Our intrinsic worth?

[psychwhy]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Originally from What do to?

WaitingKills: I'm sorry, but I've heard of many single mothers who work fulltime for minimum wage and don't make what some of us are offered for stipends, and they stil manage. Just because some of us are privilaged enough to get accepted into a program as a doctoral student, doesn't mean that we have the ability to live a privilaged life, just yet anyway.

ahhhh:Thank you for saying what I have felt through this process. I work at a state hospital with many people who make less than my stipend will be and they work 60 + hours a week, and have children. I get how hard living with little money can be but let's all try and be grateful that we are making money going to school and we will eventually get a Phd! Perspective is everything --Debt can happen due to unlucky situations but if you are about to but a new TV on credit or buy a steak on credit because you feel like you deserve it, take a few hours and meet some people who will never have what you have and they work just as hard -- sorry needed to rant too!

OK, again, there have been valid points made about the necessity of graduate students (and all Americans, for that matter) being reminded that living within one's means is a good thing. (We'll ignore for the moment the overwhelming cultural/media messages that we should get the bigger, better, "super cute" things right now because we "deserve" them.)

But what concerns me is the strong sentiment that we should somehow feel guilty to complain when we make more than what a "single mother working full-time on minimum wage."

First of all, some of the "single mothers" are your classmates -- look around.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that to have gotten to graduate school, you have already earned at least a Bachelor's degree, possibly a Master's as well. This isn't about being "privleged" to be accepted to graduate school -- you have demonstrated some intellectual abilities and skills or you wouldn't be there! This isn't about being in the right place at the right time or (necessarily) being born into a good family. At this point, you have already paid some dues and earned a credential that should eliminate the need to accept a (near) minimum wage job in the first place. Seriously, did we all invest time and money in our educations so we could return from school and work for minimum wage?

Finally, what sense does it make in any economic theory that I earned more as a BA milieu counselor than as a pre-doctoral intern twenty years later?

Yes, we all could use a good dose of financial education. And, it may seem that we are crybabies when there are others making due with less than we are getting.

But we didn't just get picked out of a crowd and delivered to the door of graduate school There is still more of the journey to complete and sometimes one must sacrifice today to benefit tomorrow. But let us stop selling ourselves short. We have accomplished things to get to where we are.

Why do some seem to believe it is immodest or ungrateful to say we (and our accomplishments) deserve better?

 

[irish80122]

I understand both sides of the argument. Yes, there are people that get by with much less, and I have a lot of respect for those people. I am not sure yet how hard it will be to get by on a stipend, but honestly, I am just thankful that I have one.

Even though I am coming straight from undergrad, I feel a little like a non-traditional student because I own my own company and have had success with it in the real world (though now I plan on giving up my company). From the outside looking in, giving up my company would look difficult...I actually would do better financially if I went with my company than if I get a PhD. Due to this I have been asked several times why I am going into psychology, as it would seem that going into my business it would be a no-brainer financially. The decision was a no-brainer, I went with Psych, and the reason why is because finances aren't everything!

I understand what you are saying, we are all talented people and we could do a lot of other amazing things and make tons of money. It amazes me when I realize how much some of my good friends are going to be making next year. However, I consider myself blessed. I am blessed to be in a field I love and blessed to have the opportunity to do what I love without getting further in debt. These are blessings. They may not be blessings that pay well, but I would rather do them than make hundreds of thousands of dollars doing something I hate.

Perhaps I will change my mind down the road but I believe that my future program is doing the best they can to support me, and given that, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to do what I love. That is just my view.

Do I wish I made more, sure, who doesn't. However, you have to remember how you got where you are, and how very lucky you are. There are a lot of people who want to be in our shoes right now, and while higher stipends would be nice, I just can't stop thinking about how blessed I am.

Anyway, that is just how I view things. Sorry about the random response.

 

[WaitingKills]

Originally from What do to?



OK, again, there have been valid points made about the necessity of graduate students (and all Americans, for that matter) being reminded that living within one's means is a good thing. (We'll ignore for the moment the overwhelming cultural/media messages that we should get the bigger, better, "super cute" things right now because we "deserve" them.)

But what concerns me is the strong sentiment that we should somehow feel guilty to complain when we make more than what a "single mother working full-time on minimum wage."

First of all, some of the "single mothers" are your classmates -- look around.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that to have gotten to graduate school, you have already earned at least a Bachelor's degree, possibly a Master's as well. This isn't about being "privleged" to be accepted to graduate school -- you have demonstrated some intellectual abilities and skills or you wouldn't be there! This isn't about being in the right place at the right time or (necessarily) being born into a good family. At this point, you have already paid some dues and earned a credential that should eliminate the need to accept a (near) minimum wage job in the first place. Seriously, did we all invest time and money in our educations so we could return from school and work for minimum wage?

Finally, what sense does it make in any economic theory that I earned more as a BA milieu counselor than as a pre-doctoral intern twenty years later?

Yes, we all could use a good dose of financial education. And, it may seem that we are crybabies when there are others making due with less than we are getting.

But we didn't just get picked out of a crowd and delivered to the door of graduate school There is still more of the journey to complete and sometimes one must sacrifice today to benefit tomorrow. But let us stop selling ourselves short. We have accomplished things to get to where we are.

Why do some seem to believe it is immodest or ungrateful to say we (and our accomplishments) deserve better?

This wasn't exactly my point from the other threat. What my point was is that there is no reason to get into $100000+ debt if you are accepted into a fully funded program with a half decent stipend.

Yes, we have worked our asses off to get where we are today, and in my case hopefully next year. We should be damned proud of that. We do deserve better with all of our education, including those of us with masters or who have been working in the field.

However, it is our CHOICE to be in school and not making money. It is our CHOICE to become a psychologist. We know going into grad school what our financial situation will be, to a point (tuition, stipend). To get through school with little or no debt, we will have to sacrifice things in order to do this. And if you are creative in your budgeting, shopping and planning, you can still have a life.

My point in the other thread, in short, was...if you are wanting to live a privilaged life to go with your privilaged degree (because it IS a privilage to be where we are) then you are going to have to suck it up and deal iwth your debt that you have caused.

I am not talking about those who have kids or other circumstances which would be more of a financial strain, because you are not necessarily the norm.

We are STUDENT's. We are not doctors yet. We are not psychologists yet. Yes we are educated. Yes we are smart. Yes we are the privilaged few. But when you enter a program knowing your financial circumstances, the length of committment and all that it entails you need to make a choice. Live like a meager student and graduate with little ot no debt, or live like the privilaged person you are and will become and then deal with the consequenses of that choice.

I made the reference to the single mother who works her but off and earns less money than some stipends to make the point that others have it financially worse and make it. It can be done! Not to say that with our hard work etc etc we don't deserve better than a pidly stipend, but this is our CHOICE.

If you want to make money NOW, then you are going to have to make a choice between grad school and working. If you are alright living like a student in order to get through without debt, great. If you choose to go and buy a car, live in a luxury apartment, take a trip to somewhere exotic, please don't have the balls to bitch at me (not anyone in specific here 😛 ) about your debt down the road, cause I seriously have no patience for it.

again, /rant


Oh, not yet. We are also very lucky IMO that most schools offer tuition remission and stipends. From what I understand, people who are accepted into med school, vet school etc are not offered this luxury even though they also have a bachelors degree. If you want to talk about debt and hardship maybe take a visit into one of the other forums.

really /rant this time.


PS. Irish, you made some really good points!


PSS. Sorry if I sound bitchy, I am in a bad mood right now. But this topic really bites my butt...

 

[psychanon]

First of all, some of the "single mothers" are your classmates -- look around.

I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying that grad schools should provide sufficient salaries to provide for a family of four? You're getting paid to go to school. You can't complain too much.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that to have gotten to graduate school, you have already earned at least a Bachelor's degree, possibly a Master's as well. This isn't about being "privleged" to be accepted to graduate school -- you have demonstrated some intellectual abilities and skills or you wouldn't be there! This isn't about being in the right place at the right time or (necessarily) being born into a good family. At this point, you have already paid some dues and earned a credential that should eliminate the need to accept a (near) minimum wage job in the first place. Seriously, did we all invest time and money in our educations so we could return from school and work for minimum wage?

Again, we're getting paid to go to school. We're not making minimum wage, we're earning our meager stipends plus valuable human capital.

This isn't about the man keeping us repressed clinical psychology students down. It's about market forces. Psychology is a field with a huge supply of people who want in (i.e., applicants) and low demand (i.e., there aren't enough grants or TA lines to support everyone who wants to go to grad school). That's going to translate into low salaries for grad students. It's ECON 101. Similarly, since there are so many more psychologists being produced than the market can handle, that's going to translate into a competitive job market and salaries that are not commensurate with the effort put into the degree. If you're going to blame anyone, blame professional schools for churning out more graduates than the market needs.

Finally, what sense does it make in any economic theory that I earned more as a BA milieu counselor than as a pre-doctoral intern twenty years later?

See above. Supply + demand. i don't know your back story, but it sounds like you decided on a change in career later on? That's fine, but that means paying your dues just like everyone else. Yes, this is harder and more frustrating when you're older and have more responsibilities, but that's a decision you made when you started grad school.

Incidentally, I do agree pre-doc interns should be paid more. But that's another discussion.

Why do some seem to believe it is immodest or ungrateful to say we (and our accomplishments) deserve better?

Better what? Do you want more money? Become an investment banker. Given all of our accomplishments, I'm sure we all could have gone into very lucrative fields and made a lot of money. We chose not to because we value the intrinsic rewards of doing something that we love. I think Irish described that well. We have to realize that the trade off is that because psychology is so enjoyable, there are many others out there who want to do it and thus salaries are low. That's not going to change unless the government starts pouring more money into NIMH, higher education, healthcare, etc., creating more of a demand for psychologists (not likely in this administration). This is important to realize before you start a Ph.D. program. If it's not worth it to you, then do something else. But if you failed to do your research before you got into psychology and now feel stuck, well, that's too bad, but i don't think you have reason to complain.

 

[psychwhy]

psychanon: Better what? Do you want more money? Become an investment banker. Given all of our accomplishments, I'm sure we all could have gone into very lucrative fields and made a lot of money. We chose not to because we value the intrinsic rewards of doing something that we love.

An investment banker -- you mean a professional guesser/gambler? Would someone please explain to me how this society decided that someone who doesn't make/change/improve anything can be rewarded so lavishly? You take other people's money, make an (generally) educated guess where to put it, and then can be rewarded with many times the actual return on the investment.

We spend years in school learning how to help people better their lives -- not just their bank accounts -- but their entire lives. We spend years acquiring advanced skills and understanding, yet, we are supposed to "accept" that we do this because it is something we "love"?

psychanon: We have to realize that the trade off is that because psychology is so enjoyable, there are many others out there who want to do it and thus salaries are low.

"So enjoyable?" Seriously? Have you have been paying attention to the cost/benefit analysis that spawned this thread?

Yes, hopefully we all have the ability to pursue a career that we enjoy doing, but do you really feel that helping people deal with the deepest, darkest difficulties of their lives is "enjoyable"?

It would seem like a game tester, or movie/restaurant critic, heck, race car driver would be more "enjoyable."

psychanon: But if you failed to do your research before you got into psychology and now feel stuck, well, that's too bad, but i don't think you have reason to complain.

Again, we are back to "blaming the victim."
Have we as a society gotten so totally capitalistic that choosing any career which actually benefits society has to have a "martyr factor"?

A friend of mine liked to comment that teaching was one of the last professions where one was literally expected to marytr oneself. The pay is marginal in comparison to the required educational requirements. The rewards are untangible (you only rarely see/hear that a student has done well in life). And the pressure is enormous (everyone believes their child is a genius and it is YOUR fault when they do not achieve a 4.0 average.) It seems that psychology has let itself be pigeonholed in the same category.

Point blank ... we earn a degree that entitles us to be called "doctor". Not "doctor sort of" or "doctor lite" ... just "doctor". Yes, physician salary/prestige occupies a spectrum, but generally, the lowest paid physician makes double what the highest paid psychologist makes. (Same for medical residents.) Both psychologists and physicians devote themselves to bettering their patients lives, even though the focus of attention is different, the impact can be quite similar.

Yet, we are treated as the bastard step-children of the healthcare field.
The saddest part of that is that it isn't just medicine or society that levies that assessment ... we psychologists seem to confirm that valuation by our own behavior in believing we are only worthy of accepting the scraps from the societial/monetary/professional table.

Why does a profession that devotes itself to raising its clients view of themselves have such a dim view of itself?

[For the record, before beginning my doctoral program, I was well aware that I would never make what a physician does. However, the actual salary disparity was a surprise, along with the fact that many other sub-doctoral healthcare professions make, on average, much more than psychologists. I was also surprised by this pretty pervasive sentiment within the profession that it is the epitome of hubris and ego to actually assert oneself as a doctorally trained professional worthy of compensation and respect.]

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

<---still plans on making a lot of money.....admittedly not in clinical areas.



More to come later.....when I have time and whatnot.

-t

 

[irish80122]

Yes, hopefully we all have the ability to pursue a career that we enjoy doing, but do you really feel that helping people deal with the deepest, darkest difficulties of their lives is "enjoyable"?

Actually...yes. If you don't feel that way, that may be something to think about!

I understand wanting to make your voice heard, but at the end of the day, it can't change a market. The pay will get better in time I believe, as I have read we have more psychologists retiring than coming in, but it will take a while. One thing I have learned is it really isn't how much money you have, but what you do with that money. I personally spend about 10 hours a week working on investments...not much, but I do well. There are ways of making supplemental income.

 

[RayneeDeigh]

Hmm I've been avoiding commenting in this thread 'cause I didn't think I had anything of value to say, but maybe I do.

Without going into too much personal detail... in my early teens I made the hard decision to either do something I didn't want to do, or risk being disowned by one-half of my extended family. I chose the latter, and they did in fact disown me. This meant the difference between a regular person's life, and a significantly wealthier person's life. Looking back, I simply don't see any better choice than the one I made. Choosing what you WANT to do over what will make you very wealthy is generally the best way to be happy (in my opinion). You can make $200,000 a year but if you aren't spending your time doing something you really do find enjoyable, the happiness that accompanies the income will almost certainly be fleeting. Making a choice to pursue a life that will likely never move you into a 7-bedroom home is much harder for some than others, but I think there's a lot of unnecessary worrying about Psychologists' salaries.

Psychologists (or the majority of them anyway) are not disgustingly wealthy. Although, I do have a cousin in California who is and I have yet to discover exactly why (haha). But the majority of Psychologists are not living hand-to-mouth either. It's a workable salary. It's a job that in most cases allows you great opportunity to travel, meet new and exciting people, and above all else: make a difference. Is that worth the difference in salary between a Psychologist and a corporate job? It is to me. I'd hazard a guess that it is to most of us around here.

Yes it would be "more fair" and obviously nicer for us if our billion years of education amounted to a larger salary. I agree with Irish, more people are retiring than are going in to the profession so this means good things. And really, the issue of salary perhaps should motivate us to contribute very useful things to the field in order to carve a niche and get us to the top. Complacency never helped anyone.

 

[psychwhy]

Perhaps it would have been more appropriate not to frame this discussion as exploring our intrinsic but rather our extrinsic worth and value.

People keep piling on about how it is better to do something you love and be poor rather than something you hate and be rich. I don't think anyone would argue that basic reality. (In fact, one of my intern colleagues did just that --left a lucrative career to complete his doctorate.)

The point that people are missing is WHY is our profession so relatively low paid and, more importantly, WHY do we accept it as fait accompli?

RayneeDeigh said that "complacency never helped anyone." Truer words have not been spoken and that is the crux of my argument. Psychology as a profession is the least politically active. We are outspent in support of professional advocacy by podiatrists, chiropractors, veterinarians ... every other health profession. This is the core of my concern -- even with all of our work and education we behave as if we deserve no better than what others say we should get.

Irish insinuated that I must not "enjoy" my work. Not true at all. My concern was with the framing of the entire profession as being "enjoyable work" made it sound like we are lucky to be paid at all. Ego centered professional athletes have often said they recognize how lucky they are to be paid lavish sums for playing a game. My point is, we are not in that league. We work hard to get to where we can be called "doctor" but when we get there we seem to be ashamed to ask for what someone with our training and expertise is worth.

And, psychanon, this is indeed about "the man keeping repressed clinical psychology students down". There are several institutionalized reasons why we are paid what we're paid (as students, interns, and licensed psychologists). The lack of training support/funding is what keeps the number of internships low and the salaries abysmal. (And let's not forget that a number of "good" students are put in the position of taking UNPAID internships/post-docs. What other profession would consider that sort of lunacy acceptable?) The requirement for a pre- and post-doc year of supervised practice is what puts most of us behind the financial eight ball before we even begin our lives of "privilege." The absense of parity in the payment of mental health services is what limits the income of psychologists to a fraction of providers of physical health services.

Even if you were in fully supported graduate program, in order to get there, many of you probably took out loans to fund your undergraduate studies. If you were at anything other than the cheapest state college, you probably have at minimum $50,000 in debt. Then if you take just a bare minimum of sustenance loans during the 4 - 8 years of graduate school (say, $10,000/yr, certainly not enough to finance a lavish lifestyle but enough to permit surviving modest living in a major city), now you've tacked on another $40,000 to 80,000. Grand total of your education: $90 - 130,000 with a funded doctorate.

These are all tangible obstacles to the growth of the professional and financial prestige of psychology.

If you closely read the stories of people dealing with financial aid, this ain't no car loan we took. If you compare the disparities between studying medicine and psychology, the income-to-debt ratio is staggeringly out of wack. And get familiar with the term "income-to-debt ratio" because that is precisely how your credit rating is calculated. Our average salaries put us in a particularly bad income to debt ratio meaning that for the "privilege" of earning a doctorate, many of us will not be able to qualify for buying a house and will be relegated to sub-prime interest rates on everything from cars to credit cards.

Finally, WaitingKills, would you please explain why you think enduring all of this still makes us privileged -- "enjoying a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all"? In fact, the interpretation seems rather paradoxical. We indeed do join a special group, the <1% of Americans who earn doctorates, but get there because of hard work and sacrifice, not the fortune of being born in to wealth (a la Paris Hilton). Case in point -- why are physicians exempted having to endure the travails of civil service to get a state job, but psychologists are classified with toll collectors, clerk/typists, plumbers, etc. and must be evaluated and "scored" as if earning our credentials is not proof enough we are qualified for the job. This is privilege?

Again, my question is: Why do so many seem to resign themselves to accepting less than what our education and experience are worth?

 

[queen810queen]

Perhaps it would have been more appropriate not to frame this discussion as exploring our intrinsic but rather our extrinsic worth and value.

People keep piling on about how it is better to do something you love and be poor rather than something you hate and be rich. I don't think anyone would argue that basic reality. (In fact, one of my intern colleagues did just that --left a lucrative career to complete his doctorate.)

The point that people are missing is WHY is our profession so relatively low paid and, more importantly, WHY do we accept it as fait accompli?

RayneeDeigh said that "complacency never helped anyone." Truer words have not been spoken and that is the crux of my argument. Psychology as a profession is the least politically active. We are outspent in support of professional advocacy by podiatrists, chiropractors, veterinarians ... every other health profession. This is the core of my concern -- even with all of our work and education we behave as if we deserve no better than what others say we should get.

Irish insinuated that I must not "enjoy" my work. Not true at all. My concern was with the framing of the entire profession as being "enjoyable work" made it sound like we are lucky to be paid at all. Ego centered professional athletes have often said they recognize how lucky they are to be paid lavish sums for playing a game. My point is, we are not in that league. We work hard to get to where we can be called "doctor" but when we get there we seem to be ashamed to ask for what someone with our training and expertise is worth.

And, psychanon, this is indeed about "the man keeping repressed clinical psychology students down". There are several institutionalized reasons why we are paid what we're paid (as students, interns, and licensed psychologists). The lack of training support/funding is what keeps the number of internships low and the salaries abysmal. The requirement for a pre- and post-doc year of supervised practice is what puts most of us behind the financial eight ball before we even begin our lives of "privilege." The absense of parity in the payment of mental health services is what limits the income of psychologists to a fraction of providers of physical health services.

Even if you were in fully supported graduate program, in order to get there, many of you probably took out loans to fund your undergraduate studies. If you were at anything other than the cheapest state college, you probably have at minimum $50,000 in debt. Then if you take just a bare minimum of sustinance loans during the 4 - 8 years of graduate school (say, $10,000/yr, certainly not enough to finance a lavish lifestyle but enough to permit surviving modest living in a major city), now you've tacked on another $40,000 to 80,000. Grand total of your education: $90 - 130,000 with a funded doctorate.

These are all tangible obstacles to the growth of the professional and financial prestige of psychology.

If you closely read the stories of people dealing with financial aid, this ain't no car loan we took. If you compare the disparities between studying medicine and psychology, the income-to-debt ratio is staggeringly out of wack. And get familiar with the term "income-to-debt ratio" because that is precisely how your credit rating is calculated. Our average salaries put us in a particularly bad income to debt ratio meaning that for the "privilege" of earning a doctorate, many of us will not be able to qualify for buying a house and will be relegated to sub-prime interest rates on everything from cars to credit cards.

Finally, WaitingKills, would you please explain why you think enduring all of this still makes us privileged -- "enjoying a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all"? In fact, the interpretation seems rather paradoxical. We indeed do join a special group, the <1% of Americans who earn doctorates, but get there because of hard work and sacrifice, not the fortune of being born in to wealth (a la Paris Hilton). Case in point -- why are physicians exempted having to endure the travails of civil service to get a state job, but psychologists are classified with toll collectors, clerk/typists, plumbers, etc. and must be evaluated and "scored" as if earning our credentials is not proof enough we are qualified for the job. This is privilege?

Again, my question is: Why do so many seem to resign themselves to accepting less than what our education and experience are worth?

psychwhy, I am in compete agreement with you!

here is my partial hypothesis on why we accept this state of affairs. I believe it has a lot to do with Psychology being considered a humanitarian field. We are in this field because we want to help others, therefore there is certain amount of guilt/stigma associated with wanting or even demanding higher salaries/larger financial incentives. It is truly very sad, because a psychologist must at least be comfortable (monetarily) in order to concentrate fully on the task at hand "helping people" instead of worrying about how to make a living/loans.

 

[psychanon]

An investment banker -- you mean a professional guesser/gambler? Would someone please explain to me how this society decided that someone who doesn't make/change/improve anything can be rewarded so lavishly? You take other people's money, make an (generally) educated guess where to put it, and then can be rewarded with many times the actual return on the investment.

We spend years in school learning how to help people better their lives -- not just their bank accounts -- but their entire lives. We spend years acquiring advanced skills and understanding, yet, we are supposed to "accept" that we do this because it is something we "love"?

If you think that incomes are determined by how intrinsically important jobs are (e.g., bettering lives over picking stocks), you have a very poor understanding of how economics works. Incomes are determined by how much employers are willing to pay for them and how many people want the job. Investment bankers make tons of money for their companies, so they are well compensated. As important as psychologists' work is, it just doesn't generate enough dollars for employers to justify huge paychecks. More importantly, there are SO MANY psychologists out there, so for every decently paid job out there, there's another psychologists willing to take it for less money. The result? Lower paying jobs.

Yes, hopefully we all have the ability to pursue a career that we enjoy doing, but do you really feel that helping people deal with the deepest, darkest difficulties of their lives is "enjoyable"?

It would seem like a game tester, or movie/restaurant critic, heck, race car driver would be more "enjoyable."

Hmm. Game tester. Race car driver. What a nice sample of realistic careers. You're right, psychology is totally lame compared to those. I'm more thinking of more common alternatives to psychology, such as business, law, etc. Of course psychology is enjoyable compared to those. Of course helping people sort through their deepest, darkest difficulties is rewarding. Would this board be as active if it weren't? Would BU have received 800 applications for 10 spots if it weren't? The proof is in the proverbial pudding. If you don't find psychology rewarding, then you have definitely chosen the wrong path, because there are many people who do.

Irish insinuated that I must not "enjoy" my work. Not true at all. My concern was with the framing of the entire profession as being "enjoyable work" made it sound like we are lucky to be paid at all. Ego centered professional athletes have often said they recognize how lucky they are to be paid lavish sums for playing a game. My point is, we are not in that league. We work hard to get to where we can be called "doctor" but when we get there we seem to be ashamed to ask for what someone with our training and expertise is worth.

Professional athletes have very unique abilities. I'm sorry to break this to you, but the average psychologist does not. There are professional schools out there who will accept pretty much anyone willing to write a check. As a result, just being a psychologist is no longer that special.

And, psychanon, this is indeed about "the man keeping repressed clinical psychology students down". There are several institutionalized reasons why we are paid what we're paid (as students, interns, and licensed psychologists). The lack of training support/funding is what keeps the number of internships low and the salaries abysmal. (And let's not forget that a number of "good" students are put in the position of taking UNPAID internships/post-docs. What other profession would consider that sort of lunacy acceptable?) The requirement for a pre- and post-doc year of supervised practice is what puts most of us behind the financial eight ball before we even begin our lives of "privilege." The absense of parity in the payment of mental health services is what limits the income of psychologists to a fraction of providers of physical health services.

I already said previously that I agree that interns should be paid more. But I don't think that one year of higher salary is going to make that huge of a difference. Also, I understand why internship salaries are low-- because there are so many applicants who are willing to take it, because there are too many clinical psych students out there. I don't know what you're talking about with the unpaid internships/ post-docs. I've never heard of that from graduates of my program or from friends of mine at other reputable programs.

Even if you were in fully supported graduate program, in order to get there, many of you probably took out loans to fund your undergraduate studies. If you were at anything other than the cheapest state college, you probably have at minimum $50,000 in debt. Then if you take just a bare minimum of sustenance loans during the 4 - 8 years of graduate school (say, $10,000/yr, certainly not enough to finance a lavish lifestyle but enough to permit surviving modest living in a major city), now you've tacked on another $40,000 to 80,000. Grand total of your education: $90 - 130,000 with a funded doctorate.

I'm not sure if you understand the concept of a fully funded program. We get stipends to live on. I get around 20k per year, IN ADDITION to paying no tuition. I have not taken out a dime of loans, nor do I anticipate having to do so. I don't have any undergrad debt either, because I chose that cheap state school, where I got an outstanding education. I don't think you can blame the psychology system for undergraduate debt. That's a factor for any profession that requires a college education. And if someone chooses a fancy private school over a solid state school (or a school where they could get a scholarship), then that's fine, but they can't then complain about debt later on.

Again, my question is: Why do so many seem to resign themselves to accepting less than what our education and experience are worth?

There is a solution. Shut down the professional schools that are churning out graduates and diluting the quality of our degree. If there were fewer psychologists out there, salaries would go up. It's simple economics.

 

[psychwhy]

psychanon: If you think that incomes are determined by how intrinsically important jobs are (e.g., bettering lives over picking stocks), you have a very poor understanding of how economics works. Incomes are determined by how much employers are willing to pay for them and how many people want the job. Investment bankers make tons of money for their companies, so they are well compensated. As important as psychologists' work is, it just doesn't generate enough dollars for employers to justify huge paychecks. More importantly, there are SO MANY psychologists out there, so for every decently paid job out there, there's another psychologists willing to take it for less money. The result? Lower paying jobs.

No, you can lay off the insinuations of naive ignorance. I am not unaware of the way capitalism works. I am pointing out that its priorities are seriously misaligned, given its current valuation of various professions. Is the entire rest of the world so skewed in its belief that celebrity and quick fixes are more important than bettering society as a whole?

This is how we in the profession contribute the problem. We validate this perception of marginal worth of our services when we throw our hands in the air and declare: "Oh well, people think investment bankers are more important economically than psychologists, so I guess I should be satisfied with that."

Tell me why that investment banker, who I would presume has a pretty good concept of the value of a dollar, would likely not balk at a large bill from a physician for marginal improvement of a physical malady, but likely would scream at getting an equally large bill for much improved functioning facilitated by a psychologist?

And where do you get this perception that there are SO MANY psychologists out there? According to the US Department of Labor (2004) there are 179,000 employed psychologists in the US (and this includes some non-doctoral titles). Assuming a national population of 300 million, that means one psychologist for approximately every 1,700 Americans.

Yeah, there's a glut.

psychanon: Hmm. Game tester. Race car driver. What a nice sample of realistic careers. You're right, psychology is totally lame compared to those. I'm more thinking of more common alternatives to psychology, such as business, law, etc. Of course psychology is enjoyable compared to those. Of course helping people sort through their deepest, darkest difficulties is rewarding. Would this board be as active if it weren't? Would BU have received 800 applications for 10 spots if it weren't? The proof is in the proverbial pudding. If you don't find psychology rewarding, then you have definitely chosen the wrong path, because there are many people who do.

It's called hyperbole.
My point wasn't that psychology is "lame" in comparison to those, but that those other jobs are simply just "fun."
Yes, of course, I would hope the majority of psychologists chose their profession because it is personally engaging. However, the actual work of helping people can take quite a toll (ever have a client suicide?)

My point remains, why do we as a profession accept this mantra that "society doesn't value what we do, so live with it"?

psychanon: Professional athletes have very unique abilities. I'm sorry to break this to you, but the average psychologist does not. There are professional schools out there who will accept pretty much anyone willing to write a check. As a result, just being a psychologist is no longer that special.

Ouch ... damn ... you belittled PhDs and PsyDs in that one. Professional schools have lowered the caliber of psychology. But, psychologists aren't all that special to begin with. So, why then is the profession so "popular"? How do you reconcile the areas of the country lacking mental health services when we have this "glut." Can you explain why in the rural midwest where I live, social service agencies seem to believe that anyone with a pulse can "do psychology"?

psychanon: I already said previously that I agree that interns should be paid more. But I don't think that one year of higher salary is going to make that huge of a difference. Also, I understand why internship salaries are low-- because there are so many applicants who are willing to take it, because there are too many clinical psych students out there. I don't know what you're talking about with the unpaid internships/ post-docs. I've never heard of that from graduates of my program or from friends of mine at other reputable programs.

I'm not sure if you understand the concept of a fully funded program. We get stipends to live on. I get around 20k per year, IN ADDITION to paying no tuition. I have not taken out a dime of loans, nor do I anticipate having to do so. I don't have any undergrad debt either, because I chose that cheap state school, where I got an outstanding education. I don't think you can blame the psychology system for undergraduate debt. That's a factor for any profession that requires a college education. And if someone chooses a fancy private school over a solid state school (or a school where they could get a scholarship), then that's fine, but they can't then complain about debt later on.

It might be helpful to come out from whatever perceptual cocoon you are in then. This thread began because of an onslaught of complaints on the APPIC list. If you monitored their post-doc and intern lists, there are many people complaining about staggering loan debt and having to contemplate accepting internships and post-docs that are unfunded -- just so they can graduate/get licensed. That may not be the norm. But neither is your experience of apparently affording your education and living expenses with only having to tap your pocket change is either.

No, I am not "blaming" psychology for students' undergraduate debt. But you seem to be ignoring that having an undergraduate degree is required to pursue advanced training in psychology. Unlike, say, an ... investment banker.

And, yes, I do understand the concept of a funded program. But I also understand the cost of living in Boston, NYC, Atlanta, Chicago, LA ... home to a great many programs. Again, we're happy you seemed to have made it through without a scrape. Many of your colleagues did not.

psychanon: There is a solution. Shut down the professional schools that are churning out graduates and diluting the quality of our degree. If there were fewer psychologists out there, salaries would go up. It's simple economics.

Or perhaps the problem is getting supposedly learned people to acknolwedge that there is no simple solution.

If this is the depth of critical thinking that your vaunted "fully funded" program has produced, perhaps "the professional programs enrolling people who are willing to write a check" aren't the ones we should be worried about.

I agree with the others who have expressed dismay in how psychology in the face of professional challenges tends to turn in on and eviserate itself rather than unify and elevate the profession as a whole. Ever notice how nursing, in little more than 40 years, was transformed from being seen as a profession of handmaidens to physicians' egos to being full fledged healthcare providers, often on par with physicians? Do you really believe psychology is not worthy of the same regard?

Frankly, I am worry about the future of the profession when what was intended as a rallying cry to band together and improve the conditions for us and our successors is met with such rancor, defensiveness, and belittlement.

[PS - If any investment bankers have made it to this list, I apologize for any insinuation of the worthlessness of your profession. I have nothing but respect for people who put in a honest day's work. What strips my gears is when that honest day's work provides disproportionate rewards.]

 

[RayneeDeigh]

Frankly, I am worry about the future of the profession when what was intended as a rallying cry to band together and improve the conditions for us and our successors is met with such rancor, defensiveness, and belittlement.

Do rallying cries EVER unite people for more than a few seconds? There's so much pessimism flying around this thread and the issue in general, it's hard to feel united about anything at all. I think that you just showed the belittlement you're talking about, when you insinuated that one person's fully funded education insufficiently prepared them for critical thinking. We're all intelligent people here.

I'm not worried about the future of the profession. There is excellent work being done, and taking time to dwell on comparing salaries and education levels between professions likely distracts from it. I think that if you believe you'll be underappreciated as a Psychologist, you likely will be.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

here is my partial hypothesis on why we accept this state of affairs. I believe it has a lot to do with Psychology being considered a humanitarian field. We are in this field because we want to help others, therefore there is certain amount of guilt/stigma associated with wanting or even demanding higher salaries/larger financial incentives. It is truly very sad, because a psychologist must at least be comfortable (monetarily) in order to concentrate fully on the task at hand "helping people" instead of worrying about how to make a living/loans.

I think that is definitely part of it. The lobbing point mentioned above is the main reason why I think the APA is failing us.....but a portion of that blame falls back on membership. Psychologists are cheap.....and until they contribute more , the APA will be limited in what they can do.

-t

 

[WaitingKills]

Finally, WaitingKills, would you please explain why you think enduring all of this still makes us privileged -- "enjoying a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all"? In fact, the interpretation seems rather paradoxical. We indeed do join a special group, the <1% of Americans who earn doctorates, but get there because of hard work and sacrifice, not the fortune of being born in to wealth (a la Paris Hilton).

First, I would like ot say that I did not say that "enduring all of this" makes us privilaged. I said that we were privilaged for the position that we are in, and what we will become. And I still stand by this opinion for the following reasons...

1. Not everyone in the States or Canada can afford to go to university.
2. Not everyone is intelligent to get into university.
3. Not everyone is able due to family/life circumstances to go to university.

Therefore, those of us who attended university, and earned a degree, are privilaged. As you quoted "enjoying a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all". A university education in North America is a privilage, not a right (though I disagree with how this is - I think it should be a right - and then think of how much you'll be bitching about wages!).

More reasons why I think that we are privilaged...

1. If you are complaining about graduate costs, you must have gotten accepted. Acceptance to grad school is a privilage, not a right.
2. When you graduate, you will be making a good living. You won't be making $8.00 like a lot of north americans, you will start (after internship) at $67000-82000 (BC Psychologist Grade B wage) a year which equals approximately $34-$42 an hour. No it's not the lottery, but you can live well. You can have a new car, buy a house (maybe not in New York, but in the majority of cities in north america), you can travel.
3. You will have the privilage to make a difference in people's lives and hopefully help them to regain their happiness and normalcy.
4. You will have the title of Doctor and enjoy the prestige that comes with that (not MD remember, that's different, Ph.D).

Case in point -- why are physicians exempted having to endure the travails of civil service to get a state job, but psychologists are classified with toll collectors, clerk/typists, plumbers, etc. and must be evaluated and "scored" as if earning our credentials is not proof enough we are qualified for the job. This is privilege?

Physicians are different than psychologists. We are not medical doctors. It would be like comparing us to hockey players or actors. We do not do surgery, we do not cast arms etc. We have vastly different training, with doctors taking longer to finish their degrees, paying a hell of a lot more and honestly, have a more intense time of it (I lived wiht med students). They jump through their own hoops throughout their training and aren't always treated well either.

I don't know why you are lumping us in with toll collectors, clerks, plumbers etc. From where I've lived, Australia and Canada, we are seen as Paramedical or Allied Health Professionals. Not civic workers as you claim. What I've experiences, is that we are lumped with physiotherapists, speech therapists, social workers etc. And from my experience working, we as psychologists are on the top of this totem pole. Maybe it's different in the states. I can't comment on this.

What do you mean about being evaluated and scored? Are you talking about the EPPP? If that's the case, what profession that is regulated does not have these 'evaluations'? Doctors, lawyers, nurses etc all do. I think that, while a pain in the ass, it helps weed out those that have made it through school somehow, but don't know anything.

It might be helpful to come out from whatever perceptual cocoon you are in then. This thread began because of an onslaught of complaints on the APPIC list. If you monitored their post-doc and intern lists, there are many people complaining about staggering loan debt and having to contemplate accepting internships and post-docs that are unfunded -- just so they can graduate/get licensed. That may not be the norm. But neither is your experience of apparently affording your education and living expenses with only having to tap your pocket change is either.

(This was in relation to psychanon's statement of not being in debt throughout school.)

I don't think that Psychanon is in any cocoon. I graduated both my bachelors and masters degree without debt. It can be done. (FYI, I'm not a rich person from a rich family. I paid for all my schooling by myself while I was in school by working, budgetting and being creative. Please don't come back with the mommy and daddy, rich little girl, comments because this was completely not the case. I did it on my own.)

I will restate this...but please refer to my reply at the beginning of this thread... This is all about choice! You are choosing a profession that won't make you rich. You are choosing a profession where you know that there will be hardship throughout your education. This is your choice.

You can also make the choice throughout this process to live like a student, not like a privilaged kid for which the world owes you something because you are getting a Ph.D in clinical psychology, and make it through your fully funded graduate program with a stipend. I can understand going into debt by like $10000 or something, but 80000-100000, that's rediculous. That's 20-25000 extra a year, on top of your stipend. Again, if people want to live it up when they know their financial situtation is tight, that's fine. Just don't bitch about it.



Now, I'm not saying that I don't think psychologists deserve more financial renumeration than we get. I think we do. I think that we should be right there under psychiatrists. But the reality is that we're not. If you want to make money and change the world at the same time, if you want the respect of a doctor, if you want everything that you think they have that we don't, go to med school. The acceptance rates are higher anyway. Just quit complaining about how horrible a field it is to get into and how much it costs and how little respect there is out there for us. I think in the most part, that's crap. We do get respect, it doesn't cost that much if you know how to budget and stick within your means (fully funded with stipend only) and it's a great field.

I look forward to getting my Ph.D. I look forward to getting my $80000 a year and then more with experience. I look forward to finally being able to work with people in the field and with clients. I look forward to working again in an allied health team.

I seriously have no complaints. I just want to be a psychologist and am willing to make the sacrifice of hard work with little pay until I get there. Because this is my choice and I knew about the situation I would be in when I went into the field. I have no right to complain, and really, nothing to complain about.

/rant

sorry if this is pissy, but again, it's getting on my nerves.

 

[queen810queen]

I feel it is important to re-iterate that not everyone gets into a fully funded doctorate program with a stipend. I did not. I got into Hofstra and St. Johns. Both are accredited clinical psychology phd programs. both would require me to take out various amounts of loans. (it is not just the professional schools that result in large student debt). I also know of several other APA accredited programs that do not pay for tuition or stipend.

I know that a small minority of students are lucky enough to get into full funded phd program. There are also plenty of very good applicants who do not. At this level it is part credentials, part connections, and part luck.

 

[psychwhy]

WaitingKills1) Acceptance to grad school is a privilage, not a right.
2. When you graduate, you will be making a good living. You won't be making $8.00 like a lot of north americans, you will start (after internship) at $67000-82000 (BC Psychologist Grade B wage) a year which equals approximately $34-$42 an hour. No it's not the lottery, but you can live well. You can have a new car, buy a house (maybe not in New York, but in the majority of cities in north america), you can travel.
3. You will have the privilage to make a difference in people's lives and hopefully help them to regain their happiness and normalcy.
4. You will have the title of Doctor and enjoy the prestige that comes with that (not MD remember, that's different, Ph.D).

I'm sorry but I seriously do not see where you get your vision of privilege

Yes, you are right, not everyone is intelligent enough to get into university. This is not privilege. This is life.
Not everyone is skilled enough to craft a cabinet or repair a car. That is not privilege. It is the nature of diversity of human skills.

Getting accepted into graduate school is most certainly not a privilege. It is an accomplishment. Why do you seem intent on asserting that we somehow should accept second-class treatment because we have somehow been blessed? That just perplexes me.

There is certainly little prestige in the title "Doctor" when one cannot afford to take one's family to McDonalds for lunch because of the costs involved in attaining that title.

WaitingKills: Physicians are different than psychologists. We are not medical doctors. It would be like comparing us to hockey players or actors. We do not do surgery, we do not cast arms etc. We have vastly different training, with doctors taking longer to finish their degrees, paying a hell of a lot more and honestly, have a more intense time of it (I lived wiht med students). They jump through their own hoops throughout their training and aren't always treated well either.

Sorry, it is not like comparing us to hockey players or actors. It is like comparing hockey players to football players or actors to singers. We and physicians are doctorally trained health care providers. Yes, they learn different things. But not all of them spend longer in training than we do. And they begin earning nearly double what we do immediately upon graduating from medical school. Psychology requires an internship before graduation.

No one is saying that physicians do not have a tough road to travel. They do.
But so do we.
Why are we so afraid to say that?

WaitingKills: I don't know why you are lumping us in with toll collectors, clerks, plumbers etc. From where I've lived, Australia and Canada, we are seen as Paramedical or Allied Health Professionals. Not civic workers as you claim. What I've experiences, is that we are lumped with physiotherapists, speech therapists, social workers etc. And from my experience working, we as psychologists are on the top of this totem pole. Maybe it's different in the states. I can't comment on this.

What do you mean about being evaluated and scored? Are you talking about the EPPP? If that's the case, what profession that is regulated does not have these 'evaluations'? Doctors, lawyers, nurses etc all do. I think that, while a pain in the ass, it helps weed out those that have made it through school somehow, but don't know anything.

I am referring to US civil service processes. In most of the states, to prevent well paying state jobs from being used as political payback when a new administration is elected, they created a system known as civil service.

Generally, unskilled/semi-skilled/tradespeople are made to take an exam to demonstrate they are actually qualifed for the job and are not just a well-connected body taking up a space.

Now, there are physicians who are state employed (state hospitals, prisons, clinics, etc.) and they are not included in these civil service procedures because it is assumed, by virtue of earning a medical degree, they are de facto qualified for a medical position. Psychologists, by comparison, must endure the civil service bureaucracy.

My question is: Why, as doctorally trained clincians, aren't psychologists afforded the same professional stature?

(For the record, the US federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) insists that all BOP employees are correctional officers first. This means that they must also complete the same training as correctional officers and are required to "stand a post" on a regular basis. The only two employment categories exempted from this: physicians and clergy.)

I bring this up as evidence of the shocking disparity in the prestige and respect of the psychological profession. (As evidenced by your apparent satisfaction with being "lumped" in the "allied" health professions. You have so little respect for your own profession you do not feel we should be considered "health professionals"?)

WaitingKills: I will restate this...but please refer to my reply at the beginning of this thread... This is all about choice! You are choosing a profession that won't make you rich. You are choosing a profession where you know that there will be hardship throughout your education. This is your choice.

So why are you not as willing to accept that some of us choose to make our profession more respected and less willing to accept the scraps?

WaitingKills: You can also make the choice throughout this process to live like a student, not like a privilaged kid for which the world owes you something because you are getting a Ph.D in clinical psychology, and make it through your fully funded graduate program with a stipend. I can understand going into debt by like $10000 or something, but 80000-100000, that's rediculous. That's 20-25000 extra a year, on top of your stipend. Again, if people want to live it up when they know their financial situtation is tight, that's fine. Just don't bitch about it.

Ultimately it is this particular brand of insensitive elitism that is staggering.
Several of your colleagues present their concerns about the hoops they have been forced to jump through and costs they have had to absorb to accomplish their education and your sum total comment is: "Just don't bitch about it?"

So glad you are in a helping profession!

WaitingKills: Just quit complaining about how horrible a field it is to get into and how much it costs and how little respect there is out there for us. I think in the most part, that's crap. We do get respect, it doesn't cost that much if you know how to budget and stick within your means (fully funded with stipend only) and it's a great field.

No one here has complained about "how horrible a field it is to get into." If you were more attentive to what had been said, the discontent is that the rewards (in prestige and pay) are grossly disproportionate to the time and effort required to acquire them.

As you, yourself, have pointed out, in North American cultures respect = pay and, right now, given our level of pay, we are not very well respected. It also is quite distressing that some people seem to be perfectly comfortable with that -- to have their work and accomplishments diminished by "market forces."

And finally, it is truly disturbing that people preparing for this field believe they can "eliminate the problem" by simplistically advocating for the disbanding of all professional schools and/or telling student to just "budget better."

Yours aren't the only nerves being made raw here.

 

[RayneeDeigh]

(For the record, the US federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) insists that all BOP employees are correctional officers first. This means that they must also complete the same training as correctional officers and are required to "stand a post" on a regular basis. The only two employment categories exempted from this: physicians and clergy.)

This is a good point, and has bothered me for quite some time. I would like to work in the prison system in the US but since I'm not a US citizen I also won't be a correctional officer. That disqualifies me from working in a situation that I feel I could contribute a lot to. However, what do you propose we do? We live in a world where governments are in charge. You can be "less willing to accept the scraps" all you want, but what good does that do? I'm in the field to help people, and I truly believe that focusing on how much you're being paid to help people is counter-productive.

And in response to your PM, I think comparing controversy over Psychology salaries with the feminist movement is a HUGE stretch. Lives were at stake in the feminist movement. You just want better pay. The feminist movement is CLOSE to my heart. Much closer than my future salary ever will be.

As you, yourself, have pointed out, in North American cultures respect = pay and, right now, given our level of pay, we are not very well respected. It also is quite distressing that some people seem to be perfectly comfortable with that -- to have their work and accomplishments diminished by "market forces."

Why should that distress you? Do you really feel the need to dictate what others should be content with? Just because their contentment detracts from your struggle to get a bigger piece of the pie doesn't mean that they don't have a right to be happy with less.

 

[Logic Prevails]

Psychwhy - I don't have time to elaborate, but I just want to say that I agree with everything you've said. The few clinical psychologist friends I have in the field would certainly agree, as they harbour some of the same concerns.

WaitingKills - I admire your passion, but I think you may have a one-sided view based on your private experience. Please keep in mind that the majority of PhD programs will not be fully funded with a full tuition waiver; there are many students who get accepted into reputable PhD programs and struggle to pay most of their own way (myself included). It really bugs me when people claim that it can and should always be done without accruing a sizable debt.

In terms of your comparing Med school with clinical psych, I'm going to disagree there as well. I have a friend in Med school; he has far more time-off than myself (including summer's off his first 2 years) and seems to have less stress/workload, he will finish his degree much sooner, and he will get paid much more. If you work in a multidiciplinary setting, you will generally find that we are not at the "top of the totem pole," but at the bottom; I hear too many complaints about psychologists in these settings being treated as second class citizens. I don't see any problems with greater advocating. I don't know why people think it needs to be discouraged.

 

[WaitingKills]

I'm sorry but I seriously do not see where you get your vision of privilege

Yes, you are right, not everyone is intelligent enough to get into university. This is not privilege. This is life.
Not everyone is skilled enough to craft a cabinet or repair a car. That is not privilege. It is the nature of diversity of human skills.

Getting accepted into graduate school is most certainly not a privilege. It is an accomplishment. Why do you seem intent on asserting that we somehow should accept second-class treatment because we have somehow been blessed? That just perplexes me.

There is certainly little prestige in the title "Doctor" when one cannot afford to take one's family to McDonalds for lunch because of the costs involved in attaining that title.


Sorry, it is not like comparing us to hockey players or actors. It is like comparing hockey players to football players or actors to singers. We and physicians are doctorally trained health care providers. Yes, they learn different things. But not all of them spend longer in training than we do. And they begin earning nearly double what we do immediately upon graduating from medical school. Psychology requires an internship before graduation.

No one is saying that physicians do not have a tough road to travel. They do.
But so do we.
Why are we so afraid to say that?


I am referring to US civil service processes. In most of the states, to prevent well paying state jobs from being used as political payback when a new administration is elected, they created a system known as civil service.

Generally, unskilled/semi-skilled/tradespeople are made to take an exam to demonstrate they are actually qualifed for the job and are not just a well-connected body taking up a space.

Now, there are physicians who are state employed (state hospitals, prisons, clinics, etc.) and they are not included in these civil service procedures because it is assumed, by virtue of earning a medical degree, they are de facto qualified for a medical position. Psychologists, by comparison, must endure the civil service bureaucracy.

My question is: Why, as doctorally trained clincians, aren't psychologists afforded the same professional stature?

(For the record, the US federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) insists that all BOP employees are correctional officers first. This means that they must also complete the same training as correctional officers and are required to "stand a post" on a regular basis. The only two employment categories exempted from this: physicians and clergy.)

I bring this up as evidence of the shocking disparity in the prestige and respect of the psychological profession. (As evidenced by your apparent satisfaction with being "lumped" in the "allied" health professions. You have so little respect for your own profession you do not feel we should be considered "health professionals"?)



So why are you not as willing to accept that some of us choose to make our profession more respected and less willing to accept the scraps?



Ultimately it is this particular brand of insensitive elitism that is staggering.
Several of your colleagues present their concerns about the hoops they have been forced to jump through and costs they have had to absorb to accomplish their education and your sum total comment is: "Just don't bitch about it?"

So glad you are in a helping profession!


No one here has complained about "how horrible a field it is to get into." If you were more attentive to what had been said, the discontent is that the rewards (in prestige and pay) are grossly disproportionate to the time and effort required to acquire them.

As you, yourself, have pointed out, in North American cultures respect = pay and, right now, given our level of pay, we are not very well respected. It also is quite distressing that some people seem to be perfectly comfortable with that -- to have their work and accomplishments diminished by "market forces."

And finally, it is truly disturbing that people preparing for this field believe they can "eliminate the problem" by simplistically advocating for the disbanding of all professional schools and/or telling student to just "budget better."

Yours aren't the only nerves being made raw here.

I just woke up. I'm bitchy and still tired. So I am going to keep this short.

You are completely missing my point as you are stuck in your beliefs and thoughs regarding the injustices and our profession.

You are stating that I am saying things that I haven't said, and you are taking things that I have said out of context.

I have said pretty much all I want to say. I stand by my opinions that this is an awesome profession, that there is a lot of privilage regarding where we are and what we are doing, that you don't need to incur a debt of $100000 to be a psychologist, though you can based on your financial and educational choices, we will make enough money when we graduate to live comfy (not rich, but comfy) and that I'm damned proud/excited/happy/privilaged to be where I"m at in life in regards to my psychology career.

I also stand by my opinion that I understand why our circumstances are so ****ty while in school, but that I'm super happy that I will be getting money when I'm in a Ph.D program, unlike undergrad or another Ph.D field. And I also restate that I'm accept that while I'm a student I shouldn't expect the world and shouldn't expect to be making a **** load of money or having any other luxuries in my lap. This is because I know the circumstances before I chose to go into this field, and pursue these degrees and that's how it is. Yes, I'm saying it and crawling under a rock. That is how it is folks. Maybe it'll change for our kids, but for right now, if you want to become a psychologist, this is your fate.

Due to the fact that I've said all I really need to say on this topic, a couple of times, in different ways, I think I'm done. There is no point me spending another 1/2 writing a reply rehashing stuff I've said before. Yep, I'm being one of those people 😛 . Sorry just tired of it.

So I see what you've been saying psychwhy, and I don't agree with it, and that's ok. But I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise, and I already know that you won't be able to convince me.

Soooo, I'll see you around other threads.

😍


PS. hehee, just on one note, I'm ok being an allied health professional cause I agree that more gets done with a group of professionals working together for the same client, hence allied. I've never had, or heard of, a physician on this team, therefore non-allied.

 

[WaitingKills]

Psychwhy - I don't have time to elaborate, but I just want to say that I agree with everything you've said. The few clinical psychologist friends I have in the field would certainly agree, as they harbour some of the same concerns.

WaitingKills - I admire your passion, but I think you may have a one-sided view based on your private experience. Please keep in mind that the majority of PhD programs will not be fully funded with a full tuition waiver; there are many students who get accepted into reputable PhD programs and struggle to pay most of their own way (myself included). It really bugs me when people claim that it can and should always be done without accruing a sizable debt.

In terms of your comparing Med school with clinical psych, I'm going to disagree there as well. I have a friend in Med school; he has far more time-off than myself (including summer's off his first 2 years) and seems to have less stress/workload, he will finish his degree much sooner, and he will get paid much more. If you work in a multidiciplinary setting, you will generally find that we are not at the "top of the totem pole," but at the bottom; I hear too many complaints about psychologists in these settings being treated as second class citizens. I don't see any problems with greater advocating. I don't know why people think it needs to be discouraged.

Hehehe, I know I said I was exiting, I jsut wanted to reply so I don't seem even more like one of those people 😀 .

When I was talking about money, I was only talking about fully funded programs with a stipend. I totally agree that those going to a private school, psy.d program or another unfunded program, of course would incur debt. This discussion resulted from comments made regarding people having $100000+ debt in a funded program, in another thread.

As for Med school VS clinical psych, maybe it's based on the school. I knew some 1st, 3rd and 5th year med students when I was living on campus and they didn't have any free time and only had the summer off between 1st and 2nd year (which I did as well in my masters program).

As for allied health and pecking order, psych's were definitely on top compared to other professionals, then physio, dietician, podiatrist, nurse, social worker, therapy aide.... Again, maybe this is a country thing as another major difference between Canada and the States that psychwhy pointed out.

And just to point out, I have no problem with advocating for our profession and raising our standards. I think that is a good thing and never said otherwise (not that you said I said that).

Alirght, I need a ciggie!

 

[psychanon]

I don't have time to go over every point (this thread has exploded in the past
few hours, and I just spent a long time typing and lost it all)-- I still need to do my taxes tonight, and it's getting late. But I'll tackle a few points.

This is how we in the profession contribute the problem. We validate this perception of marginal worth of our services when we throw our hands in the air and declare: "Oh well, people think investment bankers are more important economically than psychologists, so I guess I should be satisfied with that."

Tell me why that investment banker, who I would presume has a pretty good concept of the value of a dollar, would likely not balk at a large bill from a physician for marginal improvement of a physical malady, but likely would scream at getting an equally large bill for much improved functioning facilitated by a psychologist?

If the AMA started accrediting every med school that applied for accreditation, physicians would be in the same place as psychologists. The point I've been trying to make all along is that salaries are determined by economics (supply and demand), not by self-worth or anything like that. You can go ahead and charge whatever you want, but the psychologist across the street is going to get all of your business if you charge much more than the market rate.

Your posts are long and loquacious, but I don't quite get your point. What are you suggesting? Do you actually have a practical solution, or just a long list of gripes?

Ouch ... damn ... you belittled PhDs and PsyDs in that one. Professional schools have lowered the caliber of psychology. But, psychologists aren't all that special to begin with. So, why then is the profession so "popular"? How do you reconcile the areas of the country lacking mental health services when we have this "glut." Can you explain why in the rural midwest where I live, social service agencies seem to believe that anyone with a pulse can "do psychology"?

1) I'm not belittling either degree. I'm belittling programs that accept too many students, because they are for-profit and want to report high profits to their stockholders.
2) Glut of psychologists does not = glut of psychology jobs. Yes, we have a dearth of mental health services in this country. That does not mean that producing more psychologists will help anything. Funneling more money into mental health-- producing more jobs for psychologists-- will help.

No, I am not "blaming" psychology for students' undergraduate debt. But you seem to be ignoring that having an undergraduate degree is required to pursue advanced training in psychology. Unlike, say, an ... investment banker.

And, yes, I do understand the concept of a funded program. But I also understand the cost of living in Boston, NYC, Atlanta, Chicago, LA ... home to a great many programs. Again, we're happy you seemed to have made it through without a scrape. Many of your colleagues did not.

not to belabor the whole investment banker thing, but... since when do they not need college degrees? why don't you call up credit suisse and ask how many of their high-paid bankers don't have bachelor's degrees? Pretty much every well paying career requires a college degree. You can't single out psychology for this-- if you have a problem with the cost of college education, that's another debate.

I go to grad school in an expensive area. I don't know anyone in my program who has gone into serious debt.

If this is the depth of critical thinking that your vaunted "fully funded" program has produced, perhaps "the professional programs enrolling people who are willing to write a check" aren't the ones we should be worried about.

OK, let's turn down the nasty tone here. There's no reason to attack my critical thinking skills.

I
Ultimately it is this particular brand of insensitive elitism that is staggering.
Several of your colleagues present their concerns about the hoops they have been forced to jump through and costs they have had to absorb to accomplish their education and your sum total comment is: "Just don't bitch about it?"

So glad you are in a helping profession!

I think what waiting kills means is that stipends are sufficient to cover basic cost of living costs. If you choose to live beyond those means, that is totally up to you, but don't then go and complain about your staggering debt. No one is entitled to a Ph.D.

To the person who posted that they didn't get into funded programs (sorry, can't go back and quote you): it's true that not everyone gets into a funded program. It's still your decision to go to an unfunded one. You could always apply again next year, or you could do something else. I didn't get in anywhere the first time I applied, and I reapplied and got into a good funded place. Incidentally, if you were only applying to NYC programs (as many do), that may have dampened your chances, since most NYC programs aren't funded and they are extra competitive (but that's a different discussion). If you do decide to go to an unfunded program, you should know the consequences (i.e., the salary you will make as a psychologist may not cover your debt, you may become embittered and hostile like psychwhy, etc.). These are things to think about now, before you commit to that debt. If you decide it's all worth it, then that's your choice--just be sure to make an informed decision.

OK, no more for tonight, my 1040's call.

 

[amy203]

I thought it might be good to have actual numbers, rather than just speculation/individual instances. This study is from 1996-1998, so there may have been some changes since then.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/issuebrf/sib00321.htm#table1

The major finding is that, compared to other graduate programs in the social science (so not including law, business, or MDs), the percentage of graduates with $30,000 or more debt was much higher for degrees in psychology and the percentage with no debt was much lower (comparable to degrees in law or architecture).

Some of this difference is do to the presence of professional schools. Recipients of Ph.D.s from professional schools were much more likely to carry debt in excess of $30,000 than graduates of traditional universities (41 percent vs. 15 percent); they were also less likely than their university counterparts to be debt-free (19 percent vs. 28 percent). However, even in the research subfields of psychology lower percentages of doctorate recipients graduate debt-free and higher percentages graduate with higher levels of financial debt than those in other S&E fields.

By the way, their definition of debt includes undergraduate and graduate tuition and fees, living expenses and supplies, and transportation to and from school.

So - while I was expecting the number of people graduating from university programs with no debt to be a bit higher, the fact that only 15% of the people in these programs left with more that $30,000 in debt (and 28% left with none at all), shows that plenty of people earn a PhD without destroying their credit rating in the process!

 

[psychwhy]

psychanon: Your posts are long and loquacious, but I don't quite get your point. What are you suggesting? Do you actually have a practical solution, or just a long list of gripes?

My "gripes" are borne of this incredible hostility that seems to rear its ugly head when any one has the temerity to suggest on this forum that there isn't just one way to become a competent, ethical psychologist.

Clinical psychology is an odd hybrid of social and health science. Most of us study in the same venue as doctoral candidates in biology, music, English, etc. But their programs do not require completion of an externally administered internship which requires, generally, that you move some distance from your graduate program to complete. Here we are more like medical training. However, in medicine they also do not have to then complete another year of practical training, which is exquisitely difficult to obtain because of either 1) the substantially lesser numbers of fellowships than post-docs or 2) the inability to practice as a post-doctoral clinician because the second year of supervision is required to obtain that license (unlike medicine.)

It also is rather distressing that, in addition to turning this into a PhD vs. PsyD debate (again), so many people seem to miss the point that mental health services as a concept are relegated to secondary status, particularly in the minds of the public and certainly in the minds of insurers.

Yes, market forces drive any commodity -- including mental health services. How sad that we -- as the providers of such services -- so devalue our own professional worth, that we are willing to accept a misinformed declaration that our services are not worth as much as a physician, nurse practitioner/physican assistant, chiropractor, podiatrist, etc. etc..

We are supposedly the experts. Why are we afraid to demonstrate the value of our services and demand more, yes for us, but also for our patients? If and when mental health services are seen as just as necessary as medical and dental care, then we won't need to "beg" to treated with more respect -- it will be automatic.

What is overlooked here is that the conditions that we endure during training are emblematic of the larger problem of the devaluing of mental health services as a whole.

My suggestion (which actually has been pretty clearly stated from the start): Stop fighting amongst ourselves, particularly with the "that didn't happen to me, so it doesn't happen" logic. We, and our profession, have been shoved in a box. We need to work together and think outside of that box.

More than just our prestige is on the line ...

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

We are supposedly the experts. Why are we afraid to demonstrate the value of our services and demand more, yes for us, but also for our patients? If and when mental health services are seen as just as necessary as medical and dental care, then we won't need to "beg" to treated with more respect -- it will be automatic.

Take a look at this: "PhD Syndrome" Also, our political pull lags far behind every other healthcare related group. We are getting stuck with whatever is left after the AMA, ANA, etc.

What is overlooked here is that the conditions that we endure during training are emblematic of the larger problem of the devaluing of mental health services as a whole.

From my understanding, the post-doc was put in place to address the need for more training, back when practica didn't really exist (at least not in its current form). Now the # of hours req. to get licensed far exceeds the #'s set 20 years ago. The Post-Doc is yet another way to suck out 1-2 MORE years of cheap labor. I'm not saying the training isn't necessary, i'm just saying the economics behind it are dated and need to be changed.

-t

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think the diversification of our field has both helped and hurt it. I think the 'hurt' part of it has opened us up to more competition from other fields (MS/LCSW/etc), but our expertise is lost in the transition. We have accepted being grouped in with other professionals who's training is far less, and now we are stuck fighting for lesser wages.

Our political short-comings rear its ugly head again here. When policies are sculpted and influenced by 'competition', we are not going to be properly represented. What started off as a slow erosion, is now becoming a free-fall.

Our (general) acceptance of lesser wages and blurred lines of distinction has damaged the professional as a whole, and now forces each practitioner to 'prove' why they deserve more than 'the going rate', which often times is poor compensation.

Though diversification is not all bad....it also allows clinicians to move into other areas, though these areas must be defined (so as to separate yourself from the masses). There is still a lot of opportunity out there, but it takes the exception and not the norm to find them.

I'll be back in a bit to expound.

-t

 

[Logic Prevails]

I think the diversification of our field has both helped and hurt it. I think the 'hurt' part of it has opened us up to more competition from other fields (MS/LCSW/etc), but our expertise is lost in the transition. We have accepted being grouped in with other professionals who's training is far less, and now we are stuck fighting for lesser wages.

Our political short-comings rear its ugly head again here. When policies are sculpted and influenced by 'competition', we are not going to be properly represented. What started off as a slow erosion, is now becoming a free-fall.

Our (general) acceptance of lesser wages and blurred lines of distinction has damaged the professional as a whole, and now forces each practitioner to 'prove' why they deserve more than 'the going rate', which often times is poor compensation.

Though diversification is not all bad....it also allows clinicians to move into other areas, though these areas must be defined (so as to separate yourself from the masses). There is still a lot of opportunity out there, but it takes the exception and not the norm to find them.

I'll be back in a bit to expound.

-t

Good post!

 

[psychwhy]

T4C ... thank you for succinctly summarizing what has been my point all along.

Psychology is the most politically underrepresented and advocated of all the health professions. It boggles my mind that pointing this out doesn't inspire greater interest in being involved. Rather it seems to embolden the status quo elitists to would rather blame professional schools.

"You did it wrong"?? What kind of needless infighting is that?

There are problems in the profession, but instead of pulling together to fix them, let's sling mud at our colleagues who didn't precisely duplicate our paths. (While completely ignoring that even some did complete the Holy Grail of a fully-funded program and still ended up with a sizable debt and marginal professional prospects.)

For the love of Freud, let those of us in this helping profession start helping ... each other and our profession!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It is frustrating that so many threads turn into this rather worn out debate, but I guess since grad school cost is the front-end, and salary/position is the back end...it is somewhat relates.

That being said, I'd like to re-focus the discussion on HOW we as a profession can improve not only our internship/post-doc issues, but also the future prospects of our profession.

-t

 

[psychwhy]

Therapist4Chnge: It is frustrating that so many threads turn into this rather worn out debate, but I guess since grad school cost is the front-end, and salary/position is the back end...it is somewhat relates.

Could it be that those who cannot be moved from this tired mantra are so angry about their own training and treatment, they can only vent their frustration on professional school students/grads because they had it "easier"?

(I know -- don't get me started on how misinformed that interpretation is!)

It never ceases to amaze me that the old school status quo defenders seem to ignore that it was their brethren who ESTABLISHED these professional schools in the first place! Don't like the outcome? Spew your venom on THEM.

They also ignore how the changes in pre-doctoral training -- implemented BY the professional schools -- increased the amount of clinical training to the point that internship/post-doc are practically redundant. They are vestiges of a training system that was much too academic and left actual clinical training as a tacked on afterthought.

Now, that is not to say we would not all benefit from more supervised practice. However, the requirement that this all occur BEFORE licensure is outdated, counterproductive, and contributes to the continued problem of professional and financial viablity of early career psychologists.

Therapist4Chnge: That being said, I'd like to re-focus the discussion on HOW we as a profession can improve not only our internship/post-doc issues, but also the future prospects of our profession.

I know it is difficult (and I am not immune! 🙂 ) but I think the best advice is to ignore them. Those of us who are willing to acknowlege the limitations of the current situation need to band together and begin advocating for our profession instead of cannibalizing it.

 

[PsiKo]

It can't be stated loud enough apparently. . . .DON'T GO TO A PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL. It should be an advisory in any professional organization in psychology. It should be mentioned loudly in any career counseling in undergrad that students may receive.

Of course one can accrue an equally burdensome debt attending a non-funded university program. That said, and at the risk of getting a chronic hoarse throat, I think that you're doing a real service by pounding your gavel about the perils of amassing mountainous student debt and urging prospective students to give much greater attention to the hows of financing their educations. Just as young people tend to see themselves as more immortal than not, most don't have the foresight to imagine a future life in debt. The seemingly endless hoops jumping necessary to get into a program (and then intenship and postdoc) makes it easy push the financial issues onto a back burner. A convenience too easily afforded.

 

[amy203]

It is frustrating that so many threads turn into this rather worn out debate, but I guess since grad school cost is the front-end, and salary/position is the back end...it is somewhat relates.

That being said, I'd like to re-focus the discussion on HOW we as a profession can improve not only our internship/post-doc issues, but also the future prospects of our profession.

-t

I think you may have to start a new thread for this...

This thread started off talking about debt. Of course there are a lot of challenges facing the field of psychology, including salaries, and they should be discussed. However, I don't think the impetus of these discussions and any resulting changes should be that A) we don't make enough money while in grad school (this is just absurd - grad students are poor, it's like that in every profession!) or B) it should be easier to pay off the $100,000 or more in loans some students accumulate!

Really, if we are trying to convince the rest of the world why we deserve more, we should be talking about how increased salaries might lead to better mental health care, not our abilities to pay off ridiculous amounts of unnecessary debt! That's just going to damage our reputations more!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

. . .again, same issue. I hear some rumblings among the professional school crowd that we should eliminate internship and post-doc requirements. There's a solution. . . "I can't get a good internship. . . I have too much debt because I'm an idiot, let's eliminate this part of training." No. That will not serve to distance us from midlevels like social workers.

I think that is a large assumption on your part. Hopefully people realize that internship and post-docs are vital training opportunities, and should be considered a large contributor to an important part of everyone's professional education. That being said, the PAY associated with both areas typically abysmal (unless you go into the armed services).

As for placements....they are up to the individual and the match 'process'. I've seen many qualified applicants not match, so I think it is hard to generalize across the board. That being said, there are programs (both professional and not) that have poor placement rates.....and that should be a concern.

-t