Non-clinical psych PhD first then MSW?

[illy88]

Hi, I see lots of posts about doing an MSW then a PhD in social work, clinical psych, etc, but I'm wondering if anyone has done a non-clinical psychology PhD first (like clinical neuroscience or neuropsychology) and then done an MSW to get the clinical qualifications.

I'm interested in both research and clinical work, but since my research interests cover both clinical psychology and more biological psychology programs (neuroimaging or clincal psychopharmcology type stuff), it seems much easier to do a PhD that's not in clinical psych since those are so competitive to get into.

It seems like I could get the research qualifications then later get clinical qualifications (MSW) separately and be able to combine research and clinical work as someone with a PhD in clinical psychology would, but I can't find any example of people doing this...is that ever done? Successfully?

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted343839]

The major flaw in that plan is that the clinical training in a social work master's program is not equivalent to the training in a clinical psychology PhD program. You would not be eligible for licensure as a psychologist, which would rule out most positions that combine psychological research and clinical services. You would not be competitive for clinical area faculty jobs either, since you wouldn't have the same kind of training and could not supervise clinical psychology trainees' practice. So with most academic clinical jobs a tough sell with that background, I'm not sure what the clinical training would do for you if you are really committed to a research career.

There is a mechanism for a non-clinical PhD in psychology to respecialize in clinical psychology, but there are very few of those programs and they're expensive. Definitely not a "plan A" option.

If you're interested in clinical research from a more biological perspective you might also consider going the academic route in psychiatry. However, this is no less difficult, and in many ways is more difficult, than the clinical psychology Ph.D. path.

I would be lying if I told you there is a legitimate shortcut.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Second everything MamaPhD said. And as a quick note--neuropsychology is a subdiscipline within clinical/counseling psychology. You won't find a non-clinical (as in non-applied) degree program for it, unless it's because the degree doesn't meet APA and/or licensing accreditation standards.

There are a lot of neuropsychologists who do neuroimaging work, and there are also a large number of psychologists who participate in psychopharm work. Getting a doctorate in psychology that allows for practice, and that also gets you experience working in the lab of someone doing that type of research, would probably be the "shortest" route to your end goal. Or, like MamaPhD said, you could go the med school route--either MD/PhD; or MD/DO and then focus on gaining research experience while in med school, on residency (likely psychiatry or neurology, I'd imagine), and possibly on fellowship.

 

[Justanothergrad]

As others have said, there are some problems with that plan. While the clinical training element that MamaPhD discussed is definitely true, I think there is another pragmatic reason.

It would doubtfully spend your time split between those duties. The ideal of "I split my time 50/50 between research and practice" is just not a common reality. There may be some, but I would not make that an expected norm because people specialize to make income. A researcher for something like neuroimaging is a full time gig that is going to (as far as all of the ones I know anyway) require grant hunting to pay the costs associated with that type of research. That doesn't leave a lot of free time to split the bill with clinical work (or really, a desire because 80/hour before costs is not so great in comparison to grant salary for that type of research) so many of the folks I know that do that type of research are not clinically trained. They rely on consultants for the clinical part or emphasize clinically interesting, but not clinically diagnosable behaviors (impulsivity, social behaviors, etc.). Although, as AA said, there are tons of folks with clinical degrees specializing in neuropsychology via neuroimaging, there are also a ton of non-neuroimaging research. Either way, there aren't shortcuts- just decisions for lengthy training. Some are less lengthy than others, but its a matter of career interest.

The question really is, what are your interests and what do you want as a career?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Neuro imaging work is very technical and securing grant funding is very very competitive, so you'll definitely want to gain exposure and experience to this area of research to ensure the day to day work is in fact what you'd want to do.

I agree w. others that an applied PhD or working w. applied clinicians afterwards is the way to go.

 

[ClinicalABA]

From another practical point, you'd be paying for 10+ years of training (including both degrees and required post degree supervised clinical work). Financial and opportunity costs will be quite high (even if fully funded in the Ph.D., you're talking ~6 years with minimum income). At the end of it all, your earning potential would be based on only one of the degrees, or at best an average of the two. If the Ph.D.= salary A and the MSW=Salary B, you're not going to be able to earn A+B, even though that's what you paid for. Let's say you do it and get that 50/50 split (unlikely, but let's go with it here). Disregarding other factors/costs (e.g. lack of full benefits for 1/2 time employees), you might make (A+B)/2, which cannot be more that either A or B. Unless A=B, your going to be making less than you would with just A or just B, even though you paid for A+B. If the actually opportunity existed (which other posters have indicated is unlikely), you need to be sure that the costs of splitting your education/career between these two things is really worth it. The advantages of doing both degrees would be primarily related to job flexibility, variation, and (big maybe) satisfaction. There are almost certainly minimal to negligible financial benefits, with a higher likelihood that costs would never be recouped. Money ain't everything, but as you move on with your training (and life), such considerations will likely become much more significant.