training models & degree types
PhD or PsyD? Clinical or research focus? How to determine which program type is the right fit.
Late summer is such a strange in-between time for graduate applications. It’s a bit too early to email professors you are interested in working with (though I know some applicants do this as early as June), most online applications are not even open yet, and it’s difficult to fully solidify your final university/program list until faculty make decisions about their admissions plans. Despite my intentions of creating an admissions timeline and sticking to it to avoid anxiety that I’m not doing enough, it’s still creeping in. I do feel anxious, and I frequently wonder what else I should be working on during this lull. During those moments, I remind myself that I’m exactly at the point in the process I should be. I get out my spiral notebook and take notes when my thoughts are racing with ideas about admissions and my future career, but I try not to put pressure on myself to answer reflective journal prompts if the information isn’t flowing. I am oscillating between total confidence in myself as an applicant and utter despair about my chances, sometimes multiple times a day. Imposter syndrome is too real, and my previous experience with applications has set me up for disappointment. However, that won’t stop me from putting my absolute best effort forward, knowing that I have pushed myself to grow and evolve with each application cycle.
The combination of application anticipation and pandemic-induced cabin fever has resulted in a mild (okay – major) case of procrastination. I am currently working on my first-ever first author paper, which is super exciting, but have found myself endlessly scrolling through the manuscript document thinking about the edits I need to make without actually making them. I desperately miss posting up at a coffee shop for an afternoon and plugging away at tasks without any of the typical home distractions (read: my cute cats, the dishes in the sink, the laundry that needs to be put away…). That is my round-about way of explaining why a new blog post was late – my pandemic brain is in a slump. I think it’s important to be transparent about how we are actually doing during this completely unprecedented period rather than pretending productivity is better than ever – some days, I have laser focus; some days, achieving the bare minimum expected from me feels like pure torture. It’s a constant ebb and flow. I know I’m not alone in this experience. I actually love working from home, and hope the WFH revolution continues after the pandemic has passed. It’s an open and shut case of wanting what I can’t have – a chance to work somewhere else if I felt like it.
When I find myself struggling with my various tasks, I am thinking of all of you. I frequently wonder how other folks are doing attempting to navigate lost jobs, lost research opportunities, applications, and regular life stress that is exacerbated by the coronavirus. I sincerely hope you are carving out time to reset and recharge. We could all use a little extra self-compassion these days.
Okay - back to our regularly scheduled programming.
One of the aspects of admissions I’ve been mulling over recently are the multiple types of training models available, and how they are related to specific degrees or career paths. The training philosophy of a program is something essential to consider while whittling down your final list of universities. The specific training model utilized by a program is usually directly related to the type of career you are prepared for following graduation. Let’s take a look at the three training models typically offered by clinical psychology graduate programs.
Scientist-practitioner model aka the Boulder model
This model developed following a conference held in Boulder, CO back in 1949 sponsored by the Veterans Administration and the National Institute of Mental Health. It emerged as a necessity to unite two competing approaches regarding psychology graduate work. Those that advocated for the scientist portion of the model believed research foundations were imperative for developing effective and efficacious treatment models. Those that advocated for the practitioner side of the model held that active clinical engagement with populations were paramount, and that trends would emerge over time which would inform research questions or design. The resulting scientist-practitioner model emphasizes the synergy between research and clinical training, with both holding equal weight of importance throughout the program and future careers. Programs that employ this model of training believe that integration of science and practice is essential for growth in each respective area, and that one cannot function properly without training and experience in the other. According to the APA, “The purpose of the model is to ensure that practitioners contribute to the scientific development of their field. The training emphasizes research techniques applicable to therapeutic settings.” Graduating from a scientist-practitioner program would prepare folks to work in both research and therapeutic settings. It is considered one of the more versatile training models, with graduates working in academia, public service sectors, and private practice.
Scholar-practitioner model aka the Vail model
The scholar-practitioner model was developed as an alternative to the research heavy scientist-practitioner model following the Vail Conference on Professional Training in Psychology. Proponents of this model suggested that an additional approach was needed to prepare folks that were more interested in applied clinical practice. These programs typically encourage consumption of research rather than direct involvement in the research process, making in an attractive option for applicants mainly attracted to clinical work. While these programs do usually require a dissertation, it is typically focused on applied clinical issues. This model prepares graduates for private practice or therapeutic work, but some graduates will work in academia, particularly in PsyD programs.
Clinical scientist model
This model was created following the publication of “Manifesto for a Science of Clinical Psychology” (McFall, 1991). This model stipulates that students pursuing graduate level education in clinical psychology need to be trained primarily in the science of psychology. Students attending a program focused on clinical science could expect to be heavily involved in research from the beginning of their program, working with faculty to produce original research. Activities in programs following this model include writing grant applications, presenting work at conferences, and publishing manuscripts. The clinical training within these programs is heavily focused on EBPs (evidence-based practices), as these treatment approaches have typically been heavily researched. Clinical science values rigorous scientific training and research above all else, which then helps to inform evidence-based treatment approaches. The clinical science model best prepares students for careers in academia and research institutions such as government agencies. It is also the only model that has its own accreditation association – PCSAS. If you are drawn to programs that employ the clinical science model, it may be useful to see if the program is accredited by PCSAS.
PhD versus PsyD
Typically, the type of training model utilized by a program will inform the type of degree earned and vice versa. For example, the scientist-practitioner and clinical science models will usually lead to a PhD, while the practitioner-scholar model will award the PsyD. This is another crucial element in deciding which training model is the right fit for you. For some careers, it is essential to have a PhD, and for others, a PsyD might be a better fit.
One note I want to make here is while there are certain guidelines and expectations, there are almost always exceptions to the rule. A handful of PsyD programs follow a different training model than most, preparing graduates for a wider range of career opportunities with more rigorous scientific training. It’s always important to do your own due diligence while researching programs and how a program will prepare you for your future career. So, let’s look at some general characteristics of PhD and PsyD programs.
PhD
As previously mentioned, the PhD degree will typically follow a scientist-practitioner or clinical science model of training. These models place more emphasis on research, and often work to prepare graduates for careers in academia or other research institutions. Of course, many PhD graduates go on to work in private practice or other clinical roles, but the foundations of their graduate work were rooted in scientific principles. Some characteristics of PhD programs include:
· Funding – almost all psychology PhD programs are funded (meaning tuition is waived) and offer a stipend of some kind to graduate students
· Longer time to graduation – PhD programs take anywhere from 5 – 7 years, with most students averaging 6 years
· More focus on independent research
· More focus on publishing and presenting
· Most PhD programs follow a mentorship model, meaning students are accepted to work with a particular faculty member within a program - this means that cohort sizes are generally very small (10 or less per year)
PsyD
PsyD programs most often follow the practitioner-scholar model of training to prepare students for clinical careers. Again, some PsyD graduates may work in other sectors, but usually graduates are working in a clinical capacity of some kind. Some characteristics of PsyD programs include:
· Shorter time to graduation – most programs are completed in 4 to 5 years, cutting down the amount of time spent in school
· Acceptance of other graduate work – some programs will accept master’s level work
· Not usually funded – one barrier for PsyD programs is the cost
· Larger cohort sizes
· Less focus on research and more emphasis on clinical competency
· More variation in training and level of prestige – make sure students in a program are able to find APA-accredited internships
There are a wide range of factors to consider when choosing a training model and, more importantly, the corresponding degree type. One method I’ve found most helpful is working backwards.
Picture yourself in 10 years from now, graduated from a program and settling into your career. What sort of work are you doing? Are you heavily involved in academia, teaching and conducting research? Are you running your own private practice or consulting for businesses? Are you doing a bit of both – research and clinical work? Where are you working? What does your schedule look like? Are you comfortable with student debt (if choosing a PsyD) or are you comfortable with being in a program for longer (if choosing a PhD)? Will you need a postdoc or a clinical internship for these positions?
These are some of the crucial questions you should be asking yourself while choosing a degree type and training model. Even more important is research individual programs to make sure they will prepare you for the type of career you want. After working backwards from your desired career path, you can better choose an option that suits your unique needs. Be sure to think critically about the kinds of skills you want to learn in graduate school – start making a list of what you hope to learn, and what you want to be prepared to do once you leave a program. These are helpful exercises to determine to which programs you will apply.
How else are you deciding on which program is right for you? Drop ideas in the comments if you have them.
Next week, the much-anticipated PI email post is scheduled for Monday August 10th. Keep an eye out!