For private practice, does program prestige really matter?

[JediJeff]

Right now, I'm thinking about a future in which I spend at least part-time in private practice. I would also like to devote part of my time to research or teaching but like I said, I most definitely would like to devote time to being a clinician. So my question is, in private practice, is it really that big of a deal which PhD program you graduate from? Granted, I certainly don't want to get my PhD from "East Podunk University" but in the end, as long as you go to an APA-accredited program, is prestige a big deal?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JatPenn]

I suppose not, but you'd want a place that afforded students lots of very good clinical experience. Ironically, these programs can also the best research oriented programs as well, and in turn the toughest to get into. If your main focus is clinical practice, just do a PsyD.

 

[JediJeff]

I suppose not, but you'd want a place that afforded students lots of very good clinical experience. Ironically, these programs can also the best research oriented programs as well, and in turn the toughest to get into. If your main focus is clinical practice, just do a PsyD.

Well, like I've said before, clinical practice is a definite for me but I'm also VERY interested in research. I definitely wouldn't want a program that has little to no research exposure, which would be most PsyD programs, although I could be wrong since I'm so new to all of this. I've never ruled out a part-time academic/research career and am actually leaning toward incorporating this into whatever I end up doing so I don't want to screw myself over in the end going into an exorbitantly expensive PsyD program that gives me little-to-no future job flexibility.

 

[Psyclops]

I think overall, even if you plan on doing only practice, PhD would be better than PsyD.

 

[JatPenn]

The PhD is an academic degree.

I know your view, P, is that PsyD programs are diluting the clinician market, but I would rather see every one that obtains a PhD become a full fledged contributor to the research. I would prefer that this segment does not become diluted with those who are not 100% passionate about research.

 

[50960]

No patient has ever asked me where I got my degree, is it APA accredited etc.... I have been in private practice over 5 yrs. No insurnace company has ever asked this, no hospital has ever asked this, nobody. If you have a license, and prove you can do the job nobody cares. I cannot believe how many times I have written this........... 😱

 

[JatPenn]

Right, but in the academic world, things are a little different, eh? Plenty of people will want to know what degree you have.

 

[JediJeff]

The PhD is an academic degree.

I know your view, P, is that PsyD programs are diluting the clinician market, but I would rather see every one that obtains a PhD become a full fledged contributor to the research. I would prefer that this segment does not become diluted with those who are not 100% passionate about research.

But why can't a clinician be passionate about research? In fact, wouldn't the best clinicians be those who can use what they've found in research in treating their patients? It just doesn't make sense to me that to become a clinician, one has to be SOLELY devoted to learning the techniques that OTHERS have discovered. Granted, I haven't really been in this field for long since I'm just beginning college in the fall but I'm already observing such an unpleasant and deep division about this topic throughout the field. I see a PsyD as being a great degree if you're completely turned off by research altogether, but even then, I do think at least minimal research experience is necessary. I just don't see why one has to be 100% passionate about solely an academic career to enter a research-oriented program. I find the whole notion ridiculous.

 

[JatPenn]

Dude, re-read my post. My point is that those who want an academic degree should be committed to research, I said nothing of clinicians.

 

[JediJeff]

JatPenn, I understood what you were saying the first time. I'm not trying to start an argument.

"The PhD is an academic degree.

I know your view, P, is that PsyD programs are diluting the clinician market, but I would rather see every one that obtains a PhD become a full fledged contributor to the research. I would prefer that this segment does not become diluted with those who are not 100% passionate about research.

I'm simply stating that it doesn't make sense that all PhDs have to 100% devote themselves to academic/research-related careers. A future in which those in private practice have no research experience or training whatsoever because they all attended PsyD programs, in my opinion, is quite bleak.

 

[SaraL124]

The PhD is a scholar-practitioner model... What's the point of training people in clinical practice if they're expected to be 100% research focused? Clinical work is a large part of the PhD training at many schools, and as evidenced by the requirement of a year long clinical internship for graduation. Obviously that says something of the importance of having room for both practitioners and researchers in the field.

 

[JediJeff]

The PhD is a scholar-practitioner model... What's the point of training people in clinical practice if they're expected to be 100% research focused? Clinical work is a large part of the PhD training at many schools, and as evidenced by the requirement of a year long clinical internship for graduation. Obviously that says something of the importance of having room for both practitioners and researchers in the field.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[mpino]

JatPenn, I understood what you were saying the first time. I'm not trying to start an argument.

"The PhD is an academic degree.

I know your view, P, is that PsyD programs are diluting the clinician market, but I would rather see every one that obtains a PhD become a full fledged contributor to the research. I would prefer that this segment does not become diluted with those who are not 100% passionate about research.

I'm simply stating that it doesn't make sense that all PhDs have to 100% devote themselves to academic/research-related careers. A future in which those in private practice have no research experience or training whatsoever because they all attended PsyD programs, in my opinion, is quite bleak.

i was unaware of this until recently but there are some psyd programs who are actually much more research oriented than people think...just a thought

 

[Psyclops]

The PhD is an academic degree.

I know your view, P, is that PsyD programs are diluting the clinician market, but I would rather see every one that obtains a PhD become a full fledged contributor to the research. I would prefer that this segment does not become diluted with those who are not 100% passionate about research.

I know we disagree a little here. And I wasn't trying to start the old argument again, but I do think that a good clinical/research program will provide the best basis for an aspiring psychologist regardless of thier intended focus. Look, here is my feeling, the field is in its infancy. It is undergoing an enourmous amount of change. Much of this change is based on the back of research that is difficult to understand without adequate training. Many of the statistical and computational advances that have only recently become available are pushing the field towards new ways of conceptualizing and mesuring psychopathology, treatment, and assessment. I think that if you want to truly understand the new advances in theory and practice, you need to be able to nderstand how they came about. I think that is best acheived by adequate training in stats, psychometrics, and research methods. For example, if the DSM-V adopts a dimensional model for personality disorders and moves them to axis-I will that make sense to someone who doesn't understand factor analysis and SEM etc?

 

[Psyclops]

And another thng that frstrates me is researchers who don't have clinical experience. I'm sorry that I'm such a ridgid boulder modeler, but I think it really is the best. Programs like Penn, UCLA, Berkely, as prestigious as they are, I think they do a diservice to the students by not giving them more clinical experience.

 

[JatPenn]

I'm still not really convinced, show me the studies that indicate that having a strong research background makes you a better therapist.

 

[joetro]

I guess I've always thought that research and therapy inform each other, but that one doesn't have to do both. So a huge point of research is to inform the therapy; i.e. you look to the research to see empirically valid treatments, means of prevention, etc., but you could solely research or solely practice as long as you recognize what the other side is doing. Some researchers unfortunately have so little clinical experience that they really don't know much about the disorder they are studying; I think that's problematic.

At any rate, I think the OP's question could be addressed by saying that lots of Ph.D. graduates work in medical school settings, which do seem to combine research and therapy. If that's the kind of setting you are looking for, I'd imagine that prestige is somewhat important, but a research match and a mentor who can get you into that setting - or has had previous students in that setting - would be really key, more so than the name of where you've gone. Again, the "best" schools can be terrible for a lot of people, and the so-so school could be outstanding if your match is there.

 

[Psyclops]

Show me studies that it doesn't.

There's also much more in the applied sense to clinical psychology than therapy where research knowledge might have an impact.

I think it would help to know how an empirically derived cut score was obtained. What a k value was used for. What went into the making of each test you used, etc.

 

[50960]

I find it weird that people still see PhD as mainly research and PsyD as mainly applied. Here in Ca there are PhD programs where most grads can't even spell ANOVA, let alone know what it means. There are also PsyD programs that do a pretty good job at stats and research design. I personally find the average research and stats training in the USA for psychologists to be mediocre at best compared to the UK, and feel that both degrees could use an updated and modernised version.

How many of you students have had to learn to calculate by hand an ANOVA, correlation/R2 etc?? If you had to do this as a graduate student you probably received subpar training in the area of stats.

 

[Psyclops]

I agree with you psisci, I think that psych departments in general have not that great of stats requirements. I find that you have to go out of the department to get stuff like SEM, HLM, IRT, etc. That should be available if not standard. I think even among the more interested in research students psychometrics still turns them off.

 

[codetype4/9]

I think it would help to know how an empirically derived cut score was obtained. What a k value was used for. What went into the making of each test you used, etc.

True, I don't see how you could practice without knowing these things, although you certainly don't need to be producing research to know them either. Its basic coursework that teaches this, not conducting research.

Are you assuming that because practitioner heavy schools don‘t have students conducting research (which is not necessarily true either) that they don‘t teach even basic knowledge about psychological testing? Don’t quote me, but I am pretty sure at the very least they are still using textbooks.

 

[Psyclops]

True, I don't see how you could practice without knowing these things, although you certainly don't need to be producing research to know them either. Its basic coursework that teaches this, not conducting research.

Are you assuming that because practitioner heavy schools don‘t have students conducting research (which is not necessarily true either) that they don‘t teach even basic knowledge about psychological testing? Don’t quote me, but I am pretty sure at the very least they are still using textbooks.

No, I'm certainly not suggesting that they aren't teaching it. But, and this may be just me, I find that unless I use the stats, or methods etc. I lose it pretty much right away. I would imagine tht there is a benefit from more than just a cursory understanding of the concepts, which is what I tend to get from a textbook. Maybe that's just me though. But I'm still a firm believe in the adage that "To understand how a test works and the answers its giving you, you must understand the why and the how it was made."

 

[codetype4/9]

is prestige a big deal?

Academics can be obnoxiously political. If you have an inkling to be a researcher or a tenure track professor, going to a prestigious grad school may mean everything. As for being a practitioner, as far your employer and clients are concerned, wooty-freakin-doo.

 

[Cool_Jung]

JediJeff...didn't you say in another post that you were starting college this fall as a freshman?

I think you shouldn't worry so much now about the prestige of grad programs and whether or not they would best prepare you for private practice...it's posssible that you decide when you graduate college...that you want to be 100% in research....or even that you don't want to be in psychology at all...

 

[coloradocutter]

I am starting a Ph.D. program in the fall after leaving another profession. If you look at the Guide to US Psychology Programs, they have a scoring system for Ph.D. programs as to their emphasis on research vs. clinical - strong research emphasis being a 6 and strong clinical being a 1. I limited my list to those programs that were balanced around 4 or 5. I limited my list to those schools with 100% APA internship rate, good matriculation rates around 5 years (including internship), and those requiring 2,000 clinical hours prior to graduation. I didn't have many on my list, but I got into one and decided to do this rather than a Psy.D. Why? Not because I predominantly want to be a researcher. I am interested in writing articles, teaching some, but not in bein an academic - at all.

Why a Ph.D.? In the long run, a funded Ph.D. is cheaper for me than an unfunded Masters, MSW, or Psy.D. in my area. Also, the research training will make me a better clinician I believe. I think it also gives me so many options in what I can do. Since my other degree is a JD, I am already qualified to do mediations, and I believe that the Ph.D. will help me in those areas and in forensic more than a Psy.D. As an attorney, the parnters that I worked with only enlisted the help of Ph.D.s and MDs except we did have one Psy.D. neuropsychologist. These were really big cases though, but it did make a difference. However, I do not think that this in any way diminishes the value of the masters degrees or Psy.Ds at all! There are so many wonderful masters level clinicians out there and Psy.Ds. However, I think that making the Ph.D. a purely research degree also misses the point - isn't the point to apply this research at some level? There has to be application.

Well, maybe I am making a mistake, but I feel that the Ph.D. gives me more options and when you look at the money at least for me (my husband will be making a good salary also), it makes no sense to pay for my education. It also gives me the incentive to finish quickly.

I have heard wonderful things about Psy.D. programs like Baylor's, but I have heard horrible things about a local Psy.D. program in Denver from an alum. He said that it was a therapist farm and it sounds like it is really expensive!