Working Together to Re/apply to Grad School

[Justanothergrad]

Would you please give an example of how to sound assertive rather than annoying? How would you phrase your questions about how to get involved in research?

Frontload expectations and desires in your work the lab. Offer/volunteer to do more rather ("is there a way I could be of use with X task"). Ask when data collection is finished if you can help be part of write up for a poster to give you that experience.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Sharewithme]

Oh man, don't open up the MBTI can o' worms, this is headed for a quick derailment.

I know, the MBTI isn't as reliable as some other measures. I'm not trying to start up anything chaotic or confusing. I'm just explaining that I can see the logic behind people having different communication/interpretation preferences. Some people readily think that whenever criticism, including constructive criticism, is offered, it means they're being attacked (what I think may describe people who score highly in the feeling dimension of the MBTI). Simply, they "feel" attacked. It is the "feeling" dimension of the MBTI they feel most comfortable with.

Other people pay most attention to the reasoning behind criticism, rather than the feeling of being unsupported, and they may or may not feel a little unsettled by disagreement (i.e. critique is disagreement more often than not), but they look past it because the rationality of the critique's argument makes sense (what I think may describe people who score highly in the thinking dimension of the MBTI). It's hard to point to such a clear way of explaining the differences in how people can interpret criticism without pointing to the MBTI's thinking/feeling dimensions. What are your thoughts?

 

[Sharewithme]

Inclusive refers to a tendency to extend authorship to more people involved in the project in different ways rather than limited to substantial contributions in which only primary faculty advisors / students are credited for the work. For instance if I am running AMA lingering study in which a student is responsible for conducting all of the research with participants and offers feedback about how things are going and any issues that arise, I am likely to consider that person having made a substantial contribution and include them in any manuscript. In my mind if people contribute numerous skilled hours (simple data entry doesn't fall into this), it is reasonable to credit them for their work. This is my personal view. It doesn't diminish the work of others

Thank you!

 

[Sharewithme]

I just skimmed the comments, so I likely missed it. My point was that an important aspect of training *is* learning how to navigate the publication/presentation aspect of the field. Even if students never do either the rest of their career, going through the peer-review process and having the experience of presenting to peers in a formal setting is good professional development.

I didn't mean you weren't paying attention to comments, I just meant that it was nice that I had a similar idea with there being 1-2 or 2-3 publications/presentations. Would you please define "navigating the publication/presentation aspect of the field"? I agree going through the peer-review process and having the experience of presenting to peers in a formal setting is good professional development.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I know, the MBTI isn't as reliable as some other measures. I'm not trying to start up anything chaotic or confusing. I'm just explaining that I can see the logic behind people having different communication/interpretation preferences. Some people readily think that whenever criticism, including constructive criticism, is offered, it means they're being attacked (what I think may describe people who score highly in the feeling dimension of the MBTI). Simply, they "feel" attacked. It is the "feeling" dimension of the MBTI they feel most comfortable with.

Other people pay most attention to the reasoning behind criticism, rather than the feeling of being unsupported, and they may or may not feel a little unsettled by disagreement (i.e. critique is disagreement more often than not), but they look past it because the rationality of the critique's argument makes sense (what I think may describe people who score highly in the thinking dimension of the MBTI). It's hard to point to such a clear way of explaining the differences in how people can interpret criticism without pointing to the MBTI's thinking/feeling dimensions. What are your thoughts?

Logic doesn't equal evidence of support. Its not a valid approach to anything. I see the logic of classifying people based on their hair color, but same deal.

 

[Sharewithme]

Logic doesn't equal evidence of support. Its not a valid approach to anything. I see the logic of classifying people based on their hair color, but same deal.

You're right, logic doesn't equal evidence of support. Logic and evidence are different.

By "its" do you mean logic or the MBTI isn't a valid approach to anything? Anything is a broad term, like "everything" and "nothing". What do you think about cognitive behavior therapy's, a strongly supported evidenced based therapy's, logical fallacy of "all or nothing" thinking? Saying the MBTI is not a valid approach to anything sounds like CBT's "all or nothing" logical fallacy.

Classifying people based on hair color serves no purpose, perhaps, other than providing an example of how stereotypes are often used. As I understand it, it seems silly and pointless to you to classify people based on their MBTI preferences, like it seems silly and pointless to you to classify people based on their hair color. Both the MBTI and hair color classifications can involve communication errors. The MBTI communication errors were what I was just posting about earlier. The hair color communication errors can fall under "blondes aren't smart" or "brunettes don't know how to have fun". I don't think that people who are blondes resonate with the validation of there being a stereotype against them as much as people with the strongly scoring feeling dimension of the MBTI resonate with the validation of there being a stereotype against them (e.g., that they do not think well).

 

[psych.meout]

You're right, logic doesn't equal evidence of support. Logic and evidence are different.

By "its" do you mean logic or the MBTI isn't a valid approach to anything? Anything is a broad term, like "everything" and "nothing". What do you think about cognitive behavior therapy's, a strongly supported evidenced based therapy's, logical fallacy of "all or nothing" thinking? Saying the MBTI is not a valid approach to anything sounds like CBT's "all or nothing" logical fallacy.

No, the MBTI is not a valid approach because it arises from unscientific origins and is not supported by empirical research. That's how science determines validity.

Classifying people based on hair color serves no purpose, perhaps, other than providing an example of how stereotypes are often used. As I understand it, it seems silly and pointless to you to classify people based on their MBTI preferences, like it seems silly and pointless to you to classify people based on their hair color. Both the MBTI and hair color classifications can involve communication errors. The MBTI communication errors were what I was just posting about earlier. The hair color communication errors can fall under "blondes aren't smart" or "brunettes don't know how to have fun". I don't think that people who are blondes resonate with the validation of there being a stereotype against them as much as people with the strongly scoring feeling dimension of the MBTI resonate with the validation of there being a stereotype against them (e.g., that they do not think well).

What does it matter what people think about pseudoscience like the MBTI?

It's like caring about stereotypes and feelings based on astrology.

 

[Justanothergrad]

You're right, logic doesn't equal evidence of support. Logic and evidence are different.

By "its" do you mean logic or the MBTI isn't a valid approach to anything? Anything is a broad term, like "everything" and "nothing". What do you think about cognitive behavior therapy's, a strongly supported evidenced based therapy's, logical fallacy of "all or nothing" thinking? Saying the MBTI is not a valid approach to anything sounds like CBT's "all or nothing" logical fallacy.

It's an all or nothing... as in the MBTI has nothing for evidence and was tinder for Its time. There is a reason they said if you start defending it this thread will go waaaaay off track

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I didn't mean you weren't paying attention to comments, I just meant that it was nice that I had a similar idea with there being 1-2 or 2-3 publications/presentations. Would you please define "navigating the publication/presentation aspect of the field"? I agree going through the peer-review process and having the experience of presenting to peers in a formal setting is good professional development.

The vast majority of clinical/counseling psych students land in clinical positions. In some cases, particularly for solo practitioners, they may not have a need/want to do more. However, there are plenty of clinical positions where you may need to pull together some outcome data to support expanding a clinic or maybe give a presentation to promote yourself/your clinic.

The other reason why I think it is important is I used those data as a proxy to help tease out the “research is icky” people. From a training perspective I wanted students who could break down articles and understand how/why things were written a certain way. It wasn’t a perfect approach, but it was a useful way to cut 100+ apps down by at least 30-40%. I’m not saying all reviewers do this, but it was important to each site I was at (internship/fellowship/job) to have applicants with a clear understanding of research, stats, and a healthy appreciation for EBTs.

 

[MCParent]

the MBTI has nothing for evidence and was tinder for Its time.

That is literally the best analogy about the MBTI I've ever heard. Consider that stolen.

 

[psych.meout]

Thank you for recognizing faculty making decisions "between two candidates who otherwise appeared (emphasis my own) relatively equivalent and seemed (emphasis my own) to be equally good matches for the program and POI". Not every applicant who is a hard worker, committed to getting faculty tenured or on a much stronger, faster route to it by his/her assisting with faculty research, and will both produce research and provide APA ethical clinical practice upon graduation are noticed. THANK YOU for the validation to those people, particularly the ones rejected from APA accredited program admission.

I don't know if you're fully understanding me. At least in my program, if an applicant gets to the point where GRE is being used as a tie-breaker, there's not really any question as to their aptitude, personality traits, or that they have the credentials to back it up. This means that they have substantial research experience, though not necessarily any publications. I didn't have any when I was admitted last year and I received multiple offers from fully-funded programs. Furthermore, an applicant can have an absolutely stellar research CV and really undercut their chances, because of their behavior and demeanor during interviews. I've seen multiple applicants tank it, while other applicants with less substantial research productivity get offers, because they had a better fit with their prospective labs and just generally seem like better choices for someone with whom you will spend the better part of a decade.

This is not to say that the applicants who didn't make it to the tie-breaker stage are necessarily not hardworking or wouldn't make great psychologists. It's just that you really can't blame faculty for not selecting these people. There is a very limited supply of spots and they can't really risk them on unknown quantities in the forms of people who don't have the requisite academic, research, and clinical credentials to demonstrate their aptitude. There might not be any research specifically backing this up, but faculty have been through grad school and they've seen what it takes to make it through and select accordingly.

Fellowships being dependent on GRE scores is another part of the deal with APA accredited program admissions offers, I understand. That some fellowship awards are based on certain GRE scores is a long-standing practice I'm not sure I could change in the next year or two so that the fellowship opportunities are fairer to all applicants.

Again, I'm not sure you're really understanding my perspective. Fellowships are often on the university level, not the program level. This means you are not simply competing with other clinical students for them. At least at my university, your competition is every other doctoral student in every program in every department in the entire university. These disparate programs and their respective fields have different standards, expectations, norms, etc. This is to the point where it's difficult, at best, to compare them like we would compare between students applying for the same clinical program. In some fields, it's far more common for people to have publications before beginning their doctoral programs, while in others it's far more common to have a terminal master's degree from another program first (e.g., counseling, social work). Thus, comparing undergrad GREs and GPAs is quite likely the fairest way of comparing students across disciplines.​

 

[barryggg]

Get into engineering. Machine Learning. etc You can make a bigger impact on Psychology with those than getting a Phd.

Operationally defining self-esteem slightly differently than someone else will not lead you to some major outbreak.

 

[tiy123]

Get into engineering. Machine Learning. etc You can make a bigger impact on Psychology with those than getting a Phd.

Operationally defining self-esteem slightly differently than someone else will not lead you to some major outbreak.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. Tons of people in psychology departments use and develop machine learning.

 

[psych.meout]

Get into engineering. Machine Learning. etc You can make a bigger impact on Psychology with those than getting a Phd.

Operationally defining self-esteem slightly differently than someone else will not lead you to some major outbreak.

Source?

 

[msc545]

Or go to Law School. Whatever you do, consider this: Of all doctoral level professions (and Psychology really *is* a doctoral level profession), we go to school longer, spend more money getting that education, and get paid LESS than any other profession. Like $50 to 100K per years, which equates to $ 25 to $ 50 per hour - before taxes. Do you really want to be a Psychologist ?

Not to mention the fact that we generally get a complete and total lack of respect as well.

 

[barryggg]

Source?

Meehl? Common sense? some recent research on ML and diagnosis of certain disorders?

 

[psych.meout]

Meehl?

I assume you are referring to Meehl's writings on clinical vs. statistical prediction. It's not really accurate to extrapolate this to "you can make a bigger impact on Psychology with [machine learning] than getting a Phd." It's treating machine learning like some kind of magical tool that can and will do all these great things.

This reminds me of Lilienfeld's article on RDoC, e.g., incorrectly privileging biological levels of measurement over others.

Common sense?

Common sense is not science.

some recent research on ML and diagnosis of certain disorders?

Ok, then cite it.

 

[Sharewithme]

No, the MBTI is not a valid approach because it arises from unscientific origins and is not supported by empirical research. That's how science determines validity.


What does it matter what people think about pseudoscience like the MBTI?

It's like caring about stereotypes and feelings based on astrology.

Thank you! I know you didn't want to have pointless arguments, and I'm just trying to learn here. I'm grateful that you keep responding! I'm also trying to help you see what I see, so we can communicate further, and any confusion can be clarified. Ok, so the arising from unscientific origins is the main reason the MBTI seems to not be able to ever be considered valid. There is some empirically supported research on it, and maybe not a lot, but if the not rising from scientific origins point is always going to keep the MBTI from being considered valid, then the conversation has ended. Science cannot progress from using the MBTI. Can science not create something better out of an instrument that began not according to scientific origins? That's a real question.

There is the question of whether the MBTI did NOT originate from scientific origins, too. It's based on the Jung Theory, and I don't know or care much about that - which I know would probably be a problem if I wanted to go on fully defending the MBTI in some professional journal but stay with me, the mother-daughter team of Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers is why I find the MBTI important. They made observations of how people tended to respond and created an instrument (the MBTI) to see if people fit those patterns. Making observations is scientific.

The reasons it matters what people think of the MBTI is that some people can be helped by it. People who score high or simply score one of the most high scores on Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligence's intrapersonal intelligence can feel better knowing this information about themselves. Also, there's a whole business side to it. Human Resources and management can use the MBTI to help solve employee disputes. I'm interested in the counseling psychology field, a field including an interest in career psychology (which is also how the MBTI in part originated), and so I pay attention to this.

 

[Sharewithme]

It's an all or nothing... as in the MBTI has nothing for evidence and was tinder for Its time. There is a reason they said if you start defending it this thread will go waaaaay off track

Again, I'm not trying to rile up anyone and have pointless arguments. I'm legit trying to learn, and I am, thanks all!, and clarify what I see are any misunderstandings.

 

[Sharewithme]

The vast majority of clinical/counseling psych students land in clinical positions. In some cases, particularly for solo practitioners, they may not have a need/want to do more. However, there are plenty of clinical positions where you may need to pull together some outcome data to support expanding a clinic or maybe give a presentation to promote yourself/your clinic.

The other reason why I think it is important is I used those data as a proxy to help tease out the “research is icky” people. From a training perspective I wanted students who could break down articles and understand how/why things were written a certain way. It wasn’t a perfect approach, but it was a useful way to cut 100+ apps down by at least 30-40%. I’m not saying all reviewers do this, but it was important to each site I was at (internship/fellowship/job) to have applicants with a clear understanding of research, stats, and a healthy appreciation for EBTs.

"a clear understanding of research, stats, and a healthy appreciation for EBTs," I genuinely want to do research, including in ways not typically done in the university counseling center setting, and I want my training to help turn me into what you quoted.

 

[Sharewithme]

I don't know if you're fully understanding me. At least in my program, if an applicant gets to the point where GRE is being used as a tie-breaker, there's not really any question as to their aptitude, personality traits, or that they have the credentials to back it up. This means that they have substantial research experience, though not necessarily any publications. I didn't have any when I was admitted last year and I received multiple offers from fully-funded programs. Furthermore, an applicant can have an absolutely stellar research CV and really undercut their chances, because of their behavior and demeanor during interviews. I've seen multiple applicants tank it, while other applicants with less substantial research productivity get offers, because they had a better fit with their prospective labs and just generally seem like better choices for someone with whom you will spend the better part of a decade.

This is not to say that the applicants who didn't make it to the tie-breaker stage are necessarily not hardworking or wouldn't make great psychologists. It's just that you really can't blame faculty for not selecting these people. There is a very limited supply of spots and they can't really risk them on unknown quantities in the forms of people who don't have the requisite academic, research, and clinical credentials to demonstrate their aptitude. There might not be any research specifically backing this up, but faculty have been through grad school and they've seen what it takes to make it through and select accordingly.



Again, I'm not sure you're really understanding my perspective. Fellowships are often on the university level, not the program level. This means you are not simply competing with other clinical students for them. At least at my university, your competition is every other doctoral student in every program in every department in the entire university. These disparate programs and their respective fields have different standards, expectations, norms, etc. This is to the point where it's difficult, at best, to compare them like we would compare between students applying for the same clinical program. In some fields, it's far more common for people to have publications before beginning their doctoral programs, while in others it's far more common to have a terminal master's degree from another program first (e.g., counseling, social work). Thus, comparing undergrad GREs and GPAs is quite likely the fairest way of comparing students across disciplines.​

I don't know if people are supposed to respond to grayed out messages, so I'll just leave my response to hitting the "like" button and this comment.

 

[Sharewithme]

Get into engineering. Machine Learning. etc You can make a bigger impact on Psychology with those than getting a Phd.

Operationally defining self-esteem slightly differently than someone else will not lead you to some major outbreak.

Thanks for your concern. I'm not getting into the field of psychology to make some major outbreak, though that'd be cool, and I wouldn't not like that.

"Operationally defining self-esteem" is one way to think about it. Thanks for putting words to one of things I'm interested in doing. I love learning, and I really appreciate it. My heart (I.e., major sense of caring) keeps me away from engineering because a career in engineering is not about caring as much as a career in psychology can be, and I could provide practice to people with an engineering degree.

 

[Sharewithme]

Or go to Law School. Whatever you do, consider this: Of all doctoral level professions (and Psychology really *is* a doctoral level profession), we go to school longer, spend more money getting that education, and get paid LESS than any other profession. Like $50 to 100K per years, which equates to $ 25 to $ 50 per hour - before taxes. Do you really want to be a Psychologist ?

Not to mention the fact that we generally get a complete and total lack of respect as well.

Law school isn't for me. I know most lawyers want to win their clients' cases (if nothing else, this provides them more money). Still, even among the lawyers are care very much about their clients, these lawyers are required to make decisions according to law which may upset their clients, even as they see their clients in pain because there's nothing the clients can do to change the law. I don't want to get into that for my career.

Going to school longer to me is a positive feature of Ph.D. training because I want that time to learn and apply what I learn as well as contribute new knowledge. Doctoral level professions trainees may spend more money because of the lengthier time variable you mentioned first. I don't see your first two points necessarily as entirely separate arguments, so, along considering the reasons I want to pursue my Ph.D. in counseling psychology, I am not dissuaded from my interest in pursing a Ph.D. in counseling psychology any less by this financial point.

This is an exercise in critical thinking that you're giving me, and I thank you for it. Doctoral level professions employees do not get paid less than any other profession. If you were writing that psychologists (i.e., doctoral level providers) on the whole get paid LESS than any other doctoral level profession providers such as lawyers or medical doctors, then I agree. On a 1-5 scale of: Not at all important (1), slightly important (2), moderately important (3), very important (4), or extremely important (5), I give this last point a 1.

 

[Sharewithme]

Meehl? Common sense? some recent research on ML and diagnosis of certain disorders?

Thank you for providing more information.

 

[Sharewithme]

I assume you are referring to Meehl's writings on clinical vs. statistical prediction. It's not really accurate to extrapolate this to "you can make a bigger impact on Psychology with [machine learning] than getting a Phd." It's treating machine learning like some kind of magical tool that can and will do all these great things.

This reminds me of Lilienfeld's article on RDoC, e.g., incorrectly privileging biological levels of measurement over others.



Common sense is not science.



Ok, then cite it.

I like getting into details for the sake of learning and clarification of thought so thank you for this.

 

[Psychologist_dreamer]

Have you been a part of a research lab yet?

 

[WisNeuro]

The reasons it matters what people think of the MBTI is that some people can be helped by it. People who score high or simply score one of the most high scores on Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligence's intrapersonal intelligence can feel better knowing this information about themselves. Also, there's a whole business side to it. Human Resources and management can use the MBTI to help solve employee disputes. I'm interested in the counseling psychology field, a field including an interest in career psychology (which is also how the MBTI in part originated), and so I pay attention to this.

People can also be helped by placebos. Doesn't make the shady theory someone shoehorns on top of it valid. Only one dimension of the MBTI has any level of support, and it's tenuous. The Introversion/extraversion dimension. Trouble is, there are much better models for measuring it from a psychometrically sound standpoint. The business side of it is simply marketing. It does not actually do anything to help resolve employee disputes at all. Simple conflict resolution strategies that are more universal help resolve employee disputes. The MBTI is merely an astrology reading. Inane platitudes that at some point everyone can relate to one way or another. I would strongly urge you to do a deep dive into the literature on this. Especially the literature on the validity of the dimensions and the intraindividual test-retest reliability. The only thing that the MBTI does a really good job of is selling a nearly worthless product to a lot of businesses.

 

[Sharewithme]

Have you been a part of a research lab yet?

Yes.

 

[Sharewithme]

People can also be helped by placebos. Doesn't make the shady theory someone shoehorns on top of it valid. Only one dimension of the MBTI has any level of support, and it's tenuous. The Introversion/extraversion dimension. Trouble is, there are much better models for measuring it from a psychometrically sound standpoint. The business side of it is simply marketing. It does not actually do anything to help resolve employee disputes at all. Simple conflict resolution strategies that are more universal help resolve employee disputes. The MBTI is merely an astrology reading. Inane platitudes that at some point everyone can relate to one way or another. I would strongly urge you to do a deep dive into the literature on this. Especially the literature on the validity of the dimensions and the intraindividual test-retest reliability. The only thing that the MBTI does a really good job of is selling a nearly worthless product to a lot of businesses.

Thanks for the info!

 

[msc545]

Law school isn't for me. I know most lawyers want to win their clients' cases (if nothing else, this provides them more money). Still, even among the lawyers are care very much about their clients, these lawyers are required to make decisions according to law which may upset their clients, even as they see their clients in pain because there's nothing the clients can do to change the law. I don't want to get into that for my career.

Going to school longer to me is a positive feature of Ph.D. training because I want that time to learn and apply what I learn as well as contribute new knowledge. Doctoral level professions trainees may spend more money because of the lengthier time variable you mentioned first. I don't see your first two points necessarily as entirely separate arguments, so, along considering the reasons I want to pursue my Ph.D. in counseling psychology, I am not dissuaded from my interest in pursing a Ph.D. in counseling psychology any less by this financial point.

This is an exercise in critical thinking that you're giving me, and I thank you for it. Doctoral level professions employees do not get paid less than any other profession. If you were writing that psychologists (i.e., doctoral level providers) on the whole get paid LESS than any other doctoral level profession providers such as lawyers or medical doctors, then I agree. On a 1-5 scale of: Not at all important (1), slightly important (2), moderately important (3), very important (4), or extremely important (5), I give this last point a 1.

If you don't care that you won't make much money, so be it. I was indeed writing that Psychologists get paid LESS than other doctoral level providers such a lawyers or medical doctors, and along with that I was stating that we go to school longer than they do, which means we also have fewer income-earning years.

If you are ok with all that, then go ahead and become a Psychologist...EXCEPT you ignored my point about being disrespected, which, as time goes by, is very demoralizing and disturbing. You really may want to consider this last point a bit more carefully. Nearly every other profession considers Psychologists to be charlatans and frauds, and they let you know about it. Medical doctors are especially guilty when it comes to this - right up to the point that they need you, and then it stops for awhile and starts up again later. I have concluded that many of these people are absolutely scared to death of any mental health providers. I have had more than one physician seriously ask me if I could read their mind.

 

[psych.meout]

If you don't care that you won't make much money, so be it. I was indeed writing that Psychologists get paid LESS than other doctoral level providers such a lawyers or medical doctors, and along with that I was stating that we go to school longer than they do, which means we also have fewer income-earning years.

Sure, their degree is called a "juris doctor" or "juris doctorate," but I've never heard anyone refer to a lawyer as a "doctoral level provider" or even just a "provider." That's just a weird thing to say. And in my experience, very few lawyers will refer to their degrees as having doctorates, and the only ones who do are the most pretentious jerks I've ever met.

If you are ok with all that, then go ahead and become a Psychologist...EXCEPT you ignored my point about being disrespected, which, as time goes by, is very demoralizing and disturbing. You really may want to consider this last point a bit more carefully. Nearly every other profession considers Psychologists to be charlatans and frauds, and they let you know about it.

Really? Got a source for that?

Medical doctors are especially guilty when it comes to this - right up to the point that they need you, and then it stops for awhile and starts up again later.

Yes, there does seem to be a bit of a superiority complex among some physicians, but you shouldn't base your career choices, self-worth, or self-esteem on what some jerk says or believes. Honestly, I actually like this as a bit of a litmus test as to with which physicians I would like to work or see for my personal medical care.

I have concluded that many of these people are absolutely scared to death of any mental health providers. I have had more than one physician seriously ask me if I could read their mind.

Uh huh........

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I'd occasionally felt less-than-respected back during my training years, but it wasn't a common occurrence, and it hasn't happened since I've been practicing. I might be lucky, as I do work with generally collegial people, but in my experience, I'd make the argument that psychologists are actually fairly well-respected in medical settings. I've had particularly positive experiences with internists and in non-mental health clinics. There is sometimes an adversarial relationship with psychiatrists, but it's generally been very provider-specific. May also depend on if that particular clinic/hospital/practice has just had bad psychologists in the past.

 

[Sharewithme]

If you don't care that you won't make much money, so be it. I was indeed writing that Psychologists get paid LESS than other doctoral level providers such a lawyers or medical doctors, and along with that I was stating that we go to school longer than they do, which means we also have fewer income-earning years.

If you are ok with all that, then go ahead and become a Psychologist...EXCEPT you ignored my point about being disrespected, which, as time goes by, is very demoralizing and disturbing. You really may want to consider this last point a bit more carefully. Nearly every other profession considers Psychologists to be charlatans and frauds, and they let you know about it. Medical doctors are especially guilty when it comes to this - right up to the point that they need you, and then it stops for awhile and starts up again later. I have concluded that many of these people are absolutely scared to death of any mental health providers. I have had more than one physician seriously ask me if I could read their mind.

I respect myself. I respect psychologists. I respect medical doctors. I respect people in general. I'm good with applying for Ph.D. counseling psychology programs.