PhD/PsyD accelerated curriculum

[lithiumland]

any schools out there that grant psychiatrists Advance standing for work already done in the field in obtaining a PhD in clinical psychology

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

No. Just like med school there are pre-reqs and then the req. classes. There is barely any crossover in the class work and the research/dissertation couldn't be waived. If someone did substantial research and published, that may waive a program's thesis req (not all programs have them).

 

[barryggg]

My suggestion...just become an M.D and be a real doctor.

 

[psych.meout]

My suggestion...just become an M.D and be a real doctor.

So, does that make psychologists fake doctors?

 

[barryggg]

So, does that make psychologists fake doctors?

Sure..as a Phd standard makes no sense for Psychology. Most of the world realizes this. The field is so far back of many fields..that it just makes no sense. It's sort of like creating a Phd system for chefs. Sure, there are better chefs and worse ones, but you don't need 10 yrs to figure that out. It's just that the Universities want cheap labor.

 

[PsychPhDone]

Sure..as a Phd standard makes no sense for Psychology. Most of the world realizes this. The field is so far back of many fields..that it just makes no sense. It's sort of like creating a Phd system for chefs. Sure, there are better chefs and worse ones, but you don't need 10 yrs to figure that out. It's just that the Universities want cheap labor.

I get that you have some strong opinions but I think they're meandering their way into unrelated threads now. Can we just help the OP without turning this into Old Thread 3.0?

 

[PsychPhDone]

any schools out there that grant psychiatrists Advance standing for work already done in the field in obtaining a PhD in clinical psychology

Not really. Why do you want a phd in addition to already completed md? There may be other ways to achieve that goal (e.g., research fellowship, additional psychotherapy training).

 

[psych.meout]

Sure..as a Phd standard makes no sense for Psychology. Most of the world realizes this. The field is so far back of many fields..that it just makes no sense. It's sort of like creating a Phd system for chefs. Sure, there are better chefs and worse ones, but you don't need 10 yrs to figure that out. It's just that the Universities want cheap labor.

Yeah, that's what I thought you'd say.

 

[rerope]

Is it the PhD you want, the ability to do therapy or the ability to do more focused research? Because for the last two I doubt you'd have to go through all that trouble. I believe NIH has fellowships/grants specifically those who were previously more clinical focused and now want to participate in research; I don't remember the code though...

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Sure..as a Phd standard makes no sense for Psychology.

You clearly have no understanding of the field. It's important to understand how to study the clinical interventions and effects. Advanced training in clinical and research is needed to do it right....or we'd have the efficacy of chiropractors.

 

[psych.meout]

You clearly have no understanding of the field. It's important to understand how to study the clinical interventions and effects. Advanced training in clinical and research is needed to do it right....or we'd have the efficacy of chiropractors.

I completely agree with you, but my problem with barryggg's arguments here and in other recent posts is how disingenuous they are. They denigrate counter arguments as being based on anecdotes and opinions, but their own assertions are equally based on opinions that are somehow more valid than everyone else's. When asked for some sort of empirical evidence all they can point to is Canadian masters level providers also completing the EPPP, while ignoring that their detractors have always pointed to the EPPP as a minimal standard at best, not necessarily a singular sign of proficient training.

 

[barryggg]

Listen to what you guys are saying.

You are suggesting that the rest of the western world has it wrong, and that their providers are not as good. ..because they don't have a Phd standard. It's a ridiculous claim that can only be justified by someone who feels they have to justify their extra schooling.

 

[erg923]

Listen to what you guys are saying.

You are suggesting that the rest of the western world has it wrong, and that their providers are not as good. ..because they don't have a Phd standard. It's a ridiculous claim that can only be justified by someone who feels they have to justify their extra schooling.

MERICA, BABY!

 

[WisNeuro]

*yawn*

 

[PsyDr]

Listen to what you guys are saying.

You are suggesting that the rest of the western world has it wrong, and that their providers are not as good. ..because they don't have a Phd standard. It's a ridiculous claim that can only be justified by someone who feels they have to justify their extra schooling.

Inventors of most psychological tests, invented most empirically supported psychotherapies, published the most research, the Netflix algorithm....... yeah, the USA is just sucking at psychology.

*posted on a US based nonprofit website purposed to spread knowledge of the field.

 

[barryggg]

Inventors of most psychological tests, invented most empirically supported psychotherapies, published the most research, the Netflix algorithm....... yeah, the USA is just sucking at psychology.

*posted on a US based nonprofit website purposed to spread knowledge of the field.

That just means that the US is taking the profession the most seriously. If you had any idea about much of the rest of the world, Psychology is not seen as a necessity. People don't take it seriously. (and I take no pleasure in that).

The discussion about how long training should be is a totally different question!

 

[psych.meout]

Listen to what you guys are saying.

You are suggesting that the rest of the western world has it wrong, and that their providers are not as good. ..because they don't have a Phd standard. It's a ridiculous claim that can only be justified by someone who feels they have to justify their extra schooling.

No, you're the one who is saying that one system (i.e. the US) is wrong based on what other systems (e.g. others western nations) do. Other people here have been consistently saying that there is not enough research to compare the roles, training, scopes of practice, etc. between the US and other countries.

That just means that the US is taking the profession the most seriously. If you had any idea about much of the rest of the world, Psychology is not seen as a necessity. People don't take it seriously. (and I take no pleasure in that).

The discussion about how long training should be is a totally different question!

You realize that you're only hurting your argument, right?

You keep going on and on about how other western nations don't require doctoral degrees for psychologists in clinical practice and how flawed the US system is, but now you're saying that other countries don't take psychology as seriously or see it as a necessity? Don't you see how you've presented a plausible argument for why these other nations don't require doctorates, thereby buttressing what we have been saying about the necessity and utility of doctoral training in clinical psychology, Don't you see how you are refuting your own argument that masters level education is equally sufficient?

 

[WisNeuro]

Curious how we quantify that the rest of the world does not care about psychology. Last numbers I saw, the US was 8th in the world at psychologists per capita. That would seem to argue against "not caring," at least from an applied perspective.

 

[barryggg]

Curious how we quantify that the rest of the world does not care about psychology. Last numbers I saw, the US was 8th in the world at psychologists per capita. That would seem to argue against "not caring," at least from an applied perspective.

Well they probably have more since their training takes less time.

But again, this is not to suggest that their education is not quality.

 

[barryggg]

You realize that you're only hurting your argument, right?

You keep going on and on about how other western nations don't require doctoral degrees for psychologists in clinical practice and how flawed the US system is, but now you're saying that other countries don't take psychology as seriously or see it as a necessity? Don't you see how you've presented a plausible argument for why these other nations don't require doctorates, thereby buttressing what we have been saying about the necessity and utility of doctoral training in clinical psychology, Don't you see how you are refuting your own argument that masters level education is equally sufficient?

Not comparing Psychology to Psychic mediums..but psychic mediums also get a lot of attention in the US (and make billions of dollars) compared to a lot of the world..all that means is that they're taking this a lot more seriously, and have come up with more angles to justify their "expertise".

 

[WisNeuro]

Ah, I forgot, we go on unsubstantiated opinion in here.

 

[barryggg]

Ah, I forgot, we go on unsubstantiated opinion in here.

I don't think you are wrong with what you said..necessarily.

You could even make the case that they value you it MORE, in the sense that (imo) they have a better understanding of what Psychology is, and what it isn't, and what it can/can't answer...and that matches up to the training. Where in the US it doesn't.

I think this sums up my opinion fairly well. I feel the training in Europe matches up well with what Psychology is, and what questions it can answer. While I feel that in America it's given this status that it doesn't deserve really, and then that is used to justify a Phd standard, and there is no indication that this is any way serves people better. It does serve the Colleges better, though.

 

[WisNeuro]

I believe we have a coherency problem here.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Why limit it to only one problem?

 

[barryggg]

You guys are sort of proof of what I'm saying. No arguments. No facts. Just insults.

 

[WisNeuro]

There really is no argument here to begin with. You just say random things and then refute and change your assertions at will. You're kind of arguing against yourself here.

 

[erg923]

You guys are sort of proof of what I'm saying. No arguments. No facts. Just insults.

USA, USA, USA

 

[psych.meout]

I don't think you are wrong with what you said..necessarily.

You could even make the case that they value you it MORE, in the sense that (imo) they have a better understanding of what Psychology is, and what it isn't, and what it can/can't answer...and that matches up to the training. Where in the US it doesn't.

I think this sums up my opinion fairly well. I feel the training in Europe matches up well with what Psychology is, and what questions it can answer. While I feel that in America it's given this status that it doesn't deserve really, and then that is used to justify a Phd standard, and there is no indication that this is any way serves people better. It does serve the Colleges better, though.

So, what about Beck, Skinner, Lezak, Linehan, Kabat-Zinn, Hayes, etc.? Are they all just scheisters?

 

[smalltownpsych]

You guys are sort of proof of what I'm saying. No arguments. No facts. Just insults.

My suggestion...just become an M.D and be a real doctor.

I personally find that statement to be insulting. I have no idea who you are or why you have this axe to grind, but I take what I do very seriously and I make life or death decisions like any other "real doctor". I also don't care that much what the rest of the world does or doesn't do as far as psychology goes.
Because I am...

Psychologist, that is.​

 

[erg923]

So, what about Beck, Skinner, Lezak, Linehan, Kabat-Zinn, Hayes, etc.? Are they all just scheisters?

Hucksters.

 

[barryggg]

So, what about Beck, Skinner, Lezak, Linehan, Kabat-Zinn, Hayes, etc.? Are they all just scheisters?

They have made great contributions. I use their work all the time. My main point in the many different threads has just been to say that despite these great contributions, what we know does not seem to match up to the training standards.

 

[psych.meout]

They have made great contributions. I use their work all the time. My main point in the many different threads has just been to say that despite these great contributions, what we know does not seem to match up to the training standards.

In what way do they not match up?

Don't all the innovations and groundbreaking research made by American psychologists who were educated under these training standards you're denigrating act as evidence for the soundness of this training model?

 

[Justanothergrad]

Anyone want popcorn or snacks?

 

[smalltownpsych]

In what way do they not match up?

Don't all the innovations and groundbreaking research made by American psychologists who were educated under these training standards you're denigrating act as evidence for the soundness of this training model?

I think the point that is being made is that when it comes to the actual providing of psychological services, a masters degree level of training is sufficient. I hired masters level clinicians to provide some of these very services. It is a perfectly reasonable point to make, but one that is obviously not very popular at the student doctor network. Although I do think that masters level providers can be effective, I also don't agree that doctoral level clinicians are not necessary or provide added benefit. Maybe the OP should wade into the physicians forums to discuss midlevel encroachment to see how popular the notion is there.

 

[psych.meout]

I think the point that is being made is that when it comes to the actual providing of psychological services, a masters degree level of training is sufficient. I hired masters level clinicians to provide some of these very services. It is a perfectly reasonable point to make, but one that is obviously not very popular at the student doctor network. Although I do think that masters level providers can be effective, I also don't agree that doctoral level clinicians are not necessary or provide added benefit. Maybe the OP should wade into the physicians forums to discuss midlevel encroachment to see how popular the notion is there.

I don't disagree with you that masters-level providers are able to provide value and some services. I am somewhat wary of them concerning unjustified scope of practice creep and expansion of independent practice, but I do see their utility, especially in regards to issues of access to care.

I'm at least highly skeptical of the notion, posited by barryggg, that doctoral training is superfluous for providing psychological services. They don't seem to be interested in a nuanced discussion of the complexities of graduate training in psychology, scope of practice, healthcare economics, or any of the other complex issues at play. This is fairly obvious from the tenor of their comments here, including insinuating that psychologists are fake doctors and that doctoral programs only serve to allow the universities and their programs to "use" the students.

 

[barryggg]

In what way do they not match up?

Don't all the innovations and groundbreaking research made by American psychologists who were educated under these training standards you're denigrating act as evidence for the soundness of this training model?

I believe that a Phd should be required if you're going to do research and teach. (even if only part time). I just don't think it makes sense for a large group of people who know that they mainly want to do assessment or therapy. I think at least 50% of candidates fit into this category. (but it's probably a much bigger majority)

I don't disagree that these people would still need good research and statistics training (it needs to be the basis of their diagnostic work and therapy). This can be done through courses, working at a lab, doing a Masters thesis. All of these things should be requirements. But this shouldn't take more than 2-3 years..if these programs are specialized.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I believe that a Phd should be required if you're going to do research and teach. (even if only part time). I just don't think it makes sense for a large group of people who know that they mainly want to do assessment or therapy. I think at least 50% of candidates fit into this category. (but it's probably a much bigger majority)

I don't disagree that these people would still need good research and statistics training (it needs to be the basis of their diagnostic work and therapy). This can be done through courses, working at a lab, doing a Masters thesis. All of these things should be requirements. But this shouldn't take more than 2-3 years..if these programs are specialized.

How do you arrive at what is the appropriate level of training? Why not a bachelors with a few 1000 supervised hours? I actually worked at a place that referred to case workers as bachelors level therapists so that they wouldn't have to pay 38k a year to the fresh grads from the online masters programs who were accruing hours.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I believe that a Phd should be required if you're going to do research and teach. (even if only part time). I just don't think it makes sense for a large group of people who know that they mainly want to do assessment or therapy. I think at least 50% of candidates fit into this category. (but it's probably a much bigger majority).

As someone who specializes in assessment, this seems pretty odd to me for a few reasons.

1. Assessment is one of the defining features that differentiates psychology from other mental health professions so saying you don't need advanced training to do it is a real strike at a core value of the field. Its what we do well.

2. I doubt that limited numbers of training opportunities can standardize assessment knowledge sufficiently. I find that even many doctoral students don't have sufficient training and that it is a major area of growth for them. They lack an exposure to instruments, a grasp of fluency for the theory behind the instruments, and often do not have sufficient exposure to the literature critiquing even common instruments. All those things are critical when it comes to interpreting, integrating, and (Heaven forbid) defending your choices and use in court. I don't see how one (or two, if lucky) courses and very few field experiences will prepare someone to conduct assessments efficiently.

I would be curious to see what you would consider as sufficient training/qualifications to do assessment effectively. I read enough bad reports and inaccurate statements as it is.

 

[WisNeuro]

I have supervised students from dozens of grad programs. Most of those being programs with near 100% accredited match rates and EPPP rates, and many from more balanced or clinically oriented programs. Assessment is still something interns struggle with. I seriously doubt therapy and assessment could be taught competently in "2-3 years." Run a poll of supervisors on here, and I'm fairly confident that their real world experience is more in line with mine than thinking that these students would be A-ok after a couple years.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I think psych.meout already alluded to problems with scope of practice creep and we see it here in action with the reference to assessment. Nevertheless, I honestly think and have had many masters level therapists tell me that my additional training and skill set as a doctoral level psychologist does indeed bring something extra to the table. Some of these folks were clinicians who I had a significant amount of respect for. A few even had skills that surpassed mine in certain areas and we would learn from each other. What is ironic is that it is hard to explain at times the strengths that a psychologist brings, but the really good clinicians recognize it. "You are really good at differential diagnosis." "Could you help me out with what some of the latest research is on x, y, or z" "I really appreciate the way that you can think of legal and ethical issues and how those intersect with the treatment." "I wish I was as good at integrating the current research with my case conceptualizations."

Notice that I'm not even mentioning assessment which is something that most master's level clinicians have almost no knowledge of and they freely acknowledge that.

So my question is: If real life practicing master's level clinicians can appreciate what psychologists bring to the table, then why are we even having this debate?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I just don't think it makes sense for a large group of people who know that they mainly want to do assessment or therapy. I think at least 50% of candidates fit into this category. (but it's probably a much bigger majority)

If someone is doing assessment they better have a strong background in research and statistics. The vast majority of generalists can handle the basics, but that's it. As for mid-levels doing assessment....that's typically a mess.

 

[Indiana_Jane]

I am first year PhD student and there is no way in this life or the next I would be prepared to competently administer and interpret assessments (and defend them in court) with no supervision after two years of training (and in that span of time maybe taking 2 courses and 1 assessment practicum). The thought of only having 2 years to administer assessments and receive feedback seems frightening to me (and I am someone planning an assessment heavy path in grad school). That's not enough time! Granted, I'm a first year and n of 1.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[cara susanna]

A few thoughts:

- Schooling in itself is also very different in other countries in terms of structure. I don't think we can make exact comparisons, given that completing post-graduate work in the US is very different from doing so in say, the UK. Someone just starting a PhD program in the UK is at a different level than someone just starting a PhD program in the US because the previous education requirements are different.
- I maintain that you need a solid understanding of statistics and research to conduct assessments. If you don't, you won't truly understand what you're doing or what the test data are showing you.
- I think that that the USA's psychology training structure is a bit too convoluted and long, but I don't think that taking away doctoral study entirely is the way to fix that. It took me five years of graduate school, one year of internship, and over one year of post doc before I felt ready to become a fully functioning and independent professional psychologist. So I'm not sure what I'd want to cut out. Maybe not anything, maybe it's the fact that I had to move across the country so many times that I found so onerous.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

cara…that's pretty normal (based on what I experienced and what I've seen with all of the fellows I've supervised over the years). It is far better you come from that route than the person who thinks part-way through their fellowship that they are good to go. When you are finally able to practice independently the first few weeks/months is a mix of awesomeness and fear. I was thankful to have a colleague who was in a similar position and a very senior faculty that I could consult with about cases. I'm now realizing that *I'm* one of the people that younger faculty look to…it's weird to say the least.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I am first year PhD student and there is no way in this life or the next I would be prepared to competently administer and interpret assessments (and defend them in court) with no supervision after two years of training (and in that span of time maybe taking 2 courses and 1 assessment practicum). The thought of only having 2 years to administer assessments and receive feedback seems frightening to me (and I am someone planning an assessment heavy path in grad school). That's not enough time! Granted, I'm a first year and n of 1.

There is always room to learn and grow. It's important to keep yourself in the humble + always learning approach because there is always more to learn.

As you progress in your training, I'd recommend digging a bit deeper in the assessment measures (i.e. the psychometrics and why things like sensitivity, specificity, etc. matter). Hopefully your program and mentor(s) will cover this in more detail, but it really does help. I recently did a review article on a particular measure and it forced me to re-read some of the nitty gritty stuff to make sure I captured everything in my article. It's a lot like learning statistics…when you see it in action it can really crystalize the concepts.

 

[barryggg]

If someone is doing assessment they better have a strong background in research and statistics. The vast majority of generalists can handle the basics, but that's it. As for mid-levels doing assessment....that's typically a mess.

You stopped short and quoted only the top portion of my post. I literally write almost exactly what you wrote here!!

And I don't even disagree that how Generalist training is currently..it's not sufficient. But let's change undergrad a bit, and change Masters programs..instead of saying Undergrad and Masters do not prepare someone, so let's just conclude that Phd should be the standard for all people.

 

[psych.meout]

You stopped short and quoted only the top portion of my post. I literally write almost exactly what you wrote here!!

And I don't even disagree that how Generalist training is currently..it's not sufficient. But let's change undergrad a bit, and change Masters programs..instead of saying Undergrad and Masters do not prepare someone, so let's just conclude that Phd should be the standard for all people.

Again, you're misconstruing what people are saying. The point that multiple people here are making is that even with all the doctoral training that you find to be excessive, providers are still often woefully incompetent at their jobs, frequently because they are overconfident in their abilities, assessment measures, their scopes of practice, etc. This is why so many of them who have lamented the length of doctoral programs are at a loss for what should actually be cut from said programs. Thus, your idea of compressing the training required to be proficient psychologist into master's programs or even partly in undergrad is short-sighted and obtuse.

 

[barryggg]

Again, you're misconstruing what people are saying. The point that multiple people here are making is that even with all the doctoral training that you find to be excessive, providers are still often woefully incompetent at their jobs, frequently because they are overconfident in their abilities, assessment measures, their scopes of practice, etc. This is why so many of them who have lamented the length of doctoral programs are at a loss for what should actually be cut from said programs. Thus, your idea of compressing the training required to be proficient psychologist into master's programs or even partly in undergrad is short-sighted and obtuse.

Ever consider that the reason students are still incompetent, overconfident in their abilities, their scope of practice...is that the training is not done properly? (and I'm not referring to bad programs..but just in general?) Ever consider that the solution to this may not be more schooling or keeping the same amount? Ever consider that it might be a bad idea to make students spend so much time doing original research, even if their goal is to be a clinician? How does doing a specific experiment, where you answer a very specific question, help you be a better clinician overall? Is the suggestion that students would be unable to understand or appreciate Psychology as evidence-based, and to apply the latest research, if they don't spend at least 30-50% of their Phd career doing the original research themselves? Where is the proof for this? Isn't the main point of teaching them original research so that they could end up doing original research themselves and advance the field?

Finally, ever consider that people go beyond their scope or are overconfident because so much of the education from undergrad to Phd is preparing people to be a Generalist, but then people end up specializing (a Generalist focuses mostly on anxiety disorders, or mood disorders) and then so much of what they learned is not all that relevant?

 

[erg923]

Ever consider that the reason students are still incompetent, overconfident in their abilities, their scope of practice...is that the training is not done properly? (and I'm not referring to bad programs..but just in general?) Ever consider that the solution to this may not be more schooling or keeping the same amount? Ever consider that it might be a bad idea to make students spend so much time doing original research, even if their goal is to be a clinician? How does doing a specific experiment, where you answer a very specific question, help you be a better clinician overall? Is the suggestion that students would be unable to understand or appreciate Psychology as evidence-based, and to apply the latest research, if they don't spend at least 30-50% of their Phd career doing the original research themselves? Where is the proof for this? Isn't the main point of teaching them original research so that they could end up doing original research themselves and advance the field?

Finally, ever consider that people go beyond their scope or are overconfident because so much of the education from undergrad to Phd is preparing people to be a Generalist, but then people end up specializing (a Generalist focuses mostly on anxiety disorders, or mood disorders) and then so much of what they learned is not all that relevant?

are you a psychologist licensed in the US?

 

[smalltownpsych]

Incompetent people and length and type of training have a very weak correlation in any industry. In psychology it is even worse because the outcomes are more difficult to measure. Test scores are weak predictors as well. Interviews are the weak st predictors of all. So should we get rid of all of this stuff? In this state you can become a licensed contractor and start building houses with no training, education, or test. You just pay the fee. They also don't waste too much time with building inspections. When I lived in California it was completely the opposite. Which state has safer houses? How do we measure it and then where do we draw the lines? These are actually extremely complex questions that have political and philosophical foundations. It is actually great to ask these types of questions, but to act as though you have the right answer because that's how they do it somewhere else is not in line with how a psychologist is trained and expected to think.