Using PsyD after a name once graduated from a state-approved Ryokan?

Hello, everyone!

After reading you all I figured someone here will be able to answer my question for sure, as there seems to be a lot of knowledgeably people here.

My MA of Psychology is from DETC accredited CalSouthern and based on it I am currently gaining my intern hours towards licensure, I am also currently doing my PsyD in MFT at Ryokan (a pretty good school actually for a state approved level). The Ryokan degree is to gain more understanding into the field and to prepare me better for my ongoing internship and not for licensure, as I am pursuing an MFT license based on my MA.

My question is this, once graduated will I be able to legally use PsyD after my name in the state of California? Also if anybody has any information regarding if I will be able to do the same in Nevada or any other state. I do realized that in those states I will not be able to use it for license, I am asking if I will simply be able to put PsyD on a resume, let's say in Nevada, while also mentioning my DETC MA, which is considered accredited here, and be OK as far as not violating any serious rules. So just to reiterate, the latter is not for the purpose of confusing anyone regarding me being licensed in that state as those are different things, but simply because in CA I do have a PsyD degree.. Well, will have, hopefully rather soon.

Also, and this question is for the psychology field graduates of the state-approved schools only. What I mean by that I am looking for someone to share their actual real life experience about how the fact that their degree is from a state-approved school has limited them in their career if at all. I would deeply appreciate any responses!

Thanks to everyone in advance!
Amy T.

 

Ryokan is state-approved in California, and so there should be no problem with their degrees in-state.

But out-of-state is a different story. It's a tricky issue, because there are two concerns that have to be balanced:

(1) If you legitimately earn a state-approved degree, then you should have the right to tell the truth;
(2) But other states have the legitimate right to establish minimum standards for degrees, and to reject out-of-state degrees that don't meet those standards.

A common way to resolve these issues is to (1) allow the out-of-state degree to be advertised, but (2) require a disclaimer that the degree does not meet in-state standards.

For example, Oregon is well known for its unaccredited degree disclaimer. Under Oregon law, you could legally advertise a CA-approved PsyD in Oregon, but you would be required to add the following:

The Nevada Bar has issued a similar opinion regarding attorneys who have a Nevada address, but are only licensed to practice in other states, e.g. California. In this case, you could legally advertise yourself in Nevada as a California-licensed attorney, but you would be required to add a disclaimer that you were not licensed to practice in Nevada. Of course, this decision applies to licenses, but it would be reasonable to use the same approach for degrees.

Exact laws and rules are subject to change from state to state. If you want to advertise a CA-approved degree in another state where it is not recognized, the safest approach may be to attach a disclaimer.

 

Make sure it is leagal to use the degree! Call the state you plan to move to.

 

This is not something that I know a lot about but isn't there a difference between earning a degree (PsyD) and having a license to practice? Another example might be if I were to earn a law degree I could put the JD after my name but that doesn't mean that I've passed the bar. Is it that the degree (PsyD) implies the license to practice or is this an assumption made by others? I'm guessing that this is explicitly described in the laws of some states but not others.

 

AmyTaya, due to the fact that Ryokan is not regionally or even DETC accredited but solely approved by the state of California, you need to contact the boards of licensure of Nevada and any other states you plan to use the Psy.D title, to determine their rules and regulations pertaining to using such titles and whether they may represent an act of professional misconduct. If any representative from these boards verbally states that you can legally use the Psy.D title, request this permission in writing. However, it is most likely that by using the title "Psy.D", with a degree from Ryokan, it will be perceived as a misrepresentation to the public as if you are a practicing Psychologist, which would result in the board of licensure alleging professional misconduct. So make certain that you do your homework very diligently prior to using this title on any of your professional marketing and advertising material because you will be placing your professional license in MFT in jeopardy!

 

Hi simon - As I said earlier, this is not my thing but I'm wondering what you've based this statement on. You're saying this is true in most or all states? Is this something that you've actually checked or is this an educated guess?

 

There have been numerous threads about this in the past. Here's the situation here in California. From the California Business and Professions Code:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=02001-03000&file=2900-2919

If an MFT is proposing to advertise him/herself to clients as a PsyD in hopes of gaining competitive advantage, that seems to be skating pretty close to the edge of the law.

My impression is that it isn't uncommon though and that lots of MFTs are doing it.

So I agree pretty heartily with Simon and think that Amy would be best advised to direct her questions directly to the relevant licensing boards in any states in which she anticipates practicing.

If the California Behavioral Sciences Board (and the rest) don't think that it's a problem, fine. But if they advise her not to do it, then she shouldn't do it.

http://www.bbs.ca.gov/

 

The rules and regulations relating to the appropriate use of professional academic titles, such as Psy.D, as well as appropriate professional conduct (and misconduct) are pretty much standard for the majority of states as are the penalties for violating them.

 

Would using the title "Professor of Psychology" as granted by a state university be a violation of this law???

 

Generally, if an individual holds an academic appointment in a university, such as Professor of Psychology, it is not a violation of Psychology state boards of licensures' rules and regulations pertaining to professional misconduct if that title is used within the context of their employment. However, it is always important to obtain a written statement from one's board of licensure indicating that they are allowed to do so.

 

OK, I wasn't aware that these rules were so widely applied.

 

It's in the California B&P code.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=02001-03000&file=2900-2919

Interestingly, the very next section covers the exact same ground in an at-times inconsistent way:

I'm speculating that the first version was a subsequent amendment that altered the earlier language in 2910, but for some reason its author stuck it in 2909 as paragraph (c) and didn't alter the wording in 2910. So apparently, it's both legal and illegal for university professors in California to call themselves psychologists and to charge fees for their lectures. I think that in real life, everyone in California behaves as if 2909 (c) is the law. (Otherwise, there's lots of professors at places like Stanford's psychology department that are going to have to be hauled off in handcuffs.)

You know, both the 2909 and the 2010 versions appear to make private non-academic psychologial research institutions illegal in California, even if they don't provide any sort of clinical or counseling services and restrict their interest to things like studying the molecular genetics of insect behavior. I suspect that's an unintended consequence of some poorly written legal text. (It's hard to foresee every eventuality when you are composing this stuff.)

Maybe the growing control of the words 'psychologist' and 'psychology' by clinical psychologists and by the laws designed to regulate them is one of the contributing factors in the growing use of the term 'cognitive science' among individuals who a generation ago would probably have termed themselves 'psychological researchers'. Other factors might be the growing impact of computer science in the profession along with the decline in interest in once-iconic stuff like psychoanalysis (now seemingly kept alive by French literary theorists).

When I was an undergraduate in the 1970's (35 years ago!) psychiatric MDs ruled the roost and the idea of PhDs in clinical psychology was still new, avant-garde and fighting for acceptance and a place in the sun. 1970's 'psychologists' were typically research scientists, not quasi-medical practitioners.

That's all changed dramatically since then and the psychological scientists have apparently been trampled underfoot in everyone's mad rush to don white coats and treat patients.

Now it's a whole new wave of outsiders (MFTs, clinical social workers, and who knows who else) that are crashing the gates and pushing for their own expanded clinical practices, drug prescription privileges and those very lucrative white coats and "doctor" titles that aways impress us ignorant laymen rubes.

 

Yes, there is a difference between holding the degree and holding the license, and that is the root of the issue.

It's true, for example, that one could hold a perfectly legitimate JD degree without having passed the bar exam. In theory, an individual in that situation could truthfully claim the title of JD.

In practice, however, the General Public conflates the academic title of "JD" with "practicing attorney" (or, for example, "MD" with "practicing physician"). If you use the title of "JD", most people will not follow up with further questions to ascertain your bar registration status -- they will simply assume that you are entitled to practice law.

So the use of the "JD" or other academic titles by an unlicensed individual has real potential to mislead or deceive people. It's professionally risky to do this. If someone does feel misled or deceived, and files a complaint with the appropriate state licensing board, then the board will typically side with the innocent layman -- they probably won't take the side of the unlicensed individual who knowingly used a title with misleading implications.

For more info, you should consult a (licensed) attorney or the appropriate state licensing board. Alternatively, if you hold professional E&O (errors and omissions) insurance, you can discuss it with your insurer -- they will not hesitate to tell you if your use of a particular title exposes you to liability.

 

Bill -

Very erudite post. And quite correct.

As someone who's working on going into the field of psychology, I've done a lot of research as far as the requirements and laws of various states. (Least of which has caused me to alter my degree plans to working on getting into one of the local B&M schools in my area that have APA accreditation for their clinical psychology programs).

I think its amusing, because currently the APA has its stranglehold across three areas which it accredits programs in, but have influenced many states that the only types of real or 'professional psychologist' are going to fall within those categories (Clinical, Counseling, and School). But once you get that license as a Clinical Psychologist, you can basically do anything across the field - Research, Teaching, Seeing Patients, developing theories on the effect of interpretive dance on the bladders of penguins between certain latitudes, whatever. In fact, in my research, Oklahoma's State Board of Health's 'Forensic' psychologists all had doctorates from clinical programs, with some training in the forensic area.

There are states that accept non-APA doctorates for licensure, true, but the pressure is growing to require APA accreditation of programs for licensure. And you can't get a job working for the federal government without an APA accredited doctorate. (The CIA & VA both pay rather well.)

Of course the other APA (American Psychiatric Association) is fighting the APA tooth and nail on, well, everything, because they think that you need a medical degree, make your patients wait 1/2 a hour past the appointment time before you see them for 10 minutes, toss a bunch of script forms at them, and charge them their copay, to really help a person's mental health. This also influences the laws which does a job on people trying to practice in the field of psychology.

 

Except there are JD programs that are not for licensure or Bar exams.
There are PhD and PsyD programs of the same nature. If you work as a consultant who evaluates customer purchasing habits why could you not use the PsyD after your name? As long as you do not offer services that are deemed to fall under the practice of a license you have broken no laws.

 

No, actually, in most states there aren't. Such programs exist in California, but even there are typically known as "Executive JD" degrees, to distinguish them from bar-qualifying JD degrees.

If you want to advertise a California "Executive JD" degree in some other state, you should check with the local bar association first, or at least attach a disclaimer to explain the limitations of the degree. The "Executive JD" may be a valid degree in California, but it could easily be misunderstood in other states where law schools never issue such degrees.

Because licensing laws commonly regulate the use of titles, as well as practices.

State law may bar the use of the word "psychology" in occupational titles without a license. For example, the California law quoted above does exactly that:

(1) A person may not "represent himself or herself to be a psychologist, without a license", and
(2) "a person represents himself or herself to be a psychologist when the person holds himself or herself out to the public by any title or description of services incorporating the words "psychology" ...

Does the title of "PsyD" incorporate the word "psychology", as indicated by (2)?
If so, then does a person using that title represent himself or herself as a psychologist, as per (2)?
If so, then may an unlicensed person do that, as per (1)?

 

Part of the problem that I'm having with this is that the discussion always seems to come back to "what is true in California." That may be relevant to some but, not to most. The original claim was that the stated restrictions were true virtually everywhere. So far, no evidence has been produced to demonstrate that most states are restrictive in such matters.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not say that these restrictions are a bad thing. This has nothing to do with me or my plans/goals. Maybe they're a good thing - if they really exist. The question is, do most states have regs that disallow these degrees? You can't just say "Yes" and leave it at that. Let's pile up some links! This is for the archives!

 

Per Oklahoma's State Board -Psychologist Licensing Act

Section 1353 lists the exemptions to the Act - IE when non-licensed people can use the label Psychologist or 'engage in the practices of psychology'

As to being able to list something along the lines of a PsyD, I did find this, which spells it out for LPCs, and I would assume that they spell it out for other professionals, but its late, and I'm tired..

 

AmyTaya: "...Also if anybody has any information regarding if I will be able to do the same in Nevada or any other state. I do realized that in those states I will not be able to use it for license, I am asking if I will simply be able to put PsyD on a resume, let's say in Nevada, while also mentioning my DETC MA, which is considered accredited here, and be OK as far as not violating any serious rules. So just to reiterate, the latter is not for the purpose of confusing anyone regarding me being licensed in that state as those are different things, but simply because in CA I do have a PsyD degree..."


As mentioned above but worth repeating, in the vast majority of states, using professional academic titles (ie, Psy.D, Ph.D, etc) on any marketing or advertising material implying to the public that one is a licensed Psychologist on any resumes, advertising or marketing material when in fact the professional is not a Licensed Psychologist in their respective state BUT holds an unaccredited doctorate in Psychology, can potentially result in an allegation of professional misconduct for misrepresentation of one's actual professional qualifications!

Now whether or not there are any doubts regarding the general statement above, as I stated previously, the concerned party should ALWAYS contact the state board of Psychology Licensure in which they plan to use their doctorate in Psychology and speak directly with the chair or executive secretary of the board regarding their intentions. IF given permission to use an unaccredited doctorate in Psychology as intended (which I doubt), obtain this approval in writing.

The following is a list of state boards of Psychology in the US where interested posters can review their respective rules and regulations. I advise that one engages in due diligence to ensure that they are in accord with their states policies as it relates to this issue.



Licensing Board Contact Information - Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards

 

Sorry, but there is no point in "piling up links for the archives". The problem is that the applicable laws and regulations are subject to constant legal modification. If someone digs this thread out of the archives months or years from now, any specific assertions regarding the use of a particular title in a particular state will be potentially out of date and inaccurate.

The bottom line is this:

(1) states can and do set different rules for recognition of degrees;

(2) states can and do restrict the use of out-of-state degrees that do not meet in-state standards;

(3) if you want to advertise an out-of-state degree that does not meet in-state standards, it's your responsibility to ensure that no misunderstandings occur. In some cases, like Oregon, it is criminal if you fail to attach a disclaimer to a substandard out-of-state degree.

(4) the exact laws and regulations affecting these issues are subject to change at any time, so you have to keep monitoring them if you are in this situation.