Does anyone have any info on University of Alaska's Clinical-Community PhD program?

[Meowsky9073]

In that case, as the original class was 5, so there must have been 2 from that cohort that left the program, though that is also concerning. Of the 10 that entered those 2 years post restructure, 2 dropped out, 2 did it in 5, 1 did it in 6. So, 3/8 of actual graduates did it.

People leave graduate school, any graduate school, for any given number of reasons. That is not a unique thing to this program. UAA offers a terminal masters program, which you earn as part of the PhD program, so two members of the cohort decided to leave after earning their masters.

Yes, 3/8 thus far, with 3 more this coming May. So 6/8 in 5 or 6 yrs. That leaves 2 from those 2 post-restructure cohorts that are taking more than 6 yrs, which is not the majority.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Meowsky9073]

In that case, as the original class was 5, so there must have been 2 from that cohort that left the program, though that is also concerning. Of the 10 that entered those 2 years post restructure, 2 dropped out, 2 did it in 5, 1 did it in 6. So, 3/8 of actual graduates did it.

People leave graduate school, any graduate school, for a number of reasons. That is not unique to UAA. UAA offers a terminal masters that you can earn along the way to the PhD, so those two students left after earning their masters.

Yes, 3/8 have graduated, with 3 more graduating in May. So that is 6/8 that have/will complete the program in 5 or 6yrs, which is the majority (one individual is part of the 2019-20 cohort).

 

[WisNeuro]

People leave graduate school, any graduate school, for any given number of reasons. That is not a unique thing to this program. UAA offers a terminal masters program, which you earn as part of the PhD program, so two members of the cohort decided to leave after earning their masters.

Yes, 3/8 thus far, with 3 more this coming May. So 6/8 in 5 or 6 yrs. That leaves 2 from those 2 post-restructure cohorts that are taking more than 6 yrs, which is not the majority.

Well, this upcoming May hasn't happened yet, but if you do include this upcoming year, you also have to change your denominator given the inclusion of another cohort. So, we'd have to see the number of graduates out of 13 who have done it. Still, out of people who have actually graduated, only 37.5% have done so. That is not a majority. It could become a majority in future years, but it currently is not so.

 

[Meowsky9073]

Well, this upcoming May hasn't happened yet, but if you do include this upcoming year, you also have to change your denominator given the inclusion of another cohort. So, we'd have to see the number of graduates out of 13 who have done it. Still, out of people who have actually graduated, only 37.5% have done so. That is not a majority. It could become a majority in future years, but it currently is not so.

Ok, so without including another, newer cohort it is 5/8, which is the majority if including this May. Like I've said, most people post-restructure complete in around 6yrs, so including a newer cohort for this year, when it would just be 5 yrs for them (which as I've said the program is not often completed in that timeframe), was my mistake. My argument has always been an average of 6yrs for those who entered the program post-restructure. I understand that there hasn't been a ton of cohorts to follow this based on when the restructure occurred, so the data is skewed, but like I've said numerous times, the trend for people completing the program post-restructure is at a 6yr average (so between 5-7yrs).

 

[psych.meout]

The data just isn't backing up your claims about time to graduation.

 

[WisNeuro]

Ok, so without including another, newer cohort it is 5/8, which is the majority if including this May. Like I've said, most people post-restructure complete in around 6yrs, so including a newer cohort for this year, when it would just be 5 yrs for them (which as I've said the program is not often completed in that timeframe), was my mistake. My argument has always been an average of 6yrs for those who entered the program post-restructure. I understand that there hasn't been a ton of cohorts to follow this based on when the restructure occurred, so the data is skewed, but like I've said numerous times, the trend for people completing the program post-restructure is at a 6yr average (so between 5-7yrs).

So, the potential for 5/8, with 2 lost with attrition is possible. But it has not happened, which is what you implied with your comment. Also, you can't really label something a trend when you only have 1 cohort to go from out of the entire span of the program, particularly as the data would actually suggest an outlier with that first cohort which did not carry over into the second cohort post restructure. The program could highlight the restructure and potential to lessen the year to complete numbers without lying about it. The doubling down and moving the goalposts just makes this sound even more shady. And, given some info I've now received backchannel, I would have even more concerns about transparency here.

 

[Meowsky9073]

So, the potential for 5/8, with 2 lost with attrition is possible. But it has not happened, which is what you implied with your comment. Also, you can't really label something a trend when you only have 1 cohort to go from out of the entire span of the program, particularly as the data would actually suggest an outlier with that first cohort which did not carry over into the second cohort post restructure. The program could highlight the restructure and potential to lessen the year to complete numbers without lying about it. The doubling down and moving the goalposts just makes this sound even more shady. And, given some info I've now received backchannel, I would have even more concerns about transparency here.

I am not a representative of the program, so can't speak to your concerns about transparency at an official level, unfortunately. The trend I am referring to is with the 2017-18 and 2018-19 cohorts, so it isn't just 1. You're right, they should highlight the restructure and how this impacts time to graduate on their website and separate outcomes pre-restructure and post-restructure.

 

[Meowsky9073]

The data just isn't backing up your claims about time to graduation.

View attachment 382438

Most of this data is from people who started the program when it was a completely different program than it is now. They should separate outcomes based on people starting pre-restructure and post-restructure, as that would clear things up.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

This must be what it’s like when two neuropsychologists argue about some minor stats thing that strays from the original manual of a test. It matters to us that we are understood and are correct, but most everyone else is like “wait…there are even more posts about this now?!”

Okay, I’ll leave you all be now.

 

[WisNeuro]

This must be what it’s like when two neuropsychologists argue about some minor stats thing that strays from the original manual of a test. It matters to us that we are understood and are correct, but most everyone else is like “wait…there are even more posts about this now?!”

Okay, I’ll leave you all be now.

At this point it's all just principle and pointing out blatant untruths.

 

[Meowsky9073]

At this point it's all just principle and pointing out blatant untruths.

I'm just providing context to the numbers. I never said the numbers posted online looked good, that the numbers from pre-restructure looked good, or that the 8-10yrs was untrue for those pre-restructure cohorts. This wasn't meant to start an online argument with strangers, just to provide context to a question that was posed and for any potential applicants from someone who 1) knows the program in depth, 2) was part of the program, and 3) was taught that context matters for any number, person, or thing.

If you would like to have a private discussion so that we aren't continuing to bother other people regarding this, I'm happy to do so. But for the sake of everyone's sanity, I'm going to cease from responding to posts regarding the numbers.

If anyone has questions on the program that I haven't answered yet, I'm more than happy to answer those. Feel free to PM me or post here.

 

[WisNeuro]

No private discussion needed, the real numbers are available for people to see and verify for themselves.

 

[Meowsky9073]

Since this thread got overtaken with comments not directly/specifically answering possible applicant questions, I created a new one solely for that purpose! If any potential applicant has asked questions here, feel free to repost them there and I can answer again (I don't want to repost somewhere else without your permission).

 

[MCParent]

Oh, this thread is definitely not a bother to us.

 

[cara susanna]

Me finally coming to see why this thread keeps popping up as the most frequently updated

 

[The Cinnabon]

I'd be curious as to why people are taking so long to finish this program.

I decided to do some serious digging in on this.

I think the first thing I will state is I tried to be as objective on this as possible in this search. It appears as though it may not be as damning as I thought after being in contact with some faculty. The program is advertised at an absolute minimum of 5 years even AFTER the restructure, I believe Meow was far too zealous in this point as the faculty themselves do seem to be a lot more transparent about the completion time when pressed further.

It seems as though the reason why completion time is SO long (which it is) is because full-time at Alaska is 9 credits per hour (which is what your tuition waiver covers up to) and the required course sequence is a whopping 115 credits including (internship and dissertation). This does make sense as when I was at the interview they really hammered that this was both a clinical AND community psych program. So, I can understand why the program may take an extra 3 years. Additionally, the grad students recently did unionize so I'm actually curious to see what this will mean in regards to funding, as right now the minimum does leave a lot to be desired.

 

[Mama Bear]

Have any tea on what led to the restructure? I remember hearing about it. I also was not aware that students are not automatically granted in state tuition. That’s rough.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I decided to do some serious digging in on this.

I think the first thing I will state is I tried to be as objective on this as possible in this search. It appears as though it may not be as damning as I thought after being in contact with some faculty. The program is advertised at an absolute minimum of 5 years even AFTER the restructure, I believe Meow was far too zealous in this point as the faculty themselves do seem to be a lot more transparent about the completion time when pressed further.

It seems as though the reason why completion time is SO long (which it is) is because full-time at Alaska is 9 credits per hour (which is what your tuition waiver covers up to) and the required course sequence is a whopping 115 credits including (internship and dissertation). This does make sense as when I was at the interview they really hammered that this was both a clinical AND community psych program. So, I can understand why the program may take an extra 3 years. Additionally, the grad students recently did unionize so I'm actually curious to see what this will mean in regards to funding, as right now the minimum does leave a lot to be desired.

Wow, that would certainly explain a lot. I just checked my own transcript (memory gets hazy after all these years...), and when I was still taking required classes, my semester credit hours ranged from 12 to 18, so a hard cap of 9 would've definitely added another year.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I've known people there. It was a mess with poor, if any, guidance. It doesn't look like they structure things well from what I've seen.

 

[psycho1391]

When I interviewed there back in 2015 (?), the grad student I stayed with was VERY unhappy. Like absolutely a terrible host and seemed not to enjoy herself. That was a major tell for me. Like she didn't even put ANY effort into selling the program or the area. She was telling me about how horrible Anchorage was. How some of the faculty were terrible. It just left a totally sour taste in my mouth. Aside from that, she had a male over when I was staying there, got drunk, and was too hungover to take me to the airport the following day. So, I had to get an uber.

That doesn't even get to the interview day. I just felt so out of place. Glad I trusted my gut!

I had applied to the program because I had strong interest in rural mental health. However, I just left Alaska feleing meh.

 

[The Cinnabon]

I've known people there. It was a mess with poor, if any, guidance. It doesn't look like they structure things well from what I've seen.

Just out of curiosity, did they mention when whey went through the program?


I'm trying to discern if the current iteration with the program is as problematic as prior to the restructure.

 

[PBJ_Otter]

Based on some insider info, I think the program is headed in a *much* better direction since it broke from UAF, though the dissolution has been a long and extended process. There are still a handful of UAF students who have completed internship but are still ABD. I agree with Meowsky regarding the time to completion. As the UAF students finally graduate (10+ years for some of them), the mean time to completion will continue to look "worse" before it looks better. They have also implemented procedures that do not allow for students to drag their feet-- aka if they don't complete milestones in a timely manner, students will be put on probation and, if they fail to make substantive progress, will be kicked out (vs languishing for 10+ years-- which I think was easier to do in a joint program with two uni's 8 hours away from one another (not as much oversight). I think in 5 years, when all of the UAF students are "taught out" (aka either they defend and complete the program-- or are kicked out) the mean time to completion will slowly come down and eventually level out at 5-7 years. And, again, this is a clinical-*community* program and they take the community, rural, and indigenous aspects of the program very seriously. There are also a number of Alaska-specific issues (e.g., building trust with the community, going through a tribal health organization for IRB approval) that may have also contributed to longer completion times. Many of the "younger" (not necessarily age, just early in the program) students are on track to apply for internship in their 4th and/or 5th years.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Based on some insider info, I think the program is headed in a *much* better direction since it broke from UAF, though the dissolution has been a long and extended process. There are still a handful of UAF students who have completed internship but are still ABD. I agree with Meowsky regarding the time to completion. As the UAF students finally graduate (10+ years for some of them), the mean time to completion will continue to look "worse" before it looks better. They have also implemented procedures that do not allow for students to drag their feet-- aka if they don't complete milestones in a timely manner, students will be put on probation and, if they fail to make substantive progress, will be kicked out (vs languishing for 10+ years-- which I think was easier to do in a joint program with two uni's 8 hours away from one another (not as much oversight). I think in 5 years, when all of the UAF students are "taught out" (aka either they defend and complete the program-- or are kicked out) the mean time to completion will slowly come down and eventually level out at 5-7 years. And, again, this is a clinical-*community* program and they take the community, rural, and indigenous aspects of the program very seriously. There are also a number of Alaska-specific issues (e.g., building trust with the community, going through a tribal health organization for IRB approval) that may have also contributed to longer completion times. Many of the "younger" (not necessarily age, just early in the program) students are on track to apply for internship in their 4th and/or 5th years.

For my own curiosity--is there, or was there, not a hard cap on time spent in the program?

 

[smalltownpsych]

Sounds like an interesting program that might have fit with my own interests and experiences post graduation. I actually wish we had more psychologists with training and a focus on community psychology.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Just out of curiosity, did they mention when whey went through the program?


I'm trying to discern if the current iteration with the program is as problematic as prior to the restructure.

This would have been ~5ish years ago

 

[The Cinnabon]

This would have been ~5ish years ago

Interesting!

It seems like the program is in a massive transitional phase. I know the grad students just unionized so they may get a better funding package in future years.


The POI who gave me an offer here recently also said they have startup funds they could use to ensure I'm well funded, which was my primary concern. It definitely seems like the new generation of students will be better off compared to 5-10 years back.


For what it's worth, I vastly prefer this location compared to my other offer at the moment. So if enough funding was guaranteed, this could be something that really influences the choice I may make.

 

[Mama Bear]

Interesting!

It seems like the program is in a massive transitional phase. I know the grad students just unionized so they may get a better funding package in future years.


The POI who gave me an offer here recently also said they have startup funds they could use to ensure I'm well funded, which was my primary concern. It definitely seems like the new generation of students will be better off compared to 5-10 years back.


For what it's worth, I vastly prefer this location compared to my other offer at the moment. So if enough funding was guaranteed, this could be something that really influences the choice I may make.

They used to have a cohort model. Has it changed to a mentorship model, then?

 

[The Cinnabon]

They used to have a cohort model. Has it changed to a mentorship model, then?

Like many other cohort models you have a primary advisor who has a massive say over admissions. Honestly, of the two "cohort" models I've interviewed at, it seems as though they may as well be mentorship models.

 

[PsychSupreme]