Elitism Or Protecting Our Profession?

nononora · Jul 20, 2009

Jon Snow said:
There is a lot of division in the field, a lot of different opinions on what's good enough, what's "elite," "arrogant," or "ivory tower," and what's practical.

OT:

This is one of the problems I have with a field such as ours - I understand the desire to want to help people but many seem to have a problem with these terms. I don't see anything wrong in expecting people in helping professions to be elite. Although everyone is entitled to an education, not everyone should be entitled to a professional degree that allows you to practice. Just as online MD/JD programs are frowned upon, so should online PhDs/PsyDs in Clinical Psych. The fact of the matter is that not everyone has the ability or the correct circumstances to consider this career path, and making it available to everyone while disregarding academic ability is troubling.

I'd strongly prefer elite people treating me although some seem to think differently.

Minnesotan4PsyD · Jul 20, 2009

I think some people are confusing the word "elite" with "elitist". Why wouldn't we want elite?

Ollie123 · Jul 20, 2009

nononora said:
OT:

This is one of the problems I have with a field such as ours - I understand the desire to want to help people but many seem to have a problem with these terms. I don't see anything wrong in expecting people in helping professions to be elite. Although everyone is entitled to an education, not everyone should be entitled to a professional degree that allows you to practice. Just as online MD/JD programs are frowned upon, so should online PhDs/PsyDs in Clinical Psych. The fact of the matter is that not everyone has the ability or the correct circumstances to consider this career path, and making it available to everyone while disregarding academic ability is troubling.

I'd strongly prefer elite people treating me although some seem to think differently.

👍👍

This. I can't stand that attitude. If someone can't hack it, or life circumstances don't allow for "elite" training, there are plenty of ways to "help" that do not require a doctorate. I'm sick to death of everything in this country being dumbed down in the name of "fairness" and it happens across the board in education. Its no surprise our educational system is in shambles.

Therapist4Chnge · Jul 20, 2009

Ollie123 said:
👍👍

This. I can't stand that attitude. If someone can't hack it, or life circumstances don't allow for "elite" training, there are plenty of ways to "help" that do not require a doctorate. I'm sick to death of everything in this country being dumbed down in the name of "fairness" and it happens across the board in education. Its no surprise our educational system is in shambles.

Agreed.

It isn't meant for everyone to be able to do it. I am sure some good candidates are unable to attend because of circumstances, but the standards should not be lowered to accommodate them, because there are other people who get in who shouldn't.

Much of what we do requires sacrifice. It isn't like we give up our first born, but it shouldn't be easy. There is FAR too much to learn already going full-time (before internship, post-doc, etc), so any diminishing of standards will only detract from learning.

socialcog · Jul 20, 2009

Ollie123 said:
👍👍

This. I can't stand that attitude. If someone can't hack it, or life circumstances don't allow for "elite" training, there are plenty of ways to "help" that do not require a doctorate. I'm sick to death of everything in this country being dumbed down in the name of "fairness" and it happens across the board in education. Its no surprise our educational system is in shambles.

Was the poster you're responding to in support dumbing down our educational system? I didn't get that but whatever.

I agree with you and T4C in that I think a healthy dose of uncompromising and idealistic elitism may be what our educational system needs to correct itself, freeing itself from the capitalism in this culture. I know that neither of you used the term 'elitism' but we are talking about the same overarching theme.

However, elaborating on this topic here will likely derail the topic of this thread (EPPP related stuff), so I will stop now.

Therapist4Chnge · Jul 20, 2009

*MOD NOTE: I copied this from the EPPP thread. -t4c*

socialcog · Jul 21, 2009

So I am reading this book, The Twilight of American Culture--by Morris Berman, and among many of the themes contained that contribute to the deterioration of our country is the collapse of American intelligence. He compiles a truckload of alarming stats from a variety of sources that supports his position. (T4C, you've warned me once about copyright related issues on this forum once before so I will be mindful of that in this post.)

Some of the data he cites, as alarming as it sounds, is simply too ridiculous to be fabricated. For example, 42% of Americans cannot locate Japan on a map. He states that Garrison Keillor (from NPR) survey revealed that even 15% of Americans cannot locate the US on a map. wtf?! Another stat includes that 40% of American adults didn't know that we were at war with Germany during WWII--that's about 70 million adults...think about it!! This goes on and on for pages.

The chapter then sheds light specifically on the deterioration of our public schools, interviews college graduates (undergrads and grad students) on the simplist of facts (ie: the boiling point of water, who designed the American flag, what is three squared?) and the answers were not only not close, but were humiliating.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this trend and how it may impact our training? Fulsome capitalism is, in short, the major contributing factor and which, as this book predicts, will contribute to the fall of this country, akin to the Roman Empire in the 5th, 6th century. Are professional schools emblematic of the toxic capitalism within our system? Has the 'elite' schools safe from this toxicity? I say 'no'.

thoughts?

Quynh2007 · Jul 21, 2009

socialcog said:
So I am reading this book, The Twilight of American Culture--by Morris Berman, and among many of the themes contained that contribute to the deterioration of our country is the collapse of American intelligence. He compiles a truckload of alarming stats from a variety of sources that supports his position. (T4C, you've warned me once about copyright related issues on this forum once before so I will be mindful of that in this post.)

Some of the data he cites, as alarming as it sounds, is simply too ridiculous to be fabricated. For example, 42% of Americans cannot locate Japan on a map. He states that Garrison Keillor (from NPR) survey revealed that even 15% of Americans cannot locate the US on a map. wtf?! Another stat includes that 40% of American adults didn't know that we were at war with Germany during WWII--that's about 70 million adults...think about it!! This goes on and on for pages.

The chapter then sheds light specifically on the deterioration of our public schools, interviews college graduates (undergrads and grad students) on the simplist of facts (ie: the boiling point of water, who designed the American flag, what is three squared?) and the answers were not only not close, but were humiliating.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this trend and how it may impact our training? Fulsome capitalism is, in short, the major contributing factor and which, as this book predicts, will contribute to the fall of this country, akin to the Roman Empire in the 5th, 6th century. Are professional schools emblematic of the toxic capitalism within our system? Has the 'elite' schools safe from this toxicity? I say 'no'.

thoughts?

we did a similar experiment in my high school civic/government class. I remember that not many people knew who our vice-president or secretary of state was, and many thought the capital of NY was Manhattan. Ridiculous.

p.s. we even had someone thought there was 51 states b/c during a beauty pageant, there was 51 contestants - including D.C. go figure...

Therapist4Chnge · Jul 21, 2009

socialcog: I don't mind you citing stats.....you just can't re-post journal articles, protected information, etc. (I don't recall the issue, but water under the bridge).

cara susanna · Jul 21, 2009

I'm so tired of people comparing the USA to the Roman Empire. Totally different situation.

Wildcat06 · Jul 21, 2009

socialcog said:
So I am reading this book, The Twilight of American Culture--by Morris Berman, and among many of the themes contained that contribute to the deterioration of our country is the collapse of American intelligence. He compiles a truckload of alarming stats from a variety of sources that supports his position. (T4C, you've warned me once about copyright related issues on this forum once before so I will be mindful of that in this post.)

Some of the data he cites, as alarming as it sounds, is simply too ridiculous to be fabricated. For example, 42% of Americans cannot locate Japan on a map. He states that Garrison Keillor (from NPR) survey revealed that even 15% of Americans cannot locate the US on a map. wtf?! Another stat includes that 40% of American adults didn't know that we were at war with Germany during WWII--that's about 70 million adults...think about it!! This goes on and on for pages.

The chapter then sheds light specifically on the deterioration of our public schools, interviews college graduates (undergrads and grad students) on the simplist of facts (ie: the boiling point of water, who designed the American flag, what is three squared?) and the answers were not only not close, but were humiliating.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this trend and how it may impact our training? Fulsome capitalism is, in short, the major contributing factor and which, as this book predicts, will contribute to the fall of this country, akin to the Roman Empire in the 5th, 6th century. Are professional schools emblematic of the toxic capitalism within our system? Has the 'elite' schools safe from this toxicity? I say 'no'.

thoughts?

Have you seen it Idiocracy? Awesome movie about this topic. (I have a soft spot for Mike Judge.)

JockNerd · Jul 21, 2009

socialcog said:
Does anyone have any thoughts about this trend and how it may impact our training? Fulsome capitalism is, in short, the major contributing factor and which, as this book predicts, will contribute to the fall of this country, akin to the Roman Empire in the 5th, 6th century. Are professional schools emblematic of the toxic capitalism within our system? Has the 'elite' schools safe from this toxicity? I say 'no'.

thoughts?

Well, though, having a stupid, uneducated public that's saddled with debt and in fear of getting sick or fired is very beneficial to most of the people who run the US, who are quite happy to steal money from the working and middle classes, kick them in the face, buy a yacht, and leave the next generation with an empty smoking husk of a planet.

In the same way, I'm sure professional school admins who take on massive cohorts couldn't give a damn about the future of the profession.

socialcog · Jul 21, 2009

Wildcat06 said:
Have you seen it Idiocracy? Awesome movie about this topic. (I have a soft spot for Mike Judge.)

I haven't. I will have to check that out. Thanks.

I'm so tired of people comparing the USA to the Roman Empire. Totally different situation.

Interesting. Totally different? How so?

cara susanna · Jul 21, 2009

There are a lot of differences, but mainly it's that the USA doesn't rely on overtaxing conquered territory and slave labor for its economy. Lost revenue from Roman territories taken by the barbarians, high costs for maintaining Rome and keeping up its defense, civil wars throughout their conquered territories leading to a loss of respect for Roman law, a thinly-spread and increasingly weak army, and a growing anger from the middle class who had to shoulder all the financial burden contributed to its downfall. Not to mention a series of emperors who were often deposed whenever someone else (namely, the army) found someone they liked better. Many of Rome's emperors near the end were also terrible. I mean, there are some presidents I dislike, but none compare to the bad Roman ones IMO.

Quynh2007 · Jul 21, 2009

cara susanna said:
There are a lot of differences, but mainly it's that the USA doesn't rely on overtaxing conquered territory and slave labor for its economy. Lost revenue from Roman territories taken by the barbarians, high costs for maintaining Rome and keeping up its defense, civil wars throughout their conquered territories leading to a loss of respect for Roman law, a thinly-spread and increasingly weak army, and a growing anger from the middle class who had to shoulder all the financial burden contributed to its downfall. Not to mention a series of emperors who were often deposed whenever someone else (namely, the army) found someone they liked better. Many of Rome's emperors near the end were also terrible. I mean, there are some presidents I dislike, but none compare to the bad Roman ones IMO.

I think we have an interesting check and balance, where socially/economically/politically it cycles (or pendulum swings) every few years or so, so that it doesn't go one extreme too much too fast.

cara susanna · Jul 21, 2009

Yeah, the government structures are just so completely different. After Julius Caesar, Rome was essentially despotism. The US government was formed with certain precautions in mind to minimize that kind of fate.

But, um, on topic: I think the problem is that nowadays people think that they are entitled to be and get whatever they want. Not that self-esteem and encouragement are bad, but some people just don't have certain talents and abilities and our currently society seems to try to ignore that fact.

futurepsydoc · Jul 21, 2009

I find this thread intriguing and frustrating. Please let me explain.

On the one hand, I agree with the need to protect the quality of our profession. We should hold colleagues to a certain level of excellence. When a practitioner is incompetent they reflect poorly on psychology and serve as terrible dimplomates for us all. Along these lines, there is nothing wrong with high standards, striving to be in the "elite," or wanting the best care when you are in need.

The APA, state licensing boards, masters programs (which, IMHO, need to be regulated), and doctoral programs (e.g., Ph.D., Psy.D., Ed.D.) need to consider the state of the field and adapt accordingly. Part of helping other people is ensuring that the system churns out helpful, competent, and capable therapists. This issue seems to be coming to head. We need to have more stringent checkpoints at multiple levels to prevent unprofessional, unqualified, and incompetent providers from practicing. If this thread was about medicine, I find it hard to believe that any poster would want some hack performing a transplant or spinal tap on them. As future psychologists, we clearly have the capacity to harm others. As such, we should absolutely demand more from the field as a whole. If not for ourselves, FOR OUR PATIENTS. I am in favor of increasing the standards for entry into programs, internship, and licensure.

Having said that, I find the tone and distaste for professional students to be atrocious. While I loathe the current APPIC process, the match numbers, managed care in general, and the sheer saturation of psychologists in the field, it is not the professional students fault!!!! They are striving to reach their goals and are succeeding in doing so. God bless em. I am sure many of them are good therapists. Thats not to say they all are. Some will be horrible. But, the same holds true for fully funded, ivory tour, Ph.D. students. A great many are awesome practitioners, a good number are terrible. A slammin vita, GRE scores, and LORs do not equal clinical acumen.

Honestly, if you want something done about these issues, contact the APA, write an article, form an organization or special interest group, create a loboby and address the licensing boards, get involved with ABCT or some other organization. But, please, respect your fellow colleagues. You are training to be a psychologist, ACT LIKE IT. Be respectful, open, and collegial.

TenaciousGirl · Jul 21, 2009

futurepsydoc said:
I find this thread intriguing and frustrating. Please let me explain.

On the one hand, I agree with the need to protect the quality of our profession. We should hold colleagues to a certain level of excellence. When a practitioner is incompetent they reflect poorly on psychology and serve as terrible dimplomates for us all. Along these lines, there is nothing wrong with high standards, striving to be in the "elite," or wanting the best care when you are in need.

The APA, state licensing boards, masters programs (which, IMHO, need to be regulated), and doctoral programs (e.g., Ph.D., Psy.D., Ed.D.) need to consider the state of the field and adapt accordingly. Part of helping other people is ensuring that the system churns out helpful, competent, and capable therapists. This issue seems to be coming to head. We need to have more stringent checkpoints at multiple levels to prevent unprofessional, unqualified, and incompetent providers from practicing. If this thread was about medicine, I find it hard to believe that any poster would want some hack performing a transplant or spinal tap on them. As future psychologists, we clearly have the capacity to harm others. As such, we should absolutely demand more from the field as a whole. If not for ourselves, FOR OUR PATIENTS. I am in favor of increasing the standards for entry into programs, internship, and licensure.

Having said that, I find the tone and distaste for professional students to be atrocious. While I loathe the current APPIC process, the match numbers, managed care in general, and the sheer saturation of psychologists in the field, it is not the professional students fault!!!! They are striving to reach their goals and are succeeding in doing so. God bless em. I am sure many of them are good therapists. Thats not to say they all are. Some will be horrible. But, the same holds true for fully funded, ivory tour, Ph.D. students. A great many are awesome practitioners, a good number are terrible. A slammin vita, GRE scores, and LORs do not equal clinical acumen.

Honestly, if you want something done about these issues, contact the APA, write an article, form an organization or special interest group, create a loboby and address the licensing boards, get involved with ABCT or some other organization. But, please, respect your fellow colleagues. You are training to be a psychologist, ACT LIKE IT. Be respectful, open, and collegial.

Agree. Very well said.

I agree that we need to protect the quality of our profession. I have noticed that individuals who are not up to par often take themselves out of the game, so to speak. If someone isn't a good student or is at a subpar program, they probably won't get matched and they probably won't get a good internship. Even if someone is a good student at a fairly good program it doesn't mean they will be *successful*. There are a lot of things that factor into this whole situation. I guess I don't really worry about this very much because I know when I get out into the working world, chances are, the people I will be competing with will be well trained, hardworking, passionate, talented, intelligent, etc. In my grad program I have already started to see the almost-natural-selection-like process start to take effect. People who have what it takes rise to the top, and the people who don't start to fall to the bottom. Just my opinion.

psychwhy · Jul 21, 2009

futurepsychdoc and TenaciousGirl ... thank you, thank you, THANK YOU ... for finally demonstrating that it is possible to have a concern for your profession, acknowledge its limitations and challenges, without demonizing colleagues.

Ollie123 said:
If someone can't hack it, or life circumstances don't allow for "elite" training, there are plenty of ways to "help" that do not require a doctorate. I'm sick to death of everything in this country being dumbed down in the name of "fairness" and it happens across the board in education. Its no surprise our educational system is in shambles.

OMG -- please tell me your goal is to be a bench scientist. You want to help other people ... really?

"If someone can't hack it" or "life circumstances don't allow for elite (read: conventional) training"?

In one sentence Ollie you have perfectly encapsulated the essence of "elitism" -- the belief that one is better than others because their personal experience has been superior to theirs.

The fact that you seem to believe that "life experience" may not have deprived the world of superb doctors, scientists, artists, and yes, even psychologists simply because the opportunities you now enjoy were somehow (for WHATever reason) unavailable is stunningly dismissive and elitist!

Not everyone can go HS > BA > MA > PhD.
That doesn't mean they couldn't "hack" it.

And how in the world did we get from surviving the EPPP to the status of the profession to "some people can't find the US on the map" which proves professional schools are substandard??

While we're at it, let's explore for a moment the educational model of the prototypical "Jon Snow University". Its a Tier I school, with an extensive research program, a graduate arts & sciences department, medical school, law school -- the whole shebang.

The clinical psychology PhD program -- in order to provide its research based full-ride funding -- has 3 openings.

The medical school, on the other hand, has 100.

Please tell me you are going to dismiss the quality of the medical school applicants as being "dumbed down" because 97 more of them will be accepted than in the clinical PhD program. (And before you all get your transcripts in a bunch, remember, they have 4.0 GPAs and perfect/near perfect MCAT scores, just like you!)

And, of course, we want QUALIFIED and CAPABLE professionals.
But is a 3.85 GPA candidate really that much less "elite" than the 4.0?

This attitude that all professional schools are nothing more than diploma mills letting every Tom, Jane and Freud out there to be a psychologist has got to stop.

It demeans us all ... even the elitists among us.

cara susanna · Jul 21, 2009

I think professional schools are just not a good decision because they charge so much money that IMO does not give an education on the level the person paid for. For the tuition they require, they should be having top internship match rates, not the bottom of the barrel.

Of course, I do not think these schools should be shut down because I am a free market person. What would be ideal is if people stop giving them business; sadly, that will probably never happen. I suppose loss of APA accreditation would work as well.

psychmama · Jul 21, 2009

cara susanna said:
I think professional schools are just not a good decision because they charge so much money that IMO does not give an education on the level the person paid for. For the tuition they require, they should be having top internship match rates, not the bottom of the barrel.

Of course, I do not think these schools should be shut down because I am a free market person. What would be ideal is if people stop giving them business; sadly, that will probably never happen. I suppose loss of APA accreditation would work as well.

If a professional school is shown to provide sub-par preparation of students, I'm for yanking their accreditation. On the other hand, it does seem to me that a lot of people who have the view that professional schools are sub-par don't attend them. I'm not arguing that all programs are the same and there should be no standards. However, there's a fine line between protecting the profession and unfounded snobbery.

I think APA should get more involved in assessing the accreditation process. Let the facts determine the outcome of the professional schools. If they can cut it, they stay accredited. If not, I say "shape up or ship out."👍

Ollie123 · Jul 21, 2009

psychwhy, you have once again proven my point by demonstrating your clear inability to even comprehend the discussion, let alone contribute something worthwhile to it. Keep the straw men coming. Just don't expect me to waste my time addressing them.

aagman01 · Jul 21, 2009

I think it is safe to say that Rome did not fall for any one particular reason. Likewise, the decline of America is the result of a lot of factors. We, like Rome, consume far more than we produce. In my opinion, the military-industrial state which has been created since WW2, and the empire being maintained overseas (800+ foreign military bases throughout the world) is bankrupting us at home (both economically, morally, and politically). We are supposedly a democracy, yet our representative government won't substantially investigate clear deception and lies that led to the death of thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians (Iraqis), and the plundering of hundreds of billions and soon to be trillions of dollars. What kind of grand democracy is that?

I enjoy history/political discussions, but isn't this a psych forum?

Regarding the field being "washed down" I often wonder how difficult things we do truly are. For example, we have people trained for years to provide therapy in various forms, yet masters trained individuals perform just as well or better than the supposedly well trained doctoral level psychologist. Perhaps in aspiring to our career paths, we are truly plebiscites just aspiring to be elitists?

cara susanna said:
Yeah, the government structures are just so completely different. After Julius Caesar, Rome was essentially despotism. The US government was formed with certain precautions in mind to minimize that kind of fate.

But, um, on topic: I think the problem is that nowadays people think that they are entitled to be and get whatever they want. Not that self-esteem and encouragement are bad, but some people just don't have certain talents and abilities and our currently society seems to try to ignore that fact.

cara susanna · Jul 21, 2009

aagman: Yes it is, which is why I tried to steer back on-topic. We'll have to save a discussion of whether or not the US is like the Roman Empire for another place. 😉

psychmama: I'm talking strictly internship match rates, really. I can't judge the quality of education when, like you said, I don't attend said program.

Wildcat06 · Jul 21, 2009

When did this become a political discussion???

Professor Xero · Jul 21, 2009

A very lively discussion, but I agree, let's stay on topic.

Perhaps it is worth considering whether the discrepancy in APA internship match rates between PsyD and PhD students is based purely on skill and competency, or if other factors contribute to the numbers, namely old-fashioned negative bias, lack of initiative/funding for certain sites to petition for APA approved status, etc. Let's also keep in mind that a certain percentage (although I'm sure only nominal) of APA-approved internship sites are moderatly to heavily research-oriented, and therefore might not attract PsyD applicants who are pursuing a more focused clinical route

JockNerd · Jul 21, 2009

Jon Snow said:
That's pretty much the democratic party platform, is it not? It's the handout party versus the god party. . . and that is democracy.

Well the republicans and democrats both believe in handouts. I'd say without hyperbole that both parties are staunch socialists. It's just that they give money to people who are already rich.

(Except Ron Paul)

EDIT: Yeah, sure, back on topic.

Ron Paul 2012.

cara susanna · Jul 21, 2009

Sorry guys, it's my fault the discussion started.

Ollie123 · Jul 21, 2009

psytudent said:
A very lively discussion, but I agree, let's stay on topic.

Perhaps it is worth considering whether the discrepancy in APA internship match rates between PsyD and PhD students is based purely on skill and competency, or if other factors contribute to the numbers, namely old-fashioned negative bias, lack of initiative/funding for certain sites to petition for APA approved status, etc. Let's also keep in mind that a certain percentage (although I'm sure only nominal) of APA-approved internship sites are moderatly to heavily research-oriented, and therefore might not attract PsyD applicants who are pursuing a more focused clinical route

All valid points, though I'd point out there are at least as many (probably far more) that will not be attractive to someone research-oriented as there are internships that won't be attractive to someone clinically-oriented.

There are clearly a ton of factors that go into internship placement, so its obvious important not to be too reductionist. However, along the same lines, I think its important to keep in mind that arguments are not based solely off internship placement. I won't speak for others, but I personally would put much less stock in it if we just had a single piece of evidence. However, everything we can measure appears convergent, and anecdotal evidence seems to support it as well. These measures are obviously imperfect, but when all signs are pointing in the same direction it becomes hard to ignore.

psychwhy · Jul 21, 2009

Ollie123 said:
psychwhy, you have once again proven my point by demonstrating your clear inability to even comprehend the discussion, let alone contribute something worthwhile to it. Keep the straw men coming. Just don't expect me to waste my time addressing them.

Spoken like a true elitist ... again!
I'm sorry, who's proving whose point?

I SO look forward to the day when I find you in one of my classes!
I bet you'd be the first one lining up to complain to the dean because I was "mean" to you after insisting you cease your ignorant bloviation and actually respond thoughtfully and substantively to what is being said.

Or you could just drop the class because having to move past sound-bite rhetoric is just too difficult!

TenaciousGirl · Jul 21, 2009

Jon Snow said:
They aren't out of the game. They're just in increasingly low quality placements. They'll still be psychologists.
.

This exists in all professions ... even in medicine. Ever heard of a doc in a box? This aspect of underachieving low quality professionals will always exist.

TenaciousGirl · Jul 21, 2009

psytudent said:
A very lively discussion, but I agree, let's stay on topic.

Perhaps it is worth considering whether the discrepancy in APA internship match rates between PsyD and PhD students is based purely on skill and competency, or if other factors contribute to the numbers, namely old-fashioned negative bias, lack of initiative/funding for certain sites to petition for APA approved status, etc. Let's also keep in mind that a certain percentage (although I'm sure only nominal) of APA-approved internship sites are moderatly to heavily research-oriented, and therefore might not attract PsyD applicants who are pursuing a more focused clinical route

good point. thanks.

psychwhy · Jul 21, 2009

Jon,

How can you so utterly, blatantly prooftext my response while accusing me of doing the same thing?

Jon Snow said:
That SOME professional schools are nothing more than diploma mills letting every Tom, Jane and Freud out there to be a psychologist has got to stop.

It demeans us all

I agree

Except, what I said was ... "The ATTITUDE that all professional schools ... "

This sort of manpulative editing is precisely the problem and illustrative of your tendency to skew/misstate other's comments.

Sorry if having that pointed out offends your sensibilities. But it is rather tiresome to be accused of things you have just done yourself.

Regardless, it is more than apparent your mind is made up ... you have not changed your tone or message on this board in the 2+ years I have been a member.

Ultmately, it appears we are the matter and anti-matter of the SDN psych board.

Beyond finishing my degree and working in the field, I have actually collaborated with national and state professional associations and lobbied elected officials regarding issues related to the profession -- all after researching the pertinent information.

What have you done to advance/improve the profession beyond bloviate on this board?

Therapist4Chnge · Jul 21, 2009

psychwhy said:
Beyond finishing my degree and working in the field, I have actually collaborated with national and state professional associations and lobbied elected officials regarding issues related to the profession -- all after researching the pertinent information.

What have you done to advance/improve the profession beyond bloviate on this board?

*MOD NOTE: Please stay on topic and not make this personal.*

Professor Xero · Jul 21, 2009

Ollie123 said:
All valid points, though I'd point out there are at least as many (probably far more) that will not be attractive to someone research-oriented as there are internships that won't be attractive to someone clinically-oriented.

Good point, however whereas I am confident that nearly 100% of those internships that include a serious research element are APA approved, the same cannot be said about every focused clinical placement to which a research-oriented applicant chooses not to apply. In any event, I do agree that APA internship match rates should not be the only benchmark in this debate, but I am simply cautioning, as you pointed out, that several people on this board rely on convenient reductionism to make their case.

As I have made clear in other threads, I am a staunch advocate for tighter admission standards in professional schools, and think that their needs to be external pressure placed on these institutions to trim the fat, so to speak. How this can be effectively accomplished is a much bigger question - a question, by the way, that I have not really seen posed in any serious manner. Instead, I observe people, both on SDN and elsewhere, bemoan the status quo of American psychology, buttressing their acrid complaints with hyper-rational arguments - none of them the least constructive.

As far as anyone is aware, is there currently any concerted political effort, even if it's a minority effort, within APA to remedy these problems, or are we just cantankerous elitists or defensive apologetics?

psychmama · Jul 21, 2009

psytudent said:
As far as anyone is aware, is there currently any concerted political effort, even if it's a minority effort, within APA to remedy these problems, or are we just cantankerous elitists or defensive apologetics?

Excellent question. I was wondering the same thing? Does anyone know what's being done, if anything, within APA or elsewhere?😕

futureapppsy2 · Jul 21, 2009

For example, 42% of Americans cannot locate Japan on a map. He states that Garrison Keillor (from NPR) survey revealed that even 15% of Americans cannot locate the US on a map

"It took the children twenty minutes to locate Canada on the map."

"Oh, Marge, anyone can miss Canada, all tucked away down there!"

(Sorry--I love that quote series!)

On topic:

I think with psych PhD admissions, once you get past the initial cuts, you aren't really getting "Applicant X is phenomenally better than applicant Y"--you're getting "Applicant X has a slightly better research match/is a slightly better writer/has slightly more glowing LORs/has an applicant that was read on a day where the POI was in a better mood (one of my advisors/recommenders will freely admit that admissions isn't streamlined or anywhere near perfect--you can have a perfect app and be a perfect research match, but if your app is read the day your POI is sick/ihas had dog die/had a bad encounter with a student/etc., you may not get that interview, regardless). "

I really doubt there is that huge of difference between those who are interviewed and wait listed and those who are interviewed and admitted. When you get to the final crop(s) of applicants, you are really choosing from among the best, and that can get hard to differentiate well at that level, IMO. So, an applicant who doesn't get admitted may be almost, or even just, as awesome as one who did, just a little less glowing or a little less lucky.

Ollie123 · Jul 21, 2009

psychmama said:
Excellent question. I was wondering the same thing? Does anyone know what's being done, if anything, within APA or elsewhere?😕

I know discussion of professional schools has been tossed around in the discussion of resolving the internship issues - namely the responsibility of schools when it comes time for internship. What has or will come of it, I have absolutely no idea. I heard unsubstantiated rumors (possibly on this board) that lawyers were involved since some of what APA was proposing to add accountability violated various fair trade regulations. That could be complete BS though given I've never seen any official sources regarding it, so take it with a grain of salt.

Beyond that I've heard very little, unless you count the APCS (or whatever organization they have been subsumed under - APS, APA Div. 12, SSCP - I can't figure out where the exact boundaries lie) movement for a separate accreditation system since the APA seems to be moving further away from what many of us support. I've heard very little from it lately, though the webpage was finally updated. It certainly lacks the political clout of APA right now, and isn't even that widely known, but who knows what the future will bring. Ideally, I'd like to see them gain enough recognition and political standing that the involved schools can either withdraw from the APA system, or have it be recognized as an enhanced credential that supercedes APA (think board-certification for schools). I think its getting towards the latter, but its a long ways off from having the widespread recognition and political sway to really take off.

Minnesotan4PsyD · Jul 21, 2009

Jon Snow said:
That's pretty much the democratic party platform, is it not? It's the handout party versus the god party. . . and that is democracy. The thing is, we were never supposed to be a democracy, but a representative republic built on libertarian principles. The real robbery in this country is the central consolidation of power. It started long ago, but has really picked up steam recently.

QUOTE]

You do realize that the United States is both a democracy AND a republic, yes?

Sorry, I just wanted to get that in. 😛

Therapist4Chnge · Jul 21, 2009

psytudent said:
As I have made clear in other threads, I am a staunch advocate for tighter admission standards in professional schools, and think that their needs to be external pressure placed on these institutions to trim the fat, so to speak. How this can be effectively accomplished is a much bigger question - a question

I've proposed only allowing programs to offer as many spots as they can consistently place (average over the previous 4 years?). According to prior match statistics, the majority of unmatched applicants come from a handful of programs, so this should greatly reduce chronic offenders. The 4 years average should account decently for a bad year, and the majority of programs wouldn't see a change in their enrollment. If a program can show a history of placements, they can add spots in a more responsible manner.

I also believe that since internship is required for licensure, programs should be held more accountable for their placement rates, and thus their accreditation status should require a certain level of match success. While there is some variability in student restrictions (geographic), I don't believe they would be a major impact on the overall match numbers.

psytudent said:
As far as anyone is aware, is there currently any concerted political effort, even if it's a minority effort, within APA to remedy these problems, or are we just cantankerous elitists or defensive apologetics?

Formerly I did some consulting work with a number of very large associations, and almost without exception the largest revenue stream for these organizations were:

1. Membership Dues
2. Training / Seminars
3. Publications
4. Networking / Partnership agreements

The majority of psychologists are not members of the APA, and there are now alternative organizations fighting for their membership. So how does APA increase membership? Increase member services (costs $), recruit more aggressively (costs $), offer discounted renewals (costs $), or increase the # of fish in the pool (makes $!)?

To complicate things, there are a group of long-standing members that have reduced membership fees, which also allows them to join as many divisions as they'd like (and vote). Considering many members don't vote, those "free" votes add up. So it is no wonder that the APA leadership is composed mostly of a handful of individuals that swap positions. The leadership is also largely academic, which contributes to the lip service that most private practice related issues receive.

Therapist4Chnge · Jul 21, 2009

Jon Snow said:
The discussions are usually about what's good for the field and the student and they are presented that way, for the most part.

This is why I present the pros/cons of various training models. I admit my bias up front, but my critiques are about the training model, and not individuals.

As for JS's posting, he is far more friendly than in previous years; I think he has softened with age. 😀

aagman01 · Jul 21, 2009

Seriously folks,

I have met plenty of people who are "intelligent" (however the hell one defines it) but are enrolled in a professional school. Sometimes, location or the inability to re-locate is a reason. Other times, a person's interests may be in practice at a high level but not necessarily research. THe lack of psyd programs at universities/colleges therefore often necessitates entering a professional program for some people (many of whom, again, for whatever their personal preference, do not wish to relocate).

Just curious for all the elitists on this forum thread who feel it necessary to stereotype and/or degrinate colleagues who attend professional schools of psychology --- what exactly constitutes an "intelligent", "smart", or "competent" aspiring psychologist? And secondly, who the heck are you to judge someone else? Who here is perfect and highly competent in everything they do?

Lastly, let me just say, to all of you who pre-judge and enjoy stereotyping others based on what school they go to (or their background, race/ class etc. in other contexts ), rest assured that I am in a APA endorsed phd program with a full fellowship.

psytudent said:
Good point, however whereas I am confident that nearly 100% of those internships that include a serious research element are APA approved, the same cannot be said about every focused clinical placement to which a research-oriented applicant chooses not to apply. In any event, I do agree that APA internship match rates should not be the only benchmark in this debate, but I am simply cautioning, as you pointed out, that several people on this board rely on convenient reductionism to make their case.

As I have made clear in other threads, I am a staunch advocate for tighter admission standards in professional schools, and think that their needs to be external pressure placed on these institutions to trim the fat, so to speak. How this can be effectively accomplished is a much bigger question - a question, by the way, that I have not really seen posed in any serious manner. Instead, I observe people, both on SDN and elsewhere, bemoan the status quo of American psychology, buttressing their acrid complaints with hyper-rational arguments - none of them the least constructive.

As far as anyone is aware, is there currently any concerted political effort, even if it's a minority effort, within APA to remedy these problems, or are we just cantankerous elitists or defensive apologetics?

cara susanna · Jul 21, 2009

Sorry, I realize I'm one of those people pushing the match rates. I suppose I focus on it more because it's one of the few quantifiable data we have, aside from average EPPP scores.

futurepsydoc · Jul 21, 2009

Therapist4Chnge said:
*MOD NOTE: Please stay on topic and not make this personal.*

As I read these posts, it is clear that the issues at hand are extremely polarizing. Professional civility is hard to come by when discussing them. I appreciate your stepping in T4C. Hopefully, we can avoid discussing the British, Incan, and Aztec empires in the future. Perhaps, just maybe, we can have a collegial dialogue where we attack the issues and not each other. :xf:

IMHO, the "match problem" is a serious concern to all students within the field. It is clear that there are too many interns and not enough slots. We need to figure out where the problem lies?

First, the number of internship cites/programs are at risk for being discontinued. Many positions are grant funded and the economy is in peril. We need organizations like the APA, APS, ABCT, and the CPA to lobby for improved funding and changes to public policy (e.g., mental health parity act). We might want to consider leaving the AMA alone and utilizing our resources more efficiently. Persciption privelages do not seem to be a real posibility.

Second, there are too many potential interns being produced. As a result, many qualified students have problems being matched to APA approved cites. This includes PsyD and PhD students alike. This threatens their employability, earning potential, and professional development. Programs with poor match rates should be re-evaluated and researched. Why are they having problems? Is it training related? Is it because of reputation or prejudice? Is it just simple supply and demand?

To remedy the issue, we must understand the underlying problems. This approach does not threaten the students, it is for their benefit. They are the ones investing time, energy, effort, and money in this endeavor. I doubt that any students from a program with low match rates want it to continue. If we can identify the problems, we can help current programs improve. But to address the issue in its entirety, we need our licensing and governing bodies to be more active, stringent, and step in. For that to happen, people need to motivate themselves and others, get active, propose strategies for evaluating the matter, and follow through on their efforts.

When I read these "back and forth" arguments, I see alot of harsh words and brilliant points. What I don't see is activism.

Ollie123 · Jul 21, 2009

aagman01 said:
Seriously folks,

I have met plenty of people who are "intelligent" (however the hell one defines it) but are enrolled in a professional school. Sometimes, location or the inability to re-locate is a reason. Other times, a person's interests may be in practice at a high level but not necessarily research. THe lack of psyd programs at universities/colleges therefore often necessitates entering a professional program for some people (many of whom, again, for whatever their personal preference, do not wish to relocate).

Again with the staw men...not ONCE has anyone denied that. I've been here for several years now, and I can't recall a single poster who would argue with you on this point. At least for me, the issue is more about what sort of role a doctoral programs are supposed to play. Do we open the doors to the public and let in anyone who wants to get a doctorate? That way we wouldn't lose anyone with the potential to be a good psychologist. Its also absurd. I don't think anyone thinks that is a good idea, but we're working on a continuum and I think some schools set the bar too low on both the front and back end. I think that's bad for the profession for a variety of reasons.

aagman01 said:
Just curious for all the elitists on this forum thread who feel it necessary to stereotype and/or degrinate colleagues who attend professional schools of psychology --- what exactly constitutes an "intelligent", "smart", or "competent" aspiring psychologist? And secondly, who the heck are you to judge someone else? Who here is perfect and highly competent in everything they do?

I'm sure as hell not. Again, I don't know exactly where you are getting this from. As Jon said, what I typically see here is people attacking PROGRAMS, people who attend those programs taking it personally, and attacking the individuals. Why does someone need to be perfect to critique the system? Saying a school has low admission standards is not a personal attack, despite what many here seem to think. My undergrad institution was FAR from selective. I'm not offended if someone tells me that - its true! If only perfect people can critique systems they see as problematic, we'll never function as a society.

KTpsych · Jul 21, 2009

aagman01 said:
Seriously folks,

I have met plenty of people who are "intelligent" (however the hell one defines it) but are enrolled in a professional school. Sometimes, location or the inability to re-locate is a reason. Other times, a person's interests may be in practice at a high level but not necessarily research. THe lack of psyd programs at universities/colleges therefore often necessitates entering a professional program for some people (many of whom, again, for whatever their personal preference, do not wish to relocate).

Just curious for all the elitists on this forum thread who feel it necessary to stereotype and/or degrinate colleagues who attend professional schools of psychology --- what exactly constitutes an "intelligent", "smart", or "competent" aspiring psychologist? And secondly, who the heck are you to judge someone else? Who here is perfect and highly competent in everything they do?

Lastly, let me just say, to all of you who pre-judge and enjoy stereotyping others based on what school they go to (or their background, race/ class etc. in other contexts ), rest assured that I am in a APA endorsed phd program with a full fellowship.

No one disagrees that there are some excellent individuals at professional schools. The problem is that while some people go to professional schools because they cannot move, there are others who go there because they couldn't cut it at a more traditional program. I don't think anyone will argue that there is a lot more variability in quality at a professional school. What people differ about is what percentage belongs to which group, and whether the loosened requirements do more harm than good to the field. (For the record, I tend to think they do more harm than good, though I'm not fully convinced and open to arguments otherwise.)

People are not entitled to a clinical psychology degree (even if they are smart and competent). A doctoral degree is not required to do a lot of meaningful clinical work. Having high standards for a doctoral degree is not the same thing as keeping people from becoming mental health professionals.

Therapist4Chnge · Jul 21, 2009

KTpsych said:
No one disagrees that there are some excellent individuals at professional schools.

My argument isn't for the top students at any program, it is for the under-performing ones who probably shouldn't have received admittance. Raising the standards and cutting enrollment for under-producing programs will decrease the number of internship applicants, and hopefully reduce the disparage between spots v. applicants. The programs are very much to blame for the inequity, in addition to the high accreditation costs associated with APA review.

aagman01 · Jul 21, 2009

This is starting to remind me more and more of affirmative action discussions.

I watched a bigot/holocaust denier on tv (Pat Buchanan) say Sotomayor (the supremem court justice nominee) wasn't qualified because she was admitted into schools because of her race.

There is a very good possibility she was admitted into Princeton the first time for undergrad with lower grades / sats than other applicants.

However, that did not prevent her from graduating near the top of her class at Princeton or later in law school.

Similarly, clinical programs are so competitive that they naturally overlook many qualified candidates. Many of those qualified candidates go on to professional schools, some of whom probably have only slightly lower credentials. Many graduates, I am sure, go on to distinguished careers from professional programs.

I think people are afraid of the "others" (i.e. competition) in professional psych programs....... :laugh:

Therapist4Chnge said:
My argument isn't for the top students at any program, it is for the under-performing ones who probably shouldn't have received admittance. Raising the standards and cutting enrollment for under-producing programs will decrease the number of internship applicants, and hopefully reduce the disparage between spots v. applicants. The programs are very much to blame for the inequity, in addition to the high accreditation costs associated with APA review.

Quynh2007 · Jul 21, 2009

aagman01 said:
This is starting to remind me more and more of affirmative action discussions.

I watched a bigot/holocaust denier on tv (Pat Buchanan) say Sotomayor (the supremem court justice nominee) wasn't qualified because she was admitted into schools because of her race.

There is a very good possibility she was admitted into Princeton the first time for undergrad with lower grades / sats than other applicants.

However, that did not prevent her from graduating near the top of her class at Princeton or later in law school.

Similarly, clinical programs are so competitive that they naturally overlook many qualified candidates. Many of those qualified candidates go on to professional schools, some of whom probably have only slightly lower credentials. Many graduates, I am sure, go on to distinguished careers from professional programs.

I think people are afraid of the "others" (i.e. competition) in professional psych programs.......

your point? No one has agreed that some PEOPLE who attend those schools aren't successful later. Many have a problem with the SCHOOL's substandard program. They want to RAISE THE BAR.

And, I have no idea where you're coming from with Sotomayer. It is not only a totally different issue in UNDERGRAD, but it is about diversity. No one would say Princeton is not an elite school. Saying they accepted someone who may or may not have average stats is pointless. Some people fall above the average, some below, that is why they are averages, and not cutoffs. Princeton would not have accepted her if they did not believe she would have been successful there. Why waste resources on someone who couldn't hack it?

Therapist4Chnge · Jul 21, 2009

aagman01 said:
This is starting to remind me more and more of affirmative action discussions.

I watched a bigot/holocaust denier on tv (Pat Buchanan) say Sotomayor (the supremem court justice nominee) wasn't qualified because she was admitted into schools because of her race.

There is a very good possibility she was admitted into Princeton the first time for undergrad with lower grades / sats than other applicants.

However, that did not prevent her from graduating near the top of her class at Princeton or later in law school.

Similarly, clinical programs are so competitive that they naturally overlook many qualified candidates. Many of those qualified candidates go on to professional schools, some of whom probably have only slightly lower credentials. Many graduates, I am sure, go on to distinguished careers from professional programs.

I think people are afraid of the "others" (i.e. competition) in professional psych programs.......

So now I'm Pat Buchanan? 😆

Our profession has lost sight of our standards, and now we are suffering the consequences. An increase in supply artificially suppresses salaries, so we all lose.

As for AA.....we can start a fun discussion in the Sociopolitical forum, and I am pretty sure we'd be an opposite ends of that topic. 😀

Elitism Or Protecting Our Profession?

Dis Member

Full Member

Full Member

Neuropsych Ninja

Neuropsychology predoctoral intern

Neuropsych Ninja

Neuropsychology predoctoral intern

the oracle of destiny

Neuropsych Ninja

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

Neuropsychology predoctoral intern

Full Member

the oracle of destiny

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

Simply disillusioned

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

Professor & DCT

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

Simply disillusioned

Full Member

Full Member

Simply disillusioned

Neuropsych Ninja

Professor & DCT

Full Member

Assistant professor

Full Member

Full Member

Neuropsych Ninja

Neuropsych Ninja

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

Neuropsych Ninja

Full Member

the oracle of destiny

Neuropsych Ninja

Similar threads