Online Programs- Pros & Cons

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
MODNOTE: The MA/MS forum had a very similar Online Psych thread that was bumped, so instead of having the same conversation in two places, I combined the threads. -t4c
Members don't see this ad.
 
Therapist4Chnge said:
Be careful, it seems that the online route is not going to make it easy for you to get licensed. Someone mentioned recently about the Fielding Institute having some kind of licensable track, though I can't speak to the quality. Royakan (sp?) has all sorts of issues, and I'd stay FAR FAR away. Capella has licensure issues, I pulled this from their website:



My advice is find a quality (university based if you can swing it) PsyD. Funding still may be an issue, but at least you get a quality education, many/all of those online programs cost an arm and a leg, and then leave you up the creek with not being able to get licensed and pay anything back. I know there have been some to go through, get licensed, make good money, etc.....but between the internship placement rates, total cost, and questions about training (whether they are valid or just speculation)....it seems like too much of a risk to me.

-t
Click to expand...

That depends upon the state. Fielding is a good school and in many states one can become licensed even without attending an APA accredited University. Now if you can get into and travel to an APA accredited traditional University, afford it and the curriculum is a good fit for you then it certainly is not a bad thing. Now there is a lot of useful information on the subject available on Google Scholar, Google Books and for each state's respective board APA website. There is data from peer review regarding online education which may also surprise many people here in regards to its positive impact, employment options and in ones track to becoming APA licensed.
 
This conversation is just beginning to help dispel some of the common myths out there about online education and the blended model. I very much enjoy hearing your input based upon experiences and research as well.

Kind regards, PsychGraduate.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
Therapist4Chnge said:
Even if a program could prove equivalency under the current blended model, the current split between face to face training and online training is the reverse of what is needed. The majority of graduate training is spent outside of the classroom and not inside. The current blended model tries to push off the majority of hours to online training, and cram in the face to face hours into long days which can be eaten up but starting late, arriving early, etc. Anyone who has attended "weekend" seminars for CEUs knows this setup far too well.....and knows it is less effective.

All of the online programs I have mentioned thus far offer an incredible amount of opportunities to engage in supervised training by APA licensed PhD (or PsyD) psychologists. Most offer a range of relatively affordable conferences and residencies in addition to these supervised training sessions; if you can spend a little more money you can stay a lot longer for a particular residency. In addition the online PhD programs I have discussed specifically require anywhere from 300 to almost a 1000 hours to even be eligible to graduate. Add the fact that online students must still defend their PhD dissertation to a panel of qualified and licensed PhD's, many graduates of prestigous Universities themselves and the alleged gap narrows considerably. For example Walden University's PhD in clinical psychology requires a full one year (one calendar year) 500 plus hour residency where the students must meet face to face with mentors, advisers, other faculty and peers. This is after the milestone 1 academic residency. The current blended model requires intensive out of classroom training. The educational quality in terms of learning how to write a proper research paper in APA, conduct a proper litertaure review is superior in the online setting than in most traditional as it should be. Far more than "weekend" seminars or just a one one week crammed session are offered. This is true of many online institutions. Fielding being APA accredited has a far lower acceptance rate due to the necessary smaller course sizes and more stringent admissions standards. Even Capella or Walden with more open admissions standards offers top notch courses relevant to the field and reqires a lot of face to face training outside of the classroom.


Not for nearly enough hours.
Therapist4Chnge said:
Even if a program could prove equivalency under the current blended model, the current split between face to face training and online training is the reverse of what is needed. The majority of graduate training is spent outside of the classroom and not inside. The current blended model tries to push off the majority of hours to online training, and cram in the face to face hours into long days which can be eaten up but starting late, arriving early, etc. Anyone who has attended "weekend" seminars for CEUs knows this setup far too well.....and knows it is less effective.

All of the online programs I have mentioned thus far offer an incredible amount of opportunities to engage in supervised training by APA licensed PhD (or PsyD) psychologists. Most offer a range of relatively affordable conferences and residencies in addition to these supervised training sessions; if you can spend a little more money you can stay a lot longer for a particular residency. In addition the online PhD programs I have discussed specifically require anywhere from 300 to almost a 1000 hours to even be eligible to graduate. Add the fact that online students must still defend their PhD dissertation to a panel of qualified and licensed PhD's, many graduates of prestigous Universities themselves and the alleged gap narrows considerably. For example Walden University's PhD in clinical psychology requires a full one year (one calendar year) 500 hour residency where the students must meet face to face with mentors, advisers, other faculty and peers. This is after the milestone 1 academic residency. The current blended model requires intensive out of classroom training. The educational quality in terms of learning how to write a proper research paper in APA, conduct a proper litertaure review is superior in the online setting than in most traditional as it should be.


Not for nearly enough hours.

Incorrect see above and here:

http://www.waldenu.edu/Degree-Programs/Doctorate/21545.htm

here: http://www.fielding.edu/programs/psy/psy/requirements


and here:

http://www.fielding.edu/programs/psy/psy/requirements/residency.aspx

Graduate school doesn't have large classes, which is one great change from most undergraduate experiences. B&M professors are busy, but you can find them in their office, in the lab, grab coffee with them, see them after class, etc.

Some graduate schools do have quite large classes while others have inattentive professors who are often unavailable or only interested in their own research, so much so, they are not quality mentors and guides. Exceptions of course abound. You can email an online professor anytime 24/7 and many have office hours in addition and a telephone number to reached at.



The inclusion of online classes at traditional universities was an economically-fueled response to budget cuts and revenue decreases. Online classes make significantly more per class when compared to their B&M counter-parts. Many professors refuse to teach online (myself included),so universities look towards adjuncts, who also make less per class, which boosts net revenue higher.

This is only partially correct. Online courses and curriculum were added to bring about a learning model which could reach more people anywhere in the world. The classroom discussion is more rigorous and involved typically online than in the traditional classroom and just to pass most graduate courses in the online environment, the discussion posts must be substantive and frequent. The classroom discussion makes it easier for peers to communicate, collaborate and thus learn from one another. The online environment usually makes the professor more accessible as well.



This "self-motivated" idea is a straw-man because it implies traditional students are not self-motivated and that being self-motivated guarantees a positive outcome. Anyone who has supervised has probably had a self-motivated student who was 3x the work because they were too independent and didn't' seek enough guidance/mentorship. Self-motivation is needed in ANY graduate program, though I think it is sometimes used as a way to excuse less supervision/mentorship.
Click to expand...

This is not the correct usage of the term strawman. Furthermore had you read this section of my post carefully, I was referring to the online student needing to be more self motivated in order to obtain a quality education. I was not stating explicitly or implying that traditional students are never or usually not self motivated. Nor should it be inferred that because an online learner must be more self motivated in his or her program that the model is inferior to a traditional one. However, looking at this from the perspective of the psychology of motivation, personality and temperament, what motivates one person will not motivate another. Some bright scholars with degrees with honors do poorly in online education and vice versa. There are, however, several published studies indicating that on average after correcting for outliers, online students tend to be more self motivated and it is relatively clear why. In the traditional university setting there are face to face classroom interactions and more face to face student intermingling as is the nature of physically showing up to campus. On the other hand the online environment fosters a certain anonymity and this may serve some sub-populations well, those who are frequent victims of harrassment, racism, ageism, and classism. However, I am not slamming traditional education as I learned in it too and I teach in that modality as well. In addition to mentorship in a blended model and aforementioned residencies it is the responsibility of the student to acquire additional training, certifications (if applicable) and hours in an appropriate facility.

Fair and balanced reading:
http://books.google.com/books?id=dVauuLKZar4C&pg=PA537&dq=Online+graduate+programs+in+psychology+equal+to+traditional&hl=en&ei=RBEaTJytM8OknQf7wNSeCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Online%20graduate%20programs%20in%20psychology%20equal%20to%20traditional&f=false

Further reading:

http://www.york.cuny.edu/assets/Blended Learning.pdf

http://jid.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/113

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/08/11/kaplan

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/29/online

http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2000/ND/Feat/lovi.htm

Of side but related interest:

http://counselingoutfitters.com/vistas/vistas08/Adams.htm
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Of related interest, most doctoral programs at universities outside North America, such as Oxford, Cambridge, The University of London, Edinburgh, The Sorbonne, Leiden etc... involve almost *NO* classroom activity whatsoever: only dissertation research. These ancient institutions regard the Ph.D. to be a research degree that is granted for research not time spent sitting in a classroom. These institutions assume that by the time one acquires a masters degree, further classroom and didactic experiences are unnecessary redundant impediments to one's research program. Typically students in such programs will spend several years doing research, publishing papers, attending conferences, and will eventually do a viva voca exam defending the doctoral thesis or in American parlance "defend the dissertation" The Ph.D. program in Psychoanalytic Studies at the University of London even has the following snippet in their prospectus for North Americans to read and take note:

"North American applicants especially should note that the British system does not include preparatory taught classes or examinations as part of the
MPhil/PhD programme, except for an initial course in research methods."

In this model one spends one doctoral studies doing independent research under faculty supervision. The standard American model of doctoral education is actually at variance on a fundamental level with practices at some of the most highly respected institutions in the world. We force our doctoral students to sit in class, a situation which most academics in Europe and the British Commonwealth regard as rather asinine. I don't agree completely with that attitude but I do think their model has merits; otherwise it would not have lasted for centuries.

My own program at Fielding is something of a hybrid between the British/European model and the American model. We are most emphatically not "online" in any way; but rather we do the academic portion of our studies as independent work under faculty supervision. Fielding has to add in a huge didactic component to satisfy licensure requirements and demands from accreditation bodies. Anyone familiar with progressive, student centered learning and the educational movemnet started by John Dewey would be comfortable and familiar with this model. Yes its a different model, but in my view it is a superior model for many students like myself who are extremely independent learners and who want a student-centered education. Places such as Goddard College http://www.goddard.edu/, Prescott College http://www.prescott.edu/ and Antioch University http://midwest.antioch.edu/ use an educational model similar to Fielding. Implicit in the critique of these models is the assumption that one pedagogical model is appropriate for all students. This of course is a fallacy. As budding psychologists, many of the posters on this board should be aware that different personality styles and learning styles should translate into different kinds of educational processes.

I would find a traditional American-style program to be a difficult place to learn and function effectively. One of my first jobs in the field of psychology 20 years ago was at a major practicum training site for a very well known program. My position entailed working very closely with doctoral students in who spent a year's rotation there. I got to know a few cohorts and I had the opportunity to hear all about the shenanigans of faculty: who was sleeping with who, who was fighting with who, what students were being mistreated by what faculty, what students were being threatened by whom, how students felt intimidated and bullied, how negative the departmental atmosphere was, how unhappy they were. I even remember the time an entire class failed their comps one year for non-academic reasons simply because a collection of faculty felt the cohort was too full of themselves and needed to be brought down a peg. I also had friends from my undergraduate years who were in top notch, tier one doctoral programs in clinical psychology who described similar experiences and were fairly miserable. My own master's program was very traditional, very cut-throat, very faculty centric, very very very hierarchical and was an experience I hated overall. One learned to keep one's head down, don't ask hard questions, agree with faculty and do the work. Now that I am older, I have very little tolerance for the BS that seems to permeate traditional academe. I decided that I wanted something very different, something much more student-centered, something more democratic and supportive for doctoral-level work. I have taken a different path and I have no regrets.
 
Last edited:
Neuropsych2be said:
Of related interest, most doctoral programs at universities outside North America, such as Oxford, Cambridge, The University of London, Edinburgh, The Sorbonne, Leiden etc... involve almost *NO* classroom activity whatsoever: only dissertation research.
Click to expand...


Interested, I looked at University College London's clinical psychology doctoral program and found that they have coursework. Thinking this might be an anomaly, I looked at Oxford's clinical psychology doctorate program and found something similar. These universities call their courses "modules", but they look like courses for practical purposes, I even saw scheduled meeting times. So, i'm not sure you're correct here, can you clarify?

I know that in the natural sciences, most doctoral programmes in the EU run like you mentioned. Isn't it a whole different ballgame with a purely research degree? I think didactic experiences are important in clinical psychology to give beginning practitioners a base of knowledge.


Neuropsych2be said:
Of related interest, most doctoral programs at universities outside North America, such as Oxford, Cambridge, The University of London, Edinburgh, The Sorbonne, Leiden etc... involve almost *NO* classroom activity whatsoever: only dissertation research. These ancient institutions regard the Ph.D. to be a research degree that is granted for research not time spent sitting in a classroom. These institutions assume that by the time one acquires a masters degree, further classroom and didactic experiences are unnecessary redundant impediments to one's research program. Typically students in such programs will spend several years doing research, publishing papers, attending conferences, and will eventually do a viva voca exam defending the doctoral thesis or in American parlance "defend the dissertation" The Ph.D. program in Psychoanalytic Studies at the University of London even has the following snippet in their prospectus for North Americans to read and take note:

"North American applicants especially should note that the British system does not include preparatory taught classes or examinations as part of the
MPhil/PhD programme, except for an initial course in research methods."

In this model one spends one doctoral studies doing independent research under faculty supervision. The standard American model of doctoral education is actually at variance on a fundamental level with practices at some of the most highly respected institutions in the world. We force our doctoral students to sit in class, a situation which most academics in Europe and the British Commonwealth regard as rather asinine.

My own program at Fielding is something of a hybrid between the British/European model and the American model. We are most emphatically not "online" in any way; but rather we do the academic portion of our studies as independent work under faculty supervision. Fielding has to add in a huge didactic component to satisfy licensure requirements and demands from accreditation bodies. Anyone familiar with progressive, student centered learning would be comfortable with this model. Yes its a different model, but in my view it is a superior model for many students like myself who are extremely independent learners and who want a student-centered education. Places such as Goddard College http://www.goddard.edu/, Prescott College http://www.prescott.edu/ and Antioch University http://midwest.antioch.edu/ use an educational model similar to Fielding. Implicit in the critique of these models is the assumption that one pedagogical model is appropriate for all students. This is a fallacy.

I would find a traditional American-style program to be a difficult place to learn and function effectively. One of my first jobs in the field of psychology 20 years ago was at a major practicum training site for a very well known program. My position entailed working very closely with doctoral students in who spent a year's rotation there. I got to know a few cohorts and I had the opportunity to hear all about the shenanigans of faculty: who was sleeping with who, who was fighting with who, what students were being mistreated by what faculty, what students were being threatened by whom, how students felt intimidated and bullied, how negative the departmental atmosphere was, how unhappy they were. I even remember the time an entire class failed their comps one year for non-academic reasons simply because a collection of faculty felt the cohort was too full of themselves and needed to be brought down a peg. I also had friends from my undergraduate years who were in top notch, tier one doctoral programs who described similar experiences of misery. My own master's program was very traditional, very cut-throat, very faculty centric, very very hierarchical and was an experience I hated overall. One learned to keep one's head down, don't ask hard questions, agree with faculty and do the work. I now have very little tolerance for these kinds of things and I decided that I wanted something very different, something student centered, something more democratic and supportive for doctoral-level work. I have taken a different path and I have no regrets.
Click to expand...
 
The training model used overseas is quite different because it is designed for research only study, while the training a student would receive at a USA-based program includes clinical/assessment/etc. Most/all students from overseas require more training in applied work before they can be licensed as practitioners in the USA, as that is not a core area of training like it is in an American program.

More on this later...off to teach.
 
Therapist4Chnge said:
The training model used overseas is quite different because it is designed for research only study, while the training a student would receive at a USA-based program includes clinical/assessment/etc. Most/all students from overseas require more training in applied work before they can be licensed as practitioners in the USA, as that is not a core area of training like it is in an American program.

More on this later...off to teach.
Click to expand...


In Britain the Ph.D. is purely an academic degree while practicioners get a D.Clin.Psy which is equivalent to a Psy.D. The doctoral programs in clinical psychology are not that dissimilar to ours. In their country they split between professional practice and academic research is institutionalized. Hasn't harmed the profession over there, My main point was that Americans can be very parochial about education and how it is done and whether any particular model of education is We Americans believe that education at the doctoral level = classroom attendance and I other educational systems do things very differently. In my opinion, training in clinical psychology requires a significant amount of face to face contact. But simply because an educational process is different it does not follow that it is inferior.
 
Neuropsych2be said:
Of related interest, most doctoral programs at universities outside North America, such as Oxford, Cambridge, The University of London, Edinburgh, The Sorbonne, Leiden etc... involve almost *NO* classroom activity whatsoever: only dissertation research. These ancient institutions regard the Ph.D. to be a research degree that is granted for research not time spent sitting in a classroom. These institutions assume that by the time one acquires a masters degree, further classroom and didactic experiences are unnecessary redundant impediments to one's research program. Typically students in such programs will spend several years doing research, publishing papers, attending conferences, and will eventually do a viva voca exam defending the doctoral thesis or in American parlance "defend the dissertation" The Ph.D. program in Psychoanalytic Studies at the University of London even has the following snippet in their prospectus for North Americans to read and take note:

"North American applicants especially should note that the British system does not include preparatory taught classes or examinations as part of the
MPhil/PhD programme, except for an initial course in research methods."

In this model one spends one doctoral studies doing independent research under faculty supervision. The standard American model of doctoral education is actually at variance on a fundamental level with practices at some of the most highly respected institutions in the world. We force our doctoral students to sit in class, a situation which most academics in Europe and the British Commonwealth regard as rather asinine. I don't agree completely with that attitude but I do think their model has merits; otherwise it would not have lasted for centuries.

My own program at Fielding is something of a hybrid between the British/European model and the American model. We are most emphatically not "online" in any way; but rather we do the academic portion of our studies as independent work under faculty supervision. Fielding has to add in a huge didactic component to satisfy licensure requirements and demands from accreditation bodies. Anyone familiar with progressive, student centered learning and the educational movemnet started by John Dewey would be comfortable and familiar with this model. Yes its a different model, but in my view it is a superior model for many students like myself who are extremely independent learners and who want a student-centered education. Places such as Goddard College http://www.goddard.edu/, Prescott College http://www.prescott.edu/ and Antioch University http://midwest.antioch.edu/ use an educational model similar to Fielding. Implicit in the critique of these models is the assumption that one pedagogical model is appropriate for all students. This of course is a fallacy. As budding psychologists, many of the posters on this board should be aware that different personality styles and learning styles should translate into different kinds of educational processes.

I would find a traditional American-style program to be a difficult place to learn and function effectively. One of my first jobs in the field of psychology 20 years ago was at a major practicum training site for a very well known program. My position entailed working very closely with doctoral students in who spent a year's rotation there. I got to know a few cohorts and I had the opportunity to hear all about the shenanigans of faculty: who was sleeping with who, who was fighting with who, what students were being mistreated by what faculty, what students were being threatened by whom, how students felt intimidated and bullied, how negative the departmental atmosphere was, how unhappy they were. I even remember the time an entire class failed their comps one year for non-academic reasons simply because a collection of faculty felt the cohort was too full of themselves and needed to be brought down a peg. I also had friends from my undergraduate years who were in top notch, tier one doctoral programs in clinical psychology who described similar experiences and were fairly miserable. My own master's program was very traditional, very cut-throat, very faculty centric, very very very hierarchical and was an experience I hated overall. One learned to keep one's head down, don't ask hard questions, agree with faculty and do the work. Now that I am older, I have very little tolerance for the BS that seems to permeate traditional academe. I decided that I wanted something very different, something much more student-centered, something more democratic and supportive for doctoral-level work. I have taken a different path and I have no regrets.
Click to expand...

The online PhD curriculum is also very research intensive despite the course offerings. More on that later... taking a nap after teaching:) I have late night and early morning hours.
 
FranklinR said:
That's a testable hypothesis. People who have/are raising children during their graduate education should do worse on licensing exams, and possibly have a harder time getting internships. Be rated worse as psychologists by patients and supervisors.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that women who have been accepted to competitive, fully-funded Ph.D programs who have chosen to start a family during their graduate school education will do worse on their licensing exams and be rated as less competent than their classmates who do not have children? I don't think so.
 
Quote: "National Convention Research Awards
Leslie Karwoski, University of Kansas, Karl M. Langner, San Diego State University, Artemis Pipinelli, Walden University, Theressa L. LaBarrie, College of Saint Elizabeth, Elizabeth A. Mickalich, Hope College, Martha Skup, University of Michigan, Julie A. Blundon, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Jessica Neubauer, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Molly Hurt, University of Mary Washington, Luanne Marie Lloyd, College of Mount St. Joseph, and Jill Tregler, Lewis University."

American Psychological Association Leaders in The Field (October,2006 p. 9). Vol 37,No. 9.

Electronically retrieved June 20, 2010 from:

http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct06/leaders.aspx:
 
PsychGraduate said:
The classroom discussion online is usually superior to classroom discussion, especially in very large classrooms in traditional brick and mortar classrooms. The required classroom participation is far higher in the online environment as it must be which more than compensates in this regard.
Click to expand...
You know what... this is so not worth it...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Members don't see this ad :)
thats right markp, didnt you know that the classroom discussions is where all the effective learning takes place in a doctoral program...:laugh:
 
Is there a way to link the Capella thread to this one? Same exact topic.

I have to state what I wrote on that thread

Can you or anyone at all tell me what amount of unique variance the interpersonal instructional experience of traditional b&m schools is in the prediciton toward the outcome variable of therapeutic mastery?

I mean...why don't medical schools just start Skyping surgical instruction if there's no importance to interpersonal process in the didactic facet of clin psych?

Erg923"thats right markp, didnt you know that the classroom discussions is where all the effective learning takes place in a doctoral program...:laugh: "

I agree with you erg and I get ur point but I think we should lean into this one rather than go the opposite direction. I think it's much more compelling to argue that the didactics received IN PERSON by experienced clinicians OVER TIME [not in an "accelerated" (one weekend) "class]

That really is where the argument lives.

Neuropsych2be:
A PhD in clinical is not directly akin to other "ancient" degrees. It is a delicate mix of medical and philosophical training and research. In that vein it is dangerous to ASSUME that the direct, traditional, interpersonal nuances and display that take place with b&m schools can be replaced with a hybrid online-quasi independent study program.
 
All of the online programs I have mentioned thus far offer an incredible amount of opportunities to engage in supervised training by APA licensed PhD (or PsyD) psychologists.

Please list specifics.

1. What research labs are they running where they provide 1:1 mentorship? Who are they run by?

2. What clinics do they run where they provide 1:1 supervision?

3. What out-patient/in-patient/residential centers provide 1:1 supervision?

In addition the online PhD programs I have discussed specifically require anywhere from 300 to almost a 1000 hours to even be eligible to graduate.

Fielding's Residency Requirements
You are required to accrue a minimum of 600 hours of residency during your enrollment. During your first and second years in the program, you must complete 150 hours each year, with the remaining 300 hours over the rest of your course of study.

600 hours is the equivalent of fifteen 40-hour weeks on campus, which spread over the recommended course of training (6 years) is 100 hours per year. For comparison, I gained 100 hours of direct contact and supervision working 1 day a week on a side research project one summer. The result was a quick line on my CV for a poster presentation, and exposure working with a new population. While it was a great experience and I am glad I was able to participate, I can't imagine this being my "main" training for the year.

How does this "face to face" time compare to the amount covered by a middle of the road B&M program? Anyone from a B&M program want to throw out a guesstimate of how many "residency hours" they completed. Below is a description of what is included in the term.


Definition of "Residency Hours"
Hours in which you are in face-to-face contact with a faculty member are considered residency including, but not limited to:
·Face-to-face portion of the New Student Orientation (NSO-SB)
·Winter and summer national sessions
·Spring and fall research and clinical sessions
·Group cluster meetings
·Individual meeting with your faculty advisor

Since this is a full-time program, you should plan to spend 20 or more hours per week involved in the academic, clinical, and research activities of the program. Following our suggested curriculum sequence will allow you to complete the program in 6 years.


How does 20 hours per week compare to 50-70+ hrs per week of a middle of the road B&M program? I'm not talking about the hardcore research programs where graduate students have slept in their lab (Jon Snow has made reference to this in the past), but instead the B&M program that requires 5 full days and usually at least part of the weekend to complete.

Add the fact that online students must still defend their PhD dissertation to a panel of qualified and licensed PhD's, many graduates of prestigious Universities themselves and the alleged gap narrows considerably.

I'm glad there are research requirements with a review panel and a defense. I know when I did my own reseach I was able to e-mail my mentor about a lot of things, and this worked decently well, but it would have tanked if I had a larger project with other team members. I worked on a much larger study and we had to be trained to administer everything exactly the same. We also had to have weekly progress meetings to aggregate the hard copy data, code everything, etc. We met for supervision and also for administrative issues like resubmitting IRB information, coordinating conferences, etc.

How exactly is research mentorship handled in a blended format? I can see how some of the planning and whatnot can be done via e-mail, but some of the other things don't seem replicable. Did you need to be trained on instruments? How did you handle training for standardized administration of assessments? Were there weekly status meetings? How did people handle research with multiple people? How did they meet? How was data handled/stored? Was there enough direct supervision? Did you have direct mentorship and feedback or was it all self-report?


The classroom discussion makes it easier for peers to communicate, collaborate and thus learn from one another. The online environment usually makes the professor more accessible as well.


Does online learning provide more or less opportunities for the various learning styles? The reason I ask is I did a bit of digging in this area for a conference presentation and it surprised me some of the differences. It is a bit of a toss-up from what I've found, but I'm open to hearing more about the supporting research. Technology has provided some great upgrades to the traditional classroom (minus PowerPoint, I hate PowerPoint), though I'm not sure the traditional classroom transfers 100% to an online classroom. Small things like body language, tone of voice, and the like are all important for communication, and are lacking online. I think small cuts and compromises are not acceptable at this level.
 
Last edited:
This is precisely where the argument needs to head.

The assumptions of the online programs are without an evidence base as I stated in my previous post. This is potentially very dangerous to patients.
 
aequitasveritas said:
Is there a way to link the Capella thread to this one? Same exact topic.

I have to state what I wrote on that thread

Can you or anyone at all tell me what amount of unique variance the interpersonal instructional experience of traditional b&m schools is in the prediciton toward the outcome variable of therapeutic mastery?

I mean...why don't medical schools just start Skyping surgical instruction if there's no importance to interpersonal process in the didactic facet of clin psych?

Erg923"thats right markp, didnt you know that the classroom discussions is where all the effective learning takes place in a doctoral program...:laugh: "

I agree with you erg and I get ur point but I think we should lean into this one rather than go the opposite direction. I think it's much more compelling to argue that the didactics received IN PERSON by experienced clinicians OVER TIME [not in an "accelerated" (one weekend) "class]

That really is where the argument lives.

Neuropsych2be:
A PhD in clinical is not directly akin to other "ancient" degrees. It is a delicate mix of medical and philosophical training and research. In that vein it is dangerous to ASSUME that the direct, traditional, interpersonal nuances and display that take place with b&m schools can be replaced with a hybrid online-quasi independent study program.
Click to expand...


The interpersonal training in B & M schools is not of higher quality in general than online since the same quality of face to face training is involved in both interpersonal interactions. The outcomes in therapuetic mastery must be clearly defined by you both qualitatively and quantitatively. Bias creates higher placement from B & M schools but that is not the same as saying online graduates are of inferior training, in attaining learning outcomes or acquring skill sets. In reality, however, therapeutic mastery is a life long pursuit of knowledge, training and experience.


No, it is not in the classroom discussions where all the learning in PhD programs occur, but you seem to be deliberately ignoring is that online graduate students must meet verified requirements for internships and practica. Also, not all students who get a PhD ultimately want to practice in clinical and instead teach and do research instead.

No the we are not discussing a one weekend class in person. I am referring to several one-two week face to face training sessions, weekend sessions, group residencies, one to one meetings and additional training. I put in similar time and hours as did Therapist4Change actually, ranging between 50 -70 hours.

Finally the 20 hours a week of studying from Fielding is a mininum figure when taking a class or two, not when training as well.

Mid level B & M Universities are fine if you can get there everyday and can afford the various expenses associated with them. Tuition can be cheaper, but that is not the only source of high expense when attending a PhD program.
 
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120781348/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewarticle/235/320


http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/76/1/93

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a782648952


In regards to GRE and othe issues from the Capella thread:

Getting In and Getting Money: A Comparative Analysis of Admission Standards, Acceptance Rates, and Financial Assistance Across the Research–Practice Continuum in Clinical Psychology Programs





References and further reading may be available for


John C. Norcrossa, 1, , , Jeannette L. Ellisa, 2 and Michael A. Sayetteb, 3

a University of Scranton
b University of Pittsburgh


Received 24 June 2008;
revised 4 November 2008;
accepted 17 November 2008.
Available online 9 June 2010.



The diversification and proliferation of doctoral programs in clinical psychology call for their periodic comparative analysis to inform prospective applicants, their advisors, and the entire field. The authors surveyed directors of the 232 American Psychological Association (APA)–accredited doctoral programs in clinical psychology (98% response) regarding application numbers, acceptance rates, financial assistance, and credentials of incoming students. Results are summarized for all clinical programs and then separately for 6 types of programs along the practice–research continuum: freestanding PsyD, university professional school PsyD, university department PsyD, practice-oriented PhD, equal-emphasis PhD, and research-oriented PhD. Lower acceptance rates and higher Graduate Record Examination scores were strongly associated with programs oriented toward more research training; for example, research-oriented PhD programs admitted far fewer applicants (7% vs. 50%) than did freestanding PsyD programs. Freestanding PsyD programs awarded significantly less full financial assistance to incoming students (1% vs. 89%) and required 1 less year to complete than did PhD programs. Overall, PhD-level students were more likely to secure an APA or Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers internship than were PsyD students. The authors conclude with observations about the historical changes and heightened differentiation of doctoral training in clinical psychology.


Author Keywords: graduate school; acceptance rates; clinical psychology; financial aid; internship match
Click to expand...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=413f2610da4943dc4bbf1918d276cc98
 
Last edited:

LMAO IS ALL I CAN SAY.

Exactly y r u posting this? My oh my. And....what an independent "university" you have here


Navigating Distance and Traditional Higher Education: Online faculty experiences

Alice G. Yick, Pam Patrick and Amanda Costin
Capella University
USA

Abstract

The academic culture of higher educational institutions is characterized by specific pedagogical philosophies, assumptions about rewards and incentives, and values about how teaching is delivered. In many academic settings, however, the field of distance education has been viewed as holding marginal status. Consequently, the goal of this qualitative study was to explore faculty members’ experiences in a distance education, online university while simultaneously navigating within a traditional environment of higher education. A total of 28 faculty members participated in a threaded, asynchronous discussion board that resembled a focus group. Participants discussed perceptions about online teaching, working in an institution without a traditional tenure system, and the role of research in distance education. Findings indicated that online teaching is still regarded as less credible; however, participants also noted how this perception is gradually changing. Several benchmarks of legitimacy were identified for online universities to adopt in order to be viewed as credible. The issue of tenure still remains highly debated, although some faculty felt that tenure will be less crucial in the future. Finally, recommendations regarding attitudinal shifts within academic circles are described with particular attention to professional practice, program development, and policy decision-making in academia.

-----------------------------

Perhaps you did not read your own articles?
I've emboldened some issues for you....


Teaching Courses Online: A Review of the Research

Mary K. Tallent-Runnels
Julie A. Thomas
William Y. Lan
Sandi Cooper
Texas Tech University

Terence C. Ahern

West Virginia University

Shana M. Shaw
Xiaoming Liu

Texas Tech University

This literature review summarizes research on online teaching and learning. It is organized into four topics: course environment, learners’ outcomes, learners’ characteristics, and institutional and administrative factors. The authors found little consistency of terminology, discovered some conclusive guidelines, and identified developing lines of inquiry. The conclusions overall suggest that most of the studies reviewed were descriptive and exploratory, that most online students are nontraditional and Anglo American, and that few universities have written policies, guidelines, or technical support for faculty members or students. Asynchronous communication seemed to facilitate in-depth communication (but not more than in traditional classes), students liked to move at their own pace, learning outcomes appeared to be the same as in traditional courses, and students with prior training in computers were more satisfied with online courses. Continued research is needed to inform learner outcomes, learner characteristics, course environment, and institutional factors related to delivery system variables in order to test learning theories and teaching models inherent in course design.

------------------------------------------------

Rewriting the agenda for training in clinical and counselling psychology

Author: Jeffrey C. Richardsa
Affiliation: a University of Ballarat,
DOI: 10.1080/00050060108259641
Publication Frequency: 4 issues per year
Published in: Australian Psychologist, Volume 36, Issue 2 July 2001 , pages 99 - 106
Subjects: Counseling Psychology; Multidisciplinary Psychology; Psychiatry & Clinical Psychology - Adult;
Formats available: PDF (English)
Article Requests: Order Reprints : Request Permissions
Single Article Purchase: US$30.00 - buy now add to cart [ show other buying options ]
Sign In Online Sample
View Full Text Article

Download PDF (~1096 KB)

Abstract
This paper describes a model for future training in clinical and counselling psychology. The model is based on the results of psychotherapy outcome research, and the development of empirically supported therapies, as well as recent developments in the use of information technology in psychotherapeutic interventions. It is also argued that developments such as the increasing cost of mental health interventions, the wide disparities in access to specialised mental health assistance, and the rise of the mental health consumer movement all provide a context for recommendations as to optimum developments in training for clinical and counselling psychologists.


EXACTLY HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THIS AS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF YOUR POSITION. NO DATA...MERELY AN IDEA.

It seems that all you do is reply back to posts here like it's opposite day. I say one thing you say another...but you do so without evidence.

I am wearing thin..please just answer the question of variance that I first posted or simply admit that it cannot be answered as of now so we can all move on.
 
aequitasveritas said:
LMAO IS ALL I CAN SAY.

Exactly y r u posting this? My oh my. And....what an independent "university" you have here


Navigating Distance and Traditional Higher Education: Online faculty experiences

Alice G. Yick, Pam Patrick and Amanda Costin
Capella University
USA

Abstract

The academic culture of higher educational institutions is characterized by specific pedagogical philosophies, assumptions about rewards and incentives, and values about how teaching is delivered. In many academic settings, however, the field of distance education has been viewed as holding marginal status. Consequently, the goal of this qualitative study was to explore faculty members’ experiences in a distance education, online university while simultaneously navigating within a traditional environment of higher education. A total of 28 faculty members participated in a threaded, asynchronous discussion board that resembled a focus group. Participants discussed perceptions about online teaching, working in an institution without a traditional tenure system, and the role of research in distance education. Findings indicated that online teaching is still regarded as less credible; however, participants also noted how this perception is gradually changing. Several benchmarks of legitimacy were identified for online universities to adopt in order to be viewed as credible. The issue of tenure still remains highly debated, although some faculty felt that tenure will be less crucial in the future. Finally, recommendations regarding attitudinal shifts within academic circles are described with particular attention to professional practice, program development, and policy decision-making in academia.

-----------------------------

Perhaps you did not read your own articles?
I've emboldened some issues for you....


Teaching Courses Online: A Review of the Research

Mary K. Tallent-Runnels
Julie A. Thomas
William Y. Lan
Sandi Cooper
Texas Tech University

Terence C. Ahern

West Virginia University

Shana M. Shaw
Xiaoming Liu

Texas Tech University

This literature review summarizes research on online teaching and learning. It is organized into four topics: course environment, learners’ outcomes, learners’ characteristics, and institutional and administrative factors. The authors found little consistency of terminology, discovered some conclusive guidelines, and identified developing lines of inquiry. The conclusions overall suggest that most of the studies reviewed were descriptive and exploratory, that most online students are nontraditional and Anglo American, and that few universities have written policies, guidelines, or technical support for faculty members or students. Asynchronous communication seemed to facilitate in-depth communication (but not more than in traditional classes), students liked to move at their own pace, learning outcomes appeared to be the same as in traditional courses, and students with prior training in computers were more satisfied with online courses. Continued research is needed to inform learner outcomes, learner characteristics, course environment, and institutional factors related to delivery system variables in order to test learning theories and teaching models inherent in course design.

------------------------------------------------

Rewriting the agenda for training in clinical and counselling psychology

Author: Jeffrey C. Richardsa
Affiliation: a University of Ballarat,
DOI: 10.1080/00050060108259641
Publication Frequency: 4 issues per year
Published in: Australian Psychologist, Volume 36, Issue 2 July 2001 , pages 99 - 106
Subjects: Counseling Psychology; Multidisciplinary Psychology; Psychiatry & Clinical Psychology - Adult;
Formats available: PDF (English)
Article Requests: Order Reprints : Request Permissions
Single Article Purchase: US$30.00 - buy now add to cart [ show other buying options ]
Sign In Online Sample
View Full Text Article

Download PDF (~1096 KB)

Abstract
This paper describes a model for future training in clinical and counselling psychology. The model is based on the results of psychotherapy outcome research, and the development of empirically supported therapies, as well as recent developments in the use of information technology in psychotherapeutic interventions. It is also argued that developments such as the increasing cost of mental health interventions, the wide disparities in access to specialised mental health assistance, and the rise of the mental health consumer movement all provide a context for recommendations as to optimum developments in training for clinical and counselling psychologists.


EXACTLY HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THIS AS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF YOUR POSITION. NO DATA...MERELY AN IDEA.

It seems that all you do is reply back to posts here like it's opposite day. I say one thing you say another...but you do so without evidence.

I am wearing thin..please just answer the question of variance that I first posted or simply admit that it cannot be answered as of now so we can all move on.
Click to expand...

I posted both data/evidence and area which need to be furthered explored with hypotheses formed and theoretical frameworks worked within. I know there needs to be more studies produced, however I did offer evidence while you provided conjecture.
 
Busy week but here is the internship for Walden University in order to graduate:

PSYC 8882 Internship (12 cr.—3 cr. per term for 4 terms)
The internship provides a supervised training experience that prepares students to successfully function in the role of a professional psychologist and/or counselor. Internship experiences emphasize the integration of theory and research through applied practice in a variety of settings and situations. Interns are mentored through a professional relationship with a supervising psychologist. They learn how to effectively use and understand a supervisory relationship, engage in critical thinking, conduct assessments, implement evidence-based interventions, evaluate intervention efficacy, engage in professional consultation, and function within professional ethical standards. Interns also participate in didactic training. Internship is the final component of advanced applied professional training for students in licensure specializations prior to graduation. Students must secure internships appropriate to their specialization, and the internship must meet the current requirements of the state psychology board to which the student intends to apply. A total of 2,000 hours is required. Internships may be designed as a part-time or a full-time experience (minimum of 15 hours per week) and must be completed within a two-year time frame. Students participate in an online classroom experience. (Prerequisites: PSYC 8871, completion of the internship application, and approval of the field training coordinator.)
Click to expand...

This program meets APA guidlines. It meets state board requirements and it has enabled those who want APA licenses to obtain them. Obviously if a state requires you to graduate from an APA accredited program and you want to practice in that state then there are other schools to explore.

The total hours is consistent with required doctoral hours as required by the APA. Most PhD students at Walden already have clincial training and experience prior to attending Walden.
 
PsychGraduate said:
This program meets APA guidlines. It meets state board requirements and it has enabled those who want APA licenses to obtain them. Obviously if a state requires you to graduate from an APA accredited program and you want to practice in that state then there are other schools to explore.

The total hours is consistent with required doctoral hours as required by the APA. Most PhD students at Walden already have clincial training and experience prior to attending Walden.
Click to expand...

There is an important distinction between "meeting APA guidelines" and having the actual acred. because the latter affirms the guidelines being met are up to the standards set by the APA. Many unacred. programs list "meeting APA guidelines", though that is based on the opinion of the program and not on an actual review committee or other formal organization.

The devil is in the details, and having the right course titles and requiring a cetain number of hours does not account for the content and overall quality of the training. I'm not saying that an unacred. program cannot offer good training, but that a claim of equivalency is not proof enough that the training is actually equivilant.

The laws about licensure were written by politicians and not psychologists, so they are purposefully vague and up to interpretation. The issue of equivilancy was one of politics and not practice, which is why I am much less supportive of, "they licensed me, so that means I had the same level of training as people from other universities." There are many instances where someone can legally do something, but that doesn't mean they should, as they also need to account for the ethics involved in their decision.
 
T4C

With the caveat that Fielding is *not* online, let me try to answer some of your questions. As far as research hours go, Fielding students often become involved in a research project outside of the institution by doing what is called a research practicum. This is analagous to a clinical practicum in terms of hours. Typically this is done at a research lab or other project. For example, I know of Fielding students who have done research placements at Emory University with Nadine Kaslow, others have done placements at UCLA, UT, John's Hopkins, private research groups, local liberal arts universities etc.... I myself can't begin to tell you the number of hours I have spent in a face to face, on site, research project. We are required to attain a certain number of hours but the actual numbers on acquires are far far far in excess of that. I could not even count the number of hours I have accrued off my head but its many many hundreds of hours.

Fielding does not run a clinic but requires practica. Right now my time to track page says I have 1713 hours of face to face practicum and of those 793 are direct intervention and assessment hours. These were accrued in a residential treatment center for adolescents, the neuropsychology division of a rehabilitation hospital, and in a nonprofit psychiatric hospital and its affiliated outpatient clinics. I still have several months of practica left and plan on having at least 1000 hours of intervention and assessment hours on my APPIC application. This is on top of my 20 years of full time clinical experience which I hope will make me competitive :) Right now I am spending up to 25 hours a week just at my clinical practicum site and I recieve 3-4 hours of direct supervision and 1 hour of group supervision each week.

Residency hours are gathered at Fielding through monthly meetings on the weekends at regional centers across the country, week long meetings across the year etc... The hours add up. I would guess I have thousands of direct faculty contact hours so far.

The other issue is one of demographics. I am in my late 40's and I have 20 years of full time clinical and administrative experience. I have professional licensure. The average age of a Fielding student is 46. The average Fielding student has a masters degree, is licensed, and has at least 12 years of full time clinical experience. We are a very different demographic than a traditional 24 yea old just out of undergraduate school. Our learning needs are different.

Prior to starting Fielding I had already administered, scored, interpreted and written report on *thousands* of WAIS' and WISC'S, Stanford Binet's, WMS' Rorschachs, MMPI's Bender's, WIAT's WRAML's, CVLT's etc... To give you some perspective, I was originally trained on the original WMS, I remember when the WMS-R came out. Those numbers derive from daily administration of neuropsychologcal and psychological test batteries for 9 years. I could give the Wechsler Memory Scale-III backwards, in my sleep, in French! I have also spent *years* of full time work as an inpatient therapist, an outpatient therapist, run groups, seem an untold number of clients in individual therapy, been a full time research assistant at the VA etc... All this before even setting foot in my doctoral program. Can you or Jon Snow or Ollie say you had this level of experience prior to starting your respective programs??

In my background and experience, I am a very typical example of a Fielding student. Fielding is designed for mid career mid life professionals NOT young people frsh out of a BA or BS program with limited experience. Like most mid-life professionals, I entered my program with a vast amount of experience in terms of number of client's seen, amount of clinical supervision, and professional development. So "running the numbers" does is not a good gauge simply due to selection bias. Of course I can ot speak for Capella or any other institution. Again, Fielding is not online.




Therapist4Chnge said:
All of the online programs I have mentioned thus far offer an incredible amount of opportunities to engage in supervised training by APA licensed PhD (or PsyD) psychologists.

Please list specifics.

1. What research labs are they running where they provide 1:1 mentorship? Who are they run by?

2. What clinics do they run where they provide 1:1 supervision?

3. What out-patient/in-patient/residential centers provide 1:1 supervision?

In addition the online PhD programs I have discussed specifically require anywhere from 300 to almost a 1000 hours to even be eligible to graduate.

Fielding's Residency Requirements
You are required to accrue a minimum of 600 hours of residency during your enrollment. During your first and second years in the program, you must complete 150 hours each year, with the remaining 300 hours over the rest of your course of study.

600 hours is the equivalent of fifteen 40-hour weeks on campus, which spread over the recommended course of training (6 years) is 100 hours per year. For comparison, I gained 100 hours of direct contact and supervision working 1 day a week on a side research project one summer. The result was a quick line on my CV for a poster presentation, and exposure working with a new population. While it was a great experience and I am glad I was able to participate, I can't imagine this being my "main" training for the year.

How does this "face to face" time compare to the amount covered by a middle of the road B&M program? Anyone from a B&M program want to throw out a guesstimate of how many "residency hours" they completed. Below is a description of what is included in the term.


Definition of "Residency Hours"
Hours in which you are in face-to-face contact with a faculty member are considered residency including, but not limited to:
·Face-to-face portion of the New Student Orientation (NSO-SB)
·Winter and summer national sessions
·Spring and fall research and clinical sessions
·Group cluster meetings
·Individual meeting with your faculty advisor

Since this is a full-time program, you should plan to spend 20 or more hours per week involved in the academic, clinical, and research activities of the program. Following our suggested curriculum sequence will allow you to complete the program in 6 years.


How does 20 hours per week compare to 50-70+ hrs per week of a middle of the road B&M program? I'm not talking about the hardcore research programs where graduate students have slept in their lab (Jon Snow has made reference to this in the past), but instead the B&M program that requires 5 full days and usually at least part of the weekend to complete.

Add the fact that online students must still defend their PhD dissertation to a panel of qualified and licensed PhD's, many graduates of prestigious Universities themselves and the alleged gap narrows considerably.

I'm glad there are research requirements with a review panel and a defense. I know when I did my own reseach I was able to e-mail my mentor about a lot of things, and this worked decently well, but it would have tanked if I had a larger project with other team members. I worked on a much larger study and we had to be trained to administer everything exactly the same. We also had to have weekly progress meetings to aggregate the hard copy data, code everything, etc. We met for supervision and also for administrative issues like resubmitting IRB information, coordinating conferences, etc.

How exactly is research mentorship handled in a blended format? I can see how some of the planning and whatnot can be done via e-mail, but some of the other things don't seem replicable. Did you need to be trained on instruments? How did you handle training for standardized administration of assessments? Were there weekly status meetings? How did people handle research with multiple people? How did they meet? How was data handled/stored? Was there enough direct supervision? Did you have direct mentorship and feedback or was it all self-report?


The classroom discussion makes it easier for peers to communicate, collaborate and thus learn from one another. The online environment usually makes the professor more accessible as well.


Does online learning provide more or less opportunities for the various learning styles? The reason I ask is I did a bit of digging in this area for a conference presentation and it surprised me some of the differences. It is a bit of a toss-up from what I've found, but I'm open to hearing more about the supporting research. Technology has provided some great upgrades to the traditional classroom (minus PowerPoint, I hate PowerPoint), though I'm not sure the traditional classroom transfers 100% to an online classroom. Small things like body language, tone of voice, and the like are all important for communication, and are lacking online. I think small cuts and compromises are not acceptable at this level.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Jon Snow said:
I wonder how you score and interpret thousands of psych assessments without actually being a psychologist.
Click to expand...

I was curious about this as well. It is one thing to do psych. tech work, but something completely different to score, interpret, and write a report. Did you have a supervisor? Were they okay with you scoring, interpreting, and writing reports? What happened if there was a problem with the report/findings?

I currently work with a psych. tech who has been a great addition to our team, but I can't imagine asking her to score, interpret, or write the reports. We talk about what certain things can mean, and she'll ask about other testing and how it fits in, but it is not ethnical, legal, nor responsible to put her in a position where she would do anything but administer the assessments under supervision of a licensed psychologist (neuropsychologist in this case).

Jon Snow said:
They will have a different perspective on the role of a physician than a 23 year old 1st year med school student. But, that doesn't mean that they should be able to do a distance learning or online medical school. They should still go to a real medical school, in my opinion. Their experience will probably give them an interesting edge over their classmates.
Click to expand...

I think this is worth acknowledging, though a clinical psychology program and the requirements needed to complete one are quite different than someone coming from counseling/social work/any other quasi-related area. Prior to my graduate training I came from the business world, and while my skillset from that has been helpful (I/O related work, programming, and stats work), it really didn't compare to the nuts and bolts of a clinical psychology program. I may have been able to make a case for a Ph.D. in I/O Psychology, but I still would have had to take all of the required classes and complete all of the requirements.

The crux of the issue with online training is the "different but equal" assertion, which lacks sufficient data to back up the claim. While the representatives sharing on here seem to go above and beyond for their training, the low requirements set by the institutions is concerning because someone can squeak by if they find the loopholes. If at every decision there is a compromise/loophole, when does the training cease to be adequate training?

Some of the loopholes and rationales I have heard:
-Attend a non-acred. program instead of an ACA-acred program. "I couldn't relocate. I have a lot of 'other' experience. Those programs don't meet my needs. I'm not going to be an RA for a couple of years just to get into a program when I can go to XYZ and still get licensed. I don't want to work for someone else. They meet the APA guidelines even though they aren't APA-acred."
-Complete minimal research. "I want to be a therapist and not a researcher. I don't want to be stuck in a lab. I don't like stats. I'm a people person. I'm not going to publish. I can still read and understand the journal articles, which should be enough."
-Attend the bare minimum number of classes/seminars to graduate. "I met my requirements. I do better at 'hands on' work. I can read a book about it instead. I have experience in XYZ, so why do I need to sit through that class again?"
-Complete practica at "local" sites that don't have faculty-connected supervision like traditional training programs. "I am self-motivated and don't need my hand held. I have a lot of experience doing XYZ, which is the same thing. I don't need to be on campus and observed by faculty to know I am doing it right."
-Complete a non-acred. internship. "I couldn't relocate. I can customize my training. I don't need an APA-acred. site to get licensed. I can't work 60 hours a week because I have other responsibilities. APPIC is unfair."
 
Last edited:
PsychGraduate said:
I posted both data/evidence and area which need to be furthered explored with hypotheses formed and theoretical frameworks worked within. I know there needs to be more studies produced, however I did offer evidence while you provided conjecture.
Click to expand...

If by "data/evidence" you mean qualitative papers, mostly written by online universities, and all of which are devoid of a single outcome in support of online edu over b &M then yes, you certainly did offer up some "data."
Because something was published does not mean it has specificity for this topic.

Moreover, it is not up to me to provide you with evidence that B & M schools offer superior training because the assumption needs to be that they do unless proven otherwise because the risk of assuming liberally on the side of online edu is potential risk to patients. In the absence of evidence in an unknown area it is up to the pioneer to provide evidence against any gold standard.

Even so, the APA match rates, the structure of the program (which I know you disagree with and say its amazing), and the APA acred. are all proof that that online is not and was not meant to be in par. You say APA match rates are due to bias....yet that is also mere conjecture.
 
Jon Snow said:
I wonder how you score and interpret thousands of psych assessments without actually being a psychologist.

Be that as it may, no I didn't have any of that experience coming into graduate school or leaving it (1000s). But, I entered graduate school when I was 23 years old. This would be similar (yours) to a nurse entering medical school after 20 years on the job. They will have a different perspective on the role of a physician than a 23 year old 1st year med school student. But, that doesn't mean that they should be able to do a distance learning or online medical school. They should still go to a real medical school, in my opinion. Their experience will probably give them an interesting edge over their classmates.

My experience prior to graduate school was a few directed independent studies (research) and an honors thesis. Clinically, I worked as a behavioral analyst for a year. That's it.
Click to expand...


I should clarify that this scoring and interpreting and report writing was done under the direct supervision of a Ph.D. level psychologist and in a manner consistent with my master's level licensure in the state in which I worked.

Anyway that is something of an aside to my main point which is that Fielding students get an enormous amount of direct supervision. This is one of the things that APA looks at closely every time we go through a reaccreditation visit. Indeed, this was one of the main reasons that led to Fielding getting its accreditation 20 years ago. This idea that Fielding students spend their time alone isolated and unsupervised is extraordinarily inaccurate. I must add though that this model Fielding has developed does have its drawbacks and I don't think it is appropriate for many or even most people. I say this as I am at a particularly low point in my program because the time constraints have been so huge for so long. I don't think I can work 100 hour plus weeks for much longer at my age. I seem to put in more hours than are physically possible every week and just want the damn thing to be done.
 
Last edited:
"I think this is worth acknowledging, though a clinical psychology program and the requirements needed to complete one are quite different than someone coming from counseling/social work/any other quasi-related area."


Could you expound on this some. I am interested in your line of reasoning. :)
 
Therapist4Chnge said:
I was curious about this as well. It is one thing to do psych. tech work, but something completely different to score, interpret, and write a report. Did you have a supervisor? Were they okay with you scoring, interpreting, and writing reports? What happened if there was a problem with the report/findings?

I currently work with a psych. tech who has been a great addition to our team, but I can't imagine asking her to score, interpret, or write the reports. We talk about what certain things can mean, and she'll ask about other testing and how it fits in, but it is not ethnical, legal, nor responsible to put her in a position where she would do anything but administer the assessments under supervision of a licensed psychologist (neuropsychologist in this case).



I think this is worth acknowledging, though a clinical psychology program and the requirements needed to complete one are quite different than someone coming from counseling/social work/any other quasi-related area. Prior to my graduate training I came from the business world, and while my skillset from that has been helpful (I/O related work, programming, and stats work), it really didn't compare to the nuts and bolts of a clinical psychology program. I may have been able to make a case for a Ph.D. in I/O Psychology, but I still would have had to take all of the required classes and complete all of the requirements.

The crux of the issue with online training is the "different but equal" assertion, which lacks sufficient data to back up the claim. While the representatives sharing on here seem to go above and beyond for their training, the low requirements set by the institutions is concerning because someone can squeak by if they find the loopholes. If at every decision there is a compromise/loophole, when does the training cease to be adequate training?

Some of the loopholes and rationales I have heard:
-Attend a non-acred. program instead of an ACA-acred program. "I couldn't relocate. I have a lot of 'other' experience. Those programs don't meet my needs. I'm not going to be an RA for a couple of years just to get into a program when I can go to XYZ and still get licensed. I don't want to work for someone else. They meet the APA guidelines even though they aren't APA-acred."
-Complete minimal research. "I want to be a therapist and not a researcher. I don't want to be stuck in a lab. I don't like stats. I'm a people person. I'm not going to publish. I can still read and understand the journal articles, which should be enough."
-Attend the bare minimum number of classes/seminars to graduate. "I met my requirements. I do better at 'hands on' work. I can read a book about it instead. I have experience in XYZ, so why do I need to sit through that class again?"
-Complete practica at "local" sites that don't have faculty-connected supervision like traditional training programs. "I am self-motivated and don't need my hand held. I have a lot of experience doing XYZ, which is the same thing. I don't need to be on campus and observed by faculty to know I am doing it right."
-Complete a non-acred. internship. "I couldn't relocate. I can customize my training. I don't need an APA-acred. site to get licensed. I can't work 60 hours a week because I have other responsibilities. APPIC is unfair."
Click to expand...


I teach statistics and took 3 courses as an undergarduate and 4 high level statistics courses as a graduate student, besided other graduate level statistical intensive courese for the social sciences, so I am not confused by parametric verus non- parametric tests, normal distributions, multi-linear regressions, normative sampling, correlation intervals, level of confidence, level of significance, one tailed and two tailed tests, using a goodness of fit test, (Chi square)Z tests, F tests, t tests, the null hypothesis, the alternative hypothesis, type I errors, type II errors, interpretations of IQ tests, and various persoalilty tests. I began my major as a Biochem/Psychology major and completed Gen Chem I and II, Organic Chem I and II, Biology I and II, Cell Biology, Molecular Biology, Genetics, Microbiology, and Biochemistry along with an assortment of psychology courses. In first year genetics we use statistics like chi square methods, we start out with rolling the dice 200 or so times, we go over subjective versus empirical probability. I changed my mind about going to med school and decided I wanted to be a psychologist with several specializations over time. Some of these desired specializations I am still working on as I work a professor, tutor and perform part time clinical work in my state in accordance with their laws. I had many hours of faculty supervision and onsite training in the field. I took research design as an undergrdaduate and a graduate along with lots of neuropsychology and neuroscience. One of my specialties is neurobiology from my undergraduate training and I have a solid graduate understanding from training of neuropsychological assessment. I am still finishing up additional training to practice in this regard. Reading a book is only part of what must be done and this where practice, internships, residencies, and so forth come in, all of which I completed. I am very much research oriented and to claim otherwise based upon my being a proponent of online education is not only dishonest but unethical on your part. These assumptions lend evidence to my thoughts as to your bias against online education without just cause or proper evidence.

I met a woman whom I ultimately married and my life greatly changed. We did some considerable and frequent moving at first to figure out how we could live our lives; in the modernist tone: "what would suffice." This means in terms of financial considerations, living conditions and academic/training pursuits. In my undergrdaute I studied everything I found of interest and found what internships and training I could, which addmitedly was limited in terms of official hours, but I did find some. The rest was in a professor's office and before and after office hours, but again in B & M their time tended to be very limited. In online education it is more self directed, however, I did find great mentors in graduate classes AND in face to face training.


I began pre-med track and psychology in undergraduate.

I do have a background in B & M's and I am greatful to what I learned in them. I would never take that back.

I even began in a cheap but nationally recognized community college first. I then went to well respected, but affordable state institution, almost graduated switched to an online institution and later was able to transfer credits and take 2 courses and graduate from that University. I then earned 3 degrees in graduate school: two masters and one PhD all at online institutions. One in master's Forensic Psychology and the other in clinical with a neuro emphasis. My PhD is clinical. I understand informed consent, the APA guidelines for multi-cultural issues, various applications of forensic assessment and I have relevant training.

I am not confused by the antiport system, symport system, passive and active diffusion, the specific actions of K+, Cl-, NA+, or CA++ ions, signal transduction, G-proteins, Horner syndrome, (diagnosed by three clinical findings: ptosis, myosis and anhydrosis) and Autism diagnosis. I have years of experience working with autistic children in tutoring, behavior technician and behaviot analyst roles.
I have read many of your posts here and I have enjoyed the majority of them, and even more importantly found them informative as well.

In other words a combination of supervised training, B & M supervision/education and then well earned online degrees with additional faculty supervised practica AND APA accredited internships. My internships were APA accredited. Most of the jobs I took for relevant experience paid very little and only some of my internships even paid at all. It is called being very hard/smart working and brilliant while still being indigent.

You are a PsyD yes? What assessments do you specialize in? Do you not have clinical training and experience in dealing with bright but under represented populations? Financial aid and scholarships only go so far if you come from a sub par High School backgroudn and then perform real well in the midts of absolute poverty:eek:. For each biased socio-mental filter each of us incorporates in terms of socioeconomic status, and in terms of educational delivery model, we move away from one another, and the farther away our conception of the reality becomes. Of course such intrasubjective and intersubjective perspectives change one's understanding of empirical reality, thus also blocking us from new learning.

I agree that online institutions are LESS selective. I also see that selective schools do not necesarily produce quality clinicians or even quality professors. I agree that for profits have certain disavantages and potential disadvantages. I also know of several in State and Private Uni's. I worked my ass off day and night in all learning modalities. I received numerous letters of recommendation from B & M professors and online ones as well. I graduated with honors and completed many upper division honors and natural science courses. I have the unique ability to offer perspective for several learning modalities: B & M, Blended/Hybrid and Online. I have observed training modalities in several Universities of others.

There needs to be more research on this matter in terms of meta-analysis and empirical data, but here is a good place to really

start:http://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deos/deosnews/deosarchives.asp

And here:

http://www.ajde.com/editor.htm

Though we may not all agree on the conclusions I promise you this is scholarly discussion from the above links. There are some areas that are stated explicitly in need of more research AND areas that make it embarrassing for proponents of online distance education models of various sorts. I am not just defending a position as another poster asserted or defending myself as my opening paragraphs do in response to Therapist4Change. This is real issue in education and training which must be addressed. Issues of competency, training quality, job prospects, and APA guidelines are all important and we need a more serious dialogue here.

It is quite easy for undergrdautes who have a 3.0 GPA in undergraduate to get into a mid level graduate program and even into some PhD programs with a 3.2 GPA. I am not so sure that GPA alone is a predictor but I never had such low GPA's in any aspect of my collegiate pursuits. Then again a 3.2 GPA in Physical Chemistry should be acceptable to get into a good medical school. It is all about context. I had a professor friend who is a Phsyical Chemist and he was telling me that he barely passed his first Gen Chem course and found the GRE very confusing and he scored good enough but not great. Physical Chemistry is one of the hardest things to major in anywhere in the world alongside Radiology specialties and Devlopmental Biology. Psychologically speaking it is all about context. Online schools do attract people looking for an easier time and lower admissions standards as a rule. I, however, did not and I know many others who did not. Also lower admissions standards does not change the quality of the professors, or the requirements for training. Those who cannot cut it do not last OR they barely pass but do not become APA licensed.

There are no easy answers at this time so yes I am making a claim which needs further qualification. On the contrary there is not solid evidence showing that B & M is superior to online or blended models either, so I am majing a claim based upon what research is available, my interpretation and my own albeit biased experiences as by your own admission your perspective is biased. I am not telling student do not go to a local well funded school if they can and want to. I am not saying to online students that online education is sub par or only attend if they cannot attend a well funded local school either. The issues are more nuanced and complex than that. I know APA accred is important. I am APA licensed in my state.

On a final note with no direct evidence: there is nothing you cannot teach yourself, but the professor and mentors give you context, additional skills, discipline, and focus.
 
Last edited:
As I stated earlier, my issues with online training are in regard to the programs and their curriculum. There are students that would do well with an online program or traditional program, though my concerns are with all of the other students who are not top performers. The top %'s are almost never a problem, but the bottom % drag everyone down.

As for my clinical speciality, I work mostly in neuropsychology and rehabilitation psychology. This summer I'll be starting a 2-year fellowship at an R1 university (Top 5 medical school), where I'll be doing TBI and SCI work. With a bit of work I'll be board elligible for both neuropsychology and rehabilitation psychology once all is said and done. We'll see how motivated I am to go for both. :laugh:

Okay, off to my next endeavor....catching up on the World Cup (thank you DVR!)
 
Therapist4Chnge said:
As I stated earlier, my issues with online training are in regard to the programs and their curriculum. There are students that would do well with an online program or traditional program, though my concerns are with all of the other students who are not top performers. The top %'s are almost never a problem, but the bottom % drag everyone down.

As for my clinical speciality, I work mostly in neuropsychology and rehabilitation psychology. This summer I'll be starting a 2-year fellowship at an R1 university (Top 5 medical school), where I'll be doing TBI and SCI work. With a bit of work I'll be board elligible for both neuropsychology and rehabilitation psychology once all is said and done. We'll see how motivated I am to go for both. :laugh:

Okay, off to my next endeavor....catching up on the World Cup (thank you DVR!)
Click to expand...

I see you no issue with that. However, they can be high quality training experiences for properly motivated students.


Congrats by the way!
 
Jon Snow said:
Heh, true as though that may be, it doesn't really help answer my question.
Click to expand...

I did that for the same reason therapist made unsubstantiated claims about my comfortability with stats. We can discuss specifics if you want to.
 
aequitasveritas said:
...seriously?
Click to expand...

The practical application is important and hence why all schools have training. My point is how to properly interpret psychometric tests for example can come from a series of textbooks, journals and some audio and video aids. This also takes practice practice practice.
 
Therapist4Chnge said:
With a bit of work I'll be board elligible for both neuropsychology and rehabilitation psychology once all is said and done. We'll see how motivated I am to go for both.
Click to expand...

On that note - it would be a neat idea of a whole separate forum could be set up here specifically discussing this subject (boarding) - I've been practicing for the past four years and I'm now starting to explore the idea of getting boarded.

Maybe i'll bring this up again.....
 
PsychGraduate said:
Congrats by the way!
Click to expand...

Thanks!

PsychGraduate said:
I did that for the same reason therapist made unsubstantiated claims about my comfortability with stats. We can discuss specifics if you want to.
Click to expand...

Again, my comments aren't directed at any one individual, but the training programs. My areas of concern were all based on prior feedback on here about online training, and not directly at you personally.

DrGero said:
On that note - it would be a neat idea of a whole separate forum could be set up here specifically discussing this subject (boarding) - I've been practicing for the past four years and I'm now starting to explore the idea of getting boarded.

Maybe i'll bring this up again.....
Click to expand...

I've started a couple threads about boarding. If you do a search for ABPP they should come up. I'm not sure there would be enough activity for a separate forum, but I'm open to talking more about the boarding process because I think it is important and I'd like to see it become the standard for psychologists.
 
Therapist4Chnge said:
Thanks!

You are welcome. I am sure you have gotten through a very rigorous program and your training is superb. I can tell by the way you communicate you have an education and training. With PsyD it is even more hands on training as oppsoed to research.:D



Again, my comments aren't directed at any one individual, but the training programs. My areas of concern were all based on prior feedback on here about online training, and not directly at you personally.

I did not get that impression from you until your last set of comments, which seemed directed at all online students, not even most as you previously claimed. I have respect for you and your views. I do think that less honest students have opportunities for dishonesty, but where I went to school I had to verfify my hours and I chose only the best internships. Now maybe not every student does that, but I have met some real turkerys who went to all of the right schools and did the outstanding practica and internships. I am not knocking B & M. I am stating that online schools provide quality (some better than others) practica and provide opportunities to seek out APA acrcred internships. Some online students are terrible and I have had some students who could not do elementary school math, but I have found that in both teaching modalities and learning models in about the same ratio



I've started a couple threads about boarding. If you do a search for ABPP they should come up. I'm not sure there would be enough activity for a separate forum, but I'm open to talking more about the boarding process because I think it is important and I'd like to see it become the standard for psychologists.
Click to expand...


I think boarding is a great topic of discussion. All in all I am not offended by your posts, although I think you if at a later date, when you have time, do a little more research into the training provided at non-traditional Uni's, you will be pleasantly surprised even if not in favor of them. That Penn State journal is of great help as well. And although not always I have met extremely intelligent, skillful and well trained people with PhD's who are not APA accred but are up to par with those who are, but that is a separate discussion.
 
Last edited:
For the record, there is no "PGSP-Stanford PhD" or "PGSP-Stanford M.A." program. PGSP itself has a PhD program, which shares a few professors and an optional practicum site (the Gronowski Clinic) with the PGSP-Stanford PsyD Consortium. The programs have little other substantive connection and their faculty and student body differ significantly. I don't have data for this, but it's pretty clear that gaining admission to the PsyD Consortium is more competitive than to the PhD program. The PsyD Consortium is taught half at Stanford Psychiatry and half at PGSP's campus, with administration shared mostly equally between the institutions, weighted a bit towards the PGSP side.

If this weren't confusing enough, PGSP has now come under the umbrella of Palo Alto University, but the nature of these two programs is unchanged by this development.
 
I have been researching this area for a long time. I live in Southern California and there are a few options for this. You can go on the APA website (http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/programs/index.aspx ) and check for accredited schools in your area. In Santa Barbara there is a school that is currently accredited "Fielding Graduate University". However, they are on probation. There is also a school "Pacifica Graduate Institute" that is currently applying for accreditation and APA has been visiting the school. Both are approximately the same cost. I've also found an unaccredited online school that takes a shorter amount of time (160 weeks) at $325/unit (60 units) that you can get a Psy.D. from "California Southern University" that seems to have rave reviews. It all depends on what you want to do with your degree. I have a very good friend, who graduated with his Doctorate online, took the exam and passed, and has a TV show. If you are wanting to write self-help books, this could be a great way to do so. However, if you want to do research I'd suggest an APA accredited school that takes much longer and is on campus.

ethanre said:
I was thinking along the lines of a distant PhD or PsyD program. I just found this thread and I see this discussion is somewhat old.

It is 2009 now, has anything changed with distant PsyD or PhD Programs from a reputable brick and mortar university?

What if I am willing to travel and spend a few weeks on site / semester, so not a 100% distant or online but mostly.

Since this is an older discussion please respond on the thread I started earlier today:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=606991

Thanks
Click to expand...
 
MFTMomOfOne said:
If you are wanting to write self-help books, this could be a great way to do so. However, if you want to do research I'd suggest an APA accredited school that takes much longer and is on campus.
Click to expand...

Basically what you have stated is that in order to be proper clinical scientist, which is what a "psychologist" is suppose to be (its what differentiates this field from the dozen other fields who can do therapy and call themselves "psychotherapists"), that one should NOT attend an online program. However, if you want to be a "television personality" and/or write self-help books, this is the degree path for you. I wonder how many people who are serioulsy interested in this field desire the latter?
 
Markp said:
Sorry, that is stupid. If one thinks that paying a quarter of a million dollars for a degree that results in a pay level exceeded by some high school graduates is worth it, one would need to be in treatment... not in class. People going to professional programs may be getting adequate training (or they may not be) but they are not getting a good return on their investment.

Education is a good thing, and it is valuable, I won't deny that. However there is a cost benefit ratio that needs consideration. Even if one were making $100k per year average, it still wouldn't be worth it. We are not monks taking a vow of poverty.

Mark
Click to expand...

Kind of an older thread, but I was reading it and didn't see anyone mention NHSC loan repayment. Currently the loan repayments they offer include $60k for 2 years of work; $170k for 5 years; and total loan repayment for 6 years. I don't think they cover private loans, and you have to be licensed to apply. But, if you have a lot of debt this would take care of that relatively quickly.
 
jekyl said:
Kind of an older thread, but I was reading it and didn't see anyone mention NHSC loan repayment. Currently the loan repayments they offer include $60k for 2 years of work; $170k for 5 years; and total loan repayment for 6 years. I don't think they cover private loans, and you have to be licensed to apply. But, if you have a lot of debt this would take care of that relatively quickly.
Click to expand...

Yes, and in order to get those jobs you typically need to have a degree from an APA ACCREDITED program and have completed an APA ACCREDITED internship. Your chances of doing so are far lower graduating from an institution or attending an internship that lacks the proper accreditation, In the case of some professional schools, I wouldn't put my all eggs in that basket unless I knew I had that job locked up and I was given the nod by Tony Soprano.

There are a lot of good ways to pay back these high levels of debt, and I am not knocking this as one scheme, but it is important to remember that positions that offer these kinds of benefits either have significant constraints or are very competitive or are both competitive and have significant constraints.

So yes, good point, there are ways to get your debt paid for... just be sure to have a plan A, plan B, and a plan C. That way if one falls through you won't be holding the bag.

I did a quick look for these jobs, a representative sample showed there were, in general, few positions to be had:

NEW YORK STATE: 7 Jobs
MARYLAND: 1 Job
TEXAS: 8 Jobs
CALIFORNIA: 53 Jobs (Claimed, this seems unusually high)
NEW JERSEY: 3 Jobs
VIRGINIA: 5 Jobs
FLORIDA: 7 Jobs

I don't know how to explain the California delta, but even if every state had 10 jobs on average, there would still be less than 500 positions available in the continental U.S.

That's pretty slim pickings, and it will likely be pretty competitive.

Mark
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Markp said:
Yes, and in order to get those jobs you typically need to have a degree from an APA ACCREDITED program and have completed an APA ACCREDITED internship. Your chances of doing so are far lower graduating from an institution or attending an internship that lacks the proper accreditation
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you.

Markp said:
That's pretty slim pickings, and it will likely be pretty competitive.

Mark
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about this. I don't follow the job listings so a) I don't know if these numbers are normal, high or low, and b) I'm also not sure how competitive they are. These are under-served populations, including that are located in essentially undesirable locations (as in not near major cities or popular places to live). I would hazard a guess that the number of applicants who want to work in a federal or state prison, with violent inmates, in the middle of nowhere, would be somewhat low.
 
jekyl said:
I'm not so sure about this. I don't follow the job listings so a) I don't know if these numbers are normal, high or low, and b) I'm also not sure how competitive they are. These are under-served populations, including that are located in essentially undesirable locations (as in not near major cities or popular places to live). I would hazard a guess that the number of applicants who want to work in a federal or state prison, with violent inmates, in the middle of nowhere, would be somewhat low.
Click to expand...

That's why I noted either significant constraints or competition... If you've ever been to some of the spots in CA that were advertised, you would understand that although they may not be as competitive, the trade off in location, workplace environment, and requirements (drug testing, etc) might not be worth it. If no one wants to work there, maybe there is a reason why.

Trust me, I made the decision to accept the constraints of my employment in order to avoid debt. As a result I have to obey military regulations, while it's a good fit for me, it is a constraint that would chafe at others.

Mark
 
T4C, could we rename this thread to read as follows: Online Programs - Pros and Cons. I think this title better reflects the actual content of the thread. I don't think PsyD versus PhD debate applies here all that much. That debate can be reviewed in a separate but equally argumentative thread. Am I alone on this one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

A
Pros and Cons of being a psychologist in California vs. Washington state?
Replies
28
Views
2K
TrueButUseless
T
psychjc
PhD/PsyD Currently applying for internship: pros and cons of waiving right to view recommendation
Replies
2
Views
769
niceman
N
S
For folks considering VA vs. Academic medical center as future career track primarily for clinical/supervision work, what are pros and cons?
2
Replies
50
Views
3K
Fan_of_Meehl
Fan_of_Meehl
S
1) What made you choose VA or AMC over the other? 2) Pros Cons list 3) Questions for Pay Scale at the VA
Replies
45
Views
3K
AvoidingAvoidance
A
Y
Possibility for Research With Cheaper Online PHD
Replies
19
Views
1K
R. Matey
R. Matey
Top