Clinical psychologist with over 200k in debt

[erg923]

Agreed. This simply comes down to standard of living. This is more important to some than to others. For some, doing the work is the standard, and for others it's living comfortably while doing meaningful work. I rarely see this acknowledged in the many discussions about this topic. The assumption that it is not rational ignores other values driving these decisions. Are there those who didn't think through the ramifications of taking on such debt, but there are those who have and are leading enjoyable lives.

Of course it does. However, I would also argue there is an element of maturity and critical thinking involved, and on this board, we often see posters who are simply obstinate about the fact that this would create very real hardships given their expectant lifestyle and/or expectations. The most recent poster is much more open, but still maintains an element of :I want to do this (crazy debt) and have this and that (vacations every summer). I maintain that I was raised in fairly well to do family specifically because my parent had a balanced view of what there financial reality based on there choices.

Will this make me a better psychologist. No, probably not. But I think ones ability to think rationally and unselfishly about financial matters speaks to maturity, intelligence, common sense, discipline, mental stability....grounding in reality.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LauraH8214]

Of course it does. However, I would also argue there is an element of maturity and critical thinking involved, and on this board, we often see posters who are simply obstinate about the fact that this would create very real hardships given their expectant lifestyle and/or expectations. The most recent poster is much more open, but still maintains an element of :I want to do this (crazy debt) and have this and that (vacations every summer). I maintain that I was raised in fairly well to do family specifically because my parent had a balanced view of what there financial reality based on there choices.

Will this make me a better psychologist. No, probably not. But I think ones ability to think rationally and unselfishly about financial matters speaks to maturity, intelligence, common sense, discipline, mental stability....grounding in reality.

I spent months racking my brain about the debt issue. For me, I had to ask myself about priorities. Taking on that kind of debt makes paying it back a major focus upon graduation. Also, I considered how this might impact my love for my career and career choices. I decided that after working that hard for my degree I would not want to have paying back debt (which is a lot of stress) on my mind all the time. To anyone else struggling with this, I encourage them to do the same. There is no right or wrong answer...you just have to really think hard and educate yourself. I sat with several advisors, spoke with psychologists, and dug deep within myself.

 

[Ollie123]

I'm never entirely uncomfortable with threads like this where the discussion sets things up so that the only choices seem to be "Large amounts of debt" or "Enter another field." I know I've even set that up myself at times, but I think that is only VERY rarely the case. Pretty much limited to situations in which someone's credentials are so utterly and irrecoverably terrible that there really seems no hope of admission, except at a school where loan approval and admission are synonymous. Perhaps in situations of extreme geographic restriction, but the high-debt programs tend to be in locations with at least one (often many) other programs with substantially less debt. I know a couple people in that situation who applied year after year to the same handful of funded programs until they were accepted. They worked their butts off every year to improve their application, networked, etc. and eventually it paid off.

More often, I think these scenarios boil down to delay discounting. "200k debt for admission now" vs. "Minimal debt for admission after 2-3 years of building up a CV." I didn't run the numbers right now, but even if you are quite generous with your assumptions about future salary/interest rates/etc., I strongly suspect the math will heavily favor the latter in nearly every imaginable circumstance. Coupled with the fact that low-debt programs tend to have better reputations, better outcomes and better prepare students for the full range of psychology jobs (and especially the higher-paying ones) it seems an obvious choice. That doesn't mean there is never a good reason to take on the debt and there certainly is risk involved (i.e. you may spend years working on your CV and still not manage to get in). However, even if someone was absolutely, utterly convinced that this is the one and only thing they should be doing with their life, I think it is almost always worth it to spend a couple years trying to get into a program that won't saddle them with that kind of debt. Though its worth noting that the single-minded devotion seems to quite commonly result from fundamental misunderstandings of our field, fundamental misunderstandings of other fields and/or a significant red flag that indicates they probably shouldn't be anywhere near any of those fields Certainly not always the case...but we see it time and again on this board.

I guess what I'm saying boils down to the notion that patience is a virtue. There is no shame in applying multiple times...I can't count the number of wildly successful individuals I've met who didn't make it in their first round of applying to grad school (including several now-highly-regarded R1 faculty members). I think that often gets lost in these discussions.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

I'm never entirely uncomfortable with threads like this where the discussion sets things up so that the only choices seem to be "Large amounts of debt" or "Enter another field." I know I've even set that up myself at times, but I think that is only VERY rarely the case. Pretty much limited to situations in which someone's credentials are so utterly and irrecoverably terrible that there really seems no hope of admission, except at a school where loan approval and admission are synonymous. Perhaps in situations of extreme geographic restriction, but the high-debt programs tend to be in locations with at least one (often many) other programs with substantially less debt. I know a couple people in that situation who applied year after year to the same handful of funded programs until they were accepted. They worked their butts off every year to improve their application, networked, etc. and eventually it paid off.

More often, I think these scenarios boil down to delay discounting. "200k debt for admission now" vs. "Minimal debt for admission after 2-3 years of building up a CV." I didn't run the numbers right now, but even if you are quite generous with your assumptions about future salary/interest rates/etc., I strongly suspect the math will heavily favor the latter in nearly every imaginable circumstance. Coupled with the fact that low-debt programs tend to have better reputations, better outcomes and better prepare students for the full range of psychology jobs (and especially the higher-paying ones) it seems an obvious choice. That doesn't mean there is never a good reason to take on the debt and there certainly is risk involved (i.e. you may spend years working on your CV and still not manage to get in). However, even if someone was absolutely, utterly convinced that this is the one and only thing they should be doing with their life, I think it is almost always worth it to spend a couple years trying to get into a program that won't saddle them with that kind of debt. Though its worth noting that the single-minded devotion seems to quite commonly result from fundamental misunderstandings of our field, fundamental misunderstandings of other fields and/or a significant red flag that indicates they probably shouldn't be anywhere near any of those fields Certainly not always the case...but we see it time and again on this board.

I guess what I'm saying boils down to the notion that patience is a virtue. There is no shame in applying multiple times...I can't count the number of wildly successful individuals I've met who didn't make it in their first round of applying to grad school (including several now-highly-regarded R1 faculty members). I think that often gets lost in these discussions.

Overall, I agree, but you seem to be making an unstated assumption that everybody has 2-3 years for CV building. This is not always the case.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Of course it does. However, I would also argue there is an element of maturity and critical thinking involved, and on this board, we often see posters who are simply obstinate about the fact that this would create very real hardships given their expectant lifestyle and/or expectations. The most recent poster is much more open, but still maintains an element of :I want to do this (crazy debt) and have this and that (vacations every summer). I maintain that I was raised in fairly well to do family specifically because my parent had a balanced view of what there financial reality based on there choices.

Will this make me a better psychologist. No, probably not. But I think ones ability to think rationally and unselfishly about financial matters speaks to maturity, intelligence, common sense, discipline, mental stability....grounding in reality.

Indeed, dreams can become nightmares if we don't apply some reality testing, but you seem to think that maturity, intelligence, common sense and discipline are evenly distributed throughout our being. They are not. I can be disciplined about something, and not others, and the same goes for the other labels you use. We all have blind spots, and when we get clobbered from that doesn't mean we are no longer mature, intelligence, disciplined, etc. And there's nothing like stifling debt to further build those qualities.

 

[LauraH8214]

I'm never entirely uncomfortable with threads like this where the discussion sets things up so that the only choices seem to be "Large amounts of debt" or "Enter another field." I know I've even set that up myself at times, but I think that is only VERY rarely the case. Pretty much limited to situations in which someone's credentials are so utterly and irrecoverably terrible that there really seems no hope of admission, except at a school where loan approval and admission are synonymous. Perhaps in situations of extreme geographic restriction, but the high-debt programs tend to be in locations with at least one (often many) other programs with substantially less debt. I know a couple people in that situation who applied year after year to the same handful of funded programs until they were accepted. They worked their butts off every year to improve their application, networked, etc. and eventually it paid off.

More often, I think these scenarios boil down to delay discounting. "200k debt for admission now" vs. "Minimal debt for admission after 2-3 years of building up a CV." I didn't run the numbers right now, but even if you are quite generous with your assumptions about future salary/interest rates/etc., I strongly suspect the math will heavily favor the latter in nearly every imaginable circumstance. Coupled with the fact that low-debt programs tend to have better reputations, better outcomes and better prepare students for the full range of psychology jobs (and especially the higher-paying ones) it seems an obvious choice. That doesn't mean there is never a good reason to take on the debt and there certainly is risk involved (i.e. you may spend years working on your CV and still not manage to get in). However, even if someone was absolutely, utterly convinced that this is the one and only thing they should be doing with their life, I think it is almost always worth it to spend a couple years trying to get into a program that won't saddle them with that kind of debt. Though its worth noting that the single-minded devotion seems to quite commonly result from fundamental misunderstandings of our field, fundamental misunderstandings of other fields and/or a significant red flag that indicates they probably shouldn't be anywhere near any of those fields Certainly not always the case...but we see it time and again on this board.

I guess what I'm saying boils down to the notion that patience is a virtue. There is no shame in applying multiple times...I can't count the number of wildly successful individuals I've met who didn't make it in their first round of applying to grad school (including several now-highly-regarded R1 faculty members). I think that often gets lost in these discussions.

It sometimes it a patience thing.....but not always. It is not always that they could not get into funded programs. I have know many many people that had at least partial funded options and selected the expensive programs because they liked them better and later realized that although the funded program was not the best "fit" it would have saved them years of financial troubles. While this is just a sample of people I know and does not represent the general population, I just like to avoid the assumption that anyone who selected a non-funded program and took on debt had no other options.

 

[LauraH8214]

I do not agree that all who decide to take on large debt are immature. Some think it through and still decide to go.

 

[Ollie123]

It sometimes it a patience thing.....but not always. It is not always that they could not get into funded programs. I have know many many people that had at least partial funded options and selected the expensive programs because they liked them better and later realized that although the funded program was not the best "fit" it would have saved them years of financial troubles. While this is just a sample of people I know and does not represent the general population, I just like to avoid the assumption that anyone who selected a non-funded program and took on debt had no other options.

I'm sure it happens. However, I generally think this falls under the category of "misunderstanding what psychologists do and what other professions do." Most of the time when I hear people excited about their fit with these programs, it is something along the lines of "I want to be a clinician and they won't make me do any icky research-y stuff." There certainly may be cases where these programs generally are a good fit..but they seem quite rare at the programs with very high levels of debt (university-based PsyDs with more moderate debt levels are somewhat different, though I think this still applies). Again, nothing is absolute but even independent of the debt I think there are VERY few situations in which an Argosy/Alliant is truly a good fit for a budding psychologist...unless it is someone I think probably shouldn't be a psychologist in the first place.

Overall, I agree, but you seem to be making an unstated assumption that everybody has 2-3 years for CV building. This is not always the case.

Not everyone necessarily does (again - trying to avoid absolutes), but I think in the overwhelming majority of cases people do. I'm hard-pressed to think of many situations in which that wouldn't be the case. Anyone doing so because of various financial/family reasons needs to start earning a real salary ASAP is financially MUCH better off waiting. Some people may need to be more creative with regards to what they do in order to improve their credentials and how they go about it, but I think it would be extremely unusual to encounter someone who flat out cannot spend the time building their credentials but CAN spend 4-5 years and 200k on school. Not denying their existence entirely, but I have yet to encounter someone for whom I think that scenario applies.

 

[MCParent]

I reiterate my confusion from another thread about whether I woke up in the The Giver world...

No one is entitled to get whatever training they want whenever they want it. Tons of people go to grad school and medical school with families, kids, disabilities, and financial struggles. Of course it's hard. Some things are hard. What most posters mean isn't that they can't wait, it's just that they don't want to (rational financial decision making be damned).

Someone who wants to ditch a funded program for an unfunded one should call that Dave Ramsey radio show. I'd pay to listen to that response.

 

[psych844]

I've known a bunch of people who were probably competitive enough for med school or psych grad programs but simply had family commitments, or a gf, and because of their geographic restriction, never got in. The point is, these people on average were way more more competitive than some of the people on here who want to go to ****ty schools and take on a lot of debt, but they decided family was more important. I knew one guy in particular that could have easily gotten into med school but he chose his family and his gf. I admire this a lot, but it also shows that we can't have it all. I'm not sure how anybody could be really happy with a 200k debt and a degree from a very suspect school. You are wasting years of your life not getting an income, you are going to be in major debt (which will impact if you can have a mortgage, car, etc) and your quality of life will be decreased, you have the stress of the debt, and you are probably not going to be respected by your peers.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

I've known a bunch of people who were probably competitive enough for med school or psych grad programs but simply had family commitments, or a gf, and because of their geographic restriction, never got in. The point is, these people on average were way more more competitive than some of the people on here who want to go to ****ty schools and take on a lot of debt, but they decided family was more important. I knew one guy in particular that could have easily gotten into med school but he chose his family and his gf. I admire this a lot, but it also shows that we can't have it all. I'm not sure how anybody could be really happy with a 200k debt and a degree from a very suspect school. You are wasting years of your life not getting an income, you are going to be in major debt (which will impact if you can have a mortgage, car, etc) and your quality of life will be decreased, you have the stress of the debt, and you are probably not going to be respected by your peers.

I find this argument rather suspect. Family and education are not necessarily mutually exclusive, though I guess they could be in some rare cases. You admire self-abnegation in the form of not doing the work you want, but reject it in the form of debt. This doesn't really make any sense. Also, not all expensive schools are bad schools.

 

[PsyDr]

200k for grad school sounds ridiculous. But I've met senior members of the APA and NAN who have privately told me that they are unable to retire because they did not save sufficiently.

Case example: When Greenberg killed himself, his net worth after 25 years of practice was: $1.7 million. And he had a new mortgage on a house valued at 1.8 million. If he had just put the maximum into a SEP IRA over those 25 years, his net worth should have been around 5 million.

There's a lot of psychologists who are not great when it comes to finance.

I'll be out in a few more years.

 

[psych844]

I find this argument rather suspect. Family and education are not necessarily mutually exclusive, though I guess they could be in some rare cases. You admire self-abnegation in the form of not doing the work you want, but reject it in the form of debt. This doesn't really make any sense. Also, not all expensive schools are bad schools.

These people decided that family was more important than moving, but were working throughout their school, had their degrees, and saw cheaper ways to upgrade their educations while staying put. One of my friends decided to do nursing because he got in at the city he was living with his gf. RN's, in some places don't make that much less than a lot of Psychologists, and he had to do only 2 additional years since he had biochem degree already. He thought about Pharmacy and Med, but wasn't willing to move. The guy who decided against med school was doing sales for few years, I have no idea how successful he was at it, but I assume had success or he'd be running towards the med school option despite his gf and family. The way i see it, these guys thought long and hard about their options and probably made the right decisions in the end.

Ps For the second guy, I'm assuming he was very passionate about doing med, based on his past record, and the parents saying he wanted to become a doctor..but i haven't spoken to him in about 5 yrs..could have easily changed his mind about that option.

 

[PsyDr]

Sorry, I should clarify. Not fully retire. As I see it, this is only my second career. I plan on at least a third.

Since I use a combination of traditional and nontraditional investment vehicles, the best answer is 120%+ of expenditures covered by passive income and IRA set up to cover 35 years of retirement without further contribution.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

These people decided that family was more important than moving, but were working throughout their school, had their degrees, and saw cheaper ways to upgrade their educations while staying put. One of my friends decided to do nursing because he got in at the city he was living with his gf. RN's, in some places don't make that much less than a lot of Psychologists, and he had to do only 2 additional years since he had biochem degree already. He thought about Pharmacy and Med, but wasn't willing to move. The guy who decided against med school was doing sales for few years, I have no idea how successful he was at it, but I assume had success or he'd be running towards the med school option despite his gf and family. The way i see it, these guys thought long and hard about their options and probably made the right decisions in the end.

Ps For the second guy, I'm assuming he was very passionate about doing med, based on his past record, and the parents saying he wanted to become a doctor..but i haven't spoken to him in about 5 yrs..could have easily changed his mind about that option.

This seems like a much different story than the one you initially presented. I'm glad you clarified.

 

[Koogy]

I think this story highlights a bunch of things wrong in our educational model for clinical psychology. I do echo T4change's lamentation of her lack of personal responsibility. She blames everything but herself. And, we do need to encourage students to take a look at this situation before they jump in. Too many people decide to get a doctorate with little comprehension of the field, both from a financial perspective and from a day to day, what are the career options for a clinical psychologist versus a physician versus a social worker versus an MFT, etc. . . As a field, I feel we have an ethical responsibility to shut down most of the programs on the NCSPP list (http://www.ncspp.info/). They make it too easy to get into clinical psychology without understanding it, e.g., "I want to do clinical work, not research" combined with relatively low bar for academic background. To get into a phd clinical psych program, you either have stellar academic background, a great understanding of at least some aspect of the field, or both. You don't get in, generally, if not. To get into medical school, you have to have meet a very specific set of hurdles which usually includes some sort of shadowing, taking classes like organic chem, etc. . . . Meaning, you have to have some understanding of the field. Aside from that, learning as you go along about being a physician isn't as grave as doing so in psychology. To get into a psyd program, you have to score a fairly average score on the GRE and achieve fairly average GPA, especially given the psychology/liberal arts background of most of the people applying, and that's pretty much it. You can attend graduate training in psych on a whim. Doesn't require much forethought. And, that's how you end up in the situation this woman is in. That screws up our field. Because we have people in it that are not good consumers of psychology, that aren't particularly desirable students, and that don't make good decisions. More than 50% come from training programs that cause 6 figure type debt now. We are populating our field with people who cannot think properly. Ethically and with respect to the future of our field, it is imperative that we stop this. This is why, at the internship program where I work, I have strongly recommended discarding any NCSPP program app. I don't think we should be supporting the model.

I disagree. Just because someone doesn't get into a clinical phd, doesnt mean they are not cut out for it. Most phd programs have over 100 applicants for 6 or 7 (at most) spots. That's impossible feat for ANY student regardless of GPA, publications, gre's, and references. The odds are stacked very high against getting in, unless you play chances and apply 12-14 schools. So where can one go who still is stellar but there was no room for them at the inn? They go to a PsyD with openings that are more available. That was my story. I was perhaps overqualified for my program w my application package in comparison to my peers/cohort, but that is not to say that PsyD programs are less difficult or are for the less capable. In fact, many if them are so heavily focused on clinical skills, they can be more demanding because here one is dealing with humans more, with machines, lab rats, and formulas less, which are less predictable and more exhausting!

Don't be so quick to disqualify a PsyD clinician. Many PsyD programs are by far better training grounds for consumers and producers of research& psych then some of the Phd programs out there (ex Houston). I speak from my experience and comparisons with the experience of some of my undergrad peers.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I disagree. Just because someone doesn't get into a clinical phd, doesnt mean they are not cut out for it. Most phd programs have over 100 applicants for 6 or 7 (at most) spots. That's impossible feat for ANY student regardless of GPA, publications, gre's, and references. The odds are stacked very high against getting in, unless you play chances and apply 12-14 schools. So where can one go who still is stellar but there was no room for them at the inn? They go to a PsyD with openings that are more available. That was my story. I was perhaps overqualified for my program w my application package in comparison to my peers/cohort, but that is not to say that PsyD programs are less difficult or are for the less capable. In fact, many if them are so heavily focused on clinical skills, they can be more demanding because here one is dealing with humans more, with machines, lab rats, and formulas less, which are less predictable and more exhausting!

Don't be so quick to disqualify a PsyD clinician. Many PsyD programs are by far better training grounds for consumers and producers of research& psych then some of the Phd programs out there (ex Houston). I speak from my experience and comparisons with the experience of some of my undergrad peers.

If by Houston you mean the University of Houston, I can speak specifically to their clinical psych program by saying it's a very solid one with a well-earned reputation for producing excellent clinicians and researchers; I'd imagine the same is true of their counseling program.

As for the bolded portion, it will of course vary by program, and not to turn this into a "Ph.D. vs. Psy.D." debate, but the APPIC data does suggest that the average Ph.D. student has slightly more clinical intervention hours than the average Psy.D. student by the time they apply for internship. Perhaps in part because the average Ph.D. student tends to take (if I'm remembering correctly) about a year longer to complete their program. And I personally know very few psych doctoral students who are doing lab rate-based work; most grad school research deals with humans, who can be just as unpredictable in the research setting as they are clinically. Both environments and types of work are of crucial importance for a career in clinical psychology, which is why both research and clinical training are of course fundamental aspects of doctoral-level psychology training.

Finally, to say that gaining admission to a funded program (Ph.D. or Psy.D.) is "impossible" isn't quite accurate. It does require a strong application, solid fit with the program, a diverse pool of potential programs (yep, 12-14 would be recommended), and at times a little luck, but it's quite possible. Difficult, but possible. However, if one has other restrictions that disallow or discourage them from applying to a variety of programs in a variety of states, then yes, it could soon become impossible.

 

[WisNeuro]

If by Houston you mean the University of Houston, I can speak specifically to their clinical psych program by saying it's a very solid one with a well-earned reputation for producing excellent clinicians and researchers; I'd imagine the same is true of their counseling program.
.

Seconded, this is one of the top programs, especially for certain areas (e.g., neuro). To compare it too many of the PsyD's is just disingenuous. Maybe the top couple. But not many. Not by a longshot.

 

[erg923]

That's impossible feat for ANY student regardless of GPA, publications, gre's, and references.

This is a silly statement. How do you explian the hudereds of people that do this every year then?

 

[WisNeuro]

This is a silly statement. How do you explian the hudereds of people that do this every year then?

Hundreds? More like a couple thousand.

 

[MCParent]

I disagree. Just because someone doesn't get into a clinical phd, doesnt mean they are not cut out for it. Most phd programs have over 100 applicants for 6 or 7 (at most) spots. That's impossible feat for ANY student regardless of GPA, publications, gre's, and references. The odds are stacked very high against getting in, unless you play chances and apply 12-14 schools. So where can one go who still is stellar but there was no room for them at the inn? They go to a PsyD with openings that are more available. That was my story. I was perhaps overqualified for my program w my application package in comparison to my peers/cohort, but that is not to say that PsyD programs are less difficult or are for the less capable. In fact, many if them are so heavily focused on clinical skills, they can be more demanding because here one is dealing with humans more, with machines, lab rats, and formulas less, which are less predictable and more exhausting!

Don't be so quick to disqualify a PsyD clinician. Many PsyD programs are by far better training grounds for consumers and producers of research& psych then some of the Phd programs out there (ex Houston). I speak from my experience and comparisons with the experience of some of my undergrad peers.

Sorry, but as JS said, this post is nonsense.

 

[Justanothergrad]

This is a silly statement. How do you explian the hudereds of people that do this every year then?

While I agree entirely with you that people do it every year (A given since there are slots that must be filled), I don't think that this means that someone not getting in can be evidence that they are not equipped or able to do the work associated with a clinical PhD program. It could be, but it could also be a function of the insanity of the interview process, the moving goal post of what programs want, and the oddity of some of the requirements/application processes.

For instance (a dated example), the old mean GRE score was 1000 (SD=100) and between 2000 and 2009 the minimum cut score increased for clinical programs by 200, or two standard deviations, to 1200 at about 95% of programs. While GRE may account for a large portion of variance GPA in graduate school during the first year and time to completion (convergent validity and, honestly, a poor marker of long term clinical success), we don't know that it effectively acts as a discriminator of capable clinical from incapable clinician.

Without getting into my commentary about the GRE too much, I think that this adds some validity to their comment that acceptance into programs is sort of a crapshoot. I won't accept that it is impossible (a statement clearly filled with hyperbole as they acknowledge later in the post), but it definitely is stacked against applicants in many ways. I recognize that is part of the competitive nature of programs, but I think some of the point stands. I think that may be part of the frustration with traditional PhD's and the increasing allure of PsyD programs. One of many factors, but the application process is a difficult and stupid process. I'm sure we could all swap stories (either personl or from friends) about their experiences that didn't seem best suited to determining fit within the profession.

In short, we have gate keep in a different way than med school/law school. We keep people from trying instead of washing them out. Thats where the PsyD appears to take a different approach and why it seems to have an attraction to many frustrated applicants. As for the rest of their post... I won't try to speak to that.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

While I agree entirely with you that people do it every year (A given since there are slots that must be filled), I don't think that this means that someone not getting in can be evidence that they are not equipped or able to do the work associated with a clinical PhD program. It could be, but it could also be a function of the insanity of the interview process, the moving goal post of what programs want, and the oddity of some of the requirements/application processes.

For instance (a dated example), the old mean GRE score was 1000 (SD=100) and between 2000 and 2009 the minimum cut score increased for clinical programs by 200, or two standard deviations, to 1200 at about 95% of programs. While GRE may account for a large portion of variance GPA in graduate school during the first year and time to completion (convergent validity and, honestly, a poor marker of long term clinical success), we don't know that it effectively acts as a discriminator of capable clinical from incapable clinician.

Without getting into my commentary about the GRE too much, I think that this adds some validity to their comment that acceptance into programs is sort of a crapshoot. I won't accept that it is impossible (a statement clearly filled with hyperbole as they acknowledge later in the post), but it definitely is stacked against applicants in many ways. I recognize that is part of the competitive nature of programs, but I think some of the point stands. I think that may be part of the frustration with traditional PhD's and the increasing allure of PsyD programs. One of many factors, but the application process is a difficult and stupid process. I'm sure we could all swap stories (either personl or from friends) about their experiences that didn't seem best suited to determining fit within the profession.

In short, we have gate keep in a different way than med school/law school. We keep people from trying instead of washing them out. Thats where the PsyD appears to take a different approach and why it seems to have an attraction to many frustrated applicants. As for the rest of their post... I won't try to speak to that.

I might actually say it's the opposite--in med/law school, the primary gate-keeping occurs on the front end (i.e., with admissions). And with law school, there's the additional cut that I've heard happens after the first year. My understanding is that relatively few folks who make it into med school fail to graduate, match to some residency, and pass some type of board (although maybe not for the specialties they desired).

While this is somewhat similar to doctoral psych programs with small class sizes, even in these "traditional" program, it doesn't seem unusual for 1-2 students to leave the program yearly/every other year, which may represent a greater relative proportion of students compared with med school. Additionally, particularly with schools with large class sizes, the main gate-keeping occurs at the internship stage (e.g., obtaining a non-accredited internship or failing to attain one altogether), and there are also chunks of folks who (per the numbers) apparently never pass the EPPP.

 

[psych844]

I might actually say it's the opposite--in med/law school, the primary gate-keeping occurs on the front end (i.e., with admissions). And with law school, there's the additional cut that I've heard happens after the first year. My understanding is that relatively few folks who make it into med school fail to graduate, match to some residency, and pass some type of board (although maybe not for the specialties they desired).

While this is somewhat similar to doctoral psych programs with small class sizes, even in these "traditional" program, it doesn't seem unusual for 1-2 students to leave the program yearly/every other year, which may represent a greater relative proportion of students compared with med school. Additionally, particularly with schools with large class sizes, the main gate-keeping occurs at the internship stage (e.g., obtaining a non-accredited internship or failing to attain one altogether), and there are also chunks of folks who (per the numbers) apparently never pass the EPPP.

Any stats on that? Man, suck to do all that work and then never be able to pass EPPP.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Any stats on that? Man, suck to do all that work and then never be able to pass EPPP.

If there are any amalgamations of EPPP pass rates nationwide, I don't know about them. It's mostly just an off-the-cuff observation and remark made based on various program-specific numbers I've seen posted on here over the years. Although even then, the numbers aren't generally "lifetime" oriented, but are rates over, say, 10 years. And it's also important (myself included) to remember that the posted EPPP passing rates include everyone who graduated from a program, even those who never attempt the exam/seek licensure.

 

[MCParent]

Any stats on that? Man, suck to do all that work and then never be able to pass EPPP.

Here you go

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.asppb.net/resource/resmgr/EPPP_/2012_ASPPB_Exam_Scores_by_Do.pdf

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Here you go

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.asppb.net/resource/resmgr/EPPP_/2012_ASPPB_Exam_Scores_by_Do.pdf

Ah, there we go. So I'd say 25.4% of folks not passing the EPPP over a ~5 year span counts as a "chunk." Again, to speak to my earlier post, these numbers obviously don't reflect lifetime passage rates, but that's still a quarter of people with doctoral degrees who don't pass the licensing exam in half a decade. I'd honestly be shocked if medicine's numbers are anywhere near this rate for board exams or even the various Step exams. As for law, I hear there are decent numbers of folks who don't pass the bar, but I have absolutely no idea what those failure rates would be for each state or nationwide.

Although as I previously mentioned, some of the numbers for schools with small cohort sizes might be comparable to those found in medicine. My program, for example, had a mid-90's pass rate with 2 folks failing.

 

[cara susanna]

My feelings on this have become even stronger since experiencing life on an internship salary in a big city. Even post doc, at twice the pay, will be rough. I went to a funded program in a low cost area with no student loan debt and I'm struggling right now. This is a long haul. I'm extremely fortunate to have another source of money I can dip into or I'd be screwed.

 

[Goobernut]

I think that may be part of the frustration with traditional PhD's and the increasing allure of PsyD programs. One of many factors, but the application process is a difficult and stupid process.

I personally think this is a valid point. And just to piggyback my own point (as someone who chose not to go through the PhD process for what that's worth haha), is that the PsyD model has several attractive points. Mind you, it was attractive BEFORE I did all my research haha. The first being that if you know PhD's outside of psychology, they all warn about getting trapped in programs that "keep moving the goal post." While I don't have any family members who have PhD's, I did make several friends throughout my life that were very frustrated with the PhD process. I had a friend in anthropology, as well as one in sociology, who would write long emails to me about her frustration and warned me that for many years of your life you will feel chained to your dissertation. The general talks about nightmare committees, lack of jobs except in academia, tenure nightmares etc..

Several of the PhD programs that I researched had a mean time of 6-7 years to completion. While PsyD programs were advertising 4-5. When you are looking at PsyD vs PhD from a "consumer" standpoint, I think there are many reasons why it's attractive at first. Too, you have to remember that the general public (or newcomers to the graduate school process), view anything as a "profession" as prestigious. Doctors, lawyers, PharmD's etc are all highly respected and have this set formula to their curriculum. The PsyD seems to follow that same progression. When you start out, there is confusion about why psychologists, who are a part of the medical community, have a "seemingly" different model to their education.

Now that I've done a lot of research on all this, made my choice etc, the answers are not a straightforward as they seem. In addition, MD students shell out tons of cash in loans for their degree, why shouldn't Dr. Psychologist do the same? Psychologists know its because of the Anyway, my point is that to the neophyte psychology student, there are MANY reasons that a PsyD might be attractive. I agree that holding on to those first notions and refusing to be dissuaded of some of those assumptions isn't a good thing, and I'm all for this board and the education you all provide. This board was an unending wealth of knowledge for those of us who are first generation and johnny-come-lately grads I just have a tiny bit of emotional compassion for those asking about the process because sometimes there is SO little guidance at undergrad. Esp if you go to a huge public university.

 

[psychRA]

It really is important to take a serious, objective look at what your repayment schedule will look like before you commit to a program that will require you to take out loans. Even smaller loans can seem like a lot when you're early in your career.

I went to a fully funded program but ended up taking out a few smaller loans for unexpected expenses. Between those and my undergrad loans, I had about $45k total in loans when I went into repayment while on postdoc. Not terrible by any means, but that translates into 10 years of paying close to $500 every month. That's $500 per month that isn't going into savings, retirement, rent/mortgage. I don't qualify for IBR because I file taxes jointly with a spouse, but even if I did, I prefer not to add more in interest by extending the life of the loans. As it is now, it's definitely doable, but I can't imagine how I would manage to pay 2-4x that amount if I had taken out hundreds of thousands for my degree.

 

[Ollie123]

My feelings on this have become even stronger since experiencing life on an internship salary in a big city. Even post doc, at twice the pay, will be rough. I went to a funded program in a low cost area with no student loan debt and I'm struggling right now. This is a long haul. I'm extremely fortunate to have another source of money I can dip into or I'd be screwed.

I'm flat out unclear on how people make it work. I readily admit that I'm just now starting to look into things like saving for retirement since it just wasn't feasible on a grad school stipend. My wife and I are about to move and are in the process of estimating our expenses in the new location. We'll be in a low cost area, earning well above the average for our respected fields and neither of us has any debt whatsoever (minus a car we're still paying off)...we'll be fine, but when you factor in what we should be saving for retirement, its not like we'll be buying a yacht anytime soon....or even a nicer car.

When I prac'd at a UCC (mentioned because it seems a commonly "desirable" job for the prof school crowd), half of the staff psychologists there were earning less than a typical AMC/VA post-doc is paid. Tack on 200k debt and a higher COL and even if you are able to secure loan repayment of some form (not guaranteed) that seems a recipe for a very rough existence. Some may well crunch the numbers and still decide its worth it, but I'd bet my life that the modal student has not considered much beyond "I want to be a therapist and this is an easy way to make that happen." I do think a serious look at the numbers and a realistic consideration of living expenses and life goals would likely change a number of minds.

As Jon said though...poor understanding of personal finances is not in any way limited to psychology. Heck, I have a business degree and I'm clearly far behind many on this board (see above RE: retirement planning). A professor I worked with as an undergrad was doing research on financial literacy and fighting to get courses on it integrated into high school curricula for this very reason.

 

[WisNeuro]

In addition, MD students shell out tons of cash in loans for their degree, why shouldn't Dr. Psychologist do the same?

Because the least paid MD will still make more than twice what a psychologist does generally. These are not valid comparisons financially.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

If by Houston you mean the University of Houston, I can speak specifically to their clinical psych program by saying it's a very solid one with a well-earned reputation for producing excellent clinicians and researchers; I'd imagine the same is true of their counseling program.

As for the bolded portion, it will of course vary by program, and not to turn this into a "Ph.D. vs. Psy.D." debate, but the APPIC data does suggest that the average Ph.D. student has slightly more clinical intervention hours than the average Psy.D. student by the time they apply for internship. Perhaps in part because the average Ph.D. student tends to take (if I'm remembering correctly) about a year longer to complete their program. And I personally know very few psych doctoral students who are doing lab rate-based work; most grad school research deals with humans, who can be just as unpredictable in the research setting as they are clinically. Both environments and types of work are of crucial importance for a career in clinical psychology, which is why both research and clinical training are of course fundamental aspects of doctoral-level psychology training.

Finally, to say that gaining admission to a funded program (Ph.D. or Psy.D.) is "impossible" isn't quite accurate. It does require a strong application, solid fit with the program, a diverse pool of potential programs (yep, 12-14 would be recommended), and at times a little luck, but it's quite possible. Difficult, but possible. However, if one has other restrictions that disallow or discourage them from applying to a variety of programs in a variety of states, then yes, it could soon become impossible.

Seconded...we had a couple of interns from the University of Houston come through in the same cohort into our predoctoral internship program a few years ago and they were incredibly well-trained and knowledgeable. One of them even went on to a post-doc at Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic (WPIC)...a pretty darn prestigious post-doc.

 

[Goobernut]

Because the least paid MD will still make more than twice what a psychologist does generally. These are not valid comparisons financially.

You know this isn't what I think right?

**phone ugh!!! My original statement that you quoted is not something I personally believe, it was meant to be an example of something someone who first starts researching degrees might think. Don't you know me better than that? *deeply wounded*

 

[WisNeuro]

You know this isn't what I think right?

**phone ugh!!! My original statement that you quoted is not something I personally believe, it was meant to be an example of something someone who first starts researching degrees might think. Don't you know me better than that? *deeply wounded*

Ah, my mistake, hard to pick up sarcasm sometimes when it's embedded.

 

[smalltownpsych]

If you are going to be in the 90th percentile with debt, just make sure that you are in the 90th percentile with income. Also, the student debt isn't that much of a barrier to housing. I own two of them. When you are taking out the loans, pay attention to unsubsidized vs subsidized and interest rates. It can make a big difference down the road. I made a few mistakes with that myself and will use the NHSC loan repayment to pay off some of the high interest debt. The low interest debt I am in no hurry to pay off as I get a much better return from my 401k.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

Of the people I know who have paid off this level of debt, there has been a general pattern of characteristics I’ve observed, of which I’ve outlined below. I can’t stress enough that this is anecdotal, and will most definitely not apply to therapist-only clinicians that have chosen to attend FSPS and non-accredited internships.

1. Don’t be just a therapist. Get training in a variety of arenas in which psychologists can provide input. Unless you’re providing a therapy service that not many clinicians are involved with and choose not to be (i.e., sex-offender treatment) and you can control your rate, being a therapist alone is not a viable financial decision. Get involved in assessment/consultation. It’s where the cash flow is at.
   
   
2. During grad school, network like crazy with people who are clearly successful financially. Be likeable. Exhibit hard-work and ethical characteristics to people whom you knowing will benefit you and your career down the line. Train under folks who know their **** and are also clearly pulling in capital. *Note: this is going to be much more difficult to accomplish if you’re at a school with a cohort of 50+ and there is a much higher competition for resources.
   
   
3. Pardon this statement, in that it might come across as a pejorative, but don’t be a Cluster B mess; and if you are, work on it. It’s usually not attractive in the long-term to potential employers, and it will almost always rear its head and cause problems in these important future business relationships.
   
   
4. Always be open to feedback. Always.
   
   
5. Make sure you procure an accredited internship. For real, make sure you procure an accredited internship. If anything, this has been the only thing I have seen attorneys consistently and successfully use to discredit someone on voire-dire, and I imagine that it extends and generalizes to other areas of practice.
   
   
6. Secure yourself a job with solid benefits/pay that you can live off of, preferably one that allows for flexibility.
   
   
7. More importantly, make sure said job does not limit your livelihood and prohibit you from engaging in PP.
   
   
8. Procure PP employment through aforementioned contacts made networking during grad school/ internship.
   
   
9. Get a good accountant and investment broker.
   
   
10. Get in 10-15 hours of billable time per week in said practice that you were able to join through the aforementioned successful networking. Even with 30-35% overhead, if you’re billing at a respectable rate, you’ll be all good.
    
    
11. While paying off higher interest loans, invest excess capital in areas that will allow for passive income streams.
    

 

[WisNeuro]

Add on to that.

12. At the least, take advantage of any 401k match.
13. Max 401k contribution.
14. Max Roth contribution if your income is lower than the limit.

If your MAGI is over the limit for a ROTH, you should still max out your traditional IRA. Also, pay attention to the expense ratios of what you are investing in. Vanguard is a good option for funds with low expense rations and minimum investments that aren't too high.

 

[PsyDr]

I'll offer an opposing viewpoint:

1) never work for someone. People are employing you because they are making money off you.

2) always figure out how much you are worth. Average hourly * average hours worked= a general work valuation less expenses and benefits. Some people don't want to work hard or want to take the afternoon off. That's fine, but know that this will affect how much you are worth to yourself and an employer.

3) self employment is awesome because of your friend the SEP IRA. Maxed out around 47k. Also lawsuit proof in some states.

4) leave 80% of the investing to people who know more than you. Either blue chips or a fee based advisor. Never a percent based.

5) financial negotiations are not the place for sympathy or friendship. If you know what you are worth and what a fair cut of that is, then who cares what the other party thinks.

6) Buy a house.

7) interview multiple cpas. Hire a tax attorney.

8). Pay retirement and house first. Any loans second. They can't touch the first two in some states.

9). Read incessantly.

10). Remember that this is a first and foremost a job.

 

[WisNeuro]

Not necessarily. . .

True, there are a good amount of extenuating circumstances. I contributed to traditional for tax deduction purposes until I made too much. At the moment I'm under the limit so I can contribute the full for a ROTH. I have a few other investment vehicles besides a 401k with matching that I max out. We should really start a new thread about investments/financials here.

 

[Ollie123]

9). Read incessantly.

Assuming you mean specifically in reference to savings/investment/retirement/etc. - any recommendations? If general reading - had that covered for years now.

Would love to see a separate thread of ECP financial advice now that I'll finally have an income where I can start building capital. Coming from an extremely blue collar family (I'll be the first male who can't bank on my Teamster's pension for retirement?), I learned to avoid debt where possible but not much else.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I've always felt that one area of training in psyc programs that gets neglected is how to actually interface with business, marketing, billing, etc. Seems like such a good elective opportunity, and useful area, given the amount of folks that go into/do at least some private practice. Retirement planning and such is outside of that, but it finance and business decisions related to practice seems like a great place to bring in some interdisciplinary training from a business faculty. That's all the rage. One might argue that internship is when you learn to do those things, but I don't think is a major (or minor even) part of most internships. Seems like a bad idea to push it that far back.

 

[Ollie123]

Think we had one 50 minute lecture on setting up a practice in my internship. Couple more intensive sessions on things like negotiating a startup package, job offer, etc. but that was it. The nature of the site meant billing was largely irrelevant (state contract to cover forensic services) and not even discussed. Even as someone with zero desire for PP to play significantly into my career (definitely on the academic path), that seemed like a misstep to me.

 

[Koogy]

This is a silly statement. How do you explian the hudereds of people that do this every year then?

l'll tell you how - from the peers who got in: they wooed the researcher they wanted to be a slave to. The only way to set yourself apart (from other stellar applicants of same caliber) is to court a researcher who is accepting students the incoming fall, for lack of better words. That prof will then vouch for you in the selection commitee. All things being equal, the only way to get "noticed" is to become noticeable. Although i had 7 publications at time of my masters, once in position to move on to the doc, I had no desire to kiss up (I can't find any other expression) and to someone for whom I'd give good lab hours for, even if I was interested in their reasearch or furthering their career. Im not saying this last point is common everywhere, but I do have a dozen horror stories I've heard.

I settled for a PsyD at a well rspected school and could not be happier, ..it lead to a nuero psych research at the va and the rest is history.

Perhaps the other "how" of stellar candidates getting in... is just sheer luck and maybe a 1600 on the gre

 

[Koogy]

Oh . . . never ever ever put your loans in forbearance . . . never.

Can you comment more on this?

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

You can only have forbearance for two-years and this is often needed because you have to be licensed to apply for NHSC program. Once you are NHSC eligible and approved you then get 50,000 every two-years for loan repayment and you can normally pay back loans in six to eight years. With the 2500 per month for NHSC you could pay additional amount towards your loan but this would defeat the whole purpose of the NHSC loan repayment philosophy.

If you are having your loans repaid with tax free income and still making 75000 to 100,000 per -year forbearance interest accrual does not matter. Might be different if you are repaying loans without help from government programs. NHSC loan repayment is expanding and most psychologist are eligible due to the severe shortage of psychologist in underserved areas. Most work 5-8 years then go into private practice after having loans repaid. Some do this in the VA as they are eligible for loan repayment in VA and then they go into private practice or continue with VA and do private practice.

 

[cara susanna]

l'll tell you how - from the peers who got in: they wooed the researcher they wanted to be a slave to. The only way to set yourself apart (from other stellar applicants of same caliber) is to court a researcher who is accepting students the incoming fall, for lack of better words. That prof will then vouch for you in the selection commitee. All things being equal, the only way to get "noticed" is to become noticeable. Although i had 7 publications at time of my masters, once in position to move on to the doc, I had no desire to kiss up (I can't find any other expression) and to someone for whom I'd give good lab hours for, even if I was interested in their reasearch or furthering their career. Im not saying this last point is common everywhere, but I do have a dozen horror stories I've heard.

I settled for a PsyD at a well rspected school and could not be happier, ..it lead to a nuero psych research at the va and the rest is history.

Perhaps the other "how" of stellar candidates getting in... is just sheer luck and maybe a 1600 on the gre

That isn't how my program works.

 

[WisNeuro]

Also, that's a government bailout. It's just another way, those payd programs are able to exist divorced from real world economics. Those things have a tendency to go away with no notice. Risk.

Agree, someone is paying that forgiveness, and it's us. Also, remember that you will most likely pay taxes in forgiven loan amounts. In many cases it counts as additional income.

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

I don't understand why forbearance would ever be necessary. Even if you aren't licensed, as long as you aren't disabled, you should be able to make enough to pay interest.

I don't know the details of that program. But, there are probably rules that have to be met. For example, the public loan forgiveness program. My understanding is that it was 10 years paying qualifying payments (not ibr) and then some level of forgiveness provided that you are in the right service area working with the right population. Forbearance would be not considered an eligible payment. Also, that's a government bailout. It's just another way, those payd programs are able to exist divorced from real world economics. Those things have a tendency to go away with no notice. Risk.

NHSC sites go unfilled every year and if you work two-years you get a check for $50,000 to pay for your student loans. It has been the preferred method for MD, ANP, LMSW, Psychologist, and LPC for loan repayment for many years.

I have always worked in underserved areas so it was a natural fit for me. These programs are based on my Taxes paid for many years and this is why these programs exist and has nothing to do with a PsyD program. More PhD are in these programs than PsyD and it does not help or hurt your application, regardless of being PsyD or PhD as primary requirement is psychologist licensure. If these program are out there it would be stupid to not apply, right? Apparently, university faculty have a similar loan forgiveness program that many psychologist apply and are granted money to pay loans. It is Tax free and does not count as income.

 

[WisNeuro]

More PhD are in these programs than PsyD and it does not help or hurt your application, regardless of being PsyD or PhD as primary requirement is psychologist licensure.

Is there data on this, or is this another one of your made up factoids? Just curious.