Ford has her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology, but she is not licensed to practice psychology. She can teach and do research, but Ford cannot counsel people.
The limitations on Ford are completely
unsurprising, considering her (sub)field.
In Florida, to obtain the
academic background customary for becoming
licensed to
counsel people, she would need at least an accredited
master's degree in
Clinical Psychology. I'm unsure why California would differ much in that aspect, except possibly raising the bar to a Ph.D. in such a popular academic field.
I'm unsure of the exact application for a degree in "
Educational Psychology". Maybe its research is focused on methods &c. for
education (i.e., research on how best to teach). Such degrees might even be granted by a university's College of Education instead of its College of Social Sciences (I confess that both are outside my field). Someone familiar with that field wouldn't expect it to lead to a
license to
counsel people. But let's be reasonable: In an academic environment, it seems entirely appropriate for someone who has earned an advanced degree in some (sub)field of psychology, and is working in any of its fields, to call oneself a "
psychologist", regardless of legal requirements for
licensing.
Graduate Schools can present surprises that can range from unpleasant to devastating for a grad student's expected path to the advanced degree she's seeking.
[Manure] happens.
I'd be more interested to learn which institution granted Ford her advanced degrees (e.g., its reasearch specialties might be revealing). And whether she now has
tenure at any institution, or is merely an "
adjunct professor"; at prestigious universities like Leland Stanford Jr.'s, the latter are (or have been) considered expendable Ph.D.-bearing workers.