Alliant CSPP SF vs The Chicago School in Chicago vs The Adler School

[Johnny38]

Hello everyone:

I've been accepted into Alliant CSPP in San Francisco, The Chicago School in Chicago, and The Adler School in Chicago. All are for PsyD Programs. I was wondering if anyone had thoughts about which is the best out of all these programs. Let me further state that I do not want to discuss the difference between PhD and PsyD - for much has been posted on the topic on SDN. Rather, I would like to find out which of the three programs give the best clinical training and match rates. I'm looking to primarily practice psychotherapy in southern california, so my gut instinct is to say that I have a better chance of matching into a southern cali internship or post doc via Alliant SF? Or does that not matter at all?

I think overall, I liked the Chicago School's program, but again the california factor is a concern. In addition to practicing therapy, I would love to get into more of the neuropsych/health psychology/biofeedback approaches (assessment testing, etc) perhaps by doing a postdoc in the future. Which school do you guys feel is best for such a concentration, in addition the doing traditional therapy?

I would appreciate you feedback, especially from those having attending, or are currently attending any of these aforementioned programs. Much thanks!

Best,
Jon

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cara susanna]

I hope you have a job lined up in SoCal.

 

[busybusybusy]

You should be able to find match rates on their websites, APA accredited programs are required to publish these. Look for something titled student outcomes or internship rates. Also - if APA match rates (as opposed to APPIC) are important to you - make sure you distinguish between them on the website. I don't believe the Chicago School does this on their website, or atleast didn't last year.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

I would think everyone, everyone, everyone would want an internship and postdoc in southern CA. Good luck with that, I don't envy you.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I would think everyone, everyone, everyone would want an internship and postdoc in southern CA. Good luck with that, I don't envy you.

I know that the neuro postdocs over there tend to be fairly competitive (and also many don't participate in the match, it seems). I believe they often like to take fellows from their own "inner circles" so to speak, so completing your grad training and/or internship there could be helpful. However, that's complete conjecture on my part; anyone training in CA, please feel free to correct me.

Neuro and forensic postdocs in particular tend to be competitive, so you're going to want to do everything possible to position yourself for success. This includes obtaining an APA-accredited internship. Thus, as one of the above posters mentioned, look specifically into APA internship match rates for each of those programs.

I believe of all the CA-based Alliant campuses, SF seems to have the best reputation. However, how that compares to the two Chicago schools, I don't know.

 

[PavlovWolf]

I hope you have a job lined up in SoCal.

This. Everything is extremely competitive out here. SoCal and NorCal.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I know I've written about Alliant SF before....as it has been cited as one of the "better" campuses. However, the data couldn't be farther from the truth. APPIC put out a multi-year study of internship matching, and it was ugly. If you dig around on here enough you'll find my comparison of match rates of some of the more popular CA programs. It has only gotten worse.

...which of the three programs give the best clinical training and match rates.

Clinical training is a crapshoot at best if you are looking in california because many of the better practica sites will not accept practica students from Alliant or similar programs. Since these programs get brought up frequently, I'll post the data again and hopefully people will find it and be able to make an informed decision....

Here are the APA match rates for each program, per their outcome data:
Alliant SF: 12%, 16%, 21%, 17%, 18%, 11%, 19%
Chicago School (CHI): 57%, 57%, 49%, 55%, 65%, 39%, 50%
Adler (CHI): 33%, 30%, 27%, 21%, 46%, 47%, 45%

I know someone who went to the Chi School, and she is a very good clinician...but she told me she had to seek a lot of additional outside help to get to that point. She did not paint a very good picture of her program, though she made the best of it. She told me that students in her cohort were under crushing debt loads, so most had to find jobs that included gov't repayment. Forget about trying to find a job in CA, because those kind of jobs are in places you don't want to live. Interest rates are even worse now and tuition is even higher, so the debt will only get worse.

These data should be reason enough to avoid ALL of them. Given the current climate of the field and the incredible challenges of internship, I can't think of one good reason to attend any program that has the above match rates. Students will still ignore the data and go anyway because they want to be doctors...but it is a huge mistake.

I think overall, I liked the Chicago School's program, but again the california factor is a concern. In addition to practicing therapy, I would love to get into more of the neuropsych/health psychology/biofeedback approaches (assessment testing, etc) perhaps by doing a postdoc in the future. Which school do you guys feel is best for such a concentration, in addition the doing traditional therapy?

If you attend any of those programs, you will have a very hard time competing for a APA-acred. internship (see above). If you want to be in the neuropsych world, you will have an even harder time trying to match to a Div40 fellowship in neuropsych. Similar challenges can be found in health, forensics, etc.

There are many places in the neuropsych world that will flat out toss internship/postdoc/job applications from applicants from the above programs. A few years ago I reviewed for internship applicants and I looked at every application and CV, but there were marked differences between applicants from U of Kansas, U of Washington, U of Alabama-Birmingham...and those from CSPP and similar. I'm not trying to be harsh, but I'm trying to be honest. The opinions of your peers can and will make a difference in trying to find a job. I'm going through the interview process now for clinical faculty positions, and the real world can be downright brutal. Do yourself a favor and avoid all of those programs.

 

[CSOPP]

I know I've written about Alliant SF before....as it has been cited as one of the "better" campuses. However, the data couldn't be farther from the truth. APPIC put out a multi-year study of internship matching, and it was ugly. If you dig around on here enough you'll find my comparison of match rates of some of the more popular CA programs. It has only gotten worse.



Clinical training is a crapshoot at best if you are looking in california because many of the better practica sites will not accept practica students from Alliant or similar programs. Since these programs get brought up frequently, I'll post the data again and hopefully people will find it and be able to make an informed decision....

Here are the APA match rates for each program, per their outcome data:
Alliant SF: 12%, 16%, 21%, 17%, 18%, 11%, 19%
Chicago School (CHI): 57%, 57%, 49%, 55%, 65%, 39%, 50%
Adler (CHI): 33%, 30%, 27%, 21%, 46%, 47%, 45%

I know someone who went to the Chi School, and she is a very good clinician...but she told me she had to seek a lot of additional outside help to get to that point. She did not paint a very good picture of her program, though she made the best of it. She told me that students in her cohort were under crushing debt loads, so most had to find jobs that included gov't repayment. Forget about trying to find a job in CA, because those kind of jobs are in places you don't want to live. Interest rates are even worse now and tuition is even higher, so the debt will only get worse.

These data should be reason enough to avoid ALL of them. Given the current climate of the field and the incredible challenges of internship, I can't think of one good reason to attend any program that has the above match rates. Students will still ignore the data and go anyway because they want to be doctors...but it is a huge mistake.



If you attend any of those programs, you will have a very hard time competing for a APA-acred. internship (see above). If you want to be in the neuropsych world, you will have an even harder time trying to match to a Div40 fellowship in neuropsych. Similar challenges can be found in health, forensics, etc.

There are many places in the neuropsych world that will flat out toss internship/postdoc/job applications from applicants from the above programs. A few years ago I reviewed for internship applicants and I looked at every application and CV, but there were marked differences between applicants from U of Kansas, U of Washington, U of Alabama-Birmingham...and those from CSPP and similar. I'm not trying to be harsh, but I'm trying to be honest. The opinions of your peers can and will make a difference in trying to find a job. I'm going through the interview process now for clinical faculty positions, and the real world can be downright brutal. Do yourself a favor and avoid all of those programs.

As someone who goes to CSOPP, I had no problem getting an APA-accred. internship, nor did most of my friends. I actually got 12 internship interviews with my "poor training," most of which were with APA-accred. programs. However, I am interested in forensics, not neuro, so this makes a difference. I have had excellent training experiences and have not felt like I needed to get outside help to get it. However, every person's experience is different.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

As someone who goes to CSOPP, I had no problem getting an APA-accred. internship, nor did most of my friends. I actually got 12 internship interviews with my "poor training," most of which were with APA-accred. programs. However, I am interested in forensics, not neuro, so this makes a difference. I have had excellent training experiences and have not felt like I needed to get outside help to get it. However, every person's experience is different.

I didn't write that it was impossible to get "good training" and/or match to APA-acred. sites, I simply stated that the data does not support that as a common outcome. CSPP-SF's 2011 match rate for APA-acred sites was 19%. That is less than 1 in 5 applicants who wanted an APA-acred site were actually able to match to an APA-acred site. The internship process is getting more and more ridiculous each passing year, so I want to make sure students go in knowing the challenges.

 

[CSOPP]

I assume you meant CSPP and not CSPP-SF. I know CSPP does have a California campus, and I would stress that no one should go there...ever. Any data I have seen has CSPP hovering around 50% in terms of APA-accred. internships, which is not great, but better than some other schools. If the 19% is true, I find that appalling.

 

[O Gurl]

Hello everyone:

I've been accepted into Alliant CSPP in San Francisco, The Chicago School in Chicago, and The Adler School in Chicago. All are for PsyD Programs. I was wondering if anyone had thoughts about which is the best out of all these programs. Let me further state that I do not want to discuss the difference between PhD and PsyD - for much has been posted on the topic on SDN. Rather, I would like to find out which of the three programs give the best clinical training and match rates. I'm looking to primarily practice psychotherapy in southern california, so my gut instinct is to say that I have a better chance of matching into a southern cali internship or post doc via Alliant SF? Or does that not matter at all?

I think overall, I liked the Chicago School's program, but again the california factor is a concern. In addition to practicing therapy, I would love to get into more of the neuropsych/health psychology/biofeedback approaches (assessment testing, etc) perhaps by doing a postdoc in the future. Which school do you guys feel is best for such a concentration, in addition the doing traditional therapy?

I would appreciate you feedback, especially from those having attending, or are currently attending any of these aforementioned programs. Much thanks!

Best,
Jon

I am always baffled when people post a question in a public forum of their peers, but dictate that they do not want certain truths to be addressed. Sorry. I think honesty and accuracy are important. Even if the OP isn't interested, future readers may benefit.

Neuro, health, and forensic psych are highly competitive specialty areas. Neuro and health psychologists function in medical centers where coming from a not-very-well-respected PsyD program with poor statistics will NOT serve you well. In fact, many large medical centers will not even consider applicants from these programs esp. if they do not have APA-accredited internship and solid, specialized postdoctoral experience. Forensic psych (I realize this is not your area of interest) is highly competitive because of the scrutiny paid to credentials.

Like T4C already stated outright, in the current climate, there is no reason to put yourself behind the 8-ball by attending one of these programs. Esp. if you are likely to accumulate over $100K in debt doing so.

 

[Lyra33]

If you're set on one of those three programs, as a current student at the Chicago School's Chicago campus, I would recommend you go there over the other two. Feel free to private message me if you have any specific questions; I'd be happy to answer them!

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I assume you meant CSPP and not CSPP-SF. I know CSPP does have a California campus, and I would stress that no one should go there...ever. Any data I have seen has CSPP hovering around 50% in terms of APA-accred. internships, which is not great, but better than some other schools. If the 19% is true, I find that appalling.

It looked like the numbers T4C provided were specific to the SF campus. Do they not publicize this data even to current students? If so, that would be a shame.

 

[ClinicalABA]

It looked like the numbers T4C provided were specific to the SF campus. Do they not publicize this data even to current students? If so, that would be a shame.

It's on their website: http://www.alliant.edu/documents/cspp/domain-g/san-francisco-psyd-domain-g-2011.pdf
(actually, it's a pdf linked from their website). APA accreditation requires that programs programs provide this data to the public, and it's typically linked to on program websites. 19% APA match rate- caveat emptor (students and future employers/patients alike).

 

[AcronymAllergy]

It's on their website: http://www.alliant.edu/documents/cspp/domain-g/san-francisco-psyd-domain-g-2011.pdf
(actually, it's a pdf linked from their website). APA accreditation requires that programs programs provide this data to the public, and it's typically linked to on program websites. 19% APA match rate- caveat emptor (students and future employers/patients alike).

It's definitely useful to know, and I'd be wary of a program with that rate. I actually was asking more along the lines of if the program informed its students about how many had matched and where; my program (and those of the other interns at my site) will send out emails each year with that information, so I was curious if the CSPP-SF campus did the same.

 

[ClinicalABA]

It's definitely useful to know, and I'd be wary of a program with that rate. I actually was asking more along the lines of if the program informed its students about how many had matched and where; my program (and those of the other interns at my site) will send out emails each year with that information, so I was curious if the CSPP-SF campus did the same.

I'm always surprised that the cohort could be so large and/or disperse that you that you wouldn't already know who got an internship and where. The mentors in my program considered the focused training and "marketing" of their students to specific internships/post-docs/future employers to be a major part of their job. This could only be done with maybe 1-2 students per mentor per year (~8 students applying per year, usually in their 4th year of training). Things sure are different.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I'm always surprised that the cohort could be so large and/or disperse that you that you wouldn't already know who got an internship and where. The mentors in my program considered the focused training and "marketing" of their students to specific internships/post-docs/future employers to be a major part of their job. This could only be done with maybe 1-2 students per mentor per year (~8 students applying per year, usually in their 4th year of training). Things sure are different.

The same would usually happen in our program (i.e., word would get around fairly quickly), but I personally never asked about matching unless I either knew the person well, or they brought it up first. Thus, the emails were sometimes helpful in providing the sites of the one or two people I hadn't heard about. Not that names were included in the email, but if you knew most of the sites on the list, it wasn't hard to finish connecting the rest of the dots.

I agree, though; having cohorts so large that there are people in your program you might not have ever even met does seem like a much different situation.

 

[CSOPP]

I would like to clarify something- I go to the Chicago School, NOT Alliant. I didn't realize that Alliant also went by CSPP. Sorry for any confusion! As I stated, The Chicago School has a good match rate and a good reputation. As someone in a "competitve" area (forensics), I had no problems getting practicums or an accred. internship in my area of interest.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I would like to clarify something- I go to the Chicago School, NOT Alliant. I didn't realize that Alliant also went by CSPP. Sorry for any confusion! As I stated, The Chicago School has a good match rate and a good reputation. As someone in a "competitve" area (forensics), I had no problems getting practicums or an accred. internship in my area of interest.

The match rates for the Chicago School certainly are better than for the Alliant and Adler campuses listed, yep. I personally don't know if I'd judge them to be good or strong, but that's just a subjective judgment.

That being said, I'm very glad to hear you were able to secure the necessary practicum experiences to make you competitive for an APA internship. Going the forensic route, that's almost a must at this point. I believe other posters have mentioned on here that the Chicago School has a solid reputation in the area, which also helps.

And thank you for the CSPP/Chicago School clarification. It definitely does change things a bit.

 

[Johnny38]

Very interesting thoughts. Thanks everyone for the insight.
I had another question regarding postdocs. Is a postdoc the same as the clinical experience you need to have post-graduation prior to getting licensed? Ergo, it's called a postdoc internship?

If so, suppose someone is interested in doing neuropsych assessments or perhaps biofeedback/health psychology IN ADDITION to traditional clinical therapy. In that case, would he or she need to complete a postdoc that specializes both in neuropsych/health psychology/biofeedback AND clinical therapy??

This has always been a topic of confusion for me. Please do let me know your thoughts.

Thanks!

 

[4410]

I've known individuals who finished up the PsyD from Alliant and they are doing very well in neuropsychology independent practice. They went through the postdoctoral program in neuropsychology at Fielding Institute. One common theme I hear is that it is difficult to get psychologists positions in California and most of the psychologists I know have relocated due to finding a job in another State. If you already live in California you are aware of the cost of living. I have a son working as a computer engineer in the San Francisco area making a six figure income and he is renting a house with four roomates. I believe the Alliant program is one of the better PsyD program in the country and there are many licensed psychologists nationwide from this program.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I do not think that can be reasonably argued. Reputation, cost, internship match rates, postdoctoral placements, EPPP scores, debt of graduates (cost mentioned twice on purpose) are all at the bottom end of the spectrum.

Agreed. Alliant SF might be one of the better Psy.D. programs in California perhaps, but even that is tenable.

Remember, attempting to generalize the success of a limited number of anecdotal experiences to an entire sample generally doesn't work out well.

To answer the question about postdoc--there are formal and informal postdocs, with the latter generally being more similar to working in a practice while accruing postdoc supervised hours for licensure. Formal postdocs tend to be much more structured, especially in terms of didactics and rotations. For neuropsych, in order to get boarded, a formal two-year postdoc that adheres to Houston Conference training guidelines is a requirement.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I had another question regarding postdocs. Is a postdoc the same as the clinical experience you need to have post-graduation prior to getting licensed? Ergo, it's called a postdoc internship?

A post-doc or a fellowship are two ways to get your hours towards licensure, which occurs after internship and before licensure.

If so, suppose someone is interested in doing neuropsych assessments or perhaps biofeedback/health psychology IN ADDITION to traditional clinical therapy. In that case, would he or she need to complete a postdoc that specializes both in neuropsych/health psychology/biofeedback AND clinical therapy??

Div 40 established the Houston Guidelines to address competency. I'm not sure if health psychology has something similiar, so I'll defer that answer to someone in health psychology.

If you want to practice neuropsychology, you should receive formal training and mentorship during your doctoral training, internship, and then during a 2-year fellowship. No clinician should practice neuropsychology 'on the side.' It is akin to a GP saying, 'I would like to practice surgery IN ADDITION to traditional GP practice.'