If you need a confidence boost, you mentioned earlier that you are an AA male. I believe this will help your application to top PsyD programs and balanced PhD programs. The field is 85% female and mostly white so as a minority male you would definitely stand out, assuming your credentials were objectively good.
Where else should I apply? PsyD
- Thread starter Edward3nigm4
- Start date
If you need a confidence boost, you mentioned earlier that you are an AA male. I believe this will help your application to top PsyD programs and balanced PhD programs. The field is 85% female and mostly white so as a minority male you would definitely stand out, assuming your credentials were objectively good.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
Darn it, that's too bad. I I knew the true identity of JeyRo, I could go to CA and put an Obama bumper sticker on his car
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
That freaks me out a little bit. If you want a doctorate, you are going to at least have to have a working understanding of statistics and research design - those sections that you "blank out" on are critical to being able to adequately assess the quality of a study (and therefore, it's conclusions).
It is sad that this is how Psy.D. degrees are perceived - in theory there is supposed to still be a strong enough emphasis on research (just not to the extent of a PhD and not generally expecting the production of original research).
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm actually South-Asian American...meaning, my parents are from India & Pakistan. I was born here in America tho. I look Mexican or Puerto Rican. So I'm technically a minority male. It's so weird, I haven't met many males in any of my psych classes. It's been interesting, I feel like it gives me a boost. It makes me stand out in class. Although I do feel often that I'm answering on behalf of all brown people, or all men lol. But I've read the history of psych, and how this used to be a male-dominated profession until the 70's and 80's. Actually probably more just the 80's. It's definitely an advantage, and I've mentioned it in my personal statements because I think I'm helping alleviate a shortage of male therapists, especially one that is minority. I really want to work with urban youth, and I think having a little melanin can help maybe break some of the tension. But at the end of the day I still need to be trained sufficiently because my looks aren't going to hold much weight when a patient comes in and is suicidal.
So I used to talk to a PsyD myself, kind of like a mentor, and they mentioned that being male was a huge leg up. I didn't like the way that sounded, because I want to earn things through hard work, not because I have a dick, or because I'm brown. That is unfair to every other white girl who's working just as hard to attain the same goals. Yet, if it does help then so be it, we all benefit from naturally given phenotypes in some form or another haha.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 0
Okay let me rephrase that...I don't literally mean I don't comprehend statistics, I just don't fully comprehend the more advanced stat material to the point of me critiquing it. I don't think it would be right to be in a phd program and not love statistics. I don't LOVE stat, and that is why I don't force myself to master it. It just sort of came with the territory of psychology. I think every PhD student should be able to teach a intro stat course honestly, just as they should be able to teach an intro Psych course. I've read stories of how PhD students pay stat grad students to do their data for them. I don't want to be that guy...
I've taken grad level courses at a university with very competitive phd programs, and I've written 20 page essays where I had to summarize 20-30 articles. So I can understand the basic statistics. Yet reading stat, and being able to perform it yourself or critique others is completely different. It's just not my strength. Like I said, I got a B+ in my stat class, so I'm really just a B level statistician..on a good day
Last edited:
You will still write a dissertation for a PsyD program.
You keep contradicting yourself so this thread can go on and on and on...you probably need some time to think things through.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
If you think PhD = Statistics mastery and Psy.D. = Statistics are not very important, then
a) You do paint an accurate picture for many FSPS programs out there with laughable training standards for Psy.D. students; and
b) You might not fully grasp why people think you need to aim high if you really want a Psy.D. - because arguably you should have a very good undertsanding of statistics upon completion of a GOOD Psy.D. program, which was the intention of the Vail model.
As to your example about a PhD student paying someone to do their stats - I have never heard of that. I HAVE heard of FSPS program students paying PhD students to do their "dissertation projects" statistics for them. I'd hope you won't be "that guy"
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
It had better become a significant strength if you want to be a doctoral level provider capable of being a responsible consumer of the scientific literature.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 0
certainly not sir.
Anyways. this is getting bizarre. First people were saying to drop down to the masters level. Then I'm hearing I should just wait to apply again for the top funded psyd programs. Then I'm hearing that I should just aim for a phd. Now I'm reading that I need to recalibrate my viewpoints on statistics if I want to be in any doctoral program whatsoever. lol..my head is spinning
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
Basically, knowledge of statistics is going to be important for any doctoral program (at least any good clinical one). So if you don't like doing them/critiquing them, you might not want to engage in doctoral-level studies.
Well, you hadn't revealed your concerns about statistics until recently.
Given what you've said about that now, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find many on the board recommending doctoral level training. Not everyone needs to be a stats guru, but you'll need to be capable of graduate-level stats work regardless of what type of program you attend. Pragma is right that it really is only the FSPS grads who seem to get away with not having a solid understanding of stats. You stated you felt like getting a master's would be selling yourself short, but a doctorate (PsyD or PhD) from a program that doesn't require solid stats training isn't going to be viewed much differently. Many folks will view a FSPS PsyD as being basically equivalent to a master's anyways, given they will lack training in many of the critical areas (stats, research, and associated clinical skills that rely on these) that differentiate doctoral and master's level training.
If you truly do not believe you can handle learning graduate-level stats, master's seems like the way to go. If you think with adequate effort and guidance you can manage it I'd go for a balanced PhD program or one of the handful of top-notch PsyD programs. Under no circumstances would I recommend pursuing training at a FSPS that will charge you 200k to provide you with the label of doctor without many of the requisite skills to function as one.
Given what you've said about that now, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find many on the board recommending doctoral level training. Not everyone needs to be a stats guru, but you'll need to be capable of graduate-level stats work regardless of what type of program you attend. Pragma is right that it really is only the FSPS grads who seem to get away with not having a solid understanding of stats. You stated you felt like getting a master's would be selling yourself short, but a doctorate (PsyD or PhD) from a program that doesn't require solid stats training isn't going to be viewed much differently. Many folks will view a FSPS PsyD as being basically equivalent to a master's anyways, given they will lack training in many of the critical areas (stats, research, and associated clinical skills that rely on these) that differentiate doctoral and master's level training.
If you truly do not believe you can handle learning graduate-level stats, master's seems like the way to go. If you think with adequate effort and guidance you can manage it I'd go for a balanced PhD program or one of the handful of top-notch PsyD programs. Under no circumstances would I recommend pursuing training at a FSPS that will charge you 200k to provide you with the label of doctor without many of the requisite skills to function as one.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 0
This.
Yes I believe that with adequate effort and guidance I could manage to get better. I was just under the assumption that I wouldn't really get training on it, and would instead be on my own doing it. I guess I was just assuming that I wouldn't be getting taught more detailed stats beyond this point, and everything that grad students did in their own research was just from what they knew how to do independently.
Basically...at THIS point in my life, I can't run a study on my own without help. I could and would be willing to learn how to do a study on my own from concept all the way to final product. But I guess that's like saying I shouldn't apply to med school because I don't know how to suture a wound. Based on my classwork and research volunteering, I've certainly been exposed to research. I just don't believe I can do it personally, but also know that I have really bad self-esteem. The one thing I do think I'm good at is working with people, writing, and speaking.. and that just comes from life experiences.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 0
Okay. I will do some reading up on the school curriculums an reevaluate what i should do. I do associate the help. Please excuse me if i sounded rude , i assure you i would never want to . I would suggest that people do tell their credentials when giving . For example, if you are in a phD program i know to take you advice differently then if you are in a masters. That way i can better understand your perspective. Okay fit some reason my phone is deleting random after i i type them...droid is glitchy
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 7,565
- Reaction score
- 6,773
You have to be able to understand stats in order to be a competent doctoral-level clinician. Stats is not only critical for research, it's also critical for assessment. You have to be able to understand psychometrics, test results, and test limitations at a deeper level, and that requires knowledge of stats. As others have said, you also have to be able to evaluate clinical studies to determine if the treatment is truly beneficial or if the study demonstrating its effectiveness is flawed.
Keep in mind though that I wasn't a stats wiz when I entered my program. You acquire that knowledge through your coursework and research. So you may not be any further behind than most incoming first years.
I'm in a balanced clinical psych PhD program.
Keep in mind though that I wasn't a stats wiz when I entered my program. You acquire that knowledge through your coursework and research. So you may not be any further behind than most incoming first years.
I'm in a balanced clinical psych PhD program.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,084
- Reaction score
- 5
I'm in one of those balanced Ph.D. programs Ollie speaks of -- most of us did NOT enter as stats gurus and have worked to acquire a higher level of fluency and understanding with stats and methods. It can be hard, but as others have mentioned it is a key component of doctoral level training. At the pre-graduate level you are at, I could have been saying similar things as you are about having trouble grasping the details of the analysis/results section. A better understanding comes from both formal stats training and reading hundreds of articles and just repeated looking up stuff when you see something you don't understand.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
Yeah I wouldn't sell yourself short on stats yet - I am sure you are in a similar place to a lot of people. Most of the real stats/research learning happens once you begin a program, and you should have appropriate graduate coursework. No one is going to ask you to go do complicated statstics without any guidance.
Since you asked, I attended a balanced clinical PhD program (APA-accredited). Mine was in a large city where even externships were competitive. I can honestly tell you that training was so smooth by comparison to local FSPS students, who often had a hard time even getting the practica that they wanted. I managed to be able to stay in the same location for internship (APA-accredited) and postdoc, but I would not count on that working out necessarily. I was very lucky to be able to make it work - most people end up moving for at least one of those experiences.
You seem like you could be a great candidate, so I just hope that you realize the warnings you are getting from some people here to go for the better programs are really in your own interest. I can honestly say that going to a reputable program and building professional connections at reputable places directly translated into me getting the training experiences I wanted, and ultimately the job I wanted. I doubt I would have even been considered had I gone to a FSPS. Good luck as you make this decision - just pay attention to what students who complete the programs you are considering do when they finish. Those outcomes will be good indicators of what is possible for you.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 29
Lol. Anyone doubt this thread has become little but fodder for bad object relations?
And when the OP is blamed for generating the uneven feedback others have volunteered, I have to wonder what the bleep -- turf war? clash of ideologies? or simply poor training in these highfalutin university programs/VA training centers?
Its pretty common for people applying to feel confused, particularly if they never considered other options before. I don't think there was uneven feedback---just encouragement to consider funded, reputable PsyD programs (rutgers, baylor) and be open to adding balanced PhD programs. That sounds very sensible. The OP had some misinformation about PhD programs and the depth of statistics knowledge required, which seems resolved.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 0
I understand what everyone is saying, but I still feel uncomfortable with the condescending view some of the forum users have towards psyd programs. I've met PsyD who are great clinicians, and at the end of the day that is what matters most. I remember I was meeting with an adviser several months ago, and in the waiting room two phd students told me that the psyd isn't respectable. And I replied, "respectable by whom?"....People! they replied....interestingly no patients at the clinic I work at ever care to discern between a psyd or phd. They just want to feel better, so if they don't really have a care about "respect", then where is all this "lack of respect" really coming from? Ironically the only people that have said crude things about PsyDs are PhD students or graduates. This isn't to say that quality training isn't important, it's just that "respect" is pretty subjective and let's be honest, psychologists as a whole aren't the most respected professionals in our society so why make it harder then it already is? The internship crises does have to do with the degree mills that are popping up everywhere. Yet there are still a good amount of psyd programs that do cost alot, do have lower standards of admittance, and do still produce strong clinicians. It's the 20-30 below average psyd programs that need to be taken of. It's unfortunate however that these programs spoil the reputation of all other institutions offering the psyd. Just my 2 cents
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 978
- Reaction score
- 344
I know great and terrible clinicians with all different types of degrees: PhD, PsyD, MSW. Some come from more respectable programs than others. One thing to keep in mind: the training in grad school only takes you so far. So much of your formation as a clinician happens when you are seeing clients full-time. I get nervous when people feel like spending 200k will make them a much more awesome clinician than going to a funded program. Yes, PsyD's often have cooler clinical coursework than PhDs. I have some PsyD friends and I would have loved to have some of the same courses. But the coursework difference comes out in the wash in a few years. The 200k debt takes much longer to disappear.
However, I am not a proponent of the "balanced" PhD program that many people on SDN encourage. I graduated from a reputable funded PhD program that touted itself as "balanced." Part of the issue was that was mostly lip service. They really only wanted to produce professors. If it became clear you were on a more clinical path, you became a 2nd class citizen and faculty cared much less about you and your training. The other part of the issue is that doctoral training is best described as hell on earth. It was torture. I am a total nerd and always loved learning and school, but grad school is a different beast. I started school wanting an academic path, but after seeing more of the quality of life issues associated with academia, I became more clinically focused. And I can honestly say that I would gladly trade in my "doctor" title if I could have back my 20's. It could have been a good decade of my life, but I essentially missed it. (BTW, grad school always takes longer than you think it will. Many people do not get done in 5-6 years). The PhD was not worth the suffering to be "just" a clinician.
Also, really think twice about grad school debt. I have no school debt and have been shocked to find how hard it is to make ends meet as a psychologist. Psychologists make a lot less $ than people think they do. I live in a large (although not uber-desirable city) with a reasonable cost of living. There are very, very few jobs here for psychologists (although tons for psychiatrists and a good number for master's people). I would not say the market is saturated here either. It is cheaper to hire an MSW and an MD is way in demand. Therefore I work as an independent contractor in a large private practice. I like my clients and the work I do. However, the owner takes 50% of what I bring in. Therefore I typically get about $35/hr before taxes for the hours that I see clients (point of comparison: that's what I pay the lady who does my nails). A huge key to that sentence is "the hours I work." If a client cancels or no shows, I won't get paid. If I'm sick or on vacation, I don't get paid. And as a contractor, I have no health insurance, retirement, etc. People on here say to just find a better job, but don't you think if it were that easy, I would? I was geographically flexible through internship, but I'm done with that. Now I want to live by family and just make enough to not worry about my bills.
I can't tell you what to do. I can only speak for myself. I would not get a doctorate again. I personally would go to medical school. If I didn't want to do that, I would get a master's. Good luck in your decision-making. Hope something I said was useful. It turned out much longer than expected!
Best,
Dr. E
However, I am not a proponent of the "balanced" PhD program that many people on SDN encourage. I graduated from a reputable funded PhD program that touted itself as "balanced." Part of the issue was that was mostly lip service. They really only wanted to produce professors. If it became clear you were on a more clinical path, you became a 2nd class citizen and faculty cared much less about you and your training. The other part of the issue is that doctoral training is best described as hell on earth. It was torture. I am a total nerd and always loved learning and school, but grad school is a different beast. I started school wanting an academic path, but after seeing more of the quality of life issues associated with academia, I became more clinically focused. And I can honestly say that I would gladly trade in my "doctor" title if I could have back my 20's. It could have been a good decade of my life, but I essentially missed it. (BTW, grad school always takes longer than you think it will. Many people do not get done in 5-6 years). The PhD was not worth the suffering to be "just" a clinician.
Also, really think twice about grad school debt. I have no school debt and have been shocked to find how hard it is to make ends meet as a psychologist. Psychologists make a lot less $ than people think they do. I live in a large (although not uber-desirable city) with a reasonable cost of living. There are very, very few jobs here for psychologists (although tons for psychiatrists and a good number for master's people). I would not say the market is saturated here either. It is cheaper to hire an MSW and an MD is way in demand. Therefore I work as an independent contractor in a large private practice. I like my clients and the work I do. However, the owner takes 50% of what I bring in. Therefore I typically get about $35/hr before taxes for the hours that I see clients (point of comparison: that's what I pay the lady who does my nails). A huge key to that sentence is "the hours I work." If a client cancels or no shows, I won't get paid. If I'm sick or on vacation, I don't get paid. And as a contractor, I have no health insurance, retirement, etc. People on here say to just find a better job, but don't you think if it were that easy, I would? I was geographically flexible through internship, but I'm done with that. Now I want to live by family and just make enough to not worry about my bills.
I can't tell you what to do. I can only speak for myself. I would not get a doctorate again. I personally would go to medical school. If I didn't want to do that, I would get a master's. Good luck in your decision-making. Hope something I said was useful. It turned out much longer than expected!
Best,
Dr. E
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Messages
- 919
- Reaction score
- 145
Imagine if you were paying 800-1200K per month on student loans on top of all of that. Whew.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2010
- Messages
- 9,331
- Reaction score
- 5,607
I think the idea of the PsyD degree, at the time (at least based on my limited understanding of the overall training "milieu" of the era), wasn't a flawed one. It was proposed with some similar reasoning (again, based on my limited understanding) to the predoctoral internship year req--that some PhD programs were graduating individuals with degrees in clinical psychology who'd had very, very limited actual clinical experience (if any) while in grad school. The predoctoral internship was meant to remedy this scenario by essentially necessitating that clinical psych students receive clinical training.
The PsyD took this a step further in also suggesting that psychology had reached the point of maturity in its practice/application for a professional-type degree (ala the MD and JD) to now be realistic and warranted. The intention was never to forego research training in these programs (which has been mentioned by T4C, Pragma, Ollie, and others here). Rather, like physicians vs. MD/PhDs, it was meant to train practitioners as opposed to practitioner-researchers.
Unfortunately, as Jon Snow has pointed out, the student loan system has caused less-than-reputable organizations to take this model and run with it by capitalizing on (and thereby profiting from) the facts that 1) lots and lots of people graduate with bachelors degrees in, and/or are very interested by, psychology, 2) (in keeping with #1 somewhat) lots of people feel that they "have what it takes" to be a psychologist and "help people," 3) relatively few of those people are able/prepared to gain admission to "traditional" doctoral programs in psychology, and 4) plenty of people (such as the OP) may feel inimidated by and/or incapable of fully understanding and producing all aspects of research (particularly advanced stats), and 5) many people love the idea of being called "doctor" one day. The result of all this is what JS pointed out above.
What's also ended up happening is that by virtue of the internship year combined with the introduction of the PsyD degree, which might've served as a wake-up call of sorts to many PhD programs, there now exist many balanced (as in truly balanced, and not just giving lipservice to the term--although those programs also exist) PhD programs that provide excellent research AND clinical training. Thus, as JS mentions, some (not all, mind you) individuals now wonder if perhaps the PsyD degree is essentially unnecessary.
The PsyD took this a step further in also suggesting that psychology had reached the point of maturity in its practice/application for a professional-type degree (ala the MD and JD) to now be realistic and warranted. The intention was never to forego research training in these programs (which has been mentioned by T4C, Pragma, Ollie, and others here). Rather, like physicians vs. MD/PhDs, it was meant to train practitioners as opposed to practitioner-researchers.
Unfortunately, as Jon Snow has pointed out, the student loan system has caused less-than-reputable organizations to take this model and run with it by capitalizing on (and thereby profiting from) the facts that 1) lots and lots of people graduate with bachelors degrees in, and/or are very interested by, psychology, 2) (in keeping with #1 somewhat) lots of people feel that they "have what it takes" to be a psychologist and "help people," 3) relatively few of those people are able/prepared to gain admission to "traditional" doctoral programs in psychology, and 4) plenty of people (such as the OP) may feel inimidated by and/or incapable of fully understanding and producing all aspects of research (particularly advanced stats), and 5) many people love the idea of being called "doctor" one day. The result of all this is what JS pointed out above.
What's also ended up happening is that by virtue of the internship year combined with the introduction of the PsyD degree, which might've served as a wake-up call of sorts to many PhD programs, there now exist many balanced (as in truly balanced, and not just giving lipservice to the term--although those programs also exist) PhD programs that provide excellent research AND clinical training. Thus, as JS mentions, some (not all, mind you) individuals now wonder if perhaps the PsyD degree is essentially unnecessary.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2011
- Messages
- 827
- Reaction score
- 16
I want to add something to this secondary discussion about the stigma of PsyD programs. It's easy to forget that many of us were in the position of applying to programs, which at least for me included many PsyD programs--university-based, FSPS's, etc. At first, it seemed like a great way to go. However, personally, as I spent more time in my masters program (I'm a non-trad with a non-psych BA) I realized that although it would be easy to gain admittance and get started, the rewards were much greater if I waited and got into a funded program. Waiting meant getting lots of research experience and carefully building my CV, interests, and vetting programs. I applied two years in a row and now I'm in a fully-funded program.
I have a friend who is in a FSPS program, who applied the first year I applied and decided to go and not wait. Well, that friend has continually expressed jealousy at the funding and opportunities in my program, which are completely nonexistent where the friend attends. My response to the jealousy? I WORKED MY A** OFF TO GET WHERE I AM!! It's not by random chance that I am in this place. I have no patience for the whining for that reason. I am in my mid-30's, worked through my 20's and through several years of grad school already, moved all around the country for these opportunities, and yet there is this other side that says that PhD students are privileged snobs. Well, you can't expect to have the same outcome without putting the work in. There are people like me who've been there, but made different decisions and came out in a program that will increase opportunities with hardly any debt. It can be done.
I have a friend who is in a FSPS program, who applied the first year I applied and decided to go and not wait. Well, that friend has continually expressed jealousy at the funding and opportunities in my program, which are completely nonexistent where the friend attends. My response to the jealousy? I WORKED MY A** OFF TO GET WHERE I AM!! It's not by random chance that I am in this place. I have no patience for the whining for that reason. I am in my mid-30's, worked through my 20's and through several years of grad school already, moved all around the country for these opportunities, and yet there is this other side that says that PhD students are privileged snobs. Well, you can't expect to have the same outcome without putting the work in. There are people like me who've been there, but made different decisions and came out in a program that will increase opportunities with hardly any debt. It can be done.
Even at the very top research-focused programs, no one expects an entering grad student to be able to run a study completely independently. That's the point of grad school! I wouldn't let that concern drive any decisions about this.
Beyond that, I'll just reiterate much of what has been said above. A couple quick points:
1) While Dr. E's experience is unfortunate, I do think its important to understand that is a function of her particular program and not true of all programs. Many "balanced" programs are not secret research programs. Figuring this out can of course be challenging and there are risks involved, but I think those risks are significantly less than the guaranteed debt, stigma, and inadequate training that come from attending one of the other programs.
As for your post about respect/condescension, a couple points:
1) Patients are not always the best judge of how good a therapist they have. Look at all the wacky faith-healer pseudo-medicine out there. Many of these people have loyal followers.
2) Even forgoing that, its important to keep in mind that even if patients like you, you still need to GET that job in the first place. This can matter more or less depending on setting, but unless you are comfortable ruling out many major hospitals, counseling centers, schools, prisons, etc. it seems a huge risk to such a program. If you are one of the significant portion of students who doesn't end up in an APA internship, you are already ruling out an enormous number of job opportunities. When the job market is competitive, reality is that employers will rely on heuristics to make hiring decisions. It may be unfortunate, but reality often is.
3) Good clinicians come in many forms. I won't speak for others, but personally I don't deny that one CAN be a good therapist coming from one of these schools. I disagree that this is all that matters though. For one, because a good psychologist should be more than just a good therapist. This is why I brought up the idea that these are more akin to master"s training. Master's level providers can also be good therapists...to be at the doctoral level implies a more diverse skillset, something that these programs generally do not provide. That said, I do think the lack of certain skills makes it very hard for these people to become a good therapist. I've met very few PsyDs from FSPSs I think would make that cut, though many from other programs (i.e. Rutgers, Baylor, Virginia Consortium) are great. There are pretty clearly two tiers of programs.
Lastly, consider the notion of respect for psychologists. I don't disagree with your assertion that we don't receive much respect from the general public. One perspective is that in-fighting makes that worse. Mine is that we cannot convince the public otherwise while we continue to propagate a system that DOES fit all the public stereotypes that are the reasons psychology isn't respected. "Anyone can be a therapist, you just have to be nice to people", "Psychology is for people who can't hack it in <insert other field here>", etc.
Beyond that, I'll just reiterate much of what has been said above. A couple quick points:
1) While Dr. E's experience is unfortunate, I do think its important to understand that is a function of her particular program and not true of all programs. Many "balanced" programs are not secret research programs. Figuring this out can of course be challenging and there are risks involved, but I think those risks are significantly less than the guaranteed debt, stigma, and inadequate training that come from attending one of the other programs.
As for your post about respect/condescension, a couple points:
1) Patients are not always the best judge of how good a therapist they have. Look at all the wacky faith-healer pseudo-medicine out there. Many of these people have loyal followers.
2) Even forgoing that, its important to keep in mind that even if patients like you, you still need to GET that job in the first place. This can matter more or less depending on setting, but unless you are comfortable ruling out many major hospitals, counseling centers, schools, prisons, etc. it seems a huge risk to such a program. If you are one of the significant portion of students who doesn't end up in an APA internship, you are already ruling out an enormous number of job opportunities. When the job market is competitive, reality is that employers will rely on heuristics to make hiring decisions. It may be unfortunate, but reality often is.
3) Good clinicians come in many forms. I won't speak for others, but personally I don't deny that one CAN be a good therapist coming from one of these schools. I disagree that this is all that matters though. For one, because a good psychologist should be more than just a good therapist. This is why I brought up the idea that these are more akin to master"s training. Master's level providers can also be good therapists...to be at the doctoral level implies a more diverse skillset, something that these programs generally do not provide. That said, I do think the lack of certain skills makes it very hard for these people to become a good therapist. I've met very few PsyDs from FSPSs I think would make that cut, though many from other programs (i.e. Rutgers, Baylor, Virginia Consortium) are great. There are pretty clearly two tiers of programs.
Lastly, consider the notion of respect for psychologists. I don't disagree with your assertion that we don't receive much respect from the general public. One perspective is that in-fighting makes that worse. Mine is that we cannot convince the public otherwise while we continue to propagate a system that DOES fit all the public stereotypes that are the reasons psychology isn't respected. "Anyone can be a therapist, you just have to be nice to people", "Psychology is for people who can't hack it in <insert other field here>", etc.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 7,565
- Reaction score
- 6,773
I'm one of those people who think that the PsyD made sense when it was created, but not anymore. Programs used to have poor clinical training and favor research over clinical work, but that's not true anymore. When I applied, I made sure that they were all balanced programs and at all of my interviews people said "It's okay to tell us that you want to go into clinical work." My own program leans more clinical than research, IMO, and in fact I often wish that we were more research-focused. I get what the PsyD was meant to do, but it's seemed to turn into "I want a doctorate but research is icky." I know that's not how it was intended, but that seems to be the case now (I know that there are exceptions, like LaSalle and Rutgers).
Of course, I am to the point now where I do NOT recommend pursuing a doctorate to people who only want to provide therapy. It's not cost-effective. Although I truly believe that doctoral clinical training is superior for many reasons, IMO it's not worth the hassle of going through four or five years of grad school, going through an internship match system where you have a 50% chance of not matching and have to move if you do match, and then having to move again for a post-doc, and then maybe having to move again for a job.
Of course, I am to the point now where I do NOT recommend pursuing a doctorate to people who only want to provide therapy. It's not cost-effective. Although I truly believe that doctoral clinical training is superior for many reasons, IMO it's not worth the hassle of going through four or five years of grad school, going through an internship match system where you have a 50% chance of not matching and have to move if you do match, and then having to move again for a post-doc, and then maybe having to move again for a job.
Hey, NYC neighbor. I know it's probably a lost cause to plug the M.S.W. at this point, but New York is home to several top-ranked social work programs. I know you said that you don't want to stop at the master's level. However, a 5+ year slog through a so-so program might not be the best way to start your career. In my (admittedly limited) experience, a Psy.D. from a mediocre school is not going to guarantee you more professional respect or income than a good M.S.W., and it won't necessarily get you better clinical training, either. Terminal master's degrees aren't just for people who can't get into Ph.D. programs -- you'll find plenty of excellent students from excellent schools in such programs. If you're doing it solely for the cred, you might be doing it for the wrong reasons. Remember, you can always go back to school later for a Ph.D./Psy.D. if you decide that this field really is for you.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Messages
- 919
- Reaction score
- 145
I think that the problem with the PsyD / FSPS isn't with the pro-schools itself, it's the student loan system (which essentially provides the student loan equivalent of sub-prime loans to anyone with a heartbeat who plans to attend school) combined with the for-profit school system. It's easy to see how easy credit devalues the product that is the subject of said easy credit.
The analogy is pretty obvious - pre-2008, there were many people granted home loans that really had no business being homeowners (due to easy credit policies heavily facilitated by federal and state governments). Likewise, there are so many people granted student loans for psychology schools that really have no business being psychologists.
That doesn't mean that the subprime loan system didn't in some cases get worthy borrowers into homes that would have not otherwise gotten there had a more free market home loan system been the rule, nor does it mean that the student loan system in its current form hasn't in some cases gotten worthy students psychology doctorates that would have not otherwise gotten there.
I don't see the PsyD / FSPS problem we're all discussing here as being inherent to the idea of for-profit schooling or a PsyD degree itself. I think for profit schools, even in psychology, have a place. But I see the student loan system as it stands today (despite the tinkering that has gone on over the past few years) as the proverbial gasoline, and the PsyD / FSPS / for-profit schooling system as the proverbial match (or maybe it's the other way around, who knows), and the student loan tuition bubble and the devaluation of clinical psychology as a profession as aspects of the conflagration we're all discussing.
The analogy is pretty obvious - pre-2008, there were many people granted home loans that really had no business being homeowners (due to easy credit policies heavily facilitated by federal and state governments). Likewise, there are so many people granted student loans for psychology schools that really have no business being psychologists.
That doesn't mean that the subprime loan system didn't in some cases get worthy borrowers into homes that would have not otherwise gotten there had a more free market home loan system been the rule, nor does it mean that the student loan system in its current form hasn't in some cases gotten worthy students psychology doctorates that would have not otherwise gotten there.
I don't see the PsyD / FSPS problem we're all discussing here as being inherent to the idea of for-profit schooling or a PsyD degree itself. I think for profit schools, even in psychology, have a place. But I see the student loan system as it stands today (despite the tinkering that has gone on over the past few years) as the proverbial gasoline, and the PsyD / FSPS / for-profit schooling system as the proverbial match (or maybe it's the other way around, who knows), and the student loan tuition bubble and the devaluation of clinical psychology as a profession as aspects of the conflagration we're all discussing.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 140
- Reaction score
- 68
I'm on board with everything here. A colleague referred one of her students to me who was asking her for letters of recommendation to PsyD programs (the colleague in question is in psychology but not clinical). The student wanted a PsyD because (1) she wanted to do treatment with a particular subgroup, and (2) "hates research." We had quite a bit of back and forth, and for the same reasons above, I gently broke it to her that a M.A. seemed like a much better route from a cost-benefit perspective.
She said she was going to go the PsyD route anyway because she MAY want to do assessments later on. I told her in not so many words that she can get find out whether she wants to do assessment at a much lower cost year and $ wise, to no avail.
+1
This is true for the entire for-profit and online education sector, grad and undergrad alike. If the government stopped giving crippling loans to bad students doing grade school-level "college" work at crappy schools, Kaplan would go bankrupt overnight.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Messages
- 919
- Reaction score
- 145
Exactamundo
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
Agreed with several of the other posters here - particularly Ollie's and Jon Snow's points. Even JeyRo and I can agree that the loan system has perpetuated the poor training problems.
For many of us, "what can we do" to try to help the field is a difficult question. Often on this forum, it comes in the form of giving people advice that they might not want to hear when they start a thread like this. Even Dr. E and I have noted in the past that professors and admissions counselors often painted a very rosy picture for those of us who did not do as much research on programs up front.
So outside of advocacy and fighting the uphill battle of lobbying within our own professional organization (which is now sponsored by FSPS), providing accurate information about the state of training in the field, realities of the job market, etc. may be one way that some of us choose to use this professional forum.
I recall the allure of an Argosy program where I used to live. It seemed so convenient and I loved the idea of not moving. Ultimately, I had done just enough research to know that it couldn't be any more than a backup, and now feel fortunate to have gotten accepted first cycle to my program. Had I not been, based on what I know now being "out there" (meaning meeting FSPS students, knowing faculty that have taught at FSPS before, and knowing perceptions of FSPS across a variety of settings) my life could be dramatically different in terms of opportunities, level of debt, and level of competency. For those of you making an important decision like this, the best of luck to you, but I won't apologize if saying "RUN AWAY" offends you, because it is the best advice I've got.
For many of us, "what can we do" to try to help the field is a difficult question. Often on this forum, it comes in the form of giving people advice that they might not want to hear when they start a thread like this. Even Dr. E and I have noted in the past that professors and admissions counselors often painted a very rosy picture for those of us who did not do as much research on programs up front.
So outside of advocacy and fighting the uphill battle of lobbying within our own professional organization (which is now sponsored by FSPS), providing accurate information about the state of training in the field, realities of the job market, etc. may be one way that some of us choose to use this professional forum.
I recall the allure of an Argosy program where I used to live. It seemed so convenient and I loved the idea of not moving. Ultimately, I had done just enough research to know that it couldn't be any more than a backup, and now feel fortunate to have gotten accepted first cycle to my program. Had I not been, based on what I know now being "out there" (meaning meeting FSPS students, knowing faculty that have taught at FSPS before, and knowing perceptions of FSPS across a variety of settings) my life could be dramatically different in terms of opportunities, level of debt, and level of competency. For those of you making an important decision like this, the best of luck to you, but I won't apologize if saying "RUN AWAY" offends you, because it is the best advice I've got.
+1 I think this forum has likely saved hundreds of students from getting doped by these schools. If you google Alliant or Argosy and reputation, this forum pops up first.
Aside from a financial incentive, does anyone know why the APA continues to accredit programs that have 5% APA internship match rates? Are professional school graduates on the leadership committees of the APA? Do these schools donate money to the APA? Somehow the AMA has prevented FSPS from popping up so from a legal standpoint these programs can be regulated.
I found out that programs like Argosy and Alliant are now entering the international market and offering PsyD's in places like Japan and China to increase revenue. These programs are not yet APA Accredited but inform students that they may meet licensure requirements in the US.
Here is a list of Alliant's programs just in San Diego alone. I was surprised by the sheer number of useless degrees they offer (what is a PhD in consulting psychology?)
San Diego Campus
Applied Behavior Analysis (Certificate)
Autism Spectrum Disorder Authorization
Business Administration (DBA)
Business Administration (MBA)
Chemical Dependency Counseling (Certificate)
Clinical Forensic Psychology (PsyD)
Clinical Psychology (PhD)
Clinical Psychology (PsyD)
Dual Clinical Psychology and Industrial-Organizational Psychology (PhD)
Consulting Psychology (PhD)
Couple and Family Therapy (MA)
Couple and Family Therapy (PsyD)
Cross Cultural Language & Academic Development (CLAD)
Education Leadership and Management (EdD)
Educational Psychology (PsyD)
Gerontology (Certificate)
Industrial-Organizational Psychology (MA)
Industrial-Organizational Psychology (PhD)
Infant-Preschooler Mental Health (Certificate)
Leadership (PhD)
School Based Mental Health Certificate (CERT)
School Neuropsychology (CERT)
School Psychology with PPS Credential (MAE + PPS)
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (GRAD CERT)
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (EdD)
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (MAE)
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 7,565
- Reaction score
- 6,773
Well, Argosy did sponsor last year's APA convention...
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,977
- Reaction score
- 7
Still shaking my head.
I had an Argosy student questioning my program's accreditation. Student is ABD, so I veered the conversation toward dissertations because conversation was going no where fast and I needed to play nice for various reasons.
I learn that said student may start working on their dissertation in a few months and expects to finish the entire thing from A to Z within a relatively short timeframe. I'm amazed and jealous at the skill, only to discover that said student is writing a lit review for their dissertation requirement. I'm still trying to figure out how this flies as a dissertation ... and how this student has the audacity to question any other program's accreditation or training.
Still shaking my head.
I had an Argosy student questioning my program's accreditation. Student is ABD, so I veered the conversation toward dissertations because conversation was going no where fast and I needed to play nice for various reasons.
I learn that said student may start working on their dissertation in a few months and expects to finish the entire thing from A to Z within a relatively short timeframe. I'm amazed and jealous at the skill, only to discover that said student is writing a lit review for their dissertation requirement. I'm still trying to figure out how this flies as a dissertation ... and how this student has the audacity to question any other program's accreditation or training.
Yes, I believe that all the for profit schools allow students to write literature reviews as dissertation projects (I even saw that this was the case looking at the CV of a PGSP graduate).
Another disturbing trend, in my location about 80% of private practice psychologists are from non-reputable professional schools (most seem to have 10 cases only from what I gathered; I run into them at networking socials). I am also a part of several online private practice/group practice networking listservs so I read posts and check out people's websites. Anyhow, when I click on their profiles many of them are engaging in false advertising. They do not list anywhere on their website where they got their degree or they hide in somewhere on the website so nobody can find it. They just claim that they are renowned experts with 20 years of experience in the field of mental health and trained at several prestigious hospitals (without listing them). Many have videos and testimonials on their websites and blogs. Even if they are newly licensed, they claim to have decades of experience (you can get licensure dates through the board's website). I find it unethical not to list the name of your program on your advertising website and also questionable to have patient testimonials with the patient's initials or first name. I guess this is what graduates of these programs have to resort to.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Messages
- 919
- Reaction score
- 145
Was that a PsyD program student...? Maybe someone can educate me about the whole PsyD thing. My understanding it's somehow appropriate within the whole Vail-Boulder distinction for PsyD program students to be able to do dissertations and not be basing it on empirical work.
Last edited:
Yes it was, but I'm not sure how common that is in that particular program.
In CA, 80% of psychologists seem to be from free standing professional schools. They are definitely a majority out here, and are barely making a living in private practice. I don't know why CA specializes in the proliferation of these schools for psychologists more than any other state. Its also the most expensive state to live in but has some of the lowest psychologist salaries, aside from the VA.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,382
- Reaction score
- 4,330
"I want to be a psychologist, but I *only* want to live in S. CA. I hate research too. I just want to help people, but I shouldn't have to move/leave my life. I want/need/deserve [fill in blank]."
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2011
- Messages
- 827
- Reaction score
- 16
Well, don't 1 out of 7 Americans live in California? It's a big place--lot o' everything over there!!
"But I also don't mind going 200K in debt for the seven-year equivalent of a master's!"
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 0
Honestly i think the 20s are slightly overrated...or maybe mine just suck
Happiness is highest in old age anyways. Most people i know my age are
out and confused. People in school and those that work while I'm their 20s aren't just having a blast all the time. We are broke and have crappy relationships.you didn't miss much dr.e people having fun when young usually play catch up later on. Imho
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,563
- Reaction score
- 58
Yeah, I've met several PsyD students from across the country (most from FSPSs, but some from less reputable university affiliated programs as well) who do literature reviews for their dissertation. It's gotten to the point where it doesn't surprise me anymore. Some students who do complete empirical dissertations do so by accessing archival data and then coming up with a question. I don't have a problem with the use of archival data in general, but the sources of the data and the study questions I've seen have not impressed me--using data from a university's participation in the American College Health Association survey, or using a clinic's data gathered from pre and post symptom inventories. These are the types of projects I'd use to create a poster.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2010
- Messages
- 9,331
- Reaction score
- 5,607
+1. I was talking with a friend about this the other day--we both agreed that archival data for a dissertation, depending on the project, can certainly be a reasonable way to go (full disclosure: I used archival data for my dissertation, so I'm potentially biased here).
However, we also both felt that all doctoral students at some point should have to go through their own process of prospective study design and subsequent data collection, whether that be for a thesis or some other project.
Although with the lit reviews, don't the schools typically at least somewhat differentiate those from empirical studies by calling them "dissertation projects," or something similar? I agree, though, that using minimal-at-best archival survey data (or potentially basing your entire project on a 10-minute web-based survey) should also fall under this "dissertation project" category rather than a full-on dissertation.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
We had a vigorous discussion about this very topic over the summer (see http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=936907&highlight=dissertation)
I might have popped a blood vessel trying to comprehend the explanations for why a Psy.D. program's dissertation is equivalent to a Ph.D. dissertation, even though these programs require a full year less time to complete the minimal requirements in many cases.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 29
Folks in my neck of the woods tend to laugh at a lot of the research coming out of universities. Especially laughable, in a demoralizing, tragic kind of way, are the good ol' convenience sample strategies. "You mean, if I participate in your project, I might jump to the head of the line for a lab assistant gig next year? / get an A in Psych 101? / get a free coffee at our favorite cafe?" Then there are the blatantly ho-hum questions which, adorned with shiny methods and results sections, serve to complexify and obfuscate the painfully obvious / the tried and true / the ho-hum. Oh there's such a world of crud research out there -- but if it gets results, publish! Yeah, its all on the up and up in uni-land. The problem is all the FSPS baddies and their lit reviews. Keep the dream alive, I guess.
For the OP -- that you can digest the sheer amount of double standard and distortion in this thread, recognize that folks here mostly have good intentions, and find it within you to keep a balanced perspective while further investigating your options tells me you stand a very good chance of making a fine psychologist. The fact is that debt sucks. Do not be fooled into thinking avoiding debt makes you a better psychologist/researcher/citizen.
For the OP -- that you can digest the sheer amount of double standard and distortion in this thread, recognize that folks here mostly have good intentions, and find it within you to keep a balanced perspective while further investigating your options tells me you stand a very good chance of making a fine psychologist. The fact is that debt sucks. Do not be fooled into thinking avoiding debt makes you a better psychologist/researcher/citizen.
Every free standing school doles out a PhD in addition to a PsyD. Those PhD programs admit plenty of students and have similarly poor standards so I don't understand the PhD/PsyD dichotomy anymore. They also offer PhD degrees in 4 years, and i've seen some that are non-accredited that offer a PHD in 3 years. There is no difference between a PhD or PsyD from most professional schools.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
I have never seen that, and within that thread I mentioned an APA-accredited program that offered a Ph.D. and a Psy.D.
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=12878786&postcount=29
The Ph.D. program required a minimum of one year longer, which has been the case for all of them that I researched when looking at graduate schools. Perhaps things have changed in the past 7-8 years? Either way, I absolutely do not consider the research requirements to be equivalent between Ph.D. and Psy.D programs on average. Yes, there are a few Psy.D. programs out there that offer some solid research training, but can you call them equivalent? Really? We are talking Raven-Human relations lit reviews here at worst, and quite often, just lit reviews on more meaningful topics, not original empirical research.
Note: I'd love a compilation of data on the minimum required time for graduation among Psy.D. programs and Ph.D. programs. This is different than actual time to completion, which is obviously confounded by a number of factors. But for someone to tell me their 4-year minimum degree is equivalent to my 5-year minimum degree makes no sense. Somewhere along the way, I had to do an additional year's worth of work...presumably on heavier thesis/dissertation requirements.
ETA: Some data on degree differences, noting that Ph.D. programs take on average 1 to 1.5 years longer to complete compared to Psy.D. programs.
http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_171.aspx
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 7,565
- Reaction score
- 6,773
If they think that research is so terrible, then they should go out and do it themselves. Make fun of the system all you want, but there's also a lot of good research out there and it constitutes the backbone of our clinical work.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
I think most of us here would agree that FSPS have their own set of "unique" standards.
But I still think the difference between reputable, accredited Psy.D. and Ph.D. programs is notable. The degrees do have a different emphasis, and one generally requires a longer minimum level of time commitment than the other. I don't think the differences have anything to do with competence to be a practitioner - I think it has to do with the nature and scope of the research requirements most of the time.
