PsyD stigma issues?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

TMS@1987

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
126
Reaction score
2
I was just wondering, have any of you who are considering going into or are currently in a PsyD program ever experienced any bias or prejudice in regards to your choice of degree? I am just wondering because I am considering going into a PsyD program but it is a concern of mine that I'm gonna spend like 5/6 years in school and than be seen as less than my colleagues with a PhD.
 
I've been told once you get out, it doesn't much matter your degree (unless you want to be in academia and/or research/publishing). I think your work will speak to you ability as a professional, and not the letters after your name.
 
I second that, although I have noticed some differences in views of the degree depending on location. The coasts tend to be slightly more accepting because there are a lot of Psy.D schools and alot people working with them in those areas. Although their are quite a few Psy.Ds in neuropsych, I have also noticed a mild bias there as well. Overall, its not going to hurt your job prospects with the exception of ones that require considerable research duties.
 
I was just wondering, have any of you who are considering going into or are currently in a PsyD program ever experienced any bias or prejudice in regards to your choice of degree? I am just wondering because I am considering going into a PsyD program but it is a concern of mine that I'm gonna spend like 5/6 years in school and than be seen as less than my colleagues with a PhD.

I think a lot of the bias comes from people who know a little about the admissions process but do not understand the training that Psy.D.'s get. They know that the fully funded Ph.D. model programs are more difficult to get into but they don't understand the rich experience in actual applied work that the Psy.D.'s get as part of their education.

I do think the two degrees are very different, and if I were looking for someone to do an assessment, I would probably expect the recent Psy.D. graduate to have more experience than the recent Ph.D. graduate. As a Ph.D. student I will have just a fraction of the assessment experience that a Psy.D. will have. Conversely, the Psy.D. will have a fraction of the research and theoretical basis that I will be getting. It doesn't make them inferior, but different.

So that is my take on it. It's not that Psy.D.'s can't do research, many do. I do believe that there is some bias, but it will be more from the reputation of the program than the nature of the letters. If you say that you got your Psy.D. from Rutgers and your Ph.D. from Walden. Who are you more likely to think got the better education? If we use APPIC match rates as a crude barometer, Rutgers placed 92% of it's graduates, Walden 18%. My guess is that a good percentage of the people in our field would more than likely value the Psy.D. from Rutgers over a Ph.D. from Walden.

The recent thread about another online institution highlighted this. Of course, this won't matter most of the time, since you will be called doctor and not doctor who graduated from xxx institution. Make a fool of yourself or stand out as being brilliant, then maybe people will ask... so where did he/she go to school.

Mark
 
My brother-in-law is a med student and the clinical PhD interns he worked with completely bashed PsyD's. Of course, that doesn't mean they actually are bad.
 
This is not my personal opinion, but merely my observation. If you're interested in knowing how you'll be treated professionally, I would advise against the PsyD.

Every psychologist with whom I have ever spoken, whether clinical or otherwise, turns their nose up at the very IDEA of PsyD degrees. I was recently told by a professor that he would NEVER higher someone with a PsyD degree to teach at his institution, and that he believed the only place which would hire them would be another PsyD program.

I believe this is because with clinical, 4/300 (or so) applicants are selected, because they are fully funded positions, and there is not much funding to go around. Conversely, PsyD programs accept 120/300 (or so) applicants, because funding is an individual's responsibility, much like undergrad, so more applicants are ABLE to be entered into the program.

This pattern, however, is often disapproved of by the general psychological community. Everyone I have spoken with says that PsyD degrees are something that "anyone can buy their way into."

Obviously this is not the case, but I am just reporting what I have unanimously heard from psychologists in various fields and employment settings.

I suggest you invest in the book "the Insider's guide to graduate programs in clinical and counseling psychology." It was a GODSEND to me all the way through the process. Not only telling you how to do things, but backing it up (as all of us crave) with statistical data.

According to this book, studies have shown that stigmatization does not exist. they explain this in some depth, and in fact devote a few entire pages to the discussion of boulder (phd) vs. vail (psyd) degrees.
 
if I were looking for someone to do an assessment, I would probably expect the recent Psy.D. graduate to have more experience than the recent Ph.D. graduate.

Interesting. I have never heard this. Why is it that a Psy.D grad would have more assessment experience? I always thought the practica experiences between the two degrees were approximately equivalent. I'm in a Ph.D program and was thinking I'd probably do quite a bit of assessment after graduation to make ends meet.

Maybe the variance is greater from program to program than it is between the two different types of degrees?
 
Every psychologist with whom I have ever spoken, whether clinical or otherwise, turns their nose up at the very IDEA of PsyD degrees. I was recently told by a professor that he would NEVER higher someone with a PsyD degree to teach at his institution, and that he believed the only place which would hire them would be another PsyD program.

My experience is just the opposite. I had several respected professors recommend several Psy.D. programs highly. Additionally, I am involved a professional organization in my city through which I am in contact with a good number of licensed psychologists. I have never heard any of them denigrate the degree or treat the colleagues with Psy.D.s as any less competent than those with a Ph.D.

I believe this is because with clinical, 4/300 (or so) applicants are selected, because they are fully funded positions, and there is not much funding to go around. Conversely, Psy.D. programs accept 120/300 (or so) applicants, because funding is an individual's responsibility, much like undergrad, so more applicants are ABLE to be entered into the program.

Please be careful with these generalizations. There are a number of programs out there that are fully funded, and many are partially funded. Additionally, not all programs admit 120 students every year. My program has over 200 applicants every year and accepts 16. It is very competitive, and not just anyone can get in. You are talking about some of the free-standing professional schools, and not all Psy.D. programs are such.
 
Every psychologist with whom I have ever spoken, whether clinical or otherwise, turns their nose up at the very IDEA of PsyD degrees.
Then you should find better psychologists to speak to ( 😀 )....as this opinion is in the vast minority. There are different tiers for Ph.D. and Psy.D. programs (as well as APA-approved, etc), and I'd be quite cautious around people who throw huge generalizations out, as they seem to know the least and speak the most.
 
I think it might depend on the school KD.

I think its true here at least, that a PsyD (well, one from a GOOD program) is more proficient at assessment.

Just because of differences in experience between the training models. A PsyD is probably spending a minimum of 20 hours a week doing clinical work and doing some research on the side. A PhD (at least, a research-oriented one) is likely spending a minimum of 20 hours a week doing research and doing some clinical work on the side.

Its obviously not true 100% of the time. A PsyD at Rutgers is probably doing quite a bit of research. A PhD at say, U Montana (to pick one I know) is probably doing quite a bit of clinical work.

That being said, I'm talking about differences at graduation. 20 years out in the field it totally depends on what direction your career has gone in😉

I too, disagree that there is a great deal of stigma surrounding PsyDs. I DO think there is a great deal of stigma surrounding professional schools. I don't imagine an Argosy or CSPP graduate will have much chance of getting hired at a major research university. That's not to say it can't happen, just that said person will likely be fighting an uphill battle. In clinical settings, I think that stigma disappears.

And really, we call it stigma, but I actually think its a pretty legitimate concern. I'd HOPE that a clinical site wouldn't hire a PhD who did just enough clinical work to get an internship and spent all his time publishing just because they had the PhD. I'm not going quite that far, but I plan to minimize my clinical load while still making sure I get the baseline experience to be competent to leave more time for research.

I'd never begrudge a clinical job that had some perception that I was likely less competent for clinical work. That's not stigma, that's just truth.
 
Not trying to make generalizations, just trying to give advice based on what I've heard. I personally know next to nothing about PsyD programs, but was trying to provide personal experiences--no offense intended! 🙂
 
Every psychologist with whom I have ever spoken, whether clinical or otherwise, turns their nose up at the very IDEA of PsyD degrees. I was recently told by a professor that he would NEVER higher someone with a PsyD degree to teach at his institution, and that he believed the only place which would hire them would be another PsyD program.

I have had similar experiences, though I don't agree with this opinion either.
 
Every psychologist with whom I have ever spoken, whether clinical or otherwise, turns their nose up at the very IDEA of PsyD degrees. I was recently told by a professor that he would NEVER higher someone with a PsyD degree to teach at his institution, and that he believed the only place which would hire them would be another PsyD program.

This is true in academia, a Psy.D. is not the preferred degree for a tenure track professor, not because it's inferior but because it's the wrong training for that job! Teachers are typically expected to have a doctorate in the philosophy that they are teaching, hence the importance of the Ph.D.

Additionally some Psy.D.'s are hired guns to teach assessment courses and clinical skills because they are the experts in this area. No, they will not be tenure track research positions but they aren't trained to do that either. So yes, the appropriateness of requiring a Ph.D. for a professorship in many cases appears justified.

I believe this is because with clinical, 4/300 (or so) applicants are selected, because they are fully funded positions, and there is not much funding to go around. Conversely, PsyD programs accept 120/300 (or so) applicants, because funding is an individual's responsibility, much like undergrad, so more applicants are ABLE to be entered into the program.
Not all Psy.D.'s are alike. Granted, the less selective programs may have image problems and many of their graduates may have a harder time securing internships etc. However, I would challenge anyone to say the same thing of Psy.D. programs like Baylor, Rutgers or even Our Lady of the Lake's Psy.D. Counseling program. All of these schools are small Psy.D. programs with competent faculty (most Ph.D.'s) who generate high numbers in the APPIC match (from a low of 73% at OLLU, to numbers in excess of 90% at Rutgers.)

Lumping all Psy.D.'s together is foolish and wrong. Just as lumping all Ph.D.'s together is equally short-sighted. I enjoyed your post, and there is some general truth to it. There is bias against programs where people feel compromises have been made in exchange for profits of the free standing professional programs.

This pattern, however, is often disapproved of by the general psychological community. Everyone I have spoken with says that PsyD degrees are something that "anyone can buy their way into."

I suggest you invest in the book "the Insider's guide to graduate programs in clinical and counseling psychology." It was a GODSEND to me all the way through the process. Not only telling you how to do things, but backing it up (as all of us crave) with statistical data.

According to this book, studies have shown that stigmatization does not exist. they explain this in some depth, and in fact devote a few entire pages to the discussion of boulder (phd) vs. vail (psyd) degrees.
I do believe that some bias exists, some statistics capture this better than others, however I think the bias is more program oriented than degree oriented. The book you recommend is really the informal bible to applying to programs and everyone who is serious has played by this same playbook. APPIC internship match rates are crude barometers to judge the reputation that a program has, but they are better than nothing.

Mark
 
Not trying to make generalizations, just trying to give advice based on what I've heard. I personally know next to nothing about PsyD programs, but was trying to provide personal experiences--no offense intended! 🙂

None taken, but I appreciate the comment.
 
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.
 
Just my 2 cents:

I have just been accepted to a PhD program. I went that route because I'm interested in research & academia with regard to my career goals. I think if your career goals are in clinical practice, assessment, etc., then a PsyD is perfect for your interestes. That being said, I haven't ever heard a PhD thumb their nose at the PsyD. (I'm not saying that it doesn't happen; I'm just saying that it may not be as widespread as some may think.) In fact, it is one degree option that is "presented" in my undergrad instituion's annual psych grad school fair - despite the fact that we don't offer a PsyD. Also, I'm a TA for a 4900 careers class, & our professor had a PsyD come in to talk about the PsyD (schooling, career options, etc.). Ironically, he (the PsyD professional/presenter) was extremely defensive of his degree throughout his presentation; it was obvious that he had some issues about it, because noone was challenging him. (In fact, a number of students indicated to him that they were interested in that option.) So...I think that the PsyD has come a long way in reputation. If you do get a PsyD (& to anyone else reading this that is or has), I'd say that you should hold your head up. Don't be like that guy & "excuse"/"defend"/"overexplain" your degree. If it's an accredited, reputable program & you are able to get licensed by the state, then you are a professional.

I would like to second the comments earlier in the thread about reputable programs vs. diploma mills....for ANY degree. I've heard some pretty negative things from PsyD students who attended "professional schools."
 
Ok I'll chime in. I'm in a rather respected APA-approved professional school, not university based, PsyD program. The school requires a dissertation (quantitative suggested but not required) which we must complete prior to going on internship. We have consistently good match rates (80% this year) prior to clearinghouse (95% after). Grant it, many people go for non-APA approved /APPIC approved sites because they're not as concerned about landing post-docs or post-docs that will lead to academia.

I think what is lost in these discussions sometimes is that it really boils down to what you do when you're in grad school. Yes, PhD programs offer much easier access to teaching, doing research, etc. All things that we need to be successful in the academic world. In a PsyD program, at least in my experience, these opportunities are not closed to you at all. The faculty at my school actively encourage students to engage in research and teaching. I teach in our master's program for example. But it's not required, so even with all the coaxing in the world some people are just not interested in research/teaching. Many of our faculty do research, though on a more limited scale I would guess, or do less traditional quantitative studies in exchange for qualitative, program development/evaluation, etc.

I chose to seek research experience as soon as I started, and found my own place to do it. As a result I probably have more experience than my peers in my class, but this is not because they didn't have the option to do it. It is considerably more work to find something, and you don't get any academic credit (or very minimal). But it obviously can be done. I certainly wasn't the only one in my class, but was in the minority due to choices, not closed opportunities because we're in a professional school PsyD program. I'm likely lined up rather nicely for an academic job should I want one, even though I'll have PsyD after my name. While we still have folks who look down their noses at PsyDs , I think it's becoming more of what did you do regardless of your degree, and less of PhD vs. PsyD.

My $.02.
 
I think the biased people will just have to die off before the stigma totally disappears. Some people think social workers are useless and barely trained. Meh, let em think whatever they want. You can't change people's minds unless they let you. Some insecure people with certain degrees cling desperately to the idea that theirs is massively superior and always will be.
 
I can't say much other than what the other posters shared but I want to say that I did a lot of educating my mentors on the PsyD programs.

Asking for letters of recommendation was a big deal to me and I took it seriously. I didn't allow anyone to write a letter without me sitting down and explaining my choice of programs in clear detail complete with a copy of the program viewbook, quick stats, etc.

I think I had some old school professors who had no clue what a PsyD can bring to the table. We are talking professors who considered themselves statisticians more than psychologists and attended UVA when it was all male and Duke when Nixon was there for law school... So, of course, I didn't go to those professors for recommendations.

That doesn't mean I went lightweight either. I had two letters from Ivy phd's and top 10 post-doc fellowships and one letter from a grad of our biggest in state program and I made sure that they all understood the reasons for my requesting admission to the PsyD program I chose... and in the end... they all agreed it was the best choice for me.

I do agree, however, with the poster who said to be weary of diploma mills. I call them pay for play... As long as you funnel in $80k, you will end up with a PsyD.

I'm actually very glad I was wait listed at my top choice when I first applied. It gave me several years to build experience, find a specific subfield of interest, and put me in a position to compete for the fully funded positions. My top choice last time only offered two fully funded spots and half tuition wavers to the other 10 students. (They took 12...)

My top choice now, for applying next fall, actually only takes 5 but all are fully funded plus some stipend.

I feel no stigma about pursuing a PsyD and can't wait until I can sign those letters behind my name. As for teaching, I have never wanted to be a perm academic, so I won't pursue a tenure track position anyway but I hope (and have been told it is possible) to secure a class or two a semester as an adjunct somewhere.

I think if you can clear explain your reasoning for pursuing the program, whether it's in underwater basket weaving or professional psychology, you can round up support from your mentors. In the end, I think most of them truly want you to choose what is best for you. Plus, my profs knew I sucked @ the process of a self directed lab write up but rocked @ meta analysis of the work of others and then application of those best practices...

Oh, and all of the PsyD programs I've ever considered required a dissertation. My top choice back then gave us a choice of styles but my new top choice requires a regular old traditional evil researched, applied, hair pulling out paper.

Lastly, about assessment, I think a PsyD would have a slight edge because standardized testing is not the most common assessment completed these days. At least not in my state... all of the psychologists I know must first complete a thorough psychosocial assessment and send those results for pre-approval to insurance/medicaid. If not written in a way that pulls the heartstrings of the reviewing committee, those other tests will not even be covered by insurance and will often never be administered. Maybe that's just my state... but that is the reality here... Getting someone tested is a month long process and treatment still needs to occur during the off time.

The reality of mental health, at least in my state, is that the old days of MMPIs and WISCs and hell, even BDIs are going by the wayside. The need is much more related to emergent care and putting out fires and actual therapeutic interventions that occur prior to in depth analysis of dotted tests. There is a place for testing, and that's why I want my PsyD, so I can participate in that... when necessary... but where I live, the need is clinical and not administrative.
 
^ agreed and that is a little of my fear typed in those words

I think the theoretical stuff still intimidates me the most when I think about doctoral study. The professors I've admired the most just know their stuff. They know who said what, when, where and why and I wonder if I'll ever get to that level where I just know what I am doing and the reasons behind it.

Even now, as a licensed clinician in another field, knowing that if called to court I'll need to give actual reasons for pursuing a course of treatment scares the beetles out of me. "Well, ya see Judge, I felt like this would be the easiest thing we could do in 40 minutes a week given she's always late and rarely shows up and this book lets me copy its pages for free."

It's what I want to know, however, and this go around, in my evaluation of programs, I'm trying to pick PsyD's that are intellectually strong as well as clinically strong. I want to know my stuff inside and out and more importantly, have mentors who know their stuff too.

The only thing I'd disagree with in your whole post is that clinical interviewing skills is so low on the list... but that's probably just the social worker in me rearing its touchy feely head. I think the key to an accurate assessment is the client's level of comfort and their willingness to participate in the directed activities laid out by the clinician. If the clinician is not engaging and can't establish that initial rapport, then participation could occur while the client is in a place that is emotionally atypical from their usual state of living. I know the MMPI has some protective stuff built in... but other tests (and I'm thinking mostly of children) could really have their outcomes influenced by the comfort level of the subject at the time of service delivery.

I'd probably move interviewing skills at least above knowing a diverse range of patients.... I wish it could go higher but those other things are very important in choosing the right course of action. How about we just make it a given that every psychologist should make effort to have top not clinical interviewing skills and then, it can be off that list altogether? 🙂
 
I think the theoretical stuff still intimidates me the most when I think about doctoral study. The professors I've admired the most just know their stuff. They know who said what, when, where and why and I wonder if I'll ever get to that level where I just know what I am doing and the reasons behind it.

I think this scares everyone. It sure scares me. I just let this fear drive me to gather more information and constantly strive to improve my knowledge and abilities in all areas of psychology (even those not directly related to my career).

I'm just a first year, so take it with a grain of salt, but I can already feel myself moving more in this direction so graduate school DOES help get things started. Its a very slow process and I think its naive to assume that anyone can be at this point by graduation. The field is simply too diverse - 5 years is not enough time to learn it all. I'm not even sure 20 is. In fact, I bet even if you asked those folks you admire most, they'd tell you stories about their colleagues who they feel are so much better at "just knowing what to do".
 
PsyD stigma comes from:

1. PhD students
2. Undergrad professors who were educated before the PsyD movement

Once in the graduate level programs and in the clinical field, the stigma comes from whether or not you are good at what you do. If you are good, it doesn't matter what program you are in- you will be noticed. If you aren't very good, well then expect some stigma. And don't be fooled- PhD programs can produce bad clinicians too. The degree doesn't guarantee the respect of the field if you don't deserve it.
 
3. Graduate school professors educated after the psyd movement
4. Other psyd students (e.g., baylor vs argosy; psyd students who think their programs let in too many people)
5. MDs aware of the issues
6. PhD clinicians

...says a PhD with no experience of being a PsyD.
 
Sorry, this is a slight tangent from the main topic. I needed a break from the many less-than-collegial posts on DPT/OTD threads.

Oddly, I find it a relief to read about stigmas happening in other healthcare professions. It would be nice to draw some closure to many of these debates. But as said previously, some arguments will go until the last grave is filled. Upon sifting through other professional threads for disputes on the title ‘doctor’ this has been relatively fruitless. However, I’m sure they exist. I may have not looked deep enough. In physical therapy, for whatever reason, there isn't much debate within our profession about academic & clinical degrees in PT... or that topic hasn't started cycling yet.

Out of curiosity, how has the medical community adapted to the PsyD? When in graduate school, a PsyD student I talked to occasionally would discuss various issues, and it sounded like our professions had many things in common. Especially on this topic. How are you adapting to such changes in the healthcare community? (Who better to ask than a group of psychologists or psych students!) 😉
 
Hi guys

Why don't the ones, who are anchored in real-world-settings, ignore Jon Snow's posts?

Don't get upset, just remember; there will always be biased, self-defensive people, who own the truth, without having a balanced, well-informed view on certain issues.

As T4C mentioned; a degree is a degree; what you make of it, is what counts in the workforce-----ignore any other blathering to the contrary !😎
 
Hi guys
As T4C mentioned; a degree is a degree; what you make of it, is what counts in the workforce-----ignore any other blathering to the contrary !😎


Not quite true... That's not quite what T4C said: "There are different tiers for Ph.D. and Psy.D. programs (as well as APA-approved, etc)"

There are differences, if you don't believe it you might want to look at the match statistics again. You might also want to compare salary, employment rates and other factors. A real world disparity still exists and real discrimination and stigma of the Psy.D. are still factors. I am not saying in many cases it should exist, but it does.

Mark
 
Interesting. I have never heard this. Why is it that a Psy.D grad would have more assessment experience? I always thought the practica experiences between the two degrees were approximately equivalent. I'm in a Ph.D program and was thinking I'd probably do quite a bit of assessment after graduation to make ends meet.

Maybe the variance is greater from program to program than it is between the two different types of degrees?

I was referring to my program specifically. We get less assessment training than many Psy.D.'s at colleges in my local area. We get excellent training in many areas, I just believe that we are a little weak in this particular area.

You cannot make sweeping generalizations, even at Minnesota in the clinical Ph.D. program where I would suspect that MMPI assessment might be a strong point of the program, someone might be less well versed than someone graduating from PGSP and working closely with Roger Greene.

Making generalizations is dangerous, but it happens, humans love to classify.

Mark
 
Not quite true... That's not quite what T4C said: "There are different tiers for Ph.D. and Psy.D. programs (as well as APA-approved, etc)"

There are differences, if you don't believe it you might want to look at the match statistics again. You might also want to compare salary, employment rates and other factors. A real world disparity still exists and real discrimination and stigma of the Psy.D. are still factors. I am not saying in many cases it should exist, but it does.

Mark
All irrelevant ! Once you secure a job , and do not care about the blabbing, you'll do what you like to do.

As I said, ignorance exists everywhere, and exam numbers only bother people who are insecure; the others will know how to work with the situation.
Also, match numbers are sometimes due to factors that have not much to do with the quality of the program.

I am moving on....

Take care🙂
 
Not quite true... That's not quite what T4C said: "There are different tiers for Ph.D. and Psy.D. programs (as well as APA-approved, etc)"

There are differences, if you don't believe it you might want to look at the match statistics again. You might also want to compare salary, employment rates and other factors. A real world disparity still exists and real discrimination and stigma of the Psy.D. are still factors. I am not saying in many cases it should exist, but it does.

Mark

Mark encapsulated the gist of what I meant. There can be differences in how your training is viewed, the actual training you receive, and where you want to apply your training. I know some great psychologists who came from middle of the road programs, and I know some poor psychologists who came from very well respected programs......so in that regard it is what the person makes of their training, though people need to understand that there *is* a difference in how you will be viewed in certain arenas.

In the beginning I think your degree means more because there is less data for people to go on, but the more you add to your experience, the less it matters where you came from.

People need to have a plan for what they want and how they want to get there. Ollie (I think?) has mentioned a number of times before about not being able to back your way into academia (you can't just decide one day you want to be a tenure track professor), which is a good point that can be generalized to most any niche area. I think this ties into how people progress through grad school, internship, post-doc, etc.....so what you learn and where you place is important. I don't think the vast majority of people know where their colleagues trained, but they do know who does well in certain areas, and what areas it is best to consult with someone else.

As a Psy.D. candidate I get frustrated sometimes by some of my peers, but I have heard the same thing from Ph.D. friends of mine and some of their classmates. At the end of the day I want people to judge me for my work, and I feel comfortable with my training and experiences to do well.
 
Sorry, this is a slight tangent from the main topic. I needed a break from the many less-than-collegial posts on DPT/OTD threads.

Oddly, I find it a relief to read about stigmas happening in other healthcare professions. It would be nice to draw some closure to many of these debates. But as said previously, some arguments will go until the last grave is filled. Upon sifting through other professional threads for disputes on the title ‘doctor’ this has been relatively fruitless. However, I’m sure they exist. I may have not looked deep enough. In physical therapy, for whatever reason, there isn't much debate within our profession about academic & clinical degrees in PT... or that topic hasn't started cycling yet.

Out of curiosity, how has the medical community adapted to the PsyD? When in graduate school, a PsyD student I talked to occasionally would discuss various issues, and it sounded like our professions had many things in common. Especially on this topic. How are you adapting to such changes in the healthcare community? (Who better to ask than a group of psychologists or psych students!) 😉

I'm glad you posted this. This thread had me thinking about how this stigma pervades other areas of health care, such as the DO vs. MD world. I think part of it comes from the traditional degrees (PhD, MD, etc.) having something new show up to offer a different perspective on the field. These newer degrees were created by those who had disagreements with the status quo, so of course those who come from the more traditional model will take significant issue with these new, "lesser" programs. It has the same feel of democrat vs. republican, Catholic vs. Protestant, psychodynamic vs. radical behaviorism. Which is why it's so slow to go away (and probably never will entirely).

As a 4th year PsyD I've spent the last 3.5 years in a major academic hospital in Chicago, working along side doctors in both clinical and research roles. I've had no issues with my degree or school in terms of being disrespected or looked down upon with most of the physicians. I've had residents and fellows ask me specific questions about my training program, but again no real negativity. I think a lot of them are still trying to figure out what psychologists are doing in an outpatient specialty medical practice 😀

My supervisor is a PhD and has been incredibly supportive. I do think, however, that because I "look" more like a PhD student than "traditional" PsyD student (read: I do a lot of research) maybe I've had less problems. But this supports the idea that's been thrown around on this thread: it's not necessarily your degree but what you do with your 4 years in grad school. I have interests in working in an academic hospital, so of course I'm going to do what I need to do to look appealing when I finish. Will there be hospitals that will pass me over because I have 4 letters after my name instead of 3? Probably. But to me that's their loss. To judge solely on the degree is short-sighted, and quite frankly I wouldn't want to work with people who were unable to look past bias toward the PsyD. There are plenty of people out there who will hire us, based on our qualifications and experience.
 
I just got into a Psy. D program, and I am dancing on the ceiling.

Truth be told, there might be a minor stigma among PhD's, but the fact is that Psy D's get good jobs and work in highly professional positions.

I had a Psy D teach abnormal in college and she was the very best professor I had!

My wife is a medical student, and during her psychiatry rotation she worked directly with a Psy D whom had a very comfortable position within the hospital.

I believe that the Psy D is gaining respect, especially in the northeast.
 
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.

So now we have PsyDs looking down at other PsyDs. This is kind of reminiscent of blacks who decry racism yet still look down on darker skin blacks.

In sum: Psychiatrists look down on Psychology Phds., Psychology Phds look down on PsyDs, University PsyDs look down on professional school PsyDs, professional school PsyDs look down on school psychologist, school psychologists look down on social workers, who in turn look down on case managers etc. etc. etc.

Bottom line is that whoever you are there will always be someone else who looks down on your degree or profession (heck, many M.Ds don’t consider psychiatrists real “doctors”). I say, worry about yourself and let the system sort out who is good and who isn’t. Like I said many times before, there are some really ****ty psychologists who graduate from the best PhDs. programs and great ones who graduate from the worst. And if I find yourself working alongside someone from a “diploma mill” I would assume that hes pretty darn talented to get where I am without any benefit of prestige or pedigree.
 
Gotta say I agree with Jon... plenty of great PsyD programs out there, and dedicated people can make things work for them, but overall creating massive amounts of questionably-trained Psych doc-levels under massive debt isn't going to help anyone and will drive the field down.

Like I said many times before, there are some really ****ty psychologists who graduate from the best PhDs. programs and great ones who graduate from the worst. And if I find yourself working alongside someone from a “diploma mill” I would assume that hes pretty darn talented to get where I am without any benefit of prestige or pedigree.

There's this creepy photo on the net of a cat born with one big eye, too. It's not modal. Sure, weak people will sometimes come out of strong programs and great people out of weak ones, but you're much more likely to find weak people produced at weak programs that accepted weak students (whatever degree they grant).
 
Gotta say I agree with Jon... plenty of great PsyD programs out there, and dedicated people can make things work for them, but overall creating massive amounts of questionably-trained Psych doc-levels under massive debt isn't going to help anyone and will drive the field down.

Hmm. Are Psy.D. programs from professional schools accredited by the APA included in "questionable training?"
 
Parto,

I don't think the hierarchy really works that way. I think we all kind of have some negative opinions about other training methods. And, to compare this to race is severely overstating the argument to the point of being absurd.

. . .


I wasnt comparing the race, i was comparing the hypocrisy. Those who are very sensitive about defending their own are always the quickest to put down others.

Im sure that you disagree with the many scientists who don’t view psychology as a serious science discipline, or other academics when they point out how the psychology phd applicant pool is the weakest academically out of all the phd subjects. But at the same time, you are more than willing to accept every negative thing you hear about PsyDs.
 
Im sure that you disagree with the many scientists who don’t view psychology as a serious science discipline, or other academics when they point out how the psychology phd applicant pool is the weakest academically out of all the phd subjects. But at the same time, you are more than willing to accept every negative thing you hear about PsyDs.

Though still have the lowest acceptance rates out of Ph.D. programs (partly due to the #'s of applicants, compared to a Ph.D. in Icelandic Studies).
 
Im sure that you disagree with the many scientists who don't view psychology as a serious science discipline, or other academics when they point out how the psychology phd applicant pool is the weakest academically out of all the phd subjects. But at the same time, you are more than willing to accept every negative thing you hear about PsyDs.

This is actually exactly my point (and I think the point of others as well though I won't speak for them).

Right now our low acceptance rate is a strong counterpoint to this argument. There can be strong applicants in a weak applicant pool, and if a school only accepts 5% of people whereas most PhD programs have MUCH higher acceptance rates, we can still make the argument for being a serious discipline. After all, we may have weaker applicants overall (something I don't doubt the truth of at all), but if we're accepting the 5 good applicants out of 100, versus the 20 good applicants out of 100, the standards are still high and we're only letting in people with high standards for themselves who were able to prove themselves capable of getting an advanced degree through successes beforehand.

Then a few schools come along and decide the entirety of that "weak" applicant pool should be able to get into a program, and thus any work psychologists have done to come across as a serious discipline is set back.

I agree there should be something in place to catch people who might not be great test-takers but might be good therapists, but I don't think the solution is to just open the doors and wave everyone, their grandmother, and their dog into a graduate program and bank on internship or post-doc or whatever else being the point where people get weeded out. Why not do it on the front end?

PS - Sorry Maddie, missed your post. APA-accredited professional schools are certainly less likely to fall into that category, but APA has set the accreditation bar so low you can trip on it these days, so yes, there are a few schools (I won't name them) that I consider questionable that are still accredited.
 
I agree there should be something in place to catch people who might not be great test-takers but might be good therapists, but I don't think the solution is to just open the doors and wave everyone, their grandmother, and their dog into a graduate program and bank on internship or post-doc or whatever else being the point where people get weeded out. Why not do it on the front end?

Agreed.

My biggest gripe is on the variance in training at some programs. I'm not concerned with the top end of those programs, but the bottom 20%. If I had my druthers, I'd cut the bottom 20%-30% of each program that can't consistently place people.

Of course, Dictator T4C probably won't fly......yet. 😀
 
Parto,
Cosmo,

I think on an individual level, it would be unusual to direcly apply the stigma to the point that you'd notice (like in your academic hospital). It would be more of an affirmation bias. On an individual level I'm not sure it even really matters much. I think the issues are more on a metalevel. I.e., what is the direction of training on our field? What is the impact on supply and demand, quality of student attracted, evolution of the science, general respect of practitioners, etc. . .

Jon - Understood and agreed. I have some dissatisfaction with my own training program and recent growth. In general those in my cohort are concerned about the sizes of incoming classes. Honestly I'm glad I'm getting out now because I fear the reputation of my school may decline. I received several complements on my school during internship interviews (all at APA accredited sites in the midwest). Our match rate has consistently been at 80%, which is competitive with PhD programs in the area (and better than some). This year I think we were a bit above that. So we do well and I feel that we receive strong training. But I have to wonder how long that can be sustained considering the influx of students.
Believe me, I'd prefer for the class sizes to shrink. I still have to think, however, that those who are at the "bottom" will filter out during grad school and certainly at the internship level. Considering internships, there's discussion that the PsyD's are saturating the market and taking all the internship slots that PhD's would normally take. Is it a matter of training directors lowering their standards and accepting sub-par PsyD's? I highly doubt it. Rather are PsyD programs putting out high caliber students that are competitive with PhDs?

In sum: Psychiatrists look down on Psychology Phds., Psychology Phds look down on PsyDs, University PsyDs look down on professional school PsyDs, professional school PsyDs look down on school psychologist, school psychologists look down on social workers, who in turn look down on case managers etc. etc. etc.

So true. And sad really. How often we forget that there's always someone smarter, more knowledgeable, and better-equipped than we are. And often they don't have a set of letters after their name.
 
Jon - Understood and agreed. I have some dissatisfaction with my own training program and recent growth. In general those in my cohort are concerned about the sizes of incoming classes. Honestly I'm glad I'm getting out now because I fear the reputation of my school may decline. I received several complements on my school during internship interviews (all at APA accredited sites in the midwest). Our match rate has consistently been at 80%, which is competitive with PhD programs in the area (and better than some). This year I think we were a bit above that. So we do well and I feel that we receive strong training. But I have to wonder how long that can be sustained considering the influx of students.

That is my exact concern.

The horse is out of the barn, so to help get it back on track I really think the APA needs to come down hard on programs who can't place people consistently, and force them to cut down on their incoming classes until they can properly train and place people consistently.
 
. . . and mine. Just what the hell are we doing to the field?

I think the elephant in the room is a failure on the political side to properly support our interests, as not only are we screwing ourselves, but we are getting squeezed by cheaper alternatives, which is great news for insurance companies. I am quite concerned about our lack of representation, and over-saturation of the market in general (MA/MS/Psy.D./Ph.D). I believe I can carve out a niche, but it worries me there are so many people coming out to meet a need (which is there), though the money is not.
 
I think the elephant in the room is a failure on the political side to properly support our interests, as not only are we screwing ourselves, but we are getting squeezed by cheaper alternatives, which is great news for insurance companies. I am quite concerned about our lack of representation, and over-saturation of the market in general (MA/MS/Psy.D./Ph.D). I believe I can carve out a niche, but it worries me there are so many people coming out to meet a need (which is there), though the money is not.

We're all going to get replaced by computer based CBT anyway 😀
 
In my humble opinion, yes.

I'm not familiar with this topic. Is the impression that the APA has lower standards for professional schools, or that non-professional schools have standards that even higher than the APAs?
 
PS - Sorry Maddie, missed your post. APA-accredited professional schools are certainly less likely to fall into that category, but APA has set the accreditation bar so low you can trip on it these days, so yes, there are a few schools (I won't name them) that I consider questionable that are still accredited.

Why would the APA do that?
 
There has been a lot of flight from the APA by the academic and non-professional school sects. I don't feel APA represents my interests at all. They are toothless and, stupidly, run.
The APA is indeed toothless, as well as directionless. They represent a minority of the profession (which is why lobbying and political influence is weak), but try and speak for everyone. My last straw was bringing Dr. Phil to speak at the annual conference....whom represents everything that is WRONG with psychology. I haven't paid any dues since then, and instead support the NAPPP, which I don't agree with on everything, but they at least listen to their members and try and put their efforts to political/legislative change.
 
My last straw was bringing Dr. Phil to speak at the annual conference....whom represents everything that is WRONG with psychology.

No f--king way! How did I miss that?! *hangs head in shame*

I've been enjoying the discussion about the APA's stance on psychologists being employed at Gitmo. Though that's a whole other topic....
 
Why would the APA do that?

You've got me - I can't think of a good reason for why they did that, but you can just look at the history or ask anyone whose been in the field for awhile and its pretty obvious. Accreditation used to be meaningful, now its really just a matter of lots of paperwork and schools aren't concerned about losing accreditation so much as they are with not getting the full length of time til they get looked at again since it means they'll have to do the paperwork again sooner.

I find it REALLY concerning when a school can't even pull off APA accreditation since the accreditation requirements are minimal at best. However one can make it over that bar and still fall pretty drastically short of being "good".

Personally, I think it has to do with the nature of psychology - we're nurturing by nature, and we made the mistake of thinking what is a positive quality as a therapist would also work in politics/business. As a result, APA likes to say "Oh its okay, we're respectful of your low standards even if it is bad for the profession" whereas any other professional organization would have had a picket line out there kicking down the bricks when these schools were trying to be built.

Holy crap, just read Jon's post.

Yeah, I can't stand APA anymore but NAPPP actually scares me. They have some good causes (improved medicare reimbursement), but I'm avidly against ANY national organization that is in favor of FURTHER lowering the standards on employment in the few settings that even have the low bar of APA accreditation.
 
Damn. Okay, I'm just going to go blow my head off now.:scared:
 
No f--king way! How did I miss that?! *hangs head in shame*

Phil was at the New Orleans conference year before last. I know several psychologists who boycotted going in disgust.
 
Top