Least Terrible Professional PsyD schools

[Qwerk]

I find it odd that an MSW, who has not attended a psychology program, is advocating anything on doctoral psychology programs.

Let's just say it's easier to judge whether a program is a bad idea when you haven't already invested in it. A lot of self-deception can happen when you've poured all of your time and money into something.

You don't have to be a doctoral student (as a side note, I'm positive that my master's program was harder to get into than any of the bottom-of-the-barrel "doctoral" programs we're discussing) to look at the awful numbers for many schools. I'll echo what Sanman is saying about Psy.D./professional programs: a few of them are great, a few more are just okay, and the rest are supported by a combination of federal loans and wishful thinking. Only you can decide whether you feel it's ethical to encourage other students to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on whatever program or programs you apparently think are stellar investments.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MCParent]

I find it odd that an MSW, who has not attended a psychology program, is advocating anything on doctoral psychology programs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

 

[WisNeuro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

I prefer the straw man myself.

 

[JeyRo]

Let's just say it's easier to judge whether a program is a bad idea when you haven't already invested in it. A lot of self-deception can happen when you've poured all of your time and money into something.

You don't have to be a doctoral student (as a side note, I'm positive that my master's program was harder to get into than any of the bottom-of-the-barrel "doctoral" programs we're discussing) to look at the awful numbers for many schools. I'll echo what Sanman is saying about Psy.D./professional programs: a few of them are great, a few more are just okay, and the rest are supported by a combination of federal loans and wishful thinking. Only you can decide whether you feel it's ethical to encourage other students to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on whatever program or programs you apparently think are stellar investments.

Are even "great" doctoral programs worth upwards of 200-300K (or perhaps 500K or more over the lifetime of a loan when you figure in interest payments)?

If it weren't for the presence of "sub-prime" student loan money, I don't think the market would support such insane valuations. Absent the highly distortive effects of the government financing system we have now, I can imagine 80-90 percent of these Psy.D/professional programs completely disappearing, and the quality ones either drastically decreasing in cost or gaining the ability to entirely fund their student population.

The positive affects might even extend to the fully funded programs as well - psychology doctoral programs at R01 universities would probably be able to more efficiently fund a larger pool of students via the grant money pool they have, as tuition costs would probably decrease there as well as there would be less dollars chasing the same amount of training slots in the overall graduate school economy. Just a guess.

 

[Qwerk]

Are even "great" doctoral programs worth upwards of 200-300K (or perhaps 500K or more over the lifetime of a loan when you figure in interest payments)?

Totally agree. But I'd add that a sober calculation of risks and benefits isn't how most people arrive at that decision, great program or not. It's more like, "I really really really want to be a psychologist, but because of [insert reason] I can't attend a funded program." It's a tough decision to make when you've had a particular career goal in mind for a long time and you think you've found a way to realize it. Evidence that you might regret it tends to go in one ear and out the other. Even we super-practical (and super-handsome) master's recipients fall victim to this. My aunt is still paying off the M.S.W. she got from NYU in the nineties, and probably won't pay it in full for at least a decade.

Now to go back to my usual routine of cackling, rubbing my hands, and plotting how I might someday steal psychologists' scope of practice. Mwahaha. Someday I will perform sloppily-administered psychometric testing, my pretties. Mwahaha. ;-)

 

[LPPSYD]

First of all, just because you attend a professional psychology school does not mean that you will not receive a top tier job. I attended a recently unaccredited school (Midwestern University-- we are now APA accredited which helped a lot come internship) and, due to excellent training and a decent personality while interviewing, I was fortunate enough to receive an APA internship at one of the top medical schools in the country. I will be working with nearly all Ph.D.s (all of whom seem lovely, I might add) and I have received job offers from my previous two training sites already. Moral of the story? The name of your school or the type of degree does not equal automatic mediocrity. I went out of my way to pursue excellent training at practicum sites and leadership positions at my school. Also, I have ZERO research experience (with the exception of collecting data-- no publications) and I still received 9 APA interviews for internship. I'm not posting this to brag, but to instead try to dispell this unfortunate notion that what type of degree and/or your school's name is the deciding factor in internships. Honestly, in my experience, internships cared a lot more about your passion, training experience, and, quite frankly, if you had a decent, non-abrasive personality that was pleasant and not pompous. Don't lose faith-- pursue your passion in this field to the utmost, become friendly and professional with your supervisors, and beef up on your interviewing skills.

On a separate note, also check out Roosevelt University in Chicago-- I know several people from that school and it seems like they are pretty good at prepping their students for internship. I would also recommend my school, Midwestern University, as they have made a great deal of changes and the training director goes out of her way to help you get exactly what you want. However, since this is our first year as an APA-accredited school, our APA-internship match rate is still not up to others' standards (however, we do have a 100% match rate to APPIC sites); like I previously stated, that hasn't stood in my way so don't let anyone tell you that you will be a mediocre psychologist just because you attend a professional school. There are plenty of poor clinicians who come from these "top notch" schools and fabulous clinicians from the schools that others scoff at. You just have to work extra hard to ensure that your training is superb regardless of your school.

Best of luck to you! Also, sorry for the long post!

I come from an accredited university-based Psy.D. program that I can guarantee most people have never heard of. I managed to get a fairly competitive APA internship and I feel satisfied with my training overall. With all that said, I would never make the argument you are making, knowing what I know now. It's one thing to recommend Psy.D. programs to prospective students, but it's another thing to argue that exceptions to a program are a reason to take the risks on it. A positive attitude and hard work are great things to have, but they can only take you so far in this field. The odds are very much stacked against students and a lot of it is a gamble. The fact that some students' applications are thrown out immediately based on what school they attend is a perfect example of this. I would also add I'm in more of a "niche" area of psychology, which I think helped me match. I know you mean well, but it's kind of frustrating to read arguments like this over and over, which I don't think are helping the Psy.D. stereotype. Just my two cents.

 

[Sanman]

Are even "great" doctoral programs worth upwards of 200-300K (or perhaps 500K or more over the lifetime of a loan when you figure in interest payments)?

If it weren't for the presence of "sub-prime" student loan money, I don't think the market would support such insane valuations. Absent the highly distortive effects of the government financing system we have now, I can imagine 80-90 percent of these Psy.D/professional programs completely disappearing, and the quality ones either drastically decreasing in cost or gaining the ability to entirely fund their student population.

Well, the irony is that much like PhD programs, the best PsyD programs are sometimes the least expensive. Having been a fully funded PsyD myself, there are opportunities for this. However, I find it silly the distinction people make when speaking about this. I applied to programs that followed a scientist-practitioner model and offered me finding regardless of the degree awarded. The opportunities you have are the largely the same and more debt is never a good thing.

 

[MWUstudent]

I come from an accredited university-based Psy.D. program that I can guarantee most people have never heard of. I managed to get a fairly competitive APA internship and I feel satisfied with my training overall. With all that said, I would never make the argument you are making, knowing what I know now. It's one thing to recommend Psy.D. programs to prospective students, but it's another thing to argue that exceptions to a program are a reason to take the risks on it. A positive attitude and hard work are great things to have, but they can only take you so far in this field. The odds are very much stacked against students and a lot of it is a gamble. The fact that some students' applications are thrown out immediately based on what school they attend is a perfect example of this. I would also add I'm in more of a "niche" area of psychology, which I think helped me match. I know you mean well, but it's kind of frustrating to read arguments like this over and over, which I don't think are helping the Psy.D. stereotype. Just my two cents.

Wowsers.

Okay, maybe I should be more direct-- I was not trying to say that everyone should go to Psy.D. programs because training is superior. Not at all! I apologize if it came across that way. I was simply saying that, even with the "worst case scenario" of landing in a so-called "sub-par" program, you can still succeed. I will be the first to admit that I am an exception and my success has more to do with my own persistence, drive, and talents than my school's reputation or training. Allow me to say that, in meeting with Ph.D.'s and Psy.D.'s all over the country on my internship process, I have realized that, if I had to do it over again, I would go for a school Ph.D. program that was fully funded over a Psy.D. program-- truly, I would. However, that hasn't stopped me from succeeding in both grad school and internship. I also am in somewhat of a "niche" field and so I see your point.

In all honesty, if anyone wants info about my school, they can just PM me. This board is full of not just negativity, but of self-righteous attitudes that are starting to become more annoying and grating than entertaining or thoughtful. Please, can't we just get along? Anywho, I'm off these boards now to do little things-- you know, like prepping for travel across country to my internship, caring for clients, and dealing with my dog's sudden diagnosis of cancer (got that message on Match Day). All I have to say is that, yes, I would so go Ph.D. if I had to do it over, if only for the lack of loans. Unfortunately, you can't change the past and my message was meant to tell people that there is hope even if you don't necessarily make the best choice initially.

 

[Pragma]

Wowsers.

Okay, maybe I should be more direct-- I was not trying to say that everyone should go to Psy.D. programs because training is superior. Not at all! I apologize if it came across that way. I was simply saying that, even with the "worst case scenario" of landing in a so-called "sub-par" program, you can still succeed. I will be the first to admit that I am an exception and my success has more to do with my own persistence, drive, and talents than my school's reputation or training. Allow me to say that, in meeting with Ph.D.'s and Psy.D.'s all over the country on my internship process, I have realized that, if I had to do it over again, I would go for a school Ph.D. program that was fully funded over a Psy.D. program-- truly, I would. However, that hasn't stopped me from succeeding in both grad school and internship. I also am in somewhat of a "niche" field and so I see your point.

In all honesty, if anyone wants info about my school, they can just PM me. This board is full of not just negativity, but of self-righteous attitudes that are starting to become more annoying and grating than entertaining or thoughtful. Please, can't we just get along? Anywho, I'm off these boards now to do little things-- you know, like prepping for travel across country to my internship, caring for clients, and dealing with my dog's sudden diagnosis of cancer (got that message on Match Day). All I have to say is that, yes, I would so go Ph.D. if I had to do it over, if only for the lack of loans. Unfortunately, you can't change the past and my message was meant to tell people that there is hope even if you don't necessarily make the best choice initially.

That is great, I think it is important for people to know that there is the chance to succeed from a less respected program. The fact that it now has accreditation will only help it in the future, but the market is really saturated already in that city.

I work with undergraduate and graduate students who are trying to make decisions about what to do with their lives. I try not to sugarcoat the state of the field, the biases that people hold towards people from certain programs, and the challenges that the field faces. So while your message is encouraging at least to those folks who might not make the cut at a more competitive program, it also is risky to some extent if you don't qualify it with pointing out the negatives (risk, debt, perception, etc). I think that saying "I did great, but n=1 and I'm a competitive student" is sufficient and that attitude would be more well received. Your last post came across as a lot more realistic to me than the one before.

 

[Qwerk]

That is great, I think it is important for people to know that there is the chance to succeed from a less respected program. The fact that it now has accreditation will only help it in the future, but the market is really saturated already in that city.

I work with undergraduate and graduate students who are trying to make decisions about what to do with their lives. I try not to sugarcoat the state of the field, the biases that people hold towards people from certain programs, and the challenges that the field faces. So while your message is encouraging at least to those folks who might not make the cut at a more competitive program, it also is risky to some extent if you don't qualify it with pointing out the negatives (risk, debt, perception, etc). I think that saying "I did great, but n=1 and I'm a competitive student" is sufficient and that attitude would be more well received. Your last post came across as a lot more realistic to me than the one before.

+1. It's important to point out that no one is jumping on any individual psych student's skills or ability to succeed. Rather, we're addressing larger (and sometimes very troubling) trends in psychology and psychotherapy training. Lower-tier school ≠ bad psychologist, but great psychologist ≠ great school.

 

[463951]

and dealing with my dog's sudden diagnosis of cancer (got that message on Match Day).

I am so incredibly sorry MWUstudent. Will send positive vibes your way.

 

[PsyDr]

WisNeuro and Qwerk:

It would actually be argumentum ad hominem, IF I had used my statement to counter Qwerk's statements. I did not. I do not even necessarily disagree with some of his/her own positions. I do find it strange though, that an MSW is commenting on a training model in a profession that is not in his/her field. I would similarly find it strange for a NP/ PA to comment on the entire MD/DO debate.

 

[WisNeuro]

A statement can have an implied meaning in addition to it's literal meaning. Given the statement and it's position in the thread, with no context around it, it came across as a counter. Implying that his comments were not valid due to his background.

 

[hillies]

WisNeuro and Qwerk:

It would actually be argumentum ad hominem, IF I had used my statement to counter Qwerk's statements. I did not. I do not even necessarily disagree with some of his/her own positions. I do find it strange though, that an MSW is commenting on a training model in a profession that is not in his/her field. I would similarly find it strange for a NP/ PA to comment on the entire MD/DO debate.

BUT, how do you know that the person you are referring to did not thoroughly investigate said programs and decide an MSW was right for them...perhaps after the avid recommendation of many people on this board that MSW may be a better option than a FSPS. I think their opinion is still a valid one, as most of the people making the MSW recommendation to potential students here do not actually have an MSW. Just sayin.

 

[PsyDr]

For Qwerk, I only have the information provided to me. I could postulate that Qwerk is the head of NYU Social Work, or that he/she is an alien from the Gleepgorp galaxy.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Social Work has its own forum on SDN.

 

[JeyRo]

For Qwerk, I only have the information provided to me. I could postulate that Qwerk is the head of NYU Social Work, or that he/she is an alien from the Gleepgorp galaxy.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Social Work has its own forum on SDN.

I honestly don't understand why Querk having opinions about this subject (and stating them in this thread) is something you would consider "odd." Perhaps you could elaborate?

 

[Qwerk]

For Qwerk, I only have the information provided to me. I could postulate that Qwerk is the head of NYU Social Work, or that he/she is an alien from the Gleepgorp galaxy.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Social Work has its own forum on SDN.

I'm posting here because I'm an actual, licensed, practicing mental health professional. Most of the people in this forum trying to make decisions about attending Psy.D. and professional programs want to do (sometimes solely) psychotherapy, so my experience in that job market is relevant. My familiarity with the clinical training offered by M.S.W. programs, which is sometimes seen as an alternative to that offered by Psy.D./professional schools, is also relevant. But the main reason I post here is that I'm interested in helping prospective therapists decide what field to enter. No one should make that decision based solely on the marketing materials of whatever graduate school they happened upon. More information is always a good thing.

Did you have any specific argument with what I posted?

 

[PsyDr]

I think the entire MSW route stuff belongs in the Social Work forum of SDN. More information is always preferable. Information about rigor, respect, and breadth of training should be limited to people who have some material knowledge of the subject. I don't see why the graduates on here don't refer to the Social Work forum more often.

 

[Qwerk]

Information about rigor, respect, and breadth of training should be limited to people who have some material knowledge of the subject.

If I said anything inaccurate, please let me know.

 

[Pragma]

Meh, some people are a little too concerned with titles. Qwerk has always been transparent about their background. I think that perspective is valuable within this forum as not everyone will go forum hopping.

 

[shutterbug433]

What about counseling psych ph.d program?....doesnt require as much research (both for admittance and during) and offers traditional psych coursework. Its all the same once your licesned you know. I think I would make a small compromise if would do it if it saved me a 150 thousand dollars and likley provided better and more reputable training than the degree mills you are considering.

Please do not make assumptions about Counseling Psych Ph.D. programs unless you have been in one. They ARE NOT an equivilant to Psy.D. programs, as they, like Clinical Ph.D. programs, go by the Scientist-Practitioner Model (i.e. emphasis on research), NOT the Practitioner-Scholar Model. They require a great deal of research experience and interest in doing research, just like Clinical Ph.D. programs. Counseling Psych programs just study slightly DIFFERENT things than Clinical Psych since they are two different fields (for example, counseling psych takes on career counseling, sport psychology, and I/O psychology in addition to the usual). http://www.div17.org/about/what-is-counseling-psychology/counseling-vs-clinical/

 

[Melina91]

Well, the irony is that much like PhD programs, the best PsyD programs are sometimes the least expensive. Having been a fully funded PsyD myself, there are opportunities for this. However, I find it silly the distinction people make when speaking about this. I applied to programs that followed a scientist-practitioner model and offered me finding regardless of the degree awarded. The opportunities you have are the largely the same and more debt is never a good thing.

Just curious, which school did you attended? How were you funded for your Psyd Program? Thanks