When I applied for PhD programs in clinical psych, I recall being advised that saying that I wanted to "help people" in my interviews would kill my chances of admission. Now that I am out of academia, this strikes me as remarkably symbolic of clinical psych's academic values.

How distorted does an institution's values have to be to make an applicant's desire to help people a liability against them?

I get that this saying you want to "help people" is often viewed by academics as a sign that the applicant is not serious about science and only wants to get into a fully-funded program to later dump research, but I think this thinking is both unfounded and distorted.

I can't speak to all sciences, but isn't the point of clinical psychological science to develop knowledge for the ultimate purpose of helping people in need?

Plus, what kinds of clinical psychological scientists are we ultimately selecting for if we only select for those who learn not to speak of their desire to help people?

Moreover, is there any concrete data to suggest that applicants who want to help people through science are subpar scientists? Or even that they are less likely to pursue a career in psychological science?

Finally, this is a con game that applicants are taught to run on potential faculty mentors. There are plenty of people admitted to fully funded PhD programs in clinical psychology who never go on to full-time careers in science. The applicants know it, and the faculty knows it.

So, would-be full-time clinicians spin and reframe their personal goals in ways that the gatekeepers of fully-funded programs can accept. Which, alright—but couldn't we dispense with the whole charade altogether?