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.
R. Matey said:
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/
Click to expand...

R. Matey, your modesty and candor is as refreshing as cab1234's for starting this thread. I'm sure it is much appreciated by many. :)
Members don't see this ad.
 
But R.Matey really hit on a point I was going to mention. You have to question the internal expectations you have about what the Phd will do for you,(maybe it will give you better confidence, self-esteem, a feeling of accomplishment, but MAYBE NOT) and the external expectation (how you expect others to view you after the accomplishment). Then you have to consider if your view of the work day-to-day is close to what you had imagined as well..if it isn't you won't be happy.

So at the end of the day, if you are going the professional school route to get the "Dr" and "Psychologist" tag for the reputation and respect it may garner in your professional life, don't be surprised if you get judged for where you went to school/and the debt that you incured. And even then, if you did everything right, and went to the best school, some will say that you aren't a "real" doctor.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I think many previous posters have stated in other related topics, that once a professional is practicing psychology amongst their peers, the Psy.D. vs. Ph.D. title won't be an issue.
 
Credential checking is important, but simply generalizing all people with "Psy.D" after their name makes them inherently inferior to any other Ph.D. applicant would not be the best practice.

No argument here for credential checking.
 
what about those who come from Nova, Pacific, Widener? They are university-based professional programs.
 
psycscientist said:
I don't generalize people with a Psy.D. But I do look up where that Psy.D. is from, and if it's a professional school, I'm not referring. I don't want potential students to be misled into thinking that once they get their degrees, no one will ever know it came from a diploma-mill.
Click to expand...

While I don't think highly of people from professional schools, I don't automatically assume they are not worth referring to; I like to talk to people first before I pass judgement - seems like the logical and ethical thing to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
CogNeuroGuy said:
what about those who come from Nova, Pacific, Widener? They are university-based professional programs.
Click to expand...

I have met and worked with several psychologists from Pacific. I also have a friend attending the Psy.D. program there. I have met both decent practitioners and very bad psychologists from Pacific. I attended an interview there, was accepted, and turned it down for funding reasons. Had I known then what I know now about Psy.D. programs I wouldn't have bothered applying in the first place. They admit a large cohort (50+) and have several "tracks" within the program: Bilingual, Neuropsychology, Forensic, and Health, I think. Students who I've talked to from that program tell me that the track programs are built within the general Psy.D. program and are competitive. They only take three students per year. Those who are lucky enough to "track" (it's a verb there) have a much easier time getting dissertation chairs than those who choose to remain in the generalist program. At the interview, I asked the faculty how they were fostering relationships with students who chose the remain within the generalist program, and they admitted this was an area much needed for improvement though they were quite contentious about this during the interview. Someone else asked the faculty about the cohort size, and they admitted this was primarily so they could maintain their budget. To me, these were red flags. At the end of the interview day, there was a writing assignment in which the students are asked to hand write in pencil why they feel they would be a good fit for the program. I essentially wrote that I didn't feel I would be a great fit and please consider my application withdrawn. However, I was still admitted to the program!! To me this was the final nail in the coffin.

My point is not all university-based programs are created equal. IMO, Pacific was operating very similar to a FSPS though under the guise of the university. Like I mentioned previously, I have known decent psychologists from Pacific, but I would chalk that up individual factors (such as the OP and others who have had successes in their Psy.D. programs) of those who are a few SDs above the mean. However, I think most of those who have been successful in Psy.D. programs worked very hard, were innovative, and were lucky. A university affiliation is not a rubber stamp of quality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
R. Matey said:
I have met and worked with several psychologists from Pacific. I also have a friend attending the Psy.D. program there. I have met both decent practitioners and very bad psychologists from Pacific. I attended an interview there, was accepted, and turned it down for funding reasons. Had I known then what I know now about Psy.D. programs I wouldn't have bothered applying in the first place. They admit a large cohort (50+) and have several "tracks" within the program: Bilingual, Neuropsychology, Forensic, and Health, I think. Students who I've talked to from that program tell me that the track programs are built within the general Psy.D. program and are competitive. They only take three students per year. Those who are lucky enough to "track" (it's a verb there) have a much easier time getting dissertation chairs than those who choose to remain in the generalist program. At the interview, I asked the faculty how they were fostering relationships with students who chose the remain within the generalist program, and they admitted this was an area much needed for improvement though they were quite contentious about this during the interview. Someone else asked the faculty about the cohort size, and they admitted this was primarily so they could maintain their budget. To me, these were red flags. At the end of the interview day, there was a writing assignment in which the students are asked to hand write in pencil why they feel they would be a good fit for the program. I essentially wrote that I didn't feel I would be a great fit and please consider my application withdrawn. However, I was still admitted to the program!! To me this was the final nail in the coffin.

My point is not all university-based programs are created equal. IMO, Pacific was operating very similar to a FSPS though under the guise of the university. Like I mentioned previously, I have known decent psychologists from Pacific, but I would chalk that up individual factors (such as the OP and others who have had successes in their Psy.D. programs) of those who are a few SDs above the mean. However, I think most of those who have been successful in Psy.D. programs worked very hard, were innovative, and were lucky. A university affiliation is not a rubber stamp of quality.
Click to expand...
 
Listen, psychology is a diverse field. The APA, our governing body, recognizes a wide variety of theoretical approaches. This is a source of great consternation to some; the world would be simpler if we could all agree on one theoretical orientation or a unitary training model. But this is not the world we live in. Even within theoretical orientations, while there is overall homogeneity, we all know of "expert" colleagues who disagree violently with one another.

As students or early career psychologists, there is a natural tendency to try to identify with the one true path up the mountain. However, the further along you get in your career, you will see that you have been a victim to a kind of myopia. Other perspectives exist and the world is a richer place for it.

The fact is that the APA recognizes graduates of FSPS's as peers to graduates of top PhD programs. No better, no worse. This fact is extraordinarily frustrating to people early in their career who are trying to define themselves by the things they identify with, but most senior clinicians outgrow this mindset and learn to appreciate individuals for what they bring to the table.

Yes, there are some people who will go their entire lives casting aspersions at FSPS's. Some of them belong to APS, which, by the way, also has problems with APA as a whole and would like to change the entire accreditation process. Then, on the other end of the spectrum perhaps, there are psychoanalytically-trained senior clinicians who have watched the development of "evidence-based" practices with healthy skepticism and don't put a lot of stock in the training models of top PhD programs that emphasize cookie-cutter cognitive-behavioral treatments.

As psychologists, our very profession is endangered by the harsh realities of the current U.S. health care system. Payments are down, organizations are hiring cheaper Master's-level clinicians, and the fee-for-service model may soon be a thing of the past. I think it's crucial that we find solidarity if we are to continue to exist. We need to seek our commonalities if we are to survive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Peacemaker36 said:
The fact is that the APA recognizes graduates of FSPS's as peers to graduates of top PhD programs. No better, no worse. This fact is extraordinarily frustrating to people early in their career who are trying to define themselves by the things they identify with, but most senior clinicians outgrow this mindset and learn to appreciate individuals for what they bring to the table.


As psychologists, our very profession is endangered by the harsh realities of the current U.S. health care system. Payments are down, organizations are hiring cheaper Master's-level clinicians, and the fee-for-service model may soon be a thing of the past. I think it's crucial that we find solidarity if we are to continue to exist. We need to seek our commonalities if we are to survive.
Click to expand...

It would be a relevant fact if money did not come into the picture and if places like Argosy and Alliant didn't heavily sponsor APA. And, talking about payments down, students from these programs taking unpaid internships/postdocs and subsequently lower paying positions out of desperation is not helping. Solidarity doesn't help if it is embracing one of the roots of the problem in the first place.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I agree with WisNeuro. While I don't think there's "one best" training path, I do think that there are currently paths that are demonstrably subpar, despite APA recognizing those paths as equivalent. What that says to me is that APA has it wrong, at least in my opinion. That, and/or the programs in question were originally accredited at a time when they offered a better product, but that economic forces have driven down said quality over time. Having seen the very real adverse effects that can be had by the work turned out by poorly-trained clinicians, and having interviewed and reviewed applications from folks attending these programs, I just can't support those models.

That being said, I also agree that psychology as a whole needs greater solidarity, and greater interest in supporting professional advocacy (whether through time/effort, money, or both). Particularly once we're able to significantly decrease the variability in the quality of our training programs, regardless of the particular methods they use.
 
Therapist4Chnge said:
*pokes*

:laugh:

Quality can vary quite a bit, though it tends to be better in neuro and health than anything else.
Click to expand...

Granted my n is small, the PhD track candidates have been fairly solid. Seems like it's a vastly different path between the two. One just look solidly better on paper from the apps I've seen
 
CogNeuroGuy said:
The fact is that the APA recognizes graduates of FSPS's as peers to graduates of top PhD programs. No better, no worse.
Click to expand...

Thats just plain sloppy thinking. Denying variability in product quality because they all have a "stamp of approval?!"
 
Last edited:
WisNeuro said:
Granted my n is small, the PhD track candidates have been fairly solid. Seems like it's a vastly different path between the two. One just look solidly better on paper from the apps I've seen
Click to expand...
It's a fair point, as the vast majority of students who I've seen complete the neuropsych training there are Ph.D. students (or transfer from the Psy.D. program) bc the neuropsych training requirements require upper-level stats courses and a few other things that are not requirements in the Psy.D. program.

It is still very much a mixed bag because they regularly get students into UOHSC, Vanderbilt Consortium, Boston Consortium, etc. (and equally prestigious fellowships), though they also have other students who struggle to secure solid training. The variability will always be an Achilles' heel unless they shrink the overall cohort like they have promised for 10+ yrs.
 
erg923 said:
Thats just plain sloppy thinking. Denying variability in product quality because they all have a "stamp of approval?!"
Click to expand...

I never said that....I was looking for that original post, and I couldn't find that. Maybe you quoted the wrong piece of text from someone else's argument.
 
I found it! Peacemaker36 said that...not me, you pressed your quote button and somehow got me mixed in there.
 
I agree with some of the points that Peacemaker made and not only the APA thinks of us as equivalent so do other professionals and the general public. I have made the point several times that when we criticize other psychologists credentials we risk damage to our profession as a whole. That does not mean that we should not continue to advocate for high standards and try to resolve the FSPS dilemma that could undermine our credibility even more than we have already done to ourselves even before the advent of professional schools.

Also, I wouldn't automatically assume that a colleague is a good referral regardless of degree or school without at least having lunch with them first and I am pretty clear with patients that I refer how much I know about the referrals work and my sources for that knowledge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
"No better, no worse" is really an inaccurate statement when there is overwhelming evidence that they (FSPSs) are worse.

And, "In the eyes of APA"...well who gives a **** about that? They aren't measuring skills or outcomes. APA accredidation is granted when you meet minimum bars and your curriculum adheres to certain core elements, thats all. They brought up a couple good points, but that statement was certainly not one of them.
 
I think it's perfectly fine to criticize credentials when it comes to patient care. If I've seen someone's work in neuropsych, and it was clear they do not have the background to do the work and the place they came from does not have the infrastructure to treat that, they should be criticized. Patient care comes first. It'd be more damage to the profession to stand up for that person.
 
His statement was accurate in that the APA sees them as the same. That is how I read it. Who gives a ****? Anyone who supports the importance of APA accredited internships does. I don't want to be seen as defending FSPS, but arguments based on misread or misstated premises aren't useful.
 
cab1234 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Cab, I've already got an MA. And yes, I'm hoping the PsyD will allow me possibilities for conducting assessments, and hopefully some teaching and research, GIVEN my experience already. As I said, I'm hoping to pursue the Trifecta (teaching/research/practice), not just therapy.
 
livingtemple said:
Cab, I've already got an MA. And yes, I'm hoping the PsyD will allow me possibilities for conducting assessments, and hopefully some teaching and research, GIVEN my experience already. As I said, I'm hoping to pursue the Trifecta (teaching/research/practice), not just therapy.
Click to expand...

The viability of this really depends on how your are thinking about each one. Is it possible, yes, of course, but chances one of those will be your full-time job and the others will be side gigs that come and go, wax and wane over time. I do all three of these in my VA staff psych position of you count prac student supervision (and occasional lectures to psychiatry residents) as "teaching", and clinic outcome/utilization research (nothing I am publishing or presenting at the moment) as "research."
 
All of the anti-PsyD and anti-professional school BS is directed at the wrong people. We should be more concerned about the masters level therapists who have unquestionably less training (up to licensure) and the same basic licensure. But you guys fight amongst yourselves if you want.
 
Last edited:
Psyman,

Masters level practitioners are, well, masters level practitioners, right? They actually don't have the same licensure nor do they have the same scope of practice as psychologists. Thus, I am inordinately more concerned about those who have doctorates but lack doctoral skills and knowledge than those with master degrees that claim and posess master level skills. Make sense?

Doctoral level clinical psychological scientists are trainers and dissemenators of the science to various service delivery agents. Many first order mental health professionals are masters level. This has been true for decades and decades. What's the problem? Psychologists don't own the therapy market and they never have.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Psyman,

How can a rationale graduate student look at the objective data provided here and claim that that it's "BS" or that they "don't get it" (the objection and concerns).

I am truly asking this question (not trying to be provocative) and would like you to articulate this.
 
Last edited:
Master's level folks are a lot less of a threat if you weren't trained like one.

Generally speaking, I don't want their job and they don't want my job. We have some overlapping skillsets, but that's about it.
 
Ollie123 said:
Master's level folks are a lot less of a threat if you weren't trained like one.

Generally speaking, I don't want their job and they don't want my job. We have some overlapping skillsets, but that's about it.
Click to expand...
Really? Please elaborate your perspective on this. I myself see encroachment from mid-levels throughout the healthcare system. Why pay for a doctor when X is good enough? There is a thread on School Neuropsychologists that addresses this specific issue.

On a related point, I don't know how we would answer this question as it would be incredibly difficult to research, but it appears that there is a specific question that is being alluded to in this thread. Which is more of a problem or threat to the profession of being a psychologist, the professional schools or encroachment? Alongside that is another question that is even more philosophical, why can't both of these be problems?
 
Note that I chose my words carefully - less of a threat is not synonymous with "Not even slightly a problem at all". Of course its a concern and we need to be cautious and fight to uphold professional standards. That said - my training provides me with options. The Argosy PsyDs I know are basically qualified to be...therapists. The program seems to prepare them for little beyond doing therapy all day, every day. That's fine, but that makes it very difficult to differentiate yourself from a mid-level. There is a reason many of us harp on research experience and all the other training experiences that are part of the typical university PhD curriculum. I'm not a one-trick pony and that invariably opens doors. I'm on an academic path, but even if I were not I would not be pursuing a sort of career where the only thing to set me apart from a mid-level is "Maybe I'm a little better at therapy because I've had more training".

I do think encroachment is an issue, though my concerns are generally more from an ethical standpoint (people overstepping what they are adequately trained to do) than a genuine concern for my own future. It certainly happens throughout healthcare, but as erg indicated I'm not convinced it is universally a bad thing. Does a physician need to be involved with every single sinus/ear infection? Probably not. It inflates healthcare costs to do so and is not a good use of resources. Are there situations where it is worth getting physicians involved, even with sinus/ear infections? Absolutely. I adopt a similar framework for thinking about mental health. If an individual with lower degree can be appropriately trained to do something...great! That doesn't always happen and that is where my concerns are...but my concerns with professional schools is that I don't think its always happening at the doctoral level either. Generally speaking, Argosy PsyD training seems much closer to an LCSW program than to a clinical science psychology PhD. To me, these are related issues - the more blatantly discrepant the training, the more difficult it is to make a case for encroachment. If we really want to stop encroachment, we need to stop blurring our standards for what constitutes a doctorate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
smalltownpsych said:
I myself see encroachment from mid-levels throughout the healthcare system. Why pay for a doctor when X is good enough? There is a thread on School Neuropsychologists that addresses this specific issue.
Click to expand...

As the original poster of that "school neuropsychologist" (in quotes bc it is a made up title that shouldn't exist in the real world) I agree that there is encroachment, but they are just one of many examples of problematic encroachment. For me personally it bothers me that there are other professions pretending to be neuropsychologists, but it honestly doesn't impact me or my colleagues with day-to-day work. I'll never compete directly with them or other mid-levels trying to practice outside of their scope, but that doesn't mean I want the encroachment to proliferate.
 
Ollie123 said:
...To me, these are related issues - the more blatantly discrepant the training, the more difficult it is to make a case for encroachment. If we really want to stop encroachment, we need to stop blurring our standards for what constitutes a doctorate.
Click to expand...

This point in particular is one that resonates strongly with me. We generally understand that where one obtains their degree can significantly impact the type and quality of training they've received (to a much larger degree than is present with, say, physicians). However, most other professionals don't know and/or don't care; if their modal interaction with psychologists ends up being with folks who are poorly trained, they'll A) likely assume most/all psychologists are the same, and B) wonder why an LCSW/MFT/LPC couldn't do the same job (because in reality, the psychologist may be functioning in a role more similar to a masters-level provider than a psychologist for the reasons Ollie's mentioned). This is why it's important to address these issues internally, because it's our responsibility, and because no one else will be motivated to do so. If we turn out increasing numbers of inadequately/inappropriately/poorly-trained psychologists, the line between doctoral-level and various other mental health providers will continue to be blurred, which then hurts the profession as a whole.
 
Ollie123 said:
Note that I chose my words carefully - less of a threat is not synonymous with "Not even slightly a problem at all". Of course its a concern and we need to be cautious and fight to uphold professional standards. That said - my training provides me with options. The Argosy PsyDs I know are basically qualified to be...therapists. The program seems to prepare them for little beyond doing therapy all day, every day. That's fine, but that makes it very difficult to differentiate yourself from a mid-level. There is a reason many of us harp on research experience and all the other training experiences that are part of the typical university PhD curriculum. I'm not a one-trick pony and that invariably opens doors. I'm on an academic path, but even if I were not I would not be pursuing a sort of career where the only thing to set me apart from a mid-level is "Maybe I'm a little better at therapy because I've had more training".

I do think encroachment is an issue, though my concerns are generally more from an ethical standpoint (people overstepping what they are adequately trained to do) than a genuine concern for my own future. It certainly happens throughout healthcare, but as erg indicated I'm not convinced it is universally a bad thing. Does a physician need to be involved with every single sinus/ear infection? Probably not. It inflates healthcare costs to do so and is not a good use of resources. Are there situations where it is worth getting physicians involved, even with sinus/ear infections? Absolutely. I adopt a similar framework for thinking about mental health. If an individual with lower degree can be appropriately trained to do something...great! That doesn't always happen and that is where my concerns are...but my concerns with professional schools is that I don't think its always happening at the doctoral level either. Generally speaking, Argosy PsyD training seems much closer to an LCSW program than to a clinical science psychology PhD. To me, these are related issues - the more blatantly discrepant the training, the more difficult it is to make a case for encroachment. If we really want to stop encroachment, we need to stop blurring our standards for what constitutes a doctorate.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of what you have said and I do believe upholding standards is a key to promoting psychology. My perspective is that a well-trained and credentialed psychologist is well-suited to supervise Master's level people and that has been something I have done in the past. Our knowledge of research, assessment, supervision, program development, and law and ethics along with extra experience in providing psychotherapy gives us a distinct edge over the mid-levels. Unfortunately, I see many places hiring only LPC's and not having a psychologist anywhere in sight. Fortunately, the companies I have been working for see the value that a psychologist brings, but I fear that is the exception rather than the rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
One more point I want to make about this is that in order to be effective in upholding standards, it would probably be a good strategy to stop the hyperbole and overgeneralizing about the graduates of professional schools. As a graduate of a decent professional school myself (non-FSPS), I am on the side of maintaining higher standards for our profession and as somoeone who has conducted research and even taught Research Methods to undergrads, I also see the value of the scientific mindset. However, when I feel my degree is being attacked, derided, or excluded by those who made it through the fully-funded PhD hoop, then I start to question where my energies should be placed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
erg923 said:
Psyman,

How can a rationale graduate student look at the objective data provided here and claim that that it's "BS" or that they "don't get it" (the objection and concerns).

I am truly asking this question (not trying to be provocative) and would like you to articulate this.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you guys or the data. Some programs are behind in training and produce graduates ill-prepared. That does seem evident.

smalltownpsych said:
One more point I want to make about this is that in order to be effective in upholding standards, it would probably be a good strategy to stop the hyperbole and overgeneralizing about the graduates of professional schools. As a graduate of a decent professional school myself (non-FSPS), I am on the side of maintaining higher standards for our profession and as somoeone who has conducted research and even taught Research Methods to undergrads, I also see the value of the scientific mindset. However, when I feel my degree is being attacked, derided, or excluded by those who made it through the fully-funded PhD hoop, then I start to question where my energies should be placed.
Click to expand...

In terms of clinical work, this is what I'm referring to also. Why hire a psychologist when I can hire a LMHC or LPC?

Why are you guys so worried about the PsyDs and/or FSPS graduates when you view them as inferior? If they are that, then they are no threat to you. If you're going to bang on PsyDs, at least throw some hate toward the masters level crowd who are more deserving. They DO compete with us for clinical jobs and DO have the same licensure.

WisNeuro said:
Cognitive dissonance?
Click to expand...

These are the kind of remarks that remind me why I only visit this board every 12 months or so.
 
Last edited:
psyman said:
I'm not disagreeing with you guys or the data. Some programs are behind in training and produce graduates ill-prepared. That does seem evident.



In terms of clinical work, this is what I'm referring to also. Why hire a psychologist when I can hire a LMHC or LPC?

Why are you guys so worried about the PsyDs and/or FSPS graduates when you view them as inferior? If they are that, then they are no threat to you. If you're going to bang on PsyDs, at least throw some hate toward the masters level crowd who are more deserving. They DO compete with us for clinical jobs and DO have the same licensure.



These are the kind of remarks that remind me why I only visit this board every 12 months or so.
Click to expand...


Agreed on the first point, and it relates to my answer to your question in the second. Masters-level folks are differentiated from doctoral-level providers quite easily by their degree type. Conversely, when you have poorly-trained psychologists (and this does not apply to all FSPS graduates, and certainly not all PsyD holders), there's very little if any way for an outside observer to differentiate between them and other psychologists. As such, just based on heuristics, they'll end up lumped together with "psychologists" in folks' minds, and because they may not (as was pointed out above) be truly trained for much more than a masters-level position, this type of role then gets extended to all psychologists. Add on staggering amounts of debt, and there's added economic pressure to take the dreaded "Psychologist/LCSW/MFT/LPC" type of position, which further waters down others' views of what psychologists are and can do.

Thus, even if you, I, or someone else may not necessarily feel "threatened" directly, the field as a whole takes a hit.
 
psyman said:
I'm not disagreeing with you guys or the data. Some programs are behind in training and produce graduates ill-prepared. That does seem evident.



In terms of clinical work, this is what I'm referring to also. Why hire a psychologist when I can hire a LMHC or LPC?

Why are you guys so worried about the PsyDs and/or FSPS graduates when you view them as inferior? If they are that, then they are no threat to you. If you're going to bang on PsyDs, at least throw some hate toward the masters level crowd who are more deserving. They DO compete with us for clinical jobs and DO have the same licensure.



These are the kind of remarks that remind me why I only visit this board every 12 months or so.
Click to expand...

I think it was made abundantly clear that the threat is not personal, but one of aggregate harm to the field, by deluding what the doctoral level psychologist is.

They only compete with your jobs if you are trained for the same job (but maybe have 2 more practica), as Ollie pointed out, right? I think you are unknowingly arguing for why the FSPS Psy.D. is becoming a bit out dated, no? If all you want to do is clinical service (therapy) delivery, then I can def see why an employer would ask that question and chose the cheaper option. Cant you? I have had 3 jobs since my ph.d and not one of them could have been done by LCSW (yes, 2 out of the 3 were clinical jobs). So, I suppose the question is: Why did you not acquire an explicit skill set that differentiates you from an LCSW out in the job market?

If you don't like the blending of roles, then make sure you get different (not just longer) training.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
From what I had seen at my time at the El Paso, Texas V.A, with the exception of the C&P Department which had a neuropsychologist, the job duties of the staff psychologists were identical to LPCs and LCSWs: Assessments, Evidence Based Treaetments, Psychotherapy. Am I missing something about how our skill sets are different?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
edieb said:
From what I had seen at my time at the El Paso, Texas V.A, with the exception of the C&P Department which had a neuropsychologist, the job duties of the staff psychologists were identical to LPCs and LCSWs: Assessments, Evidence Based Treaetments, Psychotherapy. Am I missing something about how our skill sets are different?
Click to expand...

I think there is some blending in some clinics (i.e., general mental health) within the VA. A little more than I would like at times, but again, I see no reason why a solid masters-level therapist cant learn a CBT-I protocol. But, as spoke of earlier, those are not the types of jobs I applied to. I am in a specialty program, of which only psychologist are utilized for their training in health psychology knowledge and service delivery, program development/research, and student training.
 
Last edited:
Briefly and quickly adding to this: it's a somewhat small point, but the only folks I've seen conducting MH initial/intake evaluations (as opposed to psychosocials) at both VAs at which I've worked are either psychologists or psychiatrists.

Edit: Psychologists (and psychiatrists, depending) are also the only folks I've seen leading treatment teams. Although again, N=only 2 VAs in my case.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

mypointlesspov
Professional Orgs with Good Perks?
Replies
3
Views
463
Sanman
Sanman
T
Current client wants to join a book club I am running on my recent book
Replies
6
Views
710
PsyDr
PsyDr
N
Recent NPsych Listserv Post Annoyed Me
Replies
12
Views
894
boomshakalaka
B
Mr.Smile12
NIH Graduate/Professional School Virtual Fair 2022
Replies
0
Views
313
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
oathkeeper
Post Graduate Certification
Replies
1
Views
358
WisNeuro
WisNeuro
Top