Unfortunately many schools w

 ,Sent from my iPad

On Sep 11, 2011, at 1:24 PM, "Lilienfeld, Scott O" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Jim - Yes, well put.  My primary concern, which you've explained well, is 
> that the increasingly common practice among clinical Ph.D. programs of 
> accepting only students who wish to pursue academic/research careers may 
> inadvertently widen the already wide science-practice gap.  Clinically 
> oriented students who are scientifically minded or at least open to 
> scientific approaches (and yes, many such students do exist) will instead go 
> largely to Psy.D. programs where, as Jim notes, they will typically receive 
> training that is not scientifically rigorous (there are a few honorable 
> exceptions among Psy.D. programs, like Rutgers, Argosy in DC, and perhaps 
> Denver, as Annette observes, but in my experience these are outliers).
> 
>   An argument I've made in my own clinical program, with minimal success, is 
> that our field desperately needs scientiifically-minded practitioners to 
> deliver evidence-based interventions, serve as scientific role models for 
> their fellow clinicians, supervise graduate students in 
> scientifically-grounded assessment and treatment techniques, offer continuing 
> education workshops that integrate science with practice, and so on.  I very 
> much worry that the current trend of discouraging scientifically-minded 
> students who aspire to practice careers from applying to clinical Ph.D. 
> programs will deprive the field of practitioners who have received high 
> quality scientific training.
> 
>    But at the risk of being cynical, most of my academic colleagues here and 
> at other research-oriented clinical psychology programs are less concerned 
> about the future of the field at large than with the success of their own 
> research activities. That's where the reinforcement contigencies lie.  These 
> faculty members want research-oriented students to staff and run their 
> laboratories and help them with their grant-funded research, so the current 
> admissions system works well for them.  But we may pay a price in the long 
> run.
> 
> .....Scott
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Jim Clark [[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 12:30 PM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: RE: [tips] Clinical training: Boulder and Denver
> 
> Hi
> 
> James M. Clark
> Professor of Psychology
> 204-786-9757
> 204-774-4134 Fax
> [email protected]
> 
>>>> "Lilienfeld, Scott O" <[email protected]> 11-Sep-11 7:36:26 AM >>>
>      But more and more, Boulder model programs are discouraging students with 
> primary career interests in clinical practice from applying for graduate 
> school, largely because dozens and dozens of Psy.D programs are already 
> available to do that (and there's no research evidence that Ph.D.s are 
> associated with superior therapy outcomes to Psy.D.s).  Also, the costs of 
> graduate training at most clinical psychology programs are enormous (e.g., at 
> Emory, we fund offer guaranteed funding for 4 years, with full tuition 
> remissiion, about a $17,000 a year stipend, coverage of health insurance and 
> other fees; and our clinical program is not markedly atypical from other 
> clinical Ph.D. programs), and many graduate programs do not want to invest 
> >$100,000 and years of research training in a student who will go out and 
> perform full-time therapy, especially when there is no evidence (and pretty 
> good evidence to the contrary from meta-analyses) that their treatment 
> outcomes will be superior to those of B.A. level paraprofessionals (I have 
> decidedly mixed feelings about this argument, but take it for what it is).
> 
> JC
> 
> One potential downside to this division is that it would appear to give up on 
> the possibility that in the future psychological practice might have stronger 
> scientific foundations that require a deeper understanding of human behavior 
> and experience than can be transmitted in an undergraduate degree or even in 
> a PsyD (especially as currently constituted).  It is hard to draw complete 
> parallels with other professions that do not have PhDs as the top 
> professional degree, but MDs do differ from Nurses, Dentists differ from 
> Dental Hygenists, and so on.  Psychological practice based on an 
> undergraduate degree would appear to place psychology on par with Social 
> Workers and Occupational Therapists.  And the shortcomings in the current 
> versions of PsyDs, as alluded to by Scott, means perhaps that PsyDs are not a 
> lot better than undergraduate degrees (my interpretation, not necessarily 
> Scott's).
> 
> Another problem is that we relinquish training of practitioners to 
> institutions that are generally less completely scientific than university 
> psychology departments and that are probably outright anti-scientific in some 
> cases.  What does that augur for the future interface between the Clinical 
> Scientists and Practitioners?  To again draw an analogy with Medicine, would 
> the results of research in the medical field be less likely to be 
> disseminated and adopted widely if the researchers were not trained initially 
> as practitioners?  Indeed, it even seems at least unusual to think of, for 
> example, a Prostate Cancer research centre that was not headed by a medical 
> practitioner and that did not also serve as a primary treatment centre.
> 
> Take care
> Jim
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9b2f&n=T&l=tips&o=12584
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-12584-13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
> the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
> or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
> prohibited.
> 
> If you have received this message in error, please contact
> the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
> original message (including attachments).
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13191.978362ce7b096266e2cefb878aa3250b&n=T&l=tips&o=12586
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-12586-13191.978362ce7b096266e2cefb878aa32...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
> 


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=12588
or send a blank email to 
leave-12588-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Reply via email to