PhD/PsyD William James College PsyD, Pacific University PsyD, or Palo Alto PhD?

[stupidbabytruck]

Hi all,

I recently got accepted into the clinical psychology PsyD programs at both William James College and Pacific University. I have an interview at Palo Alto University for their Clin psy PhD program in late March. Oddly enough, I had applied to their PsyD program but they offered me an interview for their PhD program instead.

I was most impressed with the faculty at William James College, and Im interested in their military psychology concentration. Although, I like that Pacific is a university and therefor has more resources. Palo Alto would be cool to be able to take classes at Stanford, but My main focus is to practice, not research. Assuming i get in to PAU, which would you choose from these 3?

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mypointlesspov]

What's the funding like at each?

 

[Seven_Costanza]

Hi all,

I recently got accepted into the clinical psychology PsyD programs at both William James College and Pacific University. I have an interview at Palo Alto University for their Clin psy PhD program in late March. Oddly enough, I had applied to their PsyD program but they offered me an interview for their PhD program instead.

I was most impressed with the faculty at William James College, and Im interested in their military psychology concentration. Although, I like that Pacific is a university and therefor has more resources. Palo Alto would be cool to be able to take classes at Stanford, but My main focus is to practice, not research. Assuming i get in to PAU, which would you choose from these 3?

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would choose the cheapest option. PAU is ridiculously expensive in a ridiculously expensive part of the country. The program alone will cost you ~$200k and that doesn’t include housing (the most expensive in the country).

FWIW, the large majority of folks at PAU go into practice, not research.

 

[YoungFrancis]

Don't go to those schools. You made a mistake in applying to them. Giant cohorts, no funding, and exorbitant amounts of prac hours.

The best decision is not the best of those 3 schools. The best decision is to reapply for reputable, funded PhDs or masters degrees in counseling or social work.

Search this forum for information on those programs and other PsyD programs (the PAU PhD is essentially a PsyD).

 

[stupidbabytruck]

They’re not funded . All similarly priced I think both WJC and PAU are around 47k/year and pacific is 37k


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[psych.meout]

They’re not funded . All similarly priced I think both WJC and PAU are around 47k/year and pacific is 37k


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I concur with YoungFrancis. The cost of taking a year or two to improve your experience is more than worth the savings in debt.

 

[R. Matey]

I concur with YoungFrancis. The cost of taking a year or two to improve your experience is more than worth the savings in debt.

Seconded. You’re wayyyy better off reapplying to funded PhD programs or MSW programs. I’d avoid MA counseling programs because the opportunities are so limited for LPCs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stupidbabytruck]

Seconded. You’re wayyyy better off reapplying to funded PhD programs or MSW programs. I’d avoid MA counseling programs because the opportunities are so limited for LPCs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is there really not a big difference between MSW and PsyD/PhD? I get varying answers to this. Do you think it’d be worth it if I got the HPSP scholarship from the army?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Unipsychler]

Is there really not a big difference between MSW and PsyD/PhD?

I think it's more that if you can't get into a good quality, funded PhD, a good quality MSW is a better plan B than taking on $200k (PLUS living expenses) of debt just to make a psychologist's salary in the end. Especially because the highest-cost programs are often (but not always!) the lowest quality.

If you happen to be independently wealthy and don't care what it costs, then of course you can try to tease apart which expensive programs happen to be high quality and those may be just as attractive options as a good MSW. But if finances are in any way a factor for you, the expensive programs are never worth it.

 

[Unipsychler]

Do you think it’d be worth it if I got the HPSP scholarship from the army?

Not familiar with that, how much would it cover?

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Don’t do the debt

 

[R. Matey]

I think it's more that if you can't get into a good quality, funded PhD, a good quality MSW is a better plan B than taking on $200k (PLUS living expenses) of debt just to make a psychologist's salary in the end. Especially because the highest-cost programs are often (but not always!) the lowest quality.

If you happen to be independently wealthy and don't care what it costs, then of course you can try to tease apart which expensive programs happen to be high quality and those may be just as attractive options as a good MSW. But if finances are in any way a factor for you, the expensive programs are never worth it.

I'd add that it also deeply depends on what you want to do. If being a therapist is your goal, this can be accomplished with a MSW. If you're interested in doing assessment or research, that's more in the realm of psychology.

Just a testimonial, I applied to professional schools (including Pacific) my first round of applications and then rejected them after learning about funded programs. Years later, I am just finishing a Ph.D. program with zero debt. If I can do it, so can you

 

[Unipsychler]

If you're interested in doing assessment or research, that's more in the realm of psychology.

Oh, absolutely! I made a generalization that most people applying to PsyD's are not primarily focused on those parts of practice, but that's a good caveat to point out.

 

[iPsychlops]

I’m a PAU PhD student and the cost out the program is admittedly high. With that said, I’m happy with the training. I would recommend the HPSP if you can. Additionally there’s a clinical psychology program run by the military that doesn’t charge you tuition but has a similar deal to the HPSP.

I couldn’t do HPSP because I have ADHD and was being treated with Adderall, which is a controlled substance, and you can’t be on that while you’re in the military.
If you want a research job at a college/university, you might want a school with a bit more prestige. If you want to be a clinician and/or do assessments, this is a fine program.

 

[thebalmofhurtminds]

I have a friend who graduated from the PAU PhD, and while she did like the training, she is in an insane amount of debt. It is definitely interfering with her career choices in the present and future. I would avoid anything like this if possible.

 

[cara susanna]

Ditto about PAU. I know a graduate who's working more than one psychologist job right now.

 

[psych.meout]

Ditto about PAU. I know a graduate who's working more than one psychologist job right now.

It's funny how we talk so much about psychologist earnings being so much lower than other fields with similar levels training (e.g., physicians), because psychologists are often looking for a better lifestyle or work-life balance than cranking out billable hours, but then we have grads from unfunded programs working insane hours just to keep their heads above water.

 

[R. Matey]

It's funny how we talk so much about psychologist earnings being so much lower than other fields with similar levels training (e.g., physicians), because psychologists are often looking for a better lifestyle or work-life balance than cranking out billable hours, but then we have grads from unfunded programs working insane hours just to keep their heads above water.

That's such a good point, I've known some psychologists from unfunded programs who will take ANY job that they can find. I'm close enough to the student perspective to see how applicants might view people on SDN as being biased against completely unfunded programs, but from what I've seen as a graduate student, a lot of times these folks are doing what they have to survive.

 

[ImpossiblyFresh]

Don't go to those schools. You made a mistake in applying to them. Giant cohorts, no funding, and exorbitant amounts of prac hours.

The best decision is not the best of those 3 schools. The best decision is to reapply for reputable, funded PhDs or masters degrees in counseling or social work.

Search this forum for information on those programs and other PsyD programs (the PAU PhD is essentially a PsyD).

Can you clarify what you mean by "exorbitant amounts of prac hours?" Is the concern that too many of them are not direct hours?

 

[psych.meout]

Can you clarify what you mean by "exorbitant amounts of prac hours?" Is the concern that too many of them are not direct hours?

No, it's an issue of quantity over quality.

For example, a student at a neuropsych practicum may be mostly doing test administration and scoring. Basically, they're just a glorified psychometrist instead of receiving proper prac student training and performing increasingly complex tasks (e.g., co-facilitating the clinical interview and feedback, writing the integrated report). Alternatively, there might be too many students being supervised or the quality of the prac site might be so low that the student isn't receiving proper individual supervision by a licensed psychologist, preventing them from receiving quality feedback and thereby inhibiting learning to really progress as a trainee.

The point is that these students are grinding out huge numbers of hours, but the quality of those hours and the necessary support training is quite low.

 

[WisNeuro]

Can you clarify what you mean by "exorbitant amounts of prac hours?" Is the concern that too many of them are not direct hours?

To further clarify, it's important to see a ratio of F2F clinical hours and supervision. Sometimes people have HUGE amounts of hours, but relatively low supervision hours. That is very bad. Also, someone may have a ton of clinical hours, well over the average, but absolutely zero research production (e.g., no posters, no conferences, no pubs). That is also very bad. And last, some people simply fill out the APPIC incorrectly, which is obvious to us when we are reviewing the file. That is also, very bad.

 

[psych.meout]

To further clarify, it's important to see a ratio of F2F clinical hours and supervision. Sometimes people have HUGE amounts of hours, but relatively low supervision hours. That is very bad. Also, someone may have a ton of clinical hours, well over the average, but absolutely zero research production (e.g., no posters, no conferences, no pubs). That is also very bad.

A psychologist I know who directly supervises interns and is part of the admissions process for internship mentioned that it's a pretty big red flag to them when most of an applicant's supervision hours are group and there's relatively little individual supervision by comparison.

And last, some people simply fill out the APPIC incorrectly, which is obvious to us when we are reviewing the file. That is also, very bad.

Can you say more about this? What kinds of things are they doing wrong?

 

[WisNeuro]

Can you say more about this? What kinds of things are they doing wrong?

Sometimes they count everything (F2F, indirect clinical hours, charting, etc) into the direct F2F. We see this when the hours they report are just impossible to achieve unless they were seeing patients for like 60 hours a week during their pracs. Or the assessment hours look all wonky. Like saying they had over 100 integrated reports, but they've only given like 12 cognitive tests ever. These things are unfortunately pretty common.

 

[psych.meout]

Sometimes they count everything (F2F, indirect clinical hours, charting, etc) into the direct F2F. We see this when the hours they report are just impossible to achieve unless they were seeing patients for like 60 hours a week during their pracs. Or the assessment hours look all wonky. Like saying they had over 100 integrated reports, but they've only given like 12 cognitive tests ever. These things are unfortunately pretty common.

This is common? Like, I knew this was wrong before I even started my first practicum.

Are these students from diploma mills or something? Or maybe they decided to track their own hours in an Excel spreadsheet or something instead of using Time2Track.

 

[psych.meout]

To further clarify, it's important to see a ratio of F2F clinical hours and supervision. Sometimes people have HUGE amounts of hours, but relatively low supervision hours. That is very bad. Also, someone may have a ton of clinical hours, well over the average, but absolutely zero research production (e.g., no posters, no conferences, no pubs). That is also very bad. And last, some people simply fill out the APPIC incorrectly, which is obvious to us when we are reviewing the file. That is also, very bad.

What specifically do internship sites look for in terms of supervision hours? Is there a particular absolute number, percentage of total hours, or ratio to F2F hours?

 

[ImpossiblyFresh]

Sometimes they count everything (F2F, indirect clinical hours, charting, etc) into the direct F2F. We see this when the hours they report are just impossible to achieve unless they were seeing patients for like 60 hours a week during their pracs. Or the assessment hours look all wonky. Like saying they had over 100 integrated reports, but they've only given like 12 cognitive tests ever. These things are unfortunately pretty common.

This seems pretty extreme. Are you saying that you often/only see this in applicants coming from the programs specifically mentioned by the OP, or are you talking about PsyD programs generally? Could this not also be the case for a PhD student coming from a funded program?

It seems like we're talking about more than one issue here. I would like help identifying PsyD programs that are reputable, and ones that are particularly bad, without respect to anyone's opinion on funding/debt load. I am also not pursuing neuro. I just don't find it credible that you can't get good training, and subsequently a good internship, at a PsyD program. In addition to that, all of the PsyDs I'm considering offer some type of funding, so I am not sure that the numbers being thrown around here are accurate. If anyone wants to offer respectful/constructive insight into any of this, I welcome it.

 

[WisNeuro]

This is common? Like, I knew this was wrong before I even started my first practicum.

Are these students from diploma mills or something? Or maybe they decided to track their own hours in an Excel spreadsheet or something instead of using Time2Track.

It's common-ish. As for the excel spreadsheet, I wouldn't knock it. Essentially, if you know what you're doing, you can make a spreadsheet that is better than what Time2Track does in about an hour. Excel coding isn't that hard, people just don't want to learn it.

Most of the time, the rest of the application is lacking, so it's not like that is what gets them unranked.

As far as supervision hours and their ratios, it's really dependent on their background and what they are coming to your site for. for example, it's common for neuropsych heavy people to have a different ratio of F2F hours, but that makes sense, as you spend a lot of time with 1 patient, vs someone spending the same amount of F2F with several patients in a therapy setting.

 

[WisNeuro]

This seems pretty extreme. Are you saying that you often/only see this in applicants coming from the programs specifically mentioned by the OP, or are you talking about PsyD programs generally? Could this not also be the case for a PhD student coming from a funded program?

It seems like we're talking about more than one issue here. I would like help identifying PsyD programs that are reputable, and ones that are particularly bad, without respect to anyone's opinion on funding/debt load. I am also not pursuing neuro. I just don't find it credible that you can't get good training, and subsequently a good internship, at a PsyD program. In addition to that, all of the PsyDs I'm considering offer some type of funding, so I am not sure that the numbers being thrown around here are accurate. If anyone wants to offer respectful/constructive insight into any of this, I welcome it.

Not that extreme in my experience, it's happened at every training site I've supervised at. It happens at all types of programs, but more often at PsyDs, particularly the mills.

As far as reputable PsyDs, look at the objective stats, historical match rates, licensure %, EPPP pass rates, etc. If you don't feel like the numbers are accurate, they are public knowledge, feel free to check for yourself.

 

[ImpossiblyFresh]

Not that extreme in my experience, it's happened at every training site I've supervised at. It happens at all types of programs, but more often at PsyDs, particularly the mills.

As far as reputable PsyDs, look at the objective stats, historical match rates, licensure %, EPPP pass rates, etc. If you don't feel like the numbers are accurate, they are public knowledge, feel free to check for yourself.

It might be useful to know which programs you're defining as "mills."

I look at the stats for every program, as everyone should, which is why I'm surprised to find posters here making sweeping statements about *all* PsyD programs and saying that you're going to be 200k in debt if you attend one.

 

[psych.meout]

This seems pretty extreme. Are you saying that you often/only see this in applicants coming from the programs specifically mentioned by the OP, or are you talking about PsyD programs generally? Could this not also be the case for a PhD student coming from a funded program?

It seems like we're talking about more than one issue here. I would like help identifying PsyD programs that are reputable, and ones that are particularly bad, without respect to anyone's opinion on funding/debt load. I am also not pursuing neuro. I just don't find it credible that you can't get good training, and subsequently a good internship, at a PsyD program. In addition to that, all of the PsyDs I'm considering offer some type of funding, so I am not sure that the numbers being thrown around here are accurate. If anyone wants to offer respectful/constructive insight into any of this, I welcome it.

You have to be careful when looking at the websites of some of these programs that claim to offer funding. Often, they don't offer funding to all students, it doesn't even cover a year's tuition, and they limit how many years you can qualify for this funding. Without some kind of guarantee of funding (like those at fully funded programs), it's a gamble whether you'll get any funding.

It might be useful to know which programs you're defining as "mills."

I look at the stats for every program, as everyone should, which is why I'm surprised to find posters here making sweeping statements about *all* PsyD programs and saying that you're going to be 200k in debt if you attend one.

I haven't seen anyone here make those "sweeping statements about *all* PsyD programs," either here or in other threads. In fact, programs like those at Rutgers and Baylor are often highly recommended. The issue is that many of the issues of poor quality and funding are more common with PsyD programs than PhDs.

As for the typical debt, people aren't pulling that from thin air.

Got debt?

A look at solutions for students who face formidable loan repayments.

www.apa.org

A survey of doctoral graduates from 2013 and 2014 found that 91 percent of the PsyD students and 77 percent of PhD students in clinical, counseling and school psychology programs graduated with debt. The median graduate loan debt was $200,000 for PsyD students, compared to $75,000 for PhDs.

Applicant Survey - 2018 - Part 1

Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers, Postdoc Interns, Psychology Internships, Psych Internship Matching - APPIC

www.appic.org

9. Please estimate the total amount of DEBT that you have accrued
to date as a consequence of attending GRADUATE SCHOOL IN
PSYCHOLOGY, including tuition, fees, living expenses, books, etc.

Please include all forms of debt such as student loans, credit
cards, personal loans, etc. Please do NOT include undergraduate
debt or debt that is unrelated to your graduate training.

Mean = $ 91,750 Median = $60,000
SD = $103,957

$0 582 27%
$1 - $9,999 116 5%
$10,000 - $19,999 110 5%
$20,000 - $29,999 79 4%
$30,000 - $39,999 58 3%
$40,000 - $49,999 56 3%
$50,000 - $59,999 66 3%
$60,000 - $69,999 60 3%
$70,000 - $79,999 48 2%
$80,000 - $89,999 70 3%
$90,000 - $99,999 48 2%
$100,000 - $149,999 277 13%
$150,000 - $199,999 204 9%
$200,000 - $249,999 176 8%
$250,000 - $299,999 96 4%
$300,000 - $349,999 63 3%
$350,000 - $399,999 22 1%
$400,000 or higher 41 2%

 

[ImpossiblyFresh]

You have to be careful when looking at the websites of some of these programs that claim to offer funding. Often, they don't offer funding to all students, it doesn't even cover a year's tuition, and they limit how many years you can qualify for this funding. Without some kind of guarantee of funding (like those at fully funded programs), it's a gamble whether you'll get any funding.


I haven't seen anyone here make those "sweeping statements about *all* PsyD programs," either here or in other threads. In fact, programs like those at Rutgers and Baylor are often highly recommended. The issue is that many of the issues of poor quality and funding are more common with PsyD programs than PhDs.

As for the typical debt, people aren't pulling that from thin air.

Got debt?

A look at solutions for students who face formidable loan repayments.

www.apa.org

Applicant Survey - 2018 - Part 1

Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers, Postdoc Interns, Psychology Internships, Psych Internship Matching - APPIC

www.appic.org

You're right, PsyD programs don't offer funding to all students. It's easy to find out what the funding possibilities are by calling the department office. Baylor and Rutgers are great, but everyone knows about those. They can't be the only two PsyDs worth considering. I don't think paying 25k in tuition is a terrible option for good training and not being beholden to the university. I know plenty of funded PhD students who work like dogs for their mentors, making less than 20k a year and still having to take money from their parents to make ends meet at age 30 (even in cities with a relatively low cost of living). As your resource above notes, income-based loan repayment and loan forgiveness are good options.

I think it's good to steer people toward the financially conservative option. But, since it seems like some folks are willing to spend a fair amount of time offering opinions in these threads, I submit that it might be useful to spend some of that time compiling a list of PsyD programs that are at least more preferable options for those who are intent on a PsyD, and/or a list of those to absolutely avoid. Speaking from my experience here, I've seen people say things like "Xavier is a no go," and immediately assumed there must be several reasons, only to find out that funding was the sole reason. I know this isn't the case for everyone, but I have an MA, so it seems at least possible to spend some of the time that PhD students spend on research earning money in a way that I find more appealing.

I am specifically considering: Loyola Maryland, Widener, Xavier, Roosevelt, and Indianapolis. If anyone has thoughts on those (separate from funding), I'm interested.

 

[beginner2011]

You're right, PsyD programs don't offer funding to all students. It's easy to find out what the funding possibilities are by calling the department office. Baylor and Rutgers are great, but everyone knows about those. They can't be the only two PsyDs worth considering. I don't think paying 25k in tuition is a terrible option for good training and not being beholden to the university. I know plenty of funded PhD students who work like dogs for their mentors, making less than 20k a year and still having to take money from their parents to make ends meet at age 30 (even in cities with a relatively low cost of living). As your resource above notes, income-based loan repayment and loan forgiveness are good options.

I think it's good to steer people toward the financially conservative option. But, since it seems like some folks are willing to spend a fair amount of time offering opinions in these threads, I submit that it might be useful to spend some of that time compiling a list of PsyD programs that are at least more preferable options for those who are intent on a PsyD, and/or a list of those to absolutely avoid. Speaking from my experience here, I've seen people say things like "Xavier is a no go," and immediately assumed there must be several reasons, only to find out that funding was the sole reason. I know this isn't the case for everyone, but I have an MA, so it seems at least possible to spend some of the time that PhD students spend on research earning money in a way that I find more appealing.

I am specifically considering: Loyola Maryland, Widener, Xavier, Roosevelt, and Indianapolis. If anyone has thoughts on those (separate from funding), I'm interested.

Do keep in mind that those people "working like dogs" are essentially full time students (~40h/week) while also making the equivalent of $50k-65k because their tuition is covered ($30k-40k) and they are being paid a stipend (~25k). I would also submit that my own experience (and the majority of my colleagues) at a "research oriented" R1 was nothing like what you're describing. Work-life balance was a high priority from orientation week onward, and I had regular conversations with my advisor about not burning myself out. This is at an institution where students routinely receive external funding as graduate students and something like 40% go on to faculty positions. You'd think the most severe "working like dogs" stories would come from a place like this, but it was absolutely the exception and not the rule for advisors to be overworking students. Not only that, but most of those students knew what they were signing up for before they got started working with those specific advisors.

Yes, you could probably be a full time PsyD student (~40h/week) and simultaneously be working in an unrelated field making ~50k-65k, but it's hard for me to imagine that you wouldn't be "working like a dog." Sure, you could roll the dice on receiving loan repayment and loan forgiveness, but that seems to me like kicking the can down the road since there is no guarantee that works out and in the meantime you're sweating bullets. There's a thread on this forum with nearly 1000 posts in the last few years on the topic of loan forgiveness filled with people trying to manage the system. Folks who attended funded programs have vastly smaller debt loads at completion, and don't need to put the mental/emotional energy into managing debt later on.

Why not do the work up front? Why not adequately prepare for graduate training and position yourself to be a strong applicant to a funded program?


I'll also point out that I think there's another reason people on this forum discourage people from taking on massive debt loads in order to become psychologists: it suppresses our perceived value as a profession when so many psychologists complete their training and are so thirsty for stable employment. Many of the posters on this thread are well past the stage in their career where this affects them much, but they're trying to help us early career and prospective psychologists out. Here's a hypothetical to illustrate:

Administrator X is recruiting for a psychologist position offering $60k salary
Psychologist A comes out of a funded program and has $0 debt
Psychologist B comes out of an unfunded program and has $100k in debt

Psychologist A attempts to negotiate for a larger salary from a position of strength
Psychologist B declines to negotiate and accepts the position because they desperately need stable employment to pay back loans
Administrator X assumes the value of a psychologist is $60k

How do you think this plays out in the market? All these debt-laden psychologists saturating the market suppresses the value of psychologists. As a profession, I think we're experiencing significant collateral damage as a consequence of so many prospective students taking the unfunded PsyD shortcut and mortgaging their future in order to jump right in to training.

 

[thebalmofhurtminds]

You're right, PsyD programs don't offer funding to all students. It's easy to find out what the funding possibilities are by calling the department office. Baylor and Rutgers are great, but everyone knows about those. They can't be the only two PsyDs worth considering. I don't think paying 25k in tuition is a terrible option for good training and not being beholden to the university. I know plenty of funded PhD students who work like dogs for their mentors, making less than 20k a year and still having to take money from their parents to make ends meet at age 30 (even in cities with a relatively low cost of living). As your resource above notes, income-based loan repayment and loan forgiveness are good options.

I think it's good to steer people toward the financially conservative option. But, since it seems like some folks are willing to spend a fair amount of time offering opinions in these threads, I submit that it might be useful to spend some of that time compiling a list of PsyD programs that are at least more preferable options for those who are intent on a PsyD, and/or a list of those to absolutely avoid. Speaking from my experience here, I've seen people say things like "Xavier is a no go," and immediately assumed there must be several reasons, only to find out that funding was the sole reason. I know this isn't the case for everyone, but I have an MA, so it seems at least possible to spend some of the time that PhD students spend on research earning money in a way that I find more appealing.

I am specifically considering: Loyola Maryland, Widener, Xavier, Roosevelt, and Indianapolis. If anyone has thoughts on those (separate from funding), I'm interested.

I couldn't disagree more with the bolded portion. Think of it this way: 25k per year. You're likely going to spend 5 years there, plus one on internship (where you may still have to pay tuition). That's AT LEAST 125k coming out! And that doesn't include cost of living, other expenses associated with the degree, etc. Also doesn't include any potential undergraduate loans. That is an insane amount of money to be in debt for a degree that quite simply does not have the earning potential to make it worth it.

On a personal note, this is doubly devastating when you spend 8 years (grad school + internship + postdoc at the very least) scrimping and saving, working hard toward a long-term goal, delaying many big milestones and other instant gratifications, only to emerge with the burden of debt that makes even a decent salary seem meager.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Completely ignoring finances, and speaking almost entirely anecdotally, I know psychologists who've attended the following Psy.D. programs and are solid practitioners: Indianapolis, Nova, and FIT. Nova has seemingly become more variable over recent years. I know of graduates from a few other programs who are also great providers, including a few of the Alliant campuses, but the variability seems too risky to me. From what I can tell, Palo Alto University (PGSP-Stanford Consortium) offers good training, but I don't know anyone from there personally. I feel like I'm probably forgetting a program or two, but they aren't coming to me at the moment.

With any of those programs, if a student were coming to me for advice, I believe it would be irresponsible of me to recommend them without also mentioning the cost of attendance. But I at least know good outcomes are possible at the above schools.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

@ImpossiblyFresh
I’d look for PsyD programs in state universities. The goal would be to get state residence and only have to pay the in-state tuition.

 

[psych.meout]

You're right, PsyD programs don't offer funding to all students. It's easy to find out what the funding possibilities are by calling the department office. Baylor and Rutgers are great, but everyone knows about those. They can't be the only two PsyDs worth considering. I don't think paying 25k in tuition is a terrible option for good training and not being beholden to the university. I know plenty of funded PhD students who work like dogs for their mentors, making less than 20k a year and still having to take money from their parents to make ends meet at age 30 (even in cities with a relatively low cost of living). As your resource above notes, income-based loan repayment and loan forgiveness are good options.

I think it's good to steer people toward the financially conservative option. But, since it seems like some folks are willing to spend a fair amount of time offering opinions in these threads, I submit that it might be useful to spend some of that time compiling a list of PsyD programs that are at least more preferable options for those who are intent on a PsyD, and/or a list of those to absolutely avoid. Speaking from my experience here, I've seen people say things like "Xavier is a no go," and immediately assumed there must be several reasons, only to find out that funding was the sole reason. I know this isn't the case for everyone, but I have an MA, so it seems at least possible to spend some of the time that PhD students spend on research earning money in a way that I find more appealing.

I am specifically considering: Loyola Maryland, Widener, Xavier, Roosevelt, and Indianapolis. If anyone has thoughts on those (separate from funding), I'm interested.

As others have pointed out, "working like dogs" isn't consistent with my experience or for my friends from other programs.

That said, even if it were true, the same could be said of PsyD programs. You'd either be working like that while you were in your program to minimize debt and afford living expenses (without taking additional debt beyond tuition and fees) and/or after you graduate so that you can pay down your debt as fast as possible so it stops accruing so much interest. You could not work during your program to focus on your studies and minimize your time in the program, but this means you're likely adding debt through financing living expenses via loans. Alternatively, you could work while attending your program, but this could be distracting from completing your milestones and cause you to spend extra time in your program before internship and accrue more debt that way. Thus, the sheer tuition of an unfunded program is not the only financial and logistical concern.

More importantly, the "working like a dog" in your funded doctoral program isn't just to earn your funding and pay the bills, it has the added benefit of building your resume, especially in terms of research experience. Compare this research productivity with working a paying job in your unfunded program. The latter won't nearly help your internship and post doc prospects and later career as much as whatever research experience and you get inside the program.

 

[futureapppsy2]

This is a really great thread about the financial consequences of someone attending an unfunded PsyD program: A PsyD story (mostly $$$ talk)

 

[YoungFrancis]

You're right, PsyD programs don't offer funding to all students. It's easy to find out what the funding possibilities are by calling the department office. Baylor and Rutgers are great, but everyone knows about those. They can't be the only two PsyDs worth considering. I don't think paying 25k in tuition is a terrible option for good training and not being beholden to the university. I know plenty of funded PhD students who work like dogs for their mentors, making less than 20k a year and still having to take money from their parents to make ends meet at age 30 (even in cities with a relatively low cost of living). As your resource above notes, income-based loan repayment and loan forgiveness are good options.

I think it's good to steer people toward the financially conservative option. But, since it seems like some folks are willing to spend a fair amount of time offering opinions in these threads, I submit that it might be useful to spend some of that time compiling a list of PsyD programs that are at least more preferable options for those who are intent on a PsyD, and/or a list of those to absolutely avoid. Speaking from my experience here, I've seen people say things like "Xavier is a no go," and immediately assumed there must be several reasons, only to find out that funding was the sole reason. I know this isn't the case for everyone, but I have an MA, so it seems at least possible to spend some of the time that PhD students spend on research earning money in a way that I find more appealing.

I am specifically considering: Loyola Maryland, Widener, Xavier, Roosevelt, and Indianapolis. If anyone has thoughts on those (separate from funding), I'm interested.

No one should be exclusively intent on going to a PsyD. The handful of great PsyD programs are comparable to funded PhDs that are balanced in terms of research and clinical focus. If you are interested in a PsyD, you should expand your search to balanced PhDs. They have similar training and are more likely to be funded.

There is no good model of clinical doctoral training that says, "Students who dislike research just do clinical work," allowing you to make money doing something else.

A more common scenario: A doctoral student (PsyD or PhD) attends a program with mediocre or poor funding. Almost all of their time is consumed by research, clinical work, and classes. But wait, they need funding! Their advisor doesn't have a grant and funding is not guaranteed, so they have to seek out an assistantship in the university because those are the jobs that come with tuition remission and hopefully a stipend. Maybe they find something "appealing," maybe they find something unappealing, or maybe they find nothing and are SOL.

This is a all too common at mediocre programs and even occurs at well-funded programs, particularly as you progress to a more senior student. Funding can be stressful enough even when you choose a good school that says "we guarantee funding for X years." Your advisor doesn't hit a grant, you department's funding policies change, or state funding changes. Don't add an extra burden by going somewhere that you know will be stressful and will follow you financially for years.

 

[ImpossiblyFresh]

you should expand your search to balanced PhDs

How does one determine which PhDs are balanced? I know these programs exist, but most of their websites espouse the same things about the clinical scientist model. Do you have suggestions on how to narrow the search for such a program, before attempting to contact their faculty and current students for more information?

 

[beginner2011]

How does one determine which PhDs are balanced? I know these programs exist, but most of their websites espouse the same things about the clinical scientist model. Do you have suggestions on how to narrow the search for such a program, before attempting to contact their faculty and current students for more information?

I used the edition of this from the year before I applied. It was recommended to me by others: Amazon product

I've also referred folks to this guide by Mitch Prinstein, which is a truly fantastic resource for prospective students: http://mitch.web.unc.edu/files/2017/02/MitchGradSchoolAdvice.pdf

 

[deleted343839]

I don't think paying 25k in tuition is a terrible option for good training and not being beholden to the university.

but I have an MA, so it seems at least possible to spend some of the time that PhD students spend on research earning money in a way that I find more appealing.

Training is a full-time endeavor. Full stop. So any thoughts of generating income need to be based on the assumption of part-time employment.

Regardless of funding, you have to (1) go to classes, seminars, colloquia, lab meetings, etc., (2) make time to conduct and disseminate your own research, (3) read/study huge amounts of material, (4) accrue hundreds of clinical service and supervision hours, and (5) write, revise, and defend a dissertation. If you do all of those things thoroughly and adequately, while somehow independently generating enough income to pay $25K/year in tuition AND still net as much or more than a graduate student stipend, well... come back and tell us how it's done.

As your resource above notes, income-based loan repayment and loan forgiveness are good options.

The expectation that someone else is going to pick up all or part of the tab in the end is not guaranteed. It is well worth your time to look harder at the realities of loan repayment programs.

I am specifically considering: Loyola Maryland, Widener, Xavier, Roosevelt, and Indianapolis. If anyone has thoughts on those (separate from funding), I'm interested.

I can't speak to the particulars, but Roosevelt has a good APA-accredited match rate in recent years. I know one graduate of their PsyD program who has a great career in a federal agency.

 

[mypointlesspov]

You're right, PsyD programs don't offer funding to all students. It's easy to find out what the funding possibilities are by calling the department office. Baylor and Rutgers are great, but everyone knows about those. They can't be the only two PsyDs worth considering. I don't think paying 25k in tuition is a terrible option for good training and not being beholden to the university. I know plenty of funded PhD students who work like dogs for their mentors, making less than 20k a year and still having to take money from their parents to make ends meet at age 30 (even in cities with a relatively low cost of living). As your resource above notes, income-based loan repayment and loan forgiveness are good options.

I think it's good to steer people toward the financially conservative option. But, since it seems like some folks are willing to spend a fair amount of time offering opinions in these threads, I submit that it might be useful to spend some of that time compiling a list of PsyD programs that are at least more preferable options for those who are intent on a PsyD, and/or a list of those to absolutely avoid. Speaking from my experience here, I've seen people say things like "Xavier is a no go," and immediately assumed there must be several reasons, only to find out that funding was the sole reason. I know this isn't the case for everyone, but I have an MA, so it seems at least possible to spend some of the time that PhD students spend on research earning money in a way that I find more appealing.

I am specifically considering: Loyola Maryland, Widener, Xavier, Roosevelt, and Indianapolis. If anyone has thoughts on those (separate from funding), I'm interested.

Rutgers doesn't have nearly as much funding for their PsyDs as people think tbh.

 

[MiniLop]

Rutgers doesn't have nearly as much funding for their PsyDs as people think tbh.

Yeah. My understanding is that it's half-funded the first year and not at all after that.

 

[Mama Bear]

Yeah. My understanding is that it's half-funded the first year and not at all after that.

Do program students get in state tuition? Still a fraction of for profit school tuition.

 

[MiniLop]

Do program students get in state tuition? Still a fraction of for profit school tuition.

I believe that students get in state tuition once they establish residency (Rutgers students, feel free to correct me). It's a lot less than a for profit, but will still add up to a whole lot.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Bummer. Back when I was looking *cough* early 00s *cough* it was fully-funded. The best advice I have for students is to avoid student loans like....the plag...oh...like COVID-19. You can ignore them, but they won't magically go away just bc they are inconvenient to you now.

 

[WisNeuro]

Bummer. Back when I was looking *cough* early 00s *cough* it was fully-funded. The best advice I have for students is to avoid student loans like....the plag...oh...like COVID-19. You can ignore them, but they won't magically go away just bc they are inconvenient to you now.

Well, much like Trump and COVID, some people do actually believe that their loans will magically disappear without them doing anything.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

"[Your loans are] going to disappear. One day it's like a miracle....[they] will disappear!"

"99% of [Your loans] are totally harmless!'

 

[mypointlesspov]

I believe that students get in state tuition once they establish residency (Rutgers students, feel free to correct me). It's a lot less than a for profit, but will still add up to a whole lot.

Oh it definitely adds up to a whole lot. Source: My FedLoan balance.

Had I known any better at the time, I'd have gone the funded PhD route.

 

[MiniLop]

Oh it definitely adds up to a whole lot. Source: My FedLoan balance.

Had I known any better at the time, I'd have gone the funded PhD route.

Would you say that you've...made a huge mistake?