Yep, I suspect that's the primary reason (i.e., little to no ROI). Unless we end up going the way of physicians with insurance panels and perhaps most hospitals requiring that we be board certified, the majority of psychologists likely won't go through the process. Unless they're in VA and want the extra step increase.
Most psychologists could approximate what I’ve done in private practice if they have a desire to do so at all and then subsequently make a focused effort to really learn how to do so, and are also willing to put the time in. Not everyone will have the desire to do this, perhaps a majority will not, but they could. That isn’t false hope, it’s the facts. It may make you feel a certain way for not doing so in your own life, but that doesn’t make it inaccurate or in need of suppression.
I agree with this post.
Not saying someone would not be better off at a funded program. However, one of those scenarios is likely to end up better than the other. I have run across more than a few folks willing to set their kids up in a business and help foot the costs. While it may leave a bad taste in my mouth, the ones I know have been successful.
Yep, I know of folks whose individual PP income has varied by that much (or more) from one year to the next. PP isn't necessarily for the faint of heart.
Looks like the form asks respondents to estimate their income, minus business expenses, if they aren't salaried. It later also asks about total earned income, before deductions.
I would agree in full and have said much the same.
I saw this article and remembered this post:
Since this thread already got brought back from the graveyard, wanted to thank you for these references. I didn't know much about the history of the PhD/PsyD distinction, so it was interesting to see the theoretical underpinnings (which I largely agree with) before they were perverted into the current financially exploitative system. A line that stuck out to me in the first paper was "no feasible reconstruction of the PhD program is likely to satisfy the need for dedicate, fully trained professional personnel as well as an explicit professional program." From my (albeit limited) experience, this is still true given the resource-intensive nature of the mentor model employed by PhD programs. I empathize with the need for more practitioners and many people's frustration with the overall competitiveness of clinical psych doctoral programs. I'd love for that system to better accommodate individuals who want to pursue the highest levels of clinical practice without getting bogged down in research requirements. But I also think these articles do a good job of laying out why we can't modify the current PhD system to achieve that goal. And as someone who's in the PhD for research primarily, I see value in continuing to have this option available.
Having a different focus doesn’t equate to non-competitive for me. Plenty of professional degrees (medicine, law) are competitive, are associated with a high salary, and require little to no research in doctoral studies. I don’t think the system is currently set up to accommodate a similar structure in psychology, but IMO the idea has merit. I have little issue with the current competitiveness of programs.
I don't know about that one, hoss.
Given the number of lawyers that cannot find a good job, I'm not sure that would be a model we want to follow anyway.
Absolutely agree with this. As a (mostly) reformed finance bro, I’ve actually found grad school to be easier on the whole than my prior post -college life because of my comparative control over my time and goals. I don’t begrudge the hoops I had to jump through to get here or the aspects of the degree that are less interesting to me. Mostly trying to spitball, from a place of limited knowledge, how to potentially increase the number of providers of doctoral level clinical competency (if this is actually necessary) without while still maintaining a path to academia for those who want it.
