Skip to content

Grad School: Online I/O Psychology Master’s and PhD Program List

2014 September 25
tags: ,
by Richard N. Landers

Grad School Series: Applying to Graduate School in Industrial/Organizational Psychology
Starting Sophomore Year: Should I get a Ph.D. or Master’s? | How to Get Research Experience
Starting Junior Year: Preparing for the GRE | Getting Recommendations
Starting Senior Year: Where to Apply | Traditional vs. Online Degrees | Personal Statements
Interviews/Visits: Preparing for Interviews | Going to Interviews
In Graduate School: What to Expect First Year
Rankings/Listings: PhD Program Rankings | Online Programs Listing

A common question I get is, “What online I/O programs are worthwhile for graduate study?” As I’ve discussed elsewhere, you are generally best served these days by a brick-and-mortar program. Employability, salary of first job, and a host of other outcomes are better. If you decide that you just can’t manage brick-and-mortar though, the available choices are not equal. Some programs are better than others. When making such comparisons, most people are ultimately concerned about employability, and the best way to answer that question is to contact some current and former students in that program, asking if they are currently employed in an I/O-related field.

But before you get to that point, you might want to just get a broad overview of which online I/O programs are available, and what they offer. I found this a surprisingly difficult task when I tried to figure it out myself, so I decide to compile what information I could find into one list.  Please note that I am unaffiliated with any of these programs, so these figures are “unofficial.”  They are based entirely upon what I could find on university websites and via Google.

How to navigate this list? Here’s what I’d look at, in order:

  1. Check if the program has a long-standing in-person PhD program.  You’ll have the best job prospects in an online I/O program associated with a long-standing brick-and-mortar I/O program, because the reputation of the in-person program will generally carry over to the online program.
  2. Check if the program is not-for-profit (public or private in the list below).  Even without a long-standing brick-and-mortar program, not-for-profit programs have no motivation to be a diploma mill, so you have a better chance at a quality education.  That’s not always true – some private not-for-profits may still be in it for the money, and some for-profits may legitimately care about their students – but this is a good general rule.
  3. Check how stringent the admission requirements are.  Generally, more-difficult-to-get-into programs are going to have better training – they only accept qualified students because they challenge those students – and overcoming educational challenges is what gives you the skills to get a job.

Note that you can click on the column headings to sort!

UniversityDegreeDegree AreaTypeCost/Credit-hourRanked PhD Program?Requirements
Colorado State UniversityMasters of Applied I/O (MAIOP)Applied I/O PsychologyPublic$665Yes3.0 GPA, GRE, B or higher in I/O course, B or higher in stats course
Kansas State UniversityMaster of Science (MS)I/O PsychologyPublic$304Yes3.0 GPA or GRE, 2 years managerial experience, coursework in Psych, HR, Management, and/or Statistics
Austin Peay State UniversityMaster of Arts (MA)I/O PsychologyPublic$462No2.5 GPA (above 3.0 recommended), GRE
Birkbeck University of LondonMaster of Science (MSc)Org PsychologyPublic£12,570 / programNoBachelor’s or work experience
University of LeicesterMaster of Science (MSc)Occupational PsychologyPublic£9,220 / programNo2.2 UK degree or international equivalent
Adler School of Professional PsychologyMaster of Arts (MA)I/O PsychologyPrivate$1040No3.0 GPA, C or higher average in Psychology, Org experience
Baker CollegeMaster of Science (MS)I/O PsychologyPrivateUnlistedNoUnlisted
Carlos Albizu UniversityMaster of Science (MS)I/O PsychologyPrivate$505NoUnlisted
Chicago School of Professional PsychologyMaster of Arts (MA)I/O PsychologyPrivateUnlistedNoC or higher in Intro Psych, C or better in stats course, C or better in methods course
Grand Canyon UniversityDoctor of Philosophy (PhD)I/O PsychologyPrivate$495NoUnlisted
Southern New Hampshire UniversityMaster of Science (MS)I/O PsychologyPrivate$627NoSuccessful completion of a stats course and a methods course
Touro UniversityDoctor of Psychology (PsyD)Human and Org PsychologyPrivate$700NoMaster’s degree, 3.4 GPA
University of Southern CaliforniaMaster of Science (MS)Applied Psych, I/O conc.PrivateUnlistedNoGRE and transcript (specific grades not specified)
Argosy UniversityMaster of Arts (MA)I/O PsychologyFor-profitUnlistedNo2.7 GPA or 3.0 GPA on last 60 hours
California Southern UniversityMaster of Science (MS)I/O PsychologyFor-profitUnlistedNoUnlisted
Capella UniversityMaster of Science (MS)I/O PsychologyFor-profit$458No2.3 GPA
Capella UniversityDoctor of Philosophy (PhD)I/O PsychologyFor-profit$510No3.0 GPA
Northcentral UniversityMaster of Science (MS)I/O PsychologyFor-profit$752NoUnlisted
Northcentral UniversityDoctor of Philosophy (PhD)I/O PsychologyFor-profit$930NoUnlisted
University of PhoenixMaster of Science (MS)I/O PsychologyFor-profit$740No2.5 GPA
University of PhoenixDoctor of Philosophy (PhD)I/O PsychologyFor-profit$740NoMaster’s degree, 3.0 GPA, C or better in stats or methods course, work experience, access to own research library
University of the RockiesMaster of Arts (MA)Business PsychologyFor-profit$824NoUnlisted
Walden UniversityDoctor of Philosophy (PhD)I/O PsychologyFor-profit$555NoUnlisted
Share

Grad School: Sortable I/O Psychology Ph.D. Program Rankings

2014 September 17
tags: , ,
by Richard N. Landers

Grad School Series: Applying to Graduate School in Industrial/Organizational Psychology
Starting Sophomore Year: Should I get a Ph.D. or Master’s? | How to Get Research Experience
Starting Junior Year: Preparing for the GRE | Getting Recommendations
Starting Senior Year: Where to Apply | Traditional vs. Online Degrees | Personal Statements
Interviews/Visits: Preparing for Interviews | Going to Interviews
In Graduate School: What to Expect First Year
Rankings/Listings: PhD Program Rankings | Online Programs Listing

Having written my grad school series, one of the most common questions I get is, “Which graduate programs should I apply to?” As I’ve explained on this blog, that’s a complicated question. You should evaluate which schools offer what you want as a student.

Unfortunately, SIOP does not make it easy to directly compare such information across programs. That’s understandable to a degree – much of this information, like research interests, changes frequently. However, every few years, a new set of rankings appears in SIOP’s newsletter, TIP, for some reason still chained to a text-based format, and sometimes to PDF. Why not something a little more modern?

So to fix that, I’ve combined the most recent of several rankings currently available into a searchable, sortable format: US News and World Report’s ranking of I/O psychology programs (woefully incomplete), the most recent evaluations of I/O faculty research productivity as reported by Beiler, Zimmerman, Doerr and Clark (2014), the number of I/O faculty in each program from that same source, and the most recent student satisfaction ratings of I/O PhD programs as reported by Kraiger and Abalos (2004). Those student satisfaction ratings are a bit old (collected in 2002), but they’re the most recent currently available.

These rankings shouldn’t be the only thing you look at when considering a graduate program, but it is something worth paying attention to.

Table column meanings are as follow (1 = highest rank for all columns except Num Fac, NR = not ranked)):

  1. Num Fac = The number of I/O faculty at the program.
  2. US News = The US News and World Report ranking.
  3. Pubs = The number of publications by I/O faculty in any peer-reviewed outlet between 2003 and 2012.
  4. IO Pubs = The number of publications by I/O faculty in the “top 10 I/O journals” between 2003 and 2012.
  5. SIOP = The number of SIOP presentations by I/O faculty between 2003 and 2012.
  6. Prod = An overall productivity index of I/O faculty between 2003 and 2012.
  7. Per Cap = The overall productivity index per capita (i.e., split per I/O faculty) between 2003 and 2012.
  8. Students = An overall weighted index of student satisfaction across 20 dimensions, from a study conducted in 2002.

Note that you can click on the headings to re-sort the table at will.

ProgramNum FacUS NewsPubsIO PubsSIOPProdPer CapStudents
Michigan State University8113119NR
University of Minnesota5124433NR
University of South Florida84315216NR
University of Central Florida6NR42921625NR
Griffith University7NR532402135NR
Rice University7NR692372811
George Mason University7NR78352110
University of Georgia8NR82742920
Teacher’s College, Columbia University9NR933388387
University of Akron8NR10712632NR
University of North Carolina – Charlotte6NR1110291827NR
University of Calgary4NR123437317NR
Portland State University5NR1319131914NR
Bowling Green State University5314111110817
University of Maryland3NR151391229
University of Waterloo5NR1626363023NR
Old Dominion University5NR1738282720NR
Purdue University5NR185201713NR
The Pennsylvania State University6NR1918101424NR
Georgia Institute of Technology5NR20142713105
Texas A&M University6NR2166918NR
University of Illinois at Urbana – Champaign4NR221214116NR
Central Michigan University5NR2322182015NR
Florida Institute of Technology6NR24361935343
Wright State University5NR2520162619NR
Baruch College, CUNY7NR261624223613
North Carolina State University7NR2717212437NR
University of Western Ontario5NR2821262317NR
University of Missouri – St. Louis6NR2928342931NR
Colorado State University4NR30372236114
Florida International University5NR3127252822NR
University of Houston5NR32158151212
Clemson University6NR3339173333NR
Wayne State University8NR3423152539NR
De Paul University5NR3525313426NR
University of Albany, SUNY3NR363030374NR
University of Guelph7NR37353939402
Auburn University3NR384035385NR
Ohio University2NR392433321NR
Illinois Institute of Technology5NR40313240306
Share

Pursuit of Inbox Zero Destroyed My Research Productivity

2014 August 7
tags: ,
by Richard N. Landers

If you haven’t heard of it, inbox zero is an email management technique where you pursue an inbox clear of messages. You can accomplish this by doing one of five things to each message each time you go through your inbox or as messages arrive: delete, delegate, respond, defer, or do.

Both the strength and challenge of inbox zero is that it encourages you to “do” whenever an email comes in if that email is doable. If it’s junk, trash it.  If it doesn’t require a response but you might need it later, file it. If it just requires a reply email, send it.  If it’s about something that will only take 10 minutes (maybe 20 or 30, depending on the complexity of emails you usually get), just do it then. What’s left me are things that will take a substantial amount of time to deal with, in which case you can set a reminder to return to that email at a specific day and time in the future when you can schedule it in.

In following this approach, I imagined this left my graduate students wondering why in some cases I respond to their email in 5 minutes, and other times, in 2 days.  Well, there’s your reason.

The inbox zero technique was actually my default strategy with email since before the start of graduate school, before I knew it had a name. I always found it a little baffling that people would allow hundreds or thousands of messages to pile up in their accounts. How would you possibly keep track of what needed doing? Since at least 2003, I’ve sorted read/dealt with emails into folders as soon as they were “dealt with.” Occasionally, I would hit the state of inbox zero (the goal of the inbox zero technique), where your inbox is literally empty. Rare, but it would happen. Mostly during the summer.

The problem with inbox zero as a goal for research faculty is that you rarely have an email that says “go do research,” which means research became the thing I did after inbox zero was reached.  This ended up pushing me into a weird cycle for a few years: I would get all my service done (article peer review, committee work), I would get all my teaching done (class is a hard deadline), I would be active in mentoring (graduate students send emails, so those emails end up being “done”), and I would end up with a large number of research studies being run by graduate students (the consequence of those graduate student emails and subsequent meetings), but I would only be able to get one or two article manuscripts out each year.

It might seem odd that I had so many studies running yet relatively little actual writing going on.  That is because inbox zero as a time management technique really only requires you to act on your incoming emails; if it’s not in an email, it’s not “to do.”  And when your day is full of 10- to 20-minute tasks, it becomes difficult to find a stretch of time for writing while inbox zero remains a few emails away.

Critically, over a few years, I also learned an important related lesson: quick responses to emails bring more emails.  Where I might respond to 30 emails per day if I responded to them in a single daily batch, my pursuit of inbox zero resulted in maybe 50 emails per day instead.  That adds up, and quickly.

To deal with both of these problems, I’ve now instituted a modified inbox zero approach, which I think of as inbox zero with pause days.  Each week, I set aside at least one (and preferably two) days, which are reserved for writing.  On pause days, I don’t keep my email program open.  I check once every hour or two, on purpose, and I put my phone out of reach.  When I do read email, I don’t follow my normal inbox zero approach. Instead, I cut “do” from the list. Anything that will take more than a simple delete, file, or return email doesn’t get done that day. Period.

This has resulted in a remarkable increase in my ability to write, which is important, because I ended up with 6+ datasets that needed writing up. Changing my approach this year has resulted in a dramatic change, going from 1-2 publications per year up to 5 articles and chapters currently in press and 3 under review. And I still have 4 datasets to go!

Share