Non-APA Accredited Clinical Programs

[Jake0006]

So, I'm a bit confused that Fielding has been referenced as not good because it's online (actually a hybrid program), and that only APA accredited is okay, but Fielding actually is APA accredited.... so is it thought to be okay?
Or perhaps some say yea, some say nay on the issue?
~Jake

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

1. All non-APA acred. should be avoided if you want to be a clinician. Licensure is difficult to impossible, depending on the program and/or state. There may be an exception or two (e.g. legitimate university-based program needing to graduate a class to secure APA status), but those are rare.

2. Not all APA-acred programs are worthwhile. APA acred. should be viewed as the minimum standard. There are at least a dozen APA acred. programs that are not advisable; Fielding is often viewed as one of those programs.

3. ALL online psych programs should be avoided. They are viewed as inferior by the vast majority of the field. Walden, Capella, University of the Rockies, U of Phoenix, etc...all fall into this category.

 

[GoPokes]

So, I'm a bit confused that Fielding has been referenced as not good because it's online (actually a hybrid program), and that only APA accredited is okay, but Fielding actually is APA accredited.... so is it thought to be okay?
Or perhaps some say yea, some say nay on the issue?
~Jake

Jake,

Think of APA accreditation as a bare minimum standard a program should meet. It is far from setting the bar.

One factor that makes Fielding glaringly "not okay" is their poor match rate for students receiving APA-accredited internships. Looking at their website, their rates have ranged from 12% to 40ish%. Not being able to match to internship will cause you to stay in school longer and accrue more debt. Not matching to an APA-accredited internship site will severely limit your career and ability to obtain licensure.

 

[erg923]

So, I'm a bit confused that Fielding has been referenced as not good because it's online (actually a hybrid program).

Yes, that would be part of it, as would this:
https://www.appic.org/Portals/0/downloads/APPIC_Match_Rates_2011-14_by_Univ.pdf

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.asppb.net/resource/resmgr/EPPP_/2012_ASPPB_Exam_Scores_by_Do.pdf

 

[Jake0006]

GoPokes and erg923, thanks for your input on the matter... this has been informative...

Erg923, I see in this document that Capella has a match rate of 67% (which has steadily risen, year by year since 2011), as does Fielding (which appears to be declining), whereas Walden's is very low (yikes!).... But regarding Fielding and Capella, they seem to fare better than a good number of "brick and mortar" schools on getting matches of APA internships for their students.
This would suggest that I would be better served to go to University of Colorado in any of their locations, UC Boulder, UC Fort Collins, UC Denver, or Denver U, as most of these programs have 100% match rates, depending on the program.

Am I assimilating all of this correctly? Do I need to have 80% or better, or almost 100%? Suggestions?

 

[erg923]

GoPokes and erg923, thanks for your input on the matter... this has been informative...

Erg923, I see in this document that Capella has a match rate of 67% (which has steadily risen, year by year since 2011), as does Fielding (which appears to be declining), whereas Walden's is very low (yikes!).... But regarding Fielding and Capella, they seem to fare better than a good number of "brick and mortar" schools on getting matches of APA internships for their students.
This would suggest that I would be better served to go to University of Colorado in any of their locations, UC Boulder, UC Fort Collins, UC Denver, or Denver U, as most of these programs have 100% match rates, depending on the program.

Am I assimilating all of this correctly? Do I need to have 80% or better, or almost 100%? Suggestions?

Match rate is one thing. The APA accredited internship match rate is another. There is no way Capella is placing 67% of students in APA accredited internships, so i would check that again yourself. If your internship is not APA accredited, you are also very limited in your early career, and beyond as well.

If a program consistently has match rates below 80% its likely their is a substantial programmatic (training, reputation, etc) problem.

Your postings suggest you are not geographically flexible. This is a problem.

 

[MCParent]

But regarding Fielding and Capella, they seem to fare better than a good number of "brick and mortar" schools on getting matches of APA internships for their students.

Being better than the absolute worst of the lot isn't really something to invest in.

This would suggest that I would be better served to go to University of Colorado in any of their locations, UC Boulder, UC Fort Collins, UC Denver, or Denver U, as most of these programs have 100% match rates, depending on the program.

This is a way better plan.

 

[PsyDr]

Did anyone ever figure out what this (probably mythical) school is?

Well since San Diego seems to have a 100% pass rate (which falls in the staying classy range), followed by Berkeley at 95%... Maybe Hogwarts?

Program is a bitch though. Bunch of weird admissions requirements, insane grading rubrics, weird material requirements, etc. One student died! And don't even get me started on the weird racism there.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

They are at least pet friendly!

 

[smalltownpsych]

GoPokes and erg923, thanks for your input on the matter... this has been informative...

Erg923, I see in this document that Capella has a match rate of 67% (which has steadily risen, year by year since 2011), as does Fielding (which appears to be declining), whereas Walden's is very low (yikes!).... But regarding Fielding and Capella, they seem to fare better than a good number of "brick and mortar" schools on getting matches of APA internships for their students.
This would suggest that I would be better served to go to University of Colorado in any of their locations, UC Boulder, UC Fort Collins, UC Denver, or Denver U, as most of these programs have 100% match rates, depending on the program.

Am I assimilating all of this correctly? Do I need to have 80% or better, or almost 100%? Suggestions?

I don't know what you are seeing, but what I saw was Capella with an overall match of 36% and an APA-accredited match of 11% this is based on 2011-2014 stats.
Just for comparison, my own over-priced doctoral program had an overall match rate of about 80% and an accredited match rate of almost 90% If you are going to pay a lot of money, you can make a much better choice.

 

[temppsych123]

Keep in mind that match rates can fluctuate a lot year to year, particularly for PhD programs (where the number of students applying in any given year is going to be lower than a lot of PsyD programs). So, if a program generally has good match rates with 5-10ish people applying per year, but then one year looks awful because 2 of 5 didn't match, I wouldn't be nearly as worried about that as I would be about a larger program consistently failing to match 20% or greater applicants.

Also keep in mind that a lot of the professional schools are going to charge you a ton of money to get your degree, versus PhD programs where you're often funded on a TAship or fellowship. The idea of taking almost as long to get a degree, spending $100k+ more on your degree, and then having worse chances at matching to an internship or being able to get licensure? Not exactly a great plan. I, personally, recommend to friends/students who ask my opinion that, if you want to do 100% clinical work, get a master's level degree (in counseling psych, social work, marriage and family therapy, etc.) from a decent program and then make sure you stay current on continuing education requirements, etc. rather than go the PsyD route. Cheaper, takes less time, gets you to a similar spot. Yes, you won't be able to charge as much in private practice down the line, but I don't know how many of us go into psychology to make the big bucks...

 

[temppsych123]

RE: specific programs:

Fielding's stats in the document Erg923 posted above are pretty awful. In 2014, they had 31 applicants apply for the match, and only 8 of them matched to an accredited internship (26%).

For Capella, they had 6 people enter the match in 2014, and only one matched to an accredited site (17%). Yes, low number to consider, but even in 2012, when they had 18 applicants, only 1 matched to an accredited site (6%)!

RE: general numbers:

You can find the 2015 Match stats (aggregated) here: http://www.appic.org/Match/MatchStatistics/MatchStatistics2015Combined.aspx

3148 applicants from accredited clinical programs applied, with 2707 matching (86%) at all.
273 applicants from non-accredited clinical programs applied, with 159 matching (58%) at all.

Of the 227 non-accredited applicants (all types of programs) who did match, only 72 matched to an accredited internship (32%).

Even if you assume that all of those 72 were part of the 159 matched clinical psych applicants, and that none of those 72 were from counseling, school, or combined programs (unlikely), that means that of the 273 clinical, non-accredited applicants, max of 72 matched to accredited internships, or 26% of those who applied. If we assume that the 72 were distributed evenly across the different types of programs, that would put roughly 50 clinical psych non-accredited applicants in accredited internships, or 18%. Not great odds.

Contrast that with accredited applicants. Of the 3342 (combined across program types) who matched, 2644 matched to an accredited placement (79%). If we assume those are all clinical psych applicants, that'd be an overall match rate for accredited internships at 84%. If we assume those accredited spots are distributed across the types of programs based on their representation in the total accredited pool, you'd be looking at about 2142 accredited clinical students matching to accredited internships, or a 68% accredited match rate.

 

[Anthropopsychophile]

There's been a lot of talk about APA-accredited programs that are a little suspect, but very little has been discussed about clinical psych programs that are non-APA accredited. How disadvantaged are students who apply to those programs if they eventually want to be liscensed or want to get a job after getting a PhD? Do they have problems getting APA accredited internships? It seems that there are a few experimental psychopathology programs (i.e. Harvard) or developmental clinical programs (Bryn Mawr) that give you an option of a clinical track that matches liscensing requirements, but the programs themselves aren't APA-accredited. So what's the good/bad of being in one of these programs?

The bad of being in these programs is that if you're not in the APA good ole boy club and pledge your eternal loyalty, than they will blackball you and lock you out of gainful employment.

The good thing about going to an APA school is that they have give you the privilege of contributing to their coffers both through the association and through the educational monopoly that they hold at various institutions. Not to say that you wont possibly get a quality education (and you may well not) but you very well be limited to the views and the accepted treatment modality of the school.

No ifs , and, or buts.

 

[WisNeuro]

If you want to push some anti-APA/accreditation agenda, just start a new thread, do not necrobump any thread that ever discussed accreditation.

 

[psych.meout]

The bad of being in these programs is that if you're not in the APA good ole boy club and pledge your eternal loyalty, than they will blackball you and lock you out of gainful employment.

Are you serious?

No one is "blackballing" you. You made the conscious decision to attend an unaccredited program. You chose a program that could not even adhere to the low bar that is APA-accreditation. Whatever your reasons were, you made these decisions and you have to live with the consequences. Other people made different decisions, often deferring gratification so that they could attend programs that are not only APA-accredited, but also have high internship match rates at APA-accredited sites, are fully funded, significantly contribute to peer-reviewed published research, provide quality clinical training, and have other stellar career outcomes.

The good thing about going to an APA school is that they have give you the privilege of contributing to their coffers both through the association and through the educational monopoly that they hold at various institutions.

And you have the privilege of contributing to the coffers of unaccredited programs with cold, hard legal tender.

Not to say that you wont possibly get a quality education (and you may well not)

Sure, it's possible to not receive a good education from an accredited program (e.g. programs at any FSPS), which is why you'll see posters here talk about how APA-accreditation is a low bar and other criteria should be considered to further delineate good programs from inferior/bad ones. This is why so many advise against ever even considering unaccredited programs, if they can't meet this low bar, why would they be able to meet more stringent criteria?

but you very well be limited to the views and the accepted treatment modality of the school.

No ifs , and, or buts.

And what "limited" views and modalities are those? Evidence-based practices backed by the most current empirical data and research?

There are lots of reasons to criticize the APA, from suborning torture by the US government, to not representing psychologists as zealously as the AMA represents physicians, to accrediting too many programs that do not have sufficient quantitative outcomes, but screening out the lowest of the low programs and their students that can't meet the currently meager standards of accreditation is not really one of them.

 

[smalltownpsych]

The bad of being in these programs is that if you're not in the APA good ole boy club and pledge your eternal loyalty, than they will blackball you and lock you out of gainful employment.

The good thing about going to an APA school is that they have give you the privilege of contributing to their coffers both through the association and through the educational monopoly that they hold at various institutions. Not to say that you wont possibly get a quality education (and you may well not) but you very well be limited to the views and the accepted treatment modality of the school.

No ifs , and, or buts.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The bad of being in these programs is that if you're not in the APA good ole boy club and pledge your eternal loyalty, than they will blackball you and lock you out of gainful employment.

APA acred was established to set a minimum level of training standards; it isn't some elitist standard. It is meant to protect the public by establishing a set of core standards.

 

[WisNeuro]

APA acred was established to set a minimum level of training standards; it isn't some elitist standard. It is meant to protect the public by establishing a set of core standards.

 

[LoLo8]

That is what they want you to think. I have been in clinical practice, on staff at every hospital I have requested privileges for, on every insurance panel I have wanted to be on, and without any limitations with a NON-APA accredited degree. I have said this a million times, but will do so again because people need real information, not APA propaganda; If you can get licensed in your state you are on equal footing with anyone with the same license. I have never once had anyone question my degree.............

Hi
I came upon this forum as I am diligently researching how completing a non APA accredited university will impact my processional and career goals. From my research, I would be able to obtain license as a clinical psychologist in the state of CO under the implication the program meets "APA equivalency." I am really wanted feedback from those working in the field as a licensed clinical psychologist if non APA accreditation has hindered their ability to work and or income level. Any feedback is greatly appreciated!

 

[LoLo8]

GoPokes and erg923, thanks for your input on the matter... this has been informative...

Erg923, I see in this document that Capella has a match rate of 67% (which has steadily risen, year by year since 2011), as does Fielding (which appears to be declining), whereas Walden's is very low (yikes!).... But regarding Fielding and Capella, they seem to fare better than a good number of "brick and mortar" schools on getting matches of APA internships for their students.
This would suggest that I would be better served to go to University of Colorado in any of their locations, UC Boulder, UC Fort Collins, UC Denver, or Denver U, as most of these programs have 100% match rates, depending on the program.

Am I assimilating all of this correctly? Do I need to have 80% or better, or almost 100%? Suggestions?

HI
I found this forum as I am currently enrolled and in my first course at Capella for the PsyD. I did my due diligence and did a lot fo research )for what I knew to do) to see if the program qualified as the "APA equivalent" and received verification form a staff member at DORA that they have approved the Capella PsyD program for licensure. As I go through more research about internship and practicum I am second guessing myself and wondering if I would be better suited to apply for a more traditional program in Colorado. My decision to pursue Capella over a transition program was the mainly the impact on my young family. I am 40 with 15 years experience in the field of ABA as a BCBA and want to take the next step in my career. I found Capella to be the path of least resistance in obtaining my end goal to become licensed but do not wan to impede my career options by not having attended an APA accredited university. I am intently seeking feedback and would love to stay involved in this conversation and welcome any feedback.

 

[boomshakalaka]

To summarize what has been discussed ad nauseam:

Don't do it.
You will have problems getting licensed.
You will make less money, if any.
You won't match for an internship.
You won't be taken seriously.
Should you go through a program like Capella, the negative impact on your young family will greatly exceed whatever initial concerns you had about attending a traditional program.

 

[Justanothergrad]

HI
I found this forum as I am currently enrolled and in my first course at Capella for the PsyD. I did my due diligence and did a lot fo research )for what I knew to do) to see if the program qualified as the "APA equivalent" and received verification form a staff member at DORA that they have approved the Capella PsyD program for licensure. As I go through more research about internship and practicum I am second guessing myself and wondering if I would be better suited to apply for a more traditional program in Colorado. My decision to pursue Capella over a transition program was the mainly the impact on my young family. I am 40 with 15 years experience in the field of ABA as a BCBA and want to take the next step in my career. I found Capella to be the path of least resistance in obtaining my end goal to become licensed but do not wan to impede my career options by not having attended an APA accredited university. I am intently seeking feedback and would love to stay involved in this conversation and welcome any feedback.

I found writing "this is money" on paper with green crayon to be the easiest method to make money. Store didn't take it. The bank didn't take it either. Methods of least resistance are often that way for a reason. There are 1000 threads on here and the advice is always the same.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I am really wanted feedback from those working in the field as a licensed clinical psychologist if non APA accreditation has hindered their ability to work and or income level. Any feedback is greatly appreciated!

There are changes coming from APPIC, as they are restricting access to their internships to APA-acres only programs. I forget the start date, but it is soon/close. This change could impact how states view applicant eligibility, no one knows yet bc it hasn’t happened....yet.

Getting through internship is only the first hurdle because you’ll also need post-doc hours. Then and securing licensure is next, and that is far from a given. Assuming a clinician gets through all of that, then you need to beat out many applicants for a job.

Many hospitals and university systems would not even consider an app from a non-APA grad bc their liability insurer would balk and/or the review board would reject the person bc of training requirements. Insurance panels may also reject your application to join a panel bc of their own education requirements.

Colorado was on my short-list of places I looked to practice, so I did quite a bit of digging into DORA and the metro areas awhile back.

Colorado is *very* competitive for mid-level therapists and clinicians....let alone psychologists. Many locals won’t relocate and many transplants won’t want to leave. I looked primarily within the UC hospital system and university, and while they recruited nationally, smaller hospitals and free-standing places had a clear preference to onlyvrecruit locally.

There are also VERY loose laws about who can be a therapist...as licensure isn’t required to “practice” in many fringe areas...basically you can be “registered” with the state and offer Moon Beam Therapy and not get in trouble as long as your “client” knows you are not licensed.

There are currently NINE APA-accredited programs in Colorado (from APA website):
Colorado State (PhD)
UC- Boulder (PhD)
UD...Psych Dept (PhD)
UD...Education Dept (?)
UD...GSPP (PsyD)
U of Northern CO (School Psych)
U of Northern CO (Counseling)
UC- Colorado Springs (PhD)
UC- Denver (PhD)

The metro areas all seemed to have plenty of providers back when I looked, so unless you want to live in the boondocks....you will be competing against plenty of ppl with excellent training and from programs with far better reputations than Capella. Online degrees are not viewed positively in the field.

While the competition probably isn't as bad as NYC/CHI/SD/SF...it would likely be quite steep if you want to practice in any CO metro area.

 

[erg923]

I found Capella to be the path of least resistance in obtaining my end goal

Not the attitude I would want my graduate student/practicum student/intern/post-doc to have.

 

[StellaB]

I believe the new APPIC restriction of internships to students from APA-accredited programs went into effect this past cycle, at least for Phase 1, but I could be wrong about that.

 

[LadyHalcyon]

I believe the new APPIC restriction of internships to students from APA-accredited programs went into effect this past cycle, at least for Phase 1, but I could be wrong about that.

I'm pretty sure you are correct

Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile

 

[deleted343839]

I found Capella to be the path of least resistance in obtaining my end goal to become licensed but do not wan to impede my career options by not having attended an APA accredited university. I am intently seeking feedback and would love to stay involved in this conversation and welcome any feedback.

It will most certainly impede your career options. Unless you just want to continue practicing as a BCBA and have the "doctor" title. You'd do better to think of this as a career change than a "next step" in your existing career.

My decision to pursue Capella over a transition program was the mainly the impact on my young family.

As a psychologist with a young family I can appreciate the various responsibilities you must be trying to balance. And yet you can't cut corners on your professional training. Your experience as a BCBA, though helpful, is not a substitute for what you would be learning in a traditional clinical psychology program.

I'm not really sure what you mean by a "transition" program.

 

[LoLo8]

1. All non-APA acred. should be avoided if you want to be a clinician. Licensure is difficult to impossible, depending on the program and/or state. There may be an exception or two (e.g. legitimate university-based program needing to graduate a class to secure APA status), but those are rare.

2. Not all APA-acred programs are worthwhile. APA acred. should be viewed as the minimum standard. There are at least a dozen APA acred. programs that are not advisable; Fielding is often viewed as one of those programs.

3. ALL online psych programs should be avoided. They are viewed as inferior by the vast majority of the field. Walden, Capella, University of the Rockies, U of Phoenix, etc...all fall into this category.

thank you for constructive feedback!

 

[LoLo8]

Keep in mind that match rates can fluctuate a lot year to year, particularly for PhD programs (where the number of students applying in any given year is going to be lower than a lot of PsyD programs). So, if a program generally has good match rates with 5-10ish people applying per year, but then one year looks awful because 2 of 5 didn't match, I wouldn't be nearly as worried about that as I would be about a larger program consistently failing to match 20% or greater applicants.

Also keep in mind that a lot of the professional schools are going to charge you a ton of money to get your degree, versus PhD programs where you're often funded on a TAship or fellowship. The idea of taking almost as long to get a degree, spending $100k+ more on your degree, and then having worse chances at matching to an internship or being able to get licensure? Not exactly a great plan. I, personally, recommend to friends/students who ask my opinion that, if you want to do 100% clinical work, get a master's level degree (in counseling psych, social work, marriage and family therapy, etc.) from a decent program and then make sure you stay current on continuing education requirements, etc. rather than go the PsyD route. Cheaper, takes less time, gets you to a similar spot. Yes, you won't be able to charge as much in private practice down the line, but I don't know how many of us go into psychology to make the big bucks...

I appreciate the feedback and after some of the snarky comments it is very nice to have real constructive perspectives. I have really done a lot of research and my homework on this- DU is close to 45K per year which is a HUGE amount for APA accreditation option. I do see many of the negative views and pitfalls of a non APA accredited but regionally accredited university like Capella, but it also does qualify for licensure requirements, in some states. I agree it is a lot of unknowns when considering this as an option and I appreciate the feedback form professionals in the field. Thank you!

 

[LoLo8]

Not the attitude I would want my graduate student/practicum student/intern/post-doc to have.

Agreed and I did not select the best choice of words on that. What I meant was I have been practicing in the field as a BCBA and have over 15 years of experience in ABA, I have a young family and am an older "non Traditional" student whose life cannot be solely dedicated to school. If I was 28 again and single I would 100% devout 100% to my educational experience but that is not my current reality. My "least resistance" meant how can I seek the education I am wanting and have the least impact on the little humans that need a mom. This is a huge decision and I am seeking knowledge and asking questions. While I appreciate the range of feedback from this site, I didn't expected to be judged so harshly for trying to get information to assist in making a decision.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

There are certainly folks who've completed doctoral degrees with young children; from what I've seen, they've fairly consistently indicated that it was a lot of work, but particularly with outside support (e.g., spouse, family), it was at least possible. However, if there are additional limitations (e.g., inability to relocate; inability to physically attend classes, meetings, etc. on a regular basis; need to continue working while enrolled), it might mean that doctoral study isn't realistic right now.

Given the state of the field, I'd never recommend that someone attend an unaccredited program. As has been said, in the near future it will preclude you from participation in the APPIC match, which will make finding an internship and becoming license-eligible substantially more difficult, and will make your application for jobs much less competitive. The graduate program itself is also much more likely to be viewed negatively by prospective employers, and without the assurance of accreditation, is theoretically more likely to provide training of variable quality.

I can certainly understand wanting to thoroughly explore all possibilities. I just wouldn't view attending an unaccredited program as a viable option.

 

[WisNeuro]

I can assure you with 100% certainty that my healthcare system, which is the largest in my metro area, will not hire people from this program in psychologist roles.

 

[wtfook]

Agreed and I did not select the best choice of words on that. What I meant was I have been practicing in the field as a BCBA and have over 15 years of experience in ABA, I have a young family and am an older "non Traditional" student whose life cannot be solely dedicated to school. If I was 28 again and single I would 100% devout 100% to my educational experience but that is not my current reality. My "least resistance" meant how can I seek the education I am wanting and have the least impact on the little humans that need a mom. This is a huge decision and I am seeking knowledge and asking questions. While I appreciate the range of feedback from this site, I didn't expected to be judged so harshly for trying to get information to assist in making a decision.

What IS your end goal exactly?

 

[MCParent]

Agreed and I did not select the best choice of words on that. What I meant was I have been practicing in the field as a BCBA and have over 15 years of experience in ABA, I have a young family and am an older "non Traditional" student whose life cannot be solely dedicated to school. If I was 28 again and single I would 100% devout 100% to my educational experience but that is not my current reality. My "least resistance" meant how can I seek the education I am wanting and have the least impact on the little humans that need a mom. This is a huge decision and I am seeking knowledge and asking questions. While I appreciate the range of feedback from this site, I didn't expected to be judged so harshly for trying to get information to assist in making a decision.

Disagreeing with you and telling you why your plan is mistaken is not "judging you harshly."

 

[psychgirl72]

HI
I found this forum as I am currently enrolled and in my first course at Capella for the PsyD. I did my due diligence and did a lot fo research )for what I knew to do) to see if the program qualified as the "APA equivalent" and received verification form a staff member at DORA that they have approved the Capella PsyD program for licensure. As I go through more research about internship and practicum I am second guessing myself and wondering if I would be better suited to apply for a more traditional program in Colorado. My decision to pursue Capella over a transition program was the mainly the impact on my young family. I am 40 with 15 years experience in the field of ABA as a BCBA and want to take the next step in my career. I found Capella to be the path of least resistance in obtaining my end goal to become licensed but do not wan to impede my career options by not having attended an APA accredited university. I am intently seeking feedback and would love to stay involved in this conversation and welcome any feedback.

 

[psychgirl72]

Hi there! I am going to guess you made a decision and are not checking back in but I am curious as to what you decided? I have been following this thread trying to make similiar decisions and in a similiar situation. I am 45 with 20 years of experience with a masters degree and fully licensed in both mental health and substance abuse. I am more interested in teaching and research but think it is foolish to spend the money on a PHD program without the ability of clinical licensure of the psyD. I did my masters degree in much the similiar way except it was distance learning. There was a lot of similiar talk...but in Wisconsin what matters for licensure...is that the program (graduate/masters program) be CACREP accredited. When checking out the licensing standards in Wisconsin for psychologists...the standard is regional accredition and in reviewing...that is met at Capella. I never ever had an issue with anyone caring about my education for my masters degree (I did SNHU and it was awesome). I have been offered every job I have applied for and in the world of mental health...what matters is that you are billable. Clinics need to know you can do the work and licensure is the "vehicle" that demonstrates that. I guess if I want to do research and teaching than I am probably hurting myself because of the non-APA affiliation...but clinical work...not an issue!

Here is the thing....With 15 years of clinical experience I don't think the education is all that detrimental as you and I both know (I think ) that nothing makes up for field experience. My graduate program was great...but I did not get any real technical benefit from it that made me soooo much more amazing in the field. I don't think I would have gotten more in a brick and mortar school either. I recognize this is somewhat a different scope...but my guess is...not that far off.

I hope to hear what you decided because I am considering applying to UW-Madison even though the distance from home is about 2.5 hours as well and a whole lot less expensive...but I like the convenience of online.

 

[WisNeuro]

So, yes. If you want to limit yourself to some select states, and within those states, select employers. This can kind of work. Yay for limited choices!

 

[psychgirl72]

So, yes. If you want to limit yourself to some select states, and within those states, select employers. This can kind of work. Yay for limited choices!

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Lack of APA accreditation can significantly limit employment potential for psychologists outside of private practice (e.g., VAs and many hospital systems require it). It also tends to make licensure more difficult, even if a non-accredited program meets eligibility criteria.

As for field work and its relationship to education, my suggestion would be to remember that the field work occurred in a different professional context. It can be helpful for aspects of care, but I would disagree that it substitutes for disparities in education, such as between accredited vs. non-accredited programs. It's somewhat similar to saying that because someone worked as a nurse for 15 years, their medical school doesn't really need to be accredited or brick-and-mortar.

 

[psychgirl72]

Was this directed at me? Clearly this was a discussion about an individual who has a family and is looking to find a way to do what she is passionate about. People have various circumstances with different barriers. Those barriers are logistical and not based on aptitude, passion, and ability. If you are an individual who wants to do clinical work than the clinical standards identified by typically your state licensure agency is the standard as far as licensing goes. Good clinicians continue to train and specialize in their field outside of the "school experience". Every training I did on Motivational Interviewing, EMDR, and DBT I did out of pocket to be clinically skilled in best practices and continue to do so.

She asked for individuals working in the field and the experiences people had pursuing education in a non-traditional way. That is what I did, while raising my family, without having to tear up my family to do so. Further, I never had an issue finding an internship, I had multiple options. Its misleading to say this. I know in this moment, locally, the number of agencies who would be beating down my door to have someone do psychologically testing supervised by their psychologist. Its like saying..."Do you want "free" testing services for your very significant need that you can't fill because their is a shortage of clinicians?"

I am by no means limited or a "shoddy least resistance clinician" because I didn't go the traditional route. This seems to upset many of you. Which is interesting because I thought this was a site for encouragement. I agree with the original poster....some of the posts are terribly snarky and elitist.

Lack of APA accreditation can significantly limit employment potential for psychologists outside of private practice (e.g., VAs and many hospital systems require it). It also tends to make licensure more difficult, even if a non-accredited program meets eligibility criteria.

As for field work and its relationship to education, my suggestion would be to remember that the field work occurred in a different professional context. It can be helpful for aspects of care, but I would disagree that it substitutes for disparities in education, such as between accredited vs. non-accredited programs. It's somewhat similar to saying that because someone worked as a nurse for 15 years, their medical school doesn't really need to be accredited or brick-and-mortar.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I am by no means limited or a "shoddy least resistance clinician" because I didn't go the traditional route. This seems to upset many of you. Which is interesting because I thought this was a site for encouragement. I agree with the original poster....some of the posts are terribly snarky and elitist.

The standards within the field have been established by the APA. They set APA-acred to be the minimum standard required to be a competent psychologist. States have licensing boards to set policy and procedures in an effort to protect the public, though they look to professional orgs and boards to help shape standards and scope of practice.

Unfortunately along the way for-profit schools and others with vested interests came along and carved out an alternative path. This path wasn’t build on science and data, but instead by lobbyists and money. So...I/we aren’t being snarky or elitist at all. We are pushing for at least the MINIMUM standard of APA-acred.

 

[psychgirl72]

The standards within the field have been established by the APA. They set APA-acred to be the minimum standard required to be a competent psychologist. States have licensing boards to set policy and procedures in an effort to protect the public, though they look to professional orgs and boards to help shape standards and scope of practice.

Unfortunately along the way for-profit schools and others with vested interests came along and carved out an alternative path. This path wasn’t build on science and data, but instead by lobbyists and money. So...I/we aren’t being snarky or elitist at all. We are pushing for at least the MINIMUM standard of APA-acred.

Thank You for your reflection.

 

[deleted343839]

I am more interested in teaching and research but think it is foolish to spend the money on a PHD program without the ability of clinical licensure of the psyD.

Are you saying that you think that a PhD program won't lead to licensure, but a PsyD will? Because that would be false.

There was a lot of similiar talk...but in Wisconsin what matters for licensure...is that the program (graduate/masters program) be CACREP accredited.

Licensure for counseling, you mean. CACREP is irrelevant to professional psychology.

 

[WisNeuro]

Are you saying that you think that a PhD program won't lead to licensure, but a PsyD will? Because that would be false.

Licensure for counseling, you mean. CACREP is irrelevant to professional psychology.

How dare you bring facts into this!

 

[Justanothergrad]

1. This board isnt intended as a blank check for encouragement. It's for providing factual information AND offering realistic encouragement.

2. Disliking the information does not make it wrong or the poster snarky.

3. License boards dont set standards of training. They guide professional-public contacts for a state based on field established standards. This is why states are more similar than they are different and why they use the APA ethics code (as examples). This is also why states emphasize APA accreditation as the standard when getting licensed. They serve to monitor the practice of a field as the field is defined professionally.

4. No one is "upset" at you or anyone else for their training choices. This is an internet forum and your life choices / opinions dont impact me personally. If I (or others) were upset by this sort of thing i/they would need some introspection.

5. The training outcomes and knowledge of the field is poorer in for-profit schools. This is why we dislike them. They're "more convenient " but the probability of strong outcomes is substantially less. Worse outcomes in training means worse client care and that is a professional issue - which is why we dislike them.

 

[foreverbull]

I think it's a fair question to want to know where folks from unaccredited programs ended up.
However, you'll also hear from many others who advise against it because it is simply a lower standard of training that many folks believe weakens our field as a whole, so a lot of people in here feel strongly about it and want to warn against it. Sometimes it does sound elitist depending on how it's worded, but the intention behind it is protecting our field's reputation and the public from bad practice while protecting students from poor quality programs. There are just so many things that can go wrong when a program doesn't meet a baseline training requirement. For every student we can steer away from these programs, the less money they'll make and lower enrollment, which hopefully eventually could lead to them shutting down or changing to meet basic standards in our field.

In my undergrad research methods class, a woman chatted with me at the beginning of the course, saying she'd already been preliminarily accepted to an online graduate program (this was her last semester before graduation). Later in the class, it became obvious that she wasn't doing well in the class, doing her project without following required IRB protocol, and when she presented her research to the class, didn't do the right statistical test and her research was much more basic than her classmates. From this and other experiences in class, it was clear that she lacked a basic understanding of the entire course content at the undergraduate level, yet here this person was potentially going to go on at the graduate level and be responsible for understanding much more nuanced learning. It honestly terrified me that she could end up getting into a graduate program when it was clear that she lacked the abilities needed for graduate work. Not everyone should be a therapist or psychologist just because they want to; they have to have the skills, abilities, and be willing to make sacrifices to reach their goals. I don't know what ended up happening to her, but it's a reminder to me of why we have standards in place, including APA accreditation.

That's just one anecdote, but it concerns me that there are programs out there that may accept folks who shouldn't be practicing at all. That's not to say that intelligent, driven students can't be good practitioners after attending an unaccredited program, but it's very risky, and if standards are too low, the majority of folks in those programs would come out ill-prepared. In my opinion, that's very risky, but of course that's your choice to make. Just thought I'd throw my two cents in.

 

[Mindfulpsych22]

I think it's a fair question to want to know where folks from unaccredited programs ended up.
However, you'll also hear from many others who advise against it because it is simply a lower standard of training that many folks believe weakens our field as a whole, so a lot of people in here feel strongly about it and want to warn against it. Sometimes it does sound elitist depending on how it's worded, but the intention behind it is protecting our field's reputation and the public from bad practice while protecting students from poor quality programs. There are just so many things that can go wrong when a program doesn't meet a baseline training requirement. For every student we can steer away from these programs, the less money they'll make and lower enrollment, which hopefully eventually could lead to them shutting down or changing to meet basic standards in our field.

In my undergrad research methods class, a woman chatted with me at the beginning of the course, saying she'd already been preliminarily accepted to an online graduate program (this was her last semester before graduation). Later in the class, it became obvious that she wasn't doing well in the class, doing her project without following required IRB protocol, and when she presented her research to the class, didn't do the right statistical test and her research was much more basic than her classmates. From this and other experiences in class, it was clear that she lacked a basic understanding of the entire course content at the undergraduate level, yet here this person was potentially going to go on at the graduate level and be responsible for understanding much more nuanced learning. It honestly terrified me that she could end up getting into a graduate program when it was clear that she lacked the abilities needed for graduate work. Not everyone should be a therapist or psychologist just because they want to; they have to have the skills, abilities, and be willing to make sacrifices to reach their goals. I don't know what ended up happening to her, but it's a reminder to me of why we have standards in place, including APA accreditation.

That's just one anecdote, but it concerns me that there are programs out there that may accept folks who shouldn't be practicing at all. That's not to say that intelligent, driven students can't be good practitioners after attending an unaccredited program, but it's very risky, and if standards are too low, the majority of folks in those programs would come out ill-prepared. In my opinion, that's very risky, but of course that's your choice to make. Just thought I'd throw my two cents in.

This! The worst part is that a sort of “dunning Kruger” effect often rears it’s head with those who had poor training often not being aware of the limits of their skills and competence. For example, a colleague from a predatory Psy.D. program often emails me about research articles they just read and how they are going to utilize the information to inform their practice. When I actually read the article, it’s clear that the colleague has misunderstood the study and it’s conclusions (due to poor training where they did not adequately learn research design/statistics/etc). They are completely unaware that they do not know how to properly comprehend/interpret research findings and go around confidently stating the misinformation.

 

[LoLo8]

Thank you for the feedback

There are changes coming from APPIC, as they are restricting access to their internships to APA-acres only programs. I forget the start date, but it is soon/close. This change could impact how states view applicant eligibility, no one knows yet bc it hasn’t happened....yet.

Getting through internship is only the first hurdle because you’ll also need post-doc hours. Then and securing licensure is next, and that is far from a given. Assuming a clinician gets through all of that, then you need to beat out many applicants for a job.

Many hospitals and university systems would not even consider an app from a non-APA grad bc their liability insurer would balk and/or the review board would reject the person bc of training requirements. Insurance panels may also reject your application to join a panel bc of their own education requirements.

Colorado was on my short-list of places I looked to practice, so I did quite a bit of digging into DORA and the metro areas awhile back.

Colorado is *very* competitive for mid-level therapists and clinicians....let alone psychologists. Many locals won’t relocate and many transplants won’t want to leave. I looked primarily within the UC hospital system and university, and while they recruited nationally, smaller hospitals and free-standing places had a clear preference to onlyvrecruit locally.

There are also VERY loose laws about who can be a therapist...as licensure isn’t required to “practice” in many fringe areas...basically you can be “registered” with the state and offer Moon Beam Therapy and not get in trouble as long as your “client” knows you are not licensed.

There are currently NINE APA-accredited programs in Colorado (from APA website):
Colorado State (PhD)
UC- Boulder (PhD)
UD...Psych Dept (PhD)
UD...Education Dept (?)
UD...GSPP (PsyD)
U of Northern CO (School Psych)
U of Northern CO (Counseling)
UC- Colorado Springs (PhD)
UC- Denver (PhD)

The metro areas all seemed to have plenty of providers back when I looked, so unless you want to live in the boondocks....you will be competing against plenty of ppl with excellent training and from programs with far better reputations than Capella. Online degrees are not viewed positively in the field.

While the competition probably isn't as bad as NYC/CHI/SD/SF...it would likely be quite steep if you want to practice in any CO metro area.

T

 

[Temperance]

While I appreciate the range of feedback from this site, I didn't expected to be judged so harshly for trying to get information to assist in making a decision.

It's worth noting that this is the level of judgment that you may receive if you try to get a job with a degree from a non-APA-accredited program, regardless of the circumstances. People won't give you the benefit of the doubt when they have to make employment decisions and there are other candidates who did graduate from an accredited program with an APA-accredited internship.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

10 out of 10 times I toss non-APA apps bc there are plenty of “better on paper” options. It is truly an uphill battle the entire way for ppl with non-APA training. Most of the time i’m looking at training sites and post-doc training (even for 100% therapy positions) bc there are enough apps to get ppl who complete decent to good post-docs.

Obviously for neuro/rehab the minimum requirement is a formal post-doc, but that’s a bit off the path from the thread.