Fielding Graduate University

[Justanothergrad]

---

Members don't see this ad.

APA accreditation is supposed to be the “gold standard” for PhD/PsyD programs and internships.

No.. it's a minimum bar

 

[Psych-ops]

No.. it's a minimum bar

So then why is APA accreditation for programs and internship important? IMO, it’s a “gold standard” for education, rigor, and training which is supposed to be helpful in one’s career endeavors.

Or am I misunderstanding?

If not, then what’s the point of APA?

To say that it’s a minimum is way too simplistic of its function, no?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Justanothergrad]

So then why is APA accreditation for programs and internship important? IMO, it’s a “gold standard” for education, rigor, and training which is supposed to be helpful in one’s career endeavors.

Or am I misunderstanding?

If not, then what’s the point of APA?

To say that it’s a minimum is way too simplistic of its function, no?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

It sets a minimum bar. It's not the gold standard for training any more than not being murdered is the gold standard for first dates. It's a good step, a necessary set of criteria by which we define "good" but it is not sufficient alone.

I'm not sure APA or anyone in training would suggest otherwise. This is why having an accredited program does not instantly mean it is the same quality as all others.

 

[erg923]

So then why is APA accreditation for programs and internship important? IMO, it’s a “gold standard” for education, rigor, and training which is supposed to be helpful in one’s career endeavors.

Or am I misunderstanding?

If not, then what’s the point of APA?

To say that it’s a minimum is way too simplistic of its function, no?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Are you or have you been a TD or DCT? Multiple people replying here are or have been (myself included), and are in MUCH better position to know what the function and scope of APA accreditation is and means.

As just one example, APA doesn't mandate any kind of specific training for a doctoral program or internship. A large part of what they do is to verify that what you say you do, you actually do....and within those dos, you can check their boxes of things to touch on or weave into the training.

 

[ClinicalABA]

So then why is APA accreditation for programs and internship important?...
...
If not, then what’s the point of APA?

Regardless of the quality (or lack thereof) of the training program, accreditation is important for the trainee in that it opens doors to future opportunities (or, perhaps more accurately) closes doors in the case of attending non-accredited programs. It would a huge a burden for internships, licensing boards, and employers to investigate whether or not training programs meet basic minimum standards, and thus APA performs that function. Said internships, boards, etc. can opt to do more investigating, but the APA accreditation is an indication that a third party has verified that a training program meets certain criteria, such as presence of specific courses, standards for number and type of faculty, facility standards, etc.

Many around these parts would (and have) argued that APA accreditation of graduate programs is actually sub-minimal, as many APA-accredited graduate programs (such as Fielding) seem to consistently show poor outcomes for their students, leading to insurmountable levels of debt. Throw in the fact that APA programs (such as the big annual conference) receive financial support in the form of sponsorship from institutions it accredits, and you have further suspicion about the utility of accreditation as a minimum standard.

Ultimately, this is an anonymous internet forum and all responses should be treated with appropriate skepticism. However, as erg points out, many posters around here at least profess to be TDs, internship faculty, and/or responsible for hiring decisions, and thus their feedback on this issue likely has some value. I can see where it can get tricky though, as you'll have one thread that seems to espouse APA accreditation as necessary, while another will say it's insufficient. These are not mutually exclusive- APA accreditation is a necessary but insufficient marker of overall program quality, thus the frequent suggestion to look at the program outcome data.

 

[Psych-ops]

Are you or have you been a TD or DCT? Multiple people replying here are or have been (myself included), and are in MUCH better position to know what the function and scope of APA accreditation is and means.

As just one example, APA doesn't mandate any kind of specific training for a doctoral program or internship. A large part of what they do is to verify that what you say you do, you actually do....and within those dos, you can check their boxes of things to touch on or weave into the training.

It’s not necessary for you to take a condescending tone to make a point! I have a right to ask questions and make criticisms in a tactful and respectful manner which is what adult, critical thinkers do. I would hope a alicensed or doctoral student would conduct themselves in a similar manner.

This is supposed to be an open forum for people seeking answers to ask questions and get feedback from others regardless if you’re a student, TD, DCT, etc!

I would hope a TD or DCT is much more professional and objective when working and answering students questions and being respectful of others differing thoughts or opinions.

My questions were to make a larger criticism of the APA accreditation process and what having it means about your education and clinical training or lack thereof hence our criticisms about Fielding’s program as a whole and what role it’s APA accreditation (on probation) means in the larger scope of things opposed to a non-accredited program.

I’m going to stop responding to your post later because all of your comments are purposely contrary and borderline trolling.



Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Psych-ops]

Regardless of the quality (or lack thereof) of the training program, accreditation is important for the trainee in that it opens doors to future opportunities (or, perhaps more accurately) closes doors in the case of attending non-accredited programs. It would a huge a burden for internships, licensing boards, and employers to investigate whether or not training programs meet basic minimum standards, and thus APA performs that function. Said internships, boards, etc. can opt to do more investigating, but the APA accreditation is an indication that a third party has verified that a training program meets certain criteria, such as presence of specific courses, standards for number and type of faculty, facility standards, etc.

Many around these parts would (and have) argued that APA accreditation of graduate programs is actually sub-minimal, as many APA-accredited graduate programs (such as Fielding) seem to consistently show poor outcomes for their students, leading to insurmountable levels of debt. Throw in the fact that APA programs (such as the big annual conference) receive financial support in the form of sponsorship from institutions it accredits, and you have further suspicion about the utility of accreditation as a minimum standard.

Ultimately, this is an anonymous internet forum and all responses should be treated with appropriate skepticism. However, as erg points out, many posters around here at least profess to be TDs, internship faculty, and/or responsible for hiring decisions, and thus their feedback on this issue likely has some value. I can see where it can get tricky though, as you'll have one thread that seems to espouse APA accreditation as necessary, while another will say it's insufficient. These are not mutually exclusive- APA accreditation is a necessary but insufficient marker of overall program quality, thus the frequent suggestion to look at the program outcome data.

Thanks SO much for the clarification! 🙂


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Psych-ops]

Regardless of the quality (or lack thereof) of the training program, accreditation is important for the trainee in that it opens doors to future opportunities (or, perhaps more accurately) closes doors in the case of attending non-accredited programs. It would a huge a burden for internships, licensing boards, and employers to investigate whether or not training programs meet basic minimum standards, and thus APA performs that function. Said internships, boards, etc. can opt to do more investigating, but the APA accreditation is an indication that a third party has verified that a training program meets certain criteria, such as presence of specific courses, standards for number and type of faculty, facility standards, etc.

Many around these parts would (and have) argued that APA accreditation of graduate programs is actually sub-minimal, as many APA-accredited graduate programs (such as Fielding) seem to consistently show poor outcomes for their students, leading to insurmountable levels of debt. Throw in the fact that APA programs (such as the big annual conference) receive financial support in the form of sponsorship from institutions it accredits, and you have further suspicion about the utility of accreditation as a minimum standard.

Ultimately, this is an anonymous internet forum and all responses should be treated with appropriate skepticism. However, as erg points out, many posters around here at least profess to be TDs, internship faculty, and/or responsible for hiring decisions, and thus their feedback on this issue likely has some value. I can see where it can get tricky though, as you'll have one thread that seems to espouse APA accreditation as necessary, while another will say it's insufficient. These are not mutually exclusive- APA accreditation is a necessary but insufficient marker of overall program quality, thus the frequent suggestion to look at the program outcome data.

And I agree a lot of programs do espouse APA accreditation to the point of nearly shoveling it down your throat.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

APA accreditation is supposed to be the “gold standard” for PhD/PsyD programs and internships. SO regardless of yours/my program’s reputation Fielding students are being matched because Fielding is “accredited” by APA.

I think Fielding’s accreditation should be revoked BUT that’s up to APA...


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

The intent of APA-acred was to set the MINIMUM standard for training. Sadly, the APA has sold out to the Argosy/Alliants of the world. While this forum is mostly anonymous, a number of posters on here are verified licensed psychologists and they are all telling you the same thing:

1. There are programs that are APA-acred that shouldn't be based on objective outcome data, Fielding being one such program.
2. Fielding is on probation, but it should lose its acred. based on objective data such as repeated documented problems based on APA site visits and their horrible student outcome data.
3. Fielding grads are not up to snuff based on objective data like licensure rate, EPPP pass rate, etc.
4. Verified professionals are regularly passing over Fielding grads for internship/fellowships/jobs bc they consistently review their apps and they are not comparable to other apps. This is indeed anecdotal, though I think constructive given the other data presented already.

Just some points to consider.

 

[psych.meout]

You’re playing on semantics, I do not believe medicine and psychology programs are comparable in all aspects. I meant applicants choose the program that they believe is best for them regardless our opinion.

The bottom line is that Fielding is accredited (on probation) by APA. The respective concerns we have the about program is allowed to continue under COA/APA supervision. So the issue in my opinion is Fielding but APA.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

It's disingenuous for you disregard the analogies between clinical psych and other disciplines made by Erg while simultaneously drawing your own comparisons between clinical psych and law school, because it suits your arguments.

APA accreditation is supposed to be the “gold standard” for PhD/PsyD programs and internships. SO regardless of yours/my program’s reputation Fielding students are being matched because Fielding is “accredited” by APA.

I think Fielding’s accreditation should be revoked BUT that’s up to APA...


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

You should look into PCSAS. An entire, parallel accreditation system is being created due to discontent with the APA.

And I agree a lot of programs do espouse APA accreditation to the point of nearly shoveling it down your throat.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

They're "shoveling it down your throat" like the health department shovels hand washing down the throats of restaurants.

 

[AbnormalPsych]

 

[psych.meout]

 

[Psych-ops]

Yes, I am a doctoral student in a traditional clinical psychology program. Yes, I recognize that there are licensed psychologists, DCTs, TDs, etc who are on this site as a source of information. I do value their knowledge, however I do have a RIGHT to respectfully disagree with the points of others regardless of the status of their license or professional job titles. My points on the topic of Fielding for the student that asked for advice from EVERYONE on the forum is this:

1) If you choose to attend Fielding do your research about the pros and cons of the program so you can make an informed about the long-term impact of your decisions. Let your decision be made on what's best for YOU not others opinions.

2) Regardless of outcome data about Fielding, APA has given the program accreditation which as others say is albeit " a minimum bar/standard". I think COA/APA should be taken to task for such a decision based on the referenced data as this is a major selling point for this university and non-traditional students seeking to earn an APA accredited PhD in clinical psychology.

3) NEVER be SO self-righteous in your knowledge, skill, or profession that you feel need to belittle the thoughts or choices of others regardless of how passionate you are regarding your position to the contrary.

So the decision to attend Fielding is up to YOU and whatever you decide is best for you. Despite, my reservations about certain aspects of the program I respect the decisions you make for yourself and wish you good luck! 🙂

:troll:

 

[Justanothergrad]

I'm just not sure what the PROs are....

 

[futureapppsy2]

I'm just not sure what the PROs are....

It's a given, but the program is designed to appeal to people who want a clinical psych PhD while working full-time and/or not relocating, pretty much. Bonus points for not wanting to get research experience before applying, probably.

 

[WisNeuro]

Extra bonus points for limiting your job prospects along with crippling debt.

 

[Jegg]

It's a given, but the program is designed to appeal to people who want a clinical psych PhD while working full-time and/or not relocating, pretty much. Bonus points for not wanting to get research experience before applying, probably.

I'd guess that a portion of the people who apply to the program are already working somewhere in the healthcare field full time and continue working their for internship rather than applying for a formal APPIC/APA internship. It could be a way for some folks to move laterally and then longitudinally within their current work system, if that person were already situated in a system as a practitioner with psychologists in place that were friendly to supervising during that process. But, I'd imagine a number of those folks drop out when it comes time to do the more complicated work like dissertation due to time constraints/exhaustion.

Conversely, while it may be an opportunity to move upward within a pre-existing work system for some folks, it could attract people without a valid work system that could potentially be crushed when it came time to find externships/internships. In this case, the outcome data and program-type become a negative feedback loop perpetuating bad outcomes.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'd guess that a portion of the people who apply to the program are already working somewhere in the healthcare field full time and continue working their for internship rather than applying for a formal APPIC/APA internship. It could be a way for some folks to move laterally and then longitudinally within their current work system, if that person were already situated in a system as a practitioner with psychologists in place that were friendly to supervising during that process. But, I'd imagine a number of those folks drop out when it comes time to do the more complicated work like dissertation due to time constraints/exhaustion.

Conversely, while it may be an opportunity to move upward within a pre-existing work system for some folks, it could attract people without a valid work system that could potentially be crushed when it came time to find externships/internships. In this case, the outcome data becomes a negative feedback loop perpetuating bad outcomes.

This only works if that organization allows psychologists to be hired without an accredited internship. They'd still be out of luck 90% of the institutional jobs in my state without that accredited internship.

 

[Temperance]

1) If you choose to attend Fielding do your research about the pros and cons of the program so you can make an informed about the long-term impact of your decisions. Let your decision be made on what's best for YOU not others opinions.

If someone chose to enroll at Fielding after considering all of the available information, then they indeed made an informed choice. My problem is more that they may not be getting all of the information and that they're being encouraged by aggressive admissions "counselors". I've also seen people assume or be told that they can discharge their loans through Public Service Loan Forgiveness. This lack of information is what partly what people mean when they say that a program is predatory. I haven't had much contact with Fielding's admissions staff, so I don't know how they are with individuals, but there were problems with Argosy where they used high-pressure sales tactics to get people to enroll. From what I've seen of Fielding's informational webinars, though, I doubt that prospective applicants are receiving complete information about finding quality fieldwork placements or what happens if they go with a non-APA/CPA-accredited internship.

As for PSLF, news broke late last year that only 99% of applications were denied for PSLF, and many of the denials were due to issues that people did not expect. For example, someone had "paid ahead" on their student loans and then skipped a month, then they were not considered to have made 120 continuous monthly payments. Considering that this is only being made known now as people begin to qualify, I would argue that people have not been informed about the long-term impact of their decisions if they were told that all they needed to do to get their $300,000 student loan discharged was to work for a 501(c)(3) organization for 10 years, only to find that some technicality disqualified them for PSLF.

 

[erg923]

As for PSLF, news broke late last year that only 99% of applications were approved for PSLF, and many of the denials were due to issues that people did not expect.

i think you meant 99% were denied.

 

[foreverbull]

3) NEVER be SO self-righteous in your knowledge, skill, or profession that you feel need to belittle the thoughts or choices of others regardless of how passionate you are regarding your position to the contrary.

:troll:

This is a fair point. I’d like to see more tactful responses when folks feel strongly about a topic. Using condescending language will only put advice-seekers on the defensive and make them question the interpersonal skills of people in this field, as typically happens in a heated thread.

 

[Temperance]

i think you meant 99% were denied.

Yes, I did! Thank you for catching that. I've corrected it.

 

[WisNeuro]

Call is self-righteousness, arrogance, or whatever, but strong language is definitely warranted when people make decisions that water down our profession and materially diminish the standing of psychology in healthcare.

 

[ClinicalABA]

1) If you choose to attend Fielding do your research about the pros and cons of the program so you can make an informed about the long-term impact of your decisions. Let your decision be made on what's best for YOU not others opinions.

Good advice, but unfortunately the playing field is not even on this one. Prospective students- particularly those without current, active, guidance from knowledgeable advisers or mentors- are often in a position of "not knowing what they don't know." The end result is people making decisions on what they think is best for themselves, but in reality ends of being something along the lines of what is, at the moment they are making the decision, most convenient for themselves. IMHO, certain training programs use convenience as a selling point, much to the detriment of many of their consumers.

2) Regardless of outcome data about Fielding, APA has given the program accreditation which as others say is albeit " a minimum bar/standard". I think COA/APA should be taken to task for such a decision based on the referenced data as this is a major selling point for this university and non-traditional students seeking to earn an APA accredited PhD in clinical psychology.

I think you'll find that reputable programs with good training don't tout their APA accreditation, but merely acknowledge it along the lines of "of course we have it." I guess you could point to the fact that Fielding is on some sort of probation from APA as a sign that they do respond to concerns about program. Maybe too little or too late, though

3) NEVER be SO self-righteous in your knowledge, skill, or profession that you feel need to belittle the thoughts or choices of others regardless of how passionate you are regarding your position to the contrary.

I am frequently confused by the apparently condescending and arrogant tone of some of the regular posters around these parts. Many questions come from students who are legitimately seeking information, and I fear that many discount or ignore accurate and important feedback because it is delivered in such a, frankly, a**hole-ish, manner. That said, it is not uncommon to have someone post what, at first glance, appears to be a legitimate request for information, but what later reveals itself as more of a request for validation of an already held position or belief. You can always count on this to raise the ire of a few of the regulars! Still- I think more is accomplished with a neutral-to-pleasantly toned reply (accept for with that SHOOTER guy who used to post- he deserved everything thrown at him. That said- he wasn't a student). Oh well- end of the day it is an internet formal with semi-anonymous participants (most are totally anonymous), and you really shouldn't take stuff personally. Being able to get the message despite the messenger is a good skill.

So the decision to attend Fielding is up to YOU and whatever you decide is best for you

I'm not in the mood for a discussion regarding the limitations of the concept of free-will. I will posit that I feel that the system with schools such as Fielding may be set up to give the consumer the impression that they are doing what's best for them, when actually they are doing what is best for Fielding.

:troll:

Even trolls have to eat sometimes!

 

[ClinicalABA]

Call is self-righteousness, arrogance, or whatever, but strong language is definitely warranted when people make decisions that water down our profession and materially diminish the standing of psychology in healthcare.

Point well taken, but you do have to admit that some people around here go beyond "strong language" to arrogance and condescension. I don't really care if it "offends" anybody (presumably posters her are adults and should be beyond taking anything on an internet forum personally), but more that it might scare aware some for whom this board is an important and rare source of factual information.

 

[WisNeuro]

Point well taken, but you do have to admit that some people around here go beyond "strong language" to arrogance and condescension. I don't really care if it "offends" anybody (presumably posters her are adults and should be beyond taking anything on an internet forum personally), but more that it might scare aware some for whom this board is an important and rare source of factual information.

Agreed, but I think the strong language (mostly) comes out when people post straight or false or misleading information. The pro position in this discussion reads more like a WH press briefing than anything.

 

[str63]

As an anecdotal experience of reviewing hundreds of apps, as part of the committees I have been part of in several training programs throughout the years, we've gotten Fielding apps almost every year, exactly zero have been ranked come ranking submission time.

My anecdotal experience is that not only are they not ranked, but they have also never been invited for an interview. It's really difficult to assess the quality of the practicum experiences these students are getting when the programs are not able to oversee it in any way since they are located across the country. This isn't even considering the many other problems this program has. I think many programs don't want to take a risk on these students when there are so many other qualified applicants.

 

[Seven_Costanza]

Dad, is that you?

 

[GradStudent2020]

As an anecdotal experience of reviewing hundreds of apps, as part of the committees I have been part of in several training programs throughout the years, we've gotten Fielding apps almost every year, exactly zero have been ranked come ranking submission time.

I recall reading on another thread that you throw those out of the pile without reading them. Correct? Of course they wouldn’t be ranked if they aren’t even reviewed.

 

[WisNeuro]

I recall reading on another thread that you throw those out of the pile without reading them. Correct? Of course they wouldn’t be ranked if they aren’t even reviewed.

Everyone gets a quick run through, but a good 40% get set aside after that quick run through.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Everyone gets a quick run through, but a good 40% get set aside after that quick run through.

Oh, I thought this was what you said “These degrees are indeed useless. When internship and postdoc applications roll in, these applications immediately find their way into the circular filing bin. For those that don't know what that is, I'm saying we put these applications with the rest of the trash.”

And “you could blind those applications by graduate school name and they would still be immediately trash-canned”

And “.:. I will not consider for internship/postdoc/new hires ...”

Maybe I misunderstood and you weren’t referring to Fielding.

 

[WisNeuro]

Oh, I thought this was what you said “These degrees are indeed useless. When internship and postdoc applications roll in, these applications immediately find their way into the circular filing bin. For those that don't know what that is, I'm saying we put these applications with the rest of the trash.”

And “you could blind those applications by graduate school name and they would still be immediately trash-canned”

And “.:. I will not consider for internship/postdoc/new hires ...”

Maybe I misunderstood and you weren’t referring to Fielding.

They are useless, they get reviewed in the cursory examination, but they never make it past that cursory review, which is essentially bypassing most of the review process

 

[GradStudent2020]

They are useless, they get reviewed in the cursory examination, but they never make it past that cursory review, which is essentially bypassing most of the review process

Oh, yes. So then it makes sense that they are not ranked at the sites you have worked at as there is already an extreme negative bias against these applicants, and therefore the applications are not reviewed.

 

[WisNeuro]

Oh, yes. So then it makes sense that they are not ranked at the sites you have worked at as there is already an extreme negative bias against these applicants, and therefore the applications are not reviewed.

If extreme negative bias equals rejecting applications with lack of adequate practicum experiences and zero research, then sure, I guess so.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Oh, yes. So then it makes sense that they are not ranked at the sites you have worked at as there is already an extreme negative bias against these applicants, and therefore the applications are not reviewed.

If Fielding were a restaurant...and as a restaurant the city health commission kept giving it infractions (but hasn’t shut them down....yet), it constantly was ranked at the very bottom of nearly every objective ranking for restaurants, it’s Yelp reviews were nearly universal in their opinion (despite a couple of shill-looking reviews), and the majority of employees who leave that restaurant rarely if ever make the cut for a job at even a middle of the road restaurant...would you want to eat there, hire employees from there, recommend it to a colleague, or even consider having your child train there?

What if you had to commit to eating there every day for an entire year knowing the food is highly variable, so much so that reports of food poisoning and other serious infractions are viewed as expected by the vast majority of ppl in the restaurant biz? Would you tell ppl that it’s their choice if they want to eat there and despite everything you know...they will beat the odds? Or...do you warn them, warn other restaurants new to the area who don’t know about their problematic history, push to get the health commission to shut them down, etc?

What if you sold the same food as them? What if ppl ate there once and now they think EVERY restaurant in that cuisine is bad? What if those ppl told their friends who told their friends, etc. What if suppliers and other businesses confuse your restaurant for theirs, so now you need to work twice as hard to clear up the confusion?

That’s Fielding.

That is why other chefs don’t want them in the marketplace bc they are screwing other restaurants who do things the right way, who pay their employees more fairly, who train their employees for bigger and better things, who want to provide quality food using proven methods, who want to provide a good meal, who want to make a positive impact on the community?

Finally...lost in all of this...are the hundreds of unsuspecting patrons every single day who don’t know what they don’t know. Some of them may have a stomach of steel bc they are used to the poor quality food, but more likely they probably have food allergies and they actually need even more assistance. You better pray the ppl with peanut allergies, shellfish allergies, and similar don’t eat there and then end up in the hospital or worse.

That is why the rest of us keep warning chefs, employers, employees, and random diners about Fielding.

 

[GradStudent2020]

That’s interesting. How do they lack adequate practicum or research experience?

If extreme negative bias equals rejecting applications with lack of adequate practicum experiences and zero research, then sure, I guess so.

 

[WisNeuro]

That’s interesting. How do they lack adequate practicum or research experience?

They have under the number of hours required, they have practicums at locations with questionable clinical practices (e.g., qEEG and the like), and they have zero poster presentations or publications. All of these things are no bueno.

 

[GradStudent2020]

If Fielding were a restaurant...and as a restaurant the city health commission kept giving it infractions (but hasn’t shut them down....yet), it constantly was ranked at the very bottom of nearly every objective ranking for restaurants, it’s Yelp reviews were nearly universal in their opinion (despite a couple of shill-looking reviews), and the majority of employees who leave that restaurant rarely if ever make the cut for a job at even a middle of the road restaurant...would you want to eat there, hire employees from there, recommend it to a colleague, or even consider having your child train there?

What if you had to commit to eating there every day for an entire year knowing the food is highly variable, so much so that reports of food poisoning and other serious infractions are viewed as expected by the vast majority of ppl in the restaurant biz? Would you tell ppl that it’s their choice if they want to eat there and despite everything you know...they will beat the odds? Or...do you warn them, warn other restaurants new to the area who don’t know about their problematic history, push to get the health commission to shut them down, etc?

What if you sold the same food as them? What if ppl ate there once and now they think EVERY restaurant in that cuisine is bad? What if those ppl told their friends who told their friends, etc. What if suppliers and other businesses confuse your restaurant for theirs, so now you need to work twice as hard to clear up the confusion?

That’s Fielding.

That is why other chefs don’t want them in the marketplace bc they are screwing other restaurants who do things the right way, who pay their employees more fairly, who train their employees for bigger and better things, who want to provide quality food using proven methods, who want to provide a good meal, who want to make a positive impact on the community?

Finally...lost in all of this...are the hundreds of unsuspecting patrons every single day who don’t know what they don’t know. Some of them may have a stomach of steel bc they are used to the poor quality food, but more likely they probably have food allergies and they actually need even more assistance. You better pray the ppl with peanut allergies, shellfish allergies, and similar don’t eat there and then end up in the hospital or worse.

That is why the rest of us keep warning chefs, employers, employees, and random diners about Fielding.

Well, saying they don’t get ranked isn’t really the full story.

Saying they don’t get ranked because some TD’s do not believe Fielding provides quality training that prepares students for internship and therefore “trash-cans” applications without reviewing them is a more complete story. The more complete story may give prospective students information to consider regarding Fielding, but also reveals important information about certain TD’s.

 

[GradStudent2020]

They have under the number of hours required, they have practicums at locations with questionable clinical practices (e.g., qEEG and the like), and they have zero poster presentations or publications. All of these things are no bueno.

“They?” Fielding students? Or the applications from them you admit you don’t read?

Fielding doesn’t have minimum hours for practicum training prior to internship similar to other Clinical PhD’s? How do they compare?

Questionable practicum locations? Aren’t those pretty varied due to the model? None of their approved practicums offer quality training or???

I don’t even know how you would have information about how many Fielding students have poster presentations or publications. Where can I find that?

Thanks for your input.

 

[WisNeuro]

“They?” Fielding students? Or the applications from them you admit you don’t read?

Fielding doesn’t have minimum hours for practicum training prior to internship similar to other Clinical PhD’s? How do they compare?

Questionable practicum locations? Aren’t those pretty varied due to the model? None of their approved practicums offer quality training or???

I don’t even know how you would have information about how many Fielding students have poster presentations or publications. Where can I find that?

Thanks for your input.

They, the students. We have a minimum number of hours required for our site, if you are under that, regardless of your institution, your application is out. Prac locations are varied, but we have a good amount of familiarity with them in our geographical area, and if a student has only pracs at poor sites, their application is out. As for the info on their posters/pubs, that's in their CVs, which they submit with their application. Not sure where you can find that without being an application reviewer.

 

[GradStudent2020]

They, the students. We have a minimum number of hours required for our site, if you are under that, regardless of your institution, your application is out. Prac locations are varied, but we have a good amount of familiarity with them in our geographical area, and if a student has only pracs at poor sites, their application is out. As for the info on their posters/pubs, that's in their CVs, which they submit with their application. Not sure where you can find that without being an application reviewer.

As you have asserted over and over on the forum through the years that you do not read, review, or even look at these applications past the school name before you throw them away, I find it curious that you have all these (anecdotal) comparisons.

 

[WisNeuro]

As you have asserted over and over on the forum through the years that you do not read, review, or even look at these applications past the school name before you throw them away, I find it curious that you have all these (anecdotal) comparisons.

Curious, indeed.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It can vary by site, but why should a DCT consider rolling the dice when there are plenty of applicants from proven training programs?

I don’t care if it is “fair” because I have a responsibility to the patients, staff, administration, etc. and ultimately myself/my license. I rolled the dice on a fellow once (other faculty wanted them and I was very apprehensive about it) and we got burned. Fool me once...etc.

 

[WisNeuro]

It can vary by site, but why should a DCT consider rolling the dice when there are plenty of applicants from proven training programs?

I don’t care if it is “fair” because I have a responsibility to the patients, staff, administration, etc. and ultimately myself/my license. I rolled the dice on a fellow once (other faculty wanted them and I was very apprehensive about it) and we got burned. Fool me once...etc.

We get 40+ applications for each slot, got to set the cutoffs somewhere.

 

[GradStudent2020]

It can vary by site, but why should a DCT consider rolling the dice when there are plenty of applicants from proven training programs?

I don’t care if it is “fair” because I have a responsibility to the patients, staff, administration, etc. and ultimately myself/my license. I rolled the dice on a fellow once (other faculty wanted them and I was very apprehensive about it) and we got burned. Fool me once...etc.

Meh, life isn’t fair. I was merely questioning WisNeuro’s conflicting comments about his knowledge of Fielding applicants.

 

[WisNeuro]

Meh, life isn’t fair. I was merely questioning WisNeuro’s conflicting comments about his knowledge of Fielding applicants.

It's conflicting if you take things ultra literally. Other reviewers here get the picture. You look at the quick cutoff numbers first, if someone doesn't meet it, you don't read the rest. Simple as that. Take whatever offense you will, it's the way things work at reputable sites.

 

[GradStudent2020]

It's conflicting if you take things ultra literally. Other reviewers here get the picture. You look at the quick cutoff numbers first, if someone doesn't meet it, you don't read the rest. Simple as that. Take whatever offense you will, it's the way things work at reputable sites.

I have taken your comments at face value, should students on this forum try to interpret them in some other way?

It’s interesting that you assume offense on my end, or feel the need to constantly assert that your site is “reputable”.

I’ve seen on this forum that if you are asked for clarification of your comments of any kind, you tend to resort to “oh, you’d understand if you were a reviewer/more experienced/as reputable as me”.

You have stated several times that you do not read or review applications from Fielding students or graduates. Therefore, IMO, you are poorly qualified to comment on the quality of those applications.

 

[WisNeuro]

I have taken your comments at face value, should students on this forum try to interpret them in some other way?

It’s interesting that you assume offense on my end, or feel the need to constantly assert that your site is “reputable”.

I’ve seen on this forum that if you are asked for clarification of your comments of any kind, you tend to resort to “oh, you’d understand if you were a reviewer/more experienced/as reputable as me”.

You have stated several times that you do not read or review applications from Fielding students or graduates. Therefore, IMO, you are poorly qualified to comment on the quality of those applications.

Definitely rubbed someone the wrong way, it seems. Take my comments however you wish to, friend. You do you, I'll keep doing me.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Definitely rubbed someone the wrong way, it seems. Take my comments however you wish to, friend. You do you, I'll keep doing me.

I will never understand why some people cannot handle being questioned without assuming the other person is “rubbed the wrong way” or have taken offense.

I’m a student in this field. I’m curious and ask questions. You are also in this field, and theoretically on this forum to provide support. There’s no reason for you to become defensive about your comments.

 

[WisNeuro]

I will never understand why some people cannot handle being questioned without assuming the other person is “rubbed the wrong way” or have taken offense.

I’m a student in this field. I’m curious and ask questions. You are also in this field, and theoretically on this forum to provide support. There’s no reason for you to become defensive about your comments.

Not defensive, just clearly pointing out your mischaracterizations despite explanations. It's obvious there is an underlying agenda.