Dual Degree PhD/ PsyD

[psychometric]

Does anyone know of a program that offers a dual degree option PhD/ PsyD?😕

Sorry, this is a double post !

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ollie123]

I'm a bit confused.

Are you talking about a program that offers a dual degree with a PhD AND a PsyD, or one that offers a combination of PhD/another degree or PsyD/another degree.

If the latter than yes, tons and tons of programs do this with a large variety of degrees (JD, MSW, MBA, I think a few MD programs). If the former, not that I'm aware of because as far as I can tell there is no reason to do so. If that is what you meant, what is your reasoning behind wanting to do so? We could probably better direct you to appropriate programs if you say what you are looking for - the PhD and PsyD are essentially just different training models, not completely different degrees, so I'm confused why someone would want/need both. I imagine a balanced PhD program or a PsyD from Rutgers/Baylor/similar program would achieve the same purpose as a PhD/PsyD

 

[erg923]

Ollie is correct. No such thing as a dual Ph.D./Psy.D. They are different training models (Boulder vs: Vail). I'm not sure why one would seek that? If it has to do with research, there are a few Psy.D programs with alot of research opportunity. Seek them out as extra-curricular activities if you want.

 

[empathiosis]

Could you mean the combined programs, like a program that offers a PhD in clinical and school psychology? or counseling and school psychology? Something like that?

 

[psychometric]

I truly meant PhD/PsyD clinical.

I have read an article a while ago about the thought a prof had on implementing such a degree, which would have a true balanced emphasis on both research and practice equally😳

 

[JockNerd]

I truly meant PhD/PsyD clinical.

I have read an article a while ago about the thought a prof had on implementing such a degree, which would have a true balanced emphasis on both research and practice equally😳

That seems bizarre and needless to me. The purpose of a dual degree is to let the person do extra stuff; A PhD/JD has expert legal knowledge, an MD/PhD has direct research experience. A dual PsyD/PhD wouldn't do anything a PsyD or PhD couldn't.

Seems to me that the prof thinks that "scientist-practitioner" means "pick a likert-scale point" rather than integration of the two. Do you have a link for the article?

 

[solumanculver]

I thought about applying MD/DO for a while. It takes twice as long, but you get double the degrees...

 

[MaddieMay]

Yeah, and where did this prof go to school??!! 😉

 

[psychometric]

That seems bizarre and needless to me. The purpose of a dual degree is to let the person do extra stuff; A PhD/JD has expert legal knowledge, an MD/PhD has direct research experience. A dual PsyD/PhD wouldn't do anything a PsyD or PhD couldn't.

Seems to me that the prof thinks that "scientist-practitioner" means "pick a likert-scale point" rather than integration of the two. Do you have a link for the article?

I will try to find it again and post it later.

 

[erg923]

May I ask how this model is substantially different from a well balanced Ph.D program?

 

[Ollie123]

May I ask how this model is substantially different from a well balanced Ph.D program?

That's what I'm trying to figure out as well. The main differences between PhD and PsyD programs is (or well, should be anyways, but let's not start down that road again) 1) More options for practical, clinically oriented classes versus more options for research oriented classes and 2) More opportunities for practicums versus more opportunities to publish.

Any decent program will have some of both of course. The way I see it the class differences are relatively trivial anyways since they're not (or shouldn't be) the focus of grad school and are more intended to guide your activities in #2.

If I wanted the best of both I would just apply to say, UIC (just an example) and plan on spending 7 or 8 years there so I could do tons of research AND take advantage of the tons and tons of practicums available in the chicago area.

I'm just not sure what would be qualitatively different about a combined program. If you're doing both it would obviously have to take longer (unless the intent is to have two half-assed degrees, but I don't think that's the point😉 ) - most of the balanced programs have lots of opportunities for both if you want to spend the time, and even some research-oriented programs have lots of practicums available that are often not utilized. So what would be different about it?

 

[psychometric]

I found the article I had read about the combined degree:

http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/model_notes.pdf

view section "Dr. Schilling"

maybe I am misunderstanding what they are talking about; what do you guys think?


Also, there has been a post on this before; I just found it--> restructuring the Ph.D/PsyD

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The only other thing I can think of is going to a school that has both degree programs, but that doesn't make as much sense beyond one possibly influencing the other because of shared faculty, etc. Nova has both, Rutgers has both, PGSP has both, etc....though if you go to a balanced program like Baylor, having the influence of the other degree doesn't make much sense. I know at Nova there is more of a research influence than other Psy.D. programs, but not more so than balanced Psy.D. programs like Rutgers, Baylor, IUoP, etc.

 

[Ollie123]

I disagree with that model mainly because I think it sectors us off too much. We need to be integrating science and practice, not further separating the two. That's the main reason I want a clinical PhD despite the fact that my goals are almost purely academic - I think its vital for everyone to at least have a BACKGROUND in both. Would the "research PhD" even be a licensable degree? If not, then how is it different from the current experimental psychopathology degree many schools offer? Even the most research-oriented programs still have SOME clinical training. I mean, we're all coming out with a BARE minimum of 500 face to face hours with most of us doing much more than that. So wouldn't that just mean almost every program would become a PhD/PsyD?

I'm still not understanding what the point is. It sounds like the goal is to create a degree that is meant to provide training in both, but all it does is relegate both the PhD and the PsyD to inadequate (at least for most purposes) in favor of some new degree that we already have, just under a different name. Everyone should be getting some of both.

 

[psychometric]

I disagree with that model mainly because I think it sectors us off too much. We need to be integrating science and practice, not further separating the two. That's the main reason I want a clinical PhD despite the fact that my goals are almost purely academic - I think its vital for everyone to at least have a BACKGROUND in both. Would the "research PhD" even be a licensable degree? If not, then how is it different from the current experimental psychopathology degree many schools offer? Even the most research-oriented programs still have SOME clinical training. I mean, we're all coming out with a BARE minimum of 500 face to face hours with most of us doing much more than that. So wouldn't that just mean almost every program would become a PhD/PsyD?

I'm still not understanding what the point is. It sounds like the goal is to create a degree that is meant to provide training in both, but all it does is relegate both the PhD and the PsyD to inadequate (at least for most purposes) in favor of some new degree that we already have, just under a different name. Everyone should be getting some of both.

I don't understand it either, that's why I am asking you all.
lt would be more (of the already incredible) work for what?
I found this and was wondering what it is about. This comes out of some APA conference meeting I think.