Based on many years of training students in both school and clinical psychology, the authors have formulated some impressions of differences and similarities found in these trainees. While generalizat,ions remain tentative and call for research, the students in each of these disciplines seem to present different patterns in cognitive styles, perceptions of clients, conceptions of professional role, and personality characteristics. In personality, the students in these fields often display differences in need for structure, need for external support, social maturity, and desire for autonomous professional functioning. Differences seem to be related to variations in previous work and educational experiences, and to differences in age, sex and marital status. 1mplicat)ions for quality of service offered and training needs are outlined.
We have been most fortunate to have had the opportuhity to straddle two separate but related professional fields, namely, clinical psychology and school psychology. Trained as clinical psychologists, we have a t varying times served as consultants to school systems, published on some innovative school programs (Tolor, 1968; Tolor, 1970; Tolor & Griffin, 1969; Tolor & Lane, 1968; Tolor & Lane, 1968-9), and offered university courses to graduate students enrolled in clinical and school psychology. While developing a substantial involvement and interest in school psychology, we have also continued to be immersed in the profession of clinical psychology a,nd in the training of graduate students in that discipline. The training aspect of this involvement assumed the form of intern supervision and consultation in a variety of clinical settings.
To .be sure, thc commcnts that follow are based on the authors' experiences and must be tempercd within that context. The imprcssions of the patterns of similarities and differences found in the student,s of the two respective fields remain tentative and most assuredly call for more systematic research. They are being offered now bccause they appear to have a t least some modicum of validity and because they may be comparcd easily with the expcriences of others. The presumed differences in the students of the two psychological specialties are not trivial and have significant implications for student needs that should be addressed by the respective graduate programs. They also have considerable implications for the type of service that will be offered to the consumer.
The similaritics between thc students in the two programs might best be subsumed undcr the triad of "intelligence," "motivation," and "idealism." The intcllectual dimension is pretty much determined by university selection procedures, and since there is keen competition for available slots in both programs, a high dcgree of intelligence for all students is assured. While doctoral candidatcs in clinical programs probably have a slight intellectual edge over master's level students but not over doctoral candidates in school psychology, the difference a t this high level appears not to be great and is probably of little consequence in dctermining future professional functioning.
Thc motivation for learning in the two fields seems also to be a t an extraordinarily high level for these students. Both school psychology and clinical psy-Requests for reprints should be sent to