Alliant International University's Ph.D program?
- Thread starter ExpressYourself
- Start date
I would frankly suggest not going into Psychology at all unless you are independently wealthy. While I make a good living, I have been practicing for awhile and have an established reputation and practice. I never had anything even close to 200K in debt.
For the newly licensed, welcome to the world where, if you are fortunate, you might make $ 30.00 per hour at some 3rd rate community mental health agency. Private practice is no longer a viable option for the vast majority of people.
For the newly licensed, welcome to the world where, if you are fortunate, you might make $ 30.00 per hour at some 3rd rate community mental health agency. Private practice is no longer a viable option for the vast majority of people.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 10
I do think the posts that essentially say that Alliant and the like are bad and university programs are basically good are overly simplistic.
If I will be honest and say that professional schools have short comings and problems university proponents may want to consider being as honest because there are some striking short comings in U-based clin. programs.
One of those University based problems is the lack of applied training and relatively miniscule clincial amount of theoretical and clincal exposure. Lets not forget, professional schools were created to respond to the WWII veterans with psychological diff. coming back from war. We had a dearth of clinicians who were trained to meet the need for service and hence the APA actually convened and suggested the creation of clinically oriented programs.
I have a 2nd yr practicum with 1000 hrs, a 3rd yr internship of 1100 hrs at a different placement, an APA placement, and a current psychological assistantship with analytic institute training. Honestly, how many University based grad students can claim to (honestly) have a comparable training? There really is no comparison.
But, the pro-schools do abuse the financial aid system and do let (on average) a less intelligent cohort because they have to make tuition levies.
The most honest discussion in clin psych today, germane to this topic, is the notion of creating funded or highly endowed applied clin programs. That would create the highest level of clinical training and the most talented clinicians.
However, I remain resolute on my advice toward the current financial conditions of clin. psych applied schools: do not go unless u are independently wealthy because 200k in debt is the average debt load and you will not survive that and expect to prosper.
If I will be honest and say that professional schools have short comings and problems university proponents may want to consider being as honest because there are some striking short comings in U-based clin. programs.
One of those University based problems is the lack of applied training and relatively miniscule clincial amount of theoretical and clincal exposure. Lets not forget, professional schools were created to respond to the WWII veterans with psychological diff. coming back from war. We had a dearth of clinicians who were trained to meet the need for service and hence the APA actually convened and suggested the creation of clinically oriented programs.
I have a 2nd yr practicum with 1000 hrs, a 3rd yr internship of 1100 hrs at a different placement, an APA placement, and a current psychological assistantship with analytic institute training. Honestly, how many University based grad students can claim to (honestly) have a comparable training? There really is no comparison.
But, the pro-schools do abuse the financial aid system and do let (on average) a less intelligent cohort because they have to make tuition levies.
The most honest discussion in clin psych today, germane to this topic, is the notion of creating funded or highly endowed applied clin programs. That would create the highest level of clinical training and the most talented clinicians.
However, I remain resolute on my advice toward the current financial conditions of clin. psych applied schools: do not go unless u are independently wealthy because 200k in debt is the average debt load and you will not survive that and expect to prosper.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,612
First, most university clinical programs offer a wealth of practium opps. Although I have heard people complain about their program's overly heavy "encouragement" of academic/research pursuits, I know of NO ONE who has complained that they CANNOT get lots of prac training if they so desire. Certainly no one has ever said its not there/available. How did this myth get started?
Second, hours are of overblown importance. How this focus on "more hours =better" got started I dont know either. You can do the same thing over and over for 2000 hours, but what have you really learned? 500-800 direct contact hours within 2 or 3 high quality, closely supervised sites is much better than 2000 hours of anything, IMHO. 2000 hours is just unnecessary and I am proud I am NOT being subjected to that ridiculous amount of slave labor. Its the law of diminishing returns. I think those hours could be better spent on other aspects of scientific training. We're not running a trade school here, the goal is to be a well rounded clinician and scientist. Most of us here have between 400-700 face to face hours when we apply for internship and we have no problem placing any of our students at top clinical sites. Where is the benefit of this 2000 hour stuff you speak of?
Third, where did you come up with this notion that professional school were developed in response to WWII? WWII was responsible for the emergence of clinical psych in traditional universities. The first professionals school and the vale model didn't come about until the late 60s.
Second, hours are of overblown importance. How this focus on "more hours =better" got started I dont know either. You can do the same thing over and over for 2000 hours, but what have you really learned? 500-800 direct contact hours within 2 or 3 high quality, closely supervised sites is much better than 2000 hours of anything, IMHO. 2000 hours is just unnecessary and I am proud I am NOT being subjected to that ridiculous amount of slave labor. Its the law of diminishing returns. I think those hours could be better spent on other aspects of scientific training. We're not running a trade school here, the goal is to be a well rounded clinician and scientist. Most of us here have between 400-700 face to face hours when we apply for internship and we have no problem placing any of our students at top clinical sites. Where is the benefit of this 2000 hour stuff you speak of?
Third, where did you come up with this notion that professional school were developed in response to WWII? WWII was responsible for the emergence of clinical psych in traditional universities. The first professionals school and the vale model didn't come about until the late 60s.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,810
- Reaction score
- 9
Ahem.
Appic survey, 2008.
10. Practicum hours and testing reports reported on the AAPI:
Ph.D., Psy.D.
Intevention & Assessment Hours
Median 833, 726
Mean 943, 799
St. Dev. 616, 383
Supervision Hours
Median 390, 313
Mean 428, 354
St. Dev. 221, 192
Adult Testing Reports
Median 6, 6
Mean 21, 20
St. Dev. 78, 74
Child/Adolescent Testing Reports
Median 5 5
Mean 14 13
St. Dev. 33 39
I think there are clearly diminishing returns on amount of prac experience. I don't know that 1000+, or even 500+, is beneficial if it sacrifices other relevant stuff (supervision, research, etc.)
Practically, how would this happen when people are willing to pay 100k for an applied clinical degree?
I agree that it is a shame that "practice" is a dirty word at many programs, but I also think you overstate your case.
For one, I think hours can be cloudy in terms of quality. Unfortunately, there are a huge number of psychologists providing bogus treatments out there, doing things there is little to no evidence for (even at supposedly evidence-based places like the VAs!). I have serious concerns that students at professional schools may be more apt to end up with these folks just because trying to find quality practica sites for such an incredible volume of students must be difficult, even in large cities. Not to mention I suspect there is likely more acceptance of what I consider to be lower-quality and often borderline unethical care among programs that de-emphasize scientific training. Heck, it can be hard to find enough quality practica sites even for our program, which has fewer students TOTAL than many professional schools accept per class.
I will say that I think you overestimate the amount of training most students at prof schools get. If we are going to discuss hours, I think its important to note that on average, the PhD students are actually getting MORE face-to-face clinical hours than PsyDs. Not exactly the same as a university-prof school distinction, but I think the degrees can serve as a loose proxy - especially given the enormous number of PsyDs many professional schools are pumping out. I will also say that just because most students planning to pursue an academic track do not choose to pursue as many hours doesn't mean it isn't viable. I'm at a VERY research focused school, and we do have students who achieve hours more comparable to yours if they want to.
I do agree with the broader point. I do think funding for applied programs needs to increase. I do think some paradigm shifts in how we think about training need to occur. I think scientific training is vital and I strongly oppose the existence of any program that doesn't provide adequate training to properly understand psychological research (i.e. programs that allow case studies to serve as dissertations, etc.). There needs to be balance, and I think shifting too far in either direction is a mistake.
For one, I think hours can be cloudy in terms of quality. Unfortunately, there are a huge number of psychologists providing bogus treatments out there, doing things there is little to no evidence for (even at supposedly evidence-based places like the VAs!). I have serious concerns that students at professional schools may be more apt to end up with these folks just because trying to find quality practica sites for such an incredible volume of students must be difficult, even in large cities. Not to mention I suspect there is likely more acceptance of what I consider to be lower-quality and often borderline unethical care among programs that de-emphasize scientific training. Heck, it can be hard to find enough quality practica sites even for our program, which has fewer students TOTAL than many professional schools accept per class.
I will say that I think you overestimate the amount of training most students at prof schools get. If we are going to discuss hours, I think its important to note that on average, the PhD students are actually getting MORE face-to-face clinical hours than PsyDs. Not exactly the same as a university-prof school distinction, but I think the degrees can serve as a loose proxy - especially given the enormous number of PsyDs many professional schools are pumping out. I will also say that just because most students planning to pursue an academic track do not choose to pursue as many hours doesn't mean it isn't viable. I'm at a VERY research focused school, and we do have students who achieve hours more comparable to yours if they want to.
I do agree with the broader point. I do think funding for applied programs needs to increase. I do think some paradigm shifts in how we think about training need to occur. I think scientific training is vital and I strongly oppose the existence of any program that doesn't provide adequate training to properly understand psychological research (i.e. programs that allow case studies to serve as dissertations, etc.). There needs to be balance, and I think shifting too far in either direction is a mistake.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 10
1. Hours overblown...true...sort of. At each placement I have a different population, different treatment orientations, and different organizational cultures. A year of treating psychotically organized people is much different than a year of treating college students. SO, I am not using the volume of hours for anything but to house sufficient room for diverse training. That is the benefit of "this 2000 hour stuff you speak of."
2. WWII.... what I meant was that the previous push was a strictly scientific approach and the US govnt funded clinical application programs to treat "shell shock." I stated that it was a professional school origin..my bad. But I did mean to imply that u-based programs have a history of myopia.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,612
I still don't get the hours thing. Over 4 years I have seen people in a college counseling center, a VA, and schizophrenia research clinic at an academic hospital (Research SCIDs), a bariatric surgery clinic (paid psychometrist position), an inpatient psychiatric floor.... and will soon see patients at rehab hospital. I will not have anything close to 2000 hours. I don't want to and I don't think I or anyone needs to. My (and anyones, IMHO) development as psychologist and scientist would be much better served by continuing to learn from supervision on a low case load and spending more time doing research, attending conferences, publishing, etc. than it would trying to get more and more clinical experience. Again, this isn't a trade school....
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 10
I do not trust the hours reported from sites, but there's no way for us to rationally debate that so I'll just let it be. "intervention and assessment hours" are often filler.
Good question of how we provide funded programs when people are willing to pay.
I suggest that the government subject pro-schools and the like to audits of how they are arbitrating the funds. Heck I'll say that I think they should be required to provide funding for a certain & of the tuition...or at least a more restricted loan cap per capita.
Again, I'm a pro-school PhD candidate and I'm the biggest proponent of these criticisms. Yet we need to all have some reverence for that which we do not know. I am trained through a u-based program so I admit to conjecture. If we're to have a meaningful dialogue some of you may want to consider the same respect.
I hate to fall back on defense but I think that's a natural reaction for my position as a pro-school student at the time and given the posts here. The PhDs have access to very esteemed faculty at the SD Alliant campus. Don Viglione (arguably the worlds foremost expert/researcher on the Rorschach currently), Dick Gevirtz (bio-feedback pioneer), Alan Lincoln (IQ testing and Autism researcher...Salk institute grant holder and CARES CEO/director as well as DSM author). The Kaufmans taught there when it was just CSPP before the 2000 merger. Other greats like Alan Sugarman, Richard Lewak, Steve Bucky, Tom Horvath and more. Did any of you know that Maslow and Rogers started USIU? Alliant SD is a merger of USIU and CSPP.
Yet, there are many shortcomings, which I admit to. In general, there is no guarantee based on the admission process at pro-schools and the like that incoming students are as (cognitively)competetive as u-based programs. On an anecdotal token I have met the most clinically inept people coming out of Us. I once met a doc student from SUNY Albany who was shocked that we had to engage in our own psychotherapy hours in order to graduate. She said "what do you need therapy for...you're going to be a psychologist- you're not crazy." true story😱
I'm all for reforming the systems of edu. but I do propose that both the u'd and the pro's need to be reformed...not just the pros. (and I know whagt someones resonse will be....no I;m not using the anecdote above as evidence of a need for reform of u's so please don't do a snarky little quote and critique😉)
I believe reform on the funding of pro-schools would partially solve a dilemma. If they become funded more competetive students will flock and the inept clinicians will be slimmed.
Oh, and someone had mentioned the notion that our dissertations are case studies. You're talking about Psy.Ds. Alliant has both. I'm a PhD...my project is on its 2nd yr, 100 subjects, 150 pages so far...multivariate.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,810
- Reaction score
- 9
Why would there be no way for us to rationally debate? I just did it (i.e., presenting data).
If you dismiss the only existing data (flawed though it may be through use of a proxy variable as Ollie mentioned) about your assertion, on what are you basing your assertion?
We know how adept this and all other administrations are at ending corruption and sprawl through regulation 😉
Who would fund these schools under your proposed system?
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 10
There's no way for us to rationally debate the numbers because I'm not going to do any research for my entries here😀. Therefore it would just be a statement of my feelings...hence emotive and not rational.
My point would have been that Alliant CSPP has hours in addition to the ones you posted, which I propose to be valuable.
As far as the govermnent oversight....we gotta start somewhere, right?
I'm a small gov. proponent but if pro-schools are surviving on federally subsidized money they should be subjected to a review of money usage. Congress is holding hearings recently regarding for-profit schools like Argosy and UP. I say kudos to that step; the next step is pro-schools that don't create an endowment.
Who would fund them privately? Great question. I really have no idea and truthfully I have no compassion for the pro-school set-up. I propose that they either gradually create funding with incremental oversight or...they cease to exist. I know that's radical...but is it? If you read some of my previous posts I provide a clear picture of the negative aspects of these schools
But really, an institution that relies almost entirely on federally subsidized money should be held responsible for ethical use of those funds. Alliant is non-profit (not an excuse but an important delineation). Schools like Argosy actually have share-holders! Therefore they are motivated to provide as little in terms of: physical plant, student investment, training costs etc. Alliant...a little better but alot of work to do. We have a large 60-acre campus in SD, with a state of the art library, training labs etc. It's literally a whole university specifically for clin, org, and edu psych. Yet they have alot of improvement necessary....and I think those improvements should be done with private money, not tax payer subsidies.
Dios mio....must go work on dissertation now. This site can be a little cathartic
My point would have been that Alliant CSPP has hours in addition to the ones you posted, which I propose to be valuable.
As far as the govermnent oversight....we gotta start somewhere, right?
I'm a small gov. proponent but if pro-schools are surviving on federally subsidized money they should be subjected to a review of money usage. Congress is holding hearings recently regarding for-profit schools like Argosy and UP. I say kudos to that step; the next step is pro-schools that don't create an endowment.
Who would fund them privately? Great question. I really have no idea and truthfully I have no compassion for the pro-school set-up. I propose that they either gradually create funding with incremental oversight or...they cease to exist. I know that's radical...but is it? If you read some of my previous posts I provide a clear picture of the negative aspects of these schools
But really, an institution that relies almost entirely on federally subsidized money should be held responsible for ethical use of those funds. Alliant is non-profit (not an excuse but an important delineation). Schools like Argosy actually have share-holders! Therefore they are motivated to provide as little in terms of: physical plant, student investment, training costs etc. Alliant...a little better but alot of work to do. We have a large 60-acre campus in SD, with a state of the art library, training labs etc. It's literally a whole university specifically for clin, org, and edu psych. Yet they have alot of improvement necessary....and I think those improvements should be done with private money, not tax payer subsidies.
Dios mio....must go work on dissertation now. This site can be a little cathartic
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,563
- Reaction score
- 58
I just want to make sure everyone understands the difference here between comprehensive hours at a practicum site and actual clinical contact hours (huge pet peeve of mine). I'm not assuming that you don't know the difference, but it seems likely your numbers will cause some confusion in this thread. The hours you are listing are comprehensive hours. 1000/52 = a little under 20 hours a week spent at your practicum site assuming you are there year-round. This is pretty standard actually. I am in a university based Ph.D program and our second year prac included 16 hours a week at our site, while our third year prac was 20 hours a week.
However, this does not mean over 2000 clinical hours. Clinical, face-to-face contact hours are the numbers that people tend to compare because those are the numbers required by APPIC for the internship match process. Assuming you have things like paperwork, supervision, training seminars, and case conferences at your prac site, your clinical contact hours are going to be roughly half of the hours you spend on site (or less probably).
So, if people say they have 1000 or more clinical contact hours in a given year of prac they are either confused about what a clinical contact hour is, are working full time at a practicum site 40+ hours a week, or they are receiving absolutely zero support or supervision in their work, yet still seeing clients every single hour they are on site. None of these alternatives represents good training. On the other hand, someone who says they have 1000 comprehensive hours at a prac site for a year is in a fairly standard arrangement for either a balanced or clinically focused program (even Ph.D. programs).
Last edited:
That is an excellent point - I had assumed he was talking about face-to-face hours but you are probably right, I wasn't thinking about whether they were realistic in the time span provided. If it isn't referencing face-to-face hours, than I actually disagree that it is unreasonable for university-based students to get. Mine will be a bit more spread out, but it doesn't sound that different from what I expect to have when I'm done (albeit, we probably have a greater emphasis on EBP). VA, lab stuff, the school clinic, a handful of other places that remain to be determined (likely possibilities: Counseling Center, CMHC, Cancer Hospital, another VA unit, other hospitals). This is as someone at the research-focused extreme within a research-focused department.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 10
Here is Alliant/CSPP San Diego PhD coursework as proof of my applied experience.
if u want to visit the link for verification
http://www.alliant.edu/wps/wcm/conn...ology+(PhD)+-+San+Diego/Coursework+&+Schedule
First Year
After the second year, students take upper level courses, and focus on their dissertation research and internship clinical training. There are two plans, the recommended Plan A with a full-time APA internship and Plan B, which incorporates two, half-time local internships at a local agency, coordinate by the Professional Training Office. These year-level plans are listed below.
18 Units of Elective Requirements to be Completed in Years 3 through 5:
All students, following either Plan A or B are required to complete:
(Full-time Internship in 5th Year)
(Half-time Internships in 4th and 5th Years)
if u want to visit the link for verification
http://www.alliant.edu/wps/wcm/conn...ology+(PhD)+-+San+Diego/Coursework+&+Schedule
First Year
- PSY 6140 Developmental Psychology (3 units) or
- PSY 6101 Cognitive and Affective Bases of Behavior (3 units)
- PSY 6524 Theories of Personality Pathology and Psychotherapy: Psychoanalytic (3 units)
- PSY 6525 Theories of Personality Pathology and Psychotherapy: Behavioral & Cogntive-Behavioral (3 units)
- PSY 6520 Introduction to Psychotherapy (2 units)
- PSY 6521 Introduction to Psychotherapy Practicum (1 unit)
- PSY 6523 Psychopathology (3 units)
- PSY 6129 Multicultural Competency Development (3 units)
- PSY 6501 Intellectual Assessment (3 units)
- PSY 6502 Practicum in Intelligence testing (1 unit)
- PSY 6021, 6022 Advanced Statistics I & II (3 units, 3 units)
- PSY 6034 Research Practicum (3 units)
- PSY6003 PhD Program Meeting (0 units, 0 units)
- PSY 6105 Biological Aspects of Behavior (2 units)
- PSY 6112 Social Bases of Behavior (3 units)
- PSY 6503, 6504 Foundations of Assessment: Personality I (Objective) & II (Projective/Performance) (3 units, 3 units)
- PSY 6513 Personality Assessment II: Practicum (1 unit)
- PSY 7550 Practicum I in Professional Psychology (5 units, 5 units)
- PSY 7551 Practicum in Consultation/Ethics (1.5 units, 1.5 units)
- PSY 6023 Principles of Research Design (3 units)
- PSY 7010 Foundations of Measurement (3 units)
- PSY 8990 PhD Doctoral Dissertation Research/Design/Seminar (1 unit)
After the second year, students take upper level courses, and focus on their dissertation research and internship clinical training. There are two plans, the recommended Plan A with a full-time APA internship and Plan B, which incorporates two, half-time local internships at a local agency, coordinate by the Professional Training Office. These year-level plans are listed below.
18 Units of Elective Requirements to be Completed in Years 3 through 5:
All students, following either Plan A or B are required to complete:
- 6 Units of Therapy Electives. Eligible courses include PSY 7501, PSY 7503, PSY 7602, or PSY 7604.);
- 12 Units of General or Emphasis Area Electives. Any course offered by San Diego Alliant doctoral clinical programs that qualify. Doctoral courses from other departments or campuses can be submitted for pre-approval to meet this requirement. Most students take these units in courses offered with emphasis areas and tracks; and
- 3 units of an Advanced Cultural Psychology Course.
(Full-time Internship in 5th Year)
- PSY 8551 Clinical Consultation Group/First Year (1.5 units, 1.5 units)
- PSY 9581 First Half-Time Internship (6 units, 6 units)
- PSY 8990 PhD Doctoral Dissertation Research/Design/Seminar (5 units, 5 units)
- Fourth Year Plan A
- PSY 8990 PhD Doctoral Dissertation Research/Design/Seminar (5 units, 5 units)
- PSY 7156 Psychopharmacology (2 units)
- PSY 7565 Advanced Ethics and Professional Issues (2 units)
- PSY 8514 Supervision Practicum (2 units; Required of all students entering in the Fall 2003 or later)
- PSY 8990 PhD Doctoral Dissertation Research/Design/Seminar (5 units, 5 units)
- PSY 9585 Full-Time Internship (7.5 units, 7.5 units)
(Half-time Internships in 4th and 5th Years)
- PSY 7161 Cultural Psychology Delivery of Psychological Services (3 units)
- PSY 8990 PhD Doctoral Dissertation Research/Design/Seminar (5 units, 5 units)
- PSY 7565 Advanced Ethics and Professional Issues (2 units)
- PSY 8990 PhD Doctoral Dissertation Research/Design/Seminar (5 units, 5 units)
- PSY 9581 First Half-Time Internship (6 units, 6 units)
- PSY 8551 Clinical Consultation Group/First Year (1.5 units, 1.5 units)
- PSY 8514 Supervision practicum (2 units; Required of all students entering in the Fall 2003 or later)
- PSY 8552 Clinical Consultation Group/Second Year (1.5 units, 1.5 units)
- PSY 8990 PhD Doctoral Dissertation Research/Design/Seminar (5 units. 5 units)
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 10
http://www.alliant.edu/wps/wcm/conn...ograms/Clinical+Psychology+(PhD)+-+San+Diego/
Here is a link for the 2009-2010 APA internships for Alliant CSPP San Diego
We matched 83% (n=5) and the remaining 17% (n=1) went to APPIC internships.
The rest of the applicants went to CAPIC and 98% matched.
Here is a link for the 2009-2010 APA internships for Alliant CSPP San Diego
We matched 83% (n=5) and the remaining 17% (n=1) went to APPIC internships.
The rest of the applicants went to CAPIC and 98% matched.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,663
- Reaction score
- 4,994
Are those 6 self-selected based on their viability as applicants?More data is needed before any hypotheses can be made.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 10
No, they applied based on their own volition. The program has nothing to do with who applies and who doesn't
Actually the emphasis on coursework is precisely what has many of us worried...I'd be happy to post my coursework, but I suspect it will be misleading since I would say that about 75% of what I've learned has nothing to do with coursework. I suspect most people I know at university programs would say the same.
83% is pretty good, but I'm wondering what the n is who matched to CAPIC - I suspect this is a much higher number than the rest. Meaning the actual rate of obtaining APA internships is way lower. I know California is for some reason treated as its own world and that not all non-APA internships are bad, but I suspect the variance is greater and its certainly a "lower bar" so I'm not sure competition is on quite the same metric when most people are avoiding the APA system entirely.
83% is pretty good, but I'm wondering what the n is who matched to CAPIC - I suspect this is a much higher number than the rest. Meaning the actual rate of obtaining APA internships is way lower. I know California is for some reason treated as its own world and that not all non-APA internships are bad, but I suspect the variance is greater and its certainly a "lower bar" so I'm not sure competition is on quite the same metric when most people are avoiding the APA system entirely.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 10
You cannot apply to the CAPIC and the APA a the same time. People who applid to CAPIC made a decision not to go APA. Yes that # is higher and is another discussion.
Point being: if you are interested in APA and prove to be a good enough student/clinician/researcher than you can certainly do so from Alliant...based on the data of course.
"I'd be happy to post my coursework, but I suspect it will be misleading since I would say that about 75% of what I've learned has nothing to do with coursework. I suspect most people I know at university programs would say the same."
It's interesting that you rely your own personal anecdotal experience to respond to my post when just previous to that you request:
"More data is needed before any hypotheses can be made"
I also would say that my experience outside of the classroom has been extremely valuable. I'm in private practice doing forensic assessment psychodynamic therapy with institute training. So what? I get that, you get that..it;s not a function of the program, which is the focus of this thread.
Point being: if you are interested in APA and prove to be a good enough student/clinician/researcher than you can certainly do so from Alliant...based on the data of course.
"I'd be happy to post my coursework, but I suspect it will be misleading since I would say that about 75% of what I've learned has nothing to do with coursework. I suspect most people I know at university programs would say the same."
It's interesting that you rely your own personal anecdotal experience to respond to my post when just previous to that you request:
"More data is needed before any hypotheses can be made"
I also would say that my experience outside of the classroom has been extremely valuable. I'm in private practice doing forensic assessment psychodynamic therapy with institute training. So what? I get that, you get that..it;s not a function of the program, which is the focus of this thread.
This seems like it really once again boils down to a fundamental difference between how I view doctoral training and how the prof school crowd seems to. I've never denied or doubted that it is possible to get good training at a professional school...the key word there being "possible". I'm sure that excellent students/clinicians/researchers emerge from the program.
My issue is where they are setting the minimal bar. It sounds like the answer is "lower". Its great that students who are good enough students/clinicians/researchers CAN obtain APA internships. My view of a good school is one where ALL (or at least nearly all) the students are competitive for APA internships, even if they choose not to go that route. What would Alliant's match rate be if everyone was required to apply to APA internships?
Actually, it wasn't me who said that, but fair point. Though I'm somewhat unclear what specifically you are referring to...the relative amount of "learning" that is taking place inside the classroom for most students? I'm unaware of data on it, but I'd definitely be interested to see it (and perhaps....eventual side project....hrmm...). If there was data on the topic, you can be assured I wouldn't summarily dismiss it with "I don't trust it" unless I was able to explain why😉
Actually my point is that it is a function of the program. A good school will have built relationships with practica sites over time...and will be continually evaluating those practica sites, making sure they are providing proper training, making sure they are providing an ethical standard of care and providing evidence-based treatments, etc. The majority of the clinical experience we get isn't something we get "credit" for in the sense of completed coursework.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,663
- Reaction score
- 4,994
It feels like a race to the bottom..."what is the least amount of training needed to graduate/get licensed/etc?" If we look back at the original purpose of APA-acred, it was to establish a set of standards in a number of core areas that could be applied to curiculum so each program AT A MINIMUM taught to these areas. The purpose was not to set the HIGHEST standards or to propose what the training would be in an ideal world, but instead it would set the MINIMUM level of training required to produce a competent clinical/counseling psychologist. APA-acred isn't for students who want to go above and beyond in their training, it instead is the MINIMUM amount of training required.
Most everyone will agree that the APA-acred. standards are far from perfect, and that there are certain areas that need improvement, but the solution is not to offer alternative acred. options. The MINIMUM standards set by the APA have been marginalized by claims that other acred. offer "equivilancy", though without actual proof. Through legislation, and not education and actual research, these changes have forced their ways into the profession.
Alternative standards were developed at the program level (regional acred. v. APA acred), internship level (APA v. APPIC v. State v. Non-acred), and licensure level (APA v. "equivalent to APA standards"). These changes were mostly made for financial and political benefit, and at the detriment of the profession. The MINIMUM level of training (APA-acred) has been twisted into the MAXIMUM level of training, to make for for "equivalent" (their term, not mine) levels of training that seem to be taking over the profession. The bar has continued to be lowered with each passing year, and it is no wonder the profession is struggling.
The California Psychological Association developed CAPIC sites to provide training for students unable to secure and/or unable to relocate for APA or APPIC sites. Instead of addressing the over-supply of students, the CPA developed a mechanism for those students to train within the state...APA and APPIC standards be damned. Some may argue that this was to benefit the student, but in reality it benefits the CPA by developing more membership and thus revenue/influence. The sites benefit from having access to cheap labor, as the majority of CAPIC sites are unpaid, and those that are paid are far less than a livable wage. The CPA benefits by gaining more membership because it will be harder for those graduates to attain licensure outside of the state of CA. The market is then flooded by psychologists, which in turn lowers compensation and negatively impacts every other psychologist...even the APA-acred., fellowship trained, ABPP-boarded psychologist.
It is a problem that programs are steering students away from APA-acred. internship sites. While there are some great APA-acred internship sites, they are far from an elitist group of sites. Up until recently, these were the standard for training. The increased competition has made programs steer their people away from APA/APPIC, not because the training is better or more beneficial for the student, but because it is more beneficial to the program. If the program was made to place people into APA/APPIC sites, those that struggled would face the wrath of its students and the acred. bodies. Instead, the programs twist the training to fit their needs, convincing their students that CAPIC and similar internship sites are just as good and provide what they need. They appease the acred. bodies by saying that 100% of their students secured internships, downplaying that most were not at the standard APA level. The alternative acred. internship sites may or may not provide adequate training, that is up for debate, but what I DO know for sure...the road for licensure is harder, and students who complete their training at non-APA internship sites are less competitive in the marketplace. People may argue that they make local connections and etc., but when you are barred from applying to certain jobs for your career, that is a disadvantage. Purposefully steering students towards an option that makes them less competitive is a disservice to the student and the profession.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 10
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 its training?
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.
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.
Agreed. There are some very good psychologists coming out of non-APA internships but yes, as viable training is not as standardized.
Alliant actually highly encourages students to go APA. There is no benefit to the program to have less APA interns.
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.
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?
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,663
- Reaction score
- 4,994
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,663
- Reaction score
- 4,994
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'd be interested in seeing the licensure rates, particularly for those students being licensed outside the state of CA.
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.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 10
Agreed with pretty much all that T4C.
Again, you're all talking with someone who wishes (s)he (me) went to a U-based program...and actually regrets alot of the decision to come to a pro-school for many of the reasons we're all discussing.
...But in order for a debate to be effective it does need to be accurate. You'll never make change unless you validate the stengths of a pro-school as well and there are some, which I've tried to point out. That being said, I think the unfunded proschool idea is tofally effed up and in need of reform.
AV
Again, you're all talking with someone who wishes (s)he (me) went to a U-based program...and actually regrets alot of the decision to come to a pro-school for many of the reasons we're all discussing.
...But in order for a debate to be effective it does need to be accurate. You'll never make change unless you validate the stengths of a pro-school as well and there are some, which I've tried to point out. That being said, I think the unfunded proschool idea is tofally effed up and in need of reform.
AV
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,663
- Reaction score
- 4,994
My ire is with each program and not the students.Funding is a big issue, and one that could be solved, but I don't see it happening because there won't be enough pressure by the "powers that be".
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 34
Well!
Im glad I ran into this thread because it clarified a lot of my own questions.
I am a first year PsyD student at Alliant. I was wondering if I should try to gain acceptance into other schools (preferably in Northern California, specifically PGSP-Standford) since San Diego is killing me....(dont ask why...i just don't like the place)
In any case, reading these threads I was able to answer a lot of the questions and rebuffed in my own head a lot of the "buts" of people that don't like professional school. So i was thinking I will share some of the thoughts that I was able to clarified while reading this....
1. Alliant just got accredited for 7 years by the APA. The longest accreditation for any school in clinical psychology.
2. Starting with my year, Clinical PsyD students HAVE to apply to APA internships. If you're not matched, you have the choice of doing a two part CAPIC internships and reapply the following year. THe goal is to have everyone get APA internship. Because of this, you have to take a class to help you properly apply and interview for the APA internships (this is a free one semester class). I dont know of any other school who has this requirement
3. Regarding the price, there are several scholarships available. In fact, when you apply and you gain acceptance the financial aid office often will ask you for your resume in order to consider you automatically for the scholarships. You can also apply separately for other scholarships, all listed in the website.
4. If you are at all interested in the military, specially in San Diego, Alliant has a program with the Army, Navy and Air Force, where you commit to working 4 years as a Psychologist, and they pay for a big portion of the school, as well as guaranteed APA internship (i think this is available in most universities, but usually you have to search this on your own, at Alliant, there is a liaison between the school and the armed forces)
Im actually glad to read this thread because it allowed me to see that the reasons why people say Alliant is not good, are generally not true, misinformation, or just a general bad feeling towards professional schools.
Just hope what I posted here helps someone who is thinking about Alliant.....Basically, its a good school, if you make it a good school for you.
Im glad I ran into this thread because it clarified a lot of my own questions.
I am a first year PsyD student at Alliant. I was wondering if I should try to gain acceptance into other schools (preferably in Northern California, specifically PGSP-Standford) since San Diego is killing me....(dont ask why...i just don't like the place)
In any case, reading these threads I was able to answer a lot of the questions and rebuffed in my own head a lot of the "buts" of people that don't like professional school. So i was thinking I will share some of the thoughts that I was able to clarified while reading this....
1. Alliant just got accredited for 7 years by the APA. The longest accreditation for any school in clinical psychology.
2. Starting with my year, Clinical PsyD students HAVE to apply to APA internships. If you're not matched, you have the choice of doing a two part CAPIC internships and reapply the following year. THe goal is to have everyone get APA internship. Because of this, you have to take a class to help you properly apply and interview for the APA internships (this is a free one semester class). I dont know of any other school who has this requirement
3. Regarding the price, there are several scholarships available. In fact, when you apply and you gain acceptance the financial aid office often will ask you for your resume in order to consider you automatically for the scholarships. You can also apply separately for other scholarships, all listed in the website.
4. If you are at all interested in the military, specially in San Diego, Alliant has a program with the Army, Navy and Air Force, where you commit to working 4 years as a Psychologist, and they pay for a big portion of the school, as well as guaranteed APA internship (i think this is available in most universities, but usually you have to search this on your own, at Alliant, there is a liaison between the school and the armed forces)
Im actually glad to read this thread because it allowed me to see that the reasons why people say Alliant is not good, are generally not true, misinformation, or just a general bad feeling towards professional schools.
Just hope what I posted here helps someone who is thinking about Alliant.....Basically, its a good school, if you make it a good school for you.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,612
Just to make sure you don't give people the wrong impression-the military HPSP scholarships are available to any clinical psych student should they qualify. Qualified is qualified. Program has little (if anything at all) to do with making the cut for HPSP scholarships. Thats all on the applicant.
Yes, yes, we are all aware that one can get good training and come out of Alliant just fine and dandy. However, the arguments put forth in this thread are more about 1.) the exobinate cost (which is not justified based on the median income of psychologists), 2.) the "hit and miss" quality depending on the schools campus, 3.) the lower admission standards which inevitability lets people into this field who should not be (even though many professional school grads are great psychologists), and 4.) the reputation problems that these loose admissions standards have caused for the profession, especially in the medical community and with our psychiatrist colleagues.
Thats great about the internship class and the new requirement that the students get APA internships. However this does NOT address the underlying problem of why it is so difficult for you guys to get APA internships in the first place. Yes, other universities don;t provide a class in internship preparation.....because they dont need to.
I don't understand your statement about APA accreditation. There are currently 180 other clinical psych doctoral programs with the 7 year accreditation in this country http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/about/research/doctoral-7-years.aspx Moreover, as we all know, this represents minimum bar/requirements and in no way attest to the real quality of clinical and research training. As t4c stated previously, APA accred establishes a set of standards in a number of core areas so each program AT A MINIMUM teaches to these areas. Thus, I don't think you can use this 7 year accreditation as any kind of bragging right...as you seem to be attempting to do.
I am also of the opinion that nor cal rocks and so cal sucks, but I really liked SD and cant understand how your unhappy there. Go to the beach! 🙂
Yes, yes, we are all aware that one can get good training and come out of Alliant just fine and dandy. However, the arguments put forth in this thread are more about 1.) the exobinate cost (which is not justified based on the median income of psychologists), 2.) the "hit and miss" quality depending on the schools campus, 3.) the lower admission standards which inevitability lets people into this field who should not be (even though many professional school grads are great psychologists), and 4.) the reputation problems that these loose admissions standards have caused for the profession, especially in the medical community and with our psychiatrist colleagues.
Thats great about the internship class and the new requirement that the students get APA internships. However this does NOT address the underlying problem of why it is so difficult for you guys to get APA internships in the first place. Yes, other universities don;t provide a class in internship preparation.....because they dont need to.
I don't understand your statement about APA accreditation. There are currently 180 other clinical psych doctoral programs with the 7 year accreditation in this country http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/about/research/doctoral-7-years.aspx Moreover, as we all know, this represents minimum bar/requirements and in no way attest to the real quality of clinical and research training. As t4c stated previously, APA accred establishes a set of standards in a number of core areas so each program AT A MINIMUM teaches to these areas. Thus, I don't think you can use this 7 year accreditation as any kind of bragging right...as you seem to be attempting to do.
I am also of the opinion that nor cal rocks and so cal sucks, but I really liked SD and cant understand how your unhappy there. Go to the beach! 🙂
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2010
- Messages
- 531
- Reaction score
- 0
Just a note...I'm looking through the 2009 Insiders Guide for Alliant SD...218 applied/131 received admission/63 incoming. 131? Lol I am used to looking at schools that range from 4-25 in their acceptances. This alone is a factor that would make me cross Alliant off my list (if it had ever been on my list)
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,222
- Reaction score
- 8,610
I can't understand disliking San Diego either!
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 32
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi all,
First of all, I believe this topic is helpful for people applying to graduate school. The process is unbelievable daunting and having information from people with differing perspectives is extremely valuable.
I am a 5th year CSPP-SD PH.D student and I am currently at an APA accredited internship at a VA in Southern California. I decided to go to CSPP-SD for several reasons. I love clinical work. It's really an amazing profession and there's something so rewarding about offering hope to someone in such emotional distress. I also love research. There's something so exciting and conceptually stimulating about exploring new frontiers of the mind. When applying to graduate programs, I felt that our profession is unfortunately fairly polarized in terms of integration of the two. Many professional programs don't emphasize the importance of empiricism and scientific inquiry and many academic programs don't value the art that is integrating the little nuances that bring to life these scientific principles.
I chose Alliant because it was the best fit for me. Not everyone will agree but for me it was an important decision. I have dedicated a lot to this endeavor and do not regret a thing. That being said, there are many limitations that are important for incoming students to be aware. For me, some of which are: Cost, inefficiencies of the program, larger class sizes, under qualified students, biases from university-based institutions, large student to teacher ratio, and lower match rates for APA internships. The benefits for me have been: excellent clinical experiences and field placement, a good range of faculty a range of professional interests, and a stellar emphasis on integration of research and clinical practice. My mentor has been supportive in promoting both my research and clinical pursuits. I have also been very proactive in research and participated in research at the VA to bolster my CV. I've presented at numerous conferences and published an article last year. For students applying to this program, weigh these costs are decide what is right for you.
For everyone else, please keep this topic respectful. It's usually the people that know the least about the subject that are talking the most. I'm quite shocked at the lack of education and knowledge about professional schools. I'd like to hear more integration and collaboration from our profession and hope that this thread can be an opportunity for that. 🙂
First of all, I believe this topic is helpful for people applying to graduate school. The process is unbelievable daunting and having information from people with differing perspectives is extremely valuable.
I am a 5th year CSPP-SD PH.D student and I am currently at an APA accredited internship at a VA in Southern California. I decided to go to CSPP-SD for several reasons. I love clinical work. It's really an amazing profession and there's something so rewarding about offering hope to someone in such emotional distress. I also love research. There's something so exciting and conceptually stimulating about exploring new frontiers of the mind. When applying to graduate programs, I felt that our profession is unfortunately fairly polarized in terms of integration of the two. Many professional programs don't emphasize the importance of empiricism and scientific inquiry and many academic programs don't value the art that is integrating the little nuances that bring to life these scientific principles.
I chose Alliant because it was the best fit for me. Not everyone will agree but for me it was an important decision. I have dedicated a lot to this endeavor and do not regret a thing. That being said, there are many limitations that are important for incoming students to be aware. For me, some of which are: Cost, inefficiencies of the program, larger class sizes, under qualified students, biases from university-based institutions, large student to teacher ratio, and lower match rates for APA internships. The benefits for me have been: excellent clinical experiences and field placement, a good range of faculty a range of professional interests, and a stellar emphasis on integration of research and clinical practice. My mentor has been supportive in promoting both my research and clinical pursuits. I have also been very proactive in research and participated in research at the VA to bolster my CV. I've presented at numerous conferences and published an article last year. For students applying to this program, weigh these costs are decide what is right for you.
For everyone else, please keep this topic respectful. It's usually the people that know the least about the subject that are talking the most. I'm quite shocked at the lack of education and knowledge about professional schools. I'd like to hear more integration and collaboration from our profession and hope that this thread can be an opportunity for that. 🙂
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2010
- Messages
- 531
- Reaction score
- 0
Thank you for your perspective. It certainly sounds like one can have a good experience at Alliant...it is what you make it right? But personally, large class sizes/poor prof to student ratio/under qualified students would be MORE than enough to make me steer clear. I am looking for a small program, where I can receive plenty of individualized attention. I prefer to work under a mentor model. Also, being surrounded by under qualified students would probably drive me mad.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,222
- Reaction score
- 8,610
The thing is that people arguing against prof. schools aren't saying that it's impossible to have a good education at one. They're arguing about the majority of individuals and the average statistical outcomes. We have had countless posts about "I'm a student at X program and I received a good education," which I'm sure is true, but it doesn't contradict what anyone is really saying.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,612
Again, the Alliant student testimonies are nice, but they are simply stating that you can get good training despite all the negatives that this thread has harped on. Well thats nice and all, but it in no way changes the facts. It just means people are looking past them and trying to make it work anyway. I have my problems with this as well, let me explain why:
I'm curious about the nonchalantness that alot of professional school students express towards the low admissions standards and the resulting plethora of under-qualified students in each cohort. Everyone mentions it, but few really seem botherd by it. Maybe its a different culture in traditional programs, but this is not something to dismiss (and not something that would be tolerated by either faculty or fellow students in my program). It should not be a "I get mine" kinda mentality out there. Its your profession. You should care (or be bewildered and/or outraged) that they will be your future colleagues. And frankly, I think this may be the worst things about these programs....even their own students admit that they let intellectually inferior product into the market place. Now why would you want be associated and supportive of a model that does this to your profession year after year? Can somebody explain that rationale to me?
I think its nice that you can "make" Alliant a good program for you if you try, and I'm sure that is indeed true. But you know what? In a legitimately good program, you wouldn't have to...The program should really stand on it own.
I'm curious about the nonchalantness that alot of professional school students express towards the low admissions standards and the resulting plethora of under-qualified students in each cohort. Everyone mentions it, but few really seem botherd by it. Maybe its a different culture in traditional programs, but this is not something to dismiss (and not something that would be tolerated by either faculty or fellow students in my program). It should not be a "I get mine" kinda mentality out there. Its your profession. You should care (or be bewildered and/or outraged) that they will be your future colleagues. And frankly, I think this may be the worst things about these programs....even their own students admit that they let intellectually inferior product into the market place. Now why would you want be associated and supportive of a model that does this to your profession year after year? Can somebody explain that rationale to me?
I think its nice that you can "make" Alliant a good program for you if you try, and I'm sure that is indeed true. But you know what? In a legitimately good program, you wouldn't have to...The program should really stand on it own.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2010
- Messages
- 531
- Reaction score
- 0
wow...one hundred percent agree. and you put it much more eloquently than i attempted to!
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2010
- Messages
- 531
- Reaction score
- 0
and also, i must say that i can relate to the feeling of being around incompetent students. i am in a masters clinical program, and there are 1 or 2 in my small cohort that absolutely should not be there. do you want to know how that makes me feel? angry. angry that i am paying for the same education that they are, and that we will both come out with the same grades. angry that they are going to be pushed out into the field. this is all part of why i am determined to only go to a doctoral program in a university setting, PhD funded if im lucky.
I think the rationale is that professional school (or university school) students who suck at what they do, who are mediocre professionals, etc., will end up being poorly rewarded by the marketplace (for clinical work, research, ideas, and so on). They simply won't end up getting relevant jobs (if at all), and just won't be, well, relevant. They certainly won't be providing me with any competition - which, really, I suppose is mercenary of me, but is all I'm particularly concerned about.
So, I'm not that concerned about someone who manages to graduate from a professional school in, say, 10 years who can barely write a good psych. testing report, can't understand or perform research, and who barely landed a CAPIC internship. They may, I suppose, somehow "drag down the profession," but that seems like such an abstract concern the way people have presented it to me.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,663
- Reaction score
- 4,994
More psychologists effect supply and demand issues, so while you may not directly compete with someone for a position, their presence will decrease overall salaries because organizations can offer less and still get a position filled.
There are also issues with representation of the field to other professions. Every poor interaction a psychologist has with another healthcare provider is a possible risk to how that provider will view psychologists in the future.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,612
Well...exactly. Thats an inexcusable shame and I could not, in good conscience, be associated with an institution that perpetuates (allows) this year after year. Why should that person be granted a ph.d/psy.d? It cheapens the degree. I hope you can understand why the fact that this person could be a colleague of mine, even theoretically, would anger me. It just shouldn't be allowed to happen. Period. The fact that this is exorbitantly more likely to occur with a professional school program vs a traditional university program should tell us something important and gives us pause here.
And yes, this one person could certainly do damage to this profession. Maybe their incompetence harms a patient..who tells a friend, who tells a friend, who tells a friend. Maybe their incompetence is observed by several PCPs and psychiatrists in the area...who tell a friend, who tell a friend, who tell a friend. Sure, its hurts them the most at first, but your profession and your profession's training is what becomes tarnished in the long run. This is because the rest of the world isn't gonna dig deep enough to differentiate the professionals school grads and the traditional ones. It all gonna be the same to ex-patients and the community physicians. They will generalize the incompetence that they observe.
So its not "abstract"....its just long-term consequences.
Last edited:
OK, this is all my opinion:
The counterexample to this kind of concern that I've heard most frequently voiced relates to legal education. The presence of bottom-rung law schools (a la U. of Phoenix) doesn't seem to prevent top performers from both the elite law schools and the also-rans from getting top positions and earnings.
Anyways, if the argument is that more psychologists equals less earnings for all, one, that just seems like just crass guild protectionism.
However, I personally think that (like I said above) a lot of those "surplus" psychologists hitting the market only provide meaningful competition, at best, for MFTs and LCSWs, and therefore only drag down their salaries. The VA positions, research positions, top consulting and administrative positions are left for the cream of the crop, and the earning potential there is not diluted by the masses of Argosy and Alliant grads.
The only argument left that seems relatively compelling for me is that the presence of crappy psychologists might make our field 'look bad'. What practical effect that has seems to be an open question.
Last edited:
Consider this a devil's advocacy position if you like - but why isn't it the responsibility of the hospitals, university counselling centers, community mental health agencies, and (yes) the consumers to avoid hiring these mediocre professionals? This seems to be the logic that runs virtually every other market in this world (e.g., you sell a bad product, the market fails to reward you, and eventually you're out of business), why isn't this something we're comfortable with in clinical psychology? Or is the assumption that all consumers of our services are essentially infants that need their hands held throughout the process?
That scenario you describe above (where "a friend tells a friend tells a friend" about a bad experience with a psychologist), it doesn't scare me - it actually sounds like how a marketplace of ideas and services should function - people communicate their experience with products and providers and thereby allow the market to function. When someone eats a bad cracker they may stay away from that particular brand or distributor, but they don't stop eating crackers.
I hate to reduce us down to cracker salespeople (no pun intended) but we are selling a product - just like the crackers sold at the grocery store.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,612
Well not infants, but yes, I do not expect the "average Joe" to be able to parse out the complicated training structure/model of modern day clinical psychology. In this case, selling them an inferior product has potential serious consequences. A cracker might taste bad, but its over pretty quick. The harm that can come from incorrect or incompetent assessment, diagnosis, recommendations, or therapy can have life-long consequences. It is the responsibility of training programs to prevent potentially dangerous incompetents from adversely affecting the mental health of future patients (and the overall reputation of this field) by NOT giving them their degrees in the first place. To me, thats just common sense.
Although psychology certainly has a busines model componet, I believe you are the first person I have ever heard declare that the "weeding out" of legitimate incompetents should come after the degree is awarded and should be the patient's responsibility.
Although psychology certainly has a busines model componet, I believe you are the first person I have ever heard declare that the "weeding out" of legitimate incompetents should come after the degree is awarded and should be the patient's responsibility.
Last edited:
Remember that the argument that was made by your scenario was that when a given psychologist delivers an inferior product, it produces 'guilt by association' and drags down the profession as a whole in the public's eyes. My hastily drawn counterexample of the bad cracker is just to say I'm really not sure people are turned off of psychologists when they run into a bad one. They just stay away from the bad one.
The issue as to whether our services (or our clients) are somehow special and therefore we need to have some sort of additional method of quality assurance at the graduate training level (e.g., getting rid of most or all professional schools) before we're allowed to practice is the issue here. I think that's worth examining.
Well, I'm not arguing that professional schools have a responsibility of weeding out literally *dangerous* graduates. That's absolutely true - and when any of these schools are then it's really the responsibility of a functioning legal and tort system to weed *them* out.
But I don't think they necessarily have an obligation to weed out mediocre graduates (e.g., ones that are not necessarily harming people, just not helping them that much). And I think the market probably has the capacity to do this job just fine (and in some cases, the market is the best place to do this perhaps) without harming the rest of us that much, perhaps except on the margins.
Could be. I think it's certainly a viable argument, though.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,663
- Reaction score
- 4,994
It can be damaging to the profession if the people staying away from psychologists are other healthcare providers, as avoiding the "bad" psychologists get generalized to all psychologists.
I believe all programs have an obligation to the profession to weed out people who do not meet the standards of the profession. Leaving that process to licensing boards and/or the state is woefully inadequate because of the time and effort it actually takes to take away a professional license. The protection needs to be BEFORE graduation and licensure.
It is a mistake to believe only the less competitive psychologists out there will be effected. We (as a profession) are already fighting scope creep from non-doctorally trained providers. Allowing less competitive psychologists out there shrinks the gap even more. It definitely is partially motivated by self-preservation, but I'd think after 6-8 years of training, all psychologists would want to protect their profession.
Last edited:
While there is value to the market, I think it is pretty tough to argue that we should let consumers who, by very nature of requiring our services, may not care much for their own outcome at times, may not have the energy or the attention-span to research providers and treatments at length, act as the regulatory force in this market. It is one thing when we are discussing "worried-well" type folks who I'm not convinced we actually need to be treating in the first place. When I'm working with a client who can barely find it in themselves to shower once every few months, I'm not overly inclined to place responsibility on them to carefully examine treatment guidelines to make sure they are getting appropriate care. There are WAY too many people running successful practices doing what appears to be hokey bullcrap for me to have any faith in the market when it comes to psychological services. This is all further complicated by issues with healthcare coverage, etc., where even if we ignore the above problems, I'm not convinced the market actually CAN operate the way that say, the "cracker" market would.
Some may feel that is paternalistic, but I think the term only applies when people are unwilling to work with patients who do take an active interest in their care, not acknowledging the reality that many do not (or can't). Personally, I already find that what passes for treatment in many mental health settings is sad and pathetic. These run the gambit from CMHCs to private practice to major medical centers (including VAs). I'd prefer to take action to raise standards than sit back and rely on market forces to possibly, someday, correct the situation.
Some may feel that is paternalistic, but I think the term only applies when people are unwilling to work with patients who do take an active interest in their care, not acknowledging the reality that many do not (or can't). Personally, I already find that what passes for treatment in many mental health settings is sad and pathetic. These run the gambit from CMHCs to private practice to major medical centers (including VAs). I'd prefer to take action to raise standards than sit back and rely on market forces to possibly, someday, correct the situation.
Last edited:
I would guess that a large chunk of the people who are barely able to manage their own basic hygiene aren't the ones contracting for their own mental health services. Usually that's community mental health orgs, hospitals, patient's families, etc. And these organizations should know how to hire quality providers.
Well, to a large degree, we haven't let the market operate like that. Usually you get the psychologist or therapist that the insurance company, hospital, or community mental health center shoves at you. You're not required (and largely prevented) from doing your own due dilligence. And you also get lulled into the notion that if they're licensed, they must meet at least some base level of competence (which of course we know is not true). Consumers aren't really encouraged to be responsible when it comes to mental health services.
I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make here, but paternalism certainly is part of the argument being made here.
I think VAs and most large CMHCs have it very much within their capacities to discriminate between quality and mediocre providers, so I'm not sure they really are the ones that need to have professional schools eliminated in order to make their job easier.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 10
I think we can all go up to the balcony and look down at some common factors of concern:
competency, cost, competition, cognitive capacity,...others C words I'm sure. But the smaller issues in this thread feign in comparison to the larger agreement that there is a problem in psych training that needs to be solved BY US-THE NEW GENERATION!
competency, cost, competition, cognitive capacity,...others C words I'm sure. But the smaller issues in this thread feign in comparison to the larger agreement that there is a problem in psych training that needs to be solved BY US-THE NEW GENERATION!
You all are being way too alarmist about what the professional schools and their "underqualified" students will eventually do to the field. Look at medicine in general, and particular, psychiatry. Their field has TONS of students from sub-par universities based in the Caribbean (St. Georges's etc). and yet their field is booming. They earn much more than us, are more in demand, etc.
In a way it is good to have more psychologists, it gives us larger numbers to lobby and exert our influence. If only 200 or so psychologists are produced per year, our numbers will be to small to effectively organize, etc.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 0
My fault... should have searched first.
Last edited:
