Leave PhD program for PsyD

[soccercat]

Yes! Absolutely this. This is the same situation I am in, especially my advisor being the harsh/old school type. Thank you so much. It really helps to know that others have been in similar positions and it has worked out for them. It's helping build that courage that I am severely lacking.

Your welcome. Glad I could help. Again, feel free to PM if you have any questions.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cara susanna]

I switched advisors as well. Went totally fine.

 

[deleted343839]

Yes! Absolutely this. This is the same situation I am in, especially my advisor being the harsh/old school type. Thank you so much. It really helps to know that others have been in similar positions and it has worked out for them. It's helping build that courage that I am severely lacking.

I definitely think you should explore options within your program before you make an irreversible decision. Switching labs/advisors is often a tense process, but it can be done.

As a bit of practical advice, I recommend the book Crucial Conversations by Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler. It's more oriented toward management types, but if you can look past the fluff there are some nice pointers for how to approach difficult negotiations.

 

[WisNeuro]

Seriously though. The title of the thread may have been more appropriately worded to reflect needing advice on switching labs or programs in general. For the OP's sake, if people want to continue the debate of PhD/PsyD, or the merits and limitations of common factor research, break in into another thread. This thread has the potential to be informative to many students across a variety of programs as switching career focus is fairly common in graduate school.

 

[PsychScience]

First, I'm sorry this turned into a PhD vs. PsyD debate.

If it makes any difference, I would only consider Baylor or Rutgers.

Regarding talking to my advisor, this actually terrifies me. Frankly, I got accepted into a program that I should not have gotten accepted into. Please trust that this isn't imposter syndrome, it's the truth. I would have been better served by a more balance program. I received a call from Ms. Big Name and couldn't refuse the offer, which was my mistake. I'm a bit in over my head here. On top of it, the other grad students in my lab are very competitive, manipulative, and steal ideas while acting like your best friend. The problem is that I am terrified to have this conversation with my advisor. She's incredibly intimidating and I wouldn't even know how to start.

There is a lab that I would actually consider switching into that I think could be a better fit. However, I worry that I haven't made the best impression on the faculty. As I mentioned, I'm in over my head here and that has resulted in some avoidance behaviors/cruising by on my part. It's possible that it's because I'm in the wrong lab with a bad fit and if I was in another, I'd actually thrive. But I don't know if they would see it that way.

I would really love advice from those of you who switched. How did you bring it up? How did it happen? What was it like to be around your old advisor and lab mates? I'm getting a belly ache just thinking about it.

For what it is worth, I also switched labs during my graduate training. I'll be honest, it was initially very tense and not the smoothest transition. I think this is partially because my adviser did not realize I was unhappy (despite that I had mentioned previously what I was unhappy about in a very direct manner), so I think it caught him off-guard. In spite of how tense the process was, things were a lot better for me and my only regret is that I had not gathered the courage to do it sooner. I probably spent a year and a half too long being very unhappy in the situation when I could have made the switch sooner. Once I had fully transitioned to the new lab, my previous adviser and I still managed to have a cordial relationship and I was well-supported by the department in making the switch. A few suggestions (totally based on my own experience, so perhaps not applicable to you or your needs):

(1) Talk to your adviser first before talking to the new mentor. This allows you to discuss your concerns first with the person whose lab you are currently in and who, after you (of course), is most effected by the decision-at least initially. Additionally, it allows you to hear her perspective on the situation (she may even agree with you) and also prevents that individual from perceiving that you went behind her back.
(2) When you bring it up, stay focused on the concrete aspects of why you want to switch. Personally, I would avoid bringing any of the interpersonal dynamics that you have experienced that have made you unhappy in the lab in to the conversation. Stay focused instead on your career goals, and how you see those as perhaps being a better fit in a different lab. Again, just my opinion, but bringing the interpersonal into the conversation with your adviser has the potential to make it more messy and may have the inadvertent effect of making you look bad. Whereas staying focused on your career goals and how this other lab will be a better fit for those keeps things more objective and gives off more of a professional vibe.
(3) As for how to address it with lab mates, I actually asked the former mentor what their preference was for me to address it with my peers in the lab. I offered a few possibilities, and asked what their opinion was on the best way to approach letting them know I was switching labs. For any other side projects that I was working on with my lab mates, I also offered to continue my involvement until they found someone to replace my role. This approach allowed me to maintain pretty solid relationships with everyone in my lab after I left, but I actually had a little bit of a different situation than yours, I loved my lab mates. They were awesome to work with, and were well aware of my frustrations...

Do you have weekly meetings with your adviser? If so, that would be a very natural time to bring up your concerns. If not, I would definitely go about setting up a meeting with her ASAP. As hard as it is, the sooner you discuss the issues and start the ball rolling the better for all involved parties.

Good luck! I know it seems hard now, but at least for me, I was so much better off that the discomfort I went through in making the decision and executing it was really worth it.

 

[smalltownpsych]

As a graduate of a PsyD program, I would advise sticking it out in the program that you are in and trying to make it work for you as many of the other posters have suggested. I am sure that you would love the program that I attended, as did I, but there is a useful saying that applies here, "grow where you are planted". We can all fall prey to the grass is greener phenomenon and that can lead to bad decisions. If you can't make it work, then the option to change to a more balanced program would be available but this is an opportunity for you to learn how to try to resolve a conflict in another way first.

 

[erg923]

We can all fall prey to the grass is greener phenomenon and that can lead to bad decisions.

This is tempting as a working professional too. I am trying to resist that urge now, as we now have a 3rd child on the way, and I am having to weigh my current security (essentially unofficial tenure, hey its the VA!) vs branching out to something else that has come about. I think I know what the safe decision is, but, unlike others, I not sure I can advocate sticking out a groosly poor fit.

 

[kaleidoscope1]

Your experience must explain the bitterness on this page. From what I've seen in my 10 years in the field, the vast minority are the thieves and asses (anecdotally, those few were all from research-based PhDs but they were the vast minority in that population, as well). And yes, the PsyD (when appropriately used) model is much better to train clinicians than PhDs. The "data" doesn't mean what they purport. Notice only A/I and supervision hours were given...nothing about the quality of the training at the institution ("lies and damn lies"). Practicum sites generally do not teach theory or technique. Most PhD programs do very little truing in their program and leave it to the practicum sites. That's why you see so many falsely believe in the superiority of cognitive orientations; you can teach it quickly and minimally have to address the person of the therapist. If you want superior clinical training, go with a PsyD that fits your goals (I'd expand beyond the two you mentioned but that's just me). If you want superior research training, stay in a PhD or go to one that fits your goals.

Frankly, I am really not interested in your advice. I've seen your previous posts and disagree with mostly everything. The second you defended the clinical aspect of Saybrook, which is not even a clinical program, I stopped listening. As WisNeuro said, I should have titled this thread better. I am definitely not interested in the PsyD vs PhD debate. I already have a well-informed opinion.

For what it is worth, I also switched labs during my graduate training. I'll be honest, it was initially very tense and not the smoothest transition. I think this is partially because my adviser did not realize I was unhappy (despite that I had mentioned previously what I was unhappy about in a very direct manner), so I think it caught him off-guard. In spite of how tense the process was, things were a lot better for me and my only regret is that I had not gathered the courage to do it sooner. I probably spent a year and a half too long being very unhappy in the situation when I could have made the switch sooner. Once I had fully transitioned to the new lab, my previous adviser and I still managed to have a cordial relationship and I was well-supported by the department in making the switch. A few suggestions (totally based on my own experience, so perhaps not applicable to you or your needs):

(1) Talk to your adviser first before talking to the new mentor. This allows you to discuss your concerns first with the person whose lab you are currently in and who, after you (of course), is most effected by the decision-at least initially. Additionally, it allows you to hear her perspective on the situation (she may even agree with you) and also prevents that individual from perceiving that you went behind her back.
(2) When you bring it up, stay focused on the concrete aspects of why you want to switch. Personally, I would avoid bringing any of the interpersonal dynamics that you have experienced that have made you unhappy in the lab in to the conversation. Stay focused instead on your career goals, and how you see those as perhaps being a better fit in a different lab. Again, just my opinion, but bringing the interpersonal into the conversation with your adviser has the potential to make it more messy and may have the inadvertent effect of making you look bad. Whereas staying focused on your career goals and how this other lab will be a better fit for those keeps things more objective and gives off more of a professional vibe.
(3) As for how to address it with lab mates, I actually asked the former mentor what their preference was for me to address it with my peers in the lab. I offered a few possibilities, and asked what their opinion was on the best way to approach letting them know I was switching labs. For any other side projects that I was working on with my lab mates, I also offered to continue my involvement until they found someone to replace my role. This approach allowed me to maintain pretty solid relationships with everyone in my lab after I left, but I actually had a little bit of a different situation than yours, I loved my lab mates. They were awesome to work with, and were well aware of my frustrations...

Do you have weekly meetings with your adviser? If so, that would be a very natural time to bring up your concerns. If not, I would definitely go about setting up a meeting with her ASAP. As hard as it is, the sooner you discuss the issues and start the ball rolling the better for all involved parties.

Good luck! I know it seems hard now, but at least for me, I was so much better off that the discomfort I went through in making the decision and executing it was really worth it.

This is really wonderful advice. Thank you for taking the time to share it. I am going to meet with a past graduate student who made the switch years ago and get some advice from her as well. I'm very motivated to make this switch. But every time I think about walking into my advisor's office to talk about it, I lose my courage again. I will keep in mind that your "only regret is that I had not gathered the courage sooner." What I am understanding is that people have done it before. While it wasn't necessarily easy, it was the best decision in the end.

 

[smalltownpsych]

This is tempting as a working professional too. I am trying to resist that urge now, as we now have a 3rd child on the way, and I am having to weigh my current security (essentially unofficial tenure, hey its the VA!) vs branching out to something else that has come about. I think I know what the safe decision is, but, unlike others, I not sure I can advocate sticking out a groosly poor fit.

I wouldn't advocate staying with a grossly poor fit either. Rather make some attempts to make it work and then start looking at options. My own situation last year I left a job because of a number of factors, but I had taken steps to remedy those and ultimately made a decision to start looking for a position last January and had a new position by March. It has resulted in significantly better pay and work environment and additional professional development so am happy with the move. If you don't mind my asking, what type of job are you looking at and what are some of the factors that you are weighing? Just asking out of both curiosity and also I think that it can be helpful for students to know more about the professional process after the somewhat insular world of school.

 

[PsychScience]

I am going to meet with a past graduate student who made the switch years ago and get some advice from her as well.

That is a great idea! Not only will it give you someone to talk to who has been through the process, but this person can also speak to the specific dynamics that are at play in your graduate program and thus, give you much more tailored advice on how to approach the situation.

Seriously, all the best! Keep us posted on how things work out for you. When you are on the other side of the transition, you might even be able to come back and add what worked well for you so that, as was noted by WisNeuro, other people who read the thread have the benefit of learning from your experience.

 

[Pragma]

I agree with others about trying to make it work/resolve conflict, but at some point I'd suggest talking with your training director about it. That is what they are there for, and they may even be able to help you facilitate a lab swap. I watched that happen a couple of times and getting some support from faculty leadership about managing the situation was highly important. Moreover, on some level, most people I know experience some degree of uncertainty and conflict during those first couple of years of school. You may want to ride the wave and see if things start to come together more for you with a little time.

But everyone has a breaking point. If it truly is a bad fit and you are unhappy, and there aren't any reasonable alternatives, then you have to make a choice about whether it is worth giving up. I can't say that I think swapping over to a PsyD program is something I would advise, but everyone has their own path. I'd probably suggest a bit more self reflection about what things are bothering you about the program and what things you anticipate would be different in a different training model vs. your other alternatives.

 

[Pragma]

This is tempting as a working professional too. I am trying to resist that urge now, as we now have a 3rd child on the way, and I am having to weigh my current security (essentially unofficial tenure, hey its the VA!) vs branching out to something else that has come about. I think I know what the safe decision is, but, unlike others, I not sure I can advocate sticking out a groosly poor fit.

Every new child requires a career change if you are erg

 

[shrink4hire4u]

I can't say that I think swapping over to a PsyD program is something I would advise, but everyone has their own path. I'd probably suggest a bit more self reflection about what things are bothering you about the program and what things you anticipate would be different in a different training model vs. your other alternatives.

Absolutely. Also remember that you can supplement your training; your grad school is not the only place to gain information and training. If you want more clinical training, you can join a consultation group. If you want more information on a particular theoretical orientation, join an APA division that emphasizes your interests or population, join the listserve and attend conferences and trainings offered by them. Hell, attend Saybrook after you get your degree If DBT is your thing, there is a very active listserve with members across the country. They also advertise job openings or request therapists needed in certain areas. In fact, this might be very applicable to you if you want to work in a hospital or medical setting.

This is also a great way for more clinically-trained students to gain research experience. Many divisions of the APA and other psychological societies offer research opportunities.

 

[erg923]

Every new child requires a career change if you are erg

To be fair, my son was born when I was still on internship.

 

[erg923]

I'd be happy to, but do you really think that there is a general ignorance of implicit biases and how that impacts interpreting data? I would expect most graduate programs to address this adequately.

Make the thread or don't make the thread. No need to play games about it.

Suffice to say that your vague screams of "but your data is biased" are going to be ignored unless you elaborate. Your choice.

Practicum sites generally do not teach theory or technique. Most PhD programs do very little truing in their program and leave it to the practicum sites. That's why you see so many falsely believe in the superiority of cognitive orientations; you can teach it quickly and minimally have to address the person of the therapist

And, care to address this bag of nonsense?

 

[Pragma]

To be fair, my son was born when I was still on internship.

Well if you leave the VA I'll be curious what drew you out!

 

[erg923]

Well if you leave the VA I'll be curious what drew you out!

Clinical work, to be honest. It just not something I think I would be able to do for the next 27 years. And I have little interest in most VA supervisory/leadership positions in these parts. I have had some respite as the facility's interim EBT coordinator and now as the assistant DCT, but I have some evolving interests that dont involve direct clinical service. I doubt I will be jumping ship anytime soon, but I dont think I will be staying in the VA until retirement.

 

[ChiPhD99]

OP, your situation is complicated, but I agree with other posters that around the 2nd to 3rd year there's a sort of "mid life crisis" feeling that arises. As someone who is finally going on internship next year and wrapping up my dissertation, it's much easier to see the light at the end of the tunnel. However, when you're looking at YEARS of school left, it's easy to get discouraged. I did not switch labs, but I've had to have some of those uncomfortable conversations with my research supervisor since our ways of conducting research differ (my lab requires you to be VERY self-motivated, which I struggled with my first couple years since I came to grad school right from undergrad/with less research experience). I agree with other posters that you should FIRST above everything else discuss your issues with your current POI. If they are dead set on how things will be and cannot accommodate your concerns, then bring up changing labs. Research interests are supposed to change and evolve as you learn more about the field, so, as long as there is at least one lab you think you could manage completing your program in, you should switch. Applying again is not likely to provide you a better outcome, and a PsyD is not necessarily a solution to the issues you've described. Best of luck with this process! It does get easier and is very much worth it in the end!

 

[MCParent]

I just cannot believe you all are that poorly trained with as confident as you all seem to be.

There is, of course, an alternative possibility. Probably too trivially obvious to need to spell out.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Mod note: I broke the PhD v. PsyD clinical training posts out here: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/psyd-and-phd-clinical-training.1128816/

This thread should only be used to address @kaleidoscope1's original question.

Also, please remember to main the pilote, professional tone that SDN expects of all its posters in all threads.

 

[constructionist]

Hello. I would love all of your thoughts.

I am at a highly ranked research-heavy PhD program designed to train academics. It has been a difficult couple of years and I feel that I've lost my drive to be an academic. I've become completely disenchanted with the research process and it's pretty clear that it is not a good fit for me. I more and more find that I would love a job at a VA hospital or psychiatric hospital, a career my current program would not be supportive of. It feels pretty disingenuous to continue at my current program. I'm not very good at "faking it until you make it."

I'm honestly considering leaving my program for a highly ranked PsyD program (not an Argosy or that Saybrook horror story). Have I lost my mind? Would I be making a huge mistake?

You're right- the Saybrook PsyD program was a horror story. What a con job those crooks did on those students.

 

[WisNeuro]

Please don't revive every single long dead thread that even remotely mentions Saybrook. We get it. Don't spam the board with it.

 

[RejectClinical]

I think the best route would be to approach your advisor (or program director) and be bluntly honest with them. Express how you feel, what you desire, and ask for options that will lead to a resolution that everyone can live with.

You might be surprised how accommodating your program will be with you (seriously, they will). Beyond a matter of attrition, your professors probably want you to be happy as well as do well. Go talk to them.

I would be careful with this. I came from a heavy research program and had a few colleagues meet and express similar feelings to the graduate director and their mentors (i.e., they wanted a less research focused career). It ultimately back-fired. The lucky were able to switch mentors, the unlucky (and there were more of them than the lucky) were slowly forced out of the program. This can be an option, but I would get lots of advice and do some thinking about whether you're at a program that would respond positively to this.

 

[WisNeuro]

I would be careful with this. I came from a heavy research program and had a few colleagues meet and express similar feelings to the graduate director and their mentors (i.e., they wanted a less research focused career). It ultimately back-fired. The lucky were able to switch mentors, the unlucky (and there were more of them than the lucky) were slowly forced out of the program. This can be an option, but I would get lots of advice and do some thinking about whether you're at a program that would respond positively to this.

This is an exception, not the rule. Program attrition does not look good in a program's stats or during APA site visits. The majority of reputable programs limit this in any way they can.

 

[RejectClinical]

This is an exception, not the rule. Program attrition does not look good in a program's stats or during APA site visits. The majority of reputable programs limit this in any way they can.

True, but I do wonder if it is moderated by emphasis on research. Some places don't care about APA stats (e.g., some of the PCSAS programs) like attrition, but care about the research reputation of their grads. My program cared (and probably still does) a lot about internship match rates, but cares less about attrition, especially if those who leave weren't going to do research.

 

[WisNeuro]

Trust me, if they are accredited, they care about attrition. A lot. It becomes a giant pain in the ass come APA site visit review time. This stuff does happen, but it's a pretty small problem.

 

[RejectClinical]

Trust me, if they are accredited, they care about attrition. A lot. It becomes a giant pain in the ass come APA site visit review time. This stuff does happen, but it's a pretty small problem.

Makes sense for those that care to maintain APA accreditation. I do wonder what will happen as some of these programs move away from APA to PCSAS accreditation. UC Berkeley is already on the move (won't be renewing I believe in 2020) and other programs are using them as a test pilot to slowly back out of APA (hence why I think some research heavy programs are caring less and less about APA stats these days).

 

[psych.meout]

Makes sense for those that care to maintain APA accreditation. I do wonder what will happen as some of these programs move away from APA to PCSAS accreditation. UC Berkeley is already on the move (won't be renewing I believe in 2020) and other programs are using them as a test pilot to slowly back out of APA (hence why I think some research heavy programs are caring less and less about APA stats these days).

Even if they move to PCSAS, what makes you think they wouldn't care about attrition?

Hypothetically, even if they don't care about how it might affect their reputations, do you think they really want to waste the sunk costs of tens of thousands of dollars they've already invested in students who have been in their programs for years simply because their students' interests changed and they "wanted less research focused careers?"

Also, there are simply not enough tenured faculty positions or research-only positions for every student and grad programs understand this. They might not be amenable to initial program applicants who explicitly tell them they are only interested in having careers in private practice, but they do understand and value positions at academic medical centers and other employment situations which are some mix of clinical work and research and/or supervision.

 

[RejectClinical]

Based on my experience and the experience of others I know at research heavy sites, programs do care about attrition, but sometimes the mentors at these sites don't. These mentors are more interested in having a student that continues their research reputation (including both during and after grad school). When you sit down and have discussions with these specific mentors, they already feel they've wasted resources once you've told them you don't want to do research anymore. I'm not saying this is the case for all or most of these mentors, but there are some. I wanted to put this out there in the off-chance that the person who posed this question is at a program like this because there can be disastrous consequences.

If you're lucky to be in a program that will transfer you to another lab, there has to be a mentor that's willing to take in the "orphan" student (as one faculty member in my old dept put it). Finding a way to navigate this as you back-out of someone else's lab is tricky. I think in some departments, it is no big deal (e.g., change in interests). In other departments, this just isn't an option. My grad program used to allow this and has slowly and surely moved away from it for a number of reasons.

 

[Justanothergrad]

This thread should serve as a great reminder and reinforce about the importance of assessing program supportiveness and emphasis on student needs during the interview process, especially in light of the frequency of changing interests and career goals for students as they develop.

 

[jmiah717]

I think this brings up another topic that I've thought about a lot in this process. To become a clinical psychologist one needs to attend a PhD program (yes I know there are PsyD programs...but let's just say PhD is the most traditional route...and the one I'm going to focus on for the purpose of this example).

The VAST MAJORITY of these students who graduate from PhD programs and become licensed will work outside of academia. Yet, many schools make it very clear that they are not interested in training people who want to work outside of academia. It begs the question to me: Who is all the darn research for anyway? If we are not interested in training people who are going to be disseminating the information and/or actually putting it into practice, what good is it? It seems like the general implicit attitude is that it is easier to be a clinician than to be researcher. Sort of like, if we train great researchers, they will most certainly be great clinicians...

I always hear about how important it is for clinicians to understand the science, and I agree wholeheartedly, but clinical work is far more nuanced than simply understanding research. And I understand that there are great practicum experiences, great internship experiences, post doc, etc...but still there's such a research emphasis that it seems like all of that other stuff is still secondary in the minds of many in the academic world. And I love research and learning the science. I think it sets me apart from other LCSW's. But in the end, learning the craft/process of clinical work is still another animal.

There's so much pressure on academics to publish that there is so much garbage unusable research out there, sometimes it seems like a beast that is just there to feed itself...sort of like the government...that's another thread. I know that there are a lot of gifted academics out there adding to the field in amazing ways that will benefit clients. I just can't help but wonder why there seems to be such....almost hostility....toward clinical work....the people who will actually be using this research for what it should be intended to treat. I'm sure I have some of this wrong but just some observations after looking at dozens and dozens of school websites, faculty pages, lab pages, talking to others, etc.

 

[MCParent]

I think this brings up another topic that I've thought about a lot in this process. To become a clinical psychologist one needs to attend a PhD program (yes I know there are PsyD programs...but let's just say PhD is the most traditional route...and the one I'm going to focus on for the purpose of this example).

The VAST MAJORITY of these students who graduate from PhD programs and become licensed will work outside of academia. Yet, many schools make it very clear that they are not interested in training people who want to work outside of academia. It begs the question to me: Who is all the darn research for anyway? If we are not interested in training people who are going to be disseminating the information and/or actually putting it into practice, what good is it? It seems like the general implicit attitude is that it is easier to be a clinician than to be researcher. Sort of like, if we train great researchers, they will most certainly be great clinicians...

I always hear about how important it is for clinicians to understand the science, and I agree wholeheartedly, but clinical work is far more nuanced than simply understanding research. And I understand that there are great practicum experiences, great internship experiences, post doc, etc...but still there's such a research emphasis that it seems like all of that other stuff is still secondary in the minds of many in the academic world. And I love research and learning the science. I think it sets me apart from other LCSW's. But in the end, learning the craft/process of clinical work is still another animal.

There's so much pressure on academics to publish that there is so much garbage unusable research out there, sometimes it seems like a beast that is just there to feed itself...sort of like the government...that's another thread. I know that there are a lot of gifted academics out there adding to the field in amazing ways that will benefit clients. I just can't help but wonder why there seems to be such....almost hostility....toward clinical work....the people who will actually be using this research for what it should be intended to treat. I'm sure I have some of this wrong but just some observations after looking at dozens and dozens of school websites, faculty pages, lab pages, talking to others, etc.

I am research-heavy, try to publish like a maniac, and have some funding that I hope to turn into more. I am also proud to be licensed and more than happy to train therapists. I am more than happy to have a student who gets out two or three solid pubs that are up their clinical alley in their time in grads school and then goes on to do empirically driven clinical work.
I totally agree with you; I have seen programs that say "we only train researchers" when no one has external funding and that statement is clearly contradictory to their history of graduated students. I think it contributes (among many things) to us having our scope eaten away. I've never been able to discern what underlies it.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I am research-heavy, try to publish like a maniac, and have some funding that I hope to turn into more. I am also proud to be licensed and more than happy to train therapists. I am more than happy to have a student who gets out two or three solid pubs that are up their clinical alley in their time in grads school and then goes on to do empirically driven clinical work.
I totally agree with you; I have seen programs that say "we only train researchers" when no one has external funding and that statement is clearly contradictory to their history of graduated students. I think it contributes (among many things) to us having our scope eaten away. I've never been able to discern what underlies it.

Maybe part of what underlies it are academics who are frustrated/failed clinicians or they are just jealous of how much people like us as opposed to them. To be a successful clinician, it helps to be likeable, personable, have good people skills; to be a successful researcher...not so important. Some of the academic psychologists at my undergrad had significantly impaired people skills. The professors at my PsyD program were all clinicians first who also did a little research here and there and they all had some solid interpersonal ability and were only too happy to train us to be clinicians who could do a bit of research. of course, I had to pay too much money for that experience, but at least it was a solid program with a good reputation and I learned some of excellent pro-tips from some real pros.

 

[MCParent]

Maybe part of what underlies it are academics who are frustrated/failed clinicians or they are just jealous of how much people like us as opposed to them...

That's not been the determining variable in my experience, or a dynamic I've observed. If you're going to claim clinicians are all well adjusted I'm going to have to spend a few hours loading up my anecdote cannon.

 

[smalltownpsych]

That's not been the determining variable in my experience, or a dynamic I've observed. If you're going to claim clinicians are all well adjusted I'm going to have to spend a few hours loading up my anecdote cannon.

lol Don't have that much experience with the pure research folks as the only time I was at a research powerhouse was when I was 19 and delivering their new computers while working for a trucking company. So I was just wildly speculating. However, as far as anecdotes go, I had a personal acquaintance who was a productive researcher at that same school and was almost as unlikeable. obnoxious, and poorly dressed as my clinical supervisor from internship so I guess it all balances out in my anecdote column. I do think successful people in any field tend to have solid social or emotional skills. We tend to notice the exceptions to this, of course. Whenever teaching undergrad, I would always get a question about the correlation between genius and crazy.

 

[singasongofjoy]

I agree with others that 2nd and 3rd year seem to be "crisis" years of questioning school/related choices. In my lab it was invariably 3rd year. Take some time to sort out how much of it might be that you're feeling overwhelmed so the things that used to be fun aren't fun anymore (too much of a good thing is a bad thing) and if you can start saying no to things. Also if there are ways to make your current activities more interesting to you (are there spinoff research projects that are more clinically/treatment oriented you could spearhead?). Sort out what things might be able to be changed to make things more tolerable, and potential solutions/compromises you could present in the conversation, if you want to try to sort things out before jumping to trying to switch labs. My advisor, generally an old-school hard-ass was amazingly cool with all of the above, and to trying a few new things clinically (working with other labs, different populations, etc).