latest APA match rates

[Therapist4Chnge]

Here are the APPIC match #'s:

APPIC MATCH NEWS
---
2009 APPIC MATCH REPORT FROM THE APPIC BOARD OF DIRECTORS

February 23, 2009

We are pleased to report that 2,752 applicants were successfully matched to internship positions. A total of 45% of all applicants who obtained a position matched to their first choice internship program, approximately two-thirds (66%) received one of their top two choices, and nearly four-in-five (78%) received one of their top three choices.

A total of 846 applicants were not matched to an internship position, while 299 positions remained unfilled. This is the highest number of unmatched applicants to date, slightly exceeding the 842 unmatched applicants from the 2007 APPIC Match.

Compared to the 2008 APPIC Match, the number of registered applicants increased by 66 (1.8%) to a record 3,825 applicants, while the number of internship positions decreased by 7 (0.2%) to 3,051 positions. It should be noted that on September 30, 2008, initial 2009 Match registration figures showed an encouraging increase of 243 registered positions as compared to the same date in 2007. However, this increase was not sustained over time as the economic downturn worsened in the months leading up to Match Day, resulting in positions being removed from the Match due to a loss of (or uncertainty regarding) funding.

Here are the changes in numbers of applicants and positions as compared to the 2008 APPIC Match:

Applicants: Registered for the Match...........+66
Withdrew or did not submit ranks................-40
Matched.................................................+3
Unmatched...........................................+103

Positions: Offered in the Match....................-7
Filled......................................................+3
Unfilled...................................................-10

Following is a seven year comparison of the 2002 and 2009 Match statistics:

.............................2002.......2009.....7-YEAR CHANGE

Participating Sites:.....610.........666..........+56 ( +9%)
Positions Offered:....2,752......3,051.........+299 (+11%)
Positions Filled:...... 2,410......2,752.........+342 (+14%)
Positions Unfilled:.......342........299...........-43 (-13%)

Registered Applicants:...3,073...3,825...... +752 (+24%)
Withdrawn Applicants:..... 231.....227...........-4 ( -2%)
Matched Applicants:......2,410..2,752........+342 (+14%)
Unmatched Applicants:.... 432.....846........+414 (+96%)

INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS
===================

PARTICIPATION
-------------

Training Sites Participating in the Match 666
Programs Participating in the Match 1,146
Positions Offered in the Match 3,051

NOTE: A "training site" can offer more than one "program"
in the Match. Each "program" was identified in the
Match by a separate 6-digit code number.

MATCH RESULTS
-------------

Positions: Filled in the Match 2,752 (90%)
Remaining Unfilled 299 (10%)

Programs: Filled in the Match 984 (86%)
With Unfilled Positions 162 (14%)

NOTE: 39 programs at 35 sites submitted fewer ranks than the number of positions available. As a result, no ranks were submitted for 77 positions, which remained unfilled.

APA or CPA Accredited Positions:
Filled in the Match 2,242 (97%)
Remaining Unfilled 80 (3%)
Total 2,322

Non-Accredited Positions
Filled in the Match 510 (70%)
Remaining Unfilled 219 (30%)
Total 729

Non-accredited positions represented 73.2% of all unfilled positions.

RANKINGS
--------

Average Number of Applicants Ranked Per Position Offered for Each Program:

Programs Filling All Positions 8.4
Programs With Unfilled Positions 2.5
All Programs 7.5

Each Registered Applicant was Ranked by an Average of 5.3 Different Programs
APPLICANTS
==========

PARTICIPATION
-------------

Applicants Registered in the Match 3,825
Applicants Who Withdrew or Did Not Submit Ranks 227
Applicants Participating in the Match 3,598
(includes 42 individuals who participated in the Match as 21 "couples")


MATCH RESULTS
-------------

Applicants Matched 2,752 (76%)
Participating Applicants Not Matched 846 (24%)

Match Results by Rank Number on Applicant's List:
(percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding errors)

Rank Number of Applicants

1 1,233 (45%)
2 582 (21%)
3 342 (12%)
4 218 ( 8%)
5 137 ( 5%)
6 93 ( 3%)
7 63 ( 2%)
8 25 ( 1%)
9 24 ( 1%)
10 or higher 35 ( 1%)

Total 2,752 (100%)


RANKINGS
--------

Average Number of Rankings Submitted Per Applicant:

Matched Applicants 7.7
Unmatched Applicants 4.5
Overall 6.9

Each Position was Ranked by an Average of 8.2 Applicants

======================================================================
2009 APPIC MATCH REPORT #2: SUMMARY OF PROGRAM RANKINGS

February 23, 2009

The following report contains additional statistics on how successful programs were, on average, in matching with applicants.

There are several important issues that must be considered in attempting to analyze program success based on the rank numbers of matched applicants.

DEFINITIONAL PROBLEMS: Because each applicant submitted a single Rank Order List in order to match to a single position, it is easy to identify his or her "first choice," "second choice," etc. However, for an internship program, determining first or second choice applicants is a far more difficult and complex task. First, many programs attempt to fill several positions; if a program has three positions to fill, an applicant ranked third by that program can in effect be considered a "first choice" for purposes of the Match. Furthermore, a significant number of sites submitted multiple Rank Order Lists for a single program, sometimes ranking the same applicant on different Lists with different rank numbers. Also, the reversion of unfilled positions between lists adds a further complication to this analysis.

We worked closely with National Matching Services in an attempt to resolve these difficulties and to develop a reasonable method of presenting this data.

STANDARDIZED RANKINGS: For the purposes of this analysis, we converted each site's rankings to a "standardized rank." This is best explained by example: if the number of positions to be filled from a Rank Order List was three, then the first three applicants on this List were considered to be "first choice" applicants and given a standardized rank of 1. The next three applicants on that List were defined as "second choice" applicants and given a standardized rank of 2. And so on.

Match Results by Standardized Rank Number on Internship Program List (percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding errors)

Standardized Rank Number of Applicants Matched
1 1,021 (37%)
2 711 (26%)
3 506 (18%)
4 269 (10%)
5 116 ( 4%)
6 59 ( 2%)
7 33 ( 1%)
8 11 ( 0%)
9 5 ( 0%)
10 or higher 21 ( 1%)

Total 2,752 (100%)

To interpret this chart: of all positions that were filled in the Match, 37% were filled with "first choice" applicants (as defined above), 26% with "second choice" applicants, and so on.

Furthermore, 63% were filled with "first" or "second" choice applicants, while 81% were filled with "third choice" applicants or better.

Of course, comparing these numbers to applicants' Match statistics should be done with extreme caution, given the significantly different ways in how "first choice", "second choice", etc. were defined in each analysis.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[greensky]

I was told by one of my interviewers that the latest APA match rate stats came out last week. Does anyone know where I could get this info?

Thanks

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I was told by one of my interviewers that the latest APA match rate stats came out last week. Does anyone know where I could get this info?

Thanks

I copied my post from the Internship thread, though it went first in this thread because of chronological order.

 

[psychmama]

I'm curious about APPIC's stats concerning how many applicants get their top choices of ranked sites. While I know a number of applicants who got their 1st or 2nd choices, I know a dozen more who got like their 4th, 5th, 6th, or 7th ranked choice. In most of these cases, the person was applying in the NYC area.

I wonder if the APPIC stats are misleading for those of us applying in hyper-competitive areas of the country. What do others think about this?

 

[FranklinR]

I copied my post from the Internship thread, though it went first in this thread because of chronological order.

Thanks for this. I see they also have a pdf of match rates by school (albeit a few years old), but I would really like that in excel format (for nefarious sorting purposes). If I could get it in a straight HTML table I could import it, but I can't seem to manage even that. Anybody have match rates by school in a friendlier format than pdf?

 

[deleted176373]

The fact that you have a 1 in 4 chance of not matching is abysmal. Does anyone see that the system is BROKEN?

1. People are applying for internships they are not qualified for
a. bad mentorship advice?
b. insufficient training?

2. Sites are not accepting applicants that are qualified
a. Stigma associated with professional programs? (lowest match rates)
b. Inability to attract the right applicants? (299 unfilled slots)

3. Supply of applicants greatly exceeds the available slots. This is criminal.

Mark

 

[psychmama]

The fact that you have a 1 in 4 chance of not matching is abysmal. Does anyone see that the system is BROKEN?

1. People are applying for internships they are not qualified for
a. bad mentorship advice?
b. insufficient training?

2. Sites are not accepting applicants that are qualified
a. Stigma associated with professional programs? (lowest match rates)
b. Inability to attract the right applicants? (299 unfilled slots)

3. Supply of applicants greatly exceeds the available slots. This is criminal.

Mark

As someone who went through the process this year, all I can say is "yup". Although I matched, I still feel there's something terribly wrong with this system. Either create more accredited sites or limit the supply of applicants through more stringent admission to the prof schools. Or perhaps a bit of both.

 

[cara susanna]

I heard that they were considering a tiered system, with PhD students at the top and PsyD ones under them? I know that'd be huuugely controversial, but...

 

[cara susanna]

Sorry, I'm not sure--I heard about it at one of my interviews, but the people who told me didn't know that much about it, either.

 

[psychmama]

You know, Jon. I think your suggestions make a lot of sense. If APA accreditation of doctoral programs were more stringent, and were tied somehow to demonstrated success in getting its students matched, I think that would help a lot.

 

[JockNerd]

The fact that you have a 1 in 4 chance of not matching is abysmal.

I think this is a bit off. The odds really are not just plain 3/4 for everyone. Based on where you come from, the training you get, the preparation you do, and the fit for the sites you apply for, some people have a much higher chance of getting in than others, as I see it. Otherwise all programs would have a 75% match rate. Mine does far better than the average every year.

My ideas. . .

- require APA approved internships to graduate

- For a graduate school to be APA accredited, they must:
- reasonably expect to cause an average debt level for their students of < $50,000.
- place >80% of their students in APA accredited internship sites

We don't have too few internship slots. The problem is a student numbers/quality issue.

I'd say just shutdown the prof schools and you solve the problem, but I think it's more complicated than that now. Obviously, making them cost prohibitive hasn't done anything to demand. The numbers are now affecting quality of training at the internship level for prospective psychologists with greater numbers taking on non-APA approved internships. Further, students are faced with a quandary if they don't match of paying more tuition or going into loan repayment mode. Further, the influx of new psychologists is stifling the field. This situation isn't good for anyone except for the professional schools/businesses. Leaches sucking the blood out of psychology. . .

100% agree. The number of students who don't match and the saturation of the market are ethical issues for the profession that the APA is letting slide. At the very least, I can't see ANY reason to not make apa match rates part of accreditation. If a program doesn't care to make students competitive for apa-approved internship, they shouldn't care if their program itself is apa-approved.

 

[Cosmo75]

I understand the propensity to blame this all on the professional schools. Yes, the cohort sizes are out of hand. I'm all for capping them.

But if the student quality is so bad, why on Earth are these sub-par students from these programs edging out the superior PhD students for these coveted internship slots? Are the DCT's of the internships being fooled into ranking professional school PsyD's in their top slots? Conspiracy going on here? I don't get it. And if the non-APA/APPIC only internships aren't *really* what "traditional" students want, then who cares if the PsyD's take the majority of those? It seems that the top students from professional schools are competitive enough to beat out PhD students for APA-approved internship slots. What's the matter with that? Should we prevent them from matching so that less qualified PhD's can get their fair shake? Seems like that would degrade the field as well.

Seeing the other side of the internship process was enlightening. I got to meet a wide variety of PhD and PsyD students. There were people who stood out from both degree programs. And there were those that you just shook your head, again from both types of program. Everyone interviewed looked great on paper, and the differences were negligible in training experiences. It came down to personality and fit for the site to rank one person over the other.

This issue is not as dichotomous as PsyD vs. PhD or professional school vs. traditionally funded program. While it may be easier to resolve the anxiety this whole match problem is causing by blaming the professional schools, there's a lot more to it than that.

I suspect that this debate falls into the realm of politics and religion

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

My ideas. . .

- require APA approved internships to graduate

- For a graduate school to be APA accredited, they must:
- reasonably expect to cause an average debt level for their students of < $50,000.
- place >80% of their students in APA accredited internship sites


We don't have too few internship slots. The problem is a student numbers/quality issue.

I've pitched limiting incoming classes to the number of APA acredittd internship placements a program can make over a 3-4 span. If they can place 10, then they can keep their 10 spots. If they have 50 applicants, but only place 18, they "lose" the 32 spots. Programs can gain spots back incrementally.

 

[deleted176373]

But if the student quality is so bad, why on Earth are these sub-par students from these programs edging out the superior PhD students for these coveted internship slots?

Are the DCT's of the internships being fooled into ranking professional school PsyD's in their top slots?

Conspiracy going on here? I don't get it.

What are you basing that on? Those students attending university based programs are not having difficulty competing against the professional school students from what I have seen.

Mark

 

[Cosmo75]

It matters because more than half of our new professionals are coming from professional schools. And, those students are, as a whole, having more difficulty matching at APA approved internship sites.

I appreciate your concern for professional school students having difficulty getting APA approved slots. I guess the tone that these discussions often takes on never really implied this. Some of the people in my cohort were not very concerned about landing an APA slot because they are interested in careers that really don't require this, and the sites they went to were enough to prove to licensing boards an equivalent training experience. I personally only applied to APA-approved sites because I didn't fit this mentality. So perhaps part of the reason that prof school's match rates to non-APA sites is by choice of the students where to apply. Grant it these sites are often less competitive. But if they suit the student's training goals, then I don't see a problem really.

. . . and yes, I think we can pretty much blame professional schools for these problems.

The administration of the schools who seem hell-bent on expanding at incredible rates - yes. The students who opt to go to these programs and actually match to internships? No.

I agree with everyone's statements that the prof school classes are too large. But I take issue when statements are made like "shut them all down." I also take issue when it's implied, if not outwardly stated, that prof school students are of a lesser quality than other students simply based on the fact that they attend a professional school of psychology.

 

[Cosmo75]

What are you basing that on? Those students attending university based programs are not having difficulty competing against the professional school students from what I have seen.

Mark

The match statistics. I'm guess I'm going out on a limb when I interpret some of the rhetoric on these threads as "professional students are taking spots that should go to PhDs. If there weren't so many professional school students, then I as PhD student wouldn't have to worry about matching." Please let me know if this is incorrect.

Personal experience as well. Yes yes, personal experience isn't an accurate reflection of the whole story. But this professional school student beat out a mostly PhD applicant pool for a slot that only 1 person could get. I guess I'm an anomaly? I don't consider myself to be that arrogant to assume that I am the only one who accomplished this.

I also saw how my site ranked PhDs and PsyDs (many from prof schools). Some prof school students were ranked competitively above PhD applicants.

 

[Cosmo75]

I can agree with a lot of that JS. I suppose this stigma will be something I'll have to deal with, partially due to the behavior of my program since my enrollment in terms of increasing cohort sizes 200% over when I applied. They certainly haven't done much to counter-act the already in place negative attitude toward the PsyD that some people still have. Believe it or not, the school I attended was a better fit for me than the other PhD program I was accepted to. I took out the minimum in student loans so my debt isn't as astronomical as others, but it's certainly higher than your $50K cut-off. I'd love to see that happen

 

[numbereight]

the more i listen to JS' perspective the more I agree with parts of it and disagree with other parts of it. generally speaking, professional schools lower the bar and are responsible for an influx of psychologists with lower academic standards. Assuming a normal distribution of student "quality", however, there is considerable overlap between university and professional school programs. Thus, we should always be careful how we generalize, because every student is their own case.

University based programs are generally research driven. Applicants to these programs are judged on their ability to conduct research. Research is only one aspect of being a psychologist. The ability to conduct research has little to do with one's ability as a clinician. Applicants to PhD programs are actually judged on skills that are not reflective of their abilities as a clinician.

One can not systematically state that university PhD students have greater potential as psychologists than professional school students. As my advisor says: "if you're a great scientist, everyone knows. but you can be the best clinician in the world and no one but your patients will know about it". University programs assess research potential, not potential as a psychologist.

in sum, i'm not sure what i think about your solution(s). it has merits and it also reflects a bias against a certain type of student. i'm not sure that the professional school student is worthy of your bias. practically speaking, i am not sure that the university PhD student is a better psychologist than the professional school Psy D. any data would be appreciated.

 

[Grif]

- For a graduate school to be APA accredited, they must:
- reasonably expect to cause an average debt level for their students of < $50,000.
- place >80% of their students in APA accredited internship sites


We don't have too few internship slots. The problem is a student numbers/quality issue.

I agree with the above wholeheartedly! I don't agree with your idea that APA internships should be a requirement, because that puts less pressure on the schools and more on the student.

I am sick and tired of so many schools obviously trying to suck up the max amount of guaranteed student loans. I had to stop looking one time because it was sooo obvious and it cheesed me off so bad: "$18'900 per year, plus books and fees" "$19'000" "$20'500 including books" -- at that point I just walked away.

My thing about the whole prof school vs. uni thing: even if the school isn't that great, the student might be awesome.

 

[Mindchange]

I go to a well established university-based PhD program that consistently matches almost all (>90%) of its students to APA accredited APPIC internships. The faculty and students weigh research and clinical/personality factors equally in the admissions process. We are training scientist-practitioners, not just scientists. I have worked among students from professional schools in my psychiatric hospital practicum, and I have learned that there is a strong correlation between quality of clinical skills and the quality of their program. Professional schools tend to create subpar clinicians. Of course, some of these students will stand out as exceptional, just like some PhD students are incompetent. It's just that you are much more likely to find someone in a PhD program that has a good combination of clinical potential AND intelligence to inform their work. If a PsyD program wants to be as respected as its PhD counterpart, it needs to have the same admission standards (GPA, GRE), only with the intention of creating competent practitioners. As most of these programs have lower standards in terms of admission criteria, they are inviting less capable people into their training program. I would bank on the likelihood of the average PhD student having better clinical skills (plus research skills) over the average PsyD student anyday. Of course, this is just in general. There will always be some great people from every program.

 

[Grif]

I would bank on the likelihood of the average PhD student having better clinical skills (plus research skills) over the average PsyD student anyday. Of course, this is just in general. There will always be some great people from every program.

I disagree. If your program is teaching you evaluation and treatment (well!), then you should be better at it than most graduates of a program that emphasized research over counseling.

Also, there are some PsyD programs that are very competitive. To have any shot at, say, Rutgers' PsyD you have to have excellent GRE scores. I'm hoping that GPA and clinical experience are weighed in the same basket, as I won't break the 3.4 mark without a post-bac or 2nd bac (but I'll have 3 years clinical volunteering exp). I'd like to think that I'd be let in over someone with a 3.7 and zero clinical -- but of course that's not going to be the case. Researchers will always have the upper-hand in admissions, whether they ever plan to come within 5 feet of a client or not.

 

[deleted176373]

I disagree. If your program is teaching you evaluation and treatment (well!), then you should be better at it than most graduates of a program that emphasized research over counseling.

Also, there are some PsyD programs that are very competitive. To have any shot at, say, Rutgers' PsyD you have to have excellent GRE scores.

Look, Rutgers and Baylor are the EXCEPTION in the Psy.D. world. I would contend that you have Funded and Unfunded as a better split. Someone above made a great point, why is it that professional schools are often suspect in the students that they put into the market place?

Admission standards. We all know that it is far easier to get admitted to a professional program than it is to a fully funded clinical Ph.D. The reality is that Baylor and Rutgers students are more likely to have the respect of their colleagues than those graduating from Fielding or Argosy (and I've met some very bright people who have gone to Argosy.) Because they can rightfully assume that, on average, the quality of student they start with is of higher quality.

Is it fair? No. It's not. Just as a graduate of University of Michigan, Minnesota, or Yale is likely to have and advantage over me because they were admitted and attended what is percieved to be a better program. If the quality of the program didn't matter, we wouldn't compete for placements.

Just as there are differences between Psy.D. programs, there are differences in Ph.D. programs as well. To assume that Psy.D's are automatically not research oriented or that Ph.D's will have weaker clinical skills is making a dangerous assumption. The interaction of the student with their training program will invariably generate differences between students regarding clinical and research strength, and some programs will foster the development of these skills differentially as well. Sweeping generalizations while convienent for categorizing can be problematic when it comes to evaluating real world data. This is what humans do, they categorize, arrange things in heirarchies, and attempt to reduce data to meaningful chunks we can digest. It's a flaw, but a functional one.

Mark

 

[numbereight]

I have learned that there is a strong correlation between quality of clinical skills and the quality of their program. Professional schools tend to create subpar clinicians.

Please expand on this if you don't mind.

Thanks,
#8

 

[Orbitofrontal]

I'm interested in knowing more about the latest match rates. While the discussions here are interesting, ultimately I'm really wanting info on how programs did on internship matching.

Also, it seems to be a recurring theme throughout almost ALL of these threads from a couple of individuals that professional schools = bad and should be shut down. I understand that this is an opinion felt strongly by a couple of people (although I know it's not representative of everyone here). To address this, and to add relevant information to this thread, I'm happy to share that the PGSP-Stanford Consortium matched 86% (APA/APPIC) this year.

Anyone else have good news to share about your program(s)? Congrats to all the 4th years who survived!

 

[GiantSteps]

I say let the NCAA College Basketball Tournament directors take charge of the matching. This years seedings are almost flawless!

 

[Orbitofrontal]

Jon, thank you as usual for your concern about all of our financial statuses. I'm doing fine in that domain, it doesn't result in sleepless nights, and I have multiple funding sources (which I am happy to continue sharing with anyone who would like to message me privately).

Once again, back to the real topic here. As for the APA matching in particular, 89% of the 86% matched APA. As for the APPIC matched people, I think it's up to them to say whether it's a "standard" or whether they're happy with that given what their goals might be. APA is great to reach for, and it will be my objective, but ultimately it is the students who decide whether they are happy with APPIC matching.

Maybe I am missing something about the national match rates - are the rates quoted on the APPIC site and here on this thread APA only, APA+APPIC, or everything all together?

 

[HEM0305]

I would contend that you have Funded and Unfunded as a better split. Mark

I think that's the real issue with the professional schools vs uni-based schools. The PsyD is supposed to model after the MD or JD. The problem with most professional schools is that in order to complete the PsyD program, you have the debt size equivalent to a small house (or a large house depending on the area you live) before you even begin to look for a job. Add to that that your internship match rate at your program is not 100% - and if that were me, I would be furious. At least at uni-based funded programs, you won't have a mortgage-sized debt when you don't get matched (at usually that percentage is lower than for the professional schools).

Also, MDs and JDs make way more money than any PhD or PsyD will (at least in the beginning). For those who have these large debt burdens, what are your plans to pay them off? I have always wondered what the answer to this question was - also didn't want to have to answer it, thus, professional schools were never an option (aside from questions of quality for some of them).

 

[TenaciousGirl]

I don't disagree with this. Can't generalize epidemiological data to an individual. Hence, my congratulating the efforts of Cosmo in the past.



They're judged on more than just research ability. In general, I think any university, psyD, phD, etc. . . is judging based on academic accomplishment/potential. There is some nod to personality (interviews), but these are schools. That's kind of the gig.


One can, perhaps, systematically state that university PhD students have greater academic potential than professional school students. One may also be able to systematically state that there are differences to many aspects of the education process, once in school, that may contribute to potential accomplishments as a psychologist. However, you are correct in that it is not a clear relationship between academic skill/intelligence and quality as a clinician. I argue though, that we are a scientific discipline. I'd rather have more intelligent science minded clinicians than not.

This is absurd. University PhD students have greater academic potential than prof. school students? Why does everyone put SO MUCH emphasis on university based programs vs. prof. school programs? How can you possibly assume that you're a better student than someone who chose prof. school over a university? Look, when all is said and done a license is a license, a degree is a degree. You may think that because you got your PhD from a "name brand" institution that you're better than someone who got their PhD from a lesser branded school but check that paper on your wall- It's the same degree. And as far as training, research, and academia goes ... some people like research and some people don't. Some people like the clinical setting and others don't. Let the people who want to spend their life doing research do their thing and let the people who want to work with patients do their thing. A lot of health professions have this kind of separation somewhere along the line and it DOESN'T MEAN that anyone is better than anyone else. Geez.

 

[Ollie123]

I think Jon was basing it off the numbers. We can argue about whether applications really capture pure academic potential, but it would be pretty tough to argue that prof school don't have lower admissions standards, and that many people who get in would not be competitive for university programs, whereas for the most part, the opposite does not hold true. It might not be pretty, but its reality.

That of course, does not even speak to every professional school versus university comparison, let alone every professional school student versus university student. Jon has acknowledged that before though, I don't think he has any illusions that his statements apply across the board, despite the fact that many people choose to interpret them that way. Its the classic public health issue...huge groups don't generalize to every individual within them, but it doesn't mean you don't bother with macro level changes.

I also think the fact that you dichotomize research and clinicians is part of the problem. We should be focusing on integrating them, not further separating them.

 

[Neuropsych2be]

This is absurd. University PhD students have greater academic potential than prof. school students? Why does everyone put SO MUCH emphasis on university based programs vs. prof. school programs? How can you possibly assume that you're a better student than someone who chose prof. school over a university? Look, when all is said and done a license is a license, a degree is a degree. You may think that because you got your PhD from a "name brand" institution that you're better than someone who got their PhD from a lesser branded school but check that paper on your wall- It's the same degree. And as far as training, research, and academia goes ... some people like research and some people don't. Some people like the clinical setting and others don't. Let the people who want to spend their life doing research do their thing and let the people who want to work with patients do their thing. A lot of health professions have this kind of separation somewhere along the line and it DOESN'T MEAN that anyone is better than anyone else. Geez.

I am the first to say a degree is a degree is a degree for most forms of employment. However, employment in academe is a special case. Academe is highly elitist, competitive and incestuous. People in academic departments know their colleagues in their respective subfields and the students they are training or have trained. It's an inbred world where name brands sadly means something. It is also a world where students of a very well known researcher such as Seligman or Drew Westen have a leg up simply because they worked with the man. Its also true that academic departments allow students to begin the all important process of networking with faculty at other institutions by attending conferences, publishing in an interest area and doing collaborative work. Given the intense competition for every academic job opening, it's this networking factor and name recognition of one's school and graduate adviser that gives students in traditional academic settings a real advantage in academic employment.

However, the realities of academic employment ensure that few Ph.D.'s in clinical psychology will ever get a tenure track position at a major research institution. Just run the numbers and compare the number of annual faculty openings with the number of students graduating each year from clincal-scientist oriented programs such as Emory or Vanderbilt... not to mention all the other scientist-practitioner programs. Furthermore,as faculty retire, universities are filling tenure track faculty positions with adjunct instructors who are far cheaper and expendable. So in academic work, there is a probably a functional impediment in place but probably does not have any real meaning in terms of one's employment prospects outside of the shrinking world of the tenure track professoriate.

 

[JockNerd]

A few things about this post:

I am the first to say a degree is a degree is a degree for most forms of employment. However, employment in academe is a special case.

I agree...

Academe is highly elitist, competitive and incestuous. People in academic departments know their colleagues in their respective subfields and the students they are training or have trained. It's an inbred world where name brands sadly means something. It is also a world where students of a very well known researcher such as Seligman or Drew Westen have a leg up simply because they worked with the man.

I think this is half true. I think it matters that someone when to Big Name U and studied under prof bigwig. It's also true that going to Big Name U and studying under prof bigwig probably means that they were involved in sme cool research and probably got lots of it published and maybe be on some grants. Someone with no qualifications for an academic position is not going to get that position just because they know someone big in the field; departments have too many stakeholders who don't care about that to let it happen.

Its also true that academic departments allow students to begin the all important process of networking with faculty at other institutions by attending conferences, publishing in an interest area and doing collaborative work. Given the intense competition for every academic job opening, it's this networking factor and name recognition of one's school and graduate adviser that gives students in traditional academic settings a real advantage in academic employment.

Students at smaller schools can't introduce themselves to people? Can't present cool stuff?

However, the realities of academic employment ensure that few Ph.D.'s in clinical psychology will ever get a tenure track position at a major research institution. Just run the numbers and compare the number of annual faculty openings with the number of students graduating each year from clincal-scientist oriented programs....

This is again revisiting the old and misinformed idea that everyone who goes to a PhD program wants to be a researcher. Most people with pscyh PhDs become clinicians, by choice.

As for the post by Tenacious... I think that Ollie said it all pretty well.