (temporarily) at the mid-ranked school because of what can be summed up as 'academic politics'. So yeah, there are exceptions but that's what they are, exceptions. And while aggregate-level data is informative, you will want to do additional sleuthing to make sure the trends the data is showing is applicable for the situation you are about to place yourself in.

@kitcassidance: to answer your original question of what a "safe school" is for you–look at your profile. Look at the profile of your POI's students (a lot of them post CVs, so you can make guesses on what their profile looked like when they applied). Does yours seem to match theirs? Are their profiles consistently stronger or weaker than yours? That's how I'd probably calibrate what a 'safety' school is for me because a safety school for one person could just be a regular school for another. But of course, don't waste money on schools you wouldn't actually want to go to regardless of whether you consider them a 'safety' or a 'reach'.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Oshawott

[lewin]

On 12/21/2017 at 3:12 PM, joshw4288 said:

For the sake of argument, you could just empirically evaluate the replicability of social priming work and then you won't have to take anything at face value. Fortunately, it has already been done for you, some of which can be seen here at Uli's website: https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/11/28/before-you-know-it-by-john-a-bargh-a-quantitative-book-review/

You could also just pay attention to the replication failures of social priming research more generally. 

You're right, one professor certainly does not ruin a department but you seemed to have missed the point, which is reflected in the sentence directly after the part you seem concerned with:" I encourage you and others to think less about rankings and more about a) where your research interests fit; b). where you will get good training (conceptually and statistically--SEM, MLM, Bayes, R etc.; c) where you will have the opportunity to publish often."

 

I'm not really sure what Rushton's work has to do with this conversation since a) he's dead, and b.) his work on IQ (brain size and IQ, IQ and heredity etc.) is still being replicated and c) to my knowledge Western's social program is up to speed on replication and preregistration (e.g., see Lorne Campbell). Heck, it even offers a class on open science. 

I'm familiar with Uli and replication issues generally. I don't respect how he decided to rank everything from people to programs to journals, with the implication that there's something sketchy captured by his index, without subjecting his methods to peer review.

My point about Rushton, which I admit was a deliberate jab, is that he is pretty widely considered a racist but even when he was alive I wouldn't have told people to avoid your program because the other people there are great. (Without divulging too much, I have personal connections to the program.)  So, avoid "people" whose work is being questioned I can agree with but "places" is a real stretch.

To be frank, if a student wants to be even wiser and has a good enough record to be choosy, they shouldn't work with anybody who's a real "new methods" zealot either. They might end up running registered replications for five years and never develop an independent program of research.  e.g., to steal your line I wouldn't touch Uli with a ten mile pole.