I agree, makes no sense that they would accredit a program that does not necessarily include some type of programmatic residential training and supervision. Curious what kind of clinical experiences Fielding graduates receive- e.g., practica etc. and do they not require internship? Maybe some of those questions were clarified in the link- I just skimmed it.
I own one. I had it custom made 7 yrs ago.Nice pic...did you take my (Red Swingline) stapler?
sauce? I am guessing this is part of the licensure laws?
Here's the real irony, imo: we all know that a graduate program gaining APA approval doesnt mean anything, yet we hold up the idea that an APA approved internship means everything.
Well, it seems to depend on who we're talking about here on the boards. There are plenty of people like you who use APA accreditation as just the minimal standard for filtering out obviously bad programs and then use other criteria to further differentiate in program quality, e.g. APA-accredited internship match rate, EPPP pass rate, licensure rate, publication rates, job placements, board certification, remuneration outcomes, etc.
I'm not convinced its anything but a money grab. The site that I went to, in particular, only hadnt done APA accred because it cost too much (they're now doing it). A site that I interviewed at the year prior to matching, btw, was APA accredited, and I would have speculated would have been terrible training. I hear what you're saying about "the lowest bar" but I think that's merely a notion, rather than a reality. Just my opinion, though.
Good, well I'm glad to know that. I've not done site visits, nor would I be interested in doing that. I'm glad from your perspective it's not a money grab. I'll admit I have a hard time completely buying that, given my overall perception of the APA.
I am not at all, in the slightest suggesting that peer review is unnecessary or that site visits are a joke.
I have a hard time with this position. On one hand the sentiment is that this is a minimum standard and on the other hand the argument is that we should not make judgments based on individuals who receive training at locations which have failed to meet that standard. How can it be called a standard if it is not treated as one; That seems more like 'professional hope' rather than 'professional standard'.
Last I checked, the "little more" part wasnt that different between APPIC and APA. If my memory is correct, qualifying for APPIC almost assured you qualified for APA- despite said low standards (which I do not disagree with, mind you). The only big difference then- $$$$. Perhaps I'm wrong or things have changed. Whats the "little more" besides cost?
From my TD circa 2013. They might have been wrong. Outside of outcome data and the process of applying, though, I'm still not so sure what an APA accredited internship "has" that an "APPIC only" internship necessarily lacks, and that's what I'm trying to ask. Not to further annoy you, erg, because I tend to like your comments, but it almost seems like you're trying to avoid this:
In my mind, it is the state licensing boards that set the standards and unfortunately they are all over the map. Figuratively as well as literally. You are right when you said "professional hope" because I would hope that we could get more uniform standards that we could agree upon. I didn't say anything about treating people differently if they have not and I disagree with the VA stance of separating psychologists with APA internships from non-APA internships as that just creates different sets of standards.
I'm not expecting you to spoon feed it to me; in fact I briefly read on it earlier, before responding to you. But as you so aptly pointed out, I dont have first hand knowledge- so I was asking for your first hand knowledge, beyond paying money and a site visit, and the self study. The little bit you typed out above is also required for APPIC internships, which leads me back to wondering what, if anything is really all that different. Thus, instead of asking you to spoon feed me, I'll go back to my initial assertion: I'm not so sure there's much, if any real difference. If you find that ridiculous and it upsets you, I trust you'll figure out a way to deal with it.
You're right about licensing boards, to some degree, I think. There are a lot of standards that APA accreditation provides (amount of supervision, etc.) that is frequently endorsed as a quality standard within those same licensing boards. There are other differences in terms of post-doctoral experience, coursework, etc. that are defined by the boards beyond that basic step. If you don't have an APA accredited internship/program, many licensing boards that I've seen are extra skeptical of your training and look extra hard. I don't see this as entirely different from the VA, or anyone else, doing the same thing.
From what I have heard on these boards, the VA isn't just extra skeptical of the training if the internship wasn't APA, they will not hire someone who did not complete an APA internship.
Yup, with the exception of if they have done an internship at a VA (even if not accredited).
To be fair to APPIC, it isn't meant to be an accreditation, it is membership to the group based on some basic requirements. The only acred. for sites in the match is APA-acred.
I was trying to find the requirements that APPIC has to join and couldn't. Do you have any insight? I'm curious now that I've seen people conflate this as some sort of actual standard.That's why accreditation was in quotes in that post.
