And these impacts on society from these programs are not just debt-based. I suspect there would be far less criticism of choices about attending for-profit programs if they provided stellar outcomes and training that was highly recognized in the field (rather than mocked, as is more frequent). While the economic argument about ROI would likely continue, it wouldn't be in addition to the 'this is bad for the field'
Yes, I could have guessed that this is what you think.
I think this is a more productive line of criticism, personally. Though I maintain that the students being exploited by these institutions should not be considered "complicit" in their exploitation.
I agree with you to a degree. Folks often don't know where they are going and some of that is because of misleading/poor information. These programs certainly do their best to make that the case. Some of it is also because they opt not to know. This is evident here quite often. Information is available for them. And, if you are making choices about your career then you have responsibility in that. People need to do their diligence to know what is necessary. It is note purely a forced upon them situation. We have all made bad choices. We are responsible for our part in them
I don't understand your point.
I maintain that it is absolutely ridiculous to place the onus of responsibility on the individuals getting screwed when there are demonstrably different material circumstances that influence those decisions. It is increasingly difficult for individuals to make financial decisions that aren't going to utterly **** them, is the point I'm making.
Alright I'm willing to get on board with this to some degree. I still think it is not particularly useful to focus on the students' responsibility for getting ****ed over when there is a very clear, asymmetrical power dynamic. That said, I recognize that this would be the place for people to get the information that these institutions are predatory.
Everything contains a power dynamic. There will /never/ be equal powers in any way, in this situation or any other (personal, professional, etc). That does not absolve anyone of responsibility. Also, this doesn't mean that responsibility is absolute and zero-sum, but personal choices do play a role. This is simply a central aspect to life.
Considering the trauma that crushing debt and poverty can cause, I think it's incredibly disingenuous to dismiss this parallel. I also work with PTSD and domestic abuse, so you can't just use your authority on the subject to dismiss mine because it upsets you.
You mean criteria A doesn't include 'debt'?
I think I can generally get behind your framing and approach to the problem and I think you've done a reasonably good job synthesizing some of the issues. I still don't think it's quite as clear of a decision as some people are making it out to be, but I'm happy that there are people trying to think about how to make that information more available.
It is insulting to you for me to invoke the impacts of the grave material consequences on the students impacted by predatory programs, and more largely by the fundamentally predatory economic arrangement of our student loan system?
That's fair, and like I said, I'm not against snark. But I think there are efficient responses that don't fall into the traps I have been talking about and I take no issue with those.
I know this was meant as a joke but this is precisely tied to my larger point. There is very demonstrably a relationship between poverty and debt with an increased in exposure to trauma. Not to mention the impact that it has as a constant stressor on the baseline level of cognitive resources we have to recover from adverse events.
It's simply not trauma. It's misleading to use a clinical descriptor as a descriptor of something which does not, in any way/by any definition, qualify. If debt itself qualifies as Criteria A, then so too does failing out of college, having your significant other cheat on you/divorce you, having a legal problem, losing investment in the stock market, etc. Those are unfortunately, deeply impactful things which change lives. There are countless things that change our lives. They are not all traumas. Just because something is problematic, stressful, or undesirable does not make it traumatic and worthy of being compared to PTSD.
No, I didn't mean it as a joke at all. See above. Over-attribution of something as a 'trauma' is not good (see research on emergency intervention after natural disaster). Comparing everything to trauma is (1) factually not accurate and (2) potentially negatively impactful in and of itself. Things have bad impacts. That doesn't make them traumas. Analogies which dismiss this are problematic.
I don't think that debt itself is trauma, but I think it's a huge mistake to dismiss the relationship that poverty has on the distribution and impact of trauma.
Again, I'm not saying that the debt itself is a trauma. I am, however, absolutely willing to say that economic predation is an abusive quality. Abuse is a matter of failing to respect the rights and dignity of another, and these predatory financial institutions are unequivocally abusive. They don't give a **** about the impact that their extortion has on the students, the field, or society.
Perhaps reconsider who you think may be mischaracterizing in this situation.
This is entirely accurate, yes. I have been officially outed, I suppose.
That seemed to be the implication when you got offended and dismissed my characterization of these predatory institutions as agents of abuse. If that's not what you believe I'm glad to hear that but I have not yet been convinced that it is inherently insulting to everyone dealing or working with trauma to consider these institutions abusers.
I mean, it's really society more broadly (eastern, western, Egyptian, Roman, feudal, etc.).. power dynamics man, they're a killer.
Alright, I suppose I should have been clearer that it isn't the abstract concept of poverty and debt that causes the trauma, but the material conditions and events directly related to it. I'll concede on that.
This is a completely disingenuous line of argument. And consider for a ****ing second that you may be speaking with someone who has been sexually assaulted. You don't have the ultimate authority on the appropriateness of using the concept of dynamics of abuse in discussions. Plenty survivors I know are willing to acknowledge the role that economic coercion plays in abuse.
100% agreed, my friend. A true uphill battle we face.
I am unequivocally willing to categorize their predatory practices as abusive, as it fundamentally compromises the agency of the people they exploit, making them systematically more susceptible to coercion. This line of argument is dangerously treading along the path of arguing that only physical violation counts as trauma. You don't strike me as being so obtuse a person to do something like that, so I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Disagree with me, that's fine. Engage with me on the distinctions or nuance. You might not think that it's the most correct or appropriate framing, and that's fine. But I'm not going to let your offense by my comparison shut me down on this when you rhetorically weaponize a plight of my own against me.
I disagree and remain unconvinced that this is a helpful strategy. It, conversely, irks me when my field refuses to grapple with the larger social and economic situations that impact our clients - and in this case, also colleagues (regardless of how deserving of that title some here may think they are). There's a case to be made that it shouldn't be our primary focus, but I think it should inform our individual work.
Who said anything about not taking these factors into account when working with individual clients?
Do you have any interest at this point in trying to engage with me in good faith on this? This is not a rhetorical question - it's sincere. Because if you do, I'm willing to stop and try to re-calibrate the conversation. But from the way you've continued to characterize my argument despite my several attempts to clarify, it feels a lot like the only possible acceptable resolution to you is for me to admit that I was wrong and apologize to you and all survivors for my offensive comparison. If you think that is the only possible acceptable resolution, please let me know - otherwise, I would like to explicitly see you say that you're willing to try to dial it back and find some kind of common ground and I will do the same.
I think it is possible that this is happening and that people are capable of being more empathetic, nuanced, and flexible in their conceptualization of the social problems within therapy versus on a messageboard, but I am not privy to those interactions. What I do see is peoples' attitudes and behaviors on this board, and combined with hearing numerous first hand accounts from friends in poverty who have worked with therapists that do not have this kind of flexibility, and many of those situations have resulted in irreparable damage to the therapeutic relationship. So I think it's a reasonable concern to raise as being related to a clinical issue.
