Phds: do you fear "reverse discrimination" from psy Ds?

[parto123]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Right now, for better or worse, Psy Ds. are seen as second class citizens compared to Phds (Im not trying to rehash the old argument). However, even the most die hard Psyd basher would concede that over the past 15 or so years, psyds have been moving up reputation wise, closing the gap with phds to a certain extent, compared to what it used to be. More internships are willing to hire psy ds and more students are choosing psyds than ever before.

I remember reading recently that currently, for the first time, psyd students outnumber phd students in school, and the trend is continuing to grow in this direction because most who go into clinical psych are more interested in practicing than academia and research. I think its fair to assume that in a decade or so, the majority of practicing clinical psychologists will be Psy Ds. Psy Ds will likely become more influential in decision making for internships and jobs.

So my question is that when psy ds start outnumbering phds and become more influential, do you fear a possible backlash against Phds? Judging from the arguments on this board, many on each side think that they are superior, so its completely conceivable that psy ds will start favoring their own.

Thoughts?

 

[parto123]

The reason for the shift is not because people are more interested in practice. The PhD is in clinical psychology. Most that get a PhD do not do research. The # of PhDs has not decreased. Rather, the # of PsyDs has increased. This is because of a few businesses, not because of growing interest. The admission bar is consistently being lowered and the expansion is within the PsyD/professional school world. I don't agree that the reputation of psyds has improved at all. It's a self-licking ice cream cone phenomena. I do see a potential power shift to this line of thinking. Will there be discrimination? Maybe, but I think the more pertinent problem will be decline in the quality of the field with respect to reputation from other professionals. Eventually, (we already see this a bit), the PsyD will be seen as = to an MSW. By extension I think this will also lower the respect of PhDs. . . drag the whole field down.

Everything youre saying may be true, however, at the end of the day there will be more psy ds out there than Phds, especially in practice. And since there are really no restrictions on Psy Ds, there is nothing prevent them from seizing power. Its strength in numbers.

 

[parto123]

Oh, I agree. Death by reproduction. We are our lowest common denominator. It's a good business plan.

Im curious as to why you think "low quality" would hurt the profession. Look at the legal profession. There are literally hundreds of law schools, accredited, non accredited, 1st tier, 4th tier. Quality and reputation are judged on a case by case/person by person basis. Harvard law school has a great reputation, cuny law doesnt. The legal profession is doing just fine despite the fact that there are dozens if not over a hundred of really crappy schools. The same with MBA programs.

If youre good you will do well and have a good reputation, if not you wont.

Another point is that easier admissions most probably would not result in any "noticeable" drop in quality. Quality may go down, but i doubt anyone could tell the difference. Over the past 50 years good colleges have become about 10 times more selective than they used to be. I dont see anyone noting the fact that college students from good colleges today are more qualified than in the past.

 

[psychanon]

Im curious as to why you think "low quality" would hurt the profession. Look at the legal profession. There are literally hundreds of law schools, accredited, non accredited, 1st tier, 4th tier. Quality and reputation are judged on a case by case/person by person basis. Harvard law school has a great reputation, cuny law doesnt. The legal profession is doing just fine despite the fact that there are dozens if not over a hundred of really crappy schools. The same with MBA programs.

If youre good you will do well and have a good reputation, if not you wont.

Another point is that easier admissions most probably would not result in any "noticeable" drop in quality. Quality may go down, but i doubt anyone could tell the difference. Over the past 50 years good colleges have become about 10 times more selective than they used to be. I dont see anyone noting the fact that college students from good colleges today are more qualified than in the past.

Law is a very elitist profession. Law firms all know by heart what the top 14 law schools are, and they heavily rely on rankings to make hiring decisions, especially at the best firms. That's why the multitude of law schools doesn't hurt the profession as much-- the people who go to the lower tiered law schools don't get the top jobs (save for Harriet Myers--although I guess she didn't get the job in the end either). Law is also a much bigger profession than psychology, so it can afford to have more schools. I think a lot of people think "the more psychologists the better," without thinking about how small the demand for psychologists is is compared to medicine, law, or business.

I doubt that psychology would ever be that elitist. U.S. News rankings aren't nearly as reliable or valid as they are for law, so we have no good ranking system. Also, with 5 students graduating from each top program per year, it means the list of "top" schools has to be expanded to top 30 or 50 for it to be useful at all. I'm not really advocating that psychology becomes more elitist-that doesn't seem like a good solution-- but we do need a better way of discriminating between well-trained and poorly trained psychologists. Whereas in law, firms knowledgeable about the field make hiring decisions, in psychology it is often the clients who are deciding whom to go to-- clients who know nothing about what makes a good psychologist.

I'm not worried about Ph.D.'s being actively discriminated against (that seems so unlikely), but I am a little concerned about PsyD's from professional schools gaining political power in the APA and other professional organizations (I think that's happening already), particularly if they would endorse relaxing accreditation standards lower than they already are.

I would guess, btw, that students at the best colleges today are smarter than students at the same schools 50 years ago. I don't have any empirical data for that, but like you said, the admissions standards have changed dramatically, and more people have access to college now, meaning there's a bigger pool of applicants to choose from.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think the PsyD v. PhD is the red herring in all of this; the real concern is the OVERALL number of MH providers + lower reimbursement rates + expanded scope of degrees with far less training. Many places now use SW, LCSW, LMHC, etc for therapy, and the docs as supervisors. The most well trained providers are the least likely to provide service now.

My greatest concern is getting squeezed out of practice by lower cost / lower trained options, this is why niche markets are so necessary. Looking at the number of non-doc therapists compared to doc level therapists, you will see we are dwarfed.

So as we fight amongst ourselves, the MS level therapists are doing a much better job lobbying for expanded scope of practices and are becoming the 'standard' for care, while our addition years of training and expertise are becoming marginalized. I have nothing against MS trained therapists, I've worked with many who are excellent, my issue is with the 'generalist' who often tries to be everything to everyone, and ends up practicing far outside of their scope.

There is DEFINITELY room for improvement to tighten up the quality of doc student from top to bottom....but the real issue is not within our group, but those who have far greater numbers going in and coming out.

-t

 

[Quynh2007]

Another point is that easier admissions most probably would not result in any "noticeable" drop in quality. Quality may go down, but i doubt anyone could tell the difference. Over the past 50 years good colleges have become about 10 times more selective than they used to be. I dont see anyone noting the fact that college students from good colleges today are more qualified than in the past.

because it's still the same type of person who's applying to college, and besides, remember the Flynn Effect? just because top kids nowadays "seem" more qualified than in yêars past doesn't mean that they are. I'm sure if those top kids were all raised concurrently, they would have the same credentials.

personally, i'd always thought that more quantity equals less quality, after all, look at what happened during the industrial revolution, factories and assembly lines replaced the small guys. and while the product may still hold the same function adequately, those bought manufactured always (to this day for the most part) tend to be of lesser quality than those handmade. but cheaper, so people don't complain. that's what i see if there's a lot of PsyD's/MH out there.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Whoa....PsyD/MH.....that is apples and oranges for training, pretty insulting actually. (nothing against MHC's...but they do maybe 2 years of total training? Compared to 6ish?)

-t

 

[Squarepants]

I'm not sure if "reverse discrimination" is the right term. Perhaps "blowback" would be more accurate.

 

[Quynh2007]

i know i'm just saying that if ANY ONE of those increased (and in fact i should probably do PhD/PsyD/MH)then i believe the quality isn't going to be same....sorry if i was insulting...

 

[PsyKardinal]

Just a heads up and not starting a flame war here. The training for a MS level person is approxiametly 2 to 3 years, and then usually a 2 to 3 year internship. No this does not equate to the same level of PsyD/PhD education, but lets not put down the level of commitment and education an MS level person has to make also.

Jeff

 

[Ollie123]

I don't have any fears about this on a personal level.

My only concern is that the huge number of people coming out of certain prof. schools will continue to perpetuate extraordinarily low standards for the profession. I mean after all, if they can become a doctor of psychology after barely passing college, why can't we just let anyone in?

PsyDs don't concern me in and of themselves, just that many of them seem to be graduating from a few schools that are notorious for problems. In my ideal world, some day APA will come down and say "You are embarassing us all and we're shutting you down", but that's just a dream of mine😉

But professionally, personally, etc. I'm not worried.

 

[RayneeDeigh]

Maybe I'm naive and crazy but I think the profession will have a way of regulating itself over time. If there are wayyyy more PsyDs than PhDs and they're randomly treating people without doing any research at all, then eventually someone in a position of power within the profession will notice and come up with a solution. I think the same would happen if we were all PhDs who JUST did research and never did anything practical with it to help people.

I wish PhD programs were more balanced and I wish PsyD programs were as well. But I guess that would make one or the other completely unnecessary.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I wish PhD programs were more balanced and I wish PsyD programs were as well. But I guess that would make one or the other completely unnecessary.

I don't think so....because there will always be those who want to only research, and only those who want to conduct therapy. I think ALL programs should have at least some of each component (they inform each other), but I am more concerned with programs that are clinically heavy, and research weak/non-existent. Research informs us about our work on a micro and macro level. I am far from a hardcore research academic, but I think people are selling their training short if they don't get to dig in to some research and really learn about what it means. You don't have to live in a lab for 4-5 years to 'get' it, but it takes more than some classes to better understand the area, just like you don't need to see patients for years and years to have an idea about therapy, though your learning/skills will take years to develop and mature. As a PsyD I feel like my program does a pretty good job balancing, though when I was looking around, there were some programs that were WAY too heavy on one side than the other. I understand that there are different strokes for different folks, but I think there should be active parts of both in training. If on internship and/or post-doc you want to cut one area out....so be it.

-t

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Just a heads up and not starting a flame war here. The training for a MS level person is approxiametly 2 to 3 years, and then usually a 2 to 3 year internship. No this does not equate to the same level of PsyD/PhD education, but lets not put down the level of commitment and education an MS level person has to make also.

Jeff

I didn't mean to undercut any MS level people. I've worked with some great people, who are really gifted at their craft. I just get frustrated when people try and lump together different training models and say, "a therapist is a therapist is a therapist", which happens far too frequently. I think it under-sells all degrees involved. I know there is some SW stuff that I don't have the first clue about, etc.

-t

 

[parto123]

because it's still the same type of person who's applying to college, and besides, remember the Flynn Effect? just because top kids nowadays "seem" more qualified than in yêars past doesn't mean that they are. I'm sure if those top kids were all raised concurrently, they would have the same credentials.

personally, i'd always thought that more quantity equals less quality, after all, look at what happened during the industrial revolution, factories and assembly lines replaced the small guys. and while the product may still hold the same function adequately, those bought manufactured always (to this day for the most part) tend to be of lesser quality than those handmade. but cheaper, so people don't complain. that's what i see if there's a lot of PsyD's/MH out there.

Youre forgetting thats its an entirely different applicant pool. For one, the number of applicants has gone up far more than the number of spots. Second, 40 years ago, women werent admitted to top colleges, so it was half as competitive. Additionally, today, about 1/3 of harvard is jewish, back in the 60s there was a jewish quota. And lots not forget asians, indians and other minorities who werent applying back then. Although, not officially published or anything, several people who study admission stats and history closely estimate that fewer than 20% of the harvard class from 1960s would have any chance of being admitted today.

 

[parto123]

I think the PsyD v. PhD is the red herring in all of this; the real concern is the OVERALL number of MH providers + lower reimbursement rates + expanded scope of degrees with far less training. Many places now use SW, LCSW, LMHC, etc for therapy, and the docs as supervisors. The most well trained providers are the least likely to provide service now.

My greatest concern is getting squeezed out of practice by lower cost / lower trained options, this is why niche markets are so necessary. Looking at the number of non-doc therapists compared to doc level therapists, you will see we are dwarfed.

So as we fight amongst ourselves, the MS level therapists are doing a much better job lobbying for expanded scope of practices and are becoming the 'standard' for care, while our addition years of training and expertise are becoming marginalized. I have nothing against MS trained therapists, I've worked with many who are excellent, my issue is with the 'generalist' who often tries to be everything to everyone, and ends up practicing far outside of their scope.

There is DEFINITELY room for improvement to tighten up the quality of doc student from top to bottom....but the real issue is not within our group, but those who have far greater numbers going in and coming out.

-t

There seems to be a great deal of rent seeking behavior among PHD students – a fear that if the APA doesn’t add stricter standards and psychology is left to the consumer/market, more and more people will gravitate to the cheaper or less qualified professionals resulting in lower quality of services and lower pay all around.

It may pay to examine 1) if this is true, and 2) if so, why is this the case (that leaving things to the market will hurt the profession).

Is there any evidence of psy ds or social workers (or whatever) providing lower quality services?: Higher level of unsatisfied clients, higher percentage of malpractice suits, is the APA concerned about the current standard etc. Without any evidence demonstrating lower quality of care and services, it would be a tough sell to try to further restrict entry into the profession. If it turns out that it isn’t the clients/ apa who are doing the complaining, but its actually just Phds, their claims wouldn’t seem too credible because after all, they are self interested parties.

And if quality of services is in fact, lower, why would people go to lower quality services? Why wouldn't the consumer keep away and drive these hacks out of business, they way they do with ****ty lawyers who open their own practices (contrary to what someone posted above, 90%+ of all lawyers did not go to top 14 law schools and Most lawyers who open up their own practice or join smaller firms came from lower ranking schools. Most regular clients (i.e. non corporate) really have no idea the difference between Brooklyn law school and new york law school.)

What wouldn’t it be that the quality psychologists who develop good reputations will succeed and the crappier ones wont? Its almost as if the argument is that this whole field and its training is one giant charade, so without artificially restricting entrance virtually anyone will be able to do it, and no one will be able to tell the difference. It would be one thing if the public or the legislator was calling for these heightened standards, but it seems to be only Phds.

 

[PsyKardinal]

T4C

Nah you are cool, I did not think that you were bashing MS level people. I just wanted to inform everyone in general. I think that a lot of folks tend to dump all over the MS level people, and again I am not trying to start anything I just wish that more respect was sent the MS way. Granted I think we all wish for more respect to the mental health field.

Jeff

 

[psychophysio]

You're kidding right? Modern global economies can pretty much be boiled down to three camps: Manufacturing, Service, and RESEARCH!!!!

That means we PhD's are going to be in the high end research camp, while MA's, LPC's, MSSWs, and PsyDs (etc.) are going to be somewhere closer to the service economy. All the PsyDs are going to be competing with each other and bringing wages down. You can already see this happening.

So, no, I'd say we have nothing to fear.

😎

 

[Quynh2007]

Youre forgetting thats its an entirely different applicant pool. For one, the number of applicants has gone up far more than the number of spots. Second, 40 years ago, women werent admitted to top colleges, so it was half as competitive. Additionally, today, about 1/3 of harvard is jewish, back in the 60s there was a jewish quota. And lots not forget asians, indians and other minorities who werent applying back then. Although, not officially published or anything, several people who study admission stats and history closely estimate that fewer than 20% of the harvard class from 1960s would have any chance of being admitted today.

well, given changes in admissions, and the increased diversity in the applicant pool, i would think that a few of those who were accepted in the 60s would not have made it today, but to call them less competitive than those applying today is a little too much for me. We must remind ourselves that it is those same people who are now teaching at the universities and i've read a few articles that have profs incredulous as the unpreparedness of students nowadays for college (esp. in writing). if you believe that students nowadays are smarter/etc, then why is this the case?


it's just like trying to compare legends in basketball/football/baseball from years past to todays. yes, players nowadays are seemingly "better" because their stats are on average better, but does that mean that if they'd played against those players of years past, they'd be better? Rules change,etc but I think if a player who played well in the 70s would have been a great player if they'd played nowadays. (or in the non-legends case, those that made it to the pro's back then would still have likely made it in this day and age).

and besides, your argument is backward. saying that harder does not equal higher noticeable quality and then postulating therefore that easier does not equal lower noticeable quality. Looking at medical schools (can we say Caribbean), i tend to disagree. if anyone tells me that Ross and other Caribbean schools (that have much much easier admissions than US med schools) are the same quality as the US schools, i would ask you what you were smoking...and indeed, students who attend Caribbean schools have a LOT harder time in their medical journey, getting residencies, etc, so if the medical profession weeds them that way (because yes, you CAN succeed if you go this route, just like there will be great people that go to a diploma mill school) then we need to have a better weeder too.

 

[RayneeDeigh]

if anyone tells me that Ross and other Caribbean schools (that have much much easier admissions than US med schools) are the same quality as the US schools, i would ask you what you were smoking...

You won't believe this, but yesterday I had a conversation with an old friend who moved to the Caribbean to go to med school. She actually tried to convince me that med schools in the Caribbean are MORE competitive than Canadian/American ones. I didn't even have a counter-argument, it was so ridiculous.

 

[Banon]

I honestly doubt we'd ever see any form of "reverse discrimination" against Ph.D.'s. While I don't think many Psy.D.'s are concerned about the quality of their traning, I do think many are aware of the inherent problems with producing too many clinicians in too short a period of time. There are certainly some problems in that realm, but it does seem that it has become popular sport (particularly on this board) to take this aspect and generalize it into painting Psy.D.'s as inferior and, to an extent, scapegoating them.

For what it's worth, I think part of the reason that you see that bias on this board is that, perhaps after a short stint of trying to voice their concerns, many Psy.D.'s simply leave the board, feeling that they have no need to prove themselves to anonymous individuals or to place themselves in a dissaproving atmosphere. If it weren't for the interesting threads not regurgatating the PhD vs. Psy.D. rant, I'd probably do the same. One could certainly argue that this is a representative viewpoint in the field. I'd beg to differ, but it's all relative and easily reinforced by the company you choose to keep. One could easily create a board with an anti-PhD bias, but it wouldn't make the opinion valid, only representative of the individuals who find the board appealing enough to keep frequenting it.

Edit: I guess part of what I'd try to get across is that this board seems to over-emphasize/blow out of proportion the whole PhD vs. PsyD thing. I'm not sure those new to board or to the field always get that.

 

[hotep]

"For what it's worth, I think part of the reason that you see that bias on this board is that, perhaps after a short stint of trying to voice their concerns, many Psy.D.'s simply leave the board, feeling that they have no need to prove themselves to anonymous individuals or to place themselves in a dissaproving atmosphere. If it weren't for the interesting threads not regurgatating the PhD vs. Psy.D. rant, I'd probably do the same. One could certainly argue that this is a representative viewpoint in the field. I'd beg to differ, but it's all relative and easily reinforced by the company you choose to keep. One could easily create a board with an anti-PhD bias, but it wouldn't make the opinion valid, only representative of the individuals who find the board appealing enough to keep frequenting it."


THANK YOU FOR THAT VERY INSIGHTFUL COMMENT!!!






"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

 

[psychanon]

well, given changes in admissions, and the increased diversity in the applicant pool, i would think that a few of those who were accepted in the 60s would not have made it today, but to call them less competitive than those applying today is a little too much for me. We must remind ourselves that it is those same people who are now teaching at the universities and i've read a few articles that have profs incredulous as the unpreparedness of students nowadays for college (esp. in writing). if you believe that students nowadays are smarter/etc, then why is this the case?

First of all, no one's saying that everyone in college back then was dumber than everyone in college now. No one's saying that people are smarter now than they were 50 years ago. Certainly there were smart people back then who went to college. College professors are about in the top 1% of them. There were just also less smart people who were also able to get in, who wouldn't be able to get in now. Think of it this way: Imagine having a bucket of 50 different sized rocks, and picking out the 10 smallest. Then imagine having a bucket of 1,000 rocks and picking out the 10 smallest. The second group will be in the top 1 percentile, whereas the first group will only be in the top 20th percentile, so assuming a normal distribution (which we can for something like IQ), you will have much smaller rocks in the second pile.

Anyway, I guess that's a little off topic.

For what it's worth, I think part of the reason that you see that bias on this board is that, perhaps after a short stint of trying to voice their concerns, many Psy.D.'s simply leave the board, feeling that they have no need to prove themselves to anonymous individuals or to place themselves in a dissaproving atmosphere. If it weren't for the interesting threads not regurgatating the PhD vs. Psy.D. rant, I'd probably do the same. One could certainly argue that this is a representative viewpoint in the field. I'd beg to differ, but it's all relative and easily reinforced by the company you choose to keep. One could easily create a board with an anti-PhD bias, but it wouldn't make the opinion valid, only representative of the individuals who find the board appealing enough to keep frequenting it.

I think that most people on this board do not mean to bash PsyD's per se, but rather lower tier programs like professional schools. Most are OK with Rutgers and the like. Professional school Ph.D.'s are also really no better than prof school PsyD's. We should probably be more careful to make that distinction.

I hope no one leaves the board because they feel alienated. That's nobody's intention. If you have an argument about PsyD's/ professional schools that goes against what others are saying, you should say it. If you can't come up with a good argument, you should think about whether the other person has a good point, rather than defensively clinging to your point.

 

[Squarepants]

For what it's worth, I think part of the reason that you see that bias on this board is that, perhaps after a short stint of trying to voice their concerns, many Psy.D.'s simply leave the board, feeling that they have no need to prove themselves to anonymous individuals or to place themselves in a dissaproving atmosphere. If it weren't for the interesting threads not regurgatating the PhD vs. Psy.D. rant, I'd probably do the same. One could certainly argue that this is a representative viewpoint in the field. I'd beg to differ, but it's all relative and easily reinforced by the company you choose to keep. One could easily create a board with an anti-PhD bias, but it wouldn't make the opinion valid, only representative of the individuals who find the board appealing enough to keep frequenting it.

Precisely. There was a stretch where I stopped visiting the board for about six months - not so much because I was interested in going into PsyD, but because I got tired of reading threads where this sort of thing kept going on. People would hijack threads and turn them into arguments that had little to do with the original posts. There are plenty of good, normal people here who are focused on helping others, and not on childish bickering, but sifting through the chaff to find them wasn't worth it, for me.

 

[Jon4PsyD]

Well this is why I love this forum, because there are some incredible threads such as this one.

I really agree with RayneDeigh, more programs SHOULD be balanced. Unfortunately they're not. We seem to reward the balanced PsyD programs (Rutgers, Baylor, Stanford) and give them excellent reputations but the Ph.D. counterparts who also are very balanced aren't considered to be the best of the best.

I also agree with the person who talked about 40 years ago. All of my professors openly feel that it's a little ridiculous to even apply to some programs saying, "If it were like this when I was applying, I'd never get into the school I did."

All of this said, I don't think there is a need for persons with either to degree to 'fear' the other. There is a place for both the PhD and PsyD. I think certain programs will lose APA approval if they continue to do what they're doing. That said however, I know doctors who went to Medical school in places such as Mexico because they couldn't get accepted here (he now teaches at Rutgers actually) who are excellent doctors. There are persons entering PsyD and PhD programs from undergraduate universities such as Yale/Harvard who may not be as quality researchers/practioners as students entering from state universities. So there are some amazing students that can surely come out of these professional schools (meaning there's no guarantee they're bringing down the quality of the field), however that doesn't mean the schools themselves don't have some type of responsibility toward the the integrity of their schools and the field itself.

Jon

 

[rileybear]

ok, what is a professional school?

sorry if this is common knowledge to others, but I am unfamiliar with the term.

Thanks.

And in response to the postings, I get discouraged with some of the strong feelings against PsyDs, since I am studying for this, and feel that I am working so hard in my classes and practia.

 

[positivepsych]

I know doctors who went to Medical school in places such as Mexico because they couldn't get accepted here (he now teaches at Rutgers actually) who are excellent doctors. There are persons entering PsyD and PhD programs from undergraduate universities such as Yale/Harvard who may not be as quality researchers/practioners as students entering from state universities. So there are some amazing students that can surely come out of these professional schools (meaning there's no guarantee they're bringing down the quality of the field), however that doesn't mean the schools themselves don't have some type of responsibility toward the the integrity of their schools and the field itself.
Jon

This is a silly statement. Of course, there will be exceptions to the rule. The valedictorian of a state school will probably be a better researcher/clinician than the person who graduate at the bottom of an Ivy-League school. We're not talking about extremes, we're talking about averages.

That being said, no one asks their physician or psychologists about their grades. The only educational info patients typically know is where they got their traning. The fact of the matter is a randomly selected Harvard graduate is going to be a better researcher/clinician than some random person who graduated from California School of Professional Psychology.

 

[positivepsych]

To answre the OP's original question, NO. Ph.D.'s are not afraid of "reverse discrimination" because they already rule the roost. Even if (and when) PsyDs outnumber PhDs--which is an inevitability considering how quickly professional school "degree mills" are pumping out class sizes of up to 110 students per year--it won't cause a backlash. Let me explain why:

The assumption you're making is fundamentally flawed: that a PsyD will automatically choose another PsyD over a PhD because their training was more "clinically-oriented." You fail to remember the fact that students who go to the top PhD programs, even if they have less direct clinical hours, usually have amazing intellectual or interpersonal abilities that allowed them to be accepted to schools with a <5% acceptance rate.

I know clinical psychology students who go to Yale, UCLA, Berkeley, Michigan, etc. For the most part, they are amongst the most smart and talented people I know, who have excelled in whatever ventures they have pursued, and always go the extra mile. This makes a difference, even in clinical work, because they'll be trained by the world's leading experts on anxiety disorders, PTSD, etc. and intimately familiar with the best practices based on the latest empirically-supported treatments (often which they have contributed to publishing).

Training directors know this, and choose top PhDs over PsyDs for this reason. At one such "top" PhD program last year, 100% of students matched to their 1st or 2nd internship choices, which were amongst the most competitive APA-approved sites in the country. This happens every year, because these sites know the quality and type of person you have to be to get into the doors of such a program.

Thus, its not about "clinically-oriented" vs. "research-oriented," it's about the different quality of students that are in each category, for the most part.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

ok, what is a professional school?

sorry if this is common knowledge to others, but I am unfamiliar with the term.

Thanks.

And in response to the postings, I get discouraged with some of the strong feelings against PsyDs, since I am studying for this, and feel that I am working so hard in my classes and practia.

Professional schools are programs that aren't based out of a university, and tend to be free standing institutes. They tend to accept larger #'s of people into their programs, compared to traditional clinical programs. Much like traditional university based programs, their quality varies greatly. Just as wtih traditional programs, there is also a range in the research/clinical split. IMHO some PsyD programs don't push enough of a research component (mine is pretty balanced), and I think that worries some people...myself included.

You can do a search for "professional schools" and a number of threads will come up. You'll see that most programs provide quality training, though some have issues, and those are the ones who have rougher reputations.

I linked one below where I spoke to a few different factors to consider when looking at any program (including professional schools). Feel free to poke around the forum.

As for the PhD vs. PsyD debates....I encourage you to stick around. Both are legitimate degrees that have different focuses, and much like the MD vs DO debates, sometimes it gets heated. I/SDN want to ensure that people can share their opinions openly and not be over-moderated, and we try and keep it professional here, so don't get discouraged by the back and forth.

LINK
(don't get confused by the title, the OP was asking about a questionable program)

-t

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I know clinical psychology students who go to Yale, UCLA, Berkeley, Michigan, etc. For the most part, they are amongst the most smart and talented people I know, who have excelled in whatever ventures they have pursued, and always go the extra mile. This makes a difference, even in clinical work, because they'll be trained by the world's leading experts on anxiety disorders, PTSD, etc. and intimately familiar with the best practices based on the latest empirically-supported treatments (often which they have contributed to publishing).

Thus, its not about "clinically-oriented" vs. "research-oriented," it's about the different quality of students that are in each category, for the most part.

That is a bit generalized for my taste, but to each their own. In the end it comes down to the person, their training, and what they have to offer. As someone who use to hire Ivy's and over-achievers to work for my firm, I appreciate a quality education.....since they made my firm lots of money. 😉

The PhD v. PsyD becomes much less of an issue once you are out and established. Academia is still in a bubble, so PhDs hold a distinct advantage there, but many other places are more integrated. I don't think 'backlash' will happen, though as a profession we need to make sure we hold ourselves to certain standards across the board (regardless of PhD/PsyD).

It is most important to attend a quality training program and solid APA-acred internship & post-doc. From there...it is on you to sink or swim.

-t