PhD/PsyD Looking for Info on These Psy.D. Programs

[tchibur]

Did I fall asleep and wake up in the The Giver world?

I am not sure what you mean by the Giver world. The use of the phrase "not in the cards for me," was simply the use of a phrase to indicate that I was not accepted into a Ph.D. program and thus not an option at that time. I am uncertain of your interpretation of the phrase, but please note that it was not a reference to tarot cards, mythological voodoo, or belief that we don't control our future. Can you let me know how you interpreted my comment or explain the caused confusion?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

I believe MCP was referring to a sense that there was no choice. A sentiment that was clearly stated a couple times. I don't remember tarot cards or voodoo in the Giver.

 

[tchibur]

I am not familiar with the Giver...thus I asked for clarification. There was a choice, I decided to accept an offer at a Psy.D program. I could have waited and applied the following year, the year after, and so on. Would I eventually get accepted, I would like to think so. At that time, the Psy.D was a decision that made sense and I willingly knew the debt that would follow. I do not find the un-payable, or I would made other career decisions. I'm confused as to why everyone gets caught up on the price, if we are willing to take on the debt. Nobody had issues when I took out a loan for my car or any other investments. If it doesn't make logical or rational sense to you, that is your issue, as you (not pointing at anyone specifically, but those against Psy.D programs in general) don't care to listen to why others have decided to achieve their goals through a different path.

 

[MCParent]

or explain the caused confusion?

Oh, I'm not confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giver

 

[salome23]

I understand the debt versus income caculation. However, from my understanding even the lower salaries tend to be double the masters level clinicians and certainly anything you can get with a bachelor's degree. You can get income dependent loan repaymen and after ten years in a non-profit loan forgiveness.

And the competition for the funded programs seems intense. I must say I've met PsyD's that seem successful.

 

[tchibur]

Oh, I'm not confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giver

Thank you for the reference.

 

[erg923]

I'm confused as to why everyone gets caught up on the price, if we are willing to take on the debt. Nobody had issues when I took out a loan for my car or any other investments. If it doesn't make logical or rational sense to you, that is your issue, as you (not pointing at anyone specifically, but those against Psy.D programs in general) don't care to listen to why others have decided to achieve their goals through a different path.

I understand the debt versus income caculation. However, from my understanding even the lower salaries tend to be double the masters level clinicians and certainly anything you can get with a bachelor's degree. You can get income dependent loan repaymen and after ten years in a non-profit loan forgiveness.

And the competition for the funded programs seems intense. I must say I've met PsyD's that seem successful.

No. It becomes my issue too. Let me explain:

The starting salary for a licensed psychologist with no prior experience in my state's correctional institutions in 42,000. You may find it acceptable for psychologists to work full time for 30k-50k a year. But, I think it’s outrageous. The willingness to take on hudreds of thousands of dollars in debt for starting salaries in the mid 2 figures flies in the face of every bit of finacial logic that exists (if you can find a financial advisor/planner that says otherwise, then I'll back off). And, I do not feel that its a good thing the the profession is attracting applicants who thinks this is acceptable. It leads to indebtness so severe that people actually accept the above positions. Salary supression is insidious.

Perhaps this clarfies my position a bit further for another poster as well.

 

[salome23]

No. It become my issue too. Let me explain:

The starting salary for a licensed psychologist with no prior experience in my state's correctional institutions in 42,000. You may find it acceptable for psychologists to work full time for 30k-50k a year. But, I think it’s outrageous. The willingness to take on hudreds of thousands of dollars in debt for starting salaries in the mid 2 figures flies in the face of every bit of finacial logic that exists. And, I do not feel that its a good thing the the profession is attracting applicants who thinks this is acceptable. It leads to indebtness so severe that people actually accept the above positions. Salary supression is insidious.

Perhaps this clarfies my position a bit further for another poster as well.

I admit I thought it was going to start in the 50,000 range. 42,000 is more similar to a masters level clinician with independent licensure and a couple years of experience. I very much see the problem considering the amount of years spent working.

Is that near the mean?

 

[erg923]

Below is another example of why I feel that this massive indebtedness not a choice that just affects you. I would argue that it affects the integrity of training and the professiona at large too. My response comes from this thread. http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/how-many-non-apa-internship-sites-to-apply-to.1106220/

Great example to rebut the naive statements I often hear regarding how the financial aspect of all this (which we harp about a lot on here) is a "personal choice that doesn't effect anyone else, so what do you care?!" Well, here you go.

Poster said it themselves. Excessive debt is source of marked stress pushing him/her towards unaccredited training with no quality control/oversight (so they can just graduate). This allows the model to continue. This model affects perception and quality of entire profession.

 

[erg923]

I admit I thought it was going to start in the 50,000 range. 42,000 is more similar to a masters level clinician with independent licensure and a couple years of experience. I very much see the problem considering the amount of years spent working.

Is that near the mean?

No, its not. Not yet. Thats the point. Even large employers (state governments) have learned how much they can low ball, AND still find someone who will take it cause they are so desperate for a job because they have no money, no savings, and the loan payment is coming due. Then, it spreads. Insidiuous.

 

[bcliff]

I've said it before, but since the supply/demand ratio for clinical psychologists seems to be out of whack (correct me if I'm wrong), I wonder what would happen if APA accreditation was contingent on funding for students.

 

[salome23]

Who do you think pays for that loan forgiveness? All of us (taxpayers). While I fully support access to education, I don't think that I should have to pay for someone to access education that typically involves subpar training (in the case of for-profit Psy.D's) or at an exorbitant cost compared to the average Ph.D. route.

I admit my program actively gives this advice for its masters in clinical psychology students and half the program entered wanting to apply at the doctoral level. That said, I see it's a different amount of loans for doctoral training.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

No. It becomes my issue too. Let me explain:

The starting salary for a licensed psychologist with no prior experience in my state's correctional institutions in 42,000. You may find it acceptable for psychologists to work full time for 30k-50k a year. But, I think it’s outrageous. The willingness to take on hudreds of thousands of dollars in debt for starting salaries in the mid 2 figures flies in the face of every bit of finacial logic that exists (if you can find a financial advisor/planner that says otherwise, then I'll back off). And, I do not feel that its a good thing the the profession is attracting applicants who thinks this is acceptable. It leads to indebtness so severe that people actually accept the above positions. Salary supression is insidious.

Perhaps this clarifies my position a bit further for another poster as well.

I don't think this is right. The crappy pay is only partially driven by debt, and I doubt that debt is that large of a market force. Crappy pay is much more driven by poor professional advocacy on the part of the APA, state and county associations. The artificially high pay for doctors was driven beautifully by the AMA and other professional organizations, through smart supply-side mechanics such as barriers to entry into the field, partnership with the government to increase the exclusivity of service provision of physician, etc. To argue that your crappy pay is due to desperate recent graduates is faulty, and misses the forest for the trees. Even today we see physicians battling the expansion of PA scope of practice in several states. As a profession we have been remiss is acting like a profession.

Additionally, I don't believe this statement clarifies your initial position, which seemed to be about competence to practice, and not market forces, but it does add to your argument, if only fallaciously. Now your argument if faulty on two fronts. I apologize if I've been harsh, but I am reactive to elitist, judgmental, and concrete thinking, especially when presented as "objective truth," instead personally and politically informed rhetoric. Some of your points are valid, even if couched in larger, fallacious arguments. Hopefully those reading our words will see them for what they are, opinions, instead of universal truths and dictates from on high.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

It's really an issue of entitlement. No one is entitled to a graduate degree. While I think it's ridiculous to take out more in loans than you can reasonably expect to make in salary for your first job, if people want to pay all of that themselves, then I am less incensed than if people expect that the rest of us should have to foot the bill. Especially when there is zero benefit to a Psy.D. over a Ph.D., both in terms of clinical training (students from Ph.D. programs on average have more hours on the APPI than those from Psy.D.) and research training.

Benefit is somewhat subjective. Psy.D. programs can be shorter and focus more on the professional elements some prospective psychologists find more attractive and useful to them. Ph.D. have more prac hours because the programs are longer. Simply saying more is better is not a useful or inherently true statement. The question is how many hours prepare students adequately for internship. You're representing your bias as objective truth, and that helps no one.

 

[Peacemaker36]

I encourage all psychologists to pay membership dues to APA and to your local psychological associations. It may seem pointless, but your membership dues pay the salaries of the lobbyists who are basically the only ones negotiating for higher rates for psychologists.

Attributing our profession's low salaries to 23 year olds who decide to get a PsyD at a for-profit school is odd. The real problem is that psychologists have not been able to join together to create a strong advocacy presence in Congress.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yes, supply-side economics definitely plays a role, like you said. And, as diploma mills pump out classes of 50+ students, what does that do to the supply side? Also, it's not a stretch to say level of debt plays a role in salary suppression as well. If you are desperate to take a job, especially when a large sector of the available jobs are closed to you if you did not do an accredited internship, you have less leverage in negotiations for salary. You can't say that it is a null issue. Is advocacy a large issue? Of course, none of us who are in the field will argue against the fact that the APA has done a historically bad job at advocacy. But it has also done a historically bad job at limiting the mills out there.

As for the hours, it is not simply due to programs being longer. I see hundreds of these applications, time to completion is not all that different. Also, this data is available through APPIC.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Who do you think pays for that loan forgiveness? All of us (taxpayers). While I fully support access to education, I don't think that I should have to pay for someone to access education that typically involves subpar training (in the case of for-profit Psy.D's) or at an exorbitant cost compared to the average Ph.D. route.

Our profession has been remiss is rooting out subpar training. The APA is slowing attempting to get rid of those for-profit programs that flood the market with poorly trained practitioners. I don't want to pay for their education either, but I'm fine, as a tax payer, paying for the education of those entering the helping professions (especially when their incomes are not artificially inflated). Many of the most poorly trained practitioners go into private practice, and are not the ones supposedly driving down psychologist pay in large organizations.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I don't think this is right. The crappy pay is only partially driven by debt, and I doubt that debt is that large of a market force. Crappy pay is much more driven by poor professional advocacy on the part of the APA, state and county associations.

I mostly agree. Poor pay is a function of poor advocacy (APA/APAPO), too much variability in standards (and as a result there are too many sub-par clinicians who dilute the profession), and upside down Supply/Demand factors. The debt issue is related to both the Supply/Demand issue and pay. Clinicians are willing to work for less bc they need to pay back their loans or default. It shouldn't be a surprise that there are advertisements that combined mid-level and doctoral level training for one position, as many of the sub-par clinicians are willing to take midlevel pay, which screws the field.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Yes, supply-side economics definitely plays a role, like you said. And, as diploma mills pump out classes of 50+ students, what does that do to the supply side? Also, it's not a stretch to say level of debt plays a role in salary suppression as well. If you are desperate to take a job, especially when a large sector of the available jobs are closed to you if you did not do an accredited internship, you have less leverage in negotiations for salary. You can't say that it is a null issue. Is advocacy a large issue? Of course, none of us who are in the field will argue against the fact that the APA has done a historically bad job at advocacy. But it has also done a historically bad job at limiting the mills out there.

As for the hours, it is not simply due to programs being longer. I see hundreds of these applications, time to completion is not all that different. Also, this data is available through APPIC.

I've looked at the data and my point stands. If you remove the for-profits, the hours for psyds goes up dramatically. The for-profits do not help find good practicum spots, do not advocate for their students, and do not build relationships with training sites. The debt accrued by students from for-profits is much more onerous that debt accrued by students from more reputable unfunded psyd programs. I totally agree, let's get rid of the mills. This is the APA's job. I'm not sure why all the established, mid-career psychologist aren't calling for better advocacy and professional control instead of acting like victims of an out of control free market system and the bad decisions of students attending mills.

 

[erg923]

I don't think this is right. The crappy pay is only partially driven by debt, and I doubt that debt is that large of a market force. Crappy pay is much more driven by poor professional advocacy on the part of the APA, state and county associations. The artificially high pay for doctors was driven beautifully by the AMA and other professional organizations, through smart supply-side mechanics such as barriers to entry into the field, partnership with the government to increase the exclusivity of service provision of physician, etc. To argue that your crappy pay is due to desperate recent graduates is faulty, and misses the forest for the trees. Even today we see physicians battling the expansion of PA scope of practice in several states. As a profession we have been remiss is acting like a profession.

Additionally, I don't believe this statement clarifies your initial position, which seemed to be about competence to practice, and not market forces, but it does add to your argument, if only fallaciously. Now your argument if faulty on two fronts. I apologize if I've been harsh, but I am reactive to elitist, judgmental, and concrete thinking, especially when presented as "objective truth," instead personally and politically informed rhetoric. Some of your points are valid, even if couched in larger, fallacious arguments. Hopefully those reading our words will see them for what they are, opinions, instead of universal truths and dictates from on high.

You dont have to agree. But its true. It not the whole story though, you're correct there. Its just one part of the argument against massive indebtedness.

And yes, an inability think straight (ie., make rationale decisions based on data) is course a competency issue. And, yes, it's worrisome to me.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

I mostly agree. Poor pay is a function of poor advocacy (APA/APAPO), too much variability in standards (and as a result there are too many sub-par clinicians who dilute the profession), and upside down Supply/Demand factors. The debt issue is related to both the Supply/Demand issue and pay. Clinicians are willing to work for less bc they need to pay back their loans or default. It shouldn't be a surprise that there are advertisements that combined mid-level and doctoral level training for one position, as many of the sub-par clinicians are willing to take midlevel pay, which screws the field.

If the APA had done it's job, the students would not have been in this awful situation to begin with. This is not a chicken or egg mystery.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yes, if you remove the worst offenders, of course the numbers change. Those are the programs we rail against. That would fix a lot of the debt problems as well. I think a lot of us are calling for advocacy to that point. I wrote a lengthy statement commenting on the "internship imbalance" during the open period, as I'm sure others did. Those students have some responsibility too.

Also, the comment about those practitioners who accept less money not affecting pay at large organizations is wrong. That goes into things like locality adjustments at large organizations, which lowers their salaries.

 

[erg923]

Many of the most poorly trained practitioners go into private practice, and are not the ones supposedly driving down psychologist pay in large organizations.

This is naive.

 

[MCParent]

I've looked at the data and my point stands. If you remove the for-profits, the hours for psyds goes up dramatically.

How did you do that? Did you get every program's c-20 data and check?

I think you're just making up pretend points to support the position you've already decided to take, regardless of the data.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

You dont have to agree. But its true. It not the whole story thought, you're correct there. Its just one part of the argument against massive indebtedness.

And yes, an inability think straight (ie., make rationale decisions based on data) is course a competency issue.

Yay, you finally stopped being sketchy and admitted it. It's horribly flawed logic, and not psychologically accurate, but I'm so glad you admitted it. Not only are you assigning global status to what may only be a specific failing, you're not taking into account the wide variety of contexts that may make taking on the debt rational. My guess is that your lack cognitive flexibility in this matter is driven by the concreteness of your bias against the field changing. Again, the APA could have made all of this moot.

I'm reminded of the renowned economist who fell for an email phishing scam. Luckily the field didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and the value of his work remained intact.

 

[WisNeuro]

How did you do that? Did you get every program's c-20 data and check?

I think you're just making up pretend points to support the position you've already decided to take, regardless of the data.

It's a false dichotomy anyway considering more time is likely spent in research and teaching activities by PhD students, so to make a year by year comparison saying PhD's simply have more due to an extra year is not exactly genuine.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

How did you do that? Did you get every program's c-20 data and check?

I think you're just making up pretend points to support the position you've already decided to take, regardless of the data.

Sorry I wasn't clear. The data can't drive that conclusion, and this was a hypothesis. but if you look at the way the for-profits arrange their training and their huge numbers, and look at how the university-based professional programs do it, it seems reasonable. The APA would need to make the data available to test the hypothesis.

Thanks for pointing out my error.

 

[erg923]

Yay, you finally stopped being sketchy and admitted it.

I guess count me as "cognitively inflexible" then, cause I dont understand what was "sketchy" and I didn't write anything in that post that I hadn't expressed before.

I'm reminded of the renowned economist who fell for an email phishing scam. Luckily the field didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and the value of his work remained intact.

Lol. What?!

 

[MCParent]

Sorry I wasn't clear. The data can't drive that conclusion, and this was a hypothesis. but if you look at the way the for-profits arrange their training and their huge numbers, and look at how the university-based professional programs do it, it seems reasonable. The APA would need to make the data available to test the hypothesis.

Thanks for pointing out my error.

No, you were clear.

I've looked at the data and my point stands. If you remove the for-profits, the hours for psyds goes up dramatically.

You just made it up, then. Ok. No real point to this thread if your form of discussion is just to imagine things and then state them as facts.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

This is naive.

Naive? Hmm.

Now I believe this is supported by the data. Most of the mills' students don't get APA internships, let alone APPIC internships. This is a point y'all have made several times. This bars entry to the more prestigious and competitive jobs. If you're that poorly trained, how would you end up anywhere other than PP and agency work?

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Lol. What?!

You were making global generalizations about how taking on debt must also mean their clinical competence should also be questioned. It reminded me of that story. Should have linked it better thematically. Apologies.

 

[erg923]

You were making global generalizations about how taking on debt must also mean their clinical competence should also be questioned. It reminded me of that story. Should have linked it better thematically. Apologies.

K.

Look man, if my kids pediatrician files for bankruptcy, I’m gonna question alot of things in her life, including her "clinical competency." Doesn't seem like that big of leap to me.

 

[erg923]

Naive? Hmm.

Now I believe this is supported by the data. Most of the mills' students don't get APA internships, let alone APPIC internships. This is a point y'all have made several times. This bars entry to the more prestigious and competitive jobs. If you're that poorly trained, how would you end up anywhere other than PP and agency work?

How do you think corporate HR departments work?

 

[bcliff]

I'd love to see APA accreditation become contingent on

-A set pre-psych curriculum (i.e. Stats & Methods, Abnormal, Cog, etc. - Maybe some sort of waiver for students with an MA in psych)
-Funding reqs (schools can only admit students they can fund - even if only partially)
-APA internship reqs (cohort max size based on # of students matching at APA sites, programs that go below a certain % over a set # of years are put on probation, etc)

I'd also love to see the Vail & Boulder models tossed out for a new integrated model. Clinical psych seems like one of the only professions where you can meet two people with same job and title (and license) who have wildly different training and backgrounds. I think that all PsyD & PhD programs need to focus on certain core competencies (research, stats, clinical practice, etc.), and all accredited programs need to focus on these areas (clinical science programs can still focus heavily on research while balanced programs focus extensively on clinical experience, etc). The public should be able to assume that ALL clinical psychologists have had at least basic training in a certain set of core competencies.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

How do you think corporate HR departments work?

Oh right. HR depts are purely rational and ethical entities. That was a nonstarter. Expedience used over generalizations for reasons of economy, not profound psychological truths. and they're fine with throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Should I assume that the poor social skills you display on this board and your apparently poor grasp of economics bleed into your practice as a psychologist? Should I over generalize how you behave here and assume you cannot form working alliances with your clients in a completely different setting? Perhaps I should.

 

[deleted343839]

Clinical psych seems like one of the only professions where you can meet two people with same job and title (and license) who have wildly different training and backgrounds.

May I introduce you to the medical profession? Even they have a two-degree system (MD/DO), though to be fair I suspect most of the variability is "within degree."

 

[erg923]

Oh right. HR depts are purely rational and ethical entities. That was a nonstarter. Expedience used over generalizations for reasons of economy, not profound psychological truths. and they're fine with throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Again. What?!

 

[erg923]

Should I assume that the poor social skills you display on this board and your apparently poor grasp of economics bleed into your practice as a psychologist? Should I over generalize how you behave here and assume you cannot form working alliances with your clients in a completely different setting? Perhaps I should.

I don't care.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

K.

Look man, if my kids pediatrician files for bankruptcy, I’m gonna question alot of things in her life, including her "clinical competency." Doesn't seem like that big of leap to me.

This is a red herring. You're introducing bankruptcy. Hi manageable debt and bankruptcy are two very different things.

 

[bcliff]

May I introduce you to the medical profession? Even they have a two-degree system (MD/DO), though to be fair I suspect most of the variability is "within degree."

MD & DO training is pretty standardized, and the route to med school (premed, MCAT, etc.) is pretty consistent for the two degree programs. I've always been under the impression that medical training is pretty consistent across the board and that students specialize in residency, while clinical psych students tend to specialize much earlier on (finding faculty that you 'match' with professionally, being child track or adult track, etc).

I never took abnormal as a UG student because it wasn't required by my psych dept, but then when it came time to apply to clinical psych programs I saw it mentioned as a 'requirement' for about 50% of schools I applied to (I was offered a spot at one of these programs without it, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). I ended up taking the psych GRE because one program I wanted to apply to required it (~$200). There needs to be much more consistency in the application process (i.e a pre-psych curriculum that has an emphasis on stats and methods) both to help motivated students plan ahead and to limit unfunded programs' ability to target applicants not competitive enough to gain entry into funded programs.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

I don't care.

Interesting. Say more about that.

 

[shrink4hire4u]

Oh boy, well it's been proven time and again. If you don't agree with erg or his minions then you are irrational and unfit for clinical service. When you call out this ridiculousness, it's rhetorical an no need to answer to anyone. It's clear that the vast majority of what erg posts is filtered through these deep narcissistic traits that he shows on this page. I'm sure he'll get all hissy and want to report that comment as unnecessarily personalizing which is funny when you see his comment history calling people names and labeling them histrionic.

THIS is the major flaw of the cognitive psychology this little pack holds in such esteem. "Listen, I'm the expert and you're the idiot and if you disagree with me it just shows your further impairment. If you don't agree with my myopia, then you're IRRATIONAL (gasp)." It doesn't have to be, but with the types of personalities who frequent here typically use it as that weapon. They do it here, habitually. It's not a leap to believe this is how they practice, supervise, consult. You guys are really giving the field a bad name. Stop.

 

[Chalupacabra]

Who do you think pays for that loan forgiveness? All of us (taxpayers).

Does anyone have data on this?Personally speaking the interest rates of my fed loans are significantly (3-4%) higher than my private loans and I've heard some politicians speak about fed loans as if they're a cash cow for the government. [Given the nature of this discussion at the moment I'm inclined to point out that I'm genuinely curious and not looking to instigate...]

 

[erg923]

"They do it here, habitually. It's not a leap to believe this is how they practice, supervise, consult. You guys are really giving the field a bad name. Stop.

I think I have historically preferred the term "teenage drama queen." That's what my sister-in-law calls my wife. I thought it was kinda catchy.

But please note how much better I have been about that in the past few months and especially in the past few thread debates.

Score another one for "nonviolent resistance." Just like Gandhi. Yes!

 

[QAsPsych]

MD & DO training is pretty standardized, and the route to med school (premed, MCAT, etc.) is pretty consistent for the two degree programs. I've always been under the impression that medical training is pretty consistent across the board and that students specialize in residency, while clinical psych students tend to specialize much earlier on (finding faculty that you 'match' with professionally, being child track or adult track, etc).

I never took abnormal as a UG student because it wasn't required by my psych dept, but then when it came time to apply to clinical psych programs I saw it mentioned as a 'requirement' for about 50% of schools I applied to (I was offered a spot at one of these programs without it, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). I ended up taking the psych GRE because one program I wanted to apply to required it (~$200). There needs to be much more consistency in the application process (i.e a pre-psych curriculum that has an emphasis on stats and methods) both to help motivated students plan ahead and to limit unfunded programs' ability to target applicants not competitive enough to gain entry into funded programs.

Why should the field be standardized, and why is it bad that we specialize early? These are strengths of psychology, not weaknesses, IMO. Especially for those of us whose primary focus is research. I don't understand why standardizing training and making it like med school is an improvement. There is little evidence that med school and premed as currently designed leads to the best doctors, and there is not a single version of best practices in our field the way there is in medicine (in part due to the youth of the field, in part due to the variability of the human mind). Consistency makes things easy, but I don't see that as a great argument for it.

Better in my mind to limit the types/quality of programs that are accredited (see recent thread on the shady stuff going down at certain for-profit instiutions, surely we can rule those out by tightening accreditation standards).

 

[PsychScience]

Oh boy, well it's been proven time and again. If you don't agree with erg or his minions then you are irrational and unfit for clinical service. When you call out this ridiculousness, it's rhetorical an no need to answer to anyone. It's clear that the vast majority of what erg posts is filtered through these deep narcissistic traits that he shows on this page. I'm sure he'll get all hissy and want to report that comment as unnecessarily personalizing which is funny when you see his comment history calling people names and labeling them histrionic.

THIS is the major flaw of the cognitive psychology this little pack holds in such esteem. "Listen, I'm the expert and you're the idiot and if you disagree with me it just shows your further impairment. If you don't agree with my myopia, then you're IRRATIONAL (gasp)." It doesn't have to be, but with the types of personalities who frequent here typically use it as that weapon. They do it here, habitually. It's not a leap to believe this is how they practice, supervise, consult. You guys are really giving the field a bad name. Stop.

Yikes!

I am far from one of the regulars around here, and so perhaps I am missing some huge ongoing dynamic between posters, but I have to say, in this particular thread, I have only seen one post that was full of attacks, and it certainly was not Ergs.

From my reading of the thread, this has little to do with the pros and/or cons of cognitive psychology, and even less to do with the individuals who adhere to that theoretical orientation? Rather, it seems to be about the the perils of taking on an unreasonable amount of debt. The OP asked about Psy.D.s and funding issues, several individuals responded answering the question and several more pointed out that funding is a bit easier to come by in Ph.D. programs- which is true, the field has some pretty solid data from APPIC to back this up? I fail to see how this warrants some of the things that you stated above? Like I said, I am not a frequent flyer around here, so maybe I'm missing something.

Regardless, to the OP, if funding is truly an issue, you will be fighting a little bit of a battle to get the kind of money that will pay for your tuition +expenses. It is still possible to get substantive funding in some of the PsyD. programs that you listed, it's just not as common. IMO, your best bet, whether applying to Ph.D. programs or PsyD programs, is to make yourself as competitive as possible in the process. Your funding options will be a lot greater the more you personally bring to the table and can offer a school (again Ph.D. or PsyD.). I've seen a truly phenomenal candidate offered competitive funding at one of the for-profit schools, so it is possible Best of luck to you.

 

[salome23]

I think I have historically preferred the term "teenage drama queen." That's what my sister-in-law calls my wife. I thought it was kinda catchy.

But please note how much better I have been about that in the past few months and especially in the past few thread debates.

Score another one for "nonviolent resistance." Just like Gandhi. Yes!

For what it's worth I've been looking through the forum for information the past couple of days and I've appreciated your advice and information. I wish I had found this information in undergrad. I would have done a lot of things differently.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Score another one for "nonviolent resistance." Just like Gandhi. Yes!

Don't forget Jesus.

 

[erg923]

Don't forget Jesus.

Tru dat

you don't get this team to the sweet 16 with just luck.

 

[Ollie123]

Does anyone have data on this?Personally speaking the interest rates of my fed loans are significantly (3-4%) higher than my private loans and I've heard some politicians speak about fed loans as if they're a cash cow for the government. [Given the nature of this discussion at the moment I'm inclined to point out that I'm genuinely curious and not looking to instigate...]

I suspect if the loans were paid off in full it is somewhat less of an issue. Whether the government makes or loses money on them I suspect is somewhat up for debate when you account for the many complicating factors (cost of administering program, inflation, etc.) but its probably by a small margin in either direction. That is different from things like loan forgiveness (i.e. large portions of debt being written off) that folks are discussing.

I won't bother rehashing my views on these issues in detail. There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of a PsyD, but the way it has been implemented has gotten out of control. The dozen or so decent PsyD programs are basically balanced PhDs with less funding. Given the profound differences in class sizes, the prototypical PsyD is fast becoming someone with training on par or less rigorous than many master's programs (hence my frequent comment that it is often akin to slapping a "doctorate" sticker on an MSW diploma). I don't idealize medical training, but I do think they have done a better job of ensuring baseline competence and setting standards for training (and practice) than we have. In part that isn't our fault as therapy is inherently more nebulous, but the solution isn't the free-for-all "APA accreditation for anyone with a spare room and a desire to help" I sadly don't think we are too far off from reaching.

I don't demonize student loan debt and I don't think career decisions should be purely financial moves. I do think the programs that necessitate extremely high debt loads are hugely problematic for the field for a number of reasons. I think its perfectly reasonable to question why people would attend such an institution. That also applies to folks who pay 45k/year for Harvard who want to become kindergarten teachers so its not strictly an indictment of the institution (though in this case I think its more often like paying 45k/year to attend ITT Tech). I do agree it significantly impacts everyone else in the field that things like this continue to persist. I could go on, but will leave it at that.