PsyD vs PhD: Addressing Anti-Psyd Sentiments

[deleted75966]

It shouldn't just be match%, it should be number of students contributed to not matching. A program with 100 people that matches at 80% contributes 20 unmatched students. A program with 10, 2.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[O Gurl]

I personally don't see how decreased admissions standards could be a good thing, but that's just me.

It is confusing to me that traditionalists are being asked to prove the lower standards are causing harm instead of the FSPS proponents being asked why standards were lowered to begin with? What could be the possible benefit of lower admissions standards?

It shouldn't just be match%, it should be number of students contributed to not matching. A program with 100 people that matches at 80% contributes 20 unmatched students. A program with 10, 2.

Agreed. Still can't get past taking in 100 students/year... mind-boggling.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

It shouldn't just be match%, it should be number of students contributed to not matching. A program with 100 people that matches at 80% contributes 20 unmatched students. A program with 10, 2.

Agreed, although this would be somewhat captured by the % system--if they're only matching 80% while taking 100 students, then they'd be restricted to only taking 80 students. Thus, they'd be hit with a larger "penalty" (i.e., 20 students) than a smaller program that would have its incoming cohort sizes restricted by a smaller absolute number of students.

However, as said above, I agree that (especially if prioritizing needs to occur) programs contributing larger numbers of unmatched students should be examined first.

 

[cara susanna]

Where I live/work is there for everyone to see -- it's one of the major population centers in the nation.

Also -- It's not like I'm a total newb. I've been at the mental health racket for over twenty years now.

We can't all live and work where you do, or else the jobs would fill up.

And that's great, but in most places PhDs/PsyDs are getting pushed out of jobs by Masters-level providers. In the city where I'm living, the hospital fired all of its psychologists.

 

[O Gurl]

And that's great, but in most places PhDs/PsyDs are getting pushed out of jobs by Masters-level providers. In the city where I'm living, the hospital fired all of its psychologists.

Gadzooks!

Well, let's see how they feel about that when they realize their patients are being given "40 Tips for a Powerful Life" and sent on their way while providers are billing for brief psychotherapy. This happens apparently in our primary care clinic. Amazing what you find when conducting a systematic chart review and look at the CPT codes.

 

[ela]

*incendiary cartoon removed

For anyone interested in the source of said cartoon and another interesting discussion, it was on BoingBoing yesterday;

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/04/19/tom-the-dancing-bug-45.html

Honestly, this was more a response to watching the Frontline piece of For Profit education. Much much less about PsyD's per say. Thus the retraction.

 

[psychmama]

Now THAT cartoon is priceless! Made my day in fact.

 

[O Gurl]

That picture???

 

[PsyDreaming]

That "ad" is not very nice . . .

A traditional university is just as concerned with revenue as any professional school. That's why many want winning football/basketball teams. Of course all those admitted on sports scholarships are very well qualified regarding academics

I have worked for a nationally recognized non-profit for more than a decade and I can tell you that at the business-level there is very little difference between non-profit and for profit when it comes to generating revenue.

Sad to see this conversation decay as it has

 

[KillerDiller]

That "ad" is not very nice . . .

A traditional university is just as concerned with revenue as any professional school. That's why many want winning football/basketball teams. Of course all those admitted on sports scholarships are very well qualified regarding academics

I have worked for a nationally recognized non-profit for more than a decade and I can tell you that at the business-level there is very little difference between non-profit and for profit when it comes to generating revenue.

Sad to see this conversation decay as it has

I agree that the ad was not nice and that such things don't further the conversation. I certainly understand being offended. However, I also think your comments about universities are not very relevant to the issue at hand. It is true, Ph.D. students (and athletes for that matter), are recruited by universities in the hope that they will make money by earning grants, increasing the endowment, etc. The difference is that these students are not being charged directly in order to make the university money.

If you want to argue that allowing athletes into universities they otherwise would not be able to attend waters down the value of a bachelors degree, I will agree with you. However, doesn't that make the point that we shouldn't be in the practice of offering less qualified candidates access to advanced degrees? Or was your point that universities don't do everything right at all levels? Of course they don't, but questionable athletic practices shouldn't prevent them from setting the bar for doctoral level training in psychology.

 

[ela]

The "Ad" above is a cartoon. Satire.

 

[O Gurl]

A traditional university is just as concerned with revenue as any professional school. That's why many want winning football/basketball teams. Of course all those admitted on sports scholarships are very well qualified regarding academics

Those college athletes (that you apparently think are all dumb) are at least paying for their own education by generating the revenue to support athletic scholarships and quite a few other departments to boot. That is not the same as reaming Uncle Sam and Joe Taxpayer for an advanced degree.

 

[Zigman]

Those college athletes (that you apparently think are all dumb) are at least paying for their own education by generating the revenue to support athletic scholarships and quite a few other departments to boot. That is not the same as reaming Uncle Sam and Joe Taxpayer for an advanced degree.

I do not defend for-profit education. However, this statement is false.
There were, in fact, several articles recently which debunked this myth. The article below links to several reports demonstrating such. The truth is that the vast majority of college AD's run a deficit.

http://news.change.org/stories/big-budget-college-sports-cost-hurt-higher-education

 

[ThirdLittleBird]

I keep searching, but I've yet to see the money tree that grows on campuses, supporting those funded Ph.D. programs.

Fact is, undergraduate tuition, and federal funds (from taxpayers) support these funded positions.

In other words, my money is going to support your education, and I don't have a say in that, nor would I choose to have it that way if I did have a say.

I can, however, ask you politely to step off your high horse.

 

[PsyDreaming]

I agree that the ad was not nice and that such things don't further the conversation. I certainly understand being offended. However, I also think your comments about universities are not very relevant to the issue at hand. It is true, Ph.D. students (and athletes for that matter), are recruited by universities in the hope that they will make money by earning grants, increasing the endowment, etc. The difference is that these students are not being charged directly in order to make the university money.

If you want to argue that allowing athletes into universities they otherwise would not be able to attend waters down the value of a bachelors degree, I will agree with you. However, doesn't that make the point that we shouldn't be in the practice of offering less qualified candidates access to advanced degrees? Or was your point that universities don't do everything right at all levels? Of course they don't, but questionable athletic practices shouldn't prevent them from setting the bar for doctoral level training in psychology.

Good points, Killer Diller. Student athletes are generally not charged directly in the monetary sense although they are oftentimes paying quite a physical price. Not terribly relevent to the discussion at hand, I agree, but somewhat applicable when discussing ethics and higher ed in general.

I agree that we shouldn't offer "less qualified" candidates access to advanced degrees. The real question, though, is regarding the "qualifications" themselves. Who decides? Is it fair to set the bar at "If it ain't Harvard it's no good" or is there a better way?

I won't even pretend to have the answer but I guess my point is that mock adverts as posted above are counterproductive if the end game is a positive conversation.

 

[PsyDreaming]

Those college athletes (that you apparently think are all dumb) are at least paying for their own education by generating the revenue to support athletic scholarships and quite a few other departments to boot. That is not the same as reaming Uncle Sam and Joe Taxpayer for an advanced degree.

Ummm . . . never said that anybody was dumb. The emoticon-based inference was that many are perhaps less academically qualified than non-athletic applicants. This was in support of an implied argument that many large state U's offer admission to less than qualified applicants for reasons bound solely to their strategic plans for revenue generation.

Basically just pointing out that at the end of the day the academy is a business whether one wants to recognize or admit that it is. All programs are making credentials available for a price. Cold but true.

 

[O Gurl]

I do not defend for-profit education. However, this statement is false.
There were, in fact, several articles recently which debunked this myth. The article below links to several reports demonstrating such. The truth is that the vast majority of college AD's run a deficit.

http://news.change.org/stories/big-budget-college-sports-cost-hurt-higher-education

Thanks for the reference. I admit I am speaking from my SEC state university bubble. For my UG and other in that conference, the athletics departments are cash cows. By that I mean that our AD brought in more money than our hard science research funding and alumni foundation combined. However, I do acknowledge that at smaller schools or in other regions, this may not be the case.

I keep searching, but I've yet to see the money tree that grows on campuses, supporting those funded Ph.D. programs.

Fact is, undergraduate tuition, and federal funds (from taxpayers) support these funded positions.

In other words, my money is going to support your education, and I don't have a say in that, nor would I choose to have it that way if I did have a say.

I can, however, ask you politely to step off your high horse.

Yes. Federal programs like NIH fund a lot of the research that supports grad programs. However, supported research is an investment in the product of that science. It is how we make advances in technology, medicince, and science.

I agree that we shouldn't offer "less qualified" candidates access to advanced degrees. The real question, though, is regarding the "qualifications" themselves. Who decides? Is it fair to set the bar at "If it ain't Harvard it's no good" or is there a better way?

University prestige is not the issue. Standard UG rankings do not even hold for clinical psychology. We are simply talking about admissions standards and quality training.

 

[PsyDreaming]

The "Ad" above is a cartoon. Satire.

It is if not in reference to any specific program.

In this world satire quickly becomes libel.

Besides it is arguably offensive and certainly not professional.

Always fun to get a chuckle at the expense of the illiterate

The arrogance here is stifling . . .

 

[Jegg]

In this world satire quickly becomes libel.

It is uncommon for satire to become libel simply because satire lampoons public figures and libel is not enforceable when dealing with public figures unless the libelous information is both false and maliciously intended (US 1st Ammendment).

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The Athlete v. Academic is not the issue here, though I'd encourage you to post in the Sociopolitical Forum (sub-forum of The Lounge) about it...as the role of the "student athlete" is worth discussing.

The Psy.D. as a degree is largely accepted as a valid model when the tennants of the model are actually implemented as designed, though many programs have strayed from the original model. As a Psy.D., I get pretty frustrated by some of the assumptions I've heard about "Psy.D. training", though there is some truth to there being variance between programs and the quality of Psy.D. students.

The arrogance here is stifling . . .

I don't think it is arrogance though, as many of the posters are trying to use objective data to support their concerns. This argument has been on SDN for years, and most of the time "elitism" is tossed about, though it is primarily a strawman. There is nothing "elite" about the vast majority of clinical psychology graduate programs. For every UWisc, UFlorida, or UMinn...there are 10 mid-sized state programs that provide solid but not earth-shattering training. It isn't about elitism...it is about supporting some base level standards and protecting against degredation of the field as a whole.

It isn't "rocket surgery" (as my applied physics prof/friend likes to say) to get into a graduate program, though there are standards that need to be met. An applicant with a 3.5-3.6, 1200-1300 GRE, a publication, and a presentation is actually a pretty mediocre applicant for many other graduate programs. People aren't advocating for a minimum 3.9, 1500+, and 3+ publications...they just are afraid of how far the standard will slip. Can an applicant with a 2.8, 1000 GRE, and some volunteer work develop into a stellar clinican...yes, but what about all of the others who don't?

 

[PsyDreaming]

It is uncommon for satire to become libel simply because satire lampoons public figures and libel is not enforceable when dealing with public figures unless the libelous information is both false and maliciously intended (US 1st Ammendment).

Correct - - uncommon for satire to be prosecuted as libel; not uncommon for the matter to be brought to litigation.

Perhaps better defined as a parody

Parody to misunderstanding to libel/defamation is a more direct path.

Just pointing out that it is a good thing that the advert fails to identify (or imply) a specific institution.

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[PsyDreaming]

Can an applicant with a 2.8, 1000 GRE, and some volunteer work develop into a stellar clinican...yes, but what about all of the others who don't?

Thanks for your comments.

Shouldn't the applicant with the 2.8 GPA wash-out of the accredited program (nationally and APA) if truly not qualified/capable? In these cases shouldn't the proof be in the pudding? If the student is able to complete the course work, internships, licensing, and ultimately successfully earns the requisite credential what right does anybody have to say that they should never have been given the opportunity to do so in the first place???

This is where I get stuck on arrogance. The focus here seems to be more on the admissions process (number of students admitted) and less on the content of the program that the questionably qualified apps are being admitted to.

If I am dancing with a strawman here then so be it.

 

[cara susanna]

I keep searching, but I've yet to see the money tree that grows on campuses, supporting those funded Ph.D. programs.

Fact is, undergraduate tuition, and federal funds (from taxpayers) support these funded positions.

In other words, my money is going to support your education, and I don't have a say in that, nor would I choose to have it that way if I did have a say.

I can, however, ask you politely to step off your high horse.

You wouldn't choose to fund PhD programs? Dude, I'm as fiscally conservative as they come and even I think that's extreme..

 

[Jegg]

This seems like a good time to post what I have been contemplating concerning the ETS GRE:


The claim that lower admissions standards affects therapy outcome requires a burden of proof. I'm not sure there has been any study exploring this area. It would actually be a great avenue of exploration. I would wager, based on two issues, that it doesn't affect therapy outcome past a certain score threshold. The first issue is studies showing that high IQ does not correlate with career success. The second issue is studies that show that often different modalities and different therapy practicing careers (e.g. psychologists, social workers, mental health counselors, etc.) do not have wildly different effects on therapy outcome despite wildly different admissions standards and training methods. Where score threshold cut-off scores should be located for clinical psychology would seem debatable, but standardized tests do not seem to offer convincing evidence that they accurately reflect meaningful enough predictive statistics to be given the importance they are currently given in clinical psychology.

The ETS website only mentions a significant yet small relationship between having higher scores on the General GRE and being in the top quartile of the graduate clinical psychology class. This information is fairly useless if the GPA averages range from 3.3 to 3.8 between the lowest and highest GRE quartiles (as it does in the ETS PDF--see below). Likewise in the paper referenced in the ETS handout (see link below for actual paper), 100 point differences in GRE scores account for .056 differences in graduate GPA in clinical psychology.

To illustrate the application of these differences, from the above noted papers, in clinical psychology, for students who had an undergraduate GPA of 3.5 a score of 1400 is equivalent to a 3.72 graduate GPA (approximately an "A" or a 92) while a GRE score of 1000 is equivalent to a graduate GPA of 3.496. A 3.46 (if rounded down approximately a "B" or an 89, but an "A" or 90 if correctly rounded up to a 3.5) is not a terrible GPA (GPA equivalents taken from the Princeton Review GPA conversion website). A difference in score of 400 points on the GRE generally translates to a paltry two to three point difference on a zero to one-hundred scale if the student had a 3.5 undergraduate GPA. A change of .25 in undergraduate GPA translates to a change of .041 in graduate GPA, so even an undergraduate GPA of 3.0 is generally a base graduate GPA of 3.638 at 1400 GRE score and a graduate GPA of 3.414 at 1000 GRE. These of course are based on quartile averages, so there are clustering of scores around these scores and outliers as well, but I think the general statistical message is quite clear.

The other numbers of interest in the above paper are the percent of students who will receive a grade lower than a B based on whether they are in the low or high GRE quartiles. A little more than twice as many (2.33...) students from the low quartile received a grade lower than a B in clinical psychology graduate programs compared to those in the highest quartile. This sounds impressive until you realize they are talking about the difference between around 3.5 percent compared to around 1.5 percent. To state this pragmatically, when dealing with people who scored in the lower GRE quartile in the study 7 out of 200 students will receive a grade lower than a B, while in the highest GRE quartile 3 out of 200 students will receive a grade lower than a B.

This does not make the GRE extremely useful for cut-off scores in clinical psychology, at least based on information in the ETS papers, but rather makes it an almost arbitrary means of eliminating candidates. Considering that even scores below 1000 will still place a large number of candidates above the required B average at many programs, as long as their undergraduate GPA is adequate according to the cited paper, also speaks to the weakness of the GRE. The paper cited below also mentions that the variance accounted for by the GRE is only 9 percent. I could not find information on the range of GRE scores encountered in the study, which is unfortunate because if the range extended to or below 1000 for clinical psychology programs, it would strengthen my argument. Conversely if it only extended to 1200 it would weaken my argument, and strengthen the argument for using GRE cut-offs, as perhaps there is the potential of a non-linear (downward exponential) drop in performance as the GRE dips below a certain threshold that can't be mined from the current data due to the restricted GPA and GRE ranges, but the authors do not list the GRE ranges for some reason. This leaves the question of cut-offs perhaps intentionally wide open in this pro-ETS GRE paper. Data on GRE scores in particular are strangely absent from the paper.

Likewise, the EPPP has its own issues as well. I've posted two links for articles that discuss those weaknesses for anyone who is interested. I will hopefully have some time to analyze those at a later point in the thread.


GRE:

http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/GRE/pdf/gre_dataview_psych_nov05.pdf

http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-08-46.pdf

EPPP:

http://hamilnet2.ua.edu/chpsem/uploads/get.php?id=970c6baa8cbcc7f642368caa68615535&name=Sharpless+%26+Barber+-+EPPP+-+in+press+PPRP.doc

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1398&context=psychfacpub&sei-redir=1#search=%22eppp+validity%22

 

[ThirdLittleBird]

You wouldn't choose to fund PhD programs? Dude, I'm as fiscally conservative as they come and even I think that's extreme..

No, I would choose to fund my own education.

Signed,

3.98 GPA, 2 publications, 5 presentations, 1450 GRE, and 0 funded acceptances

call me bitter, and perhaps I am. Regardless, I do find that this thread has taken a turn on the low road.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

We can't all live and work where you do, or else the jobs would fill up.

And that's great, but in most places PhDs/PsyDs are getting pushed out of jobs by Masters-level providers. In the city where I'm living, the hospital fired all of its psychologists.

Ironic that one of the rubs against FSPSs is that they are located in major population centers (the argument is sometimes made that students don't have to do a gut check when deciding how much they are committed to the profession and can simply stay put, or that the FSPS stay where the fishing is easy, etc.). Seems reasonable to say that this area is not unique. And I'm not suggesting there are tons of job vacancies here. There is lots of unmet need. The fact that the psychologists just got fired at your local hospital does not necessarily dispute that fact in your neck of the woods, either.

 

[deleted75966]

To illustrate the application of these differences, from the above noted papers, in clinical psychology, for students who had an undergraduate GPA of 3.5 a score of 1400 is equivalent to a 3.72 graduate GPA (approximately an "A" or a 92) while a GRE score of 1000 is equivalent to a graduate GPA of 3.496. A 3.46 (if rounded down approximately a "B" or an 89, but an "A" or 90 if correctly rounded up to a 3.5) is not a terrible GPA (GPA equivalents taken from the Princeton Review GPA conversion website)

Problem with this is this is generally not within program (because lower scores don't get in). Someone mentioned that APA accredidation and passing their programs might merit assumption of adequacy. But, an A in one program might merit an F in another. We are quickly lowering the standards of admission in our field, our collective IQ, if you will. The average clinical psychologist graduating even 10 years ago is smarter than the average clinical psychologist graduating today. Good idea? Is it arrogant to suggest no?

 

[cara susanna]

No, I would choose to fund my own education.

Signed,

3.98 GPA, 2 publications, 5 presentations, 1450 GRE, and 0 funded acceptances

call me bitter, and perhaps I am. Regardless, I do find that this thread has taken a turn on the low road.

If you have those credentials, at some point you must have had some love for this field. Think about it, if we didn't fund graduate education, how would anyone without a trust fund or generous parents pursue it? Why would anyone pursue it? Many of the researchers and clinicians who I'm guessing must have inspired you probably would be doing something else.

 

[Ollie123]

If you have those credentials, at some point you must have had some love for this field. Think about it, if we didn't fund graduate education, how would anyone without a trust fund or generous parents pursue it? Why would anyone pursue it? Many of the researchers and clinicians who I'm guessing must have inspired you probably would be doing something else.

I will also add that there is a huge difference, at least in my eyes, of being paid off grants and tuition in exchange for work vs. relying on the student loan system to pay for things with the hopes of paying it back later (or not paying it all back, as some have alluded to).

I essentially have a job...one that I'm actually being paid FAR less to than it would likely cost if a staff member was hired. If grad students aren't paid by the grants, it just means another staff person would have to be hired to do it, or we could just achieve far less. If grad students aren't being paid to teach, it means an adjunct is hired (this I admit might be in the red since adjuncts are often paid pretty low). Either way, I'm not sure the two are comparable.

 

[Jegg]

Problem with this is this is generally not within program (because lower scores don't get in). Someone mentioned that APA accredidation and passing their programs might merit assumption of adequacy. But, an A in one program might merit an F in another. We are quickly lowering the standards of admission in our field, our collective IQ, if you will. The average clinical psychologist graduating even 10 years ago is smarter than the average clinical psychologist graduating today. Good idea? Is it arrogant to suggest no?

An aptitude test is not an IQ test, and drawing the assumption of equivalency is problematic because one purports to measure intelligence potential and the other purports to measure application of knowledge.

It is true that the size of PsyD program cohorts may overpower the PhD programs and dilute the effectiveness of the GRE in terms of evaluating graduate GPA based on undergraduate GPA and GRE score. Likewise, undergraduate GPA scores may be affected by privilege (good schools or bad schools based on area or financial advantage/disadvantage). A partial solution to this may be to look at science oriented fields in that same ETS paper that do not have practitioner oriented programs to dilute their predictive power. From what I recall, and I will take a look later when I have time, the numbers are not tremendously different.

Also, the students used in the study were selected from schools that had at least ten departments as well as one-hundred students. This immediately eliminates the pure professional schools from the study as well as a great deal of other likely questionable schools. This eliminates a portion of potential dilution from the study. I would guess they did this exactly because of the issues you raised. This paper is after all ETS trying to prove the validity of the GRE, not one of it's detractors trying to prove it inadequate.

Another issue that you might find interesting is that the higher ranked institutions (or "highly selective institutions" as they are called in the article cited below) are actually known for more grade inflation than lower ranked institutions (see link below). If this is the case in psychology graduate programs as well, then the problem of lower average performance/aptitude in psychology cohorts is much more complex than professional schools and PsyD programs, but is also a product of less demand at highly ranked schools. Likewise, this inflation would speak to your concern about an A at one program being an F at another, as supposedly, based on research, the higher ranked institutions are more likely to participate in this behavior than the lower ranked institutions.

Another parallel issue is recent studies showing that teaching to the tests may consequently and effectively teach students not to learn and think for themselves (see links below). This elimination of creativity from the learning equation may allow students to score highly on aptitude tests, as the student has been taught "to the test," but it does not teach ingenuity, a skill highly prized in all research fields. Consequently, the aptitude of psychology students is further lowered compared to some previous generations and the aptitude tests lose validity as well (see below).

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/grade-inflation-your-questions-answered/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_to_the_test

http://umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/volante.html

 

[ThirdLittleBird]

If you have those credentials, at some point you must have had some love for this field. Think about it, if we didn't fund graduate education, how would anyone without a trust fund or generous parents pursue it? Why would anyone pursue it? Many of the researchers and clinicians who I'm guessing must have inspired you probably would be doing something else.

I do have a these credentials, and more. That is why it feels like a slap in the face to read such negative opinions about the quality of clinician that a Psy.D. program can produce. And yes, there are some funded, university-based Psy.D. programs, but very few. In fact, I only know of two.

I was accepted to unfunded, university-based Psy.D. programs that have over 20 people in the cohorts, and tuition over $900 per credit hour -- the type of program that some seem to believe can only produce subpar psychologists. However, the research team I currently work with couldn't disagree more. In fact, not only are they in shock that I didn't get a single interview to the Ph.D. programs to which I applied, but they are scrambling to find funding to keep me onboard with a groundbreaking project on which we are currently working -- a program which I developed as an undergrad.

When I sought advice from the MDs and Psychiatrists I work with regarding the anti-Psy.D. sentiment, they didn't know what I was talking about. In fact, they told me they never even considered a difference in quality of the work produced by someone w/ a Psy.D. vs. Ph.D. The Psy.Ds they work with (I'm thinking specifically of 5, probably more), have ALL graduated from a non-funded program with cohorts of 30+.

I worked very hard to get to where I am today academically, as many others have as well. There just simply is not enough funding to go around to support every well-qualified applicant. Does this mean we should just move on and find an alternate path? I believe the under-served population for which I work would answer with a resounding, "No!"

 

[Jegg]

I worked very hard to get to where I am today academically, as many others have as well. There just simply is not enough funding to go around to support every well-qualified applicant. Does this mean we should just move on and find an alternate path? I believe the under-served population for which I work would answer with a resounding, "No!"

I don't think you should have moved on. If you are well qualified and the idiosyncratic and arbitrary process of selection did not land you in a funded program, then you made the right decision IMO. There are way too many qualified applicants for far too few funded positions. I feel bad for people who are in your position and can't afford to pay their way in an unfunded program.

 

[deleted75966]

Another issue that you might find interesting is that the higher ranked institutions (or "highly selective institutions" as they are called in the article cited below) are actually known for more grade inflation than lower ranked institutions (see link below). If this is the case in psychology graduate programs as well, then the problem of lower average performance/aptitude in psychology cohorts is much more complex than professional schools and PsyD programs, but is also a product of less demand at highly ranked schools. Likewise, this inflation would speak to your concern about an A at one program being an F at another, as supposedly, based on research, the higher ranked institutions are more likely to participate in this behavior than the lower ranked institutions.

Maybe, but you don't have equivalent samples/work. What I mean is that, while there may be grade inflation at the "highly selective institutions" they are still not being graded by the same metric. meaning we are not seeing a comparison of work, but of within-insitution evaluation. On the metrics we have that are cross insitution (which are few), we have EPPP scores, ABPP rates, and GRE scores. If you gave the same exams/assignments and had the same professors evaluating product across insitution, what would you see? I don't know.

 

[Student4Life0]

I don't think you should have moved on. If you are well qualified and the idiosyncratic and arbitrary process of selection did not land you in a funded program, then you made the right decision IMO. There are way too many qualified applicants for far too few funded positions. I feel bad for people who are in your position and can't afford to pay their way in an unfunded program.

I totally agree. I also landed myself in a similar position and will be at an unfunded University based PsyD program, and happy with that.

 

[KillerDiller]

Thanks for your comments.

Shouldn't the applicant with the 2.8 GPA wash-out of the accredited program (nationally and APA) if truly not qualified/capable? In these cases shouldn't the proof be in the pudding? If the student is able to complete the course work, internships, licensing, and ultimately successfully earns the requisite credential what right does anybody have to say that they should never have been given the opportunity to do so in the first place???

This is where I get stuck on arrogance. The focus here seems to be more on the admissions process (number of students admitted) and less on the content of the program that the questionably qualified apps are being admitted to.

If I am dancing with a strawman here then so be it.

Thanks for hanging in on the discussion and for your thoughtful responses.

I think that some of the concern about how lower admissions standards comes from the worry that they make psychology look like a less serious discipline in the eyes of other professions. After all, psychology is the "easy major" at many universities and we probably can all agree that we don't want it to become the "easy career choice" too. However, I also think that some of the arguments against these systems come from a place of genuine concern for the students. It is not fair to put in years of work and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars into an education only to be weeded out at the time you are applying for internship (or, worse, after you graduate).

Another concern is that many of the FSPS are circumventing the APA accredited internship process by encouraging students to take unaccredited, unpaid positions. So, internship can no longer be looked at as a hard and fast check point. The EPPP is a standardized test that we all have to pass. I have not taken it yet, but I am uncomfortable with this as the only real barrier to reaching the top of the profession. From what I understand, it is not that difficult. Plus, it comes far too late in the game to serve that role efficiently.

 

[cara susanna]

I do have a these credentials, and more. That is why it feels like a slap in the face to read such negative opinions about the quality of clinician that a Psy.D. program can produce. And yes, there are some funded, university-based Psy.D. programs, but very few. In fact, I only know of two.

I was accepted to unfunded, university-based Psy.D. programs that have over 20 people in the cohorts, and tuition over $900 per credit hour -- the type of program that some seem to believe can only produce subpar psychologists. However, the research team I currently work with couldn't disagree more. In fact, not only are they in shock that I didn't get a single interview to the Ph.D. programs to which I applied, but they are scrambling to find funding to keep me onboard with a groundbreaking project on which we are currently working -- a program which I developed as an undergrad.

When I sought advice from the MDs and Psychiatrists I work with regarding the anti-Psy.D. sentiment, they didn't know what I was talking about. In fact, they told me they never even considered a difference in quality of the work produced by someone w/ a Psy.D. vs. Ph.D. The Psy.Ds they work with (I'm thinking specifically of 5, probably more), have ALL graduated from a non-funded program with cohorts of 30+.

I worked very hard to get to where I am today academically, as many others have as well. There just simply is not enough funding to go around to support every well-qualified applicant. Does this mean we should just move on and find an alternate path? I believe the under-served population for which I work would answer with a resounding, "No!"

How often did you apply, though? There are a lot of people on these forums who had to apply more than once to get a spot in a PhD program. And, yeah it's unfair and your situation is not unique, but I don't think the answer is to create more programs with lower admissions standards and bigger cohorts.

 

[O Gurl]

Now that we are coming off of our last detour (cartoon + college athletics), I'd like to just clarify where I am coming from in my strong aversion to free-standing professional schools of psychology (FSPSs).

1. I can appreciate anyone who seeks a higher education,a more fulfilling career, and better life for themselves and their families. Thus I can understand how vocational/technical schools came about. I have friends and former classmates who have attended Devry, ITT Tech, or Univ. of Phoenix for training as dental assistants, cosmetologists, veterinary techs, and so on. However, I am in no way supportive of producing doctoral psychologists in these institutions. This change in the training model devalues our profession and was never warranted nor indicated by market demands or deft of existing training models.

2. I view FSPSs of psychology as scams. Whether they are for profit or not, I cannot logically reconcile charging $900/credit hour for a total of nearly 150K for tuition alone when these businesses are only putting out money to lease and furnish an office space in a strip mall and are not maintaining any tenure-track professors. They are paying instructors (well below market value, I'd imagine) by the course. Where in the Hell is all of that money going? 150K per student with 100 students per cohort? Is it all going into their aggressive and misleading marketing machines?

3. The lowered admissions standards are also unjustified. If there are people like ThirdLittleBird with:

3.98 GPA, 2 publications, 5 presentations, 1450 GRE, and 0 funded acceptances

..who are not admitted into funded programs, then how do FSPSs justify admitting hoards of people with <3.0 GPAS and GREs of 1000? What is the f*@king purpose of this? How is this good for the profession or the consumers? How is this good for the FSPS trainees who fail to match year after year and are automatically shut off from numerous employment options?

Let's put our pride, personal feelings, and everything else to the side for a moment. How can people defend the things listed above?

 

[RileyG]

150K per student with 100 students per cohort?

I always knew FSPS were way overpriced but I didn't realize (until I did the math bc of your post) that they make $15,000,000 per cohort. That makes me sick.

 

[O Gurl]

I always knew FSPS were way overpriced but I didn't realize (until I did the math bc of your post) that they make $15,000,000 per cohort. That makes me sick.

My estimates were based on Alliant programs (and actually, their per credit charge is $1000, not $900). I just looked at Argosy as well, and it looks like they are charging $1050/credit hour for their MA and PsyD programs in clinical psych: http://www.argosy.edu/admissions/tuition-fees.aspx.

SICK. Again, I have to ask how people defend this?

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

Now that we are coming off of our last detour (cartoon + college athletics), I'd like to just clarify where I am coming from in my strong aversion to free-standing professional schools of psychology (FSPSs).

1. I can appreciate anyone who seeks a higher education,a more fulfilling career, and better life for themselves and their families. Thus I can understand how vocational/technical schools came about. I have friends and former classmates who have attended Devry, ITT Tech, or Univ. of Phoenix for training as dental assistants, cosmetologists, veterinary techs, and so on. However, I am in no way supportive of producing doctoral psychologists in these institutions. This change in the training model devalues our profession and was never warranted nor indicated by market demands or deft of existing training models.

2. I view FSPSs of psychology as scams. Whether they are for profit or not, I cannot logically reconcile charging $900/credit hour for a total of nearly 150K for tuition alone when these businesses are only putting out money to lease and furnish an office space in a strip mall and are not maintaining any tenure-track professors. They are paying instructors (well below market value, I'd imagine) by the course. Where in the Hell is all of that money going? 150K per student with 100 students per cohort? Is it all going into their aggressive and misleading marketing machines?

3. The lowered admissions standards are also unjustified. If there are people like ThirdLittleBird with:
..who are not admitted into funded programs, then how do FSPSs justify admitting hoards of people with <3.0 GPAS and GREs of 1000? What is the f*@king purpose of this? How is this good for the profession or the consumers? How is this good for the FSPS trainees who fail to match year after year and are automatically shut off from numerous employment options?

Let's put our pride, personal feelings, and everything else to the side for a moment. How can people defend the things listed above?

Fair enough -- the arguments Jegg, PD, 3rdLB and others (including me) have advanced simply do not sway you that a one-size fits all admissions standard is not a valid model for the field. There is still the one simple observation that the parameters you've identified do not describe all FSPSs.

My estimates were based on Alliant programs (and actually, their per credit charge is $1000, not $900). I just looked at Argosy as well, and it looks like they are charging $1050/credit hour for their MA and PsyD programs in clinical psych: http://www.argosy.edu/admissions/tuition-fees.aspx.

SICK. Again, I have to ask how people defend this?

 

[PsyDreaming]

Thanks for hanging in on the discussion and for your thoughtful responses.

I think that some of the concern about how lower admissions standards comes from the worry that they make psychology look like a less serious discipline in the eyes of other professions. After all, psychology is the "easy major" at many universities and we probably can all agree that we don't want it to become the "easy career choice" too. However, I also think that some of the arguments against these systems come from a place of genuine concern for the students. It is not fair to put in years of work and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars into an education only to be weeded out at the time you are applying for internship (or, worse, after you graduate).

Another concern is that many of the FSPS are circumventing the APA accredited internship process by encouraging students to take unaccredited, unpaid positions. So, internship can no longer be looked at as a hard and fast check point. The EPPP is a standardized test that we all have to pass. I have not taken it yet, but I am uncomfortable with this as the only real barrier to reaching the top of the profession. From what I understand, it is not that difficult. Plus, it comes far too late in the game to serve that role efficiently.

Thank you for your insightful comments and for continuing in this conversation.

You are right and I agree 100% that one of the last things that anybody here wants is a general perception of psychology as the "easy career choice". A view like this might very well result in a denigrated view of its credibility, and value, that this profession simply cannot afford.

Again, I hate to be cold in this regard but regardless of institution the main business of higher education is to provide/sell training and confer credentials to qualified parties. In the end this is true for both the FSPS and the traditional university program. In both cases, caveat emptor.
The potential student MUST educate her or himself regarding the program to which they are applying. This includes tuition, internship, and earning potential. The whole kit and kaboodle. If after all of that somebody wants to still pay $1000 a credit hour for a nat'ly and APA accredited program that is really their business isn't it?

You bring up a valid point regarding unaccredited internships as somewhat of a circumvention of what is supposed to be a check and balance. That is definitely a problem for which there is no easy answer. This is for sure where admission %'s of FSPSs become openly problematic.

Also, I too have heard that the EPPP is not all that difficult. Thankfully it is just the final step in a long process and isn't the only step! After all even if one was able to pass the EPPP without any of the other requirements (course work, internship, etc) it would be meaningless anyway. I do see where you are coming from, though, regarding the question of the EPPP's ability to adequately measure true clinical competency.

All tough questions to ask and even more difficult to answer.

Thanks again for taking the time to talk through some of this stuff . . .

 

[Jegg]

Maybe, but you don't have equivalent samples/work. What I mean is that, while there may be grade inflation at the "highly selective institutions" they are still not being graded by the same metric. meaning we are not seeing a comparison of work, but of within-insitution evaluation. On the metrics we have that are cross insitution (which are few), we have EPPP scores, ABPP rates, and GRE scores. If you gave the same exams/assignments and had the same professors evaluating product across insitution, what would you see? I don't know.

The problem with the mentioned standardized tests is that there is no way to prove they have anything but incremental validity or power because of the reasons already stated (by both you and myself). People who have the motivation and propensity to study "to the test" will consequently perform well on the GRE and EPPP, and will likely want to continue the process of self-validation via ABPP testing. Also, we are still stuck without any psychotherapy outcome data related to these metrics. The EPPP citations I posted earlier make some excellent points concerning the EPPP as an arbitrary yet potentially purposeless gatekeeper for the profession. The test designers make a lot of claims that have never been subjected to appropriate empirical testing and there is no proof that the EPPP aligns with beneficial psychotherapy outcome.

I believe that these metrics have some usefulness, but people need to be wary that they are not drawing conclusions way outside the empirical data that these tests support. Simply because something is the only or the best option we have does not make it an appropriate or valid option. Anyone reading these threads would be wise to consider this when forming an opinion.

Indeed, it is true that we don't have cross validation of work from the different programs used in the ETS GRE study to see if an A at one school is an F at another school in either direction (as per more grade inflation at more highly selective schools). This of course can partially swing the argument in one direction or the other, and consequently we can't know which way it would swing the argument until we have that information. Though it is potentially not the case, I do think that it is probable that the process the ETS authors used to limit their data was designed to benefit their study to validate the GRE rather than obscure the usefulness of the GRE. Thus they likely limited the data to choose from a pool of schools that is fairly homogenous since that would yield the greatest positive results for the GRE. I believe that is why they chose schools with at least ten departments and one-hundred graduate students as the cut-off point, as well as dropped departments with less than ten students. Basically they chopped off the top and bottom and were left with the middle it seems.

The authors of the paper however did pursue a means of eliminating program differences in the second portion of their data evaluation by using the GRE quartiles instead of score ranges to aggregate comparisons between programs, since this serves the purpose of accentuating the relationship between GRE scores and student GPAs while eliminating program differences in GRE scores. Nonetheless it does not tell us if an A at one program is an F at another. Unfortunately a GRE score doesn't tell us that either. Likewise, an EPPP score also doesn't tell us that. Both scores may suggest a student's willingness to put in time "studying to the test." Likewise, a high GPA can suggest this same motivational quality. It could be the difference between an A and a B and not an A and an F. Motivation for high grades is an admiral quality for sure, but it does not necessarily translate to psychotherapy outcome.

 

[Jegg]

The authors also mention that the chemistry departments had widlly differing admissions standards compared to other programs (thus their reasoning for the second set of measures mentioned in my last paragraph above), but they do not mention that about the psychology departments in the study. So perhaps chopping off the top and the bottom of heap did homogenize the student groups between psychology programs in the study and the concern over an A being an F at one program or another is unnecessary.

 

[O Gurl]

GREs and GPAs are not perfect admissions metrics. That is why they are considered along with other factors like prior research experience, clinical exposure, impressive personal statements, recommendations, and personality/presentation upon interviews. I am willing to conceded that there are probably peope out there who do not have stellar academic credentials, but could still be good therapists because they are intuitive and have good people-skills. However, we are talking about an academic degree here. There are other avenues for people to utilize these strengths. No one is entitled to a degree because they have deemed themselves eligible despite being unable to meet the standard criteria for entry. FSPSs are simply providing the over-priced loophole.

The potential student MUST educate her or himself regarding the program to which they are applying. This includes tuition, internship, and earning potential. The whole kit and kaboodle. If after all of that somebody wants to still pay $1000 a credit hour for a nat'ly and APA accredited program that is really their business isn't it?

Not really. Not when they are borrowing massive amounts of federal loans that are impossible for them to repay. Not when they are diminishing the respect of the profession that we are all responsible for. Not when they are occupying jobs that equate a doctoral degree with a master's and thus lowering the payscale for clinicians in general. If it is not anyone else's business, then by all means feel free to proclaim oneself a self-help guru or function as "life-coach." Please do not buy (or borrow) your way into a degree and diminish psychology for your aspirations.

 

[deleted75966]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/21/markets/profit_education_eisman/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin

This issue is bigger than clinical psychology. But, I think we should fight it in our own ranks, because they are starting to dominate our field. We can discuss the merits of GRE, EPPP, board certifications, and GPAs, but the fact is the landscape of our clinical psychology educations is being taken over by businesses that charge tons of money, are viewed skeptically by people from other universities (most of the professionals that we interact with) and are run by people that generally are not academics, but business people looking for money. I don't know about you, but I don't want businesses and universities no one has heard of as stewards of professional development in our field.

As far as the issue of grade inflation or equivalent work, in my anecdotal observation, my direct observation of work from professional school students suggests that they would not pass in the few clinical science programs I have been involved with. Admittedly, my sample size is extremely small. I have observed classroom work examples from one professional school, a university based program, and classroom work examples at two clinical science programs, both on the high side for competitiveness.

 

[KayJay85]

Great. So now the for-profit lobbyists are buying politicians to protect them from regulations. True, it is not the government's job or right to shut them down. However, it is the government's duty to protect taxpayer investments by denying loans to students who CHOOSE to attend overpriced businesses instead of universities. Those students should also CHOOSE to go to a bank and apply for a loan. See just how many banks are willing to loan them 150K-200K for the chance that they will graduate with a PsyD and get a job paying 65K. I can just hear bankers out of their chairs as I write this.

 

[phillydave]

Based on your screen name, I suspect that you are either an LCSW, a PsyD student, or both. Perhaps you even have your PsyD degree now. I certainly hope you do NOT have a Psychologist license.

In any event, I think you have in fact made the point by demonstrating that even at this stage in your education you cannot spell or write a coherent English sentence. You also apparently do not realize that within that single post you contradicted yourself at least twice. That says a lot about not only your education, but also about the people who let you in that PsyD program to begin with. I think they were mostly interested in your money, since it definitely appears that they had no interest in your academic abilities.

This sort of thing (among other things) is why, as a practicing Psychologist, I look upon people with PsyD degrees with a very jaundiced eye, especially when it comes to intern selection or hiring. The sad fact is that most people with PsyD degrees simply do not measure up, intellectually or academically, to those with Ph.D.'s.

I think the Psy.D degree was created more as a marketing tool (No dissertation, relaxed entrance requirements, minimal or no research design or stat courses, etc.) for places like Argosy and the others than for any other reason. Since you state that you went (or still go to) a "Univeristy" based program, it appears that some Universities have jumped on the bandwagon as well.

Perhaps we should think of an even more "relaxed" degree to award to people who can't get into PsyD programs, assuming that such people even exist.

It seems to me that the only real bar to getting into a PsyD program is the fairly copious amount of money that is needed. That strikes me as a very good definition of what constitutes a diploma mill, and it degrades our entire field.

You're a practicing psychologist (assuming a PhD) making pretty broad statements using an N of 1. Your extensive PhD training in research seems to have failed you. Before you reply and say that you've seen the same in other PsyD's you've worked with, say three times in your head "I'm about to reference anecdotal evidence." You'll feel better before you type it out.

My PsyD program requires a dissertation. I could be wrong, but I believe most do.

 

[KayJay85]

^ I was wondering how long it would take for someone to take the heat off of the despicable practices of FSPSs by drawing the attention back to:

"LOOK, this PhD is calling all of us PsyDs dumb!"

For the record: I do not agree with SHFWLF's personal attacks. It is immature and off topic. The issues here are professional--not personal.

 

[Jegg]

^ I was wondering how long it would take for someone to take the heat off of the despicable practices of FSPSs by drawing the attention back to:

"LOOK, this PhD is calling all of us PsyDs dumb!"

For the record: I do not agree with SHFWLF's personal attacks. It is immature and off topic. The issues here are professional--not personal.

The dynamics of this thread are rather humorous if you don't take things personally...

 

[PsyDreaming]

Not really. Not when they are borrowing massive amounts of federal loans that are impossible for them to repay. Not when they are diminishing the respect of the profession that we are all responsible for. Not when they are occupying jobs that equate a doctoral degree with a master's and thus lowering the payscale for clinicians in general. If it is not anyone else's business, then by all means feel free to proclaim oneself a self-help guru or function as "life-coach." Please do not buy (or borrow) your way into a degree and diminish psychology for your aspirations.

Ouch . . . why don't you tell us how you really feel?

So if I pay $1,000+ a credit hour at a "FSPSs" I won't have to complete any courses, practicums/internships, research, and the like?? And I will be eligible in my state to obtain a license? Just pay to play?

Show that program to me or please ease up on the gross generalizations and unsubstantiated hyperbole.