I completely agree APA should have standards set high enough that this sort of thing (or poor training overall) does not occur. There will always be exceptions/outliers, and I think that goes toward the case of training students at institutions like Argosy; not all are great and not all are bad. Taking into consideration as well that the practical training experiences come from outside of Argosy (ie practica), “poor training” cannot necessarily be lumped in to the “Argosy” training argument. Here, as I said before and still believe, is where those hard working students receive dividends from their work. Classroom training isn’t the same as real life experience, and this is where the thought that this type of program just “pumps out incompetent psychologists” (as another poster stated) is unsupported (from my view).
For me, the bottom line issue here, which I think we agree on, is the fact the institution of Argosy/EDMC/Dream Center has been insufficiently run and business/money making was always their first thought, not education. I think this can be said for a lot of institutions; some (many lol) are just better at business than Argosy, so it doesn’t come to the same conclusion.
In the end, (again, most) Argosy students have committed as much time and energy as any other (that much APA assures, independent of the other issues of lackadaisical approach to addressing issues such as this) and should be given respect based on that fact. Judge the person on their work, not on the school they came from.
However I do agree APA needs to step up and engage in this conversation actively. Though you’re right that it’s unlikely and even if it did, we wouldn’t necessarily agree with their handling of the situation. Overall, this is just a bad situation for all involved. :-/
