Midwestern University (PsyD)

[VAneurodoc]

Can you elaborate, please?

In the intership match I have never went past the fifth spot on my rank list, i.e., I have always matched with one of my top five students.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Heyheyhey13]

The cost benefit analysis should take all of 30 seconds. If you chose this program over a fully funded program, I really don't know what to say to you. I suspect there is more to the story.

In terms of the "gamble" of getting an APA accred internship out of this program, it is more like a lottery ticket from a progrman like this. Your view that the match rate will improve dramatically is a pipe dream. Students from Midwestern will be less competitive than Argosy Phoenix (which is not a strong program) since the later program is established and its faculty are at least in some leadership positions around the area.

For the record, I am faculty at a VA internship program that has been accredited for a long time (since the early days of accreditation). We have a neuropsych track which I am solely in charge of and do all the application reviews for. I also train externs and was faculty at an AMC with an accredited 2-year neuropsych post doctoral training program prior to my current position. Bottom line: I have reviewed a lot of applications at a variety of levels from many different programs. In addition, many of the individuals on this forum are at a variety of stages in their training/careers. Before you dismiss what is said as a tired old argument, I recommend your consider the fact that this argument is also tired and old for many of us. Yet we still have to discuss it because more of these types of programs are popping up and churning out more psychologists whose applications end up on my desk. People ask the question on this forum about these programs. The tired old answer is not a minority opinion. It is interesting to see how many individuals on this forum from/or considering going to these types of programs resolve their cognitive dissonance about the reality of this situation by calling these arguments "tired" or "old" or "biased."

While I don't automatically reject FSPS students, I do require a significant amount of evidence that they have had solid training. This is directly because of the lack of quality control within these programs. We have had FSPS students who lacked basic foundational knowledge and required remedial work. Their advisors and training director felt they were great. I mentioned in an earlier post that we had several applicants recently from Midwestern and our faculty knew nothing about the program. We researched it and basically all were less than impressed. Their apps looked to me like the "typical" FSPS student app (i.e., unusually large number of clinical hours that looks more like case management when you dig around a little, weak dissertation/doctoral project, weak assessment training unless that happen to get a neuropsych extern placement, mostly letters from program faculty all saying the person is great and wonderful etc...). There are of course exceptions (an Alliant student topped my rank list a few years ago and did not place here and I would not be surprised if she got her first choice). Make no bones about it, Midwestern is a FSPS, it is just housed within a school with other, more appropriate, professional schools.

Take what I say with a grain of salt, but not just because this argument has been stated before as that does not make it any less accurate. Also keep in mind that you are hearing an informed opinion of someone who has been involved in psychology training for close to 10 years now. I attended a University based program in the 90s and graduated debt free. At the time, I would not have paid for this degree and would have went to law school if I did not get into a program (though in retrospect that would not have been a great move). To be honest, I would not even consider a clinical psych degree if I were applying now given the state of the field unless I was interested in a research career. It has worked out well for me. I have a very good career and make rather good money. This is not an accident. Going to a fully funded program with a solid reputation, APA accredited internship, APA accredited post doc etc... Any slip along the way, things would not be as good.

 

[PHD12]

Ironic that you would pay for law school (because you don't get paid to go to law school) but you discount programs in Psychology where you have to pay. Both medical school and law school both cost money. My dad is a lawyer and my mom is a doctor....they expected me to go on to graduate school and have to pay. As such, I am lucky enough to not go into debt if I have to pay for a doctoral program. It sucks that this is looked at as a bad thing because so many people deserve to get into funded programs, but there is just not enough money for it.

People don't deserve to get a PhD or get into a funded program. Not everyone can be a psychologist just like very few people can become MD's. If you opt to get into this field by going through the back door (professional program), you may be weeded out later after 5-6 years of commitment and tuition payments (it's a very unfair process in psychology)

Your comparison to law and medicine is completely unfair. MD salaries are 2-3 times higher. Median salaries for lawyers are 120K. Starting salary for a PsyD can be as low as 30K, Median salary for a PsyD is between 65-80K. I just saw a salary survey for PsyD's (n=1,000) where the median was 75K after 10 years of work experience after licensure. So yes, its a bad idea to take out loans and it's discouraged by pretty much everyone in this field. Plus, you can pay tuition for 6 years in a PsyD program compared to 3 years for lawyers and 4 for the MD.

Actually, lawyers and physicians constantly complain about the how much debt they have. Many lawyers are struggling to pay their debt back even though they command higher salaries than psychologists. I can't imagine what the situation is like for someone who went into psychology and took out 200K in loans. I know several folks who took out less than this and there life is very limited as a result (they are geographically limited to a very low cost of living location and cannot switch jobs or move due to loans).

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

This data was pulled from the 2011 Fed Job Report.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer
Mean: $130,490
Median: $113,310

I think this is being generous given the glut of lawyers out there who can't even find a boiler room job. I've heard $50k-$60k is not unheard of...in a bad way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psychiatrist
Mean: $174,170
Median: $170,350

Going by the recent salary threads in the Psychiatry forum...this is quite conservative. $180-$220k+ is far easier to find.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinical/Counseling/School Psychologist
Mean: $73,090
Median: $67,880

Yes...this is a blend across all three areas, as that is how The Fed did it. I gathered this info for a talk from awhile back, so YMMV if there is a more recent report. Below is the APA Workforce Data (2009):

Psychologist, Lecturer
Mean: $51,753
Median: $47,862

Psychologist, Assistant Prof
Mean: $63,439
Median: $63,000

Psychologist, Associate Prof
Mean: $73,843
Median: $72,000

Psychologist, Full Prof
Mean: $112,108
Median: $104,300

Here is Table 5 from the APA Workforce Report (2009).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmacist
Mean: $112,160
Median: $113,390

Probably a bit high, but the tradeoff is usually having to do retail pharmacy to make the better money.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[PHD12]

This data was pulled from the 2011 Fed Job Report.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer
Mean: $130,490
Median: $113,310

I think this is being generous given the glut of lawyers out there who can't even find a boiler room job. I've heard $50k-$60k is not unheard of...in a bad way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psychiatrist
Mean: $174,170
Median: $170,350

Going by the recent salary threads in the Psychiatry forum...this is quite conservative. $180-$220k+ is far easier to find.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinical/Counseling/School Psychologist
Mean: $73,090
Median: $67,880

Yes...this is a blend across all three areas, as that is how The Fed did it. I gathered this info for a talk from awhile back, so YMMV if there is a more recent report. Below is the APA Workforce Data (2009):

Psychologist, Lecturer
Mean: $51,753
Median: $47,862

Psychologist, Assistant Prof
Mean: $63,439
Median: $63,000

Psychologist, Associate Prof
Mean: $73,843
Median: $72,000

Psychologist, Full Prof
Mean: $112,108
Median: $104,300

Here is Table 5 from the APA Workforce Report (2009).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmacist
Mean: $112,160
Median: $113,390

Probably a bit high, but the tradeoff is usually having to do retail therapy to make the better money.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the comprehensive data!

Check out of the APA report, Q1 (lowest 25%) for licensed doctoral-level psychologists in private practice with 1-5 years of experience, its only 29K! Yikes! This data is really important to examine for all those PsyD graduates who want to open a private practice and think they will earn big $$$ and pay off their loans. That is 29K without benefits, sick leave or health care, although N is very small.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Thanks for the comprehensive data!

Check out of the APA report, Q1 (lowest 25%) for licensed doctoral-level psychologists in private practice with 1-5 years of experience, its only 29K! Yikes! This data is really important to examine for all those PsyD graduates who want to open a private practice and think they will earn big $$$ and pay off their loans. That is 29K without benefits, sick leave or health care, although N is very small.

Does that only include full-time private practitioners, though? If not, I'd imagine the lowest quartile likely captures quite a few part-time practitioners (such as my past supervisors, who in addition to their full-time jobs saw saw patients one or two days per week). It's of course very different if 29k is your entire salary vs. if the $15-25k/year you make via private practice work is in addition to your $60k-80k salary.

That being said, individuals do definitely need to temper their expectations of the earning potential in psychology. Students definitely shouldn't be comparing psychology and medicine in that sense.

 

[bpsydme]

People don't deserve to get a PhD or get into a funded program. Not everyone can be a psychologist just like very few people can become MD's. If you opt to get into this field by going through the back door (professional program), you may be weeded out later after 5-6 years of commitment and tuition payments (it's a very unfair process in psychology)

Your comparison to law and medicine is completely unfair. MD salaries are 2-3 times higher. Median salaries for lawyers are 120K. Starting salary for a PsyD can be as low as 30K, Median salary for a PsyD is between 65-80K. I just saw a salary survey for PsyD's (n=1,000) where the median was 75K after 10 years of work experience after licensure. So yes, its a bad idea to take out loans and it's discouraged by pretty much everyone in this field. Plus, you can pay tuition for 6 years in a PsyD program compared to 3 years for lawyers and 4 for the MD.

Actually, lawyers and physicians constantly complain about the how much debt they have. Many lawyers are struggling to pay their debt back even though they command higher salaries than psychologists. I can't imagine what the situation is like for someone who went into psychology and took out 200K in loans. I know several folks who took out less than this and there life is very limited as a result (they are geographically limited to a very low cost of living location and cannot switch jobs or move due to loans).

I would compare the professional or for-profit psych schools to Caribbean Medical Schools. You can certainly "make it" by going to either, but it makes it much harder to compete with people who went to accredited funded psych programs (of the psych world) or accredited US medical schools (for the medical world).

 

[VAneurodoc]

Ironic that you would pay for law school (because you don't get paid to go to law school) but you discount programs in Psychology where you have to pay. Both medical school and law school both cost money. My dad is a lawyer and my mom is a doctor....they expected me to go on to graduate school and have to pay. As such, I am lucky enough to not go into debt if I have to pay for a doctoral program. It sucks that this is looked at as a bad thing because so many people deserve to get into funded programs, but there is just not enough money for it.

Nothing ironic about it. When I applied to Grad school (mid 90s) lawyers from solid schools could make a nice salary right out of law school. The job market was very good as well and the degree is pretty flexible unlike a Psy.D. from a FSPS. Also note that I said in retrospect that would not have been a great decision as the market for lawyers has changed significantly since then. At the time it was far more logical to pay for a law degree than a psychology degree. The others here make excellent points well in terms of why your comparison is erroneous. Bottom line is that in psychology the best programs are free and the most expensive are the worst that lead to the lowest salaries. You may not like to hear that, but it is a simple fact.

 

[erg923]

Ironic that you would pay for law school (because you don't get paid to go to law school) but you discount programs in Psychology where you have to pay. Both medical school and law school both cost money. My dad is a lawyer and my mom is a doctor....they expected me to go on to graduate school and have to pay. As such, I am lucky enough to not go into debt if I have to pay for a doctoral program. It sucks that this is looked at as a bad thing because so many people deserve to get into funded programs, but there is just not enough money for it.

I see your situation and attitude reflected in both my curent students, and in the students we just interviewed for our graduate program. To me, its quite disturbing.

1.) I dont know how old you are, but i would hope that at some point your realize there is no worse reason to pursue graduate school, much less this field, than because others expect you to do so/achieve highly, etc. Thats terrible when parents do this to their children, as its the children that have to suffer the sequla. Not to mention that trades are a perfectly respectable level of achievment. When was the last time I redid the plumbing in my house all by myself, right?!

2. What is your definition of "deserve?" I think that is a big problem in higher ed today...this "I deserve" stuff. I am hard pressed to define who "deserves" entrance. It's a compettive pool of aplicants, thus, the real top percent are the ones that get picked for the limited spots. This is the way of the job market too...the real world, in other words. Others may be qualified to similar extent, but "deserve?" I dont know. I would really try to think differently about the whole thing if I were you.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Well said.

I am a mentor for my former undergraduate program, and I think there is still a disconnect between "I want to help people" and what the majority of the training and trajectory of the training allows you to do in day-to-day life. We can all help people in our own way, but there is so much more to being a psychologist that has little to do with the person who may be sitting across from you.

The path to becoming a psychologist is still a viable path for some, but there are far more pitfalls than compared to 20-30+ years ago when many current advisors were in training. Taking time to really understand what is involved (e.g. interviewing multiple professionals across a number of settings), read up on SDN (or buy my guide...if I ever finish it. ), and then dig into each program like your career depends on it....because to a large extend it does.

Best of luck in your pursuits...as this can still be a great path, but only if you have your eyes open and ducks in a row. Hopefully the largest duck is a hefty scholarship and the next largest duck is great support from the University.

 

[PHD12]

Does that only include full-time private practitioners, though? If not, I'd imagine the lowest quartile likely captures quite a few part-time practitioners (such as my past supervisors, who in addition to their full-time jobs saw saw patients one or two days per week). It's of course very different if 29k is your entire salary vs. if the $15-25k/year you make via private practice work is in addition to your $60k-80k salary.

That being said, individuals do definitely need to temper their expectations of the earning potential in psychology. Students definitely shouldn't be comparing psychology and medicine in that sense.

APA salary survey for private practitioners only includes people who are doing PP full-time (defined as at least 35 hours per week). They may have other sources of income if they work in multiple jobs, but this is income just for FT PP. The bottom 25% are so ridiculously low that it only seems possible they are working part-time, but this is not the case.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

APA salary survey for private practitioners only includes people who are doing PP full-time (defined as at least 35 hours per week). They may have other sources of income if they work in multiple jobs, but this is income just for FT PP. The bottom 25% are so ridiculously low that it only seems possible they are working part-time, but this is not the case.

Hmm, I wonder if it's brought down by folks who aren't licensed, then...a handful of whom may not be getting paid at all, and are thereby dragging down that entire quartile.

Edit: Looking at the table, there were only 6 people in that group, so who knows. Could just be that a couple folks are unfortunately not very good businesspeople (perhaps combined with working in a super-saturated market and/or entirely with medicare patients).

 

[Doctor Eliza]

Hmm, I wonder if it's brought down by folks who aren't licensed, then...a handful of whom may not be getting paid at all, and are thereby dragging down that entire quartile.

Edit: Looking at the table, there were only 6 people in that group, so who knows. Could just be that a couple folks are unfortunately not very good businesspeople (perhaps combined with working in a super-saturated market and/or entirely with medicare patients).

Don't forget those of us in PP with terrible fee splits. Also, 35 hrs a week doesn't mean 35 client hours. Those folks may only see closer to 20-25 clients per week. I have been licensed 2 yrs, easily work 45 hrs per week, am on almost all of the locally popular panels, and made 44K last year. Although it is a ridiculously small sample, it probably isn't as wildly off as it sounds.

Dr. E

 

[JeyRo]

Don't forget those of us in PP with terrible fee splits. Also, 35 hrs a week doesn't mean 35 client hours. Those folks may only see closer to 20-25 clients per week. I have been licensed 2 yrs, easily work 45 hrs per week, am on almost all of the locally popular panels, and made 44K last year. Although it is a ridiculously small sample, it probably isn't as wildly off as it sounds.

Dr. E

Getting back on topic somewhat here, imagine 500-800 bucks a month going out the door in student loan payments on top of that. It would turn a very modest income of 44K per year in private practice into a financial nightmare.

 

[Pragma]

Getting back on topic somewhat here, imagine 500-800 bucks a month going out the door in student loan payments on top of that. It would turn a very modest income of 44K per year in private practice into a financial nightmare.

Where did the 500-800 number come from? I'd think over 1K in many cases.

Some of these students will go on IBR while it is available, but their interest will skyrocket.

 

[VAneurodoc]

Where did the 500-800 number come from? I'd think over 1K in many cases.

Some of these students will go on IBR while it is available, but their interest will skyrocket.

Absolutely. And how many will be carrying it around the rest of their life with no real hope of paying it off unless they hit the lottery?

 

[kelaba90]

.

 

[erg923]

I am not denying that money and/or internship match rates are not important; they are, but they are not everything,

Well, actually, it is.

For prospective grad school applicants, I can almost guarantee you the 2 most important things to them are, and rightfully should be: Can I afford to do this program (both during and after)? Will this program allow me to obtain a job (internship match, post-doc, gainful employment commiserate with the edu level)?

People who do not view this as essentially "everything," at least in the begging parts of the process, probably do not have much life experience and I would not want to take them as graduate students.

 

[erg923]

.

 

[erg923]

That said, Midwestern has affiliations agreements with both an APPIC member site and an APA-accredited site. The program has not only secured 100% of their applicants with at least an APPIC internship, it has also gone above and beyond its duties to create internships for student who did not ultimately match after the clearing house. Again, none of this actually matters, because bias will always trump jaded preconceptions, but for potential applicants, don't let one forum deter (or persuade) you.

Are you not alarmed by the quality control problem here?

So now its not just internships that aren't accredited by an outside evaluatory body, now its "creating" internships for yourself?! You think this is a GOOD sign in a program?! Pa-lease...

 

[erg923]

When everyone lays down and agrees with your perspective, its called groupthink. I hope you learned about this in undergrad social psychology. Its dangerous and lowers the IQ of everyone involved. You should rid yourself of the desire for groupthink when you present arguments in a scientific forum.

I would also suggest that defensiveness is the downfall of many a grad student when supervisors point out contrary information, challenge them, or provide corrective feedback.

 

[kelaba90]

.

 

[erg923]

Nope, but the program is doing FAR more than the APA is doing to alleviate the problem. I would rather have AN internship that pays than NO internship in my 5th year. At least those hours will count for something. And Midwestern is hardly "creating" its own internships; the internships that is facilitates with affiliated sites still count toward APPIC hours.

These kinds of assumptions reinforce my point that if you haven't met the faculty or personally experienced the program, you really are not capable of contributing anything meaningful ABOUT THE SCHOOL. Not about the job market, not about internships, not about the price of tea in China. This thread was never meant to a discussion about the dynamics at work in the field at large; it was meant to provide information about a program. A PROGRAM. Not AN ENTIRE FIELD.

Why SDN'ers fail to see the distinction fascinates me. One post about money and match rates is enough, given the extensive debate absolutely devoted to the subject in innumerable other threads. For SDN'ers, this surely reinforces the idea that ivory tower folk need to stick together; for everyone else, this reinforces the idea that ivory tower folk are out of touch and irrelevant.

Erg, you of all people come off as the most out of touch. Your post from two years ago:

"I am bigger believer in the value of being trained as scientist first and foremost, but have not been shy about my feeling that academic psychology/psychiatry has major problems...and I don't just mean our tendency towards self-aggrandizing!"

PsyD programs, regardless of their reputation, trains students as clinicians first and scientists second; that was the whole point of the degree. So why are you even wasting your time posting in a thread about a PsyD program when you, better than anyone, understands that the core principles of PsyD training will not jive with you? If you don't post, no one will respond. And if you do respond, you'll just turn people off from ivory tower elitism, like you've done with this thread (and many others). The hypocrisy on SDN is thicker than San Fran's fog.

I am not sure what I am suppose to respond to, so I will just go with a couple of quick statement for clarification purposes.

You said "create internships." Now you are saying its is not creating internships. Confused. Either way, its bad.

I am now university faculty and supervise graduate students clinically as well.

I am more informed about the realities of the field and associated training issues than yourself.

I stand by my previous statement that you quoted.

I disagree that that was the true purpose of the Psy. degree.

 

[kelaba90]

.

 

[kelaba90]

.

 

[JeyRo]

You are in no one else's shoes but your own, so don't be so quick to accept conclusions about other people's situations.

I haven't been following this thread closely for the past few weeks, but from what I recall, you're in the process of embarking on a six-figure indebtedness journey at a school with questionable outcomes to launch yourself in a field with a questionable future.

Whether it's appropriately called a "professional school" or a "free standing professional school" or a "university based PsyD" is immaterial, IMHO these are just labels people trot around to make themselves feel better about the fact that they are amassing six figure indebtedness at a school with likely very questionable outcomes, to launch themselves in a field with a questionable future.

I really just posted what I posted to share my experience and what I would have done differently, given what I know now. That's all. No ivory tower ego here. I actually *did* go to an FSPS and I think I pretty much did as well as many / most grads of clinical programs could hope, and knowing what I know now, I still would have chosen differently (e.g., held out for a funded program).

Moreover, all of the factors that feed my regret now are all far worse (e.g., average debt loads, declining reimbursements for psychologists, interest rates, etc).

If I was in your shoes, I wouldn't be pursuing what looks like to be six-figures-plus of debt to go to a PsyD program at Midwestern. It sounds like a recipe for trouble. Learning for learnings sake is great, and maybe 30 years ago when professional schools first came to be and tuition was somewhat reasonable, people could afford to ignore outcomes, but I think that's foolish today. Simply foolish.

When you're talking about that kind of debt with no sure path to comfortably service it, it sounds like a bad idea. That's all I'm saying. I don't think it's realistic to try and convince you to do something different at this point - you've done everything you can to broadcast to us that your mind is made up and you're deep into the cognitive dissonance thing. OK, so be it.

This is a message for others to hear, who maybe aren't as far down the rabbit hole as you. And I'm sure it will get periodically repeated on SDN for those of us willing to repeat it....

 

[kelaba90]

.

 

[kelaba90]

.

 

[PHD12]

And if I refute anything you said, you'll refute me? For instance, the PsyD model hasn't worked out at FSPS schools such as Alliant or Argosy, but it COULD, arguably, work; there is nothing inherent to its design that precludes it from succeeding. The current implementation may be a little off at the majority of schools offering the degree, but the IDEA isn't off-putting or foul.

That's what I'm getting at; the PsyD is not bad degree. It's the popular conception if its implementation that causes it to derail. Schools like Argosy and Alliant have largely contributed to the negative association, but those schools shouldn't be allowed to tarnish a distinct school's reputation BEFORE ANYONE REALLY KNOWS HOW THE SCHOOL PERORMS.

If, after obtaining APA accrediation, Midwestern fails in the pursuit of ethical and competent clinical psychology, then I will be as up in arms as the rest of you. But it is simply too early to make that call; the program has only been around for a few years and I hope people on this forum would be knowledgeable enough to understand that any program, PsyD or PhD, cannot be evaluated accurately without a few years of APA-accreditation under its belt.

In that sense, yes, the program is a gamble compared to established doctoral programs. Every program has to start somewhere, though.

I agree that it is too early to assess the long-term trajectory of the program. However, i don't understand your rationale for taking a gamble on a program in a field that is very unforgiving and competitive. Why enter a situation where you will knowingly fight harder to get good placements, an APA internship, and a post-doc/job in this field? You can either spend a year re-vamping your application and getting into a reputable program or spend 5-6 years working harder than others and hoping that your gamble works out. You are putting yourself through tremendous anxiety by hoping that the lottery ticket pans out for you. You are not taking into account the emotional cost of entering a program where you are going to be constantly stressed and unsure about your prospects.

I also don't think that everyone SHOULD be able to get a doctoral degree just because they want to. It sounds like you are set on getting a doctorate and believe you deserve to get one. If you can't get into a reputable program, maybe you aren't cut out to be a doctoral-level psychologist? I don't mean you specifically....just notice that there is a ton of entitlement overall.

A PsyD graduate just started a forum about taking on an unpaid postdoctoral position and trying to find a paid job to support herself. These choices have significant emotional and financial consequences--including the possibility of ending up with an unpaid job after graduating from a PsyD program.

 

[kelaba90]

.

 

[PHD12]

To address your first paragraph: because my interests are in an especially niche area of psychology; the competition is not fierce and unless the field changes dramatically within the next 7 years, I am confident that I will be able to secure a job.

Most APA internships have over 100 applications, some even get 400 in big cities, for 1-5 spots. Only 50% of doctoral students are landing accredited APA internships. This is not competitive at all.

Health psychology is a pretty popular specialty for people in PhD programs--you aren't the first to be interested in integrated care. What makes you think that you will beat out all the other applicants for an APA spot when you are taking a gamble on this program? If you are interested in health psychology/integrated care, a medical school and VA are going to be your primary places of employment. Both of these settings are highly competitive and require an APA internship.

Anyhow, you clearly have decided very strongly on this program and no data will change your mind. I just wanted to correct your misconception that you won't face fierce competition.

 

[kelaba90]

.

 

[PsychBiker]

Wow, this thread has gone in all sorts of places. I just wanted to ring in and say I am a graduate of Midwestern (Downers Grove) and I think their program in terms of quality is great of education and training in regards to the other students I have seen in the area. However, I have some real issues with their administration and the politics involved within, but I do not have another basis for comparison there. They have the same program director in both Glendale and Chicago campuses, so I dont know how that effects the program now. Bottom line is, if you have the money to spend, go there, otherwise find somewhere cheaper. Sorry to be short, im heading out.

 

[leftbrian]

Instead of automatically berating people for considering or attending a school that isn't Harvard, I would urge the frequent contributors on SDN to take a step back and consider that not everyone is privileged to the same, standardized educational/personal experience. That probably sounds like more FSPS (still not convinced) propaganda - oh well. It is not FSPS propaganda; it's human reality. And congruent with reality, frequent contributors on SDN will not take step back and evaluate themselves critically, so I'd urge ANYONE considering ANY program to seek out current students and speak to them.
...I see SDN serving as a last haven for ivory tower PhD holders who, in 10 years' time, will watch clinical psychology get handed over to practicing professionals -- regardless of the letters after their name. Painful, but probably necessary.

Let's not get carried away here. The Harvard clinical psych Ph.D. is still a relatively new program. Your better comparison would be any university-funded programs.

I also think you are misunderstanding the fact that prospective students should strive for funded programs in order to feel "privileged." Sure, it's a nice privilege to obtain a Ph.D. without paying a dime as in any other hard science Ph.D. But again, if you want to become a psychologist, make a livable income, not become Dr. Phil, pursuing a traditional Ph.D. program or a funded Psy.D. program is still the way to go.

This forum is absolutely not "a last haven for ivory tower PhD holders." None of the comments here that make you feel that way really matter. But when your internship app get tossed out without getting a look just because of the reputation of your school or the perceived quality of the students from your school, then you know why the same old argument has been regurgitated to no end here to better inform prospective students about their decision-making. Or worse, you might graduate and have trouble finding a decent job for the same reasons.

I think a lot of us are constantly critically evaluating our own career choices here. But a lot of us also are passionate about the field as a whole.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I'd contemplated responding regarding the whole "is the Psy.D. even a useful/necessary/helpful degree at this point" idea, but for fear of further derailing the thread, I'll refrain.

Regarding Midwestern, I hadn't realized the campus under discussion was in Chicago, and as such (as JonSnow pointed out), it seems to be in a highly-saturated training market. How are they doing in terms of placing their students at quality external sites (I'm genuinely curious)?

 

[erg923]

Its not an "opinion." The Psy.D was pushed by a handful of psychologists who felt that the clinical training in university programs during the 60s (and prior) was not sufficient and that students who made known their desire for practice were often marginalized within the program/university by their professors. There are numerous articles about this.

Kelaba90, you may be surprised what graduate degree program my university has...

 

[erg923]

when your internship app get tossed out without getting a look just because of the reputation of your school or the perceived quality of the students from your school, then you know why the same old argument has been regurgitated to no end here to better inform prospective students about their decision-making.

This guy, right here!

 

[ResearchGirlie]

It still bothers me that you're here staunchly defending a program and its politics when you haven't begun attending the program. Schools put their best foot forward during the application process. Even funded programs that don't need to woo you usually put on a nice face. Programs that are looking to make a lot of money off of you are undoubtedly looking to sell you on a great experience. I'd suggest giving it some time before you start singing the praises of a program.

 

[futureapppsy2]

IT's in Chicago?! Geez. So, there's CSPP, Illinois School of Professional Psychology, IIT (sort of a professional school), Adler, Roosevelt, Wheaton, and now Midwestern? Yeah um, no, not necessary even a little bit. And, might I add, fits the usual stereotype of sticking the professional school in a desirable location. Chicago is a saturated market.

Btw, there are PLENTY of funded programs in the Chicago area (even within a couple of hours). Off the top of my head. . .

Loyola. Northwestern. University of Illinois at Chicago. University of Illinois champain urbana, rosalind franklin (chicago medical school, whatever the hell they're calling themselves these days), Dupaul, Marquette, and University of Wisconsin Madison. Only reason to go to one of the professional school options there. . . couldn't get into a real school.

How are IIT, Roosevelt, and Wheaton FSPS? All are university-based, IIT is a PhD, and all are, IIRC, at least partially funded,

 

[Heyheyhey13]

People don't deserve to get a PhD or get into a funded program. Not everyone can be a psychologist just like very few people can become MD's. If you opt to get into this field by going through the back door (professional program), you may be weeded out later after 5-6 years of commitment and tuition payments (it's a very unfair process in psychology)

Your comparison to law and medicine is completely unfair. MD salaries are 2-3 times higher. Median salaries for lawyers are 120K. Starting salary for a PsyD can be as low as 30K, Median salary for a PsyD is between 65-80K. I just saw a salary survey for PsyD's (n=1,000) where the median was 75K after 10 years of work experience after licensure. So yes, its a bad idea to take out loans and it's discouraged by pretty much everyone in this field. Plus, you can pay tuition for 6 years in a PsyD program compared to 3 years for lawyers and 4 for the MD.

Actually, lawyers and physicians constantly complain about the how much debt they have. Many lawyers are struggling to pay their debt back even though they command higher salaries than psychologists. I can't imagine what the situation is like for someone who went into psychology and took out 200K in loans. I know several folks who took out less than this and there life is very limited as a result (they are geographically limited to a very low cost of living location and cannot switch jobs or move due to loans).

I think that there are many that do deserve to get their doctorate and when there are 500-1000 applicants for 3 spots because a school can only afford to pay for 3 students it creates an issue. There are people that would pay for a doctoral degree from a good school. You're maybe right that paying for the degree right now usually means that it is not a good program (although that is not always the case with Psy.D.programs), but I think that might change as more strong candidates are constantly being rejected. I mean this is why masters programs are such a money maker. There are also strong Psy.D. program and, because they are not as research based, they do not have much funding. I guess what I am trying to say is don't be so closed-minded. It is not so black and white. I really appreciate people being honest, but I get sort of sick of hearing about the money thing because many people are simply asking about the program. It is true that doctors and lawyers complain about debt, but schools can also afford to have a lot more students because they are not paying their students. I think its a tradeoff. By the way, not all doctors do make as much money as you think and many know lawyers are in a tough spot right now.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I've never adhered to the professional school = FSPS definition. I agree that Wheaton, Roosevelt, and IIT are not FSPS. Technically, all PsyD programs are professional schools. But, the loose definition I use in the psych context is the school requires students to pay tuition at high levels. So, for example, PAU's PhD program. I've worked with a few people that attended IIT. They were good psychologists. But, they had to pay 8K plus in tuition per semester at the time.

.

FWIW, I know of a few small (<10 cohort) well-regarded balanced PhD programs that still require their students to pay some tuition or pay small (sub-10k) stipends. If we start defining non-professional school as a 14k+ stipend with full tuition waiver every year, I imagine the number of programs would be much smaller than you would think, sadly.,

 

[Heyheyhey13]

klknob

 

[KillerDiller]

I think that there are many that do deserve to get their doctorate and when there are 500-1000 applicants for 3 spots because a school can only afford to pay for 3 students it creates an issue.

But the impetus for doctoral degrees to be more available shouldn't come from the students attempting to earn these degrees--it should come from the job market. Right now, the country as a whole does not need more psychologists. Currently, people are taking poorly compensated positions that do not require doctorates because there is such a high number of applicants for every psychologist job posting. This may not be true in every area of the country, but history has shown that throwing up a bunch of schools in desirable areas does not translate to more psychologists becoming available to rural populations. In general, putting more psychologists out into this market--especially ones who will be under more pressure to take even poorly-compensated employment due to looming loans--is a bad idea.

 

[VAneurodoc]

I don't care if you're faculty. Do you know how many faculty are uninformed about Psy.D. programs? Many. I went to a VERY good undergrad program and met some incredibly faculty. Still, some of them were condescending about Psy.D. program and told me I was too good for them. When I provided them with information many of them said they were interested and that they had spoke too quickly.

Of course you realize there is a difference between undergrad faculty versus those of us who are faculty at medical schools, VA psychology training programs etc... where psychology graduate students are trained, right? We are not uninformed and know more about this than anyone. We are also more honest about the problems when students start inquiring about these programs because we see the issues with these programs on a regular basis. The students have a tough time hearing it because they are motivated by their attempts to validate a decision that they made, but it is a bad decision and there is no question about that.

For the record, I am not against all Psy.D. programs, I would recommend Rutgers, Indiana St., and Baylor to anyone (although the last two have far more in common with university based Ph.D. programs). If the demand and salary for clinical psychologists was akin to physicans, the professional school model may have been viable, but that is not the reality of the situation. FSPS's including but not limited to Alliant, Argosy, PAU, and now Midwestern are programs that are 1) unnecessary, 2) provide inferior preparation for their students leading to them being less competitive at critical times in their career, 3) burden their students with lifelong debt, and 4) create far more psychologists than are or will ever be needed (return to point 1).

 

[erg923]

I don't care if you're faculty.

You should, in my opinion.

Discounting the views of those who ARE in the current training programs you want to be a part of does you no favors.

 

[Pragma]

FSPS's including but not limited to Alliant, Argosy, PAU, and now Midwestern are programs that are 1) unnecessary, 2) provide inferior preparation for their students leading to them being less competitive at critical times in their career, 3) burden their students with lifelong debt, and 4) create far more psychologists than are or will ever be needed (return to point 1).

I hadn't chimed in here, but I think this is the point that people don't seem to understand. There is no need for these programs. Aside from giving people the opportunity to get the degree they want (if they pay for it) even if they aren't good candidates for a doctorate, there really is not a purpose to these programs. They harm a field that has become (on average) oversaturated with enormous class sizes, generally low standards for admission, and poor quality control. By sheer numbers (and profits) they have also managed a partial "take-over" of professional organizations.

The students suffer in the long term due debt (perhaps not in your case, but in many cases), poor reputation/lack of credibility, and reduced opportunities because of these programs flooding the market. Other psychologists also suffer because of the systemic problems created by these programs. That is why I am complaining - programs like Midwestern indirectly affect me, even if I do have a desirable job.

 

[leftbrian]

I think that there are many that do deserve to get their doctorate and when there are 500-1000 applicants for 3 spots because a school can only afford to pay for 3 students it creates an issue. There are people that would pay for a doctoral degree from a good school. You're maybe right that paying for the degree right now usually means that it is not a good program (although that is not always the case with Psy.D.programs), but I think that might change as more strong candidates are constantly being rejected.

I think you are making a mistaken causal link here. Just because a lot of people (500-1000 applicants in your example) are vying for 3 spots does not infer that there should be more spots (i.e., paying for a degree) so more applicants can obtain a doctorate. This is no different then saying "A lot of people want something, so let's give it to everyone." This train of thoughts is at best illogical, at worst delusional.

There is a reason why a doctoral degree is designed to be ultra-competitive and why funded programs offer so few spots. It's not designed to be elitist, though it does not prevent one from thinking it is, such as yourself. Currently the market is flooded with psychologists. And going with your thinking of "let's open the door to the 500-1000 applicants per program" seems to make this problem worse. Then at the end we all cry about unpaid post-docs, under-paid jobs, and so on and so on. We all lose. So let's address the problem at the onset head-on.

 

[Ollie123]

Based on what I see taking place out in "real world" clinical settings, I'd argue the process isn't competitive ENOUGH and we're letting way too many inept folks sneak through the system.

I agree with the above that the number of applicants is a terrible justification for this. We can't structure the entire healthcare system around how many people think it would be a neat career, which is essentially what is being suggested. Not only is it impractical, the motivations are completely backwards.

I don't know anything about Midwestern's program. Maybe its good, maybe its terrible, maybe its somewhere in between. Some of what I've heard already worries me (so its 100% match rate was obtained by "creating" slots? That's not its real match rate as far as I'm concerned....). Either way, I don't think we should be starting new programs and especially not expensive ones. If people want to essentially work as master's-level providers, what's wrong with telling them to get master's degrees instead?

 

[PHD12]

Average overall GPA of admitted students at Midwestern University is only a 3.2 (includes BA and MA). I don't think GPA is everything, but in light of rampant grade inflation, particularly for psychology majors, this is a very low GPA as an average. The average for funded PhD programs is somewhere around 3.6 to 3.9. Even good MSW programs have a higher average GPA. There are some undergrad programs that even go above 4.0 these days so a 3.2 seems quite low, unless you are an engineering major.

The OP keeps insisting that the program is not a poor program like Argosy and Alliant. However, the faculty that she will be training under are from these programs (argosy, arizona school of professional psychology).

 

[futureapppsy2]

I don't get the assertation that funded PhD programs are only for financially privileged students and exclude economically disadvantaged students while FSPS provide more access--doesn't the availability of funding make them MORE accessible financially, not less? FWIW, most of the people I've known in funded PhD programs attended public universities for undergrad, frequently on merit scholarships, need-based financial aid, or both. So, the "funded programs are elitist and only open to rich folk" argument makes no sense whatsoever to me. Even if you're arguing that they require access to and completion of an undergrad degree, so do FSPS.