It seems to be one of the least popular areas for people to study. Why?
Kind of nutz how people make important life decisions. Oh, someone thinks you're a school counselor omg, world over.
I have a friend going through school psychology program. I've heard that although the salaries might be slightly lower than private practice, they have summer's off, they don't have to pay office rent, they have license and CE items paid for by the school, and their insurance is paid for by the school. So, when it's all said, it could be more secure and better paying than PP. Are there any thoughts on this?
I have a friend going through school psychology program. I've heard that although the salaries might be slightly lower than private practice, they have summer's off, they don't have to pay office rent, they have license and CE items paid for by the school, and their insurance is paid for by the school. So, when it's all said, it could be more secure and better paying than PP. Are there any thoughts on this?
From what I have seen, not really even that close, especially once you look at salaries 5+ years out. If you look at neuropsych specific, the difference is much greater.
You mean that PP pays better than SP 5 years out?From what I have seen, not really even that close, especially once you look at salaries 5+ years out. If you look at neuropsych specific, the difference is much greater.
It seems to be one of the least popular areas for people to study. Why?
In many states, a school psychologist is an MA degree and is geared toward educational assessment. I don't think they should be called psychologists myself
That is like saying that neuropsych's are not real psychologists because they do mostly cognitive testing.
Well, not exactly. We receive the same research and therapy training, we just receive additional postdoctoral education. Also, many of us are still significantly involved in the provision of psychotherapy. I'm in agreement about protecting the term psychologist from masters level providers.
I meant that the term psychologist should only apply to a doctoral level provider. Most states and apparently Canada have allowed an exception for a masters level person to be called a school psychologist. I don't think that is a good idea. As far as a neuropsychologist goes, they are a clinical psychologist with an additional specialization. The term school psychologist would make more sense and be less misleading (yes, I think it is intentionally misleading) if it was reserved for a clinical psychologist who had a specialization in working with children or adolescents in schools. IMO working with kids in a school setting should require more expertise rather than less and I would surmise that the reason for the MA level exception is a financial and political decision as opposed to a clinical one.I guess it is important that we are talking about the same thing.
In Canada anyways, we have many programs that are called something along the lines of "M.ed in School and Counselling Psychology". You do a thesis. or "Msc in School and Applied Psychology" again, there is a thesis part. So they essentially train you for Clinical/Counselling and SCHOOL psych. Then yes, there are programs, that are coursework based with practicums etc, no thesis, but you get training in all the important areas I would think: Foundations, in Assessment, ie:
Assessment
- Academic and Language Assessment
- Cognitive and Neuropsychological Assessment
- Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Assessment
- Research and Program Evaluation
Now, the Masters/Phd debate is a whole new animal, so not sure if the person meant nobody at Masters level should be called a Psychologist or School Psychologists shouldn't. If it is the latter, the Canadian training model certainly prepares them imo. They don't JUST do educational based assessments, they do every other kind as well.
- Research Methods in School Psychology
- Psychological Measurement & Statistics
- Practice Evaluation in School Psychology
- Intervention
--------------------------------------------------------
- Interventions to Promote Social, Emotional and Behavioral Well-being
- Interventions to Promote Cognitive, Academic, and Neuropsychological Well-being
Oh ok, thanks for the clarity.I meant that the term psychologist should only apply to a doctoral level provider. Most states and apparently Canada have allowed an exception for a masters level person to be called a school psychologist. I don't think that is a good idea. As far as a neuropsychologist goes, they are a clinical psychologist with an additional specialization. The term school psychologist would make more sense and be less misleading (yes, I think it is intentionally misleading) if it was reserved for a clinical psychologist who had a specialization in working with children or adolescents in schools. IMO working with kids in a school setting should require more expertise rather than less and I would surmise that the reason for the MA level exception is a financial and political decision as opposed to a clinical one.
In many states, a school psychologist is an MA degree and is geared toward educational assessment. I don't think they should be called psychologists myself, but that is a whole 'nother debate. I am a clinical psychologist and have worked in schools, I also can work in hospitals or treatment centers or forensics or .... I, personally, would not limit myself to just schools.
In many states, a school psychologist is an MA degree and is geared toward educational assessment. I don't think they should be called psychologists myself, but that is a whole 'nother debate. I am a clinical psychologist and have worked in schools, I also can work in hospitals or treatment centers or forensics or .... I, personally, would not limit myself to just schools.
That still means that you do not have a doctorate and still should not be called a psychologist IMO.I don't think this is the case anymore. While some folks are grandfathered in now, the accepted bare minimum is EdS (60+ credits and a 1200 hour internship over three years). You can still get an MA or MS in SP in some places, but without the additional credits to earn the CAGS/CAS/EdS it's pretty much worthless.
Just the dissertation? Really! Just the dissertation!The only difference separating an EdS from a PhD is frankly just the dissertation. The EdS is a super rigorous curriculum and SPs with that training are on par with PhDs in School Psych IMO.
I have had a few too many no shows today so am not in the mood to go after this one other than to say: are you freaking serious? When a patient comes into your office and says that they play russian roulette with a loaded .45 every night, I am thinking that you might want to have more training rather than less.Not to be too offensive to anybody here, but I honestly don't see a great rationale of why training for Psychologists should be that long. While a lot of you are very knowledgeable, I don't think psych is that far advanced of a science to justify it.
Not to be too offensive to anybody here, but I honestly don't see a great rationale of why training for Psychologists should be that long. While a lot of you are very knowledgeable, I don't think psych is that far advanced of a science to justify it. The training is so long, yet there is so many questions and issues over diagnosis, and even questions about the how well therapy works.
I'm not saying it is not scientific, i'm saying that so much of it is unclear that the length of training does not seem justified.A lack of understanding/ignorance on your part does not make the science the rest of us practice any less justified.
Yeah, no. Like smalltown, there's so much to say about this, but when you have the power to take away someone's freedom with holds, authorize sex changes, authorize assisted suicides, prevent unwanted suicides, and diagnose people with conditions that'd follow them the rest of their lives, you're education should be at the highest level. Not to mention that a lack of answers is an excuse for LESS education on the matter... makes no sense.Not to be too offensive to anybody here, but I honestly don't see a great rationale of why training for Psychologists should be that long. While a lot of you are very knowledgeable, I don't think psych is that far advanced of a science to justify it. The training is so long, yet there is so many questions and issues over diagnosis, and even questions about the how well therapy works.
Not to be too offensive to anybody here, but I honestly don't see a great rationale of why training for Psychologists should be that long. While a lot of you are very knowledgeable, I don't think psych is that far advanced of a science to justify it. The training is so long, yet there is so many questions and issues over diagnosis, and even questions about the how well therapy works.
Yeah, no. Like smalltown, there's so much to say about this, but when you have the power to take away someone's freedom with holds, authorize sex changes, authorize assisted suicides, prevent unwanted suicides, and diagnose people with conditions that'd follow them the rest of their lives, you're education should be at the highest level. Not to mention that a lack of answers is an excuse for LESS education on the matter... makes no sense.
The amount of power is certainly a point in favour of high standards in training. At the same time, you could argue that since there is so much unknown, there shouldn't be that much power given to the profession.
You guys are to blame for my opinion btw. lol When people ask about therapy, certain diagnostic tools, you guys give answers that suggest that there are a lot of problems there and questions about how useful therapy is, or how valid most of the tools are.
I'm not saying it is not scientific, i'm saying that so much of it is unclear that the length of training does not seem justified.
You guys are to blame for my opinion btw. lol When people ask about therapy, certain diagnostic tools, you guys give answers that suggest that there are a lot of problems there and questions about how useful therapy is, or how valid most of the tools are.
You're right. There's still so much so much we don't know about cosmology and the grand unifying thoery, so I don't understand why there are doctoral astrophysics degrees. Not all biologists agree about abiogenesis, so why are there doctoral degrees? Hell, medical doctors can't even agree on how to prevent and treat cancer absolutely. Why do they need those pesky Doc degrees?The amount of power is certainly a point in favour of high standards in training. At the same time, you could argue that since there is so much unknown, there shouldn't be that much power given to the profession.
For many disorders psychotherapy is more effective than medications. How to diagnose and apply psychotherapy correctly takes a bit of figuring out. We do have a long way to go as a science but I can explain how I help my patients from both a neurobiological and psychosocial developmental standpoint quite readily and I am very open with my patients about this. Some of what we criticize are outdated or inaccurate theories that tend to linger in our profession but even more so often in the public.You guys are to blame for my opinion btw. lol When people ask about therapy, certain diagnostic tools, you guys give answers that suggest that there are a lot of problems there and questions about how useful therapy is, or how valid most of the tools are.
The end result isn't a bunch of old white guys sitting around in leather chairs smoking pipes and pontificating about things. Again, I don't think you actually understand what goes into graduate training and how that applies in day-to-day practice. In many instances our "science" is far better supported than many areas of medicine. I'll probably regret asking this…but what exactly do you find "unclear" in regard to the science?
You're right. There's still so much so much we don't know about cosmology and the grand unifying thoery, so I don't understand why there are doctoral astrophysics degrees. Not all biologists agree about abiogenesis, so why are there doctoral degrees? Hell, medical doctors can't even agree on how to prevent and treat cancer absolutely. Why do they need those pesky Doc degrees?
Either you're ignorant on this topic, or you're a troll. A damn good one. lol.
First, psychotherapy has been clearly demonstrated to be effective for many disorders over and above both placebo and regression to the mean. Second, regression to the mean actually tends to interfere with therapy because the patient often discontinues as their symptoms have decreased. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as flight into health. Third, many of my patients have been struggling with their psychological issues for years and sometimes decades. They would love it if the effects of early childhood sexual abuse (which is a mild and clinical way of putting it) would spontaneously remit and they would not have to think of suicide every day of their life. Sure I get a few individuals that come in for a few sessions because they are struggling with a life issue, I normalize it, provide some empathic listening and they move on with their lives. Yes, these people would be just fine without talking to me, but so would 90% of the people who go to the physician for the common cold or flu virus. I enjoy helping those patients too but the bulk of my work is with people who desperately need help with an emphasis on desperate. Oh and then they refer family and friends to me when they realize that psychotherapy has helped them want to live. Another vote of confidence I get is from the ER and Family Medicine docs who are also desperately seeking help for these same people. They get to see first hand that what we do works and they keep referring.Well, for one...if you look at the research of how effective therapy is, talk and biomedical, you get very mixed and unclear answers. It usually suggests that because of the placebo effect and the regression to the mean, we can't be all that confident in concluding that therapy works. In fact, what I've read, it states that most mental disorders improve without any therapy at all.
Second, we have this big issue where psychology seems to have the tools to give more accurate diagnoses, (though even this is questionable) yet because of practical reasons it cant' really utilize all those resources, so a lot of diagnosis seem to be made mostly based on symptoms/short interview assessments, which seem to need limited knowledge.
The only difference separating an EdS from a PhD is frankly just the dissertation. The EdS is a super rigorous curriculum and SPs with that training are on par with PhDs in School Psych IMO.
No, you are right, we obviously need smart people in our field for it to advance, and a Phd education is preferable for that reason. But very few people are smart enough to actually make that big of a contribution, so i'm not sure it is totally erroneous to have Masters level Psychologists.
It's not just about the contribution to the field, it's about a higher level of training and education. MA practitioners are fine. I just don't think they should be called psychologists anymore than, and I know some people hate this comparison, NP's should be called Dr.No, you are right, we obviously need smart people in our field for it to advance, and a Phd education is preferable for that reason. But very few people are smart enough to actually make that big of a contribution, so i'm not sure it is totally erroneous to have Masters level Psychologists.
People can still make contributions to the field without having doctoral training, however many believe (myself included) that the title of "psychologist" should only apply to those people who have been able to complete doctoral training and the associated licensing. Yes, there will be exceptions for academics, and I'm fine with that. However, many people balk at the hijacking of the title "psychologist" to mean anything other than someone who is doctorally trained.
No.No. No. No. No.
I'm starting a doctoral program in the fall and it requires literally DOUBLE the amount of credits I took for my EdS. It also requires four practicums, an externship and an internship as compared to the single practicum and internship of an EdS. As well as the thesis. And additional university based exams.
The EdS is an important degree. I don't really care what you call non-doctoral SPs. They are well trained and do very important work - but they are REMARKABLY different programs.
No.No. No. No. No.
I'm starting a doctoral program in the fall and it requires literally DOUBLE the amount of credits I took for my EdS. It also requires four practicums, an externship and an internship as compared to the single practicum and internship of an EdS. As well as the thesis. And additional university based exams.
The EdS is an important degree. I don't really care what you call non-doctoral SPs. They are well trained and do very important work - but they are REMARKABLY different programs.
Actually my doctoral program was 3 years of coursework but had a requirement to have a masters degree to enroll. During the three years we had about 20 hours a week of practicums. Most doctoral students have logged a couple thousand hours of experience before they even start their one-year full time internship. The supervision and mentoring is extensive. Sure there are solid masters level programs but I have worked with, hired, and supervised many master level clinicians and my observation is that the comparison is not even close. I could explain the logical flaw better if I drew a couple of normal distribution curves on a board to show that you are comparing the tail ends of the distribution.This may be a difference amongst states. I was looking at program in Kansas that required 60 credits for the EdS but only 1 practicum and no internship (!!) Whereas I also saw some great programs in Texas that required a semester of observations (certain number of clock hours), a year of practicums (total of 3), and a year-long internship. Including exit exams, etc. I know some states have higher requirements for state licensure which necessitate the more rigorous curriculum. The difference between NASP-accredited and non-NASP programs is also a significant factor (the Kansas program wasn't NASP-accredited).
I didn't mean to offend any PhD students with my "just the dissertation" comment (oops!) I have tons of friends currently slogging through PhD programs (in the crazy natural sciences, no less) and I know the research involved in the dissertation is no easy slice of pie. Heck, I slogged through my senior undergrad thesis, and that was only 20 pages! Not looking forward to writing 7 times that volume with 4x the research involved
That said, the difference between one EdS program I was looking at vs. the Counseling Psychology program I was looking at at Top State University was literally just the dissertation + maybe 3 extra classes. The Counseling Psych program was 3 years of classes + 1 year of internship + 1 year solely allotted to the dissertation. The research piece is literally the only thing between a practical program like an EdS and a PhD, just as the research is what separates a terminal masters from a PhD. Just the facts.