Berkeley Takes the First Leap on Accreditation

[DynamicDidactic]

We are currently accredited by APA and PCSAS through 2023. After careful deliberation and discussion, the Clinical Science faculty has come to the decision as a group that it is our intention to not seek accreditation by APA after our current APA accreditation expires in 2023. We will continue to maintain our PCSAS accreditati

.

Our Accreditation Status | UC Psych

Please note: Beginning with the entering class of Fall 2020 and onward, students are admitted to our PCSAS-accredited program. Students who began graduate school in Fall 2019 or earlier will complete their education in our APA-accredited clinical science program. We no longer admit students into...

psychology.berkeley.edu

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Interesting. Is there a document somewhere that outlines the substantive differences between APA and PCSAS? My initial impression is that PCSAS is more stringent, but I have yet to do a deep dive.

 

[Justanothergrad]

One major difference? PCSAS excludes 99% of counseling programs meaning that roughly 30% of HSP aren't eligible for this model.

Seems problematic.

Relatedly. Outcomes of training are also more grant focused and less clinical service focused. I wonder the downstream impact of growing the number of those programs on job prospectives in TT environments.

 

[R. Matey]

I’d just be curious how those folks plan on getting licensed in some states without APA accreditation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I wonder if PCSAS will be treated like CPA (Canadian Psych Assoc) and be granted equivalency? The APA lost me 10+yrs ago when they kept lowering the bar.

 

[Ollie123]

Interested to see how this goes. Of course, announcing intent to not do something in 3 years could of course change.

There has been a big push to get states to recognize PCSAS as equivalent, but I haven't followed whether it has happened. I think the goal is to eventually push APA accreditation down to "second tier" but they are obviously a long ways off from being able ot make that happen.

Interesting. Is there a document somewhere that outlines the substantive differences between APA and PCSAS? My initial impression is that PCSAS is more stringent, but I have yet to do a deep dive.

You can look up the PCSAS website for some general info. Overall, PCSAS is <much> more stringent on the criteria most of us would define as important, but also designed to allow more flexibility around the things APA loves to pick at that really don't matter (e.g. what was the name of your course). Its meant to focus more on functional outcomes, but obviously that can be tough to measure for certain things. I'm surprised to see them moving this quickly, I figured it was going to be late-2020's before anyone was looking at dropping APA accreditation.

 

[deleted343839]

Of course, announcing intent to not do something in 3 years could of course change.

Yes, announcing an "intention" is not really a bold move, nor is far off from what most PCSAS member institutions have been saying for years. It's a weak warning shot to APA, and that's fine. I'd be surprised if Berkeley or others really do withdraw from APA accreditation in 3 years. That doesn't give states much more time and the state boards generally have bigger fish to fry right now.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I’d just be curious how those folks plan on getting licensed in some states without APA accreditation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe only one state requires APA accreditation and the rest require only equivalent training.

Importantly, a few years ago the VA allowed for PCSAS alongside APA. So, it really shouldn’t be a problem to get any job. It may be a little bit more work to submit materials for licensure but states might start changing their regulations.

I think PCSAS may eventually become the preferred accreditation for top tier academic medicine positions.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

One major difference? PCSAS excludes 99% of counseling programs meaning that roughly 30% of HSP aren't eligible for this model.

Seems problematic.

Relatedly. Outcomes of training are also more grant focused and less clinical service focused. I wonder the downstream impact of growing the number of those programs on job prospectives in TT environments.

Can you elaborate on why counseling programs are excluded and what do you mean by grant focused? Here is one of the big important differences about PCSAS.

c) Research training: One of the primary missions of PCSAS-accredited doctoral programs is to train psychological clinical scientists who will be able to generate new knowledge relating to mental and behavioral health problems. Therefore, programs must demonstrate that its students conduct meaningful research as a focal part of their graduate education. Some key indicators of the quality of research training would include:
i) Is research training a core of the program? Are students actively involved in scientific research throughout their graduate education?
ii) Is the student’s research training integrated meaningfully with all other aspects of the student’s training–e.g., coursework, clinical application training, teaching experiences?
iii) Do students receive individualized mentoring in faculty laboratories?
iv) Are students the authors and co-authors of high quality research presentations and peer reviewed publications?
v) Are all students required to demonstrate a solid grasp of research and quantitative methods?
vi) Do all students demonstrate a solid understanding of the important knowledge base and theories across diverse areas of psychological science and other sciences, and does this understanding inform their own research?
vii) Do students produce high-quality dissertations that help launch their careers and that advance psychological science?
viii) Do graduates function as productive research scientists?
ix) Possible indicators:
(1) student research products, grants, presentations, publications, awards;
(2) evidence of student involvement in research, such as research courses taken, specific skills acquired; and
(3) research involvement after graduation, such as appropriate post-doctoral positions (including but not limited to tenure-track faculty positions emphasizing research productivity), grants, publications, and awards.

I'm not that concerned about the TT market since applicants will be judged on their past and future productivity rather than the school they attended.

 

[Sanman]

I can understand the sentiment given that they are a clinical science program and making a point, but if they actually go through with this they will be shooting grads in the foot.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Can you elaborate on why counseling programs are excluded and what do you mean by grant focused?

Programs must be housed in departments of psychology. This excludes almost all counseling psych programs immediately, without any value based on their training. This is a long known issue to PCSAS. They never involved counseling or not psychology programs into training design either, so it's not a chance.

Review Criteria - PCSAS

A. Pre-submission B. Eligibility standards: C. General Accreditation Standards D. Exemplars of Evaluation Criteria A. Pre-submission PCSAS application materials are submitted electronically. Potential applicants must first submit a Letter of Intent to apply, in which they indicate their interest...

www.pcsas.org

PCSAS openly brag that 70% of graduates are involved in some form of clinical practice and 30% have federal funding. This isnt representative of the 102,000 psychologists in the country so the model doesnt fit job markets as this grows.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I can understand the sentiment given that they are a clinical science program and making a point, but if they actually go through with this they will be shooting grads in the foot.

I am sure they didn’t make this decision lightly and the entire point of making PCSAS was to eventually separate from APA. This program seems like a prime candidate to ditch APA. What employment setting would be biased against these graduates?

 

[NotTheHoff]

I believe only one state requires APA accreditation and the rest require only equivalent training.

Importantly, a few years ago the VA allowed for PCSAS alongside APA. So, it really shouldn’t be a problem to get any job. It may be a little bit more work to submit materials for licensure but states might start changing their regulations.

I think PCSAS may eventually become the preferred accreditation for top tier academic medicine positions.

I believe as of now, though, only six states accept PCSAS accreditation for meeting education requirements.

These programs are going to need some other accreditation or national registration to not severely restrict their students' options (which I assume they do).

I wonder if this is sort of a call back to the initial Ph.D.-Psy.D. divide, where in the future PCSAS programs will be seen as for clinical researchers and APA programs for more practice-centered careers.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Programs must be housed in departments of psychology. This excludes almost all counseling psych programs immediately, without any value based on their training. This is a long known issue to PCSAS. They never involved counseling or not psychology programs into training design either, so it's not a chance.

Review Criteria - PCSAS

A. Pre-submission B. Eligibility standards: C. General Accreditation Standards D. Exemplars of Evaluation Criteria A. Pre-submission PCSAS application materials are submitted electronically. Potential applicants must first submit a Letter of Intent to apply, in which they indicate their interest...

www.pcsas.org

From the site:

Programs must be housed in departments of psychology (or their equivalent)

Would a department of Educational Psychology (or something similar) not fall into the equivalent group?

PCSAS openly brag that 70% of graduates are involved in some form of clinical practice and 30% have federal funding. This isnt representative of the 102,000 psychologists in the country so the model doesnt fit job markets as this grows.

I am not sure what that means. Are they getting aggregate data from the graduates of PCSAS programs? Also, outcomes don't necessarily indicate who gets accredited. I doubt they have a requirement that a program's graduates must meet certain post-graduate achievements.

I also think PCSAS isn't looking to represent all kinds of doctoral psychologists but looking to support the importance of science in training. I think the biggest complaint of APA accreditation is that it was overly inclusive, allowing for all kinds of programs to be accredited.

I find the best criticism of PCSAS is that it further splinters the field. My answer to that is perhaps APA should get out of the training/accreditation game but continue to represent post-graduates.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I believe as of now, though, only six states accept PCSAS accreditation for meeting education requirements.

These programs are going to need some other accreditation or national registration to not severely restrict their students' options (which I assume they do).

If this article is accurate (old article, so maybe not)

Why accreditation matters

Accreditation guidelines set the standard for your education—and can ease your way to licensure.

www.apa.org

Only 2 states (I was wrong earlier when I stated 1 but it looks like Utah does not strictly require APA accreditation) seem to require APA. Meaning, 48 other states will not be a problem (I imagine Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards /National Register Joint Designation Committee may be necessary for some of these but that is a much lower bar).

 

[Ollie123]

I don't know that PCSAS <wants> to match their model to the overall job market though. I mean, a pretty sizable chunk of clinical jobs out there are not something most of us with academic training would even think to consider for a multitude of reasons.

I don't know why they are focused on type of department - that seemed weird to me. I agree with concerns about fragmenting the field, but at the same time I think this emerged from frustration that APA was doing nothing for decades and if anything making the problem worse. I view it as an attempt to cede some territory we don't want in an effort redefine the field in a way that benefits those with academic training.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

@Justanothergrad I took a deeper dive into the requirements

Accreditation is limited to programs within the intellectual and educational domain of clinical psychology. This may include hybrid varieties, such as health-psychology, clinical-neuroscience, clinical-behavioral genetics, etc. However, to be acceptable the hybrid model must involve the integration of clinical psychology–i.e., a focus on psychological knowledge and methods to research and clinical application relevant to mental and behavioral health problems–with one or more complementary scientific perspectives for the purpose of gaining added leverage on specific target problems. In all cases, clinical psychology must be the core component of the model.

it really looks like they don't want counseling, which seems to be a shame. If the goal is to accredit the following:

Accreditation is limited to programs that subscribe to an empirical epistemology and a scientific model

Then why exclude counseling programs that meet that criteria. Unless they are using the word clinical as shorthand for any clinically applied program (based on everything I read, it is unlikely they weren't purposefully being specific in their language).

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I mean, a pretty sizable chunk of clinical jobs out there are not something most of us with academic training would even think to consider for a multitude of reasons.

Any job that is seeking masters- or doctoral-level applicants is likely not a job PCSAS accreditation is designed to support.

 

[Justanothergrad]

@Justanothergrad I took a deeper dive into the requirements



it really looks like they don't want counseling, which seems to be a shame. If the goal is to accredit the following:

Then why exclude counseling programs that meet that criteria. Unless they are using the word clinical as shorthand for any clinically applied program (based on everything I read, it is unlikely they weren't purposefully being specific in their language).

Because this is a insiders club designing a new place to hang out. I have very little respect for PCSAS because of its intentional and blind focus on dividing the field in a manner that is entirely without purpose. There is no mistake excluding counseling.

Any job that is seeking masters- or doctoral-level applicants is likely not a job PCSAS accreditation is designed to support.

This is why I dislike the grant/pub focus in how it is done - these jobs represent a large portion of the jobs across the country for MH service. I appreciate that they are training people to do research jobs well, but dividing the field to do is seems problematic to me.

 

[R. Matey]

From the site:

Would a department of Educational Psychology (or something similar) not fall into the equivalent group?



I am not sure what that means. Are they getting aggregate data from the graduates of PCSAS programs? Also, outcomes don't necessarily indicate who gets accredited. I doubt they have a requirement that a program's graduates must meet certain post-graduate achievements.

I also think PCSAS isn't looking to represent all kinds of doctoral psychologists but looking to support the importance of science in training. I think the biggest complaint of APA accreditation is that it was overly inclusive, allowing for all kinds of programs to be accredited.

I find the best criticism of PCSAS is that it further splinters the field. My answer to that is perhaps APA should get out of the training/accreditation game but continue to represent post-graduates.

From the PCSAS website (Review Criteria – PCSAS):

Accreditation is limited to programs within the intellectual and educational domain of clinical psychology. This may include hybrid varieties, such as health-psychology, clinical-neuroscience, clinical-behavioral genetics, etc. However, to be acceptable the hybrid model must involve the integration of clinical psychology–i.e., a focus on psychological knowledge and methods to research and clinical application relevant to mental and behavioral health problems–with one or more complementary scientific perspectives for the purpose of gaining added leverage on specific target problems. In all cases, clinical psychology must be the core component of the model.

My read on this is "No Counseling Psychs." I'd be very happy to be wrong.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I have very little respect for PCSAS because of its intentional and blind focus on dividing the field in a manner that is entirely without purpose. There is no mistake excluding counseling.

I appreciate that they are training people to do research jobs well, but dividing the field to do is seems problematic to me.

I would say dividing the field is a strong statement. Programs can pursue both accreditations. State laws are not going to bar APA accreditation. PCSAS is a complement to APA. Now students and employers have more information. PCSAS is not looking to get rid of any programs but to highlight programs that concentrate on science and its application.

I have lots of respect to the people that started PCSAS. Most of us just moan about the problems we see in the field but a group of people decided to actually do something about it. Maybe it is slightly more exclusive than I would prefer but the idea of promoting science in the field is paramount (to me).

 

[Justanothergrad]

I would say dividing the field is a strong statement. Programs can pursue both accreditations. State laws are not going to bar APA accreditation. PCSAS is a complement to APA. Now students and employers have more information. PCSAS is not looking to get rid of any programs but to highlight programs that concentrate on science and its application.

I have lots of respect to the people that started PCSAS. Most of us just moan about the problems we see in the field but a group of people decided to actually do something about it. Maybe it is slightly more exclusive than I would prefer but the idea of promoting science in the field is paramount (to me).

I can see that perspective. My thinking is something like this - we are 'health service psychology' and for all purposes, clinical and counseling are the same thing with variations attributable to program being more important that to clear division distinction, which are largely the same (i.e., competencies identified, training model utilized, and outcomes observed [licensure, practicum, internships, employment]). By excluding a portion of that HSP profession, and a sizable portion, this is creating a divide. Yes, APA needs to do something different. Yes, it's needed to for a long time. I have plenty of gripes with them as well. This is creating a divide and that divide is a known (and easy to solve) issue that is ignored. That is problematic to me. It may be easier to exclude 25% of HSP when you are the 75% - I admit I'm also sensitive to this issue because of the historic bias that counseling 'can't' do certain things (publish, assessment, etc.). Those, like this, are not based on facts.

I appreciate the people who started it. I respect the effort. I respect the ideas associated with PCSAS even. I just don't find a lot of value PCSAS as an outcome, and thats the important distinction to me.

 

[WisNeuro]

I have lots of respect to the people that started PCSAS. Most of us just moan about the problems we see in the field but a group of people decided to actually do something about it. Maybe it is slightly more exclusive than I would prefer but the idea of promoting science in the field is paramount (to me).

Right on. Yet another issue about why it is important to get involved, or at the very least contribute to those who actually want to do the work. We're the ones fighting bills that would do things like classify OT's as MH providersd and allow them to diagnose and treat MH disorders. Not making that last one up. Join organizations, fund your state and national lobbying interests. I don't give a damn if they have one or two issues you disagree with, drop the stupid ideological purity tests and support the organizations who are the only ones doing something for you at the legislative level.

*Somewhat tangential rant over... for now.

 

[thebalmofhurtminds]

In their statement, they actually specifically mention the issue of licensure in other states.

"Further, our graduates will still be eligible for professional licensure in states that recognize PCSAS and/or do not require APA accreditation (currently California, New York, Illinois, Delaware, Missouri, and New Mexico, and under consideration in a number of other states) after meeting other state-specific requirements. "

This statement reads to me as it will be very difficult to pursue licensure in states other than these 6.

 

[WisNeuro]

In their statement, they actually specifically mention the issue of licensure in other states.

"Further, our graduates will still be eligible for professional licensure in states that recognize PCSAS and/or do not require APA accreditation (currently California, New York, Illinois, Delaware, Missouri, and New Mexico, and under consideration in a number of other states) after meeting other state-specific requirements. "

This statement reads to me as it will be very difficult to pursue licensure in states other than these 6.

They are definitely missing some states. My state does not explicitly require APA accreditation, and we are not on that list. An applicant must show that their training was at least equivalent to APA level, but it does not automatically exclude non-APA accredited programs.

 

[thebalmofhurtminds]

They are definitely missing some states. My state does not explicitly require APA accreditation, and we are not on that list. An applicant must show that their training was at least equivalent to APA level, but it does not automatically exclude non-APA accredited programs.

Yeah, I figured many are like that.

I still do think it can/may be severely handicapping. As someone going through the licensure process currently, my state is going on 3+ months on my application despite ticking all the boxes of requirements and no extraordinary circumstances. I can't imagine adding more communication and documentation with the board to this process.

 

[WisNeuro]

Oh, it will definitely make it harder, no question. Just not impossible. I'm surprised that PCSAS isn't trying to make an inroads into state statutes. We haven't heard anything on this front from them in the state legislature or with the BOP, lots from PSYPACT, but not from this.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Right on. Yet another issue about why it is important to get involved, or at the very least contribute to those who actually want to do the work. We're the ones fighting bills that would do things like classify OT's as MH providersd and allow them to diagnose and treat MH disorders. Not making that last one up. Join organizations, fund your state and national lobbying interests. I don't give a damn if they have one or two issues you disagree with, drop the stupid ideological purity tests and support the organizations who are the only ones doing something for you at the legislative level.

*Somewhat tangential rant over... for now.

In my internship (brand name AMC), OTs did way more mental health work than I believe is acceptable for their training.

 

[WisNeuro]

In my internship (brand name AMC), OTs did way more mental health work than I believe is acceptable for their training.

I would concur in my experience, now just imagine that they continued to expand that inappropriate scope of practice. Pay for those state psych memberships folks, without us, these bills get rammed through state legislatures with practically no comment or resistance.

 

[thebalmofhurtminds]

I would concur in my experience, now just imagine that they continued to expand that inappropriate scope of practice. Pay for those state psych memberships folks, without us, these bills get rammed through state legislatures with practically no comment or resistance.

Honestly, what was the justification behind even proposing this?

 

[WisNeuro]

Honestly, what was the justification behind even proposing this?

Money. This would be the first step, then there is a proposal to allow for the use of more billing codes related to the diagnosis and treatment of MH disorders. So, for everyone who bemoans encroachment by midlevels and such, put your money where your mouth is. Help us do something about it.

 

[foreverbull]

Because this is a insiders club designing a new place to hang out. I have very little respect for PCSAS because of its intentional and blind focus on dividing the field in a manner that is entirely without purpose. There is no mistake excluding counseling.


This is why I dislike the grant/pub focus in how it is done - these jobs represent a large portion of the jobs across the country for MH service. I appreciate that they are training people to do research jobs well, but dividing the field to do is seems problematic to me.

If the goal is to promote science/science-based practice, PCSAS is purposely excluding counseling psychology for no logical reason, given that most counseling psychology programs are scientist-practitioner models just like clinical and require just as much research AND have almost identical programs (with a few course variations and slightly different practica preferences between them). That leaves outdated and incorrect foundational stereotypes as the leading reason to purposely use exclusive language to keep counseling psychologists out.

So....yet another way to perpetuate stereotypes and ensure that counseling psychologists will be seen as “less than” in the field despite equivalent training. If PCSAS wants people to take it seriously, they shouldn’t start out excluding a scientist-practitioner branch right away. For those who support PCSAS, I’m guessing you have nothing to lose because you’re not a counseling psychologist, right?

I’m just confused as to why we think this is a step in the right direction if from the get-go, it sets up an exclusive club that ignores a subspecialty that is also scientist-practitioner.

 

[Ollie123]

I agree with some of the criticisms raised above. I also do not like exclusion of counseling and it just seems...weird. PCSAS was not formed because of concerns about top-notch university counseling programs. I hope that gets recognized as a misstep and corrected at some point. It isn't right, but I do think its a step in the right direction anyways because its doing <something>. And yeah, the fact that I'm not a counseling psychologist probably does have a lot to do with that and I get why many those who are would find this off-putting.

That said - its worth noting it wasn't based on scientist-practitioner model programs, it was based on the clinical science model programs (hence the name). Last I looked (which was admittedly a couple year's ago) either all or the vast majority of programs were clinical science and not scientist-practitioner models. These do differ in certain ways, albeit I think there are plenty of scientist-practitioner programs that are functionally equivalent to clinical science programs. The differences there are MUCH smaller than between either and the practitioner-scholar programs.

I think its an effort to redefine what psychologists <are> to some degree and I think it does have potential to do so. And personally, I'm fine with ceding some ground to mid-levels if it allows us to refocus our efforts and keep us from being in the same bucket as Dr. Basically-A-Caseworker who also has a small PP doing moonbeam therapy. Where that line should be drawn is of course up for debate.

I also think part of the concern is that APA's science advocacy <sucks>. We piss and moan about its failure to defend its turf when it comes to practice, but it is eons ahead of what they are doing for clinical scientists. Compare to SFN, AAAS or something similar and the differences are staggering. Its fine if they want to be more of a trade guild, but I also think it could make good sense to splinter if it moves in that direction. I do still have a practice, but I'd stand to benefit far more from increased NIH budgets, national D&I efforts for EBPs and trumpeting the value of psychometrics and quantitative psychology to health system administration than I do from increased reimbursement. Which doesn't mean I'm not advocating for the latter too (and spending money supporting it), but APA does near-squat on these other pieces. In part I suspect for political reasons as they don't want to upset their voodoo-therapy contingency. After years of fighting, folks said screw it and left to do it themselves. They aren't doing it perfectly, but they seem to be trying. Which is more than I have ever felt about APA.

 

[Peacemaker36]

I don't get it. Who is the target audience for the PCSAS credential? All of the schools that are members already know which programs they approve of, as do hiring managers for TT positions and jobs at AMCs and VAs. The pipelines are all well-established.

It's humorous to think that the public will pay any attention to this at all. Half of my patients don't know the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist.

 

[Seven_Costanza]

I don't get it. Who is the target audience for the PCSAS credential? All of the schools that are members already know which programs they approve of, as do hiring managers for TT positions and jobs at AMCs and VAs. The pipelines are all well-established.

It's humorous to think that the public will pay any attention to this at all. Half of my patients don't know the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist.

I imagine that it is less about what the public thinks and more about the kind of training Berkeley wants to provide and the kind of students they want to attract.

 

[Ollie123]

Doubt public (meaning patients) perception is a key consideration here. I do think over time it has some potential to impact hiring decisions. Particularly due to the parallel movements in the insurance/payer world (i.e. VBC...which for god knows what reason psychologists seem to be ignoring despite it being - IMO - an absolutely massive opportunity for us unlike any we have seen before). PCSAS is better positioned to take advantage of that and a movement away from fee-for-service models dovetails nicely with what PCSAS seems to be trying to do. As insurance dollars go...clinical admin in even non-researchy settings will certainly follow. I don't know if the creators of PCSAS had the forethought to see the writing on the wall about the systemic changes coming down the pipeline or just got lucky. We're certainly looking anywhere fro 5-20 years down the road though - I don't think anyone expects overnight impact.

All that said, I don't think even this is the main motivation. I really think its just about organizing in a way that they feel will allow them greater latitude to better represent their own interests than has been possible through APA despite immense effort over many decades.

 

[Peacemaker36]

I imagine that it is less about what the public thinks and more about the kind of training Berkeley wants to provide and the kind of students they want to attract.

So, in other words, PCSAS is allowing Berkeley to alter their training model? I suppose that would make sense.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

So, in other words, PCSAS is allowing Berkeley to alter their training model? I suppose that would make sense.

Not sure what you mean. I think PCSAS is allowing Berkeley (and similar programs) to maintain (not alter) their preferred model - clinical science. As an additional bonus, now Berkeley does not have to pay fees to APA, which is a de facto support of APA's policies (which are often at odds with the clinical science model).

 

[ClinicalABA]

From the UC Berkeley Clinical Science Website (emphasis added):

“The Clinical Science program at the University of California, Berkeley is committed to training clinical psychologists who are prepared to make significant contributions to basic research on mental illness and well-being; to the development, evaluation, delivery, and dissemination of new assessments and treatments to diverse populations; and to reducing the burden of mental illness and related problems in living. Increasingly, we view the evolving curricular and other demands associated with APA accreditation as inconsistent with this approach to training.”

Anybody have specifics on the highlighted text?

 

[ClinicalABA]

I can understand the sentiment given that they are a clinical science program and making a point, but if they actually go through with this they will be shooting grads in the foot.

Really? You’re legitimately concerned for these graduates of one of the best clinical scientist programs in the country? I don’t envision a situation where a hiring manager for a TT or high level clinical position is going to say, “yeah, but your program is no longer APA accredited, so nice dice with that job.” Every grad up through 2023 will come from an APA accredited program. With the exception of maybe 7-14 students who matriculated this or last academic year, anyone who graduates after that will have known going in that the program is not APA accredited. I’m guessing they are all going to be just fine.

 

[thebalmofhurtminds]

Really? You’re legitimately concerned for these graduates of one of the best clinical scientist programs in the country? I don’t envision a situation where a hiring manager for a TT or high level clinical position is going to say, “yeah, but your program is no longer APA accredited, so nice dice with that job.” Every grad up through 2023 will come from an APA accredited program. With the exception of maybe 7-14 students who matriculated this or last academic year, anyone who graduates after that will have known going in that the program is not APA accredited. I’m guessing they are all going to be just fine.

I don't know, my licensing board for example doesn't give a single f about how prestigious your university is.

 

[PsyDr]

Buncha weirdo Californians.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I don't know, my licensing board for example doesn't give a single f about how prestigious your university is.

My point is not about prestige, but about impact on career goals. A previous poster commented on how they are "shooting grads in the foot." I'm arguing that this is not the case. Their grads will be fine. They are not students who will be looking in the future to become licensed in states where APA is accreditation is required. We need not worry, they will all be ok

 

[deleted343839]

I don’t envision a situation where a hiring manager for a TT or high level clinical position is going to say, “yeah, but your program is no longer APA accredited, so nice dice with that job.”

I don't think most employers are going to care. What will happen, though, is that the department chair or service chief will want someone to start seeing patients and/or supervising other clinicians soon after hire, and if the licensing board takes issue with their program accreditation, that could be a problem. I could see this being a concern for out-of-state candidates.

They are not students who will be looking in the future to become licensed in states where APA is accreditation is required.

I'm not sure why you would make that assumption. Clinical science programs attract aspiring academics who are quite often prepared to relocate for their careers. Not all academic jobs require licensure, but many do, especially in academic medicine.

 

[Sanman]

I don't think most employers are going to care. What will happen, though, is that the department chair or service chief will want someone to start seeing patients and/or supervising other clinicians soon after hire, and if the licensing board takes issue with their program accreditation, that could be a problem. I could see this being a concern for out-of-state candidates.



I'm not sure why you would make that assumption. Clinical science programs attract aspiring academics who are quite often prepared to relocate for their careers. Not all academic jobs require licensure, but many do, especially in academic medicine.

This.

I didn't get a chance to respond lately, but MamaPhD illustrates my point. When getting licensed it is going to make the process more difficult. Further, state paperpusher doesn't care about PCSAS or the Berkeley rep. They want a simple and clear standard and this is creating more obfuscation. I am licensed in several states and it is a headache with APA everything and an open and shut CV.

While, Berkeley might not care because they want their grads in academia, it reduces the flexibility of the degree.

 

[Justanothergrad]

From the UC Berkeley Clinical Science Website (emphasis added):

“The Clinical Science program at the University of California, Berkeley is committed to training clinical psychologists who are prepared to make significant contributions to basic research on mental illness and well-being; to the development, evaluation, delivery, and dissemination of new assessments and treatments to diverse populations; and to reducing the burden of mental illness and related problems in living. Increasingly, we view the evolving curricular and other demands associated with APA accreditation as inconsistent with this approach to training.”

Anybody have specifics on the highlighted text?

I don't know what they are referencing specifically in the APA process within their program as the major gripes, but this is entirely true as a general issue. Standards for what is recorded/tracked, focused on, acceptable, required, etc changes between site visit and this change is never a decrease in complexity of the documentation supplied by the site. Its certainly a problem I've heard 3 different DCTs complain about this week over coffee.

 

[ClinicalABA]

While, Berkeley might not care because they want their grads in academia, it reduces the flexibility of the degree.

Most certainly. That's an objective conclusion- as things now stand, lack of APA accreditation results in graduates not being eligible for certain outcomes. I just don't think that will be a big deal to the grads of this program (to the extent that it's "shooting them in the foot), as those outcomes for which they will be ineligible are probably not high on the list of goals for students matriculating at a clinical-scientist program. I could be wrong.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I don't think anyone is arguing that getting licensed will be more of a pain. However, it is only that, a pain, not a shut door. Nothing (in all but maybe 2 states) will prevent anyone from getting licensed. There is no reduction in flexibility or shooting themselves in the foot.

Obviously, there are going to bumps along the way. This is the point of the thread, Berkeley is leading the charge. It is likely many more will follow soon after. But somebody has to jump in first.

 

[thebalmofhurtminds]

Not just licensure. What about jobs in the VA? Other federal government jobs? Those require APA accreditation.

 

[WisNeuro]

Not just licensure. What about jobs in the VA? Other federal government jobs? Those require APA accreditation.

PCSAS Accreditation Is Recognized by Veterans Health Administration

The single largest employer and trainer of clinical psychologists, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), has announced that students and graduates of programs accredited by the Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS) are eligible …

www.psychologicalscience.org