MFT vs. LCSW California

topic posted Fri, June 1, 2007 - 4:34 PM by  Sarah
I had originally thought i was going to get my MFT, but after reading so much information on LCSW it really sounds like it offers more potential. I was looking into Webster Universities program, mostly because i am currently in Florida, but moving to California in a year. This program offers a BA in Counseling MFT that i could finish once i got there (they have campuses in both places). If i do LCSW what can i do about starting a program in FL then moving? Is it worth it just to wait a year to start? Is there anything i can do to start now? What are good programs are good for LCSW in LA/OC area?
Thanks so much for your help,
posted by:
  • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

    Sun, June 3, 2007 - 4:39 PM
    You can get into most MSW programs with a bachelor degree in psychology or human services. Actually many people, like myself had degrees in unassociated fields. I had a MFA in theater before starting my MSW.
  • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

    Mon, June 4, 2007 - 11:24 AM
    If you are thinking about moving to California then look at the Board of Behavioral Sciences ( website. It has all the education and licensing requirements for CA. If you get your bachelor's from an accredited college then you should have no problem getting into a LCSW or MFT program here. Also, in CA, the MFT license & LCSW are interchangeable in alot of government agencies because there is a real lack of licensed practicioners. I am a MFT student right now, so I've done all the research into licensing and what is needed in an education to get licensed. If you have any questions, send me a personal message and I can find out the answer for you or direct you to someone who would have it. I'm in Orange County and attending Hope International University in Fullerton for my MFT.

    Okay, bye!
  • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

    Mon, June 4, 2007 - 6:11 PM
    If you go to any nationally accredited MSW program throughout the country, you should be able to get your LCSW license in CA. I went to UPenn for my MSW, then moved to CA and eventually got my LCSW license after a few years of supervised work, taking the required coursework, and passing the exams. Good luck!
  • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

    Tue, June 5, 2007 - 10:43 AM
    Very important for CA that the school you get your degree from is Accredited rather than Approved. Also, the licensing requirements are getting stricter here (like that is even possible). And remember, if you are transferring into a graduate program, make sure that all your units will transfer in. Most programs will only accept 9 units of graduate work for transfer.
    • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

      Wed, June 13, 2007 - 9:42 PM
      My 2 cents is that a MSW program tends to be more boring than a MA in psychology, but that you will have an advantage if you are moving to another state if you have the MSW or LCSW. The MSW "translates" across states better than the MFT or MFCC.
  • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

    Thu, June 14, 2007 - 1:08 AM
    Personally, I think you get much better clinical training, especially in terms of couples/families, with an MFT, but then I am one, so I'm biased.

    From looking at licensure and even degree requirements, it just seems like there is more emphasis on face time with clients. The definition of a "clinical hour" is much tighter for MFT programs accredited by COAMFTE than for an MSW, at least in New York, Indiana, and Colorado (states I have any insight into) and the requirement for "relational hours" is, as far as I know, unique. There are also much tighter requirements for who can supervise you. Supervisees I've worked with coming out of MSW programs often seem to have really struggled to get much quality supervision, and sometimes it seems down to the fact that their supervisors haven't really been given the chance to learn how to supervise - it's a separate skill from clinical work, and a lot of good folks seem to just get thrown in to sink or swim. At least with the AAMFT Approved Supervisor process, you know the person overseeing your work has had to at least pretend to learn something about the process...
    • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

      Sat, September 1, 2007 - 1:51 PM
      FINALLY!!! someone says it like it is!!! I am so tired of people NOT acknowledging the MASSIVE amount of clinical face to face counseling hours needed to become an MFT. Social workers have it so very different. Their focus is on ADMINISTRATIVE duties and yet they make DECISIONS on whether or not a child should be removed or reunited with a family. This scares me. Also, MFT's simply have more clinical back ground in their Graduate program. Yes we are psychotherapist, counselor's or simply mental health professionals, however; we deal with the REAL issues in mental health. I am very confiedent in LCSW's as well, they have the same training as we do, however they have more administrative training than we do. I must say that you end up learning the administrative stuff when you take on Medi-cal anyway, so whatever!! In California, LCSW's are valued in the same light as MFT's. In fact the State hires both for the same jobs such as Cal-works programs and much more. Thanks Sheila for setting it straight!!!! By the way, California has the strictest licensing requirements. I know a gal that came from another state with her full degree and accopmlished hours. The BBS required she re-take the Master program here and complete the mandated 3,000 clinical hours required to take the state board licensing exam. So, there ya have it.
      Lori in the San Francisco Bay area
      • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

        Mon, September 3, 2007 - 10:38 AM
        I am a PsyD and have done internships with several lcsws. I have been really impressed with those who went to Smith for their msw training. they received excellent clinical trainings, which has always impressed me. if anyone is considering msw programs, i highly suggest Smith in Massachusetts.
        Sara in Cali
      • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

        Mon, March 10, 2008 - 10:06 PM
        I take issue with the stance that MSW programs are purely administrative. While accredited MSW programs do not solely focus on the clinical aspect of practice they are far from being exclusively administrative. An accredited MSW should never be purely administrative unless the program wants to risk losing their national accreditation status. Social workers are supposed to be trained to work with individuals in their environment whether it be individually, within organizations, or on the community level, thus we do receive training that has administrative and community components. I want a career in clinical practice yet chose to pursue a degree in social work because I feel that having macro practice knowledge will allow me to better serve the target population I desire to work with on a clinical basis. I also felt that obtaining an MSW would provide more career options than I would have with an MFT, which is important to me because frankly I need to be able to find a job upon graduation. One day I might leave California and my understanding is that an MSW is more transferable state to state than the MFT degree which is another reason I chose the MSW. That being said, I have a friend who is studying to get her MFT and absolutely loves it. She is enrolled in a very good MFT program at Fresno State. I may be a little bias toward the MSW however, I have another friend who was torn between the two degrees and I encouraged him to pursue an MFT. I thought the MFT would be a better fit because I felt that he truly wanted to just be a therapist and would be bored to death with the social policy and community courses that are also a part of the social work curriculum. Although you can do counseling with both degrees the MSW and MFT are very different fields of study. The best way to discover which one is right for you is to do as much research as you can and talk to people who have obtained both. I do not think one degree is better than the other; it’s just a matter of personal preference.
        • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

          Sun, August 15, 2010 - 2:07 PM
          I want to correct some misstated assertions by "Lovely". First, the assertion that the LCSW is the strongest credential in mental health profession at the master's level is simply inaccurate. The MFT and the MSW paths differ in central ways. Yes, the MSW path has more focus on administration and policy, but the MFT path is more focused on psychotherapy with strong emphasis on marriage, family, and couples as well as individual counseling. This is why the MFT is considered a "relationship expert". Although the MSW has training in providing psychotherapy, their focus simply is NOT as strong as the MFT as they must include the administrative and policy topics in the same amount of training time. However, also, the MFT may achieve their training both with an M.A. (2-years) and an M.S. (3-years). The M.S. typically includes other areas such as career counseling, behavior analysis, school counseling, and even more clinical requirements.

          The "practicum" for MFT licensure is a minimum of 750 hours. Practicum is a designation for MFT Trainees. Once the 750 hours are reached the MFT is considered an Intern until the maximum 3000 hours of supervised clinical experience is achieved. If MSW programs require 600-800 practicum hours as stated, wherein MFTs MUST acquire 750 MINIMUM, I don't see how the MSW can be considered "stronger" on that point, alone.

          Another reason why the MFT is considered more clinical in regards to their training is because a typical MFT candidate must receive over 400 hours of supervision to be eligible for licensing. However, a typical LCSW candidate must receive around 150 hours of supervision. By mere fact that nearly a 3:1 difference in supervision hours is required of the MFT, their clinical training is FAR more extensive.

          As regards to the statement that even an LPC can attest to the LCSW as the strongest credential is hardly an endorsement of fact since the LPC training is far less than either the MFT or the MSW.

          Another error Lovely has made is the statement that an MFT is not a licensure. She also draws a distinction between an MFT and an LMFT. This is an incorrect distinction. Both designations, MFT and LMFT are interchangeable. The pathway to a licenseable clinical degree is typically an M.A. in Counseling or Psychology with an emphasis or option in Marriage and Family Therapy (MFT). When licensed, the Marriage and Family Therapist designation can be used as either "MFT" OR "LMFT".

          Finally, the most significant error is stated that an LCSW's signature alone is enough to have a patient hospitalized." This is absolutely false. In the state of California ONLY a County approved and designated mental health provider can authorize a 5150. This can be an LMFT (MFT), LCSW, Psy.D. or Ph.D., but they must be COUNTY APPROVED. Also, a qualified police officer may also authorize a 5150. Even a qualified authorization does not authorize involuntary admission to a hospital. That final decision is made by the professional in charge of the facility or their designee.

          The primary distinction between LMFTs and LCSWs IS in their clinical training. This is why the MFT (formerly MFCC) was created - to focus more intently on the clinical or psychotherapeutic aspects of mental health. It is not to say that LCSWs do not receive clinical training. Of course, they do. It may indeed be their focus -- but as it compares to the LMFT -- the LMFT has by far the MOST focused and varied clinical training of these two professionals.

          As far as employment opportunities are concerned, LMFTs are hired for the same positions as LCSWs UNLESS the facility specifically requires more administrative or policy focused duties. Even then, these areas are of discrepancy are often overlooked because with on-the-job training, the LMFTs education, training and internships supports rapid assimilation of these non-clinical duties.
          • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

            Mon, August 30, 2010 - 12:02 PM
            I’m an MFT,LCSW, PsyD and the first thing I have to say is that I am sorry for the MFTs but in the state of California and any other state in our great nation an LCSW holds the better weight on licensure. Any U.S. government agency that deals with mental health (e.g. VHA, DOD, HHS and etc.) will always trust LCSW for mental health services. It was only VERY recently that the VHA started hiring LPCs and in the military there are NO considerations for commissioning MFTs for mental health services. The U.S. Public Health Service Corps DISapproved MFTs and stated unacceptable mental health degree or unqualified degree for commissioning for active duty. In the Military you cannot be a psychotherapist unless you are a clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or an LCSW. Regardless of the mumbo-jumbo of clinical hours, and clinical training the FACT and the REALITY is that if you want a job as a mental health specialist at the master’s level that is the most respected, acknowleged, and have the “stamp” approval in the field in general then your best bet is getting LCSW. I had to go back to school after wasting my time and money in MFT. I’m a Licensed Clinical Psychologist but what pays my DOD salary is my LCSW – nuf said!
            • Unsu...

              Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

              Sun, July 17, 2011 - 2:29 PM
              Very True...LCSW's get all the Glory. Im an MFT and I kindof, at times, feel that it was a waste of time/money. Funny thing is that most of my clients tend to prefer MFT's to LCSW's when it comes to psychotherapy (overwhelming agreement in fact). Slowly, however, MFTs are becoming more and more accepted. Social workers have simply been around alot longer, and they therefore have alot more opportunities. The clinical portion (LCSW), is relatively "newer", however. Albeit, the MSW's still get all the job offers. In my view, its not very Fair (i.e. the bias in favor of social workers that is). Alot of this is due to the lobbying organizations. CAAMF simply cannot compete with the Social workers Lobbyists (whatever its called)....sSm
          • Reply to Kevin RE: MFT vs. LCSW California

            Sat, August 17, 2013 - 12:51 AM
            Hi, Kevin, As a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW), field instructor for MFT Trainees (during Practicum) and field instructor for MSW Interns, I want to clarify one of your statements. You wrote: "The "practicum" for MFT licensure is a minimum of 750 hours. Practicum is a designation for MFT Trainees. Once the 750 hours are reached the MFT is considered an Intern until the maximum 3000 hours of supervised clinical experience is achieved. If MSW programs require 600-800 practicum hours as stated, wherein MFTs MUST acquire 750 MINIMUM, I don't see how the MSW can be considered "stronger" on that point, alone.' Your information regarding the MSW program is not accurate. MSW Interns (students) have TWO years of internship. The first year of internship is 30 to 33 weeks of 16 hours per week of agency experience (a minimum of 480 hours). The second year of MSW internship is 30 to 33 weeks of 20 hours per week of agency experience ( a minimum of 600 hours). Therefore, prior to graduation from an CSWE accredited Social Work Program, the MSW Intern must complete between 1080 and 1198 hours. In addition, none of the hours required prior to graduation count toward licensing requirements in the State of California. After graduation, the degreed MSW must complete Experience Requirements of 104 weeks of supervision with a minimum of 3200 hours of supervised work experience. LCSWs must complete a program accredited by the Council on Social Work education. An accredited MSW degree is accepted in all states in the United States and many countries outside the USA. Because of the rigor of the MSW degree, there are not nearly as many universities authorized to offer the degree. In the State of California, there are 20,076 LCSW's, while there are 33,713 LMFTs. I believe that part of the reason that there are 60% more LMFTs than LCSWs in California is based on the fact that it is easier to gain entramce to the MFT programs and MFT programs are more plentiful. MFT programs do not have to meet the same educational and internship requirements as MSW programs. Professional Social Work has existed since 1898, more than one hundred years. (See NASW: Social workers have played an active role in politics and have fought for the rights of all human beings since 1898! For example, NASW Statement on 2013 National Action to Realize the Dream March: Social workers played key role in the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made his historic ' I Have a Dream' speech.
            Paula S. Alvarez, LCSW / MBA - Inland Empire, Southern California
      • j
        offline 0

        Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

        Mon, December 15, 2008 - 8:32 PM
        Any credible university with a MSW program usually has two tracks: administrative and clinical. For the most part, if someone takes the administrative track he/she cannot become licensed as a LCSW in the future. So regarding your comment that social workers focus on ADMINISTRATION is not necessarily accurate. Because the social workers who focus on administration are administrative social workers. The social workers who focus on clinical work ars clinical social workers.

        The LCSW credential is the strongest credential in the mental health profession at the master's level! The acronym stands for Licensed CLINICAL Social Worker. Therefore, the operative word is "clinical." Most LPCs (Licensed Professional Counselors) will even tell you that the LCSW is a stronger credential because they have experienced the limitations of their credentialing. For example, a LCSW's signature alone is enough to have a patient hospitalized; something a LPC, MFT, or even LMFT can and will never be able to do. In addition, the LCSW is a nationally recognized license. Although some states have minimal variation regarding requirements for licensure, the credential is still the strongest one out there. (Please keep in mind that these comments are no merely opinion, rather they are supported by facts.)

        Moreover, regarding your comment, "MFT's simply have more clinical back ground in their graduate program." it is not accurate. No master's program has more clinical background than a MSW (clinical track) program. The practicum is nearly double of comparable programs. BSW (bachelor’s in social work) programs have a 500 - 600 hour practicum - 32 (minimum) hrs weekly for 16 weeks. MSW programs have between 600 - 800 hour full-time practicum requirements. I do not know where you got your information, but, for the most part, it is inaccurate.

        What do you mean that you deal with the "real" issues in mental health? LCSW's have been dealing with "real" issues in mental health before there was ever a MFT, which is not a licensure. The bottom line is that there would not be MFTs if it were not for LCSWs. LCSWs have been performing marriage and family therapy for decades.

        By the sounds of it, you have not been in the field long. You will soon find out that what I am saying is true. I am not trying to suggest that there is not a need for MFTs or that they are not qualified to conduct family counseling. You service to the community is much needed. There is just no argument when someone attempts to compare an LCSW to a MFT, especially if the person conducting the argument is suggesting that LCSWs only do administrative work and not “real” clinical work in the field. That is a ridiculous statement.
  • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

    Fri, July 27, 2007 - 10:59 AM
    As far as the portability of the MFT license--there is a new LPC (Licensed Professional Counselor) license that will come to be in the next year or two, and my teachers tell us that we will automatically be "grandfathered" in. This license will be recognized nationally. Yay!
    • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

      Sat, June 13, 2009 - 11:52 AM
      You will only be grandfathered in if you are a licensed MFT. Also, the window for grandfathering will probably be between 6 and 12 months after CA starts to recognize LPCs, so if you don't get licensed prior to that time frame, you're out of luck. I just got this information from the latest issue of The Therapist.
  • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

    Wed, March 19, 2008 - 2:54 PM
    I concur with a previous post -- definitely check out where you will find lists of accredited universities for LCSW's. if you plan to become licensed (LCSW as opposed to pre-licensed, but post-master's MSW), you will have to learn a lot of the same stuff I learned in my MA clinical Psych (working toward MFT -- I just got licensed last year!) program, but they don't teach you that in school. That's OK, though, because you learn a lot of that in the field, sitting with clients, and while supervised. I strongly urge you to go the LCSW route. Of course, it's really up to you and what you're into, but if I had to do it over again, I would do that. I am a single person, so I support myself financially, and I am in the most heavily/densely saturated therapist market in the universe, the SF Bay Area, so there is a TON of competition for internships, which means most of them don't pay -- because they don't have to, somebody will come along to do it for free. In other geographical areas, with fewer therapists, my guess is it'd be easier. And if you have some other way of supporting yourself financially, the MFT info is very rewarding and interesting and awesome. But finding a job, even as a licensed MFT, is next to impossible (again, maybe this is just the bay area) -- but apparently there is something called article 23 (I think) that makes hospitals and big institutions ONLY hire LCSWs or PhDs. I seriously wish someone had warned me. Sorry, I have no suggestions on programs for MSW. Best of luck!
  • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

    Sat, June 13, 2009 - 11:50 AM
    From my perspective, being a LCSW is more marketable than being a MFT, but the gap is quickly narrowing. I currently work as a MFT with a county mental health agency in CA. LCSWs and MFTs are on the same pay scale. Also, many agencies that previously only hired LCSWs or PhDs/PsyDs are now hiring MFTs, as well. Examples include the LA Department of Mental Health, CA Department of Corrections, Department of Transportation, and the Veteran's Administration. The VA and Dept. of Corrections are still working on getting a MFT job classification, but they will start hiring MFTs as MFTs. This push towards greater recognition of MFTs, in my opinion, is going to continue. CAMFT and AAMFT are working hard on making this happen. The progress made is noticeable. Since I started grad school in 02, there are many more job opportunities available for MFTs. There is a need for mental health professionals and more people are realizing that MFTs are legitimate mental health professionals that bring much to the table.
    • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

      Thu, July 23, 2009 - 2:36 PM
      Hi I am a new member here but was interested on this topic aout MFTs. I'm currently in the bay area and finding it extremely difficult to find MFT-Intern employment. I have been searching for over 4 months and have landed only a handful of interviews but no offers. May I ask what is a good source to find MFT job listings?

      To others who might read this post, I personally am finding more job postings for LCSW than MFT. I"m getting the feeling that LCSW has more employment opportunities than MFT. Something worth considering when looking into these fields.
      • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

        Wed, August 12, 2009 - 11:41 PM
        I agree john.

        that said, i've been licensed as a social worker almost 10 years and i've been out of work for a year.
        it sucks to find a job in cali right now, no matter who you are.
    • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

      Thu, October 1, 2009 - 10:23 AM
      One of the reasons agencies want LCSWs over a MFTs is the issue of licensure. As you know, a MFT is not a licensed clinician in any state, therefore they cannot bill insurance companies. The LCSW also has far more supervision hours, therefore, they are highly qualified. In the state of GA, the minimum requirement is 3,000 supervised hours, not to exceed 1,000 hours annually for a minimum of 3 years. Most people are not willing to commit to 3 years of post graduation supervision to earn the license, supporting further its high demand. LCSW will always be the better choice, especially for federal jobs. MFT is also s targeted field--marriage therapy. A LCSW, on the other hand, is qualified to work with a much broader population of clients, including marriage therapy. Furthermore, they can make clinical diagnoses and involuntarily hospitalize a client. Sorry to break your bubble, but in the same regard that MFTs are making advances, so are LCSWs, but at a much faster rate. The NASW, our code of ethics and social work lobbyists alone will do more for the advancement of our field in a month than other social science fields can do in years, not to mention our funding sources. There is no comparison.
      • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

        Mon, December 21, 2009 - 6:41 PM
        I am sorry, but there are many inaccurate statements about MFTs in your post. I am an MFT in California. I received a stipend for my traineeship while I was in graduate school and I obtained a paid position after graduation. I can (and do) bill insurance companies and Medi-Cal. I work for an agency that contracts with the California Department of Mental Health, which is a government agency, and I bill for services every day. I work along side social workers and psychologists, and we do EXACTLY the same work and have the same title: clinical therapist. In California MFTs can have a private practice and many do. MFTs can also work for hospitals, schools, agencies, and private clinics. One of my clinical supervisors is an LCSW and the other is an MFT.

        I also had to obtain 3000 supervised hours and of those 3000 hours, 2000 hours had to be face to face therapy hours. For every 10 hours of therapy, I had to obtain 1 hour of individual supervision or 2 hours of group supervision. Similar to LCSWs I had to take two exams to obtain my license. I was tested on diagnosis, assessment, and treatment planning. My graduate training included courses on diagnosis, assessment and treatment of individuals, couples, groups, and families. I diagnose every client I see and I mostly treat individuals (children) and families.
      • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

        Sun, August 15, 2010 - 2:45 PM
        Jeffrey, please read my post. The MFT IS a licensed clinician in the state of California, MFT and LMFT are interchangeable. One cannot "legally" call themselves an MFT UNLESS they are licensed. MFTs absolutely bill insurance companies. I do all the time.

        The degree earned toward this licensure is an M.S. or M.A. in Counseling or Psychology. The license however is an MFT or LMFT. As well, the clinical hours requirement in California is a minimum of 3000. The MFT is not merely targeted toward marriage therapy. Psychotherapy hours with individuals has no maximum or minimum required, so any number of these hours can be acquired. However, psychotherapy with couples, family or children is a MINIMUM of 500 hours. Group Therapy has a 500 hour maximum. Telemedicine counseling has a 375 hours maximum. As long as those minimums/maximums are achieved, the rest can be accumulated through supervision, workshops and other outside training. Additionally, a MAXIMUM of only 250 hours in psych testing, report writing and clinical notes.

        It is absolutely untrue that LCSWs can work with a broader population of clients. LMFTs (MFTs) work with all the above mentioned in addition to chronically mentally ill, provided this training has been gained through education and practice. There is no client that the LMFT cannot work with provided, as with the LCSW, that it falls within your scope of practice and training. These inaccurate assertions damage both our professions because they propitiate a false dichotomy in our field.

        The MFT or LMFT designation does indicate a specific area of training, specifically Marriage and Family for the simple fact that all of us individuals come from the union of a marriage or partnership in the context of some kind of family. Unless these marriage and family dynamics are understood deeply, one's training simply comes short of understanding the individual, family, or society at large. To minimize this special and crucial education and required experience toward licensure as somehow subpar, does not bode well for the LCSW who attempts to work with individuals, marriages, and families without their healthy respect for this area of expertise we MFTs have.

        Why is there this one-up-manship between LCSWs and LMFTs. There are two licenses because their are at least two major focuses in the training and education that are different. One is not better than the other. They are just different and they enable us to do some things with more expertise With 2-3 years of education required, one degree is going to have more something or other than the other degree. It's time we respect each others' focus and strength of training.
  • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

    Thu, October 1, 2009 - 10:35 AM
    Check out Florida State University. They have a advanced-standing distant learning MSW that is entirely online. The only catch is that it is for advanced standing (must have a BSW) students only. I am finishing up my last two courses, then my practicum (512 hours: 32 hours weekly for 32 weeks). The program a progressive, state of the art program that, upon completion, is highly reputable and will afford you ample job opportunities. FSU is ranked 3rd in the south east, superseded by North Carolina (CHaple Hill) and Tennessee. Furthermore, the MSW program is ranked 23rd among 500 colleges and schools with ranked MSW curriculum, according to us news and world reports. Just think, you could stay in CA and complete the program. I have a student from Ireland in my class, as well as N. and S. Dakota, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, get the picture. It is awesome.
  • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

    Thu, April 22, 2010 - 3:30 PM
    Right now I am still in school towards my Bachelor's in Psychology. I think I want to do MFT, but not sure. What could I do to make sure that MFT is right for me? What are some good schools with a Graduate Program for MFT's?
  • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

    Fri, May 21, 2010 - 6:03 PM
    I think that the first issue is that anyone who chooses a profession that strives to take care of others, brings with them the baggage that rocketed them into that decision. The heavier the baggage becomes before during and after studies, the less objective you are and the less effective you are. Those things that help you survive === keep you from living. (author unknown-may even be me). Don't kill someone else while you kill yourself==Rev.Leon
  • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

    Thu, April 5, 2012 - 8:57 AM
    I am sure I am going to brew up a LMFT Vs LCSW battle but in my opinion in working in this field for 7 years is that MFT's are much more adept at the clinical language and with modalities. This is not to say that LCSW's don't have training in this but from what I have seen their eyes tend to glaze over when theoretical modalities are discussed.
    Someone had commented that MFT's have less internship hours. This was not true at my school and again not true according to the BBS. In fact while the LSCW has to complete 3000 hours, the MFT has to complete 3000 hours in particular types of therapy so it is in fact stricter for us to get our license.

    Admittedly it does frustrate me that MFT's do the same work as an LCSW and is not given the right to work in State Hospitals such as Patton as they offer significantly higher pay. I feel the same regarding Psych. RN's that do literally the same work at the jail I work and get paid almost double what we make. But that is another issue.
    Well I'm sure I whooped up some good controversy here. In the end LCSW's are my brothers and sisters and do great work. I am glad that for the work they do.

    PS: If you are a student go into LCSW. Life is not always fare.
    • Re: MFT vs. LCSW California

      Mon, May 21, 2012 - 11:56 PM
      Hello everyone! Im a psychology transfer student whose about to attend Cal State Fullerton and switch majors to sociology. I left school when I was 17 to work and have come back at 24 after realizing that I was barely making enough money to survive bills and wasnt pursuing my passion which was working with people. I was initially very interested in becoming a psychologist, but the more I look at social work and the broad range of working in different settings the more it draws me in. I have previous experience volunteer working in a womans abuse center as well as a homeless shelter and I've held management jobs at a mortgage company and clothing store but nothing directly correlating with sociology. I have been googling and networking with different counselors to find the out the best way to get my foot in the door within this profession. I know I am not even half way there, but I'm very motivated and inspired to work as a social worker. I have seen that most job requirements ask for a masters in sociology, but I was wondering how has everybody gotten to where they are now and if you are willing to share your stories and advice it would be so appreciated :) thank you.

Recent topics in "Counselors"