PhD/PsyD Ask A Recent Graduate of a Professional School Anything

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
:) well my faulty thinking certainly held you interest level today!!
In the same sense that car crashes catch one's attention....

Though, people in car crashes tend not to advocate that crashing one's car is just as valid a way of driving as not crashing one's car, and you can't really PROVE crashing is more dangerous than not crashing.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
There are some things (and people) that cannot be changed; best to let it go.

On another note:

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
I read it and as I indicated, I question the validity of the APPIC information and I would want additional information from the programs before making such bold conclusions. Certainly does not bode well for APA accredited program if non APA accredited programs have a higher MATCH rate.

My premise as stated throughout this diatribe with you is that other factors may be responsible rather than generalizing APPIC Match and EPPP pass rate to quality of programs. Heck, I now know it is common for 70% of students to pass the EPPP the first time.

My program is listed as having 67% match rate but I looked at some of the other nearby PhD programs and they had from 50% to 89%.

Why is there such a delay of program data from APPIC? The data from 2011 to 2014 is not listed and my program has had a higher match rate the last four years.

Just to quickly address this point--I don't believe that the >70% pass rate that I mentioned earlier applies solely to first-time test takers. Rather, it was for all folks who'd taken the exam as reported in the 2012 ASPPB data, which I'm sure includes first-time takers in addition to re-takers. I think I remember reading somewhere that ~60% of folks pass the first time, but I honestly have no idea where I saw that.

And your realization about your program's EPPP passing rates shows why, as we all know, we can't extrapolate from our own personal experiences to then make statements that apply at the group (or larger) level.
 
original.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
OneNeuroDoctor, I'm not a Harvard grad :) - I networked my way into 2 years at a developmental lab at Harvard. NYU undergrad and Columbia masters. Definitely don't feel I'm "too good" for any program and didn't only apply to top schools, but at this point in my life, moving to any geographic location is not an option. And yes, perhaps if I were 21 again, I'd apply to 28 Ph.D. programs all across the country to maximize my chances. But the past is the past.
 
OneNeuroDoctor, I'm not a Harvard grad :) - I networked my way into 2 years at a developmental lab at Harvard. NYU undergrad and Columbia masters. Definitely don't feel I'm "too good" for any program and didn't only apply to top schools, but at this point in my life, moving to any geographic location is not an option. And yes, perhaps if I were 21 again, I'd apply to 28 Ph.D. programs all across the country to maximize my chances. But the past is the past.

Heck... There must be some 50 PsyD programs within 300 miles driving distance from where you live... Stop drinking the PhD cool aid and get on with your life and PsyD program. They will probably accept 30 credits from your MS from Columbia and you can finish up before you are an old lady. :)

PsyD programs are allover NY....have you applied to Pace, Yeshiva, or Albany. These are top programs and provide high quality education.
 
Last edited:
I also plan to remain involved in the lab in which I'm currently a clinical research interviewer part-time. I have an idea for the program of research I'd love - someday - to mount.

This is a good move.

I stay connected to all my former labs & supervisors. As a result, my CV shows that I've produced at least one publication (and/or conference presentation) every year of graduate school.

And keep your unique ideas in the back of your mind as you begin your program...it'll help you frame a more complete picture when you're ready for internship application time, especially if you're able to carry through on some of those ideas. (Hopefully, your PsyD program has some sort of independent project that will help you follow your research ideas through?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Heck... There must be some 150 PsyD programs within 300 miles driving distance from where you live... Stop drinking the PhD cool aid and get on with your life and PsyD program. They will probably accept 30 credits from your MS from Columbia and you can finish up before you are an old lady. :)

Given that there are only ~85 accredited PsyD program in the country that's obviously not the case. Plus, if she attends a program with a poor match rate, there's a higher chance that she could have to stay longer in order to go through multiple internship cycles. I've personally known some very qualified people who've gone to FSPS, but the data against them is too strong for me to ever recommend them with a remotely clear conscious. Even if you are the upper tier of FSPS students who manage to squeeze the rarefied water of an APA accredited internship from the stone of a school (and doesn't every single entering student think they will?) and manage to get decent research and clinical training, you are still looking at incredibly high levels of debt for a low paying profession. If you try to stay geographically limited for internship, that just compounds the match situation all the more. It's a poor career decision on oh so many levels.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is a good move.

I stay connected to all my former labs & supervisors. As a result, my CV shows that I've produced at least one publication (and/or conference presentation) every year of graduate school.

And keep your unique ideas in the back of your mind as you begin your program...it'll help you frame a more complete picture when you're ready for internship application time, especially if you're able to carry through on some of those ideas. (Hopefully, your PsyD program has some sort of independent project that will help you follow your research ideas through?)

Seconded. I'm entering my third year in a PhD program, and out of the nine articles I've had accepted since August, four have been with people I've worked with in undergrad, and two were with people for my master's program. Maintaining on-going collaborations can really be helpful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Given that there are only ~85 accredited PsyD program in the country that's obviously not the case. Plus, if she attends a program with a poor match rate, there's a higher chance that she could have to stay longer in order to go through multiple internship cycles. I've personally known some very qualified people who've gone to FSPS, but the data against them is too strong for me to ever recommend them with a remotely clear conscious. Even if you are the upper tier of FSPS students who manage to squeeze the rarefied water of an APA accredited internship from the stone of a school (and doesn't every single entering student think they will?) and manage to get decide research and clinical training, you are still looking at incredibly high levels of debt for a low paying profession. If you try to stay geographically limited for internship, that just compounds the match situation all the more. It's a poor career decision on oh so many levels.

Mental Health or Behavioral Health needs are on an upward trend and most of the Baby Boomer generation of Psychologist are near retiring. Have you reviewed career website recently because there are many behavioral health openings. There are needs for more psychologists and currently there are only about 4000 doctoral level psychologist entering the job market every year and my guess is there are more than this retiring. Take a look at the faculty in your program... We had four in their 60's and the rest in their 30's. Just in academia alone there will be a large number of psychologist jobs in the next ten years.

The future is bright in psychology and there are many resources to assist with loan repayment.

It sounds like you are requesting a cap or ceiling on enrollment. Where do you begin... Do you make psychology undergraduate similar to engineering where you have to pass calculus before being allowed to continue with the program?
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
There may be job openings, but in most places, there is no shortage of applications for those jobs. Our psychology jobs fill immediately with numerous applications. Where is this psychologist shortage? And mental health needs don't skyrocket in old age, some pathology actually ameliorates as people age, most stays relatively stable. More neuro-focused needs will increase with this number. If there are only a few handfuls of PsyD's that offer solid psych training in general, there are far fewer that offer good neuro training. If you have some numbers to back up any of these assertions, go for it, otherwise it just seems silly and desperate.
 
MODs

I think its ok to have someone who represents dissenting opinion. I do NOT think its ok when a poster continually posts false, inaccurate or misleading information. OND has an extensive history of his "opinion" (which is often stated as fact or about factual information) being corrected by posters and/or contradicted by readily available evidence. This has happened numerous times in this thread alone. I politely suggest to MODs that the poster be warned about this.
 
Last edited:
The PsyD PhD debate aside, telling people to ignore things like debt load, APPIC match rates, and EPPP pass rates is downright irresponsible. These are people's lives. Those things matter, especially with many jurisdictions moving for stricter licensing and billing regulations. Please consider the impact of that advice on people who are not aware of how things work in the field.
 
The PsyD PhD debate aside, telling people to ignore things like debt load, APPIC match rates, and EPPP pass rates is downright irresponsible. These are people's lives. Those things matter, especially with many jurisdictions moving for stricter licensing and billing regulations. Please consider the impact of that advice on people who are not aware of how things work in the field.

Agreed. I didn't really want to turn this into a moral issue, but I think this forum does indeed have an ethical/moral obligation to not knowingly obscure well established facts about programs by suggesting that its mere "kool-aid." I think thats just plain irresponsible (and deceptive) to applicants.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Articulate summation, Dr. Rivi. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Wow, this turned into cognitive dissonance **** show quickly.

It always does....


My favorite was the PhD grad turned PsyD prof likening his professorial duties to working with gang effected, opiate abusing patients. Must be some classes/clinics he puts together! Who wouldn't line up for the stimulating lectures/tender ministrations of Dr. Statistics?

Oops, almost forgot the OP! Thanks for starting this thread. Oddly, none have seemed too bothered that they've risked participating in what could not fail to open onto another doomed one person/entire class confusion. FWIW, I've enjoyed reading about your experiences and comparing them to my own at an FSPS.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It always does....


My favorite was the PhD grad turned PsyD prof likening his professorial duties to working with gang effected, opiate abusing patients. Must be some classes/clinics he puts together! Who wouldn't line up for the stimulating lectures/tender ministrations of Dr. Statistics?

Oops, almost forgot the OP! Thanks for starting this thread. Oddly, none have seemed too bothered that they've risked participating in what could not fail to open onto another doomed one person/entire class confusion. FWIW, I've enjoyed reading about your experiences and comparing them to my own at an FSPS.

I assume that is referencing me. Yes, I taught, adjunctively, in university based psy.d. program after internship. I am not clear why you think that I was "comparing" all those things? I did state that just because I disagree with something, does NOT mean I dont want to help the people. I used two other examples from my life to illustrate this. I work with substance use disorders and my wife and I voluteer in with a religious organzation that works with gang members. I dont agree with drugs and violence, but I am happy to help people. Make sense?
 
Agreed. I didn't really want to turn this into a moral issue, but I think this forum does indeed have an ethical/moral obligation to not knowingly obscure well established facts about programs by suggesting that its mere "kool-aid." I think thats just plain irresponsible (and deceptive) to applicants.


I think people that attend such programs should be mental health patients, not practitioners.
 
I think people that attend such programs should be mental health patients, not practitioners.
Well that is a fact....Dr. Linehan obviously would agree that former mental health patients commonly become the best psychologist who, in fact change the world and become famous in doing so!!
 
Commonly? No. Can it happen? Yes. And Marsha is great example of that, I agree.
 
Well that is a fact....Dr. Linehan obviously would agree that former mental health patients commonly become the best psychologist who, in fact change the world and become famous in doing so!!
Thanks for missing the point.
 
cab1234, I'm very grateful, as others, for your candor and forthrightness.

I'm on the cusp of attending a FSPP for the PsyD myself, this fall. I, too, am pursuing the Great Trifecta of research, teaching, and practice. For those who wonder, after 3 years of Ph.D. applications (in which I clearly delineated my 2 years of research experience in a developmental lab at Harvard, 1 year as a clinical research interviewer in a renowned developmental psychobiology lab, 2+ years of clinically-related work in the field, totally acceptable - though admittedly not off-the-charts - GREs, and 1 co-authored article submitted for publication), I finally succumbed to the conclusion that it simply is not always a meritocracy. I refuse to spend my entire life applying in vain, and do not simply want to be a therapist at the masters level.

I plan to investigate internships sites early and tailor my pracs accordingly. I also plan to remain involved in the lab in which I'm currently a clinical research interviewer part-time. I have an idea for the program of research I'd love - someday - to mount. I'll probably elect to take some advanced stats courses on my own time (in all my fabulous free-time, of course).

Any words of wisdom, cab? I'm so wishing I weren't standing here staring straight up at the mountain of future debt before me. But here I am.

Before I spout any words of advice, as helpful or unhelpful as they may be, I'd like to know why a PsyD over a MA/MS? Will it give you the ability to hold a job or perform a task beyond what a masters-level clinician can? Is it worth $200k-$250k?

I ask because it's been my experience that many of my past colleagues sought a PsyD with a primary objective of performing private practice therapy.
 
New psychologist here who graduated from a professional school within the past 5 years. Aside from revealing personally identifiable information, feel free to ask me anything about my experience attending a FSPP (e.g., training and research experience, internship, EPPP, employment, etc.). I will answer everything as unbiased as I possibly can. The primary purpose of this thread is to inform others who may be considering attending such schools as well as answering some questions current students and psychologists may have.

To get this thread back on topic, how about your experience with affording the program year to year. I have been calling many of Psy.D. programs I am applying to recently so I can gauge how much the costs are every year and how much in federal loans they permit. Every school is different, Widener quotes a $28K a year tuition with a max of $33K a year in total possible federal stafford loans, while Nova quotes $36K in tuition a year with a total max of $40,000 in loans a student can take out. Obviously the ratio between the two is not that different (maybe by $100). My point is, did you take out a Grad PLUS loan every year to afford rent and bills in addition to your loans you got every year to pay for tuition and fees? Nova Southeastern and Widener are some of my upper picks for Psy.D. programs for my own personal reasons, but I couldn't see living off of $4500 a year being possible.
 
To get this thread back on topic, how about your experience with affording the program year to year. I have been calling many of Psy.D. programs I am applying to recently so I can gauge how much the costs are every year and how much in federal loans they permit. Every school is different, Widener quotes a $28K a year tuition with a max of $33K a year in total possible federal stafford loans, while Nova quotes $36K in tuition a year with a total max of $40,000 in loans a student can take out. Obviously the ratio between the two is not that different (maybe by $100). My point is, did you take out a Grad PLUS loan every year to afford rent and bills in addition to your loans you got every year to pay for tuition and fees? Nova Southeastern and Widener are some of my upper picks for Psy.D. programs for my own personal reasons, but I couldn't see living off of $4500 a year being possible.

Is Nova a FSPS? And Widener, isn't that online?

Never mind about Widener, I was confusing it with Walden, which is an unaccredited online school.
 
I think people that attend such programs should be mental health patients, not practitioners.

Am I reading this correctly in that you believe students who go to FSPS would be better off as "mental health patients" as opposed to practitioners? I am not a fan of FSPS, but that is way harsh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Nova is a university-based Psy.D./ professional program, so is Widener. It operates as a professional school umbrellaed underneath a university.
 
Nova is a university-based Psy.D./ professional program, so is Widener. It operates as a professional school umbrellaed underneath a university.

Really? I did not know PsyD schools could be both. When I hear somebody say FSPS, I think Argosy or Alliant. I know somebody that goes to Nova, I just thought it was a uni-based PsyD program. What is the main difference between say, an Argosy and a school like Nova?
 
Am I reading this correctly in that you believe students who go to FSPS would be better off as "mental health patients" as opposed to practitioners? I am not a fan of FSPS, but that is way harsh.

It is harsh, but the level of denial that is neccesary to attend such a program borders on pathological. If you knew before you went in that attending the program would put you 200k+ in debt, that you prob can't match to a site, that you are probably recieving a second-rate education, and that most people will look down on you for your "credential", I'm not sure that person would respect evidence or logic in their practice.

I'm critical because I can relate. I can't attend the top programs, and at this point in my life, I'm not interested in a Phd. But I've dreamt of being a Psychologist for a long time. So I've decided to apply to a blended (but mostly online Masters program). But this is at a reputable public Uni, the training/sites where i can get experience are good, the students that finish the program can register as Psychologists, (no restrictions), the debt is minimal 25k (for 3yrs, really 2yrs, but internship is last year), and this leads to an average income of 100k. I'd prefer that this program was in-person, because I know some still question online, but all in all, it is a good investment in my opinion for what I want to do.
 
Just read this: http://psychologygradschool.weebly.com/types-of-programs.html

Argosy = FSPS, Nova = university professional school. Nova operates a medical school, dental school, pharmacy school, psychology school, physician assistant, optometry, nursing and others. Widener also falls under the university professional program status, places like MSPP, Alliant, Chicago School, Georgia School, Florida School are FSPS. Typically, FSPS programs will have lower rates for APA match, licensure, but not always. The other day I had compared some of the FSPS stats with Nova and found Georgia and Florida's FSPS programs to have a higher APA match rate funny enough.
 
Last edited:
I think we have it narrowed down to a handful of problem schools that crank out hundreds of grads a year and have low match rates - and some of the graduates of those schools do okay and make good psychologists - other than that we can't say much else. I think this has been covered before.
:beat:
 
It is harsh, but the level of denial that is neccesary to attend such a program borders on pathological. If you knew before you went in that attending the program would put you 200k+ in debt, that you prob can't match to a site, that you are probably recieving a second-rate education, and that most people will look down on you for your "credential", I'm not sure that person would respect evidence or logic in their practice.

I'm critical because I can relate. I can't attend the top programs, and at this point in my life, I'm not interested in a Phd. But I've dreamt of being a Psychologist for a long time. So I've decided to apply to a blended (but mostly online Masters program). But this is at a reputable public Uni, the training/sites where i can get experience are good, the students that finish the program can register as Psychologists, (no restrictions), the debt is minimal 25k (for 3yrs, really 2yrs, but internship is last year), and this leads to an average income of 100k. I'd prefer that this program was in-person, because I know some still question online, but all in all, it is a good investment in my opinion for what I want to do.

I think it irked me so much because it's such a juvenile response, and I think in saying it, you were trying to impress some of the senior members on this forum, like erg923 (since you replied directly to him). I just feel like you don't know a whole lot about what you are talking about, and are simply regurgitating what a lot of members on this forum have said about FSPS. However, when a member on this forum makes an argument for why somebody should not go to a FSPS (students take on a lot of debt, the match rates are bad, etc.), I view that as helpful, in that they are trying to warn potential applicants away from these schools, and I agree with what they are saying. But your statement (mental health patients) was just so freaking immature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think it irked me so much because it's such a juvenile response, and I think in saying it, you were trying to impress some of the senior members on this forum, like erg923 (since you replied directly to him). I just feel like you don't know a whole lot about what you are talking about, and are simply regurgitating what a lot of members on this forum have said about FSPS. However, when a member on this forum makes an argument for why somebody should not go to a FSPS (students take on a lot of debt, the match rates are bad, etc.), I view that as helpful, in that they are trying to warn potential applicants away from these schools, and I agree with what they are saying. But your statement (mental health patients) was just so freaking immature.
nm
 
It has nothing to do with impressing people. The fact that you said that you "think" I don't know what I'm talking about is telling. People have provided stats/costs of these programs..are you suggesting that these stats are wrong? that I shouldn't believe them? Do I need personal experience to know these facts? Am I not allowed to repeat previous points? Am I an idiot for repeating previous points?

Right, I said I "think," because I'm not sure, it was my impression though. When did I say I thought any stats were wrong? You're allowed to repeat what you want, but I personally don't think comments like your first one are helpful to anybody. You mentioned you wanted to apply to a blended program. I don't know anything about universities in Canada. But hypothetically, let's say somebody on here who does have a lot of knowledge about blended universities in Canada told you what the pros and cons were. And then another person simply stated, "people who go to blended schools should be mental health patients." Which person is going to be more helpful to you in making a decision on applying to this school?
 
It is harsh, but the level of denial that is neccesary to attend such a program borders on pathological. If you knew before you went in that attending the program would put you 200k+ in debt, that you prob can't match to a site, that you are probably recieving a second-rate education, and that most people will look down on you for your "credential", I'm not sure that person would respect evidence or logic in their practice.

I'm critical because I can relate. I can't attend the top programs, and at this point in my life, I'm not interested in a Phd. But I've dreamt of being a Psychologist for a long time. So I've decided to apply to a blended (but mostly online Masters program). But this is at a reputable public Uni, the training/sites where i can get experience are good, the students that finish the program can register as Psychologists, (no restrictions), the debt is minimal 25k (for 3yrs, really 2yrs, but internship is last year), and this leads to an average income of 100k. I'd prefer that this program was in-person, because I know some still question online, but all in all, it is a good investment in my opinion for what I want to do.

Students are not the problem. The complicity of our professional organization and of psychologists who work for these programs is the problem, and it sets up unsustainable circumstances for our profession that will ultimately do us harm. This goes so far as the news stories about faculty at some programs flat out lying to applicants about the accreditation process (i.e., telling first cohorts that the program will be accredited when they graduate; it's untenable to believe that faculty would be so deeply uninformed about the process that this is simply an error). There is no reason that an applicant should have to undertake a small research project and read all the APA Operating Procedures in order to not get duped by deceptive recruiters at these programs. If you want to find fault with the system, the first place we all should look is the mirror.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Right, I said I "think," because I'm not sure, it was my impression though. When did I say I thought any stats were wrong? You're allowed to repeat what you want, but I personally don't think comments like your first one are helpful to anybody. You mentioned you wanted to apply to a blended program. I don't know anything about universities in Canada. But hypothetically, let's say somebody on here who does have a lot of knowledge about blended universities in Canada told you what the pros and cons were. And then another person simply stated, "people who go to blended schools should be mental health patients." Which person is going to be more helpful to you in making a decision on applying to this school?
I'd gladly debate them on that point, but I understand your point.
 
I'm with Siamese on this one. It's not that they're delusional. They are just misinformed and deceived by advertising at most institutions, and have failed to appreciate the economic consequences. Considering the average American's understanding of basic finance, it's not surprising that the diploma mills are so successful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I'm with Siamese on this one. It's not that they're delusional. They are just misinformed and deceived by advertising at most institutions, and have failed to appreciate the economic consequences. Considering the average American's understanding of basic finance, it's not surprising that the diploma mills are so successful.
You see this is where I disagree. These are not your average Americans. The applicants are applying into a profession that is evidence-driven, and that stresses the importance of research. You would think that just some basic research and reasoning would lead the to the obvious.

We just live in a culture where people think they deserve the "Dr" tag. And America especially is a place where people legtimatley think they should be able to do anything in their own little kneck of the woods. I've literally heard people say that they think they should be able to be surgeons but not have to go the usual training route.
 
You see this is where I disagree. These are not your average Americans. The applicants are applying into a profession that is evidence-driven, and that stresses the importance of research. You would think that just some basic research and reasoning would lead the to the obvious.

We just live in a culture where people think they deserve the "Dr" tag. And America especially is a place where people legtimatley think they should be able to do anything in their own little kneck of the woods. I've literally heard people say that they think they should be able to be surgeons but not have to go the usual training route.

Funny enough, I had a neighbor 3 years ago who thought exactly like this. I thought I was a liberal guy, this chick seriously debated the validity of the common collegiate pathway towards gaining competence in professions that are very technical and require specific training like medicine.
 
You see this is where I disagree. These are not your average Americans. The applicants are applying into a profession that is evidence-driven, and that stresses the importance of research. You would think that just some basic research and reasoning would lead the to the obvious.

We just live in a culture where people think they deserve the "Dr" tag. And America especially is a place where people legtimatley think they should be able to do anything in their own little kneck of the woods. I've literally heard people say that they think they should be able to be surgeons but not have to go the usual training route.

A fairly high number of Americans have some kind of degree, so a good number of these applicants are actually average Americans. I agree that some part is the equating wanting something with thinking you are entitled to it. But a large part is economic ignorance. I talk to a lot of people after the fact that would never have gone the route of massive loans for their degree (PsyD and MD in some cases). You can be intellectually smart and an idiot about finances.
 
I think a caveat to all this that regardless of one's persuasion of Psy.D. vs. Ph.D., this forum statistically weights the "economic validity" as being the primary motive to sway one from a Psy.D. It is fairly common for scientists to only value what we can see in p-values or t-tests, however, other variables that can't be easily quantified such as socio-economic barriers that potentially hinder a person from gaining admissions to a Ph.D. program are just as valid as considering if one should take on a degree only if it yields a certain potential profit. An applicant should definitely know the potential pitfalls of the Psy.D., especially with programs that take advantage of the training model and rampant admission quirks. However, as many of us know, not all Psy.D.'s are alike, and there are many first, second, third, etc. tiered Psy.D. programs as there are Ph.D. programs. So, leaving that argument alone, there are very real variables that Psy.D. programs do play to that some Ph.D. programs don't, such as easier admissions standards (again, not all are the same, and many Ph.D. programs also suffer the same fate as Psy.D.).

I think its hard for many of us to see the value in both paths, and if there are people in here that do, the comments seem otherwise. If we are going to claim that "we are just providing the data"...remember, your "data" also has an opinion attached to it. No one can argue against many of the data available, but there are variables that never see the light of day such as the socio-economic issues, learning disabilities applicants may have, applicants of varying undergraduate training/ prior careers, and much more. Just taking a random sample of programs in Texas, Florida, Illinois, New York, California would yield the standard APA data and the aforementioned variables I have described. These are important, these are things I think many programs may not even factor or aware of a lot of times (I know a very small amount of programs I have seen this in, medicine is a field that commonly provides these measurements FYI).

At the end of the day, you may not financially be able to afford the Psy.D., somebody else may have, that is their decision, if they have an idea of how they will get adequate employment, again these are variables you may not be privy to, maybe an applicant has an overall poor academic background for XYZ reason, again, if being a psychologist is their goal, then perhaps the Psy.D. is going to be a likely and viable path for them.

Also, I am curious, are there any data that provides a considerable argument that Psy.D. programs produce more incompetent clinicians vs. Ph.D. programs? I know that there are EPPP stats, etc. but are there any data available that accurately measures as to why there may be lower EPPP rates in Psy.D. vs. Ph.D., or is the argument "Psy.D. programs are inherently less than" a subjective perspective of the data?
 
Funny enough, I had a neighbor 3 years ago who thought exactly like this. I thought I was a liberal guy, this chick seriously debated the validity of the common collegiate pathway towards gaining competence in professions that are very technical and require specific training like medicine.

The people in-favor of no standards tend to be extreme freedom/free-market freaks.
 
We can pretty easily say that the quality of student is lower at PsyD's, we have the stats for that. As for the "competent clinician" argument, how would you quantify that? Salary as a proxy? I believe PhD wins there. But how do you measure it besides running an RCT where you compare patients who had a PhD therapist vs a PsyD?
 
Top