Ph.D./Psy.D. comparison

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

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

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

I do believe you missed it, Killer.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

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

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

Each of the Argosy University PsyD programs are standalone programs in their respective States. Walden and Capella actually do not have campuses in every state and my guess is they are much larger than Argosy, Alliant, or Fielding Universities. This thread is about PhD/PsyD differences and I believe that Walden and Capella both have PhD degrees in Clinical Psychology. Seems that there is a definite bias towards PhD degrees in Clinical Psychology having higher standards. Well then, Walden and Capella must have a higher standard then since they are PhD programs in clinical psychology. I just don't believe you can group all of the FSPS together or generalize and I don't believe you can group all of the University based programs together as being high quality. Basically, each Argosy University program is separate from the other programs without any sharing of resources or staff. So, there is the Georgia School of Professional Psychology, Minnesota School of Professional Psychology, Orange County School of Professional Psychology, Texas School of Professional Psychology etc... in the Argosy System and each program is not related to the other program. All of these programs are under the Argosy University System but they are distinctly separate programs.

To add to this discussion, I googled therapists in my area ( a suburb of the Midwest). Of the 100s of listings that I came across I only found 1 PhD providing therapy. Tons of PsyDs, MSWs, LPCs, etc totally dominated. So if I was some random person looking for therapist my options would be professional school- trained therapists, master levels practitioners and social workers… which is scary. Scary IF you really value the scientist-practioner model of training.

Originally Posted by ZsMusings

To add to this discussion, I googled therapists in my area ( a suburb of the Midwest). Of the 100s of listings that I came across I only found 1 PhD providing therapy. Tons of PsyDs, MSWs, LPCs, etc totally dominated. So if I was some random person looking for therapist my options would be professional school- trained therapists, master levels practitioners and social workers… which is scary. Scary IF you really value the scientist-practioner model of training.

You do realize that medical schools are also professional schools, right? Not all PsyDs are bad, just because you can call the program that awarded it a professional (as opposed to academic) program. A standalone for-profit professional school with a huge cohort should not be confused with any of the high quality university-affiliated PsyD programs around the country.

Originally Posted by Veit

You do realize that medical schools are also professional schools, right? Not all PsyDs are bad, just because you can call the program that awarded it a professional (as opposed to academic) program. A standalone for-profit professional school with a huge cohort should not be confused with any of the high quality university-affiliated PsyD programs around the country.

And do you realize this discussion and what I was referencing was about graduate psychology students and other related professions that practice counseling/psychotherapy… not medical school? That is totally out of context...

I should be more specific. The PsyDs being mentioned through this thread (the stand-alone schools like Walden, Argosy, Adler) were listed as where their degrees were conferred.

So scary it is.

Originally Posted by ZsMusings

To add to this discussion, I googled therapists in my area ( a suburb of the Midwest). Of the 100s of listings that I came across I only found 1 PhD providing therapy. Tons of PsyDs, MSWs, LPCs, etc totally dominated. So if I was some random person looking for therapist my options would be professional school- trained therapists, master levels practitioners and social workers… which is scary. Scary IF you really value the scientist-practioner model of training.

Originally Posted by ZsMusings

The PsyDs being mentioned through this thread (the stand-alone schools like Walden, Argosy, Adler) were listed as where their degrees were conferred.

So scary it is.

Not so fast. Google isn't exactly producing a representative or random sample here. Maybe professionals of a certain background or training are more likely to have websites and/or be listed on websites?! That doesn't mean that the PhDs aren't doing therapy or aren't doing therapy in private practice. Maybe they are busy and don't need to advertise? There are many possibilities here.

.

.

Originally Posted by Psychadelic2012

Not so fast. Google isn't exactly producing a representative or random sample here. Maybe professionals of a certain background or training are more likely to have websites and/or be listed on websites?! That doesn't mean that the PhDs aren't doing therapy or aren't doing therapy in private practice. Maybe they are busy and don't need to advertise? There are many possibilities here.

Very true. But people can and do find their therapists via Google or findapsychologist or whatever those sites are called. They may call up their nearest practitioner who likely does not have a PhD (for my area) .…If I was hellbent (sp?) on finding a PhD. therapist, who didnt advertise… I would have a very hard time finding that person.

But yeaa my point is totally anecdotal

Originally Posted by ZsMusings

Very true. But people can and do find their therapists via Google or findapsychologist or whatever those sites are called. They may call up their nearest practitioner who likely does not have a PhD (for my area) .…If I was hellbent (sp?) on finding a PhD. therapist, who didnt advertise… I would have a very hard time finding that person.

But yeaa my point is totally anecdotal

I am certainly not aware of the data for how people find their therapists, but it is an interesting question. Not sure how many people actually do find them through Google searches? Masters-level therapists are certainly going to be more numerous, but I'd bet that networking and referrals account for more business than an internet search - also anecdotal of course, but this being such an intimate field I would bank on other sources, myself.

Originally Posted by Psychadelic2012

Not so fast. Google isn't exactly producing a representative or random sample here. Maybe professionals of a certain background or training are more likely to have websites and/or be listed on websites?! That doesn't mean that the PhDs aren't doing therapy or aren't doing therapy in private practice. Maybe they are busy and don't need to advertise? There are many possibilities here.

Exactly. People who had quality training can market themselves more than successfully via word-of-mouth and via referral sources. People who don't, advertise. Not always the case, I'm sure (and I'm not knocking traditional advertising here), but that's probably what's going on. Plenty of PhDs do private practice therapy stuff.

Originally Posted by ZsMusings

And do you realize this discussion and what I was referencing was about graduate psychology students and other related professions that practice counseling/psychotherapy… not medical school? That is totally out of context...

I should be more specific. The PsyDs being mentioned through this thread (the stand-alone schools like Walden, Argosy, Adler) were listed as where their degrees were conferred.

So scary it is.

I was bringing up med schools to show that the PsyD isn't an inherently bad degree simply by nature of it being called a "professional degree" (and as such conferred by a professional school) rather than an "academic degree," because it shares that title with such respected degrees as the MD and JD. Sure, if all of these PsyDs were conferred by questionable (large, standalone, for-profit) institutions, then that's not good.

Originally Posted by Veit

I was bringing up med schools to show that the PsyD isn't an inherently bad degree simply by nature of it being called a "professional degree" (and as such conferred by a professional school) rather than an "academic degree," because it shares that title with such respected degrees as the MD and JD. Sure, if all of these PsyDs were conferred by questionable (large, standalone, for-profit) institutions, then that's not good.

The PsyD/PhD debate usually boils down to a few specific factors. A major one, as you point out here, is the distinction between FSPSs and traditional programs. This seems like a more important distinction than PsyD/PhD, as some FSPSs award PhDs and this does not mean they produce quality outcomes. 4410 thinks that because Capella and Walden award the PhD, the PsyD/PhD discussion is moot--we cannot make any generalizations about programs. However, Capella and Walden are online schools, not traditional programs, so the FSPS/traditional distinction still stands as an important factor in determining the quality of a program.

Another factor in this debate is pure finances. MD programs and the AMA have policed their career to ensure that doctors have a clear path to high paying jobs. This makes paying back medical school loans a relatively easy process. I know less about the JD model, but my understanding is that the same is true for at least the top couple tiers of law schools. The same is not true in psychology. Students are taking out loans to fund their entire education and then graduating into an eventual job that pays 65K a year (median). Thus, another important factor in this discussion is funded vs. unfunded. Even unfunded programs at traditional universities are not setting up their students well to enter the profession. It would be a different story if it were the top programs in the field that were charging tuition. However, this is clearly not the case.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

The PsyD/PhD debate usually boils down to a few specific factors. A major one, as you point out here, is the distinction between FSPSs and traditional programs. This seems like a more important distinction than PsyD/PhD, as some FSPSs award PhDs and this does not mean they produce quality outcomes. 4410 thinks that because Capella and Walden award the PhD, the PsyD/PhD discussion is moot--we cannot make any generalizations about programs. However, Capella and Walden are online schools, not traditional programs, so the FSPS/traditional distinction still stands as an important factor in determining the quality of a program.

Another factor in this debate is pure finances. MD programs and the AMA have policed their career to ensure that doctors have a clear path to high paying jobs. This makes paying back medical school loans a relatively easy process. I know less about the JD model, but my understanding is that the same is true for at least the top couple tiers of law schools. The same is not true in psychology. Students are taking out loans to fund their entire education and then graduating into an eventual job that pays 65K a year (median). Thus, another important factor in this discussion is funded vs. unfunded. Even unfunded programs at traditional universities are not setting up their students well to enter the profession. It would be a different story if it were the top programs in the field that were charging tuition. However, this is clearly not the case.

Whoa there...not when you talk to medical students. These days, there are a lot of them too. Going to medical school is a large financial decision. It also depends on interest rates. I know psychiatrists that had to work side jobs on the graveyard shift to cover interest on their loans when rates were higher. I wouldn't generalize here...yes they get high salaries (particularly if they go rural) but they also have much more substantial debt that your typical doctoral psychology program.

Originally Posted by Pragma

Whoa there...not when you talk to medical students. These days, there are a lot of them too. Going to medical school is a large financial decision. It also depends on interest rates. I know psychiatrists that had to work side jobs on the graveyard shift to cover interest on their loans when rates were higher. I wouldn't generalize here...yes they get high salaries (particularly if they go rural) but they also have much more substantial debt that your typical doctoral psychology program.

Agreed; it's certainly not as much of a sure thing as it was in years past, but then again, I'm not sure if there are any occupations that haven't taken a bit of a hit over the past half-decade. That being said, we definitely could learn a lot from the AMA's abilities to regulate the rate of graduated practitioners and protect physicians' scopes of practice. Heck, we could learn a lot from social work and nursing on these fronts as well.

Originally Posted by Pragma

Whoa there...not when you talk to medical students. These days, there are a lot of them too. Going to medical school is a large financial decision. It also depends on interest rates. I know psychiatrists that had to work side jobs on the graveyard shift to cover interest on their loans when rates were higher. I wouldn't generalize here...yes they get high salaries (particularly if they go rural) but they also have much more substantial debt that your typical doctoral psychology program.

Fine, that simply supports the point I was making. Funded vs unfunded is an important factor when it comes to later quality of life.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

Fine, that simply supports the point I was making. Funded vs unfunded is an important factor when it comes to later quality of life.

Well yeah...I doubt you'd get any arguments from anyone there.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

I know less about the JD model, but my understanding is that the same is true for at least the top couple tiers of law schools.

Not true. Maybe for the top couple of law schools, but not even for all first tier. JDs are totally screwed right now--their job market is a mess. But as you say, further support for the importance of securing funding...

And for supply outweighing demand, especially in terms of schools admitting more students than the job market can handle.

Originally Posted by 4410

Seems that there is a definite bias towards PhD degrees in Clinical Psychology having higher standards.

I'll just let the research speak for itself.

Graham, J. M. and Kim, Y.-H. (2011), Predictors of doctoral student success in professional psychology: characteristics of students, programs, and universities. J. Clin. Psychol., 67: 340–354. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20767

I just wanted to say that was beautifully said and I appreciate your comment

Originally Posted by Markp

I'll just let the research speak for itself.

Graham, J. M. and Kim, Y.-H. (2011), Predictors of doctoral student success in professional psychology: characteristics of students, programs, and universities. J. Clin. Psychol., 67: 340–354. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20767

Thanks for Posting... good article and relevant to this discussion.

Originally Posted by markp

i'll just let the research speak for itself.

Graham, j. M. And kim, y.-h. (2011), predictors of doctoral student success in professional psychology: Characteristics of students, programs, and universities. J. Clin. Psychol., 67: 340–354. Doi: 10.1002/jclp.20767

+1

Originally Posted by Markp

I'll just let the research speak for itself.

Graham, J. M. and Kim, Y.-H. (2011), Predictors of doctoral student success in professional psychology: characteristics of students, programs, and universities. J. Clin. Psychol., 67: 340–354. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20767

This article makes some very good points. Although PsyD programs have poorer outcomes that PhD programs, this study did not fully examine which programs or the type of program (FSPS) influences these outcomes. I attend a PsyD program based in a psychology department at a public University (public university = lower tuition rates and funding for graduate students). We have a 100% match rate with 75% APA placement, which in my opinion is great given the current internship imbalance; the ones who did not do an APA placement had family obligations that limited them geographically. I HATE being associated with PsyD programs with poor outcomes and poor reputations. It makes applying to internships knowing the current internship situation even more stressful. I think that the outcome research should focus on University Based programs versus FSPSs not PhD versus PsyD. Also, research should include places and type of employment of graduates by program or licensure rates. If someone does research that supports that certain programs are the culprits for poor outcomes and poor match rates, this is should be evidence for the APA to do something about these programs. Psychology is all about evidence based practice and if we show them enough evidence that certain schools are responsible for the problems in psychology, then the APA should act on these programs and stop them from flooding the market. Just my two cents.

Originally Posted by PsyDLICSW

This article makes some very good points. Although PsyD programs have poorer outcomes that PhD programs, this study did not fully examine which programs or the type of program (FSPS) influences these outcomes. I attend a PsyD program based in a psychology department at a public University (public university = lower tuition rates and funding for graduate students). We have a 100% match rate with 75% APA placement, which in my opinion is great given the current internship imbalance; the ones who did not do an APA placement had family obligations that limited them geographically. I HATE being associated with PsyD programs with poor outcomes and poor reputations. It makes applying to internships knowing the current internship situation even more stressful. I think that the outcome research should focus on University Based programs versus FSPSs not PhD versus PsyD. Also, research should include places and type of employment of graduates by program or licensure rates. If someone does research that supports that certain programs are the culprits for poor outcomes and poor match rates, this is should be evidence for the APA to do something about these programs. Psychology is all about evidence based practice and if we show them enough evidence that certain schools are responsible for the problems in psychology, then the APA should act on these programs and stop them from flooding the market. Just my two cents.

I agree with all of this and am a PhD student! The FSPS v. university-based (and to lesser degree, funded v. unfunded) is really where the distinction lies, IMO. Don't forget that there are also FSPS PhDs.

Originally Posted by futureapppsy2

I agree with all of this and am a PhD student! The FSPS v. university-based (and to lesser degree, funded v. unfunded) is really where the distinction lies, IMO. Don't forget that there are also FSPS PhDs.

Indeed. Ideally, it really should be a program-by-program examination.

Originally Posted by ZsMusings

To add to this discussion, I googled therapists in my area ( a suburb of the Midwest). Of the 100s of listings that I came across I only found 1 PhD providing therapy. Tons of PsyDs, MSWs, LPCs, etc totally dominated. So if I was some random person looking for therapist my options would be professional school- trained therapists, master levels practitioners and social workers… which is scary. Scary IF you really value the scientist-practioner model of training.

Must be geography but in my zip code all but 3 are PhDs

Hi ALL,

I'm planning to apply to both PhD programs in counseling psych and PsyD programs in clinical psych for fall, 2013. I'll apply to those that suit my interest of course--either in terms of research or in terms of practice.

My question is, what's normally required in the SOP for a PsyD program? How's it different from the SOP for a PhD program in Psychology? What are the faculty in PsyD programs looking for in potential candidates?

Thanks in advance!

Originally Posted by chinesevitamin

My question is, what's normally required in the SOP for a PsyD program?

I've been interested in this as well, though I suspect The Insiders Guide has some insight? (can't find my copy, of course ).

Originally Posted by chinesevitamin

Hi ALL,

I'm planning to apply to both PhD programs in counseling psych and PsyD programs in clinical psych for fall, 2013. I'll apply to those that suit my interest of course--either in terms of research or in terms of practice.

My question is, what's normally required in the SOP for a PsyD program? How's it different from the SOP for a PhD program in Psychology? What are the faculty in PsyD programs looking for in potential candidates?

Thanks in advance!

That's clearly going to vary among programs. Some Psy.D. programs are no different than Ph.D. programs in what they are looking for. For instance, nearly the same essay got me interviews at University of Kansas (Ph.D.) and Baylor (Psy.D). Very different programs, but only minor changes in the Essays. Clearly you want to shift your focus slightly but you are still selling what your passion is and why the school is a good fit for your long term career aspirations. With counseling Ph.D. programs this shift is even less obvious than it would be for a clinical Ph.D. program in many cases. Focus on why you are a good fit for the university and why they are a good fit for you. Don't be afraid to be honest and tell them what you like about their program, training model, research, and even the career trajectory you expect upon graduation (keep it realistic!).

M

It should be obvious but...Psy.D. programs very much care about your research interests (at least the good ones). You'll want to know if they run a strict mentor model where you match to a specific mentor, you get slotted into a lab/group (possibly with multiple mentor options), or you don't get assigned a particular mentor....but you will be expected to have an area of interest that someone on the faculty can supervise.

*Bump*

I think this is a good time to bump this thread, as many prospective applicants will start to consider programs for the 2014-2015 academic year.