PsyD or not to PsyD, that is the question.

February 26, 2006 3:45 PM

I'd like to know more about PsyD programs.

Do graduates from these programs suffer credibility/prestige problems, especially compared to graduates from traditional PhD programs? What are the advantages of getting a PsyD? If you or were in a PsyD program, how hard was it for you to get a accredited intership?

Also, if anyone has any specific information on the PsyD programs at PGSP-Stanforrd, George Washington and Pepperdine, I would be most appreciative.

posted by hobbes103 to Education (5 answers total)

It depends on your interests. PsyD programs allow you to get into practice without a PhD and typically don't require much research. If you don't have much interest in conducting clinical research or being in the academy, I'd say it's a good route (though it can be very expensive). They DO suffer from prestige issues, though I'm not sure how much this is true among the general population -- I can only speak from a psychology graduate student's perspective.
posted by trey at 3:48 PM on February 26, 2006

I think it would be a limiting factor going forward. If you ever choose to work at a university or do any sort of research, you would quickly be passed over for a Ph.D. since that's what most people in those fields have.

I personally wouldn't go the Psy.D. route and I'm actively looking for a program. I may go Ed.D. because I work in school settings and because it's available closeby.
posted by ajpresto at 4:22 PM on February 26, 2006

The advantage to a PsyD is that you interact more with people than research. I thought PsyD were more the trend than PhD. I've seen more and more PsyD in Florida and Oklahoma.
posted by 6:1 at 4:44 PM on February 26, 2006

Everyone else has said it: (1) The main difference is that PsyD's don't have to develop the same level of expertise in research design and statistics. Therefore, academia will be out of the question for you (at the University level). You will be able to have a clinical practice without many limitations, though. (2) Prestige issues will exist but will be limited to the academic and psychological community. The general public won't have a clue. They'll call you Dr. Hobbies103 and never even wonder what kind of Dr. you are.
posted by crapples at 6:56 PM on February 26, 2006

The Psy.D was started because there were all these people who were just interested in being clinicians and not in having research expertise. Therefore if you're only interested in clinical work and are allergic to research, a PsyD should be fine.

The stigma question is a good one. Here's an article from PsyChi about the issue. It references an article by Norcross et al from 1998 in Professional Psychology that apparently looks at some of the issues you raise. Here's the complete reference: Norcross, John C.; Sayette, Michael A.; Mayne, Tracy J.; Karg, Rhonda S.; Turkson, Maria A. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 1998 Dec Vol 29(6) 609-614.

Maybe you could send out an email to some of the school's alumni associations asking about people's experiences. Personally, I'd be surprised if there was any discrimination, unless the position had some research or evaluation component to it.

If you have some interest in research, or think you might in the future, why not go for the PhD? It could give you added flexibility down the line, and there are probably a range of programs that have different degrees of rigor in terms of how research-y the programs are. For example, I know of at least one accredited professional school that allows PhD students to hire consultants to run their dissertation stats for them!

I think that's just strange, but it reflects the fact that it's a buyers market, at least in terms of professional psychology schools.
posted by jasper411 at 9:33 AM on February 27, 2006