programs tend to be extremely competitive because a
student must have the ability to complete advanced
degrees in two very different and demanding disci-
plines. The goal of these joint-degree programs is not
to simply train someone in both law and psychology
but to integrate that training. This approach means that
students alternate their formal coursework between
psychology and law to better understand the interac-
tion between the two fields.
The benefit of this training model is that it allows
for the true integration of the divergent disciplines.
This integration may better allow the graduates to
identify aspects of the law that could benefit from a
sophisticated psychological investigation. The simul-
taneous exposure also may increase the familiarity an
individual feels in examining issues from both per-
spectives. The joint degree may open up a variety of
different employment possibilities that training in one
field does not offer. A graduate of a joint-degree pro-
gram may be able to work as an attorney for a law
firm, as a clinical psychologist, or as an academic in a
law school or psychology department. However, there
are several disadvantages to joint-degree programs.
There is the additional time and financial expense
required for attending these programs because one has
to complete two rigorous advanced degrees without
being employed full-time. In addition, simply obtain-
ing two advanced degrees in two different disciplines
does not automatically mean additional employment
opportunities. Graduates of these programs often
struggle with the question of whether they are psy-
chologists or attorneys and with proving one or the
other to a prospective employer.
Specialty programs in psychology and law offer
only doctorate degrees in psychology but typically have
the same depth of training in psychology and law as
joint-degree programs. Students in these programs still
take specially designed courses in psychology and law,
maybe even take some law classes, participate in
research on different psycholegal topics, or participate
in clinical practicums in prisons or forensic hospitals.
Students in specialty programs are allowed more flexi-
bility in designing their program of study than those
in joint-degree programs but are still considerably
immersed in psychology and law. They also are able to
do so while spending less time in school. However,
students in these programs may not have the same flex-
ibility in terms of employment or understand all the
areas in which psychology and law interact, because of
their more narrowly focused training. As a result, theymay lack some sophistication in applying psychology
to legally relevant issues.
The third model for training in psychology and law
is the psychology and law minor. These programs do
not offer the same depth or breadth that the other two
training models offer. Students in these doctoral pro-
grams usually work with a professor in one of the five
specialty areas and conduct research on a psychology
and law–related topic or engage in some forensic clin-
ical work. These students may take specialty courses
related to psychology and law, but their primary train-
ing is in their specialty area (e.g., cognitive). These
programs offer some experience in psychology and
law but do not allow the interested student to become
an expert in the interdisciplinary field.Training Areas and
Objectives in Doctoral Programs
By 1995, the field of psychology and law recognized
that there was a great deal of diversity in the training
models for psychology and law programs, and there
was some concern about future training. As a result, the
National Invitational Conference on Education and
Training in Law and Psychology was held at the
Villanova Law School. The conference attendees
worked in several different areas related to both under-
graduate and graduate training in psychology and law.
One of those groups focused on the specific objectives
doctoral programs in psychology and law should have
in training psycholegal scholars. The conference did
not endorse any of the training models previously iden-
tified but did identify five areas that they believed were
crucial in the development of psycholegal scholars.
First, doctoral programs should train students
in substantive psychology. Substantive psychology
encompasses the foundational areas of psychology,
such as biological, cognitive, developmental, person-
ality, and social psychology. It also includes an aware-
ness of the professional and ethical issues that arise
when working in psychology. In addition to these
foundational topics, doctoral programs should encour-
age awareness of the cultural and social forces that
work to shape our view, especially since many gradu-
ates of these programs will shape social policy.
Second, these programs should emphasize training
in research design and statistics. The conference
attendees suggested that because one of the strengths
of graduates of psychology and law programs was
their ability to apply different psychological methodsDoctoral Programs in Psychology and Law——— 235D-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 235