Elitism Or Protecting Our Profession?

[Ollie123]

I think people are afraid of the "others" (i.e. competition) in professional psych programs.......

Yes, because it makes perfect sense that wanting to be held to a higher standard stems from a fear of competition.

I don't even know what to say in these threads anymore, all I can do is laugh.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Wildcat06]

Whoops. Double post.

 

[Wildcat06]

I too am confused by the Sotomayor comparison, especially since I'm not sure that she WAS a below average applicant. Where did you hear that? Or is the assumption just that if you are a poor minority that you must have been an affirmative action acceptance? (Much the same as the assumption that if you are going to a professional school you weren't able to get into a traditional program.)

Sorry, now I am the one getting off topic.

 

[TenaciousGirl]

I like what T4C said earlier about limiting admissions at schools based on match rates- essentially setting the students who are enrolled up for success and not having so many students that they all can't be placed in an internship. I do see some of the issues that professional schools bring to our field, I really do.

However, I cannot believe how heated this thread is getting. It seems like many people on here lump all professional schools and their students together in one negative category. For those of you who claim to be "concerned" with our debt, education, and internship match ... it's hard to believe you're "concerned" when in the same sentence you basically imply that you are better, smarter, (whatever) than someone who goes to a prof program.

I go to a professional school and I don't try to hide that. Some of you people seem more concerned with prof school match rates than the students who actually attend said schools. Match rates are a concern for everyone. I don't understand why you people try to blame prof schools (and the students) for the sucky match rates when you repeatedly say prof schools have poor match rates. Do you guys feel threatened? Someone, please help me understand this blatant prejudice towards professional school students. Do you guys dislike prof schools because other snarky students dislike them and you're just going along with the trend? Or have you actually visited one, learned about it, and THEN made up your mind?

For those of you who maintain a middle of the fence type of attitude, this post is obviously not directed at you. I appreciate those of you who have the ability to comment on prof schools without disrespecting them or more importantly, the people who attend them.

edit: I would like to add that when you talk negatively bout prof schools, it is hard for students of those schools not to take it personally. This is our education. This is our blood, sweat, tears, and sleepless nights you're talking about. When someone says my school is damaging our profession, how am I supposed to take that? Especially when I don't agree with that viewpoint whatsoever.

 

[Minnesotan4PsyD]

I like what T4C said earlier about limiting admissions at schools based on match rates- essentially setting the students who are enrolled up for success and not having so many students that they all can't be placed in an internship. I do see some of the issues that professional schools bring to our field, I really do.

However, I cannot believe how heated this thread is getting. It seems like many people on here lump all professional schools and their students together in one negative category. For those of you who claim to be "concerned" with our debt, education, and internship match ... it's hard to believe you're "concerned" when in the same sentence you basically imply that you are better, smarter, (whatever) than someone who goes to a prof program.

I go to a professional school and I don't try to hide that. Some of you people seem more concerned with prof school match rates than the students who actually attend said schools. Match rates are a concern for everyone. I don't understand why you people try to blame prof schools (and the students) for the sucky match rates when you repeatedly say prof schools have poor match rates. Do you guys feel threatened? Someone, please help me understand this blatant prejudice towards professional school students. Do you guys dislike prof schools because other snarky students dislike them and you're just going along with the trend? Or have you actually visited one, learned about it, and THEN made up your mind?

For those of you who maintain a middle of the fence type of attitude, this post is obviously not directed at you. I appreciate those of you who have the ability to comment on prof schools without disrespecting them or more importantly, the people who attend them.

edit: I would like to add that when you talk negatively bout prof schools, it is hard for students of those schools not to take it personally. This is our education. This is our blood, sweat, tears, and sleepless nights you're talking about. When someone says my school is damaging our profession, how am I supposed to take that? Especially when I don't agree with that viewpoint whatsoever.

I think you're missing the point again. There are some (not ALL) professional schools out there that "water down" standards for getting into their programs, meaning that some candidates (not ALL) candidates that should not hold a PsyD or PhD in clinical psychology will be able to sleepwalk their way through school to achieve that PsyD or PhD.
I like to compare professional schools vs. traditional PsyD and PhD programs with D1 vs. D2/D3 athletics.
No one (at least no one in their right mind) would argue that D2/D3 athletics are of overall better quality than D1 athletics. However, the very top (i.e. "elite") athletes in D2/D3 more often than not could easily compete in the D1 ranks, but they chose D2/D3 for different reasons (proximity to home, quality of school, etc., etc.). Unlike D1 athletics though, there is no "depth" in terms of talent for D2/D3 athletics. One can skim the top off the top 10% (very arbitrary number) of D2/D3 athletes, and the remaining 90% don't have a chance competing with the "big dogs" in D1.
This roughly relates to professional schools (D2/D3) with traditional PsyD/PhD programs (D1). As Ollie123, Jon Snow, T4C and others have said, they are acknowledging that there are many quality individuals that choose the professional school route for whatever reason and turn out to be successful clinicians, researchers, etc. However, there are many individuals that go to these professional schools because they can't cut it at a traditional PsyD/PhD program. Is it their fault that they're allowed to get into a professional school to pursue what I assume is their dream to be a doctor in clinical psychology? No, it isn't. The problem lies with the fact that the bar is set SO low by some of these professional schools that almost any joe schmoe could come in off the street and pick up their degree when they should be stopped at the door.
I realize that people aren't arguing getting rid of D2/D3 athletics, that D2/D3 athletics are run poorly, or that they were set-up for those who couldn't compete in D1. But I think it shares a few similarities.
Clear as MUD? Good!

 

[cara susanna]

The Sotomayor "AA" comment is actually common amongst her critics, but I will refrain from speaking any more about it because we saw where my last tangent went.

Anyway, I don't remember anyone saying that they are smarter than someone who goes to a professional school. I certainly don't believe it about myself.

I can't speak for personal experience, but I do have a friend (who is smart and dedicated enough to get into any program she wants, for sure) who wasted a year at a professional school that essentially lied to her about the orientation and availability to conduct research at the program, that she felt had substandard education and training, and which charged her tons of money. This experience of hers did not exactly warm me to professional schools.

 

[TenaciousGirl]

I think you're missing the point again. There are some (not ALL) professional schools out there that "water down" standards for getting into their programs, meaning that some candidates (not ALL) candidates that should not hold a PsyD or PhD in clinical psychology will be able to sleepwalk their way through school to achieve that PsyD or PhD.
I like to compare professional schools vs. traditional PsyD and PhD programs with D1 vs. D2/D3 athletics.
No one (at least no one in their right mind) would argue that D2/D3 athletics are of overall better quality than D1 athletics. However, the very top (i.e. "elite") athletes in D2/D3 more often than not could easily compete in the D1 ranks, but they chose D2/D3 for different reasons (proximity to home, quality of school, etc., etc.). Unlike D1 athletics though, there is no "depth" in terms of talent for D2/D3 athletics. One can skim the top off the top 10% (very arbitrary number) of D2/D3 athletes, and the remaining 90% don't have a chance competing with the "big dogs" in D1.
This roughly relates to professional schools (D2/D3) with traditional PsyD/PhD programs (D1). As Ollie123, Jon Snow, T4C and others have said, they are acknowledging that there are many quality individuals that choose the professional school route for whatever reason and turn out to be successful clinicians, researchers, etc. However, there are many individuals that go to these professional schools because they can't cut it at a traditional PsyD/PhD program. Is it their fault that they're allowed to get into a professional school to pursue what I assume is their dream to be a doctor in clinical psychology? No, it isn't. The problem lies with the fact that the bar is set SO low by some of these professional schools that almost any joe schmoe could come in off the street and pick up their degree when they should be stopped at the door.
I realize that people aren't arguing getting rid of D2/D3 athletics, that D2/D3 athletics are run poorly, or that they were set-up for those who couldn't compete in D1. But I think it shares a few similarities.
Clear as MUD? Good!

haha I definitely appreciate this analogy, very crafty indeed. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[TenaciousGirl]

I can't speak for personal experience, but I do have a friend (who is smart and dedicated enough to get into any program she wants, for sure) who wasted a year at a professional school that essentially lied to her about the orientation and availability to conduct research at the program, that she felt had substandard education and training, and which charged her tons of money. This experience of hers did not exactly warm me to professional schools.

It is definitely too bad your friend had to go through that. Personally, I really love my school, my mentor, and professors I've had. It's also too bad there are a few bad seeds out there, which I have never denied. I guess I don't let those bad seeds sway my entire opinion concerning something I'm a part of.

 

[GiantSteps]

I think you're missing the point again. There are some (not ALL) professional schools out there that "water down" standards for getting into their programs, meaning that some candidates (not ALL) candidates that should not hold a PsyD or PhD in clinical psychology will be able to sleepwalk their way through school to achieve that PsyD or PhD.
I like to compare professional schools vs. traditional PsyD and PhD programs with D1 vs. D2/D3 athletics.
No one (at least no one in their right mind) would argue that D2/D3 athletics are of overall better quality than D1 athletics. However, the very top (i.e. "elite") athletes in D2/D3 more often than not could easily compete in the D1 ranks, but they chose D2/D3 for different reasons (proximity to home, quality of school, etc., etc.). Unlike D1 athletics though, there is no "depth" in terms of talent for D2/D3 athletics. One can skim the top off the top 10% (very arbitrary number) of D2/D3 athletes, and the remaining 90% don't have a chance competing with the "big dogs" in D1.
This roughly relates to professional schools (D2/D3) with traditional PsyD/PhD programs (D1). As Ollie123, Jon Snow, T4C and others have said, they are acknowledging that there are many quality individuals that choose the professional school route for whatever reason and turn out to be successful clinicians, researchers, etc. However, there are many individuals that go to these professional schools because they can't cut it at a traditional PsyD/PhD program. Is it their fault that they're allowed to get into a professional school to pursue what I assume is their dream to be a doctor in clinical psychology? No, it isn't. The problem lies with the fact that the bar is set SO low by some of these professional schools that almost any joe schmoe could come in off the street and pick up their degree when they should be stopped at the door.
I realize that people aren't arguing getting rid of D2/D3 athletics, that D2/D3 athletics are run poorly, or that they were set-up for those who couldn't compete in D1. But I think it shares a few similarities.
Clear as MUD? Good!

Hmmm, but for this analogy to work competely, shouldn't there be a way for the "Ultra-elite" to make the jump to professional psychology right from college or high school? You know, sort of a "LeBron James" or "Koby Bryant" of the psychology world! Or even the exceptional student who might be able to declare his professional eligibility before his final school year. Also, if a supposedly, elite psychology graduate student wins the equivalent of the Heisman trophy (some major grant) does that mean that the person will probably go on to a career of mediocrity at the professional level? To test how good all of these programs and students are, there needs to be head on head competition. This means weekly competitions, rankings (at least two, which never agree with one another), an end of the year tournament (I will create an annual SDN Thread for it), and a national championship!

Thanks Minnesotan4PsyD, your analogy has revamped the world of psychology graduate school as we know it. It should not be too long before scandals also creep up. Everyone may eventually hear about how an alumnus of a top program bought me a car to attend!

So now the most important question is, what type of shoes do the people in your program wear? Has Nike already got to you? You poor lower level professional school students who have to wear shoes which do not match your cohorts!

 

[socialcog]

No one disagrees that there are some excellent individuals at professional schools. The problem is that while some people go to professional schools because they cannot move, there are others who go there because they couldn't cut it at a more traditional program. I don't think anyone will argue that there is a lot more variability in quality at a professional school. What people differ about is what percentage belongs to which group, and whether the loosened requirements do more harm than good to the field. (For the record, I tend to think they do more harm than good, though I'm not fully convinced and open to arguments otherwise.)

People are not entitled to a clinical psychology degree (even if they are smart and competent). A doctoral degree is not required to do a lot of meaningful clinical work. Having high standards for a doctoral degree is not the same thing as keeping people from becoming mental health professionals.

Well said.

Like many others have stated here, I worry about the impact lax admission policies might have on our field. Admission policies at elite schools mitigate the probability of diluting their student body with mediocrity. (I define 'elite' as: adherinig to a high or best standard. NOT as: arrogant) My position is, because of the 'for-profit' model, professional schools are incentivized to loosen up admission standards, thereby allowing medicrity to permeate it's walls. More broadly, I have serious concerns about something/anything (ie: education, religion and media) when it is driven by capitalism--where capitalism should play no role.

That said, I am, personally, in a very weird spot--Cog dissonance perhaps? I will be attending a professional school in the fall. Dissonance, not because I see myself as a higher quality candidate or 'elite'--and I belong elsewhere, but rather I will literally be contributing to a system that I believe likely hurts our field. Furthermore, with all the criticism that's tossed about here regarding professional schools, never once have I felt personally attacked.

For me, the most important issue is the science. The training is imperative and it needs to make me the kind of scientist I aspire to be, for the science, for posterity.

One hopeful nugget, the attrition rate at my school is nasty! Something like 60-80% by graduation. My hope is that that is indicative of uncompromised training that, inherent in it's model, weeds out mediocrity. Time will tell and I will be keeping all of you posted.

**As an aside, and many of you already know this, I was accepted into a fully-funded university (tuition, stipend and fellowship) last round but could not matricute due to geographical constraints.

 

[aagman01]

In addition to the high attrition rates, weaker candidates get hurt as their academic careers advance anyways.

Does anyone know the exact rates of APPIC and APA internship rates for professional school students vs. university students? I remember reading somewhere that they were like 30 or 40% lower (percent accepted into an APA internship site).

Weaker students will be weeded out by such mechanisms as they advance through graduate school and into their careers.

If you are an employer and had to choose between a student, who would you be more likely to select:

(a) an applicant from an APA program who did an APA internship and has extensive clinical and research experiences

or a student

(b) from a professional school, with little research experience, who did not complete an APA internship


Now certainly, there will be some stonger professional applicants who will get APA internships and be competitive. Likewise, there are doctoral students in university phd programs who will not.

Again, I ask.....are you afraid of the field being "watered down" or are you afraid of having to compete with a larger talent pool? Since so many of you seem to be right-wingers/libertarians, I am sure you enjoy the "free market"....why are you trying to shut it down when it comes to psychology training?

Well said.

Like many others have stated here, I worry about the impact lax admission policies might have on our field. Admission policies at elite schools mitigate the probability of diluting their student body with mediocrity. (I define 'elite' as: adherinig to a high or best standard. NOT as: arrogant) My position is, because of the 'for-profit' model, professional schools are incentivized to loosen up admission standards, thereby allowing medicrity to permeate it's walls. More broadly, I have serious concerns about something/anything (ie: education, religion and media) when it is driven by capitalism--where capitalism should play no role.

That said, I am, personally, in a very weird spot--Cog dissonance perhaps? I will be attending a professional school in the fall. Dissonance, not because I see myself as a higher quality candidate or 'elite'--and I belong elsewhere, but rather I will literally be contributing to a system that I believe likely hurts our field. Furthermore, with all the criticism that's tossed about here regarding professional schools, never once have I felt personally attacked.

For me, the most important issue is the science. The training is imperative and it needs to make me the kind of scientist I aspire to be, for the science, for posterity.

One hopeful nugget, the attrition rate at my school is nasty! Something like 60-80% by graduation. My hope is that that is indicative of uncompromised training that, inherent in it's model, weeds out mediocrity. Time will tell and I will be keeping all of you posted.

**As an aside, and many of you already know this, I was accepted into a fully-funded university (tuition, stipend and fellowship) last round but could not matricute due to geographical constraints.

 

[Quynh2007]

In addition to the high attrition rates, weaker candidates get hurt as their academic careers advance anyways.

Does anyone know the exact rates of APPIC and APA internship rates for professional school students vs. university students? I remember reading somewhere that they were like 30 or 40% lower (percent accepted into an APA internship site).

Weaker students will be weeded out by such mechanisms as they advance through graduate school and into their careers.

If you are an employer and had to choose between a student, who would you be more likely to select:

(a) an applicant from an APA program who did an APA internship and has extensive clinical and research experiences

or a student

(b) from a professional school, with little research experience, who did not complete an APA internship


Now certainly, there will be some stonger professional applicants who will get APA internships and be competitive. Likewise, there are doctoral students in university phd programs who will not.

Again, I ask.....are you afraid of the field being "watered down" or are you afraid of having to compete with a larger talent pool? Since so many of you seem to be right-wingers/libertarians, I am sure you enjoy the "free market"....why are you trying to shut it down when it comes to psychology training?

for some reason you keep asking the same question when it's been answered over and over. Apparently, you don't care for those answers and are waiting until someone affirms your beliefs. Believe me, it isn't about the competition. My program has had 100% success rates in internship for over 5 years. The majority of my cohorts are interested in an academic career, not a clinical one. So, the answer is we are afraid of the field being "watered down" NOT because of some supposed larger talent pool. We care about our field, and who can and should call themselves psychologists.

oh well, go ahead and ask again since I know I didn't satisfy your question with my answer.

 

[Ollie123]

For the record - definitely not a libertarian here. I've been primarily voting democratic in recent history, but I consider myself an independent since I think all parties have an equally insane view on most issues, and don't support any of them

And to answer your question uh....watered down? I'm really not sure where you're getting the idea our issue is with the competition. Letting anyone over the age of 5 who can identify a football play in the NFL isn't going to increase the competition in the league. Plus, I'd wager there's only a tiny fraction of professional school students who'd even want to compete for the jobs I'm interested in, given I'm sort of at the far end of the research spectrum even for a university PhD student. Would you support removing grad school from the equation entirely and just handing everyone a doctorate? I realize that's not what you (or anyone) is saying, but I'm using the extreme to illustrate my point, since that seems to have gotten lost in here somewhere. By your logic, doing that would increase competition. However, it would also make having the doctorate meaningless. It would no longer be an assurance to the public, to our clients, to our students, to funding agencies, etc. that we knew what we were doing. That's what I take issue with. It would result in lower pay, less respect for the profession, the list goes on and on. Now in reality, is it that black and white? Of course not. However, I'm very uncomfortable with the current shade of grey.

 

[cara susanna]

I already addressed my free market principles

Of course, I do not think these schools should be shut down because I am a free market person. What would be ideal is if people stop giving them business; sadly, that will probably never happen. I suppose loss of APA accreditation would work as well.

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

Man, how do you guys who are practicing/interns have time for this stuff? Between clinic/rotation duties, wife, kids, singing in the church choir and what we affectionately call "Army stuff" I barely have time to sleep. Fun to look in and read once in a while though.

 

[KillerDiller]

In addition to the high attrition rates, weaker candidates get hurt as their academic careers advance anyways.

Weaker students will be weeded out by such mechanisms as they advance through graduate school and into their careers.

If you are an employer and had to choose between a student, who would you be more likely to select:

(a) an applicant from an APA program who did an APA internship and has extensive clinical and research experiences

or a student

(b) from a professional school, with little research experience, who did not complete an APA internship

Yes, some weed out will occur, but it doesn't take an employer to hang a shingle. All it takes is some business acumen and a license. We can't expect employers to regulate the problems with the market for us when private practice and other such routes are options. We also can't expect employers to be a perfect shield between any poorly-trained clinicians who make it through the ranks and the general public.

Again, I ask.....are you afraid of the field being "watered down" or are you afraid of having to compete with a larger talent pool? Since so many of you seem to be right-wingers/libertarians, I am sure you enjoy the "free market"....why are you trying to shut it down when it comes to psychology training?

Lowering admissions standards does not increase competition in an appreciable way, as others have said. So, yes, most of us are afraid of the field being watered down I suppose. I am not a right-wing libertarian. I believe that people shouldn't be able to buy their way into the top professions.

 

[JockNerd]

Does anyone know the exact rates of APPIC and APA internship rates for professional school students vs. university students? I remember reading somewhere that they were like 30 or 40% lower (percent accepted into an APA internship site).

...

Again, I ask.....are you afraid of the field being "watered down" or are you afraid of having to compete with a larger talent pool? Since so many of you seem to be right-wingers/libertarians, I am sure you enjoy the "free market"....why are you trying to shut it down when it comes to psychology training?

Keilin, Baker, McCutcheon, & Peranson (2007) reported that in the 2007 match, PhDs matched 80.5% and PsyDs 68.8%. This does not differentiate professional school vs. not, and so doesn't capture what many on the board contend to be the central difference, but the ballpark is informative.

For the record, though I'm a libertarian, I'm about as far as possible from right wing. Americans by and large have very, very, very strange ideas about what conservative and liberal mean.

 

[aagman01]

Well,

Thank you. To keep things short & simple:

I still question why you and so many others "care" so much. The professional schools give a chance to individuals who otherwise may not have had such an opportunity. The incompetent ones from within the professional schools will get weeded out. They won't graduate their programs. They won't get an APA internship. They won't pass the board exams after their post-doc. etc. etc. So chill. That is my point. To you and to others.

To those concerned with the field being "watered down", the psyd itself is a watered down degree. Psyds get much less research experience then we get in phd programs. It is almost like an extended masters degree. The weaker psyd candidates will end up being practitioners of some sort. Even those in the professional schools spend 5 years studying theory and practicing therapy/evidence based interventions, assessments etc. and end up with better training than those who simply do a masters degree and become a LPC or what not. So we see more psy.ds providing counseling, doing assessments, and doing the grunt work. What is wrong with that? I would rather have a more well trained individual with a psy.d next to their name doing work than a masters level practitioner who did not have as much foundational coursework (personally).

for some reason you keep asking the same question when it's been answered over and over. Apparently, you don't care for those answers and are waiting until someone affirms your beliefs. Believe me, it isn't about the competition. My program has had 100% success rates in internship for over 5 years. The majority of my cohorts are interested in an academic career, not a clinical one. So, the answer is we are afraid of the field being "watered down" NOT because of some supposed larger talent pool. We care about our field, and who can and should call themselves psychologists.

oh well, go ahead and ask again since I know I didn't satisfy your question with my answer.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

To those concerned with the field being "watered down", the psyd itself is a watered down degree. Psyds get much less research experience then we get in phd programs. It is almost like an extended masters degree. The weaker psyd candidates will end up being practitioners of some sort. Even those in the professional schools spend 5 years studying theory and practicing therapy/evidence based interventions, assessments etc. and end up with better training than those who simply do a masters degree and become a LPC or what not. So we see more psy.ds providing counseling, doing assessments, and doing the grunt work. What is wrong with that? I would rather have a more well trained individual with a psy.d next to their name doing work than a masters level practitioner who did not have as much foundational coursework (personally).

I disagree with this, and find it rather offensive. It is still a fallacy that Psy.D = clinical, and Ph.D. = research. I had more research experience than most of the Ph.D's I interviewed with during internship interviews (at VA, academic medical centers, and consortiums). Most people thought I was a Ph.D. when they asked about my research, but that doesn't make me any less of a Psy.D. candidate....it turned into something I enjoy. As for the "watered down" comment, I still think most legitimate Psy.D. programs do a good job of teaching research, and the programs that don't incorporate enough research training need to be changed/closed.

 

[KTpsych]

Well said.
One hopeful nugget, the attrition rate at my school is nasty! Something like 60-80% by graduation. My hope is that that is indicative of uncompromised training that, inherent in it's model, weeds out mediocrity. Time will tell and I will be keeping all of you posted.

Is that rate of attrition normal? I really hope this is an aberration. I think the weeding out should occur before the doctoral program. Can you imagine spending a few years (and five to six figures!) to end up with nothing? Not even a worthwhile masters? I highly doubt the school couldn't have figured out a way to substantially whittle down the student body before letting them in. And to me, this is really the key problem of professional schools; any school that lets 60-80% of its students waste years and tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars, without getting anything in return, doesn't seem to care about its students. And if it doesn't care about its students, why would it care about the larger profession?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

2. I don't think your point holds. They do graduate, they may not get an APA internship, but they get an internship. They don't need to pass the board exams after post doc to practice. Board certification isn't required. Further, if they can't manage to get in to the ABPP boards, they just make up their own and get into those.

While they are not going to be competing directly for jobs I am interesting in (as they all req. APA-acred internships), it waters down the other jobs, private practice pricing, and the overall perception of the field. While not all APA-accredited sites are going to offer great training, I'd trust them more than an unacreditted site. APPIC is a toss up, as I know a few APPIC sites that offer excellent training, but cannot afford (or don't care about) APA acredidation.

 

[JockNerd]

To those concerned with the field being "watered down", the psyd itself is a watered down degree. Psyds get much less research experience then we get in phd programs. It is almost like an extended masters degree.

Huge disagreement here. I find nothing at all wrong with the Vail model; I think that a situation similar to something like Med has, with some persons dedicated to practice in specific subdisciplines (i.e. M.D.s, with their specializations in treatment of specific disorders or areas) and some dedicated to research (i.e. medical scientists) would be great for us. I think the PsyD, in its original conception, would have been great for everyone. It's not the fault of the PsyD model that some programs twist into "Apply here if you hate research! You can do a literature review for your dissertation!" jokes. A few of the problem schools are still granting PhDs, by the way.

 

[aagman01]

I respectfully disagree about professional schools not 'caring about their students". I know doctoral level therapists (ok, only 2) who teach at a professional school. I do truly believe they both care about their students. The feeling I get is that most faculty there care about their students.

To play devils advocate:

Many 4 year colleges and university have bachelor degree attrition rates of greater than 50%. Many urban high schools have graduation rates of less than 50 %. Do high schools or many colleges and universities not care about their students?

There are many factors at play here regarding professional schools and their graduation/attrition rates.

Is that rate of attrition normal? I really hope this is an aberration. I think the weeding out should occur before the doctoral program. Can you imagine spending a few years (and five to six figures!) to end up with nothing? Not even a worthwhile masters? I highly doubt the school couldn't have figured out a way to substantially whittle down the student body before letting them in. And to me, this is really the key problem of professional schools; any school that lets 60-80% of its students waste years and tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars, without getting anything in return, doesn't seem to care about its students. And if it doesn't care about its students, why would it care about the larger profession?

 

[aagman01]

I apologize on that. I was trying to make a point, using gross generalizations. I apologize---as I have argued many times on this thread, i do believe there are many psyds (like yourself) who have done well through a professional school and/or psyd.

I disagree with this, and find it rather offensive. It is still a fallacy that Psy.D = clinical, and Ph.D. = research. I had more research experience than most of the Ph.D's I interviewed with during internship interviews (at VA, academic medical centers, and consortiums). Most people thought I was a Ph.D. when they asked about my research, but that doesn't make me any less of a Psy.D. candidate....it turned into something I enjoy. As for the "watered down" comment, I still think most legitimate Psy.D. programs do a good job of teaching research, and the programs that don't incorporate enough research training need to be changed/closed.

 

[JockNerd]

I respectfully disagree about professional schools not 'caring about their students". I know doctoral level therapists (ok, only 2) who teach at a professional school. I do truly believe they both care about their students. The feeling I get is that most faculty there care about their students.

Whether professors who work at the schools (many of whom are adjunct at many professional schools and who have little say in what becomes of the students) care about the students, and whether the people who are running the programs and getting the tuition money from the students care about the students are separate issues.

Many 4 year colleges and university have bachelor degree attrition rates of greater than 50%. Many urban high schools have graduation rates of less than 50 %. Do high schools or many colleges and universities not care about their students?

No, I would say that by and large the people in the upper echelons of education couldn't care less about students in urban schools.

 

[aagman01]

Hey Jon,

Please excuse my ignorance. Can you explain what you wrote earlier a bit more:

"They don't need to pass the board exams after post doc to practice. Board certification isn't required. Further, if they can't manage to get in to the ABPP boards, they just make up their own and get into those."


Can you explain both parts. One can not legally call them self a psychologist unless they have board certification as a licensed psychologist, right? And how do they "just make up their own and get into those?"

1) That's not very fair to the incompetent ones. They get let into a professional school, spend thousands and thousands of dollars, and put to the curb? Maybe the school should bear some responsibility for that.

2. I don't think your point holds. They do graduate, they may not get an APA internship, but they get an internship. They don't need to pass the board exams after post doc to practice. Board certification isn't required. Further, if they can't manage to get in to the ABPP boards, they just make up their own and get into those.

More than 50% of new graduates now come from professional schools. Think of the effects of this long term on the quality of the field. If the modal graduate comes from that kind of program and the negatives of these programs persist (that 50% isn't at the expense of PhD students, it's an addition to the field, meaning their numbers are increasing the #s of psychologists by that much), then our average psychologist is going to be of much lesser quality than in the past AND they will have the political power. This can only harm the advancement/standing of the field. That is what I am afraid of. . . not competition. It's not about arrogance. It's not about status quo or being stuck in "traditional" thought.

 

[KillerDiller]

To play devils advocate:

Many 4 year colleges and university have bachelor degree attrition rates of greater than 50%. Many urban high schools have graduation rates of less than 50 %. Do high schools or many colleges and universities not care about their students?

To me, the high schools you mention are a very different issue. These are public schools and are charged with providing services to all the students in the district, not just those students who want to be there. They are also not charging the students for their educations.

The universities with high undergrad attrition rates, on the other hand, (and I am actually currently attending one for graduate school) operate under the idea that students deserve a chance to prove themselves in college. Consequently, these schools accept many "risky" students who get turned down from other, more traditional universities.

Now, we could debate whether this type of thing should occur at the college level. Maybe it is exploitative to charge students tuition when they may not be suitable for college. However, this sort of policy is much more of a gray area in undergrad than it is in grad school. My current school would never tolerate high attrition rates in its graduate programs.

 

[futurepsydoc]

To those concerned with the field being "watered down", the psyd itself is a watered down degree. Psyds get much less research experience then we get in phd programs. It is almost like an extended masters degree. The weaker psyd candidates will end up being practitioners of some sort. Even those in the professional schools spend 5 years studying theory and practicing therapy/evidence based interventions, assessments etc. and end up with better training than those who simply do a masters degree and become a LPC or what not. So we see more psy.ds providing counseling, doing assessments, and doing the grunt work. What is wrong with that? I would rather have a more well trained individual with a psy.d next to their name doing work than a masters level practitioner who did not have as much foundational coursework (personally).

Seriously man, this is the type of disrespectful commentary I was reffering to earlier. Like an extended Master's Degree? Really? I hope that you display better tact with your patients. Treating your colleagues this way will not lead to collaborative work or mutual respect. I feel like you will learn this the hard way at some point.

Having said that, the logic you use is somewhat circular. The purpose of PsyD programs is to "predominately" train practitioners, not "scientists." Of course the students will have less research experience. Application is at the heart of the training philosophy! Vail Model programs will therefore stress theory, learning clinical interventions, and becoming a competent consumer. Students still do dissertations, just not of the same scope. The problem with this is always the same: The training is not traditional, therefore it is inferior. For psychologists to be at the same level, PsyDs must do research that is equally rigourous. I dont see how this is true.

Here is my question to you: Does learning how to write challenge grants, conducting analog studies with homogenous undergrads, participating in basic science, or learning complex statistics make you a better therapist? Really? If you beleive this, please offer the rationale for your position and the requisite data to support it. Cite the studies. I want to read them.

Along these lines, I clearly realize that more clinical experience does not equal increased clinical profieciency, as some PsyD advocates might suggest. Thus, PsyD students with more pre-APPIC hours don't necessarily amount to better therapists. It is the quality of the applicants supervision and exeprience, not the quantity, that counts. Yet, if you are being supervised by scientists who rarely see clients and identify themselves as academics, how is the quality of PhD training any better? How many Ph.D. students are actually out there working on RCTs and learning how to deliver evidenced based treatments. I am certain that the majority of Ph.D. students don't work for Aaron Beck, David Barlow, Michelle Craske, David M. Clark, Chris Fairburn, Steve Hayes, Bill Miller, or Marsha Linehan.

Point of fact, the majority of psychologists out there in the real world, the ones practicing devoid of current clinical science and evidenced based guidlines, are dynamically trained PhDs with research backgrounds. Did the whole research thing pan out for them......

 

[Minnesotan4PsyD]

Well,

Thank you. To keep things short & simple:

I still question why you and so many others "care" so much. The professional schools give a chance to individuals who otherwise may not have had such an opportunity. The incompetent ones from within the professional schools will get weeded out. They won't graduate their programs. They won't get an APA internship. They won't pass the board exams after their post-doc. etc. etc. So chill. That is my point. To you and to others.

To those concerned with the field being "watered down", the psyd itself is a watered down degree. Psyds get much less research experience then we get in phd programs. It is almost like an extended masters degree. The weaker psyd candidates will end up being practitioners of some sort. Even those in the professional schools spend 5 years studying theory and practicing therapy/evidence based interventions, assessments etc. and end up with better training than those who simply do a masters degree and become a LPC or what not. So we see more psy.ds providing counseling, doing assessments, and doing the grunt work. What is wrong with that? I would rather have a more well trained individual with a psy.d next to their name doing work than a masters level practitioner who did not have as much foundational coursework (personally).

Agreed that these two sentences are garbage for all the reasons mentioned above. I figured it needed to be bolded and pointed out again since someone could possibly consider this egregious statement as fact.

 

[KillerDiller]

Yet, if you are being supervised by scientists who rarely see clients and identify themselves as academics, how is the quality of PhD training any better? How many Ph.D. students are actually out there working on RCTs and learning how to deliver evidenced based treatments. I am certain that the majority of Ph.D. students don't work for Aaron Beck, David Barlow, Michelle Craske, David M. Clark, Chris Fairburn, Steve Hayes, Bill Miller, or Marsha Linehan.

I'm afraid you are mistaken in this generalization. I don't claim to speak for every program, but at all the universities I interviewed with the clinical supervision was provided by actual working clinicians, not full-time academic researchers. Also, PhD programs frequently have externships, where supervision is provided by doctors who are at the hospitals and mental health clinics, etc.

As for treatment studies, there are lots and lots of psychologists outside of those you mentioned who do this kind of research. Most universities have several faculty members who study aspects of evidence-based treatment. Not sure why you are getting a different impression.

Here is my question to you: Does learning how to write challenge grants, conducting analog studies with homogenous undergrads, participating in basic science, or learning complex statistics make you a better therapist? Really? If you beleive this, please offer the rationale for your position and the requisite data to support it. Cite the studies. I want to read them.

I don't think studies have been done on this. Nevertheless, I believe that a firm understanding of research is necessary in order to evaluate EBTs. There are plenty of treatments that have tentative empirical support that aren't necessarily valid. A good psychologist should be able to evaluate the evidence and understand the difference. How much training does this require? That's a good question, but I can guarantee the answer is not "none".

Point of fact, the majority of psychologists out there in the real world, the ones practicing devoid of current clinical science and evidenced based guidlines, are dynamically trained PhDs with research backgrounds. Did the whole research thing pan out for them......

I agree that those who supposedly have this knowledge and don't put it to use are just as ethically at fault as those who never acquired the knowledge in the first place. You can lead a horse to water....

 

[Minnesotan4PsyD]

To those concerned with the field being "watered down", the psyd itself is a watered down degree. Psyds get much less research experience then we get in phd programs. It is almost like an extended masters degree. The weaker psyd candidates will end up being practitioners of some sort. Even those in the professional schools spend 5 years studying theory and practicing therapy/evidence based interventions, assessments etc. and end up with better training than those who simply do a masters degree and become a LPC or what not. So we see more psy.ds providing counseling, doing assessments, and doing the grunt work. What is wrong with that? I would rather have a more well trained individual with a psy.d next to their name doing work than a masters level practitioner who did not have as much foundational coursework (personally).

Agreed that the statements in bold are garbage for all the reasons mentioned above. I just figured it needed to be quoted and bolded one more time since I find it appalling that someone could think such egregious statements are fact.

 

[Ollie123]

Seriously man, this is the type of disrespectful commentary I was reffering to earlier. Like an extended Master's Degree? Really? I hope that you display better tact with your patients. Treating your colleagues this way will not lead to collaborative work or mutual respect. I feel like you will learn this the hard way at some point.

Having said that, the logic you use is somewhat circular. The purpose of PsyD programs is to "predominately" train practitioners, not "scientists." Of course the students will have less research experience. Application is at the heart of the training philosophy! Vail Model programs will therefore stress theory, learning clinical interventions, and becoming a competent consumer. Students still do dissertations, just not of the same scope. The problem with this is always the same: The training is not traditional, therefore it is inferior. For psychologists to be at the same level, PsyDs must do research that is equally rigourous. I dont see how this is true.

Here is my question to you: Does learning how to write challenge grants, conducting analog studies with homogenous undergrads, participating in basic science, or learning complex statistics make you a better therapist? Really? If you beleive this, please offer the rationale for your position and the requisite data to support it. Cite the studies. I want to read them.

Along these lines, I clearly realize that more clinical experience does not equal increased clinical profieciency, as some PsyD advocates might suggest. Thus, PsyD students with more pre-APPIC hours don't necessarily amount to better therapists. It is the quality of the applicants supervision and exeprience, not the quantity, that counts. Yet, if you are being supervised by scientists who rarely see clients and identify themselves as academics, how is the quality of PhD training any better? How many Ph.D. students are actually out there working on RCTs and learning how to deliver evidenced based treatments. I am certain that the majority of Ph.D. students don't work for Aaron Beck, David Barlow, Michelle Craske, David M. Clark, Chris Fairburn, Steve Hayes, Bill Miller, or Marsha Linehan.

Point of fact, the majority of psychologists out there in the real world, the ones practicing devoid of current clinical science and evidenced based guidlines, are dynamically trained PhDs with research backgrounds. Did the whole research thing pan out for them......

Just want to add to KDs reply since you seem to just be substituting misconceptions about PhD programs for the misconceptions about PsyDs. Supervisors are generally a combination of core faculty and adjuncts who are practitioners. Most of the faculty who supervise still practice regularly - often in their research specialty area and they run focused supervision groups in that area. I think nearly all PhD students do at least 1 outside placement in a clinical setting, many do several. You make good points about the importance of quality over quantity, but I think its still noteworthy that PhDs on average, get more clinical experience and clinical supervision than those who are supposed to be more clinically inclined. Given PhD programs generally have fewer students and therefore less need, that also means they can be more selective about who they allow to supervise, where students can do externships, etc.

I think a lot of this jumps back to the original discussion of prof schools. I think the original conception of the Vail model was great. I don't think what it has become is what its founders had in mind. Its pretty tough to argue equivalence when PhDs are the ones with more clinical experience - that's just going to contribute to any stigma against the degree! I haven't seen the breakdown by numbers because APPIC doesn't release that data, but I'd bet if only Rutgers, Baylor, etc. (the university programs) we'd see it break down in the expected way, with PsyDs sacrificing SOME research training in exchange for some additional clinical training.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

KD brought up a great point about EBT studies. This is an area that I am very interested in, and it is hardly restricted to more research oriented people. I actually think having a healthy balance in training would allow for a better perspective, as things can sometimes get distorted from those big Ivory towers.

 

[psychmama]

I'm a PsyD student at Rutgers beginning my internship, and I can tell you that the clinical hours of the students in my program is generally pretty high. We all begin seeing clients in our first semester, both in the school clinic and in our practica. Speaking for myself, I had well over 1000 client contact hours when I applied for internship, and have substantially more than that by now. I'm not unusual -- probably the norm in my program.

Anyway, I find it surprising if there really are PsyD students coming our of programs with, on average, fewer clinical hours than their PhD counterparts. After all, clinical work is what the PsyD programs are supposed to focus on.

 

[Quynh2007]

I'm a PsyD student at Rutgers beginning my internship, and I can tell you that the clinical hours of the students in my program is generally pretty high. We all begin seeing clients in our first semester, both in the school clinic and in our practica. Speaking for myself, I had well over 1000 client contact hours when I applied for internship, and have substantially more than that by now. I'm not unusual -- probably the norm in my program.

Anyway, I find it surprising if there really are PsyD students coming our of programs with, on average, fewer clinical hours than their PhD counterparts. After all, clinical work is what the PsyD programs are supposed to focus on.

yeah, it's probably more varied in a PhD program, but thankfully our DCT tried to do some stats, unfortunately, because everyone placed in an internship, we couldn't do much with it, but at least we knew that people at little as 500 hours was placing (at Yale, even!) as well as those with over 1000 hours. So, it really depends.

 

[psychmama]

Well, I guess some of that goes to "quality vs. quantity" argument. Although I'd argue that while quality is essential, there's no substitute for lots of practice.

 

[Ollie123]

I'm a PsyD student at Rutgers beginning my internship, and I can tell you that the clinical hours of the students in my program is generally pretty high. We all begin seeing clients in our first semester, both in the school clinic and in our practica. Speaking for myself, I had well over 1000 client contact hours when I applied for internship, and have substantially more than that by now. I'm not unusual -- probably the norm in my program.

Anyway, I find it surprising if there really are PsyD students coming our of programs with, on average, fewer clinical hours than their PhD counterparts. After all, clinical work is what the PsyD programs are supposed to focus on.

I was surprised by it too, but its true (feel free to check the last APPIC study if you don't believe me!). And that's the average across everyone applying for internship, so it not only happens on occasion its apparently the norm for PhDs to have more clinical experience. This is one of the clearest signs to me that something is going wrong. There are a number of other things that can contribute to lower match rates, we can argue the validity of the EPPP in predicting outcomes. Of course, raw clinical hours is far from a perfect measure either, but if nothing else its a rough estimate of "Time devoted to clinical training". This one isn't as easy to explain away, and if PhDs are getting more training in both clinical work and research, its pretty tough to argue they are equivalent degrees. Even as a PhD student, I don't think that should be the case - I think its a problem with the system that needs to be fixed. I'm not one to stay quiet about that - and if folks here want to take it personally, that is their perogative. My undergrad institution was far from selective, and I think both departments I worked in (business and psychology) were deeply flawed. Tell me that all you want and I'm not going to take offense, its just the truth. The world is not a person-centered humanistic therapist with unconditional positive regard. I think too many folks from my generation have come to expect that.

It also doesn't surprise me that at Rutgers the norm is > 1000. I'd bet it is at Baylor, and other such schools too

 

[JockNerd]

I was surprised by it too, but its true (feel free to check the last APPIC study if you don't believe me!). And that's the average across everyone applying for internship, so it not only happens on occasion its apparently the norm for PhDs to have more clinical experience. This is one of the clearest signs to me that something is going wrong. There are a number of other things that can contribute to lower match rates, we can argue the validity of the EPPP in predicting outcomes. Of course, raw clinical hours is far from a perfect measure either, but if nothing else its a rough estimate of "Time devoted to clinical training". This one isn't as easy to explain away, and if PhDs are getting more training in both clinical work and research, its pretty tough to argue they are equivalent degrees. Even as a PhD student, I don't think that should be the case - I think its a problem with the system that needs to be fixed. I'm not one to stay quiet about that - and if folks here want to take it personally, that is their perogative. My undergrad institution was far from selective, and I think both departments I worked in (business and psychology) were deeply flawed. Tell me that all you want and I'm not going to take offense, its just the truth. The world is not a person-centered humanistic therapist with unconditional positive regard. I think too many folks from my generation have come to expect that.

It also doesn't surprise me that at Rutgers the norm is > 1000. I'd bet it is at Baylor, and other such schools too

The differences aren't trivial, either; just for fun I calculated Cohen's ds for intervention and assessment hours, and supervision hours, for the 2008 data (here, http://appic.org/match/5_2_2_4_10c_match_about_statistics_surveys_2008C.htm, if people were wondering what we're talking about); ds were arounf .30. I have a hard time fully groking this, especially since my program is definitely not among those contributing to the high number of hours for the PhD group.

 

[aagman01]

Jon,

Thanks for the clarification. wasn't totally sure what you were referring to, but am now.

Board certification is a separate thing from being licensed. The licensing rules vary per state, but things like APA internships aren't generally required.

Board certification is a specialty issue. Some boards over overseen by the American Board or Professional Psychology (ABPP). But, there are many boards which are not. There are many instances in the history of our field where one group has decided that another is too "elitist" or whatever and created their own board. There's no central authority powerful enough to say "Enough, this is how you become - insert specialty here -. You cannot do it whatever way you feel like."

 

[aagman01]

Futurepsydoc,

Calm down. Please read all the posts and the context before you condemn me. I'm on your side on this whole debate. I was just using those extremes to make a point.

There really is not a difference in outcomes regardless of model (bolder/vale) of training used. In fact, often times masters level practitioners are more successful in therapy than doctoral level psychs. Clearly, research is now showing that it is the rapport and overall therapeutic relationship that is the building block for any successful outcomes (not extent of training or mode used).

My only point in that last posting (which perhaps I could have stated better) is that IF psy.ds are considered the professionals and phds are considered the researchers (which is the perspective a lot of people on this forum unfortunately hold) then why are the so-called "researchers" against professional schools? Professional schools, according to the elitist views of many in this forum, turn out practitioners who work in the field. In turning out so many, they supposedly "dilute" the field. If not for the psychology doctorates being turned out by the professional schools, man of those positions would be held by master level clinicians. Don't the phd trained "elites" want better trained practitioners? That was my only point. So please chill

Seriously man, this is the type of disrespectful commentary I was reffering to earlier. Like an extended Master's Degree? Really? I hope that you display better tact with your patients. Treating your colleagues this way will not lead to collaborative work or mutual respect. I feel like you will learn this the hard way at some point.

Having said that, the logic you use is somewhat circular. The purpose of PsyD programs is to "predominately" train practitioners, not "scientists." Of course the students will have less research experience. Application is at the heart of the training philosophy! Vail Model programs will therefore stress theory, learning clinical interventions, and becoming a competent consumer. Students still do dissertations, just not of the same scope. The problem with this is always the same: The training is not traditional, therefore it is inferior. For psychologists to be at the same level, PsyDs must do research that is equally rigourous. I dont see how this is true.

Here is my question to you: Does learning how to write challenge grants, conducting analog studies with homogenous undergrads, participating in basic science, or learning complex statistics make you a better therapist? Really? If you beleive this, please offer the rationale for your position and the requisite data to support it. Cite the studies. I want to read them.

Along these lines, I clearly realize that more clinical experience does not equal increased clinical profieciency, as some PsyD advocates might suggest. Thus, PsyD students with more pre-APPIC hours don't necessarily amount to better therapists. It is the quality of the applicants supervision and exeprience, not the quantity, that counts. Yet, if you are being supervised by scientists who rarely see clients and identify themselves as academics, how is the quality of PhD training any better? How many Ph.D. students are actually out there working on RCTs and learning how to deliver evidenced based treatments. I am certain that the majority of Ph.D. students don't work for Aaron Beck, David Barlow, Michelle Craske, David M. Clark, Chris Fairburn, Steve Hayes, Bill Miller, or Marsha Linehan.

Point of fact, the majority of psychologists out there in the real world, the ones practicing devoid of current clinical science and evidenced based guidlines, are dynamically trained PhDs with research backgrounds. Did the whole research thing pan out for them......

 

[Wildcat06]

Psyd training is predominantly to create practitioners. The declared purpose of phds is to create researchers rather than practitioners.

Therefore, ideally, psyds are the ones doing applied work, leading agencies, and the like. Phds are the ones collaborating with the psyds on research.

Reality, of course, is different. In reality, psyds do sometimes come to enjoy and engage in research. Likewise, in reality, many many people who complete their phds (for a variety of reasons, and probably to the consternation of faculty) end up in applied careers.

Also, as you stated, there really is not a difference in outcomes regardless of model (bolder/vale) of training used. In fact, often times masters level practitioners are more successful in therapy than doctoral level psychs

::Looks like you retracted so I'll retract as well.::

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

*MOD NOTE: erg923, I moved your question about neuropysch boarding to its own thread, as I think it is a really good question. -t4c*=