PhD/PsyD Which post-doc arrangement would you choose?

[quickpsych]

If you had a choice between the following post doctoral arrangements which would you choose and why? Both involve doing mostly evals/intakes/assessments with maybe 10% of the time dedicated to therapy.

Choice A: Fee for service niche clinic serving a very specific vulnerable population. Part time work (not formal post doc) which means more time off to do other things in life with potentially higher pay per week than a salaried post doc BUT if people don't show you don't get paid. Even on part time schedule could easily make $800+ a week if just 3-4 evals a week show but if they don't show you get nothing for that time. Evals take around 4 hours each plus write ups and mandatory consultation with other staff based on their schedules. Also would mean it would take longer to accrue pre-license hours (roughly 16-18 months vs 12 months. Would be about a 30 min train ride each way but only would be on site 3 days a week except for times if mandatory supervision is on another day.

Choice B: Salaried community mental health clinic, technically "full time formal post doc" with 4 days allotted for intakes/evals/assessments (that take around 2 hours each) and 1 day allotted for therapy cases (optional)/supervision of some masters clinicians/students/possible group. Described as "some days/weeks are pretty slow while others are busier." Paid regardless of show rate with average intakes per day 1-3 (and would make just under $600 a week). Less flexibility in making own schedule but first hand interaction with current post-docs suggests it's pretty much a "9-5 job but when your work is done for the day you can leave or hang around and do EPPP studying/etc." 15 min drive commute.

So basically Choice A has potential for higher income/more free time with more risk and longer time to accrue needed hours while Choice B sounds a bit less involved but pays only slightly more than pre-doctoral internships, requires more time on site, and yet assures hours are met within 12 months. Both would likely offer the chance to stay on at least part time as a contractor.


I've had many people tell me "do whatever it takes to get your hours in the shortest allowable time (i.e. 1 year for my state) so you can take your tests and get licensed and do whatever you'd like" and others say "part time is great because than you have lots of time for other stuff in your life and/or other time to make more money on the side."

Which would you choose?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Any didactics in either?

 

[quickpsych]

Any didactics in either?

Not really. Choice A will have bi-monthly group supervision as well as weekly individual supervision with occasional staff wide training. Choice B will be requiring a "presentation" to staff by the post docs (but didn't previously require it) but not sure you can consider that a didactic officially. It also will have at least one hour of group supervision a week; and i imagine being a community mental health organization will likely have periodic seminars/trainings staff wide. Choice B also allows a little more customization in terms of what one could do there aside from the evals (i.e. could choose to create and run a therapy group for a specific population or pick and choose therapy cases).

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

Neither. It seems that both sites are angling for cheap labor without offering quality training.

You state that 10% of your time would be allocated to psychotherapy. I am guessing that 90% of your time would go toward tasks of presumably fainter complexity and interest. (Not that assessment/etc is inherently less than therapy; it’s moreso how you presented your choices.)

You might as well get paid fair market value for providing psychotherapy and related services under postdoctoral supervision, versus be radically underpaid by an informal/non-APA-accredited postdoc. These “sites” take advantage of a post-doctoral clinician’s eagerness to enrich their options by committing to a “postdoc.” It’s a farce.

Note: as a postdoctoral trainee, you should expect that part of your pay comes from the value of didactics, study time, and mentorship.

 

[deleted343839]

Neither. It seems that both sites are angling for cheap labor without offering quality training.

I agree. A postdoc is a training experience. What you're being offered is just a low paying job. I would give some thought to your training and career development goals before making this jump.

 

[foreverbull]

Of course an "official"/formal postdoc is ideal, but if OP already tried to apply to sites and it didn't work out, you may have to take a less than ideal postdoc unless you want to be jobless for another year while you wait for the next cycle.
I didn't have that luxury of waiting. I applied and interviewed at official postdocs, but their training would've been the same I had on internship, so not all that helpful in the long run. When I wasn't offered a position, I needed a job asap and found a postdoc that didn't offer didactics, but was work with a new population altogether and gave me good experience I now use in practice. I didn't have the flexibility of being picky at the time, although I also had two offers that basically paid the same, except one was under supervision of a psychiatrist, which would've limited my countable hours toward licensing. Both underpaid, for sure, but beggars can't be choosers when you need income and have been out of work for a bit after internship.

Op, I'd choose the site that offers the experience you're most interested in receiving after you weigh the pros the cons. One route may take you longer and be a bit more risky, but if you want that experience more and you can afford to risk a bit of lost income from no shows, it could be interesting. If you need the security of a 9-5 and steady pay and accrue hours faster, then the other would be best.

 

[quickpsych]

Neither. It seems that both sites are angling for cheap labor without offering quality training.

You state that 10% of your time would be allocated to psychotherapy. I am guessing that 90% of your time would go toward tasks of presumably fainter complexity and interest. (Not that assessment/etc is inherently less than therapy; it’s moreso how you presented your choices.)

You might as well get paid fair market value for providing psychotherapy and related services under postdoctoral supervision, versus be radically underpaid by an informal/non-APA-accredited postdoc. These “sites” take advantage of a post-doctoral clinician’s eagerness to enrich their options by committing to a “postdoc.” It’s a farce.

Note: as a postdoctoral trainee, you should expect that part of your pay comes from the value of didactics, study time, and mentorship.

I agree. A postdoc is a training experience. What you're being offered is just a low paying job. I would give some thought to your training and career development goals before making this jump.

Of course an "official"/formal postdoc is ideal, but if OP already tried to apply to sites and it didn't work out, you may have to take a less than ideal postdoc unless you want to be jobless for another year while you wait for the next cycle.
I didn't have that luxury of waiting. I applied and interviewed at official postdocs, but their training would've been the same I had on internship, so not all that helpful in the long run. When I wasn't offered a position, I needed a job asap and found a postdoc that didn't offer didactics, but was work with a new population altogether and gave me good experience I now use in practice. I didn't have the flexibility of being picky at the time, although I also had two offers that basically paid the same, except one was under supervision of a psychiatrist, which would've limited my countable hours toward licensing. Both underpaid, for sure, but beggars can't be choosers when you need income and have been out of work for a bit after internship.

Op, I'd choose the site that offers the experience you're most interested in receiving after you weigh the pros the cons. One route may take you longer and be a bit more risky, but if you want that experience more and you can afford to risk a bit of lost income from no shows, it could be interesting. If you need the security of a 9-5 and steady pay and accrue hours faster, then the other would be best.

Thank you all for your replies, I appreciate it. I was originally working on a response to the first few comments but foreverbull absolutely nailed it. I should have clarified in my OP (which is my fault) that this is a very practical decision for a few reasons. I was diagnosed with a chronic health condition during my doctoral studies and there is no way I could do a 45+ hour a week "formal" post doc nor travel a long commute or move to another state as it progressed. Like foreverbull, I did apply to more formalized specialized opportunities (some got cancelled due to funding issues during applying and sadly one was going to be very flexible in terms of my health), one went with another applicant (and in hindsight the state it was in nearby had even more absurd requirements), and the rest were too far away to even consider. I do have a lot of experience in neuro work and was on that path but given the realities of my situation I decided to shelve it for now and just get the hours I need for my state requirements. Most people (including supervisors) consider a "post doc" anything that is hours under supervision after the degree requirements are met required for a license. The "just get it done" mentality is a big thing in my geographic region, if it wasn't required by the state there would be no post docs except for specialized training.

But this very requirement fuels the "low pay" problem, you can't get a "regular" job without the license which requires these hours which is why these positions exist. Even the pay grades are clearly explained (without a license you get X and with one you get double). The only folks I know making over say 38K+ a year are working in a very specialized 2 year formal fellowship for a very specific role; one lucked out and got a year one for much more but that's an outlier. I know many making under 30K for the year...but...they'll get what they need to get on with their lives in a reasonable amount of time. As for terminology if you look at wording when looking at state requirements it will say "requires a post doc" or "does not require a post doc" and the state boards look at % of time spent in direct clinical work, number of supervision hours, and overall hours. Not if you participated in a "training" experience or "educational" experience. Sad but true. It's basically a glorified practicum/internship in terms that you must have it to get licensed and like practicums and internships the old saying of "it's better to have a site to go to then have to wait another year" rings true because it's a requirement.

Practically speaking, and exactly what foreverbull stated, I need a job that meets the state requirements in a reasonable amount of time...I can't wait around for the next cycle nor can I be very selective since the sooner I get my hours the sooner I can get "a real job." I was trained in an APA accredited program and did an APA accredited internship so I know I received quality training experiences so far. While there are plenty of very nice and very supportive psychologists around here willing to 'help train" they often don't have the funds, time, or resources to meet the minimum hours requirements for the state to "count" the hours. What's worse than a "post doc" that's just a glorified "post doctoral supervision experience"? One that pays and gives experience but ends up not counting according to the state. As for "training experiences" I found the market is well at work for offering certifications and the like post license for those who want to continue their educational growth which sounds great to me. There's a school of thought in our field that "post doc" requirements are unnecessary...and I am firmly of that belief. They often foster the low pay/exploitative positions that some lament because again without the hours you can't get licensed.


Long winded reply aside: I "could" wait for a better opportunity to present itself, or I could try to position myself into these already foot in the door opportunities and be well on my way to getting a license. Because without a license I'm pretty much not going anywhere. I'm really looking at this from a practical perspective. I need X hours and X requirements and both options provide them on slightly different timelines, I wouldn't consider either if I had zero interest in the work they're doing so in the end it's about a tradeoff: finding a "good" enough position that gets me licensed while also being at least a somewhat enjoyable experience and being able to pay my bills. Maybe if I was 6-8 years younger and/or money was no object I'd sit and wait for the perfect year of experience to apply to...but that's not a luxury I have at this present time. I hope to continue learning as I go as we all should strive for, but reality wise: I need to find post doctoral work that pays some of the bills and gets me towards licensing.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Of the 2, I'd probably go with site B. It seems like the hours are of paramount importance to you, and you're wanting to knock those out as quickly as possible, so the site with more certainty regarding clinical time looks like it's a better fit with your immediate goals. The opportunity to participate in supervision could also help break up the monotony of 100% clinical/assessment work. And if they offer benefits, even better.

Also, maybe there would be the option of doing some fee-for-service work at site A (for better pay) after you're licensed.

 

[singasongofjoy]

Given all factors you've mentioned, I would also go with B- and particularly if it offers benefits like health insurance, as Acronym said.

 

[deleted343839]

Thanks for sharing the additional details about your situation. Given a forced choice between the two, I would also opt for B.