That's kind of what she tells me about some areas of psychology.  She deals more with statistics and running models non stop with what must be massive amounts of data.  Not exactly the Freud-and-the-couch kind of thing (at least not in her area).  But I think with her program and some PhD programs, the Masters and PhD are gained in one continuous program, rather than in two separate programs.  I think it's faster to do that way, and probably a lot more convenient.  Basically, you graduate from college with a bachelors and go on to get your doctorate, and the Masters is simply earned along the way. 

I meant that there are some areas of psychology which are science, and there are areas that are less so.  My wife deals with the science side which involves a lot of studies, data, data crunching, etc.  The side which is not science (pseudoscience?) seems to be the side which is not grounded in reputable studies and data.  I think it's the same way with any field, even history.  If you read a book and it's sparse on footnotes and primary document citations, or it makes conclusions which are not rooted in primary documents, you may be looking at a pseudo-history text.