Christian Psy.D. and Ph.D. Programs

[PhDPractitioner]

I graduated from Seattle Pacific University and I highly recommend it. I am now licensed! SPU has a great reputation in the Seattle area...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[baylordude]

Hello there. I'm am also in the process of applying to psy.d programs. although my interest in schools isn't contigent upon chistrian affiliation, I did go to Baylor as an undergrad and to Pepperdine as a masters student. So, I might be able to give you a bit of insight into those institutions if you would like. feel free to ask away!

~Ron

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

Thanks 73BARMYPgsp,

I added it to my list. I think I initially took it off because of the requirement of pursuing a masters degree separately and I would prefer to go straight for the Psy.D. or Ph.D.

Anyone have thoughts on programs like that, where you need to get your Masters first and then pursue your doctoral studies?

That's true. Their program is a little wierd that way.

Also, calling it a "Christian" program is being pretty fast and loose with the word "Christian." Way back in the day, Peperdine was affiliated with the Church of Christ (not to be confused with LDS, or United COC). Their only affiliation now is that the Malibu Church of Christ meets on the campus and the west coast office of church relations is there.

 

[solumanculver]

Hey,
I hope I'm not misunderstanding what's being discussed here... but what is the point of studying psychology with a theological component?

I'm a dual major in chemistry and religion, but that's a kind of accident of history. The addition of religion doesn't add anything to my study of chemistry. Why should psychology be different? It's a science, right?

What would a "Christian Psychologist" do differently than a regular psychologist? They wouldn't pray during the therapy or something, would they?

Is the idea to help relate to religious patients? That would be nice, but isn't simply being the same religion as the patient enough to relate to them on religion without having to mix the religion up with the science? Isn't psychology practice an evidence-based thing?

 

[deleted176373]

Hey,
I hope I'm not misunderstanding what's being discussed here... but what is the point of studying psychology with a theological component?

Some people like the support system that comes with a institution with a religious affiliation. Others are looking for a curriculum that integrates their faith with science... being non-denominational and non-practicing of any faith means that I don't quite get it. That's just how some people are though.

Mark

 

[Ollie123]

I'm actually on board with the "chemistry and religion" analogy as well. As long as the education is evidence-based and isn't teaching "Pray that your schizophrenia goes away" or focus on converting clients to christianity, I don't really have a problem with it though. Not for me, but to each their own.

I see them as unrelated, and if someone wanted to go to a PhD school with...I don't know, hardwood floors, I'd think its unusual but wouldn't really care, as long as they aren't planning on incorporating home remodeling into their psychology practice.

 

[GiantSteps]

Some additinal points on why some people may want to be at a school that is supported by a religious demonination:

1. I also assume than any religious based university has loftier goals of training professionals who will eventually do work with or for people, organizations, and institutes of that religion. Having easier access to that religious group's intellectual leaders and people would tend to make the students/ future professionals more knowledgeable and sensitive to the needs to that particular religious group.

2. Some people may be specifally interested in studying clinical needs/ issues in a specific religious population. There would probably be more experimental subjects (or access to them) of a particular denomination at a school which is based in that religion (e.g. Catholics at Notre Dame, Jews at Yeshiva University, Mormans at Brigham Young University, etc.). It is probably more likely that there are also more professors at these schools who are engaged in studying the people of the given religion, if that is what one is interested in studying while in school. Finally, there may be more funding available at such places to study people of that religion.

 

[solumanculver]

I also assume than any religious based university has loftier goals of training professionals who will eventually do work with or for people, organizations, and institutes of that religion.

I'm not sure that the goal of working primarily with people of a specific religion is a "loftier goal". I think that it's a kind of lower ethnocentric goal.

Some people may be specifally interested in studying clinical needs/ issues in a specific religious population.

Hey, I don't know a lot about psychology, so this may be a dumb question, but is there such a thing as a treatment modality that is only effective with one specific religious population? That seems to be pretty implausible to me. Why would belonging to a certain religion factor into the kind of treatment you get?

 

[Ollie123]

Its less about treatment modality and more about where you focus your attention. It seems unlikely CBT or exposure therapy, or psychoanalysis or something would "not work" solely because of someones religion (though I suppose it is possible). Instead, its a matter of frame the goals within that context.

For example, a client who is being abused by their husband/wife may not be willing to divorce them despite the abuse because of religious beliefs. It would likely require some religious sensitivity/understanding to handle that issue. That's just one example, there's a bunch I can think of offhand, and this isn't my area so I'm sure someone who did study it could give you a much longer list than I could.

I'd argue that can easily be obtained at a non-religious school as well, but some folks may feel differently. Like I said before, I'm fine with that provided the religious training is "in addition to" and not "in place of" the typical training.

 

[GiantSteps]

I'm not sure that the goal of working primarily with people of a specific religion is a "loftier goal". I think that it's a kind of lower ethnocentric goal.

By "loftier goal" I meant above and beyond granting a degree to the student. Perhaps you misunderstand, but I do not think it is fair to say that a religious institutes goal of training leaders and professional providers for its people is a "lower ethnocentric goal". Successful organizations are supposed to train future leaders and professionals who will keep the organization going in the future. Organizations from the military to Ford motor company spend money to train people with their own organizations future in mind. Of course, the trainees may or may not decide to stay with the organization in the future, but that is the risk the organization runs in spending their money.

Hey, I don't know a lot about psychology, so this may be a dumb question, but is there such a thing as a treatment modality that is only effective with one specific religious population? That seems to be pretty implausible to me. Why would belonging to a certain religion factor into the kind of treatment you get?

I think Ollie gave a good example of how training or knowledge of a group could enhance a clinician's ability to define and determine goals.

I was talking about studying different groups. Differences between and within groups is a fundamental research issue in psychology, aside from any. There are major research issues based on prevalance of and related problems of mental illness in different ethinic groups, such as religious ones. As I wrote, one is more likely to find people studying a specific religious group or find access to subjects at an educational institute which is supporte dby that religion.

In terms of specific mental health needs, I was not refering to something such as a Catholic needing a different type of therapy than an Amish person (although who knows what a study may reveal) but larger community needs. For example, an insular Amish community which shuns many things in the modern world may not have appropriate access to mental health facilities and the people living in such a community may not be willing to receive services from people who seem foreign to them. Perhaps studies could reveal (just hypothetically) that Catholics have a high percentage of depression in males. Knowing this information would enable Catholic based service organization to get more clinician trained in treating adult male deppression. Two examples of the sensitivity issue, although very simple - but easily overlooked, might be not attempting to give male therapists to religious Muslim women in an isolated room, or giving a Chassidic Jewish male clients female therapists who are wearing clothing with is not so modest.

The religious community's needs may not make much sense unless you have witnessed a large religious community since for many people religion is just simply an isolated activity which they do on their own or with their family.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I hope it's okay to bump up old threads.

I am considering applying to George Fox U because they offer clinical opportunities in my main area of interest, which is fairly rare. I identify as Christian, and while it's not a "gotta have" aspect of a program for me, I wouldn't wholly object to having faith integrated into my training to some degree. What I'm worried about is that I have no substantial Christian "extra curriculars," so to speak (though I am looking to improve upon my lax church attendance ), even though my faith is a part of my identity (not something I would push on clients, though--I'm careful when it comes to most kinds of self-disclosure in general and have done a lot of multicultural work in an area where spirituality can be playing with historical/cultural fire). I'm worried this could result an "auto-reject" from a religious university.

 

[sunshinejenn]

Just a quick note to say that Pepperdine's doctorate program is a Psy.D, not a Ph.D.

 

[racek]

I'm actually on board with the "chemistry and religion" analogy as well.

so am i...though i want to note that i consider science a form of religion, insofar as there is a certain belief in types of/ways to truth. and while truths can be proven using this method, this method can never really be tested using its own measures.

that coming from someone who sometimes believes in postmodernism. (and i'm definitely not religious, by any means)

 

[psychometric]

so am i...though i want to note that i consider science a form of religion, insofar as there is a certain belief in types of/ways to truth. and while truths can be proven using this method, this method can never really be tested using its own measures.

that coming from someone who sometimes believes in postmodernism. (and i'm definitely not religious, by any means)

One can try to explain anything but does it make sense? Not necessarily. There is though, no science in religion, since it is a belief; there is only a scientific method that can try to examine if religious figures did exist. It is the old and never tiring question which is begged by Agnostics and Believers:" If billions of people believe in it, it can't be wrong, can it?"
This would be a circular argument and therefore unsound. So far, any one person has to come up with evidence that all the stories told , and later written down, are anything more than the ideas of ancient philosophers and sociologists, who were concerned about bringing some order to their world of chaos. Epistemology tries to answer those questions. Also, you will always find statements, twisted and turned in the direction of whoever is the messenger , in order to shape peoples' outlook on religion. There is additionally a dangerous path, or slippery slope you are suggesting, since part of your statement could be utilized to push the idea of having Creationism taught in classrooms, which I would see as an evolutionary step back into the past (approximately 500 - 600 years).
Belief is Belief and Science is Proof !

 

[racek]

Please understand that I do not think religious beliefs have any place in any classroom whatsoever. I do not believe Creationism should be taught in schools. And I do believe that the scientific method is wholly relevant to psychology, where religion is not.

However, I recognize that these are my personal beliefs. The point of my argument was a philosophical one - how do we "prove," with science, that the scientific method is a way to truth? There is no way to do so, because it would require use of the very methods under question (quantitative superiority, mathematical formulas, empirical testing).

IE, of course there is no science in religion. But there is some "religion" inherent in science, if we are to define religion as a set of beliefs and principles.

Just because an argument is controversial doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. We have to have intelligent responses to these ideas --those of us who believe in science-- rather than the blanket statement "such ideas are dangerous." I am not sure what these responses are, but I am trying to think about them in a manner that addresses the argument at hand.

One can try to explain anything but does it make sense? Not necessarily. There is though, no science in religion, since it is a belief; there is only a scientific method that can try to examine if religious figures did exist. It is the old and never tiring question which is begged by Agnostics and Believers:" If billions of people believe in it, it can't be wrong, can it?"!

I was not speaking about numbers of believers.

This would be a circular argument and therefore unsound.

But the standard argument in support of the scientific method is also circular. IE, the scientific method is the only thing that can be tested and proven. But, so the argument goes, it must be tested using the scientific method.

There is additionally a dangerous path, or slippery slope you are suggesting, since part of your statement could be utilized to push the idea of having Creationism taught in classrooms, which I would see as an evolutionary step back into the past (approximately 500 - 600 years).

Again, I agree. But we have to have a sound argument against this without resorting to axioms about science that sound like opinion.

Belief is Belief and Science is Proof !!

In sum: sure, but how do we prove it?

 

[Cosmo75]

I'm a recovered Catholic and consider myself a secular humanist. However, I have seen how faith and religion plays into the therapeutic relationship. Some of my clients have a strong faith and to ignore that while doing therapy would probably be counterproductive. So I go with it, and use what I know about Christianity from my upbringing. I'm also open about my own faith (or lack thereof), and that has worked well for me so far. Even with those who are very religious. I've also heard people expand the biopsychosocial model to include spiritual in some talks. So I don't really see having a religious aspect to being a practicing psychologist as an infringement on the science, but rather meeting clients where they are in terms of their belief systems.

 

[Ollie123]

So I don't really see having a religious aspect to being a practicing psychologist as an infringement on the science, but rather meeting clients where they are in terms of their belief systems.

I think that's a fair assessment - I just think it can be a fine line and some schools push it too far (see Regent University mission statement for an example). In their case, I think its highly inappropriate that they be labeled a clinical psychology program and accredited as such since their goals seem to be completely at odds with evidence-based practice. Note that I'm not saying that they shouldn't exist, just that the way their mission statement is worded - they do not sound like they are training clinical psychologists. Its important for clinicians to have religious sensitivity, be open to discussing it, recognize the important role that religion may have and not be dismissive of beliefs even when they may be causing a problem, etc.

 

[Cosmo75]

I think that's a fair assessment - I just think it can be a fine line and some schools push it too far (see Regent University mission statement for an example). In their case, I think its highly inappropriate that they be labeled a clinical psychology program and accredited as such since their goals seem to be completely at odds with evidence-based practice. Note that I'm not saying that they shouldn't exist, just that the way their mission statement is worded - they do not sound like they are training clinical psychologists. Its important for clinicians to have religious sensitivity, be open to discussing it, recognize the important role that religion may have and not be dismissive of beliefs even when they may be causing a problem, etc.

Agree completely. I shied away from Wheaton College because I was afraid the lines would be too blurred, though I admit I didn't do much investigating into if that were the case. And they probably wouldn't have accepted my heathen butt anyway

 

[psychometric]

racek
Member

Status: Pre-Psychology
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 30

Again, I agree. But we have to have a sound argument against this without resorting to axioms about science that sound like opinion.

In sum: sure, but how do we prove it?[/quote]



Let's say you want to know if drinking salt water is healthy, you might test (of course not ethical) a group that drinks 20 oz of that salt water and have a control group that does not. The first group dies and you conclude that drinking salt water is actually dangerous to ones health.
Now, in your second experiment you want to know if God exists, and you have one group that searches for him and another that just sits at home and waits. Both come up empty and you have no proof.

So, testing science means actually providing evidence !

 

[racek]

Cosmo, that makes sense. I think it's important to recognize patients' beliefs and integrate them in therapy. I'm mostly referring to psychologists' belief systems in my previous posts.

So, testing science means actually providing evidence !

psychometric, my question is not how to conduct an experiment, but rather how to prove that a scientific/empirical experiment is the right way of testing things. Yours is a good argument about religion, but I wonder how to argue that this method actually leads to truth. I'm asking kind of rhetorically; I don't necessarily have an answer. But it's interesting to think about.

 

[Cosmo75]

Cosmo, that makes sense. I think it's important to recognize patients' beliefs and integrate them in therapy. I'm mostly referring to psychologists' belief systems in my previous posts.

On the flip side of my statement, if I went to a therapist and they tried to integrate spirituality/religion into MY treatment when it is obviously not part of my way of life, I'd ask the therapist to knock it off (politely of course) but if it persisted I'd find it incredibly offensive. That would be the end of our working arrangement.

As for integrating religion into research, as long as the design integrity is there and leaps of faith (pun intended) aren't made on the results, I see studying the role of spirituality in psychology as any other variable. The problem is that the press picks up on these studies and summarizes them to the level of the "conclusions" and reports on them as if they were fact. Then we have people saying that prayer cures cancer

 

[psydd]

have you guys heard of terror management theory?

 

[Ollie123]

have you guys heard of terror management theory?

Umm...yes?

 

[psydd]

well, it can easily be attributed to religion. i feel like it explains a great deal as to why people cling to their respective faiths.

i just thought i'd bring it up given the topic of conversation that the thread developed into. and, you know, it's a psychological theory, so it's appropriate.

don't mind me. i'm an atheist.

 

[racek]

have you guys heard of terror management theory?

good point

 

[JockNerd]

well, it can easily be attributed to religion. i feel like it explains a great deal as to why people cling to their respective faiths.

i just thought i'd bring it up given the topic of conversation that the thread developed into. and, you know, it's a psychological theory, so it's appropriate.

don't mind me. i'm an atheist.

I'm an atheist too, and while I know it's very fashionable to get all angsty about religion (calling it psychopathology, or whatever), I think that's a pretty narrow view of applications of psychological theory to religion, of diversity, and of multiculturalism. Similar to my posts some months back in a similar thread about people who get all uppity about crystals and such, but then are fine with major, organized religions.

 

[psydd]

well i don't know everything about every religion. i actually only meant what i said in regard to christianity, because it's how i was raised. i should've been clearer.

 

[cara susanna]

As a Roman Catholic, I'm not sure how much I agree with you, and I think a lot of people would take offense to what you said.

 

[psydd]

i'm assuming you're referring to me, but i don't see how anything i said was offensive. other behaviors can be explained through the use of psychological theories. i don't think religious beliefs should be exempt from having that potential.

 

[psychmama]

i'm assuming you're referring to me, but i don't see how anything i said was offensive. other behaviors can be explained through the use of psychological theories. i don't think religious beliefs should be exempt from having that potential.

You know, this is a very interesting (for me at least) point you raise. Can you explain a belief system (e.g. Christianity) using another belief system (empirical science)? I'm not sure... sometimes I think "sure, why not?", while other times I think it's just impossible. Lately I've been wondering if religion and science are two vastly different planes that can never intersect...

I'm not sure if this is deep and profound or the by-product of too many late nights stressing over internship... Make of it what you will!

 

[IT514]

The point of intersection between science and religion can be found in the fact that a Christian can use empirical science and value knowledge gained through methodological reduction. The point of divergence can be found in the difference between methodological reduction and ontological reduction. Ontological reduction goes beyond the methodology of reduction to say that what is found through reduction is "all there is" in terms of ultimate reality (compare to Carl Sagan's opening line in his Cosmos documentary).

I think its easy to get lost in the "science vs religion" dichotomy because it does require some hard thought to work through on a personal level. Personally, I value both science and religion and find joy in the way that they influence and inform each other. Its my belief that I owe it to those I work with to have an ongoing awareness of my values, which has made me able to work with both "religious" and "non-religious" patients effectively.

 

[psychmama]

The point of intersection between science and religion can be found in the fact that a Christian can use empirical science and value knowledge gained through methodological reduction. The point of divergence can be found in the difference between methodological reduction and ontological reduction. Ontological reduction goes beyond the methodology of reduction to say that what is found through reduction is "all there is" in terms of ultimate reality (compare to Carl Sagan's opening line in his Cosmos documentary).

I think its easy to get lost in the "science vs religion" dichotomy because it does require some hard thought to work through on a personal level. Personally, I value both science and religion and find joy in the way that they influence and inform each other. Its my belief that I owe it to those I work with to have an ongoing awareness of my values, which has made me able to work with both "religious" and "non-religious" patients effectively.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. I enjoyed reading it, and found your perspective interesting. I've taken enough philosophy (Husserl and Heidecker anyone?) to basically grasp your point. For some, religion and science are closed systems that demand a choice in terms of which you choose to believe. It can be hard to adopt a more open perspective, since it requires one to wrestle with integration of both. I agree, however, that the religion and science need not be incompatible. In fact, I'd argue that I'm richer for having a connection to both realms.

 

[NPIntern]

I'm not sure if this thread is still going in any way, but I just saw it and wanted to jump on and add my 2 cents... I'm about to graduate from Wheaton and I have LOVED it. Wheaton offers solid, well-integrated training in both psychology and theology. It's been a wonderful experience.

 

[amy21]

I am a Baylor student and highly recommend the program. Almost all of our tuition is paid and we receive a monthly stipend. The practicum sites are well-organized and offer many hours of therapy experience (3000 hours before internship), and research opportunities are diverse and well-organized. I interviewed and was accepted at many of the other schools you mentioned. I liked Fuller and George Fox the best, but the size of the classes and the costs were very prohibitive. Baylor usually only accepts six students a year, so the atmosphere is like family and the professors are available. I was accepted to several PHD programs as well (Washington University, Miami University, etc...) with excellent funding but really fell for Baylor at the interview. If you have more questions PM me.

If you're referring to Fuller in Pasadena, my impression of them was that the academic ability of their students was very poor. I volunteered at a neuropsych clinic that had a number of externs from that school. They gave presentations with multiple spelling errors & regurgitated info & they would run unorganized research projects on topics they didn't seem to really grasp. It seemed very hand held, expensive degree to get. Those are my 2 cents.