Accepted to PsyD Programs... But Is It Worth It?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Skvader said:
I happened to read this thread last night:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=804394

And it's... discouraging. I've wanted to go into clinical psychology for many years. I told myself that a doctorate was my best bet because 1) there would be more job opportunities and 2) the salaries would be higher (especially in California, where there are sooo many marriage and family therapists). I saw MFT programs as backups, should I not get accepted into any decent PsyD programs.

Well, now I've been accepted into Pacific University and Spalding... but after reading the above thread, I find myself questioning my career path all over again. I absolutely hate this website sometimes, because just when I think I've got everything figured out... someone says something that causes me to doubt myself yet again.

So am I essentially wasting time and money by pursuing a doctorate degree vs. a masters degree in marriage and family therapy? Geez...

And to answer a few questions that I'm fairly sure will pop up...
1. I am interested in research, but not as the focus of my career. I want work with patients to be my main focus.
2. I love the CBT approach, so it's not like I JUST want to use psychotherapy when working with patients.
3. I want to work with adolescent, young adult, couples, and family populations.
4. I want to work with a variety of issues, but mood disorders and anxiety disorders are my passion.
5. I don't have any desire to become a professor/lecturer.
6. I would prefer to work in California, as that is where I have lived my entire life; however, I am willing to move out-of-state (Oregon or Kentucky) to pursue a PsyD degree. Therefore, I imagine I would also be willing to re-locate yet again, should the job market demand it.

Thank you in advance to everyone who takes the time to respond to this thread!
​
Click to expand...

I think you should find some Psy.D. psychologists around your area and see if they need a psychometrist. Work with them, pick their brain and find out why the Psy.D. was a choice for them. You really do end up wasting time trying to debate your rationale for going the Psy.D. route on here. We have addressed many of the opinions on both sides of the aisle in regards to those who are for and against Psy.D. programs. This profession is a tricky one, seeing how its foundation is built on the premise of quantifying behavior via valid and reliable assessments that tease out or identify behaviors vs. a pure clinical observation approach, yet, we fail to realize that there are many outliers who may not conform to what "normal" people would do and how they can take a different path to the same goal. If you are near any institution that provides the Psy.D., I would try to reach out to those students who are attending, who have attended and faculty members of the program. In the past couple of years of surfing this site, I often find the claims made here differ greatly from those that I have obtained from sources outside a website in which a select cluster of people holding the same beliefs. I would use this site as a resource in conjunction with others, but please do not use this as the place where you will base your professional decisions on. Remember who responds, is it really representative of the profession as a whole? Many of the repeat posters will throw out the "we follow APA data, etc" when in reality they are interpreting the data in their own way and not factoring in your personal situational circumstances. This isn't to say you should disregard their opinions, but recognize where you are sourcing the material from. Lastly, you shouldn't and don't need to address some of the more pervasive comments typically made towards taking out loans. It's none of their business, you have every right to use federal money as the next, your professional goals and your abilities to pay the money back are due to a multitude of factors that we here are not privy to and therefore cannot be the judge of your decision to take out $200K in loans of you so choose to.

smalltownpsych said:
It sounds like you are comparing your training at the highest tier of MFT to the lowest tier of psychologists. If you had become a psychologist then maybe you would have learned more about comparing group differences and overlapping distributions. Isn't it possible that some people opt for the lower degree because they don't have the ability to make into a highly competitive field? Not everyone can or should be a doctor. Although in California they are making it way too easy to become a psychologist and that might cause problems for everyone down the road.
Click to expand...

This is a pretty judgmental statement in itself, and one that is a contributing factor as to why many people often look at going for a doctorate in psychology. I know that it may seem irrelevant, but this is a stigma-laden statement towards MFTs and other master level practitioners. Do you think someone wants to hear someone tell them that the reason they went the MFT route was because they were too incompetent to become a psychologist? That is essentially how your statement rolls out. Perhaps there are people who would have made great psychologists, but you have a system put in place that judges the acceptance of those in a way that pushes out people who could have been great at treating certain populations, but we would never know because they went a different route. This one kind of has a personal offensive tone to me, because I identify myself as someone who would need to go an alternative route to reach the goal that many others have been afforded or lucky enough to land into funded or top tier programs.
 
CogNeuroGuy said:
This one kind of has a personal offensive tone to me, because I identify myself as someone who would need to go an alternative route to reach the goal that many others have been afforded or lucky enough to land into funded or top tier programs.
Click to expand...

People do not get into highly competitive programs because of "luck." That statement "offends" me...if we want to get all emotional about it and stuff.
 
erg923 said:
People do not get into highly competitive programs because of "luck." That statement "offends" me...if we want to get all emotional about it and stuff.
Click to expand...

True...and for that, it was a poor choice in words, but it still doesn't negate what I pointed out.
 
Lurking Oracle said:
Then edit your statement to exclude the reference to applicants being "lucky enough"
Click to expand...

...or, if we can read, people will see me admitting the poor choice in words. I find that more effective as it allows people to see my original statement followed by a correction. This way, if someone wants to reference what I said, they can.
 
CogNeuroGuy said:
I think you should find some Psy.D. psychologists around your area and see if they need a psychometrist. Work with them, pick their brain and find out why the Psy.D. was a choice for them. You really do end up wasting time trying to debate your rationale for going the Psy.D. route on here. We have addressed many of the opinions on both sides of the aisle in regards to those who are for and against Psy.D. programs. This profession is a tricky one, seeing how its foundation is built on the premise of quantifying behavior via valid and reliable assessments that tease out or identify behaviors vs. a pure clinical observation approach, yet, we fail to realize that there are many outliers who may not conform to what "normal" people would do and how they can take a different path to the same goal. If you are near any institution that provides the Psy.D., I would try to reach out to those students who are attending, who have attended and faculty members of the program. In the past couple of years of surfing this site, I often find the claims made here differ greatly from those that I have obtained from sources outside a website in which a select cluster of people holding the same beliefs. I would use this site as a resource in conjunction with others, but please do not use this as the place where you will base your professional decisions on. Remember who responds, is it really representative of the profession as a whole? Many of the repeat posters will throw out the "we follow APA data, etc" when in reality they are interpreting the data in their own way and not factoring in your personal situational circumstances. This isn't to say you should disregard their opinions, but recognize where you are sourcing the material from. Lastly, you shouldn't and don't need to address some of the more pervasive comments typically made towards taking out loans. It's none of their business, you have every right to use federal money as the next, your professional goals and your abilities to pay the money back are due to a multitude of factors that we here are not privy to and therefore cannot be the judge of your decision to take out $200K in loans of you so choose to.



This is a pretty judgmental statement in itself, and one that is a contributing factor as to why many people often look at going for a doctorate in psychology. I know that it may seem irrelevant, but this is a stigma-laden statement towards MFTs and other master level practitioners. Do you think someone wants to hear someone tell them that the reason they went the MFT route was because they were too incompetent to become a psychologist? That is essentially how your statement rolls out. Perhaps there are people who would have made great psychologists, but you have a system put in place that judges the acceptance of those in a way that pushes out people who could have been great at treating certain populations, but we would never know because they went a different route. This one kind of has a personal offensive tone to me, because I identify myself as someone who would need to go an alternative route to reach the goal that many others have been afforded or lucky enough to land into funded or top tier programs.
Click to expand...
I think that psychologists are the best and I refer friends and family to psychologists. Yes. That is judgmental and I stand by my right to make these choices and evaluations. I would also choose an MD over a PA or NP. I was also intentionally being negative toward that poster because I don't like the dynamic of equivalency of degrees since it devalues what I and others in my profession work hard to maintain. It seems to me that was their only purpose for their one post.
 
edieb said:
I can only speak to my experiences, but I think you should completely re-think entering into psychology for any reason other than if you wish to conduct research. This is because 1 - There are just too many professions who perform psychotherapy, 2 - The relative total of dollars spent on psychotherapy has been on the decline for the past decade and the decline is continuing, 3 - Psychological testing is not valued in most settings anymore, 4 -Income in psychology, which was already relatively low, is continuing to drop precipitously.
Click to expand...

I've been told similar facts, but haven't been able to find a source to cite. My friend wants to get an MFT and was asking me about any potential drawbacks, and I would love to give them some solid numbers. Anybody have any helpful links in regards to this?
 
SharkBait13 said:
I've been told similar facts, but haven't been able to find a source to cite. My friend wants to get an MFT and was asking me about any potential drawbacks, and I would love to give them some solid numbers. Anybody have any helpful links in regards to this?
Click to expand...

As in informal way of looking at this, you can look for various jobs on USAJobs. There has been a relative explosion of new positions at the MFT and various social worker positions for mental health positions in the VA system. Recently have seen several proposals for MFT training programs at some of the larger VA's. That goes to point 1 there. Points 3 and 4 are debatable, depends on what areas you are in and what you bill for, really.
 
SharkBait13 said:
I've been told similar facts, but haven't been able to find a source to cite. My friend wants to get an MFT and was asking me about any potential drawbacks, and I would love to give them some solid numbers. Anybody have any helpful links in regards to this?
Click to expand...

In regard to reimbursement, many/most private insurances work off of Medicare rates. When looking at Medicare rates (when adjusting for inflation, etc), reimbursement is definitely down. I'm sure a bit of googling will turn up some hard data to this effect, as I've seen it referenced here and there (mostly during professional presentations).
 
smalltownpsych said:
I think that psychologists are the best and I refer friends and family to psychologists. Yes. That is judgmental and I stand by my right to make these choices and evaluations. I would also choose an MD over a PA or NP. I was also intentionally being negative toward that poster because I don't like the dynamic of equivalency of degrees since it devalues what I and others in my profession work hard to maintain. It seems to me that was their only purpose for their one post.
Click to expand...

I completely understand your right to do much of anything really, however, I think in this case, when I see others post on here questioning why people want to get a doctorate (Psy.D.) in psychology, you should at least acknowledge that this thought process you have presented is part of the issue why people have the perception that the Ph.D./Psy.D. is the ONLY way to be a mental health professional, and that somehow, other programs (e.g. MSW, LPC, etc.) are lesser than these practitioners. When I see people ask about attending a Psy.D. program and perhaps other posters say "why not go to a MSW program" and become ridiculed, you could hardly blame them for going to a Psy.D. program knowing that there is a professional stigma towards them as evident from your perspective and comment you made. It's a catch 22 almost, seeing how those who may want to focus on therapy are often recommended to go into a master's program, and those who want to research and provide psychological assessments should go the Ph.D./Psy.D. route, however, if they go the master's route, regardless of the fact that it is cheaper or it suits their professional needs, they will still have that stigma attached no fault of their own, but rather the people who do the ridiculing.

That is my opinion.
 
and that somehow, other programs (e.g. MSW, LPC, etc.) are lesser than these practitioners.
Click to expand...

I don't think I have ever heard any of the regular posters say that. People only take issue when these providers (MSW, LPC), suggest that they do the same work as Psychologists or that their training is as comprehensive.

I've only ever heard people here try to give the best possible advice based on what the OP says. If they suggest that they want to be Psychologists but are only really interested in therapy, people always suggest that you can do therapy with a Masters and nobody looks down on them. If people want to be Psychologists so badly but want to pick professional schools, people try to warn them about all the potential consequences. etc
 
CogNeuroGuy said:
and that somehow, other programs (e.g. MSW, LPC, etc.) are lesser than these practitioners.
Click to expand...

Why are you so timid about admitting that they ARE. Not as people of course, but as professionals. Is this a PC thing with you or something?

The doctoral degree is the highest degree and training one can reach, thus by definition we are MORE (in terms of scope and depth of education) than the typical LCSW. Why cant you be comfortable with that?
 
Last edited:
erg923 said:
Why are you so timid about admitting that they ARE. Is this a PC thing with you or something? The doctoral degree in the highest degree and training one can reach, thus by definition we are MORE (in terms of scope and depth of education) than the typical LCSW. Why cant you be comfortable with that?
Click to expand...
Sure, but that is besides the point. For people that don't care about research/teaching, it be pointless for them to get the degree, and they are not competing vs Psychologists.

If Psychologists are MORE, on some level then you are saying that a LCSW is in essence doing the same job with less training. If they aren't doing the same work then why would you compare yourself to them and how can Psychologists be MORE?
 
psych844 said:
Sure, but that is besides the point. For people that don't care about research/teaching, it be pointless for them to get the degree, and they are not competing vs Psychologists.

If Psychologists are MORE, on some level then you are saying that a LCSW is in essence doing the same job with less training. If they aren't doing the same work then why would you compare yourself to them and how can Psychologists be MORE?
Click to expand...

I cant really follow your question here.
 
psych844 said:
You said Psychologists are "more" than LCSW, I'm suggesting that is odd to compare when they aren't doing the same work.
Click to expand...

Of course we are. Therapy/counseling and clinical diagnosis of psychopathology, right?
 
erg923 said:
Of course we are. Therapy/counseling and clinical diagnosis of psychopathology, right?
Click to expand...
Maybe i'm forgetting but whenever mid-level providers have tried to compare themselves to Psychologists (of doing the same work), they have always been corrected.
 
psych844 said:
Maybe i'm forgetting but whenever mid-level providers have tried to compare themselves to Psychologists (of doing the same work), they have always been corrected.
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing specific job duties with job description and the general scope of practice.

Of course SWs at my place of employment do some of the things I do, i.e., therapy/counseling and clinical diagnosis of psychopathology. My "job description" reads much differently than theirs however, thus I do many other things (and have responsibilities and duties) that they do not.
 
erg923 said:
I think you are confusing specific job duties with job description and the general scope of practice.

Of course SWs at my place of employment do some of the things I do, i.e., therapy/counseling and clinical diagnosis of psychopathology. My "job description" reads much differently than theirs however, thus I do many other things (and have responsibilities and duties) that they do not.
Click to expand...

I'm not confusing that at all, I understand that. My point is that people here regularly give the advice that if someone is largely interested in therapy there is no need to go the Phd route. My interpretation of that is that a Masters is sufficient or equivalent in many ways to a Phd in that aspect, (giving therapy, and simple diagnosis or referral)...it is really only if you want the ability to do assessments/do research/teach, that a Phd makes sense. This is correct advice, but in the same sense, it doesn't make sense for a Psychologist (who got additional training because of their interests) to then compare themselves to a person who only ever wanted to do therapy. That is like a Surgeon telling a Family Doctor "we are the best doctors because we do surgery, that is the highest/longest training you can get"..how is that relevant for the FM who had no interest in those other skills? Surgery skills are not the same as FM skills.
 
erg923 said:
Why are you so timid about admitting that they ARE. Not as people of course, but as professionals. Is this a PC thing with you or something?

The doctoral degree is the highest degree and training one can reach, thus by definition we are MORE (in terms of scope and depth of education) than the typical LCSW. Why cant you be comfortable with that?
Click to expand...

I mean, there are other factors involved. If I was searching for a therapist, I would probably be more comfortable with an LCSW with 20 years of CBT experience than a newly licensed psychologist. Yes, newly minted psychologists have more intensive education credentials (and probably more knowledge of EBT) than newly minted social workers, but education doesn't stop after graduation. I'm not comfortable with blanket statements like "all (or even 90% of) psychologists are better trained than all masters level clinicians."

That being said, I'm proud of my degree and to call myself a psychologist. 🙂.
 
psych844 said:
the ability to do assessments/do research/teach, that a Phd makes sense.
Click to expand...

Well, I think that's a bit of simplification and distortion, but even so, I would argue all of these are pieces/aspects of mental health profession and service and the ability to these is, indeed, and by definition, "more" than your masters level colleagues. I fail to understand why that would be controversial or why people would be so reluctant to accept and admit this fact.
 
erg923 said:
Why are you so timid about admitting that they ARE. Not as people of course, but as professionals. Is this a PC thing with you or something?

The doctoral degree is the highest degree and training one can reach, thus by definition we are MORE (in terms of scope and depth of education) than the typical LCSW. Why cant you be comfortable with that?
Click to expand...

..so, pretty much everything that has been mentioned above is what I have been trying to emphasize. In terms of your main question, I'm not sure what you mean by "PC"; I am not comfortable with people who have elected to go the MSW or LPC/LMHC route to be marginalized by psychologists or other health care providers for that matter, especially when the people doing it are the very people who suggest to take the master's route in the first place due to their professional interests (e.g. counseling). This is precisely why you will often see posters on here wanting to go to a Psy.D. to gain that "doctoral" level of education in regards to therapy, assessment, etc. so they can have more to bolster in their clinical toolbox compared to master level professionals and to often avoid the professional stigma that is exemplified in the statements provided by you as well as others.
 
Last edited:
CogNeuroGuy said:
..so, pretty much everything that has been mentioned above is what I have been trying to emphasize. In terms of your main question, I'm not sure what you mean by "PC"; I am not comfortable with people who have elected to go the MSW or LPC/LMHC route to be marginalized by psychologists or other health care providers for that matter, especially when the people doing it are the very people who suggest to take the master's route in the first place due to their professional interests (e.g. counseling). This is precisely why you will often see posters on here wanting to go to a Psy.D. to gain that "doctoral" level of education in regards to therapy, assessment, etc. so they can have more to bolster in their clinical toolbox compared to master level professionals and to often avoid the professional stigma that is exemplified in the statements provided by you as well as others.
Click to expand...

What "stigma?" Factual statements about more and less in terms of professional education and scope of practice. Are you serious?
 
Many posters (myself included) get frustrated when some mid-level providers intentionally and frequently try to blur the lines in regard to training, scope, and practice. "You do therapy...we do therapy! You do assessment...we do assessment! It's basically the same training...just without the research."
 
erg923 said:
What "stigma?" Factual statements about more and less in terms of professional education and scope of practice. Are you serious?
Click to expand...

...you must be a multicultural therapist 😛. Anywho, I think you fail to see the unique training these other practitioners provide that are either different or additive to what psychologists and psychiatrist provide. Like the other poster said, using a "blanket statement" is not a good approach here. Life isn't as black and white as you are wanting it to be, and it seems like you are trying to boil it down to be just that. Notice, I haven't said a doctoral level education isn't higher than those with a master's level, I am saying that these practitioners provide a different flavor to the table. One great example of this is that LCSW are trained to often approach the client from a sociological/ societal perspective in terms of diagnosis and treatment approach in addition to other common treatment options made available in counseling-related degrees (e.g. psychology, LCSW, LPC, etc.).

Perhaps you have issues with the other poster earlier who made poor choices in their blanketing of generalizations about MFTs being just like psychologists (I can't remember their comments), but how you are approaching this, even in the defense of the person who has defended their position on the topic is interesting. While you have made clear in the past that on here, you are not a psychologist and offer personal opinions on subject matter addressed here, you often do put in professional advice disguised as personal advice, so I get confused when you react to me when I point out how unprofessional your comments can be.
 
I am thinking you should post on the psychiatry forum about how a PMHNP is just a different flavor from a psychiatrist and see what kind of response you get. I have worked as a coworker, supervisor, and supervisee with MFTs, LPCs, and psychologists. All else being equal, I like psychologists because they bring the most to the table in my opinion. Of course, all things are never equal which is why one of the best therapists I have ever met was an LPC that worked for me for a couple of years. He taught me a thing or two because he had more experience and he also respected some of the additional knowledge, experience, and education that I had as a psychologist. My employer also saw the benefits of those other skills which is why I was hired to be the boss of a more experienced and clearly very talented individual. I for one would almost always want psychologists to be in leadership positions in mental health organizations because of their broad skill set and superior training.

I work mostly as a psychotherapist as do many psychologists and I paid too much for my degree. I would not be happy with half the debt and a LPC or MFT degree and would likely always feel a lot of regret that I wasn't a psychologist. I would never have considered a social work degree because that was not a path that sounded good to me at all. My dream was always to be a psychologist because I saw that as the best when I was a wee lad in community college and I still feel that way today. I will not apologize for that.
 
Last edited:
CogNeuroGuy said:
One great example of this is that LCSW are trained to often approach the client from a sociological/ societal perspective in terms of diagnosis and treatment approach in addition to other common treatment options made available in counseling-related degrees (e.g. psychology, LCSW, LPC, etc.).
Click to expand...
It's very clear that you have not completed doctoral training in psychology.
 
MCParent said:
It's very clear that you have not completed doctoral training in psychology.
Click to expand...

...of course, you know this, so I get the feeling you are using this as an insult to belittle what I have said. At any rate, what I am trying to convey, is that LCSWs bring to the table a flavor that I have found is lacking that many psychologists and psychiatrists often don't use. Take a look at any MSW program and you will often see them advertise their social justice approaches in mental health. Even my former mentor said the best training he had as a graduate student in his therapy coursework came from a LCSW and not a psychologist.

It's clear that this issue has really gone far from its intended purpose. I know who I am speaking to, so it is a moot point. You will have your opinions, I will have mine.
 
Last edited:
smalltownpsych said:
I am thinking you should post on the psychiatry forum about how a PMHNP is just a different flavor from a psychiatrist and see what kind of response you get. I have worked as a coworker, supervisor, and supervisee with MFTs, LPCs, and psychologists. All else being equal, I like psychologists because they bring the most to the table in my opinion. Of course, all things are never equal which is why one of the best therapists I have ever met was an LPC that worked for me for a couple of years. He taught me a thing or two because he had more experience and he also respected some of the additional knowledge, experience, and education that I had as a psychologist. My employer also saw the benefits of those other skills which is why I was hired to be the boss of a more experienced and clearly very talented individual. I for one would almost always want psychologists to be in leadership positions in mental health organizations because of their broad skill set and superior training.

I work mostly as a psychotherapist as do many psychologists and I paid too much for my degree. I would not be happy with half the debt and a LPC or MFT degree and would likely always feel a lot of regret that I wasn't a psychologist. I would never have considered a social work degree because that was not a path that sounded good to me at all. My dream was always to be a psychologist because I saw that as the best when I was a wee lad in community college and I still feel that way today. I will not apologize for that.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is, this is exactly my perspective one why I have elected to go the Psy.D. route vs. any other (Ph.D., LPC, LCSW), but I often see other posters on here who are torn to shreds by using this logic, especially if they didn't go to a reputable Psy.D. program (Rutgers, etc.) which paid some portion of their bill. It's a very interesting dynamic on here. I have not once said that MFTs or LPCs are the same or like psychologists, ever. I have emphasized their unique approaches they bring. Again, this, much like your statement is an opinion, it really is, unless you have some hardcore data to back up that I am just flat out wrong, then it becomes a battle of opinions. Last time I checked, we are all able to hold personal opinions on here.
 
Just curious though as to where the opinion comes from if you haven't practiced at the doctoral level with a variety of other providers (MD, LCSW, Masters, etc). How can you talk about the different "flavors" without working in those settings?
 
In my master's program I did several rotations in my two years as a GRA, in which my second year was more of an externship role where I was exposed to a couple of Psy.D.s in the departments of neurology, depression clinic, neuropsychology department and epilepsy unit. Out of these departments, neurology had LCSWs that I often spoke with, gained feedback and insight from their perspectives on patients that the neurologist I worked with would refer to. We would see these same patients and follow up with them in their follow up exams weeks later about their adjustments working with the psychologists and social workers they had been seeing. Many times the neurologist I worked with would almost always refer out to a LCSW as opposed to a psychologist due to her professional preferences in how she viewed LCSWs that often had a better fit with the patient's interests or issues they had. Like I said, these practitioners have a unique flavor to add that I have found during my graduate studies to be different than what I experienced from many of the Ph.D. students and practitioners I worked with. Granted, you will always be able to pull the doctoral card over me, so, not sure what to say other than that, but I think I answered your question.
 
WisNeuro said:
Just curious though as to where the opinion comes from if you haven't practiced at the doctoral level with a variety of other providers (MD, LCSW, Masters, etc). How can you talk about the different "flavors" without working in those settings?
Click to expand...

Why do you feel that one has to practice at the doctoral level AND have worked alongside a variety of practitioners to form an option on the "flavor" of a practitioner. That seems just a tad bit elitist, as our patients/clients are probably doing this without any degree at all. Can you clarify?

I have worked as a peer and/or underling with many of those credentials (true integrated teams provide for interesting experiences) and I feel very confident commenting on different orientations of the different practitioners.

This last part is not directed specifically to Wisneuro, just to the board in general. I'm kinda confused by this thread. Many of the posters here comment frequently at the different type of education that social work gets, yet then when someone suggests the "flavor" or approach as a social work trained therapist (LCSW) is different and might be valuable because it's different, it's swiftly denounced. This really seems to be the attitude presented here.

Again, I hope you all know I'm not of the "we're all the same" camp. Really, mid-levels are highly valuable and needed, if they stay within their scope of practice. I'm MOSTLY sure that most of the PhDs agree here, but some days I have my doubts.
 
Goobernut said:
This last part is not directed specifically to Wisneuro, just to the board in general. I'm kinda confused by this thread. Many of the posters here comment frequently at the different type of education that social work gets, yet then when someone suggests the "flavor" or approach as a social work trained therapist (LCSW) is different and might be valuable because it's different, it's swiftly denounced. This really seems to be the attitude presented here.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the impression I am getting.
 
Goobernut said:
Why do you feel that one has to practice at the doctoral level AND have worked alongside a variety of practitioners to form an option on the "flavor" of a practitioner. That seems just a tad bit elitist, as our patients/clients are probably doing this without any degree at all. Can you clarify?
Click to expand...

It's not elitist, just a matter of experience. The healthcare complex is vastly different than what I believed it to be as an undergraduate, and even vastly different than how I saw it as a prac student. It's about having to work in these systems and with different practitioners at different levels to get a more accurate picture of how things work. I'll take my experience based on thousands of encounters with hundreds of practitioners over an anecdote of a handful of practitioners. My comment wasn't a blanket statement favoring one over the other, more of a question directed at a blanket statement. Honestly, without knowing providers personally, I would favor doctoral level providers for certain treatments (e.g., PE, CPT, DBT) as long as they came from a reputable program because I value understanding of the empiricism of things. That being said, I've worked with some great LCSW's on PTSD teams before doing group work. Additionally, I was merely commenting that that experience that was conveyed has not been similar to any experiences I have seen across several institutions. Not wrong or right, just simply not representative.
 
Goobernut said:
Why do you feel that one has to practice at the doctoral level AND have worked alongside a variety of practitioners to form an option on the "flavor" of a practitioner. That seems just a tad bit elitist, as our patients/clients are probably doing this without any degree at all. Can you clarify?

I have worked as a peer and/or underling with many of those credentials (true integrated teams provide for interesting experiences) and I feel very confident commenting on different orientations of the different practitioners.

This last part is not directed specifically to Wisneuro, just to the board in general. I'm kinda confused by this thread. Many of the posters here comment frequently at the different type of education that social work gets, yet then when someone suggests the "flavor" or approach as a social work trained therapist (LCSW) is different and might be valuable because it's different, it's swiftly denounced. This really seems to be the attitude presented here.

Again, I hope you all know I'm not of the "we're all the same" camp. Really, mid-levels are highly valuable and needed, if they stay within their scope of practice. I'm MOSTLY sure that most of the PhDs agree here, but some days I have my doubts.
Click to expand...
I was the one that criticized the flavor comment. My main criticism was that it was made within the context of equivalency of degrees. I completely respect that social workers bring a different perspective and training and they have been integral part of interdisciplinary teams. I also appreciate the role of nursing and when I was clinical director, the highest paid person on my clinical team was the RN. We had an MFT, LCSW, two LPCs, and a psychological resident. Each had their backgrounds skills and training along with their own individual strengths and weaknesses. The best part was that we were a team. I feel it is important to stand up for our profession and when I see this dynamic that T4C pointed out, I will always respond. Sometimes it may come across to harshly because of my passion.
Therapist4Chnge said:
Many posters (myself included) get frustrated when some mid-level providers intentionally and frequently try to blur the lines in regard to training, scope, and practice. "You do therapy...we do therapy! You do assessment...we do assessment! It's basically the same training...just without the research."
Click to expand...
 
Does NASW release any data on the percent of MSWs or even LCSWs who actually do psychotherapy? I double majored in psychology and social work as an undergrad, so I know a fair number of social workers. Most of them, surprisingly, even the licensed ones with MSWs, don't seem to do much, if any, psychotherapy.
 
WisNeuro said:
It's not elitist, just a matter of experience. The healthcare complex is vastly different than what I believed it to be as an undergraduate, and even vastly different than how I saw it as a prac student. It's about having to work in these systems and with different practitioners at different levels to get a more accurate picture of how things work. I'll take my experience based on thousands of encounters with hundreds of practitioners over an anecdote of a handful of practitioners. My comment wasn't a blanket statement favoring one over the other, more of a question directed at a blanket statement. Honestly, without knowing providers personally, I would favor doctoral level providers for certain treatments (e.g., PE, CPT, DBT) as long as they came from a reputable program because I value understanding of the empiricism of things. That being said, I've worked with some great LCSW's on PTSD teams before doing group work. Additionally, I was merely commenting that that experience that was conveyed has not been similar to any experiences I have seen across several institutions. Not wrong or right, just simply not representative.
Click to expand...

I was hoping that your explanation was the case, but I just had to check. Thanks for clarifying that it wasn't a blanket statement. When I first read it, my mind jumped to consumers of mental health, and I feel they are highly qualified to comment on our "flavor." And they don't, in general, have doctoral degrees. That's why I said sounded "tad elitist" because I felt like our patients have every right to comment on our "flavor." But if it's not a blanket statement, then I retract my "tad elitist" statement haha.

smalltownpsych said:
I was the one that criticized the flavor comment. My main criticism was that it was made within the context of equivalency of degrees. I completely respect that social workers bring a different perspective and training and they have been integral part of interdisciplinary teams. I also appreciate the role of nursing and when I was clinical director, the highest paid person on my clinical team was the RN. We had an MFT, LCSW, two LPCs, and a psychological resident. Each had their backgrounds skills and training along with their own individual strengths and weaknesses. The best part was that we were a team. I feel it is important to stand up for our profession and when I see this dynamic that T4C pointed out, I will always respond. Sometimes it may come across to harshly because of my passion.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that the profession of psychology has those that are concerned about the pay and quality of it's "product" because frankly, if you all score a win for the clinical psychology profession by improving it's quality, then as a mid-level I win too. Frankly, that's part of the reason I still hang around here even though I've taken a really long detour (if I still even want a PhD at this point), because I kinda feel like we should all be working for the improvement of mental health delivery together. I feel passionately about that myself 🙂

futureapppsy2 said:
Does NASW release any data on the percent of MSWs or even LCSWs who actually do psychotherapy? I double majored in psychology and social work as an undergrad, so I know a fair number of social workers. Most of them, surprisingly, even the licensed ones with MSWs, don't seem to do much, if any, psychotherapy.
Click to expand...

I believe the NASW does. I'm sorry, I'm too lazy to double check right now haha. As far as I remember NASW keeps a ridiculous amount of stats on their membership. Pay, therapy vs administrative, licensure AND location, pay by location, really I remember it being unending.

I will say this, what you point out above, is one of the biggest flaws in social work's licensing system. I don't know the exact proportion, but that it happens at all is frustrating. The LCSW was originally created strictly for therapy. However, for many years the only advanced license was the LCSW, and so there was this dilution (for lack of a better word) of the original intent of the license. To get a promotion, you had to be licensed at the advanced level (LCSW), especially to keep pace with healthcare -- and this is where I see this overuse of the license primarily. They have released additional licenses (administrative and generalist) to combat this trend, though it is slow to catch on in some parts of the US. Tbh, the VA is one of institutions that encourages this misuse of the license vs the role that the individual plays. This whole situation just frustrates me to no end. It's why a clinically focused program so important. Otherwise, you're just stuck with a generalist program and a bunch of supervisors who equate "eclectic counseling" with therapy.
 
smalltownpsych said:
I was the one that criticized the flavor comment. My main criticism was that it was made within the context of equivalency of degrees. I completely respect that social workers bring a different perspective and training and they have been integral part of interdisciplinary teams. I also appreciate the role of nursing and when I was clinical director, the highest paid person on my clinical team was the RN. We had an MFT, LCSW, two LPCs, and a psychological resident. Each had their backgrounds skills and training along with their own individual strengths and weaknesses. The best part was that we were a team. I feel it is important to stand up for our profession and when I see this dynamic that T4C pointed out, I will always respond. Sometimes it may come across to harshly because of my passion.
Click to expand...

Just for future reference, my "flavor comment" was not about equalizing degree programs. Perhaps it was a perception issue on your end, but I specifically selected that word to emphasize their importance in relation to doctoral level psychologists as well as psychiatrists, but with difference and unique qualities that they bring. If I wanted to say they were like psychologists, I would have just said that, but that is not what I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Dissertation Grant Funding - Is it worth it?
Replies
29
Views
3K
LM02
L
Markyzone
PSYD Programs to apply?
Replies
2
Views
2K
ForensicPsychFightClub
F
neurotic_cow
Is it worth it financially to start or join neuropsych private practice if I don't want to do forensic/legal work?
Replies
3
Views
1K
AcronymAllergy
AcronymAllergy
P
Pediatric neuropsych: is it the same?
Replies
33
Views
2K
Therapist4Chnge
T
C
Widener PsyD Program
Replies
5
Views
2K
DrCoal
D
Top