Jung used actual Charts in his practice. That's why the "soft science" of Psychology wants to distance itself from him--it wants more respect from the hard sciences, and embracing astrology would have the opposite effect.
David, it's far more than this. Basically Jung based his many theories on his interactions with patients in a one-to-one basis, his study of some of the humanities (literature, mythology,) and his own introspection. In today's terms, his methodology lacked rigor.
His astrology seemed to be limited to matching up sun and moon combinations with married couples. We wouldn't even do synastry this way today.
Today academic psychologists do really serious experimental work with larger samples of human subjects, that more or less follows the scientific method. There are all kinds of controls today on research with human subjects, to minimize some of the abuses and fake science of the past. Psychology seems increasingly headed towards the medical science field of neuroscience. For one thing, that's where the grant money is.
Clinical psychologists in North America today have to undergo a really rigorous education requiring a Master's or Ph. D. degree, and many hours of supervision in a clinical setting. Then they have to pass a state or provincial board exam in order to practice.
Of course, an astrologer can hang out a shingle with no qualifications whatsoever.
The trouble with astrology is that, to date, it has performed really poorly in the kinds of statistical tests routinely applied to other theories about human behaviour.