AcronymAllergy, The neuropsychologist was already licensed. Some states, like the one I am in, for example, licenses psychologists. Anyone wanting to claim (advertise, etc) to be a psychologist (unless in an exempt setting-usually federal or state agency) even in experimental areas (say working in a private experimental physiology research lab) has to be licensed to call him/her self a psychologist. The material/evidence of training experiences submitted for licensure for experimental psychologists is different from that submitted for a clinical psychologist. Once it is conferred, the license does not stipulate the area of expertise. Someone with a degree in physiological psychology has the same license as a clinical psychologist. A year of conducting post doctoral research-say entailing surgery in rat brains-can easily look like the usual clinical internship. Likewise someone with a degree in animal learning-perhaps never having worked with humans at all-has the same license as a clinical psychologist. Once the person is licensed, they are expected to stay within their field of study but can extend their scope with appropriate training-but it is up to them to define what is appropriate. And when I say expected, I mean that the licensure board could care less what happens next. The key is that the licensed person is in charge of determining if they have the appropriate training. Lacking even one clinical class, this individual probably lacked perspective on what training entailed but also this person says he does what he wants and stops only if someone tells him to. Anyway, he arranged to do testing (under the supervision of a friend) during a sabbatical and nobody in his university monitored what that entailed. Likewise a later experience where he had funds to conduct research on something like "cognitive x,y,z". He was not in a training program to learn clinical skills but on his vita both these experiences show up as if they were formal training programs (post doctoral training at X institution-and X institution does have formal training program-he happened not be be in them). Strategically positioning "accredited clinical program" (something I called him on and has since been removed) next to where he got his degree (in an experimental field-even though he is correct that the university does offer a fine clinical program) made him look very qualified for consulting jobs in neuropsychology. To prevent him from accepting students interested in neuro but unable to get clinical training, a clinical program listed him as a member of the clinical area-with the caveat that he not supervise in the clinic. A few years later the caveat was forgotten. This kind of thing problem is what renders APA's evaluation of programs so absurd-in light of their ignoring the bigger problems of licensure. They micromanage whether or not a developmental class has enough life span material and ignore the fact that (in at least one state) someone with a degree requiring training in rat running can legally advertise themselves as a neuropsychologist a few years later. Naturally the circumstances surrounding the individual made such a scenario more or less likely. A newly minted female Assistant Professor would probably be called on (reported for ethics violations) the carpet for such deceptive conduct. In this particular program there are very few women.A male full professor, even when his conduct is known to be outrageous at times, tends to have much more support from male buddies on the faculty-all of whom are aware but unwilling to do anything but support him.I recall being astounded when he had one of his advisees consult with me about an MMPI that could not have been more straight forward but about which he was clueless.He was already supervising students in various placements! I don't think this situation is very unique. There are many states with similar licensure practices and many psychologists with similar ethics.
