The way I read it is that it is just an additional test for licensure. If step one was during school and prior to internship and this was for licensure, then that would make some sense, but what I foresee is each state board implementing or not implementing this in 50 different ways. Maybe shooter can add this to his or her agenda.
I agree with @MamaPhD that it just makes me glad I'm past that.
The way I read it is that it is just an additional test for licensure. If step one was during school and prior to internship and this was for licensure, then that would make some sense, but what I foresee is each state board implementing or not implementing this in 50 different ways. Maybe shooter can add this to his or her agenda.
wow yeah, thats a problem!
when I read the linked pdf I think it was alluded that the reg eppp would be called step 1 now, would test foundational knowledge and step 2 would test more clinical competency.
"Patient is obviously studying for the EPPP."
-1 for use of term "obviously". It appears this applicant may not be using all of their clinical skill, brazenly using a term such as "obviously".
You caught me.-1 for use of term "obviously". It appears this applicant may not be using all of their clinical skill, brazenly using a term such as "obviously".
I was going all old school Freudian psychoanalytic where all good interpretations started with obviously. "Obviously, the patient has an oedipal fixation and is cheating on his wife because he hates his mother." With this EPPP step two, now I can't do that anymore, what is this world coming to? 
I'm just doing my part to expose the secret shadow government pulling the strings of psychologists worldwide! Viva la resistance!
I would also be in favor of it if were implemented in this way. If it is just additive and not transformative and unifying then it will just add to the problems we already have as a field. Two of which were mentioned to by Wisneuro and DD and I think are somewhat connected - the proliferation of for-profit FSPSs and lack of standardization of state licensing regulations.
My thoughts exactly so I am thinking it is not completely selfish. I have already been incredibly frustrated with the amount of time, red tape, and catch-22 types of situations when moving from one state to another and would hate to see one more added to the mix. Also, I believe that increasing our portability can increase our marketability and potential incomes. After all, the reason I moved to a different state was primarily financial.
Odds are good you won't have to go back as long as you don't move, but I agree it is bs. I personally think they should just make the eppp itself more focused on practice, as it has a clinical section currently just expand it and reduce some other stuff for new grads. Academics/profs at many institutions don't even go for licensure so it's imo all about the money.
That's a whole different discussion, but it seems like there are groups of Psychologists in charge of committees that feel an overwhelming need to make changes and fall prey to group think.
