Cindyloohoo
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2019
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
I am trying to decide between Xavier and La Salle's PsyD programs and don't know what to do. Any thoughts/opinions would be greatly appreciated!!
Xavier University PsyD vs La Salle University PsyD
- Thread starter Cindyloohoo
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2015
- Messages
- 2,603
- Reaction score
- 2,803
Are either of them funded?
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 826
- Reaction score
- 1,377
Xavier is a big no
9
964693
La Salle doesn't even have a good reputation in Philly, much less anywhere else. So almost by default I would pick Xavier.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2016
- Messages
- 995
- Reaction score
- 634
Who has the best outcome data? And which one is cheaper? Hopefully the answers to both those questions are the same.
D
deleted656923
It sounds like neither is good
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,609
What happened with Xavier? That used to have a good reputation 15 years ago or so, no?
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Messages
- 18,016
- Reaction score
- 23,756
Xavier has a good accredited match rate past 4 years or so, but that 25k/yr tuition price tag is hefty. I don't know much else about that one. Ls Salle has trended up, though everyone has due to more internship slots, and they carry about a 33k/yr tuition hit. Expensive either way, though one will be much more expensive when COL is taken into account.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 7,641
- Reaction score
- 6,376
Why?
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 826
- Reaction score
- 1,377
I just meant on the funding.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2019
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 107
General observation about the reactions to PsyDs of "ill repute" on here (not necessarily these two programs, because I'm not familiar with them): I think there are two separate ways that predatory PsyDs can be bad, and we should try to separate them out.
One issue is the poor training/poor outcomes. I see these as always bad no matter what, because they result in pumping the field full of clinicians who are insufficiently trained and/or can't get accredited internships. Poor quality programs lower the standard of our field.
The other issue is the "predatory" financing. This one is really dependent on the individual. Prospective students should know that the salary of a psychologist does NOT justify the exorbitant cost of these programs, and not delude themselves into thinking they are going to achieve upward mobility by "investing" in these programs. I'm aware that some programs target marginalized people, trying to sell them this American Dream BS, and those people should absolutely be warned away from expensive programs (Though, I have a hunch that the most financially exploitative programs also have poor quality training and aren't worth it regardless of finances.) However, for some people cost is not an issue because their parents are paying for it or their spouses support them. For those people, I don't think it's an awful decision to go to a program that is expensive if it honestly offers great training. And really, in a PsyD model where students are "giving back" less to the school in terms of research and teaching, I don't know if it's realistic for all of them to be fully funded. You're paying for the training rather than entering a symbiotic relationship, and I think there can be a place for that model in the field.
There was that thread a while ago about someone asking about Bay area PsyDs, and all of them were awful quality programs. People were wisely advising that the outcomes are bad. But people also kept trashing those programs for being expensive, even though the poster kept saying that cost was not an issue for her. I think in cases like these, the posters feel like they have good rebuttals to the criticisms, which makes them feel more ok with choosing those programs ("Hey, there are some criticisms, but 50% of them don't apply to my situation!"). But I think the point is that even if these programs were free, they are not worth the time investment for such awful training, plus you can harm vulnerable people by practicing a profession that you're not adequately prepared for! Why dilute that argument by sticking to issues that are irrelevant for the individual in question?
I'll also qualify this, in that I'm aware that there is a discriminatory pattern in which those without rich families are disproportionately kept out of the field by not having access to expensive degrees. Of course if we could rework the funding structure to be more inclusive that would be fantastic. But I do think that's a separate issue from (a) whether an individual student is making a rational decision *for themself* in choosing a program, and (b) our responsibility to ensure proper training in all psychologists.
To summarize, I feel like I'd frame advice as such: No should ever go to a program with bad training or bad outcomes, no matter what. People should only go to expensive programs if it's a "passion" career that is funded by someone else.
(If this is too tangential and should be in a separate thread, my apologies.)
One issue is the poor training/poor outcomes. I see these as always bad no matter what, because they result in pumping the field full of clinicians who are insufficiently trained and/or can't get accredited internships. Poor quality programs lower the standard of our field.
The other issue is the "predatory" financing. This one is really dependent on the individual. Prospective students should know that the salary of a psychologist does NOT justify the exorbitant cost of these programs, and not delude themselves into thinking they are going to achieve upward mobility by "investing" in these programs. I'm aware that some programs target marginalized people, trying to sell them this American Dream BS, and those people should absolutely be warned away from expensive programs (Though, I have a hunch that the most financially exploitative programs also have poor quality training and aren't worth it regardless of finances.) However, for some people cost is not an issue because their parents are paying for it or their spouses support them. For those people, I don't think it's an awful decision to go to a program that is expensive if it honestly offers great training. And really, in a PsyD model where students are "giving back" less to the school in terms of research and teaching, I don't know if it's realistic for all of them to be fully funded. You're paying for the training rather than entering a symbiotic relationship, and I think there can be a place for that model in the field.
There was that thread a while ago about someone asking about Bay area PsyDs, and all of them were awful quality programs. People were wisely advising that the outcomes are bad. But people also kept trashing those programs for being expensive, even though the poster kept saying that cost was not an issue for her. I think in cases like these, the posters feel like they have good rebuttals to the criticisms, which makes them feel more ok with choosing those programs ("Hey, there are some criticisms, but 50% of them don't apply to my situation!"). But I think the point is that even if these programs were free, they are not worth the time investment for such awful training, plus you can harm vulnerable people by practicing a profession that you're not adequately prepared for! Why dilute that argument by sticking to issues that are irrelevant for the individual in question?
I'll also qualify this, in that I'm aware that there is a discriminatory pattern in which those without rich families are disproportionately kept out of the field by not having access to expensive degrees. Of course if we could rework the funding structure to be more inclusive that would be fantastic. But I do think that's a separate issue from (a) whether an individual student is making a rational decision *for themself* in choosing a program, and (b) our responsibility to ensure proper training in all psychologists.
To summarize, I feel like I'd frame advice as such: No should ever go to a program with bad training or bad outcomes, no matter what. People should only go to expensive programs if it's a "passion" career that is funded by someone else.
(If this is too tangential and should be in a separate thread, my apologies.)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 7,641
- Reaction score
- 6,376
The "parents are paying for it" angle is odd to me because both of the children of multimillionaires/1%'ers I know went to funded PhD programs (as did the one grandchild of multimillionaire grandparents).
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2019
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 107
Well maybe that was the best choice for their career goals. Funded PhDs offer some types of training that PsyDs don't, but that doesn't mean that paying for an expensive (but good-quality) PsyD is always wrong if someone wants to just go into private practice.
If it matters, I went to a university-based PhD, so I don't really have a horse in this race. Just offering some thoughts.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2017
- Messages
- 165
- Reaction score
- 389
Coming from Counseling Psych, I focus on the social justice issue with non funded programs (alluded to above): expensive programs disproportionately lock out people from disadvantaged backgrounds and harm people who do attend them but take out big loans. Funded programs help mitigate the financial piece, so merit and diversity can be the bigger focus.
Sanman
O.G.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2000
- Messages
- 5,489
- Reaction score
- 8,268
I thought so as well. Look at the outcome data, they still seem to be a solid program. I recall them offering full or partial funding to everyone in the past. Their website says that they offer limited graduate assistantships and have outside assistantships as well.
OP,
I have no idea what your personal situation is, but I would speak to Xavier about funding/assistantships and see what the total cost would be. Remember to factor in cost of living for your time in the program. If the total cost comes in under $85kish for cost after the assistantship, I think they are a solid program would consider attending. It falls into my personal rule of not taking out more in loans than 1 yr of salary as a full-time professional. LaSalle seems more expensive with no particular improvement in quality, so why go there?
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2016
- Messages
- 995
- Reaction score
- 634
To add, it feels like a logical fallacy to say it's ok for med schools to charge 50k a year. Yes, physicians make significantly more than psychologists so from a logical point of view this argument makes sense. But I don't see people saying, "x and y med school have poor training because they cost 15k more per year than (insert med school)".
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 49
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2010
- Messages
- 1,812
- Reaction score
- 1,521
@Fenestella
Can you speak about the cost of the program? Particularly the practical aspects of salaries compared to monthly loan payments.
Can you speak about the cost of the program? Particularly the practical aspects of salaries compared to monthly loan payments.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2018
- Messages
- 120
- Reaction score
- 214
Agreed. Full transparency, I have a PsyD. It’s too late for me to do anything, but if I could go back I would have taken more time to align myself for a PhD. I didn’t go to a diploma mill and my training was a good preparation. But I think my training, opportunities, and especially debt profile would have been much better had I gone the funded PhD route.
I know people that went to both programs and did well. I also know people who went to similar programs and didn’t. Don’t assume you’re an outlier. You might be but don’t assume.
Happy to discuss further if you PM me.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2014
- Messages
- 1,838
- Reaction score
- 2,578
Got into Xavier last year without so much as lifting a finger (I completely dicked around during interview day because I had just gotten acceptances to a better program the night before lol). They do have good match rates (been 90%+ for the past 6 years, with 94% licensure percentage) and I got the sense they prepared very well-rounded practitioners in a close knit setting. Honestly, if money were no object I would have been happy to go there.
According to a colleague who attended, La Salle is very CBT heavy so if you're not interested in that orientation don't even bother. I disclosed my psychodynamic orientation in all of my personal statements so I didn't even look La Salle's way because they sure weren't going to look at mine.
According to a colleague who attended, La Salle is very CBT heavy so if you're not interested in that orientation don't even bother. I disclosed my psychodynamic orientation in all of my personal statements so I didn't even look La Salle's way because they sure weren't going to look at mine.
