Getting in and getting money: A comparative analysis of admission standards, acceptance rates, and financial assistance across the research–practice continuum in clinical psychology programs.

Abstract

The diversification and proliferation of doctoral programs in clinical psychology call for their periodic comparative analysis to inform prospective applicants, their advisors, and the entire field. The authors surveyed directors of the 232 American Psychological Association (APA)–accredited doctoral programs in clinical psychology (98% response) regarding application numbers, acceptance rates, financial assistance, and credentials of incoming students. Results are summarized for all clinical programs and then separately for 6 types of programs along the practice–research continuum: freestanding PsyD, university professional school PsyD, university department PsyD, practice-oriented PhD, equal-emphasis PhD, and research-oriented PhD. Lower acceptance rates and higher Graduate Record Examination scores were strongly associated with programs oriented toward more research training; for example, research-oriented PhD programs admitted far fewer applicants (7% vs. 50%) than did freestanding PsyD programs. Freestanding PsyD programs awarded significantly less full financial assistance to incoming students (1% vs. 89%) and required 1 less year to complete than did PhD programs. Overall, PhD-level students were more likely to secure an APA or Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers internship than were PsyD students. The authors conclude with observations about the historical changes and heightened differentiation of doctoral training in clinical psychology.