D
deleted343839
Preview info: bit.ly/1q4Cl2H
Sorry, you lost me at "improvements in the profession."
Preview info: bit.ly/1q4Cl2H
Sorry, you lost me at "improvements in the profession."
Preview info: bit.ly/1q4Cl2H
I was morbidly curious, so I clicked. I will say...
"Sounds fair, but have you ever wondered why you have to jump through so many hurdles to become a psychologist? With free-labor practicum (1-2 years), one-year of underpaid internship, then you graduate with a doctorate degree, but still have to work another year, underpaid work, just to get licensed? This is the only profession that does this…it tortures its own… reinforces masochism, and fosters learned hopelessness."
The sad thing is that there are trainees who are so exploited by their shoddy programs that practicum training probably does seem like "free labor" to them. And yet it's a problem with the state boards and ASBPP, not the training programs. Gotta do something with all that cognitive dissonance, I guess.
you didnt answer above, are you licensed?Stage 1: Denial..
If someone takes the designated path, licensure is cake.Stage 1: Denial..
"Sounds fair, but have you ever wondered why you have to jump through so many hurdles to become a psychologist? With free-labor practicum (1-2 years), one-year of underpaid internship, then you graduate with a doctorate degree, but still have to work another year, underpaid work, just to get licensed? This is the only profession that does this…it tortures its own… reinforces masochism, and fosters learned hopelessness."
Very interesting stuff. I am bit surprised at the push back from the forum.Preview info: bit.ly/1q4Cl2H
Anyone want to start a competing company to create a more face valid assessment for licensure?
Two points:
1. I didn't get trained like that. Paid pracs and stipend and waiver. OK salary on internship. Got licensed thru my job. Going $100k in debt is not the only option.
2. I'm sorry that the Giver assigned you to be a psychologist and you had no other options.
oh, I support a more difficult test that actually applies to clinical practice.I would advocate for making the test more difficult. Wouldn't sit well with the diploma mills with already deplorable pass rates.
you didnt answer above, are you licensed?
If someone takes the designated path, licensure is cake.
1. APA-acred program
2. APA-acred internship
3. Formal post-doc/Fellowship
4. Pass the EPPP (and possibly juris prudence exam)
People run into issues when they try and make their own rules: attend unacred program, attend unacred internship, accept an unpaid post-doc, etc. it isn't elitist or unrealistic to take the designated path, since it works for the vast majority of students.
I don't know if you'd want me as a partner in this endeavor. While I do have a good background in psychometrics and IRT, and would like to see the irrelevant material done away with, I would advocate for making the test more difficult. Wouldn't sit well with the diploma mills with already deplorable pass rates.
Very interesting stuff. I am bit surprised at the push back from the forum.
Its a bit shocking for me to read about the multiple relationships between the WI Board and the ASPPB. Tsk, tsk. I don't think there is a conspiracy between state boards and the ASPPB but from reading this it makes me think if there is some undue influence. I am in favor of changing licensure laws, which seem outdated at this point. Though, I am not in favor of breaking the system and rebuilding it anew.
As someone that just took (and passed) the EPPP, what a waste of time. I do not think I had a single question related to the modern evidence on treatment, psychopathology, or diagnosis. Why do I need to know a bunch unrelated, out of date, and completely useless information about I/O?
Anyone want to start a competing company to create a more face valid assessment for licensure?
heh.
Like hypothetically, if one were unable to gain licensure for a variety of reasons, it could be that they displaced their anger about the situation and turned towards said licensing authority and blamed them rather then looking at what they could do differently. Of course, this is all hypothetical. Last I looked at the requirements for getting licensed in WI (a year or two ago) they were pretty straightforward and I would easily meet said criteria. That's all. Of course, I see no scheme, have no vendetta, and don't feel they're holding me back any, either.licensed or not.. how will that change the alleged scheme Dr.?
Preview info: bit.ly/1q4Cl2H
I'vecspentvsome more time with your document, and I'm just not following the logic with one piece of it. In the blog, you make the following statement:Preview info: bit.ly/1q4Cl2H
I took a look. A few observations:
-If the WI Board Members' participation on the ASPPB Board resulted in some gain to them personally (particularly fiduciary), and the value of that gain could be maintained or enhanced by decisions they made as WI Board Members, I'd say it's a bit of a conflict of interest and potentially in violation of the regulation you cited
-You (for the sake of this post, "you"= person(s) who wrote the blog post) suggest that the WI Board violated state law by not abolishing post-doc requirements in respsonse to an APA "recommendation." Your link to the APA rec is actually to a pay-walled article related to survey research regarding implementation of the act. Why not link directly to the act itself? Also on this point, you link to a state reg requiring the board to establish rules in line with the APA ethics code, and suggest that it is evidence that the state board has not followed regs because it did not abandon internship. There is nothing in the reg you link to that requires the state board to adopt the APA Model licensure act.
-You seem to be suggesting that every time the board denies licensure, there is the potential that they are restricted fair competition with themselves, as practicing psychologist. You imply strongly that this in their intent. The counter argument would be that every time they approve licensure (which they likely do more than they deny it) they are promoting fair trade. While I think it's worth questioning why board members need to be psychologists, I think your argument here is faulty and comes across as overly personal and "sour grapes" (as does much of this post).
-This whole thing really comes across as being written by somebody who knowingly applied for licensure without having met the standards for post-doc as promulgated by the state legislature and licensing board, almost with an intent to complain afterwards about discrepancies between what is missing from the direct language of the law (e.g. no mention of post-doc requirements) and what is allowed through the law (e.g. language along the lines of "the board shall promulgate rules pertaining to licensure..."). While I didn't look at the WI law beyond your links, my hunch is this is what's going on. Licensure laws can be confusing. We just went through this in our state with another newly licensed disciple (ABA). The legislature makes the rules requiring licensure and the make up of the board, while the board makes the rules pertaining to licensure eligibility, as the specifics of that task are beyond the abilities of your typical state legislature.
I'vecspentvsome more time with your document, and I'm just not following the logic with one piece of it. In the blog, you make the following statement:
I don't see anything in PSY-2 in the linked document relating to I/O. What are you referring to? Seems that the section of PSY-2 related to 1500 hours post-doc requirement was originally implemented in 1991. Is this just an assumed "scheme" to favor I/O because that's andersen's field, or is there additional evidence beyond the docs linked on the blog?
- On December 29, 2015, the Board intentionally promulgated PSY-2 rule alleged above, to directly favor I/O psychologists, who would otherwise have no previous psychologist-supervised clinical experiences, to become licensed after one-year of experience.
Like hypothetically, if one were unable to gain licensure for a variety of reasons, it could be that they displaced their anger about the situation and turned towards said licensing authority and blamed them rather then looking at what they could do differently. Of course, this is all hypothetical. Last I looked at the requirements for getting licensed in WI (a year or two ago) they were pretty straightforward and I would easily meet said criteria. That's all. Of course, I see no scheme, have no vendetta, and don't feel they're holding me back any, either.
Are you referencing 2.09(3)(a)1-4? That's the only section I see related to supervised experience. Is it different- either in content or practice- than what was first promulgated in 1991? If not, how can anything here be attributed the current board?the Board (and all WI Boards) was mandated by the Gov. (2012) to make rules more accessible to Wi small businesses..the board have always denied any impact on their reports...and modified rules to only count the post-doc time..to support the chair's I/o relationship, and maintaining their ASPPb friends happy, and please the Gov. by 'fixing' the rule( 15-102 )... everyone wins...preponderance of evidence shows the real deal here.
2-The APA 2010, could have been there as reference..it didn't change much...u seem familiar enough with it... WI statute instructs the Board model APA guidelines...not the ASPPB's ..yet we've seen the over reliance and clear reasons w/ ASPPB since 1990' s.
As someone who has been licensed in two different states and plans to not move to another state unless I get licensed there first. I agree that there is a problem. I recently found out that if I ever wanted to move back to California, my postdoc hours might not count because I didn't have enough supervision. I pay a few hundred bucks a year just to have certification of my training so that I can try to minimize the nightmare that moving across a state line involves. I think you are right when you say that there are vested interests in keeping it the way it is. The state I am in now just raised license renewal fees to pay for legal fees incurred while fighting lawsuits over preventing psychologists from getting licensed.3-Change won't occur when all these businesses have lots of $$ at stake...challenging rules that violate federal and in this case state law...it's an ideal catalyst to turns some gears....its ironic to be licensed in a few states, but not in others.... despite same qualifications or meeting state laws.....when we have better gun licensing reciprocity.. yet boards pretend to be so concerned 'protecting he public' by limiting those qualified....and obviously ignoring the phony life coaches and self proclaimed gurus that board rules are intended to protect the ppl from to begin with.
Actually, the section you site only instructs the board to model APA ethical guidelines as they relate to the practice of psychology, particularly as related to scope of practice issues. This all applies to stuff that happens after licensure, rather than related to obtaining licensure. I don't see how anything in this section can be construed as a mandate on the board to adopt anything in the APA model licensing document.
Are you referencing 2.09(3)(a)1-4? That's the only section I see related to supervised experience. Is it different- either in content or practice- than what was first promulgated in 1991? If not, how can anything here be attributed the current board?
I'm not trying to argue here or push my own position (which is that I think that regs requiring a set number of post doc hours without specifying how those hours should be tied qualitatively to the applicants proposed area of practice are flawed). I'm just trying to follow your argument. Your replies and general narrative style, imho, don't seem to be clarifying things, but rather having the opposite effect for me. It would help to know what specific chapter and section you have issue with, how that rule can be attributed to the current board, and what evidence you have that board decisions are self-serving, with the intent to make it easier for I/O psychs to get licensed, while deliberately restricting the practice of other legally qualified psychs.
If your current position is, as you've stated in your posts, that "you have more info but it's too big a deal/too sensitive/too early to divulge it," then this discussion is basically over, as there is subsequently no way for us to logically evaluate, subscribe to, or refute your position.
Actually, the section you site only instructs the board to model APA ethical guidelines as they relate to the practice of psychology, particularly as related to scope of practice issues. This all applies to stuff that happens after licensure, rather than related to obtaining licensure. I don't see how anything in this section can be construed as a mandate on the board to adopt anything in the APA model licensing document.
As someone who has been licensed in two different states and plans to not move to another state unless I get licensed there first. I agree that there is a problem. I recently found out that if I ever wanted to move back to California, my postdoc hours might not count because I didn't have enough supervision. I pay a few hundred bucks a year just to have certification of my training so that I can try to minimize the nightmare that moving across a state line involves. I think you are right when you say that there are vested interests in keeping it the way it is. The state I am in now just raised license renewal fees to pay for legal fees incurred while fighting lawsuits over preventing psychologists from getting licensed.
you n ur groupies seemed so self-focused, congrats we all did it..now
it sounds like in the civil rights? 'just follow the rules"...'don't cause any trouble'... 'separate but equal' .
despite the totality of the scheme, more than plausible, fails under the commerce clause, privilege and immunities..state and federal antitrust laws...
not sure why psychologist are so fearful...or so obedient? hmm
and for the already licensed here what would be ur one-upper attempt?
Put on a tinfoil hat, and read it again. I hear it changes the perspective.
Several folks on the board are trying to give your ideas a fair hearing despite your disregard for sentence structure. You're not going to win friends to your cause by accusing people of being "fearful" or "self-focused."
Most of us who have been licensed and in practice for a little while have seen first-hand the need for psychology to be a tightly regulated profession with a high bar for entry. State licensing boards, in the capacities granted to them by the states, are obliged to make rules that maintain the integrity of the profession and protect the public. Boards that blindly accept whatever APA preaches from on high are simply not doing their jobs.
You accuse the state licensing boards and ASBPP of conspiring to "gang up" on APA. While I agree with you that conflicts of interest need to be managed, and I also agree that interstate practice issues are in dire need of attention, I am entirely unsympathetic to the complaint that APA is being "ganged up" on. Frankly, APA deserves the pushback and much more. APA's actions over the years have encouraged thoughtless growth in the number of new doctorates, serious issues with training quality control, and scope of practice creep (RxP). Looking at what's happening on the national scene, as a state board member my instinct would be to resist the race to the bottom and hold tight to high standards for licensure.
Considering the coherent nature and sentence structure of my posting, it would not seem likely.
u can write APA-style in a forum! ...wait, u should have used those skills to help ur state's board..where were you?
Several folks on the board are trying to give your ideas a fair hearing despite your disregard for sentence structure. You're not going to win friends to your cause by accusing people of being "fearful" or "self-focused."
Most of us who have been licensed and in practice for a little while have seen first-hand the need for psychology to be a tightly regulated profession with a high bar for entry. State licensing boards, in the capacities granted to them by the states, are obliged to make rules that maintain the integrity of the profession and protect the public. Boards that blindly accept whatever APA preaches from on high are simply not doing their jobs.
You accuse the state licensing boards and ASBPP of conspiring to "gang up" on APA. While I agree with you that conflicts of interest need to be managed, and I also agree that interstate practice issues are in dire need of attention, I am entirely unsympathetic to the complaint that APA is being "ganged up" on. Frankly, APA deserves the pushback and much more. APA's actions over the years have encouraged thoughtless growth in the number of new doctorates, serious issues with training quality control, and scope of practice creep (RxP). Looking at what's happening on the national scene, as a state board member my instinct would be to resist the race to the bottom and hold tight to high standards for licensure.
it sounds like in the civil rights? 'just follow the rules"...'don't cause any trouble'... 'separate but equal' .
Are you seriously drawing an analogy to the Civil Rights Movement?
like u, i could have said im licensed and paid... screw it..."its their problem now"..."I had to do it, now its their turn"...that's convenient and complacent, but wrong to me, i didn't like it...it's ok not to to care...we all care abt whatever we want...but many of you all are still here...reading this stuff, so there's part of u if still interested...maybe the altruistic side..and not self-focused side?