Psychologists: do you regret going into the field due to having a comparatively low salary?

[barryggg]

Where is this data? I haven't seen it broken down like this.

I don't believe there is direct data..it's my observation from synthesizing multiple data points.

Some research.
1. Prestige of school/program is correlated to high EPPP pass rates.
2. Clinical Programs tend to see higher pass rates than Counselling.
3. Canadian programs tend to beat the EPPP pass average by about 10%.

In 2016, University of Toronto..Canada's best University, had an EPPP pass rate of 90% for their School and Child Clinical Psychology Phd and 89% for their Counselling Phd. They have the same equivalent programs at the Masters level. In Ontario, you can be a Psychological Associate if you finish a Masters, but these same students can go to many other provinces (about half), and become Psychologists with no restrictions. Do I think it's reasonable to believe that the best school in Canada, and well respected around the world, has poor Masters programs? Am I supposed to think that the professors are junk? Do I think these students will have poor EPPP pass rates? No.

People fail the EPPP for two main reasons. The Masters program they took was never really meant to prepare them for it..and this makes sense because if you have a Phd standard in most of your states (not the case in Canada), why would that even be a goal? And 2, look at the source..who is offering these programs?

I don't want to bore you but you see this trend with almost any school in Canada. We might have a couple no-name Universities that offer a path to becoming a Psychologist (and very few take advantage of that)..the rest of our programs come from super respected Universities.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Nor do I accept the validity of passing the EPPP as a direct index of clinical acumen.

My recollection of it was that it was heavily weighted (in its composition) toward dependency on using their particular proprietary study materials ($$$) rather than being some sort of broad-ranging valid metric of competency as a clinical psychologist. If it was that, it'd figure into psychology graduate and internship training program curricula.

I'd argue it's more a measure of test taking ability and g than ability to use proprietary study materials. At least in surveys, those who drop a ton of money on workshops and such do not do better than those who use other study methods. Also, there is a clear, huge, drop off in ability to pass when you look at non-competitive diploma mill sites like Alliant, Argosy, Albizu and the like.

 

[WisNeuro]

I don't believe there is direct data..it's my observation from synthesizing multiple data points.

Ah, so an opinion.

 

[barryggg]

Ah, so an opinion.

An opinion based on multiple facts.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I'd argue it's more a measure of test taking ability and g than ability to use proprietary study materials. At least in surveys, those who drop a ton of money on workshops and such do not do better than those who use other study methods. Also, there is a clear, huge, drop off in ability to pass when you look at non-competitive diploma mill sites like Alliant, Argosy, Albizu and the like.

I'll never forget the one practice question for the EPPP that involved asking me to pick out the term for 'why we use ANOVA vs. just doing a bunch of t-tests' which is, I think, to avoid 'alpha inflation' or inflation of 'Type I' error (or any other commonly used way of referring to this issue). Of course, in the multiple-choice options, they didn't use any of the common terms that 99% of textbooks, professional articles, or main source materials would use. They used some very obscure and little-used term for this that most people would only know if they used THEIR materials vs. any of the mainstream professional/academic sources.

But I think you're right, if anyone really studied the issue, they would probably find that test taking ability and generalized intelligence would account for most of the variance in scores. I would also think that there would be a narrower range of these (test taking ability and generalized intelligence) within the ranks of those who graduate from solid programs vs. the larger sample of all people taking the EPPP (which includes a lot of the folks from lower-quality programs) which may mitigate their impact in a subsample where there is a restriction of range.

 

[barryggg]

If that's an "opinion"..then please tell me all the research about how EPPP pass rates matter all that much to the practice of the profession? Where does it say that directly? Show me the numbers, please.

 

[WisNeuro]

It looks like an opinion based on some circumstantial evidence, and other opinions.

 

[WisNeuro]

If that's an "opinion"..then please tell me all the research about how EPPP pass rates matter all that much to the practice of the profession? Where does it say that directly? Show me the numbers, please.

This was not what we were debating. I never forwarded that premise.

 

[psych.meout]

An opinion based on multiple facts.

If that's an "opinion"..then please tell me all the research about how EPPP pass rates matter all that much to the practice of the profession? Where does it say that directly? Show me the numbers, please.

Except you're the one who was using the EPPP as an argument for why masters level providers on Canada who pass it are equally qualified to doctoral level providers. Moreover, it is kind of convenient that you accuse other people of arguing based on opinion to assail their positions, but it's more than acceptable for you to do so.

 

[barryggg]

It looks like an opinion based on some circumstantial evidence, and other opinions.

Except you're the one who was using the EPPP as an argument for why masters level providers on Canada who pass it are equally qualified to doctoral level providers. Moreover, it is kind of convenient that you accuse other people of arguing based on opinion to assail their positions, but it's more than acceptable for you to do so.

People here constantly use the EPPP pass rate as a way to gauge program strength. I don't think it's an unfair metric. Well my suggestion is that program strength = prestige of school + having programs that are designed to actually teach what's relevant for EPPP and getting a license (and this is much more likely in provinces or states that have Masters Level practitioners). Why would you make a program to get people to pass EPPP or get a license, when most of the states only allow Phd Psychologists? My suggestion was that Canada was different in both of these respects.

We have prestigious, well-respected schools, offering Masters level programs, and they're offering them because in half the provinces you can be a Master level Psychologist. Does this not make logical sense that it impact EPPP pass rates, other metrics?

 

[WisNeuro]

We have prestigious, well-respected schools, offering Masters level programs, and they're offering them because in half the provinces you can be a Master level Psychologist. Does this not make logical sense that it impact EPPP pass rates, other metrics?

It makes sense that it could possibly be that way. But, you have zero data to back that up. Therefore, opinion. Many of us can name top notch, Ivy League even, locations that have world class programs at one level, but may have a not so great other level, such as internship. So yes, it is still just a circumstantial opinion.

 

[barryggg]

It makes sense that it could possibly be that way. But, you have zero data to back that up. Therefore, opinion. Many of us can name top notch, Ivy League even, locations that have world class programs at one level, but may have a not so great other level, such as internship. So yes, it is still just a circumstantial opinion.

Do you have stats to back up that some world class institutions may not have good internship sites?

 

[WisNeuro]

I never stated it was quantitative. But, if you asked people in the small world of neuro to rank some of these sites, you will see very big mis-matches in prestige and what we would rank as quality training. That strawman is besides the point, though. You made an assertion that lends itself to actual, quantitative data, which was not actually based on any actual quantitative data in response to another opinion. And then you made an argument about the EPPP that actually kind of contradicted your original statement. Not sure where the end game is here.

 

[barryggg]

I never stated it was quantitative. But, if you asked people in the small world of neuro to rank some of these sites, you will see very big mis-matches in prestige and what we would rank as quality training. That strawman is besides the point, though. You made an assertion that lends itself to actual, quantitative data, which was not actually based on any actual quantitative data in response to another opinion. And then you made an argument about the EPPP that actually kind of contradicted your original statement. Not sure where the end game is here.

So..anecdotal evidence.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yes, just like yours. I never asserted anything different.

 

[barryggg]

My opinion is based on good logic. True, I don't have direct stats that support the specific assertion that I made (they simply don't track that in Canada)...but all the facts that it is based on, are all true.

You have absolutely nothing. There is no point in what you're saying. Could there be some bad internship sites at prestigious Universities? Sure. Is that common place? No. Would the "bad" internships at the prestigious institutions still be better than Argosy and other crappy schools? 100%.

 

[WisNeuro]

No, you have bad assumption and opinions based on other opinions.

 

[barryggg]

No, you have bad assumption and opinions based on other opinions.

You seem to be proof that doing extra years of schooling = pointless.

 

[WisNeuro]

Well, logical fallacy does seem to naturally beget further logical fallacy. Happy holidays, good sir

 

[jheda]

It depends on where you live, your debt level, what you want from life, etc. I started at $85k and now I make $100k+. If people complete fellowship training (health, primary care, forensic, Neuro, rehab, etc) the pay is generally fine. College counseling tends to pay poorly, but not everywhere.

I'm not sure where $68k came from. Internahip pay stinks (no idea what it is these days). Fellowship pay seems to be $35k (college counseling) to $55k+ (VA, AMC). Forensic and military are higher. Anyone taking a job for <$75k-$80k is probably not competitive, though most decent psychologists should be able to make that starting out.

It is difficult to make a lot of money while on salary. The VA is probably the highest paying organization for psychologists and clinical social workers. If your goal is to make more money, it is best to have multiple streams of income. Passive income can be derived from books, trainings and consulting. If you provide anger management for latency aged children, you can earn $5o to $75 per student. Eight students at $5o per session/hour is $400. If you offer a companion parenting course for the parents on Emotional Intelligence for impulse control, you can see up to 12 adults at the same rate. Do the math and be optimistic.
I am an LCSW based in Brentwood/West Los Angeles and I gross a substantial amount from the sell of books that i self-published on anger mangement, stress management, emotional intelligence and communication.

 

[rerope]

It is difficult to make a lot of money while on salary. The VA is probably the highest paying organization for psychologists and clinical social workers. If your goal is to make more money, it is best to have multiple streams of income. Passive income can be derived from books, trainings and consulting. If you provide anger management for latency aged children, you can earn $5o to $75 per student. Eight students at $5o per session/hour is $400. If you offer a companion parenting course for the parents on Emotional Intelligence for impulse control, you can see up to 12 adults at the same rate. Do the math and be optimistic.
I am an LCSW based in Brentwood/West Los Angeles and I gross a substantial amount from the sell of books that i self-published on anger mangement, stress management, emotional intelligence and communication.

Thank you for bringing this thread back on topic.

I'm curious about the passive stream of income suggestion that pops up. If you work for a large institution but choose to do consulting/publishing/developing a new treatment is there a chance for intellectual property conflict? It seems like the IP clauses have gotten stricter over time and publishing in your expertise but not under the institution is a concern of mine for the future. (Heck I want to write YA fantasy also and even with a pseudonym and no paper trail, I'm worried about personal life and work life clashing. But this may be for another thread.)

 

[FadedC]

The rest of the world doesn't seem to think it's necessary. My friends from Europe laugh at how long it takes to become a Clinical Psychologist in the US. Over there, for the majority of countries, you need a Masters.

There are also quite a few parts of the world that don't believe you need a doctorate to become a physician, and where people are shocked by how long people go to school for medicine here. Standards for healthcare professionals tend to just be much higher in general in the US. I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

 

[psych.meout]

There are also quite a few parts of the world that don't believe you need a doctorate to become a physician, and where people are shocked by how long people go to school for medicine here. Standards for healthcare professionals tend to just be much higher in general in the US. I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

Exactly, but it also ignores that there really has not been a rigorous, empirical, cross-cultural comparison made between providers and education in the US vs. those in other nations and systems.

What is the comparative quality of care offered?
What are the responsibilities and scopes of practice of providers at different levels of education and in different healthcare contexts?
How proficient are providers in keeping up with research, EBTs, and best practices based on the ever-changing literature?
How proficient are providers in both assessment and intervention?
What exactly is the training like for different levels of education?
etc., etc., etc.,

 

[FadedC]

Exactly, but it also ignores that there really has not been a rigorous, empirical, cross-cultural comparison made between providers and education in the US vs. those in other nations and systems.

What is the comparative quality of care offered?
What are the responsibilities and scopes of practice of providers at different levels of education and in different healthcare contexts?
How proficient are providers in keeping up with research, EBTs, and best practices based on the ever-changing literature?
How proficient are providers in both assessment and intervention?
What exactly is the training like for different levels of education?
etc., etc., etc.,

Very true, but I doubt there ever will be. Scientifically comparing quality of treatment or training is incredibly hard even for a much simpler within the US study. I can't imagine a study that would try that while accounting massive number of confounding variables that would be in place if your were comparing between countries with vastly different cultures and circumstances. Not to mention the massive amount of time, money, and resources that would be needed, for a study that probably wouldn't change anything. I'm not sure who would give the massive grant that would be required.

 

[barryggg]

There are also quite a few parts of the world that don't believe you need a doctorate to become a physician, and where people are shocked by how long people go to school for medicine here. Standards for healthcare professionals tend to just be much higher in general in the US. I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

It has very little to do with higher standards, and everything to do with using students.

 

[psych.meout]

It has very little to do with higher standards, and everything to do with using students.

Right, students are being "used" as TAs and RAs during grad school. I sure would love to be "used" in this manner, receiving full tuition remission and a stipend while gaining valuable skills and experience in teaching and research.

There are legitimate arguments to be made about the pay and conditions for grad students, but it's not the case that they are simply being "used" and receive no benefits from graduate assistantships.

You just keep escalating your baseless arguments about doctoral training in the US. First, it was that non-US masters-level providers are equally skilled to US doctoral-level providers as both clinicians and consumers/appliers of research literature and doctoral training is only necessary to cultivate researchers. Then, it was that doctoral training for psychologists "makes no sense" and thereby makes psychologists with doctorates "fake doctors." Now, you're saying that doctoral level training has "very little" to do with higher standards and are simply about "using students." This is all patently absurd and, consistent with your other posts, entirely fact-free.

 

[WisNeuro]

This is all patently absurd and, consistent with your other posts, entirely fact-free.

Hey man, it's a post-truth world now.

 

[FadedC]

It has very little to do with higher standards, and everything to do with using students.

Hmm...I have no doubt that when government agencies meet to consider the requirements for practicing in various healthcare fields, that there are a variety of political factors that they consider. But I have a hard time believing that they are even remotely concerned with how many interns universities have working for them, let alone that the high standards are just part of a conspiracy to take advantage of student labor.

 

[barryggg]

Hey man, it's a post-truth world now.

They are different arguments.

Psychology is still a profession that has no unified theoretical framework. I'm not saying it's not evidence based, or that it's not important (IT IS both of those things)...but for how little information we have, the training is over-kill. Hey, cops arguably save more lives than Psychologists..but they don't get Phd's.

Psychology at the heart of it, right not anyways, is about INDIVIDUAL practitioners. The appeal of Psychology for many is that it does give you some wiggle room on how to approach things.

Because it is so individual, the goal of training should be to select individuals who are capable of being great clinicians, and good Psychologists with the little that we know. This does not require 10 years of training.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

They are different arguments.

Psychology is still a profession that has no unified theoretical framework. I'm not saying it's not evidence based, or that it's not important (IT IS both of those things)...but for how little information we have, the training is over-kill. Hey, cops arguably save more lives than Psychologists..but they don't get Phd's.

Psychology at the heart of it, right not anyways, is about INDIVIDUAL practitioners. The appeal of Psychology for many is that it does give you some wiggle room on how to approach things.

Because it is so individual, the goal of training should be to select individuals who are capable of being great clinicians, and good Psychologists with the little that we know. This does not require 10 years of training.

There are some basic paradigms that I would consider to be central, unifying, and essential for all practicing psychologists (I am not dictator of the world or profession, these are just my personal ramblings). I think the basic classical and operant conditioning stuff (and applied behavior analysis) is pretty fundamental and would expect any practicing mental health provider to have a basic competency in this. Also, the client-centered and relationship-building (including motivational interviewing/enhancement stuff) is essential to understand and be able to implement. No therapeutic relationship = no-shows and you can't help a client who doesn't show to sessions. An ability to do basic cognitive (and cognitive-behavioral) case formulation (a la Jackie Persons, Beck, and others) is essential as is the ability to appropriately and judiciously utilize basic protocols for specific issues (e.g., CBT for depression, panic control therapy for panic, exposure and response prevention for OCD, etc.) and to understand their limitations in application (which, I think, involves a more sophisticated appreciation of 'evidence based therapy' than EBT = using protocols). I think it's also helpful to receive training in basic philosophy of science concepts (logical positivism, theories, hypothesis testing, philosophical basis for traditional experimental/statistical methods in the field) as well as basic experimental methods/stats and how to do a lit review and interpret research in order to keep your knowledge up to date.

Ideally, could all of this be learned in less time than the current training and licensing model mandates? Probably. The devil will always be in the details and pragmatics of implementation.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It has very little to do with higher standards, and everything to do with using students.

What part do you cut?

For med students I can see...maaaaaybe 4th year of residency for certain specialities, but I still think that is asking for trouble. As someone who is active in residency training and very involved in medical education, I could see an argument for less hr per year, but not enough to cut a year or more off.

As for clinical psych training, I'd love to cut certain classes *cough* projective assessment *cough* and maybe cut some of the more recent crazy high practica #'s in favor of getting dissertations done sooner. Also, a limited licensure for internship (to help w cost to training sites).

 

[FadedC]

They are different arguments.

Psychology is still a profession that has no unified theoretical framework. I'm not saying it's not evidence based, or that it's not important (IT IS both of those things)...but for how little information we have, the training is over-kill. Hey, cops arguably save more lives than Psychologists..but they don't get Phd's.

Psychology at the heart of it, right not anyways, is about INDIVIDUAL practitioners. The appeal of Psychology for many is that it does give you some wiggle room on how to approach things.

Because it is so individual, the goal of training should be to select individuals who are capable of being great clinicians, and good Psychologists with the little that we know. This does not require 10 years of training.

Beyond what Fan of Meehl said, I should also note that what you say is only really true when it comes to therapy. And you don't need a doctorate to do therapy. When it comes to assessment and psychological testing, which you do need a doctorate for, there absolutely is a unified model, and in fact doing things the same way as everyone else is the very bedrock upon which psychological testing is built. And there is a tremendous amount of empirical research and science behind it, as anyone who has taken psychometrics, or been involved in developing test measures, can tell you.

 

[psych.meout]

They are different arguments.

Psychology is still a profession that has no unified theoretical framework. I'm not saying it's not evidence based, or that it's not important (IT IS both of those things)...but for how little information we have, the training is over-kill. Hey, cops arguably save more lives than Psychologists..but they don't get Phd's.

Psychology at the heart of it, right not anyways, is about INDIVIDUAL practitioners. The appeal of Psychology for many is that it does give you some wiggle room on how to approach things.

Because it is so individual, the goal of training should be to select individuals who are capable of being great clinicians, and good Psychologists with the little that we know. This does not require 10 years of training.

Just when I thought you couldn't go any further with your absurd claims, you take it one step further.

 

[barryggg]

Ideally, could all of this be learned in less time than the current training and licensing model mandates? Probably. The devil will always be in the details and pragmatics of implementation.

I'm glad you can see that maybe there is room to decrease training time. I'm not suggesting it become a 16 week course online..but much of Europe sees Undergrad education to be sufficient for some roles, while for specialist roles...2-3 yrs are added on top of that. It really depends how you set your system up.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Just when I thought you couldn't go any further with your absurd claims, you take it one step further.

I also disagree with the 'what little information we have' notion. Heck, I find it difficult to merely keep up with the applicable cognitive-behavioral literature relevant to the conditions and clinical issues that I frequently encounter. There are a whole lot of interesting developments in the field lately, for example, in areas like motivational interviewing, mindfulness, interpersonal neurobiology--I'd love to learn more and get more training in several different areas--and that's just psychotherapy. I've got a nice, new-looking, barely opened most recent edition of Bergin & Garfield's text Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change just sitting on my shelf collecting dust and barely opened. My experience is that there's far more useful and high-quality information in the literature than I can possibly digest (and carry on full-time actual clinical work). But, I'm tryin' .

And, though I think it's often a pragmatic necessity to try to focus solely on reducing quantifiable symptom scores (e.g., from self-report or structured interview sources) to establish efficacy/effectiveness of various psychotherapeutic approaches, I don't think we'll ever come up with a single metric that successfully measures the meaningful impact of psychotherapy (short and long-term). I can recall a veteran who completed a cognitive-processing therapy protocol with me about a year or so ago and--even though his symptom reduction scores on the PCL-5 (posttraumatic stress disorder checklist) were only something like 30% reduction from session 1 to session 12), the guy reported that his most meaningful response to the therapy involved changed beliefs/schemas/'stuck points' relating to trusting others and intimacy...a change which resulted in a modification of his close social network (of friends he hung out with routinely and could call upon in times of trouble) from ZERO friends pre-protocol to something like 7-8 close buddies at the end of the therapy. This resulted in quite a significant improvement in his quality of life (and you could observe it in his affect and demeanor in person) pre-post therapy and, I would argue, created opportunities for continued non-linear growth in quality of life going forward (whereas before he was completely interpersonally isolated and felt stuck there). Unfortunately, none of this was part of the 'official measurement' (PCL and PHQ-9 scores) being used to examine effectiveness of the protocol. I'm a firm believer in scientific/objective psychology...but I'm also familiar (directly) with it's limitations to capture meaningful therapeutic change.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm glad you can see that maybe there is room to decrease training time. I'm not suggesting it become a 16 week course online..but much of Europe sees Undergrad education to be sufficient for some roles, while for specialist roles...2-3 yrs are added on top of that. It really depends how you set your system up.

I don't want to dumb down the system any more. Not everything has a shortcut.

 

[barryggg]

I also disagree with the 'what little information we have' notion.

I shouldn't have said that there is "little information". There is lots of information, lot of exciting things..agreed..but a lot of these things are hard to measure.

 

[barryggg]

I don't want to dumb down the system any more. Not everything has a shortcut.

I'm in the profession.

I think you're taking yourself too seriously. Just my opinion.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I shouldn't have said that there is "little information". There is lots of information, lot of exciting things..agreed..but a lot of these things are hard to measure.

This is true, but...along with what I think Therapist4Chnge was saying...I also don't think we need to 'dumb it down,' shorten it, or reduce the requirements any/much further. There are so many hacks out there in mental health (and some of them have made it through all the hoops that we already have).

 

[WisNeuro]

Based on what I am seeing more and more in clinical practice, I'm on the side of people being under-trained/educated. Too many people with little to no understanding of psychometrics and the relevant research. Way too many people want the easy way out of what is already an easy profession to get into. Go be life coaches, or something just as useless if you want. No one forced you to get into the field and jump through the hoops which are well detailed if you bother to look.

 

[psych.meout]

I'm in the profession.

I think you're taking yourself too seriously. Just my opinion.

And all of your posts reek of this. Someone who doesn't have doctoral training trying to rationalize why it is just for researchers, unnecessary for therapy, creating fake doctors, all about "using" students, "over-kill," etc.

 

[WisNeuro]

Maybe he's just an acolyte of Modern Psychologist. The gospel could be spreading.

 

[DrTisMe]

Yup, I make way over that figure. And, the jobs I'm interviewing at are substantial raises over my present amount. Zero debt, passive income, 40 hour workweeks. Nope, no huge regrets.

I make considerably more than 68,000.00 and I'm not even fully licensed yet. I'm a temporary permit holder working for a private practice. I expect my income to go up by 50% once I am independently licensed (simple math equation - my supervisor is allowing me to import my entire caseload into private practice, between not paying for supervision and being able to collect the entire fee from them, not be a salaried employee minus the overhead of paying for office space and part time secretarial support). I have a PhD from a well-known APA accredited school in School/Clinical Child Psychology, as well as a few post-doc certifications. I have a solid referral stream and no need to participate with managed care. Not a single regret here! Sure, if I was working at an entry-level job in a hospital somewhere, I'd probably earn 40 K, but if you're capable of being in private practice, you're earning significantly more.

WisNeuro - you said you have passive income - how does that work? The only thing that does constrain me is that I have very little potential for passive income, which is something I'd like to figure out how to generate. Right now, I eat what I kill, so if I could figure out a way to generate passive income, I'd be in a much better position. Please, enlighten me.

 

[barryggg]

Based on what I am seeing more and more in clinical practice, I'm on the side of people being under-trained/educated. Too many people with little to no understanding of psychometrics and the relevant research. Way too many people want the easy way out of what is already an easy profession to get into. Go be life coaches, or something just as useless if you want. No one forced you to get into the field and jump through the hoops which are well detailed if you bother to look.

We can agree on the idea that there is a lot of incompetence. Our solutions are different. Yours seems to support the Phd level of education for Psychologists ..mine is changing the education system around, and yes this includes a decrease in amount of schooling. I think we would see a GAIN in competence. People are not incompetent because they got a Masters or a Phd, they're incompetent because they went to really bad programs.

 

[WisNeuro]

WisNeuro - you said you have passive income - how does that work? The only thing that does constrain me is that I have very little potential for passive income, which is something I'd like to figure out how to generate. Right now, I eat what I kill, so if I could figure out a way to generate passive income, I'd be in a much better position. Please, enlighten me.

Depends a little on your situation. If you have additional investment money after 401k and IRAs, you could invest in non-retirement accounts that provide dividends. I throw some extra each year into more of those. It's fairly easy to liquidate in case of need, although there is always the risk of market downturn. The other method I have is rental property. I'm fairly handy, so I can do easy to moderate repairs myself, and it's in a college market so I always get grad students to rent it out. That provides a lot of tax benefits, and I can also visit family when I go back to check on my property, so travel can be written off as a business expense. Rental property will probably be what I expand as my wife transitions from resident to full-time physician and we can project budgets a lot more stably in the future. If you don't have the time to actively manage a property, you could get a mgmt company to do it for you, although they usually charge around 10 of the rental income and it changes your tax structure a little if you are an active or passive manager/owner.

 

[barryggg]

And all of your posts reek of this. Someone who doesn't have doctoral training trying to rationalize why it is just for researchers, unnecessary for therapy, creating fake doctors, all about "using" students, "over-kill," etc.

Honest to god, it has nothing to do with that. I was never someone that wanted the Dr moniker because I didn't think it really gave me any more credibility in my general life. It's simply based on two things. Going through the training myself (in a good program), and looking at standards around the Western world. USA and Canada are very unique when it comes to HOW they train Psychologists, and the level of education expected. You make it seem that I'm borrowing examples of how they do things in Sudan.

 

[PsychPhDone]

We can agree on the idea that there is a lot of incompetence. Our solutions are different. Yours seems to support the Phd level of education for Psychologists ..mine is changing the education system around, and yes this includes a decrease in amount of schooling. I think we would see a GAIN in competence. People are not incompetent because they got a Masters or a Phd, they're incompetent because they went to really bad programs.

People are incompetent because they don't realize what they don't know.

 

[barryggg]

People are incompetent because they don't realize what they don't know.

You defined the profession right there....you didn't define me.

# of years at University doesn't dictate the knowledge you have in a field...the knowledge base that exists in that field dictates how much you know, and so does the difficulty level of synthesizing that information.

 

[FadedC]

Some of this discussion does make me curious about how psychological testing works in other countries. Regardless of what title you use, many tests require a minimum of a PhD to be able to administer and interpret. Does this really change if a country does not require their psychologists to have PhDs? Or are these MA level psychologists simple not allowed to administer these tests?

 

[psych.meout]

You defined the profession right there....you didn't define me.

# of years at University doesn't dictate the knowledge you have in a field...the knowledge base that exists in that field dictates how much you know, and so does the difficulty level of synthesizing that information.

Whoosh