________
Last edited:
Alliant - CSPP Review... Week 1 and application
- Thread starter NBAjunkie
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,241
- Reaction score
- 8,645
I don't think you should advise people to take the military route lightly. It's great for some people, but my brother-in-law decided to go that way for med school and it's made a very messy time even messier.
Again, there's that false dichotomy that PhD = Research and PsyD = Practice. There are plenty of PhD programs that would be fine with you wanting to have your own practice.
Again, there's that false dichotomy that PhD = Research and PsyD = Practice. There are plenty of PhD programs that would be fine with you wanting to have your own practice.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,612
You may have unknowingly confirmed one of the main arguments against professional schools. It lets people into this profession who shouldnt be here. Im am not sure this is something to brag about, and it really erks me that people who cant get in can basically buy their way in to a ph.d program. Do you think this a really a good thing for this profession? Perhaps giving inferior product the same degree lessens the meaning and the degree itself? Could this be part of the reason why psychology has gone from a well repsect academic dicipline to one that is underpaid an largely, underespected?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 735
- Reaction score
- 672
I'm fairly certain he was making reference to the admissions standards (or lack thereof) of professional schools, not of the PsyD degree.
Correct me if I'm wrong, erg.
Correct me if I'm wrong, erg.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 735
- Reaction score
- 672
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,810
- Reaction score
- 9
Like others, this post generated several "yikes" from me...
The budget mention for CSU confuses me, since you're paying for Alliant anyhow.
I hope you're independently wealthy. I would class this level of debt as "crushing." Aside from not counting interest, it's not counting what it's going to cost you to live for that time.
Same reaction as erg had, confirming my worries and validating my impressions of the skills of professional school students I've personally interacted with.
What DO they have to qualify them? A wallet and a pulse? I'm being flip but this is a SERIOUS problem.
B-I-N-G-O.
Insanity-provoking. Most PhDs become clinicians, a PhD in psych is perfectly reasonable training for clinical work, A clinical career path hardly makes one the pariah some seem to believe, even at research-focused places.
The budget mention for CSU confuses me, since you're paying for Alliant anyhow.
D
deleted176373
Great point,
Yep, Military is one of those options that is NOT for most people, you have to really want to be there to enjoy it. That said, if you're not doing it for the money, it's a great opportunity.... NEVER EVER join the military for the money, you will likely be very unhappy.
Mark
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,612
Last edited:
I will clarify some things.
In reference to SOME of the students I contacted so far. I did not interview these students, I only know what I've heard from their own 20 second bio's. Furthermore, the APA has accredited this school and the coursework has shown to be consistent with grad programs (it's a helluva lot harder than CSU grad program). My post was in no way meant to scare anyway and in fact I don't regret coming to Alliant at all. I regret what I said about them because they are only my first impressions, and it has nothing to do with what their transcripts read. I just don't know that much yet.
Second, I didn't take the military route lightly, and I in fact gave warning that there are serious issues to consider before joining. However, if one is affraid of the debt of attending a professional school, it's a viable option to potentially help a deserving demographic. Officer life is quite a bit different than enlisted life as well. Regarding military pay, this contract offers instant promotion to O-3 (Captain in the USAF), where if married and living off base, equates to almost 80k a year. Not to mention VA mortgage rates that will later save THOUSANDS. And the internship is well paid as well. As stated, you shouldn't want to join the military solely for financial reasons and you really must want to be there.
I have a theory.
I think it's safe to say that if you frequent this site, you care about your future and are probably a pretty good student. However, sometimes people are quick to accept assumptions that their academic institution put on them. If your school is largely behavioral, you will be partial to behavioral principle. Cognitive weighted schools will train you to accept cognitive, etc,. Similarly, an academic institution is partial to PhD's because, *gasp*, professors have PhD's! They chose a PhD school to attend, and they conduct research and teach in hopes of getting tenure (or already have it). These are things PsyD's don't WANT to do. --These same professors will then tell their students that PsyD's are "lesser" degree's, just as a behavioral therapist will say psychodynamic theory is bull... Do some reaserch on the Boulder vs. Vail model @ https://www.researchgate.net/public...raining_preferences_of_clinical_psychologists
Imagine doing a blind study where you judged a set of therapists who were trained from professional schools vs. therapists trained at a funded university. Do you honestly think you'd tell the difference between 100 CSPP therapists vs. 100 University therapists?
I had a professor that graduated from a very good Clinical PhD school. She said she had wonderful training in conducting research however she felt she was so unprepared to conduct therapy on her own that she didn't feel right accepting a position somewhere in the field without further training. Just as you have to want to be in the military to join, you should also WANT to do research/teach if you decide a PhD is right for you. Otherwise, what more does it offer? If you think it's just more "prestigeous", well, I would suggest talking to clinicians in the field that have both PhD's AND PsyD's. Try cold calling some random therapists and asking them what they think. I've found many private practice therapists are QUITE successful with their PsyD. I emailed a PsyD graduate from Alliant, who now practices in the bay, and he said:
"Hi - CSPP is a great school for learning how to do psychotherapy. As for charges and insurance, most people here in SF charge between 100 and 150 per session, though insurance can run between 70 and 120 per session. Insurance sucks."
See PsyD Data for Fresno @ http://www.alliant.edu/wps/wcm/conn...Sacramento PsyD Domain G 2009.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
The recent numbers of internship placement are NOT bad. I doubt you can conclude that good students from CSPP cannot find internships.... But you can say that "fair" students from ANY program would be hard-pressed to find a good paying internship.
In reference to SOME of the students I contacted so far. I did not interview these students, I only know what I've heard from their own 20 second bio's. Furthermore, the APA has accredited this school and the coursework has shown to be consistent with grad programs (it's a helluva lot harder than CSU grad program). My post was in no way meant to scare anyway and in fact I don't regret coming to Alliant at all. I regret what I said about them because they are only my first impressions, and it has nothing to do with what their transcripts read. I just don't know that much yet.
Second, I didn't take the military route lightly, and I in fact gave warning that there are serious issues to consider before joining. However, if one is affraid of the debt of attending a professional school, it's a viable option to potentially help a deserving demographic. Officer life is quite a bit different than enlisted life as well. Regarding military pay, this contract offers instant promotion to O-3 (Captain in the USAF), where if married and living off base, equates to almost 80k a year. Not to mention VA mortgage rates that will later save THOUSANDS. And the internship is well paid as well. As stated, you shouldn't want to join the military solely for financial reasons and you really must want to be there.
I have a theory.
I think it's safe to say that if you frequent this site, you care about your future and are probably a pretty good student. However, sometimes people are quick to accept assumptions that their academic institution put on them. If your school is largely behavioral, you will be partial to behavioral principle. Cognitive weighted schools will train you to accept cognitive, etc,. Similarly, an academic institution is partial to PhD's because, *gasp*, professors have PhD's! They chose a PhD school to attend, and they conduct research and teach in hopes of getting tenure (or already have it). These are things PsyD's don't WANT to do. --These same professors will then tell their students that PsyD's are "lesser" degree's, just as a behavioral therapist will say psychodynamic theory is bull... Do some reaserch on the Boulder vs. Vail model @ https://www.researchgate.net/public...raining_preferences_of_clinical_psychologists
Imagine doing a blind study where you judged a set of therapists who were trained from professional schools vs. therapists trained at a funded university. Do you honestly think you'd tell the difference between 100 CSPP therapists vs. 100 University therapists?
I had a professor that graduated from a very good Clinical PhD school. She said she had wonderful training in conducting research however she felt she was so unprepared to conduct therapy on her own that she didn't feel right accepting a position somewhere in the field without further training. Just as you have to want to be in the military to join, you should also WANT to do research/teach if you decide a PhD is right for you. Otherwise, what more does it offer? If you think it's just more "prestigeous", well, I would suggest talking to clinicians in the field that have both PhD's AND PsyD's. Try cold calling some random therapists and asking them what they think. I've found many private practice therapists are QUITE successful with their PsyD. I emailed a PsyD graduate from Alliant, who now practices in the bay, and he said:
"Hi - CSPP is a great school for learning how to do psychotherapy. As for charges and insurance, most people here in SF charge between 100 and 150 per session, though insurance can run between 70 and 120 per session. Insurance sucks."
See PsyD Data for Fresno @ http://www.alliant.edu/wps/wcm/conn...Sacramento PsyD Domain G 2009.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
The recent numbers of internship placement are NOT bad. I doubt you can conclude that good students from CSPP cannot find internships.... But you can say that "fair" students from ANY program would be hard-pressed to find a good paying internship.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,241
- Reaction score
- 8,645
Training in research, which we view as vital to the successful practice of psychological treatment?
I was referring to the personal goals of those who choose to get a PsyD
...unless you're saying PsyD degree's do not train people on how to interpret research objectively...
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,612
I think thats was the idea of the psy.d, however, the more psy.ds i interact with the more I find that that the professional schools programs apparently dont do a particularly good job of it in.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,612
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,612
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,612
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,612
Yes, I am, generally speaking. And so are many on here and in this profession. Yes, I know the APA disagrees, but the APA is notorioulsy weak and although well intentioned, often misguided. They do not speak for me and I switched over to APS my first year, as did alot of my classmates. You are allwoed to disagree with their positions you know? And keep in mind, APA accredidation means your program has passed minimal standards for a doctoral training program. Anyone who is familiar with criteria knows that the bar is relatively low. APA accredidation has nothing to do with the quality of the program as a whole. When match rates are in ther 50s and 60s does it really matter if the program is APA accreditted? I didnt think so.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,241
- Reaction score
- 8,645
Interpret, but not conduct. I mean, some PsyD programs do, but the entire supposed basis is to train people to be therapists without them having to do as much research.
What I'm saying is there are reasons to go PhD over PsyD even if you just want to practice.
"The Office of Professional Training (OPT) at each Alliant campus provides student advisement
and assistance in the selection of an internship.
95% of the Fresno/Sacramento Clinical Psychology PsyD program students are placed in
internships. In recent years, 95-100% of the Fresno/Sacramento Clinical Psychology PsyD
program students have been placed in paid internships. Please see the chart below for detailed
student placement information."
2008-2009:
Obtained APA Internship: 9 (64%)
Obtained APPIC Intern: 5 (36%)
Total = 100%
________________
Obtained CAPPIC Internship 5 (100%)
________________
Total percentage obtained paid internship 80%
Total percentage obtained ANY internship 95%
and assistance in the selection of an internship.
95% of the Fresno/Sacramento Clinical Psychology PsyD program students are placed in
internships. In recent years, 95-100% of the Fresno/Sacramento Clinical Psychology PsyD
program students have been placed in paid internships. Please see the chart below for detailed
student placement information."
2008-2009:
Obtained APA Internship: 9 (64%)
Obtained APPIC Intern: 5 (36%)
Total = 100%
________________
Obtained CAPPIC Internship 5 (100%)
________________
Total percentage obtained paid internship 80%
Total percentage obtained ANY internship 95%
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,612
Again, I think you have unwittingly confirmed and reinforced impressions we have of professional school students. Or rather, the menality that it has. The above statment demonstrates a frighting amount of misconception and ignorance about the importance of being a scientist. A psychologist is a scientist, belive it or not. This profession originated as an academic dicipline, research is the cornerstone of thos profession for goosdness sake and the thing that seperates you from a generic "therapist" or social worker. All clinical work should be approached from a experimental psych mindset (ie., disprove the alternate hypothesis) and when one is not trained in that mindset through immersion in scientific methodology, it gets lost.
The ability to "think like a scientist" is what it offers, and this is the ability that makes you a psychologist!!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,612
And what is your understanding of where that number falls in terms of the average APA match rate for a program?
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,810
- Reaction score
- 9
Since this is fresh in my mind from another project, I can take this one...
The 100% is not the interesting number. Obtaining *an* internship should not be the goal, and many of the nonaccredited internships are unpaid. Their match rate is 64%, because those 64% will not have options systematically lowered for them.
Further, and this is something I've noticed in full disclosure data from professional schools, did the campus *really* only have 14 applicants to the match last year? Because from 2000-2006, APPIC lists them as having between 30 and 59 (http://www.appic.org/downloads/APPIC_Match_2000-06_by_Univ.pdf).
I'd found the professional school full disclosure data to be significantly discrepant with APPIC's data, with the discrepancy being that the full disclosure data is claiming many, many fewer applicants to the match (and resultant claims of high internship match %s) than the APPIC data does.
There's a BIG difference between understanding research and conducting research. Yes, all psychologists should think like a scientist. Psychologists must also be therapists.
If you look historically, psychologists were originally used mostly for assessment, where psychiatrists were conducting the therapy. The need rose for psychologists to do more therapy. Then, because so few PhD's were being produced, PsyD's were offered. Let's not infer the worthlessness of PsyD's. And, you can attribute a similar trickle-down to the existence of professional schools.
If you look historically, psychologists were originally used mostly for assessment, where psychiatrists were conducting the therapy. The need rose for psychologists to do more therapy. Then, because so few PhD's were being produced, PsyD's were offered. Let's not infer the worthlessness of PsyD's. And, you can attribute a similar trickle-down to the existence of professional schools.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,612
This is not why the vail model was introduced.
Have you read the original vail conference propositions? anyway.. that not the issue....lets get back on track.And no, not all clinical psychologists need to be "therapists." Where did you get that crazy idea? Many arent therapists at all! Health psychologists, forensic clinical psychologists, neuropsychologists, etc. Many of these folks will make a referal to others for therapy either because they doent want to do it or they dont feel that they arent particulaty good at it! I do not plan on doing much therapy after I get out, and i dont think of myself as a therapist.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,241
- Reaction score
- 8,645
You're the one inferring the uselessness of a PhD for someone who wants to practice. There are reasons to pursue it other than thinking it sounds more prestigious.
Good luck with your endeavors everybody. Glad to have debated with you Erg. Although I disagree with a lot you have to say and vice versa, I respect your opinion that the education i'm about to get is worthless. I apologize for not studying harder on the GRE and getting into your program. As we know, that's such a great indicator of grad performance! --
Fundamentally our views differ. You believe professional schools handout degree's while I believe that there are checks in place to ensure unqualified people do not saturate the field with stupidity. I'm glad professional schools exist.
I would like to hear some testimonials of the performances of psychologists from prof schools vs. those from universities. Any quotes from NON-professors?
-- Fundamentally our views differ. You believe professional schools handout degree's while I believe that there are checks in place to ensure unqualified people do not saturate the field with stupidity. I'm glad professional schools exist.
I would like to hear some testimonials of the performances of psychologists from prof schools vs. those from universities. Any quotes from NON-professors?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,612
Yes, I'm sure you are. But this is irrelevant. My line of questioning has nothing to do with whether this is good for you or not. Its not about you. My question is centered on something that alot of students who go to professional schools seem not to think about, and something that will (should) become very important to you during and after grad school. That is-- Is it good for the profession? Yes, it is good for you, you are getting you doctorate and you are happy. My question is, is it good the profession. This affects you you know-your job opps, your earning potential, etc. What do you think? Thats the key in all of this. It not all about you.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 443
- Reaction score
- 0
*sigh*
Threads like these make me cringe. Sometimes I really wish some prof school students would just shut up. The amount of fodder the OP provided to those on this board who are biased against prof schools is nauseating.
Please don't group us all together under this opinion/argument. I certainly don't think this way. At all.
It seems that everything stated so far on this thread is missing the point. From what I have gathered from professors, psychologist, and students alike in both PsyD and PhD programs, there are some fundamental (and purposeful) differences in focus. First, the PsyD is becoming a much more popular degree for many excellent students desiring a career in clinical psychology, but have been unsuccessful getting admitted to a funded PhD program. As any student with common sense and basic knowledge of clinical psychology admissions is well aware of, the number of slots compared to the number of extremely qualified applicants is a minute - which means that many students with high GREs, high GPA, significant work and research experience are not getting in. I have a friend who had all of the above from an Ivy as well as an MA and still wasn't accepted. Many students turn to the PsyD in order to pursue the career they desire despite the inability to get funding.
Here is the basic advice I've been given from professors at both PsyD and PhD programs at top universities. The PsyD is specifically geared towards students have no real desire to make research either the focus of their career or the focus of their dissertation. The PsyD emphasis clinical skills, assessment skills, etc. much more than the PhD. Because of this, PsyDs are often sought - and even preferred - to PhD applicants for certain positions that require demonstrated experience and clinical expertise. Though the PhD focuses more on research - as we all should probably know - research does not equal a better therapist. Studying the relationship between gene expression and schizophrenia, or statistical measurements of emotional expression children for example, does not mean you will be good when working with actual human beings. This PsyD puts more emphasis on internships and applied practice skills. That being said, if one has any desire to teach at the university level (beyond a community college) then the PhD is pretty vital. PhD programs do of course train you with applied skill sets, but this is not the emphasis, and I know several practicing psychologists who said they did not feel prepared to work with patients after completing their degrees because that was not the focus of their training. On the other hand, the PhD is typically funded, and there are ways of gaining more hands-on applied experience. In general however, if a person has no real desire to focus five years of their lives on less-applied research, the PhD is likely not a good choice, and admissions committees want applicants to demonstrate their desire to conduct *research* (even if this is bullcrap). Of course there will be students that are not as high a caliber in some professional schools, but on the whole - particularly as PhD programs are becoming more competitive to get into - the PsyD pool is becoming stronger. It IS very experience, but I guess there is sometimes a price for fulfilling your dream. Yes there are other options such as the LCSW, LPC, etc., but these jobs do not pay as well as social workers virtually always focus more case management than direct therapy.
Anyhow, that is my two cents. Hope it helped someone! 🙂
Here is the basic advice I've been given from professors at both PsyD and PhD programs at top universities. The PsyD is specifically geared towards students have no real desire to make research either the focus of their career or the focus of their dissertation. The PsyD emphasis clinical skills, assessment skills, etc. much more than the PhD. Because of this, PsyDs are often sought - and even preferred - to PhD applicants for certain positions that require demonstrated experience and clinical expertise. Though the PhD focuses more on research - as we all should probably know - research does not equal a better therapist. Studying the relationship between gene expression and schizophrenia, or statistical measurements of emotional expression children for example, does not mean you will be good when working with actual human beings. This PsyD puts more emphasis on internships and applied practice skills. That being said, if one has any desire to teach at the university level (beyond a community college) then the PhD is pretty vital. PhD programs do of course train you with applied skill sets, but this is not the emphasis, and I know several practicing psychologists who said they did not feel prepared to work with patients after completing their degrees because that was not the focus of their training. On the other hand, the PhD is typically funded, and there are ways of gaining more hands-on applied experience. In general however, if a person has no real desire to focus five years of their lives on less-applied research, the PhD is likely not a good choice, and admissions committees want applicants to demonstrate their desire to conduct *research* (even if this is bullcrap). Of course there will be students that are not as high a caliber in some professional schools, but on the whole - particularly as PhD programs are becoming more competitive to get into - the PsyD pool is becoming stronger. It IS very experience, but I guess there is sometimes a price for fulfilling your dream. Yes there are other options such as the LCSW, LPC, etc., but these jobs do not pay as well as social workers virtually always focus more case management than direct therapy.
Anyhow, that is my two cents. Hope it helped someone! 🙂
ps. =)
of course everything i wrote above about the PsyD is only geared towards people who want to be practicing clinical psychologists. If your interests fall more into neuropsych, health psych, developmental psych, etc. you should be research oriented and in a PhD program. A PsyD will do you little good!
Good luck to all!
of course everything i wrote above about the PsyD is only geared towards people who want to be practicing clinical psychologists. If your interests fall more into neuropsych, health psych, developmental psych, etc. you should be research oriented and in a PhD program. A PsyD will do you little good!
Good luck to all!
"I have never met a psychiologists who thinks of himself/herself as just a therapist. I like to think we are traineed a little birt more deeply and broadlly than "psychotherapists."
also Erg...not offense, but you seem to either be a bit naive or a bit in denial. The vast majority of people I know in clinical psychology do just want to be therapists, and are going through the process of "research" so that they can become a therapist without having to pay.
also Erg...not offense, but you seem to either be a bit naive or a bit in denial. The vast majority of people I know in clinical psychology do just want to be therapists, and are going through the process of "research" so that they can become a therapist without having to pay.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 443
- Reaction score
- 0
Do we not learn in basic cognitive therapy theory that dichotomous, "all or none" thinking is considered a cognitive distortion and isn't very useful in gauging our environments?
I'm a PsyD graduate from a professional school in clinical health psychology working on a 50% research/50% clinical post-doc at an academic medical center. There goes that theory.
These blanket statements by both sides of this argument aren't the least bit helpful, especially for those trying to determine which path is best for their personal training/career goals.
D
deleted176373
Hate to be a hard ass here, but do you have any proof that it is becoming "more popular" or that the student quality is "excellent." Because it has been my experience that the "excellent" students are not the ones considering the Psy.D. with the exception of the funded programs.
That has more to do with "fit" than high scores. Just because you went to an Ivy doesn't guarantee anything, either your friend did not apply to suitable programs or your friend had some other issue that was in play. I have seen people with very modest scores 3.25 GPA's/1000-1100 GRE's get accepted to very good programs.
Which, generally, is patently stupid. Desperation is a horrible smell. Have a plan to pay for your education. To blindly assume that it will all be ok is a terrible mistake to make.
Then why do all the good APPIC slots tend to go to the Ph.D. students first?
Do you have any data to support this, because in my neck of the woods, that is not true. There are many fine Psy.D. practitioners but I haven't seen any evidence that they are preferred to Ph.D. Candidates. Show me the data (any data) that supports this!
Really, because I don't feel like I spend more time on research, in my Ph.D. program I am "supposed" to spend about 10 hours in my lab and 10 hours in my practicum placement each week... reality is that I spend about 4-6 doing lab work and 16-20 doing clinical work at my placement working with real human beings.
Once again, what proof do you have that the Psy.D. pool is becoming stronger, because it's certainly not showing in the APPIC match rates.
If your dream is to become a Ph.D. clinical psychologist, then all you've done is substituted another accomplishment for your dream and wasted a great deal of money in the process. At the end of the day you might be a fine therapist, but you won't be a Ph.D. clinical psychologist until you have a Ph.D. If your dream is to become a Psy.D., then more power to you. However, if your dream is to become a therapist, you might consider becoming an LCSW, LPC, or other form of therapist, but if your dream is to become a Ph.D. clinical psychologist you should fight for it. I realize that sometimes compromise is sometimes reality, but your dream is your dream.
Good luck to all regardless of what path you chose. I am not trying to say that one is better than the other, just questioning the hypotheses stated by the person who posted this because I don't see evidence of it.
Mark
I don't think erg was referring to research necessarily (though that is a part of the picture), I got the impression he was referring to the broader scope of clinical activities beyond just providing therapy (e.g. assessment, treatment planning, etc.). After all, therapist isn't the legally protected term.
mtvisoke- I'd also like to know how your view accounts for the fact that, on average, PhDs get more direct clinical experience and clinical supervision, relative to PsyDs.
mtvisoke- I'd also like to know how your view accounts for the fact that, on average, PhDs get more direct clinical experience and clinical supervision, relative to PsyDs.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,179
- Reaction score
- 5
Hey Mark, I tried to stay out of this argument, but I cannot contain myself🙄🙄. First, where did you see that all the good APPIC slots go to PhD students first? Every PsyD applicant in my program (22) matched to an APA accredited internship site last yr -- I know lots of PhDs who didn't match. At my site there are 4 interns -- 2 are PsyDs and 2 are PhDs. I know you're going to say my program is an exception -- maybe, but let's not write off the many fine PsyDs that come out of a number of programs, funded and unfunded.
Why are we to assume that getting the PsyD is a compromise of one's dream? It has helped me realize my dream and was an excellent choice for me and many others. Who are others to decide that if I merely want the PsyD I'd be better off being a social worker? Some might wonder if that viewpoint is an attempt to keep us PsyD folks "in our place". 😕
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,241
- Reaction score
- 8,645
I think he covered that: "If your dream is to become a Psy.D., then more power to you."
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,563
- Reaction score
- 58
I think this is just a matter of people using inexact terminology. PsyD often becomes shorthand for "professional school" here. You're right, it's not a fair distinction because some professional schools award the PhD and some PsyD schools are highly selective, funded, and provide research training.
I know it seems silly to tell users like yourself and T4C to exempt yourselves from typical "PsyD" debates, but I have a feeling that is pretty much how a lot of posters are thinking about it. I've seen very few people report having a problem with the Vail model itself.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,179
- Reaction score
- 5
I appreciate everyone's comments. I just so often feel an inherent bias against Psyds, and it makes me angry because I think sweeping generalizations about the degree are unfair. Anyway, enough said by me on this topic, I think.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,675
- Reaction score
- 5,023
+1 to everything you wrote.
D
deleted176373
Psychmama,
I have a lot of respect for you and I know that you are a very intelligent and thoughtful person, so please know that I am not attacking you or your training but pointing out data that appears lack congruence with your position and the position of the other poster.
Look at the match rates and do the math. What program do you go to again? Oh that's right, Rutger's, it's perhaps the NUMBER 1 Psy.D. program in the country...
How can you expect me not to say that your program is an anomaly amongst Psy.D. programs? How many Psy.D. programs can boast 2000-2006 match rates in excess of 90%?
I know the answer is likely 1, perhaps 2, if I missed one in my quick scan of the stats. Baylor was at 89.2% over that same time period.
I have ALWAYS said that RUTGERS and BAYLOR were notable exceptions to any discussion regarding the generalities that are discussed about Psy.D.'s and there are a number of other really great Psy.D. programs (but they are certainly in the minority, when compared to the number of marginally respected professional schools offering Psy.D.'s and/or Ph.D.'s) Unfortunately, far too often the Vail model has been prostituted by those more concerned with making a profit than with achieving good outcomes for their students.
I will agree that you cannot take generalities and apply them to specific situations. You cannot even apply them to individual students in otherwise crappy programs, because even in the WORST Psy.D. or Ph.D. program in the country will be a talented person who had their needs met by the program they attended. I am sure there exists someone who has their Ph.D. from Walden (and it's 12% APPIC match rate) and would impress even the most jaded opponent of professional programs.
What I said about dreams was right on the money, if your dream is to have a Ph.D., then it's to have a Ph.D., not a Psy.D.
In general, the idea of substituting a Psy.D. for a Ph.D. is a bad decision for those who have a desire to be a Ph.D. psychologist.
The training is different, that is the whole point in having multiple training models. If your dream is to have a Psy.D. from the best program in the country there is NOTHING wrong with that (and a whole lot right about it.) Even if your dream is to have a Psy.D. from any reputable program, I won't knock anyone for seeking out that training. If however you believe that bias against the Psy.D. doesn't exist, I invite you to read the APPIC match statistics and show me how you can come to a different conclusion.
Mark
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 255
- Reaction score
- 1
I'm not a big fan of professional schools, but there are a few goods ones out there (such as MSPP and the Chicago School).
I also smile a bit when I see "If you wanted to become a therapist why not just get an MSW?" When I went to BU I had a few friends in their MSW program who were frustrated with some non-Macro focused MSW programs often using the line, "If I wanted to be a therapist I would have just gone for a PsyD."
I think the PsyD is a great degree, there are some Psy.D. programs with equal/better training than Ph.D. programs! Its unfortunate that we lump everyone together based on those three letetrs after their name.
Certain programs probably shouldn't be getting accredited by APA but the APA follows a strict set of guildelines that must be enforced and apparently they're following through.
I also smile a bit when I see "If you wanted to become a therapist why not just get an MSW?" When I went to BU I had a few friends in their MSW program who were frustrated with some non-Macro focused MSW programs often using the line, "If I wanted to be a therapist I would have just gone for a PsyD."
I think the PsyD is a great degree, there are some Psy.D. programs with equal/better training than Ph.D. programs! Its unfortunate that we lump everyone together based on those three letetrs after their name.
Certain programs probably shouldn't be getting accredited by APA but the APA follows a strict set of guildelines that must be enforced and apparently they're following through.
So let me get the equation right: Poor match rate = poor training. Rather, how do we not know that poor match rate = unfounded bias against psy.d. programs?
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,675
- Reaction score
- 5,023
The APA, like any other membership organization (associations, unions, etc), relies on membership dues. They put on seminars, have a publishing wing, and do acredidations, though I'd venture to guess (like the vast majority of other membership-based organizations), their main source of revenue comes from membership dues. Since they are a professional organization, their "acredidation" part should also be a money maker.
I believe programs should be limited in their numbers, one way to do that is limit the #'s to how many a program can place into internship every year. I'd want a cap number for everything, but I think having that as a stipulation would remove much of the problem.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,675
- Reaction score
- 5,023
According to their 2008 annual report (pg. 329), their membership and licensing/royalities (which I suspect includes the acredidation fees) make up over half of their total revenue (55% for 2008). In the past 5 years the % has gone up each year, which means unless they have a major change to their revenue stream, they will be more dependant on these two areas as they move forward. Combine this with an investment loss of 44% in 2008, they will be looking for ways to make up their losses for years to come.
So what are the chances they will voluntarily do anything that could potentially limit their membership for this coming year and many years after that?
D
deleted176373
No poor match rate = difficulty getting an internship,
difficulty getting an internship = difficulty getting licensed,
difficulty getting licensed = difficulty establishing career,
difficulty establishing career = difficulty getting paid,
difficulty getting paid = poor return on your investment.
It's not a matter of the quality of training, it's a matter of the perception of the value of that training. It's clear that schools that have low match rates are generating students that are perceived to be less desirable than those students from programs with high match rates. I don't pretend to know the reason for the disparity, but only that a disparity exists and that the disparity appears to harm early career Psy.D. graduates more than it seems to harm early career Ph.D. graduates.
It's not about the training, but if you can name a metric that is a better determinant of perceived value of training, I am all ears. Tell me, would you prefer to use EPPP scores? 10 year salaries? What? And if you have a better metric show me the data that supports your assertion that Psy.D. training is equal to or superior for employment in the field when compared to Ph.D. programs (assuming you can compare these two groups fairly.)
Sure it's a hamfisted approach based on incomplete data, but it's better than the anecdotal arguments others are making. I am at least presenting some data to support my position. So to answer your last question, how do we know that this isn't an unfounded bias against Psy.D. programs? I would say, ask Rutgers or Baylor students if they feel they are subject to unfair bias when applying for internships because of the Psy.D. or Walden students if having a Ph.D. equals internship opportunities.
Mark
Last edited by a moderator:
