Considering a PsyD. Help?

[ToTheLighthouse]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Agreed. To me high-functioning is about the ability to function on a daily basis, which doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with job title or IQ (aside from the exceptions you mentioned).

I also agree. I'm in no way equating "high-functioning" with "upper-class".

 

[robinsena]

I also agree. I'm in no way equating "high-functioning" with "upper-class".

No, you equated it with "able to converse," which is not a correct assumption to make.

Trust me, you'll have high functioning clients that will seriously annoy you with their low insight and inability to perceive their problems in other ways. Having worked with both high functioning and highly successful clients and low functioning SMI patients, I can tell you that there are days where I just dread seeing the former and looking forward to working with the latter. High functioning clients aren't always easy... and low functioning clients aren't always hard. I'm not sure why you want to narrow your choice of clientele at this point, pre-training, but I thought it would be good to disbunk that assumption out of the way in case that's what you (or anyone reading this) is thinking.

Aura5, the preference to work for high functioning clients is not the problem. I am concerned that the term 'high functioning' is being related to various aspects/traits of clients that just don't really have anything to do with the term. The other issue is even if one can cherry-pick later, it's not smart to cherry-pick or put yourself into one niche before even starting a graduate education. Like I said, concerns about being a competitive applicant for internship is still valid here even if the 'ideal' situation happens for the OP, where he/she only sees high functioning individuals.

 

[Aura5]

Aura5, the preference to work for high functioning clients is not the problem. I am concerned that the term 'high functioning' is being related to various aspects/traits of clients that just don't really have anything to do with the term. The other issue is even if one can cherry-pick later, it's not smart to cherry-pick or put yourself into one niche before even starting a graduate education. Like I said, concerns about being a competitive applicant for internship is still valid here even if the 'ideal' situation happens for the OP, where he/she only sees high functioning individuals.

Okay. And yeah higher functioning does not mean "easier" either, I don't think...I wasn't putting the two together. A higher functioning might be putting up more guards and defenses, too, to hide what's really on their mind (I would guess) maybe throwing the psychologist for a loop at first. As just an example.

And this is an honest question about the cherry-picking. You said it's not wise to put yourself in a niche before application. That contradicts what I've seen elsewhere...that it's ALL about being a good "match" with advisors and all that...it seems like, basically, if you don't niche-i-fy yourself, you're a hopeless case as far as getting into a program. Or does that only apply to research interests, and not patient population? I have a feeling if I went like "I'm open to whatever comes my way! Nope, no specific aims/interest areas, I want to stay open." they'd laugh and see me as unprepared. Just based on what I've seen on this board. Or are you saying that people just shouldn't write off a certain population without even starting? But what if someone's interest area IS higher functioning? Maybe I'm overanalzying it...😕

 

[Jezebel09]

No, you equated it with "able to converse," which is not a correct assumption to make.
.

Yes. Definitely. I have worked with a number of high-functioning individuals who lacked insight. It was like pulling teeth with some of them.

ToTheLighthouse, you can work with people who are just going through a difficult time who do not have severe mental health issues. But, as everyone has said, you will work with people who have more severe mental illnesses during your training.

Some of my friends (in counseling psychology programs) have reported that they saw some of their most challenging clients during a career counseling practicum. You never know who you're going to end up seeing.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Thanks...and I'm sure T4C knows that too, was using the white collar as an example...but just wanted to clarify that I don't tie high-fxn with high intelligence, just the ability to function fairly successfully.

I indeed used professional/white collar as a quick and dirty example and not as a synonym for high-functioning. Generally people associate "high-functioning" with an above average ability to do something well in a particular setting, though sometimes there is an inference of a certain level of intelligence, but that isn't what I meant to imply.

[slightly off topic]Truth be told I'm not a fan of the term "high functioning" in this context because it is rather obtuse. I often use the term as a descriptor in my reports, but there is supportive data that further explains what that entails, and why I didn't use descriptors like "adequate level of functionting" or even more confusing "expected level of functioning based on....". If you really want to get frustrated, try using assessment specific qualitative descriptors....but I'll leave that for your assessment profs to teach. 😀[/slight off topic]

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Yes. Definitely. I have worked with a number of high-functioning individuals who lacked insight. It was like pulling teeth with some of them.

Mix in a personality disorder and/or self injurious behavior and many clinicians will run the other way. I personally enjoy some of the challenges working with patients who have a co-occuring PD, but I can't imagine doing it every day.

Some of my friends (in counseling psychology programs) have reported that they saw some of their most challenging clients during a career counseling practicum. You never know who you're going to end up seeing.

College counseling centers often hand students with pronounced psychological problems. The onset of some of the more serious disorders can happen in college-aged kids, so it can be a pretty interesting experience.

 

[Aura5]

College counseling centers often hand students with pronounced psychological problems. The onset of some of the more serious disorders can happen in college-aged kids, so it can be a pretty interesting experience.

Indeed, like the case with Virginia Tech. Although I don't think the onset was in college, but I know he did go to the on campus Cook Counseling Center and was recommended for further treatment but (if I remember correctly) opted not to go.

 

[ToTheLighthouse]

No, you equated it with "able to converse," which is not a correct assumption to make.

Trust me, you'll have high functioning clients that will seriously annoy you with their low insight and inability to perceive their problems in other ways. Having worked with both high functioning and highly successful clients and low functioning SMI patients, I can tell you that there are days where I just dread seeing the former and looking forward to working with the latter. High functioning clients aren't always easy... and low functioning clients aren't always hard. I'm not sure why you want to narrow your choice of clientele at this point, pre-training, but I thought it would be good to disbunk that assumption out of the way in case that's what you (or anyone reading this) is thinking.

robinsena,
You make some very good points. what does SMI stand for btw?

On your comment that I've equated "high-functioning" with "able to converse".

This is 100% true.

However, this is ONLY because I don't know the official definition of "high-functioning".
So, I've been using the term as a stand-in, to define those clients who will be "able to converse."

So, what I really meant to say was that I'd like to see clients who are "able to converse",
as opposed to those (perhaps very few) who either don't speak at all, or who speak in a manner that is incomprehensible to me without significant interpretive effort.

I hope this clarifies. The issue lies in my lack of understanding of the term.

 

[Nick MSW]

SMI stands for severely mentally ill.

 

[Wapote84]

Hello all,

I am currently an undergraduate student, majoring in philosophy.
I have the goal of eventually setting up a private practice in psychotherapy/psychoanalysis.
I would like do therapy part-time, and with the rest pursue other interests.
I would like to a therapist that has a good name, a good reputation, and would like to steer as clear as possible from spending too much time reaching out for clients.
I feel like having a PsyD would place me above some of the other therapists in the field (those practicing with an LCSW for instance), especially with people browsing net-databases for therapists more and more.
I have two concerns,
one: That I may have to drop my major in Philosophy (which I love) and switch to Psychology (which because of a lack of experience, am not so sure I will enjoy as much).
and two: That in order to get into a respectable school for the purpose of attaining a PsyD, would require me to do many things, that I may not be otherwise interested in (certain psych. courses etc., fussing over my resume, and whether I have enough research experience etc.)

On top of that, I'm not sure that having a PsyD will be essential for what I would eventually like to achieve i.e. a successful part-time (in-home) private practice, which could financially sustain the existence of a single person in an urban setting.
Will it really give me an edge over the LCSWs in my area?

By the way, I'm relatively well-off, so the cost of schooling is not a major concern.

What do you all think?

Seriously? Are you serious?


Do you think it's as easy as a cake walk to become a licensed psychologist? If you don't think you'll like psychology classes, then getting a PsyD would make you a *****. It bugs me when people who want to be well off go into the field of psychology. We don't make all that much, honestly. If you hearts not in it,then don't do it. We should have just told you to go for it. It'll be easy as pie, and you'll make a killing. We also should have just said, no worries to not having psych classes! Who needs those?! Then we would see how easy it is...


at least this joker wasn't talking about getting into Ph.D. programs that easily... that would have cracked me up.

 

[erg923]

It bugs me when people who want to be well off go into the field of psychology.

Lets take this statement in isolation and forget the naivete of the original post. Please explain this comment. Why? Why would this be inherently bad at all?

The rest of what you said has been discussed ad naseum (by myself and other), but this attitude is perplexing to me and partly responsible for the pitiful pay (considering we have doctorates) and salary deflation that has taken place in this profession over the past 20 years. Clinical work is a business too, and those who accept underpaid positions without negotiating and/or who feel that is is somehow "wrong" to make a great financial living from what we do devalues the worth (and therefore our salary offers) of this profession.

 

[robinsena]

And this is an honest question about the cherry-picking. You said it's not wise to put yourself in a niche before application. That contradicts what I've seen elsewhere...that it's ALL about being a good "match" with advisors and all that...it seems like, basically, if you don't niche-i-fy yourself, you're a hopeless case as far as getting into a program. Or does that only apply to research interests, and not patient population? I have a feeling if I went like "I'm open to whatever comes my way! Nope, no specific aims/interest areas, I want to stay open." they'd laugh and see me as unprepared. Just based on what I've seen on this board. Or are you saying that people just shouldn't write off a certain population without even starting? But what if someone's interest area IS higher functioning? Maybe I'm overanalzying it...😕

Yeah, I was saying it more in the sense of not writing off a certain population without having any experience working with them, as it pertains to the OP's situation (philosophy background, but no psychology/clinical/research background). Honestly, I don't know the 'correct' answer to your other question. I can only tell you that I have a niche in terms of my research interest (I'm in a PhD program), but I had a very broad and shallow clinical experience when I entered graduate school. From my personal experience I do not think it's as necessary to have a niche in your clinical training as it is your research interest, at least for PhD applicants. Unless an applicant's experience and CV clearly points at some reasons for their clinical niche, I actually think it doesn't sound very good for an applicant to say that they are only interested in treating one thing over another when they have had no experience working with any of those populations. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if a grad school applicant is going to come into a program with a clearly defined niche, I would hope to see some justification for that decision in their experience. I would state potential niches as preferences rather than clear cut guidelines if I were an applicant (like, "I am really interested in seeing how ESTs for anxiety disorders work, and so I think I would really like to gain experience working with this population" rather than "I am only interested in people with anxiety disorders"). You want to show that you are open to learning and have a balance between being flexible and having some direction as a student. But, that's just me. 😛

ToTheLighthouse, I think it's ok then if that's what you mean by wanting to treat people you can converse with, that you can somehow communicate with them verbally. You can communicate with both high and low functioning people most of the time. But I would suggest you take the time and figure out what 'being able to converse with' means to you. Does that mean that you want to treat people who are very insightful and can talk to you about philosophy and with introspection right off the bat? Someone you can connect with? The reason I ask is because if you say something like this in an interview I would bet some faculty members would ask you to elaborate on this, and it's better to know now versus later the response you would give them.

 

[phillydave]

To the OP:

Count on your clinical population of interest to change throughout the rest of undergrad and grad school. That goes for your research interests too. I began grad school wanting to work with lower-functioning adult patients and am now working primarily with higher-functioning adolescents. Basically, be open to the idea that your original plan will likely change as you learn more.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

at least this joker wasn't talking about getting into Ph.D. programs that easily... that would have cracked me up.

This pangs of elitism. How far along are you in the process?

 

[lexicon]

I don't think getting a PsyD would cause him/her to become a "*****."

While I don't think the OP is a *****, I do think pursuing a doctorate in psychology when one does not want to take even undergraduate psychology courses is a questionable path.