"Would you do it again?" - nonacademics

[lava12345]

So, you feel that grad school was a waste of time because this field has not proven to be completely impervious to the effects of a major global recession/borderline depression? Did you have a better plan?

A lot of complaints I am seeing here feel like many optimists having their bubble burst. No career works of a strict meritocracy. The best jobs are about who you know and not always about where you were trained. The big name institutions rarely pay you better than private hospitals or anything in a cushy suburb unless you are a superstar that adds to their reputation. No career field is recession-proof. We may all be working at a Wal-mart near in in the next two decades (physicians included). If you don't believe me, look at all the "Obamacare" discussions going on throughout the board.

The thing about the choices we make is that we all take a chance when we go to school. The truth is that the bottom could fall out of any field at any time. The fact is that in any field there are those that will do well (above the average) and those that will not do so well. I have seen evidence of both in family and friends in a variety of fields. It is not just a good education that makes you automatically successful. My father came to this country decades ago, leaving behind a successful accounting firm in which he was a partner. He never attained that level of success again in his career. Why? Because English is his third language and his accent made him hard to understand. He is still the guy that his bosses go to when really complex financial accounting shows up on someone's desk. I have known other members of my family who have succeeded at making large amounts of money. They have all had a good business sense. Their professional skill played a small part in their success (other than being competent in their field). There are no perfect fields in this world. Everything has its own pitfalls and there will always be those that are unhappy with the outcome.

There are certain areas of the field that definitely need to be fixed (internship issues, lack of strict boundaries regarding what we do, lax credentialing of schools, etc). However, a lot what people are complaining about are simply luck. Some people have gotten great opportunities and others have not.

Thank you. Perfect.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ollie123]

While I think (know) the field of psychology is having significant trouble, ever wonder what people's posts would look like if we could co-vary out neuroticism or a similar construct? I think its important to have your eyes open, but I also get the distinct impression a fair portion of the posters would be unhappy with their choice regardless of what field they went into.

We're in tough times right now, but I think the field has the potential to recover. It might look VERY different 10 years from now, but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. I view my training as a way of approaching and solving problems, not as "therapy" or "assessment" or "grant-writing". I'm very confident we have a great deal we can contribute moving forward and the field will manage to adjust and right itself.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

While I think (know) the field of psychology is having significant trouble, ever wonder what people's posts would look like if we could co-vary out neuroticism or a similar construct? I think its important to have your eyes open, but I also get the distinct impression a fair portion of the posters would be unhappy with their choice regardless of what field they went into.

We're in tough times right now, but I think the field has the potential to recover. It might look VERY different 10 years from now, but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. I view my training as a way of approaching and solving problems, not as "therapy" or "assessment" or "grant-writing". I'm very confident we have a great deal we can contribute moving forward and the field will manage to adjust and right itself.

Agreed on all counts. If you look for things to hate in your job/field, you're going to find them, regardless of what you do. Psychology obviously isn't any different. And if you continually compare yourself to another profession, unless you end up in that profession, you're always going to be disappointed. Psychology isn't medicine. Psychology isn't social work. Psychology is psychology, and therein of course lie our unique contributions to society.

As Ollie said, at least in my opinion, some of the greatest strengths of our training are the flexibility, critical thinking, and perpetual-readjustment skills we acquire. We aren't only therapists. We aren't only assessors. Psychology is a pretty far-reaching area; it's still a very young field (particularly when it comes to clinical application), and thus we have a lot to learn about how and why people do what they do, but as psychologists and future psychologists, we know more about it than anyone else (which includes our appreciation for what we don't know).

 

[ClinicalABA]

You need to consider a few things when reading post on a thread like this.

First off, if you haven't noticed, the country (world?) is pretty much in an economic recession, with unemployment rates reaching historical levels (http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate). You will likely find un- and underemployment in any field- not just clinical psych. Unemployment tends to impact those newest in any field, as the end result is often more experienced people taking lower end positions. Graduating and starting a career during a recession is tough, but it's likely more of an effect of the cohort (or at least a cohort/discipline interaction), than it is an effect of choosing the field of clinical psych.

Secondly, like many careers, it can take awhile to get your career going. Graduate school/internship/post-doc, is just the beginning of your training. It is HIGHLY unlikely that job you get out of post-doc will be the job you're in for the rest of your life. You're probably don't yet have the skill-set for that dream job- it will take you many years and a few positions before you're qualified for the ultimate job.

Thirdly, recognize the bias with this sample. Overall, SDN members tend to be in training or early career- the very time when it is more likely to doubt your career choices, as you haven't yet got to the "pay-off" point. Additionally, many SDN posters are at the point in their careers that suck the most- the transition from formal student to purely on-the-job training (e.g. internship/post-doc). This is the point where you've been the longest removed from a real salary (and "real life"!). The reality of what those loans mean is starting to come to light. Within this already biased overall sample, these types of posts will be biased by the propensity of people with strong negative feelings to differentially respond to such a survey method. It's not surprising that many of these post are negative!

Fourth- you really don't know the truth about any of the posters. We just don't know if their inability to progress in the field or unhappiness about where they are is related to problems with their experience, training, skill-set, or expectations. For example, if someone undertook doctoral training in clinical psych at a non-funded, private, for-profit, 100 per cohort institution, took out six-figure loans to do so, all with the expectation of working as an outpatient counselor for private-pay clients, well... I would expect them to be totally frustrated regretful. Similarly, there may be details that posters left out that, if known, might make their struggles (or successes) make more sense. For example, in my career, I have interviewed several people for positions who didn't get the job, as well as fired/laid off a few employees. If you were to ask them why they didn't get the job/got fired, they would be more likely to say that it was a problem with the boss or with the system. If you were to ask me, I might say it was due to their insufficient skill-set or some other characteristic about them. Now, that's not saying that all negative posts are just complaints of deluded people with poor self-awareness (there really are some major problems with areas of clinical training, such as the internship imbalance). It's just that you don't really know what's going on when all you have is anecdotal information from only one side of the story.

You really can have a good, rewarding career as a doctoral level psychologist with a Ph.D. from a university based, funded clinical psych program. Current statistics suggest that your mid-career salary will average around 75-80K. My educated guess is that if you focus on generic, minimum standard to get the degree, "just do therapy" type of training, you'll require a lot of long hours and more than a bit of luck to attain that figure. If you focus your training on a good foundation in the basics of clinical science (including EBTs, valid/reliable assessment, research and statistics) and expand this to include specialty training and certification (e.g. neuropsych, forensics, applied behavior analysis, organizational/systems level clinical analysis), you'll eventually (not immediately) do just fine. If, early in your training you find yourself needing to find training options that allow for experiential or skill deficits (e.g. poor GPA, low GREs, lack of any substantial pre-graduate school clinical or research experience), you might want to take that as a sign that things might be a little rough later in your career, and doctoral training might be an expensive and unfruitful decision.

 

[minorityreport]

It might look VERY different 10 years from now, but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.

You are probably right. "Would you like a yellow smiley face sticker today, or would you like fries with that?" Take your pick.

 

[edieb]

edit

 

[edieb]

edit

 

[edieb]

There are definitely medical specialities that are struggling to stay afloat (OB/GYN...the insurance alone for private practice is prohibitive for most), less lucrative for the amount of time invested (e.g. cardiothoracic surgery) while others are definitely still doing just fine: Plastics, Rads, Neuro, PM&R, etc.

When you talk of these specialities stuggling to stay afloat, you are talking about something in the ballpark of these doctors' salaries falling from $200k to $170K, nothing comprable to earning a PhD in clinical psychology and earning $65K

 

[edieb]

Check out the recently started thread on the change to health care in America. I guess our field is just a little behind the medical field once again.

Again, their malpractice may be high but even after their malpractice premiums, they are pulling down $150K + .

 

[AcronymAllergy]

When you talk of these specialities stuggling to stay afloat, you are talking about something in the ballpark of these doctors' salaries falling from $200k to $170K, nothing comprable to earning a PhD in clinical psychology and earning $65K

Although to be fair, we do have to consider that many individuals leaving a clinical psych program have substantially less debt. Additionally, our malpractice insurance is significantly less than that of pretty much any physician. There are quite a few physicians in particular specialties that pay more per year for their premiums than we (psychology) earn.

Not that I'm saying $65k is necessarily a great, or even "fair," wage (although I suppose it's fair in that it's what the market is currently willing to pay). But it's not necessarily a direct comparison.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

When you talk of these specialities stuggling to stay afloat, you are talking about something in the ballpark of these doctors' salaries falling from $200k to $170K, nothing comprable to earning a PhD in clinical psychology and earning $65K

True...but those in private practice (e.g. OB/GYN) have malpractice insurance costs that are obscenely expensive and eat away at their margin...and eventual take home salary. Even a GP/FP office is hard to make profitable if they take insurance, particularly Medicare/Medicaid.

Jon is right about the economics of it, the entry-level salary for a physician in most specialities is excellent, but that doesn't come without strings attached. As a psychologist we do not have the same entry-level salary, but we can also avoid things like being on-call, etc.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I do think Clinical ABA makes a good point. Many of the posters here ARE early career and haven't hit their stride yet. That doesn't make the problems discussed illegitimate but it does inform the perspective.

The problems mentioned in these posts are most definitely legitimate! I think there is a tendency to see post-doc (or even internship) as the final hurdle. I think the reality is it's really just the start of the race. Though I enjoy and benefit thoroughly from my career, It still can be a little tough at times when you come to the realization that, for better or worse, this is what you're going to be when you grow-up (and, even scarier, the realization that somewhere along the way you actually did grow up!).

In deference to your SDN name, Mr. Jon Snow, I still have many moments, both professionally and personally, where I wish that there were some option along the lines of "Taking the Black".

 

[AcronymAllergy]

The problems mentioned in these posts are most definitely legitimate! I think there is a tendency to see post-doc (or even internship) as the final hurdle. I think the reality is it's really just the start of the race. Though I enjoy and benefit thoroughly from my career, It still can be a little tough at times when you come to the realization that, for better or worse, this is what you're going to be when you grow-up (and, even scarier, the realization that somewhere along the way you actually did grow up!).

In deference to your SDN name, Mr. Jon Snow, I still have many moments, both professionally and personally, where I wish that there were some option along the lines of "Taking the Black".

That's actually a great point. Many of us in this field have essentially been "professional students" for about as long as we can remember. Adjusting to full-time employment in and of itself is a pretty significant undertaking; lord knows it took me some time to get used to it after finishing undergrad. There's also the added adjustment required of initially having few/no immediately-salient hurdles left to work toward/anticipate after spending nearly a decade always striving for a clearly-defined "next step" (I think this is where the, "oh man, I'm going to be doing this for the rest of my life?" moment of panic arises from, at least in part).

It's a pretty significant role shift, and so it makes sense that it's going to screw with quite a few of us.

 

[ClinicalABA]

... (I think this is where the, "oh man, I'm going to be doing this for the rest of my life?" moment of panic arises from, at least in part).

It's a pretty significant role shift, and so it makes sense that it's going to screw with quite a few of us.

I think (at least for me) one of the advantages of the Ph.D. and varied experiences is that I now find myself in a position where a portion (maybe 25%) of what I do and how I do it is largely determined by me. There's still some day-to-day drudgery that comes with any job, and there's the sometimes Kafkaesque external systems that seem to do the opposite of what they should be doing, but the autonomy and self-determination that the doctoral degree allows me more than makes up for it. It took me about 10 years post doctorate to get to a position where I am the senior clinician, with no clinician responsible for either my clinical or administrative supervision. While this control over my own destiny is a primary factor in my relatively high career satisfaction, the big trade-off is that when it's your idea and you're responsible for what happens, there's nowhere to hide when things don't go right.

 

[Sanman]

You guys kind of beat me to the punch with your post above. I definitely see those that think the PhD is the final hurdle and those that see it as the first step in this thread. There definitely is that scary thought that we are adults. There is not straight forward path after you graduate. That is true even for physicians (though many do not see it that way). I have physician friends that were jobless for almost a year because they were married and they could not find jobs near each other in the area they wanted to live in. They ended up taking jobs at the same poor, urban hospital to be near family and friends. Good jobs to not just lay themselves at your feet without strings attached. I really did not know what to do when I finished as I was on internship and finishing up because I was single back then and had no strings to hold me back, but also to hold me down. Being able to go anywhere is often met with the same anxiety as being able to go nowhere. Not to mention, careers do not happen in a vacuum. You want family and friends around. Now that I am in a relationship, I looking to move to a different state after I am licensed as my gf has a great job there and the cost of living is significantly lower. It might be more difficult to get a job in the area (I have not looked), but it is worth waiting for as I have a serious relationship waiting for me there.

The funny thing about this thread is that where others have seen hopelessness and frustration, I have seen opportunity and hope. Take Dr. Eliza for example, she got a bum deal and is frustrated with her position. However, her boss is a psychologist and is doing well. He may be greedy, but there is nothing stopping and licensed Dr.Eliza and perhaps some colleagues from starting their own group practice and giving unlicensed people a slightly better percentage of pay (health insurance is unlikely) and treating them better. She will still make money on them and do well. The insurance company gig mentioned is something else to look into as well and sounds interesting. I am could care less about 'selling out' as I this is a business for me. I do care about my patients and giving them the best care I can, but I am no saint and not trying to be poor. If there are better opportunities there, I will take advantage of them. I can volunteer at a clinic, teach, or work with the underprivileged clients with that insurance company salary. Being a therapist is the least you can do with your degree in my book. The advantage of doctorate is that it allows one to take administrative, supervisory, teaching, and other positions not available to lesser qualified individuals. There will always be a market for the best trained individuals.

The thing about psych is that I know that even if I lose a good job, I won't starve. I can hang a shingle or take that $65k/yr job. I have worked side jobs and seen business and other folk with former $100k+ jobs working for $10-12/hr. That will likely never be me as long as psychology offer me the opportunity to at least work for myself.

 

[anonymiss88]

I know I coming in late to this thread, but I thought I would answer anyway. I finished an APA-accredited medical school internship in 2009 and received my Ph.D. and license in 2010. I now work for the V.A. and would N-E-V-E-R repeat this path again. I think the field is rapidly moving in the wrong direction. Declining reimbursement rates mean that psychologists will have to work more and more for less and less. While salaries of psychiatrists are increasing, ours are falling. Psychiatrists make enough an hour where they do not have to work full-time and, thus, do not have to become quagmired in the world of mental illness. On the other hand, psychologists are forced to work 8+ hours/day.

I am finishing my Masters degree in psychopharmacology in September and am looking forward to cutting time devoted to psychotherapy in half (or less).

Do you think you would have been better off with a Masters in counseling psychology and one in psychopharmacology?

 

[edieb]

Hi, you would be better solely getting a Nurse Practioner degree or a PhD and the post-doctoral master's in psychopharmacology (only doctoral-level psychologists can prescribe, not master's level)

 

[anonymiss88]

I've got family members concerned for the amount of debt and the fate of the field of psychology that's got me to this thread. The nurse practitioner degree or just a masters in clinical psych is starting to sound good. But who knows maybe there'll be a thread killing off those ideas too. Sigh. Not sure what's next for me.

 

[niknok]

Being a therapist is the least you can do with your degree in my book. The advantage of doctorate is that it allows one to take administrative, supervisory, teaching, and other positions not available to lesser qualified individuals. There will always be a market for the best trained individuals.

The thing about psych is that I know that even if I lose a good job, I won't starve. I can hang a shingle or take that $65k/yr job. I have worked side jobs and seen business and other folk with former $100k+ jobs working for $10-12/hr. That will likely never be me as long as psychology offer me the opportunity to at least work for myself.

That's one thing I'm looking forward to. I probably would get burnt out as well especially if I'm only doing one thing but holding an administrative position, working on publications, presentations, providing clinical care and teaching. With our degree we can do all of these things at the same time and which I think is pretty unique for us as psychologists.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Speaking as male here, this is a terrible profession to be in as a straight male. Psychology has gone from being a male-dominated field to one that is 95% female/gay male in new graduating classes. I never minded this originally, but you really are an outcast, since most men will not work in an emotionally-difficult and poorly-paying job. Furthermore, the predominance of women has largely eroded the earning power since women will traditionally accept less pay and part-time positions.

While I'm all for gender equality, males in society traditionally still bear the brunt of being the breadwinner and supporting the family.

I do think the women domination thing is a growing problem in the field for some of the reasons you state.

Um, what?? The two of you ought to be ashamed of yourselves, talking like this! If you're disgruntled in this profession, this is the reason--who would EVER go to a psychologist with this attitude?! Good luck with all of that.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I've got family members concerned for the amount of debt and the fate of the field of psychology that's got me to this thread. The nurse practitioner degree or just a masters in clinical psych is starting to sound good. But who knows maybe there'll be a thread killing off those ideas too. Sigh. Not sure what's next for me.

The debt associated with an unfunded doctoral program (Psy.D. or Ph.D.) is prohibitive, yes. But it's still a very viable career path when approached from the perspective of funded training. And heck, there are plenty of people with $100k+ in debt who are likely doing ok, just perhaps not as "ok" as they'd be doing without that debt. Given the earning potential of the degree, though, there are more financially-sound decisions than opting for an unfunded spot. Particularly because some of these unfunded spots are offered by programs providing potentially-subpar training, which can lead to a whole host of problems down the line.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

I am not disgruntled. I like my job. I was simply reflecting on the comment about the growing dominance of women in the field. Diversity is important, right? I have nothing against women, or anyone else, for that matter. But, psychosocial/cultural factors do interact with the field. The impact of shifting field demographics is something that should be examined. Careful casting stones without a good read on what you're consuming.

Exactly what are you suggesting that one interpret from those comments, then? That everyone ought to be especially concerned that the field of clinical psychology turned away from being male-dominated, for the worse??

 

[psychgeek]

Hmm, the tone of the more recent posts seems to be taking on a "blame the victim" mentality. While the biases of those who are not happy with their degree must certainly be considered, I'd like to point out that the defenders are likely biased too. I am reminded of the Festinger experiment. Cognitive dissonance is particularly threatening when the sub-optimally rewarding effort in question spans almost a decade (a fact I know all too well).

A lot of people's experiences in the field did not live up to their expectations in some way. That is certainly not unique to clinical psychology, but it might be particularly tragic given the amount of time people have to put into becoming a psychologist. I think people know that they are unlikely to become rich by providing therapy, but I am not sure people realize just how little money they can expect to make. Likewise, I think people know that psychology is a difficult job, but they don't realize how difficult it is until they have to do it full time for awhile. I have no doubt that there are people who come into this field fully appreciating its limitations and opportunities. I am equally certain that most do not. The danger of dismissing the concerns people have raised in this thread is at least equal to the danger of uncritically accepting them.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Exactly what are you suggesting that one interpret from those comments, then? That everyone ought to be especially concerned that the field of clinical psychology turned away from being male-dominated, for the worse??

I think JS is referencing issues that present when there is a sig. shift in gender representation. There is data that supports lower avg. salary for women v. men, differences in how men/women communicate, etc. These data aren't inherently good/bad, but we need to understand how they impact the field, how we are perceived, and how we practice. There are some good I/O data out there on employment differences, if anyone is bored and wants to dig it up. Most of the data I'm familiar w. is from the late 90s & early '00s...so YMMV.

 

[psychgeek]

Exactly what are you suggesting that one interpret from those comments, then? That everyone ought to be especially concerned that the field of clinical psychology turned away from being male-dominated, for the worse??

And are you suggesting that gender disparity is OK provided women dominate?

Gender disparity is a huge, growing problem in psychology. It was bad when the field was dominated by men. It will be bad for completely different reasons if the field remains dominated by women.

 

[Sanman]

Exactly what are you suggesting that one interpret from those comments, then? That everyone ought to be especially concerned that the field of clinical psychology turned away from being male-dominated, for the worse??

There are definitely drawbacks to either gender having such a disparity in the field. Some of the economic/salary trends are only a single factor. As a male therapist, one the most difficult things for me to find was a suitable male supervisor (it took till internship) to learn from. Given the current state of the field there were things I needed guidance about regarding how to be a good therapist and how to be a 'man' in general. Psychology, and things such as empathy and care-taking that go along with it, are seen as female traits by the population. For example, a female therapist crying with a patient or hugging a patient can be very different from a male therapist doing so. There is a cultural bias. I also need to be careful about the legal implications of contact (even hugging) with a female patient in a closed room. Female therapists in the same position do not necessarily have to worry about the same things. This field, in particular, is not one where a lack of diversity can be overlooked.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

And are you suggesting that gender disparity is OK provided women dominate?

Gender disparity is a huge, growing problem in psychology. It was bad when the field was dominated by men. It will be bad for completely different reasons if the field remains dominated by women.

No, I'm saying that it's rude to imply that having more women in the field is a problem because they're driving down salaries. The original comment was nothing but that.

There are definitely drawbacks to either gender having such a disparity in the field. Some of the economic/salary trends are only a single factor. As a male therapist, one the most difficult things for me to find was a suitable male supervisor (it took till internship) to learn from. Given the current state of the field there were things I needed guidance about regarding how to be a good therapist and how to be a 'man' in general. Psychology, and things such as empathy and care-taking that go along with it, are seen as female traits by the population. For example, a female therapist crying with a patient or hugging a patient can be very different from a male therapist doing so. There is a cultural bias. I also need to be careful about the legal implications of contact (even hugging) with a female patient in a closed room. Female therapists in the same position do not necessarily have to worry about the same things. This field, in particular, is not one where a lack of diversity can be overlooked.

Thank you for the smart comment, I'm certainly open to having an open discussion about gender. It certainly is a complicated issue, not a simple one, that deserves some thought and consideration. I'm a little concerned, though, about the examples that you gave that represent clear boundary violations (i.e., hugging). I'm disturbed that you see women as not only more likely to do these things but that it's considered okay for women. Is that how you see it? Really?

On the other hand, I think about how men were acculturated to the field 50-60+ years ago, likely as Freudian know-it-alls who were dominant over their patients. The field needed a little femininity, if you ask me...a little.

 

[thepug]

No, I'm saying that it's rude to imply that having more women in the field is a problem because they're driving down salaries. The original comment was nothing but that.



Thank you for the smart comment, I'm certainly open to having an open discussion about gender. It certainly is a complicated issue, not a simple one, that deserves some thought and consideration. I'm a little concerned, though, about the examples that you gave that represent clear boundary violations (i.e., hugging). I'm disturbed that you see women as not only more likely to do these things but that it's considered okay for women. Is that how you see it? Really?

On the other hand, I think about how men were acculturated to the field 50-60+ years ago, likely as Freudian know-it-alls who were dominant over their patients. The field needed a little femininity, if you ask me...a little.

But is that what the patient wants/needs? What does femininity mean exactly?

Many senior clinicians feel clinical populations today are different than they were several decades ago. That is, they are more demanding as to the clinician "healing" them. Solving their problems. However, more and more don't want to work for it. There is sometimes a lack of feelings of responsibility on the part of the client. They can even seem proud of their problems.

I guess what I'm getting at is that a more sensitive clinician could be taken advantage of to this regard, and that is not good in terms of adjusting the clients object-relations. I don't think a clinician should be defined by words as simple as masculine or feminine. Let's keep it ambiguous people

 

[Sanman]

No, I'm saying that it's rude to imply that having more women in the field is a problem because they're driving down salaries. The original comment was nothing but that.



Thank you for the smart comment, I'm certainly open to having an open discussion about gender. It certainly is a complicated issue, not a simple one, that deserves some thought and consideration. I'm a little concerned, though, about the examples that you gave that represent clear boundary violations (i.e., hugging). I'm disturbed that you see women as not only more likely to do these things but that it's considered okay for women. Is that how you see it? Really? .

I would not consider hugging to a clear boundary violation as it depends on the context and can be beneficial depending on circumstances (child psychologist do it, it is done in grief counseling, etc). In following link, Pope finds ~80% of therapist have hugged a patient at least in rare circumstances. Certain humanistic therapists might encourage it. In some cases, declining a hug from a patient can do more harm than receiving it. In general society, women do hug more and men tend to shake hands. Look at how friends greet each other. Crying is also more socially accepted among women. Sure, times are changing, but 'boys don't cry' is still a fairly common term. The larger picture here is not about the actions. Rather it is the fact that men and women may express empathy in different ways. That is a perfectly acceptable and an understandable difference. However, when one is trying to develop as a therapist, the perspective of the supervisor can be different based on gender differences among other things. The reaction I receive from a patient to crying (or not crying)/ hugging (or not hugging) him or her is different than that of what a female colleague may receive. There are also separate legal issues for a man hugging a female client compared to female therapist hugging a female client.


Anyway, this is derailing the thread a bit.

 

[paramour]

I complain amongst the best of them. I despise my program more days than naught. However, I also do whatever I damned well need to in order to verify that I finish--so I can move onto the next step. And, yes, as much as I b*tch and moan and groan about my current state of affairs, I would do it all over again (albeit perhaps selecting a different program in this alternate universe ).

I find it amazing the number of folks who complain that they didn't know this or that about the field, or internship, or salary, or [fill in the blank]. Do folks really not research the field prior to making such a leap?

Would I recommend it to everyone? No. Because I do not believe that everyone is "fit" to do the same thing. Not everyone can do absolutely everything. But I would certainly do it again. No question about it. Even if it meant knowing upfront that I would face the same losses in life yet again.

Trust the process, folks, and move on with your lives. I may not be particularly pleased with the way things are treating me now, but this too shall pass. I didn't make sacrifice upon sacrifice to get to this point just so I could say, "Well, wasn't that a waste of a decade. Now what?" If I truly thought it was a wasted cause, I would have bailed after my first year.

G'luck, folks, with wherever your paths may lead you.

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

I find it amazing the number of folks who complain that they didn't know this or that about the field, or internship, or salary, or [fill in the blank]. Do folks really not research the field prior to making such a leap?

Speaking for myself, "Absolutely." I can only say that my frontal lobes probably weren't fully developed at the time, as I went straight from undergrad. As I've heard many times these past few years, "You don't know what you don't know." My thought process when applying for grad school went something like, "Hmm, my peers are getting jobs or applying for grad programs... I better do one of those... I majored in Psychology and want to stay in a rural area so I better apply for grad school [due to lack of lucrative advertising jobs in rural areas]."

I had no idea about the field, internship, salary, or [fill in the blank]. I was really just looking for the next step and grad study in psych seemed logical. (In hindsight, obviously not a good choice for me, financially.*)

*Whenever saying that I made a mistake by pursuing the PsyD, I feel like I need to throw in that I wouldn't have met my husband if I hadn't done it, and that is a very good and life changing experience. So, the aftermath/impact of any event is what you make of it, to a certain extent.

 

[cara susanna]

I was just reading an article about the current economic situation and apparently even STEM people think their field is terrible and they shouldn't have gone into it. I don't think any career area looks great right now, we're pretty much in a second Great Depression.

 

[Sanman]

I was just reading an article about the current economic situation and apparently even STEM people think their field is terrible and they shouldn't have gone into it. I don't think any career area looks great right now, we're pretty much in a second Great Depression.

While the field has problems, I still have not seen an experienced psychologist completely unable to put food on the table. I can't say that for some other professions.

 

[ReInventor]

No, I'm saying that it's rude to imply that having more women in the field is a problem because they're driving down salaries. The original comment was nothing but that.

But why is it rude if it might be...true? Aren't women more likely to take part time positions, etc., that affects compensation for the entire field? I'm female and I don't find that rude at all--it might be true!

 

[wigflip]

I find it amazing the number of folks who complain that they didn't know this or that about the field, or internship, or salary, or [fill in the blank]. Do folks really not research the field prior to making such a leap?

This comment isn't specific to psych, but to grad school in general:

I did what at the time felt like ample research into my field and my program. But one thing I've discovered is that people (grad students, tenured profs) distort and lie. A lot. I got a lot of truly horrible advice from people who simply knew better but were too invested in propping up their programs/the discipline to tell the unvarnished truth. The profs can't live with themselves if they admit that they're churning out grads with crappy job prospects, so they put a dreamy, unrealistic, and sometimes outright mendacious spin on everything.

It's recruitment time now and it's still going on. We received a talking points memo from a prof which was riddled with laughable distortions about our departmental culture and alums' outcomes. So not only are we in the position of feeling compelled to fib (because we don't want to get caught telling the truth), but we're actually being overtly coached and pressured to lie. Luckily I've been able to dodge the recruits so I don't have to look someone in the eye and tell them what great (research) training they're going to get...

 

[Pragma]

This comment isn't specific to psych, but to grad school in general:

I did what at the time felt like ample research into my field and my program. But one thing I've discovered is that people (grad students, tenured profs) distort and lie. A lot. I got a lot of truly horrible advice from people who simply knew better but were too invested in propping up their programs/the discipline to tell the unvarnished truth. The profs can't live with themselves if they admit that they're churning out grads with crappy job prospects, so they put a dreamy, unrealistic, and sometimes outright mendacious spin on everything.

It's recruitment time now and it's still going on. We received a talking points memo from a prof which was riddled with laughable distortions about our departmental culture and alums' outcomes. So not only are we in the position of feeling compelled to fib (because we don't want to get caught telling the truth), but we're actually being overtly coached and pressured to lie. Luckily I've been able to dodge the recruits so I don't have to look someone in the eye and tell them what great (research) training they're going to get...

I haven't experienced something so direct, but I do think profs distort things in an attempt to come off as positive. They can always point to some success stories and useful data.

Part of it also might be that they are biased, and they want to promote their field because if they gave it to people straight, it might create a little, dare I say, cognitive dissonance

Now I loved my program, I think the degree is fabulous, and I am happy with my training. But prospects are not nearly as good as I was led to believe when I was interviewing for graduate school. Part of that is on me, but recruitment efforts clearly distort reality. I am glad there are places like SDN so that forward-thinking individuals can come get another opinion (or 80).

 

[Doctor Eliza]

This comment isn't specific to psych, but to grad school in general:

I did what at the time felt like ample research into my field and my program. But one thing I've discovered is that people (grad students, tenured profs) distort and lie. A lot. I got a lot of truly horrible advice from people who simply knew better but were too invested in propping up their programs/the discipline to tell the unvarnished truth. The profs can't live with themselves if they admit that they're churning out grads with crappy job prospects, so they put a dreamy, unrealistic, and sometimes outright mendacious spin on everything.

It's recruitment time now and it's still going on. We received a talking points memo from a prof which was riddled with laughable distortions about our departmental culture and alums' outcomes. So not only are we in the position of feeling compelled to fib (because we don't want to get caught telling the truth), but we're actually being overtly coached and pressured to lie. Luckily I've been able to dodge the recruits so I don't have to look someone in the eye and tell them what great (research) training they're going to get...

YES!!!!!! I would have definitely gone elsewhere if I had even had an inkling of the truth about my school. (For example, my PI was a raging borderline!!!) During recruitment time, it was subtly and non-so-subtly conveyed to us that we were expected to paint a very rosy picture of our program and not discuss the reality of being a student in our program. Glad (and not glad!) to hear it wasn't just my pathological program!

Best,
Dr. E

 

[Sanman]

I haven't experienced something so direct, but I do think profs distort things in an attempt to come off as positive. They can always point to some success stories and useful data.

Part of it also might be that they are biased, and they want to promote their field because if they gave it to people straight, it might create a little, dare I say, cognitive dissonance

Now I loved my program, I think the degree is fabulous, and I am happy with my training. But prospects are not nearly as good as I was led to believe when I was interviewing for graduate school. Part of that is on me, but recruitment efforts clearly distort reality. I am glad there are places like SDN so that forward-thinking individuals can come get another opinion (or 80).

Maybe this deserves a separate thread, but what were everyone's expectations when applying to grad school. Personally, checked salary surveys from the APA and the ABCN as I had planned on a neuropsych career when entering and only moved to toward health psych half way through grad school. I expected to realistically have a salary of about ~75-100k (or low six figures) for the bulk of my career and chose to only apply to funded programs as I didn't see any upside to the field if you owed so much debt. Given the offers I received and the salary figures that my supervisors and colleagues have thrown around, I am right on schedule. However, colleagues that chose to work in more traditional settings than I, especially those passionate about working with children and families or college counseling, have significantly lower incomes even after they (40-50k). The other side of that coin is that most of my friends chose to stay at their internship or post-doc site for a few years post license and that may have depressed their incomes a bit. Those at the VA have generally been very comfortable.


I can honestly say that while we put on a happy face at our program, there was no pressure and we were asked to be honest. However, I can't say my program was very bad. We were all burnt out before internship, but that was the result of having a relatively shorter program and why I decided to take time after internship to finish my dissertation with a little less pressure.

On a side note, I was just packing up some things including my degrees. I came across my old college transcripts and saw that I was quite a mediocre pre-med student. My grades did not pick up until after I changed my major to psych after my first year and starting making the Dean's List after that. Guess I would have made a poor med student as well as I simply would not have had the interest in it till rotations/residency.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

But why is it rude if it might be...true? Aren't women more likely to take part time positions, etc., that affects compensation for the entire field? I'm female and I don't find that rude at all--it might be true!

It's not rude if it's the truth. But what data was shown? And, I agree, so what? It was only emphasized as an opinion by saying it was a problem.

 

[wigflip]

YES!!!!!! I would have definitely gone elsewhere if I had even had an inkling of the truth about my school. (For example, my PI was a raging borderline!!!) During recruitment time, it was subtly and non-so-subtly conveyed to us that we were expected to paint a very rosy picture of our program and not discuss the reality of being a student in our program. Glad (and not glad!) to hear it wasn't just my pathological program!

Best,
Dr. E

Ha ha--I knew I liked you, Dr. E.

Just to clarify: I don't know whether the prof in question knows that the talking points were ahem! let's say "distorted." Was the prof mendacious or delusional or just downright mistaken? I dunno. No one said, "lie!" But anyone with half a brain would know that the talking points memo was a very sunny, unrealistic view.

 

[ReInventor]

I did what at the time felt like ample research into my field and my program. But one thing I've discovered is that people (grad students, tenured profs) distort and lie. A lot. I got a lot of truly horrible advice from people who simply knew better but were too invested in propping up their programs/the discipline to tell the unvarnished truth. The profs can't live with themselves if they admit that they're churning out grads with crappy job prospects, so they put a dreamy, unrealistic, and sometimes outright mendacious spin on everything.

I'm still in undergrad, but I get the vibe that some of my instructors are somewhat out of touch with the job market when they give my classmates advice--I mean, if you've had the same job for 20 years, how much do you really focus on the job market? I also think, at the undergrad level, people are often simply trying to be nice, and not "crush anyone's dreams." But this doesn't seem helpful in the long run, and it bothers me that a lot of my classmates seem naive about the realities of this career path (which is very popular interest at my college).

 

[anonymiss88]

I had a "career pathway" talk with a professor who had given me the advice of a masters in psych or social work over a doctorates. At the time, I thought he was painting a pretty negative picture of a doctorates, debt, and the job market. Now I really appreciate our talk and him having the courage to shed some light on my dream. I'm still not sure what I'll do exactly but I'm definitely more informed to make the decision.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I had a "career pathway" talk with a professor who had given me the advice of a masters in psych or social work over a doctorates. At the time, I thought he was painting a pretty negative picture of a doctorates, debt, and the job market. Now I really appreciate our talk and him having the courage to shed some light on my dream. I'm still not sure what I'll do exactly but I'm definitely more informed to make the decision.

Like you've said, sounds like this advisor did you a service by attempting to paint an accurate picture. The purpose of most posters on this board in bringing up negative points, at least as far as I can tell, isn't to attempt to dissuade anyone and everyone from pursuing a career in clinical/counseling psych. Rather, it's just to provide the information that many folks don't hear until they've already been in a program for a few years, and thereby allow you to make as fully-informed a decision as possible.

 

[Sanman]

Like you've said, sounds like this advisor did you a service by attempting to paint an accurate picture. The purpose of most posters on this board in bringing up negative points, at least as far as I can tell, isn't to attempt to dissuade anyone and everyone from pursuing a career in clinical/counseling psych. Rather, it's just to provide the information that many folks don't hear until they've already been in a program for a few years, and thereby allow you to make as fully-informed a decision as possible.

Agreed. It is really surprising how many people in this field I have encountered that really have never asked or considered the financial questions. This even includes people I have met on internship that are more concerned about theory and the academic bubble than what they were going to do after internship year.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I was just reading an article about the current economic situation and apparently even STEM people think their field is terrible and they shouldn't have gone into it. I don't think any career area looks great right now, we're pretty much in a second Great Depression.

I agree--pretty much everyone in every field right now says/thinks they are screwed job market-wise. Many are probably right.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

For as much as we complain about the competition for therapy, etc....at least we have a clinical option. STEM people basically have academy and industry...but competition-wise they are both brutal.

 

[thepug]

I was just reading an article about the current economic situation and apparently even STEM people think their field is terrible and they shouldn't have gone into it. I don't think any career area looks great right now, we're pretty much in a second Great Depression.

OK, I'm not a historian or anything, but that's a little much.

 

[Sanman]

OK, I'm not a historian or anything, but that's a little much.

Perhaps...However, if you look at the numbers, the great depression is the only period in the last 100 years that has shown worse economic numbers than the current recession. Given the global problems caused by the recession, the fact that only a a small percentage of housing foreclosures have been sold by the banks, and many other factors, it will be more than a few years before things are looking positive again.

 

[LivingOffLoans]

What scares the crap out of me is that I am only in my late-twenties and a first-year grad student, and I already resonate with much of this post...

Not the 'not do it again' part...at least I'm not at that point yet. But the whole isolating aspect part of the profession, feeling different than others, etc...

One of my supervisors told me earlier today that people who screw themselves over in this job either (1) truly suck and/or don't care about the profession; or (2) they neglect their own sanity/self-care. She cited me as being at high risk for #2

As it turns out, I have a lot to say about this topic. That is probably not surprising since I kind of left the field. Sorry for the long post, but some of this might be helpful to some of the people thinking about entering the field straight from undergrad. Also, I think a few of you might be able to identify me based upon the information I've included. Please don't do so publically even if you can figure it out.

Honestly, no, I would not do it again, but my reasons are different from the ones stated by most of the posters here.

My experience also may not be generalizable, but whose is? I went straight through from undergrad, was in a funded program, and was able to find a really good job immediately after my internship/post-doc year. I started a niche private practice that was generating a number of referrals, and the money was pretty good. Importantly, my niche involved a particularly challenging population, and that might have a bearing on the rest of my story.

Everything would have been great except that I eventually realized that this was it. I was in my mid twenties, and I had achieved the highest level of occupational attainment I could reasonably expect within my chosen field. It isn't like there is some sort of "super private practice" to which one can aspire. Once you have a stable and full private practice, that is pretty much the top of the occupational ladder. At 27 my day was spent seeing individual patients, maybe consulting for an hour or two, and meeting my colleges for drinks after we got off work at 9 PM. I looked at my mid and late career mentors, and they spent their days seeing individual patients, consulting/teaching for an hour or two, and meeting their colleges at 9 PM for drinks. I expected to spend September 20th, 2040 in a way that was not materially different from how I spent September 20th, 2009.

Even this would have been OK except that I feared the effect 30 to 40 years of clinical work would have upon me as a person. Private practice wrecks havoc on personal lives. It cost me one partner, and seems to have had a similar effect upon most of my therapist friends. Over half of my friends' long-term relationships did not survive internship/post-doc. Even if a therapist's relationship does survive the early years of his or her career, the hours and nature of the work makes family life very difficult. Private practice means working when other people do not. As a result, most of my friends ended up with a schedule more similar to that of an actor or restaurant worker than a standard white collar job.

Also, it becomes hard to relate to non-psychologists after you have spent too long as a therapist. Our job involves hearing about the worst things that happen to people and trying to establish an empathic bond that gives us access to their pain. I think this changes you as a person (both for the better and for the worse). I became a lot less judgmental and a kinder person overall, but I lost the ability to care about things like the outcome of "The Bachelor." All of my therapist friends noticed something similar, but I think this change was more prominent for the single therapists. It is hard to go from 8 hours of exploring early traumas to a first date over tapas with a advertising executive. The thematic juxtaposition is jarring.

After a few years of this, I largely quit private practice to try to find a way to work as a psychologist without have such close contact with clients. Most of my friends did something similar. Some started group practices (which basically meant switching from a clinical to a business focus). Some started a family (which basically meant working half-time). Some got jobs in less-demanding branches of therapy (like screening for mood disorders for life insurance policies taken out on CEOs). I was able to do this by switching back into academia. Even this was kind of an attempt to fit my square collection of skills into a round hole of research, so I eventually left psychology for another academic discipline entirely.

In the end, I should not have gone to a Ph.D. program immediately out of undergrad, and I think I would have had a better 2000-2010 if I had waited a few years before I made my decision. I think I probably would have ended up pursuing a Ph.D. anyway, but I doubt it would have been in psychology. A few years of reflection and work outside of school would have given me a better basis of life experience to evaluate my career goals, and I think I would have realized that I would be happier as an economist or sociologist than I was as a clinical psychologist. Being a psychologist is a very hard job, and the money will not come close to fully compensating you for the difficulties you will face. Maybe you are willing to sacrifice part of your happiness to secure peace for someone else. In the end, I was not.

 

[wigflip]

Any professor who gives you news you probably don't want to hear is not only doing you a favor, but probably taking a chance as well (especially if s/he is untenured). Undergrads at my school complain about anything and everything--they also coerce, threaten, and unleash their parents upon the department. Even if the recipients of discouraging news (about the job market, the field, etc.) don't complain, by painting a less-than-rosy picture, profs may be "breaking ranks" with their peers and department. So honesty on a prof's part (when it's not just bitter, self-serving venting) can actually represent a form of risk-takin that's not actually in the prof's best interest.

I had lunch with my undergrad mentor a term after starting grad school, and I commented on the toxic environment in my grad department, and my mentor said, "Yeah, we do a pretty good job of hiding that stuff from the undergraduates, but when you're a grad student you get to peek behind the curtain." I wanted to scream--"Why didn't you tell me?!?"

Edit: whoops--responding to current undergrads' posts on previous page.