Psych PhD without licensure?

[psychphd1]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone has a Psych PhD or are in a Psych program not meant for licensure. I am asking because I have been looking at many different PhD programs in Psych, and a few of them I have found that interest me aren't meant to meet licensure requirements, as far as courses, internship length, etc. Some of the different programs range from a PhD in health psychology to educational psychology, so really what are a persons options when not going for the almighty APA approved Clinical/Counseling Psych programs.

In simpler terms, what could a person do with a PhD in a program like health psychology etc, without being licensed. If I am not being clear here in what I am asking please let me know, thanks for your responses and time.

 

[KillerDiller]

You'd be in the same position as the other disciplines in psychology--social, developmental, cognitive, etc. You could go into academia, do research in hospitals or similar settings, or go into consulting.

 

[phillydave]

Personally, I think it's a strange choice to spend 5-7 years of your life earning PhD or PsyD and not have the option to practice or do testing when your finished. Why limit yourself?

 

[thewesternsky]

Personally, I think it's a strange choice to spend 5-7 years of your life earning PhD or PsyD and not have the option to practice or do testing when your finished. Why limit yourself?

Um, because some people aren't all that interested in practice? Some people pursue PhDs in psych for the same reasons people pursue PhDs in physics. 🙂

 

[phillydave]

Um, because some people aren't all that interested in practice? Some people pursue PhDs in psych for the same reasons people pursue PhDs in physics. 🙂

Right, I get it. My personal opinion is that it is strange to do so. It's a lot of time in school to teach in the end. There are other shorter means to that end.

 

[thewesternsky]

Right, I get it. My personal opinion is that it is strange to do so. It's a lot of time in school to teach in the end. There are other shorter means to that end.

It's not about teaching. It's about research.

 

[docma]

It is a perfectly legitimate career path with many options. Until the 1950s really, psychology was primarily a lab and academic profession. "Clinical psychology" as a doctorate level "profession" really only evolved with efforts to provide post-war care in VA settings (and with GI money for folks to be back in school) coinciding with some new thinking (and new medications) for severe disorders. Psychiatry was also expanding in new ways and psychology got interested in getting into health care (and getting insurance reimbursement and a share of what had been psychiatry's domain) Private practice was also seen as a means to enhance academic salaries. Then professional schools were developed--but that is really only since the late 70s/80s. Until that movement, I don't think it was very common for a psychologist to imagine they would only see clients for psychotherapy as their major vocation. And licensure became an issue because there are different "guilds" competing for market and a need to regulate for consumer protection

 

[phillydave]

Yep, true. I guess, to me, if one has the option of pursuing a degree that allowed them both to practice and do research/teach then why not pursue that degree? Why not pursue something that gives you options in case your career tastes change down the road? It's a similar argument that people often offer to those who are torn between pursuing a PsyD or Phd: If you are a competitive candidate for both avenues, go for a Phd, it gives you better options down the road if you want to teach. Right now, I'm not so interested in teaching; but as a PsyD student I worry that I may not have good opportunities to teach if I change my mind later in life.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Yep, true. I guess, to me, if one has the option of pursuing a degree that allowed them both to practice and do research/teach then why not pursue that degree? Why not pursue something that gives you options in case your career tastes change down the road? It's a similar argument that people often offer to those who are torn between pursuing a PsyD or Phd: If you are a competitive candidate for both avenues, go for a Phd, it gives you better options down the road if you want to teach. Right now, I'm not so interested in teaching; but as a PsyD student I worry that I may not have good opportunities to teach if I change my mind later in life.

The basic response is this--some people just are not at all interested in clinical work. There are a few people in my program (scientist-practitioner clinical Ph.D.) who essentially can't stand the idea of seeing clients now, let alone as a career path down the road, and who have absolutely no intentions of applying for licensure or getting any purely-clinical "mileage" out of their degrees. Yet the clinical experience, coupled with the extensive knowledge of psychopathology, makes them excellent researchers.

 

[phillydave]

The basic response is this--some people just are not at all interested in clinical work. There are a few people in my program (scientist-practitioner clinical Ph.D.) who essentially can't stand the idea of seeing clients now, let alone as a career path down the road, and who have absolutely no intentions of applying for licensure or getting any purely-clinical "mileage" out of their degrees. Yet the clinical experience, coupled with the extensive knowledge of psychopathology, makes them excellent researchers.

I totally get that, it makes perfect sense. My original post above was to say personally I wouldn't consider the non-license option. Even if I had no interest in clinical application at the time. Being licensed isn't only necessary for application, I'd assume it would look better to potential employers as well.

 

[Sendtrees]

You could do clinical work, you just couldn't (or shouldn't) do it under false pretenses. Anyone can call themselves a counselor or a life coach. You just can't claim you're licensed or part of a professional body. You also wouldnt be reimbursable through insurance companies, which might limit your client base.

I knew an unlicensed therapist (a really good one, from what I could tell) that had a thriving private practice. She had started it up when a postdoc fell through, and was successful enough that she never felt the need to go back for it and complete licensure.

Aside from that, you could make a pretty nice living as a corporate consultant (with something like health psychology).

And obviously, academia, which a PhD theoretically makes possible.

 

[phillydave]

You could do clinical work, you just couldn't (or shouldn't) do it under false pretenses. Anyone can call themselves a counselor or a life coach. You just can't claim you're licensed or part of a professional body. You also wouldnt be reimbursable through insurance companies, which might limit your client base.

I knew an unlicensed therapist (a really good one, from what I could tell) that had a thriving private practice. She had started it up when a postdoc fell through, and was successful enough that she never felt the need to go back for it and complete licensure.

Aside from that, you could make a pretty nice living as a corporate consultant (with something like health psychology).

And obviously, academia, which a PhD theoretically makes possible.

Yes, it's true that one has many other career options with a non-licensed PhD. I hope that no one thought I was saying a non-licensed PhD would be unemployed.

How does one practice privately without being licensed? Were they maybe an LPC or LMFT?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

You could do clinical work, you just couldn't (or shouldn't) do it under false pretenses. Anyone can call themselves a counselor or a life coach. You just can't claim you're licensed or part of a professional body. You also wouldnt be reimbursable through insurance companies, which might limit your client base.

I knew an unlicensed therapist (a really good one, from what I could tell) that had a thriving private practice. She had started it up when a postdoc fell through, and was successful enough that she never felt the need to go back for it and complete licensure.

Sendtree...while I'm sure the person you know isn't a horrible person, but what s/he is doing is very irresponsible and damaging to every legitimate licensed professional. While anyone "could" do clinical work, you'd open yourself up to a heap of liability and possible legal consequences. It is no different than practicing medicine without a license. If a "patient" you are seeing suicides, you could be charged by the state and also be facing a civil suit from the patient's family. There is also that whole "ethical" thing, but that is a discussion for another time.

The basic response is this--some people just are not at all interested in clinical work. There are a few people in my program (scientist-practitioner clinical Ph.D.) who essentially can't stand the idea of seeing clients now, let alone as a career path down the road, and who have absolutely no intentions of applying for licensure or getting any purely-clinical "mileage" out of their degrees. Yet the clinical experience, coupled with the extensive knowledge of psychopathology, makes them excellent researchers.

I very much agree with the latter part, though I definitely understand where the non-clinicians are coming from. I looked briefly at a neuroscience Ph.D. (part of an MD/Ph.D. program), and I was strongly considering not seeking licensure for anything related to therapy. With that being said, if a person has the option to be license eligible, it can help with certain academic positions because you'd have the flexibility to supervise if required. An Experimental Psych or Social Psych department probably wouldn't care, but it may be a consideration in other areas.

Yep, true. I guess, to me, if one has the option of pursuing a degree that allowed them both to practice and do research/teach then why not pursue that degree? Why not pursue something that gives you options in case your career tastes change down the road?

Both degrees allow a person to teach, research, and practice...the dichotomous choice that people imply is a false one. In some circles the Psy.D. is still not viewed equally, though it seems to be more applicant dependant now. I'm a Psy.D. and I landed a very competitive fellowship at a Top 10 research university, and I had 4 other finalist interviews within the Top 25. While I know I'm not the "average" Psy.D, there are others out there that are teaching and researching at decent universities. I'm not looking to be an academic, but I'm pretty sure that door is still open to me and others who made sure to get the right training to be competitive.

To the OP: Look for the best fit because mentorship and training will put you farther in the end. Trudging through all of the training requirements to get licenses is A LOT to do if you have no interest in it. I would talk to potential mentors and see if their careers match up with what you want to do.

 

[phillydave]

Both degrees allow a person to teach, research, and practice...the dichotomous choice that people imply is a false one. In some circles the Psy.D. is still not viewed equally, though it seems to be more applicant dependant now. I'm a Psy.D. and I landed a very competitive fellowship at a Top 10 research university, and I had 4 other finalist interviews within the Top 25. While I know I'm not the "average" Psy.D, there are others out there that are teaching and researching at decent universities. I'm not looking to be an academic, but I'm pretty sure that door is still open to me and others who made sure to get the right training to be competitive.

Yes, totally. I wasn't trying to say that the PsyD couldn't and the PhD can. Just that it's easier to obtain tenured faculty positions with a PhD. I've debated on the side of PsyDs teaching in other threads. 😉