What theoretical orientations to avoid?

[beavs163]

Are there theoretical orientations that should avoiding using when applying for internship? What is "acceptable"? I tend to get mixed messages about this.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GoPokes]

As in theoretical orientations of the staff of internship sites? I'd be hard pressed to name one to actively avoid... I know that coming from an all-CBT program it was a cool experience to get supervisory input from staff with T.O.'s that I was very unfamiliar with.


That being said, I remember an internship site I interviewed at having an Adlerian psychologist on staff that asked me some really odd questions about how I conceptualize cases during the interview. Not necessarily saying to avoid that though.

 

[beavs163]

As in theoretical orientations of the staff of internship sites? I'd be hard pressed to name one to actively avoid... I know that coming from an all-CBT program it was a cool experience to get supervisory input from staff with T.O.'s that I was very unfamiliar with.


That being said, I remember an internship site I interviewed at having an Adlerian psychologist on staff that asked me some really odd questions about how I conceptualize cases during the interview. Not necessarily saying to avoid that though.

I was thinking more in terms of self.

But I do appreciate the advice about staff TOs. I'll take that into consideration when looking at sites.

 

[MCParent]

That being said, I remember an internship site I interviewed at having an Adlerian psychologist on staff that asked me some really odd questions about how I conceptualize cases during the interview.

Wow, so hypercritical. I bet you're a youngest child.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Don't practice avoidance, it will just make your anxiety worse.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Not quite a T.O., though clinicians who provide EMDR tend to be rather dogmatic about it. I guess they need to justify the cost for the training.

 

[forcefive17]

Are there theoretical orientations that should avoiding using when applying for internship? What is "acceptable"? I tend to get mixed messages about this.

What exactly is your question pertaining to? Essay for the AAPI? Interviewing? I think that it also depends on the site you're applying to. What kind of setting are you looking at?

 

[smalltownpsych]

I was thinking more in terms of self.

But I do appreciate the advice about staff TOs. I'll take that into consideration when looking at sites.

If it is your own theoretical orientation, maybe you should tell us what it is and what the context you are thinking of discussing it and then you would get better feedback.
For example, at my time of applying for internship, I identified primarily with self psychology/Kohut and was integrating attachment theory and especially neurobiology of attachment and emotional regulation. I still tend to conceptualize from this framework, but have since added in more object relations and DBT. I am also secretly a behaviorist. Well, not exactly secretly, more like I am always thinking about behavioral principles and implementing those interventions first and foremost and even think of my interpersonal relationship in terms of positive and negative social reinforcement. It is just that this thinking tends to be more implicit except when I am supervising someone who is missing or neglecting the basics.

 

[Sanman]

I think this question needs a bit of clarification, do you mean the T.O. of the supervisor/internship or mentioning your T.O. in applications? Regardless, avoid Scientologists in general, unless you have time to kill and happen to be in an NYC subway. Then, go ahead and mess with them. I tend to avoid psychoanalysts as well for personal reasons.

 

[Jake0006]

If it is your own theoretical orientation, maybe you should tell us what it is and what the context you are thinking of discussing it and then you would get better feedback.
For example, at my time of applying for internship, I identified primarily with self psychology/Kohut and was integrating attachment theory and especially neurobiology of attachment and emotional regulation. I still tend to conceptualize from this framework, but have since added in more object relations and DBT. I am also secretly a behaviorist. Well, not exactly secretly, more like I am always thinking about behavioral principles and implementing those interventions first and foremost and even think of my interpersonal relationship in terms of positive and negative social reinforcement. It is just that this thinking tends to be more implicit except when I am supervising someone who is missing or neglecting the basics.

Smalltownpsych, I find the neuropsych stuff combined with psychodynamic concepts to be pretty interesting... you describe working with attachment issues and emotional regulation with neurobiology. I'm an LPC who's worked with TF-CBT primarily, just getting ready to begin a PhD in Clinical Psych with a concentration in neuropsych and I'm feeling like jumping ship from the CBT crowd over to the psychodynamic. My program asks us to choose a theoretical orientation to explore deeply, though we'll learn a lot about all of them, of course. I just feel like everyone out there is stuck on CBT, on that theoretical orientation, and it just is not the be all, end all, in my opinion. I think I'd rather learn more about the modern, time-limited psychodynamic than be "just another CBT psychologist." I am looking for justification that psychodynamic and neuropsych is as valid as CBT and neuropsych.... I wonder if the assessment-heavy approach that tends to typify CBT might fit better with neuropsych though?

 

[MCParent]

I am looking for justification that psychodynamic and neuropsych is as valid as CBT and neuropsych.

It is generally advisable to review the available evidence and then come to a conclusion, rather than the other way around.

 

[foreverbull]

What an interesting question! I've never heard of a true theoretical approach being deemed "unacceptable."

However, I'm not sure if your question might be getting at this, but once on internship, if you plan to stick with your own orientation/interventions on internship and it completely clashes with their orientation, you will most likely run into problems. It's better to adapt and be open than to look like you're not "growing" by supervisors' standards. I've seen a few folks fail or almost fail because they didn't adapt enough (or didn't have the skills to adapt) to their supervisors' styles.

 

[Jake0006]

It is generally advisable to review the available evidence and then come to a conclusion, rather than the other way around.

Agreed

 

[Kadhir]

Smalltownpsych, I find the neuropsych stuff combined with psychodynamic concepts to be pretty interesting... you describe working with attachment issues and emotional regulation with neurobiology. I'm an LPC who's worked with TF-CBT primarily, just getting ready to begin a PhD in Clinical Psych with a concentration in neuropsych and I'm feeling like jumping ship from the CBT crowd over to the psychodynamic. My program asks us to choose a theoretical orientation to explore deeply, though we'll learn a lot about all of them, of course. I just feel like everyone out there is stuck on CBT, on that theoretical orientation, and it just is not the be all, end all, in my opinion. I think I'd rather learn more about the modern, time-limited psychodynamic than be "just another CBT psychologist." I am looking for justification that psychodynamic and neuropsych is as valid as CBT and neuropsych.... I wonder if the assessment-heavy approach that tends to typify CBT might fit better with neuropsych though?

What's the goal in seeking justification for being dynamically oriented and a neuropsychologist? Are you wondering if you can perform neuropsychological evaluations but also provide psychodynamic treatment? The answer would be yes.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Smalltownpsych, I find the neuropsych stuff combined with psychodynamic concepts to be pretty interesting... you describe working with attachment issues and emotional regulation with neurobiology. I'm an LPC who's worked with TF-CBT primarily, just getting ready to begin a PhD in Clinical Psych with a concentration in neuropsych and I'm feeling like jumping ship from the CBT crowd over to the psychodynamic. My program asks us to choose a theoretical orientation to explore deeply, though we'll learn a lot about all of them, of course. I just feel like everyone out there is stuck on CBT, on that theoretical orientation, and it just is not the be all, end all, in my opinion. I think I'd rather learn more about the modern, time-limited psychodynamic than be "just another CBT psychologist." I am looking for justification that psychodynamic and neuropsych is as valid as CBT and neuropsych.... I wonder if the assessment-heavy approach that tends to typify CBT might fit better with neuropsych though?

At this stage of your training just acquire as much information as you can. I think that we underestimate effects of early attachment experiences all the time and we have very little research available on it unfortunately. We know about the extreme effects and we know that our brains develop in relation to the early environment and I see it play out in my patients all the time, but we do need way more study in this arena. Nevertheless, in treatment I might still use behavioral principles as the primary intervention, the benefit of understanding the neurobiology of attachment is that it helps guide me in the conceptualizing and targeting of the intervention. Same with how trauma affects neurobiology and functioning. Understanding that helps me to frame behaviors and emotional responses which helps in developing rapport and alleviating some of the emotional distress by educating patient and this also helps me to better monitor and guide patient through the process of exposure therapy. Don't worry about being just another CBT therapist, by the end of your training you will be a psychologist with a vast array of tools and skills at your disposal.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Avoid bad practice, not orientations. Those are distinct things.

 

[Jake0006]

At this stage of your training just acquire as much information as you can. I think that we underestimate effects of early attachment experiences all the time and we have very little research available on it unfortunately. We know about the extreme effects and we know that our brains develop in relation to the early environment and I see it play out in my patients all the time, but we do need way more study in this arena. Nevertheless, in treatment I might still use behavioral principles as the primary intervention, the benefit of understanding the neurobiology of attachment is that it helps guide me in the conceptualizing and targeting of the intervention. Same with how trauma affects neurobiology and functioning. Understanding that helps me to frame behaviors and emotional responses which helps in developing rapport and alleviating some of the emotional distress by educating patient and this also helps me to better monitor and guide patient through the process of exposure therapy. Don't worry about being just another CBT therapist, by the end of your training you will be a psychologist with a vast array of tools and skills at your disposal.

I also feel that attachment styles are often under-addressed, though I've found that, oddly enough, most practitioners understand the concepts pretty well, I'm not sure if they just feel out of their depth in addressing it, or are prioritizing other things. Attachment style is something that can be incredibly efficacious for a client to address I feel, and have seen research to support, just like family therapy outcomes which have been really high, relatively speaking (always with a grain of salt, such research). Neurobiology of trauma has been a main feature of my conceptualizations previously, practicing from the TF-CBT perspective, I always check for trauma first... so often, there's something there to address. Agreeing with Justanothergrad wholeheartedly about good practice, which to me means ethical practice (and strict adherence to the precepts), instituted with professionalism and beneficence. Thank you both for weighing in, I think my current wondering is about the perception of 'bad practice' with a psychodynamic orientation, given the EST track record of CBT, and the relative difficulty in achieving the same from a psychodynamic perspective (I believe it'll be known what I mean, many participants on the SDN forum question the ethical institution of anything not well-researched, giving precedence to CBT). Note I'm saying that I'm not concerned that I will be providing 'bad practice,' just that I'll have to explain myself more than I'd like to. Also, I'm not (yet) versed in appropriate time-limited intervention schemas for psychodynamic (though I'm aware of them), whereas for CBT I am very comfortable operating from that locus. I believe an important product I'll be able to offer as a psychologist will be that I'm able to go deep, address underlying elements successfully. Even still, I don't think any therapy administered in any other way than time-limited is concomitant with modern American life, and often seems undesirable, even unethical. It seems a fine balance.

 

[foreverbull]

I also feel that attachment styles are often under-addressed, though I've found that, oddly enough, most practitioners understand the concepts pretty well, I'm not sure if they just feel out of their depth in addressing it, or are prioritizing other things. Attachment style is something that can be incredibly efficacious for a client to address I feel, and have seen research to support, just like family therapy outcomes which have been really high, relatively speaking (always with a grain of salt, such research). Neurobiology of trauma has been a main feature of my conceptualizations previously, practicing from the TF-CBT perspective, I always check for trauma first... so often, there's something there to address. Agreeing with Justanothergrad wholeheartedly about good practice, which to me means ethical practice (and strict adherence to the precepts), instituted with professionalism and beneficence. Thank you both for weighing in, I think my current wondering is about the perception of 'bad practice' with a psychodynamic orientation, given the EST track record of CBT, and the relative difficulty in achieving the same from a psychodynamic perspective (I believe it'll be known what I mean, many participants on the SDN forum question the ethical institution of anything not well-researched, giving precedence to CBT). Note I'm saying that I'm not concerned that I will be providing 'bad practice,' just that I'll have to explain myself more than I'd like to. Also, I'm not (yet) versed in appropriate time-limited intervention schemas for psychodynamic (though I'm aware of them), whereas for CBT I am very comfortable operating from that locus. I believe an important product I'll be able to offer as a psychologist will be that I'm able to go deep, address underlying elements successfully. Even still, I don't think any therapy administered in any other way than time-limited is concomitant with modern American life, and often seems undesirable, even unethical. It seems a fine balance.

What used to bother me in grad school was learning that only a few orientations/interventions get heavily researched, and some go ignored research-wise because they aren't popular, which says nothing of their effectiveness. Although we know that pretty much all orientations are winners in terms of outcomes of therapy (i.e. Wampold's Great Psychotherapy Debate), people are more likely to support the heavily researched ones, leading to a cycle of increased popularity and increased research. I used to be a little more resistant to CBT, but then realized I used it without knowing that I was using it, and then just embraced my use of it. I enjoy incorporating ACT (under the CBT umbrella) to balance EFT and interpersonal therapy. I'm not an extremist in terms of my beliefs about orientations in the slightest. I enjoy integrating approaches and believe that it's not really about the orientation in the end, but our belief in it and ability to form strong alliances, etc.
Skovholt and Jennings had an interesting qualitative study on seasoned "master therapists" and found that they are highly skilled interpersonally, love to learn, embrace ambiguity/complexity, and are emotionally open/nondefensive, among other traits. I keep those things in the back of my mind as I practice.

 

[Harry3990]

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but I'm wondering if people could expand to also chime in about their own or most psychologists' (including potential employers, future supervisors) perception of labeling yourself as being "eclectic" or as working from multiple TOs. In my experience, supervisors and profs have sometimes seen eclectic as being a taboo word that implies a lack of firm theoretical grounding/understanding. However, my sense from the discussion above is quite the opposite in that people are saying I generally identify as having A orientation but also really appreciate B, C, D, and E approaches as well and how they add to a broader skillset and conceptualization.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but I'm wondering if people could expand to also chime in about their own or most psychologists' (including potential employers, future supervisors) perception of labeling yourself as being "eclectic" or as working from multiple TOs. In my experience, supervisors and profs have sometimes seen eclectic as being a taboo word that implies a lack of firm theoretical grounding/understanding. However, my sense from the discussion above is quite the opposite in that people are saying I generally identify as having A orientation but also really appreciate B, C, D, and E approaches as well and how they add to a broader skill set and conceptualization.

It was in vogue, then it was out of vogue, then it was re-branded as 'integrated' and now its back in vogue. I think the term eclectic has the taboo vibe to it still, despite it being the same as integrated in practice, just because of the history.

The question you should ask yourself is "is it possible/beneficial to adhere to only one treatment theory?" Does a dynamic approach prepare you well for understanding family relationship problems? Does it prepare you in the same way to address specific phobias effectively? What about a cognitive approach- are you ready and able to effectively treat autism using Beck's model? The answer is no to these questions and this is why people see an ability to adapt theoretical conceptualizations as useful. The problem comes in when you try to apply cognitive theory to change emotion through automatic thought but don't understand how to adhere to that model and shift unintentionally to the ACT approach of 'emotions can't be changed we have to accept them'.

It has personally never made sense to me why someone should not be able to hold two different skill sets and operate from them separately when they opt to. I can play soccer AND I can play basketball. Its like having the mechanic in town fix only Fords. He may be really good at fixing Fords, but I hope everyone in town drives a Ford if his goal is to be a generalist mechanic.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

When I hear it from a student/trainee it is a red flag. I was taught to focus on my orientation and know it inside and out before "integrating" anything else.

During training it's good to get exposure to other orientations, but it's easy for students to conflate things and/or pick and choose aspects of different orientations without fully considering the underlying theories, which are often incongruent.

 

[IT514]

If one mentions being "eclectic" or "integrative" on application or interview, I hope to see some reference to a broader framework, like Pinsof and Lebows work, rather than hearing of an applicants meandering affections for different approaches.

 

[foreverbull]

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but I'm wondering if people could expand to also chime in about their own or most psychologists' (including potential employers, future supervisors) perception of labeling yourself as being "eclectic" or as working from multiple TOs. In my experience, supervisors and profs have sometimes seen eclectic as being a taboo word that implies a lack of firm theoretical grounding/understanding. However, my sense from the discussion above is quite the opposite in that people are saying I generally identify as having A orientation but also really appreciate B, C, D, and E approaches as well and how they add to a broader skillset and conceptualization.

I was taught that "integrating" implies that you have an understanding of the underpinnings/foundation of the theory in addition to knowing some of the interventions and incorporate it into your own theoretical framework vs. "eclecticism" meaning you simply use some interventions from another theory (on a more superficial level and not implying deeper knowledge of foundation, etc.).

No judgment either way; I do both. I both integrate my theories of choice as part of my own foundation, and simply pull interventions out of my toolbag from other theories because they also work with certain clients/contexts. Being flexible is a good thing, in my opinion.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but I'm wondering if people could expand to also chime in about their own or most psychologists' (including potential employers, future supervisors) perception of labeling yourself as being "eclectic" or as working from multiple TOs. In my experience, supervisors and profs have sometimes seen eclectic as being a taboo word that implies a lack of firm theoretical grounding/understanding. However, my sense from the discussion above is quite the opposite in that people are saying I generally identify as having A orientation but also really appreciate B, C, D, and E approaches as well and how they add to a broader skillset and conceptualization.

In my experience, employers don't care what your theoretical orientation is. If you happen to be interviewing with another psychologist, they might enjoy having a discussion about it, but most of the time I have found that the non-clinical administrators are making the decisions and the clinical staff if they have a say at all are just evaluating for major red flags. A good example is when the psychologists pointed out that a candidate's on-line doctorate in parapsychology and history of misrepresentation of credentials and history of conflict in the workplace that actually made it to the media could be a problem if we hired them. Even with that, it wasn't easy to get them to understand and really the fear of bad press was the deciding factor more than anything else.

 

[WisNeuro]

In my experience, employers don't care what your theoretical orientation is. If you happen to be interviewing with another psychologist, they might enjoy having a discussion about it, but most of the time I have found that the non-clinical administrators are making the decisions and the clinical staff if they have a say at all are just evaluating for major red flags.

It's been different in my settings, clinical staff has always been the main determinant in hiring decisions. And, the focus has been on recruiting people with experience and verified training in EBT/EBPs. Also, I'd have to say that orientation matters more in some niches in the field, like neuro.

 

[Jake0006]

It's been different in my settings, clinical staff has always been the main determinant in hiring decisions. And, the focus has been on recruiting people with experience and verified training in EBT/EBPs. Also, I'd have to say that orientation matters more in some niches in the field, like neuro.

WisNeuro, what is considered the propitious TO for neuro?

 

[WisNeuro]

WisNeuro, what is considered the propitious TO for neuro?

The vast majority of Npsychs that I know are CBT oriented. There are some that also have some dynamic leanings, but I'd say that we are more EBP oriented than other realms of psychology.

 

[cw150]

As someone who is in the middle of writing an internship essay about an integrative orientation (I have full coursework/prac sites in CBT, dynamic, and systems approaches), I'm curious whether would more senior people would recommend veering away from that and really solidly coming from one perspective at this point? I had never thought of being integrative as a bad thing - instead hoping that it showed adaptability and a way to work with different clients, contexts and supervisors. However, I am also applying to neuro programs (and some generalist/clinical sites as backup), which I know have a clear preference for CBT/EBPs. Now I am second-guessing this approach based on this thread!

 

[smalltownpsych]

As someone who is in the middle of writing an internship essay about an integrative orientation (I have full coursework/prac sites in CBT, dynamic, and systems approaches), I'm curious whether would more senior people would recommend veering away from that and really solidly coming from one perspective at this point? I had never thought of being integrative as a bad thing - instead hoping that it showed adaptability and a way to work with different clients, contexts and supervisors. However, I am also applying to neuro programs (and some generalist/clinical sites as backup), which I know have a clear preference for CBT/EBPs. Now I am second-guessing this approach based on this thread!

I imagine if your essay provides a cohesive and logical rationale for your approach, then you will be fine. It isn't like very many psychologists would say that family systems and interpersonal/intrapersonal dynamics don't exist or matter. The problem would be when someone isn't grounded in science at all.

 

[ClinicalABA]

As someone who is in the middle of writing an internship essay about an integrative orientation (I have full coursework/prac sites in CBT, dynamic, and systems approaches), I'm curious whether would more senior people would recommend veering away from that and really solidly coming from one perspective at this point? I had never thought of being integrative as a bad thing - instead hoping that it showed adaptability and a way to work with different clients, contexts and supervisors. However, I am also applying to neuro programs (and some generalist/clinical sites as backup), which I know have a clear preference for CBT/EBPs. Now I am second-guessing this approach based on this thread!

I'd ask you to identify your heuristic for deciding what approach to use when. I'd look for your reponse to be logical, conceptually valid (within the framework of each specific orientation/therapeutic approach), and coherent. If you said things to me like "I use CBT with less psychologically sophisticated clients" or "I take more of a dynamic approach with clients who are resistant to doing their between session work" or "I use an object relations approach" with any rationale, I'd be likely to move you're application closer to the bottom than to the top of the pile.

I've always felt that saying "I take an eclectic/integrative approach" is a relatively uninformative statement. It could mean so much that it really means nothing. Why do you choose to do what you? That's what's important to me (and the desired answer is always something to the effect of "people smarter and wiser than me have shown, through good experimental and experimentally derived applied work, that it works).

 

[Harry3990]

I'd ask you to identify your heuristic for deciding what approach to use when. I'd look for your reponse to be logical, conceptually valid (within the framework of each specific orientation/therapeutic approach), and coherent. If you said things to me like "I use CBT with less psychologically sophisticated clients" or "I take more of a dynamic approach with clients who are resistant to doing their between session work" or "I use an object relations approach" with any rationale, I'd be likely to move you're application closer to the bottom than to the top of the pile.

I've always felt that saying "I take an eclectic/integrative approach" is a relatively uninformative statement. It could mean so much that it really means nothing. Why do you choose to do what you? That's what's important to me (and the desired answer is always something to the effect of "people smarter and wiser than me have shown, through good experimental and experimentally derived applied work, that it works).

I'd love your (or others) feedback on the following statement regarding my personal answer along these lines. Not one I've given specifically in any interviews yet, but the following seems to be where I honestly feel I'm at regarding my orientation and approach to treating and understanding clients:

I generally work from a cognitive-behavioral viewpoint when it comes to conceptualization and using specific evidence-based interventions when appropriate (e.g., experience in using CPT and PE for PTSD, DBT skills for people with borderline traits). Under this CBT umbrella but somewhat different from traditional CBT, I've also found acceptance-based and mindfulness approaches to be very helpful for certain clients (and also supported by the literature), especially with respect to generalized anxiety, chronic pain, and health-related anxiety. Though not an approach I typically conceptualize cases from, I have found my experience and training specific to interpersonal and dynamic approaches to be invaluable for me in helping to establish rapport, provide a supportive and meaningful alliance, and examine any relational issues that may exist with clients inside or outside the therapy room that appear to be important (e.g., family or work relationships, attachment-related patterns). Beyond any of this, I have always found my background in neuroscience and psychophysiology to be the foundation that I draw from in any stress and health-related psychoeducational discussion or intervention approaches with clients as well.

Thoughts? Please forgive the style/phrasing. Wrote this just now in a couple of minutes without much thought to editing. Would anyone see this sort of thing as a red flag in a personal statement or interview discussion?

 

[Ollie123]

My internship essay was basically a rant about how theoretical orientations are the devil and we should stop having them. 13/16 interviews. I never really answered the question.

If its well-written, you'll be fine.

 

[WisNeuro]

My internship essay was basically a rant about how theoretical orientations are the devil and we should stop having them. 13/16 interviews. I never really answered the question.

If its well-written, you'll be fine.

If it's mildly coherent and doesn't reveal rampant axis II, most will be fine. I'm not alone in that I briefly skim the essays. By far the least important part of the application package, yet so much time is wasted on them.

 

[bigdreamer3]

@WisNeuro what do you consider the most important part(s)?

 

[WisNeuro]

CV and letters of Rec.

 

[bigdreamer3]

Well that is disappointing with all this effort I'm putting into my essays. haha

 

[WisNeuro]

Well, some reviewers get all hot and bothered by an essay here and there, but I've never really seen an essay sway a ranking decision much either way. I'd say a lot of us skim each one for about 10-20 seconds to check for red flags before moving on.

 

[affectiveH3art]

What stands out in reviewer recs? As in excellent and not red flags?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[WisNeuro]

What stands out in reviewer recs? As in excellent and not red flags?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

Do you mean in LORs?

 

[ClinicalABA]

What stands out in reviewer recs? As in excellent and not red flags?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

Each year, year after year, we would get applicants from the same program and thus they would have letters of rec from the same faculty. I'd start to see a pattern- top students were described as being "one of the top students I've worked with". Next tier were "in the top 5% percent of students I've ever worked with." Next level was "top 10%..." All were qualified (it was a top notch program that would not allow an unprepared student to apply), but this was the faculties way of ranking them- otherwise, the letters were pretty similar.

I always found "generic" letters that didn't reference specific abilities or goals to be a bit of a red flag. Things like "Student was competent and is ready to learn more/ move to the next step in their training" vs. "Student was highly proficient with skill X and would be an asset to any program."

 

[affectiveH3art]

Do you mean in LORs?

Yeppers. Pardon my quick post. Letters of rec


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[affectiveH3art]

Each year, year after year, we would get applicants from the same program and thus they would have letters of rec from the same faculty. I'd start to see a pattern- top students were described as being "one of the top students I've worked with". Next tier were "in the top 5% percent of students I've ever worked with." Next level was "top 10%..." All were qualified (it was a top notch program that would not allow an unprepared student to apply), but this was the faculties way of ranking them- otherwise, the letters were pretty similar.

I always found "generic" letters that didn't reference specific abilities or goals to be a bit of a red flag. Things like "Student was competent and is ready to learn more/ move to the next step in their training" vs. "Student was highly proficient with skill X and would be an asset to any program."

That is helpful to know. Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[WisNeuro]

Pretty much what clinicalABA said. For neuro, we're a smaller subfield, so many of us know each other, and we know where the quality training sites are, and who quality supervisors are. That is probably one of the biggest weights we give.