Grad school debt

[PsyDr]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

@WisNeuro I looked it up. It turns out we are both kinda right depending on the accounting used. Because student loans are non- dis-chargeable, one way of doing the accounting is to treat it as low risk. But because we can't guarantee the payment, another way of doing the accounting means we treat it as high risk. In the former, the govt makes $37 billion, in the latter the govt' loses $170 billion.

 

[Icculus8]

Yep, the APA really sucks. My hope is that reform occurs, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

This is why I understand and appreciate what the PCSAS people are doing, but they also hold other positions with which I don't really agree.

What about linking it to the quality of the institution? Why should diploma mill programs disproportionately benefit?

I'm still new to understanding a lot of this, can someone speak to the criticisms of the PCSAS? I read up a bit about it, and it seems like it could be a step in the right direction for some oversight over what APA is doing, but do some think they are taking it too far?

 

[Lurking Oracle]

I agree that those amounts of debt are unfathomable, and it makes me wonder what the ideal solution would be. That students should simply stop going to for-profit schools? Education to prospective students that if they attend certain programs they will leave with a significant amount of debt? It seems like some students just want to be therapists so badly that they are willing to endure any amount of debt for a professional degree, and view it on par with attending medical school or law school and leaving with debt. To play devils advocate to myself, is that necessarily a bad thing? if some students choose to carry that much debt, although it may mean a lifetime of paying it off, with a reasonable salary they will be able to eventually?

I think I struggle with trying to understand my own stance on all of this. I would probably personally never advocate for a student to attend a program with questionable match rates and astronomical debt, but the way the system is set up, as long as students have the interest, and these programs can retain APA accreditation, it is hard to know where the change will come from. Are there changes that could or should be made to the accreditation process or standards that could help highlight some of these discrepancies between programs?

It seems like some students just want to be therapists so badly that they are willing to endure any amount of debt for a professional degree, and view it on par with attending medical school or law school and leaving with debt.

If they "just want to be therapists so badly," then there are far less costly (and much faster) routes than sketchy, high-cost, "doctoral" programs. I think the reality is that there are simply too many people that want (need?) to be called "DOCK-tuh," literally at any cost.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

I've seen a few people who have it on their personal credit cards and personal checking accounts. The "Dr." part. It's tellingly diagnostic.

I think the reality is that there are simply too many people that want (need?) to be called "DOCK-tuh," literally at any cost

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm still new to understanding a lot of this, can someone speak to the criticisms of the PCSAS? I read up a bit about it, and it seems like it could be a step in the right direction for some oversight over what APA is doing, but do some think they are taking it too far?

Great question, though it’s best to start a new thread. I’d like to read/learn more about it.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I believe that it used to be true that it was a net win for the govt. But, recent numbers coming out show that more people than anticipated and borrowing more, don't match with original estimates. Last I saw, with two of the programs, it was a net loss of 35 billion something in a short time period. At some point the numbers invert, when you are writing off much more than you are bringing in from those increased interest rates.

Even if it is a loss for the government, it is still a win for the financial folks and the government officials who play along with this get great jobs in that sector or vice versa. The student loan bubble is just another way for the wealthy to soak the lower classes isn't it? Housing bubbles are another one. What PSYDR said about borrowing at 1% and lending at 7% is spot on. How do I get into that rigged game?

 

[MAClinician]

A required class for undergraduate psychology majors about the degree prospects and graduate school? Just throwing things out there...

I agree and I also think it's important to remember the diversity in undergraduate psychology departments out there. According to Profiles of Undergraduate Programs in Psychology

There are over 1100 Bachelors only programs and 400+ programs in departments that offer graduate training (MA, PHD, or both). This data is based off of a very limited response rate, albeit over 10 years ago. 3x as many psych majors are coming from departments with smaller faculty numbers, which means less opportunity for mentoring and research involvement. In addition, the breakdown of area of psychology from faculty averages 22% clinical, 6% counseling, 2% school. 70% of the faculty studied NON-health service areas of psychology. They are not going to be as knowledgeable as someone who completed clinical PhD about the ins and outs of applying, funding, job opportunities etc. My undergrad program at the time was bachelor granting only, had maybe 10? full time faculty, and limited opportunities for research. 2 of the professors were clinical but graduated in the 60's(?) from their programs (I graduated in 2001). The rest were experimental, cognitive, social, and I/O. Thankfully they hired a recent clinical psychologist for my junior year who was more familiar with graduate school for direct service, so students went to her for advice. But not all programs may have that.

I would like to see Psi Chi and other psychology related groups play an active role in the educating students about careers in psych, funding and financial management, etc. Career services at schools don't know all the intricacies of graduate education. Workshops and meet-a-psychologist type events could help students understand what the day to day life is like, how to achieve that job, and what training is needed. There are many other factors at play (loans etc) but for most students it starts at the undergraduate level and there are things that could be improved.

 

[CatsFan]

I would like to see Psi Chi and other psychology related groups play an active role in the educating students about careers in psych, funding and financial management, etc.

This is a great idea! At my university though, Psi Chi is led by undergraduate students. I'm sure they have a faculty advisor, but I don't know who that person is. How do we go about educating the leaders of student groups, so that they can educate others?

 

[singasongofjoy]

But of course that is predicated on this idea that it's cool for some people to just not go to graduate school at all and when that becomes true almost uniformly for people of lower income it's kind of problematic. So yes doing master's instead of doctoral is also cheaper or perhaps picking a different career like PA or Nursing over MD. I'm a pragmatist as well and I think opting to just NOT do it is maybe smarter in the long run, that you can find fulfillment in a lot of things, even if it's not the thing you wanted because you couldn't afford it. However, moving outside of the individual to the system, it's a little messed up that people have to make that decision in the first place and that in the end it disproportionally affects people without money and continues to perpetuate class divides.

In general, I heartily agree with you. But there are a lot of middle class folks who get themselves into egregious debt that could have been mitigated by taking some time to work/save money in between, or who go on to grad school in large part because they just assume it's the next step (e.g., I was a psych major, guess now I'll go to grad school, have been in school my whole life so seems like the next logical step)... when they could be just as happy in a different career (e.g., respiratory therapist, or something else that just requires a couple years of school but pays quite well). When it starts perpetuating the class divide, that's a separate issue that needs to be addressed differently, I think. But I do know several folks who started PhD programs just because it seemed like the next step, then ended up dropping out because turns out they weren't really ALL that passionate about it. Those loans don't drop away though.

 

[wtfook]

In general, I heartily agree with you. But there are a lot of middle class folks who get themselves into egregious debt that could have been mitigated by taking some time to work/save money in between, or who go on to grad school in large part because they just assume it's the next step (e.g., I was a psych major, guess now I'll go to grad school, have been in school my whole life so seems like the next logical step)... when they could be just as happy in a different career (e.g., respiratory therapist, or something else that just requires a couple years of school but pays quite well). When it starts perpetuating the class divide, that's a separate issue that needs to be addressed differently, I think. But I do know several folks who started PhD programs just because it seemed like the next step, then ended up dropping out because turns out they weren't really ALL that passionate about it. Those loans don't drop away though.

Yes, I definitely agree with that as well. I've definitely seen mindsets where "I want to be a therapist with my own practice. Better go get a doctorate." And they don't really realize that you can just get a master's and be a therapist with your own practice and at comparable salaries. I think a lot about the ability to research and look at what options are out there. Also, the fact that we learn things in college but aren't always taught what CAREERS to the take with that knowledge. If you aren't someone who uses career advising, no one will come out and tell you. There might also be a prestige factor to it too I imagine.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yes, I definitely agree with that as well. I've definitely seen mindsets where "I want to be a therapist with my own practice. Better go get a doctorate." And they don't really realize that you can just get a master's and be a therapist with your own practice and at comparable salaries. I think a lot about the ability to research and look at what options are out there. Also, the fact that we learn things in college but aren't always taught what CAREERS to the take with that knowledge. If you aren't someone who uses career advising, no one will come out and tell you. There might also be a prestige factor to it too I imagine.

If only those poor suckers knew how little prestige is actually attached to the Dr. honorific these days.

 

[wtfook]

If only those poor suckers knew how little prestige is actually attached to the Dr. honorific these days.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN I LOVE DR. OZ AND DR. PHIL

 

[Meteora]

I have around 20k I'm paying back steadily from undergrad. In terms of my doctoral program, based on current projections and the cost of living where I am, I should not have to take out any loans. Growing up in poverty with my family struggling to pay off debt, I am very privileged to be in my current position.

 

[WisNeuro]

Decent little article about the state of some things and some things that are percolating on the horizon that students thinking about loans should pay attention to.

Student Loans Are Too Expensive To Forgive

 

[Pragma]

Good article with more nuanced numbers (such as average debt for PSLF vs. everyone else).

 

[barryggg]

30k for me but I did two undergrads. Very little grad debt (I'd say 5-7k)

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Student Loans Are Too Expensive To Forgive

Yes, well written document.

Some quotes I think are worth highlighting:

Though Kelchen predicts that if the PROSPER Act passes, some colleges will try to either increase how much financial aid they offer or reduce tuition, he cautions, “I don’t think it will be enough to make up for loss of loan access, particularly in low-paying fields.”

Perhaps we should pay people more or not encourage pursuing low paying jobs that require high level of debt.

Georgetown University’s Law Center. Dean of admissions Andy Cornblatt says the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, among others, helps the school attract the best candidates.

Georgetown has an endowment of 1.6 Billion! They don't need the tax payers to help attract students for public service jobs.

But this year the House is poised to consider the PROSPER Act, which would, among other things, reinstate a cap on how much graduate students could borrow (up to $28,500 per year, or $150,000 total) and shrink the number of income-based repayment programs currently available for both grad and undergrad students from five to just one, though a traditional, non-income-based repayment plan will also be available

I think this is a good start

 

[psych.meout]

Yes, well written document.

Some quotes I think are worth highlighting:

Perhaps we should pay people more or not encourage pursuing low paying jobs that require high level of debt.


Georgetown has an endowment of 1.6 Billion! They don't need the tax payers to help attract students for public service jobs.


I think this is a good start

Even without an endowment of that size, there are plenty of ways to cut costs to make their programs more affordable. The glut of administrative staff significantly drives up costs and they don't actually provide significant value. It's not like they are teaching and thereby bringing in money to the university through tuition. It's the same problem as in healthcare of the growth of non-medical staff driving up costs, but without generating any additional income.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

It's the same problem as in healthcare of the growth of non-medical staff driving up costs, but without generating any additional income.

In my experience, the incompetence of non-medical staff actually drives down profits.

 

[Ollie123]

Don't have time for a deep dive on this conversation, but have to chime in with one thing.

University administrative bloat is both a cause and consequence of the enormous increase in bureaucracy. The old adage "The bureaucracy must expand to meet the ever-expanding needs of the bureaucracy" applies here more than anywhere. This is a salient issue for me as the latter is exactly the reason why I don't have time to do a deep dive on this right now. This often gets portrayed as "just cut 80% of the administrators." If they woke up and did that tomorrow, it would just quadruple the amount of time I have to spend as a PI fighting with our accounting system, trying to track down a lawyer to review a data use agreement so that everyone involved can agree that I can use a dataset I used to be able to download off a public website, etc. I have not read a paper I wasn't reviewer on in at least 3 weeks and that is not the longest I've gone. Salaries for research techs are so high here despite no movement in project budgets that I can't afford sufficient help and all the mundane work gets pushed up the ladder.

I'm 100% in favor of reducing administrators, but I think we need to be absolutely clear that cutting administrators without also cutting those responsibilities is a recipe for disaster. Those responsibilities won't get cut if we do this. It will get pushed onto me and/or folks hired off my direct costs (which my budget for isn't going up anytime soon), not eliminated. I am already fighting burn out, no longer feeling like a scientist and one study audit away from typing "What jobs require research skills and will allow me to do the most evil" into google (rx opioid marketing? trump cabinet member?) and taking my revenge on society. Don't make me do that. I'm very good at what I do.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Don't have time for a deep dive on this conversation, but have to chime in with one thing.

University administrative bloat is both a cause and consequence of the enormous increase in bureaucracy. The old adage "The bureaucracy must expand to meet the ever-expanding needs of the bureaucracy" applies here more than anywhere. This is a salient issue for me as the latter is exactly the reason why I don't have time to do a deep dive on this right now. This often gets portrayed as "just cut 80% of the administrators." If they woke up and did that tomorrow, it would just quadruple the amount of time I have to spend as a PI fighting with our accounting system, trying to track down a lawyer to review a data use agreement so that everyone involved can agree that I can use a dataset I used to be able to download off a public website, etc. I have not read a paper I wasn't reviewer on in at least 3 weeks and that is not the longest I've gone. Salaries for research techs are so high here despite no movement in project budgets that I can't afford sufficient help and all the mundane work gets pushed up the ladder.

I'm 100% in favor of reducing administrators, but I think we need to be absolutely clear that cutting administrators without also cutting those responsibilities is a recipe for disaster. Those responsibilities won't get cut if we do this. It will get pushed onto me and/or folks hired off my direct costs (which my budget for isn't going up anytime soon), not eliminated. I am already fighting burn out, no longer feeling like a scientist and one study audit away from typing "What jobs require research skills and will allow me to do the most evil" into google (rx opioid marketing? trump cabinet member?) and taking my revenge on society. Don't make me do that. I'm very good at what I do.

I believe that John Watson went into advertising after he was thrown out of the university for having an affair with his assistant. I imagine he made a lot of money selling coffee for Maxwell House. He probably did like his research job at the University though. Could experiment on babies all day long without any regulations or red tape whatsoever. Seriously though, I am somewhat disappointed in the direction of our research these days myself. Maybe I’m just getting old, jaded, and cynical, but I see huge gaps in the literature that aren’t being filled and a lot of big unanswered questions and yet there are so many great minds working in the field. I imagine your experience of feeling stifled isn’t very unique.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm 100% in favor of reducing administrators, but I think we need to be absolutely clear that cutting administrators without also cutting those responsibilities is a recipe for disaster. Those responsibilities won't get cut if we do this. It will get pushed onto me and/or folks hired off my direct costs (which my budget for isn't going up anytime soon), not eliminated. I am already fighting burn out, no longer feeling like a scientist and one study audit away from typing "What jobs require research skills and will allow me to do the most evil" into google (rx opioid marketing? trump cabinet member?) and taking my revenge on society. Don't make me do that. I'm very good at what I do.

A social/personality PhD buddy of mine works for one of the pharmacy chain giants in corporate, is pretty much their research/stats man in one division. Makes a base salary of 125k plus some pretty killer benefits, and only works like 30 hours a week. You could always go that route.

 

[MCParent]

A social/personality PhD buddy of mine works for one of the pharmacy chain giants in corporate, is pretty much their research/stats man in one division. Makes a base salary of 125k plus some pretty killer benefits, and only works like 30 hours a week. You could always go that route.

 

[WisNeuro]

And another article, definitely making the rounds in the news

Student Debt Is a Harsh Math Lesson for U.S. Graduates

 

[kestrelcry]

You should, but not for these reasons. We need good incentives to encourage highly trained mental health providers to engage in rural areas that are desperately under-served. Its the same way that I dont like how they abuse federal financial aid programs, but I don't want to see federal financial aid cease.

Right, I get that this is the intent of the program, but exactly how effective is it? Is it a better incentive than, say, spending the same amount of money on increasing provider pay than forgiving loans?

Georgetown has an endowment of 1.6 Billion! They don't need the tax payers to help attract students for public service jobs.

I am super all about PSLF for recruiting for difficult-to-fill positions for underserved populations. And also, the other two psychologists at the small VA facility where I work went to an unfunded program. I know that at least one of them is on PSLF with ~$200k in debt. The program's not great; my friend is a good therapist. So, that's all nice enough, and I'm happy for my friend that she has PSLF. On the other hand, we're located near a _very_ popular city. There is absolutely no shortage of applicants for positions here, quite the contrary. So, why do PSLF for highly coveted positions? The Veterans in my area are hardly underserved, you can't throw a stone without hitting a well-rated (for what that's worth) VAMC, a CBOC, or a Vet Center, not to mention all the private organizations for Veterans around here. I personally think the standards for what makes a position PSLF-eligible need to be re-examined. However, no one's asked me to run the world yet. 🙄

 

[Ollie123]

I believe that John Watson went into advertising after he was thrown out of the university for having an affair with his assistant. I imagine he made a lot of money selling coffee for Maxwell House. He probably did like his research job at the University though. Could experiment on babies all day long without any regulations or red tape whatsoever. Seriously though, I am somewhat disappointed in the direction of our research these days myself. Maybe I’m just getting old, jaded, and cynical, but I see huge gaps in the literature that aren’t being filled and a lot of big unanswered questions and yet there are so many great minds working in the field. I imagine your experience of feeling stifled isn’t very unique.

Most folks I know in research feel stifled right now...it seems to have gotten exponentially worse the last 4-5 years, though have hopped around institutions in that time so can't tell if that is just institutional differences.

Big unanswered questions typically aren't fundable (via conventional mechanisms anyways). Funding is a game. One I fortunately seem to be pretty good at. Or at least lucky at. NIH seems to be on an innovation and "big science" kick right now. The latter basically leaves you high and dry if you aren't an established investigator or with a group of them. Innovation means pushing the bounds of possibility. I like it in principle and I do think it was lacking in a lot of what we saw before. However, being innovative takes time and support. Its tough to be innovative on a shoestring budget while also fighting bureaucracy that will make you submit 283 forms over the course of 3 months before you do anything the least bit out of the norm (even if it poses literally zero risk of actual harm). The result is we are all proposing crap we know we can't actually do. We then either find allowable ways to dial it back after we get the money, run crap studies, or find ways to "build in" legitimate science to a larger **** show of random moonshots with bells and whistles.

There are actual initiatives right now to decrease regulatory burden on researchers. I like this. They either need to do that or dramatically change the entire funding system itself. My main sticking point right now is that most of the people introducing the bureaucracy don't have any skin in the game. The IRB that takes 3 months to approve something simple, the finance manager who takes 6 weeks to push through a purchase of needed supplies, etc. Seemingly half my day is spent just "reminding" these people to do things I asked them to do two weeks ago. These people need more skin in the game if we aren't going to do an overhaul. I think we need one though.

A social/personality PhD buddy of mine works for one of the pharmacy chain giants in corporate, is pretty much their research/stats man in one division. Makes a base salary of 125k plus some pretty killer benefits, and only works like 30 hours a week. You could always go that route.

Definitely the backup plan. Hours sound nice. Salary is better than my present one, but a fair bit less than I'd make if I stick it out in academia unless they pay a substantial bonus. Little room to grow in a position like that and I'd likely beat that salary as soon as I make associate prof here. If I decide I want to coast though...doesn't sound like a bad gig and not too high up on the "evil" front!

 

[WisNeuro]

Definitely the backup plan. Hours sound nice. Salary is better than my present one, but a fair bit less than I'd make if I stick it out in academia unless they pay a substantial bonus. Little room to grow in a position like that and I'd likely beat that salary as soon as I make associate prof here. If I decide I want to coast though...doesn't sound like a bad gig and not too high up on the "evil" front!

Last we talked about it, he gets a quarterly bonus around 5k.

 

[Pragma]

If I decide I want to coast though...doesn't sound like a bad gig and not too high up on the "evil" front!

 

[christypaffgen]

Hi all, I loathe to be asking the obvious, but because I'm feeling both particularly courageous and desperate, I will:

Regarding doctoral debt and average starting salaries, I'm struggling to see how finishing a doctorate with $100,000 in school debt is always the wrong decision in all cases, hands down. Is it truly unlikely that most won't make at least $50,000 during their first few years in clinical practice? What if they were in the unique situation of being fully supported by their spouse, having almost the entirety of their salary to dedicate to repaying loans? I apologize for the devil's advocate, I'm just trying to take the temperature here as to whether it's "all debt is bad all the time" or a genuine concern for people to weigh the gravity of debt before making decisions. Thanks all.

 

[WisNeuro]

Hi all, I loathe to be asking the obvious, but because I'm feeling both particularly courageous and desperate, I will:

Regarding doctoral debt and average starting salaries, I'm struggling to see how finishing a doctorate with $100,000 in school debt is always the wrong decision in all cases, hands down. Is it truly unlikely that most won't make at least $50,000 during their first few years in clinical practice? What if they were in the unique situation of being fully supported by their spouse, having almost the entirety of their salary to dedicate to repaying loans? I apologize for the devil's advocate, I'm just trying to take the temperature here as to whether it's "all debt is bad all the time" or a genuine concern for people to weigh the gravity of debt before making decisions. Thanks all.

It's more that it's just a very poor return on investment for most people. Additionally, the schools that cost more, tend to be the ones with worse reputations. Also, most people calculate debt completely wrong. They don't factor everything in (tuition, books, living expenses, conference travel costs, internship app costs, etc) and they also do not calculate the cost of deferment when they are on fellowship and the like. That underestimation, and lack of any perspective of what it's like to carry that burden on, is what makes most of us advise against anything even remotely approaching 6 figure debt. You're better off investing that money and working a different career.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Hi all, I loathe to be asking the obvious, but because I'm feeling both particularly courageous and desperate, I will:

Regarding doctoral debt and average starting salaries, I'm struggling to see how finishing a doctorate with $100,000 in school debt is always the wrong decision in all cases, hands down. Is it truly unlikely that most won't make at least $50,000 during their first few years in clinical practice? What if they were in the unique situation of being fully supported by their spouse, having almost the entirety of their salary to dedicate to repaying loans? I apologize for the devil's advocate, I'm just trying to take the temperature here as to whether it's "all debt is bad all the time" or a genuine concern for people to weigh the gravity of debt before making decisions. Thanks all.

If the total was only 100k, that might not be so bad. Just as Wisneuro said, the amount can balloon pretty high with the years of interest. Some of the loans that are the biggest killers for me were from undergrad.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Hi all, I loathe to be asking the obvious, but because I'm feeling both particularly courageous and desperate, I will:

Regarding doctoral debt and average starting salaries, I'm struggling to see how finishing a doctorate with $100,000 in school debt is always the wrong decision in all cases, hands down. Is it truly unlikely that most won't make at least $50,000 during their first few years in clinical practice? What if they were in the unique situation of being fully supported by their spouse, having almost the entirety of their salary to dedicate to repaying loans? I apologize for the devil's advocate, I'm just trying to take the temperature here as to whether it's "all debt is bad all the time" or a genuine concern for people to weigh the gravity of debt before making decisions. Thanks all.

I think it’s helpful to think about it in terms of monthly payments. At 100k debt, 6% rate, your monthly payment is around $720 (20 years) to $1050 (10 years). A 50k salary gives you a take home of around 3k per month. One third of your salary would be going to student loans! For some perspective, I make 2+ times that, and 700-1000 a month would be a huge burden. It’s basically comparable to an extra pre tax salary of ~15k per year. I’ve said this many times on this board- I’m an “averagely” fiscally responsible person, and I can’t imagine the negative impacts on my lifestyle of having an extra $600-$1000 loan payment per month- it would’ve been crippling early career, and I’d be trying to catch up for decades.

If you have someone willing to foot that bill for you, there just may be better ways for you to spend their money.

 

[StellaB]

Hi all, I loathe to be asking the obvious, but because I'm feeling both particularly courageous and desperate, I will:

Regarding doctoral debt and average starting salaries, I'm struggling to see how finishing a doctorate with $100,000 in school debt is always the wrong decision in all cases, hands down. Is it truly unlikely that most won't make at least $50,000 during their first few years in clinical practice? What if they were in the unique situation of being fully supported by their spouse, having almost the entirety of their salary to dedicate to repaying loans? I apologize for the devil's advocate, I'm just trying to take the temperature here as to whether it's "all debt is bad all the time" or a genuine concern for people to weigh the gravity of debt before making decisions. Thanks all.

It's a fair question. There are a few reasons why the discussions on this forum tend to be very polarized when it comes to debt loads, though, and so I'll try to provide a brief summary of the points frequently made:
1. If a program costs $100k over 5 years (4 of school + 1 year of internship when loan repayments would not be made), it will not result in debt of $100k - it will be substantially higher at the end of training, simply because of compound interest (closer to $122k, based on current federal rates). As others have pointed out, the repayment amounts per month are quite substantial - they can and do put a major damper on your early career prospects, as decisions are made based on how much debt you have rather than on what opportunities are the most exciting or relevant to long-term goals.
2. Psychology is a great job, but at the end of the day, it's just a job - it's not worth paying a mortgage for. You get used to doing it, and it becomes the daily grind. In my experience, most psychologists actually do work that a masters-level clinician could do. There are very few areas of practice that are truly distinct for psychologists (testing, forensics, a few others) - most other forms of practice can be done by social workers or MFT/LPCs. The pay difference between these careers is typically NOT worth the extra debt load and lost income from the years of additional training as a psychologist. If someone is considering going into that much debt to be a psychologist, they should very seriously consider whether they should get a master's degree instead. No one cares that you are called "Dr." and the novelty wears off almost immediately.
3. There is a serious underestimation of the personal risks taken on by students who go into more than $50k in student debt. What if something happens, and you have to drop out of your program before you're done? It happens - it happened to three people in my very small state school program. If you've borrowed a lot at that point, you're pretty well screwed. What if you don't end up in a great paying job? What if your relationship sours? Grad school is exceedingly demanding, and the joke that relationships don't survive it doesn't come from nowhere. Psychologists make a decent upper-middle-class salary in most of the country, but once you add in debt payments, it's not a good salary anymore, and not at all worth it.
4. As others have mentioned, even if you have that much money lying around, why would you want to spend it on an overpriced grad school program? That money could be far better spent saving for retirement, starting a business, or buying a house. The expensive psychology programs are not generally well-respected, so even if you could afford to pay for it, it's not a great investment for most people.
5. Almost everyone underestimates the true cost of attending grad school. MANY of my cohort-mates at my school, where everyone was guaranteed a stipend of at least $20k and paid no tuition at all, in a small town with a moderate cost of living still managed to have debt loads of close to or exceeding $100k at the end. You will not be able to work a job while in school. You will have family reunions, weddings, funerals, etc to attend and you will need to pay for the travel. It's YEARS of your life, there are guaranteed to be expenses that come up and you will have no money to pay for them, but easy access to cash. It is a dangerous trap that is easy to fall into.

Some people might still consider it to be a worthwhile thing to do, and that's their call. The reason a lot of the psychologists on this board caution against taking on this much debt is because we're at the other side - we see that this is just a job, we have friends who are screwed by how much debt they have or maybe some of us are also in that boat, we see how job applicants are perceived based on the school they attended, etc. It is scary seeing how many people each year are bamboozled by the combination of easy loans, predatory graduate programs, and overly optimistic thinking. We're trying to sound the alarm, but it's not an easy message to hear when you are fantasizing so much about an exciting future career.

 

[christypaffgen]

It's a fair question. There are a few reasons why the discussions on this forum tend to be very polarized when it comes to debt loads, though, and so I'll try to provide a brief summary of the points frequently made:
1. If a program costs $100k over 5 years (4 of school + 1 year of internship when loan repayments would not be made), it will not result in debt of $100k - it will be substantially higher at the end of training, simply because of compound interest (closer to $122k, based on current federal rates). As others have pointed out, the repayment amounts per month are quite substantial - they can and do put a major damper on your early career prospects, as decisions are made based on how much debt you have rather than on what opportunities are the most exciting or relevant to long-term goals.
2. Psychology is a great job, but at the end of the day, it's just a job - it's not worth paying a mortgage for. You get used to doing it, and it becomes the daily grind. In my experience, most psychologists actually do work that a masters-level clinician could do. There are very few areas of practice that are truly distinct for psychologists (testing, forensics, a few others) - most other forms of practice can be done by social workers or MFT/LPCs. The pay difference between these careers is typically NOT worth the extra debt load and lost income from the years of additional training as a psychologist. If someone is considering going into that much debt to be a psychologist, they should very seriously consider whether they should get a master's degree instead. No one cares that you are called "Dr." and the novelty wears off almost immediately.
3. There is a serious underestimation of the personal risks taken on by students who go into more than $50k in student debt. What if something happens, and you have to drop out of your program before you're done? It happens - it happened to three people in my very small state school program. If you've borrowed a lot at that point, you're pretty well screwed. What if you don't end up in a great paying job? What if your relationship sours? Grad school is exceedingly demanding, and the joke that relationships don't survive it doesn't come from nowhere. Psychologists make a decent upper-middle-class salary in most of the country, but once you add in debt payments, it's not a good salary anymore, and not at all worth it.
4. As others have mentioned, even if you have that much money lying around, why would you want to spend it on an overpriced grad school program? That money could be far better spent saving for retirement, starting a business, or buying a house. The expensive psychology programs are not generally well-respected, so even if you could afford to pay for it, it's not a great investment for most people.
5. Almost everyone underestimates the true cost of attending grad school. MANY of my cohort-mates at my school, where everyone was guaranteed a stipend of at least $20k and paid no tuition at all, in a small town with a moderate cost of living still managed to have debt loads of close to or exceeding $100k at the end. You will not be able to work a job while in school. You will have family reunions, weddings, funerals, etc to attend and you will need to pay for the travel. It's YEARS of your life, there are guaranteed to be expenses that come up and you will have no money to pay for them, but easy access to cash. It is a dangerous trap that is easy to fall into.

Some people might still consider it to be a worthwhile thing to do, and that's their call. The reason a lot of the psychologists on this board caution against taking on this much debt is because we're at the other side - we see that this is just a job, we have friends who are screwed by how much debt they have or maybe some of us are also in that boat, we see how job applicants are perceived based on the school they attended, etc. It is scary seeing how many people each year are bamboozled by the combination of easy loans, predatory graduate programs, and overly optimistic thinking. We're trying to sound the alarm, but it's not an easy message to hear when you are fantasizing so much about an exciting future career.

Well, he did offer to alternatively move with me to LA and restart my career as a freelance musician...(mostly joking, but he might have a point).

Maybe I should have added that I already have a master's degree, am 32 so have worked a few years, met my finance my first quarter of grad school and after two major surgeries on my end and 3 years later, are still going strong. The program at this point would 3 + 1 (again, have a master's) and end up with around $90,000 debt. Pepperdine PsyD is that option, by the way, and though I have strong opinions on the negative aspects of PsyDs, I feel that Pepperdine has one of the least-negative reputations. They certainly haven't felt the need to "sell" me the program, that's for sure.

I can also add my mother was a clinical psychologist (PhD, EdD) and I've seen how her poor debt choices turned out. I don't have much family and don't need to travel often... I suppose all I'm trying to say is that I'm at least a bit farther along that the wide-eyed 21 year old who has never lost anyone, never gone through a grad program or had to survive on almost nothing, etc. I'm extremely lucky with my partner earning $158,000 pretax largely supporting me for nearly two years now since finishing my master's so I could work for next to nothing as a non-licensed case manager at a homeless shelter. If these considerations change things in any way, I'd love to hear more thoughts.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Well, he did offer to alternatively move with me to LA and restart my career as a freelance musician...(mostly joking, but he might have a point).

Maybe I should have added that I already have a master's degree, am 32 so have worked a few years, met my finance my first quarter of grad school and after two major surgeries on my end and 3 years later, are still going strong. The program at this point would 3 + 1 (again, have a master's) and end up with around $90,000 debt. Pepperdine PsyD is that option, by the way, and though I have strong opinions on the negative aspects of PsyDs, I feel that Pepperdine has one of the least-negative reputations. They certainly haven't felt the need to "sell" me the program, that's for sure.

I can also add my mother was a clinical psychologist (PhD, EdD) and I've seen how her poor debt choices turned out. I don't have much family and don't need to travel often... I suppose all I'm trying to say is that I'm at least a bit farther along that the wide-eyed 21 year old who has never lost anyone, never gone through a grad program or had to survive on almost nothing, etc. I'm extremely lucky with my partner earning $158,000 pretax largely supporting me for nearly two years now since finishing my master's so I could work for next to nothing as a non-licensed case manager at a homeless shelter. If these considerations change things in any way, I'd love to hear more thoughts.

I know it's just a post in an online forum, but you basically just typed that you are considering taking on 90K in debt in exchange for a program with "one of the least negative reputations." Not the greatest sales pitch when you look at it that way, is it? I don't know if it's your intent, but it also seems like your using an argurment along the lines of "I've struggled financially before, so I'm prepared to suffer again if need be." Also seems like a weak sales pitch, if you ask me. You're partner's income is good and offers a safety net, but I'd want some better rationale for why it's not more beneficial to just stick that $700 per month for the next twenty years into even the most low risk/low rate of return investment or retirment plan, vs. paying for what you describe as "the least negative of my options"!

It's not all about money- maybe the difference in job satisfaction between what you'll be doing with a doctorate vs. a masters is worth a break even or low rate of return on your investment. I think what most of us are saying is that once you start to add up all the numbers, including actual and opportunity costs, interest on debt, loss of investment income on money spent to pay off that debt, difference in rest-of-your-life earning potential with psyd vs. masters, etc., you may find that you are paying a whole lot for very little.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Well, he did offer to alternatively move with me to LA and restart my career as a freelance musician...(mostly joking, but he might have a point).

Maybe I should have added that I already have a master's degree, am 32 so have worked a few years, met my finance my first quarter of grad school and after two major surgeries on my end and 3 years later, are still going strong. The program at this point would 3 + 1 (again, have a master's) and end up with around $90,000 debt. Pepperdine PsyD is that option, by the way, and though I have strong opinions on the negative aspects of PsyDs, I feel that Pepperdine has one of the least-negative reputations. They certainly haven't felt the need to "sell" me the program, that's for sure.

I can also add my mother was a clinical psychologist (PhD, EdD) and I've seen how her poor debt choices turned out. I don't have much family and don't need to travel often... I suppose all I'm trying to say is that I'm at least a bit farther along that the wide-eyed 21 year old who has never lost anyone, never gone through a grad program or had to survive on almost nothing, etc. I'm extremely lucky with my partner earning $158,000 pretax largely supporting me for nearly two years now since finishing my master's so I could work for next to nothing as a non-licensed case manager at a homeless shelter. If these considerations change things in any way, I'd love to hear more thoughts.

None of that changes anything about my opinion of 90k in debt for a PsyD from Pepperdine, a school that has relatively low license rate, poor match rates even in the middle of us having a greater number of APA approved sites (75%? ugh), and large class sizes. I'm not sure where you are getting 90k from either since they quote a 60k/year tuition load for first year students (based on their own outcome data)..... Expect the debt load to be more than that... but I'll just assume your number is correct and their website is wrong.

Also, your maters doesn't promise that you will have all those classes accepted or that it will result in reduced program length. Those decisions are made post-admission and are related to numerous factors, not just your having a masters. It would be very unlikely that it would mean you would waive two years of coursework (there are several good reasons for this, and several less good/more logistical, and still even several other much less good/more profitable reasons. Heck, they even say that no more than 9 credits can be transferred directly on their website so I have substantial doubts about if your masters will take a 5.3 average length program and make it into a 4 year program (you can say 'I'll do it in 3+1, I'm the exception", BUT EVERYONE SAYS THAT. And, they are wrong. Statistically speaking, you are likely wrong as well.

Sounds like a bad way to spend 4 years (before internship) making ..lets just say 15k for a stipend (I dont even know what percentage of folks get a stipend or if any do [I suspect not, a low percentage, and a lower stipend], but lets pretend) and one year at internship making (lets just say) 28k...all so that you can spend the next 10 years paying back 100+k and reducing your earnings substantially.. All the while these choices would result in a 15 year earning gain of.. lets see (rough calculation time..).... 17.6k/year for 5 years then lets take 65k for ten years.. minus the 100k in debt.... around 41k/year averaged over the next 15 years. Heaven forbid you don't get a 15k stipend a year or a 28k internship, you'll be making substantially less a year (around 37k without a stipend). Conversely, you could get a job licensed with a masters degree (or heck, any general post-bach work) and make 45k a year and you would actually come out AHEAD, earning about 125k more to take home This math is overly simplistic because it ignores raises, other costs (internship applications, conferences, etc) and whatnot, but it should demonstrate that 100k in debt makes a substantial impact on your earnings.

Tl;dr. You've already given up four years of earnings through your masters and volunteering, why are you giving up 4-5 more just so that you can accept a high debt load for a degree with poor/modest(at best) outcomes? Maybe I just missed the good reason...

 

[smalltownpsych]

According to their website, the tuition is 60k per year! That is triple what it was a few years back. Maybe psychologist salaries have tripled? I think not. 😡

 

[christypaffgen]

None of that changes anything about my opinion of 90k in debt for a PsyD from Pepperdine, a school that has relatively low license rate, poor match rates even in the middle of us having a greater number of APA approved sites (75%? ugh), and large class sizes. I'm not sure where you are getting 90k from either since they quote a 60k/year tuition load for first year students (based on their own outcome data)..... Expect the debt load to be more than that... but I'll just assume your number is correct and their website is wrong.

Also, your maters doesn't promise that you will have all those classes accepted or that it will result in reduced program length. Those decisions are made post-admission and are related to numerous factors, not just your having a masters. It would be very unlikely that it would mean you would waive two years of coursework (there are several good reasons for this, and several less good/more logistical, and still even several other much less good/more profitable reasons. Heck, they even say that no more than 9 credits can be transferred directly on their website so I have substantial doubts about if your masters will take a 5.3 average length program and make it into a 4 year program (you can say 'I'll do it in 3+1, I'm the exception", BUT EVERYONE SAYS THAT. And, they are wrong. Statistically speaking, you are likely wrong as well.

Sounds like a bad way to spend 4 years (before internship) making ..lets just say 15k for a stipend (I dont even know what percentage of folks get a stipend or if any do [I suspect not, a low percentage, and a lower stipend], but lets pretend) and one year at internship making (lets just say) 28k...all so that you can spend the next 10 years paying back 100+k and reducing your earnings substantially.. All the while these choices would result in a 15 year earning gain of.. lets see (rough calculation time..).... 17.6k/year for 5 years then lets take 65k for ten years.. minus the 100k in debt.... around 41k/year averaged over the next 15 years. Heaven forbid you don't get a 15k stipend a year or a 28k internship, you'll be making substantially less a year (around 37k without a stipend). Conversely, you could get a job licensed with a masters degree (or heck, any general post-bach work) and make 45k a year and you would actually come out AHEAD, earning about 125k more to take home This math is overly simplistic because it ignores raises, other costs (internship applications, conferences, etc) and whatnot, but it should demonstrate that 100k in debt makes a substantial impact on your earnings.

Tl;dr. You've already given up four years of earnings through your masters and volunteering, why are you giving up 4-5 more just so that you can accept a high debt load for a degree with poor/modest(at best) outcomes? Maybe I just missed the good reason...

Egh. Okay: My master's was fully funded, and took two years total. I was later paid to work (not volunteer) as a case manager, albeit poorly. With my scholarships to Pepperdine, without interest, the cost would not be 60,000 a year, it would be 92,000 total for the program, based on my award package. Which is indeed a you-know-what ton, just mentioning for clarification. I never, ever said I could or could not do anything in 3 + 1, I'm saying that's what the program is. I'm not planning to transfer any credits, actually. I could go to Adelphi for a bit longer and cheaper, but I can't physically put in the hourly demands for the assistantship. Last I checked, their licensure rate was 87%. Not the best, sure, but not all of us can get into Yale (or even hoped to, as from what I saw, most ivy-leagues are far more research-heavy.)

 

[christypaffgen]

I know it's just a post in an online forum, but you basically just typed that you are considering taking on 90K in debt in exchange for a program with "one of the least negative reputations." Not the greatest sales pitch when you look at it that way, is it? I don't know if it's your intent, but it also seems like your using an argurment along the lines of "I've struggled financially before, so I'm prepared to suffer again if need be." Also seems like a weak sales pitch, if you ask me. You're partner's income is good and offers a safety net, but I'd want some better rationale for why it's not more beneficial to just stick that $700 per month for the next twenty years into even the most low risk/low rate of return investment or retirment plan, vs. paying for what you describe as "the least negative of my options"!

It's not all about money- maybe the difference in job satisfaction between what you'll be doing with a doctorate vs. a masters is worth a break even or low rate of return on your investment. I think what most of us are saying is that once you start to add up all the numbers, including actual and opportunity costs, interest on debt, loss of investment income on money spent to pay off that debt, difference in rest-of-your-life earning potential with psyd vs. masters, etc., you may find that you are paying a whole lot for very little.

I'd love if UCLA was more practice oriented, or if the more heavily funded (and usually PhD) programs didn't require such strenuous (hours wise) assistantships. As they tend to, I looked for the best option for my health and well-being: a good, accredited program with satisfactory licensure and match rates in a favorable/comfortable location that would allow me to emerge relatively unscathed (physically) and gain the training I need to work in group or private practice. In some ways, the debt is terrifying. In others, I've worked really hard for the opportunity to pursue a doctorate, and feel strangely that people would so heavily discourage that without knowing all factors at play, based on debt-alone.

 

[christypaffgen]

According to their website, the tuition is 60k per year! That is triple what it was a few years back. Maybe psychologist salaries have tripled? I think not. 😡

No, that's the first year. The total for the program is $133,000. My award package would have the total come to $92,000.

 

[christypaffgen]

Also, perhaps I should have led with this - are you guys generally against PsyDs? If so, totally understandable, but I might should have taken that into account before asking for advice.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Also, perhaps I should have led with this - are you guys generally against PsyDs? If so, totally understandable, but I might should have taken that into account before asking for advice.

We're against bad training that produces high debt and encumbers future earnings. We'll give the same advice about PhD with low/no funding, poor outcomes, etc. That just happens to disproportionately impact PsyD because of their funding. This program is no exception.

Egh. Okay: My master's was fully funded, and took two years total. I was later paid to work (not volunteer) as a case manager, albeit poorly. With my scholarships to Pepperdine, without interest, the cost would not be 60,000 a year, it would be 92,000 total for the program, based on my award package. Which is indeed a you-know-what ton, just mentioning for clarification. I never, ever said I could or could not do anything in 3 + 1, I'm saying that's what the program is. I'm not planning to transfer any credits, actually. I could go to Adelphi for a bit longer and cheaper, but I can't physically put in the hourly demands for the assistantship. Last I checked, their licensure rate was 87%. Not the best, sure, but not all of us can get into Yale (or even hoped to, as from what I saw, most ivy-leagues are far more research-heavy.)

1. I don't think you want opinions so much as for someone to agree this program/debt is a good idea (no one is saying that)
2. The funding status of your masters doesn't matter.
3. None of what you just said changes the amount of lost income you have from the debt/time in this program
4. If you think 90k in loans after 4-5 years is still equal to 90k, you will be in for a surprise
5. Yes, you said "the program at this point would 3 + 1 (again, have a master's)"
6. Adelphi would be even worst
7. It's your mistake to make.

 

[psych.meout]

Egh. Okay: My master's was fully funded, and took two years total. I was later paid to work (not volunteer) as a case manager, albeit poorly. With my scholarships to Pepperdine, without interest, the cost would not be 60,000 a year, it would be 92,000 total for the program, based on my award package. Which is indeed a you-know-what ton, just mentioning for clarification.

Ok, but that $92,000 accrues interest while you are in school, on internship, and doing post-doc. Moreover, you should just consider the cost just in terms of how much you would need to pay, but also the opportunity cost of what else you could do with that same money instead of spending it on an absurdly overpriced grad program. You lose the investment value of this money on top of the missed opportunities to invest while you are in grad school, compounding the financial issues.

I never, ever said I could or could not do anything in 3 + 1, I'm saying that's what the program is. I'm not planning to transfer any credits, actually. I could go to Adelphi for a bit longer and cheaper, but I can't physically put in the hourly demands for the assistantship. Last I checked, their licensure rate was 87%.

The problem is that you're taking about a program that sells itself as training practitioners, generally to the detriment of the other aspects of graduate training, especially research. What are the remaining 13% of its graduates doing if they aren't licensed?

Not the best, sure, but not all of us can get into Yale (or even hoped to, as from what I saw, most ivy-leagues are far more research-heavy.)

This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of doctoral programs in clinical psych. It's not like undergrad where Ivies are the cream of the crop (though even that is a common misconception about Ivies.). You can't really distill doctoral programs in clinical psych into those kinds of oversimplifications.

I'd love if UCLA was more practice oriented, or if the more heavily funded (and usually PhD) programs didn't require such strenuous (hours wise) assistantships.

Huh? I wouldn't say my programs assistantships are "strenuous." You're grading as a TA or doing research as an RA working for your mentor vive to ten hours per week (it's listed as more hours, but no one does as many as that). The latter even has the benefit of being more likely to be added as a coauthor on posters and pubs, which helps you match for internship and post doc and get jobs later on.

As they tend to, I looked for the best option for my health and well-being: a good, accredited program with satisfactory licensure and match rates in a favorable/comfortable location that would allow me to emerge relatively unscathed (physically) and gain the training I need to work in group or private practice.

If you just want to go into private practice, you don't need a doctorate. There is a minor difference in your billing, especially if you take insurance, Medicare, and/or Medicaid. Furthermore, your payments on your debts will significantly reduce your net income to the degree that you'd actually take home more money with a master's degree.

In some ways, the debt is terrifying. In others, I've worked really hard for the opportunity to pursue a doctorate, and feel strangely that people would so heavily discourage that without knowing all factors at play, based on debt-alone.

Do you really think that current graduate students (like me), interns, post docs, and actual psychologists don't know the factors at play?

Also, perhaps I should have led with this - are you guys generally against PsyDs? If so, totally understandable, but I might should have taken that into account before asking for advice.

Again, you're oversimplifying complex issues. As Justanothergrad wrote, people here are critical of poor and exorbitantly expensive training, regardless of the type of program offering it. There are very high quality, funded PsyD programs, it's just that they are university based and very similar to scientist-practitioner PhD programs. PsyD programs as a whole tend to subscribe to unfunded models with inferior training and huge cohorts. That said, it's not that case that there are no good or even great psychologists who have graduated from these programs. In reality, these individuals are superstars who would excel anywhere, but succeeded more in spite of their PsyD programs, and less because of them. It's just unfortunate that they went into significant debt to do it.

Honestly, you don't seem all that interested in advice or counsel from anyone here. You really just seem to want affirmation that you're making the right decision.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I'd love if UCLA was more practice oriented, or if the more heavily funded (and usually PhD) programs didn't require such strenuous (hours wise) assistantships.

You’re correct- it’s a lot of work, and it’s often-but not always- hard work. But shouldn’t it be? People will be counting on you to know your s**t and be competent.

As they tend to, I looked for the best option for my health and well-being: a good, accredited program with satisfactory licensure and match rates in a favorable/comfortable location that would allow me to emerge relatively unscathed (physically) and gain the training I need to work in group or private practice.

Ok, but, as I pointed out in my previous post, that’s not the argument you made previously. You said that Pepperdine “has one of the least negative reputations.” That’s your language, not mine. I don’t know that program, but that’s not a very glowing review. Seriously- that post of yours came across, to me at least, as saying that your willing to take on decades of potentially life altering debt in exchange for the least crappy of a bunch of bad options.

In some ways, the debt is terrifying. In others, I've worked really hard for the opportunity to pursue a doctorate, and feel strangely that people would so heavily discourage that without knowing all factors at play, based on debt-alone.

I think if you look at my post you’ll see that I did comment that financial return on investment isn’t the only factor. Increased job satisfaction is worth something. I love what I do. I get paid well to do it, and I have a lot of autonomy and flexibility. That is worth a lot. I also pay ~$400 a month in student loans. I think that’s worth it, both financially (considering my increased earning potential) and job satisfaction-wise. That said, I couldn’t imagine doubling or tripling that amount of monthly payment, nor asking someone I cared about to further subsidize any increased amount of debt.

I really hope you can see that I’m not trying to discourage anyone from becoming a psychologist. Skilled, well-trained professionals are needed (particularly in my field). I’m also honored and flattered when someone wants to be what I am. Pursue your dreams, but not at all costs. Take all this feedback seriously, do some math, and make a decision informed by facts, not just dreams and emotions.

Best of luck with whatever path you choose.

 

[christypaffgen]

Ok, but that $92,000 accrues interest while you are in school, on internship, and doing post-doc. Moreover, you should just consider the cost just in terms of how much you would need to pay, but also the opportunity cost of what else you could do with that same money instead of spending it on an absurdly overpriced grad program. You lose the investment value of this money on top of the missed opportunities to invest while you are in grad school, compounding the financial issues.



The problem is that you're taking about a program that sells itself as training practitioners, generally to the detriment of the other aspects of graduate training, especially research. What are the remaining 13% of its graduates doing if they aren't licensed?



This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of doctoral programs in clinical psych. It's not like undergrad where Ivies are the cream of the crop (though even that is a common misconception about Ivies.). You can't really distill doctoral programs in clinical psych into those kinds of oversimplifications.



Huh? I wouldn't say my programs assistantships are "strenuous." You're grading as a TA or doing research as an RA working for your mentor vive to ten hours per week (it's listed as more hours, but no one does as many as that). The latter even has the benefit of being more likely to be added as a coauthor on posters and pubs, which helps you match for internship and post doc and get jobs later on.



If you just want to go into private practice, you don't need a doctorate. There is a minor difference in your billing, especially if you take insurance, Medicare, and/or Medicaid. Furthermore, your payments on your debts will significantly reduce your net income to the degree that you'd actually take home more money with a master's degree.



Do you really think that current graduate students (like me), interns, post docs, and actual psychologists don't know the factors at play?



Again, you're oversimplifying complex issues. As Justanothergrad wrote, people here are critical of poor and exorbitantly expensive training, regardless of the type of program offering it. There are very high quality, funded PsyD programs, it's just that they are university based and very similar to scientist-practitioner PhD programs. PsyD programs as a whole tend to subscribe to unfunded models with inferior training and huge cohorts. That said, it's not that case that there are no good or even great psychologists who have graduated from these programs. In reality, these individuals are superstars who would excel anywhere, but succeeded more in spite of their PsyD programs, and less because of them. It's just unfortunate that they went into significant debt to do it.

Honestly, you don't seem all that interested in advice or counsel from anyone here. You really just seem to want affirmation that you're making the right decision.

Not at all, if I wasn't genuinely interested in what you all had to say, I wouldn't have asked. I only applied to programs (PhD and PsyD) with some sort of funding, accredited, with licensure and match rates above 80%. I also chose to limit myself geographically (coasts). Where are the very high quality funded PsyD programs, apart from the midwest? It's possible that I somehow missed them, and will surely feel like an idiot. And yes, I realize the oversimplifications of distilling programs into their names and affiliations. Has anyone personally confirmed that Pepperdine, for example, gives poor clinical training? I've worked in several UC labs, am published (believe it or not) and have presented quite a few papers, but at this point, I'm more interested in practice. If the program didn't also require a dissertation, fieldwork, etc., I wouldn't have considered it. Again, I'm very interested in advice and counsel, but it seems a bit like some assumptions are being made, so I'm just trying to acknowledge and interpret the context. (For example, perhaps I have a physical disability that only allows a certain amount of expenditure a week, and the 18 hour assistantship on top of 18-24 practica + courses, for me, would be strenuous).

 

[christypaffgen]

We're against bad training that produces high debt and encumbers future earnings. We'll give the same advice about PhD with low/no funding, poor outcomes, etc. That just happens to disproportionately impact PsyD because of their funding. This program is no exception.


1. I don't think you want opinions so much as for someone to agree this program/debt is a good idea (no one is saying that)
2. The funding status of your masters doesn't matter.
3. None of what you just said changes the amount of lost income you have from the debt/time in this program
4. If you think 90k in loans after 4-5 years is still equal to 90k, you will be in for a surprise
5. Yes, you said "the program at this point would 3 + 1 (again, have a master's)"
6. Adelphi would be even worst
7. It's your mistake to make.

Re: "The funding status of your masters doesn't matter:" You said, "Tl;dr. You've already given up four years of earnings through your masters and volunteering, why are you giving up 4-5 more just so that you can accept a high debt load for a degree with poor/modest(at best) outcomes? Maybe I just missed the good reason..."

I was simply responding that no, I didn't waste 4 years of earnings through my master's, I was very lucky to be funded and earn a stipend. So yes, it did matter. Also, to clarify, I do understand at least somewhat how interest works. It's a little difficult to compare projections, so I listed the basic cost of the program after awards. I realize there will be interest. Thanks.

 

[christypaffgen]

You’re correct- it’s a lot of work, and it’s often-but not always- hard work. But shouldn’t it be? People will be counting on you to know your s**t and be competent.



Ok, but, as I pointed out in my previous post, that’s not the argument you made previously. You said that Pepperdine “has one of the least negative reputations.” That’s your language, not mine. I don’t know that program, but that’s not a very glowing review. Seriously- that post of yours came across, to me at least, as saying that your willing to take on decades of potentially life altering debt in exchange for the least crappy of a bunch of bad options.



I think if you look at my post you’ll see that I did comment that financial return on investment isn’t the only factor. Increased job satisfaction is worth something. I love what I do. I get paid well to do it, and I have a lot of autonomy and flexibility. That is worth a lot. I also pay ~$400 a month in student loans. I think that’s worth it, both financially (considering my increased earning potential) and job satisfaction-wise. That said, I couldn’t imagine doubling or tripling that amount of monthly payment, nor asking someone I cared about to further subsidize any increased amount of debt.

I really hope you can see that I’m not trying to discourage anyone from becoming a psychologist. Skilled, well-trained professionals are needed (particularly in my field). I’m also honored and flattered when someone wants to be what I am. Pursue your dreams, but not at all costs. Take all this feedback seriously, do some math, and make a decision informed by facts, not just dreams and emotions.

Best of luck with whatever path you choose.

Briefly - I think I meant that doing a PsyD in Los Angeles, from an accredited program, with some funding, with 87% licensure and high match rates as well as a stellar practicum placement is for me, the least negative option (if I'm saying PsyDs can only be negative, which I likely shouldn't).

Other than that - thank you so much. *This* was exactly what I was looking for. I genuinely appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts. And I agree - were I to move on dreams and emotions, I'd likely end up in Zurich at the Jung Institute like my mother, or Pacifica doing some unaccredited depth psych program, with no thought to the long-term consequences. Again, thank you.

 

[Justanothergrad]

It's always curious to me how people who are hoping to get into a given field insist they know more about the field (training, outcomes, program quality, etc) than those in the field, those who have gone through or are going through the process and know it from the inside, in leadership positions within the field, and who are part of training programs in the field that the person is aspiring to enter, etc. It happens so often here, but it never ceases to amaze. Gotta be a dissertation in there somewhere..

But hey, what do I know. Good luck with your plan and with your applied study of opportunity costs.

 

[psych.meout]

(For example, perhaps I have a physical disability that only allows a certain amount of expenditure a week, and the 18 hour assistantship on top of 18-24 practica + courses, for me, would be strenuous).

I actually have a friend with a physical disability who is about halfway along through their doctoral program in clinical psych. They manage just fine in balancing research, classes, practica, and TA'ing.

It's always curious to me how people who are hoping to get into a given field insist they know more about the field (training, outcomes, program quality, etc) than those in the field, those who have gone through or are going through the process and know it from the inside, in leadership positions within the field, and who are part of training programs in the field that the person is aspiring to enter, etc. It happens so often here, but it never ceases to amaze. Gotta be a dissertation in there somewhere..

But hey, what do I know. Good luck with your plan and with your applied study of opportunity costs.

I agree. It's a mix of perplexing and amusing how people who haven't even been admitted to a program believe they have all this accurate knowledge about what it's like.

 

[christypaffgen]

It's always curious to me how people who are hoping to get into a given field insist they know more about the field (training, outcomes, program quality, etc) than those in the field, those who have gone through or are going through the process and know it from the inside, in leadership positions within the field, and who are part of training programs in the field that the person is aspiring to enter, etc. It happens so often here, but it never ceases to amaze. Gotta be a dissertation in there somewhere..

But hey, what do I know. Good luck with your plan and with your applied study of opportunity costs.

I don't believe I ever insisted I knew more about the field than you all (so much as hoped context would play a factor), though I do have two parents who are still in it. And thank you, I'm sure I'll need it.