Discussion in 'Psychology [Psy.D. / Ph.D.]' started by MCParent, Jan 10, 2012.
SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)
what are the chance a large majority of those 800 are coming from schools this petition is looking to do away with?
Not do away with. Up the standards a little to a level that is commiserate with the desire of APA to have psychology seen as a legitimate science and as an important aspect of patient care.
Besides, many of them will be entering the workforce, one way or another, if not this year then the next. It's in their self-interest to have the gates managed behind them.
I can't give actual stats but can say that I didn't match last year and I'm from a university based PsyD program. Pretty sure that most of the 800 are from traditional programs, while the larger FSPS have many alternatives to APA/APPIC internships...
This is a good point. Many of us are not in the same competition pools; I HAVE to go to an APA-accredited internship, for example. Others may find APPIC or CAPIC viable.
Well, until this happens: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/06/soe.aspx
BEA affirms that health service psychologists must be trained in APA/CPA accredited doctoral and APA/CPA accredited internship programs. BEA also affirms that graduation from an APA/CPA accredited doctoral and APA/CPA internship training program must be a prerequisite for licensure for independent practice as health service psychologists.
Last year, multiple classmates of mine were allowed in the APPIC competition pool but the faculty decided that I would only be allowed to participate in the APA competition pool. When you have this kind of division INSIDE programs, how can the field be united? (PS - I'm definitely bitter about this.)
I'm from an APA accredited university based PhD program and didn't match the year before last. I think it is important for us to realize that with these numbers, this is a problem for all of us!
> 250 signatures and some very notable people on there!
That seems to be a flowery way to ask them to become a completely different entity.
Is this correct? Are you saying students in your program were not allowed to apply to APA internships and only you were allowed?
These two statements do not make it sound like you are from a very "traditional" program. How can your program prevent students from applying to APA internships? That is a good way to have very unsuccessful graduates by reducing their pool of potential employers.
Hmm... I read MCParent's comment differently. The petition is asking that the APA adopt consistent and objective metrics in order to preserve the meaning of our profession. If asking programs to comply with basic minimum standards for admission, training, and outcomes is asking them "to become a completely different entity" then whatever entity they are currently operating as should not have ever been accredited.
I think the poster meant that their program typically requires APA internships, but that they allowed everyone except the poster to apply for APPIC internships as well last year.
That's what I meant.
The programs don't produce hordes of screaming morons. They produce many solid professionals. BUT, I think they also seem to stretch their admissions lower, including folks who they know at admittance probably will not turn out to be good grad students or professionals. Just cutting out that bottom piece would fix a substantial amount of the problem. What it would NOT fix is the profit margin that the owning company ultimately cares about, and so external pressure must be applied.
Below is a response writtein on the American Psychological Association (APA) Division 55 listserv to which I posted the petion. I may be reading Dr. McGrath's response incorrectly, but I think one implication of his response is that allowing APA-accredited internship to be unfunded would help alleviate the current crisis. Is anybody reading his response this way??? If so, we are totally screwed as a field
Though addressing the internship imbalance was one of the main issues I focused on when I ran for president last year, and I published an article earlier this year on solutions to the imbalance, I don't think this petition addresses the real problem. The imbalance actually started to appear well before the explosion of professional schools. What I see as the root cause is, I think, obvious once you realize it. It is that there is an extreme imbalance in the economic implications of starting an internship versus a doctoral program. APA accreditation standards say nothing about funding students. In contrast, both accreditation standards and APPIC membership rules require essentially full funding of interns. When you add to that the prestige of a doctoral program to a teaching institution versus the reputation value of an internship, there is a gross disparity here.
The shortage of internship slots therefore is an artificial product of the decision to require full funding of interns but not of graduate students, a decision that does not actually affect the quality of training. It is therefore legally questionable whether APA could enforce a rule requiring programs to meet a standard that their policies have arbitrarily made impossible to meet for many programs. If the petition called for sanctioning programs where a certain proportion of students can't pass the licensing exam, that could be justified, but I'm not sure about basing it on placement at APA internships. That would be an issue that probably would need to be settled (and probably would be settled) through litigation.
I also am dubious about whether making more information public would change things. Recent good evidence indicates about 40% of law school graduates are unemployed or underemployed 9 months after graduation. As far as I can tell it has not had much effect on the number of applications. The information would be of most importance to those potential candidates least likely to use it, the ones who probably shouldn't be in a doctoral-level program in the first place.
I think the only stable solution to the internship problem would involve equalizing the fiscal implications of doctoral and internship programs. Anyone who believes a system can function based on such a basic economic flaw is being naïve.
Robert McGrath, Ph.D.
Director, Ph.D. Program in Clinical Psychology
Director, M.S. Program in Clinical Psychopharmacology
Director, Certificate Program in Integrated Primary Care
School of Psychology T-WH1-01
Fairleigh Dickinson University
Teaneck NJ 07666
That was my first read, which I completely and totally disagree with, and I was quite shocked. At second read I wondered if instead he is saying that program need to provide funding for students to be accredited, which would automatically restructure our training system?
i mean can up imagine being on internship in a hospital or setting where there are also residents training, knowing that they are making 45+k a year in residency and you are making 0? what would they think about our profession, with us to become "doctors" when our services are worth literally nothing in the health care system? Med schools have unfunded cohorts with tuitions far beyond our own, and also have paid residencies.
That's what I read, although it doesn't seem like he SAYS it outright so possibly he meant something else. I either have not read his paper yet or do not recall it based on his name, so unfortunately can't comment on anything he elaborate on there.
APPIC moved to require funding only 5 years ago. APA and APAGS backed their positions. It doesn't seem to me like his position is well supported by the professional community. As well, interns provide a service--I'm confused about why interns would not need to be paid for providing mental health services. Seems to me to devalue the provision of such services in general. As well, even in funded programs, not paying interns would be a huge shift--interns would still be registered, but would not receive assistanceships, so presumably they'd be paying tuition (including out-of-state for internationals) to their programs, with no income. I suppose that's more a student advocacy piece than anything and may not be what he was driving at. I suppose his argument is more economic in terms of how much it costs to start an internship, though I'm not sure I see the link between what's mentioned and not paying interns (and I defer to stuff I've posted on here before, that even if we suddenly had a 1:1 ratio of internships to applicants, for-profit institutions would just bump up enrollment correspondingly and nullify the increase in spots).
I don't agree with that perspective on the imbalance. Although it is true it existed for some time, it has become much, much worse over the last year years. There are multiple TEPP papers on that. And, you can just grab the APPIC data (you can use the 2000-2010 report to do this) and chart it for yourself in excel--the lines for APPIC-accredited spots, and # of applicants, diverge quite sharply in the past few years.
The information thing is a good point. There is a certain % who will just never listen to that data--e.g., same folks who might enroll in an unaccredited, online doctoral program and expect a favorable outcome. Yes, we will never be able to do anything about those people. But I think greater education of undergrads and applicants about psychology (should be in doctoral programs too--everything from income, to killing the silly phd = research, psyd = clinical myth--as well as in site self-report data) is important to informing applicants about their potential futures in the field.
I'm not on the Div 55 list. If you want to post this to that, that's fine. (Please do mention that I wouldn't be able to reply directly to responses, as I'm not on that list, if you do so.)
I believe that Fairleigh Dickisnson is a professional school, knowing that I don't believe Dr McGrath would be arguing for funding of students. What you see here is the FPPS trying to spin this crisis to their advantage saying that they are not the problem but the fact that APA internships have to be funded is. Thus, just allow these internships to be unfunded and their numbers will increase as a corollary. However, what will happen in response to a higher number internships is that professional schools will just enroll more students!!!
I actually think the not accrediting programs unless they fund students is an interesting idea with potential. Although I know that's probably not what he meant
My understanding is that FDU is actually a university based PhD program and that they provide funding to their students (though not tons). Any FDU'ers on board to clear this up or have any insight into Dr. McGrath's stance? it's just seems totally out of character for someone who is so into medical psychology and obtaining parity and expanding scope--in those setting more than anything the lack of parity in terms of national standards, national standards for liscenceure, and all the other things that make us different from MD's just shines.
Here's a link to the article:
basically he's being critical of multiple proposed solutions, including making funding at the doctoral level a requirement for accred but also critical of removing funding requirement from internships...
My gut reaction, Robert McGrath reeks of sleaze and self-interest at the expense of the field.
Fairleigh Dickinson University leaves their trainees with large loans mostly entering an over-saturated market (NYC).
more than 10% of their students take non-APA internships, most that are unpaid. That is a big cost for students paying that much for tuition.
unfortunately this tuition/stipend setup is the norm in the NYC area and it is not a model that should be acceptable for graduate psychology
Is anyone on the newpsychlist yahoo group? I just tried to post to it but I'm not sure it went through. Can a member post a link to the FB group and the petition?
Has anyone sent it to Div 19? I've shared it on FB and twitter, got a couple more signatures.
Bump - keep it circulating!
Pretty much this. I can't say everyone else was allowed to rank APPIC sites but many were and I was not.
Like I said, university based PsyD program. And I didn't say APA accredited before in this thread but it is APA accredited.
Also, yes, I think the faculty at my program did a great job of holding me back from being a successful graduate/professional. Can't get an internship, can't be a graduate!
almost up to last year's signature total. nice work on the publicity with this one, folks.
Over 500 now. About 100 in the last 24 hours--so no sign of slowing down. The FB group is decently active as well.
Huge thanks to everyone who helped to distribute the links to the group and the petition. This is a giant success! And, we still have almost a month more to collect signatures before I send this to APA (though, I suspect they are already aware of it...).
I'm not on, or even aware of, every listserve out there. So anyone who shares this anywhere on any professional list serve--we all appreciate it!
I believe those participating in the match this year will be asked to complete the APPIC survey after Phase I (just around the corner). That would be a great opportunity to reinforce these concerns regarding the imbalance.
I'd wait til a week after tomorrow (Match Day) to resend it so that people applying for places in Phase II have had time both to apply, get to full "rage against the machine" mode, but haven't been offered interviews yet. But you've done a great job publicizing it already, so what do I know?
Just curious, how do we know it had an impact? Clearly not based upon an improvement in the imbalance, so what's the impact?
FDU is not a professional school, although I agree with cara that only accrediting programs who fund students substantially (tuition waiver plus stipend) might be a very good idea for the health of this field.
It was talked about by some people in leadership positions. What would be helpful is to get a news outlet to pick the story up. I think it was the NYT that had an article about internship in general, but having a followup would be great. I have a number of contacts in the media, so I may call around and see if anyone is interested.
It was the new York times. The angle for the publicity play would be what?
Deceptive practices by schools? The ABA has gotten bad press recently for the trouble law school grads are getting into with student loans.
I saw someone mention a class-action suit. Would that be feasible? APA would certainly have to listen to that, heh.
I was thinking the angle would be Student Loan Bubble and/or No Jobs....as the 'Merican public cites jobs/the economy as the biggest issue for the presidential race. Many economists agree that the Student Loan Bubble is going to be crippling. It is also not a big reach to bang on the "education does NOT equal jobs" drum.
Alternatively...there has already been stories on deceptive practices by law school and predatory for-profit education....so this seems like a logical next step.
Yeeah, it does not seem to jive with what he wrote in his paper either due to those pesky potential legal ramifications of requiring student funding at the training level. He does seem to advocate or argue for unpaid (or add at least) internships... because it's comparable with the same model as one finds with funding for doctoral programs. So higher caliber students will go to paid internships and lower caliber students to unpaid internships, or so goes the argument he makes.
Over SIX HUNDRED signatures now. And some of the names are pretty big
I just had a thought: what about an actual, physical protest outside of APA HQ? Could they ignore that? I know it's not feasible for a lot of students, but there must be some at least in the DC area who could devote some time to it.
I think the best opportunity to organize a demonstration/protest is AT the APA conference because that will get the most awareness within the community.
I love the idea of seeking media attention for this, but I hesitate to frame this as a jobs issue because it really is not. Unlike manufacturing, where jobs really have decreased due to outsourcing and such, there are more positions for psychologists in more settings than ever before. An undesirable outcome of pitching the imbalance this way is that people will be inclined to simply call for the creation of more positions/slots. I dont think we want to perpetuate the real problems, which are: 1) predatory businesses exploiting students and 2) limitless federal funds for student loans. If the petition (and other occupy efforts) fail to persuade the APA to act, then class action lawsuits against the for-profits and/or lobbying for revised federal student loan practices (e.g. capping loans based on degree earning potential; refusing loans for schools that fail to raise a minimum amount of funding through endowments; etc) are great ways to move this forward and get some media coverage.
Thumbs up to physical protests. There are benefits to both approaches. Picketing headquarters may appeal more to those who want to boycott the convention. The convention may be more convenient because the audience is gathered (like T4C pointed out). Personally, I would be game for either.
How is a Free Standing program defined? It does not seem very clear to me and it seems that people are getting free standing and online programs confused and thinking they are diploma mills. The program I am in has multiple campuses throughout the USA with most of the clinical psychology program having APA accreditation but all of the programs follow the APA training curriculum. We are in the process of self study and site study for APA accreditation soon.
We are part of a University system that has BA, MS, and PsyD degrees in the field of clinica psychology, counseling psychology, school psychology, industrial psychology, forensic psychology, business, education, criminal justice, counseling, substance abuse counseling, nursing, and MBA.
I believe the free standing for profit schools are not part of a University System but only have the PsyD in clinical psychology. Schools like Alliant University, Argosy University, Nova Southeastern University, Fielding Institute, and others would not be considered free standing programs. All of these programs are part of a University system with different degrees and locations.
How does APA designate programs that are free standing for profit programs? There seems to be much mis-information about these differences, as the program I attend is very challenging but when I tell psychologists I am a student in the program it is common for much negativism with comments of being a diploma mill and an online degree which I have to correct them as this is far from the truth. The clinical psychology PsyD normally accepts between 15-20 students every year but the most recent class was 9 students. They do have an online Counseling degree for individuals who are already LPC that may be completed within two years or 55 additional hours with no dissertation or internship requirements but this is not the program I am in. It would seem that the professional community of psychologist would be aware of the differences in training for clinical psychologist and LPC and realize that there are many different program in Universities. An example is that UNT has a doctoral level counseling psychology program that is very difficult to get into in the department of psychology and also has a doctoral level counseling program in the department of education that is much easier to get into that leads to LPC licensure. The counseling psychology program is APA accredited but the counseling program is CACREPT accredited. Most psychologists know the difference in the programs at UNT so rarely if ever do the counseling psychology students get negative communication from the professional community. All of the counseling psychology students obtain APA accredited internships with the VA and other major medical centers.
I don't know that there is a specific definition of a FSPS other than "Know it when you see it". However Argosy/Alliant are basically the prototypes for what most of us mean when we refer to problem institutions that need to be de-accredited, as their training is often not even in the same league as "university" programs. They may meet some technical definition of "university" but no more so than a place like Devry/ITT Tech does. Some campuses are certainly better than others and class sizes do vary widely across campuses, but in general these schools have 1) Few core faculty (relative to the # of students, many with weak credentials, 2) VERY limited resources, 3) Wide variance in the quality of practica sites since they need to accommodate extremely large numbers of students 4) Laughably weak scientific training. Many have zero research involvement throughout graduate school, get away with things like "reviews" for their dissertations (and often, not even good ones), etc. I've encountered a number of graduates of these programs now who seem to know less than most of our applicants, and a fair portion don't have the stats training to properly understand even simple (clinically-oriented/necessary to function even moderately well in the field) research. Some graduates turn out okay, but the more I meet the more convinced I become its a fairly small number.
This is all on top of the typically hefty price tag that accompanies them, a generally weaker student body that comes from low standards for acceptance, etc.
I believe there is much mis-information and people get the programs at designated institutions confused. Argosy/Alliant/Nova and other comparable professional programs have faculty from APA accredited programs and they follow the APA accredited training curriculum. I believe most of the locations for these three Universities are APA accredited. I believe they have to follow the same standards as all programs applying for APA accreditation so how can they be de-certified unless they are not following the APA standards?
These programs are not in any way similar to programs like DeVry or University of Phoenix which are mostly online programs. It seems that there is much mis-information floating around as students in these programs have required stats and research courses and do engage in research. How can generalization be made based on talking with one or two students? Students in these programs pass the EPPP and gain licensure and get accepted to APA accredited internships. Are all of these measures flawed? You could make similar generalizations about PhD university based programs as some of these students never pass the EPPP or gain licensure or get accepted into APA accredited internships. Could it be the program rather than the student characteristics? Everyone seems biased with broad generalizations on this topic.
I think the free standing programs are programs such as NorthCentral, Grand Canyon, but programs like Argosy, Alliant, Forrest, Nova are considered University based programs with multiple campuses. Alliant and Argosy have postdoctoral programs in neuropsychology and psychopharmacology that are highly reputable programs. It is not good to lump all of these programs together as the clinical psychology programs for professional school are very challenging and should not be mixed with the other programs who are mostly online and not directed at gainiing licensure.
Separate names with a comma.