Beware of James Madison University

[CerebralTouch]

James Madison University is promoting itself as a Clinical & School Psy.D. program turned Ph.D. that is currently seeking accreditation. The truth is that the program was recently denied a site visit (which is a critical step toward accreditation) and was chastised for its lack of research amongst many other deficiencies. In fact, the current cohort was only told this upon arrival leaving most of them stuck and unable to go elsewhere.

The merits of a Psy.D. in the current marketplace are for you as an informed consumer to research, however, do not apply -- I repeat DO NOT -- apply to this program with any intent to obtain or hope to obtain an accreditated Ph.D. Unaccredited Ph.D.'s in this field have zero value and it's important, even when evaluating Psy.D. programs, to evaluate the proficiency and capability of faculty in the research arena. Only one faculty member is proficient in research and the program is quite disorganized in all areas other than clinical skills (albeit to a non-diverse population due to its location). JMU does not pass the test under this or most other objective criteria. If the program wasn't free for those admitted they would not have a class at all.

Most of the applicants on this board would never consider the program but in case misinformation permeates this or other threads it's important to know truth.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

While I commend it when people call out deceiving programs, from the website everything seems to be on the up and up.

First of all, they have very good APA internship placement and are fully funded.

They clearly outline the move to Ph.D and why. Furthermore, accreditation is never granted prior to one class' graduation. While it is worrisome to hear about their faculty, I do not think the program has been deceiving their students (at least no as far as the website is concerned).

 

[paramour]

From the OP's post (and previous post regarding acceptance to JMU), I suspect this individual may be a JMU student with potential "insider" information. Maybe.

 

[CerebralTouch]

Not sure what part of my post you may have glossed over that would validate your response that "everything seems on the up and up." (1) To suggest that broad language such as "seeking accreditation" properly communicates the status of a program in that process and/or makes it acceptable to promote that ambition to prospective candidates is short-sighted. (2) Accreditation may not technically confer to a student until graduation (assuming the program is granted that accreditation prior to or within the year of graduation) but that has nothing to do with the warning be given.

The warning be given is three-fold: (a) if you have the objective criteria to be competitive at accredited APA clinical psychology Ph.D. programs then do not apply to any programs who actively promote, not just on their website (but especially in person), that they will be accredited for a clinical psychology Ph.D. or have been assured offline of accreditation for a clinical psychology Ph.D. In fact, it is irresponsible of the APA to even allow programs to promote seeking accreditation as opposed to only allowing them to announce it once that accreditation has been received or rejected; (b) The deceipt is that the generic "we are currently seeking accreditation" belies the fact that they have been rejected and advised to spend some years developing their research lines but have not made that information publicly available and also the program director unabashedly promotes that they will get accreditated despite the fact that internally the faculty are actually pushing to go back to being a Psy.D. program; and (c) They have not "clearly outlined" their move to a Ph.D. in any way that makes rational sense (note they are promoting their belief that a practitioner-scientist model is worthy of a scientist-practitioner Ph.D. degree as opposed to the Psy.D. that such a model already implies) and when, in fact, the behind-the-scenes impetus is actually that the Psy.D. degree has been bastardized by degree mill granting Psy.D. institutions. In other words, they are admitting their alumni struggle post-student counseling internships to be gainfully employed in a meaningful way due to the rapidly deteriorating market for differentiated Psy.D.'s. This should be a strong signal that something is clearly amiss!

You might also take note of the fact that the past two years of students are currently enrolled in an unaccredited Ph.D. program so until JMU reinstitutes the accredited Psy.D. to these students they are in a program with zero market value. Furthermore, no one was disputing JMU's viability as a Psy.D. program as it is one of the few Psy.D. programs (albeit a mediocre one compared to Baylor, GWU, etc.) in the country that provides full tuition + a stipend, the program is fully funded and does provide tuition coverage although many, if not all, of the students assume some debt for living expenses. To suggest that the placement rate is strong is to not understand how viable Psy.D. candidates are for non-student counseling center placements. JMU's placement rates (for the 5 students a year in their cohort) at APA approved sites with student counseling center internships is good but the students do not place well, as is the problem with most Psy.D. programs, at the more competitive non-student counseling internship sites.

As for faculty research, one only needs to review the background profiles and publication resumes of existing faculty and/or note the complete lack of research labs at the program (not just on paper but physical and organized research labs) to form one's own opinion.

 

[CerebralTouch]

In the spirit of full disclosure, I turned down the JMU offer in favor of an accredited Ph.D. program at a different school but kept in touch with one of the students now in their APA internship year as well as a couple of admitted students who enrolled in the program with a different set of expectations (and I am told that one apparently even withdrew). Just reporting on behalf of the some of the students who due to the excessively intimate nature of the program do not feel comfortable communicating the "insider" realities for fear of retribution (not to mention the fact that they have no where else to go).

 

[paramour]

In the spirit of full disclosure, I turned down the JMU offer in favor of an accredited Ph.D. program at a different school but kept in touch with one of the students now in their APA internship year as well as a couple of admitted students who enrolled in the program with a different set of expectations (and I am told that one apparently even withdrew). Just reporting on behalf of the some of the students who due to the excessively intimate nature of the program do not feel comfortable communicating the "insider" realities for fear of retribution (not to mention the fact that they have no where else to go).

I wondered about this possibility as well as I didn't think your geographical info matched up. 😛 Glad you're not personally involved in this quagmire.

If your report is accurate, I feel badly for any students caught in the midst of it. Yet it serves as a wonderful example as to why one should not accept offers to non-accredited programs (despite a program "seeking" accreditation, or in the process, or whatever other lines that folks post to try to convince themselves that they're a good idea) unless they know they don't have a snowball's chance in hades elsewhere, and even then it's questionable.

<snip>

The warning be given is three-fold: (a) if you have the objective criteria to be competitive at accredited APA clinical psychology Ph.D. programs then do not apply to any programs who actively promote, not just on their website (but especially in person), that they will be accredited for a clinical psychology Ph.D. or have been assured offline of accreditation for a clinical psychology Ph.D. In fact, it is irresponsible of the APA to even allow programs to promote seeking accreditation as opposed to only allowing them to announce it once that accreditation has been received or rejected; (b) The deceipt is that the generic "we are currently seeking accreditation" belies the fact that they have been rejected and advised to spend some years developing their research lines but have not made that information publicly available and also the program director unabashedly promotes that they will get accreditated despite the fact that internally the faculty are actually pushing to go back to being a Psy.D. program; and

<snip>

I actually don't have a problem with a program stating that they're seeking accreditation (if they are, in fact, doing just this). If it doesn't go through or happen while students are there, then that's the students problem. They're the one who took that chance. I agree (which you can probably guess based on my first quoted response) that if you can gain entry into an APA-accredited program that you should not go elsewhere. Period. End of story. There needs to be a darned good reason for why you'd opt to possibly decrease your future options (and affect the potential quality of education, training, etc.--please note I said potential) by going to a non-APA program.

However, with that being said, I do have an issue with the above information in bold print. If the program has already been rejected, they've been told to go back to square one for some indefinite period of time, and the faculty are not supportive of the push for the transition (prior to students' acceptance), then the program really is acting questionably here (& then some) and I would be downright pissed as a student. That turns the accreditation process not into "well, sometime, at some point in the future..." to "yeah, we have no idea, if ever..."

Sucks. But this is why one shouldn't gamble. Hopefully the current students are eventually able to move on with their lives to something better in the end.