Ph.D./Psy.D. comparison

[Cell3207]

Hello all!
I am a junior at my school right now and am trying to figure out if I want to get my MA in counseling or pursue a Psy.D. What do you suggest? I want to be some type of --right now looking at Marriage and Family. I will probably graduate with a 3.3-3.5 range (undergrad). ANY and all suggestions would be very much appreciated!

p.s. I've heard that the Psy.D program takes 3-5 years.. is that true? Is it given as much acknowledgement as a Ph.D? I am not interested in research, so I am thinking Psy.D is the program for me. Thanks everyone!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PrisonPsych]

Cell - I would suggest you read through this thread and some threads with similar titles that talk about the different degrees.

You first need to figure out what you want to be doing and where you want to be working. Masters' level clinicians cannot practice independently in all states, and there are some states in which they cannot be licensed at all.

 

[erg923]

I am not interested in research, so I am thinking Psy.D is the program for me.

Then most of us would suggest that you not get a doctorate in psychology at all. Research is the foudation of this dicipline, even in the psy.d model. It was never designed for people who have no interest in research. The Vail model of training was orginally designed to provide more clinical experience, not neccasarily neglect research. All psychologists are scientists (ph.d or psy.d) and any good clinician approaches their clincial work with a scientific mindset and is informed of the literature. If one does not have at least some natural curiousity about the science and research underlying the clinical activities that they will be engaging in, then I would argue that they should not pursue a doctorate on psychology.

 

[futurepsydoc]

I agree with Erg.....

Then most of us would suggest that you not get a doctorate in psychology at all. Research is the foudation of this dicipline, even in the psy.d model. It was never designed for people who have no interest in research. The Vail model of training was orginally designed to provide more clinical experience, not neccasarily neglect research. All psychologists are scientists (ph.d or psy.d) and any good clinician approaches their clincial work with a scientific mindset and is informed of the literature. If one does not have at least some natural curiousity about the science and research underlying the clinical activities that they will be engaging in, then I would argue that they should not pursue a doctorate on psychology.

 

[psybee]

very much agree

Then most of us would suggest that you not get a doctorate in psychology at all. Research is the foudation of this dicipline, even in the psy.d model. It was never designed for people who have no interest in research. The Vail model of training was orginally designed to provide more clinical experience, not neccasarily neglect research. All psychologists are scientists (ph.d or psy.d) and any good clinician approaches their clincial work with a scientific mindset and is informed of the literature. If one does not have at least some natural curiousity about the science and research underlying the clinical activities that they will be engaging in, then I would argue that they should not pursue a doctorate on psychology.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Why the PhD/PsyD dichotomy at all? I'm applying to mostly balanced PhD programs and balanced PsyD programs (in addition to a couple of more research "lopsided"--but not research "heavy"--programs), and I can say a couple of the PsyD programs probably lean a bit more to the research side and a couple of the PhD programs seem to lean a bit more to the practice side. All of the programs seem committed to training people who are competent clinicians and skilled researchers, so... why have two degrees? Why not just have one doctoral degree different levels of balance/lopsidedness/heavyness within the research-clinical spectrum? I mean, we already have that to some degree (someone at North Dakota would probably be looking for something different from someone at Wisconsin-Madison, and likewise, someone at Baylor would likely be looking for something different than someone at George Fox due to the different levels of balance--or lack thereof--in the programs). Just a thought.

 

[krisrox]

Why the PhD/PsyD dichotomy at all? I'm applying to mostly balanced PhD programs and balanced PsyD programs (in addition to a couple of more research "lopsided"--but not research "heavy"--programs), and I can say a couple of the PsyD programs probably lean a bit more to the research side and a couple of the PhD programs seem to lean a bit more to the practice side. All of the programs seem committed to training people who are competent clinicians and skilled researchers, so... why have two degrees? Why not just have one doctoral degree different levels of balance/lopsidedness/heavyness within the research-clinical spectrum? I mean, we already have that to some degree (someone at North Dakota would probably be looking for something different from someone at Wisconsin-Madison, and likewise, someone at Baylor would likely be looking for something different than someone at George Fox due to the different levels of balance--or lack thereof--in the programs). Just a thought.

Both fortunately and unfortunately, there are other differences between the PsyD and the PhD than merely research. For one, I think those seeking a PsyD should realize the stigma against it among the field of psychology. Not that this is well-founded, but it exists. Also, just being a research-heavy Veil model program still means it's Veil model. There are fundamental differences between the programs aside from just research emphasis.

 

[krisrox]

My phone is acting feisty and knocked me off my soapbox before I could finish. Basically, like other professional degrees, a PsyD teaches you how to be a professional psychologist and nothing else.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

My phone is acting feisty and knocked me off my soapbox before I could finish. Basically, like other professional degrees, a PsyD teaches you how to be a professional psychologist and nothing else.

I would dispute this if you are implying that a Psy.D. is not prepared to work with research in some capacity. I think some programs do it well, and others not so well, but it is a tough statement to apply across the board.

 

[krisrox]

I would dispute this if you are implying that a Psy.D. is not prepared to work with research in some capacity. I think some programs do it well, and others not so well, but it is a tough statement to apply across the board.

Of course a PsyD will prepare a student to work with research. It's called the practitioner-scholar model because there is a scholarly aspect. The difference between the two degrees is a lot like the difference between an MD and an MD/PhD- MD's can do research (and many do), but MD/PhD's are TRAINED to do research.

It's very true that some PsyD programs' students are very qualified to do research, but the stigma still exists against PsyD's as a whole because not all of the programs teach research in a non-applied fashion. I just think that if you want to do research at all down the line, you should get a PhD... but that's just what I plan on doing so note the bias.

 

[cara susanna]

I kind of wonder that as well, futureapppsy.

 

[krisrox]

I don't think that's why there is a "stigma" with some PsyD programs.

Why do you think there is, then?

 

[krisrox]

.

 

[psychmama]

- It is a newer degree.

- It is not present at Tier 1 universities

- Prevalence of standalone schools

- On average, lower admission standards

- Less well known faculty

- Lower match rates to internships, lesser presence at high profile internships

- No to little faculty presence at tier 1 schools (they exist, but it's unusual)

In short, the stigma is that PsyD grads are less capable than PhD grads regardless of the work environment (clinical, research, whatever).

However, as with many stigmas, it's not entirely true; people should keep an open mind when dealing with individuals.

And not all Psyd programs are the same, so people should keep an open mind about that too. For instance, Rutgers is certainly a Tier 1 university and has a Psyd program. Baylor certainly has a very good match rate.

I think the reason the Psyd was created was to address unhappiness with the Phd training model in many clinical psych programs at the time. Many students complained they had to pretend to want to be researchers in order to get into a program when in fact they were primarily practice-minded. The thought of the early Vail Model framers was to provide an alternative that was closer to the model of medical school. Unfortunately, the boom in professional schools since the Psyd was created has in some cases watered down the rigor of the training. I still very much believe in the Vail Model; I just think it needs to be done better and regulated more strenuously.

 

[krisrox]

And not all Psyd programs are the same, so people should keep an open mind about that too. For instance, Rutgers is certainly a Tier 1 university and has a Psyd program. Baylor certainly has a very good match rate.

I think the reason the Psyd was created was to address unhappiness with the Phd training model in many clinical psych programs at the time. Many students complained they had to pretend to want to be researchers in order to get into a program when in fact they were primarily practice-minded. The thought of the early Vail Model framers was to provide an alternative that was closer to the model of medical school. Unfortunately, the boom in professional schools since the Psyd was created has in some cases watered down the rigor of the training. I still very much believe in the Vail Model; I just think it needs to be done better and regulated more strenuously.

Absolutely correct. Also unfortunately, this is what deters many clinicians who take the PhD route from pursuing a PsyD.

 

[futurepsydoc]

And not all Psyd programs are the same, so people should keep an open mind about that too. For instance, Rutgers is certainly a Tier 1 university and has a Psyd program. Baylor certainly has a very good match rate.

I think the reason the Psyd was created was to address unhappiness with the Phd training model in many clinical psych programs at the time. Many students complained they had to pretend to want to be researchers in order to get into a program when in fact they were primarily practice-minded. The thought of the early Vail Model framers was to provide an alternative that was closer to the model of medical school. Unfortunately, the boom in professional schools since the Psyd was created has in some cases watered down the rigor of the training. I still very much believe in the Vail Model; I just think it needs to be done better and regulated more strenuously.

I agree with psychmama on this as well. PsyD programs should be better regulated. But, everyone needs to stop making a generalizations about individuals based on their "type of degree."

In my humble opinion, I liken this issue to an interaction effect: Competence results from an interaction between "person" and "program."

First, we all have different strengths and weeknesses. People have different innate talents and aptitudes for both clinical work and research. Some have more social or emotional intelligence than others. Some are just flat out gifted at whatever they seem to do. Simply put, INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES EXIST. Doesn't are field emphasize this quite frequently.

Second, we need to consider the "program" the person attendz. What training model does the program emphasize? What theoretical orientation do its faculty adopt? How rigourous are the courses, clinical practica, and reseach reqiurements? Who is supervising the students, be it in research or clinical practice? What is the quality of that supervision?

These issues are program specific, not DEGREE specific. All Ph.D. programs are not created equal, nor are PsyD programs. Students can be poorly supervised or trained just about anywhere. Similarly, students can receive magnificent training just about anywhere. The devil is in the details of their experience and how they made use of it.

I will not deny that the status of an institution increases the likliehood that training will be good, but it does not ensure it. This even more true of degrees. People can get PhD's on-line now. MA level clinicians are not even regulated by the APA.

While I admit that poorly run professional schools are serious issue, it is not the DEGREE that is the problem. Nor is it the Philosophy behind it. It is the poor implentation of that philosophy at certain programs. But even then and there, highly intelligent people can always be trained under less than optimal circumstances.

 

[krisrox]

I agree with psychmama on this as well. PsyD programs should be better regulated. But, everyone needs to stop making a generalizations about individuals based on their "type of degree."

Don't get me wrong, I hear you out for everything that you said, not just this paragraph, but I wanted to single this statement out because it's a generalization that not just we are making. It's sad but true that even professionals will judge you based on your degree. Many PhD's do see the PsyD as a lesser degree, and many times they have no reason to think so. But, let's be serious, it happens.

The PI of my research lab has been doing research for almost 20 years and is also the DCT of her school's clinical program. She warned all of her RA's to get their PhD's and not PsyD's, even if their interests are clinically-based, because they will receive more respect from colleagues and have more opportunities with the degree.

I'm not going to argue whether or not these statements are well-founded, I'm just thinking why get a PsyD if there's such an attitude toward them? I've never considered a PsyD because I've always wanted to go into research, but even if I was clinically-oriented I would think "why go for it if the degree itself will give other professionals the attitude that I'm selling yourself short?"

I know I sound harsh. I hope someday the PsyD degree can be seen as an alternative to a PhD instead of a lesser degree, but I'm not seeing that attitude where I work, go to school, or do research. It's just not there. What I hear, day in and day out, is "don't do it, it's not worth it." No one's really sold me a PsyD yet.

 

[krisrox]

. . . because, save for a few prototype programs, the admissions are easier. Because, the perception is that the programs are easier (the I'm scared of research crowd). Because, professional schools market to the general population. I've seen ads for Argosy, for example, on buses, television commercials, radio commercials, websites (as a banner), etc. . . Because, it's convenient in the short term for many people (easier admissions = easier geographic choice).

As far as generalizations, sure, this is something to be aware of, but we make distinctions all the time. . .Take selecting a lawyer. Which one do you want?

Lawyer A:

Harvard Law
*insert big name law firm here*
expensive suit
confident

Lawyer B:
Tier 3 law school
small private two person law practice
advertises during judge judy
confident

Amusing example, lol. And point well-taken.

Are those the only reasons people choose to go the PsyD route? Do people ever choose a higher-tier PsyD over a lower-tier PhD?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I chose a Psy.D. program over other Psy.D. and Ph.D. programs because it was the best fit at the time. In retrospect I could have done a better job vetting programs, but hindsight is 20/20.

 

[psychmama]

Do people ever choose a higher-tier PsyD over a lower-tier PhD?

This is precisely what I did, and I'm not alone. I feel very little discrimination against me due to my being a Psyd candidate, and I'm on internship with Phd psychologists and MD psychiatrists. Personally, if there are a few who
deny me opportunity because I have a Psyd instead of a Phd, I can live with it.

You can't please all of the people all of the time. There's always something someone can use to think someone else is inferior, if they're so inclined. That's the way of the world. But I don't find widespread prejudice against Psyds.

 

[krisrox]

This is all very interesting for me to hear, as I've always been told to stay away from the PsyD degree (even though, again, I myself have never considered one due to my desire to do research). I'm glad all the PsyD's out there love their programs and don't feel discriminated against.

 

[forpsyc]

I feel like there are just a lot of myths out there.
- the majority of PhDs go into clinical work, not research. There is not enough room for everyone to be a researcher. And most PhDs prefer clinical work.
- PhDs have more clinical hours than PsyDs. We get TONS of training, lots of it one-on-one.
- Many PhDs don't love research. We do it because it's important to know the truth, it's important to understand human behavior empirically, and because it pays for us to go to school.
- As someone else said, some of those "research" jobs are 100% assessment or teaching
- Yes, there is a bias against PsyDs. The training is viewed to be less rigorous, plain and simple. I have directly heard some practica and internships who will not take PsyDs. It's unfair but true.

I would say be aware that stand-alone PsyD programs have a major financial interest in you believing certain things. They want you to believe that they can prepare you for anything. My advice - Ask professors/clinicians who are successful in the field (e.g., how do I become a neuropsychologist?), look at the stats, don't believe recruitment material, etc.

Good luck

 

[scienceguy4]

The objective of most Psy D's should be state licensure and practice. The research requirement under the Vail model makes little sense. Program prestige only matters to a Psy D insofar as it will provide future referrals for jobs or for a practice. Licensing exams can be studied for with the help of any program and/or outside materials.

I have a great deal of research experience and many publications. That means squat. Research is all about funding, which is a glamour game akin to being a Hollywood star. It has nothing to do with anything rational. Research funding is a 'cult of personality' phenomenon.

If you want a career in Psych., you best focus on helping people and qualifying for the appropriate credentials to do that best. Program ratings do not correlate well with the best helpers.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

kirandeep, I moved your posts HERE because I thought you'd get more input in a seperate thread.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Are you a Psy.D? You seem to have a rather limited view of the Psy.D., and not a very good understanding of career options, common paths, etc for someone with a Psy.D.

The objective of most Psy D's should be state licensure and practice.

I disagree. There are many opportunities for Ph.D. and Psy.D. students, so to arbitrarily focus on one area unecessarily limits a person. Frankly if someone just wants to get out and practice I wouldn't suggest a doctorate.

The research requirement under the Vail model makes little sense.

The research component requires the student to utilize research and learn to integrate it into their work. I think being able to be a consumer of research is a very important part of training.

Program prestige only matters to a Psy D insofar as it will provide future referrals for jobs or for a practice. Licensing exams can be studied for with the help of any program and/or outside materials.

Again....I think you are limited in your view. Licensure and referrals are only a small part of the puzzle, as this is a career and not just a job. While it may become less and less of of influence the farther on a person gets in their career, early on it can impact a person's training and opportunities for competitive placements.

 

[psybee]

Honestly, I look at the clinical training and support of the PsyD's at my school ( where I'm getting my PhD) and i am a bit envious. it is such a nightmare to balance mo much research and straight academic courses with clinical work. they work just as hard at us, but their classes are more clinically focused and integrated-- their training appears to be a bit more focused, whereas ours need to cover the bases for research oriented, mixed, and clinical mostly folks.

 

[psychmama]

Honestly, I look at the clinical training and support of the PsyD's at my school ( where I'm getting my PhD) and i am a bit envious. it is such a nightmare to balance mo much research and straight academic courses with clinical work. they work just as hard at us, but their classes are more clinically focused and integrated-- their training appears to be a bit more focused, whereas ours need to cover the bases for research oriented, mixed, and clinical mostly folks.

Yes, this is what I've been trying to say for a while now. There are some reasons to consider a Psyd program beyond "I hate research" or "I can't relocate." It actually is a better fit for some of us. Not to say that Phd programs don't also have many advantages. It's all about weighing the options against your personal and professional goals.

 

[scienceguy4]

Therapistforchange writes:

The research component requires the student to utilize research and learn to integrate it into their work. I think being able to be a consumer of research is a very important part of training.

My response is that one can be an outstanding consumer of research without ever having published a single paper. ME: I have a Ph.D. in another discipline, have 50+ publications, and am now applying to Psy.D. programs. Several of my publications are in renowned Psychiatry journals.

One other thing: Have you looked at APA survey of income for Ph.D. level and Psy.D. level practitioners versus MS or MSW level? If you don't see the differential, you are confused. OK, money doesn't matter in your world. Also, many states require Ph.D./Psy.D. for licensure in Psych. MS is not enough these days.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

MOD NOTE: onelove....I moved your post HERE because it didn't fit in this thread. -t4c

 

[FollowUrBliss]

In all of these threads, that cover several years, no one is asking what I consider the most important question "Are you able to do what you you want to do?" Regardless of PsyD or PhD......... Truly, when reaching out to others through what I support as the most intimate of health professions, money or prestige is not an object. Right?

 

[psychmama]

In all of these threads, that cover several years, no one is asking what I consider the most important question "Are you able to do what you you want to do?" Regardless of PsyD or PhD......... Truly, when reaching out to others through what I support as the most intimate of health professions, money or prestige is not an object. Right?

As I see it, yes and no. I left a more lucrative career to follow my bliss, and agree that doing what you love and finding the training that allows that to occur is most important. But money is still somewhat important, both as a means to living a life that is comfortable and because it is one indicator of value of ones' work.

 

[krisrox]

In all of these threads, that cover several years, no one is asking what I consider the most important question "Are you able to do what you you want to do?" Regardless of PsyD or PhD......... Truly, when reaching out to others through what I support as the most intimate of health professions, money or prestige is not an object. Right?

All I can say is even Paul Farmer found a way to make a living doing what he was passionate about. If I'm going to follow my dreams, I'm going to make sure I can still support myself and my family.

 

[PsychStudent1]

Hey all,
I'm currently a senior psychology major, and I've been doing a ton of research on grad programs... and primarily deciding between a PhD and a PsyD, like everyone else. It just seems to me like there's so much bias against both -- is there really a better choice?

My psych professor (who I'm guessing knows what he's talking about, as a professor at an Ivy League school) told me the PsyD is slowly replacing the PhD as far as the clinical psych degree goes. He told me the main difference is the money, which makes sense to me. Of course I'm not referring to some of the awful PsyD programs (and PhD programs!) out there, I mean the top ones (e.g. Rutgers). According to my prof, in the next 15 years or so there will likely be a major shift towards the PsyD (and some top schools have already shut down their clinical PhD programs - like NYU).

And someone else made this comparison too: it's like an MD vs. an MD/PhD. Both are respectable as long as your program is of high quality. So can anyone tell me why all the bickering?

Also, from my research it seems Rutgers is about the best PsyD program. Is this true? How is GW's program?

Thanks!!

 

[thewesternsky]

My psych professor (who I'm guessing knows what he's talking about, as a professor at an Ivy League school) told me the PsyD is slowly replacing the PhD as far as the clinical psych degree goes. He told me the main difference is the money, which makes sense to me.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the money' here... Can you elaborate, please?

 

[erg923]

No thats not the only difference (reread this thread please). Large difference in the foucs , large difference in learning, large difference in approach to clinical practice. In regards to your professor.....everyone has their opinion about this or that. Frankly, I dont put too much stock in anyones opinion anymore, especially when the are trying to predict the future. read the thread, look at the evidence and advantages and disadvatages of either for your desired career. Period.

PS: I dont recall ever hearing an employer/supervisor having a bias against the Ph.D degree, assuming the applicant has the appopriate amount of clinical experience for the position. The reverse however, is all too common in certain areas.

PSS: What does you mean by "major shift" to psyd? They already form about 50 percent of those getting doctorates in psych every year. I think your professor is a little behind, as that sounds like a substantial amount to me already. The thing that doesn't make sense to me though is..... if all these programs are being "shut down" because of lack of funding (as you assert) what makes you think that funding isnt being cut in clinical sectors that will effect those who coming into practice?

 

[PsychStudent1]

First let me reiterate -- I'm an undergrad, I'm pretty much going by what I've been reading and hearing from my psych professors, because I'm not sure where else to look for information. I keep hearing different things.

I didn't mean the ONLY difference between the two programs is the cost (paying for the PsyD vs. not paying for the PhD -- that's what I meant by 'money'), that was poorly worded. I understand that these are two different tracks. I meant that the main difference in competition level between good PsyD programs and good PhD programs is the fact that one may put you in debt. And the bias is among the PhD's and PsyD's, not among those who hire them. Also, I didn't state a reason as to why Clinical PhD programs are shutting down, I just said some are -- and from what I hear, it's because that expense is not necessarily worth it for them anymore. And about what you said -- why do employers immediately reject PsyD's or claim they don't hire any of them when there is clearly a huge difference between different PsyD programs? That seems absurdly narrow-minded, and a clear inability to accept new things.

And the shift I mentioned is regarding the respectability of the PsyD, not the figures: the numbers don't mean much if it's not a respected degree.

 

[erg923]

why do employers immediately reject PsyD's or claim they don't hire any of them when there is clearly a huge difference between different PsyD programs? That seems absurdly narrow-minded, and a clear inability to accept new things.

Because the world is an unfair place. Its just the nature of the beast. Humans use bias and hueristics to make complex decisions (ie., hiring) all day everyday. I do this. You do this. They know the ph.d better, the ph,d has a good rep,...they pick the ph.d candidate.....

This happens less and less often nowdays, especially if its a 100% clinical postition. But its out there.

 

[aagman01]

I have heard they are both outstanding psyd programs. I don't go there, but have a friend who went to Rutgers.

I have heard that the GW program has very little funding for psyd students.

I know more about rutgers. Rutgers, from what I have heard, has some funding, though its not guaranteed as at many phd programs. Also, I have heard that at Rutgers renumeration for those funded can vary. That can range from tuition only to an assistantship that provide tuition and a solid stipend commensurate with what is offered in phd programs.

Hey all,
I'm currently a senior psychology major, and I've been doing a ton of research on grad programs... and primarily deciding between a PhD and a PsyD, like everyone else. It just seems to me like there's so much bias against both -- is there really a better choice?

My psych professor (who I'm guessing knows what he's talking about, as a professor at an Ivy League school) told me the PsyD is slowly replacing the PhD as far as the clinical psych degree goes. He told me the main difference is the money, which makes sense to me. Of course I'm not referring to some of the awful PsyD programs (and PhD programs!) out there, I mean the top ones (e.g. Rutgers). According to my prof, in the next 15 years or so there will likely be a major shift towards the PsyD (and some top schools have already shut down their clinical PhD programs - like NYU).

And someone else made this comparison too: it's like an MD vs. an MD/PhD. Both are respectable as long as your program is of high quality. So can anyone tell me why all the bickering?

Also, from my research it seems Rutgers is about the best PsyD program. Is this true? How is GW's program?

Thanks!!

 

[terpskins10]

So, someone I work with advised me specifically NOT to apply to PsyD programs because PsyD's tend to be less respected in the field. Because of this, I decided not to apply to the two PsyD programs I had planned on applying to. Does anyone think this was the right call, or should I have applied anyway?

 

[Ollie123]

Depends what your goals were, what schools they were, etc. I'd rarely recommend making any major decisions based off one person's opinion, but sometimes they are right. PhD vs. PsyD seems to be a lazy shortcut for many. For example, a Rutgers PsyD is probably going to be viewed far more favorably than an Argosy PhD. The proliferation of PsyDs at professional schools is really what clouds the distinction. Depending on what sort of schools you were applying to this may or may not be relevant to your situation

 

[terpskins10]

Depends what your goals were, what schools they were, etc. I'd rarely recommend making any major decisions based off one person's opinion, but sometimes they are right. PhD vs. PsyD seems to be a lazy shortcut for many. For example, a Rutgers PsyD is probably going to be viewed far more favorably than an Argosy PhD. The proliferation of PsyDs at professional schools is really what clouds the distinction. Depending on what sort of schools you were applying to this may or may not be relevant to your situation

I had no intention of applying to Argosy or Alliant. The schools I was looking at were GWU and Loyola MD.

 

[futureboy]

. . . .Take selecting a lawyer. Which one do you want?

Lawyer A:

Harvard Law
*insert big name law firm here*
expensive suit
confident

Lawyer B:
Tier 3 law school
small private two person law practice
advertises during judge judy
confident

If you're seriously injured in an auto accident: B

If you're doing a corporate merger: A

 

[DrMC]

In all of these threads, that cover several years, no one is asking what I consider the most important question "Are you able to do what you you want to do?" Regardless of PsyD or PhD......... Truly, when reaching out to others through what I support as the most intimate of health professions, money or prestige is not an object. Right?

Hi Everyone,

I've grown to a place where I'm doing what I want to do. I have a definite purpose!

I’m an African American who's lived with HIV for 25 years. I’ve worked, on a part-time basis for 10 years, as an experiential speaker & sole proprietor teaching HIV health education in underserved communities. I also help those affected/infected with HIV build positive self images through individual and group counseling. In 2009, I incorporated my sole proprietorship as a non-profit 501(c)3 community based organization. Having the community’s best interest at heart, I enrolled in Thomas Edison State College (TESC), pursuing the BA in Psychology, to acquire skills to better serve those in need. Currently, I hold a 4.0 GPA and I'm seriously thinking of applying to the Masters of Applied Positive Psychology (MAPP) degree program at the University of Pennsylvania. Positive Psychology is a new field and I currently help consumers build a positive self-image; and, training in the MAPP's program may arm me with tools to be of even greater service to the public. The PhD program at Howard University and the PsyD program at Rutgers University have piqued my interest.

I’m drawn to Howard University for two reasons: 1) Howard University, the Ivy League of Historically Black Institutions, has its finger on the pulse of the psychology of African Americans. The school’s philosophy deals with the psychology of African Americans and minorities, a very different disposition that resonates among minorities; and 2) one of the professors there specializes in alternative treatment, spirituality, HIV risks, and youth. The school does not offer a PsyD degree, though Howard University has always been my dream school since childhood.

However, Rutgers University offers the PsyD degree and has a working relationship with TESC. I find that the research interests of several Professors at Rutgers Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology, has piqued my interest as well. After reading many posts on this discussion board, it appears that Rutgers University has a sound reputation for producing Doctors of Psychology (PsyD) who are well respected in the industry. After reading this exhaustive discussion board, I was encouraged to write letters of introduction to the professors at Howard, Rutgers, and TESC to foster a working relationship seeking their guidance, direction, and academic support. Perhaps I can later request letters of recommendation as I petition graduate programs.

I imagine geographic location, funding, and acceptance may ultimately be the determining factors for which institution I attend for graduate school. I’m not interested in securing a degree to compete in the workforce as I currently have my own business/ministry. The PhD appears prestigious but that doesn’t motivate my decision nor am I interested in producing heavy research articles. In addition to teaching HIV health education, advocating on behalf of those infected, and exercising individual/group counseling within my own company, I do have interest in teaching Psychology courses at the University—perhaps functioning as an adjunct professor. While, in the future, exercising clinical and/or counseling work as a Doctor of Psychology may prove beneficial as a business owner, will such a designation hinder or prevent me from teaching at a University in current times or in the future? What other highly respected institutions (other than Rutgers, Baylor, GWU, and Virginia Consortium) might one consider to pursue the PsyD degree? Lastly, I would appreciate any further knowledge and wisdom regarding the direction of my academic pursuits. Thanks everyone!

Respectfully,
DrMC

 

[medium rare]

What other highly respected institutions (other than Rutgers, Baylor, GWU, and Virginia Consortium) might one consider to pursue the PsyD degree?

You should also check out Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio. They are one of the oldest, university-based PsyD programs with an excellent reputation, small class sizes, and decent funding (tuition waiver up to two years of the program and paid clinical practica). They also have the highest APA-accredited internship match rates of any PsyD program in the country and are in the top 25 for all clinical programs. Moreover, they have a diverse faculty and unparalleled multicultural and diversity training.

 

[TenaciousGirl]

This is all very interesting for me to hear, as I've always been told to stay away from the PsyD degree (even though, again, I myself have never considered one due to my desire to do research). I'm glad all the PsyD's out there love their programs and don't feel discriminated against.

The only place I've felt discriminated against regarding degree type is right here on this forum. I keep coming back because I *know* that not everyone shares the same point of view or outlook on the topic. I also know that like others have said, it's impossible to please everyone all the time. Someone else will inevitably find something wrong with you, your credentials, or your experience. I am enjoying the pursuit of my education and I honestly don't think that my degree or experiences will prohibit me from doing what I ultimately want to do. Self determination is a huge proponent that gets thrown to the wayside whenever people talk about this debate. It is possible to get your Psy.D. and have just as an impressive vitae/resume as the Ph.D. person sitting next to you. Will that impressive resume ultimately help you get the internship/fellowship/JOB if the PD is prejudice against Psy.D.'s? Who knows. I like to think I'd still have a chance.

 

[futureapppsy2]

What other highly respected institutions (other than Rutgers, Baylor, GWU, and Virginia Consortium) might one consider to pursue the PsyD degree?

You should also check out Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio. They are one of the oldest, university-based PsyD programs with an excellent reputation, small class sizes, and decent funding (tuition waiver up to two years of the program and paid clinical practica). They also have the highest APA-accredited internship match rates of any PsyD program in the country and are in the top 25 for all clinical programs. Moreover, they have a diverse faculty and unparalleled multicultural and diversity training.

[/QUOTE=DrMC;8914723]

Also, Indiana U-Pennsylvania and Indiana State, though I can't recall if they have people interested in multicultural psych on the faculty.

 

[psychmama]

The only place I've felt discriminated against regarding degree type is right here on this forum. I keep coming back because I *know* that not everyone shares the same point of view or outlook on the topic.

Ditto. I certainly feel every bit as well educated and trained as my PhD colleagues. I say do what works for you, keep it moving, and don't fret too much about the letters after your name.

 

[2B Mind Doc]

Well, I was originally drawn to this thread because I went through the same deliberation when deciding upon what type of doctorate I should pursue. I wanted to offer another positive Psy.D. experience to add to the mix.

My extensive research background paired with an growing interest in direct practice led me to pursue programs with an equal emphasis on both. Further, given my research background, I preferred programs that emphasized evidence-based practice. Not just CBT, but the spectrum of treatments falling under that umbrella - including being capable of integrating treatments as empirically and clinically indicated. The bonus I sought was to be near high-quality practicum training sites - a student-run clinic in addition, would be nice. And I did not realize the importance of it at the time, but the program I ended up choosing had an 87% match rate (74% APA Accredited sites). My program helped me have 7 publications, 2100 clinical hours (900 face to face), LORs from Top Tier leaders in the field, and exceptional clinical skills. (info provided to assist in dispelling any myths)

Perhaps I'm feeling a little "extra love" for my program as I prepare to complete my 5 years, but in the event that you are looking for another potential Psy.D. Clinical program - check out La Salle University (Philadelphia, PA). Just another option...

 

[cheeze]

The only place I've felt discriminated against regarding degree type is right here on this forum. I keep coming back because I *know* that not everyone shares the same point of view or outlook on the topic. I also know that like others have said, it's impossible to please everyone all the time. Someone else will inevitably find something wrong with you, your credentials, or your experience. I am enjoying the pursuit of my education and I honestly don't think that my degree or experiences will prohibit me from doing what I ultimately want to do. Self determination is a huge proponent that gets thrown to the wayside whenever people talk about this debate. It is possible to get your Psy.D. and have just as an impressive vitae/resume as the Ph.D. person sitting next to you. Will that impressive resume ultimately help you get the internship/fellowship/JOB if the PD is prejudice against Psy.D.'s? Who knows. I like to think I'd still have a chance.

Majority of the faculty who have taught me at my University advise against a psyd. I don't think this is because of the prejudice or anything like that. I was actually advised to pursue a phd to keep my options open. phds can become a professor, researcher or clinician but psyds are often limited to clinical work. My supervisor whos a neuroclinical psychologist, actually suggested me to get a phd because its much easier to gain additional clinical training than it is to gain additional research training in the future.

I definately don't think my professors believe that one is superior to the other. It seems more like they want their students to have more opportunities in the future. (I read somewhere that people are employing MSWs over PsyDs simply because they cost less.)

 

[lamorena]

.