Who's happier, MSWs or PsyDs?

[CKAW]

Weird first post, but do you think there's a difference? I know the capacities they function in vary so much, but I'm starting to get a sense that their approaches to treatment have different philosophies, and I wonder if this doesn't affect job satisfaction or overall happiness. Anyone willing to take this on?

Update: This thread morphed into a comparison of the relative merits of MSW and PsyD degrees, and subsequently addressed the differences between LCSWs and clinical psychologists as a whole.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bcliff]

Are you asking about PsyD's specifically or clinical psychologists as a whole?

 

[docma]

Weird first post, but do you think there's a difference? I know the capacities they function in vary so much, but I'm starting to get a sense that their approaches to treatment have different philosophies, and I wonder if this doesn't affect job satisfaction or overall happiness. Anyone willing to take this on?

You will get a range of replies because this will probably prompt a range of themes that draw diatribes here. But I'll jump in early and say that this is probably a questionable question (in terms of valid data), given individual variations in how and why folks choose one path over the other. That said, as someone who has always worked with both, the distribution of happiness varies with personality and sense of self, not occupational channel. I know miserable PsyD,PhDs and happy LCSWs and the reverse. It has more to do with finding a work you love to do for an amount you can happily live on--and there is such enormous range in this. The MSW is a more versatile, less expensive degree in terms of entry-to-workforce; it can lead to management positions with clinical and academic responsibilities that are very satisfying. The PhD/PsyD market is much more crowded and the path longer and more expensive; the earnings curve, once established is steeper earlier. For both professions, if you want higher incomes you need business or management skills and interests.

 

[KillerDiller]

Are you asking about PsyD's specifically or clinical psychologists as a whole?

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like there have been several threads started recently with titles that conflate PsyD with "practicing clinical psychologist." This is a real shame.

BTW, I just finished watching season 2 of American Horror Story because it finally came out on Netflix. I can now fully appreciate your user name/icon

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like there have been several threads started recently with titles that conflate PsyD with "practicing clinical psychologist." This is a real shame.

BTW, I just finished watching season 2 of American Horror Story because it finally came out on Netflix. I can now fully appreciate your user name/icon

Best one so far in my opinion.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

MSW is a more versatile, less expensive degree in terms of entry-to-workforce; it can lead to management positions with clinical and academic responsibilities that are very satisfying.

I disagree w this assertion, as having a doctoral degree opens a lot more doors, particularly in a medical setting or academia. Administrators, Directors, etc are much more likely to be doctoral level (including JD), then probably MBA, then MPH, etc. In the clinical realm I'd argue a similar advantage.

There are other notable downsides (more time/$, competitiveness, etc) during training...but in the marketplace I'd take the doctoral degree.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

I disagree w this assertion, as having a doctoral degree opens a lot more doors, particularly in a medical setting or academia. Administrators, Directors, etc are much more likely to be doctoral level (including JD), then probably MBA, then MPH, etc. In the clinical realm I'd argue a similar advantage.

There are other notable downsides (more time/$, competitiveness, etc) during training...but in the marketplace I'd take the doctoral degree.

I would have to agree as well, I believe there is not really a simple answer to OP's question. You have to figure out what fits your lifestyle and roll with it.

 

[CKAW]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like there have been several threads started recently with titles that conflate PsyD with "practicing clinical psychologist." This is a real shame.

Fair, is being a "practicing clinical psychologist" indistinguishable for PsyDs and PhDs? I know PhDs have more opportunities in research and academic capacities, but is there any difference in their actual clinical functions? I'm always going to err on the side of there being distinctions I don't know about.

You will get a range of replies because this will probably prompt a range of themes that draw diatribes here. But I'll jump in early and say that this is probably a questionable question (in terms of valid data), given individual variations in how and why folks choose one path over the other. That said, as someone who has always worked with both, the distribution of happiness varies with personality and sense self, not occupational channel. I know miserable PsyD,PhDs and happy LCSWs and the reverse. It has more to do with finding a work you love to do for an amount you can happily live on--and there is such enormous range in this. The MSW is a more versatile, less expensive degree in terms of entry-to-workforce; it can lead to management positions with clinical and academic responsibilities that are very satisfying. The PhD/PsyD market is much more crowded and the path longer and more expensive; the earnings curve, once established is steeper earlier. For both professions, if you want higher incomes you need business or management skills and interests.

Yes, you hit the nail on the head. I know there's not a real answer but I'm curious about the factors that play into it. How do you think the MSW is a more versatile degree? And when you say the earning curve is higher for doctoral level psychologists, is it because there are different jobs available, or different levels of payment for the same work?

 

[CKAW]

Are you asking about PsyD's specifically or clinical psychologists as a whole?

Missed this one -- I'm talking about PsyDs specifically, though I'm somewhat unclear on the practical differences if both are operating as clinical psychologists.

 

[eowyne]

It's hard to generalize because there are so many factors that determine happiness. I will say that for people who are geographically restricted due to family commitments or whatever else, the LCSW path provides more opportunities for local training and jobs. Lower pay, usually lower autonomy, but greater control over geographical location. Also, the lower pay of LCSWs have to be weighed vs the much lower debt they carry compared to many PsyDs.

 

[Sanman]

I think it really depends on your specific area of the field and regional differences. While I do know MSWs with great admin positions, I also many that are unhappy with the limits the degree places I them. I also know that the doctoral degree helped me get a couple of interviews for admin positions with no license going against MSWs with 20 yrs experience. In the end, it has to do with the amount and quality of local opportunities and, frankly, it varies by state and region as states have different laws regarding how these professions operate.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Missed this one -- I'm talking about PsyDs specifically, though I'm somewhat unclear on the practical differences if both are operating as clinical psychologists.

The quick answer--there are no practical differences in day-to-day functions, no. In that respect, it's similar to the MD/DO situation.

 

[CKAW]

It's hard to generalize because there are so many factors that determine happiness. I will say that for people who are geographically restricted due to family commitments or whatever else, the LCSW path provides more opportunities for local training and jobs. Lower pay, usually lower autonomy, but greater control over geographical location. Also, the lower pay of LCSWs have to be weighed vs the much lower debt they carry compared to many PsyDs.

Interesting to hear you say that. Do you mean there are more opportunities to find a local MSW program, or once you get licensed, there is more work? Why do you think a clinical psychologist would have trouble finding local job opportunities?

 

[CKAW]

I think it really depends on your specific area of the field and regional differences. While I do know MSWs with great admin positions, I also many that are unhappy with the limits the degree places I them. I also know that the doctoral degree helped me get a couple of interviews for admin positions with no license going against MSWs with 20 yrs experience. In the end, it has to do with the amount and quality of local opportunities and, frankly, it varies by state and region as states have different laws regarding how these professions operate.

This is my thinking as well in weighing the potential pros and cons. Everyone regrets the choices they passed up a lot more than the ones they took. Of the people you know, what sorts of limitations do you think they've come up against in only having an MSW, beyond a general preference for more qualified practitioners?

 

[eowyne]

Interesting to hear you say that. Do you mean there are more opportunities to find a local MSW program, or once you get licensed, there is more work? Why do you think a clinical psychologist would have trouble finding local job opportunities?

It is my impression that there are more MSW than PhD/PsyD programs, and many of them are in state schools, which are much less expensive than most PsyD programs. Regarding geographic issues, admissions standards are easier, so people can often just apply to a local program and go there, unlike PhD and PsyD programs, where people often have to move to go to a good program. Also, MSWs can usually do their internship in the same geographical area as their graduate program, whereas most PhD/PsyD candidates have to move again for internship, and often for post-doc too. I think if your goal is private practice, then once licensed, you can likely work where you want. But if you want to work in a hospital or other institutional setting, it is my impression that there are more jobs for LCSWs than PhDs/PsyDs.

 

[CKAW]

It is my impression that there are more MSW than PhD/PsyD programs, and many of them are in state schools, which are much less expensive than most PsyD programs. Regarding geographic issues, admissions standards are easier, so people can often just apply to a local program and go there, unlike PhD and PsyD programs, where people often have to move to go to a good program. Also, MSWs can usually do their internship in the same geographical area as their graduate program, whereas most PhD/PsyD candidates have to move again for internship, and often for post-doc too. I think if your goal is private practice, then once licensed, you can likely work where you want. But if you want to work in a hospital or other institutional setting, it is my impression that there are more jobs for LCSWs than PhDs/PsyDs.

Okay, I see what you're saying. God, sounds like that's the rub. I would say a majority of people have told me that more and more work is being shifted to LCSWs because they have lower reimbursement rates....but get a PsyD anyway. And I'm still trying to make sense of that, really.

Edit: I will say that I'm more interested in a private practice down the road in life more than anything else, so that sways my interpretation a bit.

 

[Pragma]

Best one so far in my opinion.

Season 2 is the worst one so far IMO, 1 was stellar and 3 is getting back to good form (i.e., sticking to a theme and not going overboard).

In other news, this thread really bothered me because of all of the Ph.D./Psy.D. conflation.

There is a huge difference between a doctoral level person on the job market who a) paid nothing for school and b) has excellent research/evaluation skills and a person who went to some degree mill and masquerades around like they are a doctoral level provider when their "doctoral" training was basically masters level training.

ETA: Based on some discussions earlier in this thread, I would like to qualify my statement and indicate that (obviously), not all Psy.D. programs are created equally. Some are good and I just have seen a lot of bad.

 

[CKAW]

Season 2 is the worst one so far IMO, 1 was stellar and 3 is getting back to good form (i.e., sticking to a theme and not going overboard).

In other news, this thread really bothered me because of all of the Ph.D./Psy.D. conflation.

There is a huge difference between a doctoral level person on the job market who a) paid nothing for school and b) has excellent research/evaluation skills and a person who went to some degree mill and masquerades around like they are a doctoral level provider when their "doctoral" training was basically masters level training.

Go on.

 

[Pragma]

Go on.

Well, the other reason that I like season 3 is because Angela Bassett is totally out-acting everyone else in the show.

 

[CKAW]

Well, the other reason that I like season 3 is because Angela Bassett is totally out-acting everyone else in the show.

Haaaaaaa

But seriously. It sounds like you're making a distinction between different programs of varying quality rather than the degrees themselves. And either way, I went out of my way to not conflate them -- that's why I specified PsyD in the title, and other people got bent out of shape about that!

 

[Pragma]

Haaaaaaa

But seriously. It sounds like you're making a distinction between different programs of varying quality rather than the degrees themselves. And either way, I went out of my way to not conflate them -- that's why I specified PsyD in the title, and other people got bent out of shape about that!

If I had to choose between getting a Psy.D. or an MSW, I would probably go for the MSW.

The only benefit that you really get from the Psy.D. is the "doctoral" distinction, which is becoming less meaningful as time passes by. When you have a Psy.D., in most cases you aren't trained well enough to do academic work anyways. The MSW is a lot more bang for your buck. Your typical* Psy.D. program is a complete rip-off given market conditions.

Go to a funded Ph.D. program.

*ETA based on discussions in this thread - when I say "typical" I am implying that the massive growth in FSPS and other large-cohort Psy.D. programs is rapidly becoming representative of folks who have Psy.D. degrees. Obviously, there are various programs out there and my "typical" statement wouldn't apply to all of them.

 

[bcliff]

Season 2 is the worst one so far IMO, 1 was stellar and 3 is getting back to good form (i.e., sticking to a theme and not going overboard).

In other news, this thread really bothered me because of all of the Ph.D./Psy.D. conflation.

There is a huge difference between a doctoral level person on the job market who a) paid nothing for school and b) has excellent research/evaluation skills and a person who went to some degree mill and masquerades around like they are a doctoral level provider when their "doctoral" training was basically masters level training.

I agree, and I would go onto say that the day-to-day functioning of a PsyD and a PhD can vary greatly.

The PsyD's practitioner-scholar (or Vail) model does not require students to undergo the same research training that the PhD's scientist-practitioner (or Boulder) model does. This makes the clinical psychology PhD a much more versatile degree than the PsyD.

Also, most reputable PhD programs will offer students funding, which cuts down on the costs of graduate school and makes it possible to graduate with little to no debt. There are countless threads on SDN, which discuss how much reimbursement rates have been reduced over the past several years, and the plight of unpaid internships/post-docs, etc., so having 200k+ in loans while also making <40k/year is a recipe for disaster. This also keeps cohort sizes down and ensures that you will be receiving a solid education from your program. Others in this thread have also mentioned that, on average, PhD students receive more clinical hours/experience than PsyD students, so it's tough to even make the argument that the PsyD is a better route for those interested in only practicing psychology.

This being said there are some competitive PsyD programs (Baylor, Rutergs, other university-based programs, etc.), and there are some crappy PhD programs (Alliant, Argosy, other FSPS, etc.), so while these distinctions between PsyD & PhD will be true most of the time, there are definitely exceptions to the rule. Given the issues facing clinical psychology, I would only recommend pursuing a doctoral degree to someone interested in attaining a PhD and who is interested in research and/or academia in addition to clinical work, otherwise I would suggest you pursue a licensable masters degree. To my knowledge, there are many different things that clinical psych PhD's can do that PsyD's cannot, but there isn't really anything a PsyD can do that a PhD can't.

 

[CKAW]

I agree, and I would go onto say that the day-to-day functioning of a PsyD and a PhD can vary greatly.

The PsyD's practitioner-scholar (or Vail) model does not require students to undergo the same research training that the PhD's scientist-practitioner (or Boulder) model does. This makes the clinical psychology PhD a much more versatile degree than the PsyD.

Also, most reputable PhD programs will offer students funding, which cuts down on the costs of graduate school and makes it possible to graduate with little to no debt. There are countless threads on SDN, which discuss how much reimbursement rates have been reduced over the past several years, and the plight of unpaid internships/post-docs, etc., so having 200k+ in loans while also making <40k/year is a recipe for disaster. This also keeps cohort sizes down and ensures that you will be receiving a solid education from your program. Others in this thread have also mentioned that, on average, PhD students receive more clinical hours/experience than PsyD students, so it's tough to even make the argument that the PsyD is a better route for those interested in only practicing psychology.

This being said there are some competitive PsyD programs (Baylor, Rutergs, other university-based programs, etc.), and there are some crappy PhD programs (Alliant, Argosy, other FSPS, etc.). Given the issues facing clinical psychology, I would only recommend pursuing a doctoral degree to someone interested in attaining a PhD and who is interested in research and/or academia in addition to clinical work, otherwise I would suggest you pursue a licensable masters degree. To my knowledge, there are many different things that clinical psych PhD's can do that PsyD's cannot, but there isn't really anything a PsyD can do that a PhD can't.

That all sounds like the general consensus. But the funding and smaller cohorts cut down on admission rates too. I'm not sure I could get into a PhD program without a few more years of research experience, and I'm 28 now. Not being particularly interested in any of the things you can't do without a PhD, I'm really only looking at PsyD vs. MSW. I totally understand the difference between a PhD and a PsyD, so I'm just wondering what a PsyD can do that an MSW can't.

 

[Pragma]

Given the issues facing clinical psychology, I would only recommend pursuing a doctoral degree to someone interested in attaining a PhD and who is interested in research and/or academia in addition to clinical work, otherwise I would suggest you pursue a licensable masters degree. To my knowledge, there are many different things that clinical psych PhD's can do that PsyD's cannot, but there isn't really anything a PsyD can do that a PhD can't.

Precisely. Regarding the thread topic, I would also say that there is very little that a Psy.D. can do that an MSW can't. There are some advantages to having a doctorate (i.e., testing training, more potential at administrative level), but mostly it is a wash.

 

[bcliff]

That all sounds like the general consensus. But the funding and smaller cohorts cut down on admission rates too. I'm not sure I could get into a PhD program without a few more years of research experience, and I'm 28 now. Not being particularly interested in any of the things you can't do without a PhD, I'm really only looking at PsyD vs. MSW. I totally understand the difference between a PhD and a PsyD, so I'm just wondering what a PsyD can do that an MSW can't.

I would say that if you can't get into a funded PhD (or PsyD) program for whatever reason (geographic restriction, low GPA, low GRE, no research experience, etc.), then clinical psychology is probably not the best field for you to be going into.

 

[CKAW]

I would say that if you can't get into a funded PhD (or PsyD) program for whatever reason (geographic restriction, low GPA, low GRE, no research experience, etc.), then clinical psychology is probably not the best field for you to be going into.

Not sure I understand this. Why would geographic restriction disqualify someone from being a clinical psychologist if they could afford a good but unfunded PsyD program?

 

[bcliff]

Not sure I understand this. Why would geographic restriction disqualify someone from being a clinical psychologist if they could afford a good but unfunded PsyD program?

Let's say you live in the middle-of-nowhere Alaska (no offense to anyone living in middle-of-nowhere Alaska) and there is absolutely no possible way you could ever move away from this hypothetical middle-of-nowhere town. Let's also say that the only clinical psychology program within 100mi of you is The Jungian School of Professional Psychotherapy & Dream Interpretation, which offers a clinical psych PsyD, then your geographic limitations would likely prevent you from attending a reputable/funded clinical psychology program.

And to be a "good" PhD or PsyD program, a school needs to offer at least partial funding. Like I said earlier, graduating with a doctoral degree in clinical psychology with >200k in loans is a recipe for disaster.

 

[cara susanna]

Edit: N/m

 

[eowyne]

Not sure I understand this. Why would geographic restriction disqualify someone from being a clinical psychologist if they could afford a good but unfunded PsyD program?

Because to get an APA accredited internship and post-doc, you will probably have to move. Even for just APPIC accredited ones, people often have to move. Doing a non-accredited internship greatly limits your career options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CKAW]

Let's say you live in the middle-of-nowhere Alaska (no offense to anyone living in middle-of-nowhere Alaska) and there is absolutely no possible way you could ever move away from this hypothetical middle-of-nowhere town. Let's also say that the only clinical psychology program within 100mi of you is The Jungian School of Professional Psychotherapy & Dream Interpretation, which offers a clinical psych PsyD, then your geographic limitations would likely prevent you from attending a reputable/funded clinical psychology program.

And to be a "good" PhD or PsyD program, a school needs to offer at least partial funding. Like I said earlier, graduating with a doctoral degree in clinical psychology with >200k in loans is a recipe for disaster.

Okay, gotcha. I think what you're saying is that if you can't get into some form of funded program, it's not worth it. I thought you meant that if you couldn't get into a funded program for any reason, you probably weren't qualified to be a clinical psychologist.

Again, personally I think research experience is my biggest deficit, and I expect that would be more of a deal breaker in PhD apps than PsyD.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

There is a huge difference between a doctoral level person on the job market who a) paid nothing for school and b) has excellent research/evaluation skills and a person who went to some degree mill and masquerades around like they are a doctoral level provider when their "doctoral" training was basically masters level training.

I'm glad you aren't painting with a broad brush and propping up a false dichotomy and "masquerading" it as fact. Each clinician should be evaluated based on training and competency, just as each program should be reviewed as a program and not as a degree. I know it is easier to throw an entire degree under the bus, but that approach is unproductive and misleading.

Precisely. Regarding the thread topic, I would also say that there is very little that a Psy.D. can do that an MSW can't. There are some advantages to having a doctorate (i.e., testing training, more potential at administrative level), but mostly it is a wash.

Again…broad strokes AND factually inaccurate….though par for the course for Pragma.

Ph.D. / Psy.D. / Ed.D. licensed as psychologists have the exact same license. Their scope of practice is dictated by competency and training, so that offers some variability in what areas a psychologist should practice….but that is a far different scenario than the one you presented as fact.

 

[CKAW]

"I would also say that there is very little that a Psy.D. can do that an MSW can't."

Again…broad strokes AND factually inaccurate….though par for the course for Pragma.

Ph.D. / Psy.D. / Ed.D. licensed as psychologists have the exact same license. Their scope of practice is dictated by competency and training, so that offers some variability in what areas a psychologist should practice….but that is a far different scenario than the one you presented as fact.

I was kind of skeptical that there were no significant differences in job description between MSW/PsyD other than testing. If that's not the case, what else would a PsyD qualify you to do that an MSW wouldn't?

It's been really difficult to get a concrete answer to that question pretty much everywhere I've asked.

 

[Pragma]

Again…broad strokes AND factually inaccurate….though par for the course for Pragma.

Ph.D. / Psy.D. / Ed.D. licensed as psychologists have the exact same license. Their scope of practice is dictated by competency and training, so that offers some variability in what areas a psychologist should practice….but that is a far different scenario than the one you presented as fact.

Wow, never realized there was some sort of historical precedent here to warrant this type of a comment, but whatever works for you T4C. Seems very out of place, but I guess I hit a nerve.

Clinical licensure is the same between doctoral degrees, this is true. I guess I view the scope of career possibilities as much different, but I am biased as someone who walks in circles where a lot of people never even bothered to get their license as they were doing consultation or academic work.

Obviously inferring that all Psy.D.s are the same is incorrect, because there are some good programs. But that is definitely not the norm. It is true that on average, Psy.D.s take less time to graduate (factoring out delays in getting an internship), have fewer degree requirements than a Ph.D., get less clinical training, and produce less scholarly work. But we have discussed that ad nauseum in other threads.

If you want to explain to this poster what objective benefits there are between a Psy.D. and MSW (aside from some state level regulations regarding testing, which is being encroached upon), please enlighten me and others here. The entire mid-level encroachment discussion seems highly relevant here, as well as justification for the tuition differences.

 

[erg923]

I was kind of skeptical that there were no significant differences in job description between MSW/PsyD other than testing. If that's not the case, what else would a PsyD qualify you to do that an MSW wouldn't?
It's been really difficult to get a concrete answer to that question pretty much everywhere I've asked.

Outside of the psychometric testing issue, its more of a nebulous answer because it depends on who is determining "qualified" --the employer or the employee. Ability to handle case complexity and a focus on the underlying science of behavior, cognition, emotion and behavior change/learning and how research informs all those variables is prob the most salient one on the clinical frontlines. Outside the "clinical trenches" its going to be more about ability to translate science and research (stats) into broad applications at both an inidvidual and programtic level. Theoretically a Psy.D. should be able to do all these things well, but frankly, Ph.D programs do a much better job of it, on average.

I also used to work in a ICF/MR facilty with very severe behavior problems. A MSW could not have done my job, as I used every single bit of knowlege regarding developement, developmental psychopathology, operant learning/behavior, etc.

 

[bcliff]

Outside of the psychometric testing issue, its more of nebulous answer because it depends on who is determining "qualified." The employer or the employee. Ability to handle case complexity and a focus on the underlying science of behavior, cognition, emotion and behavior change/learning and how research informs all those variables is prob the most salient one on the clinical frontlines. Outside the "clinical trenches" its going to be more about ability to translate science and research (stats) into broad applications at both an inidvidual and programtic level.

I also used to work in a ICF/MR facilty with very severe behavior problems. I MSW could not have done my job, as I used every single bit of knowlege regarding developement, developmental psychopathology, operant learning/behavior, etc.

But I think the question is whether someone with a FSPS PsyD could have done that job any better than someone with an MSW.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I was kind of skeptical that there were no significant differences in job description between MSW/PsyD other than testing. If that's not the case, what else would a PsyD qualify you to do that an MSW wouldn't?

Job descriptions are generally written by HR people. In the instances when a job posting conflates masters and doctoral training it includes all doctoral degrees, not just the Psy.D. Any place that offers this kind of description does not respect the training and scope of practice differences between the two fields.

I included "testing" since that is a large area of differentiation since there are whole sub-fields within psychology that are devoted to assessment.

1. Psychological Assessment (objective / projective), cognitive assessment, neuropsychological assessment, forensic assessment, capacity evaluations, social security disability evals, etc.
2. Faculty position at medical schools, hospitals, universities (in many different dept, not just Dept of Social Work)
3. Hospital privileges
4. Supervising doctoral and masters/mid-level clinicians
5. In the vast majority of cases anything related to research / research leadership (e.g. is not qualified to be a PI on an R01)

A more subjective answer would include taking a completely different approach to conceptualization of a case and evaluation of interventions that should be utilized. Being able to critically evaluate the current research and determine the best course of treatment, etc.

 

[CKAW]

Outside of the psychometric testing issue, its more of a nebulous answer because it depends on who is determining "qualified" --the employer or the employee. Ability to handle case complexity and a focus on the underlying science of behavior, cognition, emotion and behavior change/learning and how research informs all those variables is prob the most salient one on the clinical frontlines. Outside the "clinical trenches" its going to be more about ability to translate science and research (stats) into broad applications at both an inidvidual and programtic level. Theoretically a Psy.D. should be able to do all these things well, but frankly, Ph.D programs do a much better job of it, on average.

This was incredibly helpful. Do you think it's fair to say that, outside of what licensure legally allows you to do, the differences in job descriptions for any two people are more a product of their actual abilities than the degree they got? I'm doing grad work outside of a program in behavior genetics now, which doesn't seem to have much application in actual practice. I never thought of clinical psychology in terms of being a middleman between research and practice. In fact, I always thought the heavy emphasis on research was kind of arbitrary, but now it makes perfect sense.

 

[Pragma]

Theoretically a Psy.D. should be able to do all these things well, but frankly, Ph.D programs do a much better job of it, on average.

Exactly. The average Psy.D. that I know has no clue how to use stats (and by that token, understand the empirical literature outside of the discussion section) or conduct a program evaluation. Does that mean that there aren't some great Psy.D. programs that train their students well? No. But lets talk averages here. If you are going to recommend a Psy.D. to someone, they need to be aware of a) perception and b) reality (what are the objective differences). IMO, the burden of proof is one someone recommending this route over the MSW, as it is so highly corrupted and arguably has a much less efficient political lobby behind it protecting the interests of the profession.

 

[PsyDr]

Since you're advocating for burden of proof, wanna provide some empirical literature for each of your assertions?

Try to use small words, I'm just psydr who pulled in a little over 300k this year, with stats consulting for two separate publicly traded companies, and 2+ publications this year. I get real confused by your fancy talk for why your unsubstantiated opinions are not subjected to "burden of proof" while anyone else's is.

 

[CKAW]

Since you're advocating for burden of proof, wanna provide some empirical literature for each of your assertions?

Try to use small words, I'm just psydr who pulled in a little over 300k this year, with stats consulting for two separate publicly traded companies, and 2+ publications this year. I get real confused by your fancy talk for why your unsubstantiated opinions are not subjected to "burden of proof" while anyone else's is.

Did you go to one of the funded programs everyone's talking about?

 

[Pragma]

Since you're advocating for burden of proof, wanna provide some empirical literature for each of your assertions?

Try to use small words, I'm just psydr who pulled in a little over 300k this year, with stats consulting for two separate publicly traded companies, and 2+ publications this year. I get real confused by your fancy talk for why your unsubstantiated opinions are not subjected to "burden of proof" while anyone else's is.

There are publications that support all of the points I made, and you can also peruse the websites of APA-accredited programs that offer both Psy.D. and Ph.D. degrees and view the differences in their degree requirements and doctoral projects. You can view the APPIC data to understand that Psy.D students get fewer clinical hours.

I'm very happy that you have a Psy.D. and are so successful and involved in scholarly activities. Would you say you are the exception or the norm? I'm more concerned about people advocating for a degree without explaining what the typical outcome is for someone - seems irresponsible and self-serving to just say "sky is the limit!" without actually looking at the data, cream of the crop anecdotes aside.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm more concerned about people advocating for a degree without explaining what the typical outcome is for someone - seems irresponsible and self-serving to just say "sky is the limit!" without actually looking at the data, cream of the crop anecdotes aside.

..because that is what is happening in this thread?

 

[erg923]

Im little confused here, but I did want to point out that it well known that PSYDR is very sucessful, much because he seems to be a super human work beast. He seems like a very competent psychologist, but I would give him credit for this (intrinsic), not necessarily which degree he has/where he went to schol.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

Im little confused here, but I did want to point out that it well known that PSYDR is very sucessful, much because he seems to be a super human work beast. He seems like a very competent psychologist, but I would give him credit for this (intrinsic), not necessarily which degree he has/where he went to schol.

This. Plus, lets not derail this thread as well and instead answer OP's questions without going into yet another Ph.D. Versus Psy.D. debate.

 

[PsyDr]

Step 1) Make a statement that the PsyD= MSW
Step 2) When this position is attacked, state that you are hanging out with high ranking people and don't know about actual clinical practice. No one notices this logical fallacy.
Step 3) Change tacks, and make assertions about psydrs. Demand proof for anyone who makes contrary statements.
Step 4) When asked for proof for your own statement, just say it's out there. Cause that's some pretty sweet support. Hope no one notices attacking the academic integrity of a degree while simultaneously not using academic methods is hilarious.

 

[sockit]

OP: it's hard to get an answer because you are asking four questions. You've gotten answers to some of them already:

1) Job satisfaction. Hard to get a grip on because it's so dependent on setting, etc. Re detractors from happiness, anyway, people tend to be less stressed when they have more control over their challenges than not; being responsible for things without having control over them is what does a lot of social workers [and middle managers] in when they work in systems. Debt doesn't contribute to happiness either. Individual variability re fit: some people thrive with more autonomy, others are freaked out and want more support.

2) Quality of training. Controversial! This is an 'ought' question.

3) Value of the degree to employers, and legal constraints on scope of practice. This is an 'is' question, see above. None of these careers are portable. You'll be licensed and work where you train. Regional differences matter a lot. Check out labour stats for your area; review hiring practices at places you could see yourself working in [the organizational structures of these places; job ads they put out; funding available to them]; review the practices of insurance companies local to you. Compare your possible trajectory to comparable people. I know of a social worker who charges $250 an hour. She has 20 years' experience and is well-connected, will be different for you - recent grads can speak more to your odds.)

4) what you yourself should do (no one can say)

Concrete answers will be at least suggested by in-depth investigation of your local options and a hard look at yourself and your personal life situation.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

Step 1) Make a statement that the PsyD= MSW
Step 2) When this position is attacked, state that you are hanging out with high ranking people and don't know about actual clinical practice. No one notices this logical fallacy.
Step 3) Change tacks, and make assertions about psydrs. Demand proof for anyone who makes contrary statements.
Step 4) When asked for proof for your own statement, just say it's out there. Cause that's some pretty sweet support. Hope no one notices attacking the academic integrity of a degree while simultaneously not using academic methods is hilarious.

I do have to agree. You were attacked with no substantive proof given.

 

[CKAW]

PSYDR, you seem incensed that someone is equating PsyD with an MSW. Can you give actual arguments for how they differ significantly, other than your annual salary and publication history? I'm not saying they are equivalent, just saying I came here for a concrete explanation.

 

[CKAW]

I do have to agree. You were attacked with no substantive proof given.

Can you set me straight on this? Because it seems like the unpopular guy just said that many -- not all -- PsyD programs have lower quality of education, lower rates of accreditation, lower internship placements, etc, which doesn't seem like it needs substantive proof? What's the controversy?

Edit: Forgot he said that testing is the only real difference between MSW and PsyD, which doesn't seem true. But even then, the only thing anyone's really said to the contrary is that PsyD can supervise MSW and do assessment/diagnostic work.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

PSYDR, you seem incensed that someone is equating PsyD with an MSW. Can you give actual arguments for how they differ significantly, other than your annual salary and publication history? I'm not saying they are, just saying I came here for a concrete explanation.

I'm not PSYDR but I can pinch-hit with a couple of points while I'm waiting on my next appt….

1. Doctoral v. Masters level programs offer far different training path, set of requirements for admission, for degree completion, for supervision, for licensure, etc.

2. Day to day practice (in the majority of cases) is quite different. Can there be some overlap in regard to providing psychotherapy…yes. Is this common…I'd argue no. There are so many different niche areas of practice for both, that trying to say, "A is equivalent to B" because of a slight area of crossover is at least an obtuse interpretation of the very different training backgrounds of each respective profession. A commuter car and a combine (farming) both have wheels and involve transportation….but the development of daily use of each vehicle is vastly different.

3. Therapy is only one part of what a clinical psychologist can do. Frankly….there are whole clinical and research areas that do little to no therapy. The value of doctoral training is much better utilized OUTSIDE of actually providing therapy.