So I have always seen Ts with Ph.Ds...I think because I got biased as I grew up seeing one with a Ph.D for over 10 years...and I sort of thought they "knew more" because of the degree.
The T that terminated with me in 2010 was excellent, very knowledgable and helpful. My T right now, although kind, has not been overly helpful as far as helping me make progress...so I have been slowly working towards terminating with him and finding someone else. His recent thoughtlessness has made me move forward at a quicker pace as of late, and I have now seen this guy who has a MSW and is a LCSW about 4 times total. I never thought I would see someone w/out a Ph.D, which might sound snotty, but I was just stuck on the "I need a Ph.D" idea.
This guy, however, was recommended by my pdoc (who I actually like, and I generally don't like them as a whole, ha)...and I am really liking his approach. He seems to be able to identify what I need and says he can help me with grieving, which is my current big issue that is causing alot of my depression.
Just wondering if anyone had any opinion on the degrees or any thoughts to share. Thanks!

[pbutton]

I see a LSCSW and he is excellent. I think it's more about rapport and skill than the degree.

[stopdog]

The craziest one I ever saw was a phd. Several people I know have seen her too and also thought she was totally out there. I see two lcsws now who may or may not know what they are doing, but they are not as whacked out as the phd.
Also I know a lot of phds and have advanced degrees myself. I don't think a phd/degrees are a big deal.

[tinyrabbit]

I'm in the UK and I didn't really pay attention to qualifications. I looked at how much experience my T had (18 years), his approach, and also he was almost fully booked which is a good sign.

[critterlady]

Beyond the basics, I think the degree doesn't matter nearly as much as the connection between a T and client. I think the approach the T uses is also more important than the level of degree.

I see a PhD, my best friend sees a LCSW with a MSW. We're both equally impressed and connected to our respective therapists and we both feel that we've been helped a lot by them.

Originally Posted by stopdog

The craziest one I ever saw was a phd. Several people I know have seen her too and also thought she was totally out there. I see two lcsws now who may or may not know what they are doing, but they are not as whacked out as the phd.
Also I know a lot of phds and have advanced degrees myself. I don't think a phd/degrees are a big deal.

The craziest person I have ever met was a Ph.d, although I never was her client, just met her in social circles. I know Ts can be entirely different in their professional lives vs. personal, but holy crap... I mean, she scared me. Alot.

Thanks for your input!

[ECHOES]

I always thought that at 'must' be a PhD. I had a few, even.

My current T is a MSW and LMHC and has a certificate in psychoanalysis, and is the best T ever.

Originally Posted by ECHOES

I always thought that at 'must' be a PhD. I had a few, even.

My current T is a MSW and LMHC and has a certificate in psychoanalysis, and is the best T ever.

What does LMHC stand for? And I think I would like someone with a certification in psychoanalysis.
(Being that I need a T who does psychodynamic therapy.)

[rainboots87]

It's never made a difference to me. I started off with a doctoral student (I think it was her last clinical experience to get her degree) and she was great to start with. Then after she graduated, I was referred to the ED specialist in the office who was a LPC/MA. I didn't like her at first, but that's because she was asking the right questions. I grew to really like her, and she helped me tremendously. I've seen a bunch of therapists over the past 6 years with a variety of degrees and experience, most recently an individual T with a PsyD and a group T LCSW and they both helped me so much in different ways. What I liked most about the PsyD was all in our rapport and her personality as a person and therapist, not necessarily the training she received (though that obviously isn't unimportant). The LCSW was great at her job, though we didn't click as well. Honestly, I think their experiences after school/training and the connection with the client are much more important.

[QuietCat]

Well, the first one I saw was an LCSW. She didn't particularly help me much, and I found her to be very unreliable as well. This of course was just her character and not necessarily a reflection on her degree.

But once she moved away (during the most horrible time possible for me), I had to find a new T. This time I knew I wanted one with a PhD. I've found him to be FAR more helpful and aware of what I'm going through and my thoughts, etc. This may be more a product of his extended time working as a T and his prior work experience with other T's.

So for me I think I would choose a PhD again if I had to.

[stopdog]

I don't think all phds are bad or that all lcsws are good. Just that the degree is, to me, not a big deal. I think it is all mostly guess work and hope on their part (an art not science), or them just sitting there doing nothing much no matter what the alleged training.

[ECHOES]

Originally Posted by tractionbeam0610

What does LMHC stand for? And I think I would like someone with a certification in psychoanalysis.
(Being that I need a T who does psychodynamic therapy.)

LMHC is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor.

What Does a Mental Health Counselor Do?

[archipelago]

There are several jokes about what PhD stands for. One thing is "Piled High and Deep." But my favorite is "knowing more and more about less and less until you know everything about nothing."

And I have a PhD and was a professor surrounded by others with all these peacock feathers.

I guess I'm just suspicious of the whole game of it. Do your credentials really say what kind of therapist you are or might be for me in particular? I don't think so.

Currently I see someone who has substantial credentials in several areas, and yet he is one of the most humble and humane people I've ever met. At times he has poked a little fun at people who want to be called "DR." or have some sort of notion that they are experts in this or that. His credentials hardly mattered when I first chose him; I only became aware of them afterwards. And they actually don't really influence how the therapy goes.

Perhaps because he is an MD as well as an analyst so a PsyD too as well as being a former professor at Stanford med, he just feels really comfortable in his own skin and doesn't feel he has to prove anything to anyone. He has at time joked about how uptight psychologists can be in some ways, compared with psychiatrists and analysts. He still works with psychologists and respects them, but there is a sense that something goes wrong during that type of training, that doesn't necessarily translate into good therapy.

[healed84]

My T is Psy.D.. he is a good T, and I think he woud be a good T whether he had the Psy.. or LCSW..

Our MC is a LCSW and as far as I can tell he is just a compentent as my T. My T referred me to him, so he thinks he thinks he is a good T regardless of his degree.

Originally Posted by iota

There are several jokes about what PhD stands for. One thing is "Piled High and Deep." But my favorite is "knowing more and more about less and less until you know everything about nothing."

And I have a PhD and was a professor surrounded by others with all these peacock feathers.

I guess I'm just suspicious of the whole game of it. Do your credentials really say what kind of therapist you are or might be for me in particular? I don't think so.

Currently I see someone who has substantial credentials in several areas, and yet he is one of the most humble and humane people I've ever met. At times he has poked a little fun at people who want to be called "DR." or have some sort of notion that they are experts in this or that. His credentials hardly mattered when I first chose him; I only became aware of them afterwards. And they actually don't really influence how the therapy goes.

Perhaps because he is an MD as well as an analyst so a PsyD too as well as being a former professor at Stanford med, he just feels really comfortable in his own skin and doesn't feel he has to prove anything to anyone. He has at time joked about how uptight psychologists can be in some ways, compared with psychiatrists and analysts. He still works with psychologists and respects them, but there is a sense that something goes wrong during that type of training, that doesn't necessarily translate into good therapy.

"He still works with psychologists and respects them, but there is a sense that something goes wrong during that type of training, that doesn't necessarily translate into good therapy."

I find that idea and sentence extremely odd.
And truly the best I have seen was a Ph.D who practiced psychodynamic therapy.

With that said, most psychologists I have seen find pdocs to be weird, and I can relate to THAT completely. I don't get them in the most part at all. They are like prescription-pumping machines..."alot" (that I have seen or my friends have seen ) hardly ever get to know you; the appts are 20 mins long, at best. And the 3 most "uptight" people I have met (on this wonderful psychological journey) were psychiatrists...I almost threw a pillow at one to see if I could make his face move.

[archipelago]

We have just had different experiences. I have always chosen analysts, and many analysts tend to also be psychiatrists as well. (Some are even Zen masters for that matter). I don't find what you call "pdocs" anywhere around me. I do know that exists and seems to have taken up some sort of central role, but it is not what I have experienced at all.

I've experienced the opposite. People who want (and sometimes insist) to be called "doctor" as if that really means the same thing or means anything at all for that matter. And since the training is so different, there has to be a difference in attitude both toward the profession and toward clients. The science model for doctoral candidates is the way things just are. I don't happen to think this is very useful or helpful. In fact there are arguments out there that it can be harmful or at least not as humane as other approaches. That is kinda complicated to get into and has some larger issues about the way insurance has changed the field so much in recent years.

I'm not really here to argue or say my position is correct or anything. But it is different and it's not just a first impression so I just thought I would add it into the mix.

Originally Posted by iota

We have just had different experiences. I have always chosen analysts, and many analysts tend to also be psychiatrists as well. (Some are even Zen masters for that matter). I don't find what you call "pdocs" anywhere around me. I do know that exists and seems to have taken up some sort of central role, but it is not what I have experienced at all.

I've experienced the opposite. People who want (and sometimes insist) to be called "doctor" as if that really means the same thing or means anything at all for that matter. And since the training is so different, there has to be a difference in attitude both toward the profession and toward clients. The science model for doctoral candidates is the way things just are. I don't happen to think this is very useful or helpful. In fact there are arguments out there that it can be harmful or at least not as humane as other approaches. That is kinda complicated to get into and has some larger issues about the way insurance has changed the field so much in recent years.

I'm not really here to argue or say my position is correct or anything. But it is different and it's not just a first impression so I just thought I would add it into the mix.

Pdocs = psychiatrists. So they are "around" you. And a lot of us use that term on this site.

I am not trying to argue either.

But if you are a Dr. why wouldn't you just be called Dr. Whatever? But none of my drs ever "insisted" upon it, some of them I called by their first name. I see you don't like what "dr." implies in this case....the educational model itself (and/or what it entails), I mean.

You also sound like you are generalizing psychologists overall and their attitudes towards clients, etc...and that's where you lose me...since some are sooo totally different from each other in approach, style, etc.

[archipelago]

I think we are just missing each other because we have different experiences. I do know psychiatrists that I think would be terrible therapists; I've seen them at work in hospital or county mental health. They do fit the description of thinking that the main is approach is medications and nothing else, but most of the psychiatrists that I know or know about do not fit that description. And you have to admit that there is a lot of stereotyping or generalizing about psychiatrists. That happens at the cultural level as well when so many things like cartoons and so forth present patients on a couch with the "doctor" rather clueless. It just doesn't ring true for me, but I may have been lucky or my experience not typical, like I claimed; it is just different so I thought I would add it in.

As far as generalizations about psychologists, yes, of course I'm making generalizations here, but some of it is based on the way the training model differs and the expectations of that particular degree as governed by the APA in particular. That doesn't mean that great therapists don't go on from that kind of orientation, but it does seem to be geared to a kind of approach, lots of emphasis on stats, assessments, tests, measurements, what they call "empirical," which means something else than "evidence," and other science-seeming models that I don't find in as emphasized with psychiatrists or other mental health professionals, be they MA Counseling or Social Work or whatever. The thing about wanting to be called "doctor" is really just for fun although I find it telling that so many actual MDs that I know or have interviewed prefer first names, while psychologists seem to prefer staying with their title. That's just my experience. The only thing that I would say is that the training models are in fact quite different so there are going to be differences regardless of the actual people. What these differences actually are or how they add up or change practices, that is completely up for grabs.

[BlessedRhiannon]

My first two T's were LCSW's and I just didn't feel like they had sufficient experience or education to help me. Perhaps it was a personality thing, maybe it was just the nature of their practices. I always felt frustrated with them. I decided this time that I wanted a PhD. My current T is a PhD, and she's amazing. But, I think it's more of the fact that she's an amazing T than that she has a doctorate.

[stopdog]

The psychiatrists I work against in the legal system are pill pushers. It is unusual for them to spend more than 10-15 minutes with my client (and theirs) at a time.

[feralkittymom]

Being an analyst has nothing directly to do with degree credentials; it reflects that the person has trained at an analytic institute. Analysts can hold the PhD, PsyD, MD, MSW, etc--or no credential at all, though this is less common.

It has become more common for psychiatrists to focus on meds rather than therapy simply because of insurance reimbursement and the greater market; there are also some regional differences in market.

There are multiple "tracks" of PhD work, and some emphasize testing--clinical psych work--and some emphasize psych theory and practice--counseling psych work. Different graduate programs also have different emphases.

What is more important to me is the origin of the credential, the level of experience, and the degree of professional involvement. I do have a preference for more advanced degrees, all else being equal, and look for additional certifications as indications of professional responsibility, like board certification. I do the same with other professionals I consult.

[healed84]

So, I don't have a pdoc.. but- doesn't somebody generally go to a pdoc so they can go/be monitored on b/c they are on meds? I mean, most Pdocs don't do therapy do they? I am confused at giving them a label of pill pusher, when that is their job. I don't know.. Do they do more than that, than I don't know of?? I really have no clue.

Originally Posted by stopdog

The psychiatrists I work against in the legal system are pill pushers. It is unusual for them to spend more than 10-15 minutes with my client (and theirs) at a time.

Those are the psychiatrists I have seen, generally speaking...however, my psychiatrist I see now does do some psychotherapy as well. I wanted him to be my T as well when I first started seeing him, but he said he had no time to add someone else for one hour visits (that pretty much sucked, being told "nope, no more time for you")...as he had taken all of the clients from my last pill-pushing psychiatrist (he moved), who was truly horrible.

Originally Posted by healed84

So, I don't have a pdoc.. but- doesn't somebody generally go to a pdoc so they can go/be monitored on b/c they are on meds? I mean, most Pdocs don't do therapy do they? I am confused at giving them a label of pill pusher, when that is their job. I don't know.. Do they do more than that, than I don't know of?? I really have no clue.

You can sort of see my answer in what I posted above, but yes, they spend about 15-20 minutes with you a session, charge a large fee (larger than a T's fee most often, although if you have insurance, at least in my case, I pay a copayment like I would any medical dr.), and prescribe medication for you.

They sometimes consult with your T and the Ts I have had, the past two, think they always should, and I agree. Ts are the ones who spend time getting to know you. An appt of 20 minutes like every 3 weeks or so (although I do think my first one was longer) is really to monitor your medication.

As I mentioned, some psychiatrists do therapy as well (few and far between). I know my ex-husband was seeing one long term who he was getting therapy and medication from. But the demand (and money) is in having short appts. where prescriptions are handed out. You can see a lot of patients in a day scheduling 20-minute appts!

[ultramar]

Mine's a PsyD. It's a kind of PhD but my understanding is that there's more emphasis on the practice of therapy itself than doing, for example, a theoretical doctorial thesis to graduate from the program. Not sure, though, I read a little bit about it a long time ago.

I think therapists with any degree can be terrible, great, and everything in between, so I don't think the degree matters much, per se. That said, I would prefer a therapist who has done his/her own therapy and a lot of it (i.e. not just 6 sessions of CBT or something like that, not that it has to be hugely in-depth, but relatively long-term, really getting into their issues, etc. so they can recognize and control them well enough to not allow them to interfere with the therapy they practice). If a therapist hasn't largely resolved their own issues, then I think they're more likely to project them onto the patient, if someone has poor boundaries and has not worked on that, then they are likely to exhibit this with patients. Granted, having done therapy is no guarantee that someone will be a great therapist either. It's a such a crap shoot, really and unfortunately.

I think, maybe in some states more than others, anyone and their grandmother can hang a shingle and practice therapy, maybe just as long as they don't misrepresent their degrees.

I have a cousin who is a GIGANTIC mess, I mean REALLY, who has recently started a 'life coaching' business. If he manages to sell himself well enough, he may well get clients. Yikes.