Markp: Fact is that since there are no students with exceptionally low GPA/GRE's in most programs you would be hard pressed to find valid data to begin with.
Curious counterargument -- because the entrance requirements are so artificially inflated (i.e. there are so few openings compared to applicants that requirements can be stratospheric) there is no evidence that such requirements are, in fact, necessary.
Markp: Finally if they are so poor, why do so many psychology programs rely on them? You would think that thousands of psychologists would know better.
Yes, you
would think so. Welcome to the staggering hypocracy! They rely on them because they are a quick and dirty dividing line. Instead of wading through 100+ applications to truly evaluate whether or not the individual is a good match for the program and the profession, rank order them by GRE/GPA and anyone not 2 SD's from the mean doesn't get their application OPENED, nevermind evaluted.
Markp: I agree that within a restricted range of scores that the predictive validity may limited but that overall the scores do mean things. Or have you forgotten that one of the best predictors of future performance is past performance?
No, not at all. But 1) The GRE is not a "past" performance. It is a predictively invalid measure of one's ability to memorize arcane vocabulary and complete abstract calculations; 2) the GPA would be your better predictor if undergraduate work bore any resemblance to graduate work in psychology.
And let's not open the can of worms about the inappropriateness of the EPPP as a predictor of professional ability to practice psychology!
Markp: Show me anyone from Capella or Walden teaching as a tenure track faculty member in an APA certified clinical psychology university program (not a professional school like Argosy.) Just because one of your colleagues was unable to secure a position doesn't mean that his education was less valuable. Furthermore you are rather vague about your colleauge, was this a graduate of UCLA with a Ph.D. or a graduate of Argosy with a Psy.D.? Yes, your education does matter and if you want a tenure track position it usually requires more than attending just any APA accredited program.
Well, Mark, not all of us will graduate from Harvard or Yale. Are you truly suggesting that only the top 0.01% should be worthy of tenured positions? Funny, but FIVE universities have found my credentials acceptable to teach undergraduates. Ironically, I taught alongside Tier I PhD's while I was still a graduate student because of the lack of available tenure track positions. (You might want to study the realities of securing tenure track positions before asserting securing one is a measure of anything beyond political gamesmanship.)
Thanks for perpetuating the prejudice by dismissing securing a teaching position at a "professional school like Argosy." Whether you like it or not, the PsyD is a recognized and respected degree by the vast majority in the profession. And do you really think that only Ivory Tower academic researchers have any legitimacy in teaching new professionals? Actual clinical experience is not something future clinical psychologists should be exposed? Additionally, you are creating yet another artificial measure as most who attend Capella, Walden, Argosy don't
WANT tenure track research university positions. They -- ::gasp:: -- want to be clinicians!
(And to sate your curiosity, my former colleague earned a PhD from an APA-accredited health science university on the west coast.)
Markp: Approximately 1/6 jurisdictions do not recognize your credentials out of 62, if you had attended an APA accredited program, all 62 jurisdictions would recognize your credentials. Seems like a better deal to me, especially when you are paying for it.
It may not be a death sentence but most people should exhaust any other possible paths prior to considering this, it is just not worth the money invested at this time. I am not saying you did not get an education, I am saying that the value of the education is limited.
And I haven't disagreed with you about the desirability of minimizing obstacles, only with the assessment that it is a doomsday scenario.
Furthermore, wake up and smell the reality ... the ambiguities of licensing requirements mean that ANY of us could find ourselves on the short end of a board decision. I just learned that a former APA colleague was denied a license in an northeastern state. She graduated from a Tier I APA accredited program and interned in an APA accredited internship in that northeastern state. But the licensing board declared that she needed one more course.
In New York, unless your program is chartered by the state board of regents (and only in-state programs are), you will be required to submit your program's curriculum for approval. Really think they created this hurdle so all out-of-state programs will be rubber stamped?
Apparently APA accreditation is not the carte blanche you are being led to believe it is!
Markp: It matters not if that limitation is artificial or real.
Of course it matters if the limitations are artificial or not. You, yourself, suggested that psychology should be more true to its roots and insist on valid measures of potential success. Why stop there? Shouldn't we be basing our judgment of a colleague's qualifications upon their professional competence and not ill-informed prejudices about the nature of training programs?
