PsyD and PhD clinical training

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.

shrink4hire4u

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
41
Reaction score
14
There are some very honestly nice people in the field, but imo they are in the vast minority.

Your experience must explain the bitterness on this page. From what I've seen in my 10 years in the field, the vast minority are the thieves and asses (anecdotally, those few were all from research-based PhDs but they were the vast minority in that population, as well). And yes, the PsyD (when appropriately used) model is much better to train clinicians than PhDs. The "data" doesn't mean what they purport. Notice only A/I and supervision hours were given...nothing about the quality of the training at the institution ("lies and damn lies"). Practicum sites generally do not teach theory or technique. Most PhD programs do very little truing in their program and leave it to the practicum sites. That's why you see so many falsely believe in the superiority of cognitive orientations; you can teach it quickly and minimally have to address the person of the therapist. If you want superior clinical training, go with a PsyD that fits your goals (I'd expand beyond the two you mentioned but that's just me). If you want superior research training, stay in a PhD or go to one that fits your goals.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Your experience must explain the bitterness on this page. From what I've seen in my 10 years in the field, the vast minority are the thieves and asses (anecdotally, those few were all from research-based PhDs but they were the vast minority in that population, as well). And yes, the PsyD (when appropriately used) model is much better to train clinicians than PhDs. The "data" doesn't mean what they purport. Notice only A/I and supervision hours were given...nothing about the quality of the training at the institution ("lies and damn lies"). Practicum sites generally do not teach theory or technique. Most PhD programs do very little truing in their program and leave it to the practicum sites. That's why you see so many falsely believe in the superiority of cognitive orientations; you can teach it quickly and minimally have to address the person of the therapist. If you want superior clinical training, go with a PsyD that fits your goals (I'd expand beyond the two you mentioned but that's just me). If you want superior research training, stay in a PhD or go to one that fits your goals.

You see bitterness. That's fine.

I see pragmatic and practical advice from those who are more experienced or have been through the same circumstance. The OP apprently agrees.

PS: The highlighted section is make believe.
 
Last edited:
. Practicum sites generally do not teach theory or technique. Most PhD programs do very little truing in their program and leave it to the practicum sites. That's why you see so many falsely believe in the superiority of cognitive orientations; you can teach it quickly and minimally have to address the person of the therapist. If you want superior clinical training, go with a PsyD that fits your goals (I'd expand beyond the two you mentioned but that's just me). If you want superior research training, stay in a PhD or go to one that fits your goals.

Wow, talk about misinformation. And, the pot calling the kettle black.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
And yes, the PsyD (when appropriately used) model is much better to train clinicians than PhDs. The "data" doesn't mean what they purport. Notice only A/I and supervision hours were given...nothing about the quality of the training at the institution ("lies and damn lies"). Practicum sites generally do not teach theory or technique. Most PhD programs do very little truing in their program and leave it to the practicum sites. That's why you see so many falsely believe in the superiority of cognitive orientations; you can teach it quickly and minimally have to address the person of the therapist.

Wow, flashback. You sound like one of my former practicum supervisors. He was an Argosy PsyD intern with a massive axe to grind. Even though I had good clinical outcomes and the highest client satisfaction ratings in my practicum cohort, he was obsessed with his preconceived ideas about my training and made my life hell because of it. It was the only truly bad supervision experience of my career - and I've been supervised by several psychoanalytically trained psychologists who were absolutely wonderful.
 
...From what I've seen in my 10 years in the field, the vast minority are the thieves and asses (anecdotally, those few were all from research-based PhDs but they were the vast minority in that population, as well). And yes, the PsyD (when appropriately used) model is much better to train clinicians than PhDs. The "data" doesn't mean what they purport. Notice only A/I and supervision hours were given...nothing about the quality of the training at the institution ("lies and damn lies"). Practicum sites generally do not teach theory or technique. Most PhD programs do very little truing in their program and leave it to the practicum sites. That's why you see so many falsely believe in the superiority of cognitive orientations; you can teach it quickly and minimally have to address the person of the therapist. If you want superior clinical training, go with a PsyD that fits your goals (I'd expand beyond the two you mentioned but that's just me). If you want superior research training, stay in a PhD or go to one that fits your goals.

LOL WHO was it that was making this thread about PhD versus PsyD?

This post is ridiculous, made up misinformation. You're literally favoring subjective feels over actual data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
CI_66314_1343621686.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You're literally favoring subjective feels over actual data.

You realize that your data is subjective, right? I guess I can't fault you for not knowing what you don't know, but just be careful with your certainty. I'm not a versus this or that. Cognitive orientations (behaviorism) have their place, strengths and weaknesses. PhDs have their place, strengths and weaknesses. So yes, I suppose I am calling the kettle black because my training and theoretical orientation has it's strengths and weaknesses. It's the false superiority that is complete bull, but I can see how and why many of you buy into this, you've yet to understand that objectivity is a fantasy.
 
You realize that your data is subjective, right?

This is going to require an explanation for anyone to actually understand. If your choose to acccept this mission, I would agree that you should start another another thread for it.
 
There should be agreeing, bc there are data. If you want to perseverate in a personal myth about PhD vs. PsyD, that might be fun for you but it's not supported by data.
https://appic.org/Match/MatchStatistics/ApplicantSurvey2012Part3.aspx

30. Doctoral practicum hours reported on the AAPI:

Ph.D. Psy.D.
Doctoral Intervention Hours
Mean 661 621
St. Dev. 426 417
Median 501 432

Doctoral Assessment Hours
Mean 231 177
St. Dev. 206 172
Median 112 68

Doctoral Supervision Hours
Mean 381 305
St. Dev. 233 196
Median 285 200
There should be agreeing, bc there are data. If you want to perseverate in a personal myth about PhD vs. PsyD, that might be fun for you but it's not supported by data.
https://appic.org/Match/MatchStatistics/ApplicantSurvey2012Part3.aspx

30. Doctoral practicum hours reported on the AAPI:

Ph.D. Psy.D.
Doctoral Intervention Hours
Mean 661 621
St. Dev. 426 417
Median 501 432

Doctoral Assessment Hours
Mean 231 177
St. Dev. 206 172
Median 112 68

Doctoral Supervision Hours
Mean 381 305
St. Dev. 233 196
Median 285 200

I still think the discrepancy is the poor training support offered by for-profit schools, and not something inherent in the PsyD training models. I know the more fixated will scream "show me the data!" I don't have the data. It's a hypothesis.
 
I still think the discrepancy is the poor training support offered by for-profit schools, and not something inherent in the PsyD training models. I know the more fixated will scream "show me the data!" I don't have the data. It's a hypothesis.
I think that's right and supported by my own research. But the number of Baylors to the number of Carlos Ibulis (or whatever) is small.
 
I still think the discrepancy is the poor training support offered by for-profit schools, and not something inherent in the PsyD training models. I know the more fixated will scream "show me the data!" I don't have the data. It's a hypothesis.

From what I've seen, the PsyD programs with good outcomes seem more similar to balanced PhD programs. So my question, then, is why have the PsyD at all? I know that I ask this a lot, but it's something that I can't figure out. What does a properly-implemented PsyD program offer that a balanced PhD program wouldn't?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
From what I've seen, the PsyD programs with good outcomes seem more similar to balanced PhD programs. So my question, then, is why have the PsyD at all? I know that I ask this a lot, but it's something that I can't figure out. What does a properly-implemented PsyD program offer that a balanced PhD program wouldn't?

Good question. Back when the Psy.D. was proposed and implemented there were far less "balanced" Ph.D. programs, so there was a more clear need. I'm not sure that is the case anymore. It is akin to MD & DO programs, though we do a much poorer job of regulating training programs.
 
I think that's right and supported by my own research. But the number of Baylors to the number of Carlos Ibulis (or whatever) is small.

It's Carlos Albizu...very easy to remember: All Biz U. I almost wonder if it is actually someone's name or a secret joke by marketing people. I try to stay out of slamming programs, but that one is just too funny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Members don't see this ad :)
It's Carlos Albizu...very easy to remember: All Biz U. I almost wonder if it is actually someone's name or a secret joke by marketing people. I try to stay out of slamming programs, but that one is just too funny.

Puerto Rican diploma factory...we'd get several applications for interns positions every year...straight to the shredder
 
The second you defended the clinical aspect of Saybrook, which is not even a clinical program, I stopped listening.

That's quite interesting. I never defended it as a clinical program, I said that I was jealous of some of the experiences they received and had qualities of fine clinicians. Have you ever studied psychotherapy WITH Irvin Yalom? Yes, I defend their existence as an institute of higher learning specializing in H/E psychology. If it doesn't apply to you, it certainly would be asinine to heed that advice. Perhaps making impulsive decisions with hasty interpretations is habitual, that might directly apply to your original post. I'm not being sarcastic. I'll borrow from behaviorism here and reference ACT; psychological flexibility as opposed to rigidity can lead to more fulfilling decisions.

I've seen your previous posts and disagree with mostly everything.
I truly appreciate the feedback. I haven't posted that much. Do you mind specifically saying what it is that you disagree with? You misinterpreted me about Saybrook, perhaps you misinterpreted me there too. I'm working on improving my clarity while attempting to maintain brevity.
 
This is going to require an explanation for anyone to actually understand. If your choose to acccept this mission, I would agree that you should start another another thread for it.

I'd be happy to, but do you really think that there is a general ignorance of implicit biases and how that impacts interpreting data? I would expect most graduate programs to address this adequately. I also hesitate to start an entire thread, particularly a more didactically-oriented one, because I don't think I have the time to keep up with it in a meaningful way. You guys move fast, I'm jealous of the time many of you are able to dedicate to this page.
 
And, care to address this bag of nonsense?

It's held up in my 10 years of observation. It's general, but mostly true. Care to address how it isn't?

Make the thread or don't make the thread. No need to play games about it.

Suffice to say that your vague screams of "but your data is biased" are going to be ignored unless you elaborate. Your choice.

No games, I just cannot believe you all are that poorly trained with as confident as you all seem to be. But again, you've denied white privilege so perhaps you aren't the best representation of the education provided by PhDs.
 
No games, I just cannot believe you all are that poorly trained with as confident as you all seem to be. But again, you've denied white privilege so perhaps you aren't the best representation of the education provided by PhDs.

I'll just take that as a very decieded "no." I asked. You declined. So, be done with it now.

No need for race baiting either.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps making impulsive decisions with hasty interpretations is habitual, that might directly apply to your original post. I'm not being sarcastic.

I think comments like this are why people find you obnoxious. The OP didn't make a hasty decision. The OP seems to have been upset with her program for some time based on her posts from a year and a half ago. She said she was considering this and asked us for our thoughts. Yet, you accuse her of being impulsive.

I'm afraid that your attempts at "improving clarity while attempting to maintain brevity" don't translate well. You come off as presumptuous and your posts often feel like personal attacks.
 
No need for race baiting either.

Race baiting? You openly question the concept of white privilege now consider the topic race baiting? Many white people completely understand this concept, it's not a divisive topic between racial groups. Please tell me that PhDs sufficiently train in multiculturalism. THIS is a standard of the field and one should truly not be in the field in any capacity until adequately trained and should be a foundation long before any theory, orientation, school of thought. With all of our differences, I trust that you are an effective clinician helping veterans the best way you know how. Please take a seminar, get a few CEUs in a quality training seminar in multiculturalism. I swear to christ or any god or gods or spaghetti monster that I will pay for it myself.
 
You come off as presumptuous and your posts often feel like personal attacks.

This is fascinating. It's exactly how others, including myself, find the frequenters in this group. Getting back to the point, OP was impulsive based on the quote in my response, it's well worth exploring if it is related to other decisions by OP. If there's nothing there, great but you took the sincere time and effort to look. I'm certainly not the only one in this thread who suggested her decision was a bit hasty. If I had less ego strength, perhaps "obnoxious" would feel like a personal attack. That's something to ponder as we go on.
 
Race baiting? You openly question the concept of white privilege now consider the topic race baiting? Many white people completely understand this concept, it's not a divisive topic between racial groups. Please tell me that PhDs sufficiently train in multiculturalism. THIS is a standard of the field and one should truly not be in the field in any capacity until adequately trained and should be a foundation long before any theory, orientation, school of thought. With all of our differences, I trust that you are an effective clinician helping veterans the best way you know how. Please take a seminar, get a few CEUs in a quality training seminar in multiculturalism. I swear to christ or any god or gods or spaghetti monster that I will pay for it myself.
Wow, you're both really obnoxious. lol. Like watching two trains colliding.

*popcorn icon*
 
White privilege and race baiting? What does that have to do with the OP? I do find it interesting how people get so frustrated by certain posters bluntness and/or snarkiness and then just start attacking them and it tends to have more to do with the style than the substance of their discourse.

Another thing is that many on this board have strong opinions about quality of education and training in our profession. There is solid reasoning and evidence to validate their concerns. They are not likely to change their stance without solid evidence to the contrary and the "I went to a school with low match rates and did okay" is not sufficient evidence and actually provides more evidence why solid research training and the critical thinking skills that it develops are missing from those programs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
That's why you see so many falsely believe in the superiority of cognitive orientations; you can teach it quickly and minimally have to address the person of the therapist.

Good cognitive and behavioral clinicians do not minimize "addressing the person of the therapist."
 
Please tell me that PhDs sufficiently train in multiculturalism. THIS is a standard of the field and one should truly not be in the field in any capacity until adequately trained and should be a foundation long before any theory, orientation, school of thought.

Totally agree. As a counseling psychologist to be (4 months to graduation, yea!) I can confidently say the program I came through sufficiently addressed multiculturalism. First, our faculty was ~40% profs of color and the student body was ~52% persons of color. We also had some representation (~15%) of LGBTQ profs and students. The composition sometimes made for uncomfortable class discussions and required ongoing outside reflection. As a Latino, one of my wishes for our program is more Latino students and at least one Latino prof. We'll get there.

In addition to the composition, we had 2 "dedicated courses" for multiculturalism issues and several electives available. The real strong point however, imo, was that issues of diversity/race/racism/privilege/power were addressed in every course in our department. I think our program did a good job of making these topics foundational to all our work. The whole "lead a horse to water" saying certainly applied to our program; not all students were willing/able to fully engage, embrace, and participate in the difficult conversations and necessary outside reflection. Of course I do not know intimate details of other programs, however I believe counseling phd programs have been more diligent in leading the way re: multiculturalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Totally agree. As a counseling psychologist to be (4 months to graduation, yea!) I can confidently say the program I came through sufficiently addressed multiculturalism. First, our faculty was ~40% profs of color and the student body was ~52% persons of color. We also had some representation (~15%) of LGBTQ profs and students. The composition sometimes made for uncomfortable class discussions and required ongoing outside reflection. As a Latino, one of my wishes for our program is more Latino students and at least one Latino prof. We'll get there.

In addition to the composition, we had 2 "dedicated courses" for multiculturalism issues and several electives available. The real strong point however, imo, was that issues of diversity/race/racism/privilege/power were addressed in every course in our department. I think our program did a good job of making these topics foundational to all our work. The whole "lead a horse to water" saying certainly applied to our program; not all students were willing/able to fully engage, embrace, and participate in the difficult conversations and necessary outside reflection. Of course I do not know intimate details of other programs, however I believe counseling phd programs have been more diligent in leading the way re: multiculturalism.

Just to clarify, I think all this is fantastic. I am not sure how I have been labeled as denying racial inequites in our society.

I have, however, openly stated that this is an intellectually sloppy buzzword that may rally a crowd, but has no real substance in addressing endemic racism and inequities within our society. I do not care whether people/psychologists agree with this or not.
 
Just to clarify, I think all this is fantastic. I am not sure how I have been labeled as denying racial inequites in our society.

I have, however, openly stated that this is an intellectually sloppy buzzword that may rally a crowd, but has no real substance in addressing endemic racism and inequities within our society. I do not care whether people/psychologists agree with this or not.
I couldn't agree more. This.
 
Just to clarify, I think all this is fantastic. I am not sure how I have been labeled as denying racial inequites in our society.

I have, however, openly stated that this is an intellectually sloppy buzzword that may rally a crowd, but has no real substance in addressing endemic racism and inequities within our society. I do not care whether people/psychologists agree with this or not.

That's exactly how I feel about the excessive use of the term "social justice" in my program (and all of social work). Sounds great, but the operational definition is always lacking substance.
 
A separate thread about "multiculturalism" and it's role and strengths/limitations may be useful. I imagine that this varies quite differently from program to program, regardless of degree type, beyond what APA stipulates. Also, personal feelings on the subject are not necessarily reflective of clinical or didactic training in the matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I did my UG training with a number of community/clinical faculty, and the POI I'll most likely be working with in my clinical PhD program does research involving microagressions in minority populations. I've said before that I think POC, women, and LGBTQ students, faculty, and interests are represented much more in clinical PhD programs than in other STEM fields.
 
I also agree w/ Cara's earlier post - What are the benefits of PsyD training over PhD training?

The burden of proof is on PsyDs to prove that their deflated clinical hours (per MCParent's post) are a result of FSPS and problem schools. I continue to advocate for a more standardized training model that really focuses on a set of core competencies that are standard for all clinical psychologists.

From my perspective, training in clinical psych & counseling psych PhD programs often seem more similar to each other than training between clinical PhD & clinical PsyD programs, and that seems strange to me.
 
I went to a PsyD program and the clinical training that I received was second to none. We had extensive teaching and discussions about evidenced-based practices and since we were cross-trained in different orientations it fostered solid debate. We also spent quite a bit of time discussing the implementation of treatments which included multicultural issues, as well. In fact, our class on multi-culturalism was much less useful than the actual discussions based on treatment issues for specific individuals from various cultures. Mainly because it focused more on political buzzwords than actual solid concepts to be implemented in the real worked to help actual people.

I am not saying that any other program does worse or better than mine because the truth is that I don't know if X University's PhD program provides better clinical training or not. My limited sample of PhD graduates I have worked with has shown that they do have a solid understanding of multiple theoretical orientations and also solid understanding of research principles to critically analyse and implement the research including relevant multicultural factors.
 
The burden of proof is on PsyDs to prove that their deflated clinical hours (per MCParent's post) are a result of FSPS and problem schools. I continue to advocate for a more standardized training model that really focuses on a set of core competencies that are standard for all clinical psychologists.

I didn't say deflated. They look about equal to me. I didn't/don't care enough to do a t test on the numbers.

Not deflated, but the average match/EPPP pass rates for many of the programs suggests something wrong with training at some programs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I didn't say deflated. They look about equal to me. I didn't/don't care enough to do a t test on the numbers.

Not deflated, but the average match/EPPP pass rates for many of the programs suggests something wrong with training at some programs.
It has been pretty equivalent for a number of years. I was surprised when I saw the numbers when I was applying for internships because even then I was still operating under the myth that PsyD = more clinical experience and PhD = more research experience. Now I know that the latter holds true much more than the former.

*edit* I'm referring to clinical hours not match rates or EPPP pass rates
 
I didn't say deflated. They look about equal to me. I didn't/don't care enough to do a t test on the numbers.

Not deflated, but the average match/EPPP pass rates for many of the programs suggests something wrong with training at some programs.

Sorry - I meant deflated in the sense that PsyD programs should exceed PhD programs in hours since that's their biggest selling point.
 
I do not care whether people/psychologists agree with this or not.

You use this tactic a lot. Seems like you use it to shut down conversation when you're on top or your logic is being credibly questioned. I wouldn't call it a sign of strength.
 
You use this tactic a lot. Seems like you use it to shut down conversation

You are observant. I do indeed. I do not care to debate this topic. Its not why I am on/post on SDN.

It is well within my right to not respond to, or not engage in, certain debates/topics on a internet message board if I choose. I have no idea what this would be viewed as a weakness.
 
Last edited:
You are observant. I do indeed. I do not care to debate this topic. Its not why I am on/post on SDN.

It is well within my right to not respond to, or not engage in, certain debates/topics on a internet message board if I choose. I have no idea what this would be viewed as a weakness.

I would never think of toying with your rights, and your rights are not what I was addressing. I just find it interesting that you proclaim something, and then deny others the opportunity to engage with you about said proclamation. Low O in OCEAN?
 
I would never think of toying with your rights, and your rights are not what I was addressing. I just find it interesting that you proclaim something, and then deny others the opportunity to engage with you about said proclamation. Low O in OCEAN?

Engage it all you want. I may, or may not, find it interesting enough to respond to and/or debate with you about it.

Isn't that how message boards usually work? We don't comment on all threads-only ones we are interested enough in, right? Please note, I am NOT the one who brought up this topic, right?
 
We might be witnessing privilege being exerted live on this message board, right within this thread!

Well, if I have it...right? :)
 
We might be witnessing privilege being exerted live on this message board, right within this thread!

Agreed. I think we should ban all PhD-kin from posting on this board.

The research culture they promote triggers me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Agreed. I think we should ban all PhD-kin from posting on this board.

The research culture they promote triggers me.

oh, shut your mouf...:)
 
A separate thread about "multiculturalism" and it's role and strengths/limitations may be useful. I imagine that this varies quite differently from program to program, regardless of degree type, beyond what APA stipulates. Also, personal feelings on the subject are not necessarily reflective of clinical or didactic training in the matter.

Done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top