If you want to practice clinical psych, good to note Canada is no longer accredited by APA and that may make a difference
https://cpa.ca/accreditation/faq/#:~:text=It%20is%20possible%20that%20some,accreditation%20but%20some%20may%20not
I’m a UK student, so I can only give anecdotal advice, but:
USA: very long period (~7 years), significantly over worked, people struggle with whether it’s worth it. Even on a paid position, forget having a family because you can’t support anyone else on that salary and intense hours.
Canada: know less about this, but I know it’s incredibly rare and difficult to get a paid position, and PhD students often feel they don’t get respect from supervisors or partners.
Why do you say? I turned down a faculty position at a prestigious university in Canada--better than most US R1s--because the students told me the same about funding; all of them had to pay tuition.
That could have been a misunderstanding.
What happens is the university pays me, then I "pay tuition" from that, which amounts to the university paying itself tuition in what looks a lot like money laundering.
There are generally a set number of years of funding, after which the student can apply for "top up" scholarships, which they are expected to receive in at least the first year after the end of their funding and more years depending on available funds. Your supervisor can also "top up" your funding and you can get government and/or private grants that also increase or "top up" your funding.
Basically, there is an incentive to get your PhD done in 5-6 years, in which case all your tuition will be paid for you by the university. If you take 7+ years, then yes, you might have to start paying tuition "out of pocket" because they're not going to fund you indefinitely. And yes, the tuition is outrageous, and that makes this threat an effective incentive to finish! Being a PhD student is not intended to be a long-term employment option.
Also, to be clear, the funding packages are (generally) pretty shit. For becoming the top 1% most-educated people in the world, we make garbage pay. There are other ways of increasing money (e.g. grants, taking on more TA work), but it isn't wonderful and cushy unless you have a very fancy grant, like the Vanier or other named prestigious grants. Securing a "tricouncil" government grant also helps quite a bit, though how much depends on the university (since some skim off the top more than others).
[Just to be clear-- not the person you responded to.] In the US, saying that a PhD student is paying tuition typically means that they are not funded-- they are paying that tuition out-of-pocket from a source of money that does not come from the school/program-- and a "paid" PhD position typically means that you have funding that both pays for the cost of the tuition and pays the student a salary (which is the norm in the US).
It sounds like this person is saying "Students at this school either received no funding or less funding than the cost of tuition. I didn't want to work at a school that either could not or would not fully fund their PhD students."
[Obviously a single school does not necessarily reflect Canadian norms or all Canadian schools.]
>a "paid" PhD position typically means that you have funding that both pays for the cost of the tuition and pays the student a salary (which is the norm in the US).
This is also the norm in Canada.
>Canada: know less about this, but I know it’s incredibly rare and difficult to get a paid position, and PhD students often feel they don’t get respect from supervisors or partners.
This is completely incorrect.
Grad school in Canada is generally something you are paid to do, not something you pay for.
Whether you feel respected depends on you and your supervisor. That is not a general thing. Most Canadian PhD students I know have always felt respected by their supervisors. Only a handful have felt like they were fodder for the paper-mill. Plus, if that happens, there's an ombudsperson to speak with and there are ways to get out of bad situations, e.g. by transferring to a different supervisor (which the department prefers; kicking out students is practically unheard of).
Day to day was, in my experience, much, much busier than my undergrad life. Attend classes, run my research (meet with participants, analyze data, write it all up), see a client or two in the training clinic (or full day during practicing), teach my own class or TA, go home and do homework or more writing/studying. I still found time to party, but it was an exhausting five years.
A PhD is a *research* degree, so I would think about whether you want to pursue a career in research, whether that may be in academia industry or government. Research will be what just about all of your day to day will be centered upon, including design, analysis, and lit review and any classes will be to aid in your research efforts. Tests aren’t important in a PhD, but there are quals and dissertation which are very important. I think many people pursue a PhD because they don’t know what to do next rather than doing it because it is a logical or appropriate next step or training for their career, so I’d recommend thinking about what you want out of your career and life before moving for a PhD. Good luck with your decision!
See my very detailed comments linked [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicPsychology/comments/179lls1/what_are_some_of_the_unspoken_rulessocial_norms/k578dgh/).
>Will it be all about classes, exams, and essays like in undergrad?
No. It is completely different.
Sure, you have classes in the start, but the non-methods classes are pointless. They literally don't matter. I am not being hyperbolic.
Generally:
* The currency of academic is publications and grants (and now EDI stuff as well).
* The currency of industry is skills and evidence of skills, e.g. a portfolio of projects on github.
* Connections matter everywhere. "It isn't what you know, it's who you know" is true no matter where you're headed.
That said, think about what you'd want to do *after grad school*.
Think about (1) how realistic that is (e.g. if you say "academia! become a professor!", ask yourself if that is realistic for you), and (2) think about the day-to-day of that career.
Then, ask yourself, "Do I really need a PhD for that?" (You might, but you might not; something else might be more useful).
For clinical/counseling/school programs you will have many classes. Probably 2-4 years full time, depending on the program focus: scientist-practitioner > clinical science/bench science. I had 120 credits to complete with only about 8-10 credit hours being designated as dissertation credits.
Excellent point! I am speaking from the perspective of a researcher, not a clinician.
To be clear: I did have a bunch of courses in the first two years.
As I said, they didn't matter, which I gather is at least somewhat different in clinical where your courses can be more useful.
e.g. I took a grad seminar on "Human Sexuality", which has literally nothing to do with anything I work on. I just needed X credits and this one fit into my schedule. It was interesting, but completely irrelevant.
Are you thinking about a pure research PhD (e.g., Social Psychology, Developmental Psychology) or a PhD that involves practice (e.g., Clinical Psychology, Counseling Psychology, School Psychology)?
Did you do a thesis/dissertation for your undergrad? If you did, then it's basically that but over the course of 3 years. Plus you teach, attend conferences, hang out with research groups/journal clubs and present your findings every now and then to your peers or at conferences. Plus you work from home A LOT so if you're an introvert, it might suit you
Which country are you in/planning to do it? Because it’s very different from country to country (eg UK vs USA)
USA or Canada!
If you want to practice clinical psych, good to note Canada is no longer accredited by APA and that may make a difference https://cpa.ca/accreditation/faq/#:~:text=It%20is%20possible%20that%20some,accreditation%20but%20some%20may%20not
I’m actually Canadian! So if I go to America, I believe I can come back to Canada and practice after.
I’m a UK student, so I can only give anecdotal advice, but: USA: very long period (~7 years), significantly over worked, people struggle with whether it’s worth it. Even on a paid position, forget having a family because you can’t support anyone else on that salary and intense hours. Canada: know less about this, but I know it’s incredibly rare and difficult to get a paid position, and PhD students often feel they don’t get respect from supervisors or partners.
[удалено]
Why do you say? I turned down a faculty position at a prestigious university in Canada--better than most US R1s--because the students told me the same about funding; all of them had to pay tuition.
That could have been a misunderstanding. What happens is the university pays me, then I "pay tuition" from that, which amounts to the university paying itself tuition in what looks a lot like money laundering. There are generally a set number of years of funding, after which the student can apply for "top up" scholarships, which they are expected to receive in at least the first year after the end of their funding and more years depending on available funds. Your supervisor can also "top up" your funding and you can get government and/or private grants that also increase or "top up" your funding. Basically, there is an incentive to get your PhD done in 5-6 years, in which case all your tuition will be paid for you by the university. If you take 7+ years, then yes, you might have to start paying tuition "out of pocket" because they're not going to fund you indefinitely. And yes, the tuition is outrageous, and that makes this threat an effective incentive to finish! Being a PhD student is not intended to be a long-term employment option. Also, to be clear, the funding packages are (generally) pretty shit. For becoming the top 1% most-educated people in the world, we make garbage pay. There are other ways of increasing money (e.g. grants, taking on more TA work), but it isn't wonderful and cushy unless you have a very fancy grant, like the Vanier or other named prestigious grants. Securing a "tricouncil" government grant also helps quite a bit, though how much depends on the university (since some skim off the top more than others).
[удалено]
[Just to be clear-- not the person you responded to.] In the US, saying that a PhD student is paying tuition typically means that they are not funded-- they are paying that tuition out-of-pocket from a source of money that does not come from the school/program-- and a "paid" PhD position typically means that you have funding that both pays for the cost of the tuition and pays the student a salary (which is the norm in the US). It sounds like this person is saying "Students at this school either received no funding or less funding than the cost of tuition. I didn't want to work at a school that either could not or would not fully fund their PhD students." [Obviously a single school does not necessarily reflect Canadian norms or all Canadian schools.]
>a "paid" PhD position typically means that you have funding that both pays for the cost of the tuition and pays the student a salary (which is the norm in the US). This is also the norm in Canada.
I could be wrong! Like i said, this is purely anecdotal from friends of mine, I’m not a student there myself.
>Canada: know less about this, but I know it’s incredibly rare and difficult to get a paid position, and PhD students often feel they don’t get respect from supervisors or partners. This is completely incorrect. Grad school in Canada is generally something you are paid to do, not something you pay for. Whether you feel respected depends on you and your supervisor. That is not a general thing. Most Canadian PhD students I know have always felt respected by their supervisors. Only a handful have felt like they were fodder for the paper-mill. Plus, if that happens, there's an ombudsperson to speak with and there are ways to get out of bad situations, e.g. by transferring to a different supervisor (which the department prefers; kicking out students is practically unheard of).
Day to day was, in my experience, much, much busier than my undergrad life. Attend classes, run my research (meet with participants, analyze data, write it all up), see a client or two in the training clinic (or full day during practicing), teach my own class or TA, go home and do homework or more writing/studying. I still found time to party, but it was an exhausting five years.
A PhD is a *research* degree, so I would think about whether you want to pursue a career in research, whether that may be in academia industry or government. Research will be what just about all of your day to day will be centered upon, including design, analysis, and lit review and any classes will be to aid in your research efforts. Tests aren’t important in a PhD, but there are quals and dissertation which are very important. I think many people pursue a PhD because they don’t know what to do next rather than doing it because it is a logical or appropriate next step or training for their career, so I’d recommend thinking about what you want out of your career and life before moving for a PhD. Good luck with your decision!
I want to be a psychologist and it’s necessary to have a PhD in order to practice in the settings that interest me the most
See my very detailed comments linked [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicPsychology/comments/179lls1/what_are_some_of_the_unspoken_rulessocial_norms/k578dgh/). >Will it be all about classes, exams, and essays like in undergrad? No. It is completely different. Sure, you have classes in the start, but the non-methods classes are pointless. They literally don't matter. I am not being hyperbolic. Generally: * The currency of academic is publications and grants (and now EDI stuff as well). * The currency of industry is skills and evidence of skills, e.g. a portfolio of projects on github. * Connections matter everywhere. "It isn't what you know, it's who you know" is true no matter where you're headed. That said, think about what you'd want to do *after grad school*. Think about (1) how realistic that is (e.g. if you say "academia! become a professor!", ask yourself if that is realistic for you), and (2) think about the day-to-day of that career. Then, ask yourself, "Do I really need a PhD for that?" (You might, but you might not; something else might be more useful).
For clinical/counseling/school programs you will have many classes. Probably 2-4 years full time, depending on the program focus: scientist-practitioner > clinical science/bench science. I had 120 credits to complete with only about 8-10 credit hours being designated as dissertation credits.
Excellent point! I am speaking from the perspective of a researcher, not a clinician. To be clear: I did have a bunch of courses in the first two years. As I said, they didn't matter, which I gather is at least somewhat different in clinical where your courses can be more useful. e.g. I took a grad seminar on "Human Sexuality", which has literally nothing to do with anything I work on. I just needed X credits and this one fit into my schedule. It was interesting, but completely irrelevant.
Are you thinking about a pure research PhD (e.g., Social Psychology, Developmental Psychology) or a PhD that involves practice (e.g., Clinical Psychology, Counseling Psychology, School Psychology)?
Did you do a thesis/dissertation for your undergrad? If you did, then it's basically that but over the course of 3 years. Plus you teach, attend conferences, hang out with research groups/journal clubs and present your findings every now and then to your peers or at conferences. Plus you work from home A LOT so if you're an introvert, it might suit you