I was notified today by an admission counselor that CCU is now offering the Psy.D degree. More importantly CCU's psychology doctorates no longer qualify graduates for California licensure.
Any indication as to why they switched from a Ph.D. to a Psy.D.? My foggy memory tells me that it's been Psy.D. programs that have fared better in terms of accreditation and approval for licensure. Rich Douglas
I'm a bit confused...if no CCU doctorate will qualify for licensure anymore, then what does it matter if they offer the Ph.D. or the Psy.D.? Bruce
CCU did not replace the Ph.D program but rather added the Psy.D. I am not sure why but I think CCU probably was in the process of applying for Psy.D approval when [they] lost licensure for the Ph.D program. Keep in mind the Psy.D does not require a dissertation so for those not wanting to practice psychology this would be the path of least resistence. Wes
According to an admissions counselor at CCU, as of 1-1-01, no state approved degree qualifies one to take the exam for psychology licensure in CA. CCU was not singled out, but due to a change in qualification for licensure, degrees from non-RA schools are no longer accepted. Russell
My foggy memory tells me that it's been Psy.D. programs that have fared better in terms of accreditation and approval for licensure. Rich Douglas[/B][/QUOTE] Rich, this is interesting. As a graduate of a university-based Ph.D. program I admit I have a bias. On the other hand, I try to keep an open mind. In what way have PsyD programs fared better. APA accreditation, %graduates who pass the EPPP first time, etc? Thanks, David
The Psy.D. was initially conceived some 40-50 years ago as a degree for practitioner's---somewhat of a "professional degree" as is an MD or JD. The majority of doctorate programs in psychology remain Ph.D.'s. It is important to understand, however, that the only degree programs that the APA accredits are doctorates and then only those in in "professional psychology": clinical, counseling and school. (Yes, that is why Harvard's or Stanford's or MIT's, etc. doctorate programs in developmental or social or experimental or academic or whatever, are "unaccredited.") Even in the context of professional psychology, the Ph.D. is still the most frequently conferred degree. The Psy.D. has, however, likley ecplised the Ed.D, in counseling and school psychology in frequency. There is no evidence, however, that Psy.D. programs achieve APA accreditation more rapidly than Ph.D. or Ed.D. programs. It is probably more accurate to say that Psy.D., programs achieve APA accreditation much more readily than they did in the past. It has taken far longer than some had hoped for the Psy.D. to gain acceptance. The Psy.D., IMHO, have not yet achieved the academic status or reputation of the Ph.D. (or even the Ed.D.) even though in many cases, requirements for the Ph.D. and Psy.D. programs within the same school often run parallel. (The difference often being that the Ph.D. students takes an extra statistics/research course and auhors a dissertation while the Psy.D. student takes an additional clinical course or performs a lengthier internship and writes a "doctorate project".) As far as California Coast introducing a Psy.D. program that qualifies the earner of such a degree for nothing, well, that is a mystery. Maybe they wanted to differentiate the Psy.D. from their Ph.D. which use to qualify earners to sit for the CA licensing exam. I imagine people who already hold licensure in psychology who were grandfathered-in with master's degrees (which was the requirement years ago in many states) may see a benefit for earning such a doctorate from CCU. Jeffrey
Jeffery as someone about to enter into a PhD in Psychology program I just wanted to clarify a point: you said " (Yes, that is why Harvard's or Stanford's or MIT's, etc. doctorate programs in developmental or social or experimental or academic or whatever,are "unaccredited.") When you used the term unaccredited you were speaking of APA accrediation.The schools and programs are still regionally accredited are they not? I guess the phrasing of that paragraph also implies (at least to me)that they are illegitimate in some way. Generally I like to say that a program is not APA approved.
You are right---that is why I placed <<unaccredited>> in quotation marks. I in no way was implying that Harvard, et. al. was unaccredited. But, come on, ya gotta know that there has been a long standing rumor that many ivy league school's doctorate programs in psychology are unaccredited. I thought I was helping to clarify it! Afteal, APA accreditation is often essential to even get the remotest chance of a job offer. Specifically, when people talk about APA accreditation, many do not realize that the APA accredits only doctorate programs (okay, internship sites too)not master's degree programs, and then only in Professional Psychology. Any organization that requires a job applicant to have graduated from an APA accredited program (as is the case with many universities, psychiatric hospitals and governemental agencies)will not likely hire someone who doesn't---even if the have a PhD from Stanford! To sum up my original post: 1. There is no evidence to suggest that newly formed Psy.D. programs are more likely or are more readily accredited by the APA than Ph.D. or Ed.D. 2. That new Psy.D. programs gain accreditation more quickly than new Ph.D. programs incorrectly implies that Psy.D.'s hold more prestige or meet APA standards more so than the Ph.D. (or Ed.D.). Unfortunately, despite the fact that many Psy.D. programs parallel the same school's Ph.D. program, the Ph.D. is still the degree of choice in many situations. 3. Since California Coast's Psy.D. will not allow holders to sit for the CA lisencing exam, I believe that there are questionable motives for someone jus starting-out in the field pursuing such a degree. Jeffrey
Jeffrey's synopsis of the PhD/PsyD difference is pretty clear and to the point. One additional data point which may help to put things in perspective is the issue of training model. Applied psychologists were traditionally trained in a "scientist-practitioner" model. Over time, there was concern this model didn't fit and the movement which culminated in the Doctor of Psychology degree galvanized around the issue of training psychologists as "clinician-scholars." This opened the door to "free-standing" schools which are not affiliated with a university which I believe at this point produce as much as 50% of the current graduates. The issue of model as I recall is now moot; the program is free to pursue its model of choice. I'm still interested in what Rich meant about PsyD/PhD accreditation rates.
Jeffrey, Sorry I didn't mean to detract from the point of this thread. I guess I was thinking about a new person to the forum unfamiliar with accreditation or someone from another country who may not know the difference between professional accreditation and regional accreditation . I thought some clarification might help. mark
Aw, shucks. I thought I was making a passing comment about a foggy notion, not taking a stand on the Rock of Ages. I thought I remembered something about Fielding's Psy.D. program getting APA accredited first. Or was it California School of Professional Psychology? Neither? Anyway, it was an off-hand comment about something I don't know enought about. Thanks to Jeff, et. al. for providing actual substance instead of the drivel I gave. Still, I wonder about the Psy.D. programs at those schools. Rich Douglas, who shouldn't come near a psychology doctoral program except as the demented subject of someone's dissertation.
