PsyD vs PhD: Addressing Anti-Psyd Sentiments

[O Gurl]

---

Members don't see this ad.

AlaskanJustin:

I'm absolutely stunned that you are doing this. I just have to say that off the top. It is ridiculous.

First off, the Vail model was introduced b/c the Boulder model for clinical psychology training had gone so far into research/academia that there was a genuine lack of clinical training. Sorry, but that is what experimental/non-licensure psychology programs are for. Sadly, this is still true at some clinical PhD programs. There are still quite a few hard-core mentorship based research programs where students spend the vast majority of their time being their PI's mini-me/indentured servant (RA and TA duties) and get very limited face-to-face clinical contact in one maybe one university based counseling clinic and maybe one externship. These trainees run the risk of being woefully unprepared for internship and, quite frankly, are not the most skilled clinicians. On the other end, university-based PsyD programs emphasize the clinical work while still offering exposure/training in research. The idea is NOT to produce career academics of course, but to produce practitioner scholars who can allow research to inform their clinical work. These people are not the most skilled researchers. And then there are the more balanced clinical PhD programs that are not mentorship-based and where a plethora of clinical training sites are available. I chose the latter (balanced PhD), but I certainly cannot say the other two models are invalid. Who am I or who are you to say that clinical psychology should have ONE rigid training model?

 

[AlaskanJustin]

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?

The GRE argument is an old burned out argument, considering most programs use algorithms combined GRE, GPA, research pubs and presentations, clinical experience etc etc... It's honestly a poor argument to begin with played out by Sternberg in the 90s... let's move on to a new one.

Congrats on getting into a PhD program... which one was it btw? Because yes I too am no fool and acknowledge that some PhD programs are unfunded, or are pure rubbish, Hell, look at Alliant, they have a PhD! So saying you got into a PhD does nothing for your argument. I am sure you will retort by saying you got into a funded top notch Uni, so let's just not waste time with that argument either.

You are speaking for most of the people, which is unfortunate because most of the people do not speak up, do not well inform themselves of the true-state, or are PsyD's anyways so their judgments are irrelevant.

 

[PsyDLICSW]

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...

Like I said before, I got into a PhD program...and I chose a PsyD. If you are not going to contribute to this thread professionally and tactfully, then stop posting comments. No one wants to hear you tear down university based PsyDs with your elitist attitude.

 

[AlaskanJustin]

Like I said before, I got into a PhD program...and I chose a PsyD. If you are not going to contribute to this thread professionally and tactfully, then stop posting comments.

eh? I have contributed perfectly professionally and tactfully, if you do not like being challenged I cannot be blamed for that... I have never once attacked you as a person nor anyone else... Simply attacking the illogical or unfounded statements, and challenging the rest to reconsider the true-state of university based PsyD programs

 

[PsyDLICSW]

The GRE argument is an old burned out argument, considering most programs use algorithms combined GRE, GPA, research pubs and presentations, clinical experience etc etc... It's honestly a poor argument to begin with played out by Sternberg in the 90s... let's move on to a new one.

Congrats on getting into a PhD program... which one was it btw? Because yes I too am no fool and acknowledge that some PhD programs are unfunded, or are pure rubbish, Hell, look at Alliant, they have a PhD! So saying you got into a PhD does nothing for your argument. I am sure you will retort by saying you got into a funded top notch Uni, so let's just not waste time with that argument either.

You are speaking for most of the people, which is unfortunate because most of the people do not speak up, do not well inform themselves of the true-state, or are PsyD's anyways so their judgments are irrelevant.

Your elitist attitude and attack on PsyDs without any evidence weaken your argument.

 

[O Gurl]

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

So you DON'T want to address the Argosy's and similar programs that admit anyone with a pulse and the ability to fill out a FAFSA, but you want to attack the Rutger's out there that actually have decent admissions stats, are not flooding the market, provide university-based training, and have solid match/EPPP outcomes???

Something is very odd here. Very odd. This is an anonymous forum, after all. So I think I will just say I am skeptical of what your real purpose here is... and leave it at that.

 

[PsyDLICSW]

AlaskanJustin:

I'm absolutely stunned that you are doing this. I just have to say that off the top. It is ridiculous.

First off, the Vail model was introduced b/c the Boulder model for clinical psychology training had gone so far into research/academia that there was a genuine lack of clinical training. Sorry, but that is what experimental/non-licensure psychology programs are for. Sadly, this is still true at some clinical PhD programs. There are still quite a few hard-core mentorship based research programs where students spend the vast majority of their time being their PI's mini-me/indentured servant (RA and TA duties) and get very limited face-to-face clinical contact in one maybe one university based counseling clinic and maybe one externship. These trainees run the risk of being woefully unprepared for internship and, quite frankly, are not the most skilled clinicians. On the other end, university-based PsyD programs emphasize the clinical work while still offering exposure/training in research. The idea is NOT to produce career academics of course, but to produce practitioner scholars who can allow research to inform their clinical work. These people are not the most skilled researchers. And then there are the more balanced clinical PhD programs that are not mentorship-based and where a plethora of clinical training sites are available. I chose the latter (balanced PhD), but I certainly cannot say the other two models are invalid. Who am I or who are you to say that clinical psychology should have ONE rigid training model?

Well said O Girl.

 

[O Gurl]

Your elitist attitude and attack on PsyDs without any evidence weaken your argument.

I think we are dealing with something else here with AlaskanJustin. 😉

 

[Savagebee]

Congrats on getting into a PhD program... which one was it btw? Because yes I too am no fool and acknowledge that some PhD programs are unfunded, or are pure rubbish, Hell, look at Alliant, they have a PhD! So saying you got into a PhD does nothing for your argument. I am sure you will retort by saying you got into a funded top notch Uni, so let's just not waste time with that argument either.

You say you want logic and discussion but...
That was insulting, plain and simple.

I am interested in your research, as I am going through a MS in order to practice as an LPC and eventually try for a Doctorate, but have always believed uni based PsyDs were good programs.

 

[AlaskanJustin]

AlaskanJustin:

I'm absolutely stunned that you are doing this. I just have to say that off the top. It is ridiculous.

First off, the Vail model was introduced b/c the Boulder model for clinical psychology training had gone so far into research/academia that there was a genuine lack of clinical training. Sorry, but that is what experimental/non-licensure psychology programs are for. Sadly, this is still true at some clinical PhD programs. There are still quite a few hard-core mentorship based research programs where students spend the vast majority of their time being their PI's mini-me/indentured servant (RA and TA duties) and get very limited face-to-face clinical contact in one maybe one university based counseling clinic and maybe one externship. These trainees run the risk of being woefully unprepared for internship and, quite frankly, are not the most skilled clinicians. On the other end, university-based PsyD programs emphasize the clinical work while still offering exposure/training in research. The idea is NOT to produce career academics of course, but to produce practitioner scholars who can allow research to inform their clinical work. These people are not the most skilled researchers. And then there are the more balanced clinical PhD programs that are not mentorship-based and where a plethora of clinical training sites are available. I chose the latter (balanced PhD), but I certainly cannot say the other two models are invalid. Who am I or who are you to say that clinical psychology should have ONE rigid training model?

Why ridiculous? Do you not like being challenged? I know perfectly well WHY the model was developed, but that does not make the response (i.e., Vail model) a GOOD response, just simply means its a response.

I've never ONCE said there should be one model, YOU are assuming that the response (VAIL) model is equally good at training psychologists, and that is NOT a fair assumption, and I am challenging it. I am NOT saying there shouldn't be more than one, that would be ridiculous.

I agree, there ARE programs that DO NOT follow the Boulder model, look at why Harvard did not have accreditation for as long as they did, it was because they focused too much on research, not enough on clinical training.

AND, if a person gets that minimal of clinical training, then how the hell would they procure an internship? The only ones they could get would be research heavy, which would ultimately lead them into a purely academic research (non-clinical practicing) field anyways, so no harm.

What I guess is still not proven, or even evidenced, is what major contribution does the PsyD make to the practice of clinical psychology??? I ask this of course on the presupposition that PhD programs come on a continuum, ranging from heavy clinical to heavy research (Hell just come to NYC you see this continuum air-apparent). On this presupposition, there is no additional need for the PsyD. Or i suppose one could argue to contribute more to the "more clinical side" of things and that would be fair ASSUMING that the VAIL model is indeed competent, which is still not factual.

I know this will make people throw up arms, but truly I am not attacking anyone personally, just posing some thoughts... oh well

 

[PsyDLICSW]

eh? I have contributed perfectly professionally and tactfully, if you do not like being challenged I cannot be blamed for that... I have never once attacked you as a person nor anyone else... Simply attacking the illogical or unfounded statements, and challenging the rest to reconsider the true-state of university based PsyD programs

My comments are not illogical or unfounded. The Vail model was implemented for a reason and it works if implemented properly. Being a good researcher does not equate with good clinician. Where in the APA manual or the ethics code does it state this? Even the best therapy works differently in the real world than in the lab. You accused me of not getting into a PhD program so I went PsyD. When I challenged that, you accused me of getting into a Professional school PhD. That is just plain insulting.

 

[AlaskanJustin]

So you DON'T want to address the Argosy's and similar programs that admit anyone with a pulse and the ability to fill out a FAFSA, but you want to attack the Rutger's out there that actually have decent admissions stats, are not flooding the market, provide university-based training, and have solid match/EPPP outcomes???

Something is very odd here. Very odd. This is an anonymous forum, after all. So I think I will just say I am skeptical of what your real purpose here is... and leave it at that.

Not really since the GENERAL consensus is that these programs are a problem... so what is to debate??? The very fact that you took my statement to mean this speaks truths in and of themselves.

 

[AlaskanJustin]

My comments are not illogical or unfounded. The Vail model was implemented for a reason and it works if implemented properly.

It works??? Interesting. So who has shown it works? Is it kind of like the argument that "Gee Communism is practical and great in THEORY", Marx has similar thoughts to you. If something works in theory then it should also work in practice. 🙂

 

[AlaskanJustin]

The sad irony, is that all of you would be "on my side" if we were having a debate against EdD programs practicing clinically. Sigh. Jon why are you asleep!!! haha

 

[AlaskanJustin]

My comments are not illogical or unfounded. The Vail model was implemented for a reason and it works if implemented properly. Being a good researcher does not equate with good clinician. Where in the APA manual or the ethics code does it state this? Even the best therapy works differently in the real world than in the lab. You accused me of not getting into a PhD program so I went PsyD. When I challenged that, you accused me of getting into a Professional school PhD. That is just plain insulting.

Eh? I never said YOU... please read thoroughly before you get defensive. I can quote myself if you like, but I explicitly ASKED you where you got in, and I qualified my question with the response that NOT ALL PHD programs are on level playing grounds either...

Lost cause when ya see one.

 

[AlaskanJustin]

The GRE argument is an old burned out argument, considering most programs use algorithms combined GRE, GPA, research pubs and presentations, clinical experience etc etc... It's honestly a poor argument to begin with played out by Sternberg in the 90s... let's move on to a new one.

Congrats on getting into a PhD program... which one was it btw? Because yes I too am no fool and acknowledge that some PhD programs are unfunded, or are pure rubbish, Hell, look at Alliant, they have a PhD! So saying you got into a PhD does nothing for your argument. I am sure you will retort by saying you got into a funded top notch Uni, so let's just not waste time with that argument either.

You are speaking for most of the people, which is unfortunate because most of the people do not speak up, do not well inform themselves of the true-state, or are PsyD's anyways so their judgments are irrelevant.

This statement was in response to things you and others have said.
👍

 

[O Gurl]

It works??? Interesting. So who has shown it works? Is it kind of like the argument that "Gee Communism is practical and great in THEORY", Marx has similar thoughts to you. If something works in theory then it should also work in practice. 🙂

Oh, Mr. NYC, who has ever proven that psychodynamic therapy, for example, is helpful? It is not evidence-supported, yet it is still practiced based upon theory (well, that and endless billable hours 😉). My only point with that highly argumentative response, is that all too often we in psychology call for unreasonable data when we have no other response.

In terms of how the research heavy trainees procure internships, it is simple. Because of attitudes like yours and because of the very real stigma associated with PsyD's due to the diploma mills that you insist upon derailing the conversation from. During my site's internship interview cycle this past January, I can recall one particular applicant from a solid clinical PhD program with a stellar research credentials. His face-to-face hours weren't too bad (may 600), but not diverse. At all. He'd done 2 practica (both in the same university counseling center only under diff supervisors) and one externship. And the young man was awkward (can't blame that on the PhD). Bright, I'm sure. But I could NEVER see him leading a group of OEF/IEF vets with PTSD and alcohol dependence. He would be eaten alive. There was another applicant who stood out. She was a PsyD from a reputable program (not one of the mills). As expected, not much in terms of research, but what appeared to be varied in terms of her clinical exposure. She spoke about case conceptualization and interventions with an eloquence that only comes with solid practice in contrast with the young man who gave canned, prepared responses to clinical questions. While neither of them matched to our site or were ranked highly, the young man was ranked higher. Why? Because people are very willing to take on a less sophisticated clinician that looks better on paper. Not saying I would be different in the same climate, but I am admitting that the playing field is not fair and not always based on the relevant credentials.

 

[AlaskanJustin]

Oh, Mr. NYC, who has ever proven that psychodynamic therapy, for example, is helpful? It is not evidence-supported, yet it is still practiced based upon theory (well, that and endless billable hours 😉). My only point with that highly argumentative response, is that all too often we in psychology call for unreasonable data when we have no other response.

Eeek don't get this started on psychodynamic theory... just read stuff by Dean McKay to know my feelings on that 🙂.

As per unreasonable data, I don't think it's unreasonable data at all... in fact there are plenty of things in place already... could those measures be better? Hell yes.

In terms of how the research heavy trainees procure internships, it is simple. Because of attitudes like yours and because of the very real stigma associated with PsyD's due to the diploma mills that you insist upon derailing the conversation from. During my site's internship interview cycle this past January, I can recall one particular applicant from a solid clinical PhD program with a stellar research credentials. His face-to-face hours weren't too bad (may 600), but not diverse. At all. He'd done 2 practica (both in the same university counseling center only under diff supervisors) and one externship. And the young man was awkward (can't blame that on the PhD). Bright, I'm sure. But I could NEVER see him leading a group of OEF/IEF vets with PTSD and alcohol dependence. He would be eaten alive. There was another applicant who stood out. She was a PsyD from a reputable program (not one of the mills). As expected, not much in terms of research, but what appeared to be varied in terms of her clinical exposure. She spoke about case conceptualization and interventions with an eloquence that only comes with solid practice in contrast with the young man who gave canned, prepared responses to clinical questions. While neither of them matched to our site or were ranked highly, the young man was ranked higher. Why? Because people are very willing to take on a less sophisticated clinician that looks better on paper. Not saying I would be different in the same climate, but I am admitting that the playing field is not fair and not always based on the relevant credentials.

Well that is tragic, but he didn't match... I would be curious to see how high he ranked on that list (I wouldnt ask you to actually say, its a tad unethical).

I too know some great PsyD's... hell my externship site is with one, and yeah he promotes doing research on the site... does that make him or his training equivalent to that of a Boulder program? NO, that could just as easily suggest more about HIM than the program he was in.

I would also say one anecdotal experience is not enough to make a blanket statement... pedantic I know... sorry

 

[O Gurl]

I too know some great PsyD's... hell my externship site is with one, and yeah he promotes doing research on the site... does that make him or his training equivalent to that of a Boulder program? NO, that could just as easily suggest more about HIM than the program he was in.

Is that not the case with every trainee? Only so much can be attributed to the program. What a person does with the opportunities is very much up to them. Also, he is not supposed to be "equivalent" with the Boulder Model. The PsyD is a different model. They are not as strong in research. They are not meant to be. I am only suggesting that until you see evidence that reputable PsyD programs are producing subpar clinicians (producing clinicians is their goal), it is neither fair nor founded to rail against them. Oh, and that young man ranked in the mid-late 20's (out of a total of 40 people ranked). The young lady was ranked in the 30's.

 

[Born2rumble1st]

Is that not the case with every trainee? Only so much can be attributed to the program. What a person does with the opportunities is very much up to them. Also, he is not supposed to be "equivalent" with the Boulder Model. The PsyD is a different model. They are not as strong in research. They are not meant to be. I am only suggesting that until you see evidence that reputable PsyD programs are producing subpar clinicians (producing clinicians is their goal), it is neither fair nor founded to rail against them. Oh, and that young man ranked in the mid-late 20's (out of a total of 40 people ranked). The young lady was ranked in the 30's.

Not to poke at an already sore issue, but this statement of me made me wonder: shouldn't the measure of whether a program is producing competent clinicians be the opposite? So, rewritten, your statement should/could read: "until you see evidence that reputable PsyD programs are producing excellent/average/equal to Ph.D. clinicians, then it is not fair to assume that they are reputable programs." I just think that the assumption should be against a program producing good clinicians rather than for (until proven otherwise), as it is more harmful to the market/consumers to assume otherwise.

If the APA was doing its job in deciding whether to accredit a program, that is exactly what accreditation would do. It would provide the market a sign that a particular program produces acceptable psychologists. However, as is clear from the APA's decision to accredit Argosy/Alliant type programs, accreditation can no longer be assumed to provide that assurance. In my opinion, the only recourse is to assume that a program produces poorly trained students until proven otherwise. Unfortunately for Psy.D. students, that assumption is going to be stronger for graduates from those programs, as the training model is seen to be less rigorous/established and the students held to a lower standard than Ph.D. students.

Whether this assumption is correct/incorrect varies by the program, but as APA accreditation becomes less of a signifier of quality, it will be incumbent on individual students to prove that they have received adequate instruction. As the ratio of quality to crap schools is higher in Ph.D. programs than Psy.D. programs, Psy.D. students are going to see this pressure to prove themselves more than Ph.D. students.

How to change that....I don't know.

I've kind of lost track of where I was going with that line of thought, but there it is... 😀

 

[AlaskanJustin]

Is that not the case with every trainee? Only so much can be attributed to the program. What a person does with the opportunities is very much up to them. Also, he is not supposed to be "equivalent" with the Boulder Model. The PsyD is a different model. They are not as strong in research. They are not meant to be. I am only suggesting that until you see evidence that reputable PsyD programs are producing subpar clinicians (producing clinicians is their goal), it is neither fair nor founded to rail against them. Oh, and that young man ranked in the mid-late 20's (out of a total of 40 people ranked). The young lady was ranked in the 30's.

This is indeed a common mistake made in argumentation and logic. I will explain without insulting because I think it's a genuine misunderstanding.

When you say the statement bolded above, this is technically incorrect, because the burden of proof is NOT on the model previously in existence, the burden of proof is on the model looking to usurp (or at least compete with) the established model.

This is true for any argument, you commonly see this in the legal system... but our setting is not retributive, it is cooperative, therefore the parties are slightly altered. In this sense, yours and others SIMPLIFIED argument is this: the "plaintiff" is making the claim that the Vail model (X) is an equally effective training model as the Boulder model (Y). I say simplified because clearly there are other qualifiers but for the sake of brevity we will leave it as this, which is still technically explanatory of the argument.

So X is equally effective as Y.

In such a scenario, the burden rests on the proving of the truth-value X, the burden DOES NOT rest on Y to prove the lack of truth-value in X, that makes no sense right?

So to restate the argument:

X is equally effective as Y IFF X's true-state is shown to be equivalent to the true-state of Y.

Sorry if this is too much analytical logic for you, it's just the simplest way I can think to explain why the statement you made is wrong without coming across insulting.

 

[AlaskanJustin]

Not to poke at an already sore issue, but this statement of me made me wonder: shouldn't the measure of whether a program is producing competent clinicians be the opposite? So, rewritten, your statement should/could read: "until you see evidence that reputable PsyD programs are producing excellent/average/equal to Ph.D. clinicians, then it is not fair to assume that they are reputable programs." I just think that the assumption should be against a program producing good clinicians rather than for (until proven otherwise), as it is more harmful to the market/consumers to assume otherwise.

If the APA was doing its job in deciding whether to accredit a program, that is exactly what accreditation would do. It would provide the market a sign that a particular program produces acceptable psychologists. However, as is clear from the APA's decision to accredit Argosy/Alliant type programs, accreditation can no longer be assumed to provide that assurance. In my opinion, the only recourse is to assume that a program produces poorly trained students until proven otherwise. Unfortunately for Psy.D. students, that assumption is going to be stronger for graduates from those programs, as the training model is seen to be less rigorous/established and the students held to a lower standard than Ph.D. students.

Whether this assumption is correct/incorrect varies by the program, but as APA accreditation becomes less of a signifier of quality, it will be incumbent on individual students to prove that they have received adequate instruction. As the ratio of quality to crap schools is higher in Ph.D. programs than Psy.D. programs, Psy.D. students are going to see this pressure to prove themselves more than Ph.D. students.

How to change that....I don't know.

I've kind of lost track of where I was going with that line of thought, but there it is... 😀

lol well-played, well-played indeed... So you can use either this or my explanation of the problem 😀

 

[O Gurl]

Not to poke at an already sore issue, but this statement of me made me wonder: shouldn't the measure of whether a program is producing competent clinicians be the opposite? So, rewritten, your statement should/could read: "until you see evidence that reputable PsyD programs are producing excellent/average/equal to Ph.D. clinicians, then it is not fair to assume that they are reputable programs." I just think that the assumption should be against a program producing good clinicians rather than for (until proven otherwise), as it is more harmful to the market/consumers to assume otherwise.

If the APA was doing its job in deciding whether to accredit a program, that is exactly what accreditation would do.

I agree with you in general that a program should prove it's worth in order to be accredited and that that is NOT the case as the APA currently accredits diploma mills. That is why I would gauge "reputable PsyD programs" by their admissions stats, attrition rates, time to completion, match rates, EPPP pass rates, end employment settings, etc. NOT by APA accreditation. So I am saying that if a program passes on those measures (and there are PsyD programs like Baylor, Rutgers, Wright State, Indiana State, and others that do), then one should have a reason for railing against them. Same as with Wash U, Emory, Oklahoma State, and any clinical PhD programs.

 

[O Gurl]

This is indeed a common mistake made in argumentation and logic. I will explain without insulting because I think it's a genuine misunderstanding.

Sorry if this is too much analytical logic for you, it's just the simplest way I can think to explain why the statement you made is wrong without coming across insulting.

I think you are grossly overestimating your intellectual ability. Seriously.

When you say the statement bolded above, this is technically incorrect, because the burden of proof is NOT on the model previously in existence, the burden of proof is on the model looking to usurp (or at least compete with) the established model.

The Vail Model was never intending to usurp or compete with the Boulder Model, but to complement it. As I stated above, when you are dealing with programs that have passed all the same measures of success in terms of producing clinicians as PhDs, then one should have reason for slamming them. So far, your only reason is that it is a different model.

This is true for any argument, you commonly see this in the legal system... but our setting is not retributive, it is cooperative, therefore the parties are slightly altered. In this sense, yours and others SIMPLIFIED argument is this: the "plaintiff" is making the claim that the Vail model (X) is an equally effective training model as the Boulder model (Y). I say simplified because clearly there are other qualifiers but for the sake of brevity we will leave it as this, which is still technically explanatory of the argument.

So X is equally effective as Y.

In such a scenario, the burden rests on the proving of the truth-value X, the burden DOES NOT rest on Y to prove the lack of truth-value in X, that makes no sense right?

So to restate the argument:

X is equally effective as Y IFF X's true-state is shown to be equivalent to the true-state of Y.

So no, this is not "too much analytical logic" for me. It is gibberish and nonsense. Just state your points.

 

[AlaskanJustin]

I agree with you in general that a program should prove it's worth in order to be accredited and that that is NOT the case as the APA currently accredits diploma mills. That is why I would gauge "reputable PsyD programs" by their admissions stats, attrition rates, time to completion, match rates, EPPP pass rates, end employment settings, etc. NOT by APA accreditation. So I am saying that if a program passes on those measures (and there are PsyD programs like Baylor, Rutgers, Wright State, Indiana State, and others that do), then one should have a reason for railing against them. Same as with Wash U, Emory, Oklahoma State, and any clinical PhD programs.

I think the bolded can be excluded as relevant to evaluating a training model because they hinge very heavily on non-training model related factors.

Match rates will be inflated due to sites such as Denver that have their own consortium of internships exclusive to students. Several PsyD programs have this now. Maybe this could be qualified by saying APA accredited sites, but even some of the Denver sites are accredited (which makes no sense to me, how can a restricted site be accredited when no one else has a chance to go there?)

EPPP pass rates has been suggested to be a poor indicator, but I am not as good with this argument. Maybe someone could make an argument for why this IS a good indicator of training model success...

Job setting... well that seems a bit subjective... do you rate someone at a VA higher than someone at a counseling center? You get where I am going with this.

As I noted previously there are measures, but yes they should be better.

 

[AlaskanJustin]

I think you are grossly overestimating your intellectual ability. Seriously.



The Vail Model was never intending to usurp or compete with the Boulder Model, but to complement it. As I stated above, when you are dealing with programs that have passed all the same measures of success in terms of producing clinicians as PhDs, then one should have reason for slamming them. So far, your only reason is that it is a different model.



So no, this is not "too much analytical logic" for me. It is gibberish and nonsense. Just state your points.

Hmmm... so first you criticize me saying I was making personal attacks (which never happened) and now you sink to the level of making personal attacks???

If you could actually understand it then you would know its not gibberish nor nonsense... I pity your lacking intellect.

Considering the post above me made the same point mine did, but you decide to personal attack me, makes us all realize that you now have a personal problem, I could guess at what this may be, but it would be in vein.

Regardless, this hypocrisy is too much for me, I won't waste any more effort on your ignorance. Best wishes.

 

[Born2rumble1st]

I think the bolded can be excluded as relevant to evaluating a training model because they hinge very heavily on non-training model related factors.

Match rates will be inflated due to sites such as Denver that have their own consortium of internships exclusive to students. Several PsyD programs have this now. Maybe this could be qualified by saying APA accredited sites, but even some of the Denver sites are accredited (which makes no sense to me, how can a restricted site be accredited when no one else has a chance to go there?)

EPPP pass rates has been suggested to be a poor indicator, but I am not as good with this argument. Maybe someone could make an argument for why this IS a good indicator of training model success...

Job setting... well that seems a bit subjective... do you rate someone at a VA higher than someone at a counseling center? You get where I am going with this.

As I noted previously there are measures, but yes they should be better.

Exactly what I was going to say. Maybe we should just alternate responding? 😛

 

[futureapppsy2]

Just a friendly reminder to *everyone* to please keep this conversation civil and professional. 🙂

 

[O Gurl]

I think the bolded can be excluded as relevant to evaluating a training model because they hinge very heavily on non-training model related factors.

Match rates will be inflated due to sites such as Denver that have their own consortium of internships exclusive to students. Several PsyD programs have this now. Maybe this could be qualified by saying APA accredited sites, but even some of the Denver sites are accredited (which makes no sense to me, how can a restricted site be accredited when no one else has a chance to go there?)

EPPP pass rates has been suggested to be a poor indicator, but I am not as good with this argument. Maybe someone could make an argument for why this IS a good indicator of training model success...

Job setting... well that seems a bit subjective... do you rate someone at a VA higher than someone at a counseling center? You get where I am going with this.

As I noted previously there are measures, but yes they should be better.

Neither Baylor, Rutgers, nor Indiana State (to keep it simple) have captive internships. We are talking about their recorded and reported 10 year match rates and they are quite solid-http://www.appic.org/downloads/APPIC_Match_Rates_2000-10_by_Univ.pdf. You may not like using match rates and EPPP as metrics, but they are what we have. They are the same metrics that are used to measure your PhD program and my PhD program. If these university-based PsyDs measure up then they measure up.

 

[O Gurl]

Hmmm... so first you criticize me saying I was making personal attacks (which never happened) and now you sink to the level of making personal attacks???

If you could actually understand it then you would know its not gibberish nor nonsense... I pity your lacking intellect.

Considering the post above me made the same point mine did, but you decide to personal attack me, makes us all realize that you now have a personal problem, I could guess at what this may be, but it would be in vein.

Regardless, this hypocrisy is too much for me, I won't waste any more effort on your ignorance. Best wishes.

When you repeatedly pad a response with "I will try to explain without insulting you" or "sorry if this is too much analytical logic for you" you sound like an a**hat. Particularly when you then go on to make a very simple point--quality should be proven and not assumed--with a bunch of X's and Y's.

That doesn't make you sound smart. It makes you sound pretentious. I'm just the wrong gal to do that with.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

Hello, AJ --

seems your outrage could be of greater use to the community if you made friends with us PsyDs on the down side of power. We're each responsible for the fascinations we harbor with the schisms we face... a responsibility that extends to the lives of those on the other side. Not sure what you're hoping for regarding the ontology of the PsyD. Seems you're advocating for a critique of the PsyD (theory/training/practice) in order to make it and psychology stronger? Or are you casting yourself as the great PsyD annihilator?

Also just wanted to point out an irony...You refer folks to Meehl as the paragon of the research/science savvy PhD, and cite McKay's work to buttress your anti-psychodynamic inclinations. Meehl was pro-psychodynamic -- I wonder what position McKay takes on the PsyD?

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.

Eeek don't get this started on psychodynamic theory... just read stuff by Dean McKay to know my feelings on that 🙂.

In any event I wish you a splendid springtime in NYC -- perhaps my favorite season/location combo.

And -- thanks for the hullo, OG. I am neck deep in an RxP related project right now (maybe that will be this FSPer's contribution to the field), hope to take some time to answer back sooner rather than later!

 

[deleted75966]

It seems a few different issues have been raised here. Some comments:

- The line between university and free standing PsyD is blurry. Looking at the list of programs (NCSPP), not many are from well known universities. There are a few.

- To me, there is little to differentiate a university program that charges as much as a free standing program. It seems like the same quality issues permeate both situations.

- I do think a viable professional degree model would be nice. While I do think the clinical science/scientist-practioner programs train good clinicians (most that attend these programs become clinicians), it does seem that the match between "I want to be a clinical psychologist" and mentored-academia model is somewhat of a square-peg, round hole situation. O-gurl described a situation in which she thought a psyd candidate was better than a phd candidate with research experience based on their apparent preparedness for internship. Actually, I would have also ranked the phd candidate higher, most likely. The reason is two-fold 1) Graduate school is about training theory and exposing students to some practical experience 2) internship and postdoc are about learning thoroughly how to apply it 2) The phd student is more likely to do some research which is more likely to garner fame within the field, which is more likely to reflect back on to the internship program. I think many md/phd students share this kind of advantage in applying to residencies. The phd in clinical psychology from a clinical science program probably mirrors the md/phd model in some ways. It's kind of a hybrid degree, but I do think it's currently the best we have.

- Unfortunately, this professional school model (Vail) has not been adopted by very many highly regarded universities. Further, because of the economics of higher education and our profession, the costs of an MD/JD like psychology training program are prohibitive. Meaning, even if you could get a psyd at a program like the University of Michigan/UCLAs of the world, it would be a dangerous financial risk (with no funding).

- Funding generally comes from research money (and teaching). Further, it is predicated on having small cohorts.

- To me, these issues generally make the clinical scientist and scientist practitioner programs more viable for BOTH those that want to be clinicians and those that wish to researchers (and a combination of the two).

- Further, because psychology is a young field (relative to say medicine) and there is a lot of popular opinion/interest, the "psychology is more art than science" crowd, I think the over-emphasis on science in graduate programs serves a good purpose. Trimming that down at all, at this point, seems like it does more harm than good.

- My reforms for psychology, at present, would be. . . 1) get rid of the free-standing and on-line graduate programs in clinical/counseling psychology, 2) Discourage large cohort-sizes in other university based vail programs 3) emphasize science far more at the undergrad level (require calculus, multiple stats courses, biology, neurobiology, lab work/research, research methods, and history and systems). 4) Have coursework similar to what Psydlicsw described (an undergrad class covering careers and graduate training trajectories in applied psychology).

 

[AcronymAllergy]

It seems a few different issues have been raised here. Some comments:

- The line between university and free standing PsyD is blurry. Looking at the list of programs (NCSPP), not many are from well known universities. There are a few.

- To me, there is little to differentiate a university program that charges as much as a free standing program. It seems like the same quality issues permeate both situations.

- I do think a viable professional degree model would be nice. While I do think the clinical science/scientist-practioner programs train good clinicians (most that attend these programs become clinicians), it does seem that the match between "I want to be a clinical psychologist" and mentored-academia model is somewhat of a square-peg, round hole situation. O-gurl described a situation in which she thought a psyd candidate was better than a phd candidate with research experience based on their apparent preparedness for internship. Actually, I would have also ranked the phd candidate higher, most likely. The reason is two-fold 1) Graduate school is about training theory and exposing students to some practical experience 2) internship and postdoc are about learning thoroughly how to apply it 2) The phd student is more likely to do some research which is more likely to garner fame within the field, which is more likely to reflect back on to the internship program. I think many md/phd students share this kind of advantage in applying to residencies. The phd in clinical psychology from a clinical science program probably mirrors the md/phd model in some ways. It's kind of a hybrid degree, but I do think it's currently the best we have.

- Unfortunately, this professional school model (Vail) has not been adopted by very many highly regarded universities. Further, because of the economics of higher education and our profession, the costs of an MD/JD like psychology training program are prohibitive. Meaning, even if you could get a psyd at a program like the University of Michigan/UCLAs of the world, it would be a dangerous financial risk (with no funding).

- Funding generally comes from research money (and teaching). Further, it is predicated on having small cohorts.

- To me, these issues generally make the clinical scientist and scientist practitioner programs more viable for BOTH those that want to be clinicians and those that wish to researchers (and a combination of the two).

- Further, because psychology is a young field (relative to say medicine) and there is a lot of popular opinion/interest, the "psychology is more art than science" crowd, I think the over-emphasis on science in graduate programs serves a good purpose. Trimming that down at all, at this point, seems like it does more harm than good.

- My reforms for psychology, at present, would be. . . 1) get rid of the free-standing and on-line graduate programs in clinical/counseling psychology, 2) Discourage large cohort-sizes in other university based vail programs 3) emphasize science far more at the undergrad level (require calculus, multiple stats courses, biology, neurobiology, lab work/research, research methods, and history and systems). 4) Have coursework similar to what Psydlicsw described (an undergrad class covering careers and graduate training trajectories in applied psychology).

While I might tinker with the required coursework you've proposed, I agree whole-heartedly that a bigger emphasis on increased scientific preparedness and emphasis at the undergraduate level would be excellent, as would some type of class in graduate training trajectories. Even if these classes aren't required for the major itself, they could at least be necessary at the graduate admissions level.

We all know that many of the lower-level psychology classes in undergrad are, by comparison to their graduate school counterparts (or even counterparts in other undergraduate majors such as engineering), a bit of a joke. Part of this is perhaps by necessity--psychology classes tend to be some of the most popular in any university, and thus the intro courses do need to be suited to a wider range of students with more varied interests. However, I've always felt that even many of our upper-level undergraduate courses do a poor job of preparing students for graduate-level work. Again, this is likely due at least in part to psychology being one of (if not the) most popular undergraduate majors at many institutions, with the vast majority of these students opting not to go on to master's- or doctoral-level study.

What this all fosters, though, is the "more are than science" mindset that JS alluded to in his post. It also does nothing to dispel the notion that all psychologists do is sit in a room with a couch and ask clients to "talk about your feelings." It also seems to perpetuate this idea that, "I don't want to bother with all the science for med school, but I also don't want to be a lawyer, so I'll just go for my Ph.D. in clinical psych instead."

Despite my fairly horrid performance in Calc I and II in undergrad, I've said since my first day here at grad school that I feel calculus should perhaps be required for grad school admittance. I also definitely feel that my other science-related coursework (bio, chem, organic), if nothing else, helped shape my mindset a bit to adjust to the whole scientific process and approach to problem solving. I personally just don't know if it does anyone any good to leave undergrad and begin pursuing a Ph.D. in a science-related field (even if it is a social science) with nothing more than "biology for non-science majors" and a few courses in research methods and cognitive/developmental/bio psych.

 

[O Gurl]

- The line between university and free standing PsyD is blurry. Looking at the list of programs (NCSPP), not many are from well known universities. There are a few.

- To me, there is little to differentiate a university program that charges as much as a free standing program. It seems like the same quality issues permeate both situations.

- Further, because psychology is a young field (relative to say medicine) and there is a lot of popular opinion/interest, the "psychology is more art than science" crowd, I think the over-emphasis on science in graduate programs serves a good purpose. Trimming that down at all, at this point, seems like it does more harm than good.

There is no clear demarcation point for quality vs. crap programs. I grossly distinguish between FSPSs and university-based PsyD's, however, everyone knows my thoughts on Nova Southeastern, which, IMO functions a lot like a FSPS by taking in cohorts of 90 students with questionable (at best) statistics while charging them an arm and leg. My issue with AlaskanJustin's full scale assault on all things PsyD is that is blatantly ignores the reputable and solid university based PsyD's out there. I am not comfortable lumping Baylor, or Rutgers, or Wright State, or Indiana State in with Argosy, Alliant, or Nova, because their approaches, outcomes, reputations are not the same. I largely agree that clinical psychology has to establish and maintain strong roots in empirical research. We are an applied science after all. I'm not sure that the "overemphasis on science" in grad school is always a good thing, though. Perhaps that is due to my own issues regarding how the mentorship-based Boulder Model can go awry-- the horror stories of trainees being at the whim of a pathological PI, the recent posting about a student being left up the creek when his/her mentor left the program, the severly limited practicum experiences offered at some programs (sorry, but internship and postdoc along does not make up for 4-5 years of sanitized, minimal, counseling center experience), and so forth. I can understand why a grad school applicant would be hesitant to sign on to some of the hardcore research programs if they truly have no interest in an academic career. Not that they don't care about science, just that they do not want to be a NIH grant-funded professor/researcher. And the vast majority of clinical psych PhD's do not pursue this path. For me, the ideal modal approach would be a plethora of truly balanced PhD's (rigorous thesis and dissertation at a minumum for research and varied, real life clinical practica).

 

[O Gurl]

And -- thanks for the hullo, OG. I am neck deep in an RxP related project right now (maybe that will be this FSPer's contribution to the field), hope to take some time to answer back sooner rather than later!

Give me a break. So now you fancy FSPSs to not only train clinical psychologists, but to train clinical psychologists that prescribe meds... all while never setting foot on a university/med center campus....

Good luck with that.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

This forum has gotten much more interesting since I retired. Now I can just pull up a lawn chair from time to time and watch the next generation figured out what the generation before them now know....

AND, if a person gets that minimal of clinical training, then how the hell would they procure an internship? The only ones they could get would be research heavy, which would ultimately lead them into a purely academic research (non-clinical practicing) field anyways, so no harm.

They can still land internships through connections, lure of productivity for a more research heavy site, and in the end they can secure licensure because post-doc hours are typically much more liberal in what "counts" towards licensure. Most research-heavy folks don't want to touch therapy, though it is a bit short-sighted to assume that no harm will always be the outcome.

Because people are very willing to take on a less sophisticated clinician that looks better on paper. Not saying I would be different in the same climate, but I am admitting that the playing field is not fair and not always based on the relevant credentials.

One of Jon Snow's soapbox arguments from years ago was the value of training a scientist first, which makes a lot more sense now that I'm on the other side looking in. Focusing mostly on the clinical and less on the development of a professional firmly grounded in scientific thinking may yield better clinical skills at first, but the scientist will later catch up because the applied work is then viewed through the eyes of a scientist and not technician. This isn't a knock on the Psy.D., but instead an observation of one of the failings of many Vail-based programs that de-emphasized important aspects of research to increase clinical training prior to internship. Not all hours are created equal. There has been talk about capping hours that can be reported on the APPI, which I think is an interesting take on the over-inflation/use of hours.

When you say the statement bolded above, this is technically incorrect, because the burden of proof is NOT on the model previously in existence, the burden of proof is on the model looking to usurp (or at least compete with) the established model.

The Vail model has been proven to produce quality clinicians to meet the original intended need, the rub is the distortion of the model away from a solid scientific foundation to a more technician-based foci.

Match rates will be inflated due to sites such as Denver that have their own consortium of internships exclusive to students. Several PsyD programs have this now. Maybe this could be qualified by saying APA accredited sites, but even some of the Denver sites are accredited (which makes no sense to me, how can a restricted site be accredited when no one else has a chance to go there?)

There was a thread from a couple of years ago where I broke down some of the "captive" internship sites to see how much the internal sites propped up the match %'s. Not all internal sites were bad for the field, though some definitely stood out. I remember a program in Texas that has an internal site, though I think they went about it in a far more beneficial way than say Argosy HI.

EPPP pass rates has been suggested to be a poor indicator, but I am not as good with this argument. Maybe someone could make an argument for why this IS a good indicator of training model success...

Job setting... well that seems a bit subjective... do you rate someone at a VA higher than someone at a counseling center? You get where I am going with this.

As I noted previously there are measures, but yes they should be better.

EPPP pass rate is useful as one point of data, though it's hard to tease out programs that "teach to the test". As for job setting, I think there are generalizations that can be made. I feel comfortable comparing the typical CV of a clinician in academic medicine to someone in a non-APA/APPIC community mental health center. Will there be outliers…sure, but 98/100 applicants will have significant differences in training and experience. Does this make them a "better" clinician..of course not, though I think some conclusions can be made about where graduates typically land from any given program.

I do think a viable professional degree model would be nice. While I do think the clinical science/scientist-practioner programs train good clinicians (most that attend these programs become clinicians), it does seem that the match between "I want to be a clinical psychologist" and mentored-academia model is somewhat of a square-peg, round hole situation. O-gurl described a situation in which she thought a psyd candidate was better than a phd candidate with research experience based on their apparent preparedness for internship. Actually, I would have also ranked the phd candidate higher, most likely. The reason is two-fold 1) Graduate school is about training theory and exposing students to some practical experience 2) internship and postdoc are about learning thoroughly how to apply it 2) The phd student is more likely to do some research which is more likely to garner fame within the field, which is more likely to reflect back on to the internship program. I think many md/phd students share this kind of advantage in applying to residencies. The phd in clinical psychology from a clinical science program probably mirrors the md/phd model in some ways. It's kind of a hybrid degree, but I do think it's currently the best we have.

I guess I should have kept reading…

- To me, these issues generally make the clinical scientist and scientist practitioner programs more viable for BOTH those that want to be clinicians and those that wish to researchers (and a combination of the two).

This is one thing I have come to realize in the last few years. There seems to be a knowledge gap for many applicants now because of false choice scenarios (Ph.D=research, etc), I know I didn't have good information when I applied. My undergrad research mentors were from hardcore research programs (UW, U Minnesota, etc), so their version of a "split" was hardcore academic researcher and academic research w. a private practice on the side.

Further, because psychology is a young field (relative to say medicine) and there is a lot of popular opinion/interest, the "psychology is more art than science" crowd, I think the over-emphasis on science in graduate programs serves a good purpose. Trimming that down at all, at this point, seems like it does more harm than good.

I am still astounded by the lack of hardcore science training at most clinical programs, and the lack of requirements beyond stats. Someone mentioned calculus, which I think would be a good weed out class. It isn't that calculus is utilized on a day to day basis, but the students who tend to be success in calculus are usually more grounded in science, and much less likely to be from the "stats/research is scary" crowd. I have been in an in-patient/hospital setting for the last ~6 years, so I know my typical day isn't the same as a college counseling psychologist, though schizophrenia is still schizophrenia…whether the patient is at the counseling center or in the ER.

This post is what happens when all of my afternoon appointments cancel. 😀

 

[AgapeBlue]

This post is what happens when all of my afternoon appointments cancel. 😀

Are we going to be charged for this 😕

😉
AB

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Are we going to be charged for this 😕

😉
AB

This is a freebie, but the next one will cost everyone! I really should be finishing up my grant application, but the deadline got bumped 2 weeks, which was the worst thing to know on a Friday afternoon. 😀 I'm just hanging around to cover staffings this afternoon; having this much time is very rare for me these days.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

Et tu, OG? Jump on poor ol' buzz as though you knew my position on the matter AND have the definitive position locked up? If your universities don't break you PhDs of the mind reading habit, I guess we have another problem for the APA alert!

Give me a break. So now you fancy FSPSs to not only train clinical psychologists, but to train clinical psychologists that prescribe meds... all while never setting foot on a university/med center campus....

Good luck with that.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

Then again, they pro'lly already know!!

 

[AlaskanJustin]

Also just wanted to point out an irony...You refer folks to Meehl as the paragon of the research/science savvy PhD, and cite McKay's work to buttress your anti-psychodynamic inclinations. Meehl was pro-psychodynamic -- I wonder what position McKay takes on the PsyD?

Hi! I wish it would hurry up and become spring... My comments are simply ones of angst... I don't actually have an answer for the great PsyD problem, nor will I pretend to have one. My fuss are the underlying assumptions made about things such as the Vail model etc.

My argument wasn't that Meehl was the great purveyor of research PhDs, he was the great champion of how clinical training, and well frankly how psychology should be on a whole. He was amazing, master philosopher, statistician, psychologist etc etc... And well I will ask McKay Monday what he thinks...

but regardless, you were crossing the two points together when they shouldn't be, I never said meehl was pro or con psychodynamic, I said if you want my opinions about them read McKay's article, he describes it far better than I could. And if you want to know what I think ideal clinical training and practice should be, read the large compilation of Meehl writings.

Take care!

 

[erg923]

My argument wasn't that Meehl was the great purveyor of research PhDs, he was the great champion of how clinical training, and well frankly how psychology should be on a whole. He was amazing, master philosopher, statistician, psychologist etc etc... And well I will ask McKay Monday what he thinks...

And an ardent proponet of the Psy.D training model actually...

 

[PsyDLICSW]

Hi! I wish it would hurry up and become spring... My comments are simply ones of angst... I don't actually have an answer for the great PsyD problem, nor will I pretend to have one. My fuss are the underlying assumptions made about things such as the Vail model etc.

My argument wasn't that Meehl was the great purveyor of research PhDs, he was the great champion of how clinical training, and well frankly how psychology should be on a whole. He was amazing, master philosopher, statistician, psychologist etc etc... And well I will ask McKay Monday what he thinks...

but regardless, you were crossing the two points together when they shouldn't be, I never said meehl was pro or con psychodynamic, I said if you want my opinions about them read McKay's article, he describes it far better than I could. And if you want to know what I think ideal clinical training and practice should be, read the large compilation of Meehl writings.

Take care!

Your opinion is that research need to be the foundation for all clinicians (correct me if I'm wrong). I am telling you that not all PsyD programs ignore science in the training of clinicians. Show me research that shows that being able to design an experiment, run it, analyze statistics, etc. makes someone a superior clinician. We are trained in the science of psychology, but the goal is different. Those of us in the Vail model (University Based PsyD) take research courses and run our own experiments through dissertation, but not to the same degree as PhD candidates. One of my friends in a research focused PhD took four semesters of stats and research methods. In my program, I took two semesters of stats and research methods (2 semesters of each) because I don't want to be a NIMH-funded professor at a research 1 state school. I understand that not all PhD candidates want to be an NIMH researcher either, but that is what some research-oriented PhDs train their students to do, scientist first, pracitioner second. Do you want a physician to treat your illness or that professor down the hall with the PhD in biochemistry or biomedical technlogy who is well versed in all the research related to biochemistry and disease, but with no clinical training? I disagree with your oppinion that PsyDs are inferior to PhDs and that all PsyDs lack research training (this may not be your oppinion but this is what I and others get from your posts). When you said you didn't personally attack anyone, you called me a Marxist, which I think is an insult. I don't want to argue with you. We can agree to disagree.

 

[erg923]

When you said you didn't personally attack anyone, you called me a Marxist, which I think is an insult.

I one could do alot worse than Karl Marx...AND the Marx beard is just epic...

 

[PsyDLICSW]

I one could do alot worse than Karl Marx...AND the Marx beard is just epic...

You're right, but I am a Republican (for fiscal reasons and I vote for issues) and am more conservative than your average mental health professional (fiscally, not socially) so I thought the Marx/Communist comment was offensive. The beard is epic, but I am a female and it wouldn't look good on me...Glad to see that some of us still have a sense of humor 🙂

 

[O Gurl]

Most research-heavy folks don't want to touch therapy, though it is a bit short-sighted to assume that no harm will always be the outcome.

One of Jon Snow's soapbox arguments from years ago was the value of training a scientist first, which makes a lot more sense now that I'm on the other side looking in. Focusing mostly on the clinical and less on the development of a professional firmly grounded in scientific thinking may yield better clinical skills at first, but the scientist will later catch up because the applied work is then viewed through the eyes of a scientist and not technician. This isn't a knock on the Psy.D., but instead an observation of one of the failings of many Vail-based programs that de-emphasized important aspects of research to increase clinical training prior to internship. Not all hours are created equal. There has been talk about capping hours that can be reported on the APPI, which I think is an interesting take on the over-inflation/use of hours.

Interesting point and very true that the scientist (if he or she keeps at it) will develop and "catch up" clinically. Although supervision mitigates the harm to some extent, some poor patients somewhere are being subjected to some bad/green interns. Sigh... but as long as they aren't decompensating too much... hehe.

I am still astounded by the lack of hardcore science training at most clinical programs, and the lack of requirements beyond stats. Someone mentioned calculus, which I think would be a good weed out class. It isn’t that calculus is utilized on a day to day basis, but the students who tend to be success in calculus are usually more grounded in science, and much less likely to be from the “stats/research is scary” crowd. I have been in an in-patient/hospital setting for the last ~6 years, so I know my typical day isn’t the same as a college counseling psychologist, though schizophrenia is still schizophrenia…whether the patient is at the counseling center or in the ER.

I agreed with most of your post, but umm... calculus to weed out clinical psychologists? Now, I'm a dweeb who kinda loved integrals 😳, BUT calculus is not pertinent to the daily work of even the best researchers. SPSS handles the formulas, we just have to understand when to apply which analyses and how to interpret the findings responsibly. If we need somethig uber fancy, we have our good friends in biostats. I just don't like the idea of weed outs for the sake of... particulalry when even the vast majority of Clinical PhD graduates (even from the more researchy Boulder cuts) end up in predominately clinical positions.

 

[AgapeBlue]

I'm all for beefing up the science emphasis in the undergrad programs, but calculus to cull the herd? That's cruel! 😱

Seriously though, I'd much rather have more science based courses that would increase the foundational knowledge of scientific research/critical thinking and better prepare students for graduate school.

More schools should at least offer a professions 101 course and educate UG's on the different sub-fields and degrees available. It might cut down on a lot of the confusion that happens come application time.

Or it may not. *Shrug*

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm all for beefing up the science emphasis in the undergrad programs, but calculus to cull the herd? That's cruel! 😱

Seriously though, I'd much rather have more science based courses that would increase the foundational knowledge of scientific research/critical thinking and better prepare students for graduate school.

I'd be in favor of some pre-req. basic science courses like Neuroanatomy and/or Physiology. They aren't touchy feely, but both would provide some good basic knowledge that can be built upon.

 

[AgapeBlue]

I'd be in favor of some pre-req. basic science courses like Neuroanatomy and/or Physiology. They aren't touchy feely, but both would provide some good basic knowledge that can be built upon.

Exactamundo my friend.

 

[Neuropsych2be]

One of Jon Snow's soapbox arguments from years ago was the value of training a scientist first, which makes a lot more sense now that I'm on the other side looking in. Focusing mostly on the clinical and less on the development of a professional firmly grounded in scientific thinking may yield better clinical skills at first, but the scientist will later catch up because the applied work is then viewed through the eyes of a scientist and not technician. This isn't a knock on the Psy.D., but instead an observation of one of the failings of many Vail-based programs that de-emphasized important aspects of research to increase clinical training prior to internship. Not all hours are created equal. There has been talk about capping hours that can be reported on the APPI, which I think is an interesting take on the over-inflation/use of hours.

😀

Far be it from me to ever agree with Jon Snow 😛 but he has a very good point here. I would contend that research skills support and buttress and inform clinical skills. Research results certainly should inform clinical practice. But on a deeper level the process of research should inform the kinds of critical thinking and higher order synthesis that are core cognitive processes central to all clinical activities. The capacity to ask hard questions, to scour the literature, to consider multiple methodologies, and to work through the morass of data towards empirical answers has great benefits in terms of clinical training. The process of research represents a good meta-model for clinical practice and is an excellent meta-model for clinical skill development. It is also one of the things which should distinguish a doctoral level individual from a master's prepared individual. Every client whom one works presents a set of questions to which answers must be found.