Internship Match Results 2008

[Therapist4Chnge]

......I worry that hundreds of other PsyD students are leaving their programs with the same mindset. These graduates won't read, won't keep up with current research, and the field will suffer for it.

I am a Psy.D. student, and I too am concerned with students not staying in touch with the current research and understanding what the research and statistics means at a deep enough level. I don't differentiate between Ph.D., Psy.D, free-standing, University-based, etc.....my concern is in balanced training. I believe balanced training is needed for anyone who isn't going to be a strict academic (Ph.D. or Psy.D.). I looked at half Psy.D. and half Ph.D. programs, and I withdrew from consideration from those programs that didn't have a good balance in training.

Research informs our practice, so even the most clinically focused practitioner needs to be able to understand what the research says and means, because they need to incorporate that into practice. Empirically Based Treatment is where everything is headed, and people need to understand what research can be trusted, and which can't.....just because it is in a journal, doesn't mean it was a great or generalizable study. It is up to each student and professional to make sure they understand these things, but it is also the responsibility of the programs to make sure they provide the opportunity for their students to receive this training. So I don't care much where someone comes from, but they need to be appropriately trained and competent in the areas necessary to practice.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ollie123]

Any-who, it's funny, Ollie...I knew your post was from you without having read who it was from. Something about that "hmmm...I fail to see the reason that you exist" flavor to it. Hopefully you are going into research, not practice.

Peace,

A matched Argosy student

Not all of you, just certain ones.

That being said, it sounds like you've misread alot of what I've said, and your general thoughts about what we're doing and the time we're spending in lab pretty much confirms my views of your training.

Enjoy your degree from a school with embarassing standards. See? I can be sarcastic too. Tit for tat.

Seriously though, I don't begrudge you your decision to attend Argosy and some of the Argosy's certainly do seem to provide decent training. That doesn't mean I have to like the direction they are taking the profession as a whole and their repeated attempts to lower the bar. People's education is certainly what they make of it, but my problem is with certain schools that seem to continuously WANT lower standards for the profession so they can make more money, rather than an actual investment in what is best for the profession.

And I am going into research, though I obviously am being trained as a clinician as well. I don't treat clients the same way I treat colleagues. I think the fact that so many psychologists seem to tiptoe around and treat everyone as emotionally unstable is a big problem.

 

[psyched1inMN]

Your comment implies that clincial work is the only valuable part of psychology. I am a PsyD student and I rejected a program's offer because their students had no respect for research. Our field needs researchers to fund the knowledge clinicians use practice, teachers use to teach, etc. We need to know what works and what doesn't, how the mind processes information and a billion other things. I accepted an offer from a PsyD program that stresses the importance of research, requires an empirical dissertation, and trains students to follow literature with a critical eye.

I am offended by your comment and I worry that hundreds of other PsyD students are leaving their programs with the same mindset. These graduates won't read, won't keep up with current research, and the field will suffer for it.

What do doing research and using research have to do with each other?

I do not believe, in any way, that clinical work is the only valuable part of psychology. I could not do effective clinical work without the decades of research that has been done. My comments do not indicate that I don't understand research, can't be a good consumer of research, and don't respect research. I just don't need to spend 4 years doing research to be able to apply it effectively to my clinical practice.

You are right, we need to know about a billion things about what works and what doesn't, how the mind works, etc. and so running statistical analyses is not what I consider a valuable way to spend my time in grad school to become a clinician. I have been trained in the importance of research, to be a critical consumer of research, have used only peer-reviewed research in my studies, and have had at least enough experience doing research to understand the process, at least to the degree I think is necessary. There are only so many hours in the day, and I would much rather spend them learning through reading the research and working with clients than with dealing with SPSS. As I said before, I can't really compare my training to that of others, because I haven't gone through their training. Nor have you gone through my training program, which is evident by the assumptions you have made.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

What do doing research and using research have to do with each other?

I think we are generally talking about the same thing, so this is probably more of a clarification of what I was talking about.

I think research and statistics are best learned by doing (once the theory is established). I don't think a consumer of research needs to do it for 4-5 straight years and eat, breath, sleep it.....though I think a lot can be missed if the person's main interact with research is purely in the classroom.

By doing some direct research, a person can better understand how to analyze the research findings in a journal article, tease out strong and weak points within the research, and then use the research....and know why or why not to use it.

 

[Ollie123]

I think we are generally talking about the same thing, so this is probably more of a clarification of what I was talking about.

I think research and statistics are best learned by doing (once the theory is established). I don't think a consumer of research needs to do it for 4-5 straight years and eat, breath, sleep it.....though I think a lot can be missed if the person's main interact with research is purely in the classroom.

By doing some direct research, a person can better understand how to analyze the research findings in a journal article, tease out strong and weak points within the research, and then use the research....and know why or why not to use it.

Pretty much in complete agreement with you on this topic T4C.

I think of it in the same light I think of myself learning therapy. To some extent its a practical decision since I'll likely need to be able to supervise to be competitive for the job market. More importantly though, I want perspectives in both. We have big problems with the science/practice gap right now and I think a large part of that is due to people being unwilling to step outside what they "want" and do what may be helpful in the long term. My research interests are more along the biological/underlying process lines and I'm actually more likely to do pharmacological treatment research than intervention treatment research, but I still think its vital for me to get that trained as a therapist to help me learn what the other side of the coin is like, so to speak. Otherwise, the two areas are just going to become further disconnected over time, when they should be moving closer together.

Running stats in a classroom setting is not the same as running them on real data. Without running a study its hard to see all the nuances that play out that can make a study good or bad that may never be stated outright in a journal article (which is a huge problem in and of itself, but that's a story for another day). Obviously there is no need for a practitioner to be spending every waking moment in the lab, but just like I think its important for someone researching psychopathology to have experience giving therapy outside a classroom setting, I think its important for someone practicing to do "research activities" outside the classroom.

 

[Lunabin]

SunnyDee,

Your statement is very interesting and helpful. Although many people may disagree with your statement: "Well, I am proof in the pudding that those assumptions are absolutely FALSE."

...do you think too many of your peers are below par or do you disagree with this? If you think most of your fellow students are really top notch then what can be done to lift the overall rate of success for matches at these schools?

I too went to a prof. school, and agree that this statement "proof in the pudding" is merely anecdotal.

In my opinion, unfortunately, there are too many students from my school that were just not up to par for APA internships. Many did not do quantitative research (nor were they interested), and in applying for internship in their 3rd year did not have the clinical hours to really be competitive. I found that a few were just dumb as donkeys (to stay with the weird colloquialisms)!

On the other hand, there were many exceptions to this! I would say that the top 10-20% of each class were exceptional, very bright, motivated, and competitive for clinical sites.

It should also be noted that many students from these programs also do not want to leave the CA area, and therefore limit themselves in their applications - which we all know reduces ones chances of matching. Many students go to CAPIC sites instead and just skip APPIC altogether...

I am also an exception to the rule and matched my first year applying to internship (2006).

This of course means very little without the quantifiable evidence to further explain what's happening.

I personally feel my school is graduating too many students for the field - it's making it even more competitive at the training level, and I don't want the job market to become too saturated. We already have MSWs, LCSWs, and others to contend with...

I think they either need to raise the acceptance rates to internship (by making the Psyd 5 years, adding more stats, quantitative dissertation, and clinical requirements) or just admit fewer students (which will force them to be more selective).

Just my opinion...

 

[psychwanabe]

What do doing research and using research have to do with each other?

If you haven't done research, it is far more difficult to understand the good studies from the bad ones. If we don't know that difference, we can't be as good a consumer of the science.

I agree with T4C that we don't necessarily have to eat, sleep, and breathe research during our grad school years in order to be good psychologists. I do believe, however, that we as graduate students need the intensive training in the theory and in the practice of statistics and in research design and implementation

I do not believe, in any way, that clinical work is the only valuable part of psychology. I could not do effective clinical work without the decades of research that has been done. My comments do not indicate that I don't understand research, can't be a good consumer of research,and don't respect research. I just don't need to spend 4 years doing research to be able to apply it effectively to my clinical practice.

Actually, yes, I can think of another explanation to the lower match rates at professional schools...biased opionions of psyd students/schools that may or may not be based in reality. You know, like the opinions seen here. You know, the snobbery that just might surface in an effort to justify working in a lab for 80 hours a week for 4-5 years for someone else instead of learning how to treat patients.

Your comment does actually indicate that to me.

 

[parto123]

Psychology is a different breed than law or medicine. . .

Why makes you think this is the case? If someone only intends to be a clinician, why is research more important than research in other professions? Research is just as integral to medicine and law as it is to psychology. So why is it that one can be a superb doctor (even psychiatrist) or lawyer without really becoming too involved in research, but its not the case for clinical psychologist?

 

[Markro311]

How much do you think a Psy.D. student should "do research"?

I go to a (professional school) program which requires an empirical dissertation, I am currently on a community service practicum (we have a pre-doctoral practicum to gain more experience as well as get a better persepctive on how systems hold back certain populations) in which I'm doing both research (analyzing preliminary data and working on lit reviews for now - on how a certain branch of therapy/interviewing that has been solely used on substance abuse populations can be used in high schools for kids in ISS or failing multiple classes) and gaining clinical experience (one on one interviewing/counseling, about 3 sessions of 40 minutes a week), and I work in my school's library, which part of my job is to teach/help (mostly masters program students) the best ways to search for empirical articles. Most of my classes involve doing a major lit review or meta-analysis at some point during its course, and I'm also working outside of school a little bit (with my Aunt, an RN who's especially interested in research) on a possible research paper/poster presentation about patients' readiness to change in the medical setting (though obviously very applicable to the research done on such topics in mental health). Finally, I've also been doing mental health screenings the past month or so on the weekend to get assist in obtaining data for two students working on their dissertations at my program, so that's some applied research experience as well.

So with that, plus the fact that I worked in a lab for a year at a presitigous university, I feel pretty confident that I will be a good consumer of research, and perhaps have the slight possibility of at least doing a little bit of research at some point in my future career (I'm definitely not looking for a career in research, even a little bit, but I think that I'd at least have enough experience to be a part of a study). Besides the job in the library, mostly everyone else in my program has or will have around the same amount experience as I (although some will have more publications, as I'd guess I'll only end up with around 2 when I'm done, unless I really decide I want to pursue research more somehow). So really, when has a student (Psy.D. most likely) done enough research to qualify for you guys? Is it more than an empirical dissertation and learning how to become a good consumer?

 

[Ollie123]

How much do you think a Psy.D. student should "do research"?

I go to a (professional school) program which requires an empirical dissertation, I am currently on a community service practicum (we have a pre-doctoral practicum to gain more experience as well as get a better persepctive on how systems hold back certain populations) in which I'm doing both research (analyzing preliminary data and working on lit reviews for now - on how a certain branch of therapy/interviewing that has been solely used on substance abuse populations can be used in high schools for kids in ISS or failing multiple classes) and gaining clinical experience (one on one interviewing/counseling, about 3 sessions of 40 minutes a week), and I work in my school's library, which part of my job is to teach/help (mostly masters program students) the best ways to search for empirical articles. Most of my classes involve doing a major lit review or meta-analysis at some point during its course, and I'm also working outside of school a little bit (with my Aunt, an RN who's especially interested in research) on a possible research paper/poster presentation about patients' readiness to change in the medical setting (though obviously very applicable to the research done on such topics in mental health). Finally, I've also been doing mental health screenings the past month or so on the weekend to get assist in obtaining data for two students working on their dissertations at my program, so that's some applied research experience as well.

So with that, plus the fact that I worked in a lab for a year at a presitigous university, I feel pretty confident that I will be a good consumer of research, and perhaps have the slight possibility of at least doing a little bit of research at some point in my future career (I'm definitely not looking for a career in research, even a little bit, but I think that I'd at least have enough experience to be a part of a study). Besides the job in the library, mostly everyone else in my program has or will have around the same amount experience as I (although some will have more publications, as I'd guess I'll only end up with around 2 when I'm done, unless I really decide I want to pursue research more somehow). So really, when has a student (Psy.D. most likely) done enough research to qualify for you guys? Is it more than an empirical dissertation and learning how to become a good consumer?

That, to me at least, sounds quite reasonable and even above and beyond what I would necessarily expect of someone going into practice.

My concern is the people going on internship with zero presentations and zero publications. That to me shows a lack of interest, motivation and commitment to the field, and to the psychology community. Its an embarassingly large number and I'm really not even sure how its possible not to have gotten something incidentally during time in graduate school.

This is really my concern. I have no doubts that an otherwise motivated student CAN get a good education at "certain" schools, my concern is that those schools are letting through people who clearly are NOT motivated in the interest of profit.

 

[Markro311]

That, to me at least, sounds quite reasonable and even above and beyond what I would necessarily expect of someone going into practice.

My concern is the people going on internship with zero presentations and zero publications. That to me shows a lack of interest, motivation and commitment to the field, and to the psychology community. Its an embarassingly large number and I'm really not even sure how its possible not to have gotten something incidentally during time in graduate school.

This is really my concern. I have no doubts that an otherwise motivated student CAN get a good education at "certain" schools, my concern is that those schools are letting through people who clearly are NOT motivated in the interest of profit.

Well, in my program everyone does a poster presentation of their CSP (community service practicum) in August. And even though I understand it'd be nice to have everyone get their dissertation published in a peer-review journal, I don't think it's that sad if they don't have a publication because they wanted to learn how to conduct a study, not get a publication from it.

 

[parto123]

My concern is the people going on internship with zero presentations and zero publications. That to me shows a lack of interest, motivation and commitment to the field, and to the psychology community. Its an embarassingly large number and I'm really not even sure how its possible not to have gotten something incidentally during time in graduate school.
.

But why do you think this? From my above comment:

"If someone only intends to be a clinician, why is research more important than research in other professions? Research is just as integral to medicine and law as it is to psychology. So why is it that one can be a superb doctor (even psychiatrist) or lawyer without really becoming involved in research, but its not the case for clinical psychologist?"

 

[parto123]

It's not more important. But, the way the educational system has evolved in psychology is very different than law and medicine. There is no professional school equivalent in law or medicine pumping out significant percentages of those field's professionals. Further, while law probably represents a greater range of student quality than does medicince, it also has a greater range of application, meaning there are menial law jobs that can be filled, competently, by lower caliber professionals. Also, I think the state of undergraduate psychology necessitates stricter standards at the graduate school level. So, it is not that the PsyD is a bad idea, it is that the implementation is very poor.

Im not sure i understand the problem. Every profession has its share of crappy schools with crappy students. I dont, however, see stanford and harvard MBAs worrying that 90% of all mba programs are complete crap. Whats wrong with letting the market sort it out?

 

[psychanon]

Why makes you think this is the case? If someone only intends to be a clinician, why is research more important than research in other professions? Research is just as integral to medicine and law as it is to psychology. So why is it that one can be a superb doctor (even psychiatrist) or lawyer without really becoming too involved in research, but its not the case for clinical psychologist?

Here's the difference, as I see it.

Law is not an empirical profession. Papers published in law reviews are generally based on reasoning (using case law to support arguments) rather than empirical. Law review articles are neither blind reviewed nor peer reviewed. It's just not a discipline where research is central. Moreover, it's not a scientific discipline, so it's unclear if empirical research would even be that necessary.

Medicine is much more analogous, because of course medicine is an empirically-driven discipline. I do think that it is important for medical doctors to participate in research to some degree, if for no other reason than to enhance their understanding of published research. However, there is one critical difference between mainstream medicine and psychology, and that's that the science underlying medicine is far more established than the science underlying clinical psychology. Psychology as a science has only been around for about 100 years, and most rigorous psychological research has been conducted in the past 40 years. As we are a still evolving field, it is critical for practitioners to keep abreast of developments in research. This isn't to say that medicine isn't also evolving, just that psychology is at a substantially earlier stage.

 

[psychanon]

Im not sure i understand the problem. Every profession has its share of crappy schools with crappy students. I dont, however, see stanford and harvard MBAs worrying that 90% of all mba programs are complete crap. Whats wrong with letting the market sort it out?

Because elite businesses won't hire graduates of crappy MBA programs. In psychology, the person doing the "hiring" is often the consumer, i.e. the patient, who is typically not as well-informed about disparities in training.

I also think that there's an added responsibility to ensure quality in health-related disciplines. If you have poorly trained MBAs out there, the worst danger is that they won't make much money. If you have poorly trained psychologists, three is a risk to people's mental health.

 

[Ollie123]

Here's the difference, as I see it.

Law is not an empirical profession. Papers published in law reviews are generally based on reasoning (using case law to support arguments) rather than empirical. Law review articles are neither blind reviewed nor peer reviewed. It's just not a discipline where research is central. Moreover, it's not a scientific discipline, so it's unclear if empirical research would even be that necessary.

Medicine is much more analogous, because of course medicine is an empirically-driven discipline. I do think that it is important for medical doctors to participate in research to some degree, if for no other reason than to enhance their understanding of published research. However, there is one critical difference between mainstream medicine and psychology, and that's that the science underlying medicine is far more established than the science underlying clinical psychology. Psychology as a science has only been around for about 100 years, and most rigorous psychological research has been conducted in the past 40 years. As we are a still evolving field, it is critical for practitioners to keep abreast of developments in research. This isn't to say that medicine isn't also evolving, just that psychology is at a substantially earlier stage.

This is what I think, just better articulated

I also think one reason it matters less for law is that "research" in law is much closer to what they're typically doing anyways. You may not be publishing an opinion, but its basically just looking up old cases and coming up with interpretations, which is essentially the same thing one is doing when practicing law anyways.

I also DO think its important in medicine, and most of my friends in med school DO have pressure to publish so maybe we just know about different med schools? Obviously if someone is struggling just to get by its another matter, but to be the "optimal" student (and to be competitive for top residencies, even if those residencies primarily want to train clinicians) there is an expectation of some research involvement.

The reason I think its important to carry through to publication is just because learning and understanding the peer review process is really a whole different ballgame from doing a study and one that I think is also important to understand.

I also agree about there being a greater need for a sort of baseline standard for health professions moreso than business.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The reason I think its important to carry through to publication is just because learning and understanding the peer review process is really a whole different ballgame from doing a study and one that I think is also important to understand.

And it is a nice way to keep egos in check, as most everything submitted will be torn apart and given back for 'revisions'. I haven't first authored anything yet, but I'm not looking forward to having someone pick apart my work, as I happen to think I am pretty decent at what I do, and constructive criticism can sting sometimes. (See....ego in check part )

 

[parto123]

This is what I think, just better articulated

I also think one reason it matters less for law is that "research" in law is much closer to what they're typically doing anyways. You may not be publishing an opinion, but its basically just looking up old cases and coming up with interpretations, which is essentially the same thing one is doing when practicing law anyways.

I also DO think its important in medicine, and most of my friends in med school DO have pressure to publish so maybe we just know about different med schools? Obviously if someone is struggling just to get by its another matter, but to be the "optimal" student (and to be competitive for top residencies, even if those residencies primarily want to train clinicians) there is an expectation of some research involvement.

The reason I think its important to carry through to publication is just because learning and understanding the peer review process is really a whole different ballgame from doing a study and one that I think is also important to understand.

I also agree about there being a greater need for a sort of baseline standard for health professions moreso than business.

Most practicing doctors have almost nothing to do with publications and research.

Also, judging from the responses here, it seems that many of you feel that although psychology faces many of the same issues and possesses the same characteristics as most other professions (many bad schools with bad training, people not focused on research, not enough spots for graduates etc.), since psychology is so different from all other professions these routine issues create major problems for psychology, more so than they do for other professions.

Is it possible that this is just a case of ingroup bias? IN fact, most people believe that their respective professions have added importance and complexities over other professions.

 

[Ollie123]

Most practicing doctors have almost nothing to do with publications and research.

Also, judging from the responses here, it seems that many of you feel that although psychology faces many of the same issues and possesses the same characteristics as most other professions (many bad schools with bad training, people not focused on research, not enough spots for graduates etc.), since psychology is so different from all other professions these routine issues create major problems for psychology, more so than they do for other professions.

Is it possible that this is just a case of ingroup bias? IN fact, most people believe that their respective professions have added importance and complexities over other professions.

But did they in med school? Even if they didn't, are current med students doing so? Its a different question. I'm not saying all practitioners should be pumping out 5 papers a year on top of practicing, I'm saying grad school is a time for learning and people should venture outside their comfort zone and see both sides of the coin. Not a lot. I'm not saying everyone needs to go anywhere near as crazy with publishing as I do (and hopefully will continue to do). But I see it as a general unwillingness to 1) Be involved in the professional community on some level (just like the researcher who wants absolutely nothing to do with therapy and spends their time isolated in the ivory tower doing work that they might find "cool" but that has no application, and 2) Do work in general. Again, I'm not expecting a lot. And from what I have seen there absolutely is pressure for med students to publish. Those that do (regardless of career goals) are generally considered more competitive for residencies (again, even if their goal is not academia), and are generally considered to be taking strides towards becoming better doctors, again, independent of whether their goals are clinical or academic.

The problem isn't that psychology is so much more complicated - I reread everyones posts and I don't really get the impression that anyone has said so. My point has just been that it involves getting familiar with an important process that helps people to better understand WHERE the treatments they (should) be implementing are coming from, and that it sort of forces some science/practice community involvement, at least on the front-end, with everyone contributing on multiple levels as part of their training. Even if other professions don't do this (though it really does seem like medicine does), that doesn't mean they shouldn't be. Again, when it comes to healthcare I'm inclined to overshoot on training rather than undershoot.

Regarding the schools..I got my post edited last time I said something like this, but there's really no nice way to put it. This is not a matter of some bad schools and bad students. This is a matter of a few schools that accept, quite literally, just about anyone who is willing to throw some money their way. I'm sorry if people who attended those schools are offended by that statement, but that is just the truth, and it is disgusting for any profession (let alone a healthcare profession) and a problem that needs to be stamped out. Certainly not all, but MANY of those students are likely those who got used to not trying and doing the bare minimum to scrape by as undergraduates, and now a few schools have decided to allow that practice to continue in graduate school in the name of making money.

 

[Ollie123]

Double post

 

[parto123]

No. The difference is the trend of growth of educational models in psychology and the lack of established boards. We have serious limits in our ability as a field to control quality right now compared with medicine, for example. Look at the percentages of new grads and where they come from. Look at income decreases in psychology over the last decade. . . poor representation against masters level practitioners, etc. . .

Is there any evidence that master level psychologists or even social workers provide lower quality services than psychology phds? Or is this just a case of rent seeking behavior on the part of phds?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Is there any evidence that master level psychologists or even social workers provide lower quality services than psychology phds? Or is this just a case of rent seeking behavior on the part of phds?

MS. therapists have a much different knowledge base for training than doctorally trained psychologists, and this can effect the services each can provide, though the differences haven't yet been accurately researched. Unfortunately doctorally trained psychologists are getting pushed into supervising positions and making way for lower-cost alternatives. I think of it like the difference between PA's and MD/DO.....for a lot of things a PA is perfectly suited to treat the person, though in some instances the additional expertise of the MD/DO is needed.

 

[parto123]

Is there any evidence that nurses, nurse practitioners, physician's assistants, maybe even chiropractors, provide lower quality services than medical doctors, or is that just rent seeking behavior on the part of MDs/DOs?

I don’t know. But there really isn’t any need to find out because there is no constant complaining from MDs how nurses and PAs are undercutting them and stealing their business. In psychology, this is more of a reality, so if people/insurance companies etc. are shifting towards lower cost alternatives, I think the burden is on psychology phds to prove that there is a benefit to the added cost.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I don’t know. But there really isn’t any need to find out because there is no constant complaining from MDs how nurses and PAs are undercutting them and stealing their business. In psychology, this is more of a reality, so if people/insurance companies etc. are shifting towards lower cost alternatives, I think the burden is on psychology phds to prove that there is a benefit to the added cost.

I beg to differ. Go check out some of the other forums, as this topic comes up.

 

[parto123]

. . . though, it may be more of an issue for psychology than medicine (I don't know; it seems to be a pretty big deal in medicine too) because people seem more willing to see the distinction between an MD and a nurse than a psychologist and a social worker. Call it brand recognition. However, outcomes research of the nature necessary is exceedingly difficult. We are running an in vivo experiment with no controls, basically (we keep lowering the bar and see what happens). In psych, what little research there is relies on patient opinion. I'm sure we could find many patients who would extol the virtures of their holistic medicine man over an MD. People are stupid. Psychology is a relatively young field and has a weak, APA, as opposed to strong AMA, defending its borders. It is a problem that social workers and other masters level practitioners are out there as they are. The proliferation of these low cost providers along with our own professional schools are an insurance company's dream, a patient's detriment, and anyone who values an intelligent field's nightmare.

I really haven’t read any articles or seen much discussion about MDs being undercut by PAs or nurse practitioners, but if this is the case (and I have no reason to doubt you), then I would think MDs would need to demonstrate their added benefit over cheaper alternatives. Otherwise, there is no incentive for patients/clients to subsidize the cost of MDs additional school and training.

Also, I have previously seen your argument regarding how in psychology its harder to determine who is more competent and skilled than it is in other professions. Why would this be? Psychology, much like other service professions (medicine, law etc.) has people working for organizations, and those working solo. I agree that in none of these professions does the client have perfect information and in some instances would have little idea whether the professional is good or not, but for the most part, why wouldn’t we assume that the cream rises to the top and the untalented ones falter? Through client satisfaction, peer reputation, business success and word of mouth, it can usually be determined who is good and who isn’t. I mean, what good is it if the consumer has no way of telling that the product is effective.

 

[elite1]

It seems even that APPIC and APA are lamenting the too-large classes in professional schools:

http://gradpsych.apags.org/2008/03/balance.html

 

[cara susanna]

Do they really look at GRE scores while placing students in internships?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Do they really look at GRE scores while placing students in internships?

No, at least it isn't requested in the APPIC form, and it isn't listen on transcripts (at least I don't recall that it is on there).

 

[cara susanna]

Oh thank God, people had me worried. Thanks.

 

[psy86]

That professional schools are full of pretty women probably helps their perception in the medical community . . . at least on some dimensions.

Is there evidence that there is a higher percentage of women in professional schools than in university-affiliated grad programs? (Clearly, there's a gender imbalance in clinical psychology grad students in general-- more women than men. Is that imbalance more pronounced in professional programs?) Thanks.

 

[Cosmo75]

**On Soap Box**

I feel like there are a whole lot of stereotypes flying around in these discussions. And it's the same discussion over and over again. How many of those who are so strongly opinionated about the discrepancies between prof schools and traditional PhD programs have actually had the opportunity to see these "lesser" students in practice? Or even have the ability to look past the "oh....you go to that school" knee-jerk reaction, and actually get to know your future colleague before writing them off as being unworthy? It's like the Scarlet Letter around here. You go to a prof school, and you're automatically labeled as being a sucky psychologist. When we all know that there's a hell of a lot more to our training than what we learn in the classroom.

Not trying to start a brawl here. But I'm not really sure what such divisive opinions do for our collective good as a profession? I do agree there are too many students being admitted, and it's a huge problem. But to lump everyone into the same lesser category is simply unfair and short-sighted. And are we not trained to be non-judgmental of our clients? Something we cannot extend to each other apparently.

*off soap box*

 

[Ollie123]

**On Soap Box**

I feel like there are a whole lot of stereotypes flying around in these discussions. And it's the same discussion over and over again. How many of those who are so strongly opinionated about the discrepancies between prof schools and traditional PhD programs have actually had the opportunity to see these "lesser" students in practice? Or even have the ability to look past the "oh....you go to that school" knee-jerk reaction, and actually get to know your future colleague before writing them off as being unworthy? It's like the Scarlet Letter around here. You go to a prof school, and you're automatically labeled as being a sucky psychologist. When we all know that there's a hell of a lot more to our training than what we learn in the classroom.

Not trying to start a brawl here. But I'm not really sure what such divisive opinions do for our collective good as a profession? I do agree there are too many students being admitted, and it's a huge problem. But to lump everyone into the same lesser category is simply unfair and short-sighted. And are we not trained to be non-judgmental of our clients? Something we cannot extend to each other apparently.

*off soap box*

I actually don't get that impression at all from what's being said. I'm not sure anyone is automatically labeling people as a sucky psychologist. In fact, most of us have specified in the past (though not necessarily in every thread) that it is the schools that are the problem, not necessarily individuals. Certainly, great students graduate from some of these programs. I don't think even the strongest opposers of those schools would be so bold as to say no one who graduated from school X has ever been a good psychologist. For one because training isn't everything, and a good psychologist is one who is probably very capable of learning on their own.

The issue most people have is a supply/demand and a standards issue. I also have to say that as frustrating as you may find the division, I find it equally frustrating when people make reference to how we SHOULDN'T be divided. I'm sorry, but at some point someone has to stand up and say "No, this is unacceptable", even if it means upsetting others. Colleagues are not clients, and its a problem that many psychologists are tempted to treat everyone as such. I think the reason we are in this mess to begin with is because everyone was being "Non-judgmental" and no one at APA was willing to stand up and say we needed to make changes. This isn't a personal matter for me, its not like I wouldn't give someone the time of day because of where they graduated, nor would it stop me from standing alongside them on issues we agree upon. But I will NOT sit by and watch these schools continue to perpetuate low standards in the name of professional unity.

 

[Cosmo75]

Ollie, I think you're more reasonable and fair in your arguments. And I agree with many of your points in your posts. But I'm going to have to disagree with the idea that going after the school isn't going after the students. To say that prof schools have lowered standards by admitting everyone and anyone implies that at least some people who attend these schools are less qualified. The problem becomes that the good aren't differentiated from the bad, and are grouped under this prof school stereotype. That's what I have a problem with. And as you've said, good students can come out as good psychologists from these schools. I think that point gets lost, however, in the negatively charged language that takes over these discussions.

As for the APA being "non-judgmental" I think there's a better word to describe their actions I never meant that we shouldn't be judgmental of our field, and I agree that we need to say it's unacceptable. I'm actually for division in terms of specialization (but that's a whole other discussion). My reservation of judgment was meant for the students, and that they should at least be given the opportunity to show their individual level of training/skill before we decide to tear them apart

 

[Ollie123]

Ollie, I think you're more reasonable and fair in your arguments. And I agree with many of your points in your posts. But I'm going to have to disagree with the idea that going after the school isn't going after the students. To say that prof schools have lowered standards by admitting everyone and anyone implies that at least some people who attend these schools are less qualified. The problem becomes that the good aren't differentiated from the bad, and are grouped under this prof school stereotype. That's what I have a problem with. And as you've said, good students can come out as good psychologists from these schools. I think that point gets lost, however, in the negatively charged language that takes over these discussions.

Not sure I've ever been described as "reasonable" on this issue before! (See above for someone who clearly doesn't think I am). Glad someone thinks so though.

I'm really not sure what could be done about it though...people do say "Professional schools" in their posts, not "All students at professional schools". If people choose to personalize it, I say that's their choice, and short of us putting disclaimers in our signatures, I'm not sure how it could be avoided. Its unfortunate that some people get offended, but I don't think that's a reason to stop pressing this issue. I honestly don't think I've seen people on this board judging individuals entirely by their institutions (save for those who have made their incompetence clear ).

Jon - I'm with you on thinking this is a losing battle to some extent. Its one of the reasons I think its increasingly important for psychology to fuse with the medical world. In academia, it seems the difference between psychologist and medical scientist is growing ever smaller, and I'm not terribly worried about my future because I think there is plenty of room for the latter, but unless some drastic changes occur there will be some pretty serious problems that more "traditional" psychologists will have to deal with in the upcoming century. I'm not quite as pessimistic about how those problems will turn out But I DO think they need to be addressed quickly.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I would prefer we make a cut-point, say students entering school in Fall, 2008 will be eligible for licensure, board certifications, etc. . . and then just cut it off. Obviously, that's not going to happen.

That is my hope too, as there is too much variance from top to bottom. The top students aren't the problem, it is the lower 10-20 whatever percent.

Job postings often ask for LCSW or psychologist (as if these are equal degrees).

I've seen that....and it is definitely discouraging, as they are two very different trainings.

 

[Psychmeout]

**On Soap Box**

I feel like there are a whole lot of stereotypes flying around in these discussions. And it's the same discussion over and over again. How many of those who are so strongly opinionated about the discrepancies between prof schools and traditional PhD programs have actually had the opportunity to see these "lesser" students in practice? Or even have the ability to look past the "oh....you go to that school" knee-jerk reaction, and actually get to know your future colleague before writing them off as being unworthy? It's like the Scarlet Letter around here. You go to a prof school, and you're automatically labeled as being a sucky psychologist. When we all know that there's a hell of a lot more to our training than what we learn in the classroom.

Not trying to start a brawl here. But I'm not really sure what such divisive opinions do for our collective good as a profession? I do agree there are too many students being admitted, and it's a huge problem. But to lump everyone into the same lesser category is simply unfair and short-sighted. And are we not trained to be non-judgmental of our clients? Something we cannot extend to each other apparently.

*off soap box*

I agree. I thought this forum was about internship match. It is interesting how everytime this professional school vs. traditional school topic comes up...as long as everyone is bashing the professional schools, there is no redirection to the original topic of interest. However, let one person play devil's advocate against these stereotyped comments and then all of a sudden its "Let's put this back on topic." Do biases exist on this board........certainly.

 

[Psychmeout]

Actually, psychmeout, the edits usually go the other way. In fact, T4change took out a tangent recently in another thread which had some significant diatribes against professional schools (posted by me), to keep it on perceived topic. But, I agree, some topics do deviate to the professional school discussion (but for logical reasons. . . e.g., in this thread, the questions of is there a match problem, why is there a match problem, what should we do about it, lead to discussions about supply and demand, which leads to discussions about professional schools). In the time I've posted here, there has never been a moderator from a traditional school background. I don't have a problem with that, but the forum is not biased in favor of traditional schools.

Fair enough, I just remembered that a few of the comments I had made were redirected. And not that I am an advocate for professional schools, I agree that they are a for-profit business and that the amount of students that they let in should be stopped. However, I try to look at issues from different perspectives before I make a final judgment. It's easy to fall prey to the confirmation bias and only select information that is relevant to our stereotypes, or, what we have "heard" others say.

 

[psy86]

I think intellectual talent will stop coming to psychology and all advancement in mental health will come in the medical world. We already see these trends. Incomes are dropping. The field is becoming increasingly female.

Jon- it sounds like you see the increasing proportion of female psychologists as evidence of the field's intellectual decline. Is that right? Can you explain why?

 

[erg923]

No, I see professional schools as evidence of intellectual decline in the field. The women are a sign of financial decline.

huh?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think what he is saying is that there is still an earning disparage between men and women, and with more women going into the field, it may decrease the average salaries of the professionals. (Correct me if I'm wrong Jon).

 

[psy86]

Ah. I see. There is also a racial earnings gap in the United States. Would you say that the increase in non-white psychologists is a "sign of financial decline" of the profession?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It could also mean that men are actively pursuing other areas like medicine, business, and the hard sciences, so that offers an opportunity for more women to get into psychology.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Jon....I think you need to be hugged more.

The topic of more women (particularly minority women) coming into the field over the last 20 years is an interesting one. If someone wants to dig up some research and start a thread, it could be an interesting discussion.

 

[thewesternsky]

I'm not proposing an argument for why the ratio of women to men is increasing in psychology, but that's an interesting question too.

It's happening quite strongly in neuropsychology right now, which used to be (as recently as ten years ago) heavily male dominated (and one of the higher paying subspecialties. . .).

I think psychotherapy may be more appealing to women than men. I certainly have zero interest in doing it.

Hi Jon. While I respect you and agree with many of your views, I'm a little wary about what you're getting at here. Do you mean to imply that the influx of women into psychology is bad for the field? If so, is it any "worse" than the increasing numbers of female doctors and lawyers might be for those fields, for example?

 

[JockNerd]

I see Jon Snow's point, but I'd phrase it differently

Professions dominated by women face problems because the professions become "lower-status" by virtue of having more females. It would happen to any profession; fill medical schools with women students and the salary for doctors would drop. When women filled most primary care physician positions in the Soviet Union it wasn't a highly respected job. It has nothing to do with women's abilities and everything to do with our culture. Similarly, I don't think women negotiate poorly, but are less likely to try and less likely to get what they demand by virtue of being women in our culture. I don't think Jon is saying women are bad at psych, which seems to be where some people see that line of thought going.

 

[socialcog]

There are TOO MANY students graduating to fill a small number of internships every year, so people get stuck in limbo waiting.

This is an interesting situation that students bottleneck at this point in their education. What can you attribute this to? Does there need to be more interships sites? Fewer students? And out of curiosity, are students from funded programs resentful of students from non-funded programs for saturating the process?

I certainly do not with to upset anyone with my prior statement. I am not pursuing a clinical degree. I am just curious.

 

[Cosmo75]

What do the med schools do with the large #'s of incoming med students (over 100 per school it looks like) and relatively low # of fellowships. I was reading those boards and for example, 200 people are applying for 4 slots. People are also applying to upwards of 50 places because it's so competitive. Should med schools lower their incoming student sizes because of the disparity? I admit I haven't read much into this, just noticing a parallel. Of course I'll get chewed a new one for even implying prof schools are like med schools But at least in terms of numbers, similar incoming class sizes, similar small # of advanced training sites, and similar amount of student loan debt when you're done. Arguments about quality of students aside, what's the difference?

 

[JockNerd]

What do the med schools do with the large #'s of incoming med students (over 100 per school it looks like) and relatively low # of fellowships. I was reading those boards and for example, 200 people are applying for 4 slots. People are also applying to upwards of 50 places because it's so competitive. Should med schools lower their incoming student sizes because of the disparity? I admit I haven't read much into this, just noticing a parallel. Of course I'll get chewed a new one for even implying prof schools are like med schools But at least in terms of numbers, similar incoming class sizes, similar small # of advanced training sites, and similar amount of student loan debt when you're done. Arguments about quality of students aside, what's the difference?

Different occupations, different job market, different specialties, different requirements, different job demand, different earning potentials. A med student could drop twice what professional schools charge and make it back without serious difficulty. And there's not really a saturation of doctors, and certainly not of specialists.

 

[positivepsych]

They don't do the fellowship, or if we're talking specialties, they just do another less competitive residency. Yeah, there may only be a few derm spots, so they'll end up as another specialist instead. It's not like that in psychology. Most specialization is done post-doctorally and/or on-the-job.

 

[psych00]

Also I would consider that, if each student applies to an average of 50 spots then it would make sense a couple hundred students would be applying to 4 fellowships...I think. I'm not amazing at math but I think something similar was discussed elsewhere (on here or during interviews last year) about application numbers and incoming class sizes.