Questions re: MA programs and Beyond (Post-Graduate Psychotherapy Training)

[Themistocles517]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I am currently in my senior year of undergrad and am not majoring in psychology (I'm a philosophy major), but I'm interested in applying to clinical MA programs in order to go on to practice therapy. I've spent some time browsing these forums and have had some difficulty finding specific information pertaining to these types of programs (although I've been able to find out some things about a one or two schools). So I was wondering if there are people out there who are either currently attending a clinical MA program and wouldn't mind sharing their experiences there or otherwise have particular masters programs to suggest.

Along with that, I have a series of other questions I'd like to ask:

1) Since I'm not a psychology major, how seriously will this hinder my chances of being accepted to such a program? I'm aware that it won't absolutely preclude my chances to get into a masters-level program (as it might with a doctoral one), but I'd like to know what my chances are. I've taken 16 psychology credits including psych stats and an internship this semester at a counseling and psychotherapy center, have a 3.7 GPA and a 1490 GRE. My minor is in biology and I had an internship with NIAID several years ago, which may or may not be worth mentioning. Given that I probably won't have any psychology research experience--it'll be contingent upon whether or not I can squeeze into a professor's lab for a while next semester--and that I'm lacking several other courses that are generally either required or highly recommended (abnormal, research methods, etc.), will this significantly hinder my acceptance chances? If so, could this be mitigated by taking some summer courses prior to starting my graduate coursework? Should I take such coursework anyway?

2) Given the above, how likely is it for me to be accepted by a PsyD program? I know the lack of research experience will be even more of a problem in this regard. Can I improve my chances by having a well-written and convincing statement of purpose and my research interests?

3) Can anyone speak to the differences between various states regarding licensure? Specifically, are there major differences that people are aware of and that I should take into consideration when applying to grad programs? Is is a good general rule to apply to schools in areas will you will want to practice later?

4) Can someone give a brief description of the relative differences between counseling and clinical MAs? I believe they're distinguished on the basis of the "severity" of clients/patients you'd be dealing with afterwards and the amount of doctoral-type research that's incorporated into your studies, but I'm not really sure.

5) Lastly, I've heard that there's no guarantee of graduating from a graduate program with much competence in psychotherapy and that even the programs that do prepare their students well take a backseat to postgraduate study programs with actual psychotherapists. What goes on in these types of programs, just in general?

Thank you very much for any responses. I realize that I've asked a lot of questions here, so feel free to give partial replies.

 

[wrsparks]

Question 1: I don't think having a degree in a different area is a "problem" is the sense you are referring. As long as you have the pre-rec's for the program and did well, it should be fine. However, if you are still worried you can look into taking the subject test for psychology. That could show schools that you really know your stuff. Also, I think a minor in Biology is a good thing. The extra research methods and critical thinking was really helpful for me. Getting into some research somewhere is what my next step would be if I were you. BTW... you do know you don't have to get a masters before applying to a doctorate, right? Why don't you go straight though?

Question 2: I'm going to answer with a question. Why a PsyD? You have an excellent GRE score and seem to at least be marginally interested in research considering your minor. I would say ( in a biased way 🙂 ) apply for Ph.D programs. Not to mention, PsyD's are more expensive. But if you are committed to the PsyD, they don't care as much about research experience as a PhD program does. They would like to see some awesome clinical experience instead.

Question 3: Being licensed? I have no idea. I just have a general idea for my state. Maybe a psychologist can hop on here. Or maybe it's on the PhD forum.

Question 4: I would say the severity assumption is a possibility. Some counseling programs are in the College of Education which can be viewed as not as science focused. I think it depends on the program. Word on the street is that counseling might be easier to get into??? Who knows...

Question 5: This one is confusing to me. Do you mean that you aren't able to really do anything competently when you graduate? I would say therapy is a continual growing process. You get better with more and more practice. You often have a year or two of post-doc work after a PhD for specialization and training (kind of like a residency for MD) which increases your ability. So yeah... clarify this one.

Whew that was a long one!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

3) Can anyone speak to the differences between various states regarding licensure? Specifically, are there major differences that people are aware of and that I should take into consideration when applying to grad programs? Is is a good general rule to apply to schools in areas will you will want to practice later?

Here is a listing for licensure boards for the US and Canada. Most states aren't that different than each other, though some will have some random classes required.

http://www.kspope.com/licensing/index.php

 

[psycho12]

Great Questions! I am not sure I can answer these with a comprehensive knowledge, but these are just my experiences/opinions:

1) I majored in political science and got into a few programs for psychology. I could have gotten into a PsyD program at Alliant, but I did not want to go there.

2) PsyD programs are great if you don't like research but want a higher level of education in psychology. If you are okay with paying the super high prices (super super super high) than apply to Loma Linda University, Rose Mead, Alliant and Pepperdine's PsyD programs and you will have a better chance. Check out their reps because they are not nearly as good as PhD programs.-these are all from California, sorry if you are looking into other areas.

3) Not sure.

4) Based solely on my opinion-if you want to apply to PhD or PsyD programs it may give you more info to go for the clinical so you have a solid basis in clinical work. Counseling may be great to take off from there, but I think clinical is a great step towards PhD. Counseling is better if you are going straight to work from there. Not sure though-just my opinion.

5) Every program for every subject is what you make it. I am in a program that I like very much at Pepperdine (clincial MA in general psych) but they tend to help the MFT students much more and leave the general psych people to themselves. On my own I am gaining an RA position, GA position and have a clinical internship going. After this program I assume I will be well prepared for a PhD program, but only because I took the effort. You can go to the best school and expect them to walk you through everything and end up empty in the end. With that said, there are programs that are considered more of a paper mill than others and you should get to know their reputations.
Good luck and it sounds like you will be just fine.

4)

 

[erg923]

2) PsyD programs are great if you don't like research but want a higher level of education in psychology.

cringe.....they are not supposed to be mutually exclusive. Please dont perpetuate that mentality the newbies.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Agreed.

Research is still an important part of Psy.D. training. In my Psy.D. program I was actively involved in research for 3.5 of my 5 years. If a person does not like research, they should probably look into a different profession, because research is an active and vital part of training and practice. Publications and presentations are both needed to be competitive for the better internship and post-doc placements.

 

[erg923]

Agreed, and good evidence that if you dont like research, than a psy.d is not for you either. If for some reason you have trouble swallowing the underlying premise...that "clinical psychology" is a science and was borne out of an academic experimentalist mindset which is what sets it you apart from "therapists"...... Pretend you're a training director of an internship site. An applicant applies to your site with decent practicums and expereinces, but no posters, no talks at conference, and no publications. Wouldn't you wonder what the hell that person has been doing for the past 4-5 years?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Agreed, and good evidence that if you dont like research, than a psy.d is not for you either. If for some reason you have trouble swallowing the underlying premise...that "clinical psychology" is a science and was borne out of an academic experimentalist mindset which is what sets it you apart from a "therapists"...... Pretend you're a training director of an internship site. An applicant applies to your site with decent practicums and expereinces, but no posters, no talks at conference, and no publications. Wouldn't you wonder what the hell that person has been doing for the past 4-5 years?

Many sites are looking to cut applicants from their pool, and professional productivity can be one criteria. Jobs also consider your productivity, because many places will want someone who gets their name out there. I am trying to stay active because every single fellowship I am considering has a research component. I am not a research heavy person, but the profession is trending towards EBT, and research productivity matters more now.

 

[Navrins]

Pretend you're a training director of an internship site. An applicant applies to your site with decent practicums and expereinces, but no posters, no talks at conference, and no publications. Wouldn't you wonder what the hell that person has been doing for the past 4-5 years?

Me? Not at all; I'd think (though of course I'd want to verify) that he's been reading and learning and observing and working and practicing what he wants to do. That would impress me.

Whereas if an applicant applies having spent all his time making posters, writing research papers, and talking at conferences, I'd wonder what he knows about actually working with people who need help. Again, he could convince me, but he's starting out with a harder sell.

Obviously some people on this board think differently than me, and they may well be right; I admit I'm new to the field. But honestly, I don't see how being able to do research and present results has any bearing on one's ability to read and evaluate research and use its results to help clients.

 

[erg923]

Me? Not at all; I'd think (though of course I'd want to verify) that he's been reading and learning and observing and working and practicing what he wants to do. That would impress me.

Well thats nice and all, but when all 30 people you interview do this you have to have something to set people apart from the group, no? Research is one indictor that the person is dedicated, productive, and undertands the underlying science of psychology. Valuable attributes in a psychologist.

Whereas if an applicant applies having spent all his time making posters, writing research papers, and talking at conferences, I'd wonder what he knows about actually working with people who need help. Again, he could convince me, but he's starting out with a harder sell.

Well were talking about clinical psychology programs here arent we pal? Its not a ph.d in experimental psychology,..... of course people will be taught clinical skills in a clinical psychology ph.d program, yes, even research intensive ones....

Obviously some people on this board think differently than me, and they may well be right; I admit I'm new to the field. But honestly, I don't see how being able to do research and present results has any bearing on one's ability to read and evaluate research and use its results to help clients.

Because, very generally speaking, statements like...... "I'm not interested in doing research" or "I just want to apply research findings in my practice" really means ....."I dont like all those icky numbers, statistics, and science-type stuff." IMO, thats the kind of person that should be a social worker, not a doctoral level psychologist. Again, this is what differentiates psychology from other mental heallth diciplines. Its at the very foundation of the dicipline's inception and development. Witmer's whole premise was to make existing scientific psychology "practical"...not the other way around.

I also note that you didnt write critically evaluate research, your wrote "evaluate." Because alot of questional crap get pumped out these days, an inner working of statistics, design, and methodology is required in order to critically evaluate research and its application to your practice/patients. This is knowlege that can only be gained by truely doing, at least some, research. Further, I think that most people on this board agree that more grounded in research and science one is, the more one begins to think like a sciientist. Thus, they approach patients problems with a scientific mindest as well......they are more likely to conduct therapy that is grounded in science, they do assessment in more scientific ways (ie., always chosing instruments that have the potential to disprove the existing hypothesis), etc... These are just a couple of examples of how research informs practice.

 

[Navrins]

Well were talking about clinical psychology programs here arent we pal? Its not a ph.d in experimental psychology,..... of course people will be taught clinical skills in a clinical psychology ph.d program, yes, even research intensive ones....

And of course they're going to be taught research skills in a good clinical psychology program, including critical evaluation thereof. Why would a person hiring someone to do clinical work be more willing to accept on faith that someone has the clinical skills that are relevant to that job, than that they have critical evaluation of research skills?

I also note that you didnt write critically evaluate research, your wrote "evaluate."

Um, yeah, that's because I took it for granted. I also didn't write "literately read" or "usefully use." How do you evaluate a study without being critical?

I don't know whether you're being remarkably elitist and condescending with the rest of your paragraph, or if the field of psychology is truly flooded with scientific illiterates. I'll grant there's some truth to the latter, but I'm not one of them, and I refuse to believe that the only way to demonstrate that is to spend year doing work that doesn't interest me. I've done that once already (at MIT, so poof goes your "I dont like all those icky numbers, statistics, and science-type stuff" hypothesis). I'm not doing it again.

(Yeah, I'm a little bitter about my undergraduate experience. That's why I intend to make my graduate one better.)

 

[psycho12]

Yes, that is why I mentioned that it was just my opinion that the PsyD requires less research than the PhD. Everyone interested in a doctoral degree in the psych field can determine this opinion for themselves and apply that accordingly. It is not a bad thing to want to do less or no research, but to get a higher level of education. Do whatever you like and enjoy it in the mean time!

Good luck with your endeavors and I am sure these forums will help you a bit while you determine your own path : )

 

[WannaBeDrMe]

Me? Not at all; I'd think (though of course I'd want to verify) that he's been reading and learning and observing and working and practicing what he wants to do. That would impress me.

Whereas if an applicant applies having spent all his time making posters, writing research papers, and talking at conferences, I'd wonder what he knows about actually working with people who need help. Again, he could convince me, but he's starting out with a harder sell.

Obviously some people on this board think differently than me, and they may well be right; I admit I'm new to the field. But honestly, I don't see how being able to do research and present results has any bearing on one's ability to read and evaluate research and use its results to help clients.

Well, I can speak from recent professional experience both within the field and as an applicant. YES, they TREMENDOUSLY care what the hell you've been doing with your time. "Brushing up on your skills" is not an acceptable answer.

I started out as a very active little gal. I worked with some big names in psychology and social work. I published, I researched, I published and researched some more... then, I stopped. I took my career/life/work in a different direction. It was only a 10 month time frame that is blank... but still, I am asked, "exactly what were you doing here?"

The ability to do research successfully, in my opinion, is a tremendous indicator of being able to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING... not limited to just being a good clinician. Research shows a thoroughness of thought, a commitment to deadlines/dedication to a project, and a curiosity... also, a willingness to contribute to the field.

It's also my opinion that those who are truly great with the working with people part find a way to work that into research so that their ideas can be shared, spread, and help a lot more people AS SUGGESTED/DIRECTED via psychology as a field... that's the purpose of research. SHARING!