Sorry all. Clearly I am still a novice with this iPad. I coordinate an MS program in clinical/counseling psych at a regional university. We have had some interest in a clinical or counseling psych program, but we've been more or less blocked by our larger state-school brethren. Granted, a few years back our sister regional university was allowed to begin a PsyD program, but as far as I can tell, a PhD program has been blocked. We are moving more into a research-based institution, but I think a school like ours would be more suited to the type of balance being discussed. David Wasieleski
,Sent from my iPad On Sep 11, 2011, at 2:02 PM, "David T. Wasieleski" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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=13191.978362ce7b096266e2cefb878aa3250b&n=T&l=tips&o=12588 > or send a blank email to > leave-12588-13191.978362ce7b096266e2cefb878aa32...@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=12589 or send a blank email to leave-12589-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
