D
deleted176373
This has really devolved.
Mark
PS - I want my 30 seconds back.
Mark
PS - I want my 30 seconds back.
The Ugly Truth about the Clinical Psychology PhD
- Thread starter GabaTherapy
- Start date
D
deleted176373
"just because a person is admitted to a highly selective PhD program it does not make them an intelligent (in terms of therapy), competent, creative, quality therapist."
So what you are saying is that the admissions process is flawed and that the selection criteria at Ph.D. programs does little to ensure that competent, creative, intelligent people are selected?
Are you mad? You're telling me that experienced psychologists have no business in selecting applicants or for identifying potential in future clinicians and researchers. You might as well state that Psychology has nothing to offer the understanding, predicting, and controlling of behavior while you are at it.
Of course, those with low GPA's, low GRE's, and those whom may lack other significant attributes that threaten to bar them from admission to extremely competitive Ph.D. programs feel that they are capable of performing at the same level as those who have managed to have high GPA's, high GRE's, and possess other attributes that suggest they might become good Psychologists.
That's like saying, I can swim, so I should be in the Olympics. In reality, I have no chance of competing with Phelps, I shouldn't be in the Olympics, and just being a strong swimmer isn't enough. It's a combination of ability and character, and not everyone who wants to be a Psychologist should be a Psychologist.
The selection criteria, if anywhere, that deserves greater scrutiny should be the more lax criteria being promulgated by some schools. It matters not if they are a Ph.D. or a Psy.D. program, what does matter is the quality of clinician or researcher that they produce. I am willing to state that not all clinicians or researchers are equal. If we are to protect our profession we need to defend the quality and integrity of the training process and live with the fact that Psychologists are indeed special.
Mark
So what you are saying is that the admissions process is flawed and that the selection criteria at Ph.D. programs does little to ensure that competent, creative, intelligent people are selected?
Are you mad? You're telling me that experienced psychologists have no business in selecting applicants or for identifying potential in future clinicians and researchers. You might as well state that Psychology has nothing to offer the understanding, predicting, and controlling of behavior while you are at it.
Of course, those with low GPA's, low GRE's, and those whom may lack other significant attributes that threaten to bar them from admission to extremely competitive Ph.D. programs feel that they are capable of performing at the same level as those who have managed to have high GPA's, high GRE's, and possess other attributes that suggest they might become good Psychologists.
That's like saying, I can swim, so I should be in the Olympics. In reality, I have no chance of competing with Phelps, I shouldn't be in the Olympics, and just being a strong swimmer isn't enough. It's a combination of ability and character, and not everyone who wants to be a Psychologist should be a Psychologist.
The selection criteria, if anywhere, that deserves greater scrutiny should be the more lax criteria being promulgated by some schools. It matters not if they are a Ph.D. or a Psy.D. program, what does matter is the quality of clinician or researcher that they produce. I am willing to state that not all clinicians or researchers are equal. If we are to protect our profession we need to defend the quality and integrity of the training process and live with the fact that Psychologists are indeed special.
Mark
disagree with the strength of your argument mark. i would take it to the center a bit and say that while, in general, the selection criteria ensure that a talented group are chosen, the process has flaws that exclude certain types of equally talented people.
an above average student who knows the rules of grad school admission and has a quality support system can put together an excellent application. the admission criteria are simple: grades, GRE scores, relevant experience. you dont have to be a genius to acquire these. you mostly need to be orginized and articulate. the present system chooses these criteria as proxies for talent. with good reason, but they are imperfect measures.
someone who has a low UG GPA hasn't a chance to get into a top teir school, regardless of the talent or creativity they've displayed after graduation. there are simply too many other applicants with flawless credentials. the field loses these people. i think there's several subsets of people being selected out of the upper eschelons of clinical psychology (at the doctoral training level) because of how schools measure talent and the number of people who can display it.
also, the motivation of most top tier program faculty is not to produce quality clinicians, but researchers. it's something that shouldnt be underestimated.
an above average student who knows the rules of grad school admission and has a quality support system can put together an excellent application. the admission criteria are simple: grades, GRE scores, relevant experience. you dont have to be a genius to acquire these. you mostly need to be orginized and articulate. the present system chooses these criteria as proxies for talent. with good reason, but they are imperfect measures.
someone who has a low UG GPA hasn't a chance to get into a top teir school, regardless of the talent or creativity they've displayed after graduation. there are simply too many other applicants with flawless credentials. the field loses these people. i think there's several subsets of people being selected out of the upper eschelons of clinical psychology (at the doctoral training level) because of how schools measure talent and the number of people who can display it.
also, the motivation of most top tier program faculty is not to produce quality clinicians, but researchers. it's something that shouldnt be underestimated.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 1
disagree with the strength of your argument mark. i would take it to the center a bit and say that while, in general, the selection criteria ensure that a talented group are chosen, the process has flaws that exclude certain types of equally talented people.
an above average student who knows the rules of grad school admission and has a quality support system can put together an excellent application. the admission criteria are simple: grades, GRE scores, relevant experience. you dont have to be a genius to acquire these. you mostly need to be orginized and articulate. the present system chooses these criteria as proxies for talent. with good reason, but they are imperfect measures.
someone who has a low UG GPA hasn't a chance to get into a top teir school, regardless of the talent or creativity that they've displayed after graduation. there are simply too many other applicants with flawless credentials. the field loses these people. i think there's several subsets of people being selected out of the upper eschelons of clinical psy...(at the doctoral training level)
also, the motivation of most top tier program faculty is not to produce quality clinicians, but researchers. it's something that shouldnt be underestimated.
Good rebuttal, if you want quantitative empirical support for this argument PLEASE look up articles by Robert Sternberg (among many other intelligence researchers). This has been an ever-present argument not just for psych but for all professional schools... The fact that Mark never learned about this in undergrad worries me more than anything, I thought everyone had a history of psych or some type of class that talked about the intelligence debate (you know Bell Curve, Spearman's G, ringing a bell?). Well Sternberg has done ample research on this at the psych grad student level.
Cheers
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Messages
- 379
- Reaction score
- 3
You're reading too far into my statement. Your above quote is precisely what I am saying; simply that regardless of the prestige of your program, whether it be PhD or PsyD, ultimately the clinician has the ultimate control over their performance. This has nothing to do with a lack of faith in psychology, or professor's admissions radars... it is a condition in all fields, be it culinary school or the rocket science institute of South Dakota. (yes I made that school up)
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Messages
- 379
- Reaction score
- 3
Ps.
This is absurd. An interview weekend is hardly enough time to "understand and predict" their applicant's behavior. How much of yourself did you actually show during your interviews, other than what you wanted to present?
I want my 4 minutes back.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,609
I dont understand the problem here? If you have such a problem with it, then suggest an alternative that does a better job of selecting and ensuring that quality product enter grad school.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Messages
- 379
- Reaction score
- 3
For the love of god, the point I'm making is that psychologists aren't mind readers, nor are they magicians, nor are any other people who make admissions decisions in any other field that offers doctoral studies. My point isn't to lobby for change in admissions criteria, it's to suggest that ultimately it is the responsibility of the student to use their education productively and further that the people who eventually prove to be unqualified for clinical work are not always the product of loose doctoral admissions standards and can come from any caliber of program. (how's that for a run-on sentence?)
Edit:
And please look at the context of my other statement. I was delineating between what Mark thought I was saying and what I was actually saying, which is that just because our admissions decision makers are psychologists it doesn't make our interview day a veritable replacement for the behavioral work that psychologists actually do. In other words, an hour long interview does not equal an hour of psychotherapy.
Last edited:
D
deleted176373
How long do you think we have to make a clinical impression of the clients we see and write up a note or report regarding their condition? I'll give you a hint, it's less time than you'll spend in a graduate program interview.
Mark
D
deleted176373
I see you present no data to support your argument. What I did or did not learn as an undergraduate is irrelevant.
Which of Sternberg's articles do you think supports your opinion that experienced psychologists are inept at selecting those who should continue on to be future psychologists?
It's not only about intelligence, the constellation of attributes necessary to become a psychologist is far more complex than can be tapped by only GRE and GPA's. I think that you should have been able to grasp that in my discussion above which alluded to other factors beyond raw intelligence.
Mark
D
deleted176373
I'll concede your point that the selection process is flawed, but we do not currently have a better one, and for the most part the process seems to work.
Does it suck when otherwise qualified people are not given a chance because of a low GRE or GPA, most certainly it does. Hell, I wanted to study at Yale.... So should I be at Yale because I have the desire to be there? I certainly am capable of doing graduate level work (or I am living in a 3 year delusion at this point.)
No, I shouldn't be there. I was edged out by talented people who had, in addition to all the other attributes needed, higher GRE scores or had graduated from more prestigious undergraduate institutions (no, I didn't go to DeVry.) That's just the way it goes.
Mark
Is there something wrong with DeVry? There's a best fit school for everyone,you know. mark, you sound full of yourself. maybe that's why yale didn't take you in. if DeVry offered a PhD in clinical i bet a lot of people would apply and graduate to be decent psychologist.
D
deleted176373
I am sorry you didn't get the humor there.
No, there is nothing wrong with DeVry that you couldn't say about ITT Tech or other similar programs.
Next you're gonna tell me that graduates of Keller do as well as the graduates of McCombs, right? I mean both are MBA's right, so both graduates should go equally far, right?
I am certainly not full of myself, the reality was that I didn't make the cut at Yale because my GRE scores were far too low (1300) and that, although I had a 4.0 GPA, the college I attended simply didn't have a rigorous enough program in psychology to justify my attendance at Yale. How is that being full of myself. I did the best I could and I am at a decent program, but it is not Yale.
Mark
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Messages
- 379
- Reaction score
- 3
This wasn't my point at all. In fact, I don't think this was anyone's point.
No one is saying we should be able to study wherever we want. My point is so simple that I think you are reading into it far too much. Let me re-state it in the easiest terms possible:
Sometimes unqualified people slip through the cracks; even in the higher ranking programs.
Easy enough?
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Messages
- 379
- Reaction score
- 3
The patient who seeks you for clinical help and the graduate student who wants to present the most normal, level headed, intelligent personality possible, are two very different animals.
D
deleted176373
I disagree, at the core many clients who seek clinical help are normal, level headed, and intelligent people who also engage in impression management. To assume otherwise is a bit naive. How long have you been seeing patients?
Mark
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 673
- Reaction score
- 1
These are fun to watch. I have stopped actively participating for a variety of reasons, plus I have no credibility. I went to a VERY LOW tier undergrad program AND a professional school.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 461
- Reaction score
- 10
73BARMYPgsp
Of course your opinion counts and yes you have credibility. This whole "tier" thing about undergraduate schools is sheer nonsense. This idea was created by US news and World Report. I find it amazing that people in academe actually buy into an idea and a methodology promulgated by the popular press. In Britain they have " league tables" created by the various newspapers like the Times of London, the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph that are based on the soccer/football league tables. Each newspaper ranks different schools based upon different criteria and all of their methodologies are questionable. Its sheer bunk. I'd say the same thing about the US News and World Report guide.
I firmly believe that the right education for you is the right education for *you* not someone else. Education is ultimately not about schools or reputation, or tier one versus tier two or tier three. Education is about your growth as a person and professional, your transformational journey, and your unique needs, not those of the institution. One of the enormous ironies of this board is how frequently the term "fit" is used. Invariably "fit" refers to how well the student fits into the institution rather than how the institution and training model fits the student's needs. Institution centric thinking serves to maintain existing power hierarchies in education and the profession of psychology as a whole. This is unfortunate since ultimately all learning is self-directed and self-motivated. The purpose of the institution is to facilitate *your* learning by providing you the student with the atmosphere, structure and resources to aid in this. You as the *student* should be at the center of the learning experience, not the faculty or the institution nor really even the subject matter per se since boundaries between various disciplines are really arbitrary. Ultimately, doctoral education is an intellectual journey in which you learn to ask new questions and expand your intellectual horizons at the highest level while concurrently adding something to the discipline. If your undergraduate and graduate experience fulfilled those needs, let the critics be damned.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,383
- Reaction score
- 4,332
We had a thread here a year or two ago that discussed the US News & World Report rankings, and the general opinion was that they were not useful. The basic methodology is junk, and it was developed to sell copies.
The biggest reason you can't "rank" psychology programs is because your mentor will mean more than the faculty as a whole. If you do anxiety research, and you go to a "top" university that doesn't have someone that does anxiety research....you probably won't be as successful as someone who goes to a lesser known program to work with a big name anxiety researcher. Some people look at internship placement, some look at who publishes where, and other people have completely different criteria.
The biggest reason you can't "rank" psychology programs is because your mentor will mean more than the faculty as a whole. If you do anxiety research, and you go to a "top" university that doesn't have someone that does anxiety research....you probably won't be as successful as someone who goes to a lesser known program to work with a big name anxiety researcher. Some people look at internship placement, some look at who publishes where, and other people have completely different criteria.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Messages
- 379
- Reaction score
- 3
Mark, you have been doing nothing but missing every point I make and changing my statements to ideas that they aren't.
I'm did not say that patients aren't normal, level headed, and intelligent people. Please don't charge my statement with that nit-witted logic. I am saying that students interviewing for a doctoral degree are PRESENTING themselves as normal, level headed, and intelligent for the sake of their admission.
Mark, you really have to start using some brain power here, because your misinterpreting everything I am saying, which is odd because I'm really making the simplest points. Please stop twisting my statements around to suit your strange conclusions about what you think I'm saying.
"The patient who seeks you for clinical help and the graduate student who wants to present the most normal, level headed, intelligent personality possible, are two very different animals."
Key word: WANTS. I am not attributing normalcy pr intelligence to the graduate student. Nor am I taking that away from a patient. Please re-read my statements before you come up with your posts.
The point you've missed in my simple statement: Therapy and the graduate interview are NOT the same. And it's "naive" to make the comparison. I honestly don't know why you are attacking me, and calling me naive for making the point that all levels of doctoral programs have people who slip through the cracks in terms of admissions.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 673
- Reaction score
- 1
73BARMYPgsp
Of course your opinion counts and yes you have credibility. This whole "tier" thing about undergraduate schools is sheer nonsense. This idea was created by US news and World Report. I find it amazing that people in academe actually buy into an idea and a methodology promulgated by the popular press. In Britain they have " league tables" created by the various newspapers like the Times of London, the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph that are based on the soccer/football league tables. Each newspaper ranks different schools based upon different criteria and all of their methodologies are questionable. Its sheer bunk. I'd say the same thing about the US News and World Report guide.
I firmly believe that the right education for you is the right education for *you* not someone else. Education is ultimately not about schools or reputation, or tier one versus tier two or tier three. Education is about your growth as a person and professional, your transformational journey, and your unique needs, not those of the institution. One of the enormous ironies of this board is how frequently the term "fit" is used. Invariably "fit" refers to how well the student fits into the institution rather than how the institution and training model fits the student's needs. Institution centric thinking serves to maintain existing power hierarchies in education and the profession of psychology as a whole. This is unfortunate since ultimately all learning is self-directed and self-motivated. The purpose of the institution is to facilitate *your* learning by providing you the student with the atmosphere, structure and resources to aid in this. You as the *student* should be at the center of the learning experience, not the faculty or the institution nor really even the subject matter per se since boundaries between various disciplines are really arbitrary. Ultimately, doctoral education is an intellectual journey in which you learn to ask new questions and expand your intellectual horizons at the highest level while concurrently adding something to the discipline. If your undergraduate and graduate experience fulfilled those needs, let the critics be damned.
Very kind words indeed. However, I have now completed my PhD and the funny thing is, everyone around here calls me "doctor!"
There are generally 2 types of posts (and I guess by default "posters") on this site. 1. Posts that seek to gain some understanding of a particular subject matter--from nuts and bolts/application procedures to very broad research and clinical questions--and 2. posts complaining about professional schools and the PsyDs. When I was a 3rd year and I joined, I was very much in the 2nd category. I felt I needed to vigorously defend my credentials, which some around here think I found in a Cracker Jack box. Now I just come on from time to time, ask a clinical question once in a while and read the craziness. It's fun when I am sitting in clinic and it's slow.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Messages
- 379
- Reaction score
- 3
Agreed. And I can't help but sometimes argue with those who damn the Psy.D.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 673
- Reaction score
- 1
My diastolic has come way down since those days.
D
deleted176373
Hmmm, why are you being attacked?
You are not being attacked, you are the one stating that I am not using any brain power. Perhaps I am simply not capable of "understanding the simplest of points." I apologize if that is the case.
I will desist and let you enjoy your thoughts on the matter.
Mark
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Messages
- 379
- Reaction score
- 3
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Messages
- 379
- Reaction score
- 3
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 461
- Reaction score
- 10
Good work *Dr* 73BARMYPgsp! May you always hold your head high!
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2006
- Messages
- 194
- Reaction score
- 0
I just wanted to make you feel better on this point. I am a complete idiot who has a JD and left a very high salary in that field by choice to pursue a PhD in psychology (idiot because I am entirely overeducated, not because I left the legal field). I stayed in the profession long enough to save enough money to finance a nice life in grad school, internship and those first years of practice. Yes, that's how obscene the money can be, but believe me there is a very heavy price to be paid. Those JDs who get the plum jobs are from the top 20 schools and although the time to completion is shorter, often we are graded on forced C curves and we *have* to graduate in the top 5% of our class, be on journals, etc. to even have a chance. So, the emotional stress of law school is much worse and the enjoyment factor is practically nonexistent. I do have a few friends who enjoy being lawyers but most are in the public sector or in house. The former are often demoralized by their salaries and the latter are usually well-compensated but bored.
I don't know exactly what I am doing in a PhD program. I guess the comfort is that if I really hate this, after 2 years I could get a masters and do counseling if I wanted too in addition to practicing law on my own or something, so at least I'd have variety. I am still not sure about it. I was going to give myself until I start practica next year to determine if this is a totally ludicrous idea.
However, my point is that all of the paths that you did not take are definitely not all paved with gold. There are pros/cons for all of them. As a whole, attorneys are incredibly unhappy and feel very trapped. It is very, very difficult to leave that world no matter how abusive and horrible it is when you started making six figures when you were 24 or 25 years old. Most of my friends who are still at large law firms have one of the following issues: substance abuse, marital issues, panic/anxiety issues, and depression. Sure, they are making money hand over fist, but they spend it on escape measures like big bar tabs and expensive vacations.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2006
- Messages
- 194
- Reaction score
- 0
There are programs where you can get out in 4 + 1. It's rare. I think it takes a committed and tenured faculty member who has nothing to prove and nothing to gain by keeping you in grad school and has power in the department. And it takes you being super organized and ideally bringing some other talents to the table that will help with internship, etc. You also will have to kiss an academic career goodbye. I totally agree it's probably like less than 5% of students who can pull this off...
D
deleted176373
The only concrete example I can think of this are Baylor and USUHS. I don't have the stats for Baylor, but at USUHS, the military students (and only the military students) have to be out in 4+1. The civilian dual track students are 5+1 or 6+1.
It's not easy. I am 50% through year 3, it flies by but I am on track to finish my dissertation and go to my internship by the end of year 4.
Mark
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,179
- Reaction score
- 5
This has been my experience as well. I'm so glad to be out of that profession, even though I'm grateful for having had the opportunity to try it out (for over 10 yrs!) Believe me, money is NOT everything.
coloradocutter and psychmama, I've especially enjoyed your contributions to this discussion. It's tempting to think that as a lawyer I could leave that world behind at 5 PM (...or maybe 9), and then step into my "real" life the second I leave the office for the night. But I guess the unhappiness would spill over? If only I had the personality for the law profession!
I created an account to respond to this thread, so here I go. College junior here. Reading through the last 6 pages has been terrifying. Although it is really inspiring to see that some of you are defending the field, this thread is bringing up my worst fears about this huge life decision I'm in the process of making. I have a dad who refuses to see me after I dropped the pre-med shtick. Fine, his choice. My mom desperately wants me to become a lawyer (she thinks I'd automatically be rich): the only thing that jerk Santa got me this year was an LSAT book. But sadly, even though I know I'd cry every day and probably dread going to work, I can't bring myself to completely cross lawyer off the list. The brief time I've been in undergrad has left me with a feeling that clinical practice might really be the place for me, but am I willing to sacrifice a cushy lifestyle for that? Especially considering how much I'm not looking forward to the research aspect of obtaining a PhD. Conversely, am I willing to sacrifice a great career fit (and take up a crappy one) for extra spending money, nice clothes, and a nice apartment in a major city (great expectations!)? I just don't know. But time is running out, and each day that passes is a reminder of how close it is to decision time. Then there's a part of me that wants to drop all of this craziness and get a PhD in French, but I'm thinking the financial prospects in that area might be the worst of these three options. Wow, I guess it all boils down to me being slightly materialistic. I should probably work on that.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,179
- Reaction score
- 5
MKE88 - Being materialistic is not a sin -- it's important to recognize what you need to be happy. It sounds to me like you're still sorting out your priorities in terms of a career path. That's not a sin either, even though I suspect you feel pressure to get it all figured out in time to enter grad or professional school right after graduation.
At the risk of upsetting the plan, why not wait a year or two before taking that leap? Perhaps you could do what many law students have done -- get a paralegal-type job at a firm where you can see firsthand what being a lawyer would be like? Or perhaps you could do something related to clinical work and get a sense for whether that type of thing is for you? My suggestion is to TAKE YOUR TIME before plunging into either law or psychology if you're very conflicted. There is nothing better than working hard to do what you love -- and nothing worse than slaving away only to discover you're miserable once you achieve that JD, MD or PHd. Talk to friends and perhaps other family members who are maybe able to be more objective about what you should be "when you grow up". Sometimes parents are just to close to us to be all that helpful.
Good luck to you.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,383
- Reaction score
- 4,332
Psychology is definitely a field in transition, but it can still offer a lot of opportunity.
Lawyers can make $$$, but they put in a ton of hours to work their way up to partner, and unless you go to a top tier program, it will take even longer.
Lawyers can make $$$, but they put in a ton of hours to work their way up to partner, and unless you go to a top tier program, it will take even longer.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
Hey MKE88. I am pretty much in the same boat as you. Except my decision is between clinical psychology and medicine. Being an undergrad, I love everything I'm learning in psychology and I'm generally liking my classes. So I always told myself, if medicine never worked out I would become a clinical psychologist (without really realizing what it took to become a clinical psychologist). Thankfully, this thread gave a a reality check. 6 years of more studying doesn't bother me too much, but the fact that my starting salary after 6 more years would be around 50, 000 does bother me. I realize that everyone here is saying that you don't become a psychologist for the money --- and I understand that. I really want to help people face to face and make their day a little bit better. But going into debt after 6 years of studies, I can't pull myself up financially with that kind of a salary.
Plus like you mentioned, I would not look forward to the research part. If I did go into clinical psychology, the research part would be something I would do because I have to do it, not because I want to. I really have respect for people who do research and I think it is obviously a very important part of society. But having already worked in labs, it's just not my thing. I would much rather prefer one on one interactions with patients.
So...at the point I am still undecided. But I am leaning more towards medicine. I figure, I still have to be a semi-therapist if I were a doctor and help people through very emotional and stressful times in their lives. And I get it done in less time and with a higher salary.
But I'm still scared either choice I make, I might end up looking back with regret.
