Nova Southeastern PsyD

[O Gurl]

So much of this discussion comes back to the issue of personal goals versus the reality of the field. I understand a person wanting to pursue their ideal career and being disheartened by the standards for traditional, university-based training programs. However, I do not know if simply aiming for a program with really shady practices is the answer. And by shady, I am still referring to the absurd number of acceptances, average (at best) outcomes, and unjustifiable price tag. I think another member asked this question long before me, but how is it reasonable to participate in the destruction of the same field you claim to love?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[O Gurl]

Thank you for your insight and solid rational advice. Sounds like you are very happy with your choice and where it has gotten you. I wish you all the best!

Paraphrase: "If you apply to a funded program and do not get in, aim for the low hanging fruit that comes with a side of crippling debt and a swamped job market."

Solid rational advice?

 

[erg923]

Thank you for your insight and solid rational advice. Sounds like you are very happy with your choice and where it has gotten you. I wish you all the best!

Keep in mind doc john was able to easilly keep it under 6 figures because he went to Nova in the early 90s...

Is that possible now? Isnt just the tuition itself over 100k?

 

[FuzzyMonkey]

Paraphrase: "If you apply to a funded program and do not get in, aim for the low hanging fruit that comes with a side of crippling debt and a swamped job market."

Solid rational advice?

I didn't settle for Nova. I had 4 other programs to choose from and a wait list. I chose to go there because it has what I am looking for in a doctorate program. Additionally, the line you quoted from him was not what I considered advice. That was simply his personal experience.

 

[erg923]

Hmm. Ok. So lets switch gears here. Taking into account market demand and modal earnings/salaries at the present time, what would you consider a "fair" price for a ph.d/psy.d program in clinical psychology?

I am not asking to start another war here, I am asking because even though I have nearly completed my Ph.D....many others (you, cognosco, and others I see on here) seem alot more committed to this field (to the point where you would literally pay Harvard-like tuition to a middle of the road school) than I ever was. I dont know if I am just apathetic like that, or what. Maybe you are just more driven than me? I dont know. Have you considered alternative degree programs that are often slightly less competitive but where you can still be licensed to perform clinical services (counseling psychology, social work, etc) and wouldn't put you debt (*counseling psych program are supported and stipended).

Lastly, other prospective grad students might consider the following statement made yesterday after the second phase of the APPIC match debacle. In fact, purrusing that whole internship thread would be wise, as although we are curently working hard with petitions and letters to APA, the imbalance is likley to only get worse in the next 3-5 years (I cant imagine a drastic change being implemented before then...although many active members here are trying)

When I was bright-eyed and bushy-tailed out of undergrad, I truly believed that the debt would be worth it - that I would be able to pay it off and live reasonably well AND be working in a field that I am incredibly passionate about. Now, I KNOW this is not the case. .

 

[Student4Life0]

Hmm. Ok. So lets switch gears here. Taking into account market demand and modal earnings/salaries at the present time, what would you consider a "fair" price for a ph.d/psy.d program in clinical psychology?

I am not asking to start another war here, I am asking because even though I have nearly completed my Ph.D....many others (you, cognosco, and others I see on here) seem alot more committed to this field (to the point where you would literally pay Harvard-like tuition to a middle of the road school) than I ever was. I dont know if I am just apathetic like that, or what. Maybe you are just more driven than me? I dont know. Have you considered alternative degree programs that are often slightly less competitive but where you can still be licensed to perform clinical services (counseling psychology, social work, etc) and wouldn't put you debt (*counseling psych program are supported and stipended).

Lastly, other prospective grad students might consider the following statement made yesterday after the second phase of the APPIC match debacle. In fact, purrusing that whole internship thread thread would be wise, as although we are curently working hard with petitions and letters to APA, the imbalance is likley to only get worse in the next 3-5 years (I cant imagine a drastic change being implemented before then...although many active members here are trying)

Well, after paying for my MA and then a separate PsyD program, I hope to come out with no more than $130,000. This also includes extra loans that I took for cost of living. And I am terrified of that number....

No idea if this will be reasonable or do-able, but I can hope. I also tend to work harder than the norm, so I hope that my determination and experience will take me far. I hope....

 

[O Gurl]

I didn't settle for Nova. I had 4 other programs to choose from and a wait list. I chose to go there because it has what I am looking for in a doctorate program. Additionally, the line you quoted from him was not what I considered advice. That was simply his personal experience.

I get that a person's choice of school is personal and that anyone would bristle if their program was being criticized. That does not change the fact that Nova and similar modeled-programs are hurting the field of psychology. You've said a lot about what you love and why you chose it. What about the very real harm the school is doing? Do you think it is OK to take in 70+ students/year? With this number of students and with all this excellent research and practica available, how is it that Nova charges so much for tuition and offers so little financial aid? Where are the paid assistantships? Of the enormous class size, it would appear (from what I have heard from other Nova students/alum) that there are SOME (like top 10%) that are highly successful. Great for you/them. What about your classmates who struggle? If Nova is producing about 7-10 excellent psychologists per class, why the hell won't they just accept that number to begin with?

I guess I am trying to move this discussion beyond the individual only, because we will ALL have to negotiate the flooding and diminished respect of our field for quite some time. I am not sure where you are in your training--whether you have tackled with internship imbalance or job/fellowship shortage, but I wonder how you could be upset with prospects for psychologists AND defend your decision to contribute to the problem?

 

[cognosco]

I get that a person's choice of school is personal and that anyone would bristle if their program was being criticized. That does not change the fact that Nova and similar modeled-programs are hurting the field of psychology. You've said a lot about what you love and why you chose it. What about the very real harm the school is doing? Do you think it is OK to take in 70+ students/year? With this number of students and with all this excellent research and practica available, how is it that Nova charges so much for tuition and offers so little financial aid? Where are the paid assistantships? Of the enormous class size, it would appear (from what I have heard from other Nova students/alum) that there are SOME (like top 10%) that are highly successful. Great for you/them. What about your classmates who struggle? If Nova is producing about 7-10 excellent psychologists per class, why the hell won't they just accept that number to begin with?

I guess I am trying to move this discussion beyond the individual only, because we will ALL have to negotiate the flooding and diminished respect of our field for quite some time. I am not sure where you are in your training--whether you have tackled with internship imbalance or job/fellowship shortage, but I wonder how you could be upset with prospects for psychologists AND defend your decision to contribute to the problem?

I can't speak for the other alum who mentioned settling earlier because I don't know anything about his unique situation. As for myself, I do not feel as if I settled in the least.

I was admitted (fully funded) to a very well-known school in the southeast U.S. to do PTSD research with the person who wrote the most widely used PTSD scale in existence with the support of the Boston VA and the U.S. government. According to the advice of my outspoken peers, I'd be crazy not to take this position, right? I mean, no tuition, practically a guaranteed internship as long as I continue to follow the prof's line of research, and I graduate from a prestigious university with minimal debt.

I chose Nova over this other very qualified school for several reasons. First, the researcher I am working with is probably one of the top five neuropsychologists in the world. This person wrote the third most administered neuropsych battery in the country, has published over 300 books and articles, and is known by every other neuropsychologist I have ever met.

Second, of all the universities I interviewed at (over 10), the faculty at Nova have the most clinical experience and professional accomplishment and there wasn't even a close second. In case you think all my other interviews were at places like Argosy (sorry to offend anyone), you would be mistaken. I interviewed at several very prestigious programs, including UNC.

Third, although the debt I knew I would incur before coming is substantial, the other alumni I have spoken to have had absolutely no problem paying there loans, buying a house, and driving the beamer (or whatever).

I would like to draw a distinction between Nova, which is a private school, and other private schools with questionable reputations. Nova is the 7th largest private school in the U.S. and has over 40,000 students, most of whom are graduate students. We have a law school, a medical school, and offer both a PsyD and a PhD that have both been accredited by the APA since the 1980s. Concerning research productivity, please reference the article that was published in '09 (blanking on the title) that examined research productivity of all APA accredited clinical psychology programs in the U.S. Nova ranked number 9, ahead of some colleges that some of my outspoken peers on here would undoubtedly consider better research institutions. Concerning internship placements (APA/AAPIC), we consistently rank very high nationally despite having a large student body. For the professor I work with, the match rate is well over 90%.

Because Nova is a private school, I believe the tendency is to assume that it is a for-profit school like some other programs with questionable reputations. It is not. Nova is a nonprofit school.

I included the above quote because I felt it necessary to dispel the inaccurate information the poster provided. I don't enjoy responding directly usually because most people are unwilling to admit they are uninformed (or in some cases, simply bitter). Of course I'm not assuming this poster is this way, but I will not be surprised if a nasty response is what I receive for my effort.

That being said, the above poster insinuated that because Nova has a larger student body than most, and that tuition is high, then the program must somehow be flawed or that the students who attend here are less qualified than other universities. The poster is quite simply incorrect in their claims. First, and I've mentioned this before on this thread, Nova can accommodate a large number of students every year because we have around 50 licensed psychologists that instruct, do research, and practice here. Second, the class size is not large at all. In fact, my average class size is about 8 people. The PsyD students average class size is about 15 the last time I checked. If this is too large, I don't know where others are going to college. It is in line with even the most competitive universities in the country. Speaking of competitiveness, Nova is no slouch their either. We had over 600 applications last year for 9 PhD positions, and this is typical for our program. I can think of one PhD program who may have more competitive admissions (Boston College), but it is easily in the top 10 in the country. I am not aware of the exact numbers for the PsyD program, but I understand it is slightly less competitive. Still, I know there are hundreds of students who apply here who make it to the interview stage for the PsyD program who are not admitted. I can only imagine how many apply.

The last statement I will address by the above poster refers to the claim that we should only take 7-8 people per year because the remaining students are not "quality." Again, the poster is remarkably uniformed. I do not know everyone who attends here, but the classes and clinical experiences I have suggest otherwise. The students I have met are intelligent, eager to learn, and enjoy life very much here in south Florida. I am not in any way saying there are not a few bad apples who are admitted here. There are, just as there are at every psychology program. Sometimes weird people just slip through for whatever reason, and I saw it at my undergraduate institution and MS program. I also see it here from time to time, but these individuals rarely make it through their second semester here as Nova is not afraid to kick students out who don't cut the mustard.

In sum, the above poster's claims are ridiculous and remarkably uninformed. They represent a narrow and inexperienced perspective and worst of all are tremendously judgmental.

I urge students to take what you read on this forum with a grain of salt. You have no idea who we are (the posters) and just because someone makes outrageous claims and appears informed does not mean their comments have any substance. Take care and best of luck!

 

[cognosco]

I noticed I did not address the issue raised by the previous poster regarding the obvious problem concerning amount of applicants for internships/total number of internships available.

This is a valid point. This a problem for individuals at every school and many unfortunately have to wait an extra year (or two) before being accepted. A don't think there is a simple etiology or solution to this issue.

First, I do agree with the poster that there are certain programs who contribute little to the integrity of our profession. In case anyone did not notice in my above post, I do not consider Nova as part of this group of programs. The scientific rigor and quality clinical training at certain programs is lacking, and this puts the rest of our field in an unfortunate position.

Second, despite the APA's reluctance (historically) to do anything that is actually beneficial to psychology (my opinion), I have been told by some colleagues that there are efforts being made to rectify the problem by making the reaccreditation much more difficult. In theory, this should weed out some of the less rigorous programs. The other option I have heard is that the APA has formed a Task Force to address the issue. This might work, but I will likely be retired by the time whatever they discover is actually implemented so I will not keep my fingers crossed.

Third, it is my opinion that a large portion of the responsibility of whether a student matches fall on the individual student. I also believe this process starts (indirectly) as an undergraduate. Some students attend programs that emphasize research at the expense of clinical skills. These students often fail to get the number of clinical hours they need (esp. assessment hours) to be competitive for internships. The other end of the spectrum constitutes programs that exclusively emphasize clinical skills at the expense of research experience (the programs I mentioned earlier with questionable integrity almost always fall in this category). These clinical-skills-only programs are often for profit, and they often send their students to shody practica with inadequate supervision. Thus, the students get the equivalent of on the job training to become a clinical psychologist. This has its place, but when empiricism is sacrified, the result is unqualified graduates who fail EPPP exams and crowd the internship sites. Again, I feel the responsibility for matching falls on the student who is applying to graduate programs to understand these issues (and others) and consider them when selecting where to attend. After you get there, bust your tail to get as much research and clinical TRAINING as you can. Learn to love statistics and research design. Be able to do all the things that most people hate with a smile, combine this with a reputable program with knowledgeable doctors, and you will likely have little problems securing your first or choice come match day. Good luck!

 

[O Gurl]

Nice way to dodge the meat of the issue. If I am uniformed, then correct the facts.

Nova’s PhD program has an average cohort of 8 and the PsyD has a cohort size of 15? So where does the average 67 registered APPIC applicants from the PhD program and the average 76 registered APPIC applicants from the PsyD program come from each year? What say you to the flooded job market and internship imbalance? Speaking of said internship crisis, both the PsyD and PhD programs for Nova are holding steady barely above the 10-yr national average internship match rate:http://www.appic.org/downloads/APPIC_Match_Rates_2000-10_by_Univ.pdf. Not stellar numbers for the price tag. You say matching is solely up to the individual. That very well USED to be the case, but how do you match 4200 trainees to 3000 positions? Why have we doubled the number of graduating psychologists since the 1990’s? How does the market absorb 4000+ new psychologists each year? Where do they work? And with 50+ psychologists and a top 10 rank for research productivity, one would imagine the school is bringing in some serious research dollars, no? Again, why is that money not being used to fund students? What sort of positions do alums secure that allows them to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans, buy homes, and drive beamers? I assume they jump right into 6 figure salaries while the rest of psychologists are dragging the average income level of the profession in the 70K’s, right? Where are these high-paying entry level positions? Or, better yet, perhaps they are getting paid like everyone else and just resting on income-contingent repayment because the remainder will be “forgiven” (read tax-payer gets screwed) after 35 years?

Again, I’d really like to talk about the big picture here. I’m not saying Nova is crap or cannot provide quality training, but at what cost?

 

[cognosco]

Nova took 9 students in the PhD class last year. They took about 80 in the PsyD. When I said class size, I was referring to the number of students in each class (e.g., Advanced Social Psychology), not the number in each cohort.

I provided my perspective on the internship match rates in my second post above.

Concerning research grants, we do well as far as I know (although not as well as the medical school, unfortunately). I know of professors with large grants for research and others with smaller grants. Their students do get paid as research assistants. I am actually waiting to see if a grant that what submitted to the military will be approved. The professor works with the FBI, and if we get approved, he will pair each of us with an FBI agent and pay for our travel to Ft. Leavenworth (sp?) to conduct interviews/assessments with military offenders. Exciting if you're into that sort of thing.

I do not know every psychologist that has graduated from here, so I cannot speak to your question about where they all work. I did not imply that everyone who graduates here starts off earning a 6-figure salary. What I said was that the students I have spoken to have no problem managing their debt, buying a house, and driving a nice car. As far as I'm aware, none of them won the lottery. Most were neuropsychologists, but I also know some who are into child therapy/assessment and also forensics.

 

[O Gurl]

Nova took 9 students in the PhD class last year. They took about 80 in the PsyD. When I said class size, I was referring to the number of students in each class (e.g., Advanced Social Psychology), not the number in each cohort.

C'mon now. Did you really think people were upset about the number of people in classrooms? You had to have known we were talking about the outrageous number of students admitted.

Moving along...

I provided my perspective on the internship match rates in my second post above.

By basically saying it is up the trainee, right? Well, my question is the same. How do you match 4000 people to 3000 positions? I hope you have some brilliant idea as you are defending the practice of taking in 90 new trainees per year--with roughly 75% of them able to match each year.

Concerning research grants, we do well as far as I know (although not as well as the medical school, unfortunately). I know of professors with large grants for research and others with smaller grants. Their students do get paid as research assistants. I am actually waiting to see if a grant that what submitted to the military will be approved. The professor works with the FBI, and if we get approved, he will pair each of us with an FBI agent and pay for our travel to Ft. Leavenworth (sp?) to conduct interviews/assessments with military offenders. Exciting if you're into that sort of thing.

So why not accept the number of students they can fund? What is the point of taking in 90 students per year?

I do not know every psychologist that has graduated from here, so I cannot speak to your question about where they all work. I did not imply that everyone who graduates here starts off earning a 6-figure salary. What I said was that the students I have spoken to have no problem managing their debt, buying a house, and driving a nice car. As far as I'm aware, none of them won the lottery. Most were neuropsychologists, but I also know some who are into child therapy/assessment and also forensics.

Perhaps that is a question to start asking. Where do all these people end up? What are the entry level salaries allowing them to pay back 150K in loans with no problem? And yes, if they are paying back at the stipulated rates (an not relying on income-based options) they would need to be earning 6 figures easy.

 

[FuzzyMonkey]

I guess I am trying to move this discussion beyond the individual only, because we will ALL have to negotiate the flooding and diminished respect of our field for quite some time. I am not sure where you are in your training--whether you have tackled with internship imbalance or job/fellowship shortage, but I wonder how you could be upset with prospects for psychologists AND defend your decision to contribute to the problem?

What exactly do you mean by "upset with prospects for psychologists?"

I didn't choose to contribute to any problem. As I said before, I just want to go to school in a good quality program in order to become a clinical psychologist. To agree with what erg923 said; Yes, I am extremely passionate about becoming a clinical psychologist, more so than anyone I have ever interacted with in my psychology master's program, working in clinical positions, and from what I could gather from the brief conversations I had with most other applicants at the 6 interviews I attended.
I am aware of other types of programs, counseling, MFT, MSW, whatever, but none incorporate my exact career goals like clinical psychology. I am also aware that some of these programs offer more funding, but again, not for me.
And to close, I honestly can't give you a number for what I think is a fair price for a PsyD or PhD program. I feel that there is so much diversity in programs that choosing where to go and what you are willing to pay is a personal decision.

 

[O Gurl]

What exactly do you mean by "upset with prospects for psychologists?"

I'm talking about the fact that we are now graduating 2x (at least) more psychologists than the market demands. Thus, we are now in a position where more and more clinical jobs are being marketed to psychologists and master's level clinicians. And this is after trainees are able to luck out and land an internship in a search that is 1000+ positions short (and that is not even touching the issue of APA-accreditation among the positions secured). These problems are the direct cause of programs with irresponsible admissions practices. And yes, choosing to support such programs is choosing to feed the problem.

 

[KayJay85]

I noticed I did not address the issue raised by the previous poster regarding the obvious problem concerning amount of applicants for internships/total number of internships available.

This is a valid point. This a problem for individuals at every school and many unfortunately have to wait an extra year (or two) before being accepted. A don't think there is a simple etiology or solution to this issue.

What?! So your school takes in nearly 100 students every year and each year one fourth of your school's internship applicants fail to match and you flippantly say that it just may take an extra year or two?! That really ticks me off. Who in their right mind is just fine with having to apply for internship 2-3 times ? Oh, and while paying astronomical tuition and fees for the privilege? Students like me who are at a university-based PhD program that refrains from admitting 10 times the average cohort size are still affected because we will have to compete against 2nd and 3rd time applicants with completed dissertations and inflated clinical contact hours. I have pretty much abandoned the 4+1 trajectory. I now plan to just apply in my 5th year when my dissertation is completed. Hopefully, that will help me compete against the seasoned professionals . This is all because programs are taking in way too many people who are clogging up the internship search each year and driving up the stats needed to be competitive. Bleh. Sorry for the rant, but the way you dismissed this whole problem was very tough for me to read.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I agree that the ballooning class sizes at various institutions (not just Nova) is a serious problem for the field. Simply because a program can accept and train that many students (and place them in internship positions at decent rates) doesn't mean they should. Those programs, and their students, all hold a responsibility (in my opinion) to the field for which they're training to work. By directly or indirectly supporting this practice of accepting large cohorts, these programs and individuals are in effect ensuring continued internship and employment imbalances in the future.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not attempting to single out or pick on Nova. I've met students who've trained there, and they've all been very intelligent and competent individuals. The only issue I have with that program is the large cohort sizes, which--as O Gurl has said--appear unjustified given the market demand for psychologists. Again, just because a program CAN train that many individuals doesn't necessarily mean they SHOULD.

 

[cognosco]

Finished trying to converse with you guys; you have said the exact same thing in your past 5 posts. It's boring. You are right. Congraduations.

 

[ehh2109]

.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Finished trying to converse with you guys; you have said the exact same thing in your past 5 posts. It's boring. You are right. Congraduations.

I can only speak for myself when I say that I don't necessarily feel my opinions to be "right;" they're simply my opinions and nothing more.

However, the reasons the class/cohort size statement has been brought multiple times are because a) it's apparently something that multiple (although not necessarily the majority of) posters feel is an important issue, and b) there hasn't yet been a direct response to this statement that I've seen.

You did provide your take on the internship imbalance issues, and stated that you feel most of the responsibility falls on the students' shoulders, even going so far back as undergrad years when deciding where to attend. I largely agree--undergraduates should thoroughly research the programs to which they're applying so that they can be sure they'll receive adequate breadth and depth of training. And they should likely shy away from programs that consistently place poor (i.e., well below average) numbers of internship applicants.

Would you also say, then, that this same level of responsibility regarding program selection relates to deciding whether or not to select schools that regularly accept and graduate significantly larger-than-average cohorts? Do you feel that these large cohorts are detrimental, helpful, or neutral with respect to their impact on the field of clinical psychology as a whole?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Hi Cognosco. I agree, NOVA has a lot to offer. It does have a large faculty; it does have opportunity for productivity, and diversity in training experiences. There are lots of advantages to a large department. Hell, the presence of so many people means you're probably more likely to find a few people that you like I think that program has produced a very high number of ABCN neuropsychologists. That, to me, means they are emphasizing that training trajectory, which is a good thing.

Clearly, the cost is a negative. That's not a "sweep under the rug" issue; it creates risk. They do produce lots of students/psychologists. Their match rate is average, but, because of their large cohort sizes, they contribute much more to the imbalance issue than other schools.

Well said.

 

[ventstri]

Speaking of competitiveness, Nova is no slouch their either. We had over 600 applications last year for 9 PhD positions, and this is typical for our program. I can think of one PhD program who may have more competitive admissions (Boston College), but it is easily in the top 10 in the country. I am not aware of the exact numbers for the PsyD program, but I understand it is slightly less competitive. Still, I know there are hundreds of students who apply here who make it to the interview stage for the PsyD program who are not admitted. I can only imagine how many apply.

Come on, the same link I posted earlier in this thread, to which you responded, obviously refutes both of these claims. The Nova website (http://cps.nova.edu/admissions/outcomes.html#psydphd) lists 256 applicants for the Ph.D. and Psy.D. programs *combined* in 2008, of whom 151 were accepted and 75 matriculated. Unless the numbers have changed dramatically in the last two years, they got about 300 applications (average over the last 7 years = 289 apps) for both programs combined last year, and accepted about 150 (7-year average = 144 acceptances), for about a 50% acceptance rate. So, there were likely neither 600 Ph.D. applicants nor "hundreds of students who apply here who make it to the interview stage who are not admitted." On average, half of the people who apply are admitted.

 

[erg923]

And to close, I honestly can't give you a number for what I think is a fair price for a PsyD or PhD program. I feel that there is so much diversity in programs that choosing where to go and what you are willing to pay is a personal decision.

FuzzyMonkey: When one makes a large investment, before buying, they typically research the item and the market to determine 1.) What is the item "worth" on the larger market? 2.) What is the max I am wiling to pay in order to obtain it (and why)? You are essentially buying a small home by agreeing to attend Nova. Why you have not contemplated any of the above when you probably would have done it for any other pricey item (eg., a car, hell, even a washer and dryer) is beyond me.

Although I do not quibble with the quality of Nova's program, the fact is, they do bring in a Psy.D. cohort of 70 people (or so) each year. Two questions here. Do you think programs that have this habit contribute to the current match problem? (have you read the thread regarding our petition/letter to APA about the match imbalance yet? If not, you might wanna check that out because schools like Nova that take monster cohorts are being targeted...HARD)? If yes, why would you want to implicitly collude with and participate in a program that does this? Tough questions, at least they should be...

I didn't choose to contribute to any problem.

Sometimes decisions have unintended consequences. See my above questions.

 

[erg923]

What?! So your school takes in nearly 100 students every year and each year one fourth of your school's internship applicants fail to match and you flippantly say that it just may take an extra year or two?!

That attitude will change in 3 years when the reality of the match debacle (and the travel costs) effect him/her personally. I would expect a first year to think about the issue that way. He/she will soon conclude (I would hope) that its much more than "unfortunate" when life, employment, career, and earning potential get postponed for a year or two. That absolutely should NOT be a reality one should become comfortable with. Its more ironic considering that its cohort sizes like ones from Nova's Psy.D program that have caused much of that problem (the imbalance) in the first place. See below:

Parent, M. C. & Williamson, J. B. (2010). Program disparities in unmatched internship applicants. Training & Education in Professional Psychology, 4,116-120.

 

[cognosco]

That attitude will change in 3 years when the reality of the match debacle (and the travel costs) effect him/her personally. I would expect a first year to think about the issue that way. He/she will soon conclude (I would hope) that its much more than "unfortunate" when life, employment, career, and earning potential get postponed for a year or two. That absolutely should NOT be a reality one should become comfortable with. Its more ironic considering that its cohort sizes like ones from Nova's Psy.D program that have caused much of that problem (the imbalance) in the first place. See below:

Parent, M. C. & Williamson, J. B. (2010). Program disparities in unmatched internship applicants. Training & Education in Professional Psychology, 4,116-120.

What a weak comment... I'm a first year, and that's what you expect of me? You certainly are better than me, then, given that I am only a first year.

In reality, I am very happy to meet your expectations. You know very much about me if you are able to make predictions about my behavior. I wonder if you meet mine. Indeed, you know where I go to school and what subfield I study. You also know my stance on the university I attend.

If you could be so kind, please inform where you attend. I would also like to know, if it's not too much trouble, how many publications you have (I have 6 for this year, and more from my previous MS work). Finally, again if it's not to much trouble, please explain to me why it is the case that although you have never attended a program (e.g., Nova) that you have the uncanny ability to know that it contributes to a problem that you have conceptualized quite poorly. Regarding the letter you mentioned above, it is already old news. Students and institutions have been aware of this issue for some time now. The APA has not done anything about it, but APA rarely does anything that actually benefits psychologists, in my biased opinion.

Unless you are willing to self-disclose to the extent I have, I would ask that you refrain making such outrageous statements. Of course I can not stop you, but I think it is quite sad that there is such a disparity between the comments you made above concerning myself and the comments you would undoubtedly make were we to be standing beside each other. Such is the sign of weak character and insecurity. Please argue with the points that I make and not attempt to wow everyone with your clairvoyant abilities about a person would or would not do. Thanks.

 

[cognosco]

Come on, the same link I posted earlier in this thread, to which you responded, obviously refutes both of these claims. The Nova website (http://cps.nova.edu/admissions/outcomes.html#psydphd) lists 256 applicants for the Ph.D. and Psy.D. programs *combined* in 2008, of whom 151 were accepted and 75 matriculated. Unless the numbers have changed dramatically in the last two years, they got about 300 applications (average over the last 7 years = 289 apps) for both programs combined last year, and accepted about 150 (7-year average = 144 acceptances), for about a 50% acceptance rate. So, there were likely neither 600 Ph.D. applicants nor "hundreds of students who apply here who make it to the interview stage who are not admitted." On average, half of the people who apply are admitted.

The numbers have changed dramatically in the past few years. Thanks for commenting.

 

[erg923]

If you could be so kind, please inform where you attend. I would also like to know, if it's not too much trouble, how many publications you have (I have 6 for this year, and more from my previous MS work). .

Alright, settle down there tarzan. Qualifications and research productivity (which Im sure you're "awesome" at) are irrelvant to the larger issues I have consistently brought up. 1.) cost and how this effects students 2.) class/cohort sizes and how this effects the match (which is in a critical period right now) and the profession and market at large. You chose to disclose you're program (no one asked or compeled you to). And now, I am chosing not too.

I am "weak" and "insecure." We all are to some degree (especially in psychology). Dont delude yourself.

Nevertheless, I do indeed stick by my original statement. I do not expect a first year (any first year) to be AS concerned about, or have as much insight into, the match crisis as someone in their 4th year or someone who just went through it. Its still a few years off for you. The temporal distance of an event certainly effects how concerned we are about it, right? Similarly, I DO expect you to care more and feel thats it more than "unfortunate" when you are in closer proximity to these events, or, god forbid, if you become one of the 30 percent who dont match the first time through.

Lastly, I dont really think its debatable whether or not schools that pump out 50 and 60 doctoral candidates per year are significantly contributing to this match problem. I think running the numbers confirms that this is indeed fact. I am unclear about why you seem to take this statement from myself and others as some sort of personal insult?

 

[cara susanna]

I do have to wonder why they admit so many people when it's being said that they consistently have a group of students who do poorly. And I wonder how the PhD students feel when they're up against 50+ people for local practicums in their own year alone. Another thing to consider is that if you don't match right away, which is quite likely, you're going to have to fork over even more money.

I do have to say that I am impressed by the political overtones of this thread and how much I agree with them--is psychology becoming more conservative? Haha.

 

[kid16]

While I'm not yet a doctoral student, I am a Master's level professional who's looking to attend Univ. of Miami's Counseling PhD (hopefully next year). Given that I have been working and living down here in Miami for a few years now, I believe I can speak a bit about how I've experienced, seen, and read how NOVA seems to fit into the South Florida landscape in relation to the other programs here.... especially in light of local competition for internship matching concerns.

First, you can only get licensed as a psychologist in the State of Florida if you graduated from an APA accredited program and have completed an APA accredited internship. So, while there are a huge number of doctoral psychology programs in South Florida - there remain only five APA accredited ones competing both in the internship-match world, and then the professional local job market... UM's Clinical PhD, UM's Counseling PhD, NOVA's Clinical PhD, NOVA's Clinical PsyD, and Carlos-Albizu's Clinical PsyD.

When it comes down to most recent match rates, the numbers are 100%, 100%, 100%, 94%, 96% respectively. So, with NOVA's Clinical PsyD having the largest incoming cohorts year to year (75), they also bear the brunt of the students that don't match with approx 5 students/year. Carlos Albizu actually fares better (a surprise to me when I saw this......) at approx. 2 students/year failing to match. So, while it may be true that the large-cohort PsyD programs (at least locally where I am) are contributing to the match problem, it doesn't appear that it's coming at the cost of anyone (again, at least locally here in South Florida) except the students in those high-admittance-# programs.

In my opinion, and given my experience as a working professional with an already well-established career, with a wife, a child, family health insurance, a home mortgage, and ridiculously expensive flood & hurricane insurance on said home, while I DREAM of being able to attend a PhD program and obtain a doctoral degree (and hopefully that will be realized for me some day), I have to say that I believe the financial cost of the NOVA & Carlos-Albizu PsyD programs, coupled with the risk of having to delay your career by not matching, is simply too much in the grand scheme of everything.

I would feel more passionate about the match problem if the numbers seemed to indicate that it was negatively impacting students from other small-cohort programs locally. But, at least according to what I've found, this doesn't seem to be the case. So, while I'm not willing to do so, I'd say if you are willing to spend the $150K-$200K on a PsyD and run the risk of having to delay your career even further if you don't match, go for it in the name of your passions, personal interests, and specializations offered in the programs. That said, real-world viability and immediate return on your investment from your advanced degrees (given their cost in all three areas of 1- tuition, 2- living expenses, and 3- lost wages while attending versus working) become a very very significant (if not THE MOST salient) factor when entering in the professional workforce.

 

[ehh2109]

.

 

[cognosco]

Tarzon, huh? That's funny. I'll take it. This forum was aimed at students who attend Nova. What are you even doing here?

All jokes aside, you disappoint me with your failure to self-disclose. I almost want to call you a wimp, but I will refrain because that would be judgmental.

Although it is my first year at Nova, it is my third year in graduate school. Thus, I do have some perspective, though I am obviously no match for your far more experienced, sage, perspective. Where do you attend again? Oh... you won't tell us. Ok I am finished with that.

The match rate IS a problem, and I have not shied away from it at all. Life is incredibly hard for the students that I know who do not match. Most make it fine though. They work for a year and correct deficiencies. If you read my ealier post about match rates, I stated a few reasons why students are unsuccessful matching. I have never seen a student not match who had both strong research skills and strong therapy/assessment skills combined with good internship applications and interviews. Never. I've known about 15 people over the past 7 years who failed to match and they share this common denominator.

Concerning practica sites, this isn't a problem for most people either. We live a very populated area and have about 60 different sites to choose from.

 

[kid16]

Yes, I know that there are larger implications nationwide because matching is not just local. However, it does seem that a large number of South Florida APA-program students match in South Florida and get to stay here.

Apologies if I seemed insensitive to everyone else in the matching process given that the matching is a nationwide process. I was simply attempting to make an admittedly very limited (and non-generalizable) assessment on local match issues given that this conversation started specifically about NOVA.

 

[ehh2109]

.

 

[erg923]

Although it is my first year at Nova, it is my third year in graduate school. Thus, I do have some perspective, though I am obviously no match for your far more experienced, sage, perspective. Where do you attend again? Oh... you won't tell us. Ok I am finished with that.

I attend the University of Sage and Wisdom...

Come on pal, it's irrelevant to the issues I have raised and you know it. Its just your emotional reaction of, "Who the hell is this joker anyway?" Sorry, that’s not a compelling enough reason for me.

Although I do think being older and farther along can provide some advantage here, the main thrust of my argument regarding internship is that too much confidence in yourself and your program is dangerous nowadays. I have no qualm about admitting that although I did match in phase I, I did so by “the skin of my teeth” and got far fewer interviews than expected. Most in my cohort did. We come from a solid program that offers solid, balanced training, and yet we were not immune. When the imbalance was just a few hundred, I think your statement rang very true (ie., Well rounded clinical and research skills/experience + a solid program pretty much guaranteed a match somewhere). However, now that the imbalance is over 800, one really can’t make that statement anymore. You can't sit here and tell me that you think all 804 of those candidates who didn’t match ANYWHERE this year (even after phase II) had subpar clinical and/or research training? Come on...

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I attend the University of Sage and Wisdom...

Come on pal, it's irrelevant to the issues I have raised and you know it. Its just your emotional reaction of, "Who the hell is this joker anyway?" Sorry, that’s not a compelling enough reason for me.

Although I do think being older and farther along can provide some advantage here, the main thrust of my argument regarding internship is that too much confidence in yourself and your program is dangerous nowadays. I have no qualm about admitting that although I did match in phase I, I did so by “the skin of my teeth” and got far fewer interviews than expected. Most in my cohort did. We come from a solid program that offers solid, balanced training, and yet we were not immune. When the imbalance was just a few hundred, I think your statement rang very true (ie., Well rounded clinical and research skills/experience + a solid program pretty much guaranteed a match somewhere). However, now that the imbalance is over 800, one really can’t make that statement anymore. You can't sit here and tell me that you think all 804 of those candidates who didn’t match ANYWHERE this year (even after phase II) had subpar clinical and/or research training? Come on...

I will say that even though I'd been alerted to the internship imbalance years ago by a fellow student who had difficulty matching (perhaps for applicant-related issues, but I digress), it truly didn't hit home until going through the process myself. Like erg, even though I did match in Phase I, I can't help but feel as though a significant amount of the variance (hah) therein could be explained by dumb luck and the name of my advisor in addition to any skill and marketability I have as an applicant. Part of this feeling can no doubt be attributed to the fact that this year's numbers are worse than any before. However, things don't look to be getting better anytime soon, and much of this dread (at least in my case) perhaps isn't fully appreciated until you're traveling around the country yourself, seeing who you're up against and how qualified they are, and realizing that perhaps 1/4 to 1/3 of these individuals won't be getting in anywhere.

 

[O Gurl]

Come on, the same link I posted earlier in this thread, to which you responded, obviously refutes both of these claims. The Nova website (http://cps.nova.edu/admissions/outcomes.html#psydphd) lists 256 applicants for the Ph.D. and Psy.D. programs *combined* in 2008, of whom 151 were accepted and 75 matriculated. Unless the numbers have changed dramatically in the last two years, they got about 300 applications (average over the last 7 years = 289 apps) for both programs combined last year, and accepted about 150 (7-year average = 144 acceptances), for about a 50% acceptance rate. So, there were likely neither 600 Ph.D. applicants nor "hundreds of students who apply here who make it to the interview stage who are not admitted." On average, half of the people who apply are admitted.

Nice. Facts and reference provided. Response?

The numbers have changed dramatically in the past few years. Thanks for commenting.

Dramatic? I'd say. How about you were wrong. You misspoke just like you did when you confused classroom size for cohort size.

When it comes down to most recent match rates, the numbers are 100%, 100%, 100%, 94%, 96% respectively. So, with NOVA's Clinical PsyD having the largest incoming cohorts year to year (75), they also bear the brunt of the students that don't match with approx 5 students/year. Carlos Albizu actually fares better (a surprise to me when I saw this......) at approx. 2 students/year failing to match. So, while it may be true that the large-cohort PsyD programs (at least locally where I am) are contributing to the match problem, it doesn't appear that it's coming at the cost of anyone (again, at least locally here in South Florida) except the students in those high-admittance-# programs.

I know that you are speaking from your observations, but are you suggesting that only about 5 Nova PsyD applicant's have failed to match in recent years? That is not what APPIC reports: http://www.appic.org/downloads/APPIC_Match_Rates_2000-10_by_Univ.pdf

2008: 68 applicants 73.5% matched (about 18 did not match/withdrew)
2009: 84 applicants 77.4% matched (about 19 did not match/withdrew)
2010: 77 applicants 67.5% matched (about 25 did not match/withdrew)

18-25 is a far cry from 5.

Edit: I just looked at the NSU link again. It appears they are defining match rates by including applicants whom later accepted non-accredited, in-house, or informal internship positions. Well, there is suspiciously no disclaimer to alert potential students of just how career-limiting these internships can be. I just completed postdoc search and was quite surprised at how many prefer or require APA-accredited internships. We are not just talking about universities, med centers, VAs, CMHCs, or schools. Even private practice (informal postdoc) positions express a preference for accredited internships. Again, with a 150K degree, I sure would not want to be forever eliminated from a significant number of job possibilities.

 

[cara susanna]

The match rate IS a problem, and I have not shied away from it at all. Life is incredibly hard for the students that I know who do not match. Most make it fine though. They work for a year and correct deficiencies. If you read my ealier post about match rates, I stated a few reasons why students are unsuccessful matching. I have never seen a student not match who had both strong research skills and strong therapy/assessment skills combined with good internship applications and interviews. Never. I've known about 15 people over the past 7 years who failed to match and they share this common denominator.

I can't speak for interview skills, but I know plenty of people with good research and clinical backgrounds who failed to match.

 

[KillerDiller]

I do have to say that I am impressed by the political overtones of this thread and how much I agree with them--is psychology becoming more conservative? Haha.

Sorry, the Republican party lost the right to claim that it's the party of fiscal responsibility a long time ago.

 

[cara susanna]

I said conservative, not Republican

 

[hillies]

The link provided to the training outcomes earlier is outdated (not even sure how you found it). Here are the correct ones:

PhD: http://cps.nova.edu/programs/phd/trainingoutcomes_phd.html

PsyD: http://cps.nova.edu/programs/psyd/trainingoutcomes_psyd.html

 

[StudentBsMs11]

I said conservative, not Republican

Well, allow me to be the second liberal to chime in and say that I agree with most of what's been discussed here regarding taking on huge amounts of debt for a doctorate in clinical psychology. I actually don't think it's as political as some here have made it out to be; I think it's simple, practical good sense to carefully weigh the worth and cost of an investment before you make it, regardless of your political bent.

 

[aequitasveritas]

...I was once a 1st yr professional school student who was defensive about my position at my school of "choice" ...much like yourself.

It can be very scary to realize the gravity of your situation and the decision to encumber your future with such debt.

...But denial is a primitive defense...it will benefit you to acknowledge the stressors at hand rather than to pretend like they aren't there.

AV

 

[KillerDiller]

Well, allow me to be the second liberal to chime in and say that I agree with most of what's been discussed here regarding taking on huge amounts of debt for a doctorate in clinical psychology. I actually don't think it's as political as some here have made it out to be; I think it's simple, practical good sense to carefully weigh the worth and cost of an investment before you make it, regardless of your political bent.

Agreed (also a liberal).

 

[erg923]

I was gonna chime in again when I heard "driving a beamer," whilst claiming that they cant make a full payment on their debt (ie., utilizing salary contigent loan repayment payment plans)....goof grief.

 

[O Gurl]

The link provided to the training outcomes earlier is outdated (not even sure how you found it). Here are the correct ones:

PhD: http://cps.nova.edu/programs/phd/trainingoutcomes_phd.html

PsyD: http://cps.nova.edu/programs/psyd/trainingoutcomes_psyd.html

Thank you for the updated info!

It looks like these links include data up through last year (the previous link stopped at 2008) and these links separate the PsyD vs. PhD outcomes... I think. Because it still says: "Number of PsyD students who" on the PhD page. Thinking that is a typo.

Even still, the outcomes for 2009 and 2010 still do not support what some of our Floridians have said about Nova's admissions and outcomes. No. There were not 600 apps for the PhD program last year. There were 279 of which 15 were admitted. There were 408 applications for the PsyD of which 150 (slightly less than their 50% acceptance rate) were admitted. Not sure if this takes into account people who applied to both/were not offered PhD, but PsyD instead. A quick review of GRE and GPA data for both degree programs reveal pretty low standards in comparison to other programs for the PsyD students (Median GRE-V= 513, Median GRE-Q= 610; GPA=3.5) and more typical admission standards for the PhD program (Median GRE-V= 570, Median GRE-Q= 700; GPA=3.5)in comparison to other doctoral programs. In terms of outcomes, the MATCH rates still are not so hot for either program where around 70% for both programs actually MATCHED in the "first round" and most of the remainder took non-APA accredited/in-house/informal positions. Slightly more trainees walked away with NO position since 2008 and prior.

One should always be wary of a program that tries to sale anything other than APA-accredited internships and high FIRST ROUND MATCH rates as a positive. At first, I feared I would be called elitist for saying this, but now I realize just how absurd that insult is. We are talking about a doctorate degree---the top level of education known. It is elite. So people have a right to bristle or get down-right p*ssed off when they see the doctorate degree of their discipline being reduced to where competing with master's level professionals is becoming the norm. That is what is happening with institutions like Nova taking in way too many people for absolutely no reason. Again, look at the admissions stats, we are not talking about rock star, can't-pass-em-up candidates here. So why does Nova persist in accepting nearly half of applicants?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

The link provided to the training outcomes earlier is outdated (not even sure how you found it). Here are the correct ones:

PhD: http://cps.nova.edu/programs/phd/trainingoutcomes_phd.html

PsyD: http://cps.nova.edu/programs/psyd/trainingoutcomes_psyd.html

I'd figured that they'd post updated numbers somewhere on their website, thanks for finding them.

Just glancing over that data, it would appear that cognosco is partially right in an earlier point: the Ph.D. program has significantly ratcheted down its incoming cohort sizes (reduced from 20 to 9 between 2008 and 2010). Whether this is due to reduced funding, a desire to improve the student-to-professor ratio, or whatever else, the numbers don't lie.

However, it would also appear that the Psy.D. program has actually increased the number of students by 14 students during that same time frame. Thus, the net change in students is still positive.

Additionally, the internship match rates look to have worsened. In both the Ph.D. and Psy.D. programs, 74% and 70% (respectively) matched initially in 2010. After all was said and done, 56% and 55% had matched to APA-accredited internships, with another 40% and 37% matching to APPIC-accredited internships. Additionally, 16% of Psy.D. students apparently received unfunded or only partially-funded spots.

Edit: Looks like O Gurl beat me to some of these numbers/points, but I'll leave my post as is.

 

[O Gurl]

Just glancing over that data, it would appear that cognosco is partially right in an earlier point: the Ph.D. program has significantly ratcheted down its incoming cohort sizes (reduced from 20 to 9 between 2008 and 2010). Whether this is due to reduced funding, a desire to improve the student-to-professor ratio, or whatever else, the numbers don't lie.

However, it would also appear that the Psy.D. program has actually increased the number of students by 14 students during that same time frame. Thus, the net change in students is still positive.

Yeah. It looks like they are just taking the top applicants in the PhD program over the past 2 years and shuffled the rest to the PsyD program. Which again begs the question, why not just take the top candidates to begin with? I realize I sound like a parrot, but I really would like an answer to that question. People are writing book chapters in defense of all the great things Nova offers, but no one can answer why Nova feels compelled to take in a ton of mediocre trainees every year.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Yeah. It looks like they are just taking the top applicants in the PhD program over the past 2 years and shuffled the rest to the PsyD program. Which again begs the question, why not just take the top candidates to begin with? I realize I sound like a parrot, but I really would like an answer to that question. People are writing book chapters in defense of all the great things Nova offers, but no one can answer why Nova feels compelled to take in a ton of mediocre trainees every year.

Students from the program have asked the same thing because the bottom quartile (or two) drag the reputations of everyone else down.

 

[FuzzyMonkey]

...I was once a 1st yr professional school student who was defensive about my position at my school of "choice" ...much like yourself.

It can be very scary to realize the gravity of your situation and the decision to encumber your future with such debt.

...But denial is a primitive defense...it will benefit you to acknowledge the stressors at hand rather than to pretend like they aren't there.

AV

Not sure if you implied this or not, but Nova is not a professional school. It's a private university.

 

[mshbe]

Just glancing over that data, it would appear that cognosco is partially right in an earlier point: the Ph.D. program has significantly ratcheted down its incoming cohort sizes (reduced from 20 to 9 between 2008 and 2010). Whether this is due to reduced funding, a desire to improve the student-to-professor ratio, or whatever else, the numbers don't lie.

This is part of an effort to make the PhD program more research focused and more in line with a traditional mentorship model (beforehand, many PhD students worked with specific faculty mentors but it wasn't formalized by the program perse). It is supposedly also a step towards providing better funding, so we'll see where that goes. As a current PhD student at Nova, I have to say that I have thus far gotten a lot out of the program but agree with the criticisms mentioned here (i.e., class sizes and funding). There are supposedly plans to shrink the incoming PsyD class sizes substantially over the next couple of years, but again, we'll have to wait and see. The recent changes I've seen being made (for PhDs at least) appear to be substantive, though, which is good.

 

[aequitasveritas]

Not sure if you implied this or not, but Nova is not a professional school. It's a private university.

That's technically true. My school is also called a University. However, when a program enters into the quantity of 80 students a year and is not providing funding it is truly a professional school of psychology regardless of what the institution calls itself.

This is no different from Law Schools that pump out students for the purposes of training professional attorneys, except for the fact that we don't make as much.