Ph.D./Psy.D. comparison

  • Thread starter Thread starter 50960
  • Start date Start date
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members do not see this ad.
Okay

Thanks for the replies. So, how much can someone with a non-research oriented PsyD make , living and working in a , lets say in California in a hospital setting?

Is it worth getting the PsyD, or would a better option be an LCSW with an additional MPH degree?

Thanks again for any response.
 
psychometric said:
Okay

Thanks for the replies. So, how much can someone with a non-research oriented PsyD make , living and working in a , lets say in California in a hospital setting?

Is it worth getting the PsyD, or would a better option be an LCSW with an additional MPH degree?

Thanks again for any response.
Click to expand...

It varies greatly. CA can skew the results, as the cost of living and what you can charge are much higher. The only psychologists (Ph.D/Psy.D, same licensure) I know are in private practice, and do really well, but they needed to work towards that. If you can go cash pay, that is ideal, but it will take at least a couple years to build up referrals.

I don't know what hospitals pay, but I'd be willing to guess you need to supplement the income with outside work to begin to afford living in the more popular parts of CA. Working in the prisons tends to pay well, but....you'd work in a prison.

I did a quick search on monster and in CA it was $63-$67k for clinical duties, $70k-$86k for 2-5 years experience, etc.

Same old story...if you don't specialize, you'll be a dime a dozen and you won't make nearly as much as people who have a niche.

I know people who make $120-$150k+ specializing (ADHD, Neuro, ED, Forensics).....but, they are very good at what they do. Living in the midwest it obviously will be less, and probably around the same in the northeast. If you go the community mental health center (CMHC) you won't make good money ($50k?), or if you only want to work part-time (?), etc. I think the trick is to have a couple jobs....one to pay for your benefits, a private practice to build up, and maybe some assessments or maybe teach a class on the side. That is my plan at least.

-t
 
leikcaj said:
With all the talk of diploma mills, can anyone give me a good idea of which PsyD programs out there are actually well-respected? So far, my sense is that Baylor, Rutgers, and Virginia Consortium are way up there how about Pepperdine/George Washington etc?

Also, it's quite clear that PhD programs are looking for students with interests that "fit" a particular professor. How about PsyD programs? What do they tend to look for? Previous clinical work experience (and how do you get that if you don't have the qualification the the first place... does volunteering at a inpatient psych ward help for example)?
Click to expand...
I'm also interested in the GW PsyD program. In other postings, people have mentioned that GW's match rates are low. But if you look at GW's website, the APPIC and APA matches have been increasing every year. In 2006, there were 95% APPIC matches and 78% APA matches. Are those good numbers for a PsyD program? It seems as if the school is relatively young (opened in 1999) and is slowly developing more prestige and success over the years.

Are there any GW PsyD students who can write about their experiences? Nobody really mentions GW on the forum. Is there a reason for that? What is their reputation? Please do not hesitate to be straight-forward! Your honesty is appreciated!
 
Norcross and colleagues conducted a survey of all PsyD programs a few years ago and offer this very excellent overview of programs.

http://www.liu.edu/cwis/CWP/clas/psych/doctoral/psyd.pdf

I came across this article several months ago and it helped me realize that some PsyDs do offer funding. Article contains a list of all PsyD programs then in existence (2004) including the year they became APA accredited.
 
APA has published preliminary results from their salary survey, which also includes means by area, gender and location. One thing that really struck me is that in almost every single category women earn less than men. I would think at least in psychology we would have done away with that disparity.

http://research.apa.org/07salaryextract.html

Therapist4Chnge said:
It varies greatly. CA can skew the results, as the cost of living and what you can charge are much higher. The only psychologists (Ph.D/Psy.D, same licensure) I know are in private practice, and do really well, but they needed to work towards that. If you can go cash pay, that is ideal, but it will take at least a couple years to build up referrals.

I don't know what hospitals pay, but I'd be willing to guess you need to supplement the income with outside work to begin to afford living in the more popular parts of CA. Working in the prisons tends to pay well, but....you'd work in a prison.

I did a quick search on monster and in CA it was $63-$67k for clinical duties, $70k-$86k for 2-5 years experience, etc.

Same old story...if you don't specialize, you'll be a dime a dozen and you won't make nearly as much as people who have a niche.

I know people who make $120-$150k+ specializing (ADHD, Neuro, ED, Forensics).....but, they are very good at what they do. Living in the midwest it obviously will be less, and probably around the same in the northeast. If you go the community mental health center (CMHC) you won't make good money ($50k?), or if you only want to work part-time (?), etc. I think the trick is to have a couple jobs....one to pay for your benefits, a private practice to build up, and maybe some assessments or maybe teach a class on the side. That is my plan at least.

-t
Click to expand...
 
A noncomprehensive list of PsyD programs with generous financial packages:

Baylor University
Indiana State University
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Rutger's University
Virginia Consortium
 
I applied to multiple PhD and PsyD programs and used the same LOR for both. I just made sure that I asked for letters from people who could speak to my different strengths. I asked my research advisor for 1 letter, my clinical internship advisor for one letter, and my professor for another letter. That way my letters could speak to my research, clinical, and academic experiences when read together. Does that make sense?
 
EspressOself said:
By the way, my previous post was in response to this question.
Click to expand...

I had 3 letters, one from my "clinical" supervisor, from when I worked in MH, one from a lab I had belonged to a while ago, and one from my research mentor, for whom I had worked for full time 2+ years and also had as a professor. This third letter was from my big professor, the one that knew me the best, the one whose name peppered my CV, as I had worked there for so long, authored on several of his presentation papers, etc. I gave him plenty of time, and I made a packet of information on each of the 12 schools I was applying to -- the neat aspects of the program that made me feel I would be a good fit, the professor or two that I was most interested in working with, and any thing else. Not a lot of text for him to read or anything, but I did a lot of research for it, and he, in turn, personalized each of my letters. My interests, research wise, were congruent but not spot on for some of my programs, so I think having my letter writer fill in those blanks a bit may have strengthened the case I made in my statements as to my fit. It paid off -- an administrative error made 11 viable apps, and I got 8 interviews, and did 5, and so far have 3 offers (as many on this board know, I am loudly waiting for my final school to get back to me). So getting your "big" letter writer to personalize, and maybe speak to clinical strengths more for the psyd's, research more for the others, may be a way to go. Good luck!
 
I like doing research but I don’t really want to work in academic setting at least not full time. I would want to be more of a private or group practice clinical psychologist. Not that I would dislike teaching part time or night classes but not full time. But I would rather focus on building my own private clinical practice. I am thinking I would be better off with a PhD. than a PsyD? What do you think?
 
You're in kind of a grey area where I think either could work. Given your funding concerns though, you'd have a very hard time finding enough PsyD programs to apply to, since there's only a handful that are funded.

I think if you plan to keep a hand in research or academia, you'd be better served by going to a balanced PhD program than a PsyD, but that's just my opinion. There are a couple PsyD programs that would probably work well (Baylor, Rutgers, etc.) That way you can get both and you can decide you'd rather lean a little bit in either direction after starting the program and still be able to make it work.
 
What about earnings? I realize that a PhD you are often paid to do and a PsyD is something one pays for, but what about the ten year projected earnings for each? Are they equivalent? I have not been able to find sufficient information about this. Perhaps it is because there is no difference?
 
Hey CanadianV,

I know you posted the blog about being in a Psy.D. program a while ago, but that just means you have all the more experience in the program at this point so i have a question for you? At John F. Kennedy U., what are some of the most important criteria they consider when evaluating applications? I am going to be an undergrad junior this fall '08, and i have done ALOT of reading, reseraching, and talking to people about how to plan for graduate school so i know the general important criteria like letters of reccomendation, GPA, GRE scores, research experience, etc., but could you elaborate on any of that based on your experiences? And, I don't want to ask you anything too personal, but could you tell me what your undergrad GPA, GRE scores, reserach/clinical experience looked like and what kinds of programs you were accepted to? If you don't feel comfortable saying any of that info its cool and i understand. It would just be nice to hear some specifics of someone who actually got into a doctoral program.

Thanks alot for your help!
 
Hi There

Are you still around? I know you posted this a long time ago, but I'm trying to research PsyD programs and would like to ask you about yours specifically.

Thanks!

KrisBee
 
Mace said:
Answer: Ph.D = a stronger research focus
Psy.D = a stronger clinical focus

As a result PsyD's are generally not involved in academia and usually have a solely clinical practice (as opposed to Phd's who may often split their time between a practice and doing research at a university.)
Click to expand...

No, I have to say that I disagree with that assertion. Psy.D's are extensively trained in research. It's true, there's not as heavy of a focus on research in a Psy.D program versus a Ph.D program, but Psy.D's still receive a lot of training in research. Also, there are quite a few Psy.D's in academia. So I really disagree with your assertion that Psy.D's are not generally involved in academia. I personally know a lot of Psy.D's who work full-time in the field and teach part-time as an associate professor, etc. There are some Psy.D's in full-time academic positions. It's not real common, but there are some Psy.D's in the field who spend most their time doing some type of research. So having a Psy.D degree DOES NOT prevent you from entering the world of psychology research. Don't let anybody tell you that it does!

To make yourself a well rounded Psy.D student I highly recommend that you make some research presentations at a few conventions as a student. A lot of internship sites are looking for students who have at least some experience doing some research and presenting their findings. Most Psy.D schools receive a good amount of grant money to send out their students to do presentations at different psychology conventions around the country. To make yourself competitive as a Psy.D student against all the Ph.D students competing for internship sites you really need to make a few research presentations. If you don't like speaking in public that's fine, even a few poster presentations at a convention will make you more competitive for an internship.

Also, some of the comments about what schools are more pretigious then others are correct, especially PsiKo's comments. With Psy.D programs it's really tough to say that one school is necessarily more presitigious then another, because the APA pretty much sets the standard for all schools across the board as far as the academic curriculum is concerned that is needed to earn your degree. However, when it comes to prestige you defnitely want to go to a school that is APA certified with their program, there's no question about that. An APA internship site really isn't as important. As a matter of fact, I think only the State of Mississippi requires their clinical psychologists to have an APA internship in order to get a license. Be that as it may, if you're smart enough and have the connections to get accepted into an Ivy League clinical psychology doctoral program, then go for it! Having an Ivy League name attached to your degree definitely doesn't hurt.
 
Last edited:
I am about to start my second year at a free standing PsyD program in the Chicago area. I have been very impressed with the program and the professors. My school's average class size for PsyD students is about 40 opposed to some of the other programs in the area that have close to 100 (and have a lot more faculty as well). I agree that the PsyD programs don't help their reputation by letting in so many. I feel that many of the students I am class with are bright and motivated. At the same time, there are too many students who, I feel, are not motivated and are not going to be successful i.e. seem to be the same students who haven't gotten placements for the 1st round of practicum. What's sad is that these people may not even terminate with a masters and will still be in some real debt.
 
Last edited:
Toto99 said:
I am about to start my second year at a free standing PsyD program in the Chicago area. I have been very impressed with the program and the professors. My school's average class size for PsyD students is about 40 opposed to some of the other programs in the area that have close to 100 (and have a lot more faculty as well). I agree that the PsyD programs don't help there reputation by letting in so many. I feel that many of the students I am class with are bright and motivated. At the same time, there are too many students who, I feel, are not motivated and are not going to be successful i.e. seem to be the same students who haven't gotten placements for the 1st round of practicum. What's sad is that these people may not even terminate with a masters and will still be in some real debt.
Click to expand...

I too go to a great PsyD program in Missouri. I haven't had a single class with over 30 students or so. My school is fairly selective for a Psy.D program. They accepted about 20% of the students who applied last year.
 
^ you are insulting saying the students are inferior in a PsyD program. I am in a PsyD program at a medical school. Our classes are small and not large. I CHOSE PsyD over PhD and never even applied to PhD programs. You would have been better served to keep your ill formed opinions to yourself, Jon Snow.
 
BellaPsyD said:
I am in a PsyD program at a medical school. Our classes are small and not large.
Click to expand...

I'd never heard of the school you're at. I just checked its appic match; 100%. How is the funding there?

I have the sense that JS is using "PsyD" in the last post when he means "professional school."
 
But wait -- the distinction does have some validity. At my school, there are two separate programs -- phd and psyd -- and we do some work side by side in our school's clinic. As a rule, I think it's accurate that the Phd students are more adept at research and spend a lot more time on this, working in a traditional mentorship model. However, when it comes to clinical work, I have to say that most of the Psyds seem to have an edge. They have more client hours and training in interventions. This is not to suggest that some of the phd students don't primarily want to be clinicians -- just that they must work harder to get the clinical training along the way. By the same token, there are psyd's in our school who go on to academia (usually at Psyd programs or MA programs, granted). They've usually made it their business to find more research opportunities than the average psyd.

I guess my point is, if you want something enough, you can probably make either degree work for you. I think it's all in how you approach it.

🙂 psychmama
 
Hey Jon,

My program is Rutgers. It's not a professional school. Whatever... it sounds like your mind it pretty well made up. That's fine, and you're entitled to your opinion.
 
Here are a few more misperceptions about some Psy.D. programs that should be corrected:

1) Just because one is trained in a higher number of interventions, or has a higher number hours, does not mean that they are better doctors. What matters is the quality and depth of each of those hours. In fact, I would rather have 300 high quality clinical hours that 2000 low quality ones. In factm having too many hours means that the person has probably been used as grunt work and has not had sufficient time to learn the theory behind the techniques/interventions.

2) I HATE it when people say their program has a high match rate. Many professional schools find any type of placement they can get for their students, just to bring the match rate up. One example, an grad student from the Forest School of Professional Psychology, who claimed to be psychodynamic, was secured a position at a developmental center serving (where I did an externship) the profoundly intellecutally disabled when she failed to match, which, of course, is ALL behavioral. The next year, when 4 of her classmates failed to match, she talked to the DOT at the unaccredited center and got her classmates intenships. Remember: Match rates don't matter. What is really important is the number of people who matched to APA-accredited programs. Without an accredited internship, you will be shut out from the better, higher paying jobs.
 
Wow! There sure is a lot of animosity about PsyDs on these boards! Is this typical --because I've not found it to be so true out in the workplace, where PsyDs often (not always) get quite a bit of respect.😡
 
psychmama said:
Wow! There sure is a lot of animosity about PsyDs on these boards! Is this typical --because I've not found it to be so true out in the workplace, where PsyDs often (not always) get quite a bit of respect.😡
Click to expand...

I think alot of the animosity towards PsyDs is actually misplaced animosity meant for professional schools, there's just a great deal of overlap so people tend to (unfairly) equate them. I think nearly everyone here is supportive of the concept of the PsyD, just not the way it has been implemented at most places.

That being said, an incredibly high number of people here seem to confuse animosity towards schools with animosity towards individual graduates of those schools. I personally think professional schools (at least in the manner most of them currently operate) should not exist, and that they are a huge detriment to the field. Despite how some here have chosen to interpret that view, that doesn't mean I can't have respect for an individual graduating from one. I'm not a big fan of the government of certain countries, that doesn't mean I have an intense personal hatred of everyone living there, and would spit on them if I saw them on the street. To some extent its understandable since people tend to feel a very personal attachment to their graduate programs (moreso than undergrad that I have seen), but I think its important to differentiate.

Those are two very different things in my eyes. I don't think it is even REMOTELY rare to come across people who don't think the prof schools are good for psychology. People aren't necessarily as blunt about it in person as they often are here, but I've certainly encountered a pretty sizable number who clearly are not big fans of certain programs. It isn't something that has come up for discussion as often as it does on this board - I imagine I'd find out about quite a few more if it did.
 
Thanks for the responses. I certainly understand your points about professional schools, especially those turning out large numbers of graduates. At the same time, this has been true in other fields for some time. Before grad school I was an attorney. There are tons of law schools, and competition for the best jobs is keen after graduation. I think a difference might be that law has long been a cutthroat field, with insane jockeying for class rank, making law review, getting the top NYC jobs and clerkships. Psychology, on the other hand, was for many years based on the academic model. Then there is the obvious dichotomy within psychology between practice and research. Psychology has never been able to figure out which is most important -- the tension is inherent in the discipline. Many would argue research informs practice and vice-versa. I believe this is true, but it creates in-fighting within the field that is potentially harmful to psychologists as we compete with other mental health professions.

I will get off my soapbox now... 😀 Need to work on internship application essays!😛

psychmama
 
psychmama said:
Then there is the obvious dichotomy within psychology between practice and research. Psychology has never been able to figure out which is most important -- the tension is inherent in the discipline. Many would argue research informs practice and vice-versa. I believe this is true, but it creates in-fighting within the field that is potentially harmful to psychologists as we compete with other mental health professions.

I will get off my soapbox now... 😀 Need to work on internship application essays!😛

psychmama
Click to expand...

I really don't like it when people perpetuate the science VERSUS practice thing. They are not really seperate entities (at least they are not supposed to be, ideally), even within the training model. I think its the people who view the concept that way are the ones who are responsible for creating and maintaining the rift. A rift that is actually overblown and overhyped in my opinion. Theoretically, the clinical part of the training should be just as integral and just as a contributory to developing the scientific mindset as the pure research part of grad school is. Richard McFall has written extensively on this issue and agree with it fully. Although my program is not "clinical science" model, I think we are good about not preparing our students to be one thing OR another.

http://horan.asu.edu/ced522readings/mcfall/manifesto/manifest.htm
 
Last edited:
Can someone make a list of the schools that future applicants who may read this thread are advised to avoid?
I would have done it, but I'm a little confused myself.
 
Thats hard to do, because so much of grad school choice is up to personal preferences. You really can get good training at the Alliant and Argosy schools, but the quality is so "hit or miss" and the debt so outrageous, its hard to recommend them (unless you're independently wealthy). I generally advise staying away from those programs. And of course any of these "online" psy/d programs. There are a handful of the out there, and they are simply misunderstanding and lacking the fundamental elements that make doctoral level education, doctoral level education. I'm sorry, but I don't see doctors who went to University of Phoenix online. I hope you don't think me snobby.....:laugh:
 
MOD NOTE: This thread really veered off track, so I pruned the OT posts. This is a sticky thread meant to have basic information, not a bashing thread.

I am tired of people derailing Ph.D. v. Psy.D. threads. Please keep it professional. There are plenty of other threads people can bump, just don't clutter up this thread.

Also, do not troll/post inflammatory statements, as that is against SDN Policy. I've been pretty lenient because I think it is important to hear all opinions, but the delivery of such messages leaves something to be desired as of late.
 
Jon Snow said:
That's true, likely at the student level, but I would imagine that any detectable difference in the form of assessment and therapy dissipates fairly quickly within internship. The early differences reflect a philosophy of training variant. It isn't as simple as research versus clinical. As ERG states, it's a somewhat false dichotomy, and one that is particularly useless when comparing Boulder (PhD) and Vail (PsyD) models. Either training model trains clinical psychologists. Both put the majority of their graduates into practice. You don't have to work harder as a PhD to match the training of a PsyD, clinically, in my opinion. Internship, externship, internal practica, and postdocs are all part of Boulder model programs. My point in posting this is I think that it is a common fallacy among undergraduates to simplify the situation (e.g., If I want to be a clinician, I'll go to a PsyD program, if I want to be a researcher, I'll go to a PhD program). There are advantages clinically to the Boulder (PhD) approach. We do a disservice to allow that to go unchecked.
Click to expand...

Jon,

That was the kind of post I *want* in here, as it has pertinent information and it can help inform people who may be a bit too black and white in their understanding of the training models.....without being laced with the vitriol and digs that often appear in these conversations.
 
I'm going into a Psyd program next fall, and I've gathered that us students need to be aware of "diploma mills". I, like almost everyone, want to go to the best school possible with the best future job prospects. A few people have noted that Alliant and Argosy aren't that great of schools. However, I want to come out the other end a neuropsychologist, and it seems as though Argosy in Atlanta has a good program for this, with research opportunities and clinical placements in neuropsych. Also, Argosy was originally part of a Georgia college, right? Given this, am I still better off trying to get into a school like Rutgers or Baylor even though they may not have neuropsych internships and research opportunities?

Thank you so much for any help!!
 
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. The corner stone of any good neuropsych concentration is, first a foremost, good general clinical training. If the program doesn't have this, the rest is worthless. Unless either of these programs have good working relationships with local medical schools and academic medical centers to supplement the experience, I'm not sure if it would qualify as a "quality" program in neuropsych. Does the neuropsych curriculum meet Houston conference guidelines? Where are the pracs? Are their graduates able to secure APA internships at an acceptable rate, and, are they able to move on to formal post post docs in neuro?

If you feel the school is right for you and offers neuropsych that you feel comfy with, so be it. Just make sure you have the answers to those 3 questions before you really make that decision.
 
Last edited:
Thank you so much for the help! I will look into those three questions you offered. Right now I'm really looking deep into Loyola Maryland too. Sorting through all of this info on my own is rather difficult!

I'm looking at PsyD because I really don't have much interest in research!...at all. The red tape, the formalities, the laborious process...they don't interest me. We of course absolutely need our researchers, but it's just not for me! Plain and simple, I want to be a clinician. Not to mention I have zero desire to teach.
 
Jon Snow said:
That's fine. None of those things should rule out a PhD program. There are many balanced PhD programs. You'll be able to get a clinical education at a PhD program that will open more doors for you than one at an argosy or alliant program.
Click to expand...

I hesitate to post this at risk of opening another can of worms, but it IS relevant to the topic and provides some hard numbers that basically confirm what Jon said.

According to the latest APPIC numbers (posted in http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=552898 thread, post #43) , PhDs have, on average, more clinical contact hours, more supervision hours, and an equal amount of report writing compared to PsyDs at internship time. Don't know if those differences are statistically significant or not, but given the sample size I'd be hard-pressed to believe otherwise.

Admittedly, they also have a much higher standard deviation reflecting the relatively larger interprogram discrepancy in research focus. However that still means there are plenty of opportunities to load up on clinical experience in many PhD programs, you just need to do your homework and make sure to pick the right one.
 
Ollie123 said:
I hesitate to post this at risk of opening another can of worms, but it IS relevant to the topic and provides some hard numbers that basically confirm what Jon said.

According to the latest APPIC numbers (posted in http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=552898 thread, post #43) , PhDs have, on average, more clinical contact hours, more supervision hours, and an equal amount of report writing compared to PsyDs at internship time. Don't know if those differences are statistically significant or not, but given the sample size I'd be hard-pressed to believe otherwise.

Admittedly, they also have a much higher standard deviation reflecting the relatively larger interprogram discrepancy in research focus. However that still means there are plenty of opportunities to load up on clinical experience in many PhD programs, you just need to do your homework and make sure to pick the right one.
Click to expand...

I noticed those numbers and did a double-take, too.

I think there may be some fuzziness because the interesting comparisons aren't between PhD and PsyD programs, but rather between professional schools/university-based schools and funded/unfunded schools (for example, the PhD/PsyD debt load comparison is much less interesting than a funded program/nonfunded program debt load comparison would be).

Addendum: And also, though I don't believe you were intending to say this Ollie, I think people need to move away from this idea that lots of hours = good clinical training. It's quite possible to do something a lot and badly. Supervision matters, and 1000 hours of seeing white college-aged white females about relationship problems is probably deficient training compared to 200 hours in the community/corrections/whatever.
 
Last edited:
Normally I'd agree with you that is a more interesting comparison, but in this case I'm just trying to do something about the ridiculous urban legend that apparently is circulating that if you want a primarily clinical career, there's no reason to even look at PhD programs. While I'd be interested in the prof school vs. university numbers, its only peripherally relevant since professional schools are a far more dominant force in PsyD training than PhD.

And I agree with you about the number of hours mattering far less than the quality (and relevance for those people specializing). Actually, I could say the same thing about publications😉

Just trying to work with the numbers we have, and I think it would be pretty hard to argue the quality of supervision is lower at all those PhD programs.
 
I'm looking at both Ph.d and Psy.D programs right now for information and one of the schools I've been looking at has the The Practitioner- Scholar Model for their Counseling Psy.D program...

Does anyone know anything about this? I've never heard of this (a lot of this grad school stuff is new to me anyways so its totally possibly that this is known...)

Also, what types of this should one look for if they are applying to a Psy.d program?

Are places like The Chicago School of Profession (something along those lines) are places that one should look into or stay away from. I've gotten mixed reviews...
<h2>
</h2>
 
The Practitioner-Scholar model (also know as the Vail Model) in the guiding model of the Psy.D. Almost all Psy.D programs (clinical or counseling) follow this training model. There are numerous threads throughout SDN on the topic of "professional schools of psychology" and the drawbacks associated with them in as comparison to university based PsyDs. Enormous price tags, little financial support, "hit or miss" quality of training (some are good, but many are bad), along with large class sizes are probably the biggest concerns. I would recommend doing a search and reading some old threads to learn more.
 
erg923 said:
The Practitioner-Scholar model (also know as the Vail Model) in the guiding model of the Psy.D. Almost all Psy.D programs (clinical or counseling) follow this training model. There are numerous threads throughout SDN on the topic of "professional schools of psychology" and the drawbacks associated with them in as comparison to university based PsyDs. Enormous price tags, little financial support, "hit or miss" quality of training (some are good, but many are bad), along with large class sizes are probably the biggest concerns. I would recommend doing a search and reading some old threads to learn more.
Click to expand...

Thanks Erg. I looked up stuff about professional schools after I posted this. Sorry.
Also, I didn't know the Practitioner-Scholar model was also the Vail model.
I know nothing... 🙄
 
terrybug said:
And of all the hundreds of research articles I've read so far, maybe 3 have been authored by PsyD's.
Click to expand...

That's PROBABLY because most people who get PsyDs are not in the career to do research and publish articles. But if a PsyD wanted to, they absolutely COULD conduct research and publish.
 
I saw another poster ask this question, but from what I've read it went unanswered, and it is important to me:

"Also, it's quite clear that PhD programs are looking for students with interests that "fit" a particular professor. How about PsyD programs?"

Like, should I be looking at the professors' profiles on each school to see if they have similar "interests" as me? I'm interested in marital conflict/relationships and sexual dysfunction.
 
Hello Everyone,

I am currently a 5th year student in a reputable PsyD program applying for internship. I personally do not see many advantages of a PsyD program, even those attached to Universities. I speak from my experience and from the experiences of many other people in PsyD programs I have spoken to extensively. Many good PsyD programs also take between 5 to 7 years to complete, require rigorous dissertations (2 years plus), cost significant money, and do not provide adequate mentorship to their students. I also know many PhD students who get the same amount of clinical training, if not more, than their PsyD counterparts. The PhD students, however, also have mentors, publications, and funding, which will only help them secure an APA internship in the long-run. Thus, many students in PsyD programs are lost in the process and accrue over 100,000 in debt.

There is also another important factor that is overlooked: The existence of widespread stigma against PsyD graduates in some CLINICAL placements (yes, clinical placements), including hospitals, counseling centers, and clinics. You can even check this fact out on the APPIC website when searching for internship placements. For example, there are many VA hospitals, medical schools and counseling centers that have never taken on any PsyD graduates despite many applications from good PsyD programs. I also know PsyD students who were not taken seriously during their internship interviews. Some clinical internships even say "PhD preferred" and PsyD acceptable so as to discourage PsyD applicants. Trust me, you can see this stigma easily on the APPIC website.

Do yourself a favor and shoot for balanced PhD programs or MSW programs if you want to be a clinician. There are many PhD programs that provide extensive clinical training and are more balanced. Keep in mind that websites are deceptive as some like to project that they are only research oriented when in fact they are not. Also, think about how much mentoring and supervision you will get from a PsyD program that accepts many more students (range of 15 to 60) per cohort vs. a PhD program that rarely has more than 10 students in each cohort.
 
Another really good point--that PsyD students don't accrue more clinical hours and supervision hours compared to PhD students. In fact, PhD students on average accrue more clinical hours! "According to the latest APPIC numbers (posted in http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=552898 thread, post #43) , PhDs have, on average, more clinical contact hours, more supervision hours, and an equal amount of report writing compared to PsyDs at internship time "

Please consider this when applying to programs and thinking that you can only apply to psyd programs if you prefer clinical work.

I wished I had known this before applying to a psyd program!
 
In terms of becoming a neuropsychologist, my understanding is that you need to complete a doctoral program, complete an internship with certain requirements, and then do a two year post-doc. Thus, you would be much better off completing a PhD program since it would be more difficult for you to secure a post-doc from a PsyD program even though you do not want to do research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

trissydersh61
Guidance on Psy.D vs Ph.D and resume/CV for programs
Replies
2
Views
2K
smalltownpsych
smalltownpsych
J
Alliant International University—Fresno (Psy.D.)
Replies
5
Views
4K
NeuroObsessed
N
S
What are my chances of being accepted into a Psy.D. program?
Replies
31
Views
3K
Sanman
Sanman
Michael W
Mid-life career change: Psy.D. or LMHC?
Replies
12
Views
3K
Sanman
Sanman
vunx
University of San Francisco Psy.D. Program
Replies
2
Views
3K
vunx
vunx
Top