PhD/PsyD Ask A Recent Graduate of a Professional School Anything

[erg923]

If we were to think bout this in a more clinical perspective, I suppose one of my questions regarding this whole debacle is why is there so much "fusion" of self and career on the part of people who seem to be offended? You are not your job. You are NOT a psychologist. You are you. Why do people have such a difficult time differentiating when we critique their skills/competencies or educational choices just from the "person."

This is a skill I acquired, I think, prior to graduate school and was was left in graduate school sure wasn't able to last doctoral training. How do people get through doctoral level training and take all the still take this stuff so personally?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[psyman]

If we were to think bout this in a more clinical perspective I suppose when my questions regarding this whole debacle is why is there so much fusion of send and career on the part of people who seem to be offended. you are not your job. You are not a psychologist. You are you. Why do people have such a difficult time differentiating when we critique their skills/competencies or educational choices just from the person.

This is a skill I acquired, I think, prior to graduate school and was was left in graduate school sure wasn't able to last doctoral training. How do people get through doctoral level training and take all the stuff stuff so personally?

"You aren't qualified to be my equal." Don't take it personally though.

I always promise myself to never return to this site.

...and I'm sorry, but in what way are you qualified to critique my skills? What an obnoxious thing to say. Typical though.

 

[erg923]

If someone said that to you that was wrong, but i have yet to see anything of that sort written in this thread or others. Perhaps you could direct me to that statement?

I critique trainee skill everyday. It's in my job description. Why would take or perceive critique of your skills as "annoying." It's how we grow. It's how we learn.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

This reminds me of the thing CNG brought up about the poster who said the "psyd students are better off as patients" (or whatever). Go look at that thread. What happened when that was said? Multiple poster (myself included) rapidly disagreed with that post.

The evidence does not indicate to me that being "offended" by this board occurs due to anything other than choice.

A couple of things...

MCParent, if you are going to critique me, at least have the decency to get your posts correct, review that thread and take note that I was NOT the one who stated any comment as such.

If we were to think bout this in a more clinical perspective, I suppose one of my questions regarding this whole debacle is why is there so much "fusion" of self and career on the part of people who seem to be offended? You are not your job. You are NOT a psychologist. You are you. Why do people have such a difficult time differentiating when we critique their skills/competencies or educational choices just from the "person."

This is a skill I acquired, I think, prior to graduate school and was was left in graduate school sure wasn't able to last doctoral training. How do people get through doctoral level training and take all the still take this stuff so personally?

erg...you are claiming to be on here in a "unofficial/ non-professional" capacity, really? At what point is pushing "pure data" onto people (which is part of your professional being) and then pushing your personal opinions differentiated from your personal being in this whole thing? And to your statement in general: if people are "their job"...so be it. You claim to be data-driven yet void yourself of any other evidence from the sub-disciplines of psychology that do formally study personality, I/O psychology, etc. Granted, a lot of their studies vary greatly. Taking this into consideration, you are taking a personal stance on a subject that can be interpreted MANY ways but then claim it to be the "gold standard." It's not.

I don't think less of people who have PsyD's as people. I do have reservations about the competency of some PsyD degrees as clinicians, and will refuse to refer to those individuals unless I have a trusted recommendation. It's a conclusion I've made based on the data I have. Seems reasonable.

...really? Then you all hop on the bandwagon to claim professional purity in "advising" people on this forum. It's an interpretation of the data you have.

I would say if we really want to spice things up in this debate, that we could have a pissing contest and start flooding the room with endless PubMed articles, which I have yet to see from anybody (including myself). This could be good for someone considering dissertation references I suppose

 

[erg923]

Wis thinks less of my clinical skills because of my PsyD. He JUST inferred that. So that offends me. Is that ridiculous?

What about this offends you?

 

[MCParent]

A couple of things...

MCParent, if you are going to critique me, at least have the decency to get your posts correct, review that thread and take note that I was NOT the one who stated any comment as such.

Was your post not in reference to psych84's post? He thought it was. You didn't correct him when he said it was about him in this thread. That's the only instance I recall of someone saying something outright belittling toward PsyDs.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

...No. Also, you know (from previous posts) that I am advocate of the Psy.D., so that doesn't uphold the argument too well I would think? But good deflecting

 

[MCParent]

...No. Also, you know (from previous posts) that I am advocate of the Psy.D., so that doesn't uphold the argument too well I would think?

I think you misunderstood my post.

 

[Peacemaker36]

This board is dominated by about four or five posters who constantly spew hate at FSPS and PsyDs and speak to people in ways they never would in person.

Okay, we get it. They take on crazy debt and are under trained. You are better. We got it. Turn the page.

It's clear how you guys view anyone who would go that route (FSPS or PsyD) to ANY reader. Many others like myself stay away from this board because of the superior attitude you guys have. Don't believe me if you want. Those few posters are the ones who keep me away as well. That same tone sticks with most of their posts even not on that topic. I regret every time I stray into these conversations.

Are there other boards? Serious question. I'd like to participate in a general board focused on early career issues affecting the full spectrum of psychologists.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

Ah I see, you were trying to infer that since I didn't harp on him for his comment that my moral approach to this is shaky? Well, the comment on face value is a crap thing to say, so in that regards I would advise that he revisit how he thinks about the Psy.D. and how they think of Psy.D. graduates, its value to both himself, the profession he works within, the relevant data and how it co-insides with what he may prefer vs. not. I would also encourage an active sampling of available resources to help guide him (e.g. resources that are pro/anti Ph.D., topics that are pro/anti Psy.D.) and to spend a good deal of time investigating this. Even to this day, I have reservations about both degrees at a considerable level (30-40%), and I have spent 2-3 years doing a good deal of personal research on if this path is viable or not, if they payoff (financial, socially, etc.).

 

[psyman]

What about this offends you?

Ug. Whatever. I don't want to give this board anymore energy.

 

[MCParent]

Ah I see, you were trying to infer that since I didn't harp on him for his comment that my moral approach to this is shaky? Well, the comment on face value is a crap thing to say, so in that regards I would advise that he revisit how he thinks about the Psy.D. and how they think of Psy.D. graduates, its value to both himself, the profession he works within, the relevant data and how it co-insides with what he may prefer vs. not.

No, I was saying that you tried to use that as an example of the zeitgeist of the board, when in reality that post was met with instant objection by several other posters.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

No, I was saying that you tried to use that as an example of the zeitgeist of the board, when in reality that post was met with instant objection by several other posters.

I see...in that case, I didn't know about it until you brought that up, I'm sure there are some posts in this topic I have missed or overlooked as well as other topics on this board.

 

[erg923]

Ug. Whatever. I don't want to give this board anymore energy.

Its a very simple question.

If I perceive that a person has less training, then, naturally I would view claimed skills with a healthy sense of skepticism. Seems very logical. Doesn't mean you agree with the premise of course. Are you offended by all things you disagree with?

 

[psyman]

.

 

[psyman]

Its very simple question.

If I perceive that a person has less training, then, naturally I would view claimed skills with a healthy sense of skepticism. Seems very logical. Doesn't mean you agree with the premise of course. Are you offended by all things you disagree with?

Yes.

 

[haRtwin]

If presenting objective data makes me a pretentious ass@#$%, well then get me some horn-rimmed glasses, skinny jeans, and a PBR!

I don't mind PBR. Hipsters, though? No comment

 

[erg923]

Yes.

Have supervisors provided you feedback about this for the benefit of your professional development?

 

[Rivi]

Ug. Whatever. I don't want to give this board anymore energy.

I hope you stick around, psyman. I know a lot of these threads turn into FSPS debates, but I really enjoy hearing from other psychologists and psychology grad students. The length and intensity of our training is unique, and its nice to be around as many people as possible who have been through the same experience, especially if they are south park fans : )

 

[psych84]

I'd be interested to hear from the people that went the professional route, if they feel welcomed by other Psychologists, and if they have ever had bad experiences as a result of going to a prof school?

 

[psyman]

Have supervisors provided you feedback about this for the benefit of your professional development?

Please stop posting to me. I genuinely don't want to communicate with you.

 

[erg923]

I see. So you you want come in and stir the pot but not do much actual thinking.

The latter question simply requires a "yes" or "no," btw.

 

[psyman]

I hope you stick around, psyman. I know a lot of these threads turn into FSPS debates, but I really enjoy hearing from other psychologists and psychology grad students. The length and intensity of our training is unique, and its nice to be around as many people as possible who have been through the same experience, especially if they are south park fans : )

Thank you! I feel the same.

I see. So you you want come in and stir the pot but do much actual thinking.

Please stop.

 

[Rivi]

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

Ok...my last comment for the night at least in a lucid state of being...go out, get some beer, have fun, let's resume debates tomorrow. Shall we say around 6pm?

 

[mcvcm92]

I know this thread has already been beaten to death, but I just wanted to quickly chime in. It seems like a big issue is that some posters who attend or graduated from a FSPS or Psy.D program are getting annoyed that other posters question the efficacy of their skills as a psychologists. I haven't seen it phrased as a personal attack really, it's more of a statement about the training of certain programs. Yes, obviously some people at FSPS programs are probably fantastic, and some people at traditional university-housed Ph.D programs may be not-so-good, but as psychologists (or psychology students), we are taught to often look at what the overall data suggests.

I think that the honesty (albeit brute at times) is informative to those seeking out doctoral training because it really makes you think about how attending certain programs can help or hinder your occupational outcomes on average. We live in a world in which competition is always going to exist, and competition is especially high in psychology due to the large rise in doctoral clinical psychology students. Always be an educated and skeptical consumer, and education is one of the biggest expenses you can make as a consumer!

[Disclaimer: This is coming from a school psychology student, so it's not necessarily my area of expertise. Just my 2 cents.]

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

We shall all be brute! But in our own perspectives.

 

[WisNeuro]

I did specify "some Psy.D's" if you choose to conflate that to "all PsyD's" that's your own problem. Deal with it. I also think some PhD's offer subpar training. They just happen to be much smaller in number, and the class size of 5 is far less harmful to the field than the class of 100 poorly trained clinicians. But, by all means, confirmatory bias away.

 

[moveablefeastings]

.

 

[erg923]

.

 

[erg923]

erg...you are claiming to be on here in a "unofficial/ non-professional" capacity, really? At what point is pushing "pure data" onto people (which is part of your professional being) and then pushing your personal opinions differentiated from your personal being in this whole thing? And to your statement in general: if people are "their job"...so be it. You claim to be data-driven yet void yourself of any other evidence from the sub-disciplines of psychology that do formally study personality, I/O psychology, etc. Granted, a lot of their studies vary greatly. Taking this into consideration, you are taking a personal stance on a subject that can be interpreted MANY ways but then claim it to be the "gold standard." It's not.

I have read this 3 times and am simply unable to understand this paragraph.

I have never claimed to be an "unofficial/ non-professional." I don't even understand what this is suppose to mean?

 

[erg923]

As an observer to this argument, I think that the reason erg and others are ****ting on PsyDs is because they are insecure about their own training and status in the field. Otherwise I don't see why they would frequent this forum at all.

Or, perhaps we like engaging in debate about a vocation we are passionate about and assisting and educating future members/applicants? Do you think that people frequent sports team forums because they are insecure about their team? Perhaps they are merely fans? Yes, yes, Freud is very cool. But not everything is projection, folks. Chalking up this argument to such things is simplistic thinking (or at least not very critical thinking) that is skirting the larger issues. Again, not how future clinical scientists should be thinking. For starters you have extrapolated "****ting on Psy.Ds" from a thread that is actually about FSPS training quality/models (a model that is actually quite different than the Vail Model than underlies the Psy.D degree). A fallacy that has been pointed out probably half a dozen times in this thread alone. That said, one point of contention I had with a poster (who then chose to to withdraw from discussion with me) was in response to his criticism that master-level folks were competing with "us" (meaning psychologists) for jobs. My response was a curt, but very reasonable question: "Why did your program not provide you with tangible skills sets that would differentiate you from a master level mental health practitioner? " I did not hear a response. So, yes, in that vain, I do worry about the viability of the Psy.D degree in general.

The fact of the matter is that since cogneuro came to board last evening with his new revelation, the only thing he has revealed is that he talked to some Psy.D students backchannel who were butt hurt that people didn't support their decisions and that when presenting data, we should simply present data and not express opinions about it or draw conclusions because, well, then people might disagree with it and get butt hurt all over again. This, is of course is done in the cultural spirit of "all opinions are equal" and that we should be validating everybody's choice to do whatever they happen to choose. Utter nonsense on the face of it, obviously. And of course this cultural trend could never have any unintended negative consequences. How dare I even suggest such? That's not warm and fuzzy and accepting. While all human life should be respected/valued, not all behaviors need be respected/valued.

Yes, this will make for a fun board indeed. 2+2=4.5 is A'ok in my book too...

 

[erg923]

When I joined the forum, there wasn't much activity. The general zeitgeist seemed to be psyd = clinical and phd = research and good and bad clinicians come from both psyd and phd programs. Money was glossed over. I don't think that's a helpful environment. There's a lot going on in our field, some good, some not so good. Job market is one thing that is critical to most of us. In general, as someone interested in the success of the field, I have opinions on how it should work. Included amongst those opinions is that the PsyD, in present format, should go away. All internships should be APA accredited. Postdocs and internships should be paid experiences. Everyone should seek board certification.

In general, as compared to a funded PhD, PsyD = lower GPA, lower GRE, less arduous scientific training, fewer clinical hours, dramatically higher debt, and dramatically lower probability of completing an APA approved internship.

Debt with the available average income streams = delays in saving for retirement, delays in marriage, limiting of potential marital partners (many people would not marry someone with that kind of debt - - I wouldn't), and lower standard of living.

The numbers of PsyD graduates impacts specific markets quite heavily, making it harder to get a job where one wishes and harder to negotiate for better income/benefit packages.

Overall, the PsyD in current form is bad for the field, bad for the students, and bad for patients. It benefits a few groups.

A) The faculty at the PsyD programs.
B) The administration at the PsyD programs
C) Stock holders in the companies that own the psyd programs
D) employers who wish low cost doctoral level employees to be interchangeable with social workers


Frankly, in my opinion, the model is exploitative of students and actively damaging to professionals in the field. This has nothing to do with elitism, narcissism, being mean, bad therapy skills, or snarkiness. Rather, in my opinon, it is quite the opposite.

I am becoming less and less convinced that people disagree completely on the core issues about FSPS actually. I mean, no one is going to advocate for subpar training or scientific illiteracy in the training of psychologists, right? I think it really boils down to the following:

1. A "fusion" of career and self that makes posters like psyman feel that what we are saying is that WE are better than HIM. Disagreement with a behavior or choice does not equate to dislike (and certainly not "hate" of anything) of the person. My 3 year-old make me wanna tear my hair out daily, but I love him dearly. Similarly, skepticism about a person's clinical versatility based on training program reputation not does equate to dislike of the person or judgement that the person is an idiot.

2. An overarching sociocultural agenda that is desperately afraid of "invalidating" anybody's life choices, and is so afraid of judgement that they advocate the absurd and irrational notion that "all opinions are valid" in spite of objective data. This, in turn, leads to a pervasive belief and acceptance that people should be able to do whatever they want and that others should just tolerate it and keep quite about it (keep your opinions to yourself, as cogneuro would like), because, "who are your to judge someone?" Intolerance and pushback (based on evidence, btw) is then viewed as superiority complex.

 

[psych84]

I can totally relate to some people considering the professional program. If your application is not competitive, (at least yet) it is normal to consider your options. But I personally wouldn't be proud of myself if I finished a program I knew wasn't challening to gain acceptance into, and wasn't all that respected. So when I made those insulting comments it was more from the perspective of "I don't know how others can justify this..at all".

 

[aequitasveritas]

I think it's admirable that there are some of you left, trying to advocate for the field in order to stop the degradation of credentials, whether your methods or metrics are aligned or not.

I have accepted that the field (so to speak) is washing away, and that the tide is too strong to avert. Some vets here recall me, a fspp phd, licensed in 3 states now with a private practice. I don't get into defending my program or those like it. My point here is that, even if you were to totally reverse the dilution of psychologists, the larger field of mental health has all but erased our purpose.

My practice in a highly saturated area no doubt, but the saturation per capita doesn't differ from rural areas. What do I find in any internet search....or out my office door to the left of right? A multitude of mid level providers offering mindfulness based-spiritual crap like they're the Dali 2.0.

Yes, ensuring proper and competitive education would be part of fighting the boundary creep battle, but I'm being pessimistic here and telling you I think it's over. War was had and lost. We are revered only in title and for occasional testing...but that is changing fast also.

I'm very well known in my area and respected. I've been in practice over a year....14 patients. I'm an aggressive marketer, I go to everything I can to mix, and I do get testing cases monthly...but still...14 patients. Meanwhile, one of my colleagues has hired a hot chick he just wants to be around as a "sober coach" in his office. She has a masters and no cert in anything....but she's listed on Psychology Today...just like me...and the title says ...therapist.

I could go on...but you get my point. I think it's over folks.

 

[erg923]

I think it's admirable that there are some of you left, trying to advocate for the field in order to stop the degradation of credentials, whether your methods or metrics are aligned or not.

I have accepted that the field (so to speak) is washing away, and that the tide is too strong to avert. Some vets here recall me, a fspp phd, licensed in 3 states now with a private practice. I don't get into defending my program or those like it. My point here is that, even if you were to totally reverse the dilution of psychologists, the larger field of mental health has all but erased our purpose.

My practice in a highly saturated area no doubt, but the saturation per capita doesn't differ from rural areas. What do I find in any internet search....or out my office door to the left of right? A multitude of mid level providers offering mindfulness based-spiritual crap like they're the Dali 2.0.

Yes, ensuring proper and competitive education would be part of fighting the boundary creep battle, but I'm being pessimistic here and telling you I think it's over. War was had and lost. We are revered only in title and for occasional testing...but that is changing fast also.

I'm very well known in my area and respected. I've been in practice over a year....14 patients. I'm an aggressive marketer, I go to everything I can to mix, and I do get testing cases monthly...but still...14 patients. Meanwhile, one of my colleagues has hired a hot chick he just wants to be around as a "sober coach" in his office. She has a masters and no cert in anything....but she's listed on Psychology Today...just like me...and the title says ...therapist.

I could go on...but you get my point. I think it's over folks.

The clinical science model conceptualization (and subsequent training) IS the necessary direction of the field, lest we indeed be washed away.

And I agree that mid-levels provide alot of therapy...and alot of crappy therapy within that as well. I see my role as one agent that helps to 1.) take the complex cases 2.) disseminate psychological science and application of it principles to some of the more frontline providers. I do both service and consultation. This HAS to be what a psychologist is in this day and age. Second Order relevance. Meehl wrote about this almost 40 years ago now. I didn't even attend a clinical science program and this was assigned reading in my program.

Working for HMOs recently as certainly helped to shape my feelings about "why pay Ph.d/Psy.D rates when we can pay maters level rates." Sometime they are wrong and ill informed. Many times, they actually are right on the money (no pun intended). No reason why masters level providers cant be taught, trained, and supervised in the delivery of proper psychological science interventions by the likes of us.

 

[erg923]

I am interested in this "hot chick" thing you speak of. I am trying to get one of programs ready for CARF accreditation here and was thinking maybe this would be a creative idea that they might like?

 

[cara susanna]

That's it, I'm starting an online program to train hot chicks who want to become sober coaches. I'll be rich, guys!

Also, I'm actually against the Vail model in general. I mean, I don't hate it, but I think it's redundant nowadays. This doesn't mean that I don't personally like or respect any PsyDs, though.

 

[aequitasveritas]

I am interested in this "hot chick" thing you speak of. I am trying to get one of programs ready for CARF accreditation here and was thinking maybe this would be a creative idea that they might like?

Haha. I think this could be a new training model for models.

I agree with ur first post. I guess my point is that private practice is pretty much completely eroded unless ur an old guard psychologist. For newbies starting out, welcome to the world of MFTs and LPCs...anything u can do...they can't do better...but that doesn't stop them from taking that initial session away from you once in a while. Death by a thousand MfTs

 

[aequitasveritas]

That's it, I'm starting an online program to train hot chicks who want to become sober coaches. I'll be rich, guys!

Also, I'm actually against the Vail model in general. I mean, I don't hate it, but I think it's redundant nowadays. This doesn't mean that I don't personally like or respect any PsyDs, though.

I demand a finders fee.

 

[cara susanna]

I demand a finders fee.

Sure, with the money I'll be making it won't matter! Especially if I base it in California.

 

[erg923]

I thinks its important to remember that we, and psychiatry before us, have ALWAYS shared therapy with mid levels. Social workers have been doing therapies since the 30s. They have also had an EXPLOSION in there degree granting institutions as well, so now there are obviously many more than there used to be. But, we don't own therapy, folks. Never have. We don't even own the CPT codes on it. There is nothing, legally, stopping a a radiologist from billing 90834. So, to throw up ones hands and suggest that "mid-levels are killing" us suggests to me that you have a poor understanding of what it truly means to be psychologists (not talking about you aqeitasvertas). Because is if therapy and some bad-ass interviewing skills is all you got in the bag, I got bad new for ya. See the first 4 sentences of this post.

 

[psych84]

Medicine is facing similar circumstances. Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants, Pharmacists that can prescribe. But I agree with erg, Psychologists are supposed to be teachers, researchers, and also provide therapy. If you go to a top/accredited programs, the chances that you will not be able to make a living can't be true, unless you do take the private practice route (and you just aren't a very good business person), or you don't know your market.

 

[erg923]

Well, you dont have to DO all 3 of the above to be a psychologist, really. You should be able to incorporate those three things into a skill, work-product, or service though. I no longer adjunct teach (money sucks), although I do consult to IROs, and a local nursing home. My "research" is more clinic utilization and program assessment/development than its is publishing anything.

 

[aequitasveritas]

I thinks its important to remember that we, and psychiatry before us, have ALWAYS shared therapy with mid levels. Social workers have been doing therapies since the 30s. They have also had an EXPLOSION in there degree granting institutions as well, so now there are obviously many more than there used to be. But, we don't own therapy, folks. Never have. We don't even own the CPT codes on it. There is nothing, legally, stopping a a radiologist from billing 90834. So, to throw up ones hands and suggest that "mid-levels are killing" us suggests to me that you have a poor understanding of what it truly means to be psychologists (not talking about you aqeitasvertas). Because is if therapy and some bad-ass interviewing skills is all you got in the bag, I got bad new for ya. See the first 4 sentences of this post.

Great stuff to remember, and be reminded of. You are catching on to my narcissistic wound at entering the field. It's just hard being smacked with the fact that I have to be an inspector gadget with so many irons in the fire in order to make it. There was a day when this was not the case, and that day has passed. I'll get over it, and will move into a different model of working, despite my fantasies that it shouldn't be so.

It's a thin line out there. Freud encouraged lay analysis , yet warned against wild analysis. What would he think of the new wave of therapy iterations?

 

[erg923]

Great stuff to remember, and be reminded of. You are catching on to my narcissistic wound at entering the field. It's just hard being smacked with the fact that I have to be an inspector gadget with so many irons in the fire in order to make it. There was a day when this was not the case, and that day has passed. I'll get over it, and will move into a different model of working, despite my fantasies that it shouldn't be so.

It's a thin line out there. Freud encouraged lay analysis , yet warned against wild analysis. What would he think of the new wave of therapy iterations?

Well, fortunately, I do not live in the Peoples Republic of California, so I am protected from that a bit. Personally, I have not been able to jump on the ACT bandwagon fully, as useful as some of the concepts and analogies might be. Some of it seems almost cultish, to be frank. In general, mental health professionals should be using and promoting application of psychology science to the prevention and treatment of human suffering, obviously. However, when you get into some of the more fringe professionals (e.g., life coach, sober coach, various counselors), then they are legitimately more free to do Buddha therapy, or whatever.

 

[463951]

No, I was saying that you tried to use that as an example of the zeitgeist of the board, when in reality that post was met with instant objection by several other posters.

Right. It was @psych84 who called FSPS students mental health patients or something like that, and I responded with saying that comment was immature and not helpful to anybody and then @MCParent wrote a very compelling post (I thought so anyway, and I am sure many others did as well) about how the students are not the problem, and how faculty at some of these schools lie to these students about things like accreditation, etc.

 

[MCParent]

The problem with the "play nice" thing is that is it also not manageable on a macro level within the profession.

Organizations that run the bulk of FSPS are clearly dedicated to the "obtain wealth, forgetting all but self" mentality (akin to sub-prime mortgages, etc.). It is inconsequential to the entities that run FSPS whether the profession produces a quality product or even survives; there is no reason for that to be of any concern to them ("not-for-profit" designations, or whatever, are meaningless in this context; it's quite possible to become very rich running an NFP). This is not a conspiracy theory; corporations act to enhance profits and other considerations are secondary, if factors at all. There are news stories about these programs misrepresenting to new school classes that they will graduate from an accredited program (literally impossible, and I can't believe that the faculty were unaware of this basic accreditation rule so I can see no explanation other than intentional deception of students; http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2013/12/05/argosy-university-pays-colorado-33m.html?page=all). So, this "play nice" silliness, which is APA's go-to strategy, is akin to playing a prisoner's dilemma against an opponent who consistently and reliably acts in their own self-interest. THIS is the problem--NOT individual students. It's NEVER students. The problem is psychologists who are complicit in the behaviors of these entities, which damage our profession, students, professionals, and the populations we serve. And if any of us wants to find one of those complicit psychologists, the first place we can look is the mirror.

 

[LupaCupcake]

*hands everyone a hard drink then slowly backs away* lol.

 

[NeuroTrope]

Well, fortunately, I do not live in the Peoples Republic of California, so I am protected from that a bit. Personally, I have not been able to jump on the ACT bandwagon fully, as useful as some of the concepts and analogies might be. Some of it seems almost cultish, to be frank. In general, mental health professionals should be using and promoting application of psychology science to the prevention and treatment of human suffering, obviously. However, when you get into some of the more fringe professionals (e.g., life coach, sober coach, various counselors), then they are legitimately more free to do Buddha therapy, or whatever.

And there's the CA zing...erg, get over it. Yes this state is pretty saturated...it's also very population dense. More importantly, if you specialize in a niche you can do quite well here, particularly if you have trained in the good programs.

But seriously, I've been to the south...nothing but chain stores and humidity. And juggalos. I did see a few juggalos.