
Wow. In the same breath you say "My post wasn't meant to be insulting" and then continue to be insulting and to generalize. Obviously you think very highly of yourself and your program compared to others, which makes me wonder what kind of training they are giving you...
IsItOver said:
I do want to apologize to the forum as a whole for letting myself get sucked into an argument that really does not need to take place here. I am obviously anxious as well, and probably a little more sensitive because of it.
I appreciate your apology. Notice that none of my posts were explicitly individually insulting or inflammatory in content or tone. I am stating facts and tendencies grounded in reality, which you are
interpreting as insulting because you're taking it personally. On the other hand, you just made a personal and insulting comment about my attitude and the quality of my education. If there are any posts that aren't becoming of future psychologist, its these. I am also well aware of how PsyD programs work, and I actually like the PsyD model, just not their implementation at Alliant, Agrosy, Fielding, et al. Their APA internship match numbers speak for themselves.
The only things I said that can clearly be taken negatively are three comments I made about the perception of freestanding professional programs by staff at competitive institutions: 1) training/quality varies greatly (which is true, some like Rutgers/Baylor are quite better than others), 2) the caliber of students vary (which is also true, several PsyD schools near me do not require the GRE and have taken applicants with 2.3 GPAs), and that 3) freestanding professional school take too many applicants. That's not just my opinion by the way, there have been numerous complaints made by organizations to the APA on this matter, and APPIC is actively meeting to address this issue.
Going back to the original points:
1) The original poster had good credentials, and it's a fair guess (and the poster suggested it themselves), that it was because of their institution that they got few interviews.
2) Competitive internship sites (and employers) generally prefer Clinical PhDs from reputable institutions. Again, look at the APPIC data. I went back and looked at all 8 of the medical centers/hospitals/VAs I applied to (all of which I got interviews at). I count ~ 197 Clinical PhDs, and 5 PsyDs interns in the last three years. That's not a coincidence. In my area, there are a lot of PsyD applicants, so the numbers speak for themselves.
3) Clinical PhDs from competitive programs do apply to more competitive internship sites than PsyDs. This is also a fact. This is not just true of psychology, Harvard Medical school graduates of course end up applying to more prestigious/competitive residencies... The major PsyD programs near me either explicitly discourage applying to APA sites, or many students don't even bother because they just want to go into private practice. Again, there are exceptions, but considering that these programs produce most of the private practitioners in CA, they reflect the major trend here.
Getting back to the heart of the matter: I empathized with the OP, and said its a shame they're having difficulty, echoing the general sentiment on this board that its a shame the APPIC match process is leaving more and more students unmatched every year. This is a systemic problem and its discouraging that nothing is being done about it. I just hope that future generations of students don't have to be privy to this mess.