The lead article in the winter issue of The American Psychoanalyst presented a concise and informative report of the current status of the Executive Committee's proposal to extend eligibility for full clinical training, without a waiver, to applicants with a doctorate in clinical psychology, mental health, and social work. I would like to update that information and clarify several misconceptions contained in the report.
The report quotes portions of a letter from the counsel of the National Federation of Societies for Clinical Social Work expressing concern that the proposal does not include master's level social workers among those to be eligible without a waiver. He states that very few institutions offer a doctoral degree in clinical social work and that MSW is the terminal degree in the clinical social work field. Actually, there are more than 20 educational institutions offering a doctorate in social work with a clinical emphasis. Over the past several decades, there has been an expansion of such programs in support of the need for advanced education to encompass the increased amount of theoretical and clinical information deemed desirable to practice competently.
It is our Task Force's opinion that a by-laws amendment eliminating the need for a waiver must be consonant with the basic principle of equivalence enunciated in the Gaskill proposal. This means that nonmedical candidates should be able to demonstrate approximate equivalence to medical/psychiatric applicants in preparatory educational qualifications in the areas of science, humanities, clinical training, and professional socialization. It is in this sense of educational equivalence that the phrase “highest clinical degree” should be understood. In practical terms, as a by-laws requirement, this means a doctorate in medicine, psychology, social work, or mental health. The Task Force is also recommending that a modified CNMCT waiver program be continued, to allow deserving applicants, including clinical social workers with a master's degree, to demonstrate individual equivalence achieved by means other than a formal doctoral program.
The Task Force's preliminary report has been provisionally approved by Board and Council and is being sent to local societies and institutes for discussion and feedback. We believe that this process will provide the necessary basis for an eventual decision by the members on this issue, which has been under active study and discussion for the past 16 years.
Homer C. Curtis, MD Chairman
Task Force on Expanding Eligibility for Training