Jobs for Clinical Psychologists

[2ndChance]

I have read the APA websites and other such sources that tell me that the job outlook for Clinical Psychologists as healthcare practicioners (sp?) can be expected to increase.
However, today I talked with a professor who told me that Clinical Psychologists don't find jobs because they are offered to Masters holders. (Unless one wants to open a practice).
If I were to get licensed as a Clincial Psychologist, I wouldn't immediately be opening up my own practice. So really, what is the real answer - are there jobs available for Clincial Psychologists in a healthcare setting? I would really like to work in a hospital - is a that a setting with a good prospect.What other good prospects are there?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[psych101]

I agree with the last post. Regarding therapy positions, there still seems to be a reasonable amount of doctoral-level jobs within agencies such as hospital but these, of course, are often supervisory jobs (overseeing clinical services offered, providing some testing and diagnosis as well as occasional therapy, but primarily supervising others doing therapy). Master's level positions (MA in psychology, LPC, LCSW, etc.) tend to be the primary direct providers of therapy services since they are able to be reimbursed at a cheaper rate. However, the amount of doctoral level jobs depends on where you live and, in my opinion, is ever-threatened by the proliferation of PsyDs--these are cranked out at ridiculous rates and there seems to be NO quality control going on. And I totally agree about the APA - what a joke.

 

[Annakei]

However, the amount of doctoral level jobs depends on where you live and, in my opinion, is ever-threatened by the proliferation of PsyDs--these are cranked out at ridiculous rates and there seems to be NO quality control going on.

Here we go again.... didn't we have this discussion in a previous post? So let me get this straight (please clarify your statement), are you saying that PsyDs are somewhat inferior because of this "said" lack of quality control?

Im gonna stay away from this debate. We arent too far removed from the last one.

*smh*

 

[Annakei]

It's not a bad thing to repeat over and over again. I didn't start it this time. . . at least not intentionally. Physicians learned a long time ago to control their numbers. Psychology better do it soon or life is gonna suck.



I think that's clearly the case on average, but let's not limit that to PsyDs, we've got to include professional school PhDs in that average as well.

*lips zipped*

I agree that saturation of ANY field can be harmful but to make a blanket..generalized statement about quality is just well...you know Paendrag we've been down this road before.

 

[psych101]

Why is this offensive? Never meant to spark controvery over PsyD vs. PhD, if that's what you're implying. I'm talking about proliferation of degrees. A need to protect the quality of the FIELD ITSELF. Even individuals from reputable PsyD programs should be worried about that.

 

[Annakei]

😴

You are both entitled to your opinions. I'll open the board/floor to anyone who chooses to battle this yet again. Sorry fellas, you're entitled to your opinions but I just disagree.

 

[Annakei]

It's not opinion, it's fact. You can disagree, but you're wrong.

😴

uh huh... 😴

This is the internet. I choose my battles and don't see the need to go through yet another war of words around the subject. You are entitled to the OPINION that I am wrong as I am with regards to your statements.

Your broadcasting yoru opinions over and over on a board like this doesnt make it fact. You hold no universal truth to the field of clinical psychology thus making your statements opinion rather than fact.

This isnt even a debate due to the fact that each response just feeds your ego with each opposing reply. *shrug* Sorry not in that business...

Have a good weekend fellas!

 

[psych101]

This has nothing to do with ego...it's about self-preservation. I'm not even sure what is up for debate here. Sorry I'm not familiar with whatever previous posts you're referring to, but I can't imagine that Paendrag and I are the only people on the planet who recognize the law of supply and demand. I have heard this sentiment echoed in academic departments, state agencies, and those involved in private practice and consulting. And I have known individuals who went to quality PsyD programs (with respectable programs of study, reasonable class sizes -- nothing wrong here...) as well as those who attended "diploma mill" programs with class sizes of 50+ -- there is a huge difference between the two. That IS a fact (that they're churning out "qualified" psycholgists in outrageous numbers), and how anyone can say it isn't a problem is beyond me.

 

[psych101]

I agree completely and am so concerned to think that we belong to the minority side of this debate. Perhaps others recognize it and are either too apathetic to say or do anything about it or are simply content to perpetuate this ongoing state of decline -- now the whole field just seems to be spiraling out of control. Is anyone aware of any organized efforts within the field to call attention to this critical issue, either currently or in the past? APA is certainly at fault for allowing it to continue, but how can this issue be resolved since it is the regulating body and in some way has a chokehold over practically every area of psychology, affecting all of us, even if indirectly? It is an outrage, and the longer it goes on the worse off we'll all be. Yes, it seems like a rant, but I am truly interested in others' thoughts about feasible ways to resolve this dilemma. We're making a mockery out of our own profession.

 

[PsychEval]

Physicians learned a long time ago to control their numbers. Psychology better do it soon or life is gonna suck.



I thought I might add this to the discussion. Low numbers are not always a good thing. In fact, there is strength in numbers. One of the reasons we won Louisiana and New Mexico related to RxP is because of the low numbers of psychiatrists. More and more medical students are selecting specialties that pay. Consequently, there has been a decrease in the numbers of physicians in the lower paying areas within medicine. Family medicine for instance has experienced a shortage in recent years, and now the Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) is stepping up to assist with the shortage. The American Academy of Family Physicians has voiced concerns to the AMA because their status as the top dog is being threatened. We would benefit from uniting, and continuing to improve quality in all programs. The environment is increasingly competitive, and we need to work hard to remain the premier mental health care profession. It seems that psychologists are some of the worst for circling the wagons, then shooting inward.

 

[psych101]

I agree -- PsychEval's post seems to be an accurate description of the phenomenon occurring in the field today. I also agree that, unless something change (who knows how), we will be reduced to the equivalency of social workers. We SHOULD somehow work to remain the premier mental health profession (minus the Rx privileges -- I think that should be left to the MDs). Interesting about the neuropsych movement -- sounds like a good thing if it works. That is an area of expertise to be left to those who have been well-trained in that area (beyond just administering tests, that is). I just wonder if things are too far gone to be repaired or whether there might ever be hope to strike a more appropriate balance between true, well-prepared psychologists and the actual demand in the field.

 

[Flutterbyu]

Is that a good thing? I don't think we should be prescribing meds. I certainly wouldn't want a professional school grad prescribing meds. How scary is that!

Give me a flipping break. If a professional school grad went through the same psychopharm training as a phd, there should be no discrepancy in prescribing rights. I personally don't agree with psychologists prescribing at all, but like I said, come off it already.

 

[Annakei]

I can't believe my eyes....lest my monitor defy me?

I think Im witnessing a meltdown...they're shuddering in their white coats

Gentlement really. The majority of us reading this exchange can only laugh because again, if this were such a problem, then I am sure that a STRONG movement would be underway to remove every single PsyD holder off the market and place them under the supervision of a PHD eventhough they took the same test and in most cases same amt of years to get there...

🙄 go figure...

Ive really gotten a good laugh from guys tonight....I needed this!

 

[Annakei]

Heh, ok. I'm an egomaniac.

Uhh yes. I agree.

5. Regarding APA. The current president of APA is the head of a professional school. The incoming APAGS president is a professional school student.

We're taking over boys!!!!! Seriously though, Ive been through a professional school and WHILE I can only speak of ONE in particular, I wouldn't make a blanket statement that describes EVERY PsyD holder as minor to a PHD. Im sorry I can't do it. There are certainly BAD PHD programs out there as there are BAD PsyD programs. The oppsite is also true. I think it depends on one's own experience and what you make of and do with your degree. Certainly there are many PsyDs who hold prestigious positions in the field today who got WHATEVER training...good or bad....I believe someone said the training begins really after you graduate.


Also, there is often a misperception of the degrees (i.e., PsyDs are good for clinicians and PhDs are good for researchers). This can lead people down the wrong path. The inmates are running the asylum.
*Dear Lord help us*

Have I been misinformed by every resource and you're reporting this not to be true? Please advise. I understand that to be true as confirmed by each PHD and PsyD Ive discussed both degrees with. Im just curious as to your reasoning behind that statement. Why is it the wrong path?

 

[Annakei]

Having an open mind and jumping off your Ivory Tower should be fundamental to you understanding the "proliferation of PsyDs." As I said in another thread, Ill take the job of the vocational rehab counselor when MA and PsyD folks take over

*twirls lasso*

Roundem up boys!!! 😛

 

[Flutterbyu]

Gentlement really. The majority of us reading this exchange can only laugh because again, if this were such a problem, then I am sure that a STRONG movement would be underway to remove every single PsyD holder off the market and place them under the supervision of a PHD eventhough they took the same test and in most cases same amt of years to get there...

QUOTE]



I am rolling over here- there are so many funny threads tonight! I can't even deal with it any more. Gosh darn it, why can't that darn APA just log into SDN and get a clue?!

 

[Annakei]

Gentlement really. The majority of us reading this exchange can only laugh because again, if this were such a problem, then I am sure that a STRONG movement would be underway to remove every single PsyD holder off the market and place them under the supervision of a PHD eventhough they took the same test and in most cases same amt of years to get there...

QUOTE]



I am rolling over here- there are so many funny threads tonight! I can't even deal with it any more. Gosh darn it, why can't that darn APA just log into SDN and get a clue?!

I mean really...we should alert the president of the APA about SDN and see what he thinks!

 

[50960]

I am getting close to outlawing the laughing face icon...

 

[Annakei]

Again, why? LOL..why would you DEEM that model inferior? REally, I am interested...

 

[Annakei]

I am getting close to outlawing the laughing face icon...

this one?

 

[LM02]

Okay, my head is spinning, and I honestly don't have time to follow several of these disorganized posts.

However, I am struck by Annakei's constant use of words such as "gentleme[n]," "fellas," and "boys." Unless you personally know these people, I find it incredibly offensive that you would default to assuming that the more research-oriented, PhD-folk who are posting here are men. They may very well be, but to just assume is quite another story.

Indeed, successful, research-oriented clinical psychologists can be (and are) women.

Okay, off of my soap box now...

 

[Annakei]

Okay, my head is spinning, and I honestly don't have time to follow several of these disorganized posts.

However, I am struck by Annakei's constant use of words such as "gentleme[n]," "fellas," and "boys." Unless you personally know these people, I find it incredibly offensive that you would default to assuming that the more research-oriented, PhD-folk who are posting here are men. They may very well be, but to just assume is quite another story.

Indeed, successful, research-oriented clinical psychologists can be (and are) women.

Okay, off of my soap box now...

Paendrag...PsiCi...Psycheval...Psych101 and others...are any of you female? If so my apologies, then change my previous assumption to ladies 😉

LM02 if they were FEMALE then I believe one of them would have made the correction some time ago. If not, maybe they were quite content with the assumption. It is only an offense if there was one taken. 😉

Carry on!!!

 

[LM02]

Paendrag...PsiCi...Psycheval...Psych101 and others...are any of you female? If so my apologies, then change my previous assumption to ladies 😉

Carry on!!!

Classic. You've completely missed my point.

 

[Annakei]

Sure you are. Why would I deem the Vail model inferior? Relative to the current discussion, I didn't say it was inferior, I just said it wasn't superior (re: clinical training). It isn't inherantly inferior. The concept behind it makes sense. The implementation of that concept is what has become problematic. There is minimal truncation of the student population in general in comparison to other professional degrees, so we have lowered the bar to entry into the field. The schools are often setup in a for-profit manner. Profit is based on tuition. There motivation is to churn out as many students as they can, no matter what the field can or cannot support. That isn't a recipe for success.

Point taken. Now did it really have to go this far for a decent explanation?

 

[Annakei]

Classic. You've completely missed my point.

I sure have! You came straight from left field with that one!

 

[Annakei]

Classic. You've completely missed my point.

I sure have! You came straight from left field with that one!

Seriously, does it matter on an internet board? Certainly if it were a concern then I am sure one of them would have said so. They are surely able to voice their own discontent with a label. Don't try to start another battle/debate unrelated to the current one. Start another thread about my inapproriate labeling, instead of hijacking this one. 😉 🙂

 

[Annakei]

No, only for you to understand it (bada bing). 🙂

No I understood but if you have a point, make it clear without adding charged statements. Then we can all get along and have decent conversations/debates here.

 

[LM02]

I sure have! You came straight from left field with that one!

Seriously, does it matter on an internet board? Certainly if it were a concern then I am sure one of them would have said so. They are surely able to voice their own discontent with a label. Don't try to start another battle/debate unrelated to the current one. Start another thread about my inapproriate labeling, instead of hijacking this one. 😉 🙂

Actually, as a female clinical psychologist, it does matter. I was not suggesting that you had somehow offended one of them. I was, rather, indicating that you had offended me.

As a clinical psychologist, I am extremely aware of the language that I use. When you one day complete your graduate training, you will probably learn the same thing.

The point is not that they are men or aren't men. The issue was that you had just assumed.

My hijack is officially over. Although, to be honest, I think this thread could use a serious diversion from the name-calling and passive aggressive smilies.

 

[Annakei]

Actually, as a female clinical psychologist, it does matter. I was not suggesting that you had somehow offended one of them. I was, rather, indicating that you had offended me.

As a clinical psychologist, I am extremely aware of the language that I use. When you one day complete your graduate training, you will probably learn the same thing.

The point is not that they are men or aren't men. The issue was that you had just assumed.

My hijack is officially over. Although, to be honest, I think this thread could use a serious diversion from the name-calling and passive aggressive smilies.

I don't believe that you were part of the original discussion, therefore this offense you speak of is null to me. Im sorry if I am not terribly sensitive to the original intent of your post, although I think this board could use some overall sensitivity training. Again, this is the internet, I tend not to get offended easily because it is just that. I defend my viewpoints, yes with passion but FAR from offended.

 

[Annakei]

Irregardless QUOTE]


FYI, that's not a word.

That's the best you could come up with ehh?? 🙁 a combination of irrespective and regardless sometimes used humorously ...yes this I know...and it fits appropriately!

 

[Annakei]

It was a good point (i.e. gender neutral language). Precision in language use and understanding is important. It avoids many problems. .

I take it you are still working on this yourself? 😉



I thought the name-calling and passive aggressive smiles were a diversion.[/QUOTE]

So did I and I enjoy them!

 

[Annakei]

I meant that more in the tactical sense. In other words, you have no substantive rebuttal to the assertions you feel are unfair, therefore you resort to liberal use of smilies and empty sarcasm.

I use them as I see fit, if you don't like them then petition psici to outlaw them as he stated earlier. Im sure we'll find a way to keep em coming! If only to lighten the burden you seem to be carrying.

On the contrary I feel that I have made a substantial rebuttal of my points here in this debate. You may not agree but it doesnt make them any less credible. Im sorry but this is just for laughs, while Ive gotten alot of useful information here, I just don't get wrapped up in the personal insults.

Anyhoo, this has been a wonderful debate, filled with belly splitting laughs.

Night!

 

[50960]

This is what we need more of around here!! Thanks annakei. Hey LM02 IM me if you wish about what you do etc... We are in a minority here.

😉

 

[psych101]

The schools are often setup in a for-profit manner. Profit is based on tuition. Their motivation is to churn out as many students as they can, no matter what the field can or cannot support. That isn't a recipe for success.

I couldn't agree more - and this is the problematic issue at hand (or at least it was until this current thread went crrrrazy!!). Here's a 2002 article providing summaries of acceptance rates at PsyD vs PhD programs, including a breakdown of freestanding professional, university professional, and university departmental PsyD programs. Although it's from 2002, it could be helpful to several previous posters interested in actual numbers. http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_171.asp

As noted in the article, just look at the sheer number of people accepted and churned out of these professional schools. I'm sure plenty of these graduates are intelligent, capable, friendly, intuitive, therapeutic, and trainable in every capacity as compared a traditional PhD student. I'm sure many go on to have fantastic careers and hold important leadership positions -- such as the dubious title of APA president... 😛 However, it's upsetting that there are so MANY of us all licensed at the doctoral level. The current system is allowing this to happen. Now, who's the most likely culprit...the typical PhD program with average class sizes of 9 per yr, or the typical PsyD program with average class sizes per year of 46, 31, or 16 (depending on the type)?? (Not my numbers...see the aforementioned article).

P.S. I am female. While I was also surprised by the assumption that all cantankerous posters were male, I'm certainly not offended 😀

 

[Sanman]

Well, I also agree with Paendrag, Psych101, etc. Too many doctorates pumped out compared to the available jobs is a very bad idea. If anyone isn't worried about this trend, you should be. Just ask a law student from a less competitive program or ANY PhD in a humanities subject. The irony is that if competition begins, the professional schools are at a disadvatage. If internships, post-docs, or jobs become more competitive, they will have less research, pubs, etc. and fewer connections because they don't know their faculty as well or the faculty can only hepl 1 or 2 students. Also, those from funded programs will be able to accpet lower salaries due to a lack of debt. I'm hoping that if we can't control the number of doctoral students, at least we can control the number of internship/post-doc spots strictly and that will take care of the problem. Also, to whomever mentioned that we all pass the same test as proof of attaining an equally good education:

One disconcerting trend is that PsyD graduates do not perform as well as PhD graduates on the national licensing examination for psychologists (Kupfersmid & Fiala, 1991; McGaha & Minder, 1993; Yu et al., 1997). That is, doctoral students who graduate with PsyDs score lower, on average, than doctoral students who graduate with PhDs on the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP), the national licensing test. Higher EPPP scores have been reliably associated with smaller-sized clinical programs and larger faculty-to-student ratios, in addition to traditional PhD curricula.

That was from the article listed in the above post. Out curiosity, does anyone here who doesn't oppose these larger professional programs not attend one? In other words, are there proponents who have gone to.are going to smaller the smaller, traditional phD/PsyD programs? I am not trying to disparage anyone's education here. However, If you try and put everyone on the same life boat, then it will sink and everyone will drown. I'm just trying to look out for my future career, so I don't spend years in school and end up working for peanuts.

 

[Flutterbyu]

Actually, as a female clinical psychologist, it does matter. I was not suggesting that you had somehow offended one of them. I was, rather, indicating that you had offended me.

As a clinical psychologist, I am extremely aware of the language that I use. When you one day complete your graduate training, you will probably learn the same thing.

The point is not that they are men or aren't men. The issue was that you had just assumed.

My hijack is officially over. Although, to be honest, I think this thread could use a serious diversion from the name-calling and passive aggressive smilies.

Well, seeing as this is the STUDENT doctor network, perhaps if you are not a student and are personally offended by the content of the posts, you should (gasp!) not read them. And as far as I am aware, gender identification is not name calling.

 

[Flutterbyu]

Ok I couldn't just leave it at that. The entire point of SDN forums is to provide a much needed break to hard working graduate/medical students. Can you imagine the tone around here if we were to keep up the formal relationships we have with professors/colleagues that we first meet in person? I mean, how can you have any kind of banter with someone you only know as "Flutterbyu" and feel that you have to keep up formality? This makes no sense, if I want to discuss my current research or clinical work in a formal, academic setting, with no chance of off-the-cuff remarks, then I wouldn't come here (duh). I come here because it is a fun, relaxing (well usually) way to connect to other clinical psych grad students and have interesting, compelling conversations/arguments. And as much as I may disagree with some views on here, I can't imagine the field if we all thought exactly the same way about everything.

 

[LM02]

Ok I couldn't just leave it at that. The entire point of SDN forums is to provide a much needed break to hard working graduate/medical students. Can you imagine the tone around here if we were to keep up the formal relationships we have with professors/colleagues that we first meet in person? I mean, how can you have any kind of banter with someone you only know as "Flutterbyu" and feel that you have to keep up formality? This makes no sense, if I want to discuss my current research or clinical work in a formal, academic setting, with no chance of off-the-cuff remarks, then I wouldn't come here (duh). I come here because it is a fun, relaxing (well usually) way to connect to other clinical psych grad students and have interesting, compelling conversations/arguments. And as much as I may disagree with some views on here, I can't imagine the field if we all thought exactly the same way about everything.

Actually, it's not about formality. It's about sensitivity. Simple as that. You can be casual without using the word "fellas."

Although I'm no longer a student, I was one somewhat recently. And to be honest, I mostly post around here because there is so much garbage and misinformation written about clinical psychology. Having actually gone through graduate school, I feel it's worth sometimes swinging by this site and providing a more balanced (and perhaps, informed) perspective.

Carry on.

 

[Annakei]

Actually, it's not about formality. It's about sensitivity. Simple as that. You can be casual without using the word "fellas."

Although I'm no longer a student, I was one somewhat recently. And to be honest, I mostly post around here because there is so much garbage and misinformation written about clinical psychology. Having actually gone through graduate school, I feel it's worth sometimes swinging by this site and providing a more balanced (and perhaps, informed) perspective.

Carry on.

Im sorry but until Psici outlaws the word FELLAS on this board I will continue to use language that Ive deemed appropriate in a jovial situation such as this one. If you took offense, then maybe an internet message board isnt for you. Simple as that. I made no blatant disrespect to anyone here on the forum and don't plan to either. But I don't plan to "curb" my keystrokes because you feel that FELLAS is too formal.

 

[Annakei]

I think many of us appreciate ALL SIDES of the debate. There is no one side that holds the absolute truth of this field. However, it doesn't mean that you can log on and tell folks how to carry themselves on an internet message board. I would be more understanding if I were using profane language and outright disrespecting everyone thereby changing the whole tone of the board causing psici to BAN me, but this isnt the case. Those are YOUR sensitivies, not mine.

Indeed...carry on...

 

[Annakei]

You did call me an egomaniac 😉


In any case, here is a link to the heart of the problem.

http://www.ncspp.info/

Come on now Paendrag, you and I both know that calling you an egomaniac would be FAR from hurting your feelings. I suspect it might do otherwise. 🙂

Im going over the website right now and I believe, don't quote me in this, but Stricker works for Argosy right now doesnt he? I could be wrong.

http://www.nationalregister.com/legacy_stricker.htm

no?

 

[2ndChance]

Dare I interject 😛

I had posted a serious question that I am considering and that was about jobs available to Clinical Psychologists. So far, I got atleast 2 serious responses - until this flood of nonsense started between some members.
The rest has been some sort of uncalled for amusement that ought to be sought at some less serious site.
If badinage and the need to get insults out is what some people feel the need for, I suggest creating another thread for that, instead of taking over another persons serious attempt at a thread.

 

[Anasazi23]

No problem. I'll take the liberty of starting one for you.

I wouldn't want to let this die. It's entertaining and *gasp* informative to see differing opinions on the field of psychology.

 

[2ndChance]

No problem. I'll take the liberty of starting one for you.

I wouldn't want to let this die. It's entertaining and *gasp* informative to see differing opinions on the field of psychology.

Thank you for starting one! There should be a proper place for all the differing, amusing comments on the field of psychology.

 

[sasevan]

Actually, it's not about formality. It's about sensitivity. Simple as that. You can be casual without using the word "fellas."

Although I'm no longer a student, I was one somewhat recently. And to be honest, I mostly post around here because there is so much garbage and misinformation written about clinical psychology. Having actually gone through graduate school, I feel it's worth sometimes swinging by this site and providing a more balanced (and perhaps, informed) perspective.

Carry on.

Hi LM02,

I'm with you. I'm a little shocked and a lot dissapointed in the sexist assumption and insensitivity expressed. I guess as psychologists we can never forget that people will surprise us; even when they had previously behaved in a respectful and balanced manner. Maybe its just a sign of our increasingly conservative times that it has now become politically correct not to be politically correct. Keep the faith. 👍

Peace. 🙂

 

[Annakei]

mmm...looks like the fun is over. Anyhoo, Im sure someone will get it started again soon enough. At this point, Im just tired of reiterating the same thing over and over again. This is an open board. If you don't like the tone, insensitivity, sexist assumptions or whatever else you deem appropriate on an internet message board then maybe it isnt for you. Maybe you should just lurk and shake your head in disappointment. *shrug* Really don't know what else to tell you. The debates that have been going on over the past few days have been lively, jovial and informative. Yes, they did take a turn down joker's alley, but it is needed when emotions tend to get high due to the investment or potential investment one has/will put into the topic at hand (PSYD/PHD or someone pursuing the same).

I may disagree with certain viewpoints here but not above seeing someone's point (ex: Paendrag). While PaenDrag and I may sorely disagree on certain topics, Im pretty sure that we aren't taking offense to the comments made. Its what DRIVES THIS BOARD! I've learned alot based on recent debates in here. If you only choose to see the passive/aggressive undertones then you are looking too deeply and lack the ability to stop analyzing every interaction you come across in an attempt to diagnose. Choose your battles, if this becomes one of them then you should really re-evaluate your time spent here. There are many worthy causes out there.

Get over the sensitivuty issues or don't log on...simple. Ive come to realize that with asking questions on this board you'll get an honest answer from each poster. BE PREPARED to receive honest, passionate and opposing replies to most questions posted here. That is what I appreciate. At first, I expected the sugar coated, cookie cutter responses but Ive seen responses on all sides and it leaves one informed about the different sides to each debate. Just as in real life, you'll be disappointed in the actions of others. Are you going to DEMAND that they live up toyour set expectations or will you just live and let live? It's a board for heaven's sake...really that is what it comes down to..it is a message board. We aren't in a treatment meeting or consultation with the clinical director. So all formalities aside.....

Carry on! 🙂

Paendrag ive read tht article before and again yesterday..will comment later!

 

[sasevan]

mmm...looks like the fun is over. Anyhoo, Im sure someone will get it started again soon enough. At this point, Im just tired of reiterating the same thing over and over again. This is an open board. If you don't like the tone, insensitivity, sexist assumptions or whatever else you deem appropriate on an internet message board then maybe it isnt for you. Maybe you should just lurk and shake your head in disappointment. *shrug* Really don't know what else to tell you. The debates that have been going on over the past few days have been lively, jovial and informative. Yes, they did take a turn down joker's alley, but it is needed when emotions tend to get high due to the investment or potential investment one has/will put into the topic at hand (PSYD/PHD or someone pursuing the same).

I may disagree with certain viewpoints here but not above seeing someone's point (ex: Paendrag). While PaenDrag and I may sorely disagree on certain topics, Im pretty sure that we aren't taking offense to the comments made. Its what DRIVES THIS BOARD! I've learned alot based on recent debates in here. If you only choose to see the passive/aggressive undertones then you are looking too deeply and lack the ability to stop analyzing every interaction you come across in an attempt to diagnose. Choose your battles, if this becomes one of them then you should really re-evaluate your time spent here. There are many worthy causes out there.

Get over the sensitivuty issues or don't log on...simple. Ive come to realize that with asking questions on this board you'll get an honest answer from each poster. That is what I appreciate. At first, I expected the sugar coated, cookie cutter responses but Ive seen responses on all sides and it leaves one informed about the different sides to each debate. Just as in real life, you'll be disappointed in the actions of others. Are you going to DEMAND that they live up toyour set expectations or will you just live and let live? It's a board for heaven's sake...really that is what it comes down to..it is a message board. We aren't in a treatment meeting or consultation with the clinical director. So all formalities aside.....

Carry on! 🙂

Paendrag ive read tht article before and again yesterday..will comment later!

Hi,

I didn't address my comments to you because I had no desire to engage you in what I suspected would be at this time a futile attempt to sensitize you to sexism (and yes, I know you are a woman). I still feel the same way.
Maybe one day you will regret your attitude, or not; time will tell.

Peace.

P.S. Since I also don't have any desire to have a long drag out discussion with you on this issue I'm choosing to not respond to any more of your posts on this thread.

 

[LM02]

Oy.

I really didn't want to get sucked back into this, but come on...

1. Sasevan: thank you for your words and attempt to further promote sensitive language.

2. Annakei: The whole point is that this is a public message board. And on this message board (which is mostly visited by MD/DOs or MD/DOs-to-be), you represent clinical psychology. And, quite frankly, your language reveals a lot of implicit gender biases. Now, I could say nothing, and just let it pass. However, it pains me to think that other people will read your comments and think that they represent the way people think and present themselves in our field.

I know you will continue to defend your position to the end, which is your right. However, I never "demanded that you use different language." Indeed, I just pointed out my observations and expressed my disappointment in the language that was used.

Like sasevan, I'm finished engaging in this conversation. Good luck in your future studies, whether they are MA/MS/MSW/PsyD/PhD...

 

[Annakei]

Thank you for your replies as you're entitled to express them here. I do understand your position, however maintain my own. We will have to agree to disagree. 🙂