PsyD - Do you regret graduating with a PsyD

[foreverdaydreaming]

I got accepted to a PsyD program. It has good match rates. However, due to covid.. the first semester will be fully virtual. I am concerned as to how that would impact my training. Additionally, cost of living and tuition will bring me to a total of about 250K. Objectively, is this worth it? A starting salary of 60-70k and MAYBE making 100K later in life. Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted343839]

Have you seen this thread?

A PsyD story (mostly $$$ talk)

OK, I know this is a long post, but if you’re considering pursuing an unfunded PsyD, you may want to read this because detailed first-person accounts of PsyD debt are rare. I know that my case is not representative, but I want to talk about money because very few of my peers/colleagues do/did...

forums.studentdoctor.net

 

[WisNeuro]

Wow, this is med school level debt. I am a firm believer that psychology grad students should not even come close to sniffing 6 figures in debt. Sketch out what you want your life to look like and how long you want to put off things (e.g., buying house, having kids, retirement planning, etc).

 

[Sanman]

@MamaPhD has quoted the best thread regarding debt. Regarding COVID, I am not sure how this will impact you with regard to hours and clinical training in the future.

As for your question, I think it really depends on individual circumstances. I went to a PsyD that was fully funded at the time and came out with living expenses debt comparable to any PhD I know. I know some people who went to expensive PsyD programs and their parents paid the bill in cash. The debt piece really depends on individual circumstances. The perception of a PsyD is a different question and much less of an issue in clinical circles.

 

[mypointlesspov]

Don't do it. Get research experience and do a funded PhD. Or a FULLY FUNDED PsyD (there are only a few).

I went to one of the PsyD programs that's routinely referred to as one of the better ones under the assumption that I would have more funding and my wallet regrets it.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Don't do it. Get research experience and do a funded PhD. Or a FULLY FUNDED PsyD (there are only a few).

I went to one of the PsyD programs that's routinely referred to as one of the better ones under the assumption that I would have more funding and my wallet regrets it.

Do you think the program was honest to you about the funding before you started? I have a friend who transferred from a generally well-regarded balanced PhD program after two years because the program grossly misrepresented the funding available (e.g. the fact that tuition waivers were usually only granted for one year and that the funding available other years almost never included them, meaning that even “funded“ students often graduated with substantial debt).

 

[mypointlesspov]

Do you think the program was honest to you about the funding before you started? I have a friend who transferred from a generally well-regarded balanced PhD program after two years because the program grossly misrepresented the funding available (e.g. the fact that tuition waivers were usually only granted for one year and that the funding available other years almost never included them, meaning that even “funded“ students often graduated with substantial debt).

They were absolutely not honest. I actually kept a paper from the interview day where they misrepresented the funding available and brought it up later on. I was told that those weren't "guarantees." The only people who received full funding (for two years) were three people who worked at our departmental clinic. Three people out everyone in the whole department.

I was funded with in state tuition + $15,000 stipend for my first year and I had the most funding in my cohort. It ranged from what I had down to just $10,000 for the whole year. I actually had to get an outside job (even though we technically weren't allowed) on top of my research and academic commitments to be able to support myself in a high CoL area. I was told that this funding was renewable. It was not.

The next year, we were all given $3,000. The following year I received $888. I didn't get a cent during my fourth year (and fifth was internship).

I'm grateful for where I am now in terms of internship and postdoc training, but I feel like I ended up here in spite of my program rather than because of it. If I could go back to like 2014, I'd try my best to talk myself out of going to this program.

 

[Sanman]

Do you think the program was honest to you about the funding before you started? I have a friend who transferred from a generally well-regarded balanced PhD program after two years because the program grossly misrepresented the funding available (e.g. the fact that tuition waivers were usually only granted for one year and that the funding available other years almost never included them, meaning that even “funded“ students often graduated with substantial debt).

Back when I was applying, you really had to dig into where your funding was coming from. When I was deciding on a program, I had offers from a few PhD programs, but a couple of mt choices would not guarantee funding for all years. One of the reasons I opted for my program despite less funding was the guarantee that funding would be provided for all years I was enrolled full-time.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Poor transparency on financials is never a good sign, regardless of program and level of funding. Borderline, if not outright, predatory IMO.

RE: virtual courses in general, for the first semester, I don't think I'd necessarily sweat that too much. I did a modicum of clinical work/observation my first semester, but that's far from the norm; for nearly everyone, it's just straight classes and research. The labs would be where you would likely miss the human contact the most, but group meetings are still of course possible remotely.

However, if it sounds like it's going to become a trend rather than a one-off/temporary solution, I'd run far away.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Don't do it unless you have significant (pref full funding) bc the tuition and cost of living is just going up over your 5-8+ yrs in school. I had some funding and some savings, and I still took on 100k+ debt (at tuition & housing costs from 15+ yrs ago). I also took on some unplanned debt when funding fell through during my 5th year. Despite coming in w savings, trying to be frugal about spending, and having less total debt than my cohort....it still delayed me buying a house. It's a hassle in general to have loans. I made it work, but it was uphill most of the way. Avoid it if at all possible. If it takes an extra couple of years....spend the time bc loans have compound interest.

 

[Laradd]

Some relatives of mine who graduated with PsyD did not pursue of becoming one, instead, they apply to a job that still connected with medical industry.

 

[deleted106747]

Don't do it unless you have significant (pref full funding) bc the tuition and cost of living is just going up over your 5-8+ yrs in school. I had some funding and some savings, and I still took on 100k+ debt (at tuition & housing costs from 15+ yrs ago). I also took on some unplanned debt when funding fell through during my 5th year. Despite coming in w savings, trying to be frugal about spending, and having less total debt than my cohort....it still delayed me buying a house. It's a hassle in general to have loans. I made it work, but it was uphill most of the way. Avoid it if at all possible. If it takes an extra couple of years....spend the time bc loans have compound interest.

Agreed. I think what's hard to understand about debt until you have it is how it can affect all of these other aspects of life, and also affects your overall security. My life before and after EDRP is night and day. Also, debt is scary. I don't think my job is going anywhere, but with covid you never know what could happen. I wouldn't want to be in significant debt and facing having to delay paying on it because I was between jobs or building a clientele or trying to get on insurance panels... while all that interest is creeping up on me.

 

[chicandtoughness]

Additionally, cost of living and tuition will bring me to a total of about 250K. Objectively, is this worth it?

A harsh and resounding NO. My goodness.

 

[singasongofjoy]

... cost of living and tuition will bring me to a total of about 250K. Objectively, is this worth it? A starting salary of 60-70k and MAYBE making 100K later in life. Thanks.

Objectively: NOPE.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

I think I've said this before in here. I know a good amount of folks with 250 plus debt from school. They've always been very open to me about the fact that it's never delayed them in buying houses, fancy cars, investing, etc. Now...I also know they pay the bare minimum on their loans and are banking on it all being forgiven (most are referring to the 20-25 year forgiveness and they're just going to "declare bankruptcy" at that point). So, I guess if you wanna go that route, go ahead. It would scare me a bit.

 

[Mindfulpsych22]

I think I've said this before in here. I know a good amount of folks with 250 plus debt from school. They've always been very open to me about the fact that it's never delayed them in buying houses, fancy cars, investing, etc. Now...I also know they pay the bare minimum on their loans and are banking on it all being forgiven (most are referring to the 20-25 year forgiveness and they're just going to "declare bankruptcy" at that point). So, I guess if you wanna go that route, go ahead. It would scare me a bit.
[/QUOTE]

My understanding is that you can't get rid of school loans through bankruptcy, I am I wrong about that?

 

[WisNeuro]

My understanding is that you can't get rid of school loans through bankruptcy, I am I wrong about that?

Correct

 

[BuckeyeLove]

I think I've said this before in here. I know a good amount of folks with 250 plus debt from school. They've always been very open to me about the fact that it's never delayed them in buying houses, fancy cars, investing, etc. Now...I also know they pay the bare minimum on their loans and are banking on it all being forgiven (most are referring to the 20-25 year forgiveness and they're just going to "declare bankruptcy" at that point). So, I guess if you wanna go that route, go ahead. It would scare me a bit.

My understanding is that you can't get rid of school loans through bankruptcy, I am I wrong about that?
[/QUOTE]

So from what I can remember them saying they are going to do is, have the loans forgiven after 20 years, then declare bankruptcy on the tax bill.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

I should have been more specific.

 

[WisNeuro]

So from what I can remember them saying they are going to do is, have the loans forgiven after 20 years, then declare bankruptcy on the tax bill.

IRS can still collect owed taxes after bankruptcy. These people you talk to are...not smart when it comes to financial decisions and money knowledge.

Chapter 7 can only discharge taxes if they are officially income taxes to my knowledge.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

IRS can still collect owed taxes after bankruptcy. These people you talk to are...not smart when it comes to financial decisions and money knowledge.

This is the thing I can never wrap my head around. One of them I know quite well is ABPP Neuro. The other is ABPP Forensic. It almost feels criminogenic.

 

[WisNeuro]

This is the thing I can never wrap my head around. One of them I know quite well is ABPP Neuro. The other is ABPP Forensic. It almost feels criminogenic.

Well, many doctoral level providers are clueless about finances. It's why WCI has a thriving business

 

[mypointlesspov]

I think I've said this before in here. I know a good amount of folks with 250 plus debt from school. They've always been very open to me about the fact that it's never delayed them in buying houses, fancy cars, investing, etc. Now...I also know they pay the bare minimum on their loans and are banking on it all being forgiven (most are referring to the 20-25 year forgiveness and they're just going to "declare bankruptcy" at that point). So, I guess if you wanna go that route, go ahead. It would scare me a bit.

I couldn't resist

 

[Sanman]

This is the thing I can never wrap my head around. One of them I know quite well is ABPP Neuro. The other is ABPP Forensic. It almost feels criminogenic.

It is a dumb gamble. If someone is able to successfully declare bankruptcy do you think everyone will be given the option given how widespread the program is? Either the debt will get forgiven wholesale or the government will pass a law that you cannot discharge this in bankruptcy. You are really gambling on what congress will do in the future. Predicting future politics is obviously quite easy given the events of the past 4 years that everyone saw coming.

 

[WisNeuro]

It is a dumb gamble. If someone is able to successfully declare bankruptcy do you think everyone will be given the option given how widespread te program is? Either the debt will get forgiven wholesale or the government will pass a law that you cannot discharge this in bankruptcy. You are really gambling on what congress will do in the future, Predicting future politics is obviously quite easy given the events of the past 4 years that everyone saw coming.

At the very least, someone considering this option should check with a tax attorney. There are a lot of things that are not dischargeable, even in bankruptcy. It would depend a lot on how the tax bomb is classified. Additionally, many negative aspects of bankruptcy filing to an individual, not too mention the actual cost of filing, which can be big. But yes, very dumb gamble, but then again, these people made terrible money decisions already in life, with no realized consequence yet, why should they change their financially ignorant ways?

 

[Sanman]

At the very least, someone considering this option should check with a tax attorney. There are a lot of things that are not dischargeable, even in bankruptcy. It would depend a lot on how the tax bomb is classified. Additionally, many negative aspects of bankruptcy filing to an individual, not too mention the actual cost of filing, which can be big. But yes, very dumb gamble, but then again, these people made terrible money decisions already in life, with no realized consequence yet, why should they change their financially ignorant ways?

For sure. However, this is why the idea of a wealth tax rather than income or corporate taxes bothers me. If we penalize those that play by the rules to get wealthy and keep forgiving the mistakes of those that make poor decisions, where does that leave us? A conversation best left for another time, perhaps.

 

[WisNeuro]

For sure. However, this is why the idea of a wealth tax rather than income or corporate taxes bothers me. If we penalize those that play by the rules to get wealthy and keep forgiving the mistakes of those that make poor decisions, where does that leave us? A conversation best left for another time, perhaps.

Well, that's another can of worms. Different pathways to getting wealthy, definitely for a different time or group PM.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

At the very least, someone considering this option should check with a tax attorney. There are a lot of things that are not dischargeable, even in bankruptcy. It would depend a lot on how the tax bomb is classified. Additionally, many negative aspects of bankruptcy filing to an individual, not too mention the actual cost of filing, which can be big. But yes, very dumb gamble, but then again, these people made terrible money decisions already in life, with no realized consequence yet, why should they change their financially ignorant ways?

My understanding/read has always been that it's taxed as income. I don't think I'd be willing to bet a bankruptcy filing on that without having talked to a tax attorney ahead of time, though. And as has been said, we've got no idea what Congress will do between now and then, particularly if large proportions of folks go that route.

 

[chicandtoughness]

I think I've said this before in here. I know a good amount of folks with 250 plus debt from school. They've always been very open to me about the fact that it's never delayed them in buying houses, fancy cars, investing, etc. Now...I also know they pay the bare minimum on their loans and are banking on it all being forgiven (most are referring to the 20-25 year forgiveness and they're just going to "declare bankruptcy" at that point).

I mean, if they're buying houses, cars, investing, etc. they're not going to be able to declare chapter 7 (at least not without a fight and lawyer fees). They'll probably be put on chapter 13 and then it's basically the same as paying your debts in the first place =P

Should have just done PSLF for no tax smh.

 

[tr]

For sure. However, this is why the idea of a wealth tax rather than income or corporate taxes bothers me. If we penalize those that play by the rules to get wealthy and keep forgiving the mistakes of those that make poor decisions, where does that leave us? A conversation best left for another time, perhaps.

Wealth begets wealth. Decisions are secondary. Most people in the US who are wealthy were born that way. Ditto for the poor. Social mobility is very low compared to other developed nations.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02_economic_mobility_sawhill_ch3.pdf

Socioeconomic mobility in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Sanman]

Wealth begets wealth. Decisions are secondary. Most people in the US who are wealthy were born that way. Ditto for the poor. Social mobility is very low compared to other developed nations.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02_economic_mobility_sawhill_ch3.pdf

Socioeconomic mobility in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't disagree about socioeconomic mobility, but this has little to do with wealth taxes. Cheaper and wider access to higher education and trades would make more of a difference with regard to that.

 

[beginner2011]

For sure. However, this is why the idea of a wealth tax rather than income or corporate taxes bothers me. If we penalize those that play by the rules to get wealthy and keep forgiving the mistakes of those that make poor decisions, where does that leave us? A conversation best left for another time, perhaps.

Not to derail the thread, but I'm not sure of a wealth tax that has been proposed that would have literally any impact on their wealth for 99.999% of US citizens (I just did the math; 80,508/328,000,000 report >$50million in wealth). Also, only the marginal wealth >$50 million would be touched, so the base $50 million would be untouched. You seem to be concerned about protecting people who simply won't be affected by a wealth tax at all (e.g., people concerned about 401k, IRA, single family home real estate, etc.).

 

[Sanman]

Not to derail the thread, but I'm not sure of a wealth tax that has been proposed that would have literally any impact on their wealth for 99.999% of US citizens (I just did the math; 80,508/328,000,000 report >$50million in wealth). Also, only the marginal wealth >$50 million would be touched, so the base $50 million would be untouched. You seem to be concerned about protecting people who simply won't be affected by a wealth tax at all (e.g., people concerned about 401k, IRA, single family home real estate, etc.).

Don't disagree, this has no chance of affecting me or anyone I know personally. I just have a philosophical issue with wealth taxes, how they may be calculated, and what this means about personal privacy. If one wanted to introduce a progressive tax on capital gains alright.

 

[foreverbull]

If we want to talk about philosophical stance, philosophically, I have a major issue with the cost of education and interest rates on educational loans. I believe that educational loans should bear zero interest at all or <1%. If someone paid 25 years on educational loans, that’s pretty much the same as paying off a 25-year mortgage. If one’s loans increase 20% or more over the course of grad school and postdoc because of interest alone (when they’re in no position to pay it back) that seems ridiculous to me. Student loan companies make a killing precisely because one can’t afford to pay on them during grad school, one can’t discharge them with bankruptcy, and credit can be destroyed and wages get garnished with defaulting, etc. It’s a sweet deal for loan companies.

And yes, for-profit schools are an issue, and I don’t have a problem with further scrutinizing these and closing many and decreasing loan limits IF we actually provide increased funding for grad students in many public programs as well (they also take out loans, although fewer on average).

This combined with what @tr shared regarding social mobility suggests that the people who are probably suffering the most under student loan debt are likely those who had fewer resources to begin with (I.e. folks from lower SES), perpetuating the cycle. I think it’d be interesting to research what proportion of grad students from lower SES/working class homes graduate public doctoral programs with zero debt vs. those from other classes. If folks from lower SES at public/nonprofit universities graduated with higher debt than middle class folks, would we be so quick to judge folks with student loans?

 

[WisNeuro]

If we want to talk about philosophical stance, philosophically, I have a major issue with the cost of education and interest rates on educational loans. I believe that educational loans should bear zero interest at all or <1%. If someone paid 25 years on educational loans, that’s pretty much the same as paying off a 25-year mortgage. If one’s loans increase 20% or more over the course of grad school and postdoc because of interest alone (when they’re in no position to pay it back) that seems ridiculous to me. Student loan companies make a killing precisely because one can’t afford to pay on them during grad school, one can’t discharge them with bankruptcy, and credit can be destroyed and wages get garnished with defaulting, etc. It’s a sweet deal for loan companies.

And yes, for-profit schools are an issue, and I don’t have a problem with further scrutinizing these and closing many and limiting loan limits if we actually provide increased funding for grad students in many public programs as well (they also take out loans, although fewer on average).

This combined with what @tr shared regarding social mobility suggests that the people who are probably suffering the most under student loan debt are likely those who had fewer resources to begin with (I.e. folks from lower SES), perpetuating the cycle. I think it’d be interesting to research what proportion of grad students from lower SES/working class homes graduate public doctoral programs with zero debt vs. those from other classes. If folks from lower SES at public/nonprofit universities graduated with higher debt than middle class folks, would we be so quick to judge folks with student loans?

I don't see this as a binary issue, and I don't think many, if any here, do at all. We're not jumping on people with 20, 30, 40k etc in debt here. We're criticizing those who choose to take out exorbitant amounts of debt for a salary, that for the average person in the field, pays only a fraction of that. I have a hard time sympathizing for those who take out loans that are 3X+ their estimated yearly earnings, it's simply stupid, and it perpetuates the problem. If people did not go to these diploma mills, then they would not exist in that form, or at the very least, they'd bring down tuition costs for their worthless degrees. I'm all about education reform given how stupid expensive it is, but I also believe that this is balanced with personal responsibility. It's not either/or, it's both.

 

[beginner2011]

I think it’d be interesting to research what proportion of grad students from lower SES/working class homes graduate public doctoral programs with zero debt vs. those from other classes.

I remember during a practicum experience with about a dozen students from my small well-funded program we polled the room about finances and all students had no undergrad or grad school loan burden due primarily to parents paying for college and providing financial support during grad school. That has always stood out to me. I think there is a lot of shared variance between SES and "competitiveness" for funded programs. High SES people don't have undergrad student loans they need to pay back, and often have family financial support, so they can pursue bacc and post-bacc research experiences more aggressively. Not to mention the other more fuzzy factors associated with SES like lower rates of ACEs, modeling of professionalism, social/professional connections, etc.

 

[foreverbull]

I remember during a practicum experience with about a dozen students from my small well-funded program we polled the room about finances and all students had no undergrad or grad school loan burden due primarily to parents paying for college and providing financial support during grad school. That has always stood out to me. I think there is a lot of shared variance between SES and "competitiveness" for funded programs. High SES people don't have undergrad student loans they need to pay back, and often have family financial support, so they can pursue bacc and post-bacc research experiences more aggressively. Not to mention the other more fuzzy factors associated with SES like lower rates of ACEs, modeling of professionalism, social/professional connections, etc.

Indeed. I recall one person in my program claiming to have grown up lower SES, but upon further discussion, admitted that because parents had scrimped and saved, their parents paid for their bachelor’s degree and could step in if said student was in dire need. Compared with some folks who came in with debt from bachelor’s and master’s degrees and who had no emergency support, no savings, and unplanned expenses and even planned events (moving for internship) required additional loans while prior loans accrued interest. Few folks of lower SES even make it to doctoral level studies, but if they do, they are more likely to face more financial challenges in school and beyond.

@WisNeuro part of what I just mentioned speaks to this arbitrary empathy cutoff for some folks in here. If lower SES students come in with undergrad or master’s debt, they’re already at a disadvantage and it’s not hard to see how debt could climb up to $100k or more with interest accruing from prior education, even in mostly-funded programs. Is $100k-$125k for undergrad, master’s and doctorate that balloons into $200K from interest alone over the course of a decade or more of education a “stupid” decision and exorbitant? Or is it taking out $200k in loans?

 

[WisNeuro]

@WisNeuro part of what I just mentioned speaks to this arbitrary empathy cutoff for some folks in here. If lower SES students come in with undergrad or master’s debt, they’re already at a disadvantage and it’s not hard to see how debt could climb up to $100k or more with interest accruing from prior education, even in mostly-funded programs. Is $100k-$125k for undergrad, master’s and doctorate that balloons into $200K from interest alone over the course of a decade or more of education a “stupid” decision and exorbitant? Or is it taking out $200k in loans?

Not arbitrary at all, we all have life circumstances that we deal with, and some do indeed have it harder than others. One of the faulty assumptions is that these people accruing hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt need to, in order to succeed. Number one, there are many other career paths, many of which pay very well with little debt. Number two, that crippling debt does nothing to lift them out of low SES, it just shackles them there. So yes, taking out 6 figures in loans is still stupid, in my view. It's also rigid and naïve thinking about career paths and life goals to an extent.

 

[deleted343839]

Compared with some folks who came in with debt from bachelor’s and master’s degrees and who had no emergency support, no savings, and unplanned expenses and even planned events (moving for internship) required additional loans while prior loans accrued interest. Few folks of lower SES even make it to doctoral level studies, but if they do, they are more likely to face more financial challenges in school and beyond.

This describes my background and experience pretty accurately. And you're right that there are few of us. In graduate school I was shocked at how superficial most people's understanding of class and SES was. Now I'm used to it.

 

[foreverbull]

Not arbitrary at all, we all have life circumstances that we deal with, and some do indeed have it harder than others. One of the faulty assumptions is that these people accruing hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt need to, in order to succeed. Number one, there are many other career paths, many of which pay very well with little debt. Number two, that crippling debt does nothing to lift them out of low SES, it just shackles them there. So yes, taking out 6 figures in loans is still stupid, in my view. It's also rigid and naïve thinking about career paths and life goals to an extent.

I think it’s just as rigid if not moreso to suggest that we encourage lower SES folks to do something else that makes more money and not something they love and have aptitude for in our deeply stratified-by-SES country (while their middle class and upper class counterparts do as they please). That will ensure that only high-SES folks enter our field and ignores the systemic issue altogether.

I suggested ideas to change the debt load and reduce the effect of debt for folks to even the field more for folks from lower SES. At least these would be a start rather than maintaining the status quo.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think it’s just as rigid if not moreso to suggest that we encourage lower SES folks to do something else that makes more money and not something they love and have aptitude for in our deeply stratified-by-SES country (while their middle class and upper class counterparts do as they please). That will ensure that only high-SES folks enter our field and ignores the systemic issue altogether.

I suggested ideas to change the debt load and reduce the effect of debt for folks to even the field more for folks from lower SES. At least these would be a start rather than maintaining the status quo.

I'm not saying that it's all or none, as others are. But I am saying that part if it is people who cannot get into a rigorous program, so they choose a shortcut, which is usually a high cost diploma mill with no admission barriers. Sorry, not everyone gets to be what they want when they grow up, whether it be a professional baseball player, astrophysicist, or doctor of varying specialties. In my years of looking at applications and interviewing applications, it's pretty clear that there are many people in programs that simply do not actually have the aptitude. Now, yes, we should address the educational cost aspect. But, I simply refuse to abdicate the personal responsibility aspect altogether. The numbers are there for everyone to crunch. The majority of the time, there is no secret to figuring out loans and how much you will owe in interest and principal.

So yes, let's reduce debt load by restructuring education costs that outpace inflation by an almost exponential degree. But let's also let some people take responsibility for their actions. One of the things that is maintaining the status quo, is people continuing to fund diploma mills.

 

[Sanman]

I think it’s just as rigid if not moreso to suggest that we encourage lower SES folks to do something else that makes more money and not something they love and have aptitude for in our deeply stratified-by-SES country (while their middle class and upper class counterparts do as they please). That will ensure that only high-SES folks enter our field and ignores the systemic issue altogether.

I suggested ideas to change the debt load and reduce the effect of debt for folks to even the field more for folks from lower SES. At least these would be a start rather than maintaining the status quo.

I mean where does that end? I have an aptitude for music and teaching, but could not afford to spend years toiling away at either music or academia given my middle class/upper middle class background and the expectation that I would get a job to support myself. So, I do what I do and it pays the bills. Many of us don't get the the choice to pursue our passions. I have two friends with trust funds/family real estate who did pursue a PhDs in music and history and got to work for peanuts for a decade while relying on family money to support their lifestyle. I am not going to cry about it. I also have a low SES friend finishing an academic PhD that is worried he ruined his life because he is almost 40 with poor job prospects and sick parents. That is where encouraging professors led him. Debt burdens aside, life will never be fair.

 

[sloh]

 

[R. Matey]

View attachment 316374

I used to make undergraduates calculate this when I did career counseling. It's a real eye-opener for people.

 

[beginner2011]

View attachment 316374

The full link is pretty interesting, as well.

 

[deleted343839]

Sorry, not everyone gets to be what they want when they grow up, whether it be a professional baseball player, astrophysicist, or doctor of varying specialties.

I don't think anyone is saying anything that the doors should be wide open to all comers. The examples you gave assume a certain level of aptitude, skill, or talent that might pose a barrier to entry, and I don't think they translate well to the barriers to entry in psychology. There is an uncomfortable amount of well-heeled mediocrity in this field. Medicine isn't perfect either, but I see comparatively more diversity and social mobility among my medical colleagues.

I mean where does that end?

There are extremes on both ends of this conversation, and it's hard to talk about equitable access to health professions education and creating a more diverse professional workforce because people often gravitate toward one pole or the other. As I mentioned, I think medicine is doing a somewhat better job of seeking that balance.

One of the things that is maintaining the status quo, is people continuing to fund diploma mills.

Amen to that.

But here's the rub. Even in fully funded PhD programs, trainees who have no backup or safety net can find themselves accruing debt when reasonable expenses (medical bills, professional travel, housing) outpace their stipends. All sorts of things can tip the balance of income and expenses. I personally agree with the White Coat Investor's advice about loan to income ratio and have lived within it. Telling people that it's possible to - or that they ought to - graduate totally debt-free tacitly assumes a few things: (a) they have a safety net or a consistent additional source of income, (b) nothing bad will happen to them or close family members while living on a graduate stipend, and/or (c) the stars align and the advice of "aim for a low COL area" does not conflict with "go to whatever funded program you can get into."

If you don't value increasing diversity in the field, none of the above matters. But if it's even of marginal importance to you, know that debt is not just an issue for students who attend for-profits or unfunded programs.

 

[beginner2011]

The financial math for the medical field is also substantially different than it is for psychologists. From start to finish a PhD in clinical psychology is something like 7 years. Then, when we come out we're looking at median salaries of $90k. MDs take a little more than half as long, and median salaries are over twice as large. There are numerous other ways that the MD : PhD comparison isn't a good fit, but I think the financial math also makes it very clear that we (unfortunately) are working with a much more complicated system to re-jigger if we want to improve equity of access to the professional education/degree.

 

[Sanman]

I don't think anyone is saying anything that Those examples assume a certain level of aptitude, skill, or talent that might pose a barrier to entry, and I don't think they translate well to the barriers to entry in psychology. There is an uncomfortable amount of well-heeled mediocrity in this field. Medicine isn't perfect either, but I see comparatively more diversity and social mobility among my medical colleagues.



There are extremes on both ends of this conversation, and it's hard to talk about equitable access to health professions education and creating a more diverse professional workforce because people often gravitate toward one pole or the other. As I mentioned, I think medicine is doing a somewhat better job of seeking that balance.



Amen to that.

But here's the rub. Even in fully funded PhD programs, trainees who have no backup or safety net can find themselves accruing debt when reasonable expenses (medical bills, professional travel, housing) outpace their stipends. All sorts of things can tip the balance of income and expenses. I personally agree with the White Coat Investor's advice about loan to income ratio and have lived within it. Telling people that it's possible to - or that they ought to - graduate totally debt-free tacitly assumes a few things: (a) they have a safety net or a consistent additional source of income, (b) nothing bad will happen to them or close family members while living on a graduate stipend, and (c) the stars align and the advice of "aim for a low COL area" does not conflict with "go to whatever funded program you can get into."

If you don't value increasing diversity in the field, none of the above matters. But if it's even of marginal importance to you, know that debt is not just an issue for students who attend for-profits or unfunded programs.

I don't know that we disagree. Expensive PsyD programs exist to perpetuate well-heeled mediocraty. The reason they are in expensive cities is because benefactors (family,spouses) can afford to pay the entry fee. I certainly could not afford to pay the fees they ask.

I don't know that anyone is saying that you need to have no loans, but I have followed the rule WCI espouses and it worked out for me. It did mean moving to several less desirable locales, taking side jobs for cash, and some help from family as well.

One of the reasons medicine is so diverse is that the salaries justify the loans. Nursing even more so in this regard. Until we fix the low salaries, diversity will be hard because it is more of a risk.

 

[PsyDr]

No Ragrets

 

[Sanman]

No Ragrets

Not even skipping that year of extra English tutoring?