interesting article

[deleted75966]

nt

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Psyched77]

Yes, interesting, but I'm not sure it's telling us a lot we didn't already know (at least those who have been paying attention).

"...psychiatric services remain in high demand." Were people seriously thinking they weren't? Even as an aspiring psychologist, I still see the fields as being separate & both being needed.

"Psychologists, in contrast, may now be experiencing competitive pressures on their income and productivity as a result of the dramatic expansion of the psychologist labor force over the past two decades." Also something we've talked about a great deal on the boards.

The thing I found most interesting (though not necessarily new information) was: "The results suggest that psychiatrists typically practice in a manner that results in diversity of treatment settings, case mixes, payment sources, and types of health plans. This diversity in psychiatric practice is not evident when studies use only data from particular payment sources or health plans. In contrast, the practice of psychology appears to be more narrow in setting and payment arrangements, which may adversely influence psychologists' productivity, income, and fee arrangements." (emphasis added) I think that those psychologists who plan to be practitioners should definitely take note of this & perhaps modify the way they address payment.

 

[elite1]

That article pretty much delineates everything JonSnow has said about clinical psychology: How it is becoming femininzed, how the professional schools are pumping out the students and causing a glut of psychologists and the resultant drop in salaries, how managed care and paraprofessionals are killing the profession.

Speaking of psycholgoy as a morobund profession, did anyone see what is happening in Kansas? From the Kansas Psych Association website:

We have reached out to you on several occasions recently. We greatly appreciate the efforts of those psychologists who emailed and called their representatives. Regrettably, we need your help AGAIN.

The masters' level groups have told the legislature that they are functionally equivalent to doctoral level psychologists. They have stated that because they are licensed by the same board and because they take exams prior to licensure, they are indistinguishable from psychologists. They have told the legislature that the only distinction between a masters level clinician and a psychologist is that psychologists spend time in school learning to do research. In fact, they have indicated that masters' level clinicians obtain 2-year degrees, while doctoral level clinicians earn 3-year degrees. They have told legislators that on every indicator that counts for providing services to the public, they hold the same stature as a psychologist. We have tried to correct the misperceptions that have been circulated by the masters' level groups, but unfortunately it is difficult to alter a belief once it has been established.

The masters level groups attempted to revoke the vendorship of LPs and LSCSWs in 2007. They justified that action based on their claim that they needed to "level the playing field." After having failed to move their vendorship bill through committee with their unsupported testimony and fabrications in early 2008, they are now engaging in last minute political maneuvers. We cannot expect good outcomes from efforts that seek to circumvent a process that relies on reason, evidence, and collective wisdom.

We STRONGLY encourage you to email your State Senator immediately to urge them to vote against the HB2601. This bill will confer vendorship upon masters' level providers without meeting the requirement to prove their contention that it will provide services for rural residents of Kansas.

 

[erg923]

Wow, that is kind of scary! What does the "feminization" of psychology mean exactly, by the way?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I don't want to start an Us vs. Them with non-doctoral level people.....but I've mentioned in the past our lack of political clout, compared to the VERY persuasive MS level associations and lobbying groups that are trying to jam through legislation across the US that is not in our best interest. Case and point here.

 

[PsyDr]

"feminization" in our profession is usually associated with the idea that the psychologist are increasingly a female to the point of majority. The idea is then that females are less inclined to aggressively negotiate for financical concerns such as insurance reimbursement, salaries, scope of practice protection, etc.


i believe the term was originally used to describe the teaching profession.


i saw a hilarious seminar about this once by a president of one of the professional schools.

 

[deleted176373]

"feminization" in our profession is usually associated with the idea that the psychologist are increasingly a female to the point of majority. The idea is then that females are less inclined to aggressively negotiate for financical concerns such as insurance reimbursement, salaries, scope of practice protection, etc.

i believe the term was originally used to describe the teaching profession.

i saw a hilarious seminar about this once by a president of one of the professional schools.

You might want to reconsider your position, as this phenomenon does occur. Women are often marginalized and lower salaries are prevalent in fields that are female dominated. Sure there are exceptions, but many fields that have shifted from a male majority to a female majority have seen a negative trend in earning power. I don't have the appropriate cites handy, but I would suggest contacting Dr. Richard Harris or Dr. Juanita Firestone at University of Texas, San Antonio, if you would like cites recited to you. They can go on and on about gender disparities.

Personally, I know many women who are assertive (or even aggressive) and have salaries to match. However many of these women are in traditionally male dominated fields.

Mark

 

[Psyched77]

Women are often marginalized and lower salaries are prevalent in fields that are female dominated. Sure there are exceptions, but many fields that have shifted from a male majority to a female majority have seen a negative trend in earning power.

I'm not implying that any posters have taken a position on this one way or the other, but for the sake of argument: Is this a problem with women? (Therefore, should we push women away to protect our fields or be irritated with them?) Or is this a problem with our society? (Therefore, should we advocate for change?)

 

[erg923]

well i see the point, but what would the solution be? You cant discriminate positions or entrance into the field for being female.

 

[KillerDiller]

This doesn't have to be an issue of sex, it can also be viewed from an individual differences perspective. Psychology (at least the therapy side as opposed to the academic side) is a field that is attractive to people of each sex who are nurturing and perhaps, thus, not terribly aggressive.