PhD/PsyD JD/PhD?

[Berry0770]

Hi everyone!

Is there anyone in the forum that knows about the joint JD/PhD programs?

1. What does a JD/PhD career look like? What do people pursue when they graduate with the joint degree?
2. What are the differences between a forensic neuropsychologist and a JD/PhD psychologist, aside from training?
   • Does the JD provide more credibility?
   • What does a forensic neuropsychologist do that a JD/PhD cannot and vice versa?
3. How does one become a forensic neuropsychologist - do you need a board certification?

Edit:
I'm also wondering how many board certifications is appropriate to have at a time? Rehab, neuro and forensic are all of interest to me, but I realize that's a lot and I should probably pick one or two. Thoughts?

Thanks in advance!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

I only know one PhD/JD in neuropsych, I'm sure there are more, but that's the only boarded one I know.

As for boards, most npsychs I know in IME/forensic are just npsych boarded through ABPP. Not sure how much incremental gain you get from the others, but someone who is dual-boarded may be able to shed some light. I d know that in my area, there is enough IME/forensic work going around that people turn down and refer work on a regular basis.

 

[PsyDr]

1) The incredible majority of them work as psychologists or forensic psychologists. Occasionally, graduates offer legal services to psychologists and related organizations.

2)

a. A PhD/JD does not necessarily have training in neuro. Therefore, neuropsych is not a guaranteed part of practice or training for a phd/jd.

b. A JD may add some extremely limited credibility. Attorneys don't really care that a psychologist has a second career. Psychologists might.

c. A PhD/JD program in psych will not provide sufficient training to engage in the practice of neuropsychology. A joint program will likely have extra training in forensics, but just getting a JD is insufficient training for the practice of forensic psychology. In other words, a JD has zero training in the day to day practices of forensic psychology. Graduates of a joint program who pass the bar could serve as an attorney.

3) APA approved doctorate in clinical psych, 2 year fellowship in neuro, hopefully additional training in forensics. Board certification is preferable, but not required. Keep in mind that boarding is only a means to demonstrate expertise.

4) There are around 10 dual boarded neuro/forensic psychologists total. As far as I am aware, the highest number of boards for one person is like four. ABPP/ABCN's recent survey indicates that they are adding a forensics specialty to neuropsychology. ABN/ABPN already has a forensics qualifier for neuropsych.


Personally, I see limited utility for a PhD/JD program. And as my career progresses, I see limited utility in multiple boarding.

 

[Dazen]

Not to totally derail this thread, but I've been wondering why so few PhDs choose to get boarded. Anyone have thoughts on this?

 

[WisNeuro]

Not to totally derail this thread, but I've been wondering why so few PhDs choose to get boarded. Anyone have thoughts on this?

Depends on the specialty area. Neuropsych boarding is more and more common. They've actually had to add in more test dates in the past few years to accommodate the increase in people pursuing boards. For us it's more important in certain contexts. Some jobs require board certification pre-existing or within a certain number of years.

 

[erg923]

Not to totally derail this thread, but I've been wondering why so few PhDs choose to get boarded. Anyone have thoughts on this?

If it is not a requirement to practice, after 5 years of grad school, internship year, post-doc year, and a licensing exam, most people are just gonna choose to spend their time NOT jumping through more hoops and taking more tests. There are only so many people that want an extra piece of paper that tells them something that they already know and have proven (technically anyway) over and over already.

 

[PsyDr]

Not to totally derail this thread, but I've been wondering why so few PhDs choose to get boarded. Anyone have thoughts on this?

1) It's relatively new (ish). ABCN started in like 1981. ABN in like 1982.
2) There is a limited financial benefit to the psychologist for most boards. Especially outside the VA. Why do something for free?
3) Some of the categories are just dumb. What the hell is a police psychologist?
4) The extra qualifications don't really make sense in many categories. What does extra value does boarding have for someone who completed: a doctorate in clinical psych, an internship in clinical psych, and a post doc in clinical psych? Did every professor and supervisor miss something in that decade? What about a psychologist that completed an clinical psych doctorate, an internship in clinical psych, a post doc in clinical psych, and then 4 years of psychoanalysis training through a formal psychoanalytic institute? Is ABPP gonna show that boarded peeps are somehow better?
5) There is some distasteful parts of in group/out group stuff. For example, when the Houston Conference Guidelines were created, Reitan was literally locked out of the room. That's right, the neuro boards literally told the biggest name in neuro that he was not qualified to opine about neuro training. And like adults, they physically locked the door. Between them and Reitan, I'd take Reitan's opinion.

TL; DR: the combination of extra work, and limited benefit in many categories

 

[Berry0770]

1) The incredible majority of them work as psychologists or forensic psychologists. Occasionally, graduates offer legal services to psychologists and related organizations.

2)

a. A PhD/JD does not necessarily have training in neuro. Therefore, neuropsych is not a guaranteed part of practice or training for a phd/jd.

b. A JD may add some extremely limited credibility. Attorneys don't really care that a psychologist has a second career. Psychologists might.

c. A PhD/JD program in psych will not provide sufficient training to engage in the practice of neuropsychology. A joint program will likely have extra training in forensics, but just getting a JD is insufficient training for the practice of forensic psychology. In other words, a JD has zero training in the day to day practices of forensic psychology. Graduates of a joint program who pass the bar could serve as an attorney.

3) APA approved doctorate in clinical psych, 2 year fellowship in neuro, hopefully additional training in forensics. Board certification is preferable, but not required. Keep in mind that boarding is only a means to demonstrate expertise.

4) There are around 10 dual boarded neuro/forensic psychologists total. As far as I am aware, the highest number of boards for one person is like four. ABPP/ABCN's recent survey indicates that they are adding a forensics specialty to neuropsychology. ABN/ABPN already has a forensics qualifier for neuropsych.


Personally, I see limited utility for a PhD/JD program. And as my career progresses, I see limited utility in multiple boarding.

Thanks for your response and shedding some light on this area. I definitely want to prioritize my neuropsych training, so it seems like the JD/PhD is not the route to go. Very helpful!

 

[psych.meout]

1) It's relatively new (ish). ABCN started in like 1981. ABN in like 1982.
2) There is a limited financial benefit to the psychologist for most boards. Especially outside the VA. Why do something for free?
3) Some of the categories are just dumb. What the hell is a police psychologist?
4) The extra qualifications don't really make sense in many categories. What does extra value does boarding have for someone who completed: a doctorate in clinical psych, an internship in clinical psych, and a post doc in clinical psych? Did every professor and supervisor miss something in that decade? What about a psychologist that completed an clinical psych doctorate, an internship in clinical psych, a post doc in clinical psych, and then 4 years of psychoanalysis training through a formal psychoanalytic institute? Is ABPP gonna show that boarded peeps are somehow better?
5) There is some distasteful parts of in group/out group stuff. For example, when the Houston Conference Guidelines were created, Reitan was literally locked out of the room. That's right, the neuro boards literally told the biggest name in neuro that he was not qualified to opine about neuro training. And like adults, they physically locked the door. Between them and Reitan, I'd take Reitan's opinion.

TL; DR: the combination of extra work, and limited benefit in many categories

Is there more detail somewhere about locking him out of the room and what the conflict/disagreement was about?

 

[BuckeyeLove]

Is ABPP gonna show that boarded peeps are somehow better?

Not neuro, but related:

A former mentor of mine in Court during voire approx 7 years ago after getting boarded. Sidenote, he was initially super excited as this was his first time testifying post certification:

Attorney: “Doctor, you stated you are board certified in forensics, correct? Is that a difficult process?

Doc: “It took time. Credential reviewing, written test, practice sample submission, and oral defense. Years.”

Attorney: “That sounds quite extensive, wow! I am impressed. I take it then that this means you are a better forensic psychologist than say, someone who doesn’t have that credential.”

Doc: “No, I wouldn’t say that, there are plenty of forensic psychologists who aren’t boarded and are exemplary evaluators.”

Attorney: “Oh, so it doesn’t mean you’re better than psychologists that are not boarded in forensics? So, it really doesn’t mean anything, as you just said there are plenty of evaluators who are not boarded and in fact are exemplary at their job. Thank you doctor, no further questions.”


This has played out in my head for 7 years, and yet I still went ahead with it, lol.

 

[PsyDr]

Not neuro, but related:

A former mentor of mine in Court during voire approx 7 years ago after getting boarded. Sidenote, he was initially super excited as this was his first time testifying post certification:

Attorney: “Doctor, you stated you are board certified in forensics, correct? Is that a difficult process?

Doc: “It took time. Credential reviewing, written test, practice sample submission, and oral defense. Years.”

Attorney: “That sounds quite extensive, wow! I am impressed. I take it then that this means you are a better forensic psychologist than say, someone who doesn’t have that credential.”

Doc: “No, I wouldn’t say that, there are plenty of forensic psychologists who aren’t boarded and are exemplary evaluators.”

Attorney: “Oh, so it doesn’t mean you’re better than psychologists that are not boarded in forensics? So, it really doesn’t mean anything, as you just said there are plenty of evaluators who are not boarded and in fact are exemplary at their job. Thank you doctor, no further questions.”


This has played out in my head for 7 years, and yet I still went ahead with it, lol.

"Counselor, you just provided a question and did not allow me to respond. I can either trade positions so you can testify or I could respond. In the case of the latter, as the state's bar requires honesty in advertising and as your firm's website emphasizes board certified as a matter of advertising, I am unsure as to whether you don't believe in boarding in your advertising or you don't believe in the value of boarding in your current statement disguised as a question. "

Boom. Headshot.

 

[PsyDr]

Is there more detail somewhere about locking him out of the room and what the conflict/disagreement was about?

I had it a bit wrong. My bad. It is an EXTREMELY stupid con that the field passed off.


In the 1990s, a group, which included the Linas Bielauskas (an ABCN leadership guy) and Julia Hannay (who trained under Benton) was formed called "Clinical Neuropsychology Synarchy". The group was mostly comprised of ABCN guys, with like 12% being not ABPP. There were zero ABN members. CNS' reported purpose was to update the 1987 training standards. CNS asked for, and received funding from NAN and Div 40, (because a group of people who can't pay for a conference room in a hotel, and a plane ticket are the people you want making decisions in the field). The conference was by invitation only. And CNS issued the invitations. Ralph Reitan was not invited. Keep in mind that there were only really three batteries available at this time, so CNS was cutting out 33% of the battery authors. Dr. Reitan spoke up, stating that maybe NAN and Div 40 shouldn't be funding a group that didn't represent the profession. CNS subsequently decided that the conference would allow some non-invited people to "apply" to attend and that maybe they would accept some applications.

Dr. Reitan created a questionnaire regarding training that he distributed to training centers. Dr. Reitan asked CNS if he could share the data. The chair, Dr. Hannay, informed Dr. Reitan that while he could attend, he could not present the information he had gathered. Dr. Reitan then declined to attend.


Reitan, R. M., et al. (2004). "The Houston Conference revisited." Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19(3): 375-390.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Boarding is really only common in fields that are, by nature, deeply entrenched in healthcare--rehab, neuro, maybe health--likely because board certification is the standard for medicine.

 

[PsyDr]

Boarding is really only common in fields that are, by nature, deeply entrenched in healthcare--rehab, neuro, maybe health--likely because board certification is the standard for medicine.

1) The legal field would like a word with you.

2) If psychologists even vaguely mimicked The categories of psychiatry or medicine, then boarding might make sense (eg, brain injury, sleep, addiction, etc). Instead each little area of psychology has defined some sub speciality area, created a board, and then slammed the door behind them.

 

[psych.meout]

I had it a bit wrong. My bad. It is an EXTREMELY stupid con that the field passed off.


In the 1990s, a group, which included the Linas Bielauskas (an ABCN leadership guy) and Julia Hannay (who trained under Benton) was formed called "Clinical Neuropsychology Synarchy". The group was mostly comprised of ABCN guys, with like 12% being not ABPP. There were zero ABN members. CNS' reported purpose was to update the 1987 training standards. CNS asked for, and received funding from NAN and Div 40, (because a group of people who can't pay for a conference room in a hotel, and a plane ticket are the people you want making decisions in the field). The conference was by invitation only. And CNS issued the invitations. Ralph Reitan was not invited. Keep in mind that there were only really three batteries available at this time, so CNS was cutting out 33% of the battery authors. Dr. Reitan spoke up, stating that maybe NAN and Div 40 shouldn't be funding a group that didn't represent the profession. CNS subsequently decided that the conference would allow some non-invited people to "apply" to attend and that maybe they would accept some applications.

Dr. Reitan created a questionnaire regarding training that he distributed to training centers. Dr. Reitan asked CNS if he could share the data. The chair, Dr. Hannay, informed Dr. Reitan that while he could attend, he could not present the information he had gathered. Dr. Reitan then declined to attend.


Reitan, R. M., et al. (2004). "The Houston Conference revisited." Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19(3): 375-390.

Thanks!

It's still pretty galling and absurd.

 

[futureapppsy2]

1) The legal field would like a word with you.

2) If psychologists even vaguely mimicked The categories of psychiatry or medicine, then boarding might make sense (eg, brain injury, sleep, addiction, etc). Instead each little area of psychology has defined some sub speciality area, created a board, and then slammed the door behind them.

Admittedly, I’m not at all a forensics person and considered adding that disclaimer that it might be common there as well.

 

[PsyDr]

@futureapppsy2 i was just giving you a hard time. Lawyers are also board certified.

But medicine is having a crisis of boarding because of the entire abim controversy.

A Certified Medical Controversy

What American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has done to the health care system.

www.newsweek.com

 

[psych.meout]

@futureapppsy2 i was just giving you a hard time. Lawyers are also board certified.

But medicine is having a crisis of boarding because of the entire abim controversy.

A Certified Medical Controversy

What American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has done to the health care system.

www.newsweek.com

I can't even see his name without thinking of this.

Newsweek reporter posts photo showing porn tab in his browser

A senior writer for Newsweek who accidentally revealed he was scouring Japanese animated pornography claims he was merely searching online with his adult sons to prove to his wife that “tentacle po…

nypost.com

 

[futureapppsy2]

@futureapppsy2 i was just giving you a hard time. Lawyers are also board certified.

But medicine is having a crisis of boarding because of the entire abim controversy.

A Certified Medical Controversy

What American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has done to the health care system.

www.newsweek.com

Lawyers are board certified? I always thought that they were admitted to the state bar on a state by state basis.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I've heard a few lawyers advertise about being board-certified in specialty areas like workers' compensation. I think it may vary by state.

Edit: also, like physicians and psychologists (in most states), it doesn't appear to be analogous to, nor is it required for, their license to practice.

 

[WisNeuro]

Lawyers are board certified? I always thought that they were admitted to the state bar on a state by state basis.

Heck, in WI, if you graduate from a WI law school, you don't even have to take the bar exam. This may be due to the need for lots of DUI lawyers...

 

[Datadriven]

I am a JD/Ph.D. and completed both degrees simultaneously. My area of focus was in forensics and I provided trauma-informed legal support in high profile personal injury litigation prior to moving into a niche practice space and business consulting. As others have said, you do not need a JD to practice neuro or forensics. The dual degree has been very valuable for me because it has opened the door for opportunities to work in fields I would not have otherwise had exposure to and attracted interesting and lucrative job opportunities because I pursued my professional licensure in both worlds. I was able to earn a lot more money than most psychologists coming out of graduate school and have been able to crossover into elite strategy consulting because of the skills I learned and the recognized performance demands it took to achieve both degrees. Additionally, I have been able to continue growing as a psychologist and a lawyer while pursuing business, but work overtime to do so (weekends and vacation days). You do not need to have both degrees to achieve any of these things, but I am grateful for my interdisciplinary training because it exposed me to new ways of thinking, new people and new growth opportunities. The journey was long and hard, but my education was fully funded. I would not recommend pursuing a JD/PhD without full funding and the willingness to sacrifice work-life balance for many years, especially if you want to maintain professional growth in both fields.