PsyD vs PhD: Addressing Anti-Psyd Sentiments

[psycreality]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Dear Forum Activists,

Here's my attempt to summarize debates from this forum, while adding my own insights and opinions. What the below intends to point out is that your success in this field (as a student, as an intern & as a psychologist) depends on your individual efforts. What program you graduate from does not ultimately determine how "successful" you will be. It might help you to come from a more prestigious program, or it might mean that you have to work harder to compensate for a less prestigious program name. This is true for all fields- not just PhDs, PsyDs, MDs, DOs, DMDs, ODs, or JDs. Your school does not define you or limit what you can achieve as an individual.

Here are some debates against PsyD programs that I'd like to address:

- The field is too saturated because of the PsyD programs.

True, some programs like Argosy do accept too many students. There are also many PhD programs that accept less qualified students. If you're great and come from a more prestigious school, why are you afraid of not having clients or getting an internship? If you work hard, you'll have clients. It's not that there isn't enough NEED for psychologists, it's that the demand for mental health is low because of stigma. Why don't you ask the APA to work on reducing mental health stigma, rather than shrinking the supply of psychologists? If people can pass licensing exams and get APA-accredited internships, then they are qualified. The internship process, boards, and consumers weed out people who are less qualified. Coming from a PhD program or a more prestigious program does not make anyone more "qualified." Hard work makes you qualified. People are projecting fears and insecurities into scapegoats (aka programs and the APA). People think that cutting down the supply will increase the demand for themselves. That's laughable. There are too many lawyers, too many doctors, too many dentists, too many optometrists, too many counselors, too many everything. Psychology is NO different from other professional fields.

Additionally, PsyD programs are not the only ones guilty of accepting unqualified students. There are also many PhD programs that accept students with lower "qualifications" (GRE scores in the 500s, higher acceptance rates, etc.). It just isn't as apparent because there aren't as many in PhD programs. Proportionately, I'll bet there are just as many idiots/weirdos in every program. Be honest, you can name at least one person in your program who doesn't quite belong. There are many doctors and lawyers who are idiots in this world. Once again, psychology is NO different. Stop idealizing our field and putting psychologists on a pedestal in our own little universe.

- PsyD programs don't provide full funding.

Kind of true. Some PsyD programs do have funding for their students. Also, not all PhD programs provide full funding for all of their students. On top of that, all other professional degrees, such as med and law, do not typically have funding for their students! Harvard law/med does not provide full scholarships/funding. The funding in psychology programs comes from research grants. Psychology is one of the very few fields that actually provides funding for students. Most other PhD programs and ALL other professional degrees require students to pay massive rates! If you want to say that doctors and lawyers make more money and therefore, can afford their school loans, that's just false.

- PsyD admissions are easier.

Depends on the program. Some university-based PsyD programs are harder to get into than some PhD programs. The big difference in admissions between most psyd and phd programs is the amount/quality of research experience applicants have. I'm not counting the Argosys in this debate because they don't require GREs.

Also, PsyD programs tend to accept students who are switching careers. They have a much harder time getting into PhD programs with their non-psyc degrees and lack of research experience. However, these people add to our field because of their diverse experiences. They may not have the same qualifications, but does that mean they are less competent?

- PsyDs have a lower chance of getting accepted into APA-accredited internships.

Somewhat true. It depends on where you apply. Some internships require research, so of course they would prefer someone with a research degree. Some internships follow the practitioner-scholar model and don't care about research experience, so they tend to take more PsyDs. Overall, the more prestigious internships are at medical schools where research is conducted. Therefore, many would prefer a PhD.

Also, PsyD programs with tons of students will have a lower acceptance rate for internship because of the imbalance between # of applicants and slots available. Due to the large class size, many of these students will not have great experiences on their CVs that helps them stand out on internship applications. However, some of these students still manage to land prestigious internships. No matter what program you are in, if you work hard and do well, you will have a better shot at an internship program than someone who is less qualified than you for that specific position. Let the match system weed people out on its own.
---

I welcome thoughts, opinions, comments, etc.

 

[erg923]

Ill just copy and paste my sentiments about the debate that I posted in another thread.

I used to be somewhat skeptical of the Vail Model, and although I am still a big proponent of the scientist-practitioner training model (and their underlying definition of what a psychologists truly is), I see no real problem with the Vail model when its implemented CORRECTLY. I think the bias seen on this forum (and elsewhere) comes from the "unsciency" types that have sometimes flocked to that degree. The last thing we need in clinical psychology at the moment is LESS focus on science. With mid-level-encroachment, decreasing reimbursement, and insurance companies demanding some actual outcome studies to justify our rates over midlevels (or npsych evals)...I am big believer in training people who are committed to the science of psychology and who can implement it in an applied fashion.

 

[psycreality]

I completely agree with you. I think that PsyD programs should emphasize research training (in accordance with the Vail model, as you said), not only to justify our work to insurance companies, but because research helps us become better clinicians in choosing, tailoring, and assessing interventions.

 

[deleted75966]

You are hedging on distributions. Some psyds do. . . some phds do. But, that says nothing about what the actual distributions look like. We have data on that. PsyD programs in general are easier to get into. Psyd student in general incur substantially more debt. Match rates at large psyd programs such as Argosy and Alliant are lower and many in California elect to avoid APA internship sites completely. Average income for psychologists is low compared to other health professional degrees and stagnant to decreasing. Many new psychologists are competing for jobs that advertise for social workers or psychologists. This isn't about lowering the number of psychologists, this is about justifying the rapid expansion in psyd programs. 10 years ago there were substantially more phd student than psyd, now psyds make up more than 50% of new grads. That's very rapid expansion. Why? I think the answer is profit/expansion of schools at the apparent expense of the field.

If you want to say that doctors and lawyers make more money and therefore, can afford their school loans, that's just false.

Really?

 

[aventurine]

Aside from the question of funding, I doubt most would say the issue is with PsyDs in general, rather than with the freestanding large programs.

The match system shouldn't be weeding people out.

The match forces out fully and highly qualified candidates because there just aren't enough spots. The weeding out should take place upon graduate school admission, not upon internship; if you begin a doctoral degree and are doing well, you shouldn't find yourself in the position of not being able to complete it.

(I went to a university PhD program. I did not encounter any idiots or even anyone egregiously weird. In addition, my program had a number of students who had changed careers or got into psychology later in life.)

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Psychology is one of the very few fields that actually provides funding for students. Most other PhD programs and ALL other professional degrees require students to pay massive rates! If you want to say that doctors and lawyers make more money and therefore, can afford their school loans, that's just false.

As JS alluded to, while not necessarily the case with lawyers, physicians DO make more money (on average) than psychologists, and thus are (again, on average) in a better position to take on six-figure debt during their training.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, psychology is not unique among Ph.D. programs for providing funding. I've known doctoral students in a variety of different areas (various engineering fields, math, English, anthropology, biology, chemistry), and all have received tuition waivers and stipends. The same goes for MD/Ph.D. students (to an extent).

As for a shortage/abundance of psychologists--as aventurine mentioned, the biggest immediate issue may not be market saturation (although that seems to be driving down salaries as a whole), but the lack of internship placements available to students. The system as it currently stands simply cannot support the relatively huge cohorts being pumped out by free-standing professional schools. And given that disproportionate numbers of unmatched students reside in a handful of chronic-offender programs, it would definitely seem that the weeding out at these schools is being done on the back-end, which the internship process was never meant to handle.

 

[KillerDiller]

As nice as the live and let live model is in theory, I'm afraid it's not that simple. Yes, graduating from a funded program, obtaining an APA internship, getting extensive training in research methods, and landing a prestigious post-doc will likely set one up well. You're right, students who are competitive for these positions are not competing directly, at any level, with the lower-tier professional students. But this isn't really about direct competition for resources. When people can pay to get into a program even if they don't have a solid background in psychology, can slide through with little or no training in evidence-based practice, can take non-accredited internships, and then get to call themselves psychologists (even if they never pass the licensing exam), it devalues the profession in general. Every competent professional that that person interacts with will now have a more negative, skeptical view of the field of psychology. That's what I really resent.

And no, not all Psy.D programs are like this; there are some prestigious, well-managed Psy.D-granting institutions. However, I think we all know what schools people are referring to with the proxy labels of "Psy.D" or "Professional School." Pretending that people on this board are railing against Baylor or failing to criticize offending Ph.D programs is a distraction from the real problem.

 

[O Gurl]

- The field is too saturated because of the PsyD programs.

True, some programs like Argosy do accept too many students. There are also many PhD programs that accept less qualified students. If you're great and come from a more prestigious school, why are you afraid of not having clients or getting an internship? If you work hard, you'll have clients. It's not that there isn't enough NEED for psychologists, it's that the demand for mental health is low because of stigma. Why don't you ask the APA to work on reducing mental health stigma, rather than shrinking the supply of psychologists? If people can pass licensing exams and get APA-accredited internships, then they are qualified. The internship process, boards, and consumers weed out people who are less qualified. Coming from a PhD program or a more prestigious program does not make anyone more "qualified." Hard work makes you qualified. People are projecting fears and insecurities into scapegoats (aka programs and the APA). People think that cutting down the supply will increase the demand for themselves. That's laughable. There are too many lawyers, too many doctors, too many dentists, too many optometrists, too many counselors, too many everything. Psychology is NO different from other professional fields.

Additionally, PsyD programs are not the only ones guilty of accepting unqualified students. There are also many PhD programs that accept students with lower "qualifications" (GRE scores in the 500s, higher acceptance rates, etc.). It just isn't as apparent because there aren't as many in PhD programs. Proportionately, I'll bet there are just as many idiots/weirdos in every program. Be honest, you can name at least one person in your program who doesn't quite belong. There are many doctors and lawyers who are idiots in this world. Once again, psychology is NO different. Stop idealizing our field and putting psychologists on a pedestal in our own little universe.

I think you are also overlooking a large, glaring fact--respect for our field is a commodity for all of us. Given mid-level encroachments and insurance companies that are always on the look-out to cut costs, even at the expense of quality patient care, having hoards of less qualified doctoral professionals is not good for the field. I tend to agree that great psychologists will always find work. However, why are we shooting ourselves (as a profession) in the foot by over-saturating the market and then having to work even harder to distinguish ourselves from the Dr. Buy-a-Degrees?

- PsyD programs don't provide full funding.

Kind of true. Some PsyD programs do have funding for their students. Also, not all PhD programs provide full funding for all of their students. On top of that, all other professional degrees, such as med and law, do not typically have funding for their students! Harvard law/med does not provide full scholarships/funding. The funding in psychology programs comes from research grants. Psychology is one of the very few fields that actually provides funding for students. Most other PhD programs and ALL other professional degrees require students to pay massive rates! If you want to say that doctors and lawyers make more money and therefore, can afford their school loans, that's just false.

How is it false to note that Harvard Med/Law graduates earn more than the vast majority of clinical psychologists and can afford to pay back higher loans? Taking out 6-figures in loans when the median salary for a mid-career psychologists is in the 70Ks is ridiculous. Taking 6 figures in loans when the median salary for your field is over 150K is a much better investment. It seems to make perfect sense to me. Not sure I got your argument.

- PsyD admissions are easier.

Depends on the program. Some university-based PsyD programs are harder to get into than some PhD programs. The big difference in admissions between most psyd and phd programs is the amount/quality of research experience applicants have. I'm not counting the Argosys in this debate because they don't require GREs.

Also, PsyD programs tend to accept students who are switching careers. They have a much harder time getting into PhD programs with their non-psyc degrees and lack of research experience. However, these people add to our field because of their diverse experiences. They may not have the same qualifications, but does that mean they are less competent?

I agree that the Argosy's/Alliants/Walden U's etc. are not reflective of the PsyD as a whole, however, general admissions stats do reflect that on the whole, PhD programs have more stringent requirements for research, GRE, and GPA. No, these are not perfect metrics of who will or will not become a competent clinician, but the numbers are what they are. My only point here is that your comment that research is the only admissions difference is not true.

- PsyDs have a lower chance of getting accepted into APA-accredited internships.

Somewhat true. It depends on where you apply. Some internships require research, so of course they would prefer someone with a research degree. Some internships follow the practitioner-scholar model and don't care about research experience, so they tend to take more PsyDs. Overall, the more prestigious internships are at medical schools where research is conducted. Therefore, many would prefer a PhD.

Also, PsyD programs with tons of students will have a lower acceptance rate for internship because of the imbalance between # of applicants and slots available. Due to the large class size, many of these students will not have great experiences on their CVs that helps them stand out on internship applications. However, some of these students still manage to land prestigious internships. No matter what program you are in, if you work hard and do well, you will have a better shot at an internship program than someone who is less qualified than you for that specific position. Let the match system weed people out on its own.

Again, this varies by program and is not an issue of PsyD or PhD. There are plenty of great, university-based, equal emphasis PsyD programs with stellar APA-accredited match rates. You hit the nail on the head with your bolded comment. Programs that admit students irresponsibly and then neglect their training are more likely to have poor match rates. This is why so many people on this board are outraged by programs that engage in these practices. Sure, the most stellar students at said programs could still get great training and be OK, but if that is the case, why shouldn't these programs just admit the most qualified students to begin with? It is beyond underhanded to accept students, leave it to them to fight it out amongst their 80 cohortmates to actually get the training they are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for, and basically leave a large number of these students degree-less or very limited in terms of career options (e.g. due to getting non-accredited internships).

 

[O Gurl]

Oh, and one more thing-- it is probably correct that there has been a large increase in the numbers of other graduating professionals as well. The only difference is the consumer market. People are far more likely to need a lawyer, doctor, or real estate agent at some point in their lives than a clinical psychologist. Here is it important to note that clinical psychologists are trained to address more severe and pervasive psychiatric problems. Normative adjustment issues (depression, anxiety, parenting, marital conflict, anger management, bereavement) are fast becoming the domain of master's level therapists, hence, there are more of them.

 

[futureapppsy2]

The match system *shouldn't* be weeding people out--being weeded out after 4-6 years of graduate training--barring something like a major ethical lapse or some other huge event that really changes things--just seems cruel and a bit backward. Sure, there is attrition at any program, but saying that 20-25% of grad students can be just "weeded out" by the match system after completing (successfully, at least according the internship readiness statement) all their course work, practica, and probably a fair amount of research is putting that process at the wrong end, IMO. Plus, this argument is complicated by the fact that some schools--commonly professional schools--sometimes encourage their students to go for internships outside of the APPIC match while other programs may require APA internships to graduate.

 

[KayJay85]

As nice as the live and let live model is in theory, I'm afraid it's not that simple. Yes, graduating from a funded program, obtaining an APA internship, getting extensive training in research methods, and landing a prestigious post-doc will likely set one up well. You're right, students who are competitive for these positions are not competing directly, at any level, with the lower-tier professional students. But this isn't really about direct competition for resources. When people can pay to get into a program even if they don't have a solid background in psychology, can slide through with little or no training in evidence-based practice, can take non-accredited internships, and then get to call themselves psychologists (even if they never pass the licensing exam), it devalues the profession in general. Every competent professional that that person interacts with will now have a more negative, skeptical view of the field of psychology. That's what I really resent.

And no, not all Psy.D programs are like this; there are some prestigious, well-managed Psy.D-granting institutions. However, I think we all know what schools people are referring to with the proxy labels of "Psy.D" or "Professional School." Pretending that people on this board are railing against Baylor or failing to criticize offending Ph.D programs is a distraction from the real problem.

+1

KD summed up what I was going to say perfectly. I find it irritating that people keep trying to derail the conversation into a global "Anti-PsyD" argument. The OP repeatedly states that he/she is "not counting Argosy" well, sorry, Argosy graduates (when they eventually graduate) are counted by those who encounter them. That, in turn, affects all psychologists. Clearly, people here are not saying they want to eradicate the PsyD degree. People want the APA to deal with the main culprits, and we all know who they are.

 

[AgapeBlue]

As nice as the live and let live model is in theory, I'm afraid it's not that simple. Yes, graduating from a funded program, obtaining an APA internship, getting extensive training in research methods, and landing a prestigious post-doc will likely set one up well. You're right, students who are competitive for these positions are not competing directly, at any level, with the lower-tier professional students. But this isn't really about direct competition for resources. When people can pay to get into a program even if they don't have a solid background in psychology, can slide through with little or no training in evidence-based practice, can take non-accredited internships, and then get to call themselves psychologists (even if they never pass the licensing exam), it devalues the profession in general. Every competent professional that that person interacts with will now have a more negative, skeptical view of the field of psychology. That's what I really resent.

And no, not all Psy.D programs are like this; there are some prestigious, well-managed Psy.D-granting institutions. However, I think we all know what schools people are referring to with the proxy labels of "Psy.D" or "Professional School." Pretending that people on this board are railing against Baylor or failing to criticize offending Ph.D programs is a distraction from the real problem.

+1 Well said.

Additionally, PsyD programs are not the only ones guilty of accepting unqualified students. There are also many PhD programs that accept students with lower "qualifications" (GRE scores in the 500s, higher acceptance rates, etc.). It just isn't as apparent because there aren't as many in PhD programs. Proportionately, I'll bet there are just as many idiots/weirdos in every program. Be honest, you can name at least one person in your program who doesn't quite belong. There are many doctors and lawyers who are idiots in this world. Once again, psychology is NO different. Stop idealizing our field and putting psychologists on a pedestal in our own little universe.

This point irks me a wee bit. Please define idiot and/or weirdo.

Are you saying that if someone does not meet some ambiguous criteria of coolness, then they should not be accepted? If someone is a brilliant researcher but his jokes fall flat when he teaches...then do we label him an idiot and deem him unqualified? Not everyone is going to fit in or "belong" according to others, but they are no less deserving if their credentials support their abilities and promise. Shall we vote people off of the island because they aren't as cool as we think we are?

I'm not quite sure how this point on letting in "weirdos and idiots" coincides with your point on allowing in lesser qualified students.

 

[aequitasveritas]

I think you are also overlooking a large, glaring fact--respect for our field is a commodity for all of us. Given mid-level encroachments and insurance companies that are always on the look-out to cut costs, even at the expense of quality patient care, having hoards of less qualified doctoral professionals is not good for the field. I tend to agree that great psychologists will always find work. However, why are we shooting ourselves (as a profession) in the foot by over-saturating the market and then having to work even harder to distinguish ourselves from the Dr. Buy-a-Degrees?



How is it false to note that Harvard Med/Law graduates earn more than the vast majority of clinical psychologists and can afford to pay back higher loans? Taking out 6-figures in loans when the median salary for a mid-career psychologists is in the 70Ks is ridiculous. Taking 6 figures in loans when the median salary for your field is over 150K is a much better investment. It seems to make perfect sense to me. Not sure I got your argument.



I agree that the Argosy's/Alliants/Walden U's etc. are not reflective of the PsyD as a whole, however, general admissions stats do reflect that on the whole, PhD programs have more stringent requirements for research, GRE, and GPA. No, these are not perfect metrics of who will or will not become a competent clinician, but the numbers are what they are. My only point here is that your comment that research is the only admissions difference is not true.



Again, this varies by program and is not an issue of PsyD or PhD. There are plenty of great, university-based, equal emphasis PsyD programs with stellar APA-accredited match rates. You hit the nail on the head with your bolded comment. Programs that admit students irresponsibly and then neglect their training are more likely to have poor match rates. This is why so many people on this board are outraged by programs that engage in these practices. Sure, the most stellar students at said programs could still get great training and be OK, but if that is the case, why shouldn't these programs just admit the most qualified students to begin with? It is beyond underhanded to accept students, leave it to them to fight it out amongst their 80 cohortmates to actually get the training they are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for, and basically leave a large number of these students degree-less or very limited in terms of career options (e.g. due to getting non-accredited internships).

If you read my prior posts re: professional schools in general, you'll see that I'm anything but a supporter of unfunded institutions. However, as a member of the Alliant San Diego PhD program I do resent being lumped in with Walden and Argosy. As much as I can diatribe about my school, at will, we are far and away beyond Walden or Argosy. The Psy.D at Alliant is quite guilty of the crimes of this thread, the program is simply awful. However, the San Diego and San Fran PhD programs are very, very good, save the criminal funding issues.

 

[psycreality]

Hi all, thanks for your input. I am enjoying reading your points and I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I'll be replying one-by-one to your posts. Here's to JonSnow:

Once again, I agree with you that some PsyD programs accept too many students and that many students from those programs are not as qualified in terms of specific, measured skills (GRE scores, gpa, and research experience). That’s not my argument. My point is that a good, well-trained psychologist can come from any program and that the market will weed less qualified people out- just like how 3rd and 4th tier law students have a tough time getting jobs, internships, and clients.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that you are upset with the PsyD programs that accept too many students because they are businesses (gasp, capitalism). Why don’t you rally against 3rd and 4th tier law schools that charge 200k for 3 years of school? Or Caribbean med schools? Or online undergraduate programs? Why should psychology be special and different from other fields? It's not. Research-oriented programs (PhD programs) also capitalize from students' efforts. They gain prestige, recognition, and grant funds. This leads to more income for the school. However you look at it, PsyD programs and PhD programs are all money-oriented. They just have different ways of getting there. What makes one economic scheme more honorable than another?

As for docs and lawyers, yes. Med students have debts in the 150s to 200s with starting salaries around 120k (peds/internal med/general practice). Lawyers have debts in 100s and many lawyers from top tier schools can't even get jobs. Optometrists make 70 - 120k per the BLS, with debts of ~125k. Many that I know can't even get fulltime jobs and end up working part-time. Physicians Assistants pay ~100k for TWO years of school and make 70 - 80k on average. MBA programs are 100k-200k for two years of school. How is psyc so different?

 

[psycreality]

Aside from the question of funding, I doubt most would say the issue is with PsyDs in general, rather than with the freestanding large programs.

The match system shouldn't be weeding people out.

The match forces out fully and highly qualified candidates because there just aren't enough spots. The weeding out should take place upon graduate school admission, not upon internship; if you begin a doctoral degree and are doing well, you shouldn't find yourself in the position of not being able to complete it.

(I went to a university PhD program. I did not encounter any idiots or even anyone egregiously weird. In addition, my program had a number of students who had changed careers or got into psychology later in life.)

I think you make a good point. The match shouldn't be used as a system to weed people out, ideally. However, aren't boards a system to weed unqualified people out? And bar exams? Even in med, not everyone matches and not everyone passes the boards. I'm glad.

As for the idiot comment, I should not have used the words "idiot" or "weird." I was actually being sarcastic and meant to say that not all psychologists (PhD or PsyD) are exceptional. I've met plenty of PhDs, MDs, JDs, etc. that are no better than your average joe. I want to emphasize that we should not expect or believe that everyone from a great program is inherently great. I'm glad students in your program come from different fields as well.

 

[psycreality]

As JS alluded to, while not necessarily the case with lawyers, physicians DO make more money (on average) than psychologists, and thus are (again, on average) in a better position to take on six-figure debt during their training.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, psychology is not unique among Ph.D. programs for providing funding. I've known doctoral students in a variety of different areas (various engineering fields, math, English, anthropology, biology, chemistry), and all have received tuition waivers and stipends. The same goes for MD/Ph.D. students (to an extent).

As for a shortage/abundance of psychologists--as aventurine mentioned, the biggest immediate issue may not be market saturation (although that seems to be driving down salaries as a whole), but the lack of internship placements available to students. The system as it currently stands simply cannot support the relatively huge cohorts being pumped out by free-standing professional schools. And given that disproportionate numbers of unmatched students reside in a handful of chronic-offender programs, it would definitely seem that the weeding out at these schools is being done on the back-end, which the internship process was never meant to handle.

I accept your point on MDs making more money and being able to handle more debt. I annotate that they better be specializing to be able to pay back their massive debts. As I wrote in some other posts, PAs, ODs, JDs, etc. all owe a lot and may be in worse shape than PsyDs!

You're right about other PhD programs providing funding. But that's actually only for better programs or universities. There are a ton of PhD programs that students have to pay their way through.

As to your final point, I'm fine with weeding out those programs if their training is bad. I don't think PhDs should be worried about competing with students from those programs for internships though. Has this been a problem? I thought it was mostly the free-standing PsyD students who don't get matched for internship.

 

[psycreality]

As nice as the live and let live model is in theory, I'm afraid it's not that simple. Yes, graduating from a funded program, obtaining an APA internship, getting extensive training in research methods, and landing a prestigious post-doc will likely set one up well. You're right, students who are competitive for these positions are not competing directly, at any level, with the lower-tier professional students. But this isn't really about direct competition for resources. When people can pay to get into a program even if they don't have a solid background in psychology, can slide through with little or no training in evidence-based practice, can take non-accredited internships, and then get to call themselves psychologists (even if they never pass the licensing exam), it devalues the profession in general. Every competent professional that that person interacts with will now have a more negative, skeptical view of the field of psychology. That's what I really resent.

And no, not all Psy.D programs are like this; there are some prestigious, well-managed Psy.D-granting institutions. However, I think we all know what schools people are referring to with the proxy labels of "Psy.D" or "Professional School." Pretending that people on this board are railing against Baylor or failing to criticize offending Ph.D programs is a distraction from the real problem.

I understand your resentment that these people can be "on the same level" as you in terms of the title when you feel you've worked your butt off to be called a psychologist. You feel that these people reduce the value of our profession because other people will form a negative opinion about psychologists. Does an idiot doctor make you think all doctors are idiots? Does a crappy chef make you think all chefs are untrained? Or do you look at their credentials and where they trained? You don't give people enough credit. In what profession are there no idiots that give their field a bad name?

As for me pointing out flawed PhD programs, that's not meant to detract but to emphasize that perfection does not exist. PhD programs have the same issues as PsyD programs, just not to the same magnitude.

 

[psycreality]

I think you are also overlooking a large, glaring fact--respect for our field is a commodity for all of us. Given mid-level encroachments and insurance companies that are always on the look-out to cut costs, even at the expense of quality patient care, having hoards of less qualified doctoral professionals is not good for the field. I tend to agree that great psychologists will always find work. However, why are we shooting ourselves (as a profession) in the foot by over-saturating the market and then having to work even harder to distinguish ourselves from the Dr. Buy-a-Degrees?



How is it false to note that Harvard Med/Law graduates earn more than the vast majority of clinical psychologists and can afford to pay back higher loans? Taking out 6-figures in loans when the median salary for a mid-career psychologists is in the 70Ks is ridiculous. Taking 6 figures in loans when the median salary for your field is over 150K is a much better investment. It seems to make perfect sense to me. Not sure I got your argument.



I agree that the Argosy's/Alliants/Walden U's etc. are not reflective of the PsyD as a whole, however, general admissions stats do reflect that on the whole, PhD programs have more stringent requirements for research, GRE, and GPA. No, these are not perfect metrics of who will or will not become a competent clinician, but the numbers are what they are. My only point here is that your comment that research is the only admissions difference is not true.



Again, this varies by program and is not an issue of PsyD or PhD. There are plenty of great, university-based, equal emphasis PsyD programs with stellar APA-accredited match rates. You hit the nail on the head with your bolded comment. Programs that admit students irresponsibly and then neglect their training are more likely to have poor match rates. This is why so many people on this board are outraged by programs that engage in these practices. Sure, the most stellar students at said programs could still get great training and be OK, but if that is the case, why shouldn't these programs just admit the most qualified students to begin with? It is beyond underhanded to accept students, leave it to them to fight it out amongst their 80 cohortmates to actually get the training they are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for, and basically leave a large number of these students degree-less or very limited in terms of career options (e.g. due to getting non-accredited internships).

Hello! I appreciate your diplomatic style. I don't disagree with you about the degree-mills making it harder to distinguish ourselves, I'm just not as bothered by that. You have to distinguish yourself from everyone else anyhow. And maybe degree-mill grads can't even compete with you.

You're right. Harvard grads can probably afford bigger loans than PsyDs so it's a better investment. But the non-Harvards are in the same boat, or a worse boat. This doesn't mean it's okay to take on big loans (which I think is your point). It's just not as unique and as isolated of an issue as people on the forum make it out to be. Many people take on these loans with low pay in other fields and they still manage just fine. It's not the end of the world.

As for the research comment, I didn't say that research is the only difference. -> I said it was the biggest difference.

Yeah, it is awful that people can't get internships from those programs after spending so much money. But they all know the risks of going to those programs. I blame the victim because the victim is bright enough to make an informed decision.

 

[psycreality]

Oh, and one more thing-- it is probably correct that there has been a large increase in the numbers of other graduating professionals as well. The only difference is the consumer market. People are far more likely to need a lawyer, doctor, or real estate agent at some point in their lives than a clinical psychologist. Here is it important to note that clinical psychologists are trained to address more severe and pervasive psychiatric problems. Normative adjustment issues (depression, anxiety, parenting, marital conflict, anger management, bereavement) are fast becoming the domain of master's level therapists, hence, there are more of them.

Okay, good point.

 

[aventurine]

I think you make a good point. The match shouldn't be used as a system to weed people out, ideally. However, aren't boards a system to weed unqualified people out? And bar exams? Even in med, not everyone matches and not everyone passes the boards. I'm glad.

There is an important distinction between matching for internship and passing boards/bar exams (or the EPPP, in our case).

There is a systemic problem with the former wherein even highly qualified and skilled candidates may be forced out, due to a significant discrepancy between applicants and available positions. Passing or failing an exam, however, is solely a question of test-takers' performance.

 

[Phipps]

There is an important distinction between matching for internship and passing boards/bar exams (or the EPPP, in our case).

There is a systemic problem with the former wherein even highly qualified and skilled candidates may be forced out, due to a significant discrepancy between applicants and available positions. Passing or failing an exam, however, is solely a question of test-takers' performance.

That's an important distinction to make. When I looked into Psy.D. programs for instance, I noticed that there is sometimes a gap between both, i.e., relatively low APA internship match, let's say lower 80% but the EPPP rate is very solid and higher then in some well established Ph.D. programs. So, it is a good advise to look into both variables.

 

[aventurine]

relatively low APA internship match, let's say lower 80%

Actually, 80-85% is not a relatively low match rate.

The average match rate, nationally, is 73.7%. In NY, match rates above 85% are the rare exception, not the rule--and we have some very strong programs here.

 

[Phipps]

Actually, 80-85% is not a relatively low match rate.

The average match rate, nationally, is 73.7%. In NY, match rates above 85% are the rare exception, not the rule--and we have some very strong programs here.

My bad, I meant to say APPIC not APA match rates. Mixing up stuff here.

 

[deleted75966]

My point is that a good, well-trained psychologist can come from any program and that the market will weed less qualified people out- just like how 3rd and 4th tier law students have a tough time getting jobs, internships, and clients.

I don't think the market will weed them out. I think the market will redefine itself. The proportion of student from 3rd and 4th tier (to make the analogy, psychology doesn't have this) is becoming large enough that it is becoming the modal training method for psychologists. They are going to make doctoral training undifferentiated from masters training, effectively lowering the bar overall for what it means to become a psychologist.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you are upset with the PsyD programs that accept too many students because they are businesses (gasp, capitalism).

No, I'm worried that they are accepting too many students, not truncating their samples, flooding our internship match system and our professional ranks, and breaking our training systems.

Why don't you rally against 3rd and 4th tier law schools that charge 200k for 3 years of school?

I'm not a lawyer.

Or Caribbean med schools? Or online undergraduate programs? Why should psychology be special and different from other fields?

I'm not a physician.

It's not.

It is. Is the average physician a caribbean med school grad? Find me 10 psyD programs that are at tier 1 universities. I can name two off the top of my head, Rutgers and Baylor.

What makes one economic scheme more honorable than another?

One places students in extreme debt, one does not.

As for docs and lawyers, yes. Med students have debts in the 150s to 200s with starting salaries around 120k (peds/internal med/general practice).

Yep, and some professional schools of psychology have students with debts in the 150s and 200s starting with a salary around 50K.

Many that I know can't even get fulltime jobs and end up working part-time.

Yes, there's a student-loan/education bubble going on right now. Let's fix our own turf.

How is psyc so different?

http://www.ncspp.info/schools.htm


Look at that list of schools. It's total **** compared to where you can get a medical degree, an MBA, or a JD. More than half of our new psychologists come from this list of programs. More than half. Ouch. We are marginalizing psychology by making this our modal educational model. We are essentially exiling ourselves to the fringe of healthcare and academia. It's stupid. This is a total disaster in my opinion. How are we supposed to champion ourselves as the go to resource for mental health when our practitioners come from schools like this? It's a joke. We've let this model take over and it's turning psych into a mockery.

 

[deleted75966]

Btw, on that website I linked, for a bit of comedy, click on the students section and internships. It's very amusing.

 

[O Gurl]

I don't disagree with you about the degree-mills making it harder to distinguish ourselves, I'm just not as bothered by that. You have to distinguish yourself from everyone else anyhow. And maybe degree-mill grads can't even compete with you.

Yes, everyone has to work hard to prove themselves. That is a different issue than the one JS spells out below, where the alternative model is cranking out enough graduates to basically diminish the training model for psychologists-->

http://www.ncspp.info/schools.htm


Look at that list of schools. It's total **** compared to where you can get a medical degree, an MBA, or a JD. More than half of our new psychologists come from this list of programs. More than half. Ouch. We are marginalizing psychology by making this our modal educational model. We are essentially exiling ourselves to the fringe of healthcare and academia. It's stupid. This is a total disaster in my opinion. How are we supposed to champion ourselves as the go to resource for mental health when our practitioners come from schools like this? It's a joke. We've let this model take over and it's turning psych into a mockery.

We are doctoral healthcare professionals. So yes, it hurts all of us if nearly half of our graduating clinicians come from schools that do not encompass the scientific part of our training. Not that everyone has to go to a research-oriented PhD, as there are plenty of great scholar-practitioner PsyD programs (Rutgers, Indiana State, Wright State, Baylor, so on) out there. If you look at those programs' admissions stats, curriculum, and outcomes stats you see quickly they are worlds away from Argosy, Alliant, Forrest, and similar grades of PsyD programs. However, the later programs are swamping the market.

Yeah, it is awful that people can't get internships from those programs after spending so much money. But they all know the risks of going to those programs. I blame the victim because the victim is bright enough to make an informed decision.

Yes, to an extent this is true. However, these programs are savvy at marketing and tend to go after less well informed trainees and those coming straight out of UG. We could make things a lot simpler for these trainees by removing APA-accreditation from under-performing programs.

 

[KillerDiller]

Does an idiot doctor make you think all doctors are idiots? Does a crappy chef make you think all chefs are untrained? Or do you look at their credentials and where they trained? You don't give people enough credit. In what profession are there no idiots that give their field a bad name?

Actually, I hear about this happening all the time, at least with doctors. I try to keep an open mind as much as possible, but it happens with me too. It's human nature. I've had some bad experiences seeing nurse practitioners for primary care, so now I make sure to go see actual physicians when I have medical concerns, even though I've met several competent nurse practitioners since. It takes people a long time to change their minds when it comes to their own or others medical care because it is such a serious issue. There is more at stake when you refer someone to a psychologist than when you suggest someone try out a new restaurant. In the latter case, there is only more steak (sorry, couldn't resist a pun).

As for me pointing out flawed PhD programs, that's not meant to detract but to emphasize that perfection does not exist. PhD programs have the same issues as PsyD programs, just not to the same magnitude.

I don't think anyone would disagree that there are a few offending Ph.D programs out there. However, not all programs are responsible for the failings we are seeing in the profession. It is the disproportionate fault of a few, poorly designed institutions.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Actually, I hear about this happening all the time, at least with doctors. I try to keep an open mind as much as possible, but it happens with me too. It's human nature. I've had some bad experiences seeing nurse practitioners for primary care, so bow I make sure to go see actual physicians when I have medical concerns, even though I've met several competent nurse practitioners since. It takes people a long time to change their minds when it comes to their own or others medical care because it is such a serious issue. There is more at stake when you refer someone to a psychologist than when you suggest someone try out a new restaurant. In the latter case, there is only more steak (sorry, couldn't resist a pun).

I feel as though this is a particularly important point with respect to our field, given that so much of the effectiveness of our assessments and treatments hinges on forming a solid relationship with our patients/clients. When our clients come to us already holding a negative view of our field owing to past experiences with poorly-trained practitioners, we have to spend that much more time addressing these (often justifiable) preconceptions rather than focusing on the actual pathology/causes of distress.

 

[psycreality]

The match system *shouldn't* be weeding people out--being weeded out after 4-6 years of graduate training--barring something like a major ethical lapse or some other huge event that really changes things--just seems cruel and a bit backward. Sure, there is attrition at any program, but saying that 20-25% of grad students can be just "weeded out" by the match system after completing (successfully, at least according the internship readiness statement) all their course work, practica, and probably a fair amount of research is putting that process at the wrong end, IMO. Plus, this argument is complicated by the fact that some schools--commonly professional schools--sometimes encourage their students to go for internships outside of the APPIC match while other programs may require APA internships to graduate.

Not sure if i responded to this yet. Sorry if this is redundant. I guess your response makes me wonder who is actually getting weeded out by the match system. If match rates are better for better programs (not if, it's a fact), isn't the system weeding out people from the "lesser" programs? Then doesn't that mean that the system works? As for students going to non-APPIC programs, they probably don't do as well on the EPPP. If they pass the EPPP, then they have adequate knowledge, according to standards.

 

[psycreality]

+1

KD summed up what I was going to say perfectly. I find it irritating that people keep trying to derail the conversation into a global "Anti-PsyD" argument. The OP repeatedly states that he/she is "not counting Argosy" well, sorry, Argosy graduates (when they eventually graduate) are counted by those who encounter them. That, in turn, affects all psychologists. Clearly, people here are not saying they want to eradicate the PsyD degree. People want the APA to deal with the main culprits, and we all know who they are.

Okay, you make a valid point. I guess I, as well as everyone else, should be naming more specific programs instead of using blanket references (e.g. PsyD, or Argosy). I am using the term "PsyD" to address the arguments people make against going to "PsyD" programs.

 

[psycreality]

+1 Well said.



This point irks me a wee bit. Please define idiot and/or weirdo.

Are you saying that if someone does not meet some ambiguous criteria of coolness, then they should not be accepted? If someone is a brilliant researcher but his jokes fall flat when he teaches...then do we label him an idiot and deem him unqualified? Not everyone is going to fit in or "belong" according to others, but they are no less deserving if their credentials support their abilities and promise. Shall we vote people off of the island because they aren't as cool as we think we are?

I'm not quite sure how this point on letting in "weirdos and idiots" coincides with your point on allowing in lesser qualified students.

I responded to someone else yesterday about my dramatic use of "weirdos and idiots." I was being sarcastic in a failed attempt to point out that not everyone in a PhD program is necessarily "qualified" or more qualified. There are people in all programs who don't meet our field's expectations (none of which has anything to do with cool factor).

 

[deleted75966]

If match rates are better for better programs (not if, it's a fact), isn't the system weeding out people from the "lesser" programs? Then doesn't that mean that the system works?

No, they go to APPIC, CAPIC, and other non-APA routes.

As for students going to non-APPIC programs, they probably don't do as well on the EPPP. If they pass the EPPP, then they have adequate knowledge, according to standards.

They eventually pass (after taking it a few times). But lot's of people can pass a test. You don't need 7 years of training to pass the EPPP.

 

[AgapeBlue]

As for the idiot comment, I should not have used the words "idiot" or "weird." I was actually being sarcastic and meant to say that not all psychologists (PhD or PsyD) are exceptional. I've met plenty of PhDs, MDs, JDs, etc. that are no better than your average joe. I want to emphasize that we should not expect or believe that everyone from a great program is inherently great. I'm glad students in your program come from different fields as well.

Thank you for clearing that up. Name calling has no place in an honest discussion.

No one is saying that those with a doctoral degree are better people, we're talking about qualifications and ability to perform a certain task/service to an acceptable standard. I wold argue that those who do make it through a strong program are not average Joe's or Josephina's...and that is my bottom line when we're discussing the difference in programs and the psychologists they train. I see nothing wrong with a PsyD vs. a PhD as long as the program isn't one of those questionable professional ones. One of my mentors, holds a PsyD from a very respected university based program.

Someone who is accepted into a good program has worked very hard to separate themselves from the average student, and not just in their GPA and GRE score. They made a decision to excel in their studies, to do work and research beyond that of the average student, and to do what is necessary to show that they are serious about becoming a psychologist. It takes dedication, a strong work-ethic and the ability to manage their time to get into grad school, especially in a field as competitive as psych.

Are people from a great program inherently great? The term inherent would suggest that they were born with abilities that most people do not have, and the answer to that is no. Are they perhaps better qualified than someone who went through a sub-standard program that chose to lower their minimum standards for acceptance? I would say yes.

There are various factors that determine if someone is qualified to do their job. Hurdles are set in place to weed out those who don't meet the standards and that starts at the entry into a good program.

Granted, someone seeking help for a mental disorder may not know that one school has lower/questionable admittance standards than others...and they shouldn't have to. All the client knows is that they are trusting someone who has received training and passed a test for licensing. As JS said, passing a test isn't that difficult.

There is too much at stake for the profession and those we serve to toy with the standards.

Yes, there will be people in our field from extremely well respected programs who do stupid things, or who make mistakes..it's the nature of humanity to eventually do something human.

AB🙂

 

[PsyDLICSW]

Dear Forum Activists,

Here's my attempt to summarize debates from this forum, while adding my own insights and opinions. What the below intends to point out is that your success in this field (as a student, as an intern & as a psychologist) depends on your individual efforts. What program you graduate from does not ultimately determine how "successful" you will be. It might help you to come from a more prestigious program, or it might mean that you have to work harder to compensate for a less prestigious program name. This is true for all fields- not just PhDs, PsyDs, MDs, DOs, DMDs, ODs, or JDs. Your school does not define you or limit what you can achieve as an individual.

Here are some debates against PsyD programs that I'd like to address:

- The field is too saturated because of the PsyD programs.

True, some programs like Argosy do accept too many students. There are also many PhD programs that accept less qualified students. If you're great and come from a more prestigious school, why are you afraid of not having clients or getting an internship? If you work hard, you'll have clients. It's not that there isn't enough NEED for psychologists, it's that the demand for mental health is low because of stigma. Why don't you ask the APA to work on reducing mental health stigma, rather than shrinking the supply of psychologists? If people can pass licensing exams and get APA-accredited internships, then they are qualified. The internship process, boards, and consumers weed out people who are less qualified. Coming from a PhD program or a more prestigious program does not make anyone more "qualified." Hard work makes you qualified. People are projecting fears and insecurities into scapegoats (aka programs and the APA). People think that cutting down the supply will increase the demand for themselves. That's laughable. There are too many lawyers, too many doctors, too many dentists, too many optometrists, too many counselors, too many everything. Psychology is NO different from other professional fields.

Additionally, PsyD programs are not the only ones guilty of accepting unqualified students. There are also many PhD programs that accept students with lower "qualifications" (GRE scores in the 500s, higher acceptance rates, etc.). It just isn't as apparent because there aren't as many in PhD programs. Proportionately, I'll bet there are just as many idiots/weirdos in every program. Be honest, you can name at least one person in your program who doesn't quite belong. There are many doctors and lawyers who are idiots in this world. Once again, psychology is NO different. Stop idealizing our field and putting psychologists on a pedestal in our own little universe.

- PsyD programs don't provide full funding.

Kind of true. Some PsyD programs do have funding for their students. Also, not all PhD programs provide full funding for all of their students. On top of that, all other professional degrees, such as med and law, do not typically have funding for their students! Harvard law/med does not provide full scholarships/funding. The funding in psychology programs comes from research grants. Psychology is one of the very few fields that actually provides funding for students. Most other PhD programs and ALL other professional degrees require students to pay massive rates! If you want to say that doctors and lawyers make more money and therefore, can afford their school loans, that's just false.

- PsyD admissions are easier.

Depends on the program. Some university-based PsyD programs are harder to get into than some PhD programs. The big difference in admissions between most psyd and phd programs is the amount/quality of research experience applicants have. I'm not counting the Argosys in this debate because they don't require GREs.

Also, PsyD programs tend to accept students who are switching careers. They have a much harder time getting into PhD programs with their non-psyc degrees and lack of research experience. However, these people add to our field because of their diverse experiences. They may not have the same qualifications, but does that mean they are less competent?

- PsyDs have a lower chance of getting accepted into APA-accredited internships.

Somewhat true. It depends on where you apply. Some internships require research, so of course they would prefer someone with a research degree. Some internships follow the practitioner-scholar model and don't care about research experience, so they tend to take more PsyDs. Overall, the more prestigious internships are at medical schools where research is conducted. Therefore, many would prefer a PhD.

Also, PsyD programs with tons of students will have a lower acceptance rate for internship because of the imbalance between # of applicants and slots available. Due to the large class size, many of these students will not have great experiences on their CVs that helps them stand out on internship applications. However, some of these students still manage to land prestigious internships. No matter what program you are in, if you work hard and do well, you will have a better shot at an internship program than someone who is less qualified than you for that specific position. Let the match system weed people out on its own.
---

I welcome thoughts, opinions, comments, etc.

I agree with what you said about professional schools like Argosy screwing things up for PsyDs and match rates. I also agree about psychology putting itself up on a pedistal. We are here to help others through research and practice, not to be put on a pedistal as the most prestigious most compeditive field. I think that the field of clinical psychology can go out of its way to make students feel like they are not good enough. Even if you are lucky to get into a grad program in clinical psychology, there is no light at the end of the tunnel until you match for internship/finnish dissertation. I am in a grad program now. Despite a 100% APPIC match rate (75% APA accredited) in my program, I feel like nothing I do will ever be good enough to stand out and match for internship at a reputable, good training site.

I think that instead of trying to keep numbers down and fining programs for not matching, APA should put a stop to programs that flood the market (for internships and jobs) like Argosy. Programs like that should not be accredited if they are just diploma mills. There also good internships that did not reapply for accreditation because of lost funding and costs of accreditiaiton. APA should focus on advocating for the students aspiring to become psychologists by not keeping more qualified people out through "weeding out" among those lucky enough to get in to grad school and putting a stop to accrediting diploma mills that make the filed look bad. I come from a University based PsyD that applied the Vail model the way it was supposed to be applied. We reqire research participation in labs and a dissertation. Instead of pointing fingers at eachother, I think that Univeristy based clinical psychology programs need to come together against the professional schools.

 

[SHFWILF]

I agree with what you said about professional schools like Argosy screwing things up for PsyDs and match rates. I also agree about psychology putting itself up on a pedistal. We are here to help others through research and practice, not to be put on a pedistal as the most prestigious most compeditive field. I think that the field of clinical psychology can go out of its way to make students feel like they are not good enough. Even if you are lucky to get into a grad program in clinical psychology, there is no light at the end of the tunnel until you match for internship/finnish dissertation. I am in a grad program now. Despite a 100% APPIC match rate (75% APA accredited) in my program, I feel like nothing I do will ever be good enough to stand out and match for internship at a reputable, good training site.

I think that instead of trying to keep numbers down and fining programs for not matching, APA should put a stop to programs that flood the market (for internships and jobs) like Argosy. Programs like that should not be accredited if they are just diploma mills. There also good internships that did not reapply for accreditation because of lost funding and costs of accreditiaiton. APA should focus on advocating for the students aspiring to become psychologists by not keeping more qualified people out through "weeding out" among those lucky enough to get in to grad school and putting a stop to accrediting diploma mills that make the filed look bad. I come from a University based PsyD that applied the Vail model the way it was supposed to be applied. We reqire research participation in labs and a dissertation. Instead of pointing fingers at eachother, I think that Univeristy based clinical psychology programs need to come together against the professional schools.

Based on your screen name, I suspect that you are either an LCSW, a PsyD student, or both. Perhaps you even have your PsyD degree now. I certainly hope you do NOT have a Psychologist license.

In any event, I think you have in fact made the point by demonstrating that even at this stage in your education you cannot spell or write a coherent English sentence. You also apparently do not realize that within that single post you contradicted yourself at least twice. That says a lot about not only your education, but also about the people who let you in that PsyD program to begin with. I think they were mostly interested in your money, since it definitely appears that they had no interest in your academic abilities.

This sort of thing (among other things) is why, as a practicing Psychologist, I look upon people with PsyD degrees with a very jaundiced eye, especially when it comes to intern selection or hiring. The sad fact is that most people with PsyD degrees simply do not measure up, intellectually or academically, to those with Ph.D.'s.

I think the Psy.D degree was created more as a marketing tool (No dissertation, relaxed entrance requirements, minimal or no research design or stat courses, etc.) for places like Argosy and the others than for any other reason. Since you state that you went (or still go to) a "Univeristy" based program, it appears that some Universities have jumped on the bandwagon as well.

Perhaps we should think of an even more "relaxed" degree to award to people who can't get into PsyD programs, assuming that such people even exist.

It seems to me that the only real bar to getting into a PsyD program is the fairly copious amount of money that is needed. That strikes me as a very good definition of what constitutes a diploma mill, and it degrades our entire field.

 

[SHFWILF]

I don't think the market will weed them out. I think the market will redefine itself. The proportion of student from 3rd and 4th tier (to make the analogy, psychology doesn't have this) is becoming large enough that it is becoming the modal training method for psychologists. They are going to make doctoral training undifferentiated from masters training, effectively lowering the bar overall for what it means to become a psychologist.




No, I'm worried that they are accepting too many students, not truncating their samples, flooding our internship match system and our professional ranks, and breaking our training systems.



I'm not a lawyer.



I'm not a physician.



It is. Is the average physician a caribbean med school grad? Find me 10 psyD programs that are at tier 1 universities. I can name two off the top of my head, Rutgers and Baylor.




One places students in extreme debt, one does not.



Yep, and some professional schools of psychology have students with debts in the 150s and 200s starting with a salary around 50K.




Yes, there's a student-loan/education bubble going on right now. Let's fix our own turf.




http://www.ncspp.info/schools.htm


Look at that list of schools. It's total **** compared to where you can get a medical degree, an MBA, or a JD. More than half of our new psychologists come from this list of programs. More than half. Ouch. We are marginalizing psychology by making this our modal educational model. We are essentially exiling ourselves to the fringe of healthcare and academia. It's stupid. This is a total disaster in my opinion. How are we supposed to champion ourselves as the go to resource for mental health when our practitioners come from schools like this? It's a joke. We've let this model take over and it's turning psych into a mockery.

Well said, Jon. The part that you missed is that in the overall scheme of things, profits are far more important than the small matter of destroying a formerly well-respected professional field. Until some outside agency or social force starts regulating the diploma mills, we are going to be stuck with hordes of people with "doctoral" degrees who have learned almost nothing and are willing to work for very little pay.

I was accepted to medical school and law school as well as my graduate program in Clinical Psychology. Looking back on it now, I wish that I had chosen one of the other two. 🙁

 

[StudentBsMs11]

Another point to add to the discussion here is that the way in which Psy.Ds are perceived in the field influences the way Psy.Ds actually ARE. Institutions may alter their educational model or approach based on this perception. I'm thinking specifically of a university which, within the last decade or two, shifted to awarding a Ph.D from awarding a Psy.D, at least in part because this perception was already in place at that point. As the good university-based Psy.D programs consider shifting, or do shift, to awarding Ph.Ds instead, this will make the Psy.D bias worse rather than better. So, it seems as though individuals from the non-offending Psy.D programs should have a vested interest in taking some kind of action in regards to the aforementioned handful of offenders, if for no other reason than because it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, of a kind.

 

[deleted75966]

Based on your screen name, I suspect that you are either an LCSW, a PsyD student, or both. Perhaps you even have your PsyD degree now. I certainly hope you do NOT have a Psychologist license.

It's not necessary to attack anyone in this manner. It does not help make your point.

It seems to me that the only real bar to getting into a PsyD program is the fairly copious amount of money that is needed. That strikes me as a very good definition of what constitutes a diploma mill, and it degrades our entire field.

While I think I, and others, have thrown around the "diploma mill" label; I'm not sure that really fits. I do agree that the current situation degrades our field. But, the people in these programs, unlike at true diploma mills, are working hard. Further, their academic backgrounds are generally decent (at least a B average in underground, ~1000+ on the GRE). It's just not the same bar as non-NCSPP programs. Someone earlier made a comparison to 3rd and 4th tier lawschools. I think that's about right. It's just that it is becoming the average in our field.

If I were contemplating a purely clinical career as an undergrad, at this point, I think I'd be going to medical school. As a science career, the PhD in clinical psychology is still not so bad. Compared to many other PhD fields, because of our applied component and ability to operate in medical environments, we do very well financially. Further, the scope of potential involvement is quite diverse methodologically (anywhere from bench research to survey) and in terms of topic. I would like to see the clinical side of things fixed. This means better outcomes research and control over the education and implementation of our field.

 

[deleted75966]

We are here to help others through research and practice, not to be put on a pedistal as the most prestigious most compeditive field. I think that the field of clinical psychology can go out of its way to make students feel like they are not good enough. Even if you are lucky to get into a grad program in clinical psychology, there is no light at the end of the tunnel until you match for internship/finnish dissertation. I am in a grad program now. Despite a 100% APPIC match rate (75% APA accredited) in my program, I feel like nothing I do will ever be good enough to stand out and match for internship at a reputable, good training site.

That's an interesting point. I think it has some truth to it. I think the current situation with programs from NCSPP contributes to this. We have a lot of competition in the marketplace and a lot of competition from within. We also have standards that are all over the place in terms of quality-control. This makes it a necessity to go above an beyond to be successful, hence the stress about feeling like you (general, not you) are not good enough. This is true in academic fields as well. In fact, it is a very common characteristic in academic fields. Too many PhDs, not enough cool jobs = have to go above and beyond and often right at the precipice of failure, very competitive field. In contrast to this are physician jobs (relatively easy once you've passed the minimum barrier of entry to be successful) or other high demand/low supply fields. Even within our own various specialties, I know for a while that school psychology, for example, was an easy road (high demand, relatively low supply).

I think that instead of trying to keep numbers down and fining programs for not matching, APA should put a stop to programs that flood the market (for internships and jobs) like Argosy.

I think stopping programs that flood the market is a laudable goal.

I think that Univeristy based clinical psychology programs need to come together against the professional schools.

As long as they aren't also behaving in the same manner (huge cohorts and spiraling tuition costs), I agree.

 

[PsyDLICSW]

Based on your screen name, I suspect that you are either an LCSW, a PsyD student, or both. Perhaps you even have your PsyD degree now. I certainly hope you do NOT have a Psychologist license.

In any event, I think you have in fact made the point by demonstrating that even at this stage in your education you cannot spell or write a coherent English sentence. You also apparently do not realize that within that single post you contradicted yourself at least twice. That says a lot about not only your education, but also about the people who let you in that PsyD program to begin with. I think they were mostly interested in your money, since it definitely appears that they had no interest in your academic abilities.

This sort of thing (among other things) is why, as a practicing Psychologist, I look upon people with PsyD degrees with a very jaundiced eye, especially when it comes to intern selection or hiring. The sad fact is that most people with PsyD degrees simply do not measure up, intellectually or academically, to those with Ph.D.'s.

I think the Psy.D degree was created more as a marketing tool (No dissertation, relaxed entrance requirements, minimal or no research design or stat courses, etc.) for places like Argosy and the others than for any other reason. Since you state that you went (or still go to) a "Univeristy" based program, it appears that some Universities have jumped on the bandwagon as well.

Perhaps we should think of an even more "relaxed" degree to award to people who can't get into PsyD programs, assuming that such people even exist.

It seems to me that the only real bar to getting into a PsyD program is the fairly copious amount of money that is needed. That strikes me as a very good definition of what constitutes a diploma mill, and it degrades our entire field.

It also says a lot about you when you bash someone you do not know on the internet and make judgements about someone without evaluating all the evidence. You do not know my academic skills or anything about me. I can spell; I just can't type. This is not the place to be disrespectful and unprofessional. You are obviously very bitter about something. This is the point I am trying to make. Instead of bashing eachother and pointing fingers at all PsyD programs and all people in PsyD programs, people at University based PhD and PsyD programs should come together against the professional schools. They are the problem, not the Vail Model of psychology programs.

I am not going to dignify your post by defending my credentials to you. Looking at your other posts about wishing you chose med school or law school, you seem very disillusioned with psychology and your choice to go into the filed. Your post was immature and unprofessional!

 

[PsyDLICSW]

It's not necessary to attack anyone in this manner. It does not help make your point.



While I think I, and others, have thrown around the "diploma mill" label; I'm not sure that really fits. I do agree that the current situation degrades our field. But, the people in these programs, unlike at true diploma mills, are working hard. Further, their academic backgrounds are generally decent (at least a B average in underground, ~1000+ on the GRE). It's just not the same bar as non-NCSPP programs. Someone earlier made a comparison to 3rd and 4th tier lawschools. I think that's about right. It's just that it is becoming the average in our field.

If I were contemplating a purely clinical career as an undergrad, at this point, I think I'd be going to medical school. As a science career, the PhD in clinical psychology is still not so bad. Compared to many other PhD fields, because of our applied component and ability to operate in medical environments, we do very well financially. Further, the scope of potential involvement is quite diverse methodologically (anywhere from bench research to survey) and in terms of topic. I would like to see the clinical side of things fixed. This means better outcomes research and control over the education and implementation of our field.

Thank you Jon. I thought about psychiatry myself, but I don't want to do medication management all day. Where I worked as a therapist in a med school setting, psychiatrists didn't do any therapy. They don't do much therapy any more. I chose a PsyD because of the GRE and the GRE alone.

 

[PsyDLICSW]

That's an interesting point. I think it has some truth to it. I think the current situation with programs from NCSPP contributes to this. We have a lot of competition in the marketplace and a lot of competition from within. We also have standards that are all over the place in terms of quality-control. This makes it a necessity to go above an beyond to be successful, hence the stress about feeling like you (general, not you) are not good enough. This is true in academic fields as well. In fact, it is a very common characteristic in academic fields. Too many PhDs, not enough cool jobs = have to go above and beyond and often right at the precipice of failure, very competitive field. In contrast to this are physician jobs (relatively easy once you've passed the minimum barrier of entry to be successful) or other high demand/low supply fields. Even within our own various specialties, I know for a while that school psychology, for example, was an easy road (high demand, relatively low supply).



I think stopping programs that flood the market is a laudable goal.



As long as they aren't also behaving in the same manner (huge cohorts and spiraling tuition costs), I agree.

When I say university based PsyD, I am referring to programs like Baylor, Rutgers, Indiana University of Pennsylvania Marshall University, Indiana State University and other truly university based programs. The programs I mentioned above are truly university based. They are housed within a department of psychology, have a dissertation requirement, have research requirements, have tuition wavers, and have cohort sizes under 10-15. I attend a truly University based PsyD program. My cohort size is 10 as opposed to as high as 120 at one of the Argosy schools. I appreciate your critical evaluation of all the posts here and all the related issues.

 

[busybusybusy]

When I say university based PsyD, I am referring to programs like Baylor, Rutgers, Indiana University of Pennsylvania Marshall University, Indiana State University and other truly university based programs. The programs I mentioned above are truly university based. They are housed within a department of psychology, have a dissertation requirement, have research requirements, have tuition wavers, and have cohort sizes under 10-15. I attend a truly University based PsyD program. My cohort size is 10 as opposed to as high as 120 at one of the Argosy schools. I appreciate your critical evaluation of all the posts here and all the related issues.

I think you make a very good point here. There is some distinction between various "University based" PsyD programs. I interviewed at a specific one this year, that although it is part of a university (has undergrads, in a psych. dept.), it had a very professional school feel; also had high tuition rates and cohort sizes similar to prof. schools. I also didn't feel that it's curriculum was on par with any of the PhD programs or other university based PsyD programs that I interviewed at.

In addition, many of the students that I interviewed with were still finishing their undergrad. Not that I think there is anything wrong with doing a doctoral degree post-UG, but these students were seriously un-informed as to many important aspects of doctoral programs, including the importance of APA accreditation, match rates, licensure rates and the like. Perhaps it is lack of mentorship in UG, perhaps they've been recruited by these schools specifically, I don't know; but these students were making themselves very available to be taken advantage of and this school was more than willing to take their money, that made me mad. One girl didn't even know that funded programs were an option! I don't believe that all post-bacs are this uniformed, but I do think that there is a certain type of student that is pandered to by these types of schools and prof-schools.

 

[busybusybusy]

Also, check the pedigree of some of the professors at these schools. At the one I spoke about previously, the professor who interviewed me bragged about her alma mater, Capella. IMHO if you received your degree from a non-accredited, online program you are the last person I want to entrust my education and future with, especially for $100,000!

 

[O Gurl]

When I say university based PsyD, I am referring to programs like Baylor, Rutgers, Indiana University of Pennsylvania Marshall University, Indiana State University and other truly university based programs. The programs I mentioned above are truly university based. They are housed within a department of psychology, have a dissertation requirement, have research requirements, have tuition wavers, and have cohort sizes under 10-15. I attend a truly University based PsyD program. My cohort size is 10 as opposed to as high as 120 at one of the Argosy schools. I appreciate your critical evaluation of all the posts here and all the related issues.

Excellent point. I'm hard-pressed to think of anyone would take issue with the programs you describe above (true Vail Model, University-based, responsible admissions, solid outcomes). So much of what we are trying to discuss here dissolves into semantics. To be clear as to which programs I take issue with, I will just start referring to them as free-standing professional schools of psychology (FPSP). Here, I am talking about Argosy, Adler, Forrest, Fielding, Alliant, and all of the business that attempt to produce doctors via the trade/vocational school model. While this educational model has worth, I tend to think of it along the lines of training a dental assistant versus a dentist; or training a paralegal versus a lawyer; training a surgical tech versus a surgeon... by the same token, FPSP should be training psych techs or psychometricians--NOT psychologists.

EDIT: Since SHFWILF did not have the tact to do so, please allow me to apologize on behalf of others on this board. His/her comments were out of line and in very poor taste. His/her attitude is exactly the kind that creates unnecessary tension among professionals. In short, he/she is a total a**hat.

 

[PsyDLICSW]

EDIT: Since SHFWILF did not have the tact to do so, please allow me to apologize on behalf of others on this board. His/her comments were out of line and in very poor taste. His/her attitude is exactly the kind that creates unnecessary tension among professionals. In short, he/she is a total a**hat.[/QUOTE]

I appreciate the apology. Attitudes like those held by SHFWILF are not going to solve the problems in our field.

 

[PsyDLICSW]

Based on your screen name, I suspect that you are either an LCSW, a PsyD student, or both. Perhaps you even have your PsyD degree now. I certainly hope you do NOT have a Psychologist license.

In any event, I think you have in fact made the point by demonstrating that even at this stage in your education you cannot spell or write a coherent English sentence. You also apparently do not realize that within that single post you contradicted yourself at least twice. That says a lot about not only your education, but also about the people who let you in that PsyD program to begin with. I think they were mostly interested in your money, since it definitely appears that they had no interest in your academic abilities.

This sort of thing (among other things) is why, as a practicing Psychologist, I look upon people with PsyD degrees with a very jaundiced eye, especially when it comes to intern selection or hiring. The sad fact is that most people with PsyD degrees simply do not measure up, intellectually or academically, to those with Ph.D.'s.

I think the Psy.D degree was created more as a marketing tool (No dissertation, relaxed entrance requirements, minimal or no research design or stat courses, etc.) for places like Argosy and the others than for any other reason. Since you state that you went (or still go to) a "Univeristy" based program, it appears that some Universities have jumped on the bandwagon as well.

Perhaps we should think of an even more "relaxed" degree to award to people who can't get into PsyD programs, assuming that such people even exist.

It seems to me that the only real bar to getting into a PsyD program is the fairly copious amount of money that is needed. That strikes me as a very good definition of what constitutes a diploma mill, and it degrades our entire field.

Instead of attacking other members of our field, you should defend our field from other fields who are trying to enter our area of practice. Social workers are trying to get in on psychological testing. There is another thread on this forum that is addressing a social worker's right to do psychological testing. PsyD programs housed in professional schools are not the only problems in the field. Your concerns about the field going down the crapper may be better served discussing the problems with letting social workers do (administer and interpret) psychological testing. Instead of analyzing my posts for spelling errors and making false assumptions about my ability, put your efforts to good use. And do so professionally and tactfully!

And by the way, there are professional schools that offer PhDs too (e.g. California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant University). So, PsyD programs are not the only offenders.

 

[KayJay85]

To be clear as to which programs I take issue with, I will just start referring to them as free-standing professional schools of psychology (FPSP). Here, I am talking about Argosy, Adler, Forrest, Fielding, Alliant, and all of the business that attempt to produce doctors via the trade/vocational school model. While this educational model has worth, I tend to think of it along the lines of training a dental assistant versus a dentist; or training a paralegal versus a lawyer; training a surgical tech versus a surgeon... by the same token, FPSP should be training psych techs or psychometricians--NOT psychologists.

👍👍👍

Not sure why this common sense logic is not understood by the APA. We are perhaps the only advanced-degree profession that is willing to allow our training to be usurped by Devry-type programs.

 

[DrGero]

👍👍👍

Not sure why this common sense logic is not understood by the APA. We are perhaps the only advanced-degree profession that is willing to allow our training to be usurped by Devry-type programs.

Uh, well, unless you're not counting MBAs (currently the most prevalent advanced degree in the US, AFAIK) and JDs.

 

[deleted75966]

Relative to this discussion, some may be interested in this.


http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...p-health-schools/clinical-psychology-rankings