Is a PSYD from CSU worthwhile if not leading to licensing?

California Southern University is currently offering up to a very generous thirty credits of relevant doctoral level credits eligible for transfer into their PsyD program. If all thirty credits are accepted, this leaves only 12 courses to complete plus the doctoral project.

Although one can be licensed as a Psychologist with a non APA PSYD program in California and some other states, NYS and a number of other states will not accept this degree.

Of course if one wishes to obtain a RA doctorate to add to their professional credentials, this is a very attractive offer. However, the degree program, including textbooks and other fees will still cost over $22,000. In addition, from what I have learned is that the course work is very demanding and intensive, taking anywhere from 20-25 hours a week of study per course.

 

Your question is obviously subjective - what do you mean by "worthwhile," kimosabe?

You're asking whether it would be "worthwhile" to earn a non-APA Psy.D. from a school that will presumably not qualify you to take the psych boards (in whatever state you are in), a school that, while RA, is a for-profit so-called online university?

I guess my return question is also subjective, as well as rhetorical: What are you, nuckin' futs?

 

You would have to be crazy to want to leave California for New York. California Southern University is, as far as I know, license-qualifying here in California.

Add an RA doctorate to their professional credentials to what end?

I don't think that this school has a strong academic reputation for psychological research. So their PsyD looks to me like a pretty generic credential. It isn't going to add a whole lot of lustre to a researcher or a psychological scholar in a professional context where most people have doctorates from more prominent schools.

That's pretty cheap for the sort of doctoral program that doesn't offer doctoral student tuition waivers and stipends. (Most DL programs don't.) Many B&M doctoral programs pay their students to attend them. Which is one of the reasons why they can be so selective.

I could afford $22K I guess, but I'm not really motivated to do it. I'm not particularly motivated to puff myself up by calling myself "Doctor".

I do think that it looks like a relatively affordable way to get the education necessary to qualify for a California clinical psychology license. That looks like this kind of program's most appropriate niche at this point.

 

I would AVOID this school. There was a thread about degree collector that Tekman crated in the IT subforum. It was about this individual getting a DBA in Cybersecurity (they have no cybersecurity or computer science classes). So somehow this school is offering him a DBA despite having no classes in Cybersecurity, or the guy is misrepresenting his degree--both are quite possible. Well, I went to view it to comment it, and now I get constantly advertising banners from that site. I even went to one site for an entirely different purpose, unrelated to this board or education, and the site claimed to help find county property records, which what I was looking for. Well, they redirected me to California Southern University, when I clicked a link that claimed to take me to a page for searching county property records. Why did it do this? The reason is because California Southern University paid for them to redirect me due to cookies present on my computer from visiting their site. Had they not done so, I would have been redirected to some other site. Would any legitimate university resort to such unscrupulous "advertising" methods? I hardly think so!

Find a real program from a real school, or plan for a different career.

 

Here's a little collection of things that have been said on DI on this general topic

If you can be licensed at the Masters level then it doesn't really matter if you can't get licensed at the Doctoral level.
The PsyD, in addition to helping you to develop professional skills, is a good marketing advantage over other, non-doctoral practitioners.
The ROI for these degrees is pretty slim. If you do it earlier in your career the ROI improves markedly . . . too late and you might not get your money back.
The licensure thing is not a big deal. If you live in Califiornia you're not likely to move to New York (or are you?). Who cares if there are states where you can't be licensed, you're not going to move there anyway.
Most people who earn a PsyD are practitioners, not academics. It's unlikely you'll be able to teach beyond the CC level will such a degree.

So if you put it all together, they answer to your question is . . . maybe.

 

It can be. It is affordable and accredited. You may move to a State that does not require APA.

One of the difficulties with a PsyD is that it is so specific as to cause people to assume you are a Licensed Psychologist. I know some LCSWs (etc) earn it to be called doctor. In my opinion it is probably better to earn a PhD, EdD, and some others that do not cause people to assume you are a Psychologist.

 

I guess I'm going to do a little nit-picking here. Since PsyD is the abbreviation for Doctor of Psychology, it is, in my opinion, a little silly to try to maintain that someone with a PsyD is not a Psychologist.

 

It is a little like seeing someone with an M.D. You assume they earned the degree and became licensed.

Not sure how you are meaning what you said Kizmet but you bring up a point that has been occassionally argued in court. Psychology has significant control over the term in most states and takes people to court and fines them. In some cases, people have argued that they have a right to call themselves a Psychologist due to have the doctorate (as a Sociologist or Philosopher would). In Texas the Psychology Board lost over a case of a woman who was fined for practicing Psychology without a license. The court agreed that the Boards definition was too broad (Serafine vs...).

 

It is a little like seeing someone with an M.D. You assume they earned the degree and became licensed.

Not sure how you are meaning what you said Kizmet but you bring up a point that has been occassionally argued in court. Psychology Boards have significant control over the term in most states and takes people to court and fines them. In some cases, people have argued that they have a right to call themselves a Psychologist due to having the doctorate (as a Sociologist or Philosopher would). In Texas the Psychology Board lost over a case of a woman who was fined for practicing Psychology without a license. The court agreed that the Boards definition was too broad (Serafine vs...).

 

Right. That's why I question the ethics of people who aren't licensed clinical psychologists adding 'PsyD' after their names simply in hopes of acquiring marketing advantage. If it's illegal for practitioners without valid clinical psychology licenses to hold themselves out to prospective patients as 'psychologists', and at some point they do inform those prospective patients that they are not in fact psychologists, prominently featuring the 'PsyD' after their names obviously sends a mixed-message. They would seem to be denying that they are psychologists with their mouths, while proclaiming it on the shingle outside their office. And many prospective patients aren't going to be tremendously sophisticated about these matters and may in some cases be in psychological distress. I don't like it.

 

Agreed. If you want a doctorate get one that is not specifically screaming Psychologist.

 

Fir

Secondly, there are mental health professionals who in spite of this PsyD program not lw

 

A clinical Mental Health Professional at the Masters level needs to be very cautious regarding potentially misrepresenting their professional title or credentials to the public.

That being said, if the Clinician clearly displays the license of their respective discipline (ie, Mental Health counseling, Social Work, etc) after their name, followed by the PsyD, along with a written Informed Consent Form (which the client reads and signs) clearly indicating that they are licensed in their discipline, are not licensed Psychologists but possess a doctorate in Psychology, they are basically on solid ground and not culpable of professional misconduct.

 

​

I believe the proper term for Jan's response is "discombobulated."

No wonder I find this forum so entertaining.

 

And I believe that the appropriate term for your response is "useless"!

 

This makes sense to me.

 

Dear God, are we back to that Rich Douglas argument about how non-psychologists with PsyDs are being unethical? Here are some notes from NY on the topic.

In New York, while informed consent forms are not unheard of, they are by no means required or common among mental health practitioners. There is no fine ethical line unless people use misleading titles.

As an example, a psychology license entitles one to be referred to as a "Licensed Psychologist." A professor of I/O psychology is, by virtue of being an expert in the field of psychology, still allowed to refer to him/herself as a "psychologist" and market him/herself as such provided they are not offering a service for which licensure would be required.

John Smith, PsyD
Industrial and Organizational Psychologist

Perfectly legal without a license. IO Psychologists don't diagnose or treat individual patients. The above example, however, would be perfectly acceptable for someone renting themselves out to companies as a consultant.

New York also licenses psychoanalysts. The requirement for that is ANY Masters degree plus approved psychoanalysis training (you get a diploma from the approved programs). As such, licensed psychoanalysts almost universally market themselves with the post-nominals of whatever their degree is.

Amy Smith, M.A.
Licensed Psychoanalyst

All of those statements are correct and would not subject John Smith to any disciplinary action, I called and checked, even if Amy Smith's MA is in Ancient History.

Where things get hairy is when John Smith, PsyD tries something like this:

John Smith, PsyD
Psychologist and Licensed Mental Health Counselor

Technically, both might be accurate. The juxtaposition of those otherwise harmless terms combined with the fact that John Smith is marketing to attract PATIENTS, as opposed to academia or consulting work with companies, takes it much closer to the line.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with:

Erin Smith, PsyD LCSW
Licensed Clinical Social Worker

Any more than there would be anything wrong with:

Erin Smith, PsyD MSW
Licensed Psychologist

The MSW is a degree, not a license. A PsyD is a degree and not a license.

While informed consent forms are not common here, ALL providers must clearly indicate their license number and the license type on reimbursements for insurance billing and it must be prominently displayed.

Even still, I reiterate as I have times before, the various classes of mental health practitioners are not a hierarchy. They are different professions with different requirements and different roles and responsibility. While a psychologist can certainly offer psychotherapy, so can an LCSW (with endorsement), an LMHC or an LMFT. The things a psychologist can do that these other professionals cannot do are fairly limited. If you actually NEEDED a psychologist, you're going to search for a psychologist and not base that decision on post-nominals alone. Insurance coverage would likely be the determining factor for most.

It just really isn't an issue except on this board.

To the original point, as always, if your goal is licensure then a program not leading to licensure is not a good option.

 

So no one should earn a doctorate in Psychology?

 

Perhaps you should reread the thread.