What gives you the impression that Alliant/CSPP PhD races for the least amount of training? What do you actually know of my program and it's training?
I'm not singling out Alliant/CSPP, as there are other programs that do the same thing. There seem to be two divergent graduation school "cultures" developing within graduate training. There are those programs that are firmly grounded in teaching critical thinking, research, and controlled mentorship....and then programs that are more technical in nature and lean on "how to" training, encourage high amounts of "on the job" contact hours, and de-emphasizing traditional training standards (like APA-acred. internships).
The "same but different" approach is frustrating because corners are being cut and training is much more variable within programs. There are some very good clinicians who have sought out additional mentorship and training, but there are also more sub-par clinicians who slip through because the training standards allow for it. There are those students who pursue APA-acred. internships, formal post-docs, etc...and then students who opt for alternative training options that are not at the same level of training.
The underlying theme of the alternative training option is that "traditional training approaches don't fit my lifestyle, so I'll take a different route". The problem with the latter is that the "compromise" not only effects that student, but the profession as a whole. A second tier of clinicians are coming out, and while there is not direct competition for jobs, it weakens the profession because the lower standards reflect poorly on everyone.
Fair enough. I agree that APA set standards and that the alternatives like 2 half time local internships and the like need to have more standardized training. I also agree that the APA site overload of applicants is partially due to too many pro-schools/for profit schools yet also too little internships. According to the APA around 250 sites were lost in the past few years.
There aren't too many internship sites though....as there isn't a huge cry for more license eligible clinicians to be coming from graduate school to fill a critical shortage in the marketplace. It is quite the opposite, there are
too many license eligible clinicians in the marketplace, and they have created a second tier within the profession, often taking jobs aimed at mid-level providers. Anyone who has looked through posted jobs have seen the, "Masters / Doctoral clinicians sought for...." advertisements, which suggests the blurring of training and competencies within the field. There are still psychologist-specific jobs out there (usually in niche areas like forensic assessment, neuro assessment, teaching, researching, etc), but the immergence of this relatively new sector is concerning.
Again….I agree. There is unfortunately a path of least resistance for those who wish to go the way of lazy electricity. I think a balance between site expansion and enrollment attenuation is the answer.
The path of least resistance is what I am worried about. There are less places for quality control in our profession, and encouraging this alternative culture is feeding into the problem.
Alliant actually highly encourages students to go APA. There is no benefit to the program to have less APA interns.
The benefit of having students go somewhere (APA-acred. site or not) allows them to claim that their students get through the program, though in actuality it is akin to students being pushed through the system, with only a portion actually be viable candidates for their next educational step. No Graduate Student Left Behind....until they try and find a job.
The road to licensure is not harder...we have very good licensure rates (I will find them at some point for you) I believe our EPPP beats our UCLA and others.
I'd be interested in seeing the licensure rates, particularly for those students being licensed outside the state of CA.
As far as the marketplace…I have to clarify. If your goals are professional practice…it makes no difference if you were APA or not. If you want VA or academic appointment then obviously it matters. Being barred from VA is the only barrier to occupation that I know of. Do you have other information?
I think it is important to distinguish between professional practice and private practice. If someone were to hang a shingle and see people out of their own office, I don't think there would be a problem. I'm not sure if there are limitations with getting on to insurance panels for those coming from non-APA acred internships, though I'd guess "equivilancy" would strike again.
As for VA or academic appointment.....I think it stretches farther than that. I'd hazard to guess between VA hospitals, academically affiliated hospitals, and universities (counseling centers, etc), that those employers make up a good portion of available jobs outside of self-employment. The reason I harp on this topic is that many times students beginning their graduate education are not fully informed of the differences between acred. levels, and they do not understand the full effect of not being competitive for those jobs.
I am far from an elitist when it comes to graduate training, though I do have concerns about some training areas. I don't want to axe all programs that don't produce 90%+ APA acred. internship placement rates, though I would like to "trim the fat" of any program that cannot consistantly place their students into APA acred. internship placements. Allowing for the development of a second tier of professionals does not benefit the students nor the profession.