New APA guidelines/reform regarding licensure and accreditation

[Shooter]

That really would be extraordinary if you were actually able to become licensed but simply chose not to in solidarity with less qualified people also seeking licensure.

Begging the question others have asked... are you licensed? Have you ever attempted to become licensed? Does Modern Psychologist really amount to more than your personal crusade against the forces that withhold the license to which you feel entitled?

so interested? ... that question is against the sdn rules... and what makes you feel entitled to know ppls personal info after.. they disagree with u? the answer is yes...to do it before is suicide...since many of ur ppl would love to retaliate and censure the poor guy/gal before then. Now how does that alleviate the scheme? Anyone?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

definitely self-focused... that the disconnect! ...many of you are focused on I, I, I, "I did this or that" .."it wasn't a problem for me because I followed the expected path.."..meanwhile 'We' are focused on the "We, we, we"..how we can accelerate fixing the scheme…" We need to do this..or that" so failed punchlines by some of u peeps, to the person on this side, did not deliver.

Many of us ARE looking at this issue as a "we" problem. I think the difference is that many/most of us see what happens when hurdles are skipped/avoided (i.e. students going outside of APPIC match), training standards are reduced (i.e. post-doc hours eliminated), and variability of training negatively impacts our communities (i.e. hack providers ignoring science for moonbeam and rainbow therapies). I've treated countless patients who were harmed by non-EBT treatment, which is why I'm involved at the state and national level working on training standards. We need higher standards, stricter laws, and more aggressive prosecution of hack psychologists and "therapists" practicing psychology without a license. Many of us speak in our communities to educate other healthcare providers, gov't officials, LEOs, community leaders, etc. We do this because we recognize there are shortcomings due to politics, poor leadership (i.e. APA governance of the past 20+ yrs), and in-fighting.

 

[erg923]

I'll be blunt. No. None of this really maters to me, as I do not see harm coming to anyone. "But, but the licensing board are difficult/vague/inconsistent/jerks/stubborn/in cahoots with Elvis " is hardly something I care about. The world is an imperfect place. I cant spend all by time trying to fix it.

Gripes go up, not lateral. Use the chain of command rather than shunning it. And until you find a grassy knoll assassin in all this, don't expect many other professionals that are busy with patients, their families, and their own community to be moved to tears by the plight of some who feel that the Wisconsin Board of psychology isn't being very nice to you.

 

[deleted343839]

so interested? ... that question is against the sdn rules... and what makes you feel entitled to know ppls personal info after.. they disagree with u? the answer is yes...to do it before is suicide...since many of ur ppl would love to retaliate and censure the poor guy/gal before then. Now how does that alleviate the scheme? Anyone?

I'm licensed to practice psychology. That is not personal information. In fact, it is and should be a matter of public record.

I'm sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling and I don't think you are even a fraction of the victim you so desperately wish to be. Good luck. Perhaps in spite of it all you will make the world a better place.

 

[erg923]

so interested? ... that question is against the sdn rules... and what makes you feel entitled to know ppls personal info after..

Licensed designation/status is a matter of public record. Having it "personal info" defeats the whole concept. lol

 

[bmedclinic]

I'm licensed to practice psychology. That is not personal information. In fact, it is and should be a matter of public record.

I'm sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling and I don't think you are even a fraction of the victim you so desperately wish to be. Good luck. Perhaps in spite of it all you will make the world a better place.

THIS.
As someone else who is licensed, I know that you can freaking google my name and get my license # and if I've done something wrong, in my state you can download a handy dandy little pdf of all the problems the state board has with me. Now THAT is public information.

Having perused some of that information for my zip code prior to being licensed, I've changed my stance and become in favor of tighter restrictions on psychologists given some of the impairment and poor judgement I've seen. I'm not saying the requirements to GET licensed necessarily need to be higher (though I'm not against that) but I certainly am less sympathetic to people that practice psychology and are impaired in a way or two while doing so.

 

[Shooter]

Many of us ARE looking at this issue as a "we" problem. I think the difference is that many/most of us see what happens when hurdles are skipped/avoided (i.e. students going outside of APPIC match), training standards are reduced (i.e. post-doc hours eliminated), and variability of training negatively impacts our communities (i.e. hack providers ignoring science for moonbeam and rainbow therapies). I've treated countless patients who were harmed by non-EBT treatment, which is why I'm involved at the state and national level working on training standards. We need higher standards, stricter laws, and more aggressive prosecution of hack psychologists and "therapists" practicing psychology without a license. Many of us speak in our communities to educate other healthcare providers, gov't officials, LEOs, community leaders, etc. We do this because we recognize there are shortcomings due to politics, poor leadership (i.e. APA governance of the past 20+ yrs), and in-fighting.

master-level licensed ppl do that? oh man...dont wanna revive that one

 

[Shooter]

I'll be blunt. No. None of this really maters to me, as I do not see harm coming to anyone. "But, but the licensing board are difficult/vague/inconsistent/jerks/stubborn/in cahoots with Elvis " is hardly something I care about. The world is an imperfect place. I cant spend all by time trying to fix it.

Gripes go up, not lateral @shooter. Chain of command. Until you find a grassy knoll assassin in all this, don't expect many other professionals that are busy with patients, families, and their own community to be moved to tears by the plight of some who feel that the Wisconsin Board of psychology isn't being very nice to you.

their gripes been up...still there.. no one in .sdn will do anything...and is not the expectation

 

[erg923]

their gripes been up...still there.. no one in .sdn will do anything...and is not the expectation

 

[Shooter]

I'm licensed to practice psychology. That is not personal information. In fact, it is and should be a matter of public record.

I'm sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling and I don't think you are even a fraction of the victim you so desperately wish to be. Good luck. Perhaps in spite of it all you will make the world a better place.

I, I, I... its ok ...u exist why even ask then lol? u can stalk my previous posts an deduce some info... or nott....still ignoring the real issue...

 

[Shooter]

THIS.
As someone else who is licensed, I know that you can freaking google my name and get my license # and if I've done something wrong, in my state you can download a handy dandy little pdf of all the problems the state board has with me. Now THAT is public information.

Having perused some of that information for my zip code prior to being licensed, I've changed my stance and become in favor of tighter restrictions on psychologists given some of the impairment and poor judgement I've seen. I'm not saying the requirements to GET licensed necessarily need to be higher (though I'm not against that) but I certainly am less sympathetic to people that practice psychology and are impaired in a way or two while doing so.

yes.. a few state boards are "so concerned protecting the public", yet charge $$ for a list of licensed psychologists or have crappy license verification sites

 

[Shooter]

Licensed designation/status is a matter of public record. Having it "personal info" defeats the whole concept. lol

not in SDN, we are bunch of stalkers here.... when we should b working

 

[erg923]

not in SDN, we are bunch of stalkers here.... when we should working

How can my 4 year-old talk better than you type???

 

[Shooter]

How can my 4 year-old talk better than you type???

thats another license

 

[Justanothergrad]

in cahoots with Elvis

I was with you to here. We have to have something we are concerned about in this field to maintain professionalism. And if its not this, what is it.

 

[psych.meout]

yes.. a few state boards are "so concerned protecting the public", yet charge $$ for a list of licensed psychologists or have crappy license verification sites

Says the person soliciting money for membership on their blog in return for what, vague platitudes?

The psychologists for Modern Psychologists.

Why Charge the Members, When You Charge the Advertisers?

We are a group of new and aspiring psychologists, dissatisfied with outdated associations.

With innovative ideas and a new millennial mindset

• Modern Psychologists operate as a guerrilla, unrestricted to people with formal affiliations or outdated bureaucratic bodies.

• We scrutinize, challenge, and question what is said and ‘done’ for early career and emerging psychologists by current stagnant psychological associations.

• We encourage, enable, and disseminate critical psychology in American graduate programs, licensing boards, and provide opportunities for practical solutions.

Cheers!

 

[erg923]

I was with you to here. We have to have something we are concerned about in this field to maintain professionalism. And if its not this, what is it.

At this point, I'm concerned about big Es (that's what I call him) potential involvement and dual relationship here. However, I've been to Graceland twice. It just a slighter larger than average house with terrible carpeting. If Graceland gets an upgrade/update in the next few years, I will acknowledge kickbacks from the Wisconsin BOP and apologize to shooter.

 

[Shooter]

At this point, I'm concerned about big Es (that's what I call him) potential involvement and dual relationship here. However, I've been to Graceland twice. It just a slighter larger than average house with terrible carpeting. If Graceland gets an upgrade/update in the next few years, I will acknowledge kickbacks from the Wisconsin BOP and apologize to shooter.

will definitely forgive u

 

[Shooter]

Says the person soliciting money for membership on their blog in return for what, vague platitudes?

soliciting? review the site again... click a few ads while u at it.. your /freedoms/license/job/ won't depend on it... i promise

 

[erg923]

soliciting? review the site again... click a few ads while u at it.. your /freedoms/license/job/ won't depend on it... i promise

With innovative ideas and a new millennial mindset.

Holy ****, im getting excited. Where's the facebook, selfies, and myspace.com?!

Seriously, this Holden Caulfield, "talkin bout my generation" type stuff needs to go, man. For real. Its just terrible.

This adds to the inaccurate stereotype of millennials and turns off well over half the people who have the willingness AND power to help your cause. I appreciate grass roots movement, challenging groupthink and status quo, but you really do need to be wary how your message is perceived.

You are a psychologist. Act and advertise like it, and you may get somewhere.

 

[WisNeuro]

Thread is way off track of the original post and intent. Any way we can break out some of the content into it's own "Conspiracy Theory/Youtube Comments" thread? The original inquiry actually had some useful info worth discussing.

 

[Shooter]

With innovative ideas and a new millennial mindset.

Holy ****, im getting excited. Where's the facebook, selfies, and myspace.com?!

Seriously, this Holden Caulfield, "talkin bout my generation" type stuff needs to go, man. For real. Its just terrible. This adds to inaccurate stereotype of millennial and turns off well over half the people who have the willingness AND power to help your cause. I appreciate grass roots movement, challenging groupthink and status quo, but you really do need to be wary how your message is perceived.

You are a psychologist. Act and advertise like it, and you may get somewhere.

coming after us, but deliberately ignoring the issue.... making progress ... Stage 2: Anger/Depression

btw: myspace is not cool grandpa

 

[Shooter]

Thread is way off track of the original post and intent. Any way we can break out some of the content into it's own "Conspiracy Theory/Youtube Comments" thread? The original inquiry actually had some useful info worth discussing.

here comes the censorship

 

[erg923]

Thread is way off track of the original post and intent. Any way we can break out some of the content into it's own "Conspiracy Theory/Youtube Comments" thread? The original inquiry actually had some useful info worth discussing.

Can it. Im talkin bout Elvis here!

 

[smalltownpsych]

Thread is way off track of the original post and intent. Any way we can break out some of the content into it's own "Conspiracy Theory/Youtube Comments" thread? The original inquiry actually had some useful info worth discussing.

The original thread was about new APA guidelines from 2013 requiring APA accredited internships. As far as I know, there hasn't been any news on that front.

 

[WisNeuro]

The original thread was about new APA guidelines from 2013 requiring APA accredited internships. As far as I know, there hasn't been any news on that front.

The 2017 application year is fast approaching. I'd say that is discussion worthy. People can still discuss conspiracy theories and text speak, just in another thread.

 

[Shooter]

The original thread was about new APA guidelines from 2013 requiring APA accredited internships. As far as I know, there hasn't been any news on that front.

geez how did we get here? ...couldn't have done it w/o u guys

 

[ClinicalABA]

That really would be extraordinary if you were actually able to become licensed but simply chose not to in solidarity with less qualified people also seeking licensure.

Begging the question others have asked... are you licensed? Have you ever attempted to become licensed? Does Modern Psychologist really amount to more than your personal crusade against the forces that withhold the license to which you feel entitled?

I think we need to be fair with this line of questioning. While my hunch is that Shooter and the "petitioner" referenced in his blog are one and the same, that does not in any way make his claims invalid. It would be understandable for one to first discover an injustice only after his has been inflicted upon oneself. Just because a crusade is personal, does not make it unjust or untrue. Lack of evidence beyond supposition, arguing with faulty logic, over reliance on representative heuristics, and purposeful obfuscation and avoidance weaken the argument, regardless of the personal relevance or history of the one making the argument. As a counter, ask yourself- would the evidence providing in his blog be have more veracity if he were a disinterested party who was "taking up the cause" out of pure altruism? I would answer distinctly "no." To do otherwise would be using the faulty logic (e.g. Ad hominem) that some might accuse him of.

 

[deleted343839]

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

As a counter, ask yourself- would the evidence providing in his blog be have more veracity if he were a disinterested party who was "taking up the cause" out of pure altruism? I would answer distinctly "no." To do otherwise would be using the faulty logic (e.g. Ad hominem) that some might accuse him of.

Your point is well taken and I appreciate your reminding us all to take the high road.

 

[WisNeuro]

Your point is well taken and I appreciate your reminding us all to take the high road.

I'm all about advocacy, but, if you cannot clearly articulate your concerns in a professional manner, you're going to get left in the wind.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I'm all about advocacy, but, if you cannot clearly articulate your concerns in a professional manner, you're going to get left in the wind.

Don't any of you accuse me of takin' the high road I'm just a fan of logical arguments. No advocacy for his position from me- I'm just legitimately curious and like looking through regs and position papers.

 

[smalltownpsych]

The 2017 application year is fast approaching. I'd say that is discussion worthy. People can still discuss conspiracy theories and text speak, just in another thread.

My thinking is that there is a connection between the original discussion of APA's guidelines for licensure and shooter's unfortunately unclear point that has something to do with problems with Wisconsin's licensure process and postdoc hours and APAs guidelines. I am pretty sure that Elvis sightings might be a bit further afield though.

 

[WisNeuro]

My thinking is that there is a connection between the original discussion of APA's guidelines for licensure and shooter's unfortunately unclear point that has something to do with problems with Wisconsin's licensure process and postdoc hours and APAs guidelines. I am pretty sure that Elvis sightings might be a bit further afield though.

Well, when I see actual sentences clearly delineating an actual problem, I may be empathetic. Until then, it's just poorly communicated ramblings.

 

[smalltownpsych]

geez how did we get here? ...couldn't have done it w/o u guys

You might have a difficult time gaining support for whatever your position is when you continually frame it as "me against the rest of you". Myself and several other posters have expressed a desire for more information and clarity, yet your focus has been on making snarky comments and being defensive. This leads me to surmise the following: either you are not good at making your case or you are deliberately obfuscating because the case itself is weak.

 

[Shooter]

Alright folks,

@ClinicalABA , it seems like you were the only psychologist who read the link, asked valid questions, were responded to w/ follow ups, and provided fair feedback. Since your first post (#78), people jumped on the bandwagon and quickly ‘liked’ your post to go against the ‘shooter’ guy… w/o having read a thing. Despite having ½ the info you came up with a decent hypothesis, and very close to the case. Kudos. I guess it shows how ABA skills pay off when you stay objective and ignore all the noise.

A handful of you tried to chime in, but hesitated or stayed over the surface. My advice to you is to follow that gut feeling. Stand up for what is right... you too @DynamicDidactic

The remaining 85-90% of you, including lurkers, simply allowed me to troll all over you for days. Do you even know what trolling means? Can’t you guys see it happening? This is not the first time we do this here. I had to stop earlier today, because one of @MamaPhD ‘s responses broke my heart (true story ask her), couldn’t go longer.I mean no one could issue a proper rebuttal. Once you were grounded with a reality check by @ClinicalABA in post #128, you jumped on that bandwagon also and quickly became agreeable to ‘advocacy and objectivity,’ and blamed the source,. Spineless..No Integrity.

In a way, this whole thing nicely illustrated the automatic stance many psychologists take with important issues and talking to people… a one-way street: “I speak, you listen.” You tend to automatically shut down different opinions, those being critical, and those taking unpopular positions. Groupthink quickly kicked in and you attempted to manipulate the conversation to go in the direction you wanted to go… away from the issue...and again blamed the source. You followed your blind spots and failed at getting anywhere miserably.

Not the expectation the public has for psychologists, the very same public our license is 'supposed' to protect.


The Joke is on You and Me… Us... Psychologists.


Cheers!


P.S. :troll: ... or do so at your own peril

 

[ClinicalABA]

Alright folks,

@ClinicalABA , it seems like you were the only psychologist who read the link, asked valid questions, were responded to w/ follow ups, and provided fair feedback. Since your first post (#78), people jumped on the bandwagon and quickly ‘liked’ your post to go against the ‘shooter’ guy… w/o having read a thing. Despite having ½ the info you came up with a decent hypothesis, and very close to the case. Kudos. I guess it shows how ABA skills pay off when you stay objective and ignore all the noise.

A handful of you tried to chime in, but hesitated or stayed over the surface. My advice to you is to follow that gut feeling. Stand up for what is right... you too @DynamicDidactic

The remaining 85-90% of you, including lurkers, simply allowed me to troll all over you for days. Do you even know what trolling means? Can’t you guys see it happening? This is not the first time we do this here. I had to stop earlier today, because one of @MamaPhD ‘s responses broke my heart (true story ask her), couldn’t go longer.I mean no one could issue a proper rebuttal. Once you were grounded with a reality check by @ClinicalABA in post #128, you jumped on that bandwagon also and quickly became agreeable to ‘advocacy and objectivity,’ and blamed the source,. Spineless..No Integrity.

In a way, this whole thing nicely illustrated the automatic stance many psychologists take with important issues and talking to people… a one-way street: “I speak, you listen.” You tend to automatically shut down different opinions, those being critical, and those taking unpopular positions. Groupthink quickly kicked in and you attempted to manipulate the conversation to go in the direction you wanted to go… away from the issue...and again blamed the source. You followed your blind spots and failed at getting anywhere miserably.

Not the expectation the public has for psychologists, the very same public our license is 'supposed' to protect.


The Joke is on You and Me… Us... Psychologists.


Cheers!


P.S. :troll: ... or do so at your own peril

From the SDN home page-

"...the Student Doctor Network is a non-profit educational website with a single mission: help students become doctors… from high-school to practice."

Ultimately, think our behavior on this website should be mission driven. Posts should largely be geared educating or prompting educational posts from others. Humor, good natured ribbing, and honest a blunt feedback are part of this. Trolling, on the other hand, sucks. It's a largely narcissistic endeavor- a cheap and too easy way too get reinforcing feedback without offering anything good to other people. It's a bad habit to get into- ultimately counterproductive for all involved.

I read your linked blog, because it's a topic I'm interested in. I live and practice in a location where I'm a twenty minute drive from two other states, half hour from a third, and 45-60 minutes from two others. I find the differences in licensure requirements between the states to be a big pain in the ass, creating barriers to service delivery, as well as great expense to applicants and professionals. I hold an internationally recognized, highly portable, yet still very valuable certification (BCBA), so I know it can be done.

Back to the (sort of) topic of this thread: your argument, as presented on your blog and your post here (not all trolling), is weak and suffers from many logical flaws. Your presentation style further confounds things. You give yourself credit for answering my questions, when you never really did (in fact, at times you just sort of restated the question in "shooterese," which comes across as intentional obfuscation. I encourage to not be so impressed with yourself for this behavior- not because it's annoying to others (which it is), but moreso because it is counterproductive to your own goals, as stated in your posts/blog. Your message may be important, but people ain't gonna listen when you act like a petulant, arrogant, child with poor with poor social skills.

Now get this all back on track. I'm still interested in some honest, well formed answers to the questions I asked in some of the posts that you reference above.

 

[erg923]

The remaining 85-90% of you, including lurkers, simply allowed me to troll all over you for days. Do you even know what trolling means? Can’t you guys see it happening?

It must be a millennial thing to brag about this type of behavior, yes?

In all seriousness, I still don't really get it. If your tactic is provocativeness, this has short-term benefits but few long term gains. You seem to genuinely want the latter though. Again, gramps doesn't get it.

 

[bmedclinic]

It must be a millennial thing to brag about this type of behavior, yes?

In all seriousness, I still don't really get it. If your tactic is provocativeness, this has short-term benefits but few long term gains. You seem to genuinely want the latter though. Again, gramps doesn't get it.

I hope your comment is tongue in cheek. Shooter is likely rather immature, and trying to "save face". He's been called out for a variety of things, which hit the target

Despite having ½ the info you came up with a decent hypothesis, and very close to the case. Kudos.

Pretty hard to own up to failing when you tried to poke at profession and got owned by a group you wish to be a part of (licensed psychologists) thus being forced to change your argument over and over to stay from the fact that its all pretty simple: a certain poster doesnt meet the requirements in a certain northern state, and to put it in internet speak: "dey mad, brah".

This could have been a pretty simple, 10 post thread. It would go like this

Subject: Warning to all who want to be licensed in WI
Hello All,
I came on here to warn you all. I didnt do things that I needed to do (probably a crap internship, non apa program, missing postdoc hrs) and now WI wont let me get licensed. Damn, I'm pretty mad about it. I'm so mad, I've taken to warning others. Make sure you meet these requirements_- 3000 hrs between internship and postdoc, and get those hours from supervisors that are licensed, and go to a program worthwhile (whatever wisconsin's actual requirements are). Dont do what I did and think you can skirt the issue.

Other posters: Man, that sucks. Maybe you can get licensed in a different state. I hear Alabama and Kansas are easy.

And then the thread would have a) had some worth and b) not been as pathetic as this.

 

[erg923]

I hope your comment is tongue in cheek.

Yes. In 34.

 

[MCParent]

I hope your comment is tongue in cheek. Shooter is likely rather immature, and trying to "save face". He's been called out for a variety of things, which hit the target

Yup. Not much different from someone texting their crush wish "go out with me" and then after being rejected sending "oh that was my friend making a joke w my phone." /cringe

 

[smalltownpsych]

I am even more confused now. I guess I just can't understand because I am blinded by my unthinking devotion to the status quo of the APA, ASPPB, licensing boards, APPIC, and the old guard of SDN.

Let me see if I got this straight. You tried to prove that we would all line up against you and then intentionally said provocative things to engender that response. Let me guess, you are really Donald Trump?

I hesitate to make this joke because it will just reinforce your belief that all are against you, but since trying to understand your position leads to the same response, why bother?

I get frustrated with the thinking of my colleagues all day long. I think that we do have some tendencies as a group that cause us problems. I think the "I made it so don't need to change it" dynamic does play out. I also think that the fear of others encroaching on our profession can cause us to be more critical of each other. I also think that focusing too much on FSPSs and the problems they are causing can also be detrimental to our field. I don't have time to clarify my thoughts on these points and don't mean to say that they are 100 percent true cause it is not so black and white as that. I will say that when I say some of these things others in the field will contest these points. Sometimes it frustrates me because I wish I could be clearer and sometimes I think they are just being obtuse, but I deal with any frustrations by recognizing that the vast majority of us do love the field and want it and our patients and even society to continue to benefit from what we offer.

 

[bmedclinic]

Yes. In 34.

I'm rather disappointed you didn't like/quote my internet speak. I honestly thought you especially be all over my "dey mad, brah" comment. So much for erg's approval.

 

[Ollie123]

Just catching up on this thread now. Its really tough to advocate for something without clearly understanding what that something might be. Per his own last post, he seems to indicate he was trolling and thus should not have been taken seriously anyways. Doesn't seem like the best plan for someone who actually wants their words to stimulate change to encourage others to not take things they say seriously, but to each their own.

Going through the licensure process right now, I agree the system is a hot mess. Most of it seems a function of the fact that licensing boards and related organizations are generally comprised of the same sort of stereotypical sad sacks who sit on condo/HOA boards, incapable of thoughts that are not included in the 5 page document they have that someone else wrote 20 years ago. It can unquestionably be improved. I have some ideas for what I would like to see, but clarity of rules is probably #1 and portability #2. There are also #s 3 through about 75 just based on my brief glimpse into this process so far, but many of those should arguably fall outside the purview of the board itself and be handled at other levels (APA, other institutional accrediting bodies, etc.).

 

[deleted343839]

Going through the licensure process right now, I agree the system is a hot mess. Most of it seems a function of the fact that licensing boards and related organizations are generally comprised of the same sort of stereotypical sad sacks who sit on condo/HOA boards, incapable of thoughts that are not included in the 5 page document they have that someone else wrote 20 years ago. It can unquestionably be improved. I have some ideas for what I would like to see, but clarity of rules is probably #1 and portability #2. There are also #s 3 through about 75 just based on my brief glimpse into this process so far, but many of those should arguably fall outside the purview of the board itself and be handled at other levels (APA, other institutional accrediting bodies, etc.).

Portability issue is high on my list of priorities too. My pet peeve is nitpicky state-specific coursework requirements that fall outside of the general APA program accreditation requirements. The postdoc requirement will be increasingly problematic for mobility/portability, and I think eventually this will have to fall by the wayside in favor of stronger quality control checks earlier in training. In the long term, I think it could make sense to adopt a model similar to that of medicine, with entry-level licensure after internship a requirement and board certification an expectation.

These issues matter a lot to us, but from the state-level perspective most states do not have a true shortage of psychologists, so the incentive for taking action to enable mobility pales in comparison to the urgency of other issues. For instance, in my state the board has been fighting for years against the push for independent licensure at the master's level. This has been a very expensive time suck. Some board members obviously go above and beyond the call of duty to advocate beyond the issue du jour, whereas others put in the bare minimum, at best. And most of the board members in my state have their own private practices to maintain. You sort of get what you pay for.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

well, this thread has provided some entertainment on an otherwise unremarkable Wednesday morning.

 

[ClinicalABA]

How about we try a "re-rail" of this thread...

I think the original point of this thread is worth revisiting. around three years ago, APA sent forth the following resolution:

http://www.apa.org/ed/graduate/accreditation-resolution-programs.aspx

Basically, they are taking a position that licensure as a "health service psychologist" should require graduation from an "APA/CPA accredited doctoral and APA/CPA accredited internship programs or programs accredited by an accrediting body that is recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education for the accreditation of professional psychology education and training." Furthermore, they set a timeline of 5 years for non-accredited programs to get accredited. The original post directed a caveat for all aspiring doctoral students to be wary of non-accredited programs. This caveat still applies. You should be aware that organizations with some lobbying power are pushing against non-accredited program, and that the mere act of enrolling in one sets up some pretty be hurdles to your professional and personal advancement.

It's worth mentioning that this APA resolution may not yet have, as far as I can tell, had much traction in changing licensure statutes. Prospective doctoral students in psychology should be aware that licensure is governed by individual states. Many states will make things easier for you if you've graduated from APA approved graduate programs and internships. Some require this, and most have much lengthier application processes if you didn't. This lack of portability in licensure between states may not seem like a big deal to aspiring students, especially if you live in one of those big old states where you have to drive for 100s of miles across prairies or over mountains to get to another state. However, there is a very high probability that you will have to move to a different state for part of your training. If, like me, you live in an area where people regularly drive across state line to work- as well as to avoid sales tax, get cheaper liquor and smokes, buy fireworks, or take pictures of feral-hippy-socialist-farmer-hipster (JK- Vermont is a pretty cool place), the issue is even more prescient. If I drive 20 minutes north, I'm a psychologist. If I drive 25 minutes north, I'm a guy with a Ph.D. in psychology and could be fined for calling myself a psychologist. That's just strange to me, but it's the way it is. For the low one time cost of, like, 800 bucks plus annual costs of 100+ (and whatever the required "veterans issues" CEUs cost me) I can now still call myself a psychologist if I drive 20 minutes south. Students/potential students should be aware of this. Personally, I feel that a national accrediting body for psychologist, with standard that are universally accepted in all states is the best solution. That would require politicians to do stuff, so we're unlikely to see change anytime soon.

In regards to some of the subsequent and recent posts related to licensure in Wisconsin, we can all learn some things about arguing a point, and the need to carefully consider our positions and the evidence we use to support them. For example, one poster took the position that the WI regs mandated the state psychology board to adopt APA standards regarding not requiring a post doc for licensure. The logical progression of this argument is that WI regs mandate the board to adopt all APA resolutions. Thus, this poster was, logically-though perhaps unintentially- arguing that WI law mandates that state psychology require APA accredited doctoral and internship programs as a criteria for licensure. Failure to account for such things in developing an supporting an argument can- and did- lead to backtracking and other errors in arguing/reason (e.g. "moving the goal posts"), and ultimately the loudest kid in the playground yelling that he's taking his ball an going home, because- despite the actual score of the game- he won anyways.

 

[erg923]

Just catching up on this thread now. Its really tough to advocate for something without clearly understanding what that something might be. Per his own last post, he seems to indicate he was trolling and thus should not have been taken seriously anyways. Doesn't seem like the best plan for someone who actually wants their words to stimulate change to encourage others to not take things they say seriously, but to each their own.

Going through the licensure process right now, I agree the system is a hot mess. Most of it seems a function of the fact that licensing boards and related organizations are generally comprised of the same sort of stereotypical sad sacks who sit on condo/HOA boards, incapable of thoughts that are not included in the 5 page document they have that someone else wrote 20 years ago. It can unquestionably be improved. I have some ideas for what I would like to see, but clarity of rules is probably #1 and portability #2. There are also #s 3 through about 75 just based on my brief glimpse into this process so far, but many of those should arguably fall outside the purview of the board itself and be handled at other levels (APA, other institutional accrediting bodies, etc.).

Can you talk more about this. I am licensed in 3 states. My home state 3 years ago, and more recently in 2 others. I have never had a problem. My states oral was bit silly (like they apparently wants you to tell them that you're gonna give a huge psych testing battery given to someone with known/established Bipolar Disorder...what the **** for I have no idea?), but other than that, nothing to gripe about really.

 

[randomapplicant22]

 

[Ollie123]

Can you talk more about this. I am licensed in 3 states. My home state 3 years ago, and more recently in 2 others. I have never had a problem. My states oral was bit silly (like they apparently wants you to tell them that you're gonna give a huge psych testing battery given to someone with known/established Bipolar Disorder...what the **** for I have no idea?), but other than that, nothing to gripe about really.

Not sure exactly what you are referring too, but in my case some of the licensure requirements here are wildly unclear. For instance - I may be in trouble because I didn't apply for provisional licensure since I think my position qualifies as a post-doc per their requirements. I tried to find out and they won't review anything in advance of me applying or give me any information beyond sending me the list of requirements. Which would be fine if they were cut and dry, but some are fairly nebulous (i.e. There needs to exist a written document explaining my position....but its not clear what exactly would qualify and when I tried to ask I was just sent the same document I had seen and told I'll need to submit it when I apply...who knows what happens if they decide I'm not a post-doc). If memory serves, we actually already discussed the goofy thing they do where I can be licensed as a psychologist, but also need to have a separate "certification" as a health service provider-psychologist which is what enables me to actually act in a clinical capacity. I'm still unclear what is gained by separating the two.

Let me clear, none of this is something I consider a huge deal or causes me to lose sleep. I have zero concerns that I won't ultimately obtain licensure. I just have shockingly little respect for the board since I think your average 5 year old could probably design a better process. I generally have minimal tolerance of poorly designed bureaucracy (why am I going into academia again?). No different than sending things through the IRB or applying for an NIH grant.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Not sure exactly what you are referring too, but in my case some of the licensure requirements here are wildly unclear. For instance - I may be in trouble because I didn't apply for provisional licensure since I think my position qualifies as a post-doc per their requirements. I tried to find out and they won't review anything in advance of me applying or give me any information beyond sending me the list of requirements. Which would be fine if they were cut and dry, but some are fairly nebulous (i.e. There needs to exist a written document explaining my position....but its not clear what exactly would qualify and when I tried to ask I was just sent the same document I had seen and told I'll need to submit it when I apply...who knows what happens if they decide I'm not a post-doc). If memory serves, we actually already discussed the goofy thing they do where I can be licensed as a psychologist, but also need to have a separate "certification" as a health service provider-psychologist which is what enables me to actually act in a clinical capacity. I'm still unclear what is gained by separating the two.

Let me clear, none of this is something I consider a huge deal or causes me to lose sleep. I have zero concerns that I won't ultimately obtain licensure. I just have shockingly little respect for the board since I think your average 5 year old could probably design a better process. I generally have minimal tolerance of poorly designed bureaucracy (why am I going into academia again?). No different than sending things through the IRB or applying for an NIH grant.

One state I was licensed in was relatively straightforward and had a minimum of unclear requirements. The other state was completely the opposite and every single psychologist that I know who has been granted licensure here has had serious difficulties with the process. Dealing with them often leads to catch-22 types of situations. The variability and lack of standardization creates these problems IMO.