Humanistic therapy graduate programs?

[Psychology10530]

hey guys, how are you? I'm pretty interested in, potentially, getting involved in humanistic therapy but am totally lost on where to find information on programs focusing on this aspect of psychology. Any information pertaining to Psy D programs or masters in humanistic therapy would be so helpful or just general tips on how to begin the search. Thanks so much

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MCParent]

hey guys, how are you? I'm pretty interested in, potentially, getting involved in humanistic therapy but am totally lost on where to find information on programs focusing on this aspect of psychology. Any information pertaining to Psy D programs or masters in humanistic therapy would be so helpful or just general tips on how to begin the search. Thanks so much

I'd wager that prettymuch every program includes training in basic humanistic/client-centered therapy and the forms of therapy that have developed out of it.

 

[shrink4hire4u]

"I'd wager that prettymuch every program includes training in basic humanistic/client-centered therapy and the forms of therapy that have developed out of it."

This is pretty inaccurate. Sure some of the common factors that humanistic/existential therapy emphasizes are taught in many programs but just because most programs address countertransferrence doesn't mean they all include psychodynamic training. Humanistic is a distinct theoretical orientation which requires the same education and training other bonafide orientations require.

As far as programs in humanistic therapy, there are some but many are not accredited by the APA, if that matters to you. These schools include Michigan School of Professional Psychology, Saybrook University, University of West Georgia, and The Chicago School. There may be more but those are the ones that come off the top of my head. Duquesne University has a prestigious APA accredited program that specializes in phenomenology and existentialism. Pepperdine University is an APA accredited program and they offer tracks specializing in different orientations, humanistic being one of them. There are also other programs that offer degrees that specialize in depth psychology such as Pacifica and Sofia but I believe they also have other non-degree programs that you can use to take classes. Another option is getting a masters or doctorate in generalist training at any school and supplement your training at conferences or specialized trainings and check out APA divisions that support your interests (Humanistic Psychology has their own).

 

[thewesternsky]

Also consider the clinical psychology PhD program at York University in Toronto, Canada. You'll need solid research experience for a chance at being accepted there, though.

 

[QAsPsych]

University of West Georgia has an MA; York University's PhD program; Duquesne's PhD program; not familiar with the Pepperdine Humanistic track specifically but I think of the Pepperdine psychology program as an acceptable/semi-respected option. Also, Fuller in California if you're open to a place with that kind of religion going on.

Schools like Saybrook & Sofia & Michigan School of Professional Psychology basically degrade the value of humanistic approaches by offering them; avoid these types of places.

Other university-based PhD programs in clinical/counseling psychology have individual faculty with interests in humanistic approaches, don't feel like you have to go to a school that specializes in that approach (but you may have to go ahead and look for them yourself, there isn't a list anywhere).

 

[MCParent]

Saybrook University

Implying that you think it's necessary to have rigorous, dedicated training to do this form of therapy, and then suggesting this place, is bizarre.

 

[shrink4hire4u]

What are your specific experiences with Saybrook? I've also noticed a bit of the old "looking down the nose" at some of these programs but I think that speaks more to others' insecurities. OP asked about where they could find training in Humanistic Psych and that's where they can find their information, it's up to them what they do with it. If we follow your logic, no research PhDs should see any clients because of the clear lack of training in psychotherapy. That's why they try to sell you on the "superiority" of CBT

 

[shrink4hire4u]

.

 

[erg923]

I've also noticed a bit of the old "looking down the nose" at some of these programs but I think that speaks more to others' insecurities.

Why?

If we follow your logic, no research PhDs should see any clients because of the clear lack of training in psychotherapy. That's why they try to sell you on the "superiority" of CBT

Huh?

 

[shrink4hire4u]

Oh erg, you're a perfect example. It's clear that you use this board to support your sense of self-superiority. I've seen you blow off programs and complete degrees because they don't comply to your values. It's a good opportunity to do some insight work and find out exactly why that is. I noticed my comment about insecurity engaged you...there's probably a very good reason that you felt the need to respond.

 

[erg923]

Oh erg, you're a perfect example. It's clear that you use this board to support your sense of self-superiority. I've seen you blow off programs and complete degrees because they don't comply to your values. It's a good opportunity to do some insight work and find out exactly why that is. I noticed my comment about insecurity engaged you...there's probably a very good reason that you felt the need to respond.

This isnt a therapy room, so cut the **** and just answer the question like a big boy psychologist. Pretty please, with a cherry on top?

 

[shrink4hire4u]

I think you already have.

 

[erg923]

I think you already have.

Huh?

Look pal, you are unnecessarily perosonalizing. And, unlike you, I really dont care why you are doing this or the motivation behind it (Im not doing therapy on SDN). Its just not how educated professionals argue. So, if you disagree with someones statement/premise/opinion, man up and join your colleagues in some evidenced based debate.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

What are your specific experiences with Saybrook? I've also noticed a bit of the old "looking down the nose" at some of these programs but I think that speaks more to others' insecurities.

My N=2...I've interacted with two Saybrook graduates at conferences…and they were both scarily unaware of what they didn't know. Neither were licensed at the doctoral level, but they did the whole, "I'm Dr. So & So…" while using a masters level licensure. They also didn't utilize evidenced based treatment. One was a glorified life coach and the other was a "holistic" healer…or that is what she claimed by doing Reiki and similar junk science along w. her version of what I considered "moonbeam & rainbow therapy" (not the name of the ascribed therapy method, but equally as efficacious.)

Here is their own descriptions of the training program. The bolding is mine. This was taken from the general description of the Ph.D. in Psychology program. There is more information at the provided link below.

The School of PII Ph.D. program in Psychology requires a sequence of research courses designed to develop research competencies in key areas. The sequence begins with Level 1 research courses: Information Competency and Library Use (RES 1006) in the first semester of enrollment, followed by the Methods of Research and Disciplined Inquiry -- Part I and Part II courses (RES 1005 during first semester….
--
The Ph.D. program in Psychology provides flexibility in individual approaches to program planning and the study of Psychology along with a range of opportunities to broaden and deepen knowledge, interests, and areas of academic and professional development. The program provides the opportunity to build upon the foundation provided by an M.A. degrees Schools or elsewhere. Students develop their own plan from a wide range of options to further develop areas of knowledge, skill, and expertise to expand the scope of future opportunities and endeavors in professional life. This program is not a clinical psychology program nor is it designed to prepare students for future professional licensure.

Source

So…

1. The training starts with an "intro to the library" course.
2. There are some research courses, where they "recommend" the student learn about methods that they may want to use in their research work.
3. There are some random "specialization" course training. Online, of course.
4. Then you finish….and are not eligible to be licensed because this isn't an actual clinical psychology training program.
5. Obviously, not APA-acred.

How is his program even REMOTELY comparable to an actual clinical or counseling program out there?

Many do (and should) "look down the nose" at those students, as the training is a joke.

 

[erg923]

My N=2...I've interacted with two Saybrook graduates at conferences…and they were both scary unaware of what they didn't know. Neither were licensed at the doctoral level, but they did the whole, "I'm Dr. So & So…" while using a masters level licensure. They also didn't utilize evidenced based treatment. One was a glorified life coach and the other was a "holistic" healer…or that is what she claimed by doing Reiki and similar junk science along w. her version of what I considered "moonbeam & rainbow therapy" (not the name of the ascribed therapy method, but equally as efficacious.)

Here is their own descriptions of the training program. The bolding is mine. This was taken from the general description of the Ph.D. in Psychology program. There is more information at the provided link below.



So…

1. The training starts with an "intro to the library" course.
2. There are some research courses, where they "recommend" the student learn about methods that they may want to use in their research work.
3. There are some random "specialization" course training. Online, of course.
4. Then you finish….and are not eligible to be licensed because this isn't an actual clinical psychology training program.
5. Obviously, not APA-acred.

How is his program even REMOTELY comparable to an actual clinical or counseling program out there?

Many do (and should) "look down the nose" at those students, as the training is a joke.

Looking down someone's nose is taboo in this "nonjudgmental" culture we live in these days. Ugh. There is plenty of evidence out there about these types of progams. So, why cant I judge it...and subsequenly, look down their nose a bit? Seems pretty logical and rationale to me. evidence-judgment-conclusion. Could this be...gasp...SCIENCE?

Incidentally, I have never even heard of this place (where is it?), which I would think should tell people something?

 

[shrink4hire4u]

HAHAHAHA!! Yes erg, if you have never heard of it then it should really be tell people something!

 

[erg923]

HAHAHAHA!! Yes erg, if you have never heard of it then it should really be tell people something!

I'm not good at reading sacrcasm on the net, but I would asssert that yes, of course it does. I am an assistant DCT at an academic VAMC with an internship. I see apps from hundreds of training programs.

 

[shrink4hire4u]

So you believe that since no one from a particular program applied to your amazingly prestigious site (or that you remember) since you've been there then there must be something inherently flawed about such an institution. If they aren't aware of how important you or your site must be then what are they doing in this field anyway, right?

 

[erg923]

So you believe that since no one from a particular program applied to your amazingly prestigious site (or that you remember) since you've been there then there must be something inherently flawed about such an institution. If they aren't aware of how important you or your site must be then what are they doing in this field anyway, right?

Please stop the personal attacks or ill report it to mods. Understand?

 

[shrink4hire4u]

Please do! There have been no personal attacks but very interesting that you've interpreted them that way. You've used this tactic now every time that I've questioned the superior stance you take with others.

 

[erg923]

Please do! There have been no personal attacks but very interesting that you've interpreted them that way. You've used this tactic now every time that I've questioned the superior stance you take with others.

Your perception of my 'superior stance" is personal, and is a personalization of the debate in this and other threads. If you dont like it, that fine. Keep it to yourself or contact a mod if it really grinds your geers that much. But there is no point in taking up SDN thread space with it. Understand?

 

[shrink4hire4u]

So only points YOU believe are valuable should be taking up SDN thread space. Only YOU should be able to tell someone they are unfit for psychological training and all others are unnecessarily "personalizing." My friend, I think I do understand and that's why you've taken such offense.

 

[WisNeuro]

What's Saybrook's accredited match rate and EPPP pass rate?

 

[A Blue Duck]

What's Saybrook's accredited match rate and EPPP pass rate?

According to this the match rate from 2000-2010 was 11.1%.

Someone more skilled than I will have to dig up more recent match and EPPP info.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

What's Saybrook's accredited match rate and EPPP pass rate?

Back to the data!

From what I recall…not APA-acred, as they even state they are not a clinical (or counseling) training program. As such, 0% match, 0% EPPP…as it is not a licensable training degree, so it shouldn't make the cut in regard to APPIC minimum standards.

Totally the same thing!

 

[thewesternsky]

This is my typical EPPP bible-- it's a couple years old but generally has the best data I can find on pass rates. Generally when I look at programs, I use a 85% cut-off-- If more than 15% of applicants fail the EPPP, I don't recommend the program. Your acceptable cut-off might vary.

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

Unfortunately, Saybrook is not included as it's not accredited. Most of their graduates probably do not write the EPPP. For those who do, their results would show up in the records under "Doctoral Program Not Listed". That category has a 57.9% pass rate. Ouch!

 

[Chalupacabra]

Thanks for sharing! According to this the program I'll be entering in August has a 95% pass rate, good to know.

 

[shrink4hire4u]

Let's refer back to the OP's OQ. Saybrook is an institution where they can go to focus on humanistic psychology. If APA-accred and EPPP pass rates are their goal, then your data is relevant. My N is a little higher and though I've met some students who may come close to descriptions given above, I've also met some wonderful scholars and whom possess the qualities that I believe would make great clinicians. They knew A LOT about H/E psych. It makes sense since the program was birthed out of Old Saybrook Conference of 1964 with Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, and Rollo May. Some also had great experiences like studying with Irvin Yalom, I'm actually quite jealous of aspects of the training they received there.

If your data is meaningful to OP, then they can research other programs that I and other people mentioned. And I also think someone in here compared H/E to moonbeam therapy or something. I may have misunderstood, but just in case there is misunderstanding. H/E is an overarching theoretical orientation umbrella (like the cognitive umbrella covering CBT, DBT, etc) and includes validated and effective techniques.

 

[WisNeuro]

I believe someone said a graduates offered therapy was like moonbeam therapy, not H/E itself. H/E principles are important as in the common factors types of things, I don't think anyone here will dispute that. But, it is my experience that those principles are integral parts of training at most reputable clinical programs.

 

[shrink4hire4u]

Yes, I thought I may have misunderstood, but I thought they said the moonbeam had as much outcome efficacy as H/E but I could have completely misinterpreted their meaning. Yes, H/E does emphasize the common factors but there are unique theories and techniques with H/E. It's its own theoretical orientation with different assumptions of change, like the psychodynamic and cognitive schools. But thanks to good research, we know that all of these school's theories and techniques (while important) matter very little in the grand scheme of therapeutic effectiveness.

 

[WisNeuro]

Not that simple, really depends on what you are treating. There are certain disorders where the outcomes are highly dependent on treatment modality. For example, panic disorder.

 

[shrink4hire4u]

long-term efficacy for panic disorder or short-term?

 

[WisNeuro]

Long-term.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Xanax bars, right?!!

I had a patient the other day who swore by them…and ONLY them.

 

[WisNeuro]

Ugh, in most studies I've seen of at least 1 year follow-up, those who were also treated with xanax did worse than other treatment groups by far. Every time I see someone with anxiety prescribed xanax I want to punch their psychiatrist in the face for making that patient's life worse.

 

[Nahsil]

At least we can all agree that benzos are problematic

I looked briefly at Saybrook, saw that it was crazy expensive and online (or mostly online) and moved on. I do believe there are some very intelligent and interesting professors there, now and (especially) historically, but those two facts alone make it completely not worth it imo, not counting any other issues in training, poor administration, etc.

I'm in my first year at West Georgia (with a grad assistantship so not paying anything) and couldn't be happier. If humanistic is your thing, I'd recommend UWG or Duquesne or Fordham (although I hear their humanistic stuff is being phased out--we just had one of their head humanistic faculty interview for a position here). There's a couple others too--not sure how humanistic York is, but I believe it has a pretty theoretical/philosophical program, although I think I heard something about it possibly being phased out as well? Don't quote me on that.

As much as I hate to admit it, unless you're REALLY interested in a humanities/philosophy based approach to psychology, I'd probably recommend a more normative program. Maybe one that has a humanistic person or two, like someone mentioned above (Fred Wertz is still at Fordham, at least for now). UWG is decent if you just want to get your LPC (and manage to get an assistantship, which is a limited commodity...although to be fair in-state tuition isn't bad here at all, relatively speaking). We do clinical practicums (off-site) and have some good supervision. Duquesne is solid but decently competitive. I'm doing a thesis and hoping to either get into Duquesne, Rutgers PsyD, or a handful of other places. We'll see. I have some friends who've done this; it's possible, but not for everyone.

One option I forgot to mention is Point Park, they're a bunch of Duquesne alum, nice and smart fellas, with a Masters in Community/Clinical Psychology. They might be branching out into a PsyD in the future, but that's just a rumor I heard. I think it's a pretty affordable school, not sure what the assistantship scene looks like there.

 

[shrink4hire4u]

Yes, I've spoken to Brent Robbins in the past (before he started the MA at Point Park) and the goal is an APA-accred PsyD focusing on phenomenological existentialism...like a PsyD version of Duquesne. Pittsburgh is so hot right now.

 

[QAsPsych]

There's a couple others too--not sure how humanistic York is, but I believe it has a pretty theoretical/philosophical program, although I think I heard something about it possibly being phased out as well? Don't quote me on that.

...

As much as I hate to admit it, unless you're REALLY interested in a humanities/philosophy based approach to psychology, I'd probably recommend a more normative program

It'd be pretty shocking if the humanistic/philosophical portions of York were phased out. Even if they closed down the historical/philosophical psychology program, the current presence of Greenberg, Pos, etc. in clinical seems to guarantee that the humanistic bent will remain.

And I have to agree with the second portion of the post I quoted. Humanistic/philosophical approaches are not valued today in clinical psychology, and a degree from these programs may hinder your ability to move about in your career (if you were to go into academia). Better to work with a humanistic/philosophical faculty member at a school whose name is respected, gain a broader training, move from there.

 

[shrink4hire4u]

Humanistic/philosophical approaches are not valued today in clinical psychology

That's a bit of a biased overstatement. The journal Psychotherapy recently did a special series on the value/importance of humanistic psychology and its wide implications. I was a very attractive practicum and internship applicant at clinical sites (large prestigious hospital in one of the largest cities in the US, a VA, and UCC at a major Uni) because of my knowledge and ability to conceptualize from a humanistic/existential perspective. It was quite valued and many CBT trained supervisors and practitioners from these sites continue to regularly consult with me because of it. The Humanistic division of the APA is regularly asked to partner with other divisions of the APA on special projects. Humanistic approaches are quite valued in clinical psychology today even if it isn't valued in your circles. Now I took the later approach and got my degree from a more traditional program that I supplemented with my own studies and finding mentors but seeking out info on humanistic approaches was by far the best step I took for my career and certainly made me a better clinician.

 

[QAsPsych]

.

 

[shrink4hire4u]

I think you need to find a different circle. Training programs are notorious for lacking behind current trends but there seems to be momentum in the West and Northeast. CBT has shown to be lacking and insufficient in our field. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-CBT at all, just against the evangelical movement of CBT and nothing else. Sometimes, CBT techniques are useful to begin treatment but its long-term efficacy shows it's short-sighted and insufficient.

Bruce Wampold is one of the most important researchers of therapeutic effectiveness and his work has been very important to validate other therapeutic orientations and highlighting the huge gaps in CBT and CBT research and the word is getting out. My mentor had a book published by APA and his first chapter was reiterating this point. The APA's only edit was to shorten the chapter because the information was "already widely acknowledged and accepted in professional psychology. There is no credible evidence that CBT and other cognitive treatments are superior to others."

The "CBT only" junk found its way into training programs based on the science they had at the time, but it took decades. I'd say in 10 years or so many of these training programs will have gotten the message that that attitude is extremely short-sighted and bad science.

 

[QAsPsych]

You are more optimistic than I am WRT "psychological scientists" caring about science. Citing Bruce Wampold gets a mix of blank stares and contempt here.

(off topic but hearing him speak, I was pretty disappointed to see Wampold present in person only to watch him cite E.O. Wilson, and to see him pull images off Amazon without removing the watermark on top of it!)

 

[erg923]

I'm not anti-CBT at all, just against the evangelical movement of CBT and nothing else. Sometimes, CBT techniques are useful to begin treatment but its long-term efficacy shows it's short-sighted and insufficient.

I do not see this. I can kinda see how one would think that if there are on the outside looking in and have a superficial view of it though.

Your second sentence is just complete nonsense, and the preponderance of the evidence/literature in no way supports that conclusion.

Regardless, I would have to wonder how training that is so "out of step" with the realities of functioning in the healthcare system would hamper ones career prospects, not to mention internship. If an applicant came to our VAMC with gobs of "phenomenological existentialism," they would make for an interesting person to have a scotch with. But not someone who would probably be able to function very well or very efficiently in my outpatient clinic. And, I cant imagine my outpatient clinic is all that different from others around the country.

 

[Nahsil]

I forgot University of Dallas. They don't have a PhD anymore, but they have a Masters with several possible tracks, including a clinical one. A lot of Duquesne and other humanistic folks came out of Dallas's PhD program.

Interesting Wampold reference, I'm leaving for the Div 32 conference tomorrow and he's a speaker I'll also be meeting Brent Robbins and others in the division, looking forward to that. I wonder if we know each other, shrink (via facebook?)

 

[shrink4hire4u]

I do not see this. I can kinda see how one would think that if there are on the outside looking in and have a superficial view of it though.

Your second sentence is just complete nonsense, and the preponderance of the evidence/literature in no way supports that conclusion.

Regardless, I would have to wonder how training that is so "out of step" with the realities of functioning in the healthcare system would hamper ones career prospects, not to mention internship. If an applicant came to our VAMC with gobs of "phenomenological existentialism," they would make for an interesting person to have a scotch with. But not someone who would probably be able to function very well or very efficiently in my outpatient clinic. And, I cant imagine my outpatient clinic is all that different from others around the country.

The field of psychology is much larger than your VAMC and your circle yet it seems you're not aware of much of it. That sure would make it seem alien or "out of step." Anecdotally, I proudly shared my knowledge of H/E in my internship apps and during all my interviews and I matched at a very competitive site. I know many others who could give that testimony, some at UCCs, training hospitals, and VAs. In fact, the Palo Alto VA (widely regarded as one of the most desirable VAs in the country) has accepted trainees and hired staff who heavily lean H/E in recent years.

From my perspective, I can also see how one would hold your beliefs if they were the outside looking in with a superficial view. The second sentence is quickly becoming common knowledge in the field, read up on therapeutic effectiveness meta-analyses, you could help bring that VAMC up to date.

 

[shrink4hire4u]

I forgot University of Dallas. They don't have a PhD anymore, but they have a Masters with several possible tracks, including a clinical one. A lot of Duquesne and other humanistic folks came out of Dallas's PhD program.

Interesting Wampold reference, I'm leaving for the Div 32 conference tomorrow and he's a speaker I'll also be meeting Brent Robbins and others in the division, looking forward to that. I wonder if we know each other, shrink (via facebook?)

It's possible we know each other on the book or otherwise, I've been to a few Div 32 conferences and have seen wonderful speakers. I bet you'll have a great time. Wampold and Robbins are great people and very student friendly/focused. I'm sad to miss this year but I'm rotating between Div 32, 39, and 45 conferences and it gets expensive! Have fun. It's Chicago, right? I love that town.

 

[RR808]

What is H/E? Online Counseling?

Perhaps this next question warrants a separate thread, but do career prospects for humanistic clinical psychologists differ much from other clinical orientations? After seeing the disconcerting comments about Saybrook, CIIS and Pacifica, I regained some enthusiasm after reading about Duquesne. However, I'm still hesitant about where and how humanistic approaches manifest in the psych world. It seems more niche.

 

[erg923]

What is H/E? Online Counseling?

Perhaps this next question warrants a separate thread, but do career prospects for humanistic clinical psychologists differ much from other clinical orientations? After seeing the disconcerting comments about Saybrook, CIIS and Pacifica, I regained some enthusiasm after reading about Duquesne. However, I'm still hesitant about where and how humanistic approaches manifest in the psych world. It seems more niche.

Yes and no. Its the base of course, but when Rogers famous paper was published (1957), the psychotherapy outcome literature was about 3 inches thick. We have progressed since that time.

 

[RR808]

Would you mind expanding? By outcome literature I take it you mean the evidence and stats used to support Rogers' paper. How come you then bring up progressing? And what does progress mean in this case?

I'm coming into psychology from a different field so some of my questions may be fairly elementary.