I didn't attend either program but my VA internship program receives a lot of internship applications from Palo Alto students due to geographic proximity.
Overall, Palo Alto students are considered low to mid tier compared to the rest of our national applicant pool. There also seems to be a trend where students get more therapy training with low/minimal/nearly non-existent assessment experience. Not sure if that's my small sample size, pandemic related issues, specific student interest in therapy over assessment, or other factors but that is a red flag.
There's probably an equal ratio between students who receive interviews from us and students who don't make the interview cut. Of those who receive interviews, they will usually be ranked in our lower tiers.
But we have matched with Palo Alto students and those tend to be students who were very active in research, either via their program or in connection with the Palo Alto VA so their experience compares similar to balanced funded PhD applicants (except they are paying their own way versus being paid to attend school).
A lot of students also get dinged for their lack of research, which scientist-practitioner internship programs like to see. Based on applications I have reviewed, it seems like students have a lot (too much?) autonomy with respect to research and can literally do zero research to a lot, whereas the typical PhD student in both clinical and counseling will do a decent amount.
Especially given the absurd price tag, the typical Palo Alto student probably isn't getting the best possible training.
Unless you are already independently wealthy and need to stay in the area (e.g., spouse works in SV), I would not recommend Palo Alto.
