Hi all,
I've been lurking on this site for about a year, and find the discussion to be very interesting. Currently I'm ABD from a Psy.D. program. My background is that I did my undergrad at a large state univerisity with a "Top 10" clinical psychology department (behavioral orientation). I worked in a lab there for 2 years with a man who heavily published in behavioral and treatment (APA Div. 42) circles. I then worked for 2 years at a "very well regarded" medical school that has a great reputation for fostering a very science-practicioner oriented training program for internships and post-docs. I chose to attend a Psy.D. program that is CBT oriented, requires both an empirical master's thesis and dissertation, has an in-house training clinic, accepts 6 students per year and offers teaching and research assistantships. I got serious flack from my previous mentors when I did this (it was the only program I applied to; I did it because location was a huge issue at the time, I was in my mid-20's and didn't want my doctoral training to eat into my 30's too much, and because I believed in the program I attended....I know well of the bias in certain circles in psychology, and I think elitism is alive and well within academia/research.)We recieved APA accreditation on our first try. I did my internship at a well respected counseling center in the northeast. Currently I'm a project coordinator of a large govt. sponsored research grant, getting clinical supervision from an eclectic staff and working in a very psychology-friendly environment ( I'm being paid 45k per year for this current placement). I'm in about 60k of debt from my Psy.D. program. I'm saying all of this because I think it might give a realistic perspective to Psy.D. students who come from solid undergrad and additional work experience: it ISN'T all or nothing when it comes to earning your doctorate in clincial psychology (i.e. Ph.D = good, Psy.D.=bad or just okay).
I wanted to post because I feel there are many misconceptions about the Psy.D., particularly from those who are solely involved in academic, research based work. I will say that I cringe when I meet people from Psy.D. programs that are from"diploma mills", and I believe most of the professional schools fall within this realm. I have also met Ph.D.'s from internet-based "long distance" degrees that were equally inept. University-based Psy.D. programs are another animal. I think one of the issues within psychology training paradigms is standardization. A Psy.D. isn't always a Psy.D., and I hope our field continues to evolve and somehow finds a way to make less rigorous programs unacceptable.
I have met brilliant reasearchers from Ph.D. programs who were hopelessly narcissistic and who couldn't prove to be adequate therapists outside of academia if their lives depended on it. I've met people who bought doctoral degrees who clearly shouldn't have gotten past the bachelor's level and made me feel embarrased to share a degree. When I'm really lucky, I meet a psychologist who is empathic, has loads of curiosity, is skeptical and relies on some sort of empirical process to determine what is worthy of parlaying to clients, and who respects their training process because its rigor taught them to think critically. I hope everyone here who intends to be a psychologist aspires to these goals...I know I sure do.
My advice for Psy.D. applicants is to truly only go to those that are university based. Also, I would highly recommend one that ensures a research process. I don't think it is necessary to complete an empirical thesis or disseration to deliver good clinical services. I do think it is a measure that ensures a student is able to think inductively rather than deductively, that is able to take theories and work with them enough to see if they may apply (much like forming a hypothesis and using the empirical method to deduce). I think this is where a psychologist should be: at a level of thinking and skill where it is not merely about application but about how and why theories are or are not effective. I would be weary of any training program, Psy.D. or Ph.D., that only adhered to one theory and took it to be factual (this borders on the idea of rabid theoretical orientation that occurs in academia. I'll keep this post in check though and leave that for another day). In sum, go to a program that teaches you how to think, not what to think.