Accurate sources of information about the future of the field

[erg923]

---

Members don't see this ad.

To Wes Neuro, erg (same)?

As difficult as this might be for you to understand, my posts are not oriented towards you. I'm not in a debate with you. My posts are a response to the original poster who requested information. I include information I view as relevant. I omit information I don't think relevant or I prefer not to share. If my post bothers you, please feel free to skip my post. Its fine if you feel qualified to judge the contributions of the posts of other people. I suppose most people have areas of expertise. I think attacking other posters is contrary to the spirit of this site so I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from doing so.

Of course one is free to post on what topics they want, but don't get all sensitive when you get kick-back from others who either question your information, or find the motivation for your seeming perseveration on YOUR departments problems to be both questionable and annoying. Your approach risks you being perceived by others (obviously its not just me who sees it) as little more than a whiny bloke (if I may borrow your Bristish-isms) who appears jaded and unhappy at his job. Make sense?

 

[fresnel]

I

My question is: do you think that the opinions on this site are representative of the future for clinical psychologists, or are they overly pessimistic? If the latter is true, do you have any recommendations about who I should get in contact with in order to get a more accurate assessment of the field and my (possible) future? Or are there helpful websites? (For example, I've tried looking for clinical psychology jobs online to see what's currently available).

The glut of psychologists entering the market is a threat to the viability of psychology as a career. During the last internship application cycle, 957 prospective interns did not match while 3,094 did match. While some matched in the subsequent cycle and others probably found ways to constructively gain experience, the number that did not match is problematic. The number of unmatched students has increased by 424 (+80%). PhD/EdD counseling programs had the highest match rates but even that rate was only 78.4%; Match rates for School programs were lowest at 59.3%. Thus, a finding that half the students did not match is not that discrepant from typical statistics. I don't think the match rates are reasonable and I am concerned about the issues that are impacting on the match. For places to look: www.appic.org; Rajecki (2011) notes that career trajectories of those with psychology degrees and faculty at colleges is poor compared to other fields. In an article in Forbes, Mark Hendrickson (2012) discusses psychology in the section labeled "Far more people earn degrees in many liberal arts majors than can be employed in those fields". APA recently complied information about barriers to psychologist participation and reimbursement in common sources of reimbursement for mental health services. While those not needing to rely on a pay check for rent may not be concerned about these barriers, those not independently wealthy are concerned. Some practitioners ignore the laws, such as those prohibiting reimbursement of student services, for instance but I wouldn't advise engaging in illegal practices.

 

[fresnel]

"Mcparent" yes, please calm down!

 

[fresnel]

The original poster asked about the future of the field. My response:

"I would be concerned if my children were contemplating a career in clinical psychology. In a program I know, half the internship applicants did not match in the first round and some remained unmatched in the 2nd process. It was not the first time not matching for all of them. The students are in an APA accredited program and their problems matching apparently came as a huge surprise to their advisors. The students had loads of presentations and publication and at least 2 externships (20/week supervised clinical experience) although probably less clinical experience than typical of other programs since the program endorses clinical scientist model. The problems with matching are not limited to new programs or programs with a large number of students."


You've apparently gone back to read other posts of mine from months or years ago and you apparently don't like my posts. As noted, my assumption is not that the OP researched my posts so would already have knowledge about what I've written before. My response is intended to answer what the OP asked. If you try to scope out the writers and guess where they come from and who they are, then I can see why you get annoyed. Its probably not a worthwhile endeavor.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Mod Note: All, please remember to keep the conversation civil, professional, and on topic. Thank you.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'll be good. Promise.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Agreed. Also, some of his other comments suggest this is a relatively small program. If so, "half the applicants did not match in the first round" could mean that 2/4 applicants had to go to clearinghouse. While that sucks, it can happen even to strong programs. 🙂

Yep. When you're dealing with small numbers, your percentages can go down very quickly. If a 50% or otherwise low match rate becomes a pattern, then it's probably an issue that really needs looking at, but a single year where you have two out of four people go unmatched isn't really an indicator of poor program quality, IMO.

 

[beginner2011]

fresnel:

I suspect you're getting some push-back because your claims seem specious, and (perhaps too conveniently) damage the veracity of the claims of the strength of clinical science programs when compared to less scientifically rigorous models of training. APPIC match rates seem to have become the primary measure of the quality of a program, and to make a claim like you're making without elaborating can raise some hackles, especially if it is not representative of the observed trend -- double extra especially if the claim points in the oppose direction of the observed trend.

In other words, my thoughts are that if you're going to call out the clinical science model you're going to need to be willing to withstand some critical analysis of your claims. It would be helpful for this discussion if people didn't attack you as an individual, but it would also help if you didn't take criticism quite so personally. Otherwise your claims just appear to be another hackneyed attempt by non-clinical science to take advantage of internet anonymity to accomplish some weird subterfuge and malign the clinical science paradigm.

If you want to criticize the clinical-science model please do so clearly and honestly!

 

[WisNeuro]

fresnel:

I suspect you're getting some push-back because your claims seem specious, and (perhaps too conveniently) damage the veracity of the claims of the strength of clinical science programs when compared to less scientifically rigorous models of training. APPIC match rates seem to have become the primary measure of the quality of a program, and to make a claim like you're making without elaborating can raise some hackles, especially if it is not representative of the observed trend -- double extra especially if the claim points in the oppose direction of the observed trend.

In other words, my thoughts are that if you're going to call out the clinical science model you're going to need to be willing to withstand some critical analysis of your claims. It would be helpful for this discussion if people didn't attack you as an individual, but it would also help if you didn't take criticism quite so personally. Otherwise your claims just appear to be another hackneyed attempt by non-clinical science to take advantage of internet anonymity to accomplish some weird subterfuge and malign the clinical science paradigm.

If you want to criticize the clinical-science model please do so clearly and honestly!

Well-worded. I'm open to criticism as long as it's backed by actual data with the facts known.

 

[Pragma]

Well-worded. I'm open to criticism as long as it's backed by actual data with the facts known.

Yeah, the poster doesn't seem to understand that throwing out an anecdote and then supplementing it with false information isn't going to be respected, well, just about anywhere that people have access to accurate information.

The part that grinded my gears was the assertion that students in clinical science programs get less clinical training, which we know from the data is completely false (they get more).

That was where the post went from an interesting opinion/anecdote that I can support (I am not sure I would recommend the field either due to the lack of supply regulation) to a false statement that falls in line with the ridiculous arguments made by PsyD programs and their larger agenda.

 

[carlyhylton]

This thread has been extremely helpful to me! Thank you all for contributing!
I am going to return to the original posters topic here...

I've spent several years post-undergrad preparing for application to clinical psychology Ph.D programs... and then I found this forum about a month ago. From people here, I've gotten the impression that getting an internship is essentially a game of chance, that research positions at universities are almost impossible to land and clinical jobs are drying up. Things sound so dire that it would be very stupid for me to go into this field, no matter how much I want to.

I've also spoken to current professionals in clinical psychology, who paint a rosier picture.

My question is: do you think that the opinions on this site are representative of the future for clinical psychologists, or are they overly pessimistic? If the latter is true, do you have any recommendations about who I should get in contact with in order to get a more accurate assessment of the field and my (possible) future? Or are there helpful websites? (For example, I've tried looking for clinical psychology jobs online to see what's currently available).

Thanks for your help!

I think that the posters first question, below, has been discussed.

do you think that the opinions on this site are representative of the future for clinical psychologists, or are they overly pessimistic?

However I don't think that the latter questions, below, have been discussed. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If the latter is true, do you have any recommendations about who I should get in contact with in order to get a more accurate assessment of the field and my (possible) future? Or are there helpful websites? (For example, I've tried looking for clinical psychology jobs online to see what's currently available).

I would be very interested on any information anyone had about who to contact to get a more accurate assessment of the field or any helpful websites!!!!

 

[MCParent]

I would be very interested on any information anyone had about who to contact to get a more accurate assessment of the field or any helpful websites!!!!

There is no good workforce study for psychologists in existence right now. Robiner did some, but those were in 1991 and 2000 (see below). This might be helpful to work through aspects of some things:
http://psychologygradschool.weebly.com/debt-and-income.html


Robiner, W. N. (1991). How many psychologists are needed? A call for a national psychology human resource agenda. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, 427–440.
Robiner, W. N., Ax, R. K., Stamm, B. H., & Harowski, K. (2002). Addressing the supply of psychologists in the workforce: Is focusing principally on demand sound economics? Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 9, 273–285.

 

[carlyhylton]

Thank you so much MCParent! Your response and sources posted above are extremely helpful (although it is not that helpful that there isn't very current information about this out there).
I really appreciate it!
This SDN forum has rocked my world over the past 12 hours+.

If anyone else has any other sources that might be helpful I would be appreciative : )

 

[Pragma]

Thank you so much MCParent! Your response and sources posted above are extremely helpful (although it is not that helpful that there isn't very current information about this out there).
I really appreciate it!
This SDN forum has rocked my world over the past 12 hours+.

If anyone else has any other sources that might be helpful I would be appreciative : )

I think the latter question can be addressed in the same way any other job search question can be addressed - look for jobs. APA website, Chronicle of Higher Ed for academic jobs, USA jobs (for VA), Indeed and others for local mass-advertised stuff (which is becoming more normal).

It does vary a lot locally and by the type of position you are looking for. So it is worthwhile to take an interest in local hiring customs - much like one would for most other types of jobs.

 

[carlyhylton]

Pragma,
GREAT idea! I'm going to sign up for as many job alerts as possible, right now!
The way I go about it might be a little different as I am in Canada but this is still extremely helpful. The APA website looks fantastic... it looks as if jobs are centralized relatively well. I wish the CPA would do that!!!!
Thank you!

 

[MCParent]

And then, as if on cue:

http://www.nationalregister.org/trr_spring2013_Robiner.html

Robiner says it nicer than I ever did, but:

"We do not believe that the focus can exclusively be on increasing the demand for psychologists’ services, that is to foster more work and training opportunities, but optimizing the workforce to meet demand also must address responsible mechanisms for titrating supply (Robiner et al., 2002). The internship data in the last 20 years confirms that a market (i.e., under-regulated) approach alone has not worked. Instead, it has resulted in considerable financial peril to students interested in becoming psychologists. There are also some signs it has contributed to market saturation which creates adverse conditions in the commons of opportunities and earnings for health service psychologists."

 

[carlyhylton]

MCParent... As if on cue indeed!

I'm sorry I didn't check this earlier. Thank you for posting this!

I found this an interesting read although I feel I don't know enough about "the real world" of practice in (clinical) psychology as an undergrad to fully appreciate it