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

IncognitoCats

Future Therapist. Past Prof. of Philosophy.
5+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Ok, so everyone familiar with the field might already know some obvious answer to this but I am quite clueless here about the issue CACREP has with faculties that are primarily (but not solely) composed of psychologists. Many excellent masters programs in counseling that are housed in psychology and counseling psychology departments are automatically disqualified from CACREP accreditation. Why?

I see that CACREP is lobbying hard to have their accreditation become synonymous with state licensing board requirements, and I understand that it would be foolish to undertake an MA in counseling where CACREP accreditation mattered that much. But my query is with the initial anti-psychology stance: Where does it come from?

Presumably because of that stance, the rival Masters in Psychology and Counseling Accreditation Council - MPCAC (and MCAC) - emerged in 1995, and gaining traction. MPCAC, not CACREP, accredit NYU and Columbia's MA programs in counseling, for example, whose doctoral programs in the same specialization(counseling), taught by the same staff - are accredited by the APA (who do not accredit masters degrees at all). So, the doctoral graduates of these programs can go on to become counselors/therapists in private practice, no problem. But the masters graduates of the same school and the same staff, and many of the same courses, graduating without the compulsory component of producing original research (PsyD, PhD) - those masters graduates are not recognizable by CACREP as coming up to scratch, and so they are subject to the increasing deprivations of being non-CACREP accredited. Why would the wannabe 'gold standard' accreditation agency for masters degrees - CACREP - freeze out psychologists, accepting only programs with staff that primarily identify as counselors? Whereas the gold standard for doctoral level degrees in the same specialization, at the same school - the APA - has no such qualm? I'm genuinely confused. As the APA plainly recognizes, there is an enormous amount of overlap between psychologists and counselors, there are many excellent teachers and therapists who identify as psychologists and counselors, and their qualifications and experience reflect excellence in both competencies. The fact that a doctoral student of the same school and staff and often courses (sans original research components and courses related to the same) can go on to be a therapist in private practice, but a masters student cannot in CACREP's eyes, is straightforwardly nonsensical, by my lights. Am I missing something? In my search for answers to this quandary of mine, I came across this study on CACREP v MPCAC in terms of each state's laws for licensing, which might be of interest.

Members don't see this ad.
 
So, the doctoral graduates of these programs can go on to become counselors/therapists in private practice, no problem.

I'll fix that for you: the doctoral graduates of clinical psychology or counseling psychology programs go on to become psychologists.

In other words, graduates of doctoral degrees from departments of psychology may provide counseling or psychotherapy services, but professionally they are bound to the ethical and practice standards for psychologists.

Counseling (distinct from counseling psychology) is a separately licensed, regulated, and organized profession.

But the masters graduates of the same school and the same staff, and many of the same courses, graduating without the compulsory component of producing original research (PsyD, PhD) - those masters graduates are not recognizable by CACREP as coming up to scratch

Psychology doctorate minus research does not equal a counseling master's.

Why would the wannabe 'gold standard' accreditation agency for masters degrees - CACREP - freeze out psychologists, accepting only programs with staff that primarily identify as counselors?

The counseling profession has roots in career/vocational and guidance counseling. Mental health counseling didn't become an organized force during the 1970s, but it took longer to become license-eligible and to be recognized nationally as a primary mental health profession. For professional/guild reasons counseling programs have a large stake in remaining separate from psychology. Take out the professional issues and the logic of all this doesn't hold up very well, but there you have it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Agreed; very different foundations and need to maintain separate professional identities?

People become very attached to their professions, professional organizations, and titles, I've noticed. Although both counseling and psychology professionals could (hypothetically) teach the same skills for psychotherapy, there might be some territorial-ness involved and need to promote graduates from your own programs to advance the profession and its representation more, etc. (?)
 
Top