Fielding Graduate University

[WisNeuro]

Regardless, feel free to PM me or start another thread as this is getting afield of the thread intent.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Anyone have any good restaurants they can recommend?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Mod Note: Let's try to remain broadly on-topic. Conversations about ancillary/related topics between members are sometimes best approached via PM. Thanks, all.

Edit: And let's also try to keep posts professional and helpful. Thanks again.

 

[GradStudent2020]

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

Which mischaracterizations? Was the OP not about Fielding?

My only agenda is to clarify the discrepancy. Either you throw those applications away and therefore really shouldn’t comment on them, or you read them and find them deficient in some way.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Mod Note: Let's try to remain broadly on-topic. Conversations about ancillary/related topics between members are sometimes best approached via PM. Thanks, all.

The OP was about experience with Fielding. This post devolved into a comparison about medical model vs mental health models of training, but no mod posts showed up. Can you explain how a discussion of how student applications from Fielding are considered/reviewed is not relevant?

 

[erg923]

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.

Good Lord son, are you dense?!

 

[WisNeuro]

Which mischaracterizations? Was the OP not about Fielding?

My only agenda is to clarify the discrepancy. Either you throw those applications away and therefore really shouldn’t comment on them, or you read them and find them deficient in some way.

I did clarify, we look at the peripheral stats, they don't make the cut, the application is shelved. If they do not make the cut on peripheral stats, the application in its entirety is not read. No real discrepancy here.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

The OP was about experience with Fielding. This post devolved into a comparison about medical model vs mental health models of training, but no mod posts showed up. Can you explain how a discussion of how student applications from Fielding are considered/reviewed is not relevant?

In a broad sense, it's entirely relevant. In the context of a discussion about one person's prior comments and specific method of reviewing, after the more general topics have been explored, it may be more appropriate for PM.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Good Lord son, are you dense?!

Ah, another would be mentor providing support on an online forum. So professional. So useful.

 

[Jegg]

 

[GradStudent2020]

In a broad sense, it's entirely relevant. In the context of a discussion about one person's prior comments and specific method of reviewing, after the more general topics have been explored, it may be more appropriate for PM.

Thank you for the clarification. I don’t think WisNeuro has sufficiently squared his past assertions with his current ones, but he feels he has. We will have to agree to disagree, as I have no interest in a private convo with this user. I do hope the exchange we had is useful for other students readers.

 

[WisNeuro]

 

[ClinicalABA]

I will never understand why some people cannot handle being questioned... There’s no reason for you to become defensive about your comments.

Deleted original content- I posted concurrently with the mod recommendation to "move on" and thus did not see the mod's post.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Actually, imho, Wisneuro has done a nice job with providing responses to your questions. Any defensiveness you’re seeing is justified, as you keep asking questions to try to get a response to a different question (i.e., “did you lie about reading applications from Fielding students”). Though it may not be your intent, your concerns in recent posts seem somewhat disingenuous.

Thank you for your opinion! As the mod has suggested we move on, anyone else that needs to pat WisNeuro on the head should probably do it through pm.

 

[WisNeuro]

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Unfortunately, none of this distraction changes Fielding’s objectively horrible student outcomes...

Some quick napkin match between patients...all data pulled fro their student outcome data on their website. Keep in mind the internship imbalance isn’t a thing anymore, so programs should match near if not all of their students. The dirty not secret is to look at APA/CPA (Canada) acred match rates.

Fielding’s 10 years of internship match (2008-2018)

140 students found APA-acred sites.
389 students matched to ANY site..could be non-paying, part-time, etc.
473 students sought or applied to internship, this includes withdrawals for p w no interviews, etc.

Of their students that attain an internship site, only 35.98% are APA/CPA-acred. What is worse, of all Fielding students who applied for an internship, only 29.59% in the past 10 years attaine APA/CPA-acred sites.

For comparison, in 2017 of ALL registered students for the match, 80.82% matched to an APA/CPA-acred site.

29.59% v. 80.82%

That is Fielding.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Also...their student attrition rate is horrendous. I have a patient, but those curious should check it out.
—

$33,475 in cost for tuition, fees, books. Not housing nor living expenses, these are just monies for school. Mean avg to graduate....8.14 years, for those who survive their brutal attrition rate and beat the odds and match to internship.

8 year, with no adjustment for increased costs...$267,800. Before loan fees. Before compound interest. Before living expenses.

This is why we trash Fielding.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Unfortunately, none of this distraction changes Fielding’s objectively horrible student outcomes...

Some quick napkin match between patients...all data pulled fro their student outcome data on their website. Keep in mind the internship imbalance isn’t a thing anymore, so programs should match near if not all of their students. The dirty not secret is to look at APA/CPA (Canada) acred match rates.

Fielding’s 10 years of internship match (2008-2018)

140 students found APA-acred sites.
389 students matched to ANY site..could be non-paying, part-time, etc.
473 students sought or applied to internship, this includes withdrawals for p w no interviews, etc.

Of their students that attain an internship site, only 35.98% are APA/CPA-acred. What is worse, of all Fielding students who applied for an internship, only 29.59% in the past 10 years attaine APA/CPA-acred sites.

For comparison, in 2017 of ALL registered students for the match, 80.82% matched to an APA/CPA-acred site.

29.59% v. 80.82%

That is Fielding.

A quick google search indicates Fielding’s match rate to APA/CPA programs in 2017 was 59%, not 29.59%. At least compare apples to apples, so your critique is credible.

96% of students participating in the match that year were placed in an internship.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

A quick google search indicates Fielding’s match rate to APA/CPA programs in 2017 was 59%, not 29.59%. At least compare apples to apples, so your critique is credible.

There weren’t 10yr data easily available for the overall APPIC match, so I went with the most recently available, but it’s a fair point.

I’m not sure i’d hang my hat on 59% though, when even mediocre doctoral programs are now 90%-100% bc the internship crisis has been over.

96% of students participating in the match that year were placed in an internship.

There it is...conflating “internship” with “APA/CPA-acred internship”, I mentioned that is a common tactic to confuse ppl unfamiliar with the nuances of training. The former can be part-time, unpaid, and/or have ZERO oversight from a recognized accrediting body. Some guy with zero experience supervising, no didactic program, no formal supervision, no core training standards, etc could offer an internship and it would count as part of that 96%. As for APA/CPA-acred v. APPIC....APPIC is a membership org, not an accreditation organization.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the ONLY match number that matters is how many students match to APA/CPA-acred. sites. APA/CPA-acred. are the accepted MINIMUM standard level of training recognized by the field. Everything else is just muddying the water.

 

[Seven_Costanza]

A quick google search indicates Fielding’s match rate to APA/CPA programs in 2017 was 59%, not 29.59%. At least compare apples to apples, so your critique is credible.

96% of students participating in the match that year were placed in an internship.

It does seem like their match rate is a little higher in recent years, ranging from 45-59% over the last 4 cohorts, but those are still terrible numbers.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN

 

[GradStudent2020]

There weren’t 10yr data easily available for the overall APPIC match, so I went with the most recently available, but it’s a fair point.

I’m not sure i’d hang my hat on 59% though, when even mediocre doctoral programs are now 90%-100% bc the internship crisis has been over.



There it is...conflating “internship” with “APA/CPA-acred internship”, I mentioned that is a common tactic to confuse ppl unfamiliar with the nuances of training. The former can be part-time, unpaid, and/or have ZERO oversight from a recognized accrediting body. Some guy with zero experience supervising, no didactic program, no formal supervision, no core training standards, etc could offer an internship and it would count as part of that 96%. As for APA/CPA-acred v. APPIC....APPIC is a membership org, not an accreditation organization.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the ONLY match number that matters is how many students match to APA/CPA-acred. sites. APA/CPA-acred. are the accepted MINIMUM standard level of training recognized by the field. Everything else is just muddying the water.

Yes, under 60% seems very low. I’ll be interested to see what the 2018/2019 match rates look like as it seems that has improved every year.

In a different table it mentions that 73% of Fielding graduates from the last 8 years are licensed. Which is interesting to me, because the majority of graduates are clearly overcoming the non-APA internship in terms of licensure. Again, I wonder why that isn’t higher than 73% and don’t know how that compares to other programs.

I met a Fielding student in his late 70’s on a plane recently and he does not intend to pursue licensure post-graduation. Obviously that’s only one person but my understanding is that Fielding has quite a bit more “non-traditional” students which may explain at least some of their numbers. Maybe not enough of the variance to be comfortable with the issues illustrated by the poor match rate, EPPP pass rate, or attrition.

 

[Jegg]

This is sort of what I was getting at two posts back. Since some of these students are likely already working within a healthcare system setting, there’s a possibility that some of them are just moving laterally and longitudinally in their current workplace for internship instead of pursuing an independent APA internship. For better or worse, depending on your point of view of course...

 

[WisNeuro]

73% is terrible for licensure rates for a program training pure clinicians. Most heavy research R1 clinical programs are near or better than that and they are training a significant number of researchers who will never need licensure for their career. That 73% just means that more than a quarter of the graduates are having significant difficulty becoming licensed, or have never been able to get licensed. By nearly every benchmark presented, it meets the criteria for what many consider a predatory program, simple.

 

[ClinicalABA]

73% is terrible for licensure rates for a program training pure clinicians...
...That 73% just means that more than a quarter of the graduates (emphasis added) are having significant difficulty becoming licensed, or have never been able to get licensed. By nearly every benchmark presented, it meets the criteria for what many consider a predatory program, simple.

I think just looking at the data for internship and licensure actually makes things look BETTER than they are. When you account for overall program attrition rates, it comes out to something like around 50%+ of students who start the program not ending up with their licence. Since this board is meant for prospective students, that is a much more meaningful (and frightening) statistic. Basically, 1 out of 2 people who pay that 30K+ for the first year will not become licensed psychologist. That's a very expensive wager on even odds.

 

[Jegg]

I think just looking at the data for internship and licensure actually makes things look BETTER than they are. When you account for overall program attrition rates, it comes out to something like around 50%+ of students who start the program not ending up with their licence. Since this board is meant for prospective students, that is a much more meaningful (and frightening) statistic. Basically, 1 out of 2 people who pay that 30K+ for the first year will not become licensed psychologist. That's a very expensive wager on even odds.

Seems like a better call to just take the overall tuition to the casino and bet it all on the first hand of Blackjack.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Seems like a better call to just take the overall tuition to the casino and bet it all on the first hand of Blackjack.

Odds are probably more similar to Roulette, but yeah- It's a risky gamble.

 

[Jegg]

Odds are probably more similar to Roulette, but yeah- It's a risky gamble.

For a perfect 50-50 split, yes. I'd rather risk the near 50-50 split (49.5-50.5) for the chance at a Blackjack payout on that one hand... lol

Oh, wait, Blackjack odds are actually better. I forgot about the zero in Roulette, which places the odds at around 47.5-52.5...

 

[WisNeuro]

The numbers also change slightly depending on how many decks are in the shoe, also depending on which rules are in play (e.g., when the players can double vs. the dealer and if you can re-split aces).

 

[Jegg]

This thread has inspired me to hit the Casino this weekend for some variable-ratio conditioning! Thank you Fielding!