Unfunded PhD / PsyD - Worth it?

[R. Matey]

To me, it not so black or white. Hofstra has a long established, clinically focused program. Many of the other programs that are commutable are also unfunded or more research focused. And every one of them have many more qualified candidates than they can take. Should you at some point be fortunate enough to get into a local funded program, will it meet your needs for what you want to do in the future? And if you have to move to attend a program, the living expenses that you don't currently have need to be factored in to the actual cost and they add up fast. So to state that unfunded programs are not worth it may not be true for everyone. Of course, you have to consider how you will handle the costs but it is an investment in your future and if this is what you truly want, go for it!

When it comes to major financial decisions, it is black and white. Any funded Ph.D. program can train someone to be a clinician and living expenses in, say, Kansas with a stipend are not the same as ~$51,000 in tuition for one year before living expenses in NY.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[psych.meout]

To me, it not so black or white. Hofstra has a long established, clinically focused program. Many of the other programs that are commutable are also unfunded or more research focused. And every one of them have many more qualified candidates than they can take. Should you at some point be fortunate enough to get into a local funded program, will it meet your needs for what you want to do in the future? And if you have to move to attend a program, the living expenses that you don't currently have need to be factored in to the actual cost and they add up fast. So to state that unfunded programs are not worth it may not be true for everyone. Of course, you have to consider how you will handle the costs but it is an investment in your future and if this is what you truly want, go for it!

How does that math work? Hofstra is unfunded, has one of the most expensive tuition rates I've ever seen for clinical psych doctoral program ($51,000/year), and is located in one of the most expensive metro areas in the US. Conversely, if OP moved to attend a funded program, they wouldn't pay anything for tuition or health insurance, would receive a stipend for the living expenses you mentioned, and could possibly be in a much lower CoL area where their stipend would go further than the NYC area. How are unfunded programs like Hofstra "worth it" compared to funded programs that would save hundreds of thousands of dollars?

 

[Sanman]

Same way US Senators do: real multiple business sites, combined with the business lodging deduction.

Oooor we could buy that lighthouse together.

Funny story, a friend of mine actually did purchase a lighthouse recently and is turning it into an Airbnb. So, if you really want to stay in one...

 

[Sanman]

To me, it not so black or white. Hofstra has a long established, clinically focused program. Many of the other programs that are commutable are also unfunded or more research focused. And every one of them have many more qualified candidates than they can take. Should you at some point be fortunate enough to get into a local funded program, will it meet your needs for what you want to do in the future? And if you have to move to attend a program, the living expenses that you don't currently have need to be factored in to the actual cost and they add up fast. So to state that unfunded programs are not worth it may not be true for everyone. Of course, you have to consider how you will handle the costs but it is an investment in your future and if this is what you truly want, go for it!

If the goal is to not leave the NY metro area, I am not sure what someone would do for internship and post-doc. It seems easier and cheaper to get an MSW from Stony Brook or Hunter and be a therapist. If it is about financial calculations, the math is pretty easy and likely to favor the funded programs.

 

[biscuitsbiscuits]

Are there alternative funding opportunities at Hofstra? I ask because I went to a NY program that was technically unfunded (meaning they didn't guarantee full funding for all students). It was a small-cohort (single digit in my cohort), university-based program. However, there were so many opportunities for funding at the university that I and all of my cohort were able to find funding (full tuition plus stipend) for some/most years, some of us for all four years before internship. I don't post about this exception in the funded vs unfunded threads because it may be rare and possibly a NYC thing (NYC programs can be atypical in some ways). But if Hofstra seems like a good option to you otherwise, I would dig deeper and see if there are opportunities for funding. You'll probably still have to take on debt, but it may be a lot less than the full ticket price you're seeing. I've known Hofstra grads and my impression is that they are strong clinicians and the degree is respected in the NYC area. Definitely do your own research- I don't want to give false hope if it's not a possibility.

 

[PsySeeker]

I'm a few months away from graduating from an unfunded PsyD program. Fortunately my program offered many well paying GSA positions and most of my practicums were paid which helped a lot with tuition. Although I've had to live frugally the last few years it's totally worth it to me. It's important to note I entered the program with no debt and my program is pretty affordable compared to many PsyD programs I've seen.

Aren’t GA’s synonymous with some level of funding? I didn’t think practicums were allowed to be paid, did that change?

 

[medium rare]

Aren’t GA’s synonymous with some level of funding? I didn’t think practicums were allowed to be paid, did that change?

Depends on the program. All the practica at my doctoral program were paid.

 

[WisNeuro]

Aren’t GA’s synonymous with some level of funding? I didn’t think practicums were allowed to be paid, did that change?

More region/state dependent than program dependent.

 

[PsySeeker]

Maybe you can set me straight, but my perception is that you guys are far on the tails of the psychologist salary distribution due to your specialty work. I mean, for every neuropsychologist doing IMEs, how many FPPS undercharging hacks are there? My assumption is that it's a wash and PP wouldn't move the needle that much, but admittedly it's an assumption.

Also, if I'm reading that document correctly, business owners are included. Wages vs. Compensation though is a good point.

It’s a bad assumption. I am a solo provider, no staff. I provide treatment services, 95% plus of my revenue is via in-network patients. I do work a lot, but less than many types of physicians, probably very roughly low 50 hours a week range now (although it was higher when establishing my practice, and it remains variable) and unlike many physicians I work no evenings, done by 11a on Saturday, no Sunday, and much is virtual (though I do have to maintain an office don’t use too much for credentialing purposes, which is annoying). Annual gross revenue varies, probably between 315 and 335 with 3 full weeks of vacation and a couple fully cleared random days off.

Actual, lived, compensation from private practice is a hard thing to measure/quantify, and I think, is often quite different from “net income” (which also doesn’t appear to be well captured anyway), add to that that many solo practices are structured as S corps (your company pays you a W2 wage that is your salary, but remaining revenue, which can be very significant, is paid as non-wage dividends). All of this conspires, among other things, to make BLS data and other median income estimates total crap IMO.

For example, many perfectly legitimate expenses (all or percentages of certain costs)/tax deductions can lower net income significantly and which are not available to many folks working salaried jobs (for example, and these are not meant to be exacting, I am not an accountant/CPA, and I really can’t remember the actuals off hand anyway: much of the cost of buying and maintaining/using/insuring a vehicle, home office deductions- say 10% of the cost of mortgage/interest/property taxes or rent, as well as the same percentage of utilities, services, and maintenance, insurance of the space, much or all of computer/tablet/mobile phones, the cost of CEs, the cost of malpractice insurance, the cost of license renewals, professional memberships, decor for your work spaces, the QBI 20% deduction, the ability to sock away 60k or so pre-tax to a solo 401k, travel in generally whatever form you’d like and many expenses on the trip if you want to go to a conference or something business related, many other things too).

That’s a bit of a mess, I know, was trying to make a point on my phone while waiting for my wife in the car and it ran away 🤷‍♂️ Still I hope it’s useful for someone. The bottom line, if you are willing to work hard, have a mind and stomach for business, and are passionate about it providing quality treatment, you can blow up the BLS numbers being a treating psychologist or of course a specialized psychologist (and unlike some are saying, the start up costs are not high, not at all, at least not compared to most other types of treating providers, or even most comparable businesses because there is minimal costs for specialized equipment or facilities and no costs of goods for inventory). That said, unlike physicians, this is decidedly not the case at all for folks wanting to work for a salary somewhere, generally, no matter what kind of clinical psych you are. If you understand that going in you can make wise choices about how much the degree is actually worth to YOU for YOUR particular use case.

 

[PsySeeker]

More region/state dependent than program dependent.

I wasn’t able to be paid for any prac at all, I thought/think it was a terrible policy on many levels.

Edit: also, if you were a GA you got some kind of tuition remission and some kind of stipend, so I always figured if you had a GA you’d be funded at at least some level.

 

[WisNeuro]

I wasn’t able to be paid for any prac at all, I thought/think it was a terrible policy on many levels.

There were no paid pracs in our state. But, many people stayed on at the local AMC as a paid psychometrist after completing practicum. Most of us had well over the hours needed for both intervention and assessment for internship in our final years, so it was common to take paid positions that also accrued clinical experience.

 

[R. Matey]

That’s a bit of a mess, I know, was trying to make a point on my phone while waiting for my wife in the car and it ran away 🤷‍♂️ Still I hope it’s useful for someone. The bottom line, if you are willing to work hard, have a mind and stomach for business, and are passionate about it providing quality treatment, you can blow up the BLS numbers being a treating psychologist or of course a specialized psychologist (and unlike some are saying, the start up costs are not high, not at all, at least not compared to most other types of treating providers, or even most comparable businesses because there is minimal costs for specialized equipment or facilities and no costs of goods for inventory). That said, unlike physicians, this is decidedly not the case at all for folks wanting to work for a salary somewhere, generally, no matter what kind of clinical psych you are. If you understand that going in you can make wise choices about how much the degree is actually worth to YOU for YOUR particular use case.

Again, no one is saying that BLS figures are 100% perfect. The point is to provide an early to mid career estimate for students. Obviously a psychologist can make more than the mean, but show me a well done survey of PP income for psychologists (not just neuropsychologists) and I'll start linking that. Otherwise, don't attack an estimate unless you have something better to offer. The net result of doing so is leaving students weighing a career decision confused about their prospective incomes and end up relying on Indeed, Glass Door, etc, which pull their estimates from job ads...arguably a more biased source than a nationally stratified survey.

 

[Sanman]

That’s a bit of a mess, I know, was trying to make a point on my phone while waiting for my wife in the car and it ran away 🤷‍♂️ Still I hope it’s useful for someone. The bottom line, if you are willing to work hard, have a mind and stomach for business, and are passionate about it providing quality treatment, you can blow up the BLS numbers being a treating psychologist or of course a specialized psychologist (and unlike some are saying, the start up costs are not high, not at all, at least not compared to most other types of treating providers, or even most comparable businesses because there is minimal costs for specialized equipment or facilities and no costs of goods for inventory). That said, unlike physicians, this is decidedly not the case at all for folks wanting to work for a salary somewhere, generally, no matter what kind of clinical psych you are. If you understand that going in you can make wise choices about how much the degree is actually worth to YOU for YOUR particular use case.

I understand your point. However, tying it back to the topic, going to an unfunded program and carrying debt are much more likely to prohibit you from being able to establish the financial footing you need to navigate the business end of things. This leaves you tied to a biweekly paycheck and those lower wages. There is a reason large practices with 50/50 splits are so common.

 

[PsySeeker]

Again, no one is saying that BLS figures are 100% perfect. The point is to provide an early to mid career estimate for students. Obviously a psychologist can make more than the mean, but show me a well done survey of PP income for psychologists (not just neuropsychologists) and I'll start linking that. Otherwise, don't attack an estimate unless you have something better to offer. The net result of doing so is leaving students weighing a career decision confused about their prospective incomes and end up relying on Indeed, Glass Door, etc, which pull their estimates from job ads...arguably a more biased source than a nationally stratified survey.

I didn’t attack you or anything else. Nor was I the one posting assumptions about what would or would not “move the needle.”

To answer your new question, no, there does not appear to be quality data on PP income that I can find, and that was my point, I outlined likely reasons for our gap in our knowledge here, and then I shared my personal experience and flagged it as such repeatedly, perspective students can draw there own conclusions, I certainly laid out the caveats for them.

Regarding early and mid-career income, I was six months post-licensure when I opened my PP, nine months post-licensure when I went full time into my PP, and I was earning at the level I described by 1 year post-licensure. I may be an outlier but I’m not special. Perhaps some folks reading this that are already licensed might reconsider giving up 3/4s of their earning potential to a counseling center, a healthcare conglomerate, some billionaires tech start up nightmare fuel, the government, or someone else’s PP.

 

[PsySeeker]

I understand your point. However, tying it back to the topic, going to an unfunded program and carrying debt are much more likely to prohibit you from being able to establish the financial footing you need to navigate the business end of things. This leaves you tied to a biweekly paycheck and those lower wages. There is a reason large practices with 50/50 splits are so common.

Exploitive and scummy, especially on contract.

 

[R. Matey]

I didn’t attack you or anything else. Nor was I the one posting assumptions about what would or would not “move the needle.”

1. I never said you attacked me. You attacked a national estimate with weak evidence and I took issue with it.

To answer your new question, no, there does not appear to be quality data on PP income that I can find, and that was my point, I outlined likely reasons for our gap in our knowledge here, and then I shared my personal experience and flagged it as such repeatedly, perspective students can draw there own conclusions, I certainly laid out the caveats for them.

2. I know. That's why I link the BLS and APA numbers.

Regarding early and mid-career income, I was six months post-licensure when I opened my PP, nine months post-licensure when I went full time into my PP, and I was earning at the level I described by 1 year post-licensure. I may be an outlier but I’m not special. Perhaps some folks reading this that are already licensed might reconsider giving up 3/4s of their earning potential to a counseling center, a healthcare conglomerate, some billionaires tech start up nightmare fuel, the government, or someone else’s PP.

3. Exceptions don't create rules. Outliers are not means.

 

[PsySeeker]

1. I never said you attacked me. You attacked a national estimate with weak evidence and I took issue with it.



2. I know. That's why I link the BLS and APA numbers.



3. Exceptions don't create rules. Outliers are not means.

I never posited that exceptions create rules in my post (although, of course, they sometimes can). I also in no way suggested that outliers are means. For the record, I also didn't say that the sun is cold or that oil is water. Maybe reread my posts, they have more disclaimers than a room full of attorneys.

 

[R. Matey]

I never posited that exceptions create rules in my post (although, of course, they sometimes can). I also in no way suggested that outliers are means. For the record, I also didn't say that the sun is cold or that oil is water. Maybe reread my posts, they have more disclaimers than a room full of attorneys.

The point is that not everyone will kill it in PP and the national estimate likely reflects that. You said yourself that you're an outlier so I don't know what you think you're accomplishing by giving people false hope--except maybe to brag about how rich you are on a public forum.

Edit: To drive the point into the ground--banking on high earnings in PP is why some people rationalize unfunded Psy.D. programs. But, it's a gamble that is not reflected in employment outcomes.

 

[quickpsych]

Any unfunded Ph.D./Psy.D. is not worth it. Check the OOH and the Center for Workforce Studies to get a decent baseline for psychologist salaries. There are not the returns for psychologists doing clinical work that there are for medicine and law. That's why many of us here on SDN emphasize attending a funded program.

On one hand this is simply false to state "any" unfunded program is not worth it. On other hand, I often wonder why psychology lags behind medicine and law, and social workers at times. That said, the Ph.D./Psy.D. fully funded vs not fully funded debate is such a tired trope. Not everyone can or will get into a fully funded PhD program and that's ok.

I've been saying this for years: the APA and accrediting bodies need to clamp down on diploma mill programs while also advocating and lobbying for better funding to reduce cost for graduate school for legitimate and well established PsyD and PhD programs. If one wants to get into the data from the above links, why was there a 32% increase in psychology doctoral graduates since 2004? My guess: demand was met by diploma mill schools (Argosy, Alliant, California School of Professional Psychology, etc) with lower admission standards, higher costs, and atrocious EPPP and licensure rates filling the void.

It's more complex than "don't go to unfunded or partially funded programs." These funded programs pump out, what, 3-6 graduates a year IF that? And how many of them never go into clinical work sticking to research or academia?" A reputable PsyD program might graduate 12-16 graduates a class, if that. A medical school program might do triple that. The solution isn't "just go to a funded program when your chances are minuscule getting in," the solution is better accrediting standards, more funding for students pursuing clinical work, and more advocacy for decent reimbursement for clinical work." Sure LCSWs have moved in to fill a lot of clinical demand while ivory tower folks bicker of PhD vs PsyD; however there is still a need to be met.

Licensed psychologists are in high demand. Get licensed and you can trip and fall into multiple offers for good jobs, salaries, contract work. With decent income.

End of the day to simply say "we advocate for funded PhD programs instead of unfunded or less funded PhDs or PsyD programs" really does little to fix the problem.

At the same time, I don't think it is the explicit duty of clinical psychology programs to teach anyone business. I agree with @PsyDr that much of this is easily accessible and understandable by anyone with a legitimate doctoral education. I think it'd be good for programs to have this, but it is ultimately not their responsibility.

I was grateful that my program dedicated time to teaching this as it related to the business of psychology. One project was to develop a business plan. I figured it was standard. I also had this in undergrad in an unrelated major. Both valuable and something that I think added a ton of value for how I approach my goals in the field, contracts I might sign, work agreements, etc.

 

[R. Matey]

On one hand this is simply false to state "any" unfunded program is not worth it. On other hand, I often wonder why psychology lags behind medicine and law, and social workers at times. That said, the Ph.D./Psy.D. fully funded vs not fully funded debate is such a tired trope. Not everyone can or will get into a fully funded PhD program and that's ok.

I've been saying this for years: the APA and accrediting bodies need to clamp down on diploma mill programs while also advocating and lobbying for better funding to reduce cost for graduate school for legitimate and well established PsyD and PhD programs. If one wants to get into the data from the above links, why was there a 32% increase in psychology doctoral graduates since 2004? My guess: demand was met by diploma mill schools (Argosy, Alliant, California School of Professional Psychology, etc) with lower admission standards, higher costs, and atrocious EPPP and licensure rates filling the void.

It's more complex than "don't go to unfunded or partially funded programs." These funded programs pump out, what, 3-6 graduates a year IF that? And how many of them never go into clinical work sticking to research or academia?" A reputable PsyD program might graduate 12-16 graduates a class, if that. A medical school program might do triple that. The solution isn't "just go to a funded program when your chances are minuscule getting in," the solution is better accrediting standards, more funding for students pursuing clinical work, and more advocacy for decent reimbursement for clinical work." Sure LCSWs have moved in to fill a lot of clinical demand while ivory tower folks bicker of PhD vs PsyD; however there is still a need to be met.

Licensed psychologists are in high demand. Get licensed and you can trip and fall into multiple offers for good jobs, salaries, contract work. With decent income.

End of the day to simply say "we advocate for funded PhD programs instead of unfunded or less funded PhDs or PsyD programs" really does little to fix the problem.

It will come as no surprise that I disagree with you. First, funded programs are putting out more graduates than you may think and the chances in attending one are roughly 1:4 last I looked, which isn't terrible. Also, advocating for more funded programs holds predatory universities accountable to saddling their graduates for unlivable amounts of student debt by promising wages that are not reflected in the employment outcomes.

Psychologists like to say that everything is "more complex", but investments aren't complex. You make money on your investment, good outcome. You lose money on your investment, bad outcome. It is that simple.

 

[quickpsych]

It will come as no surprise that I disagree with you. First, funded programs are putting out more graduates than you may think and the chances in attending one are roughly 1:4 last I looked, which isn't terrible. Also, advocating for more funded programs holds predatory universities accountable to saddling their graduates for unlivable amounts of student debt by promising wages that are not reflected in the employment outcomes.

Psychologists like to say that everything is "more complex", but investments aren't complex. You make money on your investment, good outcome. You lose money on your investment, bad outcome. It is that simple.

I appreciate the reply and certainly no disrespect for disagreeing.

However, it sounds like you're referring to personal/individual investment versus societal/needs based investment? 1:4 sounds like a fantasy frankly. Some of these programs getting hundred of applicants a year for 5 or less slots! Even if 1:4 was true it's still quite low.

Do you disagree that holding these predatory diploma mills accountable is a bad thing? Getting rid of them both improves the personal/individual investment you speak of AND the societal/needs based investment I'm referring to. IMO good PsyD programs filled a void a lot of legacy PhD programs either were unable or unwilling to fill as demand for psychologists rose. The diploma mills unfortunately were seen as "investment" for those starting them and profiting off them. And once licensed whose asking questions? It's more a systemic problem than an individual problem.

I feel bad for people who fall for the diploma mill lies, but the question is why? It's clear some of them actually want to make a career in our field (and some may not make the cut without diploma mills which is probably good for the general public/patients/everyone involved) but there's probably quite a few that will do just fine in a legitimate program.

Additionally, how much does systemic disparity play into the problem? Are we really kidding ourselves to believing "if just enough good grades and hard work, anyone can get into a fully funded PhD program!" And that's not exclusive to our field. Money solves problems for better or worse. How many potentially excellent psychologists, doctors, chemists, engineers, lawyers, researchers, teachers, etc never "get" the opportunity because either they didn't have the environment or resources to "get good enough to get funded" or lucky enough to "get the funds to not take on debt"? How many ditch the goal or dream because of lack of funding and fear of debt, through no fault of their own?

Shouldn't we, as a society, be investing in creating more solutions than problems? Why can't these PhD programs just fund more students? Why is there student debt instead of student investment across education?

My point is the problem isn't the investment one makes, the problem is why is it such an investment? It's more complex than you think. There needs to be a better balance between ensuring minimum competence to obtain doctoral level training to become a practicing psychologist and ensuring this path is accessible, and funded as much as possible, to those who are a likely to meet the criteria.

I guess a silver lining to your point is at least Psychology has "some" funded opportunities. Medical doctors almost all seem to pay massively for unfunded programs. And sure you say "well they make more income after to pay it off." Then the question is should we make more or should psychologists, medical doctors, healthcare professionals not be saddled with absurd debt to provide valuable care and services to the public?

And while I agree with "encourage people to try to go for the route that limits debt and improves investment", it's a gross oversimplification. It's quite more complex than "go funded route." Respectfully, it's a lot more complex.

 

[R. Matey]

owever, it sounds like you're referring to personal/individual investment versus societal/needs based investment? 1:4 sounds like a fantasy frankly. Some of these programs getting hundred of applicants a year for 5 or less slots! Even if 1:4 was true it's still quite low.

People can get MSW degrees to be therapists for a whole lot less than an unfunded Psy.D. and have about the same level of expertise. Not really buying a disparity argument there. Also, look at the data instead of conjecturing. Med school is ~5-7% so I think 1:4 is pretty good.

I feel bad for people who fall for the diploma mill lies, but the question is why? It's clear some of them actually want to make a career in our field (and some may not make the cut without diploma mills which is probably good for the general public/patients/everyone involved) but there's probably quite a few that will do just fine in a legitimate program.

I'd say the reasons people want unfunded Psy.Ds are (1) they don't want to move, (2) stats are scary or (3) are worried they won't make the cut for some other reason. If they don't, there are plenty of other ways to help people that don't require an advanced degree.

Additionally, how much does systemic disparity play into the problem? Are we really kidding ourselves to believing "if just enough good grades and hard work, anyone can get into a fully funded PhD program!" And that's not exclusive to our field. Money solves problems for better or worse. How many potentially excellent psychologists, doctors, chemists, engineers, lawyers, researchers, teachers, etc never "get" the opportunity because either they didn't have the environment or resources to "get good enough to get funded" or lucky enough to "get the funds to not take on debt"? How many ditch the goal or dream because of lack of funding and fear of debt, through no fault of their own?

Your allusion to the myth of meritocracy is a red herring. Saddling people with debt they can't possibly pay off only leads to more wealth inequality, more disparities, not fewer. Unfunded Psy.Ds are less respected in the field as a whole and subsequently their graduates have fewer opportunities for advancement, leading unsuspecting people into jobs that are equally staffed by master's level clinicians, but with three times the debt. Working in the system to promote equitable access to these opportunities is better than sending someone to an expensive program they likely cannot afford. That's why I spend my free time arguing with people on the internet.

My point is the problem isn't the investment one makes, the problem is why is it such an investment? It's more complex than you think. There needs to be a better balance between ensuring minimum competence to obtain doctoral level training to become a practicing psychologist and ensuring this path is accessible, and funded as much as possible, to those who are a likely to meet the criteria.

You can't wish away capitalism, sorry.

And while I agree with "encourage people to try to go for the route that limits debt and improves investment", it's a gross oversimplification. It's quite more complex than "go funded route." Respectfully, it's a lot more complex.

Calling something an oversimplification doesn't make it one. Saying something is complex doesn't automatically make it complex. You've offered no credible argument as to why an unfunded Psy.D. is a good idea for anyone.

 

[quickpsych]

People can get MSW degrees to be therapists for a whole lot less than an unfunded Psy.D. and have about the same level of expertise. Not really buying a disparity argument there. Also, look at the data instead of conjecturing. Med school is ~5-7% so I think 1:4 is pretty good.

Do MSWs get training in assessment and evaluation? In supervision and consulting? Do they get multiple years of applied training? Sure I've worked with some great LCSWs and MSWs but they're level of expertise is not the same as a licensed Psychologist. You know, the best ones have an open mind to learn , sage advice. Also, I meant 1:4 is wrong. 25 percent acceptance? You're kidding right? In 2018, for example, it was around 8% across over 500 clinical psychology doctoral programs : Graduate Study in Psychology summary report: Admissions, applications, and acceptances. That data includes funded and, wait for it...nonfunded programs. So funded programs closer to what, maybe 0.5%?

I'd say the reasons people want unfunded Psy.Ds are (1) they don't want to move, (2) stats are scary or (3) are worried they won't make the cut for some other reason. If they don't, there are plenty of other ways to help people that don't require an advanced degree.

Well if you read my prior post there was a few actual reasons for that. Systemic disparity. Opportunities and wealth that allow either easier path to funded PhD or less debt for unfunded programs. I mean we learned these kinds of things in graduate school. I mean this kind of stuff is covered in Year I and Year II material, if not in undergrad!

Your allusion to the myth of meritocracy is a red herring. Saddling people with debt they can't possibly pay off only leads to more wealth inequality, more disparities, not fewer. Unfunded Psy.Ds are less respected in the field as a whole and subsequently their graduates have fewer opportunities for advancement, leading unsuspecting people into jobs that are equally staffed by master's level clinicians, but with three times the debt. Working in the system to promote equitable access to these opportunities is better than sending someone to an expensive program they likely cannot afford. That's why I spend my free time arguing with people on the internet.

You're the one alluding to "go funded Phd or bust" mindset. That, my friend, in the current state of academia and our system of "student to licensed psychologist," is the very definition of the myth of meritocracy. Let's not even get into the prohibitive expenses associated with match process, examination fees, licensing fees, the CE cottage industry, the EPPP study material cottage industry...the "need" money to make money approach. You can't be a psychologist and be that out of touch , can you? The financial barriers that keep plenty of smart kids from getting into your fully funded PhD programs, but maybe just maybe they get there another path to what they do? Oh but, the debt, that's on them , certainly not any responsibility of our society or tax dollars? Cut me a break.

As for the fewer opportunities, what bubble or ivory tower are you living in? And again, we blaming the student or the system?

I don't disagree some are sold lies on jobs a masters level clinician can do, but again, whose fault is that? What solutions or discussion are you offering to help alleviate that? How does "go to a funded program" solve it? It doesn't.

Well again if you read my prior post, well this was clarified as well. Promoting equitable access means more than digging in on "go to funded programs" on repeat my friend. Unsuspecting? Re-read what I said in earlier post. Less respected, ok. No , PsyD programs aren't less respected. I'm sorry, what do they call a PsyD or a PhD with a license? Other than the increased research , most PsyDs (connected to a university) are on par with or exceed the education of a PhD. I've never met a PhD that thought a PsyD was below them, then again there's so few PhDs that maybe it's irrelevant yes?

You can't wish away capitalism, sorry.



Calling something an oversimplification doesn't make it one. Saying something is complex doesn't automatically make it complex. You've offered no credible argument as to why an unfunded Psy.D. is a good idea for anyone.

Thanks for proving my point. Oversimplification: go to a funded program, unfunded programs are never worth it. Let us not challenge or ask why funded programs are small and unfunded programs aren't funded. Let us just keep repeating "go to funded programs". Let's not contemplate or consider alternatives or the bigger, more complex, picture. The "simple" answer is : There shouldn't be fully Unfunded programs, but there are, why do you think that is? And more importantly can you understand why this is a problem?

There's a lot to unpack here. Either this is trolling or just incredibly out of touch. The entire argument you present , if one can call it that, is like those memes that joke about "here's the problem, here's the solution" then the "argument" is "nothing can be done!" I've laid out why the problem is complex, why there are multiple factors, some ways to alleviate the problem. Your response : " go to funded PhD programs." How is that helping the larger problem?

Views like this are part of the problem. As they say, you don't know what you don't know. The inaccuracy in your statement alone about MSW vs Licensed Psychologist raises some questions for sure. The only redeeming and , perhaps accurate, part of your reply is "promoting equitable access" which, again saying "go to a funded program" doesn't do much to further meeting demand for psychologists balanced with ensuring adequate competency and training.

I could make a lot of assumptions here based on your reply, but I'll refrain out of respect for the purpose and mission of this forum. I'm not sure about you, but I'd like to see those coming up have more opportunities and more chances to succeed, not less.

I'd be happy to talk further, but I'd encourage a more open approach. And if you're trolling, well played but please take that nonsense elsewhere.

 

[R. Matey]

Do MSWs get training in assessment and evaluation? In supervision and consulting? Do they get multiple years of applied training? Sure I've worked with some great LCSWs and MSWs but they're level of expertise is not the same as a licensed Psychologist. You know, the best ones have an open mind to learn , sage advice. Also, I meant 1:4 is wrong. 25 percent acceptance? You're kidding right? In 2018, for example, it was around 8% across over 500 clinical psychology doctoral programs : Graduate Study in Psychology summary report: Admissions, applications, and acceptances. That data includes funded and, wait for it...nonfunded programs. So funded programs closer to what, maybe 0.5%?

From your own source (p. 11):

At the doctoral level, the highest number of programs, applications, and acceptances were found in clinical psychology, but with an overall acceptance rate of 12%. Acceptance rates for doctoral programs ranged between 8% and 15% across most subfields, but were noticeably higher for school psychology (31%) and other applied psychology (21%). Although nearly than 4 out of 5 (78%) of applications to other psychology subfield programs were accepted, the low number of programs (6) limits meaningful interpretation.

Read your sources before you link them and decide to misrepresent the information they provide. From what I remember from Insider's Guide, you can increase your chances to around 1:4 if you apply to about ~10 programs or so. Notably, counseling psychology, which is a smaller subfield and has fewer unfunded Psy.D. programs have around the admissions rate as the larger clinical psychology group.

Do MSWs get training in assessment and evaluation? In supervision and consulting? Do they get multiple years of applied training? Sure I've worked with some great LCSWs and MSWs but they're level of expertise is not the same as a licensed Psychologist.

Some do. It depends on how they spend their post-degree, pre-licensure years. I'd trust a well-trained social worker over a psychologist from an unfunded program any day.

Well if you read my prior post there was a few actual reasons for that. Systemic disparity. Opportunities and wealth that allow either easier path to funded PhD or less debt for unfunded programs. I mean we learned these kinds of things in graduate school. I mean this kind of stuff is covered in Year I and Year II material, if not in undergrad!

I did. Saddling people with debt doesn't provide them with opportunity.

You're the one alluding to "go funded Phd or bust" mindset. That, my friend, in the current state of academia and our system of "student to licensed psychologist," is the very definition of the myth of meritocracy. Let's not even get into the prohibitive expenses associated with match process, examination fees, licensing fees, the CE cottage industry, the EPPP study material cottage industry...the "need" money to make money approach. You can't be a psychologist and be that out of touch , can you? The financial barriers that keep plenty of smart kids from getting into your fully funded PhD programs, but maybe just maybe they get there another path to what they do? Oh but, the debt, that's on them , certainly not any responsibility of our society or tax dollars? Cut me a break.

Yes, graduate study is expensive. There's no denying it. Minimizing your expenses is important hence the advice to attend a funded program. You honestly should be more angry at the programs that justify charging absurdly high rates for tuition rather than the professors writing grants to keep their students funded.

Well again if you read my prior post, well this was clarified as well. Promoting equitable access means more than digging in on "go to funded programs" on repeat my friend. Unsuspecting? Re-read what I said in earlier post. Less respected, ok. No , PsyD programs aren't less respected. I'm sorry, what do they call a PsyD or a PhD with a license? Other than the increased research , most PsyDs (connected to a university) are on par with or exceed the education of a PhD. I've never met a PhD that thought a PsyD was below them, then again there's so few PhDs that maybe it's irrelevant yes?

Agree to disagree.

Thanks for proving my point. Oversimplification: go to a funded program, unfunded programs are never worth it. Let us not challenge or ask why funded programs are small and unfunded programs aren't funded. Let us just keep repeating "go to funded programs". Let's not contemplate or consider alternatives or the bigger, more complex, picture. The "simple" answer is : There shouldn't be fully Unfunded programs, but there are, why do you think that is? And more importantly can you understand why this is a problem?

I don't think you really understand how funding for graduate students works. Cohorts are small because there are a few spots they are supported by grants or TA-ships. Psy.D. cohorts are big because they charge tuition.

There's a lot to unpack here. Either this is trolling or just incredibly out of touch. The entire argument you present , if one can call it that, is like those memes that joke about "here's the problem, here's the solution" then the "argument" is "nothing can be done!" I've laid out why the problem is complex, why there are multiple factors, some ways to alleviate the problem. Your response : " go to funded PhD programs." How is that helping the larger problem?

You can't change the system by choosing to attend an unfunded program.

Views like this are part of the problem. As they say, you don't know what you don't know. The inaccuracy in your statement alone about MSW vs Licensed Psychologist raises some questions for sure. The only redeeming and , perhaps accurate, part of your reply is "promoting equitable access" which, again saying "go to a funded program" doesn't do much to further meeting demand for psychologists balanced with ensuring adequate competency and training.

I could make a lot of assumptions here based on your reply, but I'll refrain out of respect for the purpose and mission of this forum. I'm not sure about you, but I'd like to see those coming up have more opportunities and more chances to succeed, not less.

I'd be happy to talk further, but I'd encourage a more open approach. And if you're trolling, well played but please take that nonsense elsewhere.

I'm not really sure you understand my position. I think you're saying that the advice to only attend funded programs limits the applicant pool on who can become psychologists to the best and the brightest thereby marginalizing people who could theoretically succeed, but don't because the metrics on who is the best and the brightest are somehow biased in favor of the majority. Am I right?

If so, that's a valid societal criticism that is being addressed by psychology training programs. Many programs, for instance, are re-evaluating their admission criteria. Heck, the accreditation standards for APA doctoral programs and internships include the importance of promoting DEI (or I guess it's JEDI now) to promote more equitable representation. There are multiple awards and scholarships available. In some places, Internship interviews have been moved online as recent as the pandemic to cut down costs. Some states are weighing losing the EPPP because of the cost. I don't agree with all of these changes, but the point is that a lot is being done.

It's largely a myth that unfunded Psy.D. programs exist to uplift the marginalized. Probably a bit of clever marketing from the unfunded Psy.D. programs to get you in the door. The loosening of the admissions criteria for these programs comes a great personal cost to the individual. Despite what you might say, I know sites that will toss out applications from unfunded programs without even reading them and many unfunded Psy.Ds. end up doing the same job as master's level clinicians. Yet these students pay >$100k in student loans to make a median salary ~$80k or even $60k give or take per year. That's a bad investment since you could make the same amount of money getting a master's degree in counseling or social work or being a garbage collector. So, why would you pay more for less? If you're going to be angry at someone, be angry at the grifters.

 

[quickpsych]

From your own source (p. 11):



Read your sources before you link them and decide to misrepresent the information they provide. From what I remember from Insider's Guide, you can increase your chances to around 1:4 if you apply to about ~10 programs or so. Notably, counseling psychology, which is a smaller subfield and has fewer unfunded Psy.D. programs have around the admissions rate as the larger clinical psychology group.

You are aware the study included PhDs AND PsyD programs, both funded and unfunded yes? Clinical psychology acceptances, per the source, were around 12%. Yes this includes the "unfunded PsyD" programs. Read the table on Page 12, right hand column is for doctoral programs. Who does your 1:4 chances apply to? How many people come on here applying to 10-12 funded programs to get waves of denials over and over? And look for advice, and the good advice they get is to assess what their goals are and what they see themselves doing. You're right not everyone needs a doctorate to do the work they want, but to simply continue to hand wave away legitimate , accredited, and growing PsyD programs simply because you think funded programs are the "only" way is just ignorant frankly.

Some do. It depends on how they spend their post-degree, pre-licensure years. I'd trust a well-trained social worker over a psychologist from an unfunded program any day.

And why's that? Your biases against unfunded programs. I guess we shouldn't trust medical doctors, paying for their education and such . Sure I agree, training and experience do factor in , and I'd argue factor in more heavily skill and competency wise than the program attended alone.

I did. Saddling people with debt doesn't provide them with opportunity.



Yes, graduate study is expensive. There's no denying it. Minimizing your expenses is important hence the advice to attend a funded program. You honestly should be more angry at the programs that justify charging absurdly high rates for tuition rather than the professors writing grants to keep their students funded.

Nothing wrong with suggesting students apply to PhD funded programs if their goal is to be a licensed psychologist. Or if their goal is to just do research and write grants. State licensing boards look at criteria met, not if you have a PhD or a PsyD. I think it's wise for students to apply. I am angry with programs that rip students off, I am frustrated that the APA continues to provide accreditation to absurd programs and online programs like 90+ students in a cohort charging double what a legitimate program would charge.

Agree to disagree.



I don't think you really understand how funding for graduate students works. Cohorts are small because there are a few spots they are supported by grants or TA-ships. Psy.D. cohorts are big because they charge tuition.

Ah yes the ongoing exploitive academia system. Cheap labor to write grants to get more funding to get cheap labor to produce research, journal articles, name recognition for the university. Tell me, why is it that more and more graduate students in PhD programs (across fields) are protesting and seeking to unionize, why is that?

Medical school classes are big too. Wonder why. Couldn't be supply and demand could it be? Surely that's not a factor at all. Are we trying to create an artificial shortage of licensed psychologists?

What's so bad about charging tuition? I agree the individual should consider funded programs because free money and free education. But hard reality is that isn't an option for many , which is why other legitimate and useful options exist. See my earlier comments regarding systemic problems and systemic disparity. You think just throwing 10 applications out there means the student has a 25% of admission to a funded PhD?

Another misconception is that PsyD programs don't offer awards, scholarships, grants, TA positions, research positions, work-study. Many do. Sure they may vary in how much and what they cover, but PhD programs aren't the only ones subsidizing student costs.

You can't change the system by choosing to attend an unfunded program.

Sure you can. End of the day , a licensed psychologist is a licensed psychologist. We belong to many of the same organizations, advocacy groups, etc.

I'm not really sure you understand my position. I think you're saying that the advice to only attend funded programs limits the applicant pool on who can become psychologists to the best and the brightest thereby marginalizing people who could theoretically succeed, but don't because the metrics on who is the best and the brightest are somehow biased in favor of the majority. Am I right?

Partially correct. It does limit it, a lot. It also limits students in other ways. How many students keep applying to these programs and keep getting rejected , not because they aren't qualified but because maybe one had a little more time to do research, maybe one got a author credit in undergrad, maybe the program wanted them but only had 1 slot left and it went to someone else instead.

So a kid who came up in a disadvantaged situation, didn't have access to tutoring or advanced classes, maybe had to work through high school and college to help the family, didn't have time to join more groups, or do extra pro bono research studies and work in college for application fluffing, I guess their out of luck.

I guess the single parent or the person changing careers doesn't factor in as well?

I'd also argue that the metrics for defining the best and brightest aren't always accurate.

If so, that's a valid societal criticism that is being addressed by psychology training programs. Many programs, for instance, are re-evaluating their admission criteria. Heck, the accreditation standards for APA doctoral programs and internships include the importance of promoting DEI (or I guess it's JEDI now) to promote more equitable representation. There are multiple awards and scholarships available. In some places, Internship interviews have been moved online as recent as the pandemic to cut down costs. Some states are weighing losing the EPPP because of the cost. I don't agree with all of these changes, but the point is that a lot is being done.

It took a pandemic to start impacting positive change. More states are losing the post docs, and for good reason. The EPPP should be gone (well Part II actually seems more useful than Part I). More and more programs are adding their own consortiums with APA accrediting, states are mulling wrapping requirements into the program so when you graduate you're ready to be licensed. All positive steps and changes.

And it's good to hear PhD programs are doing this re-evaluation, PsyD programs, well the good ones, have been doing this as well. It's a positive sure.

It's largely a myth that unfunded Psy.D. programs exist to uplift the marginalized. Probably a bit of clever marketing from the unfunded Psy.D. programs to get you in the door. The loosening of the admissions criteria for these programs comes a great personal cost to the individual. Despite what you might say, I know sites that will toss out applications from unfunded programs without even reading them and many unfunded Psy.Ds. end up doing the same job as master's level clinicians. Yet these students pay >$100k in student loans to make a median salary ~$80k or even $60k give or take per year. That's a bad investment since you could make the same amount of money getting a master's degree in counseling or social work or being a garbage collector. So, why would you pay more for less? If you're going to be angry at someone, be angry at the grifters.

I'm sure they exist for a number of reasons. Supply and demand comes to mind. Again, how many clinical psychologists do these funded PhD programs graduate each year? How many actually go on to be licensed and practice versus how many become grant writers or academics? Sure social workers have done a better job getting more for their education and more opportunities, but there's still a need for well trained and good clinical psychologists.

As for sites that toss out applications , discriminating against legitimate candidates, well that's their loss I suppose. As more programs develop their own consortiums and contract agreements, these sites will struggle to fill positions. Not to mention as more states toss post doc requirements , who needs the sites as much?

I agree the pay should be better. And I do agree, funded programs make sense financially for those able to attend them. If someone just wants to do straight therapy, I'd say yes a Masters degree is going to be cheaper and serve them better. But there is no denying the flexibility and opportunity that doctoral level training and licensure provide.

The PsyD vs PhD debate is a tired trope. Maybe it had merit 20+ years ago but no longer. To be clear I am not advocating for loosening admission criteria, in fact I'd argue I'm advocating for higher admission criteria and standards. Because the bad image you and a few others seem to have towards PsyD programs is because of the grifter programs and the diploma mill ones. You say charging tuition like it's a negative. It's possible for a university connected PsyD program to have high admission standards while also charging tuition.

It's ok to have a few more psychologists. You come across as if we're flooding the market here. We're not. There's maybe 130,000 licensed psychologists in the US in a population of over 350 million. I think there's opportunities for each one. And I think you're right, we shouldn't be angry at the student or even most programs. We should be asking why PhD programs need to rely on churning out grants to fund cheap workers in research labs and classrooms and why most health professionals have to shell out 100k+ for the education they need to get licensed and do their jobs .

End of the day, the vast majority of PsyD programs are accredited, well regarded, produce fine psychologists, meet or exceed the standards set forth by the APA and by licensing boards. Many have competitive consortiums that are APA accredited, have engaged more in research opportunities, and offer a clear path from entry to licensure.

 

[Dazen]

One thing I’ve been pondering that this conversation is touching on is whether a doctoral psychology degree is, or should be, primarily a practical or academic degree. I liken my current PhD experience to an MD/PhD - yes, I’m developing tools to become a licensed psychologist, but I’m also primarily pursuing an academic track and was attracted to the small cohort mentor model found in traditional academia. Having larger cohorts and charging tuition seems more in line with an MD degree, where your primarily goal is to become a practitioner with broader scope than, for example, an NP.

I don’t think it would be bad to have both of these types of programs exist in the future to meet the societal need for doctoral level psychologists that clearly exists. I also see value in maintaining the academic model for those who want a more academic career. So I think it’s a bit more complicated than expanding cohort sizes in PhD programs and more towards differentiating the academic and practical degrees more consistently with other health professions.

 

[R. Matey]

You're right not everyone needs a doctorate to do the work they want, but to simply continue to hand wave away legitimate , accredited, and growing PsyD programs simply because you think funded programs are the "only" way is just ignorant frankly.

Glad we can agree on something, at least. I don't think it's ignorant. One path has less debt than the other. I'm going to help people figure out that path.

And why's that? Your biases against unfunded programs. I guess we shouldn't trust medical doctors, paying for their education and such . Sure I agree, training and experience do factor in , and I'd argue factor in more heavily skill and competency wise than the program attended alone.

This is a false equivalence. Medical doctors do not have a route to obtain funding for their education. Psychologists do.

What's so bad about charging tuition? I agree the individual should consider funded programs because free money and free education. But hard reality is that isn't an option for many , which is why other legitimate and useful options exist. See my earlier comments regarding systemic problems and systemic disparity. You think just throwing 10 applications out there means the student has a 25% of admission to a funded PhD?

Glad we agree here too. Yes, I do think that if someone meets the basic requirements for a Ph.D. program, they can maximize their chances by applying to more programs. I also think it's more accessible than you think it is. Many clinically balanced programs accept people without publications and have initiatives to recruit a diverse student body, as I already pointed out.

Another misconception is that PsyD programs don't offer awards, scholarships, grants, TA positions, research positions, work-study. Many do. Sure they may vary in how much and what they cover, but PhD programs aren't the only ones subsidizing student costs.

I'm aware. Still doesn't justify the cost.

Partially correct. It does limit it, a lot. It also limits students in other ways. How many students keep applying to these programs and keep getting rejected , not because they aren't qualified but because maybe one had a little more time to do research, maybe one got a author credit in undergrad, maybe the program wanted them but only had 1 slot left and it went to someone else instead.

So a kid who came up in a disadvantaged situation, didn't have access to tutoring or advanced classes, maybe had to work through high school and college to help the family, didn't have time to join more groups, or do extra pro bono research studies and work in college for application fluffing, I guess their out of luck.

There were non-trad, single parents, first gen, BIPOC, and LBGTQ people in my clinically balanced, funded Ph.D. program. Many of them didn't have publications upon entry.

And it's good to hear PhD programs are doing this re-evaluation, PsyD programs, well the good ones, have been doing this as well. It's a positive sure.

Agreed.

I'm sure they exist for a number of reasons. Supply and demand comes to mind. Again, how many clinical psychologists do these funded PhD programs graduate each year? How many actually go on to be licensed and practice versus how many become grant writers or academics? Sure social workers have done a better job getting more for their education and more opportunities, but there's still a need for well trained and good clinical psychologists.

The modal outcome of a licensable psychology Ph.D. is clinical practice.

I agree the pay should be better. And I do agree, funded programs make sense financially for those able to attend them. If someone just wants to do straight therapy, I'd say yes a Masters degree is going to be cheaper and serve them better. But there is no denying the flexibility and opportunity that doctoral level training and licensure provide.

Glad we agree.

The PsyD vs PhD debate is a tired trope. Maybe it had merit 20+ years ago but no longer. To be clear I am not advocating for loosening admission criteria, in fact I'd argue I'm advocating for higher admission criteria and standards. Because the bad image you and a few others seem to have towards PsyD programs is because of the grifter programs and the diploma mill ones. You say charging tuition like it's a negative. It's possible for a university connected PsyD program to have high admission standards while also charging tuition.

Notice that I'm saying unfunded Psy.D. programs. If a Psy.D. program can fund their students (like through work in a university-sponsored clinic or something), I'm all for it. Some of my best supervisors were Psy.Ds. who paid their own way through graduate school back when it was actually feasible to do so. But even they would tell you that the degree has become stigmatized as FPPSs have capitalized on APA's relationship with money to flood the field with subpar clinicians.

It's ok to have a few more psychologists. You come across as if we're flooding the market here. We're not. There's maybe 130,000 licensed psychologists in the US in a population of over 350 million. I think there's opportunities for each one. And I think you're right, we shouldn't be angry at the student or even most programs. We should be asking why PhD programs need to rely on churning out grants to fund cheap workers in research labs and classrooms and why most health professionals have to shell out 100k+ for the education they need to get licensed and do their jobs .

Well, the answer is that Ph.Ds. students need to be funded somehow. If you have a better idea aside from large federal grants to pay for everyone's education, I'm all ears. You should be angry at the Psy.D. programs who charge people $100k to become a psychologist when they know a psychologist won't see that salary for years after they graduate. Academia has it's flaws, for sure, but at least these graduate students have an opportunity to earn a degree without taking on an unlivable amount of debt.

End of the day, the vast majority of PsyD programs are accredited, well regarded, produce fine psychologists, meet or exceed the standards set forth by the APA and by licensing boards. Many have competitive consortiums that are APA accredited, have engaged more in research opportunities, and offer a clear path from entry to licensure.

I agree there is a path to licensure and have the potential to produce fine psychologists (which is probably a function of the person, not the program), but at an unacceptably high cost.

 

[R. Matey]

One thing I’ve been pondering that this conversation is touching on is whether a doctoral psychology degree is, or should be, primarily a practical or academic degree. I liken my current PhD experience to an MD/PhD - yes, I’m developing tools to become a licensed psychologist, but I’m also primarily pursuing an academic track and was attracted to the small cohort mentor model found in traditional academia. Having larger cohorts and charging tuition seems more in line with an MD degree, where your primarily goal is to become a practitioner with broader scope than, for example, an NP.

You may find the following references interesting then:

Peterson, D. R. (1968). The Doctor of Psychology program at the University of Illinois. American Psychologist, 23(7), 511–516. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026199

Peterson, D. R. (2006). Connection and disconnection of research and practice in the education of professional psychologists. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, S(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3918.S.1.47

 

[mrsbluesky]

Hi all, thanks for the responses! After weighing my options, I will be attending. I was able to speak to many post-grads and current students. Looks like post-grads are easily able to pay off their loans and seem to all get high earning careers after graduation. I was definitely iffy about an unfunded program, but it seems Hofstra is reputable and established in the metro NY area and people get pretty awesome jobs. I genuinely liked this program's model and post-grad statistics vs the other two schools that had more funding. I alsoooo didn't want to move

Current students told me they are all able to work part time while in the program. I think since this is more of a clinical based program, students aren't forced to work in a lab and make a stipend that way. Instead, you have the time to fund yourself a different way (and potentially earn more money depending on what your side gig is). Seems like a pro to me since I make bank as a waitress!

I am also applying for a position on campus that would potentially give me free housing.

I wish it was funded and I am stressed to have to take out a loan for class, but I haven't talked to a single post grad who regrets their decision. Thank you all again for your thoughts!

 

[quickpsych]

Glad we can agree on something, at least. I don't think it's ignorant. One path has less debt than the other. I'm going to help people figure out that path.



This is a false equivalence. Medical doctors do not have a route to obtain funding for their education. Psychologists do.

If only money wasn't the issue. Some doctors may through awards and scholarships, probably no where near full funding, maybe similar to my experience in PsyD program where some funding was available on certain criteria.

Glad we agree here too. Yes, I do think that if someone meets the basic requirements for a Ph.D. program, they can maximize their chances by applying to more programs. I also think it's more accessible than you think it is. Many clinically balanced programs accept people without publications and have initiatives to recruit a diverse student body, as I already pointed out.

Thanks for clarifying this. And I won't pretend to claim I know how programs have changed in the 10+ years since I was going through deciding where to apply and how to approach graduate school. I hope this trend continues.

I'm aware. Still doesn't justify the cost.



There were non-trad, single parents, first gen, BIPOC, and LBGTQ people in my clinically balanced, funded Ph.D. program. Many of them didn't have publications upon entry.

Positive to hear. Hope this continues.

Agreed.



The modal outcome of a licensable psychology Ph.D. is clinical practice.



Glad we agree.

I think perhaps there's an air of mystery (and/or arrogance depending on who you ask - not implying you or anyone specific) to PhD programs. As we all know there's plenty of non-clinical, non-licensable PhD paths in psychology. Those folks are engrossed in academia and research I imagine , and I can understand the very small cohorts in those.

If the outcome of clinical psychology PhDs is clinical practice, is there a trend towards more or less of those PhD holders making practice their primary activity versus teaching, grant writing, research? Or perhaps more of a balance? My program was about 60% PhD professors and 40% PsyD professors, most wrote, published, did research which was nice to see, felt more holistic and well rounded. They all maintained a small clinical aspect with direct patient interaction, they stated it was required to teach and supervise in the program. I see less PhDs in the wild.

Notice that I'm saying unfunded Psy.D. programs. If a Psy.D. program can fund their students (like through work in a university-sponsored clinic or something), I'm all for it. Some of my best supervisors were Psy.Ds. who paid their own way through graduate school back when it was actually feasible to do so. But even they would tell you that the degree has become stigmatized as FPPSs have capitalized on APA's relationship with money to flood the field with subpar clinicians.

I'm glad we can agree on this. the FPPSs are damn leeches on our field. They set up false promises and expectations, you probably don't need me to tell you it's easy to see these folks out in the real world work and their shortcomings thanks to these subpar programs.

Around 8-9 years ago or so I had the pleasure, as a student, to sit on a "think tank" like group for a few months with APAGS and doctoral students across the country. A few of us were invited to DC for advocacy, meeting APA "higher ups" and APA president and meeting with congressional staffers and congress members about funding, higher reimbursement rates, more accessibility to both education and clinical work. Also got to meet PhD students who had unionized their departments. The bigger focus was addressing the "internship" crisis , there were too many students and not enough internships. Believe me, the topic about stripping accreditation from FPPSs and improving criteria to ensure more consistently competent clinicians came up. Back then the APA did seem to agree with reducing these problem programs, I think some closed down but there's still a few of them pumping out 90+ "doctors" a year. Maybe it was more lip service than action, but as an early graduate student it felt like progress was coming. Consortiums were also seen as a more practical long term solution to the internship shortage, they seem to have helped. Not sure how things are these days.

Well, the answer is that Ph.Ds. students need to be funded somehow. If you have a better idea aside from large federal grants to pay for everyone's education, I'm all ears. You should be angry at the Psy.D. programs who charge people $100k to become a psychologist when they know a psychologist won't see that salary for years after they graduate. Academia has it's flaws, for sure, but at least these graduate students have an opportunity to earn a degree without taking on an unlivable amount of debt.

Well said. I've been "ranting" on about FPPPs and diploma mill schools for years. I think that helps some of the problem by shutting some of them down. Although, I think higher education across the board has a cost problem which is a much larger problem.

As for the loans and debt, I think federal loans are better than private loans of course. And programs like IBR (with 20/25 yr forgiveness) , PSLF (10 years although ties you to a job or lower paying job) help ease a little of the cost.

I've long been a proponent of more tax dollars going to education. Even the forgiving student loan "debate" only solves some of the problem ,it college costs keep going up and loans keep getting pumped out, it's just a repeating cycle.

I agree there is a path to licensure and have the potential to produce fine psychologists (which is probably a function of the person, not the program), but at an unacceptably high cost.

Glad we can agree on this. I think programs bear some burden to ensuring their produce fine psychologists, rather than just collecting loan money. Good programs look for good fits and people likely to succeed , bad programs open their coffers to collect loan dollars.

 

[quickpsych]

One thing I’ve been pondering that this conversation is touching on is whether a doctoral psychology degree is, or should be, primarily a practical or academic degree. I liken my current PhD experience to an MD/PhD - yes, I’m developing tools to become a licensed psychologist, but I’m also primarily pursuing an academic track and was attracted to the small cohort mentor model found in traditional academia. Having larger cohorts and charging tuition seems more in line with an MD degree, where your primarily goal is to become a practitioner with broader scope than, for example, an NP.

I don’t think it would be bad to have both of these types of programs exist in the future to meet the societal need for doctoral level psychologists that clearly exists. I also see value in maintaining the academic model for those who want a more academic career. So I think it’s a bit more complicated than expanding cohort sizes in PhD programs and more towards differentiating the academic and practical degrees more consistently with other health professions.

Well said.

 

[WisNeuro]

If the outcome of clinical psychology PhDs is clinical practice, is there a trend towards more or less of those PhD holders making practice their primary activity versus teaching, grant writing, research? Or perhaps more of a balance? My program was about 60% PhD professors and 40% PsyD professors, most wrote, published, did research which was nice to see, felt more holistic and well rounded. They all maintained a small clinical aspect with direct patient interaction, they stated it was required to teach and supervise in the program. I see less PhDs in the wild.

The vast majority of clinical PHD grads are working in primarily clinical careers. I'm not sure where you are that you don't see many PhDs practicing clinically, as everywhere I have trained and worked, that's been the majority of clinicians. Here, there are only two large practices that are primarily PsyD, and those are the ones with exploitative contracts.

 

[R. Matey]

I think perhaps there's an air of mystery (and/or arrogance depending on who you ask - not implying you or anyone specific) to PhD programs. As we all know there's plenty of non-clinical, non-licensable PhD paths in psychology. Those folks are engrossed in academia and research I imagine , and I can understand the very small cohorts in those.

If the outcome of clinical psychology PhDs is clinical practice, is there a trend towards more or less of those PhD holders making practice their primary activity versus teaching, grant writing, research? Or perhaps more of a balance? My program was about 60% PhD professors and 40% PsyD professors, most wrote, published, did research which was nice to see, felt more holistic and well rounded. They all maintained a small clinical aspect with direct patient interaction, they stated it was required to teach and supervise in the program. I see less PhDs in the wild.

I perceived a few posts ago that we agree more than we disagree. We disagree fundamentally about the value of a Psy.D. you have to pay for, but largely agree about predatory unfunded programs harming the profession and would both like to see psychology be more accessible to historically under-represented groups. I can live with that.

To answer your question, there is a lot of variation even within Ph.D. programs, including specialty within Ph.D., and with some emphasizing practice more than others. Many students from licensable programs choose to become clinicians for various reasons (pay, work-life balance, choice over where you live, etc.) even though they could theoretically choose academia if they so desired. Tenured faculty in Ph.D. programs in departments are 99.9% Ph.Ds., with varying opinions about the importance of clinical practice carried out in their programs of research. Some programs employ clinically affiliates in non-tenure positions to train students in clinical practice or supervise the university clinic. Some times these folks have Psy.D.s

 

[quickpsych]

The vast majority of clinical PHD grads are working in primarily clinical careers. I'm not sure where you are that you don't see many PhDs practicing clinically, as everywhere I have trained and worked, that's been the majority of clinicians. Here, there are only two large practices that are primarily PsyD, and those are the ones with exploitative contracts.

Interesting. Maybe regional differences. I've been in the field in some capacity (starting with masters work) for at least 14 years at this point. And for a while, especially in my doctoral training was obtaining quite a bit of training in neuropsychology as that was an interest of mine at the time more so. Been around private practice, group practice, training clinics, community mental health, hospital settings, brain injury settings, skilled nursing rehabilitation settings,

Maybe it's an age thing, not sure how old you are but almost every board certified neuropsychologist I've trained with, worked with, been supervised by has been a PsyD. I've worked or met two neuropsychologists who were PhDs and both were over the age, at the time of 60. Clinical PhDs, most in my program teaching were over the age of 60 as well (and two of them started the PsyD program I think in the 90s), there was one PhD professor who was maybe 40 at the time.

Most of the psych PhDs I've met or been taught by were professors in my earlier days (like undergrad) in social psychology, I/O, counseling psychology courses. I noticed most of them were younger (under 45) and in that age range met one or two who worked for the APA doing research. If I had to guess I've worked with/trained with, engaged with, maybe 30+ different neuropsychologists and 4-5 were PhDs over the age of 60, rest were PsyD. Non neuropsychologist specific, met or worked with quite a few licensed psychologists, very few were PhDs and of those they were almost all over the age of 60.

Overall most PhDs that were clinical psych, taught in my masters and doctoral program.

Perhaps back before PsyDs were more commonly available, PhD was the main route to licensure as a clinical psychologist.

 

[abecedarian5420]

Commenting because I'm tired of seeing old info cited when there's more recent data available (great discussion, though). Anyway, please see:

APA Commission on Accreditation (2021): https://irp.cdn-website.com/a14f9462/files/uploaded/2021%20Doctoral%20Summary%20Tables_FINAL.pdf

Also, here are some sources on the financial aspects (these are a bit older than the source linked above):

Financial literacy for current and future psychology doctoral students: https://www.apa.org/apags/resources/debt.pdf

Graduate Debt in Psychology: A Quantitative Analysis: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/tep-tep0000112.pdf

 

[psych.meout]

One thing I’ve been pondering that this conversation is touching on is whether a doctoral psychology degree is, or should be, primarily a practical or academic degree. I liken my current PhD experience to an MD/PhD - yes, I’m developing tools to become a licensed psychologist, but I’m also primarily pursuing an academic track and was attracted to the small cohort mentor model found in traditional academia. Having larger cohorts and charging tuition seems more in line with an MD degree, where your primarily goal is to become a practitioner with broader scope than, for example, an NP.

I don’t think it would be bad to have both of these types of programs exist in the future to meet the societal need for doctoral level psychologists that clearly exists. I also see value in maintaining the academic model for those who want a more academic career. So I think it’s a bit more complicated than expanding cohort sizes in PhD programs and more towards differentiating the academic and practical degrees more consistently with other health professions.

You know how the AMA facilitates the higher earnings for physicians that makes accruing that much student loan debt feasible?

 

[WisNeuro]

Interesting. Maybe regional differences. I've been in the field in some capacity (starting with masters work) for at least 14 years at this point. And for a while, especially in my doctoral training was obtaining quite a bit of training in neuropsychology as that was an interest of mine at the time more so. Been around private practice, group practice, training clinics, community mental health, hospital settings, brain injury settings, skilled nursing rehabilitation settings,

Maybe it's an age thing, not sure how old you are but almost every board certified neuropsychologist I've trained with, worked with, been supervised by has been a PsyD. I've worked or met two neuropsychologists who were PhDs and both were over the age, at the time of 60. Clinical PhDs, most in my program teaching were over the age of 60 as well (and two of them started the PsyD program I think in the 90s), there was one PhD professor who was maybe 40 at the time.

Most of the psych PhDs I've met or been taught by were professors in my earlier days (like undergrad) in social psychology, I/O, counseling psychology courses. I noticed most of them were younger (under 45) and in that age range met one or two who worked for the APA doing research. If I had to guess I've worked with/trained with, engaged with, maybe 30+ different neuropsychologists and 4-5 were PhDs over the age of 60, rest were PsyD. Non neuropsychologist specific, met or worked with quite a few licensed psychologists, very few were PhDs and of those they were almost all over the age of 60.

Overall most PhDs that were clinical psych, taught in my masters and doctoral program.

Perhaps back before PsyDs were more commonly available, PhD was the main route to licensure as a clinical psychologist.

Just to clarify, I took the past three states that I've worked/trained in. The % of board certified folks who are PhDs ranged from 65-82%. I'm curious as to where you're from where the opposite is true. We can use the AACN directory to look at the actual numbers.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Interesting. Maybe regional differences. I've been in the field in some capacity (starting with masters work) for at least 14 years at this point. And for a while, especially in my doctoral training was obtaining quite a bit of training in neuropsychology as that was an interest of mine at the time more so. Been around private practice, group practice, training clinics, community mental health, hospital settings, brain injury settings, skilled nursing rehabilitation settings,

Maybe it's an age thing, not sure how old you are but almost every board certified neuropsychologist I've trained with, worked with, been supervised by has been a PsyD. I've worked or met two neuropsychologists who were PhDs and both were over the age, at the time of 60. Clinical PhDs, most in my program teaching were over the age of 60 as well (and two of them started the PsyD program I think in the 90s), there was one PhD professor who was maybe 40 at the time.

Most of the psych PhDs I've met or been taught by were professors in my earlier days (like undergrad) in social psychology, I/O, counseling psychology courses. I noticed most of them were younger (under 45) and in that age range met one or two who worked for the APA doing research. If I had to guess I've worked with/trained with, engaged with, maybe 30+ different neuropsychologists and 4-5 were PhDs over the age of 60, rest were PsyD. Non neuropsychologist specific, met or worked with quite a few licensed psychologists, very few were PhDs and of those they were almost all over the age of 60.

Overall most PhDs that were clinical psych, taught in my masters and doctoral program.

Perhaps back before PsyDs were more commonly available, PhD was the main route to licensure as a clinical psychologist.

It does sound like this might be a highly regional thing. Anecdotally, everywhere I've trained and worked, Ph.D. psychologists have far outnumbered Psy.D. psychologists. I suspect that if there's one or more Psy.D. programs in the area, and particularly if there are few or no Ph.D. programs, then that area will have a large number of Psy.D. psychologists. In my own training, between grad school, internship, and fellowship, I had one Psy.D. supervisor; the other dozen-plus were Ph.D. Of my current colleagues and friends in neuropsych, I don't know the exact split, but it's heavily weighted toward Ph.D. The ages of my supervisors, if I had to guess, spanned from early 30's to early 60's. Of my colleagues and friends, it's very predominantly 30's and 40's.

RE: neuropsychology specifically, per the most recent salary survey (Jerry J. Sweet, Kristen M. Klipfel, Nathaniel W. Nelson & Paul J. Moberg (2021) Professional practices, beliefs, and incomes of U.S. neuropsychologists: The AACN, NAN, SCN 2020 practice and “salary survey”, The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 35:1, 7-80, DOI: 10.1080/13854046.2020.1849803), just under 78% of responding neuropsychologists had a Ph.D. The survey wasn't limited to only board-certified neuropsychologists, but I suspect ABPP has a similar breakdown overall. The data may be out there, but I don't have it readily available.

For psychology as a whole, per 2021 APPIC internship survey data, the numbers were a bit more evenly split, but still with more Ph.D. than Psy.D. trainees (55% vs. 45%, per Applicant Survey - 2021 - Part 1).

All that being said, I have absolutely no issue with the Psy.D. degree itself. Or even the idea of unfunded programs. The problem I have is that many of the unfunded programs charge relatively enormous tuitions, which is compounded by the length of training in grad school and the typical psychologist's earnings. The average psychologist is going to spend either 4+1 or 5+1 years in training. If it's an unfunded program, only one of those years (i.e., internship) will potentially be paid, and the student will still also likely be paying some amount of tuition during that year. So compared to a med student, a psychology student will be paying tuition for 1 or 2 additional years, while going into an occupation with a significantly smaller (relatively speaking) typical income. Relatedly, a psychologist graduating with $200k in debt is in a much different financial situation than a physician graduating with $200k in debt.

As a related aside, I believe part of the reason physicians have been able to maintain or increase their salaries (in addition to their successful political/professional advocacy actions relating to reimbursement/billing codes and such) is because their training organizations do limit the number of graduating MDs and DOs. On the flip side, it seems that for pharmacists, a big part of the reason for their unhappiness with their pay and job prospects has to do with the proliferation of training programs and graduates (although I admittedly have very limited knowledge of that whole situation, and I'm sure there are multiple factors at play).

 

[quickpsych]

It does sound like this might be a highly regional thing. Anecdotally, everywhere I've trained and worked, Ph.D. psychologists have far outnumbered Psy.D. psychologists. I suspect that if there's one or more Psy.D. programs in the area, and particularly if there are few or no Ph.D. programs, then that area will have a large number of Psy.D. psychologists. In my own training, between grad school, internship, and fellowship, I had one Psy.D. supervisor; the other dozen-plus were Ph.D. Of my current colleagues and friends in neuropsych, I don't know the exact split, but it's heavily weighted toward Ph.D. The ages of my supervisors, if I had to guess, spanned from early 30's to early 60's. Of my colleagues and friends, it's very predominantly 30's and 40's.

It seems it is. I'm in a major city, although do work in more suburban areas in some of my work. There's two major well known public universities , both of which are PhDs and mostly research focused (or at least have PhD programs in social, I/O, experimental, and clinical). There's a handful of smaller universities with PsyD programs which outnumber the PhD programs by a large margin. There's one or two medical schools with PsyD programs as well. I graduated in 2018 so maybe things have changed.

RE: neuropsychology specifically, per the most recent salary survey (Jerry J. Sweet, Kristen M. Klipfel, Nathaniel W. Nelson & Paul J. Moberg (2021) Professional practices, beliefs, and incomes of U.S. neuropsychologists: The AACN, NAN, SCN 2020 practice and “salary survey”, The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 35:1, 7-80, DOI: 10.1080/13854046.2020.1849803), just under 78% of responding neuropsychologists had a Ph.D. The survey wasn't limited to only board-certified neuropsychologists, but I suspect ABPP has a similar breakdown overall. The data may be out there, but I don't have it readily available.

For psychology as a whole, per 2021 APPIC internship survey data, the numbers were a bit more evenly split, but still with more Ph.D. than Psy.D. trainees (55% vs. 45%, per Applicant Survey - 2021 - Part 1).

A while ago I saw a post on here about a topic of surveys and or advocacy. And someone replied along the lines of "those too busy working in the field aren't responding to these surveys" or "are too busy making a living or focused on day to day to get into advocacy." I have quite a few colleagues and friends in the field who couldn't be bothered to complete a survey if you paid them to do it, and look at you like you have three heads if you ask their thoughts on recent trends in the field related to these things.

There's plenty of folks who live and breath psychology and have their hands in many pots as they work. But there's also plenty of us that are just out here working. Maybe I should respond to more surveys and outreach.

All that being said, I have absolutely no issue with the Psy.D. degree itself. Or even the idea of unfunded programs. The problem I have is that many of the unfunded programs charge relatively enormous tuitions, which is compounded by the length of training in grad school and the typical psychologist's earnings. The average psychologist is going to spend either 4+1 or 5+1 years in training. If it's an unfunded program, only one of those years (i.e., internship) will potentially be paid, and the student will still also likely be paying some amount of tuition during that year. So compared to a med student, a psychology student will be paying tuition for 1 or 2 additional years, while going into an occupation with a significantly smaller (relatively speaking) typical income. Relatedly, a psychologist graduating with $200k in debt is in a much different financial situation than a physician graduating with $200k in debt.

I agree. I was somewhat grateful, because I had an MA I was able to enter as a YII and also able to have some tuition each year funded through TA and some assistantships; not much but hey it helped. I was appalled to learn some schools were charging double what I was paying (and those were overwhelmingly FPPS ones).

As a related aside, I believe part of the reason physicians have been able to maintain or increase their salaries (in addition to their successful political/professional advocacy actions relating to reimbursement/billing codes and such) is because their training organizations do limit the number of graduating MDs and DOs. On the flip side, it seems that for pharmacists, a big part of the reason for their unhappiness with their pay and job prospects has to do with the proliferation of training programs and graduates (although I admittedly have very limited knowledge of that whole situation, and I'm sure there are multiple factors at play).

I can see that. Also , not 100% sure, but it seems psychiatrists can charge and/or get reimbursed higher insurance rates , which makes sense given they are MDs. As someone who would consider additional training and certifying for limited prescribing rights (if my state one day allows it), I wonder how much of a concern this is to psychiatrists , if at all. Maybe not as I'd want to consult with a psychiatrist anyways in that regard.

As for pharmacy, oo boy, I could write a novel on that saga. I used to be a pharmacy tech and was , at one time, pursing becoming a pharmacist. This was early to late 2000s. Somewhere along the line around that time, maybe little before, the powers that be decided pharmacists needed a doctorate moving forward (the PharmD). The way it was changed was jarring to the industry as it basically caused 1-2 years of zero new pharmacists at a time when pharmacy chains and mail order pharmacies were rapidly expanding. It created a huge shortage of pharmacists and a bonanza for any one lucky enough to graduate before the change or being part of the first few graduating classes of these new PharmD programs. You also saw an influx of students because demand was high, signing bonuses were absurd, and job security was all but secured.

And you nailed it, this also saw an explosion of new training programs popping up. Not to mention big chains , which had for years brought in students as techs, really tried to "sell the dream" although when the shortage hit, some students went to hospitals and non-public facing rotations. If you were an older pharmacist you could pick up really good side income filling gaps, since the law requires a pharmacist on site to have the pharmacy open. Needless to say I watched quite a few new pharmacists come in who were shocked to discover they had to answer phones and use a cash register sometimes. In recent years the amount of work of the pharmacist increased (giving shots and vaccines for example), the hours increased, the novel skill sets (some pharmacists I don't think even get trained on more than basic compounding ) lessened, the support staff (techs) decreased, the metrics for time from script to sale got more focus, and the compensation didn't really change. From what I know, job satisfaction is low. It was stunning to see how a lot of the big chains were very protective, supportive, and dedicated to their pharmacists to just seeing them as volume producing replaceable cogs. The happiest pharmacists I know either work in supermarket pharmacies which seem like ghost towns, or if they like being busy without interacting with the public much, they're in mail order pharmacies or hospital pharmacies.

 

[quickpsych]

Just to clarify, I took the past three states that I've worked/trained in. The % of board certified folks who are PhDs ranged from 65-82%. I'm curious as to where you're from where the opposite is true. We can use the AACN directory to look at the actual numbers.

East coast, west coast, midwest, or south?

When I was replying to another post on her, it dawned on me that I've met quite a few psychologists who just never bother to get board certified, don't seek out completing surveys or polls or respond to data collection to determine these stats, and so forth. I'm sure there's many different reasons.

 

[R. Matey]

Just to clarify, I took the past three states that I've worked/trained in. The % of board certified folks who are PhDs ranged from 65-82%. I'm curious as to where you're from where the opposite is true. We can use the AACN directory to look at the actual numbers.

That may not be quite a fair distinction considering one can get a Ph.D. from an institution that provides no funding (e.g., what the OP of this thread was considering).

 

[WisNeuro]

East coast, west coast, midwest, or south?

When I was replying to another post on her, it dawned on me that I've met quite a few psychologists who just never bother to get board certified, don't seek out completing surveys or polls or respond to data collection to determine these stats, and so forth. I'm sure there's many different reasons.

Midwest, South, West Coast. The numbers pretty much speak for themselves. As to the surveys that AA mentioned, the response rates were generally 70ish% +, which is incredibly high for such surveys and would constitute a representative sample by any definition of the concept.

That may not be quite a fair distinction considering one can get a Ph.D. from an institution that provides no funding (e.g., what the OP of this thread was considering).

I was purely commenting on the false information regarding the number of PhDs in clinical work and boarded neuropsych.

 

[Dazen]

You know how the AMA facilitates the higher earnings for physicians that makes accruing that much student loan debt feasible?

To clarify, I'm not in favor of taking on substantial debt for grad school. I personally only applied to funded programs for this reason. I could see a minimal cost, larger cohort option exist in the future that requires little to no research and graduates doctoral-level practitioners similar to an MD or JD. I'm not suggesting people take on equivalent debt to those degrees, given that the expected earnings are lower as a psychologist.

 

[quickpsych]

Midwest, South, West Coast. The numbers pretty much speak for themselves. As to the surveys that AA mentioned, the response rates were generally 70ish% +, which is incredibly high for such surveys and would constitute a representative sample by any definition of the concept.

I'm in the Northeast.

To clarify, I'm not in favor of taking on substantial debt for grad school. I personally only applied to funded programs for this reason. I could see a minimal cost, larger cohort option exist in the future that requires little to no research and graduates doctoral-level practitioners similar to an MD or JD. I'm not suggesting people take on equivalent debt to those degrees, given that the expected earnings are lower as a psychologist.

Well said. I see you're listed as a current student. I do wonder, especially after someone posted recent 2021 APA data, if there are more funded PhD programs now than say 10+ years ago. I was surprised to see the number as high as it was. If this is true, it's great news and beneficial to not only students but the field in general.

 

[R. Matey]

To clarify, I'm not in favor of taking on substantial debt for grad school. I personally only applied to funded programs for this reason. I could see a minimal cost, larger cohort option exist in the future that requires little to no research and graduates doctoral-level practitioners similar to an MD or JD. I'm not suggesting people take on equivalent debt to those degrees, given that the expected earnings are lower as a psychologist.

That was Peterson's original idea, it just went sideways when capitalism got involved.

Edit: I do think though, in principle, a practitioner-oriented degree could work, especially if they were to focus on trainings in intervention and assessment across all psychopathology so their graduates were truly competent generalists in a sense.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm in the Northeast.

Well said. I see you're listed as a current student. I do wonder, especially after someone posted recent 2021 APA data, if there are more funded PhD programs now than say 10+ years ago. I was surprised to see the number as high as it was. If this is true, it's great news and beneficial to not only students but the field in general.

Cool. Just checked a couple of the more populous states out there and the number of PhDs boarded vs PsyD is actually higher than other areas, 80-86%.

 

[quickpsych]

Cool. Just checked a couple of the more populous states out there and the number of PhDs boarded vs PsyD is actually higher than other areas, 80-86%.

Maybe this data is too old: A look at psychologists' specialty areas, but 4% of psychologists as of 2017 are board certified it seems. But you are correct, in Northeast there is a decent number of them out here according to this data. Had a few professors in my program that were so they're out here in some way or another.

I'll have to read up on whether or not board certification makes sense down the line for me.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Maybe this data is too old: A look at psychologists' specialty areas, but 4% of psychologists as of 2017 are board certified it seems. But you are correct, in Northeast there is a decent number of them out here according to this data. Had a few professors in my program that were so they're out here in some way or another.

I'll have to read up on whether or not board certification makes sense down the line for me.

Yes, outside of neuropsychology and, to a lesser extent, rehab, forensics, and some health folks, board certification isn't common. The proportion of neuropsychologists who are board-certified is going to be higher than any other specialty, but I couldn't tell you off-hand what that percentage is. But overall, I wouldn't be surprised if that 4% number for the field hasn't changed much in the last 6 years.

 

[R. Matey]

But overall, I wouldn't be surprised if that 4% number for the field hasn't changed much in the last 6 years.

4% of psychologists overall, or 4% of neuropsychologists?

 

[WisNeuro]

4% of psychologists overall, or 4% of neuropsychologists?

Psychologists.