Ph.D./Psy.D. comparison

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
JeyRo said:
I think it's an interesting dance that clinical psychology programs do with applicants.

I'm certainly aware that a very large majority of clinical psychology graduates intend to practice (many exclusively) as clinicians after they graduate, and doctoral programs know this. However, you can't get into (at least, funded PhD) programs saying, "I don't want to do research." My understanding is that you frequently have to demonstrate some track record of research productivity prior to acceptance, and that you have to otherwise demonstrate that you at least value research (e.g., the scientist-practicioner model). Saying you "don't like research" isn't the way to get into a quality PhD program. Not saying that the OP is saying this, but it could be.
Click to expand...

I think many programs are okay with someone saying they don't want a career in research, as long as they understand its (an important) part of the training. I return to my example above...if I had walked into my (extremely research-heavy lab in a research-heavy clinical science program) saying I didn't ever want to see a client or engage in any sort of clinical work during graduate school, I don't think I think my chances of acceptance would be very good! Its an important and valuable part of the training experience. That would show a laughable misunderstanding of what a clinical psychologist is, and I don't view it any differently than someone saying they want the practice without the research (which sadly, despite the stereotype of the out-of-touch academic, seems to be more the reality based on what we see on this board).

I think individuals with research experience who are open to integrating research (any any good or even mediocre psychologist should be), and willing to receive a full spectrum of training should be able to find an appropriate program. It won't be Wisconsin-Madison, but there are loads of programs that don't expect people to become researchers.
Members don't see this ad.
 
I'm not sure of your research interests...but some of the more balanced counseling psychology programs may be a good fit for you. Unfortunately...the only ones I know are hardcore research places, which is somewhat ironic since I did not training at a counseling program or at a hardcore research program. :laugh:

I have worked with a number of excellent clinicians that came out of the University of Kansas system, and they were very happy with the balance in training they received. They have 2 (Clincal & Counseling...maybe a 3rd out of Ed?) different Ph.D. programs, but one is balanced and one is for hardcore research. The clinical & counseling programs are both very competitive #'s wise, but the lifestyle is excellent and the cost of living lets most/all of their graduates get out debt-free. If I could do it over again, I'd strongly consider their balanced program. Their basketball team is also fun to root for....Rock Chalk Jayhawk. :D
 
Last edited:
University of North Dakota and University of Montana Clinical PhDs may be a good option, too
 
Members don't see this ad :)
JeyRo said:
I think it's an interesting dance that clinical psychology programs do with applicants.

I'm certainly aware that a very large majority of clinical psychology graduates intend to practice (many exclusively) as clinicians after they graduate, and doctoral programs know this. However, you can't get into (at least, funded PhD) programs saying, "I don't want to do research." My understanding is that you frequently have to demonstrate some track record of research productivity prior to acceptance, and that you have to otherwise demonstrate that you at least value research (e.g., the scientist-practicioner model). Saying you "don't like research" isn't the way to get into a quality PhD program. Not saying that the OP is saying this, but it could be.
Click to expand...
It's so true and so crazy. At many top-tier, well-respected institutions, you basically can't say you have any actual interest in clinical work during interviews. I mean, don't go so far as to say you have no interest, but in my three years of applying, I found it to be much better if you just left it out of the conversation all together. Which is just ridiculous, because as soon as you walk the walk and talk the talk and get accepted, if you end up having more of an interest in being a clinician down the road, it's perfectly acceptable. Sigh.
 
You should defiinitely look at Counseling Psych programs. They fund better than clinical psych programs and expect students to do clinical practice. You are also expected to demonstrate you can do research, but it can be grounded in clinical practice and it is intended to inform applied work. And, while many grads do UCC/CAPS internships, there are also paths into community mental health and health care settings, including work with SMI.
 
emily621 said:
It's so true and so crazy. At many top-tier, well-respected institutions, you basically can't say you have any actual interest in clinical work during interviews. I mean, don't go so far as to say you have no interest, but in my three years of applying, I found it to be much better if you just left it out of the conversation all together. Which is just ridiculous, because as soon as you walk the walk and talk the talk and get accepted, if you end up having more of an interest in being a clinician down the road, it's perfectly acceptable. Sigh.
Click to expand...

True to some degree, but not all schools will be open to students being clinicians (some are unfortunately, quite rigid and paternalistic about career goals - though you are correct that even some purportedly research-heavy institutions are fine with students saying they want to be clinicians down the line). Others may be open to the idea, but the programs are simply not set up for it. Someone lying about their plans for an academic career would probably have a better shot at getting accepted here, but I would never recommend any prospective student do that. They would be miserable given the focus of much of the training, the pressure is on people to publish, advisors want to have productive labs and given they can only have a limited number of students are unlikely to reduce their expectations regarding a students scholarly output to make more time for clinical work, etc. I think the best route is to find that elusive "match" we always talk about - both with the lab, and with the overall training missions of the school.
 
Ollie123 said:
not all schools will be open to students being clinicians
Click to expand...

Despite what's been noted in various posts on this thread and elsewhere on sdn, I've talked to folks in counseling psych who've articulated what Ollie notes above with regards to their training.
 
The Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) is based on training for research or academic careers and may have continued relevance for students with experimental, social, personality, etc...who want to work in a academic/research environment. However, the majority of psychologists in the year 2012 are working in clinical settings and the Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) is a more appropriate training curriculum for psychologist working in a clinical setting. The PsyD degree and curriculum training started in the late 70's and now some 40-50 years later there are a large number of PsyD trained clinical psychologists. Many believe that the PhD in psychology is outdated and a much poorer quality of education due to overemphasis on research and publications at the cost of less emphasis on development of clinical psychology skills. It may be necessary for APA to eventually specify that the PsyD training model is the ideal training model for clinical psychologists and the PhD training model is the ideal training model for academic/research psychologists. Part of the reason for the growth of PsyD based clinical psychology programs is due to the emphasis on clinical psychology training rather than research training. Due to the high quality of clinical psychology training in the PsyD curriculum many of these programs have to turn away high quality applicants to maintain consistency and quality of the clinical training.
 
He's an Argosy recruiter. Certainly has the preachy, I dont need no stinkin "evidence" to back up my nonsense talk that you get from some of those folks. :laugh:
 
erg923 said:
He's an Argosy recruiter. Certainly has the preachy, I dont need no stinkin "evidence" to back up my nonsense talk that you get from some of those folks. :laugh:
Click to expand...


Walden University has a much better program than Argosy University!! Walden students find great internship.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Thought I would give my opinion as this issue has been greatly influential in my own grad school career. I got my MA from a clinical psych program and while I enjoyed the training it was simply a stepping stone of sorts for a later PhD program. Based on faculty opinions, respect through out the field, possibly pursuing an academic career and the importance, I believe, on integrating good research AND clinical training, I knew I wanted a PhD over a PsyD. My issue however, was just as stated here, I am most drawn toward being a clinician and working in applied settings, not strictly research. Some programs don't want to hear that, at least not at the beginning. This is why I have been so attracted to Counseling Psychology. The program I will be starting is a Counseling Psych PhD, APA approved, and while I will still be expected to produce original research and collaborate with faculty (as should be expected), I will be getting thorough clinical training, in multiple orientations and contexts (individual, couples, family, CBT, Psychodynamic, etc.). For me, this was an Ideal fit... but once again one must base these decisions on one's OWN interests and future goals.

The only downside I think is the funding. In my experience, counseling psych programs usually offer partial funding at the start where as top clinical programs have full funding through out, this of course is based on the focus and priority of research grants and publications within clinical psych programs.
 
RGirl said:
Are we talking Walden with the average 17.2% match rate?
http://appic.org/Portals/0/downloads/APPIC_Match_Rates_2000-10_by_Univ.pdf
Or is it the 80% who find their own great internships outside of the whole match system that makes their program so much better than those "outdated" PhD programs that actually have match rates above 50%?
Click to expand...

Per Walden's website:

The Clinical Psychology specialization in the Ph.D. in Psychology program is designed to prepare graduates to qualify to sit for psychology licensing exams. This specialization is designed to meet the academic licensure requirements of some state psychology boards. However, Walden University's professional specialization in Clinical Psychology is not accredited by the American Psychological Association (APA) and has not received designation by the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards/National Register (ASPPB/NR), which are requirements for licensure in some states. Walden enrollment advisors can provide guidance on licensure issues, state-by-state educational requirements, and internship and practicum requirements; however, it remains the student's responsibility to evaluate and understand the licensure requirements for the state or international location in which he or she intends to work as requirements vary widely. Walden University makes no representation or guarantee that the completion of a degree or coursework for graduate credit will permit the learner to obtain licensure.
Click to expand...

The bolded portion is likely a key causative factor of the relatively low match rates. Regardless of how strong a program's curriculum may or may not be, if the program isn't able to obtain APA accreditation (and isn't new and in the process of applying), as can be seen, this can significantly detract from the "placeability" of its traineees and graduates.
 
4410 said:
The Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) is based on training for research or academic careers and may have continued relevance for students with experimental, social, personality, etc...who want to work in a academic/research environment. However, the majority of psychologists in the year 2012 are working in clinical settings and the Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) is a more appropriate training curriculum for psychologist working in a clinical setting. The PsyD degree and curriculum training started in the late 70's and now some 40-50 years later there are a large number of PsyD trained clinical psychologists. Many believe that the PhD in psychology is outdated and a much poorer quality of education due to overemphasis on research and publications at the cost of less emphasis on development of clinical psychology skills. It may be necessary for APA to eventually specify that the PsyD training model is the ideal training model for clinical psychologists and the PhD training model is the ideal training model for academic/research psychologists. Part of the reason for the growth of PsyD based clinical psychology programs is due to the emphasis on clinical psychology training rather than research training. Due to the high quality of clinical psychology training in the PsyD curriculum many of these programs have to turn away high quality applicants to maintain consistency and quality of the clinical training.
Click to expand...

4410 said:
Walden University has a much better program than Argosy University!! Walden students find great internship.
Click to expand...

Yay! We're playing the game where we say things and ignore all evidence to the contrary. The world is flat. Ice cream and double fudge brownies are good for you. Milli Vanilli wrote all their own music!

How am I doing?
 
KillerDiller said:
Yay! We're playing the game where we say things and ignore all evidence to the contrary. The world is flat. Ice cream and double fudge brownies are good for you. Milli Vanilli wrote all their own music!

How am I doing?
Click to expand...

If you get 4410 started, you'll end up with links to Argosy University in the thread pretty soon. But reading 4410's posts and figuring out how each statement fits into psychoanalytic theory (e.g., reaction formation) can make for a good EPPP study activity. :smuggrin:
 
Therapist4Chnge said:
FACT!!

(in moderation)
Click to expand...

+1

AND...

4410 will just counter the 17% Walden match rate by saying the rest of the world does not recognize the greatness of their Psy.D program, and that, because all got quality internships at some po dunk CMH, the program is doin just fine...better than your Ph.D program even. Because, as long as I think my internship is quality, then everyone else should just take my word for it! Duh! No outside review is needed! Quality assurance is silly...

What did i miss?
 
You forgot to mention what sheep we are for thinking its APA accreditation is a good thing-- in fact, higher match rates than Walden are probably a bad sign, since all the cool kids create their own internships.
 
Since everyone jumps on the Argosy as the cause of the imbalance. I just wanted to point out that there are bigger fishes in the FSPS that no one seems concerned about, as in programs such as Walden University and Capella University. These two program probably have ten times more students than the Argosy University System.
 
Last edited:
4410 said:
Since everyone jumps on the Argosy as the cause of the imbalance. I just wanted to point out that there are bigger fishes in the FSPS that no one seems concerned about, as in programs such as Walden University and Capella University. These two program probably have ten times more students than the Argosy University System.
Click to expand...

Well, people point fingers at Argosy because they happen to run the largest amount of campuses across the country, and so they are seen as a big offender. I'm not sure it's true that the programs you mention put out as many psych grads as the entire Argosy system, but I'd love to see some numbers on that. Anyway, there are several other programs besides Argosy including Alliant, (Fill in the blank) School of Professional Psychology, Fielding, etc. who catch flak for the same reasons. It is by no means just Argosy that is the problem.

I don't quite understand how you were hoping to deflect blame away from Argosy and onto Walden by talking about how the latter is a better program with great internships. I guess I missed the sarcasm.
 
KillerDiller said:
I don't quite understand how you were hoping to deflect blame away from Argosy and onto Walden by talking about how the latter is a better program with great internships. I guess I missed the sarcasm.
Click to expand...

I do believe you missed it, Killer. :zip:
 
KillerDiller said:
Well, people point fingers at Argosy because they happen to run the largest amount of campuses across the country, and so they are seen as a big offender. I'm not sure it's true that the programs you mention put out as many psych grads as the entire Argosy system, but I'd love to see some numbers on that. Anyway, there are several other programs besides Argosy including Alliant, (Fill in the blank) School of Professional Psychology, Fielding, etc. who catch flak for the same reasons. It is by no means just Argosy that is the problem.

I don't quite understand how you were hoping to deflect blame away from Argosy and onto Walden by talking about how the latter is a better program with great internships. I guess I missed the sarcasm.
Click to expand...

Each of the Argosy University PsyD programs are standalone programs in their respective States. Walden and Capella actually do not have campuses in every state and my guess is they are much larger than Argosy, Alliant, or Fielding Universities. This thread is about PhD/PsyD differences and I believe that Walden and Capella both have PhD degrees in Clinical Psychology. Seems that there is a definite bias towards PhD degrees in Clinical Psychology having higher standards. Well then, Walden and Capella must have a higher standard then since they are PhD programs in clinical psychology. I just don't believe you can group all of the FSPS together or generalize and I don't believe you can group all of the University based programs together as being high quality. Basically, each Argosy University program is separate from the other programs without any sharing of resources or staff. So, there is the Georgia School of Professional Psychology, Minnesota School of Professional Psychology, Orange County School of Professional Psychology, Texas School of Professional Psychology etc... in the Argosy System and each program is not related to the other program. All of these programs are under the Argosy University System but they are distinctly separate programs.
 
To add to this discussion, I googled therapists in my area ( a suburb of the Midwest). Of the 100s of listings that I came across I only found 1 PhD providing therapy. Tons of PsyDs, MSWs, LPCs, etc totally dominated. So if I was some random person looking for therapist my options would be professional school- trained therapists, master levels practitioners and social workers… which is scary. Scary IF you really value the scientist-practioner model of training.
 
ZsMusings said:
To add to this discussion, I googled therapists in my area ( a suburb of the Midwest). Of the 100s of listings that I came across I only found 1 PhD providing therapy. Tons of PsyDs, MSWs, LPCs, etc totally dominated. So if I was some random person looking for therapist my options would be professional school- trained therapists, master levels practitioners and social workers… which is scary. Scary IF you really value the scientist-practioner model of training.
Click to expand...

You do realize that medical schools are also professional schools, right? Not all PsyDs are bad, just because you can call the program that awarded it a professional (as opposed to academic) program. A standalone for-profit professional school with a huge cohort should not be confused with any of the high quality university-affiliated PsyD programs around the country.
 
Veit said:
You do realize that medical schools are also professional schools, right? Not all PsyDs are bad, just because you can call the program that awarded it a professional (as opposed to academic) program. A standalone for-profit professional school with a huge cohort should not be confused with any of the high quality university-affiliated PsyD programs around the country.
Click to expand...


And do you realize this discussion and what I was referencing was about graduate psychology students and other related professions that practice counseling/psychotherapy… not medical school? That is totally out of context...

I should be more specific. The PsyDs being mentioned through this thread (the stand-alone schools like Walden, Argosy, Adler) were listed as where their degrees were conferred.

So scary it is.
 
ZsMusings said:
To add to this discussion, I googled therapists in my area ( a suburb of the Midwest). Of the 100s of listings that I came across I only found 1 PhD providing therapy. Tons of PsyDs, MSWs, LPCs, etc totally dominated. So if I was some random person looking for therapist my options would be professional school- trained therapists, master levels practitioners and social workers… which is scary. Scary IF you really value the scientist-practioner model of training.
Click to expand...

ZsMusings said:
The PsyDs being mentioned through this thread (the stand-alone schools like Walden, Argosy, Adler) were listed as where their degrees were conferred.

So scary it is.
Click to expand...

Not so fast. Google isn't exactly producing a representative or random sample here. Maybe professionals of a certain background or training are more likely to have websites and/or be listed on websites?! That doesn't mean that the PhDs aren't doing therapy or aren't doing therapy in private practice. Maybe they are busy and don't need to advertise? There are many possibilities here.
 
Psychadelic2012 said:
Not so fast. Google isn't exactly producing a representative or random sample here. Maybe professionals of a certain background or training are more likely to have websites and/or be listed on websites?! That doesn't mean that the PhDs aren't doing therapy or aren't doing therapy in private practice. Maybe they are busy and don't need to advertise? There are many possibilities here.
Click to expand...

Very true. But people can and do find their therapists via Google or findapsychologist or whatever those sites are called. They may call up their nearest practitioner who likely does not have a PhD (for my area) .…If I was hellbent (sp?) on finding a PhD. therapist, who didnt advertise… I would have a very hard time finding that person.

But yeaa my point is totally anecdotal
 
ZsMusings said:
Very true. But people can and do find their therapists via Google or findapsychologist or whatever those sites are called. They may call up their nearest practitioner who likely does not have a PhD (for my area) .…If I was hellbent (sp?) on finding a PhD. therapist, who didnt advertise… I would have a very hard time finding that person.

But yeaa my point is totally anecdotal
Click to expand...

I am certainly not aware of the data for how people find their therapists, but it is an interesting question. Not sure how many people actually do find them through Google searches? Masters-level therapists are certainly going to be more numerous, but I'd bet that networking and referrals account for more business than an internet search - also anecdotal of course, but this being such an intimate field I would bank on other sources, myself.
 
Psychadelic2012 said:
Not so fast. Google isn't exactly producing a representative or random sample here. Maybe professionals of a certain background or training are more likely to have websites and/or be listed on websites?! That doesn't mean that the PhDs aren't doing therapy or aren't doing therapy in private practice. Maybe they are busy and don't need to advertise? There are many possibilities here.
Click to expand...

Exactly. People who had quality training can market themselves more than successfully via word-of-mouth and via referral sources. People who don't, advertise. Not always the case, I'm sure (and I'm not knocking traditional advertising here), but that's probably what's going on. Plenty of PhDs do private practice therapy stuff.
 
ZsMusings said:
And do you realize this discussion and what I was referencing was about graduate psychology students and other related professions that practice counseling/psychotherapy… not medical school? That is totally out of context...

I should be more specific. The PsyDs being mentioned through this thread (the stand-alone schools like Walden, Argosy, Adler) were listed as where their degrees were conferred.

So scary it is.
Click to expand...
I was bringing up med schools to show that the PsyD isn't an inherently bad degree simply by nature of it being called a "professional degree" (and as such conferred by a professional school) rather than an "academic degree," because it shares that title with such respected degrees as the MD and JD. Sure, if all of these PsyDs were conferred by questionable (large, standalone, for-profit) institutions, then that's not good.
 
Veit said:
I was bringing up med schools to show that the PsyD isn't an inherently bad degree simply by nature of it being called a "professional degree" (and as such conferred by a professional school) rather than an "academic degree," because it shares that title with such respected degrees as the MD and JD. Sure, if all of these PsyDs were conferred by questionable (large, standalone, for-profit) institutions, then that's not good.
Click to expand...

The PsyD/PhD debate usually boils down to a few specific factors. A major one, as you point out here, is the distinction between FSPSs and traditional programs. This seems like a more important distinction than PsyD/PhD, as some FSPSs award PhDs and this does not mean they produce quality outcomes. 4410 thinks that because Capella and Walden award the PhD, the PsyD/PhD discussion is moot--we cannot make any generalizations about programs. However, Capella and Walden are online schools, not traditional programs, so the FSPS/traditional distinction still stands as an important factor in determining the quality of a program.

Another factor in this debate is pure finances. MD programs and the AMA have policed their career to ensure that doctors have a clear path to high paying jobs. This makes paying back medical school loans a relatively easy process. I know less about the JD model, but my understanding is that the same is true for at least the top couple tiers of law schools. The same is not true in psychology. Students are taking out loans to fund their entire education and then graduating into an eventual job that pays 65K a year (median). Thus, another important factor in this discussion is funded vs. unfunded. Even unfunded programs at traditional universities are not setting up their students well to enter the profession. It would be a different story if it were the top programs in the field that were charging tuition. However, this is clearly not the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
KillerDiller said:
The PsyD/PhD debate usually boils down to a few specific factors. A major one, as you point out here, is the distinction between FSPSs and traditional programs. This seems like a more important distinction than PsyD/PhD, as some FSPSs award PhDs and this does not mean they produce quality outcomes. 4410 thinks that because Capella and Walden award the PhD, the PsyD/PhD discussion is moot--we cannot make any generalizations about programs. However, Capella and Walden are online schools, not traditional programs, so the FSPS/traditional distinction still stands as an important factor in determining the quality of a program.

Another factor in this debate is pure finances. MD programs and the AMA have policed their career to ensure that doctors have a clear path to high paying jobs. This makes paying back medical school loans a relatively easy process. I know less about the JD model, but my understanding is that the same is true for at least the top couple tiers of law schools. The same is not true in psychology. Students are taking out loans to fund their entire education and then graduating into an eventual job that pays 65K a year (median). Thus, another important factor in this discussion is funded vs. unfunded. Even unfunded programs at traditional universities are not setting up their students well to enter the profession. It would be a different story if it were the top programs in the field that were charging tuition. However, this is clearly not the case.
Click to expand...

Whoa there...not when you talk to medical students. These days, there are a lot of them too. Going to medical school is a large financial decision. It also depends on interest rates. I know psychiatrists that had to work side jobs on the graveyard shift to cover interest on their loans when rates were higher. I wouldn't generalize here...yes they get high salaries (particularly if they go rural) but they also have much more substantial debt that your typical doctoral psychology program.
 
Pragma said:
Whoa there...not when you talk to medical students. These days, there are a lot of them too. Going to medical school is a large financial decision. It also depends on interest rates. I know psychiatrists that had to work side jobs on the graveyard shift to cover interest on their loans when rates were higher. I wouldn't generalize here...yes they get high salaries (particularly if they go rural) but they also have much more substantial debt that your typical doctoral psychology program.
Click to expand...

Agreed; it's certainly not as much of a sure thing as it was in years past, but then again, I'm not sure if there are any occupations that haven't taken a bit of a hit over the past half-decade. That being said, we definitely could learn a lot from the AMA's abilities to regulate the rate of graduated practitioners and protect physicians' scopes of practice. Heck, we could learn a lot from social work and nursing on these fronts as well.
 
Pragma said:
Whoa there...not when you talk to medical students. These days, there are a lot of them too. Going to medical school is a large financial decision. It also depends on interest rates. I know psychiatrists that had to work side jobs on the graveyard shift to cover interest on their loans when rates were higher. I wouldn't generalize here...yes they get high salaries (particularly if they go rural) but they also have much more substantial debt that your typical doctoral psychology program.
Click to expand...

Fine, that simply supports the point I was making. Funded vs unfunded is an important factor when it comes to later quality of life.
 
KillerDiller said:
I know less about the JD model, but my understanding is that the same is true for at least the top couple tiers of law schools.
Click to expand...

Not true. Maybe for the top couple of law schools, but not even for all first tier. JDs are totally screwed right now--their job market is a mess. But as you say, further support for the importance of securing funding...
 
And for supply outweighing demand, especially in terms of schools admitting more students than the job market can handle.
 
4410 said:
Seems that there is a definite bias towards PhD degrees in Clinical Psychology having higher standards.
Click to expand...

I'll just let the research speak for itself.

Graham, J. M. and Kim, Y.-H. (2011), Predictors of doctoral student success in professional psychology: characteristics of students, programs, and universities. J. Clin. Psychol., 67: 340–354. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20767
 
I just wanted to say that was beautifully said and I appreciate your comment
 
Markp said:
I'll just let the research speak for itself.

Graham, J. M. and Kim, Y.-H. (2011), Predictors of doctoral student success in professional psychology: characteristics of students, programs, and universities. J. Clin. Psychol., 67: 340–354. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20767
Click to expand...

Thanks for Posting... good article and relevant to this discussion.
 
markp said:
i'll just let the research speak for itself.

Graham, j. M. And kim, y.-h. (2011), predictors of doctoral student success in professional psychology: Characteristics of students, programs, and universities. J. Clin. Psychol., 67: 340–354. Doi: 10.1002/jclp.20767
Click to expand...

+1
 
Markp said:
I'll just let the research speak for itself.

Graham, J. M. and Kim, Y.-H. (2011), Predictors of doctoral student success in professional psychology: characteristics of students, programs, and universities. J. Clin. Psychol., 67: 340–354. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20767
Click to expand...


This article makes some very good points. Although PsyD programs have poorer outcomes that PhD programs, this study did not fully examine which programs or the type of program (FSPS) influences these outcomes. I attend a PsyD program based in a psychology department at a public University (public university = lower tuition rates and funding for graduate students). We have a 100% match rate with 75% APA placement, which in my opinion is great given the current internship imbalance; the ones who did not do an APA placement had family obligations that limited them geographically. I HATE being associated with PsyD programs with poor outcomes and poor reputations. It makes applying to internships knowing the current internship situation even more stressful. I think that the outcome research should focus on University Based programs versus FSPSs not PhD versus PsyD. Also, research should include places and type of employment of graduates by program or licensure rates. If someone does research that supports that certain programs are the culprits for poor outcomes and poor match rates, this is should be evidence for the APA to do something about these programs. Psychology is all about evidence based practice and if we show them enough evidence that certain schools are responsible for the problems in psychology, then the APA should act on these programs and stop them from flooding the market. Just my two cents.
 
PsyDLICSW said:
This article makes some very good points. Although PsyD programs have poorer outcomes that PhD programs, this study did not fully examine which programs or the type of program (FSPS) influences these outcomes. I attend a PsyD program based in a psychology department at a public University (public university = lower tuition rates and funding for graduate students). We have a 100% match rate with 75% APA placement, which in my opinion is great given the current internship imbalance; the ones who did not do an APA placement had family obligations that limited them geographically. I HATE being associated with PsyD programs with poor outcomes and poor reputations. It makes applying to internships knowing the current internship situation even more stressful. I think that the outcome research should focus on University Based programs versus FSPSs not PhD versus PsyD. Also, research should include places and type of employment of graduates by program or licensure rates. If someone does research that supports that certain programs are the culprits for poor outcomes and poor match rates, this is should be evidence for the APA to do something about these programs. Psychology is all about evidence based practice and if we show them enough evidence that certain schools are responsible for the problems in psychology, then the APA should act on these programs and stop them from flooding the market. Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this and am a PhD student! The FSPS v. university-based (and to lesser degree, funded v. unfunded) is really where the distinction lies, IMO. Don't forget that there are also FSPS PhDs.
 
futureapppsy2 said:
I agree with all of this and am a PhD student! The FSPS v. university-based (and to lesser degree, funded v. unfunded) is really where the distinction lies, IMO. Don't forget that there are also FSPS PhDs.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Ideally, it really should be a program-by-program examination.
 
ZsMusings said:
To add to this discussion, I googled therapists in my area ( a suburb of the Midwest). Of the 100s of listings that I came across I only found 1 PhD providing therapy. Tons of PsyDs, MSWs, LPCs, etc totally dominated. So if I was some random person looking for therapist my options would be professional school- trained therapists, master levels practitioners and social workers… which is scary. Scary IF you really value the scientist-practioner model of training.
Click to expand...

Must be geography but in my zip code all but 3 are PhDs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

trissydersh61
Guidance on Psy.D vs Ph.D and resume/CV for programs
Replies
2
Views
604
smalltownpsych
smalltownpsych
J
Alliant International University—Fresno (Psy.D.)
Replies
5
Views
974
NeuroObsessed
N
Michael W
Mid-life career change: Psy.D. or LMHC?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Sanman
Sanman
vunx
University of San Francisco Psy.D. Program
Replies
2
Views
1K
vunx
vunx
H
Ph.D/Psy.D scope of practice - lightboxes, exercise, diet, supplements
Replies
6
Views
838
cara susanna
cara susanna
Top