Disertation explanation

[Psyclops]

---

Members don't see this ad.

We all know what happens when you compare PhD programs to PsyD programs on this board. But even so, I have some questions about how they compare on the disertation. Do PsyDs do a disertation that is comparable to the PhD dissertation? Or (pardon my skepticism) is it something that doesn't quite compare? Is this another thing that differs between preofessional schools and university based PsyD programs? For example, I have a hard time imagining that the Wright Institute is invested in churning out any research whatsoever. Maybe they do it in the beer pong or secret chapter room? But what do I know?

 

[vesper9]

🙄 you don't know ****

as someone who this morning sent her acceptance to the Wright Institute, I just don't understand how you want a serious answer to that completely asinine and pretentious question? 👎

While the Wright is in fact smack dab in the middle of frat row, it is a real academic program with a really amazing faculty and students who do, in fact, write real dissertations.

Pull your head out of your ass and go to ProQuest Digital Dissertations and use the search function to find dissertations from the Wright. You can even view the first 24 pages of each free.

sampling of topics:

Therapist self-disclosure of their sexual orientation: From a client's perspective
The insecurely attached infant's approach to the world: Capacity for engagement and developmental outcomes of early impeded exploratory behavior
Design of a mentorship program focusing on identity development and resilience for use with community school students
Playing and ultimate reality: Dialectics of experience in Jung and Winnicott
Caregiver burden and stress in African American, Asian, Hispanic and Caucasian American caregivers of older family members
A cross-cultural comparison of dissociative experience in women: Dissociation in the United States and spirit possession in the Sudan
The effectiveness of anger management group therapy in the treatment of chemically dependent patients



It's just pathetic to see resentment of others for their personal choices and lack of respect for the informed decision making of your future colleagues. (oh but then my simple decision this morning is going to contribute to the destruction of psychology which should only be testing and assessment, research and RxP oops )

 

[perfektspace]

)

I like the little violin guy. I didn't know that was available. How bout this one. Sorry this has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[Psyclops]

I see that my post struck a chord, maybe one of the chords on that little violin your smiley face is playing, who knows. Although that was a shameless insert for a putdown on the WI, I was interested to know about dissertations from PsyDs, I'll check out the link.... Anyone else have any less emotionally charged responses?

 

[vesper9]

what crock

you go on to insult hardworking, passionate people who you don't know and then I'm at fault for my "emotional" response? You called me out....you asked about the Wright's beer pong room, etc and I gave you an honest answer. Yes, students and faculty at the Wright conduct real research, take real psych classes and get real clinical experience. I will write a real dissertation, get a real internship and graduate with a real degree.

Now how about recognizing that your post was incredibly rude and uncalled for. It's hard for me to imagine that all PhD students are this elitist, judgemental and ignorant. I hope SDN just has an over-representation of dinguses.

 

[flanagan10]

that's a shame Clops. I used to have respect for you before that post. People like you are the ones that make this field so divided.

 

[Psyclops]

You could see this as me being elitest, judgemental, and ignorant, or you could see this as you over-reacting. Then I could ask things like are all PsyD students this sensitive, whiny, and desperate for peer approval? But I doubt that PsyDs are generally like they are on this board, and the same goes for PhDs. There are lots of things that are hard for me to imagine, professional elitism isn't one of them.

 

[homoscedastique]

You could see this as me being elitest, judgemental, and ignorant, or you could see this as you over-reacting. Then I could ask things like are all PsyD students this sensitive, whiny, and desperate for peer approval? But I doubt that PsyDs are generally like they are on this board, and the same goes for PhDs. There are lots of things that are hard for me to imagine, professional elitism isn't one of them.

Why the fascination with PsyD programs, anyway, Cloppers?

If you had really wanted to know the answer to this question you could have easily found out for yourself on the web. If you don't know how to use the dissertation database yet, just go to some schools website and have a looksy.

 

[vesper9]

final response (b/c you're obviously not open to even trying to understand why your post was ridiculous)

I've never "overreacted" on topics where an OP asks about a choice between the PhD and PsyD, or when someone asks for advice on PsyD programs, etc....People on here have opinions about the value and worth of the PsyD and both sides are free to explain it.

You specifically started a topic to not only bait people, but you unnecessarily singled out a non-profit APA accredited school that has been around for 40 years....Gilbert Newman (faculty member and field placement advisor) is the current president of the California Psychological Association, Matthew McKay (faculty member) co-founded Haight Ashbury Psychological Services in 1979...etc etc etc yet you specifically make this a hostile post with your "beer pong room" bull****

this was a baited and useless post...you do not care about the dissertation quality at professional schools...you wanted to stir up **** and here I am flinging you own feces back at you

 

[Psyclops]

I understand why you think my post was ridiculous, but I still think you are overreacting.

 

[codetype4/9]

Don't feed the trolls.

I understand why you think my post was ridiculous, but I still think you are overreacting.

 

[Psyclops]

4/9, I'm gonna need a little help on that one. In other words, I'm not sure I get it.

On another note, I think you have the best handle on the board. Is that really your codetype? They say it's the ideal codetype for graduate students. Assuming you really arean't a manic psychopath....

 

[Dr.JT]

I agree that the first post was baiting. However, the questions about dissertation equivalent and its quality in Psy.D programs peaked my interest. So having no bias against Wright Institute, in fact I know pretty much nothing about it, I perused the dissertations at the suggestion of an earlier poster. Basically the majority of these dissertations are literature reviews. They would qualify as a master's level thesis in most programs. They are certainly not equivalent to Ph.D. dissertation from reputable programs, which are publication quality empirical studies. With that said, the question really is should the be equivalent? After all, this is a professional degree so should a diss even be required?

Also, I know this is on ongoing argument between Psy.D supporter and Ph.D folks, but there truly is a problems with the Psy.D and its not the training approach. It is the fact that the pump out way too many psychologists. The market is already flooded. The world does not need more psychologists. Certainly not on the scale that professional schools pump them out. This is way grads from these programs are stuck with $100,000+ debt and $40,000 a year jobs. Many students who end up in these programs are just not doing their homework as far as what is in store for them in the future. I know people want to study what interests them, but for your own sake think ahead.

 

[codetype4/9]

Some of this is not suprising, and given the passing score on the EPPP is 140, this is somewhat disturbing…at least until you consider the age of the data, the variability in sample sizes, the relative infancy of some of these programs at the time, and the whole notion that there is virtually no evidence supporting the EPPP’s predictive validity.

This data could also suggest that Psy.d’s are too far in debt to buy the practice exams and materials, and too busy with abundant practicum hours to study them.

See: O’Donohue, W. T., & Buchanan, J. A. (2003). The mismeasure of psychologists: A review of the psychometrics of licensing requirements. In W. O’Donohue & K. Ferguson (Eds.), Handbook of professional ethics for psychologists (pp. 81–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Here is the bottom ranking programs in average EPPP scores from a list published in 1994. I know, not up to date, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[codetype4/9]

No qualms here (conceptually) with the Vail model. When Psy.d programs have a low price tag I seem them as being the obvious choice, if not the preferred model for the die-hard practitioner.

However, I find what Dr. JT is saying on the issue of supply and demand sensible. First though, does anyone have any data on the attrition rate for clinical psychologists? My area is heavily penetrated by managed care so I don’t really have a good feel for what the market looks like, and it seems to change depending on who I talk with.

 

[Psyclops]

I agree with you Dr.JT. But I'm not certain you can separate the training approach from the current system. I think the current system, by which I mean the large quantities of professional schools minting PsyDs like pennies, is a symptom of the model. The way I see it, for whatever reason, a plethora of people want to be practicing clinical psychologists. And before the professional schools, and in PhD programs still, becoming a psychologist required a large investment of time and energy (presumably the PsyD has this component) and it was difficult to do. There are tests you must pass! You must demonstrate a certain level of knowledge, and skill. There are comprehensive exams which if you fail, you are asked politely to leave the program, there are GPA requirements which if you fail the same thing happens. Additionally you are required to produce a scholarly work that shows that you can integrate theory and research in order to advance the field, not just some piece of reporting. I'll admit that I am ignorant of much of the workings of the PsyD, but on the surface it seems that most anyone can get the degree if they have the time and money. It floods the market, and lowers the overall quality of practitioner draging down the field. The field has problems in that it lacks standards of care and has a bunch of idiots running around practicing however they feel like. Whether these idiots are PhDs or PsyDs I don't know, probably both. But, the PsyD certainly seems at least to open the doors to whomever just feels like practicing without adequately testing thier ability. This generally is seen as the elitist viewpoint. But if I plan on being part of a system, and I perceive something as being a detriment to it, then for sure I'm not going to like it.







Of course my post was baiting.

 

[50960]

Main problem with professional schools, is that they are PC oriented as opposed to quality oriented. They are more concerned with getting a percentage of black, asian, mexican graduates than they are about training quality professionals....right up the APA arse-hole.

😱

 

[codetype4/9]

Whoa...I don't see how admitting more members from other ethnic groups and quality control are mutually exclusive, and I also believe if you read the diversity lit you might conclude that it is vital to train more psychologists from other ethnic groups. Some of the older lit is mixed, but I think it is becoming more clear how client-therapist ethnic match can significantly increases the number of client sessions with the primary therapist, has a significant effect on dropout rate, what is known about clinician bias and stereotyping, the implications here for reaching the undeserved, etc.

Overall, the racial and ethnic makeup of the United States has changed and continues to change rapidly, and if the purpose of the vail model is to train effective clinicians in their respective areas, this practice makes sense to me.

Main problem with professional schools, is that they are PC oriented as opposed to quality oriented. They are more concerned with getting a percentage of black, asian, mexican graduates than they are about training quality professionals....right up the APA arse-hole.

😱

 

[psych in space]

I've been reading posts in which largely uniformed and obviously uneducated (read: haven't bothered to take the time to do any or adequate research on the subject) individuals pontificate on the evils of PsyD programs for some time without taking the bait, until now. By far the most ignorant post I've read yet is on the problem of PsyD programs being 'PC oriented' - let's just hope this rather dim member of the 'in-crowd' in not representative of the holier-than-thou PhD set.

 

[Psyclops]

PIS, PciSci holds a PsyD if I'm not mistaken. Frustration with the way the degree is administered is not monopolized by PhDs.

 

[leftbrian]

Main problem with professional schools, is that they are PC oriented as opposed to quality oriented. They are more concerned with getting a percentage of black, asian, mexican graduates than they are about training quality professionals....right up the APA arse-hole.

😱

I think most PhD programs are just as PC oriented, not that it means quality control has to be sacrificed to achieve that, which is why your argument is intrinsically flawed. Minorities can be just as bright and if diversity is emphasized so much everywhere nowadays in this field, I don't see any problems with accepting a more diverse applicant pool.

 

[psych in space]

Here's a question: Can biggots and racists EVER be called bright?

 

[vesper9]

I really hope some people take the time to read this post and understand the heartfelt message I am trying to convey. 😍

I first came to the SDN just like many of you to find out when offers went out, etc…but I was excited to see such a well-formed forum to discuss issues with future classmates, colleagues, etc. It is really disappointing that some posters feel free to make gross generalizations and fairly spiteful comments about a large group of people you know nothing about. I’ve gotten PMs from a number of really intelligent and nice posters who often feel unwelcome because of the constant haranguing they receive from a small group of semi-informed posters.

I think the anonymity of the internet makes you forget that some of us were your classmates, many of us will be your colleagues and maybe even friends. I am a very intelligent and passionate person. I graduated from a “top” university, I’ve done years and years of research, I work for “big names” and have excellent recommendations from them, and I’ve published. But honestly I don’t want to be a PI and I really don’t want to attend a traditional PhD program (clinically focused or not). My clinical work has always inspired me more and I would like to continue working with people with severe and persistent mental illness. I have an interest in community mental health care and would like to do advocacy and non-profit work to physically put more mental health care in the community.

Just like for many PhD candidates the fit of their mentor is they key to a future research career, for me the Wright Institute is the perfect fit for my future career. Like I mentioned above, people like Gilbert Newman and Matthew McKay are my “perfect fit.” The type of faculty experience and the specific field placement opportunities are key to giving me the experience and networking to craft my future career.

It is paternalistic for so many posters (Jon Snow and Pscylops in particular) to assume that people applying or accepting to PsyD programs know nothing about the schools or the cost of their future decision. In fact, Psyclops is right, he is completely “ignorant of much of the workings of the PsyD” yet spews hateful comments based on his “surface” observations. I’ve researched the PsyD schools and didn’t apply to the ones I felt weren’t a good fit for what I wanted or were more expensive then my limit. I went to open houses and spoke with the faculty and the students (who are stressed and doing a lot of work just like the PhD students I met). I sat in on classes like Family Systems and they were real lectures (it’s really incredible that I even have to say this….I mean those were seriously low blow insults). I was told about the courseload, reading, testing, GPA expectations (omg it takes 3 years of classes + an internship + a dissertation and you can flunk out? I’ve got to tell Psyclops!). We compete for the same APA internships (they don’t just draw names out of a hat, they select the best candidates) and take the same licensing exams.

I work next to a woman who graduated from the Wright Institute, had an excellent APA internship and is now doing a research fellowship at this “prestigious” university hospital setting. She doesn’t have any loans and was able to have a child this year. I know of other PsyDs working in research here alongside PhDs, MDs, even some NPs. I have made a very conscious decision after speaking to many people like this. I think you will be really really surprised when you get out in the world how little the letters after your name matter. The way you treat others and what you know though, that is really important. That is exactly why I’m not worried about the “prestige” or the financial costs…..because I actually researched this, I am actually working with this and I know what I am talking about. In fact, I am very excited and confident to begin my education.

I think the fear and panic-mongering about the PsyD here (the PsyDs are coming! The PsyDs are coming!) may be a reflection of insecurity. I see some posters here trying to always fit psychologists in a niche, define everyone’s role down to a T….but you can’t put a square peg in a round hole, not everyone likes the same things about psychology or wants to do the same jobs. It seems that some cannot imagine anything of value beyond their own frame of reference.

I think the posters who are so quick to call all PsyD graduates “idiots” (psyclops: “bunch of idiots running around practicing however they feel like”) or incompetents or fakes (jon snow: “Are these the folks we want running around pretending to be psychologists?”) are missing out on meeting some intelligent and creative thinkers, future colleagues, etc. It is a really immature way to interact with people.

I really encourage others who see this to explore all of their options and get information from real actual people, not just this board. There was a time when I also discounted all PsyD programs as too expensive and too psychoanalytical. I am really glad I met people who told me about their experience and encouraged me to get all the information.

[/end rant] Thanks. 😉

 

[perfektspace]

Here's a question: Can biggots and racists EVER be called bright?

What exactly is that supposed to mean? Is this a direct question or sarcasm?

If it's a direct question, then yes. Nazi doctors were among the brightest in the world but were racist and often evil. You can be very bright but still put your energy and intelligence into ill-advised use by most standards.

 

[psych in space]

Well said, vesper9. I, too, have put months and months of thought, time, and effort into making a careful choice about which program will best serve me to become a competent, ethical, and knowledeable practitioner. Sorry, but I'm not a believer that EPPP scores alone can measure that. I've looked at both PhD and PsyD programs and am not making this decision lightly in any way. To your post I would also add, in response to the insults hurled at PsyD programs in this forum, particularly " it seems that most anyone can get the [PsyD] degree if they have the time and money" that this is completely untrue. Most of these programs are extremely competitive.

 

[psych in space]

perfektspace, I guess you and I have vastly different ideas about what bright means. Mine is not a strictly quantifiable one.

 

[perfektspace]

perfektspace, I guess you and I have vastly different ideas about what bright means. Mine is not a strictly quantifiable one.

I figured you would say something like that 🙂.I'm thinking more along the lines or raw intelligence. As I said before that can be used for good or evil, another unquantifiable construct.

 

[Psyclops]

perfektspace, I guess you and I have vastly different ideas about what bright means. Mine is not a strictly quantifiable one.

PIS, thanks for showing us how much PsyDs understand science. Have fun in assessment.

Good post Vesper. I think you mischarecterized my comments though, the idiots I refered to are both PhDs and PsyDs. Not a big deal though. Just to clarify, there is alot that frustrates me with the practice of psychology, I just think that it is over represented in profesional PsyD programs, but is not exclusive to them. Good Luck.

 

[psych in space]

The average acceptance rate for PsyD programs is 40-41%. That is, 4 out of 10 applicants to a PsyD program are accepted.
By contrast, the average acceptance rate for clinical PhD programs is 11-15%. That is, 1 or 1.5 out of 10 applicants to a PhD program is accepted.

Where are you getting your numbers? At the PsyD programs I interviewed at this year acceptance was around 10%.

 

[Dr.JT]

The average acceptance rate for PsyD programs is 40-41%. That is, 4 out of 10 applicants to a PsyD program are accepted.
By contrast, the average acceptance rate for clinical PhD programs is 11-15%. That is, 1 or 1.5 out of 10 applicants to a PhD program is accepted.

Where are you getting your numbers? At the PsyD programs I interviewed at this year acceptance was around 10%.

At the "top notch" programs this is true. Jon is right though, the average free standing professional school can have an acceptance rate of close to 50%. For example, Wright Institute was mentioned and they state on their website that they received 300 apps and accepted 100.

 

[Psyclops]

To me, 11-15% sounds high for clinical PhD programs. In my search I tend to see about 5%.

 

[superego]

As a current Psy.D student - thank you Vesper 🙂

 

[Dr.JT]

I really encourage others who see this to explore all of their options and get information from real actual people, not just this board. There was a time when I also discounted all PsyD programs as too expensive and too psychoanalytical. I am really glad I met people who told me about their experience and encouraged me to get all the information.[/end rant] Thanks. 😉

First, congratulations to you. I understand you being upset with the way certain opinions are conveyed on this board. Keep in mind that it is an informal way of expressing ones opinion, so things often come across harsher than they were meant to. With that said, I often feel like people react to Jon's posts by getting upset with him. However, many of his points are valid, and it is often the case that people are reacting to the messenger instead of hearing the message. I'm truly glad for you that you found a program you're a good match for and I wish you all the best. My concern for students such as yourself is that you don't truly recognize what this kind of debt can do to you and your future plans. I have heard many students at the other end of their professional school careers, saying they would've done it differently had they known. So my goal is never to insult people here, but to make sure they are informed. Not to single you out but I did check out the Wright Institute web site. You realize that by the time you're done with internship your debt, just based on tuition, will be $75,000. You are also living in one of the most expensive areas in the country. Your overall debt will be well over $100,000. This is the exact thing Jon is talking about. Your potential income does not match this level of debt. This is medical school level debt. But they will be making enough to deal with it. You may not be for quite some time after graduating. Again, this is not a which is better Psy D. or Ph.D. argument. It's simply a statement of the reality of the situation. You will accrue more debt in tuition the first year of graduate school then my total debt for graduate school including living expenses. So please, be cautious and plan carefully. Good luck!

 

[vesper9]

this is exactly what I meant when I said paternalistic. You don't know anything about me, what I paid for undergrad, how I plan to pay for grad school, how I plan to make money later, whether I will have children or buy a house, etc.

While it's sweet (read: condescending) that you're worried about me living in the Bay Area and financing an education...I've done it already and I've been doing it for a number of years. I have looked at the exact same numbers as Jon, I've used the repayment calculator. Simply looking at the Wright's tuition gives you no more information than that.

It's is very very "sweet" that you assume that the same posters on this board who converse with you every day about psychological theory, RxP, college decision making, etc are suddenly too stupid to figure out their own financial future and how a decision like this is going to affect them. As I said before, if someone asks about paying for a PsyD or for general advice, I have no problem with Jon's answers. But there's this vicious browbeating of anyone who mentions the PsyD that is not only unnecessary, but indicative of a mindset I don't think is healthy.

Once again, I understand that YOU (and others) would not be comfortable paying this much money...I understand that if YOU were me, you'd just get a Masters or apply to a PhD program. But you are not me and we cannot possibly have the same circumstances in life or the same interest or the same future career...so judging me based on this decision (especially out of context) and inferring future consequences seems silly. Why don't you go warn undergrads about taking $40,000 a year in loans to simply get a BA?

😎 I'm going on a well-deserved vacation, but I hope maybe we can move on from these really basic and condescending arguments that have literally been beaten to death to explore something deeper? something other than degrees or prestige...something related to psychology or research or patient care? (a girl can dream)

 

[Dr.JT]

this is exactly what I meant when I said paternalistic. You don't know anything about me, what I paid for undergrad, how I plan to pay for grad school, how I plan to make money later, whether I will have children or buy a house, etc.QUOTE]

If you consider the opinion of someone who has been through grad school, internship, postdoc, and is involved in training psychologists from predoc through post doc as paternalistic, so be it.

My post was clearly not directly related to you, except for wishing you luck, i simply used it as an example. If someone has the means of paying for school and not accruing debt, of course this is not an issue. I thought that went without saying. If you think this is the norm you are wrong. Do most students have the financial means to avoid debt. Well based on the APA stats of debt accrued, no. Again, I see this on a regular basis. I was not being condescending, I was commenting on something that has become quite obvious to me. Sorry if you don't like what my experience tells me.

I don't think students are too stupid (your words) to figure out their financial future. I think many of them lacked the experience to make a good decision at the time. This is understandable; they are focused more on a career that will make them happy rather than the issue of finances. Good and honest advice at this stage is potentially useful. If it doesn't apply or its not useful, then don't use it. Reacting and calling someone paternalistic and accusing them of being condescending when you know nothing about them is uncalled for.

 

[Psyclops]

I'm going on a well-deserved vacation, but I hope maybe we can move on from these really basic and condescending arguments that have literally been beaten to death to explore something deeper? something other than degrees or prestige...something related to psychology or research or patient care? (a girl can dream)

I've tried non-argumentative posts, they just fizzle, nobody cares. But I appreciate your contributions to this thread, it wouldn't have been nearly as rational had you resisted the urge to point out the outrageous paternalistic and condescending attitude people like Dr.JT were taking towards you. Some might argue that you blow things out of proportion, but not I. No I understand how everyone is out to get you, keep up the good fight! Don't let them ever put you down, or take away your dignity.

 

[50960]

The Wright Insitute is a fine program, and anyone would be proud to get a degree from them...Vesper has good points, and I wish you would all just back off and let her/him converse without provoking........

 

[leftbrian]

this is exactly what I meant when I said paternalistic. You don't know anything about me, what I paid for undergrad, how I plan to pay for grad school, how I plan to make money later, whether I will have children or buy a house, etc.

While it's sweet (read: condescending) that you're worried about me living in the Bay Area and financing an education...I've done it already and I've been doing it for a number of years. I have looked at the exact same numbers as Jon, I've used the repayment calculator. Simply looking at the Wright's tuition gives you no more information than that.

It's is very very "sweet" that you assume that the same posters on this board who converse with you every day about psychological theory, RxP, college decision making, etc are suddenly too stupid to figure out their own financial future and how a decision like this is going to affect them. As I said before, if someone asks about paying for a PsyD or for general advice, I have no problem with Jon's answers. But there's this vicious browbeating of anyone who mentions the PsyD that is not only unnecessary, but indicative of a mindset I don't think is healthy.

Once again, I understand that YOU (and others) would not be comfortable paying this much money...I understand that if YOU were me, you'd just get a Masters or apply to a PhD program. But you are not me and we cannot possibly have the same circumstances in life or the same interest or the same future career...so judging me based on this decision (especially out of context) and inferring future consequences seems silly. Why don't you go warn undergrads about taking $40,000 a year in loans to simply get a BA?

😎 I'm going on a well-deserved vacation, but I hope maybe we can move on from these really basic and condescending arguments that have literally been beaten to death to explore something deeper? something other than degrees or prestige...something related to psychology or research or patient care? (a girl can dream)

Hi, I am just a graduating senior and I don't have any knowledge or experience as someone like Dr.JT. But I think he/she has a point. It's impossible to argue with facts. Truth is, most Phds are funded and not all of them exclusively focus on research. On the other hand, most PsyDs, not all, do not provide as sound of financial support as Phds do.

Obviously if you know your financial situation and realize that in 5 or 6 years you can still manage your expenses and tuition with no problems, then of course going to the right PsyD program and following your heart is not only fortunate but also admirable. My point is don't let the facts and figures get to you personally.

 

[Neuro-Dr]

Vespar's post is well taken. It is in fact fortunate that this is an anonymous listserve becasue I have served on the two exec committees of NP boards and would immediately deny the application of anyone submitting with this level of professional comportment. There are PsyDs on our boards in exec at APA, NAN and within most professional journals. ABPP routinely boards 20% PsyDs per year. While that could be taken as an indication that PhDs routinely are boarded more easily, it also implies that your colleagues making decisions are likely to be PsyDs, including previous presidents.

Having said that, this type of behavior is nothing new and routinely goes on in the professional, non-anonymous listserves as well. Some of it you have to ignore, but we've lost people who are well known and valued becasue the list (at times) became only about mud-slinging.

As to the original question, it is more complicated than quality, I fear. There is clearly a bi-modal distribution within professional schools and my dealings with staff there suggest that they are aware and would ackowledge this. Thus, poor applicants will make poor graduates. The APA CoA is moving towards a 95% persistence rate, which frankly would be an unfortunate outcome measure in some ways. Professional school with larger enrollment (many pushing 100 per year) will likely take steps to ensure persistence, which will mean graduating less qualified students. PhD programs with 5-10 per class could find themselves out of compliance with the loss of 1 student, neither makes sense to me.

In regards to dissertation, the APA CoA has also come out and said that your capstone project must reflect your model. I have seen the CoA come down on any school who practices outside of their model. this would mean that a scholar-practitioner model could be repremanded for too many students doing empirical work. They would make the point that 6-9 credits of stats and RM and a faculty without/limited publication requirements is not a model that trains the students to produce empirical work. By the same token, a scientist-based (either practitioner or scholar) could be dinged for too many students doing theoretical or even potentially quasi-designs since that is not their proported model.

This isn't to excuse any program from taken poor students; but I fear in a world of rampant grade inflation and ongoing concerns about the ethnic and economic bias of the GRE (not that I am of that mindset, but let's face it there are those people who feel this way). What criteria are you going to use? I've seen several PsyD programs where the incoming GPA is 3.5 and half the students enrolled are from top 50/100 Universities and LA Colleges. Every school still states GPA is the most important criteria. while I'm not jazzzed on the EPPP's ecological validity either, Jon is right that it is probably reflecting that bimodal distribution in professional schools. Frankly, I think Jon's data is the most recent. I have not seen a more recent eval, but you could go to PES and get a look at al programs, it won't have changed much.

 

[Neuro-Dr]

Just to be clear, APA data is still $50K for PhD students on average. I would not encourage anyone to come into this field if they do not have all the necessary tools (including brains, passion and clinicil judgement). And I say this as someone who was funded and didn't accrue much debt along the way.

 

[Psyclops]

First, congratulations to you. I understand you being upset with the way certain opinions are conveyed on this board. Keep in mind that it is an informal way of expressing ones opinion, so things often come across harsher than they were meant to.QUOTE]

I think this is certainly true. My OP was not meant to be as much of an insult as it was taken, it was meant to be along the lines of "poking fun" as opposed to "patenty offensive". People's posts routinely get taken the wrong way or seem harsh when they aren't meant to be. I know I appreciate the annonymity. I think it allows me, and others with whom I converse, more liberty to express opinions that might otherwise be censored or go unexpressed. The only down side, as I see it, is that people can get offended. But I'm all for having spirited discussions.

 

[Flutterbyu]

I attend a small, free standing professional school with a good reputation, good rankings, and an approximately 10% acceptance rate. Doesn't this conversation ever get old??

 

[Psyclops]

I think you brought up a good point in your post JS. I think it is important to remember that there are PhD's granted in professional schools as well. That frustrates me even more.

I guess ultimately everyone will be judged on thier own merits professionally and it shouldn't matter what everyone else is doing. Except, I can't help but feel uneasy about psychology's current position and directions. I think everyone should be thinking about where they see it going or where they want it to go, because the landscape of the future isn't certain, at least the way I see it.

 

[Neuro-Dr]

I agree with what both Psyclops and Jon are saying (particularly about the NP listserve, although the fact that things happen elsewhere should not condone the behavior). Your points are well received by me. however, as I have said in other posts, the issue is at the level of the CoA. You can't continually go back to selection criteria at the school level, because they will come back with higher GPAs from less competitive schools. The CoA has to address the issue of placement. It is the one area that can result in limiting the number of students entering programs and that will result in increased quality students. At the current rate (-12 positions and +50 students per year), the deficit will be 500+ in three years. If the CoA took the posiiton that you won't keep your accreditation without sufficient placement and/or states would take the APA or no license approach, there would be less to worry about. Just my opinion.

 

[Psyclops]

I'm not as familiar with all of the licensing and accredidation issues and how they affect selection and graduate school policies, but I think many of the issues discussed could be targeted at the undergraduate level. I think that the Psychology major is just too easy. I don't think it puts enough emphasis on learning theory and research methoods as it should. Consequently, it attracts many lower quality students which leads to lower quality grad apps. I don't think that medical schools suffer from these same problems. Although I'm sure it's for a variety of reasons, one is that the undergraduate prerequsites are not easy. Not eveyone says "oh, I think I'll become a MD, it seems like fun." I want to qualify this by saying I wasn't a stellar undergraduate student, but I think that it would be beneficial if we changed the requirements for undergraduate psych degrees. I think there should be much more research, more bio, more theory, and less cursory ovreviews of things like abnormal, social, and clinical. I think that it would also lead to better undergrads, who would be better prepared, and they wouldn't need to do 2 years of research experience after school which according to these boards seems to be more common, if not the norm.