Ph.D./Psy.D. comparison

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

MOD NOTE: In an effort to re-organize the top of the forum, I added this thread to the "most useful" list for applicants, which will be stickied at the top of the forum. -t4c

Originally Posted by mpino

fyi..Indiana university of PA (PsyD) offers part time and full time assistantships to every student in the program, which includes a stipend and tuition remission.

that's interesting. do you know any more about the program?

would you know of other similar programs?

thanx!

I'm not sure if anyone is still reading this thread because it appears some time has passes since the past post. I have read through the complete thread and I still have some questions. This year I applied to 15 schools (14 PhD & 1 PsyD). I received 4 interviews and ultimately received one offer and a wait list position. The offer I received was at a clinical PsyD program. The reason I did not apply to many PsyD programs is because I was warned not to by the faculty at my university. However, the place that I felt the strongest fit was the PsyD program. I even spoke to the DOT at length after the offer to clarify some key points that were important to me. The university is a tier 2 research institution, not a professional school, that is fully funded (tuition remission + stipend that was better than most of the PhD programs I visited). Additionally, the program wants students to actively do research and present as well as publish. I already have a few national conference presentations as an undergrad but I need to work on publications. They also want to have students active in learning how to write and submit grants (something that I would really like to learn). The faculty is enthuastic and work very closely with students. The cohorts do not exceed 8 students. In reality what I would like to do as a career is to practice while doing some adjunct teaching. Eventually I would like to open my own facility working with a particular population and work on treatment outcome research there. However, it's a long time off and I know some of my plans 6 years ago are not quite what they are now. I hear that you can do the same with a PhD that you can a PsyD but the reality of it is that I am not going to put myself through the application process again. I am competitive enough that I probably could make it in a PhD program if I tried again next year, but I'm done. With all the negative talk (even posts that claim they are not against PsyD's but the language used betrays them) I want to know if I am making a mistake about going to this university that feels so incredibly right because it is a PsyD. If money is removed from the equation, are the true differences lessened? Ugh, I hate you graduate school application process!!!

Originally Posted by Brochacho

I'm not sure if anyone is still reading this thread because it appears some time has passes since the past post. I have read through the complete thread and I still have some questions. This year I applied to 15 schools (14 PhD & 1 PsyD). I received 4 interviews and ultimately received one offer and a wait list position. The offer I received was at a clinical PsyD program. The reason I did not apply to many PsyD programs is because I was warned not to by the faculty at my university. However, the place that I felt the strongest fit was the PsyD program. I even spoke to the DOT at length after the offer to clarify some key points that were important to me. The university is a tier 2 research institution, not a professional school, that is fully funded (tuition remission + stipend that was better than most of the PhD programs I visited). Additionally, the program wants students to actively do research and present as well as publish. I already have a few national conference presentations as an undergrad but I need to work on publications. They also want to have students active in learning how to write and submit grants (something that I would really like to learn). The faculty is enthuastic and work very closely with students. The cohorts do not exceed 8 students. In reality what I would like to do as a career is to practice while doing some adjunct teaching. Eventually I would like to open my own facility working with a particular population and work on treatment outcome research there. However, it's a long time off and I know some of my plans 6 years ago are not quite what they are now. I hear that you can do the same with a PhD that you can a PsyD but the reality of it is that I am not going to put myself through the application process again. I am competitive enough that I probably could make it in a PhD program if I tried again next year, but I'm done. With all the negative talk (even posts that claim they are not against PsyD's but the language used betrays them) I want to know if I am making a mistake about going to this university that feels so incredibly right because it is a PsyD. If money is removed from the equation, are the true differences lessened? Ugh, I hate you graduate school application process!!!

"If money is removed from the equation"... does that mean the PsyD you got accepted to is truly fully funded? What is the average debt load of students graduating from your PsyD program? If it's, say, less than 5-10K, then great.

If you're essentially talking about a fully funded program, then it becomes more a question of the time and opportunity costs you're investing in the training. Assuming it's fully funded, if the APA match rates are good (90+ percent) and you like the program, I say go for it, it's a no-brainer.

I'm amazed by how bad things have gotten for new professional school / PsyD grads these days. I almost feel like I got off comparatively easy having graduated in '04.

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

Ouch.

Even with an income based repayment plan, that is still really rough. Internship pay is suprisingly bad. Being at a VA I make the top end of internship pay (excluding military and BOP), and it is still barely enough to live on.

As for post-doc pay, here is what I've seen in my search and on the listservs for the past couple of years:

-2-yr neuro fellowships mostly ranged from $36k-$45k, with a couple of outliers around $33k and $55k+.
-2-yr neuro fellowships at most VAs are $41k-$43k.
-2-yr rehab fellowships at universities seem to range $36k-$50k.
-1 yr Post-doc fellowships in the VA seem to be in the low $40k's.
-1 yr Post-docs at hospitals seem to be $30k-$40k
-1 yr Post docs at counseling centers seem to be $25k-$35k
-Psychologist-I jobs in the VA are in the $50k's (GS-11, step 1, unlicensed), and after your post-doc it goes to GS-12, step 1, licensed.
-Private practice assessment jobs seem to be $20-$30k, though I'm sure people have worked out better deals. (I know the least about this area, since I only looked at formal fellowships.)
-The research fellowships I've seen are close to NIH recommendations, though some have been better, particularly out in CA.

All of the formal 2 yr fellowships above and many of the 1 yr fellowships are very competitive, so I would not consider them average or what someone should expect to get. On average, the vast majority of people coming out of internship do informal post-docs or get jobs.

VAs are upper end of internship??? I thought it was middle road 20ks??? I know state hospitals i.e., Patton pay quite well too, just below BOP, and well below Army then Navy... My understanding was that state hospitals pay higher than VAs... be curious

Also, since when does anyone have to pay even over 50% of their income for student loan repayment??? I would say that someone needs to look into income-based loan repayment!!!

Originally Posted by AlaskanJustin

VAs are upper end of internship??? I thought it was middle road 20ks??? I know state hospitals i.e., Patton pay quite well too, just below BOP, and well below Army then Navy... My understanding was that state hospitals pay higher than VAs... be curious

Also, since when does anyone have to pay even over 50% of their income for student loan repayment??? I would say that someone needs to look into income-based loan repayment!!!

Yeah, if you're paying 900 bucks a month out of a 1600 dollar salary for loans, you need to be on an income contingent program, like, yesterday. Federal Direct Loan consolidation, the way to go.

What about a phD in Clinical psych from a professional school, that is APA accredited?

Originally Posted by adsekhon

What about a phD in Clinical psych from a professional school, that is APA accredited?

No, not all PhD-awarding professional school clinical psych. programs are APA accredited. Some are, many aren't.

Originally Posted by DrGero

No, not all PhD-awarding professional school clinical psych. programs are APA accredited. Some are, many aren't.

My mistake, I meant in terms of the PhD/PsyD comparisons

how would phd from a professional/apa accredited school rank?

How would it rank? Dont get caught up in rankings, there is no one metric that is sufficent for such a classifying system for phd clinical programs.

There are, however, tons of threads on here about professional schools. Do a search.

Originally Posted by erg923

How would it rank? Dont get caught up in rankings, there is no one metric that is sufficent for such a classifying system for phd clinical programs.

There are, however, tons of threads on here about professional schools. Do a search.

I agree that there is no such metric for classifying PhD programs, as training will vary based on one's mentor, the area of study, and the degree of emphasis placed on clinical work vs research. It's all about goodness of fit for the applicant, with respect to career goals and the training needed to achieve them. While the prestige of the institution plays a role down the line when looking for work, it is not the key to finding the right program. The ranking system is not all that useful.

As for PsyD programs, I think there is a lot useful information for future applicants to review. Especially with respect to match rates, expenses, and training opportunities. However, I also think the information provided on this forum is pretty jaded. More often than not, the PsyD is talked about as being inferior in several respects. Sometimes the criticisms leveled against the degree are justified. In other cases, I am not so sure. In total, only a handful of schools are ever spoken about in a positive light. Even then, I am not completely sure if members genuinely respect the existence of those programs or are simply paying lip service to not seem completely bias. I wonder what the majority field considers about even the "best" PsyD programs.

Originally Posted by futurepsydoc

In total, only a handful of schools are ever spoken about in a positive light. Even then, I am not completely sure if members genuinely respect the existence of those programs or are simply paying lip service to not seem completely bias. I wonder what the majority field considers about even the "best" PsyD programs.

I am not so sure. I used to be somwwhat skeptical of the Vail Model, and although I am still a big proponent of the scientist-practitioner training model (and their underlying definition of what a psychologists truly is), I see no real problem with the Vail model when its implemented CORRECTLY. I think the bias seen on this forum (and elsewhere) comes from the "unsciency" types that have sometimes flocked to that degree. The last thing we need in clinical psychology at the moment is LESS focus on science. With mid-level-encroachment, decreasing reimbursement, and insurance companies demanding some actual outcome studies to justify our rates over midlevels (or npsych evals)...I am big believer in training people who are committed to the science of psychology and who can implement it in an applied fashion.

Originally Posted by psychometric

Hello everyone

Could somebody please post the exact distinctions between PsyD and PhD degrees, instead of referring to research / no research only differences?

It would be helpful to understand what one can exactely do (specifically) with either degree.

Thanks

It really depends on the program itself. Some PsyD programs are clinically focused without much research trainig and other PsyD programs incorporate mroe research training. Same with phD programs. There are some PhD programs that are very researched focused (e.g. UNC chapel Hill) that focus more on research. There are other PhD programs (e.g. Marquette in WI) that are more balanced and/or have more of a clinical focus. My PsyD program has research components (e.g. a doctoral reseach project/dissertaion) other PsyD programs require a large lit review. It depends on the program. A really good resource for you would be The Insider's Guide to Graduate Programs in Clinical and Counseling Psychology by Norcross, Sayette and Mayne (2009). It has a breakdown of all the APA accredited programs and their stats (e.g. percentage of students with funding, faculty research iterests, GRE mean/cutoff, cohort sizes, etc). The book also has a 1-7 scale with 1 referring to purely clinically focused programs and 7 for purely research based programs. Some PsyD programs score as high as 4 on this scale, indicating a balance between research and clinical work. Other PsyD programs score in the 1-3 range, indicating more clinical focus. Some PhD programs score a 4, indicating balance, and others are as high as the 5-7 range, indicating more research focus. This book helped me get into grad school and is a great resource when scoping out programs to apply to, as well as which ones you qualify for (e.g. based on GRE mean/cutoff).

Realating with what you can do, PhDs and PsyDs can practice psychology and qualify for licensure. The difference occurrs with teaching and research. We have a PsyD teaching in our program, but we are a PsyD program. A PsyD probably cannot teach at a large state school because of the predominantly clinical focus of the degree. PsyD's can teach but most do so in a PsyD progam or colleges that value teaching students (smaller schools) as opposed to conducting research (big research 1 institutions such as state schools like Penn State or Ohio State). PsyDs can also conduct research if they recieved some training in it and enjoy it. However, most PsyDs are practitioners. My mother always said, "it's not where you get your degree, it's what you do with it." If you get a doctorate in psychology whether a PsyD or PhD, you are probably able to achieve your career goals if you work hard and engage in activities that will help you acheive your goal. Hope this helps.

I'm currently in a non-psych social science PhD program at a decent but not stellar R1 state school. My BA was from a very highly ranked R1 state school in psych. I'm currently considering a return to psych (probably at a "reputable," university-based PsyD program), and noticed that this thread had recently been revived, so I thought I'd chime in to add to 1) the discussion about stigma, and 2) complicate the discussion about funding a little bit.

1) Stigma: As an undergraduate, I originally intended to go the clinical PhD route, but it quickly became clear to me that, at least at my (prestigious, ahem!) department at that time a) people intending to do clinical work were not welcome to apply, and b) the clinical subfield and faculty were themselves stigmatized by many non-clinical research psychologists (applied research being valued less than basic research). I began the honors program, taught by I believe it was the vice chair of the department at the time, who was also serving in a prestigious position at the APA, and within the first 5 minutes of class he laid it out: "If you want to become some sort of shrink or pseudoshrink, do NOT apply to our clinical program." (These words were burned into my brain. He also made a snide remark about teaching right off the bat, how one had to tolerate it in order to do research--disheartening, since at the time, he was teaching us). This message was repeated in numerous ways from both faculty and then-grad students: a desire to do clinical work should be concealed until after the hooding ceremony, you had to fight to receive your clinical training, clinical skills could simply be "picked up" later (as those who stated this, condescendingly, believed that little actual "skill" is involved). The only grad student I met (a wonderful TA--very bright) who didn't exhibit these attitudes quit after the MA, intending to do clinical work. I'm sure that this isn't true of all PhD programs, but it was certainly true of the most "fully funded" (I'll get to that in a minute), reputable one within a manageable geographic distance for me. The school I am at now (again, in another social science field, but I am nonetheless acquainted with the clin psych department) is also R1 but less prestigious, and though I don't think these issues are that extreme, folks I've talked to in clinical say that there is still a stigma against intending to actually do clinical work--you are being trained as academics, pure and simple. This program would rank as much more of a "balanced" program, and yet the stigma remains, and folks who want to practice feel the sting.

2) Funding. It's more complicated than whether or not a particular program is (representing itself as) "funded." What KIND of funding is provided and what kind of variation is there amongst a given cohort in what kind of funding is provided? If there are "haves" and "have-nots" within a given cohort, which are you likely to be? There is a big difference between the kind and extent of work you may be doing with an RAship and with a TAship (working as a teaching assistant). Don't underestimate the trade-off (stipend and/or tuition remission for TA labor). If instead of receiving a fellowship or RAship you receive a TAship, your undergrad students will demand constant attention and greatly reduce the amount of time you have to spend on your own intellectual and professional development. As I understand it, the psych program at my current school is represented as funded (and has been represented on this forum as funded), but from what I've been told, the psych folks at my school receive very different funding packages, and those lucky enough to even get TAships can find themselves working their asses off. Instead of working a single 50% appointment (1 class, supposed to be limited to 20 hours a week), they may find themselves trying to cobble together two 25% appointments, which is vastly more work for the same money (two classes full of students to grade and manage). I TA most quarters and, unless I'm working for my advisor, I go WAY over my TA hours most weeks (usually 30-35+ hours, just on TA-related duties: meetings, office hours, lecture, prep, section, reading, grading, email). Most TAs don't feel empowered to tell profs they assign too much work--knowing they'll just be told to work more efficiently. Going to the union is the nuclear option no one wants to use, so we just suck it up, but it slows our progress. There's also a psychological toll to thinking of yourself as a scholar and being treated like...well, dog poop by a bunch of teenagers who are more interested in grade grubbing than learning. I've been blatantly disrespected on a quarterly basis, enduring constant plagiarism (the most recent case took over 12 hours of documentation, emails, and meetings, and admin told me that I still might need to attend a hearing), one student left my discussion section without a word and came back 15 minutes later giggly and obviously high, another student threw her final exam in my face...you get the picture.

So what am I driving at with this very, very long post?

1) If you are considering applying and are concerned about the (alleged?) stigma of the PsyD, remember that amongst some, clinical work itself and clinical PhDs are also stigmatized. In fact, I daresay that the broader field of psych is stigmatized amongst many in academia. Many of the "hard scientists" see the discipline as too unscientific (with the exception of neuro), many contemporary social scientists and virtually all folks in the humanities regard psychology as too "positivistic." Yes, program/degree stigma can have concrete consequences with regards to placements and finances, and it's not inconsequential by any means, but some applicants here have expressed concerns about the respect afforded various degrees, and I'm trying to point out that there are many hierarchies, especially within academia. The top of one may be the bottom of another.

2) Yes, PsyDs pay for their training, but there are also costs to accepting certain types of funding associated with the "funded" PhD programs. These can sidetrack your own progress.

3) Try to talk to people in your prospective programs to sort out the programs' propaganda ("we are a balanced program," "we provide funding opportunities to all our students") from the perspectives of people on the ground. If the "funding opportunities" are TAships rather than fellowships or RAships, you are taking on a lot of work.

4) Lastly, for those of you who are inclined towards the PsyD, but are considering the PhD only because you want to leave open your options for an academic path open: the academic bubble has burst. Even doing all the "right" things (good school, lots of pubs and conferences, good letters) aren't a surefire recipe for success: there are now literally hundreds of applicants for many jobs (not just tenure track, but VAP and post-docs too). My friend has two books and a list of journal articles and book chapters as long as your arm and three years on the market, applying both nationally and internationally, have yielded no offers. Moreover, people with MAs may be more competitive (than PhDs) for adjunct lecturer positions because they can be paid less. Not that adjuncting pays much to begin with. It's really sad, but the academic job market is simply flooded.

Although there are certainly some truths in your post, the whole point of this thread is how to choose the degree that will give one the best training and prepare for ones career goals. One the big myth that we have tried to overcome here is this silly notion that the "Ph.D. is for research and the Psy.D is for clinical work." I think its quite obvious that this false dichotomy has been perpetuated by programs and program chairs in order to steer away the unscienctific, "stats are icky" crowd away from applying to their program. And indeed they have a good point. If thats your attitude, then go do something else. Clinical psychology is the application of the principles of psychological SCIENCE to human behavior. Research and stats are going to be a part of that. Period.

Although academia will always have some snobbery, this bias toward clinical work that you speak of is much overblown and the majority of faculty realize that its YOUR career not THEIRS and support/help you as much as possible to achieve those goals. The vast majority of Ph.D are practitioners (they have to be, not enough research positions out there) and one can, and generally will get, very solid clinical training at any clinical Ph.D. program

Originally Posted by erg923

Although there are certainly some truths in your post, the whole point of this thread is how to choose the degree that will give one the best training and prepare for ones career goals. One the big myth that we have tried to overcome here is this silly notion that the "Ph.D. is for research and the Psy.D is for clinical work." I think its quite obvious that this false dichotomy has been perpetuated by programs and program chairs in order to steer away the unscienctific, "stats are icky" crowd away from applying to their program. And indeed they have a good point. If thats your attitude, then go do something else. Clinical psychology is the application of the principles of psychological SCIENCE to human behavior. Research and stats are going to be a part of that. Period.

Although academia will always have some snobbery, this bias toward clinical work that you speak of is much overblown and the majority of faculty realize that its YOUR career not THEIRS and support/help you as much as possible to achieve those goals. The vast majority of Ph.D are practitioners (they have to be, not enough research positions out there) and one can, and generally will get, very solid clinical training at any clinical Ph.D. program

Hmm...I think there are certainly some truths in your post as well...but I read through the entire 5 page thread last night, and it does seem that the issue of choosing the program (and I think some have emphasized here that the real issue is the best individual program, not all PsyD vs. all PhD programs) with the best degree and the best preparation encompasses a variety of issues, including the actual lived reality of the training experience. I'm not attempting to reify the PsyD = clinical, PhD = research split. No doubt faculty do try to chase off the anti-stats crowd. I'm sharing the experience of myself and others as they have reported it to me from a prestigious R1 research program. It's not just faculty members' scare tactics for prospectives. Grad students brave enough to risk sharing their own experience with a trustworthy (until now?) undergrad either endured or evinced hostile attitudes towards clinical work. But my larger point is that there's a sliding scale for stigma, and even the bullies have persecutors. And whether or not any particular program is characterized by such attitudes is to be discovered by the applicant, hopefully during the program-researching phase. Whether or not any particular individual would benefit by enduring such attitudes at an institution like my alma mater in order to acquire a pedigree and connections, as well as (hopefully) good training in research and clinical work is an individual choice.

It's worth noting that there's a lot of variability WITHIN programs as well: obstructionist advisors, the possibility that your promising career could be derailed by being sexually harassed by a lab "colleague" (one of my friends on the MD/PhD neuro track reported that this was commonplace in her undergrad lab), etc. I looked into laterally transferring into the clinical psych dept at my current school, but the students of the person with whom I wanted to work suggested that s/he was obstructionist: discouraging students from early publication (notably, the prof hadn't published much as a grad student), and one former student claimed to have gotten screwed out of co-authorship.

There's a lot of nuance to consider when making these decisions. And it's not just preparation for some hoped-for future career, but 4-7+ years of your actual life that you have to enjoy or endure, day by day. Same with TAing--it sounds reasonable on paper, but the lived reality can be rough. Any dreams you have of mentoring bright undergrads (as a teacher, not in the lab) will likely be dashed when you realize that the profs cherry pick all the smarties out for their honors section, leaving the TAs with the dullards and tosspots. My undergrad TAs complained bitterly and made no effort to hide their discontent from us.

Originally Posted by wigflip

Hmm...I think there are certainly some truths in your post as well...but I read through the entire 5 page thread last night, and it does seem that the issue of choosing the program (and I think some have emphasized here that the real issue is the best individual program, not all PsyD vs. all PhD programs) with the best degree and the best preparation encompasses a variety of issues, including the actual lived reality of the training experience. I'm not attempting to reify the PsyD = clinical, PhD = research split. No doubt faculty do try to chase off the anti-stats crowd. I'm sharing the experience of myself and others as they have reported it to me from a prestigious R1 research program. It's not just faculty members' scare tactics for prospectives. Grad students brave enough to risk sharing their own experience with a trustworthy (until now?) undergrad either endured or evinced hostile attitudes towards clinical work. But my larger point is that there's a sliding scale for stigma, and even the bullies have persecutors. And whether or not any particular program is characterized by such attitudes is to be discovered by the applicant, hopefully during the program-researching phase. Whether or not any particular individual would benefit by enduring such attitudes at an institution like my alma mater in order to acquire a pedigree and connections, as well as (hopefully) good training in research and clinical work is an individual choice.

It's worth noting that there's a lot of variability WITHIN programs as well: obstructionist advisors, the possibility that your promising career could be derailed by being sexually harassed by a lab "colleague" (one of my friends on the MD/PhD neuro track reported that this was commonplace in her undergrad lab), etc. I looked into laterally transferring into the clinical psych dept at my current school, but the students of the person with whom I wanted to work suggested that s/he was obstructionist: discouraging students from early publication (notably, the prof hadn't published much as a grad student), and one former student claimed to have gotten screwed out of co-authorship.

There's a lot of nuance to consider when making these decisions. And it's not just preparation for some hoped-for future career, but 4-7+ years of your actual life that you have to enjoy or endure, day by day. Same with TAing--it sounds reasonable on paper, but the lived reality can be rough. Any dreams you have of mentoring bright undergrads (as a teacher, not in the lab) will likely be dashed when you realize that the profs cherry pick all the smarties out for their honors section, leaving the TAs with the dullards and tosspots. My undergrad TAs complained bitterly and made no effort to hide their discontent from us.

I'm sorry that you have had such a hard time with TAs. My department is nowhere near what you are describing. Grad students pick the undergrad TAs and have to vouch for them to the professors to have them on board. Furthermore, you get thrown into teaching independently but with ALOT of support and guidance even though you are teaching.There is obviously departmental differences.

Originally Posted by twilson

I'm sorry that you have had such a hard time with TAs. My department is nowhere near what you are describing. Grad students pick the undergrad TAs and have to vouch for them to the professors to have them on board. Furthermore, you get thrown into teaching independently but with ALOT of support and guidance even though you are teaching.There is obviously departmental differences.

Thanks for the commiseration, and I'm genuinely glad to hear that your dept is not what I'm describing. But I think we might be talking about separate things. I've mostly been talking about the experience of BEING a TA, meaning being a grad student whose funding is derived from serving as a teaching assistant, responsible for grading and wrangling (and sometimes teaching) tenured profs' undergrads. The difficulty I (and my colleagues) have is with my/our own undergrad students, and the profs who bury their TAs in grading (and the accompanying student emails and meetings) by requiring too much written work of undergrads. I've graded as many as 700 papers in one 10 week quarter. Again, I'm not in psych at present, but the psych folks I've talked with at my university often have to resort to the same TAships I have because their department doesn't provide many (despite appearing to be a funded department). I brought it up because I was trying to tease out the funded/non-funded dichotomy--it's more complex, and having to work as a TA usually distracts from your own work. It may or may not inform your own scholarship; it may or may not be a better option than waitressing, either in terms of the money or the aggravation.

I also mentioned having had graduate students as TAs when I myself was an undergrad. They were just as bitter as I am now about the whole thing, they just didn't put as much effort as I do into hiding it (from their students at least--no hiding goin' on right now!). They only graded one 3-page paper per student for the whole term, but griped about it like it was killing them (or like we cared). Undergraduates are not allowed to TA at my institution--it's the main funding source for grad students. We also get to serve as "teaching associates" sometimes and run our own classes, but there isn't much support for that, sometimes quite the opposite. You're right, these things do vary by department!

It's really different depending on what professor you TA for in my dept. Sometimes you'll have a ridiculous amount of work, and sometimes you'll get a really sweet assignment where you don't have to do much at all.

Originally Posted by cara susanna

It's really different depending on what professor you TA for in my dept. Sometimes you'll have a ridiculous amount of work, and sometimes you'll get a really sweet assignment where you don't have to do much at all.

Same in my department.

Originally Posted by DrGero

"If money is removed from the equation"... does that mean the PsyD you got accepted to is truly fully funded? What is the average debt load of students graduating from your PsyD program? If it's, say, less than 5-10K, then great.

If you're essentially talking about a fully funded program, then it becomes more a question of the time and opportunity costs you're investing in the training. Assuming it's fully funded, if the APA match rates are good (90+ percent) and you like the program, I say go for it, it's a no-brainer.

I'm amazed by how bad things have gotten for new professional school / PsyD grads these days. I almost feel like I got off comparatively easy having graduated in '04.

The program is fully funded. The debt load of students is low >20k. Most take out minimal loans as do a lot of PhD students. With regards to the match rates it leaves something to be desired. However, it is a new program at an R1 institution and the faculty are well aware of where they fell short on process and are committed to making the future cohorts much more competitive. If I'm not mistaken, the students also have a part in how well they match by what they do during their time as a grad student. This program has the research focus + the practice focus with an emphasis on a under-served population. I could definitely see myself there for the next 5 years. I don't know, I feels right but I don't know if that is cognitive dissonance kicking in.

I'm having a bit of a dilemma regarding what kind of program to apply for. To be completely honest the only thing that I really know is that I want to be able to practice psychotherapy with a CBT perspective, and other than that I don't really care how I get there. Prestige really doesn't matter to me, and I'm not above LPC MSW or PsyD but the reason why I'm leaning towards PhD is that a lot of programs are funded and I really have no idea how I could possibly fund anything myself (I'm already 15 grand in debt and counting with my BA that I'll finish next year).

A lot of the PhD programs I'm looking at basically seem to say "no future practitioners need apply" so I was wondering if there are any PhD programs that are specifically practice friendly? I know that fit means a lot for PhD programs so I want to be able to truthfully admit my goals without my application being thrown away. Any other comments about which degree to go for are welcome. I think that in general I can be a pretty competitive candidate for any program, and while I'm not too terribly interested in research, I'm very willing to do anything as long as my main goal as stated in the first paragraph is fulfilled and I can afford the program to begin with.

Originally Posted by leirah

I'm having a bit of a dilemma regarding what kind of program to apply for. To be completely honest the only thing that I really know is that I want to be able to practice psychotherapy with a CBT perspective, and other than that I don't really care how I get there. Prestige really doesn't matter to me, and I'm not above LPC MSW or PsyD but the reason why I'm leaning towards PhD is that a lot of programs are funded and I really have no idea how I could possibly fund anything myself (I'm already 15 grand in debt and counting with my BA that I'll finish next year).

A lot of the PhD programs I'm looking at basically seem to say "no future practitioners need apply" so I was wondering if there are any PhD programs that are specifically practice friendly? I know that fit means a lot for PhD programs so I want to be able to truthfully admit my goals without my application being thrown away. Any other comments about which degree to go for are welcome. I think that in general I can be a pretty competitive candidate for any program, and while I'm not too terribly interested in research, I'm very willing to do anything as long as my main goal as stated in the first paragraph is fulfilled and I can afford the program to begin with.

You're in a little bit of a catch-22 as many/most/all funded PhD programs AFAIK require applicants to demonstrate research productivity and interest in research as a condition for acceptance.

There are a number of high-caliber, partially funded PsyD programs out there (which are doctoral degrees geared for people intending to be primarily practicioners), Rutgers being one that comes to mind, but you'll find it more difficult to avoid further debt going that route.

There are a lot of clinically-focused PhD programs but you will still have to demonstrate some interest in research.

There are a lot of funded PhD programs that are perfectly fine (and happy to) accept people who primarily want to practice. Check out the insider's guide to graduate programs in clinical and counseling psychology - it asks programs to rate their clinical vs. research emphasis. Its not a perfect system, but it does give you a general sense.

Any legit psychology program will at least make you do SOME research and get exposure to it, so if you are looking for a program where that won't be the case you will have a tough time. That said, not all programs expect students to run large grants, do dissertations suitable for top-tier journals, etc. Just as students in those research-heavy programs can't say "I don't like clinical work" and still get a clinical degree without ever seeing a patient, the field generally frowns upon people getting clinical degrees without any serious research training.

That said, if you are willing to do some research, there are a lot of opportunities and excellent training programs. The insider's guide should get you started.

Originally Posted by Ollie123

There are a lot of funded PhD programs that are perfectly fine (and happy to) accept people who primarily want to practice.

I think it's an interesting dance that clinical psychology programs do with applicants.

I'm certainly aware that a very large majority of clinical psychology graduates intend to practice (many exclusively) as clinicians after they graduate, and doctoral programs know this. However, you can't get into (at least, funded PhD) programs saying, "I don't want to do research." My understanding is that you frequently have to demonstrate some track record of research productivity prior to acceptance, and that you have to otherwise demonstrate that you at least value research (e.g., the scientist-practicioner model). Saying you "don't like research" isn't the way to get into a quality PhD program. Not saying that the OP is saying this, but it could be.

Well as I said, I'm more than willing to do anything that allows me to practice. I do have research experience and plan on getting much more before I graduate. I never said I wouldn't do research, just in general it doesn't interest me like the prospect of actual practice. I can think of things that I wouldn't mind researching in grad school, but really the question was more about which schools aren't so biased against practice. I'll definitely look into the book that was mentioned, when I return to the states I'll read the hell out of it.

Originally Posted by JeyRo

I think it's an interesting dance that clinical psychology programs do with applicants.

I'm certainly aware that a very large majority of clinical psychology graduates intend to practice (many exclusively) as clinicians after they graduate, and doctoral programs know this. However, you can't get into (at least, funded PhD) programs saying, "I don't want to do research." My understanding is that you frequently have to demonstrate some track record of research productivity prior to acceptance, and that you have to otherwise demonstrate that you at least value research (e.g., the scientist-practicioner model). Saying you "don't like research" isn't the way to get into a quality PhD program. Not saying that the OP is saying this, but it could be.

I think many programs are okay with someone saying they don't want a career in research, as long as they understand its (an important) part of the training. I return to my example above...if I had walked into my (extremely research-heavy lab in a research-heavy clinical science program) saying I didn't ever want to see a client or engage in any sort of clinical work during graduate school, I don't think I think my chances of acceptance would be very good! Its an important and valuable part of the training experience. That would show a laughable misunderstanding of what a clinical psychologist is, and I don't view it any differently than someone saying they want the practice without the research (which sadly, despite the stereotype of the out-of-touch academic, seems to be more the reality based on what we see on this board).

I think individuals with research experience who are open to integrating research (any any good or even mediocre psychologist should be), and willing to receive a full spectrum of training should be able to find an appropriate program. It won't be Wisconsin-Madison, but there are loads of programs that don't expect people to become researchers.

I'm not sure of your research interests...but some of the more balanced counseling psychology programs may be a good fit for you. Unfortunately...the only ones I know are hardcore research places, which is somewhat ironic since I did not training at a counseling program or at a hardcore research program.

I have worked with a number of excellent clinicians that came out of the University of Kansas system, and they were very happy with the balance in training they received. They have 2 (Clincal & Counseling...maybe a 3rd out of Ed?) different Ph.D. programs, but one is balanced and one is for hardcore research. The clinical & counseling programs are both very competitive #'s wise, but the lifestyle is excellent and the cost of living lets most/all of their graduates get out debt-free. If I could do it over again, I'd strongly consider their balanced program. Their basketball team is also fun to root for....Rock Chalk Jayhawk.

University of North Dakota and University of Montana Clinical PhDs may be a good option, too

Originally Posted by JeyRo

I think it's an interesting dance that clinical psychology programs do with applicants.

I'm certainly aware that a very large majority of clinical psychology graduates intend to practice (many exclusively) as clinicians after they graduate, and doctoral programs know this. However, you can't get into (at least, funded PhD) programs saying, "I don't want to do research." My understanding is that you frequently have to demonstrate some track record of research productivity prior to acceptance, and that you have to otherwise demonstrate that you at least value research (e.g., the scientist-practicioner model). Saying you "don't like research" isn't the way to get into a quality PhD program. Not saying that the OP is saying this, but it could be.

It's so true and so crazy. At many top-tier, well-respected institutions, you basically can't say you have any actual interest in clinical work during interviews. I mean, don't go so far as to say you have no interest, but in my three years of applying, I found it to be much better if you just left it out of the conversation all together. Which is just ridiculous, because as soon as you walk the walk and talk the talk and get accepted, if you end up having more of an interest in being a clinician down the road, it's perfectly acceptable. Sigh.

You should defiinitely look at Counseling Psych programs. They fund better than clinical psych programs and expect students to do clinical practice. You are also expected to demonstrate you can do research, but it can be grounded in clinical practice and it is intended to inform applied work. And, while many grads do UCC/CAPS internships, there are also paths into community mental health and health care settings, including work with SMI.

Originally Posted by emily621

It's so true and so crazy. At many top-tier, well-respected institutions, you basically can't say you have any actual interest in clinical work during interviews. I mean, don't go so far as to say you have no interest, but in my three years of applying, I found it to be much better if you just left it out of the conversation all together. Which is just ridiculous, because as soon as you walk the walk and talk the talk and get accepted, if you end up having more of an interest in being a clinician down the road, it's perfectly acceptable. Sigh.

True to some degree, but not all schools will be open to students being clinicians (some are unfortunately, quite rigid and paternalistic about career goals - though you are correct that even some purportedly research-heavy institutions are fine with students saying they want to be clinicians down the line). Others may be open to the idea, but the programs are simply not set up for it. Someone lying about their plans for an academic career would probably have a better shot at getting accepted here, but I would never recommend any prospective student do that. They would be miserable given the focus of much of the training, the pressure is on people to publish, advisors want to have productive labs and given they can only have a limited number of students are unlikely to reduce their expectations regarding a students scholarly output to make more time for clinical work, etc. I think the best route is to find that elusive "match" we always talk about - both with the lab, and with the overall training missions of the school.

Originally Posted by Ollie123

not all schools will be open to students being clinicians

Despite what's been noted in various posts on this thread and elsewhere on sdn, I've talked to folks in counseling psych who've articulated what Ollie notes above with regards to their training.

The Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) is based on training for research or academic careers and may have continued relevance for students with experimental, social, personality, etc...who want to work in a academic/research environment. However, the majority of psychologists in the year 2012 are working in clinical settings and the Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) is a more appropriate training curriculum for psychologist working in a clinical setting. The PsyD degree and curriculum training started in the late 70's and now some 40-50 years later there are a large number of PsyD trained clinical psychologists. Many believe that the PhD in psychology is outdated and a much poorer quality of education due to overemphasis on research and publications at the cost of less emphasis on development of clinical psychology skills. It may be necessary for APA to eventually specify that the PsyD training model is the ideal training model for clinical psychologists and the PhD training model is the ideal training model for academic/research psychologists. Part of the reason for the growth of PsyD based clinical psychology programs is due to the emphasis on clinical psychology training rather than research training. Due to the high quality of clinical psychology training in the PsyD curriculum many of these programs have to turn away high quality applicants to maintain consistency and quality of the clinical training.

Originally Posted by 4410

The PsyD degree and curriculum training started in the late 70's and now some 40-50 years later

Ahhhh....this explains it all- he's from the future!

He's an Argosy recruiter. Certainly has the preachy, I dont need no stinkin "evidence" to back up my nonsense talk that you get from some of those folks.

Originally Posted by erg923

He's an Argosy recruiter. Certainly has the preachy, I dont need no stinkin "evidence" to back up my nonsense talk that you get from some of those folks.

Walden University has a much better program than Argosy University!! Walden students find great internship.

Are we talking Walden with the average 17.2% match rate?
http://appic.org/Portals/0/downloads...10_by_Univ.pdf
Or is it the 80% who find their own great internships outside of the whole match system that makes their program so much better than those "outdated" PhD programs that actually have match rates above 50%?

Originally Posted by RGirl

Are we talking Walden with the average 17.2% match rate?
http://appic.org/Portals/0/downloads...10_by_Univ.pdf

Keep in mind the 17.2% is self-selected to apply for APPIC spots, as a % of all students don't even bother.

Thought I would give my opinion as this issue has been greatly influential in my own grad school career. I got my MA from a clinical psych program and while I enjoyed the training it was simply a stepping stone of sorts for a later PhD program. Based on faculty opinions, respect through out the field, possibly pursuing an academic career and the importance, I believe, on integrating good research AND clinical training, I knew I wanted a PhD over a PsyD. My issue however, was just as stated here, I am most drawn toward being a clinician and working in applied settings, not strictly research. Some programs don't want to hear that, at least not at the beginning. This is why I have been so attracted to Counseling Psychology. The program I will be starting is a Counseling Psych PhD, APA approved, and while I will still be expected to produce original research and collaborate with faculty (as should be expected), I will be getting thorough clinical training, in multiple orientations and contexts (individual, couples, family, CBT, Psychodynamic, etc.). For me, this was an Ideal fit... but once again one must base these decisions on one's OWN interests and future goals.

The only downside I think is the funding. In my experience, counseling psych programs usually offer partial funding at the start where as top clinical programs have full funding through out, this of course is based on the focus and priority of research grants and publications within clinical psych programs.

Originally Posted by RGirl

Are we talking Walden with the average 17.2% match rate?
http://appic.org/Portals/0/downloads...10_by_Univ.pdf
Or is it the 80% who find their own great internships outside of the whole match system that makes their program so much better than those "outdated" PhD programs that actually have match rates above 50%?

Per Walden's website:

The Clinical Psychology specialization in the Ph.D. in Psychology program is designed to prepare graduates to qualify to sit for psychology licensing exams. This specialization is designed to meet the academic licensure requirements of some state psychology boards. However, Walden University’s professional specialization in Clinical Psychology is not accredited by the American Psychological Association (APA) and has not received designation by the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards/National Register (ASPPB/NR), which are requirements for licensure in some states. Walden enrollment advisors can provide guidance on licensure issues, state-by-state educational requirements, and internship and practicum requirements; however, it remains the student’s responsibility to evaluate and understand the licensure requirements for the state or international location in which he or she intends to work as requirements vary widely. Walden University makes no representation or guarantee that the completion of a degree or coursework for graduate credit will permit the learner to obtain licensure.

The bolded portion is likely a key causative factor of the relatively low match rates. Regardless of how strong a program's curriculum may or may not be, if the program isn't able to obtain APA accreditation (and isn't new and in the process of applying), as can be seen, this can significantly detract from the "placeability" of its traineees and graduates.

Originally Posted by 4410

The Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) is based on training for research or academic careers and may have continued relevance for students with experimental, social, personality, etc...who want to work in a academic/research environment. However, the majority of psychologists in the year 2012 are working in clinical settings and the Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) is a more appropriate training curriculum for psychologist working in a clinical setting. The PsyD degree and curriculum training started in the late 70's and now some 40-50 years later there are a large number of PsyD trained clinical psychologists. Many believe that the PhD in psychology is outdated and a much poorer quality of education due to overemphasis on research and publications at the cost of less emphasis on development of clinical psychology skills. It may be necessary for APA to eventually specify that the PsyD training model is the ideal training model for clinical psychologists and the PhD training model is the ideal training model for academic/research psychologists. Part of the reason for the growth of PsyD based clinical psychology programs is due to the emphasis on clinical psychology training rather than research training. Due to the high quality of clinical psychology training in the PsyD curriculum many of these programs have to turn away high quality applicants to maintain consistency and quality of the clinical training.

Originally Posted by 4410

Walden University has a much better program than Argosy University!! Walden students find great internship.

Yay! We're playing the game where we say things and ignore all evidence to the contrary. The world is flat. Ice cream and double fudge brownies are good for you. Milli Vanilli wrote all their own music!

How am I doing?

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

Yay! We're playing the game where we say things and ignore all evidence to the contrary. The world is flat. Ice cream and double fudge brownies are good for you. Milli Vanilli wrote all their own music!

How am I doing?

If you get 4410 started, you'll end up with links to Argosy University in the thread pretty soon. But reading 4410's posts and figuring out how each statement fits into psychoanalytic theory (e.g., reaction formation) can make for a good EPPP study activity.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

Ice cream and double fudge brownies are good for you.

FACT!!

(in moderation)

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

FACT!!

(in moderation)

Dang, maybe I'm not doing as well as I thought. Oh well, I'm new at this after all.

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

FACT!!

(in moderation)

+1

AND...

4410 will just counter the 17% Walden match rate by saying the rest of the world does not recognize the greatness of their Psy.D program, and that, because all got quality internships at some po dunk CMH, the program is doin just fine...better than your Ph.D program even. Because, as long as I think my internship is quality, then everyone else should just take my word for it! Duh! No outside review is needed! Quality assurance is silly...

What did i miss?

You forgot to mention what sheep we are for thinking its APA accreditation is a good thing-- in fact, higher match rates than Walden are probably a bad sign, since all the cool kids create their own internships.

Since everyone jumps on the Argosy as the cause of the imbalance. I just wanted to point out that there are bigger fishes in the FSPS that no one seems concerned about, as in programs such as Walden University and Capella University. These two program probably have ten times more students than the Argosy University System.

Originally Posted by 4410

Since everyone jumps on the Argosy as the cause of the imbalance. I just wanted to point out that there are bigger fishes in the FSPS that no one seems concerned about, as in programs such as Walden University and Capella University. These two program probably have ten times more students than the Argosy University System.

Well, people point fingers at Argosy because they happen to run the largest amount of campuses across the country, and so they are seen as a big offender. I'm not sure it's true that the programs you mention put out as many psych grads as the entire Argosy system, but I'd love to see some numbers on that. Anyway, there are several other programs besides Argosy including Alliant, (Fill in the blank) School of Professional Psychology, Fielding, etc. who catch flak for the same reasons. It is by no means just Argosy that is the problem.

I don't quite understand how you were hoping to deflect blame away from Argosy and onto Walden by talking about how the latter is a better program with great internships. I guess I missed the sarcasm.