Psy.D. decision: Fuller Seminary vs Stanford Consortium

[CaliforniaPsyD]

I've been accepted into my two top choice programs and desperately need help choosing between earning my Psy.D. at Fuller Theological Seminary or Stanford's PGSP Consortium. Fuller's faith-based program is not a deciding factor, and I much prefer the location of Fuller in Pasadena than Stanford's Bay Area setting, but both are wonderfully strong programs with impressive graduate success rate so any advice would be MUCH appreciated. The Consortium has a higher APA match rate, but I do not mind moving to attain an APA internship. I want to work with veterans and know from current students this is available at both schools, though seems to be more easily and readibly attainable from the Consortium. If I ultimately plan to practice in LA, how much does building contacts preciely where I will work make a difference, in comparison to having Stanford names on my CV?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Stanford consortium, no question. Fuller's match statistics for APA accredited internships are concerning. If you want to work with Veterans, you'll need an APA accredited internship. Also, I'd say 1/10 of the Fuller apps I've reviewed over the years have been solid enough to warrant an interview.

 

[CaliforniaPsyD]

Stanford consortium, no question. Fuller's match statistics for APA accredited internships are concerning. If you want to work with Veterans, you'll need an APA accredited internship. Also, I'd say 1/10 of the Fuller apps I've reviewed over the years have been solid enough to warrant an interview.

Thank you for your advice, I greatly appreciate you weighing in on such an important decision. I agree the match statistics are not as high as I would like. I have also been accepted into Azusa Pacific University and La Verne if I do prioritize the LA location. Have either of those programs' students impressed you - and on that note, may I ask what type of job you have been interviewing them for?

 

[WisNeuro]

Azusa and La Verne also have terrible match rates. And, I interview for internship, postdoc, and faculty position within the VA.

 

[CaliforniaPsyD]

Azusa and La Verne also have terrible match rates. And, I interview for internship, postdoc, and faculty position within the VA.

Well you have an incredibly important and pertinent point of view then, as my current plan is to apply for all three of those positions. Thank you again for offering it, I truly appreciate it.

 

[WisNeuro]

There is at least one more here in a similar position, that person may weigh in as well.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Honestly, I'd say the cost at either is prohibitive unless you are independently wealthy already.

 

[Wendi22]

Honestly, I'd say the cost at either is prohibitive unless you are independently wealthy already.

First, congrats on the acceptances! As far as this post goes.....Agreed. I am not familiar with the cost of these programs but since they are psyd programs I know there is a chance they are pretty expensive so punch the numbers, call the aid department, look hard at the monthly payment, ect. If you do have the money on your own or got some type of aid that is great.

 

[NY-Psych-Dream]

The consortium is wonderful. You have so many opportunities at Stanford, SF VAMC, PA VA, and many wonderful training sites around the Bay Area. I was looking at where the students matched this year and 97% matched to APA accredited sites and 3% (n=1) went to a place close to APA accreditation. I don't know anything about Fuller, but I think Stanford Consortium is the way to go.

 

[CApsych]

I'm at the Consortium now but im from LA-you can definitely set yourself up well to practice in LA after the consortium. I'm at a VA internship now in NorCal but interviewed at almost all the LA VAs and felt like I could have settled there if my personal life had allowed it. I've done 2/3 VA practica at 2 different VAs as part of my training, and know many Consortium alumni who are now VA staff, both here and in LA. Price is definitely an issue-I assume that is something you have considered.

Please feel free to PM me, I could not recommend the Consortium more highly for people who want VA training.

 

[CApsych]

And I should have added that I met many fuller students on VA interviews who were awesome-so hopefully you will be able to contact them to hear their thoughts as well.

 

[CaliforniaPsyD]

First, congrats on the acceptances! As far as this post goes.....Agreed. I am not familiar with the cost of these programs but since they are psyd programs I know there is a chance they are pretty expensive so punch the numbers, call the aid department, look hard at the monthly payment, ect. If you do have the money on your own or got some type of aid that is great.

Thank you! I am prepared to make the cost sacrifice at either school, it is more the specifics I am hoping to learn more about, especially in regards to Fuller and the advanages of attending that program, since lots of people have weighed in on Stanford's advantages.

 

[CaliforniaPsyD]

The consortium is wonderful. You have so many opportunities at Stanford, SF VAMC, PA VA, and many wonderful training sites around the Bay Area. I was looking at where the students matched this year and 97% matched to APA accredited sites and 3% (n=1) went to a place close to APA accreditation. I don't know anything about Fuller, but I think Stanford Consortium is the way to go.

Thank you for weighing in, I really appreciate it. In regards to APA match rates, how exactly do match rates work? Specifically, I am wondering if a school has a much lower APA match rate in the 50's, for instance, then will the top 50% of the class who presumably have strong connections with faculty, research experience, and pertinent practicum experience likely be the students who attain those APA internships?

 

[WisNeuro]

Thank you for weighing in, I really appreciate it. In regards to APA match rates, how exactly do match rates work? Specifically, I am wondering if a school has a much lower APA match rate in the 50's, for instance, then will the top 50% of the class who presumably have strong connections with faculty, research experience, and pertinent practicum experience likely be the students who attain those APA internships?

Not the way I would look at it. Students should be helped to succeed with the help of their program, not in spite of their program. Anything less than an 80-85% accredited match rate is concerning, anything lower than 65% is downright shameful.

 

[CaliforniaPsyD]

Not the way I would look at it. Students should be helped to succeed with the help of their program, not in spite of their program. Anything less than an 80-85% accredited match rate is concerning, anything lower than 65% is downright shameful.

I agree that I am looking for a program with helpful mentorship to guide me through my 5 years to make them as successful and tailored to my goals as possible, but I am hoping you can shed some more light upon how students are picked for APA internships. Is it similar to graduate programs, where you need relevant practicum experienes (and a high number of hours within them), pertinent and thorough research experience, grades, and good interview skills that show you to be personable, professional, etc.?

 

[WisNeuro]

I agree that I am looking for a program with helpful mentorship to guide me through my 5 years to make them as successful and tailored to my goals as possible, but I am hoping you can shed some more light upon how students are picked for APA internships. Is it similar to graduate programs, where you need relevant practicum experienes (and a high number of hours within them), pertinent and thorough research experience, grades, and good interview skills that show you to be personable, professional, etc.?

It's a variety of factors and depends on each site, really. Where people do practica, research productivity, grades. Interviews are a lesser weight, and are pretty much just to rule out some red flags at a lot of places.

 

[CaliforniaPsyD]

It's a variety of factors and depends on each site, really. Where people do practica, research productivity, grades. Interviews are a lesser weight, and are pretty much just to rule out some red flags at a lot of places.

Thanks, that makes sense. So it sounds like while a school like Stanford makes it a lot easier to attain an APA internship with its flawless match rate, if I attend a program with a lower match rates I am still capable of attaining the APA internship I need as long as I continue to be as proactive and involved in practicum and research and earning high grades?

 

[WisNeuro]

Thanks, that makes sense. So it sounds like while a school like Stanford makes it a lot easier to attain an APA internship with its flawless match rate, if I attend a program with a lower match rates I am still capable of attaining the APA internship I need as long as I continue to be as proactive and involved in practicum and research and earning high grades?

Capable, sure? Resigning yourself to a harder road, most likely. I am not exaggerating when I tell you that some sites will reject applications solely on the perceived strength of the program that the person is coming from. You have to make the decision that is right for you, just know that some decisions will have an impact farther down the road that you may or may not be able to do much about.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Thanks, that makes sense. So it sounds like while a school like Stanford makes it a lot easier to attain an APA internship with its flawless match rate, if I attend a program with a lower match rates I am still capable of attaining the APA internship I need as long as I continue to be as proactive and involved in practicum and research and earning high grades?

As WisNeuro mentioned, is it possible? Sure. But if you're going to be footing that large a bill for grad school, my personal suggestion would be to attend a program that maximizes your gains/minimizes potential pitfalls. Not landing an APA-accredited internship is a potentially significant pitfall. With the admittedly-limited amount I know about the two programs, if the costs of attendance are similar (which they seem to be), I can't think of a reason to recommend Fuller over PGSP, given the discrepancy in internship match rates alone. But that's just me.

The licensure rates of the Psy.D. program (78%) are also on the lower side, although those for the Ph.D. program (87%) are better.

 

[CaliforniaPsyD]

Capable, sure? Resigning yourself to a harder road, most likely. I am not exaggerating when I tell you that some sites will reject applications solely on the perceived strength of the program that the person is coming from. You have to make the decision that is right for you, just know that some decisions will have an impact farther down the road that you may or may not be able to do much about.

I'd appreciate some more information about your claim. Alliant in Los Angeles is not even on the list of 50 nationally ranked, APA-accredited schools we have been referring to, and there is so much talk on SDN about it being a diploma mill and the degree not being as respected. But it just placed 77% of its PsyD students into APA internships. If the name is so important why is this possible and why is not almost a guarantee I could be in the percentage of people who attain an APA internship somewhere in America if I am one of the most competitive candidates from my program?

 

[WisNeuro]

In APPIC's 2011-2014 list, Alliant LA matched between 14-33% into APA accredited internships. For the most recently reported cycle, 28% matched to APA accredited internships. Where are you getting your information from?

 

[CaliforniaPsyD]

In APPIC's 2011-2014 list, Alliant LA matched between 14-33% into APA accredited internships. For the most recently reported cycle, 28% matched to APA accredited internships. Where are you getting your information from?

I was accepted there so I just received their email stating how proud of their 2016 internships applicants they are for the 77% match rate. Can you please explain this based on your previous claim to me because they don't add up and I want to understand what I am missing.

 

[CaliforniaPsyD]

Where are you getting your information from?

Happy to forward you the email if you want to message me an email address.

 

[Lurking Oracle]

I was accepted there so I just received their email stating how proud of their 2016 internships applicants they are for the 77% match rate. Can you please explain this based on your previous claim to me because they don't add up and I want to understand what I am missing.

Did they explicitly state APA-accredited internships (only), or does that 77% perhaps refer to any type of internship (to include CAPIC internships)?

 

[Harry3990]

http://www.alliant.edu/documents/cspp/domain-g/LA-PsyD-Domain-G.pdf

Doesn't contain the 2016 match statistics, but those prior statistics from the last 5 years are pretty abysmal.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Did they explicitly state APA-accredited internships (only), or does that 77% perhaps refer to any type of internship (to include CAPIC internships)?

My question as well. Sounds like they're referring to the % who matched to any internship, as 77% is also the proportion who matched somewhere last year. However, only 28% obtained APA-accredited internships. Relatedly, having 53 students applying is a huge cohort, but is actually dwarfed by prior years, where the numbers got up to 122.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'd appreciate some more information about your claim. Alliant in Los Angeles is not even on the list of 50 nationally ranked, APA-accredited schools we have been referring to, and there is so much talk on SDN about it being a diploma mill and the degree not being as respected.

Rankings are junk, mostly done to sell advertising.

The quick and dirty way to evaluate a program:
1. Cost….bc at the end of the day being $100k-$200k+ in the hole is ridiculously hard to overcome.
2. APA-acred match rate & where students match (not all sites are equal). 75%-85% APA-acred only, at a minimum.
3. Reputation…it matters what others in the field think of your program, for at least the first 3-5yrs until you get established.
4. Licensure rate…85%+, at a minimum. Licensure is the bare minimum…boarding should be the goal.
5. Training. Yes, this low…because if #1-#4 aren't met, you are at risk of never overcoming the hurdles within the profession.

 

[smalltownpsych]

http://www.alliant.edu/documents/cspp/domain-g/LA-PsyD-Domain-G.pdf

Doesn't contain the 2016 match statistics, but those prior statistics from the last 5 years are pretty abysmal.

Yup. 77% got an internship of some sort and only 28% matched to APA. That's pretty clear cut and easier to critically analyse than most of our research articles.

 

[CaliforniaPsyD]

Did they explicitly state APA-accredited internships (only), or does that 77% perhaps refer to any type of internship (to include CAPIC internships)?

Thanks for weighing in, maybe you can double check it too and make sure I'm interpreting it correctly. Hope this is okay to do, below is the APA portion of the email copied and pasted:

I would like to give you an update on a very important aspect of our program. I am thrilled to let you know that we had a very successful APA-internship Match rate this year! In Phase I of the match, 20 students matched at APA-accredited internship sites. In Phase II of the match, an additional 6 students matched to APA-accredited internships. Thus, in total, 26/34 of our applicants (77%) matched with APA-accredited internships so far. We are currently working with several students as they navigate the Clearinghouse stage of the APA-internship match process and we are hopeful some additional students will match during this last phase of the match process.

 

[CaliforniaPsyD]

http://www.alliant.edu/documents/cspp/domain-g/LA-PsyD-Domain-G.pdf

Doesn't contain the 2016 match statistics, but those prior statistics from the last 5 years are pretty abysmal.

Right, there's a huge discrepency so I'm wondering what students can do to attain an APA internship like the 77% of Alliant students did this year despite the low national rank of their program. (Copy and pasted Alliant's citation in response #29)

 

[CaliforniaPsyD]

Yup. 77% got an internship of some sort and only 28% matched to APA. That's pretty clear cut and easier to critically analyse than most of our research articles.

Doesn't the email they sent (quoted in reply 29) state they are all APA?

 

[CaliforniaPsyD]

Rankings are junk, mostly done to sell advertising.

The quick and dirty way to evaluate a program:
1. Cost….bc at the end of the day being $100k-$200k+ in the hole is ridiculously hard to overcome.
2. APA-acred match rate & where students match (not all sites are equal). 75%-85% APA-acred only, at a minimum.
3. Reputation…it matters what others in the field think of your program, for at least the first 3-5yrs until you get established.
4. Licensure rate…85%+, at a minimum. Licensure is the bare minimum…boarding should be the goal.
5. Training. Yes, this low…because if #1-#4 aren't met, you are at risk of never overcoming the hurdles within the profession.

How do you know which APA accred sites are better than others? As in, if my goal is private practice how can I as a student gage which site is better or worse than another? If the same goes for practicum sites then again, how do you know which is better than another?

 

[WisNeuro]

Egads, there is some serious misinformation going on.

 

[CaliforniaPsyD]

Egads, there is some serious misinformation going on.

Do you mean you think they misinformed me about their APA match rates this year? Do you agree that the email claims that 77% were all specifically APA-accredited matches?

 

[WisNeuro]

Do you mean you think they misinformed me about their APA match rates this year? Do you agree that the email claims that 77% were all specifically APA-accredited matches?

Who knows, that information is not public knowledge yet to neither confirm or disprove. I would not make a decision based on one year's worth of match results when you have many years worth of results that point to the exact opposite. One year, does not a trend make.

 

[Justanothergrad]

How do you know which APA accred sites are better than others? As in, if my goal is private practice how can I as a student gage which site is better or worse than another? If the same goes for practicum sites then again, how do you know which is better than another?

In general, if a forum of people well versed in the field are telling you a site/program/approach being taken is not known for producing high quality providers or worthwhile training... that might be a good marker of something to weigh heavily in your judgement. Reputation exists for a reason.

 

[CaliforniaPsyD]

Who knows, that information is not public knowledge yet to neither confirm or disprove. I would not make a decision based on one year's worth of match results when you have many years worth of results that point to the exact opposite. One year, does not a trend make.

Not to worry, I have already sent in my email declining this program so all I am wondering is what I should do in grad school to give myself the best chance of being one of these students matched with an APA internship despite not attending a big name program.

 

[CaliforniaPsyD]

In general, if a forum of people well versed in the field are telling you a site/program/approach being taken is not known for producing high quality providers or worthwhile training... that might be a good marker of something to weigh heavily in your judgement. Reputation exists for a reason.

I am referring to telling which practicum sites are better/worse than others, not grad schools.

 

[WisNeuro]

Not to worry, I have already sent in my email declining this program so all I am wondering is what I should do in grad school to give myself the best chance of being one of these students matched with an APA internship despite not attending a big name program.

At some institutions, it will not matter, they will not seriously consider your application. Other than that, you will have to succeed in spite of your program, not due to it. You will have to get more clinical hours than your peers, you will have to have better practicum placements than your peers, you will have to have more research productivity than your peers. And at the end of having to work harder than most people you are competing against for maybe the same level of consideration, your reward is starting off your career more than a quarter of a million dollars in debt/cost. It's doable, we all know anecdotes of it being done. It's just that a lot of people with the same mindset, don't get it done. The stats back it up.

That's why so many of us here, who are reviewers for internship/postdoc/job applications have such a reaction. We see people given clear advice that they are making a less than ideal decision, and make it anyway. Then, I, and I imagine others here as well, invariably receive inquiries year after year, from applicants wondering why they di dnot receive an invite for interview, or why they did not match to our site, or any.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I am referring to telling which practicum sites are better/worse than others, not grad schools.

And I'm talking about grad schools because your practicum sites aren't the things that are the big weight in the success of your career. It seems like you have a lot of ideas about what will make you successful and why your route is the best; you seem to ignore a lot of the advice from folks who have been through the system/are part of the system offering you contrary information. This seems foolish.

 

[erg923]

You seem to brag on your qualifications, your flexibility, and your work ethic. So, why are these marginal, inordinately and unjustifiably expensive programs the only consideration when about you could instead get paid (instead of sucked dry), and likely get better training and outcomes? This defies logical thinking at this point (if what you say is true) and is giving my finical advisor a coronary.

If you are independently wealthy, one might ask how this wealth was accumulated with such immature financial decision making processes.

 

[Grenth]

You seem to brag on your qualifications, your flexibility, and your work ethic. So, why are these marginal, inordinately and unjustifiably expensive programs the only consideration when about you could instead get paid (instead of sucked dry), and likely get better training and outcomes? This defies logical thinking at this point (if what you say is true) and is giving my finical advisor a coronary.

If you are independently wealthy, one might ask how this wealth was accumulated with such immature financial decision making processes.

I don't know about OP, but he or she reminds me of the undergrad intern at my MA internship site who was applying for PhD/PsyD programs this round as was I. When I asked why she only applied to PsyD programs at schools with bad reputations and stats she told me she only wanted to live in a certain west coast area and her parents are willing to foot the bill for her ~$200,000 PsyD at a school with a ~50% APA match rate. I tried to encourage her to consider that even without debt she might get done and have no career or opportunities with such bad match rates, but she acted like waiting another year (she's 20) to apply again to better schools would ruin her life. The sad thing is she's actually a talented and diligent student, but the entitlement of I deserve a doctorate now in the city I like is hurting her.

All that to say some people have parents willing to fund their choices, despite the poor outcomes.

 

[Applicant786]

This thread reminds me of my intro to Social Psych class, when the prof asked everyone in the class to raise their hands if they thought they would get married. About 80% of the class raised their hands. Next, she asked who thought they would get divorced, and 100% of the raised hands went down. Statistically, that’s highly implausible. No one wants to think they’ll be in the percentage where things don’t work out (it’s got some fancy social psych term that I can’t recall the name of…optimism bias?). Few people want to believe that their marriage will end in divorce(except maybe a Kardashian), or that they won’t match for internship, or that could get laid-off from their job. But, like the Hunger Games, the odds aren’t always in your favor and s*** happens. Better to prepare yourself for both good and bad outcomes. That’s why pre-nups were invented.