APA Provides $3 Million for an 'Internship Stimulus Package'

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

I received this e-mail from APAGS. I apologize if this news has already been posted, but I did not find it in the archives. How much do people think this package will help with the internship crisis?

-----

APAGS Breaking News: APA Provides $3 Million for an ‘Internship Stimulus Package’

Details on the ‘Internship Stimulus Package’

- On August 1, APA’s Council of Representatives voted to approve the ‘Internship Stimulus Package,’ which will set aside up to $3 million over the next 3 years to help unaccredited internship sites seek accreditation.
- These grants help programs pay for costs associated with becoming accredited and have the potential to increase the number of APA accredited internship positions by 520.

A timely solution to a growing problem
- The growth of accredited internships has not kept pace with growth in doctoral programs.
- Over the past 4 years, the number of unaccredited internship positions has increased 14%, whereas the number of accredited positions has only increased 2%.
- APA accreditation is the only mechanism that provides peer review, quality assurance, accountability, and student protection.

The community came together to meet the need
- APAGS thanks the Board of Educational Affairs for authoring the bill, and members of the APAGS Advocacy Coordinating Team and Division Student Representative Network for mobilizing widespread support for this measure.
- This is one of many strategies that APAGS supports to address the need for quality and accessible training. To learn more, visit www.apa.org/apags/issues/internship.aspx.

Taking advantage of the program
- Internship sites will apply through APA for a grant to cover expenses such as the costs of accreditation, administrative and supervisor support, intern stipends and benefits, and other related expenses. The average award will be $20,000.
- Later this year, look for information on how to apply at www.apa.org/ed.

Sweet, definitely a step in the right direction. The long term solution, however, is to address the systemic problems that have created the imbalance (i.e., PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS, decreased psychologist job market) and to view the internship imbalance as part of a larger problem that needs to be addressed.

Also, concerning the internship crisis, I have heard rumors spreading around the faculty at my school that the APA is considering to decline APA accreditation for programs that are not meeting a 75% match rate. At first glance I wouldn't think that a bad idea. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

Originally Posted by CriminalPsych

Also, concerning the internship crisis, I have heard rumors spreading around the faculty at my school that the APA is considering to decline APA accreditation for programs that are not meeting a 75% match rate. At first glance I wouldn't think that a bad idea. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

If you check the "Occupy the Imbalance!" thread in these forums (it's currently on page 2 I believe), there's a link to the APA's response to the petition regarding the internship imbalance. I believe the current idea is to implement a 50% cut-off within the next few years, although I just skimmed through the statement, so I don't remember what the penalty is for not meeting said cut-off. I seem to recall there perhaps then being a gradual increase of that 50% cut-off, but I could just be making that up.

Personally, I'd be all for suspending accreditation of programs that, at the very least, haven't posted a 50% APA/APPIC match rate over the past 5-10 years.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

If you check the "Occupy the Imbalance!" thread in these forums (it's currently on page 2 I believe), there's a link to the APA's response to the petition regarding the internship imbalance. I believe the current idea is to implement a 50% cut-off within the next few years, although I just skimmed through the statement, so I don't remember what the penalty is for not meeting said cut-off. I seem to recall there perhaps then being a gradual increase of that 50% cut-off, but I could just be making that up.

Personally, I'd be all for suspending accreditation of programs that, at the very least, haven't posted a 50% APA/APPIC match rate over the past 5-10 years.

The problem is that, as currently, worded, there is no actual penalty listed for not meeting the 50% cutoff. Some other things, like student to faculty ratio, get a program "looked at," though what it means to be "looked at" is unclear too. So, they definitely are not talking about yanking accreditation for poor performance. Maybe the offending program gets a politely worded letter or something. So, it's something to make a big deal about when you talk about this issue.

Originally Posted by MCParent

The problem is that, as currently, worded, there is no actual penalty listed for not meeting the 50% cutoff. Some other things, like student to faculty ratio, get a program "looked at," though what it means to be "looked at" is unclear too. So, they definitely are not talking about yanking accreditation for poor performance. Maybe the offending program gets a politely worded letter or something. So, it's something to make a big deal about when you talk about this issue.

I hadn't even noticed that part; thanks for the clarification. I know I remembered reading a blurb to the effect of, "it's hard to remove accreditation once it's granted," which left a bad taste in my mouth, but I'd hoped they were at least planning on moving in that direction.

Might not be a bad idea unless you are in a small program and 1-2 students don't match say two years in a row....

.

Perhaps another solution, rather than blaming professional schools, would be to encourage programs of all degree types to create/fund internships for their students. PhD programs are equally to blame if they have never created an internship slot, despite the fact they are only taking a modest amount more students over the years. If you take 7 students per year, but have never contributed to the development of an internship slot....well, that sort of stuff adds up. Also, look up affiliated internships. not a bad idea if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Rivi

Sweet, definitely a step in the right direction. The long term solution, however, is to address the systemic problems that have created the imbalance (i.e., PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS, decreased psychologist job market) and to view the internship imbalance as part of a larger problem that needs to be addressed.

Perhaps another solution, rather than blaming professional schools, would be to encourage programs of all degree types to create/fund internships for their students. PhD programs are equally to blame if they have never created an internship slot, despite the fact they are only taking a modest amount more students over the years. If you take 7 students per year, but have never contributed to the development of an internship slot....well, that sort of stuff adds up. Also, look up affiliated internships. not a bad idea if you ask me.

Originally Posted by psych51489

Perhaps another solution, rather than blaming professional schools, would be to encourage programs of all degree types to create/fund internships for their students. PhD programs are equally to blame if they have never created an internship slot, despite the fact they are only taking a modest amount more students over the years. If you take 7 students per year, but have never contributed to the development of an internship slot....well, that sort of stuff adds up. Also, look up affiliated internships. not a bad idea if you ask me.

I don't recall a big problem with internship imbalance prior to the advent of FSPS. How many internship slots have been created by those programs? Is it proportional to the ridiculous number of students?

Also...I think keeping your own students for internship would limit training due to inbreeding.

Originally Posted by Pragma

I don't recall a big problem with internship imbalance prior to the advent of FSPS. How many internship slots have been created by those programs? Is it proportional to the ridiculous number of students?

Also...I think keeping your own students for internship would limit training due to inbreeding.

It's very easy for professional schools to dust their hands off and exclaim, "Well, we're all in this together now!" while completely ignoring the fact that FSPS bear by far the largest chunk of responsibility for this problem. I for one choose not to live in the pollyannish fantasy world where we pretend this is not a major source of the problem, though I can't control other people's thoughts.

Originally Posted by MCParent

It's very easy for professional schools to dust their hands off and exclaim, "Well, we're all in this together now!" while completely ignoring the fact that FSPS bear by far the largest chunk of responsibility for this problem. I for one choose not to live in the pollyannish fantasy world where we pretend this is not a major source of the problem, though I can't control other people's thoughts.

Yeah I find it entertaining when folks come on here posting that type of "information."

But you have to admit, it is hard to argue with their math...

Originally Posted by psych51489

If you take 7 students per year, but have never contributed to the development of an internship slot....well, that sort of stuff adds up.

Originally Posted by Pragma

Yeah I find it entertaining when folks come on here posting that type of "information."

But you have to admit, it is hard to argue with their math...

I also wonder what would happen with these "affiliated" spots if UF clinical, or University of Chicago, etc., decided they would only be taking their own students from now on. My guess is cries of elitism and exclusion of FSPS students.

These "affiliated" internships to me are much more suggesting of restraint of trade violations than anything having to do with yanking accreditation, because the former actually does reduce competition (the underlying thing behind restraint of trade/antitrust law).

Oh, well.

And, yeah, equivalence of 7 students a year and 50 students a year is possible only with doublethink.

Check out APA's council notes from earlier today -

http://www.apa.org/pubs/newsletters/...il-action.aspx

Recognizing the growing imbalance between the number of psychology graduate students who need a clinical internship to complete their degree requirements and the availability of those internships, APA's Council of Representatives voted to fund a $3 million internship stimulus program to increase the number of accredited internship positions. The funding is expected to help as many as 150 programs move from non-APA accredited to accredited status and create 520 new accredited internship positions over the next three years. Funding will be available starting this fall through an application process.

Thoughts?

Create 520 new accredited internship positions over the next three years.

Uhm....I'm not a fan because it doesn't help the field's over-supply problem.

I like the idea but as T4C highlights its just a band aid placed over a much bigger problem. More scrupulously, I doubt that they will actually create 520 new APA accredited positions with this money. More importantly, whatever spots they create in 3 years will not make up for the continually growing group of unplaced internship applicants.

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

Create 520 new accredited internship positions over the next three years.

Uhm....I'm not a fan because it doesn't help the field's over-supply problem.

Agreed. I'm definitely happy to see the APA taking the internship problem at least somewhat seriously, but there's nothing to stop programs from then just accepting more students and churning them out into the system.

Step in the semi-right direction, though, at least, as are the new guidelines/suggestions put out regarding holding programs accountable for their match rates. Baby steps, I suppose.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

Agreed. I'm definitely happy to see the APA taking the internship problem at least somewhat seriously, but there's nothing to stop programs from then just accepting more students and churning them out into the system.

Step in the semi-right direction, though, at least, as are the new guidelines/suggestions put out regarding holding programs accountable for their match rates. Baby steps, I suppose.

I feel even less positive about this than the other posters so far. It is moving sites from APPIC status to APA-accred, but not increasing the number of internship positions. There will still be a huge imbalance, though slightly more people will be able to claim they went to an APA-accredited internship site.

Not even a band-aid on a broken leg, in my opinion.

EDIT: Though, I do think it's a good idea, since it is really important to check the quality of internship training. Just... when people talk about the match imbalance, they tend to think of applicants vs. APPIC positions, not just APA-accred sites. This move won't change that at all.

Is the problem too few internships or too many people let into the field?

If the market needed more psychologists, then it would demand them. But its not. Instead, the demand is coming from the suppliers themselves...which means something is seriously wrong.

Wasn't there just a thread on this?

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/show...light=stimulus

I agree, this does nothing to resolve the core problem.

It will create a nice little bump in the terrifying downward slope of the match rate, for one or two years.

These kinds of initiatives are much more "friendly" than the real work that has to be done on accountability. Everyone can get behind something like this and sing kumbaya. It takes a lot more courage and work to hold data up to people's faces, and demand to know what they're doing about their contributions to the problem. Courage many people at APA sorely lack, unfortunately.

The Occupy working group is almost ready for the applicant education web site to go live. This will hopefully make a dent in the problem in terms of helping people make better, more informed decisions about graduate school.

Edit: Oh, and it you want to help make the dent bigger, get more involved in your divisions! They always need people at the student, ECP, and established levels. State associations too. Really, getting involved doesn't take a lot of time and helps to build the critical mass of people pishing APA to do more about the real problem.

Also, I have no idea how they get 500+ internships out of that. The current federal GPE is 3M and gives out 25 grants

http://www07.grants.gov/search/searc...EW&oppId=52814

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

there's nothing to stop programs from then just accepting more students and churning them out into the system.

Originally Posted by erg923

Instead, the demand is coming from the suppliers...which means something is seriously wrong.

This is what I was thinking when I first saw this. Argosy sponsored the APA Convention this year!! APA turns around and funnels money into making more internships, and guess what comes next? Professional schools WILL be increasing their enrollments (at the same time that state schools are struggling with funding). More profit for them. They're buying APA and dressing it up in fancy clothing. I'm not sounding like a conspiracy theorist, am I??!

Increase in APA accredited internship positions, 2009-2012: +43 [1.8%] (2322 up to 2365)
Increase in APPIC Match Registrants, 2009-2012: +610 [16%] (3825 up to 4435)
Change in FTEs in my agency's clinical department during the same time period: -2.5 [.38%] (6.5 down to 4, including 20 hours of Clinical Psych Doctoral Practicum)

This initiative only addresses one of these numbers, and it is perhaps the one that is least related to the problem.

Mod Note: Merging these two threads owing to very similar subject matter

I don't think I'm a big fan of this. For profit schools will keep flooding the field and the job market will suck. I'm glad I'm done with internship. there are rough things coming for the field in upcoming years, similar to tech/MBAs in the 1990s.

I'm in a phd program in clinical psych that every year accepts 6 people.
I didnt match last year (perhaps it was not meant to be or perhaps I aimed too high).

I highly doubt this $3 million will change anything though.
I wonder if the right change is APPIC/APA accreditation for internship sites (creating more "quality" internships so everyone is not fighting over VA's) is the right move, or if the right move is all together limiting these seemingly low quality psyD degree mills?

I, for one, would gladly take a non-appic/non APA internship if it didnt mean stunting my career forever afterwards. As far as I understand though, if you get a NON appic/non APA internship, you can never get a government job, and it is much harder to be licensed in many states, correct?

Originally Posted by bmedclinic

I'm in a phd program in clinical psych that every year accepts 6 people.
I didnt match last year (perhaps it was not meant to be or perhaps I aimed too high).

I highly doubt this $3 million will change anything though.
I wonder if the right change is APPIC/APA accreditation for internship sites (creating more "quality" internships so everyone is not fighting over VA's) is the right move, or if the right move is all together limiting these seemingly low quality psyD degree mills?

I, for one, would gladly take a non-appic/non APA internship if it didnt mean stunting my career forever afterwards. As far as I understand though, if you get a NON appic/non APA internship, you can never get a government job, and it is much harder to be licensed in many states, correct?

I don't know if it disqualifies you from ALL government jobs, but the largest employer of psychologists (the VA) does require an APA-accred. internship, as does (I believe) the federal BOP. There are one or two very limited exceptions, generally relating to if you completed your internship at a VA that is in the process of, and is expected to attain, accreditation but hasn't yet received it. Beyond that, though, you're out of luck.

As for becoming licensed, I don't personally know of any states that explicitly require an APA-accredited internship. Rather, they'll generally state something along the lines of "APA/APPIC-accredited or equivalent." Thus, if the internship isn't accredited, the burden of proof falls to you to show that your training was sufficient for the board's standards. Just how much of a pain this would be will vary from state to state.

I agree that increasing the number of internship spots is essentially a bandaid--it might alleviate some of the problem in the short-term, but long-term, the only way (in my opinion) to address the imbalance is to limit/reduce the number of psychology trainees being churned out into the market. And yes, I'd say low-quality programs of any type (Ph.D. or Psy.D.) that seem not to have their students' best interests in mind, that consistently admit high numbers of students concomittant with low internship match rates, and that don't have the ability to offer a high standard of training to ALL students (without the student having to seek out external training activities on their own) should be targeted first.

Originally Posted by ncantone

the job market will suck..

It sucks for all kinds of people in all kinds of fields.

If the 3M helps prepare more students to assume positions of authority in, or at least vis-a-vis, systems where demand for psychologists has been artificially dampened (such as corrections), then it's to everyone's benefit.

Originally Posted by Buzzwordsoldier

If the 3M helps prepare more students to assume positions of authority in, or at least vis-a-vis, systems where demand for psychologists has been artificially dampened (such as corrections), then it's to everyone's benefit.

For a moment there, I thought you were suggesting that the company 3M is going to send its post-it making employees to the prisons to clean up the system. Clearly it is too early in the morning yet for me...

One SDNer's brainfog is another SDNer's brainstorming!

Originally Posted by Pragma

For a moment there, I thought you were suggesting that the company 3M is going to send its post-it making employees to the prisons to clean up the system. Clearly it is too early in the morning yet for me...

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

Create 520 new accredited internship positions over the next three years.

Uhm....I'm not a fan because it doesn't help the field's over-supply problem.

Free markets self-regulate (or so the theory goes!)



You can't be a libertarian for everything except for protecting the applied psychology profession

Originally Posted by PETRAN

Free markets self-regulate (or so the theory goes!)



You can't be a libertarian for everything except for protecting the applied psychology profession

Markets only self-regulate when the consumers are informed, not when businesses market to (prey on) uninformed people to get them to invest in educations then ultimately leave them without the resources to complete accredited training.

And, the market is corrected. There are not enough people paying to fund internship sites, because there are too many internship applicants. The market dynamics of doctoral student supply are not parallel to the market dynamics of internship supply. The APA funding more sites is intervention against the market dynamics.

Originally Posted by PETRAN

Free markets self-regulate (or so the theory goes!)



You can't be a libertarian for everything except for protecting the applied psychology profession

I don't really follow your comment. Pumping $3 million dollars into the system is the opposite of letting the system self-regulate. True self-regulation would involve, unfortunately, suffering among unaccredited FSPP students which prompts enough criticism to keep these programs from expanding. But none of it really matters while people still have easy access to federal student loans to fund poor educational decisions.

You do not need an APA accredited internship or APA accredited graduate program to become a licensed psychologist in California and I doubt very much if any other state requires it either. There are even some Calif. graduate psych programs that are not accredited in any way whatsoever, but that qualify one to be a licensed psychologist in Calif. As long as you can pass the test you can be licensed.

I definitely sense some blatant assumptions on some of these psych threads:
1) if you don't go to a university based grad program you're wasting your time,
2) PsyD degrees are generally lower quality than PhD degrees,
3) so called private "professional" graduate schools suck and are flooding the internship pool with low quality graduates,
4) if you don't match to an APPIC internship then you've somehow failed and won't have a successful career.

Here's what my observations are:

* Not all university graduate programs are high quality, some private "professional" programs are better and are APA accredited.
* PsyD degrees are clinically focused degrees for those who want to have a career as a therapists rather than an academic/researcher. They are different, not lesser, degrees. I know people who have PsyD degrees from non APA accredited institutions who have had successful careers as licensed psychologists for years.
* Working at the VA is not the end all and be all of a psychologist's job. I, for one, have no desire to work there.
* If the so called professional schools are cranking out large quantities of such low quality graduates then why feel threatened by them taking away an APA internship you want? If they are indeed low quality graduates then they won't have a chance at getting a high quality APA internship.

Just my two cents worth...

Originally Posted by carolsuec

\
I definitely sense some blatant assumptions on some of these psych threads:
1) if you don't go to a university based grad program you're wasting your time,
2) PsyD degrees are generally lower quality than PhD degrees,
3) so called private "professional" graduate schools suck and are flooding the internship pool with low quality graduates,
4) if you don't match to an APPIC internship then you've somehow failed and won't have a successful career.

No one said any of these things.

Originally Posted by carolsuec

If the so called professional schools are cranking out large quantities of such low quality graduates then why feel threatened by them taking away an APA internship you want? If they are indeed low quality graduates then they won't have a chance at getting a high quality APA internship.

I am sure you will get some additional responses, but I thought I'd state that I don't feel threatened. Students from unaccredited FSPP schools are generally the ones suffering when it comes to matching at internships. I went to an accredited program and got an accredited internship, and had no difficulty with obtaining licensure in my state.

What I do feel threatened by is poorly trained psychologists not only flooding the market, but also making a bad name for our profession. I've met enough of them and definitely do not want to be considered in the same boat. While there are going to be some bad eggs in APA accredited programs, I generally view it as a good measure of difference in training quality.

As for the PsyD vs. PhD comments -

Originally Posted by MCParent

Markets only self-regulate when the consumers are informed, not when businesses market to (prey on) uninformed people to get them to invest in educations then ultimately leave them without the resources to complete accredited training.

And, the market is corrected. There are not enough people paying to fund internship sites, because there are too many internship applicants. The market dynamics of doctoral student supply are not parallel to the market dynamics of internship supply. The APA funding more sites is intervention against the market dynamics.

[scratches head]

I think I agree with this perspective, but unless you're being purely descriptive, I don't see how you can believe the market is being oversupplied with psychology students. the market dynamics of student supply are driven in part by widespread and acute concerns that our communities are hurting and lacking sensitive leadership. Isn't that why the proverbial dead horse should be allowed to rest in peace? I've been saying things like this for a few years now on this board. Perhaps the point of agreement between various factions (fsps/uni-psych; phd/psyd; rxp/traditional scope) is that the powers that be have poorly planned to meet the demand.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/c...psych-approach

Originally Posted by Buzzwordsoldier

[scratches head]

I think I agree with this perspective, but unless you're being purely descriptive, I don't see how you can believe the market is being oversupplied with psychology students. the market dynamics of student supply are driven in part by widespread and acute concerns that our communities are hurting and lacking sensitive leadership.

I'm sure that a demand for psychologists would impact the availability of training programs to an extent. However, what is the evidence that this demand exists? David Brooks saying that culture has shifted more towards the psychological does not constitute evidence that there is a demand for psychologists in the job market. If there were truly a demand, psychologists' salaries would be higher than the reported figures, much like salaries for nurse practitioners are high. Also, if that were the case, we would have seen an improvement in the internship crisis because more and more psychologists would graduate, land cushy jobs in training facilities, and thus be available to supervise more trainees. This is anecdotal, but I have never seen job postings for psychologists that have gone unfilled because there weren't enough trained professionals to fill that spot. Quite the opposite, in fact.

The recent increase in training programs and enrollment in training programs is the result of the demand from students who want that degree. More people who are willing to take out loans for a doctorate in psychology = more opening in professional schools who want that tuition money. Hence the internship crisis and, yes, a flooding of the job market.

Need for mental health services ≠ Demand for doctoral level psychologists.

Especially not poorly trained ones who will likely contribute little to alleviating that demand. Suffering in disadvantaged communities is not going to be alleviated by simply pumping out more psychologists. With current quality control systems for psychology education, one could even make an argument doing so is likely to contribute to that suffering.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

I'm sure that a demand for psychologists would impact the availability of training programs to an extent. However, what is the evidence that this demand exists? David Brooks saying that culture has shifted more towards the psychological does not constitute evidence that there is a demand for psychologists in the job market. If there were truly a demand, psychologists' salaries would be higher than the reported figures, much like salaries for nurse practitioners are high. Also, if that were the case, we would have seen an improvement in the internship crisis because more and more psychologists would graduate, land cushy jobs in training facilities, and thus be available to supervise more trainees. This is anecdotal, but I have never seen job postings for psychologists that have gone unfilled because there weren't enough trained professionals to fill that spot. Quite the opposite, in fact.

The recent increase in training programs and enrollment in training programs is the result of the demand from students who want that degree. More people who are willing to take out loans for a doctorate in psychology = more opening in professional schools who want that tuition money. Hence the internship crisis and, yes, a flooding of the job market.

Killer -- If the cupboard is empty, that isn't proof people are well fed. The mismatch exists in part because the current supply side systems have failed to adequately identify the nature of the demand. People are drawn to training because they know there is suffering. They believe they can make a difference. They err in thinking the leaders in the field have ready made solutions, "If only our institutions had a bit more money laying about." But if the cupboard is full, that isn't proof of dietary intelligence. Whichever way you call it, the problem seems to be we have a cycle of good money chasing the bad. Maybe the $3M is just more of the same old same old. We all want to be a part of a thriving industry. Brooks's article suggests that given current cultural trends, a psychology degree positions people to be employment creators. But creating growth opportunities for psychologists is going to take nothing less than vision, risk taking, and technical expertise on the part of psychologists who understand the importance of social change. We may disagree but it seems to me that's less likely to be found amongst the set that sees the degree as a ticket to that cushy office, better pay, unquestioned authority over others, etc...

Ollie -- No, more is not necessarily better, and mental health is not solely the province of psychology. You seem to agree that the current service net is poorly adapted to serve more disadvantaged communities. I humbly submit we are saying the same thing -- training (and, perhaps MCParent would add, recruitment) has not been up to the task.

Originally Posted by Ollie123

Need for mental health services ≠ Demand for doctoral level psychologists.

Especially not poorly trained ones who will likely contribute little to alleviating that demand. Suffering in disadvantaged communities is not going to be alleviated by simply pumping out more psychologists. With current quality control systems for psychology education, one could even make an argument doing so is likely to contribute to that suffering.

I wish I could "like" a post

Amen.

Originally Posted by Ollie123

Need for mental health services ≠ Demand for doctoral level psychologists.

Especially not poorly trained ones who will likely contribute little to alleviating that demand. Suffering in disadvantaged communities is not going to be alleviated by simply pumping out more psychologists. With current quality control systems for psychology education, one could even make an argument doing so is likely to contribute to that suffering.

Yup.

Originally Posted by Buzzwordsoldier

Killer -- If the cupboard is empty, that isn't proof people are well fed.

But if the cupboard is full, that isn't proof of dietary intelligence.

What if your cupboard has small people in it?

Originally Posted by Pragma

What if your cupboard has small people in it?

See, now, thematically, I would have gone with The Borrowers though I grant you it lacks the predicative resonance of TIITC. For the record, I've seen TB but have never read nor seen TIITC -- thematically, is a good metaphor for the crisis? In any case, I doubt it's caricature of the titular Indian has been well received "on the res." For all I know, the Borrowers exploited offensive stereotypes as well.

Certainly the combo of the potentially offensive stereotype and the mean smiley, in further combination with your endorsement of certain political positions regarding the internship imbalance, leaves me wondering what your intention is regarding the status of various folks (FSPS and FPPS students, in particular) considered by so many here to be "at fault" for the crisis. But I'll relent and assume they're either playfully nonsensical and/or collegial in nature.

FWIW, if this assumption were wrong, and my initial concerns legitimate, what we'd have here is an example of a growth area for psychology -- the importance for more/better multicultural awareness training amongst psychology students -- and that's regardless of your intent...

Originally Posted by Buzzwordsoldier

See, now, thematically, I would have gone with The Borrowers though I grant you it lacks the predicative resonance of TIITC. For the record, I've seen TB but have never read nor seen TIITC -- thematically, is a good metaphor for the crisis? In any case, I doubt it's caricature of the titular Indian has been well received "on the res." For all I know, the Borrowers exploited offensive stereotypes as well.

Certainly the combo of the potentially offensive stereotype and the mean smiley, in further combination with your endorsement of certain political positions regarding the internship imbalance, leaves me wondering what your intention is regarding the status of various folks (FSPS and FPPS students, in particular) considered by so many here to be "at fault" for the crisis. But I'll relent and assume they're either playfully nonsensical and/or collegial in nature.

FWIW, if this assumption were wrong, and my initial concerns legitimate, what we'd have here is an example of a growth area for psychology -- the importance for more/better multicultural awareness training amongst psychology students -- and that's regardless of your intent...

Yikes....it was just a joke. The cupboard metaphor cracked me up a little bit.

Originally Posted by Pragma

Yikes....it was just a joke. The cupboard metaphor cracked me up a little bit.

Cool. I figured as much -- just wanted to bring the point home that the topic of the imbalance is a politically overdetermined issue and the solutions the majority of folks here seem to be favoring seem reactionary.