PCOM George Washington PsyD

[skyrocker]

can anyone speak to GWU and PCOM’s PsyD programs ? Which is better in terms of practicing sites and clinical training ?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MiniLop]

While I didn't go to PCOM, I live in the area and have heard from reliable sources that its reputation has slipped substantially over the past few years. Also it's absurdly expensive.

 

[skyrocker]

While I didn't go to PCOM, I live in the area and have heard from reliable sources that its reputation has slipped substantially over the past few years. Also it's absurdly expensive.

Can you elaborate?

 

[zpg14]

Current student at GW here.

Very extensive psychodynamic education, very little of other theoretical orientations (other than one CBT course).

Work in the in-house clinic starting in the summer after the first year, and work there there the whole second year. During second year you are also matched with an outside practicum.

During the third year you apply to a new outside practicum, but you also have the option to stay in the clinic to practice longer-term dynamic work.

 

[skyrocker]

Current student at GW here.

Very extensive psychodynamic education, very little of other theoretical orientations (other than one CBT course).

Work in the in-house clinic starting in the summer after the first year, and work there there the whole second year. During second year you are also matched with an outside practicum.

During the third year you apply to a new outside practicum, but you also have the option to stay in the clinic to practice longer-term dynamic work.

What practicum sites are available to the students?

 

[MiniLop]

Can you elaborate?

Don't have a ton more to add; this is what I've heard from postdoc sites in the area (that PCOM is viewed as slipping). The absurdly expensive part, well, just check the costs.

 

[psych.meout]

Don't have a ton more to add; this is what I've heard from postdoc sites in the area (that PCOM is viewed as slipping). The absurdly expensive part, well, just check the costs.

Only 85% of graduates in the past 2-10 years are licensed?

Clinical Psychology Program Outcomes | PCOM PsyD | Philadelphia Campus

Learn about PCOM PsyD cost of attendance, admissions, outcomes and other data for the APA-accredited program at our Philadelphia, Pennsylvania campus.

www.pcom.edu

What are the rest of them doing and how are they paying off that massive debt if they can't get licensed?

 

[skyrocker]

Don't have a ton more to add; this is what I've heard from postdoc sites in the area (that PCOM is viewed as slipping). The absurdly expensive part, well, just check the costs.

I just heard from a very very reliable source that PCOm is a great school. Their costs are not much different than rest of the PsyD programs and much cheaper than a lot of other great schools. PCOM students get great practical sites and all students enter with a masters degree at least and above 3.5 gpa. A lot of students end up at VAs and medical centers for postdoc. Don’t know who you have spoken to but I think I would choose PCOM over a lot of other schools in Philly and nearby areas

 

[PsyNeuro37]

I just heard from a very very reliable source that PCOm is a great school. Their costs are not much different than rest of the PsyD programs and much cheaper than a lot of other great schools. PCOM students get great practical sites and all students enter with a masters degree at least and above 3.5 gpa. A lot of students end up at VAs and medical centers for postdoc. Don’t know who you have spoken to but I think I would choose PCOM over a lot of other schools in Philly and nearby areas

It's not a program that I (can't speak for others) would call predatory like some degree mill Psy.D. programs, but I think this is an overly rosy description of the program. The APA match rate is acceptable, but the tuition is expensive by any standard. Both PCOM and GWU are likely in the upper quartile of PsyD program costs, but I don't have any hard national data to support that estimate. I guess if you are really interested in psychodynamic training I can understand the appeal of GW independent of the absurd price. Besides that, there is nothing about either program that sets them apart from the many other university-based PsyD and PhD programs that are cheaper/funded.

My biggest concern about PCOM, besides the $, is their EPPP pass rate from 2020-2022 was a 51%. This is well below the national average. PCOM lists the average debt of their alums in their outcomes, and it is 175k. I went to a partially-funded Psy.D. and did not pay anywhere close to that number. Had no problem getting competitive VA and AMC positions for internship/fellowship. You do not need to go to a 175k program to get that outcome.

 

[PsyDr]

Hahnemann Hospital abruptly closed in 2019. One wonders how that affected the PsyD practica and internships. Their medical residents were left out to dry.

 

[summerbabe]

all students enter with a masters degree at least and above 3.5 gpa.

Anything below a 3.7 at the graduate level of psychology is like a C or worse in undergrad equivalency. And there is generally very little attrition at the MA/MS and PhD levels in psychology (even when it is absolutely warranted - I can think of a person in my funded PhD who probably should have been dismissed but was allowed to graduate early with a licensable MS in a mutual parting of ways).

A lot of students end up at VAs and medical centers for postdoc.

If you have completed an accredited internship, still have a pulse, can pass a background check, and have some geographic flexibility, you'll be able to secure a postdoc at a VA or AMC since formal postdocs are generally not required, usually comes at an income loss of 20-30% compared to the average job that one can get straight out of internship, and may be more likely to not get filled during these past few years from my anecdotal experience.

My biggest concern about PCOM, besides the $, is their EPPP pass rate from 2020-2022 was a 51%. This is well below the national average. PCOM lists the average debt of their alums in their outcomes, and it is 175k. I went to a partially-funded Psy.D. and did not pay anywhere close to that number. Had no problem getting competitive VA and AMC positions for internship/fellowship. You do not need to go to a 175k program to get that outcome.

Yikes, this is really bad when a large majority of programs are clocking in at the 90-100% range. My ho-hum PhD program has been at 100% for the last few surveys. And some programs take a hit due to small sample sizes (i.e., 1 person not passing drops a program from 100% to 92%).

I live in a cheap CoL state in the South and $175K is a nice house with a big yard (or house & 10+ acres if you prefer more rural).

 

[skyrocker]

It's not a program that I (can't speak for others) would call predatory like some degree mill Psy.D. programs, but I think this is an overly rosy description of the program. The APA match rate is acceptable, but the tuition is expensive by any standard. Both PCOM and GWU are likely in the upper quartile of PsyD program costs, but I don't have any hard national data to support that estimate. I guess if you are really interested in psychodynamic training I can understand the appeal of GW independent of the absurd price. Besides that, there is nothing about either program that sets them apart from the many other university-based PsyD and PhD programs that are cheaper/funded.

My biggest concern about PCOM, besides the $, is their EPPP pass rate from 2020-2022 was a 51%. This is well below the national average. PCOM lists the average debt of their alums in their outcomes, and it is 175k. I went to a partially-funded Psy.D. and did not pay anywhere close to that number. Had no problem getting competitive VA and AMC positions for internship/fellowship. You do not need to go to a 175k program to get that outcome.

Their EPPP pass rate was ~71%

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.asppb.net/resource/resmgr/eppp_/doctoralreportoct2023.pdf

 

[PsyNeuro37]

Their EPPP pass rate was ~71%

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.asppb.net/resource/resmgr/eppp_/doctoralreportoct2023.pdf

That is for 2017-2019. Scroll down to Table 5 on page 34 and that is where it starts for 2020-2022. Page 49 has PCOM's stats for 2020-2022. 57 individuals sat for the exam and pass rate was 50.88%.

 

[Sanman]

That is for 2017-2019. Scroll down to Table 5 on page 34 and that is where it starts for 2020-2022. Page 49 has PCOM's stats for 2020-2022. 57 individuals sat for the exam and pass rate was 50.88%.

GWU's pass rate isn't great either.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I would add that a 71% pass rate is also still below the national average from 2017 to 2019. Personally, if I were looking at programs, my bar would be 90+%, particularly if looking at something like a 10-year period.

 

[skyrocker]

I would add that a 71% pass rate is also still below the national average from 2017 to 2019. Personally, if I were looking at programs, my bar would be 90+%, particularly if looking at something like a 10-year period.

Exam prep is unfortunately not a part of PsyD programs, it really depends on the individual applicant in my opinion. There are many great schools including PhD programs that have lower pass rates and that does not necessarily say everything about a program.

 

[summerbabe]

Exam prep is unfortunately not a part of PsyD programs, it really depends on the individual applicant in my opinion. There are many great schools including PhD programs that have lower pass rates and that does not necessarily say everything about a program.

Posters on this board have tired to give some good and impartial advice on graduate education, PsyDs and PCOM. If your mind is set on a PsyD or PCOM, best of luck to you.

But the board consensus is to encourage people to consider taking an extra postbacc year focused on research and make yourself competitive for funded programs or better self-pay PsyD programs. Or that if somebody is choosing a PsyD for other reasons, to know exactly what you might be getting yourself into.

The rough analogy that I use for a lower tier PsyD such as PCOM is like when we pay $15 to get a Big Mac Doordashed. It's way above the restaurant sticker price but you got to stay on your couch.

And yes, without me having any actual connection to this school, just looking at the EPPP and licensure rates suggests PCOM is a lower tier program, end of story.

That's not to say it can't help people meet their goals but the odds are unnecessarily stacked compared to programs with 90%+ rates. Why spend 5-7 years and nearly $200k and still have a nonzero chance of not being able to participate in your profession of choice?

And lastly, to the point you raised: I don't know any PhD programs that does formal EPPP prep. The most might be older students passing down study materials via Google Drive.

But a low EPPP rate actually tells a lot about a program. Namely that this program might be accepting too many students who aren't a great fit for doctoral level study in psychology.

And when it comes to a self-pay program, they also have an incentive to enroll as many people as possible which sometimes comes at a disservice to the student and even the field as a whole.

The majority of the field admits between 5-10 in each cohort. And I bet that just about all of these programs have 90%+ rates, which unfortunately can't be reduced down to coincidence or these students just studying harder than students in programs that admit 5-8x as many each cycle.

 

[Sanman]

Exam prep is unfortunately not a part of PsyD programs, it really depends on the individual applicant in my opinion. There are many great schools including PhD programs that have lower pass rates and that does not necessarily say everything about a program.

The EPPP is not just about exam prep. It is an exam that the culmination of everything you learned in grad school plus some that you did not. You are interpreting the failure rate as based on the individual applicant. However, with a failure rate significantly above that of similar programs, do you think it is simply weaker applicants in the program compared to others or could it be the program not providing some of the foundational knowledge to pass the exam? If so, do you believe that you can make up for years of under preparation in a program in your spare time?

Are you studying too much for the EPPP?

 

[skyrocker]

Posters on this board have tired to give some good and impartial advice on graduate education, PsyDs and PCOM. If your mind is set on a PsyD or PCOM, best of luck to you.

But the board consensus is to encourage people to consider taking an extra postbacc year focused on research and make yourself competitive for funded programs or better self-pay PsyD programs. Or that if somebody is choosing a PsyD for other reasons, to know exactly what you might be getting yourself into.

The rough analogy that I use for a lower tier PsyD such as PCOM is like when we pay $15 to get a Big Mac Doordashed. It's way above the restaurant sticker price but you got to stay on your couch.

And yes, without me having any actual connection to this school, just looking at the EPPP and licensure rates suggests PCOM is a lower tier program, end of story.

That's not to say it can't help people meet their goals but the odds are unnecessarily stacked compared to programs with 90%+ rates. Why spend 5-7 years and nearly $200k and still have a nonzero chance of not being able to participate in your profession of choice?

And lastly, to the point you raised: I don't know any PhD programs that does formal EPPP prep. The most might be older students passing down study materials via Google Drive.

But a low EPPP rate actually tells a lot about a program. Namely that this program might be accepting too many students who aren't a great fit for doctoral level study in psychology.

And when it comes to a self-pay program, they also have an incentive to enroll as many people as possible which sometimes comes at a disservice to the student and even the field as a whole.

The majority of the field admits between 5-10 in each cohort. And I bet that just about all of these programs have 90%+ rates, which unfortunately can't be reduced down to coincidence or these students just studying harder than students in programs that admit 5-8x as many each cycle.

Most PsyD programs admit around 25 students which is practical since a PsyD is not supposed to be a research based study. PhD programs are meant for research and research oriented careers which is not the goal of a PsyD program. Its crucial to recognize that different paths suit different individuals.

Not everyone has the luxury of spending an extra postbacc year focused on research, either due to financial constraints or personal circumstances. For some, programs like PCOM might offer a more accessible or realistic path to achieving their career goals in psychology. And a research oriented resume or spending a postbacc year are not the sole determinants of getting into any good program.

Secondly, while the EPPP pass rates and licensure statistics are important metrics, they aren't the sole indicators of a program's quality or suitability for a student. A program's fit with a student's career goals, learning style, and support needs can also be critical factors in their success.

Moreover, there's value in diversity of training paths in the field of psychology. Programs that admit more students might provide opportunities to individuals who might otherwise be excluded from the field, contributing to a more diverse and inclusive profession. Many other professional fields including law and medicine are structured this way and it makes sense since research is not the focus of those programs.

Finally, while it's important to be aware of the financial implications of a self-pay program, it's also essential to consider the potential return on investment. For many, the opportunity to pursue their passion in psychology and make a meaningful impact in the field can outweigh the financial cost. There are both cons and pros to doing a fully funded program as well. And lastly, I think one should evaluate their own financial resources and if something is within your financial income or budget, it could make sense to pay particularly when it comes to education or even luxury and comfort food.

 

[PsyDuck90]

If you’ve already decided you have all the answers, why bother asking the question?

Also, the old “PhD is for research and PsyD is for clinical work” trope is outdated and patently false. Even the majority of people graduating from Clinical Science PhD programs go into fully or primarily clinical work. Also, plenty of PsyD programs have a research requirement. I graduated from a small-cohort university based PsyDs. I entered matched with a specific research lab and I graduated with 0 debt. As someone who comes from an immigrant family, having no graduate school debt was important to me because I don’t have access to other financial resources. Not being in mountains of debt actually will give me the freedom to choose a work environment that will allow me to “make a meaningful impact in the field” because I am not beholden to jobs based on loan repayment support. When I finish postdoc, I can take whatever job best suits me all around because I don’t have a mortgage-sized debt hanging around my neck for my education.

I would also caution that the metrics that show how many people are able to actually get licensed and work in the field are incredibly important metrics to consider and representative of program quality. If a PsyD is strictly for clinical work, then why are the licensure rates not 100% or close to it? A quarter to half of all of the graduates of a program have a chance of not passing the exam required to become a licensed psychologist in this country. What’s all that time and debt for if you can’t get licensed at the end? And why is this a percentage only seen in the lower tier PsyDs programs?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Most PsyD programs admit around 25 students which is practical since a PsyD is not supposed to be a research based study. PhD programs are meant for research and research oriented careers which is not the goal of a PsyD program. Its crucial to recognize that different paths suit different individuals.

Not everyone has the luxury of spending an extra postbacc year focused on research, either due to financial constraints or personal circumstances. For some, programs like PCOM might offer a more accessible or realistic path to achieving their career goals in psychology. And a research oriented resume or spending a postbacc year are not the sole determinants of getting into any good program.

Secondly, while the EPPP pass rates and licensure statistics are important metrics, they aren't the sole indicators of a program's quality or suitability for a student. A program's fit with a student's career goals, learning style, and support needs can also be critical factors in their success.

Moreover, there's value in diversity of training paths in the field of psychology. Programs that admit more students might provide opportunities to individuals who might otherwise be excluded from the field, contributing to a more diverse and inclusive profession. Many other professional fields including law and medicine are structured this way and it makes sense since research is not the focus of those programs.

Finally, while it's important to be aware of the financial implications of a self-pay program, it's also essential to consider the potential return on investment. For many, the opportunity to pursue their passion in psychology and make a meaningful impact in the field can outweigh the financial cost. There are both cons and pros to doing a fully funded program as well. And lastly, I think one should evaluate their own financial resources and if something is within your financial income or budget, it could make sense to pay particularly when it comes to education or even luxury and comfort food.

Just to quickly comment on the bolded portion: most people who complete Ph.D. programs go into predominantly or entirely clinical careers. Although a Psy.D. program's goal may not be to produce career researchers, it, like all solid doctoral programs in psychology, should include a focus on the critical consumption of research, and on the application of the scientific method to human behavior. IMO, conducting research can be a crucial component of fully understanding research and being able to appropriately apply it to your practice (particularly in psychology), but others may disagree.

Offering a variety of methods to obtain a professional goal can be good, if those different means can be shown to produce similar outcomes and competencies. EPPP scores are one measure of outcome and competency, as are licensure rates. At the same time, some degree paths and careers are difficult, and the barriers to entry are not conducive to everyone. That's not to say all of those barriers are immutable, but some may be.

 

[WisNeuro]

"Please tell me about these options I'm considering. Also, please refrain from posting real facts about these options if they don't align with my preconceived notions. Also, please don't correct my misconceptions about this field that you are experts in."

 

[summerbabe]

I'm gonna provide some counterpoints, mostly for any future people reading this thread and trying to make MA/MS vs PhD vs PsyD decisions stumble upon this.

At the heart is a question of whether everybody who wants to be a psychologist should get to be a psychologist. And the answer (while harsh) is probably not, especially if somebody's goal is to do therapy & not engage with the science of the field. That's what a clinical MA/MS degrees are for and if somebody holds a view that psychologists > social workers/counselors, they should check their bias.

Not everyone has the luxury of spending an extra postbacc year focused on research, either due to financial constraints or personal circumstances.

Agreed. But if somebody's financial circumstances are such that it would be impossible to even do paid postbacc work (which exists), I would argue that adding on ~$200k of debt is also a bad idea.

And a research oriented resume or spending a postbacc year are not the sole determinants of getting into any good program.

Programs offering admissions ultimately get to decide admissions criteria. And while one could argue for improvements or changes that would benefit the field, it's where things stand currently (for better and for worse).

And the vast majority of people who get funded PhD offers have done some combination of undergrad research, postbacc research, and a research focused Master's degree so there's a lot of evidence suggesting this pathway promotes success for becoming a psychologist.

One could likewise argue that reduced emphasis on research for large cohort style PsyD programs provides evidence against this pathway when a significant portion of grads have trouble getting licensed or may never get licensed despite completing their education (even after accounting for people who intentionally choose to not go for licensure due to changes in life circumstances).

A program's fit with a student's career goals, learning style, and support needs can also be critical factors in their success.

If there is good fit but the person doesn't meet widely accepted standards for clinical practice, I would argue the fit was misplaced. Graduate study (including master's level work) in our field should prepare one for their career and if a program is not doing well in those respects via metrics that everybody reports on, then that's a problem.

Programs that admit more students might provide opportunities to individuals who might otherwise be excluded from the field, contributing to a more diverse and inclusive profession.

This is my personal sample size as somebody who belongs to an under-represented group in this field. When I think of specific people I've met through internship, postdoc, and jobs who also fit in under-represented categories, many of them completed PhDs.

I hate to be stereotypical but when I think of peers/colleagues who have PsyDs, a whole lot of them happen to be white, hetero, and female (which is already the majority of our field). And this trend seems to at least somewhat fit when I review internship apps.

Again, this is just my personal experience but I also haven't seen any data suggesting PsyDs significantly add to inclusivity in our field.

Finally, while it's important to be aware of the financial implications of a self-pay program, it's also essential to consider the potential return on investment.

People on this board (including those who attended PsyDs) would universally caution people to reduce their debt load. Especially when in the real world, a licensed clinical social worker who went to a cheap state school for 2 years can operate a cash pay therapy practice and make as much or sometimes more than a clinical psychologist who went into $200k of debt and spent 3x the amount of time on education.

And lastly, I think one should evaluate their own financial resources and if something is within your financial income or budget, it could make sense to pay particularly when it comes to education or even luxury and comfort food.

If somebody was paying for a PsyD with cash on hand, this argument would make much more sense. But the vast majority are taking out massive amounts of debt.

Many do not even know what their anticipated future monthly loan payment will be. Or they do but may not understand the implications on their future life. They may see salary rates for psychologists but that's not anybody's take-home pay since it doesn't factor in things like federal & state tax and other withholdings.

 

[psych.meout]

Most PsyD programs admit around 25 students which is practical since a PsyD is not supposed to be a research based study. PhD programs are meant for research and research oriented careers which is not the goal of a PsyD program. Its crucial to recognize that different paths suit different individuals.

As others have pointed out, this is not true. Even the graduates from Clinical Science PhD programs like mine mostly go into clinical jobs. Sure, some of those will have research time as part of their jobs (e.g., AMCs) but they're predominantly doing clinical work.

Not everyone has the luxury of spending an extra postbacc year focused on research, either due to financial constraints or personal circumstances.

You don't have the "luxury" of getting a paid post bacc research job so you can be more competitive for fully funded programs, but you can afford to pay $43,000/year for PCOM's program? Can you help me understand how that works?

For some, programs like PCOM might offer a more accessible or realistic path to achieving their career goals in psychology.

Sure, they are more accessible in terms of being more likely to admit you, but that's not necessarily a good thing. There should be some level of gatekeeping to screen applicants who are not ready for graduate training or who lack the aptitude or other important factors. Unfunded programs frequently fail at this and admit students who then perform poorly at various stages of training.

And a research oriented resume or spending a postbacc year are not the sole determinants of getting into any good program.

You don't have the "luxury" of getting a paid post bacc research job so you can be more competitive for fully funded programs, but you can afford to pay $43,000/year for PCOM's program? Can you help me understand how that works?

Secondly, while the EPPP pass rates and licensure statistics are important metrics, they aren't the sole indicators of a program's quality or suitability for a student. A program's fit with a student's career goals, learning style, and support needs can also be critical factors in their success.

For a program singularly focused on licensure and clinical work (as PCOM and others are), those are the most important metrics. If these students can't get licensed because they can't pass the EPPP, then how are they supposed to pay off their massive grad school debts? It's not like they receive significant amounts of training in other domains that would make them competitive for other types of jobs, like the research, admin, and consulting jobs that many PhD holding psychologists have. This is not to say that good, or even great, psychologists don't come from these programs, but rather that they are the exception and would have been successful regardless of what program they attended. The best way to think about this is that students should be succeeding because of their grad program, not in spite of it.

In terms of support, which type of program do you think provides more support? Small cohort, fully funded programs who have individual mentors for each student and who are investing in their students by literally paying for them to attend OR large(r) unfunded programs that admit as many students as they can without endangering their accreditation status? This gets back to succeeding because of what mentoring and support your program has provided, not in spite of it.

Also, "learning styles" has been debunked.

Moreover, there's value in diversity of training paths in the field of psychology. Programs that admit more students might provide opportunities to individuals who might otherwise be excluded from the field, contributing to a more diverse and inclusive profession.

One way to look at it is that unfunded programs increase inclusivity and diversity, but another perspective is that they are preying on already marginalized groups who may not have the personal or familial knowledge and experience with graduate school in general, clinical psychology specifically, or student loan debt. The solution to increasing diversity, equity, and inclusiveness should be to improve these facets in funded programs, not further marginalize already marginalized people by having them shoulder mountains of debt.

Many other professional fields including law and medicine are structured this way and it makes sense since research is not the focus of those programs.

Sure, med school is probably minimum $250,000 in debt, but you have to look at the context. I'm on internship right now and interns make about half what first year psychiatry residents do. The lowest paid medical specialties (FM and peds) start out making significantly more than most late-career psychologists. That's how physicians can pay so much for med school. They are able to do this by restricting the number of med schools and spots in them, which is actually counter to your argument supporting unfunded programs. And if you look at DO programs, they are doing the reverse of psychology. They are bringing themselves more into line with MD programs (e.g., eliminating grade replacement a couple of years ago), not diverging further as some unfunded programs have from the rest of psychology in providing less and less research training and rigor.

As a profession, Law has really shot itself in the foot by doing the same thing by accrediting way too many law schools, creating a glut of lawyers in the field. This is driving down earnings while not decreasing law school costs. This is why you see such a bimodal distribution of earnings for lawyers. Sure, you have Big Law paying hundreds of thousands a year to even associates, but they also work 80 hours a week, and then you have another mode at lawyers earning about $70,000. Do you think Big Law is hiring lawyers from tier 3 & 4 schools, which are the analog to PCOM and other mid to low unfunded programs in psychology?

Finally, while it's important to be aware of the financial implications of a self-pay program, it's also essential to consider the potential return on investment. For many, the opportunity to pursue their passion in psychology and make a meaningful impact in the field can outweigh the financial cost.

But that's not really what ROI is. That it's your passion and that you would be fulfilled through helping others are not ROI factors. Sure, you should consider whether you'll enjoy a career path or if you'll et burned out because you hate it, but that's not the same thing as considering the direct and indirect costs of education and training factored into how much you'll actually make doing it. There are lots of ways to work in psychology and help others (e.g., social work, counseling, marriage and family therapy) that aren't as expensive and don't have the opportunity cost of being out of the workforce for at least half a decade.

There are both cons and pros to doing a fully funded program as well.

What are the cons you're seeing?

And lastly, I think one should evaluate their own financial resources and if something is within your financial income or budget, it could make sense to pay particularly when it comes to education or even luxury and comfort food.

But doesn't this contradict your earlier point about the "luxury" of doing a post bacc position to get experience to be more competitive for fully funded programs?

 

[skyrocker]

I asked for advice pertaining to my particular case and not about every PsyD program in the world. And the question was relating to just 2 PsyD programs in comparison with each other. I can see most of your counter arguments pertain to debt and financial difficulties. However, I have no issue in terms of financial resources and I need to spend some of my money and I think education would be the best route to do that. If you don't have enough money and facing financial difficulties, maybe PsyD is not a good option for you. It does seem like you did not pay attention to the question I asked and are instead arguing related to some other personal issue you may have regarding PsyDs. As far as psychologists > social workers argument is concerned, PsyD is a higher level of education than a Masters degree (which is for masters level clinicians). This does not tell us anything about if one occupation is above another, but as far as educational knowledge is concerned, a PsyD would have more since it involves more years of study. A PsyD can always work in a masters level position but a masters level clinican can not get the job which requires a doctorate in clinical psychology and mental health areas particularly.

 

[skyrocker]

The question was if PCOM PsyD is better or worse than George Washington PsyD not if one should be pursuing "any or all" types of PsyD vs a PhD. Please look at the question people ask on this forum before taking out your personal frustration or negativity on this forum.

 

[WisNeuro]

Not a single person in this thread denigrated "every PsyD program in the world." In fact, they suggested applying to better PsyD programs than these low tier ones while correcting your misinformation regarding the degrees.

 

[skyrocker]

Not a single person in this thread denigrated "every PsyD program in the world." In fact, they suggested applying to better PsyD programs than these low tier ones while correcting your misinformation regarding the degrees.

Exactly, the question was not to compare "all" low tier PsyD programs or get advice regarding which programs to apply to. Rather the question was "PCOM" vs "george washington", that's it. But it seems like you are stuck at comparisons between low tier vs high tier programs and spreading negativity on this forum and not focusing on questions people actually ask