Argosy DC get its own exclusive APA accredited internship site approved

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Well, the idea of a captive site DOES help to get rid of all of that silly competition going on around in this field, doesn't it?

It occurs to me that if you do not surrender yourself to some mighty comedy and inverse rainbows (especially as regards the paychecks) in this fields, then you are bound to be disappointed

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Pragma]

It occurs to me that if you do not surrender yourself to some mighty comedy and inverse rainbows (especially as regards the paychecks) in this fields, then you are bound to be disappointed

Maybe a double rainbow? All the way?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Maybe a double rainbow? All the way?

Of course we choose the perspective prior to ordering our waffles in the morning

 

[erg923]

I'm actually relatively in favor of developing captive internships, as I think the current madness has gotten way out of hand for a one year, slave wage, job.

I have no idea how this is "raising the bar" by any stretch, however. If anything, it keeps a subpar program and many subpar students "in-house" that much longer.

 

[bmedclinic]

I still cant believe OP is serious. When I read the first post I genuinely thought it was intended to be sarcasm.

Also, Argrosy really shouldn't have to worry about anyone else applying to their sites- I cant imagine anyone from a reputable training program wanting that stink on their vita.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm actually relatively in favor of developing captive internships, as I think the current madness has gotten way out of hand for a one year, slave wage, job.

I have no idea how this is "raising the bar" by any stretch, however. If anything, it keeps a subpar program and many subpar students "in-house" that much longer.

How is it out of hand? Something like 80%+ match. And the majority of those match to their 1st or 2nd choice. What would it ideally look like?

 

[Peacemaker36]

I'd argue that the fact most reputable programs' graduates pass it near 100% of the time is a good thing. I can't think of a reason why most graduates of good, reputable programs shouldn't be able to be licensed. I see your point, but I don't really think the licensing exam needs to distinguish between highly qualified and knowledgeable graduates. Isn't the fact that less reputable programs have pass rates <60% proof that it is already distinguishing between good/bad candidates to some extent?

Though... I'm totally with you on having more transparency re: advanced stats, as well as removing i/o and restructuring the test.

In an ideal world, I think there would be close to a 100% match rate. If a student has satisfied every requirement of their program then they should be assured of matching somewhere. As it stands now, there are definitely qualified applicants who don't match. That seems like a systemic problem that needs to be corrected.

We do need quality control. I wish that grad schools were more assertive in failing out students who clearly shouldn't be pushed through. This obviously gets quite complicated at an unfunded program, which is one of the reasons I have a problem with the FSPS model.

 

[cara susanna]

I definitely agree with erg that the internship imbalance is out of hand. However, I don't think that adding more sites is the solution, even if they are captive. I think that there needs to be a bottleneck (and that currently it is at the internship level), but it should be during the admissions process.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Although I do agree that admissions need to be limited, I actually don't see a problem with increasing APA internship sites and think that it is healthy to continue to grow our profession in a responsible manner. However, I do see a huge potential problem with having captive sites from profit motivated professional schools and believe that this is a really bad move.

 

[psych844]

When it comes to the health of the psychology profession, are your guys views largely American-centric? Does it matter?
It does seem that what happens in USA is really really important, as Psychology isn't that "big" in the rest of the world.

 

[psych844]

It's just that you guys keep talking about this stuff but this is largely not a problem in Canada, and then I think of some European countries and Psychology is not even that developed. (seen as largely unnecessary) So much variety.

 

[WisNeuro]

When it comes to the health of the psychology profession, are your guys views largely American-centric? Does it matter?
It does seem that what happens in USA is really really important, as Psychology isn't that "big" in the rest of the world.

Yes, but they have to be for many of us, it's just logical. The vast majority of us have to work in the US healthcare system and by proxy, the US system for training and licensing psychologists.

 

[Nahsil]

One of my professors got his counseling PhD from Auburn, actually a brilliant guy and a seasoned therapist who's done a lot of work for the state, establishing emergency mental health procedures and whatnot.

The thing is, he's thoroughly psychodynamic, Gestalt/Psychoanalytic, and a major portion of his pedagogy is based in experiential rather than didactic methods. I wonder if the EPPP rates (at some schools anyway) have something to do with the emphasis of education, rather than the lack of education. Granted I know most around here believe that CBT is the only responsible way to perform therapy or whatever, but aren't competition and diversity also some of nature and culture's primary ways of refining functionality and truth? *shrug*

There's also critiques of evidence-based practice highlighting things like difficulty operationalizing certain multifaceted constructs etc etc.

 

[WisNeuro]

The thing is, he's thoroughly psychodynamic, Gestalt/Psychoanalytic. I wonder if the EPPP rates (at some schools anyway) have something to do with the emphasis of education, rather than the lack of education.

You can look at scores on subsets of the test, as well from ASPPB. That wouldn't explain the fact that the scores are also low on things like ethics, research methods, and basic statistics. Most of the time, in the sub 70s on the EPPP, it's low across the board, not on just one or two subsets.

 

[smalltownpsych]

It's just that you guys keep talking about this stuff but this is largely not a problem in Canada, and then I think of some European countries and Psychology is not even that developed. (seen as largely unnecessary) So much variety.

I would imagine that there are problems with the system in Canada or any other country. Since I haven't worked and been trained in another country, i can't comment on it. If I did go to work in another country, I am almost certain that I would see some things they do better than in the US and some things that the US does better. I have seen this play out just comparing VA to private hospital or comparing mental health systems in different states so no reason to think it would be any different comparing countries.

 

[Nahsil]

You can look at scores on subsets of the test, as well from ASPPB. That wouldn't explain the fact that the scores are also low on things like ethics, research methods, and basic statistics. Most of the time, in the sub 70s on the EPPP, it's low across the board, not on just one or two subsets.

Well, we're getting into territory where our biases will become more apparent, but as for my Masters program, I can say that a lot of the clinical folks aren't very well trained in research methods and statistics, because the program is experiential and human science oriented. They are however amply trained and qualified in more subtle issues of sitting with people who are dealing with a lot of suffering, probably moreso than a lot of Masters level clinicians. Trade-offs either way. But I know a lot of people advocate more formal and manual-based therapeutic modalities that rely less on these "human competencies," so...

 

[psych844]

I would imagine that there are problems with the system in Canada or any other country. Since I haven't worked and been trained in another country, i can't comment on it. If I did go to work in another country, I am almost certain that I would see some things they do better than in the US and some things that the US does better. I have seen this play out just comparing VA to private hospital or comparing mental health systems in different states so no reason to think it would be any different comparing countries.

I've said it quite a few times but I think if you knew Canada's system, you would be pretty happy overall. No system is perfect, but it's damn close.

Quick repeat:
Yes, we have provinces that allow people to register as Psychologists at the Masters levels. This is the main issue. But many caveats for the Masters level provinces..no online degrees for most, many Masters level people can't diagnose (that is additional training). So we have Masters level Psychologists but very few who did online work, and others who are limited in their ability to diagnose. A province like Ontario is totally getting rid of Masters level practitioners. (and it is the biggest Canadian province). Further, since all our Uni's are public, you can be sure that person got a pretty solid education. There are very few Psychologists in Canada who got their degree from some no-name Uni, though I have seen a bit of this.

 

[MCParent]

I have no empirical evidence on that but anecdotal evidence suggests so.........

No.

Appic reports that data on their web site and race/eth breakdown for PhD versus psyd doesn't differ. I'm on my phone now and can't easily copy/paste but it's easily obtained. Perhaps before forming an opinion on something like that you should look up data like those.

 

[smalltownpsych]

No.

Appic reports that data on their web site and race/eth breakdown for PhD versus psyd doesn't differ. I'm on my phone now and can't easily copy/paste but it's easily obtained. Perhaps before forming an opinion on something like that you should look up data like those.

...but using the actual data that would defeat the straw man argument that these institutions use to promote themselves. Another good one is that the clinical PhDs offer very little clinical experience. Why don't they just say "lots of people want to be psychologists and the government will lend them lots of money to pay for it so we take advantage of that to make money."
At least businessmen are honest about their motives.

 

[bmedclinic]

Why don't they just say "lots of people want to be psychologists and the government will lend them lots of money to pay for it so we take advantage of that to make money."

even if they actually used that as their advertising campaign, people would still sign up in droves...

 

[thewesternsky]

I've said it quite a few times but I think if you knew Canada's system, you would be pretty happy overall. No system is perfect, but it's damn close.

Hi! I am also Canadian. Once you start working in our mental health system, you will notice pretty quickly that it is far from perfect. You're right in that we have fewer problems with FSPS than the United States, for sure. (And I hope it stays that way). But access to affordable care (among other problems) remains a huge issue here.

 

[psych844]

Hi! I am also Canadian. Once you start working in our mental health system, you will notice pretty quickly that it is far from perfect. You're right in that we have fewer problems with FSPS than the United States, for sure. (And I hope it stays that way). But access to affordable care (among other problems) remains a huge issue here.

Could you comment on some of the issues? (with a bit more depth)?

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I'm actually relatively in favor of developing captive internships, as I think the current madness has gotten way out of hand for a one year, slave wage, job.

I have no idea how this is "raising the bar" by any stretch, however. If anything, it keeps a subpar program and many subpar students "in-house" that much longer.

I'm in agreement. I am in favor of captive internships, especially for high offending (e.g., low match/high student programs). This moves the onus onto the program more so than before, where the burden was completely on the students for attaining accredited internships.

Similarly, this isn't raising the bar but meeting the program's own goals.

My support for this change stems from the belief that this helps the internship community by taking 25 people out of competition at other sites. If we assume each person applies to 15 sites, that is nearly 400 less applications that other sites have to review. Whether these students are subpar or not, that is less burden on other internship sites. If this trend grows, this would be beneficial to other internship applicants because there will be less perceived pressure when applying to an internship cycle with less applicants per site and higher total matching rates.

I think the initial concern is that this captive internship adds to the credibility of Argosy. Before, we could point to the low accreditation match rate as a strong signal of the program's lower quality. We will lose that piece of evidence.

My biggest concern is that this will not have the impact that I wrote above (and hope for). Checking Argosy DC's C-20 outcome data (http://content.edmc.edu/assets/documents/au/psyd/washingtondc-psyd-outcomes.pdf) shows that in the past 7 years a range of 48 - 103 students sought out internships. Just staggering. It appears, purely from personal judgment, that 25 captive slots raises their very poor accredited match rate to an acceptable level. That being the case, it seems that students are forced to apply to numerous sites, creating a burden for the internship system, and not relieving the stress for other programs' students. Those who do not land accredited spots end up going to the captive internship. Again, this is just an assumption.

tl;dr: I like the idea but in this case, it seems like it wont actually help the rest of the field.

 

[Ollie123]

Not sure how this "raises the bar" for clinical training. If anything, it seems like it lowers it. Captive internships don't seem inherently bad to me, though I do think there are merits to training across different settings (not that the current system guarantees that either).

To Nahsil - funny to see you arguing for diversity and competition here RE: psychotherapy after your post in the other thread I personally would never argue CBT is the only ethical way to conduct therapy. However, I do think its important to try proven approaches first barring some sort of contraindication or clear rationale. Traditional scientific approaches are certainly not without flaws, but that doesn't mean the baby goes out with the bathwater. The ability to "sit with people who are suffering" is not necessarily impossible to measure, nor is its actual impact on real-world outcomes. There is obviously room for discussion on what outcomes are most important to consider, but that can be considered and studied too (and my suspicion is that they would largely converge). If the effect is there and real and one could sway thousands of practitioners to adopt a humanistic/analytic/etc. approach that one (not necessarily you) supposedly advocates for - why not actually invest the effort in a solid, well-controlled study to demonstrate it? I've never gotten a good answer when I ask that question...

RE: PhD vs. Psy D......Data > No Data (from APPIC 2015).

Summary: The "PsyDs are great because they help with diversity" argument is largely BS. Differences are pretty negligible and where they do exist seem to generally favor PhD programs as contributing more to the diversity of the field.

21. Age of applicant:

Ph.D. Psy.D.
Mean 29.9 30.0
SD 4.5 5.6
Median 29 28

Percent of applicants who were:

Age 25 or less Ph.D. = 3% Psy.D. = 12%
Age 40 or older Ph.D. = 4% Psy.D. = 7%
Age 50 or older Ph.D. = 1% Psy.D. = 1%


22. Current marital or relationship status:

Ph.D. Psy.D.
Married / Partnered 59% 43%
Not Married or Partnered 41% 57%


23. Country(ies) of citizenship:

Ph.D. Psy.D.
U.S. 87% 96%
Canada 10% 2%
Other 7% 5%

NOTE: Responses total greater than 100% due to dual
citizenship.


24. Gender

Female Ph.D. = 80% Psy.D. = 79%
Male Ph.D. = 20% Psy.D. = 20%


25. Racial / Ethnic identification:

African-American/Black Ph.D. = 8% Psy.D. = 7%
American Indian/Alaskan Ph.D. = 1% Psy.D. = 1%
Native
Asian/Pacific Islander Ph.D. = 9% Psy.D. = 7%
Hispanic/Latino Ph.D. = 8% Psy.D. = 10%
White (non-hispanic) Ph.D. = 75% Psy.D. = 74%
Bi-racial/Multi-racial Ph.D. = 4% Psy.D. = 4%
Other Ph.D. = 3% Psy.D. = 2%


26. Sexual Orientation:

Heterosexual Ph.D. = 89% Psy.D. = 90%
Gay Male Ph.D. = 3% Psy.D. = 3%
Lesbian Ph.D. = 2% Psy.D. = 2%
Bisexual Ph.D. = 5% Psy.D. = 5%
Other Ph.D. = 1% Psy.D. = 1%


27. Disability:

None Ph.D. = 91% Psy.D. = 90%


28. Served on active duty in U.S. Armed Forces, Reserves, or National
Guard:

Never served in the Military Ph.D. = 97% Psy.D. = 97%

 

[DynamicDidactic]

GRE/GPA are biased to non-traditional students and ethnic minorities. I dont feel they are an adequate measure of an individual's ability to perform our profession competently. Unless we just want to be an Ivory Tower profession that excludes people based on borderline discriminatory assessment metrics.....

I believe there is an irrational disdain for "for profits". If they can provide first class clinical training and education then more power to them.

Hi Rational,

I am totally in agreement with you, I think there is a bias against for-profit programs and that many academic indicators are biased in some manner. However, I do not believe that the bias is "irrational" and that simply disregarding the mountain of empirical data that has shown that large-cohort, for-profit, low-accredited-match-rate programs accept students with lower standards is poor judgment. While each piece of evidence is biased, the whole of the evidence strongly points in one direction. Similarly, a mountain of evidence points to poorer outcomes for students in large-cohort, for-profit, low-accredited-match-rate programs, even when controlling for GRE, GPA, etc before grad school.

Also, this does not mean that competent psychologists do not come from these types of programs. Indeed they do, however, the consensus on this site is that, on average, students in large-cohort, for-profit, low-accredited-match-rate programs are worse off than those that attend small-cohort, funded, university-based programs that have high accredited match rates. There is a lot of grey in between the aforementioned poles of training and caveats. I think, generally, that the most of the site agrees with the above comments.

I generally do not think that there is a glut of doctoral-level psychologists. However, there are too many psychologists that leave school with a high level of debt that are forced to take on low paying jobs due to their poor training, high debt, and geographical restrictions. This leads to a depressed market for other psychologists. This relationship is largely attributed to large-cohort, for-profit, low-accredited-match-rate programs. The consensus on this site is that reducing those types of programs would be beneficial for the field as a whole and students in particular. The ideal would be to create more university-based, smaller cohort programs rather than professional schools with large cohorts.

 

[Nahsil]

@Ollie123

hey, I said there's nothing inherently wrong with competition! I do believe in evolution and whatnot

there are people invested in/concerned with trying to show the significance of humanistic approaches to therapy through EBT standards. Louis Hoffman from Division 32 is one:

https://www.academia.edu/1843926/Ex...herapy_as_a_Model_for_Evidence-Based_Practice

and Bruce Wampold, who I know has seen some circulation.

as far as my personal views, I'm actually more radical than the humanistic people these days, which means finding a job is going to be fun, lol. I'm into, on one hand, Marxist critiques of psychology as an individualizing practice that separates human beings out from real world political contexts (i.e. internalizing symptomatology that relates to and may even have sociocultural/economic/political origins), and on the other hand mythopoetic critiques (Jung and post-Jungians like James Hillman) of the objectifying, "soulless" nature of a lot of clinical psychology, both theoretically and in praxis...

probably more info than you need, but my main point is that there are methodologies of critique and truth-finding beyond simple laboratory based empiricism...in fact, laboratory based empiricism specifically can't observe certain issues because of its scale of resolution and the way it frames things through its instruments of observation. Not to say I think it's bad--I love neuroscience and stuff, but it's incomplete. That's why I personally have problems with the evidence-based practice movement (rather, its injunction that all therapy should start from its findings), because its criteria for evidence is too narrow for me. I'm aware of this hard suspicion of many scientists (seems like it's even worse in the soft sciences than the hard ones, maybe because they have more to prove) toward methods of analysis based in reason/critical thought rather than empiricism, but I think it's misguided. Philosophy of science after all has a close relationship with scientific methodologies...Popper and falsification etc. I think if we really want to help people, we need a broader understanding of how culture shapes our ways of thinking, feeling, relating to each other, working, spending our leisure time etc, that we can't necessarily get from pure positivist empiricism.

I'm actually reading right now about how Wundt engaged in cultural psychological analyses as well, saw the more empirical/laboratory/individual research as needing to be balanced with an understanding of sociocultural structures, but how that's been sort of conveniently forgotten in the history of psychology.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Re: the APPIC degree comparison data... interesting that over 10% of internship applicants from PsyD programs are 25 or younger. Does anyone know why this might be? The only way I can see it happening is if a program had a lot of early college graduates and a 3+1 program model. There a only a small handful of those (Denver and Midwestern are the only two I can think of), and they usually wind up with most students doing a 4+1 program anyway.

 

[Ollie123]

4+1 could still work. Remember that it is age at application (so October), not matriculation. Lots of people who went straight through would fit that criteria. The SD for age suggests PsyDs might be somewhat bimodal, seems the one area they might have a little more diversity.

 

[clinpsyc87]

It's not hard to graduate college at 21 or younger. Some graduate high school at 17, some take three years in one or the other or both etc

 

[smalltownpsych]

Re: the APPIC degree comparison data... interesting that over 10% of internship applicants from PsyD programs are 25 or younger. Does anyone know why this might be? The only way I can see it happening is if a program had a lot of early college graduates and a 3+1 program model. There a only a small handful of those (Denver and Midwestern are the only two I can think of), and they usually wind up with most students doing a 4+1 program anyway.

I'm thinking wealthy parents that don't know about funded PhD option are paying the tab for those young 'uns. My PsyD had a 3+1 but required a masters degree so would be really tough to get to internship by 25. The youngest student in our cohort withdrew from the match and ended up dropping out for a while. She is back in another program and will likely still get licensed at a younger age than I was when I started the doctoral program. Don't really know if it is a good idea to rush this career in most cases.

 

[futureapppsy2]

4+1 could still work. Remember that it is age at application (so October), not matriculation. Lots of people who went straight through would fit that criteria. The SD for age suggests PsyDs might be somewhat bimodal, seems the one area they might have a little more diversity.

That's true--had I applied in a 4+1 model, I would have been 25 at application time.

 

[Ollie123]

@Ollie123

hey, I said there's nothing inherently wrong with competition! I do believe in evolution and whatnot

there are people invested in/concerned with trying to show the significance of humanistic approaches to therapy through EBT standards. Louis Hoffman from Division 32 is one:

https://www.academia.edu/1843926/Ex...herapy_as_a_Model_for_Evidence-Based_Practice

and Bruce Wampold, who I know has seen some circulation.

as far as my personal views, I'm actually more radical than the humanistic people these days, which means finding a job is going to be fun, lol. I'm into, on one hand, Marxist critiques of psychology as an individualizing practice that separates human beings out from real world political contexts (i.e. internalizing symptomatology that relates to and may even have sociocultural/economic/political origins), and on the other hand mythopoetic critiques (Jung and post-Jungians like James Hillman) of the objectifying, "soulless" nature of a lot of clinical psychology, both theoretically and in praxis...

probably more info than you need, but my main point is that there are methodologies of critique and truth-finding beyond simple laboratory based empiricism...in fact, laboratory based empiricism specifically can't observe certain issues because of its scale of resolution and the way it frames things through its instruments of observation. Not to say I think it's bad--I love neuroscience and stuff, but it's incomplete. That's why I personally have problems with the evidence-based practice movement (rather, its injunction that all therapy should start from its findings), because its criteria for evidence is too narrow for me. I'm aware of this hard suspicion of many scientists (seems like it's even worse in the soft sciences than the hard ones, maybe because they have more to prove) toward methods of analysis based in reason/critical thought rather than empiricism, but I think it's misguided. Philosophy of science after all has a close relationship with scientific methodologies...Popper and falsification etc. I think if we really want to help people, we need a broader understanding of how culture shapes our ways of thinking, feeling, relating to each other, working, spending our leisure time etc, that we can't necessarily get from pure positivist empiricism.

I'm actually reading right now about how Wundt engaged in cultural psychological analyses as well, saw the more empirical/laboratory/individual research as needing to be balanced with an understanding of sociocultural structures, but how that's been sort of conveniently forgotten in the history of psychology.

Familiar with Wampold's work. I take some issue with it since I think he has been guilty of overstating findings from methodologically weak work. That said, its been great to see him and others (i.e. the paper you list) pushing more in that direction. My impression has been that many of these folks are pretty much pushing themselves into irrelevance through a steadfast refusal to do high-quality empirical work. Some of that may be philosophical, but my impression is that these days more often than not it is a combination of narcissism, poor education and sloth (particularly among analysts). For every 1 who can discuss philosophy of science, it seems there are 20 who fall back on "RCTs aren't perfect, therefore I do what I want." Personally, I think both methodologies are extremely valuable, but ultimately serve different purposes and answer different questions. It seems silly to categorically reject more qualitative approaches and fully agree that a more qualitative understanding of culture, systems, etc. could significantly improve existing treatments. I think it is equally silly not to try and figure out what proportion of people receiving a treatment will actually receive some relief of symptoms from it. If nothing else, I think it mostly involves a denial of reality. I find it most frustrating when people argue that is inappropriate/impossible with other treatments and that is the thrust of what I was getting at with my post. There is no reason one cannot have a humanistic/existential arm in a traditional RCT, but many here and elsewhere (not you) have indicated to me this isn't possible. Results, interpretation, etc. are of course always up for discussion and debate but there is no reason it can't be done and the results would be very interesting and do much to assuage concerns about the treatment (if they uphold what its advocates seem to believe).

Either way, I think discussions like this are important to have. Why this gulf exists in the first place is beyond my understanding. I'd advocate that we study everything in every way possible...

 

[LETSGONYR]

My support for this change stems from the belief that this helps the internship community by taking 25 people out of competition at other sites. If we assume each person applies to 15 sites, that is nearly 400 less applications that other sites have to review. Whether these students are subpar or not, that is less burden on other internship sites. If this trend grows, this would be beneficial to other internship applicants because there will be less perceived pressure when applying to an internship cycle with less applicants per site and higher total matching rates.

Finally getting around to reading the rest of this thread. I disagree on this point- a captive internship doesn't mean that argosy students can only apply to that consortium, but rather only argosy students can apply there. So... other sites will still have increased applications, but the captive sites won't have apps from people outside argosy. Maybe some students will only apply to the captive sites, but if there are 25 openings and ~80 people applying for internship each year, I assume most will be applying more broadly.

I can see how this arrangement benefits argosy (and their students), but i don't see how it benefits internship sites... they lose out on potential interns that may be better matches. It makes me wonder about the financial arrangements that captive internships have with programs (not just argosy- I think Denver has a captive internship too, as well as some other schools).

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Finally getting around to reading the rest of this thread. I disagree on this point- a captive internship doesn't mean that argosy students can only apply to that consortium, but rather only argosy students can apply there. So... other sites will still have increased applications, but the captive sites won't have apps from people outside argosy. Maybe some students will only apply to the captive sites, but if there are 25 openings and ~80 people applying for internship each year, I assume most will be applying more broadly.

if it wasn't clear, I actually state in my post that at this particular program the captive internship is not having the beneficial effect that I hope captive internships will have on the internship imbalance. However, I am in favor of captive internships when it reduces the number of applicants in the general internship pool.

 

[LETSGONYR]

if it wasn't clear, I actually state in my post that at this particular program the captive internship is not having the beneficial effect that I hope captive internships will have on the internship imbalance. However, I am in favor of captive internships when it reduces the number of applicants in the general internship pool.

Sorry, I misunderstood your original post.

It does make me wonder about financial arrangements/what sites get from being a captive site for one school though.

 

[bmedclinic]

I'm in agreement. I am in favor of captive internships, especially for high offending (e.g., low match/high student programs). This moves the onus onto the program more so than before, where the burden was completely on the students for attaining accredited internships.

Similarly, this isn't raising the bar but meeting the program's own goals.

My support for this change stems from the belief that this helps the internship community by taking 25 people out of competition at other sites. If we assume each person applies to 15 sites, that is nearly 400 less applications that other sites have to review. Whether these students are subpar or not, that is less burden on other internship sites. If this trend grows, this would be beneficial to other internship applicants because there will be less perceived pressure when applying to an internship cycle with less applicants per site and higher total matching rates.

I think the initial concern is that this captive internship adds to the credibility of Argosy. Before, we could point to the low accreditation match rate as a strong signal of the program's lower quality. We will lose that piece of evidence.

My biggest concern is that this will not have the impact that I wrote above (and hope for). Checking Argosy DC's C-20 outcome data (http://content.edmc.edu/assets/documents/au/psyd/washingtondc-psyd-outcomes.pdf) shows that in the past 7 years a range of 48 - 103 students sought out internships. Just staggering. It appears, purely from personal judgment, that 25 captive slots raises their very poor accredited match rate to an acceptable level. That being the case, it seems that students are forced to apply to numerous sites, creating a burden for the internship system, and not relieving the stress for other programs' students. Those who do not land accredited spots end up going to the captive internship. Again, this is just an assumption.

tl;dr: I like the idea but in this case, it seems like it wont actually help the rest of the field.

Wait, so there's still more students applying to the other internship sites (non captive ones, the ones the rest of us competed for). So if they're applying there first, then using this captive one as a "fall back" so to speak, how does this help at all? They're still flooding the market, so to speak.

Also, my concern is that this moves the onus to the licensing board, who will say its fine as long as they pass the EPPP, but we all know that passing the EPPP alone does not ensure that the psychologist is competent. And few trust Argrosy to turn out competent psychologists, or think internship is enough to help a subpar student become competent. So how are we not just completely lowering the bar all together?

To be clear, I give zero bleeps about Argrosy. I care deeply about the future of psychology.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

A captive internship can easily serve as a way to cover up external performance on placements, unfortunately. If a program can account for a large portion of spots that route, then a smaller % of students need to match "outside" for their match rate to look okay. It is quite frustrating because it can really hide deficiencies if a prospective student doesn't really look into it in more detail. Just my 2 cents.