PhD/PsyD How do you all feel about programs dropping APA accreditation for sole PCSAS accreditation?

[Berry0770]

As the header states, I am curious to know what people on here think about the growing number of programs intentionally dropping APA accreditation and retaining PCSAS accreditation.

I just saw that Washington University St. Louis will not be renewing APA accred for good after 2028! Good thing? Bad thing? What's going on? Do you think there is a greater shift happening in the field? Will students who train at only PCSAS programs be able to apply for internship in the future? So many questions!

I am currently in a clinical psych PhD program that is dually accredited, and my program is also considering dropping APA accreditation (my class will be fine for internship so I'm not worried about that).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

I would not want to be one of the student guinea pigs in the first few cohorts that may have to deal with licensing headaches. They really should have made sure state licensing boards had language about PCSAS before dropping APA. I'm sure students will be able to get licensed under the guidelines that say that a demonstration of equivalent standards meets the bar, but that requires a TON of extra work on the part of the applicant.

Bottom line, whether or not it's ultimately a good thing or not, the current plan potentially puts a lot of students into a ****ty position.

 

[PsyDr]

Wouldn’t touch it until state licensure boards recognize it.

maybe you’re gonna pull a Forest Gump outlier experience. But probably not.

 

[Sanman]

Personally, it feels like programs causing problems for their students to prove a point. I wouldn't want to deal with the fallout of a decision that harms no one but me as a future graduate.

 

[RejectClinical]

I think the programs have been very upfront with all of their students thus far. I've looked on a lot of their websites and I don't think any of them are hiding what their plans are going forward. With that said, I do wonder what I would do if I was in the shoes of these students. I was lucky when I applied that the programs I looked at were both PCSAS and APA accredited, and the program I graduated from maintained both accreditations (and continues to do so today, with the caveat that there is now a warning on the website with a specific year that the program will reconsider whether it wants to maintain both accreditations). This does not mean there is no risk to students in graduating from these programs given that not all states recognize PCSAS at this time. Per the PCSAS website:

"Seven states to date, either through recently passed legislation, newly revised regulations, or interpretations of existing regulations as communicated to us, currently allow for PCSAS graduates to be licensed. They are: California, New York, Illinois, Delaware, Missouri, Michigan, and New Mexico. They represent 28 percent of the U.S. population. Other states are in the process of changing laws/regulations and we expect a steady flow over the next several years."

My guess is that more and more programs will jump the APA ship once there are more states that recognize PCSAS. In addition, the VA most certainly recognizes PCSAS for both internship and post-doc. Given that you can have your license from any state, PCSAS would still allow you to work in any VA.

In the end, from what was shared by some of the founders of PCSAS, clinical programs got sick of APA accrediting any program that can breathe (i.e., there was no gate keeper). The programs also got sick of APA continuing to implement new requirements each accreditation cycle without demonstrating that the new requirements led to better outcomes. I don't blame programs for moving in this direction as a result.

In sum, yes there is a risk (many things in life have a risk), but I don't think it is that big of a risk. If I could do it all over again and go back to my same program (now that it has a warning), I would.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I'd prefer programs try to work with APA to fix their problems rather than jump ship and start an entirely new accreditation process, but that ship has sailed. The field is fractionated enough as is.

But if I were a student, I personally would be very wary of attending a PCSAS-only program until it's equivalently recognized by most/all states. The spread of recognition may be inevitable, but they've been saying that about RxP for decades, and we know how quickly that's progressed.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I've always thought the best way to solve any problem is to ignore it and start a new one. 🙄





Here's the deal - Psych has so much infighting and inward focus that we forget the larger issue controlling practice standards is not 'us' but rather the philosophies and training approaches which make up a majority of the mid-level providers. As the result of our internal only focus, we are now behind the 8ball trying to catch up with mid-level license accreditation. Psychology was the dominant paradigm of treatment, allowing us to direct treatment standards. That is shifting because emerging provides provide greater access and face time. As a result, they are gaining in influence over mental health approaches and standards, which will lead to their replacing us as larger influencers in treatment philosophy in time if we aren't careful. We still have sway, and we are still valued, but we are at a point where we need to be intention because ignoring the shifting world over the last 30 years has left the discipline more vulnerable in terms of long term viability. APA or PCSAS - it won't matter. There is more similarity on what makes a treatment and how training should occur than we see across other professional disciplines. Generally speaker, if you want to control the practice/have a seat at the table people care about, then you have to have a unified front that doesn't confuse people. Its also part of why I suspect that clinical and counseling will merge. But yeh, lets just create a new problem and ANOTHER thing for students to have to ask about and for the public not to understand. I'm sure that will be for the best.

 

[R. Matey]

Interestingly, I now work with a bunch of recent clinical science grads, and guess what? We all have expertise in our respective areas. Somehow changing the sign at the door didn't magically change the product. Weird, I know.

 

[Sanman]

I think the programs have been very upfront with all of their students thus far. I've looked on a lot of their websites and I don't think any of them are hiding what their plans are going forward. With that said, I do wonder what I would do if I was in the shoes of these students. I was lucky when I applied that the programs I looked at were both PCSAS and APA accredited, and the program I graduated from maintained both accreditations (and continues to do so today, with the caveat that there is now a warning on the website with a specific year that the program will reconsider whether it wants to maintain both accreditations). This does not mean there is no risk to students in graduating from these programs given that not all states recognize PCSAS at this time. Per the PCSAS website:

"Seven states to date, either through recently passed legislation, newly revised regulations, or interpretations of existing regulations as communicated to us, currently allow for PCSAS graduates to be licensed. They are: California, New York, Illinois, Delaware, Missouri, Michigan, and New Mexico. They represent 28 percent of the U.S. population. Other states are in the process of changing laws/regulations and we expect a steady flow over the next several years."

My guess is that more and more programs will jump the APA ship once there are more states that recognize PCSAS. In addition, the VA most certainly recognizes PCSAS for both internship and post-doc. Given that you can have your license from any state, PCSAS would still allow you to work in any VA.

In the end, from what was shared by some of the founders of PCSAS, clinical programs got sick of APA accrediting any program that can breathe (i.e., there was no gate keeper). The programs also got sick of APA continuing to implement new requirements each accreditation cycle without demonstrating that the new requirements led to better outcomes. I don't blame programs for moving in this direction as a result.

In sum, yes there is a risk (many things in life have a risk), but I don't think it is that big of a risk. If I could do it all over again and go back to my same program (now that it has a warning), I would.

Here is a question for you. How many grads will there be of PCSAS only programs? How many will need to be licensed vs pure academics? Will anyone at a state level care about amending laws for that number of people?

 

[Ollie123]

Yeah, this is the scary transition window for PCSAS programs. The big issue is license portability. They are right that it is in the works in many places....but not all. Even if 40/50 states recognize PCSAS, its going to be a headache for someone who happens to want to move to one of the other ten.

After years of APA dropping the ball, I get why programs are just giving up. These same folks are the ones who have been trying to fix things for decades now so it isn't like the effort wasn't there. Eventually you have to know when to say screw it and forge your own path. Given most of the top programs in the field are a part of the system, I don't think many are overly concerned about their long-term prospects. I'd still bet on a grad from WUSTL having a successful career 10x over relative to most in the country (especially if focused on neuroscience). However, if someone has very discrete goals (i.e. practice clinically in X state) that is absolutely something they should take into consideration.

 

[Ollie123]

Here is a question for you. How many grads will there be of PCSAS only programs? How many will need to be licensed vs pure academics? Will anyone at a state level care about amending laws for that number of people?

Good questions. Its going to be small relative to the Argosy's of the world. The key has seem to be in flagship state universities coming on board. State politicians may not care about the number, but when framed as ensuring the "best" schools in their state aren't caught among cracks in the system, it becomes politically necessary in many places. At least that's how the folks I know involved are thinking about/pursuing this.

That said, all states are different and a fair number don't currently have a PCSAS program and may not in the near future (Montana, Wyoming, Hawaii, Alaska just at a glance, I'm sure others). I think there is much more risk of issues in those states.

Despite my post above, I'll be the first to say I think it is too soon for schools to be making the move of dropping APA accreditation. Maybe in 5-10 years, but not yet. Still wouldn't hesitate to attend WUSTL though as long as you were academically-inclined and knew what you were getting into.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Way too premature and kind of pointless, IMO.

 

[Justanothergrad]

just a reminder, Counseling can't be in PCSAS so the whole idea excludes around 25% of the field training programs before considering quality.

 

[Ollie123]

just a reminder, Counseling can't be in PCSAS so the whole idea excludes around 25% of the field training programs before considering quality.

Something that baffles me to this day.

 

[theSteppenwolf]

This is tangential, I know. But does anyone know what the rationale is for PCSAS not certifying counseling psychology programs?

 

[R. Matey]

This is tangential, I know. But does anyone know what the rationale is for PCSAS not certifying counseling psychology programs?

When you figure it out, feel free to let the rest of us know.

 

[Justanothergrad]

This is tangential, I know. But does anyone know what the rationale is for PCSAS not certifying counseling psychology programs?

Some of it is the jingoism towards 'clinical psychology' as a brand and the foolishness of counseling to not make sure their name was equally associated with the practice of health service psychology. I think most of this is laziness in terms of how we conceptualize the disciplines and stems from early historical divides in training and APA divisions, even prior to the APS split and formation of PCSAS. It's the same reason we see Counseling applications not considered at some internship sites.


But as for a factually-based, logical reason? nope.

 

[theSteppenwolf]

Some of it is the jingoism towards 'clinical psychology' as a brand and the foolishness of counseling to not make sure their name was equally associated with the practice of health service psychology. I think most of this is laziness in terms of how we conceptualize the disciplines and stems from early historical divides in training and APA divisions, even prior to the APS split and formation of PCSAS. It's the same reason we see Counseling applications not considered at some internship sites.


But as for a factually-based, logical reason? nope.

I suspected as much but wanted to be certain there wasn't some other considerations of which I was not aware.

 

[WisNeuro]

Some of it is the jingoism towards 'clinical psychology' as a brand and the foolishness of counseling to not make sure their name was equally associated with the practice of health service psychology. I think most of this is laziness in terms of how we conceptualize the disciplines and stems from early historical divides in training and APA divisions, even prior to the APS split and formation of PCSAS. It's the same reason we see Counseling applications not considered at some internship sites.


But as for a factually-based, logical reason? nope.

Are you claiming that a jingo ate your baby? But yeah, in all seriousness, as a clinical psych phd grad, much more overlap than differences these days. I'm sure that there once was a clear difference, but that seems to have been quite some time ago.