I'm finishing up a 2nd undergrad in psych, and have been trying to decide (for ages!) between allied health fields. I've been weighing out 1) a PhD in clinical or counselling psychology, 2) OT and 3) PT. I'm now doubting each for different reasons, and wondering if some of you might be able to help me make sense of my hopes and concerns, or have thoughts on alternatives I haven't considered.
To that end, I'll try to quickly describe my motivations and constraints, rather than the end-goal, since I'm basically taking a poll. I set myself on a career change for the warm fuzzies, intellectual engagement, and financial security. Not shooting for big dreams or six digits here, just a reliable income in a field that will survive changing economic weather and keep me engaged. (Of course I do have a [now, it seems, unfortunate] passion, for psychology, but lots about the reality of that path has me worried.)
"Engaged", to me, means providing at least some direct service to individuals with a reasonably founded hope of good outcomes. I've taught ESL to adults and seen them improve. That kind of satisfaction is what I'm after. I enjoyed and was especially good at the 'diagnostic' aspect of teaching - identifying the point at which individuals struggled, based on observation, and making a tailored plan to address areas needing improvement.
Working with motivated students (most of them) was fantastic. Some had complicated relationships with the systems they were in; I did what I could to advocate on their behalf when I had the chance, and this was also rewarding. (Why aren't I teaching ESL now? Average pay is $20/hr where I am; it depends on government funding and is axed whenever possible, in my area; the subject matter itself holds my interest only a medium amount; management is the only progression route, and no thanks to that. I've done related admin as well, and it bores me to tears. Process, bureaucracy, politics, go-nowhere meetings - the less of that the better. There's a glut of elementary and secondary school teachers where I am - I do not want to be unemployed.)
Must-haves: variety, challenge, and at least some autonomy.
Would like to have: the potential to work in research, in some capacity, would be wonderful. The option to hang a shingle would also be nice.
Constraints: no children, but yes to family obligations. Some recently developed health conditions that mean the option to work part-time might be relevant in future. Single woman in late 30s with traditional personal goals.
1) Psych PhD
Pros: Genuine and lifelong love for the subject - that's worth quite a lot. Particular interests are health psych, neuro and cognitive psychology. Part-time work is possible (not so much in my preferred areas, but in some). Not as physically demanding as other fields. I have a strong intuition I'd be good at it, which is supported by feedback (not my mom's
).
Cons: the hoops, the years, the hierarchy. Probably having to move to a city I don't love, due to competition. Dropouts. Outcomes aren't as clear as in some other allied health fields. Burnout. All of these are major cons and approach cancelling out the pros. Letting this dream die is hard.
2) PT
Pros: Everything. Some diagnostic functions; tangible outcomes; motivated patients; largely positive work atmosphere. People get better, and you can see it happen. Autonomy, including the option to work in private practice; steady work projected. Part-time work possible. Masters-level profession in my area - could work and continue on in research (possibly through an MPH, later. I'm interested enough in fascia to do the clinical work, but enough to do straight up PT research).
Cons: My own health; occupational risks. It's a physical job that it's unlikely I'll be able to do until age 60+, or probably even 50. (I'm doing rehab myself right now for a few fairly impairing issues. Rehab will get me to a reasonable level of functionality, but new problems are extremely likely to come along, in my case.) This one con is so huge I've had to cross PT off. Which sucked, massively.
3) OT
Pros: Similar to PT in many ways, though outcomes aren't as clear (depending on population). Some overlap with psychology. Ability to work after the masters (earn $) as well as continue on, where there's a chance to contribute to research.
Cons: Populations often deal with more persistent problems. Clinical work exclusively tied to hospitals. I do not think I would enjoy the work as much as I would psych (greater diagnostic responsibility/challenge) or PT (clearer outcomes). I'm kind of meh about it. (Though, it would still be more interesting than the kind of work I can do with my existing background and education, and I'd be financially better off.)
4) Other
Social work does not appeal to me, because I'll just say no to the idea of working in a setting in which resources flat out don't meet people's needs. I'd be burned out within two months, if I could drag myself through the training.
Just the MPH, no direct service profession: it's all research, big-picture thinking, great. Policy side - 100% bureaucracy. Completely deskbound. Completely lacking in the reward department with no face to face contact anywhere. With no profession or PhD, it'd be mostly number crunching. I like spending time with people.
Is there something I'm omitting in my decision-making (or a profession I've missed, ha)? What factors would you be thinking about in my shoes?
To that end, I'll try to quickly describe my motivations and constraints, rather than the end-goal, since I'm basically taking a poll. I set myself on a career change for the warm fuzzies, intellectual engagement, and financial security. Not shooting for big dreams or six digits here, just a reliable income in a field that will survive changing economic weather and keep me engaged. (Of course I do have a [now, it seems, unfortunate] passion, for psychology, but lots about the reality of that path has me worried.)
"Engaged", to me, means providing at least some direct service to individuals with a reasonably founded hope of good outcomes. I've taught ESL to adults and seen them improve. That kind of satisfaction is what I'm after. I enjoyed and was especially good at the 'diagnostic' aspect of teaching - identifying the point at which individuals struggled, based on observation, and making a tailored plan to address areas needing improvement.
Working with motivated students (most of them) was fantastic. Some had complicated relationships with the systems they were in; I did what I could to advocate on their behalf when I had the chance, and this was also rewarding. (Why aren't I teaching ESL now? Average pay is $20/hr where I am; it depends on government funding and is axed whenever possible, in my area; the subject matter itself holds my interest only a medium amount; management is the only progression route, and no thanks to that. I've done related admin as well, and it bores me to tears. Process, bureaucracy, politics, go-nowhere meetings - the less of that the better. There's a glut of elementary and secondary school teachers where I am - I do not want to be unemployed.)
Must-haves: variety, challenge, and at least some autonomy.
Would like to have: the potential to work in research, in some capacity, would be wonderful. The option to hang a shingle would also be nice.
Constraints: no children, but yes to family obligations. Some recently developed health conditions that mean the option to work part-time might be relevant in future. Single woman in late 30s with traditional personal goals.
1) Psych PhD
Pros: Genuine and lifelong love for the subject - that's worth quite a lot. Particular interests are health psych, neuro and cognitive psychology. Part-time work is possible (not so much in my preferred areas, but in some). Not as physically demanding as other fields. I have a strong intuition I'd be good at it, which is supported by feedback (not my mom's
).Cons: the hoops, the years, the hierarchy. Probably having to move to a city I don't love, due to competition. Dropouts. Outcomes aren't as clear as in some other allied health fields. Burnout. All of these are major cons and approach cancelling out the pros. Letting this dream die is hard.
2) PT
Pros: Everything. Some diagnostic functions; tangible outcomes; motivated patients; largely positive work atmosphere. People get better, and you can see it happen. Autonomy, including the option to work in private practice; steady work projected. Part-time work possible. Masters-level profession in my area - could work and continue on in research (possibly through an MPH, later. I'm interested enough in fascia to do the clinical work, but enough to do straight up PT research).
Cons: My own health; occupational risks. It's a physical job that it's unlikely I'll be able to do until age 60+, or probably even 50. (I'm doing rehab myself right now for a few fairly impairing issues. Rehab will get me to a reasonable level of functionality, but new problems are extremely likely to come along, in my case.) This one con is so huge I've had to cross PT off. Which sucked, massively.
3) OT
Pros: Similar to PT in many ways, though outcomes aren't as clear (depending on population). Some overlap with psychology. Ability to work after the masters (earn $) as well as continue on, where there's a chance to contribute to research.
Cons: Populations often deal with more persistent problems. Clinical work exclusively tied to hospitals. I do not think I would enjoy the work as much as I would psych (greater diagnostic responsibility/challenge) or PT (clearer outcomes). I'm kind of meh about it. (Though, it would still be more interesting than the kind of work I can do with my existing background and education, and I'd be financially better off.)
4) Other
Social work does not appeal to me, because I'll just say no to the idea of working in a setting in which resources flat out don't meet people's needs. I'd be burned out within two months, if I could drag myself through the training.
Just the MPH, no direct service profession: it's all research, big-picture thinking, great. Policy side - 100% bureaucracy. Completely deskbound. Completely lacking in the reward department with no face to face contact anywhere. With no profession or PhD, it'd be mostly number crunching. I like spending time with people.
Is there something I'm omitting in my decision-making (or a profession I've missed, ha)? What factors would you be thinking about in my shoes?
Last edited:
