What neuropsychology has to do to survive...

Originally Posted by sasevan
Janusdog: I respect your experience and choices; I was wondering if you'd consider supporting psychologists gaining RxP for those who want to have the freedom to make that choice even if you yourself have no interest in such a pursuit?

Janusdog said:

No, because I think it arises out of flailing about for professional identity with little foresight.

You have the right to do whatever you want. I'm not personally outlawing RxP. I'm just not going to give the APA my money to help you get privileges.
🙂

Yours would be a decent argument if I didn't see RxP as destructive to the profession, but I do.

Click to expand...

This is definitely an example of how psychology is not unified like other professions. Though I support RxP if there is proper, rigorous training, I can understand why the opposing side feels the way they do. But it goes beyond just RxP. There are some academic psychologists who support masters level practitioners doing everything that PhD practitioners do (of course, I've yet to hear any of them support people getting professor positions with only a master's degree). These psychologists are, as far as I know, all professors at terminal master's degree programs. Psychology is too fractioned with too many people supporting their own interests. If more psychologists were unified and advocacy-oriented, I firmly believe we wouldn't be having as many problems now.

I've struggled on and on about pursuing a PhD in psychology (I think there should definitely have been more unity between PhDs and PsyDs, especially before managed care became a big problem), and I'm still struggling with it. Psychology has always been the field that I am most interested in. I've though about medical school but I don't see myself doing that unless I go into addiction medicine or HIV/AIDS medicine. I thought about law school, but I would not find being a fulltime lawyer very fulfilling. I thought about getting a JD/PhD, but I've researched that and there doesn't seem like there is a much a of an advantage or even much of a point to doing that. I'm not interested in I/O because it has always felt too faddish or trendy to me and I'm not interested in it. School or child psychology wouldn't work because I want to work with adults. And as far as neuropsych is concerned, I just don't want to constantly have to look over my shoulder wondering whether master's degree practitioners are going reduce the value of neuropsychological assessment (i.e., wanting to administer tests without the requisite cognitive or neuro education).

I'm still going to pursue clinical/health psych. Does anyone know what health psychology is looking like these days. Chances are, like others on here, I am going to pursue research/academia.

I know now that I would not be satisfied being a master's level practitioner. Even if I were to go get an MSW, I would not be able to compete for academic and many research positions right out of the an MSW program. I've heard arguments on here againest the scientist-practitioner model but I've always wanted to do both, e.g. a professor who practices in the community. If I were to personally pursue RxP as opposed to just supporting psychologists who want RxP, I would want to do that fulltime unless I were doing psychopharmacological research as well.

Just wanted to get some more thoughts out there and thoughts from others.

PsychMode said:

This is definitely an example of how psychology is not unified like other professions. Though I support RxP if there is proper, rigorous training, I can understand why the opposing side feels the way they do. But it goes beyond just RxP. (snip) Psychology is too fractioned with too many people supporting their own interests.

Click to expand...

I disagree with that comment in that I don't feel like I am contributing to the fractious nature of psychology by not blindly agreeing on a fundamental decision that will affect the nature of the field for years to come.

Our problem with unity is, IMHO, more related to being blind about the things that are more important, like MA level clinicians and the fact we don't protect our existing interests. Why would anyone think we'd be any different about RxP? I just went to a training director meeting yesterday and they were talking about externship placement. They stated that, at least in this area, less and less people were doing assessment, so ultimately psychology students are getting less training in assessment.
😡 That's one of the very few areas that psychologists do that other professions don't. What do you mean we're not doing it! Take away assessment and we really don't have anything unique!

I'm a health psychologist/pediatric psychologist, BTW. It has saved my butt in many ways, but ultimately our clinical salaries are decreasing along with everyone else's. Academic health psychologists are something else...several of my postdoc supervisors are doing well.

Janusdog said:

I disagree with that comment in that I don't feel like I am contributing to the fractious nature of psychology by not blindly agreeing on a fundamental decision that will affect the nature of the field for years to come.

Our problem with unity is, IMHO, more related to being blind about the things that are more important, like MA level clinicians and the fact we don't protect our existing interests. Why would anyone think we'd be any different about RxP? I just went to a training director meeting yesterday and they were talking about externship placement. They stated that, at least in this area, less and less people were doing assessment, so ultimately psychology students are getting less training in assessment.
😡 That's one of the very few areas that psychologists do that other professions don't. What do you mean we're not doing it! Take away assessment and we really don't have anything unique!

I'm a health psychologist/pediatric psychologist, BTW. It has saved my butt in many ways, but ultimately our clinical salaries are decreasing along with everyone else's. Academic health psychologists are something else...several of my postdoc supervisors are doing well.

Click to expand...

On another thread someone mentioned that in social work programs there were MSWs teaching the MMPI and such major tests. Master's psychology programs teach courses in assessment, also. The subdoctoral programs that I've seen offer one general course, if any, in assessment. Doctoral students get at least one, often several, plus predoctoral internships and postdoctoral training. I do agree that assessment is important for psychologists. But that may not last, and it hasn't in some areas. Many states offer independent licensure to MA clinicians who underbid psychologists but then, ironically, complain about lower pay. And many confuse being trained to sit there and administer a test with expertise in assessment. I have to agree with PublicHealth that assessment cannot be what psychologists hinge their profession on. Also, I wonder if part of the reason psychologists are doing less assessment is because managed care doesn't like to pay for psychological tests. I am not saying that psychology is a lost cause, but with the trend in reduced pay due to competition with less trained practitioners, psychologists have to take a hard look at their options. What would you suggest as an option other than assessment being what is unique about psychology?

I think the field may be in for some major changes even without RxP. Changes for the worst. Some academic psychologists (the ones who are against doctoral level psychologists) are in for a rude awakening when they see what happens to the field of psychology and to psychological approaches without the presence of doctoral level practitioners. Look at the students who get into doctoral programs. Even students who don't get above 1350 on the gre or don't have a 3.9/4.0 gpa are still highly motivated, determined, and make it in. A lot of potentially predoctoral students won't be as attracted to psychology as a major or for graduate training with the current trend in reduced incentives. I sometimes wonder if some academics want a divide between academia (phd) and practice (m.a.). [Btw, this is coming from someone who is interested in academia/research... i think it's absurd not to support doctoral level practitioners. ] We shouldn't put all of our eggs in the RxP basket, but I have to disagree with the position that it should be ruled out. So I guess that means we agree to disagree. 🙂

Thanks for the info on academic health psychologists. It's been looking more and more like research/teaching for me. I'm also thinking about getting an MPH with it to maximize my options. We'll see.

Just some questions for you. In what setting do you work? What does your typical day consist of in practice? (Health psychologists are varied enough that they are often doing very different things through the course of their activities.)

I agree with pretty much everything you say there except that (I don't even know if you're implying this, though) RxP could be our savior. I think the way we deal with challenge is fundamentally flawed.

I have worked in hospitals, community health centers, and universities doing interdisciplinary developmental assessment. I tend to work very closely with MDs in a complementary fashion, as well as with OTs, PTs and Speech therapists. Now I'm more of a supervisor of therapy students.

I am consistently amazed with the poor quality of many of the reports I see, and I'm not talking about my students. I'm talking about people practicing. I know MAs are going to be working hard to replace us in this regard, but I think like I've said before, in many cases it is neuropsychologists themselves who want to create a class of techs that actually administer the tests, while they supervise...and I use that term loosely, because when I administer a battery or observe directly, I know exactly what is going on. When I have data and no direct obs, I don't as much. I'm not as willing to make a dx if I'm not the one who's done the work. If I have to observe, then I haven't bought myself anything by having a tech. My training emphasizes getting in there and getting my hands dirty, not waving a magic wand (tech) and then running it through a computer program.

It's been a really painful realization for me that if I could get in a time machine and talk to myself during undergrad, I would tell myself (aside from the obvious investment in the stock market) to find something else to do, or at least pick an academic career.

It occurs to me that I sound a bit bitter and burned out. I don't want people to write me off in that regard, because as far as I see it people need to make an informed decision. I do love the field but I'm incredibly frustrated, and I don't like the fact that I'm not getting my investment returned.

Well, as someone who is in the position you wish you were in, any suggestions? In what way are you not getting your investement returned? Financially? In terms of respect? Just curious as I like to get as many opinions as possible, especially ones that don;t simply say everything is positive. Also, what would you do if not this?

Sanman said:

Well, as someone who is in the position you wish you were in, any suggestions? In what way are you not getting your investement returned? Financially? In terms of respect? Just curious as I like to get as many opinions as possible, especially ones that don;t simply say everything is positive. Also, what would you do if not this?

Click to expand...

I don't feel like I got my money and time's worth in terms of salary (which seems to decrease by the day) and respect from other professionals. Ironically I am one of the more respected psychologists I know when it comes to working with MDs...I know a lot of people who have difficulty working with that crew, and I can't say I suck up very much. So that's good, at least. On the other hand, I used to teach in a residency, and the residents were incredibly disrespectful to all things behavioral medicine. After talking to other behavioral scientists (which is what they called us) they all agreed that it is a huge problem convincing them that they should care -- which is ridiculous because about 30% of primary care visits have a psych component. I quit because it was like banging my head against a wall. Now that they have no psychologist on staff I get more phone calls. Go figure. 🙄

You know, they say that everyone's a psychologist. Everyone thinks they can do what we do. It isn't entirely accurate to say I wish I was in your position, I just think perhaps there might have been more options; however, I hear that academia is very difficult right now as well. I probably would have gotten my MHA or MBA and tried to focus on health administration. I'm not precluded from doing that now, but I suppose it makes me want to whine that I need more school -- I shouldn't need more school.

The other problem is that I went to a meeting of training directors the other day. There is now a new clinical program opening, I think it's a PsyD program, but I'm not entirely sure. There are already about 10+ programs in the Chicago area, and the average number of students admitted is in the double digits -- some as high as 60. That's just the doctoral programs. That doesn't cover MAs. MA programs are starting to admit just as many.

What blows my mind is that the job market is really difficult here, so how is it responsible to admit all of these people? I work in an underserved area and I can't get on some managed care panels because they're full. Ultimately we see people regardless of their ability to pay and I'm salaried, but it would be a real problem if I were in private practice. In academia the people that seem to be successful are the individuals who never leave...e.g. they go to school at Northwestern, they do their research at Northwestern, they work at Northwestern, their colleages work for Northwestern. To me that's a bit sad because I like to work with many different people of many different backgrounds.

I don't know if I have a good answer for you in terms of what exactly I would do differently. My best advice is do what you love, because that love is what sustains you. Maybe I don't love it enough in practice, but I sure loved school.

I think its great having Janusdog give us a perspective on how the academic psychologist functions and their pay but I wish we had other clinical psychologists (e.g. forensics or neuropsychologists) to give us a different clinical perspective about the pay, work conditions, employment outlook, etc.

Are there any clinical psyches out there to join the forum for friendly discussion?

You know… as I've stated in many other posts your degree is what you make it. You just need to find a niche in psychology. I know a health psychologist in private practice who makes around 200k.

I think the bottom line is you just need to know how to "smooze" with other professionals. If you have a business head you'll make money… I'm not really that worried about the money… if I can live off of 20k a year as a doc student I should be ok as a PhD. What really concerns me though is that all MDs aren't butts. It's the psychiatrists who are. I worked in a hospital as a master's level clinician. The floor MDs would actually request the psychologists for psych consults rather than the psychiatrists… so like I said your degree is what you make it… and smoozing does wonders. Perhaps it was just the setting that I was in, but I can never get used to seeing a psychiatrist getting pissed off and throwing a chart at a nurse and cardiologist.

Those who have contributed to this thread have concentrated upon the ways in which the field of psychology is in a state of flux. What has received less attention is the way in which the entire mental health service system is in a state of flux. While the future of clinical psychology is by no means certain, neither are the fields of psychiatry or social work.

Psychiatry currently pays a great deal more than the other professions within the psychological service system, but part of the reason for this level of compensation is scarcity. As a result of both the scarcity of psychiatric services and the recent development of relatively safe antidepressants, most prescriptions for psychiatric medications are now being written by general practitioners at a fraction of the cost and inconvenience (I don?t have the cite for this in front of me, but I could look it up if someone is interested). In addition, it is likely that many if not all states will eventually give RxP to psychologists (insurance companies can afford more politicians than the AMA). Once this occurs, what professional identity can psychiatrists claim as their own? Psychologists will be able to provide comprehensive psychological services and general practitioners will continue to provide pharmacotherapy.

While we are talking about RxP, it is not at all certain that prescription privileges are a good thing for the field of psychology. Psychology has maintained a focus upon talk therapy and non-biologically based interventions. Can this focus be maintained once psychologists can provide medication, or will increased malpractice premiums make providing talk therapy cost-prohibitive? Incidentally, this increase in malpractice insurance may affect both those psychologists who provide medication and those who do not. Risk is not controlled fairly in insurance companies, it is controlled profitably.

Social workers also may find their place in the psychological service system somewhat tenuous. While they currently hold a cost advantage relative to psychologists, this cost advantage could erode if a glut of psychologists materialize. Should this cost advantage erode, MSWs will have a very difficult time competing against those with doctorates. Fairly or not, a doctorate does provide more prestige than a masters degree.

If you want safety, become an actuary. A good actuary will make far more than either a psychologist or a psychiatrist and is ensured employment for life. Providing mental health services is not safe. Nothing is certain about the way the field will look in 20 yrs and none of us can be assured a position doing the job we intended when we went to school. Personally I think the future for all of us would look a little brighter if we stopped fighting amongst ourselves for the scraps handed to us by insurance companies and Medicare and instead concentrated upon engaging the 6 out of 7 people who suffer from mental illness and never receive adequate treatment. There is plenty of work for us all if we can go out and get it.

Paendraqg, I think that you make a number of good points. However, ironically, I think you nailed the problem. You are probably right about the fact that people with PsyD's are going into neuropsychology because of the money. In fact, I have read articles about the PsyD schools that suggest that they are puching graduates into neuro, health, and peds psych because there are jobs and money in that direction and otherwise they would never get out of debt. However, how are you supposed to raise the level of education for a group of people that don't have the foresight to factor in the fact that you just can't payoff $100+K debt with the counseling job they meant to get after they graduate. Now, I am certainly not knocking all the PsyD applicants. There are good reasons for attending these programs, but I can't tell you how many college students I know who have no idea how they are going to pay for their education. I guess they believe they are just going to walk into a 100K a year therapy job.

1.) I really don't think persons in Psy.D. programs are naive to believe that they may land a 75K psychotherapy jobs right out-of-school. Rather, they're overly optimistic. They see the few people from previous classes who do manage to land the big jobs and, because they believe in themselves, think they can do the same thing. Of course most of them are disappointed in the end...
2.) From the figures I have seen, Psy.D. programs are pretty competitive. They are certainly no less competitive than gaining admission to medical school.
3.) I am curently in a APA accredited Ph.D. clincial program now and don't think the training is all that great. I did an off-year in neuropsych. and we learned almost no neuroanatomy. The professor just used the students as grunts to run a psychoeducational test mill so he could make lots of money by signing off on reports.
4.) I believe that only Ph.D.s and M.D.s can do testing. The APA Practice Directorate just recently got that passed. On the APA web site there is an article about his (under "psychport" I believe).
5.) If psychologist salaries are in free fall what is happening to MSW salaries?
6.) We can all sit here and complain about what is happening but how many of us give money to our state psych associations and the APA to defend the profession?

In my program, we are required to do 3 years with our major professor and do one year in a different clinical area (i.e., adult, pediatric, neuropsych). In addition, we also have to choose a minor and take additional courses in it (i.e., psychpharmacology, business administration, stats, etc.)

I didn't know that MSWs are fighting for more testing rights. Are there any articles on-line regarding this?

Paendrag said:

That's just not true. Psy.D. programs accept anywhere from 35-50 % of their applicants on average (http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_171.asp)



That's a shame. By off-year, do you mean an externship? Sounds like you picked the wrong one.



Obviously, PsyDs can do testing as well. This varies per state. Masters degree folks can do some testing (e.g., school psychologists) Also, MSWs can do some testing and are fighting for more (Indiana).



I don't think salaries are in free fall for neuropsychology. . . . yet.



APA is a joke. Look at that idiot they have as president (I'm not a member). How does an Ed.D. working at a diploma mill (Nova) get elected president of APA? Have the diploma mills pumped out that many people yet? His position on the science of psychology is asinine. A quote from the idiot, “This entire approach to develop manuals and require practicing psychologists to use them is fundamentally insane.” I think APS is the better organization (president is Robert Levenson, who is just a tad better qualified to represent psychology). If you are interested, check out www.psychologicalscience.org. There needs to be some sort of secession. APA can have all the "eclectic" psychotherapists, social workers, and pseudo-neuropsychologists.

Click to expand...

Paendrag said:

I am currently a post-doc (annual salary a whopping 30K)... As things currently stand, my future appears bright. We shall see if things pan out the way I plan.

Click to expand...

Well, good luck to you, but you know what they say. If you want to hear God laugh, tell him your plans.

Neuropsychologists should know neuroanatomy like the back of their hand. They should know Brodmann's map and functional consequences of brain lesions. They should know subcortical and cortical interconnections, what a neural network is, how they interact, and how medical conditions differentially impact them. Without specialized neuroscience training, neuropsychology becomes nothing more than people giving tests and talking about generalized domains of function (e.g, short term memory, long term memory, visuo-spatial skills, personality, executive functions -what a joke-, attention, etc). This is not, in my opinion, neuropsychology

Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you, but the majority of the world has not much use for information at this level. This is academic/research work, as you know. The question is more related to what your goals are. I suppose in the long run the esoteric science trickles down to the common person on the street with mental illness or a head injury, but that takes a good amount of time. If your love is in academic neuroanatomy and neurobehavior, fine, but the need for good neurobatteries outstrips the number of people involved in your program.

and the influx of non-neuropsychologists into the neuropsychology world has led to a proliferation of the latter. This is why folks like social workers think they can give neuropsychological tests.

Click to expand...

Don't follow your logic. One, what is a neuropsychologist? You are arguing that there should be standards. But it seems that you are attempting to make this so restrictive that only a few would qualify, even though the demand is high. And just because people who didn't attend your Div 40 program practice, how does it follow that social workers are the logical outcome of having these other people practice?

I am very biased in favor of the Ph.D. scientist-practitioner training model for a number of reasons.

Click to expand...

Clearly.

1. Training to think. The anayltical (literally not freudian) nature of the scientist-practioner approach is valuable in case conceptualization.

Click to expand...

I think I think quite well. I've met plenty of PhDs from "prestigious" programs who were as insightful as a concrete post. More arrogant, though.

2. Awareness of current research, awareness of research methodologies and the ablity to think as a researcher are traits particulary well suited to the investigative nature of neuropsychological assessment. While these things may be of marginal significance in therapy practice, they are crucial to neuropsychology.

Click to expand...

This is a problem with American education in general. People need to realize that empirically-validated medicine/health is the way to go. This is not a problem limited to neuropsych.

3. Selectivity. Because of the smaller class sizes, competiveness, and nature of Ph.D. research-heavy programs, the students are simply better.

Click to expand...

What is "better?" High GREs? More invested? I'll buy more invested. Perhaps more motivated. Published more too. If these are your criteria fine. But I'll tell you what I need in my colleagues (not necessarily in order):

1. Flexibility
2. Business sense
3. Creativity -- meaning knowing your stuff so well you can make do with very little
4. Technologically literate
5. Ability to handle themselves in a crisis
6. Interdisciplinary collaboration and comfort
7. Cultural competence
8. Formulation ability
9. Familiar with current literature
10. Demonstrate a depth and breadth of knowledge

My opinion is that Psy.D. and professional school graduates are flooding clinical psychology both with numbers and substandard knowledge. This is glaring in neuropsychology, where strong, well-defined competencies should be in place, but are not.

Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like anyone's fault except people's in the specialty. If you want to put together some empirically validated criteria (NOT criteria based in elitism and incest alone) -- go for it.

I don't think professional schools should be APA approved. ...As it stands, I don't understand why so many people go to psy.d. programs because the cost does not gel with earning potential. The knee-jerk response is that they must not have been able to get into a Ph.D. program. While that may explain some people's decision, I think that's too simple. I think people are averse to research and the time commitment necessary to complete a Ph.D. program.

Click to expand...

Americans are adverse to science and math in general. Again, not a problem limited to neuropsych. People go to PsyD programs because they are not interested in becoming researchers.

I also think the cost of psy.d. programs pushes more of them to consider neuropsychology as a life saver to get them out of a debt hole. I don't think this is good for the field.

Click to expand...

I agree with you there. I also agree that PsyD programs are admitting too many unqualified people because many of the qualified people have woken up and realized that being a therapist is not cost-effective if you have to go into debt to do it. So to keep up the program's income, they admit lesser qualified individuals.

Please understand that your formulation comes across as elitist and not helpful. I know brilliant PsyDs and PhDs, I know idiots with both I would not refer to. While I advocate empirically based practice, manuals are stupid if you blindly apply them to every case, and take no time to assess individual needs. Manuals are frequently the refuge of the undereducated. I suggest that unless you are planning to hole yourself up in the ivory tower you think hard about the blanket statements you have made.

I do not think all people are equal and have the same potential, so don't think that that is the place from which I speak.

Janusdog said:

Well, good luck to you, but you know what they say. If you want to hear God laugh, tell him your plans.




Hate to break it to you, but the majority of the world has not much use for information at this level. This is academic/research work, as you know. The question is more related to what your goals are. I suppose in the long run the esoteric science trickles down to the common person on the street with mental illness or a head injury, but that takes a good amount of time. If your love is in academic neuroanatomy and neurobehavior, fine, but the need for good neurobatteries outstrips the number of people involved in your program.



Don't follow your logic. One, what is a neuropsychologist? You are arguing that there should be standards. But it seems that you are attempting to make this so restrictive that only a few would qualify, even though the demand is high. And just because people who didn't attend your Div 40 program practice, how does it follow that social workers are the logical outcome of having these other people practice?



Clearly.



I think I think quite well. I've met plenty of PhDs from "prestigious" programs who were as insightful as a concrete post. More arrogant, though.



This is a problem with American education in general. People need to realize that empirically-validated medicine/health is the way to go. This is not a problem limited to neuropsych.




What is "better?" High GREs? More invested? I'll buy more invested. Perhaps more motivated. Published more too. If these are your criteria fine. But I'll tell you what I need in my colleagues (not necessarily in order):

1. Flexibility
2. Business sense
3. Creativity -- meaning knowing your stuff so well you can make do with very little
4. Technologically literate
5. Ability to handle themselves in a crisis
6. Interdisciplinary collaboration and comfort
7. Cultural competence
8. Formulation ability
9. Familiar with current literature
10. Demonstrate a depth and breadth of knowledge



That doesn't sound like anyone's fault except people's in the specialty. If you want to put together some empirically validated criteria (NOT criteria based in elitism and incest alone) -- go for it.



Americans are adverse to science and math in general. Again, not a problem limited to neuropsych. People go to PsyD programs because they are not interested in becoming researchers.



I agree with you there. I also agree that PsyD programs are admitting too many unqualified people because many of the qualified people have woken up and realized that being a therapist is not cost-effective if you have to go into debt to do it. So to keep up the program's income, they admit lesser qualified individuals.

Please understand that your formulation comes across as elitist and not helpful. I know brilliant PsyDs and PhDs, I know idiots with both I would not refer to. While I advocate empirically based practice, manuals are stupid if you blindly apply them to every case, and take no time to assess individual needs. Manuals are frequently the refuge of the undereducated. I suggest that unless you are planning to hole yourself up in the ivory tower you think hard about the blanket statements you have made.

I do not think all people are equal and have the same potential, so don't think that that is the place from which I speak.

Click to expand...

Welcome back, Janusdog! We missed you!

I'm especially glad that you mentioned cultural competence as one of the key criteria. So many "well-educated" people seem genuinely to think of themselves, their values and their language as neutral. I don't have any cultural assumptions, it's everybody else whose got quirks!This lack of self-reflection (and the hubris that results) is a serious problem, I think, and helps explain why minorities are much less inclined to use psychological services. Call me old fashioned, call me crazy, but I really think a course in continental philosophy (Deleuze, Irigaray, etc.) should be on every clinical psych curriculum. Just so people are at least forced to think about these issues.

winnie said:

Welcome back, Janusdog! We missed you!

I'm especially glad that you mentioned cultural competence as one of the key criteria. So many "well-educated" people seem genuinely to think of themselves, their values and their language as neutral. I don't have any cultural assumptions, it's everybody else whose got quirks!This lack of self-reflection (and the hubris that results) is a serious problem, I think, and helps explain why minorities are much less inclined to use psychological services. Call me old fashioned, call me crazy, but I really think a course in continental philosophy (Deleuze, Irigaray, etc.) should be on every clinical psych curriculum. Just so people are at least forced to think about these issues.

Click to expand...

Is there any clinical psych curriculum left in the country that isn't flooded with cultural/diversity requirements? Has the APA Monitor ever printed an issue with less than 3 diversity articles? Sheesh....it's out there in droves.

Here's the new edition of the monitor....see the front page article.

Anasazi23 said:

Is there any clinical psych curriculum left in the country that isn't flooded with cultural/diversity requirements? Has the APA Monitor ever printed an issue with less than 3 diversity articles? Sheesh....it's out there in droves.

Here's the new edition of the monitor....see the front page article.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the APA Monitor isn't quite Deleuze. (And the Monitor's level of analysis on these issues is part of the problem, in my opinion).

Almost all of the doctoral courses I've looked at have just the minimum one course in diversity issues required for APA accreditation. Not quite what I'd call a flood, either.