CSPP San Francisco Psy.D Program

[calbear3]

Like some prospective grad students, I cannot relocate geographically from my present home (SF bay area) to attend clinical psych grad school. Obviously this greatly limits one’s options…

I settled on CSPP San Francisco’s Psy.D. program. PGSP Consortium sounded even better, but it was too long a commute. Applied to CSPP and was accepted. After reading some of the reviews in this forum, however, I’m feeling ambivalent about the choice. There are many criticisms here of CSPP/Alliant, the Psy.D degree and these professional schools generally.

I would very much like to hear from actual students who are currently attending or have attended the CSPP San Francisco Psy.D Program. Not the “usual suspects” please (people who have hundreds of posts)—already got that opinion. Actual students: what is your frank opinion of the program? The faculty? The quality of the education you are receiving or have received? Your opinion of how attending this program affected your prospects with internships and your career? Your satisfaction and enjoyment going to school there?

If you would take a minute and give me your honest thoughts I would greatly appreciate it. I don't have forever to decide if I should actually pay the $$ and attend..
.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Can you ask the school to put you in contact with a current student of whom you can ask these questions? A lot of programs I interviewed at did this, and I found it to be helpful in making my decision.

Good luck!

 

[docma]

I've supervised a number of excellent students from their program. It has a broader scope curriculum than PGSP (eg: more opportunities for child/family work, more psychodynamic coursework) and offers a lot of opportunities if you go looking for them. Definitely do some networking with current students in advance if that will help you feel better. What motivated you to choose the PsyD over the PhD track?

 

[Neuropsych2be]

Like some prospective grad students, I cannot relocate geographically from my present home (SF bay area) to attend clinical psych grad school. Obviously this greatly limits one’s options…

I settled on CSPP San Francisco’s Psy.D. program. PGSP Consortium sounded even better, but it was too long a commute. Applied to CSPP and was accepted. After reading some of the reviews in this forum, however, I’m feeling ambivalent about the choice. There are many criticisms here of CSPP/Alliant, the Psy.D degree and these professional schools generally.

I would very much like to hear from actual students who are currently attending or have attended the CSPP San Francisco Psy.D Program. Not the “usual suspects” please (people who have hundreds of posts)—already got that opinion. Actual students: what is your frank opinion of the program? The faculty? The quality of the education you are receiving or have received? Your opinion of how attending this program affected your prospects with internships and your career? Your satisfaction and enjoyment going to school there?

If you would take a minute and give me your honest thoughts I would greatly appreciate it. I don't have forever to decide if I should actually pay the $$ and attend..
.

I think you are wise to solicit advice from actual students not the "usual suspects" who pontificate endlessly. One of the weaknesses of SDN is the endless quoting of assertions that have no data behind them.

 

[olychick65]

Can you ask the school to put you in contact with a current student of whom you can ask these questions? A lot of programs I interviewed at did this, and I found it to be helpful in making my decision.

Good luck!

Absolutely. Talking to current students is a really great idea to get a full picture. I would suggest also trying to talk to students who are about to leave for internship or have even already graduated and see how they feel about their entire experience now.

And, if the school won't help you out- that's a hot hint.

 

[calbear3]

Sigh…Yes, it is true that EPPP pass rates for Psy.D schools here in California (and elsewhere) do not equal that of the top university Ph.D programs. The top programs select for the smartest students. Alliant SF’s latest EPPP pass rate published by the State of California was 72%. In any case, I don’t care as I am a strong student who won’t have a problem with EPPP. Just limited to this geographical area.

It is good advice to solicit advice from current and past students, but I had hoped to do that through this forum. I am concerned that if I ask the school for contacts, I might not get a representative sample (shall we say…). So I repeat my request: Actual students (and those personally familiar with this program): What is your frank opinion of the Alliant SF Psy.D program? The faculty? The quality of the education you are receiving or have received? Your opinion of how attending this program affected your prospects with internships and your career? Your satisfaction and enjoyment going to school there? Thank you!

 

[docma]

This is not the best forum to find current students as it is primarily visited by prospective students (plus random followers with varying interests)--but maybe you could post to solicit what are other known sources for information on the web (if that is allowed).

One factor only sometimes noted in CSPP-SF's low APA/APPIC match rate is that a significant number of students, particularly those who are geographically restricted, bypass the APA/APPIC match and rely on the CAPIC internship system, which works well enough if you remain in California through licensure. It has its own limitations. But the reality is that field of choices skews CSPP data because a proportion "do not Match" because they never entered the Match. The "did not complete" numbers are high and I expect that is because many students are not as thoughtful as you about jumping into the degree/expense..and later change their mind.

I do think you could get a referral to some students from the school--and then ask those students to refer you to someone they know "who has not been satisfied":. If you network long enough you will get useful data. Also start asking around for anyone aleady in the field that you know and see if that will lead you to some CSPP folks.

Every school will have some outstanding students and some dingalings and schools with larger classes will have more in each of those categories. If you are geographically restricted than I think the key is really in the faculty and determining if you will have access to working closely with those faculty.

 

[futureapppsy2]

It is good advice to solicit advice from current and past students, but I had hoped to do that through this forum. I am concerned that if I ask the school for contacts, I might not get a representative sample (shall we say…). So I repeat my request: Actual students (and those personally familiar with this program): What is your frank opinion of the Alliant SF Psy.D program? The faculty? The quality of the education you are receiving or have received? Your opinion of how attending this program affected your prospects with internships and your career? Your satisfaction and enjoyment going to school there? Thank you!

YMMV, but the students I was put in contact with via email and those I met at interview days all seemed pretty forthright about the positives AND negatives of their programs.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

One factor only sometimes noted in CSPP-SF's low APA/APPIC match rate is that a significant number of students, particularly those who are geographically restricted, bypass the APA/APPIC match and rely on the CAPIC internship system, which works well enough if you remain in California through licensure. It has its own limitations. But the reality is that field of choices skews CSPP data because a proportion "do not Match" because they never entered the Match.

The CAPIC influence is definitely a consideration. Prior to CAPIC internship sites, many CA students who could not relocate were left to reapply in a year or take unacred placements (if their programmed allowed it). With the introduction of CAPIC acred. sites, those students can now find sites, but there are still limitations that impact licensure outside of CA, being locked out of jobs that req. APPIC/APA internships, and some government loan repayment programs that require APPIC/APA acred. internship sites.

The problem with the available data is that it doesn't address a number of key areas. How many students that applied to CAPIC never attempted to secure an APPIC/APA site? How many tried the match and then applied to CAPIC sites? Are certain students steered towards CAPIC instead of the APPIC/APA match? What effect does a large increase in graduating interns have on a community? Lower wages? Does state level acred. create a tiered system within psychology?

The "did not complete" numbers are high and I expect that is because many students are not as thoughtful as you about jumping into the degree/expense..and later change their mind.

Attrition rates are a very real concern because of the debt associated with a student dropping out. What happens to the 3rd year student who drops out with $90k in debt and no promising way to pay it back? The legal field has already seen what happens, and it is ugly.

 

[futureapppsy2]

The problem with the available data is that it doesn't address a number of key areas. How many students that applied to CAPIC never attempted to secure an APPIC/APA site?

FYI, this info is availabe (sort of) in their disclosure data...

http://www.alliant.edu/wps/wcm/connect/website/Home/About+Alliant/Schools+%26+Colleges/California+School+of+Professional+Psychology/About+CSPP+Programs/Clinical+Psychology+PsyD+Programs/Clinical+Psychology+%28PsyD%29+-+San+Francisco/

See page four... Out of the students who went through APPIC 56-81% secured a APPIC or APA internship, and roughly 20-50% of the students who went through APPIC secured an APA site. About 50% of students seem to apply through APPIC in a given year.

 

[Neuropsych2be]

Being a usual suspect, I apologize to the OP for responding, though maybe they won't mind if I don't "pontificate" and I take a different tactic. I couldn't resist responding to this gem (a marvelously unsupported assertion):



23%
16%
11%
16%
20%
16%
16%

Those #s are CSPP San Francisco's APA internship match rates from 2003 - 2009 based on data provided from their website.

20% of their 2002 1st year students did not finish the program and are no longer enrolled. An additional 16% are still enrolled. Meaning 36% of the class that started in 2002 have not finished the program (that's 8 years ago).

$91,200 = tuition for the PsyD program (if you finish in 4 years, which around 35% do across all Alliant programs, not sure about San Fran).

Interestingly, tuition for the PhD programs = $119,700.

There you go Neuropsych2be. I made no assertions. I presented only data. What say you?

I say data is good. But your data is incomplete since you have to add in living expenses for the Bay Area . Of course data does not just sit there. It has to be interpreted. I often wonder if higher education is a "bubble" in the sense that real estate and stocks are a bubble. The private liberal arts school near me costs $ 34,000 per year in tuition. Imagine an undergrad studying elementary education racking up that level of debt!!?? My opinion is that demand for education will not go away. Social and market forces will lead to the transformation of the modern university into something quite unrecognizable. Existing educational paradigms will be forced to change and change radically if the university is to survive.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I say data is good. But your data is incomplete since you have to add in living expenses for the Bay Area . Of course data does not just sit there. It has to be interpreted. I often wonder if higher education is a "bubble" in the sense that real estate and stocks are a bubble. The private liberal arts school near me costs $ 34,000 per year in tuition. Imagine an undergrad studying elementary education racking up that level of debt!!?? My opinion is that demand for education will not go away. Social and market forces will lead to the transformation of the modern university into something quite unrecognizable. Existing educational paradigms will be forced to change and change radically if the university is to survive.

The problem with your undergrad example is that many choose to go to "funded" programs for undergrad (either through grants or merit-based scholarships) and thus don't pay the "sticker price," and others have parents who can (and are willing to) pay the "sticker price" or some portion of it for undergrad. It's stickier with regards to grad school in that most grad schools either offer a really good option A (full or near full-funding) or nothing, and option B rarely exists. Of course, there are some undergrads who take on way too much UG debt, but I think the problem, on the whole, is less severe than it is at grad level, if just because most 18-22 year olds can't get banks to loan them $200k+!

 

[PsyDGrrrl]

Interpretation is a road that leads to your accusations of bias and intolerance.

Bubble? Yes.

The student loan system is a license to print money and why Argosy and Alliant exist.

CSPP has been around since the 70s. Hardly on par with Argosy.

 

[progter]

Interpretation is a road that leads to your accusations of bias and intolerance.

Bubble? Yes.

The student loan system is a license to print money and why Argosy and Alliant exist.

The student loan system basically allows all colleges to exist. Most students dabble in loans at some point or another, especially in grad school.

To the OP:

Alliants program is what you make of it. If you feel you are very qualified to be in the field and you normally are in the top 20% of your class then you will more than likely be one of those people in the APA internships. But you have to be honest with yourself. If you pulled a 2.5 all through college and always had some reason for scoring below what you think you are capable of... you need to do an honest assessment as to whether or not you are willing to try to make it in a school like this.

There are some great students that come from Alliants programs and yes, there are some students in those same programs who do not belong in a clinical phd or psyd program.

Every student that I've ever talked to from the Fresno Alliant program has told me this exact same thing.

 

[TenaciousGirl]

The student loan system basically allows all colleges to exist. Most students dabble in loans at some point or another, especially in grad school.

To the OP:

Alliants program is what you make of it. If you feel you are very qualified to be in the field and you normally are in the top 20% of your class then you will more than likely be one of those people in the APA internships. But you have to be honest with yourself. If you pulled a 2.5 all through college and always had some reason for scoring below what you think you are capable of... you need to do an honest assessment as to whether or not you are willing to try to make it in a school like this.

There are some great students that come from Alliants programs and yes, there are some students in those same programs who do not belong in a clinical phd or psyd program.

Every student that I've ever talked to from the Fresno Alliant program has told me this exact same thing.

very well said. I guess the only thing I would add is that there are some really great opportunities for both research and clinical experience at the SF campus. SF consistently (along with SD) publishes in "big name" journals and has a devotion to helping students find a balance between research and clinical training. It is most definitely what you make of it. Finally, professional school grads make up a bigger portion of our field than any other type of student from whatever program. When I realized this fact, many of the fears I had that were spawned from the negative comments I read on this forum dissolved.

See if the school can set you up with someone. Or PM me and I can set you up with some third years who are getting ready to go off to internship.

 

[deleted176373]

Sigh…Yes, it is true that EPPP pass rates for Psy.D schools here in California (and elsewhere) do not equal that of the top university Ph.D programs. The top programs select for the smartest students. Alliant SF's latest EPPP pass rate published by the State of California was 72%. In any case, I don't care as I am a strong student who won't have a problem with EPPP. Just limited to this geographical area.

It is good advice to solicit advice from current and past students, but I had hoped to do that through this forum. I am concerned that if I ask the school for contacts, I might not get a representative sample (shall we say&#8230. So I repeat my request: Actual students (and those personally familiar with this program): What is your frank opinion of the Alliant SF Psy.D program? The faculty? The quality of the education you are receiving or have received? Your opinion of how attending this program affected your prospects with internships and your career? Your satisfaction and enjoyment going to school there? Thank you!

So you think that the EPPP pass rates are a product of student quality and relatively independent of the educational process?

I have thousands of posts, and as one of the usual suspects I will refrain from providing an opinion on these schools. The outcome data is publicly available and personally I would base much of my decision based on the empirical evidence.

Good luck

Mark

 

[progter]

Jon,

We get that you hate professional programs, but they are here and they are here to stay. Not every student who is qualified to get into a traditional phd program is going to get into one. There just are not enough spots, especially in certain areas of research where very few teachers are doing it. These schools give those students an opportunity. If those students want to pay for it, then that is there decision, not yours to judge.

At the end of the day those students from professional programs are still taking and passing the same licensure exams as people from traditional schools. If they failed to take in enough during their education to pass, that is their fault. Not the programs fault. But when the standards are set and they are met by a student and the test is passed, they are legally allowed to practice psychology, just like you and I are.

Anyone in the field will tell you that 10 years after you have graduated no one cares what school you went to. At that point, its what you have done (pubs, presentations, etc.). These students might have a harder time making a name and establishing themselves at first than us traditional students, but if they want it bad enough, they will do just fine.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Jon,

We get that you hate professional programs, but they are here and they are here to stay. Not every student who is qualified to get into a traditional phd program is going to get into one. There just are not enough spots, especially in certain areas of research where very few teachers are doing it. These schools give those students an opportunity. If those students want to pay for it, then that is there decision, not yours to judge.

At the end of the day those students from professional programs are still taking and passing the same licensure exams as people from traditional schools. If they failed to take in enough during their education to pass, that is their fault. Not the programs fault. But when the standards are set and they are met by a student and the test is passed, they are legally allowed to practice psychology, just like you and I are.

Anyone in the field will tell you that 10 years after you have graduated no one cares what school you went to. At that point, its what you have done (pubs, presentations, etc.). These students might have a harder time making a name and establishing themselves at first than us traditional students, but if they want it bad enough, they will do just fine.

Training aside, I just can't wrap my head around the cost issue--how do you get started in a field with $50-60k starting salarlies when you have 2-4 times that in just grad school debt? I'm not being snarky--I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

This is what happens when my afternoon patients cancel and my paperwork is done for the week…

If they failed to take in enough during their education to pass, that is their fault. Not the programs fault. But when the standards are set and they are met by a student and the test is passed, they are legally allowed to practice psychology, just like you and I are.

I strongly disagree with this point. Programs are responsible for the students they produce. If students are consistently under-performing and/or are not at the same level as other students, it is the fault of the institution/program to be more selective and/or improve their training. It is irresponsible to the profession and potentially damaging to their students to let this continue unchecked.

I think many of the concerns are not about the top 20% people, but the rest of the people who may not be at the same level of performance. I have met some great people from Argosy, Alliant, etc at various conferences, but those people are most likely in the top 20% and the ones getting the APA-acred. internships.

To illustrate my point below, I wanted to include some data culled from the educational outcome data posted on the CSPP SF website (Ph.D. and Psy.D.).

Psy.D Outcome Data for Internship (2003 to 2009, 6 internship classes)

1Received APA Internships: 70 (18%)
1Received APPIC Internships: 56 (14%)
1Received CAPIC Internships: 266 (68%)
2Received Unpaid Internships: 125 (32%)
2Total Percentage of CAPIC Unpaid Internships: (47%)
3Total # of Matched Applicants: 392
4Total # of Student Applicants: 390, adjusted to 392

1The match numbers for each accreditation level was the sum of each reported cohort year.

2The number of unpaid internships is the result of the difference between the CAPIC obtained internships and the CAPIC Paid internship figures from each year. The total percentage was figured from that.

3The sum of the three acred. matched groups.

4There was an error in the reported sum total for the first 2008-2009 numbers (incorrectly marked 60 instead of 62), which I also corrected for in my summed totals.

The percentile amounts were the total matched number at each acredidation level divided by the total number of matched applicants (392).

*There was a duplicate column (2008-2009) included in the PDF, which I did not include in my totaled figures. *

So what does this mean….assuming 392 total applicants came out over a 6 year span, 82% of Alliant SF Psy.D. graduates from 2003-2009 will not be eligible for any job that requires an APA internship. These jobs include most government agencies, most universities (teaching, counseling centers, etc), and many public and private hospitals. Additionally, approximately 1/3 (32%) of all Alliant SF Psy.D. graduates worked at unpaid CAPIC internship sites. Nearly half of all CAPIC matched internship spots (47%) were unpaid.

Just more food for thought.

ps. I have an excel table I made because I added the numbers from their PDF in my head and it didn't make sense. I'll attach it later for the curious.

 

[JD7699]

So what does this mean….assuming 392 total applicants came out over a 6 year span, 82% of Alliant SF Psy.D. graduates from 2003-2009 will not be eligible for any job that requires an APA internship. These jobs include most government agencies, most universities (teaching, counseling centers, etc), and many public and private hospitals. Additionally, approximately 1/3 (32%) of all Alliant SF Psy.D. graduates worked at unpaid CAPIC internship sites. Nearly half of all CAPIC matched internship spots (47%) were unpaid.



I know that working for the VA clearly requires APA internship for consideration of a position and most research universities require APA internship. This may be different in other areas, but in California I do not know of any county or state government agency that requires an APA internship. I know of no hospitals that require an APA internship though few hospitals hire psychologists here. A survey of different counties in California will show that licensure is the minimum requirement for employment. That does not mean that one does not have an advantage with an APA internship and program. In California, degrees from several schools who do not have regional accreditation qualify for licensure(the single biggest problem in my opinion). It has been my experience that many in CA professional schools do not apply for APA or APPIC and do not have problems with employment due to this choice. They are not necessarily the "bottom of the barrel." They are usually geographically limited, older than other graduate students, have families, or moving from a masters level license to psychologist and earning incomes other than internship. I also know that the APA has pushed some of the professional schools to change their structure to either encourage of force students to participate in the match. CAPIC's big appeal is the half time model(thus requiring 2 years) Also, regarding mobility. CAPIC listed sites can meet internship requirements to be listed in the National Register, a mobility mechanism. Of course, when people ask me about the importance of an APA internship I encourage them to consider their goals and the prospect of fewer career choices.

 

[Ollie123]

Jon,

We get that you hate professional programs, but they are here and they are here to stay. Not every student who is qualified to get into a traditional phd program is going to get into one. There just are not enough spots, especially in certain areas of research where very few teachers are doing it.

At the end of the day those students from professional programs are still taking and passing the same licensure exams as people from traditional schools. If they failed to take in enough during their education to pass, that is their fault. Not the programs fault. But when the standards are set and they are met by a student and the test is passed, they are legally allowed to practice psychology, just like you and I are.

Have to strongly disagree. They certainly are here, but not necessarily to stay. While there were problems with the Baker article, they were correct that medicine went through a similar takeover by similar institutions many years back. They were eventually discredited, and weeded out of existence. At least one group is already trying to do this with psychology by forming its own accreditation system. If it works it very well may create a more clearly defined two-tiered education system - more formally disparaging many of these schools, and long-term perhaps placing them somewhere in between mid-level training and doctoral-level training. Alternatively, it may force them to shape up, close down, or it may force APA to take action to better control schools and raise accreditation standards, or, more likely, some combination of the above.

It is true that there are many more people who want these degrees than can get into programs. I'm sure many are qualified. However, we shouldn't overproduce psychologists just because lots of people want to do it. That hurts the field in the long term. Certainly, there are qualified students at Argosy, Alliant (fair/accurate or not, these are the 2 that first come to mind for a lot of people when discussing the "problem" schools - probably just because of the fact that they have so many campuses), etc. However there are also many who don't seem to be qualified...but still manage to get in, get through, and graduate.

To me, a big part of the difference in views seem to center on what the role of schools should be. Are schools just supposed to provide the opportunity to be a qualified professional after you graduate? Or are they supposed to guarantee that their graduates are qualified professionals? Personally, I believe the latter. I dislike the idea of relying on things like the EPPP. Why? Well, the problem is that graduating large numbers of poorly trained psychologists affects that. Everytime we try to raise professional standards...guess who is fighting against it? By producing psychologists at the rate they do, these schools have managed to gain political sway. Fights to raise standards are generally met with resistance...and what institutions is it coming from? Not the academy schools...

 

[progter]

Good points all around

I understand that schools should do all they can to make sure students pass but you'll never be able to always have 100%. Unless of course you are extremely picky in who you take and take very few highly qualified ppl. But I still think that its the students responsibility. If they are going to put the time and effort into something and the program provides ample opportunities to succeed and the student does not, the student should not be looking back and cursing the program for not doing "more."

Many law schools offer everything and MORE to pass the bar exam but no school has a 100% pass rate, even the Ivy leagues. Is that the programs fault or the students fault?

 

[progter]

You keep lumping Alliant in with Argosy forgetting that Alliant has no shareholders to please because they are non-profit. Comparing those 2 programs is like comparing apples and oranges.

The only way any of this private school nonsense that goes on at a few schools is ever going to change is if the APA does something. But lets be honest, I have better hope for the Obama administration and this new healthcare thing than I do for the APA to ever "get it" and turn things around.

Maybe if their standards for accreditation weren't so terribly low, less schools would be able to attain it.

 

[JD7699]

Perhaps it's naieve of me, but I don't see all that much difference between a non-profit and a for-profit in this instance.

Both programs require tuition payments to exist. I'm also not seeing material differences in quality or practices (e.g. large class sizes).

I see your point that they both are expensive with limited funding for students. However, it is my understanding that non-profit designation allows a school to receive grants which help fund programs and research(ex: Institute of Violence and Abuse-IVAT at CSPP San Diego). Of course CSPP is not receiving the same kind of grant funding as major universities, it still allows the school to contributes to the field of psychology. I have not heard of any Argosy campus receiving grants for research(could be wrong).

 

[progter]

Perhaps it's naieve of me, but I don't see all that much difference between a non-profit and a for-profit in this instance.

Both programs require tuition payments to exist. I'm also not seeing material differences in quality or practices (e.g. large class sizes).

Alliant isn't out recruiting ppl w/ telemarkers and making admissions advisors recruit X ppl per month. Some of their schools have some pretty good faculty at them. Yes they also receive research grants like the poster above presented.

The fact that they do not have shareholders breathing down their necks to produce more and more profits is a blessing into itself. Alliants programs really aren't THAT bad. Many (if not most) of the professors at California State University, Fresno also teach at alliant part time for the $$ and most of them are top notch and have nothing really all that bad to say about the program. Does the APA match rate need to be addressed? yes. But they've actively been helping local places seek out and gain APA accred for their internship sites in order to get more spots.

I can't say the same for Argosy, in my experiences.

 

[NoraMarzo]

As a PsyD student from a professional psychology program, allow me to speak anecdotally: many of my colleagues who applied to APA sites and did not match this past year also lacked assessment experience beyond what was taught as part of the core curriculum (intellectual, psychodiagnostic and neuropsychological assessment courses). For example, few of the VA practicum sites in my area offer assessment as part of the training: as such, students can put "VA" on their CVs, but with zero reports on their AAPI, they just don't stand out.

Additionally, these applicants tended to limit themselves by applying to extremely competitive sites in geographically desirable areas (e.g., SF Bay Area, LA, San Diego, Boston, Chicago, etc.).

All of these students were applying to APA sites at the beginning of their 3rd year, with only a year and a half's worth of clinical experience under their belts (the first year of our program involves an 8hour/week practicum, versus the 16-20hr/week practica of G2 and G3).

Despite my program's lack of an emphasis on research (versus comparable PhD programs), many of these students sought research opportunities outside of their clinical placements and coursework. They presented posters at conferences.

Some of those who didn't match to APA sites matched to APPIC sites. The rest matched through CAPIC, or decided to take a supplemental practicum with an emphasis on assessment.

These students are motivated, dedicated, intelligent, and clinically proficient individuals, committed to [the ongoing process of] developing cultural competence. But when you break it down:
-Professional school (strike one)
-Limited psychodiagnostic assessment experience (strike two)
-Geographically limited (strike three)
-DIY research experience (strike... fuggedaboutit)

Compared to the average university-based clinical psych doctoral candidate, my professional school colleagues and I are all at a disadvantage. This is particularly true when applying to internship sites with an emphasis on research. The smart ones of us know this going into it, and we're prepared to handle the consequences (e.g., back-up plan if we don't get an APA match).

If you are hard-working, intelligent, have a broadly developed clinical acumen, are well-trained in the practical applications of theory, know what you are looking for as far as professional development goes, and are flexible when it comes geography, there is no reason -- even coming from a professional school like Alliant/CSPP -- you shouldn't match with an APA site. Assuming you want one in the first place.

And my biggest issue with the statistics regarding how many Alliant/CSPP match in the APA process is the assumption that 100% of Alliant/CSPP students WANT APA sites. Many are satisfied with APPIC or CAPIC placements. And those who aren't are prepared to do what it takes in an extra year to get the experience they need to be considered a highly competitive applicant.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

All of these students were applying to APA sites at the beginning of their 3rd year, with only a year and a half's worth of clinical experience under their belts (the first year of our program involves an 8hour/week practicum, versus the 16-20hr/week practica of G2 and G3).


And my biggest issue with the statistics regarding how many Alliant/CSPP match in the APA process is the assumption that 100% of Alliant/CSPP students WANT APA sites. Many are satisfied with APPIC or CAPIC placements. And those who aren't are prepared to do what it takes in an extra year to get the experience they need to be considered a highly competitive applicant.

People apply during their 3rd year?! It is no wonder they aren't competitive, as most applicants have 4-5+ years of experience. How can they get enough contact hours, research experience, etc to even feel competent to apply to internship?

As for not wanting APA internships....that is the wrong way to go into the process. APA-acred. sites aren't going above and beyond (like applying to an optional fellowship), they are part of the standard training process. I think APA got in trouble by letting other acred. levels into the mix.

 

[olychick65]

All of these students were applying to APA sites at the beginning of their 3rd year, with only a year and a half's worth of clinical experience under their belts (the first year of our program involves an 8hour/week practicum, versus the 16-20hr/week practica of G2 and G3).

Despite my program's lack of an emphasis on research (versus comparable PhD programs), many of these students sought research opportunities outside of their clinical placements and coursework. They presented posters at conferences.

I'd argue that this is part of the problem with professional schools- the average funded university program would not encourage/allow a student to apply to internship so early, because they know a student is not prepared, ethically and otherwise, for an internship after three years of preparation.
I think it's wrong to support a student to spend so much time and money for them to not match to a APA-accredited program.

 

[NoraMarzo]

People apply during their 3rd year?! It is no wonder they aren't competitive, as most applicants have 4-5+ years of experience. How can they get enough contact hours, research experience, etc to even feel competent to apply to internship?

An excellent point, T4C. But for a PsyD student who is encouraged to complete coursework in three years and internship in one for a 4-year degree, that's what our school's administration tells us we "need" to do. Of course, the APA internship gets to be "optional." Which leads nicely to your second point...

As for not wanting APA internships....that is the wrong way to go into the process. APA-acred. sites aren't going above and beyond (like applying to an optional fellowship), they are part of the standard training process. I think APA got in trouble by letting other acred. levels into the mix.

A quick survey of APA-accredited sites in the greater metropolitan San Francisco Bay Area reveals that there are only 45 internship positions available in a given training year. I guarantee there are more than 45 clinical psychology students applying for internships in the SF Bay Area annually. The San Francisco VA alone, with three internship positions available, received 189 completed applications last year. In part it's an issue of supply and demand; lots of people want to live in the Bay Area, but for those of us training here, very few get to stay [unless we go the APPIC/CAPIC route].

As per the "optional fellowship" part, see above. For my colleagues, an optional fellowship/supplemental practicum means applying to APA/APPIC sites with two and a half years of clinical experience, as opposed to 18 months.

 

[NoraMarzo]

I'd argue that this is part of the problem with professional schools- the average funded university program would not encourage/allow a student to apply to internship so early, because they know a student is not prepared, ethically and otherwise, for an internship after three years of preparation.
I think it's wrong to support a student to spend so much time and money for them to not match to a APA-accredited program.

True story. But again, don't assume that student wants an APA-accred program in the first place. Training and supervision are, in many cases, just as good at APPIC- and CAPIC-approved sites as they are at APA sites. The only difference [to someone who doesn't care about government or university-based employment post-grad] is that many CAPIC positions are unfunded.

Of course, talking about unfunded internship positions is a whhooooole other ball of wax.

 

[JD7699]

True story. But again, don't assume that student wants an APA-accred program in the first place. Training and supervision are, in many cases, just as good at APPIC- and CAPIC-approved sites as they are at APA sites. The only difference [to someone who doesn't care about government or university-based employment post-grad] is that many CAPIC positions are unfunded.

Of course, talking about unfunded internship positions is a whhooooole other ball of wax.

Being an APA accredited internship does not guarantee level of training any more than being an APA accredited doctoral program(as many are quick to point out about professional schools). California has a huge need for psychological services with limited resources to meet this need. Local sites which train psychologists serve the local communities well. However, I do not like the expectation that interns will work for free.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

An excellent point, T4C. But for a PsyD student who is encouraged to complete coursework in three years and internship in one for a 4-year degree, that's what our school's administration tells us we "need" to do. Of course, the APA internship gets to be "optional." Which leads nicely to your second point...

The administration should be ashamed of themselves. That approach discounts the degree because it doesn't differentiate much from a 2-yr MS program. No/little research, limited assessment experience, etc.

As per the "optional fellowship" part, see above. For my colleagues, an optional fellowship/supplemental practicum means applying to APA/APPIC sites with two and a half years of clinical experience, as opposed to 18 months.

The fellowship comment was in regard to a formalized fellowship after internship (neuropsych, rehab psych, etc), and not about practica. At a minimum, students should have experiences that involve assessment, dx, and therapy during their practica training. Anything short of that is doing a disservice to the student and the field. I don't mean to be preachy, but I have seen a great variance in training, and it harms the field because even the last person from the worst graduate school can still be called Doctor. I have a hard time believing most students are really ready for a quality internship after 4 years of school, let alone 3 years. My expectation isn't that every student needs to be in servitude to a research mentor for 6+ years, but fast-tracking a training that barely gets enough covered is asking or trouble.

True story. But again, don't assume that student wants an APA-accred program in the first place. Training and supervision are, in many cases, just as good at APPIC- and CAPIC-approved sites as they are at APA sites. The only difference [to someone who doesn't care about government or university-based employment post-grad] is that many CAPIC positions are unfunded.

I am frustrated that there are programs that are encouraging anything but APA internship sites. Again, APA-acred. sites aren't this huge achievement, but instead they are the standard. The adjustment shouldn't be to make alternative placements.

As for the quality of training.....I don't necessarily disagree with you, as I know some APPIC sites that are fine training sites that just couldn't afford the fees associated with gaining APA-acred. status. I can't speak to any CAPIC sites, because I do not know any. My issue is with the multiple acred. levels, the flooding of the market (not correcting for the over-supply of applicants), and the fact that unfunded spots are an option. Think about it....many internships in UNDERGRADUATE are paid, but after 4 years of undergrad and 4 more of graduate work, you are not able to be paid?! It is bad for our field, and it further degrades our profession by keeping salaries low. The fact the average internship pays $23k/yr is just sad, and that doesn't even account or all of these unpaid placements.

 

[TenaciousGirl]

Safety in numbers? That's only recently (as in last couple of years; there are far more people in the field currently from funded PhD programs than professional schools; the problems of the reproduction issue are only starting to be felt, it will get worse) and it's because said schools continuously increase their class sizes for more tuition dollars, literally reproducing themselves into respectability (because more and more of our field comes from these businesses; our field is under seige by these greedy arseholes [the businesses offering doctorates for sale]). Do you realize there are many times more funded PhD programs than there are professional schools? But, with their weak faculties, farming out system (training opportunities in the local communities drive professional schools), and willingness to let everyone and their pet dog attend, they produce pretty much just as many students as funded PhD programs (~50% of new grads come from professional schools). These are essentially indentured servant programs. You can't rely on them to provide your education. To truly do well at a professional school, you have to take advantage of their leach-like nature, the fact they're in a big city and there are actually good schools around with good faculty members that are willing to let you work for them for free for a few years (if you're lucky). This aspect of professional schools just makes me irate. They charge you for the priviledge of going to work for a faculty member at another institution. They charge a lot to do that. Parasitic, unethical, exploitative programs.

While I agree that if you're exceptional, you can do well at a professional school, most of us (people) are not exceptional . . .remember top 20% of your class in one place is not the same as another. If you're lucky (get good breaks in getting externships and internships [beating out all of your classmates who also think they're exceptional]), and go military to get rid of your loans you can do well from a professional school. Otherwise, it's a complete waste of money and time. Regardless, by choosing to enter one, you are injuring our field by perpetuating this educational model (high price businesses instead of universities).

I apologize, sort of, for the tone of this post, but TenaciousGirl's comment, essentially endorsing the irresponsibility of the expansion of professional schools, ticked me off. I guess, in one way I can understand your rationale. Well, if ~50% of graduates come from professional schools, they can't not hire me because I went to one. Of course, that assumes that those schools aren't flooding the market and people don't have to take unpaid internships, can't get postdocs, and don't mind taking jobs meant for social workers (further blurring the line between us and masters level providers, driving down incomes for everyone).

First of all, you have done nothing but derail this thread. The OP asked for info/opinions abased on people who are familiar with the school I.E. people who go to CSPP. We all know you can't resist to interject your opinion but I do not appreciate the tone of your post what so ever. I was simply stating a mere fact that in California CSPP/professional school grads out number everyone else. No I didn't state California originally, but I thought it would be assumed that since I was talking about a California school it would make sense. I've read most of the comments you write on here and they're all the same. Professional schools are here to stay, get over it. You're just going to have to deal with the fact that they exist whether you like it or not. People choose them for whatever reason. I don't think my school is damaging the field of psychology. I also don't think I am contributing to any "damage" by attending my school. I think it's erroneous for you to make such a statement. If we do research, write dissertations, get APA internships, pass the EPPP then how can you or anyone else try to say we aren't qualified clinicians or that somehow we wasted our time and money just because we had to pay for our education? Not everyone who is qualified for a graduate education can go to a fully funded program for a plethora of reasons. That's a fact. Why should anyone have to give up their dream just because they can't go to such a program? I appreciate the fact that you're passionate about this, but I don't appreciate the tone in which you write comments like this.

two questions for you ... since *i know* you'll respond with your typical song and dance routine of tearing my post apart.
1. do you voice these opinions IRL?
2. What are you *doing* (as in, taking action) about these opinions of yours?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Well, the school we're talking about doesn't match too many students to APA internships (a low bar to begin with . . . about 80% of the students from this program ignore or are unable to comply with APA standards), nor produce many that pass the EPPP at the same rate as other programs, or produce much in the way of research.

In regard to this point, it is important for other professionals to share this information because many times the information is not otherwise available, and the students are left to what the programs share. Some programs downplay the importance of an APA-acred. internship site and unless students really dig for information, the applicants don't know what they don't know.

When I was applying (2003), I had very little information about any of this because all of my mentors were 20-30+ years out. The clinical forum was not yet added to SDN, and I didn't even know what a Psy.D. was until I picked up the Graduate Guide. I wish I had people who were willing to share information about the importance factors for picking a graduate school, which is one reason I became a moderator here at SDN.

Yes, and, further, they aren't uncommon opinions at all, nor are they particularly controversial. For example, comments on internship match are posted by students and training directors (survey from APPIC), a rather substantial number cite irresponsible numbers of students produced by professional schools as a serious problem.

The feedback from "the field" has been pretty mixed, though most agree the imbalance is not good for the future of the field. I think it has become more about the Haves and Have Nots. What I mean by this are the students who have a well-rounded training, good supervision, and a solid foundation in the science and the practice of psychology.....versus the students who have not had a comprehensive training. This split isn't down degrees or "Professional" v. "Traditional" programs, but instead the student's level of training. The reason the outcome data is so important to consider is that it speaks to the school's level of training and the competitiveness of their students against students from across the country.

One of the Florida professional schools was like this for a long time. . . no dissertation requirement, comprehensive exams were a case presentation, apply for internship 3rd year. It's like an expensive masters degree.

I believe you are talking about CIIS, which is on APA-acred. probation. Looking at their numbers, it should have been pulled years ago.

 

[NoraMarzo]

I think it has become more about the Haves and Have Nots. What I mean by this are the students who have a well-rounded training, good supervision, and a solid foundation in the science and the practice of psychology.....versus the students who have not had a comprehensive training. This split isn't down degrees or "Professional" v. "Traditional" programs, but instead the student's level of training. The reason the outcome data is so important to consider is that it speaks to the school's level of training and the competitiveness of their students against students from across the country.

Thank you for this.

To the OP: The opportunities for "well-rounded training, good supervision, and a solid foundation in the science and the practice of psychology" are available at Alliant/CSPP in SF, particularly if you start your program with these specific goals in mind. One advantage to a clinical psych program in SF Bay Area is the HUGE variety of training sites (over 100 agencies take practicum students each year), and with the creation of BAPIC (http://www.bapic.info/), the process of obtaining excellent training has been streamlined.

 

[TenaciousGirl]

I haven't derailed the thread. People are welcome to respond to the OP in the manner they have requested it. I have not, cannot, nor would I prevent that.

"I would very much like to hear from actual students who are currently attending or have attended the CSPP San Francisco Psy.D Program. Not the “usual suspects” please (people who have hundreds of posts)—already got that opinion. Actual students: what is your frank opinion of the program? The faculty? The quality of the education you are receiving or have received? Your opinion of how attending this program affected your prospects with internships and your career? Your satisfaction and enjoyment going to school there?"

Jon, read this again. Are you a student of CSPP? No. Are you a usual suspect, YES. Hence, the OP didn't really want to hear from you.

are we discussing the "tone" of posts? Is this even relevant?

apologize, sort of, for the tone of this post, but TenaciousGirl's comment, essentially endorsing the irresponsibility of the expansion of professional schools, ticked me off.

You, Sir, are the one who originally brought up the tone OF YOUR OWN POST. I was merely responding to that. If you think the tone of posts is not relevant, then don't comment on your own tone.

I don't know what school you attend.

Come on Jon, the OP asked for actual students to respond. And given my obvious disagreement with you on many things, I think you know that I at least go to a professional school.

Well, the school we're talking about doesn't match too many students to APA internships (a low bar to begin with . . . about 80% of the students from this program ignore or are unable to comply with APA standards), nor produce many that pass the EPPP at the same rate as other programs, or produce much in the way of research. I concede that value is in the eye of the beholder (the return on investment equation is complicated by emotion).

This issue has already been addressed time and time again. Is it a problem, yes it is. It is a "simple" problem? No. There are many aspects to this problem and the answer is not as simple as, "the school sucks, that's why..."

I want to be CEO of Microsoft. Can I do it? Just because I don't have a business or related technical degree, connections among the very rich, or any experience in the field, I shouldn't be prevented from achieving my dream, right?

This is essentially what you're saying, yes? Just because:

- I don't want to move from San Francisco or attend a university anywhere but LA, Chicago, Boston, or New York.

- I don't have a GRE score above 1000

- I partied all the way through undergrad and graduated with a 3.2 GPA

- I have no research experience

- I don't want to do any research (icky)

- My boyfriend (or whatever) doesn't want to move.

I should be able to just pay lots and lots of money and get a degree where I want without having to worry about all that stuff.

This is ABSOLUTELY NOT what I'm referring to. Have you ever thought that maybe when I said there are things that may prevent people from going to a funded program that it could be, oh, say, serious things? Like my parent has a degenerative disease and I'm their power of attorney. Or, my parent died and I feel the need to stay close to help raise my siblings. Or, my spouse cannot relocate their career during this present economy? Jon, these are the types of situations I am referring to. Does everyone have a situation like the ones above? No. But I am grateful that I am pursuing my dream with the set of circumstances life has dealt me. I think it's totally disrespectful that you imply that people who go to professional schools have the stats that you mentioned above. I have none of those stats and I have quite a few classmates that don't, either. I realize stereotypes exist for a reason, but does that mean you should use them to generalize a whole group of people? No.

yes, and, further, they aren't uncommon opinions at all, nor are they particularly controversial. For example, comments on internship match are posted by students and training directors (survey from APPIC), a rather substantial number cite irresponsible numbers of students produced by professional schools as a serious problem.


Discouraging students interested in psychology from attending professional schools, staying active in training future clinicians and researchers, discussing and helping implement research initiatives that promote training standards, and supporting professionals in our leadership positions that have a proper view of education in psychology.

Good for you, Jon. Good for you. There are actually several things I agree with you about. It's the way you go about presenting things I cannot stand ... especially the way you try to twist things around, like you did above.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

Thank you for this.

To the OP: The opportunities for "well-rounded training, good supervision, and a solid foundation in the science and the practice of psychology" are available at Alliant/CSPP in SF, particularly if you start your program with these specific goals in mind. One advantage to a clinical psych program in SF Bay Area is the HUGE variety of training sites (over 100 agencies take practicum students each year), and with the creation of BAPIC (http://www.bapic.info/), the process of obtaining excellent training has been streamlined.

Thanks, NoraM, for the link! Not a very info-intensive website (at least the parts I have access to), but just knowing the collaborative exists and learning a bit about their process was soothing for me as a somewhat-stressed-out soon-to-be student at a participating school.

 

[TenaciousGirl]

TG,

Of course, there are good individual reasons to attend. I've never said otherwise. Or, at least, not that I recall. That's not the point. This isn't discrimination in the way you imply.




And, again, I didn't prevent anyone from responding.

Jon,

The way you write makes many of your posts come off as discriminatory. Of course you can disagree with this as it is my perception of the way you write and the tone of what you write. If you really want to influence change and be a leader, you're going to have to be aware of other's perceptions of what you say. Like I said before, I actually *agree* with you on some of your points and I would definitely like to see some things change. I don't think generalizing a whole group of people, or a system for that matter, is the way to spark that change. You and I will just have to agree to disagree.