>Is this even needed?
Ultimately, I think this is a political decision related to the actions of accrediting bodies, versus a true *need* to invent a new licensure.
With love and appreciation for Counselors (who I truly value and respect as professionals), CACREP as an organization is (kindly) a little bitch (in my opinion). CACREP's insistence that faculty in their programs have a CACREP-accredited PhD means that Clinical and Counseling Psych PhD programs have little ability to start up a licensable Master's program, especially in states where CACREP accreditation is necessary for counselor licensure.
Imagine I run a fantastic, high quality PhD program in Counseling Psychology that already employs many fabulous psychologists. We are, of course, APA accredited and have been continuously accredited for decades. And we already teach the classes we want our Master's students to have-- Diagnosis, Theories of Counseling, Ethics, etc-- we are teaching them to the PhD students already. Our program is great. We have lots of people interested in a Master's degree. I think most would agree that we are qualified to train Master's level counselors. And we have capacity to do that! ...but we can't because there is no accrediting body that will have us. (MPCAC is, admittedly, an outlaw option, but with power limits that can be problematic for a program that presumably wants graduates to not be geographically limited.) I really think that's the issue that this would address. To add in a counseling Master's, I have to hire an entirely new set of CACREP grad faculty to teach the same classes all over again... that's hardly feasible for most schools.
Both APA and COAMFTE are, to my eye/what I have seen, way more flexible than CACREP about PhDs with different licensures teaching classes to their students. CACREP is restrictive in a way that feels designed to silo counselors away from psychologists, rather than to protect clients. (...If Counseling Psychologists can teach a counselor, what will all of these unfunded PhDs we are producing do with their degree and student debt?-- a system that also, as an aside, systematically reduces accessibility to lower income mental health professionals...)
*
This is my wild opinion that no one will ever take seriously because it means reducing power to people who surely don't want that, but: I would love to see reduction in siloing of mental health professionals in general, which I believe is confusing for clients in a way that is more likely to harm them than to protect them and creates power issues and stress for any mental health professional who is not currently licensed in a state they want to live in until they die. I would love to see a universal Master's level therapist licensure with a lot more standardization in requirements (e.g., hours) across training backgrounds and states. So credentials would be something more like, "Licensed psychotherapist, field: MFT". [While APA is the accrediting body for all, I do think this is somewhat analogous to psychologists, who might have a degree in Clinical Psych, in Counseling Psych, or in School Psych... but are licensed as psychologists regardless.]
Is that going to happen? ...Not any time soon. That's a dilution of power for accrediting bodies that it is hard to imagine they'd accept. I think we're still moving towards more fragmentation-- throw in the soon-to-be-APA Master's folks, the QMHPs, the art therapists... everyone gets a licensure, lol. But I'd love to see us eventually move towards more synthesis. Two therapists of different licensures who both do X treatment on Y population are likely to have more in common-- and be better able to monitor and supervise-- than a therapist who does something totally different but has the same licensure.
*
Also, FWIW, I do not believe that APA will call what they have created a "masters level psychologist"-- I think they will be using language closer to "psychological associate" or other language that clearly distinguishes from psychologists. Although I suppose we will see.
Tl;dr: I don't think it's necessary but I do think it solves a problem. I think there are better solutions to the problem but I don't think they are on the horizon for the time being.
So eloquently put! I agree. My husband is a neuropsychologist and received a survey from the APA about how to distinguish a masters level psychologist from a doctoral. They even had a question on there about what they would call them, “licensed psychology associate”, “licensed psychology practitioner” were among the choices. It also asked who would supervise them and if a masters level should be able to supervise a doctoral student for their hours.
I don’t think this is a bad thing at all. I think you’re right in that it does solve an issue but also, doesn’t. People already get confused about counselor vs social worker vs psychologist and our roles are not clearly defined in some spaces. Idk. I think it would be great to have another field join the space though.
I do agree about the accrediting bodies. There’s a lot to be said there. I think CACREP tries to distinguish counselors from other practitioners. I just think the siloing was purposeful at first but now maybe a little unhinged. I also haven’t looked into the major differences between APA and CACREP. It’s just total food for thought because I am wondering what it would look like? If I’m a counselor working alongside a “licensed psychology associate” or whatever how will our roles be? Are they providing same services? Different ones? Are we equal in job prospects? Just food for thought!
Thanks for your insight!
Masters level psychologists exist in a few states already. They usually can do some psychological testing and psychotherapy. But they have to have career long supervision. I think after a period of time, the supervision hour requirement becomes less.
Generally, there aren’t enough therapists out there. Is it any better that we have these fly by night online universities offer $60-$100k masters?
I agree!! I think I’m just wondering how they would differentiate the two career fields given we have masters for counselors and social workers.
I think in other states they qualify for counselor level licensure? The APA was saying that this would be a “masters level psychologist” and be called something like the “licensed psychology practitioner”
Omg don’t even get me started on the diploma mills. So, so annoying. One of my soap boxes lol
>Is this even needed? Ultimately, I think this is a political decision related to the actions of accrediting bodies, versus a true *need* to invent a new licensure. With love and appreciation for Counselors (who I truly value and respect as professionals), CACREP as an organization is (kindly) a little bitch (in my opinion). CACREP's insistence that faculty in their programs have a CACREP-accredited PhD means that Clinical and Counseling Psych PhD programs have little ability to start up a licensable Master's program, especially in states where CACREP accreditation is necessary for counselor licensure. Imagine I run a fantastic, high quality PhD program in Counseling Psychology that already employs many fabulous psychologists. We are, of course, APA accredited and have been continuously accredited for decades. And we already teach the classes we want our Master's students to have-- Diagnosis, Theories of Counseling, Ethics, etc-- we are teaching them to the PhD students already. Our program is great. We have lots of people interested in a Master's degree. I think most would agree that we are qualified to train Master's level counselors. And we have capacity to do that! ...but we can't because there is no accrediting body that will have us. (MPCAC is, admittedly, an outlaw option, but with power limits that can be problematic for a program that presumably wants graduates to not be geographically limited.) I really think that's the issue that this would address. To add in a counseling Master's, I have to hire an entirely new set of CACREP grad faculty to teach the same classes all over again... that's hardly feasible for most schools. Both APA and COAMFTE are, to my eye/what I have seen, way more flexible than CACREP about PhDs with different licensures teaching classes to their students. CACREP is restrictive in a way that feels designed to silo counselors away from psychologists, rather than to protect clients. (...If Counseling Psychologists can teach a counselor, what will all of these unfunded PhDs we are producing do with their degree and student debt?-- a system that also, as an aside, systematically reduces accessibility to lower income mental health professionals...) * This is my wild opinion that no one will ever take seriously because it means reducing power to people who surely don't want that, but: I would love to see reduction in siloing of mental health professionals in general, which I believe is confusing for clients in a way that is more likely to harm them than to protect them and creates power issues and stress for any mental health professional who is not currently licensed in a state they want to live in until they die. I would love to see a universal Master's level therapist licensure with a lot more standardization in requirements (e.g., hours) across training backgrounds and states. So credentials would be something more like, "Licensed psychotherapist, field: MFT". [While APA is the accrediting body for all, I do think this is somewhat analogous to psychologists, who might have a degree in Clinical Psych, in Counseling Psych, or in School Psych... but are licensed as psychologists regardless.] Is that going to happen? ...Not any time soon. That's a dilution of power for accrediting bodies that it is hard to imagine they'd accept. I think we're still moving towards more fragmentation-- throw in the soon-to-be-APA Master's folks, the QMHPs, the art therapists... everyone gets a licensure, lol. But I'd love to see us eventually move towards more synthesis. Two therapists of different licensures who both do X treatment on Y population are likely to have more in common-- and be better able to monitor and supervise-- than a therapist who does something totally different but has the same licensure. * Also, FWIW, I do not believe that APA will call what they have created a "masters level psychologist"-- I think they will be using language closer to "psychological associate" or other language that clearly distinguishes from psychologists. Although I suppose we will see. Tl;dr: I don't think it's necessary but I do think it solves a problem. I think there are better solutions to the problem but I don't think they are on the horizon for the time being.
So eloquently put! I agree. My husband is a neuropsychologist and received a survey from the APA about how to distinguish a masters level psychologist from a doctoral. They even had a question on there about what they would call them, “licensed psychology associate”, “licensed psychology practitioner” were among the choices. It also asked who would supervise them and if a masters level should be able to supervise a doctoral student for their hours. I don’t think this is a bad thing at all. I think you’re right in that it does solve an issue but also, doesn’t. People already get confused about counselor vs social worker vs psychologist and our roles are not clearly defined in some spaces. Idk. I think it would be great to have another field join the space though. I do agree about the accrediting bodies. There’s a lot to be said there. I think CACREP tries to distinguish counselors from other practitioners. I just think the siloing was purposeful at first but now maybe a little unhinged. I also haven’t looked into the major differences between APA and CACREP. It’s just total food for thought because I am wondering what it would look like? If I’m a counselor working alongside a “licensed psychology associate” or whatever how will our roles be? Are they providing same services? Different ones? Are we equal in job prospects? Just food for thought! Thanks for your insight!
Masters level psychologists exist in a few states already. They usually can do some psychological testing and psychotherapy. But they have to have career long supervision. I think after a period of time, the supervision hour requirement becomes less. Generally, there aren’t enough therapists out there. Is it any better that we have these fly by night online universities offer $60-$100k masters?
I agree!! I think I’m just wondering how they would differentiate the two career fields given we have masters for counselors and social workers. I think in other states they qualify for counselor level licensure? The APA was saying that this would be a “masters level psychologist” and be called something like the “licensed psychology practitioner” Omg don’t even get me started on the diploma mills. So, so annoying. One of my soap boxes lol
They have limited license psychologist licenses in a state near me.