PsyD Applicants
- Thread starter jacobpsych
- Start date
i applied to 4 psyds and 2 phds. the phds were equally balanced between clinical and research. i applied to them just in case, because the option of full funding is of course attractive, yet knowing full well that they might be more research focused than i really wanted to be. i am primarily interested in a psyd because i want to first and foremost be a clinician. i love being a therapist (i have been since i finished my masters degree in 2008). while i really like research, and have lots of ideas for studies, i don't want to be an academic. i can see myself being a clinician first and maybe having a research project here and there in the future. i chose psychology because i love working with people, and i love helping them make a difference in their lives. i feel that a psyd would equip me best for a lifetime doing this work.
i felt that a psyd program would give me what im looking for, in terms of gaining more clinical skills and advancing my career. while some feel that a phd offers more flexibility, these days people with psyds can teach and do research as well. of course its less than those with a phd, but like i said above thats not what i want to do primarily anyway. in the work force, i honestly have not felt any biases against those with psyds. i feel they are just as accepted in the mental health community as phds. so, yay psyd!!
i felt that a psyd program would give me what im looking for, in terms of gaining more clinical skills and advancing my career. while some feel that a phd offers more flexibility, these days people with psyds can teach and do research as well. of course its less than those with a phd, but like i said above thats not what i want to do primarily anyway. in the work force, i honestly have not felt any biases against those with psyds. i feel they are just as accepted in the mental health community as phds. so, yay psyd!!
I've only applied to PsyD programs with one exception.
Just like PhD's have a research focus that they work on, I think the PsyD is great for those people who know that they want their focus to be; interaction and clinical work! I know you can do research too, but perhaps not with the rigor of those PhD's or candidates.
I'm interested in reading research and figuring out it's implications, but I know what I want my focus to be!
Anyone have any experiences with apps or interviews for PsyD's? especially in the midwest/central US? That's a hint at one place I've applied, maybe if you tell me your experience and with what school, it would hit the target and help!
Just like PhD's have a research focus that they work on, I think the PsyD is great for those people who know that they want their focus to be; interaction and clinical work! I know you can do research too, but perhaps not with the rigor of those PhD's or candidates.
I'm interested in reading research and figuring out it's implications, but I know what I want my focus to be!
Anyone have any experiences with apps or interviews for PsyD's? especially in the midwest/central US? That's a hint at one place I've applied, maybe if you tell me your experience and with what school, it would hit the target and help!
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2010
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I'm also interested in mainly a PsyD. I've applied to 3 PsyD programs on the East Coast, one PhD (in Counseling Psych), and 2 master's programs (one MSW, another in Art Therapy). Like lamorena, I want to be a clinician first and foremost, although I really do enjoy the process of scientific inquiry and research.
I'm a non-traditional student. I'm 40 (eeps!) and decided I need a change after 15 years of a very successful career doing mainly international development/relief work. I focused on ensuring that my colleagues' field interventions were well-grounded in the scientific literature on the topics with which I was familiar (human rights, workers' rights, indigenous peoples, etc.). I also did a lot of writing and publishing in my field. I like the idea of applying empirical research to solve real-world problems and I especially like the idea that PsyDs are trained to be critical consumers of research, as that's exactly what I've done for the last 15 years.
I sound like I'm preparing for interviews... LOL!
I'm a non-traditional student. I'm 40 (eeps!) and decided I need a change after 15 years of a very successful career doing mainly international development/relief work. I focused on ensuring that my colleagues' field interventions were well-grounded in the scientific literature on the topics with which I was familiar (human rights, workers' rights, indigenous peoples, etc.). I also did a lot of writing and publishing in my field. I like the idea of applying empirical research to solve real-world problems and I especially like the idea that PsyDs are trained to be critical consumers of research, as that's exactly what I've done for the last 15 years.
I sound like I'm preparing for interviews... LOL!
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2005
- Messages
- 328
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 4,571
Given the field I plan to work in after the completion of the doctorate I have no concerns about being discriminated against based on my PsyD. I am currently a licensed therapist and work with a multidisciplinary team which includes PhDs, PsyDs, SWs and Counselors and when discussing this issue with my team and others they all state that some of the folks on this board seem to to feel more insecure about their positions and thus come here to make others feel just as insecure.
That's been the general consensus when I direct them here. After being a part of this forum for almost 5 years Ive come to understand that while there are valid concerns about the direction of the profession, one can and will make a life as a PsyD contrary to what others may think.
There was another thread where someone stated that psychologists need to grow a pair since they seem to be suffering from an inferiority complex and I agree.
As for why I chose a PsyD, I really want to focus on clinical practice. And as much as some say there is no distinction and/or PsyD=clinical PhD=research ...the truth is that's why the PsyD was created. I also detest the way that students must match with another professor's interest in order to be considered for admission. What if there are no professor's doing research currently with my interests? Or what if the only person doing the research is located in Nebraska or Washington State? I have a life and established in my career where I am and the PsyD gives me more options. The match with a professor paradigm just doesnt suit me very well. If my interests change down the line then I am screwed as it relates to finding an advisor or maintaining a funded position. I have heard of students losing advisors, changing interests and thus having to leave a program etc and Im not cut out for that. I want to work on fine tuning my skills and taking my clinical knowledge and practice to the next level without worrying about all the extraneous variables associated with the PhD track. I realize that some PhDs look down on psychologists who practice and feel they should leave that to the Masters level folks but that's where I just think those that think this way can't cut it as a therapist and project their feelings of inadequacy on PsyDs and masters level folks.
To that I say grow a pair and stay in your lane.
That's been the general consensus when I direct them here. After being a part of this forum for almost 5 years Ive come to understand that while there are valid concerns about the direction of the profession, one can and will make a life as a PsyD contrary to what others may think.
There was another thread where someone stated that psychologists need to grow a pair since they seem to be suffering from an inferiority complex and I agree.
As for why I chose a PsyD, I really want to focus on clinical practice. And as much as some say there is no distinction and/or PsyD=clinical PhD=research ...the truth is that's why the PsyD was created. I also detest the way that students must match with another professor's interest in order to be considered for admission. What if there are no professor's doing research currently with my interests? Or what if the only person doing the research is located in Nebraska or Washington State? I have a life and established in my career where I am and the PsyD gives me more options. The match with a professor paradigm just doesnt suit me very well. If my interests change down the line then I am screwed as it relates to finding an advisor or maintaining a funded position. I have heard of students losing advisors, changing interests and thus having to leave a program etc and Im not cut out for that. I want to work on fine tuning my skills and taking my clinical knowledge and practice to the next level without worrying about all the extraneous variables associated with the PhD track. I realize that some PhDs look down on psychologists who practice and feel they should leave that to the Masters level folks but that's where I just think those that think this way can't cut it as a therapist and project their feelings of inadequacy on PsyDs and masters level folks.
To that I say grow a pair and stay in your lane.
While I'm not a PsyD applicant, I am a student soon finishing my PsyD, and want to say how satisfied I've been with my decision.
I too was an older career-changer, and I've been primarily interested in being a clinician from the start. Sometimes people ask why I didn't just get an MSW; my reasons were twofold -- greater earning potential and more in-depth grounding in research, psychological theory and interventions.
The doctorate is a long road, but I feel it has been worth it. While I've had to pay for my education (with a little help in terms of minor funding) I found this preferable to working in a research lab or TA'ing when what I most wanted to do was learn how to do clinical work. I understand this might not be the path for everyone, but it's been a good option for me. I've felt very little bias against PsyDs in the workplace -- at least in the sorts of clinical settings I'm interested in being a part of.
I don't think all PsyD programs are created equal. Mine is university-based and has small cohorts and rigorous admissions. The teaching is very good, and the school has a strong alumni network and reputation. I'd be less confident about some of the larger professional schools. I've seen greater variation among students from these programs. Some have been very well prepared while others no so much. My advice is to go with the best PsyD program you can. I think it makes a difference in terms of your training, education, and job prospects.
I too was an older career-changer, and I've been primarily interested in being a clinician from the start. Sometimes people ask why I didn't just get an MSW; my reasons were twofold -- greater earning potential and more in-depth grounding in research, psychological theory and interventions.
The doctorate is a long road, but I feel it has been worth it. While I've had to pay for my education (with a little help in terms of minor funding) I found this preferable to working in a research lab or TA'ing when what I most wanted to do was learn how to do clinical work. I understand this might not be the path for everyone, but it's been a good option for me. I've felt very little bias against PsyDs in the workplace -- at least in the sorts of clinical settings I'm interested in being a part of.
I don't think all PsyD programs are created equal. Mine is university-based and has small cohorts and rigorous admissions. The teaching is very good, and the school has a strong alumni network and reputation. I'd be less confident about some of the larger professional schools. I've seen greater variation among students from these programs. Some have been very well prepared while others no so much. My advice is to go with the best PsyD program you can. I think it makes a difference in terms of your training, education, and job prospects.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2009
- Messages
- 263
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Psychologist
well said. I chose the PsyD because it was simply a better fit for me. When I applied, I applied to a mixture of programs and I ended up liking the faculty and structure of my current program the best. Many people on this site seem to think that when you choose the PsyD it means you're completely locked out of doing things like teaching or research. This is absurd and coming from future psychologists, I find it quite delusional. The reason I chose my program specifically is because of the fact that faculty go out of there way to help you gain whatever experience it is that you want. If you want to do research and work on getting published, they pair you with a faculty who can help you do that ... even if you're a PsyD. Time are changing and in the future, more and more individuals will have the PsyD and elitist viewpoints towards our degree will diminish more and more as time goes on.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2010
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
This is very helpful. I'm a little turned off by the implication that PsyDs and master's level therapists are somehow "less than" their research-oriented counterparts. Your reasons for choosing the PsyD over the MSW are similar to mine (although I did apply to one MSW program).
I have a question: I have interviews at 3 programs so far. Of these, one is a university-based PsyD, another is a professional school, and the third is a master's degree program (dual art therapy/counseling). My first choice is the university-based PsyD program. If I don't get in there but am accepted at my other two sites, would I be better off getting a PsyD in a stand-alone professional program or should I opt for the (fairly prestigious) master's program?
I honestly doubt that my clients will give a rat's ass where I went to school.... I know I never cared what schools my docs went to! However, I am a little concerned about job prospects when I get out. I am very self-driven and I know that I can make the best of any program I go to (the bonus of being a more mature student!).
purplebutterfly-
I'm glad my perspective was helpful. It sounds like you are indeed self-driven and rather clear about your goals. I don't think there's one perfect path to becoming a therapist. I do think the University-based Psyd will be your best option if you are accepted there. It's hard for me to opine about the professional school vs the MA in Art Therapy/Counseling because they are different disciplines. As for the professional school...I guess it depends on a bunch of factors. How much debt will you incur, and can you handle this? Is the prof school APA accredited and does it have a decent reputation? Are you open to perhaps working harder to distinguish yourself in a larger cohort? You don't sound like someone who's worried about prestige, but you'll want to check the school's internship match statistics. If less than 50% are getting matched to APA accred internships (often the case with prof schools) are you okay with that?
Good luck in the application process. I hope you get your first choice!🙂
I'm glad my perspective was helpful. It sounds like you are indeed self-driven and rather clear about your goals. I don't think there's one perfect path to becoming a therapist. I do think the University-based Psyd will be your best option if you are accepted there. It's hard for me to opine about the professional school vs the MA in Art Therapy/Counseling because they are different disciplines. As for the professional school...I guess it depends on a bunch of factors. How much debt will you incur, and can you handle this? Is the prof school APA accredited and does it have a decent reputation? Are you open to perhaps working harder to distinguish yourself in a larger cohort? You don't sound like someone who's worried about prestige, but you'll want to check the school's internship match statistics. If less than 50% are getting matched to APA accred internships (often the case with prof schools) are you okay with that?
Good luck in the application process. I hope you get your first choice!🙂
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2009
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 4,666
- Psychologist
I completely agree with what everyone has said so far. I've applied to 6 PsyD programs for fall 2010. I've got 2 invites and I waiting to hear from the rest.
I'm completing my MA in Forensic Psych and have focused my career on working directly with clients; which I have found more rewarding than the research experience that I've completed. I've had the opportunity to work with various clinicians with different focuses that have each contributed to the development of my own therapeutic skills. Based on my interests and experience, I think that the PsyD program is the best fit for me.
Good Luck to everyone with their interviews!!! 🙂
I'm completing my MA in Forensic Psych and have focused my career on working directly with clients; which I have found more rewarding than the research experience that I've completed. I've had the opportunity to work with various clinicians with different focuses that have each contributed to the development of my own therapeutic skills. Based on my interests and experience, I think that the PsyD program is the best fit for me.
Good Luck to everyone with their interviews!!! 🙂
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,810
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 4,551
- Psychology Student
Oy vey.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 23,006
- Reaction score
- 5,527
- Points
- 5,781
- Location
- The Beach
- Psychologist
I think he is commenting on the false belief that:No really JN, don't hold back...tell us how you REALLY feel about the PsyD.
Ph.D. = research
Psy.D. = therapy
It's interesting, because I agree that it is entirely false to assume:
PhD = research
PsyD = Therapy
But I think some people feel that this stereotype has only been recognized in one direction. In other words, many agree (including myself) that the PhD cannot simply be reduced to "Research," but for some reason the PsyD is often so easily reduced simply to "Therapy," and stripped of it's "Research" quality.
Edit:
PS. Is it just me? Or does this entire website take 3 hours to load now??
Last edited:
I'd agree that there are people who erroneously believe that the only reason to get a PhD is to do research. A well-trained PhD should know how to conduct research and clinical work, just as a well-trained PsyD should be knowledgeable about research as well as interventions and assessment.
The PhD devotes more time to research. I'm willing to concede that my training in research is less extensive than, on average, a PhD. So how come I've never, ever heard anyone in a PhD program even consider that a well-trained PsyD might have even a slight advantage as a clinician?
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2009
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Pre-Psychology
Hi All!!
Just a quick question. I applied to 10 PhD programs and 2 PsyDs. I am very interested in research and clinical work. I have a PsyD interview tomorrow. Now, I know that PhD programs want you to be focused on research, and if you were to say at an interview that you applied to PsyDs (at least at the very extreme research schools) they will not like this. When asked tomorrow at my PsyD interview where else I applied, do you think it will hurt me to tell them that I applied to very research heavy schools as well? Any thoughts would be helpful! Thanks and good luck to everyone in these STRESSFUL days!!
Just a quick question. I applied to 10 PhD programs and 2 PsyDs. I am very interested in research and clinical work. I have a PsyD interview tomorrow. Now, I know that PhD programs want you to be focused on research, and if you were to say at an interview that you applied to PsyDs (at least at the very extreme research schools) they will not like this. When asked tomorrow at my PsyD interview where else I applied, do you think it will hurt me to tell them that I applied to very research heavy schools as well? Any thoughts would be helpful! Thanks and good luck to everyone in these STRESSFUL days!!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,810
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 4,551
- Psychology Student
I was indeed referring to the PsyD = clinician, PhD = researcher fallacy.
People can do whatever they want; it would just be preferable to me if people made decisions based on, and based their opinions on, facts.
Because the available data do not speak to that.
People can do whatever they want; it would just be preferable to me if people made decisions based on, and based their opinions on, facts.
Because the available data do not speak to that.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Psychology Student
Good point.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
At this point, I don't think that any of you should be clinicians since you couldn't tell that my statement on PsyD=Clinical and PhD = Research was meant not to be taken as literal, but a below the belt comment on the fact that everyone since to love to reduce the PsyD and its status down to the level of a bachelors degree. Why can't there be mutual respect?
Why can't both sides see that this is not a debate or an argument to be had? Both sides do great work, and work hard for their own goals.
I was just simply asking people on their motivations for getting a PsyD and there experience within the "PsyD" field.
Sorry to leave the PhD's out, but they have enough of their own threads!
Why can't both sides see that this is not a debate or an argument to be had? Both sides do great work, and work hard for their own goals.
I was just simply asking people on their motivations for getting a PsyD and there experience within the "PsyD" field.
Sorry to leave the PhD's out, but they have enough of their own threads!
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Psychology Student
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,810
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 4,551
- Psychology Student
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pro/24/1/107.pdf
I think the match rates also speak to it.
Also, I'm not sure how one gets
"my statement on PsyD=Clinical and PhD = Research was meant not to be taken as literal, but a below the belt comment on the fact that everyone since to love to reduce the PsyD and its status down to the level of a bachelors degree"
out of
"Just like PhD's have a research focus that they work on, I think the PsyD is great for those people who know that they want their focus to be; interaction and clinical work!"
Seemed to be pretty clearly saying PsyDs are for practice-oriented folks to me, which is an error; most PhDs become practitioners.
- Joined
- May 20, 2009
- Messages
- 51
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Pre-Psychology
I applied to 10 Psy.D. programs....received interviews at GWU, Xavier, University of Indianapolis, and ISU....didn't received an interview from MSPP....still waiting to here from the rest.
I decided to pursue a Psy.D. versus a PhD b/c I've done undergraduate research for 3 years with two different labs and know the boulder model isn't for me. Most of my reasons are the same as the earlier posts....I've done extensive research on both models and know that I won't be happy in a PhD program and if I'm dedicating 5 yrs to graduate school I want to be happy not miserable during it!
I decided to pursue a Psy.D. versus a PhD b/c I've done undergraduate research for 3 years with two different labs and know the boulder model isn't for me. Most of my reasons are the same as the earlier posts....I've done extensive research on both models and know that I won't be happy in a PhD program and if I'm dedicating 5 yrs to graduate school I want to be happy not miserable during it!
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 469
- Reaction score
- 29
- Points
- 4,741
- Location
- The upper room
- Psychology Student
Just wondering if this article has been discussed yet. I do not have (free) access to anything more than the abstract. It's definitely on the older side...
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1988-24675-001&CFID=6087663&CFTOKEN=42347129
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2005
- Messages
- 328
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 4,571
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 5,684
- Reaction score
- 4,065
- Points
- 5,556
- Psychologist
I don't want to sidetrack the thread again, but I do feel I have to reply to this.
I actually will agree that this SHOULD be the case, and most likely is for a subset of individuals. Probably more likely to occur within a subset of schools.
Again though, I have to point out that we are generally discussing AVERAGES. Please don't take this personally since this isn't directed at you in particular, but I don't know why people on this board struggle with that concept so much. The more "I know some people who are JUST as good at what they do as any PhD" posts I see, the more it reinforces my belief that some of these schools are simply not providing proper training, or are allowing in students who simply aren't capable of the level of thought that should be expected at the doctoral level.
Per the APPIC data, the average PsyD actually has LESS clinical experience and LESS supervision than the average PhD. That is concerning, and tells me that someone dropped the ball, whether you want to assign the blame to the average student, the average program, or the model as a whole. Yes, a particular PsyD may have gotten excellent clinical training and tons of great experiences, and a PhD student may have spent all his time in the lab and barely get any experience. We're looking at this from a more macro perspective though.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,810
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 4,551
- Psychology Student
I, for one, am fine with the PsyD model. I have a problem with specific programs (professional schools, no matter what degree they give). My comments on this thread related to the PsyD have been entirely about the researcher/clinician false dichotomy and the lack of evidence that the PsyD is some sort of ideal training modality for a clinician; I've made no disparaging remarks about the PsyD.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Okay. Not everyone can say that they've made no disparaging comments about the PsyD, however.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 5,684
- Reaction score
- 4,065
- Points
- 5,556
- Psychologist
That's fair enough. I agree the lines are all too often blurred between PsyDs and professional schools. I don't think the Vail model is the problem, its the way many places have chosen to implement it. That said, your PsyD program is certainly not the "norm". I think that's generally recognized on this board but short of JN, Jon, myself, and a handful of others adding "Note that our posts do not apply to the following:" to our signatures, I'm not sure what else can be expected.
Actually yes, that is pretty much what I'm saying. I'm tired of posts that defend the existence of certain programs by saying things like "My friend Jim went there, and he's a great psychologist!". It demonstrates to me that people are either not capable of stepping back and looking at something more broadly (a trait I find disturbingly prevalent and I think is a big part of APA's problem), or don't have the statistics background to even rightfully possess a BA in psychology, let alone a doctorate. I doubt anyone on this board would deny that the distribution curves from all possible combinations of programs overlap to some degree. Hence, Jim is irrelevant. Yet if I were to count the posts defending the institutions in question, I'd wager the most common "arguments" would be:
1) I know someone who went there and are doing okay
2) You're an elitist so your opinions don't matter.
3) There are good and bad people at all programs.
and a handful of other similar statements. All of which pretty clearly demonstrate to me that there is a genuine lack of critical thinking ability from many of their proponents, which not surprisingly has led to my beliefs being further reinforced. Not to say that the anti-prof school crowd is always insightful and brilliant, but again, we're talking means (though perhaps a confirmation bias plays some role....).
Its actually quite frustrating because I feel the number of proponents of the model who can actually hold a legitimate discussion about it are pretty limited (and you are one of those I feel actually can do so....and look where you go to school) whereas the rest just serve to further convince me that something is horribly wrong with the training process.
Again, I think the problem is people using PsyD as a proxy for professional school, which I agree is inaccurate. Many of the "problem schools" offer PhDs as well, though for some reason we seem to see far fewer posts from students going for PhDs there. All PhDs are certainly not created equal, and I have indeed warned people away from certain PhD programs. Again though, when we have these discussions we are generally discussing models and not specific programs. I get the impression you'd like each post on the subject to contain a list of the exact schools of which people approve and disapprove of out of all APA programs to avoid what might seem like undue bias against your school. I understand that, and I agree it would be more accurate, but it seems unrealistic😉
Last edited:
Why does every thread that has "Psy.D." in the title turn into a Psy.D. vs. Ph.D. thread?
Before everyone jumps to comment, I'll predict that Ph.D. students will be called elitists and Psy.D. students will be called defensive. Let's try some new adjectives.
Ps. Can't we all just sit around a camp fire and sing Kumbaya?
Before everyone jumps to comment, I'll predict that Ph.D. students will be called elitists and Psy.D. students will be called defensive. Let's try some new adjectives.
Ps. Can't we all just sit around a camp fire and sing Kumbaya?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2010
- Messages
- 235
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 4,531
- Psychology Student
Well, I'm just thrilled to finally know how to spell "Kumbaya". Is that really the correct spelling? : )
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2005
- Messages
- 328
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 4,571
I am growing tired of the PsyD vs PhD debate. Like I said, grow a pair and stay in your lane, if you want to change something, go rejoin APA, get on a board and do something... but jumping into every one of these threads and repeating the same thing over and over again is getting tired.
Just create a thread and title it RINSE-WASH-REPEAT and let them go at it.
Sheeeesh!
Just create a thread and title it RINSE-WASH-REPEAT and let them go at it.
Sheeeesh!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,810
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 4,551
- Psychology Student
I second what Ollie said, and follow up that another major problem is that some posters seem to not read the actual content of what's posted on these threads....
Did you not notice the several posts devoted to "this is not a PsyD/PhD issue" as far as professional issues go. I seem to have been the first to "jump on" this thread, and it was to make a (I think, very correct) point that PsyD=practice, PhD=research is incorrect, not to engage in any sort of ideological argument.
And, to be perfectly honest, the beginning of this thread seems really insular and groupthink-y. Mill, in On Liberty, presents a strong argument in favor of why discord and disagreement are beneficial.
Did you not notice the several posts devoted to "this is not a PsyD/PhD issue" as far as professional issues go. I seem to have been the first to "jump on" this thread, and it was to make a (I think, very correct) point that PsyD=practice, PhD=research is incorrect, not to engage in any sort of ideological argument.
And, to be perfectly honest, the beginning of this thread seems really insular and groupthink-y. Mill, in On Liberty, presents a strong argument in favor of why discord and disagreement are beneficial.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2005
- Messages
- 328
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 4,571
This is the OP's question. I need you to stick to that and quit with the ideoligical banter about your perspective on the PsyD vs PhD (research vs clinical focus).
RINSE-WASH-REPEAT
Frankly, in this thread most of us don't care because that wasn't the OP's question. If you don't like the fact that people see it this way then go on up to APA and start instituting change otherwise you and others are more like broken records and have been for some time on this board.
The posters are obviously making their decisions based on their view that the PsyD is more beneficial due to the clinical focus. And, in my eyes they are correct due to the reasons why the PsyD was created in the first place. If you don't like it, tough, just stay in your lane. These debates never turn out well because there's no new information being brought to the table and you recycle the same old stuff. It's old, let's move on. I don't have an issue with discord, but this debate (PsyD vs PhD and their respective focus) is old. Move on or add something new.
I really don't think the OP was trying to insult anyone, and I've read a lot worse...coming from both sides.
Also, there are several threads dominated by groupthink and several others that are dominated by PsyD v PhD. I enjoy discourse, but not when it's the same argument in every thread. Also, I'm not accusing you of starting this, I never said you were a part of it.
Me on 1/31 at 5:24pm:
"It's interesting, because I agree that it is entirely false to assume:
PhD = research
PsyD = Therapy"
I have no problem whatsoever with what JN said. In fact I seconded his original response. My complaint was towards both sides generating PsyD vs PhD sentiment. I just feel like it's getting tired. I'm all for correcting misconceptions... things just flare up so fast it gets hard not to roll your eyes as you scroll down a thread these days.
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,810
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 4,551
- Psychology Student
"Insular," not "insulting."
i'm sorry, i didnt realize i needed to explain to you my rationale in depth and detail for chosing a psyd. no one asks phd students to "present a detailed case" on this forum, why must psyd students? thats totally ridiculous.
anyway, i've posted why i chose to go the psyd route. i dont care if its considered "insular" or "groupthinky". i dont owe anyone an explanation except for the professors i'm interviewing with! it just fits me better, i prefer it to a phd, and that's that.
- Joined
- May 20, 2009
- Messages
- 51
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Pre-Psychology
i honesty don't have time to go into all the reason i've chosen to apply to psyd. programs....i've taken a yr off to research and decide btw the two programs and decided the psyd route is the best fit for me.
My mistake.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Can't we just let the PsyDs have one thread of their own?
They are just asking for a safe, judgment free thread in which to discuss their interests in the PsyD. (We PhD applicants do tend to overrun the other threads. And, here we are--including me--putting our two cents into this thread.
The PsyD applicants are NOT asking us for our opinions!!! They just want to have a discussion with one another about their choices--period!!!
Could we please let them get back to the original purpose for THIS particular thread?
They are just asking for a safe, judgment free thread in which to discuss their interests in the PsyD. (We PhD applicants do tend to overrun the other threads. And, here we are--including me--putting our two cents into this thread.
The PsyD applicants are NOT asking us for our opinions!!! They just want to have a discussion with one another about their choices--period!!!
Could we please let them get back to the original purpose for THIS particular thread?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2010
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 89
- Points
- 4,631
- Pre-Psychology
I've been lurking for years and always found these threads really entertaining. Interestingly, I may end up doing a PsyD rather than a PhD so I think it's time to weigh in!
My background is almost entirely in research. I'm choosing to do a PsyD because:
1) I want to get right to seeing people, real people! Research is great but I've been doing it for years and now I want to see people in as many practicums as I can possible handle
2) My PsyD program will actually let me participate in the research I am interested in with the best researchers in the field. Some PsyD programs are actually affiliated with schools that don't have PhD programs, so this is the only way to work with the fantastic faculty at that institution.
3) I want to work in public health at a community service organization. I didn't want to pretend that I only wanted to do research with the long term goal of becoming tenured faculty. That's not true. Most of the PhD programs I looked at explicitly stated that they wanted to turn out academics
4) Family reasons kept me local, and this program was the best option locally.
My background is almost entirely in research. I'm choosing to do a PsyD because:
1) I want to get right to seeing people, real people! Research is great but I've been doing it for years and now I want to see people in as many practicums as I can possible handle
2) My PsyD program will actually let me participate in the research I am interested in with the best researchers in the field. Some PsyD programs are actually affiliated with schools that don't have PhD programs, so this is the only way to work with the fantastic faculty at that institution.
3) I want to work in public health at a community service organization. I didn't want to pretend that I only wanted to do research with the long term goal of becoming tenured faculty. That's not true. Most of the PhD programs I looked at explicitly stated that they wanted to turn out academics
4) Family reasons kept me local, and this program was the best option locally.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,810
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 4,551
- Psychology Student
Again, I feel drawn back to: Who actually said anything like this?
And again. Who brought anyone down? Who insulted anyone? There was questioning, certainly, but it focused on what I see as the rather flimsy rationale for a few posters in making their decisions to do to a PsyD program. I agree with JS' summary of the second poster's rationale: none of those things are good reasons for choosing a PsyD. There ARE good reasons for choosing a PsyD, of course. The ones given really did not seem to be them to me.
1 & 2 don't seem like reasons exclusive to PsyD programs to me. 3 seems better, but there are PhD programs that do this too (e.g., BC counseling psych), so it doesn't seem like a reason *particular* to the PsyD model. 4 is perfectly reasonable for many people, though it's not the decision I'd make.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Alright..I'll weigh in too
The PsyD is new. Even though the Vail model has been around since the conception of the Boulder model, it has only recently become an accepted degree in the field. I did not even consider this degree until the last year of my BA. Before the PsyD became popularized, a Phd in clinical psychology had the arduous task of becoming both a competent researcher and clinician. Neither degree should exclude either training from its program, but there certainly exists a difference in focus. Although PhDs have made excellent clinicians in the past, that responsibility has now fallen on those pursuing the PsyD. I wonder if those well renowned psychologists would have sought a PsyD had it been marketable and available at the time of their admissions process. Many PhD programs have the disclaimer that applicants should not apply to their program if their main goal is a practicum career rather than one in academia.
So yes… eventually and gradually PhD=research and PsyD=practicum
"The times they are a-changin"
Proponents of the PsyD now have the luxury of constantly proving themselves and their own worth within a predominantly PhD community. Although this seems unfair, keep in mind that we additionally have the opportunity to shape and mold this degree in order to fit the needs of our society. We are on the cusp of an emerging divergence within our field, and I personally find it a little exciting.
The PsyD is new. Even though the Vail model has been around since the conception of the Boulder model, it has only recently become an accepted degree in the field. I did not even consider this degree until the last year of my BA. Before the PsyD became popularized, a Phd in clinical psychology had the arduous task of becoming both a competent researcher and clinician. Neither degree should exclude either training from its program, but there certainly exists a difference in focus. Although PhDs have made excellent clinicians in the past, that responsibility has now fallen on those pursuing the PsyD. I wonder if those well renowned psychologists would have sought a PsyD had it been marketable and available at the time of their admissions process. Many PhD programs have the disclaimer that applicants should not apply to their program if their main goal is a practicum career rather than one in academia.
So yes… eventually and gradually PhD=research and PsyD=practicum
"The times they are a-changin"
Proponents of the PsyD now have the luxury of constantly proving themselves and their own worth within a predominantly PhD community. Although this seems unfair, keep in mind that we additionally have the opportunity to shape and mold this degree in order to fit the needs of our society. We are on the cusp of an emerging divergence within our field, and I personally find it a little exciting.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 23,006
- Reaction score
- 5,527
- Points
- 5,781
- Location
- The Beach
- Psychologist
As a Psy.D. I am both impressed by some of my colleagues and their level of work and frustrated by the less stellar students and professionals who seem to only do enough to "get by". I think the issues many people have with the Psy.D. have little to do with the model or the top performers, and much more with the bottom 20%-25% of candidates who seem very different in their preparation, contributions, and overall skill sets as a clinican.
I've gone to numerous conferences where I've met stellar Ph.D. and Psy.D. students (from professional and university programs) who have already made some contributions to the field and are on their way to being great professionals. The problem is that many of the lesser students are not involved and are not represented at these events. This isn't a professional school v. university program difference, it is a culture difference.
I have been encouraged to be active in researching and presenting, and those expections have continued through internship, and seem to be an important part of post-doc fellowships. All of the people I meet along the way have been great, but I think it is a sampling error, because according to the APPIC numbers, a large portion of students applying don't even have a presentation on the CV. It isn't hard to present at a local conference, just to get something on there. I think it is more of a cultural difference, which has been brought up before by people.
I know I think of myself as a clinician, but a clinician informed by science. I'll never be a hardcore academic or at a Tier 1 research program, and that is fine, but I would have a problem if I strayed away from the role of research and the importance of staying active in the field. I understand that most people don't stay that active with presenting and publishing, but I have concerns when there are a lot of people who don't even have a foundation to stray from. I think if implemented correctly, the Psy.D. model offers a lot to students, but I'm also concerned (as a Psy.D) that too many people are going in and coming out with a very different perspective on the field.
I know Jon Snow has talked about the "ick, stats/research is scary" people, and unfortunately many are pursuing Psy.Ds because they don't want to work with the research. There is a big difference between not wanting to have it as a primary part of your career, and not wanting to have it as part of your training. Solid programs like Rutgers, Baylor, Xavier, etc. have strong enough research requirements that don't allow this as an option. They teach to the importance of research and they make sure their students are informed by it. I have concerns if people are coming into programs with the goal of avoid most/all research related things, because research informs what we do and how we do it. Again, I'm not an ivory tower academic and I don't want to live in a lab all day, but there is something to be said about the role that research is NOT playing in some of the students coming out of doctoral programs.
I've gone to numerous conferences where I've met stellar Ph.D. and Psy.D. students (from professional and university programs) who have already made some contributions to the field and are on their way to being great professionals. The problem is that many of the lesser students are not involved and are not represented at these events. This isn't a professional school v. university program difference, it is a culture difference.
I have been encouraged to be active in researching and presenting, and those expections have continued through internship, and seem to be an important part of post-doc fellowships. All of the people I meet along the way have been great, but I think it is a sampling error, because according to the APPIC numbers, a large portion of students applying don't even have a presentation on the CV. It isn't hard to present at a local conference, just to get something on there. I think it is more of a cultural difference, which has been brought up before by people.
I know I think of myself as a clinician, but a clinician informed by science. I'll never be a hardcore academic or at a Tier 1 research program, and that is fine, but I would have a problem if I strayed away from the role of research and the importance of staying active in the field. I understand that most people don't stay that active with presenting and publishing, but I have concerns when there are a lot of people who don't even have a foundation to stray from. I think if implemented correctly, the Psy.D. model offers a lot to students, but I'm also concerned (as a Psy.D) that too many people are going in and coming out with a very different perspective on the field.
I know Jon Snow has talked about the "ick, stats/research is scary" people, and unfortunately many are pursuing Psy.Ds because they don't want to work with the research. There is a big difference between not wanting to have it as a primary part of your career, and not wanting to have it as part of your training. Solid programs like Rutgers, Baylor, Xavier, etc. have strong enough research requirements that don't allow this as an option. They teach to the importance of research and they make sure their students are informed by it. I have concerns if people are coming into programs with the goal of avoid most/all research related things, because research informs what we do and how we do it. Again, I'm not an ivory tower academic and I don't want to live in a lab all day, but there is something to be said about the role that research is NOT playing in some of the students coming out of doctoral programs.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2010
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 89
- Points
- 4,631
- Pre-Psychology
I really don't think PsyDs are ever going to take over the world. If you're worried about programs churning out graduates, expand your ire to include all masters level graduate programs that teach therapy. Your PhD will forever distinguish you from people with PsyDs, MFTs, MSWs etc. It suggests you have a different set of skills and qualifications. It will also help to distinguish yourself from others with your accomplishments, publications and clinical experiences. That way you don't really have to worry about anyone taking your job.
A note about the PGSP-Stanford PsyD consortium:
The PGSP-Stanford PsyD Consortium does not, as a policy, accept more than 30 people per class.
The "affiliation" that you guys refer to somewhat dismissively means that PsyD students are actually graduate students that split their time 50/50 between Stanford and PGSP. They work in Stanford labs. They write papers with Stanford professors. They come back to Stanford as post docs.
A note about the PGSP-Stanford PsyD consortium:
The PGSP-Stanford PsyD Consortium does not, as a policy, accept more than 30 people per class.
The "affiliation" that you guys refer to somewhat dismissively means that PsyD students are actually graduate students that split their time 50/50 between Stanford and PGSP. They work in Stanford labs. They write papers with Stanford professors. They come back to Stanford as post docs.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
