What is the role of psychologists in reducing injustice and increasing social justice?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I assume that they are largely business owners and not clinicians unless we are talking some small niches, care to enlighten us?

Some combination of those, not accepting insurance, and being extremely charismatic/energetic. People with a large disposable income recognize the value of psychological services for their own personal well-being. I don't think it's my place to go into much detail beyond that.

Edit: I even remember reading an article in the APA Monitor or something a few years back written by an ECP who was in private practice in New York City reporting an income in that range. Quick google didn't turn it up, but it's known that this sort of thing happens.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Some combination of those, not accepting insurance, and extremely charismatic/energetic. I don't think it's my place to go into much detail beyond that.

I was more curious whether these kinds of salaries were due to high paid clinical work vs business ownership and getting a cut of salaries from other people. Past 300k, I would imagine it gets hard to produce that revenue based on individual hourly rate alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Members don't see this ad :)
There are, of course, also industry positions for folks with advanced training in psychopathology, human behavior, research methods, and statistics who don't want to go the academia route. They may require a bit more thinking outside the (career) box, though.

My abbreviated opinion is that if psychologists did better financially (which would involve self-advocacy, lobbying, etc.), we'd have more time, energy, financial resources, and probably impact to devote to social justice and philanthropic efforts. Hard to take care of others if you aren't first taking care of yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
These are definitely business owners taking a cut of other clinicians collections. Or consultants. The 500k+ people aren't the ones doing all clinical work.

This was my assumption, but always looking to be proven wrong.
 
I mean, I wouldn't doubt that there isn't someone making that money as like a psychoanalyst to celebrities, charging exorbitant session fees. But that is a pretty small niche.

I think that's a bit hyperbolic; there aren't a lot of celebrities. For example, think about incomes for the top 1% in the US (~$750,000), and consider that the entire veteran population accounts for around .5% of the US population. The whole VA system is set up to provide care to this .5% of the population. Now consider the mental health service needs of the top 1%, and consider whether they'd be interested in paying a premium for what they consider to be "the best." That's a lot of people -- not just celebrities.

Yes, it's extremely rare to make the right connections and takes substantial planning and good fortune, but the same is true of top earners in academia.
 
I think that's a bit hyperbolic; there aren't a lot of celebrities. For example, think about incomes for the top 1% in the US (~$750,000), and consider that the entire veteran population accounts for around .5% of the US population. The whole VA system is set up to provide care to this .5% of the population. Now consider the mental health service needs of the top 1%, and consider whether they'd be interested in paying a premium for what they consider to be "the best." That's a lot of people -- not just celebrities.

Yes, it's extremely rare to make the right connections and takes substantial planning and good fortune, but the same is true of top earners in academia.

what part of what I said is hyperbolic? And, exactly what point are we debating? I have no idea what point you think I'm disagreeing with you about.
 
I think that's a bit hyperbolic; there aren't a lot of celebrities. For example, think about incomes for the top 1% in the US (~$750,000), and consider that the entire veteran population accounts for around .5% of the US population. The whole VA system is set up to provide care to this .5% of the population. Now consider the mental health service needs of the top 1%, and consider whether they'd be interested in paying a premium for what they consider to be "the best." That's a lot of people -- not just celebrities.

Yes, it's extremely rare to make the right connections and takes substantial planning and good fortune, but the same is true of top earners in academia.

Income for the Top 1% in the U.S. is $420kish but point taken. That is why I was curious about what you were referring to.
 
what part of what I said is hyperbolic? And, exactly what point are we debating? I have no idea what point you think I'm disagreeing with you about.
You said it was a small niche, which I took as saying it was smaller than I think it is. Sorry if I misunderstood. I don't think this group is any smaller than the top earners in academia who are taking in similar incomes. I'll restate the point that others seem to be sniping at, for reference:

The impression I have generally is that academic positions (research or teaching) lead to vastly inferior effort:income prospects on average, compared to clinical positions. I got pretty into relative estimation several months back (on internship now, so it's timely), and then checked my conclusions with several research/clinical supervisors for confirmation. It seems like each part of the house thinks the other side is getting all the perks, when the reality is probably more that because of the in-fighting (among other factors) the house is simply in disarray.


Income for the Top 1% in the U.S. is $420kish but point taken. That is why I was curious about what you were referring to.

I pulled that number from this website. Maybe it's off, but that's the 2018 1% number they provided. How Much Income Puts You in the Top 1%, 5%, 10%?
 
You said it was a small niche, which I took as saying it was smaller than I think it is. Sorry if I misunderstood. I don't think this group is any smaller than the top earners in academia who are taking in similar incomes.



I pulled that number from this website. Maybe it's off, but that's the 2018 1% number they provided. How Much Income Puts You in the Top 1%, 5%, 10%?

I'd be willing to bet the top earners in clinical work far outearn the top earners in academia. I'd also be willing to wager that those top clinical earners make most of their income in other clinicians' collections. Or they are doing high powered forensic work. Nothing contentious about this, it's just business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
For reference, here is the article I mentioned earlier: Chloe Carmichael runs a thriving practice

Carmichael has been in practice for about five years, and in only her third year she passed the $1 million mark for revenue, which includes fees earned by three other therapists who work in her Park Avenue office

So, this is the gross between collections from 4 people. Plus, she also teaches business coursework. So yes, it can definitely be done in reaching the mil mark, but most of these people own the practice and get collections from other people they hire into the practice. The business side of things makes you the money, not the sole clinical work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Carmichael has been in practice for about five years, and in only her third year she passed the $1 million mark for revenue, which includes fees earned by three other therapists who work in her Park Avenue office

So, this is the gross between collections from 4 people. Plus, she also teaches business coursework. So yes, it can definitely be done in reaching the mil mark, but most of these people own the practice and get collections from other people they hire into the practice. The business side of things makes you the money, not the sole clinical work.


Also remember that 1 million in business revenue is not 1 million in personal take home. That is gross profit before costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Also remember that 1 million in business revenue is not 1 million in personal take home. That is gross profit before costs.

Very true, but similar is true for salaried positions, you're still paying taxes. There is just a LOT more you can write off as a business than you can as an employee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So... we're in agreement that psychologists in either academia or clinical arenas, on average, take home small salaries. There are exceptions to this rule, but the distribution of incomes is probably similar for academics and clinicians. The small salaries are insufficient relative to the need for lobbying to protect scope-creep and CPT-creep. What's the next step, then? (Also how is this where the thread on social justice ended up :()
 
So... we're in agreement that psychologists in either academia or clinical arenas, on average, take home small salaries. There are exceptions to this rule, but the distribution of incomes is probably similar for academics and clinicians. The small salaries are insufficient relative to the need for lobbying to protect scope-creep and CPT-creep. What's the next step, then? (Also how is this where the thread on social justice ended up :()

I'd disagree about the distributions being the same. I think clinical is more evenly distributed. If you took the top 5-ish% out for each group, clinical would likely look far better than academia.

As for what's next, we should be lobbying for all aspects of psychology to be better compensated. Which is why APA advocates for both clinical reimbursements AND increased research funding (which directly influences academic pay). At the ground level, join your state and national associations, know the relevant bills, and contact your state and federal representatives about them early and often.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Very true, but similar is true for salaried positions, you're still paying taxes. There is just a LOT more you can write off as a business than you can as an employee.

Absolutely, A successful business owner will always make more than a salaried employee. I just did not want others (students especially) to read the thread and assume it was $1MM take home.

To bring the topic back to social justice, there is also not equal access to these jobs/clientele. You have to belong to a very narrow group to make this your full-time work.
 
Absolutely, A successful business owner will always make more than a salaried employee. I just did not want others (students especially) to read the thread and assume it was $1MM take home.

To bring the topic back to social justice, there is also not equal access to these jobs/clientele. You have to belong to a very narrow group to make this your full-time work.


Yeah, never assume the number you see is your take home, even in salaried positions. Many would be surprised at the differences in employee vs. employer portion of insurance premiums paid are between organizations, and how much it affects your take home. Bottom-line, always run the numbers.
 
I'd disagree about the distributions being the same. I think clinical is more evenly distributed. If you took the top 5-ish% out for each group, clinical would likely look far better than academia.

As for what's next, we should be lobbying for all aspects of psychology to be better compensated. Which is why APA advocates for both clinical reimbursements AND increased research funding (which directly influences academic pay). At the ground level, join your state and national associations, know the relevant bills, and contact your state and federal representatives about them early and often.


I don't think that this is a bad goal, but we also need to address the divisiveness in our field.

Researchers and academics need to care more about clinicians, clinicians need to care more about academia, VA folks and academic folks need to care more about billing and what clinicians are paid outside their bubble, High end PP cash folks need to care about their colleagues that accept insurance. As it is, salaries are being reduced and people with other degrees are encroaching on literally every area of the field (Texas with their assessments, academic salaries dwindling, therapy salaries getting cut) and the biggest movement we have right now is PCSAS trying to say they are better than everyone else, like that will solve the problem. Unless we pick a future and defend it, the field will go down the tubes.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I don't think that this is a bad goal, but we also need to address the divisiveness in our field.

Researchers and academics need to care more about clinicians, clinicians need to care more about academia, VA folks and academic folks need to care more about billing and what clinicians are paid outside their bubble, High end PP cash folks need to care about their colleagues that accept insurance. As it is, salaries are being reduced and people with other degrees are encroaching on literally every area of the field (Texas with their assessments, academic salaries dwindling, therapy salaries getting cut) and the biggest movement we have right now is PCSAS trying to say they are better than everyone else, like that will solve the problem. Unless we pick a future and defend it, the field will go down the tubes.

Sure, I agree, but I think this is where APA does a good job, as they actively lobby in these areas, rather than only concentrating on one. Whereas, most other lobbying orgs are solely focused on one content area. We can talk about what we dislike about APA all day, but in the end, it's the best existing infrastructure in which to make these things happen.
 
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user
Sure, I agree, but I think this is where APA does a good job, as they actively lobby in these areas, rather than only concentrating on one. Whereas, most other lobbying orgs are solely focused on one content area. We can talk about what we dislike about APA all day, but in the end, it's the best existing infrastructure in which to make these things happen.


I would like to see APA make changes, but I do agree they are the best way to make things happen. Hence why I still pay my annual dues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I would like to see APA make changes, but I do agree they are the best way to make things happen. Hence why I still pay my annual dues.

Good to hear, and heck, if you have your own liability insurance, you get 20% off and a bunch of free CEs, bringing that cost down quite a bit.
 
Good to hear, and heck, if you have your own liability insurance, you get 20% off and a bunch of free CEs, bringing that cost down quite a bit.
I noticed that the APA Monitor magazine that I get in the mail actually has CEs available for reading some articles?! Thought that was pretty nuts. I think you just have to go to the website they provide to take a brief quiz on the content of the article or something.
 
I noticed that the APA Monitor magazine that I get in the mail actually has CEs available for reading some articles?! Thought that was pretty nuts. I think you just have to go to the website they provide to take a brief quiz on the content of the article or something.

Yeah, I think you can get 5 a year this way. There's also a smattering of free webinars here and there that can count as CEs. They've made more than usual free in the COVID era to help out with telepsych stuff.
 
Good to hear, and heck, if you have your own liability insurance, you get 20% off and a bunch of free CEs, bringing that cost down quite a bit.

I do keep my own and have always had American Professional. Being VA, free CEs are less of a draw to some extent.
 
I wonder if what we might describe broadly as "professional morass" (e.g., poor/declining reimbursement, disagreements about professional advocacy efforts, trouble clearly defining the role of psychologists, etc.) contributes to psychologists' participation in social justice issues? In additional to numerous other factors, of course. Sort of like, "well, if my profession is going to hell/I'm not getting paid what I think I'm worth/people don't understand or appreciate what I do, at least I can still have a positive impact somewhere."
 
I wonder if what we might describe broadly as "professional morass" (e.g., poor/declining reimbursement, disagreements about professional advocacy efforts, trouble clearly defining the role of psychologists, etc.) contributes to psychologists' participation in social justice issues? In additional to numerous other factors, of course. Sort of like, "well, if my profession is going to hell/I'm not getting paid what I think I'm worth/people don't understand or appreciate what I do, at least I can still have a positive impact somewhere."

I think the idea of a "power" implies some mild centralization. And I think that the idea of "fighting the power" reinforces that idea. And I think that it is unsurprising that individuals who believe in fighting centralized power are uninterested in joining an professional organization.

I also think that the profession that deals with individuals really misses the idea that people are just jerks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I noticed that the APA Monitor magazine that I get in the mail actually has CEs available for reading some articles?! Thought that was pretty nuts. I think you just have to go to the website they provide to take a brief quiz on the content of the article or something.

You can get these from listening to select podcasts and paying a few bucks now too. What a time to be alive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Bumping because as a non-psychologist (but hopeful future psychologist) I’ve really enjoyed the points made here.

From my research for applying to programs, I’ve found that some programs and researchers (typically but not always in Counseling psychology) have a *very* explicit goal of improving social justice.

I’m curious regarding your thoughts on something;
From my exploration of the social justice research, I’ve seen some research commentaries or research descriptions that include some qualifying statement similar to: “as an able-bodied, white, Heterosexual, cis-female, I understand I come from multiple privileged positions and that can keep me from completely understanding the issue at hand” (or something like that).

My initial reaction to reading statements like these is discomfort. I think it’s because it highlights the subjectivity of certain data and my initial feeling is that the research should beable to stand on its own and not depend on these particular identities of the author.

OR perhaps this is just something I should process in my own therapy...
 
Bumping because as a non-psychologist (but hopeful future psychologist) I’ve really enjoyed the points made here.

From my research for applying to programs, I’ve found that some programs and researchers (typically but not always in Counseling psychology) have a *very* explicit goal of improving social justice.

I’m curious regarding your thoughts on something;
From my exploration of the social justice research, I’ve seen some research commentaries or research descriptions that include some qualifying statement similar to: “as an able-bodied, white, Heterosexual, cis-female, I understand I come from multiple privileged positions and that can keep me from completely understanding the issue at hand” (or something like that).

My initial reaction to reading statements like these is discomfort. I think it’s because it highlights the subjectivity of certain data and my initial feeling is that the research should beable to stand on its own and not depend on these particular identities of the author.

OR perhaps this is just something I should process in my own therapy...
It’s nonscientific virtue signaling
 
Bumping because as a non-psychologist (but hopeful future psychologist) I’ve really enjoyed the points made here.

From my research for applying to programs, I’ve found that some programs and researchers (typically but not always in Counseling psychology) have a *very* explicit goal of improving social justice.

I’m curious regarding your thoughts on something;
From my exploration of the social justice research, I’ve seen some research commentaries or research descriptions that include some qualifying statement similar to: “as an able-bodied, white, Heterosexual, cis-female, I understand I come from multiple privileged positions and that can keep me from completely understanding the issue at hand” (or something like that).

My initial reaction to reading statements like these is discomfort. I think it’s because it highlights the subjectivity of certain data and my initial feeling is that the research should beable to stand on its own and not depend on these particular identities of the author.

OR perhaps this is just something I should process in my own therapy...

I would say it depends on what is being discussed. My research is typically on more "classically" objective topics than what many psychologists do (e.g. biomarkers, drug effects, neuroscience, etc.)....and let me assure you that it is still absolutely 100% prone to bias, shaped by experience/belief, and cannot stand on its own. Perhaps somewhat less so in the results themselves, but definitely in the discussion points I choose to emphasize and even in the analytic choices I make. It pains me to say and I think recognizing it has hurt my career since it makes me less...optimistic...than many about my findings. Compare my work to something equally valid to study, but necessarily more amorphous (e.g. "culture") and subjectivity is going to play a role no matter what you do. Even if not in the design itself...in the questions you choose to ask and the questions you choose not to ask.

That said - I also see a lot of people use subjectivity as an excuse to do sloppy garbage-science. And I sometimes see people make qualifying statements like that prior to a very blunt "You clearly have no earthly idea how to do science" because unfortunately objective concerns about basic research design and what conclusions can rightfully be drawn can sometimes get politicized. So they want to head off the "You just think that because you are X" response when telling someone that they did their error correction wrong.

I think a little more humility would go a long way in science and in society in general. I don't find something like that inherently off-putting, but nor do I find it necessarily a positive. Unfortunately, nothing is as straightforward or easy as it seems....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
U Colorado - Boulder just released a memo stating that a commitment to fighting systemic racism is now a requirement for admission:

"We may be confronting the unparalleled challenges of a global pandemic, but we can’t let that work distract us from making real changes to our campus culture to combat systemic racism and bias-motivated behavior. These changes must be seen in how we recruit students, faculty, staff and administrators––in how we signal to them the need to embrace our community values as a bottom line, non-negotiable condition of enrollment and employment." (emphasis mine)

What are everyone's thoughts on this?
 
U Colorado - Boulder just released a memo stating that a commitment to fighting systemic racism is now a requirement for admission:

"We may be confronting the unparalleled challenges of a global pandemic, but we can’t let that work distract us from making real changes to our campus culture to combat systemic racism and bias-motivated behavior. These changes must be seen in how we recruit students, faculty, staff and administrators––in how we signal to them the need to embrace our community values as a bottom line, non-negotiable condition of enrollment and employment." (emphasis mine)

What are everyone's thoughts on this?

If it’s like most organizations, probably some empty words with the usual platitudes without actual actionable steps to increase diversity or create a safer environment. But a good goal, if not just to signal racism and prejudice will not be tolerated - it remains to be seen what they will do to change behavior though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
U Colorado - Boulder just released a memo stating that a commitment to fighting systemic racism is now a requirement for admission:

"We may be confronting the unparalleled challenges of a global pandemic, but we can’t let that work distract us from making real changes to our campus culture to combat systemic racism and bias-motivated behavior. These changes must be seen in how we recruit students, faculty, staff and administrators––in how we signal to them the need to embrace our community values as a bottom line, non-negotiable condition of enrollment and employment." (emphasis mine)

What are everyone's thoughts on this?
I’m not sure what that would look like in practice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I’m not sure what that would look like in practice.

It means they will kick out blatant racists or anyone that creates poor optics for the university. Hardly useful social justice. From a university that is committed to diversity with their:

$29k in-state tuition
$54k out of state tuition
$60k International tuition

EDIT: That does include housing: tuition is $11k for arts and sciences;, $16k for business majors; 14k for engineering majors in-state
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
One of my biggest concern across multiple arenas right now is the increased focus saying the right thing over doing the right thing. Maybe this has always been the case and I was just naive, but I feel like image-crafting is becoming more of a focus than actual problem solving. Anti-racism shouldn't just be a marketing campaign.

In sum...I'll believe it is more than just empty words when UC Boulder gives extra points for health disparities research for APT, recognizes community engagement/involvement in making promotion decisions, coughs up dollars to fund research projects on relevant topics, etc. Maybe they are already, but part of the problem all along has been places adding things like that to their mission statement, then patting themselves on the back for a job well-done and getting back to business as-usual.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It means they will kick out blatant racists or anyone that creates poor optics for the university. Hardly useful social justice.
What I mean is being racist is not clear cut. Kicking out employees will almost always lead to a lawsuit. Who decides what is racist? More close to home, will someone one day decide that teaching about group differences in IQ is racist?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What I mean is being racist is not clear cut. Kicking out employees will almost always lead to a lawsuit. Who decides what is racist? More close to home, will someone one day decide that teaching about group differences in IQ is racist?

Social media decides, it is all about optics...or maybe I am just a cynic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
What I mean is being racist is not clear cut. Kicking out employees will almost always lead to a lawsuit. Who decides what is racist? More close to home, will someone one day decide that teaching about group differences in IQ is racist?

I think we can all agree it would depend on the course content and approach of the instructor, no? In the same way it's possible to teach about Nazi Germany in a way that is racist and not racist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think we can all agree it would depend on the course content and approach of the instructor, no? In the same way it's possible to teach about Nazi Germany in a way that is racist and not racist.
But is it with the outrage crowd today?
 
I think we can all agree it would depend on the course content and approach of the instructor, no? In the same way it's possible to teach about Nazi Germany in a way that is racist and not racist.
I think we can all agree that the statement put out by that school, without detail, is for show rather than a genuine change in approach for the university.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Admittedly a neuroscientist and not a psychologist, but for those who haven't seen Carl Hart's recent publication in Neuron, you can access here.

I've met him several times and greatly respect what he does even if I am not in 100% agreement on his interpretation of specific results. Posting because I think this is a good example of how academic voices can (and should) enter the social justice arena. And to some extent - have an ethical obligation to do so. The article walks a fine line - in some times tipping past what I think should be said and in some ways not going far enough based on my read of the literature, but that is my methodological nit-picking.

At least for me - I do think this is where I do think we can heavily contribute. Either in writing similar editorials or just by reading them and reconsidering how we approach our own work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top