Distance Learning at a notable university?
 

Would it still be looked down upon if I got my masters in psych online but from a state university or my current school? (Nova Southeastern University)

What doctoral degree do you want? Do you want to get it from a reputable school or from a free standing Psy.D. school? What credentials are you looking to shore up by getting a Masters?

An online degree from any university is not going to be viewed favorably. You should only consider a traditional program (there are many part-time/evening programs) at established universities...not a place like Walden of the University of Phoenix.

Well my endgame is a PhD in Clinical or Counseling Psych, but I wanted to work full time. And my school (NSU) is very recognized and they offer their psych masters online, you just show up in person for the practicums and exams.

Another question to ask yourself is, if your endgame is the PhD, why get a masters first at all? Why not go straight for the PhD? You should have concrete reasons to get a masters, preferably ones that cannot be addressed in other manners--volunteering in a clinic or lab, etc. You will be paying for the degree (I highly doubt that Nova provides funding), so what is going to get you?

NOTE: This is even coming from someone who did get a masters first and benefited very much from doing so.

To answer your question, reputable Ph.D. programs will not view an online masters more favorably just because it's from an actual non-diploma mill university.

I'm sure it works the same way in the USA but even a distance graduate program (in this case Masters) can not be totally distance/online oriented, it still has to meet requirements of the college of psychologist. Aside from doing course work (which is just like homework), you must organize your practicum by yourself (meeting very strick and specific standards), then you must do a whole summer semester face to face, go to a couple seminars, teleconferencing, etc

In the end, I don't see a difference if the program does what the college expects.

At the same time, I do think it's normal for a phd program to consider where you got that Masters because these "dimploma mill" Uni's are really annoying and do often have low standards.

well after looking at myself objectively, I came to the conclusion that I'm not ready to attack the PhD just yet. I feel like a masters first (maybe in LMHC) from Nova or UM (my top choices at the moment) will better prepare me for the profession and I am going to take extra research courses at Nova before graduating as well. As for the PhD, I hope to get into UM as they have exactly the program I am looking for and are well funded according to their program info.

I know that when you look at the transcript of some online programs at reputable universities, it will not say anywhere that it was an online program. This may be worth looking into. I do agree with others on here; an online degree will probably be looked down upon by PhD programs. Personally, I don't think it's that big of a deal (as long as the program is meeting the requirements of the university) and I applaud you for wanting to work full time. But, then again, I'm no admissions committee.

It might also help to ask if graduates from this program went on to apply to PhD programs and how that worked out.

Some research oriented Ph.D. programs view getting a clinical masters as a negative and they might not let you transfer very much, ensuring you just wasted a pile of money. I'd check with students/faculty at those two programs before you decide.

In my opinion a masters in LMHC is not going to prepare you for the Ph.D. If you're worried about being thrown into a room w/a client, well that moment of freaking out is going to occur no matter what program you're in and then you'll move past it.

Also an opinion, but the academic rigor of some masters programs is actually lower than many undergraduate institutions. Everyone gets As and so many patpats that you actually get lazy. From what I hear of them this is especially the case with online programs.

Well, one difference would be that a traditional program can place students in appropriate practica and then they often have direct supervision of what happens during that training. An online program is essentially farming out this large portion of training, and they have no control over what type of setting the student goes to or how good of training they get while there.

Well I'm not concerned with patients, I'm an RMA and EMT-B so I have no prob talking to people and I've had more than my fair share of psych runs in an ambulance lol. I just thought since UM's program is counseling psych the LMHC would be good. If not that what would you suggest?

A terminal masters (a masters that is meant for licensure following completion, not to go on to a Ph.D.) in an applied area (meant for practice, not for research/other) will be virtually useless if you want to be competitive for UM's clinical program. I am familiar with NSU's MHC program, and while they teach a lot of 'nuts and bolts' of therapy, it is not really geared towards students who want to be competitive for doctoral training.

Pursuing an applied MS will often be viewed as a negative because the goals associated with that training are far different than the goals of a student wanting to pursue doctoral training. If you have a compelling reason to pursue an MS before applying to doctoral programs (e.g. low-GPA, change in career, etc), it should be in something more research focused, ideally a program that has good mentorship and a required thesis.

The UM program has a heavier slant on research than you are probably anticipating. It is true that they can produce clinicians, but there are significant research expectations at the program. From what I recall they do mostly applied work (working with patient populations, compared to technical bench work and/or animal studies), but that doesn't mean the expectations for publishing are any less than if it was a Neuroscience or Experimental program.

An LMHC won't be any more useful to a counseling program....unless they require an MA/MS as a pre-req. to apply to their doctoral program. My knowledge about UM is limited to their clinical psychology program, but given the overall "feel" of UM...I'd be pretty surprised if their counseling program is not at least a balanced (open to students wanting to be clinicians & training accordingly) training program.

Regardless of the doctoral program, you need to have research experience. The more research-focused programs will want at least 2 years of research experience, and the more balanced programs will want to make sure you have had exposure and understand the basics of what is involved in doing quality research. If you have this and you still do not feel ready to apply to doctoral programs, than pursue an MS program like the one I described above.

I see, ok well in that case, UM has masters for LMHC and clinical research and they say on their site that both are designed to prepare students to go into PhD so maybe look into their masters instead of Nova's?

Yes, it sounds better than Nova's. Also hopefully they aren't online?

If the UM program offers/requires research during the training (and will provide research mentorship)...then yes, that would be the better option. If they do not, you should probably look elsewhere as neither of the above programs would be a good fit for what you are looking to do. I'd personally eliminate any program that is online, for the reasons I stated earlier.

Oh I should've mentioned that, no they're at brick and mortar on UM's campus. I don't know if UM even does any online degrees.

As I read this forum, it sounds as though there is a real negativity towards online programs.

My question is how much actual experience do these commenters actually have with online programs; there is something to be said about having to mill yourway through a Ph.D. within an online program. Although I do understand that the research/ paper writing skills will be semi-neglected via an online route; however outside of a purely academic purpose, how is this viewed as being so negative. Assuming an equal proportion of training is attained; what is with all the negativity towards these programs. The one that I have been with now for two and half years, and will have another three plus years for my Ph.D., is a really solid school. One commenter spoke about online programs as diploma mills; you have got to be kidding me- do you actually know what you are speaking about?

Respectfully::cool:



Brand-end’s

Thing is, research and paper-writing skills are a HUGE/central component of what doctoral-level education entails, particularly if you're working in a non-clinical/non-licensable degree. Access to research materials and samples is also very important, and many such materials are still not available in electronic formats.

Beyond that, doctoral education represents the highest level of formal education one can receive in any particular topic area. To be able to determine that this level of education and competence are reached requires a good amount of consistent face-to-face interaction and supervision with advisors, as well as (again, consistent face-to-face) collaboration with classmates in your own and related disciplines.

The issues pertaining to doctoral-level clinical training add to those above, such as ensuring consistent, timely, and competent feedback (as with research and writing, HUGELY important), vouching for the quality of the training environment, etc.

Classwork, which is the area that could probably be completed online with the least difference from brick-and-mortar training, is perhaps the least important component of a doctoral education.

Yeah, that's my thought--what is grad school if it's not research and writing??

Also, although I personally agree that online classes can be thorough and challenging, traditional PhD training consists of graduate assistantships, teaching, research, integrated clinical experiences, and collaboration in all of these areas--things that the university provides. I think it's possible that online schools will be able to provide the equivalent of these in the future, but since they're in their early stages, it's not there yet and colleagues who are traditional graduates are not buyin' it yet.

But most states do allow licensing if a person did their education through distance?

You say "assuming an equal portion of training is attained," but I don't see any grounds for that assumption. Traditional programs require students to be onsite for a good deal more than 40 hours a week working on research, teaching, seeing patients, taking courses, etc. Meanwhile, online programs are often billed as something students can complete while retaining a full-time job. How does that amount to "equal training?" How does the online model provide for all the learning that takes place outside of the classroom in traditional programs (which, as mentioned above, is the majority)?

This is not true, at least in Canada. Remember, the program is mostly distance, but its mixed delivery.

For example, if you want to get your Masters done in 2yrs, you have to take 2 courses per semester (Fall, Winter, Summer) and minimum study involved in 15hr/week/per course. So you will be studying at least 30-40hrs per week. Then you are exxpected to usually do about 20hrs a week for your praticum. So no, you can't work.-t

You might be able to work part-time if you take three years but even then its difficult as you will be taking two courses (doing two projects etc) for at least 4 out of 8/9 semesters.

The summer is often used to do the face-to-face components.

Agree with Acronym...this is like asking what's wrong with a car other than the fact that its missing an engine...kind of critical, isn't it?

I do have questions about to what degree some things will ever able to be replicated online. Some research (e.g. surveys) can be done online, but its still going to severely limit the scope of research one can be trained to do without significant lab space. I also worry significantly about the scope of time commitment some of these schools require...my stance is, if one can work anywhere close to full-time and graduate in less than 10-12 years....its probably not a "real" doctorate". I don't know that all online programs portray it that way, but certainly some of the more popular ones do.

No clue. I'd say it depends on the individual state (of course), the level of the license, and the accreditation status of the program.

For licensure as a clinical psychologist, not gonna happen (at least currently). For some of the master's-level licensures, I actually have no idea.

You're just talking about Athabasca specifically, though, right? From what I can tell, you only require one practicum there, which is substantially less clinical work than you'll be doing face-to-face in an in-person program. A lot of programs have practica, plus departmental clinics you work in year long, plus involvement in clinical research projects. They are involved in clinical services during the year, as well as often doing full-time summer practica. An online degree is quite simply not getting you that same experience.

Also, the time taken to do an online degree, even with the estimates you provide, is way lower than the amount of time you spend at an in-person clinical program. For instance, in my second year, I was taking 14 credits, seeing clients, TAing a course (which involved teaching four seminars), and collecting data for my thesis. This is not the same as taking 6 credits and doing a summer practicum.

I'm really not clear what training models online programs are using, but from a scientist-practitioner training, how are you getting research experiences from afar? How are you collecting any data or getting any research mentorship? Also, how are any comps getting done?

University of Calgary, Uni of Lethbridge, also offer a mostly online Master of Counselling.( not sure about U of Alberta) But the way the programs work from Uni to Uni is almost same course wise, what's involved, etc, almost like they copied each other. So it's not just Athabasca.

U of Calgary makes you do two practicums, one general, one more specialized.
Not sure about Lethbridge.

Uni of Athabasca specifically said though that if you take the option to do your Masters in 2yrs time, they strongly suggest you do not work.

In the end though, I'm not arguing that a mostly distance delivered program is easier.

I should add the Alberta College of Psychologists, where these three Uni's are located, specifically state that a distance education/online is valid.

I'm not arguing that there aren't online degree programs from legitimate sources out there, and, yes, in Alberta specifically you can be registered through them. We've talked about in another thread, I thoroughly disagree with it, and there is a lot of political pressure for that to change.

But as someone who believes that the two major parts of becoming a psychologist are a) research and research mentorship, and b) clinical work and clinical mentorship, I quite simply don't think these things can be accomplished as well online-- and the hospitals I've worked at have expressed similar concerns. Being able to become licensed and actually getting good training are not necessarily the same thing. I don't see how you can argue that taking two distance courses is the same as being on campus or on site full-time, though.

Do you have any articles, news or forum discussions related to this subject?

The college finds it sufficient so that's where I find the validity. Where I draw the line is that the University should be well regarded. I don't believe for one second that U of Calgary is not going to prepare me properly, no matter how that program is delivered. And I believe you are punished by many employers if you do decide to go to a poor University. I think you get judged for most everything.

People are def biased in these discussions and despite the general respect shown in these discussions, those who were fortunate enough (through their own hard work and intelligence mostly) to get into a top program, seem to look down on others and try to downgrade them. I don't know if its ego or what. But there are unreasonable statements being made and you have to wonder where that comes from.


For example RGirl, you said that you can't understand people that go to an unaccredited program. (basically that you would not be comfortable with that) On it's own that is a fair statement. When you consider the facts though, it makes you seem unreasonable and that you are downgrading other peoples education and training.

The fact is that in terms of Counselling Psychology, there are only 5 programs in CANADA that are accredited. That is about 50 spots each year. Clearly, the majority of students are doing their Phd's in programs that are unaccredited. And clearly these people are still getting registered as psychologists all across Canada. (including those places where only a Phd is a sufficient education)

I'm not saying that the points about being on-site are not valid but I think they are mostly just opinions. I would be curious to hear though what these hospitals are complaining about mostly.

I do apologize if things comes across as egotistical or derisive. It certainly isn't my intention. My concern is more the state of psychology and doing the best for our field. There is a big problem with our field not receiving the respect it deserves, being outsourced to social workers and nurses, and I think that finding ways to get around higher standards are problematic. If we think what we do is important and unique, why then do we let people practice without their program meeting some sort of consistent, standardized criteria? As I think I said in the other thread we were talking in, in Canada the lack of consistency in requirements has lead to our field getting restricted from rights we may have in the US, like being able to certify someone under the Mental Health Act. One of my profs indicated that we are not allowed to do that in part because the government wants a doctorate to be required, but since that is not required across the board in Canada, they just cut us out altogether. Sure, certifying someone may not be the most important battle, but it is representative of what I think the larger problem is.

I agree, the lack of accredited counselling programs in Canada is a huge problem, one that needs to be addressed-- just like we need more accredited internship programs across North American. It's a whole 'nother can of worms.

And, yes, I will admit to my own biases. I busted my butt to get into a good clinical program with a low acceptance rate. I worked my ass off in grad school trying to balance coursework, clinical work and research to a degree where I am incredibly jealous of people with 9-5 jobs. Including internship, I've moved four times on my way to becoming a psychologist, and I'm moving again in the fall to meet my post-doc requirements for licensure in the US (and a few provinces). I live 1000+ miles away from my fiance to complete internship requirements. So, yes, it is hard pill to swallow that someone can do an online master's degree to have the same professional degree as me. I'm sorry if that comes across as bitter :)

Re: the master's thing in AB, I have to run, but the PAA is currently having a vote regarding whether to support doctorate level training as the standard in AB. I'm not a PAA member, so I can't actually access the website allowing this vote, but it was discussed a couple times in our staff meetings. Sorry I can't provide more concrete proof.

That is a lot of commitment and passion right there, so I can def appreciate why you feel the way you do.

Should be interesting. Any idea if it will pass?
Of course if it goes through, it's still up to the govt. But of course lot more confidence that changes will happen when the association is behind it.

Thanks for understanding :).

From what was discussed in the staff meeting, it sounds like it may well pass. To be fair, this is just hearsay, but that was the opinion of our manager, who is involved with a lot of these larger professional practice issues. But, yes, you're right, it is kind of a symbolic act, and our manager indicated that it won't necessarily convince the government, the college may be resistant, and even if the government does decide to follow along, it will take many years to change. I'll PM you the email I got about it.

From everything I have read & seen about online programs, I have serious doubts that any of them offer sufficient training...let alone equivalent training. I have met a number of students from online training programs at every level of training (BA, MS, & Ph.D./Psy.D) and there were clear differences in the caliber of student as compared to traditional programs.

Just because a program is offered by a university, does not mean it is good or sufficient. Universities are under the same economic pressures as the private sector, and many are looking for new/any ways to increase revenues. I'm not saying that is what UC is doing, but it is up to each student to critically evaluate the training program. Where is the peer-reviewed and replicated data that online training in psychology is sufficient? I trust in data, and I haven't seen any quality research that supports online training for any position within the field.

Can you go into detail on the differences in caliber?



How can you be confident stating that? There may not be data that supports online training but I don't know any research that discounts it either.

It is not up to the field to demonstrate that a new way of doing things is not equivalent to the old way. That should be the default assumption. If online programs want to be considered alongside the traditional model, it is up to them, as the new kid on the block, to proactively demonstrate that they provide equal training.

I haven't looked, but I'd imagine admissions statistics, employment/placement/licensure rates, etc., would possibly support T4C's statements. Also, the standard of training is in a traditional, non-distance setting. Thus, particularly when you're speaking to any type of direct patient care work, the burden of proof falls on the program type that is purporting to offer equivalent (or superior) training via new methods.

Edit: And I see KillerDiller beat me to it with respect to my latter point. Well-played :)

To people arguing that you can get a good education online....

The thing is whether you can get a good education online is not as relevant as whether people THINK you can get a good education online. Other psychologists and mental health professionals will look down on you. Your education will constantly be suspect and you will have to defend it. In a field that continues to become more and more competitive, why would you put yourself in that position? It doesn't make sense.

Dr. E

Even the APA and the arrogance of professionals and academics will have to live with distance learning very, very soon.

The only place where anyone should check is the school's EPPP passing rate quota for their respective STATE---the end.

Live with? Yes. Employ? No.

Could you pleae name some part-time/ eve programs please, since I don't know of any such programs. Thanks.

matter of quantity

Do you somehow believe there is a shortage (given the market demand) of psychologists trained in traditional educational settings?

How do you figure? The only distance-learning program that was ever accredited by the APA is now on probation. It would be an incredibly bad move to start accrediting others considering the current internship and employment crises. Also, how many people in academia can you possibly name who went to an online school and now teach at a traditional university?

1. You can't take the EPPP if you dont get an internship. :rolleyes:
2. Passing the EPPP doesnt matter if no one will hire you because they think your degree is a joke...

I'm confident from the little I've read about it that online education can be delivered in a manner that is just as effective as traditional F2F bricks-and-mortar education. However, that's completely aside from the realities of getting yourself licensed and employed in the field today as a psychologist.

Also, online education in the psychology graduate education market seems to be currently dominated by the for-profit, gorged-at-the-government-trough players like Capella, Argosy and Alliant. Tuition at those places seems just as ridiculous as at most bricks-and-mortar FSPS and continues to inflate, so the efficiencies and economies of scale that online training would tend to yield don't seem to be passed down to consumers at this point. Between that and the disrepute you'd get from getting an online masters or doctoral degree in clinical psych., it doesn't seem worth it.

This. Even if the programs being offered were from reputable schools and delivered an education comparable to brick-and-mortar schools (which is far from the case now), this wouldn't entail acceptance of an online degree in the job market. Too many crappy online programs out there for employers to take them seriously just yet.

Also, the cost of many of the online programs is unconscionable. Going into more than a small amount of debt for a mental health master's degree is terrible. Upwards of $40,000 per year is common for these programs. Factor in books and living expenses and you could be paying off loans for the rest of your life. It's like paying a Porsche price for a 1997 Hyundai Elantra.

:thumbup: Love this analogy

Hey now, don't be dissing the Hyundai Elantra. I love mine.

And if you want a career as a clinical psychologist you will be much more likely to drive an Elantra than a Porsche... :)

Dr. E

Unless you drop 100k on an online school, in which case you might end up taking the bus!