A friend just sent this to me. It seems people within the field are growing more and more frustrated about the for profit professional schools and the continuing downward slide of clinical psychology. Sad
Number 26 KU Clinical Psychology News Fall 2010
FROM THE DIRECTOR
Kansas windmills still churn to fill livestock tanks, but
increasingly the prairie breezes are cranking turbines to
reinvigorate our nations energy economy. The winds
of change are also whipping up a flurry of calls for new
ways of training PhD clinical psychologists to
reinvigorate our field. There always have been calls from
advocates for one interest or another to add this or that
element to training curricula. (But never to subtract
them!). Only the issues vary and a few are, in a word,
jejune (dont you just love some words?). The more
interesting voices in the wind are those advocating a reshaped
landscape of professional psychology.
Partly in response to concerns about the rising number of
graduates of for-profit PsyD programs entering the
internship, postdoc and professional job markets, calls
have been raised for the APA to strengthen its
accreditation standards, for PsyD programs to limit their
enrollments and raise admission standards, for ceilings
to be placed on the number of students who can enter the
internship market from any given program in any given
year, for the internship to be made a post-doctoral rather
than a pre-doctoral requirement, and for state licensing
boards to eliminate a year of postdoctoral supervised
practice as a licensure requirement. The future outcome
of these initiatives is uncertain, if not doubtful, because
they require action by others in some instances and, in
others, they invite the certainty of legal opposition.
Yet other voices are advocating more revolutionary
change. Responding to the perceived failure of advances
in clinical science to be reflected in clinical practice,
including among PhD practitioners, a growing cadre is
taking matters into its own hands. The Association for
Psychological Science (APS), a science-oriented
alternative to the increasingly practice-oriented APA,
was an early manifestation.
Similarly, the 1990s emergence of the Academy of
Psychological Clinical Science (APCS), currently a 50+
member association of high-profile clinical programs
advocating a rigorously scientific clinical psychology, is
serving as a counterpoint to more traditional clinical
training. Most recently, and perhaps most intriguingly,
we have seen the emergence of the Psychological
Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS;
www.pcsas.org). The PCSAS clearly reflects a growing
disenchantment with APA accreditation among clinical
science oriented programs as well as, I suspect, a
disbelief that the APA is capable of mustering the
political will to tighten its accreditation reins even if it
wanted to. With only three programs currently listed as
accredited by it, it is doubtful that the PCSAS will
supplant the firmly entrenched APA accreditation
system anytime soon. Nevertheless, it may emerge over
time as a useful, supplementary credential for programs
wanting to clearly align themselves publically with the
clinical science movement.
Our program has long prided itself on providing
balanced training with the flexibility to prepare students
for both academic/research and clinical/applied careers.
Along with other scientist-practitioner programs cut
from the Boulder Model, our objective has been to
advance science and practice hand-in-hand. That remains
a laudable goal, and one I believe we will continue to
aspire to as our program adapts to the evolving world of
clinical psychology in the midst of what appears to be a
growing polarization within our profession. One thing is
certain: these are interesting times to be in the training
business. Please consider contributing to the cause!
Heres hoping that this 26th edition of The Hawkline
finds you prospering and in good health. This is,
perhaps, a trite sentiment during the holiday season, but
for me it is an increasingly heartfelt one with rising
personal gravitas that is, perhaps, inversely proportional
to my slumping center of gravity! Peace be with you.
Ray Higgins
Number 26 KU Clinical Psychology News Fall 2010
FROM THE DIRECTOR
Kansas windmills still churn to fill livestock tanks, but
increasingly the prairie breezes are cranking turbines to
reinvigorate our nations energy economy. The winds
of change are also whipping up a flurry of calls for new
ways of training PhD clinical psychologists to
reinvigorate our field. There always have been calls from
advocates for one interest or another to add this or that
element to training curricula. (But never to subtract
them!). Only the issues vary and a few are, in a word,
jejune (dont you just love some words?). The more
interesting voices in the wind are those advocating a reshaped
landscape of professional psychology.
Partly in response to concerns about the rising number of
graduates of for-profit PsyD programs entering the
internship, postdoc and professional job markets, calls
have been raised for the APA to strengthen its
accreditation standards, for PsyD programs to limit their
enrollments and raise admission standards, for ceilings
to be placed on the number of students who can enter the
internship market from any given program in any given
year, for the internship to be made a post-doctoral rather
than a pre-doctoral requirement, and for state licensing
boards to eliminate a year of postdoctoral supervised
practice as a licensure requirement. The future outcome
of these initiatives is uncertain, if not doubtful, because
they require action by others in some instances and, in
others, they invite the certainty of legal opposition.
Yet other voices are advocating more revolutionary
change. Responding to the perceived failure of advances
in clinical science to be reflected in clinical practice,
including among PhD practitioners, a growing cadre is
taking matters into its own hands. The Association for
Psychological Science (APS), a science-oriented
alternative to the increasingly practice-oriented APA,
was an early manifestation.
Similarly, the 1990s emergence of the Academy of
Psychological Clinical Science (APCS), currently a 50+
member association of high-profile clinical programs
advocating a rigorously scientific clinical psychology, is
serving as a counterpoint to more traditional clinical
training. Most recently, and perhaps most intriguingly,
we have seen the emergence of the Psychological
Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS;
www.pcsas.org). The PCSAS clearly reflects a growing
disenchantment with APA accreditation among clinical
science oriented programs as well as, I suspect, a
disbelief that the APA is capable of mustering the
political will to tighten its accreditation reins even if it
wanted to. With only three programs currently listed as
accredited by it, it is doubtful that the PCSAS will
supplant the firmly entrenched APA accreditation
system anytime soon. Nevertheless, it may emerge over
time as a useful, supplementary credential for programs
wanting to clearly align themselves publically with the
clinical science movement.
Our program has long prided itself on providing
balanced training with the flexibility to prepare students
for both academic/research and clinical/applied careers.
Along with other scientist-practitioner programs cut
from the Boulder Model, our objective has been to
advance science and practice hand-in-hand. That remains
a laudable goal, and one I believe we will continue to
aspire to as our program adapts to the evolving world of
clinical psychology in the midst of what appears to be a
growing polarization within our profession. One thing is
certain: these are interesting times to be in the training
business. Please consider contributing to the cause!
Heres hoping that this 26th edition of The Hawkline
finds you prospering and in good health. This is,
perhaps, a trite sentiment during the holiday season, but
for me it is an increasingly heartfelt one with rising
personal gravitas that is, perhaps, inversely proportional
to my slumping center of gravity! Peace be with you.
Ray Higgins
). I walked away from it feeling a bit disappointed in myself for my own lack of action. So I plan to send a letter to Dr. Vasquez at the address above (thanks codetype4/9) to inquire about any changes in accreditation standards. Other interns will too. If any others want to join... let's make a little noise.
