Psy.D. Programs 10 Years From Now

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

There are about 15-20 respectable Psy.D. programs out there...

How many of these will convert to Ph.D. programs in the next decade?

Once the resources become available at these uni-based programs to better fund students and offer within-program practicum (aka sustain a money-pit), why stay Psy.D.? Many programs that were once Psy.D. have converted as the uni housing them grew. Will these programs follow? And when these programs are gone, what is left is...

And then what? What then will be a Psy.D.? The few studies that are out there do not support the notion that Psy.D. programs produce any better clinicians than Ph.D. programs. Vale to the Vail Model?


Thoughts?

Originally Posted by thepug

There are about 15-20 respectable Psy.D. programs out there...

How many of these will convert to Ph.D. programs in the next decade?

Once the resources become available at these uni-based programs to better fund students and offer within-program practicum (aka sustain a money-pit), why stay Psy.D.? Many programs that were once Psy.D. have converted as the uni housing them grew. Will these programs follow? And when these programs are gone, what is left is...

And then what? What then will be a Psy.D.? The few studies that are out there do not support the notion that Psy.D. programs produce any better clinicians than Ph.D. programs. Vale to the Vail Model?


Thoughts?

Well, I believe it is an interesting thing to think about. On the one hand, many would argue that PhD training is a much better model when compared to the bulk of the for-profit schools, particularly when you consider the class sizes which have to reduce the quality of training and supervision. Not to say there aren't good PsyD programs, because there are and I know some folks who have been in them.

On the other hand, the majority of psychologists will be PsyDs in large part because of inappropriate recruiting on for-profit schools' part. So, not only will they be largely responsible for saturating the field, but they will also represent the majority of clinicians by their sheer numbers. I think the market for a PsyD is going to diminish as knowledge of the field saturation and debt problems continues to be disseminated.

To your point, even with some conversions of PsyD programs to PhD programs, I don't think I see these other schools shutting down until it becomes much less profitable. More likely, they will continue to offer "specialties" and will continue to offer Master's degrees.

The PsyD degree is not going to be eliminated anytime soon. There are too many people on that boat for it to sink (meaning measures will be taken to protect their interests).

Originally Posted by Pragma

On the other hand, the majority of psychologists will be PsyDs in large part because of inappropriate recruiting on for-profit schools' part. So, not only will they be largely responsible for saturating the field, but they will also represent the majority of clinicians by their sheer numbers. I think the market for a PsyD is going to diminish as knowledge of the field saturation and debt problems continues to be disseminated.

Just to clarify, stats about the APPIC match (http://www.appic.org/Match/Match-Statistics) from the past decade or so indicate that the majority of internship applicants are from PhD programs. So the majority of psychologists are and will be PhDs, not PsyDs, for quite a while. Thanks to "their sheer numbers," PhDs are not the minority in this field.

I think a couple of Psy.D. programs could convert over (like one of the programs previously affiliated with the Virginia Consortium), though I don't think that is realistic. I would not be surprised to see more of a divide between university-based programs (both Psy.D. & Ph.D) and FSPS programs. While the #'s of FSPS rise, most people in higher-level positions come from university-based programs.

I think any real changes within doctoral-level psych programs will be because of changes to federal law (possible overhaul of student loans, legislation against predatory practices by for-profit programs) and hopefully changes pushed by APA (internship imbalance, more stringent criteria for acred., etc)....though I'm not holding my breath.

Word about the Virginia Consortium is that they are in the process of changing over to a PhD program. I would not be surprised if a few of the other programs (rutgers, baylor, etc) followed suit.

Originally Posted by Sanman

Word about the Virginia Consortium is that they are in the process of changing over to a PhD program. I would not be surprised if a few of the other programs (rutgers, baylor, etc) followed suit.

At which point will it really be defensible to call oneself a Psy.D.? I guess that's my point.

I've always been a fan of the PhD training model because I like how it subliminally trains the individual through research and stats to be a critically thinking investigator. Kind of like a "wax-on, wax-off" approach.

Originally Posted by Duck Duck Goose

Just to clarify, stats about the APPIC match (http://www.appic.org/Match/Match-Statistics) from the past decade or so indicate that the majority of internship applicants are from PhD programs. So the majority of psychologists are and will be PhDs, not PsyDs, for quite a while. Thanks to "their sheer numbers," PhDs are not the minority in this field.

Consider, though, that this is only based on those who register for the APPIC match. Many of the larger PsyD programs steer students away from the match when it comes to internship. The CAPIC system is becoming the norm for PsyD-granting institutions in California, and I've heard from PsyD students in other states that only a small minority of their classmates go through the match.

Originally Posted by thepug

At which point will it really be defensible to call oneself a Psy.D.? I guess that's my point.

I've always been a fan of the PhD training model because I like how it subliminally trains the individual through research and stats to be a critically thinking investigator. Kind of like a "wax-on, wax-off" approach.

No one can take away what you have accomplished or how good you are. You will always be judged first on your veracity as a clinician and next on your background and credentials. If your diploma says rutgers/baylor/etc on it, people will know that it is a reputable program no matter the letters behind your name. A PhD from Alliant/CSPP/etc, likewise will not likely be as respected.

Originally Posted by Duck Duck Goose

Just to clarify, stats about the APPIC match (http://www.appic.org/Match/Match-Statistics) from the past decade or so indicate that the majority of internship applicants are from PhD programs. So the majority of psychologists are and will be PhDs, not PsyDs, for quite a while. Thanks to "their sheer numbers," PhDs are not the minority in this field.

Good point, but...

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

Consider, though, that this is only based on those who register for the APPIC match. Many of the larger PsyD programs steer students away from the match when it comes to internship. The CAPIC system is becoming the norm for PsyD-granting institutions in California, and I've heard from PsyD students in other states that only a small minority of their classmates go through the match.

I also would add that I am talking about the next 10 years. My point was largely based on the assumption that most PhD programs have remained relatively stable in keeping small class sizes. Many PsyD programs graduate 50-100 people per year, from what I have heard.

Thus, aside from non-match, non-accredited internships (which don't matter for state licensure) that are not accounted for by the numbers you provided, there is a big discrepency in rate of growth. I guess I have not crunched the numbers, but it seems to me that in 10 years we might see a heavy proportion of PsyDs in our field if current trends continue. Probably a large enough group of people to prevent any kind of change to the meaning of a PsyD degree.

Originally Posted by Pragma

Good point, but...



I also would add that I am talking about the next 10 years. My point was largely based on the assumption that most PhD programs have remained relatively stable in keeping small class sizes. Many PsyD programs graduate 50-100 people per year, from what I have heard.

Thus, aside from non-match, non-accredited internships (which don't matter for state licensure) that are not accounted for by the numbers you provided, there is a big discrepency in rate of growth. I guess I have not crunched the numbers, but it seems to me that in 10 years we might see a heavy proportion of PsyDs in our field if current trends continue. Probably a large enough group of people to prevent any kind of change to the meaning of a PsyD degree.

It's like an epidemiology study.

That's what kids who go to good PsyD programs hate. Take the total students put out per year by the 15 or so good programs and that is eaten up by just 1 FSP with an enrollment of like 150 people.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

Consider, though, that this is only based on those who register for the APPIC match. Many of the larger PsyD programs steer students away from the match when it comes to internship. The CAPIC system is becoming the norm for PsyD-granting institutions in California, and I've heard from PsyD students in other states that only a small minority of their classmates go through the match.

CAPIC = inbred

Originally Posted by thepug

That's what kids who go to good PsyD programs hate.

I personally hate the implication that Psy.D. = FSPS graduate who doesn't know how to do research and thinks stats are "icky". There are many solid Psy.Ds out there with solid training in research and clinical work. Even in this thread there are posts that imply Psy.D. = FSPS.

Originally Posted by thepug

CAPIC = inbred

That's been my complaint since day 1 of CAPIC. It hurts the profession by allowing for more people to get into the field. It artifically supresses the true imbalance because many students forego APPIC all together, so they aren't counted as "unmatched". I really wish the APPIC Match was the only avenue for students because inevitably a lawsuit or two would occur when a student or students consistantly fail to match. As it stands now, there is a diversion of students, which I believe will eventually create two classes of psychologists....which is not good for anyone in the field.

Originally Posted by Pragma

Good point, but...



I also would add that I am talking about the next 10 years. My point was largely based on the assumption that most PhD programs have remained relatively stable in keeping small class sizes. Many PsyD programs graduate 50-100 people per year, from what I have heard.

Thus, aside from non-match, non-accredited internships (which don't matter for state licensure) that are not accounted for by the numbers you provided, there is a big discrepency in rate of growth. I guess I have not crunched the numbers, but it seems to me that in 10 years we might see a heavy proportion of PsyDs in our field if current trends continue. Probably a large enough group of people to prevent any kind of change to the meaning of a PsyD degree.

Based on the APPIC #s, which are limited for a number of reasons, it looks like the ratio is 7:6 PhDs to PsyDs. This has definitely been getting closer over the past 10 years (a non-journal article I found quickly in a google search said that PhDs to PsyDs was 1200:700 in 2000. 10 years from now, though, you'll still have all those PhDs from previous decades. So are PsyDs catching up? Yup. But 10 years from now, PhDs will still be the majority. (Get back to me in 2022 if I'm wrong. )

Originally Posted by Duck Duck Goose

Based on the APPIC #s, which are limited for a number of reasons, it looks like the ratio is 7:6 PhDs to PsyDs. This has definitely been getting closer over the past 10 years (a non-journal article I found quickly in a google search said that PhDs to PsyDs was 1200:700 in 2000. 10 years from now, though, you'll still have all those PhDs from previous decades. So are PsyDs catching up? Yup. But 10 years from now, PhDs will still be the majority. (Get back to me in 2022 if I'm wrong. )

Fair enough. Doesn't change my point.

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

I person hate the implication that Psy.D. = FSPS graduate who doesn't know how to do research and thinks stats are "icky". There are many solid Psy.Ds out there with solid training in research and clinical work. Even in this thread there are posts that imply Psy.D. = FSPS.

Thank you. I'm at a university-based PsyD program where there is a fair amount of research going on and an environment in which we're expected to approach matters critically and scientifically. Whether you're talking about IPT or angel therapy* or anything in between, you're going to be expected to justify it. "What does the data show?" is a question that's going to follow just about anything you say.

I hate what those huge free-standing schools make people think of PsyDs. It's going to undermine my credibility with my future colleagues and other clinical psychologists. It's infuriating.

*I have never actually heard a person in real life talk about angel therapy. I used that because it seems to be the go-to thing around here for "ridiculous unfounded made-up crap."

Originally Posted by thepug

It's like an epidemiology study.

That's what kids who go to good PsyD programs hate. Take the total students put out per year by the 15 or so good programs and that is eaten up by just 1 FSP with an enrollment of like 150 people.

Maybe this is has been discussed somewhere else on the forum, but what FSP schools have a graduating class that large? I thought my PsyD cohort was very large (15, 9 of which are progressing according to the expected timeframe therefore having participated in the match), but I can't believe there are programs with those class sizes! I am honestly curious, does anyone know which schools these are?

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

That's been my complaint since day 1 of CAPIC. It hurts the profession by allowing for more people to get into the field. It artifically supresses the true imbalance because many students forego APPIC all together, so they aren't counted as "unmatched". I really wish the APPIC Match was the only avenue for students because inevitably a lawsuit or two would occur when a student or students consistantly fail to match. As it stands now, there is a diversion of students, which I believe will eventually create two classes of psychologists....which is not good for anyone in the field.

Oh I'm sure this idea has been floating around with disgruntled students for awhile now...

Originally Posted by eudaimonPsyD

Maybe this is has been discussed somewhere else on the forum, but what FSP schools have a graduating class that large? I thought my PsyD cohort was very large (15, 9 of which are progressing according to the expected timeframe therefore having participated in the match), but I can't believe there are programs with those class sizes! I am honestly curious, does anyone know which schools these are?

I'm not quite motivated enough to pull up individual programs' websites to find enrollment information, but the APPIC data likely present at least a partial picture of how large class sizes are, with the two understandings that: 1) obviously not everyone applying for internship during a given year is from the same cohort, and 2) not all students at large schools are going to be applying for internship at all, or may participate in non-APPIC internship matches.

http://www.appic.org/Portals/0/downl...10_by_Univ.pdf

Scanning through that thing, various campuses for Alliant and Argosy consistently have group sizes in the 30-50 range, with some having 70-100+.

First, I think what is important here is the quality of the program itself. I think this is true for both PhD and PsyD programs. Having said that, a PhD Program does not necessarily mean superior training. For example, there are for FSPS PhD programs and I think most would agree that university based PsyD programs would provide better training. So, as I have said in threads related to this topic in the past, one needs to look critically at the "specific program" and evaluate said program on its own merits.

Second, I think the Vail Model has a strong place in the field. Notably, consider the internship process (NOT the imbalance). Specifically, most internship programs use a practitioner-scholar model for training purposes. While I realize that not all internships follow this process, it seems obvious why many go in this direction: It prepares people for clinical practice. Thus, it seems clear to me that Vail Model PsyD programs make sense from training perspective and are here to stay within field. The real issue becomes, in my humble opinion, how this training philosophy is implemented and subsequently regulated by the field (i.e., APA) in terms of training, class sizes, and accreditation. The Vail Model is not broken and never has been. As I see it, the model has been implemented terribly, regulated poorly, and used inappropriately for financial gain. I think this points to a systemic issue.

I love this forum and have read it while unregistered for a while, but I wanted to contribute to this conversation.

I am an advanced student in a small madical school based Psy.D. program that is not a for-profit school. I chose Psy.D. intentionally, and have been happy with that decision through the years of schooling I've been in thus far. I am conducting my dissertation and am a Research Coordinator in a medical/psychological study affiliated with my school and one of the top Childrens' hospitals in the nation. Also, my cohort size is in the low 20's, which is large compared to Ph.D. programs but is nowhere near the for-profit "50-100" I've heard quoted.

That being said, I think that there is a place for Ph.D. and Psy.D., as there is place for M.D. and D.O. Even many Psy.D. students often take issue with the large, for-profit or online programs who are graduating extremely large cohorts. I think our issue may be with APA, accrediting, etc., rather than with Psy.D. as a model of studying psychology.

I've been in practicums at top-tier competitive placements with Ph.D. students and we have often found that there is more similarity than dissimilarity in our training and coursework. Often the differences are that they have done more research and I have done more clinical work. I think there's room enough in the field for those differences.

Then why even have the PsyD if they're so similar?

Originally Posted by cara susanna

Then why even have the PsyD if they're so similar?

Cara- first let me say I've been rootin' for you since your app cycle- we were applicants the same year, but I never wanted to join/get sucked into commenting on the forums. I was so happy back then when you got accepted, though.

For me, the decision to do Psy.D. was specifically related to my interest in doing clinical work/ therapy. My interest in working in academia is to train therapists. My research interests are related to treatment outcomes and therapist training. I am so skewed in that direction that a Psy.D. seemed like an obvious choice. And, every supervisor I've had in clinical practicums has noted that I come across as having "years more training than my CV indicates" which I think is mostly related to the emphasis being a bit more on clinical skills development/refinement (only trying to support my point there).

I love multidisciplinary work and am excited about the idea that Ph.D.'s, Psy.D.'s, M.D.'s, D.O.'s, NP's, Social workers, etc. can bring nuance to the collaborative team approach. I also love working with clinicians of various orientations, as my program's emphasis is heavy in CBT with an EST secondary emphasis... but I've been in practicums with short term psychodynamic clinicians and value the different perspectives we bring to the table.

Originally Posted by ClinPsychEnthus

Cara- first let me say I've been rootin' for you since your app cycle- we were applicants the same year, but I never wanted to join/get sucked into commenting on the forums. I was so happy back then when you got accepted, though.

For me, the decision to do Psy.D. was specifically related to my interest in doing clinical work/ therapy. My interest in working in academia is to train therapists. My research interests are related to treatment outcomes and therapist training. I am so skewed in that direction that a Psy.D. seemed like an obvious choice. And, every supervisor I've had in clinical practicums has noted that I come across as having "years more training than my CV indicates" which I think is mostly related to the emphasis being a bit more on clinical skills development/refinement (only trying to support my point there).

I love multidisciplinary work and am excited about the idea that Ph.D.'s, Psy.D.'s, M.D.'s, D.O.'s, NP's, Social workers, etc. can bring nuance to the collaborative team approach. I also love working with clinicians of various orientations, as my program's emphasis is heavy in CBT with an EST secondary emphasis... but I've been in practicums with short term psychodynamic clinicians and value the different perspectives we bring to the table.

I see where you are coming from, and the comments regarding your clinical skills from your supervisors is an interesting point because the empirical studies out there use supervisor ratings to operationally define clinical skills (perhaps not the best way, but w/e).

These studies find no difference in clinical skills between Ph.D. and Psy.D.s except for the fact the Ph.D.s write stronger reports which is no surprise since their practicum supervisors did not have to mull over 25 reports and just hand them back on a "check, check plus, check minus" basis. It's just a null argument and supports the truism that a Psy.D. is just a Ph.D. with no serious research training and less supervision.


So you chose the Psy.D. route for no other reasons? GRE scores perhaps? I only say this because funding would motivate anyone to go Ph.D. Moreover, a cohort size in the low twenties is not large compared to Ph.D. programs, it's absolutely enormous.

Originally Posted by ClinPsychEnthus

Cara- first let me say I've been rootin' for you since your app cycle- we were applicants the same year, but I never wanted to join/get sucked into commenting on the forums. I was so happy back then when you got accepted, though.

Aww, thank you! I didn't know you, but I'm glad that you got in, too.

I dunno, those are great reasons, but I still think you could accomplish them with a balanced PhD program. I understand that the Vail model was a response to programs like UW Madison where you barely got any clinical training, but nowadays there are a lot of balanced programs, even ones that skew more towards clinical training and practice. I guess I feel like the PsyD doesn't offer anything new that a balanced PhD couldn't. No offense to you, it sounds like you've had good training that's excellent for your goals, but I feel like you could accomplish that in a balanced PhD program as well.

When we as a nation stop subsidizing higher education and put serious limits on per capita loans the for profit and professional schools will disappear.

Until this happens, there will be no change. You can try for administrative or statutory overhaul, such as state restrictions on licensing, but it wont work. This also comes down to federal subsidies. The more health professionals in the community, the less they have to reimburse us for services, so the legislature will not willfully reduce the # of "doctors" out there. Plus, the lobbying from Apollo and the like will clobber any of us on the legislative arena.

When a doctoral degree requires private funding nearly every supply side issue will reduce overnight.

Ron Paul knows this, and a few others. We should not be subsidizing each other's educations. When we do, it creates socially constructed artificial niche-bubbles (like sub-prime mortgages), and bad things happen to the market.

Well it takes a B.A. to apply so maybe we should be blaming the universities in general for putting out hundreds of thousands of say psych students a year with a degree that is useless at the undergrad level. Knowing full well only about 20% of that could be squeezed into the formal graduate school system.

hmmmm? The FSPS took advantage of a situation resulting from the greed of the traditional system, which created the problem.

"Want to be a history major at our mid-line state school? Sure, well take your money"

Originally Posted by aequitasveritas

When we as a nation stop subsidizing higher education and put serious limits on per capita loans the for profit and professional schools will disappear.

Well, Obama just ended the subsidized portion of the stafford loans, so that's a start.

Originally Posted by futurepsydoc

first, i think what is important here is the quality of the program itself. I think this is true for both phd and psyd programs. Having said that, a phd program does not necessarily mean superior training. For example, there are for fsps phd programs and i think most would agree that university based psyd programs would provide better training. So, as i have said in threads related to this topic in the past, one needs to look critically at the "specific program" and evaluate said program on its own merits.

Second, i think the vail model has a strong place in the field. Notably, consider the internship process (not the imbalance). Specifically, most internship programs use a practitioner-scholar model for training purposes. While i realize that not all internships follow this process, it seems obvious why many go in this direction: It prepares people for clinical practice. Thus, it seems clear to me that vail model psyd programs make sense from training perspective and are here to stay within field. The real issue becomes, in my humble opinion, how this training philosophy is implemented and subsequently regulated by the field (i.e., apa) in terms of training, class sizes, and accreditation. The vail model is not broken and never has been. As i see it, the model has been implemented terribly, regulated poorly, and used inappropriately for financial gain. I think this points to a systemic issue.

+1

Originally Posted by psychology24

+1

+2

Again, I repeat my question: how is the Vail model different from a balanced PhD program? What does it have to offer above and beyond that?

Practitioner-scholar, scientific-practitioner...astronautic-cowboy. Where is the proof that these constructs have any discriminate validly from one another? It seems like a bunch of academic rubbish to me. We all know how academics love their terms, spending their entire careers fighting over their meaning. It's pettifoggery that distracts from the true argument.

There is no empirical evidence that Psy.D.s prepare students any better for internship, so what's the point then? Wasn't the whole idea behind the Psy.D. that Ph.D. programs were not offering enough in-depth clinical training?

I'm sure training could be improved in Ph.D. programs, but all the creation of the Psy.D. did was give institutions the moral backing to have larger cohort sizes similar to M.D. and J.D. programs.

Originally Posted by thepug

Practitioner-scholar, scientific-practitioner...astronautic-cowboy. Where is the proof that these constructs have any discriminate validly from one another? It seems like a bunch of academic rubbish to me. We all know how academics love their terms, spending their entire careers fighting over their meaning. It's pettifoggery that distracts from the true argument.

There is no empirical evidence that Psy.D.s prepare students any better for internship, so what's the point then? Wasn't the whole idea behind the Psy.D. that Ph.D. programs were not offering enough in-depth clinical training?

I'm sure training could be improved in Ph.D. programs, but all the creation of the Psy.D. did was give institutions the moral backing to have larger cohort sizes similar to M.D. and J.D. programs.

That was my take on the whole Vail Conference/Psy.D. situation--what you've said mixed with the idea that psychology had matured to the point that a professional degree (rather than an academic/research degree) was warranted and feasible. Sort of like how with medicine, as the field grew/progressed, the predominant training models shifted away from teaching everyone how to conduct medical research to instead instructing people in the consumption and application of what had been learned through that research. I remember reading through some of the conference notes and what not, but can't recall at the moment exactly what they said.

I think the internship deal came about largely because of the lack of clinical training in some programs at the time, and the fear that people were graduating with a degree in clinical psychology who'd hardly ever seen a clinical patient. Hence their stronger focus on clinical training, as internships were developed under the assumption that research training occurred largely at the doctoral level.

thepug...you have confused 3 or 4 different issues in your response, none of which directly reflect the purpose of the Vail conference. You may want to read up on the Vail conference and related publications that talk about Boulder v. Vail training, as there were valid reasons for it at the time. There is more of an argument now for there to be less of a need. I'll respond later when I have time.

On one of my internship interviews, when we went around the room introducing ourselves, 2 of the applicants there found out they were from the same program (same year even) and had never met before. Other colleagues of mine mentioned the same thing happening at their interviews. It seems that some of the cohorts are so large, they can't even fit them all in the same classroom.

Originally Posted by cara susanna

Again, I repeat my question: how is the Vail model different from a balanced PhD program? What does it have to offer above and beyond that?

I think the question you are posing is worth considering with respect to the future of doctoral training within our field. However, I think we need to flesh out the question a bit more in order for the conversation to be more productive.

First, I think we all need to define what "balanced" actually means in terms of training. While it may seem self-evident to many people, I think it is rather difficult to put a finger on what "balanced" training looks like across different programs. To be honest, my notion of "balanced" will be forever linked to the 7 point likert scale with the Insider's Guide to Doctoral Programs....... that all of us read when we were applying to graduate school. I think an operational definition is necessary.

Second, I think we need to consider the underlying training philosophies, "Boulder" versus "Vail," and how training programs actually use them to develop a curriculum for their students. Are the courses structured differently? There should be qualitative and quantitative differences to be identified. Moving beyond that, I think one also needs to begin considering the differentiation between these programs and "Clinical Science" programs. I believe this is another type of training philosophy which is notable and needs to be discussed, especially within the current climate. The dissatisfaction with the APA has lead to alternative accrediting bodies. I agree nor disagree with this turn of events, I just think it needs to be thrown into the mix.

Third, I think we need to consider, then, the degree to which any program actually adheres to the training philosophy to which is espouses. In truth, I think the letters after one's name are meaningless in comparison to the actual training in which one receives, how that training prepares one for their ultimate career goals (i.e., coursework, research, practicum, skills obtained, etc), and how the training philosophy manages to allows for competency to be achieved in relation to the skills obtained.

Having said that, I think discussing these factors may help illuminate what is most important in my opinion, the education an individual receives from a specific program. I think this means more than the actual degree they are conferred.

Again, you are all focusing on administrative issues, which is fine, but it won't solve anything.

If you really think there should be change, this is much more effected by the political ecosystem at this point than anything else.

Funding is the cornerstone. Nothing else matters if you are interested in movement.

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

thepug...you have confused 3 or 4 different issues in your response, none of which directly reflect the purpose of the Vail conference. You may want to read up on the Vail conference and related publications that talk about Boulder v. Vail training, as there were valid reasons for it at the time. There is more of an argument now for there to be less of a need. I'll respond later when I have time.

I'm trying to state my feelings of what became of the conference and not what was discussed at it.

You state that at the time of the conference there was more of a need, but how is it that the field was ready to switch over to a practice-based model? The research just isn't there yet to turn psychologists loose like we do with say dentists and it sure as hell was not there in the '70s. It's dangerous and quite frankly it scares me. I have talked to kids coming from M.Ed. in Counseling programs tell me the same thing.

The PhD model provides more than just research training. It endows, somewhat implicitly, a critical way of looking at things. It makes the practitioner a hypothesis tester.

Originally Posted by thepug

I'm trying to state my feelings of what became of the conference and not what was discussed at it.

You state that at the time of the conference there was more of a need, but how is it that the field was ready to switch over to a practice-based model? The research just isn't there yet to turn psychologists loose like we do with say dentists and it sure as hell was not there in the '70s. It's dangerous and quite frankly it scares me. I have talked to kids coming from M.Ed. in Counseling programs tell me the same thing.

The PhD model provides more than just research training. It endows, somewhat implicitly, a critical way of looking at things. It makes the practitioner a hypothesis tester.

Although I always advocate that training as a scientist (via research) is important for producing skeptical, highly critical clinicians, this "superiority" thing you have has got to go. I mean really.

The only things it shows is: 1.) That you have a dogmatic and inflexible view of psychology in the face of a rapidly changing healthcare landscape. 2.) That you, likely, have very little experience or exposure in the business of practicing psychology. Number 2 is particularly obvious because in the applied business area of this profession (and practicing psychology anywhere, whether is in PP or at an academic hospital clinic, IS a business. Make no mistake, keeping the lights on and making sure your referral source exists is always the number one priority), THE DEGREE DOESN'T MATTER. NO ONE CARES. The voc rehab counselor who refers their TBI patient wont care, the director for the state SSI office wont care, the local nurse practitioner group wont care. They will care about your product. Period.

With regards to the Vail conference, although some professional schools have poorly implemented it, I'm not sure what you mean by "switching over to a practice model." Nobody wanted to switch the training paradigm of the profession, only offer an alternative one that was more practice focused. I'm not sure how much you know about clinical ph,d programs before 1970 or so, but there was very, very little practical training in most programs. It was very, very academic and the majority of clinical learning beyond the basics took place "on the job." I'm sure many viewed this as quite scary, to be honest.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

.
http://www.appic.org/Portals/0/downl...10_by_Univ.pdf

Scanning through that thing, various campuses for Alliant, Adelphi, and Argosy consistently have group sizes in the 30-50 range, with some having 70-100+.

I looked up the schools you mentioned, and while I see Alliant and Argosy have large cohorts, Adelphi does not seem to have large cohorts, at least not since around 2005. Likewise, Alliant and Argosy have several campuses while Adelphi has one school/campus (a clinical psychology Ph.D. Program).

Internship cohort sizes for Adelphi since 2005:

2005-2010 = 18.2 / year

I hope this clears up the erroneous and misleading information you posted about Adelphi...

Originally Posted by Duck Duck Goose

Just to clarify, stats about the APPIC match (http://www.appic.org/Match/Match-Statistics) from the past decade or so indicate that the majority of internship applicants are from PhD programs. So the majority of psychologists are and will be PhDs, not PsyDs, for quite a while. Thanks to "their sheer numbers," PhDs are not the minority in this field.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

Consider, though, that this is only based on those who register for the APPIC match. Many of the larger PsyD programs steer students away from the match when it comes to internship. The CAPIC system is becoming the norm for PsyD-granting institutions in California, and I've heard from PsyD students in other states that only a small minority of their classmates go through the match.

The APPIC match stats for 2011 show 54% of participants were PhD. Not too much of a majority.

Stat located here, number 2: http://www.appic.org/Match/MatchStat...2011Part1.aspx

Originally Posted by psyman

The APPIC match stats for 2011 show 54% of participants were PhD. Not too much of a majority.

Stat located here, number 2: http://www.appic.org/Match/MatchStat...2011Part1.aspx

Data* from this last match show that 50% more Psy.D. candidates did not match as compared to Ph.D. candidates (14% of Ph.D. candidates did not match and 22% of Psy.D. candidates did not match). More importantly though is the number of Ph.D.'s that occupied APA/CPA accredited internship sites was 94% where as Psy.D. graduates were 64% when they did match. That is a huge disparity and something that needs to be addressed by those programs generating graduates that are not being placed in accredited internships.

All in all, this shows that the Psy.D. is a relatively rough road to travel when you take into account all the other factors (like financial costs). While I agree that once practicing the degree matters less, I believe is wrong to assert that the degree doesn't matter. It clearly does matter to the person pursuing it. A Psy.D. statistically makes things more difficult as seen by the following statistics.

* - http://www.appic.org/Match/MatchStat...2011Part3.aspx

I also found these statistics interesting, as they highlight the lack of diversity in the psychological community:

Gender
 
     Female      Ph.D. = 79%     Psy.D. = 79%
     Male        Ph.D. = 21%     Psy.D. = 20%
 
 
  Racial / Ethnic identification
 
     African-American/Black     Ph.D. =  7%     Psy.D. =  6%
     American Indian/Alaskan    Ph.D. =  1%     Psy.D. =  1%
        Native
     Asian/Pacific Islander     Ph.D. =  8%     Psy.D. =  6%
     Hispanic/Latino            Ph.D. =  6%     Psy.D. = 10%
     White (non-hispanic)       Ph.D. = 75%     Psy.D. = 75%
     Bi-racial/Multi-racial     Ph.D. =  5%     Psy.D. =  3%
     Other                      Ph.D. =  3%     Psy.D. =  4%

Originally Posted by Jegg

I looked up the schools you mentioned, and while I see Alliant and Argosy have large cohorts, Adelphi does not seem to have large cohorts, at least not since around 2005. Likewise, Alliant and Argosy have several campuses while Adelphi has one school/campus (a clinical psychology Ph.D. Program).

Internship cohort sizes for Adelphi since 2005:

2005-2010 = 18.2 / year

I hope this clears up the erroneous and misleading information you posted about Adelphi...

I must've confused myself in my original post somehow, and posted Adelphi rather than Adler, the former of which has an 83% ten-year match rate and is reducing class sizes, and the latter of which is showing an opposite trend (i.e., class sizes growing since 2005, although, to their credit, with a concomitant increase in match rate).

Thank you for catching my error.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

I must've confused myself in my original post somehow, and posted Adelphi rather than Adler, the former of which has an 83% ten-year match rate and is reducing class sizes, and the latter of which is showing an opposite trend (i.e., class sizes growing since 2005, although, to their credit, with a concomitant increase in match rate).

Thank you for catching my error.

A cohort of 20 is ridiculous. It's just too much.

Originally Posted by thepug

A cohort of 20 is ridiculous. It's just too much.

20 is a big cohort to be sure, although I could see it possibly being manageable in a very large department. My department has 7 full-time clinical faculty members and averages ~11 students per cohort, for example, so if there were 12-14 faculty, 20 might be reasonable.

Probably even more important than the overall cohort size is the ratio of students to full-time advisors. Regardless, given the size of most clinical departments, I agree that it's tough to see more than 20 students receiving as much individual supervision and advising as they deserve (and require).

Originally Posted by thepug

A cohort of 20 is ridiculous. It's just too much.

I was actually surprised to see that Rutgers PsyD had internship cohorts over 20 the last two years and a class cohort over 20 this year...

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

20 is a big cohort to be sure, although I could see it possibly being manageable in a very large department. My department has 7 full-time clinical faculty members and averages ~11 students per cohort, for example, so if there were 12-14 faculty, 20 might be reasonable.

Probably even more important than the overall cohort size is the ratio of students to full-time advisors. Regardless, given the size of most clinical departments, I agree that it's tough to see more than 20 students receiving as much individual supervision and advising as they deserve (and require).

Indeed, the arbitrary number 20 is not in and of itself a sufficient determinant of "too much." Certainly, as mentioned, the number of students per faculty advisor is important. Also, the structure of the program, or how it directs students towards graduation goals, is important as well. I would guess that some programs with cohorts of 20 (e.g. Rutgers PsyD had a cohort of 21 last year) are well equipped to handle those numbers while others are not. Likewise the aptitude and diligence of the student seems important as well.

Originally Posted by aequitasveritas

Again, you are all focusing on administrative issues, which is fine, but it won't solve anything.

If you really think there should be change, this is much more effected by the political ecosystem at this point than anything else.

Funding is the cornerstone. Nothing else matters if you are interested in movement.

You're quite right. Easy to get distracted by rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic (e.g., focusing on accreditation, Vail vs. Boulder model and implementation, etc.) - the issue of FSPS and the Alliants and Argosys wrecking psychology is just a symptom, the sickness is a warped funding model that's affecting all of higher education, not just graduate training in psychology. The economics of undergraduate and graduate education in the USA are distorted beyond all reckoning and are getting worse. As you said, only Ron Paul seems to get it and few others (certainly not Obamney).

Everyone is already aware of my perspective to the point that the moderators have informed me that I will be banned if I continue on with my support for PsyD programs. I think what will occur in the next ten to twenty years is that psychology training as a whole will become more aligned with medical school training and many medical schools will adopt the PsyD program model of training of psychologists and prescription RxP privileges will become uniform in most States.

I can see PhD trained psychologist to maintain University training but many of the professional schools will adopt a medical psychology model and many of the FSPS will be part of Private Medical Schools. Argosy is already going this direction with a Health Science School and a Law School as part of their programs.

At the risk of being banned, the PsyD is no where near the funeral stage!!!

Originally Posted by 4410

Everyone is already aware of my perspective to the point that the moderators have informed me that I will be banned if I continue on with my support for PsyD programs. I think what will occur in the next ten to twenty years is that psychology training as a whole will become more aligned with medical school training and many medical schools will adopt the PsyD program model of training of psychologists and prescription RxP privileges will become uniform in most States.

I can see PhD trained psychologist to maintain University training but many of the professional schools will adopt a medical psychology model and many of the FSPS will be part of Private Medical Schools. Argosy is already going this direction with a Health Science School and a Law School as part of their programs.

At the risk of being banned, the PsyD is no where near the funeral stage!!!

If they ever get around to reforming the federal student loan gravy express to the online/FSPS world they'll have to reexamine the whole business model.

Originally Posted by 4410

Everyone is already aware of my perspective to the point that the moderators have informed me that I will be banned if I continue on with my support for PsyD programs.

The issue is probably that you post a great deal of misinformation and parade it as fact...the posts just happen to be about PsyD programs.

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

The issue is probably that you post a great deal of misinformation and parade it as fact...the posts just happen to be about PsyD programs.

No. He posts about that guy he used to know who...

Then THAT is paraded as fact cause hes too lazy to look anything up himself.