Psy.D. - The Wright Institute

[Peacemaker36]

What experience do you have in this area? Because I am in the middle of this now as a TD.

And yes, there is.

"Yes," there are stats on this?

I've been part of a review, not as the TD but still involved as staff. I know my TD expressed anxiety about the process, and I'm sorry if yours is stressful. Do you really think there's a chance your site will fail?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

"Yes," there are stats on this?

I've been part of a review, not as the TD but still involved as staff. I know my TD expressed anxiety about the process, and I'm sorry if yours is stressful. Do you really think there's a chance your site will fail?

If we did nothing to ensure quality that was up to apa standards, yes, or course. But that was my point. APA accreditation drives sites to implement quality control measures that increase the quality of the training experience. Its not a rubber stamp on whatever you happen to be doing. And if they aren't coming to visit, there is no external motivation to provide quality improvement to your program. Again, the whole point/rationale for having an agency do sites visits and accredit.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm with peacemaker a little on this one. Yes, you have to have your documentation and **** in order, but that bar is set fairly low. I've been a critical part of this process for all levels (grad, internship, postdoc) and it's really all about having the right paperwork. And, of course many sites will try to far surpass the basic requirements, but I imagine far too many are comfortable with being just above that bar.

 

[ClinicalABA]

As is often the case with

Bottom line, it's expensive, only about half of the students get an apa accredited internship, and the students generally struggle to pass the EPPP. Seems that people succeed in spite of this program, not because of it.

This. As is often the case with these threads asking about FSPSs, it evolves (devolves) into battles of opinions, confusing what should be with what is. Fact is, there still is an internship imbalance, with more trainees than slots. Based on 2015 match data, 426 doctoral students (roughly 1 in 10 entering the match) were not able to move on with their training/careers/life at the time and in the manner they chose. 962 doctoral students (roughly 1 in 4-5 entering the match) will have difficulties, limitations, and or restrictions placed on their future licensure and career options because they will be completing non-APA approved internships. You can argue that it shouldn't be this way, but that doesn't change the fact that it is this way. As a result of what is, decisions you make about training can have costly implications 5+ years in the future. You can debate all you want the merits of FSPSs, online programs, APA accreditation, etc. Doesn't change the fact that enrolling in an FSPS, on the whole, is a relatively risky choice. Justified or not, there is more bias in the field against these programs and their students than of those from uni-based bricks and mortar programs when it comes to internship selection and future jobs prospects. Participate in the debate, share your opinions (hopefully informed), and get annoyed with those you don't agree with. Don't however, ignore the facts that sometimes get lost in these threads, particularly if you at the point of deciding on a course of doctoral education.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Mediocrity is far easier to achieve than excellence. when Mediocrity makes money, there is often a dearth of motivation to improve beyond. APA accreditation is a lot of hassle, but I'm yet to see it as an effective screen for quality training (in part because I'm not sure that we have a definition of 'good' quality psychologists as a field). It's a broader issue of gate keeping and thats not something that I believe our field does particularly well. I don't see strong evidence of it in terms of training programs, internships, or at a more micro level with individuals inside specific programs. Each faces unique difficulties (e.g., the later with the difficulty of kicking someone out of a school once admitted without failing grades). We need to figure out how to raise that bar imho.

The idea of accreditation as a reasonable marker exists for this field (board certification, licenses, internship, programs, etc.). There is a mismatch between applicant numbers and slots for accredited sites, but that makes the assumption that all individuals are equally prepared which, in turn, returns to the previous point of gatekeeping. When you look at FSPS, there may be a reason besides bad luck that match rates are bad. There is a reason that the distribution of un-APA accredited folks is not even across the board. Its not surprising that the same schools pose the same poor ratings each year. It may be purely because of descrimination but this seems less likely than the obvious answer. Asking anyone to be soft in their read of a program of individual's skills because they failed to meet accreditation marker is a silly thing.

As I think about it, isn't there a VCI subtest on the WAIS that has an item asking about this very thing....

 

[WisNeuro]

As I think about it, isn't there a VCI subtest on the WAIS that has an item asking about this very thing....

Pssh, it's supplemental now. No one gives that anymore

 

[Justanothergrad]

Pssh, it's supplemental now. No one gives that anymore

Ugh. If only that were true of those subtests where I'm at- we give them every singe time although I'm not sure why.

I'm yet to see anyone convince me that any of the PRI substitute tests have the same performance as BD or MR. But thats another thread.

 

[WisNeuro]

Ugh. If only that were true of those subtests where I'm at- we give them every singe time although I'm not sure why.

I'm yet to see anyone convince me that any of the PRI substitute tests have the same performance as BD or MR. But thats another thread.

There are just some people who just love to over-test, despite clinical need. I understand at the grad level training people on longer batteries, but clinically, you should do the shortest battery that will answer your referral question with appropriate rule-outs.

 

[deleted343839]

I agree with you in principle. I just don't think it's realistic to hope that under-performing schools will admit fewer students, or "stop stringing people along," or in fact do anything that will result in less money for the school. Hoping that places like Wright will tighten things up is like asking a big business corporation to stop taking advantage of tax loopholes.

That's why the APA needs to do a better job of regulation.

Yes, I think we are in agreement. Pulling APA accreditation at underperforming sites needs to happen more often and may be the spur that helps programs with some strengths to get their act together. However, even unaccredited programs continue to take money, sometimes a lot of it, for substandard training. So it is not entirely on the APA to fix the problem of training standards. I think state licensing boards and legislators need to take their share of the "blame" (responsibility?) too.

 

[Peacemaker36]

Yes, I think we are in agreement. Pulling APA accreditation at underperforming sites needs to happen more often and may be the spur that helps programs with some strengths to get their act together. However, even unaccredited programs continue to take money, sometimes a lot of it, for substandard training. So it is not entirely on the APA to fix the problem of training standards. I think state licensing boards and legislators need to take their share of the "blame" (responsibility?) too.

Great point about state licensing boards.

 

[smalltownpsych]

As psychologists, at times we exalt research to the point that we sacrifice sound reasoning for lack of evidence.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

There are just some people who just love to over-test, despite clinical need. I understand at the grad level training people on longer batteries, but clinically, you should do the shortest battery that will answer your referral question with appropriate rule-outs.

True.

I wish I had more straight forward cases where this was easily done.

As for the topic at hand...

APA acred (whether it be for a program, or internship) was developed to represent the absolute minimum level of training required to be a psychologist. This has been lost in the shuffle. APA acred is not some big fear or accomplishment, it is merely a minimal standard. I know there are financial reasons why a program does and does not pursue acred, but that doesn't change what APA acred actually represents.

 

[smalltownpsych]

True.

I wish I had more straight forward cases where this was easily done.

As for the topic at hand...

APA acred (whether it be for a program, or internship) was developed to represent the absolute minimum level of training required to be a psychologist. This has been lost in the shuffle. APA acred is not some big fear or accomplishment, it is merely a minimal standard. I know there are financial reasons why a program does and does not pursue acred, but that doesn't change what APA acred actually represents.

This whole absolute minimum thing makes me wonder why it was so difficult of a task to accomplish? Man, I must be a little slow. On the other hand, if it was so easy to become a psychologist, then all,of the undergrad psych majors would have done it. Scary thought, that one. Some of those guys could barely write a coherent paragraph.

Seriously though, within each program there is variability as you seek out the training experiences along the way. Some of us pushed for more difficult and challenging experiences and settings wile others did the bare minimum. I'm grateful that I went for the hard ones like the 20 hour a week 11.5 month adolescent inpatient practicum that no one wanted. That experience led to my first licensed job a few years later as the director of an adolescent program. In other words, reach the minimum APA bar for program and internship and then push for more whether it is research, neuro, health, trauma, eating disorders, special population, what have you.

 

[bmedclinic]

Seems that people succeed in spite of this program, not because of it.

I think THIS is the first part of the problem. Going to a school like Wright, even if they've cleaned up their act somewhat still means:

-likely missing out on jobs you don't even know exist.
-applying for jobs and not knowing why you weren't given the time of day
-coworkers potentially always being concerned about your knowledge base, or if you happen to pass the EPPP, wondering how in the world that happened.
-having to defend (if not being hyperdefensive) about the quality of education you have
-potentially a glass ceiling past "staff psychologist" type jobs

Just a few. But its not like I've watched it happen with a coworker, who yes, everyone in our department wonders how she passed the EPPP. She did not go to Wright, but a "similar" school with an equally terrible reputation.

 

[Peacemaker36]

I think THIS is the first part of the problem. Going to a school like Wright, even if they've cleaned up their act somewhat still means:

-likely missing out on jobs you don't even know exist.
-applying for jobs and not knowing why you weren't given the time of day
-coworkers potentially always being concerned about your knowledge base, or if you happen to pass the EPPP, wondering how in the world that happened.
-having to defend (if not being hyperdefensive) about the quality of education you have
-potentially a glass ceiling past "staff psychologist" type jobs

Just a few. But its not like I've watched it happen with a coworker, who yes, everyone in our department wonders how she passed the EPPP. She did not go to Wright, but a "similar" school with an equally terrible reputation.

My theory on the EPPP is that it tests ability to take tests moreso than prior knowledge of psychology. People from good graduate programs do well because they are generally good at school, including taking tests. People from underperforming schools, on average, aren't as good at taking tests.

The EPPP is a test you can game. Buy Academic Review practice tests, memorize all of the correct and incorrect answers, and you should do fine on the actual EPPP if you have test-taking skills.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The EPPP is a test you can game. Buy Academic Review practice tests, memorize all of the correct and incorrect answers, and you should do fine on the actual EPPP if you have test-taking skills.

It doesn't work like that. There may be a few/handful of questions that are nearly identical, but not most/all.

 

[bmedclinic]

My theory on the EPPP is that it tests ability to take tests moreso than prior knowledge of psychology. People from good graduate programs do well because they are generally good at school, including taking tests. People from underperforming schools, on average, aren't as good at taking tests.

The EPPP is a test you can game. Buy Academic Review practice tests, memorize all of the correct and incorrect answers, and you should do fine on the actual EPPP if you have test-taking skills.

I'm sure there's some truth to that. I passed the EPPP the first time. I'm a terrible test taker. And I'm not really "good at school" in the traditional sense. But I did get a really quality education. Regardless, the rest of what I said still completely holds true.

And just for clarification- no one at my workplace wonders about the obviously subpar psychologist because of where she went to school. Its 100% what she says. No reputable masters program should have accepted her, yet here we are.

 

[smalltownpsych]

My theory on the EPPP is that it tests ability to take tests moreso than prior knowledge of psychology. People from good graduate programs do well because they are generally good at school, including taking tests. People from underperforming schools, on average, aren't as good at taking tests.

Definitely some truth to this, but don't we want psychologists that are good at school and readin', writin', figurin' and all that stuff? There are some correlations between academic performance and other measures of performance are there not? We can always say that it doesn't tie directly to outcomes for patients, but that is probably because of the reduced range due to of all of the limits to the lower performing that we already have in place. It is only logical to assume that the quality of service would decline if we lower the qualifications needed. I always think of my buddies in psych classes who struggled for C's in undergrad and wanted me to help them with/write their papers. The argument is really more about where we draw those lines and how.

 

[Peacemaker36]

Definitely some truth to this, but don't we want psychologists that are good at school and readin', writin', figurin' and all that stuff? There are some correlations between academic performance and other measures of performance are there not? We can always say that it doesn't tie directly to outcomes for patients, but that is probably because of the reduced range due to of all of the limits to the lower performing that we already have in place. It is only logical to assume that the quality of service would decline if we lower the qualifications needed. I always think of my buddies in psych classes who struggled for C's in undergrad and wanted me to help them with/write their papers. The argument is really more about where we draw those lines and how.

Yes, sure, I think the EPPP is a fine bar. And we do need bars. I'm just saying that it's not hard for me to believe that someone who appears to be very poorly trained could have passed the EPPP.

Exhibit A in my theory about the EPPP is the I/O section. I would say that I "learned" about 90% of the material by reading Academic Review's study materials and practice exams. I didn't take a single I/O course at any point in my education. And I am pretty sure if I took the exam now, I would fail the I/O part badly!

 

[WisNeuro]

Yes, sure, I think the EPPP is a fine bar. And we do need bars. I'm just saying that it's not hard for me to believe that someone who appears to be very poorly trained could have passed the EPPP.

Exhibit A in my theory about the EPPP is the I/O section. I would say that I "learned" about 90% of the material by reading Academic Review's study materials and practice exams. I didn't take a single I/O course at any point in my education. And I am pretty sure if I took the exam now, I would fail the I/O part badly!

For a small part of the test, sure. But, when it comes to the parts about ethics, diagnostics, assessment, etc; actually being trained well in those areas makes it a lot easier. Sure, given enough studying, many people will pass, but with adequate training, almost all will pass, and with minimal studying.

 

[erg923]

While we can argue the content validity of the test all we want, the inability to pass it despite receiving doctoral level education in the field would be disturbing to me.

Think about it this way: I don't need my primary care doctor to know to do advanced algebra, but I wouldn't want one who couldn't learn how to.

 

[ClinicalABA]

There is also the issue of the "good old boy" network. For example, Professor Smith at particular scientific practitioner program supervised the dissertation of Dr. Jones who is now the training director at a VA hospital or an academic medical center... or Professor Smith and his grad students publish extensively with training director Jones. Before the match season begins, phone calls get made, discussion happen at conferences etc ... Informal connections between faculty at universities and training directors at training sites has a role here. If the Wright Institute has not cultivated those relationships, then their students and by extension you may be at a disadvantage. Before deciding to go there, you should explore this issue of match rates more fully since the COA is changing its rubrics. That being said, the Wright Institute has an extremely interesting training model and a strong psycho dynamic emphasis so I would not rule them out completely..

While it is true that many internships have established "pipelines" with specific graduate programs and advisers, I think this needs to be distinguished from a "good old boy" network." The relationships between internships and graduate programs, and the resultant "pipelines" are (in my experience- e.g. not based on a detailed analysis of objective data) about predictability and applicability of skill set. When I was a faculty at an APA approved internship, there were a few training programs/advisers from whom repeatedly looked for and accepted interns. Like most, the internship program was part of a business, with expenses, overhead, real clients, and real-world financial contingencies. Our mission was to provided the best possible, empirically supported treatments to our clients (individuals and contracting schools and other organizations), while maintain a slightly above break even bottom line (it was a non-profit). Through trial and error, it was determined that students from specific programs/advisers were likely to have the specific skill set that allowed us to best meet our mission. Relative to students from less known programs/advisers, these interns came with less "surprises"- we generally knew what they knew and didn't know, knew what type of training/expectations they responded best to, and had an accurate accounting of their training gaps and professional weaknesses. When things didn't go as planned with them, we also knew that we could easily and effectively collaborate with their adviser to help identify and implement solutions. Unlike a "good old boy" network, they were not given the position based on who they know, but rather because who they know was a reasonable guarantee of appropriate training and effective skill set. As far as this applies to picking a graduate training program, it suggests that a strong mentor relationship in graduate school can lead to potentially better (if not more predictable) outcomes vis-a-vis internship and beyond. Prospective students should ask where students typically go on internship, as well as look for evidence of strong relationships between graduate programs/advisers and internships. This is not "gaming the system"- it's doing your homework and fostering connections that make your SUBSTANTIAL investment more likely pay off.

 

[WisNeuro]

Does the "good old boy" network also cause the school to charge exorbitant amounts of money to students and EPPP failures?

 

[ClinicalABA]

Does the "good old boy" network also cause the school to charge exorbitant amounts of money to students and EPPP failures?

The funny thing is, with the "not quite good old boy networks I described above" they tend to actually pay the students and NOT charge tuition. Hard to believe, I know!

 

[Ardor]

I agree that quantitative indicators (eg, APA-accredited internship match rates, EPPP pass rates) are going to be some of the best measures of program quality despite some of the limitations discussed before. I also agree that 58% and 59% APA-accredited internship match rates for the last two years is very poor.

However looking at the larger picture, clinical PsyD programs typically fare much worse than those match percentages. From 2011-2014, about 40% of clinical PsyD students matched to APA-accredited internships. Last year, about 47% of clinical PsyD students matched to accredited internships (out of 1332 applicants). While the Wright Institute can be justly criticized, this seems to be a systemic issue that includes many programs worse than this program.

In regards to considering FSPS programs, I think it goes without saying that traditional, prestigious, funded programs are far superior options. Yet given that the members here acknowledge that strong professionals can still come out of FSPS programs, what should those types of students have done instead of going to an expensive and poorly-regarded program? Spend a year or two getting research or clinical experiences prior to applying? Maybe take extra college courses to boost GPA? I haven't heard very many alternative options aside from "go for a master's degree instead" and that may be untenable if their professional goal requires a doctoral degree (eg, staff psychologist).

 

[WisNeuro]

what should those types of students have done instead of going to an expensive and poorly-regarded program? Spend a year or two getting research or clinical experiences prior to applying? Maybe take extra college courses to boost GPA? I haven't heard very many alternative options aside from "go for a master's degree instead" and that may be untenable if their professional goal requires a doctoral degree (eg, staff psychologist).

They can accept that they will be facing a career of uphill battles and crushing debt loads, or they can look at what other career options can be obtained. Just because we want something, doesn't mean that we are entitled to it. Additionally, outside of rural areas (where every healthcare profession has a shortage), there is no shortage of doctoral level providers in the field. If anything, in large markets, we should be stemming the flow. We're quickly heading the way that law school did in the past few decades.

 

[Ollie123]

Yet given that the members here acknowledge that strong professionals can still come out of FSPS programs, what should those types of students have done instead of going to an expensive and poorly-regarded program? Spend a year or two getting research or clinical experiences prior to applying? Maybe take extra college courses to boost GPA? I haven't heard very many alternative options aside from "go for a master's degree instead" and that may be untenable if their professional goal requires a doctoral degree (eg, staff psychologist).

Certainly many here (myself included) strongly advocate folks look for ways to boost their credentials if they TRULY want to be a psychologist. I generally see master's degrees recommended to folks who want to be a "therapist" but seem unable to provide much rationale for wanting to be a psychologist besides liking the word psychologist more. "Staff psychologist" is a title and not a professional goal (or at least it shouldn't be). I think all too often the alternative routes aren't fully considered, even when they might provide identical (or even preferable) job duties with far less debt and other problems.

Its very rare that we get someone here who is steered away from psychology entirely solely based on credentials. When someone for whom psychology does truly seem to be the ideal career inquires, we're usually advocating for them taking their time and building a CV that will enable them to enter a legit program. Unfortunately, a lot of the time that is met with "I won't leave California, I don't want to take more classes, research is yucky and math is hard so I won't do them and I want a school that will still let me work full time - why are you killing my dreams when Argosy says I can fulfill them for just $1000/month for the rest of my life?"

 

[Ardor]

They can accept that they will be facing a career of uphill battles and crushing debt loads, or they can look at what other career options can be obtained. Just because we want something, doesn't mean that we are entitled to it. Additionally, outside of rural areas (where every healthcare profession has a shortage), there is no shortage of doctoral level providers in the field. If anything, in large markets, we should be stemming the flow. We're quickly heading the way that law school did in the past few decades.

That would be extremely important for these applicants to reflect on and I would bet that many don't understand how oppressive the debt may become. Yet changing career goals is not always a trivial decision and I'm guessing that at least for some people, shouldering the debt is better than the alternative.

Yes, it's a screwed up system. Yes, the system negatively contributes to the general quality of training in the field. But maybe for a single individual, it might be the best choice for them given their current juncture in life.

 

[Ardor]

Certainly many here (myself included) strongly advocate folks look for ways to boost their credentials if they TRULY want to be a psychologist. I generally see master's degrees recommended to folks who want to be a "therapist" but seem unable to provide much rationale for wanting to be a psychologist besides liking the word psychologist more. "Staff psychologist" is a title and not a professional goal (or at least it shouldn't be). I think all too often the alternative routes aren't fully considered, even when they might provide identical (or even preferable) job duties with far less debt and other problems.

Its very rare that we get someone here who is steered away from psychology entirely solely based on credentials. When someone for whom psychology does truly seem to be the ideal career inquires, we're usually advocating for them taking their time and building a CV that will enable them to enter a legit program. Unfortunately, a lot of the time that is met with "I won't leave California, I don't want to take more classes, research is yucky and math is hard so I won't do them and I want a school that will still let me work full time - why are you killing my dreams when Argosy says I can fulfill them for just $1000/month for the rest of my life?"

OK, I agree. Taking a couple of years to build your CV is a better route than an FSPS.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yes, it's a screwed up system. Yes, the system negatively contributes to the general quality of training in the field. But maybe for a single individual, it might be the best choice for them given their current juncture in life.

Of course, but just don't expect me to have much sympathy for them when they start complaining that they couldn't get an accredited internship, and later cannot get certain stable high paying jobs that require accredited internships, and are paying off debt until they retire. The risks are out there, if they bother to look. Far too often people blame "the system" without taking any personal responsibility for their actions.

 

[bmedclinic]

In regards to considering FSPS programs, I think it goes without saying that traditional, prestigious, funded programs are far superior options. Yet given that the members here acknowledge that strong professionals can still come out of FSPS programs, what should those types of students have done instead of going to an expensive and poorly-regarded program? Spend a year or two getting research or clinical experiences prior to applying? Maybe take extra college courses to boost GPA? I haven't heard very many alternative options aside from "go for a master's degree instead" and that may be untenable if their professional goal requires a doctoral degree (eg, staff psychologist).

Yes, they should do exactly that. If your goal is to be a psychologist and you have some reason you cant get into a doctoral program, what is so bad about getting a masters degree first? That's exactly what I did, as I was super immature for the first two years of college-- and it hurt me. But going the masters route allowed those with drive to separate from those who were less willing.

I cant see a scenario where "super ****ty psyd no one respects from onlinish school" > 2 years of MA/MS + competent doctoral degree that's actually respected.

 

[psyched2bpsyched]

I have a question regarding The Wright Institute PsyD program and a change in their internship requirements… When I went for my interview I was informed that they're now requiring that students only apply for only APA internships for those who enrolled in 2015 onwards. Is this a realistic requirement? Any opinions if this will change The Wright's mixed reputation? I was accepted to The Wright and GWU's PsyD program so far… I really liked "vibe" of The Wright when I went for an interview but I am really hesitant about their low match rate for APA internships. I was a little turned off by GWU and their primarily psychodynamic program. I lean towards psychodynamic theory/practice but I would like to be exposed to other orientations. Any thoughts on how this new requirement could effect The Wright Institute? Is it a realistic requirement to implement?

 

[erg923]

I have a question regarding The Wright Institute PsyD program and a change in their internship requirements… When I went for my interview I was informed that they're now requiring that students only apply for only APA internships for those who enrolled in 2015 onwards. Is this a realistic requirement? Any opinions if this will change The Wright's mixed reputation? I was accepted to The Wright and GWU's PsyD program so far… I really liked "vibe" of The Wright when I went for an interview but I am really hesitant about their low match rate for APA internships. I was a little turned off by GWU and their primarily psychodynamic program. I lean towards psychodynamic theory/practice but I would like to be exposed to other orientations. Any thoughts on how this new requirement could effect The Wright Institute? Is it a realistic requirement to implement?

Realistic as in do they have the authority to do that? Yes, of course. Many programs already do this.

 

[psyched2bpsyched]

Realistic as in do they have the authority to do that? Yes, of course. Many programs already do this.

Do you think this would ameliorate the The Wright's mixed reputation?

 

[erg923]

Do you think this would ameliorate the The Wright's mixed reputation?

no

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm guessing their match rate is going to be rough if they require only APA-acred. sites.

 

[CApsych]

My school (PGsp/Stanford consortium) is in the same geographical area, a professional program, also requires apa accred internship and has a solid match rate. My two cents, living in this area and pursuing clinical psych, I've met wonderful students and psychologists who go/went to the Wright. A main internship for that program, CPMC in San Francisco, just got APA accred this year. I interviewed at CPMC and really liked it. But it is very psychodynamic (not my main orientation).

 

[psyched2bpsyched]

My school (PGsp/Stanford consortium) is in the same geographical area, a professional program, also requires apa accred internship and has a solid match rate. My two cents, living in this area and pursuing clinical psych, I've met wonderful students and psychologists who go/went to the Wright. A main internship for that program, CPMC in San Francisco, just got APA accred this year. I interviewed at CPMC and really liked it. But it is very psychodynamic (not my main orientation).

Thank you!

 

[Psyd2022]

I know there has been a lot of talk about how Wright Institute grads may struggle to to get hired by various organization. But if someone wants to go into private practice, is there any evidence that the school they've come from makes a difference? Have Wright graduates struggled to get clients in their private practices?

 

[Justanothergrad]

I know there has been a lot of talk about how Wright Institute grads may struggle to to get hired by various organization. But if someone wants to go into private practice, is there any evidence that the school they've come from makes a difference? Have Wright graduates struggled to get clients in their private practices?

People without APA accredited internships face a more difficult task in getting licensed. They are also not as employable, with many agencies opting against folks who do not meet field standards. That is not to say they cannot work (such as in PP), but those individuals are tasked with proving their training to be of the same caliber. Lets assume the training and outcomes are otherwise the same, why would someone want to put themselves at the disadvantage of limiting their job opportunities, making licensure more difficult, etc. Hanging your weight on a more limited employment opportunity seems like a bad decision built on top of other bad decisions involving training (more risk for accreditation in training, debt, etc.)

 

[Psyd2022]

People without APA accredited internships face a more difficult task in getting licensed. They are also not as employable, with many agencies opting against folks who do not meet field standards. That is not to say they cannot work (such as in PP), but those individuals are tasked with proving their training to be of the same caliber. Lets assume the training and outcomes are otherwise the same, why would someone want to put themselves at the disadvantage of limiting their job opportunities, making licensure more difficult, etc. Hanging your weight on a more limited employment opportunity seems like a bad decision built on top of other bad decisions involving training (more risk for accreditation in training, debt, etc.)

Agreed. But if you become licensed and simply want to open your own practice (not be hired by anyone), does it make a difference? I personally wouldn't want to limit my options, but I am curious if those without an interest in working in an organization should have to worry about all of this.

The benefits I've noted based on my discussions with Wright are that you have the option to graduate in 4 years, that tuition is significantly cheaper than most other PsyD programs in California, and that they try to be flexible with training locations to accommodate people with families (ie the older applicants that have been referred to in previous posts).

I do worry about the fact that they are not affiliated with a University. And dislike the idea of having to defend my education for the rest of my career (which I do think is a very real concern and very much appreciate that someone mentioned it earlier in this thread).

Decisions Decisions...

 

[WisNeuro]

Agreed. But if you become licensed and simply want to open your own practice (not be hired by anyone), does it make a difference? I personally wouldn't want to limit my options, but I am curious if those without an interest in working in an organization should have to worry about all of this.


Decisions Decisions...

Still need referral sources. I don't refer out to people unless I know and trust their background.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Making the choice to attend training that produces sub-standard educational standards has impacts. I've known good clinicians out of bad schools (including Wright), but that's not the majority and that's not the trajectory. As with any of these similar PsyD programs, putting yourself in a disadvantaged position has (unsurprisingly) disadvantages. That includes in PP, as WisNeuro said. If I refer to someone, my credibility is linked with the person I send them to and I don't want my clients handled poorly.

 

[Sanman]

Agreed. But if you become licensed and simply want to open your own practice (not be hired by anyone), does it make a difference? I personally wouldn't want to limit my options, but I am curious if those without an interest in working in an organization should have to worry about all of this.
Decisions Decisions...

Open a practice with what money? Once you graduate your career is just starting. So, if you are only accepting cash clients what is the business case vs an experienced therapist? If you are taking insurance, the time to become paneled is long if the panel is even open to you (some are not without a certain amount of experience or if the area is flooded with practitioners). If you want help and join an established practice (as most do), I would offer you a terrible split if you are not qualified for other jobs (as most PP will do, completely unpaid post-doc anyone?) and would have no reason to increase that if there is less competition for you. Now, is there a path to doing this? Yes. Do you want to take a major income hit if you can even qualify for a license for at least 3-5 years after license to have to prove yourself and possibly be limited in what states you can live in? Get into a top masters program and make similar money with less years of your life and money involved, IMO. The income difference between a good MA level therapist and a bad PsyD is small if any, IME. Something to think about.

 

[psych.meout]

Agreed. But if you become licensed and simply want to open your own practice (not be hired by anyone), does it make a difference? I personally wouldn't want to limit my options, but I am curious if those without an interest in working in an organization should have to worry about all of this.

The benefits I've noted based on my discussions with Wright are that you have the option to graduate in 4 years, that tuition is significantly cheaper than most other PsyD programs in California, and that they try to be flexible with training locations to accommodate people with families (ie the older applicants that have been referred to in previous posts).

I do worry about the fact that they are not affiliated with a University. And dislike the idea of having to defend my education for the rest of my career (which I do think is a very real concern and very much appreciate that someone mentioned it earlier in this thread).

Decisions Decisions...

Let's look at some simple economics to see if these "benefits" are really all that great. Funded programs at better schools might be one or two years longer than Wright's, which would translate into better training, better reputation, and more employment opportunities (e.g. more and better referrals from other providers, more upward mobility in pay if you choose to join a private practice, etc.).

Psy.D. Program Student Admissions, Outcomes, and Other Data | The Wright Institute

The tuition at Wright might be relatively cheaper than at other PsyD programs in California, but that's still $34,000 per year in tuition alone, let alone living expenses, other education expenses (e.g. conference travel), and interest on tuition. Hell, you even have to pay more than $4,000 to Wright while you are on internship. Compare this with fully-funded programs, which offer not only tuition remission, but also some form of stipend and subsidized (or free) health insurance. They also frequently offer opportunities for grants, scholarships, fellowships, and other funding sources that might supplement their base funding packages.

Their cohorts are also huge, pushing 60 to 70 students per year. Compare this with typical funded programs which generally have cohorts at approximately one-tenth that size. Do you really think you'll get the same quality of training and mentoring with so many other students in the program? Do you really think the quality of services you could provide in private practice are likely to be of equivalence to someone who went to a smaller program?

Their APA-accredited match rates are also not encouraging, ranging from 27% to 84% for the past seven years (albeit with an upward trend in the past couple years) and an average match rate of 47.9%. Do you really want to risk your career and quality of training on an unaccredited internship match? How do you think this will affect your referrals from other providers and reputation with patients (patients can and do look up your CV and use it to make decisions about their providers)?

Are any of the "benefits" of Wright really worth these potential downsides?

 

[Psyd2022]

Thanks for all of this feedback.

You mentioned funded programs several times. Do you mean PhDs or are there funded PsyDs??

 

[WisNeuro]

There are funded PsyDs.

 

[Insomniac99]

Does this still hold true? In the past 4 years theyve had good match rates, with last year being 87%.

 

[psych.meout]

Does this still hold true? In the past 4 years theyve had good match rates, with last year being 87%.

You can't look at just the sheer percentage, you have to look at the underlying numbers.

Clinical Program Student Admissions, Outcomes, and Other Data

52 students applied for internship, but only 45 matched to an accredited site and 7 did not.

Compare this to smaller funded programs that have typically less than 10 students per cohort. Just one student not matching could lead to a similar match rate.

The question then is how to interpret these figures. Sure, it's possible that one student not matching could have something to do with the program, though it's equally or more likely that it is related to the individual student (e.g., individual practicum experiences, GPA, internship site selection, geographic restrictions). When it comes to 7 students not matching, while its possible that these are all or partially due to individual factors, it's more likely that there are programmatic factors at work (e.g., insufficient mentoring, lax admission standards, poor quality practicum sites).

The issue is really about what you can control. You don't want to be in a situation where you can do everything in your power to make yourself competitive for internship only to have factors related to your program hamstringing your chances.

 

[WisNeuro]

Does this still hold true? In the past 4 years theyve had good match rates, with last year being 87%.

Nearly everyone has improved match rates in the past 4 years, mostly due to a marked increase in internship spots, not necessarily due to an improvement in programs. I'd be looking at other objective markers as well (EPPP match rates, program attrition, etc). Last, 87% in the era of more spots than applicants is not good.