LMHC to PsyD

[psycmc]

I am starting the MHC program at University of Central Florida this semester and have a few questions that I have yet to track down any answers to on this site or any other. Any info would be greatly appreciated.

I would like to eventually obtain a PsyD down the road. The masters program, however, is less than a quarter of the cost of a doctorate program which I cannot afford at the moment. Also, I would like to get at LEAST 5 years experience after licensure before I even think about going into private practice, though that is ultimately what I would like to do. In Florida, all major insurance providers cover counseling from LMHC as well as treatment from PsyD, PhD, etc so that isn't an issue.

Question: The masters programs in clinical psychology that I have looked into prepares you to become a LMHC after graduating. After looking into the MHC program vs the psych program, I decided the MHC sounded like a better fit. (though both result in a degree that allows you to become a LMHC) My question is if after completing my school, internship, and license exam, I decide a few years down the road that I am ready to go back for a PsyD, would I be limiting myself by having a degree in mental health counseling rather than clinical psych?

Thanks...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[docma]

If the program you are entering has a good record of graduates becoming licensed and obtaining positions doing what you want to do, follow that path and see where the field is in the 5+ years ahead before you have to make any other decision. The state of health care and the status of doctoral training are in such flux that predictions are difficult and there are no guarantees.

As you will find elsewhere on this site and in other research, the doctorate is not necessary for most domains of direct service delivery in clinical care so you should only invest in cost/debt for one if you want to do university teaching, research, testing or consulting in fields that will require a doctorate. The return on investment on a doctorate (in many or most fields now) is dubious per a recent article in The Economist.

 

[psycmc]

Thanks for your help. I was just having a last minute hesitation before I start my grad program. Wanted to be sure I'm in the right one. After looking at my general time frame plans, and researching a few more things, I figured out that 40 years from now, if I get my PsyD starting now or even after I finish my LMHC program that I will still only make about 300k more over a span of 40 years... So I'm sticking with the MHC program since it's really what I would rather be doing anyway.

Again, thanks for the input.

 

[starsinnight]

As an MHC that just applied now to PhD programs (not PsyD as in your case), I understand the hesitation. I had the same questions when I began my program, knowing full heartedly I wanted to eventually get a doctorate degree. But at the time, the masters program was a better fit for me. And I don't regret it a bit since I gained invaluable clinical experiences as well as working for the three years as a research associate.

Now the transfer to a doctorate program down the road, like you said... is not a problem. People apply to PhDs and PsyDs with all types of different degrees, being in the psych field with clinical experience is not LIMITING yourself, in my opinion, but making you look better - especially since you mentioned you want to do a PsyD. And you might find some courses, probably less than a few though, may transfer too depending on the program concentration and the specific school.

Licensure may or may not be necessary if you will later be getting licensed as a psychologist, but thats up to you if you want to gain experience first in the field. You'll find jobs with MHC are much harder to find than if you were a CSW (clinical social worker which government positions prefer) so make good connections and network well with your program and practicum, and maybe they will then offer you a job or paid internship like mine did. Another BIG plus of getting your master's first is making those great connections, mentors, professor relationships that lead to excellent letters of recommendations.

 

[bushido618]

I am running into similiar issues. I will be graduating this spring with my B.S. in Psychology with a clinical concentration. I won't be able to travel to attend schools with a M.S. in clinical psychology (older student with family. Not feasible to uproot and move at this time) I can attend a M.S. in Mental Health Counseling program and by the time I will graduate will be able to move to locations for PhD schools.

I too wonder if there will be an issue with having a M.S. in Mental Health Counseling. I have worked in two research labs as an undergrad with presentations at conferences and may be able to do so while I am in the M.S. program. Does anyone know if there are any LPC's with PhD's in Clinical Psychology? Or, have had any trouble in getting in to the clinical program?

Thanks in advance for the input!

 

[starsinnight]

Hi bushido,

Not sure if you saw my response already but your question is a bit different than the first person so I'll try and answer yours. I know of some people who did the MHC program and applied to Clinical PhD programs afterwards without a problem. I also know that after the Counseling Masters many of us have "converted" so to speak and applied to Counseling PhDs instead.

But all in all - I personally believe getting a masters first, if you are not ready for whatever reasons, is definitely the way to go for so many reasons (mainly building research experiences and professor relationships). And if you don't like it or have the opportunity to move sooner rather than later, you can always switch programs or apply earlier to a PhD program of your choice.

 

[beaconshome]

I do not want to take away anything from the other posters, but I had a quick question that relates to this topic. I just graduated college this December with a psychology major. My overall GPA is 2.9 because I was a chemistry major previously and found out it wasn't for me. Anyways, I am looking into applying to masters programs and I am wondering if I should do a counseling type masters program or else I was looking into an experimental psychology program that includes original research and a thesis. As of now, I am starting to think an experimental psych program will be beneifical when applying to PhD and PsyD programs in the future. Thanks

 

[docma]

Counseling Psychology is actually less crowded as a field and tends to support students better financially (mostly because model is still traditional PhD rather than PsyD). Many programs prefer or require as MA or MS for doctorate admission and no doubt would honor an MHC degree. State licensure as a psychologist in most states can be obtained with either a Counseling or a Clinical degree. There are, however, fewer programs available.

 

[PsychStudent82]

Question: The masters programs in clinical psychology that I have looked into prepares you to become a LMHC after graduating. After looking into the MHC program vs the psych program, I decided the MHC sounded like a better fit. (though both result in a degree that allows you to become a LMHC) My question is if after completing my school, internship, and license exam, I decide a few years down the road that I am ready to go back for a PsyD, would I be limiting myself by having a degree in mental health counseling rather than clinical psych?

Thanks...[/QUOTE]


Not one bit! I am in my first year in a psy d program. I received my masters in MHC. My friends that got their masters in clinical psych did not receive the same clinical training I received as a MHC. I feel as if my clinical experience as a MHC prepared me completely for my Psy. D. program. It is up to you though. You could also simply go straight to undergrad to a Psy. D. if you KNOW you want to get a Psy. D. I wasn't sure so I started with the masters but I do not regret it, it has done nothing but help me.

 

[643986]

I disagree. I am a MHC graduate and it is the WORSE degree you can get. I totally regret not getting a better education (PsyD) with a better licensure, better credentials, ability to do much more with, etc.

No one respects a MHC and it's impossible to get work, even at a ****ty agency to accumulate licensure hours.

Now I toss and turn at night regretting my decision and wanting desperately to get my PsyD....but with loans from the MHC I don't see how I can.

You do not need to get a master's degree to apply for a PhD or PsyD in Clinical Psychology. Don't waste your money. Only do that if you can't get in to a PhD/PsyD program!!

To those that DID get a PsyD/PhD after their MHC....was it worth it? I do not want to teach nor do research but I want the education. I feel so limited. Is it worth the 100k???

 

[erg923]

I got my Ph.D. after a terminal masters is psychology that was non-licensable in most states. However, I already knew I would be going on to my phd while in the masters program (used it a "stepping stone" to get more research experience and a more competitive GPA), and I DID have substantial interest in academic and scholarly aspects of psychology, although I was never along the lines of the R1 tenure track professor aspirations.

I do not think its wise to get a doctorate if you dont have some substantial interest in actually doing the science of psychology. Doctorates aren't trade schools. If you want beter options for therapy careers, I think an LCSW is best.

 

[CaliMac]

I got my Ph.D. after a terminal masters is psychology that was non-licensable in most states.

Terminal AND not eligible for licensure? Say what?

 

[erg923]

Terminal AND not eligible for licensure? Say what?

Its was specifically designed as a "stepping stone" program for doctoral program application. Clinical MS, but had limited practicum and was heavy on the research with empirical thesis requirment.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Terminal AND not eligible for licensure? Say what?

Yeah, as erg mentioned, the terminal and non-licensable degrees (e.g., in experimental psychology) are typically the ones recommended here and elsewhere for folks who need to bolster their research experience, possibly raise their GPA a bit, and perhaps take some additional time to refine/narrow their interests.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

I got my Ph.D. after a terminal masters is psychology that was non-licensable in most states. However, I already knew I would be going on to my phd while in the masters program (used it a "stepping stone" to get more research experience and a more competitive GPA), and I DID have substantial interest in academic and scholarly aspects of psychology, although I was never along the lines of the R1 tenure track professor aspirations.

I do not think its wise to get a doctorate if you dont have some substantial interest in actually doing the science of psychology. Doctorates aren't trade schools. If you want beter options for therapy careers, I think an LCSW is best.

Limiting psychotherapy to masters level graduates limits the scope of psychology, and ultimately, it won't serve us as a profession. Most MDs are not researchers. It's a professional degree, and I think that was the intention of the Psy.D. I don't think it makes much sense for the Ph.D.s to produce the knowledge that only masters level practitioners will use. There is room in psychology for clinical practitioners, we just have to fight for that space, advocate for ourselves, and stop promoting non-psychologists as the answer for services we should be providing.

Psychology should be managed better as a profession. We're not controlling the number of graduates, and we're doing a slightly better job of licensure control, but we should be trying to minimize and define the role of masters level providers as less educated and trained. Erg, perhaps consider widening your concept of professional psychology.

 

[erg923]

Limiting psychotherapy to masters level graduates limits the scope of psychology, and ultimately, it won't serve us as a profession. Most MDs are not researchers. It's a professional degree, and I think that was the intention of the Psy.D. I don't think it makes much sense for the Ph.D.s to produce the knowledge that only masters level practitioners will use. There is room in psychology for clinical practitioners, we just have to fight for that space, advocate for ourselves, and stop promoting non-psychologists as the answer for services we should be providing.

Psychology should be managed better as a profession. We're not controlling the number of graduates, and we're doing a slightly better job of licensure control, but we should be trying to minimize and define the role of masters level providers as less educated and trained. Erg, perhaps consider widening your concept of professional psychology.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, and I dont know what "widening your concept of professional psychology" means?

 

[smalltownpsych]

Limiting psychotherapy to masters level graduates limits the scope of psychology, and ultimately, it won't serve us as a profession. Most MDs are not researchers. It's a professional degree, and I think that was the intention of the Psy.D. I don't think it makes much sense for the Ph.D.s to produce the knowledge that only masters level practitioners will use. There is room in psychology for clinical practitioners, we just have to fight for that space, advocate for ourselves, and stop promoting non-psychologists as the answer for services we should be providing.

Psychology should be managed better as a profession. We're not controlling the number of graduates, and we're doing a slightly better job of licensure control, but we should be trying to minimize and define the role of masters level providers as less educated and trained. Erg, perhaps consider widening your concept of professional psychology.

I agree with some of what you say, but do not think that psychology would benefit from separating the research from the clinical the way that you say medicine has which I don't believe is as much the case as many believe. Research and science are the foundation of being a good practitioner for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the most important is that we are dealing with so many variables and intangibles in psychology that if we don't stay firmly grounded, then we can too easily drift into bogus therapies. Another is that solid research experience separates us from the mid-levels and gives us a chance to be experts of the field. This also includes the practice of psychotherapy, of course.

 

[CaliMac]

Yeah, as erg mentioned, the terminal and non-licensable degrees (e.g., in experimental psychology) are typically the ones recommended here and elsewhere for folks who need to bolster their research experience, possibly raise their GPA a bit, and perhaps take some additional time to refine/narrow their interests.

I must be misunderstanding "terminal," then. I thought it specified that one would not be planning to pursue doctoral work, like the program were the intended educational endgame, and resulted in an employable person with a licensable degree.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I also want to add that I don't think that the model of researcher first and foremost is necessarily the way to go either which is what I think you were alluding to with the widen your concept comment. Most clinical PhD programs are much more balanced than that from what I have seen and you can go a variety of directions with that degree. Unfortunately, some of the PsyD programs have limited the research component so significantly that it leads to nothing more than only being able to be a therapist and the worst offenders tend to put out lots of grads. I am primarily a psychotherapist in my current practice but I have skills in assessment, teaching, research, legal and ethical issues, etc. To me, that is what a psychologist brings to the table and science (research) needs to be at the heart of it. Trust me, when I am doing a consult for the other docs here at the hospital, they want to know what the research indicates and my objective findings related to that, not what my feelings tell me and they will call me out in an instant on it too.

 

[erg923]

I must be misunderstanding "terminal," then. I thought it specified that one would not be planning to pursue doctoral work, like the program were the intended educational endgame, and resulted in an employable person with a licensable degree.

Terminal just means there is nothing after. And indeed there wasnt. I had to apply to phd programs.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, and I dont know what "widening your concept of professional psychology" means?

It seems like you regularly suggest anybody who only wants to to therapy should do a masters. I'm suggesting that The Psy.D. is a viable and needed element of psychology precisely because it focuses on practice (therapy and assessment). I think by suggesting that all these potential psychologists become social workers instead does a disservice to psychology.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

I agree with some of what you say, but do not think that psychology would benefit from separating the research from the clinical the way that you say medicine has which I don't believe is as much the case as many believe. Research and science are the foundation of being a good practitioner for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the most important is that we are dealing with so many variables and intangibles in psychology that if we don't stay firmly grounded, then we can too easily drift into bogus therapies. Another is that solid research experience separates us from the mid-levels and gives us a chance to be experts of the field. This also includes the practice of psychotherapy, of course.

I don't think they have to be separate, but I also see no problem with those who only want to do one or the other. Therapy research tends to be sketchy, so actual therapist input would probably be helpful.

 

[WisNeuro]

Therapy research tends to be sketchy, so actual therapist input would probably be helpful.

Explain?

 

[LAPsyGuy]

I also want to add that I don't think that the model of researcher first and foremost is necessarily the way to go either which is what I think you were alluding to with the widen your concept comment. Most clinical PhD programs are much more balanced than that from what I have seen and you can go a variety of directions with that degree. Unfortunately, some of the PsyD programs have limited the research component so significantly that it leads to nothing more than only being able to be a therapist and the worst offenders tend to put out lots of grads. I am primarily a psychotherapist in my current practice but I have skills in assessment, teaching, research, legal and ethical issues, etc. To me, that is what a psychologist brings to the table and science (research) needs to be at the heart of it. Trust me, when I am doing a consult for the other docs here at the hospital, they want to know what the research indicates and my objective findings related to that, not what my feelings tell me and they will call me out in an instant on it too.

Great points. I don't know that research needs to be the heart of becoming a clinician, but it should be a mandatory component. The better Psy.D. programs do this, and this is precisely why masters level provided have difficulty matching what doctoral level clinicians can provide. .

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Explain?

Research on single or limited cultural, racial, gender groups. Research on patients with single Dx, which is rare in real life and ultimately useless in the clinic.

 

[WisNeuro]

There is a purpose to that research, it's called proof of concept. Most of the EST's actually have both the highly internally valid research behind as well as the "messier" externally valid research. The literature doesn't really agree with that statement for many of the more widely used CBT therapies.

 

[erg923]

It seems like you regularly suggest anybody who only wants to to therapy should do a masters. I'm suggesting that The Psy.D. is a viable and needed element of psychology precisely because it focuses on practice (therapy and assessment). I think by suggesting that all these potential psychologists become social workers instead does a disservice to psychology.

Therapy is one part of being a psychologist. It is not the "being of a psychologist." I would argue that it's more of a "disservice" to psychology to clutter it full individuals who are only competent one of the half dozen things we should be bringing to the healthcare system. That's not advancement of our profession. It's a good way to make your profession dispensable in favor or cheaper labor that does the same thing though. Think like a hospital admin for a bit.

Perhaps you can explain your objection to the scientist-practitioner training model? Notice the word practitioner is there, no? Perhaps you think that because I have a PhD I somehow got less clinical training? If so, existing data does not support that's stereotype.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

There is a purpose to that research, it's called proof of concept. Most of the EST's actually have both the highly internally valid research behind as well as the "messier" externally valid research. The literature doesn't really agree with that statement for many of the more widely used CBT therapies.

Some of the time it does, but often it's not the case. I know it takes time, but there are mixed messages in ethics seminars. They will tell you to use EBTs, but often the EBTs don't reasonably include a mixed presentation patient from from mixed cultural backgrounds.

But that's not really the important piece. We need to keep therapy provision within the profession, and stop telling people to get licenseable masters degrees.

 

[erg923]

Some of the time it does, but often it's not the case. I know it takes time, but there are mixed messages in ethics seminars. They will tell you to use EBTs, but often the EBTs don't reasonably include a mixed presentation patient from from mixed cultural backgrounds.

But that's not really the important piece. We need to keep therapy provision within the profession, and stop telling people to get licenseable masters degrees.

What world do you live in? Social workers have been doing therapy since the 1930s!

That shipped sailed long ago, if you can say we ever even commanded the ship in the first place, and it ain't ever comin back. Last time I checked, 90834 isn't copyrighted by psychologist. Who sold you that lemon?

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Therapy is one part of being a psychologist. It is not the "being of a psychologist." I would argue that it's more of a "disservice" to psychology to clutter it full individuals who are only competent one of the half dozen things we should be bringing to the healthcare system. That's not advancement of our profession. It's a good way to make your profession dispensable in favor or cheaper labor that does the same thing though. Think like a hospital admin for a bit.

Perhaps you can explain your objection to the scientist-practitioner training model? Notice the word practitioner is there, no? Perhaps you think that because I have a PhD I somehow got less clinical training? If so, existing data does not support that's stereotype.

I have no qualms with the scientist-practitioner model, but I also think the practitioner-scholar model is part of the future of psychology as a profession. Professions don't quite work the way you describe. A profession controls both the content and context of their work. Psychology does a better job with content, but has ceded some to psychiatry. In context, we've given away so much to the cheaper labor you mention. Psychology could have prevented the LPCC nonsense, and kept LCSWs practicing actual social work. That wasn't done, so now we're stuck very few things that differentiate us in the market place. That's not the fault of market forces, but of our lack of advocating for ourselves.

A therapy and assessment only psychologist would be a specialist with a scope of treatment. The notion that all psychologists must be generalists seems onerous and unrealistic.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

What world do you live in? Social workers have been doing therapy since the 1930s!

That shipped sailed long ago, if you can say we ever even commanded the ship in the first place, and it ain't ever comin back. Last time I checked, 90834 isn't copyrighted by psychologist. Who sold you that lemon?

The shapes of professions change over time. Physicians have managed to recapture everything but feet, teeth and the psyche. It doesn't matter that social workers have been doing therapy since the '30. What should they being doing going forward?

 

[LAPsyGuy]

My fear is we'll end up like nursing. They were on track for profession status and decided to be hourly workers. Very sad in deed.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm actually fine with SW and master's levels providing certain treatments if they are adequately trained to do so. Until there is a solid research base saying that there are demonstrable differences in outcomes for those treatments, there is no rationale to exclude them. That's such a small part of what we do in clinical practice anyway. Plus, from a policy standpoint, if we take on that battle, it would be a lot of wasted resources with absolutely no payoff. We will not win.

 

[erg923]

The shapes of professions change over time. Physicians have managed to recapture everything but feet, teeth and the psyche. It doesn't matter that social workers have been doing therapy since the '30. What should they being doing going forward?

I think they should continue to do what they have for the pat 80 years. I think we should therapy and about 6 other things. That is, we should continue to grow and evolve so that we aren't seen as merely "therapists." I am happy that my position requires me to do therapy, research, a small bit of traditional assessment, consultation, staff training. and supervision/teaching.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

 

[smalltownpsych]

The way to keep our name strong is to continue to demonstrate how we are experts in the field. To be an expert in psychology, you need to be able to have a pretty solid grasp of the entire skill set. We are nowhere near the point of specialization that medicine is. At this point, the few true specialties would be neuropsych and forensics. I worry more about the proliferation of poorly trained psychologists than I do the proliferation of poorly trained MA levels taking our jobs. In fact, if they keep cranking out LPCs with online degrees, then I don't have to worry much at all about my position. If that was to continue to happen with psychologists, then we would really be in trouble. Luckily we still have some standards left. I would always recommend and choose an MD for my family and myself, not a mid-level. Why would I choose a mid-level for mental health if I want the best?

 

[smalltownpsych]

Great points. I don't know that research needs to be the heart of becoming a clinician, but it should be a mandatory component. The better Psy.D. programs do this, and this is precisely why masters level provided have difficulty matching what doctoral level clinicians can provide. .

Yes. Solid research has to be the foundation and it is in medicine too. It is a misrepresentation to think that medicine is not firmly grounded in solid understandings of biological science. They often don't understand the complexities of research to the extent that we do, but that is because what we study is inherently more complex; ergo, we need to know it inside and out. maybe you should post in the psychiatrist forum and ask them if they think they need to know the science and understand research to practice. Or maybe you think they just listen to the drug reps summaries?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Yes. Solid research has to be the foundation and it is in medicine too. It is a misrepresentation to think that medicine is not firmly grounded in solid understandings of biological science. They often don't understand the complexities of research to the extent that we do, but that is because what we study is inherently more complex; ergo, we need to know it inside and out. maybe you should post in the psychiatrist forum and ask them if they think they need to know the science and understand research to practice. Or maybe you think they just listen to the drug reps summaries?

Agreed. Physicians may not generally receive the same depth of training that we do in conducting and critically evaluating research, but they're smart folks, and at least the ones I know subscribe to at least a handful of academic journals devoted to their specialty and actively keep up with current findings. They also, like us, of course have CE reqs; their conferences just tend to have better food and freebies.