Ph.D. vs. Psy.D

[silenthunder]

Can someone explain some of the differences between
a Ph.D. and a Psy.D degree in Clinical Psychology?

Are the job prospects different if I get a Psy.D. in Clinical Psychology from a school that's easier to get into
(like American School of Professional Psychology),
rather than a Ph.D. in Clinical Psych from program
that's harder (GPA wise-) to get into?

I do know that a Ph.D. is better, but I'm looking for some specific
differences....

hope everyone's doing well,

Cheers,

Silenthunder

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cici]

Originally posted by silenthunder
Can someone explain some of the differences between
a Ph.D. and a Psy.D degree in Clinical Psychology?

Are the job prospects different if I get a Psy.D. in Clinical Psychology from a school that's easier to get into
(like American School of Professional Psychology),
rather than a Ph.D. in Clinical Psych from program
that's harder (GPA wise-) to get into?

I do know that a Ph.D. is better, but I'm looking for some specific
differences....

hope everyone's doing well,

Cheers,

Silenthunder

Modified based on a previous post of mine:

PsyD and PhD in clinical psychology are based on different principles or models of clinical psychology. PhD in clinical psychology is based on the Boulder Scientist-Practitioner model. Graduates from PhD programs are supposed to be foremost a scientist, then a therapist. There is a lot of emphasis in combining science with the art of practice, and we're expected to do research as well as clinical work. As a result, we have lots of training in research methods and have to complete a Master's thesis and a PhD dissertation as part of our program requirements (besides learning clinical things such as assessments, therapy etc). Usually the emphasis on the clinical side of things will usually be the same as that on the research side of things, or for some programs, less.

PsyD, on the other hand, identifies with the Scholar-Practitioner model. Graduates were trained as effective CONSUMERS (rather than producers) of research. As a result, there's less emphasis on research, but more emphasis on the clinical stuff.

 

[Firebird]

A Psychologist a scientist? Eh? A pseudoscientist, perhaps.

 

[DD214_DOC]

Yes, and the basis for all current psychiatric/psychological theories were just pulled out of a hat.

Obviously, you have never studied psychology past the basic courses.

Since you're too stupid to realize that "science" isn't just physics, chemistry, or biology, maybe you should do yourself a favor and look it up.

 

[cici]

Originally posted by Firebird
A Psychologist a scientist? Eh? A pseudoscientist, perhaps.

Do you know what science is?

 

[Firebird]

Oh, get over it. I was joking. I'm a psych minor myself.

Psychology is not one of the "hard" sciences, though, you must admit that. There is a moderate amount of science that goes into psychology. Perhaps more than just a moderate amount.

However, psych research isn't nearly as stringent as MCPB's research is. A lot more theorizing comes out of the psych studies than comes out of a chemistry experiment, for example.

And besides, except for the medical paradigm, none of the other theories are incredibly scientific anyway.

 

[cici]

Originally posted by Firebird
Oh, get over it. I was joking. I'm a psych minor myself.

Psychology is not one of the "hard" sciences, though, you must admit that. There is a moderate amount of science that goes into psychology. Perhaps more than just a moderate amount.

However, psych research isn't nearly as stringent as MCPB's research is. A lot more theorizing comes out of the psych studies than comes out of a chemistry experiment, for example.

And besides, except for the medical paradigm, none of the other theories are incredibly scientific anyway.

Please tell us how you define science.

 

[Dr.GA2B]

On first apparence, the big difference between Ph.D and Psy.D, as has been mentioned, is predominantly one of research. On second note, however, there is a pretty big difference. And here are my thoughts,

1. With a Ph.D from a major university, you can teach or conduct research at most psychology or psychiatry departments. This is largely NOT the case with Psy.D, unless you want to teach at other "schools of professional psychology" most of which are private with "adult learner" students. Even these less light institutions seem to prefer Ph.D. professors.

2. As the D.O. was once attached with serious stigma compared to the M.D., Psy.D., which came out in the 60's still is commonly held as less of a doctorate degree, though the gap between the pay scales of the two have become significantly close.

3. As with the D.O., which emphasizes hand-on patient care, Psy.D. do less research and often have greater exposure to clinical practice.

4. APA recognizes APA accredited Ph.D and Psy.D. degrees as eligible to apply for the 3000 hour APA internships, leading to the licensed title, clinical psychologist.

5. Admission criteria for Psy.D is often less stringent than Ph.D programs.

Hope this helps. If you need more info on this, get read up on the APA website.

 

[Firebird]

Perhaps the research part of psychology is fairly scientific.

The treatment is not, though. You just do whatever seems to work with no understanding of why it works.

 

[DD214_DOC]

Once again, you are vomiting ignorance. We don't spend years learning the intricacies and research regarding the theories that therapy is derived from for no reason.

What do you think they teach in these courses? "When patient says this, you ask this. This is what is wrong if he answers this way"? No.

We have to apply our theories and, through analysis and application, arrive at a conclusion of a patient's behavior. The whole process of talking to a therapist is so he can evaluate you and use his knowledge of theories to arrive at a conclusion. It's just like a medical diagnosis.

Why don't you go read some before you post here?

 

[Firebird]

Originally posted by JKDMed
Once again, you are vomiting ignorance. We don't spend years learning the intricacies and research regarding the theories that therapy is derived from for no reason.

What do you think they teach in these courses? "When patient says this, you ask this. This is what is wrong if he answers this way"? No.

We have to apply our theories and, through analysis and application, arrive at a conclusion of a patient's behavior. The whole process of talking to a therapist is so he can evaluate you and use his knowledge of theories to arrive at a conclusion. It's just like a medical diagnosis.

Why don't you go read some before you post here?

Why don't you ease up?

Medical diagnosis? hahaha

 

[cici]

Originally posted by Firebird
Why don't you ease up?

Medical diagnosis? hahaha

Why don't YOU start educating yourself and stop being an troll?

Ever heard of something called "empirically supported treatments"? Look it up from APA please.

Do you even KNOW how we make diagnosis and treatment recommendations? If not, then maybe you should laugh at your own ignorance instead.

Either you have lied about your PSYC MINOR, or you have been taking the wrong courses......what a disgrace.

 

[Firebird]

My last class was abnormal psychology. How much more scientific could it get than that?

First of all, I'm over reacting because you all are eating it up. I started out joking (as I noted) and you all took it so seriously and yelled at me. So I thought I would drawl it out.

Secondly, there are portions of psychology that are completely unscientific. They're just theories that people have come up with that fit facts.

Humanism and Psychoanalysis are two examples of this. Behaviorism, to me, is very scientific. You can study responses and stimuli. You can not study The Self, nor can you study The Id. They are nonobservable and therefore can not be studied by science.

Now, if you look at the medical/biological paradigm, it is of course incredibly scientific. However, I'm not sure that psychology/psychiatry can yet explain the origin of mental illness by biological methods. I recall there being some proof that a certain form of dopamine receptors were overly abundant in schizophrenics, but looking at the absolute numbers, this can not be a singular cause. So with respect to determining the cause of mental illness, I suppose you could say that psychology is a branch of science.

When you come to treatment, I am not sure that is still the case, though. Sure, when you have a pt. pop a pill, that's using science. But when you look at Freud's methods of Tx, they're just some wild idea he came up with. I believe that one study showed that psychoanalysis is useful for mild depression but says there is no other situation for which it is useful.

Furthermore, there are so many confounding variables in psych studies that it really loses some of its scientific value. Informed consent itself undermines the purity of the study because the people know they're research subjects. They will perhaps act differently than they would otherwise. In my own realm of study, chemistry, this is analogous to the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle.

Part of the problem is that psychology is the study of human behavior, as we all know. Since human behavior is governed by the mind, which, incidentally is perhaps the most complex physical thing in existence, makes for an incredibly difficult discipline of study. Therefore it is quite impossible to make huge jumps in the field in a short period of time. This causes a veil of pseudoscience to at least, on the outside, appear.

 

[PublicHealth]

Don't forget that psychology is only about 100 years old, and biological neuroscience less than 10 years old. Give it time!

Psychology, however, will likely never become as reducible a science as chemistry. At the same time, it all depends on how you pose your research question(s). Behavior may be explained by a multitude of factors, however operationalized, and modern psychologists are making great strides in "biologizing" the constructs developed by early theorists. Moreover, neuroscientists and psychiatrists have made significant progress in neuroimaging and psychopharmacology over the past 10 years, which will undoubtedly lead to increased acceptance of psychiatry as a MEDICAL science.

I strongly encourage you to read the journal "Biological Psychiatry."

PH

 

[Sanman]

First off, most of what Freud used as far as treatment options is now considered archaic. The ideas of psychoanalysis has been mostly replaced by cognitive behavioral therapy. Second, it is already accepted that psychology is a very young science and does not have a paradigm much like other scientific fields (mbcp). It is considered to be in the first stage ( preparadigmatic) of becoming a science, while the other sciences are considered to be in the fourth and final stage (normal science). As far as psychology being unscientific because people are just theorizing possiblities to fit the facts, I thought that was the basis of scientific theory, a testable idea that seems to fit the facts and can be proven through experimentation. This occurs in all science, I seem to recall the recent findings that have suggested that Einstein's theory of relatvity may be wrong. Everything in science is a theory, even the "laws" because it only stands as long as we can't disprove it and since we don't have a complete body of knowledge for any science nothing is written in stone.

 

[Firebird]

I am so glad relativity possibly being disproven. I hadn't heard that, but I really hate that theory.

But anyway...preparadigmatic and normal science, huh? Sounds like you've been reading Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolution).

I'll buy what you're saying. But psych is still less scientific at this point than chemistry, for example. But then again, when chemistry was where psych is now, it was also pseudoscience.

 

[Sanman]

Yeah, had to learn about in a social psych class. Who knew it would come in handy. As far as it being a pseudoscience, I think it is still science, just without a clearcut direction. I think the days where psychology was similar to alchemy died w/ phrenology.

 

[Dr.GA2B]

My attempt to describe the difference of emphasis in Ph.D. and Psy.D. seems to have intensified the issue of research and the nature of scientific inquiry and the art of clinical practice, whether in psychology and medicine. I am happy to see folks here really pulling out serious thoughts on the subject.

I will begin with the foremost Western pioneering neuroscientist, physiologist, mathematician, and philosoper Descartes. From his discourse on emotions (now belonging to affective and cognitive neuroscience), Descartes observed:

"It is true, there are very few men so wake* and irresolute, that they will nothing but what their present passion dictates to them. The most part have determinate judgements according to which they regulate part of their actions. And though oft times these judgements be false, and indeed grounded on some passions, by which the will has formerly suffered herself to be vanquished, or seduced, yet because she perseveres in following them then when the passion that caused them is absent, they may be considered as her own weapons, and souls may be thought stronger or weaker according as they do more or less follow these judgements and resist the present passions contrary to them. But there is a great deal of difference between the resolutions proceeding from some false opinion, and those which are only held up by the knowledge of the truth. Since following these last, man is sure never to acquire sorrow or repentance, whereas following the first, they are inseparably companions, after the error is discovered." (Passions of the Soul, 1649)

So, a informed discussion with regard to psychology's place among the natural sciences would begin with the scientific method. In so far as researchers apply the scientic method and using the priciples of parsimony to arrive at either deductive or inductive explanation, facts matter. On the other hand, in so far as the psychology as an art, in the sense that a kidney can't tell you how the person thinks, feels, etc., but that a brain could, let the brain speak and the clinician listening with a Shakespearian ear! Both the science (reliable knowledge) and art (compassion and attuneent) completes the clinician's mission.

Those of you who are not questioning the specific methodology (e.g. quantitative vs. qualitative, genetic vs. behavioral) and scientific epistemology (means, limits, and consilience) but resort to opine for or against psychology as a science really ought to study creative writing, not science.

Dr.GA2B

 

[Firebird]

What are you talking about?