AbstractConsideration is given to the present form of graduate training and the presumed goals of such training are noted. This review led to the conclusion that the present form that research training takes follows archaic traditions which in fact represent an obstacle to effective training. In particular, the master's thesis, the doctoral dissertation, and the comprehensive examinations are seen as the principle stumbling blocks which together take the joy out of research, present discontinuities in training, and seriously delay student progress. An alternative system is proposed which attempts to integrate training and broaden its relevance while reducing the likely time it will take for each student to complete their program.I was prompted to write this paper by my observation that far too many doctoral students fail to pursue research after graduation. This is true for most clinical students but also for quite a number of nonclinical students. Since so much of our graduate training, and especially the efforts of supervisors, is focussed on teaching students to be researchers, such an outcome is extremely disappointing and calls for a reconsideration of our approach in training graduate students.The main thrust of my concern here is the failure of our training programs to instill in our students appropriate attitudes toward research, as well as the necessary skills, that might foster a post - graduate research career. The doctoral dissertation is the main mechanism by which we attempt to train students to do, and enjoy, research; it is my view that the traditional requirements for the dissertation are outmoded and actually present an obstacle to effective training, particularly in instilling a passion for research. However, the doctoral dissertation is but one component (albeit a large component in terms of time investment) of graduate training and we must consider the whole process if we are to revamp our programmes.Possibly we should reconsider the goals we have in mind for graduate training, but I do not find that to be a sufficiently attractive alternative. I believe that the goal of training our students to be scientist - practitioners is the most appropriate model yet articulated for applied students, and this requires that they be trained in research as an integral part of their applied work. Non - applied students presumably share the same goals as their teachers since in choosing to enter graduate training, which does not lead to applied work, they have declared their desire to train as researchers.The goals, then, of graduate training appear to be to inform students of current relevant knowledge, to teach them to apply such knowledge, and to train them to be researchers. The latter goal, you will note, is to train them to be researchers; not just to be able to do research but to continue to do so after graduation. Others may disagree with me about the goals of graduate training but for the rest of this paper I will assume that these are our goals.First I will describe current graduate training and point to the confusion that seems to exist in terms of the purpose of its various components, to its failure to achieve the goals articulated above, and to the financial burden to universities that current training seems to create. Indeed, my main aim here is to point to the failings of the present system, a system that in much of its form has been with us since psychology became an academic discipline. It would be surprising if a 19th century educational programme was suited to the needs of the late 20th century. In fact, what is not surprising (but should be) is that universities, which typically see themselves at the forefront of knowledge and as leading society in constructive directions, should so stubbornly hold to an antiquated training system. We are faced with a system that presently does not achieve its goals at all well; we must set aside our traditions and examine other ways to achieve our aims. …