psy.d and teaching

[The2abraxis]

im pretty sure to be a professor/teacher at a university one would need a PhD. Is it possible to have a small teaching position (maybe not full time) with a PsyD? Or even a full time teaching position?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Psy.D's can and do teach.

Here is a thread with more information: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=496193

 

[Cosmo75]

I second that. I've taught in the masters program at my school during my 4th and 5th year as a PsyD student. It might be tougher to get into a hard-line PhD academic institution, but if your experience is on par with others, you should be ok at most places.

 

[KillerDiller]

It seems likely you could get hired as an adjunct professor teaching one or two courses a semester with a Psy.D. I would say, though, that in order to secure a full-time position as a visiting professor or a tenure-track professor your research output would need to be on par with the most competitive applicants from institutions that grant Ph.Ds. Some Psy.D programs allow for this within their curriculum, many do not make it so easy to gain this experience.

 

[Ollie123]

You can definitely adjunct. Heck, many places you don't even need a doctorate to adjunct.

From your original post though I want to make sure you know that "full time teaching position" at a university means your teaching is (usually) secondary to your research. Now, 4-year colleges are a different story, people are not necessarily doing as much research there.

Just wanted to clarify in case you meant "Full-time teaching position" as in a job where you only taught - those are pretty rare at the university level.

 

[dekared82]

Yes, it is possible. One of my professors has a PsyD and is currently an associate professor in school psych.

 

[JockNerd]

First I'd clarify what you mean by "teach." Profs do a lot more than teach... do you want to supervise students, write grants, do research, etc? Because full-time adjuncting wouldn't be very lucrative.

I think it's more a product of where you go and what you do there than the degree name you get, neccessarily. Some PhD programs produce next to no academics. But there are other people like T. A. Brown, a PsyD (Virginia Consortium) full prof at BU. However, I doubt an Alliant or Argosy program will groom you to become a prof.

 

[Jon4PsyD]

Absolutely. You only need a Master's degree to be an Adjunct professor. So having a Psy.D. is going to make you an attractive job applicant.

Also, it will be nearly impossible to get a full time, tenure-track type position at a major research university. I think that's been beaten to death here. However, you could obtain a leadership role as Director of Clinical Training at a Doctoral/Master's-Level program and a full time position at Ca Community College/small 4-year state university (and they pay better than many would think/expect).

So there are options.

Jon

 

[deleted176373]

im pretty sure to be a professor/teacher at a university one would need a PhD. Is it possible to have a small teaching position (maybe not full time) with a PsyD? Or even a full time teaching position?

It's difficult to become full-time tenured faculty at a university program, but outside that, lots of Psy.D's teach and they do a great job at it too.

Mark

 

[The2abraxis]

thanks for the responses, and thanks for clarifying what a full time position is. I figured it was both research and teaching based.

its good to know psy.d's can teach at the university level. im more interested in the practicioner part (although the scientist is important as well :-D), and teaching as well, so im guessing a psy.d is the way to go

 

[positivepsych]

I just want to clarify: Even if you want to be a lecturer/adjunct professor that just teaches a class or two and does not do any research, a Ph.D. is still strongly preferred over a Psy.D.

At all of the R1 universities (mainstream public and private research universities that get federal funding), almost all classes are taught by Ph.D.'s, and I've never seen a Psy.D. teach here. Don't expect to get your Psy.D., and end up teaching at a place like Berkeley, UVA, U of Wisconsin, Yale, etc. Unlikely to happen.

First of all, there is a general bias against practitioners (PhD or PsyD) teaching in general at large mainstream universities. Generally, tenure-track professors will teach the large or interesting classes. Occasionally, you might get lecturers to teach these courses, but usually only on a temporary basis (i.e. 1-3 year contracts). The only exceptions I've seen to this is that major universities will often let their own recent graduates teach some of the classes, as a form of patronage.

Second, most courses, even in clinical psychology departments, are required to be empirically-based, based on the last scientific research and studies. Generally speaking, Psy.D.s are not well trained to critically evaluate scientific research and the statistics/methodology involved, in order to ascertain whether its a good study, and whether it should be taught in a lecture class. Ph.D.s are much better trained in this realm, since they've done a lot of research, and are required to be teaching assistants throughout graduate school. Thus, there's plenty of Ph.D.s who are able to teach these courses, so most mainstream universities won't even bother considering a Psy.D., and trying to evaluate whether they know their stuff.

So, I do see Psy.D.s teaching, but they're often at professional psychology schools (usually where they got their own Psy.D.), small state schools, community colleges, or non-mainstream universities (e.g. religious schools). With all due respect, Psy.D.s do not generally end up teaching the best and brightest students. There are, of course, exceptions to all this. But generally speaking, if teaching is important to you, you should understand the norms in academia.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Generally speaking, Psy.D.s are not well trained to critically evaluate scientific research and the statistics/methodology involved, in order to ascertain whether its a good study, and whether it should be taught in a lecture class.

That is incorrect. Even lesser programs teach these things...most likely in the first couple of year. Please be more informed if you are going to cast such a broad stroke.

 

[positivepsych]

I said they're not WELL trained, not that they're not trained.

People I know who got Psy.D.s at professional schools generally have no/little interest in research, and so they basically get by in their one or two stats/methodology courses that are taught in the first year.

By the time they are taking their licensure exam 5-6 years later, they tell me that they basically have forgotten everything, and they have to re-learn stats and experimental methodology for the purpose of passing the exam. Needless to say, that's not great training to be a professor.

PhDs at mainstream universities, however, are generally expected to do research and work in actual labs the entire time they are in graduate school, so they have to apply their stats/methodology knowledge, and so they know it much better and are much less likely to forget it.

I'm not knocking Psy.D.s, its just a training difference. Psy.D.s are trained to be clinicians, first and foremost. I'm not saying Psy.D.s are fundamentally incapable of being good lecturers, it's just that most of them don't get enough training/experience besides a few courses. The ones that do have the analytical ability and training are generally unusual. They were the rare ones that cared enough to be proactive and take the initiative to do research/work in a lab/get teaching experience.

I'm also giving the perspective of faculty at a mainstream R1 university. There's a lot of psychologists who would like to lecture at a place like Berkeley, so they're not even going to consider a Psy.D., who's a potential wild card, when they have a bunch of Ph.D.s who they can be confident had better training in the scientist model.

Future psychologists should know that if they care about teaching, especially at a normal university, that they basically need a Ph.D., and not a Psy.D. to do it. Even with a Ph.D., you have to prove yourself to the faculty to get a lecturership/adjunct professorship for a big class like abnormal psychology.

 

[The2abraxis]

thanks for the info positive, it seems to conflict with what of most of the members have been saying though? who should i listen to??

i dont expect to teach at a very high level university, i would just want to teach basic level intro courses (maybe like general psych, into to clinical, or something) at a unversity, kind of like UCF or something. Is that possible with a Psy.D?

 

[psychmama]

Positive -- I'd agree that PhD programs, on average, give graduates a more thorough grounding in statistics and research methodology. Here's where it breaks down for me, though -- not all teaching positions in psychology require that profs teach research methods in any detail. Some classes are by nature more clinically oriented or employ qualitative research methods, such as the narrative or phenomenological approach. There are profs who make careers out of this, having many publications and a fairly good reputation in the field of psychology.

Of course, I wouldn't necessarily look to these profs to teach me the finer points of multivariate statistics, but they certainly might do a bang up job teaching "Introduction to Clinical Interviewing" or even a basic class in Abnormal Psych at a smaller college or university where research is not as important to tenure. My objection is that you seem to saying that these sorts of teaching jobs are inferior by definition. I think it all depends on what the person wants. Personally, lots of psychologists look to combine teaching and clinical practice. It sounded to me like the OP was merely trying to explore her options.

 

[JockNerd]

i dont expect to teach at a very high level university, i would just want to teach basic level intro courses (maybe like general psych, into to clinical, or something) at a unversity, kind of like UCF or something.

OT:

hahahaha Yes! Go Gators!

 

[positivepsych]

There are two basic points I'm making, which perhaps need to be clarified.

1) PsyDs are not as well trained in stats/methods to teach psych classes. I'm not talking about teaching statistics/methods. Even for a large lecture class like intro to psych or abnormal psychology, you need to be able to critically evaluate research and have pretty good breadth/depth understand of the literature in order to teach the class properly. Sure, there are some professors that basically teach from a slidedeck, or right from the outline of a textbook, but they are doing a disservice to their students.

For example, even if you're teaching a clinical course on CBT, most PsyDs will know how to do cognitive restructuring pretty well with a patient, but do not know the literature on the empirically efficacy of specific cognitive therapy techniques, and critically evaluate the seminal papers that have come out in the past few years, arguing for and against them.

2) Tenure-track faculty decides who gets to be a lecturer, and who teaches what. Non-tenure-track faculty (both PhD and PsyD) usually do not get to teach the big-time lecture courses. Adjuncts usually teach the classes that none of the permanent faculty want to teach, or teach temporarily when tenured faculty are on sabbatical, or summer courses, small seminars. The less prestigious the institution (and the less money it has, so they love to hire lecturers cheaply), the less this is true. If you teach at Middle-of-Nowhere-U, you're more likely to be able to teach.

As a PsyD, you've got a lower shot of getting such a position. It's certainly not impossible, but you're basically at a disadvantage, and have to prove yourself to the tenure-track PhD faculty. You don't have to believe me. Just look up where you want to teach, and look at the credentials of the lecturers.

For example, for University of Central Florida (UCF), look at their faculty page:
http://www.psych.ucf.edu/faculty_index.php
I counted 14 lecturers at all the campuses. 12/14 had a Ph.D. Only two had a Psy.D.
- Now let's look at the two Psy.D.s: one actually has won research grants and has professional posters and publications. The other one is a forensic psychology expert, and probably teaches a specialized course on that subject.

If you want another example, let's look at University of Miami:
http://www.psy.miami.edu/department/faculty.html
I count 19 lecturers/adjunct professors. All of them whose credentials are listed online, are Ph.D.s.

 

[Ollie123]

thanks for the info positive, it seems to conflict with what of most of the members have been saying though? who should i listen to??

i dont expect to teach at a very high level university, i would just want to teach basic level intro courses (maybe like general psych, into to clinical, or something) at a unversity, kind of like UCF or something. Is that possible with a Psy.D?

Definitely possible, though I think the sort of schools you seem to want to teach at are the ones that are probably less inclined to allow it. Doesn't mean its impossible to do so, just be prepared for some extra finangling/networking and the possibility that wherever you end up, the local university may or may not be open to it. That's really true anywhere though, adjunct work is rarely a guarantee for anyone.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

For example, even if you're teaching a clinical course on CBT, most PsyDs will know how to do cognitive restructuring pretty well with a patient, but do not know the literature on the empirically efficacy of specific cognitive therapy techniques, and critically evaluate the seminal papers that have come out in the past few years, arguing for and against them.

I think you are really under-estimating the training at many Psy.D. programs, as research is still an important part of the process. There are programs that don't have as much of a research req (which is a problem), but the vast majority DO....and the students can look critically at the research. A Psy.D. is a CONSUMER of research, which is exactly what you are talking about.....so your tone and insinuation is not only insulting but serves to perseverate misnomers about the degree.

 

[Jon4PsyD]

Somehow this has turned into a Ph.D./Psy.D. debate. Some Ph.D.'s are trained well in research (and I beleive there are some programs out there that probably do not) and Psy.D.'s are well trained as practitioners but there are some well trained Psy.D.'s that sure know how to teach.

The original poster asked about teaching a course or two each semester. Many universities have M.A.'s doing that, it's a job position a Psy.D. would clearly be well-qualified for.

Jon

 

[dekared82]

There are two basic points I'm making, which perhaps need to be clarified.

1) PsyDs are not as well trained in stats/methods to teach psych classes. I'm not talking about teaching statistics/methods. Even for a large lecture class like intro to psych or abnormal psychology, you need to be able to critically evaluate research and have pretty good breadth/depth understand of the literature in order to teach the class properly. Sure, there are some professors that basically teach from a slidedeck, or right from the outline of a textbook, but they are doing a disservice to their students.

For example, even if you're teaching a clinical course on CBT, most PsyDs will know how to do cognitive restructuring pretty well with a patient, but do not know the literature on the empirically efficacy of specific cognitive therapy techniques, and critically evaluate the seminal papers that have come out in the past few years, arguing for and against them.

2) Tenure-track faculty decides who gets to be a lecturer, and who teaches what. Non-tenure-track faculty (both PhD and PsyD) usually do not get to teach the big-time lecture courses. Adjuncts usually teach the classes that none of the permanent faculty want to teach, or teach temporarily when tenured faculty are on sabbatical, or summer courses, small seminars. The less prestigious the institution (and the less money it has, so they love to hire lecturers cheaply), the less this is true. If you teach at Middle-of-Nowhere-U, you're more likely to be able to teach.

As a PsyD, you've got a lower shot of getting such a position. It's certainly not impossible, but you're basically at a disadvantage, and have to prove yourself to the tenure-track PhD faculty. You don't have to believe me. Just look up where you want to teach, and look at the credentials of the lecturers.

For example, for University of Central Florida (UCF), look at their faculty page:
http://www.psych.ucf.edu/faculty_index.php
I counted 14 lecturers at all the campuses. 12/14 had a Ph.D. Only two had a Psy.D.
- Now let's look at the two Psy.D.s: one actually has won research grants and has professional posters and publications. The other one is a forensic psychology expert, and probably teaches a specialized course on that subject.

If you want another example, let's look at University of Miami:
http://www.psy.miami.edu/department/faculty.html
I count 19 lecturers/adjunct professors. All of them whose credentials are listed online, are Ph.D.s.

Your argument doesn't really hold considering that PsyD's are more likely to pursue practitioner/service related careers than academic. Thus, one explanation for the low number of PsyDs in academia is that a majority of PsyDs may not want to pursue academia as a career, not because they are less qualified.

 

[PsyDr]

i hold teaching positions at a couple of universities.

i also publish a lot more than the average psyd, though.

 

[positivepsych]

Your argument doesn't really hold considering that PsyD's are more likely to pursue practitioner/service related careers than academic. Thus, one explanation for the low number of PsyDs in academia is that a majority of PsyDs may not want to pursue academia as a career, not because they are less qualified.

First of all, when someone says "pursuing academia" as a career, they generally refer to tenure-track professorships. We're talking about teaching a class or two on the side, when your full-time job is clinical practice. You're right in that there are probably different base rates (more PhDs appying for lecturer positions than PsyDs), but they are no less able to apply for these spots. Base rates aside, just ask any hiring faculty at a mainstream R1 university about whether they are more likely to hire a PhD or a PsyD for a teaching positions.

It's not just a matter of qualification, it's a matter of perception of qualification during hiring. Since hiring is done by tenure-track PhDs, they'll hire other PhDs over PsyDs, for the reasons noted above. That's why most PsyDs teach PsyD students at professional schools (where PsyDs do the hiring).

i hold teaching positions at a couple of universities.
i also publish a lot more than the average psyd, though.

My point exactly. It's not impossible, but you have to prove yourself as a PsyD to show that you know your research, usually by being involved in it. My opinion is that if you intend on doing research and teaching part-time, even as a practitioner, you might as well do a traditional PhD so you won't be $150K in debt.

I'm not trying to make this into a PhD vs. PsyD debate, I just want people to be informed about how hiring is done for lecturships/adjunct teaching positions, so they can make their own informed decisions about graduate school. I don't want people to graduate and suddenly realize that they probably can't teach where they went to undergrad themselves.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

First of all, when someone says "pursuing academia" as a career, they generally refer to tenure-track professorships.

I agree that if someone is going for a full-time/tenure track career.....the Ph.D. is the way to go, as there is definitely preference shown.

 

[PsyDr]

positive psych: how about some research or evidence to prove your assertion that there is a difference between educational models on statistic education ?

 

[positivepsych]

I'm not aware of quantitative data on this topic, I just have a pretty straightforward qualitative comparison of my own education vs. friends I know at professional schools. I'd be curious to hear what your experience was, and how much of your training required your own initiative (vs. the norms for PsyDs not intending to do research).

We take at least 1.5-2 years of statistics courses, and others often take advanced courses well into their 3rd and 4th years.

Almost all of our additional classes require writing papers, which often are in the form of NIH research proposals/grants, and require proposal of an experimental methodology and statistical analyses. These classes also require weekly reading of a lot of journal articles, and critiquing methodology in a group setting/debate.

We also attend both weekly lab meetings and individual meetings with professors, where we read journal articles and discuss papers and the methodology involved.

Furthermore, we conduct original research that involves designing our own studies, or analyzing previous datasets, which entails conducting statistical analyses on weekly basis. Needless to say, it's pretty hard to graduate from a traditional PhD program without knowing your stuff, because we do it on a weekly basis in three forms: class, lab meetings, and research.

My PsyD friends say that that take about a year of stats/methods, and that while they do discuss journal articles in some other classes, the focus is not really critiquing methodology/stats (since they're not training to be academics), unless a study was just horribly done. Otherwise, they don't really work in a lab on a regular basis. If they need to write a dissertation, they tend to do qualitative clinical studies, or studies that require simple stats (an ANOVA in lieu of HLM/SEM).

 

[PsyDr]

ah, so you are stating your opinion as fact. ok.


i can't really give a good comparison from the program i graduated as i took a different course than many. i worked in a neuroimaging lab, so the stats i used were different than what is typically used in psych (e.g., recurrence quantification analysis, fast fourier transforms, statistical parametric mapping, etc). but from what i remember, everyone took 1 year of stats. everyone reviewed the methodology from journal articles in class on an at least weekly basis including stats and methodology. the rationale for this was to be an intelligent consumer of research. everyone's dissertations largely required original quantitative research, but i am unsure about what statistical operations were typically used. fewer people were involved with labs although there were some including myself. these labs are obviously funded by grants and therefore require grant writing. my last NIH proposal had several pages explaining the stats being used.


i have met many phds and psyds who do not understand very basic mathematical principles. i interpret this as being indicative of the intelligence of the individual, and the quality of his/her education. i believe your experience is similar to many who go to good programs. however, i believe this is not exclusive to phd programs.

 

[NY101]

Gentlemen and ladies….

Some of these posts seemed to be getting a little heated. I think it is important to keep in mind that everyone brings a unique perspective to the table and no one person is going to be 100% right with this particular issue.

As for my 2 cents… I have a Psy.D. (APA accredited) from a university in NY. I am a full time tenure-track faculty member and the head of the Institutional Review Board at my university. So to say that is so overwhelmingly hard to obtain a faculty position at a research heavy university might be a little bit of an overstatement. While not typical it is certainly possible.

As someone who has gone through the actual faculty hiring process and someone who has hired other faculty, I can tell you that it is more about what the person has done in terms of his or her research than whether they are a Ph.D. or a Psy.D.

But that's just me…

 

[slopepheasant]

Hi all,

I'm a recent grad of a free-standing psych school and a new holder of a psy.d. degree. My personal experience is that I am finding myself in a position of being at a disadvantage because of the lesser focus on research at my school (and, as some people mentioned above, fewer opportunities for research). My clinical training was excellent, by the way, and that clearly was the focus.

Forgiving the slight derail, I'd be curious what steps people have taken or could take to get involved in research or teaching, on a smaller scale (no full-tenure profs at Yale), short of re-entering a grad-school program with more emphasis on research.

Ideas?

 

[positivepsych]

Find a post-doc, even if it means an informal post-doc (i.e. contacting a professor and seeing if they can carve out a salary for you from a grant). I know several professors who did not get into their line of research (usually people who switched over to very biological/physiological-heavy research), until they got training in it and did research on it during a post-doc.

It's also a good gig, since you can often get your post-doctoral hours for licensure at the same time in a post-doc position, via clinical opportunities at the same university. In a year or two, you'll be licensed and have a few publications under your belt, and be much more of a hot candidate for the academic job market. Good luck! =)

 

[psychanon]

This conversation IS getting heated , and I think many of you are too quick to take offense. Remember, the OP was asking from the perspective of someone trying to make a decision of what the best grad school is for them (or so I assume). It's not a question of what you could potentially do with a Psy.D. degree, because I think we can all agree that you can do a lot of things. It's a question of what the best pathway is for you, given your goals-- what path will give you the least resistance and the best training for your goals-- given that you're in this great position of being able to choose. I don't think anyone hear can argue that Ph.D.s get BETTER research training than Psy.Ds-- the whole point of the Vail model was to opt out of that to allow more time for clinical work. And no one here can argue that there isn't some stigma against Psy.Ds in the field, and like it or not, that plays a role in hiring processes (especially for academic jobs), and as a prospective applicant, that's something you should think about. And another thing to remember is that Ph.D. programs, by the nature of their funding and the departments they are housed in, generally offer more teaching opportunities in grad school.

Every time this topic comes up, someone posts examples of PsyDs who have had productive research or teaching careers. This is a fallacious argument. Of course there are PsyDs who succeed at teaching or research, but they are in the minority, and they face extra hurdles that Ph.Ds don't face as much. Why not take the path of least resistance? We all want to hear fewer stories like this one:

Hi all,

I'm a recent grad of a free-standing psych school and a new holder of a psy.d. degree. My personal experience is that I am finding myself in a position of being at a disadvantage because of the lesser focus on research at my school (and, as some people mentioned above, fewer opportunities for research).

 

[psychmama]

As someone in the process of completing my education and training in a Psyd program, I do understand the thrust of your comments, PsychAnon. I think the reason some posters seemingly get defensive and try to argue for absolute equivalency between PHd and PsyD programs is related to feeling that the tone of some people in favor of the PhD is rather condescending.

Yes, it's important the point out the possible disadvantages of going the PsyD route. We don't want people making the decision about pursuing a doctorate -- an arduous process -- without full knowledge of what they are getting into. At the same time, I consider my PsyD program excellent in many ways that matter to me. And not everyone is in debt up to their eyeballs after getting a PsyD. Many in my program get some form of financial aid -- many more pick up TA'ships, grad assistantships, or part-time jobs. I'm personally pleased to be training to be a clinician, and not burdened with doing as much research. I agree wholeheartedly that knowledge of research is important for psychologists. But let's not kid ourselves. There are plenty of folks out there with PhD's who don't know that much about research. They got by in their program and have never touched research since. And Psyds (at least in my program) get a good grounding in research design and methods -- enough to be a critical consumer of the research that hopefully informs their clinical work.

That said, why must psychologists fight amongst ourselves? If it's not the PsyD/PhD debate, then it's CBT vs Psychodynamic! There are ways to have a thoughtful discussion without belittling or antagonizing differing perspectives.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[BellaPsyD]

Future psychologists should know that if they care about teaching, especially at a normal university, that they basically need a Ph.D., and not a Psy.D. to do it.

what's a "normal" university?

 

[BellaPsyD]

For example, even if you're teaching a clinical course on CBT, most PsyDs will know how to do cognitive restructuring pretty well with a patient, but do not know the literature on the empirically efficacy of specific cognitive therapy techniques, and critically evaluate the seminal papers that have come out in the past few years, arguing for and against them.

wrong. we do in fact need to know the relevant and recent data and most make cases for and against it. it would be irresponsible training not to. We must only make tx plans knowing it is based on empirical data and cite it. Although I go to a medical school for my PsyD, I do not think my coursework is different than the norm for PsyD's...I would think all of them must ground treatment approaches in empirical recent research.

 

[positivepsych]

A 'normal' university is a traditional research university that has both college and graduate programs, and is funded by federal government money. Basically, all the schools that people have actually heard of and have attended or have friends/family attend (state schools like University of Virginia/Wisconsin/UC System, Ivy League, etc.), and have a long-established history and educational mission.

I'm not referring to free-standing professional schools that aim to graduate as many people as possible in order to make money. I know people who have taught at Psy.D. programs, and they don't respect their teachers either (i.e. low pay).

And Psy.D. programs at medical schools are the exception, and are better than those at free-standing institutions in teaching empirically-supported treatments since they tend to aspire to follow the medical model, generally speaking.