PhD/PsyD School Psychology PsyD

[HopefulSchoolClinicalPsyD]

Hi, I am a junior at a top state school hoping to become both a school psychologist and a licensed psychologist. I know there are a few programs in the tri-state area that are either PsyD specializing in school psychology or PhD in school psychology. Because you ultimately become a school psychologist and licensed psychologist are these programs less competitive than a clinical PsyD? What do these programs look for in applicants?

Thanks in advance for the help!

Programs: St. Johns, Yeshiva, Pace, Teachers College, Fordham, Rutgers, Temple and Hofstra.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

What exactly are you wanting to do, career-wise? These are two fairly different jobs.

 

[HopefulSchoolClinicalPsyD]

I want to work in a school in addition to private practice. I am incredibly passionate about child development, education, and inequity. For part of my career, I want to help provide school psychological services to children, youth, and families. I want to be a part of the process that ensures students are able to receive the services they need in school to reach their academic potential.

In addition, I want be educated and able to provide high quality treatment as well as develop programs that meet both the educational and mental health needs of young people and their families. Ultimately I see myself working in a mental health clinic or non profit as a clinician and as a liaison to a school district.

 

[empathiosis]

I would recommend taking a look at the admissions requirements for each program, if you haven't already. Here's the one for St. John's:

http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/sc...linical-psychology-phd/admission-requirements

That will give you an idea of what they are looking for in applicants, since they will know better than we would, unless there's someone here who is a student or faculty member at one of those programs.

Not sure about your question about competitiveness of PsyD versus PhD. Do you mean are the PhD programs more competitive than the PsyD programs? The answer to that question can also be found on the program pages. All APA accredited PhD and PsyD programs are required to list outcomes on their web site, like this:
http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/sc...hd/student-admissions-outcomes-and-other-data

You can use those figures to compare programs.

 

[WisNeuro]

I guess it's possible, just not a usual way to get to that particular career. If you want to be licensed as a clinical psychologist, you'll have to meet certain coursework requirements, as well as having a clinical internship in most instances. I'd look into both of those if you're planning on going the school psych route, likely to be more difficult.

 

[HopefulSchoolClinicalPsyD]

I would recommend taking a look at the admissions requirements for each program, if you haven't already. Here's the one for St. John's:

http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/sc...linical-psychology-phd/admission-requirements

That will give you an idea of what they are looking for in applicants, since they will know better than we would, unless there's someone here who is a student or faculty member at one of those programs.

Not sure about your question about competitiveness of PsyD versus PhD. Do you mean are the PhD programs more competitive than the PsyD programs? The answer to that question can also be found on the program pages. All APA accredited PhD and PsyD programs are required to list outcomes on their web site, like this:
http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/sc...hd/student-admissions-outcomes-and-other-data

You can use those figures to compare programs.

I have looked through the admission data thoroughly, past GPA and GRE it doesn't offer much. I know my GRE score is competitive and my GPA will be close to a 3.67 overall when I apply.

I am wondering past numbers and scores what it takes to get in!

 

[HopefulSchoolClinicalPsyD]

I guess it's possible, just not a usual way to get to that particular career. If you want to be licensed as a clinical psychologist, you'll have to meet certain coursework requirements, as well as having a clinical internship in most instances. I'd look into both of those if you're planning on going the school psych route, likely to be more difficult.

These programs are all combined. The way I understand it is that you graduate with the ability to pass both licensing exams as a clinical psychologist and a school psychologist.

 

[WisNeuro]

Well, as long as they have good accredited internship match rates (>80%) and a good licensure rate, go nuts.

 

[empathiosis]

These programs are all combined. The way I understand it is that you graduate with the ability to pass both licensing exams as a clinical psychologist and a school psychologist.

There's an excellent thread going on now about what you can do to prepare:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...paring-for-grad-school-in-psychology.1149202/

Also see this great video which discusses admissions criteria in general:
http://www.bizvision.com/webcast/prod/79967?group_stream_idx=6693

 

[WisNeuro]

I believe School Psychologists have their own certifying exam for NASP.

 

[HopefulSchoolClinicalPsyD]

At the end you take the clinical competencies comprehensive examination + the PRAXIS II Examination

 

[PsychMajorUndergrad18]

Hey HopefulSchoolClinicalPsyD,

You should check out Fairleigh Dickenson University PsyD in School And Clinical Psychology. It seems to be a program geared towards your liking

PsychUndergrad18

 

[Chalupacabra]

Temple isn't combined - they have separate clinical and school doctoral programs, though they do share some faculty between the two. I don't believe St. John's is either, though like Temple I think they have a lot of students who do non-school practicums/externships/internships.

I'd recommend expanding your search. I don't believe that most of those programs are fully funded, and many are in expensive areas. Geographic restriction is not your friend and not being able to relocate for internship/postdoc is going to be a problem especially if you want to get experience to be certified to work both in schools and other settings. And if you want to stay in that area did you look at Lehigh? Their program is competitive but has a great reputation and some very respected faculty. UCONN and U Rhode Island too (I know that's outside the tri-state area but they're fairly close). Also James Madison in Virginia has a combined Clinical/School PsyD that's fully funded.

As for the Praxis II, it's not a particularly difficult test. My cohort had a 100% pass rate on the first try, and most previous cohorts had similar outcomes. It's nothing compared to the EPPP or most comps that you'll take as part of a doc program.

 

[melrose8ds]

A little late to the thread here...not sure how I missed this post!!

Our interests are pretty much identical, OP! I've actually just submitted apps for 3 of the programs you mentioned in your first post (and looked into just about all of the others mentioned).

PM me if you still have any questions I'd be happy to answer whatever I can...there's not too much floating around out there when it comes to options/paths for School Psych, especially when you narrow it down to combined/PsyD.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I have worked quite a bit in school settings as a clinical psychologist. I question the necessity of a separate degree and especially if it does not lead to licensure as a psychologist. A school psychologist in many states is a masters level job. I have had contracts to provide risk assessments, interventions, and treatment for kids at schools that had school psychologists. They were very limited in their scope of practice, mainly cognitive testing for IEPs which is why they brought me in for mental health issues.

 

[Chalupacabra]

I have worked quite a bit in school settings as a clinical psychologist. I question the necessity of a separate degree and especially if it does not lead to licensure as a psychologist. A school psychologist in many states is a masters level job. I have had contracts to provide risk assessments, interventions, and treatment for kids at schools that had These school psychologists. They were very limited in their scope of practice, mainly cognitive testing for IEPs which is why they brought me in for mental health issues.

A few quick points -

- School psychs are eligible for licensure in many states at the CAS/EdS level. I don't have exact numbers in front of me, but it's at least a third or so of states. They typically have fairly strict restrictions similar to the difference between an LMHC or LCSW and a psychologist.
- While I believe you have performed all of the services listed, NASP and their local equivalents have been pushing for years that SPs do more and have more training beyond their traditional "Test and place" role that dominated the field for decades and my training addressed things like how to complete interventions, risks assessments, building-wide programs for monitoring educational and behavioral outcomes, crisis management and so on. With that said, I do think that even at 66-75 credits there is still a serious lack of training compared to a doctoral degree and schools tend to have to skimp on some areas in favor of others (and tend to focus on assessment, program evaluation and consultation without as much focus on mental health, from what I've seen).

As for the necessity of a separate degree, I think it's important to think of school psych as the applied arm of educational psychology. Our training tends to involve a greater focus on systems, consultation, special education law and educational theory, assessment and intervention than clinical programs. There is also the reality of cost - EdS/CAS level SPs don't make much more than a teacher in many instances, and many schools would argue they couldn't afford to hire any doctoral level mental health professionals on a full time basis.

As I said in another thread awhile back, I totally understand why anyone who goes through the grueling work of becoming a psychologist takes issue with someone with a significantly less extensive background having virtually the same title as them. I know in some states SPs in private practice (who are not licensed as doctoral level psychs) are called "psychoeducational specialists," which is probably a more appropriate title.

 

[smalltownpsych]

A few quick points -

- School psychs are eligible for licensure in many states at the CAS/EdS level. I don't have exact numbers in front of me, but it's at least a third or so of states. They typically have fairly strict restrictions similar to the difference between an LMHC or LCSW and a psychologist.
- While I believe you have performed all of the services listed, NASP and their local equivalents have been pushing for years that SPs do more and have more training beyond their traditional "Test and place" role that dominated the field for decades and my training addressed things like how to complete interventions, risks assessments, building-wide programs for monitoring educational and behavioral outcomes, crisis management and so on. With that said, I do think that even at 66-75 credits there is still a serious lack of training compared to a doctoral degree and schools tend to have to skimp on some areas in favor of others (and tend to focus on assessment, program evaluation and consultation without as much focus on mental health, from what I've seen).

As for the necessity of a separate degree, I think it's important to think of school psych as the applied arm of educational psychology. Our training tends to involve a greater focus on systems, consultation, special education law and educational theory, assessment and intervention than clinical programs. There is also the reality of cost - EdS/CAS level SPs don't make much more than a teacher in many instances, and many schools would argue they couldn't afford to hire any doctoral level mental health professionals on a full time basis.

As I said in another thread awhile back, I totally understand why anyone who goes through the grueling work of becoming a psychologist takes issue with someone with a significantly less extensive background having virtually the same title as them. I know in some states SPs in private practice (who are not licensed as doctoral level psychs) are called "psychoeducational specialists," which is probably a more appropriate title.

I personally think, just off the top of my head, that it might be better for it to be a specialty of clinical psychology as opposed to a separate degree in school psychology. It is analogous to the doctor of behavioral health degree, albeit not quite as shady. In other words, many of the core competencies are part of standard clinical training and then you could specialize in school psychology during residency/post-doc.

 

[biscuitsbiscuits]

I've looked into many of those schools and into school psychology programs in general and the doctoral programs do offer license eligibility as a psychologist as well as a school psychologist. However, school psychology programs seem to have much lower match rates with APA- or APPIC-accredited internships, and lower rates of licensure as a psychologist. I don't know if that is because students in these programs aren't prioritizing it (because they don't have to to be a school psych), or if it's more difficult to as school psych students. My concern with choosing a school psych program over a clinical one is that it would be more of an uphill battle to make sure all requirements for licensure as a psychologist are met. I do want to work in schools, but I don't want to *only* work in schools and I worry that school psych programs might be limiting.

 

[Aestheticism]

- Late Response -
We have similar interests. My first thought was to get a BA in Psych, Masters in School Psych, then PsyD in Counseling or Clinical Psych while gaining research experience through undergrad years. But I kind of switched my plan around for personal reasons. I am still for a BA in Psych but I will be getting a MA in Higher Education Admin. because I am interested in university academic advising then pursuing a PsyD in Counseling or a combined program. But maybe my first option is good for you ? Or you could apply to a Clinical Program strictly on Children.

I am in Florida and here are two schools I think are perfect fits:
Florida International University (Miami)
- PhD Clinical Psych Focus on Kids&Teens
Florida State University (Tallahassee)
- School/Clinical Combined Program

 

[futurepsydoc]

I suggest taking a look at Rutgers. They have clinical PsyD and PhD, as well as school psych PsyD. Hoffstra also has a combined PhD program.

 

[smalltownpsych]

To me, this thread points out why we should not allow a masters level degree use the term psychologist whether it is attached to the term school or not. I am confused just reading this thread. If you want to be a clinical psychologist who works in schools, then you can do that and I imagine that you can even call yourself a school psychologist if you want. I have worked in schools for years and know other clinical psychologists who have done both testing and treatment in school settings. One big difference is that I can work wherever I want. Why limit yourself to schools only? Another advantage is that I have extensive clinical expertise and these kids have serious issues that necessitate a higher level of expertise, not lesser. The whole thing really angers me, to be frank.

 

[psych844]

The whole thing really angers me, to be frank.

As someone that is leaning towards a Masters in School Psych, you anger me. jk lol

 

[psych844]

To me, this thread points out why we should not allow a masters level degree use the term psychologist whether it is attached to the term school or not. I am confused just reading this thread. If you want to be a clinical psychologist who works in schools, then you can do that and I imagine that you can even call yourself a school psychologist if you want. I have worked in schools for years and know other clinical psychologists who have done both testing and treatment in school settings. One big difference is that I can work wherever I want. Why limit yourself to schools only? Another advantage is that I have extensive clinical expertise and these kids have serious issues that necessitate a higher level of expertise, not lesser. The whole thing really angers me, to be frank.

As someone that is planning on potentially practicing as a Psychologist at the Masters level...

There is theory and then there is practicality. In theory, you should not find one person that disagrees with the notion of having the highest standards and uniformity of standards in the field. But we all understand that reality is more complex and requires nuance. Uniformity of standards is not really a realistic goal because the states/provinces regulate healthcare. But beyond that, different States have different demographics, needs, and talent pool. It may not be feasible to have a Phd standard in a state has has high level of need for Psychologists, but not a big talent pool. Furthermore, Psychology is a huge field, just because NeuroPsychology requires many years of study, that doesn't mean that an area like School Psychology needs Phd level expertise.

So, for me, the real question is, are Masters level Psychologists competent? If someone can show me studies that they aren't, that they misdiagnose a lot more than Phd level Psychologists, that the outcome for their patients is worse..I'll gladly listen. Until then, a lot of this annoyance at Masters level Psychologists are people trying to justify their years/their financial investment, and has nothing to do with their greater "knowledge" or a concern for the field.

 

[smalltownpsych]

As someone that is planning on potentially practicing as a Psychologist at the Masters level...

There is theory and then there is practicality. In theory, you should not find one person that disagrees with the notion of having the highest standards and uniformity of standards in the field. But we all understand that reality is more complex and requires nuance. Uniformity of standards is not really a realistic goal because the states/provinces regulate healthcare. But beyond that, different States have different demographics, needs, and talent pool. It may not be feasible to have a Phd standard in a state has has high level of need for Psychologists, but not a big talent pool. Furthermore, Psychology is a huge field, just because NeuroPsychology requires many years of study, that doesn't mean that an area like School Psychology needs Phd level expertise.

So, for me, the real question is, are Masters level Psychologists competent? If someone can show me studies that they aren't, that they misdiagnose a lot more than Phd level Psychologists, that the outcome for their patients is worse..I'll gladly listen. Until then, a lot of this annoyance at Masters level Psychologists are people trying to justify their years/their financial investment, and has nothing to do with their greater "knowledge" or a concern for the field.

I have no problem with MA level practitioners practicing within their scope. I just don't like that they are called psychologists. That has nothing to do with competency and everything to do with protecting the term psychologist for a number of reasons.

As far as competency goes, it is extremely difficult to compare outcomes for different professions. The same argument is used in medicine with the NPs. Most people go to the doctor for routine problems and the risk of adverse outcomes is low whether it is an NP telling them they have an influenza virus or if it is an MD from the best medical school in the world. In fact, their grandma could have provided the same level of care and the same outcome. Following the logic of having to demonstrate that inferior training leads to inferior outcomes will lead to poorer care as the bar continues to be lowered.

 

[psych844]

I have no problem with MA level practitioners practicing within their scope. I just don't like that they are called psychologists. That has nothing to do with competency and everything to do with protecting the term psychologist for a number of reasons.

Yeah, I don't understand the arrangement in the US, but in Canada a School Psychologist at the Masters level gets all the training that a Phd would (it's just a matter of time frame really). If you learn about psychometrics, stats, how to interpret different measures..you are a Psychologist. I don't see why you would be called something different for getting similar/same training.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Yeah, I don't understand the arrangement in the US, but in Canada a School Psychologist at the Masters level gets all the training that a Phd would (it's just a matter of time frame really). If you learn about psychometrics, stats, how to interpret different measures..you are a Psychologist. I don't see why you would be called something different for getting similar/same training.

This is not the case in the USA, which is why "psychologist" needs to be a protected title (doctoral only).

 

[smalltownpsych]

Yeah, I don't understand the arrangement in the US, but in Canada a School Psychologist at the Masters level gets all the training that a Phd would (it's just a matter of time frame really). If you learn about psychometrics, stats, how to interpret different measures..you are a Psychologist. I don't see why you would be called something different for getting similar/same training.

A licensed clinical psychologist is quite different from a MA level school psychologist. The easiest distinction is a clinical psychologist has extensive training in research, assessment, and treatment, whereas someone doing testing at a master's level only has the assessment part and I imagine that the psychologists who specialize in testing like neuropsychologist have far more knowledge and expertise than any MA school psychologists. They are the experts. When the MA school psychologists start doing therapy, my specialty, then they'll just try to say they are as good as me. I don't think so.

 

[SchoolPsycho]

I wanted to weight in, as I see some incomplete or incorrect information that I have seen on these boards before. I come from a School Psych PhD program, and am finishing my internship this summer.

I frequently see confusion about what school psychologists do at different levels of training. The Educational Specialist level (EdS, though in some states it is an MA or M.ED) is the traditional training for school psychology. These are the folks who typically work exclusively in schools doing special education evaluations and IEP stuff. In the last few decades, the role of this position has expanded a bit to include systems level support (RtI, PBIS), as well as an increasing focus on behavioral consultation and academic interventions. At the EdS level, school psychologists are trained primarily in assessment and consultation, with a sprinkle of treatment and counseling (of course, different programs have different emphases).

A the doctoral level, school psychology becomes more similar to clinical psychology. In addition to the above, school psychologists receive extensive training in providing evidence-based intervention (CBT, ABA, etc.) and much more in depth training in clinical assessment. And of course in conducting research. Doctoral level school psychologists do often work in schools, but are more commonly seen in private practice or hospital settings doing assessment and treatment of youth with mental health needs.

So, school psychology is rather distinct from clinical or counseling psychology. There is much more emphasis on systems level consultation and academics, and less emphasis on providing therapy. It would be inappropriate to have school psychologists train as clinical psychologists and then specialize on internship; the coursework and training throughout the program is different.

I understand the frustration regarding EdS level school psychologists having the unique ability to have psychologist in their title. Personally, I think a different term would be more appropriate (Texas calls them Educational Diagnosticians, for example). However, it remains critical that the EdS level remain as the entry level for school psychology. There are already positions going unfilled across the country, and requiring a doctorate would further decrease the availability of services to kids.

To the OP: if you are interested in specializing in school-based services or assessment, a PhD in school psychology sounds like a good fit. You can still provide therapy with this degree, but your program will likely have less emphasis on this than a true clinical program. If you want to specialize in therapy, but still have the chance to work in schools, then the clinical route may be better. A PsyD in school psychology is an option too, but be somewhat cautious. While there are strong PsyD programs, there are very weak ones too. The match stats for unaccredited PsyD school psychology programs are among the worst in the business.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I wanted to weight in, as I see some incomplete or incorrect information that I have seen on these boards before. I come from a School Psych PhD program, and am finishing my internship this summer.

I frequently see confusion about what school psychologists do at different levels of training. The Educational Specialist level (EdS, though in some states it is an MA or M.ED) is the traditional training for school psychology. These are the folks who typically work exclusively in schools doing special education evaluations and IEP stuff. In the last few decades, the role of this position has expanded a bit to include systems level support (RtI, PBIS), as well as an increasing focus on behavioral consultation and academic interventions. At the EdS level, school psychologists are trained primarily in assessment and consultation, with a sprinkle of treatment and counseling (of course, different programs have different emphases).

A the doctoral level, school psychology becomes more similar to clinical psychology. In addition to the above, school psychologists receive extensive training in providing evidence-based intervention (CBT, ABA, etc.) and much more in depth training in clinical assessment. And of course in conducting research. Doctoral level school psychologists do often work in schools, but are more commonly seen in private practice or hospital settings doing assessment and treatment of youth with mental health needs.

So, school psychology is rather distinct from clinical or counseling psychology. There is much more emphasis on systems level consultation and academics, and less emphasis on providing therapy. It would be inappropriate to have school psychologists train as clinical psychologists and then specialize on internship; the coursework and training throughout the program is different.

I understand the frustration regarding EdS level school psychologists having the unique ability to have psychologist in their title. Personally, I think a different term would be more appropriate (Texas calls them Educational Diagnosticians, for example). However, it remains critical that the EdS level remain as the entry level for school psychology. There are already positions going unfilled across the country, and requiring a doctorate would further decrease the availability of services to kids.

To the OP: if you are interested in specializing in school-based services or assessment, a PhD in school psychology sounds like a good fit. You can still provide therapy with this degree, but your program will likely have less emphasis on this than a true clinical program. If you want to specialize in therapy, but still have the chance to work in schools, then the clinical route may be better. A PsyD in school psychology is an option too, but be somewhat cautious. While there are strong PsyD programs, there are very weak ones too. The match stats for unaccredited PsyD school psychology programs are among the worst in the business.

My opinion is that a school psychologist should be a specialization of clinical psychology. Same as neuro or health or forensic or pediatric. Is a PhD in school psychology APA accredited no licensable? If not, then I have serious concerns about it.

 

[psych844]

the doctoral level, school psychology becomes more similar to clinical psychology. In addition to the above, school psychologists receive extensive training in providing evidence-based intervention (CBT, ABA, etc.) and much more in depth training in clinical assessment. And of course in conducting research. Doctoral level school psychologists do often work in schools, but are more commonly seen in private practice or hospital settings doing assessment and treatment of youth with mental health needs.

Yes, even in Canada a School Psych at the Masters level will not get training in research (ie their training can be course based..they will instead be taught to be consumers of research), and they won't get practice in therapy...and their job is simply assessment based. But they are trained to spot and do assessments for issues that are in common in the school context. Here they are able to diagnose anything in the DSM, but they usually don't as it could be beyond their expertise.

But this isn't different to someone who finished a Phd and focuses on assessment. I don't see how training in CBT would help someone do an assessment in neuropsychology. So I don't understand the logic of ..you didn't get training in therapy, and assessment, and research, so you aren't really a Psychologist.

I agree that ideally a Psychologist should get training in all three, but these three qualities are not that intertwined.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Yes, even in Canada a School Psych at the Masters level will not get training in research (ie their training can be course based..they will instead be taught to be consumers of research), and they won't get practice in therapy...and their job is simply assessment based. But they are trained to spot and do assessments for issues that are in common in the school context. Here they are able to diagnose anything in the DSM, but they usually don't as it could be beyond their expertise.

But this isn't different to someone who finished a PHd and focuses on assessment. I don't see how training in CBT would help someone do an assessment in neuropsychology. So I don't understand the logic of ..you didn't get training in therapy, and assessment, and research, so you aren't really a Psychologist.

It's not that complicated. In the US a psychologist has competencies and a level of expertise in those key areas. A licensed counselor is trained to do therapy, I guess we should call them psychologists too? I also think that many assessment focused psychologists might dispute that a master's level practitioner the same level of expertise as themselves. I have not seen the quality of school testers work so I can't comment on that myself.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

But this isn't different to someone who finished a Phd and focuses on assessment. I don't see how training in CBT would help someone do an assessment in neuropsychology. So I don't understand the logic of ..you didn't get training in therapy, and assessment, and research, so you aren't really a Psychologist.

Doctoral training isn't just adding some research and clinicians who focus on assessment still needs foundational training in therapy bc many of the same skills apply (e.g. rapport building, etc.) I use therapy skills every day, though thankfully not doing therapy.

I agree that ideally a Psychologist should get training in all three, but these three qualities are not that intertwined.

They are intertwined in training and in practice. I use my research training when learning about a new intervention to review w. my fellows, I apply therapy skills to my feedback sessions, and I use my assessment skills when doing an eval for suicidality. I can't split out the training, and inversely I can't exclude training and have it not impact my abilities.

 

[psych844]

They are intertwined in training and in practice. I use my research training when learning about a new intervention to review w. my fellows, I apply therapy skills to my feedback sessions, and I use my assessment skills when doing an eval for suicidality. I can't split out the training, and inversely I can't exclude training and have it not impact my abilities.

I agree that the skills are complimentary on some level (it's certainly a bonus to have at a session), but that "therapy" you provide is very rudimentary, and if you didn't do it, it wouldn't make any difference to the case. Every Psychologist is taught to provide feedback on behavioral interventions even if they don't have training in therapy.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I agree that the skills are complimentary on some level (it's certainly a bonus to have at a session), but that "therapy" you provide is very rudimentary, and if you didn't do it, it wouldn't make any difference to the case. Every Psychologist is taught to provide feedback on behavioral interventions even if they don't have training in therapy.

I beg to differ. When I'm giving feedback to a patient w. Conversion Disorder, the feedback session is the most important part of the evaluation. For Post Concussive Disorder proper feedback (and/or use of brief cognitive intervention) has been shown to shorten reported PCS symptoms. For my cases w. serious depression/anxiety, it is very much about the delivery of the information and use of things like Motivation Interviewing to bridge from the data to the referral/treatment.

I joke on here about my strong dislike of (traditional) therapy, though I take my feedback and intervention time seriously because it is often the next/last opportunity for the pt to finally hear/do something about their struggles. I think I do a pretty good job, though I know neuropsychologists and rehab psychologists out there who provide feedback using all of their training, and they get results that prior providers couldn't.

 

[psych844]

I beg to differ. When I'm giving feedback to a patient w. Conversion Disorder, the feedback session is the most important part of the evaluation. For Post Concussive Disorder proper feedback (and/or use of brief cognitive intervention) has been shown to shorten reported PCS symptoms. For my cases w. serious depression/anxiety, it is very much about the delivery of the information and use of things like Motivation Interviewing to bridge from the data to the referral/treatment.

I joke on here about my strong dislike of (traditional) therapy, though I take my feedback and intervention time seriously because it is often the next/last opportunity for the pt to finally hear/do something about their struggles. I think I do a pretty good job, though I know neuropsychologists and rehab psychologists out there who provide feedback using all of their training, and not just the parts that produce data.

I'm not saying that the feedback session is unimportant, but a feedback session is totally related to the assessment process, no? You can't diagnose/classify someone and then not have any recommendations for them. Folks at the Masters level up here get the same type of training. Your job is mainly to assess, but that doesn't mean that you don't offer feedback. (ie behavior strategies for a kid with ADHD, etC)

 

[schoolpsy21]

Hi! I'm a student at one of the above Psy.D programs. If you're at all interested in clinical psychology, I would recommend you to attend a clinical program, not a school one. School psychology programs, even at the Psy.D level, are heavily geared towards preparing practitioners to work in K-12 schools; Ph.D programs for SP seems to be a bit broader in scope by what I have heard.

However, school psychology programs seem to have much lower match rates with APA- or APPIC-accredited internships, and lower rates of licensure as a psychologist. I don't know if that is because students in these programs aren't prioritizing it (because they don't have to to be a school psych), or if it's more difficult to as school psych students.

This was a good point, so I wanted to comment. In my program, only a couple people per year apply for APPIC. Most people are not interested at all because they don't need it if they want to work in the schools. There are also some people that apply and don't get it, I personally don't think my program prepares psychologists to function outside the school (except for private practice psychoed assessments).

 

[Aestheticism]

Okay..
Most clinical psychology programs do not have the same school/kid focused courses that school psych has. So if someone is interested in working in the school system with kids, school psychology has more interesting courses related to that topic. Correct? From what I seen clinical programs are heavy into research and math courses as well as counseling theories, group counseling, some specialization courses unless the program is geared towards kids.

Also, just because someone has a PhD doesn't mean they deserve the title of doctors or psychologists. I have met wonderful therapist with master's level who are far more appreciative, nice, and understanding than a psychologist. Your personality is what makes people happy to call you a doctor.

 

[erg923]

Also, just because someone has a PhD doesn't mean they deserve the title of doctors or psychologists. I have met wonderful therapist with master's level who are far more appreciative, nice, and understanding than a psychologist. Your personality is what makes people happy to call you a doctor.

That's fantastic and all, but does not make your statement anymore valid. If someone has a phd in psychology, then they can use the title "doctor." You don't have to like it. Similarly, if someone has phd in applied area of psychology and is appropriately licensed by a state, then they can use the title psychologist. Again, you don't have to like it. But that's the way it is.

The debate about whether the phd from an online "university" like Capella (for example) provides quality training that we would equate with doctoral level education and knowledge is different story.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Okay..
Most clinical psychology programs do not have the same school/kid focused courses that school psych has. So if someone is interested in working in the school system with kids, school psychology has more interesting courses related to that topic. Correct? From what I seen clinical programs are heavy into research and math courses as well as counseling theories, group counseling, some specialization courses unless the program is geared towards kids.

Also, just because someone has a PhD doesn't mean they deserve the title of doctors or psychologists. I have met wonderful therapist with master's level who are far more appreciative, nice, and understanding than a psychologist. Your personality is what makes people happy to call you a doctor.

I have worked in a variety of school settings as a psychologist and so have many other psychologists. The training that a clinical psychologist receives is transferable to a variety of settings. This is because the doctoral degree is the foundation on which the expertise is built. During internship and post-doc/residency years is when this foundational experience and training becomes more refined and specialized. Whether it is an inpatient setting, military setting, prison setting, medical hospital setting, health clinic setting, rural setting, inner city setting, college counseling setting, or school setting the foundational knowledge is the same. We don't need a separate degree for each. That would be ridiculous.

For the second point, the title of psychologist is a protected term that refers to someone who has gone through an extremely rigorous sequence of training and education and is eligible for licensure to practice as a clinical psychologist. Yes. Some master's level therapists are great and some psychologists are total jerks, what does that have to with anything?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Folks at the Masters level up here get the same type of training.

I think you greatly over-estimate the training of a Masters level school psychologists. It isn't a knock on them, it is simply the difference in the appropriate scope of practice of a mid-level provider compared to a doctoral-level provider. PA and MD/DO is an apt comparison. The, "you do testing, we do testing…you do psych stuff…we do psych stuff" is a way to blur the lines of training, which can vary greatly.

Your job is mainly to assess...

That is overly simplistic, particularly if a neuropsychologist isn't purely in a private practice setting. There are times when my job is to meet with a patient to discuss why an assessment (neuropsych, psych, pain eval, etc) ISN'T what is needed, and instead psychotherapy is the primary recommendation (mirroring what the referring provider has been telling them). Other times I meet with a patient and their family and it is clear that the patient is globally impaired and doing a neuropsych assessment isn't going to be very helpful, so talking with the family members about the reality of the already established diganosis (e.g. dementia). The training is first as a clinical psychologist and then as a specialty, so sub-dividing purely on speciality takes away from the comprehensiveness of the foundational training.

 

[melrose8ds]

I'd like to re-spark this thread, as I am trying to decide between two of the PsyD programs mentioned above (I was accepted to one and am now at the top of the waitlist for the other...so this is all provided that the decision will hopefully become mine to make, although cutting it close to the deadline here, so hopes are starting to dwindle) -- One is strictly school psych and the other is combined clinical-school. I'm mostly concerned that the School Psych program will not provide enough clinical psych training (even though it neighbors a very well regarded clinical psyd program, and I am told there is some "overlap" with classes, as well as the opportunity to stay an extra year to "gain more clinical experience"--but that is a little too nondescript for my liking). On the other hand, I am worried that the combined program will not provide enough school psych training (I am interested in psychoed assessment of course but also, RTI, teacher training, consultation and progress monitoring, which I found matched in research by faculty at the School Psych Program, but the provided descriptions of research labs and faculty interests at the combined program barely mention education, which seems like a red flag). Having said that, I am apprehensive about going the strictly School Psych route, in that I want to go on to obtain licensure/APA internship, be able to work outside of the school setting and be adequately trained/competent to provide extensive treatment for children's mental health needs and work with families. The combined program does require internships both in and outside of the school setting which I thought covered all my bases, but what good is a school placement if there is no (perceived) faculty interest in that area to back me up? OR What if the combined programs spreads me too thin altogether? Will I end up sacrificing proper in-depth training in both areas in attempts to combine them?

Overall, I am worried about boxing myself in one way or the other. I assumed the combined program would provide me with more opportunities, but is that really the case if I don't see it reflected in faculty interest? It has to be NASP approved for some reason...

Every time I think I have it figured out, I second guess something else and snap back to square one with this debate. I'm starting to think myself in circles here, so any input would be really appreciated!

 

[FadedC]

I'd like to re-spark this thread, as I am trying to decide between two of the PsyD programs mentioned above (I was accepted to one and am now at the top of the waitlist for the other...so this is all provided that the decision will hopefully become mine to make, although cutting it close to the deadline here, so hopes are starting to dwindle) -- One is strictly school psych and the other is combined clinical-school. I'm mostly concerned that the School Psych program will not provide enough clinical psych training (even though it neighbors a very well regarded clinical psyd program, and I am told there is some "overlap" with classes, as well as the opportunity to stay an extra year to "gain more clinical experience"--but that is a little too nondescript for my liking). On the other hand, I am worried that the combined program will not provide enough school psych training (I am interested in psychoed assessment of course but also, RTI, teacher training, consultation and progress monitoring, which I found matched in research by faculty at the School Psych Program, but the provided descriptions of research labs and faculty interests at the combined program barely mention education, which seems like a red flag). Having said that, I am apprehensive about going the strictly School Psych route, in that I want to go on to obtain licensure/APA internship, be able to work outside of the school setting and be adequately trained/competent to provide extensive treatment for children's mental health needs and work with families. The combined program does require internships both in and outside of the school setting which I thought covered all my bases, but what good is a school placement if there is no (perceived) faculty interest in that area to back me up? OR What if the combined programs spreads me too thin altogether? Will I end up sacrificing proper in-depth training in both areas in attempts to combine them?

Overall, I am worried about boxing myself in one way or the other. I assumed the combined program would provide me with more opportunities, but is that really the case if I don't see it reflected in faculty interest? It has to be NASP approved for some reason...

Every time I think I have it figured out, I second guess something else and snap back to square one with this debate. I'm starting to think myself in circles here, so any input would be really appreciated!

These things are difficult to judge even as a doctoral level school psych graduate in that geographic area who has worked both in and out of schools. Going to a pure school psych program will certainly give you what you need to obtain licensure; however, many people in such programs decide at some point that this is not the route that they want to go, especially as they become more educated about job prospects and income possibilities in the school vs. outside the school. As a result programs vary a lot on how much they focus on things like licensure and APA internships. Just because your program doesn't focus on it as strongly doesn't mean you can't focus on it, but it's definitely a little easier when your school is structured to push you in the way that you want to go. The combined PsyD programs I have less knowledge about, from talking to people I think they do have much more of a clinical focus than a school/education focus, so you'd probably be pushed a lot more down the outside the school path. I can't speak as much for what they might give up in order to achieve that focus.