PsyD vs PhD: Addressing Anti-Psyd Sentiments

[PsyDLICSW]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Originally Posted by Jon Snow
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.[/QUOTE]


Well, there are some truly University Based PsyD programs on this list (Rutgers, IUP, Marshall, James Madison). The other professional schools and university based programs that take more than 20 students per cohort are what you say.

 

[Student4Life0]

Originally Posted by Jon Snow
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, there are some truly University Based PsyD programs on this list (Rutgers, IUP, Marshall, James Madison). The other professional schools and university based programs that take more than 20 students per cohort are what you say.[/QUOTE]

I agree with most of what you have been posting, but I just want to point out that 20 seems to be an arbitrary number. I actually believe that Rutgers PsyD takes more than 20 students per year. The University PsyD program that I will be starting usually takes around 23.

It is a silly thing for me to point out, but I had to 🙂 There need to be more objective ways to distinguish between the good and bad PsyD programs. It pains me to think that I will be judged unfairly due to the letters after my name. I am interested and actively involved in research, excited to begin my dissertation, and firmly believe that practice must be informed by empirical results. Perhaps I am not the norm for the typical PsyD student. Perhaps I am just afraid of the stigma that I may face in my future.

 

[ariagirlno1]

I agree with most of what you have been posting, but I just want to point out that 20 seems to be an arbitrary number. I actually believe that Rutgers PsyD takes more than 20 students per year. The University PsyD program that I will be starting usually takes around 23.

It is a silly thing for me to point out, but I had to 🙂 There need to be more objective ways to distinguish between the good and bad PsyD programs. It pains me to think that I will be judged unfairly due to the letters after my name. I am interested and actively involved in research, excited to begin my dissertation, and firmly believe that practice must be informed by empirical results. Perhaps I am not the norm for the typical PsyD student. Perhaps I am just afraid of the stigma that I may face in my future.

I agree with all you are saying. I was just saying to my fiancé yesterday how much I am looking forward to beginning my dissertation, and I think my enthusiasm for research is partially what set me apart from the other applicants to the program. I certainly hope we won't face stigma, but this thread has me somewhat worried!

 

[KayJay85]

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

Sheesh... the semantics. No. I wasn't really thinking of MBAs on the same level with MDs, DOs, DDS, PhD, PsyD, etc. because it's a master's degree. My relationships with lawyers are pretty much limited to my Dad and his co-workers. Granted, they received their JDs some time ago, but I have a hard time thinking of any who did not attend a law school that established at a legitimate university. I guess to get this topic back on track, I am saying that psychologists as healthcare professionals seem all too willing to allow the most advanced training in our science to be outsourced to business institutes. How is that OK with the APA?😕

 

[PsyDLICSW]

I agree with most of what you have been posting, but I just want to point out that 20 seems to be an arbitrary number. I actually believe that Rutgers PsyD takes more than 20 students per year. The University PsyD program that I will be starting usually takes around 23.

It is a silly thing for me to point out, but I had to 🙂 There need to be more objective ways to distinguish between the good and bad PsyD programs. It pains me to think that I will be judged unfairly due to the letters after my name. I am interested and actively involved in research, excited to begin my dissertation, and firmly believe that practice must be informed by empirical results. Perhaps I am not the norm for the typical PsyD student. Perhaps I am just afraid of the stigma that I may face in my future.

I feel the same way you do about being in a PsyD program. There are some out there who judge all PsyD candidates and graduates as less adequate, less intelligent, and less qualified than PhD candidates. I am afraid of the risk of being misjudged and stigmatized for having a PsyD as opposed to a PhD. I chose the PsyD for a reason: to be a competent consumer of research and to be trained in evidence-based treatment methods. Also, the GRE is a factor. I don't believe that being able to recognize and define obscure words or solve novel math problems qualifies someone to be a good clinician or researcher. But many graduate programs make cuts based on this number and I modified my list of schools accordingly. I did not do poorly on the GRE, but I did not meet the 1200-1300 cut off for most PhD programs.

As for 20 as a cohort size. Twenty is an arbitrary number that I pulled out of my a**. Many PhDs accept less than 10 and then there are the professional schools that accept way too many, like 100. I don't know what the magic number is. Twenty just came to me. I forgot that great programs such as Rutgers and Wright State accept more than 20. I don't believe that you are not a normal PsyD student. There are 48 others in my program (about 10 people per cohort) including myself who are just like you: motivated, hard-working, interested in being well-informed as a clinician, interested in research, completing/starting dissertations etc. I did not mean to insinuate that more than 20 is a bad cohort number; I completely made one up because I only know about the cohort numbers in my undergrad university's program (cohort of 6), my current program (10), the programs I applied to (10-15) and the professional schools (too many). My beef is with professional schools that flood the market by accepting 100 students, not University-based PSyD programs who are properly implementing the Vail model.

My whole point in my posts on this thread is that university based doctoral programs (both PhD and PSyD) in clinical psychology need to come together along with APA to put a stop to the negative outcomes of the professional schools instead of pointing fingers at all PsyD programs. The Vail conference was held for a reason and the Vail model (if implemented correctly and responsibly) became popular for a reason. According to my supervisor (who graduated with a PhD from a Boulder model research focused program), the Vail model was developed because clinical psychologists were going on to clinical practice as opposed to conducting research and making publications. The Vail model was designed to train those who want to go into clinical practice to be consumers of research and use research to inform their practice. Whether PhD or PsyD, we need to focus on solving problems and to stop blaming each other and pointing fingers.

 

[O Gurl]

My whole point in my posts on this thread is that university based doctoral programs (both PhD and PSyD) in clinical psychology need to come together along with APA to put a stop to the negative outcomes of the professional schools instead of pointing fingers at all PsyD programs. The Vail conference was held for a reason and the Vail model (if implemented correctly and responsibly) became popular for a reason. According to my supervisor (who graduated with a PhD from a Boulder model research focused program), the Vail model was developed because clinical psychologists were going on to clinical practice as opposed to conducting research and making publications. The Vail model was designed to train those who want to go into clinical practice to be consumers of research and use research to inform their practice. Whether PhD or PsyD, we need to focus on solving problems and to stop blaming each other and pointing fingers.

I agree with you completely regarding the usefulness of the Vail Model and the fact that many programs apply it appropriately. Where do you see people here attacking ALL PsyDs? I think most of us are trying to be as specific as possible about what the problem programs are. And if I had to venture a guess about the mysterious new members who keep trying to turn it into a PhD vs. PsyD throw-down, I'd imagine they are proponents/students/recruiters of the said problem programs. It makes sense that they would try to get students from reputable, university-based PsyD programs to think that people on this board are calling for their programs to be sanctioned. Make no mistakes, we are on the same page. 😉

 

[psychmama]

Twenty just came to me. I forgot that great programs such as Rutgers and Wright State accept more than 20.

Actually IIRC, the Rutgers PsyD program in clinical psychology admits cohorts of 16-18 students. I don't think any have been 20+ (not to quibble or anything).😉

 

[PsyDLICSW]

I agree with you completely regarding the usefulness of the Vail Model and the fact that many programs apply it appropriately. Where do you see people here attacking ALL PsyDs? I think most of us are trying to be as specific as possible about what the problem programs are. And if I had to venture a guess about the mysterious new members who keep trying to turn it into a PhD vs. PsyD throw-down, I'd imagine they are proponents/students/recruiters of the said problem programs. It makes sense that they would try to get students from reputable, university-based PsyD programs to think that people on this board are calling for their programs to be sanctioned. Make no mistakes, we are on the same page. 😉

I know that most of the others on this forum are not bashing all PsyD's. You as well as the others have been professional and constructively critical in evaluating the posts and information on these forums. I was referring to the one person on this thread and a few on other threads who lump all PsyDs with the professional schools. Most if not all on this forum are on the same page about the problems with professional schools and the PhD PsyD debate. As a PsyD candidate, I am concerned about uninformed individuals making judgments about me and my training based on the type of doctorate I am working towards.

 

[PsyDLICSW]

Actually IIRC, the Rutgers PsyD program in clinical psychology admits cohorts of 16-18 students. I don't think any have been 20+ (not to quibble or anything).😉

Wright State accepts about 25, at least they did when I applied. My point is that University based PsyD programs that admit a reasonable number of students (I don't know what that number is but it's not 80-100 like professional schools) should not be lumped into the same group as professional schools.

 

[futurepsydoc]

Here are a few thoughts:

First, I think considering the size of a cohort is important. It can definitely impact training, especially if the size of the faculty is small. I think the ratio of students to faculty is more critical than a "magical number."

Second, I think we need to look beyond just the size of the cohort. In doing so, we should also be considering data about the level of preparedness to enter graduate training and the competitiveness of the application process. This includes the AVERAGE: 1) number of applications, 2) offers made, 3) GPA, and 4) GRE scores (i.e., math, verbal, psych) in reference to entering classes.

Last, I do think other indices of preparedness should be listed and considered. The standard facts often just get your application looked at. It is the other stuff, more often than not, that sets applicants apart. This includes, in no particular order, clinical experience, research experience, academic presentations, and publications. To note, these are much less objective in nature. The quality of these experiences/achievements can matter much more than the quantity of them. Numbers can deceiving.

Thoughts....

 

[PsyDLICSW]

Here are a few thoughts:

First, I think considering the size of a cohort is important. It can definitely impact training, especially if the size of the faculty is small. I think the ratio of students to faculty is more critical than a "magical number."

Second, I think we need to look beyond just the size of the cohort. In doing so, we should also be considering data about the level of preparedness to enter graduate training and the competitiveness of the application process. This includes the AVERAGE: 1) number of applications, 2) offers made, 3) GPA, and 4) GRE scores (i.e., math, verbal, psych) in reference to entering classes.

Last, I do think other indices of preparedness should be listed and considered. The standard facts often just get your application looked at. It is the other stuff, more often than not, that sets applicants apart. This includes, in no particular order, clinical experience, research experience, academic presentations, and publications. To note, these are much less objective in nature. The quality of these experiences/achievements can matter much more than the quantity of them. Numbers can deceiving.

Thoughts....

I agree. There are many factors that go into clinical psych applications as well as factors that go into what makes a program's training good, bad, or neutral. We need to focus on those factors rather than whether the degree is a PsyD or PhD or which is better. Throughout this thread, I have been trying to advocate for more cohesion among clinical psychology programs in solving problems like the internship crisis. Professional schools appear to be flooding the market for internship and accepting students without reasonable standards (e.g. a gre score). This is a problem. Others in the field are concerned about psychology's integrity because of what these schools are doing to the field. APA needs to do something. Fining programs for not matching is not going to help. Not accrediting diploma mills will. I also want to advocate for PsyD candidates that are being judged unfairly because of the reputation of these professional schools. The PhD/PsyD debate will be ongoing, but I just want those in university based, non-diploma mill PsyD programs to be heard and for others on this forum to have all the information about PsyD programs, not just the negative information.

 

[futurepsydoc]

I agree. There are many factors that go into clinical psych applications as well as factors that go into what makes a program's training good, bad, or neutral. We need to focus on those factors rather than whether the degree is a PsyD or PhD or which is better. Throughout this thread, I have been trying to advocate for more cohesion among clinical psychology programs in solving problems like the internship crisis. Professional schools appear to be flooding the market for internship and accepting students without reasonable standards (e.g. a gre score). This is a problem. Others in the field are concerned about psychology's integrity because of what these schools are doing to the field. APA needs to do something. Fining programs for not matching is not going to help. Not accrediting diploma mills will. I also want to advocate for PsyD candidates that are being judged unfairly because of the reputation of these professional schools. The PhD/PsyD debate will be ongoing, but I just want those in university based, non-diploma mill PsyD programs to be heard and for others on this forum to have all the information about PsyD programs, not just the negative information.

It has been stated on this forum several times that civil, informed, and open discussions about this topic are necessary to dispel myths and to point out real issues that need to be addressed. I appreciate and applaud the effort to do so in this thread.

As others have stated, the Vail Model as it was intended to be implemented, makes logical sense. I think what constitutes the model being implemented "well" or "correctly" is up for debate. Nonetheless, I think we can all agree that its implementation has gone horribly awry in some cases. Unfortunately, the ramifications are have been far reaching and are not being addressed in a timely fashion. This impacts the entire field.

As future professionals, as well as those who recently graduated but still hang around to drop a some gems of knowledge (thanks!), it will be our responsibility to address these ramifications. The letter being drafted to the APA on this forum is a perfect of example of what can happen when people engage in an informed discussion.

However, in order for any headway to be made, I honestly think that people trained in BOTH MODELS need to advocate for change and come to a consensus on clear, specific, and measurable goals. If a majority of individuals fro both sides of the aisle, so to speak, are not in agreement the initiative will be doomed. Why? People will simply claim that bias underlies the agenda for instituting the proposed changes, and in turn, the same argument will reoccur (see PhD/PsyD Comparison thread) and the field will continue to be "stuck."

 

[AgapeBlue]

However, in order for any headway to be made, I honestly think that people trained in BOTH MODELS need to advocate for change and come to a consensus on clear, specific, and measurable goals. If a majority of individuals fro both sides of the aisle, so to speak, are not in agreement the initiative will be doomed. Why? People will simply claim that bias underlies the agenda for instituting the proposed changes, and in turn, the same argument will reoccur (see PhD/PsyD Comparison thread) and the field will continue to be "stuck."

Agreed, however I think that so much of the burden falls to those who have earned their PsyD from the well respected, non-predatory schools to speak out against the programs that prey upon the thousands willing to pawn off their future for a fancy title and chance to do therapy.

When I briefly considered going the PsyD route I was warned off by many faculty members (PhD's) because they felt it would be an uphill battle for me to teach later on in my career, and one mentor worried that I would not get the respect I deserved. Once a PsyD joined the staff, their perception shifted, albeit slowly and only by a fraction, but it did shift.

It's unfortunate that those who choose one route over another have to prove themselves over and over, but it's a reality. I believe those who hold the PsyD will prove to be their own best advocate when standing up against the "professional schools" with a loud and unified voice.

I can speak up for them, and I do, but I think it's a far more credible argument to be able to point to someone as an example of what a PsyD can and should be.

 

[PsyDLICSW]

Agreed, however I think that so much of the burden falls to those who have earned their PsyD from the well respected, non-predatory schools to speak out against the programs that prey upon the thousands willing to pawn off their future for a fancy title and chance to do therapy.

When I briefly considered going the PsyD route I was warned off by many faculty members (PhD's) because they felt it would be an uphill battle for me to teach later on in my career, and one mentor worried that I would not get the respect I deserved. Once a PsyD joined the staff, their perception shifted, albeit slowly and only by a fraction, but it did shift.

It's unfortunate that those who choose one route over another have to prove themselves over and over, but it's a reality. I believe those who hold the PsyD will prove to be their own best advocate when standing up against the "professional schools" with a loud and unified voice.

I can speak up for them, and I do, but I think it's a far more credible argument to be able to point to someone as an example of what a PsyD can and should be.

I am happy to see that we university-based PsyD students have support on this forum. I have advocated for those of us attending university-based PsyD programs (e.g. Baylor, Indiana State, IUP, Marshall, Rutgers, etc). My comments are posted above in this thread on my two cents regarding the PhD/PsyD debate. There are times when I feel like I am imposter and not good enough because I went for a PsyD instead. I think it is because of these professional schools and the reputations they hold. I have to go above and beyond not only because it is clinical psychology but also because I have to prove that I am NOT attending a free standing professional school and that my PSyD training is different from FSPSs. Others on the forum have also considered University-based PsyD programs like those I have mentioned above as a part of the effort against the professional schools. We PsyDs housed in universities are just as outraged at the FSPS and FSPS-like universities for flooding the market and bringing clinical psychology down.

 

[Student4Life0]

I am happy to see that we university-based PsyD students have support on this forum. I have advocated for those of us attending university-based PsyD programs (e.g. Baylor, Indiana State, IUP, Marshall, Rutgers, etc). My comments are posted above in this thread on my two cents regarding the PhD/PsyD debate. There are times when I feel like I am imposter and not good enough because I went for a PsyD instead. I think it is because of these professional schools and the reputations they hold. I have to go above and beyond not only because it is clinical psychology but also because I have to prove that I am NOT attending a free standing professional school and that my PSyD training is different from FSPSs. Others on the forum have also considered University-based PsyD programs like those I have mentioned above as a part of the effort against the professional schools. We PsyDs housed in universities are just as outraged at the FSPS and FSPS-like universities for flooding the market and bringing clinical psychology down.

yup....exactly.

 

[AgapeBlue]

I am happy to see that we university-based PsyD students have support on this forum. I have advocated for those of us attending university-based PsyD programs (e.g. Baylor, Indiana State, IUP, Marshall, Rutgers, etc). My comments are posted above in this thread on my two cents regarding the PhD/PsyD debate. There are times when I feel like I am imposter and not good enough because I went for a PsyD instead. I think it is because of these professional schools and the reputations they hold. I have to go above and beyond not only because it is clinical psychology but also because I have to prove that I am NOT attending a free standing professional school and that my PSyD training is different from FSPSs. Others on the forum have also considered University-based PsyD programs like those I have mentioned above as a part of the effort against the professional schools. We PsyDs housed in universities are just as outraged at the FSPS and FSPS-like universities for flooding the market and bringing clinical psychology down.

Any attempt to devalue a doctoral degree from an honest program should be met with outrage, especially when it undermines the credibility of those who have worked so very hard to obtain their degree and/or position in the mental health field. Many people still need to be educated as to the difference between PhD and *real* PsyD (even those in academia who have been around for decades), but especially those who are new to the study of psychology because it IS a viable option.

The professional schools feed off of the vanity and ignorance of those who want a career in the mental health field but, for whatever reasons, cannot or will not attend a worthy program. They need to be stopped and their prey need to be informed. It's detrimental to all of us in the overall scheme of things.

 

[Brochacho]

I am on the verge of accepting an offer to a fully funded PsyD program (tuition remission + stipend) that accepts a cohort of around 8 at an r1 university. What would be incredibly helpful to me is to hear from only PsyD holders in the field and if they feel that the degree has limited them in any way. Not hearsay form PhD holders and what they have "seen", but how individuals who have the degree actually feel about the degree and if they feel like it has closed doors for them in some degree. Feel free to PM me if you like, but the opinion of PsyD holders would be incredibly helpful to me and greatly appreciated.

 

[DrGero]

Any attempt to devalue a doctoral degree from an honest program should be met with outrage, especially when it undermines the credibility of those who have worked so very hard to obtain their degree and/or position in the mental health field. Many people still need to be educated as to the difference between PhD and *real* PsyD (even those in academia who have been around for decades), but especially those who are new to the study of psychology because it IS a viable option.

The professional schools feed off of the vanity and ignorance of those who want a career in the mental health field but, for whatever reasons, cannot or will not attend a worthy program. They need to be stopped and their prey need to be informed. It's detrimental to all of us in the overall scheme of things.

I'd cop to the ignorance, but not the vanity. I think if I had been schooled in patience and perspective at the time I had chosen to attend a professional school, I might have delayed and obtained an RA position somewhere for a couple of years and burnished my application chances a bit.

Professional schools in psychology are a problem, and I agree that degree flooding is certainly an economic challenge to existing providers out there (simply by how it unbalances the supply and demand curve), but the other problem is that most professional schools cost huge amounts of money. This is not as much an issue with professional schools as it is with the existence and structure of the federal student loan system, which basically allows students to get in massive hock without having to demonstrate any ability to repay their loans. This leads to tuition hyperinflation, the proliferation of Argosy and U. of Phoenix type organizations, profiteering, and hordes of young people with massive debts which they'll be saddled with for much of their lives. We might not *have* all these professional schools, and the costs would be substantially reduced, if the student loan system was structured differently - all that easy-to-obtain student loan money provides powerful incentives for the oscenely expensive and mediocre Argosys of the world to exist, and also incentives (sadly) for the APA to look the other way.

 

[deleted75966]

Yes Dr. Gero, that is a big complaint of mine. I feel strongly that it is exploitative, which makes me angry.

 

[AgapeBlue]

I'd cop to the ignorance, but not the vanity. I think if I had been schooled in patience and perspective at the time I had chosen to attend a professional school, I might have delayed and obtained an RA position somewhere for a couple of years and burnished my application chances a bit.

Professional schools in psychology are a problem, and I agree that degree flooding is certainly an economic challenge to existing providers out there (simply by how it unbalances the supply and demand curve), but the other problem is that most professional schools cost huge amounts of money. This is not as much an issue with professional schools as it is with the existence and structure of the federal student loan system, which basically allows students to get in massive hock without having to demonstrate any ability to repay their loans. This leads to tuition hyperinflation, the proliferation of Argosy and U. of Phoenix type organizations, profiteering, and hordes of young people with massive debts which they'll be saddled with for much of their lives. We might not *have* all these professional schools, and the costs would be substantially reduced, if the student loan system was structured differently - all that easy-to-obtain student loan money provides powerful incentives for the oscenely expensive and mediocre Argosys of the world to exist, and also incentives (sadly) for the APA to look the other way.

Very good point. These schools take advantage of the system harming both the people who attend and the field as a whole. I hate seeing anyone being taken for a financial ride by these programs.

 

[psycreality]

I can't say I agree with everything that's been said on this thread, but I agree with most of it at this point. Thanks to PsyDLICSW for articulating the points I failed to make, and to JonSnow and OGurl for being open-minded and thoughtful.

I agree that perhaps the PsyD "problems" reside in the distinct training differences between university-based programs and free-standing programs. I'm glad this thread has led to good discussions that help us sort through the training problems that our community is facing. I hope this helps applicants gain better insight into the realities of PsyD training.

I just want forum readers to understand that PsyDs are not necessarily less-qualified in terms of intellect, hard work, and/or training (university-based).

 

[PsyDLICSW]

Very good point. These schools take advantage of the system harming both the people who attend and the field as a whole. I hate seeing anyone being taken for a financial ride by these programs.

I am so confused as to why APA turns and looks the other way. Is there nothing they can do? I hate to say this, but do they get kickbacks from these programs? When visiting a university-based PsyD program in DC (George Washington), I visited an Argosy school there. It was like a make-shift program. It looked like you could go to class one day and come to class the next morning and everything is gone. In talking to students and administration (a guy with a degree in business and more of a manager) it seems that these programs have people within APA that make sure they get accredited. Someone representing Argosy's interests is in APA. Another sad thing is that some of these Argosy schools have their own APA accredited internship that their students attend if they don't match. What keeps these programs going other than tuition/loan money?

 

[PsyDLICSW]

I can't say I agree with everything that's been said on this thread, but I agree with most of it at this point. Thanks to PsyDLICSW for articulating the points I failed to make, and to JonSnow and OGurl for being open-minded and thoughtful.

I agree that perhaps the PsyD "problems" reside in the distinct training differences between university-based programs and free-standing programs. I'm glad this thread has led to good discussions that help us sort through the training problems that our community is facing. I hope this helps applicants gain better insight into the realities of PsyD training.

I just want forum readers to understand that PsyDs are not necessarily less-qualified in terms of intellect, hard work, and/or training (university-based).

Thanks Psycreality. I joined this forum to make sure that those of us in university-based PsyD programs are heard. Others on the forum have been open-minded. Few have been closed minded and one went so far as to call me stupid in a roundabout way for advocating for PsyDs housed in Universities. Other open-minded, professional members like Jon Snow and O Girl agree that the university-based programs I mention in my posts such as IUP, Marshall, Baylor, Rutgers, Pepperdine, and Indiana State are on the same team as PhD programs in the fight against the professional schools that bring our profession down. I am in my second year in my PsyD program and I have nightmares about not matching. I am also child focused and have nightmares that I won't get into an APA accredited child focused internship. I hope we can come together and solve this problem not only for those applying next year but for the future of our current grad students.

 

[AgapeBlue]

I am so confused as to why APA turns and looks the other way. Is there nothing they can do? I hate to say this, but do they get kickbacks from these programs? When visiting a university-based PsyD program in DC (George Washington), I visited an Argosy school there. It was like a make-shift program. It looked like you could go to class one day and come to class the next morning and everything is gone. In talking to students and administration (a guy with a degree in business and more of a manager) it seems that these programs have people within APA that make sure they get accredited. Someone representing Argosy's interests is in APA. Another sad thing is that some of these Argosy schools have their own APA accredited internship that their students attend if they don't match. What keeps these programs going other than tuition/loan money?

I don't have an answer to the APA's continued accreditation of these programs. It's detrimental to the real PsyD programs and I truly don't understand how they can offer accreditation to both a professional school AND a university-based program. I don't envy those in the respectable programs who have to contend with the comparisons. I'm just glad that there are far more experienced members here who are taking a proactive approach to finding a solution.

What keeps these schools going? I can only speculate, but I think a lot of it is the number of people who want a career as a clinical psychologist and cannot (or don't want to) get into a real program. I'd imagine after being rejected by a number of schools, these free standing schools are tempting. An undergrad that volunteered at a clinic I worked at went the professional school route. They did not want to take the GRE or deal with any other part of the application process. They are an adult (40's) and well aware of the financial issues that would haunt them after graduation...but it's where they wanted to go. *shrug*

The loan issue is a completely different animal. A few years ago several of these types of professional schools (not just those focused on psych graduate programs) came under fire, but I can't find the article that discussed it at the moment (I think it's been discussed elsewhere on the forums).

 

[PsyDLICSW]

I don't have an answer to the APA's continued accreditation of these programs. It's detrimental to the real PsyD programs and I truly don't understand how they can offer accreditation to both a professional school AND a university-based program. I don't envy those in the respectable programs who have to contend with the comparisons. I'm just glad that there are far more experienced members here who are taking a proactive approach to finding a solution.

What keeps these schools going? I can only speculate, but I think a lot of it is the number of people who want a career as a clinical psychologist and cannot (or don't want to) get into a real program. I'd imagine after being rejected by a number of schools, these free standing schools are tempting. An undergrad that volunteered at a clinic I worked at went the professional school route. They did not want to take the GRE or deal with any other part of the application process. They are an adult (40's) and well aware of the financial issues that would haunt them after graduation...but it's where they wanted to go. *shrug*

The loan issue is a completely different animal. A few years ago several of these types of professional schools (not just those focused on psych graduate programs) came under fire, but I can't find the article that discussed it at the moment (I think it's been discussed elsewhere on the forums).

I figured that the demand of those interested in clinical psychology and the low supply of reputable programs is involved in the success of Argosy and Argosy-like schools. Others on this forum commented on the lack of information that undergraduates have about clinical psychology and the practice of clinical psychology. Programs like Argosy prey on these uninformed students, especially if these students are not successful in getting into a program. I think educating undergraduates about their options in pursuing graduate psychology may help. Undergraduates with a career goal to do therapy only may not need a PhD or PsyD and they may not know it. Undergraduates also may not understand the competitive nature of gradaute psychology. Undergraduates don't understand the difference between PsyDs housed in universities and harmful pay-for degree programs. We may need to start with educating undergraduates. I took a class in undergrad called "Psychology as a profession." It is a required class that talks about the different professions you can go into with a degree in psychology, the competitive nature of graduate school in psychology, the difference between PhD and PsyD, and the difference between University PsyDs and FSPSs. I think undergraduates need to be better informed of their options and the distinctions between universities and FSPSs.

 

[deleted75966]

Other open-minded, professional members like Jon Snow

open-minded = 1
arrogant/elitist = 129,234,544

Sweet 🙂 Just a little more and I can tip the balance.

 

[ClinicalPHD5]

Here are the actual salaries for different professions. Clinical psychologists don't just earn less than doctors, but also significantly less (sometimes half) than lawyers, dentists, physician assistants, pharmacists etc. We even earn less than dental hygienists!

@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: blue; text-decoration: underline; }a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: purple; text-decoration: underline; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } According to the salary surveys collected by the federal government (www.bls.gov):

In May 2008, the median annual wages of all wage-and-salaried lawyers were $110,590

Median annual wages of salaried general dentists were $142,870 in May 2008.

Median annual wages of wage and salary pharmacists in May 2008 were $106,410.

In 2008, physicians practicing primary care had total median annual compensation of $186,044, and physicians practicing in medical specialties earned total median annual compensation of $339,738.

For psychologists the median is 64,000 in May 2008

 

[DrGero]

Here are the actual salaries for different professions. Clinical psychologists don't just earn less than doctors, but also significantly less (sometimes half) than lawyers, dentists, physician assistants, pharmacists etc. We even earn less than dental hygienists!

@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: blue; text-decoration: underline; }a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: purple; text-decoration: underline; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } According to the salary surveys collected by the federal government (www.bls.gov):

In May 2008, the median annual wages of all wage-and-salaried lawyers were $110,590

Median annual wages of salaried general dentists were $142,870 in May 2008.

Median annual wages of wage and salary pharmacists in May 2008 were $106,410.

In 2008, physicians practicing primary care had total median annual compensation of $186,044, and physicians practicing in medical specialties earned total median annual compensation of $339,738.

For psychologists the median is 64,000 in May 2008

I can't speak for the other professions, but my wife is an attorney and yes, she makes a good 40K more than I do a year (my full time salary being in the low 6 figures). But then again, honestly, I don't work nearly as hard as she does. She sometimes has to do 60 hours a week to make her hours, many of her hours get written off, etc. So, on an hourly basis, I make perhaps as much as she does.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Here are the actual salaries for different professions. Clinical psychologists don't just earn less than doctors, but also significantly less (sometimes half) than lawyers, dentists, physician assistants, pharmacists etc. We even earn less than dental hygienists!

@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: blue; text-decoration: underline; }a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: purple; text-decoration: underline; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } According to the salary surveys collected by the federal government (www.bls.gov):

In May 2008, the median annual wages of all wage-and-salaried lawyers were $110,590

Median annual wages of salaried general dentists were $142,870 in May 2008.

Median annual wages of wage and salary pharmacists in May 2008 were $106,410.

In 2008, physicians practicing primary care had total median annual compensation of $186,044, and physicians practicing in medical specialties earned total median annual compensation of $339,738.

For psychologists the median is 64,000 in May 2008

It really is quite sobering. While I (perhaps misguidedly) don't consider myself to be particularly shallow or money-hungry, the pure economics of it all really has made me consider, on more than one occasion, one of my practicum supervisor's suggestions that bypassing a post-doc and instead heading to med school after I finish my doctorate wouldn't be an unrealistic or ill-thought-out plan.

Not that I actually will subject myself to that much more academic abuse once I'm done here, but the thought nonetheless has crossed my mind in the past. Fortunately, I truly do enjoy all aspects (thus far) of what I'm being trained to do.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I took a class in undergrad called "Psychology as a profession." It is a required class that talks about the different professions you can go into with a degree in psychology, the competitive nature of graduate school in psychology, the difference between PhD and PsyD, and the difference between University PsyDs and FSPSs. I think undergraduates need to be better informed of their options and the distinctions between universities and FSPSs.

Wow...I wish more undergraduate programs had a class like the one mentioned above. My LORs from undergrad were 15, 30+, and 40+ years post-graduate work, so I had to look elsewhere for information about clinical programs. Unfortunately the SDN Clinical forum was not around when I was researching. Part of the reason I post on here is to get the information out there, both the good and the bad, so students can make an informed decision.

At the doctoral level there is very inconsistant mentoring as it relates to the "business" of psychology. The first time I lectured on the business of psychology, I was astounded by what the students didn't know. I had to revamp my entire lecture (scale back) because there was a knowledge gap that a 3 hour lecture wasn't going to cover. I try and encourage students to start asking the questions now before they commit to a path that may look very different once they start down it.

open-minded = 1
arrogant/elitist = 129,234,544

Sweet 🙂 Just a little more and I can tip the balance.

I think some of the long-standing members can attest to how JS has softened over the years. 😀

It really is quite sobering. While I (perhaps misguidedly) don't consider myself to be particularly shallow or money-hungry, the pure economics of it all really has made me consider, on more than one occasion, one of my practicum supervisor's suggestions that bypassing a post-doc and instead heading to med school after I finish my doctorate wouldn't be an unrealistic or ill-thought-out plan.

Medicine is not a panecea for a good lifestyle/pay, at least not for students going into it now. Healthcare is squeezing the specialties, so even less people will be making the big money. Jobs in business, finance, and the like is where the money is made. I laugh/sob (kidding) sometimes when I think about how much easier I would have had it if I stayed in the corp. world. Some of my former colleagues are buying their 2nd/3rd homes. Yay following your interest!! 🙄 I am happier than most of my former colleagues, though they can drown their sorrows at their new beach houses. 🙁

 

[futurepsydoc]

Agreed, however I think that so much of the burden falls to those who have earned their PsyD from the well respected, non-predatory schools to speak out against the programs that prey upon the thousands willing to pawn off their future for a fancy title and chance to do therapy.

When I briefly considered going the PsyD route I was warned off by many faculty members (PhD's) because they felt it would be an uphill battle for me to teach later on in my career, and one mentor worried that I would not get the respect I deserved. Once a PsyD joined the staff, their perception shifted, albeit slowly and only by a fraction, but it did shift.

It's unfortunate that those who choose one route over another have to prove themselves over and over, but it's a reality. I believe those who hold the PsyD will prove to be their own best advocate when standing up against the "professional schools" with a loud and unified voice.

I can speak up for them, and I do, but I think it's a far more credible argument to be able to point to someone as an example of what a PsyD can and should be.

I totally agree that those with PsyDs would be the best group to advocate for this issue. However, I believe that it will be difficult for some individuals to consider doing it. In a way, this thread asks PsyD students to consider advocating against programs that confer the same "degree" as they are working towards themselves. Moreover, it encourages these same students to take action in a climate that is largely biased against that same degree. While I agree that the issue needs to be addressed, I just think its a tough sell for some.

Take, for example, the Baker, McFall, and Shoham article that was recently published in one the APS journals. It leveled a scathing critique of the Vail Model of training. While the authors pointed out that some PsyD programs provide solid training to students and that some PhD programs are sub par, this caveat is small when compared to the manner in which the Vail Model and PsyD degree is methodically picked apart. While I agree with a lot of what was said by the authors, they cast a pretty wide net. It was not a targeted a strike that honed in on specific programs.

Like most things, people dig their heals in when they feel attacked. As a whole, I think this will make PsyD professionals wary to attack people with the same degree, because in someway they will see it as an attack themselves and on the legitimacy of their own training. Cognitive dissonance anyone?

To make headway, I think a more tempered piece written by prestigious people in the field might garner the support necessary and prompt the action required for change to occur. Thoughts?

 

[PsyDLICSW]

I totally agree that those with PsyDs would be the best group to advocate for this issue. However, I believe that it will be difficult for some individuals to consider doing it. In a way, this thread asks PsyD students to consider advocating against programs that confer the same "degree" as they are working towards themselves. Moreover, it encourages these same students to take action in a climate that is largely biased against that same degree. While I agree that the issue needs to be addressed, I just think its a tough sell for some.

Take, for example, the Baker, McFall, and Shoham article that was recently published in one the APS journals. It leveled a scathing critique of the Vail Model of training. While the authors pointed out that some PsyD programs provide solid training to students and that some PhD programs are sub par, this caveat is small when compared to the manner in which the Vail Model and PsyD degree is methodically picked apart. While I agree with a lot of what was said by the authors, they cast a pretty wide net. It was not a targeted a strike that honed in on specific programs.

Like most things, people dig their heals in when they feel attacked. As a whole, I think this will make PsyD professionals wary to attack people with the same degree, because in someway they will see it as an attack themselves and on the legitimacy of their own training. Cognitive dissonance anyone?

To make headway, I think a more tempered piece written by prestigious people in the field might garner the support necessary and prompt the action required for change to occur. Thoughts?

I see your point about PsyDs attacking those with the same degree. But (correct me if I'm wrong) you are lumping all PsyD programs together. University-based PsyDs are not the same as FSPS (e.g. Argosy). The "degree" awarded may be the same, but the training is drastically different. Most FSPS do not require a dissertation or even a glorified literature review. There are not courses in research methods, statistics, or experimental design. The Vail Model (or at least the way it is implemented in my program) does not exclude scientific training in training professionals. Extensive training in experimental design, research methods, and statistics do not make someone a good clinician. It makes him/her a good scientist and researcher. Those of us in university-based PsyD programs are trained in research methods, design and statistics not so we can go fourth and generate new research like those who work in Universities or agencies such as NIMH, but so we can read the research generated, critically evaluate it, and apply it properly to practice. Just because a treatment works in the lab does not mean it will work in clinical practice. This mentality may not work for those of us practicing in rural areas where you treat anything that walks in the door.

The Baker, McFall, and Shoham article (or at least the one I am referencing from the NIMH website) compares us to the medical field and how clinical practice means more than science. They suggest that medicine has moved away from this and we should too. Physicians do not have dissertations and they take courses in clinical medical practice. They take two research/stats courses at the most. Sure, they have to do a research project now, but those research projects are no near the breadth and scope of a doctoral dissertation in a PhD program. My point here is that if psychology needs to make the same shift towards a more scientific approach, we already have. Not all PsyD programs ignore or down play research and scientific thinking. How does being able to set up an experiment, run it, analyze the stats, and so forth make a better clinician? How does taking several courses in stats and research design make a better clinician? My program and other university based PsyD programs require courses in research and stats and a dissertation, but these courses are designed to help us make informed clinical decisions based on research, not necessarily generate more research. Sure, phD candidates take clinically relevant classes, but my assumption is that they are trained as scientists first and practitioners second (or just practitioners informed by science, I am not as familiar with the Boulder Model). Those of us in the Vail model programs are training to be practitioners informed by science too, but we are trained more as practitioners first; practitioners that consume and apply research to clinical practice. Some Vail model programs conduct more clinical practice research (e.g. practice evaluations, treatment outcomes in a clinic setting as opposed to a lab). My program and other university-based programs do this.

I understand the points you are trying to make, but I disagree that I am attacking my own degree by attacking FSPSs. I do not equate FSPSs with university-based PsyD programs. Most if not all FSPSs are totally clinically based with minimal exposure to research methods, experimental design, and statistics...even psychometrics. The article you referenced has some good points too, but I disagree that being a good scientist and researcher equates a good practitioner. Being able to understand and critically evaluate research for use in clinical practice makes for a well-informed clinician, which I think makes a good clinician more than being able to design and run an experiment.

 

[O Gurl]

I understand the points you are trying to make, but I disagree that I am attacking my own degree by attacking FSPSs. I do not equate FSPSs with university-based PsyD programs.

I am not pursuing the PsyD, so perhaps I am speaking out of turn, but I would agree with the above. In fact, PsyDs standing with PhDs against FSPSs is actually DEFENDING their degree. A lot of the skepticism or outright rejection of PsyD job/postdoc/intern applicants at some institutions will likely temper if the bad seeds are sorted out. If the Argosy/Alliant/Fielding models continue to proliferate, however, the PsyD degree (first) and clinical psychology (secondly) and mental health (ultimately) will die off.

 

[AgapeBlue]

I totally agree that those with PsyDs would be the best group to advocate for this issue. However, I believe that it will be difficult for some individuals to consider doing it. In a way, this thread asks PsyD students to consider advocating against programs that confer the same "degree" as they are working towards themselves. Moreover, it encourages these same students to take action in a climate that is largely biased against that same degree. While I agree that the issue needs to be addressed, I just think its a tough sell for some.

One of the reasons the PsyD is coming under attack, besides the general lack of understanding of what the PsyD is, is because of these predatory programs that are conferring the same titled degree without the same quality training and scientific education that those in the university-based programs. We have two routes to this one degree and those who have taken the higher quality route need to be leading the charge against those who are responsible for undermining their work.

If standing up for the respect and qualification of their degree is a difficult sell to someone from a university-based program, then a little education on the subject of devaluation may entice them to change their tune...or at least support those who are willing to stand up and support those being proactive and working towards a positive change.

Take, for example, the Baker, McFall, and Shoham article that was recently published in one the APS journals. It leveled a scathing critique of the Vail Model of training. While the authors pointed out that some PsyD programs provide solid training to students and that some PhD programs are sub par, this caveat is small when compared to the manner in which the Vail Model and PsyD degree is methodically picked apart. While I agree with a lot of what was said by the authors, they cast a pretty wide net. It was not a targeted a strike that honed in on specific programs.

I think PsyDLICSW dealt with this fairly well in their response.

Like most things, people dig their heals in when they feel attacked. As a whole, I think this will make PsyD professionals wary to attack people with the same degree, because in someway they will see it as an attack themselves and on the legitimacy of their own training. Cognitive dissonance anyone?

I don’t see a need to attack those holding the PsyD’s from the predatory programs. It’s the programs themselves that need to be stopped. They are causing harm to the field of psychology as a whole, undermining those with PsyD’s from quality university-based programs, and preying on students who are willing to dig themselves a financial hole the size of Wisconsin.

Ideally those who’ve graduated from these free-standing schools of evil would come forward and educate others who are looking to go this route. They are the ones who have been taken advantage of and have received the sub-par training and fail to get matched for internships...they are the ones who should really be upset at the situation these programs have created. Will it happen? I don’t know. It would be difficult to admit they may have made a mistake, or that they were unsatisfied with the training and their financial situation.

To make headway, I think a more tempered piece written by prestigious people in the field might garner the support necessary and prompt the action required for change to occur. Thoughts?

That is certainly one way of dealing with the situation, but the more professionals that speak out against this trend, the more pressure will be placed upon those who have the ability to actually make the changes necessary (e.g., the APA) to save the field of psychology.

Personally, I advocate becoming a member of the APA and speaking out through those channels. As a member, one has more credibility and it’s far easier to make changes from within than trying to force changes from without. At least this is the manner in which I’m speaking out..others may choose a different tactic. I’m only a graduate student so I’m not sure how much weight my lone voice has...but I cannot sit by and do nothing knowing that in few years when I need to find a match for my internship I may be left out in the cold as my future income is diminishing by the hour.... 🙄

AB🙂

 

[PsyDLICSW]

I am not pursuing the PsyD, so perhaps I am speaking out of turn, but I would agree with the above. In fact, PsyDs standing with PhDs against FSPSs is actually DEFENDING their degree. A lot of the skepticism or outright rejection of PsyD job/postdoc/intern applicants at some institutions will likely temper if the bad seeds are sorted out. If the Argosy/Alliant/Fielding models continue to proliferate, however, the PsyD degree (first) and clinical psychology (secondly) and mental health (ultimately) will die off.

Thanks O Girl 🙂 My program director has actually spoken with internship directors and clinical training directors about thie issue of skepticism and rejection of PsyD students. She has heard from multiple directors that it is the professional schools that they are against, not the PsyD. One of our fourth years in my program who just matched to an APA accredited internship asked directors at interviews why they have not taken a PsyD intern. The answer was that these programs do not like the professional schools and that applicants from a university based PsyD programs like mine are not rejected or looked upon with skepticism. This is not to say that all training directors are this open-minded, but it's good to know that the anti-PsyD attitude may just be directed at the professional schools.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

Having a bit of a laugh at the antics the SDN ranks will pull in order to be recognized as group ego syntonic. So now we can merrily count as "us" the "(university based) PsyD" folks -- so long as we all pledge allegiance against those illegitimate FSPers?

As a student at a PsyD-awarding "FSP," let me be the first to say, "Hello, me and you!" This massive virtual squiggle game to make sense of psychology's destiny will get really interesting when students from the "FSP"s are given a turn to draw the lines, no?

I appreciate the nudge for PsyD students to get involved on their own behalf on the policy and advocacy side of the profession. Nobody else is going to take the fight up for us, right? But

we -- those who have been in the doctoral level of the profession so much as a day -- are responsible for the mess being lamented on this and countless other threads in this forum. It is no exaggeration to say that EVERY professor I have met in this terrible, horrible, no good, very bad FSP is deeply concerned about the state of the art/science and the profession in general. More importantly -- more than a handful of professors (PhD and PsyD) and students have taken and continue to take leadership roles in the profession and have staked their reputations on creating solutions to advance the field. Most importantly, perhaps -- the larger community we serve is abundantly grateful for and would drown without our services.

The issues facing this field are multiple, complex, interdependent AND open ended. There is and will be more than enough work for everyone. Each issue is so much other than a good degree/bad degree argument. In real time, in universities, free standing institutes, and governmental bodies, PhDs and PsyDs are working together and asking for your help.

 

[O Gurl]

Having a bit of a laugh at the antics the SDN ranks will pull in order to be recognized as group ego syntonic. So now we can merrily count as "us" the "(university based) PsyD" folks -- so long as we all pledge allegiance against those illegitimate FSPers?

As a student at a PsyD-awarding "FSP," let me be the first to say, "Hello, me and you!" This massive virtual squiggle game to make sense of psychology's destiny will get really interesting when students from the "FSP"s are given a turn to draw the lines, no?

I appreciate the nudge for PsyD students to get involved on their own behalf on the policy and advocacy side of the profession. Nobody else is going to take the fight up for us, right? But

we -- those who have been in the doctoral level of the profession so much as a day -- are responsible for the mess being lamented on this and countless other threads in this forum. It is no exaggeration to say that EVERY professor I have met in this terrible, horrible, no good, very bad FSP is deeply concerned about the state of the art/science and the profession in general. More importantly -- more than a handful of professors (PhD and PsyD) and students have taken and continue to take leadership roles in the profession and have staked their reputations on creating solutions to advance the field. Most importantly, perhaps -- the larger community we serve is abundantly grateful for and would drown without our services.

The issues facing this field are multiple, complex, interdependent AND open ended. There is and will be more than enough work for everyone. Each issue is so much other than a good degree/bad degree argument. In real time, in universities, free standing institutes, and governmental bodies, PhDs and PsyDs are working together and asking for your help.

Hello.

Well, that all sounds very nice. It does. But I'm curious about this belief that there "is and will be more than enough work for everyone" and that the larger communities would drown without the services of PsyD's from FSPSs. Does the increase in the number of jobs that are now recruiting for LCSWs/MFTS/Psychologist concern you at all? I don't know about you, but I did not seek a doctorate to work the same job I could have had with a master's. Perhaps there will always be an abundance of jobs that pay in the 50K-60K range, but when one is coming out with hundreds of thousands in debt, that seems like a grim outcome. That is the very real landscape for our profession. What do the concerned professors at your school suggest?

Beyond this is the very real issues of advanced degree fields--particularly in health services. I have said plenty of times that a doctorate in psychology is the highest degree possible in mental health service delivery (at least the part that has data to demonstrate its efficacy 😉). The idea that the highest level of training in this area is taking place outside of universities is troubling--particularly when one looks at the admissions criteria, curriculum, faculty, and outcomes of these non-university programs. I also have no qualms about admitting that when I look for a PCP, optometrist, OB-GYN, dentist, etc--I would run for the hills if one was trained a vocational/trade model school. Not sure if you'd do the same. It may not sound pleasant, but for many people, this is a reality. A degree and license at a certain level should come with a certain implied quality and rigor of training. FSPSs do not.

 

[AlaskanJustin]

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).

MD/PhD are the best funded of all students, across the board, assuming its an NIH-funded MSTP training program, each student gets funding for ALL years of training, MD and PhD

You will be HARD pressed to find PhD programs that do not fund their students, at the very least with tuition waivers, if not with the inclusion of a living stipend and health insurance. So to make a comparison to PsyD at all is absurd

 

[AlaskanJustin]

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.

No offense, but should you really be the person defending PsyD programs??? Honestly, this was one of the worst summations and defenses of the PsyD I have ever seen. Frankly, you have done PsyD's more harm than good in this forum.

Best Wishes.

 

[AlaskanJustin]

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.

Uhhhh????? "emphasize research training" are you kidding? Isn't that why students (in general, not saying all) run to the PsyD, is so they DON'T have to focus on research?????

 

[AlaskanJustin]

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.)

Well I think the issue of quality of training within PsyD's has not been substantially addressed because the other problems they cause are so substantial that they overshadow this. COULD also be the ignorance of our lovely accrediting agency... speculation is...

 

[PsyDLICSW]

No offense, but should you really be the person defending PsyD programs??? Honestly, this was one of the worst summations and defenses of the PsyD I have ever seen. Frankly, you have done PsyD's more harm than good in this forum.

Best Wishes.

In psycreality's defense, he/she started a very important conversation and everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion.

 

[PsyDLICSW]

Uhhhh????? "emphasize research training" are you kidding? Isn't that why students (in general, not saying all) run to the PsyD, is so they DON'T have to focus on research?????

If you are talking about those in free standing professional schools, perhaps they do run to the PsyD. For those of us in university based PsyD programs, we do focus on research, but more in a clinical setting (e.g. practice evals, research in a clinical setting as opposed to a lab). I have to do a dissertation and spend time in a research lab, so I am not avoiding research by any means. The Vail model does not down play research. Research design is just not the primary focus of PsyD training. We take research and stats courses so that when we read research on let's say, evidence based treatment for behavior problems in children, we can read the research, evaluate the studies' methodology in terms of reliability and validity of findings, and properly apply the techniques and findings in clinical settings. I am glad that psycreality started this conversation because there are many misconceptions about the Vail model and the PsyD.

 

[AlaskanJustin]

Well, there are some truly University Based PsyD programs on this list (Rutgers, IUP, Marshall, James Madison). The other professional schools and university based programs that take more than 20 students per cohort are what you say.

I agree with most of what you have been posting, but I just want to point out that 20 seems to be an arbitrary number. I actually believe that Rutgers PsyD takes more than 20 students per year. The University PsyD program that I will be starting usually takes around 23.

It is a silly thing for me to point out, but I had to 🙂 There need to be more objective ways to distinguish between the good and bad PsyD programs. It pains me to think that I will be judged unfairly due to the letters after my name. I am interested and actively involved in research, excited to begin my dissertation, and firmly believe that practice must be informed by empirical results. Perhaps I am not the norm for the typical PsyD student. Perhaps I am just afraid of the stigma that I may face in my future.[/QUOTE]

Let me ask then... Why, if you are into research, doing (assumingly) an original research-based dissertation, etc did you choose PsyD????

I guess this is what erks me most, I mean unless you simply could not get into a PhD program, but is that really what it comes down to? I liken this problem to that of the DO schools, people that go to DO school TEND to be those that could not get into MD (some, but few, genuinely like the altered curriculum)...

The difference is that the MDs had a strong grasp on their profession before DO was introduced, so the threat is far less noticeable than it is in the PhD/PsyD debate.

For us, whenever I ask PsyD students why they chose PsyD, first response is always "gee I didnt want the research responsibility and wanted to focus on clinical training" but upon further analysis I come to find out that indeed they are involved in some sort of research project... what am I then to believe???? Since I do not get a reasonable answer from my acquaintances I MUST logically deduce that it's because they could not get into a PhD program (plenty of anecdotal evidence for this too)

 

[O Gurl]

No offense, but should you really be the person defending PsyD programs??? Honestly, this was one of the worst summations and defenses of the PsyD I have ever seen. Frankly, you have done PsyD's more harm than good in this forum.

Uhhhh????? "emphasize research training" are you kidding? Isn't that why students (in general, not saying all) run to the PsyD, is so they DON'T have to focus on research?????

Are you really trying to turn this into a rag on all PsyD's thing? After all the work that has gone into getting people on the same page? 😕

 

[AlaskanJustin]

If you are talking about those in free standing professional schools, perhaps they do run to the PsyD. For those of us in university based PsyD programs, we do focus on research, but more in a clinical setting (e.g. practice evals, research in a clinical setting as opposed to a lab). I have to do a dissertation and spend time in a research lab, so I am not avoiding research by any means. The Vail model does not down play research. Research design is just not the primary focus of PsyD training. We take research and stats courses so that when we read research on let's say, evidence based treatment for behavior problems in children, we can read the research, evaluate the studies' methodology in terms of reliability and validity of findings, and properly apply the techniques and findings in clinical settings. I am glad that psycreality started this conversation because there are many misconceptions about the Vail model and the PsyD.

Hmmm well a misconception of the types of research that is done in PhD's haha. In fact, I would say very few do lab work. It's clinical psychology, and come to think of it, do you know which psychology degree holds the largest proportion of R01, R23 and R34 awards??? Hint: Not PsyD...

Also which degree dominates RCTs??? Again not PsyDs (MDs and PhDs do!)

And I would love for a PsyD to try and make the argument that they would be equally competent to research as a PhD... I will just refer them to Meehl and call it a day.

 

[AlaskanJustin]

I feel the same way you do about being in a PsyD program. There are some out there who judge all PsyD candidates and graduates as less adequate, less intelligent, and less qualified than PhD candidates. I am afraid of the risk of being misjudged and stigmatized for having a PsyD as opposed to a PhD. I chose the PsyD for a reason: to be a competent consumer of research and to be trained in evidence-based treatment methods. Also, the GRE is a factor. I don't believe that being able to recognize and define obscure words or solve novel math problems qualifies someone to be a good clinician or researcher. But many graduate programs make cuts based on this number and I modified my list of schools accordingly. I did not do poorly on the GRE, but I did not meet the 1200-1300 cut off for most PhD programs.

My whole point in my posts on this thread is that university based doctoral programs (both PhD and PSyD) in clinical psychology need to come together along with APA to put a stop to the negative outcomes of the professional schools instead of pointing fingers at all PsyD programs. The Vail conference was held for a reason and the Vail model (if implemented correctly and responsibly) became popular for a reason. According to my supervisor (who graduated with a PhD from a Boulder model research focused program), the Vail model was developed because clinical psychologists were going on to clinical practice as opposed to conducting research and making publications. The Vail model was designed to train those who want to go into clinical practice to be consumers of research and use research to inform their practice. Whether PhD or PsyD, we need to focus on solving problems and to stop blaming each other and pointing fingers.

Look, thank you for admitting that you just couldn't get into a PhD program so you went PsyD...

But here is my issue... I have seen no evidence that a PsyD at Stanford or Denver or wherever is on any equal playing field as the PhD programs that have been established for decades... Simple words cannot do this justice unfortunately, nor does APA help this. It's actually disrespectful to the long-standing accredited universities to say they are on the same playing field...

 

[PsyDLICSW]

I agree with most of what you have been posting, but I just want to point out that 20 seems to be an arbitrary number. I actually believe that Rutgers PsyD takes more than 20 students per year. The University PsyD program that I will be starting usually takes around 23.

It is a silly thing for me to point out, but I had to 🙂 There need to be more objective ways to distinguish between the good and bad PsyD programs. It pains me to think that I will be judged unfairly due to the letters after my name. I am interested and actively involved in research, excited to begin my dissertation, and firmly believe that practice must be informed by empirical results. Perhaps I am not the norm for the typical PsyD student. Perhaps I am just afraid of the stigma that I may face in my future.

Let me ask then... Why, if you are into research, doing (assumingly) an original research-based dissertation, etc did you choose PsyD????

I guess this is what erks me most, I mean unless you simply could not get into a PhD program, but is that really what it comes down to? I liken this problem to that of the DO schools, people that go to DO school TEND to be those that could not get into MD (some, but few, genuinely like the altered curriculum)...

The difference is that the MDs had a strong grasp on their profession before DO was introduced, so the threat is far less noticeable than it is in the PhD/PsyD debate.

For us, whenever I ask PsyD students why they chose PsyD, first response is always "gee I didnt want the research responsibility and wanted to focus on clinical training" but upon further analysis I come to find out that indeed they are involved in some sort of research project... what am I then to believe???? Since I do not get a reasonable answer from my acquaintances I MUST logically deduce that it's because they could not get into a PhD program (plenty of anecdotal evidence for this too)[/QUOTE]


Just because one does not want to focus on research and to focus on more clinical work does not mean that every PsyD candidate was not "worthy" of a Just because one does not want to focus on research and to focus on more clinical work does not mean that every PsyD candidate was not "worthy" of a PhD. PhD programs rely too much on a GRE cutoff score. The GRE only shows how well someone can do on the GRE. Argue all you want but the GRE is s***. And for those who can't make it to 1200, forget about a PhD. Clinical and research ability cannot be predicted by the GRE, but most PhD programs use it to weed people out, people that would make good clinicians. Most of the people on this thread are on the same page about university PsyDs being on the same team as PhDs, but who are you to say that all PsyD people just go for a PsyD because they just couldn't get into a PhD program because a PhD is far better? I got into a PhD program and I chose a PsyD program, so now what?

 

[AlaskanJustin]

It has been stated on this forum several times that civil, informed, and open discussions about this topic are necessary to dispel myths and to point out real issues that need to be addressed. I appreciate and applaud the effort to do so in this thread.

As others have stated, the Vail Model as it was intended to be implemented, makes logical sense. I think what constitutes the model being implemented "well" or "correctly" is up for debate. Nonetheless, I think we can all agree that its implementation has gone horribly awry in some cases. Unfortunately, the ramifications are have been far reaching and are not being addressed in a timely fashion. This impacts the entire field.

As future professionals, as well as those who recently graduated but still hang around to drop a some gems of knowledge (thanks!), it will be our responsibility to address these ramifications. The letter being drafted to the APA on this forum is a perfect of example of what can happen when people engage in an informed discussion.

However, in order for any headway to be made, I honestly think that people trained in BOTH MODELS need to advocate for change and come to a consensus on clear, specific, and measurable goals. If a majority of individuals fro both sides of the aisle, so to speak, are not in agreement the initiative will be doomed. Why? People will simply claim that bias underlies the agenda for instituting the proposed changes, and in turn, the same argument will reoccur (see PhD/PsyD Comparison thread) and the field will continue to be "stuck."

I understand the necessity to validate our own selection of training trajectories... I do. Nevertheless, simply stating that the Vail model is great in theory, does not actually give the Vail model some sort of truth-value of being great... That makes no sense at all.

I am no ignoramus, if anything, I have studied the differences (and written on) far more than most of you, nevertheless, my goal here is not to say there IS a yes/no answer, but rather that nothing PsyD defenders have said has contributed to the ontology of PsyD programs as a whole.

In fact I propose NOT that we discuss the so-termed diploma mill programs, but rather we inspect the ontology of the university-based PsyD programs, and of course do so respectfully yet logically

 

[AlaskanJustin]

I did not say this:

Originally Posted by AlaskanJustin
I agree with most of what you have been posting, but I just want to point out that 20 seems to be an arbitrary number. I actually believe that Rutgers PsyD takes more than 20 students per year. The University PsyD program that I will be starting usually takes around 23.

It is a silly thing for me to point out, but I had to 🙂 There need to be more objective ways to distinguish between the good and bad PsyD programs. It pains me to think that I will be judged unfairly due to the letters after my name. I am interested and actively involved in research, excited to begin my dissertation, and firmly believe that practice must be informed by empirical results. Perhaps I am not the norm for the typical PsyD student. Perhaps I am just afraid of the stigma that I may face in my future.