Ph.D./Psy.D. comparison

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

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

Hmmmm.... well.... the PhD (Boulder model) degree tends to focus on performing research and prepares one for a career in academia, while a PsyD (Vail model) tends to train people for clinical work.


Sorry to break it to you, but research/ no research is a BIG difference between the degrees. Granted, there is a lot of gray area between certain programs, it really boils down to practice vs. research.

Originally Posted by JR in SB

Hmmmm.... well.... the PhD (Boulder model) degree tends to focus on performing research and prepares one for a career in academia, while a PsyD (Vail model) tends to train people for clinical work.

Sorry to break it to you, but research/ no research is a BIG difference between the degrees. Granted, there is a lot of gray area between certain programs, it really boils down to practice vs. research.

I don't think it is that clear cut because many Psy.Ds have research requirements, though some are more stringent than others. When I was considering programs, I was very weary of any program that didn't have a formal research requirement, as even as a consumer of research (which is what Psy.Ds were designed to be), it is important to understand the research process, and the best way to do that is to have experience DOING it. You obviously don't have to do it as a career, but I think it is really important to have done some research during training, and have it formally evaluated.

-t

Okay

Thanks for the replies. So, how much can someone with a non-research oriented PsyD make , living and working in a , lets say in California in a hospital setting?

Is it worth getting the PsyD, or would a better option be an LCSW with an additional MPH degree?

Thanks again for any response.

Originally Posted by psychometric

Okay

Thanks for the replies. So, how much can someone with a non-research oriented PsyD make , living and working in a , lets say in California in a hospital setting?

Is it worth getting the PsyD, or would a better option be an LCSW with an additional MPH degree?

Thanks again for any response.

It varies greatly. CA can skew the results, as the cost of living and what you can charge are much higher. The only psychologists (Ph.D/Psy.D, same licensure) I know are in private practice, and do really well, but they needed to work towards that. If you can go cash pay, that is ideal, but it will take at least a couple years to build up referrals.

I don't know what hospitals pay, but I'd be willing to guess you need to supplement the income with outside work to begin to afford living in the more popular parts of CA. Working in the prisons tends to pay well, but....you'd work in a prison.

I did a quick search on monster and in CA it was $63-$67k for clinical duties, $70k-$86k for 2-5 years experience, etc.

Same old story...if you don't specialize, you'll be a dime a dozen and you won't make nearly as much as people who have a niche.

I know people who make $120-$150k+ specializing (ADHD, Neuro, ED, Forensics).....but, they are very good at what they do. Living in the midwest it obviously will be less, and probably around the same in the northeast. If you go the community mental health center (CMHC) you won't make good money ($50k?), or if you only want to work part-time (?), etc. I think the trick is to have a couple jobs....one to pay for your benefits, a private practice to build up, and maybe some assessments or maybe teach a class on the side. That is my plan at least.

-t

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)?

I'm also interested in the GW PsyD program. In other postings, people have mentioned that GW's match rates are low. But if you look at GW's website, the APPIC and APA matches have been increasing every year. In 2006, there were 95% APPIC matches and 78% APA matches. Are those good numbers for a PsyD program? It seems as if the school is relatively young (opened in 1999) and is slowly developing more prestige and success over the years.

Are there any GW PsyD students who can write about their experiences? Nobody really mentions GW on the forum. Is there a reason for that? What is their reputation? Please do not hesitate to be straight-forward! Your honesty is appreciated!

Norcross and colleagues conducted a survey of all PsyD programs a few years ago and offer this very excellent overview of programs.

http://www.liu.edu/cwis/CWP/clas/psy...toral/psyd.pdf

I came across this article several months ago and it helped me realize that some PsyDs do offer funding. Article contains a list of all PsyD programs then in existence (2004) including the year they became APA accredited.

Nice find, I forgot about that study.

APA has published preliminary results from their salary survey, which also includes means by area, gender and location. One thing that really struck me is that in almost every single category women earn less than men. I would think at least in psychology we would have done away with that disparity.

http://research.apa.org/07salaryextract.html

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

It varies greatly. CA can skew the results, as the cost of living and what you can charge are much higher. The only psychologists (Ph.D/Psy.D, same licensure) I know are in private practice, and do really well, but they needed to work towards that. If you can go cash pay, that is ideal, but it will take at least a couple years to build up referrals.

I don't know what hospitals pay, but I'd be willing to guess you need to supplement the income with outside work to begin to afford living in the more popular parts of CA. Working in the prisons tends to pay well, but....you'd work in a prison.

I did a quick search on monster and in CA it was $63-$67k for clinical duties, $70k-$86k for 2-5 years experience, etc.

Same old story...if you don't specialize, you'll be a dime a dozen and you won't make nearly as much as people who have a niche.

I know people who make $120-$150k+ specializing (ADHD, Neuro, ED, Forensics).....but, they are very good at what they do. Living in the midwest it obviously will be less, and probably around the same in the northeast. If you go the community mental health center (CMHC) you won't make good money ($50k?), or if you only want to work part-time (?), etc. I think the trick is to have a couple jobs....one to pay for your benefits, a private practice to build up, and maybe some assessments or maybe teach a class on the side. That is my plan at least.

-t

A noncomprehensive list of PsyD programs with generous financial packages:

Baylor University
Indiana State University
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Rutger's University
Virginia Consortium

Gw ???????

Here is a link to all of the state licensing boards and related information: http://www.asppb.org/about/boardContactStatic.aspx

I applied to multiple PhD and PsyD programs and used the same LOR for both. I just made sure that I asked for letters from people who could speak to my different strengths. I asked my research advisor for 1 letter, my clinical internship advisor for one letter, and my professor for another letter. That way my letters could speak to my research, clinical, and academic experiences when read together. Does that make sense?

Originally Posted by EspressOself

By the way, my previous post was in response to this question.

I had 3 letters, one from my "clinical" supervisor, from when I worked in MH, one from a lab I had belonged to a while ago, and one from my research mentor, for whom I had worked for full time 2+ years and also had as a professor. This third letter was from my big professor, the one that knew me the best, the one whose name peppered my CV, as I had worked there for so long, authored on several of his presentation papers, etc. I gave him plenty of time, and I made a packet of information on each of the 12 schools I was applying to -- the neat aspects of the program that made me feel I would be a good fit, the professor or two that I was most interested in working with, and any thing else. Not a lot of text for him to read or anything, but I did a lot of research for it, and he, in turn, personalized each of my letters. My interests, research wise, were congruent but not spot on for some of my programs, so I think having my letter writer fill in those blanks a bit may have strengthened the case I made in my statements as to my fit. It paid off -- an administrative error made 11 viable apps, and I got 8 interviews, and did 5, and so far have 3 offers (as many on this board know, I am loudly waiting for my final school to get back to me). So getting your "big" letter writer to personalize, and maybe speak to clinical strengths more for the psyd's, research more for the others, may be a way to go. Good luck!

I've been meaning to update this thread....so here is the first of many links I'll be adding in the coming months.

Information about the Armed Services Health Professionals Scholarship Program (HPSP): http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=492874

I like doing research but I don’t really want to work in academic setting at least not full time. I would want to be more of a private or group practice clinical psychologist. Not that I would dislike teaching part time or night classes but not full time. But I would rather focus on building my own private clinical practice. I am thinking I would be better off with a PhD. than a PsyD? What do you think?

You're in kind of a grey area where I think either could work. Given your funding concerns though, you'd have a very hard time finding enough PsyD programs to apply to, since there's only a handful that are funded.

I think if you plan to keep a hand in research or academia, you'd be better served by going to a balanced PhD program than a PsyD, but that's just my opinion. There are a couple PsyD programs that would probably work well (Baylor, Rutgers, etc.) That way you can get both and you can decide you'd rather lean a little bit in either direction after starting the program and still be able to make it work.

What about earnings? I realize that a PhD you are often paid to do and a PsyD is something one pays for, but what about the ten year projected earnings for each? Are they equivalent? I have not been able to find sufficient information about this. Perhaps it is because there is no difference?

It is the same licensure, which in regard to insurance reimburses at the same level.

Hey CanadianV,

I know you posted the blog about being in a Psy.D. program a while ago, but that just means you have all the more experience in the program at this point so i have a question for you? At John F. Kennedy U., what are some of the most important criteria they consider when evaluating applications? I am going to be an undergrad junior this fall '08, and i have done ALOT of reading, reseraching, and talking to people about how to plan for graduate school so i know the general important criteria like letters of reccomendation, GPA, GRE scores, research experience, etc., but could you elaborate on any of that based on your experiences? And, I don't want to ask you anything too personal, but could you tell me what your undergrad GPA, GRE scores, reserach/clinical experience looked like and what kinds of programs you were accepted to? If you don't feel comfortable saying any of that info its cool and i understand. It would just be nice to hear some specifics of someone who actually got into a doctoral program.

Thanks alot for your help!

Hi There

Are you still around? I know you posted this a long time ago, but I'm trying to research PsyD programs and would like to ask you about yours specifically.

Thanks!

KrisBee

Originally Posted by Mace

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.)

No, I have to say that I disagree with that assertion. Psy.D's are extensively trained in research. It's true, there's not as heavy of a focus on research in a Psy.D program versus a Ph.D program, but Psy.D's still receive a lot of training in research. Also, there are quite a few Psy.D's in academia. So I really disagree with your assertion that Psy.D's are not generally involved in academia. I personally know a lot of Psy.D's who work full-time in the field and teach part-time as an associate professor, etc. There are some Psy.D's in full-time academic positions. It's not real common, but there are some Psy.D's in the field who spend most their time doing some type of research. So having a Psy.D degree DOES NOT prevent you from entering the world of psychology research. Don't let anybody tell you that it does!

To make yourself a well rounded Psy.D student I highly recommend that you make some research presentations at a few conventions as a student. A lot of internship sites are looking for students who have at least some experience doing some research and presenting their findings. Most Psy.D schools receive a good amount of grant money to send out their students to do presentations at different psychology conventions around the country. To make yourself competitive as a Psy.D student against all the Ph.D students competing for internship sites you really need to make a few research presentations. If you don't like speaking in public that's fine, even a few poster presentations at a convention will make you more competitive for an internship.

Also, some of the comments about what schools are more pretigious then others are correct, especially PsiKo's comments. With Psy.D programs it's really tough to say that one school is necessarily more presitigious then another, because the APA pretty much sets the standard for all schools across the board as far as the academic curriculum is concerned that is needed to earn your degree. However, when it comes to prestige you defnitely want to go to a school that is APA certified with their program, there's no question about that. An APA internship site really isn't as important. As a matter of fact, I think only the State of Mississippi requires their clinical psychologists to have an APA internship in order to get a license. Be that as it may, if you're smart enough and have the connections to get accepted into an Ivy League clinical psychology doctoral program, then go for it! Having an Ivy League name attached to your degree definitely doesn't hurt.

I am about to start my second year at a free standing PsyD program in the Chicago area. I have been very impressed with the program and the professors. My school's average class size for PsyD students is about 40 opposed to some of the other programs in the area that have close to 100 (and have a lot more faculty as well). I agree that the PsyD programs don't help their reputation by letting in so many. I feel that many of the students I am class with are bright and motivated. At the same time, there are too many students who, I feel, are not motivated and are not going to be successful i.e. seem to be the same students who haven't gotten placements for the 1st round of practicum. What's sad is that these people may not even terminate with a masters and will still be in some real debt.

Originally Posted by Toto99

I am about to start my second year at a free standing PsyD program in the Chicago area. I have been very impressed with the program and the professors. My school's average class size for PsyD students is about 40 opposed to some of the other programs in the area that have close to 100 (and have a lot more faculty as well). I agree that the PsyD programs don't help there reputation by letting in so many. I feel that many of the students I am class with are bright and motivated. At the same time, there are too many students who, I feel, are not motivated and are not going to be successful i.e. seem to be the same students who haven't gotten placements for the 1st round of practicum. What's sad is that these people may not even terminate with a masters and will still be in some real debt.

I too go to a great PsyD program in Missouri. I haven't had a single class with over 30 students or so. My school is fairly selective for a Psy.D program. They accepted about 20% of the students who applied last year.

Sorry to break it to you, but research/ no research is a BIG difference between the degrees. Granted, there is a lot of gray area between certain programs, it really boils down to practice vs. research.

Just a note, this isn't true. The PsyD and PhD generally represent different approaches to training a clinical psychologist. It is not a distinction of research versus practice. Most PhD holders are pracitioners only. A much smaller segment goes the academica route. The caveat is that you generally will have to do research in a PhD program on a level beyond that of most PsyD programs (this is a negative for some people). Because the PhD in clinical psych is rooted in traditional academia in terms of approach, research and teaching are your means of funding. The PsyD was an attempt to follow the medical/law model, to cut out the academic part and streamline training of clinicians. However, things didn't exactly work out that way. Some of that may have to do with who picked up the mantle for running PsyD programs, namely standalone businesses and small little known private schools. Some also has to do with the economics of the degree. The PsyD is not practical for most people as an economic investment. The payout that you see with medicine and law is not usually attainable. In my opinion, the psyd in its current form is not a good alternative to the phd for practicing clinical psychology. The economics don't work, the training institutions and faculty are generally lesser known and inferior (as in not competitive enough to be faculty at better schools and/or large numbers of adjunct faculty) , the students are generally inferior, the student to faculty ratios are larger, and the programs are expanding at such a rate that there is already, arguably, damage to the field in terms of saturation (especially in some markets). If you can't get into a PhD clinical program (with funding), I'd advise pursuing a different career.

^ you are insulting saying the students are inferior in a PsyD program. I am in a PsyD program at a medical school. Our classes are small and not large. I CHOSE PsyD over PhD and never even applied to PhD programs. You would have been better served to keep your ill formed opinions to yourself, Jon Snow.

Jon, we know your stance on this matter....please refrain from inflammatory remarks.

Jon, we know your stance on this matter....please refrain from inflammatory remarks.

I have no intention of making any.

^ you are insulting saying the students are inferior in a PsyD program. I am in a PsyD program at a medical school. Our classes are small and not large. I CHOSE PsyD over PhD and never even applied to PhD programs. You would have been better served to keep your ill formed opinions to yourself, Jon Snow.

I am not insulting anyone. You did insult me (or attempted to, in any case) by stating my opinion is ill formed and suggesting that it is so poor that it shouldn't be stated. It's a statistical argument, among other things, and I think a reasonable statement. Further, what relevance is it that you chose PsyD over PhD and never applied to PhD programs? This makes my opinion incorrect how? It's also not the primary point of my post. There seems to be an errant argument running around here that psyd = clinical and phd = research. It's not true. Good luck to you.

Originally Posted by BellaPsyD

I am in a PsyD program at a medical school. Our classes are small and not large.

I'd never heard of the school you're at. I just checked its appic match; 100%. How is the funding there?

I have the sense that JS is using "PsyD" in the last post when he means "professional school."

Yes, that's what I meant, though the # of psyD schools that do not fall within the professional school umbrella is pretty limited. I think it can get confusing to applicants in that they see University based and think "not a professional school" and that isn't an accurate meme. And, really that's why I bothered posting yet again on this topic (persistent inaccuracies that are accepted as general fact). It's been a while, but it still seems psyD = clinical and phD = research persists even though it isn't even a little bit correct. Good marketing I guess.

But wait -- the distinction does have some validity. At my school, there are two separate programs -- phd and psyd -- and we do some work side by side in our school's clinic. As a rule, I think it's accurate that the Phd students are more adept at research and spend a lot more time on this, working in a traditional mentorship model. However, when it comes to clinical work, I have to say that most of the Psyds seem to have an edge. They have more client hours and training in interventions. This is not to suggest that some of the phd students don't primarily want to be clinicians -- just that they must work harder to get the clinical training along the way. By the same token, there are psyd's in our school who go on to academia (usually at Psyd programs or MA programs, granted). They've usually made it their business to find more research opportunities than the average psyd.

I guess my point is, if you want something enough, you can probably make either degree work for you. I think it's all in how you approach it.

psychmama

But wait -- the distinction does have some validity. At my school, there are two separate programs -- phd and psyd -- and we do some work side by side in our school's clinic. As a rule, I think it's accurate that the Phd students are more adept at research and spend a lot more time on this, working in a traditional mentorship model. However, when it comes to clinical work, I have to say that most of the Psyds seem to have an edge. They have more client hours and training in interventions.

Programs that have both are professional schools. I'm not aware of any non-professional school programs that don't. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. Further, I wouldn't be surprised of an advantage, clinically, for PsyDs at the graduate student level. They have more training at that point in the form of clinical work. I would be surprised to find a clinical advantage much past the first few months of internship.

Hey Jon,

My program is Rutgers. It's not a professional school. Whatever... it sounds like your mind it pretty well made up. That's fine, and you're entitled to your opinion.

I stand corrected regarding Rutgers. Forgot about their PhD program.

Here are a few more misperceptions about some Psy.D. programs that should be corrected:

1) Just because one is trained in a higher number of interventions, or has a higher number hours, does not mean that they are better doctors. What matters is the quality and depth of each of those hours. In fact, I would rather have 300 high quality clinical hours that 2000 low quality ones. In factm having too many hours means that the person has probably been used as grunt work and has not had sufficient time to learn the theory behind the techniques/interventions.

2) I HATE it when people say their program has a high match rate. Many professional schools find any type of placement they can get for their students, just to bring the match rate up. One example, an grad student from the Forest School of Professional Psychology, who claimed to be psychodynamic, was secured a position at a developmental center serving (where I did an externship) the profoundly intellecutally disabled when she failed to match, which, of course, is ALL behavioral. The next year, when 4 of her classmates failed to match, she talked to the DOT at the unaccredited center and got her classmates intenships. Remember: Match rates don't matter. What is really important is the number of people who matched to APA-accredited programs. Without an accredited internship, you will be shut out from the better, higher paying jobs.

Wow! There sure is a lot of animosity about PsyDs on these boards! Is this typical --because I've not found it to be so true out in the workplace, where PsyDs often (not always) get quite a bit of respect.

Originally Posted by psychmama

Wow! There sure is a lot of animosity about PsyDs on these boards! Is this typical --because I've not found it to be so true out in the workplace, where PsyDs often (not always) get quite a bit of respect.

Not typical, just the vocal minority.

Originally Posted by psychmama

Wow! There sure is a lot of animosity about PsyDs on these boards! Is this typical --because I've not found it to be so true out in the workplace, where PsyDs often (not always) get quite a bit of respect.

I think alot of the animosity towards PsyDs is actually misplaced animosity meant for professional schools, there's just a great deal of overlap so people tend to (unfairly) equate them. I think nearly everyone here is supportive of the concept of the PsyD, just not the way it has been implemented at most places.

That being said, an incredibly high number of people here seem to confuse animosity towards schools with animosity towards individual graduates of those schools. I personally think professional schools (at least in the manner most of them currently operate) should not exist, and that they are a huge detriment to the field. Despite how some here have chosen to interpret that view, that doesn't mean I can't have respect for an individual graduating from one. I'm not a big fan of the government of certain countries, that doesn't mean I have an intense personal hatred of everyone living there, and would spit on them if I saw them on the street. To some extent its understandable since people tend to feel a very personal attachment to their graduate programs (moreso than undergrad that I have seen), but I think its important to differentiate.

Those are two very different things in my eyes. I don't think it is even REMOTELY rare to come across people who don't think the prof schools are good for psychology. People aren't necessarily as blunt about it in person as they often are here, but I've certainly encountered a pretty sizable number who clearly are not big fans of certain programs. It isn't something that has come up for discussion as often as it does on this board - I imagine I'd find out about quite a few more if it did.

Thanks for the responses. I certainly understand your points about professional schools, especially those turning out large numbers of graduates. At the same time, this has been true in other fields for some time. Before grad school I was an attorney. There are tons of law schools, and competition for the best jobs is keen after graduation. I think a difference might be that law has long been a cutthroat field, with insane jockeying for class rank, making law review, getting the top NYC jobs and clerkships. Psychology, on the other hand, was for many years based on the academic model. Then there is the obvious dichotomy within psychology between practice and research. Psychology has never been able to figure out which is most important -- the tension is inherent in the discipline. Many would argue research informs practice and vice-versa. I believe this is true, but it creates in-fighting within the field that is potentially harmful to psychologists as we compete with other mental health professions.

I will get off my soapbox now... Need to work on internship application essays!

psychmama

Originally Posted by psychmama

Then there is the obvious dichotomy within psychology between practice and research. Psychology has never been able to figure out which is most important -- the tension is inherent in the discipline. Many would argue research informs practice and vice-versa. I believe this is true, but it creates in-fighting within the field that is potentially harmful to psychologists as we compete with other mental health professions.

I will get off my soapbox now... Need to work on internship application essays!

psychmama

I really don't like it when people perpetuate the science VERSUS practice thing. They are not really seperate entities (at least they are not supposed to be, ideally), even within the training model. I think its the people who view the concept that way are the ones who are responsible for creating and maintaining the rift. A rift that is actually overblown and overhyped in my opinion. Theoretically, the clinical part of the training should be just as integral and just as a contributory to developing the scientific mindset as the pure research part of grad school is. Richard McFall has written extensively on this issue and agree with it fully. Although my program is not "clinical science" model, I think we are good about not preparing our students to be one thing OR another.

http://horan.asu.edu/ced522readings/mcfall/manifesto/manifest.htm

Can someone make a list of the schools that future applicants who may read this thread are advised to avoid?
I would have done it, but I'm a little confused myself.

Thats hard to do, because so much of grad school choice is up to personal preferences. You really can get good training at the Alliant and Argosy schools, but the quality is so "hit or miss" and the debt so outrageous, its hard to recommend them (unless you're independently wealthy). I generally advise staying away from those programs. And of course any of these "online" psy/d programs. There are a handful of the out there, and they are simply misunderstanding and lacking the fundamental elements that make doctoral level education, doctoral level education. I'm sorry, but I don't see doctors who went to University of Phoenix online. I hope you don't think me snobby.....

MOD NOTE: This thread really veered off track, so I pruned the OT posts. This is a sticky thread meant to have basic information, not a bashing thread.

I am tired of people derailing Ph.D. v. Psy.D. threads. Please keep it professional. There are plenty of other threads people can bump, just don't clutter up this thread.

Also, do not troll/post inflammatory statements, as that is against SDN Policy. I've been pretty lenient because I think it is important to hear all opinions, but the delivery of such messages leaves something to be desired as of late.

Concerned poster NOTE: Careful that the edits do not delete relevant information and create confusion among prospective students

But wait -- the distinction does have some validity. At my school, there are two separate programs -- phd and psyd -- and we do some work side by side in our school's clinic. As a rule, I think it's accurate that the Phd students are more adept at research and spend a lot more time on this, working in a traditional mentorship model. However, when it comes to clinical work, I have to say that most of the Psyds seem to have an edge. They have more client hours and training in interventions.

That's true, likely at the student level, but I would imagine that any detectable difference in the form of assessment and therapy dissipates fairly quickly within internship. The early differences reflect a philosophy of training variant. It isn't as simple as research versus clinical. As ERG states, it's a somewhat false dichotomy, and one that is particularly useless when comparing Boulder (PhD) and Vail (PsyD) models. Either training model trains clinical psychologists. Both put the majority of their graduates into practice. You don't have to work harder as a PhD to match the training of a PsyD, clinically, in my opinion. Internship, externship, internal practica, and postdocs are all part of Boulder model programs. My point in posting this is I think that it is a common fallacy among undergraduates to simplify the situation (e.g., If I want to be a clinician, I'll go to a PsyD program, if I want to be a researcher, I'll go to a PhD program). There are advantages clinically to the Boulder (PhD) approach. We do a disservice to allow that to go unchecked.

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

That's true, likely at the student level, but I would imagine that any detectable difference in the form of assessment and therapy dissipates fairly quickly within internship. The early differences reflect a philosophy of training variant. It isn't as simple as research versus clinical. As ERG states, it's a somewhat false dichotomy, and one that is particularly useless when comparing Boulder (PhD) and Vail (PsyD) models. Either training model trains clinical psychologists. Both put the majority of their graduates into practice. You don't have to work harder as a PhD to match the training of a PsyD, clinically, in my opinion. Internship, externship, internal practica, and postdocs are all part of Boulder model programs. My point in posting this is I think that it is a common fallacy among undergraduates to simplify the situation (e.g., If I want to be a clinician, I'll go to a PsyD program, if I want to be a researcher, I'll go to a PhD program). There are advantages clinically to the Boulder (PhD) approach. We do a disservice to allow that to go unchecked.

Jon,

That was the kind of post I *want* in here, as it has pertinent information and it can help inform people who may be a bit too black and white in their understanding of the training models.....without being laced with the vitriol and digs that often appear in these conversations.

One of the more difficult distinctions for students to make as can be seen by questions like "What schools should I avoid?" a question posed in the thread, is between professional schools and non-professional schools. The distinction is difficult even beyond that. Schools like Rutgers identify themselves as professional schools even though the definition we've been using in this forum refers to something else. I think it's important to communicate in some way that someone going to say Chicago School of Professional Psychology is not likely to get a better clinical education than a typical boulder model program. Also, that the modal psyD program is more like Alliant and Argosy than it is like Rutgers. It is likely a safe bet to rule out all standalone programs from your search. Be very cautious in selecting programs that require you to pay tuition, regardless of whether they are standalone or based in a University. I know this may seem strange to an outsider to the field, but, at the moment, psychology graduate training is a little confused. In our field, paying for tuition on the level some of these programs charge is a significant marker of lower quality. There is an exchange here to recognize. Be aware of aggressive marketing. High quality programs generally are not going to actively recruit you. Meaning, you aren't going to get flyers in the mail. They aren't going to advertise on the radio or television. If you have a 3.0 and a 1000 GRE score, they aren't going to track you down and tell you there's still a spot available if you want it.

I'm going into a Psyd program next fall, and I've gathered that us students need to be aware of "diploma mills". I, like almost everyone, want to go to the best school possible with the best future job prospects. A few people have noted that Alliant and Argosy aren't that great of schools. However, I want to come out the other end a neuropsychologist, and it seems as though Argosy in Atlanta has a good program for this, with research opportunities and clinical placements in neuropsych. Also, Argosy was originally part of a Georgia college, right? Given this, am I still better off trying to get into a school like Rutgers or Baylor even though they may not have neuropsych internships and research opportunities?

Thank you so much for any help!!

I do not know Argosy or Alliant's rep for neuropsych, however, if it is poor for general clinical psych as a whole, then it could not possibly be a good neuropsych school. The corner stone of any good neuropsych concentration is, first a foremost, good general clinical training. If the program doesn't have this, the rest is worthless. Unless either of these programs have good working relationships with local medical schools and academic medical centers to supplement the experience, I'm not sure if it would qualify as a "quality" program in neuropsych. Does the neuropsych curriculum meet Houston conference guidelines? Where are the pracs? Are their graduates able to secure APA internships at an acceptable rate, and, are they able to move on to formal post post docs in neuro?

If you feel the school is right for you and offers neuropsych that you feel comfy with, so be it. Just make sure you have the answers to those 3 questions before you really make that decision.

However, I want to come out the other end a neuropsychologist, and it seems as though Argosy in Atlanta has a good program for this, with research opportunities and clinical placements in neuropsych. Also, Argosy was originally part of a Georgia college, right? Given this, am I still better off trying to get into a school like Rutgers or Baylor even though they may not have neuropsych internships and research opportunities?

Argosy doesn't have neuropsych internships. Any program with a neuropsychologist or neuroscientist on faculty can offer appropriate research ops. Doing research at Argosy isn't going to benefit you. It is not necessary for a program to have a formal neuro track, only the appropriate resources (e.g., neuropsychologists and neuroscience research opportunities). You can do external neuropsych practica if you wish from any program. It would be a sad day that someone would give up on better programs in favor of a business like argosy because argosy happens to have named a track "neuropsychology." Why are you only considering PsyD programs?

Thank you so much for the help! I will look into those three questions you offered. Right now I'm really looking deep into Loyola Maryland too. Sorting through all of this info on my own is rather difficult!

I'm looking at PsyD because I really don't have much interest in research!...at all. The red tape, the formalities, the laborious process...they don't interest me. We of course absolutely need our researchers, but it's just not for me! Plain and simple, I want to be a clinician. Not to mention I have zero desire to teach.