positivepsych: I didn't mean it to be as much as of a personal affront. I meant, anyone who goes to an online school should know and accept the fact that they might have trouble matching. They should know that before they make the choice, and once they make the choice, there is no sense in complaining about it. If matching worries the person so much, they shouldn't have chose an online school in the first place.
I do appreciate your clarification but that does not erase the fact that part of the reason online programs suffer such prejudice is that a fair number of people -- inside and outside the profession -- perpetuate it by unilaterally declaring that all such programs are sub-standard and/or inappropriate.
And for the record, when I enrolled in a distance program, I did anticipate there would be some extra hurdles. I did hope that in a profession where the entry level degree is ostensibly a doctorate that there would be a bit more intellectual curiousity and honest discussion about a new learning modality instead of the reflexive dismissal I have encountered from many.
positivepsych: Second, "regional accreditation" means nothing nowadays. Accreditation is a joke, and some places have no right to be accredited (e.g. online programs). If your complaint is about psychology's public image, I can tell you that I've been told by members of the public that a clinical psychology degree is a joke nowadays because you can get the degree online. How's that for public image? Online degree programs degrades the value of a Ph.D. degree. I don't know a single pharmacist, dentist, or any other clinical doctorate get their degree online, and everybody still respects those professionals.
I would agree that accreditation is a joke in many contexts (including APA's own standards). But, like it or not, regional accreditation (RA) is what makes a degree "real." Yes, accreditation is voluntary and many unreputable programs have long flowing explanations why they chose not to secure regional accrediation. Be that as it may, for better for worse, it still is the standard for legitmacy.
And before you dismiss the validity of RA so quickly, keep in mind that, in 80% of US jurisdictions, a RA doctorate is all that is required for licensure as a psychologist. You may not have much faith in the value of RA, but it is quite likely that you are about to practice in a state where your colleagues only needed an RA degree.
It also gets tiring when people simultatneously distance psychology from other healthcare professions when discussing training like internships, but still claim that educating a psychologist is just the same as educating a physician, dentist, nurse, etc. When being totally honest, members of the latter group acknowledge their training is mostly technical/vocational, in other words, has a large hands on component. You cannot teach gross anatomy online, for example. But you also cannot teach auto repair online either. This isn't about complexity of subject matter but the
nature of the material.
There is a reason why the original "psychologist degree" was the doctor of
PHILOSOPHY.
Still, every reputable online program has face-to-face learning activities. You want to debate that facet of online programs is not adequate, that's a reasonable point of contention. But, please stop pretending that it isn't part of the training. Even the APA offers continuing education programs online, nowadays.
Oh, and a large segment of the general public believe that psychologists can read minds, that all mental health practitioners are the same, and care about where Anna Nicole Smith is to be buried, so I do not put a lot of value on what the general public knows about training in professional psychology. Your comment, however, does illustrate how poor a job APA has done at making "psychology a household word."
positivepsych: Also, I'm not advocating that competent students lower their standards. Some students, having graduated at the top of their class consistently, think they can waltz into the most competitive internships simply based on their previous history. Sometimes, sometimes not. My point is that sometimes hubris is at fault for unsuccessful matching if you're an otherwise good candidate. People put too much emphasis on where they do their internship... it's only a year.
Actually you did when discussing how best to be successful in Matching.
"It is rare you will find a competent student who can't match if they lower their standards a bit, spread out, and are socially competent."
(emphasis added)
This, to me, is one of the greatest flaws in the Match -- that applicants are required to "play" the system. It is practically impossible to, for the sake of argument, study at Harvard and then intern at Mass General. In fact, according to APPIC, your chances of staying in the same state are pretty low. I was told by several TDs that they seek geographic diversity.
So, here you are -- either marginally or seriously in debt but nonetheless not rolling in dough -- required to undertake a nationwide tour to interview, then effect a major relocation, probably have to do it again a year later for post-doc, all the time recouping your expenses on an intern's average salary of $21,500.
And while it may be "just a year" (actually two when you factor in a probable post-doc fellowship), who says one must pack up and move in order to complete it? By default, this would seem to place an unwarranted burden on anyone who wasn't single, childless, and free from any serious obligations. Are you trying to insinuate that someone who is married, a parent, perhaps has a sick family member, is not qualified to be a psychologist because moving about the country would be a hardship?
Also, I think there are a fair number of people who would disagree with the "its just a year" assessment. Especially when you consider the number of people who insist that it must be an APA accredited internship, people do seem to place a particular value on where you intern. Finally, why shouldn't we have some say in where we spend that year?
positivepsych: Of the say, hundreds of psychologists, that graduate from professional schools, how many are willing to relocate to North and South Dakota? Not very many. Since a lot of prof. schools are in major cities, they want to stay there, and continue to contribute to the oversupply.
Again, a fair point. It is sad that large tracts of the country remain underserved.
However, in my grad school cohort, a prevailing reason for enrolling in a distance program was to have access to advanced training that simply is not available in most rural/semi-rural parts of the country in anticipation of
returning to the area.
Also worth considering, the US Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics lists psychologist as an occupation growing faster than average:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos056.htm
positivepsych: The profession of psychology is less plagued by a public image problem than a self-policing problem. Psychologists used to make a good living and have a lot of choices in the 80s and early 90s, before managed care, and runaway oversupply came into the picture.
This is also true. But the profession's lack of unity and cohesiveness is just as much to blame for allowing managed care and unchecked growth to occur. A senior psychologist recently told me that your overall assessment is correct (except he put the time frame as the 70s - 80s). He also framed it as academia was largely jealous of the financial success of practioners during that time so made access to the training programs more difficult.
How's that for a welcoming (and intelligent) profession?
