Will Only Non-Regionally Accredited MFT Program Be a Bad Idea?

[neutralpalatte]

Flip toward the back of the unaccredited World University's current (2011-14) catalog [pdf], and you'll see their 2012 School Performance Fact Sheet of statutory disclosures. For the MA in Counseling Psychology, which is World's MFT-track program,

• in 2010, 1 student began the program and zero students graduated.
• in 2011, zero students began the program, and 1 student graduated.
• in 2012 year to date (what date this was prepared appears to be unspecified), 1 student began the program and zero students graduated.

In 2010 and 2011, zero students began or graduated from any other World University degree or certificate program. Each year, 29 to 47 individual one-off open-enrollment courses were completed. There's no 2012 YTD data for these categories, only for the MA in Counseling Psychology.

Further:


From the content, context, and what else we about World's very small entrant, graduate, and state MFT exam taker numbers, a reasonable interpretation is that this is every known World graduate who's ever received a CA MFT license. (neutral, if your convenience sample incldued anyone not on this list, they may not be licensed as MFTs. Appearances can be deceiving: People could be marketing outwardly similar things under unlicensed hats like life coach or spiritual minister, or separate occupations they trained for elsewhere like addiction counseling or nursing.)

Elsewhere in World University's catalog, we see that 3 of the 5 trustees, and the entire senior administration, share the same last name. Unless the web/tech support guy is senior administration. This includes the CEO/President, the Chief Academic Officer, the COO/Financial Officer, the Administrative Officer/Acting Registrar, and the Advertising & Marketing Officer. Three of their names are also listed later, as part of the graduate psychology faculty.

Like I was saying before, anyone can take courses at World U. They have no hard GPA requirement (despite my high GPA). They offer open-enrollment coursework so technically you could take all the courses needed before formally enrolling in the program. In fact, you wouldn't even technically need to enroll in the program at all. So those numbers are definitely skewed. Not to mention that it takes multiple years from when a student enters, to actually graduate.

And you are also posting things I am already aware of, and that anyone could find if they looked. No big secret there lol.


Anyway, I'm done with this thread unless people who have actually lived in California and gone for MFT, would like to contribute!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[chartero]

Like I was saying before, anyone can take courses at World U. They have no hard GPA requirement (despite my high GPA). They offer open-enrollment coursework so technically you could take all the courses needed before formally enrolling in the program. In fact, you wouldn't even technically need to enroll in the program at all. So those numbers are definitely skewed. Not to mention that it takes multiple years from when a student enters, to actually graduate.

I included the numbers of courses completed on an open enrollment basis: 41 courses were completed in 2010, 29 in 2011, across the whole university. Yes, this could include courses taken by counseling psychology/MFT track students who haven't enrolled in the degree.

 

[chartero]

World Institute of Avasthology dba World University of America (Ojai) is a 501(c)(3) charity, so its major IRS filings are public record. For calendar year 2012, here are its payroll spending lines [pdf, via The Foundation Center]:

Salaries, other compensation, and employee benefits $11,000
Professional fees and other payments to independent contractors $10,831

Total spending by the school on all budget lines was $40,810.

When "World University of America" has the payroll of some lemonade stands, I question both the value of its master's degrees in counseling psychology, and the viability of the school into coming years.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I finally glanced at the website for World U and my response was, "You've got to be kidding". The required text for the parapsychology course: An Investigative Reporter’s Three Year Quest to Uncover the Best Scientific Evidence for ESP, Psychokinesis, Mental Healing, Ghosts and Poltergeists, Dowsing, Mediums, Near Death Experiences, Reincarnation, and Other Impossible Phenomena That Refuse to Disappear. Yes, parapsychology. Some of the other core courses are dream consciousness, consciousness, other states of consciousness. I find some of this a bit interesting, too, but it has nothing to do with treating real people with real disorders.

 

[erg923]

I finally glanced at the website for World U and my response was, "You've got to be kidding". The required text for the parapsychology course: An Investigative Reporter’s Three Year Quest to Uncover the Best Scientific Evidence for ESP, Psychokinesis, Mental Healing, Ghosts and Poltergeists, Dowsing, Mediums, Near Death Experiences, Reincarnation, and Other Impossible Phenomena That Refuse to Disappear. Yes, parapsychology. Some of the other core courses are dream consciousness, consciousness, other states of consciousness. I find some of this a bit interesting, too, but it has nothing to do with treating real people with real disorders.

Professional training programs that lead to licensure of a health service product are not the place for exploration of untested, albeit interesting, theories about state of mind, ghosts, and ESP. Would be fine if this was not populated by people who want to practice and explore this stuff with people who are suffering.

 

[Goobernut]

I finally glanced at the website for World U and my response was, "You've got to be kidding". The required text for the parapsychology course: An Investigative Reporter’s Three Year Quest to Uncover the Best Scientific Evidence for ESP, Psychokinesis, Mental Healing, Ghosts and Poltergeists, Dowsing, Mediums, Near Death Experiences, Reincarnation, and Other Impossible Phenomena That Refuse to Disappear. Yes, parapsychology. Some of the other core courses are dream consciousness, consciousness, other states of consciousness. I find some of this a bit interesting, too, but it has nothing to do with treating real people with real disorders.

Wow!! I wonder what core MFT domain this class is meant to cover?? So this is the type of coursework that you find interesting Neutral? Is this what your intended clientele is looking for?

 

[psychtalk1274]

Don't you know this is her "niche". No, I really don't know if it is or not but it sounds like it would have to be based on these classes. This poster is lazy plain and simple. She will sure find out going about it in the laziest way will not get her where she wants to be. But, we have tried to warn her so now she has to make her own decision. I just hope she doesn't harm clients

 

[neutralpalatte]

I finally glanced at the website for World U and my response was, "You've got to be kidding". The required text for the parapsychology course: An Investigative Reporter’s Three Year Quest to Uncover the Best Scientific Evidence for ESP, Psychokinesis, Mental Healing, Ghosts and Poltergeists, Dowsing, Mediums, Near Death Experiences, Reincarnation, and Other Impossible Phenomena That Refuse to Disappear. Yes, parapsychology. Some of the other core courses are dream consciousness, consciousness, other states of consciousness. I find some of this a bit interesting, too, but it has nothing to do with treating real people with real disorders.

ITP/Sofia and Pacifica have the same one, and they're regionally accredited

 

[Nahsil]

My program has one professor interested in the psychology of paranormal experience--not paranormal experience itself. I don't see a problem with that, although I have zero interest in taking it. That's also not a class you're likely to take if you're doing the clinical track, though. We have it broken up into thesis, academic, and clinical tracks, with the latter following licensure standards for courses (actually going beyond current state requirements to anticipate coming changes).

 

[chartero]

neutral, you keep saying that World and the transpersonal-friendly regionally accredited schools have the "same" courses. Well, a medical assisting trade school in the mall and a major medical school may both have courses titled "Anatomy," but believe it or not these are not the same courses. That World University's entire payroll is less than $22,000 per year particularly casts doubt on course quality.

 

[erg923]

Ha. Translation: they may be picking shamans of the street to teach for raman noodles. My salary as a visiting assistant professor at a small Catholic college 2 years ago was 46k (obviously, i left for greener pastures but that beside the point). Legit institutions pay faculty. There is simply no counterargument to this.

 

[Nahsil]

How is 22k for the entire payroll even possible? Are they not reporting everything?

 

[chartero]

It seems to be an extremely part-time thing today, largely run by the family of the couple that founded it in the '70s. The operation is affiliated with a church with monthly services at the same address: Ecumenical Ministry of the Unity of All Religions.

 

[463951]

ITP/Sofia and Pacifica have the same one, and they're regionally accredited

Do you want to be like a "ghost whisperer" or something like that? I know there are enough nutty people in Los Angeles that would probably pay for this type of thing, but you don't need to get a license. What would be far worse is to pass yourself off as an MFT or a doctoral level clinician and do harm to your patients.

 

[psychtalk1274]

Sounds like a scam to me. hopefully this girl will take some of this in though its doubtful. so sad.

 

[Goobernut]

ITP/Sofia and Pacifica have the same one, and they're regionally accredited

All that being said, regional accreditation is a moot point here. I'm not sure why you brought it up. You can be regionally accredited and offer "underwater basketweaving." A university/college can be regionally accredited and offer all kinds of stuff. It has nothing to do with checking the quality of every single program grad degree at the university. It's an insanely easy to obtain minimal standard. That's why it's more important to have the national accreditation for the specific professional program. It ensures a professional standard rather than just a minimal standard. In most cases, the national accreditation requires the regional accreditation before they will even look at a program.

I know that other people have talked about regional accreditation, but in my opinion this is not as important as having a program approved by whoever is associated with the license test oversight. Like COMAFTE, CACREP, and CSWB. I mean, if Capella and Alliant can both have programs accredited by COMAFTE and CACREP, then what the heck are the other universities doing?

neutral, you keep saying that World and the transpersonal-friendly regionally accredited schools have the "same" courses. Well, a medical assisting trade school in the mall and a major medical school may both have courses titled "Anatomy," but believe it or not these are not the same courses. That World University's entire payroll is less than $22,000 per year particularly casts doubt on course quality.

I agree with all of Chartero's post, but the bolded particularly stood out to me. Grad programs have really become a money making venture, and you really have to be careful of who you shack up with. It's not always about how you "brand" yourself, sometimes the school you go to "brands" your career and no amount of PR repair will fix it.

 

[Goobernut]

Also an interesting note, the "class mentor" for quite a few of the MFT program classes is a volunteer according to the university's website.

 

[erg923]

What does this university have to do to give neutral palette some pause about the quality/rigor of the education, run over a bus full of nuns or something?! Maybe kill some puppies?

 

[463951]

What does this university have to do to give neutral palette some pause about the quality/rigor of the education, run over a bus full of nuns or something?! Maybe kill some puppies?

probably insult her directly, tell her she's not attractive or something

 

[neutralpalatte]

Sounds like a scam to me. hopefully this girl will take some of this in though its doubtful. so sad.

As someone who has both lived in the Bay Area, where people come from all over the world with no-name-school degrees and get good, secure, high-paying jobs in technology... and also Los Angeles where a lot of people don't even have a degree yet still start successful businesses or get good jobs through networking alone, where I attend school is the least of my concerns. A degree is what you make of it, and if it gets you a license, then you are good enough to practice. Considering I will be self-employed and marketing and networking will be left up to me, I know that it would be a walk in the park. Again, the school does not equal your success, and I have seen that many times over.

 

[erg923]

As someone who has both lived in the Bay Area, where people come from all over the world with no-name-school degrees and get good, secure, high-paying jobs in technology... and also Los Angeles where a lot of people don't even have a degree yet still start successful businesses or get good jobs through networking alone.

Well, guess what? You aint working for Google or Yahoo. This isn't "just another business venture." People's lives are on the line here.

"Just good enough," no concern about quality, and still no mention of patients. You must be beaming with pride (or is that hubris)?

Ya want that article yet?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Well, guess what? You aint working for Google or Yahoo. This isn't "just another business venture." People's lives are on the line here.

"Just good enough," no concern about quality, and still no mention of patients. You must be beaming with pride (or us that hubris)?

Ya want that article yet?

I think this is one of the main differences between practicing in mental health and many of the other examples provided (e.g., technology, various areas of small business, etc.). In those latter fields, one can often be self-taught and not have it somehow count against them. I would imagine this is in large part because it's fairly accepted in those fields (at least in my interactions with folks who work in those sectors) that what you learn in school just isn't terribly important; rather, it's on-the-job training and work experience along with general ingenuity that can set you apart and make you a commodity. This is further reinforced, particularly in technology, by the history of the field itself--many of technology's pioneering minds either didn't attend or left college, and many of the workers who "opted in" during the dot.com boom years (and who are likely now in managerial roles) did so via self-study.

Conversely, mental health is like medicine in many ways; the schooling is (and should be) typically viewed as providing an integral foundation of knowledge on which to then further build and develop your skillset via supervised clinical training with patients. I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly wouldn't want a self-taught surgeon. Likewise, I can certainly imagine that many folks take the quality of their physicians' education and training into account when selecting their provider (particularly if it's for a difficult, sensitive, uncommon, etc. issue).

Not to say that many business- and technology-related skills aren't useful in mental health. Those entrepreneurial skills will be useful in pretty much any field. But mental health training is one area where the quality of your education, classes, etc., actually does matter, because that's what provides the structure on which you eventually hang the practical knowledge.

Also, there's the aside that in some of those other sectors (e.g., technology), companies are essentially always short on talented, dependable employees. This generally isn't the case in mental health (except for psychiatry).

Some of these biases may not be as prevalent in various areas of CA as in other regions of the country; of that, I have no idea. Probably also depends on the professional circles in which you're primarily engaged (e.g., academia vs. private practice). But at least in my mind, even if the biases don't exist or aren't as strong, the principles are still important.

 

[erg923]

and if it gets you a license, then you are good enough to practice.

My side work is peer review for disability claims appeals (commercial carriers). Poor practice happens with licensed individuals. Licensing isn’t fail safe, it only serves to minimize as much as possible. Again, to view "licensed" as synonymous with competence is naive. You really need to start opening up to the advice, opinion, and input of those who have done more and seen more in this field than you.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

As someone who has both lived in the Bay Area, where people come from all over the world with no-name-school degrees and get good, secure, high-paying jobs in technology... and also Los Angeles where a lot of people don't even have a degree yet still start successful businesses or get good jobs through networking alone, where I attend school is the least of my concerns. A degree is what you make of it, and if it gets you a license, then you are good enough to practice. Considering I will be self-employed and marketing and networking will be left up to me, I know that it would be a walk in the park. Again, the school does not equal your success, and I have seen that many times over.

Tech and Healthcare are COMPLETELY different fields.

Your assumptions about competency within healthcare (e.g. if you get licensed "..then you are good enough to practice.") are not accurate. Why are there licensing boards if once someone is licensed they can practice w/o problems?

I agree that a school does not equal success, but competent training is required to practice ethically, and going to a joke program is faaaaaar less likely to produce a competent trainee. While your focus is on YOU YOU YOU, I'd encourage you to take a step back and consider the implications of your push to be a clinician.

 

[neutralpalatte]

Tech and Healthcare are COMPLETELY different fields.

Your assumptions about competency within healthcare (e.g. if you get licensed "..then you are good enough to practice.") are not accurate. Why are there licensing boards if once someone is licensed they can practice w/o problems?

I agree that a school does not equal success, but competent training is required to practice ethically, and going to a joke program is faaaaaar less likely to produce a competent trainee. While your focus is on YOU YOU YOU, I'd encourage you to take a step back and consider the implications of your push to be a clinician.

This isn't about tech. This is about psychology. Guess you've also never been to California or something, but those aren't the only jobs available. Not by a long shot. A prosperous and wealthy economy creates a wide array of vocations for everyone. Lets not forget that.

And just so you know, an overwhelming majority of practitioners in California DID indeed attend ITP/Sofia, Pacifica, CIIS, JFK, Chicago School, or Argosy/Alliant for their training. Like, a majority. And that's not bad.

Do you think the California budget cuts are actually allowing people to get a good education from public schools here? No, not anymore. Maybe 5 years ago or more, yes. So often times, these private professional schools are the way to go even just for the small class size (you are assigned a cohort), in the state of California. And like I said, many of the programs (especially MFT) have been suspended or just aren't taking new students at these public schools because classes, faculty, and overall $$ is being cut left and right. When they do keep programs, they have massive class sizes. Yes, even for graduate. Its a **** education, and all the professors that continue to teach at public schools, are probably barely scraping by to live due to these budget cuts (less classes to teach, less pay). For those saying this is the way to go, it is NOT the way to go.

For PUBLIC schools in California: "California ranks dead last in the nation when it comes to student-teacher ratio, counselor-student ratio and librarian-student ratio; we are an abysmal 47th in per pupil spending, and 41st in school nurse-student ratio. The national education newspaper Education Week grades our state an "F" when it comes to supporting our schools and students. All of this -- and the looming deadline for getting this temporary tax extension passed in the legislature -- is why our state's educators and their supporters declared a "State of Emergency" for California public education. "


And a lot of the other private universities are in the middle of nowhere or are just as "no name" if not moreso than the private professional schools listed above. Many also have a very strong religious affiliation. That is how it works in California, and you don't and haven't lived here, so you don't know how it works here.

Again, training comes from your 3,000 supervised hours. That is where you will get your best training from, no matter which school you attend. This is what will really matter. And that is, in no way, linked to the school you attend.

People don't even bat an eyelash here at those "types" of specialized schools like ITP/Sofia, Pacifica, CIIS, Argosy, etc because they are so common. Now maybe on the east coast or midwest they do, where a lot of these types of schools don't exist, but not in California. And I'm not going to take advice from somewhere who hasn't lived & gone to school and/or practiced here because it makes no sense to do so. End of story.

As much as you don't want to admit it, you don't know the market here, and you don't know what is popular and valued here. Keep relying on those stereotypes and what the media feeds you, I guess.

 

[smalltownpsych]

This isn't about tech or healthcare lol. This is about psychology. Guess you've also never been to California or something, but those aren't the only jobs available. Not by a long shot. A prosperous and wealthy economy creates a wide array of vocations for everyone. Lets not forget that.

And just so you know, an overwhelming majority of practitioners in California DID indeed attend ITP/Sofia, Pacifica, CIIS, JFK, Chicago School, or Argosy/Alliant for their training. Like, a majority. People don't even bat an eyelash here at those "types" of schools because they are so common. Now maybe on the east coast they do, where a lot of these types of schools don't exist, but not in California. And I'm not going to take advice from somewhere who hasn't lived & gone to school and/or practiced here because it makes no sense to do so.

As much as you don't want to admit it, you don't know the market here, and you don't know what is popular and valued here. Keep relying on those stereotypes, I guess.

Not about healthcare? What do you think the field of mental health is? Patients place their trust in us and they struggle with crippling conditions. Your arrogance and ignorance is astounding.

 

[erg923]

This isn't about tech or healthcare lol. This is about psychology. Guess you've also never been to California or something, but those aren't the only jobs available. Not by a long shot. A prosperous and wealthy economy creates a wide array of vocations for everyone. Lets not forget that.

And just so you know, an overwhelming majority of practitioners in California DID indeed attend ITP/Sofia, Pacifica, CIIS, JFK, Chicago School, or Argosy/Alliant for their training. Like, a majority. And that's not bad. Do you think the California budget cuts are actually allowing people to get a good education from public schools here? No, not anymore. So often times, these private professional schools are the way to go, in the state of California. And like I said, many of the programs (especially MFT) have been suspended or just aren't taking new students because classes, faculty, and overall $$ is being cut left and right. For those saying this is the way to go, it is NOT the way to go. And a lot of the other private universities are in the middle of no where or are just as "no name" if not moreso than the private professional schools listed above. That is how it works in California.

People don't even bat an eyelash here at those "types" of schools because they are so common. Now maybe on the east coast they do, where a lot of these types of schools don't exist, but not in California. And I'm not going to take advice from somewhere who hasn't lived & gone to school and/or practiced here because it makes no sense to do so.

As much as you don't want to admit it, you don't know the market here, and you don't know what is popular and valued here. Keep relying on those stereotypes, I guess.

Uh, you don’t think you’re working in healthcare?! You think you MFTs are selling malts at the corner candy shop?

I will continue to comment on your posts as long as you continue to demonstrate a lack of concern about the quality of your education and the patients that you will be seeing. We all will. Because this is important. Patients are why we are here. Get it?

"This is how it works in the wonderful world of California" is not justification for lack of attentiveness to clinical training issues. Going along with the crowd is not the mentality of successful clinicians, nor or successful entrepreneurs. Maybe that strikes a cord with you? And, I am not sure what you are getting at with "the market here?" I know people in psychological/psychiatric distress want help from caring individuals who are competent and effective. Thats the market you are in. TO. HELP. PEOPLE.

You wanna read that article yet?

 

[neutralpalatte]

I'm not dumb, of course its about healthcare, but you were referring to public healthcare obviously. You were talking about jobs in California, and there are no "jobs" in private healthcare unless you make your own job as a self-employed individual. You were obviously referring to public healthcare here, which has nothing to do with an MFT in private practice who is not planning to work with that population. That is not my target market.

Its 2 different systems here in California. But I will not be dealing with the public sector as an MFT who is in private practice. They are not even comparable at all. The public health care sector, where they are avidly hiring, is atrocious honestly and I want no part of it lol. The Bay Area has or had "healthy San Francisco" for public care, and LA has a government-run program. Or had, I don't know what happened as a result of Obamacare. Its poorly run, and Obamacare has done a huge number on making it worse right now since all doctors now require you to pay 100% upfront for your health care treatment and get reimbursed in the future (and that is impossible for the poor). Jobs in the private healthcare sector (like a self-employed MFT), are solely from self-employed people, and that is what I was referring to.

Again, you don't live in California, so you don't know how anything works here either.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Do you think the California budget cuts are actually allowing people to get a good education from public schools here? No, not anymore. Maybe 5 years ago or more, yes. So often times, these private professional schools are the way to go even just for the small class size (you are assigned a cohort), in the state of California.

Small class sizes, less expensive, and a quality education….yes, that is why you go to a UC option and NOT a private and/or for-profit degree mill. The cohorts are often 4-6 students, with funding, and with resources that are not possible at a degree mill.

...all the professors that continue to teach at public schools, are probably barely scraping by to live due to these budget cuts (less classes to teach, less pay).

Again, not at the quality graduate programs.

That is how it works in California, and you don't and haven't lived here, so you don't know how it works here.

I was recruited there by multiple large universities/medical systems, so I'm actually quite familiar with the economics and opportunities, at least at some of the larger uni options. I know those kind of programs aren'g big into moonbeam and rainbow therapy, but they are more representative of the economics as the UC system is the largest public system in the country.

Again, training comes from your 3,000 supervised hours. That is where you will get your best training from, no matter which school you attend. This is what will really matter. And that is, in no way, linked to the school you attend.

I'm sure surgeons just learn from cutting, yes? No need for those pesky classes!

 

[erg923]

Providing a high quality product is valued everywhere, honey. That what your market NEEDS. Its also, likely, what it WANTS. This California is such a special, different snowflake act is getting tiresome.

 

[neutralpalatte]

Small class sizes, less expensive, and a quality education….yes, that is why you go to a UC option and NOT a private and/or for-profit degree mill. The cohorts are often 4-6 students, with funding, and with resources that are not possible at a degree mill.

Ummm no? Maybe for PhD programs, but that's not how it works for MFT programs. They are doing everything they can to up class size, cut professor pay / hire ****ty professors with low pay requirements, and cut classes/programs/costs completely, in any way they can! UCs and CSUs are PUBLIC schools, which are in a "state of emergency" right now due to lack of funding. 2 BILLION dollars was cut from public higher education in the state of California: http://projects.nytimes.com/california-budget

Not to mention, because of the budget cuts, UCs and CSUs have rivaling tuition to that of the expensive professional and private schools... Only with ****tier teachers (or teachers who CONCURRENTLY teach at private & professional schools!!!) who can barely make a living as a UC/CSU professor alone now, larger class sizes, or programs being cut left & right altogether. Here is an example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/14/university-of-california-96-tuition-hike_n_899394.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/01/california-budget-cuts_n_915371.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/what-browns-500-million-c_n_808005.html


Again, this is pointless to argue, because you have never lived in California so you don't know the sad state the schools are in, and you don't know what the job market is like here. End of story.

 

[erg923]

I know people from CA who got MFT or MSW at state schools or private (not "professional") schools. AND...there are 49 other states as well. Its not like you literally have have no other choice (I have been across the country twice and Im married), so quit playing that game. You are choosing this, and everybody and the mother is tell you its bad...

 

[CaliMac]

Ummm no? Maybe for PhD programs, but that's not how it works for MFT programs. They are doing everything they can to up class size, cut professor pay / hire ****ty professors with low pay requirements, and cut classes/programs/costs completely, in any way they can! UCs and CSUs are PUBLIC schools, which are in a "state of emergency" right now due to lack of funding. 2 BILLION dollars was cut from public higher education in the state of California: http://projects.nytimes.com/california-budget

Not to mention, because of the budget cuts, UCs and CSUs have rivaling tuition to that of the expensive professional and private schools... Only with ****tier teachers (or teachers who CONCURRENTLY teach at private & professional schools!!!) who can barely make a living as a UC/CSU professor alone now, larger class sizes, or programs being cut left & right altogether. Here is an example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/14/university-of-california-96-tuition-hike_n_899394.html

Here's what a friend of mine, a professor in the CSU system said in response to the above:

"No, it’s no longer accurate. The budget is better. They didn’t give us a raise but they lowered tuition for students and cut class size again. I think it’s still a better option than those private psych programs that cost as much as Harvard."

I'd hoped for more of her wit, as she moonlights as a screenwriter, but she was a little fried from crafting new syllabi. Maybe next time

 

[CaliMac]

Not that I'm trying to sway you particularly, Neutral, just speaking as a local to provide an alternate view.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Here's what a friend of mine, a professor in the CSU system said in response to the above:

"No, it’s no longer accurate. The budget is better. They didn’t give us a raise but they lowered tuition for students and cut class size again. I think it’s still a better option than those private psych programs that cost as much as Harvard."

So…basically what I wrote and then was told was not accurate?

Thank you for sharing another perspective.

 

[Goobernut]

For PUBLIC schools in California: "California ranks dead last in the nation when it comes to student-teacher ratio, counselor-student ratio and librarian-student ratio; we are an abysmal 47th in per pupil spending, and 41st in school nurse-student ratio. The national education newspaper Education Week grades our state an "F" when it comes to supporting our schools and students. All of this -- and the looming deadline for getting this temporary tax extension passed in the legislature -- is why our state's educators and their supporters declared a "State of Emergency" for California public education. "

And a lot of the other private universities are in the middle of nowhere or are just as "no name" if not moreso than the private professional schools listed above. Many also have a very strong religious affiliation. That is how it works in California, and you don't and haven't lived here, so you don't know how it works here.

As much as you don't want to admit it, you don't know the market here, and you don't know what is popular and valued here. Keep relying on those stereotypes and what the media feeds you, I guess.

Your quote on public schools in California is about K-12 education. That has nothing to do with student-professor ratio or cohort size at a University. Could you please provide a quote about student/professor ration at the University level? Or # of school nurses at a University? Because I am really feeling the skepticism on this one. I looked to see if I could find any articles about the trouble that California state universities are in, but I only found one article other than the ones you listed. That article describes nothing different than many universities all over the country face -- increasing demands and decreased funding. The articles you link to only talk about state universities losing funding, which is pretty much the case across half the country, so it's not like there is an usual situation happening that is unique to California.

The blue text -- that's true everywhere, so I'm pretty sure everyone understands the concept. Despite everyone knowing this, they are still (as am I) to be wary of World University.

As much as YOU don't want to admit it, I think you don't know as much about the mental health field as you think you do. What I think you are failing to understand is that people realize you may get licensed, you may get licensed and be successful in California because of the way you market yourself. I don't think I'm putting words in poster's mouths when I say that most of those that read and post here think that the fact you will be successful, despite a sub-par education, is lamentable. It is sad for the patients you will treat because they won't get better. You'd know this if you'd read the article erg923 suggested. I did, because it was required reading in my first semester for my program. Many of these professionals that post here know that you can successfully get licensed with education so poor it boggles the mind. This makes ethical mental health professionals sad.

Your assumptions about competency within healthcare (e.g. if you get licensed "..then you are good enough to practice.") are not accurate. Why are there licensing boards if once someone is licensed they can practice w/o problems?

I agree that a school does not equal success, but competent training is required to practice ethically, and going to a joke program is faaaaaar less likely to produce a competent trainee. While your focus is on YOU YOU YOU, I'd encourage you to take a step back and consider the implications of your push to be a clinician.

I think T4C puts it pretty succinctly here. This is the absolute truth. California state licensing standards are bottom of the barrel when compared to most states, it seems ridiculous that you are happy with your plan to only meet those minimal standards. Also, I went and looked up grads from World University. They all had many other credentials and did not use World University as their only education. You won't be "fleshing out your education" with alternative theories, you are trying to base your education solely on this program. Did anyone on your "graduate" list that you talked to have World University as their ONLY graduate program/training? I certainly didn't find anyone like that.

 

[CaliMac]

So…basically what I wrote and then was told was not accurate? .

Yep, pretty much!

 

[erg923]

• 
  All established, actual universties . Ya know, paid core faculty, active research programs, curriculums that teach evidence based mental health practice. I have friend with MFT from St. Marys and another from USC. Sister in-law-attends Perpperdine.

• California Lutheran University,

• California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, Psychology and Human Development Dept.,

• California State Polytechnic University, Pomona,

• California State University, Bakersfield, Counseling Psychology Program,

• California State University, Chico,

• California State University, Dominguez Hills,

• California State University, Fresno, Dept. of Counseling and Special Education,

• California State University, Fullerton, Department of Counseling, Department of Psychology,

• California State University, East Bay,

• California State University, Long Beach,

• California State University, Los Angeles, Charter College of Education,

• California State University, Northridge, Department of Educational Psych & Counseling,

• California State University, Sacramento, Department of Counselor Education, Department of Psychology,

• California State University, San Bernardino, Department of Psychology,

• California State University, Stanislaus,

• Golden Gate University, Department of Psychology,

• Humboldt State University,

• Loma Linda University,

• San Diego State University,

• San Francisco State University, College of Health and Human Services,

• San Jose State University,

• Santa Clara University, Counseling Psychology,

• St. Mary's College of California,

• University of Southern California

• Pepperdine University

 

[neutralpalatte]

Lol sorry, done here! The links I posted WERE about higher education, you just did not scroll down because K-12 cuts were listed first, followed by higher education. Its called scrolling: http://projects.nytimes.com/california-budget

Pushing what YOU want on other people will do nothing. Nothing at all. Pointless. Yawn. Nothing I didn't already know before. Or incorrect info since you don't live or go to school here (even pre-budget cuts, times were very different).

And ironically, the research/psychologist I actually worked under and got advice from that told me I should go to Argosy or any other APA accredited school for PsyD, and that MFT doesn't matter except for license, teaches and has taught at one of the schools on the list above, for a very long time. lolol

 

[erg923]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out...

Ok. For students or other masters applicants/graduates reading the thread that may be tempted to plunge into a CA Psyd programs because some professor said "is no big deal", I think most reasonable people would agree that objective outcome data such as internship match rates, EPPP pass rates, number of supervised clinical hours, types of clinical activities trained in/taught/emphasized in the curriculum, post internship employment rate and settting, etc. should trump advice one gets from any university professor, no mater how much you may like them. Lets try some data driven decision making, rather than hear-say, shall we?

If you think an Argosy campus is good for you after looking at this, have at it.
2011-2014 Match Statistics: (by program) and (by state)

Still not sure? How bout that California School of Professional Psychology (Alliant)?

Here is the # of students that even registered for APPIC match:
2011 - 12
2012 - 14
2013 - 33
2014 - 40

Here is the C-20 data from their website (http://www.alliant.edu/documents/cspp/domain-g/lapsyddomaing.pdf):
2011 - 136
2012 - 99
2013 - 65
2014 - not yet posted
Just using this single-case example, for an accredited program, only about 20% of students even registered for the match between 2011 & 2013. Out of those, only 13 students matched to an accredited internship (4.3%, now that is a telling statistic).

Lay this data side by side with UC-Santa Barbara, Berkley, USC, UCLA, Loma Linda.
We think we have any even playing field here? We still think, "APA accredidation is all that matters?"

 

[neutralpalatte]

^^^ This thread is about MFT, not PsyD. Even the title of this thread was edited by a MOD to make that even clearer. And anyway, APA internships don't even matter if you are planning to go into private practice forever. The comment I made about APA internships was reflecting the general schooling advice I received from the professor, who just threw that in there. And was taken out of context and focused on way more than necessary in this thread. This thread is about MFT.

I will respond to those that have actually attended MFT programs recently in the state of California and/or who practice in the state of CA as an MFT. I would like to hear from them, but I know many frequent a different board that is not this one, and I can see why lol. Otherwise, its pointless for me to continue to engage with people who don't work as an MFT, in a different state, who also don't know the market here.

 

[erg923]

And ironically, the research/psychologist I actually worked under and got advice from that told me I should go to Argosy or any other APA accredited school for PsyD,

You made this statement, did you not?

Your statement warranted correction (using data to support the conclusion). This board is for all attempting to learn about mental health professions and inaccurate statements such as the above should be expected to be corrected.

 

[chartero]

And anyway, APA internships don't even matter if you are planning to go into private practice forever.

If I'm not mistaken, APA internships are always paid. Non-APA internships are often unpaid. The difference between working for a five-figure APA internship salary – not as much as a good intern is worth! but still a five-figure salary – and working full-time for a year for no pay matters a lot, to most people. Maybe it doesn't matter to you.

(Everything I've written here reflects conditions in California.)

 

[erg923]

See below from MFT friend practicing in so cal.

Hey ****,

Yes, I looked over that thread. What a hoot! No I will not be joining (soccer games), but you can pass this along on the board.

I agree she is very "me focused"at the expense of caring about training quality. Not appealing. That said, some people here use this degree as more of way to to do life coaching or couples coaching more than anything else. I can only assume that what she means by "the market." This is not mental health service delivery, so a lack of evidence based training and the touting of individualism at all costs will actually serve her well, no matter how distasteful we may find it. These are boutique cliches of pseudo mental health practitioners in posh offices. Where the "atmosphere" is just an important as your training. Different animal and generally very different types of people than your average psychologist or therapist. This isn't Stanford psychiarty we are talking about lol.

However, the weird thing to me is, she doesn't need a MFT license to to any of this. So, I can't figure out the focus on MFT or on that one weirdo school, which I have never heard of by the way,,,lol She seems very focused on her end goal, so not sure why she would bother with all that fancy schoolin that won't necessarily serve her in anyway.

So, yea, I don't get it. It's clear she had no real interst real mental health treatment, so this is the only thing I can think of. She will probably do fine going to this university of the world place and the accreditation issue won't matter to that type of population, no. Will she ACTUALLY be any better at this than a random person of the street is the better question? The "faculty" and curriculum are a joke, obviously.
If she can sleep at night knowing she is selling placebo and snake oil,
sure.

 

[LPPSYD]

See below from MFT friend practicing in so cal.

Hey ****,

Yes, I looked over that thread. What a hoot! No I will not be joining (soccer games), but you can pass this along on the board.

I agree she is very "me focused"at the expense of caring about training quality. Not appealing. That said, some people here use this degree as more of way to to do life coaching or couples coaching more than anything else. I can only assume that what she means by "the market." This is not mental health service delivery, so a lack of evidence based training and the touting of individualism at all costs will actually serve her well, no matter how distasteful we may find it. These are boutique cliches of pseudo mental health practitioners in posh offices. Where the "atmosphere" is just an important as your training. Different animal and generally very different types of people than your average psychologist or therapist. This isn't Stanford psychiarty we are talking about lol.

However, the weird thing to me is, she doesn't need a MFT license to to any of this. So, I can't figure out the focus on MFT or on that one weirdo school, which I have never heard of by the way,,,lol She seems very focused on her end goal, so not sure why she would bother with all that fancy schoolin that won't necessarily serve her in anyway.

So, yea, I don't get it. It's clear she had no real interst real mental health treatment, so this is the only thing I can think of. She will probably do fine going to this university of the world place and the accreditation issue won't matter to that type of population, no. Will she ACTUALLY be any better at this than a random person of the street is the better question? The "faculty" and curriculum are a joke, obviously.
If she can sleep at night knowing she is selling placebo and snake oil,
sure.

As your friend said, this is not mental health treatment and it honestly really upsets me that people are allowed to do this. We work with vulnerable people and she has the potential to do a lot of harm. The fact that she will be attempting to "treat" people with a license may or may not make things better. On one hand, she's falsely advertising what she is/does. On the other hand, there are probably more repercussions if it's being done under a license.

 

[erg923]

As your friend said, this is not mental health treatment and it honestly really upsets me that people are allowed to do this. We work with vulnerable people and she has the potential to do a lot of harm. The fact that she will be attempting to "treat" people with a license may or may not make things better. On one hand, she's falsely advertising what she is/does. On the other hand, there are probably more repercussions if it's being done under a license.

Well, to be fair, the life/couples/family coach thing is just a guess. Educated guess though. Obviously not interested in treating mental illness using modern methods or principles of behavior change and she keeps referring to a "market" we cant relate to that will pay higher rates to a master level practitioner from an online garbage program.

 

[erg923]

My friend also mentioned that while she thought the tone was tad harsh, she found all our information extremely accurate and thoughtful. And yes, even as applied to MFT degree and the general market for masters level practitioners in CA. The point being, that yes, training matters when are potentially saving a person life/way of life. If not to the public, hopefully to you and your own conscience. Kinda scary otherwise...

 

[Goobernut]

Neutral, I did scroll down and read the entire article. The block you quoted is about K-12 schools. I knew right away just by reading the part you quoted it was talking about k-12 standards and not university standards. I then went to double check and sure enough in the article, the paragraph above and below your quote are discussing k-12 standards and budgets. The article does discuss university budgets, but the part you quoted does not refer to that at all.

Like I said, you have no real proof to back up your claims that public uni's in California are suffering so badly, that it justifies your decision to go to World University.

 

[erg923]

As your friend said, this is not mental health treatment and it honestly really upsets me that people are allowed to do this. We work with vulnerable people and she has the potential to do a lot of harm. The fact that she will be attempting to "treat" people with a license may or may not make things better. On one hand, she's falsely advertising what she is/does. On the other hand, there are probably more repercussions if it's being done under a license.

Well, unlicensed individuals can do anything they want as long they aren't "practicing psychology." How do you think Dr. Phil does what he does? And, "practicing psychology" without a license is only a punishable crime in some states and not others. So, with no license and no direct harm, what can you do? This is how life coaching exists.

I read an article in NY times magazine last year about some yuppies in manhattan, one a 22 or 23 year old struggling actresses with interest in "harnessing energy" who was "life coaching" Wall Street traders and other upscale professionals. She was charging $250/hour. I mean, how do you counter that kind of lack of practice ethics in people? It's sickening that people would take that amount of money from people for a proverbial sugar pill at best, and at worst, and more likely, a service that is harmful/creates dependency and is served under false pretenses. I think that takes a certain lack of conscience on the part of the providers.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Well, unlicensed individuals can do anything they want as long they aren't "practicing psychology." How do you think Dr. Phil does what he does? And, "practicing psychology" without a license is only a punishable crime in some states and not others. So, with no license and no direct harm, what can you do? This is how life coaching exists.

I read an article in NY times magazine last year about some yuppies in manhattan, one a 22 or 23 year old struggling actresses with interest in "harnessing energy" who was "life coaching" Wall Street traders and other upscale professionals. She was charging $250/hour. I mean, how do you counter that kind of lack of practice ethics in people? It's sickening that people would take that amount of money from people for a proverbial sugar pill at best, and at worst, and more likely, a service that is harmful/creates dependency and is served under false pretenses. I think that takes a certain lack of conscience on the part of the providers.

I would agree. My take is that in these situations and with these clientele, there's likely a bit of a phenomenon going on that T4C has mentioned once or twice before--if you charge a high price for whatever it is you do, within certain crowds/circles, it'll probably cause people to assume you're worth it. I'd imagine this is particularly effective if you have one or two people who will (for whatever reason) vouch for you.