Reputations

[sukurux]

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sukurux]

Actually, I have the DEFINITIVE answer regarding Psy.D. programs....It doesn't matter...You're still not a Ph.D. and you will be stuck explaining your degree for the rest of your life.

Good luck

There there now. Someone's feeling a bit inadequate

 

[ShinriGaku]

I am looking for a Psy.D. program that does not have to come from one of the top universities but from the perspective of being nominally (inexpensive - aka: Cheap)priced, accredited (as per CHEA), and have the basic utility of adding to my CV without the need for further and extensive use.


Any ideas? Thanks!!

 

[RayneeDeigh]

I am looking for a Psy.D. program that does not have to come from one of the top universities but from the perspective of being nominally (inexpensive - aka: Cheap)priced, accredited (as per CHEA), and have the basic utility of adding to my CV without the need for further and extensive use.


Any ideas? Thanks!!

Sorry but I'm a little confused about what you're asking. You want a PsyD program that will add to your CV but you don't want to practice with it?

Also... as far as I know NO PsyD programs are cheap unless you're one of the very few who qualify for some financial aid.

 

[Sanman]

Baylor, Indiana State, Xavier, and Virginia Consortium fully fund all of their students. I believe that Rutgers funds a good percentage as well.

 

[psychophysio]

There's no reason for me to feel inadequate. I speak from experience. I was accepted at Baylor, but decided not to attend because I have spoken to Psy.D. graduates whose main peeve is that people don't know what a Psy.D. is. There is also the issue that regardless of how good the Psy.D. program is, the market views them with skepticism because of the lack of focus on research. After all, true respect and FUNDING come from research.

Perhaps I was too harsh in my comments about Psy.D. program graduates. I understand research is not what you are interested in and that the clinical training you receive is exhaustive and extensive, but how many of you haven't had one instance in which you had to explain what Psy.D. means, or been viewed with skepticism over your degree?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Education about psychology in general is not where it should be, at least in regard to general public knowledge. I've done some lobbying work, and some/many of our elected officials still don't know the difference between psychology and psychiatry.....let alone the difference in focus between the PhD and PsyD. I think of it much like D.O. v. M.D. The vast majority of people don't really care as long as they get competent treatment, but when it comes to academia, there is still a difference.

-t

 

[paramour]

Education about psychology in general is not where it should be, at least in regard to general public knowledge. I've done some lobbying work, and some/many of our elected officials still don't know the difference between psychology and psychiatry.....let alone the difference in focus between the PhD and PsyD. I think of it much like D.O. v. M.D. The vast majority of people don't really care as long as they get competent treatment, but when it comes to academia, there is still a difference.

-t

What's even better are the insurance companies who don't know the difference. I worked for a fairly large one for several years and there was always confusion between psychiatry/psychology/social work and PhD/PsyD/MD/LCSW. Policies stated that services must be rendered by a licensed MD or PhD only, when in fact they meant doctorate (PhD/PsyD). Unfortunately, no one knew so reps told (and still do) callers that PsyD's can't be reimbursed. The one or two PsyD's that argued had to jump through hoops for a few months before they were ever compensated for services rendered.

 

[Markro311]

There's no reason for me to feel inadequate. I speak from experience. I was accepted at Baylor, but decided not to attend because I have spoken to Psy.D. graduates whose main peeve is that people don't know what a Psy.D. is. There is also the issue that regardless of how good the Psy.D. program is, the market views them with skepticism because of the lack of focus on research. After all, true respect and FUNDING come from research.

Perhaps I was too harsh in my comments about Psy.D. program graduates. I understand research is not what you are interested in and that the clinical training you receive is exhaustive and extensive, but how many of you haven't had one instance in which you had to explain what Psy.D. means, or been viewed with skepticism over your degree?

Get over yourself.

So people should just abandon the Psy.D. because people who know little about the field of psychology anyways probably won't know what the degree is? And instead of informing people about the Psy.D. and the model it works with, people should just go for the Ph.D. in fear of being looked at skeptically? That's pretty dumb. And to say "true respect comes from research" is pretty elitist and ignorant. I know many professors from PhD programs and clinicians who graduated from PhD programs that say the Psy.D. graduates they know are very competent practitioners and great psychologists.

The Psy.D. is much newer than the PhD, so obviously it'll take some time for people to start to recognize it at the same rate. Additionally, the PhD is more well known since there are PhD's in just about every field of study. I don't think people necessarily think more highly of the PhD, they just know it since the same name is used in anything from English to the sciences. I don't think it has anything to do with the field of psychology specifically.

It's pretty saddening and disturbing to me that, in a field such as psychology, there are so many elitist and narrow-minded people (not referring to you at all, just saying from what I've experienced on this board). At the same rate, I totally understand people like Jon Snow's arguments, and I find it disturbing that some possibly undeserving people are being accepted into doctoral programs.

However, I graduated from a very esteemed undergraduate institution, had much volunteer experience, had a year of RA lab experience, a very solid 3.6 GPA (3.8 psychology), a GRE of 1350, and I'm confident that my rec's were good as well. I chose to go to the Adler School (Psy.D. program in Chicago) because I wanted to be in a city 1) for personal reasons 2) for ample practicum and networking possibilities. Also, I'm very excited about the focus on social exclusion and how to alleviate it. I'm aware that I will have a nice size of loans when I graduate, but honestly I don't mind. I'd rather study in a city I love and work towards a good cause than be stuck in the middle of nowhere doing mostly research when I have very little interest in that at all as a career. Just because I'll have much debt when I graduate and chose to go to a Psy.D. program (with esteemed professors who went to a variety of schools - from "top notch" PhD programs to various PsyD programs - not just inbreeding of Psy.D. programs like many people on here seem to assume), does NOT mean I will be an inferior psychologist in any way. I chose to apply to MSW (got accepted to U of Chicago, but decided against it) and Psy.D. programs, but I'm confident I could've most likely gotten accepted into a pretty respectable PhD program somewhere if I decided that early enough in the application process. I didn't though, because it wasn't the right fit for me. So even though some Psy.D. programs should be even more selctive with their applicants than they are, there are still plenty of very qualified and motivated doctoral candidates in them as well.

And I'm going to stop ranting, but in closing I really just want to say that I wish people in the field of psychology (from applicants to grad students, professors to practitioners) focus more on improving the field than bashing each other. I know people label the "bashing" as "trying to improve", but that just isn't true. You'd think (or hope) that people so interested in psychology and the mental well-being of others would be a little more insightful than making things simple labels and making things black and white.

 

[JockNerd]

I understand research is not what you are interested in and that the clinical training you receive is exhaustive and extensive, but how many of you haven't had one instance in which you had to explain what Psy.D. means, or been viewed with skepticism over your degree?

I'm not catching the logic there. PsyD = bad because.... you have to explain it sometimes? If I had a nickel for every times someone asked what the diff between a psychiatrist and a psychologist was, or if I can prescribe meds after I'm done, I wouldn't need funding at grad school....

For grads intending to go into private practice, I seriously doubt the population at large has any idea what the difference between Alliant and Rutgers is.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I totally agree JN. Education is something that psychology has done a poor job of in regard to the general population. This is one area that I am quite frustrated with the APA about as of late. I think there have been a number of opportunities where they could have done more, but instead they move at a glacial pace, and the world passes by.

As for this thread, I think it is most important to find the best program fit for what you want. What I like about SDN is that there are people from all different areas, and they can share the +/- 's of particular areas/programs. Reputation is important in regard to proper training and licensure issues, though I think people put too much focus on name, and not as much on substance.

While getting ready to apply for internship, I've been reflecting on my education thus far and realized that my education is much more than just my classes, research, clinical hours and whatnot. What has really made my training worthwhile has been the work and experiences I've had in addition to the 'core' areas. (The caveat being that I received a quality foundation in theory and training)

There seems to be this hyper-focus on what everyone else thinks, when in the end, it is what YOU think and learn that truly matters, as long as the training provides you the foundation and abilities to be a competent practitioner in your area of interest. (Academia, practice, etc)

-t

 

[psychophysio]

When I said "true respect comes from research" I meant in the psychology community at large. Of course there are wonderful Psy.D. psychologists out there, and I am sure they are extremely appreciated by their community. I never said there weren't, and if you check what I said, you'll see that I respect Psy.D.'s for the breadth and depth of their knowledge in clinical matters. I realize research is not your career interest, but because of the way funding and tenure are structured, research output is the only measure of someone's contribution to society (and with it comes respect).

I understand you are not interested in pursuing an academic career, but you can't tell me Psy.D.'s don't have to put up with more stuff because of the lack of education out there (see insurance example above). If you could go to the exact same school you go to, take the same classes, and see the same amount of patients you do now, but they offered you a Psy.D. or a Ph.D., which one would you take?

 

[ExpressYourself]

but how many of you haven't had one instance in which you had to explain what Psy.D. means, or been viewed with skepticism over your degree?

I always have to explain the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist, as well as correcting all of the millions of misconceptions about clinical psychologists. Explaining the Psy.D is not troublesome at all for me.


Most people I hang around with and meet outside of my school are non-psych people who don't even have a clue about Ph.D clinical psychologists, so I'm used to explaining things in detail to people. It doesn't bother me to do that.

In the psych field though at internships, hospitals, etc...everybody knows what the Psy.D is.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

To be fair...when I'm looking to hire on doc-level clinicians, I'll look at PhDs and PsyDs equally.

-t

 

[PsyDSomeday]

I have seen a lot of postings on Nova Southeastern University but I was wondering if anyone had any information about Florida Institute of Technology as I have been accepted to both and am trying to decide. Thanks.

 

[Cosmo75]

Hmmm...I'm in my 4th year of a PsyD and have done 4 years of clinical research. Go figure.

I just tell people I'm working on my doctorate in clinical psychology because there are folks who have no idea what the hell a PsyD is (those outside the field). I think I've had 2 people ask "PhD or PsyD?" And had no explaining to do when I said PsyD. I think people make a bigger deal about this than it actually is. Did I have concerns in the beginning? Of course. I came from an undergrad program with a few prof's who bashed PsyD's, so that stuck in the back of my mind. Now that I've been through the process, it's not so black and white. A lot more has to do with YOU than the reputation of your program.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I have seen a lot of postings on Nova Southeastern University but I was wondering if anyone had any information about Florida Institute of Technology as I have been accepted to both and am trying to decide. Thanks.

I knew a couple people who went there and overall were happy with their education (1 I/O person and 1 Clinical). I have since lost touch with both, so I don't know much more than that.

 

[PsyDSomeday]

Thanks for your feedback. It was interesting to hear some other people's views on the schools.

 

[aubmo]

Any opinions on the reputation of the Psy.D. program at Wright State University in Ohio?

 

[Katpsych]

I have offers from Pacific University and the Wright Institue and can't make up my mind where to go.

I want solid clinical training preferably with diverse population (including Asians) but I also want to do research. I want to get trained both in CBT and psychodynamics.

To do research, is it better choose programme that has a university affiliation? Do APA-accredited programmes differ much in their curriculum? Pacific University is supposed to be very CBT oriented, the Wright Psychodynamic? Does that really get reflected in their programmes?

Any thoughts?

 

[docma]

Wright Institute is definitely psychodynamic in orientation and draws students with that focus. They have improved their attention to other models in recent years but CBT is not a strength. They also have limited emphasis on research and do not seem to consistently prepare/support students well for this. They do have a long tradition of attention to social justice issues. I am not familiar with Pacific University in parallel ways but have heard that their emphasis is more CBT. In terms of interest in working with specific populations, you might ask some questions of their field placement office staff in both schools to find out about practicum sites. APA accredited schools DO differ a lot in their curriculum because although the general topics are the same the instructional models and instructors vary with the culture of the organization. You can learn a lot by looking at the bios/vitas of faculty at the two schools and getting a sense of their research and practice interests as they fit with yours.

 

[Psychstuca]

Agree with Docma, I have heard exactly same things about Wright. It's been criticized for the lack of research focus. It is not uncommon that students at Wright do a comprehensive lit. review for their dissertations (perhaps it is common among PSyD programs? I don't really know about others..)

But you can choose to do real research to fulfill your dissertation requirements, find faculty members for your committee who are involved in research, and get research experience that way. It all depends on how much of research exposure you think you need.
On the other hand, Wright is known for its clinical training. And yes, it is very psychodynamic, even psychoanalytic, I'd say. You wouldn't get that impression looking at their coursework offered, but most of the faculty is of psychoanalytic orientation and they teach the classes (including clinical conference classes) that way. As far as I know they offer one CBT class as mandatory in the first quarter, and one as an elective. So not much training there, just some basics (from what I've heard from the students). Most Wright graduates practice from the psychoanalytic perspective so that tells you something about the program, too.
Don't know much about Pacific to compare, sorry

 

[amy203]

I have offers from Pacific University and the Wright Institue and can't make up my mind where to go.

I want solid clinical training preferably with diverse population (including Asians) but I also want to do research. I want to get trained both in CBT and psychodynamics.

To do research, is it better choose programme that has a university affiliation? Do APA-accredited programmes differ much in their curriculum? Pacific University is supposed to be very CBT oriented, the Wright Psychodynamic? Does that really get reflected in their programmes?

Any thoughts?

It would helpful to know why you want to do research - how does it fit into your long term goals?

 

[Epione K]

I have offers from Pacific University and the Wright Institue and can't make up my mind where to go.

Any thoughts?

Hey,

I interviewed at both Wright Institute and Pacific University as well, and personally, I was much more impressed with Pacific U. It seemed very well organized, and I loved the entire orientation/interview day they set out for applicants. I thought the faculty was really warm, and I was also impressed with the current students we had lunch with and had the group exercise with. One of the current students told me that he had no interest in research before grad school, but he's so glad he chose Pacific because there are tons of research opportunities if you change your mind. Also, I'm Eurasian (you mentioned the Asian demographic), and at Pacfic, I got the impression that they're really focused on multicultural issues. I talked a lot about multicultural issues in my Statement and also in the interview, and I got accepted to Pacific.

The Wright Institute seems like a good program if you're primarily psychodynamic. I'm very CBT (but also want exposure to other theoretical orientations), and by the time I was sitting in my interview at Wright, I knew it wasn't the right place for me. I thought it was strange that the interview was with an alumni member and not a faculty member, even though the interviewer was very nice. All in all, just personally, I was a little put off my Wright's strong emphasis on psychodynamic psychotherapy, and limited training in CBT. I was rejected from Wright (rejected...what a terrible word, haha) and I think it was because I said that I'm primarily CBT in my interview.

Another thing that stood out to me was the practica sites. I really liked Pacific U's Psychological Services Center, where most of the people suffer from mental health issues - anxiety, depression, PTSD, etc. At the Wright Institute, I found the practica sites to be more about social concern - drug addictions, youth at risk, underpriviledged adolescents, etc, which is awesome and I totally respect that, but I just find those concerns to be less "clinical" (but not less in importance, either).

One more thing, I loved that Pacific U is a completely "green" building (as in environmentally conscious), which seems like a silly factor, but I was just impressed by that, and I loved the fact that the psychology school is in a Health Sciences building with training optometrists and dental technicians - just found that interesting.

Aaanyway...that's just my opinion. I guess just really go with what "feels" right for you, which sounds cheesy, but if you had any really strong impressions or reactions (negative or positive) when you visited the schools or during your interviews, it would be a good idea to take that into consideration. Good luck with everything!

~Epione K

 

[ProspectivePsyD]

I have offers from Pacific University and the Wright Institue and can't make up my mind where to go.

I want solid clinical training preferably with diverse population (including Asians) but I also want to do research. I want to get trained both in CBT and psychodynamics.

To do research, is it better choose programme that has a university affiliation? Do APA-accredited programmes differ much in their curriculum? Pacific University is supposed to be very CBT oriented, the Wright Psychodynamic? Does that really get reflected in their programmes?

Any thoughts?

I am not sure if you have made your decisions yet but I am completely CBT oriented and have chosen to go to the Wright, i did a lot of research trying to find out if you could get a good balance of training and i was completely reassured that purely psychodynamic was the a thing of the past and CBT is a strong present component.

 

[erg923]

Ive read alot of threads that have new comers to graduate programs stating that they "hate psychodynamics," or are "strictly-"insert orientation here" What are you guys basing these opinions upon? This does you a great disservice to make hasty judgments about such complex issues without appropriate graduate level exposure to them (as far as I know, undergrad gives very narrow and simplified versions of many theories of personality, especially psychoanalytic). Why have these people come to conclusions that I haven't come to yet, 3 years into a Ph.D. program?

The reality is that this strict "theoretical orientation" thing is very oversold in both its importance and clinical utility. Of course, we do need to understand underlying models/theories of normal behavior in order to understand pathological behavior, but the reality is none of these theories explain all psychopathology and its complex developmental pattern. It is ludicrous to assume that we should always do case formulations of our clients using our one chosen theoretical orientation. The modality of therapy is really going to depend on your patients characteristics, and the research base of the treatment. For example, if they are "internalizers", might need to do a little more insight oriented, non-directive therapy. Probably dig into past issues, childhood etc. "Externalizers"--might want to focus more on current issues using CBT and/or direct guidance and directive therapies. Of course most people will have a little of both of these behaviors. All this is while taking into account patient characteristics, impairment level, perceived locus of control, etc for refining treatment selection/modalities. This is the reality of how therapy works in the real world. I doubt you can get a "pure" or "strictly" anything at any school these days. A well rounded clinician is familiar with many different orientations and therapies, and utilizes what is likely to be the most effective for each individual client.

 

[deleted176373]

To be fair...when I'm looking to hire on doc-level clinicians, I'll look at PhDs and PsyDs equally.

-t

Good to know you won't be looking down on Ph.D. students.

In regards to ERG's post above. I want as many tools as possible in my toolbox... So while CBT is wonderful stuff, psychodynamic theory is equally useful and quite powerful when used in the right setting.

Mark

 

[JockNerd]

The reality is that this strict "theoretical orientation" thing is very oversold in both its importance and clinical utility.

Couldn't agree more. "Pick-a-theory" is ridiculous. Sometimes I wonder how much of rigid orientation adherence is driven by a feeling of "oh god oh god this is too much, I'll just pick one and get great at it."

I also think that in real world practice, "model people" can have a lot tougher time making it than "problem people."

 

[islandgirl1]

Ive read alot of threads that have new comers to graduate programs stating that they "hate psychodynamics," or are "strictly-"insert orientation here" What are you guys basing these opinions upon? This does you a great disservice to make hasty judgments about such complex issues without appropriate graduate level exposure to them (as far as I know, undergrad gives very narrow and simplified versions of many theories of personality, especially psychoanalytic). Why have these people come to conclusions that I haven't come to yet, 3 years into a Ph.D. program?

I was wondering if I was the only one!!
I met so many people during the interview process who had their orientation of choice that I kinda felt left out! Like, what am I missing here?
In one interview, at an institution with a specific orientation, I was asked why I would like to pursue that orientation. I flat out said, I didn't have the exposure to orientations to yet decide on one but I appreciated that the institution allowed some training in other orientations.
My view is this, orientation schmorientation. I think we should focus more on what works to help the situation we're presented with.

 

[Ollie123]

I've said similar things here before - I think "picking an orientation" is actually unethical. By its nature it means we'd be tailoring the treatments used to the therapist, rather than the client. That's not good and spits in the face of pretty much every principle of the APA Ethics Code, and everything we're supposed to stand for as a profession.

I consider "empiricism" to be my orientation. I'll go where the research says I should go. Having some "allegiance" to a therapy to me sounds like something that extends beyond doing what you think there is evidence for, and might lead to ignoring future research that says either it doesn't work, or something else works better.

 

[RileyG]

I consider "empiricism" to be my orientation.

I like that...I'm going to use it. and I'll cite you each time. (Ollie123, 2008)