The costs of a full ride

[psychwhy]

In Inside Higher Ed today, Concern over Housing Costs.
(http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/03/cal)

Looks like full-ride doesn't always mean "free"-ride.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GiantSteps]

Someone told me a story about a fellow student in a Clinical Psychology program in a city with an extremely high cost of living. The student complained to her professor about the stipend. The professor looked out the window and said: "isn't that your new BMW sportscar?" The grad student stopped complaining.

Has there ever been any discussion on SDN Psychology about the controversy over graduate student joing a union to negotiate higher amounts of money? I remember hearing about this in the news a year or so ago? The university position was basically that graduate student are students not real employees.

I met a graduate student once who had a real job at a university so that he could get a certain amount of tuition free but then he had to declare the tuition as earnings to teh government.

 

[Ollie123]

Didn't think it ever meant "free" ride necessarily, but I'd rather not pay tuition and get 20 grand a year then pay tuition and NOT get 20 grand a year, which is really all it boils down to.

The example is also a part of the country that is notorious for high cost-of-living, so I can't say I'm terribly surprised. I imagine students in NYC, SF, etc. may not get paid enough, but its better than nothing. I'm single and while it will be tight, unless something serious happens to me I expect I'll be able to survive just fine on my stipend in Florida. It would have been at nearly every school I applied to (with just a few exceptions), so I'd guess for many it is NEARLY a free-ride.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I think grad students as a whole are definitely underpaid for the work they do I'm just not sure what people are expecting. I'm quite happy to be in my situation, and even if I was in a high-cost area, at least I wouldn't have to take loans to cover tuition AND residence AND food AND everything else. I imagine coming in with a family is different, but that's one of the reasons I decided to hold off until after grad school That's obviously a very personal decision, but for me I believe it will be the right one.

 

[saurus]

This makes me think of the old saying, "Beggars can't be choosers." I understand that for those who live in areas with high cost of living that stipends provided by a university may not be enough, but typically you know what you'll be getting paid prior to enrolling at that university and should be able to budget accordingly. BMWs not included

Also, graduate student unions are not that new. University of Michigan has had one since the 70s and seem to be very successful at negotiating with the university.

http://www.umgeo.org/

 

[psychwhy]

Jon Snow: from the article. . . is a school really supposed to support entire families?

Jon Snow: She can't pay half? She can't move somewhere else and get more roommates? She can't go to another school that's not in a high rent district?

Of course not Jon, that's been the point of most of your assertions here -- unless someone mirrors your situation, they aren't worthy of being admitted to the "club".

C'mon, are you really so narrow minded that you believe only middle-class (or above), single, unencumbered people who can afford (or are willing!) to live in a dorm room, and/or on a diet of ramen noodles, and/or only at a program in East Bumf*ck USA for 7+ years are worthy of becoming psychologists? (let's not forget that the article was referencing students from all disciplines!)

So, basically, if someone is interested in changing careers mid-life, perhaps had a few unexpected life events earlier, or doesn't fit the prototype of the monastic graduate student, those people should just be excluded from graduate education?

saurus: but typically you know what you'll be getting paid prior to enrolling at that university and should be able to budget accordingly. BMWs not included

Fair point, but see above. Are you also suggesting that only people who can survive on the pittance of a salary are worthy of graduate education? Are we saying, in essence, that only unmarried people with no outside life obligations who are early enough in their career development to have no entanglements -- regardless of their skills and/or intelligence -- should be permitted to advance their knowledge/make higher level contributions to society/the academy?

Ollie123: I'm single and while it will be tight, unless something serious happens to me I expect I'll be able to survive just fine on my stipend in Florida. It would have been at nearly every school I applied to (with just a few exceptions), so I'd guess for many it is NEARLY a free-ride.

Again, see above. But what happens IF something serious does happen? Does that mean you should unceremoniously be dumped from your program because your "serious life event" requires more than minimum wages, you are no longer intelligent enough to be of value to the university/the academy/the profession/society?

What I take from all of your comments is that graduate school has little to do with one's own abilities or potential contributions. What really matters more is if you can literally squirrel yourself away for 7+ years living on less than what a greeter at Wal-Mart makes?

No, of course universities should not be paying you more than what senior members of the profession make. But, haven't you already earned a Bachelor's degree? For crying out loud, I spent a year as a pre-doctoral intern, having earned a Bachelor's, Master's, and nearly a doctorate and I was paid LESS than what I made as a bachelor's level milieu counselor twenty years ago! I was able to, more or less, survive (even with a family) because my internship was in East Bumf*ck. What if I had been accepted at a placement in NYC, LA, Atlanta, Chicago, Boston, etc.? Even a single person is going to be unable to afford a reasonable standard of living in those cities with a stipend/salary of <$25,000/yr. Sure, you can live in a 2 bedroom apartment in the crappy part of town with 4 other roommates .. but then again, you've eliminated any non-single person who doesn't have a spouse making beaucoup bucks!

Bottom line, psychology is supposed to be a profession devoted to HELPING people. How can practitioners devote themselves to that goal if they are expected to sublimate themselves for such a long time? Is the message that we never should have abandoned the era where only unmarried women or nuns could be teachers -- because they were the only people deemed willing to devote their entire beings to their profession?

 

[saurus]

Actually, that wasn't what I was saying at all. I was merely pointing out that schools aren't out to bamboozle students into accepting low-paying positions with the promise of a full ride; rather, students are well informed of what funding they will be receiving in order to make intelligent financial decisions.

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't feel victimized when a school offers willingly to pay for my tuition, especially when there are those (PsyD, medical, dental, etc) who receive absolutely nothing.

 

[Ollie123]

Wasn't really my point either - I'm actually unsure of what you are getting at. Originally I had assumed this was getting back at the old discussion that even funded students can go into debt? I don't deny the truth of that, but I still maintain that I'd much rather take my chances with a funded program than have the guarantee at a non-funded program. Or is it just that psych departments should pay more? That I'd have troubles disagreeing with.

As for when something bad happens, I will work with the department to find a solution. Its happened to students in the past where they had to take a hiatus, hopefully it won't happen to me, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. Plus I DO have the option of taking out additional loans if it becomes necessary.

Do I think it sucks that I'm going to be living on 2/3 what I made as an RA for the next 5 years? Sure do. I'm hard-pressed to think of a viable solution that would still provide the training I desire though. I'm of the view that it isn't supposed to be easy, its supposed to be worth it. I'm not excited about living in poverty for 5 years, and I do think it sucks that students with families will have a much harder time than those without. Like I said before though, what is the answer? I'm doubtful departments will double RA stipends across the board even if we ask nicely. There's a finite amount of money to work with and even the absolute top-notch schools are experiencing cutbacks in grants. Is the solution programs that allow students to work regular jobs? Some programs do allow part-time PhDs and I'm all for that, but given the sheer volume of time one has to dedicate between classes, clinical work, teaching, and research I can't imagine a program where one has time to work full-time providing even adequate training over just 4-5 years. That isn't to say it couldn't be done with some VERY careful integration of paid clinical internships, etc. but that would require a lot from the schools to make sure students were working applicable jobs and getting on-the-job training. If they don't make sure the students are working in relevant jobs, they are going to end up letting students graduate with maybe half the overall "psychology" experience that typical grad students have, and that ends up disgracing the profession as a whole.

 

[RayneeDeigh]

This is obviously just my personal opinion, but I would much rather have a school spend its financial resources on developing great academic training for its students than paying for their housing. When we graduate and go out looking for jobs, it will matter how the school is regarded in terms of education, not how well they pay their students to live in nice apartments. That's what will land us jobs that are gonna help us pay off loans, debt, etc.

It's five (give or take) years. I think any one of us can live like a poor student for five years. There are sacrifices to be made for everything in life. If I wanted a cushy job that would pay for everything I ever needed right from the go, I'd get a job with my uncle's business where everyone gets a BMW. But I'd hate it and it would be empty. Psych is extremely rewarding but yes, it gets expensive during the grad school years. You make sacrifices. You live in a tiny postage-stamp basement apartment (like I'm gonna be doing) for five years, you eat copious amounts of macaroni and cheese, and you hang on to the hope that one day you'll actually be working and making money. I know you're probably going to argue that I'm being complacent and am not "fighting for change" or whatever, but I don't want it to change. Coming from an undergrad place where tuition was unbelievably low, I can tell you that the University suffered. Our psych building barely had any working printers that weren't from the early 90s. I'll gladly pay my own rent or higher prices for student housing if it means a comfortable and convenient learning environment where it really counts.

 

[JockNerd]

Do I think it sucks that I'm going to be living on 2/3 what I made as an RA for the next 5 years? Sure do. I'm hard-pressed to think of a viable solution that would still provide the training I desire though. I'm of the view that it isn't supposed to be easy, its supposed to be worth it. I'm not excited about living in poverty for 5 years, and I do think it sucks that students with families will have a much harder time than those without. Like I said before though, what is the answer? I'm doubtful departments will double RA stipends across the board even if we ask nicely. There's a finite amount of money to work with and even the absolute top-notch schools are experiencing cutbacks in grants. Is the solution programs that allow students to work regular jobs? Some programs do allow part-time PhDs and I'm all for that, but given the sheer volume of time one has to dedicate between classes, clinical work, teaching, and research I can't imagine a program where one has time to work full-time providing even adequate training over just 4-5 years. That isn't to say it couldn't be done with some VERY careful integration of paid clinical internships, etc. but that would require a lot from the schools to make sure students were working applicable jobs and getting on-the-job training. If they don't make sure the students are working in relevant jobs, they are going to end up letting students graduate with maybe half the overall "psychology" experience that typical grad students have, and that ends up disgracing the profession as a whole.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Want money as a grad student? Go study physics for the DoD. In places with housing costs as ludicrous as those in the article, grad students in Defense are probably the only ones who will live *well*.

The story about the BMW is funny, but it's completely true. I know many people who are students who would be broke whether they had a $10k assistanceship or a $40k fellowship--they have no idea how to manage finances.

When I was selecting schools, location was a factor. If I was only going to get a $12k assistanceship, I know how far that goes in Ames and how far it goes in New York. I'm sure T4C would appreciate that planning . Every school I interviewed at volunteered information about housing costs when they talked about funding. They're not trying to pass it under anyone's radar, because they don't want students having to bail out of the program or dumping them for a school that offers them more money.

Like Ollie, my financial plans have me getting by quite comfortably (for a student!) while at my grad school... which is also in Florida... maybe everything is just better there?

[edit: I also agree with Raynee, who posted while I was writing my message. Yeah our printers were OLD!]

 

[positivepsych]

That's ridiculous... I don't know a single PhD student whos driving a new "BMW sportscar" unless their significant other or parents are already rich. In real life, most graduate students are quite frugal (by neccessity).

 

[psychwhy]

saurus: I was merely pointing out that schools aren't out to bamboozle students into accepting low-paying positions with the promise of a full ride; rather, students are well informed of what funding they will be receiving in order to make intelligent financial decisions.

JockNerd: If I was only going to get a $12k assistanceship, I know how far that goes in Ames and how far it goes in New York. . . . Every school I interviewed at volunteered information about housing costs when they talked about funding. They're not trying to pass it under anyone's radar, because they don't want students having to bail out of the program or dumping them for a school that offers them more money.

Which is good, but my point is that by virtue of this financial reality there are going to be otherwise well qualified individuals who don't even apply for graduate programs simply because to do so would be a financial/personal hardship. It no longer becomes about only letting in the "best and the brightest" but "the best, the brightest, and those able to live on next to nothing for years."

And what about the schools in major cities -- which represents a disproportionate number of "Tier 1" programs? Nice that they are honest that their stipends would not afford their students a spot on a heating grate much less a clean, safe apartment. Aren't we upping the ante yet again, that only students willing/able to live an even more monastic life -- small apartments, several roommates, questionable neighborhoods -- are the ones going to these schools?

But what's being overlooked here is that the original article wasn't focusing on students who lived in off-campus housing, but the rising costs of university sponsored housing! Are you saying that these Tier 1 universities of which so many SDN'ers are fond cannot provide reasonable living arrangements to their students, affordable to someone on the very stipend the university itself provides?

ollie123: I'm of the view that it isn't supposed to be easy, its supposed to be worth it. I'm not excited about living in poverty for 5 years, and I do think it sucks that students with families will have a much harder time than those without.

RayneeDeigh: It's five (give or take) years. I think any one of us can live like a poor student for five years. There are sacrifices to be made for everything in life.

Don't you realize that it is precisely this simplistic "no pain, no gain" mentality that kept medical interns working 100+ hours a week, likely making countless errors, simply to perpetuate the tradition of a training model that no one could show produced better physicians?

Are you aware that APA has a Psychologically Healthy Workplace award program, which recognize organizations for their efforts to foster employee health and well-being while enhancing organizational performance and productivity (http://www.apapractice.org/apo/psychologically_healthy.html#)? But what does it say about the training programs in psychology when a major defense of the hardships students must face is "sacrifices should be made"?

But what is most troubling:

RayneeDeigh: When we graduate and go out looking for jobs, it will matter how the school is regarded in terms of education, not how well they pay their students to live in nice apartments.

JockNerd :
Want money as a grad student? Go study physics for the DoD. In places with housing costs as ludicrous as those in the article, grad students in Defense are probably the only ones who will live *well*.

The story about the BMW is funny, but it's completely true. I know many people who are students who would be broke whether they had a $10k assistanceship or a $40k fellowship--they have no idea how to manage finances.

... are these glib insinuations that only the ill-prepared or greedy can't manage on graduate student incomes.

Ollie123, I agree that the problem does seem intractible. But that doesn't mean we should just throw our hands up and say "Well, guess its got to be this way." (To return to the medical training example, finally, medical residents are starting to be given some relief from their inexplicable -- and indefensible -- work load.)

Truth of the matter is that there has been a solution offered -- distance programs. And we've all seen how much respect they've been afforded. The idea that even those in distance programs don't make sacrifices is absurdly ignorant. Nevertheless, the sacrifice argument is counterintuitive on its face. Our culture tells us that to achieve greater success we should seek out advanced education. But, for those seeking the highest academic credential, you must spend years living on less than a HS grad. And, yes, I know, your benefits package includes the hefty amount for tuition (let's not start on how out-of-whack tuition is compared to the rest of the economy). But tuition waivers notwithstanding, the reality is that graduate students may -- on paper -- appear to earn a decent wage, but in reality, you can only afford to live a poverty line existence.

Still, the most disappointing aspect about this thread is the intrenched elitism coupled with academic masochism it engenders. "I'm ready to endure inexplicable hardships, but if you're not, then you shouldn't be here"?
This is the enlightened viewpoint of learned people?

 

[KillerDiller]

I definitely agree 100% that graduate students are underpaid for the amount of work they do and the contributions they make. Whether this is the right course of action or not, I tend to funnel that discontent into my feelings about the current government. After all, it is the government who has made major cutbacks to the institutions that give grant money to the universities. It is also the government that has restricted federal aid to non-domestic students and has lately repealed helpful legislation on federal student loans (it is now much harder to have certain federal loans forgiven and even more difficult to put a livable pay-plan into effect). Lastly, I believe that certain services, like health care, should be made more affordable to everyone--thus helping both the struggling grad student and his less educated, low-income peers.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm sure T4C would appreciate that planning .

Like Ollie, my financial plans have me getting by quite comfortably (for a student!) while at my grad school... which is also in Florida... maybe everything is just better there?

Not in S. FL! Cost of living down here is pretty expensive...it isn't Boston/NYC, but it is far more expensive than most other places. Because real estate is so expensive now, rent has shot up too. I can't wait to get out, the next 10-11 months can't go by quick enough in that regard.

As for the hardship of grad life, etc. Yeah, it stinks. I think grad students should get more, but there is no incentive for schools to do it (when push comes to shove), and the research dollars seem to be less now. The economics are by far the most frustrating part of this endeavor. I frustrates me to no end that I could have gone through with my MBA/MIS (at a top 3 program for the combo), finish in two year and STARTED at $120-$150k, instead of 7 years and far less money. In the end, it is about the career you want to lead. I didn't want the career that those other degrees would provide me, and this path will provide me what I want.

Oh, and the "I walked up hills both ways, in the snow, with only a t-shirt and sandals because that is how we did it back then" isn't really appealing, but that is part of the process. It is a badge of honor of sorts to get through a program and everything, though I wish the financial side was a bit more comfortable.

-t

 

[JockNerd]

Truth of the matter is that there has been a solution offered -- distance programs.

...and the point emerges.

I don't think I'm about to sign up for Capella because some universities have high housing costs. I really have no idea where that came from.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Truth of the matter is that there has been a solution offered -- distance programs.

...and the point emerges.

Okay....if this was the OP's point, I'd be curious to hear how the online model will address many of the current components of clinical training: Theory, research, collaborative opportunities, informal networking, didactic training, practicum, supervision at practicums, etc.

I admittedly have a bias against online learning, but I'm open to discussing the training model, and I am curious to hear how some of the obvious hurdles are addressed in this model.

Just as a pre-emptive measure, I don't want this discussion to degrade, so keep it professional

-t

 

[JockNerd]

Okay....if this was the OP's point, I'd be curious to hear how the online model will address many of the current components of clinical training: Theory, research, collaborative opportunities, informal networking, didactic training, practicum, supervision at practicums, etc.

I admittedly have a bias against online learning, but I'm open to discussing the training model, and I am curious to hear how some of the obvious hurdles are addressed in this model.

Well, if the discussion was about housing I don't see how the distance model would be better than the situation for the students at expensive campuses.

Distance ed students still need to live SOMEWHERE. So, you're not somehow getting away from paying some degree of rent. Even if they were to get a place for half the cost of the apartments in the article they'll still need to pay tuition, which is not the situation for the students at funded campus schools. However much housing costs, I'm pretty sure it's going to be less than the tuition payments.

Distance ed. programs would let their students work while completing their studies. I think this has been covered plenty before--I don't think that someone already working full time can devote the necessary energy to graduate studies, especially considering that some proponents of distance studies on this board have claimed that it's more work than traditional programs.

 

[RayneeDeigh]

I have a sneaking suspicion that this thread was started just to crack open the online degree discussion for the billionth time.


Yes it's completely unfair that most of us will not be able to afford to go to graduate school in San Francisco, Chicago, New York, etc. But that's the way the cookie crumbles. You go to school somewhere you can afford to live, you get a job, you save money, you move somewhere you want to live/work. I fail to see how it's a school's responsibility to provide funds for every aspect of a student's life. They have a moral responsibility not to rob us blind like some of 'em do, but they don't have to pay for us to live somewhere.

 

[Ollie123]

I think his point was that a student in a distance-learning program chooses their location and can pick a low-cost area. which is fair, but far from a complete solution.

I'm still not confident in those program's ability to provide adequate training. There is something to be said for an interactive classroom. Yes, you can take a pathology class and memorize the DSM perfectly fine in an online format. But what about interviewing skills? Can one learn to have good face-to-face interactions with clients without face-to-face interaction with instructors and classmates?

I do fail to see how it addresses the problem of money since these programs are generally not funded at all. Yes, there are a fair number of top programs in very expensive areas, but there are plenty of good ones in cheaper cities as well. It isn't as though one HAS to live in SF or NYC to get a decent education.

 

[psychwhy]

RayneeDeigh, et al.: I have a sneaking suspicion that this thread was started just to crack open the online degree discussion for the billionth time.

Actually, that was not the OP's original intention at all. The original intention was to illustrate that the prolifically endorsed conventional "full ride" model is not all sunshine and light as many on this forum seem to insinuate it is. Conventional program students/graduates repeat the mantra that they finish debt-free, well, apparently not. As the original post ended: "Apparently full ride doesn't mean free ride." If one of the major criticisms of for-profit/professional programs is the high cost, it seems only fair to fully disclose the innate costs of a conventional program as well.

However, the conventional program advocates opened the door when the prevailing response was:

RayneeDeigh: But that's the way the cookie crumbles. You go to school somewhere you can afford to live, you get a job, you save money, you move somewhere you want to live/work.

So much for the meritocracy of the conventional model. After SO many posts celebrating the <5 acceptances/year of the conventional model as being the only legitimate means to maintain the highest academic/professional standards, lo and behold, people are admitting they aren't choosing programs primarily because of the reputation of the program but -- of all things -- going where one could afford to live.

This is it folks -- all the back and forth about the inherent quality of conventional programs, but when all is said and done, the financial reality of going where one can afford to live ends up factoring pretty high in the decisionmaking process. Interesting perspective. Now, just extrapolate that phenomenon to encompass those who -- while academically qualified --simply cannot afford to either live in a metro area or relocate to the boonies. If you remove those people from the mix, now the entrance level of quality may not be as high as previously asserted -- after removing an entire cohort of potential applicants/students who did not pursue admission solely because of the financial factors. The fact that distance programs permit a student to remain employed during the coursework portion of the program is the reason I mentioned them. The financial hardship is minimized for the first 3 - 4 years as you do not have to be beholden to the university to pay your way.

(Ollie123, please read the extensive posts about the nature of distance programs so you do not continue to repeat the misinformation about them not teaching face-to-face skills. There are -- and always have been -- face-to-face components to distance programs.

And JockNerd, I just give up on your entrenched belief that one must be immersed in the "graduate school experience" 24/7/365 in order to be a legitimate psychologist. Once you get to school you'll notice that no one maintains such a schedule and, quite frankly, you will occasionally want to run screaming FROM your campus to get a break from the "graduate school experience" as you will quickly learn it bares precious little resemblance to the real world!]

RayneeDeigh: I fail to see how it's a school's responsibility to provide funds for every aspect of a student's life. They have a moral responsibility not to rob us blind like some of 'em do, but they don't have to pay for us to live somewhere.

Wow, RD, just left wondering where you've developed this "whip me, beat me, make me take the GREs" mentality? Do me a favor, when you graduate look me up, I'd love to hire someone who is already willing to accept the bare minimum of respect, compensation, dignity all in the name of ... what?
The higher cause? The commonweal?

Sorry, I just don't get why you feel the profession can forward a psychologically healthly workplace initiative for other industries but you feel training for that profession has to involve being devalued, demoralized, diminished.

For the record, for the last time -- I am not asserting that graduate students should be making professional wages. But it boggles my mind that apparently not one college graduated, now graduate student, poster on this forum feels s/he should be paid at least near the average for wages as other college graduates. The work you will be doing as a graduate student is most definintely not entry level, certainly not something anyone can do. Perhaps, it could be argued that the value of your hyper-inflated tuition validates the paltry take-home pay.

Explain internship/fellowship wages then.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

And JockNerd, I just give up on your entrenched belief that one must be immersed in the "graduate school experience" 24/7/365 in order to be a legitimate psychologist. Once you get to school you'll notice that no one maintains such a schedule and, quite frankly, you will occasionally want to run screaming FROM your campus to get a break from the "graduate school experience" as you will quickly learn it bares precious little resemblance to the real world!]

It isn't that it is 24/7, but it is FAR MORE than something you can do in between other major responsibilities; it isn't a part-time opportunity...which is what many people who gravitate towards distance learning want it to be. The hours extend from the classroom and go into other parts...whether you choose to research in a lab, on your computer, at home, etc. The clinical piece is even more time, and much less flexible.

Anyone who says it doesn't monopolize the vast majority of their day is probably not doing everything they need to do. I know I am slammed with work right now, and sure I can take some time off (afternoon....to watch the met game ), and I'd be kidding myself if I tried to do it any other way.

Is it fair....no, but it isn't suppose to be easy, and if people want it enough, they find a way to do it. More than once I've asked why I put up with the crappy money, the overwhelming time commitment, the ups and downs of daily grad life, the <4 hours of sleep that come with finals/comps, the research deadlines that make me want to toss in the towel, etc. The reason why people go through this is because it will help us become better clinicians, and contribute to our learning. It isn't a masochistic sacrifice or a "well I trudged up hill both ways in the snow for this degree", but the amount of information that we must learn, and the time in which we have, this happens. Part of this process is to learn who you are and want you want. Every time I questioned my career choice, I had to evaluate how much I wanted to do this, and every time I find the resolve to get my stuff done.

-t

 

[Ollie123]

I'm perfectly aware there are face-to-face components. You still have practicums, I understand that. My point there was that a non-interactive CLASS (which based on the posts I've read, is how things work) would, in my eyes, not be as effective for conveying the skills needed in psychology.

I don't think JockNerd is saying you have to eat dinner while doing assessments and sleep for 30 minutes a night in between running participants. But there's a big difference between that and having time to work a full-time job on the side! I'm expecting to spend 60 or more hours a week on grad school to accomplish what I want to accomplish. Of course there will be lulls where I can take a week to visit my family, and there will be times when I'll put in 80-90 hours. If someone has time for a full-time job, they're either not sleeping enough to survive, or isn't receiving the same amount of training that traditional students do. Are you arguing that the skills necessary to be a doctor of psychology can be taught in less time? I would call that a master's level provider. Or let them be doctors, and convert the regular programs to ultra-mega-doctor, I don't care. You speak of fairness, but is it really fair for someone who spent twice the number of hours on their training as someone else to receive the same degree and have it carry the same amount of respect? Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but thats what I'm getting from some of your posts.

As for the money discussion, I still don't get it. All the things where a funded student would be taking on 100 grand in emergency or cost-of-living debt, a student in a program that wasn't funded would have to take on that same 100 grand PLUS another 200 grand in tuition. As I said before, I'd rather take my chances with the funded program. You seem to think that mentioning situations that seem to be uncommon for the VAST majority of students that I have met proves that programs that provide funding aren't a holy grail. Can you imagine what debt those Berkeley students would be dealing with if they WEREN'T funded? I would not be going to graduate school if I wasn't in a funded program. Period. I'd have had to choose another career path. So please excuse me if I do consider funding to be a holy grail even if there is still a chance I could get hit by a car tomorrow and owe 100 grand.

 

[psychwhy]

Ollie123: I'm perfectly aware there are face-to-face components. You still have practicums, I understand that. My point there was that a non-interactive CLASS (which based on the posts I've read, is how things work) would, in my eyes, not be as effective for conveying the skills needed in psychology.

Well, then my friend, either you are misreading the posts or the posters are delusional. In addition to practica and internship like everyone else, distance programs students must also attend face-to-face skills seminars during their schooling. All of the major, regionally accredited distance programs require this.

For example, Capella University designed its "Year-in-Residence" to provide an equivalent number of "clock-hours" as the one-year standard residency requirement.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Capella shouldn't be the standard, I believe they currently hold the lowest APPIC placement rate in the 2000-2006 report at <30%.

-t

 

[psychwhy]

Capella shouldn't be the standard, I believe they currently hold the lowest APPIC placement rate in the 2000-2006 report at <30%.

Thanks T4C for that insightful, unipolar, sharply confounded, individual irrelevant statistic. The point was "Distance programs do incorporate face-to-face interaction to teach those skills which require it." Capella's success or failure in APPIC placement is not germaine to that point. There have been extensive discussions in other threads about how APPIC statistics are so confounded by other factors that using them as an end-all-be-all yardstick is seriously flawed.

But, here we go again.

Is it a piece of information useful in evaluating the total picture of a program? Yes.
Did it have any relevance to this discussion? Not in the least.

This obfuscation is yet another petty example of a red herring argument.

Why doesn't SDN just come clean and label this a forum for only conventional PhD students/graduates and the few university based PsyDs? The moderator and many of the frequent posters have taken it on faith that the conventional model is by far the best (and should preferably be the only) means of training psychologists.

Conflicting evidence or persuasive arguments to the contrary be damned.
(Oh, and in case you're wondering when it shows up on a test, the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions is called confirmation bias.)

And ... instead of the ambiguous "<30%", you could have taken 10 seconds and pulled up the APPIC stats and accurately reported Capella's overall average as 29.2% which -- while certainly not impressive -- more honest than your insinuation that it could be anything from 0 - 29.9% Oh, and you also could have included that BU Counseling is 30%; University of Missouri - Kansas City is 30%; Immaculata University is 33.8%; University of Montreal is 36.4%; Chestnut Hill College is 38.5%. (All but BU are APA/CPA accredited and all are university based programs.) And before the prooftexters start pouncing ... I believe Capella's numbers suck -- no argument. But as there are seven other (APA/CPA accredited!) campus based programs in the 30% range the assertion that Capella's crappy numbers are solely due to its distance delivered format are simplistic and disingenuous.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

You bring up some good points, and I'd like to reply to them, though I'm off for the night, but I will reply to your post more fully tomorrow. The <30% was off the top of my head, instead of citing it directly.

Anyhow, I'll catch up with ya'll on the flipside tomorrow.

-t

 

[Jon4PsyD]

Interesting thread. I think anyone claiming though thaty 'full ride' doesn't mean 'debt free'. I'd assume even those people know that with tuition waivers and stipends don't mean 'no debt'..it's just impossible not to come out of school without debt if you're doing it on your own..I think we all know that.

That said, tution waivers and stipends SURE do help!!

But someone wrote something about schools having 'moral responsibilities' .. umm this is the only thing that kind of surprised me..I mean, let's all be real here..what 'moral responsiblity' are these universities really fulfilling when they are charging undergraduates 700-900 a credit (Of course I'm not talking about state schools) ...which even state schools find little ways to throw in money, such as $100-200 'processing fees' (a.k.a...printing out your schedule fee)..im not living in a utopia, it's obviously a business lol

 

[JockNerd]

Interesting thread. I think anyone claiming though thaty 'full ride' doesn't mean 'debt free'. I'd assume even those people know that with tuition waivers and stipends don't mean 'no debt'..it's just impossible not to come out of school without debt if you're doing it on your own..I think we all know that.

I beg to differ. I have my financial plans well worked out. I'll be making a few grand more off my funding than I made working during undergrad, and my expenses will be the same. I'm doing it on my own, and plan on coming out ahead of the game. It certainly is still possible to make it through grad school debt-free.

 

[psychwhy]

JockNerd: I beg to differ. I have my financial plans well worked out. I'll be making a few grand more off my funding than I made working during undergrad, and my expenses will be the same. I'm doing it on my own, and plan on coming out ahead of the game. It certainly is still possible to make it through grad school debt-free.

JN, I hope you do make it through debt-free, I really do.

But to quote the philosopher Lennon: "Life is what happens when you're making other plans."

The naivete endemic in a belief that your plans today will remain unchanged and unimpacted by the passage of four, five, six ... heck ONE year ... is telling. Sure, the reason many Americans end up in debt is due to wanting to live beyond one's means. And then, there is a large cohort of people who were trying to live within bounds, tried to plan, but got caught by illness/family emergency/transportation problems, etc. etc. and we have a funny little system in which the whole shebang can come tumbling down because of one linchpin economic hardship.

You're about to enter a long-term commitment in which it is integral that you subsist on wages far less than your contemporaries AND have no expectation that they will potentially rise due your performance. (I'm not sure if you are given COLA adjustments. Doubtful, being that they start out much less than equitable with cost-of-living indices.) I hope your car never breaks down.

As I've said before, it's nice that many of you have your lives all figured out at 22, 23, 24 and are going on to graduate school right after undergrad (or a year or two of application boosting scut work). Some of us thought we had our lives figured out then too but ... life happened. Now we've reassessed/rethought our plans and are exploring abandoned earlier plans or have created new ones. Yes, we don't always get what we want, but should the out-of-whack financial limitations and/or this unsubstantiated belief that one needs to totally devote oneself to graduate study be the major barrier?

What is your contingency plan if, say in year 4 or 5, you meet that special someone and get married (or not) and 9 months later you no longer qualify for the single room? Such things do happen in the world. Suffice it to say, I would believe those forwarding the smug assertions that universities should not have to "support" students with families would likely change their tune when they found themselves suddenly needing those accomodations.

And let's not forget ...

Jon Snow: As for distance learning being a solution, I think not, at least not in its present form. I really don't see how you can work full time AND complete a graduate program at the same level as someone at a conventional program. You are already fighting an uphill battle in terms of competing due to the admission issues.

Still waiting Jon ... some scintilla of evidence beyond the status quo that one must be monastically devoted to the pursuit of graduate study.

All that reading requires a campus?
Sharing of ideas requires a classroom?
Field experiences ... well, those are generally off-campus already.
All that's left -- here's the big difference -- lab work.

Which brings us back to the age-old debate -- should the degree be research based or practice based (because most distance learners are already working IN the field!) I'll leave it to you Jon to rehash your standard screed against professional programs at this point.

Jon Snow: On top of that, you are going to invest LESS time. Less ability + less time invested = same degree/license
That's borderline insulting.

Well, so now you know how it feels.
Except perhaps what you find so insulting is the cogntive dissonance activated by the realization that the trials and tribulations you endured weren't actually necessary to achieve your goals.

Put that on your couch and analyze it!

 

[Ollie123]

I want to be absolutely certain of what you're saying based on your last post.

It sounds like your opinion is that the training in this field is too rigorous and that there is no reason one should have to try THAT hard to get a doctorate?

I re-read your last post 3-4 times and that was all I could get out of your comments to Jon.

 

[Sanman]

Well,

This has been an entertaining and, at times, ridiculous thread. A few points that make this a bit pointless:

1. Funded programs do have costs. However, how anyone can draw the conclusion that free + money is not be better than not free (tuition) + no money astounds me.

2. A funded graduate program in psychology and a few other fields is still pretty much one of the best economic bets there is. By definition, a graduate student has a college degree. Thus, they can go out and make money. No one has the right to acquire the job of their dreams, it is a luxury.

3. Housing costs and other issues can be problems, but there are many problems and universities cannot take care of them all. We all have to sacrifice in some ways. I have a chronic medical condition and grad student health insurance isn't the best, but I survive. I also have older parents and might need to drop out and work if one of them were to become ill. That is the way the cookie crumbles. My mother have to abandon her PhD. to work because she had me. One will never achieve the perfect ideal of allowing only the most qualified to enter into programs and fix all their problems.

4. The public is the first to be protected in society. Thus, the profession must first assure that the highest standards of educational quality are met. If this means that certain cannot enter into graduate studies, see point #2

5. The focus of this article primarily affects those on an academic track because they will be the ones making a pittance and some might go into industry or private practice to pay off loans. Thus, the distance program solution fails to hold up. Those in distance learning are not going to be academics and are therefore likely to make enough to pay back hopusing costs.

6. THe reason that interns and post-docs are paid so badly is because the APA, in its infinite wisdom, chose not to license us until after that period. Thus, we cannot bill for all of our hours and cost the employer money. If we were to be licensed before entering into this, we could get paid more like medical residents. Hiwever point #4 comes into play.

End of rant.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Is it a piece of information useful in evaluating the total picture of a program? Yes.
Did it have any relevance to this discussion? Not in the least.

This obfuscation is yet another petty example of a red herring argument.

It does very much apply. Internship is an INTEGRAL part of a person's clinical training. For many it is their first in-depth experience with therapy, and/or it provides more specialized training in a certain area of therapy. Failure to secure a spot means you cannot get licensed.

Why doesn't SDN just come clean and label this a forum for only conventional PhD students/graduates and the few university based PsyDs? The moderator and many of the frequent posters have taken it on faith that the conventional model is by far the best (and should preferably be the only) means of training psychologists.

A search of the forum will show a plethora of supportive threads for other programs. I think the forum is pretty representative with what is out there. There are FAR more traditional PhD programs out there than PsyDs, which is why there are probably more PhD discussions.

On a personal note, I'd like to say that a review of my posts will show how I am equally supportive of a traditional PhD route, and also the PsyD route. I *AM* a PsyD, and I believe in the training. I picked a PsyD over PhD offers because it was a better fit for my needs. I have worked with people from a range of programs, and have had good and less good experiences with all of them. One thing I try and do is allow for a balanced discussion of all programs. I rarely moderate any posts/threads on here, in hopes that people feel that they are heard. If you have any specific concerns, I'd ask that you PM me.

There's an economy issue here that spans many disciplines, not just psychology. It is not practical to pay psychology graduate students or math graduate students a wage on par with other graduates who are working full time. The money is not there.

Yup.

As for distance learning being a solution, I think not, at least not in its present form. I really don't see how you can work full time AND complete a graduate program at the same level as someone at a conventional program. You are already fighting an uphill battle in terms of competing due to the admission issues. On top of that, you are going to invest LESS time. Less ability + less time invested = same degree/license? That's borderline insulting.

One of the biggest reasons why distance learning became popular (in general) is the flexibility for working people. Distance learning provides an avenue for many to gain additional education without restricting them to certain time commitments, face to face communication, while still allowing them to have full-time jobs, etc. This is all well and good, but it poses a problem when those same things conflict with the clinical training model. A residential program already has a plethora of time commitments and challenges, which are pretty non-negotiable. You NEED to take the classes, you NEED the clinical hours, and you NEED the supervision time, and you NEED research time. One could argue that the classroom stuff can be relatively addressed online. The clinical hours can probably be setup on an individual basis (Controlling for quality control and ensuring hour req. are met) Same issues with supervision. Research.....also much harder to address for anything in depth that requires a team, which most research does. And then it comes to the time. There is no getting around the amount of time all of this training takes. I think this is the biggest sticking point. How can you spend less time in each area, spend less time in face to face interaction, and spend less time interacting with peers (which is a HUUUUUUUGE part of training), and have it be equal to those who spend MORE time in each area?

-t

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

...should the out-of-whack financial limitations and/or this unsubstantiated belief that one needs to totally devote oneself to graduate study be the major barrier?

If it negatively impacts the training, and doesn't allow for the level of training necessary to be a qualified provider.....yes. There are some standards in place (far from perfect) to help protect the profession and the public, but they aren't infallible.

Would you want a bridge builder to skip some of the training s/he doesn't have time for, and then go out and build a bridge that may cause serious damage if not built correctly?

It sounds like your opinion is that the training in this field is too rigorous and that there is no reason one should have to try THAT hard to get a doctorate?

It is SUPPOSE to be that hard to get a doctorate. It isn't meant for everyone, it isn't meant for the majority of people. Rigor is what helps develop skills.

No one has the right to acquire the job of their dreams, it is a luxury.

We all have to sacrifice in some ways.

4. The public is the first to be protected in society. Thus, the profession must first assure that the highest standards of educational quality are met. If this means that certain cannot enter into graduate studies....

Exactly.

6. THe reason that interns and post-docs are paid so badly is because the APA, in its infinite wisdom, chose not to license us until after that period. Thus, we cannot bill for all of our hours and cost the employer money. If we were to be licensed before entering into this, we could get paid more like medical residents.

This is a separate issue, but a HUGE thorn in our side. Originally clinicians didn't receive clinical/therapy training until the internship and post-doc, so not being licensed made sense. Now with people averaging 1000+ hours BEFORE internship and post-doc, it makes the model out-dated.

-t

 

[RayneeDeigh]

It's from a dumb source, but Gene Simmons is always saying that work is a privilege, not a right. It's MEANT to be hard, it is work after all. If obtaining a PhD (or PsyD) was easy, cheap, and fast, everyone would do it and the result would be that nobody would be doing the very important and admirable jobs that DON'T require PhDs.

There's really no need to moan about how grad schools don't support entire families. It sure as hell beats working at a grocery store for minimum wage and the job security is obviously much better.

That doesn't make me "masochistic", psychwhy. It just means that I appreciate the opportunity to actually get work done and to get training I'll need to get a good job. That to me is worth a lot more than being able to say I got a truly free ride everywhere.

 

[psychwhy]

... now you know why I am disillusioned.

[As most of the responses were on similar themes, I'll focus on Jon:]

Jon Snow: Give me evidence that you don't.

LOVE how you revert to this paragon of lazy argument. YOU can't prove your point, so you flip it around and insinuate the opposite argument can't be proven.

First, I shouldn't have to prove anything. YOU were the one who put the quality of conventional programs on a pedestal and dismissed most every other program in hand. As you set the parameters of this debate, the burden of proof is on you.

But, APA's Commission on Accreditation, several state/provinical licensing boards, and consumers have all made their positions clear as alternative programs have been accredited, their graduates licensed, and employed.

Is it universal? No.
But is that due to an inherent lack of quality or an entrenched prejudice of which you are such a stunning example?

Back to you Jon, prove that all those independent arbiters were wrong.

Jon Snow: The limited evidence we do have suggests there are quality/knowledge differences (EPPP scores) on average, though that is a horrible metric.

Lazier and lazier, eh, Jon.
The measuring tool sucks, but we'll use it anyway?

For crying out loud, the conventional wisdom is that every psychology doctoral graduate must -- after all their schooling and practical training -- still invest in a test prep program if they want to stand a chance of passing the EPPP. Talk about hypocracy. Establish an assessment tool to determine if a candidate is prepared to practice psychology but design it so that the successful completion of a professional training program in psychology is insufficient to actually pass the test?

Why do you even mention it?

Jon Snow: You've countered my quality control arguments before, asserting that psychologists don't need to smart. Your position is

1) psychologists don't need to be smart
2) psychologists don't need to study full time
3) The combination of this does not yield an inferior product. . .

I have NEVER said psychologists do not need to be smart!
Again, that is another one of your ridiculous mischaracterizations of my statements filled with projection from your belief that non-conventional programs are substandard.

This boils down to not accepting your unsubstantiated premise of the conventional training model being the only acceptable means of training psychologists. I have never said it is an inappropriate, or even ineffective method, just that it is not the ONLY method. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of acknowledging that there just might be alternatives to your beloved conventional model, which we should all just take on faith is the only valid training modality. (Excepting, of course, the handful of PsyD programs which are modeled on your beloved conventional model!)

Your definition of "full-time" is also a red herring. As others have pointed out, even conventional programs do not literally mean 24/7/365 "presence". So why does it matter to you if someone's readings/assignments for Advanced Psychopathology are done on an evening when the student can manage them, rather than the artificial regular class meeting time at, say, 10 AM on Tuesdays and Thursdays? Yes, even distance delivered programs have face-to-face didactics components. Why does it seem to frost your cookies that it is done over a series of weekends instead of series of afternoons? (And Raynee, there is nothing about distance programs that is "easy, cheap, or fast." The truly major difference is that content is not delivered in classrooms on a fixed schedule -- why is that so precious to you and your belief in how psychologists are trained?)

Jon Snow:
1) Given the cost, are you happy with your decision?
2) Would you recommend other students pursue it?
3) Is it all about acceptance?
4) If, with no change in economic outcome, people accepted the online path, would that eliminate all of the cynicism?

1) Do I wish it were cheaper? Of course.
Am I happy that I am now a doctoral psychologist employed and receiving pre-license supervision -- you betcha!
2) With their eyes open to the good and the bad, yes, I do -- and have -- recommended it. Unlike you Jon, I openly share the negative sides of my experience as well as the positive.
3) Well, acceptance would be nice, but to paraphrase Dr. King I would rather be judged by the content of my skills and character than the delivery modality of my program.
4) Don't be silly Jon, there will always be curmudgeons who blather on about "in my day" and totally ignore that back in "the day" there were plenty of activities/attitudes/beliefs that time and reflection have flat out proven wrong. The fact that their area of focus -- in this case professional training in psychology -- might also be adapted/modified/evolved seems to escape them.

But, eventually the dinosaurs are hit by a meteor and the profession moves on to its next great evolutionary step.

Jon Snow: Go back and read about cognitive dissonance and investment. You've thrown a lot more money on the table than I have.

Sorry Jon, again, you presume a conflict where none exists. I am aware of the ramifications of the actions I have taken. But I am currently employed in my field, using the credential I (worked hard to have) earned, doing work that matters to me. I only wish that there weren't people out there who seem to have a serious motivation to belittle all that.

For example -- and for the record -- I posted the link to the original article as an illustration of a often glossed over facet of conventional programs (no tution does not always mean "free"). I made one, passing mention of distance programs as an alternative to the conventional model and then the defenders of the status quo came swooping down again. That seems a pretty blatant illustration of how some people are more interested in trashing programs rather than discussing them!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

So why does it matter to you if someone's readings/assignments for Advanced Psychopathology are done on an evening when the student can manage them, rather than the artificial regular class meeting time at, say, 10 AM on Tuesdays and Thursdays?

I know I may have class during the day, but then the afternoon I'd do research, then I'd go home and do my readings, report writing, and whatnot at night. In the distance learning model.....how do I fit all of that in?

For me it comes down to:

Less, Less, and Less does not equal the same training. Clinical is full time, and shouldn't be second to anything else. The distance learning model tries to have its cake and eat it too....without considering the short-comings of the training model.

-t

 

[psy86]

...to paraphrase Dr. King I would rather be judged by the content of my skills and character than the delivery modality of my program.

You really think there's an appropriate comparison to be drawn there? Give me a break.

 

[Quynh2007]

I know I may have class during the day, but then the afternoon I'd do research, then I'd go home and do my readings, report writing, and whatnot at night. In the distance learning model.....how do I fit all of that in?

For me it comes down to:

Less, Less, and Less does not equal the same training. Clinical is full time, and shouldn't be second to anything else. The distance learning model tries to have its cake and eat it too....without considering the short-comings of the training model.

-t

yeah, i haven't really read much of this tread, but I would say that the full ride does equal debt free for me. In fact, because all my life i've been living on only half of what i will be receiving as a stipend, i can safely say that when I get my PhD, I'd have paid off all of my undergrad debts.

and as for the argument above (again, I didn't really read much of the tread) I do believe online training/programs are different, especially with regards to research. I know that most advisors conduct their research within their surroundings, local schools, hospitals, etc. Grad students are almost always very involved, supervising, training, data collecting, etc. Many advisors in fact have the labs at their school, and have participants come into the lab (usually have hidden cameras), and the grad students does most of the work or supervises in the back. A student who is distant (online training/program) would miss out on this unless they were commute to the research locations because I don't think it is very feasible for the most part for the graduate student to open a location near them (which requires revising the grant to IRB, etc) or setting up their own annex research lab. I'm not talking about the graduate student's own research for thesis or dissertation, but every grad student I know works in their advisor's lab.

While classes may be the focus in undergrad, i haven't met a person to date who agrees it's the same for graduate school. The majority of graduate school would be focused on research (and later practicum) and classes are the supplement. I don't see how that could be the same with online training/program. It seems the focus for online training/programs would be on classes, and research/practicum as the supplement.

 

[saurus]

Sidestepping the whole training debate surrounding distance learning programs, I'm curious about the financial aspect. I will profess complete ignorance about the cost of distance learning programs, but I wonder if you would even come out financially ahead.

Sure, you could have a full-time job to offset the costs, but you would have to pay for ALL of your tuition and you would still need to pay for living expenses, so wouldn't you end up in the same position as someone who attended a funded program and received a stipend?

 

[Sanman]

Psychwhy,

I have one simple question. Is there any benefit of an online program that cannot be had if a conventional program held its classes on weekends. Assuming the same level of work is being accomplished, this should solve your problem. Am I correct?

If your only other argument is that it is easier not to have to relocate, then all I have to say is that the mountain does not come to Mohammed. If I want to learn from prof. X, then I need to go to him. He is not obligated to seek me out and teach me. If not for this, one might question the student's motivation. I have sacrificed a lot to come to my program and don't enjoy a lot. However, if I had not sacrificed for it, I might have quit the first time I had to suffer without sleep, tv time, etc.

 

[psychwhy]

Sanman: I have one simple question. Is there any benefit of an online program that cannot be had if a conventional program held its classes on weekends. Assuming the same level of work is being accomplished, this should solve your problem. Am I correct?

Thank you for a rare, direct and non-emotionally laden question.

I have to admit, it caught me a bit by surprise as no one has ever asked it.
To be honest, I don't know if it would solve the problem. On its face, it certainly seems like it would. Then again, I am not aware of any conventional programs offering non M - F 8 - 4 class schedules, because, as you point out:

Sanman: If your only other argument is that it is easier not to have to relocate, then all I have to say is that the mountain does not come to Mohammed. If I want to learn from prof. X, then I need to go to him. He is not obligated to seek me out and teach me.

... we return to the "tough cookies" retort.

Look, given the developments in the field of psychology in the past 20+ years, I am not sure why there is such messianic devotion to the primarily research focused PhD training model for a profession that is, on its face, a clinicial practice. This forum, ostensibly, is for student DOCTORS not student researchers. If you wanted to learn research methodology from a leading researcher, than you are absolutely right -- you need to go to Dr. X's lab.

However, this thread revealed that a fair number of grad students may have begun their applications hoping to work with Dr. X in his/her lab, but when finances are factored in, they cannot afford to work with Dr. X in [insert major city] so are going to Dr. Y in [insert rural college town with reasonable costs of living].

You may want to learn the research methods. Personally, I was interested in practice methods. And I did have the opportunity to learn from my professional mentor, the late Albert Ellis.

Sanman: If not for this, one might question the student's motivation.

I'm sorry, I did not demonstrate motivation by completing all of my coursework, comprehensive examinations, dissertation, and internship?

saurus: Sure, you could have a full-time job to offset the costs, but you would have to pay for ALL of your tuition and you would still need to pay for living expenses, so wouldn't you end up in the same position as someone who attended a funded program and received a stipend?

Again, another blessedly rare objective question.
To be honest saurus, you are absolutely correct. Alternative programs have minimal front end costs, but substantial back end ones. Beginning work in an alternative program does not require one to shut down one's life on Day 1 (that doesn't come until practicum/internship! ) And yes, it is almost assured that you will come out with significant debt.

Still, for those who cannot put everything on hold on Day 1, it allows for getting started.

While I appreciate the opportunity to address these two issues, this forum has gotten way off track and out of whack with things like:

Psychwhy: Conflicting evidence or persuasive arguments to the contrary be damned.

Jon Snow: make one

and

Psychwhy: ...to paraphrase Dr. King I would rather be judged by the content of my skills and character than the delivery modality of my program.

psy86: You really think there's an appropriate comparison to be drawn there? Give me a break.

----

Sorry, I came here hoping to share and receive some support and cameraderie. Instead virtually any conversation that doesn't champion the status quo devolves into these sort of petty pissing matches.

As I have commented before, I have graduated and am working in the field.
I was more than willing to share details of my experiences but as doing so seems to inspire such a basic knee-jerk prejudice in some pretty vocal people.
I'm done.

Best of luck to you all ... I hope those of you starting programs find it to be all that you wanted ... and pray that it serves to expand your perspectives, not narrow your visions.

 

[psychwhy]

Jon Snow: All I offered to the OP was two things. . .you said "full ride" doesn't equal "free ride," and posted an article on the hardships of graduate school in a high rent district. I stated, "Is the school really supposed to support full families?" and, in response to the article, I offered a few alternatives that did not include the person not attending graduate school. You then responded with the first set of quotes above.
Who attacked whom?
Who proferred a knee-jerk prejudiced response?

Actually, Jon, you did. I don't expect you to realize/accept that ... hence the conclusion that this venture is no longer worth the time/energy invested into it.

"All I offered the OP ... " Damn, I hope you are not so lacking in personal insight when you deal with people face-to-face. While I have attempted to focus on sharing empirical evidence and first hand experiences, I have admitted when I have regretably let these personal attacks get the better of me and responded in a distemperate manner. You, on the other hand, have never backed down one iota from your one-note message. That sort of intractable intolerance is precisely why psychology has an image problem.

Jon Snow: You attributed several thoughts/opinions to me that I have never presented. . . for example, the idea that only middle class, single people should be allowed to get a graduate degree. That's purposefully inflammatory. You are trying to fill a martyr's/activitist's role complete with comparisons to darker periods in American history such as the racist oppression of blacks and sexist oppression of women. Now, you skulk away, filling the role of the wounded and self-righteous all in one gesture. . .

Actually, Jon, you are once again describing yourself, but attempting to portray someone with the temerity to disagree with you or offer a dissenting opinion with characteristics of YOUR personality.

If anyone has followed the history of your posts, it reads like a Rush Limbaugh primer (in strategy, if not philosophy) -- keep repeating the same thing, deny ever making a mistake, never admit the other side may have made a valid point, ignore the content of dissenting posts by attacking the poster, keep repeating the same thing.

I do not expect people to actually read your posting history, generally because they are busy with better things to do than verify the sources of your "information" and motivation -- more's the pity.

All I can say is that it saddens me that there will be some people who will accept your vitriol uncritically and begin to parrot your insincerity and disingenous approach.

But, as I foolishly engaged with you and your ilk over the past several months, I was reminded of the old adage about wasting one's time trying to teach a pig to sing, it will be a waste of time and annoy the pig.

:: voice lesson ended ::

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Okay guys....I don't want this to be a personal back and forth, please stick to the topic at hand, or I'll have to close the thread.

-t

 

[Ollie123]

Quick question psycwhy, in part to draw things back on topic, and in part because I honestly do not know the answer. Are most online psych programs PsyDs or PhDs? For some reason I always thought your degree was a PhD not a PsyD, but given your statements above I now have my doubts.

Given the absence of a lab component, how would you feel about online degrees only being available as PsyDs? My main concern with online programs is the absence or difficulty of laboratory research, (which probably ties in to my concerns over the time commitment required). I must say I have less of a problem with online programs if they are not granting the same degree as a research-oriented program - after all, it sounds like they have vastly different goals and clearly your views are much more in-line with a PsyD philosophy than a PhD. This isn't to say I would then be in favor of online degrees since I still have plenty of concerns, but I'm trying to find a starting point to discuss the issue here.

If you wouldn't support that idea, why not?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I just wanted to clarify something.....I thought all PsyDs still had research a component to them? I may be wrong, but when I was considering programs (both PsyD & PhD), they all had research components in addition to the clinical requirements.

-t

 

[Quynh2007]

all schools are businesses. the fact that they are doing anything at all to ameliorate your financial burden should be a thanksgiving, not rebuked. Living and going to school in those high living std locations has its reward including a more diverse population for research, probably better/more clinical practicum (which allows for contact with all sorts of things), better access to conveniences. so, to me, it's a trade-off and it's up to people to rank their priorities. Also, i haven't met someone who went into a program not knowing how much they will be getting for the school year (yes, you can and should find paid research/intership etc in the summer, which will bring your annual pay up a few more thousand).

When I was looking to buy a new laptop (my current one is really really old and hardrive failing) my advisor was willing to advance me money to pay for it, so i have absolutely NO DOUBT that if a hardship arose that my school would work with me to sort it out. One of my advisor's student has a family and she has done very very well in the program, and i'm sure there are many others out there who can tell you that they can support their families on the stipends provided by their programs.

i don't want to bash online programs. I've been thinking, and i personally think it would be fine if classes were taught online/weekends, and schools had extensions where the distant students had access to quality practicum supervision and research labs and resources. I'd also be okay if online programs took a longer time to complete to be equal in terms of credit hours, practicum hours, and research hours (again, given the same access to research/practicum resources residential programs provide). Maybe have a MAP and dissertation committees be pooled from the same one as those from the residential programs to have the same foundation/standard. And I don't even know how to deal with the sorely little (or even lacking) networking in an online program (unless they go to conferences often or seek people out, etc).

Currently, I do think while there will be people who will be a success from going to an online program, those people are in fact the exception, NOT the rule whereas in a residential program (especially those "tier 1"s), it is the opposite. Maybe in the future, online programs will be held in the same regards as traditional residential programs, and be an alternative route, but as an option now? no way. until then, i'm not going to change my opinions about them, the school's are going to have to be the ones who are willing to change and show me that their program does not sacrifice ANY educational resources.

 

[SteelMariposa]

..

 

[Sanman]

Duplicate

 

[Sanman]

I just wanted to quickly address two comments that were made in Psychwhy's reply to me.

1. When I referred to learning from professor X, I did not just mean research. Some of the most interesting experiences I have had involved clinical and course work. However, these experiences would not have occurred if I was not in this area. It difficult to develop a concentration is any part of the field without some clinical, research, and course experiences. It is difficult to coordinate that if the student is not in the same physical location.

This also speaks to the ability of online programs to assure a certain level of quality. If you cannot physically see the practices of those who are teaching your students, how can you assure that they are learning clinical skills correctly? Just because a clinician is licensed does not mean they are administering services in a competent manner. Hell, I have a friend in a in comps hell at the moment because her oral comps committee does not feel that the therapy that she provided (read: that her supervisor taught her) is proper for the type of disorder being treated.

2. As far as motivation, that was not a personal attack. You were motivated to finish your training, congrats. However, from a program's point of view, how can they assure that a student just beginning will not quit over the course of the program due to low motivation. This is not just an online issue, but moreso one of working full-time. If one is working full-time at a well paying job and has family, is that not increased incentive to drop out when the going gets tough? I have friend attempting a part-time traditional PhD. in another field that may be in this predicament soon.He already has a well-paying career due to his master's degree and a long-time girlfriend. Will he continually have the motivation to push himself to finish his program on top of that or will life get in the way? I don't know the answer, but the many ABDs around give a clue. It is a disservice to the program and to the student if the resources and used to gain these skills are abandoned because life got in the way. For me, the motivation to complete my program comes from the want and need to get a good paying job and start suporting myself. If that is taken away, I might not be at the point I am today.

 

[psychwhy]

Ollie123: Are most online psych programs PsyDs or PhDs? For some reason I always thought your degree was a PhD not a PsyD, but given your statements above I now have my doubts.

Given the absence of a lab component, how would you feel about online degrees only being available as PsyDs? My main concern with online programs is the absence or difficulty of laboratory research, (which probably ties in to my concerns over the time commitment required). I must say I have less of a problem with online programs if they are not granting the same degree as a research-oriented program - after all, it sounds like they have vastly different goals and clearly your views are much more in-line with a PsyD philosophy than a PhD. This isn't to say I would then be in favor of online degrees since I still have plenty of concerns, but I'm trying to find a starting point to discuss the issue here.

I can't speak for all programs, but my understanding is that many of them still are PhD programs.
I have heard that Fielding Graduate Institute actually has a pretty well established research component, where many students collaborate with faculty on projects.

Capella, about 2 - 3 years ago, retooled its clinical and counseling specialities as PsyD (The PhD is still offered in general psych and a couple of academic specialties.)

To be honest, during my Year-in-Residence, many classmates and I openly discussed why the program hadn't started as a PsyD, for the very reasons you mention. We all had to (and current students still have to) complete a dissertation, but lacking a true in-house research program, the idea of offering a research oriented degree (PhD) seemed inappropriate.

That said, because I enrolled before the change over and didn't to essentially "re-enroll" and be held to the new curriculum of the PsyD, the diploma on my wall is a PhD.

 

[Ollie123]

Sorry for the confusion - I realize many PsyDs do have a research component, but I've gotten the impression the primary difference between PhD and PsyD is that the PsyD research component was not as strict or as focused. I still think the absence of research work entirely would be a HUGE problem, but I think it would be much easier to achieve a PsyD-like research component than a PhD-like one.

In other words, you aren't necessarily in the lab every day from the day you arrive to the time you leave - you may do do a thesis, dissertation, etc. but you aren't necessarily committed to a specific lab for the bulk of your time in graduate school.

This was the impression I got from reading posts and all the PsyD websites I've seen....is that not the case? If it isnt what IS the difference between the two degrees?