So instead we should lower the standards of training in order to let everyone get by? I am trying to think of any other profession, healthcare or otherwise where it would be appropriate to have a certain set of training requirements, but circumventing them for a different path that is not overseen by the governing body is still viewed as okay.
Maybe I just have a misunderstanding of the imbalance problem, but I dont see how either lowering standards or simply adding and allowing more positions would solve anything. It is unclear to me if there is the demand in the job market for as many more psychologists are there are people who want to be psychologists. While unfortunate, doesn't the match imbalance serve to ensure quality of training, rather than simply opening up new positions whether qualified or not?
Psychology already doesnt have the strongest reputation and I am curious what message it sends the world if there is such variability in training and lack of consistency of standards and requirements.
Maybe I just have a misunderstanding of the imbalance problem, but I dont see how either lowering standards or simply adding and allowing more positions would solve anything. It is unclear to me if there is the demand in the job market for as many more psychologists are there are people who want to be psychologists. While unfortunate, doesn't the match imbalance serve to ensure quality of training, rather than simply opening up new positions whether qualified or not?
Psychology already doesnt have the strongest reputation and I am curious what message it sends the world if there is such variability in training and lack of consistency of standards and requirements.
Last edited: