Psy.D or LCSW (or...) - HELP!

[magazine456]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hey everyone,

I'm a long time lurker and first time poster. I've been doing research for what feels like a year now, and I still don't feel any more prepared to make a good decision on what graduate program is right for me.

I graduated with a B.A. in psychology from UCLA, with a decent GPA. I'm interested in counseling/therapy, with an ultimate goal of having a private practice. I'm not interested in research or academia, so I've ruled out the Ph.D. I've been told that the MFT is very limiting and I'm definitely interested in working with a broader range of patients, so I've ruled out the MFT as well.

Now I'm stuck between the MSW and the Psy.D. I feel like the Psy.D is more specific to my ultimate goal, but I know the LCSW can get me there as well. I'm concerned about tuition and loans. I really really want to be in California for school, preferably Southern California, but that really limits my options with the Psy.D program. I know Alliant L.A. has a LOT of criticisms, and Pepperdine has some as well (plus requires a masters to apply), and I've also thought about Loma Linda and Fuller Theological Seminary, among others.

As for the MSW, I've looked into USC, UCLA, and some CSUs (like Northridge, LA, and Long Beach), and I know those are all good programs, but again I find myself leaning more towards wanting the Psy.D, but then hesitating because my options are so limited.

I know there are a lot of posts out there about this topic already, debating whether Alliant/Pepperdine are worth it, but I'd like to know what OTHER options there are for getting a Psy.D. Is it worth my time to try out the MSW for a while and then decide whether or not I want to go back to school for the Psy.D? I feel like that's such a money suck, as well as a time suck...

Help!

 

[Doctor Eliza]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by, "I feel like the Psy.D is more specific to my ultimate goal." Could you explain further?

I am also curious what you heard about the MFT because I haven't really heard that criticism before.

Best,
Dr. E

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I graduated with a B.A. in psychology from UCLA, with a decent GPA. I'm interested in counseling/therapy, with an ultimate goal of having a private practice. I'm not interested in research or academia, so I've ruled out the Ph.D. I've been told that the MFT is very limiting and I'm definitely interested in working with a broader range of patients, so I've ruled out the MFT as well.

...then do not pursue doctoral training. A cornerstone of doctoral training involves the production and/or consumption of research, whether you are pursuing a Ph.D., Ed.D, or Psy.D. Research informs and guides a clinician's conceptualization, treatment plan, and intervention choices. Doctoral v. Non-doctoral training differs in a number of other ways too. Being able to critically evaluate a case is vital, and I think doctoral training will prepare a person to do this more effectively because there is more of an emphasis on the underpinnings of disorders and treatment methods. The "why" is just as important as the "what" and "how".

 

[magazine456]

...then do not pursue doctoral training. A cornerstone of doctoral training involves the production and/or consumption of research, whether you are pursuing a Ph.D., Ed.D, or Psy.D. Research informs and guides a clinician's conceptualization, treatment plan, and intervention choices. Doctoral v. Non-doctoral training differs in a number of other ways too. Being able to critically evaluate a case is vital, and I think doctoral training will prepare a person to do this more effectively because there is more of an emphasis on the underpinnings of disorders and treatment methods. The "why" is just as important as the "what" and "how".

I guess I should rephrase - I don't hate research, I just don't want to pursue research as a career. I didn't mean that I wasn't okay with research being a part of my graduate study, I'm just not interested in being a professor or a researcher.

 

[magazine456]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by, "I feel like the Psy.D is more specific to my ultimate goal." Could you explain further?

I am also curious what you heard about the MFT because I haven't really heard that criticism before.

Best,
Dr. E

I don't know too many details, but everyone I've spoken to in the mental health field has warned against the MFT because it's not a marketable degree and only allows you to work with a very specific population.

What I meant about my ultimate goal was that I've been told that the Psy.D is a degree that's more applicable to private practice work than the MSW. I'm not terribly interested in administration or policy, I'm really only interested in the therapy aspect.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I don't know too many details, but everyone I've spoken to in the mental health field has warned against the MFT because it's not a marketable degree and only allows you to work with a very specific population.

What I meant about my ultimate goal was that I've been told that the Psy.D is a degree that's more applicable to private practice work than the MSW. I'm not terribly interested in administration or policy, I'm really only interested in the therapy aspect.

This does make it sound like licensing as an LCSW (from a program with a significant therapy-related component, rather than one that focuses exclusively on social justice the like) might be the better goal for you, at least short-term. If, after practicing as an LCSW, you find that you'd prefer to go back for doctoral training, you'd at least be in a very informed position at that time.

Also, unless the Psy.D. is at least partially-funded, it just doesn't make much financial sense nowadays to pursue the degree only to end up ~$200k in debt.

 

[cara susanna]

I would not recommend a PsyD if you want to end up in California. It is saturated with psychologists, especially PsyDs.

 

[LM02]

This does make it sound like licensing as an LCSW (from a program with a significant therapy-related component, rather than one that focuses exclusively on social justice the like) might be the better goal for you, at least short-term. If, after practicing as an LCSW, you find that you'd prefer to go back for doctoral training, you'd at least be in a very informed position at that time.

Also, unless the Psy.D. is at least partially-funded, it just doesn't make much financial sense nowadays to pursue the degree only to end up ~$200k in debt.

I agree 100%. Given your geographic limitations, as well, you have some quality MSW programs to choose from but some not-so-quality PsyD programs. Add to that the much more substantial debt that you would incur to pursue the PsyD over the MSW, and it seems like a no-brainer in favor of the MSW. Find a program that provides a more clinical bent, and go from there.

If you were more flexible on location, it might be a different story. There are several high quality PsyD programs, with manageable cohort sizes and available funding, that exist. But those are not in Southern California.

 

[magazine456]

I've been told that even the most clinical MSW programs don't really prepare you well for the therapy field, and I'm really worried I'll get pigeonholed into policy/administration SW. The problem with just doing the MSW "for now" is that if it's not enough, it's going to be that much more expensive to go back to school for my Psy.D.

What does everyone know about Loma Linda as a Psy.D program? I know it's associated 7th Day Adventists, but I've heard it's not actually such a focus once you're there. As far as the program itself goes, how does it compare to Alliant, Pepperdine, and the rest?

 

[Doctor Eliza]

I've been told that even the most clinical MSW programs don't really prepare you well for the therapy field, and I'm really worried I'll get pigeonholed into policy/administration SW. The problem with just doing the MSW "for now" is that if it's not enough, it's going to be that much more expensive to go back to school for my Psy.D.

What does everyone know about Loma Linda as a Psy.D program? I know it's associated 7th Day Adventists, but I've heard it's not actually such a focus once you're there. As far as the program itself goes, how does it compare to Alliant, Pepperdine, and the rest?

I'm wondering who you have been talking to. While I recognize that things vary region to region, I have not heard these negative stereotypes of MSW's and MFT's. I know tons of quality therapists with MSW's in my community. I regularly refer people to them and feel confident that the clients are getting good treatment. I also don't think that MSW's are forced into policy or admin roles unless they want them. I do agree, however, that training will vary a lot by program and there are programs that will not prepare you adequately for your career goals.

I'm not saying that the MSW or MFT route is for you, but if I were in your shoes, I would be most interested to talk to practicing professionals with the various degrees. They will be able to talk to you about how well their training prepared them for their careers and any benefits or constraints that their degree placed on them. In my experience, professors don't always know what the real therapy world is like. You also might consider looking at job postings in your area. You might be surprised to find that many places are more interested in master's level practitioners than doctoral level.

I also wanted to say, that your training gets you off and running, but a lot of professional formation occurs after the degree is granted. I have learned so much more about therapy in my 3 years of practice than I did during my grad school years. Don't think that the extra years associated with a PsyD will make you into the perfect therapist.

Also, make sure that all the PsyD programs you are looking into are APA accredited. It would be a total waste of time and money to do otherwise.

Good luck,
Dr. E

 

[wigflip]

If you're rich, go ahead do the psyd option. If not, don't. It looks to me, based on your rule outs that you know very little about the field. Most people that get PhDs in clinical psychology become clinicians. It is a clinical degree. This is how people get themselves into trouble. They pick the most convenient option. In your case, expensive fly-by night programs near where you live (e.g., Loma Linda, Alliant). They graduate with 150-200,000 in debt, can't get an APA approved internship, pay for their post-doc experience, hang up a shingle because they can't get a job at a hospital due to the lack of APA accredited experience, and make $50,000 a year while paying 1000+ a month in loan payments. Not a good plan. You went to UCLA. This means you must be at least marginally competent. If you want to get into the doctoral level psychology field, do it right. Go volunteer in a research lab (e.g., at UCLA), get a good score on the GRE, and go to a funded PhD program. Graduate and start your clinical career. If you want to go a generic professional school path with zero research training, go to medical school and become a psychiatrist You'll make enough money to justify the loans and you'll be able to open a private practice. It's easier to get into than PhD clinical and it's a respected degree. I can't think of a scenario outside of independently wealthy or free (e.g., military scholarship), where a PsyD makes sense.

For whatever reason, it appears that s/he's geographically limited (see OP's first post). Pepperdine may not be Rutgers, but it's not Argosy either. Which uni-based PhD programs should s/he be applying to...UCLA? Not a good fit for someone who's not eager to build an academic research career.

 

[magazine456]

In response to the comments about the Psy.D only being appropriate for wealthy people - MSWs aren't coming cheap either. The best MSW schools in southern California are also really expensive for two years degrees. USC is about $88,000 at this point. 5 years at Loma Linda is about $133,000. That's not a big enough difference for me to give up on a degree that may be better for me. No, I'm not wealthy, I'm committed to making the right choice for me, and not end up getting BOTH degrees and wasting twice the time and money.

Loma Linda's also not a professional school, so I'm confused why it gets a bad rap. It has pretty decent stats from what I could see, so can someone tell me what exactly the problem is (aside from cost)?

 

[MBellows]

In response to the comments about the Psy.D only being appropriate for wealthy people - MSWs aren't coming cheap either. The best MSW schools in southern California are also really expensive for two years degrees. USC is about $88,000 at this point. 5 years at Loma Linda is about $133,000. That's not a big enough difference for me to give up on a degree that may be better for me. No, I'm not wealthy, I'm committed to making the right choice for me, and not end up getting BOTH degrees and wasting twice the time and money.

Loma Linda's also not a professional school, so I'm confused why it gets a bad rap. It has pretty decent stats from what I could see, so can someone tell me what exactly the problem is (aside from cost)?

What about state schools? Also doesn't Pepperdine only accept post-master's students?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Their match rate has hovered around 50%-60% (45% last year - yikes!) - that's far from "decent stats". A good program should allow the majority of their students to match to APA internships. You clearly need to do more research into what a reputable program should look like. As it stands, you're looking to throw money down the drain to get sub-par training at for-profit degree mills and the like.

This is a very good point. In a saturated market like California, you're going to want every advantage you can get. By geographically restricting yourself, you'd be making doctoral study in clinical psych difficult in any region, but particularly so in CA (because of the sheer number of people from both in and out of the state who'd like to live there). By attending a program with a 50-60% match rate, you're already rolling the dice with getting an APA-accredited internship...and by being geographically limited, you're reducing the odds of matching even further. Without an internship, you can't graduate, and aren't licensable. Without an APA-accredited internship, you can't work at the VA or for the federal BOP, and many hospitals and academic medical centers nowadays also won't give your application a particularly serious look.

Add to that the additional $50k you'd pay in tuition, and that's not a particularly good recipe for a happy first decade post-graduation. And no, I personally also likely wouldn't pay $80k for an MSW, but that's just me.

You mention that you "really want" to be in southern California, which is certainly understandable. However, it sounds like you also need to decide how much you truly want to pursue masters or doctoral-level training in mental health. Particularly with respect to the latter, if you're at all serious about it, I'd strongly encourage you to widen your geographical net, even if it's just to include neighboring states.

 

[mewtoo]

Without an APA-accredited internship, you can't work at the VA or for the federal BOP, and many hospitals and academic medical centers nowadays also won't give your application a particularly serious look.

You forgot about some states require it for a license, too. Seeing as the OP is geographically stuck in California though, I don't know how relevant it is for them to worry about future practice in places like Oklahoma. 😎

 

[AcronymAllergy]

You forgot about some states require it for a license, too. Seeing as the OP is geographically stuck in California though, I don't know how relevant it is for them to worry about future practice in places like Oklahoma. 😎

I actually don't know of any states that explicitly require it for internship, although I do know that they might require that it be something along the lines of "APA/APPIC accredited or equivalent." Thus, if it isn't accredited, the burden of proof falls to the applicant to show that the proper resources, supervision, and training were offered.

 

[wigflip]

What about state schools?

CA's state schools are in big trouble. We'll know more after the election (state propositions), but some estimates suggest that within a few years in-state tuition in the UC could climb to $23,000/year and beyond (I read one prof's assessment that we'd cap out in the 30Ks). That's bad news if your "funded" PhD program isn't really fully funded, or you fall behind normative time for some reason. The CSU system (masters degrees) is in trouble too and has suffered big cuts/tuition hikes, with unit caps that can extend the publicized length of masters programs.

I love my state, but the tuition distinction between public and private education is closing.

 

[psych for path]

Am I the only one who would feels strongly that MSW & PsyD are NOT interchangeable degrees? These are distinctly different fields! While both allow you to do "counseling/therapy" they certainly don't train you to approach this work in the same way, at all. The OP needs to decide if s/he wants to be trained in diagnostics and assessments of psychopathology, or if an expedient route to counseling is more appealing.

I think it is a very important point that the two degrees would be 50,000 different - one in which you have at least 5 practicum placements working with a range of psychopatholoy, and one in which you have two, AT MOST, where it is a total crapshoot if you even are exposed to the types of clients you plan to work with.

Psychology and social work are not the same thing. Yes, you have the right to practice psychotherapy as a social worker, and you can do it very successfully. However, you simply will not be trained in psychotherapy and psychological methods from simply attending an MSW program. It will require additional training ($$) and time to become highly skilled.

Anyone with me?

 

[magazine456]

I absolutely agree! I feel like a lot of people have pushed me toward the MSW because it will allow me to practice therapy, but I am NOT interested in SW in general. I am 100% more interested in the Psy.D degree, it's just a matter of finding a good school that's worth the extra money, and won't send me to Kansas.

Am I the only one who would feels strongly that MSW & PsyD are NOT interchangeable degrees? These are distinctly different fields! While both allow you to do "counseling/therapy" they certainly don't train you to approach this work in the same way, at all. The OP needs to decide if s/he wants to be trained in diagnostics and assessments of psychopathology, or if an expedient route to counseling is more appealing.

I think it is a very important point that the two degrees would be 50,000 different - one in which you have at least 5 practicum placements working with a range of psychopatholoy, and one in which you have two, AT MOST, where it is a total crapshoot if you even are exposed to the types of clients you plan to work with.

Psychology and social work are not the same thing. Yes, you have the right to practice psychotherapy as a social worker, and you can do it very successfully. However, you simply will not be trained in psychotherapy and psychological methods from simply attending an MSW program. It will require additional training ($$) and time to become highly skilled.

Anyone with me?

 

[magazine456]

Okay, how about I re-state and further specify the question.

What is THE BEST Psy.D school in all of California, which doesn't require a Masters degree to apply?

 

[psych for path]

Pretty sure it's the stanford consortium program but i'd get other opinions!

 

[roubs]

Okay, how about I re-state and further specify the question.

What is THE BEST Psy.D school in all of California, which doesn't require a Masters degree to apply?

I'd approach this a different way, find the top 3 APA internship match rate programs in CA (Psy.D.) and evaluate them on other metrics/qualities that may be important to you, (class size, location, faculty quality/match).

Also why not include Pepperdine, figure out the length/cost to get both their MA+Psy.D. and see if it stacks up to the other schools length/cost to get the Psy.D. only.

 

[psych for path]

A social worker, with a successful private practice in NYC once said to me: "Can you be a good therapist with just an MSW? Definitely not."

Food for thought...

 

[roubs]

You don't have to go to Kansas. I would say that there are NO good PsyD programs in California that are worth the extra money. It's a saturated market, both educationally and professionally.

^^But ultimately I agree with this statement more. Why do you "really want to be" in Southern CA? My last post was based on glancing through and thinking you "needed" to stay in CA because of a spouse's job or something equally restricting. But if it is just a preference then insisting on staying in CA could be the single most damaging thing you do to your future career.

If you want to stay in a mostly urban/suburban big city area there are a lot of non-CA options.

 

[magazine456]

Okay, then what are the best Psy.D programs which are closest to California?

 

[magazine456]

I've done quite a bit of research, and I haven't found any high ranked Psy.D programs anywhere near the west coast. I know about Baylor and Rutgers, and they're not in neighboring states. Since people mentioned that I should broaden my geographical region to at least California's neighboring states, I thought maybe there were schools I didn't know about.

Why don't you investigate this and see what the options are? It seems that you're trying to get others to do the work for you to research this. It's one thing to ask for opinions on specific programs, but asking others to provide you with your initial list is pretty lazy.

 

[erg923]

If you conceptualize grad school in psych as being just about academic education, then you are missing alot. It's about challenging, broadening horizons, learning about (different) people, cultures, and ways of life. For this reason, I recommend people move away from their traditional stomping grounds or comfort areas. In other words, go east young man/woman.

 

[erg923]

Here's a good list.

http://acadpsychclinicalscience.org/members/

Jon, that list is a disaster for Psy.D type folks...

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Every post in this thread that included objective data (tuition cost, match rate, etc) clearly indicates there are no quality Psy.D. options in CA that provide a solid education, reasonable cost, and consistently place students into APA-acred. Internships. there are some Ph.D. Programs that meet that criteria, but they all will require relocation and they are very competitive. Ironically (Uni of) Kansas offers THREE Ph.D. Programs that are fully funded and offer excellent training.

Many people are not cut out for doctoral training because it requires not only high academic achievement, but it also requires sacrifice in a number of areas...some of which you don't have as much control over. Areas impacted include: location, hours spent working away from family, cost, stress, etc. I spent 8 years in training and I had 4 moves of 500-1000+ miles each (to school, then to internship, then to fellowship, and then to my job). You need to be able to go where the jobs/training are located. Do some people make it work by taking less than ideal placements and opportunities...yes, but each one impacts their ability to find work for the long term.

Attend a local program that is not APA-acred....good luck getting licensed.
Take $200k in loans....that is $1300+/mon in repayment (see below)
Take a non-APA internship...good luck finding a post-doc that you don't work for free and pay for supervision. Licensure usually happens, but it requires more hoops to jump through, which can take months.
Now you are licensed, have $200k+ (prob. Closer to $300k if you live in SoCal), and you are fighting with thousands of other graduates for a job that pays $60k/yr, which may or may not have benefits.

In the coming days/weeks I'll be posting up a bunch of financial outcome data for current students on a website related to Occupy The Imbalance, and it is brutal. The gist of it is that if you have to take on more than $40k-$50k on loans (and that is being generous), life after grad school will probably be a struggle.

from a generic financial aid calculator:
Loan Balance: $200,000.00
Adjusted*Loan*Balance: $200,000.00
Loan Interest Rate: 6.80%
Loan Fees: 0.00%
Loan Term: 30 years
Minimum Payment: $50.00
Enrollment Status: In Repayment
Degree Program: Ph.D.
Total Years in College: 8 years
Average Debt per Year: $25,000.00
Monthly*Loan*Payment: $1,303.85
Number of Payments: 360
Cumulative Payments: $469,386.44
Total Interest Paid: $269,386.44
Note: The monthly loan payment was calculated at 359 payments of $1,303.85 plus a final payment of $1,304.29.

For disclosure, I came from a uni-based Psy.D program with a decent reputation, and I still had to work my butt off to secure a good job. I can't imagine trying to do that now w. an even worse market, more students impacting the imbalance, and higher student loan rates. The loans can be crippling for most, and that assumes you can get a decent job. I only took loans for 3 of my 8 years in training, and I still have $100k+ because of compound interest (at much less than 6.8%, which is the current Sallie Mae rate).

 

[MBellows]

A social worker, with a successful private practice in NYC once said to me: "Can you be a good therapist with just an MSW? Definitely not."

Food for thought...

That also applies to Psy.D, Ph.D., and M.A. degrees. I don't know if anyone can say that their degree makes them a good therapist. Who you are makes you a good therapist, your degree gives you orientation and background data to work with. Some may do better in certain areas than others, but inflammatory speech isn't encouraged here.

IMHO, I've met people from every field of licensure who I would guess are good therapists, and some that aren't licensed. I've also met some from each that I would sooner refer a client to Charles Manson for therapy.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

With all of that said, I love my career options, but I do NOT recommend being a psychologist unless you have a solid plan, can do it without taking on debt, and you are able to relocate. If you want a Psy.D., there are a handful of programs that I'd trust to provide a solid education and adequate funding: Rutgers, Baylor. Indiana (IUoP), Indiana State, Marshall, and Wright State. There may be a few more like Loyola (Maryland) an LaSalle...but I don't know their funding situations.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The rest of your education starts when you are out of school. I've spent hundreds of hours each year reading journals, attending CEs, taking training seminars, and there is still learning to be done. Lifelong learning is required to be a quality clinician.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Never mind.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I saw your post T4C. I agree with you; that is the rub of how this has played out, as we've hashed and rehashed on here a bajillion times. Your $s post above is a critical consideration point and I will be interested to read what you post to Occupy.

I've been dragging it along for wks bc I haven't had a chunk of time to sit down and finish, though tom. I set aside some time, so I'll clean up my info and get it posted. The mean salary data was depressingly bad, but it made me feel much better about my compensation #'s lol.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I'd broaden your initial program investigation to other PhD programs, both counseling and clinical psych. Western states have many good programs that could work well.

University of Utah, University of Wyoming, University of Colorado, University of Oregon, University of California system has several, University of Arizona (maybe ASU as well). There are lots of good options for PhD programs. There are very few good options, even nationally, for PsyD options.

To clarify--these are the types of programs I'd had in mind when I made my suggestion to consider branching out to neighboring states. For Psy.D. programs, when factoring in financial factors and the general employment picture currently, there are few I'd personally consider/recommend attending, and Jon Snow listed nearly all of them.

 

[wigflip]

AA, I think your contributions on this thread have been diplomatic, so this isn't necessarily directed at you.

But sometimes I wonder whether it might not make sense to split this forum such that PsyD and prospective PsyD students have a space of their own. The advice given when prospectives inquire about the PsyD usually seems to be some version of "simply don't." Perhaps if there was a dedicated PsyD forum, more current and former PsyD students would feel free to chime in.

 

[psychRA]

This may be a bit of a thread derail, but could someone give me a sense of the PGSP/PAU/Stanford Consortium program's reputation within psychology? I'm on internship now, and I've heard a lot of conflicting things about the program, so I'm just trying to make sense of things.

I did some internet research, so I know that PGSP officially incorporated as PAU, and that they're technically affiliated with Stanford. Depending on who I talk to, I hear that: A) it's a great program and is on par with the mid-level uni-based PsyD programs; B) it's a decent program for people willing to pay a lot of $ for their degree; or C) the school essentially "bought" the Stanford affiliation to improve their reputation.

Like I said, I'm obviously not applying to grad programs, but I'm just confused by the number of totally different views that I've heard.

 

[wigflip]

Yes, we could call that sub forum, "Ostrich."

Wow. Wish I'd had a chance to read your post before you edited it.

By the way, several psyd trained folks have chimed in, in this thread.

I knew someone would be unable to resist pointing that out. Well done. However, if you'll note, I used the term "more"--"more current and former PsyD" students.

 

[mewtoo]

CA's state schools are in big trouble. We'll know more after the election (state propositions), but some estimates suggest that within a few years in-state tuition in the UC could climb to $23,000/year and beyond (I read one prof's assessment that we'd cap out in the 30Ks). That's bad news if your "funded" PhD program isn't really fully funded, or you fall behind normative time for some reason. The CSU system (masters degrees) is in trouble too and has suffered big cuts/tuition hikes, with unit caps that can extend the publicized length of masters programs.

I love my state, but the tuition distinction between public and private education is closing.

Holy crap. At my state uni in Texas I only pay at max $11,000 a year. Only $~8,000 if you only take Fall and Spring classes. Admittedly, mine is one of the cheaper ones and is mainly why I go here versus some big state school like UT (which is still cheaper than CA's).

 

[magazine456]

That's a good question, I'd be interested in hearing the answer to that too. I know it's really expensive, but aside from cost, it looks like stats are pretty good, and at least in the last few years they've improved a lot.

This may be a bit of a thread derail, but could someone give me a sense of the PGSP/PAU/Stanford Consortium program's reputation within psychology? I'm on internship now, and I've heard a lot of conflicting things about the program, so I'm just trying to make sense of things.

I did some internet research, so I know that PGSP officially incorporated as PAU, and that they're technically affiliated with Stanford. Depending on who I talk to, I hear that: A) it's a great program and is on par with the mid-level uni-based PsyD programs; B) it's a decent program for people willing to pay a lot of $ for their degree; or C) the school essentially "bought" the Stanford affiliation to improve their reputation.

Like I said, I'm obviously not applying to grad programs, but I'm just confused by the number of totally different views that I've heard.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

As a slight aside, I know these discussions can sometimes become heated, so I think it's important to pre-emptively suggest (and humbly request) that we all remain as courteous and respectful as possible. I feel that a good bit of very helpful information has been provided thus far, and important and interesting topics have been broached. In the end, we of course want all members to feel equally welcome, and we encourage all members to actively and constructively participate in any and all topics.

Thank ya.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

But sometimes I wonder whether it might not make sense to split this forum such that PsyD and prospective PsyD students have a space of their own. The advice given when prospectives inquire about the PsyD usually seems to be some version of "simply don't." Perhaps if there was a dedicated PsyD forum, more current and former PsyD students would feel free to chime in.

I like this idea, although I wish that the forum was more welcoming to everyone in general--there's so much crossover and I absolutely loathe the splitting that happens between subspecialties in psychology. Regarding PsyD's, there are plenty of PsyD grads out there practicing and thriving. In fact, I'm embarrassed to say that sometimes my heart skips a beat when I encounter a psychologist who graduated with a PsyD from a FSPP...thanks to this forum...they're not living on food stamps or waiting tables to make ends meet!!

 

[roubs]

AA, I think your contributions on this thread have been diplomatic, so this isn't necessarily directed at you.

But sometimes I wonder whether it might not make sense to split this forum such that PsyD and prospective PsyD students have a space of their own. The advice given when prospectives inquire about the PsyD usually seems to be some version of "simply don't." Perhaps if there was a dedicated PsyD forum, more current and former PsyD students would feel free to chime in.

I have to disagree. Nothing keeps people from presenting a pro-FSPS argument. The FSPS themselves do a good job of this with their glossy marketing campaigns. The arguments against the FSPS are supported by evidence, and a conclusion of "Just Don't" is clearly an opinion based on that evidence. Applicants are free to draw a different conclusion if a Psy.D. from a substandard program is truly the only thing that completes them. Starry-eyed applicants seem to downplay data that shows the unfavorable side of some programs. I see nothing wrong with pointing them toward those data.

 

[wigflip]

I have to disagree. Nothing keeps people from presenting a pro-FSPS argument. The FSPS themselves do a good job of this with their glossy marketing campaigns. The arguments against the FSPS are supported by evidence, and a conclusion of "Just Don't" is clearly an opinion based on that evidence. Applicants are free to draw a different conclusion if a Psy.D. from a substandard program is truly the only thing that completes them. Starry-eyed applicants seem to downplay data that shows the unfavorable side of some programs. I see nothing wrong with pointing them toward those data.

But aren't you conflating "PsyD" with "FSPS"? I'm not coming to the rescue of Argosy or Capella. The OP initially inquired about Pepperdine, which is uni-based (alongside other less desirable options). I'm suggesting that folks here paint with a finer brush and afford PsyD and prospective PsyD folks a little more respect.

I think in a way we agree about this, roubs. I despise truly predatory educational institutions/departments, though in my estimation this can include traditional universities, and disciplines where there is virtually no chance of finding post-gradutation employment. If you read enough educational forums, you'll note that some humanities departments in particular (yes, from "name" universities) are starting to clarify to applicants (on their websites and in acceptance letters) that should they attend, they will be merely pursuing the "life of the mind." Because their chances of finding an academic position are almost nil.

It also sometimes seems that unless a prospective comes right out and says, "my spouse is in an iron lung," folks here assume that an OP's unstated reason for "not wanting" to move is as flimsy as a reluctance to abandon his or her favorite taco stand.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

To play devil's advocate and to ride on wig's argument (and my oft-repeated bias against the seeming youth domination in this forum), the assumption of anti-PsyD programs and geographic limitations are that these supposed students are just not willing to pick up and move based on silly preferences--boyfriend, familiarity, preference for city life, etc. I think what's being forgotten is that these programs really appeal to older people who have established homes, jobs, and support networks. These things ought not to be minimized. Most 20-somethings, especially those out of undergrad, have NO IDEA what it's like to have these things and how limited it truly makes you. If a PsyD program allows one to continue to work (even part-time) at their well-paying, established first career, keep their home and not sell in this horrible market, and stay connected, I'd say that's a win for the field in many ways--I, personally, think any field benefits from having members who are career changers and not lifers. I'm glad our field has a variety of people in it, not just those who only ever wanted to do psychology, were bankrolled by mom & dad to attend a residential program, and then grew up to tell others that this is the only way to do it.

That said, I've known young folks who relocated quite a ways to attend a virtually unfunded un-based PsyD program in a big city. Masters programs, too! These students are taking out loans, finding alternate funding, working a job, making payments, all of it. People are out there doing just this very thing, every year, while regulars on SDN snark about how it shouldn't be done and what a bad decision it is.

Yes, I'm bitter and older and biased, but I'm still pro-PhD in this field so I'm not as invested as others. I still think that others deserve to have a contribution to the discussion here. It is the PsyD/PhD forum!!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Sure, there are legitimate reasons to be locked in to a geographic region. But, I think the decision then becomes more pragmatic. You don't financially kill yourself because you are geographically locked. The smart thing would be to pick a different career. That's why I argue to proceed as if the unreasonable options don't exist. Just because someone will give you a loan to do something doesn't mean you should do it.

There is often a false dichotomy that is set up in these situations: "Bad choice A" v. "Horrible choice B", when in reality there are many other choices like "don't pursue this route", "take 2-3 years to work in a research lab", etc.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

Specific issue aside, I think threads like this one often take on an “ugly” tone because of the pattern that they follow. 1. Someone comes to the forum asking for “advice” on a career decision 2. They get advice that is not what they want to hear 3. They stick their fingers in their ears and sing “la, la, la” and proceed along their misguided path.

It is very frustrating to try to give advice to someone who discounts it. I think some of us start to make our points louder and stronger in order to make an impact on someone who doesn’t appear to be understanding and integrating what is said. This happens all the time with posts about things like “Can I make 300k/yr as a psychologist?” or “An online PhD is just as good, right?”

Best,
Dr. E

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Regarding PsyD's, there are plenty of PsyD grads out there practicing and thriving.

While this is true, I think it is important to stick to the data because even with the methodological flaws, it is more representative of "the average" outcome than any 3-5 (or more) annectdotal reports from posters on here. There have been multiple studies about how people are more likely to think of themselves as above average/special, so if someone is looking for validation that they can make enough/a comfortable living despite attending a program that creates high debt and bad match #'s....then that is a recipe for disaster.

I am an early career Psy.D. and while I have been able to position myself to be very successful, I know that is not representative of the middle 50%. I try and balance my postings with aggregate data to represent what typically happens, which hopefully tempers the outliers who either do great or get crushed under $300-400k in debt.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It is very frustrating to try to give advice to someone who discounts it. I think some of us start to make our points louder and stronger in order to make an impact on someone who doesn't appear to be understanding and integrating what is said. This happens all the time with posts about things like "Can I make 300k/yr as a psychologist?" or "An online PhD is just as good, right?"

Best,
Dr. E

Much like my ["Citation Needed"] gif I post when idiots won't stop spewing misinformation about the field, I'll probably just post a link to outcome data. Sadly data still can be misinterpreted, but it is harder to discount for many. You can only bring a horse to the water....you can't make them drink it.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

APPIC data show no age difference for PsyD programs and PhD programs.

I'm not sure what the data says exactly, but PsyD programs are bigger--maybe ages are similar, but with bigger numbers, you'll have more of them. I could be wrong. Maybe these FSPP programs are catering mostly to "fresh out of undergrad...can't get a job in psychology...I guess I'll be a doctor!" types. I don't hang out with those types, so I see something different.

Further, if they had well paying jobs, established homes (read, equity accumulation), the student loan debt average would be much lower...These students are older and they have more immediately at stake with major opportunity cost issues (if already in a well paying career, they've left it, depleted their savings and accumulated massive debt) and the loss of precious time.

Not necessarily. Everyone has different situations. Student loans can be a great way to leverage one's overall portfolio, depending on how the economy is rolling at the time--i.e., possibly lower interest rates, tax deduction on interest, etc. Some might find loans to be a better alternative to monthly payments or cashing out their 401k, for example. And who has home equity anymore?!! Most people are sitting on their homes so they don't have to pay the bank to sell it. And if they do have equity, who's going to give them a loan (so they can use it to pay tuition)??