PsyD vs PhD: Addressing Anti-Psyd Sentiments

[DrGero]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I know that telling people they are part to blame will not make them change, but I am not comfortable with speaking of them as victims either.... I am only describing the issues accurately.

Making an appeal by arguing both for the moral turpitude of those who choose professional schools (the 'blame and shame' tack) while at the same time making an abstract appeal based on a sense of responsibility for the profession of psychology will (no matter how valid) not only not make them change, it also may even be counterproductive. You may get righteously energized by arguments for 'accuracy' as you see it, but if behavior change is your goal, you'll get probably nowhere by this approach, and just alienate the people you want to sway. Seriously.

On your comparison with the drug debate, it is funny that most addicts will even admit that drug dependence is bad for society. There are still quite a few FSPS students/graduates who haven't gotten that point yet.

That's where the analogy breaks down. Drug users are systematically terrorized by society for their use of drugs, while in my view, students are systematically seduced by society and culture into getting into crushing debt to get degrees of dubious value.

Anyways, just because some drug users might give lip service later to the war on drugs (e.g., drug dependence harms 'society' so 'society' needs to jail drug users) doesn't legitimize anything - I'm not sympathetic to Alan Stone's "thank you theory" in any form. Not that I want to revisit the drug prohibition debate.

Likewise, I'm a FSPS student who is happy to step up and counsel current students to choose differently than I did.

 

[AgapeBlue]

Likewise, I'm a FSPS student who is happy to step up and counsel current students to choose differently than I did.

Not to intrude upon your conversation with OGurl, but I wanted to say that I have a lot of respect for you because of your willingness to discuss your experience in order to dissuade others from choosing this route.

 

[deleted75966]

I am a drummer. Keith moon was a drummer...and ****ing Awesome one at that!!! Let's leave the avatars out of this and focus on the content.

I will say that you are wrong about Mr. Moon. He was passionate about the science of percussion. In fact. I might venture to say that he was the scientist-practitioner of The Who.

Keith Moon was okay, a little spastic, but I was never a Who fan. From that era, I prefer Neil Peart and John Bonham. Moving forward, of course, there just lots of great drummers to listen to. . .

Mike Portnoy, Terry Bozzio, Dave Weckyl, Steve Gadd, Carter Beauford, Mark Zonder, Gavin Harrison (Porcupine Tree), Stewart Copeland. . .so much music, so little time. . .only lightly touching on the jazz end of the spectrum here, and leaving off many, many great drummers that are from newer bands and other genres (e.g., latin).

 

[erg923]

I am with you on Bonaham (and Led Zep in general) but I have never been a Rush fan with the exception of "Working Man."

 

[deleted75966]

I find I have to be in a very narrow mood range to listen to Rush these days. They were, long ago, my favorite band, and I transcribed a huge number of their songs as I pulled apart Neil Peart's drumming. Led Zeppelin, also to me, is a specific taste, as I find Jimmy Page's sloppy guitar playing ugly and grating.

 

[O Gurl]

DrGero,

I just take issue with the frame that these students are being "preyed upon". Not to say that the marketing strategies of the scam businesses are never effective, I'm sure they are, but even as a person who entered grad school straight from UG, I would suspect a certain degree of carelessness on the part of the applicant who ends up at a FSPS. In theory, one would consult with a mentor/professor at some point before pursuing a doctorate. To think that any reputable psychology professor would advise a student to attend Argosy or Fielding is a bit far-fetched.

I get that I may not sway those who are more invested in defending their decision than helping others avoid the same mistake. I'm not seeking to sway them. We are have a discussion about the issues facing the field. And sadly, self-focus and naivete is a part of the problem. Not saying it doesn't change it.

 

[futurepsydoc]

Hey everyone. I checked back in to see if the thread continued to devolve. While things were looking up there for a bit, especially as we started to see articles about predatory lending and comments about the internship imbalance, I think we need to stop making moral judgments about students because they enter certain programs. This is completely unfair, inflammatory, and takes away from the point of this thread.

 

[deleted75966]

I think we need to stop making moral judgments about students because they enter certain programs. This is completely unfair, inflammatory, and takes away from the point of this thread.

Unfair, maybe not, depending on your perspective. Unproductive, probably.

I think risk is likely the more effective argument point.

 

[DrGero]

DrGero,

I just take issue with the frame that these students are being "preyed upon". Not to say that the marketing strategies of the scam businesses are never effective, I'm sure they are, but even as a person who entered grad school straight from UG, I would suspect a certain degree of carelessness on the part of the applicant who ends up at a FSPS. In theory, one would consult with a mentor/professor at some point before pursuing a doctorate. To think that any reputable psychology professor would advise a student to attend Argosy or Fielding is a bit far-fetched.

Actually, I went to an extremely highly rated undergraduate institution with a very quality Psychology faculty, and at a meeting held (I think it was in my junior year) by staff with students on the subject of professional development, the question was asked about professional schools. One of the faculty (who was a younger psychologist who specialized in clinical and kiddie psych) said basically that professional school is a valid choice and that if you go and make the most of your training, you'll make a decent living and the cost of financing your bill will be just "like a bill" you pay at the end of each month. She was nonchalant about it and I recall it as somewhat of a backhanded endorsement of going the professional school route. At that point I had not even decided on going to a pro-school yet (although I wanted to go to graduate school), but I remember that comment very well.

I am certainly all for people taking responsibility for their actions - I am a freaking libertarian for crying out loud. But that doesn't mean you don't acknowledge that making the correct decision is sometimes made very difficult for people for a lot of different reasons. The presence of easy money and the incestuous relationship between institions of higher education and lenders and their marketers do "prey" on twentysomethings when they are at a very emotionally vulnerable time, as was I. This *has* to be acknowledged.

I think it's kind of a self-congratulatory fiction for you to present the idea that the choice of going to a funded program is made purely on an individual, rational basis, while the "bad" choice of doing a pro-school is an emotional one borne of just being intellectually lazy (naive, self-focused, whatever).

Just as people who are now choosing (or have chosen) FSPS for their professional degrees have a motivation for justifying and rationalizing their actions in the best possible light, so do those who chose funded programs. You went to a funded program? Good for you! You were fortunate enough to have internalized the proper advice and had enough of the proper emotional footing to make what by many measures an economically advantageous choice. You got the right messages as a kid. You managed to both seek out, *and* get advice from people that made sense. Both preparation *and* opportunity intersected for you. That's fortunate. In retrospect, I would like to turn the clock back and have chosen differently, simply so I could take care of that niggling "bill" I have to deal with at the end of each month, as well as the fact I think I would have benefited from better research training.

The true bad guys in our higher education crisis aren't the twentysomethings struggling with how to figure out the rest of their lives, it's the ones who've allowed this federal loan system to get out of control in the way it has, and the APA for giving into the siren song of all that cheap money flowing around. While I'm all for people taking responsibility (which I think I have), not acknowledging the conflicting messages and incentives that people who are struggling with these decisions bave to sort through is wrong-headed.

I get that I may not sway those who are more invested in defending their decision than helping others avoid the same mistake. I'm not seeking to sway them. We are have a discussion about the issues facing the field. And sadly, self-focus and naivete is a part of the problem. Not saying it doesn't change it.

But by singling out those who choose professional schools and labelling them as "naive and self-focused" *will* have the effect of creating defensiveness, when otherwise you might sway people. If you don't care - well, maybe you do just want to lob grenades at pro-school students for your own personal reasons I don't care to theorize about.

Again, I'm sympathetic to the arguments leveled against professional schools. I think the choice I made a number of years ago was dubious then (although it turned out relatively well for me), but it's even more untenable now, and I'm happy to tell people that. But I don't think I'm going to sway people by telling them that any consideration of FSPS education in psychology is borne of naivete and egocentrism. That's just nasty. You can call it "having a discussion," but it's unhelpful. Just my opinion.

 

[aventurine]

As someone who earned a clinical Ph.D. from a university-based program and as someone who thinks that the freestanding professional schools are problematic in multiple respects...the willingness to pounce on students from FSPS at the drop of a hat and the condescension/hostility toward them is so off-putting.

While recognizing that people may matriculate at FSPS for a variety of reasons, I have to say...entry into our field is ridiculously competitive, with university-based programs receiving hundreds of applications for just a few spots. I'm sure that numerous qualified applicants don't make the cut. If I really felt a calling to be a psychologist and didn't get in to a university program, I wouldn't refuse to consider a FSPS (though not Argosy and the like) just because of some of the systemic issues that these large, for-profit programs create for our field as a whole. Would that be self-centered of me? Sure. But how many of you live purely altruistic lives and would be just fine with sacrificing your own careers for "the field" if your grad school admissions didn't work out the way you'd have hoped?

I do think something needs to be done to sanction these large, for-profit programs and that prospective students need to be more informed about the potential pitfalls associated with them, but I certainly don't fault the students who attend them for wanting to pursue their career goals.

 

[O Gurl]

Dr G,

I am not failing to acknowledge the contributions of an out-of-whack loan system and the sly marketing of the professional schools. I have long conceded those are huge factors. I also acknowledged that there is a part played by those who attend. Whether you call them "emotionally vulnerable twentysomethings lured by easy money" or whether I call them naive, it is the same thing. You are being defensive because I am acknowledging ALL factors.

OAN, a libertarian is just a republican wearing a different hat. Ron Paul?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

OAN, a libertarian is just a republican wearing a different hat. Ron Paul?

Ron Paul is exactly what this country needs, too bad the extremists in both parties will make sure that doesn't happen. 🙁

 

[O Gurl]

Ron Paul is exactly what this country needs, too bad the extremists in both parties will make sure that doesn't happen. 🙁

And he is not an extremist? I am all for small business, but suggesting that he would have opposed civil rights legislation because it is the business owner's right to discriminate was a tad unsavory.

Beyond Paul, at first glance, the libertarian stance looks appealing: more fiscal responsibility (plus), less involvement in foreign affairs (plus, plus), increased civil liberties (huge plus- might finally get the conservatives out of our bedrooms 😉).... until they start to speak. They are all for personal freedoms...but since life begins at conception, the liberties of the unborn fetus must be protected and.... *cue pro-life platform*. They are contradicting themselves on the simplest issues already. Not holding out much hope for the rest.

 

[DrGero]

Dr G,

I am not failing to acknowledge the contributions of an out-of-whack loan system and the sly marketing of the professional schools. I have long conceded those are huge factors. I also acknowledged that there is a part played by those who attend.

OK, great. I mean, look, back to the highly imperfect drug prohibition analogy, again, I agree - we wouldn't have a "drug problem" if users didn't use drugs but such an observation, while true, really only goes so far when it comes to offering highlighting practical, useful approaches for dealing with such issues.

Whether you call them "emotionally vulnerable twentysomethings lured by easy money" or whether I call them naive, it is the same thing. You are being defensive because I am acknowledging ALL factors.

Sure, I'm probably being defensive, about something at least. <shrug> I'm human.

But if you're acknowledging "all factors" and we're just using different words to say the same thing, great! My point isn't (necessarily) that you're being inaccurate. It's that you're being impolitic. Your words seem more designed to inflame and be pejorative than to inform or (which I think would be the highest good) to sway people. I *do* want to change minds (I would hope you do too), and I don't think going out of your way to use language that seems on it's face to be unsympathetic and maybe even a bit nasty really helps.

OAN, a libertarian is just a republican wearing a different hat. Ron Paul?

Mainstream Republicans don't tend to be for gay rights, ending the war on drugs, radically downsizing the military and even the federal government, plus an number of other issues. If the GOP was actually more libertarian, perhaps I'd occasionally vote for a Republican (aside from Dr. Paul that is).

 

[DrGero]

As someone who earned a clinical Ph.D. from a university-based program and as someone who thinks that the freestanding professional schools are problematic in multiple respects...the willingness to pounce on students from FSPS at the drop of a hat and the condescension/hostility toward them is so off-putting.

While recognizing that people may matriculate at FSPS for a variety of reasons, I have to say...entry into our field is ridiculously competitive, with university-based programs receiving hundreds of applications for just a few spots. I'm sure that numerous qualified applicants don't make the cut. If I really felt a calling to be a psychologist and didn't get in to a university program, I wouldn't refuse to consider a FSPS (though not Argosy and the like) just because of some of the systemic issues that these large, for-profit programs create for our field as a whole. Would that be self-centered of me? Sure. But how many of you live purely altruistic lives and would be just fine with sacrificing your own careers for "the field" if your grad school admissions didn't work out the way you'd have hoped?

I do think something needs to be done to sanction these large, for-profit programs and that prospective students need to be more informed about the potential pitfalls associated with them, but I certainly don't fault the students who attend them for wanting to pursue their career goals.

👍

 

[cara susanna]

There's a lot of mind reading going on in this thread.

 

[DrGero]

There's a lot of mind reading going on in this thread.

Good point. My only argument is that there's good and potentially persuasive points to be made when discussing the downsides of pro-schools and FSPS in psychology.

The persuasiveness of such points, IMHO, gets lost in impolitic, pejorative characterizations of the students who attend such programs.

 

[DrGero]

They are all for personal freedoms...but since life begins at conception, the liberties of the unborn fetus must be protected and.... *cue pro-life platform*. They are contradicting themselves on the simplest issues already. Not holding out much hope for the rest.

I think you'd probably find that libertarians, as a group, are all over the map when it comes to abortion. There's nothing about libertarianism (which used to be called "classical liberalism" BTW) that dictates one should support laws against abortion. I don't - I'm as pro-choice as they come.

Ron Paul, BTW, tends to be rather pro-choice when viewed in light of his tendency towards radical devolution of power towards the states - which puts him very much at odds with mainstream Republicans:

http://prolifeprofiles.com/ronpaul

 

[psychapps]

My point isn't (necessarily) that you're being inaccurate. It's that you're being impolitic. Your words seem more designed to inflame and be pejorative than to inform or (which I think would be the highest good) to sway people. Perhaps unlike you, I guess I kind of *do* want to change minds, and I don't think going out of your way to use language that seems on it's face to be unsympathetic and pejorative really helps.

I think this is a good point. Once you start throwing words like "naive" or "self-focused" into the discussion, you tend to lose your audience. And that alienation is not necessarily limited to professional school students. I'm sure there are also traditional students who are put off by this kind of language, or at the minimum view it as unproductive.

But I'll acknowledge: I have a serious pet peeve about making sweeping generalizations about any group, whether it's professional students yelling out "elitist", or traditional students using words like "naive."

 

[O Gurl]

I am a bit in awe that so many posts have been focused on semantics when there is not a person here who would say that the choices individuals make are not at least partly their responsibility. If the argument is that one must treat FSPS trainees and grads with kid gloves so that they will support regulation of these programs, then I would say that that is a pretty negative image to cast upon them. I did not choose to focus the last half page of posts on the word naive when that was but a fragment of my stated position. You are making it a way bigger deal than it ever had to be.

Ron Paul, BTW, tends to be rather pro-choice when viewed in light of his tendency towards radical devolution of power towards the states - which puts him very much at odds with mainstream Republicans:

http://prolifeprofiles.com/ronpaul

This says not: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/was...n.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef0147e4059733970b

He is very much basing his stance in faith.

Also I do not see how it is so much better to have states making personal choices for people versus the fed. Saying all power should belong to the states and businesses should have no federal legislation (e.g. Civil Rights Act) is going to alienate a huge proportion of this country. I am not comfortable with the thought that I could have a tire blow out while driving through Vidor, TX and get refused a tow because I'm Middle Eastern or with my gay partner and if I seek protection under the law, being told that it happened in TX and not LA, and TX allows it, so too bad. There is a place for (reasonable) federal legislation.

*Apologies to all for the political talk*

 

[deleted75966]

They are all for personal freedoms...but since life begins at conception, the liberties of the unborn fetus must be protected and.... *cue pro-life platform*. They are contradicting themselves on the simplest issues already. Not holding out much hope for the rest.

In my opinion, focusing on abortion is re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Sure, such rearrangement might have better aesthetic value, but it is meaningless if the ship sinks. If people want to kill their babies, at this point, I'd say whatever; let's fix the fiscal issues and then worry about the other stuff (whatever your position on that other stuff).

 

[DrGero]

I am a bit in awe that so many posts have been focused on semantics when there is not a person here who would say that the choices individuals make are not at least partly their responsibility.

I'm not sure why you're in awe. Making persuasive arguments is as much about how you make the argument as anything else ("semantics.")

If the argument is that one must treat FSPS trainees and grads with kid gloves so that they will support regulation of these programs, then I would say that that is a pretty negative image to cast upon them.

I'm not sure why making that argument is equivalent to asking for such students to be treated with "kid gloves." And let's say it does treat them with "kid gloves," or casts a more "negative image" of them, just for the sake of argument?

The upside is a softer approach might actually convince a prospective pro-school student to reconsider their choice, or a former pro-school student to join this particular cause. The downside is.... what, exactly? That it might cast the "negative image" of pro-school students and graduates as people who have sensitivities, and like to feel like they're being treated fairly? Horrors.

I did not choose to focus the last half page of posts on the word naive when that was but a fragment of my stated position.

Precisely. Such a poor choice of words tends to overwhelm whatever positives might be in the rest of your message. And even one poorly chosen word, regardless of how small a ratio it represents in any given amount of verbiage, does run that risk. Don't get me wrong. You've made a lot of other good points about the negatives of pro-schools. Let's make sure those points get the widest audience possible, next time you (or others) bring it up. That's all I'm saying. No need for us to belabor our points?

You are making it a way bigger deal than it ever had to be.

OK.

This says not: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/was...n.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef0147e4059733970b

He is very much basing his stance in faith.

Also I do not see how it is so much better to have states making personal choices for people versus the fed. Saying all power should belong to the states and businesses should have no federal legislation (e.g. Civil Rights Act) is going to alienate a huge proportion of this country. I am not comfortable with the thought that I could have a tire blow out while driving through Vidor, TX and get refused a tow because I'm Middle Eastern or with my gay partner and if I seek protection under the law, being told that it happened in TX and not LA, and TX allows it, so too bad. There is a place for (reasonable) federal legislation.

*Apologies to all for the political talk*

I'm OK with Ron Paul basing his anti-abortion stance on faith, and I'm glad his voting record makes it clear he doesn't compromise his libertarian and pro-states-rights principles because of his anti-abortion, faith-based stance. Which again, is what sets him very much apart from mainstream Republicans. Which is really my only point. I'll save the pros and cons of the principle of subsidiarity as it regards states rights for the Sociopolitical forum....

 

[DrGero]

In my opinion, focusing on abortion is re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Sure, such rearrangement might have better aesthetic value, but it is meaningless if the ship sinks. If people want to kill their babies, at this point, I'd say whatever; let's fix the fiscal issues and then worry about the other stuff (whatever your position on that other stuff).

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

 

[O Gurl]

Precisely. Such a poor choice of words tends to overwhelm whatever positives might be in the rest of your message. And even one poorly chosen word, regardless of how small a ratio it represents in any given amount of verbiage, does run that risk.

"Such a poor choice of words"? You mean "naive" as opposed to "vulnerable" and "easily lured"? Give me a break. If an adult has a come-apart and dismisses the entire conversation because someone stated something that is true, but it was not phrased in a way that was most palatable for them, then I have to say at this point that I don't care. Really.

I'll save the pros and cons of the principle of subsidiarity as it regards states rights for the Sociopolitical forum....

Now you want to save it for the sociopolitical forum? Fair enough, but one may as well not discuss politics if they are not willing to discuss the very real implications for real people.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Now you want to save it for the sociopolitical forum? Fair enough, but one may as well not discuss politics if they are not willing to discuss the very real implications for real people.

I'd welcome a discussion about Ron Paul in the political forum. 😀 There was one going awhile ago that was pretty good, I think from a straw vote for republican candidates from awhile back.

 

[DrGero]

"Such a poor choice of words"? You mean "naive" as opposed to "vulnerable" and "easily lured"?

Sure. That's probably somewhat better.

Give me a break. If an adult has a come-apart and dismisses the entire conversation because someone stated something that is true, but it was not phrased in a way that was most palatable for them, then I have to say at this point that I don't care. Really.

I don't know what you mean by a "come-apart" (sounds dramatic) but this is really not as hard to do, or understand, as you're making this. Diplomacy and encouraging successful behavior change are just two sides of the same coin - politics and psychology aren't as dissimilar as some people think.

Language is not like physics, anyways. You seem to be holding desperately on to your use of the terms "naive" and "self-focused" as somehow the paragon of accuracy, but because language is so imprecise it's pretty easy for you (you're a smart gal) to find words that say the same thing and yet in a more diplomatic way.

If you "don't care" that your words aren't persuasive, then I apologize for misunderstanding your motivations and wasting your time - I assumed your intention is to be maximally persuasive, as opposed to simply inflammatory.

Now you want to save it for the sociopolitical forum? Fair enough, but one may as well not discuss politics if they are not willing to discuss the very real implications for real people.

Who says I was unwilling to discuss that?

 

[KayJay85]

I'm not sure why you're in awe. Making persuasive arguments is as much about how you make the argument as anything else ("semantics.")



I'm not sure why making that argument is equivalent to asking for such students to be treated with "kid gloves." And let's say it does treat them with "kid gloves," or casts a more "negative image" of them, just for the sake of argument?

The upside is a softer approach might actually convince a prospective pro-school student to reconsider their choice, or a former pro-school student to join this particular cause. The downside is.... what, exactly? That it might cast the "negative image" of pro-school students and graduates as people who have sensitivities, and like to feel like they're being treated fairly? Horrors.



Precisely. Such a poor choice of words tends to overwhelm whatever positives might be in the rest of your message. And even one poorly chosen word, regardless of how small a ratio it represents in any given amount of verbiage, does run that risk. Don't get me wrong. You've made a lot of other good points about the negatives of pro-schools. Let's make sure those points get the widest audience possible, next time you (or others) bring it up. That's all I'm saying. No need for us to belabor our points?

Sorry, but based on this degree of bellyaching one would think that OG called FSPS students a bunch of [insert foul words]. Coming off of a thread where one PsyD student questioned why it is a bad idea to borrow the max loan amount and invest it, I do not think it is out of line to acknowledge that some degree of self-focus and/or naivete has lead to the current problem. This has also been stated in much harsher words than those used here. This is a forum for the free exchange of ideas among professionals. Not a therapy forum.

 

[deleted75966]

I think blaming the student is a mistake, you'll never get them on board. While I agree that there is some personal responsibility here, everyone comes from different circumstances (family, friends, educational experiences, personality, etc. . .). If you aren't connected to the machine, from the outside looking in, professional schools are appealing. An economic naivety, something very common in the young and in other populations, combined with the allure of a doctorate and a nice profession, from an institution that is accessible and doesn't require personal upheaval to attend (don't have to move), is very appealing. Further, our culture values education and many people see student loan debt as good debt. Rather than blame the student, I think it is much better to look at the programs and think about whether their existence helps or hurts are field. Is it fair/just that they charge what they do? Are they good gate keepers (evaluate and accept applicants on par with the rest of the psychology population)? Do they comply with the standards for the field as far as training and outcomes compared to other programs (APA internships, postdocs, ABPP board memberships, debt, job satisfaction, personal stress, etc. . .)? My view is that the problem is the programs, not the students. There is enough demand and good enough marketing that they will always be able to fill their schools with someone. As those economic factors deteriorate, those someones will be even more disconnected and vulnerable. This is why I view this as a situation of exploitation, a moral hazard for a field to allow to continue.

 

[O Gurl]

JS, where have you seen me say it was all the students' fault? Pleaee quote it I have acknowledged all of the issues you did many times over. I just made the (apparently huge) offense of also acknowledging the student factors, which Dr G finds "inflammatory". This is becoming an enormous and slightly irritating waste of time. Does anyone else want to tell me how scathing and mean the word "naive" is? Save it.

 

[DrGero]

Sorry, but based on this degree of bellyaching one would think that OG called FSPS students a bunch of [insert foul words]. Coming off of a thread where one PsyD student questioned why it is a bad idea to borrow the max loan amount and invest it, I do not think it is out of line to acknowledge that some degree of self-focus and/or naivete has lead to the current problem. This has also been stated in much harsher words than those used here. This is a forum for the free exchange of ideas among professionals. Not a therapy forum.

By all means, let's freely exchange ideas. But like I said, good therapy and smart politics aren't completely different animals.

BTW, re. the PsyD student who wants to scam the loan program, sure, sounds kind of skeezy. Seems like yet more fodder for reforming the student loan system to me.

 

[KayJay85]

I think blaming the student is a mistake,you'll never get them on board. While I agree that there is some personal responsibility here, everyone comes from different circumstances (family, friends, educational experiences, personality, etc. . .). If you aren't connected to the machine, from the outside looking in, professional schools are appealing. An economic naivety, something very common in the young and in other populations, combined with the allure of a doctorate and a nice profession, from an institution that is accessible and doesn't require personal upheaval to attend (don't have to move), is very appealing. Further, our culture values education and many people see student loan debt as good debt. Rather than blame the student, I think it is much better to look at the programs and think about whether their existence helps or hurts are field. Is it fair/just that they charge what they do? Are they good gate keepers (evaluate and accept applicants on par with the rest of the psychology population)? Do they comply with the standards for the field as far as training and outcomes compared to other programs (APA internships, postdocs, ABPP board memberships, debt, job satisfaction, personal stress, etc. . .)? My view is that the problem is the programs, not the students. There is enough demand and good enough marketing that they will always be able to fill their schools with someone. As those economic factors deteriorate, those someones will be even more disconnected and vulnerable. This is why I view this as a situation of exploitation, a moral hazard for a field to allow to continue.

I'm confused as to why this has to be an all-or-none thing. I think most can agree that there is some level of personal responsibility AND some need for higher accreditation standards AND a need to student loan reform AND an issue of predatory programs. Yet somehow OG has been singled out for blaming the students... 😕

 

[KayJay85]

By all means, let's freely exchange ideas.

No offense, that is really hard to do when you are playing the semantics police. I'm not trying to be rude, but your harping on this issue for as long as you have has been far more distracting than the comment itself. We've all seen far worse than "naive" on SDN.

 

[deleted75966]

I'm not addressing og's choice of words, I am just talking about general strategy. Certainly I am guilty of far more aggressive tactics than og. They were effective in some ways in that I received many pms thanking me for helping to decide to attend a funded program, but I also unneccessarily pissed off lots of professional school students.

 

[O Gurl]

Thank you, KayJay. 🙂

This was starting to feel like the Twilight Zone.

 

[psychapps]

Sorry, but based on this degree of bellyaching one would think that OG called FSPS students a bunch of [insert foul words]. Coming off of a thread where one PsyD student questioned why it is a bad idea to borrow the max loan amount and invest it, I do not think it is out of line to acknowledge that some degree of self-focus and/or naivete has lead to the current problem. This has also been stated in much harsher words than those used here. This is a forum for the free exchange of ideas among professionals. Not a therapy forum.

Come on, it almost seems like you and OG are deliberately misunderstanding DrGero's point. No one's suggesting this is a therapy forum and no one's suggesting that it's necessary to pad around on tiptoe so that pro-school students don't have a "come-apart", whatever that is.

The point is that you won't garner the support of professional school students if you describe their motivations in the worst possible light. I wasn't a big fan of the student who wanted to invest their maxed out loans either, but he/she is only one data point, so to speak.

Maybe OG doesn't care about having the support of pro-school students. His/her language certainly seems to indicate this. But pro-school students also have a voice in the psychological community, so it seems like a mistake to alienate them instead of recruiting them in the effort to institute change.

 

[KayJay85]

Come on, it almost seems like you and OG are deliberately misunderstanding DrGero's point. No one's suggesting this is a therapy forum and no one's suggesting that it's necessary to pad around on tiptoe so that pro-school students don't have a "come-apart", whatever that is.

The point is that you won't garner the support of professional school students if you describe their motivations in the worst possible light. I wasn't a big fan of the student who wanted to invest their maxed out loans either, but he/she is only one data point, so to speak.

Maybe OG doesn't care about having the support of pro-school students. His/her language certainly seems to indicate this. But pro-school students also have a voice in the psychological community, so it seems like a mistake to alienate them instead of recruiting them in the effort to institute change.

Fair enough. I am just saying that the word naive, IMO, is far from "the worst possible light." Many posters here, myself included, have discussed the emphasis on "I" in our current society and how that has played a part in the ills that face us. The overreaction that occurred in response to OG's comments can certainly make people feel like they have to tiptoe around this forum when perhaps others may need to toughen up a bit.

 

[DrGero]

No offense, that is really hard to do when you are playing the semantics police. I'm not trying to be rude, but your harping on this issue for as long as you have has been far more distracting than the comment itself. We've all seen far worse than "naive" on SDN.

No one is under "arrest." 🙂

I know it's annoying to have one's choice of words criticized, but I'm really not doing just for sport, and I do think it's not an unimportant point to make on my part (or else I wouldn't make it). As a fellow participant in said free exchange of ideas, feel free to disagree.

 

[DrGero]

The overreaction that occurred in response to OG's comments can certainly make people feel like they have to tiptoe around this forum when perhaps others may need to toughen up a bit.

Oh puh-leeze. If people really feel that the logical response to the points I raised is that they have to "tip-toe," then they really need to just relax and go to Youtube and watch videos of hamsters on surfboards or something.

 

[KayJay85]

Oh puh-leeze. If people really feel that the logical response to the points I raised is that they have to "tip-toe," then they really need to just relax and go to Youtube and watch videos of hamsters on surfboards or something.

Maybe I have your posts confused, but did you not draw a distinction between saying naive and saying the FSPS students are vulnerable 20 year olds who are lured by easy money?

C'mon, man. You must like to argue for the sake of.

 

[deleted75966]

Fair enough. I am just saying that the word naive, IMO, is far from "the worst possible light.

I agree and probably pretty accurate. Though, it probably does elicit an instant defensive reaction.

 

[DrGero]

Maybe I have your posts confused, but did you not draw a distinction between saying naive and saying the FSPS students are vulnerable 20 year olds who are lured by easy money?

Yes. So?

C'mon, man. You must like to argue for the sake of.

Look, it's it's simple. If you don't care about being persuasive to a potentially large group of people when making an anti-pro-school argument, then by all means, call pro-school students whatever you want. If you do care, then just think about what you say. If it doesn't come out right the first time, no big deal, no one will implode or commit suicide, and no one will think you're a bad person, you just try again.

That doesn't require "tip toeing," that just requires perhaps a small degree of enlightenment and some good intentions. So chill.

 

[DrGero]

I agree and probably pretty accurate. Though, it probably does elicit an instant defensive reaction.

Guilty.

To be fair, though, I admit I was naive when I was in my 20s. Wish I had gotten better advice - and no, the best advice is not always immediately forthcoming.

 

[KayJay85]

Yes. So?

If you don't get that splitting hairs between "naive", "vulnerable", "easily tempted", etc. is ridiculous then so be it.

That doesn't require "tip toeing," that just requires perhaps a small degree of enlightenment and some good intentions. So chill.

Coming from the guy who is dissecting other people's words while saying the exact same thing in a different way? Yeah. You are a model of chill and relaxed. 👍

At this point we are just exchanging jabs. I think you overreacted for no reason whatsoever. You disagree. Fine.

 

[DrGero]

If you don't get that splitting hairs between "naive", "vulnerable", "easily tempted", etc. is ridiculous then so be it.

I don't "get it," and apparently I'm in good company.

Coming from the guy who is dissecting other people's words while saying the exact same thing in a different way? Yeah. You are a model of chill and relaxed. 👍.

I may need to cut down on my coffee <shrug>.

You, however, said, "tip-toeing." I essentially pointed out you're being melodramatic. You don't like that? Okey doke. Furthermore, I'm not going to rehash my arguments re. word choice. I made my point, you can ignore it and minimize it. That's your perogative.

At this point we are just exchanging jabs. I think you overreacted for no reason whatsoever. You disagree. Fine.

 

[O Gurl]

KayJay85, again thanks. I agree that it is time to get things back on track from one very bizarre detour.

 

[docjohng]

Ah, you know it must be a PsyD thread when the topic veers from Ron Paul, to talk of abortion, to suggesting that adults must be thought of as babies and we all have to be paternalistic toward them when it comes to discussing the real world and finances.

Let me just say, if the PhD system worked and did the job it was intended to do in the US in terms of churning out enough quality clinicians to serve the needs of the population, the Vail model would've been DOA. As it was, the PhD system kept people like me out (because obviously I just wasn't up to snuff), so we had no choice but to pursue a clinical, professional degree.

Sorry about that, but market demand will always trump supply issues that are further down the road and harder to predict. It was only in the past decade that the medical field got their whole match system under control. I suspect clinical psychology can do the same, if only it puts its collective heads together and stopped blaming one another internally.

Psychology is the largest field where it seemingly constantly turns to infighting, and bites itself in the behind.

John

 

[KayJay85]

Sorry about that, but market demand will always trump supply issues that are further down the road and harder to predict. It was only in the past decade that the medical field got their whole match system under control. I suspect clinical psychology can do the same, if only it puts its collective heads together and stopped blaming one another internally.

I think the concern is that the supply increased so sharply without a comparable increase, or any increase at all, in market demand.

 

[Neuropsych2be]

Ah, you know it must be a PsyD thread when the topic veers from Ron Paul, to talk of abortion, to suggesting that adults must be thought of as babies and we all have to be paternalistic toward them when it comes to discussing the real world and finances.

Let me just say, if the PhD system worked and did the job it was intended to do in the US in terms of churning out enough quality clinicians to serve the needs of the population, the Vail model would've been DOA. As it was, the PhD system kept people like me out (because obviously I just wasn't up to snuff), so we had no choice but to pursue a clinical, professional degree.

Sorry about that, but market demand will always trump supply issues that are further down the road and harder to predict. It was only in the past decade that the medical field got their whole match system under control. I suspect clinical psychology can do the same, if only it puts its collective heads together and stopped blaming one another internally.

Psychology is the largest field where it seemingly constantly turns to infighting, and bites itself in the behind.

John

This debate has been going on for as long as I ahve been coming to this site. Ironically the Psy.D. is modeled on the M.D and DO degrees. In fact the osteopathic medical profession has free standing professional schools like PCOM and Touro all over the place and one never hears complaints about saturation of DO's. In my view the field needs to define itself as a primary care health field. There is a push within APA for this. However, being APA, this emphasis has been half-assed, marginal and ineffective.The alleged saturation I keep hearing about would really abate if psychologists were fully integrated into primary care settings as primary health care providers. It could also solve the MATCH issue if we increase the number of internship placements in integrative primary care. Given how psychologists can reduce physician utilization and decrease costs, and that there is a huge shortage in medical primary care providers, it seems like a match made in heaven, if you will excuse the pun. However, those internship settings really don't exist.

Yet the mindset on this board consistently seems to be we have an oversupply and the Psy.D.'s and the professional schools are to blame. This does not seem to be a problem for the osteopaths despite the fact that new DO schools continue to be founded including a *for profit* school in Colorado. Frankly given actual societal needs in mental health and primary health care and the actual number of psychologists in the US, we have a huge under-supply. The problem is that the profession is stuck in training models and mindsets that are 30 years old. Can you imagine a scientist practitioner program producing psychologists to work in primary care? Heaven forbid! The elitism and academic snobbery of the kind that is rampant on this board would stifle that! Yet to survive, we as a profession need to create new and different roles within the primary healthcare system and beyond. Until that happens we will be the red-headed bastard stepchild of healthcare, albeit one with a raging narcissistic personality disorder.

 

[KayJay85]

This debate has been going on for as long as I ahve been coming to this site. Ironically the Psy.D. is modeled on the M.D and DO degrees. In fact the osteopathic medical profession has free standing professional schools like PCOM and Touro all over the place and one never hears complaints about saturation of DO's. In my view the field needs to define itself as a primary care health field. There is a push within APA for this. However, being APA, this emphasis has been half-assed, marginal and ineffective.The alleged saturation I keep hearing about would really abate if psychologists were fully integrated into primary care settings as primary health care providers. It could also solve the MATCH issue if we increase the number of internship placements in integrative primary care. Given how psychologists can reduce physician utilization and decrease costs, and that there is a huge shortage in medical primary care providers, it seems like a match made in heaven, if you will excuse the pun. However, those internship settings really don't exist.

Yet the mindset on this board consistently seems to be we have an oversupply and the Psy.D.'s and the professional schools are to blame. This does not seem to be a problem for the osteopaths despite the fact that new DO schools continue to be founded including a *for profit* school in Colorado. Frankly given actual societal needs in mental health and primary health care and the actual number of psychologists in the US, we have a huge under-supply. The problem is that the profession is stuck in training models and mindsets that are 30 years old. Can you imagine a scientist practitioner program producing psychologists to work in primary care? Heaven forbid! The elitism and academic snobbery of the kind that is rampant on this board would stifle that! Yet to survive, we as a profession need to create new and different roles within the primary healthcare system and beyond. Until that happens we will be the red-headed bastard stepchild of healthcare, albeit one with a raging narcissistic personality disorder.

I am not as aware of free-standing or for-profit training programs for DOs, but psychology is not alone in its defensive reaction to this model. Pharmacy, for example has also seen a strong push back to the expansion of free-standing programs within their field. I think you make an excellent point in that mental health care should be fully integrated in the medical model, but that will be a harder sell if people view the training model for doctoral psychologists as lacking. Right now, the idea of advanced degree, independently licensed professionals being produced at for-profits on par with University of Phoenix makes people wary.

 

[cara susanna]

Wait, why exactly would "elitism" make us not want to work in primary health settings?

And, yes, there is high market demand for people wanting graduate clinical psychology degrees, but lowering admissions standards and creating more programs is not the solution to that. It may be harsh, but not everyone should be able to be a psychologist just because they want to be one.

We're definitely not the only profession fighting amongst ourselves. I see it in pretty much every field that involves a lot of education, a lot of money for that education, and low-paying or less available jobs.