D
deleted75966
Heh, no, I've got that down.
PsyD vs PhD: Addressing Anti-Psyd Sentiments
- Thread starter psycreality
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 0
Get used to disappointment.
Allocating ~21% of your combined gross income for 10 years is mighty ambitious when the loan calculators are projecting 15% allocation as likely to cause financial hardship. Your breakdown also makes some huge assumptions, such as a spouse with no incoming debt of his/her own (credit cards, student loans) and not having children.
What?
I think T4C got you pegged.
:troll:
If you will excuse me, I will rejoin the ranks of those who were just ignoring your initial attempts to stir up trouble. Take care.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 0
OK! OK! You got me. The APA sent me. I'm on a secret mission to test the resolve of the students who signed the petition on Care2. We will be sending agents to your homes and places of work as well in order to interview your families and employers. You found my one weakness and forced me to tell my secret. Just please, please don't leave me...
Great. That is far less disturbing than the alternative explanation for your outbursts.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 385
- Reaction score
- 143
Great. That is far less disturbing than the alternative.
What? A monkey with a bat?
Seems like a troll to me also.
I think I'll exercise my right to use the ignore list.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 0
Great. That is far less disturbing than the alternative explanation for your outbursts.
Someone has to do the APA's dirty work...
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 32
- Reaction score
- 0
Loan calculators that include that tidbit are government sponsored ones, or calculators copied and pasted from the government sponsored website.
Asking me to heed this advice assumes that I am one to look to the government for financial planning advice. I, for one, am not such an individual.
I included a spouse earning an income, because that is the position that the average psychologist is in. Just as $65k is the supposed average, so is a two income household.
I was just creating a scenario for O Gurl to showcase how $200k in debt can be paid off in 10 years. There are several quality Psy.D. programs (IMO) whose debt would be a good $75k to $100k less than that, even more for some with funding or state schools (I suppose, no idea of tuition for anything other than a private university).
Is it a perfect scenario? No. But if it allows someone like myself to become a practicing psychologist and continue my efforts in both clinical practice and research, then I am all for it.
I have an idea. To simplify things, let's just have the APA ban any school that starts with the letter "A"
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,563
- Reaction score
- 58
Thanks for taking the time to pound out those figures. I think it's definitely a good starting place. Of course, incoming students should know that their mileage may vary greatly depending on certain factors. I have to agree with KayJay's point that your model assumes the spouse has no debt, that he or she landed a 65K/year job without going to grad school or by going a route that did not require them to take out loans of their own. Certainly possible, but I'm not sure how likely that is. Additionally, we have to take into account that even the youngest students graduating from a doctoral program will be in their mid to late 30s by the end of this 10-year term. For anyone who wants children, this is quite a long time to put that off. All of these, together with the finances you calculated, are important considerations for those electing to take on a significant amount of debt.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Messages
- 671
- Reaction score
- 21
ThirdLittleBird, thanks or the response and breakdown.
I wasn't sure whether to factor in second income, kids, other debts, so I just looked at the loan calculator, which assumes repayment based on the borrower's resources only. I also didn't think too much about gov't sponsorship as most loans come from that same federal gov'. However if that is a concern of yours, I found another that is not gov't sponsored: http://www.mappingyourfuture.org/paying/standardcalculator.htm
This one is actually more conservative and recommends that only 8% of one's gross income be allocated to repaying loans. So it came up with a minimum salary of $345,240/yr to repay in 10 yearseek or $208,221/yr to repay on extended.
All that said, your breakdown includes real figures (as you experience them) and everyone's lifestyle and situation are different. For instance, the partner in your scenario might have been repaying his/her loans while the psych trainee was still a student. I also agree with you that the avg. salary of 65K is low in my experience, but I have also only had direct info from my professors and from clinicians in academic med centers, VAs, and one (successful) forensic practice. I have also no experience in rural areas. The 200K was a stab in the dark as well. As you mentioned, there are lower cost options. I was basing that estimate off of places like Argosy/Alliant that provide NO funding and charge between $900-$1000/credit. So this is no perfect science. I think the question is whether or not people who are entering the field are taking time to even think about these issues or have this discussion.
I wasn't sure whether to factor in second income, kids, other debts, so I just looked at the loan calculator, which assumes repayment based on the borrower's resources only. I also didn't think too much about gov't sponsorship as most loans come from that same federal gov'. However if that is a concern of yours, I found another that is not gov't sponsored: http://www.mappingyourfuture.org/paying/standardcalculator.htm
This one is actually more conservative and recommends that only 8% of one's gross income be allocated to repaying loans. So it came up with a minimum salary of $345,240/yr to repay in 10 years
eek or $208,221/yr to repay on extended. All that said, your breakdown includes real figures (as you experience them) and everyone's lifestyle and situation are different. For instance, the partner in your scenario might have been repaying his/her loans while the psych trainee was still a student. I also agree with you that the avg. salary of 65K is low in my experience, but I have also only had direct info from my professors and from clinicians in academic med centers, VAs, and one (successful) forensic practice. I have also no experience in rural areas. The 200K was a stab in the dark as well. As you mentioned, there are lower cost options. I was basing that estimate off of places like Argosy/Alliant that provide NO funding and charge between $900-$1000/credit. So this is no perfect science. I think the question is whether or not people who are entering the field are taking time to even think about these issues or have this discussion.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,084
- Reaction score
- 5
I just wanted to say that I got a laugh out of this. I kinda feel like I wasted the past 15 minutes reading the last 3 pages of debate, but I got a laugh and T4C reminded me of that xkcd comic which I think should be used more often in all online "discussions"
Oh for FWIW, I don't think Slarterbartfast is a troll. He seems more like someone who is overconfident in their knowledge of undergraduate level psychology. A lot of us were probably like that right as we entered grad school but I think most programs smack it out of us. And I fully expect a snappy comeback
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 0
ThirdLittleBird, thanks or the response and breakdown.
I wasn't sure whether to factor in second income, kids, other debts, so I just looked at the loan calculator, which assumes repayment based on the borrower's resources only. I also didn't think too much about gov't sponsorship as most loans come from that same federal gov'. However if that is a concern of yours, I found another that is not gov't sponsored: http://www.mappingyourfuture.org/paying/standardcalculator.htm
This one is actually more conservative and recommends that only 8% of one's gross income be allocated to repaying loans. So it came up with a minimum salary of $345,240/yr to repay in 10 years
All that said, your breakdown includes real figures (as you experience them) and everyone's lifestyle and situation are different. For instance, the partner in your scenario might have been repaying his/her loans while the psych trainee was still a student. I also agree with you that the avg. salary of 65K is low in my experience, but I have also only had direct info from my professors and from clinicians in academic med centers, VAs, and one (successful) forensic practice. I have also no experience in rural areas. The 200K was a stab in the dark as well. As you mentioned, there are lower cost options. I was basing that estimate off of places like Argosy/Alliant that provide NO funding and charge between $900-$1000/credit. So this is no perfect science. I think the question is whether or not people who are entering the field are taking time to even think about these issues or have this discussion.
Ok, I'm falling off the no posting wagon. I have a suggestion that I think might make this whole conversation a lot more honest.
My only real concern with too many newly minted psychologists stems from self-interest; I don't want to have to worry on match day and I don't want to see my future salary ratcheted down by a surfeit of competition (btw, I looked at the job market picture, and I admit that I was talking out of my butt before).
The argument from self-preservation is perfectly reasonable, but here are two arguments that I think have been done to death: (1) the scientific integrity of the profession is at risk. If we had a whole lot of scientific integrity we wouldn't have such a massive collective inferiority complex to begin with, and as I've said previously scapegoating PsyDs is just ignoring our own contributions to the fuzzy science that is clinical psychology. (2) we need to protect society and unwitting students from too much debt. I'm not saying that this is incorrect, but it doesn't get me riled up in the same way as thinking about my own wallet does.
So can we all just agree that the emotional energy driving this debate is simply about our own personal ambitions, not the greater good? I know someone is going to contradict me, but I think that just gets back to what I said earlier - many clinical psychologists take themselves far too seriously.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2010
- Messages
- 9,319
- Reaction score
- 5,584
I honestly do think it's a mix of both self-interest and interest in the "greater good" that's driven the current debate, and I believe that's been brought up a few times before. People are, as you've said, worried about the impact that FSPS will have on the job market and professional credibility/respectability of clinical psychology (self-interest), the amount of new research and the standard of patient care owing to different admissions and training standards/opportunities (greater good), and the whole student loan fiasco (self- and societal-interest).
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,084
- Reaction score
- 5
I'm not specifically asking you for citation but what points do you have to back this up? My understanding is that many areas of clinical psychology are backed by rigorous research, and some not so much. The same could be said in other fields. That doesn't mean we have a lack of scientific integrity.
Also what do you mean that we have a massive collective inferiority complex?
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 10
As a newly minted PhD (in a few weeks anyway), I have a fairly good grasp of the scientific end of our field.
Yet the idea that our legitimacy as profession is reliant upon "scientific" integrity and "rigorous" science etc misses the mark.
Many forget to ask the question of whether or not the mind truly lends itself to empirical scrutiny. Of course we must provide some quantitative evidence or we remain philosophical at best, but our doctoring is not like other doctoring...and it wasn't meant to be.
Yet the idea that our legitimacy as profession is reliant upon "scientific" integrity and "rigorous" science etc misses the mark.
Many forget to ask the question of whether or not the mind truly lends itself to empirical scrutiny. Of course we must provide some quantitative evidence or we remain philosophical at best, but our doctoring is not like other doctoring...and it wasn't meant to be.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm a pretty lazy debater (why I keep making points that have been made already, I guess) so I'll just give you my opinion and let you decide if I'm full of it. If you want a more rigorous defense of the position, check out some of s pinker's peer reviewed papers. Essentially, I like the idea that psychology is the intersection of philosophy and evolutionary biology (William James style). The past century has been marked by an extreme overreaction to the horrors of eugenics, and the result has been a profession without any coherent theoretical scaffolding underlying its research agenda. In contrast, look at clinical neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, and evolutionary psychology, areas that don't shy away from the notion of a highly evolved human nature; the gap in progress is vast, in my opinion.
As to inferiority, it is my experience that psychologists tend to be defensive about their scientific credentials. maybe it's just projection; my s.o. spends all day playing around w ion channels in a lab
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 7,531
- Reaction score
- 6,693
Well, according to philosophy of science, not many things are true science. Medicine isn't, either.
Medicine isn't, either.- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 0
Well, according to philosophy of science, not many things are true science.
Very true. Medicine is not much better, so apparently invoking physiological priciples isn't sufficient (is salt bad for us? What about cholesterol? Where's all this obesity coming from?). At the same time, medicine is really bad at employing the logic of reverse engineering, so i don't really see it as an eg of what I'm talking about. They also suffer from one of the unavoidable truths of human research- at least when it comes to etiology, ethical experimental designs are tricky to design.
I agree that any first year Philosophy student is capable of laying waste to the logic of scientific epistemology; all I can say is thank god the philosophers aren't in charge of designing airplanes! (yes, I am invoking the supreme copout of pragmatism, but even lots of philosophers seem to agree thatscience seems to work in spite it's obvious flimsiness).
Btw, I'm totally off topic, and I'm still avoiding cleaning my house, but I'm really enjoying my perception of the thread's tone today
I'm opinionated and I like to talk out of orifices other than my mouth (a supreme degree of hypocrisy coming from a self-styled science snob, I know), but I'm not as much of a jerk as I can come across as when posting on discussion boards in relative anonymity 
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2011
- Messages
- 472
- Reaction score
- 117
Btw, I'm totally off topic, and I'm still avoiding cleaning my house, but I'm really enjoying my perception of the thread's tone today
Well, maybe, that is the intellectual freedom one has when posting into the www. Where else can one do that, just thinking out loud, uncensored, follow the flow of thoughts...a real luxury.
BTW: I am lurking today b/c I avoid finishing my thesis who is due tomorrow. My advisor wants me to write down hypotheses for a qualitative design. I clearly explained the process and my advisor doesn't get it or forgot about it but wants me to do hypotheses for a bottom up approach with analysis of meaning units, coming from interviews...how can I resolve that dilemma?? Off the topic for this thread I guess... I have to stay true to the design but don't want to get my draft back since I graduate in three weeks
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 7,531
- Reaction score
- 6,693
Funny, I'm here because I don't want to finish my thesis, either. Mine isn't due until July though!
coney: That's why I got mad a lot during Philosophy of Science class. It seemed all the philosophers did was sit in their ivory tower and poke holes in science without actually doing any of it, themselves. I do love Karl Popper, though!
coney: That's why I got mad a lot during Philosophy of Science class. It seemed all the philosophers did was sit in their ivory tower and poke holes in science without actually doing any of it, themselves. I do love Karl Popper, though!
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 178
- Reaction score
- 21
In terms of student loans, I would also note you can refinance them for a longer term if 10 years isn't working out for you. At least the companies were willing to work with you when I graduated; not sure if that's still the case 15+ years later.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2011
- Messages
- 472
- Reaction score
- 117
Funny, I'm here because I don't want to finish my thesis, either. Mine isn't due until July though!
Lucky you! I anticipate a long long night and have two presentations and a paper due on Tuesday. This gets insane but i will just roll with it -hopefully maintain sanity
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Messages
- 671
- Reaction score
- 21
I agree and wholeheartedly admit that self-preservation is the biggest motivator for my concern. I forget who posted it earlier, but all of us "early career" psychologists (trainees) have a long time to make a living at this. Right now, the trajectory is not looking good. No one else is going to step in and call for some intervention.
The problems are mutlifaceted. The other two arguments you mention are big issues for me as well. I am concerned that clinical psychology specifically refers to the application of science and theory based principles to understand and affect human behavior and well-being. That is kinda hard to do as the training model becomes less and less scientific. Also, I do not look forward the economic outfall from an overburdened federal loan system. Beyond this, I am genuinely concerned for the trainees whose programs may or may not be providing what is necessary for their success. For instance, not to blend threads, one professional school graduate posted in the following thread about PsyD prospects (http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=807132) about his/her success in securing a solid internship and neuro post doc. Flutterbyu's outcome seems to have had little if anything to do with the program he/she was paying tuition to as he/she sought and secured training from what sounds like unaffiliated providers at nearby medical centers and in the community. Clearly he/she was industrious enough to make this happen, but what about others? I am not comfortable that shareholders are getting filthy rich while providing so little to their students.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 29
Alas, spring break has come and gone. Nice to see this thread winding along (down?) in somewhat better shape than it had been only days ago.
I.... 12k for utilities?!?!
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 10
If you're in private practice making only 65k, you're doing something terribly wrong.
I'm on track to make 130k+ right out of licensure based on what I am taking in as a psych assistant now (where I will simply take full fee once I am fully licensed).
I'm on track to make 130k+ right out of licensure based on what I am taking in as a psych assistant now (where I will simply take full fee once I am fully licensed).
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 7,641
- Reaction score
- 6,377
Hi, everyone,
Just an FYI that I split off the EBT, Psychoanalysis, Psychodynamics, and Science of Psychology discusssion to a new thread here: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=817093
Please continue that discussion in that thread and let this one address the original topic.
Thanks!
Just an FYI that I split off the EBT, Psychoanalysis, Psychodynamics, and Science of Psychology discusssion to a new thread here: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=817093
Please continue that discussion in that thread and let this one address the original topic.
Thanks!
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
OK now this is how I "feel" about the issue and by "feel" I mean do not offer some retort to this. I'm just putting it out there and am not defending my feelings so please do not attack them and by do not attack I mean just swallow it.
That said, this is what I predict. Of these 5 or 6 "good", "university-based" programs, they will all evolve into PhD programs such as with the case of Central Michigan University and many others. That's just the way it is. Then, all this PsyD silliness will be left exposed. Now you cannot say "Oh, wait wait, what about Rutgers?" cause now Rutgers is a PhD program.
The sad truth is once that happens all you folks with PsyDs, regardless of if it WAS a "top notch" PsyD program (which, btw, pfffff), that is all forgotten and now you are seen as a S-C-A-B cleaning out bed pans in state hospitals (yes, that was out of line, but we elitist butt holes got a real kick out of that)
Your essentially getting a degree in phrenology. Just pull yourself together and reapply for the PhD.
Look, most people do not want to be social-science researchers/professors, it sucks, just look at your professors now...not a very happy bunch. So these kids in PhD programs are not really interested in research, they've just said that so many times to GET IN that they actually started to believe it for just a moment.
AND, more importantly, stop playing this "we are on the same side crap" *cough* O Girl *cough*. SERIOUSLY? So your saying it's 160 PhD program kids (other than Alliant apparently) and oh wait wait, those PsyD kids enrolled at one of the 5 or 6 good programs. Come the hell on. What, are you going to explain to every PhD you meet for the rest of your life that you are just as doctor as they are? Well good luck, because your opponent will have far superior analytical reasoning skills and probably throw 4 citations at you, which, though you may be able to "interpret" from your PsyD education, you will not have read them because they are empirical works and your were not trained as a scientist.
It's PhD or TechD. Sorry, you are stigmatized and stigmas never go away. So unless you want to get your own therapy for that, quit being a SCAB like those counselors with Masters in Ed degrees, meet the requirements with 2-3 years post-undergrad experience, and reapply.
That said, this is what I predict. Of these 5 or 6 "good", "university-based" programs, they will all evolve into PhD programs such as with the case of Central Michigan University and many others. That's just the way it is. Then, all this PsyD silliness will be left exposed. Now you cannot say "Oh, wait wait, what about Rutgers?" cause now Rutgers is a PhD program.
The sad truth is once that happens all you folks with PsyDs, regardless of if it WAS a "top notch" PsyD program (which, btw, pfffff), that is all forgotten and now you are seen as a S-C-A-B cleaning out bed pans in state hospitals (yes, that was out of line, but we elitist butt holes got a real kick out of that)
Your essentially getting a degree in phrenology. Just pull yourself together and reapply for the PhD.
Look, most people do not want to be social-science researchers/professors, it sucks, just look at your professors now...not a very happy bunch. So these kids in PhD programs are not really interested in research, they've just said that so many times to GET IN that they actually started to believe it for just a moment.
AND, more importantly, stop playing this "we are on the same side crap" *cough* O Girl *cough*. SERIOUSLY? So your saying it's 160 PhD program kids (other than Alliant apparently) and oh wait wait, those PsyD kids enrolled at one of the 5 or 6 good programs. Come the hell on. What, are you going to explain to every PhD you meet for the rest of your life that you are just as doctor as they are? Well good luck, because your opponent will have far superior analytical reasoning skills and probably throw 4 citations at you, which, though you may be able to "interpret" from your PsyD education, you will not have read them because they are empirical works and your were not trained as a scientist.
It's PhD or TechD. Sorry, you are stigmatized and stigmas never go away. So unless you want to get your own therapy for that, quit being a SCAB like those counselors with Masters in Ed degrees, meet the requirements with 2-3 years post-undergrad experience, and reapply.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 7,531
- Reaction score
- 6,693
What do you mean when you say S-C-A-B? Is it in reference to the term for people who refuse to join unions?
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 10
Interesting that you rail against Psy.D.s for their apparent dearth of empirical and analytical reasoning yet you provide none in your post and you also give the pretext that you're only willing to state how you "feel".
..If you're so much more than a phrenologist...provide some evidence and make a solid, data-supported argument.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 29
Clealy V22 is a Doctor of Jedi Mind Tricks. Not a true Jedi, mind you, but one in limited extrasensory communion with those who truly sense the shape of things to come. Guess I should start stockpiling band aids for the coming onslaught.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,609
I'm interested in the bedpan comment. The rest is just silly ramblings, obviously (there's gonna be people like that in every group). I esepcially like how we are told not to retort to it. Nevertheless, the bedpan comment is the most revealing here. Apparently, being a nurse techs or psych tech is not a job that is worth any respect to Vicious (aka: "elitist butthole"). Thus, I say this person is denied a person to clean/empty their bedpan during every hospitalization of their life....
The term "SCAB", to me, means a strikebreaker or someone who refuses to join the Union organization for their labor force...I'm not sure what he/she meant by all that stuff. Does it matter really?
The term "SCAB", to me, means a strikebreaker or someone who refuses to join the Union organization for their labor force...I'm not sure what he/she meant by all that stuff. Does it matter really?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
No, Scabs are people who temporary cover up an opening (generally in employment) until certain internal issues are resolved (the direction of clinical psych).
PsyDs and the like are temporary. A time will come when they are purged from private/group practice or isolated to only certain kinds of work (perhaps less desirable), but not cleaning out bed pans
.Hell, PhDs will need to get more education for certain positions and in some cases they already do.
Indeed, such a SPECULATION may anger some if not all people PsyD or not, but this is what our professors were warning us of. Yes, they are PhDs, so perhaps they are biased in their opinion. However, deep down, you know that if you could just magically change that "Psy" to a "Ph" when you confer your degree that you would do so. Now that is not saying you have to renounce all you learned while earning that degree, but I think one would be better off.
As for me either being a joker, troll, or disturbed individual...I would say joker. I'm just fooling
I wish everyone the best. Yes, more people throwing up a shingle will hurt my potential client base in the future (private practice). But even if it doesn't work out for me, at least I can say I'm better than those damn PsyDs and Ed.Ms That, is where the anti-psyD sentiment comes from, an inferiority complex.
I think we all are interesting in purging the field of all the quacks. Currently, I question if any program really trains you as a true clinician by the time you graduate and not just some 'padre fresh out of seminary'. But I am excited to see. IMO, I think we all need to take our development into our own hands (buying extra books and picking a specific interest early on such as panic disorder and really philosophizing on it).
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm interested in the bedpan comment. The rest is just silly ramblings, obviously (there's gonna be people like that in every group). I esepcially like how we are told not to retort to it. Nevertheless, the bedpan comment is the most revealing here. Apparently, being a nurse techs or psych tech is not a job that is worth any respect to Vicious (aka: "elitist butthole"). Thus, I say this person is denied a person to clean/empty their bedpan during every hospitalization of their life....
The term "SCAB", to me, means a strikebreaker or someone who refuses to join the Union organization for their labor force...I'm not sure what he/she meant by all that stuff. Does it matter really?
Precisely!
I feel people are on this thread because they have anxieties about this issue, most of them are clearly PsyDs and thus PsyD apologists.
I just love to rouse people when they are nervous about something. I'm not doing any actual research on the matter because well, I don't want to. It's all speculative. The facts, limited as they may be, have been laid out in the first few pages of this thread. Now it's speculation, and speculation is a thrilling topic! 2012 anyone? No, it won't happen, but people love to tune in to the History channel nonetheless.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2011
- Messages
- 472
- Reaction score
- 117
As for me either being a joker, troll, or disturbed individual...I would say joker. I'm just fooling
That, is where the anti-psyD sentiment comes from, an inferiority complex.
I think we all are interesting in purging the field of all the quacks.
To me, you sound disrespectful and hateful toward individuals who pursue a certain degree. Any further comment may fuel whatever feelings you have. I will not participate in such a discussion. Sorry.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
But would not a good clinical practitioner do just that, prodding at the issue until the source manifests and not just stifle the anger? I do not know, I am only about to begin my training.
I don't really think you can say someone is disrespectful or hateful based on what they say over a support forum. Just know, everything I have said are typical beliefs none of which I endorse, but know ye well, they exist.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 10
But would not a good clinical practitioner do just that, prodding at the issue until the source manifests and not just stifle the anger? I do not know, I am only about to begin my training.
I don't really think you can say someone is disrespectful or hateful based on what they say over a support forum. Just know, everything I have said are typical beliefs none of which I endorse, but know ye well, they exist.
You're wrong. If anything the Psy.D is becoming more accepted and is proliferating. The same process happened with the social work-MS....into the LSCW and now they're everywhere. Boundary creep usually does not slow; it becomes solidified. In fact, it has been truly exceptional for any field to create inroads to licensure through a credentialing process and then revoke the legitimacy of the credential. Psy.Ds are part of the APA, hold ranks in the APA, hold positions in various state psych associations (look at CPA...headed by an Alliant Psy.D). If you think that is going to change...try again. That would take a legal process that couldn't exist.
The only obscure yet possible change is that insurance companies can determine whatever credentials they require for reimbursement. However, they are not going to exclude Psy.Ds...sorry.
Per you...you are a tad narcissistic... a tad sadistic...and you have impulse control problems. As you're young in ur training there is time to work on it.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,382
- Reaction score
- 4,323
It is always so helpful when a student comes in and professes their opinion as fact, as if they speak for professionals who actually are out working in the field. Vicious22, I'd recommend putting in more time learning the profession before trying to speak for it.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,609
I hope people dont feed into this and rehash all the stuff this thread already talked about.
To Vicious:
Enjoy the Ph.D. superiority complex while you can still maintain it...its not particularly useful to you once you're out of training. Trust your one of your Ph.D. elders on this...
To Vicious:
Enjoy the Ph.D. superiority complex while you can still maintain it...its not particularly useful to you once you're out of training.
Trust your one of your Ph.D. elders on this...
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
I hope people dont feed into this and rehash all the stuff this thread already talked about.
To Vicious:
Enjoy the Ph.D. superiority complex while you can still maintain it...its not particularly useful to you once you're out of training.
Yeah I know, I be trollin'. I'm just getting my rocks off after having been admitted. Totally immature I know, but hell, this site doles out so much anxiety that you kind of want to shake it up a little.
I don't know anything about programs outside of my walls. I actually sympathize with the PsyD folks, I mean I was one click away from that route. And I know what it feels like to hit your goal and be robbed of the satisfaction. For a lot of PhD candidates, it's when the program you get into is not ranked in the top 20 or 40. "Is it good enough?" I think it's... what you make of it + mentor + location / my know-nothing bull**** = The Answer.
With a PsyD, if you just want to practice, I think the only disadvantage you may have is a different quality of one-to-one mentorship. It helps to have someone who can give you a bump in the field once you get out. With 20 or 30 kid cohorts, I just do not think the same dynamic is in place, but I could be wrong, which, I'm sure someone will confirm via anecdotal evidence.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
So I found this quote and well, I just love it.
"At the level at which under the most favorable circumstances the medical student gets his education, it is absurd to speak of an inherent conflict between science and practice" (Felix, 1920).
Why should we be any different than MDs? If we are truly the masters of our field, given the title of doctor, should we not possess a supreme understanding of the field, especially one which is so rapidly developing, where errors in logic are constantly uncovered only to the peril of those we are supposed to be helping (e.g., widespread trauma-debriefings proceeding natural disasters)? If we just rely on intuitive logic and are not Extremely well versed in developing science, we are charlatans.
The patient thinks we are all-knowing, they really do. That is our duty, people expect it. You must be informed at the highest level. To make judgments on intuition alone or even in great part is just unconscionable. This is why I side with the Boulder model, it is for the patient, it is for ethics. A study by two PsyD candidates at Rutgers found PsyD students (all from Rutgers) were ranked significantly higher by their supervisors on the trait of "intuitive reasoning" contrasted by PhD canidates of various programs who were rated more highly on "scientific approach".
*Snepp, F. P., & Peterson, D. P. (1988). Evaluative comparison of Psy.D. and Ph.D. students by clinical internship supervisors. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, ISO- 183.
*It's a little outdated and the study was conducted poorly, hence why it is published in such a light journal.
I feel you can be scientifically oriented no matter what program you go into, but the Boulder model will be more likely to indoctrinate a maverick therapist who believes they have natural talent in the field and can just "feel out" their patient, something which is only perilous to the patient. To do such a thing is human experimentation without the slightest degree of an empirically validated chance of success, without even considering other, less-aversive options; U-N-E-T-H-I-C-A-L.
We cannot separate science and clinical practice or even weigh one over the other, but if you had to choose, which would it be? Please say science.
Intuition is a very important part of therapy as it is in the culinary arts, but cracked eggs and spilled milk have a price tag while human wellness does not.
"At the level at which under the most favorable circumstances the medical student gets his education, it is absurd to speak of an inherent conflict between science and practice" (Felix, 1920).
Why should we be any different than MDs? If we are truly the masters of our field, given the title of doctor, should we not possess a supreme understanding of the field, especially one which is so rapidly developing, where errors in logic are constantly uncovered only to the peril of those we are supposed to be helping (e.g., widespread trauma-debriefings proceeding natural disasters)? If we just rely on intuitive logic and are not Extremely well versed in developing science, we are charlatans.
The patient thinks we are all-knowing, they really do. That is our duty, people expect it. You must be informed at the highest level. To make judgments on intuition alone or even in great part is just unconscionable. This is why I side with the Boulder model, it is for the patient, it is for ethics. A study by two PsyD candidates at Rutgers found PsyD students (all from Rutgers) were ranked significantly higher by their supervisors on the trait of "intuitive reasoning" contrasted by PhD canidates of various programs who were rated more highly on "scientific approach".
*Snepp, F. P., & Peterson, D. P. (1988). Evaluative comparison of Psy.D. and Ph.D. students by clinical internship supervisors. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, ISO- 183.
*It's a little outdated and the study was conducted poorly, hence why it is published in such a light journal.
I feel you can be scientifically oriented no matter what program you go into, but the Boulder model will be more likely to indoctrinate a maverick therapist who believes they have natural talent in the field and can just "feel out" their patient, something which is only perilous to the patient. To do such a thing is human experimentation without the slightest degree of an empirically validated chance of success, without even considering other, less-aversive options; U-N-E-T-H-I-C-A-L.
We cannot separate science and clinical practice or even weigh one over the other, but if you had to choose, which would it be? Please say science.
Intuition is a very important part of therapy as it is in the culinary arts, but cracked eggs and spilled milk have a price tag while human wellness does not.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 29
I'm hoping this is another example of your "wild and crazy student-to-be" shtick, but it seems more likely you feel the need to show some jot of sincerity after the poor initial showing.
Either way, time for your beddy-bye.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 7,531
- Reaction score
- 6,693
Boulder model? Don't you mean the Vail model, since you're railing on PsyDs?
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 461
- Reaction score
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 7,641
- Reaction score
- 6,377
While we had some good, civil discussion here, it is probably time for this thread to end.
*closing*
*closing*
- Status
