CCU to offer professional doctoral degrees the first quarter of 2007.

How'd you do that post (see above), simon?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clarification please?

One of the few times that I have been able to correct you, Ted. Usually, it is the other way around...

Dave

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clarification please?

OK.

 

Yawn < crickets chirping >

 

laferney: I would disagree with Simon on a few points. Counseling is a distinct profession from Psychology. There are different licensure routes for both and different professional organizations representing them. (ACA. AMHCA vs. APA. APS and their divisions).

SIMON: Yes they have different licensure routes and professional organizations. However, they share common roots, curriculums/coursework (ie, Theories of Personality, testing and assessment, psychopathology, treatment planning, Theories of Counseling/Psychotherapy, Human Development, Etc) and as mentioned previously Counselors with masters degrees are often accepted into Counseling Psychology doctoral programs due to the fact that the first two years of the master degree counseling curriculum is considered applicable to the four year full time counseling psychology doctoral program.

laferney: A person with a Masters degree in Counseling Psychology cannot call himself a licensed Psychologist in any state.

SIMON: Obviously!

laferney: A person with a Masters degree in Counseling and supervision can get a license as a Mental Heatlh Counselor.

SIMON: Yes, so?

laferney: Why would a person in Social work or Counseling get a Psy.D when doctoral programs are avalible in their own fields? How would a Psy.D help them more than a D.S.W?

SIMON: Because there are Social Workers/Counselors who wish to have a doctorate in Psychology rather than one a DSW or a Ph.D or Ed.D? That is their prerogative and right and as long as they are not engaging in unethical behavior, misrepresentation of their credentials and professional titles, providing their clients with a straightforward and ongoing disclosure of their competencies and limitations, and are in compliance with their respective state licensure boards' rules and regulation, there is absolutely nothing inappropriate, illegal or unethical in doing so.

laferney:If one is making a career change from Counselor or Social worker to a Psychologist that's great. But it's a career change .

SIMON: Incorrect! It is a CAREER UPGRADE. It is important to keep in mind that there is overlap and similarities between these mental health professions regardless of the fact that they have different licensure routes and professional organizations.

laferney: Of course we are ethically bound to disclose our training but if you are a LICSW with a Psy.D what do you disclose? " I have a Doctoral degree in Psychology but I'm not licensed as one and cannot offer services as a Psychologist. I'm a licensed social worker. Although there are some similaries in some roles when I do Psychotherapy I'm offering it and billing at the social worker rate"

SIMON: This is not rocket science. Using your example above, a Social Worker with a Psy.D would clearly disclose to a client that he/she practices Clinical Social Work, possesses a masters degree in Social Work and is licensed in the state of residence as a LCSW! The Social Worker would then indicate that their doctorate is in Psychology but that the clinician is solely practicing as A Social Worker. No more, no less.

This information should be presented verbally and in writing and the client should be given an opportunity to ask any questions they may need to clarify any issues regarding the clinicians education, credentials and services being offered that remain vague or unanswered so that the client can make an informed decision as to whether the services being offered are congruent with their needs.

lafereny: Counselors are not trained at the same level andepth as Psychologists for initial licensure.

SIMON: However, the extant research literature does not demonstrate that the therapeutic outcomes of Psychologists are superior to those of master level clinicians and that is the bottomline.

laferney: I'd disagree "that psychological assessment is actually irrelevant in the treatment of the severely mentally ill!" I find psychological testing reports very heplful in treating patients esp. neuropsychological testing reports.
While it is true that psychological testing including the Rorschach's popularity has decreased somewhat in recent decades it is still widely used. There have, however, been studies that support the validity of the Rorschach test. (Exner scoring)

SIMON: Yes, certain assessments can be helpful BUT do not substitute for the Psychologists" clinical observations, evaluations and clinical judgements. In other words they complement the Psychologist's clinical assessment skills and do not take precedence over them. Secondly the Rorshach test is highly contested as an accurate, reliable and valid assessment tool of psychopathology. There are a number of other assessment instruments that have clearly demonstrated their superiority to the Roschach in terms of more accurately diagnosing psychopathology.

laferney:"In short if in compliance there is absolutely no impropriety or illegally in doing so." Legally and ethically are 2 different things.
By ethically I don't see in your post any intent to purposely mislead a client or patient. But I do feel you might seen as a
Psychologist by a client or other providers if you sign your reports
Simon Psy.D without throwing in LMHC or LICSW, Psy.D.

SIMON: Oh thank you Oh great leader of the mental health community for stating that "I don't see in your (Simon's) post any intent to purposely mislead a client or patient"!
In fact, the confusion you note does not exist IF the clinician straightforwardedly presents their credentials with no intent to deceive, mislead or misrepresent who they are and what they do.

 

Forgot who was referring to the ra vs na. The USDoE recognition process does not differ in the recognition criteria for national or regional accreditation agencies - that is - what is required to meet that departments criteria to be recognized. Thus, the DETC according to the USDoE is equal to quality of programs, at least minimumly, as any other accreditation agency recognized by the USDoE. It is the RA's who put up the fist towards nationally accredited schools. Here is a paragraph from a letter I recently received from John Barth, Director, Accreditation and State Liaison;

"Because of the decentralized control of postsecondary education, the U. S. Department of Education does not have the legal authority to regulate the acceptance of education credentials. Educational institutions and private employers exercise their own discretinary authority in this area. In addition, state governments can have the authority to legislate on these matters without intervention by the federal government.

At this time there is no statutory or regulatory authority for the federal government to intervene in the area of transfer of credit. These determinations are left to the discretion of the receiving educational institution."

Only legislation is going to change this. So if you are concerned with this matter, contact your congress rep. I am also gleaning from this that individual states can legislate to enforce transfer of credits between nationally accredited and regionally accredited schools. Is this what any of you glean from this?

Robbie

 

I can see that Simon has now lost his ability to debate and now has to resort to name calling and sarcasim.
HIs statment that it is a career upgrade is certainly an insult to counselors and Social workers who would say they are peers to psychologists -"an upgrade"
"Oh thank you Oh great leader of the mental health community"
is uncalled for"
I must now as PsychPhD did call you out on your credentials in the mental health community.
What mental health dicipline are you licensed in?
I don't profess to be a " great leader of the mental health community" But I am a Licensed mental health counselor, Advanced Practice RN, Board Certifed With full prescriptive authority, teach psychology at a local community college and have several published articles in mental health journals and magazines.
What is your background?

 

laferney: I can see that Simon has now lost his ability to debate and now has to resort to name calling and sarcasim.

SIMON: Not at all. With all due respect you are making a number of generalizations that are not accurate such as not understanding the very close relationship between counseling and psychology, speaking about the Rorshach test in such glowing terms when in fact it generally no longer holds as much clout as it did in years past and not understanding that holding a legitimate doctoral degree does not result in confusing clients if the clinician honestly discloses this information to clients as part of an ongoing informed consent.

laferney: His statment that it is a career upgrade is certainly an insult to counselors and Social workers who would say they are peers to psychologists -"an upgrade"

SIMON: No my friend, just reality! A doctorate in Clinical Psychology is generally considered to be top of the rung amongst mental health credentials including a Ph.D or Ed.D in Counseling or a D.S.W.. In addition, as mentioned previously the overlap between mental health professions are not as distinct as you assert they are.

laferney:"Oh thank you Oh great leader of the mental health community"is uncalled for"

SIMON: Let us back up for a moment. You made a statement that you did not perceive any attempts on my part to be unethical. In fact ethicality is not even an issue in terms of obtaining and appropriately utilizing a legitimate doctoral degree that is acceptable to one's state board of licensure and if used appropriately with clients. Therefore I was making light of your comment because quite frankly you came across with a"holier than thou" attitude and quite frankly it needed a response.

laferney: I must now as PsychPhD did call you out on your credentials in the mental health community.
What mental health dicipline are you licensed in?

SIMON: I have been a member of this forum for many years and any long term poster here will confirm that I NEVER used any professional titles, educational background and or experiences as a means to gain leverage in a disagreement with another poster. Instead I rely on facts and the substance of one's positions and points as primary determinants of what is fact and what is fiction! "Calling you (Simon) out" to reveal one's credentials is a spurious way of determining whether the information one is providing is accurate or not because having advanced degrees, education or publications does not guarantee any more accuracy of information than that presented by an individual with no such credentials.

In this regard it is interesting to note that in your current post NOT ONCE did you respond with substantive facts to a number of issues I presented in my previous post and now are attempting to use you degrees, education and publications as a means to prove your points. In logic this is called a fallacious appeal to authority wherby one attempts to "win" a discussion/argument by presenting their degrees and credentials as a substitute for solid evidence and facts. Unless you demonstrate that your perspective is valid your credentials will not substitute for facts!

laferney: I don't profess to be a " great leader of the mental health community" But I am a Licensed mental health counselor, Advanced Practice RN, Board Certifed With full prescriptive authority, teach psychology at a local community college and have several published articles in mental health journals and magazines.
What is your background?

SIMON: However, you have not responded with any substantive evidence, facts of information that what you have stated in your posts is valid and instead are attempting to "push" through your position and opinions as facts based on listing your credentials. Sorry this ploy does not work.

So you want to know my background? OK- integrity, straightforwardness, honesty, factual and willing to acknowledge when I am incorrect. Now with all your credentials, can you admit when you are all incorrect? That is a 'background" that many of us would respect you more for than your superfluous argument that you possess all sorts of degrees and education and licenses IF it is not accompanied with substantive data that supports your positions.

 

There you have it ...

Believe me because I said so, not because I have any background, education, professional experience nor can seem to tell the difference between emotional propaganda (him) or substantative data (us) that he ignores anyway.

The nude emperor has spoken.

 

MAN, HAS THIS THREAD DETERIORATED! ANYONE WANT TO TAKE BETS ON HOW LONG IT TAKES BRUCE TO LOCK THIS?

 

Re: There you have it ...

Dear Mr. Quixote,

The fact that you or anyone else list their degrees, credentials and/or professional experiences is irrelevant because there is no way we can corroborate the information provided is factual unless you reveal your actual name and state of residence and practice.

Secondly, appeals to authority, a fallacious argument, employed by some in order to prove their arguments is a spurious means to debate others in an honest and fair manner. In fact it constitutes bullying others to accept one's position because of claims of possessing advanced degrees that actually does not guarantee the accuracy of any information presented.

If you wish to engage in honest discussion drop the pretenses and stick to the issues and be able to admit when you (or I) are incorrect.

 

Ted, I disagree. There are many posters on this forum who need to differentiate bluster,uncorrobrated opinions and beliefs and fallacious appeals to authority from facts that may have a significant impact on their future career/educational decision making. Therefore it is very relevant to get the message out to other posters that holding advanced degrees CLAIMED by anonymous posters does not imply accuracy of their opinions which they are presenting as facts. Ultimately posters need to confirm or disconfirm ALL information they read in this forum prior to making any major decisions concerning their future career/educational planning. Simon

 

Vox populi?

I would agree about the deterioration, but it is discomforting that the only solution is to restrict free speech by locking the thread.

Frankly, I am disappointed that the purveyors of bombast and personal attacks are not more directly called on their crap by the members of the board.

Yes, we all have busy lives. But if this (or any) forum is to have lasting value, the community needs to make its standards clear. When people retreat and let the only the loud but misinformed capitalize the "discussion," it devalues us all.

 

This was off track on the first page.

 

Steve Forester calling for us to be banned and useless children ?
This shows a lack of respect for his fellow degreeinfoers So there's a debate that's a little heated. I've contributed to this post for years as he has. I don't take anything personal here.
AS for credentials I do feel they're important. Dr. Douglas's ,Dr. Bears and Steve Levicoff , who could cause some heated discussions of their own , were respected because of their credentials. If we're have a discussion about mental health related facts then those posters who are mental health professionals should be given some creditabilty in their posts . If one cannot or will not state why he should be seen as creditable that's his perogative.But Douglas and Levicoff were respected and Yes even tolerated at times because of their expertise in Distance Education.
I don't wish for these posts to become like they used to be in the days pre-degreediscussion.com when personal attacks and insults were a constant problem. So I will not post any futher to this topic. It has deteriorated and I agree, and I hope the other viewers and posters will "agree to disagree" on this issue.
But banning people seems a little strong.

 

Close the thread - no. Get it back on track - yes.

Is anyone considering a DBA from CCU?

 

That’s funny Randell. Seriously, this thread started as a general discussion of DETC doctoral degrees and took a turn toward psychology doctoral programs. Let’s keep it civil and get back on track.

Pepe

 

The reason these discussions turn heated is because most posters are mainly concern with convincing others of their opinions. In essence a case of who is right as oppose to what is right. I think we will be better served if we understand that what works for some may not work for others. That is, for those of you in academia or with ambitions to enter academia, NA programs may offer some limitations, but for individuals in the private sector that’s hardly the case. Some are concern with a school’s name recognition, others are concern with just finishing a degree, while others won’t settle for anything less than Ivy League.

Sharing opinions and experiences may help others make a decision regarding their education. The main thing is to recognize that there isn’t a formula that fits all. See, is not about who is right, instead it is about what is right.

Pepe

 

and everything I say is what is right...although I can't convince my wife of that!!

by the way, well said