Ph.D./Psy.D. comparison

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

Comparing a PsyD to a PHD? Don't get stuck on the "brand" name of your soap. as you will not be "cleaner" at the end of your shower!


As you probably already know...things learned in school and from books are contrived and predictable ....a far cry from sitting in front of someone who will throw a curve ball at you on a regular basis (the patient). The most important part of your education and clinical development will come from the quality, generosity and compassion of your clinical supervisors.

Please remember that personality style of the PHD researcher is often very different than the PsyD practitioner. No matter which you are, when you find yourself sitting in front of a patient with significant impairments, with possible suicidal/homicidal acting out behaviors, your only interest in research will be what is going produce the result of keeping them safe. You will feel like a little ant carrying a very large piece of bread due to the seriousness of your position. Can you hold this kind of anxiety? Can you find hope and instill it in your patient? Will you be able to use your intuition, clinical skills, and compassion while remembering the laws and ethics required of you? Can you make a solid decision you can stand behind in a court of law? Will you be able to sleep wondering if you made the correct decision? These are the strenghts you will need to do this job and these are the gifts your clinical supervisors will give you. If you don’t think you have this kind of fortitude….or you cannot sit in front of your clinical supervisor and bare your soul while sitting through a critique of every word you said to a client in session, please just choose another profession and stop worrying about which degree to get!

Research you say? Your need to be published or validated by an establishment that will only pay you $45,000.00 a year will be of little interest for most of your career unless you are one of the angels that serve our community in that capacity. Unfortunately, being published will not save your client and will not help you to take care of yourself and your family at the end of a rough day. Yes I love research and my dissertation had 104 pages of stats…SO WHAT!

Let us not forget the importance of research and continue to honor those that want to do it t as it furthers our overall goal as a profession. Yes you may always have an affinity for research….especially if you are looking for an empirically validated treatment, but if you didn’t know the treatment before you got in front of the above patient, you are fresh out of luck! In other words, iread- read- read- everyone’s research constantly until your eyes hurt. Doing research should be a choice and should not be MANDATED by someone who “feels” you need it (FYI-these folks may or may not be the same folks sitting in front of significantly impaired patients each day).

The idea that clinical practitioners need to have any focus on research is like splitting the baby in half! Please do not concern yourself with this silly dialog as it will keep you from manifesting your highest self and achievements. Instead, follow your idea of what you want to accomplish and choose a series of small goals that will serve as stepping stones across the river to your goal. If you sit quietly and meditate on your attraction to this helping profession, you may discover that raising the consciousness of humanity just might BE the goal… So please, if you have any research on raising consciousness, increasing empathy, and helping others to find compassion…or if you want to do this kind of research, please do it, share it, present it...and if you want to lift ONE SOUL AT A TIME OUT OF A VERY DARK ABYSS please I applaud you as well. For those of you who want to reach the masses and change the political or emotional landscape....go for a media career. Nothing should stand in your way! No matter what your goal it is valid and we need you. Look around you and see that we need you now. AND WHEN YOU FIND YOURSELF IN FRONT OF YOUR PATIENT PLEASE REMEMBER ON VERY IMPORTANT THING….BE LIKE WATER NOT LIKE WOOD

Originally Posted by PsyDgreatdegree

Please remember that personality style of the PHD researcher is often very different than the PsyD practitioner.

I think that main difference is not in what seems to be popping up this most in this conversation. Yes, the PsyD and the PhD are different degrees. In some cases there are different ideaologies as well. Yes, some PhDs look down on some PsyDs some of the time. Yes, some PsyDs look down on PhDs some PhDs for "being researchers."

I am a PhD clinician. My primary focus is on helping people from a clinical perspective. Yes, I know how to read research, perform research, write grants, teach classes, do program evalation...blah blah.

With that all being said, I have worked with both PsyDs and PhDs that are stellar clinicians and those of both degrees who are a discredit to the profession.

For students, the main difference between a PhD and a PsyD comes simple down to money. PERIOD.

Based upon my own experience and in my humble opinion I offer the following.

The average professional PsyD program is very very expensive. The schools are profit-based and are interested in having many students attend. The more students the better income. As a result, the admissions standards for most PsyDo programs tend to be a little less competitive. I think the average is about every 1 in 2 or 1 in 3 is accepted. There are some very dedicated and very accomplished faculty at these schools. The drawback is that classes are often bigger, you have less time with the professors, and less overall support to get you through. As a result, you must be very self-reliant. PsyD students are exposed to clinical work, assessment and some research. Yes, there are difference in all programs. I would say the average debt I have heard for PsyD student is around 100K to 200K. There seems to be more difficulty in internship placement due to the lack of personalized "service" from professors.

The average PhD program will not cost you a dime in tuition. The schools are not profit based and as a result, can admit few PhD students. The students often end up costing the University money. Most Universities can afford to have about 4-9 students come in each year. Because students are funded with both a monthly stipend (average $1K a month), and waived tuition they are much more competitive. I would say the average acceptance is 1 out of every 20 to 30 students that apply. PhD students get exposure to lots of clinical work (I spent about 20 hours per week on practicum), research/statistics, program evaluation, assessment, and teaching. Classes are very small and you start and finish the program with the same group of students. Professors are often more available as they need you to work as research slaves to them (Many unpaid hours of research). Most PhD students are straight through students meaning they have never worked in the "outside" world. Internship placement rates are very high, typically everyone in a class with get matched. This is partially due to professors knowing other people at the internship sites. Average debt for a PhD student is about 40K or so. It could be more if you have no external support and can't live on 1K a month. But, that is living expenses, not school expenses.

So, make your decision based upon economics as well. You do not want to bankrupt yourself before you even begin your career. PhD vs PsyD is not really about practice vs research. I chose the PhD because I wanted exposure to research, how to produce and how to evaluate. Exposure to research teaches you how to think empirically when you are working with a clinical population. I also wanted the teaching experience. I also didn't want the debt.

I'm not here to debate which one is better, because neither one is any better. What is most important is what you put into your education...that is what will come out when you are sitting with your Patients. They are the ones that will evaluate your education.

Hksup- I agree that neither degree is better. Personally, I was happy to pay a bit more for my degree to avoid being a "research slave". I'm not saying the psyd path is for everyone. It's been great for me, though.

What is the difference between a clinical and counseling PhD?

Originally Posted by psychmama

Personally, I was happy to pay a bit more for my degree to avoid being a "research slave". I'm not saying the psyd path is for everyone. It's been great for me, though.

I don't think the discussion is served by things like this. This is a false dichotomy; the choice is not one between paying "a bit more" (I find your idea of what constitutes "a bit" interesting, though) and being a "research slave." I have never felt enslaved at my research-focused institution and have always been treated as a colleague by my adviser. Further, even at my research-focused institution, there are practice-oriented folks whose career path is respected. If your decisions work for you, great, but your conceptualization of the difference is, in my opinion, flawed.

JN, I have no quarrel with your preference for the type of program you're in. It sounds like you're an excellent fit for the training model you've chosen. The point I was trying to make is that I'm tired of people arguing that the Psyd is inferior because most of the time we don't get free tuition rides.

Don't get me wrong -- full funding is great, and the lack of debt upon graduation is nothing to sneeze at -- especially given that typical salaries of psychologists are not on par with many other professions. The fact remains that whether the Psyd is a good training model is a separate issue. I believe a good Psyd program can be every bit as good as a Phd program at turning out well-trained psychologists. That's my point. I stand by it.

Originally Posted by psychmama

I believe a good Psyd program can be every bit as good as a Phd program at turning out well-trained psychologists. That's my point. I stand by it.

I agree, and I wager pretty much everyone here would. Certainly your program is setting a great example for how that can happen. Many programs are not, APA has apparently decided to allow and even encourage that practice, which is what has frustrated many of us.

Though I would just like to add that I think JN's point was just your use of the phrase "research slave" (which I realize you weren't the first to say). Mostly just that it feeds into the idea that one either goes to a PsyD and ONLY does clinical work, or goes to a PhD program and ONLY does research. And that research experience consists of us sitting in a basement all day, and entering data in between bouts of crying and daydreaming about seeing sunlight The point is just that many many many people in PhD programs do pretty minimal research, and that even many of us who do LOTS of research are not data-entry slaves or things of that nature. Heck, the research work I was funded on for this past year got me close to 100 face-to-face hours worth of assessments and therapy in my specialty area.

I understand your point, but my (and I think JN's) point is that getting tuition paid for does not = research slave.

Originally Posted by Ollie123

Many programs are not, APA has apparently decided to allow and even encourage that practice, which is what has frustrated many of us.

Agreed. APA needs to step up and impose stricter standards on all programs, especially some of the professional schools.

Though I would just like to add that I think JN's point was just your use of the phrase "research slave" (which I realize you weren't the first to say).

Right. I was reacting to the earlier post.

Mostly just that it feeds into the idea that one either goes to a PsyD and ONLY does clinical work, or goes to a PhD program and ONLY does research. And that research experience consists of us sitting in a basement all day, and entering data in between bouts of crying and daydreaming about seeing sunlight

lol. Great imagery!


I understand your point, but my (and I think JN's) point is that getting tuition paid for does not = research slave.

True. Also, paying tuition for one's degree does not = substandard training or inferior academic quality.

Paying tuition for one's degree does not = substandard training or inferior academic quality.

How about, paying tuition for one's degree ~ substandard training and inferior academic quality.

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

How about, paying tuition for one's degree ~ substandard training and inferior academic quality.

Sorry Jon...not buying this. Once again, the quality of the training may or may not be related to the expense in getting it. It all depends. I'm paying for my education at Rutgers (albeit with some funding assistance). Doesn't mean I'm getting poor education and training.

That's why I used "~". It's not an "all", it's a "most."

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

That's why I used "~". It's not an "all", it's a "most."

I know what the symbol means. I just don't think we should write off the entire degree. I believe there are more than just a handful of good Psyd programs out there.

This probably where we agree to disagree, eh?

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

How about, paying tuition for one's degree ~ substandard training and inferior academic quality.

This isn't EXACTLY the same, but not everyone gets paid to go to undergrad or to get a masters..would u feel the same about those programs being academically inferior or training to be substandard ?

I am not advocating for or against anything, just thought it was an interesting thought..

This isn't EXACTLY the same, but not everyone gets paid to go to undergrad or to get a masters..would u feel the same about those programs being academically inferior or training to be substandard ?

I am not advocating for or against anything, just thought it was an interesting thought..

Ah yes, I can see how that might not be clear from my recent posts. It's not the cost exactly (though I do think the economics of your typical Psy.D. are rather poor), it's of what those costs are a proxy. . . which is the following:

-) lower tier universities and stand-alones
-) greater student to faculty ratios
-) less selectivity (with respect to admissions)
-) lower scores on licensing exams
-) less likely to match to an APA approved internship
-) exploitative (charging during internship, charging for practicums
completed off-site, over-priced, market aggressively)
-) poor stewards of the community (let in large numbers of students
without regard for supply and demand within the field for
psychologists, certainly not for internships programs)
-) questionable focus (treatment of research, the mentality of some of
those that choose these programs)


I don't have a problem with paying for school. That's a fairly normal undertaking, though the economics of clinical psychology do not warrant paying medical school like prices. It's just what paying for school represents in psychology. I wouldn't make the same inference with someone paying for Harvard Undergrad and majoring in international finance, though I might question someone paying for University of Chicago undergrad and majoring in theology. In psychology, those that pay generally are not buying quality. They can't, because it really doesn't exist in a large scale in clinical psychology. You can't get into Johns Hopkins Psy.D. program because there isn't one. Instead, you pay Johns Hopkins prices for Argosy. You can't get into University of Oregon Psy.D. program because there isn't one. And, you can't pay U-Oregon prices because the state universities generally do not have Psy.D. programs (there are a few). So, my position is . . . do not consider Psy.D. programs for graduate school except under very limited circumstances (highly selective institution that covers most of your expenses) and even then, I'd think twice.

This comment/question is directed primarily to Jon Snow although anyone else should feel free to chime in:

First a bit of background: For quite a while I have been considering enrolling in doctoral school for clinical psych. I decided to go the PsyD route because I'm not terribly interested in doing lots of research, although I certainly want to understand how research is conducted and be able to "speak the language of research". However, let me make VERY clear that I am only considering PsyD programs at state universities. I'm not going to attend a professional school.

I have an undergraduate degree in engineering, a graduate degree in business (an MBA), and an M.A. in clinical psych. I have several years of work experience in engineering and marketing (including lots of time spent in marketing research, which makes heavy use of statistics). However I have NO academic research experience. No papers published, no conference presentations, none of that. Nor do I have any experience in a clinical setting beyond a simple (150 hour) practicum.

I've wanted to leave the corporate world for years and return to school for my doctorate but never had the courage to leave my job. I was laid off recently, so I guess now is the time to finally do it!

I've spent several weeks researching psych programs, and I came to the conclusion that the PsyD was the more appropriate degree for me to pursue based on my lack of enthusiasm for a career in academia and/or research. (although I would still enjoy teaching a class every so often)

However someone on this forum here recently (I think it was Jon Snow) mentioned there are PhD programs that put as much weight on clinical training as PsyD programs. This is news to me. Could you please point me to some of these programs? Every PhD program I looked at was way more focused on research than clinical training.

Furthermore, if your assertion is true, it makes me wonder why does the PsyD even exist? If there are PhD programs that emphasize clinical training as much as a PsyD program, what's the point in even considering the PsyD route?

In addition to these questions I've asked above, what are the odds I could get into a PhD program without any academic research experience under my belt?

Thank you Jon for your help. Indeed, I am deeply grateful to all of the contributors on this forum. This place has been a very helpful source of information for me!


P.S. One small request for all who respond: please let's keep this discussion civil. My intent is not to start another war about whether a PhD or a PsyD is the "better" degree.

Hi there,

It sounds like you have an interesting background. Unfortunately, graduate psychology programs are not a simple parse, meaning there are some PsyD programs that are more research heavy, or at least have the option, and some PhD programs that more clinically heavy. Both the PsyD and the PhD are designed to train clinical psychologists. There are two dominant philosophies; the oolder of the two is the Boulder model, named after a conference that defined a "scientist-practitioner" approach to training clinical psychologists. The newer philiosphy, the Vail model, is a "practitioner-scholar" approach; this is the PsyD. The former, is the PhD. Within those two models is quite a bit of variability. There is a book, and some others on the forum will have to name it (I don't recall) that rates programs on their emphasis of clincial versus research. It is important to note that academia is not a usual career for either PhD or PsyD degress in this field. Most go into practice.

The PsyD was created for good reasons. The PhD model is, indeed, a model based in traditional academia training. The PsyD was designed to emulate other professional degrees, e.g., JD and MD degrees. However, in my opinion (and it is not one shared by all), the model is mostly a failure because of reasons I posted above and in other threads. I think you can find a PhD program that will give you what you want, at a less painful price, and at higher quality.
Now don't let my musings dissuade you from the PsyD if that's truly what you think is best. But, please be sure to research carefully this distinction you've made of academia versus practice. The line far more grey than you may think.

Yes, there is a thread here about balanced programs.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/show...d+phd+programs

There was a really good one from a while ago, but I can't find it ATM.

However, I should warn that balanced doesn't mean no research at all. You'd still need research experience to be even considered, most likely.

To address my earlier post...I did not mean research slave in a true sense - it was meant to be funny. As I said before, I attended a PhD program and I was very well versed in research but I was also extremely well versed in clinical skills. I would say that most, if not all, the students coming out of my program were in the top tier of clinical providers. We were very well trained and most of us came into internship with several thousand practicum hours. You are a "research slave" (humor still intended) because your stipend is typically paid for by a grant and you need to produce something.

To address the issue of how to best tell if the programs in which you are interested are more research or practice heavy. As an earlier post mentioned, look at the training model. If they state they are a "scientist-practitioner" model that means they are more focused on the training of a scientist that can be a practitioner. If they state they are are a "practitioner-scholar" model you can bet they are focusing more on practice and teaching one how to be a consumer of research. One easy way to tell if if an institutionis a "research I" you can bet they have a strong focus on creating researchers/professors. For instance, Emory (a Research I) is much more likely to focus heavily on research than say, an Research II institution.

To address the prestige issue I would like to be as honest as possible. This is not meant to express my views but rather the views of the general population and physicians with whom you will work. Most of the general public simply does not understand what a PsyD is. I have had multiple people ask me what they are and if they are like case workers or social workers. The name recognition is not yet there. This is similar to a DO physician. How many folks know what a DO is vs an MD. Most just know an MD is a physician and they aren't sure what a DO is. Same with PhD and PsyD.

It really doesn't serve anyone's purpose to argue which degree is better. The degree that is better is the one that serves you best. I have noticed in my workings with PsyDs and PhDs that PhDs are more well rounded clinicians - not better, just more well rounded. They may be involved in some clinical work, some funded research, and may teach a class on the side. PsyD clinicians, by the nature of their training, are largely restricted to clinical work. This can be very very exhausting and can lead to some burnout and compassion fatigue.

If you don't see yourself doing anything but therapy, I see the PsyD as a good option. Regardless of whether or not your program exposes you to research, it is your ethical duty to stay up to date on research and evidence based practices. This goes for all of us, but no one who wants to enter psychology can say "I don't want anything to do with research." You may not produce it but you had certainly better know the research well and how to determine good/bad research...your Patients are depending upon you to know that.

So, with that long windedness, again, neither one is better. I spent a few hundred hours researching all PhD programs and I finally narrowed it down to 15. Everyone should apply to at least 15 programs as you can almost predict that you will gain admittance to at least one. Although, many wonderful people never get selected for PhD programs. That has no bearing upon their intelligence or worth, it is simply a matter of economics and grant funding.

Thank you very much for your input, I really appreciate it.

But what about my lack of experience working in a research lab? I've never done that. I've conducted plenty of research when I was still in the corporate world (I worked as a marketing researcher, so I know lots about statistics and their proper application), but I have no experience working in a professor's research lab.

Will any PhD program seriously consider me without that? If so, do you know of any? So far I've talked with a couple, both of them are balanced scientist-practitioner, and both of them told me flat-out I'm not getting in unless I have prior experience working in a lab.

Thanks

Hi Somaticpsych! I don't know of any even semi-reputable PhD programs which would accept a student without at least some research experience in psychology. If you're serious about pursuing a doctorate, I'd suggest you start acquiring research experience. There are likely volunteer opportunities at universities in your area.

Originally Posted by somaticpsych

So far I've talked with a couple, both of them are balanced scientist-practitioner, and both of them told me flat-out I'm not getting in unless I have prior experience working in a lab.

I think you will find that this is universal among all ph.d programs. Marketing research is realls not applicable to the nature of the research you would do in a ph.d program in clinical psychology. They want to to see evidence of research not just so they know you have knowledge of stats (actually that has little to do with it), but more so that they can see that you are interested and dedicated to research in psychology and at kleats have basic knowledge of some area of psychology and what you are getting yourslef into.

Hello all!
I am a junior at my school right now and am trying to figure out if I want to get my MA in counseling or pursue a Psy.D. What do you suggest? I want to be some type of --right now looking at Marriage and Family. I will probably graduate with a 3.3-3.5 range (undergrad). ANY and all suggestions would be very much appreciated!

p.s. I've heard that the Psy.D program takes 3-5 years.. is that true? Is it given as much acknowledgement as a Ph.D? I am not interested in research, so I am thinking Psy.D is the program for me. Thanks everyone!

Cell - I would suggest you read through this thread and some threads with similar titles that talk about the different degrees.

You first need to figure out what you want to be doing and where you want to be working. Masters' level clinicians cannot practice independently in all states, and there are some states in which they cannot be licensed at all.

Originally Posted by Cell3207

I am not interested in research, so I am thinking Psy.D is the program for me.

Then most of us would suggest that you not get a doctorate in psychology at all. Research is the foudation of this dicipline, even in the psy.d model. It was never designed for people who have no interest in research. The Vail model of training was orginally designed to provide more clinical experience, not neccasarily neglect research. All psychologists are scientists (ph.d or psy.d) and any good clinician approaches their clincial work with a scientific mindset and is informed of the literature. If one does not have at least some natural curiousity about the science and research underlying the clinical activities that they will be engaging in, then I would argue that they should not pursue a doctorate on psychology.

I agree with Erg.....

Originally Posted by erg923

Then most of us would suggest that you not get a doctorate in psychology at all. Research is the foudation of this dicipline, even in the psy.d model. It was never designed for people who have no interest in research. The Vail model of training was orginally designed to provide more clinical experience, not neccasarily neglect research. All psychologists are scientists (ph.d or psy.d) and any good clinician approaches their clincial work with a scientific mindset and is informed of the literature. If one does not have at least some natural curiousity about the science and research underlying the clinical activities that they will be engaging in, then I would argue that they should not pursue a doctorate on psychology.

very much agree

Originally Posted by erg923

Then most of us would suggest that you not get a doctorate in psychology at all. Research is the foudation of this dicipline, even in the psy.d model. It was never designed for people who have no interest in research. The Vail model of training was orginally designed to provide more clinical experience, not neccasarily neglect research. All psychologists are scientists (ph.d or psy.d) and any good clinician approaches their clincial work with a scientific mindset and is informed of the literature. If one does not have at least some natural curiousity about the science and research underlying the clinical activities that they will be engaging in, then I would argue that they should not pursue a doctorate on psychology.

Why the PhD/PsyD dichotomy at all? I'm applying to mostly balanced PhD programs and balanced PsyD programs (in addition to a couple of more research "lopsided"--but not research "heavy"--programs), and I can say a couple of the PsyD programs probably lean a bit more to the research side and a couple of the PhD programs seem to lean a bit more to the practice side. All of the programs seem committed to training people who are competent clinicians and skilled researchers, so... why have two degrees? Why not just have one doctoral degree different levels of balance/lopsidedness/heavyness within the research-clinical spectrum? I mean, we already have that to some degree (someone at North Dakota would probably be looking for something different from someone at Wisconsin-Madison, and likewise, someone at Baylor would likely be looking for something different than someone at George Fox due to the different levels of balance--or lack thereof--in the programs). Just a thought.

Originally Posted by futureapppsy2

Why the PhD/PsyD dichotomy at all? I'm applying to mostly balanced PhD programs and balanced PsyD programs (in addition to a couple of more research "lopsided"--but not research "heavy"--programs), and I can say a couple of the PsyD programs probably lean a bit more to the research side and a couple of the PhD programs seem to lean a bit more to the practice side. All of the programs seem committed to training people who are competent clinicians and skilled researchers, so... why have two degrees? Why not just have one doctoral degree different levels of balance/lopsidedness/heavyness within the research-clinical spectrum? I mean, we already have that to some degree (someone at North Dakota would probably be looking for something different from someone at Wisconsin-Madison, and likewise, someone at Baylor would likely be looking for something different than someone at George Fox due to the different levels of balance--or lack thereof--in the programs). Just a thought.

Both fortunately and unfortunately, there are other differences between the PsyD and the PhD than merely research. For one, I think those seeking a PsyD should realize the stigma against it among the field of psychology. Not that this is well-founded, but it exists. Also, just being a research-heavy Veil model program still means it's Veil model. There are fundamental differences between the programs aside from just research emphasis.

My phone is acting feisty and knocked me off my soapbox before I could finish. Basically, like other professional degrees, a PsyD teaches you how to be a professional psychologist and nothing else.

Originally Posted by krisrox

My phone is acting feisty and knocked me off my soapbox before I could finish. Basically, like other professional degrees, a PsyD teaches you how to be a professional psychologist and nothing else.

I would dispute this if you are implying that a Psy.D. is not prepared to work with research in some capacity. I think some programs do it well, and others not so well, but it is a tough statement to apply across the board.

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

I would dispute this if you are implying that a Psy.D. is not prepared to work with research in some capacity. I think some programs do it well, and others not so well, but it is a tough statement to apply across the board.

Of course a PsyD will prepare a student to work with research. It's called the practitioner-scholar model because there is a scholarly aspect. The difference between the two degrees is a lot like the difference between an MD and an MD/PhD- MD's can do research (and many do), but MD/PhD's are TRAINED to do research.

It's very true that some PsyD programs' students are very qualified to do research, but the stigma still exists against PsyD's as a whole because not all of the programs teach research in a non-applied fashion. I just think that if you want to do research at all down the line, you should get a PhD... but that's just what I plan on doing so note the bias.

The difference between the two degrees is a lot like the difference between an MD and an MD/PhD- MD's can do research (and many do), but MD/PhD's are TRAINED to do research.

I disagree. While some PhD programs are similar to MD/PhD programs in focus, most are not so heavily geared towards research. MD/PhDs are almost universally expected to be researchers.

It's very true that some PsyD programs' students are very qualified to do research, but the stigma still exists against PsyD's as a whole because not all of the programs teach research in a non-applied fashion.

I don't think that's why there is a "stigma" with some PsyD programs.

I kind of wonder that as well, futureapppsy.

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

I don't think that's why there is a "stigma" with some PsyD programs.

Why do you think there is, then?

.

Why do you think there is, then?

- It is a newer degree.

- It is not present at Tier 1 universities

- Prevalence of standalone schools

- On average, lower admission standards

- Less well known faculty

- Lower match rates to internships, lesser presence at high profile internships

- No to little faculty presence at tier 1 schools (they exist, but it's unusual)

In short, the stigma is that PsyD grads are less capable than PhD grads regardless of the work environment (clinical, research, whatever).

However, as with many stigmas, it's not entirely true; people should keep an open mind when dealing with individuals.

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

- It is a newer degree.

- It is not present at Tier 1 universities

- Prevalence of standalone schools

- On average, lower admission standards

- Less well known faculty

- Lower match rates to internships, lesser presence at high profile internships

- No to little faculty presence at tier 1 schools (they exist, but it's unusual)

In short, the stigma is that PsyD grads are less capable than PhD grads regardless of the work environment (clinical, research, whatever).

However, as with many stigmas, it's not entirely true; people should keep an open mind when dealing with individuals.

And not all Psyd programs are the same, so people should keep an open mind about that too. For instance, Rutgers is certainly a Tier 1 university and has a Psyd program. Baylor certainly has a very good match rate.

I think the reason the Psyd was created was to address unhappiness with the Phd training model in many clinical psych programs at the time. Many students complained they had to pretend to want to be researchers in order to get into a program when in fact they were primarily practice-minded. The thought of the early Vail Model framers was to provide an alternative that was closer to the model of medical school. Unfortunately, the boom in professional schools since the Psyd was created has in some cases watered down the rigor of the training. I still very much believe in the Vail Model; I just think it needs to be done better and regulated more strenuously.

Originally Posted by psychmama

And not all Psyd programs are the same, so people should keep an open mind about that too. For instance, Rutgers is certainly a Tier 1 university and has a Psyd program. Baylor certainly has a very good match rate.

I think the reason the Psyd was created was to address unhappiness with the Phd training model in many clinical psych programs at the time. Many students complained they had to pretend to want to be researchers in order to get into a program when in fact they were primarily practice-minded. The thought of the early Vail Model framers was to provide an alternative that was closer to the model of medical school. Unfortunately, the boom in professional schools since the Psyd was created has in some cases watered down the rigor of the training. I still very much believe in the Vail Model; I just think it needs to be done better and regulated more strenuously.

Absolutely correct. Also unfortunately, this is what deters many clinicians who take the PhD route from pursuing a PsyD.

Originally Posted by psychmama

And not all Psyd programs are the same, so people should keep an open mind about that too. For instance, Rutgers is certainly a Tier 1 university and has a Psyd program. Baylor certainly has a very good match rate.

I think the reason the Psyd was created was to address unhappiness with the Phd training model in many clinical psych programs at the time. Many students complained they had to pretend to want to be researchers in order to get into a program when in fact they were primarily practice-minded. The thought of the early Vail Model framers was to provide an alternative that was closer to the model of medical school. Unfortunately, the boom in professional schools since the Psyd was created has in some cases watered down the rigor of the training. I still very much believe in the Vail Model; I just think it needs to be done better and regulated more strenuously.

I agree with psychmama on this as well. PsyD programs should be better regulated. But, everyone needs to stop making a generalizations about individuals based on their "type of degree."

In my humble opinion, I liken this issue to an interaction effect: Competence results from an interaction between "person" and "program."

First, we all have different strengths and weeknesses. People have different innate talents and aptitudes for both clinical work and research. Some have more social or emotional intelligence than others. Some are just flat out gifted at whatever they seem to do. Simply put, INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES EXIST. Doesn't are field emphasize this quite frequently.

Second, we need to consider the "program" the person attendz. What training model does the program emphasize? What theoretical orientation do its faculty adopt? How rigourous are the courses, clinical practica, and reseach reqiurements? Who is supervising the students, be it in research or clinical practice? What is the quality of that supervision?

These issues are program specific, not DEGREE specific. All Ph.D. programs are not created equal, nor are PsyD programs. Students can be poorly supervised or trained just about anywhere. Similarly, students can receive magnificent training just about anywhere. The devil is in the details of their experience and how they made use of it.

I will not deny that the status of an institution increases the likliehood that training will be good, but it does not ensure it. This even more true of degrees. People can get PhD's on-line now. MA level clinicians are not even regulated by the APA.

While I admit that poorly run professional schools are serious issue, it is not the DEGREE that is the problem. Nor is it the Philosophy behind it. It is the poor implentation of that philosophy at certain programs. But even then and there, highly intelligent people can always be trained under less than optimal circumstances.

Originally Posted by futurepsydoc

I agree with psychmama on this as well. PsyD programs should be better regulated. But, everyone needs to stop making a generalizations about individuals based on their "type of degree."

Don't get me wrong, I hear you out for everything that you said, not just this paragraph, but I wanted to single this statement out because it's a generalization that not just we are making. It's sad but true that even professionals will judge you based on your degree. Many PhD's do see the PsyD as a lesser degree, and many times they have no reason to think so. But, let's be serious, it happens.

The PI of my research lab has been doing research for almost 20 years and is also the DCT of her school's clinical program. She warned all of her RA's to get their PhD's and not PsyD's, even if their interests are clinically-based, because they will receive more respect from colleagues and have more opportunities with the degree.

I'm not going to argue whether or not these statements are well-founded, I'm just thinking why get a PsyD if there's such an attitude toward them? I've never considered a PsyD because I've always wanted to go into research, but even if I was clinically-oriented I would think "why go for it if the degree itself will give other professionals the attitude that I'm selling yourself short?"

I know I sound harsh. I hope someday the PsyD degree can be seen as an alternative to a PhD instead of a lesser degree, but I'm not seeing that attitude where I work, go to school, or do research. It's just not there. What I hear, day in and day out, is "don't do it, it's not worth it." No one's really sold me a PsyD yet.

I'm not going to argue whether or not these statements are well-founded, I'm just thinking why get a PsyD if there's such an attitude toward them? I've never considered a PsyD because I've always wanted to go into research, but even if I was clinically-oriented I would think "why go for it if the degree itself will give other professionals the attitude that I'm selling yourself short?"

. . . because, save for a few prototype programs, the admissions are easier. Because, the perception is that the programs are easier (the I'm scared of research crowd). Because, professional schools market to the general population. I've seen ads for Argosy, for example, on buses, television commercials, radio commercials, websites (as a banner), etc. . . Because, it's convenient in the short term for many people (easier admissions = easier geographic choice).

As far as generalizations, sure, this is something to be aware of, but we make distinctions all the time. . .Take selecting a lawyer. Which one do you want?

Lawyer A:

Harvard Law
*insert big name law firm here*
expensive suit
confident

Lawyer B:
Tier 3 law school
small private two person law practice
advertises during judge judy
confident

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

. . . because, save for a few prototype programs, the admissions are easier. Because, the perception is that the programs are easier (the I'm scared of research crowd). Because, professional schools market to the general population. I've seen ads for Argosy, for example, on buses, television commercials, radio commercials, websites (as a banner), etc. . . Because, it's convenient in the short term for many people (easier admissions = easier geographic choice).

As far as generalizations, sure, this is something to be aware of, but we make distinctions all the time. . .Take selecting a lawyer. Which one do you want?

Lawyer A:

Harvard Law
*insert big name law firm here*
expensive suit
confident

Lawyer B:
Tier 3 law school
small private two person law practice
advertises during judge judy
confident

Amusing example, lol. And point well-taken.

Are those the only reasons people choose to go the PsyD route? Do people ever choose a higher-tier PsyD over a lower-tier PhD?

I chose a Psy.D. program over other Psy.D. and Ph.D. programs because it was the best fit at the time. In retrospect I could have done a better job vetting programs, but hindsight is 20/20.

Are those the only reasons people choose to go the PsyD route? Do people ever choose a higher-tier PsyD over a lower-tier PhD?

No, and I wasn't even trying to suggest that most do. But, I think there is a population that does apply to PsyD programs for those reasons that only have a vague idea of what PhD programs offer. . . because of the marketing differences between them.

I think lots of people might and do choose good PsyD programs over PhD programs.

Originally Posted by krisrox

Do people ever choose a higher-tier PsyD over a lower-tier PhD?

This is precisely what I did, and I'm not alone. I feel very little discrimination against me due to my being a Psyd candidate, and I'm on internship with Phd psychologists and MD psychiatrists. Personally, if there are a few who
deny me opportunity because I have a Psyd instead of a Phd, I can live with it.

You can't please all of the people all of the time. There's always something someone can use to think someone else is inferior, if they're so inclined. That's the way of the world. But I don't find widespread prejudice against Psyds.

This is all very interesting for me to hear, as I've always been told to stay away from the PsyD degree (even though, again, I myself have never considered one due to my desire to do research). I'm glad all the PsyD's out there love their programs and don't feel discriminated against.

I feel like there are just a lot of myths out there.
- the majority of PhDs go into clinical work, not research. There is not enough room for everyone to be a researcher. And most PhDs prefer clinical work.
- PhDs have more clinical hours than PsyDs. We get TONS of training, lots of it one-on-one.
- Many PhDs don’t love research. We do it because it’s important to know the truth, it’s important to understand human behavior empirically, and because it pays for us to go to school.
- As someone else said, some of those “research” jobs are 100% assessment or teaching
- Yes, there is a bias against PsyDs. The training is viewed to be less rigorous, plain and simple. I have directly heard some practica and internships who will not take PsyDs. It's unfair but true.

I would say be aware that stand-alone PsyD programs have a major financial interest in you believing certain things. They want you to believe that they can prepare you for anything. My advice - Ask professors/clinicians who are successful in the field (e.g., how do I become a neuropsychologist?), look at the stats, don’t believe recruitment material, etc.

Good luck

The objective of most Psy D's should be state licensure and practice. The research requirement under the Vail model makes little sense. Program prestige only matters to a Psy D insofar as it will provide future referrals for jobs or for a practice. Licensing exams can be studied for with the help of any program and/or outside materials.

I have a great deal of research experience and many publications. That means squat. Research is all about funding, which is a glamour game akin to being a Hollywood star. It has nothing to do with anything rational. Research funding is a 'cult of personality' phenomenon.

If you want a career in Psych., you best focus on helping people and qualifying for the appropriate credentials to do that best. Program ratings do not correlate well with the best helpers.

kirandeep, I moved your posts HERE because I thought you'd get more input in a seperate thread.

Are you a Psy.D? You seem to have a rather limited view of the Psy.D., and not a very good understanding of career options, common paths, etc for someone with a Psy.D.

Originally Posted by scienceguy4

The objective of most Psy D's should be state licensure and practice.

I disagree. There are many opportunities for Ph.D. and Psy.D. students, so to arbitrarily focus on one area unecessarily limits a person. Frankly if someone just wants to get out and practice I wouldn't suggest a doctorate.

Originally Posted by scienceguy4

The research requirement under the Vail model makes little sense.

The research component requires the student to utilize research and learn to integrate it into their work. I think being able to be a consumer of research is a very important part of training.

Originally Posted by scienceguy4

Program prestige only matters to a Psy D insofar as it will provide future referrals for jobs or for a practice. Licensing exams can be studied for with the help of any program and/or outside materials.

Again....I think you are limited in your view. Licensure and referrals are only a small part of the puzzle, as this is a career and not just a job. While it may become less and less of of influence the farther on a person gets in their career, early on it can impact a person's training and opportunities for competitive placements.