Better career as a master's level therapist?

[Stroop]

Hi all,

I have mostly lurked here for awhile, but I finally have a question that I think has not been answered.

For the longest time I have wanted to become a clinical psychologist or a psychology professor (however, after realizing from my professors how difficult it is to get a teaching job I have abandoned this dream). I have an okay gpa, three awesome letters of reccomendation, research experience, and a few poster presentations ( I take the gre in three weeks). After reading the various threads on here about the bad state of the field (internship crisis, APA failing at advocating for us to lawmakers, etc) it seems as though it might not be worth it to put in all the effort required to become a clinical psychologist.

My question is, is it better to get into a master's program and become an LPC? I am pretty familiar with the cons of this choice. I know the pay is less, possible supervision by a psychologist, I will not be able to assess patients (this means that if I saw a client I would not be able to diagnose them with depression- it would be outside the scope of my training?) How is the job market for LPCs? With all the talk of hiring master's level therapists instead of psychologists would this be a better option?


Thank you for any advice you may give,

Stroop

(Mods - I put the thread here because I want to get the psychologists opinon on this career path as an alternative to going into the scary field of clinical psychology, if you need to move it to the master's level forum that's cool too😀)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[IHrtHealthPsych]

With a master's level license, you work under supervision for 2 years and then you can work independently (private practice, administrative positions, etc.). You will diagnose with the clinical license at the master's level, you just can't use testing for the most part.

Beyond that, it depends on who you talk to. There are licensed psychologists out there who will advise NOT going for a doctorate because employers and insurance companies don't want to fork out the extra money that the extra education demands. They'll say that a master's degree is a better return on your investment if you plan to be in private practice. However, I've met some psychologists (professors/instructors) who encourage students to get their doctorate because they can make so much more money doing testing.

 

[paramour]

With a master's level license, you work under supervision for 2 years and then you can work independently (private practice, administrative positions, etc.). You will diagnose with the clinical license at the master's level, you just can't use testing for the most part.

Beyond that, it depends on who you talk to. There are licensed psychologists out there who will advise NOT going for a doctorate because employers and insurance companies don't want to fork out the extra money that the extra education demands. They'll say that a master's degree is a better return on your investment if you plan to be in private practice. However, I've met some psychologists (professors/instructors) who encourage students to get their doctorate because they can make so much more money doing testing.

In the meantime, there also are insurance companies that will not reimburse you unless you are a licensed doctorate (MD/PhD or PsyD only). It cost extra for employers to add riders so that LPC/LCSW are eligible providers.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Reimbursement and scope of practice are both very state/region dependant. Some states have much stricter laws about who can do what, and other states do a piss poor job of addressing scope of practice issues.

You should investigate the applicable laws and general climate of mental health services in your state(s) of choice. I think masters level training can be sufficient, but it really is up to the practitioner to seek out adequate mentorship and additional training if they want to truly be proficient at therapy.

The difference between masters and doctoral training is far more than "you just can't do assessment". I think there are large differences in conceptualization, intervention considerations, and actual treatment approaches. There is definitely a trend to farm out intervention work to master's level providers, but that isn't true across the board. It is best to do your homework up front, as certain licensures allow more flexibility in certain states.

 

[wigflip]

In the meantime, there also are insurance companies that will not reimburse you unless you are a licensed doctorate (MD/PhD or PsyD only). It cost extra for employers to add riders so that LPC/LCSW are eligible providers.

Wow--I didn't know that--thanks! I am wrestling with the same dilemma as OP and appreciate this thread very much. Anyone care to share thoughts about whether masters level training (for new LPC license or MFT) is good option for folks intending to stay in California? I'm also considering the PsyD, but given my age it may simply be smarter to do masters.

 

[aagman01]

I would consider going the clinical social work route over the counselor/LPC route. There are fewer clinical social work programs than there are counseling. Frequently, it seems that places will hire either a clinical social worker or counselor. Plus, there seem to be many social work only positions out there. In addition to that, it can be challenging for counselors to get their supervised hours for LPC license (most states seem to require 3000 hours). Social workers, to my understanding, can more readily get paid positions right out of school.

Wow--I didn't know that--thanks! I am wrestling with the same dilemma as OP and appreciate this thread very much. Anyone care to share thoughts about whether masters level training (for new LPC license or MFT) is good option for folks intending to stay in California? I'm also considering the PsyD, but given my age it may simply be smarter to do masters.

 

[wigflip]

I would consider going the clinical social work route over the counselor/LPC route. There are fewer clinical social work programs than there are counseling. Frequently, it seems that places will hire either a clinical social worker or counselor. Plus, there seem to be many social work only positions out there. In addition to that, it can be challenging for counselors to get their supervised hours for LPC license (most states seem to require 3000 hours). Social workers, to my understanding, can more readily get paid positions right out of school.

Thanks so much aagman--I appreciate the feedback. I actually already followed that advice against my better judgement--knew I really wanted psych, but started an MSW a few years back. It was a very well-regarded program, but I felt that the quality of training in the particular program was very poor. I would have stuck it out anyway for the better license, but it was so expensive I really couldn't see finishing a program that I thought was way over-hyped and would have left me with the same level of clinical expertise I came in with...I've studiously avoided doing the thing I most wanted, which was the counseling MA or PsyD, so I'm still trying to hash it out.

 

[aagman01]

Were you at a clinical focused social work program or a generalist one? Big difference in terms of training. I hope you find the higher quality and more intensive experiences in a masters counseling program that you seek. Based on my experience/observations and interactions with others, I am not so sure master level counseling programs will have the rigor you seem to aspire towards.

Thanks so much aagman--I appreciate the feedback. I actually already followed that advice against my better judgement--knew I really wanted psych, but started an MSW a few years back. It was a very well-regarded program, but I felt that the quality of training in the particular program was very poor. I would have stuck it out anyway for the better license, but it was so expensive I really couldn't see finishing a program that I thought was way over-hyped and would have left me with the same level of clinical expertise I came in with...I've studiously avoided doing the thing I most wanted, which was the counseling MA or PsyD, so I'm still trying to hash it out.

 

[IHrtHealthPsych]

knew I really wanted psych, but started an MSW a few years back. It was a very well-regarded program, but I felt that the quality of training in the particular program was very poor. I would have stuck it out anyway for the better license, but it was so expensive I really couldn't see finishing a program that I thought was way over-hyped and would have left me with the same level of clinical expertise I came in with...I've studiously avoided doing the thing I most wanted, which was the counseling MA or PsyD, so I'm still trying to hash it out.

I had the EXACT same experience!! Originally wanted psych, but got accepted to an MSW program at a prestigious university (notoriously clinical program), and it was awful, so I dropped out after one semester. Then, I took the prereq's for an MA in clinical psych, and I don't regret it at all! The counselors seem to be doing much more interesting work, too. And I have the added benefit of coursework in testing, which I can use to assist psychologists if I need to. No regrets.

 

[paramour]

Wow--I didn't know that--thanks! I am wrestling with the same dilemma as OP and appreciate this thread very much. Anyone care to share thoughts about whether masters level training (for new LPC license or MFT) is good option for folks intending to stay in California? I'm also considering the PsyD, but given my age it may simply be smarter to do masters.

Insurance regs and standards vary by company and state/region. If you plan on remaining in California, I'd recommend checking with the local folks for what's going on there to see what you can expect. We had national accounts with California folks, and I know that they were a lot more "liberal" in their benefits in comparison to other states' benefits (some as required by the state; others due to the employers electing to provide a bit extra via riders).

 

[wigflip]

Were you at a clinical focused social work program or a generalist one? Big difference in terms of training. I hope you find the higher quality and more intensive experiences in a masters counseling program that you seek. Based on my experience/observations and interactions with others, I am not so sure master level counseling programs will have the rigor you seem to aspire towards.

It was a well-regarded clinical school. Curriculum was a train wreck. Policy class was the only good thing. If I hadn't done a psych BA at a top school I wouldn't have known what I was missing. My friend who was a psych undergrad with me went to the other reputable MSW program in my city and said it was more of the same--when s/he graduated s/he said no way are we trained to do anything resembling therapy.

I know, the rigor thing. Sigh. I went to a local infosession for my target MA program (if I decide against PsyD) and everyone except me and one other person asked idiotic questions that were clearly answered on the school website. I coulda answered most of them easily after looking over the site for a very short time. Arg.

 

[wigflip]

Insurance regs and standards vary by company and state/region. If you plan on remaining in California, I'd recommend checking with the local folks for what's going on there to see what you can expect. We had national accounts with California folks, and I know that they were a lot more "liberal" in their benefits in comparison to other states' benefits (some as required by the state; others due to the employers electing to provide a bit extra via riders).

Thanks, paramour. 🙂

 

[wigflip]

I had the EXACT same experience!! Originally wanted psych, but got accepted to an MSW program at a prestigious university (notoriously clinical program), and it was awful, so I dropped out after one semester. Then, I took the prereq's for an MA in clinical psych, and I don't regret it at all! The counselors seem to be doing much more interesting work, too. And I have the added benefit of coursework in testing, which I can use to assist psychologists if I need to. No regrets.

Omigod--you too! I love you IHrtHealthPsych!! That's why I think generic advice (MSW is always better because of the license, etc.) doesn't always serve particular individuals well. I wonder if we went to the same MSW program?? Feel free to PM me if you want. They made no effort to retain me even though I had a 4.0 and was a top scholarship recipient. ****ers. Treated us like cattle.

Anyway...I went a different way altogether, another (not-so) "smart" choice that blew up in my face when the economy crashed--academia. Am in a doctoral non-psych social science program. Watching our alums get jobs at Boondocks U, only if they're lucky has disabused me of most of my academic yearnings. So glad to hear that my plan B? C? might not be another boo-boo after all (based on your experience). Congrats to you for crafting a worthwhile career.

 

[thepug]

Hi all,

I have mostly lurked here for awhile, but I finally have a question that I think has not been answered.

For the longest time I have wanted to become a clinical psychologist or a psychology professor (however, after realizing from my professors how difficult it is to get a teaching job I have abandoned this dream). I have an okay gpa, three awesome letters of reccomendation, research experience, and a few poster presentations ( I take the gre in three weeks). After reading the various threads on here about the bad state of the field (internship crisis, APA failing at advocating for us to lawmakers, etc) it seems as though it might not be worth it to put in all the effort required to become a clinical psychologist.

My question is, is it better to get into a master's program and become an LPC? I am pretty familiar with the cons of this choice. I know the pay is less, possible supervision by a psychologist, I will not be able to assess patients (this means that if I saw a client I would not be able to diagnose them with depression- it would be outside the scope of my training?) How is the job market for LPCs? With all the talk of hiring master's level therapists instead of psychologists would this be a better option?


Thank you for any advice you may give,

Stroop

(Mods - I put the thread here because I want to get the psychologists opinon on this career path as an alternative to going into the scary field of clinical psychology, if you need to move it to the master's level forum that's cool too😀)

Facepalm*

Be a psychologist, not an abbreviation. Do you really want to spend the rest of your life explaining to people what you can and can't do and why you chose that and why it's better?

Jesus, save your breath for the real training, for the real experience. Buckle-down and get it done, you owe it to the people who need real psychological intervention. I think if you honestly care about these people, you would want to pursue the highest level of training, which must always include a research background.

 

[G Costanza]

Facepalm*

Be a psychologist, not an abbreviation. Do you really want to spend the rest of your life explaining to people what you can and can't do and why you chose that and why it's better?

Jesus, save your breath for the real training, for the real experience. Buckle-down and get it done, you owe it to the people who need real psychological intervention. I think if you honestly care about these people, you would want to pursue the highest level of training, which must always include a research background.

Major life decisions are pretty black and white to you aren't they? 😀

 

[thepug]

Major life decisions are pretty black and white to you aren't they? 😀

Good point.

However, I think what is black and white (other than my life decisions) is doctorate or no doctorate. The doctorate symbolizes the highest level of learning in a subject field. I feel with something like health, it is only responsible to attain that level of learning if you are going to be in such close contact with them, with the potential to cause harm.

I have difficulty understanding how someone can practice independently without a heavy mentorship model and extensive training in research methodology.

When I finish my Ph.D. AND get licensed, I will feel as if I am at the absolute bare minimum of qualification to see patients independently. I have heard from people with M.Eds in Counseling that they are literally frightened at the concept that their peers will soon be independent practitioners.

 

[cara susanna]

Though I agree with your overall point, I'm pretty sure licensed psychologists get abbreviated, too. 😉

 

[Indecisive14]

Good point.

I feel with something like health, it is only responsible to attain that level of learning if you are going to be in such close contact with them, with the potential to cause harm.

I think nurses would take exception to this. They spend the most time with patients and tend to be more attuned to their needs. Nurse practitioners for example even have the ability to prescribe medication and many other responsibilities once reserved for doctors. And don't forget physicians assistants as well.

I have difficulty understanding how someone can practice independently without a heavy mentorship model and extensive training in research methodology.

When I finish my Ph.D. AND get licensed, I will feel as if I am at the absolute bare minimum of qualification to see patients independently. I have heard from people with M.Eds in Counseling that they are literally frightened at the concept that their peers will soon be independent practitioners.

Unfortunately it seems like the insurance companies and government do not feel the same way as you or I. MFT, LPC, LCSW and the rest of the alphabet soup are all gaining ground from what I gather. Too bad they only care about the bottom line of their budget. Why pay a doctorate when you can pay a masters level clinician.

I definitely agree that a Ph.D from a clinically based program with 3 or 4 practicums, an internship, and post-doc supervision should be the minimum to practice mental health. We hold peoples emotional stability and well-being in our hands and only extensive training should serve.

 

[IHrtHealthPsych]

Too bad they only care about the bottom line of their budget. Why pay a doctorate when you can pay a masters level clinician.

I definitely agree that a Ph.D from a clinically based program with 3 or 4 practicums, an internship, and post-doc supervision should be the minimum to practice mental health.

It must be nice to think of our society as consisting of people who can afford to pay for therapy with a doctoral-level clinician (who expects, according to SDN postings, to make close to six-figures)! Seriously. Where do all of these supposed clients get this money? Shall we all pay inflated insurance premiums or taxes so that every single clinician can live the high life? Oh, wait, many of us don't even have insurance. That means it will come out of our pockets or taxes. Of course "they" only care about the bottom line! You don't need all of these years of training to sit with certain populations and provide effective therapy. Psychologists need to realize that research, assessment, and administration/supervision are their forte. If you want to do therapy, go work with high-functioning rich people in private practice. Leave the dirty work to the masters-level clinicians. What's wrong with that?

 

[thepug]

It must be nice to think of our society as consisting of people who can afford to pay for therapy with a doctoral-level clinician (who expects, according to SDN postings, to make close to six-figures)! Seriously. Where do all of these supposed clients get this money? Shall we all pay inflated insurance premiums or taxes so that every single clinician can live the high life? Oh, wait, many of us don't even have insurance. That means it will come out of our pockets or taxes. Of course "they" only care about the bottom line! You don't need all of these years of training to sit with certain populations and provide effective therapy. Psychologists need to realize that research, assessment, and administration/supervision are their forte. If you want to do therapy, go work with high-functioning rich people in private practice. Leave the dirty work to the masters-level clinicians. What's wrong with that?

Because these folks have no business doing the dirty work. Giving their level of training, its like wiping your ass with a Q-tip. I don't follow your argument about insurance. Should M.D.'s be expected to only do surgery/assess rich people, and under-trained nurses and PA's fresh out of 3 year degrees work with poor people? I guess poor people get a level of care where they are actually better off just not going to the doctor...like in the 19th century.

Some of these posts have only reaffirmed my belief that people pursuing these degrees are more interested in their own excitement and a meal ticket than they are in HELPING the mentally ill. I know they want to help, but it's being somewhat outweighed by the fact that they want the money now and they don't like to do icky research. But it's not about them, it's about the mentally ill. You should not be allowed to do anything more than hand out food trays in working with these people without a doctorate. To "play" doctor/mental health provider, you need to be a doctor.

As for the comment made about nurses by another poster, that's all fine and good. But doctors perform perform surgery or review the treatment plan often suggested by the PA or nurse with their RESEARCH background in mind, an essential lock-step in the process that can save a life.

This is not a movie or some sexy t.v. show. You can't improvise when working with the mentally ill, which seems to be what many non-Ph.D. programs encourage, including many counseling programs. It's unseemly.

 

[IHrtHealthPsych]

You should not be allowed to do anything more than hand out food trays in working with these people without a doctorate. To "play" doctor/mental health provider, you need to be a doctor.

Well, there is a whole mental health system out there that disagrees with you. And many masters level clinicians have MUCH more experience with therapy than some so-called "doctors." Good luck getting along with them, with that attitude--it's laughable! A graduate degree to hand out food trays?? Are you kidding me?

 

[thepug]

Well, there is a whole mental health system out there that disagrees with you. And many masters level clinicians have MUCH more experience with therapy than some so-called "doctors." Good luck getting along with them, with that attitude--it's laughable! A graduate degree to hand out food trays?? Are you kidding me?

Good point. Don't get personal now.

As for the therapy training...What!? Maybe in some esoteric programs that should not even be accredited (eghm Capella), but I just don't think that's possible. Maybe some practice more than others, but as far as training AND supervision/mentorship, the doctorate is at or above all other training models as far as experience goes. And experience is a loaded term. It includes more than just time and money spent, it's about research.

Remember when barbers did surgery? When new regulations came into place I imagine these folks did not go off to med school, they just stuck to cutting hair or in the case of mental health baby-sitting patients in the rec room and cafeteria. This is what may happen to many in the alphabet soup of mental health care. It's already happening in Texas and Louisiana.

http://www.apapracticecentral.org/advocacy/managed/doctoral-standard.aspx

Booya!

 

[stigmata]

I find it very humorous that students on this board, with no real experience, can be so "holier-than-thou" about their superiority. Talk to me about skills when you have a clue what you are doing after a few years of licensure and practice. Master's level providers generally do a fine job of providing psychotherapy services, and I refer patients to them frequently. What they don't do well is diagnostics, but they really are not trained for this purpose. Much like a physician refers a patient to a physical therapist, providing the diagnosis and requested treatment, letting the PT do their work, I see patients and assess them then refer them to ancillary services when needed.

 

[stigmata]

Well, there is a whole mental health system out there that disagrees with you. And many masters level clinicians have MUCH more experience with therapy than some so-called "doctors." Good luck getting along with them, with that attitude--it's laughable! A graduate degree to hand out food trays?? Are you kidding me?

Agreed. And yet another reason why psychology is marginalizing itself...arrogance. Same happened with psychiatry in Medicine.

 

[thepug]

I find it very humorous that students on this board, with no real experience, can be so "holier-than-thou" about their superiority. Talk to me about skills when you have a clue what you are doing after a few years of licensure and practice. Master's level providers generally do a fine job of providing psychotherapy services, and I refer patients to them frequently. What they don't do well is diagnostics, but they really are not trained for this purpose. Much like a physician refers a patient to a physical therapist, providing the diagnosis and requested treatment, letting the PT do their work, I see patients and assess them then refer them to ancillary services when needed.

Your probably right.

But there are many states, New York for instance, where the level of training required to be independent is shockingly low. Sure with practice these folks will improve, but God protect those first few years of clients.

 

[IHrtHealthPsych]

Master's level providers generally do a fine job of providing psychotherapy services, and I refer patients to them frequently. What they don't do well is diagnostics, but they really are not trained for this purpose.

Exactly.

 

[IHrtHealthPsych]

As for the therapy training...What!? Maybe in some esoteric programs that should not even be accredited (eghm Capella), but I just don't think that's possible. Maybe some practice more than others, but as far as training AND supervision/mentorship, the doctorate is at or above all other training models as far as experience goes. And experience is a loaded term. It includes more than just time and money spent, it's about research.

I have an anecdotal example for you. My mentor (a professor at my graduate school, which is an MA/PsyD program in clinical psych) has her PhD in clinical psych from *UCLA*. She told me the training was so research-focused that she had the equivalent clinical training of a master's graduate. Her research was not intervention oriented, so no gold there. In such a case, we are talking about equivalence in training, and then basic equivalence (depending on the site) in post-practicum training. While the future PhD is on internship & doing postdoc (which could very well be research and have nothing to do with therapy), the master's level clinician is working under supervision for those same years doing therapy. Those two examples are equivalent in their experience with therapy! The therapy training could be more in a PsyD or more practice-oriented program, but this is not automatically true for the doctorate.

 

[thepug]

I have an anecdotal example for you. My mentor (a professor at my graduate school, which is an MA/PsyD program in clinical psych) has her PhD in clinical psych from *UCLA*. She told me the training was so research-focused that she had the equivalent clinical training of a master's graduate. Her research was not intervention oriented, so no gold there. In such a case, we are talking about equivalence in training, and then basic equivalence (depending on the site) in post-practicum training. While the future PhD is on internship & doing postdoc (which could very well be research and have nothing to do with therapy), the master's level clinician is working under supervision for those same years doing therapy. Those two examples are equivalent in their experience with therapy! The therapy training could be more in a PsyD or more practice-oriented program, but this is not automatically true for the doctorate.

Notice how I said AT or above...

UCLA is not a good example because it is within that group of 20 or so programs that train academic researchers. However, these programs provide excellent internship opportunities for those who stray away from the academic track.

Just like *good* Psy.D. programs, these programs fall within a small minority of clinical Ph.D. programs and contribute extremely little to the body of practitioners out there, as most, like your Professor in question, are academics, though she probably does see a few private-pay clients on the side.

It's kind of weird she is working within the Psy.D. program though given she is an academic and funding in these dept. is very limited...I bet she gets paid A LOT.

 

[IHrtHealthPsych]

though she probably does see a few private-pay clients on the side.

Yes, she does have a small private practice. So, she is practicing. Doing therapy.

It's kind of weird she is working within the Psy.D. program though given she is an academic and funding in these dept. is very limited...I bet she gets paid A LOT.

You're being sarcastic, right?! Thing is, she is a smart cookie and decided to go to UCLA for the prestige factor, and now regrets it because she discovered that she wants to teach. She obviously has complained about the lack of clinical training there, which if nothing else is informing her teaching. So, she is at my school because it's a teaching school, with some research--doesn't need to make a LOT of money, because she didn't pay for her degree, and (gasp!) doing what she loves is more important. But the fact remains that she is still a licensed psychologist, from the cream of the crop, practicing...

 

[thepug]

Yes, she does have a small private practice. So, she is practicing. Doing therapy.



You're being sarcastic, right?! Thing is, she is a smart cookie and decided to go to UCLA for the prestige factor, and now regrets it because she discovered that she wants to teach. She obviously has complained about the lack of clinical training there, which if nothing else is informing her teaching. So, she is at my school because it's a teaching school, with some research--doesn't need to make a LOT of money, because she didn't pay for her degree, and (gasp!) doing what she loves is more important. But the fact remains that she is still a licensed psychologist, from the cream of the crop, practicing...

She probably gets paid a lot of money by the program, some of which comes from your tuition and the loads of interest on those vicious student loans from previous cohorts. You see, when I said funding, I meant research funding.

I don't see why she would "kick herself" because the best teachers are the best researchers Period. You cannot disagree with that. Moreover, she got that teaching job because she went to a prestigious university; its hard to get into a good program from an "average" program, you either stay where you are or go backwards.

I think you misinterpreted what she said or just made this whole story up because none of it adds up. No program makes you a better teacher except maybe a counseling program in an education dept. However these are pretty non-scientific and thus would come at the cost of teaching quality (although not ability).

A tenured professor that sees clients on the side and writes textbooks can make upward of 160k a year. Into the 200s if it is one of those schools that pays at or around 150k for tenured professors. Are you serious? Why do you think most people get Ph.D.s in general? It's a risky route to pursue academia, but it pays.

 

[stigmata]

Like there is no data to support the idea that psychologists perform therapy better than mid-level providers, there is also no data showing that psychologists from top rated programs are better practitioners than those from other programs. It has face validity only. As a business ownerI would probably hire a psychologist with some life experience from a professional school over a person without any from a top program.

 

[IHrtHealthPsych]

She probably gets paid a lot of money by the program, some of which comes from your tuition and the loads of interest on those vicious student loans from previous cohorts. You see, when I said funding, I meant research funding.

Please explain how programs get interest from student loans. I am unaware of this.

I don't see why she would "kick herself" because the best teachers are the best researchers Period. You cannot disagree with that.

Good researcher does not equal good teacher. Unless I'm misunderstanding you. Case in point, lecturers in big research universities who have no idea how to deliver the material. Two completely different skills, especially if you're talking clinical skills. Maybe great researcher and great teacher, but not necessarily.

Moreover, she got that teaching job because she went to a prestigious university

Probably. But what she wanted to do was teach primarily, not do research. Shocker, I know.

I think you misinterpreted what she said or just made this whole story up because none of it adds up. No program makes you a better teacher except maybe a counseling program in an education dept.

No misinterpretation, she's been very adamant that she is a teacher and that is what she discovered that she wanted to do. Made up the whole story? I don't have any reason to do that. I agree that no program would make you a better teacher, necessarily, but I get the impression that she was emphasizing her desire to teach rather than do research, which is specifically what her program trained her to do (research).

A tenured professor that sees clients on the side and writes textbooks can make upward of 160k a year. Into the 200s if it is one of those schools that pays at or around 150k for tenured professors. Are you serious? Why do you think most people get Ph.D.s in general? It's a risky route to pursue academia, but it pays.

Okay, I see where you're going. She's not tenured yet. She's been there two years, hasn't even published anything yet. Maybe someday, but not yet. In fact, when I complained to her about my student loans going back into repayment, she countered that she also had some loans that she had to start paying back, which I scoffed at--no comparison.

 

[IHrtHealthPsych]

Like there is no data to support the idea that psychologists perform therapy better than mid-level providers, there is also no data showing that psychologists from top rated programs are better practitioners than those from other programs. It has face validity only. As a business ownerI would probably hire a psychologist with some life experience from a professional school over a person without any from a top program.

I agree with your sentiment there. My mentor, who we discussed, has told me several times that the best clinical supervisors she ever had were PsyDs from CSPP in CA.

 

[thepug]

I agree with your sentiment there. My mentor, who we discussed, has told me several times that the best clinical supervisors she ever had were PsyDs from CSPP in CA.

Well how many supervisors do you really get? One in the first 4 years then your internship ones, which, seeing as they are career practitioners and your on their work-site, yeah I can imagine the supervision is a lot better.

I only say this because I'm not all for the Psy.D. = better clinicians and Ph.D. = better researchers argument because the few articles that have been published on the issue do not support this. However, the one which I read was a thesis and conducted very poorly. It was published in a crappy journal and I believe was done by two students in a FSP without a faculty member or Ph.D. for that matter on the publication (not that you need a Ph.D., I just mean methodology training is important). I think the title was "Evaluative Comparisons of PsyD and PhD Students by Clinical Internship Supervisor"

However, while your mentor may have found them to be the "best", this does not mean the supervisor was objectively good by EBP standards. And EBT is the emerging standard and you will not find any accredited Ph.D. programs in clinical that are not adjusting their program to fit into this change as is reflected during interviews. Some programs used to be able to go in the other direction, but now their rankings and funding suffer for it.

I like this article...

National survey of psychotherapy training in psychiatry, psychology, and social work

As you can see, about 70% of Psy.D. programs do not require EBT training. However, I imagine the good ones do.

 

[thepug]

Good researcher does not equal good teacher. Unless I'm misunderstanding you. Case in point, lecturers in big research universities who have no idea how to deliver the material. Two completely different skills, especially if you're talking clinical skills. Maybe great researcher and great teacher, but not necessarily.

I just don't agree with you on this. In the scenario you are describing, the class was probably taught by a T.A. or some derelict adjunct. Either way, I find that not all good researchers are good teachers. But most good teachers do a lot of research.

The best professors I have ever had were prominent researchers and most of their lectures reviewed their own work or that of their peers. I feel this is the only way to truly educate someone, reviewing journal articles. Otherwise your just indoctrinating them to your own, very limited, personal perspective, which is unfair to the student and just plain wrong. Textbooks, especially in clinical, are mostly outdated so it's critical to instruct a course based almost entirely on emerging research, thus reading icky gross research articles.

I mean if you care about education should you not care about educating yourself and if you can't find those answer seek them out through icky research?

 

[stigmata]

I would love to be a fly on the wall observing your practice in 5 years. The real world isn't grad school and time is not allotted to read copius amounts of research to stay up on the rigidity of academia under the guise of being a better clinician!

 

[thepug]

I would love to be a fly on the wall observing your practice in 5 years. The real world isn't grad school and time is not allotted to read copius amounts of research to stay up on the rigidity of academia under the guise of being a better clinician!

Yes and it's also not the local community theater's improv night either.

Most Ph.D. practitioners I talk to are subscribed to 2 or 3 academic journals. How much they read them I don't know, but at least they make an effort to stay involved.

How long does it really take to read the methods and discussion section of an article? 10 minutes? And how would this be under some "guise"? "Ohh look at me I read the evidence-based research. I'm hiding something." The only guise here is the self-important belief that your intuition is enough to treat patients.

 

[stigmata]

Nope, I have much more training than you and many more years of experience. You are sub-intern, and can only have any say on websites. That will change, and you will gain some experience and hopefully some sense.

 

[roubs]

I would love to be a fly on the wall observing your practice in 5 years. The real world isn't grad school and time is not allotted to read copius amounts of research to stay up on the rigidity of academia under the guise of being a better clinician!

It's funny that you like to rely on research to tell you that there's no difference between being treated by a Master's vs Doctoral level therapist, yet you seem unwilling to rely on research to help ensure you are delivering treatment that works.

time is not allotted to read copius amounts of research

What you really mean is billable time, of course.

 

[wigflip]

Hi all,

I have mostly lurked here for awhile, but I finally have a question that I think has not been answered.

For the longest time I have wanted to become a clinical psychologist or a psychology professor (however, after realizing from my professors how difficult it is to get a teaching job I have abandoned this dream). I have an okay gpa, three awesome letters of reccomendation, research experience, and a few poster presentations ( I take the gre in three weeks). After reading the various threads on here about the bad state of the field (internship crisis, APA failing at advocating for us to lawmakers, etc) it seems as though it might not be worth it to put in all the effort required to become a clinical psychologist.

My question is, is it better to get into a master's program and become an LPC? I am pretty familiar with the cons of this choice. I know the pay is less, possible supervision by a psychologist, I will not be able to assess patients (this means that if I saw a client I would not be able to diagnose them with depression- it would be outside the scope of my training?) How is the job market for LPCs? With all the talk of hiring master's level therapists instead of psychologists would this be a better option?


Thank you for any advice you may give,

Stroop

(Mods - I put the thread here because I want to get the psychologists opinon on this career path as an alternative to going into the scary field of clinical psychology, if you need to move it to the master's level forum that's cool too😀)

Well, OP Stroop, what do you think of the psychologists' opinion now? 😱
Should we invest in latex gloves and start handing out food trays?

 

[stigmata]

It's funny that you like to rely on research to tell you that there's no difference between being treated by a Master's vs Doctoral level therapist, yet you seem unwilling to rely on research to help ensure you are delivering treatment that works.



What you really mean is billable time, of course.

That's the difference between a student and an experienced psychologist...I don't rely on research as I am smart and experienced enought to know its limitations, I integrate it.

 

[thepug]

It's funny that you like to rely on research to tell you that there's no difference between being treated by a Master's vs Doctoral level therapist, yet you seem unwilling to rely on research to help ensure you are delivering treatment that works.


Herein lies the pulse of pretty much the entire non-scientific practitioner community.

I read a study which I recently posted that said one of the greatest predictors of integrating EBT is exposure to research and ones attitude towards it.

Hence, why research is so damn important when training any health care provider. Heck why don't we just dance around a fire and throw dust at it as I FEEL like that will work.

 

[thepug]

Nope, I have much more training than you and many more years of experience. You are sub-intern, and can only have any say on websites. That will change, and you will gain some experience and hopefully some sense.

I just can't get over your statement about someone reading emerging research as being done under some surruptitious guise What is that?

And the word copious...I think you meant icky gross research.

 

[Indecisive14]

I retract my previous statement. Masters level therapists can be just as well trained as a doctorate level therapist. Its all up to the individual. I was more just thinking about the difference in length of training between the two. Obviously more training should make a better clinician but who is to say what the minimum is to be good. Its all down to the individual.

 

[stigmata]

I retract my previous statement. Masters level therapists can be just as well trained as a doctorate level therapist. Its all up to the individual. I was more just thinking about the difference in length of training between the two. Obviously more training should make a better clinician but who is to say what the minimum is to be good. Its all down to the individual.

Yes. Also, experience. You will learn much more about being a good clinician the 1st year you are licensed than you did in school.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Yes. Also, experience. You will learn much more about being a good clinician the 1st year you are licensed than you did in school.

To a point, but if you don't have a solid foundation, no amount of experience is going to fix the deficits. some people just acquire "more" but not necessarily "better" experience.

 

[stigmata]

Is this deja vu or what...🙄

 

[wigflip]

In the scenario you are describing, the class was probably taught by a T.A. or some derelict adjunct.

"Derelict adjunct"? Really?? You do realize that <50% of PhD holders ever get a tenure track offer, right? On most public school campuses, the majority of classes are taught by non-T-T folks (grad students, adjuncts, sometimes VAP--I've read estimates that 68% of classes go to these folks). I've mentioned this on another thread, but one of my co-authors has a top pedigree, 18 pubs, and >another 14 MS in various stages of review and prep. Best offer in year 1 of national academic job market was 1-year VAP in the boonies. Not adjunct, but not a T-T researcher gig either.

Adjuncts aren't *****s who couldn't cut it (though they very well may be "derelict" given the shockingly low pay). Most are highly qualified folks who got squeezed in a ridiculous academic job market. Many continue to accept insultingly low wages (sans benefits) in order to maintain institutional affiliation for purposes of continuing to publish...their research.

It does seem that the conversation here has shifted a bit from the importance of engaging in research to the importance of "exposing oneself to"/intelligently consuming research. But for those of you who believe that conducting research is somehow essential for clinicians, what happens after you file the diss if you don't go T-T and get the big grants? On the other hand, if engaging in research throughout one's career isn't essential, how much research experience is "necessary" in order to be a "good" clinician?

 

[wigflip]

Some of these posts have only reaffirmed my belief that people pursuing these degrees are more interested in their own excitement and a meal ticket than they are in HELPING the mentally ill. I know they want to help, but it's being somewhat outweighed by the fact that they want the money now and they don't like to do icky research. But it's not about them, it's about the mentally ill. You should not be allowed to do anything more than hand out food trays in working with these people without a doctorate. To "play" doctor/mental health provider, you need to be a doctor.

I've conceded elsewhere that I thought that the training in my former MSW program was abysmal (I left after a semester with a 4.0). But as others have implied, the above snobbery is silly at best. Regarding hierarchies, you do realize that many academic psychologists in areas other than clinical look down upon applied research and clinicians (even those with doctorates), right? And that many academics in non-psych disciplines regard the entire discipline of psychology poorly? I doubt you'll be moved by the humanists' accusations of "positivism," but many in the STEM fields think that psych is insufficiently scientific (I'll leave the other social scientists out of it for the time being).

What's my point? Not that psych's critics are right, just that if you're going to play the hierarchy game, be aware that you too are the butt of someone else's joke and the object of many others' derision.

 

[cara susanna]

"Derelict adjunct"? Really?? You do realize that <50% of PhD holders ever get a tenure track offer, right? On most public school campuses, the majority of classes are taught by non-T-T folks (grad students, adjuncts, sometimes VAP--I've read estimates that 68% of classes go to these folks). I've mentioned this on another thread, but one of my co-authors has a top pedigree, 18 pubs, and >another 14 MS in various stages of review and prep. Best offer in year 1 of national academic job market was 1-year VAP in the boonies. Not adjunct, but not a T-T researcher gig either.

Adjuncts aren't *****s who couldn't cut it (though they very well may be "derelict" given the shockingly low pay). Most are highly qualified folks who got squeezed in a ridiculous academic job market. Many continue to accept insultingly low wages (sans benefits) in order to maintain institutional affiliation for purposes of continuing to publish...their research.

Thanks, that remark offended me, too.