GW vs widener psyd

[psy1117]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi everyone,

I have been accepted to the psyd programs at widener and GW. Any thoughts for or against either program?

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[ItsNotMe_ItsYou]

Congratulations!!

What was it that initially attracted you to both programs?

 

[psy1117]

The short answer...

I think Widener has a robust amount of specialization options that pertain to my child focused interest, but also allow flexibility should I change my mind. Also, the captive internship means I do not have to apply for APA accredited internships for year 5 (some would argue this is limiting though I imagine).

GW while dynamic on paper, still allows for other orientations and can be completed in four years versus five. I found faculty to be very collegial and impressive. D.C. Also has a wealth of training opportunities and GW itself has an in House clinic.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[psych.meout]

The short answer...

I think Widener has a robust amount of specialization options that pertain to my child focused interest, but also allow flexibility should I change my mind. Also, the captive internship means I do not have to apply for APA accredited internships for year 5 (some would argue this is limiting though I imagine).

It's not just "limiting," it's gaming the system. Good programs don't need to develop captive internships, because they train their students well enough, limit their cohort sizes, and have quality control on who they admit, making their students competitive for accredited internships. Programs with captive sites, especially ones like Widener which require their students to attend the captive sites, are not competitive for the match, so they have to artificially inflate their match stats with a captive site. Also, keep in mind, I believe that their internship is part-time for two years.

Without a captive site, many of their grads would have significantly limited career options (e..g no VAs, few if any AMCs, etc.).

GW while dynamic on paper, still allows for other orientations and can be completed in four years versus five. I found faculty to be very collegial and impressive. D.C. Also has a wealth of training opportunities and GW itself has an in House clinic.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

GW is a good example of what Widener would be like without a captive internship. It's accredited match rate hovers around 50%, which means that half of its grads are shut out of many job opportunities.

Each of these programs also has cohorts of around 30 students per year. It strains credulity to think that these programs can provide the same level of training, supervision, mentoring, research experience, etc. with cohorts 3 to 5 times as large as funded programs.

And then if you also factor in how expensive these programs are, they really should be untenable as options for grad school.

 

[ItsNotMe_ItsYou]

Interesting points.

Widener's integrated guaranteed internship placement is quite unique, but I see how it could be limiting. The internship is broken up into two years, and you still have to apply to their rotational positions, interview, and be accepted. That they are APA Accredited is reassuring, but I'd want to know the participating sites. Match rates are improving for Accredited Clinical PsyD applicants applying to Accredited internship programs. A built in internship takes away from the challenge and triumph of securing that coveted internship.

Regarding GW, do you consider yourself dynamically oriented? I have been told by students and graduates that if you don't like psychodynamic treatment, it may be difficult to enjoy the program. While finishing in four years vs five or six has its inherent benefits, would you be willing to sacrifice quality for quantity? If avoiding the internship application and match process plays a major role in your decision-making process, take some time to reflect on that.

 

[psy1117]

I'd disagree with this assessment of their program in some ways. Their EPPP pass rates and licensure rates are not only competitive with, but near the top of the list when compared to other programs. I agree there is certainly limitations to the captive internships, but I do not believe it's a reflection on poor training. Their larger than average cohort size becomes greatly broken down across concentrations, and in speaking with current students there does not seem to be a strain on resources. Being the first program of its kind in the country I think they just get away with the captive sites even though no one else is allowed to offer them.

GW is a little bit of a different animal and I've had a tough time gauging their training. Many current students and grads love it, have great job placements. It seems to be well respected in the Washington community. Less notoriety and respect nationally it seems, which obviously is important. Historically low match rates, but over 80 percent and near 100 percent the last two years (they reported this years rate at interview day.) this could be due to the increase in site options nationally, but also seems to be a reflection in some of their program changes.

Thank you for our feedback though, definitely good to hear critical reviews of the programs. Also got accepted to wright state and Hartford. Waiting to hear back from IUP, Lasalle, Xavier, Stanford-Palo Alto-- but wanted to start comparing my choices.

Would love to hear any other thoughts should anyone have them.



Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[ClinicalABA]

Interesting points.
A built in internship takes away from the challenge and triumph of securing that coveted internship.

It also removes the ridiculous possibility that degree completion is put on hold by factors outside the control of the student or grad program. "Challenge" and "triumph"'are cool, but should not be necessary after five years of appropriately rigorous and comprehensive graduate level clinical training (which may be the real issue with these programs). If the training is good and accreditation is in place, I don't see the negative with a captive internship.

 

[psych.meout]

I'd disagree with this assessment of their program in some ways. Their EPPP pass rates and licensure rates are not only competitive with, but near the top of the list when compared to other programs. I agree there is certainly limitations to the captive internships, but I do not believe it's a reflection on poor training.

Then why are they offering a captive internship instead of just having their students compete for match like most other programs do? If their training was on par with these other programs without captive sites, then they would not need a captive site and they also would not need to mandate their students to take part in the captive site.

Their larger than average cohort size becomes greatly broken down across concentrations, and in speaking with current students there does not seem to be a strain on resources.

Does the program have 3 to 5 times the number of faculty as other programs whose cohorts are n<10?

Do you really think the same quality of training can be offered with several times as many students?

Being the first program of its kind in the country I think they just get away with the captive sites even though no one else is allowed to offer them.

Or maybe the APA isn't a good advocate for its members and doesn't do very good quality control to police and limit programs like these?

It also removes the ridiculous possibility that degree completion is put on hold by factors outside the control of the student or grad program. "Challenge" and "triumph"'are cool, but should not be necessary after five years of appropriately rigorous and comprehensive graduate level clinical training (which may be the real issue with these programs). If the training is good and accreditation is in place, I don't see the negative with a captive internship.

I agree with you that the possibility of a properly trained student not receiving an internship is absurd and unfair, but do you really think this is the case with programs like Widener and GW? Do you really think these programs are providing training on par with other programs and that their poor match rates sans captive internship site are due to factors unrelated to the students or programs? Do you really think that having cohorts 3 to 5 times the size of other programs, especially funded ones, doesn't impact the quality of training? Do you think that the weight of supporting oneself while racking up over $100,000 in tuition debt is not hurting the quality of training?

I'm not saying that no excellent psychologists ever come out of these kinds of programs, but rather, that it's just highly inconsistent, with the variance being more attributable to personal factors about the students themselves than the programs themselves.

 

[Istilldontknow]

I earned my MA at GW, and both of our professors were graduates from their Psyd Program. Obviously, I can't speak directly to the Psyd Program, but I can tell you that my professors were extremely dynamically focused and told us that their training was 85% psychodynamic and the rest CBT. Both had graduated pretty recently. Also, GW just got off of probation from APA.

The university itself is well-respected, especially in the DC area. BUT, you're competing with students from Georgetown, Catholic, Howard, and American. I believe this is why a lot of their grads don't find jobs in the area.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Then why are they offering a captive internship instead of just having their students compete for match like most other programs do?

My best guess is because their students were not competitive. The most like reason for this is sub-par training (in other words, I agree with you)

Do you really think the same quality of training can be offered with several times as many students?

I think it's highly unlikely (again- I think I agree with you on this point)

Or maybe the APA isn't a good advocate for its members and doesn't do very good quality control to police and limit programs like these?

"Advocating for its membership" and program "quality control" are different and potentially conflicting functions. I think APA does a good job with the former, but poor job with the latter. (Not sure if we agree on this one or not, but I think we're close!)

I agree with you that the possibility of a properly trained student not receiving an internship is absurd and unfair, but do you really think this is the case with programs like Widener and GW?

Nope

Do you really think these programs are providing training on par with other programs...

If by "other programs" you mean "scientist-practioner oriented, mentorship model, cohort less than 10, fully funded, APA approved, university-based programs," then nope.

..and that their poor match rates sans captive internship site are due to factors unrelated to the students or programs?

Nope

Do you really think that having cohorts 3 to 5 times the size of other programs, especially funded ones, doesn't impact the quality of training?

I can't see how it wouldn't

Do you think that the weight of supporting oneself while racking up over $100,000 in tuition debt is not hurting the quality of training?

Not sure of the nature of the relationship between cost and quality of training, as there are too many confounds. That said, any non-clinical money making endeavors take time away from clinical training, and are likely interfering. Either way, I don't think that 100k+ debt is a good financial decision for the vast majority of trainees.

I'm not saying that no excellent psychologists ever come out of these kinds of programs, but rather, that it's just highly inconsistent, with the variance being more attributable to personal factors about the students themselves than the programs themselves.

I agree. So... you're post seemed kind of challenging and confrontational to me. Strange, because I think we totally agree on everything! (No worries- I work with toddlers so I can handle it.)

To sum up my position on the topic, I think that a captive, APA approved internship, with the big caveat that it actually be clinically comprehensive and sound training, is a relatively good thing for these programs (maybe the only good thing about them?)

Firstly because I think it is a good thing for all programs. I think the match system is goofy, too expensive, and actually gives crappy programs an "out" where they can say "it ain't our fault- 50% of your classmates got through, plus we said from the beginning that you'd need to get an internship" despite accepting students who, based on pre-admission characteristics, the school knows is statistically unlikely to finish their training. Also, I think there should be an explicit contract between training program and student that says if the student performs to certain standards for a set period of time, they will be able to complete their training in set period of time, limited only by factors related to student performance.

Secondly, it keeps their students out of the match, reducing the chance that a better qualified student won't match due to factors unrelated to their clinical abilities.

As to the OP- if these two programs are your only realistic options, and you're going to pick one of them anyways, despite a multitude of reasons to pick neither, then go with the one with the captive APA internship. It removes a huge, expensive, draining barrier that is all too common with students from these types of programs.

 

[ItsNotMe_ItsYou]

It also removes the ridiculous possibility that degree completion is put on hold by factors outside the control of the student or grad program. "Challenge" and "triumph"'are cool, but should not be necessary after five years of appropriately rigorous and comprehensive graduate level clinical training (which may be the real issue with these programs). If the training is good and accreditation is in place, I don't see the negative with a captive internship.

Quality training and accreditation are a given. I was trying to get at the internship application process being like a rite of passage.

Based on your logic, you believe anyone who completes a 5-year accredited program should be guaranteed an accredited (captive) internship?

 

[psych.meout]

I agree. So... you're post seemed kind of challenging and confrontational to me. Strange, because I think we totally agree on everything! (No worries- I work with toddlers so I can handle it.)

Hmm....

 

[ClinicalABA]

Hmm....

Sorry - that looks bad! Take it to mean that "I'm used to being challenged, so I'm thick skinned." Seriously. Look at my post history- I try to keep it civil and think it's out of line to personally insult posters who might be trainees or undergrads (unless you're that Shooter guy- he's a toddler)

 

[ClinicalABA]

Quality training and accreditation are a given. I was trying to get at the internship application process being like a rite of passage.

Based on your logic, you believe anyone who completes a 5-year accredited program should be guaranteed an accredited (captive) internship?

That might be stretch. Maybe I'd agree to that ifvmimpnimum training standards were higher. Many good programs/mentors already have captive equivalent "pipelines" between them and specific internships. I just don't like the potential for the weeding out of students after they've invested money and time, as well as the ridiculous burden (financial and emotional) that the current system puts on trainees. Overall, I find it to be a little cruel. The current system allows for predatory for profit schools to take advantage of people.

At a minimum, I think it's ridiculous for APA to accredit vastly more training slots (particularly at 100 cohort FSPS and for profits) at a time when there are not enough accredited internship slots. I just don't think it's right for anything other than the student's ability to meet the performance demands of the training program to get in the way of their earning their degree in a timely fashion. I think that an interview based matching program adds in variable outside the control of the degree granting institution and degree earning contracted.

 

[psych.meout]

Sorry - that looks bad! Take it to mean that "I'm used to being challenged, so I'm thick skinned." Seriously. Look at my post history- I try to keep it civil and think it's out of line to personally insult posters who might be trainees or undergrads (unless you're that Shooter guy- he's a toddler)

No worries, I understood that, I just thought it was funny.

I wasn't trying to be confrontational or challenging, sorry if it came off that way. I'm just incredulous at the breathless defenders of some of the programs that are incredibly expensive and don't serve their students well.

That might be stretch. Maybe I'd agree to that ifvmimpnimum training standards were higher. Many good programs/mentors already have captive equivalent "pipelines" between them and specific internships. I just don't like the potential for the weeding out of students after they've invested money and time, as well as the ridiculous burden (financial and emotional) that the current system puts on trainees. Overall, I find it to be a little cruel. The current system allows for predatory for profit schools to take advantage of people.

At a minimum, I think it's ridiculous for APA to accredit vastly more training slots (particularly at 100 cohort FSPS and for profits) at a time when there are not enough accredited internship slots. I just don't think it's right for anything other than the student's ability to meet the performance demands of the training program to get in the way of their earning their degree in a timely fashion.

But then wouldn't a substantial fix for many of these problems be for the APA to simply rescind the accreditation of the FSPS and for profits? Wouldn't that substantially cut back on the number of internship applicants and at least partially fix the "internship crisis?"

After that, I'd definitely agree that something needs to be done about the potential for students to not receive accredited internships, which is a somewhat separate issue.

I think that an interview based matching program adds in variable outside the control of the degree granting institution and degree earning contracted.

I agree to a degree. As someone who just finished with interviews for graduate school, I definitely empathize with the feelings of well-qualified students applying for internships. It's very disconcerting to worry that they won't get an accredited internship, especially if not matching was at least partially due to their interviews. That said, I can also see the other side of coin. Would you really want to select an applicant for internship without getting to meet them first?

I don't know what a good, equitable solution would be.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Would you really want to select an applicant for internship without getting to meet them first?

I would and I have. If they come from a quality training program with a history of preparing students well for the work I'd need them to do, had some experience with the type of work and setting, and good recs from supervisors and (especially) a mentor professor with a history of referring quality applicants, there's not really any useful data to be gained in an interview relative to their likelihood of being a successful intern. Unless something different has emerged in the last few years since I last checked, the research on interviews supports my statement. Think about it- in what way is the ability to fly across country, wake up in strange bed in a strange town, jet-lagged, wearing uncomfortable clothes, and answer questions that should have been answered in the application materials ("I see you worked for a few years in setting X...tell me about that") related to the ability to perform the actual intern job?

On the flip side, I can see the importance of the interview day for applicant to see the program and have a forum for getting their questions answered. With current technology, I'm guessing there's a better way to do this than requiring applicants to shell out hundreds of dollars on flights and lodging PER interview. Also, the strong relationship between the internship and training program/mentor was incredibly helpful to the applicant. Chances are they personally knew a current or recent intern who gave them a less "sterilized" overview of the internship, good, bad, and ugly.

 

[psy1117]

Seems to have spurred quite the conversation.

It seems that the crux of both of your concerns with these programs lies mostly in their characteristics as Psy.D programs in general with the exception of the captive internship (happy to be wrong here, just what it seems like, re: cohort size, price etc).

I have also been accepted to Hartford and Wright State Psy.D. Would be curious if you see similar issues there.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[ClinicalABA]

Both seem to have good outcomes related to APA internships and licensure. Cohorts of around 20 per year are big, but not egregiously so (such as the ~100/years at some FSPSs). Tuition/fees of 25k/year for Hartford and up to ~37k per year for out-o- staters at Wright are pretty steep and maybe not a good investment (don't forget to factor in compound interest if you're taking loans- it's going to be very tough to swing $1000+ monthly payments on entry level psychologist salaries). I cant' comment on the quality of the specific training you'll recieve at each site relative to each other. I find Hartford to be a generally unpleasant place to be (I live about 45 minutes from there). I don't know anything about Dayton.