PhD/PsyD George Fox/Fuller Psyd?

[erg923]

I would add Merton's "No Man is an Island" as required reading too. Nice little chang-up from Frankle, IMHO. I would love to have other books of his, but most others are either too faith focused or more focused on mysticism.

I would love to be able to answer my phone each day by saying "Homeboy Industries..."
Good stuff. My wife does freely admit that she would be too scared to go to the Homegirls Cafe, though.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ela]

Merton with a twist;
http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-Chuang-Second-Edition/dp/0811218511

 

[greedypsych]

Well I wouldnt equate the word ministry with proselytize, as you seem to (sorry, but that sounds concrete to me). I dont expect everyone to know religous lingo, but please realize that there an extensive history and varying usage behind the vocabulary that may be different from your imediate understanding of them. Lots of misunderstanding and misinterpretation seems to stem from those who seem to be a little too comfortable with what they think they know of religion. If you really are curious, I would look up anything by Mark McMinn, Ph.D. He was at Wheaton for a while but he may be at George Fox or Rosemead. He's written a number of articles regarding integration of faith and science, and integration of spirituality with clinical psych, particularly CBT. He is perhaps on the more evangelical side of things, as evidenced by his academic affilications, so I dont always agree with his models, but hes a solid academic IMO.

I am at the final interview stage with Fox and Mark McMinn is a key reason for my interest in that program. From what I understand he was at Fox and then went to Wheaton for a short time to help them acheive APA accreditation. After Wheaton became accredited he returned to Fox. I am comfortable with the blending of faith within the program and was told the spiritual formation course is solely for the personal faith development of the student. I was told no aspect of the program would include proselytizing as this would be counterproductive to work as a psychologist and would not be congruent with APA standards.

Another strength of the program for myself is that multiple students have received the HPSP scholarship for different branches of the military. I also spoke with two different military recruiters with familiarity of the Fox program and their graduates.

I am still an outsider of the program, but have been pleased in my research and site visit to Fox. I am a protestant male pursuing a military career, but am NOT pursuing "Christian Counseling" by any means. Fox passed my list of potential red flags when looking at a religious university and was the only "Christian" program that made my final list.

 

[erg923]

There are a host of well establihsed Catholic university's with doctoral programs in clinical or counseling psychology that have solid reputations and admission and outcome stats that arent in the toilet. Loyola, Marquette, Notre Dame, etc.

 

[greedypsych]

There are a host of well establihsed Catholic university's with doctoral programs in clinical or counseling psychology that have solid reputations and admission and outcome stats that arent in the toilet. Loyola, Marquette, Notre Dame, etc.

Absolutely, I currently work for a Catholic organization and would be open to those schools, just feel a better personal/geographical fit with others. I also found Fox's admission and outcome stats to be above average for PsyD programs and on par with some APA Ph.D programs.

http://www.georgefox.edu/psyd/13-14-student-admission-outcome-other-data.pdf

APA internship placement is low, but I anticipate seeking placement at one of the military sites with which their students have had success.

 

[WisNeuro]

Which outcome stats look good? I'd worry about the Match, EPPP pass rates, and the fact that attrition has been alarmingly high in recent cohorts.

 

[erg923]

So your plan is to go to a less than ideal program, with a mediocre reputation, with a poor match rates, and expect that you will be the exception? Is that accurate?

 

[erg923]

Moreover, what objective indicators look good for this program?

For example...
Attrition is high in this program. What do you think this is about?

The match rate is poor. What do you think this is about?

The EPPP pass rate is poor. What do you think this is about?

 

[greedypsych]

In researching APA PsyD programs I found licensure rates above 80% to be higher than average. Students, graduates, and professors mentioned high attrition with the financial burden associated with this program and I once again found this comparable to other APA PsyD programs.
Match rates are what is most concerning to me. Some students attributed it to unwillingness to move their families outside of Oregon. Honestly, I don't buy that as I'm sure all students of all programs face that same obstacle.
What helped me overcome the low match rate red flag is my discussions with current HPSP recipient students. Fox has a strong connection with VA facilities in the Portland area for practicums throughout the program. Their is only one other PsyD program with students vying for those positions (Pacific University which also made my final list). In their words, their VA experiences made them desirable candidates for the HPSP and eventual placement in a military internship.
I am confident in myself, but hope I am not daft enough to foresee myself as being the "exception." Rather, I hope to follow in the steps of other students and graduates that have already received the HPSP and military internship placement.

I know I am surrounded by a wealth of knowledge on this forum and appreciate the feedback if my findings are false.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

.... their VA experiences made them desirable candidates for the HPSP and eventual placement in a military internship.

There are dozens of other programs around the country that have connections w various VA hospitals for practica placements, and those are the students you'll be competing against for internship spots.

 

[erg923]

How do you rectify a resulting loan debt that is almost triple what the average psychologist makes in one year?

I would assure you that program has little causal impact with regards to HSPS recepients. I think its pretty much the applicant, the applicants experiences, and opportunities/potential opportunities. There is certainly nothing unique about placing students in VA practica. Its probably one of the most common practica experieces for clinical psych grad students given the numbers of VA facilites nationwide and that fact that it is, by far, the largest employer of pychologists in the US.

 

[greedypsych]

Perhaps I researched the wrong programs, but with regard to PsyD programs I did not think Fox's tuition rate to be on the upper end. I have read many forums regarding PsyD vs Ph.D that address this topic so we don't need to derail this thread. I will also divulge that though my clinical experience is fairly high for my age, my GPA limited the number of programs to which I could qualify for admission. (Switched majors and had little thought to continue education beyond a masters until after I had graduated). So unfortunately I had to rule out many of the "creme de la creme" PsyD and PhD programs. I chose PsyD, made my list, cut my list, visited my top 3 (Denver, Fox, Pacific), and found the best fit for me educationally and personally at Fox.

The information regarding VA is greatly appreciated. I knew they were a large employer, but was not aware of how large.

As far as loan payback, even if I do not receive the HPSP I understand they have a strong military payback program which I have been told to cover $120,000. I also am aware of the hassles of this process. (My dad is in the Army and near completion of a doctorate that they have funded).

Once again, thanks for the feedback.

 

[misterioso7]

Well the problem I have with George Fox is that it seems way to fundamentalist to be an effective program. Do you necessarily have to stay in that area?

Call people a "Fundamentalist".....This is the "politically correct" way to be a bigot towards the religious right, who, admittedly, are often bigoted. How Ironic. Don't you just love the psychological inflexibility at show on this forum post, supposedly filled with people who try to encourage psychological flexibility? I know, many Christians are so filled hate. Be better than that.

Although that appears to be the case in many cases, it doesn't even approach half the variance, so why not use scientific principles and maximize the variance you CAN conrol? Psychology utillizes the science of learning and behavior principles. Thats the definition...and thats how we are distinct from pastoral counseling professions. I am not sure how much exposure you have had to treatment, but the relationhip is certainly not the mechanism of change in prolonged exposure therapy, for example. The explanatory model here tells us that it IS very much specific techniques and orientation that produce change here. Can you get there without relationship though? Not likely, in most cases.

I agree with the rest of your points generally, which is why I view religion and spirtuality as "fair game" ad certainly not off limits during traditional psyhotherapy/clinical intervention. Yet, it is not used the same way in my sessions as it is by the priest at our parish. Patients guide me and we "explore" the area togther. And, yes, I will certainly speak to the positive effects faith can have on one's life. However, when is see Fr. Steve, I expect him to bring it up, him to guide me, and for him to use his knowledge of scripture and spiritual matters to help me with any problems in living I may be having. When I see, Dr. X, clinical psyhologist, I do not. I expect something....a little different.

Well said.

That is a slippery slope. If a patient is struggling and needs help coping with their anxiety, are you going to be more likely to recommend prayer or deep breathing? If someone is having an affair, will your faith impact how you view that person? Would your clinical approach change when you treat an Atheist?



No, no, no. This is a false dichotomy.

http://psychologygradschool.weebly.com/myth-busters.html

No, no, no. Your first statement is a false dichotomy. Psychology has been so accepting towards Buddhist practices (e.g. mindfulness), why so much hostility towards openly having Christian faith in common with one's clients? Sounds like a good way to establish rapport, which is clearly connected with positive outcomes. Why wouldn't your clinical approach change if the person doesn't share your faith?

 

[erg923]

Perhaps I researched the wrong programs, but with regard to PsyD programs I did not think Fox's tuition rate to be on the upper end. I have read many forums regarding PsyD vs Ph.D that address this topic so we don't need to derail this thread. I will also divulge that though my clinical experience is fairly high for my age, my GPA limited the number of programs to which I could qualify for admission. (Switched majors and had little thought to continue education beyond a masters until after I had graduated). So unfortunately I had to rule out many of the "creme de la creme" PsyD and PhD programs. I chose PsyD, made my list, cut my list, visited my top 3 (Denver, Fox, Pacific), and found the best fit for me educationally and personally at Fox.

The information regarding VA is greatly appreciated. I knew they were a large employer, but was not aware of how large.

As far as loan payback, even if I do not receive the HPSP I understand they have a strong military payback program which I have been told to cover $120,000. I also am aware of the hassles of this process. (My dad is in the Army and near completion of a doctorate that they have funded).

Once again, thanks for the feedback.

You have to understand that what the Psy.D. model largely does, as of late anyway, is foster a two-tiered system of doctoral education in this field. As you can see, you have had to eliminate most programs which are widely viewed as "solid" in terms of 1.) clinical and academic reputation 2. objectives outcomes. 3. student support.

I find it odd that people are so willing to go to programs that people view so poorly (and they are well aware of this) and that put them in such precarious positions, such that working "up" to the level and outcomes of other programs (e.g., matching to an APA site) is a constant battle. I mean, for goodness sakes, you appear to be basing your entire financial future on getting a government benefit which may or may not be available to you! What do you make of this?

 

[erg923]

I would urge you to compare this program to the counseling phd at Loyola of Chicago. What are you getting at George Fox that you cant get a place like that? And if you say location, I am going to stab my eyeballs out...being that you supposedly want a miliary psych career.

 

[WisNeuro]

No, no, no. Your first statement is a false dichotomy. Psychology has been so accepting towards Buddhist practices (e.g. mindfulness), why so much hostility towards openly having Christian faith in common with one's clients? Sounds like a good way to establish rapport, which is clearly connected with positive outcomes. Why wouldn't your clinical approach change if the person doesn't share your faith?

Because you treat them according to empirically supported treatments. The clinical approach stays the same regardless of faith based system. You can use their faith, praying if it helps, going to church as a behavioral activation strategy, but the basic treatments are the same across most patients.

 

[misterioso7]

Because you treat them according to empirically supported treatments. The clinical approach stays the same regardless of faith based system. You can use their faith, praying if it helps, going to church as a behavioral activation strategy, but the basic treatments are the same across most patients.

Across most patients? You sound hesitant. Does ambivalence make you uncomfortable?

It would be nice to have a cookie-cutter approach. However, IMHO, different strokes for different folks.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

No, no, no. Your first statement is a false dichotomy. Psychology has been so accepting towards Buddhist practices (e.g. mindfulness), why so much hostility towards openly having Christian faith in common with one's clients? Sounds like a good way to establish rapport, which is clearly connected with positive outcomes. Why wouldn't your clinical approach change if the person doesn't share your faith?

It isn't hostility, it is about utilizing empirically supported treatments. My beliefs about faith and religion have ZERO place in the treatment plan. If prayer is something a pt wants to do, I'd encourage them to work w. their pastor/minister/etc. for that specific need. There are still *plenty* of other things to work on w. the pt. (e.g. other coping skills, increasing insight, making behavioral changes, etc).

 

[misterioso7]

It isn't hostility, it is about utilizing empirically supported treatments. My beliefs about faith and religion have ZERO place in the treatment plan. If prayer is something a pt wants to do, I'd encourage them to work w. their pastor/minister/etc. for that specific need. There are still *plenty* of other things to work on w. the pt. (e.g. other coping skills, increasing insight, making behavioral changes, etc).

First, let me apologize. I should have been more careful with my words. My response was hasty because it seems apparent to me that there is a lot of animosity towards George Fox University, with which I am NOT associated. So many people are so quick to question the first person's choices. I didn't mean to suggest that your approach specifically is hostile. I was referencing the certain aspects of the field as a whole. For example, what do Freud, Ellis, and Rogers have in common? They thought religious people were flawed.

Second, I feel that a psychologist with background in the client's religion does have the qualification to talk about religion, or pray with that client. Besides this, there is empirical support for certain aspects of prayer. Just because it isn't manualized or formulaic doesn't make it wrong.

Third, when I ask why not change the clinical approach, I'm just saying, I think we need to put more emphasis on letting treatment take place with respect to each client's culture. I don't mean throw out empirical support. In that respect, praying with a client who values prayer is itself an approach, and I don't think doing so makes the rest of what you do not empirically validated.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

My take is that religion can be a source of significant motivation and strength for patients, and so for a psychologist not to acknowledge and potentially capitalize on it could be remiss (much like it would be to not capitalize on a strong familial/social support network). But going so far as to pray with a patient in session would seem to obfuscate your role as a psychologist, particularly if that patient's faith later ends up becoming a point of contention and/or conflict for them.

 

[WisNeuro]

Across most patients? You sound hesitant. Does ambivalence make you uncomfortable?

It would be nice to have a cookie-cutter approach. However, IMHO, different strokes for different folks.

No, depending on the patient, you change the treatment approach, like a competent clinician. For example, most depressions will respond favorably to BA or CBT methods. However, with treatment refractory severe depression, the research suggests something more along the lines of IPT. It's called being a good doctor and knowing the literature.

 

[erg923]

First, let me apologize. I should have been more careful with my words. My response was hasty because it seems apparent to me that there is a lot of animosity towards George Fox University, with which I am NOT associated. So many people are so quick to question the first person's choices. I didn't mean to suggest that your approach specifically is hostile. I was referencing the certain aspects of the field as a whole. For example, what do Freud, Ellis, and Rogers have in common? They thought religious people were flawed.

Second, I feel that a psychologist with background in the client's religion does have the qualification to talk about religion, or pray with that client. Besides this, there is empirical support for certain aspects of prayer. Just because it isn't manualized or formulaic doesn't make it wrong.

Third, when I ask why not change the clinical approach, I'm just saying, I think we need to put more emphasis on letting treatment take place with respect to each client's culture. I don't mean throw out empirical support. In that respect, praying with a client who values prayer is itself an approach, and I don't think doing so makes the rest of what you do not empirically validated.

The animostity towards George Fox is due to objective indicators that suggest it to be a mediocre program that charges tuition (and doesn't provide support to offset it) that is not commesurate with earning potential for the modal psychologist. Its really quite simple.

If you pray with your patient (this is different from confirming that the literature supports a correlation between prayer and positive outcomes), what are you practicing, exactly? Is it psychology...or faith? When we do mindfullness exercises we do not invoke techniques or excercises that are dependent on a faith/belief in a higher deity, right? Thats quite different that praying the Rosary with a patient, no?

 

[futureapppsy2]

I'm going to be contraian and say that I'm glad Christian programs exist, as long as they teach actual EBT (e.g., not "reparative therapy" or "just pray") and are well-grounded in research and ethics . I know some people who would only consider therapy with a clinician who billed themselves a a Christian and made faith a considerable part of treatment, and frankly, I'd rather have those people see someone who had solid training in EBTs than someone with vaguely defined pastoral counseling degree, especially if they needed something beyond supportive therapy.

 

[IT514]

My take is that religion can be a source of significant motivation and strength for patients, and so for a psychologist not to acknowledge and potentially capitalize on it could be remiss (much like it would be to not capitalize on a strong familial/social support network). But going so far as to pray with a patient in session would seem to obfuscate your role as a psychologist, particularly if that patient's faith later ends up becoming a point of contention and/or conflict for them.

It isn't hostility, it is about utilizing empirically supported treatments. My beliefs about faith and religion have ZERO place in the treatment plan. If prayer is something a pt wants to do, I'd encourage them to work w. their pastor/minister/etc. for that specific need. There are still *plenty* of other things to work on w. the pt. (e.g. other coping skills, increasing insight, making behavioral changes, etc).

I agree with the above, though I'm curious to hear thoughts on whether this applies to hospice settings. If a patient on their deathbed asks you to pray (as dying people sometimes do), and this is something you feel you could do as an authentic human being, would you do it? If not (you dont pray, never have or will, religion is a spandrel, etc), how would you handle it? I realize that this is taking this thread way off topic at this point.

 

[erg923]

I would likley concur. Practice can look vastly different depending on the setting and your actual role/contribution within that setting.

 

[greedypsych]

I would urge you to compare this program to the counseling phd at Loyola of Chicago. What are you getting at George Fox that you cant get a place like that? And if you say location, I am going to stab my eyeballs out...being that you supposedly want a miliary psych career.

Hopefully I will save your eyeballs in saying location is not a big deal to me. I currently live in a midwestern state with only one APA psychology program, which is a PhD program, so I know I will most likely need to move a fair distance. Ironically, Loyola was one of my final choices, however I am married and Chicago was the one city my wife did not want to move to...

I have read a couple of Mark McMinn's books and had the opportunity to sit in on a few classes at Fox, which helped solidify the program as a finalist for myself.

I may be dead wrong about this, but the stat I put the most stock in was licensure percentage and at 82% over the last decade (and above 90% over the last 5 years) I thought it seemed to be a strength of the program. I liked the experential focus on education and that they did still seem to have a higher focus on research than most PsyD programs. (Denver and a few other programs claimed to not even have a written dissertation as a requirement of their program).

My undergrad degree in Family/Pre-Counseling was through a fully accredited Christian college with 18 Psych hours and 15 Family Ministry hours. A Christian program is not a necessity (like I said only one made my final list), but they do value my transcript highly.

I love the outdoors (hiking, camping, boarding, etc), but location is near the bottom of my wish list. (Being an Army brat myself I am well aware that I will have little to no choice of where I would be moving if I am accepted into the military).

I may be frustrating you with my responses, but this has helped me as I prepare for interview questions and also given me questions I will want to ask of them.

 

[Honkblarg]

Hi all - I realize I'm doing some thread necromancy here, but I had a member PM me and ask about my experiences at GFU. Since I took the time to write up a reply, I wanted to post them here so that in the future they were available to anyone who was searching for information on George Fox.

I ended up choosing George Fox and received my doctorate literally this week - the last day of my internship was yesterday, which means that as of today I am Dr. Honkblarg. Feels good!

My overall experience at GFU was very positive. I think the two areas of particular strength for GFU are the mentorship opportunities and the clinical training - I'll speak to both in turn. Regarding mentorship, professors were exceptionally available for consultation or mentorship, either for professional issues or for life advice. When it came time to submit my dissertation for my prelim, my advisor blocked out multiple hours per day for a week to help me get it as good as it could be, whereas I think at some other schools you might wait for weeks to get access to your advisor. My advisor was also willing to meet with me to discuss which practicum opportunity I should choose, my adjustment to grad school, etc. And other professors were available in turn when needed. I remember when I was trying to choose how to rank my internship list, I was able to meet the next day with the associate director of clinical training who was extremely helpful. There are also formalized opportunities for mentorship, like your clinical team where you meet with a professor and other students each week to discuss cases. So you have a lot of people pouring into you.

I also think that the clinical training was very strong, although I believe this could be hit or miss depending on the specific practicum experiences that you receive. I ended up going with sites that were run by GFU for 2 of my 3 practicums, and at both places I did really good clinical work and received really good supervision. I also took advantage of an optional program called the "consultation team" where we would do psychiatric evaluations of patients in a local emergency room - it was really intense, but exceptionally good training. However, I could see someone going through GFU and choosing poor practicums and not taking advantage of opportunities like the consultation team, and in that case you probably wouldn't get as much training.

There are also some aspects of GFU that were not as positive. I think that the classroom training was hit or miss - there were some classes that were really exceptional, whereas other classes felt like a waste of time. I think that's going to be true in most programs, but it was something that I noticed. I also feel like GFU is going through growing pains in terms of figuring out how to integrate faith and learning. Some of GFU's faith integration material feels really old - like, we had one class where a huge amount of the content revolved around the arguments in the 80s of whether you could be a Christian and a psychologist. And I was disappointed by the classes that were co-led by a religion prof and a psych prof, because the religion profs were from the undergraduate side of the school and they weren't really prepared to lead a discussion at a graduate level. However, there were also aspects that were really helpful for me. I think being a part of community where it was okay to talk about faith with other students and professors gave me a space where I could do a lot of processing that I otherwise wouldn't have done. And being paired up with a spiritual director in our second year was extremely helpful.

Ultimately, I think if you do go to GFU, you would likely have a good experience. However, if you do go, I think you really will want to be proactive to take advantage of the opportunities there. Many of the deepest strengths of GFU (like the mentorship that is available) will only benefit you if you actually go and seek it out. So if you just kind of want to coast and do the minimum, GFU may not be the best fit. But if you really do crave that mentorship, and you also want the specialization on clinical work, then I think you would do well to consider GFU.

Hope that helps!

 

[psych.meout]

Hi all - I realize I'm doing some thread necromancy here, but I had a member PM me and ask about my experiences at GFU. Since I took the time to write up a reply, I wanted to post them here so that in the future they were available to anyone who was searching for information on George Fox.

I ended up choosing George Fox and received my doctorate literally this week - the last day of my internship was yesterday, which means that as of today I am Dr. Honkblarg. Feels good!

My overall experience at GFU was very positive. I think the two areas of particular strength for GFU are the mentorship opportunities and the clinical training - I'll speak to both in turn. Regarding mentorship, professors were exceptionally available for consultation or mentorship, either for professional issues or for life advice. When it came time to submit my dissertation for my prelim, my advisor blocked out multiple hours per day for a week to help me get it as good as it could be, whereas I think at some other schools you might wait for weeks to get access to your advisor. My advisor was also willing to meet with me to discuss which practicum opportunity I should choose, my adjustment to grad school, etc. And other professors were available in turn when needed. I remember when I was trying to choose how to rank my internship list, I was able to meet the next day with the associate director of clinical training who was extremely helpful. There are also formalized opportunities for mentorship, like your clinical team where you meet with a professor and other students each week to discuss cases. So you have a lot of people pouring into you.

I also think that the clinical training was very strong, although I believe this could be hit or miss depending on the specific practicum experiences that you receive. I ended up going with sites that were run by GFU for 2 of my 3 practicums, and at both places I did really good clinical work and received really good supervision. I also took advantage of an optional program called the "consultation team" where we would do psychiatric evaluations of patients in a local emergency room - it was really intense, but exceptionally good training. However, I could see someone going through GFU and choosing poor practicums and not taking advantage of opportunities like the consultation team, and in that case you probably wouldn't get as much training.

There are also some aspects of GFU that were not as positive. I think that the classroom training was hit or miss - there were some classes that were really exceptional, whereas other classes felt like a waste of time. I think that's going to be true in most programs, but it was something that I noticed. I also feel like GFU is going through growing pains in terms of figuring out how to integrate faith and learning. Some of GFU's faith integration material feels really old - like, we had one class where a huge amount of the content revolved around the arguments in the 80s of whether you could be a Christian and a psychologist. And I was disappointed by the classes that were co-led by a religion prof and a psych prof, because the religion profs were from the undergraduate side of the school and they weren't really prepared to lead a discussion at a graduate level. However, there were also aspects that were really helpful for me. I think being a part of community where it was okay to talk about faith with other students and professors gave me a space where I could do a lot of processing that I otherwise wouldn't have done. And being paired up with a spiritual director in our second year was extremely helpful.

Ultimately, I think if you do go to GFU, you would likely have a good experience. However, if you do go, I think you really will want to be proactive to take advantage of the opportunities there. Many of the deepest strengths of GFU (like the mentorship that is available) will only benefit you if you actually go and seek it out. So if you just kind of want to coast and do the minimum, GFU may not be the best fit. But if you really do crave that mentorship, and you also want the specialization on clinical work, then I think you would do well to consider GFU.

Hope that helps!

And how much did it all cost?

 

[jdawg2017]

And how much did it all cost?

It shouldn’t matter because his/her riches are stored up in heaven.

 

[SmithPsy24]

A (Catholic) friend from internship attended George Fox and she seemed well prepared for internship - although I note that she had a particular area of study that was of interest to her, where the school had good practicum connections, etc. I do think her parents were contributing to her education, though, so the cost may have been less of a concern for her.

I will also say that when I was an intern we helped review applications and I don't think they chose to interview anyone from Regent, particularly because they seemed to have a poor understanding of internship fit and their training. No opinions on Fuller but if you're not a local I imagine the cost of living would add significantly to your financial burden.

 

[StellaB]

I have worked with people from Fuller and they seem solidly trained, if greatly indebted. Cannot speak to the other schools mentioned here, but my general impression of them is not positive, based solely on word of mouth.