PsyD vs PhD: Addressing Anti-Psyd Sentiments

[phillydave]

---

Members don't see this ad.

^ I was wondering how long it would take for someone to take the heat off of the despicable practices of FSPSs by drawing the attention back to:

"LOOK, this PhD is calling all of us PsyDs dumb!"

For the record: I do not agree with SHFWLF's personal attacks. It is immature and off topic. The issues here are professional--not personal.

Well, I responded to SHFWLF before I got within 4 pages of the FSPS discussion. I assume you're suggesting that I'm trying to change the subject. Sorry to get you worked up, I like to address things one at a time.

You can make fun of my sentiment, but SHFWLF was deserving of the criticism.

PS. Thanks for the disclaimer. You speak out in disagreement with his/her comments and make fun of me for doing so, all in the same post. Weird.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I just wanted to mention (re: the GRE/EPPP/ABPP/outcome data linked with admissions criteria statements) that, were this a perfect world and we could easily put forth effort to develop "real world" outcome measures, psychotherapy response should likely not be the only area assessed. In my opinion, doctoral training in psychology (even at clinically-oriented schools) should not solely focus on psychotherapy; that is the realm of a master's program. If a professional chooses to focus largely on therapy, then I have absolutely no problems with that. However, these professionals should also, were they inclined, be able to fill administrative and supervisory roles in addition to having extensive training in psychopathological theory and assessment.

I do realize that some of these variables, especially training in theory and assessment, could be reflected by proxy in psychotherapy outcomes (i.e., if the client is more accurately assessed, treatment should be more effective). However, I just didn't want us to fall into a trap of saying that psychotherapy is the end-all, be-all goal of doctoral-level psychology training.

 

[Jegg]

However, I just didn't want us to fall into a trap of saying that psychotherapy is the end-all, be-all goal of doctoral-level psychology training.

I wasn't making that point if you were referring to my posts.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I wasn't making that point if you were referring to my posts.

Not your posts specifically, no. I just often see "psychotherapy outcomes" listed as a major variable of interest. And while I definitely agree that it's important, especially when examining something like potential effects of increased education/training, there isn't always mention of other equally-valid outcome-related areas.

 

[Jegg]

I do want to note that, despite any weaknesses in standardized testing instruments that I referred to in this thread, I do agree that there needs to be some limit on opening the flood gates to just anyone in any doctoral degree field, not just clinical psychology. It is difficult to set those limits when you consider the weaknesses of many of the instruments being used, but a well motivated and intelligent student can raise his or her scores on standardized tests fairly easily. There are a great number of people with competitive credentials and standardized scores that meet criteria and don't get into the more competitive programs due to arbitrary decision making processes. They are just as qualified and do deserve the opportunity to pursue a doctoral degree. Hopefully no one believes that he or she is more special because he or she was chosen and that those other candidates are thus undeserving; this belief may be egosyntonic (as well as narcissistic) and thus feels good, but it doesn't truthfully capture the arbitrary nature of selecting one or two students from the hundreds of qualified candidates.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I do want to note that, despite any weaknesses in standardized testing instruments that I referred to in this thread, I do agree that there needs to be some limit on opening the flood gates to just anyone in any doctoral degree field, not just clinical psychology. It is difficult to set those limits when you consider the weaknesses of many of the instruments being used, but a well motivated and intelligent student can raise his or her scores on standardized tests fairly easily. There are a great number of people with competitive credentials and standardized scores that meet criteria and don't get into the more competitive programs due to arbitrary decision making processes. They are just as qualified and do deserve the opportunity to pursue a doctoral degree. Hopefully no one believes that he or she is more special because he or she was chosen and that those other candidates are thus undeserving; this belief may be egosyntonic (as well as narcissistic) and thus feels good, but it doesn't truthfully capture the arbitrary nature of selecting one or two students from the hundreds of qualified candidates.

I think this point, in particular, may be what many other posters here have in mind with their support of current (admittedly-lackluster) admissions criteria. These criteria have been in place for quite some time and are generally widespread across disciplines. Thus, they shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has taken some time to research their career choice. And given that these metrics (e.g., GRE, GPA) often respond positively to academic self-discipline, preparation, and hard-work, they can serve as indirect measures of these characterstics--which I'm sure we would all agree are desirable for undertaking any advanced degree program.

 

[deleted75966]

They are just as qualified and do deserve the opportunity to pursue a doctoral degree. Hopefully no one believes that he or she is more special because he or she was chosen and that those other candidates are thus undeserving; this belief may be egosyntonic (as well as narcissistic) and thus feels good, but it doesn't truthfully capture the arbitrary nature of selecting one or two students from the hundreds of qualified candidates.

That's true, especially considering any one program.

 

[O Gurl]

😱 Ouch . . . why don't you tell us how you really feel?

So if I pay $1,000+ a credit hour at a "FSPSs" I won't have to complete any courses, practicums/internships, research, and the like?? And I will be eligible in my state to obtain a license? Just pay to play?

Show that program to me or please ease up on the gross generalizations and unsubstantiated hyperbole.

What am I exaggerating? Are these programs not admitting far more students than those admitted into university programs? Are they not using lower standards for admissions? Are they not charging and arm and a leg for this alternative path? Money is the way around the traditional admissions process. So before we even get into the coursework, practica, and licensing, there are vast numbers of people entering the field who otherwise could not. I am saying that the implications for the field makes it the business of all clinical psychologists. The implications for the federal loan system makes it the business of all taxpayers. So yes, if people want to circumvent the process to help others, it would be alot easier for all involved if they did it under a different hat.

 

[Ollie123]

Agree with several recent posts. Disagree with some others, and think others need clarification.

1) Therapy outcome should definitely not be the only metric we consider for someone licensed as a psychologist. It is one (admittedly very important) area of a diverse skill-set we are supposed to possess. I agree that we could definitely do more to measure many of these things, however I have seen lots of "Should-ing" with little discussion of how. We "Should" do lots of things, but the devil is in the details🙂 I have some ideas about how we can study these areas. None are easy, none are perfect, all rely on proxies and are not things I can easily implement at this stage in my career due to funding eligibility, time, etc. If people have ideas than share, but as I said before, calling for better research does not mean we ignore what we currently have and by most measures, professional schools are graduating weaker students than other institutions.

2) I am once again seeing the straw-man appear where people think folks are saying that NO ONE at professional schools is qualified, or that ALL students there have bad GRE scores, etc.. This has happened time and time again on this board, but it has little to do with the point those of us against these schools are making. A low bar does not mean ONLY unqualified people surpass it. I think everyone is aware there are likely some pretty highly qualified people at these schools. They are not who we worry about. If the poster with high GREs, multiple presentations, etc. who did not get in anywhere else was representative of the type of student at these institutions I think this discussion would likely be very different. That person is clearly not the "typical" student there, the data shows us that, plain as day.

3) Several have emphasized the importance of these schools having "Different" standards for admission. I haven't seen anyone explain what "Different" means. Different implies separate but equal. If these schools are weighting different parts of an application, than explain this. Thus far, it has just seemed like a marketing scheme to avoid saying "Lower standards". Different standards and lower standards are not synonymous. Calling it different when it really means lower is just political spin.

4) Not all FSPS's are the same. This is simple fact, I wouldn't disagree. Some may require a dissertation. Some do not. I haven't gone through and named each and every institution in my posts. Do we really believe prof school is not a reasonable proxy for the issues we discuss? Its a label...I can go through and list all the things I believe are problems with these institutions and say any school with 4 or more is "bad" and should be shut down, but posts are going to get longer and I suspect we would not see much of a difference in the end.

An earlier poster mentioned that requiring a dissertation was a "draw" to that program. I find this very sad, akin to being "drawn" to a current house/condo/apartment by the fact that it was not on fire at the time you went to look at it. That should be an expectation, not a draw. Similarly, yes, there is perhaps some stereotyping going on about these schools. Not all are equally bad. However, if I log into Proquest and pull a random sample of 50 dissertations from Argosy/Alliant/etc. and 50 from mid-range university programs, does anyone honestly believe we couldn't tell which group was which? There may and likely will be some overlap in the distribution. I'm concerned with where they don't overlap.

In short, for me the question boils down to "Is it worth it to get the good graduates of this program who for whatever reason did not attend a university program into the field, if it means the bad ones come in as well?". My answer is a resounding no. We might get more people in the field this way to fill a gap in care (this likely ties in to what buzzword was saying many pages back when I said I'd reply and then got busy writing lectures and forgot). It would be great if more people had access to services. However I'm not convinced there is a true "shortage" as much as there is a distribution problem (i.e. some areas are over-saturated, others are under-saturated). That's an empirical question though, and not one I have an answer to. Assuming it is a distribution problem, I'm not convinced upping the numbers we produce is a good solution. Similarly, even in the event of a shortage I'm not convinced lower (or "different") standards is the way to resolve that. For one, it presumes people are choosing between psychology or, I don't know, banking? There may be alternative paths where these people can make a very real difference and their experiences/credentials are more in line with the field. If we start lowering the standards of psychology it will likely:
1) Lead the MORE qualified individuals to pursue other career paths due to diminished pay, diminished status, etc. We like to act as though this is calling, but I think we all know there is more to it than that.
2) Lead to decreased respect from the general public. This could in turn lead to people being less likely to seek our services who truly need them.
3) Make it more difficult to raise standards in the future. This is my biggest concern. Right now I feel as though the standards in many community settings is already too low. People provide absolutely whacky treatments on a regular basis out in the field. I perceive the field as needing to raise standards...we need people that approach things more scientifically, that are more thorough, etc. What will happen if we try and raise the standards of care while simultaneously lowering the standards for who we deem qualified to provide the care? If we decide we want to make the EPPP much more difficult, who is going to be most hurt by this? Do we think Yale is going to be the one fighting against making the licensing exam more difficult?

Its unfortunate that some good students struggle to get in, it truly is. I'm willing to lose some good ones for what I perceive as the greater good of the profession.

 

[deleted75966]

Excelllent post Ollie.. . . love the house on fire analogy, very funny.

 

[LyricAnalysis]

Not really. Not when they are borrowing massive amounts of federal loans that are impossible for them to repay. Not when they are diminishing the respect of the profession that we are all responsible for. Not when they are occupying jobs that equate a doctoral degree with a master's and thus lowering the payscale for clinicians in general. If it is not anyone else's business, then by all means feel free to proclaim oneself a self-help guru or function as "life-coach." Please do not buy (or borrow) your way into a degree and diminish psychology for your aspirations.

Well said. Those of us who are still in training or just starting our careers have a huge stake in the value of "clinical psychology." I have to make a living with this title and degree for the next 30 years and I do not want my career defined by the professional school model. I also think the comment above touches on a point that has been overlooked. That is the fact that becoming a psychologist is not the only way to fulfill one's desire to provide mental health services. In fact, it is a bit of a waste to become a clinical psychologist to function as a therapist only. The idea behind the degree is that it should be multifaceted. Clinical psychologists should be capable of scientific research, teaching, testing, and therapy, right? I am unsure of how that will continue to hold true if training continues to move toward a professional school model and away from universities. If someone cannot gain admittance into a university program of doctoral study and they want to be a therapist, then they should consider a license-eligible master's degree.

 

[Slarterbartfast]

People who like to whine will always have something to whine about. As friends of mine have said time and time again, psychologists are usually the worst nut cases of all.

This is likely why they end up in this field of study... 😛

 

[PsyDreaming]

Not really. Not when they are borrowing massive amounts of federal loans that are impossible for them to repay.

So pleased that you have the ability to speak for the sum total of federal borrowers!

Not when they are diminishing the respect of the profession that we are all responsible for.

Exactly how??? Other than in your estimation.

Not when they are occupying jobs that equate a doctoral degree with a master's and thus lowering the payscale for clinicians in general.

I am sure that the present economic climate has had little or no impact on the field. Have we quantified that impact or is it simply more convenient to blame the FSPS PsyD's?

If it is not anyone else's business, then by all means feel free to proclaim oneself a self-help guru or function as "life-coach." Please do not buy (or borrow) your way into a degree and diminish psychology for your aspirations.

Sheesh! Rough stuff here. I don't know what else to say other than thanks for the stimulating discussion and I genuinely wish you the best in all of your pursuits.

If you decide to post a reply I will most definitely read it but I will not post any more on this topic as we have travelled well beyond the point of positive contribution.

Have a great weekend!

 

[conleyjohnj]

I agree with the assertion that clinical psychology's credibility rests on a scientific foundation; however, I think the PsyD=less scientific generalization misses the point. Here are my thoughts on the matter:

1) Any program that holds to the postmodern axiom that "All viewpoints are equally valid" damages the integrity of the profession. Wrt this attitude, I suspect that it is much more common among FS professional schools (I'm making this generalization based mostly on anecdotes, I'm sure there are lots of exceptions, and it's possible that I'm just plain wrong).

On the other hand...

2) Any program that adheres dogmatically to an outdated idea of what scientific psychology ought to look like is also hurting the field, although maybe not to the same degree. My experience has been that this second attitude is rampant among PhD clinical faculty. While I appreciate that they are willing to pay lip service to the scientific method, I have found that there are a couple of topics that reliably infuriate "scientific" clinical psychologists. These subjects are, in order of perceived egregiousness: (a) behavioral genetics, (b) evolutionary psychology, and (c) cognitive/affective science (particularly evidence suggesting that cognition's role in shaping emotion is marginal).

It seems to me that CBT, even in its current new-age incarnations (e.g., ACT), willfully ignores most of the research that has come out of the above fields over the past 3 decades, largely because the evidence lays waste to the developmental theory that has long been favored by academic psychologists (for those of you who have read the book, yes, I am stealing my talking points from Steven Pinker, but my experiences have led me to believe he's on to something).

I am not saying that we are all equally culpable (far too relativistic for my taste), but I do think that those of you who feel that scientific psychology is under attack by new-age "Anything goes" diploma mills would be better served by attending to your own (our own) side of the street. I'm sure there are scientifically inclined PsyD students, and I KNOW for a fact that there are many PhDs who assume that, just because they know how to use SPSS and favor RCTs to voodoo, they are being scientific.

 

[O Gurl]

So pleased that you have the ability to speak for the sum total of federal borrowers!

I'm talking numbers. If the median salary for clinical psychologists is 65K, how can someone pay back 200K in loans? When I calculated for the standard 10-yr plan, I got:

[FONT=ARIAL, HELVETICA]Note: The monthly loan payment was calculated at 119 payments of $2,301.61 plus a final payment of $2,301.03..

[FONT=ARIAL, HELVETICA]It is estimated that you will need an annual salary of at least $276,193.20 to be able to afford to repay this loan. This estimate assumes that 10% of your gross monthly income will be devoted to repaying your student loans. This corresponds to a debt-to-income ratio of 0.7. If you use 15% of your gross monthly income to repay the loan, you will need an annual salary of only $184,128.80, but you may experience some financial difficulty.This corresponds to a debt-to-income ratio of 1.1. .

At the extended plan of 30 years, I got:

[FONT=ARIAL, HELVETICA]Note: The monthly loan payment was calculated at 359 payments of $1,303.85 plus a final payment of $1,304.29..

[FONT=ARIAL, HELVETICA]It is estimated that you will need an annual salary of at least $156,462.00 to be able to afford to repay this loan. This estimate assumes that 10% of your gross monthly income will be devoted to repaying your student loans. This corresponds to a debt-to-income ratio of 1.3. If you use 15% of your gross monthly income to repay the loan, you will need an annual salary of only $104,308.00, but you may experience some financial difficulty.This corresponds to a debt-to-income ratio of 1.9. .

How many clinical psychologists do you know who are earning these amounts? Even with graduated payments, the initial payment amount would be $1,150/month with a final monthly payment amout of $1,652/month. Feel free to punch in the numbers, or insert your own projected loan amount and avg. salary for psychologists in your state or region and tell us how the math works: http://www.finaid.org/calculators/loanpayments.phtml

In terms of why I think FSPS graduates are contributing more to the lowered salaries and respect for the field, I would refer you to their internship match rates. Overall, % of students who go unmatched at FSPSs is much higher than most university programs. If you deconstruct the numbers for those who do match, significantly fewer match to APA accredited internships. A non-APA internship automatically eliminates some employment options, thus making one more likely to take a job that pays at a rate more consistent with an MFT or LCSW.

So yes, I stand by my statements. I would not care so much what other students are doing (taking on massive debt or taking lower-paying master's equivalent jobs) if we were not all called clinical psychologists at the end of the day.

 

[conleyjohnj]

I agree with the assertion that clinical psychology's credibility rests on a scientific foundation; however, I think the PsyD=less scientific generalization misses the point. Here are my thoughts on the matter:

1) Any program that holds to the postmodern axiom that "All viewpoints are equally valid" damages the integrity of the profession. Wrt this attitude, I suspect that it is much more common among FS professional schools (I'm making this generalization based mostly on anecdotes, I'm sure there are lots of exceptions, and it's possible that I'm just plain wrong).

On the other hand...

2) Any program that adheres dogmatically to an outdated idea of what scientific psychology ought to look like is also hurting the field, although maybe not to the same degree. My experience has been that this second attitude is rampant among PhD clinical faculty. While I appreciate that they are willing to pay lip service to the scientific method, I have found that there are a couple of topics that reliably infuriate "scientific" clinical psychologists. These subjects are, in order of perceived egregiousness: (a) behavioral genetics, (b) evolutionary psychology, and (c) cognitive/affective science (particularly evidence suggesting that cognition's role in shaping emotion is marginal).

It seems to me that CBT, even in its current new-age incarnations (e.g., ACT), willfully ignores most of the research that has come out of the above fields over the past 3 decades, largely because the evidence lays waste to the developmental theory that has long been favored by academic psychologists (for those of you who have read the book, yes, I am stealing my talking points from Steven Pinker, but my experiences have led me to believe he's on to something).

I am not saying that we are all equally culpable (far too relativistic for my taste), but I do think that those of you who feel that scientific psychology is under attack by new-age "Anything goes" diploma mills would be better served by attending to your own (our own) side of the street. I'm sure there are scientifically inclined PsyD students, and I KNOW for a fact that there are many PhDs who assume that, just because they know how to use SPSS and favor RCTs to voodoo, they are being scientific.

Wrt my previous post, just thought of at least one noteworthy excpeton: DBT. Linehan's work is definitely a product of academic research-based clinical psychology, and it's hard to see how this type of innovation could come out of a FSSPP.

Nonetheless, I still don't think she goes far enough; the link between trauma and BPD is far less pronounced when you control for shared genes (I know it's uncomfortable, but too deterministic is not a scientific argument). And I have to say that many PhD DBT adherents I have know creep me out (believe with a perfect faith or be cast out of our community!). Again, this dogmatism strikes me as typical of academic psychology.

 

[conleyjohnj]

People who like to whine will always have something to whine about. As friends of mine have said time and time again, psychologists are usually the worst nut cases of all.

This is likely why they end up in this field of study... 😛

We need the clinical equivalent of "It's not research, it's me-search". I meet so many clinicians, scientifically oriented PhD psychologists not excepted, who strike me as exhibiting a more than average number of maladaptive personality traits. It always scares me when psychologists take themselves too seriously. I think there's power in knowing how neurotic we are!

 

[Slarterbartfast]

And I have to say that many PhD DBT adherents I have know creep me out (believe with a perfect faith or be cast out of our community!). Again, this dogmatism strikes me as typical of academic psychology.

A good friend of mine (a respected researcher at a top research hospital) always invokes Sayre's law in these situations: "The politics of the university are so intense because the stakes are so low." 😀

 

[cara susanna]

Wrt my previous post, just thought of at least one noteworthy excpeton: DBT. Linehan's work is definitely a product of academic research-based clinical psychology, and it's hard to see how this type of innovation could come out of a FSSPP.

Nonetheless, I still don't think she goes far enough; the link between trauma and BPD is far less pronounced when you control for shared genes (I know it's uncomfortable, but too deterministic is not a scientific argument). And I have to say that many PhD DBT adherents I have know creep me out (believe with a perfect faith or be cast out of our community!). Again, this dogmatism strikes me as typical of academic psychology.

Can I see a reference for a study that controls for shared genes? Also, Linehan acknowledges the biological disposition to BPD..

 

[Slarterbartfast]

We need the clinical equivalent of "It's not research, it's me-search". I meet so many clinicians, scientifically oriented PhD psychologists not excepted, who strike me as exhibiting a more than average number of maladaptive personality traits. It always scares me when psychologists take themselves too seriously. I think there's power in knowing how neurotic we are!

It is for just these reasons that my friend (previously mentioned) also states that he dislikes most research psychologists. After decades in the field his conclusion is that research psychologists in particular are a very arrogant and narcissistic group of individuals.

 

[O Gurl]

We need the clinical equivalent of "It's not research, it's me-search". I meet so many clinicians, scientifically oriented PhD psychologists not excepted, who strike me as exhibiting a more than average number of maladaptive personality traits. It always scares me when psychologists take themselves too seriously. I think there's power in knowing how neurotic we are!

When a person devotes as much time and energy to a career as we do, it is hard to imagine that they wouldn't take the profession seriously. Not sure how that translates into psychologists taking themselves too seriously or having personality issues. It is called being a professional who actually worked to get where you are. However, I think your other comment regarding evidence based interventions (e.g. DBT) speaks to the main issue being raised by the anti-FSPS crowd:

Linehan's work is definitely a product of academic research-based clinical psychology, and it's hard to see how this type of innovation could come out of a FSSPP.

It is not even about psychology training being restricted to one narrow model or a Boulder vs. Vail debate, but rather about the professional damage done to our field when it is being usurped by business shareholders.

 

[conleyjohnj]

Can I see a reference for a study that controls for shared genes? Also, Linehan acknowledges the biological disposition to BPD..

A brief digression: don't to pick on Linehan too much, I generally think her work is solid, even if it's kind of trendy these days. Wrt biosocial theory, it's a huge step in the right direction, but it's simply not accurate to say that all cases of BPD, or even the vast majority of them, are caused by biological predisposition interacting with an invalidating environment; abuse and invalidation are frequently major factors, yes, but there are also plenty of adequate parents out there receiving more than their fair share of blame for how their children have turned out (we should have learned our lesson with schizophrenogenic mothers). I'm not saying we should tell our clients to suck it up and stop blaming their parents (after all, there's no doubt that they experienced their environments as invalidating), I just think we should be careful about speaking in absolutes.

I've included a link for anyone interested in the behavioral genetics research that I alluded to in my previous post. Skimmed the full text and it seems like a good place for anyone interested in the topic to start (hope you all have access to online subscriptions)

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.4.022007.141203?journalCode=clinpsy

Also, to be fair, I have run into plenty of solid, intellectually flexible, DBT-trained therapists.

To end on topic: overall, I think Linehan's work is a good example of how major research universities can transform practice for the better.

 

[conleyjohnj]

When a person devotes as much time and energy to a career as we do, it is hard to imagine that they wouldn't take the profession seriously. Not sure how that translates into psychologists taking themselves too seriously or having personality issues. It is called being a professional who actually worked to get where you are. However, I think your other comment regarding evidence based interventions (e.g. DBT) speaks to the main issue being raised by the anti-FSPS crowd:



It is not even about psychology training being restricted to one narrow model or a Boulder vs. Vail debate, but rather about the professional damage done to our field when it is being usurped by business shareholders.

I guess what I meant by not taking ourselves too seriously, at least in the context of this discussion is this: If we are really honest with ourselves, clinical psychology has always included a fair number of charlatans and any number of well-meaning incompetents, irrespective of the letters behind their names. I guess I question the premise that there is something uniquely sinister about PsyD programs, or even for-profit diploma mills; sure, if they're raising the incompetence quota they're a threat, but I'm not sure why we should rush to that conclusion.

Moreover, there isn't always an alternative for those seeking to become a solid clinician. Look at any prestigious research university's clinical program page, and you will see language discouraging practice-oriented applicants. There are many highly competent individuals who do not want to be researchers, and I'm not sure why we should be so quick to look down our noses at them. Moreover, beyond being scientifically literate, I'm not sure why being a good therapist should correlate very strongly with research potential (I'm probably repeating an argument that has already been made earlier in the thread). If this was a discussion about the dangers of anti-intellectual and anti-scientific sentiments in professional psychology I would have very different things to say, but antagonizing good psychologists who come from mediocre schools is counterproductive.

 

[erg923]

Moreover, there isn't always an alternative for those seeking to become a solid clinician. Look at any prestigious research university's clinical program page, and you will see language discouraging practice-oriented applicants. There are many highly competent individuals who do not want to be researchers, and I'm not sure why we should be so quick to look down our noses at them. Moreover, beyond being scientifically literate, I'm not sure why being a good therapist should correlate very strongly with research potential (I'm probably repeating an argument that has already been made earlier in the thread). If this was a discussion about the dangers of anti-intellectual and anti-scientific sentiments in professional psychology I would have very different things to say, but antagonizing good psychologists who come from mediocre schools is counterproductive.

What about non-prestigious universities in this country that offer the ph.d in clinical (of which there are over 100)? What do they say? I doubt you will find many that state this and that you will find a signficanly larger proportion that state they "value the integration of science (research) and practice", or something to that effect.

Relatedly, why must we acommodate everyone who wants it? Its not your "right" to be able to be able to gain entrance to a doctoral program, is it? Some people see exclusion and get angry and call "snobbery." Other people can see the same thing and realize that "exclusion" (in one form or another) is present in all professions and is just part of the working world. Its gatekeeping. Ollie123 made a comment a while back that was good. So I will repeat it here.

Its unfortunate that some good students struggle to get in, it truly is. I'm willing to lose some good ones for what I perceive as the greater good of the profession.

 

[O Gurl]

I guess what I meant by not taking ourselves too seriously, at least in the context of this discussion is this: If we are really honest with ourselves, clinical psychology has always included a fair number of charlatans and any number of well-meaning incompetents, irrespective of the letters behind their names. I guess I question the premise that there is something uniquely sinister about PsyD programs, or even for-profit diploma mills; sure, if they're raising the incompetence quota they're a threat, but I'm not sure why we should rush to that conclusion.

Moreover, there isn't always an alternative for those seeking to become a solid clinician. Look at any prestigious research university's clinical program page, and you will see language discouraging practice-oriented applicants. There are many highly competent individuals who do not want to be researchers, and I'm not sure why we should be so quick to look down our noses at them. Moreover, beyond being scientifically literate, I'm not sure why being a good therapist should correlate very strongly with research potential (I'm probably repeating an argument that has already been made earlier in the thread). If this was a discussion about the dangers of anti-intellectual and anti-scientific sentiments in professional psychology I would have very different things to say, but antagonizing good psychologists who come from mediocre schools is counterproductive.

If you don't get what is uniquely sinister about the schools in question by this point in this thread, then I do not know what else to say. The same issues are being raised repeatedly from many posters. Take your pick: the low criteria, the overwhelming class sizes, the subpar student outcomes, the crippling debt, the trend of programs being run by business execs, the pressure from some of these programs to seek non-APA (sometimes unpaid) internships, which is exploitative... and so on. Claiming that we are turning our noses up at those who do not want to be career researchers is almost a willful manipulation of this discussion. I mean, come on, most clinical psych PhDs are clinicians. The point is what these programs are doing to the profession.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Relatedly, why must we acommodate everyone who wants it? Its not your "right" to be able to be able to gain entrance to a doctoral program, is it? Some people see exclusion and get angry and call "snobbery." Other people can see the same thing and realize that "exclusion" (in one form or another) is present in all professions and is just part of the working world. Its gatekeeping. Ollie123 made a comment a while back that was good. So I will repeat it here.

Absolutely. It also goes back to a comment O Gurl made:

I would not care so much what other students are doing (taking on massive debt or taking lower-paying master's equivalent jobs) if we were not all called clinical psychologists at the end of the day.

It frustrates me to no end to know that there are people out there who somehow got licensed and practice junk science/junk therapy...because it reflects badly on the entire profession. There are hacks in ever profession, but I care so much because it is MY profession. Standards matter and perception matters.

I know my preference for training standards will probably never happen (APA-acred program and internship, req. post-doc, and required boarding if you want to call yourself a clinical psychologist, forensic psychologist, neuropsychologist, rehab psychologist, etc), but the current trend of dumbing down the field is ridiculous. I am relatively insulated at my current institution, but it can be downright scary when I go to conferences and meet some of the up and coming graduate students out there.

Okay...I'm going to go shake my cane at some loud troublemaking kids who are getting too close to my lawn!

I'm really just holed up in a windowless office finishing my intakes and progress notes for the week....I wish I was outside!

 

[conleyjohnj]

What about non-prestigious universities in this country that offer the ph.d in clinical (of which there are over 100)? What do they say? I doubt you will find many that state this and that you will find a signficanly larger proportion that state they "value the integration of science (research) and practice", or something to that effect.

Relatedly, why must we acommodate everyone who wants it? Its not your "right" to be able to be able to gain entrance to a doctoral program, is it? Some people see exclusion and get angry and call "snobbery." Other people can see the same thing and realize that "exclusion" (in one form or another) is present in all professions and is just part of the working world. Its gatekeeping. Ollie123 made a comment a while back that was good. So I will repeat it here.

I'm not opposed to better academic birth control, but there is need for average 1200 gre type-clinicians that hasnt been met by traditional programs. I would love it if they ( the traditional programs) stepped up and put Argosy out of business; how likely do you think that is?

For the record, I am a snob - anyone who talks about the genius a c. Jung should not be hanging their shingle. However, I don't think that's our biggest problem. My gf is getting her PhD in biochem, and the scorn is as bad as you might think; however, when she and her friends talk about the soft science of clinical psychology, they're talking about research coming out of Berkeley and UCLA, not Argosy and Alliant (doesn't even merit mention). Here's the part that annoys me: they're right, not bc of any inherent softness, but because of the overwhelming stagnation of research in clinical Psycholgy. We can't blame Argosy for that. The stale rcts and the pernicious legacy of behaviorism can't be blamed on people talking about the collective unconscious.

 

[O Gurl]

I'm not opposed to better academic birth control, but there is need for average 1200 gre type-clinicians that hasnt been met by traditional programs. I would love it if they ( the traditional programs) stepped up and put Argosy out of business; how likely do you think that is?

Why is there a need for "average" doctoral clinicians?

 

[cara susanna]

I'm a 1200 GRE at a university-based PhD program. Of course, I want to be a researcher, not a clinician. 😛

 

[futureapppsy2]

I'm not opposed to better academic birth control, but there is need for average 1200 gre type-clinicians that hasnt been met by traditional programs. I would love it if they ( the traditional programs) stepped up and put Argosy out of business; how likely do you think that is?

GRE=not the only criteria on which applicants are judged, and it won't be what gets you in--someone with a 1600 GRE without research experience and/or a demonstrated fit is going to have an almost insurmountable uphill battle at any university-based PhD program, whereas person with a 1200 GRE and good research experience and a good demonstrated fit may very well have a fighting chance (which, really, is all pretty much anyone has in this field, when you consider how competitive and somewhat arbitrary admissions decisions can be)

 

[conleyjohnj]

GRE=not the only criteria on which applicants are judged, and it won't be what gets you in--someone with a 1600 GRE without research experience and/or a demonstrated fit is going to have an almost insurmountable uphill battle at any university-based PhD program, whereas person with a 1200 GRE and good research experience and a good demonstrated fit may very well have a fighting chance (which, really, is all pretty much anyone has in this field, when you consider how competitive and somewhat arbitrary admissions decisions can be)

I guess I was just using GRE scores as an e.g. (1200 is around the national average for accepted PhD students, if my memory serves me, so please don't be offended or mistake my meaning).

All I meant was that there are a lot more qualified applicants than there are spaces in universities. Don't get me wrong, this is a perfectly fair system. However, to my knowledege, the job market for clinical psychologists is nowhere near what it is for attorneys, even allowing for all the for-profit newcomers. My point is not that turning away qualified applicants is unfair, but rather that it is uneccesary given the projected increase in demand. I agree that diploma mills have the potential to take us too far past the mark for purely venal reasons, but my hunch is that the APA will respond to criticism before that point and decline to renew the accredidation of the worst offenders (it seems like they're already moving in that direction).

As for graduates with no chance of ever becoming licensed, I'm perfectly comfortable advocating that they not be allowed to practice. I know it's less efficient than if Argosy did its job in the first place, but it's our fault for leaving the gap between supply and demand undelt with for so long. Now that the for-profits have come in to make up for our inaction, it looks like it is going to be up to the licensing boards to clean up the mess.

I think I'm going to stop posting on this site, guys. I'm sure you're all great people in real life, but the obvious futilitey of this argument is bumming me out. I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and I don't think that I'm going to have my mind changed, either. Maybe we can all meet in person and have a slightly more civil conversation someday?

PS - I feel guilty about bashing on all you Jung-lovers out there. Don't get me wrong, it's complete garbage, but as long as it's not the only tool in your toolbox, I guess it can be your guilty pleasure 🙂

 

[erg923]

Besides the aging baby boomers, where is this increase in "demand" you're talking about? Moreover, demand is only one aspect of the equation. For it to mean anything, you have to have an increase in funding, hiring, and new positions within many different areas of the healthcare system. Where are you observing this trend? Many of us simply aren't seeing this.

Its funny, because many of our arguments seem based on opposite postulates as yours. That is, given the current market for clinical services, there are plenty of psychologists out there. We produce almost 4000 per year. They are not all dispersed evenly (eg., shortage in rural areas) of course, but generally speaking, I know of no hospital administrators or group practices that cant find a psychologist if they desire one. Unfortunately, the new slogan at some hospitals seems to be, "why hire you when I can hire this MSW or MFT to do it cheaper?"

 

[O Gurl]

I think I'm going to stop posting on this site, guys. I'm sure you're all great people in real life, but the obvious futilitey of this argument is bumming me out. I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and I don't think that I'm going to have my mind changed, either. Maybe we can all meet in person and have a slightly more civil conversation someday

I'm going to start with this. I am not sure how this conversation could be more civil. People are trying to be clear on the arguments. Accusing everyone of being mean and jetting is starting to feel like more of a cop-out.

My point is not that turning away qualified applicants is unfair, but rather that it is uneccesary given the projected increase in demand. I agree that diploma mills have the potential to take us too far past the mark for purely venal reasons, but my hunch is that the APA will respond to criticism before that point and decline to renew the accredidation of the worst offenders (it seems like they're already moving in that direction).

As for graduates with no chance of ever becoming licensed, I'm perfectly comfortable advocating that they not be allowed to practice. I know it's less efficient than if Argosy did its job in the first place, but it's our fault for leaving the gap between supply and demand undelt with for so long. Now that the for-profits have come in to make up for our inaction, it looks like it is going to be up to the licensing boards to clean up the mess.

I have to ask, like Erg, where is this increase in demand? Currently, it would appear that market demand is declining as employers are opting for lower-cost alternatives due to budget constraints. It appears that you are talking about demand of students who want a doctoral degree in psychology. It is puzzling that "we" as Americans now function under the premise that everyone who wants something should have it even if the market demand and their qualifications do not justify it.

 

[conleyjohnj]

I'm going to start with this. I am not sure how this conversation could be more civil. People are trying to be clear on the arguments. Accusing everyone of being mean and jetting is starting to feel like more of a cop-out.

Maybe it's a cop-out, but I don't really think so. It reminds me of why I've stopped arguing politics with people I know I disagree with. Go ahead and crack open a text in social or cognitive psychology and tell me what it says about the value of debate. I recognize that my arguments aren't anything like logically flawless, but the research overwhelmingly demonstrates that it doesn't matter; no matter how compelling the arguments, we'll all selectively interpret the evidence and walk away more convinced than ever that the other side is being willfully obtuse, ignorant, or worse.

The only argument that you could possibly make in the face of the massive body of literature to which I'm referring is "The rules don't apply to us", but the rules do apply, even when people have an intellectual understanding of them.

So, given the reality that we are all going to leave this conversation feeling more self-righteous than ever, I can only conclude that this entire debate is a highly grandiloquent and thoroughly joyless form of masturbation. I prefer my masturbation to be enjoyable, without pretense, and accomplished without an audience. Don't take it personally, I acknowledge that it's simply a matter of personal taste 😉

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Maybe it's a cop-out, but I don't really think so. It reminds me of why I've stopped arguing politics with people I know I disagree with. Go ahead and crack open a text in social or cognitive psychology and tell me what it says about the value of debate. I recognize that my arguments aren't anything like logically flawless, but the research overwhelmingly demonstrates that it doesn't matter; no matter how compelling the arguments, we'll all selectively interpret the evidence and walk away more convinced than ever that the other side is being willfully obtuse, ignorant, or worse.

The only argument that you could possibly make in the face of the massive body of literature to which I'm referring is "The rules don't apply to us", but the rules do apply, even when people have an intellectual understanding of them.

So, given the reality that we are all going to leave this conversation feeling more self-righteous than ever, I can only conclude that this entire debate is a highly grandiloquent and thoroughly joyless form of masturbation. I prefer my masturbation to be enjoyable, without pretense, and accomplished without an audience. Don't take it personally, I acknowledge that it's simply a matter of personal taste 😉

In my opinion, the ones potentially most swayed (or at least most affected) by debate, and the ones for which it can be the most informative and helpful, are those who haven't yet formed an opinion, or who haven't given their opinion enough thought to yet be committed to it. I fall into that category when it comes to many of the topics discussed in this forum, and I find the debate to be very useful in helping me see the views/arguments/points I may not have come up with in reviewing the topic on my own.

 

[Slarterbartfast]

Accusing everyone of being mean and jetting is starting to feel like more of a cop-out.

Do you have Aspergers or NPD?

You seem to overshoot the point of what people say by miles instead of yards. It would be one thing if this was the first time, but it is a consistent flaw in your reasoning and expression. This isn't a healthy personality characteristic for someone who plans on trying to psychologically help people...

 

[Slarterbartfast]

So, given the reality that we are all going to leave this conversation feeling more self-righteous than ever, I can only conclude that this entire debate is a highly grandiloquent and thoroughly joyless form of masturbation. I prefer my masturbation to be enjoyable, without pretense, and accomplished without an audience. Don't take it personally, I acknowledge that it's simply a matter of personal taste 😉

Considering the higher than normal levels of psychopathy found in the clinical psychologist population, I'm sure some of the folks you are debating with are probably getting off and enjoying it...

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Considering the higher than normal levels of psychopathy found in the clinical psychologist population, I'm sure some of the folks you are debating with are probably getting off and enjoying it...

 

[O Gurl]

Nice to hear that you have something new (yet still woefully pointless and off-topic) to spout. I suppose the fact that no one gave 2 squirts of duck $h*t about your friend's lame joke that you felt the need to share with us not once:

People who like to whine will always have something to whine about. As friends of mine have said time and time again, psychologists are usually the worst nut cases of all.

This is likely why they end up in this field of study... 😛

Not twice:

A good friend of mine (a respected researcher at a top research hospital) always invokes Sayre's law in these situations: "The politics of the university are so intense because the stakes are so low." 😀

Not thrice:

It is for just these reasons that my friend (previously mentioned) also states that he dislikes most research psychologists. After decades in the field his conclusion is that research psychologists in particular are a very arrogant and narcissistic group of individuals.

But FOUR Times:

Considering the higher than normal levels of psychopathy found in the clinical psychologist population, I'm sure some of the folks you are debating with are probably getting off and enjoying it...

Lead you to amp up the attention-seeking with a more personal attack:

Do you have Aspergers?

You seem to overshoot the point of what people say by miles instead of yards. It would be one thing if this was the first time, but it is a consistent flaw in your reasoning and expression. This isn't a healthy personality characteristic for someone who plans on trying to psychologically help people...

"A" for effort. 👍

And I would be happy to entertain you if you actually knew that Asperger's is not a personality disorder. 🙁

Your contributions here (and in other FSPS threads, if I'm not mistaken) are not as helpful as you probably think they are... well, at least not for those I think you are aiming to help. 😉

 

[Slarterbartfast]

I never said Aspergers was a PD... 😕

Should I ask about BPD as well?

Nice to hear that you have something new (yet still woefully pointless and off-topic) to spout. I suppose the fact that no one gave 2 squirts of duck $h*t about your friend's lame joke that you felt the need to share with us not once:



Not twice:


Not thrice:


But FOUR Times:


Lead you to amp up the attention-seeking with a more personal attack:


"A" for effort. 👍

And I would be happy to entertain you if you actually knew that Asperger's is not a personality disorder. 🙁

Your contributions here (and in other FSPS threads, if I'm not mistaken) are not as helpful as you probably think they are... well, at least not for those I think you are aiming to help. 😉

Thank you for the rational response! 😉

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I never said Aspergers was a PD... 😕

Should I consider BPD as well?

It'd probably be easier to save the eventual frustration and just avoid making character assessments based on internet message board posts.

 

[cara susanna]

Considering the higher than normal levels of psychopathy found in the clinical psychologist population, I'm sure some of the folks you are debating with are probably getting off and enjoying it...

Yes, perhaps the most disturbing trait of psychopaths is that they ENJOY DEBATES. I shudder at the thought!

 

[O Gurl]

In my opinion, the ones potentially most swayed (or at least most affected) by debate, and the ones for which it can be the most informative and helpful, are those who haven't yet formed an opinion, or who haven't given their opinion enough thought to yet be committed to it.

Agreed. It is far-fetched to expect that anyone who has already committed to their FSPS to admit that it may not have been the best move. At least not here. To an extent, that is understandable. However, I am glad that there are places like SDN where at least some potential applicants can clearly see the issues with these programs. God knows their marketing materials and websites are about as in-touch with reality as an acid trip.

 

[Slarterbartfast]

It'd probably be easier to save the eventual frustration and just avoid making character assessments based on internet message board posts.

I'm asking because I am concerned for her potential patients and the reputation of psychologists in general. Take a look at her post history, something is off, and I would wager a lot of people have noticed it (unless this is the most unperceptive group of future psychologists on the planet).

There are other people posting here that I may not agree with but who are rational and insightful. Meanwhile, she flies off the handle constantly.

 

[erg923]

Considering the higher than normal levels of psychopathy found in the clinical psychologist population, I'm sure some of the folks you are debating with are probably getting off and enjoying it...

Are you equating enjoying the process of debate with psychopathy? How does that go together?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I'm asking because I am concerned for her potential patients. Take a look at her post history, something is off, and I would wager a lot of people have noticed it (unless this is the most unperceptive group of future psychologists on the planet).

There are other people posting here that I may not agree with but who are rational and insightful. Meanwhile, she flies off the handle constantly.

Again, I generally wouldn't recommend making character assessments, or voicing ethical concerns regarding patient/client care, based on the limited generalizability of quasi-anonymous internet message board posts.

It's easy to see a mean-spirited post (not referring to OG) from a mental health provider and think to yourself, "this person probably shouldn't be working with psychologically-vulnerable populations." But we have to remember that a) these posts may not, and likely do not, fully encapsulate and showcase an individual's character, b) it's borderline-impossible to accurately impart non-semantic communication variables via written word, and c) (related to b), because of the lack of nonverbal cues and context, we often end up imparting our own assumptions about these missing cues onto the message.

Also, keep in mind that if you're worried about someone consistently overshooting the mark, perhaps it's meant as a way to spur debate (heck, it works pretty well in MI).

 

[Slarterbartfast]

1.) I know of absolutely no evidence of this, so I dont where your getting it.

2.) Are you equating enjoying the process of debate with psychopathy? How does that go together?

1) IIRC it was discovered with the MMPI psychopathy deviancy scale. The info is usually in undergraduate abnormal psychology text books. I'll see if I can locate the study. It is fairly common knowledge.

2) You really can't figure this one out for yourself? 😕

 

[cara susanna]

Also, you have no way of knowing if posters act the same way with clients that they do online. Remember the Fundamental Attribution Error?

 

[erg923]

2) You really can't figure this one out for yourself? 😕

No. Is this a pathognomonic feature? An associated feature? what?

 

[Slarterbartfast]

Fair enough. Perhaps it is hyperbole, but it comes off badly IMO...

Again, I generally wouldn't recommend making character assessments, or voicing ethical concerns regarding patient/client care, based on the limited generalizability of quasi-anonymous internet message board posts.

It's easy to see a mean-spirited post (not referring to OG) from a mental health provider and think to yourself, "this person probably shouldn't be working with psychologically-vulnerable populations." But we have to remember that a) these posts may not, and likely do not, fully encapsulate and showcase an individual's character, b) it's borderline-impossible to accurately impart non-semantic communication variables via written word, and c) (related to b), because of the lack of nonverbal cues and context, we often end up imparting our own assumptions about these missing cues onto the message.

Also, keep in mind that if you're worried about someone consistently overshooting the mark, perhaps it's meant as a way to spur debate (heck, it works pretty well in MI).