Ph.D./Psy.D. comparison

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

Thanks psych 101!!

Here are some links -- most address the original question from this thread, but some might also be helpful to those currently in the application process. Might result in more than one sticky? Check out/post whatever you think is appropriate or helpful.

http://www.appic.org/Surveys/2004/2004PredocQ21.pdf
“supply & demand” issue – 2004 predoc internship director responses

http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan00/ed1.html
PsyD degree turns 25

http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_171.asp
Boulder vs. Vail model, typical student stats

http://www.appic.org/downloads/Sati...gypsydvsphd.pdf
2001 PhD & PsyD recipients satisfaction with grad training survey

http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_90.asp
article about master’s degree in psychology

http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb04/number.html
2004 article: PhD #s declining, typical PhD student stats

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/issues/docdata.htm
Results from Survey of Earned Doctorates (completed by each doctoral recipient upon graduation)

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/issuebrf/sib00321.htm
PsyD vs. PhD debt at graduation

http://research.apa.org/
links to APA surveys (e.g., salaries, employment, intern applicants)

http://psych.fullerton.edu/psych466/lbrandt/psych.html
applying for grad study in psychology

http://www.psywww.com/careers/options.htm
grad school options, types of degrees, licensure explanation

http://www.apa.org/ed/graduate/faqs.html
APA FAQs about grad study in psychology (e.g., PsyD vs. PhD diffs)

http://www.lemoyne.edu/OTRP/otrpres.../psyd/psyd.html
2004 PsyD program summary (location, accreditation, etc.)

http://www.lemoyne.edu/OTRP/otrpres...inical-phd.html
clinical/counseling PsyD.PhD

http://www.lemoyne.edu/OTRP/otrpres...linical-ma.html
clinical/counseling psychology master’s degree

http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/doctoral.html
accredited doctoral programs in professional psychology

http://www.psychgrad.org/
applying, succeeding, life after grad school – lots of links

http://www.rider.edu/%7Esuler/gradschl.html#counseling
grad schools & careers in psychology

http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_41.asp
applying to grad schools in clinical psychology

http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_174.asp
gaining admission to the school of your choice.

Originally Posted by MD2b20004

so what is the difference in a nut shell?!!!!

Answer: Ph.D = a stronger research focus
Psy.D = a stronger clinical focus

As a result PsyD's are generally not involved in academia and usually have a solely clinical practice (as opposed to Phd's who may often split their time between a practice and doing research at a university.)

With all the talk of diploma mills, can anyone give me a good idea of which PsyD programs out there are actually well-respected? So far, my sense is that Baylor, Rutgers, and Virginia Consortium are way up there how about Pepperdine/George Washington etc?

Also, it's quite clear that PhD programs are looking for students with interests that "fit" a particular professor. How about PsyD programs? What do they tend to look for? Previous clinical work experience (and how do you get that if you don't have the qualification the the first place... does volunteering at a inpatient psych ward help for example)?

Originally Posted by leikcaj

With all the talk of diploma mills, can anyone give me a good idea of which PsyD programs out there are actually well-respected? So far, my sense is that Baylor, Rutgers, and Virginia Consortium are way up there how about Pepperdine/George Washington etc?

While I think there are some rankings that exist for clinical psychology programs, such rankings are rather meaningless. The notion of getting accepted into a "top" PsyD program has little relevance for the actual work/position you ultimately set out to pursue. (It's even more ludicrous when you consider that not a few clinical psych PhDs consider "well-respected" and "PsyD" to be an oxymoron.)

Your concern regarding prestige would be more relevant applied to the decision of choosing which law school or MBA programs enjoy the finest reputations. The same calculus, however, does not apply to clinical psych programs -- and particularly not to PsyD programs whose research output is comparatively meager, the metric that is applied to determining prestige. After all, graduates from the top law school and MBA programs have interested employers lining up to offer them very sweet salaries. There, graduating from one of the "Ivies" translates into $$. That's simply not the case with newly graduated doctoral psychs. How much industry recruiting, if any, exists for clinical psychs? It's definitely a buyer's market.

What matters most is finding the school(s) whose program best matches your interests with the important caveat that you limit your choices to APA-accredited programs, if for no other reason than graduating from a program that's not APA accredited may result in chronic professional migraines. (I know of someone who graduated from a non-APA program and years later started all over again -- from scratch!! -- at an APA-approved program as a result of all of the black balling.)

There's so much diversity in the settings and areas of specialties that psychologists work that the notion of "top" programs quickly dissolves itself. It's a vanity issue that in the long run concerns only other snobbish psychologists. They're in the minority. For the remaining majority, a career in clinical psychology is a self-made profession -- it's what you put into it, not the name on the diploma.

Thanks! That was really helpful to know... and comforting!

i have been reading through these threads and there seems to be a lot of debate as to whether the Ph.D is better than the Psy.d and i have now begun to wonder whether i am making the right choice in choosing a Psy.D!!

From what i've read....

1. Psy.D is practical work only whereas Ph.D allows for both
2.Psy.D seems to be getting very little respect
3. the opportunities for teaching and research for a Psy.D is very limited

Is it true that you are really limiting your opportunities in teaching and research. while my primary focus would be on the practicing of psych. i would like the opportunity to go into research in later years. in that case why doesn't one go back and do a Ph.D later on when they feel it is time to change, or is that a stupid idea?

i would really appreciate if you could help as i dont want to make a foolish or mis-guided decision.

If it means anything.....the information that you have just posted is very valuable and timely. I am finishing a Masters in Counseling--Marriage and Family Therapy....I have been torn between the PsyD and the PhD program. I really love research and after seeing the need for effective cross-cultural research/best practices in our field with diverse populations, I have been leaning in that direction...which of course means an extra year in school. Has anyone here made that same transition?

PsiKo made a great point about clinicians being self-made.

There has been headway for PsyD's in academia....but it is still very much PhD heavy. If you know you want to be in academia, go for the PhD. I am a strong supporter of the PsyD, but from what i've been told....it is an uphill battle in academia if you want tenure with a PsyD. It happens, more frequently as of late (i've been told), but why deal with that extra stuff? As for APA-Acred.....DEFINITELY only look at APA-acreditted programs. You will really short yourself if you go any other way. The same thing is true with internships.

In the end, it comes down to what you want from your degree. Your 'learning' is a collection of classwork, research, supervision, internship, post-doc, etc. I know some great clinicians who came from top-level programs, and other equally great clinicians who came from middle of the road programs. I think it is up to the invidual to make their education worthwhile.

Hey guys,

I'm actually in my first year of a PsyD program right now... at John F. Kennedy University in California. The reason why I chose this was because I did research in my undergrad and absolutely grew cynical over it. I have a huge problem with some psychological research and I found it hard to find universities in Canada (where I'm from) that had research areas that I could focus on for a few years.

I'd be happy to answer anyone's questions about the PsyD program. The important thing here is if you want to go into academia, PhD is the way for you. If you care about practicing, either one is good. I love the practical emphasis on the PsyD... I'm in my first year and already we're required 216 hours in a clinical setting.

Originally Posted by CanadianV

Hey guys,

I'm actually in my first year of a PsyD program right now... at John F. Kennedy University in California. The reason why I chose this was because I did research in my undergrad and absolutely grew cynical over it. I have a huge problem with some psychological research and I found it hard to find universities in Canada (where I'm from) that had research areas that I could focus on for a few years.

I'd be happy to answer anyone's questions about the PsyD program. The important thing here is if you want to go into academia, PhD is the way for you. If you care about practicing, either one is good. I love the practical emphasis on the PsyD... I'm in my first year and already we're required 216 hours in a clinical setting.

Do they have a good student loan system in Canada?

Updated Link: http://www.lemoyne.edu/OTRP/otrpreso...nolf07psyd.pdf

-t

Originally Posted by Livethedream

i have been reading through these threads and there seems to be a lot of debate as to whether the Ph.D is better than the Psy.d and i have now begun to wonder whether i am making the right choice in choosing a Psy.D!!

From what i've read....

1. Psy.D is practical work only whereas Ph.D allows for both
2.Psy.D seems to be getting very little respect
3. the opportunities for teaching and research for a Psy.D is very limited

Is it true that you are really limiting your opportunities in teaching and research. while my primary focus would be on the practicing of psych. i would like the opportunity to go into research in later years. in that case why doesn't one go back and do a Ph.D later on when they feel it is time to change, or is that a stupid idea?

i would really appreciate if you could help as i dont want to make a foolish or mis-guided decision.

PsyD's are The way to go if you want to primarily do clinical work. They are becoming more respected every year that passes and I have met many PsyDs who have exceptional clinical skills. The early years of not being respected by PhDs was just b/c it was a new degree. The future for clinical work is obtaining a PsyD. If you really want to teach and/or do research, go for the PhD. If you only want to Maybe do research later, don't blow your time finishing a PhD - doing research is a huge waste of time if you don't love it. Also, PsyD's Do do some research if they really want to. Some PsyD programs have a very difficult research dissertation requirement. It's stupid to ask which is better. They're just different. And as some have written above, it depends solely on your interests. But, if you're in the middle of finishing a PhD dissertation and you chose that program simply b/c you think you might want to do research later in your career, you're going to be hating life bigtime. And that's not to say PsyD dissertations are a joke - that depends on the program. APA-accreditation is important even if the way in which it's carried out is bogus or mostly political. And looking at EPPP pass rates at different schools is only useful in ruling out the really poor ones - basically, if you're reasonably bright and you put in the time, you'll pass.

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

PsiKo made a great point about clinicians being self-made.

There has been headway for PsyD's in academia....but it is still very much PhD heavy. If you know you want to be in academia, go for the PhD. I am a strong supporter of the PsyD, but from what i've been told....it is an uphill battle in academia if you want tenure with a PsyD. It happens, more frequently as of late (i've been told), but why deal with that extra stuff? As for APA-Acred.....DEFINITELY only look at APA-acreditted programs. You will really short yourself if you go any other way. The same thing is true with internships.

In the end, it comes down to what you want from your degree. Your 'learning' is a collection of classwork, research, supervision, internship, post-doc, etc. I know some great clinicians who came from top-level programs, and other equally great clinicians who came from middle of the road programs. I think it is up to the invidual to make their education worthwhile.

-t

APA accreditation is huge for the school you attend - don't even look at non-APA ones. for internship, not as important. I've noticed that if you want to work for the federal government or at a prestigious university, then it's smart to focus on an APA internship as well b/c they require it (feds definitely do - VA hospitals that is, federal prisons are not as stringent).

Originally Posted by leikcaj

With all the talk of diploma mills, can anyone give me a good idea of which PsyD programs out there are actually well-respected? So far, my sense is that Baylor, Rutgers, and Virginia Consortium are way up there how about Pepperdine/George Washington etc?

Also, it's quite clear that PhD programs are looking for students with interests that "fit" a particular professor. How about PsyD programs? What do they tend to look for? Previous clinical work experience (and how do you get that if you don't have the qualification the the first place... does volunteering at a inpatient psych ward help for example)?

It's true some schools seem like mills.. out in CA, they grind a lot of grads out at alliant which used to be called CSPP- i've met psychologists who are very bright from CSPP and I've met some who weren't so bright.. On the east coast, GW is ideal if you want to do psychoanalytic type work. Rutgers is supposed to outstanding in general. The VA consortium is also very good, but both have very tough research requirements. GW does not, so if you're into psychodynamic therapy and you hate research, take a good look at GW. CW Post in Long Island is supposed to be excellent for those who want to work with the severely and persistently mentally ill. Univ of Denver's PsyD program is supposed to very good (pretty psychodynamic as well i believe).. I've had friends from GASPP - good feedback.. Had a Harvard psych professor tell me he thought MSPP was decent. I'd avoid the programs that are free-standing professional schools if possible but, if you can't gain acceptance into one of the University PsyD programs, you can still do very well from a professional free-standing school. I know some Argosy students on the east coast are very gifted and have done well. Apply to many and see what you like at the interviews.

I am curious about your overall feedback on the program at JFK. I have applied for the fall of 07 and have an interview coming up in two days...

Originally Posted by Livethedream

i have been reading through these threads and there seems to be a lot of debate as to whether the Ph.D is better than the Psy.d and i have now begun to wonder whether i am making the right choice in choosing a Psy.D!!

From what i've read....

1. Psy.D is practical work only whereas Ph.D allows for both
2.Psy.D seems to be getting very little respect
3. the opportunities for teaching and research for a Psy.D is very limited

Is it true that you are really limiting your opportunities in teaching and research. while my primary focus would be on the practicing of psych. i would like the opportunity to go into research in later years. in that case why doesn't one go back and do a Ph.D later on when they feel it is time to change, or is that a stupid idea?

i would really appreciate if you could help as i dont want to make a foolish or mis-guided decision.

Seems to me like most of the discussion here on PsyD vs PhD are based on anecdotal information. I know many PsyDs and PhDs and PsyDs are very well respected. One degree is not inferior to the other. Both PhD programs and PsyD programs lean on one side or another of the practice vs research continum. I went to many internship interviews and they prefered PsyDs, and yes some prefered PhDs. I find that academics who dont do much clinical work snub their noses at PsyDs -for whatever reason, often times unfounded, maybe b/c of their own personal issues. Bottom line, go to an APA approved university based program and internship. If you really want to teach, then perhaps a PhD will help you reach your goals, however, most universities and graduate programs want an established program of research in new profs. So if you have a PhD with little publications your PhD will mean very little. And there are lots of PhD programs that dont have a heavy research component compared to other programs.

Do you think it is realistic to try for an internship based at a university for which you applied and were denied admission? Just curious (I'm nowhere near internship....just starting my program in the fall)

Originally Posted by psych00

Do you think it is realistic to try for an internship based at a university for which you applied and were denied admission? Just curious (I'm nowhere near internship....just starting my program in the fall)

Of course!

They aren't going to 'black ball' you. There can be a 4-6 year lag between your application; short of you including person critiques and suggestions for what each faculty member could do better in their jobs as professors and professionals....I think you will get a fair shake.



-t

PhD = PsyD in one context. . . fully-funded programs (e.g., the fully funded Boulder - PhD - and Vail -PsyD- model programs) across degrees are generally high quality and offer a good and mostly equal career path. However, professional schools should not be considered in this equation. They are not equal, nor are they a viable alternative. Professional psyd = unmanageable debt, low admission requirements (relatively poor student quality), and increased danger of not getting a funded interrnship or post-doc. Don't go to to a professional school. Do something else. Consider PhD Counseling or School Psychology. Consider social work. Consider a different career.

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

PhD = PsyD in one context. . . fully-funded programs (e.g., the fully funded Boulder - PhD - and Vail -PsyD- model programs) across degrees are generally high quality and offer a good and mostly equal career path. Professional psyd = unmanageable debt...

Doesn't Widner follow the Vail model? Does anyone know of any other Psy.D programs that do as well? Also, I've seen some university based Psy.D programs that don't offer that much financial aid/assistantships...does anyone have advice as of how to find Psy.D programs that won't cost 15-20k a year (aka, the new form of indentured servitude)...?

All PsyD programs are Vail model. It is the conference that formed the doctorate of psychology.

There are only a few that won't dent your wallet. . . Baylor and Rutgers are the only ones I know for sure. I have heard that the Virginia Consortium may have funding. Beyond that, it's a wasteland.

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.

thanks for the tips. i'm considering applying to all of those, i just need to work on my research exp., as well as find a few more schools that aren't so freakin' expensive...

RESEARCH=MONEY
no research, no money...

Here is an interesting read about the training differences in assessment between PhD and PsyD programs:

Training in Psychodiagnostic Testing in APA-Approved PsyD and PhD Clinical Psychology Programs

-t

MOD NOTE: This post was moved from HERE. -t

Originally Posted by brightness

See, if PsyDs also publish, its a little difficult to figure out what the real difference is between PhD trained psychologists and PsyD trained psychologists. Is it like MDs and DOs- differences in education but very little difference in real world practice?

Somewhat OT, but thought I'd respond.

I'm not quite on board with the MD DO analogy because there are greater differences in HOW people practice and likely career choices. If a PsyD wants to go into academia, its probably a bit unusual, but what people are saying is that a school isn't going to set lower bars for its PsyD hires as far as publications go. So it may be harder to get hired as a researcher if you have a PsyD, you'll likely have to learn a lot more on your own since its doubtful they'd have the same training in research as a PhD, but once you're there you have the same bar to pass as everyone else.

That being said, I actually disagree that they publish equal amounts. A PsyD at a research school would certainly be expected to publish the same amount, but you see a disproportionate number of PsyDs teaching in places like Argosy, etc. whereas they are EXTREMELY rare at large research universities. So at a given school, a PsyD likely publishes as much as the PhDs, across all PsyDs in faculty positions I think its VERY likely they publish less on average given they are more highly concentrated in schools with lower research productivity.

That clarify it at all?

I do think that clarifies things. See, the website I was looking at was at PCOM, and on the faculty there were both PsyDs and PhDs, but there were alot of PhDs. I noticed, however, that they - on the whole - had fewer publications then the professors I look at at say, my university. But certainly the level of research focus at the school and how that would correlate with how much research a PsyD does- that makes sense.

Originally Posted by Ollie123

MOD NOTE: This post was moved from HERE. -t



Somewhat OT, but thought I'd respond.

I'm not quite on board with the MD DO analogy because there are greater differences in HOW people practice and likely career choices. If a PsyD wants to go into academia, its probably a bit unusual, but what people are saying is that a school isn't going to set lower bars for its PsyD hires as far as publications go. So it may be harder to get hired as a researcher if you have a PsyD, you'll likely have to learn a lot more on your own since its doubtful they'd have the same training in research as a PhD, but once you're there you have the same bar to pass as everyone else.

That being said, I actually disagree that they publish equal amounts. A PsyD at a research school would certainly be expected to publish the same amount, but you see a disproportionate number of PsyDs teaching in places like Argosy, etc. whereas they are EXTREMELY rare at large research universities. So at a given school, a PsyD likely publishes as much as the PhDs, across all PsyDs in faculty positions I think its VERY likely they publish less on average given they are more highly concentrated in schools with lower research productivity.

That clarify it at all?

Originally Posted by leikcaj

With all the talk of diploma mills, can anyone give me a good idea of which PsyD programs out there are actually well-respected? So far, my sense is that Baylor, Rutgers, and Virginia Consortium are way up there how about Pepperdine/George Washington etc?

Also, it's quite clear that PhD programs are looking for students with interests that "fit" a particular professor. How about PsyD programs? What do they tend to look for? Previous clinical work experience (and how do you get that if you don't have the qualification the the first place... does volunteering at a inpatient psych ward help for example)?

Hard and fast rule to avoid bad Psy.D. programs. Look at all the fully funded Psy.D. programs, they are every bit as competitive as a full on Ph.D. program. I did interview at Baylor, and was turned down, primarily because of a lack of clinical experience. So if you are aiming for a Psy.D. get that clinical experience along with some research experience.

They do have a different emphasis but they are rigorous, and although it might sound a little elitest, I consider a Psy.D. from Baylor or Rutgers a world apart from one earned at Forrest or Argosy.

Schools that are degree mills often have very flexible admission criteria, huge incoming class sizes, high debt loading, and horrible attrition rates. This is not to say that a bright person going to Forrest or Argosy cannot get a competent education, they are just putting themselves at a disadvantage compared to their peers in more rigorous and selective programs.

I was despondent after not making it in my first go around and almost went for the low hanging fruit. I am glad I didn't! I was talked out of it by a Ph.D. clinical psychologist who was the gate keeper to an APA internship that I had my eye on prior to getting into a Ph.D. program (yes, I was planning that far ahead.) He emphatically stated that they had no interest in Psy.D.'s from professional schools.

Mark

One thing: "Degree Mill" is typically a term that applies to schools where you essentially pay a bunch of money to get a diploma based on life experience. No apa-approved programs would fall under that. So, I don't think it's justifiable to equate professional school programs (which I think are bad for the continuation of our profession an our own well-being, but not bad for individual students who make informed decisions to attend) with diploma mills.

Originally Posted by JockNerd

One thing: "Degree Mill" is typically a term that applies to schools where you essentially pay a bunch of money to get a diploma based on life experience. No apa-approved programs would fall under that. So, I don't think it's justifiable to equate professional school programs (which I think are bad for the continuation of our profession an our own well-being, but not bad for individual students who make informed decisions to attend) with diploma mills.

We will have to disagree on this, there are a few at the bottom end of the spectrum that come very close to just that. While it's not based on life experience the bar is set rather low at some of these schools. I can appreciate the subtle difference that you are getting at but I still believe you cannot compare Forrest Institute of Professional Psychology with Baylor or Rutgers in a favorable light. The APPIC numbers tell the truth.

Argosy Santa Ana: 45.5% Match
Forrest: 59% Match

Baylor: 89% Match
Rutgers: 92.6% Match

Non-APA programs faired the worst! (Duh, of course.)

Walden
17% Match Clinical
12% Match for Counseling

Now if that does not send a loud and clear message, something else to remember is that the internships that Baylor and Rutgers students apply to are often more competitive than the ones being applied to by graduates from Forrest and Argosy - Santa Ana.

To be fair not all Argosy or other professional programs are that bad.

Argosy - Hawaii matched 80%. <-The only Argosy program to do this well!
GA School of Prof. Psychology was a respectable 86% match rate.

If you are having trouble evaluating programs... look at the match rates, they will help give you a better perspective on how students fair in the "real" world. As the internship selection process is a function of how valuable internship sites consider your educational credentials.

I was in the same situation in trying to evaluate programs, and yes, there are plenty of Ph.D. programs that did worse for internship placement than some professional programs.

Mark

http://www.appic.org/downloads/APPIC...06_by_Univ.pdf

There are definitely some very poorly performing programs out there, so make sure to do your homework. Match rate is really important, as is placement afterwards.....since we all need to make a living once we get out.

-t

Originally Posted by Markp

To be fair not all Argosy or other professional programs are that bad.

Argosy - Hawaii matched 80%. <-The only Argosy program to do this well!
GA School of Prof. Psychology was a respectable 86% match rate.

somewhat off topic but when I was applying for internship, I distinctly remember several APPIC positions in Hawaii that were ONLY for Argosy-Hawaii students...not sure of all the details or if this is kosher or not but this would partially explain a high match rate!

Originally Posted by PhDPractitioner

somewhat off topic but when I was applying for internship, I distinctly remember several APPIC positions in Hawaii that were ONLY for Argosy-Hawaii students...not sure of all the details or if this is kosher or not but this would partially explain a high match rate!

A number of programs around the US have built in APPIC internship spots for their programs, which I can see as a good and bad thing. I think inbreeding of training wouldn't be as effective for the trainee, but I guess in some instances I can see the advantage (possibly easier to continue/finish a dissertation, not needing to move, continue to build a network....which can be very helpful for people wanting to stay in the area). In the end, I'd think being able to receive supervision and experience in multiple areas would be more beneficial in the end.

-t

Originally Posted by PhDPractitioner

somewhat off topic but when I was applying for internship, I distinctly remember several APPIC positions in Hawaii that were ONLY for Argosy-Hawaii students...not sure of all the details or if this is kosher or not but this would partially explain a high match rate!

Yes, having a non-APA accredited internship site for just your students is just one more way of manipulating the system. I was going to give Argosy the benefit of the doubt at first, but then I looked on the APPIC site. ALL the slots were for Argosy students only and it was NOT accredited by the APA. Maybe if they had accreditation or allowed others to compete for some slots I might have been a little more open minded. After all the military only allows military officers into most of their slots (there are very few exceptions at one Army base I believe.)

So I don't take issue with them closing some slots for their students, but closing all and not being APA accredited when your program is APA accredited, kind of sends up a little flag. I am not trying to be elitist here but the standards exist to protect the profession. Still, according to Argosy's data, nearly 50% (37% last year) on average get APA accredited internships, which for a professional school is not horrible. It's certainly better than Capella!

For some the accreditation doesn't matter, nor will it ever matter for them, and for these people sites like this are perfect. Others have goals that require them to just through these hurdles. I know in the end I am giving myself an edge on my competition. Having solid credentials makes things easier than weak credentials.

Mark

a couple of thoughts...

1. Before I applied last year, I looked into a few options: PsyD programs, Counseling Psych PhD, and Clinical PhD programs.
I am VERY glad to be in a Clinical PhD program this year. I didn't think of my self as very research-oriented but I've come to realize that there's actually A LOT of room for interesting work waiting to be done AND I would have gone nuts if all I did was training on how to do therapy and then spend all day seeing clients. I used to think that working directly with people was my calling but now I realize that I would quickly burn out if that's all I did.

2. The idea that someone can get a PsyD, practice for years and then later in life shift to an academic or research career seems a little bit unrealistic to me. Entering a PsyD program sets you off on a specific pathway that is different from the PhD pathway. Not only will you be around different school resources, but you'll be reading different literature and attending different conferences. I think it would be really hard to jump out midstream and start working with people who've never heard of you before... EVEN IF you do become a remarkable clinician with a lot of knowledge to share, making a jump into research after years of writing case studies still seems like a stretch.

3. The APA is not a perfect organization. They collect interesting data on the field of psychology, come up with good rules for writing and throw a huge annual hoedown... but they have some dubious policies. Seeing the APA stamp of approval on a program does not guarantee anything.
I wish it were otherwise but that's what happens when you try to keep everyone happy (and make a profit).

Originally Posted by terrybug

Entering a PsyD program sets you off on a specific pathway that is different from the PhD pathway. Not only will you be around different school resources, but you'll be reading different literature and attending different conferences.

This hasn't been my experience. I am in a program with a Ph.D. & Psy.D. program, so maybe that plays a role, but I've never seen a split at any of the conferences by degree. As for the different resources, I guess it depends on the program.

Originally Posted by terrybug

I think it would be really hard to jump out midstream and start working with people who've never heard of you before... EVEN IF you do become a remarkable clinician with a lot of knowledge to share, making a jump into research after years of writing case studies still seems like a stretch.

Psy.D.'s still can be very active in research and become very well known. I think you are making too much of a generalization that the only way to get known is to be a Ph.D. and publish. Psy.D. can publish a great deal and become known both inside and outside of research, much like Ph.D.'s can be well-known in more clinical settings.

-t

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

This hasn't been my experience. I am in a program with a Ph.D. & Psy.D. program, so maybe that plays a role,

-t

Right! There you have it.

I'm giving you all an honest assessment of what I've seen so far. Call it generalizing, that's fine with me. I'm in a program that's more general than a rare hybrid PhD / PsyD program. I'm in a PhD program at a state university. And from what I've seen at the conferences I've been to, the speakers and poster presenters have either had PhD's or MA's to their names. And of all the hundreds of research articles I've read so far, maybe 3 have been authored by PsyD's. I'm just telling people what my experience has been.

Again I'm generalizing but I bet you that most people on this site are probably applying to schools like mine that either offer a PhD program or a PsyD program, but not both.

I also bet that because of your special circumstances, you are getting the benefit of collaboration between both the PhD and PsyD departments at your school - something a student going to a stand-alone PsyD program would not get.

So, yes, you can show us how your program is the exception to the rule, but it's misleading to make it sound like your program is very typical.

Here's my point - we're lucky to be in America where we have a wealth of options for how we get to our goals. There are all kinds of ways to get to where we want to be and some paths are easier to travel than others. If you're in a department store, you can take the up escalator to get upstairs or you can run up the down escalator and also get upstairs. One method is much easier than the other, but if you don't mind expending twice the energy, then take the hard way.

Going for a Psy.D. closes no doors (some of my friends have the degree and are firmly entrenched in academia), but it does mean you will probably have to work twice as hard to go down a path the degree wasn't intended for. Things are slightly easier if you become an expert or really good in a specialty area, but people don't generally go for the Psy.D. to do research or to teach.

Match rates are important, but they are just one datapoint to factor into your equation. After all, an internship lasts one year out of your life. Stand out from your class and it won't matter what program you're in, you will get an internship.

Generalized short-hand:

Ph.D.
-- Definitely get if pursuing a career in academia, research, grants, etc.
-- Usually people's first choice as a psychologist clinician, if your undergrad grades and program can support an application to a program
-- Usually less heavier access in most programs on clinical experience, more on research
-- Better to have previous research experience before you apply

Psy.D.
-- Clinical, professional degree focused on people who want to practice
-- Much heavier emphasis in most programs in actual clinical experience
-- Doesn't close the door to other options, but does make other options (such as academia, research, etc.) more difficult in most circumstances
-- Better to have previous clinical experience before you apply

Both programs will require a similar level of usually-challenging coursework and dedication, while possibily balancing family obligations and part-time work.

John

Ok, these might be stupid questions:
1. What are the main differences between clinical and counseling psychology?
2. How do you obtain clinical experience?
Thanks!

1. There really isn't an enormous difference. Generally speaking, counseling will see slightly less severe psychopathology -they spend more time on things like bereavement, helping people adjust to stressors, etc. and less time with things like severe schizophrenia. You'll get training in both areas whether you go clinical or counseling though, so that's really no more than a trend. Generally counseling programs also seem to be slightly less focused on biological research - you don't see as much psychophysiology, behavioral genetics, or things like that in counseling programs. Again, not to say you CAN'T do those things in counseling psych by any means, just that I think its more common in clinical programs.

My recommendation (and what I did) is to look at both and apply whereever your research interests lie. For me, that ended up being exclusively clinical just because of where my interests lie, but if not I wouldn't have hesitated to apply to a counseling program.

2) Clinical experience usually involves volunteering. Suicide hotlines are a popular choice. Some hospitals take volunteers, but those can be harder to get into. I know neuropsych folks who did quasi-clinical work at nursing homes.

Its hard, but ask around your school and you should find opportunities.

So, is it definitely better to get a Psy D if I'm interested in just the clinical part. But would it be harder to find a job as a PsyD rather than someone with a clinical PhD?

Originally Posted by Music333

So, is it definitely better to get a Psy D if I'm interested in just the clinical part. But would it be harder to find a job as a PsyD rather than someone with a clinical PhD?

The only time it really would effect a job is in regard to research and/or academic positions, as the vast majority of academics choose the Ph.D. route as they are traditionally regularly involved in research.

-t

Originally Posted by Music333

Ok, these might be stupid questions:
1. What are the main differences between clinical and counseling psychology?

There's a sexy answer to this question on this thread http://forums.studentdoctor.net/newr...eply&p=6025242 halfway down, by a particularly handsome board member.

In addition to what Ollie said, another big part of the counseling vs clinical decision is to keep in mind the different mandates of schools of education versus schools of arts/sciences.

2. How do you obtain clinical experience?
Thanks!

What Ollie said, but also remember that everyone has clinical experience. The more unique you can make yours, the better. In-person, group-oriented work with ongoing training and the opportunity to help train others is a really good thing for applications.

So, is it definitely better to get a Psy D if I'm interested in just the clinical part. But would it be harder to find a job as a PsyD rather than someone with a clinical PhD?

Depending on what kind of clinical work you want to do, keep in mind that there may be alternative routes to get there (Social Work degrees, etc.) that could serve you, particularly, better.

Originally Posted by JockNerd

What Ollie said, but also remember that everyone has clinical experience.

Except me I did not have a drop of it when I applied, unless you count sitting in a corner watching a grad student run smoking cessation groups.

I'm not sure if this is off topic or not... but it seems like many people apply to both PhD and PsyD programs when they apply. Do you find that it is problematic to do so with one singular application contruction?

For example, I will be applying to 8 PhD programs and 2 PsyD programs that I really like. Since I have a fair amount of research experience, my recommendation writers will probably devote the majority of the space in my recommendation for speaking to my skills and experience in research (as is necessary for PhD applications). But using that same recommendation for a PsyD program – won’t they assume that I’m just applying to PsyD programs as a back-up and am really interested in PhD programs? (definitely not the case). Will they wonder why my recommendations are all research based and not clinical (I do have clinical experience, but it has usually in the context of research) and thus my application will look weaker to the PsyD programs? Do I dare ask my recommendation writers to write 2 different recommendations - one for clinically focused programs and one for research focused programs?

People must have wondered about this before… is there a solution or do psyd/phd programs not really care?

I applied to both Ph.D. and Psy.D. programs, though they all had a healthy split between clinical and research, so there wasn't a difference in the letters I used. Since I had both clinical and research experience, I asked my LOR writers to speak to both areas.

Programs understand that you are applying to a variety of programs, so they should have some leeway. Of course, if you are looking at a completely research focused program and try and use the same letters for a program that is very clinical, obviously that will stick out....though the larger problem would be why you are looking at such different programs.

-t

Originally Posted by lilies05

I'm not sure if this is off topic or not... but it seems like many people apply to both PhD and PsyD programs when they apply. Do you find that it is problematic to do so with one singular application contruction?

For example, I will be applying to 8 PhD programs and 2 PsyD programs that I really like. Since I have a fair amount of research experience, my recommendation writers will probably devote the majority of the space in my recommendation for speaking to my skills and experience in research (as is necessary for PhD applications). But using that same recommendation for a PsyD program – won’t they assume that I’m just applying to PsyD programs as a back-up and am really interested in PhD programs? (definitely not the case). Will they wonder why my recommendations are all research based and not clinical (I do have clinical experience, but it has usually in the context of research) and thus my application will look weaker to the PsyD programs? Do I dare ask my recommendation writers to write 2 different recommendations - one for clinically focused programs and one for research focused programs?

People must have wondered about this before… is there a solution or do psyd/phd programs not really care?

If your letter writers are really on the ball, mine were, they will actually write different letters to different schools. While it will amount to subtle tweaks, it shows that the writer is really focused on being a strong advocate for you and the programs that you are aiming at.

Don't be afraid to highlight that you have a diverse set of programs that you are applying to and thank them for the additional effort that you know is involved in the subtle tweaks needed for each program. So, yes, I would dare to ask them but in a way that is appreciative of all the hard work they are doing on your behalf.


Mark

*edit*

Thanks T4C and MarkP for your advice! i guess i will have to ask them for two different versions. The thing is, i want to do a mix of research and clinical work... so i feel like both a PhD and a research oriented (relatively research oriented) psyD would both allow me to pursue my interests... even though the research road will be harder with a psyd.

thanks !! hopefully this helps others with the same question

Here is a useful overview on clinical psychology, counseling, etc.

-t

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