Sure.
The wording here implies that PhD programs aren't providing this clinical didactic training, which just isn't true.
This statement is false and incredibly misleadiing.
PhD programs are not philosophy programs focused on clinical psychology. They are science programs focused on training students to be both scientists and professional psychologists.
The implication here is that PsyD students are getting more and better clinical training in terms of quantity and quality, which, as others have pointed out, isn't true. It's also insinuating that research training is some how detracting or distracting from clinical training, instead of being synergistic.
Stipends are not just "sometimes" greater, but nearly always outside of PhD programs housed in diploma mills. Moreover, stipends and full funding (i.e., full tuition remission and a substantial stipend) are not simply the product of faculty grants. Rather, the university ensures that students are fully funded as a matter of course.
Then why call it something different than a "dissertation," which is the norm for the field. It's only like they're being deceptive with their language......
This is deceptive in acting like getting an APA accredited internship is some kind of personal choice rather than conforming to the minimum standards of the field and acknowledging that not doing so will severely hinder one's job opportunities for their entire career. Notice how they don't acknowledge their use of a captive internship to game the match statistics.
In one year, they went from only being able to match half their students to matching 100%. If you think that the quality of the program went up so precipitously in that one year, I have a bridge to sell you.