How to watch out for "diploma mills"

[mpvoxman13]

While looking at and applying to doctoral programs in clinical psychology I have come across and been told to avoid diploma mills or professional psychology schools. I was wondering how I would go about finding out which schools to avoid. For instance I applied to Alliant International for this upcoming Fall only to be discouraged by a number of people, telling me that it is not a wise choice. Any insight into how to avoid making this mistake again would be greatly appreciated!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PsySeeker]

Basically you want the degree to be from a university, not a for profit company.

 

[pretzels]

Argosy and Alliant are the poster-boys of diploma mills, but in general, anything that says 'earn while working full time', 'classes only on weekends', or 'learn online' is generally going to be a program that, if not a true professional school, will certainly be a program looked down upon by.. well, everyone.

 

[JeyRo]

Basically you want the degree to be from a university, not a for profit company.

"Not for profit" is just a tax designation and doesn't prevent a school from charging exorbitant tuition and hiring multiple administrators to sit on their rumps and rake in large six-figure incomes. Being hooked to a university doesn't mean that much either, other than perhaps giving the school access to more resources. We've talked about plenty of programs here that are "university based" and "nonprofit" that offer poor outcomes and saddle students with unconscionable debt.

 

[PsySeeker]

"Not for profit" is just a tax designation and doesn't prevent a school from charging exorbitant tuition and hiring multiple administrators to sit on their rumps and rake in large six-figure incomes. Being hooked to a university doesn't mean that much either, other than perhaps giving the school access to more resources. We've talked about plenty of programs here that are "university based" and "nonprofit" that offer poor outcomes and saddle students with unconscionable debt.

I agree. I was answering the question about diploma mills, not debt levels or quality of programs... Some university programs no doubt suffer from the problems you've mentioned, but I wouldn't call them diploma mills....

Perhaps we should define what we mean when we say diploma mills. To my mind a diploma mills is an institution that will grant you a degree with very little effort on your part in exchange for your money.

 

[Ollie123]

Am I the only one who feels like this is really just a "Know it when I see it" kind of thing? This has come up a few times lately but I'm not sure I get it. The boundaries on "diploma mill" are fuzzy, as are most related terms. I can't define it but its usually pretty blisteringly obvious when a school is questionable, just from looking at their website (e.g. www.alliant.edu versus www.usc.edu - picked at random). I'm hard pressed to think of a situation where I would say "Well...I guess TECHNICALLY its not a diploma mill so its a good idea to go there". To me its just semantics.The field is competitive. We're having quality control problems. Aim high, not low. Debt is very bad and if they require anything beyond a "little" debt its probably not worth it. If its a middle of the road program I think its a judgment call and depends on career goals and how risk averse you are.

 

[MBellows]

On a semi-related note. I've looked at programs in the past on the APA website and I have two questions. Do APA standards vary by state? And if so, who set the standards for California? I guess a third question would be, if not, WTF APA why you do it?

 

[racho]

Argosy and Alliant are the poster-boys of diploma mills, but in general, anything that says 'earn while working full time', 'classes only on weekends', or 'learn online' is generally going to be a program that, if not a true professional school, will certainly be a program looked down upon by.. well, everyone.

I am currently attending Argosy University in Orange County. I can say that after being in other graduate programs, my campus (I cannot speak about the other campuses) is definitely not a diploma mill. Being in this rigorous program, I have not had the time to work (even part time). It is APA accredited, not an online or weekend program, and holds students to very high standards. Honestly, when I first heard about Argosy, I thought it was a diploma mill but after researching the OC campus, they don't accept just anyone. Graduates have all been able to get licensed and many work in very reputable hospitals, community colleges, etc. One student from my campus is currently doing her predoctoral internship at Yale Medical School and has been offered a post doc there as well. Another student was matched at the VA in Puerto Rico for the upcoming fall. Another is at the Naval base in San Diego etc.We have an APA match rate of over 50%. Part of the problem with matching is that people "look down" on psyd professional programs. I don't blame them for the most part because there are plenty of ****ty schools out there that will take you if you have a pulse and a bank account.

I went to UCSD for undergrad, did the honors track and was part of a forensic psychology lab. I always thought I would go to a well known school for my graduate studies but I preferred a private school that was not research heavy. I was not interested in becoming a researcher and going the academic route professionally.

Yes, the amount of money I am spending on school is ridiculous but I feel like I am getting a great education that is preparing me to be a good clinician. So that is worth the money...of course getting grants, teaching assistant and research assistant jobs through school and not having to explain that my program is legitimate, automatically get amazing practicum sites just because of the school I attend and be able to get years upon years of training in research and practice, are all fantastic. Just because that is a great option doesn't mean it's the only/right choice for you.

In terms of Alliant, I understand they they also prepare students well. The graduates from there have also landed great jobs. I would make sure that the program is APA accredited and ask about their internship match rate and speak to the students attending. Do your due diligence before signing up for 5 years of your life and enormous debt. If you are interested in research, look at big name schools.

I am glad I made the choice that I did.



Sent from my SPH-L900 using SDN Mobile, please excise any typos

 

[Goobernut]

...We have an APA match rate of over 50%...

Yes, the amount of money I am spending on school is ridiculous but I feel like I am getting a great education that is preparing me to be a good clinician.

Racho, I feel like these two sentences are mutually exclusive. How can you boast a match rate of over 50% and yet feel like your money was well spent? You spent a "ridiculous" amount of money on a 50% chance that you won't get an APA match? For me, because of the specific population I wanted to work with, non-matching would preclude me from working with them.

 

[MBellows]

Racho, I feel like these two sentences are mutually exclusive. How can you boast a match rate of over 50% and yet feel like your money was well spent? You spent a "ridiculous" amount of money on a 50% chance that you won't get an APA match? For me, because of the specific population I wanted to work with, non-matching would preclude me from working with them.

Seems to me that spending that much on a psychology degree with a 50% chance of getting an APA match would be more akin to giving someone a quarter-million to flip a coin and either shoot you in the face or the leg.

 

[Goobernut]

Bellows -- I agree. Even if he didn't spend a lot of money and it was free, it would still be crappy prospects. Would you spend 5-7 years in a funded program for a 50% chance to APA match? Um, I wouldn't. I am so paranoid, I wouldn't do it for a 75% chance.

Nope. Oooh getting the shivers thinking about it. Uh-uh. I know some people are in a different place than me... Ugh. Nope, still can't imagine it.

 

[Sanman]

Racho, I feel like these two sentences are mutually exclusive. How can you boast a match rate of over 50% and yet feel like your money was well spent? You spent a "ridiculous" amount of money on a 50% chance that you won't get an APA match? For me, because of the specific population I wanted to work with, non-matching would preclude me from working with them.

That 50% APA match rate was only for the most recent years. All the years before that were significantly worse:


Year # students % students
2005 1 8
2006 1 5
2007 2 11
2008 3 12
2009 2 12
2010 3 25
2011 14 54

Cost of tution: $41k

Estimated cost of attendance: $63k/yr

Median Debt: $174,231 in loans


Good training or not, that does not leave a great chance for the top jobs and enough debt to stop a person from being able to afford a house. No thanks.

 

[racho]

That 50% APA match rate was only for the most recent years. All the years before that were significantly worse:


Year # students % students
2005 1 8
2006 1 5
2007 2 11
2008 3 12
2009 2 12
2010 3 25
2011 14 54

Cost of tution: $41k

Estimated cost of attendance: $63k/yr

Median Debt: $174,231 in loans


Good training or not, that does not leave a great chance for the top jobs and enough debt to stop a person from being able to afford a house. No thanks.

Yes, accurately stated. That said, my campus is working diligently on increasing match rates by improving the program by adding an additional practicum year, obtaining more prestigious practicum sites and increasing the number of assessments we are to complete by the end of our first practicum year (diagnostic practicum).

Please also consider the national internship match crisis that is happening. As you know, there are not enough APA internship sites for the number of students applying.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using SDN Mobile. Please excuse any typos.

 

[racho]

Bellows -- I agree. Even if he didn't spend a lot of money and it was free, it would still be crappy prospects. Would you spend 5-7 years in a funded program for a 50% chance to APA match? Um, I wouldn't. I am so paranoid, I wouldn't do it for a 75% chance.

Nope. Oooh getting the shivers thinking about it. Uh-uh. I know some people are in a different place than me... Ugh. Nope, still can't imagine it.

So your match rate is?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using SDN Mobile

 

[MBellows]

So your match rate is?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using SDN Mobile

Irrelevant to the topic, but nice try with the defensiveness and the attempt at a fallacious deflection of the criticism.

 

[Sanman]

Yes, accurately stated. That said, my campus is working diligently on increasing match rates by improving the program by adding an additional practicum year, obtaining more prestigious practicum sites and increasing the number of assessments we are to complete by the end of our first practicum year (diagnostic practicum).

Please also consider the national internship match crisis that is happening. As you know, there are not enough APA internship sites for the number of students applying.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using SDN Mobile. Please excuse any typos.

Agreed. However, here are the numbers from some top university based PsyD program:

Rutgers PsyD


Year # students % students


2005 11 85
2006 13 76
2007 10 77
2008 21 95
2009 18 90
2010 13 93
2011 10 77


Other top programs, like Baylor, had similar numbers and my program did as well.

 

[bmedclinic]

I'm sure a number of people will disagree... but if you want to protect your career (and your hard work) the first red flag is if the cohort size is over 15. I know there are legit programs out there that take big classes (15 is big) but most people I know have a cohort size of 6-8 students per year. That's a decent first test to see if you have a chance to get quality education.

 

[erg923]

Rancho, no one here is insulting you, please know that. K?

But, it should be pretty obvious to you that your program is subpar in almost every quantifiable metric we have available to judge this sort of thing. Arent you the one who posted in the internship thread about your lack of clinical exposure/training...in a PsyD program no less? Compared to most other posters (most Ph.D.) your experiences are far less, both in quantity and breadth and depth. You admitted to this, no? You have no publications (and none in the pipline, i assume?) and no experience in program eval, program development, supervision, or teaching. So how exactly is this program rigorous?

 

[erg923]

One student from my campus is currently doing her predoctoral internship at Yale Medical School and has been offered a post doc there as well. Another student was matched at the VA in Puerto Rico for the upcoming fall. Another is at the Naval base in San Diego etc.We have an APA match rate of over 50%.

What does this mean to you, exactly? That is a small handful out of 50/year get good positions? That it CAN happen in minority of cases? Does this speak to the program or to their ability/aptitude. If we look at stats with a larger N, they tell a different story about your program, no?

We have an APA match rate of over 50%

The national average is 76-80% Your program is well below average in this metric. How is this good in your mind?

Yes, the amount of money I am spending on school is ridiculous but I feel like I am getting a great education that is preparing me to be a good clinician. So that is worth the money..

Would you want to expound on that for the benefit of future applicants to your school?

What is your projected starting salary and what is your monthly student loan payment going to be? Do you think, seeing this ratio, most reasonable people would agree with your statement?

 

[erg923]

One student from my campus is currently doing her predoctoral internship at Yale Medical School and has been offered a post doc there as well. Another student was matched at the VA in Puerto Rico for the upcoming fall. Another is at the Naval base in San Diego etc.We have an APA match rate of over 50%.

What does this mean to you, exactly? That a small handful out of 50/year get good positions. Does this speak to the program or to their ability/aptitude. If we look at stats with a larger N, they tell a different story about your program, no?

We have an APA match rate of over 50%

The national average is 76% Your program is well below average in this metric. How is this good in your mind?

 

[MBellows]

What does this mean to you, exactly? That a small handful out of 50/year get good positions.

Don't you get it Erg? It means that in programs like his/hers only the cream rises to the top. Those that get into good matches do so because they took as much as possible from the obviously high quality of training and made something of themselves of their own volition. Isn't that better than people getting into matches just because some people are biased towards things like professional contributions, research experience, and an established set of reliable students?

 

[Pragma]

I agree that operationalizing "diploma mill" is tough, but you have gotten some practical advice so far (e.g., stay away from FSPS such as Argosy and Alliant, or other "schools of professional psychology"). I think "diploma factory" might be a more appropriate term for how I think of these programs, although one could argue that FSPS programs are a place where students get ground and crushed (metaphorically speaking, as that is what happens in a mill). Now that I think of it, perhaps "diploma retailer" or "diploma online retailer" are even more descriptive.

The biggest indicators to me would be a) class size and b) funding.

Any program graduating more than 10 people per year is a poor steward of the profession, unless PERHAPS it is a really large program and they are funding all of their students. But even then, they ought to consider limiting class sizes if they want to do their part not to contribute to the oversupply/saturation created by diploma factories. Funding students means that the program is investing in their students, not viewing their students as a source of revenue.

So when I hear that an Argosy program has 80 people graduating, I think the classification is fairly obvious.

 

[Pragma]

I'm sure a number of people will disagree... but if you want to protect your career (and your hard work) the first red flag is if the cohort size is over 15. I know there are legit programs out there that take big classes (15 is big) but most people I know have a cohort size of 6-8 students per year. That's a decent first test to see if you have a chance to get quality education.

I skimmed the thread and missed your post - I agree. I think 15 is too much (I'd say keep it lower than 10), but the principle is spot on. My program only had 5-6 per year.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I agree that operationalizing "diploma mill" is tough, but you have gotten some practical advice so far (e.g., stay away from FSPS such as Argosy and Alliant, or other "schools of professional psychology"). I think "diploma factory" might be a more appropriate term for how I think of these programs, although one could argue that FSPS programs are a place where students get ground and crushed (metaphorically speaking, as that is what happens in a mill). Now that I think of it, perhaps "diploma retailer" or "diploma online retailer" are even more descriptive.

The biggest indicators to me would be a) class size and b) funding.

Any program graduating more than 10 people per year is a poor steward of the profession, unless PERHAPS it is a really large program and they are funding all of their students. But even then, they ought to consider limiting class sizes if they want to do their part not to contribute to the oversupply/saturation created by diploma factories. Funding students means that the program is investing in their students, not viewing their students as a source of revenue.

So when I hear that an Argosy program has 80 people graduating, I think the classification is fairly obvious.

At the same time, one might make the argument that if these funded programs are producing solid future psychologists, then scaling back the number of people they're graduating could be doing the field a disservice in its own right...otherwise, the number of "Raven Therapy" practitioners being turned out (to the public and in professional organizations) will even more quickly dwarf those with strong training.

There's obviously an inherent cap in these programs as well, given that there's only so much funding to go around. But if the university has the money and faculty to adequately support those students, and the outcome metrics indicate that they're being trained well, I'm not sure I'd want them to start churning out fewer of those folks. That's just me, though.

 

[Pragma]

At the same time, one might make the argument that if these funded programs are producing solid future psychologists, then scaling back the number of people they're graduating could be doing the field a disservice in its own right...otherwise, the number of "Raven Therapy" practitioners being turned out (to the public and in professional organizations) will even more quickly dwarf those with strong training.

I don't think starting a rat race for who can graduate the most people really helps anyone. The best we can do is maintain our training standards and try to make these crap programs accountable for their predatory practices and poor outcomes.

We need to limit supply.

 

[bmedclinic]

Right Pragma.
My program does 6, but started with 8 initially.
I've heard of reputible programs accepting 15... but ironically, the program that comes to mind that had 15 this year "accidently" accepted 20 extra students, then had to email them and let them know they actually were not accepted. Flub, or is that program less impressive than I thought?

Either way, 10 or 15... that's way different than 60-100. I can feel the difference in the attention my work had when my major advisor was slammed (he does lots of undergrad stuff).. and that's in my program.

People will come post on these boards about how great their experience was at their school, which is contentiously debated as a diploma mill. But as someone who has been on here for several years, for each of those students, there are 4-5x as many stating that they hate that school, it's a scam, and they want to quit, but cant because of sunk cost effect.

As that blue collar comedy guy says.... "there's your sign"

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I don't think starting a rat race for who can graduate the most people really helps anyone. The best we can do is maintain our training standards and try to make these crap programs accountable for their predatory practices and poor outcomes.

Agreed. My argument was simply that if a program is and has been graduating, say, 15 folks per year (which I agree is a rather large class for a funded program; I believe our average was at/a little over half that) while maintaining training standards, I don't know that they should be told to graduate fewer people.

I can see both sides, of course. I just feel that while there definitely looks to be a saturation of psychologists, there may be a shortage of strongly-trained and strongly-credentialed psychologists.

 

[Pragma]

Agreed. My argument was simply that if a program is and has been graduating, say, 15 folks per year (which I agree is a rather large class for a funded program; I believe our average was at/a little over half that) while maintaining training standards, I don't know that they should be told to graduate fewer people.

I can see both sides, of course. I just feel that while there definitely looks to be a saturation of psychologists, there may be a shortage of strongly-trained and strongly-credentialed psychologists.

I guess I am not certain if I agree that we need more well-trained psychologists than we are already currently graduating annually. Sure, if they have the capacity to do the training, fund the students, and do it well, then the student won't be victimized. But there still is the issue of guild ethics.

Do you think there is an undersupply of well-trained psychologists? I don't. I thought I read somewhere that about 30% of new psychologists now come from FSPS. Eliminate those programs, and there goes your internship crisis, and I'd imagine that the oversaturation problems would take a very meaningful hit.

Oh, to dream...

I don't think "growth" for the sake of growing is needed in our field. I think we need to regulate supply and improve our quality control.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I guess I am not certain if I agree that we need more well-trained psychologists than we are already currently graduating annually. Sure, if they have the capacity to do the training, fund the students, and do it well, then the student won't be victimized. But there still is the issue of guild ethics.

Do you think there is an undersupply of well-trained psychologists? I don't. I thought I read somewhere that about 30% of new psychologists now come from FSPS. Eliminate those programs, and there goes your internship crisis, and I'd imagine that the oversaturation problems would take a very meaningful hit.

Oh, to dream...

I don't think "growth" for the sake of growing is needed in our field. I think we need to regulate supply and improve our quality control.

I wouldn't argue with you there. I'd say that would be the most important first series of steps. After that, we could better gauge if there is any sort of shortage, if there's still an overage, or if we're at the "just right" place as is.

 

[racho]

Irrelevant to the topic, but nice try with the defensiveness and the attempt at a fallacious deflection of the criticism.

I wasn't being defensive. Just asked you what your match rate is. I am being forthright and transparent with my information as I want to give the original poster information that s/he can utilize. I ask again, what are yoir match rates? I have seen posters here from very reputable phd programs who have gone to second rounds for internship.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using SDN Mobile

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I wasn't being defensive. Just asked you what your match rate is. I am being forthright and transparent with my information as I want to give the original poster information that s/he can utilize. I ask again, what are yoir match rates? I have seen posters here from very reputable phd programs who have gone to second rounds for internship.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using SDN Mobile

Keep in mind that this might not be an apples-to-apples comparison. Many of the posters you've mentioned attend programs that require their students attend an APA-accredited internship. Thus, the APA match rate for such a program would be 100%, but the overall match rate might "only" be 85 or 90%. As such, comparing overall rates across programs isn't very useful, so it's important to delineate what we're asking for/talking about. Raw numbers of students affected can be useful as well, given that a 50% match rate for a cohort of 6 is a much different animal than a 50% match rate for a cohort of 20+.

 

[racho]

Agreed. However, here are the numbers from some top university based PsyD program:

Rutgers PsyD


Year # students % students


2005 11 85
2006 13 76
2007 10 77
2008 21 95
2009 18 90
2010 13 93
2011 10 77


Other top programs, like Baylor, had similar numbers and my program did as well.

Those numbers are fantastic! I hope my campus will reach those numbers as well. We are not there yet but are working on it. Rutgers is a big, reputable school that has been around for a very long time. Do they have big cohorts? Are they funded?



Sent from my SPH-L900 using SDN Mobile

 

[MBellows]

I wasn't being defensive. Just asked you what your match rate is. I am being forthright and transparent with my information as I want to give the original poster information that s/he can utilize. I ask again, what are yoir match rates? I have seen posters here from very reputable phd programs who have gone to second rounds for internship.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using SDN Mobile

Rehab counseling here and more than likely not going into one of the few psychology doctoral programs that I have in mind when applying for doctoral programs. That said, I can personally make the point that my program features a 100% employment rate a year after graduation and given the cost of the program, I think it's safe to assume that these people are making more than they took out in loans (if they were even a little responsible).

That was the point of the observation that Goober and I were making. It has little to do with the APA match rates and far more to do with the amount of loans people take out, their salary options after graduation, and whether or not they will even be able to find a job that pays (hopefully more in a year than you took out in loans).

 

[PHD12]

I wasn't being defensive. Just asked you what your match rate is. I am being forthright and transparent with my information as I want to give the original poster information that s/he can utilize. I ask again, what are yoir match rates? I have seen posters here from very reputable phd programs who have gone to second rounds for internship.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using SDN Mobile

the match rate for Argosy though is not over 50%. That is misleading since it was only for 1 year. The average match rate for your program is more like 15-20% for the past 5-7 years. That is average match rate. Not one year that is an anomaly. That is atrocious. I have never seen any funded program with such a low match rate. My program has a match rate close to 100%. It wasn't tough for me to find programs to apply to that had match rates above 90%. All the funded PhD programs in my location have over 90% match rate. Top PsyD programs also have match rates that are close to 80-90% if you average it out over 5 years (baylor, rutgers). There is research showing that a small # of programs account for a large percentage of unmatched students, and argosy happens to be one of those programs that is contributing greatly to the national match imbalance.

 

[Pragma]

I wasn't being defensive. Just asked you what your match rate is. I am being forthright and transparent with my information as I want to give the original poster information that s/he can utilize. I ask again, what are yoir match rates? I have seen posters here from very reputable phd programs who have gone to second rounds for internship.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using SDN Mobile

Not sure what kind of cutoffs you are looking at as reasonable. I went to a program with nearly a 100% rate (you didn't ask me), and it was only the occasional one person who did not match.

I think match rates need to be supplemented with class size information as well. What is your class size? If you have 30 in a class, and have a 50% match rate - that means 15 people EVERY YEAR do not get an APA accredited internship. That is a lot different than the occasional 1 person at a reputable PhD program.

Not to mention, that school then collects at least $120K in tuition from each of these 15 people despite them not getting the APA internship (see their website for the cost estimate http://www.argosy.edu/programs/clinical-psychology-degrees-1211.aspx). That is probably generous since they list annual tuition as over 40K now on their stats page (http://www.argosy.edu/documents/psydinfo/OrangeCounty-psyd-outcomes.pdf).

If we use the "good" numbers from 2011-2012, 14/26 students applying at your program got an APA internship internship last year. By my calculations, the Argosy Orange County campus still collected at least $1,440,000 from the other 12 students over the course of the program, despite them not matching to an APA-accredited internship (which is a minimal standard for many jobs).

At least the 1 person who didn't match at the PhD program was fully funded. And perhaps more importantly, the program could dedicate a lot of attention and resources towards helping that one student with next steps. I'd imagine with it being the norm at other programs, the culture would be a lot different (and I am assuming those non-matched students still pay tuition).

 

[Doctor Eliza]

I wasn't being defensive. Just asked you what your match rate is. I am being forthright and transparent with my information as I want to give the original poster information that s/he can utilize. I ask again, what are yoir match rates? I have seen posters here from very reputable phd programs who have gone to second rounds for internship.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using SDN Mobile

This wasn't directed at me, but I'm going to answer to help highlight that program does make a difference. I went to a university PhD program. The last time someone didn't match for an APA internship was 2001. Every year since (and almost every year prior) they have had a 100% APA match rate. This was all APA because other types would not count toward graduation. It is a huge difference from the stats being discussed here.

Dr. E

Disclaimer: I hated my school and don't think anyone should go there.

 

[racho]

Rancho, no one here is insulting you, please know that. K?

But, it should be pretty obvious to you that your program is subpar in almost every quantifiable metric we have available to judge this sort of thing. Arent you the one who posted in the internship thread about your lack of clinical exposure/training...in a PsyD program no less? Compared to most other posters (most Ph.D.) your experiences are far less, both in quantity and breadth and depth. You admitted to this, no? You have no publications (and none in the pipline, i assume?) and no experience in program eval, program development, supervision, or teaching. So how exactly is this program rigorous?

I have not been insulted yet, as I entered my program fully aware of the training, funding, etc. And know that it is not perfect and needs work (I have yet to find a perfect program). I still feel that it was a good fit for me and my circumstances. I am not here to criticize or offend anyone else either. Just giving the "other side."

In terms of being rigorous, we are clinically trained in the main areas of clinical psychology including psychodynamic theory, cbt (and other evidence based txs which seem to dominate phd programs), family systems, etc. We have practicums (that we actually have to apply and interview for, they are not just given to us), we attend multiple conferences, workshops, do presentations and pther pro bono work in the community and we complete a dissertation.

I am not here to bash anyone and I welcome any comments/criticisms you have. Im just saying that I have friends in very reputable phd programs that don't have nearly the amount of ax and clinical training that I am getting. However, they are funded, get every resource handed to them, have the backing of a big name, they can cite many studies but are not fully versed in significant tx issues such as countertransference and ruptures. It seems that those programs focus on purely cbt models. For example, there was a post from a phd student who was asking about supervision with a psychodynamic supervisor. The poster seemed baffled when asked about how s/he plays a role in the tx process.

I respect phd programs but they too have their flaws. Please enlighten me if you believe otherwise.

Yes, I am the one who began the other thread and openly admitted to my lack of hours (intervention hours as I have plenty of ax hours which I didn't mention in the other thread), I have not published anything as research is not my goal thus I chose a practioner-scholar model that emphasizes clinical training, I have not done program evaluation (please clarify relevance), we do not have labs so no supervising others and yes I do have teaching experiences.

My lack of hours is not a reflection of my program, as I stated in the other thread, it is my personal choice to apply early and take the risk of not matching this year for personal reasons. As of now, my DCT is discouraging me from applying so early. Your feedback to me in the other thread was well taken, appreciated and valid. Thank you again. I am still discussing my options with my partner regarding applying to internship this year. I would be happy to continue this discussion regarding internship in the other thread as I don't want to hijack this one (as it may have already been, unintentionally).

Sent from my SPH-L900 using SDN Mobile. Please excuse any typos.

 

[erg923]

In terms of being rigorous, we are clinically trained in the main areas of clinical psychology including psychodynamic theory, cbt (and other evidence based txs which seem to dominate phd programs), family systems, etc. We have practicums (that we actually have to apply and interview for, they are not just given to us), we attend multiple conferences, workshops, do presentations and pther pro bono work in the community and we complete a dissertation.

Yes, I am the one who began the other thread and openly admitted to my lack of hours (intervention hours as I have plenty of ax hours which I didn't mention in the other thread), I have not published anything as research is not my goal thus I chose a practioner-scholar model that emphasizes clinical training, I have not done program evaluation (please clarify relevance), we do not have labs so no supervising others and yes I do have teaching experiences.

Short on time, but just wanted to mention that I would hope hope doctoral level training focus much more than on simply preparing frontline service clinicians (Read Meehl's classic"Second Order Relevance"). Wouldnt you?

Program evaluation/development is at the heart of what psychologist can offer with their training in mental health treatment knowledge. In the new age of healthcare (if i call it Obama care, some liberal on here will probably burn me at the stake) psychologists will be taking on the roles (as we rightly should) as leaders and directors in the field of mental health and mental health access/service delivery.

 

[PHD12]

Graduates have all been able to get licensed and many work in very reputable hospitals, community colleges, etc.
/QUOTE]

This is also not accurate. If you look at your program's website, argosy orange county has a licensure rate of only 61%. So 39% of the graduates are still not licensed two years after graduating! This is a red flag for a practitioner program since you can't practice or supervise without licensure, and students are not eligible for academic positions from this program. Top PsyD programs have 100% licensure rates (see baylor, rutgers, PGSP PsyD).

Basically, if you include the attrition rates from argosy OC (20-54% past 5 years) and the match rates for the past 6 years (average of 18%), and then include the licensure rate of 60%, the chances of any enrolled student graduating from argosy, getting an apa internship, and then getting licensed is going to be about 5% chance. Wow, we are not even talking about employment here--just the basics. These numbers are obviously not a reflection on the program!

 

[Doctor Eliza]

Racho,

Just a point of clarification. Truly this is asked innocently, as I don't know much about PsyD programs. You mention that you don't have labs? So you never have to work under a professor conducting research? You just do your own master's and dissertation! Is this typical for PsyD's?

Thanks,
Dr. E

 

[Pragma]

This wasn't directed at me, but I'm going to answer to help highlight that program does make a difference. I went to a university PhD program. The last time someone didn't match for an APA internship was 2001. Every year since (and almost every year prior) they have had a 100% APA match rate. This was all APA because other types would not count toward graduation. It is a huge difference from the stats being discussed here.

Dr. E

Disclaimer: I hated my school and don't think anyone should go there.

You sure it wasn't just a really crappy mentor? Unfortunately, some programs have one or two of those. They can be hard to get rid of

 

[erg923]

Racho,

Just a point of clarification. Truly this is asked innocently, as I don't know much about PsyD programs. You mention that you don't have labs? So you never have to work under a professor conducting research? You just do your own master's and dissertation! Is this typical for PsyD's?

Thanks,
Dr. E

I think they work with someone, but only during the time they are doing the dissertation. I am unsure how they access clincial population though, unless its public, archival databases.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

...I have friends in very reputable phd programs that don't have nearly the amount of ax and clinical training that I am getting.

Very possible, although I do think it's important to point out that at least according to APPIC's stats, the average PhD program internship applicant has more clinical face-to-face hours than the average PsyD applicant. I'm sure a big part of this is due to PhD applicants spending somewhere around a year longer, on average, in grad school, although it may also reflect the number of concurrent practicum experiences available (I held an average of two concurrent practica throughout grad school, for example) and the expected typical workload (e.g., funded students are of course not expected to be able to work outside of school, and thus faculty don't feel it's unreasonable to expect 40+ hours per week of clinical and research responsibility).

For example, there was a post from a phd student who was asking about supervision with a psychodynamic supervisor. The poster seemed baffled when asked about how s/he plays a role in the tx process.

To be fair and accurate, I don't believe the issue was the poster's difficulty understanding the role they play in therapy (as it would be faulty to say that CBT doesn't pay attention to this important concept). It was more an issue of difficulty adjusting to the style of the supervision.

I respect phd programs but they too have their flaws. Please enlighten me if you believe otherwise.

No one's going to disagree with you there. Although it becomes a matter of looking at the number, type, and severity of flaws in any particular program.

Yes, I am the one who began the other thread and openly admitted to my lack of hours (intervention hours as I have plenty of ax hours which I didn't mention in the other thread), I have not published anything as research is not my goal thus I chose a practioner-scholar model that emphasizes clinical training, I have not done program evaluation (please clarify relevance), we do not have labs so no supervising others and yes I do have teaching experiences.

Erg already mentioned the relevance of program evaluation experience, given that psychologists are often expected/called upon to take supervisory and/or administrative roles (and I feel it's in the best interests of our profession to do so).

I personally also believe that getting a good amount of experience with conducting research is of fundamental importance, even to those who never publish again after graduation. Doing so gives you a much more intimate understanding of the scientific process as a whole, and allows you to better critically evaluate new research. Also, it forces you to at least become somewhat comfortable with various statistical and psychometric concepts. And as much as some may want to believe it, our typical assessment instruments aren't nearly as pre-packaged and out-of-the-box ready-to-use as they might initially appear. Competently choosing, administering, and interpreting them; and using that data to inform your conceptualization of a patient (not to mention then continually monitoring that conceptualization via progress tracking/outcome measures); is a scientific process in its own right.

 

[racho]

the match rate for Argosy though is not over 50%. That is misleading since it was only for 1 year. The average match rate for your program is more like 15-20% for the past 5-7 years. That is average match rate. Not one year that is an anomaly. That is atrocious. I have never seen any funded program with such a low match rate. My program has a match rate close to 100%. It wasn't tough for me to find programs to apply to that had match rates above 90%. All the funded PhD programs in my location have over 90% match rate. Top PsyD programs also have match rates that are close to 80-90% if you average it out over 5 years (baylor, rutgers). There is research showing that a small # of programs account for a large percentage of unmatched students, and argosy happens to be one of those programs that is contributing greatly to the national match imbalance.

Good points. Yes, the match rates are increaseing as my dct is working diligently on improving our program (ie, requiring additional practicum years and obtaining better sites). We are aware of this issue. Thank you for bringing it up as I may have not pointed that out previously. I am not here to mislead, as I hope I have not up to this point.

In terms of contributing to the imbalance, I will not fully disagree. I will argue though that many students from non APA programs are applying too as well as counseling programs. To say that professional schools are to blame for the problem (ok breathe, I know you wrote "contributing greatly" and didn't fully blame) is partially true. Also, many sites lost or do not have the funds to make their sites APA accredited. I assume that you are aware of this and chose not to point these other factors out to make your argument more poignant.

If any of you end up working in sites other than universities and va hospitals (mostly not likely-but still possible- for me or my fellow psyd students because of the issues we have discussed and because these sites tend to look down on prof psyd programs and prefer phd students in general, justified or not but is a reality), we may end up working together. Making similar salaries (yes, we will have debt and you won't, I know). I hope for those of you who I will work with in the future (and those of you who just think we dilly dally for 5 years) can open your minds to seeing that there are good professionals out there from prof psyd programs and not immediately discount our abilities or our programs.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using SDN Mobile. Please excuse any typos.

 

[PHD12]

Racho,

Just a point of clarification. Truly this is asked innocently, as I don't know much about PsyD programs. You mention that you don't have labs? So you never have to work under a professor conducting research? You just do your own master's and dissertation! Is this typical for PsyD's?

Thanks,
Dr. E

They don't do a master's thesis or dissertation at all. They do a "clinical research project." Check out the curriculum on the website. The top PsyD programs though will require significantly more research than this and a dissertation not a project.

 

[Pragma]

I hope for those of you who I will work with in the future (and those of you who just think we dilly dally for 5 years) can open your minds to seeing that there are good professionals out there from prof psyd programs and not immediately discount our abilities or our programs.

I do know a handful of great psychologists from these programs. But it is the exception, not the rule. Excuse me for hating on the program, because I think it these programs are the scum of the earth and are ruining the profession. No offense to you personally.

 

[racho]

This wasn't directed at me, but I'm going to answer to help highlight that program does make a difference. I went to a university PhD program. The last time someone didn't match for an APA internship was 2001. Every year since (and almost every year prior) they have had a 100% APA match rate. This was all APA because other types would not count toward graduation. It is a huge difference from the stats being discussed here.

Dr. E

Disclaimer: I hated my school and don't think anyone should go there.

Dr. E, thank you for the info. I am happy to hear that your program (and probably many others) have 100% APA match rates.

Sorry you hated your program/ university, it sucks to be in that position. Glad you are out and past that.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using SDN Mobile

 

[PHD12]

I hope for those of you who I will work with in the future (and those of you who just think we dilly dally for 5 years) can open your minds to seeing that there are good professionals out there from prof psyd programs and not immediately discount our abilities or our programs.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using SDN Mobile. Please excuse any typos.

I have the utmost respect for folks who land APA internships and get licensed out of these programs. I have trained with a few over the years and they were impressive, but are in the top 5%. The program is scum for screwing over and taking large sums of money from the rest of the 95% who don't do so well.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

You sure it wasn't just a really crappy mentor? Unfortunately, some programs have one or two of those. They can be hard to get rid of

Actually the mentor that I ended up with (eventually) was a great guy. The rest of the profs were...forgive the clinical jargon...bat **** crazy with a touch of evil.

 

[racho]

Not sure what kind of cutoffs you are looking at as reasonable. I went to a program with nearly a 100% rate (you didn't ask me), and it was only the occasional one person who did not match.

I think match rates need to be supplemented with class size information as well. What is your class size? If you have 30 in a class, and have a 50% match rate - that means 15 people EVERY YEAR do not get an APA accredited internship. That is a lot different than the occasional 1 person at a reputable PhD program.

Not to mention, that school then collects at least $120K in tuition from each of these 15 people despite them not getting the APA internship (see their website for the cost estimate http://www.argosy.edu/programs/clinical-psychology-degrees-1211.aspx). That is probably generous since they list annual tuition as over 40K now on their stats page (http://www.argosy.edu/documents/psydinfo/OrangeCounty-psyd-outcomes.pdf).

If we use the "good" numbers from 2011-2012, 14/26 students applying at your program got an APA internship internship last year. By my calculations, the Argosy Orange County campus still collected at least $1,440,000 from the other 12 students over the course of the program, despite them not matching to an APA-accredited internship (which is a minimal standard for many jobs).

At least the 1 person who didn't match at the PhD program was fully funded. And perhaps more importantly, the program could dedicate a lot of attention and resources towards helping that one student with next steps. I'd imagine with it being the norm at other programs, the culture would be a lot different (and I am assuming those non-matched students still pay tuition).

Yes. You make very good points and I will attempt to answer all of your questions. Argosy OC is a for profit prof psych school (which is why I have openly disclosed the debt I have incurred numerous times). When students don't match, they go to second rounds. If still not matched they pay for a year of practicum supervision and dissertation costs (if they have not yet completed). Or they work in the field and apply the next year. 1 student this past year was not concerned about APA so she got a CAPIC university site. She plans on working in a private practice so it worked out for her. The others either got APA, delayed a year to reapply next year and the rest matched with APPIC sites.

Some students do not care about APA internships and obtaining an APA internship is not a requirement for my program (as it probably is for yours, which makes sense because of your probable career goals hence choosing the phd route over the psyd route to begin with). This might shock you but some people want to work in places that do not require an APA internship such as state prisons (only federal require APA), private practice, some hospitals, community centers, etc. The world is big and there is a need for psychologists in other settings besides universities, some hospitals (va specifically) and federal prisons.
Also, California internship sites are saturated with applicants (I have to say, the weather is great here and it is a fun place to live ). When ppl are geographically limited (many Californians want to stay close to home or just love it here), it hurts their chances of being matched as well (please refer to the internship threads- internship tips, 2013 internship application and 2014 internship application).

To answer your other question, my current class size is 8 (however to not mislead...the class above me is the biggest we have ever had, 25).

So yes, Argosy OC is making lots of money and is doing the best they can to provide us with better training sites and resources.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using SDN Mobile. Please excuse any typos.