Occupy the imbalance!

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

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

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.

I couldn't agree more with this statement.

Funding for applied degrees is a mess overall, but the problem is that unlike dentistry, law, and medicine, psychologists typically do not earn incomes to pay back mountains of loans. That means we either tighten the reigns and advocate for higher reimbursement and/or decrease cost to pursue the degree. Coming from a partially funded, balanced PhD program, I was always a bit miffed to have to pay tuition (reasonable tuition at least) while WORKING for the university. I worked for my dissertation chair in her lab for a 20-hr/week assistantship and I worked at my practicum sites seeing patients. The research side is covered, as Jon mentioned. So perhaps a similar TA-ship approach will help on the clinical side. However, I think we have got to address the issue of billing for services from trainees. Perhaps if there was a process by which studnets could get licensed at the MA level to provide (and bill for) supervised clinical services? Like LPAs? That would at least cut costs for half of the training experience.

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.

It's not analogous. I guess I meant the quality of psychologist CAPIC produce is similar to APPIC, not APA. I have a few supervisors that came out of CAPIC and they are competent. But a whole different topic.

I think as a systemic problem though, every state have different requirements and psychological associations have to lobby for those. Federally, APA can lobby for increase in medicare reimbursements or even lobby for doctorate students who have gotten their MA/MS be able to bill separate compared to other masters level.

Originally Posted by niknok

It's not analogous. I guess I meant the quality of psychologist CAPIC produce is similar to APPIC, not APA. I have a few supervisors that came out of CAPIC and they are competent. But a whole different topic.

I think as a systemic problem though, every state have different requirements and psychological associations have to lobby for those. Federally, APA can lobby for increase in medicare reimbursements or even lobby for doctorate students who have gotten their MA/MS be able to bill separate compared to other masters level.

I'm curious...what are the incentives for a program to apply for and get APA accrediation. Whats in it for them? Obviously, it benefits the people going though the internship, but what external benefits does it give to the site/organziation and the people in it?

From the way people describe it, its sound like a costly (both upfront and in terms of labor that is not billable) pain in the ass. If I had an internship, I would have little interest in doing this. I have plenty of applicants knocking on my door each year, so what the point? No wonder there are just as many unaccredited sites and accredited ones, right? Think this should be addressed somehow? If so, how?

Originally Posted by erg923

I'm curious...what are the incentives for a program to apply for and get APA accrediation. Whats in it for them? Obviously, it benefits the people going though the internship, but what external benefits does it give to the site/organziation and the people in it?

From the way people describe it, its sound like a costly (both upfront and in terms of labor that is not billable) pain in the ass. If I had an internship, I would have little interest in doing this. I have plenty of applicants knocking on my door each year, so what the point? No wonder there are just as many unaccredited sites and accredited ones, right? Think this should be addressed somehow? If so, how?

This is a great point. I'm sure there are lots of great unaccredited internships that look at the hurdles of self-study and say, screw that. Especially if they're in a state with a board that doesn't require an accredited internship for licensing. If the APA doesn't make accreditation more cost effective, faster, and more efficient, I'm sure they'll have a lot of resistance to their proposal to require doctoral and internship accreditation for licensing.

I guess the external benefits are 1. licensing if the state board requires accredited internship, 2. the site is probably considered to at least meet a standard of training for outside reviewers (say, a college counseling center probably wants accreditation to justify its existence to a university board), 3. access to interns whose programs require accredited internships.

An internship program will almost exclusively run in the RED, so it isn't for money. Some places can make it work financially, but usually it is sold as a way to recruit (e.g. VA sites) or a way to provide services at a cheaper rate than hiring more licensed clinicians. (e.g. counseling / CMHC). The financial impact is a HUGE factor for many programs. Finances will always be a huge thorn in the side of every site unless the state laws change about being able to bill for intern services....which is a huge headache to get done. The fact we can't bill for most services is a huge issue with the field, and with rising healthcare costs...it is only getting worse as budgets get cut.

Originally Posted by MCParent

This is a great point. I'm sure there are lots of great unaccredited internships that look at the hurdles of self-study and say, screw that. Especially if they're in a state with a board that doesn't require an accredited internship for licensing. If the APA doesn't make accreditation more cost effective, faster, and more efficient, I'm sure they'll have a lot of resistance to their proposal to require doctoral and internship accreditation for licensing.

this is where APA should also work on. Not to lower the standards but maybe give discounts or help in funding internhip positions. In the CMH world getting funded is hard to come by so they have to make a decision whether that money should be allocated to students or other things.

I wonder though, maybe APA don't necessarily listen to our grouses because most of the leaders in APA are so out of touch with the students.

Originally Posted by niknok

I wonder though, maybe APA don't necessarily listen to our grouses because most of the leaders in APA are so out of touch with the students.

APA's leadership isn't some mysterious cartel. I've said it before on this forum--APA is just a bunch of psychologists. There's no reason that student members on this board who want change can't get involved in their divisions and APAGS (become your division rep! Run for APAGS positions!), and then Early Career boards and other boards on APA and state boards. It really is that easy--just change the faces who are there, get into the system, and scream about the problem to the people who are too far removed from the problem to feel invested in it until they do something, or they rotate out and you replace them. Advocate for rigorous training and maintaining standards. It's not hard. It takes up a pretty small amount of time, really. I post on this forum but I've made it pretty clear who I am, and it's not like I'm just spending my time whining on a forum about this.

Originally Posted by erg923

I have plenty of applicants knocking on my door each year, so what the point?

Plenty of bottom tier applicants knocking on your door. You know all the quality programs require applications to APA accredited sites so by being unaccredited you are broadcasting for a certain kind of applicant. So is the answer better quality interns? I'd wager they provide (maybe less tangible) external benefits through better services provided, thus a better reputation for your facility.

Originally Posted by roubs

Plenty of bottom tier applicants knocking on your door. You know all the quality programs require applications to APA accredited sites so by being unaccredited you are broadcasting for a certain kind of applicant. So is the answer better quality interns? I'd wager they provide (maybe less tangible) external benefits through better services provided, thus a better reputation for your facility.

That's a fair point. I believe requiring an APA-acred. internship is a great idea in regard to quality control, but it admittedly can put students in a bind because the % of available APA-acred. internships currently in the APPIC Match. I do not want nor advocate for more internship spots in the match, but I do support and want a greater % of APA-acred. internships in the APPIC Match.

I would advocate that an APA internship be required for licensure, period.

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

I would advocate that an APA internship be required for licensure, period.

I wrote a second paragraph to my response on exactly this, but I deleted it because I didn't want to get too far off track. The current system allows access to licensure through the front door, back door, barn door, second floor, etc. There needs to be 1 door again.

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

I would advocate that an APA internship be required for licensure, period.

I agree with this sentiment but this has to be paired with some way to combat the fraud of fleecing graduate students for 4-5 years of education and then letting them know an actual career is only available to those who can secure an APA accredited slot. This would be telling what, 20-30%? of clinical graduate students "Thank you for your free labor and piles of money, please now find a career elsewhere".

The current system allows access to licensure through the front door, back door, barn door, second floor, etc. There needs to be 1 door again.

Yep. It's amazing, t4change, how the discourse on these issues has changed since we started posting here. Why, I remember a time when you agreed with me on nothing

I agree with this sentiment but this has to be paired with some way to combat the fraud of fleecing graduate students for 4-5 years of education and then letting them know an actual career is only available to those who can secure an APA accredited slot. This would be telling what, 20-30%? of clinical graduate students "Thank you for your free labor and piles of money, please now find a career elsewhere".

Yep. So, informed consent for graduate students is a key variable. I think eventually shutting those programs down would be a goal. Also, creating a higher percentage of APA slots, perhaps through a combination of provisional licenses before internship and lobbying efforts for reimbursement for internship programs so that more APA slots can be created.

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

Yep. It's amazing, t4change, how the discourse on these issues has changed since we started posting here. Why, I remember a time when you agreed with me on nothing

The only thing we agreed on was politics, albeit we are both in the minority here. It is funny how going through graduate training, internship, fellowship, etc...has changed my opinion of how things should be in the field. I think you've softened with time and I've become more rigid and dogmatic.

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

Yep. So, informed consent for graduate students is a key variable. I think eventually shutting those programs down would be a goal. Also, creating a higher percentage of APA slots, perhaps through a combination of provisional licenses before internship and lobbying efforts for reimbursement for internship programs so that more APA slots can be created.

Required APA accredited internship is the way the field is going to go. http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/06/soe.aspx

No students will be shafted; there'll be a grace period for all students who are currently in a program to get out and be license-eligible without the accredited internship.

I don't know that professional schools need to be shut down. I think many could survive just fine cutting out the bottom 25%-50% of their incoming classes (i.e., the people who will go on to not get an accredited internship and then fail the EPPP). They would be making somewhat smaller piles of money. I think such reductions would be the natural consequence of program level accountability for poor match rates.

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

I would advocate that an APA internship be required for licensure, period.

One concern I would have for this is consideration for newly developed internships. We most likely would want to encourage new internship sites in the future, but how would they land students if there was no chance students could get licensed if they trained there?

Of course this is an uphill battle that new internships face already to a degree, but the students that apply there can still (in theory) obtain licensure. Without some sort of option for licensure for a non-accredited site, it's hard for me to envision a non-accredited (new or otherwise) site being able to ever obtain accreditation. I'm admittedly not too familiar on the specific requirements for internship site accreditation, so I'd appreciate any clarification on this aspect if anyone has it.

Originally Posted by roubs

Plenty of bottom tier applicants knocking on your door. You know all the quality programs require applications to APA accredited sites so by being unaccredited you are broadcasting for a certain kind of applicant. So is the answer better quality interns? I'd wager they provide (maybe less tangible) external benefits through better services provided, thus a better reputation for your facility.

Well maybe on the whole, yes. But plenty of progams don't require their students to apply soley to APA accredited internships. So some good applicants apply to APPIC member sites as well. Out of the pool I would get, I'm sure there are 5-10 that would be equatable to any of those who apply to APA sites.

I think you've softened with time and I've become more rigid and dogmatic

I don't think I could have gotten any harder/aggressive than where I started out. I was worse with my original moniker.

Have you guys seen the latest issue of digital GradPSYCH? There is a piece on the imbalance: What's behind the internship match crises? by Rebecca A. Clay.

I am trying to post the link, but I think you have to be an active APA student affiliate to view it, but let's give it a go:

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/apa/...1203/index.php

By the way, MCParent, it kicks off with your article.

Originally Posted by O Gurl

Have you guys seen the latest issue of digital GradPSYCH? There is a piece on the imbalance: What's behind the internship match crises? by Rebecca A. Clay.

I would post the link, but I think you have to be an active APA student affiliate to view it. Hmm.... I am about to give this a read.

I'd be very interested in hearing the author's take on things

Edit: Actually, looks like it's available to everyone after all; thank you, google: http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2012/03...ch-crisis.aspx

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

I'd be very interested in hearing the author's take on things

Edit: Actually, looks like it's available to everyone after all; thank you, google: http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2012/03...ch-crisis.aspx

I just commented on the Occupy group. Here is that response:

A few comments here: Dr. Paszkiewicz, I believe, unfortunately is not painting the full picture of the CAPIC system. CAPIC’s system has multiple problems. First and primarily, it, like APPIC, is a membership designation, not an accreditation status. This distinction is important. Most CAPIC sites are not APA-accredited. Conversely, most APPIC sites are APA accredited and APPIC views membership in its association as a step toward APA accreditation, and actively helps member sites obtain APA accreditation. The APA is the only accreditation body in psychology in the U.S. Essentially all health professions—from massage to medicine—require completion of accredited programs to obtain licensure. Except for psychology. Indeed, the APA is moving toward such a requirement for psychology with the Model Licensing Act (Clay, 2010) to keep psychologists in place in integrated care settings, where completion of accredited training is a minimum bar. Unless CAPIC intends to alter its mission to actively help sites move toward APA accreditation, graduates from CAPIC internships will be hindered in terms of hireability and mobility of their degrees, come implementation of the Model Licensing Act.

CAPIC also has a number of other problems. Most CAPIC internships are unpaid. In contrast, reasonable pay is a requirement of APPIC membership and APA accreditation (APPIC, 2011; Committee on Accreditation, 2009). The simultaneous advocacy by Dr. Paszkiewicz of CAPIC as a potential boon to nontraditional students, in conjunction with this fact, is difficult to reconcile. Although my critics may point out that CAPIC spots, though unpaid, fill a need, it is not difficult to argue the converse—that it is exploitative to take in interns and not pay them, because sites knows the interns require the internship to finish their degrees and the interns will probably silence their nagging doubts rather than complain about the lack of pay or engage in advocacy for making CAPIC sites require salary, and because there are dozens of unmatched applicants who would gladly take that intern’s position out of desperation to complete their degrees.

Clay, R. A. (2010). APA updates its model licensure act. Monitor on Psychology, 41, 5. Online at http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/05/licensure.aspx

APPIC. (2011). APPIC membership criteria: Doctoral psychology internship programs. Online at http://www.appic.org/AboutAPPIC/Join...pCriteria.aspx

Committee on Accreditation (2009). Guidelines and principles for accreditation of programs in professional psychology. Online at http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/...principles.pdf


Also, Ms. Wilson raised the important point about “finger-pointing.” "It doesn't help anyone to start pointing fingers at specific types of training models or certain types of schools," she said. The origin of this concern, which is frequently mentioned, perplexes me. My earlier work indicated that there are clearly areas of localized strain in the internship imbalance. As mentioned before, the entire primary purpose of my paper with Williamson was to move past the training model difference analyses and identify specific problem schools. The fact that most of these programs grant PsyDs is simply that data speaking for themselves. To ignore these realities for fear that it could be perceived as “finger-pointing,” (a vague phrase; as I understand it, this essentially means someone’s feelings could be hurt) is irrational, and holds us back from engaging in important discussions about what the data really say. Personally, I am also confused about resistance to the accurate reporting of data.

Dr. Grus mentions that the CCTC is “pressuring graduate programs with low match rates to either ratchet down the number of students they accept or work to expand the number of internship positions.” The CCTC has made major steps toward resolving the imbalance, and I would call the CCTC members in general far-and-away the leaders within APA in terms of real action on the topic. But, the CCTC is not an accrediting body. It is a membership body. Indeed, “pressure” is all it can apply to this wound in psychology, not stitching (or a transplant). It is not able to enforce with any teeth any policies it might want to implement. This problem needs to be solved with attention from all aspects of APA.

Originally Posted by MCParent

I just commented on the Occupy group. Here is that response:

A few comments here: Dr. Paszkiewicz, I believe, unfortunately is not painting the full picture of the CAPIC system. CAPIC’s system has multiple problems. First and primarily, it, like APPIC, is a membership designation, not an accreditation status. This distinction is important. Most CAPIC sites are not APA-accredited. Conversely, most APPIC sites are APA accredited and APPIC views membership in its association as a step toward APA accreditation, and actively helps member sites obtain APA accreditation. The APA is the only accreditation body in psychology in the U.S. Essentially all health professions—from massage to medicine—require completion of accredited programs to obtain licensure. Except for psychology. Indeed, the APA is moving toward such a requirement for psychology with the Model Licensing Act (Clay, 2010) to keep psychologists in place in integrated care settings, where completion of accredited training is a minimum bar. Unless CAPIC intends to alter its mission to actively help sites move toward APA accreditation, graduates from CAPIC internships will be hindered in terms of hireability and mobility of their degrees, come implementation of the Model Licensing Act.

CAPIC also has a number of other problems. Most CAPIC internships are unpaid. In contrast, reasonable pay is a requirement of APPIC membership and APA accreditation (APPIC, 2011; Committee on Accreditation, 2009). The simultaneous advocacy by Dr. Paszkiewicz of CAPIC as a potential boon to nontraditional students, in conjunction with this fact, is difficult to reconcile. Although my critics may point out that CAPIC spots, though unpaid, fill a need, it is not difficult to argue the converse—that it is exploitative to take in interns and not pay them, because sites knows the interns require the internship to finish their degrees and the interns will probably silence their nagging doubts rather than complain about the lack of pay or engage in advocacy for making CAPIC sites require salary, and because there are dozens of unmatched applicants who would gladly take that intern’s position out of desperation to complete their degrees.

Clay, R. A. (2010). APA updates its model licensure act. Monitor on Psychology, 41, 5. Online at http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/05/licensure.aspx

APPIC. (2011). APPIC membership criteria: Doctoral psychology internship programs. Online at http://www.appic.org/AboutAPPIC/Join...pCriteria.aspx

Committee on Accreditation (2009). Guidelines and principles for accreditation of programs in professional psychology. Online at http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/...principles.pdf


Also, Ms. Wilson raised the important point about “finger-pointing.” "It doesn't help anyone to start pointing fingers at specific types of training models or certain types of schools," she said. The origin of this concern, which is frequently mentioned, perplexes me. My earlier work indicated that there are clearly areas of localized strain in the internship imbalance. As mentioned before, the entire primary purpose of my paper with Williamson was to move past the training model difference analyses and identify specific problem schools. The fact that most of these programs grant PsyDs is simply that data speaking for themselves. To ignore these realities for fear that it could be perceived as “finger-pointing,” (a vague phrase; as I understand it, this essentially means someone’s feelings could be hurt) is irrational, and holds us back from engaging in important discussions about what the data really say. Personally, I am also confused about resistance to the accurate reporting of data.

Dr. Grus mentions that the CCTC is “pressuring graduate programs with low match rates to either ratchet down the number of students they accept or work to expand the number of internship positions.” The CCTC has made major steps toward resolving the imbalance, and I would call the CCTC members in general far-and-away the leaders within APA in terms of real action on the topic. But, the CCTC is not an accrediting body. It is a membership body. Indeed, “pressure” is all it can apply to this wound in psychology, not stitching (or a transplant). It is not able to enforce with any teeth any policies it might want to implement. This problem needs to be solved with attention from all aspects of APA.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said. There's no way around it--there are a handful of schools directly and disproportionately contributing to the internship imbalance, and they need to be called out on, and held accountable for, what they're doing to our profession and its trainees. If a medical school continually churns out poorly-qualified graduates, fails to place its students in residencies, offers a very limited number of educational/training and administrative supports and opportunities, and has its alumni pass licensing exams at significant lower rates, it's going to be placed on probation and/or closed outright. Why should we hold ourselves to any lower of a standard?

And as JSnow and others have mentioned, we need to continue advocating for our self-worth as a field, such as by securing the ability at the state level to bill for intern services, thereby making internship training a more economically-viable choice.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

I agree with pretty much everything you've said. There's no way around it--there are a handful of schools directly and disproportionately contributing to the internship imbalance, and they need to be called out on, and held accountable for, what they're doing to our profession and its trainees. If a medical school continually churns out poorly-qualified graduates, fails to place its students in residencies, offers a very limited number of educational/training and administrative supports and opportunities, and has its alumni pass licensing exams at significant lower rates, it's going to be placed on probation and/or closed outright. Why should we hold ourselves to any lower of a standard?

And as JSnow and others have mentioned, we need to continue advocating for our self-worth as a field, such as by securing the ability at the state level to bill for intern services, thereby making internship training a more economically-viable choice.

I agree. What the use of finger pointing?! Um, it lets those (most) responsible know so they can get their **** together. Are we afraid of hurting someones feelings here or something? Geez...

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

I agree with pretty much everything you've said. There's no way around it--there are a handful of schools directly and disproportionately contributing to the internship imbalance, and they need to be called out on, and held accountable for, what they're doing to our profession and its trainees. If a medical school continually churns out poorly-qualified graduates, fails to place its students in residencies, offers a very limited number of educational/training and administrative supports and opportunities, and has its alumni pass licensing exams at significant lower rates, it's going to be placed on probation and/or closed outright. Why should we hold ourselves to any lower of a standard?

And as JSnow and others have mentioned, we need to continue advocating for our self-worth as a field, such as by securing the ability at the state level to bill for intern services, thereby making internship training a more economically-viable choice.

I, frankly, simply don't comprehend the idea of not working to understand what, specifically, if happening, and then developing solutions that specifically address those problems. Calling that analysis "finger-pointing" is ridiculous. There are areas of localized strain. Pretending that there are not helps no one. Any solutions developed out of a pollyannish way of thinking are futile.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

There's no way around it--there are a handful of schools directly and disproportionately contributing to the internship imbalance, and they need to be called out on, and held accountable for, what they're doing to our profession and its trainees. If a medical school continually churns out poorly-qualified graduates, fails to place its students in residencies, offers a very limited number of educational/training and administrative supports and opportunities, and has its alumni pass licensing exams at significant lower rates, it's going to be placed on probation and/or closed outright. Why should we hold ourselves to any lower of a standard?

Exactly. To dismiss hard evidence as finger-pointing and in-fighting is absurd and reeks of self-interest of the part of Dr. Paszkiewicz. But I am thrilled to see this conversation taking place.

Comment on the fb group if you're on it. :-)

Originally Posted by erg923

I agree. What the use of finger pointing?! Um, it lets those (most) responsible know so they can get their **** together. Are we afraid of hurting someones feelings here or something? Geez...

Indeed. At what point did someone decide that professional accountability is "finger pointing?"

If we can't even take ourselves seriously enough as a field to require a universal standard of training, and hold programs accountable to that standard, how can we expect anyone else to pay us any heed?

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

Indeed. At what point did someone decide that professional accountability is "finger pointing?"

If we can't even take ourselves seriously enough as a field to require a universal standard of training, and hold programs accountable to that standard, how can we expect anyone else to pay us any heed?

Sadly, I don't see this happening in the near future. I am interested in the Model licensing Act but am curious how it would be enforced and what people who didn't get accredited training will do (lobby against it, I imagine).

You'd think psychologists would have a good understanding of the importance of minimal standards.

You want the situation fixed? Nominate yourself for an APA board!

DEADLINE APPROACHING. NOMINATIONS CLOSE MARCH 15.

THE BOARD AND COMMITTEE NOMINATION FORM IS PROVIDED ONLINE!

The 2012 APA Board and Committee Call for Nominations can be accessed at the following link: http://apps.apa.org/nominations/default.aspx. You will need to login using your MyAPA account ID and password. If you haven’t yet registered for your MyAPA account or have forgotten your login ID or password, simply follow the instructions provided once you click on the link. March 15 is the deadline for submitting nominations.

Additional Information:

· Roughly 1500 nominations are received each year; 123 individuals will appear on 2012 election ballot; 41 will be elected.
· The Board of Directors encourages the nomination of those members who may be new to APA governance or who are underrepresented in the current governance structure.
· 2012 Calendar
o March 15 is the deadline for submitting nominations.
o The election slates are developed by respective boards and committees in the spring.
o The Board of Directors approves the slates at its June meeting.
o Following the June Board meeting, nominees are contacted to determine their willingness to run, and serve, if elected.
o The Ballot is sent to members of the 2012 Council the last working day of October.

We hope you find the new site easy to use. Please provide feedback on your experience upon completing your nominations by using the link “Questions & Contacts” found at the top of the page. Should you have any questions about the process of submitting nominations, contact Garnett Coad, Director, Elections at gcoad@apa.org or by phone at (202) 336-6087.

Originally Posted by MCParent

You want the situation fixed? Nominate yourself for an APA board!

Instead of everyone nominating themselves, would it make more sense to pick a few people here who we trust to represent this issue and throw our collective support behind them?

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

Instead of everyone nominating themselves, would it make more sense to pick a few people here who we trust to represent this issue and throw our collective support behind them?

I'm fine with whatever gets a few troublemakers on the Boards. :-)

If someone wants to be nominated, they can message me on here or at my email, michael.parent@ufl.edu, and I'll let everyone here and on the FB group know they're running (that way they won't have to "come out" with their SDN pseudonym).

I can't do it myself; not a PhD yet.

Originally Posted by MCParent

I can't do it myself; not a PhD yet.

Unfortunately, I think this will be the limiting factor for most of us. I would nominate you if I could, though.

Jon Snow or T4C, would either of you be up for it? I'd love to see that happen, though I agree with not having you "come out" with your real names.

Jon Snow, T4C, EdieB are all fine options. My degree has also been conferred.

Do you all think it wise to have 2 or 3 people with the support of Occupy? One person alone is a bit daunting.

Edit: Or perhaps this would be best sorted out on the FB page in order to preserve SDN annonymity?

Originally Posted by O Gurl

Jon Snow, T4C, EdieB are all fine options. My degree has also been conferred.

Do you all think it wise to have 2 or 3 people with the support of Occupy? One person alone is a bit daunting.

Edit: Or perhaps this would be best sorted out on the FB page in order to preserve annonymity.

Haha sure; I have the same link on the FB page.

I can't run and can't tell you folks who want to how to spend your time/energy. However, having 2 or 3 people all on the SAME board would give you some pretty extreme leverage with that board.

I'll do it.

I'll have to actually send in my membership app to APA now. I've been holding off because I didn't want to give them any more $. Of course...change can happen from the inside too.

Do students have voting rights...or only full members?

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

I'll do it.

I'll have to actually send in my membership app to APA now. I've been holding off because I didn't want to give them any more $. Of course...change can happen from the inside too.

Do students have voting rights...or only full members?

Good question. I am a fellow, but still a "student affiliate".

JonSnow and Edieb should both do it...as long as we don't canabalize the same votes. I assume people can vote for multiple people (as long as there are multiple seats available, no?).

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

I'll do it.

I'll have to actually send in my membership app to APA now. I've been holding off because I didn't want to give them any more $. Of course...change can happen from the inside too.

Do students have voting rights...or only full members?

I think only full members can vote. Of them, only an amazingly small number do. Rallying some support, such as encouraging Occupy members to ask their professors and mentors to vote for these candidates, could be enough.

I guess you guys can work it out amongst yourselves, non-anonymously, what boards you want to apply for :-)

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

I'll do it.

I'll have to actually send in my membership app to APA now. I've been holding off because I didn't want to give them any more $. Of course...change can happen from the inside too.

Do students have voting rights...or only full members?

If we do, I'll certainly vote for whoever amongst you all runs. If not, I'll let everyone I know who can vote to consider sending their support your way, and/or will do so myself if I happen to grab my degree before the votes actually come to pass.

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

JonSnow and Edieb should both do it...as long as we don't canabalize the same votes. I assume people can vote for multiple people (as long as there are multiple seats available, no?).

Agreed.

This is getting to be very exciting. Hopefully they will be interested....

We should see if there are any 'weak', 'open/vacated' seats. I'll look more into the structure, but typically if you are going as a representative attached to a certain constituency (div./special interest group rep), some seats are much harder to get into than others. JonSnow and I probably overlap a lot in our areas. Anyhow...I'll read up on the board tonight, as the devil is in the details.

Originally Posted by MCParent

I think only full members can vote. Of them, only an amazingly small number do. Rallying some support, such as encouraging Occupy members to ask their professors and mentors to vote for these candidates, could be enough.

I guess you guys can work it out amongst yourselves, non-anonymously, what boards you want to apply for :-)

Reminds me of all the news agencies coming out and officially endorsing presidential candidates.

Dude, I would totally vote for you guys... if I were a full member.

A letter requesting dissemination of the petition, as well as considering officially endorsing some or all of the petition, has been sent to the divisions and some associations.



Also, recognizing that everyone is not on FB, I set up a tumbr site. It's a bit more versatile than either the FB or twitter accounts. It will be better for posting the APAGS nominee statements on the imbalance.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/22365...2719410475970/

https://twitter.com/#!/OccupyImbalance

http://occupytheimbalance.tumblr.com/

(There's nothing on the tumbr right now... I'm working on the Occupy Vision and Mission statements, and they'll go up there for public comment before they're set)

Thank you for all of your hard work, MCParent. PM me if there is anything I can do to help.

This is getting exciting. I am reminded of my black bandanna wearing misspent youth.

Running for office is a great idea, but don't lose the advantage of diversity of tactics by concentrating too much on working within the system to promote change. Students have asked nicely for the APA to serve their interests for too long. Asking nicely once more is not going to have an effect unless it is paired with the threat of disrupting the organization as a whole.

Although the facts are not completely analogous, I am reminded of an article I read about the NY rent strikes of 1963-64 written by Piven and Cloward (it is published in the New Republic in 1967 if you are interested in reading it yourself). They analyze why the 63 strikes had so little effect while the 1890s strikes were so successful. Their basic (highly over-simplified) conclusion is that the organizers in 63 were too concerned about playing by the rules, and an antisystemic movement must threaten to break the rules in order to work.

Obviously I am not advocating breaking the ethical rules of the profession or even the rules of the convention itself. When I say "break the rules" I mean that it should be clear that students are no longer willing to respect the norms that have held them powerless within the APA if the APA will not use its power to further the interests of its student members.

In that vein, here are a few other ideas you might consider in addition to the ones already in the works

1) Rent an "Occupy" booth at the APA convention - the cheapest booths are about $1000.00, and they probably will reject your booth anyway as a violation of their content guidelines. This doesn't matter. The $1000 can be used in other ways once the booth is rejected, and the rejection of the booth itself is a concrete example of how the valid concerns of intern applicants are secondary to APA's mission to protect the interests of other stakeholders. If it is rejected, there will be a glaring contrast between this censorship and Argosy's sponsorship of the last convention.
2) Organize a picket line outside of the APA convention site - The Hilton Orlando Hotel is located off of a public street. Thus, your right to protest on the sidewalk in front of it is constitutionally protected. Orlando theoretically requires a permit, insurance, and a fee for a protest, but this requirement has been held unconstitutional twice before by controlling authorities in the jurisdiction. See Central Florida Nuclear Freeze Campaign v. Walsh; also see Forsyth Co. v. Nationalist Movement. The ACLU of Florida should be able to help you out if you have any difficulties. That said, you need to at least submit the permit. Here is where it can be found. http://www.cityoforlando.net/police/...c_assembly.htm
3) Make plans to circulate a petition to sever APAGS from the APA. I think there is an argument that this should happen regardless of the APA's response to the internship crisis. The APA voting members are practicing psychologists and psych grad schools. Thus, their interests may not align with those of students.
4) Find out which states' licensing acts are coming up for renewal, and contact legislators in those states to express your concerns about the internship imbalance. At the very least, I think it would make sense to change the statutory language from one that recognizes only APA accreditation as prima facie proof of the adequacy of an internship to language that recognizes "APA accreditation or accreditation by a similar professional organization." This opens up the door to competition from organizations like APS. If APA won't fix the problem, maybe someone else will.

5) Make shirts, wear them, and sit together during the keynote speech. Numbers alone can be threatening if they are large enough.

Also, I am not a member of APA, and I refuse to join because of ethical problems I have with the organization, but I will help in any other way I can. If you want to start fundraising for a war chest, I'll kick in the first $50.

Originally Posted by psychgeek

Also, I am not a member of APA, and I refuse to join because of ethical problems I have with the organization, but I will help in any other way I can. If you want to start fundraising for a war chest, I'll kick in the first $50.

I too am not a member of APA and I also think that fund raising would be a good idea. Imagine if each person who signed the petition donated 5 bucks, that is a pretty damn good start.

However, if one were to do this I would like to see an open and organized group of people. For example, I feel that one person has been the engine with this petition. I have even seen it mentioned in a listserv that people are not sure who started this petition but they like it. If you want real change you need to get organized.

Get a website, make a committee, put your names on there so everyone knows who we are dealing with it. I bet some big names will join your association. Have meetings and agendas (even online). If that were to happen I think you would get the backing of a lot of other associations. Then start fund raising (http://www.kickstarter.com/).

Once you have the manpower and some capital start a campaign. For example, have members forgo paying their dues to the APA for a year (hit them where it hurts). Or organize a large protest outside the convention where you have the cash to pay for the permits, shirts, and other incidentals.

The APA does not want to reduce the amount of students attempting to be clinical psychologists. They want as many people in their guild as possible, even if they are unemployed or underemployed. If you want to change them you are going to have to do more than have a petition online.

Originally Posted by DynamicDidactic

I too am not a member of APA and I also think that fund raising would be a good idea. Imagine if each person who signed the petition donated 5 bucks, that is a pretty damn good start.

However, if one were to do this I would like to see an open and organized group of people. For example, I feel that one person has been the engine with this petition. I have even seen it mentioned in a listserv that people are not sure who started this petition but they like it. If you want real change you need to get organized.

Get a website, make a committee, put your names on there so everyone knows who we are dealing with it. I bet some big names will join your association. Have meetings and agendas (even online). If that were to happen I think you would get the backing of a lot of other associations. Then start fund raising (http://www.kickstarter.com/).

Once you have the manpower and some capital start a campaign. For example, have members forgo paying their dues to the APA for a year (hit them where it hurts). Or organize a large protest outside the convention where you have the cash to pay for the permits, shirts, and other incidentals.

The APA does not want to reduce the amount of students attempting to be clinical psychologists. They want as many people in their guild as possible, even if they are unemployed or underemployed. If you want to change them you are going to have to do more than have a petition online.

Working on all this now :-) The strategic plan, vision, and mission are drafted and I'll put them up soon. We will shortly be forming working groups to tackle some specific tasks. The plan all along has extended beyond the petition, but that was necessary to drum support and make people feel like they are not alone in their concerns (which was the sense I got reading the APPIC free responses).

The shirts thing is harder. Buttons are easy, I can just order 500 and give them away (not expensive, I priced it out). Shirts, I'd need a web site where I could make a design, put it online, and people can order them themselves. I looked but couldn't find that--anyone know of one?

Originally Posted by psychgeek

Also, I am not a member of APA, and I refuse to join because of ethical problems I have with the organization, but I will help in any other way I can. If you want to start fundraising for a war chest, I'll kick in the first $50.

OK. I'm looking into this now.

Originally Posted by psychgeek

This is getting exciting. I am reminded of my black bandanna wearing misspent youth.

Running for office is a great idea, but don't lose the advantage of diversity of tactics by concentrating too much on working within the system to promote change. Students have asked nicely for the APA to serve their interests for too long. Asking nicely once more is not going to have an effect unless it is paired with the threat of disrupting the organization as a whole.

Although the facts are not completely analogous, I am reminded of an article I read about the NY rent strikes of 1963-64 written by Piven and Cloward (it is published in the New Republic in 1967 if you are interested in reading it yourself). They analyze why the 63 strikes had so little effect while the 1890s strikes were so successful. Their basic (highly over-simplified) conclusion is that the organizers in 63 were too concerned about playing by the rules, and an antisystemic movement must threaten to break the rules in order to work.

Obviously I am not advocating breaking the ethical rules of the profession or even the rules of the convention itself. When I say "break the rules" I mean that it should be clear that students are no longer willing to respect the norms that have held them powerless within the APA if the APA will not use its power to further the interests of its student members.

In that vein, here are a few other ideas you might consider in addition to the ones already in the works

1) Rent an "Occupy" booth at the APA convention - the cheapest booths are about $1000.00, and they probably will reject your booth anyway as a violation of their content guidelines. This doesn't matter. The $1000 can be used in other ways once the booth is rejected, and the rejection of the booth itself is a concrete example of how the valid concerns of intern applicants are secondary to APA's mission to protect the interests of other stakeholders. If it is rejected, there will be a glaring contrast between this censorship and Argosy's sponsorship of the last convention.
2) Organize a picket line outside of the APA convention site - The Hilton Orlando Hotel is located off of a public street. Thus, your right to protest on the sidewalk in front of it is constitutionally protected. Orlando theoretically requires a permit, insurance, and a fee for a protest, but this requirement has been held unconstitutional twice before by controlling authorities in the jurisdiction. See Central Florida Nuclear Freeze Campaign v. Walsh; also see Forsyth Co. v. Nationalist Movement. The ACLU of Florida should be able to help you out if you have any difficulties. That said, you need to at least submit the permit. Here is where it can be found. http://www.cityoforlando.net/police/...c_assembly.htm
3) Make plans to circulate a petition to sever APAGS from the APA. I think there is an argument that this should happen regardless of the APA's response to the internship crisis. The APA voting members are practicing psychologists and psych grad schools. Thus, their interests may not align with those of students.
4) Find out which states' licensing acts are coming up for renewal, and contact legislators in those states to express your concerns about the internship imbalance. At the very least, I think it would make sense to change the statutory language from one that recognizes only APA accreditation as prima facie proof of the adequacy of an internship to language that recognizes "APA accreditation or accreditation by a similar professional organization." This opens up the door to competition from organizations like APS. If APA won't fix the problem, maybe someone else will.

5) Make shirts, wear them, and sit together during the keynote speech. Numbers alone can be threatening if they are large enough.

1. I think the booth deadline is passed (I think it passed before I even started the petition). We can do non-booth stuff (one of the two first Working Groups will be a convention planning group). As I figure out fundraising we'll put in for a booth for next year.
2. All of that will happen. :-) Again, Occupy's Convention Working Group will figure out logistics and planning. Once the program book is out we can make some specific plans for the bigger convention events, and we can find out what hotel APA governance is booked in to.
3. Harder. I think APAGS actively tries to be more ingrained into APA governance. Having students be on council is valuable. APAGS can be important for working within the system, while organizations like this can work from outside.
4. Good idea. Do you know where that info is located? Sounds like a good Working Group/Committee goal.
5. Shirts--yeah, again, I want this but I need a storefront that does this independently. Anywhere online where I can make a shirt, it gets printed by that company, and people can order it? That must exist.