Ph.D./Psy.D. comparison

[Janey]

In terms of how much you will be making as a PsyD graduate in clinical psychology. Here is some information from the federal government website. It looks like the median for clinical psychologists will be somewhere around 60,000. For an outpatient hospital setting, it would be around 50,000 per year. These are for full-time positions and will vary geographically. For example, in California, the average psychologist (and they group clinical, counseling, school) makes about $76,000. This is not much considering that it is a very expensive state to live in.

When applying to graduate school, consider that you will be making less than most professionals even after 5-7 years of graduate training and lots of debt. People often assume that they will just take out a lot in loans and then will be able to pay it off by opening a booming private practice. Making a living off of private practice can be extremely difficult and your income can fluctuate rapidly. For example, many private practice psychologists are losing many patients due to the recent economic crisis. They are also taking on part-time positions (e.g. assessments, forensic work) in order to support themselves.

Earnings[About this section] Back to Top
Median annual earnings of wage and salary clinical, counseling, and school psychologists in May 2006 were $59,440. The middle 50 percent earned between $45,300 and $77,750. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $35,280, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $102,730.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Janey]

One of the main differences in terms of PhD and PsyD programs is the amount of debt you will owe after completing your degree. Most PsyD programs will require you to take out significant amounts of money in student loans, particularly expensive private professional programs (of course there are a few PhD programs that don't provide much funding as well). This can amount to 150,000 to 250,000 or more depending on the program. For example, a typical PsyD program can cost you 30,000 per year. If you add living expenses this may be 50,000 per year. Multiply this number by 4 or 5 years of school and you are left with 200,000-250,000 in debt (holy ****). Btw, how people pay for Stanford's PsyD program is beyond me? I have met students who owe about 300,000 in debt from Stanford (amazing that someone would take out this amount in loans without thinking of the consequences).

If you earn about 60,000 per year, particularly in the first few years of working, after taxes your income will be about 3,500 per month (post-doc salary and counseling center salaries are even significantly lower). Student loans can cost you between 1,000 to 2,000 per month, depending on the loan repayment program you chose and the interest rates. As you can see, this may leave you in a situation where you cannot pay your bills or your loans. Plus, this would be in a situation where you did find full-time employment and were getting paid well for an entry level position!

Basically, if you love clinical work, I would keep your options open and look into funded PhD programs nonetheless. You should also consider MSW programs at state schools since they only require 2 years of training and have funding as well sometimes (Berkeley and UCLA both have affordable MSW programs that only take 2 years to complete). If you are extremely wealthy or have a wealthy spouse, then maybe an unfunded PsyD program would still be a good fit for you. Given that these programs can be as expensive as medical school, but your salary with be one fourth of a doctor's salary, the expensive psyd programs do not seem very feasible unless you have $200,000 lying around (most likely you don't have this kind of money lying around).

 

[Ohioan]

I do not know Argosy or Alliant's rep for neuropsych, however, if it is poor for general clinical psych as a whole, then it could not possibly be a good neuropsych school.

I know of two ABPP board certifed neuropsychologists who came out of the Argosy Atanta program, and two excellent clinicians from there who are working on their boards. My experience with professional school students is that the best students compare with the best in any other program, while the average and below average students are much below the average of other programs. BTW, I am a neuropsychologist.

 

[WannaBeDrMe]

It's probably not as important to look at their research interests as it is to look at what kind of clinical trainings they offer and specialize. This also isn't necessarily on a professor by professor basis, but more on a global one. E.g., the program offers a sexual abuse clinic, so you say your are interested in sexual abuse treatment. Or, the program has a large contingent of interpersonally oriented clinicians, and you are interested in that modality of therapy treatment/case conceptualization.

Without getting too personal, I will say that my experiences have differed but that my interests were in PsyD programs offering research opportunities. I interviewed with individual professors.

The clinic example is great, however, as most of these schools seem to be trying to distinguish themselves by their practice niche... If you know a lot of your time will be spent in a substance abuse clinic and you hate working with individuals w/SA, they might wonder why you even applied to the school...

 

[biogirl215]

I'm looking at some PsyD program websites and having difficulty finding admissions stats (percent admitted, avg. GRE/GPA). Aren't all APA-accredited programs required to post this? I haven't had this problem with any PhD programs, interestingly.

 

[Ferenzsci]

I have been licensed as a psychologist in Florida for four years.
My school offered both Ph.D. and Psy.D., the difference being tons more statistics and more research design courses for the Ph.D. When I first started grad school, I was in a Ph.D. program. I felt smug and superior to the Psy.D. students. Eventually, when I realized that I did not want to do research and really want to be the consumer of others' research to be a great clinician, I switched programs. What I have since discovered is that the Psy.D. is a highly respected degree; that being a good therapist is an art informed by scientific research; that many great researchers have absolutely no clinical skills; and that my school, despite my initial misgivings, since it is a professional school which has a big class, really did provide me with a truly great education in how to be a good psychologist.

The decision between Ph.D. and Psy.D. should be based on whether or not you want to do research or whether you want to be a clinician, and not on your perception of which is more prestigious. because if that is the case, you are going to psych school for the wrong reasons.

 

[psychometric]

I am fairly certain I know which program you're talking about and I'm sure you dd get a good clinical education.

At a good PsyD program (e.g., Rutgers) and at a good PhD program, you are going to learn how to do research and you're going to learn how to be a clinician. I would hate to see a student with reasonable credentials choose to go to an unfunded PsyD program over a funded PhD program because they think that PsyD = clinical work and PhD = research. Both degrees are in clinical psychology. The PhD is not in experimental psychology. Please, if you are a prospective student, don't limit yourself with this ridiculous dichotomy. There are plenty of funded non-professional school PhD programs that offer a good balance of clinical and research training.

Which urges me to ask the question: "Why does Rutgers, or any other institution, even offer a Psy.D. ?"

 

[ladysky61]

POI= Professor of Interest right?

I read many posts on this board that talk about POIs and how to get the attention of them so they will select you, etc. Do you have POI when you applying to a PsyD or is it more like applying to college where you just apply to the general program.

I am only interested in the PsyD degree at this time (I only want to be a child psychologist working in a private practice, school setting and/or agency setting.)

I am getting confused about this POI stuff.

Also, I am being a research assistant this summer as well as (hopefully) working in a Crisis Center. Should I emphasize my research experience in my PsyD application or will they not care?

My top choices are Widener, Rutgers, IUP, and Yeshiva.

 

[CDub2008]

POI= Professor of Interest right?

I read many posts on this board that talk about POIs and how to get the attention of them so they will select you, etc. Do you have POI when you applying to a PsyD or is it more like applying to college where you just apply to the general program.

I am only interested in the PsyD degree at this time (I only want to be a child psychologist working in a private practice, school setting and/or agency setting.)

I am getting confused about this POI stuff.

Also, I am being a research assistant this summer as well as (hopefully) working in a Crisis Center. Should I emphasize my research experience in my PsyD application or will they not care?

My top choices are Widener, Rutgers, IUP, and Yeshiva.

You can still have a POI when applying to PsyD programs. Generally, instead of this individual being someone you wish to do research with (though this certainly CAN be the case, particularly at PsyD programs that emphasize research) the POI is a mentor who has a high level of expertise in an area that you may wish to gain experience in for your practice/research/whatever the case may be.

Also, please emphasize your research interests as this is a part of you and the PsyD programs (especially Widener and Rutgers, not sure about the other two) will want to see. Widener and Rutgers value research experience in their prospective PsyD students.

 

[megparsonspsych]

Does anyone have a list of UC (University of California) schools that offer a PsyD (not PhD)? All I ever get when I do a search is a list of private schools.

 

[erg923]

There are no UC schools that offer a Psy.D. To my knowledge, Loma Linda and Pepperdine are the only real universities in the state that do offer the Psy.D. The rest are private "professional schools of psychology."

In general, Psy.D programs are not within large research-oriented state schools anywhere in the country. Because of the research focus of the schools, they have Ph.D programs. The exception being Rutgers (The state University of New Jersey). This is the only state university with a Psy.D that I am aware of.

 

[appelsoranjes]

Does anyone have a list of UC (University of California) schools that offer a PsyD (not PhD)? All I ever get when I do a search is a list of private schools.

As UC's are heavy on research, they don't offer Psy.D's. Honestly, I'm not aware of any CA PsyDs that aren't offered through professional schools (CASPP/Argosy etc.) Wait...Pepperdine has one. Biola. Loma Linda.

Even with Ph.Ds., california has very little to offer - as the limited programs are the most competitive in the country (UCLA, Cal, UCSB, and the Joint UCSD/SDSU).

 

[Ollie123]

Even with Ph.Ds., california has very little to offer - as the limited programs are the most competitive in the country (UCLA, Cal, UCSB, and the Joint UCSD/SDSU).

I think USC has a program too, if memory serves. I'm also not sure I'd call having several of the best programs in the country and a number of other excellent schools "very little to offer" I wish every state had options like Cali!

 

[erg923]

UCSB no longer offers a clinical Ph.D. I checked when I was applying a few years back I think.

Oh wait, I see it now, its in the education department.

 

[Ollie123]

Unless I'm mistaken they still have their joint clinical/counseling/school program.

 

[futureapppsy2]

^
You're right.

 

[futurepsydoc]

As I read this thread, I still see a negative bias from many that have, or are working towards, a Ph.D. There are always distinctions between good and bad Psy.D. programs. Yet, I gather, that even "Good Psy.D. programs" are still "Psy.D. Programs," and by that distinction alone, they are simply seen as inferior. As such, I pose some questions to the Ph.D. students who comment on this topic regularly. Please see below:

_______________________________________________________________________

First, if you are willing, please describe your position on "Good Psy.D." programs, why you believe that they are in fact "good," and if you see the students from these programs as being your colleagues or equals.


Second, please explain why you see these individuals as being at your level or why you do not. What about their training is different from other PsyD programs?


Third, if you do not see them as colleagues at your level, what about their training would have to change in order for them to become your equals.

_____________________________________________________________________

To note, I am not asking these questions to begin an inflammatory conversation. Rather, I am trying to understand the fundamental position held by some on this forum and see where the problems lie in their eyes. I realize that much of this has been answered in various posts throughout this forum. However, this information should be contained within this thread, given the title. I believe that we can pose questions like this, regularly, to pinpoint the problems seen by many in the field. If so, that dialogue can be used to generate solutions to the present pitfalls were are presented with.

 

[Ollie123]

As I read this thread, I still see a negative bias from many that have, or are working towards, a Ph.D. There are always distinctions between good and bad Psy.D. programs. Yet, I gather, that even "Good Psy.D. programs" are still "Psy.D. Programs," and by that distinction alone, they are simply seen as inferior. As such, I pose some questions to the Ph.D. students who comment on this topic regularly. Please see below:

I don't get this impression from posts at all and I don't think that's what anyone has been saying. What I do see is people sometimes blurring the lines between "professional school" and "PsyD". Much bashing of the PsyD model I think is really targeted at the professional schools - many of which offer both PhDs and PsyDs. The difference is, they represent a majority of PsyD programs, but a tiny minority of PhD programs, which is why you see the mistake made.

None the less, I'll give a quick run through this with my answers.
_______________________________________________________________________

First, if you are willing, please describe your position on "Good Psy.D." programs, why you believe that they are in fact "good," and if you see the students from these programs as being your colleagues or equals.

To quick and dirty version is to look at the stats, a good PsyD program has high admissions standards, and a good match rate. Some things that probably factor into that are:
1) Strong, well known and well respected faculty.
2) Requires an equal time commitment to most PhD programs.
3) In-house training and not just farming out clinical work, or at least careful oversight of the outside work. Grad school is not just the place you take classes.
4) MORE clinical experience expected than the average PhD program. Right now PhDs tend to have more clinical experience on average. The idea behind the model was to lower the research focus to increase the clinical focus. That apparently isn't happening.
5) Obviously less focus on research, but still a reasonable amount of research training. All this junk we've seen about dissertations that involve 2 t-tests, a case study, etc. is a joke. That would barely fly as an undergrad thesis.

I could go on, but that's a reasonable sampling.

The rest of your question largely depends on the individual, so I can't really answer it. Certainly, many great people come out of less-respected schools. That has been reiterated time and time again. The complaints are about averages, not individuals.

Second, please explain why you see these individuals as being at your level or why you do not. What about their training is different from other PsyD programs?

See above.

Third, if you do not see them as colleagues at your level, what about their training would have to change in order for them to become your equals.

Again, see above. These questions all really amount to the same thing. Less research training is fine, but I need to see evidence that the clinical training increased by an equal amount. People still need to have a baseline level of competence in research if they want my respect as a colleague, just like I expect to have a baseline level of competence in clinical work. We need to emphasize raising that bar...many of these schools (and their students from what I see posted here) seem to want to be all about driving any bar as low as possible.

 

[erg923]

I have long maintained that I dont really have a problem with the Vale model of doctoral training. My problem is with the way it too often gets implemented, especially by professional schools. As time has gone by, I think many programs have strayed farther and farther away from a model that was indeed suppose to be oriented towards clinical training, but not really fundamentally different in its philosophy/approach towards that training than boulder model programs, This notion of skipping over some of the underlying science, theory, and principles (at least according to some professional schools grads I've talked to) so you can jump into the clinic your second semester is unfortunate. I think that makes for a fly by the seat of your pants and too much of a "learn on the job" mentality, rather than a well based clinical scientist who implements the science that they have been learning for the previous 2 years. Psychologist first. Clinical psychologist second.

I also think many programs have neglected to push the notion that Psy.Ds should be active consumers of research. Hence, there should be no excuse not to have a good understanding of design, methodology, and statistics (at leasts basic stats). I worked with one Psy.Ds who could not present with me at a conference because they did not feel comfortable even talking about a research project in front of others. They told me, "that's not what I do, I wasnt taught any of that." However, again, I realize this is representative of the specific program, more so than the degree itself. I am just saying, I think some of the programs have gotten sloppy in their implementation of the training model. I know the originators of the Psy.D. model never intend for this kinda thing to happen. I mean, seriously, a clinical psychology doctoral student who cant discuss research? Get real! It's the foundation of this dicipline for goodnees sakes! I generally agree with JS, if you are going to a Psy.D. program because you want nothing to do with research, you have no business getting a doctorate in psychology in the first place. And last on my rant: Doctoral programs are not trade schools. This isnt Wyotech or Devry. You are being trained as a scientist who can apply the science of psychology (and yes, the art of psychotherapy too) in a variety settings. People should stop viewing the issue as "one program prepares you for research and one program prepares you for practice." Its a clinical psychology program, not experimental psychology. With the exception of some of the hardcore "clinical science" model programs, you will get ample clinical training in Ph.D. programs.

However, I must say with only one exception that I can think of, I have not noticed much of difference between myself and my fellow Psy.D practicum students in our clinical skill levels. I in no way view them as lesser colleagues.

 

[futurepsydoc]

The complaints are about averages, not individuals.

Agreed, but those averages develop into stereotypes and are then applied to individuals. I do not attend Argosy or Alliant, but if I did, I would be greatly offended by a lot of the "averages" thrown at me. There is a thread on here entitled something like "who are the 40-50% who get rejected from Argosy." While I am not accusing you of this, the caveat of "we see people as individuals", is the windowdress etiquite that licenses the bashing of professional programs. This does not create a collegial atmosphere.

People still need to have a baseline level of competence in research if they want my respect as a colleague, just like I expect to have a baseline level of competence in clinical work. We need to emphasize raising that bar...many of these schools (and their students from what I see posted here) seem to want to be all about driving any bar as low as possible.

Agreed, but what would qaulify a "baseline level of competence" in research? Is the APA accrediation standards of a program's of curriculum not commensurate with such a baseline? Honestly, I do research and have for quite some time now, but I am not sure what would actually constitute the level of competency necessary for someone who plans on only being a consumer. I am not that sure that a fixed knowledge base could be agreed upon.

At present, the EPPP and licensing boards are in place to evaluate clinical knowledge and proficiency. What would you propose to evaluate basline competency in methodology, statistics, and research. An exam? A board? A number of pubs? To solve this problem, which is a real problem in my opinion, we need to hash things like this out.

One could argue a dissertation, but the variability across dissertations is great. As such, the completion of a dissertation does not constitute a baseline level of proficiency. Simply put, all dissertations are not created equal. We would need a way to reliably assess baseline knowledge concerning research design, comprehension of scientific literature, etc. Moving in this direction might help address the problem.

 

[Ollie123]

Agreed, but those averages develop into stereotypes and are then applied to individuals. I do not attend Argosy or Alliant, but if I did, I would be greatly offended by a lot of the "averages" thrown at me. There is a thread on here entitled something like "who are the 40-50% who get rejected from Argosy." While I am not accusing you of this, the caveat of "we see people as individuals", is the windowdress etiquite that licenses the bashing of professional programs. This does not create a collegial atmosphere.

I agree somewhat, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. Accepting these programs, pretending the problem doesn't exist? Do we say "Professional schools are great" to avoid the possibility of stereotyping? That doesn't seem a wise course of action, though we have a pretty steady stream of people who encourage just that. Collegiality shouldn't be achieved by covering your eyes and ears. People are often accused of "bashing" on this board by simply stating facts. I remember one internship thread in particular where I pointed out that 1/5 of the unmatched folks in a given year come from Argosy. This was pulled from the APPIC data. Pointing that out was seen as "unjustly bashing". I'm not sure what alternative there is. If we don't want the stereotypes to exist, we need to fight to increase the standards at these schools, decrease the admission rates, increase the match rates, etc. I don't think we're going to get anywhere by trying to convince everyone to play nice and not say bad things about them. In fact, I think its counter-productive because we're sweeping the problem under the rug. I realize I'm walking a somewhat fine line here and I expect one of our social-psych folks may rip me apart for this, but one of the easiest ways to prevent people from saying bad things about you is to stop doing bad things. I think the same goes for schools. If these schools don't want there to be a bias against their grads, what are they going to do to raise their standards, help fix the match problem they are contributing to, etc?

Agreed, but what would qaulify a "baseline level of competence" in research? Is the APA accrediation standards of a program's of curriculum not commensurate with such a baseline? Honestly, I do research and have for quite some time now, but I am not sure what would actually constitute the level of competency necessary for someone who plans on only being a consumer. I am not that sure that a fixed knowledge base could be agreed upon.

At present, the EPPP and licensing boards are in place to evaluate clinical knowledge and proficiency. What would you propose to evaluate basline competency in methodology, statistics, and research. An exam? A board? A number of pubs? To solve this problem, which is a real problem in my opinion, we need to hash things like this out.

I agree its difficult. APA accreditation is definitely not a baseline, or if it is, I consider it far too low. Finding out a school is accredited is akin to finding out an apartment has 4 walls and a ceiling. Its certainly important, but its also an expectation.

I also don't know that a fixed knowledge base for research can be agreed upon, or even should be. I think clinical work is slightly easier to define, but even that has problems. The EPPP should not be the only requirement for licensure (and it isn't). I think the answer is a multitude of checkpoints. Exams, posters, pubs, dissertations, I don't think anything can stand on its own. I think the critical piece involves schools (and individuals!), getting on board with the idea. The inane dichotomy people have, that they can go for a PsyD because "I don't want anything to do with research" needs to end. If someone doesn't want anything to do with research, they shouldn't want anything to do with clinical psychology, at least not at the doctoral level. Schools should not be legitamizing this dichotomy. I wish they could be trusted to pursue this on their own, but from the attitudes we commonly see here, and the outcomes we see in the real world, its clear that isn't going to happen. The reasons why are beyond the scope of what I want to get into. So someone is going to have to make it happen. "How" is a question I'm not sure anyone is capable of answering at this point

 

[futureapppsy2]

Just out of curosity, Ollie, what would you consider acceptable rigor/depth for a doctoral dissertation?

Also, I agree setting a "baseline" would be difficult. For example, I know of at least one program that requires all students to publish and/or present at national conference before they can become a PhD candidate. On the other hand, I've known plenty of PhD graduate students who have never published and, at least as far as I can tell, don't intend to any time in the near future.

 

[thewesternsky]

The inane dichotomy people have, that they can go for a PsyD because "I don't want anything to do with research" needs to end. If someone doesn't want anything to do with research, they shouldn't want anything to do with clinical psychology, at least not at the doctoral level.

Yes. I want to frame this quote and put it on my office wall someday. I have nothing against the Vail model as a practicioner-scholar model, but the *scholar* part of Psy.D. programs should be as important as the practitioner part is in Boulder programs ( scientist–practitioner ); that is, very important. Students in Psy.D. programs need expertise in interpreting stats, discussing research, and should be famililar with research in their areas of applied interest (effective treatments for elderly patients with MDD, for example).

*sigh*. There's also data out there that says that even clinicians graduating from Boulder-model programs mostly fail to keep up with research relevant to their practice, which is depressing... But that's a problem for another thread.

 

[Ollie123]

Just out of curosity, Ollie, what would you consider acceptable rigor/depth for a doctoral dissertation?

FYI, just got the latest APPIC data and ~50% do not have a publication come internship applications, and ~20% do not have a presentation.

As for your question, I'm not sure I can give an answer beyond "You know it when you see it". The methods should be sophisticated. The results section should exceed what you covered in undergrad stats. There's no absolute answers. Some people don't collect data because they're doing archival analyses. That's perfectly fine, but it should be substantial in other ways. Sometimes you don't need a complicated statistical procedure to answer the question of interest. That's fine, but again, it should have other things that balance that out.

Basically, you should learn something. I hate the idea of "hurdles". If you're going to do something like a dissertation, might as well learn from it.

There's no way to quantify it, and nothing magical about it. People just have to put in some effort, or schools have to make them. Not everyone needs to make headlines, or publish a series of J Abnormal papers obviously. However, if after reading it, you wonder if the author has ever seen a journal article before, that's a problem. Where it could get published depends on a huge number of factors outside the control of the authors (i.e. is p < .05), but if the methods aren't at least comparable to what you see in a mediocre journal, that's a problem.

 

[cara susanna]

Well said, Ollie.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I have nothing against the Vail model as a practicioner-scholar model, but the *scholar* part of Psy.D. programs should be as important as the practitioner part is in Boulder programs ( scientist–practitioner ); that is, very important. Students in Psy.D. programs need expertise in interpreting stats, discussing research, and should be famililar with research in their areas of applied interest (effective treatments for elderly patients with MDD, for example).

Absolutely!

As a Psy.D. it frustrates me that other people/programs discount (or at least do not pay as much attention to research as they probably should), because there are many of us out there that LIKE research and understand the VALUE it brings, even if we do not plan on a research career. I believe one of the biggest gaps is in how programs incorporate research, it should not be an either or, it should be an integrated approach.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Good answer, Ollie. I agree.

FYI, just got the latest APPIC data and ~50% do not have a publication come internship applications, and ~20% do not have a presentation.

Hmm, I'm surprised the presentation percentage isn't a little higher (I wonder if it would change much if you took out the professional schools--*not* trying to start a flame war!), but the publication percentage seems about right. Is that first author only?

There's no absolute answers. Some people don't collect data because they're doing archival analyses.

Are students really allowed to do archival analyses for dissertations? IIRC, the program here requires students to do data collection for their diss, though in the past couple of years, they've started allowing MA theses to use archival/already collected data because it was taking students so long to get done due to the data collection time lag.

 

[Ollie123]

To the best of my knowledge, that includes any kind of authorship. I can't wrap my brain around the presentation number either. I felt ridiculous not having any as an undergrad! I can't imagine going through grad school without one.

Some students do archival analyses for a dissertation. I wouldn't say its the norm, but it largely depends on the type of research being done. If someone does public health/epidemiological-type research, obviously collecting a sample of 30,000 isn't practical for a dissertation. Good example would probably be Robert Krueger, who I think is now on faculty at WUSTL (if memory serves). Again, assuming I'm remembering correctly, his dissertation that looked at the developmental trajectory of different types of psychopathology across about a decade. Intense stats, great paper, hugely significant and major contribution to the field. I'd be thrilled to produce something half that substantive for my dissertation.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Do you have a link to the APPIC stats?

 

[Ollie123]

http://www.appic.org/match/5_2_2_match_about_statistics.html

 

[futureapppsy2]

Thanks! Very interesting indeed.

 

[futurepsydoc]

Absolutely!

As a Psy.D. it frustrates me that other people/programs discount (or at least do not pay as much attention to research as they probably should), because there are many of us out there that LIKE research and understand the VALUE it brings, even if we do not plan on a research career. I believe one of the biggest gaps is in how programs incorporate research, it should not be an either or, it should be an integrated approach.

The value of research critical. Schools that do not emphasize this are doing a disservice to the field. No question about it. This particular issue will always foster discourse on what is adequate vs. inadequate research training. But, because we currently have no way of reliably evaluating one's proficiency in consuming research, we cannot say for certain that graduates from certain PsyD programs can utilize research effectively and provide evidenced based practice to their clients. We need data on this instead of conjecture.

Also, given that PsyD programs are supposed to focus less on research training, in that students prepare for careers in clinical practice, they should be expected to have less knowledge on methodology and statitics than the average PhD student. The standard should not be identical. These programs have different training philosophies.

For example, I am not sure that proficiency in HLM or SEM matters to any practitioners. Rather, how to identify well controlled RCTs, effectiveness studies, analogue research, and well designed case studies seems critical. The question becomes: What else is critical to research consumption?

In my opionon, pointing out that certain schools to a poor job in this arena is pointless. We all know this to be true. Instead, the conversation should focus on how to develop research/scientific competence, in so far as to become an informed consumer, and subsequently find a way to evaluate that ability. This would help weed out "individuals" without the requisite knowledge base. This takes the degree one holds and the program they attend out of the picture. As individuals, we would all have to perform to a certain standard. Licensing boards and the EPPP are USED for clinical means. Given the level of intelligence present within our field, I am SURE someone could devise such a test for scientific/research proficiency.

 

[ell831]

Quick question for anyone who is currently or has applied to PsyD programs-- In applying for PhD programs, I know you must select a POI and make contact before applying; but how does this part of the process translate in terms of the PsyD. Should I be contacting professors in the programs I am interested in, and, if so, what type of information should I being telling them?
I was planning on sending a few e-mails just introducing myself with a sentence or two about my biggest interests. Is this is a generally good idea?
Thanks so much!!

 

[PsyDgreatdegree]

Comparing a PsyD to a PHD? Don't get stuck on the "brand" name of your soap. as you will not be "cleaner" at the end of your shower!


As you probably already know...things learned in school and from books are contrived and predictable ....a far cry from sitting in front of someone who will throw a curve ball at you on a regular basis (the patient). The most important part of your education and clinical development will come from the quality, generosity and compassion of your clinical supervisors.

Please remember that personality style of the PHD researcher is often very different than the PsyD practitioner. No matter which you are, when you find yourself sitting in front of a patient with significant impairments, with possible suicidal/homicidal acting out behaviors, your only interest in research will be what is going produce the result of keeping them safe. You will feel like a little ant carrying a very large piece of bread due to the seriousness of your position. Can you hold this kind of anxiety? Can you find hope and instill it in your patient? Will you be able to use your intuition, clinical skills, and compassion while remembering the laws and ethics required of you? Can you make a solid decision you can stand behind in a court of law? Will you be able to sleep wondering if you made the correct decision? These are the strenghts you will need to do this job and these are the gifts your clinical supervisors will give you. If you don’t think you have this kind of fortitude….or you cannot sit in front of your clinical supervisor and bare your soul while sitting through a critique of every word you said to a client in session, please just choose another profession and stop worrying about which degree to get!

Research you say? Your need to be published or validated by an establishment that will only pay you $45,000.00 a year will be of little interest for most of your career unless you are one of the angels that serve our community in that capacity. Unfortunately, being published will not save your client and will not help you to take care of yourself and your family at the end of a rough day. Yes I love research and my dissertation had 104 pages of stats…SO WHAT!

Let us not forget the importance of research and continue to honor those that want to do it t as it furthers our overall goal as a profession. Yes you may always have an affinity for research….especially if you are looking for an empirically validated treatment, but if you didn’t know the treatment before you got in front of the above patient, you are fresh out of luck! In other words, iread- read- read- everyone’s research constantly until your eyes hurt. Doing research should be a choice and should not be MANDATED by someone who “feels” you need it (FYI-these folks may or may not be the same folks sitting in front of significantly impaired patients each day).

The idea that clinical practitioners need to have any focus on research is like splitting the baby in half! Please do not concern yourself with this silly dialog as it will keep you from manifesting your highest self and achievements. Instead, follow your idea of what you want to accomplish and choose a series of small goals that will serve as stepping stones across the river to your goal. If you sit quietly and meditate on your attraction to this helping profession, you may discover that raising the consciousness of humanity just might BE the goal… So please, if you have any research on raising consciousness, increasing empathy, and helping others to find compassion…or if you want to do this kind of research, please do it, share it, present it...and if you want to lift ONE SOUL AT A TIME OUT OF A VERY DARK ABYSS please I applaud you as well. For those of you who want to reach the masses and change the political or emotional landscape....go for a media career. Nothing should stand in your way! No matter what your goal it is valid and we need you. Look around you and see that we need you now. AND WHEN YOU FIND YOURSELF IN FRONT OF YOUR PATIENT PLEASE REMEMBER ON VERY IMPORTANT THING….BE LIKE WATER NOT LIKE WOOD

 

[hkusp]

Please remember that personality style of the PHD researcher is often very different than the PsyD practitioner.

I think that main difference is not in what seems to be popping up this most in this conversation. Yes, the PsyD and the PhD are different degrees. In some cases there are different ideaologies as well. Yes, some PhDs look down on some PsyDs some of the time. Yes, some PsyDs look down on PhDs some PhDs for "being researchers."

I am a PhD clinician. My primary focus is on helping people from a clinical perspective. Yes, I know how to read research, perform research, write grants, teach classes, do program evalation...blah blah.

With that all being said, I have worked with both PsyDs and PhDs that are stellar clinicians and those of both degrees who are a discredit to the profession.

For students, the main difference between a PhD and a PsyD comes simple down to money. PERIOD.

Based upon my own experience and in my humble opinion I offer the following.

The average professional PsyD program is very very expensive. The schools are profit-based and are interested in having many students attend. The more students the better income. As a result, the admissions standards for most PsyDo programs tend to be a little less competitive. I think the average is about every 1 in 2 or 1 in 3 is accepted. There are some very dedicated and very accomplished faculty at these schools. The drawback is that classes are often bigger, you have less time with the professors, and less overall support to get you through. As a result, you must be very self-reliant. PsyD students are exposed to clinical work, assessment and some research. Yes, there are difference in all programs. I would say the average debt I have heard for PsyD student is around 100K to 200K. There seems to be more difficulty in internship placement due to the lack of personalized "service" from professors.

The average PhD program will not cost you a dime in tuition. The schools are not profit based and as a result, can admit few PhD students. The students often end up costing the University money. Most Universities can afford to have about 4-9 students come in each year. Because students are funded with both a monthly stipend (average $1K a month), and waived tuition they are much more competitive. I would say the average acceptance is 1 out of every 20 to 30 students that apply. PhD students get exposure to lots of clinical work (I spent about 20 hours per week on practicum), research/statistics, program evaluation, assessment, and teaching. Classes are very small and you start and finish the program with the same group of students. Professors are often more available as they need you to work as research slaves to them (Many unpaid hours of research). Most PhD students are straight through students meaning they have never worked in the "outside" world. Internship placement rates are very high, typically everyone in a class with get matched. This is partially due to professors knowing other people at the internship sites. Average debt for a PhD student is about 40K or so. It could be more if you have no external support and can't live on 1K a month. But, that is living expenses, not school expenses.

So, make your decision based upon economics as well. You do not want to bankrupt yourself before you even begin your career. PhD vs PsyD is not really about practice vs research. I chose the PhD because I wanted exposure to research, how to produce and how to evaluate. Exposure to research teaches you how to think empirically when you are working with a clinical population. I also wanted the teaching experience. I also didn't want the debt.

I'm not here to debate which one is better, because neither one is any better. What is most important is what you put into your education...that is what will come out when you are sitting with your Patients. They are the ones that will evaluate your education.

 

[psychmama]

Hksup- I agree that neither degree is better. Personally, I was happy to pay a bit more for my degree to avoid being a "research slave". I'm not saying the psyd path is for everyone. It's been great for me, though.

 

[TJuniper]

What is the difference between a clinical and counseling PhD?

 

[JockNerd]

Personally, I was happy to pay a bit more for my degree to avoid being a "research slave". I'm not saying the psyd path is for everyone. It's been great for me, though.

I don't think the discussion is served by things like this. This is a false dichotomy; the choice is not one between paying "a bit more" (I find your idea of what constitutes "a bit" interesting, though) and being a "research slave." I have never felt enslaved at my research-focused institution and have always been treated as a colleague by my adviser. Further, even at my research-focused institution, there are practice-oriented folks whose career path is respected. If your decisions work for you, great, but your conceptualization of the difference is, in my opinion, flawed.

 

[psychmama]

JN, I have no quarrel with your preference for the type of program you're in. It sounds like you're an excellent fit for the training model you've chosen. The point I was trying to make is that I'm tired of people arguing that the Psyd is inferior because most of the time we don't get free tuition rides.

Don't get me wrong -- full funding is great, and the lack of debt upon graduation is nothing to sneeze at -- especially given that typical salaries of psychologists are not on par with many other professions. The fact remains that whether the Psyd is a good training model is a separate issue. I believe a good Psyd program can be every bit as good as a Phd program at turning out well-trained psychologists. That's my point. I stand by it.

 

[Ollie123]

I believe a good Psyd program can be every bit as good as a Phd program at turning out well-trained psychologists. That's my point. I stand by it.

I agree, and I wager pretty much everyone here would. Certainly your program is setting a great example for how that can happen. Many programs are not, APA has apparently decided to allow and even encourage that practice, which is what has frustrated many of us.

Though I would just like to add that I think JN's point was just your use of the phrase "research slave" (which I realize you weren't the first to say). Mostly just that it feeds into the idea that one either goes to a PsyD and ONLY does clinical work, or goes to a PhD program and ONLY does research. And that research experience consists of us sitting in a basement all day, and entering data in between bouts of crying and daydreaming about seeing sunlight The point is just that many many many people in PhD programs do pretty minimal research, and that even many of us who do LOTS of research are not data-entry slaves or things of that nature. Heck, the research work I was funded on for this past year got me close to 100 face-to-face hours worth of assessments and therapy in my specialty area.

I understand your point, but my (and I think JN's) point is that getting tuition paid for does not = research slave.

 

[psychmama]

Many programs are not, APA has apparently decided to allow and even encourage that practice, which is what has frustrated many of us.

Agreed. APA needs to step up and impose stricter standards on all programs, especially some of the professional schools.

Though I would just like to add that I think JN's point was just your use of the phrase "research slave" (which I realize you weren't the first to say).

Right. I was reacting to the earlier post.

Mostly just that it feeds into the idea that one either goes to a PsyD and ONLY does clinical work, or goes to a PhD program and ONLY does research. And that research experience consists of us sitting in a basement all day, and entering data in between bouts of crying and daydreaming about seeing sunlight

lol. Great imagery!


I understand your point, but my (and I think JN's) point is that getting tuition paid for does not = research slave.

True. Also, paying tuition for one's degree does not = substandard training or inferior academic quality.

 

[psychmama]

How about, paying tuition for one's degree ~ substandard training and inferior academic quality.

Sorry Jon...not buying this. Once again, the quality of the training may or may not be related to the expense in getting it. It all depends. I'm paying for my education at Rutgers (albeit with some funding assistance). Doesn't mean I'm getting poor education and training.

 

[psychmama]

That's why I used "~". It's not an "all", it's a "most."

I know what the symbol means. I just don't think we should write off the entire degree. I believe there are more than just a handful of good Psyd programs out there.

This probably where we agree to disagree, eh?

 

[twilson]

How about, paying tuition for one's degree ~ substandard training and inferior academic quality.

This isn't EXACTLY the same, but not everyone gets paid to go to undergrad or to get a masters..would u feel the same about those programs being academically inferior or training to be substandard ?

I am not advocating for or against anything, just thought it was an interesting thought..

 

[somaticpsych]

This comment/question is directed primarily to Jon Snow although anyone else should feel free to chime in:

First a bit of background: For quite a while I have been considering enrolling in doctoral school for clinical psych. I decided to go the PsyD route because I'm not terribly interested in doing lots of research, although I certainly want to understand how research is conducted and be able to "speak the language of research". However, let me make VERY clear that I am only considering PsyD programs at state universities. I'm not going to attend a professional school.

I have an undergraduate degree in engineering, a graduate degree in business (an MBA), and an M.A. in clinical psych. I have several years of work experience in engineering and marketing (including lots of time spent in marketing research, which makes heavy use of statistics). However I have NO academic research experience. No papers published, no conference presentations, none of that. Nor do I have any experience in a clinical setting beyond a simple (150 hour) practicum.

I've wanted to leave the corporate world for years and return to school for my doctorate but never had the courage to leave my job. I was laid off recently, so I guess now is the time to finally do it!

I've spent several weeks researching psych programs, and I came to the conclusion that the PsyD was the more appropriate degree for me to pursue based on my lack of enthusiasm for a career in academia and/or research. (although I would still enjoy teaching a class every so often)

However someone on this forum here recently (I think it was Jon Snow) mentioned there are PhD programs that put as much weight on clinical training as PsyD programs. This is news to me. Could you please point me to some of these programs? Every PhD program I looked at was way more focused on research than clinical training.

Furthermore, if your assertion is true, it makes me wonder why does the PsyD even exist? If there are PhD programs that emphasize clinical training as much as a PsyD program, what's the point in even considering the PsyD route?

In addition to these questions I've asked above, what are the odds I could get into a PhD program without any academic research experience under my belt?

Thank you Jon for your help. Indeed, I am deeply grateful to all of the contributors on this forum. This place has been a very helpful source of information for me!


P.S. One small request for all who respond: please let's keep this discussion civil. My intent is not to start another war about whether a PhD or a PsyD is the "better" degree.

 

[cara susanna]

Yes, there is a thread here about balanced programs.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=654660&highlight=balanced+phd+programs

There was a really good one from a while ago, but I can't find it ATM.

However, I should warn that balanced doesn't mean no research at all. You'd still need research experience to be even considered, most likely.

 

[hkusp]

To address my earlier post...I did not mean research slave in a true sense - it was meant to be funny. As I said before, I attended a PhD program and I was very well versed in research but I was also extremely well versed in clinical skills. I would say that most, if not all, the students coming out of my program were in the top tier of clinical providers. We were very well trained and most of us came into internship with several thousand practicum hours. You are a "research slave" (humor still intended) because your stipend is typically paid for by a grant and you need to produce something.

To address the issue of how to best tell if the programs in which you are interested are more research or practice heavy. As an earlier post mentioned, look at the training model. If they state they are a "scientist-practitioner" model that means they are more focused on the training of a scientist that can be a practitioner. If they state they are are a "practitioner-scholar" model you can bet they are focusing more on practice and teaching one how to be a consumer of research. One easy way to tell if if an institutionis a "research I" you can bet they have a strong focus on creating researchers/professors. For instance, Emory (a Research I) is much more likely to focus heavily on research than say, an Research II institution.

To address the prestige issue I would like to be as honest as possible. This is not meant to express my views but rather the views of the general population and physicians with whom you will work. Most of the general public simply does not understand what a PsyD is. I have had multiple people ask me what they are and if they are like case workers or social workers. The name recognition is not yet there. This is similar to a DO physician. How many folks know what a DO is vs an MD. Most just know an MD is a physician and they aren't sure what a DO is. Same with PhD and PsyD.

It really doesn't serve anyone's purpose to argue which degree is better. The degree that is better is the one that serves you best. I have noticed in my workings with PsyDs and PhDs that PhDs are more well rounded clinicians - not better, just more well rounded. They may be involved in some clinical work, some funded research, and may teach a class on the side. PsyD clinicians, by the nature of their training, are largely restricted to clinical work. This can be very very exhausting and can lead to some burnout and compassion fatigue.

If you don't see yourself doing anything but therapy, I see the PsyD as a good option. Regardless of whether or not your program exposes you to research, it is your ethical duty to stay up to date on research and evidence based practices. This goes for all of us, but no one who wants to enter psychology can say "I don't want anything to do with research." You may not produce it but you had certainly better know the research well and how to determine good/bad research...your Patients are depending upon you to know that.

So, with that long windedness, again, neither one is better. I spent a few hundred hours researching all PhD programs and I finally narrowed it down to 15. Everyone should apply to at least 15 programs as you can almost predict that you will gain admittance to at least one. Although, many wonderful people never get selected for PhD programs. That has no bearing upon their intelligence or worth, it is simply a matter of economics and grant funding.

 

[somaticpsych]

Thank you very much for your input, I really appreciate it.

But what about my lack of experience working in a research lab? I've never done that. I've conducted plenty of research when I was still in the corporate world (I worked as a marketing researcher, so I know lots about statistics and their proper application), but I have no experience working in a professor's research lab.

Will any PhD program seriously consider me without that? If so, do you know of any? So far I've talked with a couple, both of them are balanced scientist-practitioner, and both of them told me flat-out I'm not getting in unless I have prior experience working in a lab.

Thanks

 

[thewesternsky]

Hi Somaticpsych! I don't know of any even semi-reputable PhD programs which would accept a student without at least some research experience in psychology. If you're serious about pursuing a doctorate, I'd suggest you start acquiring research experience. There are likely volunteer opportunities at universities in your area.

 

[erg923]

So far I've talked with a couple, both of them are balanced scientist-practitioner, and both of them told me flat-out I'm not getting in unless I have prior experience working in a lab.

I think you will find that this is universal among all ph.d programs. Marketing research is realls not applicable to the nature of the research you would do in a ph.d program in clinical psychology. They want to to see evidence of research not just so they know you have knowledge of stats (actually that has little to do with it), but more so that they can see that you are interested and dedicated to research in psychology and at kleats have basic knowledge of some area of psychology and what you are getting yourslef into.