Alliant/CSPP LA PHD

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
P

princessrosered

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
What do people know about the Alliant/CSPP PHD program? I am a little weary because of the low match rate (around 56%), and the fact that it seems like it could just be somewhat of a "diploma mill." But it is in a great location, and it otherwise seems like a decent, accredited program.
Any thoughts/opinions/insights anyone has on the subject would be greatly appreciated.
Members don't see this ad.
 
I can't speak to the program specifically, but I'd be concerned with the match rate (19% lower than the national average). I'd ask to talk with some alumni to see what their impressions of the program are, and how they did in the match process.

Best of luck.

-t
 
Thanks, I'll see if I can't contact some alums. I appreciate the input.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The alumni I know weren't doing that great. They're a dime a dozen in LA.
 
I graduated from CSPP in 2005 with a PhD in Clinical. Except for having horrendous student loans, I feel that I received an excellent education and I am working in a job that I absolutely love.
 
pavlovsdog said:
I graduated from CSPP in 2005 with a PhD in Clinical. Except for having horrendous student loans, I feel that I received an excellent education and I am working in a job that I absolutely love.
Click to expand...
If you don't mind me asking, what type of setting are you working in? Do a lot of grads go into private practice or other kinds of settings?
 
I'm due to graduate this year (2007) and am at an APA internship. I really have mixed feelings about the programs.

My education was incredible, intense, and very comprehensive.
+ Clinically, I feel like I came out far more experienced than many other students at my level (especially if they came from research programs), and that really made me competitive at internship! However, I did an extra practicum my 4th year which most student don't do!
+ Decend support from the university - it's small enough that everyone knows each other, and you can easily get help whenever you need it.
+ My Ph.D. class was very small, and we all had a great relationship - worked well together (not overly competitive), are very good friends!
+ I got to live in California for 4 years (an amazing place)!

However, there were exceptions
- Research opportunities are harder to get and very dependent on your dissertation chair and ability to network.
- I had to really mold my experiences to make myself successful and competitive for internship - something you might not be if you just do the bare minimum of the program.
- Class sizes were getting pretty big in my last years, making it hard to get the professors I wanted.
- Loans suck, and I was poor throughout grad school. I had to work part time to make rent.

I take the match rates with caution - there are VERY few APA sites in California, and they are all REALLY competitive in that state. Some students are not willing to relocate (and who would blame them), and don't match because they only apply locally. Many students also don't apply for APA or end up doing CAPIC internships instead. But, there are plenty of students that just don't match - it is a risk.

email me [email protected] if you have more specific questions.
 
princessrosered said:
If you don't mind me asking, what type of setting are you working in? Do a lot of grads go into private practice or other kinds of settings?
Click to expand...

Right now I'm working at a medical center in their outpatient clinic, and they also have us see all inpatients who need intervention. It's a great mix of many types of patients and experiences, and a lot of close work with they physicians. Since graduation, I've worked in community mental health and private practice, too.
As far as where grads go, it is as diverse as the graduates themselves. I know of people in private practices, various agencies, some I/O work, and more. It just depends on interests and niches that are found! 🙂
 
I actually think that we are all well received - alumni get out in the professional world and have strong clinical skills, competency, and experience - and we're everywhere. Over the past few years, I've worked with quite a few alumni of CSPP (on both east and west coasts).

On admissions - I agree. I found it very easy to get in. Almost too easy. BUT, I think as much as they are mills, there is a weeding out process, and retention (I'd imagine) is not great (but this is worth investigating). My PhD class lost just about half the students from year 1 to graduation (for many reasons, including transfers to the PsyD program).

The hostility is understandable - but not usually something considered in job selection (I've only heard that some places won't take professional students). The field is flooded, and we're all impacted by this! I wish they would enroll less, but that really isn't going to "fix" the problem - a topic for another time.

As for debt, I have come to understand that "full funding" is very very rare, and most psych. grads have over $100K debt (despite the institution - private/professional, traditional, whatever). So, though I complained of my debt, I'm not alone.
 
timecoloured said:
As a CA resident I've been wondering about Alliant myself--though another thing that has made me wary is the fact that they don't seem to requre GRE scores or GPAs?
Click to expand...

They don't require GPAs or GREs??? What a joke! Though a lot of people subjectively criticize Alliant/CSPP as being degree mills, if this statement is true, that's a pretty damning fact. I guess they really will accept most people who are willing to go into debt.

I don't know of graduate schools in ANY health care field that do not require that you prove you have intellectual capability and willingness to work hard through quantifiable academic standards. I CANNOT believe the APA is willing to accredit schools with these standards (or lack thereof in this case). It's time for a change...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
positivepsych said:
They don't require GPAs or GREs??? What a joke! Though a lot of people subjectively criticize Alliant/CSPP as being degree mills, if this statement is true, that's a pretty damning fact. I guess they really will accept most people who are willing to go into debt.
Click to expand...

I thought that there was no way that this could be true, so I checked it out, and sure enough...

From Alliant's webpage

-------------
Grade Point Average Requirements

California School of Professional Psychology: Undergraduate and graduate (if applicable) average of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale. If your grade point average is below a 3.0, please refer to the information below about the Grade Point Average Exemption Form.
...

Grade Point Average Exemption: If your GPA is under 3.0 (2.5 for the counseling psychology program), you must submit the Grade Point Average Exemption Petition Form (included in the application). This form allows you to provide a statement of exception, or submit additional material that would document your ability to perform in an intensive academic environment. The exemption form is not required for all graduate programs. Please check the application for the program to which you are applying to determine whether the exemption form is needed. The Center for Undergraduate Education and the Business Division of the Goldsmith School of Management do not require this form.

...

Graduate Entrance Exams

The California School of Professional Psychology, the Goldsmith School of Management's Division of Organizational Psychology, the Center for Forensics and the Graduate School of Education do not require the Graduate Record Exam (GRE).
---------------------------------------------

This is absurd. I think even the staunchest supporter of professional schools would agree that this is beyond irresponsible.
 
btw, I just checked Arogsy, and they also don't require the GREs. They do, at least, require GPAs, although you only have to have a 3.25, and that's in only one of the following: overall, junior/senior, psychology, or highest degree obtained. So it's not a huge hoop.

timecoloured said:
Don't people who get PhD's from Alliant still have to pass licensing exams? So there are "quantifiable academic standards," no?

You know, I've lurked for a while, and read people wondering why the lurkers don't come out and play? In my case because I knew I couldn't ask a question about professional schools without it launching a tirade by the individuals who take these evil programs so very personally. It gets really tiresome reading the same post over and over, you know? I just wanted to ask a question of someone who went there.
Click to expand...

Why don't we just start letting anyone take the licensing exam, and if they pass, they get a Ph.D. and can practice as a psychologist, if that's the important thing? I have yet to take the licensing exam, so I can't comment on its content, but my feeling is that you really can't test the things you learn in graduate school.

You should feel free to ask your question. Nobody is going to personally attack you. If you want to go to a professional school, that's your business. Just don't feel attacked when people voice their opinions. There have been many posters who have complained about negativity towards professional schools. It's like people have already made up their minds about what they want to do, and don't want to get any of that prickly cognitive dissonance that comes along with hearing logical arguments against something you've decided on. Having nobody say anything bad about professional schools doesn't make the bad things about them go away. Furthermore, because you and many on this forum are applicants who have not decided where to go yet, now is the time to collect information! I think one of the biggest problem with places like Argosy and Alliant is that they lure people in who desperately want a career in psychology, who don't realize the disparity in education that they will receive and who don't fully comprehend the massive debt. If you examine these facts thoroughly and still decide that professionals schools are right for you, then fine, go to one! It's a free country, and even knowing nothing about you I'm sure you'll get in. Just don't plug your ears to their problems, or feel insulted when people say negative things about professional schools. We're not insulting you, we're trying to help you, along with the field as a whole.

That said, welcome to the forum, and I hope you feel comfortable sharing your thoughts.
 
I'd like to remind everyone that people are here for information, and I'd like everyone to feel like they can share openly. There will always be people who 'speak' louder than others, but I'd hope we can keep it in check.

-t
 
timecoloured said:
Okay, so can there be a special "okay I know all the bad things about professional schools because I've read them eleventy billion times in other threads, I just want to talk to someone who actually went to one" thread?
Click to expand...

I think that's a great idea and I encourage you to start such a thread. I honestly think that if you frame it in that way you will not get responses trying to detract from your decision to pursue such a path.

I understand that it must be frustrating to have people constantly bring up the same points about the negative side of professional schools. On the other hand, it's also frustrating for those who have to have continue to bring up those points. I think the reason threads end up being repetitive is that there are a lot of posts that start out with something like "what do you guys think about X Freestanding Professional School?" and those who are skeptical of those types of programs don't know if the poster has read detracting opinions before or is new to the whole idea of graduate school in psychology.
 
KillerDiller said:
I think that's a great idea and I encourage you to start such a thread. I honestly think that if you frame it in that way you will not get responses trying to detract from your decision to pursue such a path.

I understand that it must be frustrating to have people constantly bring up the same points about the negative side of professional schools. On the other hand, it's also frustrating for those who have to have continue to bring up those points. I think the reason threads end up being repetitive is that there are a lot of posts that start out with something like "what do you guys think about X Freestanding Professional School?" and those who are skeptical of those types of programs don't know if the poster has read detracting opinions before or is new to the whole idea of graduate school in psychology.
Click to expand...

I also think that is a great idea.

-t
 
I agree with Jon about pointing out blatant misinformation, I think where the rub is the constant harping on the same things. For some of the most common topics, we have some stickied threads to cover the basics, but the natural cycle of a forum produces some repetive questions, especially at certain times of the year.

Sometimes I think of the Prof School vs. Trad Program debate like two rivalry sides in a sporting event going back and forth. Each side will fiercely defend their side, and even though it seems like an endless exchange of set opinions....there is still value that can come out of it.

-t
 
timecoloured said:
Okay, so can there be a special "okay I know all the bad things about professional schools because I've read them eleventy billion times in other threads, I just want to talk to someone who actually went to one" thread? I don't feel attacked, though I am quite dismayed to have added another weapon to everyone's arsenal. It just seems these threads get started, immediately derailed, and the people who were contributing just fade back into the woodwork. As I am about to do, being the introvert and non-rabblerouser that I am.
Click to expand...

That's the great thing about anonymous internet forums-- you can be the biggest introvert ever and still voice your opinions, because if people disagree with you, 1) they're just other anonymous internet people, 2) they have no idea who you really are, and 3) you can always just close your browser. 😎

You can start said thread if you want. There's already a thread like that with a guy from CSPP taking questions. It seemed totally civil last I checked. I was just reacting to the GRE/GPA thing because I hadn't known that and it totally shocked me, as it should. I encourage people to seek out info about prof schools, and don't mean to get in the way of doing so. At the same time, if you ask people to not post negative things, you're only going to get positive opinions, which is a strongly biased sample. I understand your frustration at hearing the same arguments over and over again, but be sure to be open to both sides of the story. This is a huge decision on your part, and we're only trying to help. 🙂
 
I've delayed posting because I'm still actually in shock over the GRE/GPA thing.

Do they even require a Bachelor's degree or can you apply out of high school?

More to come later.

Edit: I realized after I posted that the above could come across as sarcasm. I mean it as an actual question. If they don't care about how you did in college, I'm not sure why they'd care if you got the degree or not.
 
psychanon said:
... I think one of the biggest problem with places like Argosy and Alliant is that they lure people in who desperately want a career in psychology, who don't realize the disparity in education that they will receive and who don't fully comprehend the massive debt.
Click to expand...

Disparity? How's that? They are APA approved (which provides some degree of academic oversight), and some would argue that they are better at clinical training than most "traditional" programs...

It seems like there's this impression that as "mills" they just hand out the degrees. That's not at all true, and you can't be a complete 'tool' and expect to get through. The curriculum is intense, the requirements to advance to candidacy are very strict and hard, and they have the same 'hoops' as any university (accounting for some of the retention). On top of that, students undergo supervision with practicum and internship sites (independent of the school) that have to pass them on clinical work. And after all of this - there's the licensing exams!

All schools have standards, and those who make it to one day call themselves Psychologists do so because they earned it!

These arguments do NOTHING but divide the profession making it harder to succeed for ALL OF US!
 
psychanon said:
... I think one of the biggest problem with places like Argosy and Alliant is that they lure people in who desperately want a career in psychology, who don't realize the disparity in education that they will receive and who don't fully comprehend the massive debt.
Click to expand...

Disparity? How's that? They are APA approved (which provides some degree of academic oversight), and some would argue that they are better at clinical training than most "traditional" programs...

It seems like there's this impression that as "mills" they just hand out the degrees. That's not at all true, and you can't be a complete 'tool' and expect to get through. The curriculum is intense, the requirements to advance to candidacy are very strict and hard, and they have the same 'hoops' as any university (accounting for some of the retention). On top of that, students undergo supervision with practicum and internship sites (independent of the school) that have to pass them on clinical work. And after all of this - there's the licensing exams!

All schools have standards, and those who make it to one day call themselves Psychologists do so because they earned it!

These arguments do NOTHING but divide the profession making it harder to succeed for ALL OF US!
 
Don't get me wrong - I agree that some students from these schools are less qualified. But, I disagree with the generalization you are making.

Not all professional students are unqualified; just as not all students from traditional programs are qualified.

That's not what I disagree with - it's the divisive attitude that is being perpetuated based on (what you admitted was) mere anecdotal evidence. So much for scientific reasoning...
 
I'm confused by some of the information here. This no GPA/GRE req is for a Ph.D. program?? And how are class sizes determined? Is it more of a first apply/first accepted basis?

I dont think you can say all professional schools have no req's when MSPP for example rejects 400 people each year.
 
There is definitely a place for professional schools, but there needs to be a bit more control over some of the standards. No GRE/GPA req....that is questionable. I'm not sure if there is a gap now in education, but I think there will be if this practice continues. Don't axe everything, but definitely reign it in, and be accountable for your product.

-t
 
Only posting again because I said I would, so I'm going to keep this short and to the point.

I'm horrified almost to the point of being embarassed to say I'm going into this field. I don't care if the training itself is okay once you're in, you should not be accepted to a doctoral program if you can't manage to prove successful in undergraduate training. I'm disgusted with both the "school"(and I use that term in its loosest sense) and APA. I can almost understand market forces inducing the creation of the school, but for APA to accredit them is just laughable.

I don't care if that makes me divisive.

I was tempted to write a 20 page essay here, but I'm thoroughly disgusted and done with this topic. My apologies to anyone offended by this, but I'm not one to mince words. I wouldn't want a surgeon operating on me who never passed a bio class or took the MCAT even if he did manage to pass the boards, and I don't feel any different about a therapist giving me therapy.

I'm sure with enough studying and some luck on my side, I could pass the boards for psychiatry having never set foot in a med school. Doesn't mean I'd be remotely qualified to practice medicine.
 
Ollie, I agree. I could never understand why the APA accredits schools like Alliant and lets schools like that give out PsyDs online. Could you imagine if you could get an M.D. online? It would never happen.

[By the way, I am not against Psy.Ds in principle. Its a good idea with horrible execution. If they were offered at legit universities like DDS and PharmD degrees with competitive admissions and top-notch clinical training, I would approve. But they're not in 95% of cases]

There must be financial kickbacks that the APA is getting, or there must be some sort of shady alliances going on betweeen the APA and the PsyD programs here to grease the wheels of capitalism...

Animals don't even soil their own homes, so why would the APA willingly degrade its own field, by allowing these professional schools to flood the market with an oversupply of poorly-educated psychologists? There is something not right with the APA leadership here.
 
PositivePsych, if I'm not mistaken this thread is about a Ph.D. program, not a Psy.D. program.

Therefore, I'd say that proves that a lot of the myths about PsyD's really are just myths because the real issues lies in *certain* professional schools, and whether these schools offer a PsyD or PhD the issues will still be there. Meaning it's not the degree but the school.
 
Yup, as far as I could tell this is about a PhD program, though I'm not positive about the more recent sub-discussion of Alliant.

I have no problem with PsyDs. Baylor, Rutgers, etc. provide a fantastic education I'm sure.

My problem is that some businesses have realized there is a high demand for psychology training programs with comparatively little supply (i.e. competitive to get in) so they decided to step in and arrange so anyone who can tie their shoes is eligible for a doctorate. Yes, they won't necessarily graduate, but that doesn't matter to me. If someone has a low GPA let them go back and retake classes or do a post-bac like med students do. Not just fill out a form to say "Its okay I suck at school, let me in anyways"

As someone who worked very hard to get where he is, I find that more than a little degrading both personally, and to the field I love as a whole.
 
timecoloured said:
Thank you, T4C. If any of the people who were kindly answering questions before are still around, my initial question (and the reason I brought up the whole GPA/GRE thing) was wondering what the application process for the Alliant PhD is like? Do they do interviews, etc? The website is pretty vague about that.

If you don't want to get pounced on, I would love a PM. But it would be really nice of everyone to back off and let someone answer without fear of their choice being ridiculed.
Click to expand...


Hey, I know someone on this forum got into Alliant in LA... I forgot her name but I think she's going there this fall. From what I know, they do have interviews (she did). For the PsyD program the admissions process, there is the application, essays, transcripts, etc... then if they like you, they invite you back for an interview. My interview was group format, but that is again for the PsyD. Then they notify you. Pretty standard. Let me know if you have questions, I might be able to help. I think the PhD and PsyD admissions are similar, based on my own experience and what I've heard from others.

I think you should be a little wary of any program like Alliant, in the sense that they do have low admission standards. However, I believe it is up to you what you will get out of it. If you put in a lot, you'll likely be successful. So, in your situation, it's really about what you think you'll be able/willing to do. I think you have to take a lot more on yourself to make sure you're getting the best education possible (and to make sure you're beefing up that CV). I was in a similar situation with regards to the location probelm, but I think based on everything I said above, this will be a great choice for me. Again, questions are welcome. 🙂
 
Hi Guys,

I attend CSPP(Alliant) San Diego. I'll give you the raw and bias free info. The fact is that there are many people who role through these programs who are completely inqualified. The Psy.D is generally, across the country as well as just at cspp, simply an inferior degree, which lacks competition and subsequently must admit inferior students. However, the PhDs at the San Diego campus are highly competetive graduate students. I earned a 1150 on the GREs (not amazingly high but 150 points above the national grad student average), had a 3.5 gpa from a U.S news top ten ranked undergrad college, and I have been published as an undegrad in pharmacology. So people, I had some options and I chose CSPP....but I chose CSPP San Diego..that's the important thing. Not all Alliant campuses were created equal. All the top professors are at SD, the best campus, the most resources etc.
Now, to answer some questions. Yes, there are interviews and you have to contact professors for research interests as with all other schools. And guess what...CSPP only accepts 8%. I know it's not the standard 2-3% but it's not as though it's a "mill".
Here's another thing to think about. Look at places like SUNY Albany, which is a top 20 clinical university. The curriculum there is a joke. They have a few introductory classes, methods, multivariate, and that's basically it. The flip side...it's funded and thus free.
I am not satisfied with the lack of seminar learning here...it's far too didactic in the first year and half or so. But, I've received some training that you simply don't get at major research bastiones. Psychodynamics for instance....advanced psychotherapy classes with pragmatic instruction that actually instructs on the actualization of the theories in the setting of therapy. Hello...this is the meat and potatoes of clinical. I have a hard time understanding why research universities are allowed to produce "clinicians" who have little or no education in the guns and butter of actual therapy. You have an exposure to many paradigms at CSPP, SD, which you will not get at majors Us. I mean come one people...read the Weston meta-analysis in the PDM....CBT is not the only thing that should be tought in grad school...it's not even really empirically validated when you disect the methodology beneath the methodology.

Little known fact...Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, and Victor Frankl taught here. Pretty cool to know. We've had more presidents of APA divisions than any other school in the last 30 years. Our Cal and NY board pass rates are amongst the highest in the country. Our grad lead more major clinics than any other school in the nation. CSPP is currently overseeing the federal pilot study of Post-Doctoral Clinical Psychopharmacology programs, which will train psychologists as quasi-psychiatrists, with med priviledges. Aside from the debate over whether that's a good idea...CSPP was chosen as the school to do it!....not a "major university."
Any most universities you'll have a few floors of a building and a clinic somewhere that are dedicated to the psych program. CSPP, SD, has an entire campus dedicated to the psychology. it was the 1st free standing school of psychology in the nation. (i'm done talking it up🙂 just trying to add some perspective.
My overall advice...go to a major research school if you can get in. Then provide youself with the extra education that you'll lack there. It'll be free that way. But if you can't...and do choose CSPP, the San Diego campus is the only choice. Don't even look at another professional school other than CSPP, SD. If you think the critiques of pro-schools have merit they have ultra merit when applied to places like Argosy, Nova Southeastern, Pacific Grad school etc. The CSPP LA school is simply a disaster...the SF campus is better..and the SD school is the best they have to offer.

You've got some tough decisions ahead. I wish you the best. I hope this post was of some help.

*MOD NOTE: The above is NOT okay....as it is inflammatory posting, which is a violation of SDN Policy.-t
 
It is ridiculous that people must be as negative as they are about various schools. Who cares? does it directly affect you? If you get YOUR internship, YOUR job, and YOUR EGO, don't WORRY about ANYONE else. I have worked my butt of since undergrad, I am published, have clinical experience, and a 4.0 GPA (undergrad and grad - double major) however, my GRE is not up to par. Does that make me inferior? There are people who don't test well and there are people who do --- as there are malingerers. If someone asks about a program attmpt to tell the pros and cons without stroking your own ego. I AM HAPPY for those who are in a "GREAT" program but let me tell you something, I MYSELF am not and with that said my ignorance has led me to a treatment that is in the process of development and use in the prison system (sex offenders) --- therefore I would say i'd rather keep my inferiority (PsyD interest) and ignorance (low GRE) than have an EGO that keeps you from entering into the REAL WORLD!!
 
phoebusphrixus said:
Here's another thing to think about. Look at places like SUNY Albany, which is a top 20 clinical university. The curriculum there is a joke. They have a few introductory classes, methods, multivariate, and that's basically it. The flip side...it's funded and thus free.
Click to expand...

Just feel like I have to chime in on this issue since I nearly applied. First off I'm not sure where you heard about the curriculum, but its wrong: http://www.albany.edu/psy/gradclinical_course_requirements.html

Its still not THAT many, but its alot more than you seem to imply.

That being said, classes simply are not a very important part of graduate school so I don't really understand how its that big a deal anyways - it sounds like they have the necessities covered. Most of people's learning should NOT be taking place in class at the graduate level - classes are a sidenote, not the point of graduate education. They're necessary for background, but I think if someone is continuing to spend all day in the classroom throughout their schooling, they are likely going to end up a weaker clinician or researcher than someone spending more time on other activities.

AndieB said:
It is ridiculous that people must be as negative as they are about various schools. Who cares? does it directly affect you? If you get YOUR internship, YOUR job, and YOUR EGO, don't WORRY about ANYONE else. I have worked my butt of since undergrad, I am published, have clinical experience, and a 4.0 GPA (undergrad and grad - double major) however, my GRE is not up to par. Does that make me inferior? There are people who don't test well and there are people who do --- as there are malingerers. If someone asks about a program attmpt to tell the pros and cons without stroking your own ego. I AM HAPPY for those who are in a "GREAT" program but let me tell you something, I MYSELF am not and with that said my ignorance has led me to a treatment that is in the process of development and use in the prison system (sex offenders) --- therefore I would say i'd rather keep my inferiority (PsyD interest) and ignorance (low GRE) than have an EGO that keeps you from entering into the REAL WORLD!!
Click to expand...

Yeah, because who cares about the profession as a whole? We should all only care about ourselves, not clients/patients, and certainly not the community at large🙄.
 
Of course I didn't memorize the SUNY Albany curriculum. But you have to admit it's pretty sparse. I brought it up to show that there is inadequacy in many forms in many places. I'll also have to disagree with your notion that classes are a sidenote. I agree that applied learning must take place, and does at CSPP San Diego, but you must develop competencies in the major academic areas concomitantly. We have 4,300 hours of predoc practicum and internship training. That's well above the average of 1,500, reported by the APA for clinical programs. I'm going to rag in SUNY Albany again. I've met the most inept clinicians from that "program". It's a joke..truly. Do you know how programs are ranked anyway!? By research generation!! So no wonder professional schools don't rank high! Our daily grind isn't pumping out faculty research. Most of our faculty, although rich in research, have established high profrile careers and clinics. Hell, we have a guy who wrote the comprehensive manual for the rorschach. We have another on the DSM committee, another who is a national figure on Biopsych feedback etc.
Look, I'm being objective when I say that there are alot of inept people who make their way in this program (again, mostly in the Psy.D- I'm not trying to offend anyone but it's true).
And ultimatly I agree that there should be more oversight..but this is a self correcting market and the good news is that if you can't be a good clinician you're not going to be employed (with some exceptions I know but it's pretty much true).
Should you go somewhere funded(free)...hell yes you should! Why would you willingly go into debt if you don't need to? All I'm saying is that CSPP San Diego, based on it's track record and my experience here, holds it's own in many ways although some of the criticisms are well founded.
 
AndieB said:
...therefore I would say i'd rather keep my inferiority (PsyD interest) and ignorance (low GRE) than have an EGO that keeps you from entering into the REAL WORLD!!
Click to expand...

Oh no. Not here too. I was just browsing over this thread out of curiosity & had no intention of posting. However, I'm used to being inundated with this "you're not in the real world" attitude by rednecks & uneducated miscreants whose own egos are fragile when faced with someone who is educated.

Don't do this. It serves no purpose. No one has capital on being allowed to exclusively define what the "real world" is, & I think it is ridiculous to insist that academia isn't an institution within the real world. Besides, "real world" claimers have no idea the background of the audience they are stripping of "real world" status.

Just don't do this. It's not meaningful or helpful.
 
Oh I'm totally on board with rankings being stupid. I don't even think its meaningful for research programs since its dependent on the program, which says nothing about an individual faculty member, which is what really matters for a researcher. I'm not even sure how one could effectively rank schools focused on clinical work since there really ISN'T an objective way to measure that. Client outcomes are as dependent on the client population as it is on the therapist, using EPPP scores seem like a pretty artificial measure, etc.

I guess we're just going to have agree to disagree on the classes issue. Certainly one needs a strong base - I'm not arguing against that, but I think there is a point of diminishing returns where one would gain substantially more from a carefully supervised practicum or research project than one would from the classroom. I've admittedly had fairly limited experiences thus far, but I really don't feel my classes have served much purpose beyond forcing me to read things I might not otherwise stumble across. I get a background from them, but the learning I do on my own for things outside the classroom seems to comprise the bulk of what I'm learning in grad school. I've learned infinitely more in things I've done on my own outside the classroom than things I've done in them.

As for the "real world" I didn't even think to interpret it that way! If that's how it was intended, I'm sorry I even took him/her seriously enough to post the reply I did.
 
AndieB said:
It is ridiculous that people must be as negative as they are about various schools. Who cares? does it directly affect you? If you get YOUR internship, YOUR job, and YOUR EGO, don't WORRY about ANYONE else. I have worked my butt of since undergrad, I am published, have clinical experience, and a 4.0 GPA (undergrad and grad - double major) however, my GRE is not up to par. Does that make me inferior? There are people who don't test well and there are people who do --- as there are malingerers. If someone asks about a program attmpt to tell the pros and cons without stroking your own ego. I AM HAPPY for those who are in a "GREAT" program but let me tell you something, I MYSELF am not and with that said my ignorance has led me to a treatment that is in the process of development and use in the prison system (sex offenders) --- therefore I would say i'd rather keep my inferiority (PsyD interest) and ignorance (low GRE) than have an EGO that keeps you from entering into the REAL WORLD!!
Click to expand...

I have to strongly disagree with your opening statements.This demonstrates an extremely poor understanding of clinical psychology and clinical practice, business and economics, supply and demand, and the flow of job markets in the US economy. WHAT OUR PEERS ARE DOING DIRECTLY AFFECT US AND OUR CAREERS. I think this is obvious just from history, but i can offer specifics here if you like? (i.e., saturated jobs markets affect pay scales, peers affect what is considered standards of practice in the field,etc..etc). Who cares? I care! This is not a field for people who just want to get theirs and not worry about field itself. If that's your attitude, go work on Wall Street. Further, I might argue, that out of all the professions, we are the ones that should be thinking about more than just ourselves in all this. No? I might argue that we are bound to uphold and seek the advancement and professional standards of our own science. WE should be our own biggest advocates, actively involved in seeking professional and training reformations and policy.....not idle bystanders. Would you not agree?
 
I have been reading these anti-PsyD/Alliant threads for a while and just feel the need to chime in... Those of us here who are in grad school or working towards it - we are all in the helping profession, and while I definitely appreciate the different points of view, I beg everyone to be constructive when expressing your opinions and advice. I (as a future PsyD student) just might be someone you want to work with someday and I hope you'll keep an open mind as to who is an effective therapist once you're out in the field.

I am thrilled for those of you who were able to get into a university-funded program. However, there are often exigent circumstances which cause some people to not consider this as an option. For instance, due to my husband's job, I cannot leave SF, and though I have a decent GPA/GRE and experience, I am not competitive enough for UCBerkeley or Stanford, my only local university PhD options. For this and other reasons, I have decided to pursue a PsyD degree at CSPP, not only for its focus on clinical work, but for it's people, convenience and the ability to maintain part time work and family outside of classes. Yes, I know I'll have debt.

I don't deny that there are many programs far exceeding the quality of CSPP out there, but I sincerely believe that your success as a therapist will be a result of the combination of education, effort and practical experience - whatever school you attend, it will be what you make of it.

As for actually answering the initial question, I think, I applied to CSPP and whatever the standards might have been, the application process was, I thought, just as thorough as at a major university. I had to submit transcripts, 4 essays (more than Cal required!), rec letters and attend an interview. While the GRE was supposedly not used in admissions decisions, they do want you to have taken it by the time you matriculate.
 
Jon Snow said:
Professional schools are professional schools. . . psyd or phd. They are just as bad.

It's not a self-correcting market in the way you think. We are going to rely on students to self-correct it? Students who already seem to think it is reasonable to take at 6 figures in loans to attend a university-lite?

Your school is exploitative. . . a profit machine at the expense of psychologists everywhere.
Click to expand...
======================================================

Jon,
You are correct to a point. I am a CSPP grad student at San Diego. The facts are that: 1. Alliant is a non-profit university (the first free standing psych U in the country) 2. PhD students are NOT the same as Psy.D students at CSPP. I know this doesn't generalize across the country but it's true here. When someone is denied admission to the PhD program they sometimes offer a secondary application to the Psy.D program. The PhD admits 8%. The Psy.D admits 30%!! There is a marked difference...and I don't think I'm typing this out of cognitive dissonance!😛 (maybe a little) Listen..I have some serious complaints about my program, which I am belicose about! But. I don't like the slamming of all pro-schools based on misinformation. There are some impressive historical and current stats and landmarks made my CSPP SD and SF. The other locations...yeah...a little less valuable in my opinion. Are there some issues with some pro schools coming up all over the country?...yes (Argosy has inumerable "campuses" even with online "degrees" ...that's a problem and it's bad for all of us) But lets be a little more objective here. If you have any questions about this program I will anser them candidly without bias.
 
Come on man. Since I'm a CSPP grad I post to threads concerning CSPP. Mr. Snow simply happens be a frequent flyer on pro-school threads and seems to post rather aggressive messages against pro-schools (and I actually agree with some of the sentiment, ironically...I just feel alot of it is without tact and many times of flat out incorrect). He has every right to do that...and I have every right to reply. I have replied to them because I think they warrent scrutiny. Why don't you go present somthing meaningful on this website instead of provoking useless jabs? I'm trying to provide helpful perspective to the discussions. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Alliant International University—Fresno (Psy.D.)
Replies
5
Views
3K
NeuroObsessed
N
Psycho Bunny
Clinical PHD vs Counseling PHD?
Replies
5
Views
2K
MCParent
MCParent
S
Duquesne University Clinical Psychology PhD
Replies
5
Views
1K
sb1129
S
F
Designing an asynchronous PhD course
Replies
3
Views
803
flerfmcgerf
F
J
PhD/PsyD USUHS Clinical Psychology 2026
Replies
0
Views
651
JRM96
J
Top