Observation

[deleted75966]

---

Members do not see this ad.

nt

 

[HeyJude]

It is clear that many people have multiple offers to psy.d programs and are having a difficult time making a decision. Three acceptances to phd programs is quite rare.

I guess if I were preparing to be $100 grand (or more) in debt, I'd be confused too.

Side note: I'm annoyed by people's great impressions of psy.d (usually prof schools) facilities. Very few academic institutions are spending their money on the building bc their priorities are elsewhere. Don't they understand that their tuition dollars are being spent on fancy couches and decorative flowers in a shallow attempt to attract future students? Many of these professional schools are a money-making business!

 

[Anx73B]

I've noticed the same thing about the front page being dominated by professional schools. It is unfortunate that not as many people tried to go for PhD programs. Is it that people felt they would not be competitive in PhD programs or just that they wanted to practice more than do research. I just feel the opportunities are so much broader in PhD programs - for both practice and research that I don't understand the obsession with professional schools. On the other hand, if you had a 3.0 GPA and did so so on the GREs, but felt it your life calling to be a psychologist then I would understand going to a professional school. Otherwise, it seems like a weird choice.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The admittance stuff doesn't much matter for me, but that is what people seem interested in at the moment. I'd welcome if people want to post on other topics.....journal article discussions and the like.

Jon, HeyDude, Anx....what kind of stuff do you read up on?

 

[mymo]

I would like to know more about which phd programs are balanced in terms of practice/research.

I applied to psyd.s only because I am interested in clinical practice specifically. I've been working with a masters for five years, and have two supervisors with phds. who strongly discouraged me from applying to phd programs - they felt that they only learned about research in their programs and had to learn all the skills on their own post-graduation.

I have my doubts about some of these psyd programs as well.. but the university based ones seem legitimate to me.

 

[elite1]

Even if you don't like to do research, I can't imagine being so averse to it as to want to spend $150K + (with living expenses) to go to a Psy.D. program Go get your Ph.D., enjoy the clinical work and put up with the research, and come out with less debt and a lot more opportunities....

 

[HeyJude]

The admittance stuff doesn't much matter for me, but that is what people seem interested in at the moment. I'd welcome if people want to post on other topics.....journal article discussions and the like.

Jon, HeyDude, Anx....what kind of stuff do you read up on?

People (like me!) are caught up with admittance stuff because this is what we've spent the last 5 years of our lives working up to. I think the majority of those on this forum are not yet in a program. I'd love to start reading more journal articles....in grad school!

No but seriously, my current boss wants me to start working on a paper about people self prescribing herbal meds for treatment of emtional problems. I think it sounds boring. Basically our deal is as follows: I do the whole lit review and write the paper and she edits it and gets to be first author. Arg.

 

[Ollie123]

I would like to know more about which phd programs are balanced in terms of practice/research.

I applied to psyd.s only because I am interested in clinical practice specifically. I've been working with a masters for five years, and have two supervisors with phds. who strongly discouraged me from applying to phd programs - they felt that they only learned about research in their programs and had to learn all the skills on their own post-graduation.

I have my doubts about some of these psyd programs as well.. but the university based ones seem legitimate to me.

First off, you'll find far fewer complaints about most of the university ones. There are a few issues (some still accept too many students, etc.), but for the most part, people are much more accepting. Remember, most peoples problems are with professional schools, not the PsyD degree itself, its a line that gets blurred quite a bit on this board.

Second - I think your professors really did you a major disservice. I'm not sure where they attended, but it might provide some insight into their thoughts. Yes, Wisconsin-Madison, Yale, schools like that would be TERRIBLE choices for you. That isn't true of all schools by any means.

There are plenty of PhD schools that either allow the flexibility to do either, or are actually more practitioner-geared. University of Montana is one. University of Vermont is becoming more research-oriented, but still has lots of clinical opportunities and from everything I saw and heard when I was there, gave really good clinical training. University of Florida has the best of both worlds to some extent.

There are also schools like UIC, that are more research-oriented, but have so many clinical opportunities you could spend 10 years there and still not learn all you could from them.

I don't know if you plan to reapply or how this year went for you, but I'd definitely look at some of these programs. There's many more, this is just the more clinically oriented schools on my extremely-research-focused list that I either applied or thought about applying to😉

 

[Anx73B]

It's true that there is a lot of variance among PhD programs in terms of research / practice emphasis. U of Missouri for example only wants you to do the bare minimum number of practicum hours while Auburn University requires you to do outside placements your 2nd through 4th years where you would acrue thousands of hours. If you want to practice Auburn is a really good option if you're willing to live in the south. It's one of the more practice-driven PhD programs that I've seen. and T4C - I think a lot of people here are in the same boat as me. We got interested in SDN because of the information on interviews and offers, but now that we've got our offers and made up our minds the sight doesn't seem to be as relevant. I found myself checking SDN so much back when I was curious about which schools had sent out interview invitations and offers and whatnot that I still check back regularly. Personally, I would love to know what (if anything) people do to prepare for their program prior to entering it once they have accepted an offer. I love the stickies but they just don't get new posts too often.

 

[cara susanna]

Would anyone be able to make a list of PhD programs that are equally or more clinical-oriented? That would be so helpful for me! I'm getting the latest Insider's Guide, though, so hopefully that will give me some clue.

And yes, Montana is good for practicing.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I would love to know what (if anything) people do to prepare for their program prior to entering it once they have accepted an offer. I love the stickies but they just don't get new posts too often.

That'd be a good topic to start.

I think the stickies are good for general stuff, but it takes members to post about relevant topics for them to keep things going. With the application cycle winding down, I want to encourage people to post about things that interest them. I love reading about other areas of psychology....as I get in my own little bubble and forget there are all sorts of other stuff going on as I do my thing.

 

[Ollie123]

No one is going to know all of them, unfortunately. Insider's Guide rates programs on a scale from 1 to 7 based on how clinical vs. research-oriented they are. It isn't a perfect system but it is hugely helpful and if you look at, say 4 or lower schools, it can probably double or triple your possible options.

You can always do what I did and look at every single program in the US and Canada in alphabetical order😉

 

[cara susanna]

Haha! I started doing that, actually... I think I reached the J's or so.

 

[mymo]

this is really helpful- thanks!

What is the insiders guide?

 

[cara susanna]

http://www.amazon.com/Insiders-Grad...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206297963&sr=1-1

 

[Ollie123]

this is really helpful- thanks!

What is the insiders guide?

The greatest book ever written🙂

Seriously, it should be your bible around application time. Without it, I would likely still be applying.

In addition to general (and good) advice on your application, it lists every single program, how clinically vs. research-oriented it is, their acceptance stats, the average GPA/GRE, what percentage of their faculty fit into various theoretical orientations, and lists of faculty research interests.

Its not always dead on, especially when it comes to faculty research interests since those can be hard to pin down and faculty obviously come and go. Still a tremendous resource though, and its pretty cheap.

 

[JockNerd]

Within programs, there's also a lot of variation with what profs will let you do. At one research-focused school I interviewed at, a prof (not my poi) said that he didn't care if some students just wanted to do thesis & diss, and learn about clinical work then go practice, so long as while they were there they did well in the lab helping others. His students seemed happy. At my current research-focused school there's a prof whose students all have strong clinical interests. Most people who get PhDs go clinical, so it's definitely inaccurate to say that we're only being trained to research.

 

[positivepsych]

Jon, even if there are as many spots, they're much harder to get or further.

In any large metropolitan city in the US, there are probably 50+ PsyD slots for anyone with a pulse (Alliant accepts sub-3.0 students, in fact, they invite you to justify it in your essay) and $150+K. The research-oriented PhD slots are fewer, and many of these schools are not in metropolitan locations. Look at what has happened to CA. Most of the graduates now are professional school PsyDs thanks to CSPP/Alliant.

If I can make a comparison to med schools, professional schools in psychology are like the D.O. schools or the schools in the Carribean. The only college classmates I know who went to one, were the ones who couldn't go to a traditional M.D. school.

However, unlike medicine, where DOs/carribean school students are in the minority and marginalized when it comes to residencies, the sheer number of prof. school PsyDs (though marginalized) are becoming the majority. I see a growing trend where they're becoming more common on the staff at places that don't take PsyD students for practicum/internship. Kind of ironic.

 

[callmebruce]

Many of the discussions of professional schools involve San Francisco Bay Area schools. For whatever reasons, people may be committed to living to a geographic region. People have families, homes, spouses etc. U.C. Berkeley is the only University affiliated PhD program in the area with a class size of something like 8, maybe less. It's just not a realistic program for most people to get into, even if you wanted to go to a school that small. So from a practical standpoint, if you're committed to SF and you want to become a clinical psychologist then you need to look at the professional schools by necessity. It doesn't necessarily mean you don't have the grades or GRE scores or qualifications. PGSP/Stanford's PsyD average GRE was in the mid 1200s I believe for last year's class, certainly in line with other programs from what I've been reading on this board and they're clinical training programs would compare favorably with any other in the country.

 

[positivepsych]

That's my point. If you wanted to be a physician and were committed to staying in SF, you'd either have to get into UCSF or perhaps Stanford Med. Sure, their class sizes are larger than Berkeley 8 spots for clinical psych, but considering the number of applicants and their ranking, it's probably just as hard to get in.

So what do pre-meds have to do? Move. The barrier to entry in medical school is quite high--all the course requirements, MCATs, and probably having to move out-of-state. It makes sure only the committed end up as physicians.

On the other hand, what professional schools do in psychology is lower those barriers. I'm not saying necessarily this is a bad thing, because I understand about geographical limitations and family commitments. But it does have a side effect of lowering the quality of the students, when you have such low barriers to entry.

I hear lots of women in their late 20s/early 30s half-heartedly talking about "going back to school to become a psychologist," or daddies-little-girls who graduated from big-state-school who'll have their parents fund their PsyDs while they party. These are the people who end up becoming poor part-time practitioners, because its a whim, and not a serious interest or commitment.

If all you need is a 3.0 and $150K, lots of people will do it. In the bay area, there are several PsyD options like that. Half the people won't graduate, and another quarter will have a tough time getting an internship and post-doc hours. This is the type of people that are becoming professionals. What kind of educational system is that?

If you don't believe me, check out schools like Ryokan in Los Angeles (http://ryokan.edu/). Non-APA accredited, and not even listed in APPIC's match statistics. Hey, you can even get your Psy.D. online there! The reality is that these people end up practicing. Do a search yourself on PsychologyToday.com in the Los Angeles area. You'll find a few Ryokan grads.

P.S. Someone made a point about why there is a lot of PsyD bashing on the threads when master's level practitioners are the real threat. I actually agree with that. They probably drive down salaries more than PsyDs. I've talked to psychiatrists who charge $300 for a 15-minute med check, but only refer to MSWs because "they're cheaper" for therapy. Talk about hypocrisy.

But even with Master's level Practitioners, the public can still understand that having a Dr. in front of your name is supposed to mean something. People who can afford it will go to a Psychologist if they're the type of person that wants "the best" care of a highly-skilled diagnostician and clinician. But when you have to compete with Dr. Ryokan in private practice (who often will not say where they graduated from on their personal website), the public doesn't know who they're getting. Could be good, could be bad, it's a crapshoot. We're in a great job, but a horrible field, because the professional schools and the APA are helping it go to ****.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

If all you need is a 3.0 and $150K, lots of people will do it. In the bay area, there are several PsyD options like that. Half the people won't graduate, and another quarter will have a tough time getting an internship and post-doc hours. This is the type of people that are becoming professionals. What kind of educational system is that?

If you don't believe me, check out schools like Ryokan in Los Angeles (http://ryokan.edu/). Non-APA accredited, and not even listed in APPIC's match statistics. Hey, you can even get your Psy.D. online there! The reality is that these people end up practicing. Do a search yourself on PsychologyToday.com in the Los Angeles area. You'll find a few Ryokan grads.

You and I both know that place is a joke, and doesn't belong in the discussion. It's insulting that you'd equate that place to other Psy.D. programs.....as we all know there are Ph.D. programs that do the exact same thing. At least pick an APA-accredited program, since 99% of the talk on here are APA-accredited programs. I know there are still some weak schools, but not the extreme of a place like Ryokan.

P.S. Someone made a point about why there is a lot of PsyD bashing on the threads when master's level practitioners are the real threat. I actually agree with that. They probably drive down salaries more than PsyDs. I've talked to psychiatrists who charge $300 for a 15-minute med check, but only refer to MSWs because "they're cheaper" for therapy. Talk about hypocrisy.

That was me, and I stick by my comments....as if anyone looks at the actual numbers, we as a profession are being dwarfed by the number of MS level people coming out.

We're in a great job, but a horrible field, because the professional schools and the APA are helping it go to ****.

I agree with you on the APA, but it isn't all prof. schools, and there has also been a pass given to other related fields because all of the venom has been aimed at prof. programs.....many of which produce quality clinicians.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

.

Hmm. It isn't all professional school students (most), but it's all professional schools with the exceptions of Baylor and Rutgers (if they want to call themselves that).

We'll just agree to disagree, as we know where we each stand.

Masters practitioners are a big problem in that there seems to be a continual blurring of masters and doctoral practioners in the eyes of physicians (bastards!), public (don't understand), and insurance companies (greedy). The problem of low quality students is even more pronounced at the masters/social work level.

Yet another reason why we should have board exams as the norm and not exception.

 

[Boston2k]

I understand this has been a saucy issue, and I'll preface this by stating that I am going for a Ph.D.

Unfortunately, there simply aren't enough practitioners being trained. Any good therapist has a two month backlog. The Boulder model simply is not training enough candidates to meet demand, so the market has created an alternative to fill that void. Yes, they are in it for the money, some more voraciously than others, but so is almost every other sector of society that we participate in - we receive a service for money. One of the purposes of a monetary system isn't necessarily to pay executives major $$$ (although often it appears that way), but to ensure that services that are needed are created based on demand.

Currently, psychology essentially survives based on begging for money from a state system. That usually goes by another name - communism - which isn't remarkably efficient. While I don't mean to spark further personal slandering by using that term, the parallel is there. The supposedly free, full-funded programs do have to get money for training somewhere, it's not as if it's free to society. And unfortunately, this "free" system is not efficient enough to put out enough quality practitioners to satisfy demand.

So yes, there are tons of crappy professional schools out there that rip you off. I understand that the level of students even at Ph.D level programs, while often more qualified than Psy.D students, is not always ideal. However, the traditional model is not working either, so we need something else, and the Psy.D has been one approach, for better and for worse. While I personally don't desire the degree, to categorically dismiss it in favor of the Ph.D system ignores the current failures of the Boulder model as well, which is the one of the reasons for the creation of these professional programs.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I agree. Boards should become the norm. Masters level practitioners should do nothing beyond supportive therapy and grief counseling. Anything else is far out of their range of expertise.

I don't want to throw everyone under the bus, as I've worked with some great LCSW's, though they all said that they went above and beyond their coursework and internship training to make sure they got the supervision and requisite training they needed to work in their areas of interest.

With that being said, boards would help sort out many of the problems we are having in the field with both scope of practice and quality control.

 

[psybee]

With that being said, boards would help sort out many of the problems we are having in the field with both scope of practice and quality control.

I am new to the profession -- will start my PhD this fall -- so forgive me if this question is obvious, but what are some concrete things that can be done to make boarding the norm instead of the exception?

 

[socialcog]

With that being said, boards would help sort out many of the problems we are having in the field with both scope of practice and quality control.

Stupid question here....

To clarify, are you suggesting that there be boards, across disciplines, as a standard for would-be clinicians to pass in order to go into private practice? That is an interesting notion and I agree might or would be a useful filter for the field. Under this notion, many if not most masters level students would likely be no where near prepared to pass such a test. However, I think it would force universities to strengthen their training programs to prepare it's students for such an undertaking.

The two-year curriculum I had to complete for my masters was unchallenging if not totally insufficient. I did not feel anywhere near qualified to treat patients by the time I entered my intership. In my intership, I received some weak supervision and still felt ill-prepared as a practitioner. By the time I sat for my licensing exams I was researching MBA programs because I was so dissillusioned by the experience--received sub-par training in class and in practicum. In order to feel better (ethically and morally) about entering private practice I received some specialized and advanced training in CBT for 3 years. That goal was likely the one reason I remained a clinician.

This business is a weird one.

 

[socialcog]

Masters students should not be allowed anywhere near a doctoral board.

Because they would fail? Please clarify.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The two-year curriculum I had to complete for my masters was unchallenging if not totally insufficient. I did not feel anywhere near qualified to treat patients by the time I entered my intership. In my intership, I received some weak supervision and still felt ill-prepared as a practitioner. By the time I sat for my licensing exams I was researching MBA programs because I was so dissillusioned by the experience--received sub-par training in class and in practicum. In order to feel better (ethically and morally) about entering private practice I received some specialized and advanced training in CBT for 3 years. That goal was likely the one reason I remained a clinician.

Unfortunately that is something I've heard a lot. I think it is problematic to expect internship / post-program but pre-licensure hours be where people do a lot of the learning. The foundation needs to be established in the training, needs to be closely monitors in the program, and then internship hours should be where there is a refinement of the skills, not the introduction to the hands-on work.

I've worked with some scary providers before (under 'supervision'...but not really) and I've worked with some great providers (great supervision and going above and beyond the requirements to make sure they are adequately prepared for the populations they are working with).....and it shouldn't be exclusively up to the person to decide if they need more training, as one of the scariest things in any helping profession are the number of people who think they know everything, and don't have enough insight to realize that they don't.

 

[MaddieMay]

The two-year curriculum I had to complete for my masters was unchallenging if not totally insufficient. I did not feel anywhere near qualified to treat patients by the time I entered my intership. In my intership, I received some weak supervision and still felt ill-prepared as a practitioner. By the time I sat for my licensing exams I was researching MBA programs because I was so dissillusioned by the experience--received sub-par training in class and in practicum. In order to feel better (ethically and morally) about entering private practice I received some specialized and advanced training in CBT for 3 years. That goal was likely the one reason I remained a clinician.

Do you feel comfortable saying where you went to school?

 

[socialcog]

Do you feel comfortable saying where you went to school?

Not really and it's not really important. I attended a smaller private liberal arts university. What I think is noteworthy is that, by my observation, is that there are more and more masters level clinicians in a similar boat. Like T4C stated, some recognize that they are not prepared while others feel equiped and entitled to take on ALL patients--even those with the most severe diagnoses and gravest prognostic picture. It's really strange to see.

Here is a relevant question. How to the disciplinary actions for PhD compare to the master-level clinicians on the BBS? I acknowledge that disciplinary actions are usually for ethical and legal issues and not clinical competency. But it would be interesting to compare, no?

 

[psybee]

Is the view Jon and others are offering on Masters level clinicians a widespread one, especially among those in PhD l;and?? If so, I wonder why so many psychology departments that have PhD programs in clinical and counseling also offer MA programs. Do they believe that MA's are diluting the profession -- how could they, and yet offer both programs of study side by side? Or do they genuinely believe there is room for all, or are they looking to make $$$ for the PhD programs off the MA ones and don't care about the long term implications for the field?

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

Is the view Jon and others are offering on Masters level clinicians a widespread one, especially among those in PhD l;and?? If so, I wonder why so many psychology departments that have PhD programs in clinical and counseling also offer MA programs. Do they believe that MA's are diluting the profession -- how could they, and yet offer both programs of study side by side? Or do they genuinely believe there is room for all, or are they looking to make $$$ for the PhD programs off the MA ones and don't care about the long term implications for the field?

**Caveat--I have no idea what the nature/breakdown of the MAs/MSs these departments offer is, so my response could be totally irrelevant.

Having said that, it might have to do with how many of those programs offer terminal master's degrees that are designed to end up with the recipient being licensed as an LMFT/LCSW. Other than that, I wouldn't have a clue.

Plus I go to a professional school, which makes me underqualified to even call myself a PhD/allowed to contribute in the eyes of some on here anyway. I stole my APA accredited internship from a university student.

 

[psybee]

Having said that, it might have to do with how many of those programs offer terminal master's degrees that are designed to end up with the recipient being licensed as an LMFT/LCSW. Other than that, I wouldn't have a clue.

that's pretty much what i've seen. i just wonder if in the PhD world Masters level clinician are seen as a threat to the profession, providing less quality services at a cheaper rate and making it harder for more throughly trained but expensive clinicians (PhDs) to be competitive in the market.

I don't hold the above belief, BTW, my jury is still out on the whole issue, I just wonder if, in fact, the above opinion is at all common how these masters and phds can co-exist peacefully in the same school.

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

that's pretty much what i've seen. i just wonder if in the PhD world Masters level clinician are seen as a threat to the profession, providing less quality services at a cheaper rate and making it harder for more throughly trained but expensive clinicians (PhDs) to be competitive in the market.

I don't hold the above belief, BTW, my jury is still out on the whole issue, I just wonder if, in fact, the above opinion is at all common how these masters and phds can co-exist peacefully in the same school.

Maybe, but I am not sure. I have been working in an environment that has them all (CNS, LCSW, PhD, PsyD, MD, professional school, university--at The National Center for PTSD) for 2 years now. Everybody works pretty well together, here on the research side where I work, and over on the clinical side. My suspicion is that it is only students, recent graduates and what we like to call in the Army "badge protectors" who are conerned about it.

 

[Anx73B]

I wonder if more rigorous therapy outcome measurements / feedback would provide some sort of a solution. I work with a prominent researcher in terms of therapy feedback. His assessments are now being mandated for all the public mental health facilities in the state. Anyways, from what I gather from him, there is a lot of resistance to therapy feedback because therapists feel like they lose their autonomy and that it can be used by their supervisors and administrators against them. I can't help but feel that such an attitude hurts rather than helps the profession. If someone is really a competent therapist they shouldn't be worried about feedback. If it is really the case that PhDs or PsyDs are better than MSW for example then the data should show it. If it's not the case that there is a significant difference (highly possible) then maybe people would realize that your degree doesn't equate to skill as a therapist. I don't know - what does everyone else think?

 

[Neuro-Dr]

The most likely answer to the OP is that the April 15th deadline is fast approaching and consideration of rolling admissions schools is heating up. I'd have to check last marcha dn april to be sure though.

 

[biogirl215]

IIRC, I have seen studies (can try to look up the citations later) that showed no significant group difference in outcomes between different types of clinicians.

 

[erg923]

I found this issue of threats from Masters level and MSWs interesting so I asked around.

However, no faculty at my university, and none of my practicum supervisors (clinicians and researchers) have these feeling at all. The clinical supervisors just laughed it off basically and said they have never felt like masters level people had threatened their livelihood. They also felt like they worked with different patient populations than they did. One even bragged about the reputation of a masters level person that he sometimes refers patients to (he just does assessment). This kind of makes me wonder why we don't think patients are in a positions to make appropriate evaluation of a therapist's qualifications. If they have a great rapport, like them, and facilitate change in their behavior (i.e., have successful treatment outcomes), why would we not value that most off all? If all those are true, who gives a hoot if the person had a Ph.D or not? I wouldn't.

On the other side of the coin, the research people were adamant that each person brings valuable opinions and training to the table that compliments the others. I work on one large research project at an academic medical center were the PI is a psychologist and there is a support staff of masters level people and MSWs. When I was talking to her (the PI) about the issue, she also laughed, and said she cherishes input from all the people under her, especially the LCSWs because they offer her some great perspectives on issues that get lost when she is juggling numbers and standardized protocols. And nobody had the opinion the MSWs were somehow subpar in therapy, or somehow intellectually inferior to them. On the contrary, most of them admired their enormous dedication to their field in the face of such low pay.

This has got me wondering if the previous poster was correct, and that this is a "protect the badge" phenomena of new comers to the profession (all the people I spoke with were seasoned veterans of the field). Before my Ph.D program, I too came from an environment where, except for the normal disagreements between psychologist and psychiatrist, all the people were pretty hunky-dory with each other. I wonder how people who hold these strong opinions about social work and masters level people would ever work with them in research projects or treatment teams as so many of us do?

 

[sunlioness]

This has got me wondering if the previous poster was correct, and that this is a "protect the badge" phenomena of new comers to the profession (all the people I spoke with were seasoned veterans of the field).

I wouldn't be surprised. One of the best therapists I know is a master's level psychologist who received her training prior to the laws changing. She passed the same board exam that doctoral level providers must pass and thus was grandfathered in and can continue to practice as a psychologist . . . but only in her home state. I personally think that sucks, to put it quite bluntly. My best supervisor at my residency program is a Psy.D. My former college roommate is now an LCSW and doing amazing work with traumatized kids.

It is also interesting to me that the attitude I see displayed here from some PhD psychologists is so similar to the attitude that the same people would rail against if coming from a psychiatrist arguing against something like RxP.

 

[socialcog]

I wouldn't be surprised. One of the best therapists I know is a master's level psychologist who received her training prior to the laws changing. She passed the same board exam that doctoral level providers must pass and thus was grandfathered in and can continue to practice as a psychologist . . . but only in her home state. I personally think that sucks, to put it quite bluntly. My best supervisor at my residency program is a Psy.D. My former college roommate is now an LCSW and doing amazing work with traumatized kids.

It is also interesting to me that the attitude I see displayed here from some PhD psychologists is so similar to the attitude that the same people would rail against coming from a psychiatrist arguing against something like RxP.

I have had both psychologists and psychiatrists engage me in a very non-professional and disparaging way. When I was working as a treatment coordinator on an inpatient locked adolescent facility, the attending psychiatrist for one of the inpatients -- after learning I was an MFT asked me "why I would do such a thing (becoming an MFT) and that I should strongly consider going back to school and getting a real degree".

That stuff happened at least once a year for about 5 years. Very very unpleasant.

 

[myelin]

The entire front page of this board is full of questions about professional school programs. There are just as many spots available in boulder programs, the training is better, and you get paid.

You guys are barking up the wrong tree.

Jon,

Do you have an empirical reference point for "the training is better" in boulder model programs?

 

[erg923]

Ive heard the response to this question a million times. The answer is yes and no. The argument is:
1.) Licensing exam scores are, on average, higher for Boulder model programs than those from professional schools and Psy.D model programs. 2.) The training in a Ph.D. is more in-depth in terms of exploring and understanding underlying theories and dynamics of treatment and assessment 3.) the quality of students in Ph.D programs is, on average, likely to be higher than those in professional schools. Primarily because many of these students go to these school because they can not get into other Ph.D. programs. 4.) Market flooding, and debt that is a mismatch for the expected salary. I'm sure Jon will elaborate and articulate these points.

I am not on the bashing band wagon, but many of these arguments do hold some water. I have noticed number 2 in my experiences. Someone once told me that Ph.D= lets learn about, learn about the underlying theory, research it, dissect it, scrutinize it, then do it. Psy.D= lets jump in and learn as we go. I don't really agree with that, but it did give me a chuckle. But, I have worked with alot of Psy.D and prof school people and never been able to tell a real difference myself (clinically).

Anyone care to comment on the issues I discussed in my previous post about master level and MSWs issues?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The 'learn by doing' is a bit questionable in my eyes....as there is so much theory that needs to be learned to inform us as clinicians. There are some programs that go this way, but I lean more on Jon's side in this regard. Of course, I don't like the sweeping generalizations he uses, but that's like asking a zebra to change its stripes. 😀

I think it is important to be exposed to practical application of the theory throughout the training, because doing the work informs a person and gives another level of meaning to the theory (working with kids and seeing developmental stuff, or working with PTSD and experiencing life through their eyes, etc), though without at least something to work with....this is lost. This is why I like programs that offer some exposure during the 2nd year, more in-depth exposure doing the 3rd year, etc. The flipside of this is to play in theory for years and never do anything with it (think philosophy people who talk about life ad nasuem, only to never leave the class room to actually experience the life and see how how their thoughts are (or are not) reflected in actuality), that is the mental masturbation people warn of in grad programs.

 

[FrdLcnKln]

I think it is important to keep in mind that there is a tremendous amount of diversity among the different programs. For example, some PhD programs are very focused on training clinicians and some PsyD programs place a significant emphasis on research. Many of the threads on this website emphasize the importance of fit, as a way to choose one's future program or as a factor to consider during the admissions process. So, I'm not sure that it's fair to say that all PsyD programs are "learn as you go" and that all PhD programs are "theory THEN application".

Along with the diversity of types of programs there is also tremendous diversity among the types of people who become clinical psychologists. No program is going to be everything for everyone. I think that we do ourselves a great disservice by insisting upon a hierarchy of degrees rather than a plurality of possible credentials. That said, we really do need a greater amount of regulation in this field to weed out programs that are producing inferior researchers and clinicians. However, in order for this to happen all of these degrees need to be understood as discrete, specialized entities that have been created with different goals in mind, rather than as mutations or devolutions of the classic PhD degree.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Well said.

I think boarding can address things on the back-end, but the front-end needs to be much better controlled. We had a discussion awhile ago where I proposed control available spots by internship placement rates (averaged over a few years).....so places that place consistantly well will be untouched, and places that place poorly would be forced to reduce the incoming class to the number they placed the previous years, and failure to do so would cost them their accreditation.

 

[parto123]

Eh. People on this board are always saying how important research is in being an effective practitioner, but no one really has any evidence for this. It all sounds like personal opinion based on previous expectations. Id wager that the intelligence, motivation and talent of the psychologist is really all that matters. Im sure if you put the most qualified phd students in the worst professional schools, they would still end up being the best psychologist practitioners (or researchers if they so choose).

Ive said it before, but if research isn’t that important in being a practitioner in medicine, law, business, consulting, etc., I see know reason why psychology would be any different. (and for those who say that medical students do engage in some research, its true, but most do so little, it would not be a more significant amount of research than a run of the mill psyd program. And besides, once actual doctors, most are hardly involved in any research at all).

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

Eh. People on this board are always saying how important research is in being an effective practitioner, but no one really has any evidence for this. It all sounds like personal opinion based on previous expectations. Id wager that the intelligence, motivation and talent of the psychologist is really all that matters. Im sure if you put the most qualified phd students in the worst professional schools, they would still end up being the best psychologist practitioners (or researchers if they so choose).

Ive said it before, but if research isn’t that important in being a practitioner in medicine, law, business, consulting, etc., I see know reason why psychology would be any different. (and for those who say that medical students do engage in some research, its true, but most do so little, it would not be a more significant amount of research than a run of the mill psyd program. And besides, once actual doctors, most are hardly involved in any research at all).

I like this one. It basically says that you get out of something what you put into it. The variable that determine how good a psychologist will be is most likely the individual pursuing the degree. Simple, but not simplistic.

 

[Ollie123]

Eh. People on this board are always saying how important research is in being an effective practitioner, but no one really has any evidence for this. It all sounds like personal opinion based on previous expectations. Id wager that the intelligence, motivation and talent of the psychologist is really all that matters. Im sure if you put the most qualified phd students in the worst professional schools, they would still end up being the best psychologist practitioners (or researchers if they so choose).

Ive said it before, but if research isn't that important in being a practitioner in medicine, law, business, consulting, etc., I see know reason why psychology would be any different. (and for those who say that medical students do engage in some research, its true, but most do so little, it would not be a more significant amount of research than a run of the mill psyd program. And besides, once actual doctors, most are hardly involved in any research at all).

I'm actually somewhat in agreement with your first paragraph, though it doesn't address the fact that one of the big problems people have with those schools is that they tend to let in the least qualified applicants. For me, that's the bigger concern then the kind of training, though I obviously have concerns about that too given what I have heard from people on this board and elsewhere.

As for the second paragraph, I'm not going to reiterate my previous arguments since you've heard before about how I think trying to compare across professions is a big mistake and I've given up trying to convince you otherwise.

However, I will say this.

As far as I know, there is ALSO no evidence saying that the amount of face to face hours I have with actual clients is related to the quality of clinical supervision I can provide in a faculty job. Actually there very well could be evidence (though I doubt it given the fact there is barely ANY research on clinical supervision quality), but let's assume for the sake of argument that there is not.

Given that, would you have a problem with a faculty member with no actual face-to-face hours providing clinical supervision of students? There's no evidence to say that would be bad, and I could make an (admittedly weak) case that supervision is more dependent on how hard they are willing to work with students and how well they communicate (e.g. general teaching ability). So, ignoring the legal aspects of licensing, should people looking for faculty jobs who have no intentions of actually having direct contact with clients bother getting ANY clinical hours? Or is just learning about how therapy is supposed to go in classrooms enough?

 

[JockNerd]

So long as we're comparing across professions, televangelist faith healers and exorcists are intelligent, motivated, dedicated and hardworking too. It doesn't make their practices legitimate.

 

[Anx73B]

I'd wager that personality has a lot to do with the quality of therapists - maybe even more so than general intelligence. Should they give personality tests to wanna-be-psychologists? The problem is how do you decide who is or is not a good therapist. Until you can rate the quality of therapy across different therapists and different professions etc. then no one can really win this argument. Therapists don't want to be rated - they're too invested into their careers to risk learning that they are an average or sub-par therapist. Maybe there should be more research on what makes a good therapist. In general more intelligent / academically gifted people are better therapists but not always. I'm sure there's plenty of professors that are horrible therapists, and I'm sure there's a ton of masters people who are great therapists. Why? I just think there needs to be more research.