Foreign psychology degree in the US - share our stories

[hum1]

I was wondering if there are others here who came from abroad to the US with a psychology degree and/or psychology clinical license. I got this idea from another recent thread that addresses psychologists who do the opposite, I.e. move from the US to abroad. Did your degree got recognized? Was your license accepted? Did you have to retrain? What were the challenges?

I can start with my story. I had an Ms in clinical psychology (in Europe one starts to study only one academic subject at University with 18 years old, so it is a 5 year training in psychology) and a clinical license in 2 countries. When I moved to the US, my degree did not get recognized. I had hundreds of credits that did not amount to any academic degree. After insisting, the institute who did the accreditation requested for my school abroad to issue a diploma following the standard format of the state in which I was living in. If not, they would not revise my request. It took me 3 months to convince my university abroad to issue a diploma in a different format, but they did it. My masters degree got recognized.

Since I wanted a clinical license in clinical psychology in the US I decided to enroll in a PsyD Program. This was the most difficult thing I have ever done in my life. There was a lot of repetition from my previous program and the quality of teaching and the curriculum were much bellow the standards of my previous program from abroad. The contents were not challenging in an intellectual way but they were long and demanded a lot of meaningless work. Not to mention that I lost the ability to be an independent clinician and now my work was being supervised by others, some of which had much less clinical experience than I did. After severe health problems developed during the program due to it’s disorganization and crisis, I completed the program in the 5 year period. After moving to a different state I got my license.

Would I do it all over again? Certainty not.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[hum1]

I suppose there are not a lot of stories like mine, or that maybe people dont want to share them. There are similar stories in other fields, of people who had a professional license in another country, came to the US, and then had to quit their jobs and do some menial work, or had to re train.

 

[WisNeuro]

I don't personally know any psychologists from other countries who now practice here. But, I have met/known a handful of physicians who have done so. For a few that I've had more in-depth conversations with, they had to redo residency to practice. But, I imagine that may depend on which country and the equivalency of programs.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I've known multiple physicians who have had to repeat residency bc their training wasn't recognized, despite them being accomplished docs in their home countries.

 

[bluecolourskies]

There was a clinician at my state hospital that came from western Europe, and she was a psychologist there, but her experience there only amounted to a master's level here so she had to take a master's level position, and I remember she wasn't very happy about it.

 

[bluecolourskies]

Not to mention that I lost the ability to be an independent clinician and now my work was being supervised by others, some of which had much less clinical experience than I did. After severe health problems developed during the program due to it’s disorganization and crisis, I completed the program in the 5 year period. After moving to a different state I got my license.

Would I do it all over again? Certainty not.

Your situation could be similar to someone who was licensed in a state that did not require a post doc and didn't complete a post doc, and then moving to a state that did require a post doc. Unless they were already licensed for 5-10 years (if the state would even accept this) they might still have to complete a post doc.

 

[albatross_at_crossroads]

Sorry to hear about your experience.
I sort of did something similar, but in Canada (not US). So transitioned from being independent at master's level in Europe to a PhD clinical program in Canada and basically had to start almost everything from scratch. I did get credit for one or two theoretical courses but that's about it.

To be completely honest, so far I don't hate it. I like getting more supervision especially in areas where I had less exposure and I enjoy the learning process. I also feel more confident in what I can and cannot do, and my maturity helps ground me. Some of the busywork around courses gets tiring after a while, but overall it feels less stressful compared to when I did a grad degree in the US in my early 20s.

Somewhat different to what you have experienced, I am at a highly competitive and well regarded program and the quality of training seems to match that - I am still learning things, and I don't feel this training is less in any way than what I had previously.
It does come with some sacrifices, especially financial (and I was earning quite a lot in my previous consulting position), but it is what it is.

I don't think I would advise anyone to try to equivalate their European training to North America - the system and way of working is too different and it takes some time to properly adapt to the culture. I still think the best path would be to re-do some of the graduate training and supervision, sort of like physicians do with residency. It helps the person adjust to the new professional environment and ensure quality care for the clients/ patients. I would also advise to avoid diploma mills like the plague.

 

[hum1]

Interesting comments.

The acculturation part was definitely important. And although there was a lot of repetition between the two courses, there were very important differences such as (and in a very general blunt way and perhaps related to my program):

- The emphasis on the DSM in the US.
- The emphasis on diagnosis and not so much on the person.
- The focus on empiricism/quantifiable and not so much on subjectivity/personal experience.
- A more mechanical approach vs a more humanistic approach.
- A clear dominance of Watson‘s behaviorism in the conception of what psychology is.
- Earlier exposure to clinical work vs only seeing pts in your last year of training.
- A less unifying reading list made up of a lot of different articles vs reading the classical books.
- A pressure for students to share in classes and report their emotional states to teachers vs respecting your privacy.
- Students participating more in classes vs sitting and listening to teachers.
- Easier work however more frequent and more time consuming vs doing less work that was more challenging but at the same time much more interesting.
- A much more defensive practice and fears around practicing in the US due to for example ethical demands e.g. working As a mandated reporter (which some might claim make psychologists part of the social order, etc).
- etc.

Perhaps due to my experiences I find the field of comparative psychology to be quite interesting. To reflect on the philosophical and cultural traditions and assumptions that underlie our theoretical and practical understandings of psychology.

 

[WisNeuro]

"- Earlier exposure to clinical work vs only seeing pts in your last year of training."

Are you saying that earlier exposure to clinical work in programs is a US thing?

 

[PsyDr]

This is some poor manners. Why come to the USA? Income is partially defined by market restrictions, such as a doctoral requirement, so surely you're not going to say that.

 

[foreverbull]

Interesting comments.

The acculturation part was definitely important. And although there was a lot of repetition between the two courses, there were very important differences such as (and in a very general blunt way and perhaps related to my program):

- The emphasis on the DSM in the US.
- The emphasis on diagnosis and not so much on the person.
- The focus on empiricism/quantifiable and not so much on subjectivity/personal experience.
- A more mechanical approach vs a more humanistic approach.
- A clear dominance of Watson‘s behaviorism in the conception of what psychology is.
- Earlier exposure to clinical work vs only seeing pts in your last year of training.
- A less unifying reading list made up of a lot of different articles vs reading the classical books.
- A pressure for students to share in classes and report their emotional states to teachers vs respecting your privacy.
- Students participating more in classes vs sitting and listening to teachers.
- Easier work however more frequent and more time consuming vs doing less work that was more challenging but at the same time much more interesting.
- A much more defensive practice and fears around practicing in the US due to for example ethical demands e.g. working As a mandated reporter (which some might claim make psychologists part of the social order, etc).
- etc.

Perhaps due to my experiences I find the field of comparative psychology to be quite interesting. To reflect on the philosophical and cultural traditions and assumptions that underlie our theoretical and practical understandings of psychology.

I also find this very interesting.

I’d like to hear how the countries you practiced in/trained in differed in their training model, if you’d like to share more details.

For example, what is the dominant ideology behind psychology in the other countries if not Watson? Some of this varies by individual program and regional differences. Freud is always taught as the modern father of psychopathology and/or clinical psychology here, but the degree of emphasis and acceptance of his concepts and those of his contemporaries will vary A LOT by individual program. Some programs acknowledge his foundational work but emphasize CBT, some teach contemporary psychoanalytic theory or theories that branched from it (interpersonal/relational, attachment-based, etc.) along with CBT. In the U.S. Midwest, I was trained in both CBT and the relational/interpersonal umbrella, and evidence-based practice was emphasized as good practice.

I’ve always heard that Europe is far more psychoanalytic in practice and embraces Freud and Jung in training and practice, etc. I’ve never known if that’s actually accurate, though.

 

[hum1]

"- Earlier exposure to clinical work vs only seeing pts in your last year of training."

Are you saying that earlier exposure to clinical work in programs is a US thing?

I am not sure if I can generalize, but in most European countries your undergraduate degree is already specialized. E.g. when I was 18 years old I had to choose a specific area of study and training so I choose clinical psychology. And you study a specific field for 5 years, here would be equivalent to a bachelor + masters degree.

In some countries there isn't such an empirical/pragmatic focus as in the US so you learn a lot of theory. A lot. And that is the majority of the training. So it is believed that you do not learn to be a psychologist by practicing it but mainly by learning about theory, the classical books, the major schools of thought, heavy emphasis on history of psychology, on anthropology, on the philosophical foundations of psychology, etc. Also, no one would allow a second or third year psychology student to see a pt because you are considered to be too immature and not knowledgeable enough to do it.

 

[hum1]

This is some poor manners. Why come to the USA? Income is partially defined by market restrictions, such as a doctoral requirement, so surely you're not going to say that.

I am sorry, it is not my intention to be rude, but I am critical. All schools of psychology have their positive and negative points, but it is true that I do feel closer and have a preference for a more phenomenological and less empirical/pragmatic psychology. I came to the US due to life circumstances.

I am curious to hear a bit more about your point about the market restrictions issues.

 

[WisNeuro]

I am not sure if I can generalize, but in most European countries your undergraduate degree is already specialized. E.g. when I was 18 years old I had to choose a specific area of study and training so I choose clinical psychology. And you study a specific field for 5 years, here would be equivalent to a bachelor + masters degree.

In some countries there isn't such an empirical/pragmatic focus as in the US so you learn a lot of theory. A lot. And that is the majority of the training. So it is believed that you do not learn to be a psychologist by practicing it but mainly by learning about theory, the classical books, the major schools of thought, heavy emphasis on history of psychology, on anthropology, on the philosophical foundations of psychology, etc. Also, no one would allow a second or third year psychology student to see a pt because you are considered to be too immature and not knowledgeable enough to do it.

Hmm, definitely a different way. I'm biased, but I much prefer the earlier exposure/more close supervision that transitions to more independence than just a shotgun blast of experience at the end.

 

[PsyDr]

I am sorry, it is not my intention to be rude, but I am critical. All schools of psychology have their positive and negative points, but it is true that I do feel closer and have a preference for a more phenomenological and less empirical/pragmatic psychology. I came to the US due to life circumstances.

Critically, it's hard to reconcile "less empirical" with statements that your training is superior.

Frankly, I don't like it when Americans show up to a foreign country and complain that it is not similar to home. This isn't very different.

Also, no one would allow a second or third year psychology student to see a pt because you are considered to be too immature and not knowledgeable enough to do it.

Your second year student would be a sophomore in a USA based undergraduate program. This is a dishonest comparison.

 

[hum1]

Critically, it's hard to reconcile "less empirical" with statements that your training is superior.

But my foreign training was superior, mostly due to the poor quality of my training program in the US.

 

[PsyDr]

But my foreign training was superior, mostly due to the poor quality of my training program in the US.

Based upon what? You didn't attend undergraduate education in the USA, so what is the basis of your comparison to your 5 year undergraduate plus certificate program?

If we are just making unfounded statements, then my training is superior, mostly due to the poor quality of training in your country.

 

[hum1]

Your second year student would be a sophomore in a USA based undergraduate program. This is a dishonest comparison.

I am not fully acquainted with the US schooling , but I thought that when you are 18 years old you move into a bachelor degree, and you are not a sophmore. So in my foreign training you have training in clinical psychology theory only from 18-22 years old and then you have internship in when you are 23 years old, so I believe it would be the second year of a graduate degree.

Frankly, I don't like it when Americans show up to a foreign country and complain that it is not similar to home. This isn't very different.

I am not complaining, I am just mentioning differences. Perhaps I still have some reassessment about having to train again, which I still do.

 

[WisNeuro]

I am not fully acquainted with the US schooling , but I thought that when you are 18 years old you move into a bachelor degree, and you are not a sophmore. So in my foreign training you have training in clinical psychology theory only from 18-22 years old and then you have internship in when you are 23 years old, so I believe it would be the second year of a graduate degree.


I am not complaining, I am just mentioning differences. Perhaps I still have some reassessment about having to train again, which I still do.

In the US you would start a undergraduate degree at 18, mostly majoring in psychology, requiring a certain mix of coursework. You finish that when you are ~22 and apply for graduate work. Once in graduate school, you would generally start some type of clinical work in your first or second year of graduate school.

 

[hum1]

I also find this very interesting.

I’d like to hear how the countries you practiced in/trained in differed in their training model, if you’d like to share more details.

For example, what is the dominant ideology behind psychology in the other countries if not Watson? Some of this varies by individual program and regional differences. Freud is always taught as the modern father of psychopathology and/or clinical psychology here, but the degree of emphasis and acceptance of his concepts and those of his contemporaries will vary A LOT by individual program. Some programs acknowledge his foundational work but emphasize CBT, some teach contemporary psychoanalytic theory or theories that branched from it (interpersonal/relational, attachment-based, etc.) along with CBT. In the U.S. Midwest, I was trained in both CBT and the relational/interpersonal umbrella, and evidence-based practice was emphasized as good practice.

I’ve always heard that Europe is far more psychoanalytic in practice and embraces Freud and Jung in training and practice, etc. I’ve never known if that’s actually accurate, though.

Foreverbull, I am very interested in these intersections between culture and scientific practices such as psychology

I found psychology to be much more theoretical in other countries, but also not so tied with ideas connected with self-development, self-achievement, self-improvement, positive psychology and the attainment of happiness, etc. There are clearly cultural appropriations and intersections between people's ways of understanding themselves and life and what their problems and struggles are. E.g. I am not sure if all cultures struggles with self-esteem as much as American culture. Psychology and its objects of study are connected with culture and its problems.

French psychology had a lot of influence in my training abroad, so Husserl's phenomenology and Paul Ricoeur;'s hermeneutics were a huge influence. I believe the debates here in the US were more focused on the validity of introspection as a way of psychological knowledge vs the observation of behavior. So the mind was disregarded for a lot time during the dominance of behaviorism, until of course cognitivism became the dominant school from the 70's onwards. But I still see a huge dominance of behaviorism in the US, not only in psychology but also education. Overall, psychology in my country was focused on subjectivity and the subjective experience of the subject, which would be different from Watson's definition of psychology as the prediction and control of human behavior. I know that psychology in the US nowadays is not Watson's psychology but I see it very much being on the background and still very relevant.

In my school there was also a huge influence of psychoanalysis so that the program was criticized by being too psychoanalytical. We did however had one course on CBT/behaviorism but it was not very significant. The balance between CBT and psychoanalysis were much more balanced in other universities. In our program we also tended to see more severe cases because most of us did our internship in a state mental institution where you see severe cases of schizophrenia, bipolar, catatonia, substance abuse, dementia, etc. Of course all of this changed by now with the deinstitutionalization of mental health care there, here, and everywhere.

Psychoanalysis is very much alive in some parts of Europe, some UK, and South America but things are changing. The psychoanalysis that was dominant here in the US between 1940-1960 was a very specific type of psychoanalysis termed ego psychology which was focused not so much on the unconscious but on the ego and its adaptation to reality. Some theories change when they cross the Atlantic because of cultural differences. The same happened with existentialism, who turned from a more pessimistic gloomy philosophy to a pragmatic practice related with potential and improvement under the names of e.g. Rollo may.

 

[hum1]

If we are just making unfounded statements, then my training is superior, mostly due to the poor quality of training in your country.

I know I am upsetting you. But I really hope that your training was that good as there a lot of great psychology programs and trainings in the US. Unfortunately mine was not one of them.

 

[PsyDr]

I am not fully acquainted with the US schooling , but I thought that when you are 18 years old you move into a bachelor degree, and you are not a sophmore. So in my foreign training you have training in clinical psychology theory only from 18-22 years old and then you have internship in when you are 23 years old, so I believe it would be the second year of a graduate degree.


I am not complaining, I am just mentioning differences. Perhaps I still have some reassessment about having to train again, which I still do.

Better is a relative judgement. You assert your training is "better", yet are unfamiliar with the alternative. This is conveniently wrapped up in an avoidance of empiricism.

If I said Estonia is better than France, you'd have some basis for discussion. Maybe you'd cite WHO statistics, QoL, GDP, Freedom Indices, football stats, etc. You'd think it unfair if I said, "empirical stuff doesn't count". You'd be frustrated if I then said, "I don't really know much about France, but my point stands.".

 

[hum1]

Better is a relative judgement. You assert your training is "better", yet are unfamiliar with the alternative. This is conveniently wrapped up in an avoidance of empiricism.

If I said Estonia is better than France, you'd have some basis for discussion. Maybe you'd cite WHO statistics, QoL, GDP, Freedom Indices, football stats, etc. You'd think it unfair if I said, "empirical stuff doesn't count". You'd be frustrated if I then said, "I don't really know much about France, but my point stands.".

That is a fair point but I do not want to go into many details about my program. I can tell you that they are now warning new students that most likely they will lose APA accreditation within the next year. So I hope this is enough empirical evidence for you that my program in the US was not that great.

 

[WisNeuro]

That is a fair point but I do not want to go into many details about my program. I can tell you that they are now warning new students that most likely they will lose APA accreditation within the next year. So I hope this is enough empirical evidence for you that my program in the US was not that great.

I suspect a part of the umbrage being taken is that you seem to be making a generalization of the entirety of the US-based clinical psych training based on the experience you have in a program that is an outlier.

 

[hum1]

I suspect a part of the umbrage being taken is that you seem to be making a generalization of the entirety of the US-based clinical psych training based on the experience you have in a program that is an outlier.

For sure. However I stand with my point that there are different psychologies in different countries.

 

[WisNeuro]

For sure. However I stand with my point that there are different psychologies in different countries.

There are many pockets of adherents to many different primary psychological theories in the US. It'd probably be more accurate to say that teh breakdown differs, as it varies quite wildly by region and even by program.

 

[ccool]

Foreverbull, I am very interested in these intersections between culture and scientific practices such as psychology

I found psychology to be much more theoretical in other countries, but also not so tied with ideas connected with self-development, self-achievement, self-improvement, positive psychology and the attainment of happiness, etc. There are clearly cultural appropriations and intersections between people's ways of understanding themselves and life and what their problems and struggles are. E.g. I am not sure if all cultures struggles with self-esteem as much as American culture. Psychology and its objects of study are connected with culture and its problems.

French psychology had a lot of influence in my training abroad, so Husserl's phenomenology and Paul Ricoeur;'s hermeneutics were a huge influence. I believe the debates here in the US were more focused on the validity of introspection as a way of psychological knowledge vs the observation of behavior. So the mind was disregarded for a lot time during the dominance of behaviorism, until of course cognitivism became the dominant school from the 70's onwards. But I still see a huge dominance of behaviorism in the US, not only in psychology but also education. Overall, psychology in my country was focused on subjectivity and the subjective experience of the subject, which would be different from Watson's definition of psychology as the prediction and control of human behavior. I know that psychology in the US nowadays is not Watson's psychology but I see it very much being on the background and still very relevant.

In my school there was also a huge influence of psychoanalysis so that the program was criticized by being too psychoanalytical. We did however had one course on CBT/behaviorism but it was not very significant. The balance between CBT and psychoanalysis were much more balanced in other universities. In our program we also tended to see more severe cases because most of us did our internship in a state mental institution where you see severe cases of schizophrenia, bipolar, catatonia, substance abuse, dementia, etc. Of course all of this changed by now with the deinstitutionalization of mental health care there, here, and everywhere.

Psychoanalysis is very much alive in some parts of Europe, some UK, and South America but things are changing. The psychoanalysis that was dominant here in the US between 1940-1960 was a very specific type of psychoanalysis termed ego psychology which was focused not so much on the unconscious but on the ego and its adaptation to reality. Some theories change when they cross the Atlantic because of cultural differences. The same happened with existentialism, who turned from a more pessimistic gloomy philosophy to a pragmatic practice related with potential and improvement under the names of e.g. Rollo may.

Hmm, thanks for sharing your experiences and perspective. It’s nice to hear your observations and the synthesis of your experiences (and knowledge base) given the different cultures of psychology to which you’ve been exposed.

 

[albatross_at_crossroads]

I'm glad that you made this list because it is mostly what I have observed as well. Actually a big part of this list is why I made the very conscious choice to move back to North America:

- The emphasis on the DSM in the US.
- The emphasis on diagnosis and not so much on the person.

Disclaimer: I realize that talking about "European countries" is a very broad generalization, but to avoid doxxing myself I will keep it at this level.
- I actually appreciate the fact that as a doctoral level psychologist I can diagnose (and have the training and experience to do so appropriately). Back home psychologist cannot do so - they basically depend on the stamp of a psychiatrist who gives the diagnosis; this felt very limiting to me in many ways (I can write a whole post about this).

- The focus on empiricism/quantifiable and not so much on subjectivity/personal experience.

This is another aspect that I wanted in my training. I could have done a PhD in several EU countries, and received admission so much easier than to a US/Canadian PhD. However, I choose not to, because most were just research (so no clinical work involved) and even the research they did was not what I wanted - a lot of isolated work, often less applied and so on.
It did take a lot of hard work and a lot of sacrifices (and a bit of luck) to become a competitive applicant again for a Canadian PhD; but I knew what I was getting in return so I put in the effort and time (years) to get there. I don't regret it at all.

- A more mechanical approach vs a more humanistic approach.

While I do appreciate some humanistic aspects of clinical work, I enjoy the "manualized" part of it in training. I feel like it gives learners a good grounding and then it is much easier to learn new things and adapt.

- A clear dominance of Watson‘s behaviorism in the conception of what psychology is.
- Earlier exposure to clinical work vs only seeing pts in your last year of training.

This is hard to compare. I've seen some US programs that were more psychodynamic in their training so not sure this is accurate, really depends on the program. The education and exposure part is similar - European students do 3, sometimes 4 years of undergrad in psychology, then get to do clinical work at master's level. US/Canada is the same - mostly theory in undergrad, then starting with some clinical work at the master's level/ first years of PhD.
While the education might look different from afar, it's really not. A major in psychology + honors thesis is mostly the same education as an European degree in psychology, just that US/Canadian students also have the option to double major, or are exposed to other subjects and academic areas along the way as well.

- A less unifying reading list made up of a lot of different articles vs reading the classical books.

This is indeed different than undergrad in both places but it makes a lot of sense - students get to read and critique the actual works that the books are based upon, which is great (sort of like a historian going to primary sources). I personally got a better understanding of how real research looks like (and how it's not perfect), what things not to do/ or avoid, and what are the latest developments in my field. It really helps bring forward a scientific mindset that stays with you for the long haul.

- A pressure for students to share in classes and report their emotional states to teachers vs respecting your privacy.

This was indeed difficult for me as well; it's a different cultural approach to training and while some faculty members cross some boundaries, but it's ok as long as it's mostly from a good place (to learn); it's something you get used to.

- Students participating more in classes vs sitting and listening to teachers.
- Easier work however more frequent and more time consuming vs doing less work that was more challenging but at the same time much more interesting.

I agree with the first one - difficult to challenge myself to participate, but so much more rewarding - basically I could learn the material while in class, instead of trying to memorize things at home for a test. There is a lot of busywork, I agree - but I am not sure if I would call my coursework less challenging or less interesting. It's just more work than what the average European student is used to, this applies at the undergrad level as well.

- A much more defensive practice and fears around practicing in the US due to for example ethical demands e.g. working As a mandated reporter (which some might claim make psychologists part of the social order, etc).
- etc.

The emphasis on ethics is something that I appreciated since I've met many European psychologist (from various countries) that had an iffy understanding of even the basics, such as appropriate relationships with patients.

Perhaps due to my experiences I find the field of comparative psychology to be quite interesting. To reflect on the philosophical and cultural traditions and assumptions that underlie our theoretical and practical understandings of psychology.

I realize that how different countries understand what is psychology and its role is a never-ending conversation.
I was lucky enough to have a supervisor in my home country that was highly attuned to science and research, that incorporated best ethical practices in their work and that gave me very good supervision. However, I have met so many other psychologists that were quite the opposite, and many very resentful of extra supervision/ changing their ways. Which is why I become disillusioned and choose another path. (Also, the pay was also quite sub-par, unless you went into something like high-paying private practice or consulting).

I am fully aware that people sometimes fall into circumstances and moves just happen, instead of being pre-planned. However, I still think that the doctoral level education can bring a lot of benefits (and new learning) even to formerly independent master's level practitioners from other countries.

Edit: just wanted to add a final edit to say that a North American education is more aligned with my personality, values and goals, however, this might not be true for others. I've met many NA psychologists who would be happier practicing in European countries. So I am aware that what might be a good path for some, it might be a not so great match for others.

 

[albatross_at_crossroads]

That is a fair point but I do not want to go into many details about my program. I can tell you that they are now warning new students that most likely they will lose APA accreditation within the next year.

Also just wanted to say - YIKES!

 

[PsyDr]

That is a fair point but I do not want to go into many details about my program. I can tell you that they are now warning new students that most likely they will lose APA accreditation within the next year. So I hope this is enough empirical evidence for you that my program in the US was not that great.

This is the problem: you’re dictating the terms of interaction in an unfair way, precluding contradiction. It’s like me saying “I refuse to listen to any evidence that is empirical, or uses the letter “e””. You equated empiricism with a lack of learning. So neither of us can use empirical evidence to have this discussion. But you’re asserting superiority, citing personal expertise, with no way to refute your opinion. Even better: you’re saying something js “better”. Better is relative to something. Something you’re saying you don’t know about. It’s like saying the Yankees are better are baseball than unicorns from the wild hunt. Stacking the debate method deck in your favor until your position is totally uncontrovertable.

 

[hum1]

This is the problem: you’re dictating the terms of interaction in an unfair way, precluding contradiction. It’s like me saying “I refuse to listen to any evidence that is empirical, or uses the letter “e””. You equated empiricism with a lack of learning. So neither of us can use empirical evidence to have this discussion. But you’re asserting superiority, citing personal expertise, with no way to refute your opinion. Even better: you’re saying something js “better”. Better is relative to something. Something you’re saying you don’t know about. It’s like saying the Yankees are better are baseball than unicorns from the wild hunt. Stacking the debate method deck in your favor until your position is totally uncontrovertable.

I don’t remember equating empiricism with a lack of learning. It is a different way of knowing. Do I value theory more than practice? Oh yes, no doubt about it, for sure. Is this the only criteria that I am using to say that my training abroad was better than my training in the Us? Of course not. Was it part of my assessment? I believe it was as I have mentioned that I do have a preference for ideas and theory than I do for practice.

You are back, once again, to the subjectivity of my assessment of what a better program means. I gave you evidence by saying that the program is most likely going to lose APA accreditation, so I believe this should be strong evidence that something is and was going on with the program. I am also taking into consideration level of expertise and experience of teachers, even number of teachers (my program had 3 core newly graduated psychologists who taught the majority of the courses throughout the 5 years of the program), accessibility to teachers, quality of supervision, level of proficiency when teaching, respect for students, support, career guidance, etc.

So yes, my assessment is probably colored by my preference for a more phenomenological psychology (vs behavioral), but firmly established on the objective evidence that if a program is going to lose APA accreditation, it’s probably not a great program. I don’t know what else to say to you….

 

[ClinicalABA]

- A clear dominance of Watson‘s behaviorism in the conception of what psychology is.

Watson's behaviorism (i.e. methodological behaviorism) isn't even the dominant paradigm in behavior analysis. If a program is emphasizing a Watsonian view of psychology, then I'd be questioning that program, not the country in which I is located. That's kind of like going to only an Applebee's and concluding that all food in America is awful.

 

[foreverbull]

It sounds like you ended up in a bad doctoral program. We have more than a handful of those in each state.

That said, “good” programs here tend to focus less on the theoretical areas you are interested in, it sounds like, per your specific preferences. In the US, you won’t get a ton of philosophical foundations of psychology. You’ll get maybe one class in the subject at the doctoral level, typically, and depending on the training model, there will be a plethora of other courses that take precedence. For example, PhD programs usually do a 50-50 science-practitioner split, with courses like counseling theories, biological foundations, cognitive psychology, multicultural counseling, diagnosis, practica, supervising, a college teaching course, assessment, etc. and on the other side, stats and research design.

It sounds like in your European program, there was a huge emphasis on theory and reading original works. But not counseling theory, it sounds like, but philosophical works that don’t necessarily directly relate to counseling practice?

I’m a practical person and love reading about counseling theory foundations that can be put into practice. Counseling theories that are too abstract tend to annoy me (Gestalt theory gets too far in that direction at times, although it has practical value and I love the basic tenets). I was taught to focus on the whole person in my program—culture, emotions, thoughts, relationships, etc. (I should specify that I graduated from a counseling psychology docotral program in the US). I guess I don’t have anything to compare my program to, but it didn’t reduce a person to checking boxes, but embraced complexity of the human experience. I do wish I’d had more than 2 semesters of counseling theory in my program, because I never had a full semester learning just one theory in depth, but a smattering of many. That said, in my practicum course, we had to read a section of a textbook for one theory that my supervisor preferred and discuss it there, so that was helpful. I also had to read sections of a particular theorist’s book for my dissertation, which utilized an aspect of the theory.

Overall, these seem like differences that suggest different training philosophies. That isn’t to say that one model is better or worse than the other, but programs vary in quality within each country. If you don’t like the overall training model I described for the US, that’s not a quality issue per se, but more of a personal preference.

 

[foreverbull]

Also, one thing I forgot to add is that some of the differences (not all) that you mention reflect some of the concerns counseling psychologists have had about clinical psychology in the U.S., particularly a “medical model” focus and less attention to the whole person, overfocus on manualized treatments, and ignoring contextual factors for specific ingredients to therapy. Whether or not this is true is up for debate. Often things seem to be less extreme in practice, though. Clinical folks in here can speak to these concerns in regards to their training if they want to weigh in.

Wampold talks about the models in The Great Psychotherapy Debate. Might be worth a read if you haven’t read it already.

 

[PsyDr]

I don’t remember equating empiricism with a lack of learning. It is a different way of knowing. Do I value theory more than practice? Oh yes, no doubt about it, for sure. Is this the only criteria that I am using to say that my training abroad was better than my training in the Us? Of course not. Was it part of my assessment? I believe it was as I have mentioned that I do have a preference for ideas and theory than I do for practice.

You are back, once again, to the subjectivity of my assessment of what a better program means. I gave you evidence by saying that the program is most likely going to lose APA accreditation, so I believe this should be strong evidence that something is and was going on with the program. I am also taking into consideration level of expertise and experience of teachers, even number of teachers (my program had 3 core newly graduated psychologists who taught the majority of the courses throughout the 5 years of the program), accessibility to teachers, quality of supervision, level of proficiency when teaching, respect for students, support, career guidance, etc.

So yes, my assessment is probably colored by my preference for a more phenomenological psychology (vs behavioral), but firmly established on the objective evidence that if a program is going to lose APA accreditation, it’s probably not a great program. I don’t know what else to say to you….

You directly derided empiricism as a negative alternative to “the person” in your second post. But then vaguely referenced semi-empirical ideas when it benefits your position. Why? That is inconsistent.

You say your education was “better”, but then say you don’t much about the alternative education. That is inconsistent.

You make negative statements about diagnosis. I am very willing to wager real money that you make a living on using those poorly thought of diagnoses.

Your “assessment” is a selection of whatever techniques benefit your opinion. And that is my problem with it.

 

[bluecolourskies]

I also find this very interesting.

I’d like to hear how the countries you practiced in/trained in differed in their training model, if you’d like to share more details.

For example, what is the dominant ideology behind psychology in the other countries if not Watson? Some of this varies by individual program and regional differences. Freud is always taught as the modern father of psychopathology and/or clinical psychology here, but the degree of emphasis and acceptance of his concepts and those of his contemporaries will vary A LOT by individual program. Some programs acknowledge his foundational work but emphasize CBT, some teach contemporary psychoanalytic theory or theories that branched from it (interpersonal/relational, attachment-based, etc.) along with CBT. In the U.S. Midwest, I was trained in both CBT and the relational/interpersonal umbrella, and evidence-based practice was emphasized as good practice.

I’ve always heard that Europe is far more psychoanalytic in practice and embraces Freud and Jung in training and practice, etc. I’ve never known if that’s actually accurate, though.

So this is my personal experience, but from speaking with therapists in Russia/Eastern Europe, Gestalt and psychoanalytic models are very widely used. Now I don’t know if we have the same understanding of Gestalt and if those practices look the same in the US, I just know that nearly all therapists say they practice from Gestalt/psychoanalysis.

 

[hum1]

Wampold talks about the models in The Great Psychotherapy Debate. Might be worth a read if you haven’t read it already.

Bruce Wampold is such an intelligent man with a lot of interesting points on psychotherapy research.

You directly derided empiricism as a negative alternative to “the person” in your second post. But then vaguely referenced semi-empirical ideas when it benefits your position. Why? That is inconsistent.

You say your education was “better”, but then say you don’t much about the alternative education. That is inconsistent.

You make negative statements about diagnosis. I am very willing to wager real money that you make a living on using those poorly thought of diagnoses.

Your “assessment” is a selection of whatever techniques benefit your opinion. And that is my problem with it.

About inconsistency and consistency, I would prefer the former, never really enjoyed systematized and "clear" systems of thought nor explanations. They are elegant but as the psychoanalyst Andre Green stated "Eloquent obscurity is more fruitful, from an overall perspective, than the clarity of artificial illumination".

Yes, I am not a big fan of diagnoses. I earn my living doing psychotherapy so perhaps indirectly I do make money on diagnoses. I have also made money teaching students to be critical of the DSM and diagnoses My students were surprised to hear Robert Spitzer, the neo-Kraeplinian leading figure behind the DSM 3, and Frances Allen, one of the leading figures behind the DSM IV, being critical of their own creations.

If you want to know I enjoy being critical. I believe it was Metz, the film critic, who wrote something along the lines of "I love the cinema and I hate it. This is the only way to not fall completely under its ideology". Well, I fell the same way about psychology. Above all I enjoy engaging with it, very, very much.

 

[PsyDr]

Bruce Wampold is such an intelligent man with a lot of interesting points on psychotherapy research.



About inconsistency and consistency, I would prefer the former, never really enjoyed systematized and "clear" systems of thought nor explanations. They are elegant but as the psychoanalyst Andre Green stated "Eloquent obscurity is more fruitful, from an overall perspective, than the clarity of artificial illumination".

Yes, I am not a big fan of diagnoses. I earn my living doing psychotherapy so perhaps indirectly I do make money on diagnoses. I have also made money teaching students to be critical of the DSM and diagnoses My students were surprised to hear Robert Spitzer, the neo-Kraeplinian leading figure behind the DSM 3, and Frances Allen, one of the leading figures behind the DSM IV, being critical of their own creations.

If you want to know I enjoy being critical. I believe it was Metz, the film critic, who wrote something along the lines of "I love the cinema and I hate it. This is the only way to not fall completely under its ideology". Well, I fell the same way about psychology. Above all I enjoy engaging with it, very, very much.

So you can define the rules of the game and change them to support your beliefs. Empiricism when it supports you, diagnosis when it makes you money, etc.

That is the opposite of logic.

 

[hum1]

So you can define the rules of the game and change them to support your beliefs. Empiricism when it supports you, diagnosis when it makes you money, etc.

That is the opposite of logic.

Your claim is completely unfounded and antagonistic to who I am and what I believe in. Above all my commitment is to the truth. So if you are insinuating that I manipulate the truth in order for reality to fit my interests, that is proof to me that you do not have the slightest idea of who I am and what I believe in.

I do not want to play relativism with you and I do not believe this conversation will ever be fruitful.