Who's Really Killing the Profession: One Last Conversation

[PsyOpt]

-

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[horse.renoir]

It'd be a huge mistake to think that this doesn't happen in just about every other profession, be it food service at Taco Bell or billionaire CEO. There will always be B, C, D, and F students.

You're also assuming TGC is always valid and reliable.

EDIT: I can't tell if this was supposed to be a dramatic post or a serious one, but I have to say, also, while I get your point, your supposed extreme reaction to seeing a low GPA and the flurry of thoughts you say followed kind of grossed me out.

If you have a great GPA and/or are accepted into a program, the first thing you need to be thinking about is how incredibly thankful you should be, not how others pale in comparison. If you really want to think of yourself as a future psychologist, you should start examining your knee-jerk reactions to others and the assumptions and judgements you're making in an instant and with such little evidence.

 

[PsyOpt]

.

 

[PsyDr]

another phd > psyd. Neat.

 

[horse.renoir]

Also, you conveniently failed to note this portion of that TGC poster's submission:

PsyD; Masters GPA 3.7; Excited! IT IS POSSIBLE to have a crappy undergrad GPA and still obtain your doctorate if you work hard enough to show that you are meant to do it! Don't let societal norms keep you from your dreams!

Biased reporting, much?

I agree with PSYDR.

And, I sincerely hope you examine and change your attitude prior to beginning your program, because if this is how you encounter and deal with real life, I have a feeling your cohort members and colleagues aren't going to be a fan of such an elitist attitude.

 

[PsyOpt]

.

 

[PsyOpt]

.

 

[erg923]

While I do not believe people are "better than".... I do believe the scientist-practitioner model is better suited to training psychologists.

 

[PsyOpt]

.

 

[PsyOpt]

.

 

[bcliff]

There are a lot of problems facing the field, but I agree that because we're all so close to the issues affecting us, we perceive psychology to be some sort of anomaly when (I would argue) most professions have similar issues affecting them.

(I've said this before, but...) I think that clinical psychology training should be more standardized across degrees (All programs should offer solid training in research methods, statistics, teaching, and intervention/assessment). When the public encounters a clinical psychologist they should be able to safely assume that this person has (at least) a nuanced understanding of statistics and research methods and extensive clinical training. I think that APA accreditation should be more contingent on funding, EPPP pass rate, APA internship match than it currently is, and I think that licensure should be contingent on APA accredited training (grad school + internship).

I think that clinical psychology programs are producing more clinical psychologists than the market can support right now, which is something that does concern me, and I think that it's important for people pursuing doctoral degrees in clinical psychology to understand the differences in training/careers between a midlevel provider (LCSW, LMFT, LPC, etc.) and a PhD/PsyD.

If I did not have an interest in working as a researcher, clinician, and professor (my interests happen to be in that order) in at least some capacity, then I would not pursue a doctoral degree in clinical psychology.

 

[PsyDr]

IMO, the traditional academic field of psychology is in trouble because there are limited ground breaking, applicable findings. See every minor neuropsych finding in schizophrenia paper. These lines of research just can't compete against others.

IMO, the clinical field is in trouble because clinicians accept lower pay, can't demonstrate value added to their services, can't communicate outside of psychological terminology, or have limited productivity.

Yes, it is a competitive market. Psychology benefited from a restriction in the supply of psychologists in the earlier days, which led to relatively high salaries/increased demand. Those days were gone after MA level providers were licensed. Then psychologists focused on being a "doctor" as a way to increase demand. Now few know how to increase demand.

Just like law, individuals graduating from a top 20 tend to have an easier time. But there are plenty from lesser programs who do great work and make bank. Same for DOs and MDs.

We can either continue this stupid turf war, while other professions swoop in, or innovate. If other professions are offering similar services at 40% of the cost of a psychologist, and we can't demonstrate value added, then being the best psychologist from program ever will be meaningless.

 

[clawless23]

[/QUOTE]For me MH extends beyond what I want and my reactions. These things are micro compared to what's more important, and that's the profession as a whole and the people we tend to serve. So excuse me for taking it a step further than the therapy room.[/QUOTE]

What's important at this stage of the game for you is to be humble and thankful for your one acceptance. You also need to realize a few things, which will only come from working in the field (not as an almost bachelor's recipient). These include that you should not make overreaching generalizations based on an extremely small and non-representative sample of individuals atttitudes (SDN, TGC, your interview experience), that not all Psy.D. programs are producing lack luster psychologists, and that patients do not care whether your degree is Psy.D., Ph.D. or MD, as long as you can help to provide the best care for their mental health concerns. I think it's important to be aware of issues in the field and do what you can to curtail them, however your post comes off as though you're attempting to brag/join the elitist group on this forum, not as though you're helping others to make an "informed decision".

 

[PsyOpt]

.

 

[PsyOpt]

.

 

[PsychBiker]

Knowing both PsyD and PhD professionals as well as students I can safely say there are idiots on both tracks. I will admit there are slightly more idiots who are of the PsyD variety than PhD, but still plenty of both.

Remember, this is just my opinion

and I am also probably an idiot.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

IMO, the traditional academic field of psychology is in trouble because there are limited ground breaking, applicable findings. See every minor neuropsych finding in schizophrenia paper. These lines of research just can't compete against others.

IMO, the clinical field is in trouble because clinicians accept lower pay, can't demonstrate value added to their services, can't communicate outside of psychological terminology, or have limited productivity.

Yes, it is a competitive market. Psychology benefited from a restriction in the supply of psychologists in the earlier days, which led to relatively high salaries/increased demand. Those days were gone after MA level providers were licensed. Then psychologists focused on being a "doctor" as a way to increase demand. Now few know how to increase demand.

Just like law, individuals graduating from a top 20 tend to have an easier time. But there are plenty from lesser programs who do great work and make bank. Same for DOs and MDs.

We can either continue this stupid turf war, while other professions swoop in, or innovate. If other professions are offering similar services at 40% of the cost of a psychologist, and we can't demonstrate value added, then being the best psychologist from program ever will be meaningless.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I think a big problem is that, for whatever reason, most lay-people (non-PhD/PsyD psychologists) just plain have a hard time swallowing the fact that we have any real specialized knowledge about human behavior and know more than they do in the area of psychology (e.g., diagnosing or not diagnosing PTSD). I routinely have LCSW's, bachelor's-level 'patient advocates', clients, clients' wives/sons/daughter's, clients' emotional support animals (not really, but soon, I'm sure) question, for example, why so-and-so doesn't receive a diagnosis of PTSD from me or they talk freely in my direction regarding what the person 'needs' in terms of life events or 'treatment' (and not usually what the literature or good clinical experience would dictate).

I doubt that there is another profession where there is such a huge gulf between the actual expertise of the practitioner and the lay person's surety that they know at least as much (if not more) than the person with a doctorate in clinical psychology. I would imagine that this is a big reason why we are not reimbursed at higher rates for our services (despite compelling evidence from controlled research that what we do generally is at least as good, if not better, than the pharmacological treatments--though, admittedly, they may be cheaper to dispense en masse). I think that it is 'a hard pill to swallow', so to speak, for most lay people to believe that someone should be highly compensated for the act of 'talking' or 'just listening' so someone with personal problems. Of course that is not an accurate reflection of what we do but it is still the popular conception for most people (and movies and tv shows don't help there). And practitioners in mental health (be they PsyD, PhD, LCSW, BBQWTF, or EIEIO's) who provide shoddy, lazy, or second-rate unsupported interventions don't help either.

 

[Peacemaker36]

If I did not have an interest in working as a researcher, clinician, and professor (my interests happen to be in that order) in at least some capacity, then I would not pursue a doctoral degree in clinical psychology.

According to the APA's 2009 survey of employment characteristics, 25.7 % of full APA members do research of any kind as part of their work activities. Only 8.1% listed research as their primary activity. 34.1% do teaching at any level, and 10.2% listed it as their primary work activity.

I think the view that psychologists need to do research, clinical work, and teaching is one narrow way of viewing the field. I don't think it accurately describes the field now. I also don't think it accurately describes the field prior to the advent of the PsyD.

Faculty at scientist-practitioner institutions often present a narrow view of what it means to be a psychologist. They do this for many reasons; one reason is that it serves them. Research faculty depend on graduate students becoming productive researchers both during and after graduate school. But more than half of PhD grads go into clinical work, for many reasons; one reason is that sources of funding for research are disappearing faster than the polar ice cap. I'm sure that many on SDN can relate to having to let go of dreams of tenure track faculty positions. How many on SDN run their own research lab?

I think it's fine to present a narrow definition of what a psychologist is if that's how you feel about it. But it's just, like, your opinion, man.

 

[WisNeuro]

While I don't think that individuals need to do research throughout their career to be a competent clinician, I do think they need to have conducted research as part of their foundational training. Not understanding how research is conducted and analyzed can be dangerous if one does not know how to analyze the efficacy and outcome research of the treatments they administer. And that's how we get people getting certified in EMDR.

 

[Peacemaker36]

While I don't think that individuals need to do research throughout their career to be a competent clinician, I do think they need to have conducted research as part of their foundational training. Not understanding how research is conducted and analyzed can be dangerous if one does not know how to analyze the efficacy and outcome research of the treatments they administer. And that's how we get people getting certified in EMDR.

Totally agree with this. It's a different point (you're saying that psychologists should be trained to do research), but I agree with your point.

 

[PsyOpt]

.

 

[soccercat]

The role of a psychologist has changed and most are doing clinical work.

I don't know how many psychologists you know, but from what I have seen, unless the psychologist is exclusively involved in private practice every one that I have met has their hands in some form of a research project. It may not be their soul professional task and it may not be their own study, but they participate on some level for at least part of their work duties. And even then, some clinicians (regardless of degree) are so gifted in their work they can poop gold for their patients that cures all their ails regardless of how close they stick to clinical manuals/EBTs.

I know plenty of people who recognized a desire to learn more about research and thus after getting an MSW, MFT, MMH, MC, etc. went back for a PhD. I also know people who are in/went to PsyD programs who love research and have focused part of their careers on it. I also see people who are getting their PhDs who didn't know PsyDs even excited (and went for the PhD because it was the cool thing to do) using archived data because they hate research and have no plans to ever do it once they graduate. I see people who love research, but want to mainly focus on clinical work, and are dummies at both (yet their GPAs are high because they know how to study for an exam) which makes me scared for the patients. Then you have people who are clearly going to be successful all around psychologists who suffer with things like ADHD and thus get crap grades. My point is that I think at the end of the day this is not about PsyD vs. PhD vs. master level clinician or about good grades vs. bad grades or even good programs vs. bad programs, but about the mental flexibility and drive of the person with the degree itself. Ie. nothing is ever clear cut, especially on day one of year one of a training program, and the sooner people realize that, the more successful they will be in this field. What is really killing our field is bias and judgment and the inability to allow change and try to direct that change for the better.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

I'm sure this happens in other professions, but is the limitations, stigma, debt, and extra effort worth it (beyond financially and intrinsically)?

As part of my fellowship we take courses at the university law school related to psych and law specific issues. Granted this is anecdotal, but what you are talking about seeing is just as worse, if not way worse with law school admissions and the quality of student I am seeing within their courses. The professors that I've talked with their are incredibly concerned themselves about what they are seeing and what is getting put out into the market after graduation from their average students. To make it even worse, the school that we are taking these courses at is a somewhat competitive school (top 50 per lawschoolnumbers). The flooding of their market is truly terrifying. I vaguely remember hearing that pharmacy is having similar issues.

 

[bcliff]

Totally agree with this. It's a different point (you're saying that psychologists should be trained to do research), but I agree with your point.

That's the point I was trying to make too.

I think all aspiring clinical psychologists should have at least some interest in working as a clinician, researcher, and professor, and that they should be trained as such, regardless of whether they actually work in research or teaching capacities post-grad. I think that a well-rounded training model is important for training all clinical psychologists to help give our field some solidarity and consensus in what it is we want to be experts at.

 

[ikibah]

Sometimes I feel like SDN just has way to much crying.

 

[PsyOpt]

.

 

[PsyOpt]

.

 

[wesleysmith]

The point was that all should receive some training in research. If this is implemented in mid-level practitioner based programs, that would be great.

It is in the MSW, to the extent that it can be in a 60 credit, clinically focused program. Fortunately, there are lots of research opportunities for those who are interested.

 

[soccercat]

However, the quality of programs and the req'd stats to get in shouldn't be overlooked. This should be consistent across all programs that have direct contact with the public. This is not to say that those who had a ruff start or other deficits beyond their control can't be competent - this is quite the contrary, and its those things that creates the motivation to be great. Also, we need to stop worrying about our own development and focus on what's best for the profession and people we serve.

This is why programs seek APA (and other organizational) accreditation. But the reality is that when you have a stack of applications in front of you, you will take out the kids who don't meet certain pre-reqs (including grades, test scores, etc.) just to make it easier to wade through the pile--even if the content of the person's essay talks about their difficulty overcoming a TBI which makes it hard for them to do well in timed settings but does not effect their desire/drive to complete a degree program.

Another unfortunate reality is that there are programs who would like to be more standard in the courses they offer or get accreditation and it's a function of money. Accreditation costs tens of thousands of dollars! The university that I teach at would LOVE to but cannot have research and stats courses because their budget was cut to the point that they only have 2 full time faculty running both a psych and a counseling psych program (BA though MA). They have students with 4.0s that cannot get into grad school because of lack of pre-reqs. And before you say "well they can take it at the CC level," when you come from a low SES neighborhood and your school is 100% paid for through merit and needs based scholarships, you are not always able to go to your local community college and even spend the few hundred $ to take that class you need (if they even offer it). I mentor one such student and have him involved in my own research which will get him independent research credit but it will not be enough for the vast majority of programs.

My point is that you can't have it both ways, a flexible open minded faculty who also meets a truly rigid set of standardization criteria. And this may be why we will always have the diversity of programs and clinicians we have. So we can all gripe about every aspect of everything ever, or we can try to do the best we can locally and be supportive (rather than judgmental) of others who are also doing the best they can.

 

[bcliff]

I think it's hard for us to advocate as a field when clinical psychology training is so variable. Rigorous clinical science programs and expensive FSPS programs all produce clinical psychologists, yet graduates of these programs all have wildly different training, skills, and expertise.

I think that APA accreditation needs to become much more stringent, and I think that it's time for the Vail & Boulder models to reconcile- Maybe an Aspen model if we're interested in keeping this Colorado vibe going. I think that as a field we really need to figure out what's important to us, and we need to make sure all clinical psychology students are receiving training in certain core areas.

I've already suggested that research methods, statistics, teaching, and intervention/assessment should be essential components of all clinical psychology training - Does anyone else agree, or see this divergence in training as a problem for our solidarity as a profession?

 

[cara susanna]

I think a big problem is that, for whatever reason, most lay-people (non-PhD/PsyD psychologists) just plain have a hard time swallowing the fact that we have any real specialized knowledge about human behavior and know more than they do in the area of psychology (e.g., diagnosing or not diagnosing PTSD). I routinely have LCSW's, bachelor's-level 'patient advocates', clients, clients' wives/sons/daughter's, clients' emotional support animals (not really, but soon, I'm sure) question, for example, why so-and-so doesn't receive a diagnosis of PTSD from me or they talk freely in my direction regarding what the person 'needs' in terms of life events or 'treatment' (and not usually what the literature or good clinical experience would dictate).

I doubt that there is another profession where there is such a huge gulf between the actual expertise of the practitioner and the lay person's surety that they know at least as much (if not more) than the person with a doctorate in clinical psychology. I would imagine that this is a big reason why we are not reimbursed at higher rates for our services (despite compelling evidence from controlled research that what we do generally is at least as good, if not better, than the pharmacological treatments--though, admittedly, they may be cheaper to dispense en masse). I think that it is 'a hard pill to swallow', so to speak, for most lay people to believe that someone should be highly compensated for the act of 'talking' or 'just listening' so someone with personal problems. Of course that is not an accurate reflection of what we do but it is still the popular conception for most people (and movies and tv shows don't help there). And practitioners in mental health (be they PsyD, PhD, LCSW, BBQWTF, or EIEIO's) who provide shoddy, lazy, or second-rate unsupported interventions don't help either.

Have you heard about this study? http://digest.bps.org.uk/2015/02/were-quicker-to-dismiss-evidence-from.html

 

[A Blue Duck]

another phd > psyd. Neat.

I think that as a field we really need to figure out what's important to us, and we need to make sure all clinical psychology students are receiving training in certain core areas.

I've already suggested that research methods, statistics, teaching, and intervention/assessment should be essential components of all clinical psychology training - Does anyone else agree, or see this divergence in training as a problem for our solidarity as a profession?

Haha "neat". Yes. We should be trending away from debating the merits of PhD vs. PsyD as dichotomous, categorical training models and instead move towards identifying the prerequisites and program components that will result in research-savvy clinicians and clinically-aware research scientists.

APA is attempting to do this with their new Health Services Provider approach. On the other side, PCSAS is moving towards independent accreditation for clinical science focused programs.

 

[QAsPsych]

Have you heard about this study? http://digest.bps.org.uk/2015/02/were-quicker-to-dismiss-evidence-from.html

I think this is why a lot of the problems people cite are intractable. Nobody cares about our training but us; nobody even knows about our training but us. It should be different, I agree, but I doubt very much that the public cares.

The problem facing psychology is that most people don't believe social science is real, or at least not "real" in the same way medicine & biology are.

 

[smalltownpsych]

As a psychologist we have a unique set of skills that are highly marketable. There are problems in our field and areas to improve, there always will be, but I choose not to live out of fear and that has served me well. Our critical thinking skills and training on evaluating ourselves and our motives as well as others gives us an edge in many different settings. I have been licensed for several years and this is actually my third career so I have a lot of real world experience and what I see are psychologists excelling at what they do and continuing to advocate for more for our profession. We are the experts in mental health, all we have to do is own that and the rest will come. Sure there are others who will scoff at what we do, but when someone needs real help and answers for a psychological problem, they will turn to us.

 

[psych844]

I think a big problem is that, for whatever reason, most lay-people (non-PhD/PsyD psychologists) just plain have a hard time swallowing the fact that we have any real specialized knowledge about human behavior and know more than they do in the area of psychology (e.g., diagnosing or not diagnosing PTSD). I routinely have LCSW's, bachelor's-level 'patient advocates', clients, clients' wives/sons/daughter's, clients' emotional support animals (not really, but soon, I'm sure) question, for example, why so-and-so doesn't receive a diagnosis of PTSD from me or they talk freely in my direction regarding what the person 'needs' in terms of life events or 'treatment' (and not usually what the literature or good clinical experience would dictate).

I doubt that there is another profession where there is such a huge gulf between the actual expertise of the practitioner and the lay person's surety that they know at least as much (if not more) than the person with a doctorate in clinical psychology. I would imagine that this is a big reason why we are not reimbursed at higher rates for our services (despite compelling evidence from controlled research that what we do generally is at least as good, if not better, than the pharmacological treatments--though, admittedly, they may be cheaper to dispense en masse). I think that it is 'a hard pill to swallow', so to speak, for most lay people to believe that someone should be highly compensated for the act of 'talking' or 'just listening' so someone with personal problems. Of course that is not an accurate reflection of what we do but it is still the popular conception for most people (and movies and tv shows don't help there). And practitioners in mental health (be they PsyD, PhD, LCSW, BBQWTF, or EIEIO's) who provide shoddy, lazy, or second-rate unsupported interventions don't help either.

I couldn't agree with you more that this is in fact the biggest issue. But I'd be lying if I said that as a psych student i felt much different than the general population. Don't get me wrong, I think the there is a lot to know once you do a specialty like neuropsych or forensic, but as a generalist, unless diagnosis becomes routinely much more comprehensive and goes beyond essentially self-report, i'm not sure that these people are wrong. (and i'm really sorry to have to say that)

I've had a lot of mental illness around me, 2-3 friends have been diagnosed with something, and each time i've been right about what they've had..without any training beyond taking some undergrad courses. I had a friend get recently diagnosed with a mental disorder and he was diagnosed by one 45min meeting that was essentially a general information session.

 

[WisNeuro]

I couldn't agree with you more that this is in fact the biggest issue. But I'd be lying if I said that as a psych student i felt much different than the general population. Don't get me wrong, I think the there is a lot to know once you do a specialty like neuropsych or forensic, but as a generalist, unless diagnosis becomes routinely much more comprehensive and goes beyond essentially self-report, i'm not sure that these people are wrong. (and i'm really sorry to have to say that)

Diagnosis is the easy part most times, although it's commonly not done well by other professions (e.g., Bipolar DO in people with no history of hypo/manic episodes. It's evaluating and delivering the treatments that is difficult. Are they right in this, too?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Diagnosis is the easy part most times, although it's commonly not done well by other professions (e.g., Bipolar DO in people with no history of hypo/manic episodes. It's evaluating and delivering the treatments that is difficult. Are they right in this, too?

Agreed. Diagnosis is just the beginning (and is of course constantly re-evaluated). Additional, and often more difficult components include conceptualizing (rather than simply diagnosing) the case, identifying areas and types of intervention, implementing said interventions, and tracking progress. And then as a psychologist, you can start to do some of these things for clinics/agencies as a whole

 

[psych844]

Diagnosis is the easy part most times, although it's commonly not done well by other professions (e.g., Bipolar DO in people with no history of hypo/manic episodes. It's evaluating and delivering the treatments that is difficult. Are they right in this, too?

I think they aren't right about that part, but i'm not sure they are aware that it is often as useful if not more than medication. And i'm not sure that there is enough consistency in treatment because the training is not that uniform. I've had friends go to therapy sessions where the psychiatrist/psychologist seem to use the time to insult them and give judgement.

 

[horse.renoir]

@PsyOpt (predominantly):

I won't quote your every response for the sake of ease, but suffice to say I was giving you a little bit of a hard time. I could tell you were over-generalizing. I can tell that you've realized how your initial post comes across since posting it. My point wasn't to make you out to be an elitist; rather, it was to illustrate that there is no other way to categorize the nature of your initial post, and to examine the notion you were putting forth.

I agree that degree mills are problematic, and, unfortunately, many of them do business in the PsyD market. I agree that there are many people getting doctoral degrees that, even despite the best of intentions, have no business getting a doctoral degree in this field. However, as someone already said--there are idiots in both PhD and PsyD programs. It's not a problem that's restricted to PsyD folks, even if the PsyD mills do hold a larger portion of the responsibility for it.

That being said, PhD programs are increasingly taking on people who do not deserve them. And, the method of selecting students to whom to offer admissions is anything but logical and many things other than fair. It's predominantly based on match of research interest, not raw ability. Especially when it comes down to making offers, suppose a department has funding left for one more student. Person A professes to be a perfect research interest match with good GPAs and GRE scores, while Person B is not the best research match but has stellar GPAs, GREs, and considerable experience in their own interests. Who's going to get the spot? Probably person A. It might be a toss-up between the two in an ideal situation. But, by your metrics, who SHOULD get the spot? Person B. But they probably won't.

Anyway, suffice to say I agree with your general premise, but I encourage you to examine the knee-jerk reactions you had to such stimuli that caused you to say what you did. Also, there are MANY other things much more directly related to "the killing of the field" (of which PsyD mills are probably a more a product than anything else) than a person with a bad undergrad GPA, a good graduate GPA, and a desire to pursue higher education.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think you've got a lot to learn, friend. Undergrad psych classes don't really translate to grad level and beyond clinical practice all that much.

 

[smalltownpsych]

The feeling of post-acceptance (PhD-Funded) never felt so great! You're cockier, confident, and oh so sure that everything in the world is right. You start planning your life and everything that becoming a psychologist entails. You say to yourself "I'm awesome - I made it". Then you see it...a post on TGC that someone received an acceptance to a PsyD program with a undergraduate GPA < 2.5. Your heart instantly sinks as your blood pressure rises. You're now thinking about the gatekeepers of the profession and their intentions. You're now thinking about your applications to PsyD programs, and how sitting in an interview made you question your sanity. You're now thinking to yourself "as a future psychologist, will I ever be comfortable knowing that someone somewhere is responsible for the mental health of many after almost flunking out of undergrad".

I was forewarned before applying to PsyD programs and like most - I didn't listen. After seeing the ease it took to get interviews from every last one, it made me question this model due to the fact that I wasn't the strongest candidate in the room (as measured by GPA, GRE, and research and clinical experience). And although I'm well aware that interviews doesn't equal acceptances, I have a hard time believing I wouldn't had gotten in. For those who take the min or two to read this post, don't take it as elitism, an attack on your dream and/or successes, or plain ignorance. Interviews, forums, and public information gives you the opportunity to make an informed decision, and I suggest doing so. I'm sure this happens in other professions, but is the limitations, stigma, debt, and extra effort worth it (beyond financially and intrinsically)?

For me, knowing that professors and DCTs (who are psychologists themselves) are behind this madness hurts the most.

A special thanks to SDN for the information, anxiety, and laughter! Good luck to all!

There are legitimate concerns about some of the professional schools that have been discussed countless times on this board, but your description is hyperbolic and overblown. There are other checks in place including EPPP and internship and just plain old hiring practices. My experience has been since starting my own doctoral program over 10 years ago (and professional schools were cranking out the grads then, too) has been that the psychologists with the skills get hired and make the money. If you want to be one of those, then work hard, learn, and don't waste your time looking in the rearview mirror.

 

[cara susanna]

There are legitimate concerns about some of the professional schools that have been discussed countless times on this board, but your description is hyperbolic and overblown. There are other checks in place including EPPP and internship and just plain old hiring practices. My experience has been since starting my own doctoral program over 10 years ago (and professional schools were cranking out the grads then, too) has been that the psychologists with the skills get hired and make the money. If you want to be one of those, then work hard, learn, and don't waste your time looking in the rearview mirror.

Internship shouldn't be a check, though. It needs to happen earlier. At least IMO.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Internship shouldn't be a check, though. It needs to happen earlier. At least IMO.

I agree to an extent and the APA needs to fix that by tying cohort sizes for accredited programs to their ability to place interns in APA-accredited internships. However, ability to secure and complete an APA accredited internship is one of the hoops that we need to get through and I would not want it to be an automatic.

 

[PsyOpt]

.

 

[PsyOpt]

.

 

[Goobernut]

I think a big problem is that, for whatever reason, most lay-people (non-PhD/PsyD psychologists) just plain have a hard time swallowing the fact that we have any real specialized knowledge about human behavior and know more than they do in the area of psychology (e.g., diagnosing or not diagnosing PTSD). I routinely have LCSW's, bachelor's-level 'patient advocates', clients, clients' wives/sons/daughter's, clients' emotional support animals (not really, but soon, I'm sure) question, for example, why so-and-so doesn't receive a diagnosis of PTSD from me or they talk freely in my direction regarding what the person 'needs' in terms of life events or 'treatment' (and not usually what the literature or good clinical experience would dictate).

I doubt that there is another profession where there is such a huge gulf between the actual expertise of the practitioner and the lay person's surety that they know at least as much (if not more) than the person with a doctorate in clinical psychology.

While I agree with you that this happens to behavioral health practitioners frequently, it also happens to MDs too. It's why they hate WedMD. MDs also probably experience a similar frustration with their mid-levels too.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

While I don't think that individuals need to do research throughout their career to be a competent clinician, I do think they need to have conducted research as part of their foundational training. Not understanding how research is conducted and analyzed can be dangerous if one does not know how to analyze the efficacy and outcome research of the treatments they administer. And that's how we get people getting certified in EMDR.

1000% agree.

EMDR certification is actually one of my flags when I'm considering someone for my referral list. It is sad how many people drink that KoolAid and can't reason their way out of a paper bag when confronted about the obvious flaws. It speaks to their lack of understanding of not only treatment but also of basic research design.

Anyhow…back on topic….it isn't that people need to love research (as data shows the majority of people do clinical work after graduating), but they need to do more than "tolerate it" or "gut through it." The "research is icky" crowd have ZERO PLACE in the field. We don't know everything when we graduate, therefore we need to continue learning. Taking CE's to meet state requirements is not sufficient. Being able to pick up an article and understand the strengths, weaknesses, etc…is important…but most important is to know when you should consider incorporating it into practice and when you throw it in a metal trash can and burn it because it is that bad.

I'm not saying a person has to publish an article a year or turn in their license, but they need to be active consumers of research or they practice in a vacuum and don't know what they don't know….and that is a dangerous place to be as a provider.

 

[PsyOpt]

.

 

[bcliff]

1000% agree.

EMDR certification is actually one of my flags when I'm considering someone for my referral list. It is sad how many people drink that KoolAid and can't reason their way out of a paper bag when confronted about the obvious flaws. It speaks to their lack of understanding of not only treatment but also of basic research design.

Anyhow…back on topic….it isn't that people need to love research (as data shows the majority of people do clinical work after graduating), but they need to do more than "tolerate it" or "gut through it." The "research is icky" crowd have ZERO PLACE in the field. We don't know everything when we graduate, therefore we need to continue learning. Taking CE's to meet state requirements is not sufficient. Being able to pick up an article and understand the strengths, weaknesses, etc…is important…but most important is to know when you should consider incorporating it into practice and when you throw it in a metal trash can and burn it because it is that bad.

I'm not saying a person has to publish an article a year or turn in their license, but they need to be active consumers of research or they practice in a vacuum and don't know what they don't know….and that is a dangerous place to be as a provider.

^^ Agree - This is what I was trying to explain earlier in case there was any confusion