School Psych Popularity?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

psych844

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
838
Reaction score
126
It seems to be one of the least popular areas for people to study. Why?

Members don't see this ad.
 
My guess would be that it's a very niche area. Individuals in Clinical or Counseling seem to have a wider range of options available to them. With School Psychology, you have more or less one option..... working in schools. Add to that the perceived "prestige" of clinical programs, and you can see why niche areas like school, I/O, and development don't get as much attention even though their salaries are comparable (or sometimes better, in the case of I/O and forensics...)
 
I think there are a few reasons. The first few that come to mind are....

- Limited options for private practice below the doctoral level (this varies greatly from state to state, but only about 13 allow for private licensure of SPs and even they limit scope of practice)
- Issues with funding for the mandatory internship (especially in the Northeast, where less than 30% of SP internships are paid and many of those that are receive very little funding for a 9-10 month/12-1500 hour commitment)
- Lack of public knowledge/understanding of the field (e.g. "Oh, your studying school psychology? So you're going to be a school counselor, right?" or the belief that all SPs do is test and place)
- More coursework/time required for programs than other mid-level providers (e.g. LMHC)
- As mentioned above, the work is more "niche" and lacks the prestige of clinical work

It's actually kind of funny, because there are areas that are saturated with "traditional" mental health workers that have a severe shortage of school psychologists (e.g. Colorado). For all the talk of saturation in mental health in general, SP seems to be an area of need.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
In Canada, it is especially appealing. You mean I get to work 10 months a year to get paid 70 to 90k? Our schools are also funded well.
 
Kind of nutz how people make important life decisions. Oh, someone thinks you're a school counselor omg, world over.
 
Kind of nutz how people make important life decisions. Oh, someone thinks you're a school counselor omg, world over.

I was moreso implying that a lot of people don't seem to know the field exists/understand what a school psychologist is, for whatever reason.
 
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.
 
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?

There's a lot of variables to take into play...

- Are you considered and administrator or are you paid the equivalent of a teacher with a Master's + 30? There's also a difference between EdS and Ph.D. pay.
- Ph.D.s (end EdS in certain states) can also do private practice on the side and make even more
- Are you nationally certified? If so, there is often a yearly stipend for this, ranging from $2-5k
- Psychs who serve as CPSE or CSE chairs can receive stipends for these services
- You also need to take into consideration benefits which you won't get in PP like a sizable pension, insurance, etc.
- Compensation for insurance, CEs etc. is another thing that varies wildly from district to district - but if you're lucky, that can happen
- Tenure varies greatly from state to state. For example, South Carolina doesn't have tenure for any school based positions. Most states you earn it within 2-3 years

Psychs also have the option of working during the summer. If you become known for having a particular skill set you may be able to make additional income consulting for other nearby school districts or serving as an adjunct at a local university as well.
 
School psychology is a less-known field than the more popular clinical and counseling psychology sectors (all under the applied psychology umbrella). As mentioned prior, there is less flexibility in workplace environment; masters/specialist level school psychs can basically only work in schools, doctoral school psychs have some flexibility if they have substantial coursework/experience outside of the schools. Probably the most lucrative areas for doctoral level school psychs to get into are 1) private practice special ed assessments & 2) education administration (e.g., director of special ed / asst superintendent for pupil personnel services).

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 really depends on the area... school psychs in my area start out between 55K-70K/year. I do agree neuropsych is probably more lucrative than school psych, but I would posit that school psychs make comparable, if not, higher salaries than clinical generalist psychologists in private practice or in a community-based clinic or UCC.
 
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 the few salary surveys I've seen PP outpaces. Data is not that great though, many salary surveys collapse psychologists together. You could also look at the APA salary survey, but they're n for school psychologists is like 6 people. I may be slightly biased because we've been poring through the TCN salary survey recently for some advocacy stuff, and those numbers are significantly higher. Just checked the NASP salary survey, they report a mean of 71k, although they don't break it down by years practiced.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
It seems to be one of the least popular areas for people to study. Why?

There was some good press on SPs and job growth about 8-10 years ago, though I'm not sure if that is still applicable. I've been told it varies greatly by geography and to a lesser extent school district. The lifestyle still seems pretty flexible, though I'd encourage anyone seriously looking into training to talk to SPs in the geography area you want to live/practice.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
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.
 
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 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
    • 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
      --------------------------------------------------------
    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.
 
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
    • 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
      --------------------------------------------------------
    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.
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 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.
Oh ok, thanks for the clarity.

I've heard rumblings that the push is to have Phd level all across Canada, but i'm not sure, those are just rumors. But in 2009 there was a law passed that stated that provinces have to accept other provinces designation. Ie If someone is a practicing Psychologist with a Masters in a Masters-level province, and they move to a Phd province..that province has to accept their "Psychologist" label.

I have to say though that I think the Masters/Phd stuff is much less serious in Canada. 99.9% of schools offering these programs are public and reputable Universities. It is on par if let's say university of Texas offered a Masters path. We don't have for-profit Uni's really.
 
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.

I was looking at my UG school's SP grad programs. They drew a huge bolded line between master's level school counselors that have much more limited scope, and a doctoral school psychologist with a larger scope and a policy-making and supervisory role. I think California has very specific rules regarding school psych, though.
 
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.

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. It is admittedly not the equivalent to a doctorate, but it is more training than any other non-doctoral provider AFAIK.

As for the title debate....I don't see that happening - it's been tried before and doesn't seem to get much traction. That said, some states do have alternate titles they use for SPs working in private practice (e.g. psycheducational specialist). I personally don't see the need, but I can understand why psychologists who have done all the work to become licensed are not so wild about someone with less formal training having a remarkably similar title.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
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.
That still means that you do not have a doctorate and still should not be called a psychologist IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
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.
 
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.
Just the dissertation? Really! Just the dissertation!
:boom:Excuse me while I take a moment to write just another dissertation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
"Just the dissertation" is too reductionistic and I think discounts all of the extra time/effort needed to complete doctoral training. It ignores all of the time immersing yourself in a topic, learning critical thinking skills, refining your abilities to evaluate research, and working with a mentor on design/methods/analysis/etc. Working through the entire process soup to nuts is a huge part of the experience. I liken it to the difference between writing a term paper and getting a manuscript published. The development of the paper is merely one part of the experience, though all of the other parts make or break your efforts. It can be tedious at times, but it can also be very informative and help a young/new clinician understand the why/how…and not just accept something as fact.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
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.
:arghh:
Also, since my last patient looks like they might not show either. Do you really think that making that disclaimer really helps? That's kind of like saying: No offense intended, but I don't think you know what you are talking about. Also, to make a statement like that tells me that you must have obtained most of your education about psychology from watching tv. No offense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
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.

A lack of understanding/ignorance on your part does not make the science the rest of us practice any less justified.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A lack of understanding/ignorance on your part does not make the science the rest of us practice any less justified.
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.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
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.

Honestly, with the training in therapy, assessment, and research, I think 5 years of grad school and internship/postdoc is pretty good. Heck, that's just to be minimally competent in those areas. I think some of those areas are much less "unclear" than some would think. Especially once you know how to critically analyze the research and methodology of some things. Just look at medical research and how much practice is changing with a push for EBM. Once you actually get into the system, you see mant more parallels.
 
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.
 
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.

There is far more we don't know about the neurobiology of the brain. Should we not let neurologists or neurosurgeons do anything important?
 
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.

There are a lot of opinions on those things. If you're interested in something specifically create a thread and let some people bring the data in to go over and I think things may become slightly more clear.
 
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.

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 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.

There is splitting hairs and splitting headaches…one often leads to the other.

"Usefulness" of therapy is very dependent on the dx and goal(s). For a patient with PTSD, there are some very clear EBTs that can treat that. There are great data to support the treatments. The "science" is very well supported and proven. Can someone use "Hug It Away" therapy to treat PTSD….I sure hope not, but I don't think people here are arguing for that approach. Do some people prefer Prolonged Exposure Therapy instead of Cognitive Processing Therapy…sure. That isn't a problem w. science, it is an issue of preference and understanding of what is most appropriate for the patient.
 
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'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.
 
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.
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.
 
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?

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. 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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
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, 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.
 
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.

If we are simply talking about what is best for the profession in terms of protecting it better from encroachment from others in mental health field, it is hard to disagree.
 
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.

I totally second this, my school has both specialist and doctoral programs and they are vastly different. The specialist students only have to do assessment practicum with no real training in intervention/therapy/counseling/research unless they gain that on internship in their 3rd year. On the other hand, the doctoral program has externships (in and out of schools), and practicum spanning intervention and assessment.

And I do agree that specialist level school psychs shouldn't be called "psychologists"... it makes our field even more fuzzy to explain to others the difference between a psychologist and other mental health professionals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
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.

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.
 
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.
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.
 
Top