Psychology or Psychiatry?

[sakura741]

Deleted

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

If salary is the #1 consideration, definitely do not go into psychology. I'm happy with my starting salary of 90k, but you have to want to go into psych because you love it, not to be rich. I'm also very happy with my 75/25 clinical/research mix.

 

[sakura741]

Deleted

 

[WisNeuro]

Well, it depends on what support your family means. Some people get it done with 40k a year. Some people think the only way to do it is well in the six figure range. I personally place career satisfaction way ahead of salary. There a lot of other things I could have gone into to make more money, but I love this. I think you need to figure out where those priorities are and how they line up with your abilities/prospects for each type of career.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

No, $200k isn't the norm; it's certainly possible if you're competent and willing to work hard (among other things), but it's not typical, and it'll probably require more creativity and having your finger in more "pies" than would be the case as a psychiatrist (where $200k+ to start wouldn't be unusual).

Then again, there's also nothing to stop you from being a psychologist as your "day job," and being involved in various other active and passive pursuits to supplement your income. I mean hey, who says a psychologist can't own a couple Subways?

 

[erg923]

It's not #1, but it is a big factor, as I'm looking to support my family--I do know some psychologists who earn well over $200K, but I gather that this isn't the norm. I do love psychology, much more so than the 'hard' sciences, if that's any help.

I make slightly over 100 now with a VA job and some side work (from home, mostly), and honestly, I dont know how much better my life would be if I made 200 or 300. I have a home, a pension, and 401K, a jeep and 2 kids. We can take a vacation or two a year. I really dont know what more I need. I mean, I'd take more sure, but Im not willing to sacrifice the time away from home to do it. 40-45 hour weeks are pretty awesome right now.

I am in a great mid south city with low cost of living.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The day-to-day work of each respective profession is pretty different. The vast majority of psychiatry positions are 60min intakes (sometimes 90-120min), 15min med checks, and sometimes some supervision for a PA or NP. It can be very "stack & wack". The Psychiatry forum has a few threads that talk about different job setups (and salaries).

There is currently a large shortage of psychiatrists, so finding work is easier than as a psychologist. A bottom tier psychiatrist will have a bunch of jobs to choose from coming out of school…which is not possible for a bottom tier psychologist. However, I'd argue a well trained psychologist (university program, APA-acred internship, post-doc/fellowship, board eligible) should be able to find employment in most desirable location. Earning potential is definitely lower, but making $100k for a 40-50ish hr week is doable..depending on setting. Psychiatry is more likely $180-$220k (w. $250k-$300k+ being possible if you want to put in 50-60hr+ wks). There are areas of psychology that can and do make more, but they are competitive and all require fellowship training.

 

[greenlion]

I did not intend to go into med school at first because it seems like a very long and arduous path for what I want to do, not to mention that I am not terribly fond of med school sciences (i.e. chem, physics).

People are comparing salaries as if its an open option. If you aren't fond of chem/physics/bio then you simply will not get into medical school. There are plenty of people who are crazy about it that can't get in. It's not something a social science student just decides to do (and succeeds) without 100% determination. So go to your school library and crack open a general chemistry 1 book and see if you can- to the tune of a >3.6 GPA. (and can work hard to jump through the hoops like MCAT, physician shadowing, ECs etc.) Hell even after medical school your Psychiatry boards are 40% Neurology.

I primarily would like to do research, and I would also like to have time to do other things rather than just work for days on end.

A problem as well- people who do primarily research in psychiatry will not earn much more than a psychology researcher. Otherwise a lot of people find research more fulfilling than running around as a clinician! For example those psychiatrists who make bank are also business(wo)men I.e. getting a contract to see inpatients at a hospital and then self-referring them to your own private office for long-term care where you churn them out in high volume.

Last,
And if money is an issue and hard sciences an annoyance can I also suggest a non psychology/psychiatry career? Things like law and human resources come to mind. Or real estate. Or hospital administration. Or _____ here.

Good luck!

 

[erg923]

People are comparing salaries as if its an open option. If you aren't fond of chem/physics/bio then you simply will not get into medical school. There are plenty of people who are crazy about it that can't get in. It's not something a social science student just decides to do (and succeeds) without 100% determination. So go to your school library and crack open a general chemistry 1 book and see if you can- to the tune of a >3.6 GPA. (and can work hard to jump through the hoops like MCAT, physician shadowing, ECs etc.) Hell even after medical school your Psychiatry boards are 40% Neurology.



A problem as well- people who do primarily research in psychiatry will not earn much more than a psychology researcher. Otherwise a lot of people find research more fulfilling than running around as a clinician! For example those psychiatrists who make bank are also business(wo)men I.e. getting a contract to see inpatients at a hospital and then self-referring them to your own private office for long-term care where you churn them out in high volume.

Last,
And if money is an issue and hard sciences an annoyance can I also suggest a non psychology/psychiatry career? Things like law and human resources come to mind. Or real estate. Or hospital administration. Or _____ here.

Ok, off the high horse there chief. Poll your doc regarding his enthusiasm You could drive down for a day and stay a night with me with the bubba lu level for org chem and get back to me on that. Mmmk?

Otherwise, yes. med school is hard and hard to get into, but frankly, most people who are determined to do it find a way. There are plenty of MDs out there with an IQ square in the middle of average, I assure you.

I also think most are going to disagree about money and academia. Starting salares of assist prof positions in medical schools are certainly higher do to the MD status. soft money vs mix position will of course influence things, but psychiatrists getting RO1s will generally be making more then ologists who do the same.

 

[WisNeuro]

Social science students can do just fine and succeed in med school classes. Having taken neurology med school classes at a top #20 institution and passing just fine. It's really more about rote memorization than anything. All of the profession and IQ data shows no statistical difference between the 2 professions, with a large SD for each.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I would love to make over 200k, maybe I would be able to pay off my student loans quicker and drive a nicer car! Is that too much to ask for? Really though, I love being a psychologist and am grateful most of the time that I didn't go the psychiatry route. There are two main reasons that I wish that I had, when I need to pay bills and when my patients need meds. The first is working out okay and I see some light at the end of the financial hole I dug. The second is becoming a bigger issue for me the other day. I even have the support of the medical docs here at the hospital to start writing scripts. They would rather have a psychiatrist, but since we can't find one to work here, they want me to do it. I was telling the ER doc that I would have to get the equivalent of a two year masters to get privileges in the states that allow it and he thought that was a bit excessive, then he said, "So what should I give this patient for their psychosis?" He was disappointed that I wouldn't answer the question because he was so impressed that I could calm the patient and get them to talk about what was going on when they had just been glaring and uncommunicative with the rest of the staff. I guess he figured if I could do that, then I should be able to recommend a med. So the short answer is that we need both in the field and think patients would be better served if psychiatrists and psychologists worked together more instead of fighting each other while the mid-levels encroach.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I do think there's definitely something to be said for the different prep work that's required for the two paths, all difficulty-related concepts aside. If the OP is a sophomore, then they're already a bit behind if they didn't get gen chem (and possibly bio, English, and calculus) out of the way last year to make room for o-chem, physics, and whatever else in years 2, 3, and 4. In general, perhaps one of those classes is required for a psychology degree, and none would generally be necessary for grad school admissions. Not that they wouldn't be useful, and not that the average psych grad student couldn't pass them, but odds are the average psych undergrad isn't going to have bothered to take them. Also, those courses, just like many others, are tough to pass if you just flat-out aren't interested in the subject matter. Conversely, the psych grad school route is of course quite different, with much heavier emphasis on direct involvement in research as opposed to shadowing, community service, and coursework.

Fortunately, even if the OP hasn't completed any pre-med coursework, they're still early enough in college to only end up needing to delay graduation by perhaps a year or two (which isn't much at all in the grand scheme of things).

I do worry about the lack of passion for/interest in some of the biological sciences, though, considering that as a psychiatry PI, that could be what much of your research focuses on.

 

[smalltownpsych]

The other problem with a psych undergrad degree is it's popularity. For me, that dilutes both the reputation of the degree and the educational experience.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

The other problem with a psych undergrad degree is it's popularity. For me, that dilutes both the reputation of the degree and the educational experience.

My take is that it's been the ease/lack of academic rigor of the degree that's resulted in so many people choosing it, rather than vice-versa. But I could be wrong. And it'd be fairly easily (theoretically) remedied by including some more solid statistics, research methods, and neuroscience requirements.

 

[WisNeuro]

My take is that it's been the ease/lack of academic rigor of the degree that's resulted in so many people choosing it, rather than vice-versa. But I could be wrong. And it'd be fairly easily (theoretically) remedied by including some more solid statistics, research methods, and neuroscience requirements.

Depends on the school and type of degree sometimes. We had a B.Sc and a B.A. I did the B.Sc and needed calculus, chemistry, stats, anatomy, and several other bio/nat sci classes as part of our degree.

 

[greenlion]

Ok, off the high horse there chief. Poll your doc regarding his enthusiasm You could drive down for a day and stay a night with me with the bubba lu level for org chem and get back to me on that. Mmmk?

Otherwise, yes. med school is hard and hard to get into, but frankly, most people who are determined to do it find a way. There are plenty of MDs out there with an IQ square in the middle of average, I assure you.

I also think most are going to disagree about money and academia. Starting salares of assist prof positions in medical schools are certainly higher do to the MD status. soft money vs mix position will of course influence things, but psychiatrists getting RO1s will generally be making more then ologists who do the same.

You and WisNeuro- please read carefully before quoting me. I said "fond of" and "crazy about". Nothing about requiring certain IQs. The poster specifically said (s)he isn't fond of hard sciences which I quoted because the fact is if you aren't then getting into a US allopathic medical school (and everything thereafter) will be quite difficult or at least a struggle that requires "100% motivation"- the problem being is you can't just pass these science classes you would have to get A/A-'s in the vast majority to be competitive. Hence my suggestion for him/her to crack open a gen chem 1 book and see!

About the Asst. Profs in med schools- most of their income comes from the clinical side. Some of them barely do any research (those make more). But if you were "primarily doing research as a psychiatrist", especially at a prestigious place like UCSF, Pitt, Harvard- then I wouldn't be surprised if you income was $100k and lower.

Social science students can do just fine and succeed in med school classes. Having taken neurology med school classes at a top #20 institution and passing just fine. It's really more about rote memorization than anything. All of the profession and IQ data shows no statistical difference between the 2 professions, with a large SD for each.

That's great. I don't know you- if I were a betting man I would guess you have a good IQ. But for the purposes of this discussion we were talking about psychology vs. psychiatry and I don't believe the former requires all of that (hard science courses- not IQ).

 

[WisNeuro]

The quote "It's not something a social science student just decides to do (and succeeds) without 100% determination" belies the impression that you weren't trying to make a comment about innate ability. But, if you truly meant it the other way, my apologies. And as I noted above, some schools do indeed require a decent amount of natural sciences to obtain a degree. Granted, it is different across school settings, but I took a majority of nat science/math/etc for my degree.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Depends on the school and type of degree sometimes. We had a B.Sc and a B.A. I did the B.Sc and needed calculus, chemistry, stats, anatomy, and several other bio/nat sci classes as part of our degree.

Very true, and I wish more schools had reqs similar to yours. My undergrad alma mater had both the BA and BS as well, with similar reqs for the BS (although no anatomy, just physio/bio psych); my grad school didn't offer the BS for psych. I'm wondering if it might just be better to switch them all over to BS degrees. Even with the added requirements, it's not like there wasn't also time to throw in extra English, philosophy, sociology, and/or anthropology electives if you wanted to.

 

[CheetahGirl]

AA, WisNeuro ~ I agree with you both on this: BSc degrees for psych, which is usually housed in the Humanities and Sciences departments. I have a BSc in psych and took all the Liberal Arts courses mentioned as electives. My 'hard sciences' classes have helped me immensely in training and research, especially working alongside other health professionals. Plus I love the fact that I was a pre-med Math major as a freshman...which always brings me back to the need for understanding statistics in our field. All the psychodynamic discussions I rant about are just my newly-found 'love' for this subject matter within our field and the complexity of its historical roots (which could definitely be considered Liberal Arts).

I also agree about the rote memory requirement for medical school...I have been told countless times by many different kinds of physicians that if you have the discipline, determination, and skills to memorize "something like a phone book" (remember those!?), you'll do fine remembering the vital minutia of the human body, or sequences of the citric cycle, or deprotonation or how alcohols are converted to alkenes via an elimination reaction, etc. I loved organic chemistry but had to work too hard to enjoy it - so I can relate to it being the 'make or break' for medical school. However, my buddies who are physicians now, stuck it out, and are reaping the benefits of different kinds of patient care (and most likely making more cash doing). Do I have any regrets? Absolutely not. I am part of a couple who does well (my husband is equally passionate about his unrelated career) and I (will) have a satisfying career when it's all said and done.

It's not #1, but it is a big factor, as I'm looking to support my family--I do know some psychologists who earn well over $200K, but I gather that this isn't the norm. I do love psychology, much more so than the 'hard' sciences, if that's any help.

sakura741, if job satisfaction outweighs finances....excel on your current path. It is the exception to the rule for clinical psychologists to make over $200K, but I have worked for several clinical psychologists who are research faculty at large academic medical centers in NYC who do, in fact, just that. However, they are 50-60 hr/week folks who love their positions of seniority and have worked diligently to secure the grants and tenures to get them where they are.

Bottom line: You must be exceptional to make the same salary (after several years) that some physicians may make starting out. But, I'm sure you have gathered this by the previous posts.

 

[smalltownpsych]

AA, WisNeuro ~ I agree with you both on this: BS degrees for psych, which is usually housed in the Humanities and Sciences departments. I have a BS in psych and took all the Liberal Arts courses mentioned as electives. My 'hard sciences' classes have helped me immensely in training and research, especially working alongside other health professionals. And I love the fact that I was a pre-med Math major as a freshman...which always brings me back to the need for understanding statistics in our field. All the psychodynamic BS I rant about is just my newly-found 'love' for this subject matter within our field and the complexity of its historical roots (which could definitely be considered Liberal Arts).

I also agree about the rote memory requirement for medical school...I have been told countless times by many different kinds of physicians that if you have the discipline, determination, and skills to memorize "something like a phone book" (remember those!?), you'll do fine remembering the vital minutia of the human body, or sequences of the citric cycle, or deprotonation or how alcohols are converted to alkenes via an elimination reaction, etc. I loved organic chemistry but had to work too hard to enjoy it - so I can relate to it being the 'make or break' for medical school. However, my buddies who are physicians now, stuck it out, and are reaping the benefits of different kinds of patient care (and most likely making more cash doing). Do I have any regrets? Absolutely not. I am part of a couple who does well (my husband is equally passionate about his unrelated career) and I (will) have a satisfying career when it's all said and done.

I can't believe you said psychodynamic BS! Sure there has been a lot of unscientific and unsupported BS spouted by psychodynamic theorists, but when you start looking at Object Relations and Attachment theories then you start to see some more sound scientific underpinnings. Also, the pure experimental method is not the only way to conduct science. Most science was founded on careful systematic, observations in naturalistic settings. That's one way to generate testable hypotheses. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

 

[WisNeuro]

I can't believe you said psychodynamic BS! Sure there has been a lot of unscientific and unsupported BS spouted by psychodynamic theorists, but when you start looking at Object Relations and Attachment theories then you start to see some more sound scientific underpinnings. Also, the pure experimental method is not the only way to conduct science. Most science was founded on careful systematic, observations in naturalistic settings. That's one way to generate testable hypotheses. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

Sure, naturalistic observation is a good way to come up with hypotheses, but then you definitely need experimental method to find out if they are supported or not. You said it yourself, testable hypotheses, if you can't produce those, get back to the drawing board until you can.

 

[CheetahGirl]

I can't believe you said psychodynamic BS! Sure there has been a lot of unscientific and unsupported BS spouted by psychodynamic theorists, but when you start looking at Object Relations and Attachment theories then you start to see some more sound scientific underpinnings. Also, the pure experimental method is not the only way to conduct science. Most science was founded on careful systematic, observations in naturalistic settings. That's one way to generate testable hypotheses. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

I said it for camaraderie-sake, but just edited it because I was feeling disingenuous all of a sudden. I completely agree with you about attachment and object relations theories. That's where MY HARD SCIENCES in this "nullified space" exist...I will validate my studies and those of future PIs/Co-Is or die trying. And I wonder if we crossed paths academically?! My beloved professor (who was Aaron Beck's last PSYCHODYNAMIC training patient before Beck was rejected by a psychoanalytic post-doc program BEFORE he went on to develop CBT) always said "don't throw the baby out with the bath H20." Too funny!

Another reason why I ask some skeptics of psychodynamics to also weigh in the strengths (not just limitations) of another theoretical perspective is because Aaron Beck knew psychodynamic theories so very well before he diverged from its teachings. Recent history has it that Beck's training case (my professor who is an analyst now) "got better too quickly" under the Beck's treatment and the analytic folks thought he wasn't going "deep enough to understand his patient" (meanwhile my professor said he was just a young 20s graduate student who was overwhelmed by the pressure of graduate school, but that's about it). My sentiment still stands: Hold your friends close, but your foe even closer. In a way this is also an example of the dangers of over-pathologizing which any theoretical orientation can do.

 

[WisNeuro]

...I will validate my studies and those of future PIs/Co-Is or die trying.

Be careful though, you're running into the dark void that has captured most CTE investigators. You have to go into the research fully acknowledging that you can also invalidate your hypotheses. I think far too many people do research to confirm what they believe rather than being able to challenge their beliefs when the data comes out in the non-hypothesized direction.

 

[CheetahGirl]

Be careful though, you're running into the dark void that has captured most CTE investigators. You have to go into the research fully acknowledging that you can also invalidate your hypotheses. I think far too many people do research to confirm what they believe rather than being able to challenge their beliefs when the data comes out in the non-hypothesized direction.

WisNeuro, that is the sanest thing I've ever read that you've written.

Yes, this was a huge take-home point from a former research advisor* who said sometimes we learn much more when our studies do not produce the results we hoped for...she said null hypotheses can lead to even greater discoveries if you reassess your work from the prospective that the data eventually yield. (*BTW, this research advisor is a developmental psychologist who was instrumental in developing and researching discrete emotions theory and adult attachment theory. Her studies have supported these theories with empirical data for the past 20+ years. PM me if you want references to book chapters.)

 

[sakura741]

Wow, a lot of responses! Thanks to everyone who shared their input!

If you aren't fond of chem/physics/bio then you simply will not get into medical school.

I do think there's definitely something to be said for the different prep work that's required for the two paths, all difficulty-related concepts aside.

I'm not too fond of hard sciences, but that doesn't mean I can't do well in them--I took some premed reqs already and received sufficient grades, and I probably will take additional courses in the summer depending on whether I want to go for a fifth year or not. I don't necessarily find them difficult, I just don't have that much of a vested interest in those courses.

And if money is an issue and hard sciences an annoyance can I also suggest a non psychology/psychiatry career? Things like law and human resources come to mind.

I did consider law school, but everyone on TLS and similar forums seem to think that if med school is a viable option, it's definitely the better choice--and considering the job prospects of a newly minted law grad, I'd have to agree.

It is the exception to the rule for clinical psychologists to make over $200K, but I have worked for several clinical psychologists who are research faculty at large academic medical centers in NYC who do, in fact, just that. However, they are 50-60 hr/week folks who love their positions of seniority and have worked diligently to secure the grants and tenures to get them where they are. Bottom line: You must be exceptional to make the same salary (after several years) that some physicians may make starting out.

Haha, I definitely got that! But as I've stated, I'd like some free time, so if I'd prefer working fewer hours to earn the same amount, if possible. I realize that medschool is very physician oriented, but I do think I'd enjoy being a psychiatrist as much as a psychologist once I put in the effort.

 

[CheetahGirl]

But as I've stated, I'd like some free time, so if I'd prefer working fewer hours to earn the same amount, if possible. I realize that medschool is very physician oriented, but I do think I'd enjoy being a psychiatrist as much as a psychologist once I put in the effort.

Some advice: Get one of these: http://www.amazon.com/3B-Scientific...r=1-2&keywords=molecule+kit+organic+chemistry

And start studying. You will need to put in that extra time NOW in college, rather than later in life to do well in your pre-med classes. As greelion stated above, med schools want to see A/A- in orgo...maybe B+ but, definitely not B- (what I got in organic II & STRUGGLED to do that). Time management will be key. Anecdotally, all the pre-med folks who partied their behinds off did not go on to medical school (nor to funded clinical psych PhDs) unless they were geniuses, but again that is the exception to the rule.

Good luck!

 

[smalltownpsych]

Sure, naturalistic observation is a good way to come up with hypotheses, but then you definitely need experimental method to find out if they are supported or not. You said it yourself, testable hypotheses, if you can't produce those, get back to the drawing board until you can.

Yes and No. In other words, I agree that we need to continue to work to find testable hypotheses and refine our research to continue to get at answers to difficult to measure psychological constructs. I disagree with the implication that a true experiment is the only way to conduct research and I think that can lead to reductionist errors in thinking. E.g. Skinner decided cognition was irrelevant and postulated a fairly mechanistic view of human behavior. I think even with the advent of CBT, we are still not looking at some key variables - namely the interpersonal and the affective.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yes and No. In other words, I agree that we need to continue to work to find testable hypotheses and refine our research to continue to get at answers to difficult to measure psychological constructs. I disagree with the implication that a true experiment is the only way to conduct research and I think that can lead to reductionist errors in thinking. E.g. Skinner decided cognition was irrelevant and postulated a fairly mechanistic view of human behavior. I think even with the advent of CBT, we are still not looking at some key variables - namely the interpersonal and the affective.

If you can come up with another way to adequately test hypotheses outside of the experimental method, by all means. But, if you can't test something you can neither support or disprove it, and it's all just unaccounted postulation in the end. Might as well switch it to philosophy.

 

[smalltownpsych]

If you can come up with another way to adequately test hypotheses outside of the experimental method, by all means. But, if you can't test something you can neither support or disprove it, and it's all just unaccounted postulation in the end. Might as well switch it to philosophy.

Are you really saying that the only valid information is from the experimental method? Aren't alternative methods valid? Correlations will yield probabilities that variables are related, are you saying because directionality and causality cannot be determined then the data is just speculative? Some hypotheses can't be tested by experimental methods. My hypothesis based on observations is that child abuse can cause increases in depression and anxiety, only a Nazi scientist could test that one. We have to rely on other methodologies and we as a field have done some great experiments and quasi-experiments to demonstrate just that. Please be aware, that I am not saying that all or even any of Freud's theories are correct because that is usual straw man that is put up against anyone who espouses that there is any validity to some psychodynamic constructs and concepts.

 

[smalltownpsych]

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm saying you can make naturalistic observations all you want, and hypotheses from those all you want. And yes, a correlation is just speculative until you can examine something a little more closely and test for alternative explanations using more rigorous methods. But, if you want to support those hypotheses, it needs to be testable or it's just a nifty thought experiment. And yes, quasi-experimental methods still use the experimental method (twin studies, translational research, etc.) But, purely relying on observation and conjecture, as Freud did, is a poor way to do science. I'm not throwing all of psychodynamic theory under the bus, except those with untestable hypotheses.

 

[smalltownpsych]

To bring this back to the OP, if you are interested in these types of theoretical debates, then psychology might be better than psychiatry. They don't get to argue as much cause medications are easier to research. After all, no matter how grounded you are in science (which is essential), when you are trying to make clinical decisions in the real world with a patient sitting across from you, a lot of speculation happens!

 

[CheetahGirl]

To bring this back to the OP, if you are interested in these types of theoretical debates, then psychology might be better than psychiatry. They don't get to argue as much cause medications are easier to research. After all, no matter how grounded you are in science (which is essential), when you are trying to make clinical decisions in the real world with a patient sitting across from you, a lot of speculation happens!

Amen/Om Shanti Shanti/Shalom.

 

[CheetahGirl]

Hopefully my last post on this thread, for the OP and any others considering psychiatry versus psychology: Try to make your decision about your career path earlier rather than later, and minimize any verbalizations about regret. No clinical psychology doctorate program wants a med school 'reject' (and I use that term loosely). You will BOMB your interviews if you go into them saying "I could've, would've, should've, but didn't and now I'm in front of you enthusiastic as hell about my future prospects in your program, and about FINALLY coming to the decision to be a clinical psychologist!!!" Keep the should've, would've, could've to yourself and own your new path if it changes. I've seen this very thing done in group interviews, and the interviewers actually rolled their eyes...which is not a good sign.

Cheers!

 

[WisNeuro]

To bring this back to the OP, if you are interested in these types of theoretical debates, then psychology might be better than psychiatry. They don't get to argue as much cause medications are easier to research. After all, no matter how grounded you are in science (which is essential), when you are trying to make clinical decisions in the real world with a patient sitting across from you, a lot of speculation happens!

I agree, a lot of speculation happens. But then hypothesis testing comes in, followed by choosing the appropriate empirically-validated treatments

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Hopefully my last post on this thread, for the OP and any others considering psychiatry versus psychology: Try to make your decision about your career path earlier rather than later, and minimize any verbalizations about regret. No clinical psychology doctorate program wants a med school 'reject' (and I use that term loosely). You will BOMB your interviews if you go into them saying "I could've, would've, should've, but didn't and now I'm in front of you enthusiastic as hell about my future prospects in your program, and about FINALLY coming to the decision to be a clinical psychologist!!!" Keep the should've, would've, could've to yourself and own your new path if it changes. I've seen this very thing done in group interviews, and the interviewers actually rolled their eyes...which is not a good sign.

Cheers!

+1, and this is also problematic once you're past the interview stage. I went to grad school with someone who continually asked if I was happy that I'd gone to grad school instead of med school, if I had regrets that I wasn't going to be a physician, if I constantly wished/thought about changing paths, etc. This person was very, very unhappy in grad school, which came across to others and which likely also affected their performance.

 

[SuperSoccer19]

To OP: I was in your shoes once and ended up going the MD route. My clinic currently has a mix of psychiatrists, LCSWs, LPCs, Nurses, and psychologists and its a little non-traditional, but here are reasons that I would or would not recommend psychiatry:

Pros:
-there are a lot of tools you will be able to use that psychologists can't if you choose to have a clinical practice. Ie, ECT, Meds, searching for a medical condition that might be manifesting as a psychiatric presentation, etc.
-There are some jobs that only MDs can do: inpatient, consult, supervision of midlevels
-If you want to do research or therapy, there are options for this. Once you have that MD you can basically do whatever you are credentialed to do and can do extra training in both.
-you tend to make more, but a lot of this is based on how you chose to practice. If you decide to only do therapy cases for one hour, you are not going to make nearly as much as if you did the 15 minute med appointments. In a lot of places you can bill more then a psychologist or LCSW, but not always. There was a recent change in coding and im not sure how this pans out in practice (im salary and try to ignore RVUs).

Cons:
-you will have to go to medical school, but its really not horrible. You learn a lot--work hard, play hard, but the hours can suck depending on the rotations. The first two years tend to almost exclusively be hard sciences, but there are a lot of people that are not science majors who do this. You just need to take the pre-requesites and get decent grades. If you are too late in school to start this now, you can take coursework after you graduate, but this will cost more financially.
-you will then have to do a residency. you will be seeing patients, but one year of this includes a lot of general medicine and can sometimes be painful depending where you go. Years 2-4 completely focus on psych and its more of an apprenticeship, so you are working at this point and seeing patients with supervision.
-Cost of medical school. Um, yeah...expect to be in dept for some time unless you sell your soul to a pay-back program

Then there's always the option of an MD/PhD. I honestly don't know how that would work or the difference in job options, but these tend to focus more on research.

Feel free to PM with any questions.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

To OP: I was in your shoes once and ended up going the MD route. My clinic currently has a mix of psychiatrists, LCSWs, LPCs, Nurses, and psychologists and its a little non-traditional, but here are reasons that I would or would not recommend psychiatry:

Pros:
-there are a lot of tools you will be able to use that psychologists can't if you choose to have a clinical practice. Ie, ECT, Meds, searching for a medical condition that might be manifesting as a psychiatric presentation, etc.
-There are some jobs that only MDs can do: inpatient, consult, supervision of midlevels
-If you want to do research or therapy, there are options for this. Once you have that MD you can basically do whatever you are credentialed to do and can do extra training in both.
-you tend to make more, but a lot of this is based on how you chose to practice. If you decide to only do therapy cases for one hour, you are not going to make nearly as much as if you did the 15 minute med appointments. In a lot of places you can bill more then a psychologist or LCSW, but not always. There was a recent change in coding and im not sure how this pans out in practice (im salary and try to ignore RVUs).

Cons:
-you will have to go to medical school, but its really not horrible. You learn a lot--work hard, play hard, but the hours can suck depending on the rotations. The first two years tend to almost exclusively be hard sciences, but there are a lot of people that are not science majors who do this. You just need to take the pre-requesites and get decent grades. If you are too late in school to start this now, you can take coursework after you graduate, but this will cost more financially.
-you will then have to do a residency. you will be seeing patients, but one year of this includes a lot of general medicine and can sometimes be painful depending where you go. Years 2-4 completely focus on psych and its more of an apprenticeship, so you are working at this point and seeing patients with supervision.
-Cost of medical school. Um, yeah...expect to be in dept for some time unless you sell your soul to a pay-back program

Then there's always the option of an MD/PhD. I honestly don't know how that would work or the difference in job options, but these tend to focus more on research.

Feel free to PM with any questions.

I would agree with most of this post except for the bolded portion. Psychologists can and frequently do consult (e.g., nearly all of what I currently do in my post-doc is consultation), work in inpatient units (although it's generally less common than for psychiatrists, and psychologists won't be prescribing in most cases), and supervise midlevels (although not in a medical context--e.g., NPs' medical practices such as prescribing).

It used to be the case that most executive-level managerial positions in hospitals/MCs would be reserved for physicians, but that's generally no longer the case, either. Although as an MD/DO, none of those positions would likely be barred to you; as a PhD, it could depend (e.g., a Ph.D. probably isn't going to be chief of staff over general medicine or surgery).

 

[MCParent]

The poster specifically said (s)he isn't fond of hard sciences which I quoted because the fact is if you aren't then getting into a US allopathic medical school (and everything thereafter) will be quite difficult or at least a struggle that requires "100% motivation"- the problem being is you can't just pass these science classes you would have to get A/A-'s in the vast majority to be competitive.

Naw. I agree this is a poor way of looking at it. I just just fine in maths, organic chem, bio, etc. when I first started uni and wanted to be premed (meanwhile losing my mind in my required Literature course); I just didn't care for it. If some factor of going to med school had really made me want to do it, I likely could have. I know a lot of folks with "100% motivation" to get into med school who failed the core courses (sometimes multiple times) and some of us who were plodding along a career path that didn't enthrall us did well in the courses. If OP were to say, screw everything I just want to be a medical specialist and pile on the money, OP might be able to muster up the motivation to do well even without an intrinsic love of the material.

 

[CheetahGirl]

Naw. I agree this is a poor way of looking at it.

If OP were to say, screw everything I just want to be a medical specialist and pile on the money, OP might be able to muster up the motivation to do well even without an intrinsic love of the material.

MCParent, with all do respect, saying what greenlion posted as being "poor" maybe not the most appropriate use of terms (I know - psychologists have a way of hanging on the semantics of every single word spoken, or written - in this case). If the OP or anyone, for that matter, could motivate themselves beyond their natural god-given talents and intrinsic love in order to be a competitive applicant to medical school, then that person is some kind of genius. Because I can't imagine forcing yourself for hours on end to study abstract concepts (organic chem, physics, cell bio) while shoving your friends/social life aside (or prioritizing your work rather, as a 18-22 year old) to do well in an extremely difficult career path. Let's also say it requires a great deal of emotional maturity. So for these reasons, I commented above that those folks who do, in fact, push themselves (as you are suggesting) are exceptions to the rule.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Naw. I agree this is a poor way of looking at it. I just just fine in maths, organic chem, bio, etc. when I first started uni and wanted to be premed (meanwhile losing my mind in my required Literature course); I just didn't care for it. If some factor of going to med school had really made me want to do it, I likely could have. I know a lot of folks with "100% motivation" to get into med school who failed the core courses (sometimes multiple times) and some of us who were plodding along a career path that didn't enthrall us did well in the courses. If OP were to say, screw everything I just want to be a medical specialist and pile on the money, OP might be able to muster up the motivation to do well even without an intrinsic love of the material.

Ugh! I feel ya on that with the lit course. My worst was Music Appreciation. I think I ended up with a friggin' C while that same semester I was getting the highest grade in the class in my statistics course! Kind of gives credence to Gardner's theory on multiple intelligences.

 

[WisNeuro]

Ugh! I feel ya on that with the lit course. My worst was Music Appreciation. I think I ended up with a friggin' C while that same semester I was getting the highest grade in the class in my statistics course! Kind of gives credence to Gardner's theory on multiple intelligences.

Gardner's stuff has limited empirical support. But, if you're into multiple aspects of intelligence, definitely check out the Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory stuff. Much more of a research literature and the basis for the WJ Cognitive tests.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Gardner's stuff has limited empirical support. But, if you're into multiple aspects of intelligence, definitely check out the Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory stuff. Much more of a research literature and the basis for the WJ Cognitive tests.

I think his problem was trying to say that these areas of intelligence are distinct from each other. In other words, that there are weak or no correlations between them. If you are saying that there is no empirical support that some people are more gifted at music than others, then you are really demonstrating some flawed logic.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think his problem was trying to say that these areas of intelligence are distinct from each other. In other words, that there are weak or no correlations between them. If you are saying that there is no empirical support that some people are more gifted at music than others, then you are really demonstrating some flawed logic.

I'm saying that Gardner's theories have been tested using empirical methods and have found little support. I made no mention of musical giftedness. I fail to see the flawed logic in saying that a certain theory has obtained little to no support in the literature.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Ugh! I feel ya on that with the lit course. My worst was Music Appreciation. I think I ended up with a friggin' C while that same semester I was getting the highest grade in the class in my statistics course! Kind of gives credence to Gardner's theory on multiple intelligences.

I took a Music Appreciation class my senior year and got a C+…it was beyond frustrating bc I appreciated the music!! I'm bad w. names and dates (which was a good portion of the final)…but I could play all of the pieces on the piano, most from memory. My professor was beside herself that I could play so well, but "couldn't' remember some names and dates." It was well over a decade ago, and it still bothers me.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I was the one talking about musical ability vs mathematical ability which is part of Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence. You stated that there is little empirical support which I pointed out related to the his hypothesis that these were distinct entities. That is easily testable and doesn't really hold up well. We could just look at Dr. Hannibal Lecter as an example of someone who is a super-genius at everything. That does not mean that people don't have differential abilities which is another part of Gardner's theory! Unless you are saying that there is little empirical support that people aren't better at some things than others then I don't know why you even brought it up.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm saying that Gardner's theory as a whole has not received substantial support empirically. It has been tested, it's been found wanting. I brought it up because you made a comment that something gave credence to his theories. So, I pointed out the lack of credence to his particular theory and made a comment about another set of varied intelligences which actually does have empirical support.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I see why the VA thread devolved the other day.

 

[MCParent]

Because I can't imagine forcing yourself for hours on end to study abstract concepts (organic chem, physics, cell bio) while shoving your friends/social life aside (or prioritizing your work rather, as a 18-22 year old) to do well in an extremely difficult career path.

Really? You don't know a single person who did med, law, engineering, etc., without any real personal interest but because Dr. Mom/Dr. Dad enforced that was the only option available to them? An intrinsic love of the field makes it more rewarding, certainly, and very likely makes you better at it, but thinking that there is some needed intrinsic thing sounds like vocational superstition to me.

 

[WisNeuro]

Perceptive.