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

[CogNeuroGuy]

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?

So, I think you answered my question, there are no definitive stats that can quantify the reasoning for the higher pay rates in a study of Psy.D. vs. Ph.D., or EPPP pass rates. These are important questions to ask, aren't they? As scientists, simply saying "we don't know to measure that" is never a good answer.

I think a liberal would be against such things.

The people in-favor of no standards tend to be extreme freedom/free-market freaks.

That depicts a libertarian, not a liberal. My "liberalness" is nothing like that, I am not a fan of free market capitalism personally .

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

We know how to measure it, no one will go for it though.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

We know how to measure it, no one will go for it though.

This would be a very good study I think. It really does take into consideration the more social aspects as well as the behavioral aspects. It would be great to see a study that is reliable and valid if students that had "X" learning disability or disabilities make up certain percentages of those that gain admissions to "X" programs in applied psychology. This would be obviously one of many studies that could be derived from my above statement earlier. Another study could look at which modality (Psy.D. vs. Ph.D.) serves students with disadvantaged backgrounds better. Even from that study alone, one could look at variables such as a QOL-type survey in constructs that sway a person to consider potential high-debt and program stigma (Psy.D.-associated stigmas) to their decisions...

 

[R. Matey]

I think you answered my question, stigma does exist against Psy.D. programs (though I'm sure this is varied across program types). I, too, would be interested in the results of studies mentioned above. I think it's a shame no one will go for it.

 

[erg923]

I am all for scientific thinking and empiricism, but those asking that question are being way to concrete. I mean, does it matter how much difference manifests quantitativley (we have plenty of data to make inferences and it quite clear that training in FSPS are less focused on evidence-based therapies)? It's a part of the issue of course, but it's ultimately the wrong question. What factors maximize and/or assist in the preparation for the practice of clinical psychological science? Which ones are we willing to sacrifice when educating doctoral level professionals? FSPS often, when we measure these things, lack them. They are choosing not to everything we can to maximize training. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[erg923]

I think you answered my question, stigma does exist against Psy.D. programs (though I'm sure this is varied across program types). I, too, would be interested in the results of studies mentioned above. I think it's a shame no one will go for it.

There was a thread about this just last month. Conensus is that it varies markedly with geography and work settting.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

I am all for scientific thinking and empiricism, but those asking that question are being way to concrete. I mean, does it matter how much difference manifests quantitativley (we have plenty of data to make inferences and it quite clear that training in FSPS are less focused on evidence-based therapies)? It's a part of the issue of course, but it's ultimately the wrong question. What factors maximize and/or assist in the preparation for the practice of clinical psychological science? Which ones are we willing to sacrifice when educating doctoral level professionals? FSPS often, when we measure these things, lack them. They are choosing not to everything we can to maximize training. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

It does make a difference. This is a very important question that simply inferring from other data is simply never a good strategy. These are important factors. If this field wants to claim to be a scientific field that deals with stats, then make sure you do just that. I am not a fan of FSPS oriented program, I like the Ph.D. route myself along with a select amount of university-based Psy.D. programs. Other than that, regardless of my personal opinions on the matter, I would say that having outcome data on variables that I already mentioned are important. You may have evidence that FSPS are less focused on evidence-based therapies, but it really doesn't get down to the "cognitive" factors. Is it because they are too lazy to learn them? School is too lazy to teach them? School's faculty members not competent enough to teach them? Students admitted are of disabled background? etc. I could go on an on about possible reasons why you are seeing the performances in those measurements that you are making inferences from. The point is, your answer, as well as WiseNeuro's is...simply, no, no one has taken the time to construct such a study.

You may ask, "how will this help, what is its purpose." Great question! Let's take a look at disadvantaged backgrounds, they don't typically do well in many standardized settings, this is an example of a variable that is weeding out these types of applicants from a profession that they could have attained and been a contributing member of, but were not allowed to because of our current standards and methods of evaluations. Looking at how certain socio-economic devastated students become the first ones in generations to earn a college degree is important, quantifying this data to show progression or trend is important, especially for prospective students to find out programs that typically cater to or accept these types of students. Also, data looking at disabilities or minority status is important so that admissions committees can either implement alternative pathways of admissions for disadvantaged students or again, to at least provide that as public knowledge to the "consumer" so they know if a program is a good fit for them in those regards.

You are correct in asking what factors maximize or assist in the preparation for the practice of clinical psychology, however, you should also realize that every applicant is different, and not set up in the most fair of situations, especially for students who have had documented/diagnosed learning disabilities growing up, or come from a generation of family that did not value a college degree much less graduate school. These students certainly did not have a fair chance in life, but they are making the most out of what they can within the confines of our current infrastructure. I would much rather entertain this perspective as a scientist vs. the idea that all Psy.D. programs are terrible and all Psy.D students are "Wannabe" psychologists or, less-than Ph.D. psychologists. Simply put, it is a different pathway to attain the same goal of becoming a psychologist. If we want to criticize Psy.D. programs, do it on the merit of stringent, operationalized statistics and variables.

I scored a 13 on the ACT in high school, had a 2.5 GPA, on paper, I was a functional idiot (for lack of a better clinical term). Given this, if I didn't find alternative pathways to gaining admissions and succeeding in developing my brain, logical abilities, etc....I simply would be worse off than I am today. This is why you and others may see a resounding theme in many of my posts, I personally like to accentuate these issues because I have rarely seen them being fully discussed on this forum compared to other view points or topics. Simply saying "it's because it's not a problem" isn't the appropriate response I should think.

 

[WisNeuro]

Let's take a thought experiment on the "disadvantaged backgrounds" finding a home in these programs. Is saddling them with 200+k in debt, and reducing their job prospects and ability to pay that back really helping them? Or is it just further perpetuating the disadvantage?

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

Let's take a thought experiment on the "disadvantaged backgrounds" finding a home in these programs. Is saddling them with 200+k in debt, and reducing their job prospects and ability to pay that back really helping them? Or is it just further perpetuating the disadvantage?

I can appreciate the thought question...tricky . I would say that a person from a disadvantaged background should have the option to select whatever program path (Psy.D. or Ph.D.) they feel will allow them plausibly allow them to achieve their goals. I think we are at a point to where, these types of students recognize the potential debt they will get in but possibly feel it is worth the risk. Telling them they are stupid or mentally insane to select such a path because "you" wouldn't is never a good approach in "presenting the facts." So, would the net worth of being a psychologist be approx. $69K? If I took my undergrad diploma on my wall and priced its value at $50K, is that a good quantification? I think many of us have heard, no one can take education back from you, that there is no dollar amount to be given to a diploma (as much as fiscal conservatives or businessmen would like to think). To further answer your question, they are attaining a level of education that they probably would have NEVER gotten, the odds would be very much against them, they are also attaining a certainly level of job security vs. that of a office worker or retail worker.

I think much of the frustrations are towards the admissions component of applied psychology. Others would argue it's the training model, I would say that there are two viable options on the table for one to attain doctoral level education, to attain a profession that is very select. Medicine has the equivalent issue with the MD vs. DO, look at any stats (especially TSDMAS) and you will see stark contrasts in GPA and MCAT scores between applicant pool vs. matriculated. Traditionally, DO programs do provide a means to attain medical training to those who may not have the best odds for an MD program. Others go to a DO program for their different approach in teaching medicine. In psychology it seems, we are getting very much like the anti-immigrant nut jobs we are seeing on TV lately, essentially, resembling the famous photos we all used to see in high school history text books during our civil rights movements in the 50's, 60's and 70's. It seems like we get too caught up in looking at life from a "looking glass perspective" and fail to miss other components of life that are highly relevant.

 

[WisNeuro]

I can appreciate the thought question...tricky . I would say that a person from a disadvantaged background should have the option to select whatever program path (Psy.D. or Ph.D.) they feel will allow them plausibly allow them to achieve their goals. I think we are at a point to where, these types of students recognize the potential debt they will get in but possibly feel it is worth the risk.

I disagree, there are numerous data points that show that we, as a nation, actually have a very poor understanding of debt and finance. Put this on top of misleading, and in some cases blatantly false outcome reporting, and this leads to a situation where these people are being taken advantage of.

The MD/DO example is apples and oranges. In that case you are looking at a profession where there is an actual shortage of providers (especially in family med/gen pract and psychiatry) as opposed to a profession where no such shortage exists.

 

[MCParent]

I think we are at a point to where, these types of students recognize the potential debt they will get in but possibly feel it is worth the risk.

Economic research does not support this. Neither does simply looking at the world (e.g., mortgage crisis, student loan crisis).

that there is no dollar amount to be given to a diploma (as much as fiscal conservatives or businessmen would like to think).

Of course it can. I'm not sure how it is possible to think otherwise, other than a choice to be unaware of reality. Of course a degree in engineering is worth more money than a teaching degree, for example (and that has no special bearing on the social value of the degree or the skill of the degree-holder; a brilliant and gifted schoolteacher will still make less money than a mediocre engineer).

The diversity point is raised sometimes. It's not supported by APPIC data for internship applicants, for sexual orientation and race, at least. Coming from a low-SES background, I find it unfathomable that anyone who is not independently wealthy could afford to attend an unfunded program (and these programs are usually in VERY high cost of living areas, like SF, LA, Chicago, etc., further compounding the debt).

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

At the same time, you have qualified applicants being cut due to arbitrary standards. You are essentially saying that because psychology is not in demand like medicine, you should shift your dreams and goals elsewhere. Pretty simple decision for you to say that?

 

[MCParent]

You are essentially saying that because psychology is not in demand like medicine, you should shift your dreams and goals elsewhere. Pretty simple decision for you to say that?

Your posts are divested from reality, man. We'd be a nation of artists and astronauts if everyone chose a vocation based on their personal "dreams." This is foundational in vocational psychology; you should know this (i.e., the job might not be possible to get or get you everything you want, so get the "dream" though alternative means).

Dreams are not qualifications.

 

[erg923]

You are essentially saying that because psychology is not in demand like medicine, you should shift your dreams and goals elsewhere. Pretty simple decision for you to say that?

Actually, yes. Yes we are.

As a parent, one of my responsibilities is to balance my children’s wants with the demands of reality. I would hope that, as a father, I would not lead my son blindly into the night for the sake of his wants and "dreams." To do so would be an abrogation of my job as a father. Similarly, my advice to others is always balance of pursing dreams whist balancing reality. If I am truly invested in providing proper mentorship, whether to a student, a colleague or my children, I feel morally obligated to provide advice that maximizes the chances of obtaining an acceptable (accpetable to that person) end-goal. Sometime said end-goal is bit of a compromise. This is life.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

And I think that is where we differ. I can appreciate your parental perspective but disagree.

 

[erg923]

And I think that is where we differ. I can appreciate your parental perspective but disagree.

Cause you dont have children. When you do, it is likely your mind will change to some degree.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

This is true, but you were assuming I don't. I know many parents within my family who would take different approaches than this.

 

[erg923]

I know many parents within my family who would take different approaches than this.

Yes. Which is why we have individuals who thinks they can indeed do anything they want/set their mind to....and why we have "professional schools" that admit folks with 2.5 GPAs who dont mind going into irrational amounts of debt to accomplish said "dream." Its almost as if there are actually consequences to teaching children to think this way....

 

[erg923]

I also agree with Mike Parent that is actually essential that those going into this field understand this concept, as it IS one of the basis of the student personel movement, which then turned into the field of counseling psychology. This type of "pie-in-the-sky" attitidude does not work well in the therapy room, even for high functioning individuals.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

One thing I realize is, the system is not perfect, that despite many people's efforts in trying to accomplish a goal, good people get screwed all of the time. Most people will use some type of circular logic to brush it away or use it some semi-profound statement to explain the perpetuation of the system. I however believe that pointing out the flaws, challenging the normative standards of something is very important. I have a sociology degree, the best thing I may amount to with that on its own is to be a shift manager at Starbucks. The one thing I will teach my children is, there is always multiple paths to achieve a goal. When I scored the grades I did in high school and the ACT, I seriously doubted I would get into college, despite the fact that I was only going to be a music performance major. I managed to get around the system, I was able to play certain aspects of my application to my advantage because I recognized the disadvantages I had back then. It worked. It has also worked so far for me today in my current status as a graduate student. Many people apply to UTSW for jobs and rightfully so, it's one of the best institutions to be at. For the past 3 years I applied to random openings in psychiatry and always got the same bull**** email about 2 months later saying they went with another applicant. It's funny, after spending one year of free labor with them, they offer me a job and "open" it up on the website for formality reasons. I felt great that I got a job, but I felt like **** because somewhere else, another person is going to see this position open and take the time, resources, etc. to apply for this job knowing it's a sham. It is messed up, but we all live by this because that is what the system has taught us to do. The system has taught us that there are many loop holes to be had. You may disagree with that, but simply put, if you can't provide any formal references or studies that suggest otherwise, your opinion is just like mine.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

Yes. Which is why we have individuals who thinks they can indeed do anything they want/set their mind to....and why we have "professional schools" that admit folks with 2.5 GPAs who dont mind going into irrational amounts of debt to accomplish said "dream." Its almost as if there are actually consequences to teaching children to think this way....

Maybe you had a tight upbringing, I'm not sure, but I will say that most of what you said is again, based on opinion, nothing different from mine. I hate to break it to you, but maybe you are frustrated because you went the "designated pathway" and maybe you are getting pissed at people who aren't doing what you are doing. I would argue that maybe you don't have to deal with what "they" have to deal with, so they find means to accommodate that factor. You seem pretty elitist to me...I think many people would do good to take some sociology courses, it would really balance out the blatant arrogance in psychology.

 

[erg923]

One thing I realize is, the system is not perfect, that despite many people's efforts in trying to accomplish a goal, good people get screwed all of the time. Most people will use some type of circular logic to brush it away or use it some semi-profound statement to explain the perpetuation of the system. I however believe that pointing out the flaws, challenging the normative standards of something is very important. I have a sociology degree, the best thing I may amount to with that on its own is to be a shift manager at Starbucks. The one thing I will teach my children is, there is always multiple paths to achieve a goal. When I scored the grades I did in high school and the ACT, I seriously doubted I would get into college, despite the fact that I was only going to be a music performance major. I managed to get around the system, I was able to play certain aspects of my application to my advantage because I recognized the disadvantages I had back then. It worked. It has also worked so far for me today in my current status as a graduate student. Many people apply to UTSW for jobs and rightfully so, it's one of the best institutions to be at. For the past 3 years I applied to random openings in psychiatry and always got the same bull**** email about 2 months later saying they went with another applicant. It's funny, after spending one year of free labor with them, they offer me a job and "open" it up on the website for formality reasons. I felt great that I got a job, but I felt like **** because somewhere else, another person is going to see this position open and take the time, resources, etc. to apply for this job knowing it's a sham. It is messed up, but we all live by this because that is what the system has taught us to do. The system has taught us that there are many loop holes to be had. You may disagree with that, but simply put, if you can't provide any formal references or studies that suggest otherwise, your opinion is just like mine.

If the "flaw" your are speaking about is that not everyone gets the oppotunity to puruse a doctorate, then you are really just talking about life. Inequity in ability/achivment level is inevitable. Again, a basic fudamental element of psychology/vocational psychology. Bell curve.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

That would be a circular reasoning method...come on now, you should know better. Inequality is there, yes, that is a fact, but that doesn't mean it can't be changed. We operate in a system, systems for employment, systems for education, systems for finance, etc. All of these systems have flaws, many systems have been stacked for certain types of people, and others stacked against them. What you haven't addressed is the fact that there are more people than you care to accept that deal with these barriers on a daily basis. These are the people who you are saying "tough luck." That doesn't solve anything. It keeps those types of people in a submissive role.

 

[erg923]

Maybe you had a tight upbringing, I'm not sure, but I will say that most of what you said is again, based on opinion, nothing different from mine. I hate to break it to you, but maybe you are frustrated because you went the "designated pathway" and maybe you are getting pissed at people who aren't doing what you are doing. I would argue that maybe you don't have to deal with what "they" have to deal with, so they find means to accommodate that factor. You seem pretty elitist to me...I think many people would do good to take some sociology courses, it would really balance out the blatant arrogance in psychology.

I dont I know what "tight" means, but it was middle-class, grounded in reality, humility, morality, and personal accountability. Hardly anything out of the ordinary.

And going outside the "designated pathway" is fine. I encourage that. I thought you were the one that was arguing that compromise of dreams was a bad thing and not something you would do as a parent? I advocate various routes to accomplish ones dreams. The alternative routes might not come with the title of "psychologist" though. Sorry.

 

[erg923]

That would be a circular reasoning method...come on now, you should know better. Inequality is there, yes, that is a fact, but that doesn't mean it can't be changed. We operate in a system, systems for employment, systems for education, systems for finance, etc. All of these systems have flaws, many systems have been stacked for certain types of people, and others stacked against them. What you haven't addressed is the fact that there are more people than you care to accept that deal with these barriers on a daily basis. These are the people who you are saying "tough luck." That doesn't solve anything. It keeps those types of people in a submissive role.

What am I suppose to "solving" here? I am very lost...

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

I am an advocate for compromise, but for someone like me, tossing out a career in psychology is not one. You may have read other previous posts about my past as a classical musician. I already left one career for this, simply finding a third career is not an option I want to entertain right now. Personally, if I were unable to secure a spot in a Ph.D. program (which would be unfortunate), I would go the Psy.D. route, I would make sure that if I am about to spend $224K on a degree, it will be for a great "product." I would personally select programs at universities, that have some funding or at least higher APA match rates, even some that have a captive APA internship (like Widener). This does provide me a career that I may or may not have had. I suppose I could wait for 2-5 years to apply year after year for more Ph.D. programs and cross my fingers that it would be different from all the other times I applied. I am a terrible standardized test taker, that is something I have accepted and know I need to adapt to that. Personally speaking, I find education to be like a sport or dream, in addition to being a psychologist, the ability to attain the highest level of education (doctoral) is my personal goal, to know that out of 4 generations in my family, I secured that, I earned it.

Right now, the way it stands, I had zero help from my family, still have zero help from my family, my family didn't think to consider that their child would ever go to college. All of my accomplishments have been on my own. I didn't want to settle for working in an office from 9-5, I didn't want to work retail, I didn't want to spend a better part of 3/4 of my day doing something for someone else to benefit the most off of. I knew the old saying my mom told me, that if you don't want to work for someone else, you need to be your own boss. I'm not sure if many of you have worked other jobs, but I can tell you that personally, I would never want to work those again, and if you live in a free world like we do, you don't have to. A lot of the cards were stacked against me as a kid, and I am doing everything I can to achieve the ultimate goal of becoming a psychologist, not an LPC, not a social worker, a psychologist.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

I think it is safe to say, that neither you nor I are going to concede on our beliefs...I think we are both beating a dead horse. So, respectfully, I think we should take it in private or just leave the topic alone together, it has gotten way off topic, and I am to blame for that.

 

[erg923]

A lot of the cards were stacked against me as a kid, and I am doing everything I can to achieve the ultimate goal of becoming a psychologist, not an LPC, not a social worker, a psychologist.

And I would respectfully suggest that this inflexibility is exactly what I am trying to keep my children (and my professioal advisees) away from. It creates alot of anxiety. And the desperation that it produces is what keeps the professional school model going. If I can help save a person from that by getting them to look at the other side of the coin (so to speak), then I think that is valuable/honorable.

 

[R. Matey]

Thanks erg. I will look there. I am still curious in the OP's experience, though I haven't seen him/her post in a while.

 

[R. Matey]

oops...about, not in.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

In some ways, I like what Mike Rowe has said (or at least as was attributed to him in one of those hokey links that gets sent around on Facebook) about trying to find the "right" job:

Stop looking for the “right” career, and start looking for a job. Any job. Forget about what you like. Focus on what’s available. Get yourself hired. Show up early. Stay late. Volunteer for the scut work. Become indispensable. You can always quit later, and be no worse off than you are today. But don’t waste another year looking for a career that doesn’t exist. And most of all, stop worrying about your happiness. Happiness does not come from a job. It comes from knowing what you truly value, and behaving in a way that’s consistent with those beliefs.

I think this speaks, to some degree, to the, "you can do whatever you want as long as you put your mind to it" mentality. Can lots of people do lots of different things? Sure. But can every person do everything? No. Could I have ever been a successful professional musician? Eh, possibly, but odds are against it. Same goes if you asked if I could ever be a professional basketball player. Or a physicist. Sure, I could try to be a physicist. I could study my arse off in every class I took, but even if I really, really liked the subject matter and really, really wanted to do it, it's very likely it'd still never happen. And I wouldn't expect the world of physics to bend to my intense desire to be a physicist.

Now, do I think the current admissions system in psychology is perfect? No. But in my opinion, it works more often than it does not. Are there folks who may not look as strong via traditional metrics who would nonetheless make excellent psychologists? Definitely. And I think many do ultimately obtain admission to funded programs. But I think the problem with the current FSPS-type model, for example, is that the programs potentially accepting some of said students aren't offering them the same quality of training as "traditional" programs. When you have an incoming class of 100 and each one is paying $30k/year to you in tuition, there are some very intense pressures to keep those folks happy and enrolled; if you regularly failed, say, 1/2 to 1/3 of them (e.g., the numbers that won't match to accredited internships and/or won't pass the EPPP and get licensed), odds are they aren't going to keep sending in tuition, and new folks aren't going to be terribly motivated to come to your school. This could then very easily lead to an erosion in standards, which isn't fair to the students or to the field.

Others may of course disagree, and it's certainly possible I'm objectively wrong in some or all of my views. But those are how they currently stand.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

I wasn't talking about FSPS...I was personally referring to programs like Nova or Widener that are university based professional programs. As odd as it may seem, that is where I draw my line when I look at Psy.D. programs. Personally, I feel that those are a good fit in addition to the several Ph.D. programs in clinical and counseling psychology I like. I will still apply to them, but the likelihood of not getting in is more probable than not. Personally, I don't want to wait 5 years to keep on applying. The calculated endeavors (i.e. going into a master's, dedicating an entire year of not getting paid to be a grad research assistant) are sacrifices I have made that I personally feel are more than enough to be accommodating to Ph.D. programs that I will apply to. If in the event the admissions committee won't share my same beliefs on the sacrifices I have made, that is fine, but I can still achieve my goal of becoming a psychologist via the Psy.D. route. I am more than happy and willing to take on the debt if need be, living minimally for 5-7 years. I value things very differently than what you are Erg may value.

 

[erg923]

In some ways, I like what Mike Rowe has said (or at least as was attributed to him in one of those hokey links that gets sent around on Facebook) about trying to find the "right" job:



I think this speaks, to some degree, to the, "you can do whatever you want as long as you put your mind to it" mentality. Can lots of people do lots of different things? Sure. But can every person do everything? No. Could I have ever been a successful professional musician? Eh, possibly, but odds are against it. Same goes if you asked if I could ever be a professional basketball player. Or a physicist. Sure, I could try to be a physicist. I could study my arse off in every class I took, but even if I really, really liked the subject matter and really, really wanted to do it, it's very likely it'd still never happen. And I wouldn't expect the world of physics to bend to my intense desire to be a physicist.

Now, do I think the current admissions system in psychology is perfect? No. But in my opinion, it works more often than it does not. Are there folks who may not look as strong via traditional metrics who would nonetheless make excellent psychologists? Definitely. And I think many do ultimately obtain admission to funded programs. But I think the problem with the current FSPS-type model, for example, is that the programs potentially accepting some of said students aren't offering them the same quality of training as "traditional" programs. When you have an incoming class of 100 and each one is paying $30k/year to you in tuition, there are some very intense pressures to keep those folks happy and enrolled; if you regularly failed, say, 1/2 to 1/3 of them (e.g., the numbers that won't match to accredited internships and/or won't pass the EPPP and get licensed), odds are they aren't going to keep sending in tuition, and new folks aren't going to be terribly motivated to come to your school. This could then very easily lead to an erosion in standards, which isn't fair to the students or to the field.

Great point. My work envionment affects my happiness, not my work title.

Moreover, priorities change as we age. Most likley, at 50 you wont care wether you are "psychologist" or a "social worker".....only what impacts you are making.

And if you are anything like the average person, you will value your wife/husband, children, dog/cat, community, more than your "job" anyway.

 

[erg923]

I wasn't talking about FSPS...I was personally referring to programs like Nova or Widener that are university based professional programs. As odd as it may seem, that is where I draw my line when I look at Psy.D. programs. Personally, I feel that those are a good fit in addition to the several Ph.D. programs in clinical and counseling psychology I like. I will still apply to them, but the likelihood of not getting in is more probable than not. Personally, I don't want to wait 5 years to keep on applying. The calculated endeavors (i.e. going into a master's, dedicating an entire year of not getting paid to be a grad research assistant) are sacrifices I have made that I personally feel are more than enough to be accommodating to Ph.D. programs that I will apply to. If in the event the admissions committee won't share my same beliefs on the sacrifices I have made, that is fine, but I can still achieve my goal of becoming a psychologist via the Psy.D. route. I am more than happy and willing to take on the debt if need be, living minimally for 5-7 years. I value things very differently than what you are Erg may value.

Are you willing to concede that the desperation you have to gain the title "psychologist" keeps the professional school model in business?

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

I suppose I am not average, as a classical musician, my "identifier" was my career. Many people identify in many fashions, they are a wife, a mom, a dad, a psychologist, a fireman, a CEO, principle bass trombonist of XYZ orchestra, etc. For me, I identified with what I was infatuated with, studied for and dedicated my life towards. Granted, a lot has changed since then, one of the reasons I left that profession was to find more enriched meaning to life than just being consumed by my profession, but I do know that whatever job or career I decide to do, it needs to have multiple methods of meaning. Simply being a master' level researcher wouldnt give me the drive, prestige or satisfaction in life. I knew that whatever I do, I wanted to have the same level of strive I had as a musician and to also know that despite fluctuating markets, that my title or profession had much more value to me than what the quarterly earnings dictated.

I had orchestral jobs that paid $500 for a half hour, $4500 for 3 days a week of playing, sometimes it was a jazz gig that I got $200 and free beer. At the end of the day, I knew that I was enjoying what I did and that what I was doing was self fulfilling to me.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

Are you willing to concede that the desperation you have to gain the title "psychologist" keeps the professional school model in business?

Primary reason? Maybe, maybe not. Not sure if there is viable data to account for such a hypothesis. I think many people range from that mentality towards those who don't have geographic flexibility, they have had prior careers or poor academic backgrounds from ages ago (or even recently), these programs really do cater to the more non-traditional route of practicing psychology. Even going to Rutgers or Baylor is not the most traditional method of training a psychologist, at least under the "scientist-practioner" model, they train on the "scholar-practitioner" model.

So...I semi-concede?

 

[erg923]

but I do know that whatever job or career I decide to do, it needs to have multiple methods of meaning. Simply being a master' level researcher wouldnt give me the drive, prestige or satisfaction in life.

Just be careful and mindful, thats all. Its much like the desire for "wealth." You cant take any of that with you.

I recall that when John D. Rockefeller was a young man, he asked a Quaker what he should do with his life. The quaker responded: "You should make as much money as you can....then give it all away."

There is much value if you think carefully about that message and what it actually is trying to convey.

 

[WisNeuro]

I don't see that rationale when it comes to certain places, i.e., the Alliant's and Argosy's, where you may be a "Psychologist" but it is in name only. You say you want it to be meaningful, but how is poor training meaningful?

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

I suppose the most frustrating part of the whole Psy.D. vs. Ph.D. is, I know that I have the abilities to succeed in either type of program. I have had some great research experience, publications as second author for some prominent neuropsych. journals, several posters at NAN in my first semester alone of graduate school. I made A's in all of my neuro courses, all of these indicate that I can learn the material, I can function within both training models...but it boils down to being given that opportunity to do so.

I remember last month, my mentor told me "there is a reason I waited a year until we put you into the position as psychometrist." I was able to prove myself in many capacities amongst many different departments as an unpaid GRA this past year. Finally, the fruits of my labors paid off with being hired on as a psychometrist for the Department of Neurology. Considering where I have come from, my undergraduate experience and lack of any formal research experience prior to all this, I have been attaining my goals.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I don't see that rationale when it comes to certain places, i.e., the Alliant's and Argosy's, where you may be a "Psychologist" but it is in name only. You say you want it to be meaningful, but how is poor training meaningful?

I think Cogneuro already stated that he does not want to go to a program such as that so what is the point in this statement other than to fan the flames?

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

I don't see that rationale when it comes to certain places, i.e., the Alliant's and Argosy's, where you may be a "Psychologist" but it is in name only. You say you want it to be meaningful, but how is poor training meaningful?

I think if you check my posts, you will find I am not personally a proponent for FSPS programs. I am more interested in university-based programs (Indianapolis, Denver, Pacific, Widener, Nova). Out of all of the possible Psy.D. programs available, I found those to be the better selections if I go down that route. I will disburse my applications to a pretty even distribution of Psy.D. and Ph.D. (counseling and clinical). I am significantly raising my odds, providing a range of lower end, mild and high end programs.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I wasn't talking about FSPS...I was personally referring to programs like Nova or Widener that are university based professional programs. As odd as it may seem, that is where I draw my line when I look at Psy.D. programs. Personally, I feel that those are a good fit in addition to the several Ph.D. programs in clinical and counseling psychology I like. I will still apply to them, but the likelihood of not getting in is more probable than not. Personally, I don't want to wait 5 years to keep on applying. The calculated endeavors (i.e. going into a master's, dedicating an entire year of not getting paid to be a grad research assistant) are sacrifices I have made that I personally feel are more than enough to be accommodating to Ph.D. programs that I will apply to. If in the event the admissions committee won't share my same beliefs on the sacrifices I have made, that is fine, but I can still achieve my goal of becoming a psychologist via the Psy.D. route. I am more than happy and willing to take on the debt if need be, living minimally for 5-7 years. I value things very differently than what you are Erg may value.

I was speaking more in general terms with my post than to your specific situation. I've mentioned before that I don't know if I necessarily see the need for the Psy.D. degree, but I don't have a problem with the degree in and of itself. Rather, I just take issue with the handful of schools that really do the profession a disservice.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think Cogneuro already stated that he does not want to go to a program such as that so what is the point in this statement other than to fan the flames?

The quote "If in the event the admissions committee won't share my same beliefs on the sacrifices I have made, that is fine, but I can still achieve my goal of becoming a psychologist via the Psy.D. route" made it appear that if he didn't make it into one of the reputable PsyD's that he would avail himself of any means possible.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

I agree, there are programs that exist for more devious reasons. I know that if I could not be accepted at any of the Ph.D. or Psy.D. programs I am personally applying to, that I will need to revisit my strategy. I think the first go of applications should provide a pretty broad range of attack, and I will curtail future "attacks" accordingly, hopefully with some feedback from programs that provide it (I know many programs don't).

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

The quote "If in the event the admissions committee won't share my same beliefs on the sacrifices I have made, that is fine, but I can still achieve my goal of becoming a psychologist via the Psy.D. route" made it appear that if he didn't make it into one of the reputable PsyD's that he would avail himself of any means possible.

Not at all. Many of my posts have accentuated the Psy.D. model, but only insofar of the university based/ university professional programs. If I fail to achieve my goal from this angle, I will revisit my strategies accordingly. One rule I have for myself, is that I won't apply to a FSPS program.

 

[WisNeuro]

I can get on board with that, I have no problem with the handful of reputable sites, just hate the diploma mills. Although I think the distinction is irrelevant today as many PhD programs are balanced programs, so the PsyD model doesn't really serve a purpose anymore.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

Right. I would still have the issue of having the "odds" against me tho. There are several Ph.D. programs that I really like (Illinois Institute of Tech. is one of them, so is TWU's counseling psychology Ph.D.). I know that in all reality, the likelihood of getting in is very very slim, even with middle of the road stats.
I think many Psy.D. programs are becoming a better option for those who have less than stellar stats, because you had mentioned, the training modalities are evolving and have taken on preparing psychologists in a more clinical way vs. heavy research. (e.g. being more balanced).

I will admit tho, I have not seen many programs as such, I have excluded Northwestern, Columbia and other high end schools simply because I don't have a 3.78+ GPA, I don't have remotely an average GRE and I have a sociology major. I recognize my limitations and play my cards accordingly.

 

[WisNeuro]

If you do a poll here on SDN, I bet we could get dozens of people with suggestions of the balanced programs. Many exist, it's just that people have a misconception about the degree.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

If you do a poll here on SDN, I bet we could get dozens of people with suggestions of the balanced programs. Many exist, it's just that people have a misconception about the degree.

There are definitely more balanced programs than when I looked 10+ years ago.

 

[R. Matey]

I am doing everything I can to achieve the ultimate goal of becoming a psychologist, not an LPC, not a social worker, a psychologist.

I can understand and empathize with this position. I'm currently a licensed mid level provider and have since learned its not all cake and cherries. Yes, it's true. You CAN do psychotherapy, BUT it comes at its own set of costs in terms of closed insurance panels, low wages, and a dearth of job opportunities between CMHCs and private practice. It is seen in circles in my area that a PhD/PsyD is the gold standard of mental health training unless you are interested in psychiatry. I can't even begin to count how many mid-levels tell me they wished they had "gone on" for more training (BTW, the M.A. in Counseling has been ranked one of the worst master's degrees by Forbes magazine. Something that should probably be paid attention to given how often potential Psy.D. applicants are steered towards this option on these forums).

I can understand the level of professional identity associated for being a psychologist, ultimately it seems like you have to weigh whether this sense of identity is worth a significant amount of financial hardship or the potential rejection you will face from funded programs. If you find that it is worth it to take on a substantial amount of debt (as I know Pacific and Denver are unfunded and very expensive programs) for that sense of professional identity, know that there will always be those who disagree with you. I'd recommend the article below for thoughts on education investments.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/06/08/the-best-and-worst-masters-degrees-for-jobs-2/