Where else should I apply? PsyD

[MBellows]

Although it is super-insulting, people say that all the time. They say being a therapist is like being a prostitute because people are paying you for your time and paying you to "pretend" that you care. They don't say it as often as the other comment you mentioned, but it comes up with some regularity. Most people who have done a chunk of practice have heard it either socially or from clients.

I think it is one of those things you learn to laugh at.

Best,
Dr. E

HOLY S**T! They're supposed to think that I care?!?!?!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PHD12]

I Take this experience and learn from it. Like any other, this career path takes work.

I don't disagree with this, but also want to point out that there isn't another professional career that requires 7-8 years of training post-college (aside from an MD). The weeding out in our field is done at the end of training (internship, sometimes fellowship). I'm going through the fellowship interview process right now and what is so frustrating is that even after landing a great internship and coming from a solid, funded graduate program, I am still unsure if I am going to get licensed in my state or nearby geographic location. It can very difficult to land a post-doc position that provides you with 4 hours of supervision and meets other state guidelines. Plus, if I decide to move after post-doc, licensure laws vary so much between states. When lawyers are in their 3rd year of school, they are eligible to take the Bar Exam and can get licensed in multiple states immediately (usually they apply more than 1 state when they take the exam).

What i'm trying to say is that you have to be willing to sacrifice a ton for this degree! You have to be so passionate that you cannot imagine doing anything else.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

The main things I think are needed are a substantial increase in admission standards, decrease in class size, greater control over practica, and substantially enhanced research/scientific training (even if the motivations and nature of this remain distinct from that of university programs).

Thanks for the response. I am not sure these suggestions would necessarily render the schools insolvent.

Raise admissions standards? Seems there's always more demand for than supply of positions in every round of admissions, and even the so-called shoe ins can get passed over. Yet I wonder -- are the admissions standards prevailing in the university PhD model adequate for all FSPSs? FSPSs recruit students they believe have demonstrated an aptitude to be healers and leaders in the communities which depend on the schools for services. As with larger issues of diversity, diversity of belief may not be a positive in and of itself, but I truly find it troubling that folks here believe a one size fits all standard of recruitment will keep psychology relevant in a diverse world.

Greater control over practica? That seems to entail costs that could be shared by all schools in a given region, as, for example, in the Bay Area's BAPIC program.

Enhance research standards? Some FSPS have their own clinics, and those should be thought of as potential research settings.

There is a major difference between someone who heard about the dodo bird verdict in lecture and decided that it doesn't matter what kind of therapy they practice, versus someone who has read the literature, understood it, and is capable of having an intellectual discussion about why or why not the conclusions drawn from it are valid.

Agreed, but you seem to be confusing this argument with the argument that only people who are trained in the design and implementation of said studies are capable of having intellectual discussions about the validity of the conclusions. I hope you will agree that would be absurd.

There is no doubt variability even with the FSPS model. However, I'm going to raise issues with the notion that diversity should be viewed as a strength. Diversity CAN be a strength, but I think its incredibly short-sighted to take the view that it is inherently positive. I think the call depends entirely on context and we have a case here where diversity doesn't mean "different", it means "worse". I'll avoid rehashing the same old arguments but I just find it really hard to believe anyone genuinely believes the prototypical FSPSs (think Argosy/Alliant) provide training that is just as good as other programs and just "different".

In this area there are a handful of university based clinical psych programs. Out in the field, I and my fellow students simply never cross paths with the students from these universities. Superficially, it comes down to numbers. The unis don't have the numbers to meet the needs of their surrounding communities, because, outside of their social work departments, if they have them, they haven't developed the tools to do so -- and they haven't done so because their missions are different, their definitions of the problems to be solved are different, and their outreach to the community is as close to coming from a different discipline as possible. In effect, they are ceding community stewardship to other disciplines. FSPSs are not. There are a lot of FSPSs in this area. As I stated, there is a lot of variability in the emphases and quality of training, and some of it I find lamentable. But to say they are all bad, because they aren't doing it your way? What is that? Narrow minded? Self-centered? Short sighted? Indefensible? I'll go easy and say ill informed.

As for outcomes, I suppose you are right that I was jumping the gun on that. To my knowledge we don't have good data on therapy outcomes right now. In part I think that's because such a study would be extremely difficult to conduct since we can't randomly assign people to employment settings and therapy outcomes are difficult enough to work with when one can use well-behaved designs.

Cool, so...you cede this is an area where science might not be able to police itself?

That said, even if outcomes ARE the same that is really besides the point. In my view, a psychologist is more than a "therapist". They should have more skills than just being an effective therapist.

No argument there. I would simply add that some FSPSs believe they should be more than scientists, as well.

Even if we had a wonderful study proving they have exactly equal therapy outcomes to graduates of the best PhD programs....unless their skills in assessment/research/etc. are the same they are still not anywhere close to equivalency. That doesn't mean their graduates are useless and it doesn't mean they may not have a role to play. It does mean they fall well short of the bar someone needs to meet in order to deserve the title of "psychologist" in my eyes.

Different world views...

 

[Ollie123]

Raise admissions standards? Seems there's always more demand for than supply of positions in every round of admissions, and even the so-called shoe ins can get passed over. Yet I wonder -- are the admissions standards prevailing in the university PhD model adequate for all FSPSs? FSPSs recruit students they believe have demonstrated an aptitude to be healers and leaders in the communities which depend on the schools for services. As with larger issues of diversity, diversity of belief may not be a positive in and of itself, but I truly find it troubling that folks here believe a one size fits all standard of recruitment will keep psychology relevant in a diverse world.

Students they believe can be healers/leaders, or students they believe will make all their tuition payments? I say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think there is a great deal of truth to that. We agree there is variability in programs, but the students I have met from these programs are generally ill-equipped to be leaders (and in many cases, expressly shouldn't be leading) and it certainly doesn't seem like the majority of these programs are preparing them to take on such a role. We can debate the nuances of admissions decisions, but seeing the output (graduates) from these programs is pretty damning and raises obvious questions about the input side.

Greater control over practica? That seems to entail costs that could be shared by all schools in a given region, as, for example, in the Bay Area's BAPIC program.

Not entirely certain I understand your point here. I suppose developing and monitoring such a system could be shared among schools, but I'm doubtful the universities would be very happy about this. My point was that many FSPSs allow students to do practica in settings that university programs deemed unfit to provide appropriate training. Having students do the paperwork for someone's private practice for a semester is not exactly a grand contribution to the underserved...but it is a way to make sure you have enough practica for the 200 doctoral students you admit each year. Even putting that (rather extreme) example aside, there is tremendous variability in the quality of treatment provider out there. We are not allowed to work with the many providers here providing wacky, borderline unethical, entirely non-evidence-based treatments. The FSPS students are. That needs to stop.

Enhance research standards? Some FSPS have their own clinics, and those should be thought of as potential research settings.

Indeed. It is at many university settings, and many student projects are run on patient populations recruited through the school clinic or their mentor's laboratory with great success.

Agreed, but you seem to be confusing this argument with the argument that only people who are trained in the design and implementation of said studies are capable of having intellectual discussions about the validity of the conclusions. I hope you will agree that would be absurd.

I actually do disagree to some extent. I don't think one needs be prepared to implement the study themselves to discuss the validity of the conclusions. However, I strongly believe one needs training in design. I'm not sure how one can have an intelligent discussion about the validity of a study without a solid understanding of research design.

In this area there are a handful of university based clinical psych programs. Out in the field, I and my fellow students simply never cross paths with the students from these universities. Superficially, it comes down to numbers. The unis don't have the numbers to meet the needs of their surrounding communities, because, outside of their social work departments, if they have them, they haven't developed the tools to do so -- and they haven't done so because their missions are different, their definitions of the problems to be solved are different, and their outreach to the community is as close to coming from a different discipline as possible. In effect, they are ceding community stewardship to other disciplines. FSPSs are not.

This is actually where I start to disagree. Now let me start off by saying I'm not making the argument they are inherently bad or universally bad. I don't know them all in detail and cannot answer that. However, it sounds like you are actually making my point for me. Universities are training psychologists. FSPSs are training social workers and labeling them psychologists because it sounds cooler and they'll get to be called doctor, which helps their marketing department. That doesn't mean I think social workers are evil and useless. It does mean I think psychology training is different and that I see few advantages to attending a FSPS psychology program over a solid master's level program.

Cool, so...you cede this is an area where science might not be able to police itself?

No argument there. I would simply add that some FSPSs believe they should be more than scientists, as well.

No doubt science isn't perfect and isn't able to answer all questions. I'd actually argue in the specific case I brought up (therapy outcomes across providers) it could offer a great deal on, it just hasn't done so because it is costly/expensive, difficult and funding for behavioral research is disappointing on a good day. That's another matter though.

To me, what questions science can answer is a very interesting question itself. That said, there is no doubt that it can answer a great many questions. Including many questions with tremendous relevance to appropriate psychological practice. That doesn't mean training as a scientist is sufficient to be a clinical psychologist, but even the most research-intensive universities don't operate that way. They train people for both science and practice (and I'd argue do a better job at the latter than most professional schools). Yet many of the professional schools seem to be providing "therapist-only" training. That's really my point - they are offering less (and charging more). Less is not the same, less is less. We can argue it does some good for the communities. I think there are more viable alternatives that offer the same (or greater) benefit to those communities that don't entail slapping a doctor sticker on a master's degree.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Not entirely certain I understand your point here. I suppose developing and monitoring such a system could be shared among schools, but I'm doubtful the universities would be very happy about this. My point was that many FSPSs allow students to do practica in settings that university programs deemed unfit to provide appropriate training. Having students do the paperwork for someone's private practice for a semester is not exactly a grand contribution to the underserved...but it is a way to make sure you have enough practica for the 200 doctoral students you admit each here. Even putting that (rather extreme) example aside, there is tremendous variability in the quality of treatment provider out there. We are not allowed to work with the many providers here providing wacky, borderline unethical, entirely non-evidence-based treatments. The FSPS students are. That needs to stop.

[...]

This is actually where I start to disagree. Now let me start off by saying I'm not making the argument they are inherently bad or universally bad. I don't know them all in detail and cannot answer that. However, it sounds like you are actually making my point for me. Universities are training psychologists. FSPSs are training social workers and labeling them psychologists because it sounds cooler and they'll get to be called doctor, which helps their marketing department. That doesn't mean I think social workers are evil and useless. It does mean I think psychology training is different and that I see few advantages to attending a FSPS psychology program over a solid master's level program.

I think these two points could potentially be related in that some of the smaller, university-based programs may not be foregoing placing students with these sites because of a lack of desire to have them there. Rather, it could be related to the lack of supportive infrastructure (particularly supervision and the ability to provide evidence-based interventions). By that same measure, though, I know that at least with my program, we've worked with a couple different sites in attempting to implement changes that would help the sites to provide these services to students so that students could thereby provide services to patients. But at the same time, we realized that not all sites were willing/able to do so, with some ultimately having to be abandoned as potential training venues. These sites would be better suited to having licensed psychologists available to make these changes rather than injecting trainees into these situations.

I do appreciate the idea that different training paths can lead to equivalent outcomes, and that different life circumstances can result in applicants being competitive in different ways. But as Ollie mentioned, it becomes problematic if the average trainee from one program/type of program simply doesn't line up well with trainee/graduate peers from other institutions.

 

[JeyRo]

And here I thought that anarchocapitalist libertarians were the good kind? Or maybe it was libertarian socialists (actually a thing)?

 

[Ollie123]

I think these two points could potentially be related in that some of the smaller, university-based programs may not be foregoing placing students with these sites because of a lack of desire to have them there. Rather, it could be related to the lack of supportive infrastructure (particularly supervision and the ability to provide evidence-based interventions). By that same measure, though, I know that at least with my program, we've worked with a couple different sites in attempting to implement changes that would help the sites to provide these services to students so that students could thereby provide services to patients. But at the same time, we realized that not all sites were willing/able to do so, with some ultimately having to be abandoned as potential training venues. These sites would be better suited to having licensed psychologists available to make these changes rather than injecting trainees into these situations.

I do appreciate the idea that different training paths can lead to equivalent outcomes, and that different life circumstances can result in applicants being competitive in different ways. But as Ollie mentioned, it becomes problematic if the average trainee from one program/type of program simply doesn't line up well with trainee/graduate peers from other institutions.

I think that is entirely true and we have done the same. I don't know of many schools that are "against" students working in particular settings or with particular populations (that would be bizarre if they were). However I know many that will not allow students to work at sites that can't provide quality training. When a program admits 5x as many students per year as my program has total across all years, one is likely going to need to cut corners somewhere. Working with them to make that training viable is a great idea but again...I see this happening more with universities and less with FSPSs (where arguably, even many of their faculty are not qualified to be providing training...).

 

[PHD12]

I think that is entirely true and we have done the same. I don't know of many schools that are "against" students working in particular settings or with particular populations (that would be bizarre if they were). However I know many that will not allow students to work at sites that can't provide quality training. When a program admits 5x as many students per year as my program has total across all years, one is likely going to need to cut corners somewhere. Working with them to make that training viable is a great idea but again...I see this happening more with universities and less with FSPSs (where arguably, even many of their faculty are not qualified to be providing training...).

There is a lot of cutting corners even with clinical training. In my location, some FSPS students are able to do practicums at the VA, although I have never seen any of them receiving supervision from a licensed psychologist at the VA. They typically only get supervision from an intern who is training in supervision for the first time (only 1 hour per week of ind. supervision). My program requires that all our primary supervisors be licensed psychologists and has a list of practicum sites where the supervision to patient ratio is very favorable for trainees. The majority of community clinics where many of FSPS students train are of very poor quality and tend to overwork these students. On the internship level, many CAPIC sites look very shady to me (there is no formal training brochure; every staff member is an MFT or PsyD from a professional school).

 

[Member6523]

What I anticipate happening (and is already happening) is that psychologists will continue to specialize in ways that will distinguish themselves from the lower quality training sites. For example, the ABPP-CN process is very rigorous (APA accredited doctoral program and internship required, plus a 2 year neuro post doc) which automatically weeds out the majority of FSPS students. Therefore, to be board certified in neuropsychology is a marker of status and accomplishment. It is a bit snobby but it also reflects the degree of training required for this, something perhaps necessary for us psychologists since the basic PhD no longer distinguishes high quality programs from low quality ones. The obvious comparison is MDs, all which are regulated by the AMA and therefore meet some quality of standard. Since we do not have this, the logical step is to obtain it at the boards level. Neuropsychology is one of the first, but Rehab is close behind, and I'm sure there will be others in the upcoming years.

 

[Edward3nigm4]

Much satisfaction can be found with exploration, experimentation, and mucking it up over and over, until you settle in and get down to work for the long haul. Use this time to learn and explore, and make a decision out of rationality and peace--that's when you know it's right.

Okay.

I think I'll wait to see where I get in and ponder about going to school this year or maybe taking another year to do other things. Although I don't have any more classes to really take, I could maybe try to do some more volunteering. Mainly, I have an itch for making films and acting. I think I want to give that endeavor one more chance for a full year, while also getting more patient contact experience and maybe preparing for the psych GRE. I used to think starting grad school at age 25 was old..then I thought 26 was my limit...now I'm thinking 27 is old...But I can't imagine being 30 and ever regretting chasing my artistic dream before starting grad school. You only live once right?
The biggest difficulty will be improving my application for funded programs, while also trying to do my own thing. It's hard to juggle multiple passions sometimes!


For those of you who started grad school (psyd or phd I don't care) at an older age (>26), did you regret not starting sooner? The only thing I think would suck would be that making money and have security to keep a stable relationship would be delayed as opposed to being younger and in school....hmm smh

 

[Psychadelic2012]

I started my PhD program at 35. I started my master's program (officially) at 31, although I started exploring and doing prereq's 1-2 years before that. I worked that whole time, while going to school. Even before that, I was in a totally different field, let's say it was the arts (staying anonymous), where I had graduated from UG 8-10 years before starting to explore graduate school in this different field. I got the 'art' bug out of my system and I'm personally glad I did. I loved what I was doing. I have no regrets. I, personally, got to a point where I wanted more out of life. I wasn't satisfied. So, my aspirations took a sharp turn and then many other little turns after that, which lead me to psychology. Along the way, I worked, I explored relationships and life in general, I struggled, I travelled, and I did all of the things my much-younger classmates are pining to do but won't anytime soon!

Due to my experiences, I'm biased about professional psych students taking time to get life experience before going to grad school. I think it's really important. Some might look at me and say that I've wasted my adult life or how could I still be in school after all of this time? However, one thing people will never, ever say about me is that I missed out on life during that time. I don't have this "I missed my 20's!" feeling, because I didn't. I'm much more confident in what I know now and I know what I want.

There are definitely advantages to taking your time. I'm a proponent of doing that, for sure.

 

[Edward3nigm4]

I started my PhD program at 35. I started my master's program (officially) at 31, although I started exploring and doing prereq's 1-2 years before that. I worked that whole time, while going to school. Even before that, I was in a totally different field, let's say it was the arts (staying anonymous), where I had graduated from UG 8-10 years before starting to explore graduate school in this different field. I got the 'art' bug out of my system and I'm personally glad I did. I loved what I was doing. I have no regrets. I, personally, got to a point where I wanted more out of life. I wasn't satisfied. So, my aspirations took a sharp turn and then many other little turns after that, which lead me to psychology. Along the way, I worked, I explored relationships and life in general, I struggled, I travelled, and I did all of the things my much-younger classmates are pining to do but won't anytime soon!

Due to my experiences, I'm biased about professional psych students taking time to get life experience before going to grad school. I think it's really important. Some might look at me and say that I've wasted my adult life or how could I still be in school after all of this time? However, one thing people will never, ever say about me is that I missed out on life during that time. I don't have this "I missed my 20's!" feeling, because I didn't. I'm much more confident in what I know now and I know what I want.

There are definitely advantages to taking your time. I'm a proponent of doing that, for sure.

wow, that is awesome.
I honestly wish I DIDN'T have the "art" bug. It's inconvenient. If I didn't have it, I would be more patient with the process of grad school and wouldn't be so eager to things going.
But then again there's the problem of not making enough money as a struggling artist to do all of those cool things like travel and whatnot. I guess you can never really have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

wow, that is awesome.
I honestly wish I DIDN'T have the "art" bug. It's inconvenient. If I didn't have it, I would be more patient with the process of grad school and wouldn't be so eager to things going.
But then again there's the problem of not making enough money as a struggling artist to do all of those cool things like travel and whatnot. I guess you can never really have your cake and eat it too.

You may find training/education in clinical psychology and artistic expression are perfectly complementary. At least in terms of being broke...

 

[Lisa44201]

For those of you who started grad school (psyd or phd I don't care) at an older age (>26), did you regret not starting sooner? The only thing I think would suck would be that making money and have security to keep a stable relationship would be delayed as opposed to being younger and in school....hmm smh

Not sure where/why there's a delay w/r/t stable relationship. I went back to school for my Bachelor's degree at 26; during my time as an undergrad, I also got married and had two children (during the school year, no less, not during summer break). My husband is a cook, so it's not like we're rich, either, but we got by. He's now finishing up his Bachelor's while I finish my Master's degree. School & permanent relationships don't have to be an either/or situation.

 

[coldsweat]

Not sure where/why there's a delay w/r/t stable relationship. I went back to school for my Bachelor's degree at 26; during my time as an undergrad, I also got married and had two children (during the school year, no less, not during summer break). My husband is a cook, so it's not like we're rich, either, but we got by. He's now finishing up his Bachelor's while I finish my Master's degree. School & permanent relationships don't have to be an either/or situation.

Confirmed. I would estimate that about 75% of the students in my cohort are in long-term relationships, engaged, or married. I actually feel like I'm in the minority as a person who is single!

 

[Pragma]

Ah, age and relationships.

Well, FWIW, I started graduate school at 22 (but still took a year off in between). I also was in a committed relationship and got married before graduate school as a young buck. I know plenty of people that started at older ages (meaning 30's and 40's usually) and some that started anywhere from age 22-27 ("young", IMO). I don't think one is better than the other - there are valuable arguments for starting at various times. I would say that it was difficult to live out my 20's on such an intense path while many of my friends were making a lot more money and having a lot more fun. I could see the merits of coming to this career later with even more certainty after having disliked a different path, but it also would suck to have to keep pushing back your end date. I had my PhD at 27, which is younger than for most people, but really just the degree is only one part of the equation. But the years seem to be flying by since graduating (postdocs, job searches, licensing) and for someone like me who decided to get situated in a career before starting a family (rather than trying during training), the time investment has been major.

My advice to people usually is not to try to go unless you are very certain about the path, as it is a path involving a lot of sacrifices with little short-term reward. However, I have to admit that before I started my PhD program, I promised my wife that if she hated the place we were moving to, I'd be happy to quit after the first year and move back. It was a leap of faith in a sense, because I was willing to give up the career path if it was not going to work for our marriage.

Luckily she LOVED where we moved to and that was never an issue. In fact, I agreed to try to do all my training in the same city as she loved her job and that was a bit of a stressor, although I managed to pull it off. But sometimes I imagine if she had hated it that year if I would be doing something completely different. As you can see, making my marriage a priority has influenced some of my decision-making - but I am not one who would ever put their career first in a relationship.

 

[cara susanna]

I met my fiance during my first year of grad school and now in my fourth year we're engaged. I've had no problem maintaining a romantic relationship during this time.

 

[PHD12]

For those of you who started grad school (psyd or phd I don't care) at an older age (>26), did you regret not starting sooner? The only thing I think would suck would be that making money and have security to keep a stable relationship would be delayed as opposed to being younger and in school....hmm smh

Edward: In my program, it was not uncommon to start at age 25-27ish. Many people have 2-5 years of experience in research, and some people get master's degree prior to getting in. I was a few years out getting experience before I started as well. Whether you will regret it or not has a lot to do with your future goals. Do you want to start a family? Is it important for you to buy a condo/house and start saving for retirement in your 30's? Do you want to have weekends off?

Basically if you are starting at 27, you are not going to be licensed until you are 33-34, depending on whether you you do a 1 or 2 year post-doc year (you will need a certain number of hours before licensure after you graduate). Before you are licensed you are living a very frugal graduate student life (no buying property without rich parents, no nice vacations or investing/saving money), and sometimes also 1 or 2 years after you are licensed. I feel that I lost a decade of my life in terms of income and being able to save/invest for retirement/emergencies etc. I also have to work on weekends while many of my friends only work M-F generally speaking. All of my non-psychology friends at this stage own property, many have kids, and have been saving money for the past 8-10 years while I am getting a late start! Think about your goals/values and what is important to you, and whether you will be comfortable still being in training in your early to mid-30's while many of your friends have been working for a while.

Following up on what Pragmata was saying, I think this is a career path that you need to be super passionate about and really set on (in a similar way to people who are trying to be journalists/actors). There aren't many rewards during the 5-7 years of training and the weeding out is done at the end of training (because of the internship crisis, different licensure standards in each state can also make it tricky to get licensed and also re-locate after post-doc). From my experience, at least half of the psychologists I know regret going into this field primarily due to salaries and having to re-locate multiple times to secure a position. Usually graduate students don't start regretting this path until around the time of internship and also immediately after they graduate. Many see things in a rosy way until the end of training. If you are already ambivalent, I don't know how you are going to make it through the many hurdles and sacrifices you will have to make.

I don't regret going into this field despite the length of training and hurdles. Regret doesn't really enter into my vocabulary because even if I end up not being able to secure a desirable position or not earning enough income (both realities in our field), I'm just going to find a way use this degree and make more $$$ in a related area. I'm constantly learning in this field so I think I would be in a great position to take on any leadership role in an organization if the clinical work doesn't pan out. The skills you learn as a psychologist would be a huge asset in any consulting/management/research role.

 

[Edward3nigm4]

Not sure where/why there's a delay w/r/t stable relationship. I went back to school for my Bachelor's degree at 26; during my time as an undergrad, I also got married and had two children (during the school year, no less, not during summer break). My husband is a cook, so it's not like we're rich, either, but we got by. He's now finishing up his Bachelor's while I finish my Master's degree. School & permanent relationships don't have to be an either/or situation.

Maybe I'm naive, but how does one have a stable healthy relationship without a stable income? After 26 I have to get my own health insurance. THen there is the car bill, gas, rent, phone, food...and what if I want to get a wedding ring (5k)...a wedding?

I don't mind being broke when I'm on my own, but I don't know how I would do it with someone else...i don't know how i would even FIND someone that would want to live with me in those situations. Maybe that's just true love and I haven't experienced it?

 

[PHD12]

Maybe I'm naive, but how does one have a stable healthy relationship without a stable income? After 26 I have to get my own health insurance. THen there is the car bill, gas, rent, phone, food...and what if I want to get a wedding ring (5k)...a wedding?

I don't mind being broke when I'm on my own, but I don't know how I would do it with someone else...i don't know how i would even FIND someone that would want to live with me in those situations. Maybe that's just true love and I haven't experienced it?

There are many single, attractive women in psychology who probably won't mind dating another poor student. In case you haven't noticed, the field is 85% women. Many male psychologists end up meeting and marrying female psychologists (the OP has disclosed that he is heterosexual). I don't think relationships are generally the issue. I think its pretty tough to have children while in a clinical program (the hours are nothing like a master's program). Some people are able to do this but they are usually an anomaly.

I hear you though. I think its rough to be living very frugally as a graduate student in your later 20's until mid-30's. I think its easier for people who enter the program at 22. I didn't mind living with roommates in my early 20's. Its def. rough later on and can interfere with planning a wedding and other adult responsibilities (depending on how much $$ you want to spend on a wedding).

 

[Pragma]

Maybe I'm naive, but how does one have a stable healthy relationship without a stable income? After 26 I have to get my own health insurance. THen there is the car bill, gas, rent, phone, food...and what if I want to get a wedding ring (5k)...a wedding?

Then get a job

Graduate school is not the place to go if you want short-term stable income. It's a sacrifice. Then of course, there are options (e.g., get rid of car and take the bus, buy your own cheap health insurance plan, live on a tight food budget, buy the engagement ring and make payments on it) to reduce your spending. The fact that you work a lot of hours helps to reduce the "opportunity cost" of going to spend too much money.

Or do what I did and marry a NON-psychology person with a job. That helps, too (For the record: even then we had to budget extremely tightly despite the fact I had full funding. Getting rid of our car was the most liberating thing ever. Public transportation is awesome). I honestly can't imagine the stress of tuition payments on top of the rest of the belt tightening. I don't know how people do it.

 

[Ollie123]

Met my wife while in grad school and we got married in December. I think we're pretty stable (albeit broke!).

As others indicated, a lot is about budgeting and some is about the program. I'm fully funded making ~20k/year and fortunately, am in a fairly low cost-of-living area so that can go reasonably far. We have some students who take out loans to supplement their stipend, which helps bump it up to a somewhat more livable income (at least by my standards - I get the impression some here consider anything under 6 figures poverty). I had some savings from my prior job and my car was paid off so I've managed to scrape by without doing so. How people manage zero income and 200k tuition while living in San Francisco is somewhat beyond my comprehension. I realize its possible to get private loans, but I can't imagine the stress that would go along with that.

All that said - there is a reason "For richer or poorer" is in the traditional vows. I lead a pretty simple lifestyle and found a wife who is happy with the same. Once she starts working (waiting on a work permit) I'm sure our lifestyle will improve but we're not the sort who need extravagance.

Her engagement ring was 1k, paid off over the course of a year, and she is thrilled with it. The only women I know who "need" an expensive engagement ring aren't worth marrying (and perhaps not surprisingly...aren't married). Its all about what you want out of life. No one has to go to grad school. There are MUCH easier paths to equivalent or better income. That said, there is also no reason you can't still live life while in school - its just a matter of figuring out how. Remember that there are plenty of people in this country surviving on less than 20k/year, many of whom are perfectly happy.

 

[Edward3nigm4]

Then get a job

Who works in grad school? lol

There are many single, attractive women in psychology who probably won't mind dating another poor student..

Yeah true.

How people manage zero income and 200k tuition while living in San Francisco is somewhat beyond my comprehension. I realize its possible to get private loans, but I can't imagine the stress that would go along with that.

.

Well that could be me in a few months if I get in and decide to go...it's not a very far fetched idea.


You guys mentioned that it's possible to get by by living within your means IF you have a small steady income... but what about those of you who are in non-funded programs?

 

[Lisa44201]

You guys mentioned that it's possible to get by by living within your means IF you have a small steady income... but what about those of you who are in non-funded programs?

One of the themes of this thread (and several others) is that it is very, very difficult to make it financially in a non-funded program - unless one is independently wealthy, loans are a near certainty. You need to really, really want this career path to be willing to go into $200k debt (and the amortization schedule on loans that high is something I'm honestly not brave enough to run).

 

[Qwerk]

Met my wife while in grad school and we got married in December. I think we're pretty stable (albeit broke!).

As others indicated, a lot is about budgeting and some is about the program. I'm fully funded making ~20k/year and fortunately, am in a fairly low cost-of-living area so that can go reasonably far. We have some students who take out loans to supplement their stipend, which helps bump it up to a somewhat more livable income (at least by my standards - I get the impression some here consider anything under 6 figures poverty). I had some savings from my prior job and my car was paid off so I've managed to scrape by without doing so. How people manage zero income and 200k tuition while living in San Francisco is somewhat beyond my comprehension. I realize its possible to get private loans, but I can't imagine the stress that would go along with that.

All that said - there is a reason "For richer or poorer" is in the traditional vows. I lead a pretty simple lifestyle and found a wife who is happy with the same. Once she starts working (waiting on a work permit) I'm sure our lifestyle will improve but we're not the sort who need extravagance.

Her engagement ring was 1k, paid off over the course of a year, and she is thrilled with it. The only women I know who "need" an expensive engagement ring aren't worth marrying (and perhaps not surprisingly...aren't married). Its all about what you want out of life. No one has to go to grad school. There are MUCH easier paths to equivalent or better income. That said, there is also no reason you can't still live life while in school - its just a matter of figuring out how. Remember that there are plenty of people in this country surviving on less than 20k/year, many of whom are perfectly happy.

True. I met and married my partner as a 22-year-old undergrad at a very traditional New England college where it was almost unheard-of to be married. The ring I gave her was a $36-dollar stainless steel band. She topped that when she ordered mine for $4 from Amazon. ("I would have paid more," she said, "but it was the one I thought you'd want.") We are very happy and very cheap. I advise you to find a good Trader Joe's if you're planning on being a married or partnered graduate student. Really cuts the grocery bills down.

I don't know if the OP has completely ruled out a master's degree, but I want to make the case again. I will graduate in a few months with only ~$1300 in debt. I did not spend countless years in school, and my sanity is intact. The salaries aren't particularly bad for M.S.W. grads in mental health. Unless you've got your heart set on research or teaching (and keep in mind that master's-level folks do this stuff, too), a doctoral program might not be the most efficient way to get where you're going, especially if you just want to be a practitioner. A Ph.D. or Psy.D. is a huge commitment, and it sounds like you might not be fully invested in it.

 

[Qwerk]

P.S. I didn't mean to imply with my post that the sanity of other people on this board is not intact. On the contrary -- I meant to state it outright. You are all raven lunatics.

 

[Pragma]

I advise you to find a good Trader Joe's if you're planning on being a married or partnered graduate student. Really cuts the grocery bills down.

Gotta love thier Indian dinners...cheap and actually decent

 

[Qwerk]

Gotta love thier Indian dinners...cheap and actually decent

I'm buying some of those later today! They really go great with the burnt-popcorn smell of the student lounge microwave.

I think TJ's closing would cause more student riots than any tuition hike...

 

[Doctor Eliza]

I'm buying some of those later today! They really go great with the burnt-popcorn smell of the student lounge microwave.

I think TJ's closing would cause more student riots than any tuition hike...

There wasn't a TJ in the town where my grad school was located, so occasionally we all got in a car and drove 45 minutes away to go there and Whole Foods (although WF was not a cost-saving measure!)

Dr. E

 

[bmedclinic]

Met my wife while in grad school and we got married in December. I think we're pretty stable (albeit broke!).

As others indicated, a lot is about budgeting and some is about the program. I'm fully funded making ~20k/year and fortunately, am in a fairly low cost-of-living area so that can go reasonably far. We have some students who take out loans to supplement their stipend, which helps bump it up to a somewhat more livable income (at least by my standards - I get the impression some here consider anything under 6 figures poverty). I had some savings from my prior job and my car was paid off so I've managed to scrape by without doing so. How people manage zero income and 200k tuition while living in San Francisco is somewhat beyond my comprehension. I realize its possible to get private loans, but I can't imagine the stress that would go along with that.

All that said - there is a reason "For richer or poorer" is in the traditional vows. I lead a pretty simple lifestyle and found a wife who is happy with the same. Once she starts working (waiting on a work permit) I'm sure our lifestyle will improve but we're not the sort who need extravagance.

Her engagement ring was 1k, paid off over the course of a year, and she is thrilled with it. The only women I know who "need" an expensive engagement ring aren't worth marrying (and perhaps not surprisingly...aren't married). Its all about what you want out of life. No one has to go to grad school. There are MUCH easier paths to equivalent or better income. That said, there is also no reason you can't still live life while in school - its just a matter of figuring out how. Remember that there are plenty of people in this country surviving on less than 20k/year, many of whom are perfectly happy.

bmedclinic approves of this post.
Seriously, Ollie's life situation sounds a lot like mine. Met my wife (who is non-psychology) while we both are in grad school; actually even in the same building. We have a lot of loans, too, but we know it's about the long term.

 

[bmedclinic]

Gotta love thier Indian dinners...cheap and actually decent

Though now we're completly off topic, I learned last week that Trader Joes has really good sushi and pizza too. Would not have suspected either of those...but yum.

 

[psychRA]

I met my spouse (non-psych) during grad school as well. I went to a fully funded PhD program and had a stipend throughout the process, which was easily enough to live on, but it definitely wasn't a cushy lifestyle. Likewise, my husband works in another field but wasn't making a huge salary, either, so that wasn't an issue. We got married at the end of school, and had to take out student loans for that, but eloping wasn't for us and having a wedding was important to us.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Though now we're completly off topic, I learned last week that Trader Joes has really good sushi and pizza too. Would not have suspected either of those...but yum.

Their sushi is decent, though I really like their salmon and other fish options. It is flash-frozen, but inexpensive and a nice quality. They have some awesome snacks too (olive spread in particular, Pirate Booty...which I think is more mainstream now, good nut selection, etc). I need to find a TJs now....it's been far too long.

 

[Pragma]

Their sushi is decent, though I really like their salmon and other fish options. It is flash-frozen, but inexpensive and a nice quality. They have some awesome snacks too (olive spread in particular, Pirate Booty...which I think is more mainstream now, good nut selection, etc). I need to find a TJs now....it's been far too long.

The fresh pizzas are really good. Also: See Chicken Pot Pie Bites. Not a bad beer and wine selection either.

 

[PHD12]

I met my spouse (non-psych) during grad school as well. I went to a fully funded PhD program and had a stipend throughout the process, which was easily enough to live on, but it definitely wasn't a cushy lifestyle. Likewise, my husband works in another field but wasn't making a huge salary, either, so that wasn't an issue. We got married at the end of school, and had to take out student loans for that, but eloping wasn't for us and having a wedding was important to us.

For me it was easier to have a partner during graduate school. You can share bills, a car, and rent a studio/small apartment together instead of living with roommates. It also doesn't hurt when your partner is employed and can run some errands on weekends while you are studying! It is also nice to be with a non-psych person so that you don't talk about psychology all the time and have to go through the internship crisis and dissertation process twice (such trauma!).

 

[Edward3nigm4]

The ring I gave her was a $36-dollar stainless steel band. She topped that when she ordered mine for $4 from Amazon. ("I would have paid more," she said, "but it was the one I thought you'd want.")

Dude that's like the romantic thing I've heard...i hope ill find someone like that.

 

[ForensicPsych26]

We had a vigorous discussion about this very topic over the summer (see http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=936907&highlight=dissertation)

I might have popped a blood vessel trying to comprehend the explanations for why a Psy.D. program's dissertation is equivalent to a Ph.D. dissertation, even though these programs require a full year less time to complete the minimal requirements in many cases.

That freaks me out a little bit. If you want a doctorate, you are going to at least have to have a working understanding of statistics and research design - those sections that you "blank out" on are critical to being able to adequately assess the quality of a study (and therefore, it's conclusions).

It is sad that this is how Psy.D. degrees are perceived - in theory there is supposed to still be a strong enough emphasis on research (just not to the extent of a PhD and not generally expecting the production of original research).

I am in a PsyD program and we take just as many courses as a PhD student, we are expected to do research on our own time, as well as complete our dissertation. Just because you are getting a PsyD does not mean you are not learning about research and applying such...

If you believe that you will not encounter stats/research/understanding of research articles (this is a MUST in my program, we have to dissect the article and put it into terms so that someone who has never taken a stats course could understand what research is being done, why, what stats they used, why they used those stats, etc), you really need to review what psychology is all about -- and if a program is not held to a similar standard of a PhD program, maybe you should question why this is.

 

[MaryD]

I am interested in applying to Alliant in San Diego for the PsyD program. The admissions essay is mostly an autobiography. I wrote my story and had a professor proofread it and she said it was too negative and traumatic. I really want to get in to this school but do not know what my autobiography will be about if I don't include some things. What do you all think?

 

[WisNeuro]

42% match rate, 66% EPPP pass rate. No funding, high tuition. Bleak job prospects.

Additionally, in 2013, only 2/63 students obtained an APA-Accredited internship. apparently they aren't even trying anymore.

 

[JeyRo]

I am interested in applying to Alliant in San Diego for the PsyD program. The admissions essay is mostly an autobiography. I wrote my story and had a professor proofread it and she said it was too negative and traumatic. I really want to get in to this school but do not know what my autobiography will be about if I don't include some things. What do you all think?

I think honestly you should turn around and run from that school as quickly as you can.

 

[MaryD]

I plan to use my GI bill so tuition does not matter. I've heard the good and the bad and still want to apply to this school. This is not my only option but this is a top choice. I do not want my admissions essay to be the reason I don't get in.

 

[WisNeuro]

Seriously, as long as you're willing to write that check, they are more than willing to let you in. What about this place makes it a top choice?

 

[JeyRo]

I plan to use my GI bill so tuition does not matter. I've heard the good and the bad and still want to apply to this school. This is not my only option but this is a top choice. I do not want my admissions essay to be the reason I don't get in.

Even with the GI Bill, there's still, in my opinion, an enormous set of opportunity costs associated with throwing these finite funds (and the 5+ years required) at a program with such highly questionable statistics. There's much better programs out there, even amongst unfunded professional schools. My advice is pretty much the same. Don't walk. Run in the other direction.

 

[erg923]

Is that where Kyle Boone is? If not, I can't imagine what faculty or metric has made this a "top choice"?

 

[WisNeuro]

Is that where Kyle Boone is? If not, I can't imagine what faculty or metric has made this a "top choice"?

Boone was at UCLA, now at Alliant LA. I guess everyone has their price?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I plan to use my GI bill so tuition does not matter. I've heard the good and the bad and still want to apply to this school. This is not my only option but this is a top choice. I do not want my admissions essay to be the reason I don't get in.

I don't have the reference handy (someone else may be able to help me out here), but I know there's a paper out there entitled something like, "psychology graduate application kisses of death," and one of the specific situations they discuss is over-disclosure of personal history in autobiographical statements. Essentially, the folks reviewing your essay want to know pertinent information about you that will help them to decide you're someone who can competently practice psychology; over-disclosure indicates a potential for having difficulties with personal and professional boundaries, which can be very problematic when it comes to working with patients. It may also suggest that a person may rely on "intuition" when working with a patient, which isn't necessarily bad in and of itself, but can be an issue if this causes the clinician to forego evidence-based treatments; and again, this can lead to boundary blurring.

If this person said your essay sounded too "negative and traumatic," then focusing less on specifics and more on the themes learned from particular events/history that led to your growth and development of interest in the field, rather than the events/histories themselves, could be helpful.

Although I would echo the above-posters' recommendations to strongly consider looking elsewhere for training. Those outcome statistics just don't bode well.