Conflicted about Distance-Learning (Saybrook, anyone?)

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Agreed, this thread should die. I think the OP's question was answered by the time of the 5th post. The wild spin off topic was 1/2 my fault. No more posts from me on the topic.

I too value Raynee's informed, articulate, and well-thought-out contributions to board discussions.

And, well, at least Jon Snow was conspicuously absent from the thread. :rolleyes:

:laugh: Well you have to say that or I could... throw stuff next time I see you. haha. But thanks.

I just feel badly for the OP (if he even comes back to check), 'cause he'll see this monstrous thread and think "oh good, people are responding!" but half of it is gonna be psychwhy telling us all that we're poor excuses for future psychologists who don't use enough big words. :thumbdown:

Bottomline: $100,000+ is a LOT of money to spend on an online degree that comes with a built-in stigma (regardless of the quality of the education, which may or may not be equal or greater than that of a traditional program). I'm pretty sure that's all the OP wanted to know.+pissed+

I've always wanted to use that face. lol

Members don't see this ad.
 
And, well, at least Jon Snow was conspicuously absent from the thread. :rolleyes:

I was actually hoping Jon Snow would chirp in! Always fun to read :thumbup:
 
This thread has singlehandedly made me consider leaving SDN altogether.

Don't leave, RayneeDeigh. If this forum starts to die I'll have to find some other site to check ten times a day and I'm far too lazy to look around for that ;). I also don't want Jon Snow to leave or stay silent. The English minor in me knows that life can be rather boring without conflict, but I'm far too mild mannered to stir much of that up myself.

Some have argued that online learning is actually more effective because such extraneous factors as instructor personality, presentation style, tone of voice, foreign accents are removed. It is pure content -- reading from texts/journal articles; essay exam style answers, but with time for reflection, research, and proofreading; and extensive final papers.

I know this subject is probably wrapping up, but I just wanted to say that I think this is an interesting point and one I hadn't honestly considered before. Although the delivery of a professor can often enhance the information given and make it more clear, it can sometimes also interfere with that communication process. I had one class in particular in which I didn't retain much information simply because the professor was...not the most socially gifted person.

Anyway, I'm still certain that the traditional approach is the right one for me, but I am willing to concede the point that dealing with instructors' quirks is not always conducive to learning. Courses, after all, are primarily about learning the material. A student's interpersonal skills can always be honed elsewhere (like at the local bar after a particularly grueling day at the intership site).
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I would hope the last few comments were some of that sarcasm so many seem to find distasteful, but I fear not.

Complaining that appropriate and on point use of professional terminology is "name-dropping" counts as "a well thought out post"? Really?

The majority seems to champion those who state a view but decline to provide any real evidence other than "I believe ... " but then consistantly label those who attempt to post first-hand observations and references to empirical evidence as the immature troublemakers who are horrible representatives of the profession and "ruin" SDN? Just depressing.

A late post which repeats the same "I don't get it" questions is called a "diplomatic view"? But the posting of answers to those questions is "snappish sarcasm?" Incredible!

But what is truly the most distasteful, RayeeDeigh, is that your supposedly conciliatory comment about $100,000 being a lot to spend on a stigma laden degree is still off point. The OP's question about a specific program was answered within three posts by someone who :eek: actually reviewed some of the published information about Saybrook. THEN the "all distance programs = bad" folks showed up. I hope you enjoy your time on campus and pray that you learn there that throwing fuel on a fire and then complaining that its hot is not diplomatic -- it's just silly.

For future reference:
KillerDiller: Anyway, I'm still certain that the traditional approach is the right one for me, but I am willing to concede the point that dealing with instructors' quirks is not always conducive to learning. Courses, after all, are primarily about learning the material. A student's interpersonal skills can always be honed elsewhere (like at the local bar after a particularly grueling day at the intership site).
... is an excellent example of how one can share a personal decision/opinion while acknowledging other presented information. Thank you, KD. Yours represents the tone of discussion I hoped I would find on a board populated by mental health professionals.
 
The majority seems to champion those who state a view but decline to provide any real evidence other than "I believe ... " but then consistantly label those who attempt to post first-hand observations and references to empirical evidence as the immature troublemakers who are horrible representatives of the profession and "ruin" SDN? Just depressing.

I think people were commenting on the 'tone' of the posts. It is often hard to tell what is implied (78% of all communication is non-verbal body language, an additional 15% is tone of voice........so often people are only getting the remaining 7% (content of speech) in a post). Smileys can often suggest tone of voice, but not always. I can dig up the citation if you'd like (about the %'s, not smiley use :laugh: ) ....I use those numbers often in my social skills trainings, so they are fresh in my head.

The OP's question about a specific program was answered within three posts by someone who :eek: actually reviewed some of the published information about Saybrook. THEN the "all distance programs = bad" folks showed up.

The reason why I didn't re-direct the discussion earlier is that the OP asked about Saybrook and distance-learning psych PhD programs in general.

I was wondering if anyone has a take on, or experience in, Saybrook in particular or distance-learning psych Ph.D. programs in general.






To get this back on track.........

My main reservation is my marketability with the degree post-graduation. I would like to teach and write books and develop seminars; however, I'd like to feel confident that a community college wouldn't be the only place I could get a teaching position at. I don't expect Yale or Harvard to be calling up the next day, but at the same time, I wonder just how questioned are these distance-learning degrees?

I know that nothing anywhere is guaranteed, but if someone could shed some light on how different places approach a distance-degreed candidate, what the attitudes are out there (in general) about them, it would be immensely helpful.

-t
 
I think the OP's question has been answered.


As for hostility and decorum. . . hostility is good! :) . . . or at least conflict is.
If everyone is playing nice, you'll never know their true thoughts and opinions. Screw that.

You haven't offered been one solid, verifiable, empirical piece of evidence that demonstrates campus-based programs are inherently better than distance delivered ones -- other than your personal opinion.

Better, meaning what? Such a nebulous thing, better. As you've stated, psychology, in many circles, suffers credibility concerns. Perhaps, what I think can be deemed in relative terms, experimental education programs should be tried out within the purvue of fields that don't suffer credibility concerns. We have enough problems without adding that. As a side note, this is part of my argument against many of the professional schools in general. They hurt our credibility by bringing in students of a quality that otherwise would not be in the field. It may be that online education is perfectly fine. I don't know and don't really care at this point. Let it be established in someone else's backyard. At the moment, because of its fringe nature, regardless of whether or not the medium is qualitatively similar or dissimilar than campus-based education, the quality of students is way down on the list. . . therefore I see it as an overall blackeye for the field.

These proof arguments are self-serving in a way that is not consistent with how professional communities operate. We have no empirical evidence that med school is necessary to be a good doctor. We have no empirical evidence that nurses wouldn't do well on medical residency (say, allowing a nurse who has a certain number of years experience to complete a medical residency). It is the responsibility of professionals in the field to police themselves to a degree. We have insight into what is necessary to be competent because of our immersion in the field. Allowing weird unsupported branchings to occur because we don't have empirical evidence to say no is stupid. If I make up a therapy technique tomorrow and start applying it to patients, it's unethical. When I go in front of an ethics board and say, "You have no proof that my technique is not as good as Cognitive Behavioral therapy for depression," they will not take kindly to that. That's exactly what we're doing with online degrees here. . . we're saying "You have no proof that an online education is not as good as a campus based education." But the onus is on the online system to establish that before unleashing it on the public. They have not done so and they should not be accredited.


Of course in small campus based class, you are not likely to get away with literally sleeping in a class. However, it is also inherently difficult to mandate that each and every student participate with equal effort. While you may not actually be snoozing, you can sit quietly with a minimum of interaction (the "holy grail" of campus programs).

Weird argument. You can't mandate equal effort. You can't mandate equal ability. There are checks in place, of course. For example, if I were to walk into a community college classroom and take a literature class, I think given the likely cohort, that I would have to expend relatively little effort to seem competent compared with a similar content class at the University of Michigan. It doesn't matter if the material is the same. It doesn't matter if the professor is just as good, I will not have to try at all to best my classmates. Being in proximity to other people of similar skill levels makes a difference.
 
... you have it backward.

Jon Snow: We have no empirical evidence that med school is necessary to be a good doctor.

Allowing weird unsupported branchings to occur because we don't have empirical evidence to say no is stupid.

If I make up a therapy technique tomorrow and start applying it to patients, it's unethical. When I go in front of an ethics board and say, "You have no proof that my technique is not as good as Cognitive Behavioral therapy for depression," they will not take kindly to that. That's exactly what we're doing with online degrees here. . . we're saying "You have no proof that an online education is not as good as a campus based education."
The cited information has been that online education demonstrates outcomes as good if not better than campus-based learning.

You presuppose that the conventional method of training is the only valid one (by not allowing "weird unsupported branchings). The ignored reality is that other than the "this is the way its always been done" argument, there has yet to be any evidence demonstrating the superiority of the conventional method.

How does asserting that there is no proof medical school produces good doctors support your point? We don't know that it works, we just believe it does? Or since we have no proof that medical school works, we don't need any proof that conventional psych PhDs do either? It's called a genetic fallacy.

And your ethics board example is another logical fallacy (burden of proof). It is not the ethics board's responsiblity to prove/disprove the validity of the practitioner's methods -- that lies with the practitioner. In this discussion, there has been evidence presented supporting online education but you (and others) simply choose to ignore or mischaracterize it.

Jon Snow: As for hostility and decorum. . . hostility is good! :) . . . or at least conflict is. If everyone is playing nice, you'll never know their true thoughts and opinions. Screw that.
I agree that there is real danger in insisting that only polite unanimity is acceptable.

However, there should be no problem in maintaining some decorum. Reasonable people can (and should) have honest disagreements. It is the proliferation of disingenuousness and personal attacks which diminish the character of these exchanges.
 
Therapist4Chnge: I think people were commenting on the 'tone' of the posts.
I agree it is the tone that people are responding to.

However, what remains unchallenged is that those complaining about the "tone" are the ones who have contributed to the incivility here and then turn around and blame others for it.

Just because one may share the majority opinion doesn't exempt them from demonstrating civility or intellectual honesty.
 
. . . oh, and being able to complete a doctorate online while working full-time doesn't seem like a plus to me. It sparks incredulity. As another poster mentioned, 70-80 hours+ a week full-time graduate school activities. . . no unrelated part-time jobs, much less a full-time one. Given that, it should take you about 15 years to graduate from an online program to match the invested time. Couple that with the admissions issue and I think doubt is reasonable as to whether graduates are of the same ilk as other institutions.
 
. . . oh, and being able to complete a doctorate online while working full-time doesn't seem like a plus to me. It sparks incredulity. As another poster mentioned, 70-80 hours+ a week full-time graduate school activities. . . no unrelated part-time jobs, much less a full-time one. Given that, it should take you about 15 years to graduate from an online program to match the invested time. Couple that with the admissions issue and I think doubt is reasonable as to whether graduates are of the same ilk as other institutions.

Exactly my point.

This is where the sacrifice comes in. It isn't MEANT for the majority of people. Very few people (even with larger class sizes) can complete the training. I think the profession has already grown too quickly, and introducing more to the profession is going to do more harm than good. Look at the increasing number of students who DON'T get placed for an APPIC/APA internship. It is getting worse every year. How will adding more people help, furthermore....how can they compete against all of those unplaced peope (many of which are still well qualified, but didn't match)?

You can't assume that since online learning is POSSIBLE (not commenting on how well it is implemented, comparable training, etc), doesn't mean it SHOULD be used. You can't possibility get everything you can get from a residential program. The hour difference alone is problematic. Ask any current or past student about the amount of time they spend on school or school related things, and you will get 70-80 hr/week EASILY.

Here is a rough estimate of my week, and I only have a couple of electives left.

Research: 20-25 hrs per week
Clinical: 25 hrs per week (also includes some individual sup)
Supervision: 6 hrs per week (didactic, group, more individual)
Classes: 6 (actual class) + 10 reading/writing
----------------------------
67-72 hrs per week

I am not even counting my pharma classes and studying (since that is something I chose to do in additional). I already have skimped on some research time to get my classes done, so now I have to add more research time to get everything done.

-t
 
The cited information has been that online education demonstrates outcomes as good if not better than campus-based learning.

Outcomes research is only as good as its methodology (this includes picking the outcome variables). But, the dispute isn't whether or not online education can be effective, the dispute is can it be effective for clinical psychology and is it, in its current state, offering a comparable product (new clinical psychologists).

You presuppose that the conventional method of training is the only valid one (by not allowing "weird unsupported branchings). The ignored reality is that other than the "this is the way its always been done" argument, there has yet to be any evidence demonstrating the superiority of the conventional method.

Nope. I'm saying I'd rather not monkey around with new programs using new delivery systems (online) in clinical psychology given the following. We don't need more programs. We don't need more students. We don't need more doubt cast upon our professionals. Online doctorates in clinical psychology diminish the perception of the field by their existence. I'd rather the esteem of online doctorates be established in other fields first. I'd rather psychology be a late adopter rather than early. It seems rash to jump into this method of training health care professionals. Further, we just don't need it. There is no benefit to the field.

How does asserting that there is no proof medical school produces good doctors support your point? We don't know that it works, we just believe it does? Or since we have no proof that medical school works, we don't need any proof that conventional psych PhDs do either? It's called a genetic fallacy.

No, what we have is professionally established curriculums and standards for what it means to be and train physicians. AMA controls this carefully based on what they believe is important in training a good MD/DO. APA is far more lax and to the detriment of the field. . .a lot of it based on the fallacious, "Well, you haven't proved that this way is worse." We don't need to prove that core classes in various psychology disciplines are necessary or that neuroanatomy is a necessary prerequisite for being a neuropsychologist .. . etc. . .

And your ethics board example is another logical fallacy (burden of proof). It is not the ethics board's responsiblity to prove/disprove the validity of the practitioner's methods -- that lies with the practitioner. In this discussion, there has been evidence presented supporting online education but you (and others) simply choose to ignore or mischaracterize it.


Right (resposibility of the practitioner). .. and if said practitioner is sued for providing unsupported services, not in keeping with his peers, and he cannot support it beyond stating, "There is no proof that CBT is better," he's toast.
 
Therapist4Chnge: This is where the sacrifice comes in. It isn't MEANT for the majority of people. Very few people (even with larger class sizes) can complete the training. I think the profession has already grown too quickly, and introducing more to the profession is going to do more harm than good. Look at the increasing number of students who DON'T get placed for an APPIC/APA internship.
So only people of means and privilege should be able to pursue this profession? Only people who have the benefit of class status so they will come from the best school systems and win the GPA lottery needed to gain admission to the precious few conventional programs should be psychologists? Only people who can postpone/put on hold life and "devote" themselves to years of monastic life as a researcher are worthy?

Let's ignore the diversity of the qualified candidates who will be shut out because of those artificial constraints. Let's invalidate how people who have actually experienced life and know what its like to struggle would add to the experiential knowledge of a practitioner. Let's dismiss how completing graduate study while NOT being shut away in the ivory towers of academe might actually demonstrate more devotion and a greater accomplishment. None of this is apparently valuable in forming a competent clinician.

I earned a regionally accredited doctorate; completed practica in a variety of settings; completed a dissertation that was well received by five conventionally trained psychologists (including an outside expert in the subject area); and completed an APPIC internship.

But because my coursework was completed online, none of that should count?
Never once was I required to remediate any work because of the "lesser" education I received. (In fact, in some of those settings I was called upon to teach my colleagues.)

But I'm supposed to be the elitist?
 
So only people of means and privilege should be able to pursue this profession? Only people who have the benefit of class status so they will come from the best school systems and win the GPA lottery needed to gain admission to the precious few conventional programs should be psychologists? Only people who can postpone/put on hold life and "devote" themselves to years of monastic life as a researcher are worthy?

I'd rather pick from the best of the best, and train the best clinicians to deal with most severe cases....the ones really in need. A popular alternative is a MA/MS, which allows for more flexibility and will allow people to do therapy and help people. For many, the MA/MS make more sense, because they don't want to sacrifice those extra things that would be required to attend a clinical doctorate program.

Jon mentioned neuropsych....which is a great example of why it needs to be residential. The subject matter is difficult by default, and being able to do the hands on work is what allows a clinician to really learn the information. There are a plethora of assessments that need to be learned, and doing that from 1500 mi away really doesn't help that, no matter what technology is used. Again, adjunct use of online communication (posting power points, list servs, etc) can be nice....but not as the primary delivery method.

-t
 
Members don't see this ad :)
darn it... I know I said I'd stay out, but one minor point.... just because I don't want anyone not well-off to question applying...

Class status and means? Honey, I'm poor. Really. But I'm also, frankly, pretty damn smart (and apparently not given to false modesty). I got into one of the most competitive programs on the continent. I'm also on a free ride because I got a wonderful fellowship. I love higher education-- it's where class and status mean nothing next to intelligence. Unless you're in Business.

A high GPA/high GRE/research experience is not the result of a won lottery. It's an accomplishment.
 
I also said I'd stay out but I also feel like I have to say I'm not sure where that came from.

I went to public school, and then a cheap, local state school that is anything but prestigious. I worked 4 jobs as an undergrad and still graduated at the top of my class of 500 people. I was busy 9-9 most weekdays, worked on weekends, and that doesn't even include time I had to spend doing classwork.

I'm the second person in my entire extended family to earn a Bachelor's degree. I will be the ONLY one to ever even attempt to pursue an advanced degree, let alone be accepted to a program.

Do not talk to me as though I had all of this handed to me on a silver platter. Frankly, the sense of entitlement disgusts me. Yes, you should have to work hard and get a good GPA, good GREs, etc. to even have a chance at getting a PhD. Yes, we should exclude people who are "Qualified, but not the MOST qualified". There's plenty of us who think of this as a lifestyle as much as a job, and ARE willing to go anywhere, do anything, to make it happen. I'm moving 2000 miles away from every...last....person...I know. All because its where the best program that I was accepted to is. Make psychology as exclusive as you want, it just means I'll work all the harder to get there. I'm still aiming for a tenure track faculty job at a top-tier research university. We all know how hard those are to get.

I'd have said the same thing even when I didn't think I was getting accepted anywhere earlier this year, for the record.

I've been pretty polite up til now(as I generally try to be on this board), but what you said crosses a very serious line.
 
darn it... I know I said I'd stay out, but one minor point.... just because I don't want anyone not well-off to question applying...

Class status and means? Honey, I'm poor. Really. But I'm also, frankly, pretty damn smart (and apparently not given to false modesty). I got into one of the most competitive programs on the continent. I'm also on a free ride because I got a wonderful fellowship. I love higher education-- it's where class and status mean nothing next to intelligence. Unless you're in Business.

A high GPA/high GRE/research experience is not the result of a won lottery. It's an accomplishment.

I was just reading this because I found the different arguments for and against compelling and while I will not be attending a Clinical Psych program this fall I believe this to be one of the most truthful posts I have read on this board. This is the foundation of America was built on, anyone can do anything if they try hard enough. Class and money does not an education make. It might be able to get you through a particular university, but it won't get you into a PhD program!

To Psychwhy- if someone is not willing to dedicate their life 110% to this profession it is not for them in my opinion. I have talked to many people with husbands, wives and children pursuing PhD's in Psychology, they did not say it was easy, but it is doable, so to make excuses as to why you need to take an online program, does not mean online programs should become an accepted standard. There are probably many people who are more than qualified to become Clinical Psychologists that do not pursue the field I am debating this, however I think it stems deeper to the amount of dedication these students put into the PhD program. You may do all this and more, you may be one of those people that will make an unbelievable psychologist and certain circumstances prevented you from attending a brick and mortar institution. However everyone posting that it brings down set standards is absolutely right. When these online institutions have 50-60 incoming students you are allowing, maybe not all, but some people that would not have been qualified enough to get into a traditional institution.
 
So, we have at least two people from modest means who rose up and "done good enough" to make it to the top 1%. Congratulations to you both and welcome to the club.

But if you believe that education is the "great equalizer" and anyone who works hard enough will rise to the top, then it is time to wake up and smell the nature of society. I'm guessing you didn't claw your way out of East New York or South Central LA. Like it or not, believe it or not, your family's socioeconomic status plays a pretty large role in the sort of preparatory education you get. (And for the record, I was the first in my family to go straight to [state] college from HS.)

The general consensus seems to be that it makes sense to limit access to doctoral psychology training only to those who -- by virtue of sharply limited number of entering postiions -- are possess only stellar scores. I have never said that the bar should be set so low that anyone can get in (as you seem to believe happens in non-conventional programs.) But you seem to be insinuating that a 4.0 GPA, 1600 GRE should be the entrance requirement because only those possessing such a pedigree are "worthy" of the profession.

Even Phil Zimbardo got a C in Intro Psych.
 
No one is saying 1600 and 4.0 gpa. . . though btw, those are only two indicators; experience, along with other factors are also considered. The average for most good programs is around 1300 and 3.5. That's not so exclusive. Knocking that down to 1000, or no GRE, as is the case at some schools opens up the floodgates. It makes getting a doctorate in clinical psychology accessible to the average student. . . one of the easiest doctoral level professions to gain admittance to. I don't like that, nor do I believe it appropriate. This isn't really about how hard people do or do not work. It is a combination of work/ability. . . . the point is you have to have high ability, high motivation, or both in some combination. Letting everyone that WANTS to get a doctorate in clin. psych in is not the way to go.
 
I didn't suggest that actually. I actually only had a 1250 on my GREs, which is considered quite low for the types of programs I wanted to attend. Still bothered by my score, but I'm happy with my acceptance so I'll live with it.

I'm not suggesting everyone be perfect. I am suggesting that the bar was fine before "schools" started arriving with the attitude that "If you failed half your classes, you have to fill out an extra form before we accept you(r money)". Then again, that was actually a campus-based program, so its not totally relevant.

I wasn't climbing up from the complete bottom-rung, but I also didn't appreciate the insinuation that only rich kids get into traditional programs, because its just not true. I've met relatively few wealthy kids going into clinical psychology. They generally like their wealthy lifestyles and pick professions that actually pay well (at least compared to level of training).

Dr. Zimbardo may have gotten a C, but he clearly made up for it enough to get into a traditional program:) (though admittedly the field was not as competitive back then).

We all make sacrifices. Bachelor's degrees are already becoming worthless because of schools like my state school that let in anyone who can read (and a fair number who can't) because of the attitude that "everyone deserves a college education". I don't want to see the same thing happen to my PhD so I have to spend another 8 years in school sometime down the road because they lowered the bar for doctoral candidates as well. I'm not saying that's what you want either because I know it isn't, but I think our current standards are quite reasonable and your post was hovering dangerously close to the "every mediocre applicant should have an opportunity to get a PhD" attitude. At some point we need to set a "this degree is only for the truly cream-of-the-crop individuals" and if a PhD isn't that, I don't know what is. Work hard, be smart, and sacrifice, or get a job in middle-management after completing a business degree at a mediocre school. you'll probably earn more anyways.
 
Ollie: I . . . didn't appreciate the insinuation that only rich kids get into traditional programs, because its just not true.

I am suggesting that the bar was fine before "schools" started arriving with the attitude that "If you failed half your classes, you have to fill out an extra form before we accept you(r money)". Then again, that was actually a campus-based program, so its not totally relevant.
Well, funny, but this presumption was just as offensive to me ... but no one seems to care about that. The bottom line has always been is that people are spewing misinformation about precisely what it takes to earn a distance delivered doctorate and react badly whenever someone has the temerity to challenge those ill-informed prejudices.

Ollie: Dr. Zimbardo may have gotten a C, but he clearly made up for it enough to get into a traditional program:) (though admittedly the field was not as competitive back then).
I'll be sure to let him know that you believe he got in during the "easy" years.

Point of fact, whether some of you like it or not, I already have a real doctor diploma on wall. I'm hoping some of the closed minded perspectives presented here are opened up during your next several years of study.

You never know ... when you get your degree, it might be me sitting across the desk deciding whether you will intern/post-doc/work at my facility! :D
 
I don't have time to dig up the numbers, but its not my opinion, its fact that the field has grown more competitive over the years. Much lower acceptance rates these days with more people applying for fewer spots and the number of applicants going up.

Most professors I know who got their degrees in the 70's and 80's will be the first to tell you that. I can't imagine Zimbardo being any different. He clearly deserved to get in (as much or more than pretty much anyone to ever enter the field).

I'm also unclear how it is "closed-minded" to think that one should have to prove that they went above and beyond what most people do at the bachelor's level to be considered for doctoral admission.

And congrats on your graduation (whenever it was).
 
Ollie123: I don't have time to dig up the numbers, but its not my opinion, its fact that the field has grown more competitive over the years. Much lower acceptance rates these days with more people applying for fewer spots and the number of applicants going up.
No one's debating/disputing this.

Ollie123: I can't imagine Zimbardo being any different. He clearly deserved to get in (as much or more than pretty much anyone to ever enter the field).
The point was he may have not seemed like the "best" candidate early on. But, I think we'd all agree his subsequent contributions have shaped the profession.

Ollie123: I'm also unclear how it is "closed-minded" to think that one should have to prove that they went above and beyond what most people do at the bachelor's level to be considered for doctoral admission.
No one is asking you to diminish your own accomplishments. My hope was that you wouldn't be quite so glib at dismissing others. The insinuation has been that the non-conventional programs are barely any different from diploma mills and that is flat out wrong and blatantly offensive.
 
This thread has become a jar for Jon. And we are all but ants.

Let's let this diiiiieeeee...
 
I wanna meet Jon one day so I can run up and hug him and hand him a big pink flower and a fluffy stuffed animal :laugh:
 
So I know we're supposed to be letting this die, but I thought I'd add a few more points for the OP (on topic!) - that is if he/she hasn't run off screaming at this point.

If you want to get into academia, you're going to need to publish - we're talking at least 3 or 4 first authored publications all in a set area of research. So when you apply for faculty (even adjunct) positions, you can say, "my research has been in this area and I have added this information to the field and I plan to continue this same vein of research by investigating blah blah blah." I would imagine this would be very difficult to pull off in a distance education program. You won't get the benefit of a lab or an advisor. Grad students are generally pretty dependent on their advisors for research ideas and support for at least the first few years, and they can also be a huge help in assisting you with finding a position once you graduate. And you might be able to find enough research subjects to pull off your dissertation in a distance program (although, ug, that seems like a good way to spend 2 extra years just recruiting subjects), but I really doubt you're going find enough to support multiple publications. I just don't think I'd risk it...

As for funding, I may be fueling the fire again, but I just have to comment on psychwhy's Harvard example. So, Harvard's PhD program in education was actually unfunded up until this year. They have now changed it to a full tuition waiver and a 4-year stipend (plus, most students get paid teaching or research positions). Before they made this change, they were losing a surprisingly large number of accepted students to other programs that offered funding. In other words, many students were turning down HARVARD (the number one education program in the country) because of the lack of funding. Thus, I would say that turning down a very expensive, unranked online degree program with low match rates and questionable respectability might be a reasonable decision.

Finally, I believe that JonSnow and psychwhy should have theme music. We could all just be chatting away, and then there would be a rumbling in the distance... And the sound of drums indicate the entrance of psychwhy... And then trumpets blare for JonSnow... And then. The thread. EXPLODES!!!!

T4C - make it happen
 
Not sure where I insinuated that. I flat out stated Saybrook's program looks suspicious, but you seemed to agree with me on that one;) If it was a campus-based non-accredited degree that focused in those areas I'd still recommend avoiding it given the stated career goals.

I just jumped when you implied that we all got into these programs because we're rich kids from fancy private schools, etc. Online does not = diploma mill, its two completely different issues in my eyes, I've never stated any differently. Though given the way this thread has gone I see where I may have blended into the masses.

I'm just against anything that lowers the bar for entry into the field in general (at least by a substantial margin). I stayed away until it became a discussion of allowing more people to become psychologists, which is a separate issue from online classes (though apparently a related one). I don't know enough about how grad classes work to judge the effectiveness of online classes for psych, maybe in 3-4 years I'll get back to you. I do feel comfortable saying that one should have to prove oneself and make sacrifices earlier on in their career in order to obtain the highest level of degree. If that makes me glib and dismissive, I think I can live with that.

I'm actually done with the thread this time. I promise.

*goes to join the group hug*
 
Hi everyone,

I thought I’d provide some additional information as there seems to be some misunderstanding about Saybrook as an entity. It is a unique university and I wouldn’t compare it to other “online” schools for several reasons.

First, it is a not-for-profit organization, which is a huge distinction from the for-profit institutions out there. Some of the more recent schools like Capella, Northcentral, Walden etc, are all for-profit and that has its own hurdles that I won’t get into here.

Second, Saybrook definitely specializes in humanistic psychology, which is not mainstream, but certainly a respected field of psychology in certain circles. Saybrook is actually well known amongst humanistic psychologists as it was formed in the late 1960’s by some of the biggest names in humanistic psychology, Rollo May probably being the largest.

Since they are more of an old-school distance ed school they have only a few course online. In addition, they require frequent in-person conferences and research practica, so if you’re looking for a zero-travel program, this isn’t for you .The student population is also extremely small around 500 for their entire graduate program combined. It is unlikely that they will grow much faster as they only want students who are interested in humanistic psychology and are not in it for the profit.

They don’t offer a clinical/counselling psych program, so they don’t qualify for APA-accreditation. They do offer a marriage and family therapy master’s program, and do offer a “clinical track” for those students who want to seek licensure, but they are very upfront in saying that clinical psyc is not their focus. They are a research institute and actively encourage their students to become involved with the faculty to research issues related to their ideological leanings.

They did receive a warning from WASC about a lack of focus in their organizational future, however it’s the most minor warning they can receive and they are not close to losing their accreditation. However, it is important to watch though, because the administration needs to work to ensure that issue is rectified quickly. Personally, I suspect that the lack of focus is due to the debate going on within the institution about a shift to the more “mainstream” psychology fields. Many want Saybrook to remain purely humanistic, while others want it to adopt some additional theoretical areas.

They are expensive but offer substantial grants to their student body. About 75% receive grants and bursaries, so you stand a good chance. In addition, many Saybrook students have won APA Division 32 student awards as Saybrook ranks highly in the humanistic division.

Essentially you have to accept Saybrook for what it is. If you’re looking for a mainstream clinical or counselling psych program – this isn’t it. If you’re looking for a program that focuses more on the philosophical psychology research and you plan to apply to faculties that are “humanistic friendly” then Saybrook is a good choice as it is well-respected in that field.

Personally, I hope humanistic psychology is around for many years to come. As I grow older I find I am leaning more and more towards humanism, as I care less about “why” things work and care more about “what do these issues mean to me as an individual”. I think it’s a nice foil to the more scientific side of psychology. ;) While I didn’t attend Saybrook, I’m considering taking a certificate through them. So hopefully I’ll have more info to come!

Cheers everyone!
 
Heya!

I thought I'd do some looking around to see what Saybrook grads are doing with their degrees.

For myself, I have graduate degrees in "mainstream" clinical psychology and I am looking to enhance my practice by adding more alternative health practices. I currently work with oncology patients and we have found that methods such as relaxation therapy and aromatherapy have been excellent in helping them to cope with the side-effects of chemotherapy.

After doing a brief search on the internet, I found some interesting cases:

Dr. Carlstedt is a graduate of Saybrook's PhD program, and he did post-doctoral research at Harvard. He is a licensed clinical psychologist and a licensed sports psychologist (which is funny as I never would have thought about going to Saybrook for sport psychology) and he is the executive director of the American Board of Sport Psychologists. He was also previously on the committee for the APA Division 47.

I did a quick search for faculty reps and came up with Saybrook grads in the following institutions: Sonoma State, West Georgia, George Washington (Saybrook grad is interim director of forensic psyc), California State, Saint Mary's U, Northern Arizona, Antioch, Maryland, UC - Irvine, U of Alberta, Long Island U, U Buffalo, U Hartford, Mission College, Washington State. (This was just a quick search, so this is only a sampling).

Interestingly, while some were faculty members in psychology and medicine departments, other were in departments such as women's studies, special education, mythological studies, philosophy, etc.

Humanistic psychology appears large in california, as I found some organizations devoted to researching human science, such as the California Institute for Human Science. So there are Saybrook grads working in various human science institutes. I found alumni editing psychology journals such as the Journal of Mind and Behavior which is produced out of the University of Maine. Another Saybrook grad is involved in research at Harvard, although I was uncertain if he was also a tenured faculty member. So there appears to be a large number of research opportunities for humanistic psychologists.

I have to admit I was surprised at the number of Psychology faculties that have a department devoted to humanistic, depth, or positive psychology. Therefore, if you graduate from a humanistic program such as Saybrook, you will probably stand up well in the application process, if the institution has a humanistic research program.

Anywho, I hope this helps. I've been doing research on Saybrook as I am considering a certificate through them, so I thought I'd share some of the research.

Cheers!
 
Hi, it's the OP. I was surprised when I came back and found that there was such a heated discussion going on over the question! Distance vs. traditional really touches some nerves-- wow. As someone trying to get their head around this issue and decide what path would make the most sense for me (and be a rewarding while tremendously difficult pursuit), I really appreciate the responses on both sides (as well as the Saybrook-specific feedback). Psychnow and Ollie and Therapy4Change and everyone else raise valid arguments and concerns, really highlighting both the prejudices toward and favorable aspects of a distance model. Reading some of the comments made me feel nauseous about even considering a distance learning program, while others made me think that it is definitely a viable alternative. Vidhya highlights one of the main reasons I think Saybrook would be right for me, and that is its humanistic psychology focus. While I probably could have accomodations put into place for me at a traditional program, I'm not sure I would want to go that route. I think my abilities and where I am in my life right now makes the psychohistorical research/qualitative/philosophical and positive psychology approach more appealing to me than a pathology-based empirical model. I am fully aware that being on warning from an accrediting body gives reason for pause, also the biases against distance formats floating arond, and the large number of accepted candidates-- nevertheless, I was encouraged by what Vidhya pointed out regarding where Saybrook grads are teaching and what they are publishing, and the kind of dissertations they do, which make valuable contributions. I have more thinking to do about this, obviously, but again, I appreciate everyone's input and the no holds barred, honest opinions given.
 
I have read so much mis-information about Saybrook Graduate School I thought I'd set the record straight:

1. Saybrook is not an online school, it is a distance-education program with significant residential requirements to the extent that students who are interested in clinical licensure can fulfill residential requirements through annual residential conferences.

2. Students have been clinically licensed in over 28 states (Clinical Psychology/Licensed Psychologists).

3. Sayrbrook grads who have taken the EPPP have pass rates and scores higher than the vast majority of test takers from presumed more prestigious and "better" schools.

4. Saybrook has been called the Harvard of distance-education and according to the late Michael Mahoney has the best psychology department in the country. This from a UCal-Berekely PH.D. social psychologist and professor at many brick and mortar institutions.

5. Saybrook grads have one of the highest publication rates of any graduate school in the country.

6. Saybrook is a bastion of critical thinking and critical research. It does not portend to subscribe to the status quo models of research in psychology and clinical training; rather it challenges them and exposes their weaknesses.

7. Saybrook is a true intellectual institution as opposed to a assembly line of mandated uncritical approaches to education and training in psychology; including the American Psychological Association's training and accreditation model that is FULL OF HOLES when viewed critically by real world practioner-researchers who recognize this medicalized model for what it is, an incomplete, exclusionary model that was meant to control psychology through protectionist policies that violate many of the tenets the APA supposedly subscribes to. More on this in my edited book; Integrative Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine: Perspectives, Practices and Research to appear in late 2008. The APA evidence-based training and practice template doesn't even come close to attaining a high level in the evidence-chain/hierarchy as is apparent by the manner in which it accommodates and accredits disparate programs with divergent perspectives, methods and practices; so long as they are willing to pay for the process and demonstrate adherence to professional organization and education. So it's not necessarily about what you do or practice, but how, and such does not foster what accreditation purports and sells to the laity. BTW, Saybrook is seriously considering applying for APA accreditation for a new PsyD program in Clinical Psychology.

8. The recent accreditation issue relates to strategic planning and institutional vision and NOT to any substantive matters that are at the core of doctoral level education and will easily be rectified by better conveying what it already does more succinctly.

9. The accomplishmemts of Saybrook's graduates says it all.

10. For more on a successful Saybrook grad. see www.americanboardofsportpsychology.org (link to Chair's Page) and take a look at my pre and post-doctoral history and publication and presentation list; add four more contracted books and six research publications to the list.

11. To one smarty-pants on the list; seek no more; I won the APA Division 47 Dissertation Award for 2001 beating out scores of students from traditional schools with both my Master's thesis and dissertation not only being published in prestigious peer-reviewed professional journals, but also being the basis of two academic books.

12. So, please, know-it-alls, do your research before you slime a great institution with your non-truths. Show that you are capable of critical analysis and investigative research.
 
TO JOCKNERD:

SEEK and yea shall find. I was the first Saybrook grad to win a major dissertation award, the APA Division 47 Award in 2001 beating out scores of candidates from assumed to be great traditional universities including one of your alma maters. In the mean time another grad has won an APA dissertation award; another has obtained a prestigious post doctoral fellowship in a major NIH funded cancer study at a major medical school in Virginia.
 
It's great that you know someone who was nominated for an APA division award. Researchers nominate themselves for those awards. Let me know when someone from Saybrook wins one.

SEEK NO MORE, I WON THE FIRST and WE HAVE NOW WON A SECOND


As T4C mentioned, more spots aren't good. More spots mean fewer properly funded students. It's a competitive profession. Having personal goals doesn't qualify you.

The ability to name 7 programs with low match rates is insignificant.
Not every program will have 80% match rates. 7/300 doesn't mean that the training in all the rest of the programs is equal to training in an online degree. And even UMKC's 30% is better than Saybrook's 0%.[/quote]

YOUR SELECTIVE USE OF INFORMATION SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT CRITICAL THINKING. EVEN IF THE 0% RATE YOU CITE FOR SAYBROOK WERE ACCURATE IT IN NO WAY REFLECTS OUR ABILITY TO OBTAIN TOP-NOTCH PRE-DOCTORAL AND POST-DOCTORAL INTERN and FELLOWSHIP POSITIONS OR BECOME LICENSED IN MOST STATES THAT HAVE NOT BOWED DOWN TO THE APAs MASSIVE LOBBYING TO SOMEHOW CONVINCE STATE BOARDS THAT THEY HAVE INVENTED THE MODEL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE.

YOUR DISTORTIONS ARE BOGUS.
 
I think the challenge is getting the consistency from top to bottom. The top part can be great, but the bottom......they are the ones dragging everyone down. I think many feel (myself included) that we focus on getting what we currently have to a higher standard, instead of introduce a new method to an existing population that is still in need of improvement.

As an aside, using caps is akin to yelling on here, so I'd ask to refrain from that.

-t
 
Please, what is it about clinical psychology people, always telling others what to do, lectures, conveying that know it all attitude? I guess this propensity (i.e., trait-behavior) is part of what drives them to the field.

I used caps to distinguish my responses from that of the initial poster not being proficient with this forum program and all of its possibilities yet.

Anyway, I'll be checking out soon don't have time for much of this.
 
Please, what is it about clinical psychology people, always telling others what to do, lectures, conveying that know it all attitude?

I don't know what promotes that trait in clinical psychologists either, but I bet it's highly correlated with the tendency to resist deferring to the expertise of the moderator of a group, or even to someone who has made 1,310 more posts than you have.
 
Defer to someone because they have posted 1700 more times than me??? What does that even mean? That's some sort of benchmark qualification; a license? Excuse me, I will hereforth bow down to all "senior" members. What is this high school?

I am sorry that I even found my way to this list and will remove myself as soon as the thread dies. I'm actually sorry that I discovered this forum; I only did because I regularly GOOGLE for copyright infringements and plagiarism and discovered disparaging and grossly inaccurate comments and "information" about Saybrook. I had to set the record straight and for sure you'll find free and critical thinkers at Saybrook, people who challenge the status quo and flawed assumptions that have been shoved down the throats of the naive and gullible. For you APAers, come back after you've been in practice at least 5 years and show me your efficacy data and evidence of adhering to high level evidentiary pursuits that are critical to your so-called evidence and empirically validated interventions. Without following a very rigorous intake, monitoring and efficacy testing protocol your paradigm is miles from being the validated system you think that you are participating in. And to accomplish such a monumental task you'll need a double curriculum and major additional training that are not found in your supposed superior programs; but the gatekeepers and professors won't tell you that because those are the grandfathered power players who created a training template that would keep them in and others out. Fortunately, for you, you have the legislated power, but not the moral or ethical authority. And, if you are still in your 20s and fresh out of college and in an APA clinical program, you have many hurdles ahead of you that your APA-accredited internships and post-docs will not save you from or help you master when you have a 60 year old alcoholic or gambling addict in front of you or someone with problems you can't remotely relate to beyond having read about it. That's why there must always be a Saybrook and an opposing practice and research paradigm one that is grounded in critical thinking, one that will challenge your mythologies and arrogance in having the audacity to think that your APA badge of approval gives you superiority. It does not even come close. Show me what you have done, not your credentials. Credentials in psychology are by-and-large a conspiracy against the laity; under the guise of they needing protection. What we need is protection from supposed evidence-based approaches in clinical psychology that are grossly flawed. Over and out!
 
Was it really necessary to spam my inbox with copies of what you already said in here, Saybrook(insert rest of name here that I can't remember)?
 
Hi, it's the OP. I was surprised when I came back and found that there was such a heated discussion going on over the question! Distance vs. traditional really touches some nerves-- wow. As someone trying to get their head around this issue and decide what path would make the most sense for me (and be a rewarding while tremendously difficult pursuit), I really appreciate the responses on both sides (as well as the Saybrook-specific feedback). Psychnow and Ollie and Therapy4Change and everyone else raise valid arguments and concerns, really highlighting both the prejudices toward and favorable aspects of a distance model. Reading some of the comments made me feel nauseous about even considering a distance learning program, while others made me think that it is definitely a viable alternative. Vidhya highlights one of the main reasons I think Saybrook would be right for me, and that is its humanistic psychology focus. While I probably could have accomodations put into place for me at a traditional program, I'm not sure I would want to go that route. I think my abilities and where I am in my life right now makes the psychohistorical research/qualitative/philosophical and positive psychology approach more appealing to me than a pathology-based empirical model. I am fully aware that being on warning from an accrediting body gives reason for pause, also the biases against distance formats floating arond, and the large number of accepted candidates-- nevertheless, I was encouraged by what Vidhya pointed out regarding where Saybrook grads are teaching and what they are publishing, and the kind of dissertations they do, which make valuable contributions. I have more thinking to do about this, obviously, but again, I appreciate everyone's input and the no holds barred, honest opinions given.

It seems like the OP's questions were answered, so I'm going to close this since it seems to have gotten off track again. If anyone has additional questions in the future, feel free to start a new thread.

-t
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top