psyD/PhD Questions

[averagej]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi, I'm wondering if anyone working in the field can give me some direction. I've done a lot of research into both Clin. PhDs and PsyDs - books, boards, etc., and I know everyone has an opinion about both. Ultimately, this will be a decision I make on my own, but in an effort to make it as informed as possible, any answers/suggestions to these questions would be most appreciated!

1) Assuming you have a PsyD from an accredited college or university that requires a dissertation (not a professional school or Agosy-type place), and are able to secure a good post-doc position, is there a huge difference between your degree and a PhD obtained from a solid (accredited but non-top 25) university - if your primary goal is to practice 1st and conduct research 2nd?

2) In employment listings on the apa site or others that are similar, where the request is for someone who has a PhD in clinical psychology, are these employers open to individuals with PsyDs from schools as above? I know this would vary for each postion, but I'm asking more generally.

3) I know the overall differences between these two degrees, but I'm wondering what this all means after the degrees are awarded. I've seen that there are PsyDs on the faculty at different schools and in various positions, so I wonder if it's more about where you've received your education and with whom you've worked than the degree you hold. Is this true?

I appreciate that $$ is also a factor here, but let's presume that the difference in working for two years after obtaining the PsyD while the PhD is still training more or less equals things out.

Sorry for the long post, and I hope there are others out there who may benefit. Thank you very much for your insight!

 

[vesper9]

personally, I'm choosing the psyd because my primary goal is clinical practice, althougyh I'm open to the idea of collaborating on research.

I feel like I've gotten a TON of research experience in undergrad and years between grad school, there is also a lot of research experience if you choose a good PsyD program. I'm also thinking of getting an MPH after grad school (only takes 1 year then) if I foresee research being really important to my career.

I've definitely seen PsyDs working alongside PhDs in an univeristy-hospital setting and even with MDs...sometimes it feels like it may be rare, but I think it depends on the person and their skills, not as much on the degree. I know there are some detractors to the PsyD but I think it's a good personal choice for some people like me, because I want really great clinical experience with a variety of faculty mentors, etc etc etc

 

[50960]

90% of what is written on this site about PhD/PsyD differences is totally irrelevant in the real world. What matters is the license and both degrees get the same license, and have to pass at the same rate. What matters is what we learn after we already know everything!!

 

[positivepsych]

90% of what is written on this site about PhD/PsyD differences is totally irrelevant in the real world. What matters is the license and both degrees get the same license, and have to pass at the same rate. What matters is what we learn after we already know everything!!

PsiSci, thanks for your post, I think you're right about the bigger picture. However, I had one question: I've seen some job postings that simply say "PhD in Clinical or Counseling Psychology from an APA accredited school." Would these places consider a PsyD applicant? Would they be considered less competitive for the job?

 

[50960]

I am not sure, and that is 100% why I work in medical settings. I got tired of the holier-than-thou BS with psychology organizations. What matters in medical settings is can you do the job, and do it well. I have known folks with an APA accredited this and that who were bad clinicians and researchers, and vice-versa. I have a good degree and training, but nobody has ever asked where I went to school..it does matter because I can do the job. For what it is worth the only time I have ever had my credentials questioned to get medical staff privileges at a hospital was at the one hospital that had a psychology dept sponsoring an APA internship; I passed on principle so they hired a trust fund baby from a professional school who was worthless...it is all silly.

 

[vesper9]

PsiSci, thanks for your post, I think you're right about the bigger picture. However, I had one question: I've seen some job postings that simply say "PhD in Clinical or Counseling Psychology from an APA accredited school." Would these places consider a PsyD applicant? Would they be considered less competitive for the job?

i would definitely apply with a PsyD from an APA accredited institution...I don't really think there's a difference

 

[Galia]

. I have known folks with an APA accredited this and that who were bad clinicians and researchers, and vice-versa.

Psisci, this is unrelated to the subject of the post, but something that is really puzzling me.

How does one know who is good clinician and researcher, what are the criteria?

I am asking because I am having hard time to get any sense of whether I can be a 'good' 🙂 (i know myself a bit, but not the 'other side'). And because going psychology is very serious (and very costly) choice for me, I would give a lot for any sense about that.

 

[50960]

You will not know until you get out there doing it. The point is do not think because you go to an APA program you will be good, it takes a hell of alot more than that. Focus on being the best you can be, and not your ego, and you will go far. 👍

 

[Galia]

Thanks, that far I realize....
The point is do not think because you go to an APA program you will be good, it takes a hell of alot more than that.

Too bad there are no guarantees 🙂 .

 

[bluegirl]

"The way I look at it is that PsyD programs are generally businesses (like going to DeVry or whatever) and PhD programs are generally educational institutions."


I think a lot of psyDs and others would find that highly offensive. Nobody's arguing with you if you're talking about Argosy or programs like that. But really, a stellar performance, or even just a good performance, in a program like Rutgers, pgsp-Stanford or Pepperdine is NOT perceived like "going to DeVry."

 

[bluegirl]

Did I say "generally?" Yes, I did. I believe Rutgers was, if not the original Psy.D. program, one of the first. It was a prototype, the exemplar of the Vail model. Everything spiraled into hell (or DeVry, whichever you prefer) after that.

I don't even think that's correct, that the programs are generally deVrys, but I could be wrong. It looks like *most* programs are not Argosys or Alliants, but are affiliated with some University or other... but I won't start speculating by saying "60% or more are legit.." Etc.

I also won't resort to condescension or sarcasm to get my point across.

 

[Forensic M.S.]

Yes, mostly universities no one has heard of, places that have "university" in the title at least.

Here, a list of what schools consider themselves professional schools. . ..

http://www.ncspp.info/

Notice a theme?




You should try it, it's fun.

that is exactly why psychology is so divided: academic elitism.

 

[Forensic M.S.]

Yes, because we should leave the education of practitioners in our field to the likes of Yeshiva University. . .

The Psy.D. is supposed to be like an M.D. or a J.D., except you can't get a Psy.D. from The University of Michigan, The University of Wisconsin, Emory, or even schools like the University of Florida, The University of Georgia, The University of Oklahoma, or whatever. . . The Psy.D. is a fringe degree for the most part. Filling our ranks with people from the fringe of education isn't good for the field for many reasons. You're somewhat right, the field is divided by academic elitism (or more like academic revulsion). The problem is that the academics are right.

absolutist thinking isn't right by any means. it's embarassing that there are people like you in the field with such patronizing attitudes. there are those with psy.d's who have acheived more than ph.d doctors have ever dreamed of. reputation only gets you so far in the real world.
as far as employers are concerned psy.d and ph.d are one and the same.

 

[psychgeek]

I think the answers to your questions vary depending upon region of the country and the PsyD program, but here is what I have noticed in general around Chicago.

1) No on the practice part; yes on the research part. People with PsyDs can do research, but they are less likely to work in an environment that will pay them to do it or support grant writing. If you are willing to research for free then you are a better person than me.

2) I’m not certain but I suspect not.

3) Where you receive your degree is definitely more important than what degree you received … most of the time. PsyDs seem to have a harder (but not impossible) time getting jobs in academic medical centers, getting jobs in university psychology departments, and getting the best internships.

Btw. Don’t worry a whole lot if there seem to be no jobs posted for PsyDs on the APA job boards right now. Typically academic positions hire during the first half of the school year and clinical positions try to hire during the last half.

 

[Forensic M.S.]

I think the answers to your questions vary depending upon region of the country and the PsyD program, but here is what I have noticed in general around Chicago.

1) No on the practice part; yes on the research part. People with PsyDs can do research, but they are less likely to work in an environment that will pay them to do it or support grant writing. If you are willing to research for free then you are a better person than me.

2) I’m not certain but I suspect not.

3) Where you receive your degree is definitely more important than what degree you received … most of the time. PsyDs seem to have a harder (but not impossible) time getting jobs in academic medical centers, getting jobs in university psychology departments, and getting the best internships.

Btw. Don’t worry a whole lot if there seem to be no jobs posted for PsyDs on the APA job boards right now. Typically academic positions hire during the first half of the school year and clinical positions try to hire during the last half.

in that regard i totally agree with your assertions of psy.d's having a hard time in the academic sector. i also understand your assertions that reputation does help out a lot to show expertise, however that does not necessarily make them the best. there are plenty of horrible doctors/lawyers out there with fine degrees, merit isn't everything unfortunately when it comes to admissions.

personally, i can see the flaws in getting a psy.d (funding being a huge disadvanatage). a lot of psy.d's know what they are getting into obviously and prefer to be able to consume research rather than wasting their time producing it. however i believe the degree deserves a lot more respect than it receives as well as the master's (which i don't even want to get started discussing that bag of worms).

 

[JatPenn]

in that regard i totally agree with your assertions of psy.d's having a hard time in the academic sector. i also understand your assertions that reputation does help out a lot to show expertise, however that does not necessarily make them the best. there are plenty of horrible doctors/lawyers out there with fine degrees, merit isn't everything unfortunately when it comes to admissions.

personally, i can see the flaws in getting a psy.d (funding being a huge disadvanatage). a lot of psy.d's know what they are getting into obviously and prefer to be able to consume research rather than wasting their time producing it. however i believe the degree deserves a lot more respect than it receives as well as the master's (which i don't even want to get started discussing that bag of worms).

Yikes.

The bolded statement above makes no sense at all. So, people would be better off consuming research than producing it? That's like saying we're better off devoting our time to consuming natural resources than producing them.

APA accreditation means absolutely nothing, just wanted to throw that out there.



Nothing good can come of this thread.

 

[positivepsych]

I don't even think that's correct, that the programs are generally deVrys, but I could be wrong. It looks like *most* programs are not Argosys or Alliants, but are affiliated with some University or other... but I won't start speculating by saying "60% or more are legit.." Etc.

I also won't resort to condescension or sarcasm to get my point across.

Actually, you shouldn't just look at the # of PsyD programs, but how many graduates they churn out. Take a look at a therapist listings for any city in CA and the overwhelming majority are California School of Professional Psychology graduates (aka Alliant), who will basically accept anyone who pays.

You're right in that there are good PsyD programs that exist, but they are few and far between. I'd venture to say that over 90% of PsyD holders in CA graduated from a professional school, and they thus taint the perception of the degree.

I'm a fan of the degree and the training model, but the APA is making a mistake in leaving professional schools to give out PsyDs instead of encouraging the major university systems to offer it. In my opinion, they should ban PsyDs from professional schools, and start out with a pilot program of offering PsyDs through the four major public university systems (University of California, Wisconsin, Virginia, Michigan).

 

[averagej]

Yikes.

The bolded statement above makes no sense at all. So, people would be better off consuming research than producing it? That's like saying we're better off devoting our time to consuming natural resources than producing them.

APA accreditation means absolutely nothing, just wanted to throw that out there.



Nothing good can come of this thread.

Hi, as the starter of this thread, I wasn't trying to get into a discussion about whether it's better to be a practitioner, researcher, hold a Ph.D. from the University of XYZ, or a Psy.D. from Rutgers. What I was trying to find out is whether someone who wants to practice first and research second can do so with a PsyD from a good program located in a city with other universities, research centers, clinics, and hospitals etc. (where opportunities to obtain further training are numerous). I know I won't get into a top 10 Ph.D. program, and I know I don't want to go to many others that dissuade you from even applying if you want to practice upon completion. I just wanted to make sure that going the Psy.D. route didn't mean burning bridges down the road.

 

[JatPenn]

I understand it wasn't your intention to start the preceding debate, unfortunately, thats just how internet forums go.

I would say, your own success is predicated by how hard you work, no matter where you are. If you want to practice, by all means, go the PsyD route, its where you'll be happiest. 👍

 

[bluegirl]

It's still generally an arse-backwards way to get into clinical psychology. . . a loophole for people who can't get into a Boulder model program for whatever reason.

I, among many others I'm sure, would have no problem getting into a phD program. I just have zero interest in being in academia and do not want to be research-focused.

 

[Cajal]

Yes, because we should leave the education of practitioners in our field to the likes of Yeshiva University. . .

What are your complaints against Yeshiva University?

 

[JatPenn]

Well, be that as it may, you're right in a way. I excel at that. I'm not all that nasty though. This is philosophy of science/training stuff. It is contentious. There is polarization. It's that way because people have alot vested in this field; time, money, energy, life. They genuinely care about it.

I think it is a mistake to view Ph.D. programs as research focused. There is alot of individual variability, even within Ph.D. programs, in training focus. I would look at it more like a hybrid medical model in a way. Graduate school is about learning theory, how things work, how things don't work, how ideas are developed in the field, how those ideas manifest in treatment and diagnosis, and how to critically think about the field. The practical experience should be, in my opinion, secondary to that. You'll have plenty of practical experience in practicums, externships, internship, and post-doc. Beyond that is just free labor for some organization somewhere. You'll have plenty of practical experience to apply what you learn, if you become a clinician, over a long career. Practical experience is easy to get. The classroom stuff is not, but it is foundational. That is what graduate school should be about in my opinion. Learn from the professors in grad school, not a local clinician somewhere.

(Clap Clap Clap)

 

[bluegirl]

This is philosophy of science/training stuff. It is contentious. There is polarization.

--Yeah, I've noticed. Being condescending and malicious doesn't help your argument, it makes you look like a fool.

 

[bluegirl]

Not really. You already agreed with me. That psyD programs like Rutgers and Pepperdine are great. A lot of the other programs (argosy, alliant, etc.) are money making machines.

I don't think phDs are superior to a good performance at the best psyD schools.

Everything I've heard has said phDs are for people who want to do research and be in academia (in addition to private practice). People on these boards. Generally PhD programs involve a lot of research. That isn't what I want to do. And when I said I had the credentials to do phD but chose not to because I don't want to do research, you challenged me! (i.e..."Maybe you do, maybe not")

Style and attitude are essential. Yours is easily criticized (aside from your recently sensical points) because it is egregiously rude and malicious. Egregious, unnecessary, doesn't help. But you just don't stop. I don't see how a person with that attitude would want to help people through therapy, or be a good clinician, which is central to what we're talking about.

 

[Sanman]

Originally posted by positivepsych
In my opinion, they should ban PsyDs from professional schools, and start out with a pilot program of offering PsyDs through the four major public university systems (University of California, Wisconsin, Virginia, Michigan).

Actually the public university system in Virginia has a PsyD program and I believe MSU has one as well.
OP:
Bottom line, you can have a primarily clinical career with some research with a psyd from a reputable program, I know several people who have done so. It all depends on your work. A good publication list will trump a degree name any day.

Oh and several of the reputable psyd programs do fund their students.

 

[Forensic M.S.]

Not really. You already agreed with me. That psyD programs like Rutgers and Pepperdine are great. A lot of the other programs (argosy, alliant, etc.) are money making machines.

I don't think phDs are superior to a good performance at the best psyD schools.

Everything I've heard has said phDs are for people who want to do research and be in academia (in addition to private practice). People on these boards. Generally PhD programs involve a lot of research. That isn't what I want to do. And when I said I had the credentials to do phD but chose not to because I don't want to do research, you challenged me! (i.e..."Maybe you do, maybe not")

Style and attitude are essential. Yours is easily criticized (aside from your recently sensical points) because it is egregiously rude and malicious. Egregious, unnecessary, doesn't help. But you just don't stop. I don't see how a person with that attitude would want to help people through therapy, or be a good clinician, which is central to what we're talking about.

*standing ovation*

 

[Forensic M.S.]

i meant for those who don't prefer research, sorry i didn't clarify.

 

[50960]

I love to see newbies get all upset at Snow...over and over again!! Follow your heart and demand a good training wherever you go and you will be successful. Dr Snow will learn this after he is out of post-doc for awhile, but he has many good points. However, I feel he is a victim of his teachers, and once again I state that it is what we learn AFTER we decide we know everything that counts. Snow is much better trained to do what he does than I am, and I am much better trained to do what I do than he is. Psychology is a diverse field, and boiling down the experience and training to just PhD/PsyD etc is simply naive..... 😎

 

[codetype4/9]

Ah, the old in-group/out-group bias and the out-group homogeneity effect.

Why lie and say you live and breathe research to get into a PhD program if you really want to be a practitioner? Grad school is far too long to be miserable. Be smart, find the place that feels right, and make sure they give you some funding.

 

[Jon4PsyD]

This thread has been amusing to say the least. I always smile when I see someone going for a PhD that is so dead set on looking down at the PsyD. Yet, they just cannot handle it when someone with an MD looks down on their PhD degree!!

It goes both ways. A PhD *loves* research but I'm sure has no interest in Physics or brain surgery! Those of us going for a PsyD *love* clinical work and don't have the itnerest in doing research or being a professor. Same difference!

Jon🙂

 

[Psychbird]

Does the same attitude exist from clinical Ph.D people toward counseling Ph.D people?

 

[Sanman]

Of course it does, I mean even Psyd's have a clinical degree! If there is a way to feel superior, someone will find it. Frankly, if I spent my life trying to please everyone, it would be a long, miserable life.

 

[docjohng]

Folks, in the real world (e.g., outside of academia), nobody cares what kind of degree you have if you go into practice. If you want to practice psychotherapy, in fact, you should seriously be considering the lesser expense of other degrees rather than the $60-120k you'll be paying for the doctoral degree (Ph.D. or Psy.D.).

All of these silly generalizations about Ph.D. programs being "research oriented" while Psy.D. programs are "clinically oriented" are just BS. The real world is far more complex and messier. The reality is that there are a lot of clinically-oriented and great Ph.D. programs, and a lot of research-heavy Psy.D. programs. It's not black and white and yes, once you have one of the two degrees, you can pretty much go back and forth between the two worlds (academia and clinical practice).

The key is what you do with them. If you're focused and work hard, you can make whatever you want from either degree. Neither degree guarantees anything being easier on either side (Ph.D. in research/academia or Psy.D. in clinical practice). What matters is your talent, your drive, your dedication to the work and performing hard.

And if you do want to get into clinical practice, please, please take some business courses whenever you can. If you're expecting grad. school to prepare you for the real world, you will be in for a rude awakening.

-John

 

[50960]

John, now this post makes sense.

So you are new here and have posted around, so tell us what you do??

 

[docjohng]

[...] Until that happens and schools like NOVA stop churning out 100+ students per class, the PsyD is a plague regardless of whether or not an occasional good clinician or researcher is produced.

[...] As psisci wrote, training cannot be simply broken down between PsyD and PhD. For example, NOVA has both PhD and PsyD programs and they both suck.

C'mon, at least be civil in your contentions. Nova Southeastern University is actually a pretty good program, having gone through it as a Psy.D., graduated, and never found it to be a hinderance in my career. The biggest gripe I have with Nova is simply that it's expensive and there were few grant opportunities available for its graduate students.

Larger class sizes mean greater diversity and far more interesting debate in my classes. And although our class size was about 50-60, I found it wasn't a negative -- it was a positive! When I was on internship, I found it far more interesting in speaking with others about their 6 or 8-person program and how difficult such a small class size was for many of them. Human nature is such that you're not going to get along with everyone in your class. When that's 1 or 2 people in an 8-person class, guess what? Your percentage of people you don't like (but may be forced to work and interact with) for 4 or 5 years is 25%. In a program like Nova, don't get along with 10 people, and you're still good!

It's amusing to see people speak as if the Psy.D. is some sort of "new" degree or some "evil." The degree doesn't matter in the real world -- I cannot stress that enough. It's what you do (or don't do) with it that matters. People will give you the world if you're at the top of your field, no matter what degree you have. It's up to you to achieve that, not the initials after your name.

-John

 

[docjohng]

John, now this post makes sense.

So you are new here and have posted around, so tell us what you do??

Well, even before the Internet was popularized in the mid-1990's, I began in my early days of graduate school to index mental health resources online. When I graduated, I moved into a career working entirely online, creating some of the world's first popular mental health and psychology websites. I do consulting for a number of well-known large corporations, grant reviews for the NIMH, and wrote the book, "The Insider's Guide to Mental Health Resources Online" in 1996 (Guilford). I also have run some very active online self-help support communities, including currently my own and have hosted a weekly live Q&A chat since 1995.

Good to be here! 🙂

-John

 

[SaraL124]

Nothing in particular that couldn't be thrown at any other professional school of psychology. Just a random example.

Yeshiva University offers a PhD in Clinical-Health track Psychology and in Developmental Psychology. Does still qualify them as a professional school to you?

 

[50960]

Welcome Doc John!

 

[Jon4PsyD]

Don't be silly. You're not seeing the MD/PhD issue because there's no one on the thread trashing the PhD. My experimental psychology professor is an PhD, and an amazing one in terms of research knowledge. She teaches seminars at Yale to the MD's because as she puts it 'their research skills are weak and arent trained as well as a PhD in Psychology' ...but she says every time she walks into the conference she hears it, "what can WE possibly learn from a PhD?!!" of course by the end, its quite a lot.

Their ignorance, as well as someones ignorance who would probably say "What can WE possible learn (clinically) from a PsyD (and GASP even one at a prof. school)" is an ignorance that exists in the PsyD/PhD debate.

I did not apply to any professional schools..but PsyD programs at Xavier, Stanford, Pepperdine, George Washington, Rutgers, etc etc don't seem like weak universities to me.

Jon

 

[docjohng]

One of the things I've taken away from the past decade of being in the field, too, is that any possible generalization anyone could have about any particular individual based upon their degree is pretty much going to be proven false eventually. I've met some absolutely ridiculous M.D.'s who had virtually no knowledge in research methodology, but I've also met some who have a rich, deep knowledge.

Same goes for any profession, any degree. I've met Ph.D.'s whom I could run rings around in terms of an intelligent discussion of methodological design flaws of a study we were discussing... I've worked with Ph.D. counseling students post-doc who had only basic diagnostic knowledge... The degree guarantees nothing.

-John

 

[50960]

Amen.

 

[commymommy]

It's still generally an arse-backwards way to get into clinical psychology. . . a loophole for people who can't get into a Boulder model program for whatever reason.

Wow...what a black/white attitude.

Jon, I have the grades to get into a Boulder model program. I have the GRE scores. Not only that, I have a research-oreinted MS in Molecular Biology that I earned from a reputable Medical School Department a few years ago. I have taught college science labs for the last 3 years. I could "get in".

That being said, my life circumstances are different. I have a husband who is established in his career after years of training and I also have children. I live in a state that basically offers two programs in Clinical Psychology at the doctoral level...and that is it. One of them is a top 10 school...which means that I would basically have to lie about my level of interest at this point in my life in research and academia (which I'm sure 1/2 of the people do anyway, but that's beside the point) and suck up years of research when right now I want to become a clinician.

Could I excel in a PhD program...yes, I think I could do quite well. I did quite well in my molecular biology program. The question is really whether or not it would be a good fit for my life right now.

My other option would be to apply in other states and move my family and hope that my husband could get a good job in the state that we would move to.

Sometimes, these things aren't 'black and white'...there are many reasons that someone might choose not to do a PhD at a very research-oriented institution...and it is not just based on ability.

 

[Jon4PsyD]

The problem with the entire argument is you cannot generalize anything. Individual differences do matter as it depends on the individual as to which program model is better (for THEM).

For ME, the PsyD is a better program. For a lot of other individual people it is also, for numerous reasons. For YOU the PhD is a better model, and for many others it is also--and for many reasons. I have no problem with that and it should be the same way on the way other end🙂

 

[commymommy]

This is an interesting argument, Jon...and I don't think it's one that should be swept under the carpet either. It is also one of the many reasons I haven't made a decision myself. I'm well aware of similar arguments for other medical professionals that although someone may be a good student capable of learning, poorer faculty may result in an inferior education.

I, quite honestly, believe that there can be merit in these arguments. I teach at a state school that isn't known for it's academics, unfortunately. We find that we lose most of our good students before they graduate because they end up being underchallenged. Good faculty also try and 'move on' when they can...though admittedly, many faculty are here because we 'have to' be. Jobs in academia (particularly in science) are not easy to come by. You can't always be picky.

I don't see this as being clear-cut...and I'm not sure of the 'effect' on the profession in general. I don't think that DOs have undermined the medical profession in any way and there are some excellent DOs out there...and some lousy MDs.....

This is an interesting topic of conversation as long as insults aren't flying.

 

[psych101]

Well, even before the Internet was popularized in the mid-1990's, I began in my early days of graduate school to index mental health resources online. When I graduated, I moved into a career working entirely online, creating some of the world's first popular mental health and psychology websites. I do consulting for a number of well-known large corporations, grant reviews for the NIMH, and wrote the book, "The Insider's Guide to Mental Health Resources Online" in 1996 (Guilford). I also have run some very active online self-help support communities, including currently my own and have hosted a weekly live Q&A chat since 1995.

Good to be here! 🙂

-John

I use your online resources quite frequently and find your website a great reference site, especially in finding easy-to-read resources for clients or to use during trainings with lay audiences. Great to have you here!

 

[mpino]

On an individual level that may be the case for whatever reason (e.g. person is independently wealthy, doesn't want to move, doesn't have the aptitude for research, can't get a high enough GRE score, partied too much in undergrad, whatever). On a global level (i.e., what's good for the field), I don't agree.

for the record, in 2005, there were 30 people in the incoming class at yeshiva, that doesnt qualify as "professional school" numbers to me....also, yeshiva is ranked on the list of most citations, papers, and strongest clinical faculty production

 

[Jon4PsyD]

Ehhh in that case EVERY university in the United States is practically just a "professional school." I cannot believe I'm being charged graduations fees to leave, or "register fees" of hundreds of dollars (which are not covered by any type of aid) when registering for classes at a state university. It's just the way it works. Look how ridulously priced books are. Everything right now is a business.

I agree though that this is a good argument. I tend to think the PsyD is here to stay though🙂

 

[mpino]

i have no idea how much tuition is, nor does it really matter to me...all i am saying is that it isnt like there are 100 people in the graduating class...i agree that professional schools are churning out too many psyd's, but i just dont consider yeshiva one of them.fyi it doesnt provide tuition wavers,but it does provide 70% assistantship/fellowship.

whether a psyd accepts more people or not isnt really my problem...i dont wanna get into a whole argument on here...but the fact is, the psyd is just a better fit for some poeple...i know many outstanding professors and clinicians who say if the degree was avaliable 40 years ago, they would have chosen it over a ph.d....i want clinical hand on experience an di'll get that with a psy d there is no right or wrong answer here, just differing opinions

 

[50960]

I agree professional school are churning out too many not-so-well trained people who think they are well trained. However they still have to pass the EPPP to do anything as a psychologist, and that is quite a chore. I am in favor of professional schools, AND I am in favor of strict exams as a gateway to licensure. I wish our field would follow medicine and adopt board certifications that are universal state to state and keep most out (statistically speaking) to allow only the top 10th percentile to practice at a higher level in a certain specialty than a licensed psychologist. I bet there are more PsyD/PhD's out there who can't get licensed as a psychologist than ever before.

 

[Sanman]

whether a psyd accepts more people or not isnt really my problem...i dont wanna get into a whole argument on here...but the fact is, the psyd is just a better fit for some poeple...i know many outstanding professors and clinicians who say if the degree was avaliable 40 years ago, they would have chosen it over a ph.d....i want clinical hand on experience an di'll get that with a psy d there is no right or wrong answer here, just differing opinions

I would argue that as a psychologist the number of psychologists PsyD programs churn out is a major concern. Frankly, I believe spending a 100k on grad school is a waste of money, there isn't going to be enough of a return on it to make a comfortable life for yourself in many cases. Then again that isn't my problem. What is my problem is these programs flooding the market and there not being enough internship/post-doc or licensure spots to for all the people who want them. That is a waste of time for those who are unable to acquire a spot, since they can't be licensed. While we are all at risk, it again is greater for prof schools due to limited resources. It is in the interest of every program to make sure their grads get into good internshiip/ post-doc positions. I recently spoke to a graduate of my pogram who did not match due to the fact that she overestimated her chances of a top children's spot. Well after she didn't match, affiliated clinical sites from my program were able to make accomodations for her. This is possible when only 8-10 people are in a class, but what are the chances are there for this in classes of 30,40, 50, 100? The greater the number of students, the less those connections stretch. And lets face it, this is the real world and that is important in makeing a career for oneself.


As for Yeshiva, it isn't a bad program, but it is still relatively young and has some problems with its ability to provide funding, sites, etc. It isn't on par with the more established PsyD programs that are university based. This is the opinion of one of their program directors, not just mine.