APPIC potential problem programs

[sukurux]

"Almost one-third of the psychology doctoral stduents who did not match from 2000 to 2006 came from just 15 doctoral programs according to a paper published in the May 2010 issue of Training and Education in Professional Psychology...the study authors declined to name the 15 problem programs, but they did note that 14 of them offer PsyDs rather than PhDs..." (gradPSYCH September 2010, Vol.8, No. 3)

Listed are some of the programs I'm guessing the authors are referring to and the atrocious match rates from 2000 to 2010:

Potential Problem Programs
CA ALLIANT IU/CSPP/CSFS-FRESNO/SAC (CLIN-PSYD) 40.6%
CA ALLIANT IU/CSPP/CSFS-FRESNO/SAC (FRNSC-PSYD) 44.9%
CA ALLIANT IU/CSPP/CSFS-LA (CLIN-PSYD) 35.2%
CA ALLIANT IU/CSPP/CSFS-SAN DIEGO (CLIN PSYD) 42.9%
CA ALLIANT IU/CSPP/CSFS-SAN FRAN. (CLIN-PSYD) 55.3%
CA LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY (CLIN-PSYD) 65.5%
DC GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY (CLIN-PSYD) 63.8%
MN CAPELLA UNIVERSITY (CLIN-PSYD) 32.1%
MN CAPELLA UNIVERSITY (COUNS-PSYD) 30.8%
NY NEW YORK UNIVERSITY (SCHL-PSYD) 62.5%

Bonus Info:

Lowest match rate for a PSYD program in 2010
CA ALLIANT IU/CSPP/CSFS-FRESNO/SAC (CLIN-PSYD) 31.6%

Highest match rate for a PSYD program in 2010
NY YESHIVA UNIVERSITY/FERKAUF (CLIN-PSYD) 96.2%

Hope this was useful in some way.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Nope, at least not completely. One program was a PhD program, per the article. Still, an interesting list.

 

[deleted176373]

Nope, at least not completely. One program was a PhD program, per the article. Still, an interesting list.

Yep, Capella is a Ph.D. program. It doesn't matter what you call these historically poor performing programs, Ph.D. or Psy.D., although I disagree with the call for accountability by APPIC for the performance of these schools. The students attending these schools are attempting to gain Doctorate level credentials. If they have not figured out that under-performing schools are a bad investment, I lack sympathy for them.

Mark

 

[JockNerd]

From the discussion on the gradpsych facebook group on this topic:

Mike Parent There were a few reasons I didn't name the schools, the major one being that the paper is about reframing the issue, not finger-pointing. I wanted to shift the debate from "this is a problem for everyone and a profession-wide problem" to something more accurate. Second, the info being a few years old, the unequal contributors could easily have claimed to have turned things around--especially problematic because of the research indicating that program full disclosure data is highly discrepant with appic data on match rates. Finally, the data set included a number of new programs that were "on the edge"--likely they've become outliers in recent years as well, and singling out the older programs simply because of the lack of data would be strange.

 

[O Gurl]

Yep, Capella is a Ph.D. program. It doesn't matter what you call these historically poor performing programs, Ph.D. or Psy.D., although I disagree with the call for accountability by APPIC for the performance of these schools. The students attending these schools are attempting to gain Doctorate level credentials. If they have not figured out that under-performing schools are a bad investment, I lack sympathy for them.

Mark

I see where you are coming from, but as someone who went straight from undergrad into a clinical PhD program, I can remember how overwhelming and confusing the site selection and application process was. Between trying to finish my classes and senior honors thesis, I was in no condition to clearly examine even super important details, like match rate. To be honest (and I am mildly embarrassed even typing this now) I didn't fully grasp the concept of internship and postdoc until I was already in my program. Thankfully, I had great undergrad advisors to help me navigate the process. I do not kid myself by thinking everyone else has this. So yes, there is shared accountability. Students should research the programs, the programs should clearly state their match rate, but APPIC is also certainly accountable for continuing to accredit these doctorate-for-profit programs. If match rates aren't a major part of the decision to accredit or not, then what is? There has to be more required of these programs than astonomical fees.

 

[deleted176373]

I see where you are coming from, but as someone who went straight from undergrad into a clinical PhD program, I can remember how overwhelming and confusing the site selection and application process was. Between trying to finish my classes and senior honors thesis, I was in no condition to clearly examine even super important details, like match rate.

I understand that... I really do, I did finished undergrad in 5 semesters and began applying after only 3 semesters in college. Hell I had just figured out that I wanted to go to graduate school! It was confusing and overwhelming because I was also working on my own thesis and finishing classes, 15 hours per semester.

Still, I was able to quickly ferret out important details... even if my ability to judge "fit" was inadequate my first time around. I will admit, SDN was instrumental in doing that.

Mark

 

[cara susanna]

George Washington University has a low match rate? That's surprising to me.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

George Washington University has a low match rate? That's surprising to me.

As it's the Psy.D. program listed, perhaps they offer both Ph.D. and Psy.D. tracks, and it's the latter that gets a lower match rate...?

 

[docma]

I don't want to get in the crossfire here--but simply to add an observation about a moderating variable that can explain some part of these numbers for specific schools I think. GWU has, I believe, a strong psychoanalytic focus, therefore, their students may opt for non-traditional, primarily analytic sites that allow them to maintain that focus and may actually provide excellent training within specific parameters that are appropriate for someone intending to stay on a specialized path. Many students in California who do not (or cannot) relocate opt to only apply to CAPIC programs. CAPIC is a regional internship membership program that was established, in part, to meet the needs to the growing number of PsyD professional school students in the state. Because CAPIC makes available a broad array of both half-time, 2 year internships and local full-time internships these are often a first choice for students with families and these students do not enter the APPIC/APA match at all.

None of this mitigates the seriousness of the problem about internship availability. One potential solution. if schools are not going to reduce training class size, would be for metropolitan areas with high concentrations of students to also develop regional internship options APPIC standards.

 

[2ndTimer]

As it's the Psy.D. program listed, perhaps they offer both Ph.D. and Psy.D. tracks, and it's the latter that gets a lower match rate...?

GWU's PhD. does have a slightly better match rate: 77.8% over the last 10 years, and 85.7% for the years 2005-2010.

 

[JockNerd]

I think some people are missing the point here.

The 15 sites from the article aren't bad for *students*; they're bad for the *profession*. Plenty of sites have cruddy match rates but weren't among the 15 because they only take a dozen students a year and so didn't meet the criterion. Those sites are certainly still bad to go to for an individual student, but they're a drop in the match rate bucket that's gushing over due to the influence of the outlier programs.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Yep, Capella is a Ph.D. program. It doesn't matter what you call these historically poor performing programs, Ph.D. or Psy.D., although I disagree with the call for accountability by APPIC for the performance of these schools. The students attending these schools are attempting to gain Doctorate level credentials. If they have not figured out that under-performing schools are a bad investment, I lack sympathy for them.

Mark

I was just pointing out that the OP listed ONLY PsyD programs in his/her post, not saying Capella is an outstanding--or even good or passable-- program, PhD or PsyD. Yeah, I know it's picking nits, but I was just clarifying that for the sake of the question asked in the OP.

I attend a university-based, funded (PhD) program, so I have no personal interest in defending Capella nor any desire to do so.

George Washington University has a low match rate? That's surprising to me.

Me, too. As was NYU's now-closing School PsyD program, though that could be a small N issue, as a majority of school psych students still go the non-APPIC route for internship.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I knew a GW person and they said geographic issues limited many applicants because they did not want to relocate. As for CAPIC sites..they are only contributing to the problem because they allow for programs with students unable to compete for APA spots to be relegated to 2nd class providers because of employment restrictions AND the total number of providers drag down demand and ultimately deflate salaries. The student gets stuck,the sites get cheap/free labor, and the profession is hurt because it makes it harder to correct the SUPPLY imbalance.

 

[O Gurl]

I knew a GW person and they said geographic issues limited many applicants because they did not want to relocate. As for CAPIC sites..they are only contributing to the problem because they allow for programs with students unable to compete for APA spots to be relegated to 2nd class providers because of employment restrictions AND the total number of providers drag down demand and ultimately deflate salaries. The student gets stuck,the sites get cheap/free labor, and the profession is hurt because it makes it harder to correct the SUPPLY imbalance.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[zzzz2]

One potential solution. if schools are not going to reduce training class size, would be for metropolitan areas with high concentrations of students to also develop regional internship options APPIC standards.

Not sure how this will work. If more states/regions are creating separate accreditation (non-APA) to accommodate large number of professional schools with large class sizes, it will only reinforce professional schools to admit more students. APA accreditation/standard is not the source of the problem and shouldn't be tweaked to appease the overcrowded profession.

 

[FadedC]

The NYU program has been inactive for a few years now

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

*I've written at length about this before, but I wanted to re-post a key piece to my argument.*

The original purpose of APA-acred. (both program and internship site) was to provide a uniformed set of MINIMUM requirements for adequate training. Somehow in the last decade or so APA-acred. went from "the standard" to optional, and in the place of proven training standards are new standards put in place out of artificial need.

Every single new internship spot (the majority being UNPAID) is another chip away at our potential salaries and value as a profession. The top psychologists (and sub-specialities) should be fine, but the other 90% of psychologists....watch out. VA positions are at a premium for everywhere but the boondocks and good luck to anyone who isn't from an APA-acred. program and internship site.

I have serious concerns about the path of our profession because the average entry level position (for newly licensed psychologists) is only in the 50k's...for 6-8 years of study. BS's in Computer Science and Engineering make more money.

Okay, doom and gloom over...back to Mad Men.

 

[psychmama]

Okay, doom and gloom over...back to Mad Men.

I just love that show😀...