Another Psychologist Cover Story

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

DynamicDidactic

Still Kickin'
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
1,846
Reaction score
1,564
Did you notice?
http://studentdoctor.net/2012/07/20-questions-eran-magen-phd/

This is the person that created the "How I Got Into Standford" website
http://www.howigotintostanford.com/

There is something a little misleading about him. On his CV he states that he is currently "providing individual and couples therapy to U Penn students" as a research director for UPenn Counseling & Psychological Services. However, he did not attend any clinical programs and has not provided any evidence of any clinical training, qualifications, or certifications. This seems deceptive from my point of view. What do you think?
 
Is there a reason you are so concerned?


Did you notice?
http://studentdoctor.net/2012/07/20-questions-eran-magen-phd/

This is the person that created the "How I Got Into Standford" website
http://www.howigotintostanford.com/

There is something a little misleading about him. On his CV he states that he is currently "providing individual and couples therapy to U Penn students" as a research director for UPenn Counseling & Psychological Services. However, he did not attend any clinical programs and has not provided any evidence of any clinical training, qualifications, or certifications. This seems deceptive from my point of view. What do you think?
 
Well, it looks like DynamicDidactic posed the question in the cover story, too; hopefully, the author will respond!
 
In the interview, Dr. Megan mentions therapy days. I wonder if this means as part of his job he is receiving supervised training. But I would like to clear this up.
 
I remembered this guy from the website, and the therapy/counseling threw me as well because I seemed to recall it (the website) being thrown around by some applicants in the past as rationale for why they could make it into ANY program their li'l ole' heart desired "because this guy did it" even if they didn't have the stats, research, etc....
 
maybe we can get some more people to post in the article to get this question cleared up?
 
Looks like he answered the question...
 
Big surprise.

Y'know, the guy had the perfect lead in to explain his "respecialization" when he was asked why he chose a PhD instead of a PsyD. Um, because it wasn't an option for his particular program/specialty. 🙄

I wonder what else he misrepresents or conveniently neglects to mentions.
 
Providing therapy without proper training would be unethical, and perhaps illegal given state laws. I'm not at all saying that's the case here, but I believe that's what DynamicDidactic is concerned about.

Not only is it unethical but it is also dangerous.
 
I am very happy to see the question was answered and to know that he actually received clinical respecialization. I agree with WW in the comments section, there is nothing wrong with getting respecialized but lack of transparency is concerning.

Robert Wood Johnson Health & Society Scholar is not an APA approved program (http://www.apa.org/ed/graduate/respecialization.aspx). I am hoping as a part of the respecialization process the necessary coursework is completed (such as ethics).
 
I don't think his failure to identify the nature of his training or the "therapy days" is that egregious, though I can appreciate why others do. However, the interviewer refers to him as a "psychologist" at least three times (e.g. "has being a psychologist met your expectations?"). I am not certain of the regulations in PA, but in many jurisdictions "psychologist" is a protected term that can only legally be used by someone who is licensed as such. By the time you reach where he is in training, you should be aware of the legal and ethical standards of your field and jurisdictions. If "psychologist" is a protected term and he is not one, he has an ethical obligation to correct the interviewer within his response (e.g. "I'm not yet a psychologist, but..."). Failure to actively correct others misrepresentation of your status may be considered representation on your part. For an somewhat similar- though more egregious- case, see: http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/governmen...massachusetts-board-of-registration-of-7.html. In this case, some clinician bios were posted online with the descriptor "psychologist." The state Board of Registration of Psychologists fined the director of the program (himself a licensed psychologist) almost $30K.
 
While this is true, many jurisdictions have a clause that basically says academics working for universities can call themselves psychologists within the context of their university job duties. So, unlicensed academics (who have no interest in being licensed) that are faculty are still psychologists in many states.

A quick googling of the PA laws & regs provides the following definitions:

GENERAL

[SIZE=+1]§ 41.1. [/SIZE]Definitions.

Psychologist—A person who holds a license issued under the act to engage in the practice of psychology.

Psychology intern—A student participating in an internship as part of a doctoral degree program in psychology or a field related to psychology.

Psychology resident—An individual who has obtained a doctoral degree and is fulfilling the supervised experience requirement for licensure, or an applicant for licensure who is continuing training under § 41.31(4) (relating to educational qualifications).

Psychology trainee—A psychology intern or psychology resident.

However, there is this exception, which talks about the practice of neuroscience w/o licensure, but I'll leave the reasoning as to what that includes to the lawyers.

[SIZE=+1]§ 41.7. [/SIZE]Qualified members of other recognized professions—statement of policy.


(a) Background. Section 3(3) of the act (63 P. S. § 1203(3)) provides that ‘‘qualified members of other recognized professions . . . [may do] work of a psychological nature, consistent with the training and the code of ethics of their respective professions.'' This policy statement announces the principles and standards the Board intends to apply when persons alleged to be practicing psychology without a license rely on section 3(3) of the act as exempting them from licensure.
(b) Recognized professions. For purposes of deciding whether a given group qualifies as a recognized profession under section 3(3) of the act, the Board will be guided by the criteria in paragraphs (1)—(4).
(1) The group's activity and focus must be based on an identifiable body of theoretical knowledge which, although it may include areas of common knowledge shared with psychology, is demonstrably different, in the aggregate, from the body of theoretical knowledge underlying psychology.
(2) The group must regulate entrance into professional membership by means of standards of knowledge, training and proficiency generally accepted by the profession with which it identifies.
(3) The group's activity must be guided by generally accepted quality standards, ethical principles and requirements for an independent profession.
(4) The group must exhibit the ordinary accoutrements of a profession, which may include, but are not limited to, professional journals, regional and national conferences, specific academic curricula and degrees, continuing education opportunities, regional and national certification and awards for outstanding practice within the profession.
(c) Qualified members. For purposes of deciding whether a person doing work of a psychological nature under section 3(3) of the act is a qualified member of a recognized profession, the Board will consider whether the person is in compliance with the academic, training and proficiency standards of the profession.
(d) Scope of practice. For purposes of deciding whether a person doing work of a psychological nature under section 3(3) of the act is practicing only within the scope of the recognized profession, the Board will consider whether the professional activities engaged in are generally accepted within the profession as part of its practice and are consistent with the training and code of ethics of the profession.

Notes of Decisions

Neuroscience Exception The practice and study of neuroscience meets all of the criteria for recognized exceptions to the licensing requirement. Therefore, the two neuroscientists who administered and interpreted certain tests were not required to be licensed, and it was error to exclude their testimony and grant nonsuit. Ford v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 789 A.2d 360 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001); appeal denied 803 A.2d 736 (Pa. 2002); reconsideration denied 885 A.2d 980 (Pa. 2005).
 
Last edited:
Pennsylvania Act "63 P. S. § 1203" (Professional Psychologists Practice Act) states in section 3(6):

(6) Nothing in this act shall be construed to limit the practice of
psychology or use of an official title on the part of a member of the faculty
or staff of a duly accredited university, college, hospital or State-approved
nonpublic school in so far as such practice is a part of the normal function
of his position or is performed on behalf of or according to the usual
expectations of his employer. Nothing in this act shall be construed to limit
the practice of psychology or use of an official title on the part of a
student, intern or resident in psychology, pursuing a course of study in a
duly accredited university, college or hospital or similar training facility
for the qualified training of psychologists, provided that such practice and
use of title constitute a part of his supervised course of study, and he is
designated by such titles as "psychology intern," "psychology trainee," or
other title clearly indicating such training status. Nothing in this act shall
be construed to limit the activities of a faculty or staff member of a duly
accredited university, college, or hospital, or research unit of a duly
recognized business or industrial firm or corporation, in the performance of
experimental and scientific research activities for the primary purpose of
contributing to or enlarging upon scientific principles of psychology. Nothing
in this act shall be construed to limit the use of the term "psychology,"
"psychologist," or "psychological," in connection with the aforementioned
experimental or scientific research activities or for the purpose of
publication of the research findings in professional and scientific journals,
or for the purpose of providing scientific information to any user of such
information.

I think he clearly meets the criteria stated above for use of the term "psychologist" in reference to his research activities. In reference to his therapeutic activities, he should perhaps refer to himself as a "psychology intern" or "trainee". I really don't have a problem with how he presents himself in the article. (Not that it is necessarily relevant, but these "20 Questions" interviews are not face to face- the subject is sent the questions and responds in writing).
 
I think he clearly meets the criteria stated above for use of the term "psychologist" in reference to his research activities. In reference to his therapeutic activities, he should perhaps refer to himself as a "psychology intern" or "trainee". I really don't have a problem with how he presents himself in the article. (Not that it is necessarily relevant, but these "20 Questions" interviews are not face to face- the subject is sent the questions and responds in writing).

My only critique was the original implication that a student can complete a degree (not meant for licensure)...and then do therapy without significant additional training and mentorship. Maybe that information was mentioned, but not included in the final draft, who knows.
 
Top