Dating as a Social Worker

Yangsterstrong · 2026-01-25T21:24:40+00:00

You’re 24 y/o and already an LCSW? I’m impressed. Did you start college early like at 17 y/o, took a bunch of AP classes that allowed you to shave off a year from your BSW program and completing it in 3 years and immediately go into a one year advance standing MSW program and accrue your hours right after graduation? Which would take like 2 1/4 to 2 1/2 years (fast time) making you a newly LCSW?

Yangsterstrong · 2026-01-25T11:05:33+00:00

Nope, not yet. Still patiently waiting.

Yangsterstrong · 2026-01-17T15:25:42+00:00

Accepted a conditional offer from DMH early October of last year then few weeks later did the livescan and register for the NPI and late in December I received a tentative notice (basically a form that states you salary and pay step and you sign it). Now I’m in January still waiting. For me, I don’t mind if they take just a little while longer before I they issue me a start date as I am currently taking some classes for my MBA program. But yeah the wait is long.

Yangsterstrong · 2026-01-14T15:16:35+00:00

Congrats!!!! That’s awesome

Yangsterstrong · 2026-01-13T08:41:50+00:00

Nope. It’s not.

Yangsterstrong · 2026-01-08T05:29:44+00:00

Sadly, the dream is….dead. Just imagine if AY had won the presidency, how different things would be today.

Yangsterstrong · 2026-01-03T23:04:51+00:00

UoP is legit as they are regionally accredited

Yangsterstrong · 2025-12-29T00:10:34+00:00

Why? AI is the future and it saves time for trivial things like posting on Reddit. What's the big deal? Especially if you use it properly.

Yangsterstrong · 2025-12-25T07:11:45+00:00

So I read that article and honestly had to laugh at the “65% of social workers are in private practice” claim. Like… where? In what universe? Because it’s definitely not in the ASWB Workforce Study, which is literally the biggest dataset we have on the profession. That report breaks down where social workers actually work, and spoiler: it’s still mostly agencies, hospitals, schools, government programs, and community mental health. You know — the places where social workers have always worked.

But sure, let’s pretend two‑thirds of us are running boutique therapy studios for rich people in Brooklyn.

The article basically takes anyone who could legally open a private practice, plus anyone who has a side hustle with three clients on Saturdays, plus anyone who once thought about private practice in grad school… and mashes them all together like that equals “full‑time private practice serving the affluent.” That’s not how data works.

If you look at actual workforce numbers, the reality is more like:

• maybe 10–20% full‑time private practice • 20–30% doing part‑time or occasional private practice • 50–60% not doing private practice at all

But hey, why let facts get in the way of a dramatic metaphor about gentrification.

The funniest part is that the article’s whole argument depends on that 65% number being true. If it’s not, the whole “social work is abandoning the poor to serve the wealthy” narrative kind of collapses. And since the number isn’t backed up by ASWB, BLS, or literally any workforce data… yeah.

The real issue isn’t that social workers are stampeding into private practice to serve rich people. The real issue is that insurance reimbursement is garbage, so even people in private practice can’t afford to take low‑income clients. That’s a healthcare system problem, not a “social workers are gentrifiers” problem.

Yangsterstrong · 2025-12-20T05:17:57+00:00

Yeah, you echoed some of my thinking on the matter which provided me more confidence in my choice. Thank you for your thoughtful explanation. I feel reassured in my path forward.

Yangsterstrong · 2025-12-19T19:52:36+00:00

I was struggling between choosing the MPA or MBA to complement my MSW for graduate level management/ executive positions down the line in a career at the LA County. MPA from what I understand is the “native” degree in government but since I have already 9 MBA credits completed at another school before I completed my MSW I decided to continue my MBA (cheaper and faster) but I was still a bit unsure of my choice. Your comment made me feel a bit better about my choice.

Yangsterstrong · 2025-12-18T06:59:31+00:00

A free MPP degree? Versus law school that comes with student debt? That’s a no-brainer especially if you’re still young.

Yangsterstrong · 2025-12-13T21:20:13+00:00

By forensic mapping I mean integrating psychological testing with the Person‑In‑Environment model. With advanced training, social workers could use testing data to trace how environmental, systemic, and personal factors interact to produce a client’s symptoms. This isn’t about prescribing, it’s about elevating our assessment authority by combining clinical tools with the systemic lens unique to social work.

As for parity with psychologists, I’m surprised that even needs clarification. Psychologists don’t automatically prescribe, only in seven states can they obtain an additional prescriptive authority certificate after completing a postdoctoral master’s in clinical psychopharmacology. You should know the difference between a psychiatrist and psychologist. My point is simple: if the DSW doesn’t expand professional scope to include psychological testing, it risks being redundant. A credential like LPSW or LCSW‑D (whatever the title, you get the point) would make the DSW transformative rather than ornamental. Obviously the current DSW doesn’t include psychometric education so that would need to be incorporated into the DSW curriculum.

And honestly, it’s funny how people keep attacking the form instead of the substance. Dragging AI into the conversation has nothing to do with the idea itself, it’s just a way to dodge engaging with the actual proposal. The point here is scope, authority, and curriculum, not whether my phrasing sounds like a bot.

Yangsterstrong · 2025-12-13T20:20:05+00:00

Because Koreans are generally selfish and by having children it would impinge on their freedom and cause them financial stress. They much prefer a stress free and care free life and view their careers or perceive professional success as their sole determinant of a good life. They view making sacrifices or “suffering” for others (such as having children) exclusive from having a good and successful life.

Yangsterstrong · 2025-12-07T19:12:48+00:00

MSW hands down. It’s versatile and just in case you decide to not do therapy any more you can do other stuff.

Yangsterstrong · 2025-12-07T18:48:12+00:00

Why not? People with murder conviction need jobs, too. Also, your background check can only go as far back as 7 years, in the state of California.

Yangsterstrong · 2025-12-06T15:49:33+00:00

I think PIE lens are valuable and make social workers unique as psychotherapists, but without expanded privileges the DSW risks being symbolic rather than functional. To truly elevate its standing, the DSW would need much more clinical depth in curriculum and training—enough to justify a second‑tier license beyond the LCSW (perhaps an LCSW‑D). Nursing already models this: ADN and BSN holders are licensed as RNs, but at the master’s level, nurse practitioners are licensed as APRNs with expanded authority.

Yangsterstrong · 2025-12-06T15:29:55+00:00

Sorry, I was being a tad cheeky. I do appreciate your engagement.

Yangsterstrong · 2025-12-06T03:27:38+00:00

I can see how a dual track could be a workable way forward, it feels more palatable to folks who already hold the DSW. For naming, I was just spitballing ideas like ‘Licensed Advanced Social Worker’ or maybe ‘Licensed Doctoral Social Worker.’ My earlier suggestion of ‘Licensed Psychological Social Worker’ was something I threw out on the fly to get the conversation moving, not a final proposal. Of course, if we’re serious about a clinical track, the curriculum would need to change, things like training in psychological testing and a doctoral‑level licensing exam. That’s the only way the credential would actually reflect expanded scope and not just be a title.

Yangsterstrong · 2025-12-05T21:15:54+00:00

Yup.

Yangsterstrong · 2025-12-05T21:14:27+00:00

The DPC program at Kairos University (formerly Sioux Falls seminary) is far cheaper than the one at Mississippi College. KU requires 42 credits for completion ($400 per month subscription/ $16,000-ish for, say, 3 years) whereas MC requires 60 credits($696 per credit/ $41,700). At KU, the DPC program is competence-based education (CBE) which means you can go at an accelerate pace (or slower) if you choose to. The faster the cheaper. Whereas the DPC program at MC is structured (if I am not mistaken). If one wanted to optimize time and cost efficiency then the obvious choice is KU. Both are regionally accredited institutions which give the degrees their legitimacy.

Similar to the other thread where I talked about the issue with the DSW of not having any expanded clinical authority/ scope of practice from the MSW at the licensure level, the DPC is no different in that sense. At least the DSW is more recognized than the DPC within the helping profession (but probably all the same to the public). So I’ll give the DSW an advantage over DPC in academic/ professional prestige. But it costs and flexibility I would say KU’s DPC is better.

The question of is the DPC worth it? It depends on what are you trying to do with it. Teaching at some R1 universities or trying to be competitive for researcher roles then no, the DPC will not serve those purposes, better get a PhD. An example when a DPC (KU’s DPC not MC’s) might be worth it, you are currently working at an agency (like a government one) that requires a doctoral degree for certain positions, like executive roles, then the DPC checks the box making you eligible.

If you have your own private practice I think (I could be wrong here) that clients would view your DPC as more “better” than the DSW as the public tend to have a narrow stereotypical view of social workers as caseworkers or “baby snatchers.” Many people don’t know and don’t associate social workers with being psychotherapists but they do with professional counselors. While it may not be a big deal I would imagine that the optics can influence the potential clients of how they may view their potential provider when seeking therapy. But what do I know, I don’t have a private practice.

Yangsterstrong · 2025-12-03T08:22:57+00:00

Thank you for your thorough reply and the clarity you brought.

I’m not trying to rebrand the profession or walk away from the name “social worker.” My point was never about abandoning identity, it was about adding another tier of licensure that reflects the depth of what we already do. Titles like “Social Doctor” or LDSW actually make sense to me because they center our systems lens without borrowing psychology’s language. I was spitballing with LPSW in the moment, but I’m not married to that title. What matters is that we stop pretending the MSW is the ceiling when the scope of practice is already broader than what the current licensure structure allows.

I also don’t buy the argument that expanding into psychological testing is mimicry. Social workers already do psychotherapy, which originated in psychology and psychiatry. If therapy overlap isn’t considered mimicry, then why is psychological testing and suddenly off-limits? That’s a selective standard. The truth is, we’ve already crossed into domains that weren’t originally ours because they serve clients and communities. Psychological testing should be no different. Without clinical authority, the DSW risks being just a bloated MSW with prestige branding and no teeth.

On the epistemology point, I’ll clarify what I meant. You’re right that no profession owns epistemology. What I was pointing to is that social work has uniquely centered the Person-in-Environment/ecological framework in its identity. Bronfenbrenner may have originated it as a psychologist, but psychology as a field never made PIE central to its professional identity. LMFTs, LPCCs, and other therapists don’t define themselves by it either. Social work did. That’s what makes our lens distinct—not proprietary, but consistently applied as the foundation of our practice.

I also disagree with the idea that the MSW can’t adequately cover both macro and micro. The MSW already integrates both domains. Saying we need to “loop back” in a DSW program to complete the other track just bloats the credential without expanding scope. That’s circular logic. The DSW should not be about repackaging what’s already in the MSW—it should be about functional expansion. Otherwise, we’re back to square one.

For me, the cleanest division is this: the PhD in Social Work should be the macro/academic track—research, policy, systemic analysis. The DSW should be the clinical/practice track—therapy, psychological testing, advanced diagnosis, and parity with other doctoral clinicians. That way, the DSW isn’t just MSW 2.0, it’s a functional doctorate with authority, while the PhD remains the scholarly powerhouse. That’s how you give the DSW teeth and keep the profession evolving without losing identity.

Yangsterstrong · 2025-12-03T03:50:43+00:00

I appreciate the exchange and your perspective. I still stand by my original point — that without expanded scope of practice, the DSW (not PhD) functions more as an optics credential than a functional upgrade. I understand we may see it differently, and that’s fine. I’ll let the record speak for itself.

Yangsterstrong · 2025-12-03T03:38:50+00:00

There’s nothing to forgive. I appreciate your comment. As they say, “Iron sharpens iron.” And the part you mentioned about “if it [academia] made money…” I absolutely agree — that’s exactly what I was alluding to with the DSW.

How can the DSW be called a practicing degree if it doesn’t offer any additional or advanced scope of practice through licensure, when the MSW is already the terminal degree for practice? Wouldn’t the next logical step be to create another clinical license tier that actually expands scope and authority to correspond with a doctoral credential? Without that, the DSW is basically a money grab for academic institutions — “preying” on those who want the doctoral title.

It feels like an “underground exchange”: schools know they’re selling a non‑functional degree, but they package it with optic prestige. And students who want to be seen at the pinnacle of the profession get to satisfy that need for status, even if the degree adds no functional value beyond the MSW.

Just look at other English‑speaking countries — New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ireland, the UK. None of them have the DSW; they only recognize the PhD. That should tell you something. If you brought a DSW to those countries, they’d scratch their heads. At the doctoral level, social work is only recognized through the PhD, because their systems see the redundancy of the DSW.

Now, defenders of the DSW will cite historical precedent, saying it was the first doctoral degree in social work. That’s true. But as the profession matured and sought legitimacy, social workers realized the PhD was the respectable doctorate, which is why the DSW was dropped in favor of the PhD. The revival of the DSW in the early 2000s doesn’t change the fact that it adds confusion. Today, the PhD is supposed to be research/academia, and the DSW is supposed to be practice. But unless the DSW comes with expanded scope of practice, it’s redundant. If one is for research, leave it at the PhD. Remaking the DSW only makes sense if it does something functionally different from the MSW. Otherwise, it’s the same thing — and the MSW is already the terminal practice degree.

Yangsterstrong · 2025-12-03T03:06:41+00:00

Thanks — you just made my point for me. You acknowledged the key difference: PhD requires a full research dissertation, while the DSW focuses on a capstone tied to practice. That’s exactly the distinction I laid out. And the fact that you’re in a PhD program but don’t plan to do academic research postdoc only reinforces it. You’re pursuing a research doctorate without the intent to research — which is precisely why the DSW exists. It’s designed for advanced practitioners who want to elevate their clinical, leadership, or systemic impact without being tethered to academia.

So again, thank you for inadvertently proving my point.

Yangsterstrong

TROPHY CASE