Accurate sources of information about the future of the field

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
B

bajaba

New Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2013
Messages
9
Reaction score
2
I've spent several years post-undergrad preparing for application to clinical psychology Ph.D programs... and then I found this forum about a month ago. From people here, I've gotten the impression that getting an internship is essentially a game of chance, that research positions at universities are almost impossible to land and clinical jobs are drying up. Things sound so dire that it would be very stupid for me to go into this field, no matter how much I want to.

I've also spoken to current professionals in clinical psychology, who paint a rosier picture.

My question is: do you think that the opinions on this site are representative of the future for clinical psychologists, or are they overly pessimistic? If the latter is true, do you have any recommendations about who I should get in contact with in order to get a more accurate assessment of the field and my (possible) future? Or are there helpful websites? (For example, I've tried looking for clinical psychology jobs online to see what's currently available).

Thanks for your help!
Members don't see this ad.
 
Rule #1 of the internet is that nothing is anywhere near as extreme as the average internet user makes it sound (be it good or bad).

There are both easier and more difficult paths than psychology. Whether it is a good decision depends what you want out of life. If you are just looking for a good ROI for your degree in terms of benefits/pay/flexibility/etc. there are absolutely better alternatives. If you are comfortable with a middle class lifestyle, intelligent and enjoy the work I think its a decent path to take and literally every graduate I know in the last few years has done fine. Research gigs are competitive but they do exist and looking outside traditional academia opens many more options. You do need to set yourself up well though - I think the main things that get people in trouble are 1)unrealistic expectations, 2)geographic inflexibility, 3) attending a crummy school and paying too much for it (often related to #1 and 2) and/or 4) Failing to develop skills that differentiate you from the pack. Being good (or even very good) at CBT isn't going to land you a high-paying job. I actually think it should mean more than it does and there are some systemic problems with our healthcare system responsible for why it does not, but that is neither here nor there.

I'm finishing up now and the only thing that has me nervous is the political situation. I think the reaction to the shutdown opened some eyes but I do worry that we are going to abandon our position as leaders of science/innovation. Won't open that can of worms any further though for fear of turning this into a political debate. I've tried to focus less on becoming a "psychologist" as traditionally defined and more on the set of skills I'm developing that should make me a valuable resource in many different settings, including (but not limited to) typical psychology settings. I like to think its a good plan and even if my desired path doesn't work out I'm confident I can find a solid career, even if it takes me a bit more work to break into it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Current professionals are not applying for internships, jobs, & etc.; their outlook may be more accurate for what they faced when they were first applying.

That said, it is not all doom and gloom... but, realize that it takes a lot of work, and even then, there are no guarantees.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Internships are only a game of chance if you go to a diploma mill professional school. Check their match rates and don't go anywhere under an 80%. And, clinical jobs are not going anywhere. They may, however, become more centralized in hospitals, academic medical centers, VA's, etc. It will probably be a little harder as things move forward to do private prac.
 
Well, you have a better chance of matching, but there is a still a risk even if you don't attend a FSPS program. My program is a small, university-based PhD program, and last year was our first time with a 100% APA match rate in years.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes we get cynical around here, but I also think there is a lot of good info. It can give you ideas about what to ask professionals that you meet in real life.

What are your interests? I would seek out early career professionals working in the setting that you would like to work in. They will be more likely to relate to issues around the grad school experience and getting a job than tenured profs who have been in the field forever.

Good luck!
Dr. E
 
cara susanna said:
Well, you have a better chance of matching, but there is a still a risk even if you don't attend a FSPS program. My program is a small, university-based PhD program, and last year was our first time with a 100% APA match rate in years.
Click to expand...

It's a risk, sure. But there are programs where matching to an unaccredited internship, or not matching at all, is the modal outcome.

The outcomes are poor for someone who attends an unfunded program, wracks up crazy debt, matches to an unaccredited site, and wants to just hang a shingle and be an MFT. The outcomes for dedicated folks who invest in a funded program (or have some other plan, e.g., go to an unfunded program but have military goals) are, in my experience, fine. There are just a lot more of the former than you might think.
 
Definitely, I just think that the Match still seems to be somewhat of a lottery even for people in the "non-offending" programs. Of course, your chances are still much, much better and I would not encourage anyone to attend a program with an average APA match rate of less than 80%.
 
cara susanna said:
Definitely, I just think that the Match still seems to be somewhat of a lottery even for people in the "non-offending" programs. Of course, your chances are still much, much better and I would not encourage anyone attending a program with an average APA match rate of less than 80%.
Click to expand...

In good programs that's just a byproduct of people being neurotic. If you go to the good "non-offending" programs, you'll find that a vast majority of people are getting one of their top sites for internship (e.g., 1-3). The match statistics would support that. You see the same thing in the EPPP. My program hasn't had someone fail that thing in over a decade, but people still go crazy overstudying and stressing out over it.
 
I get what you both are saying, but I do think that people should consider the Match imbalance when deciding to go into this field, as the personal consequences of failing to match are pretty big for the individual. You can't graduate without an internship, and you're not guaranteed to get one.
 
cara susanna said:
I get what you both are saying, but I do think that people should consider the Match imbalance when deciding to go into this field, as the personal consequences of failing to match are pretty big for the individual. You can't graduate without an internship, and you're not guaranteed to get one.
Click to expand...

I think we're all saying the same thing, really. Go to a program with a good match rate (>80% APA), but that isn't a golden ticket.

I do think asking established professionals can be helpful, but at the same time that has to be tempered with knowledge that if they graduated 30 years ago the system is now much different. I've met "established professionals" who are unaware that there IS an internship crisis.
 
The match imbalance ceases to be an imbalance when you look at the relevant data. Once you factor out Psy.D's, accredited Ph.D. programs, especially in clinical, do pretty well in the match. The bottom line is, if you go to a good clinical program, and do a good job, you are sitting at a 90%+ chance. so, while not "guaranteed" on the first time around, it's pretty close.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
WisNeuro said:
The match imbalance ceases to be an imbalance when you look at the relevant data. Once you factor out Psy.D's, accredited Ph.D. programs, especially in clinical, do pretty well in the match. The bottom line is, if you go to a good clinical program, and do a good job, you are sitting at a 90%+ chance. so, while not "guaranteed" on the first time around, it's pretty close.
Click to expand...

It's still an imbalance. A balance would be equal numbers of applicants for spots. Even for PhD Clinical/Counseling programs, the match rate is not 100%.

Furthermore, the only data I was able to find from the 2012-2013 Match indicated that the Clinical PhD match rate was 79.2% and Counseling PhD was 82%. That's better than the rate for PsyDs, but it's not really at 90% either.
 
It may be an imbalance, but a portion of the imbalance exists for a reason. Just like any healthcare field, there may be some people who shouldn't be moved on to the next level. I'm one of those people who is perfectly fine with a match rate of 85-90% for the field.
 
bajaba said:
I've spent several years post-undergrad preparing for application to clinical psychology Ph.D programs... and then I found this forum about a month ago. From people here, I've gotten the impression that getting an internship is essentially a game of chance, that research positions at universities are almost impossible to land and clinical jobs are drying up. Things sound so dire that it would be very stupid for me to go into this field, no matter how much I want to.

I've also spoken to current professionals in clinical psychology, who paint a rosier picture.

My question is: do you think that the opinions on this site are representative of the future for clinical psychologists, or are they overly pessimistic? If the latter is true, do you have any recommendations about who I should get in contact with in order to get a more accurate assessment of the field and my (possible) future? Or are there helpful websites? (For example, I've tried looking for clinical psychology jobs online to see what's currently available).

Thanks for your help!
Click to expand...
I would not and have not recommended the field to my children. The field is in a state of flux..chaotic with no real indication that things will get better. I doubt you will get that opinion from people on this site, although maybe they will surprise me. I'm expecting to hear from the old timers who will criticize me and look for reason to blame me for having a bad attitude lol. In truth, most practitioners have seen a decline in what they recoup from billing. Students are having problems getting internships. The field is fragmented and there is no clear guiding force. State legislation is disconnected from APA/APS, etc. Why spend so many years trying to enter a field and then find that your income is about the same as that of a BA/BS in fields other than psychology (of course since Psych majors are at the bottom of the heap).
 
Ah, there is the "end is nigh" crowd. Yes, I can make more money in another field, with less training. But, I happen to enjoy my line of work. I'll take being happy day in and day out over a little extra change. Also, six figures ain't like I'll be living in the poor house there.
 
WisNeuro said:
The match imbalance ceases to be an imbalance when you look at the relevant data. Once you factor out Psy.D's, accredited Ph.D. programs, especially in clinical, do pretty well in the match. The bottom line is, if you go to a good clinical program, and do a good job, you are sitting at a 90%+ chance. so, while not "guaranteed" on the first time around, it's pretty close.
Click to expand...

A few years back, there was a poster here who swore up and down that, because s/he went to a respected, university-based program, s/he would have no problem matching and that the internship imbalance was the furthest thing from his/her mind. S/he didn't match and didn't place in clearinghouse, either, finally matching the next year. Like cara said, APPIC data indicate that even students from good, reputable programs are getting squeezed out by the sheer number of applicants vs. the number of available spots. Going to good program increases your chances of matching, definitely, but it's far from a lock, unless you come from a program with a captive APA accredited site.
 
There are other factors that come into play besides where you went, that is definitely true. Some may be on the applicant (don't interview well, personality issues, etc) and some may be a supply and demand issue. There is a balance somewhere between availability and demand. Where we set that line is up for debate. I do think we should take steps into limiting diploma mill sites that don't adequately train psychologists for actual practice. That would help the "imbalance" somewhat. But I don' think it should disappear altogether. We need that competition and last bar in place.

Merely wanting to be a Dr shouldn't be the only requirement to becoming one.
 
Thanks for your input so far, everybody. This sounds similar to what I'd been thinking-- that even coming from accredited PhD programs, around 20% of people don't match.

WisNeuro, you seem very certain that good qualifications can override that balance. Have you already successfully been through the internship placement process?
 
WisNeuo (is that with any clinical training or a PhD in Physio? lol), the problem for many students isn't getting to "six figures" but getting any job at all...and getting a degree after doing everything they were supposed to do. If they want to become clinicians in an ethical way, that is by seeking clinical training, then they are faced with the need for an internship. Many are trying for 2 or 3 years without success. Not all... but many. Now if a student applied to internship after one of those quick 6 year programs and then took 2 years to secure an internship, they have spent 7-8-9 years in training. In 7 years a six figure income may be a pipe dream. It is conceivable that those looking for a clinical job in the future may have to choose among jobs paying about 10K more than they would have made with a BA or BS in a different field. Now that is also fine for some but not so fine for those who are familiar with the "six figures" but only as loans. So, the field does not look like such a rosy place for new graduates. And, we know that psych majors make less than any other major. So, I'd not recommend the field to anyone I care about.
 
I know many people who have WisNeuro's attitude. It lasts exactly until their program has a bad year, as nearly every program eventually does due to the imbalance, and then they know people who are totally qualified and did not geographically restrict and still did not match. If your program has been insulated from this, good, but it's in the minority now. The imbalance certainly affects students at strong programs LESS, but it does have an effect. I was speaking with an applicant last month who was looking for "backup" programs in the middle of nowhere, and was shocked to see that applicant #s at those sites skyrocketed from 30s to over 200 at some sites over the last three years.
 
But why should we be weeding out people at this level, when they've already taken all of the coursework, gone through all of their doctoral program training, and invested so much? I get that there are some people who probably shouldn't match, but shouldn't that be more like 1% instead of, say, 10%? Internship is required for graduation and it's supposed to be a training year in which you are still learning.

I agree that we need a point to weed out people who shouldn't be in the field, but I don't agree that internship should be that point. That's why I've been arguing for more stringent accreditation standards, since I believe that the weeding out should primarily happen at the graduate application level.
 
I think my issue is that... Even if you get an internship position, there is no guarantee that it will be in a preferred location. From what I understand about medical school residencies, most people are able to basically choose where they will end up.

In psych, even if you do everything right, you have a high probability that you will have to move at several points. This adds a lot of stress to the situation; it makes it hard to plan for the future, means it may be unwise to buy a house in a certain area, may lead to long distance relationships or requiring a partner to move... I know many people who didn't even bother trying to meet people because they knew they may be moving.

Overall... Yeah, going to a solid program means you have a good shot at matching, but insinuating this means the process doesn't require sacrifice or isn't stressful for a ton of reasons is just not true. I don't think it's worth it. It's too unpredictable. And I say that as a current intern.
 
cara susanna said:
But why should we be weeding out people at this level, when they've already taken all of the coursework, gone through all of their doctoral program training, and invested so much? I get that there are some people who probably shouldn't match, but shouldn't that be more like 1% instead of, say, 10%? Internship is required for graduation and it's supposed to be a training year in which you are still learning.

I agree that we need a point to weed out people who shouldn't be in the field, but I don't agree that internship should be that point. That's why I've been arguing for more stringent accreditation standards, since I believe that the weeding out should primarily happen at the graduate application level.
Click to expand...

I agree that the weeding out should happen earlier (i.e., before the folks get into grad school); unfortunately, as things currently stand, we can't trust all programs to do this, so the rate-limiting step now has to occur near the end of training. As bad as stressful as the internship situation can be, I personally would rather have some sort of stop-gap than not. Trouble is, the internship matching process isn't even necessarily a particularly efficient or effective stop-gap. There are very, very few states that require completion of accredited grad programs and internships in order to gain licensure.
 
AcronymAllergy said:
I agree that the weeding out should happen earlier (i.e., before the folks get into grad school); unfortunately, as things currently stand, we can't trust all programs to do this, so the rate-limiting step now has to occur near the end of training. As bad as stressful as the internship situation can be, I personally would rather have some sort of stop-gap than not. Trouble is, the internship matching process isn't even necessarily a particularly efficient or effective stop-gap. There are very, very few states that require completion of accredited grad programs and internships in order to gain licensure.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the imbalance exists because of an imperfect system. Rarely do programs actually remove people who maybe just can't quite cut it. They've got to royally screw up before that happens. I would hope that the more stringent accreditation standards help with that. But, if you just expand the # of internship slots first, there is no pressure to tighten up those standards. The opposite will actually happen and standards will become watered down, and then the imbalance will just perpetuate.
 
I definitely don't think that adding more internship slots will fix the problem, either. I'm referring more to expectations and how I think the field should be.
 
cara susanna said:
But why should we be weeding out people at this level, when they've already taken all of the coursework, gone through all of their doctoral program training, and invested so much? I get that there are some people who probably shouldn't match, but shouldn't that be more like 1% instead of, say, 10%? Internship is required for graduation and it's supposed to be a training year in which you are still learning.

I agree that we need a point to weed out people who shouldn't be in the field, but I don't agree that internship should be that point. That's why I've been arguing for more stringent accreditation standards, since I believe that the weeding out should primarily happen at the graduate application level.
Click to expand...
I agree. The APA shouldn't be accrediting subpar programs and then letting the imbalance "sort things out" 4-5 years and $200k later. That's really poor stedwardship of the profession. Those students aren't going away if they don't match, either--they're just leading to the creation of things like CAPIC and still flooding the market. So, the imbalance actually weeds few people out and just leads to more practitioners with questionable (or at least unaccredited) training.
 
This is one topic where my opinion converges with most of the people who post here regularly: go to a *funded* PhD/PsyD program with an 80% APA-accredited internship match rate...or don't go. I might add, if you're dead set on tenure-track academia, any PhD program is a gamble. But if you can see yourself in a career made up of clinical work, teaching, writing, etc., there are decent careers to be had. The trick is minimizing your financial losses. I came out of my program with zero debt, but I still lost years of income (ie my stipend and savings covered me, but I wasn't earning a real salary). I'm making a pretty good living now and I really like what I do. Ten years ago, I was making about as much, but I hated my job.

Now, if you get into a funded PhD program with a good match rate, you're very lucky. But don't expect to like it. Graduate school can be pretty awful. Even if your program is relatively supportive and sane, look forward to most people perpetually not understanding why you're "still" in school and acting as though your adulthood hasn't started yet. And lots of other ways that you'll feel permanently different from your non-PhD peers. But if you are careful and make good choices before and during graduate school, it almost certainly gets better!
 
What I have learned at my current position, out in the real world, is that my patients/clients appreciate what I do a great deal. However, those paying the bills likely find me eminently replaceable. The truth is that any of us are only as important as the legal skillset we possess. While some suggest that the MD is the safer path because of the restricted supply, the other half is that the MD is given considerable power over the management of a patient. We cannot even see medicare pt without a physician's order. Because they are required to manage a pt, they will always have a job. As we have allowed a significant erosion of psychologist's legal rights, we have moved ourselves to towards irrelevancy in the clinical arena. Does that mean all psychologists are doomed to a fate of poor pay and job prospects? No. However, a psychologist is a general private practice is at much greater risk of encroachment than one that does child custody evaluations because one has less competition and is a legal necessity compared to the other. Similarly, in the research arena, jobs are hard to come by and salaries are not huge. As we have seen economic downturn means fewer grants, fellowships, and funding. However, those whose research might be relevant to industry or consulting work in any form will fair better than those that rely largely on grant funding. There are still man niches that are better bets, but people often choose to ignore those areas.
 
I would be concerned if my children were contemplating a career in clinical psychology. In a program I know, half the internship applicants did not match in the first round and some remained unmatched in the 2nd process. It was not the first time not matching for all of them. The students are in an APA accredited program and their problems matching apparently came as a huge surprise to their advisors. The students had loads of presentations and publication and at least 2 externships (20/week supervised clinical experience) although probably less clinical experience than typical of other programs since the program endorses clinical scientist model. The problems with matching are not limited to new programs or programs with a large number of students.
 
fresnel said:
I would be concerned if my children were contemplating a career in clinical psychology. In a program I know, half the internship applicants did not match in the first round and some remained unmatched in the 2nd process. It was not the first time not matching for all of them. The students are in an APA accredited program and their problems matching apparently came as a huge surprise to their advisors. The students had loads of presentations and publication and at least 2 externships (20/week supervised clinical experience) although probably less clinical experience than typical of other programs since the program endorses clinical scientist model. The problems with matching are not limited to new programs or programs with a large number of students.
Click to expand...

Dude. If "this program you know" is the same damn program you constantly complain about on here in your 30 other posts, just tell us the freakin name of it and get it over with! If this is all for real and you really care then you would actually steer people away from this program that might as be worshiping at Hitler's alter so much as training students in clinical psychology. I don't think I've heard so much complaining since lil Johnny's soccer team went 12 and 0 and he saw the other kids getting trophies...please, man...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Seriously, I'm sure we can all cherry pick some horror stories about programs that are suddenly not matching people, although I'm sure once we get the full story, it will make a little more sense and be altogether unsurprising.
 
WisNeuro said:
Seriously, I'm sure we can all cherry pick some horror stories about programs that are suddenly not matching people, although I'm sure once we get the full story, it will make a little more sense and be altogether unsurprising.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Also, some of his other comments suggest this is a relatively small program. If so, "half the applicants did not match in the first round" could mean that 2/4 applicants had to go to clearinghouse. While that sucks, it can happen even to strong programs. :)
 
ERG923, You seem to have a bug up your bonnet. If you don't like my posts, simply don't read them. I will write what I choose. You can have a pissy fit if you choose. It's your right to spend your time however you'd like.

I know many programs quite well and I write about them and I write what I want. I sometimes repeat information I've discussed in other places. Most people are not reading each and every thread. Most of us simply don't have the time. Lucky for you that you do. My amazing writing ability not withstanding, I don't assume those posting questions have gone back and read everything I've written to date. I'm flattered by your dedication to my posts though.

How much time does it take to write nearly 5,000 posts anyway?
 
fresnel said:
ERG923, You seem to have a bug up your bonnet. If you don't like my posts, simply don't read them. I will write what I choose. You can have a pissy fit if you choose. It's your right to spend your time however you'd like.

I know many programs quite well and I write about them and I write what I want. I sometimes repeat information I've discussed in other places. Most people are not reading each and every thread. Most of us simply don't have the time. Lucky for you that you do. My amazing writing ability not withstanding, I don't assume those posting questions have gone back and read everything I've written to date. I'm flattered by your dedication to my posts though.

How much time does it take to write nearly 5,000 posts anyway?
Click to expand...

Look old timer, all I am saying is that if said program is really that evil, then just tell people what program it is and knock off the teasing.

No one likes a guessing game with their future, so if you wanna steer people away from the program, then do it. Otherwise, people are simply going to see as some jaded academic who doesn't know is ass from a hole in the ground...
 
WisNeuro said:
I agree with erg and MC here. Seems like all you do is complain about your program and don't contribute much else. And then jump straight to ad hominems when confronted on it.
Click to expand...

Untrue; sometimes zhe voices irrational fixation on duration of accreditation or age that people graduate as important markers of program quality.
 
Am I allowed to say that in good ole "Merica," we don't get "bugs up our bonnets" either? I think the more American way is to "keep it real" and start a bar fight...:)
 
To Wes Neuro, erg (same)?

As difficult as this might be for you to understand, my posts are not oriented towards you. I'm not in a debate with you. My posts are a response to the original poster who requested information. I include information I view as relevant. I omit information I don't think relevant or I prefer not to share. If my post bothers you, please feel free to skip my post. Its fine if you feel qualified to judge the contributions of the posts of other people. I suppose most people have areas of expertise. I think attacking other posters is contrary to the spirit of this site so I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from doing so.
 
MCParent said:
Untrue; sometimes zhe voices irrational fixation on duration of accreditation or age that people graduate as important markers of program quality.
Click to expand...
Well, those are almost as important as the # of Rorshachs given or number of left-handed patients that one has seen in judging quality.
 
I am not sure if erg923 and the others posting above are the same or different posters but I will address all of you in one post. You have every right to agree or disagree with my opinion. But, telling me what I should or should not write in a post is a very different story. You are being unkind, to say the least. I'm guessing it is one person with multiple names. Regardless, please refrain from being nasty and denigrating.
 
fresnel said:
To Wes Neuro, erg (same)?
Click to expand...
I think attacking other posters is contrary to the spirit of this site so I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from doing so.
Click to expand...

SLOW YOUR ROLE. You just asserted that you don't attack others immediately after you implied that the two posters are the same person, and after a post personally insulting Erg for being an active board member. That kind of doubletalk might work on Glenn Beck, but it does not fly in conversation in general, or on the board.

CALM DOWN.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

T
PhD/PsyD Forensic Psychology – Questions about the field
Replies
18
Views
1K
AcronymAllergy
AcronymAllergy
futureapppsy2
This is the most accurate summary of academic publishing
Replies
8
Views
1K
Temperance
Temperance
JeyRo
Student loan forgiveness & the future of clinical psychology doctoral programs?
Replies
17
Views
2K
psycho1391
P
S
1) Importance of "reputations" of internship sites in postdoc/future career? 2) The ratio of private practice income to Cost of Living in a city?
Replies
8
Views
1K
AcronymAllergy
AcronymAllergy
T
For private practitioners, who are you networking with for referral sources?
Replies
33
Views
2K
smalltownpsych
smalltownpsych
Top