How to watch out for "diploma mills"

[Sanman]

But the internship crisis affects students outside of these programs, as well. Until this year my funded, university-based PhD program was on average having one or two people not match.

I understand that and I know a few people at my program have struggled as well. However, until APA does something drastic to control the numbers, it is one of the few barriers left. Take that away and then the races come down to post-docs and multiple post-docs to differentiate yourself or some of those same people not getting any job after they graduate. All fixing that crisis does is push the crisis farther up the food chain. We really need to control the front door rather than try and make the back door wider. If APA limited class size starting next year and then made sure there were enough spot for those people we would fix the problem. If we add more internship spots, what stops these schools from just enroll ing more people and causing another crisis?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cara susanna]

I agree that limiting class size/accreditation is the best method... but it will probably never happen.

 

[Ollie123]

Also from wikipedia:

The term "diploma mill" may also be used pejoratively to describe a legitimate institution with low academic admission standards and a low job placement rate.

I'd extend low job placement to "underemployed". That is how I have generally intended it when I use the term here. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that Argosy is some guy living in his mother's basement printing off diplomas on a 15 year old printer as soon as the checks clear. I thought this was obvious enough it did not need to be stated.

I liken the degrees to those from University of Phoenix, Devry, ITT Tech, etc. I wouldn't object to someone with a computer science degree from one of those schools being the person to swap out the motherboard if I take my computer in to be repaired. We need people who do that and I'm sure the schools provide fine training for such positions. If I'm an IT manager hiring for a vacancy in desktop support staff I'm happy just to find someone with a degree of any kind willing to take such a low-paying position. However, if I'm instead hiring someone to work on the team developing the next generation of Intel processors...such an individual is not even on my radar and I'm looking to grads of Berkeley, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, etc.

Not everyone wants to do the latter (or could even if they wanted to). That is fine. However, I would strongly object to the notion that a bachelor's from ITT Tech is in any way equivalent to the degree from Carnegie Mellon. Yes they are both bachelor's degrees, but that's about where the similarities end. Having successfully completing a bachelor's at ITT Tech does not necessarily mean someone could even pass "Intro to Computer Programming" at Carnegie Mellon. These are not equivalent degrees as they are from completely different leagues. The difference is perhaps not quite so extreme when we are comparing psychology programs...but it really doesn't seem far off. Rather than producing psychologists, these programs seem designed to allow people to masquerade as psychologists.

Tuition, etc. are decent indices of that in this field but its an indicator and nothing more. I think its really just a matter of talking to the graduates. I can't comment on PGSP specifically since that's one where I actually haven't had extended interactions with any graduates. Generally speaking, its very easy to tell when someone came out of one of these programs. They can "psychobabble" just fine. Push beyond that and what's missing is generally depth of knowledge and critical thinking/research skills. It quickly becomes "Well, I was trained to do it this way" or "I've done it like that so I know it works". Its more like they are training very advanced psych techs - not psychologists. There is nothing wrong with being a psych tech...but let's call it what it is. To me, a degree mill is any institution where the degree is designed to allow someone to pretend to be more than what their training actually provided. That seems to be the case more often than not with many of these schools.

 

[PHD12]

I liken the degrees to those from University of Phoenix, Devry, ITT Tech, etc.

Argosy, Alliant, etc... are more similar to these institutions than 3rd or 4th tier law schools. I am willing to bet that unemployment is similarly high given that loan default rates are very high (argosy was at 13.4% in 2009). State universities have loan default rates of 1-2% maybe.

3rd and 4th tier law school graduates actually fare significantly better than the typical professional psychology graduate and with less debt. I've looked at outcomes from 3rd and 4th tier law school (e.g., New York Law School, which has been sued and accused of being a diploma mill), and about 89-90% of the graduates are employed and bar passage rates are 80-90% from these schools.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

I also might get flamed for this, but my limited experience with students in FSPS suggests that they do very little actual work when it comes to dissertation projects. Just look at the product.

I think its really just a matter of talking to the graduates. I can't comment on PGSP specifically since that's one where I actually haven't had extended interactions with any graduates. Generally speaking, its very easy to tell when someone came out of one of these programs. They can "psychobabble" just fine. Push beyond that and what's missing is generally depth of knowledge and critical thinking/research skills. It quickly becomes "Well, I was trained to do it this way" or "I've done it like that so I know it works". Its more like they are training very advanced psych techs - not psychologists. There is nothing wrong with being a psych tech...but let's call it what it is. To me, a degree mill is any institution where the degree is designed to allow someone to pretend to be more than what their training actually provided. That seems to be the case more often than not with many of these schools.

If these criteria define a diploma mill, then my fully-funded, public university-based, small cohort, 90% average APA match rate PhD program is a diploma mill. The dissertations are typically survey-based drivel using little more than t-tests and the graduates are bland generalists doing therapy at counseling centers. Meh. Midlevel much?

 

[Ollie123]

If these criteria define a diploma mill, then my fully-funded, public university-based, small cohort, 90% average APA match rate PhD program is a diploma mill. The dissertations are typically survey-based drivel using little more than t-tests and the graduates are bland generalists doing therapy at counseling centers. Meh. Midlevel much?

Maybe it is (though that is unfortunate and I'm sorry to hear it). I'm arguing for fluidity of the definition rather than discrete categorizations, so my whole point is that trying to come up with a list of schools that meet some arbitrary and technical definition of "degree mill" seems a distraction from the actual issues.

 

[PHD12]

If these criteria define a diploma mill, then my fully-funded, public university-based, small cohort, 90% average APA match rate PhD program is a diploma mill. The dissertations are typically survey-based drivel using little more than t-tests and the graduates are bland generalists doing therapy at counseling centers. Meh. Midlevel much?

Good thing you are leaving then.

Do they allow literature review dissertations? These are allowed at argosy, alliant..

 

[JeyRo]

Argosy, Alliant, etc... are more similar to these institutions than 3rd or 4th tier law schools. I am willing to bet that unemployment is similarly high given that loan default rates are very high (argosy was at 13.4% in 2009). State universities have loan default rates of 1-2% maybe.

3rd and 4th tier law school graduates actually fare significantly better than the typical professional psychology graduate and with less debt. I've looked at outcomes from 3rd and 4th tier law school (e.g., New York Law School, which has been sued and accused of being a diploma mill), and about 89-90% of the graduates are employed and bar passage rates are 80-90% from these schools.

PHD12, every time you favorably compare the law school field to the clinical psychology field, my wife winces (I've been feeding her some of your posts). She went to a very respectable second-tier law school, did the law firm thing, made a healthy six-figure salary for a few years, we never saw her, she got seriously burned out (and now has a much better gig outside of the billable hour system) and I think her take is that you've got a serious grass-is-greener thing going regarding the legal field. For what that's worth.

BTW, I understand it's become regular practice at a number of law schools to create law firms that are run out of the law school campus, and then hire the grads to work there (not for competitive wages, by the way). This allows law schools to claim higher employment rates and fluff up their numbers. I'm sure there are other practices out there to plump up the numbers for law grads - my understanding is again, unless you attended Harvard or Yale and got in the top 10% of your class, you have a pretty rough fight ahead of you.

Also, I always note this: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/efkk45ehffl/no-1-unhappiest-job-associate-attorney/

 

[Sanman]

I know plenty of law school grads from high, medium, and low tier schools. Most from medium or low tier schools started at the $50-65k level. I know a couple that started at $40k.

 

[racho]

Good thing you are leaving then.

Do they allow literature review dissertations? These are allowed at argosy, alliant..

False. Where did you get this data from?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using SDN Mobile

 

[DynamicDidactic]

it wasn't Argosy or Alliant but who allowed that raven dissertation? that was hilarious, we need to bring that back.

 

[MBellows]

False. Where did you get this data from?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using SDN Mobile

I'm pretty sure that they have changed it, or it could just be Argosy Dallas, but I've personally reviewed 2 of these projects for (at the time soon to be) Argosy grads. Again, I'm pretty sure that the writer of the last one that I looked at said that her cohort was the last group that was allowed to do it.

 

[racho]

While I don't think that diploma mill is quite accurate for FSPS schools (though this covers quite the range), I consider them a lot like third or fourth tier law schools. They may go through the motions of providing a proper education, but they are in it for the tuition money and are letting students take a huge gamble on their future with little support rather than cultivating the best environment for future graduates. While people cry about the APA internship crisis, I am not complaining too much. The reason is that jobs need some way to cut through applications. Law firms do it by the name brand of the school and we do it this way. As more and more graduates are pumped out for not enough jobs, more jobs will require it to be hired and the bulk of graduates from these programs that do not have it will be forced into masters level jobs or private practice.

This is a big part of your (and others posting here) resentment toward psyds. We are taking internships and jobs that were handed to you, just like your practica placements. Now you actually have to apply and prove yourself as well.

Many people from psyd programs enter the program with an MFT or an M.A. in another field already (as I and others have done, I left a phd program to go to a psyd program...yes, my choice). Therefore, some do not get licensed because it is their CHOICE.

Regarding attrition rates, there are many reasons for the rates; not a good fit, $, rather work with their mft degree, family circumstances, chose another field, get dismissed from the program (for various reasons like not passing comp exams, not producing quality work, being unprofessional/unethical, etc).

As efficient researchers, I would expect you to not be robots and to think of factors outside of the limited data (some uninformed and made up) you have presented here.

 

[racho]

Also from wikipedia:



I'd extend low job placement to "underemployed". That is how I have generally intended it when I use the term here. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that Argosy is some guy living in his mother's basement printing off diplomas on a 15 year old printer as soon as the checks clear. I thought this was obvious enough it did not need to be stated.

I liken the degrees to those from University of Phoenix, Devry, ITT Tech, etc. I wouldn't object to someone with a computer science degree from one of those schools being the person to swap out the motherboard if I take my computer in to be repaired. We need people who do that and I'm sure the schools provide fine training for such positions. If I'm an IT manager hiring for a vacancy in desktop support staff I'm happy just to find someone with a degree of any kind willing to take such a low-paying position. However, if I'm instead hiring someone to work on the team developing the next generation of Intel processors...such an individual is not even on my radar and I'm looking to grads of Berkeley, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, etc.

Not everyone wants to do the latter (or could even if they wanted to). That is fine. However, I would strongly object to the notion that a bachelor's from ITT Tech is in any way equivalent to the degree from Carnegie Mellon. Yes they are both bachelor's degrees, but that's about where the similarities end. Having successfully completing a bachelor's at ITT Tech does not necessarily mean someone could even pass "Intro to Computer Programming" at Carnegie Mellon. These are not equivalent degrees as they are from completely different leagues. The difference is perhaps not quite so extreme when we are comparing psychology programs...but it really doesn't seem far off. Rather than producing psychologists, these programs seem designed to allow people to masquerade as psychologists.

Tuition, etc. are decent indices of that in this field but its an indicator and nothing more. I think its really just a matter of talking to the graduates. I can't comment on PGSP specifically since that's one where I actually haven't had extended interactions with any graduates. Generally speaking, its very easy to tell when someone came out of one of these programs. They can "psychobabble" just fine. Push beyond that and what's missing is generally depth of knowledge and critical thinking/research skills. It quickly becomes "Well, I was trained to do it this way" or "I've done it like that so I know it works". Its more like they are training very advanced psych techs - not psychologists. There is nothing wrong with being a psych tech...but let's call it what it is. To me, a degree mill is any institution where the degree is designed to allow someone to pretend to be more than what their training actually provided. That seems to be the case more often than not with many of these schools.

You are making psyds sound like glorified life coaches. Please appreciate higher education for what it is. By comparing psyd programs to trade/vocational schools, you just sound silly and uninformed. Law schools are also not the best comparison. A better group to chose would be MD vs. DO. There, I handed it to you....

I wish we could come together, collaborate and become a unified field to make things better for ourselves and ultimately our patients. Self-righteous and elite-ist attitudes will only get you so far.

 

[MBellows]

A better group to chose would be MD vs. DO.

Please explain what you think these two degrees are.

 

[Pragma]

Wow racho, interesting thoughts.

I've never really considered PsyD graduates from schools like Argosy and Alliant to be much competition. They are the ones not matching, having trouble getting licensed, and going off to work in private practice out of necessity. What does frustrate me is the sheer number of these students that a) saturate the overall market for psychologists and b) do a terrible job with patients and damage our field's reputation out of a lack of competence.

As for Ollie's comparison, I thought it was just fine. I'm not about to compare a Psy.D. to a DO. I'd be more inclined to compare FSPS to Caribbean medical schools.

You seem to be communicating that some of us are elitist and/or entitled. If anyone is entitled, I would say it is the students who can't get into a legitimate program who still "want to be a doctor" even if they perhaps are not cut out for it. I apologize if that seems harsh, but many of us acknowledge our field has a front-end problem (too low of admissions standards at degree factories) that has had numerous ripple effects.

I do wish you the best of luck and I do think that some students graduate from these programs and do a great job. I've met some of them. But typically, this success is despite their program, not because of it. In fact, the FSPS graduate I have met that got good jobs have all spoken poorly of their programs (just an anecdote, and something they offered up in conversation without any probing). That gets to the heart of what the OP was asking about.

 

[erg923]

This is a big part of your (and others posting here) resentment toward psyds. We are taking internships and jobs that were handed to you, just like your practica placements. Now you actually have to apply and prove yourself as well.

Many people from psyd programs enter the program with an MFT or an M.A. in another field already (as I and others have done, I left a phd program to go to a psyd program...yes, my choice). Therefore, some do not get licensed because it is their CHOICE.

Regarding attrition rates, there are many reasons for the rates; not a good fit, $, rather work with their mft degree, family circumstances, chose another field, get dismissed from the program (for various reasons like not passing comp exams, not producing quality work, being unprofessional/unethical, etc).

As efficient researchers, I would expect you to not be robots and to think of factors outside of the limited data (some uninformed and made up) you have presented here.

Rancho, people entering these program are handed these things because they have earned entrance into an exclusive club. If had to fight for my basic training needs in grad school, I WOULD BE PISSED! WHY AREN'T YOU?!

Rancho, please reread my last comment to you on page 2. I am interested in your thoughts. You understand, that from my point (which overarchs the whole deal here) YOU are the one with the burden of proof here. Thus far, you have not been able to counter my arguments, nor the data presented in them. I will repost below.

"Yes, your program has a poor reputation, but its due to the issues, outcomes/metrics that we have discussed. Its not due to people being snobby and having "biases." Its based on evidence/data.

But, that is not what we are trying to do here. The point of all my questioning was so you can see that, when looking at evidence, alot of your assertions about your program's training model do not hold up. It's to your advantage, and the advantage of future applicants, to stop with this delusional notion that Ph.D programs solely produce people for academia (you cant possibly think there is that many opening in academia every year can you?!) and that a Psy.D somehow gives better (or more) clinical training. Moreover, there is no evidence to support the notion that having 200 or 300 more hours (once you reach a certain base-level, say 500 hours) produces superior therapists or superior outcomes for their clientele anyway. If you know of this evidence, than clue us in. But until such time, I truly hope you understand why people are indeed ""biased" against your program. It cuts out the base and adds nothing more, not even more clinical contact, on average.

I also agree with the financial aspect and I don't understand how you think the debt to potential income issues is " worth it?"

Lastly, I think if you want to dig yourself out of the Argosy hole, you are going to have to step things up and make yourself a shining star. Uphill battle, but can be done. I would argue that if you want to be a private practice therapist, then there was no point in getting your doctorate in the first place, much less paying 200k for it. If, on the other hand you want to utilize your doctoral training to its full potential in the new age of Obama care (its coming), you will value the quality of your training vs just the quantity and you will abhor that people can complete capstones internships that have no formal approval or sanctioning, and you will diversify your clinical experiences to gain the competencies necessary to move this profession forward in the decade to come. What do you think?"

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I've never really considered PsyD graduates from schools like Argosy and Alliant to be much competition. They are the ones not matching, having trouble getting licensed, and going off to work in private practice out of necessity. What does frustrate me is the sheer number of these students that a) saturate the overall market for psychologists and b) do a terrible job with patients and damage our field's reputation out of a lack of competence.

These are probably my biggest concerns/gripes as well. The data (e.g., match rates, outcome statistics) as well as my own personal experiences in reviewing materials largely support these views, which is unfortunate.

Additionally, even if individuals may not be as competitive for internship/postdoc/job spots, the larger number of applicants places a greater burden on the reviewing sites/agencies. It also causes individuals who don't obtain these positions to accept some of the postings we've seen here asking for a someone with a "PhD/PsyD/MSW/MFT," or to take unpaid postdocs/internships, all of which reduces the value of the field as a whole.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

it wasn't Argosy or Alliant but who allowed that raven dissertation? that was hilarious, we need to bring that back.

I thought it was Capella?

 

[Ollie123]

You are making psyds sound like glorified life coaches. Please appreciate higher education for what it is. By comparing psyd programs to trade/vocational schools, you just sound silly and uninformed. Law schools are also not the best comparison. A better group to chose would be MD vs. DO. There, I handed it to you....

I wish we could come together, collaborate and become a unified field to make things better for ourselves and ultimately our patients. Self-righteous and elite-ist attitudes will only get you so far.

Not as silly as one would look having fallen ploy to Argosy marketing schemes😉

But seriously, life coach is perhaps a bit too far but I basically think of FSPS grads (PhD or PsyD) as master's level counselors. The training seems about equivalent, the attitudes towards/understanding of research seems about equivalent, etc. There is nothing wrong with being a master's level counselor and many are very, very good at what they do...but that doesn't mean its the "same" as a doctorate. Its not perfect but no analogy is...the point is that we are talking about a degree that is clearly "less" than those it is seeking to be equated with...and not by a little. Call me elitist if you like, but the numbers don't lie and nor does the curriculum. Heck, look at the thread on internship! By your own admission you have significantly less experience/credentials than most others.

FYI - I couldn't pull up dissertations from Argosy OC specifically since apparently they don't require Proquest uploads, but I pulled up dissertations from several other Argosy campuses over the last 1-2 years. The vast majority were non-empirical.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

I don't really understand the resentment toward practica "being handed to" students in competitive doctoral programs. It seems to make sense. These programs come up with 5-6 students out of 200-ish applicants. They feel pretty confident that these folks have what it takes to become psychologists. They are also very invested in having little to no attrition and having people graduate. Why wouldn't the programs do what they can to arrange for each of their students to have a quality practicum each year? They fought tooth an nail to get in, why should they have to fight for all of the components of training, including but not limited to practica?

Dr. E

 

[Sanman]

it wasn't Argosy or Alliant but who allowed that raven dissertation? that was hilarious, we need to bring that back.

Antioch New England was the one who had it:

http://www.antiochne.edu/dissertations/a-human-raven-affinity-on-merging-nature-and-the-human-psyche/

The sad part is that she ended up at Dartmouth Training Consortium despite that.

 

[cara susanna]

This is a big part of your (and others posting here) resentment toward psyds. We are taking internships and jobs that were handed to you, just like your practica placements. Now you actually have to apply and prove yourself as well.

Fighting for internship? The ridiculously large number of FSPS cohorts has made it a rigged game: everyone, even the top candidates from funded PhD programs, has a risk of not matching because there are just too many people and not enough sites. And why should we have to "fight" for it, anyway? We need this internship to graduate. The only anxiety that we should feel about internship apps is wondering where we'll go or if we'll get our top slot, not if we'll have to be in training limbo for one or maybe even two more years because the APA doesn't seem to care at all about regulating class sizes. I worked really hard to get into a funded PhD program, and the fact that I could not graduate or have my graduation delayed because of the internship crisis infuriates and terrifies me.

I've seen the Match happen four times now at my program. Three of those times, people who were highly competitive candidates failed to match their first time.

I don't get why FSPS grads aren't angrier about this because (as APPIC data has demonstrated) they have less chances of matching than I do.

Erg: When you talk about hours, do you mean intervention or F2F? Just curious!

 

[erg923]

face-to-face

 

[Sanman]

This is a big part of your (and others posting here) resentment toward psyds. We are taking internships and jobs that were handed to you, just like your practica placements. Now you actually have to apply and prove yourself as well.

Many people from psyd programs enter the program with an MFT or an M.A. in another field already (as I and others have done, I left a phd program to go to a psyd program...yes, my choice). Therefore, some do not get licensed because it is their CHOICE.

Regarding attrition rates, there are many reasons for the rates; not a good fit, $, rather work with their mft degree, family circumstances, chose another field, get dismissed from the program (for various reasons like not passing comp exams, not producing quality work, being unprofessional/unethical, etc).

As efficient researchers, I would expect you to not be robots and to think of factors outside of the limited data (some uninformed and made up) you have presented here.

First off, let us get a few things straight. I have no resentment against PsyDs. The way I know this is that I have the letters PsyD after my name. The difference is that I went to a university based, fully funded program, with a cohort of less than 10 people. Second, I disagree with you that PsyDs do not need research or publications, I have both under my belt. While I may not have as many as PhDs competing for R1 or R2 positions, I think it is important to know the process. Clinically based research is very much part of being a clinician if you want to develop programs/interventions that produce significant differences as the movement toward ebts in the field proves. My program always viewed the PsyD in a similar model to more clinically oriented PhDs (as it was one of the first programs to use the vail model) where all the components of training were necessary, but with different emphasis. As to your assertion that I and others want things handed to me instead of competing for it, I did compete for it. I worked my but off in college and got into a good fully funded program when many people from Argosy, Alliant could not do so. I competed with them again during internship and secured and APA accredited internship (required by my program to graduate) when many of them could not. Then, they flood the market and devalue to salaries of doctoral level clinicians in many areas. Am I afraid to compete against them? Not really, my CV speaks for itself. However, I am afraid that having too many grads and not enough jobs means that salaries will continue to be driven down by business minded folks who don't care about quality. Let me ask you, after spending six figures on your education, do you prefer to have a good job waiting for you when you are done training or do you prefer to compete with others for not enough jobs and spend years unemployed or underemployed while paying large loan payments? You seem to suggest the latter is better than the former.

 

[JeyRo]

I think a lot of the anger and resentment people have here is against the APA for not being more like the AMA, who leaned on state and regional governments via licensing and regulatory processes to severely bottleneck the amount of medical school graduates after the Flexner report was published. It's ironic because when I was in undergrad., psychologists were accused of having "physics envy" when it came to social science... now that I'm a clinical psychologist I'm steeped in "physicians envy," more or less.

The restriction of medical graduate supply, along with the monopolistic weilding of the prescription pad, has allowed physicians to largely be playing in a sellers market when it comes to dictating the price of their labor. Consequently, physicians are very expensive because of all of this. Psychologists, comparatively speaking, are very cheap. With the advent of the Vail-Boulder distinction and the proliferation of professional programs, not only has clinical psychology essentially done the opposite of what was done with medical education post-Flexner, the proliferation of these professional programs and the skyrocketing of sticker prices have been pressured and incentivized enormously by the easy availability of so-called "sub prime" student loans (also known as Stafford Loans).

By essentially doing the opposite of the guild protectionist tactics used in medical education, clinical psychology has been completely unable to protect it's franchise from the downward pressures on quality and upward pressures on price that characterizes the so-called student loan bubble.

It's too bad, really. As a personal, political matter, I don't think it's right that the AMA essentially has a stranglehold on the number of medical grads out there. That helps to drive up costs of medical care for everyone unnecessarily. On the other hand, I think that the professional school movement in clinical psychology, while a good idea in theory, has been completely ruined by the market distortions that have incentivized the creation of programs like Argosy and Alliant, which I firmly believe wouldn't exist if most mass federal loan and grant programs weren't in existence.

OK, off my soapbox now.

 

[JeyRo]

First off, let us get a few things straight. I have no resentment against PsyDs. The way I know this is that I have the letters PsyD after my name. The difference is that I went to a university based, fully funded program, with a cohort of less than 10 people. Second, I disagree with you that PsyDs do not need research or publications, I have both under my belt. While I may not have as many as PhDs competing for R1 or R2 positions, I think it is important to know the process. Clinically based research is very much part of being a clinician if you want to develop programs/interventions that produce significant differences as the movement toward ebts in the field proves. My program always viewed the PsyD in a similar model to more clinically oriented PhDs (as it was one of the first programs to use the vail model) where all the components of training were necessary, but with different emphasis. As to your assertion that I and others want things handed to me instead of competing for it, I did compete for it. I worked my but off in college and got into a good fully funded program when many people from Argosy, Alliant could not do so. I competed with them again during internship and secured and APA accredited internship (required by my program to graduate) when many of them could not. Then, they flood the market and devalue to salaries of doctoral level clinicians in many areas. Am I afraid to compete against them? Not really, my CV speaks for itself. However, I am afraid that having too many grads and not enough jobs means that salaries will continue to be driven down by business minded folks who don't care about quality. Let me ask you, after spending six figures on your education, do you prefer to have a good job waiting for you when you are done training or do you prefer to compete with others for not enough jobs and spend years unemployed or underemployed while paying large loan payments? You seem to suggest the latter is better than the former.

I agree, I don't think an average clinical psychology grad from a typical funded program has much to worry about in terms of competition from Argosy and Alliant grads. They have a poor track record of getting APA internships and if they're fortunate enough to get licensed, they'll mostly be competing directly with midlevels for work.

But what about PAU, Pepperdine, FIT, or Nova grads (they have apparently better than average match rates in most cases, IIRC), for example?

I think it's easier (much, much easier) to make the argument that Argosy/Alliant grads drive down the reputation of our profession by churning out poor-quality psychologists, and we should be against those programs on that basis.

However, I think that's a harder argument to make in the case of (say) PGSP-PsyD grads (although there's people like Jon Snow still happy to make it) - particularly when they boast a licensure and APA match rate of 100%. Then really the argument boils down to what I talk about in my post above - that really programs like PAU / Nova / FIT / Pepperdine (what I'm considering higher-quality FSPS programs, which is at least a debatable point) hurt clinical psychology as a profession simply because they water down the bargaining power of other psychologists simply by increasing the labor supply. At some point (maybe not with Argosy / Alliant et al.) the argument boils back down to "physicians envy" that we missed the boat on getting into the guild protectionist racket that the physicians have played so well.

NOTE: This is not a backhanded endorsement of PAU, FIT, Nova, or any other unfunded program - even if we assume grads of these programs are of the highest quality, getting into 200K+ to get a doctoral degree in clinical psychology is an incredibly poor investment, IMHO.

 

[racho]

To those of you who have pm'd me:

1) You are in a legit phd program and shouldn't need to "not want to voice my opinions because of the backlash from the obvious 'bullies' here (if you notice dominate all threads in this forum)." Your colleagues will definitely take your opinion as more credible than mine because, you are one of them.

2) For the few people who have asked me why I continue to stand up for my program despite known flaws, I responded to you privately but here it is for the rest. Here are the reasons: I and some of my well qualified colleagues chose our program. We didn't go into it "too trusting" or "blind" and yes there are some who did (like the person who went to alliant, didn't match for internship and is now whining that it is his/her schools fault and portraying her/himself as a victim of her/his school). I just want to represent those of us who could've or were in phd programs and decided it wasn't for us and went to a private prof school well informed, by choice because of our individual circumstances.
Finally, yes, I know that there are flaws but they are flaws I considered when enrolling in the program and will have to deal with.

3) I appreciate your kind words and I hope to continue our conversation.

4) Yes, while phd students are still in training, I will be working and paying back my student loans, a mortgage and paying off medical bills. Once they graduate, we might be at the same pay scale.

5) I will not bash my school now or once I am done, that will only make me look dumb and perpetuate the negative perception of psyd/prof schools.

Sent from my cell. Please excuse any typos.

 

[KillerDiller]

it wasn't Argosy or Alliant but who allowed that raven dissertation? that was hilarious, we need to bring that back.

I thought it was Capella?

It was actually Antioch.

Edit: Realized Sanman beat me to it.

 

[Sanman]

I agree, I don't think an average clinical psychology grad from a typical funded program has much to worry about in terms of competition from Argosy and Alliant grads. They have a poor track record of getting APA internships and if they're fortunate enough to get licensed, they'll mostly be competing directly with midlevels for work.

But what about PAU, Pepperdine, FIT, or Nova grads (they have apparently better than average match rates in most cases, IIRC), for example?

I think it's easier (much, much easier) to make the argument that Argosy/Alliant grads drive down the reputation of our profession by churning out poor-quality psychologists, and we should be against those programs on that basis.

However, I think that's a harder argument to make in the case of (say) PGSP-PsyD grads (although there's people like Jon Snow still happy to make it) - particularly when they boast an APA and licensure match rate of 100%. Then really the argument boils down to what I talk about in my post above - that really programs like PAU / Nova / FIT / Pepperdine (what I'm considering higher-quality FSPS programs, which is at least a debatable point) hurt clinical psychology as a profession simply because they water down the bargaining power of other psychologists simply by increasing the labor supply. At some point (maybe not with Argosy / Alliant et al.) the argument boils back down to "physicians envy" that we missed the boat on getting into the guild protectionist racket that the physicians have played so well.

I really have no problem with nova, pgsp, fit,etc grads. I have friends from these programs that are well trained clinicians and do well. However, I also find these programs (for the most part) more responsible with their numbers. I am actually a proponent of the vail model, but not the abuse of it to water down training. My problem is this, I am in contention for a few good jobs (two VA jobs and another position) and will hopefully get one. However, if I do not get chosen for one of those jobs against what I assume are a field of well qualified individuals, I need to choose another job in the area I am moving to so that I can get married. However, more and more large private practice, contract, and nursing home companies will hire any person with a license for an entry level position as a therapist. These places a replacing good jobs and use the ubiquity of psychologists and watering down of standards to make the clinicians disposable. They also do not promote from within (choosing experienced clinicians from academic or more reputable backgrounds to be clinical directors) and limit your practice (mostly to therapy) allowing skills to atrophy. My fear is being stuck in such a place out of bad luck rather than any lack of training or skill. Having met more than a view clinicians at these places, many are alliant/argosy grads, have a non-accredited program/ internship, are early career, or all three.

 

[thewesternsky]

I just want to represent those of us who could've or were in phd programs and decided it wasn't for us and went to a private prof school well informed, by choice because of our individual circumstances.

Can I ask why you did this? I am genuinely curious.

 

[erg923]

However, more and more large private practice, contract, and nursing home companies will hire any person with a license for an entry level position as a therapist. These places a replacing good jobs and use the ubiquity of psychologists and watering down of standards to make the clinicians disposable. They also do not promote from within (choosing experienced clinicians from academic or more reputable backgrounds to be clinical directors) and limit your practice (mostly to therapy) allowing skills to atrophy. My fear is being stuck in such a place out of bad luck rather than any lack of training or skill. Having met more than a view clinicians at these places, many are alliant/argosy grads, have a non-accredited program/ internship, are early career, or all three.

Can you talk more about this/these? I just saw this kind of thing (I think) and its job description was basically like floating from nursing home to nursing home, doing therapy. This seems like a very wasteful use of resources for a doctoral level clinician, and frankly abusive to the medicare system. NOT saying this population doesn't need or deserve psychological support, but having a ph,d bounce around from place to place doing 15 minute bedside therapy seems quite wasteful (for all parties involved) to me.

 

[cara susanna]

So clinician jobs are essentially becoming like adjuncts in academia? Blegh.

1) You are in a legit phd program and shouldn't need to "not want to voice my opinions because of the backlash from the obvious 'bullies' here (if you notice dominate all threads in this forum)." Your colleagues will definitely take your opinion as more credible than mine because, you are one of them.

I hate to think that there are SDN posters afraid to voice their opinion because they disagree with many of us here. I think that for the most part people try to be polite and reasonable, so I would encourage anyone with thoughts on the matter to post publicly. I definitely haven't seen any bullying (although I also think that the term is thrown around far too loosely nowadays).

 

[JeyRo]

Can you talk more about this/these? I just saw this kind of thing (I think) and its job description was basically like floating from nursing home to nursing home, doing therapy. This seems like a very wasteful use of resources for a doctoral level clinician, and frankly abusive to the medicare system. NOT saying this population doesn't need or deserve psychological support, but having a ph,d bounce around from place to place doing 15 minute bedside therapy seems quite wasteful (for all parties involved) to me.

It's the Medicare system that's abusive to geropsych. patients in nursing homes, IMHO. Medicare largely doesn't reimburse for staff training and consultation (which is generally the type of service geropsychologists can provide for LTC facilities that by far generates the most bang for the buck), group therapy is prohibitively short-changed, and reimbursements in general drop precipitously every year.

If Medicare wanted their nursing homes to be staffed by underprepared, desperate, low-tier FSPS grads via profit-hungry consulting firms, they couldn't have designed a better (crappier) system.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Antioch New England was the one who had it:

http://www.antiochne.edu/dissertations/a-human-raven-affinity-on-merging-nature-and-the-human-psyche/

The sad part is that she ended up at Dartmouth Training Consortium despite that.

unaccredited internship though.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

http://www.memecreator.org/meme/a-h...ging-nature-and-the-human-psyche-antioch-psyd

too much?

 

[Pragma]

I don't think anyone has been bullying here. Just discussing the program's empirical data like class size, debt, and outcomes.

The topic of diploma mills might not be warm and fuzzy itself. Does that make the thread itself a bully?

Sadly, this information needs to get out to prospective applicants and this is one of the few places that people will get the information. I'm not going to sit down and sing kumbaya with everyone when it comes to the topic. I genuinely believe that these programs have been ruining the field, and the data supports that contention. So, sorry if it sounds harsh, but I wish that these programs would just disappear. They do more harm than good, IMO.

 

[JeyRo]

Can I ask why you did this? I am genuinely curious.

Me too. Given there are FSPS programs out there that at least based on objective metrics (EPPP pass rates, match rates, licensure rates) function significantly better than Argosy/Alliant, why would one go to such a program? It's not that much harder to get into places like Nova / FIT / PAU, and you'll get in roughly the same amount of blistering debt.

 

[racho]

I really have no problem with nova, pgsp, fit,etc grads. I have friends from these programs that are well trained clinicians and do well. However, I also find these programs (for the most part) more responsible with their numbers. I am actually a proponent of the vail model, but not the abuse of it to water down training. My problem is this, I am in contention for a few good jobs (two VA jobs and another position) and will hopefully get one. However, if I do not get chosen for one of those jobs against what I assume are a field of well qualified individuals, I need to choose another job in the area I am moving to so that I can get married. However, more and more large private practice, contract, and nursing home companies will hire any person with a license for an entry level position as a therapist. These places a replacing good jobs and use the ubiquity of psychologists and watering down of standards to make the clinicians disposable. They also do not promote from within (choosing experienced clinicians from academic or more reputable backgrounds to be clinical directors) and limit your practice (mostly to therapy) allowing skills to atrophy. My fear is being stuck in such a place out of bad luck rather than any lack of training or skill. Having met more than a view clinicians at these places, many are alliant/argosy grads, have a non-accredited program/ internship, are early career, or all three.

I've been asking myself the same thing lol. The negative opinions bother me and I guess it's the advocacy side in me that is coming out (if I wasn't in psych, I'd be a lawyer or photographic journalist). I just need to realize that like erg wrote, it's an uphill battle ....and I just need to overcome the opinions others have of my chosen route of education along woth seeking out as many learning opportunities that I can. Reading your comments was an additional learning experience for me (and hopefully you too) so thank you.

Sent from my cell. Please excuse any typos.

 

[racho]

Oops. Meant to reply to westernsky...

Sent from my cell. Please excuse any typos.

 

[Sanman]

Can you talk more about this/these? I just saw this kind of thing (I think) and its job description was basically like floating from nursing home to nursing home, doing therapy. This seems like a very wasteful use of resources for a doctoral level clinician, and frankly abusive to the medicare system. NOT saying this population doesn't need or deserve psychological support, but having a ph,d bounce around from place to place doing 15 minute bedside therapy seems quite wasteful (for all parties involved) to me.

I don't want to derail the thread, but I will respond briefly because it is related to this conversation. If someone wants to start another thread, then I would be happy to respond in greater depth. It is pretty much all therapy and as you described. You can be at a single facility one day, several days, or full-time depending on the size. Sessions are the standard medicare/medicaid times, so they generally run 20-40 min. Most places want 40-45 full sessions or the equivalent billable per week. Some also have psychiatrists or psych NPs on staff to prescribe and some do not. Assessment gets done by a neuropsychologist that gets called in or is not available at all depending on the group. In service is not billable, so it is rarely offered. If it is requested, a clinical director that is usually off-site comes for the day and provides a large training and then leaves. So, there is no room for growth and development of skills as a psychologist or mentorship. When is comes down to it, your practice gets determined by business needs rather than ethical practice. The flip side is that the jobs pay decently well ($65-$75k range) and offers benefits (401k, health insurance, paid leave, etc), and 9-5 hrs. Could a mid-level do the job? Sure, but hiring doctoral level providers sells the contract easier and nursing homes get extra money from medicare for providing psych services and need people available to crisis or legal issues. I have seen similar contractors in military, forensic, private practice, and other settings.

 

[PHD12]

programs like PAU / Nova / FIT / Pepperdine (what I'm considering higher-quality FSPS programs, which is at least a debatable point) hurt clinical psychology as a profession simply because they water down the bargaining power of other psychologists simply by increasing the labor supply. At some point (maybe not with Argosy / Alliant et al.) the argument boils back down to "physicians envy" that we missed the boat on getting into the guild protectionist racket that the physicians have played so well.

/QUOTE]

The supply has gotten out of hand with 115,000 doctoral-level psychologists in this country (and this doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of master's level providers). By contrast, there are about 24,000 psychiatrists in the US total. My state alone has almost 20,000 licensed psychologists.

 

[psychRA]

This is a big part of your (and others posting here) resentment toward psyds. We are taking internships and jobs that were handed to you, just like your practica placements. Now you actually have to apply and prove yourself as well.

I will echo the confusion that others have posted about in regards to this point. I've been fortunate to land competitive slots for internship and postdoc, but my competition has generally been people from funded PhD programs like mine, or strong uni-based PsyD programs. At no point have I been concerned about someone from Alliant, Argosy, etc. taking the positions I've applied to. I do have concerns about these students flooding the market, because if some psychologists are willing to work for little or no money, that brings down salaries for the rest of us.

Also, I "actually applied and proved myself" when I got into a funded grad program with a <5% acceptance rate. This isn't me being elitist - I already put in a ton of work on the front end of the process, and that has paid off in terms of the advantages (access to practica, internship, etc.) that come with being part of a highly regarded program with a strong reputation. That's not to say that I haven't continued to work hard at every step along the way since then, but I earned those benefits.

 

[PHD12]

At no point have I been concerned about someone from Alliant, Argosy, etc. taking the positions I've applied to. I do have concerns about these students flooding the market, because if some psychologists are willing to work for little or no money, that brings down salaries for the rest of us.

This is my main concern as well. I am also very concerned with the unethical treatment of psychologists in training and early career psychologists. I am surprised that you are not more outraged about this, Racho.

Programs like Alliant/Argosy/JFK etc. created the CAPIC internship process (these 3 programs make up the board of directors at CAPIC), which leads many students to accept unpaid, unaccredited full-time internships and then postdoctoral fellowships with lifelong consequences. These programs do a disservice to their students by not even requiring a minimum stipend from sites/hospitals. I believe these unpaid/barely paid positions are unethical and are not good for our field as a whole. Unpaid postdocs are all taken by students from argosy, alliant, etc. who complete unaccredited internships, but they set a bad precedent in our field and bring down salaries for everyone else. What do you think happens to someone entering the job market after taking on an unpaid internship and then an unpaid postdoc while carrying 200K in debt?

 

[cara susanna]

I did just talk to an SDNer in private about this and this person pointed out that even if only 20% of FSPS students get APA-accredited internships, that's still a lot of people added to the system. So although we may not be competing with FSPS students at a huge level, it still hurts us non-FSPS students.

 

[JeyRo]

This is my main concern as well. I am also very concerned with the unethical treatment of psychologists in training and early career psychologists. I am surprised that you are not more outraged about this, Racho.

Programs like Alliant/Argosy/JFK etc. created the CAPIC internship process (these 3 programs make up the board of directors at CAPIC), which leads many students to accept unpaid, unaccredited full-time internships and then postdoctoral fellowships with lifelong consequences. These programs do a disservice to their students by not even requiring a minimum stipend from sites/hospitals. I believe these unpaid/barely paid positions are unethical and are not good for our field as a whole. Unpaid postdocs are all taken by students from argosy, alliant, etc. who complete unaccredited internships, but they set a bad precedent in our field and bring down salaries for everyone else. What do you think happens to someone entering the job market after taking on an unpaid internship and then an unpaid postdoc while carrying 200K in debt?

I'm not completely understanding the economic logic behind the idea that an argosy / alliant / jfk grad with an unaccredited internship under their belt can somehow bring down the salary of a graduate from a quality program with comprehensive APA accreditation and training. I mean, they can't even compete for entire caregories of psychologist employment (VA, DoD, et cetera). They essentially are only direct competition for midlevels for PP and community clinic jobs, assuming they can get licensed.

I do think there's something do be said for the bottom-tier FSPS programs (Argosy, Alliant et al) generally bringing down the reputation of our field because their grads are generally so woefully unprepared, but that's a separate argument.

 

[Ollie123]

I do think there's something do be said for the bottom-tier FSPS programs (Argosy, Alliant et al) generally bringing down the reputation of our field because their grads are generally so woefully unprepared, but that's a separate argument.

I do think the effects on income are somewhat indirect for salaried jobs. However, there is something to be said for a simple supply/demand analysis. If I'm an employer and I get 300 applications for a single opening because two local schools are putting out 120 students a year, I'm probably going to start wondering if I'm overpaying. This is particularly true if/when budgetary decisions are being made by HR or other individuals who cannot be expected to know the inner-workings of our field. Regardless of qualifications, more individuals competing for fewer jobs will almost always drive down compensation. With insurance companies looking to pay as little as possible (even at the expense of quality), you better believe that if they have tons of clinicians clamoring to get on their panel this is going to affect their future decisions about reimbursement rates. Even if people don't apply because they aren't eligible - this is likely an effort by employers to whittle down the number of applications on the front end.

That said, I'm not terribly concerned about the impact of these students on me personally. We definitely won't be competing for the same jobs given my interests. If I was planning a path focused exclusively on clinical work I would be much more upset.

 

[PHD12]

I'm not completely understanding the economic logic behind the idea that an argosy / alliant / jfk grad with an unaccredited internship under their belt can somehow bring down the salary of a graduate from a quality program with comprehensive APA accreditation and training. I mean, they can't even compete for entire caregories of psychologist employment (VA, DoD, et cetera). They essentially are only direct competition for midlevels for PP and community clinic jobs, assuming they can get licensed.
/QUOTE]

They indirectly affect the job market in our field as well as salaries. Let's say you are a hospital administrator in a difficult economic climate (basically what we are dealing with) and are faced with increased demand for MH services and your clinicians are overwhelmed. What are you going to do? Are you going to advocate for increased psychologist positions at 80K each or are you going to expand your unpaid postdoctoral program? If you are a hospital like UCSF and you get hundreds of applications each year for unpaid internships and postdoctoral fellowships, why would you hire more licensed psychologists? These positions are also unregulated so you can add more postdoc spots and even have the postdocs provide supervision to the interns (UCSF actually has a large full-time unpaid program like this for interns and postdocs, and even has the postdocs providing supervision).

Another example is frequently seen in PP. I am on a couple of listserves and I can't count the number of times whereby professional school graduates are willing to go down to $70 per session (this is in an expensive location) when someone asks for low cost therapists in the area. As a consumer, I am going to want to get the best deal so why would I pay $180 per session when I can pay less than half of that with someone who also has the Dr. title and is a licensed psychologist? I can't discern the difference when I look at their websites (especially since most hide where they went to school).

 

[cara susanna]

And remember that it even hurts those of us wanting to go into academia because it could lead to clinicians wanting to leave clinical jobs--adding up to more competition for academic ones.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm not completely understanding the economic logic behind the idea that an argosy / alliant / jfk grad with an unaccredited internship under their belt can somehow bring down the salary of a graduate from a quality program with comprehensive APA accreditation and training.

There are (at least) two issues here:
1. Increase supply, which drives down salaries at lower to middle tier jobs, which indirectly can impact top-tier jobs because the deflated salaries can be used for comparison of "the going rate." Insurance companies can also slash rates and still get enough people on their panels because of desperate PP clinicians who are trying to make a living on volume.

2. Lower the opinion of colleagues/other providers about our field because of poor interactions. For instance, the "research/stats are icky" crowd can reinforce the "soft" science view that some of our colleagues in STEM have about psychology.