HELP! MSPP, FIT, Argosy, Uni of Hartford, Nova

[Therapist4Chnge]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Granted but that's not hideous in itself.

The Navy is circumventing the match process for the HPSP and USUHS students by running a captive APA accredited internship. Believe me, it's ridiculously rigorous. Circumventing the match with an APA accredited and high quality internship doesn't really bother me... but as you point out, that does not appear to be what is happening in this case.

Is far far different than what is happening here (and some other places). I know people who have gone through the Navy, Airforce, and Army sites...and all three people said the training experiences were all top-notch.

I know there is a captive site at one of the Texas programs, but they are a solid university with an APA-acred. site. My issue with 'circumventing' is that the students are not being counted in the imbalance and the training standards of all of these random sites has not be adequately assessed. Again...APA-acred. was the MINIMUM standard, until people/groups started making up alternative paths.

 

[MCParent]

Actually, wait--how do the admission numbers even make sense?

http://www.mspp.edu/academics/degree-programs/psyd/outcomes.asp

The "no. enrolled" (in Attrition) numbers are half the "internship applicant" numbers. Even with a 5-ish year lag.

 

[4410]

Yeah, the program is just downright unethical. Talk about a malignancy on the field. And 4410. .. geez dude. You must really think mental health is simple and not worthy of much attention.

How can the program be unethical and also be APA accredited? From my perspective it seems that the program supports their students and provides quality training. How in the world can somewhat using wordage or slang such as "Dude", specify someone else as describing mental health training as simple and not worthy of attention. No, don't tell me but you grew up watching the Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, so this is your excuse for using such words as "Dude!" It is imprinted into your Hippocampus and you got stuck in the 80's. I never stated that I approved of such practices, did I? Some of these agencies providing practicums and internships are very large so they have many other mental health staff besides psychologists or psychology practicum or interns. Does this in and of itself make them poor training sites, no. Diversity of professionals is a positive for most mental health agencies. Heaven forbid that a Community Mental Health Center only have Psychologists.

MSPP is in Boston and most of their faculty are from Universities located in the Northeast, including Harvard. Apparently a good number of their students are finishing up and gaining licensure as psychologist or they would have much difficulty retaining APA accreditation. They have a postdoctoral clinical psychopharmacology program and I believe a large number of PhD licensed psychologists have gone through their program and are prescribing psychologist with the DOD. I guess all of these psychologists are incompentent from what posters are claiming just by looking at number of APA internships that MSPP graduates are selected to. Most likely they do not care if their students go to an APA accredited internship and most of them do local internship. Is there anything wrong with this? They reach the same goal and become licensed psychologists.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Most likely they do not care if their students go to an APA accredited internship and most of them do local internship. Is there anything wrong with this? They reach the same goal and become licensed psychologists.

Yes.

The minimum training standard set by the field is/was APA-acred. programs and APA-acred. internship. Now there are multiple alternative paths for training, which is problematic because there is not enough oversight and training standards cannot be evaluated. There are now hundreds of clinicians in practice who may or may not have received sufficient training. Other healthcare providers will now question every psychologist's training because there is no standard path. That hurts the field.

 

[futureapppsy2]

How can the program be unethical and also be APA accredited? From my perspective it seems that the program supports their students and provides quality training. How in the world can somewhat using wordage or slang such as "Dude", specify someone else as describing mental health training as simple and not worthy of attention. No, don't tell me but you grew up watching the Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, so this is your excuse for using such words as "Dude!" It is imprinted into your Hippocampus and you got stuck in the 80's. I never stated that I approved of such practices, did I? Some of these agencies providing practicums and internships are very large so they have many other mental health staff besides psychologists or psychology practicum or interns. Does this in and of itself make them poor training sites, no. Diversity of professionals is a positive for most mental health agencies. Heaven forbid that a Community Mental Health Center only have Psychologists.
.

Wow, guess I'll have to tell my friend (also a psych grad student) that we can't possibly be in psychology PhD programs because we call each other "Dude" sometimes. Seriously? 🙄

 

[MCParent]

Wow, guess I'll have to tell my friend (also a psych grad student) that we can't possibly be in psychology PhD programs because we call each other "Dude" sometimes. Seriously? 🙄

I look like a frat boy, brah. Feel you.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

How can the program be unethical and also be APA accredited? From my perspective it seems that the program supports their students and provides quality training. How in the world can somewhat using wordage or slang such as "Dude", specify someone else as describing mental health training as simple and not worthy of attention. No, don't tell me but you grew up watching the Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, so this is your excuse for using such words as "Dude!" It is imprinted into your Hippocampus and you got stuck in the 80's. I never stated that I approved of such practices, did I? Some of these agencies providing practicums and internships are very large so they have many other mental health staff besides psychologists or psychology practicum or interns. Does this in and of itself make them poor training sites, no. Diversity of professionals is a positive for most mental health agencies. Heaven forbid that a Community Mental Health Center only have Psychologists.

MSPP is in Boston and most of their faculty are from Universities located in the Northeast, including Harvard. Apparently a good number of their students are finishing up and gaining licensure as psychologist or they would have much difficulty retaining APA accreditation. They have a postdoctoral clinical psychopharmacology program and I believe a large number of PhD licensed psychologists have gone through their program and are prescribing psychologist with the DOD. I guess all of these psychologists are incompentent from what posters are claiming just by looking at number of APA internships that MSPP graduates are selected to. Most likely they do not care if their students go to an APA accredited internship and most of them do local internship. Is there anything wrong with this? They reach the same goal and become licensed psychologists.

Not at all, and no one here is saying that training in the presence of other mental health and healthcare professionals/trainees is a bad thing. Quite the opposite, which is why the Houston Guidelines for neuropsych postdocs encourage that fellows should have available "other residents in medical specialties and allied professions" for interaction, for example.

What we're saying is that when these other professionals are bachelor's and master's-level professionals/trainees, and are doing the exact same thing as the psychology intern, then either they're overstepping their bounds of training, or the intern probably isn't being offered appropriate opportunities.

As for the harms associated with bypassing the APPIC/APA internship system, T4C summarized them nicely. We, as a field, need a single, cogent, comprehensive training standard, and ALL training sites (Ph.D. and Psy.D.) need to adhere to them.

 

[4410]

Yes.

The minimum training standard set by the field is/was APA-acred. programs and APA-acred. internship. Now there are multiple alternative paths for training, which is problematic because there is not enough oversight and training standards cannot be evaluated. There are now hundreds of clinicians in practice who may or may not have received sufficient training. Other healthcare providers will now question every psychologist's training because there is no standard path. That hurts the field.

There are high quality non APA accredited internships and 79% of MSPP students become licensed psychologist. They pass the EPPP, past oral exams using clinical case formulations and become successful psychologists. It seems that there are only 52% of sites that are APA accredited sites and 48% that are non APA accredited sites. Therefore, not everyone is able to go through an APA accredited sites, only about half of interns go through an APA accredited site. Does this mean the other 48% are not meeting the minimal standards. No, it means that most sites have not reached the point of qualifying for APA accredited site review and the rest have no interest in being APA accredited. How in the world are MSPP accomplishing becoming licensed psychologists without meeting the APA minimal standards?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

There are high quality non APA accredited internships and 79% of MSPP students become licensed psychologist. They pass the EPPP, past oral exams using clinical case formulations and become successful psychologists. How in the world are they accomplishing this without meeting the APA minimal standards?

Personally, I don't know that having only 79% of your graduates, when you're graduating large classes of students, passing the minimal bar for licensure is something these programs should hang their hats on.

Beyond that, it harms the field by obfuscating what a psychologist is, and what our training standards are. If programs are circumventing APA, then 1) there's no way to ensure the quality of their training, and 2) they're essentially snubbing the field by failing to support the adoption of a single training standard.

If they have problems with APA, then work to fix those problems or work to develop your own comprehensive, national training standard. Don't "go rogue" and eschew various aspects of the process at will.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Oh, trust me, I agree with everything you've said. I wasn't at all trying to appear to be dismissive of single-case research designs; quite the contrary, as for me, those are some of the more interesting studies I read, and they definitely provide a view that isn't capture by large-N research.

And yes, pre-collected data for a dissertation, if at all possible, is the way to go. My advisor essentially said the same thing as yours, although with his own sense of humor added in ("it's just your dissertation, you don't have to win the Nobel Prize with it").

Oh, I didn't think you were. 🙂 I just know a lot of people in general assume SCR=simple AB progress monitoring and are (overly, IMO) dismissive of it without actually knowing what well-done SCR actually looks like. It has it's limitations as a methodology, of course, but it don't think it implies poor research training on the part of a program, as long as at least some group research and meta-analytic training are included as well. That was the impression I was getting from some posters upthread.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I think a lot of FSPS on the east coast (NYC/Boston) and in California tend to suffer from the same issue of having students who are hell-bent on staying in the same state/city no matter what, which is how they attract a lot of students in the first place. I know some people have legitimate reasons, like family, for being geographically bound, but I honestly get the impression that many students from these programs just can't stomach the idea of living anywhere else. So, they bind themselves to these large, unfunded programs, accept non-accredited internships, and then are forced into no or low-paying jobs because they all still want to stay in CA/Boston/NYC . It seems to be a vicious cycle.

(I know this also exists in university-based programs to some extant, but those students and programs seem less willing to make compromises in their training--e.g., unaccredited internships--for the pure sake of location).

 

[erg923]

Can we ban someone from the board for being an idiot?

 

[4410]

Yes, that's true. It wasn't true 15 years ago, before the expansion of programs like MSPP. We shouldn't be accepting of this.

repeated post.

 

[4410]

Yes, that's true. It wasn't true 15 years ago, before the expansion of programs like MSPP. We shouldn't be accepting of this.

Who is we? The reason there are so many PsyD programs that have developed in the past 20 plus years is due to the poor quality of clinical psychologists being trained in the traditional PhD programs and the need for clinical psychologists due to the severe shortage, at that time. There is a serious need for more psychologists currently due to the extreme number of current psychologists in their 60's that are approaching retirement age.

All of these students at MSPP who complete their program, regardless of completing an APA accredited internship, pass the EPPP, passed the orals, and become licensed are all meeting the minimal standard, and that is the standard set by State licensing boards for the State they apply for licensure. APA has some influence on State licensing boards, but APA does not make the decisions in each State on who is licensed to practice psychology and who is not licensed to practice psychology. People who graduate from MSPP are as qualified as people who graduate from any APA Accredited program. What are you going to put an Asterisk on their Diploma and transcript indicating that they aren't qualified for the doctoral degree per APA minimal standards. They are APA accredited and meeting or exceeding APA minimal standards. APA does not grant a license to practice psychology, State Board of Psychologists approve individuals to have the license to practice psychology. Wake Up....you are basically cutting off your tongue every time you criticize a program that meets APA accreditation like MSPP through your own stupidly and bias. You should be giving praise to a program who has met APA accreditation as it is a long arduous process, but NO, you are all unjustifiably criticizing a MSPP, a high quality APA accredited program.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Who is we? The reason there are so many PsyD programs that have developed in the past 20 plus years is due to the poor quality of clinical psychologists being trained in the traditional PhD programs and the need for clinical psychologists due to the severe shortage, at that time. There is a serious need for more psychologists currently due to the extreme number of current psychologists in their 60's that are approaching retirement age.

All of these students at MSPP who complete their program, regardless of completing an APA accredited internship, pass the EPPP, passed the orals, and become licensed are all meeting the minimal standard, and that is the standard set by State licensing boards for the State they apply for licensure. APA has some influence on State licensing boards, but APA does not make the decisions in each State on who is licensed to practice psychology and who is not licensed to practice psychology. People who graduate from MSPP are as qualified as people who graduate from any APA Accredited program. What are you going to put an Asterisk on their Diploma and transcript indicating that they aren't qualified for the doctoral degree per APA minimal standards. They are APA accredited and meeting or exceeding APA minimal standards. APA does not grant a license to practice psychology, State Board of Psychologists approve individuals to have the license to practice psychology. Wake Up....you are basically cutting off your tongue every time you criticize a program that meets APA accreditation like MSPP through your own stupidly and bias. You should be giving praise to a program who has met APA accreditation as it is a long arduous process, but NO, you are all unjustifiably criticizing a MSPP, a high quality APA accredited program.

I disagree on most points. No, we shouldn't be commending programs for meeting APA accreditation; it was always meant as the minimum standard for training in clinical psychology. Is it arduous? Sure, but being a psychologist comes with a variety of very serious responsibilities, and we should hold ourselves responsible to an arduous training regimen.

As for the Psy.D. programs popping up now--no, it's not due to a perceived shortage. I would make the argument that it's simply due to greed/perceived likelihood of obtaining profit due to the ease with which federal student loan monies are handed out. The APPIC numbers speak for themselves--the average Ph.D. student still has more clinical intervention and assessment hours than the average Psy.D. student. This isn't meant as a knock against reputable Psy.D. programs, mind you; but if the real reason so many of the for-profit schools was popping up is that Ph.D. students weren't being trained adequately as clinicians, then the huge-cohort Psy.D. programs are failing at what they were attempting to do.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Can we ban someone from the board for being an idiot?

You are stuck with me, sorry.

 

[KillerDiller]

No, we shouldn't be commending programs for meeting APA accreditation; it was always meant as the minimum standard for training in clinical psychology. Is it arduous? Sure, but being a psychologist comes with a variety of very serious responsibilities, and we should hold ourselves responsible to an arduous training regimen.

I totally agree in principle. However, I would say that the guidelines set by the APA are anything but arduous. It seems that the most difficult hurdles for programs when seeking accreditation are waiting to graduate a class of students and then collecting all the paperwork necessary for the self-study. The APA criteria themselves--the program needs to provide classes in social and cognitive processes, the program needs to have goals (any goals) and take steps to meet them, etc.--are not exactly difficult. The fact that training standards in the field are so poorly specified is scary, but the fact that some schools still fail to meet them is terrifying.

 

[deleted176373]

Who is we? The reason there are so many PsyD programs that have developed in the past 20 plus years is due to the poor quality of clinical psychologists being trained in the traditional PhD programs and the need for clinical psychologists due to the severe shortage, at that time. There is a serious need for more psychologists currently due to the extreme number of current psychologists in their 60's that are approaching retirement age.

I hate the play the stupid scientist in the room, but do you have some citations to research that backs up the assertion that the quality of Ph.D. clinical psychologists is some how substandard and that this extreme shortage exists?

You could make the argument that some locations are under served, but that there is an overall shortage, I think not. Even 20 years ago (Robiner, 1991) it was clear that a problem was developing with oversupply.

Many free standing Psy.D. programs were developed for one reason... to suck down an oversupply of government money. For example EDMC (Argosy's parent company) derives 92% of it's money from "tuition" otherwise known as student loans. They are so awash in government money that they spent nearly a 1/4 BILLION dollars just in advertising in 2010 according to their SEC 10-K.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I totally agree in principle. However, I would say that the guidelines set by the APA are anything but arduous. It seems that the most difficult hurdles for programs when seeking accreditation are waiting to graduate a class of students and then collecting all the paperwork necessary for the self-study. The APA criteria themselves--the program needs to provide classes in social and cognitive processes, the program needs to have goals (any goals) and take steps to meet them, etc.--are not exactly difficult. The fact that training standards in the field are so poorly specified is scary, but the fact that some schools still fail to meet them is terrifying.

I should've clarified, yeah. What I'd meant by "arduous" was exactly what you mentioned--the administrative aspects tied to obtaining accreditation, not the actual accreditation standards themselves. Thanks for the catch.

 

[MCParent]

I totally agree in principle. However, I would say that the guidelines set by the APA are anything but arduous. It seems that the most difficult hurdles for programs when seeking accreditation are waiting to graduate a class of students and then collecting all the paperwork necessary for the self-study. The APA criteria themselves--the program needs to provide classes in social and cognitive processes, the program needs to have goals (any goals) and take steps to meet them, etc.--are not exactly difficult. The fact that training standards in the field are so poorly specified is scary, but the fact that some schools still fail to meet them is terrifying.

Yup. Why do my department and other strong programs have to stress over massive self-studies when a huge school pumps out 100 people a year, matches only about 50%, has the same number fail the EPPP, and accepts a lit review in lieu of a dissertation, and both get accredited? Ridiculous.

 

[erg923]

Yup. Why do my department and other strong programs have to stress over massive self-studies when a huge school pumps out 100 people a year, matches only about 50%, has the same number fail the EPPP, and accepts a lit review in lieu of a dissertation, and both get accredited? Ridiculous.

I suggest your department become concerned that Billy Donovan just had his butt handed to him by hometown boys in the Tournement.

 

[MCParent]

I totally agree in principle. However, I would say that the guidelines set by the APA are anything but arduous. It seems that the most difficult hurdles for programs when seeking accreditation are waiting to graduate a class of students and then collecting all the paperwork necessary for the self-study. The APA criteria themselves--the program needs to provide classes in social and cognitive processes, the program needs to have goals (any goals) and take steps to meet them, etc.--are not exactly difficult. The fact that training standards in the field are so poorly specified is scary, but the fact that some schools still fail to meet them is terrifying.

Well, actually, this is a good point (this is addressed in the petition, not to put too fine a point on it). I think the intention was to allow for diversity in training in light of differences in theoretical emphases, etc. Which is fine, I guess, in itself. However, they apply the same "holistic" judgment to things that there is no reason to apply it to--faculty to student ratios, match rates, graduate EPPP scores, funding of students, etc. Those things are not the same as the scope of "diversity" encapsulated in a multiculturalism course, or whether the stats sequence includes the mathematical bases for factor analysis. Make it a point-based system for the measurable things, and actually an achievement to get it rather than a rubber stamp because your self-study was long enough.

 

[4410]

The model of education utilized by FSPP is not geared towards maximizing profits for stock holder, but rather fulfilling a need for psychologists with diverse backgrounds and to meet needs for under served populations. The University-based PhD programs with restricted admissions neglected to get on board with fulfilling these needs for the community. In actuality, even University-based PhD student programs are paid for with Tax dollars regardless of student loans amount of debt. My guess is that the actual cost of a PhD that is funded comes down to more than $150,000 dollars that State taxes are paying for these students. It is basically the same principal, but rather the FSPP student takes out Student loans. Many of these loans are forgiven or reduced due to PsyD graduates working in areas under served. There is no difference as PhD students are stealing money from the public to support their education when they accept a funded program of study.

University based programs should be ashamed for bilking the State for funding of graduate students who do not return to provide services for that State or for under served populations. It is very irresponsible for University based program to accept students and pay for their PhD, only to have them move to a different State to begin their Career as a Licensed Psychologists.

My guess is that in the next 30-years you will see the gradual discontinuation of University Based PhD programs in Clinical Psychology and FSPP will be the primary model for training for professional psychologists. It seems that there are as many psychologists graduating from FSPP than all of the University-Based programs combined. The FSPP model is not leaving anytime in the near future even if student loans are somehow restricted and this will not happen in our lifetime. Clearly, the evidence supports that FSPP serve a community needs to provide qualified mental health providers in under served communities. University-based programs have become intrenched in a model that lost favor many years ago, but they are resistant to change and progress. Had University-based program looked at reality rather than believe traditions must be upheld, they would have provided answers to the need that the FSPP are providing. In essence the failure of University-based programs to listen to the community and serve the needs of the community for training of psychologists, opened the door for FSPP to serve the needs of the community. People and students are smarter than University-Based programs have given them credit, so if they are not able to have their needs met in a University-Based program they seek other programs. Hence, it is not the FSPP that is the problem, but rather that University-Based programs failure to recognize the shortage of psychologists from different cultures to serve under served communities. University-based programs that requires APA accreditation and APA accredited internships and have limited student admissions for so many years contributed to the shortage of clinical psychologists. From my viewpoint the FSPP is the superior model of training for clinical psychologists and APA needs to provide additional research and support for these programs over University-based PhD programs that are essentially bankrupting State education funding by providing a free education for their students. Federal and State Legislatures need to recognize the abuse of these University-based programs and not fund these programs with State tax dollars but rather require students to pay for their education.

 

[erg923]

University based programs should be ashamed for bilking the State for funding of graduate students who do not return to provide services for that State or for under served populations.

I dont have the patience to refute all your flawed ramblings (maybe someone will, but I would recommend we just stop responding to your posts), but one that everyone is going to point out is that this IS NOT the mission of ANY public state university. Why you think it is, or think it should be, is beyond me.

 

[MCParent]

I dont have the patience to refute all your flawed ramblings (maybe someone will, but I would recommend we just stop responding to your posts), but one that everyone is going to point out is that this IS NOT the mission of ANY public state university. Why you think it is, or think it should be, is beyond me.

I'd love to, as basically everything in the post from understanding of financial support for education to diversity in programs is completely wrong. However I doubt it would have an impact; those who do not use reason cannot be swayed by it.

 

[cara susanna]

There are high quality non APA accredited internships and 79% of MSPP students become licensed psychologist. They pass the EPPP, past oral exams using clinical case formulations and become successful psychologists. It seems that there are only 52% of sites that are APA accredited sites and 48% that are non APA accredited sites. Therefore, not everyone is able to go through an APA accredited sites, only about half of interns go through an APA accredited site. Does this mean the other 48% are not meeting the minimal standards. No, it means that most sites have not reached the point of qualifying for APA accredited site review and the rest have no interest in being APA accredited. How in the world are MSPP accomplishing becoming licensed psychologists without meeting the APA minimal standards?

Except a poster here has already pointed out that these students do pretty much what amounts to another practicum, with maybe a few extra hours tagged on. How is that suitable for internship year? How is that comparable to what happens at an APA-accredited internship site, where the student is essentially full-time for an entire year?

It's not like they're doing a full internship at a site that just has to turn in the paperwork. They are doing "internships" at practicum sites that may not even have internships.

And I agree: if the full profit model takes over and the university-based PhD/PsyD becomes obsolete, that is when our field will be dead in my eyes.

 

[MCParent]

Yep, lower admissions criteria, a crap-ton of debt, poor pass rates on the EPPP, unregulated internships, poor facilities, faculty who don't publish/research, slack dissertation requirements, etc . . . = better training model. If the NCSPP model wins out, my prediction is that within 30 years, doctoral level mental health will be the purview of only one profession, psychiatry, and progress in mental health treatment will slow to a crawl as we will drive all of the good minds from the field very quickly.

Whatever the motives of training directors for these programs, the persons to whom they are answerable care only about profit. Does anyone think those ultimate owners have any sympathy for the profession, or any qualms about bleeding all the money they can from students in the short term to maximize profit? Other professions have dealt with this by crushing the problem and requiring meaningful accreditation standards. Our governance is too concerned with hurting someone's feeling to do the same. It's pathetic.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

The model of education utilized by FSPP is not geared towards maximizing profits for stock holder, but rather fulfilling a need for psychologists with diverse backgrounds and to meet needs for under served populations. The University-based PhD programs with restricted admissions neglected to get on board with fulfilling these needs for the community. In actuality, even University-based PhD student programs are paid for with Tax dollars regardless of student loans amount of debt. My guess is that the actual cost of a PhD that is funded comes down to more than $150,000 dollars that State taxes are paying for these students. It is basically the same principal, but rather the FSPP student takes out Student loans. Many of these loans are forgiven or reduced due to PsyD graduates working in areas under served. There is no difference as PhD students are stealing money from the public to support their education when they accept a funded program of study.

University based programs should be ashamed for bilking the State for funding of graduate students who do not return to provide services for that State or for under served populations. It is very irresponsible for University based program to accept students and pay for their PhD, only to have them move to a different State to begin their Career as a Licensed Psychologists.

My guess is that in the next 30-years you will see the gradual discontinuation of University Based PhD programs in Clinical Psychology and FSPP will be the primary model for training for professional psychologists. It seems that there are as many psychologists graduating from FSPP than all of the University-Based programs combined. The FSPP model is not leaving anytime in the near future even if student loans are somehow restricted and this will not happen in our lifetime. Clearly, the evidence supports that FSPP serve a community needs to provide qualified mental health providers in under served communities. University-based programs have become intrenched in a model that lost favor many years ago, but they are resistant to change and progress. Had University-based program looked at reality rather than believe traditions must be upheld, they would have provided answers to the need that the FSPP are providing. In essence the failure of University-based programs to listen to the community and serve the needs of the community for training of psychologists, opened the door for FSPP to serve the needs of the community. People and students are smarter than University-Based programs have given them credit, so if they are not able to have their needs met in a University-Based program they seek other programs. Hence, it is not the FSPP that is the problem, but rather that University-Based programs failed to recognize the shortage of psychologists from different cultures to serve under served communities. University-based programs that requires APA accreditation and APA accredited internships and have limited student admissions for so many years contributed to the shortage of clinical psychologist. From my viewpoint the FSPP is the superior model of training for clinical psychologists and APA needs to provide additional research and support for these programs over University-based PhD programs that are essentially bankrupting State education funding by providing a free education for their students. Federal and State Legislatures need to recognize the abuse of these University-based programs and not fund these programs with State tax dollars but rather require students to pay for their education.

As erg mentioned, where is the evidence for any of this? Evidence that 1) there is a shortage of psychologists, 2) that FSPP graduates enter positions providing services to underserved populations at greater proportions than graduates from funded programs, 3) that the FSPP model is superior to the traditional funded model with regards to training outcome measures (I'm quite positive other posters could post data to refute this point), etc.?

Also, to state that students at funded programs are "stealing" from the state is not only inaccurate and misguided, it's quite honestly insulting.

 

[4410]

Given that Goldman Sachs owns Argosy, of course not. I am not an anti-corporation type. I think business drives our ability to have good lifestyles. But, this combination of business goals, educational goals, and government subsidized non-dischargeable student loan money is a massive conflict of interest and does not represent a free market system in any way.

EDMC owns Argosy and Goldman Sachs bought EDMC several years ago. Argosy has a number of programs and the doctoral degree in clinical psychology is one of their smallest programs. The LPC or counseling program has many more students than does the clinical psychology program. Most of Argosy PsyD clinical psychology programs are APA accredited, so they meet the minimal standards with competitive admissions and follow the APA curriculum guidelines. Argosy PsyD graduates are leaders in the field and many are employed by reputable hospitals, VA, DOD, and major Universities. Argosy could not survive if they only had a PsyD program in clinical psychology.

For the love of God....Please Stop this!!! Argosy PsyD clinical psychology program is not an online program. It never was and it never will be an online program. They have a counseling educator EdD that is an online degree program for people who are already holding a LPC.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Also, to state that students at funded programs are "stealing" from the state is not only inaccurate and misguided, it's quite honestly insulting.

Obviously 4410 is joking. I think s/he has an interesting point, though (even within the humor), especially considering some of the oddness that ensues when posters here rant about their 'libertarian' or right-wing leanings...the state paid for your education, so seeing a funded PhD as better is a little skewed. 4410 is right, even if the delivery was confusing--someone pays for these educations, regardless. The issue here really needs to be about the quality of the PsyD education, not the exorbitant cost.

 

[4410]

Argosy University gets much Grant money for their programs as well. Plus, they are on the Stock Market that increases the value of Argosy University.

 

[erg923]

Argosy University gets much Grant money for their programs as well. Plus, they are on the Stock Market that increases the value of Argosy University. I have also heard that Oprah Winfrey and other high Status Celebrities have invested in Argosy University due to the severe need for multicultural psychologist needed in under served areas. I believe OW also contributes a great deal of funding for rural community mental health agencies in the Southern States, especially the State where she lived her early childhood years.

Holy ****, dude! Are you resorting to celebrity endoersements to help argue for the quaility of the program/training at this "University?"

For goodness sake, man. Are you ACTUALLY a doctorally trained person. I mean, for real?! We all see it, do you really not?

 

[4410]

Holy ****, dude! Are you resorting to celebrity endoersements to help argue for the quaility of the program/training at this "University?"

For goodness sake, man. Are you ACTUALLY a doctorally trained person. I mean, for real?! We all see it, do you really not?

Ugh...how many minorities or other cultures do you see in a traditional PhD clinical psychology program. As you can see I edited my prior statement before you copied and pasted it in your post as I saw or felt that others would mock my statement. Argosy and other FSPP have a well represented number of minorities in their programs and not the token one per admission class of other traditional universities. OW and others have provided grants and funding for many graduate students that have become MD, PsyD, PhD. etc... so yes I believe they have interest in such programs. Tiger Woods is another who has given back through philanthropy to help minority students, so celebrity status or input has been helpful for many minority students in these programs. President Obama has been a positive role model and with changes in educational programs admissions standards you are seeing many more minorities having a goal of becoming Doctors, Psychologists, Lawyers etc...

 

[erg923]

Ugh...how many minorities or other cultures do you see in a traditional PhD clinical psychology program. As you can see I edited my prior statement before you copied and pasted it in your post as I saw or felt that others would mock my statement. Argosy and other FSPP have a well represented number of minorities in their programs and not the token one per admission class of other traditional universities. OW and others have provided grants and funding for many graduate students that have become MD, PsyD, PhD. etc... so yes I believe they have interest in such programs. Tiger Woods is another who has given back through philanthropy to help minority students, so celebrity status or input has been helpful for many minority students in these programs. President Obama has been a positive role model and with changes in educational programs admissions standards you are seeing many more minorities having a goal of becoming Doctors, Psychologists, Lawyers etc...

You are correct. I mocked you argument. It deserved to be mocked because it was piss poor evidence for...anything.

Regarding your diversity diatribe. LOOK. IT. UP. You have got to be the laziest poster I have ever seen on here-presenting speculation as facts of your arguments. Do you now understand why this makes you an embarrassment to yourself...and the scientific aspect of this profession in many peoples' eyes here. I could tolerate some of the misinformation you espouse if you didnt seem so oblivious to all of it. Its really sad, man. For someone who is supposedly doctorally trained, its sad.

 

[aequitasveritas]

One of the more entertaining threads of late.

 

[MCParent]

Ugh...how many minorities or other cultures do you see in a traditional PhD clinical psychology program.

16. Age of applicant:

Ph.D. Psy.D.

Median 29 28
Mode 28 27
Mean 30.2 30.0
SD 5.1 5.9

Percent of applicants who were:

Age 25 or less Ph.D. = 5% Psy.D. = 12%
Age 40 or older Ph.D. = 6% Psy.D. = 8%
Age 50 or older Ph.D. = 2% Psy.D. = 2%


17. Gender

Female Ph.D. = 79% Psy.D. = 79%
Male Ph.D. = 21% Psy.D. = 20%


18. Racial / Ethnic identification:

African-American/Black Ph.D. = 7% Psy.D. = 6%
American Indian/Alaskan Ph.D. = 1% Psy.D. = 1%
Native
Asian/Pacific Islander Ph.D. = 8% Psy.D. = 6%
Hispanic/Latino Ph.D. = 6% Psy.D. = 10%
White (non-hispanic) Ph.D. = 75% Psy.D. = 75%
Bi-racial/Multi-racial Ph.D. = 5% Psy.D. = 3%
Other Ph.D. = 3% Psy.D. = 4%


19. Sexual Orientation:

Heterosexual Ph.D. = 92% Psy.D. = 91%
Gay Male Ph.D. = 2% Psy.D. = 2%
Lesbian Ph.D. = 2% Psy.D. = 2%
Bisexual Ph.D. = 3% Psy.D. = 3%
Other Ph.D. = 1% Psy.D. = 1%


20. Disability:

None Ph.D. = 94% Psy.D. = 91%


Answer: the same number.

These data are easily discoverable. I guess it can be fun to make things up when you make points but, you know, checking facts before you speak or type can be fun too.

 

[deleted176373]

EDMC owns Argosy and Goldman Sachs bought EDMC several years ago. Argosy has a number of programs and the doctoral degree in clinical psychology is one of their smallest programs. The LPC or counseling program has many more students than does the clinical psychology program. Most of Argosy PsyD clinical psychology programs are APA accredited, so they meet the minimal standards with competitive admissions and follow the APA curriculum guidelines. Argosy PsyD graduates are leaders in the field and many are employed by reputable hospitals, VA, DOD, and major Universities. Argosy could not survive if they only had a PsyD program in clinical psychology.

For the love of God....Please Stop this!!! Argosy PsyD clinical psychology program is not an online program. It never was and it never will be an online program. They have a counseling educator EdD that is an online degree program for people who are already holding a LPC.

You don't actually believe that Argosy operated their Psy.D. program at a loss do you. They make money on it, a lot of money, otherwise they would ditch it.

 

[ClinPsychEnthus]

Just wanted to throw out there that some Psy.D. programs, such as the one I attend, do emphasize conducting grant-funded research (like I am doing) and working hard to publish scientifically sound research. I'll echo the sentiments of other comments that not all Psy.D. and not all Ph.D. programs are created equally... so maybe we should be advocating for increased rigor beyond APA accreditation wherever each program is contained.

P.S. I really appreciate the concern and advocacy from many SDN posters to protect the field of psych and ensure its quality. Just want to make sure that ppl like myself aren't thrown out (meaning by reputation) with some others because I'l have a Psy.D., not Ph.D., after my name.

 

[deleted176373]

Answer: the same number.

These data are easily discoverable. I guess it can be fun to make things up when you make points but, you know, checking facts before you speak or type can be fun too.

WTF, now you are using data, that's so unfair. 😱

Next we're going to see logic being used...

 

[deleted176373]

Just wanted to throw out there that some Psy.D. programs, such as the one I attend, do emphasize conducting grant-funded research (like I am doing) and working hard to publish scientifically sound research. I'll echo the sentiments of other comments that not all Psy.D. and not all Ph.D. programs are created equally... so maybe we should be advocating for increased rigor beyond APA accreditation wherever each program is contained.

P.S. I really appreciate the concern and advocacy from many SDN posters to protect the field of psych and ensure its quality. Just want to make sure that ppl like myself aren't thrown out (meaning by reputation) with some others because I'l have a Psy.D., not Ph.D., after my name.

The point was that not all FSPP or Psy.D. programs were created equal. Comparing NOVA with MSPP, is a joke. They are not even in the same league. That was the point of the whole thread.

There are some very talented individuals with Psy.D.'s and even some of them went to programs with bad reputations. Data is used to predict outcomes on a system not an individual basis due to the fact that enough variance exists that no one person can be judged based on where they got their education... as a group however we can predict that a certain proportion of a population will experience typical outcomes as has been evidenced over time.

 

[ClinPsychEnthus]

The point was that not all FSPP or Psy.D. programs were created equal. Comparing NOVA with MSPP, is a joke. They are not even in the same league. That was the point of the whole thread.

Agreed.

haha I think (out of respect for the valuable things ppl say in this forum) I get a little paranoid that I won't be taken as seriously because I'm in a Psy.D. I truly value the discussions and perspectives of many ppl here (T4C, Markp, erg and JonSnow are just a few of my favs) and hope to be considered a colleague 🙂

 

[MCParent]

Agreed.

haha I think (out of respect for the valuable things ppl say in this forum) I get a little paranoid that I won't be taken as seriously because I'm in a Psy.D. I truly value the discussions and perspectives of many ppl here (T4C, Markp, erg and JonSnow are just a few of my favs) and hope to be considered a colleague 🙂

No one has a problem with the students (except for 4410, but that's only because he constantly says incorrect things on this forum). Those of us with problems, have them with the schools and the APA.

 

[aequitasveritas]

Agreed.

haha I think (out of respect for the valuable things ppl say in this forum) I get a little paranoid that I won't be taken as seriously because I'm in a Psy.D. I truly value the discussions and perspectives of many ppl here (T4C, Markp, erg and JonSnow are just a few of my favs) and hope to be considered a colleague 🙂

I'm sorry, but this is kinda pathetic man. Those screen names you just noted are just that...screen names. We are all just ppl saying things on a forum. You want to be thought of as a colleague? How deferential.

U also can't forget that aside from the valid points raised here and there, many screen names on SDN are the poster children for anti-pro schools/Psy.Ds because it makes them feel righteous.

 

[deleted176373]

U also can't forget that aside from the valid points raised here and there, many screen names on SDN are the poster children for anti-pro schools/Psy.Ds because it makes them feel righteous.

Not sure what you're trying to say here... Who's feeling/acting righteous?

 

[aequitasveritas]

Not sure what you're trying to say here... Who's feeling/acting righteous?

I'm not speaking with specific reference to anybody.

Pro-school and Psy.D threads have a self-righteous tone most of the time. it usually just turns into a bash-fest, which is likely meaningfully indicative about the motivations of the authors. The content is usually written in an all-bad slant, which is another indication of implicit motivation.

Its is astounding to learn, after a year of so of someone posting, that they are not even grad students but are prospective applicants, and here they are talking about training models and clinical topics. Incredible. There are others also, whom I won't mention, who are pro-schoolers themselves and yet they present the most ardent opposition and write as if they went to a funded program. To smack self-righteous myself a little, at least I tell everyone where I went and then proceed to be critical.

I bring this up for levity and balance.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

Also, just to clarify, there is NOT a shortage of psychologists. Try to find a job and you will quickly learn that there is no shortage. Also if there were a shortage, wouldn't they have to pay us more?

Also just wanted to throw out there even once you get a license, there can be challenges associated with attending a school like Argosy. For example, my buddy has been licensed for 3 yrs. Recently he was dropped from an insurance panel that he was already on because his argosy campus lost their accreditation.

Food for thought.

Dr. E

 

[deleted176373]

For example, my buddy has been licensed for 3 yrs. Recently he was dropped from an insurance panel that he was already on because his argosy campus lost their accreditation.

Food for thought.

Dr. E

Wow, that really sucks.

 

[deliciousgoose]

I totally agree in principle. However, I would say that the guidelines set by the APA are anything but arduous. It seems that the most difficult hurdles for programs when seeking accreditation are waiting to graduate a class of students and then collecting all the paperwork necessary for the self-study. The APA criteria themselves--the program needs to provide classes in social and cognitive processes, the program needs to have goals (any goals) and take steps to meet them, etc.--are not exactly difficult. The fact that training standards in the field are so poorly specified is scary, but the fact that some schools still fail to meet them is terrifying.

Just to be clear, that the APA criteria have become increasingly less rigorous over the past decade and a half is one of the main reasons that the CPA separated CPA accreditation from APA accreditation.

- APA and CPA no longer had the same accreditation criteria. The information upon which the APA now wanted to base its accreditation decisions, and conduct its site visits, was not captured by concurrent self study forms

- Although APA's 1996 G&P incorporated an important outcome focus of accountability, the move away from prescriptive criteria was troubling for the CPA and many Canadian programmes

And most importantly, the CPA had this issue with the APA's accountability model:

Although it is a good step to ask programmes to be accountable to their models, what if the models are not any good? CPA and many CPA-accredited programmes valued their prescriptive criteria

So in sum, the CPA supports the idea that a variety of models is important, but that some variations are, in fact, bad. The CPA, consequently, has more prescriptive requirements for accreditation than the APA does. And, logically continuing these thoughts, the CPA believes that the APA standards allow for models that are not any good to gain accreditation.

Source: http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Accreditation/CCTCaccreditationwithPeters.pdf

 

[MCParent]

Just to be clear, that the APA criteria have become increasingly less rigorous over the past decade and a half is one of the main reasons that the CPA separated CPA accreditation from APA accreditation.



And most importantly, the CPA had this issue with the APA's accountability model:



So in sum, the CPA supports the idea that a variety of models is important, but that some variations are, in fact, bad. The CPA, consequently, has more prescriptive requirements for accreditation than the APA does. And, logically continuing these thoughts, the CPA believes that the APA standards allow for models that are not any good to gain accreditation.

Source: http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Accreditation/CCTCaccreditationwithPeters.pdf

I'd not been aware of that document. Thanks for posting!

 

[O Gurl]

Ok. I am joining this convo late, but if the OP is still in consideration: just reapply. DO NOT attend these craptastic programs. Nova is about the most decent on the list and it is oversized and overpriced. MSPP is a total joke. Their highest APA internship match rate since 2003 was 10%. That mean that only 10% of their graduates have a fully functional degree and license. Without APA accredited internship, there will be employment and ultimately salary limits for the rest of one's career. The fact that they collect over $34K per year from hundreds of students is a crime.