Internship, advocacy, and professional issues in psychology

[erg923]

So if this is the solution, is this even possible with the current approach some schools take? And I'm not asking you specifically, but just posing the question more broadly, what possible incentive would professional schools have for reducing their enrollment when they are currently making good money off of large class sizes? It seems like some of these institutions operate more like a business than an education system, where the bottom line holds more decision power than ethics of quality training.

Would I be correct in thinking that might be one of the bigger issues standing in the way of a potential solution?

The APA ethics code...if we think broadly about the issue.

Psychologists are still on the admissions committees for these schools/programs, so they are still responsible for and complicit in the admission decisions.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[smalltownpsych]

So if this is the solution, is this even possible with the current approach some schools take? And I'm not asking you specifically, but just posing the question more broadly, what possible incentive would professional schools have for reducing their enrollment when they are currently making good money off of large class sizes? It seems like some of these institutions operate more like a business than an education system, where the bottom line holds more decision power than ethics of quality training.

Would I be correct in thinking that might be one of the bigger issues standing in the way of a potential solution?

I think that one way to do that is to have them held accountable through the APA accreditation. If they do not have accreditation, they will have a harder time enrolling students and that would hurt their bottom line. So if the APA enacted some version of the policies put forth by Eowyne in an earlier post, then we would get some change.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

So if this is the solution, is this even possible with the current approach some schools take? And I'm not asking you specifically, but just posing the question more broadly, what possible incentive would professional schools have for reducing their enrollment when they are currently making good money off of large class sizes? It seems like some of these institutions operate more like a business than an education system, where the bottom line holds more decision power than ethics of quality training.

Would I be correct in thinking that might be one of the bigger issues standing in the way of a potential solution?

This is certainly a driving force behind those programs that have continued to balloon class sizes. Thus, we can't rely on these schools to take it upon themselves to be "responsible citizens," so to speak. The main solution that I can think of, as has been mentioned by others already, is to have the APA enforce a stipulation that schools not admit more students than they match to accredited internships (say, take an average of the past 5 years) or else they lose accreditation.

This option gains further "teeth" if the APA and other professional organizations then work with state governments to enact licensing requirements that call for APA accreditation at both the grad school and internship levels. I believe Mississippi actually already requires this, which in my mind is great. It's also particularly damning of those states with larger populations of psychologists: I would imagine MS may have a good number of folks in rural areas who are underserved mental health wise, yet the state still decided it was a good idea to have this standard/requirement in place.

 

[erg923]

This option gains further "teeth" if the APA and other professional organizations then work with state governments to enact licensing requirements that call for APA accreditation at both the grad school and internship levels. I believe Mississippi actually already requires this, which in my mind is great.

As long as a Gftaher clause is established, Im all for it. There is program in my state offering the Ph.D in clinical psych via online (I think there is one year on campus). I dont understand how these folks would be license eligible in most states, not to mention actually competitive on the job market.

BTW, as far as I can tell, there is NO research componet to the degree program. lol

It is crystal clear that this program is specifically designed to capture students who are less academicaly inclined and accomplished than students attending traditional ph.d programs. CRYSTAL CLEAR! Why do we need such programs? What need/gap are they servicing?

 

[smalltownpsych]

I actually worked with someone who received their "doctoral" degree through an online school. It was called Cal Southern or something to that effect. People would misunderstand the school name and think that the degree was from USC! Of course, they were never corrected of this. This person now has a job running a key mental health department in the state government.

 

[erg923]

Admin because they dont really know to see patients, perhaps? lol

 

[smalltownpsych]

I was thinking it had more to do with appropriate position for those with questionable ethics is in a government post. I'll never forget their reaction when the billing person said, "No, you can't bill for assessments because you are not a psychologist". Also, their favorite assessment tool was the House, Tree, Person and were especially fond of talking about how the knothole was a sign of sexual abuse. I guess science wasn't part of that online program either.

 

[erg923]

This is in their FAQ section. It bares repeating that there is NO empirical research element in this program!

"What can I do with this degree without getting licensed?

Many PhD holders in Clinical Psychology have a productive career without ever seeking licensure to practice. Potential career options include, but are not limited to administration, teaching, research, and consultation. "

 

[smalltownpsych]

It is technically true that you don't need a license to do research. They are just leaving out that one tiny little detail that their program doesn't provide research experience and training. I hate this kind of deception.

 

[erg923]

It is technically true that you don't need a license to do research. They are just leaving out that one tiny little detail that their program doesn't provide research experience and training. I hate this kind of deception.

The thing is, these programs are really targeting and ultimatley attracting clinician wanna-bes who think stats and research is icky. So, to have a program whose mission statement is: "The clinical psychology program has adopted a generalist model of professional education that focuses on educating and training students for general clinical practice in psychology" explictly caution applicants that they might not be able to get licensed and thus practice, is COMPLETELY weird. They obvioulsy do NOT have a clear vision of what they are or what they are doing. Why people would want to go to program like this is beyond me.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I can't fathom the level of cognitive dissonance it takes to teach in a program like that. If the program is setup to prepare students for "general clinical practice", while also not preparing students to quality for licensure…how does a program like that stay in business?! I know the technical answer is that they offer "additional learning opportunities" for clinicians who want to broaden their training without necessarily needing to be licensed at the doctoral level, but it really is just an excuse to charge high tuition and pretend to offer an education. I remember running into similar programs during the "online education" threads from 2-3 years ago on here.

 

[erg923]

I can't fathom the level of cognitive dissonance it takes to teach in a program like that. If the program is setup to prepare students for "general clinical practice", while also not preparing students to quality for licensure…how does a program like that stay in business?! I know the technical answer is that they offer "additional learning opportunities" for clinicians who want to broaden their training without necessarily needing to be licensed at the doctoral level, but it really is just an excuse to charge high tuition and pretend to offer an education. I remember running into similar programs during the "online education" threads from 2-3 years ago on here.

Yes. And this is why I was saying that are multiple factors that are to blame here and that EACH one can and should be blamed and held culpable for their actions/choices.

Its terrible that a program like that exists (and we should blame them), but for goodness sakes, anyone with a clue should be able to dicepher that this program could, and probably WILL, cause them problems later on. They spell it out right there for you on their website!

 

[JeyRo]

Just as a quick clarification, I think you might've meant APA's accreditation power, as APA doesn't have any licensing power itself (that's up to the states)

Of course, states tend to model a lot of aspects of licensure (for example, how they handle complaints against licensees) on APA standards, such as the ethics code.

 

[JeyRo]

So if this is the solution, is this even possible with the current approach some schools take? And I'm not asking you specifically, but just posing the question more broadly, what possible incentive would professional schools have for reducing their enrollment when they are currently making good money off of large class sizes? It seems like some of these institutions operate more like a business than an education system, where the bottom line holds more decision power than ethics of quality training.

Would I be correct in thinking that might be one of the bigger issues standing in the way of a potential solution?

I think your take on the incentives issue is exactly correct. We can hand-wring about ethics and morals of professional schools and the profit motive and debate a wish-list of accreditation and regulatory fixes, but ultimately, money talks. I actually think the profit motive can work just fine in higher education, but not when the student financing system is so massively distorted the way it is.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Of course, states tend to model a lot of aspects of licensure (for example, how they handle complaints against licensees) on APA standards, such as the ethics code.

Definitely, and unfortunately, I don't know that APA leverages this situation as much as it could/should.

 

[doasisay]

Part of what bothers me is that as a student in a PhD program located in a small town (as so many of the major state schools are), I have almost no opportunities for externships because of the lack of hospitals/VAs/etc. in my area. However, FSPS are often located in "prime" locations, which makes it much easier for these students to accrue clinical hours in a variety of settings. If you haven't had the opportunity to work in the type of settings you want to work in on internship, it is a lot harder to sell your fit with that program. So when you're up against students who have worked in these settings (and I'm learning that many of these programs allow for 20+ hours/week of clinical work which is very different from the 8 hour/week limit in my clinical science program), it puts you at a real disadvantage in the internship match.

 

[CheetahGirl]

This thread has gone off the hook.

JeyRo, if I can digress to say I meant the 'real' target of our displaced anger may be the internship sites (not so much the individual professional students that flood the market). I believe the profit-driven institutions & online divisions of university-based institutions are a lost cause...they found a way to capitalize on people who have mediocre academic histories and will continue to find a way to produce poorly-trained clinicians who fill the spots. However, I agree that more cognitive dissonance occurs when you think that the internship sites are getting cheap labor, so they'll take the "top of the barrel" once it starts flowing.

And thanks, AA, you were correct in clarifying that I meant unethical and "poorly-qualified," not necessarily lazy or tardy, which are attributes that could be situational for anyone.

 

[erg923]

This thread has gone off the hook.

The proper expression is "off the chain" or more colloquially, "off the hezee..."

This is per my sister-in-law.

 

[Ollie123]

Couple points:

1) I do think its important to distinguish between the schools and the students who attend them. I believe the schools are terrible and we'd all be a lot better off if they ceased to exist overnight. That doesn't mean the students who attend them are bad people, though I believe that somewhere between a sizable minority and a majority of them will lack sufficient training to justify a doctoral degree (as I've said before..."doctorate sticker on a master's degree).
2) The trick with incentives is how we can modify the system so it doesn't harm those who genuinely need it. I think relying on a completely free market for things like education and healthcare is delusional at best, but I do think some substantial reforms to the current system are needed. The problem with reforms always seem to be that either option A or option B would work, but the nature of politics means we instead implement a half-assed version of A with a few bastardized elements of B mixed in and none of the key components of either option.

Lastly - food for thought regarding this issue. Just received an email stating the PCSAS match rate this year was 98.3% (they didn't specify if it was APA vs. APPIC, but most/all schools on the list highly discourage non-APA internships so I'd be shocked if the APA match rate was anything below 90%). They are also expecting official recognition from VA that PCSAS accreditation is also allowable. Doesn't yet address the issue of licensure (which is going to be much thornier) but a small step in that direction.

 

[CheetahGirl]

The proper expression is "off the chain" or more colloquially, "off the hezee..."

This is per my sister-in-law.

Not for some Southerns (GA, SC, NC, VA) ..."off the hook" refers to the fish who took your bait and is now "off the hook" with that there worm.

 

[doasisay]

Lastly - food for thought regarding this issue. Just received an email stating the PCSAS match rate this year was 98.3% (they didn't specify if it was APA vs. APPIC, but most/all schools on the list highly discourage non-APA internships so I'd be shocked if the APA match rate was anything below 90%). They are also expecting official recognition from VA that PCSAS accreditation is also allowable. Doesn't yet address the issue of licensure (which is going to be much thornier) but a small step in that direction.

That makes my program's 60% match rate in Phase I look even worse (we're a PCSAS school)!

 

[erg923]

is that the new clincial science acred thing?

 

[doasisay]

is that the new clincial science acred thing?

Yep!

 

[researchgirl]

is that the new clincial science acred thing?

yes

 

[psychrat]

Part of what bothers me is that as a student in a PhD program located in a small town (as so many of the major state schools are), I have almost no opportunities for externships because of the lack of hospitals/VAs/etc. in my area. However, FSPS are often located in "prime" locations, which makes it much easier for these students to accrue clinical hours in a variety of settings. If you haven't had the opportunity to work in the type of settings you want to work in on internship, it is a lot harder to sell your fit with that program. So when you're up against students who have worked in these settings (and I'm learning that many of these programs allow for 20+ hours/week of clinical work which is very different from the 8 hour/week limit in my clinical science program), it puts you at a real disadvantage in the internship match.

I also go to school in a smaller city with fewer externship opportunities. I moved back to a larger city closer to my hometown this past year to get a couple of externships in settings that I could not back where my school is located. From the interviews that I had, it seemed that most of the other applicants and current interns all went to local schools (who likely have relationships with the sites). I was also told by a few interviewers that they never had applicants from my school, which may have hurt me. I go to a sold PhD program out west.

 

[cara susanna]

This thread has gone off the hook.

JeyRo, if I can digress to say I meant the 'real' target of our displaced anger may be the internship sites (not so much the individual professional students that flood the market). I believe the profit-driven institutions & online divisions of university-based institutions are a lost cause...they found a way to capitalize on people who have mediocre academic histories and will continue to find a way to produce poorly-trained clinicians who fill the spots. However, I agree that more cognitive dissonance occurs when you think that the internship sites are getting cheap labor, so they'll take the "top of the barrel" once it starts flowing.

And thanks, AA, you were correct in clarifying that I meant unethical and "poorly-qualified," not necessarily lazy or tardy, which are attributes that could be situational for anyone.

I was also angry at the sites. The imbalance favors them heavily and I think some sites (not all of them) take advantage of that.

 

[smalltownpsych]

The proper expression is "off the chain" or more colloquially, "off the hezee..."

This is per my sister-in-law.

I'm thinking "off the rails" might be the correct idiom. hezee? Really? lol

 

[psychrat]

That makes my program's 60% match rate in Phase I look even worse (we're a PCSAS school)!

Couple points:

1) I do think its important to distinguish between the schools and the students who attend them. I believe the schools are terrible and we'd all be a lot better off if they ceased to exist overnight. That doesn't mean the students who attend them are bad people, though I believe that somewhere between a sizable minority and a majority of them will lack sufficient training to justify a doctoral degree (as I've said before..."doctorate sticker on a master's degree).
2) The trick with incentives is how we can modify the system so it doesn't harm those who genuinely need it. I think relying on a completely free market for things like education and healthcare is delusional at best, but I do think some substantial reforms to the current system are needed. The problem with reforms always seem to be that either option A or option B would work, but the nature of politics means we instead implement a half-assed version of A with a few bastardized elements of B mixed in and none of the key components of either option.

Lastly - food for thought regarding this issue. Just received an email stating the PCSAS match rate this year was 98.3% (they didn't specify if it was APA vs. APPIC, but most/all schools on the list highly discourage non-APA internships so I'd be shocked if the APA match rate was anything below 90%). They are also expecting official recognition from VA that PCSAS accreditation is also allowable. Doesn't yet address the issue of licensure (which is going to be much thornier) but a small step in that direction.

Only 62% of applicants matched at APA sites in Phase I . I doubt it climbed much higher in phase ii.

 

[Ollie123]

That makes my program's 60% match rate in Phase I look even worse (we're a PCSAS school)!

I'm guessing 2/5 applicants didn't match in Phase I but one did in Phase II?

I wouldn't stress about it. The whole point is that we're dealing with much narrower individual cases. These are almost always going to occur even if the system was functioning ideally. There is a big difference between 1/5 in a given year having an issue (with an additional one needing to go into Phase II) at the peak of the imbalance, versus 50 applicants of whom 5 go to APA internships, 10 go to APPIC and the balance don't go anywhere or cobble together internships on their own that may or may not meet any kind of remotely acceptable training standard. We only matched 6/9 a few years ago. A couple people who need to geographically restrict and one person who decides to give it a whirl a year early knowing it may not pan out will have an enormous impact on the match rate of a small cohort. Yes it stinks and we should be trying to avoid it, but for smaller programs the aggregate is much more meaningful.

 

[erg923]

Only 62% of applicants matched at APA sites in Phase I . I doubt it climbed much higher in phase ii.

So, there are only enough APA spots for 60 something percent of the total number of people applying? Is that right? Over 30% cant maych to an APA spot, right?

 

[psychrat]

So, there are only enough APA spots for 60 something percent of the total number of people applying? Is that right? Over 30% cant maych to an APA spot, right?

I am not sure. There were APA sites in phase ii, but a lot less than just APPIC, and most of them got filled. Supposedly there are still five remaining APA positions unfilled, but no one knows where since they did not post on the post-match vacancy page.

 

[doasisay]

I'm guessing 2/5 applicants didn't match in Phase I but one did in Phase II?

I wouldn't stress about it. The whole point is that we're dealing with much narrower individual cases. These are almost always going to occur even if the system was functioning ideally. There is a big difference between 1/5 in a given year having an issue (with an additional one needing to go into Phase II) at the peak of the imbalance, versus 50 applicants of whom 5 go to APA internships, 10 go to APPIC and the balance don't go anywhere or cobble together internships on their own that may or may not meet any kind of remotely acceptable training standard. We only matched 6/9 a few years ago. A couple people who need to geographically restrict and one person who decides to give it a whirl a year early knowing it may not pan out will have an enormous impact on the match rate of a small cohort. Yes it stinks and we should be trying to avoid it, but for smaller programs the aggregate is much more meaningful.

Pretty much - 2/5 didn't match in Phase I, but we both actually matched in Phase II. I don't think that we have a huge problem, but I worry that it's going to get worse because we're really limited in our clinical experiences (solid EBP but in only one or two locations). Those who focus on the research-oriented internships tend to do well, but those of us who are more clinically focused continue to only land a handful of interviews each year.

 

[JeyRo]

Couple points:

1) I do think its important to distinguish between the schools and the students who attend them. I believe the schools are terrible and we'd all be a lot better off if they ceased to exist overnight. That doesn't mean the students who attend them are bad people, though I believe that somewhere between a sizable minority and a majority of them will lack sufficient training to justify a doctoral degree (as I've said before..."doctorate sticker on a master's degree).
2) The trick with incentives is how we can modify the system so it doesn't harm those who genuinely need it. I think relying on a completely free market for things like education and healthcare is delusional at best, but I do think some substantial reforms to the current system are needed. The problem with reforms always seem to be that either option A or option B would work, but the nature of politics means we instead implemena half-assed version of A with a few bastardized elements of B mixed in and none of the key components of either option.

Lastly - food for thought regarding this issue. Just received an email stating the PCSAS match rate this year was 98.3% (they didn't specify if it was APA vs. APPIC, but most/all schools on the list highly discourage non-APA internships so I'd be shocked if the APA match rate was anything below 90%). They are also expecting official recognition from VA that PCSAS accreditation is also allowable. Doesn't yet address the issue of licensure (which is going to be much thornier) but a small step in that direction.

You've spoken out in strong terms against the idea of market economics as they apply to higher education before, so I'll speak equally strongly - I think it's equally delusional to expect that simply tinkering with the current system (e.g., applying regulatory patches to licensure or accreditation, or tinkers to the student loan system) will fundamentally fix what's broken about the system. A free market in high ed. will produce winners and losers, but on balance I strongly believe that a lot less people would be harmed than there would be now if education operated via actual market-based mechanisms.

That aside, I think the system we have now, where the student loan system is essentially monopolized by government forces, but the education market has a strong for-profit focus, is a great example of a "half-assed (system)...." that you allude to. The schools (the supply side) are for-profit, but the demand side is hopelessly distorted by huge subsidies, which makes basically for a license to steal.

 

[researchgirl]

So, there are only enough APA spots for 60 something percent of the total number of people applying? Is that right? Over 30% cant maych to an APA spot, right?

Correct: this year 2,602 APA (or CPA) positions were offered and 4,335 people applied = only 60% of people who applied could possibly end up with APA/CPA internship this year and the remaining 40% must take non accredited or go unmatched.

(citation for those who care: http://www.appic.org/Match/MatchStatistics/MatchStatistics2014Combined.aspx)

(edited for spelling)

 

[smalltownpsych]

I wanted to put this info out here and get some thoughts on what this might mean to the future of our profession. In looking at the 2014 match statistics, what stood out to me was that there was not much difference between match stats between clinical PhD verses clinical PsyD programs 83% to 77% respectively; however, when it comes to matching at accredited sites, the numbers are 91.5% to 57%. No statistical analyses were performed on this data, but at a glance these appear to be meaningful differences. If participation in an APA accredited internship does become necessary for licensure what will be the ramifications of this for our profession? Will many of these Psy.D.'s practice under a lesser license? Should we have a two-tiered system? I am really enjoying this discussion so just thought I would throw more bait out there.

 

[Rivi]

I couldn't agree more with your post. In fairness to professional schools, if you look at C-20 data for many of them over the last 5 years, many really did drop enrollments, some to a pretty considerable extent. The problem is that a small number of programs (Adler has been mentioned on the board several times, and they definitely did this though there are more) scaled UP their enrollments and presumably grabbed up all the people who would not have gotten in elsewhere (and who will add to the applicant pool in 4-6 years). This speaks to me even more to move away from the "psyd vs phd" issue to individual program accountability, and bringing a hammer down on individual programs that do insane, unprofessional, and damaging practices like that.

It's never been clear to me, from years of working on this, why so many in APA admin are so resistant to the clear ideas you've mentioned. I certainly never shut up about them in meetings. Money is probably one thing (e.g., the funding of convention by professional schools), but my experience was that many of the musical chairs APA board members (i.e., the people who are on it forever and just rotate around boards) don't want to do anything that could make for the meetings to be actual work, rather than siting around a very fancy hotel and eating for free for a few days. A few years ago, I remember I was in an APPIC meeting and mentioned discrepancies in C-20 data and APPIC's data on program match rates, and was shouted down by the NCSPP chair. Now, several years later, there is recognition of widespread creative accounting of those statistics by programs. Oh, well. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by laziness, I suppose. All the more reason for people like us to be involved--there is no magical "the APA" or "the state board" floating in the sky determining our fates; we can get on these boards and make people do things.

Thanks for speaking up! That reaction from the NCSPP chair is ****ing infuriating. Seriously, what the heck is that about? The APA makes me want to pull my hair out sometimes.

We all seem to be on the same page that schools need to limit enrollments based on internship match and EPPP pass rates, although we all likely have different ideas on the details of this. My question for us all: How do we push this forward? The APA has discussed the idea of limiting enrollment based on these criteria, etc. but have done so in a very loose, unstructured way. Do we keep emailing the APA about this? Do we quit APA in protest? How can we put our ideas into action?

 

[MCParent]

A free market in high ed. will produce winners and losers, but on balance I strongly believe that a lot less people would be harmed than there would be now if education operated via actual market-based mechanisms.

Well, a central problem seems to be that the markets for doctoral programs and for internships appear largely unrelated. I'd wager that many, perhaps most, applicants to doctoral programs don't know what an internship is. If they do, even fewer know about what accreditation is, that there is an internship crisis, etc. And, top that of with programs lying on their C-20 data, walking students through applying to get them to apply, lying about planning to get accredited in time for the applicant to graduate from an accredited program, etc. Free markets only exist when consumers are informed about choices. I grit my teeth when I read TEPP pubs talking about "markets" by authors who probably don't know who Adam Smith WAS, much less have read him.

 

[MCParent]

My question for us all: How do we push this forward? The APA has discussed the idea of limiting enrollment based on these criteria, etc. but have done so in a very loose, unstructured way. Do we keep emailing the APA about this? Do we quit APA in protest? How can we put our ideas into action?

There are lots of ways. Students can join APAGS and run for elected or appointed spots. ECPs can get on boards (I plan to, but after 4 years on APAGS frankly I need a time out from APA for a year or two). Everyone can get involved with their state boards to push for improved standards of licensure. You can make sure undergrads in your program are aware of the internship crisis. You can grab data, readily available from CoA or APPIC, or collect it yourself, and publish relevant papers.

 

[MCParent]

And here's another way to influence things at the student level!

If anyone is interested in applying for these positions in the future, or if you know trainees you think could be a positive influence, I'm happy to help with learning about applying for APAGS positions. You can send me a message on here or google my faculty page at Texas Tech for my email.

APAGS ELECTIONS BEGIN APRIL 1, 2014
Five positions are up for election for the 2014 APAGS election cycle. Four positions (all the member at large positions) are for a two-year term; the Chair-Elect is for a three-year term. The election period will open on April 1, 2014 and close on April 30, 2014 at 11:59PM EDT. More information about the positions and the candidate statements can be found at the link below.


http://www.apa.org/apags/governance/join/run/index.aspx

 

[Ollie123]

You've spoken out in strong terms against the idea of market economics as they apply to higher education before, so I'll speak equally strongly - I think it's equally delusional to expect that simply tinkering with the current system (e.g., applying regulatory patches to licensure or accreditation, or tinkers to the student loan system) will fundamentally fix what's broken about the system. A free market in high ed. will produce winners and losers, but on balance I strongly believe that a lot less people would be harmed than there would be now if education operated via actual market-based mechanisms.

That aside, I think the system we have now, where the student loan system is essentially monopolized by government forces, but the education market has a strong for-profit focus, is a great example of a "half-assed (system)...." that you allude to. The schools (the supply side) are for-profit, but the demand side is hopelessly distorted by huge subsidies, which makes basically for a license to steal.

Oh I'm all for a dramatic overhaul. I'm just very much against the idea that a purely free market is the appropriate solution in education. I might be able to be convinced it could work on the loan side though I'm still suspicious it would just increase the wealth gap, but I think removing all regulation of educational institutions would almost immediately result in an unmitigated disaster. Virtually by definition, the uneducated are not in a position to be the informed consumers about education necessary for a free market to function.

The student loan/education system is indeed what I had in mind when describing that scenario, though I think healthcare (pre or post ACA) would also fit that mold equally well.

 

[JeyRo]

Well, a central problem seems to be that the markets for doctoral programs and for internships appear largely unrelated. I'd wager that many, perhaps most, applicants to doctoral programs don't know what an internship is. If they do, even fewer know about what accreditation is, that there is an internship crisis, etc. And, top that of with programs lying on their C-20 data, walking students through applying to get them to apply, lying about planning to get accredited in time for the applicant to graduate from an accredited program, etc. Free markets only exist when consumers are informed about choices. I grit my teeth when I read TEPP pubs talking about "markets" by authors who probably don't know who Adam Smith WAS, much less have read him.

A doctoral degree in clinical psychology isn't worth that much if you can't get matched for an APA accredited internship.

If loan servicers had a lot more (shall I say, market-based) incentive for disbursing loans to people with ability repay them, you wouldn't even need applicants to be knowledgeable about what an internship, or accreditation is. As it stands, with the way the loan system works, no one handing out loan money for pro-school students cares one bit about a students' ability to repay - they don't need to.

 

[MCParent]

A doctoral degree in clinical psychology isn't worth that much if you can't get matched for an APA accredited internship.

If loan servicers had a lot more (shall I say, market-based) incentive for disbursing loans to people with ability repay them, you wouldn't even need applicants to be knowledgeable about what an internship, or accreditation is. As it stands, with the way the loan system works, no one handing out loan money for pro-school students cares one bit about a students' ability to repay - they don't need to.

I see what you're saying. Yes, for sure.

 

[Rivi]

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Should we have a two-tiered system? I am really enjoying this discussion so just thought I would throw more bait out there.

I think we currently have a latent two-tier system as underscored by the match rate difference in accredited internships between PhD and PsyD. This latent system will be more overt as the Academy and the PCSAS grow.

I can see the separation already in practice in certain large cities. PsyDs are almost completely excluded from certain practica, internships, post docs, and jobs.

 

[eowyne]

Well, a central problem seems to be that the markets for doctoral programs and for internships appear largely unrelated. I'd wager that many, perhaps most, applicants to doctoral programs don't know what an internship is. If they do, even fewer know about what accreditation is, that there is an internship crisis, etc. And, top that of with programs lying on their C-20 data, walking students through applying to get them to apply, lying about planning to get accredited in time for the applicant to graduate from an accredited program, etc. Free markets only exist when consumers are informed about choices. I grit my teeth when I read TEPP pubs talking about "markets" by authors who probably don't know who Adam Smith WAS, much less have read him.

I think removing all regulation of educational institutions would almost immediately result in an unmitigated disaster. Virtually by definition, the uneducated are not in a position to be the informed consumers about education necessary for a free market to function.

Yes. One of the fundamentally flawed assumptions of Adam Smith's free market economic model is that people have perfect information, and of course they never do. People may not have necessary information available and to save precious mental energy people use cognitive shortcuts to make many decisions (see psychologist Dan Kahneman's work, for which he won the nobel prize in economics). Bob Cialdini and others argue convincingly that the tendency to use cognitive shortcuts is getting worse with our increasing information overload. Endorsement of a product (e.g. graduate program) by a credible expert (e.g. APA) is a powerful influence that is leading many students to make poor choices. One could surmise that this problem may be worse for students who don't enjoy thinking (if you're consulting the literature, people who are low in "need for cognition"), and thus are likely to choose programs without sufficient analysis. In addition, even vehement free market proponents will argue that the role of regulation is to correct violations of free market assumptions, such as lack of sufficient information, so that the market can function properly. This is why accreditation and other types of labeling are so powerful and controversial.

 

[CheetahGirl]

I don't think this latent system (btwn PsyD /PhD) exists in my large city. I noted during the internship cycle that many top-notch internship site directors and interviewing faculty were PsyDs.

The core problem lies within the variability of training received between profit-driven FSPS and funded university-based programs, not the type of degree. I will continue to support PsyDs (b/c I could have been a funded PsyD if I wasn't offered acceptance to my current PhD program), but I won't support loosening standards for our profession, rather I'm all for people working harder and imposing tougher standards. I'll work harder to go above those standards. I've worked plenty hard to achieve all that I have and I'm grateful for
my perseverance, which does set one apart from others.

One last thing before my insomnia fades, this reminds me of another beloved proverb from my husband's folk: Give a person a fish, they eat for a day. Teach a person to fish, they sustain for a lifetime. A professor at my program had her doctoral students write 'mock' grants as part of their coursework. Everyone gripped & groaned but that is the collective progression that our field needs to take. This professor actually assisted some students in turning the 'mock' grant proposals into real awards from funding organizations, so those lucky ducks have some extra funding to bring to the table DURING grad school (which some of you research-focused may not think is a big deal, but when this type of training occurs in a scholar-practioner program's elective course, it benefits all parties involved).

I think we currently have a latent two-tier system as underscored by the match rate difference in accredited internships between PhD and PsyD. This latent system will be more overt as the Academy and the PCSAS grow.

I can see the separation already in practice in certain large cities. PsyDs are almost completely excluded from certain practica, internships, post docs, and jobs.

 

[JeyRo]

Yes. One of the fundamentally flawed assumptions of Adam Smith's free market economic model is that people have perfect information, and of course they never do. People may not have necessary information available and to save precious mental energy people use cognitive shortcuts to make many decisions (see psychologist Dan Kahneman's work, for which he won the nobel prize in economics). Bob Cialdini and others argue convincingly that the tendency to use cognitive shortcuts is getting worse with our increasing information overload. Endorsement of a product (e.g. graduate program) by a credible expert (e.g. APA) is a powerful influence that is leading many students to make poor choices. One could surmise that this problem may be worse for students who don't enjoy thinking (if you're consulting the literature, people who are low in "need for cognition"), and thus are likely to choose programs without sufficient analysis. In addition, even vehement free market proponents will argue that the role of regulation is to correct violations of free market assumptions, such as lack of sufficient information, so that the market can function properly. This is why accreditation and other types of labeling are so powerful and controversial.

I see this idea this "perfect information" thing thrown around a lot as a supposed criticism of free markets, I think (in part based on contemporary economics in the Austrian school in particular), it's a fallacy.

Obviously we all know (from the most staunch pro-government, statist, pro-regulation types to the most 'vehement' free marketers) that individuals pretty much never have perfect, or complete information about markets they may be operating in. Markets ideally operate as a process of information discovery. Since we all agree information is imperfect for any individual or group (and that includes government regulators), the process of government regulation tends to destroy the ability of individuals to engage in that discovery process effectively, and introduces destructive economic distortionary effects such as bubbles, economic crises / busts, various 'black swan' problems (i.e. Nassim Taleb's term). The higher education bubble continues to form today, and I don't see any real movement to try and meaningfully deflate it, frankly. That's worrisome.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I have not felt that any doors were closed to me because of my degree, PsyD, but I did go to one of the better schools, albeit expensive. I didn't feel that I had much choice at the time as my undergrad did not really prepare me for applying to PhD programs. As I look back now, I realize that most of the instructors were more like social workers than psychologists. I am thinking that some of the problem is that because of the popularity of the undergrad psych major that maybe the curriculum is watered down or just not geared enough toward those who intend to continue and become psychologists. My niece is currently in her final year of undergrad and intends to become a psychologist but has an incredibly limited understanding of the career and how to pursue it. Of course, she has me to assist her, and I just recommended this website to her, but although my n=2, ( from ten years apart), I am wondering if this could be part of the problem. Just one example to illustrate the point - I had no idea that I should look at internship match statistics when I was applying to graduate schools.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I have not felt that any doors were closed to me because of my degree, PsyD, but I did go to one of the better schools, albeit expensive. I didn't feel that I had much choice at the time as my undergrad did not really prepare me for applying to PhD programs. As I look back now, I realize that most of the instructors were more like social workers than psychologists. I am thinking that some of the problem is that because of the popularity of the undergrad psych major that maybe the curriculum is watered down or just not geared enough toward those who intend to continue and become psychologists. My niece is currently in her final year of undergrad and intends to become a psychologist but has an incredibly limited understanding of the career and how to pursue it. Of course, she has me to assist her, and I just recommended this website to her, but although my n=2, ( from ten years apart), I am wondering if this could be part of the problem. Just one example to illustrate the point - I had no idea that I should look at internship match statistics when I was applying to graduate schools.

I don't think you'll get much argument from anyone about that. I'd say psychology has to be a subject area with perhaps the greatest average level of disconnect (in terms of content, difficulty, etc.) between undergraduate and doctoral programs of study. And yep, I've also run into plenty of psych undergrads, myself included up until just before graduation, that have little to no idea what the actual practice of psychology looks like, or about what graduate study in psychology entails.

I at least do appreciate that many universities require psych undergrads to have some type of psych-specific advisor. Unfortunately, the advisor's specialty may not always align with the student's own interests, and as such sometimes inaccurate and/or outdated information is given (e.g., think of all the folks here on SDN who say their advisors told them that clinical Ph.D's are really only for those planning on a research career while Psy.D.'s are only intended for those looking primarily at clinical jobs).

This can lead to what I might term some "artificial inflation" about the raw level of competitiveness of Ph.D. programs. No doubt the average competitive applicant for these programs is highly qualified, and could likely have gone any number of other grad-level routes if they'd opted and planned for that instead. However, there is also going to be what I have to imagine is a sizable minority of folks (likely larger than for, say, med/dental/pharm school) who have done little if anything to make their CVs competitive, and who are applying simply because they either don't know what other jobs/paths to look into with a psych degree and/or it's what they're "supposed to do."

I agree with others on this board who've previously said that psych undergrad degrees really should include some more relevant and academically demanding courses in stats, research methodology, and even the basic sciences to both adequately prepare students for grad-level psych work, and to allow them to make more informed decisions as to whether or not that's something they'd like to pursue.

 

[MCParent]

This can lead to what I might term some "artificial inflation" about the raw level of competitiveness of Ph.D. programs. No doubt the average competitive applicant for these programs is highly qualified, and could likely have gone any number of other grad-level routes if they'd opted and planned for that instead. However, there is also going to be what I have to imagine is a sizable minority of folks (likely larger than for, say, med/dental/pharm school) who have done little if anything to make their CVs competitive, and who are applying simply because they either don't know what other jobs/paths to look into with a psych degree and/or it's what they're "supposed to do."

I agree with others on this board who've previously said that psych undergrad degrees really should include some more relevant and academically demanding courses in stats, research methodology, and even the basic sciences to both adequately prepare students for grad-level psych work, and to allow them to make more informed decisions as to whether or not that's something they'd like to pursue.

DEFINITELY. A pre-psych person can skate to an UG degree taking the fluffiest courses you can imagine. That is certainly not an option for pre-med students. But you can't make the UG as rigorous as pre-med, really. Psych departments are often massive enrollment departments, and they would never lose that.

Where I did UG, in Canada, we has several forms of the degree. You could get a three-year BA, which would let you be eligible for government jobs requiring a college degree; a basic four year degree, which was a little more advanced; and a four-year honors for the kids who wanted to go to grad school (you would take 2 graduate courses and do a thesis, as well as a few other more rigorous things).