Occupy the imbalance!

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Originally Posted by MCParent

We'll do it. I don't think the nominees have been announced yet.

I'll also expand the social media tomorrow to include twitter (ugh. reluctantly.) and a group site called wiggio.

If you want to bring a lot of publicity to it quickly, get the NY Times to retweet you to their 4 million+ followers. (Anyone with contacts at news outlets with Twitter accounts could help you get retweeted.) Or some other highly followed person. (Twitter is great!)

This is going to be an extremely uninformed question (thus the need for the question). It's just that, well, I'm going to be starting my own process soon. I've briefly skimmed some of this, and clearly from a lot of the threads on this forum, it seems like today's doctoral students (or at least those who are speaking out) are in quite the uproar. So, the question is, and again, please forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject: Does this whole match process, etc. apply to masters students too or is this purely a research-doctorate degree - related situation?

Originally Posted by Psych12345

This is going to be an extremely uninformed question (thus the need for the question). It's just that, well, I'm going to be starting my own process soon. I've briefly skimmed some of this, and clearly from a lot of the threads on this forum, it seems like today's doctoral students (or at least those who are speaking out) are in quite the uproar. So, the question is, and again, please forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject: Does this whole match process, etc. apply to masters students too or is this purely a research-doctorate degree - related situation?

The APPIC process is restricted to doctoral-level training, and specifically to those individuals wishing to obtain predoctoral psychology internships (the applicants can come from clinical, counseling, or school programs). To the best of my knowledge (which, admittedly, is woefully inadequate with respect to master's programs and licensure), there is no centralized internship match process that occurs at the master's level.

Originally Posted by Psych12345

This is going to be an extremely uninformed question (thus the need for the question). It's just that, well, I'm going to be starting my own process soon. I've briefly skimmed some of this, and clearly from a lot of the threads on this forum, it seems like today's doctoral students (or at least those who are speaking out) are in quite the uproar. So, the question is, and again, please forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject: Does this whole match process, etc. apply to masters students too or is this purely a research-doctorate degree - related situation?

For doctoral degrees in clinical, counseling, and school psychology.

Thanks for your responses! I appreciate it.

900 signatures.

How long do you think before APA accredited sites become a minority in the Match?

(If you think about how many people arrange their own internship, outside the match, APA accredited internships may already be a minority in training for psych.)

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/p...gy-internship/

Bump

Almost to 1000 signautures....

As of right now we have hit ONE THOUSAND signatures!!!

Originally Posted by MCParent

As of right now we have hit ONE THOUSAND signatures!!!

x1000

Originally Posted by MCParent

As of right now we have hit ONE THOUSAND signatures!!!

That is awesome!

i think most importantly is that the vast vast majority of signatures are PSYCHOLOGY STUDENTS and PSYCHOLOGISTS. Membership organizations are dependent on member dues to stay viable and relevant. When members (and potential members) take on an issue they are more likely to take notice because there can be a direct and impactful change in their membership.

I hope we can help foster significant changes, and I think this petition is providing the best opportunity thus far for real change to be discussed. If not, I would strongly encourage the people who signed the petition to cease their support of the APA by withdrawing their membership from the organization. In addition, I would encourage them to actively advocate for another organization more in line with their beliefs like APS or similar. I actually have been holding off on submitting my 2012 APA membership dues because I want to ensure that my $ actually goes towards things I support.

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

i think most importantly is that the vast vast majority of signatures are PSYCHOLOGY STUDENTS and PSYCHOLOGISTS. Membership organizations are dependent on member dues to stay viable and relevant. When members (and potential members) take on an issue they are more likely to take notice because there can be a direct and impactful change in their membership.

I hope we can help foster significant changes, and I think this petition is providing the best opportunity thus far for real change to be discussed. If not, I would strongly encourage the people who signed the petition to cease their support of the APA by withdrawing their membership from the organization. In addition, I would encourage them to actively advocate for another organization more in line with their beliefs like APS or similar. I actually have been holding off on submitting my 2012 APA membership dues because I want to ensure that my $ actually goes towards things I support.

This is a good point.

At a thousand signers and growing, this is win-win. Either APA takes these recommendations seriously and starts to implement them or some serious version of them, or we have demonstrated clearly that APA does not take the membership seriously and thus does not deserve the support of its members.

Has anyone looked at who is signing the petition? There are some very heavy hitters on there, including the DCT of the University of Chicago (signature # 1070).

I think I may have missed it, but when is this going to be sent to the APA?

Originally Posted by edieb

Has anyone looked at who is signing the petition? There are some very heavy hitters on there, including the DCT of the University of Chicago (signature # 1070).

I think I may have missed it, but when is this going to be sent to the APA?

Heh. Yeah, saw that.

I'd committed to March 15 for the first volley. That is just before the APA meets for a the twice-annual meetings in DC. We'll keep it up, since it still seems to be rolling, and contact the divisions and associations for support before convention, then send again.

Did anybody see the signers saying that some for profit professional schools (FPPS) graduate over 200 persons per year? Do you think this is hyperbole?

Originally Posted by edieb

Did anybody see the signers saying that some for profit professional schools (FPPS) graduate over 200 persons per year? Do you think this is hyperbole?

Highest I know of is 100

http://www.argosy.edu/documents/psyd...d-outcomes.pdf

One way to obtain more signatures if for everybody to e-mail their current or former internship DCTs with the link and a note explaining that other DCTs at high profile schools have signed the petition and, as a result, you thought that they might be interested in taking a look @ the petition, too.

Social proof in action

Originally Posted by MCParent

Highest I know of is 100

http://www.argosy.edu/documents/psyd...d-outcomes.pdf

That's interesting, although there were 103 students that applied for internship, only 36 of those got APA/CPA internships, And 51 or 50% of the students did a nonaccredited internships. where do you find those internships?

Not to disrespect anyone but the petition uses this kind of professional school as an example (I'm guessing) but really they don't compare bec most of them don't get the position everyone else is vying for. I understand the saturation of market and producing subpar psychologists but I still don't see how a subpar student can usurp a good student from getting an internship spot.

I think we also have to admit that even with the "qualified students" alone, there really are not enough spots available for internships out there. I just feel like the petition focused too much on professional schools' accreditation without addressing the whole picture. I guess I'm still not 100% convinced by the petition.

Not to disrespect anyone but the petition uses this kind of professional school as an example (I'm guessing) but really they don't compare bec most of them don't get the position everyone else is vying for. I understand the saturation of market and producing subpar psychologists but I still don't see how a subpar student can usurp a good student from getting an internship spot.

I think we also have to admit that even with the "qualified students" alone, there really are not enough spots available for internships out there. I just feel like the petition focused too much on professional schools' accreditation without addressing the whole picture. I guess I'm still not 100% convinced by the petition.

People have different definitions of "professional school." And, I think the term is problematic, especially when used as a pejorative. I don't distinguish between profit or non-profit or free standing. I distinguish between funded and unfunded. Without funding, the schools rely on tuition to operate. http://www.ncspp.info/schools.htm is who identifies themselves as a "professional schools." This is where the expansion has occurred in the field. They've gone from a small percentage of new graduates to more than 50% of new graduates. They have expanded faster than the number of apa internships slots available. THAT is the major source of the imbalance. And, I agree with you, in general, these are not the students causing a student from a PhD program not to get an internship slot. The numbers bear that out. 90+% of PhD students get an APA internship slot. While 100% would be better, that's not a huge problem. On the other hand 60+% of psyD program students get an APA internship slot. THAT'S a big problem. And, I agree, the petition does not address the whole picture. It wasn't intended to. It addresses one factor, discusses some of the radiating consequences of that one factor, and suggests some ways to deal with that one factor. I think that one factor is the major cause of variance in the internship imbalance.

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

People have different definitions of "professional schools." And, I think the term is problematic, especially when used as a pejorative. I don't distinguish between profit or non-profit or free standing. I distinguish between funded and unfunded. Without funding, the schools rely on tuition to operate. http://www.ncspp.info/schools.htm is who identifies themselves as a "professional schools." This is where the expansion has occurred in the field. They've gone from a small percentage of new graduates to more than 50% of new graduates. They have expanded faster than the number of apa internships slots available. THAT is the major source of the imbalance. And, I agree with you, in general, these are not the students causing a student from a PhD program not to get an internship slot. The numbers bear that out. 90+% of PhD students get an APA internship slot. While 100% would be better, that's not a huge problem. On the other hand 60+% of psyD program students get an APA internship slot. THAT'S a big problem. And, I agree, the petition does not address the whole picture. It wasn't intended to. It addresses one factor, discusses some of the radiating consequences of that one factor, and suggests some ways to deal with that one factor. I think that one factor is the major cause of variance in the internship imbalance.

Agreed. Additionally, the sheer number of new near-graduates being churned out is stressing a system that apparently isn't prepared to handle such a relatively rapid increase in applicants. More applications are being submitted per site, which requires those sites to spend essentially the same amount of resources reviewing the credentials of a larger number of applicants. It's almost like a brute-force DOS attack on the internship system (not exactly the perfect analogy, but in my mind, it has at least some credence).

More applications are being submitted per site, which requires those sites to spend essentially the same amount of resources reviewing the credentials of a larger number of applicants. It's almost like a brute-force DOS attack on the internship system (not exactly the perfect analogy, but in my mind, it has at least some credence).

Yes, a point also made in the petition.

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

The numbers bear that out. 90+% of PhD students get an APA internship slot. While 100% would be better, that's not a huge problem. On the other hand 60+% of psyD program students get an APA internship slot. THAT'S a big problem

I'm wondering where you got these numbers.

In the APPIC match (not only APA and not including people who arrange their own internship somehow), 84% PhD and 75% PsyD students matched (http://appic.org/Match/MatchStatisti...2011Part2.aspx). Obviously, this is a different population/result than what you're talking about, though it still adds a bit to your point.

I actually don't remember. It has been posted here recently. . . a comparison of APA/CPA match rates for PsyD and PhD.

How many prof school students apply to APA accred internships? Is there any data on that?

Originally Posted by cara susanna

How many prof school students apply to APA accred internships? Is there any data on that?

The C-20 data on program sites is supposed to include "all students who sought or applied for an internship." Presumably, their goal is (or SHOULD be) accredited training. As well, the APPIC data only includes folks who went through APPIC, not those who specifically went for a CAPIC or miscellaneous internship. If a site is systematically matching applicants to unaccredited, nonAPPIC sites, that is a problem.

APPIC doesn't divide its data up by professional school or not, but JS posted the NCSPP member list and you could cross-reference with the APPIC data set.

Originally Posted by Duck Duck Goose

I'm wondering where you got these numbers.

In the APPIC match (not only APA and not including people who arrange their own internship somehow), 84% PhD and 75% PsyD students matched (http://appic.org/Match/MatchStatisti...2011Part2.aspx). Obviously, this is a different population/result than what you're talking about, though it still adds a bit to your point.

I didn't realize that there's this much percentage of PsyD students. I wonder though why so many PsyD students get matched. Is that because sites preferred them over PhD? I know in my program the PsyD program has a higher match rate than the PhD program, granting they have a big school as part of their consortium and they milk that connection all the time.

Why shouldn't the PsyD programs do well in the match? (in general).

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

I actually don't remember. It has been posted here recently. . . a comparison of APA/CPA match rates for PsyD and PhD.

I don't remember seeing it. Any help, anyone?

It's just odd because I can't put that info together from any of the APPIC sources, so I wonder where it's coming from.

Originally Posted by Duck Duck Goose

I don't remember seeing it. Any help, anyone?

It's just odd because I can't put that info together from any of the APPIC sources, so I wonder where it's coming from.

Question 9.

http://www.appic.org/Match/MatchStat...2011Part3.aspx

Originally Posted by MCParent

Question 9.

http://www.appic.org/Match/MatchStat...2011Part3.aspx

9. Percentage of matched applicants that were placed at an
APA- or CPA-accredited program:

Ph.D. = 94%
Psy.D. = 64%

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

Why shouldn't the PsyD programs do well in the match? (in general).

They should do just as well, if they offer balanced training, teach EBT, and otherwise prepare their students to be well-rounded clinicians.

Mike makes a good point about some programs circumventing the Match completely, instead using alternative paths provided by CAPIC or similar. Those programs and spots are incredibly problematic because they aren't being counted and they are enabling more students to enter the workforce with limited employment options.

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

Why shouldn't the PsyD programs do well in the match? (in general).

I don't know. I do admit I'm more biased towards PhD bec that's what I'm aiming for. So is that part of the imbalance? Is there more PsyD students applying that are possibly taking away positions from PhD students? It seemed like from the data just posted there are still more PhD students matching.

I understand that with more students there are more people applying which saturates the internship sites. So are you saying that with APA following the petition, the students that might be falling in between cracks will not have that problem anymore or st least lessen it?

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

They should do just as well, if they offer balanced training, teach EBT, and otherwise prepare their students to be well-rounded clinicians.

Mike makes a good point about some programs circumventing the Match completely, instead using alternative paths provided by CAPIC or similar.

CAPIC is not a bad internship route. Here in California CPA (California psychological association) addressed the imbalance by creating this internship program. The training is as good as APPIC although maybe not APA. The problem was it can get very expensive for sites to afford APPIC and it seems like CAPIC is much cheaper. There are many CAPIC sites that also belong to APPIC.

With that said I wonder if people who didn't do CAPIC, APPIC, APA route should not be permitted to get licensed or needs to get more hours. To ensure quality psychology students becoming psychologists.

Originally Posted by niknok

I don't know. I do admit I'm more biased towards PhD bec that's what I'm aiming for. So is that part of the imbalance? Is there more PsyD students applying that are possibly taking away positions from PhD students? It seemed like from the data just posted there are still more PhD students matching.

I understand that with more students there are more people applying which saturates the internship sites. So are you saying that with APA following the petition, the students that might be falling in between cracks will not have that problem anymore or st least lessen it?

I'd read my paper with John Williamson as a brief intro to the topic and the specific problem of unequal contributors, and also peruse some of the recent TEPP work.

Basically, the petition is intended to do two things: 1. fix informed consent of applicants to encourage applicants to think critically about outcomes, which would result hopefully in voluntary applicant-side reduction of enrollment in problem programs as applicants reconsider whether those degrees are really a fit to their goals; 2. facilitate program level accountability to encourage problem sites to make better actuarial decisions in admissions

Originally Posted by niknok

CAPIC is not a bad internship route. Here in California CPA (California psychological association) addressed the imbalance by creating this internship program. The training is as good as APPIC although maybe not APA. The problem was it can get very expensive for sites to afford APPIC and it seems like CAPIC is much cheaper. There are many CAPIC sites that also belong to APPIC.

With that said I wonder if people who didn't do CAPIC, APPIC, APA route should not be permitted to get licensed or needs to get more hours. To ensure quality psychology students becoming psychologists.

CAPIC membership, APPIC membership, and APA accreditation are not analogous. The CAPIC member requirements are: http://www.capic.net/material/Intern...ifications.pdf APA: http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/

Every other health profession requires completion of accredited training. The fact that we do not is a hinderance to our ability to effectively lobby for funding.

Originally Posted by MCParent

CAPIC membership, APPIC membership, and APA accreditation are not analogous. The CAPIC member requirements are: http://www.capic.net/material/Intern...ifications.pdf APA: http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/

Every other health profession requires completion of accredited training. The fact that we do not is a hinderance to our ability to effectively lobby for funding.

Agreed. The problem I have with CAPIC is that it adds yet another accrediting body/standard rather than attempting to use what's available. I can understand why applying for APA accred could be cumbersome (although I feel, as MCP mentioned, that it's necessary), but why not just adhere to APPIC standards rather than creating your own system? The main reason that springs to mind is, I believe, CAPIC sites are allowed to be half-time, and are also allowed to be unpaid, neither of which I agree with.

Is there more PsyD students applying that are possibly taking away positions from PhD students?

Sure, PsyD students beat out PhD students at sites I'd imagine frequently. The internship year is a clinical year. It's not a research gig. Further, it's not like all of the sites are run by PhD folks that don't like PsyD programs. Many PsyD programs have established a history with internship sites. This is sort of how it works. A site gets a student from a program, that student performs well, and then they give consideration to other students from the program more weight. Many sites that are at more established places, and this includes lots of APA programs, may prefer PhD students, especially if a site is affiliated with strong research programs (sometimes they'll designate themselves as "clinical science" internship programs. It reflects well on the programs if former interns go on to become prominent in the field. If you are a research oriented PhD student applying to well recognized internship programs, I don't think you are competing with PsyD students. But, most PhD students do not go into a research career. I do think the current number of students applying every year taxes the system; it makes it harder to screen applications effectively.

Originally Posted by GoPokes

9. Percentage of matched applicants that were placed at an
APA- or CPA-accredited program:

Ph.D. = 94%
Psy.D. = 64%

Great, thanks! So it doesn't look like the PsyDs are taking away APA accredited options from the PhDs. Maybe part of it is that the PsyDs have more options, as others have suggested and as is (supposed to be, ignoring my situation) the case in my (university-based but professional school) program.

I think it would show such commitment to the practice of psychology and mental health care if there were (more?) fully funded professional psychology grad programs...

I think it would show such commitment to the practice of psychology and mental health care if there were (more?) fully funded professional psychology grad programs...

It might, but there's a problem. I can't think of another applied profession that works that way. Certainly law and medicine do not. Psychology's funded phd programs are funded because of research dollars and teaching dollars. The training model is an academician/research training model. That's how it works if you go get a phd in physics or whatever. I think we could do a few things in psychology to help. We could work toward getting practice oriented degrees into more upper tier universities. Right now, the psyd is mostly housed at fringe institutions. You can't, for example, get a psyd from the university of michigan. I'd love to trade out say Yeshiva (picked somewhat at random as an example school that few have heard of and not an R1) for University of Texas, or wherever. I think we really need to find a way to make the argosys of the world go away. We need to deal with the supply and demand issues with regard to the field, not the student demand for doctoral programs. So, I think we need to trim the fat while at the same time working on the financial issues that limit apa internships and also demand for psychologists at large. We can increase the number of APA internships as merited by work study analyses and get rid of the programs contributing so heavily to the match problem. We can then work to figure out a way to subsidize training costs for those in the practice oriented programs. The tuition costs are out of control high. We can work on getting tuition waivers with participation in university practica, TAs and RAs to make those more commonplace in practice oriented programs. There's just no good justification for charging 20, 30, 40,000 dollars a year for tuition on a practice oriented psychology program. That's morally wrong in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

could work toward getting practice oriented degrees into more upper tier universities.

Counseling Ph.D.'s?

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

You can't, for example, get a psyd from the university of michigan..

Too bad, it would have been a great place to spend 4-5+ years to train.

Go Blue.

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

There's just no good justification for charging 20, 30, 40,000 dollars a year for tuition on a practice oriented psychology program. That's morally wrong in my opinion.

As someone who did it and could afford it (I'm not in financial crisis til I'm 40 though the vast majority of my cohortmates are), I think that it has to do with brain development of people attending these programs. Like my decision making frontal lobes were not fully formed when I was applying to grad school straight out of undergrad. I think that's true for most undergrads and I don't think that most people in the field realize that these schools seem legitimate and like a good move toward a career as a psychologist when you're brand new to the field. Someone recently posted somewhere that they didn't think a lot of the psych undergrads who realized they couldn't do anything with the BA so decided to apply to grad school would be applying for admission in a second round (i.e., next year). I think that's true, too, but I think a large portion of that population will just get into one of these unfunded schools and use student loans to pay tuition. I really feel bad for students who - like I used to - think you need a doctoral degree to do therapy and wind up in these programs in an attempt just to "help people." If I drop out in the next few weeks, I will really try to educate undergrads about these issues somehow because the message isn't clear, in my opinion.

Continuing good luck with the petition.

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

Sure, PsyD students beat out PhD students at sites I'd imagine frequently. The internship year is a clinical year. It's not a research gig. .... If you are a research oriented PhD student applying to well recognized internship programs, I don't think you are competing with PsyD students. But, most PhD students do not go into a research career. I do think the current number of students applying every year taxes the system; it makes it harder to screen applications effectively.

Take a look at #10 here: http://www.appic.org/Match/MatchStat...2011Part3.aspx

The data should dispel the common misconception that Psy.D.s get more "clinical" experience and training than Ph.D.'s. According to the data, the Ph.D. students applying for internship reported, on average, substantially more practicum intervention hours(650 vs. 576), assessment hours (225 vs. 163), and clinical supervision hours (377 vs. 284) than the Psy.D. applicants. As many have pointed out here before, the research training at a Boulder-model clinical Ph.D. program is not in lieu of clinical training, but rather integrated with and in addition to the clinical training. I'm continuously amazed at the ongoing perception that Ph.D.= research training and Psy.D. = clinical intervention training.

The data should dispel the common misconception that Psy.D.s get more "clinical" experience and training than Ph.D.'s.

Yes, though part of that is because PhD programs take I think, on average, a year longer to complete. I do also think there may be some hour inflation going on (regardless of degree type). I agree with you. As it stands, the argument that you want a psyd because you want to be a clinician is a poor one.

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

I would strongly encourage the people who signed the petition to cease their support of the APA by withdrawing their membership from the organization. In addition, I would encourage them to actively advocate for another organization more in line with their beliefs like APS or similar. I actually have been holding off on submitting my 2012 APA membership dues because I want to ensure that my $ actually goes towards things I support.

I have done just this. I cannot support an organization that has allowed such a crisis to occur that directly impacts those it is supposed to be advocating for. I've been hounded for dues for the past year, but won't pay into the system until I see a solid effort to respond to this fundamental concern.

Originally Posted by ArmyPsych

I have done just this. I cannot support an organization that has allowed such a crisis to occur that directly impacts those it is supposed to be advocating for. I've been hounded for dues for the past year, but won't pay into the system until I see a solid effort to respond to this fundamental concern.

So any good sources for low-cost, easily obtainable liability insurance for psych students? That is literally the only reason I am an APA member.

Originally Posted by Duck Duck Goose

So any good sources for low-cost, easily obtainable liability insurance for psych students? That is literally the only reason I am an APA member.

I'm not sure how they got the arrangement but in my department has a policy or contract that covers all the students, you just pay the twelve bucks or whatever each year to be covered.

On a side note, did anyone else see the email from the Div. 38 List about the new $10 million HRSA grant program to fund new internships?

Originally Posted by APPICSucks

I'm not sure how they got the arrangement but in my department has a policy or contract that covers all the students, you just pay the twelve bucks or whatever each year to be covered.

On a side note, did anyone else see the email from the Div. 38 List about the new $10 million HRSA grant program to fund new internships?

I hadn't heard it mentioned as of yet, but a quick Google search turned up this link, which sounds like it might be related...?: http://www.hablemos.samhsa.gov/healt...aining_508.pdf

Edit: This link also seems to mention the same thing down in Sec. 5306: Mental and Behavioral Health Education and Training Grants: https://www.aamc.org/download/131010/data/hrsa.pdf.pdf

Originally Posted by APPICSucks

I'm not sure how they got the arrangement but in my department has a policy or contract that covers all the students, you just pay the twelve bucks or whatever each year to be covered.

On a side note, did anyone else see the email from the Div. 38 List about the new $10 million HRSA grant program to fund new internships?

Saw it, posted it to Occupy. That money drops to $5M after the first year. The prior $3M GPE gave 25 awards, at $115000 each I'd guess that's two interns an award, on average. So.... 75ish more spots, sustained?