(Closed) Former Argosy student with serious concerns...

[PsychScience]

Not in this case they are not. The crime of receiving stolen property would be an ethical violation of any state board, let alone receiving that stolen property from the very students you are in a position of authority over-because yes, those were student loan funds they stole so yes they did steal from me. Your reasoning is so flawed and childish I cannot but assume you are associated with Argosy. How else could anyone think actual criminals are no more guilty than those they stole from?

I can see both sides of this, I agree that if the faculty knew without a doubt that they were receiving their salary via misappropriated funds that there are some obvious ethical concerns. At the same time, I wonder how much insight they actually had into the financials. There are many many expenses that the school was faced with, faculty salary was probably one of the more minor ones (considering what faculty get paid). And how far down the food chain do you go? Do you blame the secretary? How about the librarian? The janitor?

In an ideal world, what would you have liked for the faculty and staff to have done?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted75966]

If you google my moniker and argosy (and psyds more generally) here, you’ll find multiple posts where I argued that the faculty at ncspp programs are unethical due to the debt issue and more specifically that to be associated with programs that have terrible outcomes (Eg matching at a 50 percent clip to apa sites). Many others here have made similar arguments. You’ll find no shortage of psychologists that think argosy is unethical. Haven’t looked recently, but I’d be surprised if many, if any, faculty at argosy would be competitive for real academic jobs.

So bottom-line, students were either ignorant and/or not very bright to go to an argosy-like school. Faculty at these programs are unethical.

As to legality, haven’t faculty at argosy always been paid by student loans? How do you know they knew any differently as to the current situation?

 

[WisNeuro]

If you google my moniker and argosy (and psyds more generally) here, you’ll find multiple posts where I argued that the faculty at ncspp programs are unethical due to the debt issue and more specifically that to be associated with programs that have terrible outcomes (Eg matching at a 50 percent clip to apa sites). Many others here have made similar arguments. You’ll find no shortage of psychologists that think argosy is unethical. Haven’t looked recently, but I’d be surprised if many, if any, faculty at argosy would be competitive for real academic jobs.

So bottom-line, students were either ignorant and/or not very bright to go to an argosy-like school. Faculty at these programs are unethical.

As to legality, haven’t faculty at argosy always been paid by student loans? How do you know they knew any differently as to the current situation?

Most of the faculty at the local Argosy were former students, so some of these faculty are just part of the cycle who probably do not know better, and as you implied, probably aren't competitive for any of the other reputable academic jobs in the area.

 

[GradStudent2020]

There may be an argument for criminal behavior further down the line, maybe as far down as faculty. However, I doubt any charges will be filed. It would be challenging to prosecute from a legal perspective.

Even if all faculty members behaved ethically and legally leading up to this fiasco, I can understand current students having mixed feelings about working with former Argosy professors.

 

[procrastin8r]

I think faculty are more culpable than the metaphorical waiter who works for the mob-owned restaurant. The metaphorical waiter is a low-income, low-resourced individual, faced with highly empowered bosses with a high capacity for violence. Faculty are highly educated individuals and have the potential of working elsewhere. Even a less prestigious job for someone with a doctorate in psychology is still highly resourced. I know that this is just an off-the-cuff metaphor, but I just had to go there. It irks me when highly resourced people are portrayed as helpless. Faculty hold considerable privilege. Faculty can feasibly walk away. Therefore, faculty should be held accountable - morally, if not legally.

So, yes, it is super ****ty that OP has to "transfer" to a new school only to face the exact same department who behaved highly unethically and directly or indirectly screwed them over. However, practically, this may be the only feasible short-term solution for TCS-Irvine. There exists a department of at least passably capable faculty, who are now out of a job. There exists a need to form a new department at TCS-Irvine to accept the influx of Irvine transfers. A university can't create a department out of thin air, not can they considerably stretch an existing department to accommodate an influx of students. So, they are doing the most practical thing, even if it may not be ethical. And unfortunately, it means that students either have to face their old faculty, for better or for worse, OR take the risk and re-apply elsewhere, with no guarantee of admission or transfer credits. This majorly sucks, OP, and I am very sorry this is happening to you.

 

[PsychScience]

Faculty hold considerable privilege. Faculty can feasibly walk away. Therefore, faculty should be held accountable - morally, if not legally.

I'm not trying to invalidate you, because I think there is some truth to your statements. However, I do think you are massively overstating the power and privilege that most faculty members hold. Particularly when it comes to any kind of decision-making. I am saying this from the perspective as someone on faculty at a small regional university. Like most systems. It's a hierarchy. We are toward the bottom. Do faculty hold privilege in other ways? Absolutely! But most of the actual power at the university level is wielded by the those higher than us in the hierarchy.

 

[Sanman]

I think faculty are more culpable than the metaphorical waiter who works for the mob-owned restaurant. The metaphorical waiter is a low-income, low-resourced individual, faced with highly empowered bosses with a high capacity for violence. Faculty are highly educated individuals and have the potential of working elsewhere. Even a less prestigious job for someone with a doctorate in psychology is still highly resourced. I know that this is just an off-the-cuff metaphor, but I just had to go there. It irks me when highly resourced people are portrayed as helpless. Faculty hold considerable privilege. Faculty can feasibly walk away. Therefore, faculty should be held accountable - morally, if not legally.

So, yes, it is super ****ty that OP has to "transfer" to a new school only to face the exact same department who behaved highly unethically and directly or indirectly screwed them over. However, practically, this may be the only feasible short-term solution for TCS-Irvine. There exists a department of at least passably capable faculty, who are now out of a job. There exists a need to form a new department at TCS-Irvine to accept the influx of Irvine transfers. A university can't create a department out of thin air, not can they considerably stretch an existing department to accommodate an influx of students. So, they are doing the most practical thing, even if it may not be ethical. And unfortunately, it means that students either have to face their old faculty, for better or for worse, OR take the risk and re-apply elsewhere, with no guarantee of admission or transfer credits. This majorly sucks, OP, and I am very sorry this is happening to you.

I think you are overestimating the resources of faculty, particularly if they have student loans, and underestimating the wait staff at a restaurant. I know front of house staff that make more money than a lot faculty I know. I'd also argue it is easier to get a more ethical position as a waitstaff then it is to get another faculty position as a psychologist (way more restaurants out there).

Is there some ethical culpability for staff? Sure. Just as there is for the admissions people, the marketing people, and janitor. There is also some culpability for the students. In all the years I have been here, I have yet to see a prospective Argosy student argue it was the best education that they could get. For most I have spoken to here, they thought a riskier path was worth it because it was:

1. The path of least resistance (I don't have to move, do as much research, get a masters degree, etc.)
2. The only place they were accepted

Everyone there was okay with skipping best practices to give students a piece of paper and make some money.

 

[PsychScience]

If you google my moniker and argosy (and psyds more generally) here, you’ll find multiple posts where I argued that the faculty at ncspp programs are unethical due to the debt issue and more specifically that to be associated with programs that have terrible outcomes (Eg matching at a 50 percent clip to apa sites). Many others here have made similar arguments. You’ll find no shortage of psychologists that think argosy is unethical. Haven’t looked recently, but I’d be surprised if many, if any, faculty at argosy would be competitive for real academic jobs.

So bottom-line, students were either ignorant and/or not very bright to go to an argosy-like school. Faculty at these programs are unethical.

As to legality, haven’t faculty at argosy always been paid by student loans? How do you know they knew any differently as to the current situation?

Yep. I remember when one of my classmates was desperate to find an academic job and she was considering applying to a FSPP with terrible outcomes. We had some interesting discussions regarding the implications of teaching in a situation in which you knew that you were requiring your students to take on an unreasonable amount of debt coupled with low EPPP pass rates and poor APA match rates (this was during the imbalance crisis). She ultimately did not apply for these reasons. Even if I understood her desperation, I don't think you can disentangle getting paid by a system from the consequences and behaviors of that system.

 

[deleted75966]

I think faculty are more culpable than the metaphorical waiter who works for the mob-owned restaurant. The metaphorical waiter is a low-income, low-resourced individual, faced with highly empowered bosses with a high capacity for violence. Faculty are highly educated individuals and have the potential of working elsewhere. Even a less prestigious job for someone with a doctorate in psychology is still highly resourced. I know that this is just an off-the-cuff metaphor, but I just had to go there. It irks me when highly resourced people are portrayed as helpless. Faculty hold considerable privilege. Faculty can feasibly walk away. Therefore, faculty should be held accountable - morally, if not legally.

So, yes, it is super ****ty that OP has to "transfer" to a new school only to face the exact same department who behaved highly unethically and directly or indirectly screwed them over. However, practically, this may be the only feasible short-term solution for TCS-Irvine. There exists a department of at least passably capable faculty, who are now out of a job. There exists a need to form a new department at TCS-Irvine to accept the influx of Irvine transfers. A university can't create a department out of thin air, not can they considerably stretch an existing department to accommodate an influx of students. So, they are doing the most practical thing, even if it may not be ethical. And unfortunately, it means that students either have to face their old faculty, for better or for worse, OR take the risk and re-apply elsewhere, with no guarantee of admission or transfer credits. This majorly sucks, OP, and I am very sorry this is happening to you.

If the faculty are argosy grads, they have a ton of debt, don’t make that much money and have been taught in a crappy model. There’s likely quite a bit of cognitive dissonance resolution going on there. They are likely terrible with money and most likely progressive democrats so everything is about external blame.




Just kidding...kinda, on that last point.

 

[PsychScience]

Most of the faculty at the local Argosy were former students, so some of these faculty are just part of the cycle who probably do not know better, and as you implied, probably aren't competitive for any of the other reputable academic jobs in the area.

While many of the adjunct faculty in these programs are former students of a FSPP, I was under the impression that many of the tenured faculty came from a wide variety of programs. Its hard to get to the Chicago school faculty bios, and impossible to get to Argosy's now that the website is essentially shut down, but here are some from Alliant:

Faculty | San Diego PsyD in Clinical Psychology | Alliant
CSPP | Clinical Psychology PsyD | Los Angeles Faculty | Alliant

I think you will see a fair representation across programs, from counseling to clinical scientist program graduates. I think Argosy had fairly similar faculty representation.

 

[WisNeuro]

While many of the adjunct faculty in these programs are former students of a FSPP, I was under the impression that many of the tenured faculty came from a wide variety of programs. Its hard to get to the Chicago school faculty bios, and impossible to get to Argosy's now that the website is essentially shut down, but here are some from Alliant:

Faculty | San Diego PsyD in Clinical Psychology | Alliant
CSPP | Clinical Psychology PsyD | Los Angeles Faculty | Alliant

I think you will see a fair representation across programs, from counseling to clinical scientist program graduates. I think Argosy had fairly similar faculty representation.

Alliant has definitely made a push at recruitment in recent years to lure some respected faculty. Argosy....less so. The one here was almost entirely former grads of this specific branch.

 

[PsychScience]

Alliant has definitely made a push at recruitment in recent years to lure some respected faculty. Argosy....less so. The one here was almost entirely former grads of this specific branch.

That’s telling. I can’t imagine a university-based program having almost exclusively faculty members that had graduated from within that program.

 

[GradStudent2020]

That’s telling. I can’t imagine a university-based program having almost exclusively faculty members that had graduated from within that program.

I was curious about this. My university based Master’s seems to have several faculty members with degrees from that University. I just calculated the percentage of current faculty, and 25% have their degrees from there.

I compared that to Fielding (faculty bios available online), and roughly 93% of faculty have doctorates from other universities. So 7% have degrees from Fielding vs. 25% from the university PhD.

Obviously a small sample size but I found it interesting.

 

[WisNeuro]

That’s telling. I can’t imagine a university-based program having almost exclusively faculty members that had graduated from within that program.

Yeah, it'd be weird, in the three university programs that I went to/was affiliated with, I don't believe any of the faculty got their PhDs there. As for the local Argosy, my bet is that these are people who did not want to leave the area and were not competitive for decent jobs in the area.

 

[Pragma]

I've seen some FSPS dangle money to try to lure bigger names. Saw it happen locally in recent years.

Also have seen lots of inbreeding. Think there is a good amount of variability out there in the FSPS world. I know that at my PhD institution, "leaving the nest" was the rule and exception(s) rare.

 

[deleted75966]

Nt

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I think I spotted OP leaving a comment on IHE
Thoughts on Argosy | Inside Higher Ed

 

[psych.meout]

I resent this. In addition to being one of the most brilliant and, for the few years he was active, productive mathematicians alive, he is also one of the most profound psychological writers I have encountered. The central theme of his work was that individuals in a state removed from nature engage in what he terms "surrogate activities" which, due to their inadequate ability to meet innate needs, will never satisfy. He provides examples such as Emperor Hirohito becoming distinguished in the field of marine biology - for what reason? The premise is that modern society provides us with activities that are in some sense parallel to the real achievement and self-sufficiency that would provide satisfaction, and in that would not themselves provide a sense of completion. This work is why I am a psychologist and researcher today. My work on highly applied interventions and my commitment to clinical contributions have all been inspired by his work.

I know this was from the last page, but this admiration of a luddite terrorist is really just beyond the pale.

His work in general is obtuse, ahistorical, and just nutty. E.g., he decries the loss of human liberty as a result of the industrial revolution. We can have a discussion about the dehumanization of capitalism, but people demonstrably have more liberty than ever, especially traditionally oppressed groups (e.g., slavery was abolished, women obtained suffrage, LGBTQ+ people have obtained legal protections and rights). He doesn't recognize this, because he not coincidentally is against liberty and equality for these groups, as demonizes them as part of the overarching group of "leftists" ruining the world. He is a reactionary figure against any progress, social or technological.

Also, scientific inquiry was specifically one of the "surrogate activities" that he spoke out against. Do you see the irony in being a psychologist and admiring him?

 

[964693]

I know this was from the last page, but this admiration of a luddite terrorist is really just beyond the pale.

Also, scientific inquiry was specifically one of the "surrogate activities" that he spoke out against. Do you see the irony in being a psychologist and admiring him?

I admire him in the sense that Camus was influenced by Nietzsche. Did I find a way to make his writings relevant for me and my practice, and begin my path of understanding and treating discontent? Yes. But a bunch of boring middle class people mindlessly regurgitating criticisms of something they scarcely understand means little to me or anyone else. He didn't ramble. He produced more of value than all the regulars of this board combined. And he had more integrity - he knew the posting of his manifesto would lead to the loss of his freedom. What did you lot do? Not a lot. Anyway, the Einstein quote was about TK, not myself.

 

[psych.meout]

I admire him in the sense that Camus was influenced by Nietzsche. Did I find a way to make his writings relevant for me and my practice, and begin my path of understanding and treating discontent? Yes. But a bunch of boring middle class people mindlessly regurgitating criticisms of something they scarcely understand means little to me or anyone else. He didn't ramble. He produced more of value than all the regulars of this board combined. And he had more integrity - he knew the posting of his manifesto would lead to the loss of his freedom. What did you lot do? Not a lot. Anyway, the Einstein quote was about TK, not myself.

I'll bite, how are his writings relevant for a psychologist?

 

[964693]

I'll bite, how are his writings relevant for a psychologist?

For the reasons I have previously mentioned - I think his understanding of the dissonance present in daily activities is eloquent and insightful, particularly for a non-psychologist. I think having a clear understanding and differentiation of what things can and can't bring satisfaction and how to seek meaning in life is meaningful. One can argue, and many have, that Buddhism really just boils down to a structured system of differentiating dukkha (that which is unable to satisfy; mistranslated to suffering) from that which leads to enlightenment. What TK has done that, to my knowledge, none of you guys have is bring this awareness to a meaningful portion of the public as to insight that may inform their lives. In this case, among others, of the discrepancy between that promised by media/society, that mindless consumption leads to joy, to a more realistic understanding of the effects of this environment. Prior to reading his book (in high school) I was to be a financier - I genuinely have a preternatural ability to invest and make money. After reading his book, which I haven't read since undergrad, I came to devote myself to research that I thought could help address chronic mental health problems primarily through interpersonal interventions.

My point was a bunch of people who have contributed little to nothing who run manualized interventions and have never had a creative, passionate, or really loving feeling for anyone or anything disparaging the work of one of the greatest mathematicians of his day and who has inspired many to go in different directions is ignorant. Maybe I'm biased because in my own NE metro haven I have known many, from professionals to dropouts, who have found inspiration in his work. Did we all move out into cabins? Of course not - TK himself rejected that isolation. From analytic to behaviorism to REBT to 3rd wave behaviorism, the question is what is the legacy of one's work. And my only opinion is that calling him a rambling fool is a myopic misjudgment of his influence.

 

[PsyDuck90]

......so transcendentalism/eastern philosophies with a splash of murder?

 

[964693]

......so transcendentalism with a splash of murder?

I'm also a combat vet raised in a military household. Death was sort of desensitized early. "Murder" to me speaks of malice. Say what you will about him but he was careful and deliberate and his attempted actions were for a purpose. That's as much as I can say for plenty of us (vets).

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Mod Note: The thread has gone far afield of the original topic (which I will break out into a new thread so that continued discussion there can occur) and is closed.