Berkeley Takes the First Leap on Accreditation

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Huh. Who knew. Surprising that they're on top of something like that!

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Huh. Who knew. Surprising that they're on top of something like that!

Not all that surprising, the VA is all about clinical science and evidence based stuff. This is right up their alley for the psychology departments. Also, smart move by PCSAS locking that down early.
 
Not all that surprising, the VA is all about clinical science and evidence based stuff. This is right up their alley for the psychology departments. Also, smart move by PCSAS locking that down early.
Guess I should be underlining that PCSAS accreditation on my CV.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Ok folks- we have 2 separate arguments going here:

1) will lack of APA accreditation limit opitions for UC Berkeley Clinical Scientist Program Graduates

-and_

2) will lack of APA accreditation SIGNIFICANTLY (or even noticably) have a negative impact on UC Berkely Clinical Scientist Program Graduates attaining their career goals

#1 is pretty straightforward and objective- The answer is a most definite "YES." As things currently stand, APA accreditation is required for licensure in a few select states, as well as for hiring in certain setting (though it doesn't seem to an issue with VAs).

#2 is a little more nuanced. The program is currently (and has been for many decades) APA accredited, and will be through 2023. This decision will have no eligibility effects on graduates up through that point. I'll concede that it's possible that somewhere out there there could be hiring manager who would overlook an applicant because the program they graduated from has stated that they will be eschewing APA accreditation in the future. IMHO, that hypothetical hiring manager does not exist in the real world (and if they do they are a petty, misguided fool). Any students entering the program going forward should know these changes and matriculate with the knowledge that certain outcomes will be unobtainable. If they a) want these outcomes; and b) matriculate anyways, then they are SHOOTING THEMSELVES in the foot! There are a few cohorts (~7 students per cohort) who matriculated to an APA accredited program but may be graduated from a non-accredited program. Hopefully the faculty at Berkeley have taken steps to ameliorate and difficulties these students may have in the future.

Either way, I don't feel that "this will hurt their graduates" is a legitimate argument against this move by UC Berkeley.
 
My position: Clinical psychology is called clinical psychology for a reason. The philosophical training model is "clinical science", but the degree is clinical psychology and it would be somewhat silly to knowingly restrict your graduates from getting licensed in the profession that their degree is in. Even its just in 1 or 2 or 3 states...this seems like "fashion over function?"

For example, the VA will take years to adopt to this (change their standards) I'm sure, and I don't doubt some of these folks go into MIRREC positions or clinical dissemination and training positions in the VA that require a having an APA approved program to be hired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
For example, the VA will take years to adopt to this (change their standards) I'm sure, and I don't doubt some of these folks go into MIRREC positions or clinical dissemination and training positions in the VA that require a having an APA approved program to be hired.

The VA already accepts this accreditation. They did back in 2016.
 
I also think it is about time to circle back around to "announcing intent to do something different in a few years is not all that meaningful"

PCSAS has made pretty impressive headway already by getting VA recognition - I actually thought that would be a bigger challenge than state governments. I know folks involved are working with individual states to get those matters addressed. If this doesn't happen to their satisfaction in the next few years, I think it is absolutely plausible Berkeley decides to kick the can down the road another cycle.

RE: burdens/inflexibility of APA accreditation, justanothergrad pretty much said it. APA seemingly picks an "initiative of the year" out of a hat and make a stink about it that is almost never based on new research coming out, nor does it necessarily have to be addressed in ways that even match the state of the science. So programs end up having to restructure a bunch of things to accommodate the fact that gossip among training director's says this year is "diversity year" and all syllabi must have a lecture dedicated to this topic and your course titles must correctly match their vision and its totally fine if literally everyone affiliated with the program is a racist prick...as long as the syllabi are on-target. This was part of the rationale for moving towards functional outcomes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
#1 is pretty straightforward and objective- The answer is a most definite "YES." As things currently stand, APA accreditation is required for licensure in a few select states, as well as for hiring in certain setting (though it doesn't seem to an issue with VAs).
If you look at it as a dichotomous (yes/no) then you are correct. If you look at it from a dimensional perspective, the change probably has very limited negative consequences for graduates.
1) Almost all states only require equivalent training
2) The VA and APPIC are on board
3) I've already seen clinical job posting that mention PCSAS or APA and I can't imagine any non-gov't clinical job or relevant internship would be biased against PCSAS accreditation.

I also feel like I have said this numerous times in this thread and yet people keep repeating the same arguments without evidence of post-graduation limitations that the modal graduate student from Berkeley (or another clinical science program) is likely to face. Even my program, which is not PCSAS (but may soon be) would not have hurt my career. I went to an internship that would likely be one of the first in line to support PCSAS, my post doc was similar, and my TT positions wouldn't care. My only difficulty would have been the longer licensure process. Obviously, I am simply an anecdote but I cannot fathom that any clinical science (or scientist-practitioner) program's graduates being significantly affected by the accreditation change. Even if man AMC jobs still ist APA as a requirement, I don;t believe they would not accept PCSAS as well (especially once this move is finalized and other programs follow).
 
PCSAS has made pretty impressive headway already by getting VA recognition - I actually thought that would be a bigger challenge than state governments. outcomes.
I think it was put into a bill and passed by Congress, not an easy task.
 
I just don't think that will be a big deal to the grads of this program

It may not be a big deal to the matriculating students in the program who all have their bright eyes on TT academic careers. But since not 100% will go on to those careers, it could create a hassle for some graduates. How much of a hassle, and whether it is worth holding on to APA accreditation, no one can really say. According to their publicly posted outcomes, the majority of Berkeley's clinical program graduates do become licensed. I would hope that other state licensing boards would find the PCSAS requirements to be acceptable and substantially equivalent to APA standards, but I wouldn't want to be the test case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Not just licensure. What about jobs in the VA? Other federal government jobs? Those require APA accreditation.

This is not true. VAs recognize PCSAS.

Additionally, I’m pretty familiar with the program and know that they’ve been telling potential students for years about this plan so students accepted their offers with informed consent. This has been planned since at least 2014.
 
Lots of PCSAS programs, if you look at their websites, have some kind of language indicating that they're looking to jump ship in the future. One program I spoke with said it was at least in part due to APA continuing to pile on classes without considering whether additional requirements actually lead to better outcomes (e.g., more effective clinicians). I think a lot of these programs are waiting for one program to jump first, and then they will follow. Having the VA accept PCSAS accreditation was definitely one step in that direction.

Last time I checked, I don't think California cares whether your program is APA or PCSAS accredited, hence why Berkeley is looking to jump; that and Berkeley really emphasize research over clinical work rather strongly....so another reason to jump ship. I know lots of programs are actively working to get the state they reside in to accept PCSAS accreditation. Not sure the exact number of states that accept it right now, but I reckon it is moving forward.

As a side note, a bonus for PCSAS is they got lawyers on board in the initial stages to prevent being pushed up against a wall (like APA was) to accredit substandard programs. This is clearly evident when you look at the specific programs that are currently accredited by PCSAS. In the end, I think PCSAS will be successful in breaking away from APA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Lots of PCSAS programs, if you look at their websites, have some kind of language indicating that they're looking to jump ship in the future. One program I spoke with said it was at least in part due to APA continuing to pile on classes without considering whether additional requirements actually lead to better outcomes (e.g., more effective clinicians). I think a lot of these programs are waiting for one program to jump first, and then they will follow. Having the VA accept PCSAS accreditation was definitely one step in that direction.
as a minor note, APA does not require classes (at all technically). It's just the most common way programs choose to demonstrate competence in a given domain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Something that I believe is worth considering: does ABPP view PCSAS as comparable to APA accreditation in terms of training standards for certification within any of the boards?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Something that I believe is worth considering: does ABPP view PCSAS as comparable to APA accreditation in terms of training standards for certification within any of the boards?

ABPP doesn't specifically list PCSAS on their website, but they do state the following:

3. Persons who obtained their doctoral degrees in 2018 or later from an institution in the United States or Canada must have been awarded their doctoral degree from a doctoral program that was accredited by the American Psychological Association, the Canadian Psychological Association, or an accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education at the time of their graduation.

I'm admittedly very un-informed RE: PCSAS, but I would have to guess they're recognized by the US DoE.

ABPP also allows for folks who've been granted ASPPB's CPQ designation.

However, with ABPP being relatively practice-oriented (e.g., by requiring practice samples), I'm not sure that PCSAS really cares about lobbying them for equivalency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
While I think boarding is a good move for psychology, analysis of abpp’s trends does seem to reveal a self serving pattern.

If one looks, they have a tendency to increase requirements that directly benefit their academic institutions. Internships must be apa accreditation, which was not true in the past. Post doc must flow from their member created programs, which was not true in the past. Etc.

In that framework, it would seem unlikely that abpp would accept a pcsas.
 
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?

One example of a revised seemingly reasonable APA requirement that has a snowball effect of procedural headaches and excessive time:

APA requires more extensive documentation demonstrating how you train students in each of their accreditation domains. Reasonable, right?

BUT...

Anytime you claim to train students, you must document outcomes and demonstrate proper training. Again, reasonable.

BUT...

Let's say a domain is addressed in different ways throughout courses; in fact, this is pretty common. For example, a number of clinical courses integrate training on Cultural & Individual Differences & Diversity.

APA's language and increasingly strict interpretation of its criteria now means:

--Every course that includes this component must evaluate each student on this domain specifically. This means an instructor is now not just assessing you in the course but on each domain declared part of training.
--They must demonstrate how they do this. Passing the course is not enough, because you must show whether someone could pass the course while "failing" the cultural component (definitely possible).
--What's the remediation plan in the course?
--What's the remediation plan within the program?
--How are those remediation plans developed and evaluated?
--What does the program do if they don't have documented assessment of that domain for that course?

It goes on and on. Keep in mind above, we're only talking about one course and one domain... and if ONE professor doesn't document and formally assess that domain in their class, you're no longer in compliance and risk your accreditation. Early outcomes on APA accreditation decisions post-revised requirements suggest little room for error (had a sharp rise in programs put on probation for not being in compliance with a regulation).

Now imagine all the hours a program can spend developing these plans, documenting them, executing them, adhering to them, etc. for each course and then doing the same for how these get weighted in the total program evaluation. Now multiply that by all the other issues you need documentation for.
 
Last edited:
Add another one: Stony Brook also announces intention of letting their APA accreditation lapse.


They're APA accredited until 2028, so this is so far away that it won't affect current students.

I know UCLA was seriously considering doing this as well. I’m not sure if they’ve officially decided but they’ve had their intentions posted on their website.


All of these plans have been in the works since at least 2012.
 
Last edited:
Top