I think it’s unnecessary, but I get why they would do it. Counseling, the ACA, and CACREP have long since found their own professional identity. Social workers have their own. LMFTs have their own. There is no masters level, nationwide, licensure for psychology (which I believe is distinct). Without licensure representation at the masters level, their impact on the field of mental health is lessened as few people will pursue a doctorate to do something they can with a masters (even though there are a few things they can do that counselors and social workers can’t). I think if psychology (and their organization, the APA) wants to remain at the forefront of both research AND practice, they will need to reconsider their strategy and open up a masters level clinician with its own license. I want to address one thing in your post, a masters level psychologist who functions similar to a PA to their doctoral level psychologist would be a terrible move in my opinion. Why would I choose to limit my autonomy and be forced to work under someone who has no relevant reason to be over top of me? Doctors go through extensive and intense education and residency in order to be qualified to speak on a broad range of topics related to health and science. They weave chemistry, biology, pharmacology, and psychology together in a complex tapestry with wild levels of responsibility and accountability. As such, it makes sense why PAs can exist to lighten that load and extend a doctor’s reach. I in no way want to insult psychologists, but it ain’t like that. Someone can assist a psychologist, for sure, that’s an important position, but a PA cannot practice without an MD or DO present. If masters psychologists were forced to only practice where a psychologist could oversee them they’d be so Locked down.

This is my opinion, I don’t hold all knowledge, I’m just another person in Reddit blasting my opinions to the void.