Capella University

[psychwhy]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

perfektspace If you cannot attend a doctoral full time due to family commitments that's unfortunate but it doesn't mean inferior training and standards should be created to capitalize on your demographic.

This, of course, requires granting the premise that an "alternative" program's requirements are "sub-standard" and that the current training model is the only one capable of producing competent clinicians. Medicine, for generations, relied on the 100+/hr resident work week as an "essential" component of training. Know what? They discovered it wasn't so much necessary as it was familiar and it was changed.

perfektspace Ask yourself, Should I be able to "earn" a PhD (in anything) online? There is something fundamentally wrong with this equation. whether it is a clinical degree or I/O. I can't believe programs like this are legal.

Actually, I'd prefer to ask if you actually know anything about online programs to prompt a statement like this? It never ceases to amaze me how people can use the exact same "fact" to support and refute an argument.

These programs whose legality you question are regionallly accredited, meaning they were reviewed by the legally appointed experts in the field and found to meet the minimum requirements for quality. But then, the counterargument invariably is that regional accreditation is meaningless, except that is precisely what conventional programs hang their hats on to demonstrate their legitimacy as well!

Can't have it both ways.

perfektspace Maybe I should just buy my degree instead of working my ass of for 6 or 7 years. For all the **** you have to go through to get into a good doctoral program it is very frustrating to see this type of crap.

This alternative/online program = diploma mill assertion is just plain insulting. Not only accrediting boards, but licensing boards as well, have reviewed these programs and accepted their graduates as having received equivalent training to conventional programs.

How again do you claim that your judgment -- with very little actual investigation of these programs, I'll bet -- is more informed than several accreditation site visitors and licensing board members? How is it that all of these other established -- and largely conventionally trained -- professionals have been snowed, but you alone possess the keen insight to declare these programs inferior and unacceptable?

perfektspace A PhD program in any psychological field, particularly clinical, should not be created for the sake of convenience.

Of course not, graduate school should be made artificially more unpleasant and irrationally difficult. The work should be legitmately challenging and earning an advanced degree should be naturally difficult. But in all of these criticisms I have seen posted of alternative programs, the critics by and large presume to know about the nature of these programs with little direct experience.

During my dissertation defense, my visiting scholar -- a nationally renowned expert in her field -- commented to the University members (all conventionally trained, by the way) of my committee that she appreciated that my defense was more of a collegial discussion rather than a adversarial Inquisition. No one let me "slide" -- there were tough questions and spirited debate. But there also wasn't a sense of animosity that seems to permeate conventional program defenses.

At least one "outsider" seemed to appreciate a change instituted by a "lesser" program.

 

[deleted75966]

Look at all of the professional schools that have been accredited. Their judgment or the rules are obviously severely flawed.

 

[psychwhy]

Jon Snow Look at all of the professional schools that have been accredited. Their judgment or the rules are obviously severely flawed.

Apparently your composition fallacy knows no bounds Jon.

I trust, rather than just sharing your bombast with us here, you have shared your utter disregard for these programs and the people who approved them, with the actual people who did the approving!

 

[deleted75966]

There's an idea! I don't know them, though. I think economic viability should probably be part of the criteria. In fact, I know APA examines financial aid and debt patterns. They should use that data in a meaningful way. Class size/ratio should be part of the criteria. Quality of students/consistency of entrace reqs with traditional programs should be part of the criteria. Use of theories that have empirical support or are testable, etc. . . relative to faculty composition and practica guidance should be a part of the criteria. APA approved internship match rates should be part of the criteria. Program perception by field leaders should be part of the criteria. Direct affiliation with other quality academic programs should be part of the criteria (this would eliminate Argosy, Alliant, Capella, Fielding, etc. . .. right off the bat).

 

[psychwhy]

Jon Snow There's an idea! I don't know them, though.

Of course not, doing so would actually indicate a proactive involvement with the profession, not the reactive knee-jerking seen here.

Jon Snow I think economic viability should probably be part of the criteria. In fact, I know APA examines financial aid and debt patterns. They should use that data in a meaningful way.

Economical viability? Sorry, wouldn't that put for-profits capitalistically ahead of the NFPs?

Jon Snow Class size/ratio should be part of the criteria.

Already is, but again, you'd know that if you actually had done any background research on accreditation requirements!

Jon Snow Quality of students/consistency of entrace reqs with traditional programs should be part of the criteria.

Of course, if you want to cling to the illogical perception that only someone with a 4.0 GPA, 1600 GREs, and experience in as a assistant junior student data compiler in Dr. Famous' lab can be a competent psychologist.

Jon Snow Use of theories that have empirical support or are testable, etc. . . relative to faculty composition and practica guidance should be a part of the criteria.

Again, already in place in current accreditation process ... look 'em up!

Jon Snow APA approved internship match rates should be part of the criteria.

Oh sure, when there aren't enough internships to begin with and APA-accredited program students are unable to secure APA-approved internships. Do you really know anything about professional training in psychology?

Jon Snow Program perception by field leaders should be part of the criteria.

Nice backdoor discrimination attempt there. New programs would only be permitted if the old guard approved of them? What happened to using empirical analyses? You want "testimonials" from existing programs? We already have an accreditation process!

Jon Snow Direct affiliation with other quality academic programs should be part of the criteria (this would eliminate Argosy, Alliant, Capella, Fielding, etc. . .. right off the bat).

Huh? New programs would have to be "sponsored" by an existing program? Are there many collaborative programs between Harvard and Yale? MIT and Cal Tech? Penn State and Carnegie Mellon? Guess most of the established programs would be disqualified too!

Jon, we'll have a party when the moment arrives when you admit that based on a couple of bad experiences with professional programs you have unilaterally declared ALL alternative programs inferior to the conventional program you apparently graduated from (which you assiduously refuse to name!)

Could it be perhaps that you are a "dissatisfied customer" who flunked out of a professional PsyD program?

 

[deleted75966]

Of course not, doing so would actually indicate a proactive involvement with the profession, not the reactive knee-jerking seen here.

Maybe later. . . 😉

Economical viability? Sorry, wouldn't that put for-profits capitalistically ahead of the NFPs?

No. Though I don't have the numbers, I would imagine that the NFPs generate more cash than the FPs. Not that it matters, as my point was econonmic viability for the student not the training program.

Of course, if you want to cling to the illogical perception that only someone with a 4.0 GPA, 1600 GREs, and experience in as a assistant junior student data compiler in Dr. Famous' lab can be a competent psychologist.

Yes, let's continue to call the idea that superior intellect yields superior product in a presumably academic/science based field. . . illogical.

Oh sure, when there aren't enough internships to begin with and APA-accredited program students are unable to secure APA-approved internships. Do you really know anything about professional training in psychology?

If the professional schools didn't exist, there would be plenty of APA-approved sites. Trimming a few would help the situation, don't you think? If we just killed Alliant and Argosy, it would solve that problem.

Nice backdoor discrimination attempt there. New programs would only be permitted if the old guard approved of them? What happened to using empirical analyses? You want "testimonials" from existing programs? We already have an accreditation process!

Yes, the old guard has a responsibility to the field to enforce standards. I've given several empirical crtieria (e.g., if your program requires students to take out say 40K in loans or more to cover tuition, you're done).

Huh? New programs would have to be "sponsored" by an existing program? Are there many collaborative programs between Harvard and Yale? MIT and Cal Tech? Penn State and Carnegie Mellon? Guess most of the established programs would be disqualified too!

No, meaning the university needs to be established. No standalones. No, we offer programs in business management, human resources, and typing. A real freakin' university.

Jon, we'll have a party when the moment arrives when you admit that based on a couple of bad experiences with professional programs you have unilaterally declared ALL alternative programs inferior to the conventional program you apparently graduated from (which you assiduously refuse to name!)

I refuse to name it for reasons of anonymity, though no one has asked. I don't like giving out too much personal information on a public forum. It's not usually wise. But no, I am not going to admit that a couple of bad experiences with professional programs have resulted in a unilateral condemnation from me because that isn't accurate.

Could it be perhaps that you are a "dissatisfied customer" who flunked out of a professional PsyD program?

Heh, do people really flunk out of PsyD programs? I didn't think that was possible. I mean, I know a few who have been removed because of jail sentences and what have you, but flunked out? No. I do approve of your "customer" label for psyd consumers though. Very appropriate.

 

[perfektspace]

Thank you for answering my post point by point. I would return the favor but I just don't feel like it.

I stand by the overarching idea that offering a PhD in any psychological field from an online professional school is a bad idea. I'm sure as with other free standing professional schools the top students in these programs are on par with those receiving a more traditional education. The problem is the other 30-50 (or more) people that have no business being there and would never make it with more rigorous admission standards, coursework etc. The few good students don't justify the legion of duds that follow.

Let's not forget this is an internet forum based on opinion, nothing more. I wouldn't get too worked up. To me the situation is obvious enough. The general consensus seems to have many agreeing that these types of programs do far more bad than good for the field. We wouldn't stand for doctors who had been trained online why should a psychologist be any different?

 

[psychwhy]

perfektspace Let's not forget this is an internet forum based on opinion, nothing more.

Of course, let's ignore the fact that this an internet discussion forum supposedly populated by people with advanced education (or at least an interest in such) and the "debate" is often no better than listening to junior high school kids gossiping!

Let's also ignore that it is also intended for people who are considering pursuing advanced study in the field of psychology. By all means, let's show these people that psychologists are petty, mean-spirited, and cannot abide by the very scientific method they claim to embrace.

perfektspace I wouldn't get too worked up.

Of course not, you are not (I assume) a person who is having their life's work dismissed by people who have precious little knowledge (or appreciation) of what you have accomplished. Why shouldn't I get worked up when people equate the doctorate I worked hard for six years to earn wih a diploma mill certificate someone sent in a check and got back express mail?

perfektspace To me the situation is obvious enough. The general consensus seems to have many agreeing that these types of programs do far more bad than good for the field.

It is just this sort of confirmation bias that some of us have been diligently trying to dismantle.

"The situation is obvious enough"? There's some irrefutable innuendo!

There are probably two dozen regular posters on this forum and of those, perhaps half a dozen who post with regular repetition of their discontent. This is your idea of a "general consensus"? A consensus worthy of basing personal and professional decisions upon?

perfektspace We wouldn't stand for doctors who had been trained online why should a psychologist be any different?

This statement is so ridiculous on its face it is embarassing that educated people repeat it.

Other people I wouldn't want trained online:
Auto mechanic
Barber/Stylist
Biomedical researcher
Chef

Why? Because their profession requires a significant amount of hands-on training that the online format simply cannot replicate.

A egocentered physician once told a psychologist that the psychologist was the real "doctor" because a physician is really a technician, schooled in the nuts-and-bolts of biomedical repair.

For those railing for psychologists to be only PhD trained, the degree is a doctor of PHILOSOPHY an area of academic endeavor which relies principally on cognitive processes, not hands-on manipulations.

Yes, being a psychologist does require some skill sets which involve face-to-face interaction but certainly not to the extent of repetitive practice or specialized equipment that performing surgery or laboratory analysis. All the online programs incorporate face-to-face work.

There are legitimate comparisons to be made between the conventional, professional, and online training forums. Let's not muddy the water by foisting utterly inappropriate comparisons into the discussion.

 

[50960]

Relax folks. As MOD here and a licensed psychologist I can say that graduates from quality distance learning programs are as well educated as the traditional PhD's; sometimes even better. It takes alot more skill, dedication and determination to get a PhD/PsyD from a distance learning program than a program that force feeds you 80% useless info, and only expects you to regurgitate it as taught. My experience is that grad from such programs are more independent in their thinking, more analytical, and far less APA party-line dogmatic; it takes years to rid one of this crap. A good doctor is made in the residency/postdoc, not in ivory towers!

 

[psychwhy]

Jon Snow No. Though I don't have the numbers, I would imagine that the NFPs generate more cash than the FPs.

What sense does this make? Especially given your repetive claims that the FPs are just in it for the money?

Jon Snow Not that it matters, as my point was econonmic viability for the student not the training program.

Well, this would be less of an issue if you old guarders would get off your duffs complaining about the nature of programs and focus on the lack of professional respect for the profession! As has been pointed out on several other threads, we seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time bickering amongst oursevles rather than forwarding the prestige of the profession.

You, yourself, have said several times that doctoral training is simply unnecessary to be a therapist. So what should pschologists do? Be the assessment specialists, nothing more? How does that ensure a PhD graduate's economic viability, however the degree was earned?

Jon Snow Yes, let's continue to call the idea that superior intellect yields superior product in a presumably academic/science based field. . . illogical.

Well, I do believe George W. Bush graduated from a "top notch" program.

And, once again, you ignored what was said to perpetuate your false argument.

Show me any data that indicates that only someone with a 4.0 GPA and 800 GREs is able to be a competent psychologist.
While your at it, psychologist-man, could you point out the undisputed definition of intellegence and name assessment instrument(s) that have unequivocally been shown to quantify that construct known as "intelligence."

Jon Snow If the professional schools didn't exist, there would be plenty of APA-approved sites. Trimming a few would help the situation, don't you think? If we just killed Alliant and Argosy, it would solve that problem.

Here is one point that has some validity. However, the internship Match system (in fact APA accreditation for internships, I believe) didn't exist before the Vail conference created professional programs, so I don't know that you can definitively say that there were enough internships before professional programs.

Jon Snow Yes, the old guard has a responsibility to the field to enforce standards.

Take your pick:

1. They are the ones on accreditation/licensing boards that have determined equivalence of online/professional programs
2. They were the ones to create the alternative programs in the first place

Seems your "old guard" is not the same one as much of the rest of the profession.

Jon Snow I've given several empirical crtieria (e.g., if your program requires students to take out say 40K in loans or more to cover tuition, you're done).

Oh, c'mon Jon, you know this has nothing to do with being an empirical measure. It is your shorthand to indicate for-profit, professional programs.

Jon Snow No, meaning the university needs to be established. No standalones. No, we offer programs in business management, human resources, and typing. A real freakin' university.

Oh, right, your "Med school/law school" rule of university credibility.

Why aren't you blasting the University of South Dakota for even having medical and law schools along with an APA-accredited clinical PhD? The entire state has a population less that of Boston. How can they have the sort of stellar quality you claim is required when they don't even have the population to truly support such offerings?

What about the Universities of Alaska. New Hampshire and Rhode Island all of which have clinical PhD programs and none of which has a law or medical school? (Though URI does boast having 50 PhD students!)

Why aren't you calling for the immediate dismantling of these "fringe" programs?

Jon Snow I refuse to name it for reasons of anonymity, though no one has asked. I don't like giving out too much personal information on a public forum. It's not usually wise.

Uh, especially if your post-graduate behavior might reflect poorly on its stellar reputation?

 

[psychwhy]

psisci... graduates from quality distance learning programs are as well educated as the traditional PhD's; sometimes even better. It takes alot more skill, dedication and determination to get a PhD/PsyD from a distance learning program than a program that force feeds you 80% useless info, and only expects you to regurgitate it as taught. My experience is that grad from such programs are more independent in their thinking, more analytical, and far less APA party-line dogmatic; it takes years to rid one of this crap. A good doctor is made in the residency/postdoc, not in ivory towers!

Thank you, psisci, this is the only message I've ever tried to convey.

But, as I explained to an intern colleague who reads these boards and asked me point blank why I waste my time challenging the Jon Snows of the world, that brand of regurgitated prejudice does a disservice to the profession, our clients, and insults every person who worked hard to earn a degree whose content just happened to be delivered in a different format than "the Snow PhD."

I have had the depressing experience of being with "leaders in the field" who reiterated Snow's sentiment, telling me to my face (after months of working collegially on professional advocacy tasks) they wouldn't hire me as a psychologist because of my program being online.

It may be sad, but I know I will never change Snow's mind. However, as I have said in other posts, this forum is supposed to be primarily for pre-graduate school and graduate students. It is bad enough to endure the dismissiveness of the "old guard", it would be irresponsible of me to let that stand unchallenged and potentially pollute the "new guard" as well.

Thanks for adding your perspective.

 

[deleted75966]

What sense does this make? Especially given your repetive claims that the FPs are just in it for the money?

Research dollars, amongst other things, support NFPS. FPs are driven mostly by tuition.

Well, this would be less of an issue if you old guarders would get off your duffs complaining about the nature of programs and focus on the lack of professional respect for the profession! As has been pointed out on several other threads, we seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time bickering amongst oursevles rather than forwarding the prestige of the profession.

Why? Because the profession would yield more money? Don't bet on it. There is a lot of downward pressure on healthcare. Just wait until the handout supporters of the world ram socialized medicine down our throats. We need to police our own to ensure quality. In my opinion, the "alternative" formats are not cutting it.

You, yourself, have said several times that doctoral training is simply unnecessary to be a therapist. So what should pschologists do? Be the assessment specialists, nothing more? How does that ensure a PhD graduate's economic viability, however the degree was earned?

Assessment, targeted therapies, management of structured treatment programs, empirically supported psychotherapies, etc. . .let the social workers of the world do supportive, "eclectic" therapy. They're completely untrained and it doesn't seem to matter.

Well, I do believe George W. Bush graduated from a "top notch" program.

Yes, he did. Are you suggesting that Bush is an unintelligent man? I find that highly unlikely.

Show me any data that indicates that only someone with a 4.0 GPA and 800 GREs is able to be a competent psychologist.
While your at it, psychologist-man, could you point out the undisputed definition of intellegence and name assessment instrument(s) that have unequivocally been shown to quantify that construct known as "intelligence."

Show me any data that a high school degree isn't enough to be a competent psychologist. Show me any data that an 80 IQ isn't enough to be a competent psychologist. Show me any data that the local bartender isn't a comptetent psychologist. I'd bet on the 4.0 GPA and 1600 GREs person over the 2.9 GPA and 900 GREs person, given no other information, every time.

Your unequivocal definition of intelligence is a straw man argument. Do you really think GPA and GRE scores, along with quality of undergrad, don't correlate with intelligence? Do you believe lesser admission requirements, lower average GPAs and GREs, and generally lesser performance on every objective measure for professional school students compared with traditional programs suggests equal ability? You do know that IQ, as currently assessed in our field, predicts quite nicely with academic performance?

I don't know that you can definitively say that there were enough internships before professional programs.

I didn't say that, but professional school grads make up an ever increasing percentage of new grads every year. This is a long trend.

Seems your "old guard" is not the same one as much of the rest of the profession.

I've never called myself "old guard," that's your term.

Oh, right, your "Med school/law school" rule of university credibility.

Why aren't you blasting the University of South Dakota for even having medical and law schools along with an APA-accredited clinical PhD? The entire state has a population less that of Boston. How can they have the sort of stellar quality you claim is required when they don't even have the population to truly support such offerings?

What about the Universities of Alaska. New Hampshire and Rhode Island all of which have clinical PhD programs and none of which has a law or medical school? (Though URI does boast having 50 PhD students!)

Why aren't you calling for the immediate dismantling of these "fringe" programs?

You are also again picking anecdotes. I don't know anything about those programs, but they would be exceptions to the rule, whereas the rule for professional schools is inadequacy with the exception being say Rutgers.

You really aren't this dense, are you? There's a huge amount of wiggle room between say UCLA with all of its resources and, I don't know, University of Central Florida with all of its resources, before you really drop the bottom out and proceed to standalone programs and businesses that offer/advertise almost entirely to older high school grads or even non grads a limited number of technical programs and psychology.

you know this has nothing to do with being an empirical measure.

Debt isn't an empirical measure? Seriously? Can you think of some additional reasons why one might consider this in accreditation? I can think of a few beyond a vendetta against professional schools.

It may be sad, but I know I will never change Snow's mind. However, as I have said in other posts, this forum is supposed to be primarily for pre-graduate school and graduate students. It is bad enough to endure the dismissiveness of the "old guard", it would be irresponsible of me to let that stand unchallenged and potentially pollute the "new guard" as well.

The "new guard" would do well to pay attention. Don't go into extreme debt to get a doctorate in psychology (e.g., the average psyd debt is about 70K; that would qualify as extreme). Professional schools and other alternative programs are not as respected as true academic programs. Professional schools churn out larger and larger numbers of psychologists every year, flooding the internship match system, postdoc availabilities, and increase supply in the marketplace, etc. . .

I have had the depressing experience of being with "leaders in the field" who reiterated Snow's sentiment, telling me to my face (after months of working collegially on professional advocacy tasks) they wouldn't hire me as a psychologist because of my program being online.

I rarely discuss these issues in the "real world," but I've heard and read the essentials of my argument repeated by almost every PhD educated at real universities who has voiced an opinion. I believe is it the most common viewpoint and I think it is quite accurate. But don't worry, since the businesses are producing greater and greater percentages of new grads every year, we'll eventually be drowned out and the DeVry's of the world will own clinical psychology for better or for worse. Honestly, there's really no reason to get bent out of shape about what I say. My side has already lost. That will become very very clear within the next decade or so.

 

[perfektspace]

Perfektspace Statement: "We wouldn't stand for doctors who had been trained online why should a psychologist be any different?"

PsychWhy Statement: "This statement is so ridiculous on its face it is embarassing that educated people repeat it."

Why is it so embarrassing? Do you consider the treatment of mental health to be somehow less serious/important than physical health? Should standards of admissions not be in the same ballpark between programs (Professional/Alternative vs. univ. based) given the responsibility of diagnosing and treating serious mental illness?

Don't assume I am unaware of the differences between different types of programs (i.e. professional vs. university based). I know there are some great professional programs and many sub-par ones, in regards to admissions criteria, and even in those sub-par programs excellent students are produced. Maybe your one of them, maybe your not. I really don't care. My qualm is not with you (although I am sure you don't see it that way) but with the system.

You said that my argument "requires granting the premise that an "alternative" program's requirements are sub-standard". Well guess what? They are. Its no big secret. Just take a look at the disclosure data of professional schools in "The Insiders Guide". Your telling me the students who got in on weak grades and GRE's magically turned into great scholar's? Crap in = crap out.

 

[psychwhy]

Perfektspace Statement: "We wouldn't stand for doctors who had been trained online why should a psychologist be any different?"

PsychWhy Statement: "This statement is so ridiculous on its face it is embarassing that educated people repeat it."

Why is it so embarrassing? Do you consider the treatment of mental health to be somehow less serious/important than physical health? Should standards of admissions not be in the same ballpark between programs (Professional/Alternative vs. univ. based) given the responsibility of diagnosing and treating serious mental illness?

Talk about a red herring.

As one who externed and interned in forensic settings and has 10 years of mental health experience before re-entering graduate school, I have been working to improve the parity of mental health treatment for years.

The ridiculousness of your statement is based in the presumption that medical and psychological training are based on the same model and address the same skills sets.

To have you then turn that around and presume to portray me as a "mental health hater" is insulting and disingenuous.

Perfektspace Don't assume I am unaware of the differences between different types of programs (i.e. professional vs. university based). I know there are some great professional programs and many sub-par ones, in regards to admissions criteria, and even in those sub-par programs excellent students are produced.

I can only respond to what you have said. And the tone and content of your statements are suggestive of one who has dismissed the alternative programs based upon propaganda and presumtion not facts or experience.

Perfektspace Maybe your one of them, maybe your not. I really don't care. My qualm is not with you (although I am sure you don't see it that way) but with the system.

Again, why do you oversimplify the intent of your actions? You (and others) dismiss the alternative programs as, at best, sub-standard, at worst, equivalent to diploma mills.

Why, as a graduate of an alternative program, shouldn't I take that personally? You have deemed my work meaningless and insinuated that my character is one of a person who would seek a worthless credential to essentially perpetrate a fraud on the mentally ill.

Perfektspace You said that my argument "requires granting the premise that an "alternative" program's requirements are sub-standard". Well guess what? They are. Its no big secret. Just take a look at the disclosure data of professional schools in "The Insiders Guide". Your telling me the students who got in on weak grades and GRE's magically turned into great scholar's? Crap in = crap out.

This would a more legitimate argument if you based it on something other than a consumer guide. What's next basing professor pay scales on "RateMyProfessor.com" listings?

Yes, talking to students in a program is a useful means of getting a flavor of a program, but it is hardly empircial data about admission standards or outcomes.

And one last for Jon:

Jon Snow You really aren't this dense, are you? There's a huge amount of wiggle room between say UCLA with all of its resources and, I don't know, University of Central Florida with all of its resources, before you really drop the bottom out and proceed to standalone programs and businesses that offer/advertise almost entirely to older high school grads or even non grads a limited number of technical programs and psychology.

No, Jon, no density involved. It's called refuting your argument that a "real" university requires a medical and a law school. Yes, I realize you know probably know nothing about those programs. I would say the same is true about Capella.

You criticized Capella because it is comprised by Schools of Psychology, Technology, Human Services, Education, and Undergraduate Studies.
(Oh, and by the way, a Master's degree, not a high school diploma is required for admission to the doctoral programs.) I was just pointing out that there are some state universities that do not meet your "real" university criteria.

The bottom line in this entire discussion is that the critics' playbook seems to overflow with generalizations and misdirections. There is tremendous variety in all academic programs, regardless of their format. Yet, critics ignore the differences in conventional programs and summarily declare all alternative programs as sub-standard.

Is going into debt for a psychology doctorate a bad idea? Very possibly, given the salary data that has been widely discussed. However, doing so doesn't mean the psychologist on the other end is a lesser clinician.

Do grades and test scores correlate with intelligence? In many contexts, yes they do. But my point has always been, can only people with perfect grades and test scores be competent psychologists (or physicians, or dentists, or pharmacists for that matter)? Some luminary psychologists got Cs in intro psych. Should they have been barred from the profession because they lacked a 4.0 average?

 

[deleted75966]

Btw, Psychwhy. This is truly not personal. As I've said before, I don't know you. I have also never made the argument that good, competent clinicians and researchers do or cannot come from professional school programs. What I've said is the standards are not up to par so there will be a higher % of less competent clinicians, the prevalence of such programs makes psychology appear bush league and on the fringe of academics/science/and professional attainment, and the programs do a disservice to students financially. That's pretty much my argument broken down and I think it is a reasonable position. It's not an "old guard" trashing people doing things differently than me issue. . .

 

[deleted75966]

It's called refuting your argument that a "real" university requires a medical and a law school.

I don't recall saying that a clin psych program had to be associated with universities with both medical and legal programs. I did state that psychology should be housed in "real" universities. By that I mean that the preponderance of psychology grads should come from top tier, mainstream universities. That's not happening right now, which puts us on the fringe, as I argued above. Now 50% of new psych grads come from professional model programs, only a few of which are at mainstream universities.

The bottom line in this entire discussion is that the critics' playbook seems to overflow with generalizations and misdirections. There is tremendous variety in all academic programs, regardless of their format. Yet, critics ignore the differences in conventional programs and summarily declare all alternative programs as sub-standard.

It's not generalizations and misdirections, it's probability statements and observations. Just because a student here or there might be good from one of these programs does not justify their existence. Bell curve. . .I'm sure the bell curves for conven vs unconven overlap, but I think the unconven bell curve is not only positively skewed, but that positive skew probably touches somewhere on the left hand side of the conven curve.

Is going into debt for a psychology doctorate a bad idea? Very possibly, given the salary data that has been widely discussed. However, doing so doesn't mean the psychologist on the other end is a lesser clinician.

No, but given the glut of psychologists and the financial realities of the field, it is hard to justify the existence of programs that require substantial debt to navigate. They are hamstringing their graduates. It's a poison pill, financial suicide.

 

[perfektspace]

This would a more legitimate argument if you based it on something other than a consumer guide. What's next basing professor pay scales on "RateMyProfessor.com" listings?

Yes, talking to students in a program is a useful means of getting a flavor of a program, but it is hardly empircial data about admission standards or outcomes.

It's called disclosure data. I would say that is legitimate. Of course many professional programs make it very hard to find. I wonder why that is?

By "flavor" do you mean admitting several weak students for every good one?

 

[PsiKo]

The program description of the bellwether Internet-based Continuing Education program of the National Academy of Neuropsychology is MUST READING for those interested in the viability and utility of online education.

I will be interested to read the comments that it generates.

 

[psychwhy]

PsiKo: The program description of the bellwether Internet-based Continuing Education program of the National Academy of Neuropsychology is MUST READING for those interested in the viability and utility of online education.

I will be interested to read the comments that it generates.

Thanks for posting this. I wasn't aware of NAN offering online CE and very well may take some of their courses.

However, Internet-based CE for professional psychology is pretty well established.

APA has its own venue: http://www.apa.org/ce/

Some private vendors:
http://www.psychceu.com/index2.asp?bid=8
http://www.naceonline.com/page_Home-Study-Courses.php
http://www.ce4less.com/CourseList.aspx

[For the record, I began investigating online graduate programs after finishing my teaching certificate with a distance class in biochemistry through Washington State University and an online French class through the State University of New York.]

 

[psycholytic]

They are state accredited ---and--------period!

 

[psycholytic]

State accredited institutions will graduate your future collegues------period!!!!!!!

 

[PsychGraduate]

Good thread! And for the record Capella is a quality institution. Online education is a great teaching modality provided that the clinical psychology student acquires face to face training and internships. This is an old thread but it was an enjoyable read.

 

[Ollie123]

Is it really necessary to keep bumping ancient threads?

I generally no longer consider the "online school" threads worth my time after...repeatedly...asking pointed questions on this forum and the master's forum about these programs and never getting answers. Instead I've just decided to start quoting my old posts until one of the online school proponents actually answers my questions. Its been a huge time-saver for me. You seem to have more persistence than most so I have some hope for you to actually answer. I believe this is around attempt #5 with just flat out quoting (not counting the dozens beforehand where I asked basically the same thing) - if you don't respond I may just ask T4C to sticky it until someone does😉

Some comments apply more or less to particular schools, but the principles are the same...

So far all anyone has managed to do when I ask is 1) Disappear, 2) Call me an elitist 3) Tell me I'm behind the times and that I have to accept this as "progress" without providing any convincing argument that it is or 4) Try to convince me that these things aren't THAT important.

So ball is in your court. I'm all for increased utilization of technology in every area possible. Only if I'm convinced it actually is progress though, and not just lowering standards to appease individuals who think its unfair that little things like "concern for client welfare" and "Professional responsibility and concern for the field as a whole and not just oneself" stop them from achieving their career goals.

What lab do these students work in? Where are they conducting their experiments? Who is providing oversight there? Where are they doing practicums and how is the school providing oversight? Are the core faculty involved in observing clinical work, and determining clinical competency? How does the school know what practica sites are providing legitimate practice and supervision if they have students scattered across the entire US, making it difficult to establish relationships with sites? If one is able to work a full-time job in addition to going to grad school, how can they possibly be learning as much? We're all bound by time, and even if I worked 100 hours a week I don't feel like I would be able to learn all that I should be learning.

 

[PsychGraduate]

Is it really necessary to keep bumping ancient threads?

I generally no longer consider the "online school" threads worth my time after...repeatedly...asking pointed questions on this forum and the master's forum about these programs and never getting answers. Instead I've just decided to start quoting my old posts until one of the online school proponents actually answers my questions. Its been a huge time-saver for me. You seem to have more persistence than most so I have some hope for you to actually answer. I believe this is around attempt #5 with just flat out quoting (not counting the dozens beforehand where I asked basically the same thing) - if you don't respond I may just ask T4C to sticky it until someone does😉

Some comments apply more or less to particular schools, but the principles are the same...

Some comments apply more or less to particular schools, but the principles are the same...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie123
So far all anyone has managed to do when I ask is 1) Disappear, 2) Call me an elitist 3) Tell me I'm behind the times and that I have to accept this as "progress" without providing any convincing argument that it is or 4) Try to convince me that these things aren't THAT important.

So ball is in your court. I'm all for increased utilization of technology in every area possible. Only if I'm convinced it actually is progress though, and not just lowering standards to appease individuals who think its unfair that little things like "concern for client welfare" and "Professional responsibility and concern for the field as a whole and not just oneself" stop them from achieving their career goals.

You as of yet have not provided any empircal evidence that the standards have been lowered at all. If you do not work very hard in online graduate school you simply will not pass. If you do not take the time to do the practica and internships you will not pass. If you cheat yourself of learning opportunities within any modality you not only cheat yourself but potential clients and the community at lareg. However, this is not not implied by simply being a part of online learning. The training is still face to face.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie123
What lab do these students work in? Where are they conducting their experiments? Who is providing oversight there? Where are they doing practicums and how is the school providing oversight? Are the core faculty involved in observing clinical work, and determining clinical competency? How does the school know what practica sites are providing legitimate practice and supervision if they have students scattered across the entire US, making it difficult to establish relationships with sites? If one is able to work a full-time job in addition to going to grad school, how can they possibly be learning as much? We're all bound by time, and even if I worked 100 hours a week I don't feel like I would be able to learn all that I should be learning.

A combination of labs with oversight by APA licensed Psychologists. The school has to approve the practica with sufficient evidence the site is in fact appropriate for the training. The reason online education can accommodate those working full time is simple: no driving to and from academic classes, ability to post and communicate anytime online and actualizing time management skills. I, personally do not recommend working full time while in graduate school, but it can be done with effective learning; this usually requires more focus and perhaps IQ. The training is still face to face. The training must be approved by licensed professors and the mentoring in the Universities that provide online education are licensed. It is easy to get over in brick and mortar education as well. Writing papers can be easily plagiarized for example and not all training supervision is of high quality even in APA accredited brick and mortar institutions. Conversely there are some issues with online education, but not greater than brick and mortar either. It is never good to overgeneralize. In my own case any training I had received outside of school had to be verified with official email addresses, phone numbers, addresses, and signed verification with official letterhead.

This answers all of your questions.

 

[deleted75966]

You as of yet have not provided any empircal evidence that the standards have been lowered at all.

Plenty of evidence has been presented of lowered standards:

entry-
- lower GRE scores
- lower incoming GPAs
- high admittance rates
- less esteemed undergrad institutions

during
- lower level faculty
- farmed out practica
- excessively expensive, causing unnecessary debt burden which impacts career choices

after
- lower EPPP scores
- less likely to get APA internship
- less likely to get paid post-doc

Need we go on?

but it can be done with effective learning; this usually requires more focus and perhaps IQ

Except that we're taking less intelligent people (as evidenced by entry characteristics), making them more isolated in their educations (on-line), and advertising that they can work full time. . . ridiculous!

Further, if you take a gander at one of the recent threads on the state of clinical psychology, you can see that the perception from other fields of our field is diminished by the presense of on-line schools. This harms the value of our field and hurts morale.

 

[JockNerd]

Ollie, I think once again you need to repost your own two quote blocks. 😉

The logic behind the "working while you're in grad school means you're smarter" argument is impenetrable to me. I mentioned before that that's as logical as saying that if I spend my time in grad school hopping on one foot I'll be smarter than my colleagues. Clearly that's not correct. In fact, I think the opposite is more likely to be the case....

 

[psich]

Ollie, I think once again you need to repost your own two quote blocks. 😉

The logic behind the "working while you're in grad school means you're smarter" argument is impenetrable to me. I mentioned before that that's as logical as saying that if I spend my time in grad school hopping on one foot I'll be smarter than my colleagues. Clearly that's not correct. In fact, I think the opposite is more likely to be the case....

IMO, doing research, practica, and classwork while working at a job means that one of these four areas is being sacrificed for sake of completion. Traditional doctoral programs discourage working while in the program for this very reason!

 

[DrGero]

I know this sounds hopelessly egotistical of me, but I went to a professional school with a sense that the standards for entry were rather low and that it would be easier to excel on a relative basis and distinguish myself there than at a university-based program (that's not the primary reason why I applied to a professional school - geographics was my primary concern at the time). And that's what I feel like I did. I ended up landing a very nice, APA-accredited internship and postdoc and now I'm gainfully employed and doing fairly well.

Anecdotally, at least as far as my school is concerned, my fellow graduates ended up largely landing fairly prestigious and well-compensated positions at the VA and elsewhere. On the other hand, I can think of at least a couple of my cohorts (I went to PGSP - AKA PAU in Palo Alto) who got their PhDs (one just recently after 10 years trying) and I have serious concerns about their competence - one I consider intellectually not fit for the profession, and the other, emotionally not fit. But they got their degrees, nonetheless (although neither is licensed, and I've been licensed and practicing for the last four years).

Do I feel like my presence, simply as a professional school graduate is hurting the profession in general? Well, honestly no. But I guess if I'm to take seriously any of the concerns raised by the Jon Snows of the world, I guess I can take on some collective guilt by virtue of the fact that my tuition dollars ended up supporting the institution granting PhDs and PsyDs to at least a couple of inferior candidates that I know of (and likely others I don't know of), thereby diluting the profession.

But what would I have done otherwise? I was discussing this with my wife - I could have ended up forgoing the prof. school route and instead blanketing the States with applications to university-based PhD programs. I also could have spent an additional year or three post-baccalaureate doing research assistanceships and bolstering my application chances to funded programs. I could have been a better college student. But instead I chose this route - it benefitted me, but it hurt the profession, maybe?

I think about the APA sometimes. Interestingly, I'm not a member (I'm a member of APS, however). I find the APA's position on professional schools somewhat curious and somewhat in stark contrast with what I understand to be the traditional stance of that other big professional guild, the AMA. From what I understand about the AMA (which may or may not be correct), they have typically done their best, historically, to limit the supply of medical school graduates in order to limit the supply of doctors out there and keep salaries high. The APA's tendency to keep accreditation standards low and allow the professional schools to proliferate seems to be the opposite strategy. What gives?

 

[Ollie123]

Ollie, I think once again you need to repost your own two quote blocks. 😉

Unfortunately, I think so too.

Some day....some day I will get real answers. Though this effort was sadly more than I have gotten in the past. it does appear that online training in psychology does a great job of preparing people for politics...

Psychgraduate:
First half - see Jon's post. Plus, the onus is on the schools to prove the training is equivalent (note: I mean overall for producing a doctoral level psychologist, not that people do equally well within a particular undergrad or grad-level class - graduate education is far more than the sum of the classes we have taken).

Second half - I'm not even sure what to say besides, seriously? You REALLY think that answers the questions? For starters, could you be a bit more specific about the labs? Beyond "several"? How often are you physically there, are they labs of Fielding faculty or are you finding labs at other universities, what your role is, etc. I'm not even going to dignify "actualizing time management skills" with a counterpoint. You seem to fall back on "licensed" as though this is what I'm asking about when I talk about quality. The fact that people are licensed says to me that the school isn't a complete scam being run out of someones basement...it says little about whether a school is "good". There are PLENTY of licensed professionals and sites that no one at my school would go within a mile of, let alone train with. This is the equivalent to saying an apartment is good because it has four walls and a ceiling. Yes, it would technically qualify as indoors but I like to set the bar a little higher for places I would legitimately consider living.

I have no idea where the rest came from. Who mentioned plagiarism? Why is it possible at brick and mortars, but not possible online? How is this even relevant to the conversation? Of course supervision isn't great everywhere - I think you'll find I generally disapprove of those schools as well. The question is how the school provides some assurance of the quality - checking licenses is step one, but where does it go from there? No one is arguing that every single brick and mortar school is perfect, but we're talking distribution curves here - even from your attempt to make it sound good looks barely defensible to me and at the VERY low end of the spectrum on quality control.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

From what I understand about the AMA (which may or may not be correct), they have typically done their best, historically, to limit the supply of medical school graduates in order to limit the supply of doctors out there and keep salaries high. The APA's tendency to keep accreditation standards low and allow the professional schools to proliferate seems to be the opposite strategy. What gives?

What gives....is that the minority of psychologists are members of APA, and generally the $ given to APA is quite low compared to other professional organizations, and is very low compared to other health professions such as medicine and nursing. There seems to be a strong corrolation to political activism and representation too...though that is a discussion for another day.

I've written on this topic in the past (a quick search may turn up a rather lengthy reply talking about their 2008 Annual Report in some depth), though I'll stick to the highlights for this discussion.

In my prior consulting career I did some work with associations, and they generally made their money in one of four ways:

-Membership Dues
-Conferences/Training/CEUs (sometimes these run into the red, but they are considered "value added" services, and promise of affordable CEU's often are what bring members in the door)
-Publishing
-Patents/Royalties

A quick glance at revenue over the past four years and you'll see that both dues and licensing/royalities are trending up, while journal subscriptions, sales, and "other" are all trending down. It is unclear what "licensing/royalities" includes, but I think it is fair to assume that acred. fees and related revenue would fall into that catagory.

While I am not an expert on the inner-workings of APA, I do know associations quite well, and membership is king. Any major hit to membership (people leaving for NAPP, APS, political differences?) is a huge problem with an association, as they are connected with a large % of overall revenue. Members go to conferences, subscribe to journals, publish through the organization, and often lobby on behalf of the organization.

Supporting more programs (to creat more potential members) is one way to increase membership, particularly since most associations struggle to re-acquire members who let their membership lapse. There are ways to regain "orphans members" (those who were once part of the family, but left), but it very much depends why they left. Two of the most common reasons given to an association are: "lack of value" and "does not represent me/my views." In the case of the APA, the former can be addressed, but the latter is much harder to change.

As an aside, losing $45+ million in investments in 2008 (with 2009 and 2010 not yet reported) is going to sting. Obviously short-term budgets and long-term financial health are evaluated differently, but it is worth noting. There is also that whole PAC (political action committee) snafu, which is going to cost quite a bit of money too. Money will have to come from somewhere, and unless APA functions far outside of the norms of other large associations....they will look towards membership to make up the difference.

 

[PsychGraduate]

Plenty of evidence has been presented of lowered standards:

entry-
- lower GRE scores
- lower incoming GPAs
- high admittance rates
- less esteemed undergrad institutions

during
- lower level faculty
- farmed out practica
- excessively expensive, causing unnecessary debt burden which impacts career choices

after
- lower EPPP scores
- less likely to get APA internship
- less likely to get paid post-doc

Need we go on?





Except that we're taking less intelligent people (as evidenced by entry characteristics), making them more isolated in their educations (on-line), and advertising that they can work full time. . . ridiculous!

Further, if you take a gander at one of the recent threads on the state of clinical psychology, you can see that the perception from other fields of our field is diminished by the presense of on-line schools. This harms the value of our field and hurts morale.

The GRE is poorly designed and not very relevant to actual academic work or potential to be a clinical psychologist. I tutor students in preparation for the GRE because they they pay well. I have successfully taught graduates from UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UCLA, and Stanford. The GRE mathematics section is not presented in preparation textbooks as it is in legitimate mathematics textbooks even brief summary textbooks are of higher quality. The questions are based upon junior high and high school topics but in a convoluted fashion. I had to familiarize myself with all of the major GRE preparation textbooks in order to be skilled in their strange format. My overall GRE score was just below a perfect score and I scored perfect in two sections. After becoming familiar with their format the GRE was exceedingly easy to ace. I get similar results with my students but the GRE is sub-par and not a good test to base admission decisions on. The GRE does not meaure general intelligence, IQ, teaching ability, or the ability to be a proficient clinical psychologist.

My incoming GPA was a 4.0. Many students I know come in with 3.5-4.0 GPA's from traditional Universities. I started out in brick and mortar, I teach both online and brick and mortar and I continue to take courses in both settings.

You have no evidence to support your claim about lower level faculty and here is my evidence to demonstrate their high quality from Walden University:

http://www.waldenu.edu/Colleges-and-Schools/College-of-Social-and-Behavioral-Sciences/18753.htm

Many are published in peer review as can be found performing a literature review.

Here is there PhD program in clinical psychology program description and requirements link:

http://www.waldenu.edu/Degree-Programs/Doctorate/18013.htm

Note on Licensure

The Clinical Psychology specialization in the Psychology Ph.D. program is designed to prepare graduates to qualify to sit for psychology licensing exams. This specialization is designed to meet the academic licensure requirements of many state psychology boards. However, Walden University's specializations in Clinical Psychology and Counseling Psychology are not accredited by the American Psychological Association (APA) and have not received designation by the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards/National Register (ASPPB/NR), which are requirements for licensure in some states. Because no graduate program can guarantee licensure upon graduation, we encourage students to consult the appropriate agency to determine specific requirements. For more information about licensure, students should visit the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards at http://www.asppb.net/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3395 and contact the appropriate licensing body. International students are encouraged to identify and contact their appropriate licensing body.

Here are the course descriptions:

http://www.waldenu.edu/Degree-Programs/Doctorate/21258.htm

Walden University is very competitively priced, in fact down right cheap for such a quality PhD program.

It does not need to be Walden; it could be Capella or if one wants to graduate from an APA acredited University they could go to Fielding. Fielding is expensive but they have great employment outcomes and decent placement rates though not as high as some bigger names in the private institution market. The distribution model is of high quality, and comparable to a far more prestigous university. There is data to support this claim too.

Faculty and students from these Universities also obtain licensure and get published in peer review.

There are more students than you think working full time while attending graduate programs in traditional Universities and those who work part time above 20 hours a week too. In a four year institution of high esteem I took on 18.5 credits and worked full time for the whole semester. I was dead tired, but I did it and kept my GPA in the top %. In the online environment there is not the issues of traveling to and from class, finding parking, chasing professors who did not always show up for office hours, and taking messy class notes, since in early undergraduate I did not have the money to purchase a laptop. In the online grdaute environment I did not have to work full time too often and I do not recommend it for grdauate students, but it can be done and sometimes necessarily so. Not everyone has well to do families who support them.

The full time working while in any graduate program is not highly advisable but it is doable without sacrifcing education and training though one must be more focused to do it and online education offers an advantage here.

Higher admittance rates do not equate to an individual finishing the PhD program. Many do not finish their PhD programs and that is a great weeding out process.

I have taken classes in both traditional and online formats as well as taught in both. I still take courses in traditional and online formats and teach in them as well. Both learning models have advantages and disadvantages, but online education from a quality instituion like the ones I mentioned are not inferior to brick and mortar educational models.

Oh as an aside Kaplan offers a superb online law degree program as well.

 

[PsychGraduate]

Unfortunately, I think so too.

Some day....some day I will get real answers. Though this effort was sadly more than I have gotten in the past. it does appear that online training in psychology does a great job of preparing people for politics...

Psychgraduate:
First half - see Jon's post. Plus, the onus is on the schools to prove the training is equivalent (note: I mean overall for producing a doctoral level psychologist, not that people do equally well within a particular undergrad or grad-level class - graduate education is far more than the sum of the classes we have taken).

Second half - I'm not even sure what to say besides, seriously? You REALLY think that answers the questions? For starters, could you be a bit more specific about the labs? Beyond "several"? How often are you physically there, are they labs of Fielding faculty or are you finding labs at other universities, what your role is, etc. I'm not even going to dignify "actualizing time management skills" with a counterpoint. You seem to fall back on "licensed" as though this is what I'm asking about when I talk about quality. The fact that people are licensed says to me that the school isn't a complete scam being run out of someones basement...it says little about whether a school is "good". There are PLENTY of licensed professionals and sites that no one at my school would go within a mile of, let alone train with. This is the equivalent to saying an apartment is good because it has four walls and a ceiling. Yes, it would technically qualify as indoors but I like to set the bar a little higher for places I would legitimately consider living.

I have no idea where the rest came from. Who mentioned plagiarism? Why is it possible at brick and mortars, but not possible online? How is this even relevant to the conversation? Of course supervision isn't great everywhere - I think you'll find I generally disapprove of those schools as well. The question is how the school provides some assurance of the quality - checking licenses is step one, but where does it go from there? No one is arguing that every single brick and mortar school is perfect, but we're talking distribution curves here - even from your attempt to make it sound good looks barely defensible to me and at the VERY low end of the spectrum on quality control.

In most cases the same labs as traditional graduate students.

Supervision at Fielding, Capella and Walden is superb.

I mentioned plaigarism as an issue. Go back and re-read the post.

In terms of clinical applicability, academic writing and academic understanding I would put my PhD in Psychology against brick and mortar👍

I take no issue with those who graduate from Harvard or Yale. These institutions are excellent for certain subject matter too.

The myth that needs to be done away with is the myth that online education and training is somehow inferior.

 

[erg923]

First, your subjective impressions of the GRE are irrelavant. The real questions are statistical in nature; Is it correlated with IQ and does it predict success in grad school? The answers are yes....and yes, somewhat, certainly not perfectly. The question I have is what method would you use in its place? What standard has a better statistical prediction model?

The myth that needs to be done away with is the myth that online education and training is somehow inferior.

From a pragmatic standpoint, whether its myth or not doesnt really matter if most in the academic world view it as FACT. Whether its true or not, most every supervisor, researcher, professor, and psychologist I have ever met feels this way. In other words, the people that do the hiring...

From a patient perspective this gets dicey as well. Would you send grandma to a doc who went to school online, or one who went to a more traditional university? While I agree that the Capella grad can certainly be as compentent as others, I dont take any chances with grandma...see what I'm getting at?

By the way, how do you think this training model appears to our physician colleagues? Do you think that perception is good for the profession, or bad?

 

[deleted75966]

"The GRE is poorly designed and not very relevant to actual academic work or potential to be a clinical psychologist."

Perhaps, but it does correlate with IQ. It is standardized, and, we, unfortunately, have few standardized measures on which to judge applicants.

My incoming GPA was a 4.0. Many students I know come in with 3.5-4.0 GPA's from traditional Universities. I started out in brick and mortar, I teach both online and brick and mortar and I continue to take courses in both settings.

That's nice. What are the average GPAs, GREs, work experience, ages, and so on of Capella students?

"You have no evidence to support your claim about lower level faculty"

I don't? Average # of publications = what. . .there are a few published studies on this (Capella and B&M professional schools are generally not represented).


and here is my evidence to demonstrate their high quality from Walden University:

http://www.waldenu.edu/Colleges-and-...nces/18753.htm

Your link doesn't work.

Walden University is very competitively priced, in fact down right cheap for such a quality PhD program.

No, it's not. Most PhD programs are free. Further, it's not accredited and therefore has limited value. Moreover, it's an online school.

Fielding is expensive but they have great employment outcomes and decent placement rates though not as high as some bigger names in the private institution market.

How can they have great employment outcomes and only decent placement rates? Further, their APA internship placement rate is abysmal.

The distribution model is of high quality, and comparable to a far more prestigous university. There is data to support this claim too.

The distribution model? What does that mean, exactly? What data are there to support the claim?

There are more students than you think working full time while attending graduate programs in traditional Universities and those who work part time above 20 hours a week too.

You don't know how many people I think work full time while attending graduate programs at real universities. And, these people are meeting the standards established for those that are not. . . the programs are not designed to accommodate people that don't have time to get a doctorate.

In a four year institution of high esteem I took on 18.5 credits and worked full time for the whole semester. I was dead tired, but I did it and kept my GPA in the top %.

Getting a bachelors degree is not the same things as getting a doctorate. Any YOU are an anecdotal case.

The full time working while in any graduate program is not highly advisable but it is doable without sacrifcing education and training though one must be more focused to do it and online education offers an advantage here.

I generally don't agree.

Higher admittance rates do not equate to an individual finishing the PhD program. Many do not finish their PhD programs and that is a great weeding out process.

. . . and this is a positive (sounds like a money grab)? That actually would be an interesting study. . . comparing the admission characteristics, APA placement rates, professional accomplishment. . . or those that actually finish the programs.

online education from a quality instituion like the ones I mentioned are not inferior to brick and mortar educational models.

. . .but they are.

 

[aequitasveritas]

I want to ask a very sincere question:

How in the hell does the instruction take place for psychotherapy in an online clinical psych degree?!

I balk at asking because I kinda don't want to hear the answer, which logically has to be....online😱👎

The art and nuance of psychotherapy cannot be accomplished merely by reading texts...it occurs in psychotherapy labs and in advanced psychotherapy classes. This should occur before anyone enters an internship or god forbid goes into the public sector.

This worries me.

 

[Ollie123]

If it is a myth, the students of these schools certainly do a great of perpetuating it on this board. Vague, wishy-washy, avoidant answers might work great for politics but it doesn't work as well with scientists.

 

[PsychGraduate]

First, your subjective impressions of the GRE are irrelavant. The real questions are statistical in nature; Is it correlated with IQ and does it predict success in grad school? The answers are yes....and yes, somewhat, certainly not perfectly. The question I have is what method would you use in its place? What standard has a better statistical prediction model?



From a pragmatic standpoint, whether its myth or not doesnt really matter if most in the academic world view it as FACT. Whether its true or not, most every supervisor, researcher, professor, and psychologist I have ever met feels this way. In other words, the people that do the hiring...

From a patient perspective this gets dicey as well. Would you send grandma to a doc who went to school online, or one who went to a more traditional university? While I agree that the Capella grad can certainly be as compentent as others, I dont take any chances with grandma...see what I'm getting at?

By the way, how do you think this training model appears to our physician colleagues? Do you think that perception is good for the profession, or bad?

Medical training and Psychology training are VERY different with VERY different training requirements. Psychology has several aspects which are hands on but not nearly to the same extent or same manner as in medicine. I have seen you post this very statement before and I do not see how you can correlate these two disciplines in this manner.

Also the view of many traditional Universities and Psychology clinics is in fact changing to a more favorable one than what was 5-10 years ago. There is still prejudice and bias to be sure and not all online programs are designed and applied equally, however, the more reputable ones have gain more mainstream acceptance in recent years.

In addition many states support non APA accredited graduate programs as acceptable for alumni to sit for the exam and these very same Universities help provide both the quantity and quality of internships and practica to meet many APA state board standards. Fielding is additionally APA accredited and of high quality.

I spoke to several physician friends of mine about your comparison and none of them agree with this comparison.

I think that your idea about the prejudice in the mainstream system is a valid concern, but that is beginning to change, though there is more work to be done.

 

[PsychGraduate]

First, your subjective impressions of the GRE are irrelavant. The real questions are statistical in nature; Is it correlated with IQ and does it predict success in grad school? The answers are yes....and yes, somewhat, certainly not perfectly. The question I have is what method would you use in its place? What standard has a better statistical prediction model?


A more empirically grounded test with 3-5 more sections measuring other aspects of intelligence and academic ability. In addition to standardized testing there would be a throrough interview process that could potentially select for poor test takers who would still perform great in such a hands on graduate program. My impressions are not subjective, they are from years of experience with many students with above average IQ's and solid undergraduate performance in top Universities, yet many of them (>60%) had issues with one or two sections of the GRE, on average correcting for outliers.

From a pragmatic standpoint, whether its myth or not doesnt really matter if most in the academic world view it as FACT. Whether its true or not, most every supervisor, researcher, professor, and psychologist I have ever met feels this way. In other words, the people that do the hiring...

From a patient perspective this gets dicey as well. Would you send grandma to a doc who went to school online, or one who went to a more traditional university? While I agree that the Capella grad can certainly be as compentent as others, I dont take any chances with grandma...see what I'm getting at?

By the way, how do you think this training model appears to our physician colleagues? Do you think that perception is good for the profession, or bad?

My score on the GRE was higher than most GRE test takers.

 

[PsychGraduate]

If it is a myth, the students of these schools certainly do a great of perpetuating it on this board. Vague, wishy-washy, avoidant answers might work great for politics but it doesn't work as well with scientists.

I am a scientist and I would venture to say Therapis4Change is as well among a few others. It is not clear that you are using any method in science as of yet😱.

 

[PsychGraduate]

"The GRE is poorly designed and not very relevant to actual academic work or potential to be a clinical psychologist."

Perhaps, but it does correlate with IQ. It is standardized, and, we, unfortunately, have few standardized measures on which to judge applicants.



That's nice. What are the average GPAs, GREs, work experience, ages, and so on of Capella students?



"You have no evidence to support your claim about lower level faculty"

I don't? Average # of publications = what. . .there are a few published studies on this (Capella and B&M professional schools are generally not represented).

Around the same as for traditional students who often need to take it more than once.

Walden Univeristy has tons of publications and those from peer review as well as partnerships with credible journals. Do a Google Scholar search and one at your University library.

and here is my evidence to demonstrate their high quality from Walden University:



Your link doesn't work.

Just google Walden University PhD clinical psychology program and you will see a working link.



No, it's not. Most PhD programs are free. Further, it's not accredited and therefore has limited value. Moreover, it's an online school.

Free? No not true, but there are stipends one can take advantage of.



How can they have great employment outcomes and only decent placement rates? Further, their APA internship placement rate is abysmal.

The employment outcomes are superb for online education and that datra is easy to find. APA placements are a liitle more difficult with industry bias, but that is beginning to change.




The distribution model? What does that mean, exactly? What data are there to support the claim?

I posted links of the data in other threads relating to online edcation on this site. Do your own homework😛.



You don't know how many people I think work full time while attending graduate programs at real universities. And, these people are meeting the standards established for those that are not. . . the programs are not designed to accommodate people that don't have time to get a doctorate.




Getting a bachelors degree is not the same things as getting a doctorate. Any YOU are an anecdotal case.

Yet I provided both peer reviewed data, University outcome data, referenced reputable textbooks, and my own experiences.



I generally don't agree.




. . . and this is a positive (sounds like a money grab)? That actually would be an interesting study. . . comparing the admission characteristics, APA placement rates, professional accomplishment. . . or those that actually finish the programs.



. . .but they are.

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. Online requirements in general for writing research papers tend to be more stringent and not less than traditional University requirements. 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. Or the aforementioned while constructing a 100 page or so PhD dissertation. Yet people do succeed in this pursuit and go on to earn very high salaries, contracted work provide quality clinical practice. Online edcation does attract some people of lower calibar but they do not last in graduate school, and barely in undergraduate. 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.

Provide evidence that your education is superior to mine.

Actually perform a literture review of the professors as several of the schools discussed here and you will see an immense amount of quality published articles in peer review. Scott Duncan PsyD is one name I will throw out there.

 

[aequitasveritas]

Cognitive dissonance can take alot of people through paths that, until the darker end, anesthetize them to the warnings of the cliffs ahead.

Mark Twain's quote "don't let college get in the way of your education," although maverick enough, does not and should not apply to clinical psych.

Moreover, I don't really need to debate you here with quantitative methods. If you circumspect the epistemology of the online training you'll notice some striking ironies.

Online education for (human) medical studies disregards the field of object relations, interpersonal process, social cognition, and other arenas germane to interpersonal capacity.
Our whole profession is based on interpersonal human experience...so how does a school "instruct" an interpersonal process in a non-interpersonal manner?

This is a paradox that halts all debate about the relative "performance" of online grads vs b&m grads in it's tracks. On face value, and from content validity surveys on sdn😉, there is no validity to the venue of an online clin psych degree.

If evidence was provided that an online degree student received as good as or better client based feedback, eppp, state boards, & apa supervisor ratings etc etc, then you may have a case. But, until that data exists we as a profession must err conservatively and flock to original Academy....and they didnt send stone tablets to the students and say...this is how you philosophize😉

 

[PsychGraduate]

Cognitive dissonance can take alot of people through paths that, until the darker end, anesthetize them to the warnings of the cliffs ahead.

Mark Twain's quote "don't let college get in the way of your education," although maverick enough, does not and should not apply to clinical psych.

Moreover, I don't really need to debate you here with quantitative methods. If you circumspect the epistemology of the online training you'll notice some striking ironies.

Online education for (human) medical studies disregards the field of object relations, interpersonal process, social cognition, and other arenas germane to interpersonal capacity.

I will end my comments in this particular thread by just saying: these claims are not true. Online education does provide the necessary interpersonal interactions, social cognition, social networking, and training to succeed in psychology, clinical included.
Our whole profession is based on interpersonal human experience...so how does a school "instruct" an interpersonal process in a non-interpersonal manner?

It instructs through residencies, internships, practica, other official recorded meetings, and unofficial face to face meetings
This is a paradox that halts all debate about the relative "performance" of online grads vs b&m grads in it's tracks. On face value, and from content validity surveys on sdn😉, there is no validity to the venue of an online clin psych degree.

This claim requires solid data.

If evidence was provided that an online degree student received as good as or better client based feedback, eppp, state boards, & apa supervisor ratings etc etc, then you may have a case. But, until that data exists we as a profession must err conservatively and flock to original Academy....and they didnt send stone tablets to the students and say...this is how you philosophize😉

I left some data on this elsewhere. Good day🙂

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It does not need to be Walden; it could be Capella or if one wants to graduate from an APA acredited University they could go to Fielding. Fielding is expensive but they have great employment outcomes and decent placement rates though not as high as some bigger names in the private institution market. The distribution model is of high quality, and comparable to a far more prestigous university. There is data to support this claim too.

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.

There are more students than you think working full time while attending graduate programs in traditional Universities and those who work part time above 20 hours a week too.

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.

Higher admittance rates do not equate to an individual finishing the PhD program. Many do not finish their PhD programs and that is a great weeding out process.

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.

I take no issue with those who graduate from Harvard or Yale. These institutions are excellent for certain subject matter too.

The myth that needs to be done away with is the myth that online education and training is somehow inferior.

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.

 

[aequitasveritas]

Can any of you see where I'm going with this
...lines roughly = interpersonal capacity😉

....."The classic studies of Held and Hein (1963) showed that kittens that were prevented from actively exploring the visual world, even though they received the same visual stimulation as their normal counterparts, failed to show normal behaviour in many visually guided tasks"

-AV

Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology​

1970, Vol. 73, No. 2, 181-187​

DEVELOPMENT AND SEGMENTATION OF VISUALLY

CONTROLLED MOVEMENT BY SELECTIVE
EXPOSURE DURING REARING​

​

​

​

1​

ALAN HEIN,​

​

​

​

2 RICHARD HELD, AND ELLEN C. GOWER​

Massachusetts Institute of Technology​

Three experiments are reported which clarify the role of movement-produced
changes in visual stimulation for the acquisition of visually controlled
behaviors. The first study shows that exposure during passive
transport, which provides an asystematic relation between self-produced
movements and visual stimulation, delays the acquisition of visual-motor
coordination when a kitten is subsequently free to locomote in light.
The second experiment demonstrates that control of movement by one
eye develops if that eye is exposed during locomotion. This control does
not transfer to the contralateral eye which is exposed only during passive
transport. In the final experiment, view of the forelimbs is restricted
to one eye. Visually guided reaching develops under the control of that
eye but does not transfer to the eye which has not viewed the limbs. The
results of Experiments 2 and 3 provide evidence that the system for visual​

guidance of movement consists of components which can be acquired independently.

 

[aequitasveritas]

I left some data on this elsewhere. Good day🙂

Wow...way to step up to the debate...you showed me

 

[Ollie123]

I am a scientist and I would venture to say Therapis4Change is as well among a few others. It is not clear that you are using any method in science as of yet😱.

You are at best a politician. You are far from a scientist. For one, this thread has made it increasingly clear to me you don't have the proper training to be one😉

This is ridiculous. I'm not asking difficult or complicated questions. I am asking for simple, straightforward, factual information about how Fielding, Capella and co. run their programs. You know exactly what I'm trying to get at, but do your best to answer in the most vague, uninformative way possible. Doesn't seem unreasonable to infer you are hiding something.

I won't be bothering with this thread anymore, so feel free to question my credentials all you want. I'm not the one on trial, and it just serves to further prove my point that you will do anything to avoid having to answer the questions I posed. Most folks here know me well enough via my posts (or real life in a few cases) that....let's just say, I'm not too worried about my reputation as a scientist.

Some day, I will find a student at one of these universities both able and willing to provide real answers to the above questions. What a glorious day it will be.

 

[Ollie123]

nt (sorry, hit back on my browser and it re-posted!)

 

[PsychGraduate]

You are at best a politician. You are far from a scientist. For one, this thread has made it increasingly clear to me you don't have the proper training to be one😉

This is ridiculous. I'm not asking difficult or complicated questions. I am asking for simple, straightforward, factual information about how Fielding, Capella and co. run their programs. You know exactly what I'm trying to get at, but do your best to answer in the most vague, uninformative way possible. Doesn't seem unreasonable to infer you are hiding something.

I won't be bothering with this thread anymore, so feel free to question my credentials all you want. I'm not the one on trial, and it just serves to further prove my point that you will do anything to avoid having to answer the questions I posed. Most folks here know me well enough via my posts (or real life in a few cases) that....let's just say, I'm not too worried about my reputation as a scientist.

Some day, I will find a student at one of these universities both able and willing to provide real answers to the above questions. What a glorious day it will be.

I answered your questions in a straightforward manner and I posted scientific studies as well; many from peer review. Read them. I will stick around just for you🙂

 

[aequitasveritas]

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

 

[erg923]

My score on the GRE was higher than most GRE test takers.

How in the world is that relevant?