"LCSW or PhD or PsyD"

[BlackSkirtTetra]

About two weeks ago, I saw a listing for a job at a psychiatric hospital which required the applicant to have two years of experience plus an "LCSW or PhD or PsyD."

This makes no sense to me. Don't PhDs and PsyDs have higher skill-levels than LCSWs? Why are LCSWs included in that?

I emailed the hospital and even called their human resources but did not get a clear answer (I asked discreetly--is there a pay differential for a higher degree, and they said there could be but wasn't necessarily, so unhelpful).

I am currently working on my MSW with a goal to get my LCSW, but this seemed odd to me.

Is this common, to lump a post-Masters license in with two doctoral degrees? Do agencies simply pay the LCSW less doing the same exact job as a PhD or PsyD?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LHDMMD]

Do agencies simply pay the LCSW less doing the same exact job as a PhD or PsyD?

I'm doing the same job as someone with a bachelor's could do, but they pay me more. I would guess its the same for LCSW and doctors.

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

What are your credentials?

 

[PsychBoxe]

My guess is that the position is for strictly therapy and case management. Is this a full time position? It seems that the doctoral level psychologist would be underemployed, seeing as the inclusion of LCSW in the ad prohibits most opportunities for psychological assessment.

 

[aagman01]

This has been talked about in other threads. In my experiences within hospitals (both at my current internship, and in prior externships), social workers and counselors frequently do assessment. They just get the psychologist to sign-off on the testing and psychs do the reports (although I have heard that at some sites, the masters folks do the assessment and report, and the psych will examine/sign-off on the work. In my job searches I have been doing in the NYC area, I have frequently seen such postings. I think it has more to do with cost saving and the watering down of our field, personally.

My guess is that the position is for strictly therapy and case management. Is this a full time position? It seems that the doctoral level psychologist would be underemployed, seeing as the inclusion of LCSW in the ad prohibits most opportunities for psychological assessment.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

This has been talked about in other threads. In my experiences within hospitals (both at my current internship, and in prior externships), social workers and counselors frequently do assessment. They just get the psychologist to sign-off on the testing and psychs do the reports (although I have heard that at some sites, the masters folks do the assessment and report, and the psych will examine/sign-off on the work. In my job searches I have been doing in the NYC area, I have frequently seen such postings. I think it has more to do with cost saving and the watering down of our field, personally.

That is completely unethical. There are psychologists who shouldn't be doing assessments, let alone people with little to no training in assessment. Ugh, our field is going to hell.

Unfortunately some employers are trying to take advantage of the economy/market by marginalizing doctoral training. They put those advertisements out because if they get a psychologist to take less money, they save money and can have them do more things like psychological assessment and supervising non-doctoral staff. If they get a non-doctorally trained person, they still got them for 'the going rate'. The other reason is because many HR people/departments have no idea (nor do they care) about the differences in training. I personally would never apply to a job that included, "LCSW, Ph.D, or Psy.D." in the title or requirements, as it tells me they don't value the unique skillsets each type of training brings to the table. If the position is for therapy and case management, 50% of that position I'd have no business trying to navigate, as I've never received training in case management.

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

How on earth do you not realize the differences between LCSW, PhD, and PsyD work if you're a hospital HR department, though?

Aren't there a couple states where social workers do the assessment anyway? Regardless, this listing was in Virginia, where social workers can't do assessments.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

"Assessment" is used in may different ways, so it can be confusing....sometimes purposefully.

 

[ClinicalABA]

About two weeks ago, I saw a listing for a job at a psychiatric hospital which required the applicant to have two years of experience plus an "LCSW or PhD or PsyD."
This makes no sense to me. Don't PhDs and PsyDs have higher skill-levels than LCSWs? Why are LCSWs included in that?

While I don't know about "higher" skill levels, us Ph.D.s generally have additional and more expansive training that LCSWs. My guess is that the hospital need (to do the work, get reimbursed, etc.) as a minimum the skill-set and credentials of a LCSW. However, the wise recruiter/ad writer realizes that the job market for direct therapy/case management positions for doctoral level clinicians, frankly, sucks. Thus, why not try to get some doctoral level clinical and pay masters level wages (with maybe some token "degree differential" of a grand or too). Heck, you may even get them to do some of the fancy doctoral level work, without having to pay them much more than a masters level clinician. While this is a scary proposition for the job seeking Ph.D. looking to repay those financial, opportunity cost, and social loans, imagine being the masters level clinician who has to compete with Ph.D.s for the same job?

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

imagine being the masters level clinician who has to compete with Ph.D.s for the same job?

I hadn't thought of it that way.

I had for some reason imagined that Masters-level clinicians did Masters-level work and that Doctoral-level clinicians did doctoral-level work. I didn't realize that it overlapped so much in practice.

If that's the case, what's the point of getting a clinical PhD (edit: that sounds a little bit snide or rhetorical, but I really do mean it)?

 

[cara susanna]

Because some believe that our training is the best. Also, research.

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

As someone relatively new and young on my journey to becoming a therapist, I have been thoroughly told about how to go about doing this: earn my MSW, work under an LCSW for 2 years, then sit for my LCSW. And all that's correct from my end, but when taken as a whole (LCSWs, MFTs, PhDs, PsyDs, LPCs, and whatever else) there are gaping holes that just make no sense to me. And this (the fact that LCSWs and PhDs/PsyDs have a large area of overlap and can be hired to do many of the same things) is one of them.

I'm just curious now--are there any countries where the person who does therapy can have only once degree and one license, or is everywhere as confusing as the US?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

And this (the fact that LCSWs and PhDs/PsyDs have a large area of overlap and can be hired to do many of the same things) is one of them.

I don't think I'd say there is a "large area of overlap", as a psychologist is involved in far more than just psychotherapy.

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

I don't think I'd say there is a "large area of overlap", as a psychologist is involved in far more than just psychotherapy.

That's true. Social workers are involved in far more than psychotherapy, too, but I still think psychotherapy is a large area (professionally, economically, what-have-you) where we overlap. *shrug*

 

[psypipe]

As someone relatively new and young on my journey to becoming a therapist, I have been thoroughly told about how to go about doing this: earn my MSW, work under an LCSW for 2 years, then sit for my LCSW. And all that's correct from my end, but when taken as a whole (LCSWs, MFTs, PhDs, PsyDs, LPCs, and whatever else) there are gaping holes that just make no sense to me. And this (the fact that LCSWs and PhDs/PsyDs have a large area of overlap and can be hired to do many of the same things) is one of them.

I'm just curious now--are there any countries where the person who does therapy can have only once degree and one license, or is everywhere as confusing as the US?

There are countries where psychology and psychiatry are the only ones that can practice psychotherapy. Many of these countries lack a big market and insurance doesn't cover psychotherapy.

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

There are countries where psychology and psychiatry are the only ones that can practice psychotherapy. Many of these countries lack a big market and insurance don't cover psychotherapy.

I'm learning a lot here, because, although on some level I knew that the reason we have such a diverse and crazy group of people who offer psychotherapy was due to our specific type of market, I hadn't put two and two together like that. Thank you.

 

[aagman01]

And you failed to mention that most "psychologists" in these countries only have what is our equivalent of a masters degree.

There are countries where psychology and psychiatry are the only ones that can practice psychotherapy. Many of these countries lack a big market and insurance don't cover psychotherapy.

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

And you failed to mention that most "psychologists" in these countries only have what is our equivalent of a masters degree.

I used to think that "psychologists" by definition always had a PhD, but even in the USA Masters-level therapists can carry the title of "psychologist" (Kansas that I know of, but I wouldn't be surprised to find other states as well).

 

[Quynh2007]

Here ya go, part of my MAP on psychotherapy in Asian countries

Korea - has licensing, requires a doctorate, supervised practical experience, case conferences, and an exam

Japan - has both licensing and certification; only requires a master's, supervised practical experience, exam, and interview

The Phillippines - no licensing/certification; anyone with a bachelor's, master's or doctorate

China - license (but that does not protect the title) - master's or doctorate; exam

Thailand - license - degree in clinical psychology (not necessarily doctorate), internship, exam

indonesia - no licensing/certification; can practice w/bachelor's, master's, or doctorate.

 

[psypipe]

And you failed to mention that most "psychologists" in these countries only have what is our equivalent of a masters degree.

.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I used to think that "psychologists" by definition always had a PhD, but even in the USA Masters-level therapists can carry the title of "psychologist" (Kansas that I know of, but I wouldn't be surprised to find other states as well).

While technically correct, the training, scope of practice, and overall experience required is very very different. It is the exception to the rule, which is why the vast majority of people understand Psychologist = Doctoral training. Even the KS Licensing Board specifies the modifier of "Masters Level Psychologist", just like you would "School Psychologist". etc. I personally disagree with the parsing out of the title for any level but Doctoral, but that is water under the bridge. I like to use the term "Clinical Psychologist" or "Neuropsychologist" because there are no grey areas.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

While technically correct, the training, scope of practice, and overall experience required is very very different. It is the exception to the rule, which is why the vast majority of people understand Psychologist = Doctoral training. Even the KS Licensing Board specifies the modifier of "Masters Level Psychologist", just like you would "School Psychologist". etc. I personally disagree with the parsing out of the title for any level but Doctoral, but that is water under the bridge. I like to use the term "Clinical Psychologist" or "Neuropsychologist" because there are no grey areas.

I was only able to find a few blurbs about certification of out-of-state practitioners when I quickly googled the Kansas statutes earlier this morning, but I did see mention of the "Masters Level Psychologist" moniker. Then again, a few earlier statutes mentioned service provision including diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, so if there's a split in scope of practice between masters-level and doctoral-level practitioners, I wasn't able to find it. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't some type of different, though.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I was only able to find a few blurbs about certification of out-of-state practitioners when I quickly googled the Kansas statutes earlier this morning, but I did see mention of the "Masters Level Psychologist" moniker. Then again, a few earlier statutes mentioned service provision including diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, so if there's a split in scope of practice between masters-level and doctoral-level practitioners, I wasn't able to find it. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't some type of different, though.

Practitioners before 2002 are excluded from the below, but for all intents and purposes, the "masters level psychologist" is not an independant practice degree, which greatly impacts the scope of practice I referenced above.

Licensed master's level psychologists who were licensed prior to 7/1/00 may elect to maintain their current level of licensure. After January 1, 2002, those with who are licensed as masters level psychologists may only practice under the direction of a licensed clinical psychotherapist, licensed clinical professional counselor,a licensed psychologist, a licensed clinical social worker, a licensed clinical marriage and family therapist, or a person licensed to practice medicine or surgery. If you wish to remain as a Licensed Masters Level Psychologist, please notify the Board office of your decision, and your license will continue to be renewed as a Licensed Masters Level Psychologist.

http://www.ksbsrb.org/masterpsychologists.htm#clinical

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

I lived in Kansas before I was ever interested in the field, and I remember going to another state for college and learning that "Psychologist" always meant "PhD" there, whereas in my experience growing up I never had equated the two because it didn't/doesn't mean that!

I like to use the term "Clinical Psychologist" or "Neuropsychologist" because there are no grey areas.

That's a good idea. I think it's always a good idea to be as specific as possible, especially when there are so many variables.

"Assessment" is used in may different ways, so it can be confusing....sometimes purposefully.

I wondered about this so I was browsing the different states' licensing boards for the different professions (can you tell school is out and I'm bored?) and I found this on the WVSWB, speaking about what LICSWs do there:

Clinical social work services consist of assessment, diagnosis, treatment, including psychotherapy and counseling, client-centered advocacy, consultation and evaluation. The process of clinical social work is undertaken within the objectives of the social work profession and the principles and values of its code of ethics.

If anybody is familiar with that state, how are "assessment" and "diagnosis" used there and how are they different from the "assessment" and "diagnosis" that a (PhD) psychologist would perform?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I wondered about this so I was browsing the different states' licensing boards for the different professions (can you tell school is out and I'm bored?) and I found this on the WVSWB, speaking about what LICSWs do there:



If anybody is familiar with that state, how are "assessment" and "diagnosis" used there and how are they different from the "assessment" and "diagnosis" that a (PhD) psychologist would perform?

I believe LCSWs are eligible for independent practice in multiple states (someone correct me if I'm wrong), which I'm guessing would entail diagnosis of psychopathology. In order to diagnose something, you of course have to assess for it, which would likely encompass the "assessment" you've quoted above (i.e., predominantly via clinical interview and records review). In general, and as far as I know, psychological assessment via psychometric measures is often restricted to psychologists (and usually/sometimes physicians, depending).

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

I believe LCSWs are eligible for independent practice in multiple states (someone correct me if I'm wrong), which I'm guessing would entail diagnosis of psychopathology. In order to diagnose something, you of course have to assess for it, which would likely encompass the "assessment" you've quoted above (i.e., predominantly via clinical interview and records review). In general, and as far as I know, psychological assessment via psychometric measures is often restricted to psychologists (and usually/sometimes physicians, depending).

Ah, that would make sense. There's so much misinformation out there. A couple weeks ago, I was told by a MFT that only medical doctors could diagnose. I knew this wasn't true, though. But she was otherwise pretty accomplished and seemed to know what she was talking about. I'm glad I've found these forums because they seem to be full of particularly smart, nuanced, individuals.

So...the type of assessment that only medical doctors and PhD-level psychologists can do in the United States is also called psychometric testing, right?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Ah, that would make sense. There's so much misinformation out there. A couple weeks ago, I was told by a MFT that only medical doctors could diagnose. I knew this wasn't true, though. But she was otherwise pretty accomplished and seemed to know what she was talking about. I'm glad I've found these forums because they seem to be full of particularly smart, nuanced, individuals.

So...the type of assessment that only medical doctors and PhD-level psychologists can do in the United States is also called psychometric testing, right?

It depends on the state whether physicians are able to administer psychological tests. In general, it's not part of a physician's training to use and interpret these measures, so even if they're allowed to give them by state law, they may not choose to do so, or may be ethically prohibited from it in some capacity.

In general, most psychological tests are psychometric, yes; it generally refers to the method by which the test was developed (i.e., by the application of psychometric theory and principles).

 

[Psychadelic2012]

A couple weeks ago, I was told by a MFT that only medical doctors could diagnose. I knew this wasn't true, though. But she was otherwise pretty accomplished and seemed to know what she was talking about.

Hmmmm...why would she say that? Certainly an MFT would know that they could diagnose a mental illness! They have to diagnose to bill insurance. Perhaps she meant diagnosis of a medical disorder?

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

Hmmmm...why would she say that? Certainly an MFT would know that they could diagnose a mental illness! They have to diagnose to bill insurance. Perhaps she meant diagnosis of a medical disorder?

I wish I could remember the word she used, but I can't. It was something other than "diagnose." The word "diagnose," she said was restricted to physicians, but I know that's not true.

I'm reading about psychometric tests now. What kind of training does a PhD go through to be competent to administer these tests? I'm assuming it's a few years worth of classes and supervision, right?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I wish I could remember the word she used, but I can't. It was something other than "diagnose." The word "diagnose," she said was restricted to physicians, but I know that's not true.

I'm reading about psychometric tests now. What kind of training does a PhD go through to be competent to administer these tests? I'm assuming it's a few years worth of classes and supervision, right?

We do go through a few years' worth of classes and supervision in administering, interpreting, and developing these tests, yes. In general, we study psychometric principles in general and as relate to the tests we use; how pathology (and normality) might be reflected on, and/or influence the results of, these tests (after first studying the theory behind the pathology); how to actually accurately administer the things; and how to integrate the testing results with the entirety of other data available to us (e.g., clinical interview, collateral report, medical records) in developing an appropriate case formulation.

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

I got to sit in on an assessment of three kids today. Very interesting work!

 

[LMK]

A couple weeks ago, I was told by a MFT that only medical doctors could diagnose.


That's true from a specific perspective. I believe that's the reason the Axis V diagnostic differential was originated - I believe it was a Medicare thing. Our diagosnistic differential is a recommendation, not an official "diagnosis," though for all intents and purposes, we use them as diagnoses.

So...the type of assessment that only medical doctors and PhD-level psychologists can do in the United States is also called psychometric testing, right?

Well, yes. Doctorate level psychologists (Ph.D./Psy.D.) are the only ones who are allowed to do psychometric testing. Medical Doctors have a whole host of other tests they are trained to use, they don't use psychometric testing, as that is a protected domain for doctorate level psychologists only.

I have an MSW and am licensed in two states (LCSW, LMSW) and worked as a medical social worker in an acute care hospital. The work done at that level doesn't necessitate a doctorate, hence, my hospital didn't hire psychologists. They used psychiatrists for psych evals because they were going to want a medication recommendation, and, well, psychologists can't do that. As for assessments, they're biopsychosocial assessments, not using diagnostic testing, and MSWs are competently trained to do those.

Some insurances and some places will pay the doctorate level clinican higher, some won't. One insurance company paid a whole $10/session more for a doctorate than my MSW. Employers who cast a net for a LCSW/Psy.D./Ph.D., in my experience, are generally hoping for the doctorate level clinician, but often pay less than someone holding that degree may be willing to take. The work could often be completed just the same by a LCSW, so they decide to include that as well.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I can resolve some of the confusion regarding LCSW, PsyD. or Ph.D. as I have been in all three programs. If you want to teach at a college or university and/or do research, then by all means get the Ph.D. If you want to do clinical work with patients/clients I would advise that you will most likely get more bang for your buck if you get the MSW and become a LCSW. I went through an accredited MSW (clinical) program and then went on later to a Psy.D. program. The Psy.D. program was mainly review except for psychological testing. If you just want to do psychological testing then get a Psy.D. Remember, the Ph.D. is mainly for research and writing for academia and teaching. Many Ph.D. programs in clinical psychology will not give you all that great clinical experience as they want researchers who can also share their knowledge through teaching and writing. In a Ph.D. or Psy.D. program in clinical psychology, you will have to get a good pre-doctoral internship and a good post-doctoral placement (internship/fellowship) plus any additional clinical hours your state requires for licensing. Often, this means you will need to move, sometimes across country. This is difficult to do if you have a spouse/partner and or children or have a limited amount of money.

Most clinical jobs in hospitals and community clinics prefer an LCSW because they have good clinical training, including education on policy and administration, and for what I have observed, can "run circles around" most practicing clinical psychologists I have seen. Plus they don't have to pay the LCSW as much.

 

[WisNeuro]

Remember, the Ph.D. is mainly for research and writing for academia and teaching. Many Ph.D. programs in clinical psychology will not give you all that great clinical experience as they want researchers who can also share their knowledge through teaching and writing.

This is in no way an accurate statement.

Edit - Well, it may have been, were it to be said 40 or more years ago.

 

[smalltownpsych]

PhD is better mainly because it is usually cheaper than a PsyD because of funding and they tend to be at universities that ensure higher standards. Social work is a separate field from psychology and I have some philosophical objections to it being used solely as a shortcut to becoming a therapist. Which doesn't mean that I don't think that social workers can be great psychotherapists. It all depends on the individual and the training. Don't even get me started on the proliferation of loosely credentialed and regulated LPC, LCPC, MFT, MFCC in various states. Fortunately, the places where I have worked recognize the value of clinical oversight by a doctoral level provider including critical integration of current research, clinical supervision and training, program development, expertise in diagnosis and psychometric assessment, and knowledge of law and ethics. Oh, and we can be pretty dern skilled at individual and group psychotherapy, too. Especially since our clinical training (APA accredited, that is) is the most rigorous from everything that I have witnessed in the last ten years in the field in several different states.

 

[Goobernut]

Social work is a separate field from psychology and I have some philosophical objections to it being used solely as a shortcut to becoming a therapist. Which doesn't mean that I don't think that social workers can be great psychotherapists. It all depends on the individual and the training. Don't even get me started on the proliferation of loosely credentialed and regulated LPC, LCPC, MFT, MFCC in various states.

Just to clarify, the LCSW is not a shortcut to therapy anymore than any other masters level license that allows someone to do therapy. Yes, it has different founding philosophy than psychology or the LMFT, but all of us mid-levels who perform therapy have similar requirements. Now if you feel mid-level clinicians in and of themselves are a shortcut to therapy, then that's a whole different discussion. But when an LCSW is a therapist, they are also using evidenced based practice theories at rates similar to other mid-level professions. And often we use the same CBT books that a psych MA would receive in their program. I say often and mostly here because I'm sure there is a program that would be an exception, but that is not a problem singular to social work.

I do agree that it has a lot to do with individual though. I think the variability with grads has to do more with how a program weeds out their under-performing individuals, rather than the curriculum itself.

 

[wesleysmith]

most. talked. about. topic. ever.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I also think it bears mentioning (especially in the context of comments regarding PhD psychologists being primarily academics/researchers rather than practitioners) that the VAST majority of evidence-based psychotherapeutic interventions in the past 30-40 years that represent the standard of practice for various conditions--that is, approaches like Dialectical Behavior Therapy (Linehan), Panic Control Treatment (Craske & Barlow), Prolonged Exposure (Edna Foa), Cognitive Processing Therapy (Resnick)--the VAST majority--have been developed by PhD psychologists. This is not a swipe at the PsyD at all but, c'mon...I get sick hearing that the PhD is solely for academics and eggheads (with the implication that PhD's are not well-trained in providing psychotherapy)...we INVENT new forms of psychotherapy.

 

[WisNeuro]

Hey now, EMDR was created from a professional school grad.....

 

[smalltownpsych]

Just to clarify, the LCSW is not a shortcut to therapy anymore than any other masters level license that allows someone to do therapy. Yes, it has different founding philosophy than psychology or the LMFT, but all of us mid-levels who perform therapy have similar requirements. Now if you feel mid-level clinicians in and of themselves are a shortcut to therapy, then that's a whole different discussion. But when an LCSW is a therapist, they are also using evidenced based practice theories at rates similar to other mid-level professions. And often we use the same CBT books that a psych MA would receive in their program. I say often and mostly here because I'm sure there is a program that would be an exception, but that is not a problem singular to social work.

I do agree that it has a lot to do with individual though. I think the variability with grads has to do more with how a program weeds out their under-performing individuals, rather than the curriculum itself.

Also, to clarify further, it is the attitude of the student seeking the easiest way to be a therapist as opposed to choosing a path that makes the most sense for them that I was critiquing. For example, I have much respect for a colleague who chose to be an MFT because of his desire to work with families and he knew more about family systems than I did. I also know colleagues who became social workers because they see the emphasis on social aspects of treatment as crucial, which of course they are, and I respect that as well. Unfortunately, "I wanna be a therapist what is the easiest way?" thinking all too often leads to the "I should have been a psychologist" syndrome that often manifests as a criticize or reduce what psychologists do to make myself feel better about taking this path dynamic. It can also lead to the enrolling at a diploma mill to get those initials, but not necessarily the skill set.

 

[wesleysmith]

To be fair, individuals who took the MSW route to becoming a therapist, after lots of research, investigating, and thought given to the matter, may also be inclined to "criticize or reduce what psychologists do" in defense of the consistent reduction of what it is they say an LCSW can do, contrary to what they can actually do. People get defensive when put on the defensive. That's a very common situation for an LCSW (or prospective LCSW) to find themselves in on this forum. That's why this subject is tiresome; you finally get everyone to agree that they are different approaches, different levels of training (of course a PhD receives more training, in what areas and to what extent that furthers their ability to conduct psychotherapy with clients, I don't know) and, with the appropriate training and effort, both bring a lot to the table. Then someone inevitably says something along the lines of "as long as they [social workers] are only hand holding or providing very brief, supportive therapy - they are not qualified to do anything else". Of course that's going to start an argument in which SOME social workers is going to knock down that all-knowing PhD to some extent.

These degree debates inevitably leave the realm of fact to that of emotionally guided fiction. Plus there's a billion of them and no new information ever gets brought to the table.

I get sick hearing that the PhD is solely for academics and eggheads (with the implication that PhD's are not well-trained in providing psychotherapy)...we INVENT new forms of psychotherapy.

That's research, I think that's the point being made by those people.

 

[WisNeuro]

That's research, I think that's the point being made by those people.

Most of these people are or have been very active in providing the clinical services of the treatments they founded. Especially early on. Then they get massive grants for clinical trials and inevitably turn to managing clinicians on these trials. The counterpoint to the misconception is that many PhD's are actually very balanced. If you took a poll here of the clinical PhD's, I bet you'd find that most of them spent more time doing clinical work/clinical didactics/clinical supervision than they did on research in grad school.

 

[smalltownpsych]

To be fair, individuals who took the MSW route to becoming a therapist, after lots of research, investigating, and thought given to the matter, may also be inclined to "criticize or reduce what psychologists do" in defense of the consistent reduction of what it is they say an LCSW can do, contrary to what they can actually do. People get defensive when put on the defensive. That's a very common situation for an LCSW (or prospective LCSW) to find themselves in on this forum. That's why this subject is tiresome; you finally get everyone to agree that they are different approaches, different levels of training (of course a PhD receives more training, in what areas and to what extent that furthers their ability to conduct psychotherapy with clients, I don't know) and, with the appropriate training and effort, both bring a lot to the table. Then someone inevitably says something along the lines of "as long as they [social workers] are only hand holding or providing very brief, supportive therapy - they are not qualified to do anything else". Of course that's going to start an argument in which SOME social workers is going to knock down that all-knowing PhD to some extent.

These degree debates inevitably leave the realm of fact to that of emotionally guided fiction. Plus there's a billion of them and no new information ever gets brought to the table.




That's research, I think that's the point being made by those people.

Completely agree with everything you said. Being an effective clinician has so many variables and most of those are individual. So any comparison of these degrees for individuals is just that- a comparison of two individuals. On a related note, there are some psychologists I have known who should stick with research as they have about as much chance of being therapeutic as a wet noodle. I think they tend to be just as dismissive of psychologists who do therapy as they would be of any other degree. I haven't seen that dynamic much on this board though, but I do see an over-representation of neuro folks. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[wesleysmith]

Most of these people are or have been very active in providing the clinical services of the treatments they founded. Especially early on. Then they get massive grants for clinical trials and inevitably turn to managing clinicians on these trials. The counterpoint to the misconception is that many PhD's are actually very balanced. If you took a poll here of the clinical PhD's, I bet you'd find that most of them spent more time doing clinical work/clinical didactics/clinical supervision than they did on research in grad school.

I'm not disagreeing at all, I have no personal experience with PhD programs and believe those who say the clinical experience is extensive - I just thought the creation of new forms of psychotherapy was an odd point to make since I assumed (seemingly incorrectly) that those researching/creating the new intervention would not be involved in administering it (at least not during the initial research) because it could be a potential conflict. I really don't know, my main point from that was just that these threads are kind of pointless because they almost always seem to be reduced to mud slinging by some poster, and previously level-headed individuals get all riled up and things go to hell.

 

[WisNeuro]

Pssh, none of us are level-headed.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I'm not disagreeing at all, I have no personal experience with PhD programs and believe those who say the clinical experience is extensive - I just thought the creation of new forms of psychotherapy was an odd point to make since I assumed (seemingly incorrectly) that those researching/creating the new intervention would not be involved in administering it (at least not during the initial research) because it could be a potential conflict. I really don't know, my main point from that was just that these threads are kind of pointless because they almost always seem to be reduced to mud slinging by some poster, and previously level-headed individuals get all riled up and things go to hell.

lol and while we squabble amongst ourselves about _?_ , the psychiatrists talk about how to make 400k in a year and how other specialties are so much better because they can make a million in a year.

 

[wesleysmith]

Then now is the appropriate time for me to reveal to you my plan to make...
muahaha. Muahahaha. MUAHAha. MUAHAHAHAA!

 

[Goobernut]

Also, to clarify further, it is the attitude of the student seeking the easiest way to be a therapist as opposed to choosing a path that makes the most sense for them that I was critiquing. For example, I have much respect for a colleague who chose to be an MFT because of his desire to work with families and he knew more about family systems than I did. I also know colleagues who became social workers because they see the emphasis on social aspects of treatment as crucial, which of course they are, and I respect that as well. Unfortunately, "I wanna be a therapist what is the easiest way?" thinking all too often leads to the "I should have been a psychologist" syndrome that often manifests as a criticize or reduce what psychologists do to make myself feel better about taking this path dynamic. It can also lead to the enrolling at a diploma mill to get those initials, but not necessarily the skill set.

I agree with all this! And thanks for clarifying. I just wanted to make sure you weren't singling out us poorly dressed social workers as the only "shortcut" to therapy.

As an aside, I can never be poorly dressed. I'm so rockin' that I make anything look good. *winks*