Student Notebook: Is the Clinical Psychology PhD Admissions Process Scientific?

To say admission to a clinical psychology PhD program is competitive might be an understatement, as the number of applicants more than doubled and admission rates dropped in recent years (APA, 2023; Bailey, 2020). For example, at one competitive program, the number of applicants rose from 294 prospective students in 2019 to 573 in 2024, while the number of accepted students remained the same. In fact, clinical psychology has the highest number of applicants compared with other subdisciplines in psychology (Michalski et al., 2019).  

So, how are applicants chosen for admission to clinical psychology PhD programs? Is the admissions process scientific? Are applicants chosen because they are the best candidates? Because they worked the hardest or have a strong set of relevant skills? As a second-year clinical psychology PhD student, I have had plenty of conversations with other applicants who have given their side of the story:  

There may be a world of hidden biases and unseen deals that lead to successful admission into a clinical psychology PhD program, especially considering that the graduate admissions process is largely managed by faculty who are inundated with applications, email inquiries, and a wide variety of highly qualified candidates. Unlike with research projects or grants, more time spent on the admissions process is not clearly rewarded. Data-backed tools might streamline the admissions process and reduce the work required by faculty. However, without these tools, faculty often rely on recommendation letters from colleagues to prioritize students they are familiar with or use other personal metrics. This leaves admission opportunities for other applicants limited as they often guess how to be qualified for the program without benefiting from the privilege of insider information or connections. As a result, the admissions process, by and large, does not mirror the values and standards of the clinical psychology PhD field, specifically standards of transparency, data-driven decision making, and equity that the program champions and expects from students admitted to the program.  

The removal of the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) requirement, and the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning affirmative action, are two major events impacting admissions programs (Gómez et al., 2021; Montgomery Rice et al., 2023). Both events removed previously standardized decision-making metrics, which subsequently decreased the uniformity of the admissions process and may have increased the prevalence of invisible biases. 

See all Student Notebook columns

The GRE has been critiqued for its poor predictive ability of success in graduate school and differential benefits for applicants in positions of power (e.g., those who are financially privileged, white, or male; Roberts et al., 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic incited the removal of the GRE in some schools and made it optional in others, theoretically presenting an opportunity to reduce barriers to entry; however, it also removed a clear admissions metric. This change arguably allows faculty members to give more weight to individual preference, which can be shaped by their individual biases. Although many have argued the GRE has poor scientific validity (Woo et al., 2023), using data-based decision-making tools or tests should not be abandoned entirely. When admissions programs do not have clear standards for student evaluation and admission, this reduced transparency may create additional barriers for applicants. Research suggests that it may be effective to replace the GRE with personality measures, relevant skill evaluations (i.e., teamwork, perseverance), and weighted rubrics (Kyllonen et al., 2011; Woo et al., 2023).  

The abolition of affirmative action also drives the need for changes to the admissions process. The Supreme Court decision, although not directed at graduate admissions, has prompted many programs in the United States to remove direct initiatives to increase students from underrepresented groups, thereby eliminating another decision-making metric. Programs should consider prioritizing a holistic review of applications, including diversity essay prompts, and expanding and quantifying the number and type of admission factors (De Los Reyes & Uddin, 2021).  

From a graduate student’s perspective, the admissions process has many opportunities to improve. I invite clinical psychology PhD programs to further align the admissions process with the standards of the field. Specifically, I suggest the following: 

1. Expand data-based evaluation of candidates. For example, assigning weights to various applicant materials and publishing the formula or incorporating personality measures into the application could integrate standardized decision-making metrics, reduce workload, improve the quality of applicants, and remove biases or human judgment errors.
2. Improve accessibility. Following the model of medical schools, law schools, and the Psychology Centralized Application Service and increasing the number of schools that use a centralized application could lead to a reduction of applicant fees, faculty workload, and applicant mismatch with faculty.  
3. Improve transparency. Clearly indicating what specific experiences individual faculty are looking for in a competitive candidate could reduce unnecessary student applications and share knowledge that has previously been gatekept, thereby increasing access to clinical psychology PhD programs and the field. 

For those who may argue that data-based evaluation is a flawed or inadequate way to identify top applicants, I encourage you to improve the transparency of the application process for the good of your future colleagues. If you are uninterested in weighing candidates’ materials using a rubric, or the results of a personality assessment, consider broadcasting individual requirements for candidates. A handful of faculty members have already taken these steps and posted requirements for applicants onto lab websites (e.g., The Body Image, Weight, and Eating Laboratory (B-WEL); Child and Family Experiences Lab). Improving the admissions process must not be done at the cost of increasing inequalities (Roberts et al., 2021; Gómez et al., 2021). However, when the process has little accountability, unclear criteria for success, and a high monetary cost of entry, inequalities exist without clear opportunities to address them. As a current graduate student, with the admissions process fresh in mind, I look forward to the day that this process will better reflect the values of the field. As a future clinical scientist, I look forward to the process better supporting my search for prospective graduate students, as well as the students themselves. Child and Family Experiences Lab). Improving the admissions process must not be done at the cost of increasing inequalities (Roberts et al., 2021; Gómez et al., 2021).

However, when the process has little accountability, unclear criteria for success, and a high monetary cost of entry, inequalities exist without clear opportunities to address them. As a current graduate student, with the admissions process fresh in mind, I look forward to the day that this process will better reflect the values of the field. As a future clinical scientist, I look forward to the process better supporting my search for prospective graduate students, as well as the students themselves.  

Student Notebook serves as a forum in which APS Student Caucus members communicate their ideas, suggestions, and experiences. Read other Student Notebook columns here, and learn about the benefits of Student Membership.

Interested in submitting a Student Notebook article of your own? Learn more and indicate your interest (logged-in APS members only).

Feedback on this article? Email apsobserver@psychologicalscience.org or login to comment.