Psy.D. Programs 10 Years From Now

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

Originally Posted by roubs

All federally backed student loans or just the fairy part where the for-profits get something for nothing? The former would, imo, be a ridiculously blunt instrument solution. The existence of federally backed student loans enables upward mobility and without it even the possibility of higher education would become out of reach for many many people. This is a classic example of abuse of a system where the for-profit world takes in the student loan dollars but does not give back a quality product enabling the higher salary which would make loan repayment possible. This can and has been quantified. In a globally competitive labor market we should take pains not to kneecap ourselves when fixing problems like this. This for-profit mess is an immediate disaster that needs to be addressed, trying to do so while cutting off higher education access too much would be a slow motion trainwreck.

You're equating the federal student loan program with "higher education access" and assuming that somehow there's some net gain in upward mobility afforded to students who use these loans that justifies the cost (human, monetary, and societal). I think that's a false equation and an unjustified assumption given what we know now.

http://www.barbariancapital.net/2012...ed-bubble.html

The federal student loan program is a train wreck and getting worse.

Originally Posted by JeyRo

You're equating the federal student loan program with "higher education access" and assuming that somehow there's some net gain in upward mobility afforded to students who use these loans that justifies the cost (human, monetary, and societal). I think that's a false equation and an unjustified assumption given what we know now.

http://www.barbariancapital.net/2012...ed-bubble.html

The federal student loan program is a train wreck and getting worse.

The student loan bubble tracks better with the rapid expansion of for-profit education than it does with the creation of the federal student loan program in 1965. For a large number of people a college education is a great investment with a 10-15% rate of return and the federal government giving itself a role as a giant CostCo to get better rates for students is a good and sensible investment. I agree with many of the points about the bubble made in that post, I just don't want reactionary sentiment to lead to actions with (un)intended negative consequences.

There was an article a number of years ago in one of the big biz mags (FORTUNE, MONEY, etc.) that laid out the skimming + loansharking system that is currently being used. It was disturbing how the gov't works w. private lenders to rape borrowers through origination fees+ interest + buying/trading blocks of debt + leveraging the capital.

Originally Posted by roubs

The student loan bubble tracks better with the rapid expansion of for-profit education than it does with the creation of the federal student loan program in 1965. For a large number of people a college education is a great investment with a 10-15% rate of return and the federal government giving itself a role as a giant CostCo to get better rates for students is a good and sensible investment. I agree with many of the points about the bubble made in that post, I just don't want reactionary sentiment to lead to actions with (un)intended negative consequences.

Nothing wrong with profit. Really, the problem isn't pursuit of profit. For example, computers get cheaper and more powerful every year and the pursuit of profit is explicit in the computer industry. The only difference between the education market and the computer market is that the computer market has to actively compete for people's dollars. Colleges and graduate schools don't, because the government *always* picks up the tab.

And I don't think this is just a problem with for-profit schools, although they're particularly obscene because their product so often tends to be of such dubious quality. But take my undergraduate institution - it's an extremely highly-rated, private, nonprofit college that's been around for over 100 years, a great school. It cost about 15K for tuition plus fees in the mid-nineties. I just looked at their website and it's now 44K.

Originally Posted by JeyRo

Nothing wrong with profit. Really, the problem isn't pursuit of profit. For example, computers get cheaper and more powerful every year and the pursuit of profit is explicit in the computer industry. The only difference between the education market and the computer market is that the computer market has to actively compete for people's dollars. Colleges and graduate schools don't, because the government *always* picks up the tab.

And I don't think this is just a problem with for-profit schools, although they're particularly obscene because their product so often tends to be of such dubious quality. But take my undergraduate institution - it's an extremely highly-rated, private, nonprofit college that's been around for over 100 years, a great school. It cost about 15K for tuition plus fees in the mid-nineties. I just looked at their website and it's now 44K.

Agreed with your above points. As is the case with the Psy.D. issue I was not indicting the degree but rather the behavior of the schools. They are working a system badly in need of modification, but my point is modification ≠ elimination.

I'd be interested in reading an account of what exactly has been done with the sum raised through tuition going from 15-44k/yr. Don't have a citation but part of that rise is probably due to the country club-ization of a lot of schools, both elite/not elite. They are spending taxpayer funded tuition to one up each other to be 'competitive'.

To amend what I meant about for-profit schools, the thing that sets them apart is that their existence is enabled (nearly exclusively) by the student loan system. If you tighten things up the 100 year old institutions that provide a good product are still going to be fine. If you stop allowing the for-profit schools from taking ridiculous risks on students who probably shouldn't be there, their profit will evaporate.

Originally Posted by roubs

I'd be interested in reading an account of what exactly has been done with the sum raised through tuition going from 15-44k/yr. Don't have a citation but part of that rise is probably due to the country club-ization of a lot of schools, both elite/not elite. They are spending taxpayer funded tuition to one up each other to be 'competitive'.

Yeah, the redecorating that is occurring at universities is a little disturbing. Duh, where do people think that money is coming from?! Remember the days when the university was an old, musty building, with old, hard desks, and only a chalkboard? Those were the days. Now everything is "cutting edge" and modern, and we're paying for it.

Originally Posted by roubs

To amend what I meant about for-profit schools, the thing that sets them apart is that their existence is enabled (nearly exclusively) by the student loan system. If you tighten things up the 100 year old institutions that provide a good product are still going to be fine. If you stop allowing the for-profit schools from taking ridiculous risks on students who probably shouldn't be there, their profit will evaporate.

You know, it's all fair and good to criticize schools who profiteer and overload their classrooms. But, what will we do if these schools do close, or at least scale down, and we have a situation where psychologists no longer have teaching and/or administrative jobs? Unfortunately, the damage has been done--it will be very difficult to cut back (as it is in any industry/economy...hello recession). Sure, it's no good for the internship crisis, so say what you want about for-profit and/or FSPSs, but they have a LOT of jobs for psychologists!

Originally Posted by Psychadelic2012

Yeah, the redecorating that is occurring at universities is a little disturbing. Duh, where do people think that money is coming from?! Remember the days when the university was an old, musty building, with old, hard desks, and only a chalkboard? Those were the days. Now everything is "cutting edge" and modern, and we're paying for it.

You know, it's all fair and good to criticize schools who profiteer and overload their classrooms. But, what will we do if these schools do close, or at least scale down, and we have a situation where psychologists no longer have teaching and/or administrative jobs? Unfortunately, the damage has been done--it will be very difficult to cut back (as it is in any industry/economy...hello recession). Sure, it's no good for the internship crisis, so say what you want about for-profit and/or FSPSs, but they have a LOT of jobs for psychologists!

Well often it comes from fundraising and donors when a University, let's say, wants a new building. I am sure a significant proportion of tuition helps though too.

As to the second point, the fact that FSPS's employ psychologists is not a sufficient argument for keeping them around, IMHO. I know some who work at those institutions and not one of them has told me they are happy there. On the contrary, they are stuck trying to find placement sites for their large classes and to teach minimal statistics to people who could care less about numbers.

Originally Posted by Pragma

As to the second point, the fact that FSPS's employ psychologists is not a sufficient argument for keeping them around, IMHO. I know some who work at those institutions and not one of them has told me they are happy there. On the contrary, they are stuck trying to find placement sites for their large classes and to teach minimal statistics to people who could care less about numbers.

I certainly am not a fan of keeping the FSPS's around, based on the morality of the issue. However, when the mental health field and academia are so flooded with psychologists that they have to accept part-time jobs at FSPS's that they hate in order to get by...what do we do when they then close and the market is further flooded with job-seekers? Obviously, if those employees are not happy, they are there because of need. It's a dirty trap where the industry is producing too many psychologists that then have to work in that same system--and the world goes 'round. My point was that psychologists benefit from the FSPS's, too. Individuals may not consider the situation ideal (and clearly it's not), but the faculty at these schools are not negligible!

Originally Posted by Psychadelic2012

You know, it's all fair and good to criticize schools who profiteer and overload their classrooms. But, what will we do if these schools do close, or at least scale down, and we have a situation where psychologists no longer have teaching and/or administrative jobs? Unfortunately, the damage has been done--it will be very difficult to cut back (as it is in any industry/economy...hello recession). Sure, it's no good for the internship crisis, so say what you want about for-profit and/or FSPSs, but they have a LOT of jobs for psychologists!

...that offer less pay and often come without benefits, though they still get people to fill them. A common cycle is a new (or new to teaching) person taking a low paying job to 'get their foot in the door' so they have teaching experience. They are gone at the first chance, but there is probably someone there to take the spot (in metro areas at least).

Originally Posted by Psychadelic2012

I certainly am not a fan of keeping the FSPS's around, based on the morality of the issue. However, when the mental health field and academia are so flooded with psychologists that they have to accept part-time jobs at FSPS's that they hate in order to get by...what do we do when they then close and the market is further flooded with job-seekers? Obviously, if those employees are not happy, they are there because of need. It's a dirty trap where the industry is producing too many psychologists that then have to work in that same system--and the world goes 'round. My point was that psychologists benefit from the FSPS's, too. Individuals may not consider the situation ideal (and clearly it's not), but the faculty at these schools are not negligible!

I wouold argue that it is not much of a benefit, and a terrible reason for the existence of schools. It also creates a separate "tier" within academia. I have been told by multiple mentors that once you teach at a FSPS, you will have a difficult time getting an academic job elsewhere because of the stigma associated with it.

Originally Posted by Pragma

I wouold argue that it is not much of a benefit, and a terrible reason for the existence of schools. It also creates a separate "tier" within academia. I have been told by multiple mentors that once you teach at a FSPS, you will have a difficult time getting an academic job elsewhere because of the stigma associated with it.

Whether it is fair or not...yes, this is what I have also seen, at least for FT faculty positions (not strictly adjuncting). With that being said, I'm sure some depts will be more lenient if you happen to have a 6-7 figure grant funding your other areas of work, and they'll find a way to squeeze you onto the faculty.

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

...that offer less pay and often come without benefits, though they still get people to fill them. A common cycle is a new (or new to teaching) person taking a low paying job to 'get their foot in the door' so they have teaching experience. They are gone at the first chance, but there is probably someone there to take the spot (in metro areas at least).

Now this is something that I have heard mixed reviews on from people teaching at FSPSs. I definitely know that many are hiring more adjuncts than FT positions, but that is a trend across all of higher education.

I mentioned knowing some folks who teach at FSPS's. Part of why they stay there is because they would take a paycut to go teach elsewhere. My initial understanding was that some of these schools dangled higher salaries to attract people to teach there despite the stigma against these schools in academia, although now it sounds like that trend is shifting (towards less pay)? Kind of the same reason some people take community college teaching jobs (also with stigma and limits)...at least they pay more than more traditional 4-year Universities (outside of high-paying R1s).

Originally Posted by Pragma

Now this is something that I have heard mixed reviews on from people teaching at FSPSs. I definitely know that many are hiring more adjuncts than FT positions, but that is a trend across all of higher education.

I mentioned knowing some folks who teach at FSPS's. Part of why they stay there is because they would take a paycut to go teach elsewhere. My initial understanding was that some of these schools dangled higher salaries to attract people to teach there despite the stigma against these schools in academia, although now it sounds like that trend is shifting (towards less pay)? Kind of the same reason some people take community college teaching jobs (also with stigma and limits)...at least they pay more than more traditional 4-year Universities (outside of high-paying R1s).

I definitely think that this is a double-sided issue. Even is they are paid less, if it gives them the chance for a position with advancement that they would not otherwise have had (instead being stuck in adjunct or non-tt positions at more traditional institutions) then it is still a boon to those individuals. The higher education system generally underpays staff. Those that are research stars with large grants and those that work at places like medical schools, VA Research Centers, etc seem to be the exception.

Originally Posted by Pragma

I wouold argue that it is not much of a benefit, and a terrible reason for the existence of schools. It also creates a separate "tier" within academia. I have been told by multiple mentors that once you teach at a FSPS, you will have a difficult time getting an academic job elsewhere because of the stigma associated with it.

I totally agree. And, yes, an interesting phenomena it is.

Originally Posted by Pragma

Kind of the same reason some people take community college teaching jobs (also with stigma and limits)...at least they pay more than more traditional 4-year Universities (outside of high-paying R1s).

FT t-t community college teaching jobs in my area (both in and outside of psych) yield a beginning salary of 47K-74K. You teach TEN courses over a ten month year, 5.5 OH/week. The pay bump for an in-hand doctorate is miniscule. If you come in at the low end of the scale, you're essentially working for adjunct pay. But even then, there are very few of these jobs and many willing to fill them.

If you aren't as concerned with money....I've seen some people prefer to teach in the CC world because they prefer working with non-trad. students, which can be a nice break from the traditional undergrad student.

Originally Posted by wigflip

FT t-t community college teaching jobs in my area (both in and outside of psych) yield a beginning salary of 47K-74K. You teach TEN courses over a ten month year, 5.5 OH/week. The pay bump for an in-hand doctorate is miniscule. If you come in at the low end of the scale, you're essentially working for adjunct pay. But even then, there are very few of these jobs and many willing to fill them.

Hmm, I guess it is only anecdotes, but I haven't seen any CC jobs (tenure-track) that start for anything less than the high 50's, and I know someone making mid 70's just a few years in. In contrast, I have seen TT jobs at LACs starting in the 40's or low 50's.

Yeah the teaching load is higher (4/4 or 5/5) but there are zero research expectations. I also heard the summer pay is awesome. But, it may be a function of the city/locale I am in.

To second what T4C said, the two folks I know at CC's also really enjoy teaching nontraditional students and seem to thrive in that environment.

Personally, teaching at a CC or at a FSPS are not options I am considering, as the advice I have been given is that taking these jobs will more than likely define your career trajectory in the long term. It would be very difficult to get back into a more "prestigious" higher education setting after being at these places.

Edit: I guess I would consider making in the 60's or 70's with summers off to be a decent gig. But that's just me personally

Originally Posted by Pragma

Edit: I guess I would consider making in the 60's or 70's with summers off to be a decent gig. But that's just me personally

I also think that is quite decent for those jobs. I'm surprised because this past year I was looking to pick up a class to make some extra money and the CCs here only pay adjuncts 2.5K per class. That's quite a bit lower than the rate local universities pay (around 4-4.5K), so I assumed that CC faculty would be lower on the payscale. I'm glad to hear they make decent money, even if it's not the type of job I would likely go for.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

I also think that is quite decent for those jobs. I'm surprised because this past year I was looking to pick up a class to make some extra money and the CCs here only pay adjuncts 2.5K per class. That's quite a bit lower than the rate local universities pay (around 4-4.5K), so I assumed that CC faculty would be lower on the payscale. I'm glad to hear they make decent money, even if it's not the type of job I would likely go for.

I have seen that and secured that type of pay adjuncting, but it is the exception at most local universities I know of. Most local universities I see pay about 3K per class.

http://adjunctproject.com/ has a cool crowd sourced spreadsheet of adjunct pay/employment situations from various schools.

Originally Posted by Pragma

I have seen that and secured that type of pay adjuncting, but it is the exception at most local universities I know of. Most local universities I see pay about 3K per class.

I teach one course per semester as an adjunct in the Graduate program at a state college/university in Massachusetts. The per course rate is $3822 (After taxes and union dues, I take home $3000 per semester). It's a 14 week semester, and I probably average 8 hours per week time spent on the course (including 3 hours class time). Works out to about $34/hour, which IMHO, isn't awful for such a gig, though it's substantially lower than my day job. However, adjuncting does keep you connected to the academic world, and online databases (e.g. EBSCO/psycinfo) and journal access are a HUGE benefit.

That said- the first semester you teach a course, starting from scratch, I find that the time commitment at least doubles, as you need to read the materials, prepare lectures, develop and refine grading procedures, etc. So... adjuncting for only one semester may not be the best financial move. I am switching courses for next semester, so I'm reminded of the insane amounts of work necessary to prepare a new course- much more difficult than taking the course!

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

If you aren't as concerned with money....I've seen some people prefer to teach in the CC world because they prefer working with non-trad. students, which can be a nice break from the traditional undergrad student.

My friend who's adjuncting at a four year state school is enjoying her (mostly real adult) evening students much more than the "traditional" UGs she taught at our uni last term. They're more respectful. Her spoiled uni UGs pretty much pissed all over her passion for teaching.

Originally Posted by roubs

http://adjunctproject.com/ has a cool crowd sourced spreadsheet of adjunct pay/employment situations from various schools.

That was helpful, but depressing. Can't believe how many listings <$2,000 there are, including some in the three-digit range (including Nixon's alma mater, Whittier College--$800/class).

Originally Posted by ClinicalABA

That said- the first semester you teach a course, starting from scratch, I find that the time commitment at least doubles, as you need to read the materials, prepare lectures, develop and refine grading procedures, etc. So... adjuncting for only one semester may not be the best financial move. I am switching courses for next semester, so I'm reminded of the insane amounts of work necessary to prepare a new course- much more difficult than taking the course!

Yeah I have generally spent one of my full weekend days each week prepping a course for each week the first term I teach it. Then there is grading... Definitely much easier the second/third/fourth time around, and much more worth the money!

There is also variability in pay among departments within a school. I've been paid over $4000 per course per term most of the time in a psychology department, but when I did choose to teach in a different department, the pay was less than $3000 for the term. Obviously didn't go back to that department again

I agree with your points - it is a good way to stay within academia but not as lucrative as some may think. The extra money is significant but not mind-boggling. The library privileges are great. Finally, I think the students appreciate someone teaching who has a "real" job and isn't fully immersed in academia. For me, it has made it that much more enjoyable while I have been doing clinical work.

Originally Posted by roubs

To amend what I meant about for-profit schools, the thing that sets them apart is that their existence is enabled (nearly exclusively) by the student loan system. If you tighten things up the 100 year old institutions that provide a good product are still going to be fine. If you stop allowing the for-profit schools from taking ridiculous risks on students who probably shouldn't be there, their profit will evaporate.

I think you're essentially agreeing with me.

Keep in mind that "tenure track" at FSPSs are frequently not legitimately tenure track. I have a friend in a "tenure track" position at the Chicago School - He just finished up his first year there, and became increasingly upset with the position as he learned how difficult it is to gain tenure. He shared stories of faculty there for 6 years who went up hitting all the requisites teaching and administrative wise - what he described as very good and very involved faculty - who did not gain tenure. And research is a minimal aspect of the tenure there, even though he knew faculty with decent pubs among those he was talking about. Apparently, very few gain tenure. That is, of course, heresay, based on what he has told me. But nonetheless, I would be weary of seeking "tenure" in such programs. And the Chicago School is, from what I understand, a private "non-profit". Scared to think what the tenure process is like at an Argosy.

Originally Posted by wigflip

My friend who's adjuncting at a four year state school is enjoying her (mostly real adult) evening students much more than the "traditional" UGs she taught at our uni last term. They're more respectful. Her spoiled uni UGs pretty much pissed all over her passion for teaching.

I toyed with the idea of trying to teach a class as part of an honors program at an undergrad, but I think it would still be frustrating to deal with the predominant undergrad mentality. I'll probably just stick to teaching options in med schools.

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

I toyed with the idea of trying to teach a class as part of an honors program at an undergrad, but I think it would still be frustrating to deal with the predominant undergrad mentality. I'll probably just stick to teaching options in med schools.

Very cool...although I have to say, I teach some courses in med school now, and it is not a particularly rewarding experience. They are very different students in the sense that they respect what you have to say, but are going to think how they think regardless of what you say. At least at my AMC, they view the classes taught by psychologsts as a break from what really matters. Now, I find this type of teaching quite interesting and have learned a lot doing it and embracing the challenge, but it isnt something that would quench my interest in the long term.

I've actually had worse experiences with CC students than UG students, tbh. The former don't seem as prepared for higher education and often want things done like they had in high school. My colleagues have said the same thing.

Originally Posted by cara susanna

I've actually had worse experiences with CC students than UG students, tbh. The former don't seem as prepared for higher education and often want things done like they had in high school. My colleagues have said the same thing.

FWIW, I had the same experience teaching at the UG level.

Thus far, I still prefer teaching at the CC. I enjoy the non-traditional students and the diversity available at this particular CC over the UG students I have taught... These students still seem to care a helluva lot more than the "spoiled brats" who still aren't prepared for university at the UG-level either. And my UG was reportedly a very non-traditional, diverse place in comparison to most.

The only CC students I have who "expect" me to hand them a grade (thus far) are those who have transferred in from universities (usually because the universities around here often recommend students take certain core/pre-req courses, including intro to psych, at CC's because it's "easier to pass" due to the high failure rate at the university).

The main problem we seem to have is the local CCs are a LOT more "flexible" with course requirements, so we've had a number of students transfer who can't seem to get out of the "You need to plan exams around my schedule" mode of operation, or expecting requirements to be added or dropped based on life circumstances that arise. These are often legitimate, but the notion that they really and truly will be held to what is said in the syllabus is new to a lot of them. That said, they do tend to handle these disagreements in a slightly more mature fashion.

Many of my UGs (large state Uni) are still gloriously unprepared. However, my students who transferred from a CC, on average, seem to struggle much more. Many simply cannot write...even by the increasingly pathetic standards I hold for UG writing. I generally prefer them as "people" but I'm still undecided which I prefer as students. That said, I'm basing this off CC students who transfer to a four-year university, which may be notably different than teaching AT a CC. I imagine a lot depends on the location though. I'm in a state where our government seems to do everything possible to make certain the younger generation is as stupid and unprepared for life as possible, in the name of "fiscal responsibility".

Originally Posted by Ollie123

The main problem we seem to have is the local CCs are a LOT more "flexible" with course requirements, so we've had a number of students transfer who can't seem to get out of the "You need to plan exams around my schedule" mode of operation, or expecting requirements to be added or dropped based on life circumstances that arise. These are often legitimate, but the notion that they really and truly will be held to what is said in the syllabus is new to a lot of them. That said, they do tend to handle these disagreements in a slightly more mature fashion.

I received this from students at both at the UG and CC level but probably more frequently at the UG. I agree that I have more students at the CC level who handle it better than the UG students. They actually ask instead of demand, and they understand (or claim to) if the response is not in their favor. I've had too many UG students huff off, go to the dept/dean, attempt to physically intimidate me, etc.

Many of my UGs (large state Uni) are still gloriously unprepared. However, my students who transferred from a CC, on average, seem to struggle much more. Many simply cannot write...even by the increasingly pathetic standards I hold for UG writing. I generally prefer them as "people" but I'm still undecided which I prefer as students. That said, I'm basing this off CC students who transfer to a four-year university, which may be notably different than teaching AT a CC. I imagine a lot depends on the location though. I'm in a state where our government seems to do everything possible to make certain the younger generation is as stupid and unprepared for life as possible, in the name of "fiscal responsibility".

This is something I can agree with 100%. Although many of my UG students couldn't write worth a flip either, I think I had fewer problems (even with those low expectations) compared to the CC students. I was forewarned by the dept that papers, research, etc. do not tend to go over well at the CC, as the students are ill-prepared to handle the work. I quickly learned that this was indeed the case and then some. Their writing is absolutely atrocious for the most part (although there are exceptions to the rule, they are veeeeery few & far between).

I actually was pleasantly surprised by the quality of written assignments from my CC students. And, Ollie, I've had the same experience as far as scheduling things.

Keep in mind that I've only TAed for UG, not taught my own course. But I know people who've taught in both settings and they told me that they see better performance and have higher expectations for the UG students.

Originally Posted by roubs

To amend what I meant about for-profit schools, the thing that sets them apart is that their existence is enabled (nearly exclusively) by the student loan system. If you tighten things up the 100 year old institutions that provide a good product are still going to be fine. If you stop allowing the for-profit schools from taking ridiculous risks on students who probably shouldn't be there, their profit will evaporate.

I think this is a good point about for-profit-schools. We all can agree that the cost is unbelievably high. Attending these programs will be FINANCIALLY detrimental to those students who choose to enroll and DO NOT have an outside source of financial support to offset their costs (i.e., scholarships, grants, independent wealth, family support, second career with adequate resources). Unfortunately, the match data pertaining to debt seem to indicate that the majority of students from these programs do not have said support, meaning the degree of debt they accumulate seems outrageous in comparison to potential salaries they can hope to earn. Given the match imbalance and the statistics associated with these programs, the students attending them often find themselves in an untenable situation in this regard.

Having said that, I DO NOT think for-profit-schools in psychology are the only issue we need to be considering. In fact, the operating procedures of these programs may be a SYMPTOM of a much larger fiscal and educational problem to which others have alluded. There has been an astronomical raise in tuition across colleges/universities at both the undergraduate and graduate level. At this point in time, one could argue that getting a Bachelor's Degree is as cost prohibitive as attending a for-profit school in psychology. It should come as no surprise that students now pay $30k-$40k as undergraduates. Think of the current job market, it is terrible. What is a BA in (pick a subject, any subject) going to do for someone that is $120k-$160k in debt? Is a degree at "Private College A" better than "Public University B?" Will it open that many doors?

Educational reform is necessary at the collegiate level, period. I think we need to consider all of these factors, not just those in clinical psychology, that are contributing to the problems we face within our field.

Just to chime in...

I am a PsyD student myself and was one of the first accepted into my program because, while my grades were pretty typical but not stellar for a grad school applicant, I had a few publications under my belt and a good amount of research experience. My school is seeking to increase the amount of training they give us in this area and welcomed someone who had experience already. I applied to one school and one school only because it was the only school that really featured a concentration I wanted, one that none of the phds offered, and it was under a hundred miles away to boot. I think my cohort size is around thirty - that is shrinking as the number of applicants grow. Honestly if my program had been a phd I would have done the same and had less reservations, as it seemed that there was a lot of prejudice in the field toward psyds (sometimes for good reason, sometimes not). Yes, I am paying a lot out of pocket/having to depend a lot on student loans. But as the public universities that fund many of the other programs (including phd) are steadily increasing their fees, my school has not so at least Im paying what I am prepared to pay.

Our professors are respected clinicians involved heavily in APA's many committees and many of them came out of ivy league or really prestigious universities. I have been very satisfied so far with most aspects of the program, particularly the instruction. I really hope that good schools like the one I am going to start to get more attention as being representative of what an APA certified, psyd university looks like. I am kind of tired of having all psyds generally looked down upon.

There are good reasons for choosing a psyd if by doing that you are choosing the university you really want to go to. I get kind of tired of people applying to what they are the top 30 schools according to some publication without any knowledge or appreciation of the particulars of any of the programs and i get tired of hearing people suggest this as a method of success. During the applications process to get into grad school I saw a lot of people who chose this "pick at random" method and apply to schools they weren't remotely interested in not get into any at all, probably because their applications reflected their lack of direction and knowledge about the programs they were interested in.

A lot of students stuck up their noses when they found out that I had applied to an unfunded psyd - these were students who were still hanging around at their undergrad trying to snag up research experience because they hadn't gotten any of the schools they applied to. Meanwhile all my professors, when I told them which school I selected said that it was the perfect match for me because of its specialization. I think that the psyd versus phd debate should be secondary to what the program offers you that other programs might not and if that fits with the sort of clinician you want to become and the populations you wish to serve. I think there are a lot of disreputable programs out there, and hopefully in ten years they will be gone and psyds will be respected as an alternative path to the same destination a phd can get you.

Originally Posted by meklorka

I think my cohort size is around thirty - that is shrinking as the number of applicants grow.

How does that work? Seems counterintuitive to me that a program would begin to accept fewer people based on receiving a higher number of applicants. I would assume the opposite.

Originally Posted by meklorka

\ and hopefully in ten years they will be gone and psyds will be respected as an alternative path to the same destination a phd can get you.

This has not happened in the 40 years previously, so what factor, in your mind, will push it over the edge within the next 10? I think the thread, unfortunately , has cited the reason (The Argosy's of the world) why the bias continues to grow. You, apparently, have the opposite view?

Originally Posted by erg923

This has not happened in the 40 years previously, so what factor, in your mind, will push it over the edge within the next 10? I think the thread, unfortunately , has cited the reason (The Argosy's of the world) why the bias continues to grow. You, apparently, have the opposite view?

As we have been talking about, the fate of Argosy et al will largely depend on the abundance of student loan money to pay tuition at such programs. Unfortunately, the current economic trend has forced many of the funded institutions limit slots or close their programs while the FPSP have thrived and a limit on government funding may simply lead to an increase in higher interest private loans. Too many people are unwilling to accept that certain things are not a possibility and when everyone is given the opportunity, competition at the other end (for jobs) becomes fierce. The result is the same problem as before, but with people a few years older and with greater debt. This is what is happening with college right now. Maybe, just maybe, a restriction on loans will lead to more people looking for different avenues rather than picking less than desirable routes to accomplish their educational objectives.

Originally Posted by Sanman

Maybe, just maybe, a restriction on loans will lead to more people looking for different avenues rather than picking less than desirable routes to accomplish their educational objectives.

Maybe so. I assume you are talking about further restrictions on government loans? I think most people understand that a loan from the government is a better deal than one from a private lender. However, given the culture surrounding degrees--if you can dream it, you can do it--and the lack of education on outcomes, I would bet that the majority of students would still very willingly obtain exclusively private loans to pay for school.

I'm not very educated on the economy, but I like trying to brainstorm ways to address these issues. So, let's say for argument's sake that the government student loan program is abolished. The question on my mind now is whether or not there is a realistic disincentive for private banks to offer loans to pay for unfunded doctorates in psych. On the one hand, it is a bad prospect on paper--the debt to income ratio is poor. On the other hand, over time, the percentage of students defaulting may be low enough that it is still profitable to give out these loans in general, as the majority will pay them off.

At least, this debate on the side of the bank would be the case if the economy was pure and simple. However, my understanding is that there are actually very few reasons not to lend money. Banks who give out these loans will still likely be able to sell them to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, thus putting the burden back onto the taxpayers if students default (until the government ends the conservatorship of these agencies, if it ever does). They may also sell derivatives on these loans just like they did with the sub-prime mortgages. Together, this means that private banks absorb little or no risk, so they are unlikely to police the market for unfunded degrees. I just think that with the system set up the way it is--with private and public sectors intertwining, and with large firms dealing only in derivatives--no one is actually going to look very hard at how good an investment is before handing over the money.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-2...llege-tuitions

This discussion, understandably, has drifted away from the post made by the OP (myself ).

That said, let me say that I regret even posting the thread. This "argument" is completely ridiculous. What have we to really contribute to the discussion? We all come from our own little programs and stew in our thoughts in the back of our apartments at night. Heck, a lot of the posters on here are in an "about to graduate" neurosis concerning the field and whatnot.

Quite frankly even thinking about this whole Psy.D/Ph.D argument is dangerous. All you do is risk coming to some sort of extremist or hostile position on the matter. Let it go. Specialize, get more training, and stop complaining please because God knows you are behind on something right now and should not be trolling forums.

Maybe take that significant other out on a date or something. He/she probably sees you as something of a pathetic creature. Get some value from important things like that and not out of drumming on about nothing.

End.

.