Psy.D. Program Course Descriptions:

[psydd]

I was just wondering what the actual course work might entail for any given class in a Psy.D. program, specifically.

What I mean is, are the majority of the classes set up just like undergrad courses, except with a more in-depth amount work? For instance, is it typical for there to be lectures, and then tests and papers? If so, are there usually more papers than tests, or vice versa?

I just have no frame of reference as to how the classes might actually be run. It's really a mystery to me at this point.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

This varies greatly by program. Your "core" foundation science courses will have formal lectures, as well as papers and tests. And yes, they will be much more in-depth and you will read ALOT! Your stats courses are likely to have assignments as well as tests. Other courses such as assessment will have alot of practical assignments, report writing, and probably a test or 2. Therapy classes tend to be alot of papers and alot of reading.

 

[psydd]

Are there usually midterms and final exams? Are all of these tests and papers actually graded? I know someone in law school, and the only weighted assignments she ever gets are the final exams themselves. Papers and other tests throughout the semester go ungraded, and are really just there to let you see how you're doing, etc.

I feel like a Psy.D. program wouldn't work that way, but hey, maybe I'm wrong.

And you said that it would vary by program. Do you mean that the in the same way that it could vary for undergrad classes? Such that, even an intro to psychology course could vary greatly, even by professor alone?

Or are there any indicators of course type? i.e. The program's primary theoretical orientation, the formal concentration track you may have chosen, etc.

 

[psybee]

do you have any PsyD programs in mind? i'd email current students, if possible, and get thier feedback. i know w/in my phd program classes vary from tests and papers and graded assignments and lots and lots of articles in a lecture based class to seminar style classes with no assignments at all but just remarkable amounts of reading (like a book plus articles in a week).

 

[BellaPsyD]

as you move along there will be assignments like: here is raw testing data; analyze it, conceptualize the client, form a treatment plan, etc.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

as you move along there will be assignments like: here is raw testing data; analyze it, conceptualize the client, form a treatment plan, etc.

That is when it gets fun. Foundational courses are really important (you will sleep with your DSM and piles of journal articles), but it really gets interesting when you get to do the above.

 

[BellaPsyD]

^ I agree. When we started that I remember being like "Finally- this is what I was meant to do!"

 

[psychmama]

In my Psyd program, there are very few actual tests. The exception was probably stats. We had lots of written assignments, presentations, papers, and LOTS of reading. The first big tests we had other than stats were Comps, which we take after the second year. My program focuses on case formulation, treatment planning, and experiential assignments from the very first semester. We get out first clinical case during the first semester of our first year.

My guess is that it must vary a lot from program to program.

 

[psydd]

yeah, that aspect of it certainly seems like the good stuff. next to actually being involved in practica, of course.

now, when you guys talk about this insane amount of reading that gets assigned, how much are we actually talking about here? like, if possible, give me an average number of pages to read per night, let's say.

 

[erg923]

...well this varies greatly by professor and by class of course.

I have been frustrated with my program over this issue because I think they sometimes sacrifice quality of readings, for sheer quantity of readings. A 30 page book chapter and 3-4 articles for each lecture was not uncommon for many of my foundation courses. Then times that by 3-4 courses per week. I always "looked" at everything that was too be read for that weeks lecture, but rarely read every word of all the readings. We also tended to be very collaborative in my cohort and would break up readings, and then have each person do a summary sheet that was emailed out. Our professors encouraged this also, as I think even they realized the reading the assigned was impossible to do at times, especially when you had 3-4 classes at once. I have done ALL readings for my neuropsych classes, and my CBT class....so yea for me....

However, we have also been encouraged NOT to sacrifice research deadlines or our mentors/labs deadlines for "class readings." I'm not sure how the priorities are set in Psy.D. programs.

 

[psychwanabe]

yeah, that aspect of it certainly seems like the good stuff. next to actually being involved in practica, of course.

now, when you guys talk about this insane amount of reading that gets assigned, how much are we actually talking about here? like, if possible, give me an average number of pages to read per night, let's say.

I'm in a PsyD program and for next week, 4 classes, I have the following reading to do:

Class 1: two book chapters (83 pgs), one article (11 pgs)
Class 2: two book chapters (84 pgs), one article (16 pgs)
Class 3: four articles (84 pgs)
Class 4: 3 book chapters (87 pgs)

On top of this I will probably spend a good 10 hours reading dozens of articles for my research. Who knows how many pages that will be?

I would say this is a pretty typical week. About 300 assigned pages, and then other reading for research.

Fun, huh?

 

[psydd]

that's depressing.

but how is that reading implemented into your classes? really, my question is, what would be the consequences of not reading all of that stuff in its entirety? because, like erg said above, i feel like plenty of students probably just "take a look" at everything assigned, and maybe only read the the parts that really seem relevant at the time.

because that's seriously a lot. like, i understand that it's a doctoral program. but there's a fine line between sanity and insanity. and the professors are psychologists themselves. they should be understanding about it... right?

ridiculous.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I often describe the workload as more than a person can do, but somehow they get through it. You learn what is important, what certain profs want you to know, and frankly your time management skills (should) get better as you go through. I can whip through a journal article now because I just know what is important. I often would trade outlines with people and/or get outlines from students ahead of me. I still went through the readings and did the work, but the outlines help get another perspective on the reading and in the event I couldn't get to it before the next class, I wouldn't be completely lost.

Some of the reading may not be immediately helpful, but later on it can be a good resource. Kaplan & Saddock have a text that many/most programs use, and while I initially bought it for my Adult Psychopathology, I didn't really use it until later (as my A.P. prof worked almost completely out of the DSM and supplemental information). She wanted us to have the book in our library because it is a good resource, regardless of class.

 

[psychmama]

T4C makes a good point. Part of what you're being trained to do in a psyd program is how to digest what's important in the endless stream of information relevant to the subject. I've personally never heard of anyone who reads everything assigned, although many will at least skim everything.

That being said, if you are not a person who enjoys a lot of reading, the first 2 years or so might be tough -- there's just a lot to absorb and there's really no other way. As you go along, you will be busier with clinical work and more specialized, meaning you probably won't have as much reading to do. You will, however, have a lot of clinical writing. Personally, I find that more difficult than the reading (although more interesting) -- but that's me.

 

[psydd]

reading has never been a joy of mine, but i always do what's necessary for the specific classes i'm in. the same mindset will apply in grad school for me, without a doubt. so i'm not worried about that, necessarily. i mean, i'm sure i'll be overwhelmed at first. but i'm very willing to trust and accept that things will smooth themselves out over time.

and what exactly does the clinical writing entail? thinking about it (with almost no knowledge of what it's actually like), you're right, it does immediately sound like it would be really interesting. definitely more so than reading and/or writing for the foundational courses, i'm sure.

 

[Sanity6]

In my Clinical Forensic Psy.D. program (first year) we've already had to get a volunteer (no colleagues), administer assessment instruments, do a detailed background history, and behavioral observation. We then had to do the detective work and "decipher" what it all means, and write up a report (as if it was for the court) including recommendations for treatment.

Of course since this is done on a volunteer, and there is no actual "referral question," our recommendations are on a general level.

For my Intro class, we've got to read, analyze, and critique the expert witness testimony of Park Dietz in the Andrea Yates case--as well as provide an additional analysis from a juror's point of view.

Research, beesmirch... That will be part of our program, but a for a Psy.D., the focus is really on practical application. Research will come into play when we apply it toward our thesis project, and then dissertation.

Just my two cents (hell, with the price of things as they are, I better make that a buck fifty).

 

[psydd]

how much are incoming students already expected to know, going into their first year?

like will i ever be in a class, not understand something that hasn't been taught in that specific course, and then have the professor be disappointed with my prior knowledge base because i "should already know this from _______ class", or whatever?

 

[psychmama]

how much are incoming students already expected to know, going into their first year?

like will i ever be in a class, not understand something that hasn't been taught in that specific course, and then have the professor be disappointed with my prior knowledge base because i "should already know this from _______ class", or whatever?

I wouldn't worry too much about that. You won't be expected to know everything -- far from it. The whole point of grad school (PsyD anyway) is to take someone who is bright, motivated, and has basic knowledge, and shape them into a professional psychologist. No one's going to be disappointed in you. This process is about your goals and expectations, not theirs. If you get in, you can do all that's required.

 

[psychwanabe]

how much are incoming students already expected to know, going into their first year?

like will i ever be in a class, not understand something that hasn't been taught in that specific course, and then have the professor be disappointed with my prior knowledge base because i "should already know this from _______ class", or whatever?

There is a huge difference in the knowledge base of first-year students. Some were psych majors and took all the cores like cognitive, neuro, pathology, developmental, etc. Some were psych majors but only took some of the core classes (like me...for some stupid reason I took things like Psych of Religion and Psych of Urban Living...I think the class times were better - dumb decision). Others were not psych majors at all and only have the basics. The first year, especially, kind of levels off the playing field in terms of general knowledge. My experience thus far is that profs will often say "who's had a learning course?" and if there are even a few who have not, will then go over the basics (like conditioning, etc.) that others may not have had. There are lots of times where people have had no exposure to certain areas - don't sweat about that.

Back to the post on the amount of reading...my classmates, in our first year, did the outline thing. Personally, I did not find it very helpful given the vast difference between the quality and detail of the outlines. Some liked it, but for me it's better if I read it myself. That said, T4C is right that you can NOT do it all. What I usually do is start the semester doing as much of the reading as possible, as thoroughly as possible. Then, after the first round of exams you find out what "has" to be done and adjust accordingly. I also agree that my reading skills took a sharp increase after last year. I can get the main points of a journal article in <15 minutes now, where I used to take an hour to sludge through it. Also, I have found myself coming back to some of the textbooks and articles from last year, so it's good to at least skim them. They're usually valuable to keep or at least to hang on to your syllubi so you can look them back up when you want to refer to them.

 

[psybee]

There is a huge difference in the knowledge base of first-year students. Some were psych majors and took all the cores like cognitive, neuro, pathology, developmental, etc. Some were psych majors but only took some of the core classes (like me...for some stupid reason I took things like Psych of Religion and Psych of Urban Living...I think the class times were better - dumb decision). Others were not psych majors at all and only have the basics. The first year, especially, kind of levels off the playing field in terms of general knowledge. My experience thus far is that profs will often say "who's had a learning course?" and if there are even a few who have not, will then go over the basics (like conditioning, etc.) that others may not have had. There are lots of times where people have had no exposure to certain areas - don't sweat about that.

Back to the post on the amount of reading...my classmates, in our first year, did the outline thing. Personally, I did not find it very helpful given the vast difference between the quality and detail of the outlines. Some liked it, but for me it's better if I read it myself. That said, T4C is right that you can NOT do it all. What I usually do is start the semester doing as much of the reading as possible, as thoroughly as possible. Then, after the first round of exams you find out what "has" to be done and adjust accordingly. I also agree that my reading skills took a sharp increase after last year. I can get the main points of a journal article in <15 minutes now, where I used to take an hour to sludge through it. Also, I have found myself coming back to some of the textbooks and articles from last year, so it's good to at least skim them. They're usually valuable to keep or at least to hang on to your syllubi so you can look them back up when you want to refer to them.

I agree with all of the above. We've been doing the outline thing as a class and at our cohort is big enough that i've seen who does outlines the way i like them and who doesn't go into enough detail, so i may form a small group next year with similar nerds. what is helpful though is to do the skimming (i can' wait to get as fast at that as psychwannabe!) but have each person be an "expert" on an article or two. that way we all have detailed questions to brng out, andothers or the prof can address it from thier different perspectives.

we have a few folks right out of UG, several with masters--the diversity is huge, and while there is always someone that knows more than you, which is awesome, there aren't many folks that are experts on all areas, and def. not at the grad level.

 

[psydd]

awesome. that makes me feel better as well.

it's just weird to me that i have the potential to be in grad school soon, considering i was such a horrible student in high school. i took a really positive turn and it's taken time to get used to it.

thanks again for the comments.