Minority Status?

[therapist89]

Hi all,

Just wondering: does being a minority (race, sexual orientation, etc.) hurt in regard of clinical psych apps? I would imagine that admissions tries to stick to examining research experience, GPA, GRE scores, letters of rec, etc. but I was just curious. In terms of sexual orientation I doubt that that would be something I or anyone else necessarily discloses within the application, though I am thinking it might be a good idea to gauge the program's openness before applying to study/research there for 5-7 years? I have seen some websites with diversity committees, though I am unsure of exactly what those constitute (like if gender identity comes into play, or if racial minorities constitute anyone who is non-white, etc.) Thank you for your time.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

If anything, diversity status helps when it comes to admissions for things like grad school, internship, postdoc.

 

[deleted343839]

My program's web site went out of its way to catalog all the ways in which our graduate student body was diverse (race, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.). Admissions-wise, I doubt that being a minority is a liability in most programs, though that isn't necessarily a reflection of the overall climate.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

In my APA program, it helped. Minority status of the most PC kind put applicants at the top of the pile, over and above other credentials (GPA, research experience, etc.). They also got money for recruiting "diversity" in those forms.

 

[pccgrad]

Seriously I would sell it in how you can reach out to minorities in a way no other can blah blah

 

[PhDToBe]

It definitely helps...

 

[deleted656923]

Hooray for political correctness and Affirmative Action!!

 

[Shooter]

Some APPIC sites with large # of interns take it into consideration when ranking...and potentially meet a quota.

 

[psych844]

In my APA program, it helped. Minority status of the most PC kind put applicants at the top of the pile, over and above other credentials (GPA, research experience, etc.). They also got money for recruiting "diversity" in those forms.

Which school if you don't mind saying? (or by PM)

 

[Pragma]

It will only help.

 

[LETSGONYR]

Hi all,

Just wondering: does being a minority (race, sexual orientation, etc.) hurt in regard of clinical psych apps? I would imagine that admissions tries to stick to examining research experience, GPA, GRE scores, letters of rec, etc. but I was just curious. In terms of sexual orientation I doubt that that would be something I or anyone else necessarily discloses within the application, though I am thinking it might be a good idea to gauge the program's openness before applying to study/research there for 5-7 years? I have seen some websites with diversity committees, though I am unsure of exactly what those constitute (like if gender identity comes into play, or if racial minorities constitute anyone who is non-white, etc.) Thank you for your time.

Like others have said, it will most likely help. Especially status as a member of a group who is traditionally underrepresented in the field/higher education, such as some racial/ethnic minorities. I don't think sexual orientation would help as much, though it may if you're applying to work with LGBT populations or do LGBT research.

Other minority status, such as being a person with a disability or chronic illness, will likely hurt you. As unfortunate as that is... I only have anecdotal evidence to back that up though.

 

[therapist89]

Like others have said, it will most likely help. Especially status as a member of a group who is traditionally underrepresented in the field/higher education, such as some racial/ethnic minorities. I don't think sexual orientation would help as much, though it may if you're applying to work with LGBT populations or do LGBT research.

Other minority status, such as being a person with a disability or chronic illness, will likely hurt you. As unfortunate as that is... I only have anecdotal evidence to back that up though.

Not to pick at small details, but may I ask which racial/ethnic minorities would constitute the "some" you speak of? Just because looking at graduate programs in Psychology across the board, they seem to be predominantly filled with white faculty and white graduate students.

Thank you everyone for your responses! I appreciate them.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Hooray for political correctness and Affirmative Action!!

Is that really what you heard in he previous responses?

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Which school if you don't mind saying? (or by PM)

Nah, don't wanna say, sorry. I don't agree with it as it breeded reverse discrimination in an already poor program. I dropped out and moved on with my life, for the better.

 

[LETSGONYR]

Not to pick at small details, but may I ask which racial/ethnic minorities would constitute the "some" you speak of? Just because looking at graduate programs in Psychology across the board, they seem to be predominantly filled with white faculty and white graduate students.

Thank you everyone for your responses! I appreciate them.

Again, this is just my opinion and this may change depending on the population programs work with and their location. But overall, I'd say the most underrepresented ethnic groups are likely African-American/Hispanic/First Nation.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I just learned something new today: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

It helped me land an APA accredited internship being male and older. I was the only male who applied and it was a plus being an AARP member for diversity requirements. How times have changed since psychology is now a female dominated profession.

 

[mcvcm92]

I know of some programs (mine included) that being male slightly helps in being admitted because of the sheer low number of males in the program.

 

[G Costanza]

Seriously I would sell it in how you can reach out to minorities in a way no other can blah blah

Connecting mental health services with underrepresented populations is "blah blah?"

 

[LETSGONYR]

I just learned something new today: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations

Haha, sorry, Canadian moment. . I meant Native American.

 

[pccgrad]

Connecting mental health services with underrepresented populations is "blah blah?"

Most of the people I know that sell that hard are full of it, no better than average counselors and worse researchers. If their vita was that strong they wouldn't focus on their minority status

 

[smalltownpsych]

Not to pick at small details, but may I ask which racial/ethnic minorities would constitute the "some" you speak of? Just because looking at graduate programs in Psychology across the board, they seem to be predominantly filled with white faculty and white graduate students.

Thank you everyone for your responses! I appreciate them.

There are so many barriers that come into play that keep minorities out way down the line. We bash on the professional schools quite a bit on this board and justifiably, but my observations have been that there might be more minorities come through those programs. No stats to back that up, just wondering how that all plays outin our field. In other words, the more exclusive and competitive a profession is, then doesn't that make it less likely for the people starting with a few strikes against them to be able to compete?

 

[Ollie123]

There are so many barriers that come into play that keep minorities out way down the line. We bash on the professional schools quite a bit on this board and justifiably, but my observations have been that there might be more minorities come through those programs. No stats to back that up, just wondering how that all plays outin our field. In other words, the more exclusive and competitive a profession is, then doesn't that make it less likely for the people starting with a few strikes against them to be able to compete?

We could start a whole separate thread on this, so reluctant to hijack.

That said - I agree that in general this is an issue at higher levels of anything and I think could contribute quite a bit to disparities (among other factors of course...e.g. outright discrimination). That said - I'm not convinced these schools are any more diverse. I have seen the opposite pattern - we had far more diversity in my clinical science program (though admittedly - still not much at all) than I saw among students at the local Argosy. Admittedly, that is just my experience with one school though...I bet someone has data on this issue. Regardless...I think there are far more productive ways to go about it. Its very similar to what is going on with ITT Tech/Devry/etc. where minorities are targeted in an almost predatory way. Sucking people into large debt with minimal prospects is going to do more to uphold class distinctions than facilitate transition between them.

As a good example of how else this could be done...many of the upper echelons of education at the undergrad level have become incredibly diverse in recent years. My internship site had arguably the most diverse undergrad student body I have ever seen. They have clearly found a way to do this that maintains standards and doesn't cause the same sorts of problems.

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

We could start a whole separate thread on this, so reluctant to hijack.

That said - I agree that in general this is an issue at higher levels of anything and I think could contribute quite a bit to disparities (among other factors of course...e.g. outright discrimination). That said - I'm not convinced these schools are any more diverse. I have seen the opposite pattern - we had far more diversity in my clinical science program (though admittedly - still not much at all) than I saw among students at the local Argosy. Admittedly, that is just my experience with one school though...I bet someone has data on this issue. Regardless...I think there are far more productive ways to go about it. Its very similar to what is going on with ITT Tech/Devry/etc. where minorities are targeted in an almost predatory way. Sucking people into large debt with minimal prospects is going to do more to uphold class distinctions than facilitate transition between them.

As a good example of how else this could be done...many of the upper echelons of education at the undergrad level have become incredibly diverse in recent years. My internship site had arguably the most diverse undergrad student body I have ever seen. They have clearly found a way to do this that maintains standards and doesn't cause the same sorts of problems.

Argosy and many of the PsyD programs, both Free Standing Professional Schools and University Based clearly accept more minority status students and they have more minority status faculty for positive mentorships. Attending Argosy certainly did not seem to hold me back as I obtained APA internship, completed a postdoc, obtained licensure in three states, and have recently been approved for NHSC loan repayment for $50,000 for every two-years of service towards student loans. Fortunately, most of the minority status students at Argosy were having their education paid for by minority grants and scholarships so they will not have any loans to repay.

 

[LETSGONYR]

Argosy and many of the professional schools, both FS and University Based clearly accept more minority status students and they have more minority status faculty for positive mentorships. Attending Argosy certainly did not seem to hold me back as I obtained APA internship, completed a postdoc, obtained licensure in three states, and have recently been approved for NHSC loan repayment for $50,000 for every two-years of service towards student loans. Fortunately, most of the minority status students at Argosy were having their education paid for by minority grants and scholarships so they will not have any loans to repay.

Sigh... I actually like talking about diversity and minority issues and now this thread is going to turn into people arguing about you, your purported training, and your claims.

Otherwise... I wonder if the greater number of minority students (assuming that's true) is a result of FSPS having a greater number of students, or if they have a greater proportion of minority students. I haven't seen any numbers about that, so I can't say either way.

 

[WisNeuro]

Not to pick at small details, but may I ask which racial/ethnic minorities would constitute the "some" you speak of? Just because looking at graduate programs in Psychology across the board, they seem to be predominantly filled with white faculty and white graduate students.
Thank you everyone for your responses! I appreciate them.

It's more of a issue with the number of applications received. In my experience, diversity was something that buoyed an application, above and beyond the "stats" (e.g., clinical hours, pubs, grades, etc). But, when minority applications are only a small part of some application pools, of course you will see a predominance, especially in certain geographic areas.

 

[pccgrad]

There are also a lot of schools built deliberately around minority outreach. I really wanted to go to Alaska since I grew up there but I had no experience with rural minorities. They demand a whole clinical history in that field to apply really

 

[WisNeuro]

Sigh... I actually like talking about diversity and minority issues and now this thread is going to turn into people arguing about you, your purported training, and your claims.

Otherwise... I wonder if the greater number of minority students (assuming that's true) is a result of FSPS having a greater number of students, or if they have a greater proportion of minority students. I haven't seen any numbers about that, so I can't say either way.

Well, until we get a full time fact checker for some posters, got to do what you got to do. An additional problem with FSPS and this issue happens to be that they will do whatever they can to get federal grant and subsidy money. More of that money happens to be available for certain groups (e.g., minority status, veteran/GI Bill). FSPS's don't do it for "social good," they do it for greed.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

We bash on the professional schools quite a bit on this board and justifiably, but my observations have been that there might be more minorities come through those programs.

There are data on this, and they do *not* offer more diversity....just more people.

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

Diversity was heavily emphasized in my program. In every class we had to complete a critical review and presentation related to diversity. It was to the extreme of over emphasized. We had two courses over cultural diversity including cultural diversity and assessment with cultural diversity and this met the APA curriculum requirements but to have ongoing cultural diversity critical review and presentation in every class did not seem necessary, in my opinion.

 

[psychrat]

Most of the people I know that sell that hard are full of it, no better than average counselors and worse researchers. If their vita was that strong they wouldn't focus on their minority status

As a minority I am offended by this. I have had minority clients tell me they are more comfortable w me since I am also a minority. Also being aware of cultural issues and having a sensitivity to think about it makes me a better researcher.

 

[deleted656923]

As a minority I am offended by this. I have had minority clients tell me they are more comfortable w me since I am also a minority. Also being aware of cultural issues and having a sensitivity to think about it makes me a better researcher.

This thread is turning into a minefield (*hides back into the background*)

 

[pccgrad]

As a minority I am offended by this.

Shocker

 

[WisNeuro]

Remember to keep it civil, folks.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Shocker

Well this is disconcerting. You make an unfair and biased generalization about a group of people, and then you blow off the person who was reasonably offended by said generalization. Perhaps you might counter with all of this is PC nonsense, but being pissed off by rude and biased actions is not PC, it's natural and appropriate.

 

[G Costanza]

Shocker

As someone who doesn't have any minority statutes or identities, I'm offended by your comments. And if you maintain these same prejudicial ideologies in counseling, you're going to offend a lot of your clients too.

Maybe something to think about.

 

[erg923]

I would like preferential treatment since I'm Irish.

 

[HelenMoore]

I think it definitely helps in some cases .. but in most it does not make any difference

 

[psych844]

I would like preferential treatment since I'm Irish.

Being an alcoholic does not require special treatment, it just requires treatment.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I would like preferential treatment since I'm Irish.

Being an alcoholic does not require special treatment, it just requires treatment.

As my very Irish great-grandfather was fond of saying, "The good Lord invented whisky so the Irish wouldn't rule the world!"

 

[WisNeuro]

I think it definitely helps in some cases .. but in most it does not make any difference

In the case of admissions process, it has been universally helpful in the places I have been part of those committees (1 grad program, 3 VA's). If you can tactfully make it known in an essay somewhere, I'd suggest including it.

 

[erg923]

Being an alcoholic does not require special treatment, it just requires treatment.

This was very clever word play. Suppose I fell right into that.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Yes, diversity status helps in a lot of ways. I'm not sure that it should. Please hear me out. I understand and fully believe that therapist characteristics can impart some advantage in establishing rapport, etc with clients. I also believe that the social inequality is highly problematic. However,I want to play the devils advocate here because I fully believe that there are some very valid criticisms of diversity efforts (e.g., when does a thing become classifiable as distinctive in its grouping; what makes a subgroup notably distinct) which might impact it as a selection criteria.

1. If the assumption is that matching beliefs/physical characteristics is vital to the establishment of rapport and provision of our services to those groups that are under-served, to what length are we/should we go to ensure that providers are representative of diverse beliefs, backgrounds , etc? A favorite thought experiment of mine about this is 'If we are trying to provide mental health care, should we encourage individuals from extremist, or sometimes even hateful, viewpoints given their ability to reach out to that demographic that might go un-approached otherwise'. Alternatively, how explicitly should we look for this matching even within normal settings? Should I treat only men? Only men from first generation college families? etc.

2. If the assumption is that diversity is vital due to its capacity to increase rapport, does this suggest an insurmountable barrier to those not of a given diversity characteristic/population? And, assuming so, is this barrier (e.g., diversity status related rapport) the best predictor of therapeutic change (not to be confused with overall rapport, which we know accounts for most of it). Sure these factors (overall rapport and diversity rapport) are likely oblique in nature, but it would seem a bit simplistic to suggest their complete linear relationship without moderators. I'm not familiar with any dismantling studies that look at different aspects of rapport sufficiently to answer this. These moderators, to me, seem like the more vital parts of training.

In short, it helps you land positions, but does it make you a better therapist than additional training hours? I'm not sure and that is the goal of training in my eyes. Social barriers/descrimination need to be erased (a valid reason to promote diversity), but I'm not sure that the assumptions underlying some of the justifications justify actions at later points in development. Two doctoral intern applicants (one black and one white) are both already in the field, thus emphasis on diversity at this stage doesn't promote NEW or GREATER diversity. It does early on, such as during initial grad school application, but I don't see how it would when its not as though either would drop out because of their ethnicity/whatever diversity criteria at that point in the game. We emphasize a similar diversification need (e.g., rationales of reduced social barriers and greater opportunity for those who are not as privileged) for first generation college students to get into college and graduate school. We do not emphasize this the same once they have they have their masters in considering further education.

Well, that wasn't as short as I had intended.

Either way, just some thoughts.

 

[psych844]

Diversity is very important in psychology, but it shouldn't come at the cost of allowing poor candidates into Phd programs. Psychology is very competitive, many of the bigger schools get 100-300 applications, and only 4-7 spots...so if there is a black, or Aboriginal candidate, etc among those apps who are qualified, maybe they should get the edge but only if they are as strong as the other candidates.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Yes, diversity status helps in a lot of ways. I'm not sure that it should. Please hear me out. I understand and fully believe that therapist characteristics can impart some advantage in establishing rapport, etc with clients. I also believe that the social inequality is highly problematic. However,I want to play the devils advocate here because I fully believe that there are some very valid criticisms of diversity efforts (e.g., when does a thing become classifiable as distinctive in its grouping; what makes a subgroup notably distinct) which might impact it as a selection criteria.

1. If the assumption is that matching beliefs/physical characteristics is vital to the establishment of rapport and provision of our services to those groups that are under-served, to what length are we/should we go to ensure that providers are representative of diverse beliefs, backgrounds , etc? A favorite thought experiment of mine about this is 'If we are trying to provide mental health care, should we encourage individuals from extremist, or sometimes even hateful, viewpoints given their ability to reach out to that demographic that might go un-approached otherwise'. Alternatively, how explicitly should we look for this matching even within normal settings? Should I treat only men? Only men from first generation college families? etc.

2. If the assumption is that diversity is vital due to its capacity to increase rapport, does this suggest an insurmountable barrier to those not of a given diversity characteristic/population? And, assuming so, is this barrier (e.g., diversity status related rapport) the best predictor of therapeutic change (not to be confused with overall rapport, which we know accounts for most of it). Sure these factors (overall rapport and diversity rapport) are likely oblique in nature, but it would seem a bit simplistic to suggest their complete linear relationship without moderators. I'm not familiar with any dismantling studies that look at different aspects of rapport sufficiently to answer this. These moderators, to me, seem like the more vital parts of training.

In short, it helps you land positions, but does it make you a better therapist than additional training hours? I'm not sure and that is the goal of training in my eyes. Social barriers/descrimination need to be erased (a valid reason to promote diversity), but I'm not sure that the assumptions underlying some of the justifications justify actions at later points in development. Two doctoral intern applicants (one black and one white) are both already in the field, thus emphasis on diversity at this stage doesn't promote NEW or GREATER diversity. It does early on, such as during initial grad school application, but I don't see how it would when its not as though either would drop out because of their ethnicity/whatever diversity criteria at that point in the game. We emphasize a similar diversification need (e.g., rationales of reduced social barriers and greater opportunity for those who are not as privileged) for first generation college students to get into college and graduate school. We do not emphasize this the same once they have they have their masters in considering further education.

Well, that wasn't as short as I had intended.

Either way, just some thoughts.

This is a complex and charged issue, and I like the way you approached it. Here are some responses.

1. There are different sorts of matching. There's attempting to match the diversity of providers to the surrounding community which they are serving (or to national %, which is less meaningful). If that matching isn't occurring, one must explore the reasons for this, one of which might be systematic bias/racism. Another form of matching is attempting to mirror the diversity of a given client. I don't think this is inherently better, and it should be left to the clients because rapport will be difficult to build if the client has difficulty trusting a provider because of their life experiences. Yes, most presenting problems have, at some level, kernels of universality; however it may be hard to get there if trust cannot be established. So matching of clients and providers is different than matching providers to the community as a whole. I find the example of matching hateful beliefs to be a red-herring because the chance that a provide could be any good if they hold hate in their heart is probably low. I've had clients who have suffered horrible racism, but because I was open to understanding their experiences and because they were open to trying, therapy could happen.

2. Matching diversity should not be the assumption for providing effecting therapy, so there is no insurmountable barrier; however there may be a barrier at a client level, rather than a societal level. I think people frequently confuse what should be done at a population or community level with what should be done at a client level. This is an example of that.

Diversity is an additional variable beyond training and inherent talent. They should not be confused. Additionally, intern applicants are not in their chosen field yet. They are in their capstone training experiences and still have hurdles before truly entering the field. Given that they may fail to move into a professional role, there is additional diversity to offer the profession. You're hinting that it's not a zero-sum game, but at some level it is. Both might enter the field, neither might.

 

[Justanothergrad]

This is a complex and charged issue, and I like the way you approached it. Here are some responses.

1. There are different sorts of matching. There's attempting to match the diversity of providers to the surrounding community which they are serving (or to national %, which is less meaningful). If that matching isn't occurring, one must explore the reasons for this, one of which might be systematic bias/racism. Another form of matching is attempting to mirror the diversity of a given client. I don't think this is inherently better, and it should be left to the clients because rapport will be difficult to build if the client has difficulty trusting a provider because of their life experiences. Yes, most presenting problems have, at some level, kernels of universality; however it may be hard to get there if trust cannot be established. So matching of clients and providers is different than matching providers to the community as a whole. I find the example of matching hateful beliefs to be a red-herring because the chance that a provide could be any good if they hold hate in their heart is probably low. I've had clients who have suffered horrible racism, but because I was open to understanding their experiences and because they were open to trying, therapy could happen.

2. Matching diversity should not be the assumption for providing effecting therapy, so there is no insurmountable barrier; however there may be a barrier at a client level, rather than a societal level. I think people frequently confuse what should be done at a population or community level with what should be done at a client level. This is an example of that.

Diversity is an additional variable beyond training and inherent talent. They should not be confused. Additionally, intern applicants are not in their chosen field yet. They are in their capstone training experiences and still have hurdles before truly entering the field. Given that they may fail to move into a professional role, there is additional diversity to offer the profession. You're hinting that it's not a zero-sum game, but at some level it is. Both might enter the field, neither might.

Thanks for the thoughts. I enjoy thought experiments about topics of diversity. I think one of the difficult things about it is that it is such a charged issue most people are not able to think about it without becoming reactive, no matter what the viewpoint (pro, against, confused, etc) is. It really troubles me because with that re-activity comes a stifling of actual discussion and capacity to critically evaluate.

1. I'm not sure that follows. Just because someone is biased against something doens't mean that person couldn't help someone else. Just because I dislike minority X doesn't mean that I can't help with phobia Y or minority issue Z. It's a bit of a Lucifer effect. I agree that openness is critically helpful, but I'm not sure that its possible to say definitively that it is impossible to help someone if you are biased yourself. I also imagine the degree of diversive belief would also be important. If someone absolutely, without a doubt, thinks that race X is horrible and no one can be trusted that deals with them, I (speaking as a southern guy who has run into these folks a good deal) can tell you that they are seldom open to my openness with that population. I think we would be in trouble as a people, and as a profession, if we expected perfection of ourselves. Either way, I generally agree with your point its just a thought experiment I like to raise.

2. One of the rationales is that we need diversity in the field due to its implications. If diversity does not promote changes that are clinically important, then one of the arguments for diversity inclusion efforts is undermined. This argument is even made within this thread.

I'm curious about the whole idea of when we enter the profession. We describe and think of internship as a capstone experience and it is. Its not exactly a hurdle that many don't pass. While there are some that don't pass EPPP or don't get licensed, almost everyone gets an internship (if that means a second year, either way- they still get one). The number of those who leave the field entirely during internship applications is VERY small I would wager. The number who do so because of issues related to diversity status is likely in infinitely small metrics.

I would be more concerned about the affording of 800 dollar tests and 800 dollar study materials for those from poorer families, or the high cost of travel for internship interviews for that matter, than mere ethic classifications that often make the focus. My belief is that the issue is less about ethnic differences (white vs black vs green vs purple or whatever else) and that wealth disparities are more likely reflective of economic differences influencing capacity for diverse ethnic groups to seek this professional training; There is a general trend where college education begets college education and doctor tend to beget doctor. This is why there are so many educational efforts for first generation college students. Those programs (e.g., Trio, etc.) don't target rare although race does become a disparate factor when compared to US census. This isn't where we put our focus though and I think that's a huge disservice.

Still though, what constitutes diversity? It worries me that we use 'diversity' to make qualifications (as noted on hiring decisions, etc) but there is no explicit agreement on when a group is sufficiently distinct from another to win that classification. In measurement terms, diversity has a large issue with group descrimination (ironic isn't it?).

 

[LETSGONYR]

Yes, diversity status helps in a lot of ways. I'm not sure that it should. Please hear me out. I understand and fully believe that therapist characteristics can impart some advantage in establishing rapport, etc with clients. I also believe that the social inequality is highly problematic. However,I want to play the devils advocate here because I fully believe that there are some very valid criticisms of diversity efforts (e.g., when does a thing become classifiable as distinctive in its grouping; what makes a subgroup notably distinct) which might impact it as a selection criteria.

1. If the assumption is that matching beliefs/physical characteristics is vital to the establishment of rapport and provision of our services to those groups that are under-served, to what length are we/should we go to ensure that providers are representative of diverse beliefs, backgrounds , etc? A favorite thought experiment of mine about this is 'If we are trying to provide mental health care, should we encourage individuals from extremist, or sometimes even hateful, viewpoints given their ability to reach out to that demographic that might go un-approached otherwise'. Alternatively, how explicitly should we look for this matching even within normal settings? Should I treat only men? Only men from first generation college families? etc.

2. If the assumption is that diversity is vital due to its capacity to increase rapport, does this suggest an insurmountable barrier to those not of a given diversity characteristic/population? And, assuming so, is this barrier (e.g., diversity status related rapport) the best predictor of therapeutic change (not to be confused with overall rapport, which we know accounts for most of it). Sure these factors (overall rapport and diversity rapport) are likely oblique in nature, but it would seem a bit simplistic to suggest their complete linear relationship without moderators. I'm not familiar with any dismantling studies that look at different aspects of rapport sufficiently to answer this. These moderators, to me, seem like the more vital parts of training.

In short, it helps you land positions, but does it make you a better therapist than additional training hours? I'm not sure and that is the goal of training in my eyes. Social barriers/descrimination need to be erased (a valid reason to promote diversity), but I'm not sure that the assumptions underlying some of the justifications justify actions at later points in development. Two doctoral intern applicants (one black and one white) are both already in the field, thus emphasis on diversity at this stage doesn't promote NEW or GREATER diversity. It does early on, such as during initial grad school application, but I don't see how it would when its not as though either would drop out because of their ethnicity/whatever diversity criteria at that point in the game. We emphasize a similar diversification need (e.g., rationales of reduced social barriers and greater opportunity for those who are not as privileged) for first generation college students to get into college and graduate school. We do not emphasize this the same once they have they have their masters in considering further education.

Well, that wasn't as short as I had intended.

Either way, just some thoughts.

Well, I think it's important to recognize that cultural competence does not mean only being able to treat patients of your specific race or subgroup. It's more about recognizing your own biases and how your culture influences you, as well as recognizing clients' cultures, intersectionality of identities, etc. It's about not being afraid to broach the topics that might be important to a client, and being open to learning more about the client's culture and how their upbringing might influence their symptom presentation, treatment goals, and views of treatment.

Along those lines, one of the goals of increasing diversity among graduate programs is not just to have more psychologists of color. I am white, but having classmates that belonged to various minority groups (ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc.) was certainly beneficial to my education and influences how I work with patients from all groups. I support efforts to increase diversity in training programs, so that more psychologists will get more diverse views of culture and will be more comfortable discussing cultural issues in various contexts.

Additionally, you don't have to agree with beliefs in order to support the person who espouses those beliefs. Is it necessary to have white supremacist psychologists? I don't think so- not only do many of those core beliefs contradict best practices in psychology, but there are other ways to support someone who might have those beliefs with whatever issue is causing them to seek treatment, rather than confirming their racism.

 

[LETSGONYR]

Still though, what constitutes diversity? It worries me that we use 'diversity' to make qualifications (as noted on hiring decisions, etc) but there is no explicit agreement on when a group is sufficiently distinct from another to win that classification. In measurement terms, diversity has a large issue with group descrimination (ironic isn't it?).

That's a great question and I'm sure the answers will be quite philosophical. . Diversity means different things to different people, and I don't think there will ever be consensus on a definition.

It reminds me of a bit from Trevor Noah (who will be the new host of the Daily Show, for those who are unaware, he's a mixed race comedian from South Africa)... he was talking about filling out paperwork at a bank in the US and trying to fill in the race bubbles. He says it much more eloquently than I can, but it's something like, "I was finally able to be black! ...but then I saw the 'white' bubble, and it looked pretty good..." He then says that he ultimately filled in the 'white' bubble, and the woman was incredulous. His punchline is "I guess race is a one-way street, and black is that way."

But it raises a good point... we have no problem with mixed race people identifying as a minority, but are confused when they want to identify as white. Why is one more salient than the other? Why do we have to categorize people, rather than allowing them to choose their own identity?

 

[Justanothergrad]

Additionally, you don't have to agree with beliefs in order to support the person who espouses those beliefs. Is it necessary to have white supremacist psychologists? I don't think so- not only do many of those core beliefs contradict best practices in psychology, but there are other ways to support someone who might have those beliefs with whatever issue is causing them to seek treatment, rather than confirming their racism.

That's actually one of my favorite devil advocate arguments I've used when lecturing ethics. Its a fun example to get people to problem solve through not just IF that would be incongruent with out ethics, but how to arrive at it. Its a fun one to argue

Either way, I agree. The purpose of diversity is an approach, not a categorical description. We just seems to waffle on how we use it- we use it as a descriptive category and as a process. It is either a thing you have or a process you go through. It seems problematic that we use the same term for both. Your second point is on target with my thoughts on this. I was actually very curious intellectually about the case of the NAACP woman who claimed to be black. It raised some interesting cultural thoughts in my mind about how identity within these groups is largely prescriptive.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Race is a cultural construct and I love that comedian's example that points that out so succinctly. I actually don't like a lot of peoples' conceptualization of diversity because I do think it is too narrow and lends to over-categorizing and generalizing. The only thing that you can really say about an individual from any group is that they are an individual from that group. I am a second-generation Italian immigrant from my father side. Do I have more in common with Italian immigrants or other second-generation immigrants or other "white people"? I know that society generally affords me the privileged status of not having the dark skin that our society is so biased against, but I tend to view the world from a much different lens than a white southern rebel-flag kind of guy or even a white Anglo-Saxon protestant from the east coast. Lately I have been working with a population that are descended from the first Americans. I am learning a lot about that culture and getting to know a few individuals who have different levels of identity to that culture. Like one of my patients said about their new in-laws from the city, "they didn't know until the wedding that we were real Indians and they weren't happy about it." I am fascinated by the variations of culture and perspectives and the variance within cultures. Always remember that the variance within these groups is more than the difference between the groups and you will have a good start on developing cultural competency.