|
|
|
|
|
2002 Master’s, Specialist's, and Related Degrees Employment Survey Darnell
Singleton June 2003 All tables are in .pdf format and need to be viewed
using Adobe Acrobat Reader. Printer friendly options (.pdf format): Methodology Background Demographic and Employment Characteristics
Patterns of Support and Debt
Salaries
References Appendix: List of Tables (.pdf format)
The 2002 Master’s, Specialist’s, and Related Degrees Employment Survey was conducted by the APA Research Office in collaboration with the Council of Applied Master’s Programs in Psychology. We are grateful for the continued support of Norman Anderson, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of the APA and L. Michael Honaker, Ph.D., Deputy Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer. The authors would like to thank Kyle Fennel and Marlene Wicherski for overseeing database construction and data collection procedures. Further, the support, counsel and cooperation of various associations and organizations concerned with the training of master’s, specialist’s, and related degrees (e.g. CAMPP, NASP, SIOP) are greatly appreciated. Finally, we are most appreciative of the 2001 and 2002 master’s, specialists, and related degree graduates for taking the time to respond to this survey and provide feedback. The comments provided will be used to enhance future surveys of this nature.
The Master’s Employment Survey (MES) was conducted the year following receipt of the degree. Department chairs were contacted for the names and addresses of persons awarded master’s and specialist’s degrees during the previous two academic school years. In 2002, a survey was mailed to these individuals requesting information on their experiences entering the labor force and the relevance of their graduate training to their employment situations. Chairpersons from a sample (100) of master's-granting departments in the United States and Canada (49 doctoral departments and 41 terminal master’s departments) were contacted in June 2001, and were asked to provide the names and addresses of individuals who received/will receive their master’s and specialist’s degree between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2001. A postcard reminder was sent in July 2001 to chairs who did not respond to the initial request. A final attempt to collect names and addresses was made in the Fall of 2001 to chairs who still had not responded. The request for names and addresses of recent master’s degree recipients between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2001 yielded a small sample of students’ names and addresses. Hence, a second recruitment of names and addresses of recent master’s recipients was initiated in April 2002 to include graduates between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2002. The second recruitment of names of recent master’s graduates included an initial request in the first week of April 2002, followed by a reminder in the last week of April 2002 requesting names and addresses of students who were/will be awarded terminal master’s degrees between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2002. A final reminder letter was sent in August 2002 to the department chairs who still had not responded to the names and address request. The list of departments offering Masters of Arts (MA), Masters of Science (MS), Masters of Education (MEd), Masters in Counseling (MC), Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study (CAGS) and specialist programs was compiled from the files of the APA Research Office, the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), and the Council of Applied Master’s Programs in Psychology (CAMPP). Of the 100 graduate departments of psychology sampled, 54% provided names and addresses of students who were/will be awarded terminal master’s and specialist’s degrees between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2002. The department chairs provided names and addresses of 879 master’s and specialist’s degree recipients. Prior to the invitation to participate in the 2002 MES, all respondents were contacted in March 2002 to verify their contact information (i.e., e-mail address, address). The 2002 MES was an internet-based survey and utilized a secured website for all data collection. A post card was mailed to each graduate the first week in July 2002 inviting them to participate in the survey, which included the website address and directions on how to access the survey. A reminder postcard was sent to non-respondents the third week in July 2002. Finally, a complete survey packet including a cover letter, survey and business reply envelope was sent in August 2002 to those graduates who still had not responded to the survey. The appendix of this report contains a copy of the questionnaire. Five hundred and sixty-three of the 879 master’s and specialist’s degree graduates that were contacted, responded, yielding an overall response rate of 64%. Although the sample is considerably smaller than that of the 1996 survey, the 64% response rate is substantially higher than the 40% reported in 1996. Based on the gender distribution (78% female and 22% male) reported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), Science and Engineering Degrees: 1966-2000, it appears that the present sample was representative of master’s-level degree recipients nationwide with respect to gender. Over the past several decades, women have been entering the field of psychology in increasing numbers (Hill, 2002). In addition, the present sample was also representative of master’s-level degree recipients nationwide with respect to ethnicity. According to the NSF, minorities represent 20% of master’s-level degree recipients. (Table of contents)
2. Caution is advised when interpreting statistical results based on small Ns. 3. For salary data, statistics are not provided for employment settings where there are less than five respondents. As always, caution should be exercised when interpreting statistics based on small numbers (10 or less) and/or where the standard deviation is large. (Table of contents)Gender Ethnicity Age Degree Types Degree Subfields MA and MS degree holders were represented in nearly every subfield. The Specialist and the CAGS degree graduates were only found in school and counseling psychology, while the MC was found only in counseling and community psychology. Terminal vs. Non-Terminal Degree Holders In the present survey, full-time employment was characterized as a minimum of 35 hours per week, including situations where the person held multiple positions totaling 35 or more hours. Part-time employment included situations where persons held one or more part-time positions totaling less than 35 hours per week. Sixty-seven percent of all respondents
were employed and 21% were enrolled in further graduate study. Nine percent
were unemployed and seeking work and
3% were unemployed and not seeking work. Of the 21% of the students that reported
further graduate study, 78% were enrolled in doctoral programs and 10% in master’s
programs. Twelve percent of the respondents indicated they were enrolled in
other types of graduate programs. Twenty percent of the respondents who earned
a MA degree were currently enrolled in doctoral programs, while 16% of MEd
and CAGS graduates were currently enrolled in doctoral programs, compared to
only 9% of MS graduates. Eighty-six percent of respondents reported being employed full time, while just over 13% were employed part time. Eighty percent of respondents who reported being employed full time held only one position (they did not have a second or third position). The remaining 20% were employed in an additional part-time position or two part-time positions. Only 3% of respondents with more than one position were employed part time in two or more part-time jobs. (Table of contents)Full-time Employment The patterns found in employment settings revealed that master’s graduates were concentrated in those settings for which master’s-level education in psychology is particularly strong and organized. These were schools, businesses, and organized human service settings. Although some small percentages were found in “independent practice” in general, those reporting independent practice did so as a secondary position. Part-time Employment Women represented 82% of the respondents who were employed part time, with men at 18%. Women and men gave different reasons for choosing part-time employment. The largest single proportion (37%) of women worked part time because of family responsibilities. Men were more apt to choose part-time employment because of other specified reasons (i.e. supplement salary, required by department) (44%). Full-time Employment Settings by Subfield The single highest proportion of respondents from research subfields was employed in university/colleges (24%), followed closely by business/government/other settings (23%). Nineteen percent each were employed in school and other educational settings and other human service settings (e.g., substance abuse facility, other community social service agency, nursing home). Thirteen percent of the respondents were employed in hospitals and clinics. Employment Positions by Subfield Faculty Positions Perceptions of Graduate Training and Current Employment Situation Tables 7a-7e present the perceptions of employed Master’s and related degree recipients regarding aspects of how their graduate training related to their current job, their level of job satisfaction, and the general state of the current job market. Relevance of Graduate Training to Current Primary Position Sixty percent or better found both graduate training in general and courses in their major subfields to be closely related to their present employment. Thirty-one percent of MA graduates versus 19% of MS graduates reported graduate training (in general) to be somewhat related to the current position. MS graduates were slightly more likely than MA graduates to indicate that the question was not applicable. Slightly less than one-quarter of both of these groups indicated that courses in their major field were somewhat related to their current position. Specialist degree recipients were most likely to report that graduate training in general and courses in their major field were closely related to their current position. All respondents who were recipients of CAGS reported that both their overall graduate training and their courses in their major subfield were closely related to their current position. These results were consistent with the findings of 1996 MES. Caution should be exercised when interpreting data where the n size is less than 5. Graduates were also asked to rate the relevance of their practicum or internship experience to their current position. Specialist degree, MC, and CAGS recipients overall reported that the experience was closely related to their current position most often, at 100%, 87%, and 82%, respectively. Over half of MA and MEd/MSEd recipients rated their practicum or internship experiences as closely related to their current positions, and 65% of MS recipients felt there was a close relationship between the two. While just 1% of the specialist and related degree respondents indicated that the item was either not related or not applicable, 20-25% of each subgroup of MA, MS, and MEd/MSEd recipients so indicated. Importance of the Master’s/Specialist’s/Related
Degrees More than three quarters of MA, MS, and MEd/MSEd degree recipients afforded some level of importance to their graduate degree as a qualification for attaining their present position (see Table 7b). This held true when respondents were asked to evaluate the importance of their degree as a degree in psychology, as well as when respondents evaluated the importance of their degree in relation to obtaining any graduate degree. The graduate degree in psychology was rated as essential to attaining their present position by 52% of MA degree recipients, 58% of MS degree recipients, and 48% of MEd/MSEd of degree recipients. An additional 35% of MA graduates, 28% of MS graduates, and 31% of MEd/MSEd graduates reported that their degree in psychology was helpful, but not essential in attaining their current employment. When asked how important any graduate degree was in attaining their current position, the largest single proportion of respondents for MA (54%), MS (57%), and MEd/MSEd (56%) degree recipients indicated that it was an essential qualification. Twenty-eight percent of MA graduates, 22% of MS graduates, and 36% of MEd/MSEd graduates reported that any graduate degree was helpful, but not essential. Similarly, more than three quarters of CAGS and MC respondents evaluated the graduate degree in psychology and any graduate degree, both, as important qualifications in attaining their present position. For CAGS degree recipients, 100% considered their graduate degree in psychology an essential qualification in attaining their current position, while 80% reported any graduate degree was essential to attaining their current position. For the MC degree recipients, the graduate degree in psychology was identified as an essential qualification by 80% of the respondents, and as a helpful, but not essential qualification by 13% of respondents. Eighty percent of respondents in the MC group believed that any graduate degree was essential in attaining their current position, and 7% in the MC subgroup reported that it was helpful, but not essential. The responses of Specialist degree recipients diverged from the general pattern of the groups discussed thus far. One hundred percent of graduates with Specialist degrees indicated that the graduate degree within psychology was essential to attaining their current position, while 46% indicated that any graduate degree was essential to attaining their current position. Notably, inferences based on these data are limited because there were a small number of respondents within this subgroup. By design, specialist training is highly focused and field specific and unlikely to be interchangeable with other graduate training. The vast majority of respondents, across all degree types (93%), reported that their graduate training adequately prepared them for their current jobs. Proportionately, these results for each degree are increases from those noted in the 1996 MES. Job Preference Perceived Underemployment Of those who indicated that they felt underemployed, 12% reported that their job was not commensurate with their level of training and 7% reported that their job was not commensurate with their level of experience. Ten percent each indicated that they would like a more challenging position or are currently looking for a more commensurate position. Another 10% reported that, though they felt underemployed, they preferred to stay in their current position for personal reasons. Level of Satisfaction with Current Primary
Position Seventy-one percent indicated satisfaction with their opportunities for recognition and 52% indicated satisfaction with their opportunities for promotion. Though not a large proportion of the overall sample, there was a notable difference between the percentages of respondents who rated opportunities for promotion as “not applicable,” in comparison to any of the other categories. Twelve percent of respondents reported opportunities for promotion were not applicable, while just 6% indicated benefits were not applicable. Fewer than 3% of respondents endorsed “not applicable” for each of the remaining 6 categories.
Twenty percent of all respondents indicated that they were pursuing further graduate study. Sixteen percent were enrolled at the doctoral level, with 89% in doctoral programs of psychology and 11% in doctoral programs in another field. Two percent of respondents were currently pursuing a second master’s-level degree and 2% were enrolled in another type of specialist or continuing education program. Fifty-six percent of the 87 respondents enrolled in doctoral programs reported that they were also working while in a graduate program.
Table 8 presents data on all sources of financial support along with the primary
source of support used during graduate training. The most frequently used source
of support was personal resources (90%), followed by non-university loans (49%).
These were also the resources cited most often as the primary source of support.
Forty-nine percent of respondents indicated personal resources were their primary
source of support and non-university loans served as the primary source of
support for an additional 25% of respondents. This indicates a debt load for
most graduates and is an increase over the data from the 1996 graduates. Thirty-nine
percent of 1996 graduates cited personal resources as their primary source
of support, and 29% were supported primarily by non-university loans Primary sources of support were examined among various demographic groups. On the 1996 MES, there was a 5% difference between the genders for university support received, with men more likely to receive support. In 2001 and 2002, 12% fewer women than men (33% versus 45%, respectively) received financial support from their universities through teaching and research assistantships. The proportion of respondents using personal resources or non-university loans as a source of support, however, was similar among male and female respondents. Almost all women (91%) reported using personal resources as a source of support, while 85% of men supported themselves using personal resources. Forty-three percent of male respondents and 50% of female respondents used non-university loans as a source of support. Consistent with the results of the 1996 MES, Minorities and Whites had similar response patterns in relation to their primary sources of support. Ninety percent of white respondents and 88% of ethnic minority respondents used personal resources as a source of support. Ethnic minority graduates from 1996 had reported receiving university support through research and teaching assistantships at marginally higher rates than white graduates (39% and 33% respectively). The reverse was found for 2001 and 2002 graduates in that 27% of ethnic minority respondents reported research and teaching assistantships were a source of support, while 37% of white respondents reported the same. 2001 and 2002 Minority graduates were 6% more likely to use non-university loans than White graduates those years (54% versus 48%), and were 10% more likely to use non-university loans in 1996 (53% versus 43%). Tables 9 and 10 present data on the education-related debt incurred by graduates. The level of debt reported by 2001 and 2002 graduates is similar to that reported in the 1996 MES. Sixty-one percent of degree recipients reported having debt after graduation. Sixty-four percent of respondents who earned degrees in health service subfields indicated that they were carrying debt after graduation compared to 57% of those who earned degrees in research or other subfields. Analyses of debt related to undergraduate and/or graduate education upon receipt of degree by type of subfield revealed that the largest single proportion of graduates reported more than $30,000 in debt. The median amount of debt reported among the 223 health service degree recipients was $26,000, while the median level of debt reported by the 107 degree recipients from research/other was slightly lower at $20,000. In relation to gender, 62% of female graduates reported having debt after graduation while 8% fewer male respondents (54%) reported having debt. Of those graduates who reported having debt, females and males indicated the same median level of debt ($25,000). (Table of contents)Salaries of New Master’s, Specialist’s, and Related Degree Recipients The starting salaries for recent master’s and specialist’s degree recipients with full-time positions related to psychology by position and employment setting are shown in Table 11. Direct human services salaries are listed separately for graduates in subfields with 5 or more respondents. The highest median among 11-12 month salaries was reported by Master’s degree recipients employed in applied psychology settings ($48,000), followed by direct human service positions in School Psychology ($41,250, overall) and “other types of positions” in business-industry settings ($42,000). The graduates in
fields where there are established occupational niches for the master’s
degree tended to report higher salaries (e.g. school and industrial/organizational
psychology). Examining the data by subfield of degree, graduates working in
direct human services positions in general clinical psychology reported the
lowest median salary ($30,000). In terms of employment setting, the lowest
median salary ($29,000) was reported by clinical psychology degree recipients
working in direct human services positions in community mental health centers
(among the groups where there were 5 or more respondents).
Gehlmann, S.C. (1994). 1993 Employment Survey: Psychology Graduates with Master’s, Specialist’s, and Related Degrees. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Science
and Engineering |
|
 © 2008 American Psychological Association Center for Workforce Studies 750 First Street, NE • Washington, DC • 20002-4242 Phone: 202-336-5980 • TDD/TTY: 202-336-6123 Fax: 202-336-6148 • E-mail PsychNET® | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Security | Advertise with us |
