What is the coursework like in PhD or PsyD program?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

brightness

Full Member
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
320
Reaction score
6
I am wondering what the classes you take are like in your program. I took a course called "clinical interviewing and counseling" this semester, and I really hated it. We learned about therapy- but all we really learned was a bunch of touchy feely crap that I don't feel I can really apply to anything. We learned that we need to nod our head and say "mmhmm"- "attending skills", and that we need to have people draw community genograms to be aware of their multicultural nature. Mostly we learned a lot of basic stuff, ie., listen to the client, nod your head, convey warmth and empathy, give new perspectives, ect. We also learned about several types of therapies, including psychodynamic therapy, cognitive behavior therapy, ect. This part wasn't quite as bad, but there are all these stupid acronyms and essays on incorporating multiculturality, ect.
SO, I am wondering- is all the coursework like this? Is there anything scientific or any potential for getting involved with the biological determinants of behavior?

Members don't see this ad.
 
It depends on the focus of the program. If its goal is to produce clinicians, then yes the majority of classes will likely be that "touchy feely crap" that you don't like. But if the focus is on research or a balanced approach, you'll have a wide range of courses.

However, I'd argue that no matter how silly it seems, if you want to do therapy one or two of those active listening lectures won't kill you.

The bottomline is... no program is going to give you only the courses that you WANT to take. You're gonna have to sit through some things that you just aren't interested in. Granted it'll happen less than high school and undergrad, but still.
 
Is there anything scientific or any potential for getting involved with the biological determinants of behavior?

Sounds like you should consider developmental psychology. Also, reframing your attitude to try and accept the empathetic nature of counseling courses might be helpful. After all, your goal is to hopefully help people of all kinds and, although it may seem like "crap", it'll be useful to you at some point.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I am wondering what the classes you take are like in your program. I took a course called "clinical interviewing and counseling" this semester, and I really hated it. We learned about therapy- but all we really learned was a bunch of touchy feely crap that I don't feel I can really apply to anything. We learned that we need to nod our head and say "mmhmm"- "attending skills", and that we need to have people draw community genograms to be aware of their multicultural nature. Mostly we learned a lot of basic stuff, ie., listen to the client, nod your head, convey warmth and empathy, give new perspectives, ect. We also learned about several types of therapies, including psychodynamic therapy, cognitive behavior therapy, ect. This part wasn't quite as bad, but there are all these stupid acronyms and essays on incorporating multiculturality, ect.
SO, I am wondering- is all the coursework like this? Is there anything scientific or any potential for getting involved with the biological determinants of behavior?

If you cant get a grip on this "crap" then maybe working with clients is not for you. This stuff is the foundation for helping people.
 
The therapeutic relationship is vital for facilitating change, and the touchy feely stuff relates to that. Rogers wrote some great books on this, and there is some pretty solid research out there to support it.

As for 'active listening skills', etc. 78% of communication is non-verbal....so as much as you may think it is crap, it makes a big difference.

There will be more 'scientific' courses, especially if you look more into the health / neuro side of things.

-t
 
I agree with RayneeDeigh that the focus of the prorgram will determine the structure and type of the coursework to a large extent. Look for programs that emphasize the research you are looking to do or have specializations in those areas.

For what it's worth, I can empathize with your feelings toward the "touchy feely" side of the curriculum. Although I am dedicated to being able to eventually provide quality therapy, I also find some exercises to be extraordinarily cheesy. On the other hand, I've also taken a class that focused on providing therapy that was richly complex and absolutely blew my mind.

You should ask yourself if you really want to do therapy for your career. If the answer is yes, then, unlike others have suggested, I don't think you need to feel bad about finding some of the courses you will take to be silly at times, just take what you can from them. If the answer is no, then it may be time to start looking into other areas of psychology like developmental or neuro that will be completely research based.
 
Hi brightness! If you're into research, there's a large body of it that you might want to check out on the therapeutic alliance and in particular the dodo bird effect. The quality of relationship between the therapist and the client is one of the strongest predictors of whether therapy will work, and helps outcome regardless of the therapy orientation.

I'm not too clear on why you're dismissive of multiculturalism and diversity training. I personally see it as vitally important to therapy. If you're counseling a firmly Orthodox Catholic couple, they probabaly won't be back to you if you tell them to get divorced, for example.
 
Hehehe...
Ok, so using the word crap wasn't that great of an idea. Its not that I really don't like counseling- I've been a "natural counselor"- ie., people spill their guts to me like, all the time- and I do appreciate the theoretical foundations. Today in abnormal psychology we discussed HOW different groups percieved the world differently, rather than just saying they do and coming up with exercises to help people who are multicultural without understanding why. I guess I found examples and applying the therapy, because its not just memorizing but also using the skills, sort of. I'm sorry if I offended anyone...I'm just really frustrated with my current class. I feel like all of the items in the textbook are very unclear, and are just lists and lists of 'steps' an acronyms. I always thought that counseling would be more...fluid.
I'm either thinking of clinical psych, psychiatric NP, or nurse midwife right now. I am very interested in working with underserved population and I've narrowed it down to women's health or psychiatry/psychology= mental health, generally. I am really interested in the brain, and medication management, and psychotherapy, but I'm also interested in providing health care to women- obviously those are pretty different! Its been a condundrum for me, as many of you know. I'm going back and forth a lot about NP vs. PhD in clinical psych, and I wanted to know what the courseload was like for a PhD.
 
I'm actually a bit surprised you got the reactions that you did, though perhaps its because I kind of agree with you. Almost everyone I've met who is either already in a PhD program, or wants to go to one feels the same way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your problem that you think the "touchy-feely" aspects aren't important for communication? Or just that you feel many of them should be obvious to someone who wants to be a therapist, and that you'd like to learn something that will allow you to not just actively listen, but actively help people as well?

I've had classes like that before as well as an undergrad - to me at least, all that stuff is just flat out common sense. Which is weird because I consider myself at least mildly socially anxious and uncomfortable in certain social situations. Guess it means I'm not as bad as I think I am:)

I will likely be equally as annoyed during similar classes. People are right that the stuff you described as "crap" is an important part of therapy, but I'd also think the sorts of things you mentioned are things that

1) Should have been developed LONG before admission to graduate school (or hell, admission to HIGH school)

2) Can't be taught anyways.

I remember in my business communication class we had an entire 50 minute lecture on how its important to listen to people when they talk, because they may be telling you something important. Pardon my language, but no ****. If I have to hear lectures on this in graduate school, I will think something is horribly wrong with the school. I mean after all, if the professors teaching the class actually listened to people during interviews, they'd have picked people with at least semi-functional brains and realized that therapists have to be good listeners;)

When I think therapy classes, I want to learn CBT, differential diagnosis, etc.. I want specific examples of how to help people with depression, eating disorders, specific phobias. What to say if they mention this problem? What are some of the hardest questions clients ask and how to respond? What to do with a client who is resistent to trying treatment x? What to do when a client doesn't seem to be improving? Those are the kind of things I want to cover. Not a professor telling me its important to actively listen to clients, or that picking your nose and wiping it on clients is bad. I hope by the time you've reached doctoral level training, both of those should go without saying.

I don't know you beyond these posts, but it sounds like you have a good handle on what you want and I think that despite what others here have said, you would make a fine therapist. Unfortunately, since I haven't started my PhD yet, I have no way to answer your actual question.
Best of luck with your decision.
 
I'm actually a bit surprised you got the reactions that you did, though perhaps its because I kind of agree with you. Almost everyone I've met who is either already in a PhD program, or wants to go to one feels the same way.

Ditto for me as well....Wait, is saying both "ditto" and "as well" redundant? Eh, whatever, it's late.
 
Exactly!!!! I think you said a lot of what I am feeling really well. I know those things are important for communication, but shouldn't you have learned to listen to people, to nod your head and give "encouragers" while they talk, to act interested...in like, 5th grade? I want to listen well but also know how to help people, to influence in a helpful, constructive way, to help them change. I also want to know, like you said, what specific techniques can be used to help people with specific disorders.
I guess this was just a basic undergrad course in clinical skills...but I felt like it was too basic, too touchy feely, and too ambiguous. At this point, I don't feel like I know much more about therapy or anything...and I don't want grad school to be like that.

I'm actually a bit surprised you got the reactions that you did, though perhaps its because I kind of agree with you. Almost everyone I've met who is either already in a PhD program, or wants to go to one feels the same way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your problem that you think the "touchy-feely" aspects aren't important for communication? Or just that you feel many of them should be obvious to someone who wants to be a therapist, and that you'd like to learn something that will allow you to not just actively listen, but actively help people as well?

I've had classes like that before as well as an undergrad - to me at least, all that stuff is just flat out common sense. Which is weird because I consider myself at least mildly socially anxious and uncomfortable in certain social situations. Guess it means I'm not as bad as I think I am:)

I will likely be equally as annoyed during similar classes. People are right that the stuff you described as "crap" is an important part of therapy, but I'd also think the sorts of things you mentioned are things that

1) Should have been developed LONG before admission to graduate school (or hell, admission to HIGH school)

2) Can't be taught anyways.

I remember in my business communication class we had an entire 50 minute lecture on how its important to listen to people when they talk, because they may be telling you something important. Pardon my language, but no ****. If I have to hear lectures on this in graduate school, I will think something is horribly wrong with the school. I mean after all, if the professors teaching the class actually listened to people during interviews, they'd have picked people with at least semi-functional brains and realized that therapists have to be good listeners;)

When I think therapy classes, I want to learn CBT, differential diagnosis, etc.. I want specific examples of how to help people with depression, eating disorders, specific phobias. What to say if they mention this problem? What are some of the hardest questions clients ask and how to respond? What to do with a client who is resistent to trying treatment x? What to do when a client doesn't seem to be improving? Those are the kind of things I want to cover. Not a professor telling me its important to actively listen to clients, or that picking your nose and wiping it on clients is bad. I hope by the time you've reached doctoral level training, both of those should go without saying.

I don't know you beyond these posts, but it sounds like you have a good handle on what you want and I think that despite what others here have said, you would make a fine therapist. Unfortunately, since I haven't started my PhD yet, I have no way to answer your actual question.
Best of luck with your decision.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
An NP and PhD are two very different animals.

-t

Yeah, I know that. But either way, if your goals are to work with people doing therapy, both a psych NP and a psychologist would reach those goals. I've thought about a PhD because I have some interest in research and writing and I like the depth of knowledge. I've thought about getting an NP because it gets you into the working world more quickly, you get to do medication management, and in two years you could work in another field if you wanted to. I'd like information and opinions about those two paths. I'm really not interested in going to medical school- so I feel like these two options are really what I'm debating about.
 
Establishing rapport takes a little more than head nods, saying "mmhmm" and the ability to "act interested." Most clients are able to see through disingenuousness pretty easily, in my experience, and it's not head nods and mumbles that make them feel understood. Large numbers of people entering therapy don't have diagnosable mental illnesses, and I've never seen a manualized treatment for ennui.

I think training like that can be valuable, especially as a starting point for people to learn more. In my experience, a lot of people enter into helping situations with the attitude of "I can fix people's problems if I'm able to tell them exactly what they should do," an attitude I think rarely achieves the desired effect (one of my profs said it well: "Some people expect me to just tell them what to do to feel better. How the hell should I know what they should do? My life isn't perfect, it's crazy-- I'm not much of a model. But I can help them with the process of figuring out what might work best for them"). Learning to withhold advice and judgement is something many people new to the situation need to learn.
 
I guess this was just a basic undergrad course in clinical skills...but I felt like it was too basic, too touchy feely, and too ambiguous. At this point, I don't feel like I know much more about therapy or anything...and I don't want grad school to be like that.


So you want to provide therapy but you hate having to be nice?

Have you looked into a career as a dominatrix?
 
So you want to provide therapy but you hate having to be nice?

Have you looked into a career as a dominatrix?

The complaint isn't that the OP hates being nice, but that she hates being spoon fed lessons on how to be nice.
 
That being said, the passage that was quoted actually has nothing to do with what he said.

I don't want to fight brightness's battles for her, but that post seemed completely uncalled for so....

Terry....ever consider a career as Stuart Smalley?
 
I wasn't being serious, people. After I posted that, I thought "Hmmm... I should have included a :p just so people know it's a joke."
In the SNL scheme of things, that was more of a Jack Handey than a Stuart Smalley.
:rolleyes:



That being said, the passage that was quoted actually has nothing to do with what he said.

I don't want to fight brightness's battles for her, but that post seemed completely uncalled for so....

Terry....ever consider a career as Stuart Smalley?
 
MMmmm.....Dominatrix....:D
Noooo....not really. I don't mind being nice, I swear I'm a very nice person....
 
Then my apologies. Given some of the other posts in this thread I just assumed you were being serious.

Stupid internet and its inability to portray tone of voice....
 
In my PhD program, most therapy traning is done in individual supervision. There is a "Theories and Methods of Psychotherapy" course that is required, but it's far more about theoretical foundations, getting familiar with the research, and some serious discussion about the impact of patient and therapist characteristics, as well as alliance issues. We got much more into depth and detail on these issues (guided by the research) than just "it's important to be nice" and "here's how to look like you're being nice." I also had to take an Advanced Abnormal Psych class which talked about diagnostic and evolutionary issues, theory, physiology, and a little on therapeutic techniques. My program offers optional courses on special issues in therapy such as work with groups and techniques for treating anxiety disorders, but very little required coursework devoted to therapeutic techniques. It is a research-focused program, but I think it's true in any program that you are expected to learn the most about how to "do" therapy during your practica.

You have some very exciting decisions ahead of you! (PhD, NP, or dominatrix...hmmm.) Good luck and let us know what you decide!
 
You have some very exciting decisions ahead of you! (PhD, NP, or dominatrix...hmmm.) Good luck and let us know what you decide!

Why not a combination? The world needs more dominatrix PhDs and NPs.:D
 
I'm actually a bit surprised you got the reactions that you did, though perhaps its because I kind of agree with you. Almost everyone I've met who is either already in a PhD program, or wants to go to one feels the same way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your problem that you think the "touchy-feely" aspects aren't important for communication? Or just that you feel many of them should be obvious to someone who wants to be a therapist, and that you'd like to learn something that will allow you to not just actively listen, but actively help people as well?

I've had classes like that before as well as an undergrad - to me at least, all that stuff is just flat out common sense. Which is weird because I consider myself at least mildly socially anxious and uncomfortable in certain social situations. Guess it means I'm not as bad as I think I am:)

I will likely be equally as annoyed during similar classes. People are right that the stuff you described as "crap" is an important part of therapy, but I'd also think the sorts of things you mentioned are things that

1) Should have been developed LONG before admission to graduate school (or hell, admission to HIGH school)

2) Can't be taught anyways.

I remember in my business communication class we had an entire 50 minute lecture on how its important to listen to people when they talk, because they may be telling you something important. Pardon my language, but no ****. If I have to hear lectures on this in graduate school, I will think something is horribly wrong with the school. I mean after all, if the professors teaching the class actually listened to people during interviews, they'd have picked people with at least semi-functional brains and realized that therapists have to be good listeners;)

When I think therapy classes, I want to learn CBT, differential diagnosis, etc.. I want specific examples of how to help people with depression, eating disorders, specific phobias. What to say if they mention this problem? What are some of the hardest questions clients ask and how to respond? What to do with a client who is resistent to trying treatment x? What to do when a client doesn't seem to be improving? Those are the kind of things I want to cover. Not a professor telling me its important to actively listen to clients, or that picking your nose and wiping it on clients is bad. I hope by the time you've reached doctoral level training, both of those should go without saying.

I don't know you beyond these posts, but it sounds like you have a good handle on what you want and I think that despite what others here have said, you would make a fine therapist. Unfortunately, since I haven't started my PhD yet, I have no way to answer your actual question.
Best of luck with your decision.
I think that you both are over simplifying what building the therapeutic relationship entails. Of course you want to listen and attend. But, after my 1st year of grad school and my first clients, I can't tell you how difficult learning to be a good therapist is. You have to learn to act and observe your actions at the same time, how to respond in a nondefensive way when someone attacks you (next time someone gives you a hard time about something, try to analyze what they are feeling vs. getting angry), how to talk process with clients (i.e. talk about your relationship with them and what is going on between you and be ready to be nondefensive about what you hear), how to be empathetic to feelings without condoning actions, how to deal with the fact that your client, even after 10 therapy sessions with you, might go off and hurt someone or hurt themselves, how to hear what they are feeling even when they don't know what they are feeling, and how to turn off worrying about clients when you leave the session and go off to take a class. There are a ton of active helping skills you can learn, like CBT interventions, mindfulness, etc. but until you learn to truly sit with a client & hold their emotion (no matter how that emotion makes you feel), you aren't going to be effective.

I say this because before I came to grad school I felt like you did. Now I can see just how incredibly difficult therapy is. It is really a lifetime struggle; you have to learn to undo however many years of social training you have learned in order to be effective with clients. Friends sit with friends and support them, etc. but you are not their friend, you are their therapist.
 
Actually that makes a lot of sense and I completely agree with you. The social skills required are vastly different in a therapeutic relationship than they would with a friend, coworker, etc.

This issue at hand though is that people were telling someone she wouldn't make a good therapist because 3 hours of lecture on "nod when people are talking to you" seems stupid to her, and the fact that she realizes thats a waste of her time makes her "mean". I know the kind of classes she was talking about, and they don't delve into some of the issues you mentioned - I'd have loved to take classes that discussed things like that!

Instead, they focused on basic communication skills that most people have to develop just to get through life. Its like spending an hour long lecture covering the fact that therapy won't work if the client only speaks Swahili and I only speak English. Perhaps I overstepped a bit, but all I wanted to say is that lectures like that are probably unnecessary, and realizing how unnecessary they are does not mean someone won't be a good therapist.
 
Hm. I can relate, going back to the original post. I think the piece that gets lost without the practical experience is that being warm with clients, empathetic, all that stuff - it's much harder than most of us would think. The kind of empathy and communication are so different in the therapy room than they are in the rest of life - it really is more about undoing all of those social things we've learned rather than taking them and applying them... it's so hard to see that from a class without the practicum experience. Here's a book we are using for our class that I HIGHLY recommend: http://www.amazon.com/Interpersonal-Process-Therapy-Integrative-Model/dp/0534515649/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-7183552-5275367?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177600694&sr=8-1

Actually that makes a lot of sense and I completely agree with you. The social skills required are vastly different in a therapeutic relationship than they would with a friend, coworker, etc.

This issue at hand though is that people were telling someone she wouldn't make a good therapist because 3 hours of lecture on "nod when people are talking to you" seems stupid to her, and the fact that she realizes thats a waste of her time makes her "mean". I know the kind of classes she was talking about, and they don't delve into some of the issues you mentioned - I'd have loved to take classes that discussed things like that!

Instead, they focused on basic communication skills that most people have to develop just to get through life. Its like spending an hour long lecture covering the fact that therapy won't work if the client only speaks Swahili and I only speak English. Perhaps I overstepped a bit, but all I wanted to say is that lectures like that are probably unnecessary, and realizing how unnecessary they are does not mean someone won't be a good therapist.
 
Oh no, not another book!

Seriously, thanks for posting that and I may have to check it out sometime soon. I've already dropped about $200 in the past month on psych books, about half of which I found out about on this board, so it will have to wait its turn:)
 
Oh no, not another book!

Seriously, thanks for posting that and I may have to check it out sometime soon. I've already dropped about $200 in the past month on psych books, about half of which I found out about on this board, so it will have to wait its turn:)

ha... well, maybe it's in the library. :)
 
I think some people are naturally good therapists, meaning capable of building rapport and controlling their affective environment, high self-monitors if you will. The form of doing therapy is something you learn with supervision in practicums and internship and postdoc. The why, you learn in class. Having hand-holding coursework is completely unnecessary. I'd never take such a course (e.g. an active listening lecture. . .ugh. . . kill me now).

Agreed. Your primary focus should be THEORY in class. First learn, then you apply. There will be some general info about building a therapeutic alliance and such, but that won't really make sense until you are in there doing it. An entire class of hand-holding...ugh!

-t
 
My Phd program sounds similar to MelKU's in terms of how clinical training is provided. I suspect this is because we are both at research-oriented programs. The differences are likely to be greater a in more clinically-focused program.

At any rate, at my program, with the exception of assessment (which is course-based), the development of other "clinical skills" are covered most extensively in practicum. We do have several courses that provides a theoretical foundation for understanding and treating mental disorders- and we do go into some detail of how you apply certain treatments to specific disorders- however, for the most part, the actual application of many aspects of these therapies are reserved for when working with clients.
 
Top