"Would you do it again?" - nonacademics

[cara susanna]

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

A lot of economists think that we're either in one or on the brink of one:

http://robertscourt.blogspot.com/2010/08/top-economists-second-great-depression.html

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[wigflip]

A lot of economists think that we're either in one or on the brink of one:

http://robertscourt.blogspot.com/2010/08/top-economists-second-great-depression.html

I thought it was adorable that the pug sought to debunk you while noting that he's "not a historian" (he's obviously not an economist either).

 

[erg923]

I thought it was adorable that the pug sought to debunk you while noting that he's "not a historian" (he's obviously not an economist either).

And doesnt appear to have much actual exposure to the practice of psychology outside of whatever "lab" he's in. Which is ok if he wasnt so opnionated about some "clinical/practice" issues.

 

[Pragma]

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.

+ 800

I am not being in the position of being TT yet, but I have done some campus interviews and get the sense that too much "keeping it real" with students might be frowned upon. Of course, there are even-handed ways to both encourage and provide information that may discourage.

 

[wigflip]

And doesnt appear to have much actual exposure to the practice of psychology outside of whatever "lab" he's in. Which is ok if he wasnt so opnionated about some "clinical/practice" issues.

 

[serotonin]

heck yeah I'd definitely do it again.

I think grad school's been a great experience. It's a pain in the butt a lot of the time, but what I've gotten out of it has been pretty incredible in terms of learning and experience.

(neuropsychologist-to-be (hopefully) coming from a big research university, about to start internship)

 

[dcc777]

heck yeah I'd definitely do it again.

I think grad school's been a great experience. It's a pain in the butt a lot of the time, but what I've gotten out of it has been pretty incredible in terms of learning and experience.

(neuropsychologist-to-be (hopefully) coming from a big research university, about to start internship)

I like hearing things like this.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

heck yeah I'd definitely do it again.

I think grad school's been a great experience. It's a pain in the butt a lot of the time, but what I've gotten out of it has been pretty incredible in terms of learning and experience.

(neuropsychologist-to-be (hopefully) coming from a big research university, about to start internship)

I can mostly agree with the above. I would choose a different program because I have different interests now....but I'd still take this path. I'm wrapping up my fellowship, and I can honestly say I'm pretty optimistic about my future. I still have some concerns about the field, but it isn't all doom and gloom. If someone is *only* willing to live/work in a place like NYC, BOS, SF...then I'd be more concerned because the competition is fierce. However, if you are willing to look at other places (still can be large cities, just not the SUPER popular ones), there are good jobs.

 

[ReInventor]

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.

I'm really, really grateful to the one undergrad professor who had the guts to be honest with me about these issues.

 

[edieb]

how can you say you're glad you're a psychologists when you don't even have your first job yet, lol?!!

 

[Doctor Eliza]

how can you say you're glad you're a psychologists when you don't even have your first job yet, lol?!!

+1000!

 

[AcronymAllergy]

how can you say you're glad you're a psychologists when you don't even have your first job yet, lol?!!

To be fair, I believe those who are still in training have qualified their posts by saying that they're only referring to doing the whole grad school stint again. And knowing the number of people I do who were/are miserable in grad school (mostly for reasons unrelated to clinical psych itself), that in and of itself is no small assertion to make.

Although yes, I'd imagine they're two fairly disparate phases of (professional) life, and it's tough to extrapolate from one to the other.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

how can you say you're glad you're a psychologists when you don't even have your first job yet, lol?!!

The OP asked current students:

A long time ago there was a thread that asked, "Would you do it all again?" about going into graduate-level psychology. I want to raise this question to the current crop of Ph.D. and Psy.D. students, specifically those who aren't interested in careers in academia or other intensive research settings. Knowing what you know now, are you satisfied with choosing the psychologist path?

 

[psychQs]

Indeed I did pose the question to current students, but that was an oversight on my part. I'm so grateful to everyone who's answered so honestly. Every one of these responses is and will continue to be invaluable to me as I try to decide what kind of applications to submit. In all honesty, I'm more confused than anything at the moment - I'm beginning to research nursing schools in addition to the MSW.
Thank you all again!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

how can you say you're glad you're a psychologists when you don't even have your first job yet, lol?!!

I'm wrapping up my fellowship and fielding offers for staff positions, so I figured that was close enough. It isn't all doom & gloom...though it most likely will be more work than most students realize. I think the takeaway message is to be realistic, have a plan, and then do your best to execute the plan. My plan changed on the fly, but I think it all turned out okay. You also can't be mediocre, as it seems like the field is getting more and more competitive, so you have to be able to get above the masses....which is easier said than done.

 

[PsyDLICSW]

Hi everyone,
I've been a frequent lurker around here, but I'm finally ready to speak up...
A long time ago there was a thread that asked, "Would you do it all again?" about going into graduate-level psychology. I want to raise this question to the current crop of Ph.D. and Psy.D. students, specifically those who aren't interested in careers in academia or other intensive research settings. Knowing what you know now, are you satisfied with choosing the psychologist path?


(This isn't intended to be presented in a negative manner whatsoever; I'm looking to hear from people in the field to see whether I could be a good fit, etc.)

I am still a student and find myself asking this question a lot. I am not sure about how I feel about pursuing psychology. I feel like psychology teaches its students and workers that they are not good enough no matter how hard they work. For example, getting into a PhD/university PsyD is difficult to do and you may have to apply two or more times to get in. There is a bollte-neck effect going into psychology. Once you are in a program, there is no guarantee you will get out alive becasue you have to apply to get an internship and there are too many students and not enough internships, even less accredited ones. There is a bottle-neck effect at the end of training too. So you have to apply to get in AND you have to apply to get out. Once you are out, it seems like the job prospects are not that great. So you bust your butt to get in and you may not even get into a program. You bust your butt through the program and you may not even get out becasue of the itnernship crisis. If you do get out, you bust your butt to get a job. No matter how hard you work, the odds are against you. That, to me, is demoralizing and exhausting. Psychology appears to be buring out their students and these students are burnt out even before they start working.

If I had to do it all again, I am not sure how I would answer. I am too far in to back out now. I also like testing too much to just be an LCSW (Ihave an MSW).

 

[chman]

I

I also agree that there are some students who are pushed into an education when they do not need to be there at all or they do not need to be there just quite yet. They're ill-prepared. They have no idea what they want to do, but they are being told by everyone (their parents, teachers/counselors, and everyone else) that they're all those special snowflakes and can be & do anything they want to be... but they need to pursue a higher education or they allegedly won't amount to anything else... and they need to do it RIGHT NOW. Then you have numerous folks who are returning to school at the present time because the economy sucks, and they think that any ole' education is going to help them out of their slump. Unfortunately, I have seen too many of these who receive generic liberal arts degrees that really do not prepare them for much of anything--IF they manage to get that far without dropping out first. We need to quit with the messages re: stinkin' unique snowflakes, and you can do anything & be anything you want to do and be, and the everyone needs/must go to college to become a success. It's simply not the case. And when some of those students fail, they are absolutely crushed because they have received such messages their entire lives. What then? They give up and work at any ole' crap job they can find? Maybe that's fine for some folks, but some of those folks could have been successful pursuing other avenues if they hadn't been pushed into certain things that "the majority" consider to be the "right path" for everyone.

While I definitely have some problems with current higher education, I have to say that most of these people don't really have an alternative. Our country just doesn't have the industrial jobs that one could once get with just a high school diploma; ie, a bachelors degree is the equivalent of what a high school diploma was even 30 years ago.

I understand what you are saying to a point. I am 26 and am a senior psychology student. I am successful, yet stressed about what I'm going to do when I'm done with this major (since I've gone from wanting to go to med-school, to wanting to get a Phd, to being skeptical about that too). At any rate, most of my fellow students are younger, of course, and I think a lot of them have been trained to think that things should be handed to them, so I do see what you are saying. I just think that at this point there is no real alternative for people (traditional student or non-traditional), unless you consider a job topping out at 35k a year to be satisfactory. Unfortunately I don't see this changing unless there is a major uptick in both industry and technical schools.

 

[ClinicalABA]

You also can't be mediocre, as it seems like the field is getting more and more competitive, so you have to be able to get above the masses....which is easier said than done.

So true. One of the best predictors of future mediocrity is past mediocrity. While not impossible, it's probably highly unlikely that an entering an intensive Ph.D. program will be the kick in the butt you need to pick it up and finally excel.

 

[Rivi]

So true. One of the best predictors of future mediocrity is past mediocrity. While not impossible, it's probably highly unlikely that an entering an intensive Ph.D. program will be the kick in the but you need to pick it up and finally excel.

I'm not mediocre, I just haven't fully applied myself yet.

IMO, we have a huge problem if mediocre (I am taking this to mean average-ish) students are screwed. This needs to be addressed on the front end, before people invest all this time.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I'm not mediocre, I just haven't fully applied myself yet.

IMO, we have a huge problem if mediocre (I am taking this to mean average-ish) students are screwed. This needs to be addressed on the front end, before people invest all this time.

Problem is psychology is generally a HUGE undergrad major, and being an average psych major puts you in pretty big company, both when it comes time to apply to grad school or to apply to the small number of good psychology related jobs open to those with only a bachelors degree (heck, you could even say to the small number of ANY good jobs available to those with only a bachelors degree).

 

[PsyDLICSW]

Problem is psychology is generally a HUGE undergrad major, and being an average psych major puts you in pretty big company, both when it comes time to apply to grad school or to apply to the small number of good psychology related jobs open to those with only a bachelors degree (heck, you could even say to the small number of ANY good jobs available to those with only a bachelors degree).

My husband is not in psychology. But he made a good point. Maybe psychology should requre harder science courses such as biology and chemistry as well as more stats courses other than the intro course (my school required one stats course). Also, schools should require more research experience to graduate other than the capstone and have more specific guidelines. These changes may not only better prepare students for graduate training, but also cut back on the psychology majors who major in psychology because it is "interesting," because they could not handle bio/pre med, or becasue they cannot succeed in other majors such as bio, chem, english, accounting, etc. Psycholgy weeds out at the graduate level, so why don't we weed out at the undergrad level too?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Thing is, do we really need to weed out at the undergrad level? As another poster mentioned, many college majors don't lead directly to employment. Psychology is definitely an interesting subject, and we could further improve students' understandings of it perhaps by requiring more stats and (to some extent) bio/chem work at the undergrad level. But what do we gain from weeding out individuals who simply take/major in it because they're interested in it?

Even the typical pre-med majors don't make active attempts (in most cases) to weed out students; it's the pre-med designation and courseload that does so. Perhaps developing a "pre-psychology" designation could achieve some of the aims of creating more-informed and better-prepared (for graduate study) undergraduates? This could set the groundwork for establishing a scientific mindset in the true grad school-bound crowd, as well as separating these individuals out from those who chose psych simply because it seemed interesting.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

My husband is not in psychology. But he made a good point. Maybe psychology should requre harder science courses such as biology and chemistry as well as more stats courses other than the intro course (my school required one stats course). Also, schools should require more research experience to graduate other than the capstone and have more specific guidelines. These changes may not only better prepare students for graduate training, but also cut back on the psychology majors who major in psychology because it is "interesting," because they could not handle bio/pre med, or becasue they cannot succeed in other majors such as bio, chem, english, accounting, etc. Psycholgy weeds out at the graduate level, so why don't we weed out at the undergrad level too?

I wish! The field is moving more towards the biological and neurological underpinnings of the disorders, so it would makes sense. As for the research requirement....I know many/most Canadian programs offer a thesis option to undergrads, which I think is a great idea. Being able to engage in research and develop a thesis will help weed out the "research/stats are icky" crowd. I think 90% of the value of my undergrad psych degree was the mentorship I had during my research. Mind you, I'm not a hardcore academic researcher, but learning how to think critically through applying research methods has really helped me as a clinician. Our foundation as a field is in research, not unsupported theory.

 

[cara susanna]

I know that UW Madison makes their intro psych courses extremely difficult so it scares away a lot of the "science is too hard!" majors.

 

[Pragma]

I know that UW Madison makes their intro psych courses extremely difficult so it scares away a lot of the "science is too hard!" majors.

I took Intro at Madison as an undergraduate and it was a piece of cake. Not sure if things have changed in recent years.

 

[cara susanna]

Maybe they have. I have family members who attended in the 1970s and 1990s, good students, who all got C's. One was pre-med, too.

 

[Pragma]

Maybe they have. I have family members who attended in the 1970s and 1990s, good students, who all got C's. One was pre-med, too.

It probably varies by prof, but mine was a huge lecture in the early 2000's during my freshman year. It wasn't like you didn't have to do work, but it wasn't difficult to get an A. Now, look where I ended up - with a psych PhD. Maybe the Econ majors found it harder because they found it boring?

 

[headshrinker78]

I find the overarching themes of ppl.'s discontent to be someone surprising and ultimately amusing. Here are some point to consider:

Gripe 1: Psychologists don't make enough $$: If you go into psychology to "get paid" you are silly and deserve little sympathy. Psychology is ultimately a helping profession and one that you can be well compensated for. Earning $60-$80K is a very reasonable salary. Of course, there is potential to earn a lot more, but even at the low end, the profession is well compensated by American standards (average income ~45K). What seems to bother some ppl. is that their friends who went to medical school or Wall Street make so much more money. First, there are a ton of psych. students that couldn't hack pre-med so they go into psychology. So, considering the road to an MD is vastly more difficult, it's kinda disingenuous to say both professions should be compensated at the same level. As for those that bemoan not becoming a CEO or Wall Street maven, how could you even compare the two? It's a totally different life and, if you question why didn't go that route, you are either not appreciating what you have or you got into psychology for the wrong reasons.

Gripe 2. The road to success in psychology is so hard: Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo. Tell me one worthwhile profession that doesn't involve a hard climb. I'm friends with several MD's and their training never stops. Many are in their mid-30's and they working non-stop for less than a ton of money. Why should psychology be any different? The world today is difficult for EVERYONE and to expect to graduate from a Ph.D. program at 28 and have the world in your hands is immature and spoiled.

Gripe 3. There is so much competition: The really should get lumped in with no. 2. Stiff competition is the name of the game for every profession today. My wife just earned a Ph.D from a top-Ivy university in biophysics and there are three post-doc's in her lab that are on their fourth yr. of post-doc work just waiting for a tenure track position to open up. And they are working on curing cancer....So please, stop griping about having to still compete after graduating from a psychology Ph.D. program. Also, the grim outlook that most ppl. seem to portray for the profession is likely anecdotal and not supported by facts. If you look at any recent vocational publications, the job outlook for psychology is actually much better than that of most professions.

I think what really happens in this profession is that, in college, the subject attracts a lot of bright ppl. that haven't really figured out what they really want to do in life. They end up majoring in psychology because studying human behavior is interesting and they think they can end up making tons of dough listening to ppl. talk about their problems all day. They end up working really hard because they realize getting into a psychology graduate program is a lot more competitive than they initially thought, only to graduate with a Ph.D at 28, but without ppl. lining up to gain from the immense wisdom they have attained during their life spent as a student. This in turn makes them sad and bitter. The truth is, many ppl. in this field have no business being in it, because they lack the humility and empathy necessary to be a good therapist. Those skills come from life experience, not from school.

As a final note, I would like to pre-emptively apologize to anyone I may have offended in this post. I know that making sweeping generalizations is dangerous and my summations may not apply to many of you.

 

[erg923]

The only problem I REALLY have with your post is the title-"Quit Griping" Well...why, exactly? That's how changes and improvement are made. Not "griping" about what is perceived to be wrong with your profession is complacent, and allows it be bullied, overrun, or slowly die.


And I think the "hard" people complain about are hurdles and hoops that make little sense (licensing requirements, timelines, and delays, post-doc requirements, outdated and unreliable oral licensing exams just to name a few) and make starting out extra hard, both financially and temporally.

 

[Pragma]

The world today is difficult for EVERYONE and to expect to graduate from a Ph.D. program at 28 and have the world in your hands is immature and spoiled.

I got my Ph.D. at 27. I didn't expect it to be easy or not to have to work hard after that. But I also didn't think it would be difficult to earn a livable wage. I never believed that I would get rich. I work my tail off (often 80+ hours per week) just to make ends meet.

You bring up good points though. People do make too many upward social comparisons. We all have friends who make more money. It is important to stay realistic about salary expectations.

 

[FemmeFeline]

I'm really interested to hear from those within the Educational/School Psych field. I have met a lot of practicing school psychs and academic school psychs, and everyone seems pretty happy with their lot in life, and don't regret their career decisions. One school psych I met [edit: volunteered under for 1 year] is changing his career to that of a college counselor, because he realized that his passion had more to do with career counseling than the work of a school psych. But he doesn't regret the time and work he's put into his profession thus far, and feels he's been compensated well for only having ever earned an MA.

Does the dissatisfaction primarily lie with clinical students/practitioners? Or have I just not met enough people in the edu psych profession? Maybe this is a state-specific issue? The professionals I have talked to are mostly from CA.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Does the dissatisfaction primarily lie with clinical students/practitioners? Or have I just not met enough people in the edu psych profession? Maybe this is a state-specific issue? The professionals I have talked to are mostly from CA.

I think there is a great amount of variance. CA is definitely an exception to most things, not just psych...so take any comments about CA with a large grain of salt. I think purely private practice therapists (doctorl or otherwise) in major cities have the toughest time because there is just so much competition and insurance reimbursement keeps getting cut. However, there are also places where there are not enough providers.

*disclaimer: speciality employment is much different than generalist employment*
I'm talking with a place now (major city) where there is *one* practicing neuropsychologist in the entire metro area, and if I moved there I'd instantly have a 6+ month waiting list of patients. There are plenty of psychologists and some neuropsychologists in the other major cities, but no one wants to move. It isn't just NYC & SF! I'm also looking in two other major cities (also Top 20) where there is a huge need for 'competent' neuropsychologists & rehabilitation psychologists, as there is a large gap in the quality of training. There are jobs and opportunities, you just need to have the right training, network, and be willing to not live in NYC, SF, SD, etc.

I have friends who work at college counseling centers (assistant director & director), and they very much enjoy their jobs...but they do it for the benefits and not the pay. I'm in academic medicine and it is a mix of satisfaction and frustration for most. I'm at a top tier medical center, so it attracts a certain type of clinician-scientist....which is definitely not the "norm". I'm still trying to decide if I want this kind of pressure to produce (clinically and in regard to research), but there *are* options for psychologists out there.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I think there is a great amount of variance. CA is definitely an exception to most things, not just psych...so take any comments about CA with a large grain of salt. I think purely private practice therapists (doctorl or otherwise) in major cities have the toughest time because there is just so much competition and insurance reimbursement keeps getting cut. However, there are also places where there are not enough providers.

*disclaimer: speciality employment is much different than generalist employment*
I'm talking with a place now (major city) where there is *one* practicing neuropsychologist in the entire metro area, and if I moved there I'd instantly have a 6+ month waiting list of patients. There are plenty of psychologists and some neuropsychologists in the other major cities, but no one wants to move. I'm also looking in two other major cities (also Top 20) where there is a huge need for 'competent' neuropsychologists & rehabilitation psychologists, as there is a large gap in the quality of training.

I have friends who work at college counseling centers (assistant director & director), and they very much enjoy their jobs...but they do it for the benefits and not the pay. I'm in academic medicine and it is a mix of satisfaction and frustration for most. I'm at a top tier medical center, so it attracts a certain type of clinician-scientist....which is definitely not the "norm". I'm still trying to decide if I want this kind of pressure to produce (clinically and in regard to research), but there *are* options for psychologists out there.

I trained in a setting similar to that, and always had the impression that for competent practitioners, those types of opportunities weren't hard to find if, as you've said, you're willing to make the move. I've actually strongly considered returning to where I trained (or at least the same type of area) for those reasons, and for the general familiarity of the setup.

Psychologists don't have the same geographic restriction-less opportunities as, say, physicians might, but look at it this way--at the end of the day, if you're licensed and REALLY want to work somewhere, there's technically nothing stopping you from hanging a shingle and trying to gather up some clients.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I trained in a setting similar to that, and always had the impression that for competent practitioners, those types of opportunities weren't hard to find if, as you've said, you're willing to make the move. I've actually strongly considered returning to where I trained (or at least the same type of area) for those reasons, and for the general familiarity of the setup.

It isn't for everybody, but many times those types of jobs offer a better quality of life. I have the opportunity to continue to do the kind of work I do now, while also being able to open a cash only practice (1x week) for a very specific patient population. Eventually I may transition to more out-patient work, but I know that just working that 1x week will pay for my loans, overhead, and hopefully some random other bills.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

It isn't for everybody, but many times those types of jobs offer a better quality of life. I have the opportunity to continue to do the kind of work I do now, while also being able to open a cash only practice (1x week) for a very specific patient population. Eventually I may transition to more out-patient work, but I know that just working that 1x week will pay for my loans, overhead, and hopefully some random other bills.

And (this is the altruist and idealist in me) it can bring with it the sense that you're helping individuals who, without your presence, may not have ever had the opportunity to receive such help. I can say with almost absolute certainty that many of the patients I evaluated in grad school would never have been able to receive any type of cognitive assessment (and the accompanying recommendations) beyond an MMSE, let alone an actual neuropsych eval, had our (small) lab not been around.

It can certaintly be a challenging and frustrating environment to work in, and you may not have access to all the newest technological bells and whistles, but I always at least felt that we were providing a very real and useful service to our clients.

 

[psych for path]

So if someone goes to a partially funded psyd after achieving the highest level of academic success in their life until that point, what the majority of you are saying is that this person, with the goals of becoming a full time clinician in a hospital psychiatric setting with private practice a few times a week, is completely off base and out of touch with how miserable and miserly an existence they are condemning themselves to?!!?!

 

[AcronymAllergy]

So if someone goes to a partially funded psyd after achieving the highest level of academic success in their life until that point, what the majority of you are saying is that this person, with the goals of becoming a full time clinician in a hospital psychiatric setting with private practice a few times a week, is completely off base and out of touch with how miserable and miserly an existence they are condemning themselves to?!!?!

I don't think anyone has said that, no. What's been said, as best I can remember, is that entirely-unfunded programs (whether Ph.D. or Psy.D.) do not necessarily represent the soundest of financial decisions given the average pay of clinical psychologists.

With a partially-funded program, it'd depend on how much debt you end up leaving school with, and what pay range you're targeting in your work. I would imagine many hospital psychiatric positions start in the $30-60k-ish/year range (depending on where it is, if you're licensed, and what your area of practice is). Private practice a few times per week on top of that could add a decent amount, but will depend on what type of contract you're able to negotiate (which, if you're unlicensed, of course isn't going to be as favorable).

No one (well, nearly no one) is saying you're going to starve as a psychologist. But you probably aren't going to make enough right out of grad school to be able to swing a monthly payment on $150k in loans without a) a significant hit to your standard of living, b) an extra (e.g., spousal) source of income, or c) loan repayment assistance. The last option is of course available, but there's no telling if it'll still be here in 10 years.

 

[docma]

I find the overarching themes of ppl.'s discontent to be someone surprising and ultimately amusing. Here are some point to consider:

Gripe 1: Psychologists don't make enough $$: If you go into psychology to "get paid" you are silly and deserve little sympathy. Psychology is ultimately a helping profession and one that you can be well compensated for. Earning $60-$80K is a very reasonable salary. Of course, there is potential to earn a lot more, but even at the low end, the profession is well compensated by American standards (average income ~45K). What seems to bother some ppl. is that their friends who went to medical school or Wall Street make so much more money. First, there are a ton of psych. students that couldn't hack pre-med so they go into psychology. So, considering the road to an MD is vastly more difficult, it's kinda disingenuous to say both professions should be compensated at the same level. As for those that bemoan not becoming a CEO or Wall Street maven, how could you even compare the two? It's a totally different life and, if you question why didn't go that route, you are either not appreciating what you have or you got into psychology for the wrong reasons.

Gripe 2. The road to success in psychology is so hard: Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo. Tell me one worthwhile profession that doesn't involve a hard climb. I'm friends with several MD's and their training never stops. Many are in their mid-30's and they working non-stop for less than a ton of money. Why should psychology be any different? The world today is difficult for EVERYONE and to expect to graduate from a Ph.D. program at 28 and have the world in your hands is immature and spoiled.

Gripe 3. There is so much competition: The really should get lumped in with no. 2. Stiff competition is the name of the game for every profession today. My wife just earned a Ph.D from a top-Ivy university in biophysics and there are three post-doc's in her lab that are on their fourth yr. of post-doc work just waiting for a tenure track position to open up. And they are working on curing cancer....So please, stop griping about having to still compete after graduating from a psychology Ph.D. program. Also, the grim outlook that most ppl. seem to portray for the profession is likely anecdotal and not supported by facts. If you look at any recent vocational publications, the job outlook for psychology is actually much better than that of most professions.

I think what really happens in this profession is that, in college, the subject attracts a lot of bright ppl. that haven't really figured out what they really want to do in life. They end up majoring in psychology because studying human behavior is interesting and they think they can end up making tons of dough listening to ppl. talk about their problems all day. They end up working really hard because they realize getting into a psychology graduate program is a lot more competitive than they initially thought, only to graduate with a Ph.D at 28, but without ppl. lining up to gain from the immense wisdom they have attained during their life spent as a student. This in turn makes them sad and bitter. The truth is, many ppl. in this field have no business being in it, because they lack the humility and empathy necessary to be a good therapist. Those skills come from life experience, not from school.

As a final note, I would like to pre-emptively apologize to anyone I may have offended in this post. I know that making sweeping generalizations is dangerous and my summations may not apply to many of you.

I am glad to see these points entered in to the dialogue and endorse them. I think it is also important to recognize that for many folks entering the field a primary goal is not to become rich but to have a satisfying line of work that will be congruent with other life goals. I have never earned much per hour but my public service work as a psychologist has been very gratifying, it has worked well around starting, raising and launching children, and I can keep working until I choose to retire while being kept current and engaged by my work with younger colleagues and contemporary problems. I think that as a profession we need to become more flexible (while also being clearer about standards) and less entitled and more interested in innovative ways to apply our skills, It is also critical that we focus on reducing students' debt load and increasing the internship supply.

 

[JeyRo]

I'd do it again, I'd just do it differently:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=12325060&postcount=106

 

[O Gurl]

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

^ In reference to the "we are in a second Great Depression" claim

A lot of economists think that we're either in one or on the brink of one:

http://robertscourt.blogspot.com/2010/08/top-economists-second-great-depression.html

I thought it was adorable that the pug sought to debunk you while noting that he's "not a historian" (he's obviously not an economist either).

And doesnt appear to have much actual exposure to the practice of psychology outside of whatever "lab" he's in. Which is ok if he wasnt so opnionated about some "clinical/practice" issues.

Not to derail the thread as this is obviously not an economy or political forum, but some of the hyperbolic, sky-is-falling rhetoric here just screams political bias. That is fine and all, but there is no reason to ridicule another poster for simply observing it. Esp, when you then post a link to some bizarre consipiracy theory blog that is: "dedicated to exposing the truth behind American brainwashing" as evidence of your claim.

If we are going to take these sort of detours, can we agree to do so respectfully?

Thanks!

... and back to the topic at hand....

 

[cara susanna]

I'm political a lot on this forum, but I wasn't trying to be this time, I swear. Okay, I didn't really check out the blog that I linked, only saw that it referenced news sources.

In my original post, I was mostly referring to what Paul Krugman had been saying. Here is a link that you will hopefully find more reliable: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html

 

[O Gurl]

I'm political a lot on this forum, but I wasn't trying to be this time, I swear. I was mostly referring to what Paul Krugman (of the NY Times) had been saying: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html

That's great and kudos for finding a more respectable source this time, but one could also provide a number of sources form other economists to say that we have experienced a recession (not anywhere near a 1 in 4 Americans unemployed depression) and the economy is painfully, slowly, correcting. My point is that ridiculing someone for not agreeing with your political argument is not what this forum is for.

 

[cara susanna]

I know, and as you can see I didn't ridicule that poster earlier. I just wanted to defend what I said originally, as that was part of the point that you made.

Like I said, I wasn't trying to be political. Paul Krugman and I have almost opposite political beliefs, too.

 

[O Gurl]

I know, and as you can see I didn't ridicule that poster earlier. I just wanted to defend what I said originally, as that was part of the point that you made.

Like I said, I wasn't trying to be political. Paul Krugman and I have almost opposite political beliefs, too.

I quoted the exchange that I was commenting on. While your comment (I agree) did not fall into the category of ridicule, wig and erg's certainly did. I am not the polite police, but felt that the way Pug was treated was unnecessary.

 

[cara susanna]

Okay, fair enough.

 

[Sanman]

I find the overarching themes of ppl.'s discontent to be someone surprising and ultimately amusing. Here are some point to consider:

Gripe 1: Psychologists don't make enough $$: If you go into psychology to "get paid" you are silly and deserve little sympathy. Psychology is ultimately a helping profession and one that you can be well compensated for. Earning $60-$80K is a very reasonable salary. Of course, there is potential to earn a lot more, but even at the low end, the profession is well compensated by American standards (average income ~45K). What seems to bother some ppl. is that their friends who went to medical school or Wall Street make so much more money. First, there are a ton of psych. students that couldn't hack pre-med so they go into psychology. So, considering the road to an MD is vastly more difficult, it's kinda disingenuous to say both professions should be compensated at the same level. As for those that bemoan not becoming a CEO or Wall Street maven, how could you even compare the two? It's a totally different life and, if you question why didn't go that route, you are either not appreciating what you have or you got into psychology for the wrong reasons.

Gripe 2. The road to success in psychology is so hard: Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo. Tell me one worthwhile profession that doesn't involve a hard climb. I'm friends with several MD's and their training never stops. Many are in their mid-30's and they working non-stop for less than a ton of money. Why should psychology be any different? The world today is difficult for EVERYONE and to expect to graduate from a Ph.D. program at 28 and have the world in your hands is immature and spoiled.

Gripe 3. There is so much competition: The really should get lumped in with no. 2. Stiff competition is the name of the game for every profession today. My wife just earned a Ph.D from a top-Ivy university in biophysics and there are three post-doc's in her lab that are on their fourth yr. of post-doc work just waiting for a tenure track position to open up. And they are working on curing cancer....So please, stop griping about having to still compete after graduating from a psychology Ph.D. program. Also, the grim outlook that most ppl. seem to portray for the profession is likely anecdotal and not supported by facts. If you look at any recent vocational publications, the job outlook for psychology is actually much better than that of most professions.

I think what really happens in this profession is that, in college, the subject attracts a lot of bright ppl. that haven't really figured out what they really want to do in life. They end up majoring in psychology because studying human behavior is interesting and they think they can end up making tons of dough listening to ppl. talk about their problems all day. They end up working really hard because they realize getting into a psychology graduate program is a lot more competitive than they initially thought, only to graduate with a Ph.D at 28, but without ppl. lining up to gain from the immense wisdom they have attained during their life spent as a student. This in turn makes them sad and bitter. The truth is, many ppl. in this field have no business being in it, because they lack the humility and empathy necessary to be a good therapist. Those skills come from life experience, not from school.

As a final note, I would like to pre-emptively apologize to anyone I may have offended in this post. I know that making sweeping generalizations is dangerous and my summations may not apply to many of you.

Well, you have some points, but I think you are being overly critical about our curmudgeons. As for gripe 1:While a doctorate may or may not be as hard as medical school, it can be under-compensated when compared to other allied health and professionals fields of similar years of training. However, we have better options that other PhD academic fields. Being a hybrid degree, it really depends on your goals and how you are look at it. We also have the ability to still hang a shingle. Logistically, not many fields can say that anymore.

Gripe 2: Yes and no. There are many fields that are difficult to make it in, but the issues with internship are really unfair. You should not have to compete with others to graduate from your program after years of being put into debt, in what is basically a lottery system. I do think that admissions standards and class size restrictions should be more strictly managed. I'd prefer to take my boo-hoo and move onto another career without a mountain of debt thank you. As you can see, I don't mind gripe 3

The bottom line here is you have many different people with different gripes. The ones that I think are most disenchanted are those that went to professional schools and are struggling to graduate/ begin a career with large loans, those that want to live in the past, and those at the top who may see many of their professional accomplishments are not relevant to the jobs available on the market. For example, those that strive for academic positions and end up landing more clinical positions may see that their years of striving for publications was for nothing and that others get the same pay and benefits without all the agony. I often see psychodynamic/ psychoanalytic people in NY end up taking assessment or other jobs they have no interest and limited training in to pay bills because psychodynamic/analytic private practice just is not lucrative here anymore. As someone who is more middle of the road (funded program, more clinically oriented, interested in hospital health psych work, with a few pubs and good clinical experience) and trained in more up and coming areas in the field, I can say that I am not disappointed in my prospects at all, but there are things the field really needs to sort out.

 

[psychgeek]

I find the overarching themes of ppl.'s discontent to be someone surprising and ultimately amusing.

If you go into psychology to "get paid" you are silly and deserve little sympathy.

Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo. Tell me one worthwhile profession that doesn't involve a hard climb.

The world today is difficult for EVERYONE and to expect to graduate from a Ph.D. program at 28 and have the world in your hands is immature and spoiled.

So please, stop griping about having to still compete after graduating from a psychology Ph.D. program.

Also, the grim outlook that most ppl. seem to portray for the profession is likely anecdotal and not supported by facts.


The truth is, many ppl. in this field have no business being in it, because they lack the humility and empathy necessary to be a good therapist. .

Anyone else find the last statement ironic given the first six? Also, your vast experience as a psychology student probably does not make you qualified to question actual psychologists' opinions on the basis of that experience alone. Data?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Gripe 2: Yes and no. There are many fields that are difficult to make it in, but the issues with internship are really unfair. You should not have to compete with others to graduate from your program after years of being put into debt, in what is basically a lottery system. I do think that admissions standards and class size restrictions should be more strictly managed.

I hope you signed the Occupy The Imbalance Petition...

For example, those that strive for academic positions and end up landing more clinical positions may see that their years of striving for publications was for nothing and that others get the same pay and benefits without all the agony.

I disagree that it was for nothing, as it is a good learning experience and I think a vital aspect of graduate training. With that being said, I do agree that for people who busted their butts and stayed extra years to get more publications....not attaining an academic position would be pretty rough.

...I can say that I am not disappointed in my prospects at all, but there are things the field really needs to sort out.

It sounds like you came into your training with at least a modest idea of the field and your path. I think students really get in trouble by NOT understanding the field, the market, and how their goals may or may not fit into these areas. It is beyond frustrating to see students come here (and into grad school) with a, "I don't care what you say, the market says, the field is saying...I'm going to do XYZ....", as 95% of the time the light at the end of the tunnel is a train. I think that is one reason why there is more push back with the less reputable programs because the costs just keep growing (tuition & loan % rates), and there is no course correction by students or the APA.

Anyone else find the last statement ironic given the first six? Also, your vast experience as a psychology student probably does not make you qualified to question actual psychologists' opinions on the basis of that experience alone. Data?

There are far more problematic characteristics that plague the field than a perceived lack of humility and empathy. Being a quality clinician involves a combination of knowledge and interpersonal skills. I'd argue that without the knowledge....it doesn't matter if you have great interpersonal skills. There are definitely some people who aren't cut out to be clinicians, though I'd argue it is because they lack the former and not the latter.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Being a quality clinician involves a combination of knowledge and interpersonal skills.

I'd add "strong technical skills" to the mix as well, maybe even trumping "knowledge." Without good practicum experiences and strong individualized supervision, many students graduate without the technical skills needed to be quality clinicians (though they may be real knowledgeable about psychology and therapy, they just can't apply that knowledge). That can contribute to poor career advancement and lack of satisfaction.

 

[Sanman]

I disagree that it was for nothing, as it is a good learning experience and I think a vital aspect of graduate training. With that being said, I do agree that for people who busted their butts and stayed extra years to get more publications....not attaining an academic position would be pretty rough.

It sounds like you came into your training with at least a modest idea of the field and your path. I think students really get in trouble by NOT understanding the field, the market, and how their goals may or may not fit into these areas. It is beyond frustrating to see students come here (and into grad school) with a, "I don't care what you say, the market says, the field is saying...I'm going to do XYZ....", as 95% of the time the light at the end of the tunnel is a train. I think that is one reason why there is more push back with the less reputable programs because the costs just keep growing (tuition & loan % rates), and there is no course correction by students or the APA.

Not to say that the process of publishing is not a valuable learning experience (though it does make me want to bang my head against a wall at times). However, I don't think you are gaining as much from your 15th publication as the first few. At that point, many in the field are staying up at night trying to outdo the competition. There is a point where learning has diminished and you are simply trying to build your CV ( for many) given that there are only a certain number of projects that likely peaked your interest in grad school and the rest you work because you have to do so, IME. I see so many shoot for R1 positions and no one tells them things like you are better off getting more teaching experience because that is what many smaller institutions are more interested in.

You know, my journey was a combination of realizing that I would not be a superstar in grad school from the beginning (I have a chronic health condition and knew I would have to let things slide/be realistic if I wanted to get through without getting sick) and a thorough researching of the job market. I knew I liked neuropsych and health psych and saw both to be areas that would do well. My interests ended up more in health psych, but I have a strong neuro background as well. I also realize the importance of career portability (I like my career, but would not give up my relationship with my SO to move to the middle of nowhere and be unhappy outside of my career) and having a number of options on your path. Thus, I have gained military/VA experience as well to round out my options (I like the idea of service in capacity I can handle). I like teaching, but realize that it is something I can do as an adjunct. I just don't see many students or early career people in the field who have really done market analysis and know what job prospects and salaries to expect. As a result I see quite a few disappointed about the poor prospects of early career private practice (especially psychodynamic/psychoanalytic people), unprepared for academic careers below an r1 institution, and other who are disappointed in the salaries of their chosen area of the field (mostly those in college counseling centers and those working with children/families in community mental health). Those that chose a path more similar to mine seem happier in the field (VA employees, health psych people, neuropsych people, medical school/center academics).