Fielding Graduate University

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
There is a thread in pre-allo about this…be warned, that place can best be described as a cesspool of gunners, negativity, and axe body spray: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/worst-medical-school-in-the-united-states.1050046/

ps. there are multiple for-profit med schools popping up, so those probably would get my vote.

Shut your mouf! Axe body spray is dope, yo!

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Here is everything you need to know about them.

Fielding has a sub 50% match rate and a sub 60% EPPP pass rate. Those are godawful numbers. Can you be a diamond in the rough and make something out of a ****ty situation, sure. But, it's a coin flip. In the meantime, they're going to run you well over 6 figures in debt. Honestly, we see better applications from some of the Argosy and Alliant grads in intern and postdoc apps.

FWIW, I would not consider any graduate from Fielding (doctoral program or re-specialization for neuropsych), as I have seen too many wholly suspect graduates from there. I don't trust their training model, and I have yet to see any evidence that would challenge this idea.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Fielding has a sub 50% match rate and a sub 60% EPPP pass rate. Those are godawful numbers. Can you be a diamond in the rough and make something out of a ****ty situation, sure. But, it's a coin flip. In the meantime, they're going to run you well over 6 figures in debt. Honestly, we see better applications from some of the Argosy and Alliant grads in intern and postdoc apps.

I'm pretty sure the recent stats on EPPP are higher than that this point, but perhaps not. Fielding is also well aware of their low pass rates and they're implementing many changes to the program to accommodate that. also, yes their match rate is very low. The average fielding student is somewhere in their forties to fifties. most of them have jobs families etc. So while your average student who is looking for an internship is going to apply all over the country, most fielding students are immobile and only apply to a very small geographic location.

I'm not trying to say that it's a phenomenal program. There are many many ways in which it can be improved. My point is, it is not just an online program, and many people who graduate from the program and the very successful in their field... It's not a death sentence to your career
 
Hello. Most of the responses on here are quite old, so I thought I would offer an updated point of view.

I have a friend that is in his last year of the Clinical Psychology Ph.D program at Fielding University. After being apart of his experiences, first as a co-worker, and then as a friend, I've developed a positive view of Fielding.

I will first say that I have many friends that attended a brick and mortar Psy.D program and still did not pass the EPPP. On the contrary, M.A. professionals at the same university did pass the EPPP. Regardless of where someone attends, their education is in their own hands.

Fielding requires travel in order to have face-to-face contact with professors (several of which are highly notable I might add). Graduates end up with more residency hours and contact with professors than most students from traditional schools. Parts of classes require "dial-in" time. All of the students are online with the professor at the same time, learning the same content, and having discussions. You are submitting thorough research papers and projects that are graded and held to a very high standard. You are required to record several sessions of counseling, psychological testing, and they are reviewed for critique and feedback.

I met my friend while he was early in the program and I was training him as a psychometrist. He had already taken part of the assessment class, but I do not think he had completed it. He gave the WAIS like a wiz. He was attuned to the small details of test administration that most people aren't for a while. Sure, it isn't a particularly difficult assessment, but when I was FIRST introduced to testing, I was a mess. One of the major differences in our learning though, was that he had spent 1.) The time required online learning about the basis of psychometrics and assessment 2.) 3 days, back-to-back, directly learning test administration. When I was in school, learning this information was spread out over 8 weeks, roughly an hour each week, and it was just more difficult to learn. Then we went out and actually practiced administration over the other 8 weeks.

Okay, I will stop with my book. I am also considering Fielding University, and probably never would have, if not for meeting a very competent soon-to-be psychologist from the program. I don't care what the program costs as long as it is worth it. I have a family and a full-time job, so I can't just drop everything to go back to school. I will pay more for a program that offers the same, if not better, experiences, that also fit my schedule.

Good luck to everyone else out there...
 
Hello. Most of the responses on here are quite old, so I thought I would offer an updated point of view.

I have a friend that is in his last year of the Clinical Psychology Ph.D program at Fielding University. After being apart of his experiences, first as a co-worker, and then as a friend, I've developed a positive view of Fielding.

I will first say that I have many friends that attended a brick and mortar Psy.D program and still did not pass the EPPP. On the contrary, M.A. professionals at the same university did pass the EPPP. Regardless of where someone attends, their education is in their own hands.

Fielding requires travel in order to have face-to-face contact with professors (several of which are highly notable I might add). Graduates end up with more residency hours and contact with professors than most students from traditional schools. Parts of classes require "dial-in" time. All of the students are online with the professor at the same time, learning the same content, and having discussions. You are submitting thorough research papers and projects that are graded and held to a very high standard. You are required to record several sessions of counseling, psychological testing, and they are reviewed for critique and feedback.

I met my friend while he was early in the program and I was training him as a psychometrist. He had already taken part of the assessment class, but I do not think he had completed it. He gave the WAIS like a wiz. He was attuned to the small details of test administration that most people aren't for a while. Sure, it isn't a particularly difficult assessment, but when I was FIRST introduced to testing, I was a mess. One of the major differences in our learning though, was that he had spent 1.) The time required online learning about the basis of psychometrics and assessment 2.) 3 days, back-to-back, directly learning test administration. When I was in school, learning this information was spread out over 8 weeks, roughly an hour each week, and it was just more difficult to learn. Then we went out and actually practiced administration over the other 8 weeks.

Okay, I will stop with my book. I am also considering Fielding University, and probably never would have, if not for meeting a very competent soon-to-be psychologist from the program. I don't care what the program costs as long as it is worth it. I have a family and a full-time job, so I can't just drop everything to go back to school. I will pay more for a program that offers the same, if not better, experiences, that also fit my schedule.

Good luck to everyone else out there...

My friends and I are surprised that an MA is taking the EPPP...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
I know a person from IIT tech who is alot like Will Hunting. Who do we credit here, ITT tech or Will Hunting himself? Beware of cognitive errors, right?
 
Last edited:
Hello. Most of the responses on here are quite old, so I thought I would offer an updated point of view.

I have a friend that is in his last year of the Clinical Psychology Ph.D program at Fielding University. After being apart of his experiences, first as a co-worker, and then as a friend, I've developed a positive view of Fielding.

I will first say that I have many friends that attended a brick and mortar Psy.D program and still did not pass the EPPP. On the contrary, M.A. professionals at the same university did pass the EPPP. Regardless of where someone attends, their education is in their own hands.

Why would master's level counselors be taking the EPPP? Isn't the NCE the exam for LPCs and the ASWB Clinical Level the exam for LCSWs?

Fielding requires travel in order to have face-to-face contact with professors (several of which are highly notable I might add). Graduates end up with more residency hours and contact with professors than most students from traditional schools.

How would this be possible? I'm just in my first year of a traditional brick-and-mortar program, but I have in-person contact and collaboration with faculty five days a week.

Parts of classes require "dial-in" time. All of the students are online with the professor at the same time, learning the same content, and having discussions. You are submitting thorough research papers and projects that are graded and held to a very high standard. You are required to record several sessions of counseling, psychological testing, and they are reviewed for critique and feedback.

Color me cynical, but I'm skeptical that the quality of these didactics are the same as those of traditional funded PhD programs. Maybe it has something to do with your cohorts ranging from 47 to 95 students. Those are at least twice as large as my entire program.

I met my friend while he was early in the program and I was training him as a psychometrist. He had already taken part of the assessment class, but I do not think he had completed it. He gave the WAIS like a wiz. He was attuned to the small details of test administration that most people aren't for a while. Sure, it isn't a particularly difficult assessment, but when I was FIRST introduced to testing, I was a mess. One of the major differences in our learning though, was that he had spent 1.) The time required online learning about the basis of psychometrics and assessment 2.) 3 days, back-to-back, directly learning test administration. When I was in school, learning this information was spread out over 8 weeks, roughly an hour each week, and it was just more difficult to learn. Then we went out and actually practiced administration over the other 8 weeks.

So, you're saying that Fielding is good at training psychometrists? Administration is just one small part of assessment training. In fact, it's less consequential part, as you can train someone without a graduate degree to do it. Doctoral programs are about learning psychometrics, interpretation, conceptualization, and report-writing, not simple administration and scoring.

Okay, I will stop with my book. I am also considering Fielding University, and probably never would have, if not for meeting a very competent soon-to-be psychologist from the program. I don't care what the program costs as long as it is worth it.

But it's not worth it. You have an n=1 situation, which is illogical thinking.

You need to look at the statistics and see that it is an expensive, poor quality program.

http://www.fielding.edu/Clinical-Psychology/Student-Admissions-Outcomes-and-Other-Data

It has very large cohorts, high attrition rates, and very low internship match rates (always being <50%).

I have a family and a full-time job, so I can't just drop everything to go back to school. I will pay more for a program that offers the same, if not better, experiences, that also fit my schedule.

Good luck to everyone else out there...

C'mon, you're not even trying hard to obscure that you're just doing marketing for this terrible program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Graduates end up with more residency hours and contact with professors than most students from traditional schools.

I dont exactly know what this means, but how could you possibly know this? Is there a study of this somewhere?

Moreover, hours of clinical contact (if that's what you were referring to?) in graduate training hits a lack of ROI at a certain point, especially when this is not supplemented by high quality training in the clinical-science aspect of psychology.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
My friends and I are surprised that an MA is taking the EPPP...

Fully agree this is a lame attempt at marketing for an extremely questionable program. Particularly great that at the end its revealed they aren't in the profession or really even in a position to judge the quality of someone's training.

That said - in the interest of accuracy, its worth noting there are states where MA practitioners take the EPPP. North Carolina is one - there is a master's level "psychological associate" licensure that requires passing the EPPP (albeit with a lower cutoff). I believe there are at least a couple other states with something similar (Michigan comes to mind? I could be wrong).
 
Michigan is one. It’s an odd loophole that should have been closed decades ago...but alas....it still exists.

As an aside...I always feel like I should put quotes around “University” when it comes to Fielding. It doesn’t look like a university in how it functions nor does it feel like one based on the training standards. It’s more of a seller of educational certificates if you look at their model. /grumpy old man who yells at clouds
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Fully agree this is a lame attempt at marketing for an extremely questionable program. Particularly great that at the end its revealed they aren't in the profession or really even in a position to judge the quality of someone's training.

That said - in the interest of accuracy, its worth noting there are states where MA practitioners take the EPPP. North Carolina is one - there is a master's level "psychological associate" licensure that requires passing the EPPP (albeit with a lower cutoff). I believe there are at least a couple other states with something similar (Michigan comes to mind? I could be wrong).

A few Kansas grad programs had a master's degree in clinical psychology in which you also had to take the EPPP to become licensed as a master's level clinician, not the NCE. Not sure if it's still the case--that was a decade ago.
 
Hello...

Just need some honest advice...Completely finishing my masters degree right now and I want to hold down the job I have...so I came across Fielding Graduate University.....has anyone heard of it and its credibility...

i know its APA accredited...but does someone know anyone who has gone through it..

thanks

I am responding to this because Fielding's program and status has changed throughout the years.

Right now (Jan 2019) Fielding's APA accreditation is suspended. That being said, I attended Fielding when accreditation was in good standing, completed on time, matched to an APA accredited internship and had no problem meeting licensure requirements. I am still early career, but so far, I am doing exactly what I want and have had no trouble finding a job or publishing. My year, only two students did not match. One refused to relocate and one lived in Canada, where there are limited CPA accredited sites. She was not comfortable moving to the US. Both students made their own internships and did not wait another year.

To be clear, it is not an online program. I was required to attend one weekend a month, and 2-3 weeks per year. These are usually at the beginning or end of semester, so work that needs interaction, such as learning assessments or taking exams is done in person. A minimum of 600 residency hours is required to advance to candidacy, and more are available if needed. I believe some states require 800. Obviously, practicum hours are all in-person and most students enter the same practicums as students in other programs. Papers are submitted online, but these days, that is the norm for many programs.

One glaring issue with this program is the lack of support. For example , students are not matched with practicums. I was left to find my own practicum placements and was required to have three different practicum placements. This was tough because schools in my area had contracts with practicum sites. This made it impossible for me to complete practicum hours at APA accredited internship sites. Completing such a practicum usually offers an advantage when matching for internship. Another problem is that many people have not heard of the program or, like comments in this thread show, have incorrect negative perceptions about the program.

While successfully completing the program and matching to internship takes hard work, admission requirements are minimal. Things may be changing, but when I entered the program, they did not require GRE scores. I think they let in almost all who apply. Because of this, there is a high drop-out rate and many students who are not a good fit for the profession. These students typically do not make it to candidacy because they do not do well in practicum.

This program was fine for me, but not for everyone. I went to a very strong MA program, so I came in with some background knowledge and MA level clinical experience. Students who do best tend to be those who practiced as MA level clinicians. At the end of the day, I completed the same APA accredited internship, postdoc, and earned the same license as professionals who went to other schools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
My year, only two students did not match. One refused to relocate and one lived in Canada, where there are limited CPA accredited sites. She was not comfortable moving to the US. Both students made their own internships and did not wait another year.

I've never seen a match rate for accredited sites above 60% for Fielding, this is just plain wrong.

To be clear, it is not an online program.

By almost all functional definitions, it is.
 
Right now (Jan 2019) Fielding's APA accreditation is suspended.
Well, technically it's accredited on probation
Office of Program Consultation and Accreditation
  • The CoA may also assign a program “accredited, on probation” status. Although it is an accredited status, it is considered by the CoA to be an adverse action that serves as notice to the program, its students/interns/residents and the public that in the professional judgment of the CoA, the accredited program is not consistent with the G&P and may have its accreditation revoked. Prior to this designation, a program is provided an opportunity to show cause why it should not be placed on probation by providing a written response to the issues of concern. A program not coming into compliance within two (2) CoA meetings after the show cause notice is assigned “accredited, on probation” status. This status is appealable within 30 days of receipt of written notice of the CoA decision
I'm not sure why we needed to revive a thread from last March to post a bunch of inaccurate information, but here we are.

One glaring issue with this program is the lack of support
and the poor accreditation status

and it's poor training coverage

and the massive debt

and the predatory approach to admissions

and the abysmal match rate (59% 2017-2018 is the best, up from around 13% in 2009-2010)

and the online training model (see also, poor training)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
.
 
Last edited:
I am responding to this because Fielding's program and status has changed throughout the years.
.........
While successfully completing the program and matching to internship takes hard work, admission requirements are minimal. Things may be changing, but when I entered the program, they did not require GRE scores. I think they let in almost all who apply. Because of this, there is a high drop-out rate and many students who are not a good fit for the profession. These students typically do not make it to candidacy because they do not do well in practicum.

This program was fine for me, but not for everyone. I went to a very strong MA program, so I came in with some background knowledge and MA level clinical experience. Students who do best tend to be those who practiced as MA level clinicians. At the end of the day, I completed the same APA accredited internship, postdoc, and earned the same license as professionals who went to other schools.

You mention misconceptions and Fielding’s negative perception by folks in here, but I feel compelled to speak up based on what you said. A huge red flag to me for a doctoral program is a program that will “let in almost all who apply” and your admission that folks with master’s degrees (prior training in another program before Fielding) do best at Fielding is also a red flag. A good program will provide solid training to bachelor’s level entry folks too, which is why it’s so important to screen applicants carefully and interview them before getting into a program and to not admit everyone. It shouldn’t be a cakewalk to get into one doctoral program and climbing Mt. Everest to get into another for the same specialty and degree; that cheapens the degree for everyone if just anyone can get a doctorate without meeting basic requirements. It’s supposed to be for those with the drive, intelligence, aptitude, and skills to specialize, and practice/use of the degree comes with heavy responsibility.

A program should offer solid training for everyone across the board. And not everyone who applies should get in, but a select few, not for the sake of supporting/maintaining elitism, but for quality control and so that the students have one-on-one time with mentors/advisors and support to succeed, which just can’t happen effectively with cohorts as large as 30-100.

Congrats on being successful with the program, but I wonder if it’s possible that you’re in the minority there as a successful graduate. Do the majority who are accepted finish and do those who do finish struggle professionally and/or with passing licensure exams? I wish we had more numbers on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
You mention misconceptions and Fielding’s negative perception by folks in here, but I feel compelled to speak up based on what you said. A huge red flag to me for a doctoral program is a program that will “let in almost all who apply” and your admission that folks with master’s degrees (prior training in another program before Fielding) do best at Fielding is also a red flag. A good program will provide solid training to bachelor’s level entry folks too, which is why it’s so important to screen applicants carefully and interview them before getting into a program and to not admit everyone. It shouldn’t be a cakewalk to get into one doctoral program and climbing Mt. Everest to get into another for the same specialty and degree; that cheapens the degree for everyone if just anyone can get a doctorate without meeting basic requirements. It’s supposed to be for those with the drive, intelligence, aptitude, and skills to specialize, and practice/use of the degree comes with heavy responsibility.

A program should offer solid training for everyone across the board. And not everyone who applies should get in, but a select few, not for the sake of supporting/maintaining elitism, but for quality control and so that the students have one-on-one time with mentors/advisors and support to succeed, which just can’t happen effectively with cohorts as large as 30-100.

Congrats on being successful with the program, but I wonder if it’s possible that you’re in the minority there as a successful graduate. Do the majority who are accepted finish and do those who do finish struggle professionally and/or with passing licensure exams? I wish we had more numbers on this.

I know a number of students who have graduated from Fielding. They completed APA accredited internships at federal sites when they’re weren’t on probation. After completion of the program they obtained good jobs at solid universities, federal jobs, etc. In my opinion, Fielding is for adult learners with prior licensure in the mental health field (e.g. social work, counseling) and with a dearth of practical/professional experience in the field. After speaking to a current student, I do believe graduation rates are an issue but I do believe Fielding missed APA/COA marks by a tenth of a point.

I know many of us are traditional students but it is important for older adult learners to be able to complete their education without leaving their jobs. I do believe that this is a selling point for Fielding and understandably so; in addition, to many other undergrad/grad programs across the country.

Maybe I’m just more liberal in my views about allowing education to be accessible to everyone...


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
. . .but to make sense as a mid-career shift, your income source would have to be pretty damned high along with minimal expenses.


From an ideological perspective (at least mine), these types of programs should not exist. Clinical psychology isn't something that can be adequately learned part time (i.e. half-assed).

Then why can people complete law school on a pt basis? I’m just saying...


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Then why can people complete law school on a pt basis? I’m just saying...


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

You're just saying, what, exactly?

Because one profession has part-time options, others should too. What kind of rationale/thought process is that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I know a number of students who have graduated from Fielding. They completed APA accredited internships at federal sites when they’re weren’t on probation. After completion of the program they obtained good jobs at solid universities, federal jobs, etc. In my opinion, Fielding is for adult learners with prior licensure in the mental health field (e.g. social work, counseling) and with a dearth of practical/professional experience in the field. After speaking to a current student, I do believe graduation rates are an issue but I do believe Fielding missed APA/COA marks by a tenth of a point.

I know many of us are traditional students but it is important for older adult learners to be able to complete their education without leaving their jobs. I do believe that this is a selling point for Fielding and understandably so; in addition, to many other undergrad/grad programs across the country.

Maybe I’m just more liberal in my views about allowing education to be accessible to everyone...


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I hear you; I think we have different perspectives on the rigor of doctoral education. My view, as mentioned, is that we should have baseline expectations of folks entering doctoral programs, including the ability to devote 4-6 years of one's life to graduate school, which is what is required of the programs that, in my opinion, provide the best training and didactics.

For nontraditional folks, it can be a real challenge to give up one's full-time income and/or give up a lot of family time, definitely. Some folks in my program gave up lucrative or relatively stable full-time jobs to do this work. And a few well-established folks who had a master's or an ed specialist degree dropped out quickly when they got to experience first-hand what kind of commitment they were making and questioned whether it was worth it or the right fit. Others with master's degrees made the sacrifice and got their degree and the training.

Personally, as someone who got my master's degree first in a different program and then went on to get my doctorate, I was HORRIFIED by the poor training I got for my master's degree; just one semester of practicing clinical skills before folks graduate and pursue work in the field with a temporary license. This isn't to say that there aren't great master's programs out there, and I'm assuming mine was one of the worst out there, but it's very concerning how wide-ranging training/didactic experiences can be at the graduate level, which is why I believe that programs that require full-time focus are a safer bet, and by their nature, are harder to get into, but come with more meaningful mentoring.

I just don't believe that folks should get a doctorate "on the side" of practicing or working full-time. I know a professor who struggles in her work with folks who work full-time but are pursuing a graduate degree, saying there is a sense of entitlement ("I've had this life experience and work all the time, so I shouldn't have to focus on classes so heavily or work as hard"). That isn't to say that all folks who work full-time experience that entitlement, but if one devotes 40 hours a week to work outside of the program, what kind of energy is left for focusing in class, writing papers, reading articles/books, research, etc.? I just think it's better for all folks across the board to show commitment by devoting full-time energy to the program. For nontraditional folks, it will be a sacrifice that looks a bit different than younger folks (younger folks have to put off getting settled in careers and marriage/family sometimes, nontraditional students will have to put their current lives on hold and not be able to devote much time to family, etc.), but ultimately, both types of students make sacrifices, and I do think that those willing to make those sacrifices are more prepared for a doctoral education, which takes a high level of follow-through and commitment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You're just saying, what, exactly?

Because one profession has part-time options, others should too. What kind of rationale/thought process is that?

I’m simply saying that I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with a person completing a distance learning program as a doctoral clinical psych student and I don’t see anything wrong with law students completing such a program on a pt basis.
Btw, there is a distance learning law program that’s accredited by the American Bar Association too. Also, there a few APA credited internships that are part-time too.


The reason I made the point was because after reading some of the comments that it appeared some commenters were suggesting that doctoral programs should only be completed in a full-time brick and mortar capacity.

I understand that people have different views regarding the authenticity of certain types of programs but I also accept a diversity of opinions about many matters in life. (I believe that’s what good clinicians practice). In essence, I’m saying whether or not I agree with someone who chooses a traditional or non traditional way to get their education is not up me or anyone else for that matter make judgement in others decisions.

Do what’s best for you and be sure to make an informed decision about positive or negative consequences on career in the future.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Fielding has never had an accredited match rate of 60%. So, what about the large number of students don't do well and do have a difficult time finding work? You should make it in this field with the aid of your program, not in spite of it.
 
I’m simply saying that I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with a person completing a distance learning program as a doctoral clinical psych student and I don’t see anything wrong with law students completing such a program on a pt basis.
Btw, there is a distance learning law program that’s accredited by the American Bar Association too. Also, there a few APA credited internships that are part-time too.


The reason I made the point was because after reading some of the comments that it appeared some commenters were suggesting that doctoral programs should only be completed in a full-time brick and mortar capacity.

I understand that people have different views regarding the authenticity of certain types of programs but I also accept a diversity of opinions about many matters in life. (I believe that’s what good clinicians practice). In essence, I’m saying whether or not I agree with someone who chooses a traditional or non traditional way to get their education is not up me or anyone else for that matter make judgement in others decisions.

Do what’s best for you and be sure to make an informed decision about positive or negative consequences on career in the future.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Do whats best for you? That's not how this works. We have training standards and protocols for a reason.

Data shows this model (Fielding) does not produce equatable outcomes and competencies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I hear you; I think we have different perspectives on the rigor of doctoral education. My view, as mentioned, is that we should have baseline expectations of folks entering doctoral programs, including the ability to devote 4-6 years of one's life to graduate school, which is what is required of the programs that, in my opinion, provide the best training and didactics.

For nontraditional folks, it can be a real challenge to give up one's full-time income and/or give up a lot of family time, definitely. Some folks in my program gave up lucrative or relatively stable full-time jobs to do this work. And a few well-established folks who had a master's or an ed specialist degree dropped out quickly when they got to experience first-hand what kind of commitment they were making and questioned whether it was worth it or the right fit. Others with master's degrees made the sacrifice and got their degree and the training.

Personally, as someone who got my master's degree first in a different program and then went on to get my doctorate, I was HORRIFIED by the poor training I got for my master's degree; just one semester of practicing clinical skills before folks graduate and pursue work in the field with a temporary license. This isn't to say that there aren't great master's programs out there, and I'm assuming mine was one of the worst out there, but it's very concerning how wide-ranging training/didactic experiences can be at the graduate level, which is why I believe that programs that require full-time focus are a safer bet, and by their nature, are harder to get into, but come with more meaningful mentoring.

I just don't believe that folks should get a doctorate "on the side" of practicing or working full-time. I know a professor who struggles in her work with folks who work full-time but are pursuing a graduate degree, saying there is a sense of entitlement ("I've had this life experience and work all the time, so I shouldn't have to focus on classes so heavily or work as hard"). That isn't to say that all folks who work full-time experience that entitlement, but if one devotes 40 hours a week to work outside of the program, what kind of energy is left for focusing in class, writing papers, reading articles/books, research, etc.? I just think it's better for all folks across the board to show commitment by devoting full-time energy to the program. For nontraditional folks, it will be a sacrifice that looks a bit different than younger folks (younger folks have to put off getting settled in careers and marriage/family sometimes, nontraditional students will have to put their current lives on hold and not be able to devote much time to family, etc.), but ultimately, both types of students make sacrifices, and I do think that those willing to make those sacrifices are more prepared for a doctoral education, which takes a high level of follow-through and commitment.

I’m in a traditional program and agree with on the rigors of such programs, I’m essentially saying regardless of how we view non traditional programs they are here to stay. APA clearly believes there’s more than one way to skin a cat because one was accredited. I heard most programs on probation get full accreditation back after making required changes. Although, it’s concerning Fielding keeps getting placed on probation every few years. I believe the reasons for a program being on probation should be outlined within the statement of accreditation.

What do you think?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Maybe I’m just more liberal in my views about allowing education to be accessible to everyone...

I consider myself extremely liberal and feel that education (including higher education) should be accessible to everyone. I would amend this further that I feel a quality education should be available to everyone at a fair cost (ideally low- or no-cost). The data for Fielding, IMHO, clearly show that they are not meeting this goal. Tuition costs are amazingly high (~30k per year, more like 50k+ year if you finance through loans). I would not call this accessible. average length to completion is around 7 years. between 1/4 to 1/2 of all people who begin the program do not finish. Of those that don't leave before graduating, only an average ~50% will get an APA approved, paid internship. Even if you do graduate, licensure rates between 2-10 years post-degree are only 75%. Yes, you can keep your day job, but these costs (and the huge financial risk of not being able to recoup these costs because you don't finish or can't finish with an internship meeting minimum training standards) far outweigh the benefits of keeping that day job. While a more traditional program may only admit 5-10 students per year, this is based largely on funding availability (rather than elitism). When you look at the outcome data, it looks like 50+% of those who start (and presumably pay at least one year of tuition), do not finish. This is not "making education accessible" to lower SES students. It taking advantage of lower SES students who may not see that they have better options. Some make it through and are successful, but many (most?) don't. That's pretty evil, if you ask me.

"Accepting everyone" is not the same as making education "accessible" to everyone. Selling things to those that can't afford on credit it at a cost that far exceeds the value is one of the oldest and dirtiest tricks in the book. It historically only perpetuates the placement of the purchaser in the ranks of the indentured (in this case, to the lending institutions who trade on the value of the debt). To hear people say that this model is the solution frankly saddens and frightens me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Fielding has never had an accredited match rate of 60%. So, what about the large number of students don't do well and do have a difficult time finding work? You should make it in this field with the aid of your program, not in spite of it.

That’s unfortunate and deeply concerning but not my issue. My position is why did APA accredit the program in the first place? And what is Fielding and APA doing to remedy the match imbalance within their program? What is the acceptable standards or limits within programs for match and graduation rates as decided by COA and APA?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
That’s unfortunate and deeply concerning but not my issue. My position is why did APA accredit the program in the first place? And what is Fielding and APA doing to remedy the match imbalance within their program? What is the acceptable standards or limits within programs for match and graduation rates as decided by COA and APA?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Because APA accreditation at the doctoral level is a very low bar to meet. The fact that they keep getting put on probation is the reddest of red flags. See @ClinicalABA s comment above, it outlines things perfectly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That’s unfortunate and deeply concerning but not my issue. My position is why did APA accredit the program in the first place? And what is Fielding and APA doing to remedy the match imbalance within their program? What is the acceptable standards or limits within programs for match and graduation rates as decided by COA and APA?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
I don't think its possible to divorce quality and standards of education from educational outcomes as you are doing. Also, see the comment above about the low bar of APA accreditation.
 
Do whats best for you? That's not how this works. We have training standards and protocols for a reason.

Data shows this model (Fielding) does not produce equatable outcomes and competencies.

You’re missing my point entirely! I’m saying that if you choose an accredited, traditional program vs a non traditional APA or non-APA is your choice however it is important for the applicant and/or graduate to know the long-term consequences of their decision.

For example, most but not all students from APA accredited programs complete an APA accredited internship. They may decide that since the state they live doesn’t require an APA internship for licenses that they don’t care about the accreditation of their internship site but for me and many others it matters a ton!

Regardless of what l believe to be the right choice for me may not be the appropriate choice for someone else. That’s not a decision you or I get to make for someone regardless of our opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
You’re missing my point entirely! I’m saying that if you choose an accredited, traditional program vs a non traditional APA or non-APA is your choice however it is important for the applicant and/or graduate to know the long-term consequences of their decision.

For example, most but not all students from APA accredited programs complete an APA accredited internship. They may decide that since the state they live doesn’t require an APA internship for licensure that they don’t care about the accreditation of their internship site but for me and many others it matters a ton! I believe their respective programs would not be pleased either.

Regardless of what l believe to be the right choice for me may not be the appropriate choice for someone else. That’s not a decision you or I get to make for someone regardless of our opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile




Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Regardless of what l believe to be the right choice for me may not be the appropriate choice for someone else. That’s not a decision you or I get to make for someone regardless of our opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Yet, medical schools make this choice for people, right? Its pretty much one way, or you can to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
As an anecdotal experience of reviewing hundreds of apps, as part of the committees I have been part of in several training programs throughout the years, we've gotten Fielding apps almost every year, exactly zero have been ranked come ranking submission time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I consider myself extremely liberal and feel that education (including higher education) should be accessible to everyone. I would amend this further that I feel a quality education should be available to everyone at a fair cost (ideally low- or no-cost). The data for Fielding, IMHO, clearly show that they are not meeting this goal. Tuition costs are amazingly high (~30k per year, more like 50k+ year if you finance through loans). I would not call this accessible. average length to completion is around 7 years. between 1/4 to 1/2 of all people who begin the program do not finish. Of those that don't leave before graduating, only an average ~50% will get an APA approved, paid internship. Even if you do graduate, licensure rates between 2-10 years post-degree are only 75%. Yes, you can keep your day job, but these costs (and the huge financial risk of not being able to recoup these costs because you don't finish or can't finish with an internship meeting minimum training standards) far outweigh the benefits of keeping that day job. While a more traditional program may only admit 5-10 students per year, this is based largely on funding availability (rather than elitism). When you look at the outcome data, it looks like 50+% of those who start (and presumably pay at least one year of tuition), do not finish. This is not "making education accessible" to lower SES students. It taking advantage of lower SES students who may not see that they have better options. Some make it through and are successful, but many (most?) don't. That's pretty evil, if you ask me.

"Accepting everyone" is not the same as making education "accessible" to everyone. Selling things to those that can't afford on credit it at a cost that far exceeds the value is one of the oldest and dirtiest tricks in the book. It historically only perpetuates the placement of the purchaser in the ranks of the indentured (in this case, to the lending institutions who trade on the value of the debt). To hear people say that this model is the solution frankly saddens and frightens me.

I meant liberal not from a political standpoint but for a diversity of opinion standpoint. I’m in a tradition brick mortal PhD program but do believe that if a person chooses to attend Fielding that they must believe it’s the best choice for them regardless of our opinion. Nothing more or less.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
I meant liberal not from a political standpoint but for a diversity of opinion standpoint. I’m in a tradition brick mortal PhD program but do believe that if a person chooses to attend Fielding that they must believe it’s the best choice for them regardless of our opinion. Nothing more or less.

By this same logic, someone who falls victim to a financial IRS scam is just doing what they believe is best for them and we should respect that? No, we should do a better job of educating people to avoid predatory institutions and scams like Fielding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Because APA accreditation at the doctoral level is a very low bar to meet. The fact that they keep getting put on probation is the reddest of red flags. See @ClinicalABA s comment above, it outlines things perfectly.

Then the argument can be made, If it’s such a low bar why have APA accreditation at all? Don’t programs pay for their self-study for initial accreditation and then continue to pay fees and meet “certain” standards?

I hear everyone’s point about Fielding and am in agreement with everyone’s respective concerns which I so share but this can’t be all of Fielding’s fault right? What role does APA have?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
By this same logic, someone who falls victim to a financial IRS scam is just doing what they believe is best for them and we should respect that? No, we should do a better job of educating people to avoid predatory institutions and scams like Fielding.

Absolutely not, this is a systemic issue! APA has allowed the university to continue to operate in this matter.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
I’m in a traditional program and agree with on the rigors of such programs, I’m essentially saying regardless of how we view non traditional programs they are here to stay. APA clearly believes there’s more than one way to skin a cat because one was accredited. I heard most programs on probation get full accreditation back after making required changes. Although, it’s concerning Fielding keeps getting placed on probation every few years. I believe the reasons for a program being on probation should be outlined within the statement of accreditation.

What do you think?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I believe that the probation reason(s) and/or APA non-accreditation status reasoning should be public information, absolutely. I think all folks have the right to know why a program isn't up to par by APA's standards.

I take issue with APA in terms of accreditation because of my more traditionalist stance on this issue, definitely. APA has dropped the ball somewhat in terms of accreditation, in my opinion. We shouldn't have programs varying so widely in their training rigor and some even preying upon folks from lower SES and yet all "accredited." It makes me wonder cynically if there's money exchanging hands somewhere behind the scenes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Yet, medical schools make this choice for people, right? Its pretty much one way, or you can to go.

You’re playing on semantics, I do not believe medicine and psychology programs are comparable in all aspects. I meant applicants choose the program that they believe is best for them regardless our opinion.

The bottom line is that Fielding is accredited (on probation) by APA. The respective concerns we have the about program is allowed to continue under COA/APA supervision. So the issue in my opinion is Fielding but APA.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
I believe that the probation reason(s) and/or APA non-accreditation status reasoning should be public information, absolutely. I think all folks have the right to know why a program isn't up to par by APA's standards.

I take issue with APA in terms of accreditation because of my more traditionalist stance on this issue, definitely. APA has dropped the ball somewhat in terms of accreditation, in my opinion. We shouldn't have programs varying so widely in their training rigor and some even preying upon folks from lower SES and yet all "accredited." It makes me wonder cynically if there's money exchanging hands somewhere behind the scenes.

THAT’S EXACTLY MY POINT!!! Thank you for this!!!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Considering they keep getting put on probation, the APA has not exactly done that.

Well I think it can be argued that if a program has been placed on probation a number of times over a given number of years then it’s possible they should be reviewed for revocation of accreditation status...


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
As an anecdotal experience of reviewing hundreds of apps, as part of the committees I have been part of in several training programs throughout the years, we've gotten Fielding apps almost every year, exactly zero have been ranked come ranking submission time.

Well according to your previous post, the students at Fielding have only a 40% match rate NOT zero so some schools are ranking their students. So...


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Well according to your previous post, the students at Fielding have only a 40% match rate NOT zero so some schools are ranking their students. So...

More that some questionable internship sites are ranking them because said sites cannot attract interns applicants from reputable institutions. So...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Waiting for APA to lead the way in terms of training (and setting that as a bar for standards) is clearly not what the field does (or should do). So I'm not exactly sure I follow any logic that defends known horrible training practices with bad outcomes. I'm looking to buy a lexus, not an AMC Gremlin just because "technically its allowed on the roads too"
 
More that some questionable internship sites are ranking them because said sites cannot attract interns applicants from reputable institutions. So...

APA accreditation is supposed to be the “gold standard” for PhD/PsyD programs and internships. SO regardless of yours/my program’s reputation Fielding students are being matched because Fielding is “accredited” by APA.

I think Fielding’s accreditation should be revoked BUT that’s up to APA...


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Top