Have you seen the 2007 Match Stats?

[aequitasveritas]

Make me dicator, I'll fix it right now.

Alliant, Argosy . . . closed. QED.

=====================================================



Excuse me,

I would like to know why Jon Snow has not been cited for this and other inflammatory entries? I have seem numerous others who have received warnings for less on this website. This makes me think the dialogue here is biased and diatribe is permitted if it's in the line of thought of the administrators.
Jon, I attend CSPP Alliant...and I actually share some of your sentiments... but your comments are neither intellectually stimulating nor helpful.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted176373]

=====================================================


Jon, I attend CSPP Alliant...and I actually share some of your sentiments... but your comments are neither intellectually stimulating nor helpful.

Neither is resurrecting dead threads!

Maybe it has to do with the fact that he has been a member for 2+ years and has in excess of 840 posts to his credit... compared to your 6.

 

[mewantphd]

Hmm. I think the whole 'pecking order' on internet forums is idiotic. I guess it is about quantity of posts, not quality?

Let me add that I actually agree with Jon... I just think it is stupid when people attempt to "pull rank" over others on internet forums by pointing out the number of posts they have made.

 

[JockNerd]

=====================================================



Excuse me,

I would like to know why Jon Snow has not been cited for this and other inflammatory entries? I have seem numerous others who have received warnings for less on this website. This makes me think the dialogue here is biased and diatribe is permitted if it's in the line of thought of the administrators.
Jon, I attend CSPP Alliant...and I actually share some of your sentiments... but your comments are neither intellectually stimulating nor helpful.

I'm not catching what you think is inflammatory about the post. It's a discussion about match stats, and Jon said how he would improve them. I share Jon's sentiment. He didn't insult professional school students, as another poster in another thread did (and that poster was warned).

How would it be possible to have a discussion about weak match rates without mentioning programs that contribute to the weak match rates?

 

[deleted176373]

Hmm. I think the whole 'pecking order' on internet forums is idiotic. I guess it is about quantity of posts, not quality?

Let me add that I actually agree with Jon... I just think it is stupid when people attempt to "pull rank" over others on internet forums by pointing out the number of posts they have made.

LOL, Well I agree that it is about quality of posts and if were are to use that metric, aequitasveritas posts are an Epic Fail. That said, I think some deference should be paid to those who have been long time members of a community and those who are new to a community shouldn't be so quick to criticize when they don't have a history of contributing in a meaningful manner to begin with.

Stupid? Perhaps not. It's not about a pecking order, it's about contributing in a meaningful manner, which Jon Snow has done over several years as a member of this community. Agree with him or not (many times I do and many times I don't.) However aequitasveritas comments are derogatory, lack tact, and are resurrecting threads from the dead... how useful is his contribution?

Mark

 

[mewantphd]

I see what you're saying, especially about a person being a long time member.

The only thing that bothers me is when people basically say "person x has made 5000 posts, person y has made 10 posts, therefore, person x's opinion is more important and holds more weight". I'm not saying you were doing that exactly, just something I sometimes notice on forums and it irks me.

Aaaanyway, I agree with Jon Snow in this instance.

 

[aequitasveritas]

LOL, Well I agree that it is about quality of posts and if were are to use that metric, aequitasveritas posts are an Epic Fail. That said, I think some deference should be paid to those who have been long time members of a community and those who are new to a community shouldn't be so quick to criticize when they don't have a history of contributing in a meaningful manner to begin with.

Stupid? Perhaps not. It's not about a pecking order, it's about contributing in a meaningful manner, which Jon Snow has done over several years as a member of this community. Agree with him or not (many times I do and many times I don't.) However aequitasveritas comments are derogatory, lack tact, and are resurrecting threads from the dead... how useful is his contribution?

Mark

Look, I don't have a problem with the topic of discussion but how exactly is the post I was referring to helpful? It was simply a bash on pro-schools. "make me a dictator etc." Come on guys...that's redicuous. There was no information given or useful reply...albeit was entertaining. The reason I cited it is because I believe in fair and honest discourse. The replies to my objection actually reinforced my original point....there seems to be many here unwilling to review people simply because they've been around for a while. I'm sorry folks...I'm not going to be silenced and I'll reply to any thread that I feel lacks integrity in relation to the subject.

 

[deleted176373]

I'm sorry folks...I'm not going to be silenced and I'll reply to any thread that I feel lacks integrity in relation to the subject.

I'm not looking to silence you, I am hoping that you will contribute meaningfully. I am not a moderator, if you have complaints about the biased nature of the warnings, maybe you should direct the criticism directly to T4C... preferably in a PM.

You're acting as if you are being oppressed. You're not!

However, if you are going to start immediately with questioning the existing framework of how the community has functioned for quite some time (and quite successfully), you might wish to consider approaching it in a way that is less socially awkward and more productive.

Feel free to comment, I have no problem with that, but please stop digging up old threads on a crusade to defend your cause de jour.


Mark

 

[aequitasveritas]

you win Mark...you win.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Just catching up on everything.....

Just a reminder to keep it professional, as this is a place for people to come together and share opinions and experiences.

I'm always available if anyone wants to drop me a PM; I usually get back to people in a few hours if I'm not working.

 

[aequitasveritas]

..

 

[aequitasveritas]

That was very well stated Jon. I actually do not disagree with you (that may sound ironic since I attend a pro school) I don't feel that pro-schools should be eliminated yet I agree that there are far too many people admitted and there are diminishing standards. A more stringent admission process is needed yet the very financial structure and inherent flaw of the design of professional schools almost demands a curvilinear relationship between quality and quantity...a horrible reality. On the other hand, I don't know how to solve the problem of narrow or diminished practical education in research based universities aside from the few Psy.Ds and small number of practice oriented PhDs. I think we are witnessing a critical mass in clin psych and something new will morph out of this struggle. The financial burdens of the students, the overcrowding with questionable programs...I couldn't agree more and I will risk sounding as an elitist with my ironic alliance.
Finally, I do think there are lesser evils than CSPP (not many though). It was the founding applied school in the country, created by the cal psych association to answer the lack of clinically trained psychologists (by the way..it's non-for profit) I think there are far less credible programs out there: Argosy is owned by Goldman Sachs and is obviously for profit, numerous other online Us, other newer professional schools springing up all over the country. I may be wrong in my demarcation and I welcome disagreement. However, I will posit that i think CSPP San Diego and PGSP are respectable programs....though I certainly warrant the financial objection and other notable flaws, which are well founded.
So thanks for the articulation! I will be part of an objective discussion of pro schools as well as I am able and I will try not to allow cog dissonance to sway my answers. So if anyone's looking for some critical-no-fluff inside insight I am more than willing to provide it (of course I'll have to charge you for the consulting so I can pay off my pro-school debt )
Onward!
(just so everyone knows..I was new when I replied to this thread and didn't realize I was digging up an old topic...although discourse knows no temporal limit)