Capella University

[PsychGraduate]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Considering that APA acred. standards are not the pinnacle, but merely the generally accepted standard for clinical psychologists, I think it is fair to look at how many of these students come from Fielding's cohorts.

Here are their outcome data:

Receiving APA/CPA Internships
2002-2003: 9 (26%)
2003-2004: 14 (32%)
2004-2005: 8 (25%)
2005-2006: 11 (37%)
2006-2007: 18 (51%)
2007-2008: 12 (22%)
2008-2009: 8 (28%)

To put these numbers into context....these aren't the %'s from the entering cohorts, but instead these are the numbers from the number of applicants who stick around until internship. 32% (161 of 499) of all applicants since 2002 have dropped out before applying to internship.



Though very few of them are in doctoral programs for clinical psychology. The average Psy.D/Ph.D. student spends easily 50-60+ hrs per week on work directly related to their training. I spent in the 70's during midterms, finals, and around most research deadlines. This isn't meant to brag, but instead to highlight the full-time dedication needed by each student to fully participate in a program.



Attrition rates at traditional programs are quite a bit different than the programs mentioned in this thread, typically far under 10%. Fielding's attrition rate is 32%. Capella and Walden post "learning outcomes" about their graduates, but did not provide any actual attrition/completion rates.

While you may consider this "weeding out", those people probably shouldn't have been admitted in the first place. In reductionist terms....Fielding took the tuition checks of everyone attending, and nearly 1/3 of their doctoral students left before attaining a degree. I cannot comment on Walden and Capella, thought if I had to guess I'd think their rates are at least that of Fielding.



We aren't comparing to top tier universities, merely middle of the road institutions that have APA-acred and consistently place their students into APA-acred. internships. I harp on the acred. status because it is the standard, and anything less is a limitation in regard to employment. I am not saying that someone can't have a good career from a non-APA program/internship, but there are more hurdles than someone who took the more traditional route.

Whether people believe it to be a myth or fact...the perception of others matter. I try and judge each individual as I meet them, but I admittedly have more skepticism for someone coming from a non-APA acred. program and/or internship because those are the profession's standards.

As a Psy.D. I have met quite a bit of skepticism myself, so I understand how that feels, but it is important for students to understand the ramifications of less traditional routes. While SDN is a small sampling of the field, and the average user is not your "typical" psychologist with a bunch of years of experience, the views are important to consider because they will get older and into positions of influence. I consider my views pretty moderate, so while it may seem like people are harsh on here, out in the working world they can be much more dismissive.

There may be more hurdles in the process in relation to clinical psychology, but these hurdles can be overcome and are. As I said to you in an email and in another thread I respect your insights and experiences. What I do know is that things are beginning to change. I do not recommend working full time and doing a Phd or PsyD program, despite what these schools advertise.

 

[PsychGraduate]

I for one don't mind continuing this debate if you're able PsychGraduate

What would be so hard about answering one simple (yet amazingly complex) question?

Can you or anyone at all tell me what amount of unique variance the interpersonal instructional experience of traditional b&m schools is in the prediciton toward the outcome variable of therapeutic mastery?

If you can answer that at the psychometric level of a grad student we can begin a meaningful debate. If you can't then you have to ask yourself why online schools are anything but a pilot study at the moment because they wouldnt pass an IRB anywhere due to the risk level to the participants (the patients!)

if you answer this post by simply stating that online shools are face to face you will probably just lose credibility and kill the thread, which actually deprives you of a chance to support your position.

Ok...shoot

I will get into this discussion when I have proper time to type it.

 

[PsychGraduate]

How in the world is that relevant?

Top GRE score still went to an online PhD program.

 

[deleted176373]

Top GRE score still went to an online PhD program.

Unspecified "top" GRE score... if you're proud of it, state what you got! Don't be vague or shy about it. I didn't have a top GRE score, 1300 V+Q 5.5 AW. I did above average (average being the 50th percentile for the math challenged) it's easy to understand that the 80th percentile is higher than average, but well short of a "top" GRE score. I consider 95th percentile or above a top GRE score. BTW, This is the Internet, you could say you scored a 1590 on the GRE and no one could refute it... unless they know who you are.

Now why someone would go to Walden over a funded Ph.D. program is beyond me. I can't imagine giving up an exceptionally high stipend (the lowest of ANY student at my school is $30k) and free tuition to pay $100k to go to Walden or Capella. Our field is difficult enough without stacking the deck against yourself, but going to an unfunded non-APA accredited program seems like stabbing yourself repeatedly in the foot before running a marathon.

Mark

 

[deleted75966]

"Telling by the way you debate and construct your arguments even if I am not as smart as I think I am, you provide no evidence of having received superior training, education or mentoring. "

Have I stated that I did (received superior training)? This isn't a competition. I think I construct arguments reasonably well.

Let's suppose this:

You are smarter than me.
You had better undergrad GPA and GRE scores.
You had better undergrad research experience.
You had better clinical experience.
You got into 10 or so funded PhD programs.
You chose to attend an online program instead, for whatever reason. Maybe, your mom is sick and you had to work to support her medication payments, whatever.
I, despite my inferiority, managed to get into a run of the mill funded PhD program.

We both finish school. We both get APA internships and respected postdocs. You, being more brilliant, outperform me for the duration of our careers. What does this say about the quality of online schools versus brick and mortar schools? I think the answer is nothing. Because, we are an n of 2. We have plenty of data to go on with respect to the rest of the population.

Online requirements in general for writing research papers tend to be more stringent and not less than traditional University requirements.

This is kind of hanging out there without foundation, but let's say it's true (which it is clearly not), Capella has more stringent requirements and produces better research than say University of Texas at Austin. Does it matter?

Try writing a 12-20 page paper in a 5 -12 week program, while constructing a Master's thesis, and capstone with having to write shorter papers each week, with quality discussion posts, tests, networking, and face to face training in accelerated format while working close to full time.

I imagine the quality of all would suffer.

Yet people do succeed in this pursuit and go on to earn very high salaries, contracted work provide quality clinical practice.

How many? Don't we have a responsibility as a field protect our students? If the success rate (and expense) is dismal, does it matter if one or two competent grads are produced?

Online education does attract some people of lower calibar but they do not last in graduate school, and barely in undergraduate.

If they barely got by in undergrad, why did a graduate school admit them?

Traditional education attracts people who need more outside guidance and reassurance as it is less independent study than online, however, the PhD clinincal psychology is exactly equal in quality from online or distribution models as it has to be to satisfy requirements and ethics in psychology.

You say that as if those that attend real universities are special ed students, neglecting the fly by night appearance of online education. I cannot imagine even considering an online school (online education, maybe, for some things, like "I'm interested in the history of ice fishing, so I'll take this online class).

Provide evidence that your education is superior to mine.

Why?



While I do think it is clear the the standards of admittance to online schools are even worse than the various professional schools discussed ad nauseum on this board, that the attrition rates are atrocious, that the APA match rates for internship are poor, that even attaining licensure is an emmense challenge, and that the expense is ridiculous, I think the more grievous issue is what it does to perception of the field. That you can get a PhD in clinical psychology online makes us look bad. Your physician friends say that medicine can't be done online and psychology can, probably because they have no respect for psychology. There's no reason (any different than psychology) that the 1st two years of medical school couldn't be completed online. There's no reason that the clerkships couldn't be completed in a similar manner to your online program. Other than, it is not seen as a legitimate training model for professionals. The milieu of the online environment is alien to the educational models that have been used for many many years to train professionals. There are lots of variables that need to be accounted for to deal with all of the differences and make them actually equivalent (if it's even possible). That it's being marketed as "Want a doctorate? You can get one in psychology or business adminstration from home!!! Work full time? No problem. Have children? No problem. Work from your own pace and on your own schedule! Call 1-800-Scam-Now for more information!!!!!!" is a further insult to the field. These programs need to go away now.

 

[deleted75966]

Mark Twain's quote "don't let college get in the way of your education,"

Love the Mark Twain quote.

 

[Sendtrees]

You've got to admire psychdoctor for hanging in there (for years!) trying to get his/her point across. I'm willing to take the major q seriously: how do we know conventional education is superior? The fact that admission standards are lower for online programs doesn't say anything about their quality. What it says is, students who have a choice are going to rationally avoid the risk to their careers, if they possibly can. If the practicum experience is not online, which seems to be the case, I'm not inclined to dismiss psychdoctor's experience.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I definitely appreciate the discussion, as prior threads tend to fizzle out once particulars and specifics are brought into light. While I don't agree with the training model or programs offering them, I think it is a worthwhile discussion because it allows us to look at the traditional training model and see some areas of improvement.

 

[aequitasveritas]

"how do we know conventional education is superior?"

A more appropriate question is: how do we know they are not?

That needs to be answered before someone can sit for licensure from an online school.

Psychgraduate: "face to face training in accelerated format"

accelterated does not equal excellent. This is meeting for a weekend for a "class" where you put in the omnibus hours for a 3 credits and they call it a class. Again...disredard for basic research-this time in educational processs; that learning is a cultivation; not a unloading of powerpoints in an executive format, workshop "class"

 

[Sendtrees]

Honestly, I don't know much about the online format. It sounds ridiculous on the face of it, but psychdoctor doesn't. Every profession defends itself against changes. I'm not surprised online degrees are considered threatening to the field. Again, if there were no face to face clinical training, I wouldn't even bother with the conversation.

 

[PsychGraduate]

Unspecified "top" GRE score... if you're proud of it, state what you got! Don't be vague or shy about it. I didn't have a top GRE score, 1300 V+Q 5.5 AW. I did above average (average being the 50th percentile for the math challenged) it's easy to understand that the 80th percentile is higher than average, but well short of a "top" GRE score. I consider 95th percentile or above a top GRE score. BTW, This is the Internet, you could say you scored a 1590 on the GRE and no one could refute it... unless they know who you are.

Now why someone would go to Walden over a funded Ph.D. program is beyond me. I can't imagine giving up an exceptionally high stipend (the lowest of ANY student at my school is $30k) and free tuition to pay $100k to go to Walden or Capella. Our field is difficult enough without stacking the deck against yourself, but going to an unfunded non-APA accredited program seems like stabbing yourself repeatedly in the foot before running a marathon.

Mark

Geographical issues while in NY, a new marriage, a major cross country move, time to become a CA resident, desire to teach both online and in a traditional University, chance to learn and assess both environments, and to obtain more than one type of degree which increases employment potential in general.

I also did quite a bit of undergrdaute work in B&M's and I have taken several graduate courses in B&M's since obtaining my degree. I like both learning formats for different reasons. I am not bashing B&M education either.

 

[PsychGraduate]

I definitely appreciate the discussion, as prior threads tend to fizzle out once particulars and specifics are brought into light. While I don't agree with the training model or programs offering them, I think it is a worthwhile discussion because it allows us to look at the traditional training model and see some areas of improvement.

Personally I think that students do well obtaining an AS or AA degree first in a local Commumity college to save on expenses so they have more financial aid for later education unless they are independently wealthy. Then some online education can be of benefit if there are geographical limitations, or they cannot afford or do not want to live in a dorm.

I also think graduate education online is worthwhile, but given some of the stigma still involved and the need for B & M credentials on a transcript it may not be a bad idea for those very worried about being clinical psychologists chiefly or soley to go the traditional route. I did a but of both, though I graduated from an online institution ultimately, I have degrees from B&M's first and additional training and education from graduate B & M's though not degrees at this time. I did not have trouble getting licensed or teaching, but if I had gone 100% online it is very possible I would have. Once I acquired some credits in the CA University system it became easier to be respected but most of my online credits transferred well and were considered reputable by the CA APA board and training institutions. I was not denied quality internships due to having most of my degrees and credits from online institutions. What mattered to my mentors were: the interviews, my written statement of purpose and career goals, the titles of the courses I completed, and I did provide writing samples, and I did have professor recommendations from both traditional Universities and online institutions; both were viewed ad credible, but I was not taking chances either.

Perhaps this post is more telling and less biased.

 

[PsychGraduate]

Unspecified "top" GRE score... if you're proud of it, state what you got! Don't be vague or shy about it. I didn't have a top GRE score, 1300 V+Q 5.5 AW. I did above average (average being the 50th percentile for the math challenged) it's easy to understand that the 80th percentile is higher than average, but well short of a "top" GRE score. I consider 95th percentile or above a top GRE score. BTW, This is the Internet, you could say you scored a 1590 on the GRE and no one could refute it... unless they know who you are.

True we are anoymous here. My GRE score was above the 95th percntile. I took it to assess all my options. Due to severe financial issues and generous financial aid for online education and having researched various Universities first online and B & M it was the only logical choice at the time. I had to be able to eat and attend school, but the educational quality did not sufffer. What can and does happen for some at times is lower match rates due to bias. This is true. I actually did well when applying for internships, but I also was very prepared to answer all questions thoroughly and perform above and beyond most of my peers from any University. This is not to brag, I am always performed extremely well not just academically, but with learning lab tecnhique, assessment skills, and teaching myself VERY difficult to learn applications.

 

[PsychGraduate]

You've got to admire psychdoctor for hanging in there (for years!) trying to get his/her point across. I'm willing to take the major q seriously: how do we know conventional education is superior? The fact that admission standards are lower for online programs doesn't say anything about their quality. What it says is, students who have a choice are going to rationally avoid the risk to their careers, if they possibly can. If the practicum experience is not online, which seems to be the case, I'm not inclined to dismiss psychdoctor's experience.

Online education can be very rewarding and I have found it so. I also respect good B & M programs as well. I have an undergraduate background in them as well and have taken some graduate courses in them as well. I did receive my graduate degrees from online institutions, however, and I did travel 100-500 miles to get to my internships and special training and academic residencies. The good thing for me was I did not have to travel to my classes as well, move into a new area to attend school, or chase a professor during office hours. I could not afford to do so in terms of transportation or housing and I had to work, though mostly I worked for myself as a tutor and free lance editor.

 

[PsychGraduate]

"how do we know conventional education is superior?"

A more appropriate question is: how do we know they are not?

That needs to be answered before someone can sit for licensure from an online school.

Psychgraduate: "face to face training in accelerated format"

accelterated does not equal excellent. This is meeting for a weekend for a "class" where you put in the omnibus hours for a 3 credits and they call it a class. Again...disredard for basic research-this time in educational processs; that learning is a cultivation; not a unloading of powerpoints in an executive format, workshop "class"

Accelerated does not automatically translate into quality. Neither does 16 weeks of courses and mentoring translate into excellence.

 

[deleted176373]

Geographical issues while in NY, a new marriage, a major cross country move, time to become a CA resident, desire to teach both online and in a traditional University, chance to learn and assess both environments, and to obtain more than one type of degree which increases employment potential in general.

I also did quite a bit of undergrdaute work in B&M's and I have taken several graduate courses in B&M's since obtaining my degree. I like both learning formats for different reasons. I am not bashing B&M education either.

I think you touch on something important here, and that is that top students will succeed in nearly any learning environment. I don't think that you can sincerely argue for the superiority of either modality without considering both the instructor and the students very carefully in each modality.

The evidence that one modality is superior to the other is simply lacking. While it would be nice for top students who wish to pursue alternative educational opportunities without the associated stigma, there are some reasons that B&M institutions are good for quality control in the field of psychology. Like laboratories, classrooms provide additional control that simply cannot as easily be enforced in a distant learning/online learning context.

I certainly do not with to diminish your accomplishments or the education you were able to attain through a non-traditional program. What does concern me is do you represent the typical graduate of these programs or are you an anomaly? While clearly some people decide that they have sufficient reason to risk going the path less traveled despite stellar credentials, there appear to be a large number of students who do not share these attributes. What happens with them?

I believe that you are correct when you state that both modalities can be fruitful, I do not believe that you can state unequivocally that one is superior to the other. I do believe, especially in small classes, that face to face instruction provides some advantages that would be too costly or time consuming to emulate in a distance learning or online learning environment. My classes are typically 5-8 people, and as a result the signal to noise is relatively high and the discussions are lively and inclusive. I realize that this may differ from other programs, but I think that small intimate classes are the optimal way to foster useful, honest, intellectual discussions.

Mark

 

[PsychGraduate]

I think you touch on something important here, and that is that top students will succeed in nearly any learning environment. I don't think that you can sincerely argue for the superiority of either modality without considering both the instructor and the students very carefully in each modality.

The evidence that one modality is superior to the other is simply lacking. While it would be nice for top students who wish to pursue alternative educational opportunities without the associated stigma, there are some reasons that B&M institutions are good for quality control in the field of psychology. Like laboratories, classrooms provide additional control that simply cannot as easily be enforced in a distant learning/online learning context.

I certainly do not with to diminish your accomplishments or the education you were able to attain through a non-traditional program. What does concern me is do you represent the typical graduate of these programs or are you an anomaly? While clearly some people decide that they have sufficient reason to risk going the path less traveled despite stellar credentials, there appear to be a large number of students who do not share these attributes. What happens with them?

I believe that you are correct when you state that both modalities can be fruitful, I do not believe that you can state unequivocally that one is superior to the other. I do believe, especially in small classes, that face to face instruction provides some advantages that would be too costly or time consuming to emulate in a distance learning or online learning environment. My classes are typically 5-8 people, and as a result the signal to noise is relatively high and the discussions are lively and inclusive. I realize that this may differ from other programs, but I think that small intimate classes are the optimal way to foster useful, honest, intellectual discussions.

Mark

While I agree with most of what you have stated I would like to touch upon a few of these issues in the future. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

 

[PsychGraduate]

"Telling by the way you debate and construct your arguments even if I am not as smart as I think I am, you provide no evidence of having received superior training, education or mentoring. "

Have I stated that I did (received superior training)? This isn't a competition. I think I construct arguments reasonably well.

Let's suppose this:

You are smarter than me.
You had better undergrad GPA and GRE scores.
You had better undergrad research experience.
You had better clinical experience.
You got into 10 or so funded PhD programs.
You chose to attend an online program instead, for whatever reason. Maybe, your mom is sick and you had to work to support her medication payments, whatever.
I, despite my inferiority, managed to get into a run of the mill funded PhD program.

We both finish school. We both get APA internships and respected postdocs. You, being more brilliant, outperform me for the duration of our careers. What does this say about the quality of online schools versus brick and mortar schools? I think the answer is nothing. Because, we are an n of 2. We have plenty of data to go on with respect to the rest of the population.



This is kind of hanging out there without foundation, but let's say it's true (which it is clearly not), Capella has more stringent requirements and produces better research than say University of Texas at Austin. Does it matter?




I imagine the quality of all would suffer.




How many? Don't we have a responsibility as a field protect our students? If the success rate (and expense) is dismal, does it matter if one or two competent grads are produced?



If they barely got by in undergrad, why did a graduate school admit them?



You say that as if those that attend real universities are special ed students, neglecting the fly by night appearance of online education. I cannot imagine even considering an online school (online education, maybe, for some things, like "I'm interested in the history of ice fishing, so I'll take this online class).



Why?



While I do think it is clear the the standards of admittance to online schools are even worse than the various professional schools discussed ad nauseum on this board, that the attrition rates are atrocious, that the APA match rates for internship are poor, that even attaining licensure is an emmense challenge, and that the expense is ridiculous, I think the more grievous issue is what it does to perception of the field. That you can get a PhD in clinical psychology online makes us look bad. Your physician friends say that medicine can't be done online and psychology can, probably because they have no respect for psychology. There's no reason (any different than psychology) that the 1st two years of medical school couldn't be completed online. There's no reason that the clerkships couldn't be completed in a similar manner to your online program. Other than, it is not seen as a legitimate training model for professionals. The milieu of the online environment is alien to the educational models that have been used for many many years to train professionals. There are lots of variables that need to be accounted for to deal with all of the differences and make them actually equivalent (if it's even possible). That it's being marketed as "Want a doctorate? You can get one in psychology or business adminstration from home!!! Work full time? No problem. Have children? No problem. Work from your own pace and on your own schedule! Call 1-800-Scam-Now for more information!!!!!!" is a further insult to the field. These programs need to go away now.

Some students are attracted to online Uni's because they think that they will have a free ride, but they do not get one. You can get into grad school either online or traditional with so-so grades, APA accred or not. For me online education coupled with face to face training breeded excellence in my own abilities. I can also say the same for many of my fellow students and many of my own as well. Online education does not fit for everyone; as we know from Bandura's sense of self efficacy and Vygotsky's contrsuctivst theories we are individuals with different wants and needs in terms of how we learn and act proficiently in the clinical or academic setting.

For me, I am grateful to B & M's AND online institutions😀 I think that admittance standards are not a bad thing and are advisable for certain specialties, but if you are not hard working, intelligent and receive appropriate training you CANNOT graduate from a PhD program from:
Walden, Capella, Fielding, Harvard, Stanford, UC Berkeley ad infinitum.

For me I learned how to write research papers, collect data, analyze data, use stats, analyze stats, and conduct original research through online institutions. I also held myself accountable for above and beyond the minimum supervised hours; not everyone does that to be sure. Oh well, no education or training is good if each of us as individuals does not put in maximum smart, planned effort.

If more people get a chance at an education and training then that is a good thing, provided the education and training is of good quality. Not all who graduate even with a clinical PhD intends or end up in actual practice, but they may use the skills and knowledge to teach, run a private business of other sorts, or perhaps they realized they like Industrial or Organizational Psychology better👍 One standard of the APA is barring international students and analyzing some meaningless aspects too. I am glad we have the APA and I ended up getting APA accred;past all my tests and exams too🙂 Others have as well. If you have reliable transport or live close by and can afford to put in what is required then I say go with a well funded APA accred school, but in my case I went a different route and it paid off.



You do not learn everything from books, journals or mentors either... you read and learn sure and get trained and apply, but life teaches us all things that NO Uni or pro school can teach us.

 

[KillerDiller]

One standard of the APA is barring international students and analyzing some meaningless aspects too.

I'm confused. What are you referring to here?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

You can get into grad school either online or traditional with so-so grades, APA accred or not. For me online education coupled with face to face training breeded excellence in my own abilities.

I disagree with this, both in idea and in practice. I think it alludes to the, "if you work hard enough and want something bad enough, you can achieve it!!" mentality. That just isn't true, nor should it be true for graduate education. Not everyone is meant to pursue graduate education, nor should they. I feel like some organizations push this idea as a way to make money, and not as a way to support/advance the field.

You do not learn everything from books, journals or mentors either... you read and learn sure and get trained and apply, but life teaches us all things that NO Uni or pro school can teach us.

While this is somewhat true, I think pushing this idea too much is another way some organizations push their agenda. It is a way to "soften" traditional education and make alternatives seem more acceptable. Experience is fine, but it cannot take the place of traditional learning and the foundation of research behind it.

 

[PsychGraduate]

I disagree with this, both in idea and in practice. I think it alludes to the, "if you work hard enough and want something bad enough, you can achieve it!!" mentality. That just isn't true, nor should it be true for graduate education. Not everyone is meant to pursue graduate education, nor should they. I feel like some organizations push this idea as a way to make money, and not as a way to support/advance the field.

As do I. I do NOT support the entry of subpar students to go on to become clinicians, therapists, counselors, or professors. I am merely pointing out that it happens more than people realize in both learning mediums. No, not everyone is meant to pursue graduate education. I wholeheartedly agree. I have seen it with privaye insitutions and some, but not all middle of the way state schools. Not a good practice to have. In online schools this can also be an issue too, but in recent years the standards to get into Phd programs has become more stringent though more needs to be done. For a master's degree I see no problem with allowing students who had problems in undergrduate a crack at a master's degree, but if they cannot hack it or barely pass that should be all she wrote.



While this is somewhat true, I think pushing this idea too much is another way some organizations push their agenda. It is a way to "soften" traditional education and make alternatives seem more acceptable. Experience is fine, but it cannot take the place of traditional learning and the foundation of research behind it.

Yes and no; onine education and training itself is just as rigorous as traditional.

Here I must disagree a bit. Some students grow up around the very type of populations they later train to work with. They are always observing the behaviors and reactions of these populations, reading textbooks, journals, and getting in touch with experienced professionals, asking a lot of questions, and taking notes. By the time they get through undergraduate they are reading graduate and post graduate meaterial with great understanding and already have received informal and formal training from their licensed psych professors. These self motivated and exposed learners are in a higher calibar of learning than their typical cohorts AND onlined education is attracting more of these types as well. I will not and cannot argue that online education does not attarct some underachieves, but they do not get far in a rigourous online program.

 

[PsychGraduate]

I'm confused. What are you referring to here?

The APA is a wonderful and necessary organization which in recent years have become far more accepting of online education. Some of the research cited by the APA website and authors comes from Walden, Capella and Fielding graduates, so kudos to them there, but some of their standards are 100% politicaly motivated and not based upon sound science or higher standards for quality control.

 

[aequitasveritas]

You know what, this is ridiculous.

Psychgraduate you have completely missed the point again and again or you simply prefer to ignore it.

The main argument on this thread is not that there aren't motivated and potentially viable psychologists who make their way out of online schools but that as a model of training online unis are a terrible idea and do not have as much adequate quality assurance as B&M schools.

When you argue the specifics you've lost and then it seems that you knee jerk back into the "well, I'm a great student but there are some people who aren't" kind of thing. Ok, we get it...you're the shining star of online universities. That is so far from the point of the opposing posts.

I go to a professional school and I've engaged in discussion here where I openly admit the weaknesses of the pro-school set-up. Why can't you just drop the defenses and do the same? Why can't you admit that online non-APA acreds are a sham? Seriously; I'm not just being sarcastic. What's up with that?

 

[deleted75966]

. . . following up with aequitasveritas point,

It seems like you're glossing over the negatives of online education and trying to equalize the student populations with the posts about inadequate students in B&M schools (inaccurate portrayal). Here is why I'm anti-online school:

- hurts public perception including with other professionals of our field

- we already have tons of professional schools (~50% of new graduates) and online education further pushes us to fringes of academia

- data on the students that enter these schools demonstrate high attrition rates, and very low admission standards.

- the model is inconsistent with the realities of clinical psych education (the idea of marketing to people that are working full time and have families just
doesn't work with the demands of the field. . . there is no way you're getting an equal education with that)

- the cost, given the attrition rate and difficulties faced in getting internships and postdocs/future employment is exploitative. It's unethical.

- we shouldn't be experimenting with our field in this way. Let other fields do it first (e.g., medicine, law). Let is become mainstream and then adopt it. I'm very conservative with my thought process here because the consequences are huge . . . to patients, to other practitioners, to the future people that consider education in our field, to the students at these institutions. I think it's f'd up that people screw around this way (those that create these programs). They aren't doing a good thing. It's profiteering.

 

[erg923]

- hurts public perception including with other professionals of our field.

I agree with all, but this is a HUGE one in my mind. Your program is really only as good as others perceive it to be, in some ways at least. We already have rep and respect problems in medical institutions and communities. Yes, what other people think of your degree matters in the real world! Its a fact! Do you think the proliferation of this model increases our respectability or decreases it, honestly? I can not stress enough how important this is.

I think you made some comment earlier that you feel this model is becoming more accepted. I think we really must be running in different crowds and academic circles because i have not observed this. And I can tell you, my world is very representative of the 100 other scientist-practitioner training programs in this country. In other words, its very representative of mainstream clinical psychology. I'm really not sure what world you're in?

I guess i just dont understand why something like this is needed. My job is to worry about keeping the profession as high quality as I can, both for science and for future patients. I DO NOT consider it necessary for anyone to worry about how we can tailor training to all the people who have the desire for it, but don't want to quit their full time jobs. I guess i just dont understand what is so wrong with the scientist-practitioner model?

 

[PsychGraduate]

You know what, this is ridiculous.

Psychgraduate you have completely missed the point again and again or you simply prefer to ignore it.

The main argument on this thread is not that there aren't motivated and potentially viable psychologists who make their way out of online schools but that as a model of training online unis are a terrible idea and do not have as much adequate quality assurance as B&M schools.

When you argue the specifics you've lost and then it seems that you knee jerk back into the "well, I'm a great student but there are some people who aren't" kind of thing. Ok, we get it...you're the shining star of online universities. That is so far from the point of the opposing posts.

I go to a professional school and I've engaged in discussion here where I openly admit the weaknesses of the pro-school set-up. Why can't you just drop the defenses and do the same? Why can't you admit that online non-APA acreds are a sham? Seriously; I'm not just being sarcastic. What's up with that?

I have admitted the weaknesses of the online schools. APA accreds are NOT a sham, or are you suggesting the APA accredits schools way too easily?

 

[PsychGraduate]

I agree with all, but this is a HUGE one in my mind. Your program is really only as good as others perceive it to be, in some ways at least. We already have rep and respect problems in medical institutions and communities. Yes, what other people think of your degree matters in the real world! Its a fact! Do you think the proliferation of this model increases our respectability or decreases it, honestly? I can not stress enough how important this is.

I think you made some comment earlier that you feel this model is becoming more accepted. I think we really must be running in different crowds and academic circles because i have not observed this. And I can tell you, my world is very representative of the 100 other scientist-practitioner training programs in this country. In other words, its very representative of mainstream clinical psychology. I'm really not sure what world you're in?

I guess i just dont understand why something like this is needed. My job is to worry about keeping the profession as high quality as I can, both for science and for future patients. I DO NOT consider it necessary for anyone to worry about how we can tailor training to all the people who have the desire for it, but don't want to quit their full time jobs. I guess i just dont understand what is so wrong with the scientist-practitioner model?

I do not recommend one work full time when in grad school. I think, however, only those with a lot of family support, money AND the stipend can afford to go to grad school full time and not work or only work 8-12 hrs a week. The online educational system helps those who are not so economically advantaged receive a quality education. After seeing many well trained and educated grads from trad schools, who went on to get APA accred use questionable therepapeutic practices and have poor outcomes, I cannot condone the belief that B & M is the only way or even the best way to go, however, you are 100% right about perception of quality.

 

[erg923]

I have admitted the weaknesses of the online schools. APA accreds are NOT a sham, or are you suggesting the APA accredits schools way too easily?

Are you suggesting they use a high bar?.......look at Argosy and a the handful of other schools with 50% and 60% match rates. Why on earth are they accredited?

 

[erg923]

I think, however, only those with a lot of family support, money AND the stipend can afford to go to grad school full time and not work or only work 8-12 hrs a week. The online educational system helps those who are not so economically advantaged receive a quality education.

The above is just ridiculous. I (and I'm sure thouands of others over the years) entered grad school single, with family 2000 miles away who don't offer financial support. I lived on an 18k/ year stipend for a few years (until i got married). It wasn't great, but I didn't starve either. It can be done. Hundreds of individuals do it every year! Half of the posters on this board are doing it! Its about sacrifices.Thats just life.

Its a not a right to have access to a ph.d in psychology, even if you are economical disadvantaged! You have to earn it first, then make some inevitable sacrifices because of that choice. Why do online folks have this need/quest to make sure the ph.d opportunity is available to everybody?

 

[PsychGraduate]

The above is just ridiculous. I (and I'm sure thouands of others over the years) entered grad school single, with family 2000 miles away who don't offer financial support. I lived on an 18k/ year stipend for a few years (until i got married). It wasn't great, but I didn't starve either. It can be done. Hundreds of individuals do it every year! Half of the posters on this board are doing it! Its about sacrifices.Thats just life.

Its a not a right to have access to a ph.d in psychology, even if you are economical disadvantaged! You have to earn it first, then make some inevitable sacrifices because of that choice. Why do online folks have this need/quest to make sure the ph.d opportunity is available to everybody?

You misunderstand. Online PhD's are earned, are more respected than they used to be AND even the top schools on the country are offering more distance education AND blended training models; those schools with plenty of money AND top professors. I earned my PhD and it compares with anyone's here or from any institution.

 

[PsychGraduate]

The above is just ridiculous. I (and I'm sure thouands of others over the years) entered grad school single, with family 2000 miles away who don't offer financial support. I lived on an 18k/ year stipend for a few years (until i got married). It wasn't great, but I didn't starve either. It can be done. Hundreds of individuals do it every year! Half of the posters on this board are doing it! Its about sacrifices.Thats just life.

Its a not a right to have access to a ph.d in psychology, even if you are economical disadvantaged! You have to earn it first, then make some inevitable sacrifices because of that choice. Why do online folks have this need/quest to make sure the ph.d opportunity is available to everybody?

Important,but over rated.

 

[PsychGraduate]

Further general reading from educational and psychology journals on pros and cons on both undergraduate and graduate distance AND traditional education in terms of classroom instruction, GPA, actual training and so forth. Benefits and detriments:
http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi/se...o&andorexactfulltext=and&tdatedef=30+Jun+2010

http://www.igi-global.com/Bookstore/Article.aspx?TitleId=1602


Yes weaknesses and strengths🙂

 

[deleted75966]

I earned my PhD and it compares with anyone's here or from any institution.

How do you know that?

 

[deleted75966]

After seeing many well trained and educated grads from trad schools, who went on to get APA accred use questionable therepapeutic practices and have poor outcomes, I cannot condone the belief that B & M is the only way or even the best way to go.

That is a very poor argument.

 

[erg923]

Important,but over rated.

Good job totally ignoring the first paragraph of my post.

 

[PsychGraduate]

Good job totally ignoring the first paragraph of my post.

The first part your post is irrelevant. That a few can do it does not preclude the masses from needing a quality education with more open schedules. I notice you said: "before I got married." Care to pay attention to what you wrote?

 

[PsychGraduate]

How do you know that?

I work with, am friend with, tutor, and train with many people with PhD's from: middle quality APA accred schools, Ivy League Universities and other top rated training centers. I keep in touch with former licensed professors from my B & M days and online degree programs as well. I work with clients and provide solid scietific/science based clinical therapy with very good results, of course results can vary in more severe cases, but we all know the disorders with poor outcomes. It is not difficult to know this. I also attend conferences and events where I meet and many licensed psychologists from all different theoretical frameworks. When I first began my PhD program I had been accepted to quite a few, and I toured campuses time and $ permitting and I sat in on classes and spoke with faculty about the trainung they provide and the rational behind each program as well. I used observation, experience, data, statistical analysis, and interviews/meetings to assess my long term graduate school goals. I am now back to grading papers, but also I am done with this thread and threads like it. I made my key points and now the conversation has become a useless effort on all of our part.

 

[aequitasveritas]

There is not sufficient reality testing here for me to continue with the arguments. This is simply not worth it. Kudos to the objects on this thread who continue to endure.

 

[erg923]

That a few can do it does not preclude the masses from needing a quality education with more open schedules.

The masses have been doing it......for over 60 years now!

Just because some cant hack it doesnt mean we need to come up with alternative training models to accomodate them. I guess you have some sort of deep seated sympathy for these people, whereas I dont. If they cant hack it or make the sacrifices, well....sorry. I feel no need to but the reputation of the profession in jeopardy in order to accomadate anyone....

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

MOD NOTE: I think this thread has run its course. -t4c