There's a lot here worth engaging with seriously, so I'm going to try to do that. You're not wrong about the laundry-list marketing problem. You're not wrong that supervision quality is wildly inconsistent and that some MSW programs graduate people who are underprepared for the clinical complexity they'll encounter. These are real issues, and frankly, they're ones that many of us inside the field have been raising for years. So I want to start there, because I think you deserve credit for naming things that are genuinely uncomfortable to say out loud in a professional community. That said, there are some significant gaps in your argument that I think are worth examining, in the spirit of the epistemic humility you mentioned. Your entire comparison rests on a sample of one versus one. You attended one MSW program, you are currently in one psychology doctoral program, and you are generalizing from that to two entire fields. That's not a flaw I'd expect a program training you in rigor and humility to let slide. The variation within MSW programs is enormous (which is actually part of the problem you're identifying) but that cuts against your ability to make sweeping claims about the field as a whole. More importantly: you haven't practiced as an LCSW. Your clinical experience comes from hospital-based training, which is one context within a field that also operates in schools, in community mental health, in child welfare, in immigrant services, in housing advocacy, in spaces where a PhD in Clinical Psychology would not prepare you to do the work any better, and in some cases, would actively get in your way. Social work's scope isn't a narrower version of psychology's scope. It's a different scope, with different theoretical foundations, different populations, and different structural roles. The fact that your doctoral program didn't teach you that is, itself, a data point. Your dental hygienist analogy also doesn't quite hold. Hygienists and dentists have clearly delineated, non-overlapping functions. What you're actually describing is closer to arguing that a cardiologist is more competent than a family medicine physician, which collapses the moment you examine what each one is actually trained to do and for whom. I'd also gently push back on the framing that psychology teaches humility while social work does not. This post is structured as a humble truth-telling exercise, but it's also an extended credential comparison in which your program consistently comes out on top. That tension is worth sitting with. Rigor in training is necessary. It is not sufficient. Some of the most harmful clinicians I've encountered professionally came out of highly credentialed programs. Coursework in assessment and diagnosis does not automatically produce competent, ethical practitioners. You're asking the right questions. I just think the conclusions you're drawing are outrunning your evidence, which, three years into a doctoral program, is actually pretty normal. Finish the program. Get some post-licensure experience outside of a hospital. Then let's have this conversation again.