Weighing my options

[flowchase]

Hello all,

I am in the 2nd year of a master's program in ClinPsych and am thinking of applying to PsyD programs this cycle or in future. My aim is to provide psychotherapy and I went for a master's first as I wasn't sure of spending 5 years in school and wanted to avoid doing research. The idea for doctoral studies is for greater earning potential and academic learning. My program offers a thesis and non-thesis (clinical case study) track.

While ideally I should boost my GRE scores and do an independent study so I can widen applications to both PsyD and PhD programs with more clinical focus, I wonder if I can get by without? I can imagine the great amount of stress doing these if I were to apply for this cycle, on top of my current assistantship and practicum. My advisor says with my present experience I should be okay for PsyD programs generally, and for PhD programs I should do the independent study. My goal is to get into fully or mostly funded programs only (ie. Baylor, Rutgers). I am open to not applying for this cycle and focus on getting the LPC first.

Some info:
Undergrad GPA: 3.2 (from overseas institution)
Did capstone paper with lit review, data collection and analysis, but no poster or publication.

Current grad GPA: 4.0
In research team preparing to run intervention groups, with poster/publication as the goal.

GRE (V) 157, (Q) 161, (AW) 4.0, didn't take psych subject test

Clinical exp: Volunteered in special needs program and worked in private practice scoring self-report tests (PAI, Conners etc). Now volunteering at crisis textline and just started practicum at outpatient counseling center.

Any thoughts will be much appreciated!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Justanothergrad]

You will need research experience and, preferably, products like posters. Clinical experience is not what will make you the most competitive for funded spots in psyc or PhD programs. This is doubly important now that you are in a masters program.

 

[flowchase]

You will need research experience and, preferably, products like posters. Clinical experience is not what will make you the most competitive for funded spots in psyc or PhD programs. This is doubly important now that you are in a masters program.

Seems like the independent study is unavoidable although I am now in a research team. Do you think there's any chance at all for this cycle since I won't have any poster by Dec?

& is it critical to boost my GRE scores? (minus the fact that I will need psych subject test score if I were to apply to Rutgers)

 

[Justanothergrad]

Seems like the independent study is unavoidable although I am now in a research team. Do you think there's any chance at all for this cycle since I won't have any poster by Dec?

& is it critical to boost my GRE scores? (minus the fact that I will need psych subject test score if I were to apply to Rutgers)

Simply put, you have not demonstrated a strong research acumen. Its possible people will want you but the main marker of competitiveness (for all doctoral studies) is something you lack. Get posters and be an investigator on projects. That matters more than the rest given what you've said and it is core to what folks expect of masters trainees

 

[CA_PsyD_FL_LMHC]

Honestly, debt considered, if your goal is to do psychotherapy, I'd say stick with the masters degree and instead develop a speciality. You can absolutely be the author of your own academic enhancement, and many universities offer free auditing to alumnus. Add in consultation, some lucrative masters-level testing opportunities (career in particular comes to mind) and you'll be doing just fine financially without the extra years/debt that comes with a doctoral program. You'll be adding even more years than those required, now, since you don't have a strong research background (and it doesn't seem like research is something you're excited to spend time doing).

 

[psych.meout]

Honestly, debt considered, if your goal is to do psychotherapy, I'd say stick with the masters degree and instead develop a speciality. You can absolutely be the author of your own academic enhancement, and many universities offer free auditing to alumnus. Add in consultation, some lucrative masters-level testing opportunities (career in particular comes to mind) and you'll be doing just fine financially without the extra years/debt that comes with a doctoral program. You'll be adding even more years than those required, now, since you don't have a strong research background (and it doesn't seem like research is something you're excited to spend time doing).

It doesn't sound like OP is in a master's program that leads to licensure.

 

[flowchase]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts @Justanothergrad, will definitely look into getting more research experience if I can.

@CA_PsyD_FL_LMHC The nice thing is I'll have close to zero debt if at all, especially if I can get into a fully-funded program. The opportunity cost of being in school for a few more years rather than working is something else though..

@psych.meout I'm in a CACREP accredited program that leads to licensure.

 

[CA_PsyD_FL_LMHC]

I am confused: @flowchase are you in a Counselor Ed program, or a Clinical Psychology program? Does CACREP provide accreditation for the psychology discipline? If so, it'll be interesting to see how that plays out with APA voting this year to provide master's level psychologist accreditation...

Either way, if you're planning on getting into a fully funded program, you better get to researching and publishing!

 

[flowchase]

I am confused: @flowchase are you in a Counselor Ed program, or a Clinical Psychology program? Does CACREP provide accreditation for the psychology discipline? If so, it'll be interesting to see how that plays out with APA voting this year to provide master's level psychologist accreditation...

Either way, if you're planning on getting into a fully funded program, you better get to researching and publishing!

Sorry for the confusion, I'm in a clin/counseling psych combined program. Will be awesome if there's master's level psychologist accreditation!

 

[psych.meout]

I am confused: @flowchase are you in a Counselor Ed program, or a Clinical Psychology program? Does CACREP provide accreditation for the psychology discipline? If so, it'll be interesting to see how that plays out with APA voting this year to provide master's level psychologist accreditation...

Either way, if you're planning on getting into a fully funded program, you better get to researching and publishing!

Great, the APA doesn't even have a handle on PsyD and poor quality, unfunded PhD programs, so it makes perfect sense to expand their scope and further water down psychology.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Great, the APA doesn't even have a handle on PsyD and poor quality, unfunded PhD programs, so it makes perfect sense to expand their scope and further water down psychology.

They're 25 years behind already on this. They cant manage to wait without sacrificing the stake we have left at the MH table. I dont disagree that they're moving into an area they need to be careful about but it needs to happen.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Not as “psychologist” jr. Psychologists are at the doctoral level for a reason. The watering down of the field is slowly pushing us towards complete marginalization.

 

[MAClinician]

Sorry for the confusion, I'm in a clin/counseling psych combined program. Will be awesome if there's master's level psychologist accreditation!

I didn’t think CACREP accreditation allowed clinical psychology in their programs. They are very specific on what programs need to have to meet standards.

 

[psych.meout]

They're 25 years behind already on this. They cant manage to wait without sacrificing the stake we have left at the MH table. I dont disagree that they're moving into an area they need to be careful about but it needs to happen.

I'm not against the APA accrediting and managing master's-level providers in general. I'm only saying that the solution to bringing them into the fold is not to make them psychologists. There's already such heterogeneity, inconsistency, and misunderstanding about psychologists that introducing a whole new level of psychologist is going to make things even worse than they already are.

And it's not even simply an issue of gatekeeping and protecting turf. The general public doesn't really understand what we do, what we can offer them, and what differentiates us from other practitioners.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I'm not against the APA accrediting and managing master's-level providers in general. I'm only saying that the solution to bringing them into the fold is not to make them psychologists. There's already such heterogeneity, inconsistency, and misunderstanding about psychologists that introducing a whole new level of psychologist is going to make things even worse than they already are.

And it's not even simply an issue of gatekeeping and protecting turf. The general public doesn't really understand what we do, what we can offer them, and what differentiates us from other practitioners.

Yeh, I dont disagree. Although I'm not sure the public understands ANY titles in MH so I'm not sure it makes a difference. I dont think is limited to psychologists.

 

[WisNeuro]

Not as “psychologist” jr. Psychologists are at the doctoral level for a reason. The watering down of the field is slowly pushing us towards complete marginalization.

There are some states that already allow masters level practitioners to call themselves psychologists.

 

[foreverbull]

I'm not against the APA accrediting and managing master's-level providers in general. I'm only saying that the solution to bringing them into the fold is not to make them psychologists. There's already such heterogeneity, inconsistency, and misunderstanding about psychologists that introducing a whole new level of psychologist is going to make things even worse than they already are.

And it's not even simply an issue of gatekeeping and protecting turf. The general public doesn't really understand what we do, what we can offer them, and what differentiates us from other practitioners.

Is this in the plan...to ultimately change their license title and name them master’s level psychologists rather than counselors and MFTs?

Yes, the public is already confused; many think psychologists, LMFTs, LCSWs, and counselors are equivalent. I’d thought that having a doctorate would set me apart from the many master’s level practitioners where I practice, but for a fair number, the distinction just isn’t clear to them.

 

[futureapppsy2]

There are some states that already allow masters level practitioners to call themselves psychologists.

Source?

 

[WisNeuro]

Source?

Minnesota Legislature - Office of the Revisor of Statutes

Something screwy with the laws that grandfathered a bunch of people in.

And then there is always the specter of Texas being on the verge of allowing masters level people to perform neuropsychological evals unsupervised.

 

[WisNeuro]

Source?

Also pretty sure WV also allows masters level to get the same license and call themselves a psychologist, they just need to have more supervised years of experience.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Is this in the plan...to ultimately change their license title and name them master’s level psychologists rather than counselors and MFTs?

Yes, the public is already confused; many think psychologists, LMFTs, LCSWs, and counselors are equivalent. I’d thought that having a doctorate would set me apart from the many master’s level practitioners where I practice, but for a fair number, the distinction just isn’t clear to them.

In the public's defense, we dont do a ton to distinguish ourselves. Research doesnt suggest we offer uniquely more, sadly, so it's a matter of us showing that more training is desirable for a provider and that it results in distinctly different client outcomes. We can do assessment but if it doesn't result in better treatment progress or distinct therapy goals, then what does that really matter.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Minnesota Legislature - Office of the Revisor of Statutes

Something screwy with the laws that grandfathered a bunch of people in.

And then there is always the specter of Texas being on the verge of allowing masters level people to perform neuropsychological evals unsupervised.

NC did the same thing with grandfathering

 

[foreverbull]

Source?

Master's Level Psychologists - KSBSRB

Kansas has "Licensed Master's Level Psychologists" and has for at least 15 years if not more.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The grandfathering in should be timing out sooner than later, because it is confusing to not only the public, but also to other providers. I trained in two states that have some form of grandfathering and it was a mess: confusion w the public, confusion w providers, poor to no oversight unless a formal complaint from a patient is filed, etc. Scope of practice can differ, but not always. It can also complicate hospital privileges because the standards of training can be very different.

Then places like TX where they have barely trained ppl trying to administer and interpret psychological and neuropsychological assessments with none of the classroom work, none of the didactics, almost no training and supervision, no regard for minimum training standards like a formal two year fellowship, etc.

The average neuropsychologist has spent thousands of hours seeing hundreds of patients with close mentorship, but in Texas they want to offer a weekend course requiring only a few patients be seen, but sure....the training is obviously the same. Picture a first year doctoral student being given reigns to do whatever they want whenever they want and acting like that’s the same as 7-8+yr of training a neuropsychologist gets....that’s the current disconnect happening in TX.

 

[psych.meout]

The grandfathering in should be timing out sooner than later, because it is confusing to not only the public, but also to other providers. I trained in two states that have some form of grandfathering and it was a mess: confusion w the public, confusion w providers, poor to no oversight unless a formal complaint from a patient is filed, etc. Scope of practice can differ, but not always. It can also complicate hospital privileges because the standards of training can be very different.

Then places like TX where they have barely trained ppl trying to administer and interpret psychological and neuropsychological assessments with none of the classroom work, none of the didactics, almost no training and supervision, no regard for minimum training standards like a formal two year fellowship, etc.

The average neuropsychologist has spent thousands of hours seeing hundreds of patients with close mentorship, but in Texas they want to offer a weekend course requiring only a few patients be seen, but sure....the training is obviously the same. Picture a first year doctoral student being given reigns to do whatever they want whenever they want and acting like that’s the same as 7-8+yr of training a neuropsychologist gets....that’s the current disconnect happening in TX.

This is just frustrating to hell. Someone in one of the psychology related subreddits was licensed at the master's level in Texas and was arguing that they are qualified to administer and interpret any test but projectives, because the law said they could. They kept arguing that they were qualified, because the law said they were and they did some ad hoc training and supervision with some tests.

This is the kind of thing we're dealing with when regulations are loose and we let people determine their own scopes of practice.

 

[foreverbull]

In the public's defense, we dont do a ton to distinguish ourselves. Research doesnt suggest we offer uniquely more, sadly, so it's a matter of us showing that more training is desirable for a provider and that it results in distinctly different client outcomes. We can do assessment but if it doesn't result in better treatment progress or distinct therapy goals, then what does that really matter.

This is disappointing. Do you (or anyone else?) have any thoughts about why we lack support for a positive effect of doctoral training on therapy outcomes vs. master's level therapists?

I did a quick scan and also noticed that more recent research also suggests that therapist years of experience doesn't improve client outcomes in a few longitudinal studies (or even results in a slight decline in outcomes, even after controlling for several factors like caseload, etc.), which is counterintuitive unless we were to expect professionals to become more rigid and overconfident in their abilities, perhaps.

In my past research, I found that number of direct hours (face-to-face) were positively correlated with confidence in ability to practice (specifically for doctoral trainees), as I expected, but unfortunately, confidence isn't synonymous with outcomes.

 

[Justanothergrad]

This is disappointing. Do you (or anyone else?) have any thoughts about why we lack support for a positive effect of doctoral training on therapy outcomes vs. master's level therapists?

I did a quick scan and also noticed that more recent research also suggests that therapist years of experience doesn't improve client outcomes in a few longitudinal studies (or even results in a slight decline in outcomes, even after controlling for several factors like caseload, etc.), which is counterintuitive unless we were to expect professionals to become more rigid and overconfident in their abilities, perhaps.

In my past research, I found that number of direct hours (face-to-face) were positively correlated with confidence in ability to practice (specifically for doctoral trainees), as I expected, but unfortunately, confidence isn't synonymous with outcomes.

I suspect common factors eats up a lot of the change variation. There are also issues of treatment adherence and client retention. I suspect once we remove bad providers that the good providers perform similar tasks and do them in a similar way. Much of that may embrace good EBP but there are plenty of crazy beliefs about MH treatment across specialties.

On a related note: I'm doing work on the correlation between confidence and competence in assessment practices right now and, as expected, attitudes poorly predict behavior.