A Letter to APA Regarding the Internship Imbalance

[KayJay85]

Btw, I don't want to re-hash a PsyD bash thread. I don't think the letter should attack that issue full on.

The issue is not the PsyD itself, though. It is about how certain programs wish to hand them out like Halloween candy. Calling for higher standards and enrollment limits helps everyone including current students and alums from these programs by protecting the reputation and correcting the job market, right?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

The issue is not the PsyD itself, though. It is about how certain programs wish to hand them out like Halloween candy. Calling for higher standards and enrollment limits helps everyone including current students and alums from these programs by protecting the reputation and correcting the job market, right?

Exactly, and I think that was JS's point as well (although please correct me if I'm wrong)--it's not the Psy.D. degree that's the "bad guy" here; it's the programs that accept large cohort sizes (thereby diluting the field and degrading employability), saddle their students with massive amounts of debt (damaging the economy and unfairly burdening taxpayers), and fail to adequately fulfill their obligations by consistently placing sub par rates of internship applicants in accredited positions (thus delaying their students and collecting even more tuition/fees, limiting students' employment options, and leading to potentially less-than-stellar training).

 

[widmup]

Hey all,

I looked around different petition sites and worked on this today as I had some time. I used JS's letter, others' citations and the latest edits. Please take a look and share your thoughts/comments as any info can be changed before this gets forwarded on. The petition can be emailed and/or posted on sites such as facebook, twitter, etc.

This is what the email looks like:

******** has just read and signed the petition: Letter to APA Regarding the Applicant-Internship Imbalance
You can view this petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/letter-to-apa-regarding-the-applicant-internship-imbalance/

Message from ********:
-----
Hi, I signed the petition "Letter to APA Regarding the Applicant-Internship Imbalance". I'm asking you to sign this petition to help us reach our goal of 1,000 signatures. I care deeply about this cause, and I hope you will support our efforts.
-----
ThePetitionSite.com provides tools and empowers individuals to make a difference and effect positive change through online activism. Get connected with the causes you care about, take action to make the world a better place, and start your own petition at http://www.ThePetitionSite.com!
ThePetitionSite.com is powered by Care2, the largest and most trusted information and action site for people who care to make a difference in their lives and the world. www.care2.com

 

[KillerDiller]

Hi Widmup, thanks for doing this legwork. Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't get the link to work .

 

[Student4Life0]

Hi Widmup, thanks for doing this legwork. Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't get the link to work .

Didn't load for me either..

 

[widmup]

Not sure what the problem is....
I will look into it later today

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Not sure what the problem is....
I will look into it later today

It pulled up for me, it's just very, very slow. Seems to be a function of the site as a whole, though, as the parent url (www.thepetitionsite.com) is also very slow to load.

 

[PsychStudent101]

I am a second year Ph.D. student at a professional school in California. I'm not sure how I feel about this whole issue. On one hand, I would love for there to be fewer students in my cohort and cheaper tuition. However, I can't help but disagree (perhaps, not completely understand) some of the points in the letter.

1) It would end the internship imbalance.

I am having a very difficult time understanding how professional school students are negatively impacting non-professional schools students in regards to internship matching. If by 'internship imbalance' you simply mean a higher overall match %, then yes. I can see how the elimination of professional schools will result in that. But it does not impact the likelihood a non-professional school student has in matching at an internship site they want.

3) It would improve the quality of internship opportunities by alleviating the burden of review that all sites face as they are bombarded with 100s of applications; limiting this would allow sites to conduct a more thorough evaluation of candidates

I believe this to be one of the weaker points of the letter. To make this assertion, data from internship sites stating that this is a problem is required. Regardless, I do not see how more applications received at a certain internship site equates to a lower quality in the internship site. Furthermore, this letter infers that having more applicants to an internship site means that sites are unable to properly review their candidates. While I understand that, theoretically, sites will have more time to review their applicants if they receive less applicants (assuming they devote a strict amount of time to application review regardless of # of applications received). I find it very hard to believe that this results in sites ultimately choosing lower quality students to fill their internship sites. Thus, regardless of the applicant, I don't see how more professional students applying to a site negatively impacts a non-professional school student has in matching to that site. If you are a strong applicant, you are a strong applicant-- regardless of what school you come from.

4) It would improve the quality of internship programs that students select (e.g., again, many programs in California encourage students to attend non-APA accredited sites, many unfunded; many students now match to non-APA accredited sites)

You need to define "many programs." Because of the strong implications of this letter, this needs to be more clearly defined. I cannot speak for other programs, but we are all expected to apply for APA internships at my school. Of course, not all do. How does the elimination of professional schools improve the quality of internship programs that students select from? Please explain this further.

5) It would protect the public from overly-stressed and poorly educated professionals.

You are stating that a) students from professional school are poorly educated, and b) that they are overly-stressed following graduation. You cannot state that all students from professional programs are poorly educated. You have nothing to back that statement up with. Stating "overly-stressed" is not as clear-cut. I believe you are referring to the stress professional students have in paying back their debt. I can state for a fact that there is not one student in my cohort that is not aware of the ramifications their loans will eventually have on their post-graduate lives. We have financial aid orientations to discuss this exact issue. Does it excuse my school from demanding such high tuition? No. However, the students at my school are not oblivious to the ramifications of the debt they are incurring. And "protecting the public"? Again, there needs to be data present in the letter that indicates that the presence of professional schools is bad for the public. I obviously don't agree with that assertion.

 

[O Gurl]

PsychStudent101, I can attempt to clarify some of your concerns.

First, let us start with the definition of clinical psychology:

Clinical psychology includes the scientific study and application of psychology for the purpose of understanding, preventing, and relieving psychologically-based distress or dysfunction and to promote subjective well-being and personal development.

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_psychology

While no one can say that all professional school graduates are less well-educated, it stands to reason that attending a free-standing institution, without inter-departmental supports to facilitate the learning of neurodevelopment, statistics and research design, psychopharm, or public health, for example, and without funding in place for research training would limit a program's ability to train a clinical psychologist as defined above. Professional schools do not attract the same caliber of professors/instructors due to these lack of university supports (funding, tenure track positions, etc). Also, depending on locale, professional school programs can encounter greater difficulty in placing students with quality externships/practica due to the sheer sized of their own cohorts or reputation of their program versus others in the area. So if we are looking at a paucity of stellar teachers, course rigor, scientific training, and supervised practice, it would certainly make sense to deduce that free-standing professional schools do not provide the same quality education as university-based programs. Proof? Look at match and EPPP pass rates. Also, using a reverse approach, let's look at admissions criteria. If a program requires less in terms of GPA, GRE, prior experiences, then they are starting out with less prepared students. Add that to the limitations mentioned above, and voila! One can see how the presence of professional schools is bad for the field and for the public.

As for how eliminating these schools helps address the imbalance, one can see that in the past 15 years or so since professional school hit the market, the number of match hopefuls has multiplied (more than doubled). This has implications for all students in that it does overwhelm sites. Yes, in theory a strong applicant is a strong applicant, but when you are comparing someone on the typical 4 or 5 +1 track who is applying for the first time to people who are entering the match for the 2nd or 3rd time with all the additional experience to boot, it is possible to see how the first-time applicant could lose out at certain sites, albeit, probably not the highest quality sites. That said, I would tend to agree with you that by and large, well trained students from university-based programs are not going to bear as much of the imbalance burden as professional school students themselves. So I must point out that this letter is actually to help you guys as much as the rest of us. You'll notice that this letter goes beyond the internship imbalance to address the debt issues, funneling toward non-accredited sites, and limitation placed on job/earning potentials that stem from this.

 

[loveoforganic]

Not being thoroughly tied up in this matter, it seems to me that a smaller list of more valuable signatures would be more worthwhile than a larger list of less valuable signatures. In other words, put in additional legwork on the front end, send it specifically to academically affiliated psychologists asking for their signatures, and see what you come up with on that end.

Two lists would probably be valuable, but I would think there would be considerable more value with a list of people in power.

 

[PsychStudent101]

While no one can say that all professional school graduates are less well-educated, it stands to reason that attending a free-standing institution, without inter-departmental supports to facilitate the learning of neurodevelopment, statistics and research design, psychopharm, or public health, for example, and without funding in place for research training would limit a program's ability to train a clinical psychologist as defined above. Professional schools do not attract the same caliber of professors/instructors due to these lack of university supports (funding, tenure track positions, etc). Also, depending on locale, professional school programs can encounter greater difficulty in placing students with quality externships/practica due to the sheer sized of their own cohorts or reputation of their program versus others in the area. So if we are looking at a paucity of stellar teachers, course rigor, scientific training, and supervised practice, it would certainly make sense to deduce that free-standing professional schools do not provide the same quality education as university-based programs. Proof? Look at match and EPPP pass rates. Also, using a reverse approach, let's look at admissions criteria. If a program requires less in terms of GPA, GRE, prior experiences, then they are starting out with less prepared students. Add that to the limitations mentioned above, and voila! One can see how the presence of professional schools is bad for the field and for the public.

I understand this logic, and it's a reasonable conclusion to make. One of the biggest frustrations I have about my school (outside of the tuition), is the quality of adjunct professors. However, I know that our core faculty do have tenure. I do not know the extent of the funding that is available to faculty. Though, any funding that is available seems mostly to come from outside sources and not the school itself.

Despite the fact that I am at a professional school, I do wish there were tougher standards for admissions. But I know that many Ph.D. applicants that are not accepted get offered a Psy.D. admission. I know there are not very tough standards to the Psy.D. program, though I am sure that admissions are not as tough to the Ph.D. program as is for university-based programs.

As for how eliminating these schools helps address the imbalance, one can see that in the past 15 years or so since professional school hit the market, the number of match hopefuls has multiplied (more than doubled). This has implications for all students in that it does overwhelm sites. Yes, in theory a strong applicant is a strong applicant, but when you are comparing someone on the typical 4 or 5 +1 track who is applying for the first time to people who are entering the match for the 2nd or 3rd time with all the additional experience to boot, it is possible to see how the first-time applicant could lose out at certain sites, albeit, probably not the highest quality sites. That said, I would tend to agree with you that by and large, well trained students from university-based programs are not going to bear as much of the imbalance burden as professional school students themselves. So I must point out that this letter is actually to help you guys as much as the rest of us. You'll notice that this letter goes beyond the internship imbalance to address the debt issues, funneling toward non-accredited sites, and limitation placed on job/earning potentials that stem from this.

When making my response, I had honestly not thought about those students who are applying for a 2nd or 3rd time and the advantage they might hold over 1st year applicants due to more experience. Though I have only been posting recently in this forum, I have been viewing it before I began graduate school. Thus, I am VERY aware of the discrimination a professional school student can encounter. I definitely in support of a system that further regulates professional schools so that unqualified applicants don't dilute the field. I have worked very hard thus far to be as competitive as a student from a traditional school for internship.

 

[PsychStudent101]

1) It would end the internship imbalance.



Professional school simply refers to Psy.D. These are professional degrees. I actually didn't intend to leave Phds out of this letter. But, it probably doesn't lessen the main point. In any case, the term includes a rather large range of programs in terms of quality. Some of these programs have very large class sizes. Some match at very low rates to APA sites. It doesn't matter if they are negatively impacting non-professional school students, they are negatively impacting other professional school students and the field by increasing the number of students seeking internships.



More applications = more drastic measures at reducing numbers (e.g., throwing out all applications from Argosy). Having to review large numbers of applications is frustrating. If there are less applicants, sites can pay more attention to the details of an application. You might get a more fair shake.

I really hope that (throwing out applications from professional school applicants) does not actually occur, and I am in support of a system that prevents this from eventually occurring. When I apply for internship, I do not want to be discriminated against because I come from a professional school.

5)

Are you expected to apply and also attend an APA internship?

Less competition means more power to the student. This is simple supply and demand. We have more student supply and internship supply at present. Lowering the student supply changes that equation.

Yes, I am expected to apply and attend an APA internship (this may because I am in the Ph.D. program though-- I cannot speak for the expectations of the Psy.D. program). Did you mean to say "more student supply than internship supply"? Yes, I agree with this. As professional schools admit more students, the supply increases. Thus, to reiterate, I would like to see decrease in the amount of students accepted to professional schools. However, I still do not believe that alone negatively impacts a strong applicants chances of landing an APA internship.

A) I am stating that students that attend non-APA accredited internships are more likely to be poorly educated. I do also think it likely that student at certain types of programs are more likely to be poorly educated relative to their peers from other programs (e.g., Argosy/Alliant). But, that wasn't the point I was making here. I also never made any implication that "all" student are anything. This all about distribution curves.

B)Awareness of the source of stress (debt) does not alleviate the stress. Further, not matching to an internship is stressful. Further, struggling to find good employment is stressful (something that can be caused by not matching to an APA accredited internship).

This is about protecting a) public b) students c) profession.

a) You stated "poorly educated professionals" in your letter. I suggest you revise it reflect that "likelihood" that you state here. I believe that, ultimately, you want both traditional and professional school students to support this letter. Stating that we are poorly educated is not a good way to build this support.

b) It may not alleviate it, but I imagine one who is educated (like myself) about the impact their debt will have on their lives will have less stress than one who is. I agree that one, despite their preparations, will be stressed if they are placed in a position (a job with a meager salary) that does not allow them to pay back their loans. I still have difficult time seeing how this translates to an overall problem for the public. Those who are taking on these large loans are doing so to work in a field in which you are helping and assisting the public. While I am not in the workforce yet, I am extremely wary of agreeing with your assertion that the presence of professional schools is a bad thing for the public.

As stated in a previous post though, I do not want the field to be diluted. Thus, I do support the efforts of this letter. I agree that this regulation of professional schools is beneficial to students and the field in general.

 

[Sanity6]

Further, a substantial number in states such as California forgo APA/APPIC entirely, electing for unregulated internship experiences...

After following this thread for awhile, I feel that I must call attention to something that has gone seemingly unnoticed. First, I absolutely agree that the APPIC system and the imbalance under which it is operating is deplorable. The fact that we have a governing agency which has yet to make any useful efforts to rectify the situation is even more outrageous. I agree that we as grad students have a right (and a responsibility) to raise the issue and demand redress.

Secondly however, as I have found to be the case on this board in general, I feel that the tone of the argument is somewhat off base and elitist. Although the contributors are advocating for "our" profession, the language seems to communicate another case of "us vs. them." In this case, "us" referring to the university students who have been selected by "fully-funded" programs (and work within the university), and "them" referring to students of "professional" schools who take loans and (hopefully) do not have to work while completing their programs.

While this attitude which is embedded in many of the threads on this board grates on me personally, more importantly I fear that it undermines the effectiveness of the message meant to be conveyed to the APA. For example...

...Further, we strongly suggest that APA remove accreditation from these programs, and advocate that state licensing boards deny licensure to new students after a target date (one that does not affect current students). This would serve many important goals for our field. 1) It would end the internship imbalance. 2) It would limit the amount of debt our professionals are saddled with upon graduation 3) It would improve the quality of internship opportunities by alleviating the burden of review that all sites face as they are bombarded with 100s of applications; limiting this would allow sites to conduct a more thorough evaluation of candidates 4) It would improve the quality of internship programs that students select (e.g., again, many programs in California encourage student to attend non-APA accredited sites, many unfunded; many students now match to non-APA accredited sites) 5) It would protect the public from overly-stressed and poorly educated professionals.

Would denying licenses to students depending on their program of origin really have anything to do with the problems we now face? If a professional is able to obtain a license in my state (California), doesn't that mean that they are "up to snuff" regardless of where they attended school? Perhaps in some states where it is relatively simple to gain licensure this might make more sense, but in California we have some of the most stringent standards to obtain and retain licensure. Therefore, I feel quite confident that someone licensed here has obtained adequate foundational education and experience.

As for yanking APA accreditation, it seems simple, but what of the programs that cannot be APA accredited because they are not yet covered (e.g., forensic psychology)? In other words, APA accreditation isn't everything.

Finally, in response to the suggestions regarding captive sites or doing away with the nationwide system altogether...I agree that the nationwide system is absolutely necessary as a means of avoiding professional isolation and "inbreeding."

What I don't agree with however, is the general disdain shown by some for California schools, sites, CAPIC, etc. Considering the fact that we have the most APPIC sites of any other state hands down, perhaps the problem isn't just professional schools. At least not those in California. Perhaps there is an "imbalance" in candidates applying to this region. From where I sit, the largest source of frustration is the enormous number of applications that our sites receive (even the less-than-desirable ones).

I tell ya, if changes are to be made or some kind of limits imposed, the first thing I'd like to see is a limit on the number of applications submitted to California spots by non-Californians. I realize that I myself may sound elitist in saying this, but it's how I feel, and frankly...ya'll started it.

 

[O Gurl]

It is bewildering to me that discussions on how to fix the internship imbalance (and larger issues it foreshadows) are being met with personal, and in some ways petty, nit-picking. Repeatedly accusing traditional students of being elitist doesn't change the fact that professional schools provide a short-cut to doctoral training—a degree that should denote a competent scientist/scholar/practitioner—without the same foundation as universities. These shortcuts are impacting the landscape and future of clinical psychology. The automatic retort that others are just being snobby ignores that fact that it takes a great deal of hubris to seek these short-cut to begin with. Whether it is the" non-traditional student" argument… or the "I'm too good to live anywhere other than NYC/CA" argument… or the "university criteria are too strict, but I'm gonna be a psychologist anyway" argument, feeding into programs that are selling our profession for their own profit is rather ego-centric. Ironically, those of us being called elitist could just turn a blind eye to the whole mess and say:

"Well, I am from a university with a solid rep; I don't have 100K in debt; I got my APA internship; I can work at med centers, VAs, federal prisons, universities, and anywhere else I please and I won't have to compete as much with social workers and master's therapists…. so screw the professional school crowd."

However, we are motivated to protect the field, consumers, and the students who get suckered by these programs. So if you wish to criticize our efforts:

1. Please have a valid reason for your opposition—one other than just your pride
2. Please contribute viable alternative solutions

Sorry, but it gets annoying that people who really aren't catching the immediate effects of the professional downturn are taking time out to think of others while people who should care the most remain focused on themselves and trying to prove they are "just as good."

 

[O Gurl]

Perhaps you guys have already seen this, but I just came across this from the APPIC website: http://www.appic.org/downloads/APA Imbalance Statement.pdf

I think it is interesting that after to 2009 MATCH, the APA was calling for changes to address the imbalance--not sure how much it helped. Among the proposed changes mentioned are:

1) only allowing students from APA accredited programs to participate in the match
2) requiring programs with below average match rates to create their own internships or limit their enrollments by the number of students they tend to place

The only thing missing is increasing the standard for APA accreditation to begin with. Change #1 would do virtually nothing to help this problem since the APA accredits ALL of the 15 programs that were identified to contribute over 30% of unmatched students.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Perhaps you guys have already seen this, but I just came across this from the APPIC website: http://www.appic.org/downloads/APA Imbalance Statement.pdf

I think it is interesting that after to 2009 MATCH, the APA was calling for changes to address the imbalance--not sure how much it helped. Among the proposed changes mentioned are:

1) only allowing students from APA accredited programs to participate in the match
2) requiring programs with below average match rates to create their own internships or limit their enrollments by the number of students they tend to place

The only thing missing is increasing the standard for APA accreditation to begin with. Change #1 would do virtually nothing to help this problem since the APA accredits ALL of the 15 programs that were identified to contribute over 30% of unmatched students.

It's definitely a bit odd that APA would call on graduate programs to "assume more responsibility for their student match rates" (an idea that I fully support, mind you) while mysteriously making no mention of the role they've played in perpetuating the imbalance by continuing to accredit programs that consistently place low proportions of students.

 

[KayJay85]

Thanks for posting that link, OG! I hadn't seen this either.

Right out of the gate, the APA's focus seems very narrow:

APA has two critical concerns:making sure that there are sufficient internship positions for every qualified student and that those internships meet quality training standards.

No mention at all of the fact that the increase in students is unjustified and that these individuals may still have problems securing jobs. Also, as pointed out, they did not own up to the fact that the programs with the worst stats are, in fact, APA-accredited. The letter drafted here could be very useful at pointing out the root of the problem that the APA is conveniently ignoring.

 

[Sanity6]

Ironically, those of us being called elitist could just turn a blind eye to the whole mess and say:

“Well, I am from a university with a solid rep; I don’t have 100K in debt; I got my APA internship; I can work at med centers, VAs, federal prisons, universities, and anywhere else I please and I won’t have to compete as much with social workers and master’s therapists…. so screw the professional school crowd.”

If this is in fact true, then why don't you? You will certainly hear no protests from me.

So if you wish to criticize our efforts:

1. Please have a valid reason for your opposition—one other than just your pride
2. Please contribute viable alternative solutions

Sorry, but it gets annoying that people who really aren’t catching the immediate effects of the professional downturn are taking time out to think of others while people who should care the most remain focused on themselves and trying to prove they are “just as good.”

Honestly O Gurl, "get to the back of the bus!" Sounds like you'd like us "lesser" students to get down on our knees and thank you for taking time out and thinking of the "common folk." I'm being absolutely serious--if you don't see the irony of your comments, then I worry about your future clients. I'm venturing that empathy is not one of your strong suits...that's empathy, not sympathy.

Perhaps before you begin to attack me further you should stop and really consider my point. I do not wish to continue wasting everyone's time with "nit picking."

To Jon Snow:

Apparently not, see CAPIC. See that a huge % of psychologists in California come from Alliant type programs.

So, to clarify, by virtue of being from one of those "Alliant-type" programs a student is deemed not up to snuff, regardless of their success in obtaining licensure and in their careers?

Are they clinical programs?

(Speaking about forensic programs...) No, they are not clinical.

"Considering the fact that we have the most APPIC sites of any other state hands down, perhaps the problem isn't just professional schools."

I don't understand, please explain.

I hoped to explain with what I went on to say. Basically, (and O Gurl, here's your viable alternative) if the 84 APPIC sites that are in the state of California were restricted in part to students from California graduate schools, perhaps the impact on other sites around the country wouldn't be as great as it has been. Part of the reason I say this is because, in my admittedly informal poll, a majority of students here wish to stay here.

Hmm, not sure what to say about that other than there are only a few decent schools in Cali.

If you want to rewrite parts of the letter to make the point differently, please go ahead.

If there are only a few "decent" schools here, then as a state we must be contributing largely to the problem. If this is so, then maybe restricting the number of "incoming" as well as "outgoing" internship candidates would have some impact on the problem.

In any case, I would not like to edit the letter, as I would not like to be a part of anything that disparages other students so strongly--including your community. The reason I even commented (O Gurl, here's your valid reason...) is to bring attention to the fact that this is one way that your efforts may be perceived by others. I'm sure that others share my view, but are reluctant to speak up for fear of being criticized. Since, as you and others have pointed out, we professional school students are present in large numbers, I thought that you may be interested in our perspective.

Oh, and as for the "offending 15," I agree that a forthright approach that addresses specific programs is needed. Such tact would help to clarify and hopefully illuminate solutions to the problem.

Just my two cents (which appear to be of questionable worth).

 

[O Gurl]

Sanity6, I care because the practice and science of psychology is a passion of mine and I care deeply about providing top notch mental health services to the public. I view the internship imbalance as just one symptom of a larger problem that our field faces. In the past 10-15 years, the model for training clinical psychologists has been drastically and unnecessarily altered beyond recognition. These new model programs have since wrecked havoc in terms of overwhelming the market and obscuring the definition of what clinical psychology--- thus we are seeing more and more new positions recruiting psychologists OR LCSWs. I and every other doctoral-trained psychologist have a right and duty to be concerned about this. The APA has a duty to protect the field and consumers. They are willfully refusing to do so. If none of these issues matter to you, then one has to wonder what your real stake in this is. It is difficult to imagine that any psychologist or trainee would not want to see this trajectory fixed. All I am asking is that you provide clear reasons why raising standards for APA accreditation would not help. Also viable alternatives are welcomed. So far, you've suggested removing CA from the rest of the nation in terms of psychology training. Why? So CA trainees don't have to move? Well, then they shouldn't pursue a doctorate in psychology. That is precisely the self-focused mentality that bewilders me. The mental health consumers of CA have a right to psychologists who are held to the same standards as psychologists everywhere else, no?

 

[O Gurl]

Hey, JS. Just adjusted the parentheses at the end.

We request that the APA sanction programs that use the student loan system as a method of existence, charging at the limits of what's borrowable. These programs are not good citizens in the psychology professional community. Further, we strongly suggest that APA remove accreditation from these programs, and advocate that state licensing boards deny licensure to new students after a target date (one that does not affect current students). This would serve many important goals for our field. 1) It would end the internship imbalance. 2) It would limit the amount of debt our professionals are saddled with upon graduation 3) It would improve the quality of internship opportunities by alleviating the burden of review that all sites face as they are bombarded with 100s of applications; limiting this would allow sites to conduct a more thorough evaluation of candidates 4) It would improve the quality of internship programs that students select (e.g., again, many programs in California encourage students to attend non-APA accredited sites, many unfunded; many students now match to non-APA accredited sites) 5) It would protect the public from overly-stressed and poorly educated professionals due to neccessities created by the internship imbalance (e.g., completing doctoral studies with unaccredited internship training, thereby limiting future career prospects).

 

[erg923]

The letter looks good and in the total opposite view of sanity, I am glad it is targeting the surplus isssue, largely at the hands of professional schools. However, even I can admit this isnt the whole of the problem. While the letter is not the place for this, I would really like to see a movement towards 1.) a cap on how many programs one can apply to (again, in an attempt to control application flooding) 2.) A relaxation of requiring in person interviews (I find it ethically questionable that students should be expected to gladly spend a couple thousand buck flying around the country, and be damn grateful for the opportunity 3.) A serious discussion about developing more captive internship options.

 

[O Gurl]

While the letter is not the place for this, I would really like to see a movement towards 1.) a cap on how many programs one can apply to (again, in an attempt to control application flooding) 2.) A relaxation of requiring in person interviews (I find it ethically questionable that students should be expected to gladly spend a couple thousand buck flying around the country, and be damn grateful for the opportunity 3.) A serious discussion about developing more captive internship options.

I totally agree with you on points 1 and 2. I am happy to report that in-person interviews were not as critical to my postdoc search. All of my sites were fine with phone or in-person. I actually received an offer from a site where I'd interviewed by phone.

Can't say I agree with point 3 as I am a hardy advocate of diverse training--esp. since for most people, internship is their very first exposure to FT clinical work. I think that getting exposure to how people in other areas/institutions work is critical after spending 4-6 years exhausting the training experiences at one's home program.

 

[PsyDLICSW]

Dear APA,

The internship match system is proving to be an increasingly arduous hurdle for many aspiring young psychologists. The imbalance appears to be the product of rapid expansion of graduate schools in professional psychology. The inflation in number of students over the past decade has not been matched by either the number of available APA accredited internship slots or the demand for clinical psychologists in the workforce. While it is clear that a few programs are responsible for much of these problems, we do not believe the "weeding out" process should be conducted on the back-end, after huge amounts of time and money have been invested, but on the front-end. Students entering into professional schools of psychology are at a particularly vulnerable period in their lives, most not yet having the economic savvy to understand the ramifications of debt, nor education in the realities of the field with respect to what it takes to be competitive, secure a quality internship, postdoctoral training and a professional level job (not one that is occupied just as easily by social workers or other masters level providers).

To address these problems, we suggest that the APA regulate the most grievous offenders that put our young professional population in greatest jeopardy, burdened with 6-figure debt, poor internship prospects, and a cascade effect that could be ruinous to both the livelihood and happiness of many of our workforce but also the quality of the product that we offer as psychologists. The current situation is akin to other predatory loan schemes and should fall within, at least, morally, the concept of usury laws. We request that the APA sanction programs that use the student loan system as a method of existence, charging at the limits of what's borrowable rather than what is needed for the field. These programs are not good citizens in the psychology professional community. Further, we strongly suggest that APA remove accreditation from these programs, and advocate that state licensing boards deny licensure to new students after a target date (one that does not affect current students). This would serve many important goals for our field. 1) It would end the internship imbalance. 2) It would limit the amount of debt our professionals are saddled with upon graduation 3) It would improve the quality of internship opportunities by alleviating the burden of review that all sites face as they are bombarded with 100s of applications; limiting this would allow sites to conduct a more thorough review 4) It would improve the quality of internship programs that students select (e.g., many programs in California encourage student to attend non-APA accredited sites, many unfunded) 5) It would protect the public from overly-stressed poorly educated professionals.


Sincerely,


People against the unethical treatment of students of psychology.

Well said!

 

[PsyDLICSW]

If this is in fact true, then why don't you? You will certainly hear no protests from me.



Honestly O Gurl, "get to the back of the bus!" Sounds like you'd like us "lesser" students to get down on our knees and thank you for taking time out and thinking of the "common folk." I'm being absolutely serious--if you don't see the irony of your comments, then I worry about your future clients. I'm venturing that empathy is not one of your strong suits...that's empathy, not sympathy.

Like I and others have said before, this is not the place to attack others in our field or be disrespectful. You could strengthen your argument by not making negative comments about other posts or StudentDoctor members on this forum.




To Jon Snow:



So, to clarify, by virtue of being from one of those "Alliant-type" programs a student is deemed not up to snuff, regardless of their success in obtaining licensure and in their careers?



(Speaking about forensic programs...) No, they are not clinical.




I hoped to explain with what I went on to say. Basically, (and O Gurl, here's your viable alternative) if the 84 APPIC sites that are in the state of California were restricted in part to students from California graduate schools, perhaps the impact on other sites around the country wouldn't be as great as it has been. Part of the reason I say this is because, in my admittedly informal poll, a majority of students here wish to stay here.



If there are only a few "decent" schools here, then as a state we must be contributing largely to the problem. If this is so, then maybe restricting the number of "incoming" as well as "outgoing" internship candidates would have some impact on the problem.

In any case, I would not like to edit the letter, as I would not like to be a part of anything that disparages other students so strongly--including your community. The reason I even commented (O Gurl, here's your valid reason...) is to bring attention to the fact that this is one way that your efforts may be perceived by others. I'm sure that others share my view, but are reluctant to speak up for fear of being criticized. Since, as you and others have pointed out, we professional school students are present in large numbers, I thought that you may be interested in our perspective.

Oh, and as for the "offending 15," I agree that a forthright approach that addresses specific programs is needed. Such tact would help to clarify and hopefully illuminate solutions to the problem.

Just my two cents (which appear to be of questionable worth).

I understand that you feel like others are attacking your program and you have the right to denfend yourself and your program. But again, the name calling and negative comments ("elitist" "get to the back of the bus") weaken your argument and put your efforts to defend yourself and your program in a negative light. Use evidence to denfend your efforts, not name calling. This won't get us anywhere.

 

[LindsPsyD]

Sanity6, I care because the practice and science of psychology is a passion of mine and I care deeply about providing top notch mental health services to the public. I view the internship imbalance as just one symptom of a larger problem that our field faces. In the past 10-15 years, the model for training clinical psychologists has been drastically and unnecessarily altered beyond recognition. These new model programs have since wrecked havoc in terms of overwhelming the market and obscuring the definition of what clinical psychology--- thus we are seeing more and more new positions recruiting psychologists OR LCSWs. I and every other doctoral-trained psychologist have a right and duty to be concerned about this. The APA has a duty to protect the field and consumers. They are willfully refusing to do so. If none of these issues matter to you, then one has to wonder what your real stake in this is. It is difficult to imagine that any psychologist or trainee would not want to see this trajectory fixed. All I am asking is that you provide clear reasons why raising standards for APA accreditation would not help. Also viable alternatives are welcomed. So far, you’ve suggested removing CA from the rest of the nation in terms of psychology training. Why? So CA trainees don’t have to move? Well, then they shouldn’t pursue a doctorate in psychology. That is precisely the self-focused mentality that bewilders me. The mental health consumers of CA have a right to psychologists who are held to the same standards as psychologists everywhere else, no?

Hi OGurl,
I want to start out by saying that I agree with you for the most part. Something needs to be done about programs that take 50-100 people into a cohort. Honestly, I feel that programs should be capped at 20 per cohort. There just aren't that many people who are good/will be good at doing therapy. I also hear your concerns about faculty/resources not being on par with university-based programs and I am in whole-hearted agreement about programs that hand out clinical psych degrees like they are GEDs. So let's say that those programs are cut or those issues are dealt with - would you still feel that there was a problem? That the altered model for training (I assume you are speaking about PsyD programs) is still a problem?

I have been taught by literal legends in the field of psychology in my PsyD program and my practicum opportunities have been stellar. You mentioned in another post that most people don't have the opportunity for FT clinical work until internship year. While I know this to be the case, I had to do a double take because I have held a caseload of approximately 25 individual clients as well as 2-3 groups/week for the last two years - essentially full-time. You and I are both passionate about clinical psychology and providing "top-notch" mental health care. The reason I chose a PsyD over a PhD was because I knew I wanted to be a clinician and I knew that (at least in my program) my clinical training experiences (note: not my research) would exceed any I got in any PhD programs I considered (please do not take this as me putting down PhDs - I absolutely am not!).

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if you are trying to say that a different model of training (which again, I'm assuming you mean the PsyD model) is the wrong model, and APA should only accredit the PhD model, I have to disagree very strongly that this would truly benefit the field of psychology. I think that is likely where some people are getting upset and throwing "elitist" at you. I don't think that - I believe you are genuinely concerned about the field, as am I. In my opinion, spending 3-4 years in a research lab does not make a good clinician. I had an undergraduate internship supervisor who went to McClean for her internship - it was her first FT clinical experience. She was sharp as a whip and knew everything there was to know about treating eating disorders. Unfortunately, despite graduating from such a prestigious internship and scoring an amazing job as a clinical director, she was a horrible clinician and all the patients and counselors in my clinic disliked her. On the same token, one of the best clinicians I have ever seen or worked with graduated as a PsyD from a professional school. The field of clinical psychology is tricky because so many factors go into making a good clinician. Much of it is personality and having a knack for the art of therapy (regardless of orientation). Some of it is acquiring and practicing a specific skill set. Some of it is simply real-life training (doing lots of therapy - getting lots of supervision). The APA does have a duty to protect both the field and consumers, but if you are implying that doing away with APA accredited PsyDs is the way to go about it, I believe you need to re-examine the evidence. I'm fine with stricter policies for accreditation, as long as those policies call for the reduction of cohort size, higher quality faculty and practicum training, reducing the student loan amount, etc. But completely doing away with the PsyD model takes it too far because the field would lose many people who are excellent clinicians but don't have the patience for years of lab-work before they actually get their hands wet, so to speak. Each model has its value and limitations - this needs to be taken into account when petitioning the APA.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Hi OGurl,
I want to start out by saying that I agree with you for the most part. Something needs to be done about programs that take 50-100 people into a cohort. Honestly, I feel that programs should be capped at 20 per cohort. There just aren't that many people who are good/will be good at doing therapy. I also hear your concerns about faculty/resources not being on par with university-based programs and I am in whole-hearted agreement about programs that hand out clinical psych degrees like they are GEDs. So let's say that those programs are cut or those issues are dealt with - would you still feel that there was a problem? That the altered model for training (I assume you are speaking about PsyD programs) is still a problem?

I have been taught by literal legends in the field of psychology in my PsyD program and my practicum opportunities have been stellar. You mentioned in another post that most people don't have the opportunity for FT clinical work until internship year. While I know this to be the case, I had to do a double take because I have held a caseload of approximately 25 individual clients as well as 2-3 groups/week for the last two years - essentially full-time. You and I are both passionate about clinical psychology and providing "top-notch" mental health care. The reason I chose a PsyD over a PhD was because I knew I wanted to be a clinician and I knew that (at least in my program) my clinical training experiences (note: not my research) would exceed any I got in any PhD programs I considered (please do not take this as me putting down PhDs - I absolutely am not!).

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if you are trying to say that a different model of training (which again, I'm assuming you mean the PsyD model) is the wrong model, and APA should only accredit the PhD model, I have to disagree very strongly that this would truly benefit the field of psychology. I think that is likely where some people are getting upset and throwing "elitist" at you. I don't think that - I believe you are genuinely concerned about the field, as am I. In my opinion, spending 3-4 years in a research lab does not make a good clinician. I had an undergraduate internship supervisor who went to McClean for her internship - it was her first FT clinical experience. She was sharp as a whip and knew everything there was to know about treating eating disorders. Unfortunately, despite graduating from such a prestigious internship and scoring an amazing job as a clinical director, she was a horrible clinician and all the patients and counselors in my clinic disliked her. On the same token, one of the best clinicians I have ever seen or worked with graduated as a PsyD from a professional school. The field of clinical psychology is tricky because so many factors go into making a good clinician. Much of it is personality and having a knack for the art of therapy (regardless of orientation). Some of it is acquiring and practicing a specific skill set. Some of it is simply real-life training (doing lots of therapy - getting lots of supervision). The APA does have a duty to protect both the field and consumers, but if you are implying that doing away with APA accredited PsyDs is the way to go about it, I believe you need to re-examine the evidence. I'm fine with stricter policies for accreditation, as long as those policies call for the reduction of cohort size, higher quality faculty and practicum training, reducing the student loan amount, etc. But completely doing away with the PsyD model takes it too far because the field would lose many people who are excellent clinicians but don't have the patience for years of lab-work before they actually get their hands wet, so to speak. Each model has its value and limitations - this needs to be taken into account when petitioning the APA.

O Gurl has actually said on more than one occasion that she has no problem with the Vail training model itself, assumings its strict and successful application. I would imagine that most, if not all, of those arguing against some of the issues you mention (large cohort sizes, lax admissions criteria, crippling debt) have no problems with the Psy.D. degree, and are in fact upset that the issue keeps getting turned into "Ph.D. vs. Psy.D." rather than "rigorous and appropriate training vs. something else."

 

[lifesanillusion]

There are now far more psychology graduate students applying for internship every year than there are positions. The imbalance and erosion of standards appear to be the product of rapid expansion of graduate schools in professional psychology (Parent & Williamson, 2010). The inflation in number of students over the past decade has not been matched by either the number of available APA accredited internship slots or the demand for clinical psychologists in the workforce. While it is clear that a few programs are responsible for much of these problems, we do not believe the "weeding out" process should be conducted on the back-end, after huge amounts of time and money have been invested, but on the front-end. Students entering into graduate programs in psychology are at a particularly vulnerable period in their lives, most not yet having the economic savvy to understand the ramifications of debt, nor education in the realities of the field with respect to what it takes to be competitive, to secure quality internship and postdoctoral training, and to attain a professional level job (not one that is occupied just as easily by social workers or other masters level providers).

Might I suggest a small rephrasing?

Because it is clear that a few programs are responsible for many of these problems, we strongly believe that regulation is needed to address these issues, rather than relying on the internship process to 'weed out' graduate students after huge amounts of time and money have been invested.

Thanks for undertaking this monumental task! This is a huge issue for all of us who want training and licensure in clinical psychology.

 

[PsyDLICSW]

Hi OGurl,
I want to start out by saying that I agree with you for the most part. Something needs to be done about programs that take 50-100 people into a cohort. Honestly, I feel that programs should be capped at 20 per cohort. There just aren't that many people who are good/will be good at doing therapy. I also hear your concerns about faculty/resources not being on par with university-based programs and I am in whole-hearted agreement about programs that hand out clinical psych degrees like they are GEDs. So let's say that those programs are cut or those issues are dealt with - would you still feel that there was a problem? That the altered model for training (I assume you are speaking about PsyD programs) is still a problem?

I have been taught by literal legends in the field of psychology in my PsyD program and my practicum opportunities have been stellar. You mentioned in another post that most people don't have the opportunity for FT clinical work until internship year. While I know this to be the case, I had to do a double take because I have held a caseload of approximately 25 individual clients as well as 2-3 groups/week for the last two years - essentially full-time. You and I are both passionate about clinical psychology and providing "top-notch" mental health care. The reason I chose a PsyD over a PhD was because I knew I wanted to be a clinician and I knew that (at least in my program) my clinical training experiences (note: not my research) would exceed any I got in any PhD programs I considered (please do not take this as me putting down PhDs - I absolutely am not!).

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if you are trying to say that a different model of training (which again, I'm assuming you mean the PsyD model) is the wrong model, and APA should only accredit the PhD model, I have to disagree very strongly that this would truly benefit the field of psychology. I think that is likely where some people are getting upset and throwing "elitist" at you. I don't think that - I believe you are genuinely concerned about the field, as am I. In my opinion, spending 3-4 years in a research lab does not make a good clinician. I had an undergraduate internship supervisor who went to McClean for her internship - it was her first FT clinical experience. She was sharp as a whip and knew everything there was to know about treating eating disorders. Unfortunately, despite graduating from such a prestigious internship and scoring an amazing job as a clinical director, she was a horrible clinician and all the patients and counselors in my clinic disliked her. On the same token, one of the best clinicians I have ever seen or worked with graduated as a PsyD from a professional school. The field of clinical psychology is tricky because so many factors go into making a good clinician. Much of it is personality and having a knack for the art of therapy (regardless of orientation). Some of it is acquiring and practicing a specific skill set. Some of it is simply real-life training (doing lots of therapy - getting lots of supervision). The APA does have a duty to protect both the field and consumers, but if you are implying that doing away with APA accredited PsyDs is the way to go about it, I believe you need to re-examine the evidence. I'm fine with stricter policies for accreditation, as long as those policies call for the reduction of cohort size, higher quality faculty and practicum training, reducing the student loan amount, etc. But completely doing away with the PsyD model takes it too far because the field would lose many people who are excellent clinicians but don't have the patience for years of lab-work before they actually get their hands wet, so to speak. Each model has its value and limitations - this needs to be taken into account when petitioning the APA.

In talking with O Girl, reading her posts, and her response to my posts, she is not against the PsyD degree. What she is against (and I agree with her) are the problems with professional schools with lax requirements (e.g. one of the Argosy schools does not require the GRE), huge cohort sizes (e.g. 80-100) that leave no opportunity for adequate supervision and training, no research and statistics training, huge amounts of debt, poor patch rates, poor EPPP scores, and poor licensure outcomes. I agree that being a good clinician is important, but one does not need a doctorate in clinical psychology to be an effective therapist, which is why we have LICSWs, LMHCs, MFTs, and LPCs. Those who seek doctoral level training in clinical psycholgy are looking for more than just training as an effective therapist. Those of us advocating for APA to intervene in the problem with professional schools want to eliminate programs that make the field and the PsyD degree look bad and flood the internship and job markets not to eliminate the PsyD degree. IMHO, schools like Argosy should not be accredited. I visited one of them because it was in the same area as one of my university based PsyD programs. I think that this particular Argosy as well as other schools like it are deplorable.

 

[O Gurl]

Thanks AA and PsyDLICSW.

In LindsPsyD's defense though, it has been difficult to articulate which programs I take issue with, which are the freestanding professional schools. It's hard because they have done such a crafty job of enmeshing themselves into the PsyD/university-based professional school/Vail Model of programs. However, it doesn't take much for someone to quickly realize that Argosy and Alliant PsyD programs are worlds apart from Indiana State or Baylor. There is NO comparison. One group approaches the Vail Model in the sense of training scholar practicioners in a university supported setting with doctoral commiserate admissions criteria and the other operates like Devry or other vocational programs that are fine for training skilled assistants (paralegals, veterinary assistants, dental assistants) but not for producing the primary professionals (lawyers, veterinarians, dentists). I do not think all psychologists should be trained in the Boulder/clinical PhD model. That would not make sense. I am saying that the Vail/clinical PsyD needs to be rescued from the businesses/scammers/diploma mills that are lowering the field to new depths.

 

[LindsPsyD]

Thanks AA and PsyDLICSW.

In LindsPsyD's defense though, it has been difficult to articulate which programs I take issue with, which are the freestanding professional schools. It's hard because they have done such a crafty job of enmeshing themselves into the PsyD/university-based professional school/Vail Model of programs. However, it doesn't take much for someone to quickly realize that Argosy and Alliant PsyD programs are worlds apart from Indiana State or Baylor. There is NO comparison. One group approaches the Vail Model in the sense of training scholar practicioners in a university supported setting with doctoral commiserate admissions criteria and the other operates like Devry or other vocational programs that are fine for training skilled assistants (paralegals, veterinary assistants, dental assistants) but not for producing the primary professionals (lawyers, veterinarians, dentists). I do not think all psychologists should be trained in the Boulder/clinical PhD model. That would not make sense. I am saying that the Vail/clinical PsyD needs to be rescued from the businesses/scammers/diploma mills that are lowering the field to new depths.

Awesome - just wanted to clarify!

 

[edieb]

Are we going to send the letter/e-mail out?

 

[PsychStudent101]

Thanks AA and PsyDLICSW.

In LindsPsyD's defense though, it has been difficult to articulate which programs I take issue with, which are the freestanding professional schools. It's hard because they have done such a crafty job of enmeshing themselves into the PsyD/university-based professional school/Vail Model of programs. However, it doesn't take much for someone to quickly realize that Argosy and Alliant PsyD programs are worlds apart from Indiana State or Baylor. There is NO comparison. One group approaches the Vail Model in the sense of training scholar practicioners in a university supported setting with doctoral commiserate admissions criteria and the other operates like Devry or other vocational programs that are fine for training skilled assistants (paralegals, veterinary assistants, dental assistants) but not for producing the primary professionals (lawyers, veterinarians, dentists). I do not think all psychologists should be trained in the Boulder/clinical PhD model. That would not make sense. I am saying that the Vail/clinical PsyD needs to be rescued from the businesses/scammers/diploma mills that are lowering the field to new depths.

What do you have to say about those students in a PsyD professional programs who get an APPIC or APA internship? I am fully aware that in a traditional, university-based clinical program usually 90-100% of the students match to an APA internship. While it is not a large representation of the entire professional student population, there is usually a range of 10-30 students in the PsyD program for the professional school I go to that get an APA or APPIC internship.

Again, I know that it's a low overall percentage-- especially because I am sure most PsyD students don't even apply to APPIC or APA internships. My point though is that for those 10-30 students a year, the program is working. I believe that the issue is not, as it seems you are putting it, that the schools are not preparing these students well enough. But that the schools are admitting way too many students (especially in the PsyD program). This is obviously due to financial reasons so that the schools can stay afloat. However, for those students who should have been in the school to begin with (that 10-30), the program works.

I also do not want to give the impression that I think having an APA/APPIC internship automatically equates to a successful clinical psychologist, but there is fierce competition for these internship positions (see the frustrations of the many students who did not match at all in the internship thread). The professional PsyD students who match into these spots along with university-based students definitely deserve it.

The issue is the numbers that are admitted. I know that faculty has an issue with the number of PsyD students at my school, but the administration (I'm sure) insists on admitting the high numbers for financial reasons. I do not believe professional schools should be eliminated. I would like for there to be APA regulation on the number of students admitted to these PsyD programs.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Again, I know that it's a low overall percentage-- especially because I am sure most PsyD students don't even apply to APPIC or APA internships. My point though is that for those 10-30 students a year, the program is working.

I'd hazard to guess that most Psy.D. students apply to APPIC/APA internships, as the vast majority of Psy.D. programs require an APA or APPIC internship. There are a sub-set of programs in California that have shown a trend to steer their students away from the APPIC process, which is a concerning shift. I've previously commented on this shift, though I don't recall where I posted the information.

I also do not want to give the impression that I think having an APA/APPIC internship automatically equates to a successful clinical psychologist, but there is fierce competition for these internship positions (see the frustrations of the many students who did not match at all in the internship thread). The professional PsyD students who match into these spots along with university-based students definitely deserve it.

The underlying issue is that an APA internship was the standard not too long ago (within the last 10-12 years), and now it is a "best case scenario". Due to the growing number of regionally acred. sites, the standard for many applicants has shifted towards regional acred., which I think it a huge step back for our profession.

I know there are some great training sites that don't have the resources to go through the APA acred. process, though that doesn't mean we should toss the baby out with the bath water. It is sad because it isn't like APA-acred. is some huge accomplishment, it was merely the acred. level that was accepted as sufficient by the psychology community.

Due to increased supply-side pressure, non-acred. and alternative acred. sites are popping up, which by their very existance negatively impact our field by introduce more variability into the system without data to support equivilancy in the training experience. The scariest unintended consequence is the increased presence of UNPAID internships, which devalues all interns. Our salaries are already ridiculous, and added UNPAID/slave labor is a slap in the face. I don't understand how that can be remotely ethical, given the bind that unmatched applicants are faced with in many states.

As an aside, I'm pretty concerned about students starting their graduate training now. From Day 1 you should be making decisions that will allow you to have the strongest CV by your 4th/5th year, so you have a shot at APA internships. Present, publish, take that extra externship, do whatever you can to differentiate yourself. Many students will match due to having a leg up for one or more reasons, but there is enough competition that even "above average" students can get edged out. It isn't all doom and gloom, but I know 5 years ago it wasn't as bad, and pre-Match the internship process was much less stressful.

 

[O Gurl]

Again, I know that it's a low overall percentage-- especially because I am sure most PsyD students don't even apply to APPIC or APA internships. My point though is that for those 10-30 students a year, the program is working. I believe that the issue is not, as it seems you are putting it, that the schools are not preparing these students well enough. But that the schools are admitting way too many students (especially in the PsyD program). This is obviously due to financial reasons so that the schools can stay afloat. However, for those students who should have been in the school to begin with (that 10-30), the program works.

Taking in too many students is, in itself, putting all students at a disadvantage. Funding is not the only reason cohorts at university-based programs are smaller. They are smaller so that each trainee is guaranteed the supervision/mentoring/development that he or she needs. That is simply not possible for the vast majority of trainees in cohorts of 60, 70, 80, even 90 students per year. Beyond this, I am quite skeptical that programs are trying to train doctors of any science with no university supports. People who want to call themselves "Dr" someday should go to an instituion of higher learning--I don't get what is so radical or taboo about that.

 

[O Gurl]

Are we going to send the letter/e-mail out?

Same question. I think we were stuck on the first online petition b/c the link did not work, right? I will take a stab at it this weekend.

 

[PsychStudent101]

Taking in too many students is, in itself, putting all students at a disadvantage. Funding is not the only reason cohorts at university-based programs are smaller. They are smaller so that each trainee is guaranteed the supervision/mentoring/development that he or she needs. That is simply not possible for the vast majority of trainees in cohorts of 60, 70, 80, even 90 students per year. Beyond this, I am quite skeptical that programs are trying to train doctors of any science with no university supports. People who want to call themselves "Dr" someday should go to an instituion of higher learning--I don't get what is so radical or taboo about that.

We have a lot of faculty at my school, and I don't know of any student who is concerned that they are not getting enough supervision or mentoring. I admit that I have not been exposed to a doctoral level psychology program at a university. Have you been exposed to PsyD students from a professional school? If so, have they communicated concerns to you regarding a deficit in supervision and mentoring at their programs? I state this because this is absolutely not a concern that any of the students in the PsyD program at the school I attend have. Again, we have a lot of faculty.

I agree with you regarding cohort size in general though-- simply because approximately 30-50% of the students likely wouldn't have been admitted had we had admission standards similar to a university.

 

[O Gurl]

Hey all,

I looked around different petition sites and worked on this today as I had some time. I used JS's letter, others' citations and the latest edits. Please take a look and share your thoughts/comments as any info can be changed before this gets forwarded on. The petition can be emailed and/or posted on sites such as facebook, twitter, etc.

This is what the email looks like:

******** has just read and signed the petition: Letter to APA Regarding the Applicant-Internship Imbalance
You can view this petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/letter-to-apa-regarding-the-applicant-internship-imbalance/

Message from ********:
-----
Hi, I signed the petition "Letter to APA Regarding the Applicant-Internship Imbalance". I'm asking you to sign this petition to help us reach our goal of 1,000 signatures. I care deeply about this cause, and I hope you will support our efforts.
-----
ThePetitionSite.com provides tools and empowers individuals to make a difference and effect positive change through online activism. Get connected with the causes you care about, take action to make the world a better place, and start your own petition at http://www.ThePetitionSite.com!
ThePetitionSite.com is powered by Care2, the largest and most trusted information and action site for people who care to make a difference in their lives and the world. www.care2.com

Hey, guys! I just tried the link Widmup provided: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/letter-to-apa-regarding-the-applicant-internship-imbalance/ and it worked fine for me. You cannot cut and paste it into the address bar. You have to actually click on the one in this post to get it to open. Please give it a go.

 

[Student4Life0]

Hey, guys! I just tried the link Widmup provided: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/letter-to-apa-regarding-the-applicant-internship-imbalance/ and it worked fine for me. You cannot cut and paste it into the address bar. You have to actually click on the one in this post to get it to open. Please give it a go.

Done

 

[O Gurl]

Done

____________________________________________________________________________________

So the link works!!! Are we wanting to update the letter before we start circulating this? I know JS made a few small changes at the end.

 

[AgapeBlue]

Done.

If there are going to be more changes made, I'll wait to forward it.

 

[JockNerd]

What's the plan for distribution of that link?

 

[O Gurl]

We've discussed sending it through list serves (APPIC and APA divisions), posting a sticky here, and perhaps setting up a FB page. I also think we need a good deal of support from training directors. All who are willing could send this via email to their TD or DCT (graduate, internship, and/or postdoc) and ask that they distribute it to others. Basically, where ever we can access psychologists and trainees.

 

[edieb]

We've discussed sending it through list serves (APPIC and APA divisions), posting a sticky here, and perhaps setting up a FB page. I also think we need a good deal of support from training directors. All who are willing could send this via email to their TD or DCT (graduate, internship, and/or postdoc) and ask that they distribute it to others. Basically, where ever we can access psychologists and trainees.

It is important that we stick with this task to completion rather than moving from complaint to another.

Maybe we can set up a domain page through godaddy.com and can all make a small donation to pay for the hosting. I would be glad to make a donation. Anybody else have any ideas?

 

[AgapeBlue]

It is important that we stick with this task to completion rather than moving from complaint to another.

Maybe we can set up a domain page through godaddy.com and can all make a small donation to pay for the hosting. I would be glad to make a donation. Anybody else have any ideas?

I'd willingly donate a bit to support a domain page dedicated to this petition, but not if it was hosted by Go Daddy...

Google sites is free..as are many of the Google related blog-type pages.

 

[O Gurl]

It is important that we stick with this task to completion rather than moving from complaint to another.

Not sure what you mean. I was throwing out ideas for how to pass the petition along.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

JSnow -- “A narrower definition at some point will be necessary if anything is to actually done. My understanding is this is supposed to raise awareness and further move the relevant powers to action.”

Are we there yet? I do, truly and honestly, appreciate that you want to be careful about who gets targeted by the PATUTOSOP petition. As you maintained – the problem is not simply professional schools. I’ll argue that it’s unfair to generalize about FSPS.

As for your red flags (you’d stop programs that: leave students with > 100k debt, poorly match to APA internship, have lower than average EPPP scores on first attempt, and actively discourage students not to apply to APA internships (rather CAPIC, etc.)).

• Can you or anyone else discuss the difference between APA and CAPIC in terms of requirements/outcomes OTHER THAN licensability in a handful of states, employability by the VA and other big fish such as academia? Also – as T4C has stated, there is no data to support equivalence – isn’t this also saying there is no data to support a difference? PATUTOSOP says it is concerned about the public -- in terms of safety and effectiveness, what’s the beef? As for the general dilution of the field, the huge step back which regional accreditation represents, well, I get that an industry has to have standards, but might it be that some regional accreditation is actually more strict (think California’s clean air act vs. the EPA standards). I’d like to know a bit about not simply the data behind the difference but also the politics and history behind it…

• < Average EPPP on first attempt – is that really a valid indicator? There will always be some programs that score below average. Unless your proposed criterion is inclusive of each of your four points, this point would be irrelevant. And there would need to be some sort of longitudinal frame of reference (how many years in a row/in a five year span/etc.?)

• >100k Debt: strictly academic?

@ OG – You’d add another red flag: 10x the appropriate # of students? Please define and prove the appropriate number in regards to optimal public health, strength of profession, and new student development. I strongly doubt you have much to back this claim up other than matters of taste – and no I do not demand you furnish data… I’ve seen it suggested that anything over 60 is inappropriate because students will get less rigorous/effective supervision/mentoring/development. What are the measures you have in mind? For example, in my first year practicum I get about 5 hours/week direct service (super light, I admit, but hey – it’s first year and lots of students elsewhere don’t get a jot until second year) coupled with 7.5 hours supervision (individual and group) and case conference. Call me daffy but I call that ratio of supervision to direct services an embarrassment of riches, and because of the variety of supervisory sources (in school and in the community) and the large cohort size we are getting a pretty rich exposure to a huge number of perspectives – the university experience might seem a bit cloistered to me…Let me guess…you’ll now suggest that a clear and narrow focus and is a benefit, or that I and my fellow students might not be able to integrate too divergent perspectives…

@ KJ85 -- I agree that higher standards protect the profession. But as a student at a program that might (inadvertently or not) get lumped in with the awful 15, I take issue with any argument that suggests FSPS programs hand out their degrees “like Halloween candy.” As someone who moved a family of four across state lines to attend my little FSPS, I just want to say – tread lightly. You have no idea the struggles, sacrifices, and passions that the folks at these schools bring to the class work and the practica in which they are immersed. See my question to JSnow: I challenge you and the rest of the PATUTOSOPs to get more specific about the programs that offend you.

@ PS101 – please stop apologizing for your decisions and your current standing. The thread has a noble purpose, and the petition is obviously an attempt to do something important. But let’s be clear: There’s a whole lot of bad faith going on in here, and at some point, those responsible for the petition will have to unpack their talking points. Why let those points go unchallenged? Your arguments and concerns (see post #74) are every bit as solid as the responses made by the PATUTOSOPers.

• FSPS students are negatively impacting non-prof school students in regards to the match? I’m with you – I say, demonstrate it. Apparently we can’t tie our own shoes. Sure the “imbalance” would be remedied if FSPS were not allowed to compete, but isn’t that like saying there is no significant imbalance for non-FSPSers, anyway? Oh shucks, maybe the university based research emperors aren’t wearing any clothes…

• Improved quality of internship opps by alleviating review burdens? You nailed it – pure nonsense. If internship sights are going to adopt simple screening criteria to manage the flood, that would be because the PATUTOSOP claim is correct – FSPS are of lesser quality. But the less than forthrightly acknowledged point is that it would not be so easy to screen the FSPS students because the training CAN BE/IS adequate to secure a spot next to the big kids from the unies…it’s just too frustrating for the folks reviewing large numbers of applications, so reduce the number of applicants….right….as if the communities haven’t already benefited from the work the applicants have done to get to the position where they are applying for internship, and couldn’t possibly benefit from the work the applicants could do as interns if there were an adequate number of spots, reviewers, etc..…Anybody remember that 90’s buzzword, “synergy?”

• Improve the quality of internship programs that students select? See “synergy,” above.

• Protect the public from overly-stress and poorly educated professionals…

o See my point above about the myth of poor education
o OK, less stress in the internship match process may be nice. But what are some of the extended ramifications of PATUTOSOP’s demands? I really do not see anything but gratitude from the public for the services provided by faculty and students at my and neighboring schools (or what you are simply calling businesses). The agencies in our community are no less battered than the folks who seek services there. Who is going to grab an oar when the FSPS in this area are terminated (or “remedied,” to hearken to an earlier thread)? Community volunteers? MFTs and LCSWs? Remember, the issue here, on this thread isn’t that people typically recruited by FSPS should have tried to become MFTs or LCSWs – though you’ll see that point made again and again on SDN. The gripe is that these people are eventually taking DOCTORAL level work away from “better qualified” applicants.
o As for less debt-related stress for students? Perhaps. But PATUTOSOPers are not offering a comprehensive argument that cutting out the Ghastly 15 would bring the rain for interns everywhere: sure, they tease at the idea, but only a fool would suggest there are no broader socioeconomic reasons why the clouds won’t come.

OG – your wikinition of clinical psych (post 75) is a bit broad, no? I addressed the idea that community based training is a rich opportunity EVEN IF the agencies/programs/practices there are often economically and emotionally battered. There is a wealth there that is at least as great as you find in your universities, and it’s not all wrapped up in a pretty bow for us, meaning we learn in the hurly burly of making our way. Would you allow that it may be the case that the greater the destitution of the areas, the greater the opportunity for intervention…you may quibble that the training is compromised/ subpar, but I would demand that you prove it. Or perhaps you should just feel happy to have accomplished something in helping draft the PATUTOSOP petition…

JSnow – less competition = more power to the applicant? In strictly basic economic terms, surely you can see that decreased competition is also arguably a recipe for decreased quality for the community served by the training sites? I mean, are you suggesting we toss out the free market model? Then again, you lumped all applicants into one basket, called “supply” indicating that at a certain level of analysis there is a degree of fungibility to be factored in – the unies and the FSPSers fungible? Did you just imply that?

OG -- Students that attend non-APA accredited internships are more likely to be poorly educated. Or to live in California, and/or to have families, and/or medical conditions, and/or obligations that are possibly nobodies’ business but their own to judge. You don’t rule the world, you are not the be all and end all of the discipline of psychology – but I guess whoever is gets to say who should and should not enter the field. And show your distribution curves – I will show you different recruitment and training models, different theories of science for this thing Wikipedia calls psychology, etc. On another current thread (addressing anti-PsyD sentiment, or something) the question is raised about what subjects should be used as pre-reqs by clinical psych departments, and folks laughed about calculus, swooned over neuroanatomy, bio, etc. If I we included first ethics, the history of dialectical methods, the life and times of Freud, the history of Islamic psychology, the history of civil rights movements, labor history, etc., how this forum would change.

OG – Let me state this as clearly as I can. The professional schools, whether free standing or not, do not provide me a shortcut to this degree. I had to touch absolute bottom and then move mountains, a twenty year sojourn, before I could get here, and the work I’m doing is rigorous and exhilarating, thank you. Professional schools, be they free standing or not, provide a different model for folks who often have a different life path than you. For you to call concerns born of this observation “petty” and “nit-picking” is just way out of touch with your fellow students (Jocknerd, if you’re out there, Kumbaya, bro). Not everyone in my program or other FSPS is like me. But inasmuch as you have said elsewhere that FSPS offer nothing positive to the community, I am addressing you now. That is an outright insult. I’m with Sanity, but I’ll one up Sanity – it’s a shame that the best you can do is to look at what you don’t understand in your fellow psychologists-to-be and simply beg that it be banished. I too wish you’d stop worrying about me and my family, get a clue about what is going on in my community, and find a different way to get involved in the profession. Valid enough for you yet?

As for viable solutions, I wonder what you make of JSnow’s suggestion that a market analysis needs to be done, first? My concern at this point is that the PATUTOSOP initiative is hampered by more than a farcical acronym. The talking points behind the petition are too often lame. The most viable alternative I can propose first is to ask you to reflect that the professional schools are thoroughly enmeshed in the communities being served. Yes, if you were Monty Burns, you probably would release the hounds on us, but you're not, and I know you can do better… Consider the APA’s two 2009 recommendations, and your proposed third: I say bravo. I’m not sure your petition is really headed in that direction, though, and the discussion in this thread has been much more far reaching. As for the idea of the great wall of California, it appeals on a selfish level, but when the triple whammy earthquake/tsunami/meltdown happens here, we’re going to need all the goodwill we can muster…

JSnow – By now I hope you get that I get the whole distribution argument. My question is – even if we can say that there are some students that do not really contribute much of anything to the community, there are distributions within distributions. It’s not only the super stellar clinicians coming out of the evil fifteen contributing importantly to the community. The average clinicians do, to. Even the less than average. You want to shut down their school. Let’s assume they can be allowed to graduate before the school is shut down. How do you propose the community retool itself? Again, these communities are to do without the doctoral level services they had been making good use of, and some of these services are important enough for the big kids form the unies to take a crack at, no? Let’s not pretend this one “little” change wouldn’t involve a massive redirection of community and industry initiative. Maybe the fired professors and adjuncts would have to disperse into the community...but most are already neck deep in projects, and when released from the burden of their "less desirable" academic obligations, maybe they'll need more help from doctoral level students to achieve their visions...doctoral level students from where, again, when the schools are shut down? Are you going to argue that the market will self correct? Hmmm….but first we need to shut down the schools…..because the market can auto correct…..

Next to lastly, I would gladly take a job advertised for an MFT/PsyD/LCSW, all things being equal. One less LCSW calling the shots in the field, right? I guess it could be argued that more of us should be willing to do that. Because yes, the good mental health consumers of California have a right to psychologists who have been held to the same standards as psychologists everywhere else. Because the agencies that hire mental health workers are multi-stressed and battered, and often can’t afford such high-falootin’ fair as doctoral level services to run their programs. But like you, I am neither the ruler of the world nor the be all and end all of psychology. I’m merely someone who has touched bottom and moved heaven and earth to get where I am today. I know what it means to want more but more importantly to give back. Maybe you do to. Regardless, I imagine you’d have a lot to offer the good folks out here… If you’re not anti IBR… (Note – I do NOT want to be accused of implying there aren’t outstanding LCSWs holding things together out here, nor that even the average LCSW is somehow less deserving of due consideration).

LindsPsyD – this is about more than who is going to be good at therapy. I guess that’s only the stuff of LCSWs and MFTs, anyway…

OG and the PATUTOSOPers -- yes, let’s rescue the field from scammers and diploma mills. It’s happened before on SDN. But not all FSPS are created the same.

Otherwise, sorry for crashing your party.

 

[Student4Life0]

Time to start distributing that link

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The way I see CAPIC is as part of that system of professional schools that mostly ignore/circumvent APA. I see this as a somewhat hostile attempt at a takeover. More than 50% of our new grads come from professional schools, many of those students are from FSPSs and for-profit, devry/university of phoenix like businesses. These programs have very high acceptance rates compared to other programs, lower entry scores (GRE, GPA) and average lower match rates to APA internships and EPPP scores. Populating our field with these folks gives these programs political power in our field. I would like for that to go away.

This is the part that most professionals object to when it comes to the increased #'s of trainees being released into the market. The programs mostly target folks that otherwise would not be remotely competitive for university-based programs.

I have a big problem with CAPIC (and related state level acred. internships) because the only thing limiting even more people flooding the market was internship, and now they are providing an alternative path that was never part of the clinical psychology training model. There are no data to support equivilancy, the sites often are unfunded and take advantage of students by having them work long hours for free, AND when they finish they are automatically limited by the mere fact they completed a state/local acred. internship. They can't go back and do an APA/APPIC internship....so they are essentially stuck as a 2nd class professional because they can't work at VAs (one of the largest trainers AND employers of psychologists in the USA), most medical centers won't employ them, and many competitive jobs will automatically cut non-APA acred. internship applicants from their application pool. So many often take those: "Required training: LMHC, MSW, PsyD., Ph.D...." type jobs that marginalize doctoral training and pull down salaries by equating our training to that of a 2 year program.

 

[JockNerd]

FYI, currently within APA governance there is a movement to require APA accreditation at ALL levels of training (doctoral, internship, post-doc) for licensure. It would have to go through state boards and might not pass everywhere, but it has pretty strong backing. Such a policy would be consistent with nearly every other profession, from hairdressing to medicine, that requires completion of accredited training; that we don't do it is ridiculous.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

FYI, currently within APA governance there is a movement to require APA accreditation at ALL levels of training (doctoral, internship, post-doc) for licensure. It would have to go through state boards and might not pass everywhere, but it has pretty strong backing. Such a policy would be consistent with nearly every other profession, from hairdressing to medicine, that requires completion of accredited training; that we don't do it is ridiculous.

If the APA can actually get that through....I'd consider that a big step in the right direction.