Palo Alto University

[jenna1]

This isn't a malicious and rude forum? Look at the first page. "many students aren't that bright, it's a diploma mill, only the 10%, not enough research advisors for dissertation (wha??? this has NEVER been a problem). Anyway, this was not a discussion from the start. Its started with rude accusations and insults. Nothing backed up with facts (he said, she said). However, when facts are presented none are needed to refute. I'm done. Anyway, in the spirit of internship, good luck everyone. I hope we all match and can be kinder towards each other.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[leftbrian]

Nope, never said everyone was jealous. I am just saying I wish we could have a fair discussion. Can we post the other schools that everyone is in? I am going to defend a school that I have had amazing training at and am proud of my work and my peers. Is that not allowed? Is this forum only to vent about our school? I though the initial question involved finding balance in view of our program.

I think part of the solution to having a fair discussion is to not get emotionally/personally attached to your own school in question, which is very hard of course. This is clearly an issue beyond school X and students from that school feeling the need to defend their school. It is about the system of education, training, and jobs.

No one in the right mind would disagree that diversity of psychologists and psychologists committed to providing services is a bad thing. The problem is how this should be achieved. The current PsyD model hijacked by large cohorts of students and astronomical tuition is the "scapegoat" representing the larger problem, not any specific schools like yours.

 

[jenna1]

read page 1. If that page isn't rude, then I guess I am clueless (probably bottom % ;-p).

 

[JeyRo]

Let's bring it back full circle.

Is this university considered a professional school/diploma mill?

It is a professional school, it's debatable whether it's fair to call it a "diploma mill" - they tend to have relatively large cohort sizes (e.g., around 30) but that's not large compared to a number of other professional schools out there.

It seems to have great match rates but I have heard from some people that it is not a very well respected school.

I wouldn't call the match rates "great" but the numbers for the PsyD program are fairly good, particularly for professional schools (not so much the PhD program). Amongst professional schools in California, it's probably the most well respected, relative to the outcomes other FSPS / professional programs seem able to deliver within the Golden State.

However, due in no small degree to the fact it saddles students with probably the highest debt levels of any professional psychology program in the country, it's not well respected.

 

[Kriya]

Pgsp graduate student business plan= be a pretty young woman. Debt management plan = marry young stanford physician in training.

Just sayin.

 

[Kriya]

Just bringing a bit of color. Highlighting the preposterous nature of the debt accrual for the average soul whilst considering only the probable revenue of a clinical psychology degree. Hence the need for other "assets." Just sayin'

I like a bit of color as much as anyone! Lightens the mood. At the same time, your comment managed to be condescending, sexist, and heteronormative *all at the same time.* Just sayin.

 

[cara susanna]

Who said the young Stanford physician-in-training had to be a man? Heh.

 

[Member6523]

I have a male buddy at another CA professional school who is dating a pediatric psychiatrist. He's 28 and she's in her mid thirties, so there ya go.

 

[JeyRo]

I have a male buddy at another CA professional school who is dating a pediatric psychiatrist. He's 28 and she's in her mid thirties, so there ya go.

So they both have the huge debt in common - the only difference being she'll actually be able to pay hers off with plenty left over.

 

[PHD12]

Since we are talking about PAU overall, we forgot to mention the PhD program's outcomes and class size, which are both pretty abysmal. APA internship match rates, are only 50% and the class size for the last year seems to be 82 (based on the number of people applying for internship). Interestingly, only about 30-45 graduate each year so it seems like they do a very poor job of retaining students. Based on these stats alone (class size of 80, 50% apa rates), the program is in the same class as other "diploma mills" like alliant and argosy. I agree that the PsyD program has better outcomes, but that the cost is untenable.

Jenna, Its great that this program is a good fit for you. However, I don't know how you could recommend a program where only half the students complete APA internships, cohort size is 80, and where many don't seem to finish the program (45 graduated this past year while class size appears much larger than this). This is all data that is available on the website.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I don't know how the PhD program at PAU works, but I would say to keep in mind that often times, the internship application group will consist of individuals from multiple cohorts. I don't know that my program's number of intern applicants was ever actually larger than an incoming class size, but that's obviously not to say it couldn't happen, particularly if anyone is having to apply for more than one cycle.

 

[Outtakeme]

The PsyD and PhD are incredibly different programs. PsyD students take 1/2 of the classes with Stanford faculty in the Dept of Psychiatry and have access to research opportunities at Stanford. There are captive practicum sites for the PsyD program only (Palo Alto VA, Stanford Inpatient, Stanford Pain Clinic, Stanford Faculty Help Center). I'm a student in the PsyD program. PM if you are an applicant with questions

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

Who said the young Stanford physician-in-training had to be a man? Heh.

Gay marriage is not technically a legal option in California at the moment, Cara, so Kriya's point is spot on, as JSnow ceded.

 

[JeyRo]

Gay marriage is not technically a legal option in California at the moment, Cara, so Kriya's point is spot on, as JSnow ceded.

Well, *technically,* you can get married to whoever you want in California - you just can't expect the government give you the proper permission slip in every circumstance. Just sayin'.

 

[roubs]

Gay marriage is not technically a legal option in California at the moment, Cara, so Kriya's point is spot on, as JSnow ceded.

I think our fictional lesbian couple is quite capable of obtaining an out of state marriage license, are you saying gay people are less resourceful than straight people? Besides they don't need government sanction to support each other. I'm sure the Stanford physician understands that idealistic aspiring young professionals sometimes make choices without considering the cold, hard math and/or googling an online loan repayment tool.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

Might be your fictional lesbian couple, however, JSnow already ceded that this was not HIS fictional couple, and that he was in fact being (dare I say unabashedly?) heteronormative. And no, they do not need to be married to be supporting one another. Sooooo.....why even bring up the idea of marriage in the first place? Because it was a simple heteronormative "slip," so stop making apologies for yet another elitist comment here at SDN U. Further, this is a post about, for all intents and purposes, life in Claifornia. Yes, I'm sure most of us know folks who know folks who have jumped the border for their "slip," but our beloved fictional lesbian couple from California would not likely be sittin' back and lovin' their status as second tier citizens. Surely you're not suggesting they and other real gay couples should?

 

[erg923]

Might be your fictional lesbian couple, however, JSnow already ceded that this was not HIS fictional couple, and that he was in fact being (dare I say unabashedly?) heteronormative. And no, they do not need to be married to be supporting one another. Sooooo.....why even bring up the idea of marriage in the first place? Because it was a simple heteronormative "slip," so stop making apologies for yet another elitist comment here at SDN U. Further, this is a post about, for all intents and purposes, life in Claifornia. Yes, I'm sure most of us know folks who know folks who have jumped the border for their "slip," but our beloved fictional lesbian couple from California would not likely be sittin' back and lovin' their status as second tier citizens. Surely you're not suggesting they and other real gay couples should?

"Heteronormative?!" Are you serious with this?

 

[JeyRo]

All of this is a great way to derail the larger and more important point of this thread. Claim some sort of moral wound or high ground due to an off-color remark.

The fact is marrying someone of means (Stanford med student or otherwise) or being independently wealthy is far and away the best plan for affording PAU costs than anything else - it's certainly not justified by the expected outcomes for PAU students, even for those in the top 10%.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

This thread is like channel surfing cable TV....but none of the good channels. We started off talking about the American Dream (SDN-style) of getting into a program and spreading peace, love, and Beck to the masses...probably in the VA system because it really can't go any other way. Some supporters from Public Television try to talk about some of the hurdles and realities of life regarding working in the tv business, but their positions discounted because everyone knows that Public programs..err...programming are really just a place for hidden elitists who want to look like they care about people so they can take public money for free. They make all of these pretty graphs that they show off to others, because they need to justify themselves and the people high up in the tower who decide who is worthy to make said charts and talk about them. Make you graph and publish it too! It's a very who's who of chart and graph making...it really goes back to the "cool kids" in the A/V Club from High School. You basically need to know a producer or something.

Then it flips over to a talk on fiscal spending..ugh, who put on Fox News?! Both sides propose their first numbers, though it is really just a volley to see what the other side has. I'm pretty sure each side thinks the other side is on mute, because they are just hitting their talking points like a presidential "debate". Both sides swear that they are dealing in facts, but I'm really starting to doubt the validity of the "no spin zone" that was allegedly setup. Citations...we don't need no stinkin' citations! Has anyone checked the base rates or considered the various biases common when these topics are covered? Where is Paul Greene when we need him...I know there is a graph for this! I know...I know...stats are icky, but they do help when we are missing actual data points. Estimating missing data is totally a thing now.

In all of the confusion and funny math an actual discussion using public data (no FOIA filing needed!) actually happens. That wacky Dr. Paul-4-chnge guy decides to jump in and use his "math and numbers" to try and explain the individual and collective dangers of amassing large debt that is untenable to all but the richest 1%. Using independent experts and realistic estimates is met by silence. Unfortunately, talking about fiscal responsibility is no fun because talking about the true cost of a borrowed dollar is SOOOOO boring. Out of control hikes in "cost", changes in student loan legalese, a slumping economy...blah blah blah...who let this guy in anyway?! The C-SPAN2 talk makes the former Public Television talk seem interesting, there isn't even an Ivory Tower to heave things at right now.

There is a natural lull in the TV viewing day, so people stop being nice and start being real...or at least this generation version of that: The Real Housepeople of SDN: All-Star Special. There is a lot of backstory from prior seasons, but the gist is that most of the problems aren't really talked about because that'd be depressing, so the RHoS have completely unrelated conversations because they know the first conversation wasn't going to get them anywhere. Strawmen abound and no lack of people willing to put them up and taken them down. Everyone knows the real news is sad and depressing, so instead we finish watching the RHoS, which is kind of like watching a bad American remake of a classic Telenovela series. A quick switch back to Public Television...same stuff, new character. Facts are boring...switch!! The current Telenovela plot is really hard to follow, but there is lots of yelling. We need a reprieve so we go to old faithful....The Hallmark Channel, which is playing another made-for-tv movie about struggling relationships; it's formulaic but at least we know how it ends. I think I'm just going to get some popcorn and watch for a bit, since this is a complete departure from the actual discussions...err...tv watching we've had the last few days.

*this is what happens when my late morning slot is open.... *

 

[Pragma]

*this is what happens when my late morning slot is open.... *

 

[JeyRo]

This thread is like channel surfing cable TV....but none of the good channels. We started off talking about the American Dream (SDN-style) of getting into a program and spreading peace, love, and Beck to the masses...probably in the VA system because it really can't go any other way. Some supporters from Public Television try to talk about some of the hurdles and realities of life regarding working in the tv business, but their positions discounted because everyone knows that Public programs..err...programming are really just a place for hidden elitists who want to look like they care about people so they can take public money for free. They make all of these pretty graphs that they show off to others, because they need to justify themselves and the people high up in the tower who decide who is worthy to make said charts and talk about them. Make you graph and publish it too! It's a very who's who of chart and graph making...it really goes back to the "cool kids" in the A/V Club from High School. You basically need to know a producer or something.

Then it flips over to a talk on fiscal spending..ugh, who put on Fox News?! Both sides propose their first numbers, though it is really just a volley to see what the other side has. I'm pretty sure each side thinks the other side is on mute, because they are just hitting their talking points like a presidential "debate". Both sides swear that they are dealing in facts, but I'm really starting to doubt the validity of the "no spin zone" that was allegedly setup. Citations...we don't need no stinkin' citations! Has anyone checked the base rates or considered the various biases common when these topics are covered? Where is Paul Greene when we need him...I know there is a graph for this! I know...I know...stats are icky, but they do help when we are missing actual data points. Estimating missing data is totally a thing now.

In all of the confusion and funny math an actual discussion using public data (no FOIA filing needed!) actually happens. That wacky Dr. Paul-4-chnge guy decides to jump in and use his "math and numbers" to try and explain the individual and collective dangers of amassing large debt that is untenable to all but the richest 1%. Using independent experts and realistic estimates is met by silence. Unfortunately, talking about fiscal responsibility is no fun because talking about the true cost of a borrowed dollar is SOOOOO boring. Out of control hikes in "cost", changes in student loan legalese, a slumping economy...blah blah blah...who let this guy in anyway?! The C-SPAN2 talk makes the former Public Television talk seem interesting, there isn't even an Ivory Tower to heave things at right now.

There is a natural lull in the TV viewing day, so people stop being nice and start being real...or at least this generation version of that: The Real Housepeople of SDN: All-Star Special. There is a lot of backstory from prior seasons, but the gist is that most of the problems aren't really talked about because that'd be depressing, so the RHoS have completely unrelated conversations because they know the first conversation wasn't going to get them anywhere. Strawmen abound and no lack of people willing to put them up and taken them down. Everyone knows the real news is sad and depressing, so instead we finish watching the RHoS, which is kind of like watching a bad American remake of a classic Telenovela series. A quick switch back to Public Television...same stuff, new character. Facts are boring...switch!! The current Telenovela plot is really hard to follow, but there is lots of yelling. We need a reprieve so we go to old faithful....The Hallmark Channel, which is playing another made-for-tv movie about struggling relationships; it's formulaic but at least we know how it ends. I think I'm just going to get some popcorn and watch for a bit, since this is a complete departure from the actual discussions...err...tv watching we've had the last few days.

*this is what happens when my late morning slot is open.... *

Can we just lock this thread and make this the last word on the subject? Any takers? Seriously, I think this has run it's course and then some. Using the TV analogy, the shark has been jumped.

 

[Pragma]

Can we just lock this thread and make this the last word on the subject? Any takers? Seriously, I think this has run it's course and then some. Using the TV analogy, the shark has been jumped.

What's the point? The series will just get rebooted

 

[JeyRo]

What's the point? The series will just get rebooted

Ironically, they've remade such terrible shows as Knight Rider and 90210, but they've never "rebooted" Happy Days, which as we all know was the show that inspired the term, "jumping the shark."

 

[Qwerk]

That wacky Dr. Paul-4-chnge guy decides to jump in and use his "math and numbers" to try and explain the individual and collective dangers of amassing large debt

As a side note, does anyone notice how the posters dismissing quantitative research are usually also the ones promoting programs that put students in massive debt? Oh, those wacky numbers.

 

[jenna1]

Yes, because the ONLY issue is money. Since that is the only issue, there is NO reason to have a discussion about the quality of PAU. Since It has been decided by all of the city people with points, me and my dog Arrow will sit in awe at your amazing revelations.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

As a side note, does anyone notice how the posters dismissing quantitative research are usually also the ones promoting programs that put students in massive debt? Oh, those wacky numbers.

Well, to be fair, I know some "quantitative research is so limited, so 'boxed in' and qualitative research is so much better" folks at fully funded PhD programs.

 

[PHD12]

Yes, because the ONLY issue is money. Since that is the only issue, there is NO reason to have a discussion about the quality of PAU. Since It has been decided by all of the city people with points, me and my dog Arrow will sit in awe at your amazing revelations.

Forget it. I'm not responding. Its better for you to disregard all the data about the program.

 

[jenna1]

Forget it. I'm not responding. Its better for you to disregard all the data about the program.

Isn't this a response? Oh you are showing off your tricky skills that you employ with your patients ;-p The 'reverse psychology' technique...Ha! I fell for it. You are good.

 

[jenna1]

I thought this would be a nice website to go to for collaboration/information in the field that I love (from peers that I thought I could respect). I guess (a naive individual..go figure from the school I chose) I should have known better than to have joined a network of elitist trolls. Good luck with your futures. I hope you never have to collaborate with an alumni from PAU seeing that there is nothing qualitatively or quantitatively good about our training (minus the top 10%).

 

[ResearchGirlie]

I thought this would be a nice website to go to for collaboration/information in the field that I love (from peers that I thought I could respect). I guess (a naive individual..go figure from the school I chose) I should have known better than to have joined a network of elitist trolls. Good luck with your futures. I hope you never have to collaborate with an alumni from PAU seeing that there is nothing qualitatively or quantitatively good about our training (minus the top 10%).

There's a lot of all or nothing thinking going on in your post. People have repeatedly stated in this thread and others that have worked with or know extremely capable intelligent people from PAU. The difference is that the school, because of it's name and FSPS status, sets students up for an uphill battle in a field that's already a rather large uphill battle. People can think that there are smart people at your school and also think that going to the school isn't in most people's best interest. If you are wealthy and don't care about what the impact FSPS schools have on the field of psychology, then by all means go for PAU and learn as much as you can! This doesn't mean you aren't intelligent or that you won't make a good clinician, it just means your priorities are different than a number of other people.

 

[Pragma]

Exactly.

I had been giving some serious consideration to making my member title "Elitist Troll" but am just not quite convinced

 

[cara susanna]

I don't get why people always call us trolls. Trolls take a countrary viewpoint just to make people angry because they enjoy watching the aftermath. Those of us being called trolls in this thread are not saying this just to cause chaos--we are *extremely* invested in this topic and most of us genuinely hold these beliefs.

Unless by trolls you mean that we're ugly and live under bridges, of course. I guess it'd have to be a really nice bridge since we're elitist, too.

 

[jenna1]

As other posters have noted, it's the tone. The inability to allow anything good to be talked about. We are an APA accredited school. We have many bright students who get great placements and who produce quality research. We have rare training opportunities (mindfulness, health). However, when this is mentioned its refuted with how ridiculous I am for recommending (which I am not..I'm just sharing my positive experience) a school with such a huge price tag. Conversing is one thing, but having a rude tone and being so inflexible is why I believe talking in this forum, is like talking to a bunch of trolls. I don't want to give away my privacy or others, so I understand why my words are questioned (in terms of experiences). However, it seems that case examples are fine (refer to first page), as long as they support our school being a 'diploma mill.'

 

[Pragma]

As other posters have noted, it's the tone. The inability to allow anything good to be talked about. We are an APA accredited school. We have many bright students who get great placements and who produce quality research. We have rare training opportunities (mindfulness, health). However, when this is mentioned its refuted with how ridiculous I am for recommending (which I am not..I'm just sharing my positive experience) a school with such a huge price tag. Conversing is one thing, but having a rude tone and being so inflexible is why I believe talking in this forum, is like talking to a bunch of trolls. I don't want to give away my privacy or others, so I understand why my words are questioned (in terms of experiences). However, it seems that case examples are fine (refer to first page), as long as they support our school being a 'diploma mill.'

FWIW jenna, I think I'd be feeling defensive if my own program were being criticized, although the funding situation was entirely different.

But resorting to name-calling and personal attacks really doesn't represent you or your program very well.

This thread is definitely a two-way street. But there are some of us that are already licensed and in various positions within the field (including at least one poster evaluating/supervising PAU students in clinical placements). Some of us have watched contemporaneous graduates of programs like yours struggle mightily after they hit the real world. You may not agree with it, but I think a number of us view the realistic criticism levied against high-cost programs as necessary (and not nearly enough) to combat the "flowers and gumdrops" discourse and marketing that is dished out in favor of these programs. Some of us had some first-hand experience with this type of marketing and in my case, I had very little warning about it and luckily was accepted to a funded program.

I apologize for any frustration I may have caused you with any of my posts. But I cannot help what I know and have experienced (including hearing statements from hiring decision-makers in the field) and I do feel obligated to at least share some counterbalancing information. If you'd like to dichotomize that and color me an elitist troll, then I'll wear that as a badge of honor in this case.

 

[leftbrian]

As other posters have noted, it's the tone. The inability to allow anything good to be talked about. We are an APA accredited school. We have many bright students who get great placements and who produce quality research. We have rare training opportunities (mindfulness, health). However, when this is mentioned its refuted with how ridiculous I am for recommending (which I am not..I'm just sharing my positive experience) a school with such a huge price tag. Conversing is one thing, but having a rude tone and being so inflexible is why I believe talking in this forum, is like talking to a bunch of trolls. I don't want to give away my privacy or others, so I understand why my words are questioned (in terms of experiences). However, it seems that case examples are fine (refer to first page), as long as they support our school being a 'diploma mill.'

I can see how the tone here can be interpreted as rude. But again, I don't think you would interpret it that way if you don't take it too personally because the school you are enrolled in (not you, a very bright student) is part of the bigger systemic issue. It is a difficult position.

People take liberty of speaking their mind online without filters. But that doesn't make them trolls. In a way, it seems better to hear the honest opinions here so you are ready for the private and often negative views held by other professionals in the field whenever and wherever you meet them, regarding programs that churn out 30+ graduates a year. Often these privately held opinions make an ultimate difference in job selection, before there is time to learn about how exceptional a clinician/psychologist you might be. Not even in the job market - as discussed by others, some internship sites will throw out any applications from certain schools. Are those schools "bad"? Yes and No. Yes likely because of their reputations and contributions to the internship supply/demand problem etc. No because there are exceptional students in these schools that deserve consideration. Unfortunately, these students become guilty by association. Thus, it seems fair to warn prospective students of these avoidable disadvantages have they thought more seriously about other graduate programs that will less likely to lead them to this path.

 

[cara susanna]

I think that most people take on a snarky tone because in the past they've tried to sound very polite and make a lot of couching statements, but it's always taken the same way (either people getting outraged or people putting their hands over their ears and not listening).

 

[AcronymAllergy]

In addition to the above, I'd mention that I don't think many posters here have (at least recently) referred to PAU as a diploma mill. The program has been said to have graduated talented clinicians, and to have seemingly offered positive training experiences (with the biggest concern in that area being related to cohort size).

The main sticking point really has been the cost. This point is then generalized to all programs that place their graduates in financially-precarious situations owing to the large levels of debt and concomittantly lower levels of average reimbursement. It's this situation, rather than the potential quality of training, that's mainly been mentioned with respect to PAU specifically. It also doesn't help, as others have said, that the cost is accumulated while attending a school that some hiring folks, whether or not it's actually justified, might initially view in a negative light.

Would some Ph.D. or less-expensive Psy.D. programs also potentially be viewed negatively? Sure, particularly if that program has sent out bad students in the past. The differences are that 1) there are generally fewer students going out, and so necessarily fewer such bad experiences are possible, and 2) the students having their programs viewed negatively generally aren't burdened with the same levels of debt.

That pretty much covers my take on things, anyway.

 

[jenna1]

Interesting. A lot of private universities had similar match rates of 60% over the years. Something ought to be done about 'those' universities (maybe get rid of them altogether):

http://www.appic.org/Portals/0/downloads/APPIC_Match_Rates_2000-10_by_State.pdf

 

[jenna1]

Yikes, many had years of 30% match rate.. Ouch! It's strange, during my 12 interviews (only applied to 15 sites) for internship, I received a lot of praise when I mentioned working closely with Dr. Greene. I did not receive any feedback or body language etc. that would indicate that our school has a bad reputation.

 

[Pragma]

Interesting. A lot of private universities had similar match rates of 60% over the years. Something ought to be done about 'those' universities (maybe get rid of them altogether):

http://www.appic.org/Portals/0/downloads/APPIC_Match_Rates_2000-10_by_State.pdf

I would be concerned about a 60% match rate for any program, and many of us have suggested that very high match rate standards be implemented or accreditation be stripped. Of course, when you have a huge cohort of 30 people, the overall damage of a 60% match rate is even worse than when you have a cohort of 6. Particularly when you are the most expensive institution in the country.

 

[leftbrian]

I would be concerned about a 60% match rate for any program, and many of us have suggested that very high match rate standards be implemented or accreditation be stripped. Of course, when you have a huge cohort of 30 people, the overall damage of a 60% match rate is even worse than when you have a cohort of 6. Particularly when you are the most expensive institution in the country.

That is a good point. But if a small program consistently yields below 60% match rate to APA sites, that is a red flag too! Though more often than not, you are bound to get a year or two of subpar match rates in small programs (n=3-5 per cohort) even if 1 student does not match.

 

[NotTheHoff]

Interesting. A lot of private universities had similar match rates of 60% over the years. Something ought to be done about 'those' universities (maybe get rid of them altogether):

http://www.appic.org/Portals/0/downloads/APPIC_Match_Rates_2000-10_by_State.pdf

Note that the petition to APA focuses on addressing programs with poor match rates. Professional schools are mentioned only once in text and not in the proposed revisions.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/psychology-internship/

 

[jenna1]

Looking through the site, there are only a handful of schools that have 'superior' match rates. It seems the difference is that our school is expensive and has more students than a private university. The quality of training is comparable and I would like to see how you dispute that. We have the same standards (comp exams, dissertation [no brainer]). I do not want to get on the bandwagon with targeting schools (I understand there are diploma mills) but our school is different. The price tag stinks, which is reason for many to not chose our school. However, I disagree that our match rates are not comparable with other private institutions.

I am not an idiot, and agree that the imbalance is unfair. Many qualified student doctors do not match and have to accrue a ridiculous amount of time and money in order to wait until the following year. However, I met some (probably smart) really strange (socially speaking) individuals during internship interviews. I believe people underestimate the 'would I want to work with this person' phenomenon.

 

[jenna1]

The girl with the Christmas Sweater (and lights) at an interview (from private university) really put the icing on the cake. That made me feel WAY more comfortable with the process. I guess, to each their own.

 

[Pragma]

Looking through the site, there are only a handful of schools that have 'superior' match rates. It seems the difference is that our school is expensive and has more students than a private university. The quality of training is comparable and I would like to see how you dispute that. We have the same standards (comp exams, dissertation [no brainer]). I do not want to get on the bandwagon with targeting schools (I understand there are diploma mills) but our school is different. The price tag stinks, which is reason for many to not chose our school. However, I disagree that our match rates are not comparable with other private institutions.

I am not an idiot, and agree that the imbalance is unfair. Many qualified student doctors do not match and have to accrue a ridiculous amount of time and money in order to wait until the following year. However, I met some (probably smart) really strange (socially speaking) individuals during internship interviews. I believe people underestimate the 'would I want to work with this person' phenomenon.

Not sure where we would draw the cutoff, but obviously any pattern that constitutes a sizable proportion of students not matching each year is a problem. Not matching to APA sites is also a huge problem. I don't have much first hand experience with this, as my program consistently matched 85-95%.

Really the primary metric we have for quality of training is APA accreditation, which is only a minimal standard for training in the field. Not having it is a huge red flag, but having it does not guarantee that you are providing optimal training.

I'd argue that things like APA match rates, licensure outcomes, and job placements are collectively going to be the best proxy for quality of training provided at an institution. Of course there are other factors and also variability by student as well (i.e., some students would do well anywhere).

It may seem elitist to you, but I also judge program quality based on cohort size. Even if you have a lot of resources, there is greater potential for poor mentorship and to me it reflects having lower admission standards. Plus, these programs that are admitting large cohorts are doing a disservice to the field by saturating the market, despite whatever nonsense rationalizations they come up with. To me that reflects poorly on the intent and integrity of the program, even if that exists due to larger systemic institutional pressure to generate more revenue. It shows you where priorities are. By the same token (and as I have mentioned before), philosophically I'd say that institutions that provide funding seem more committed to training in general than institutions that use student tuition as a revenue source.

If I were making a decision about where to apply to and where to accept an offer from, all of these factors would/should be very important to me.

 

[NotTheHoff]

I believe people underestimate the 'would I want to work with this person' phenomenon.

Going from an applicant last year to being part of the interviews and ranking this year, I can say at least at my program this aspect was a big factor at the interview stage. Applicants understandably overlap a great deal in the content of their responses, both compared to others and compared to their application. Process and interpersonal qualities are areas where an applicant can really stand out, for better or worse.

 

[jenna1]

Not sure where we would draw the cutoff, but obviously any pattern that constitutes a sizable proportion of students not matching each year is a problem. Not matching to APA sites is also a huge problem. I don't have much first hand experience with this, as my program consistently matched 85-95%.

Really the primary metric we have for quality of training is APA accreditation, which is only a minimal standard for training in the field. Not having it is a huge red flag, but having it does not guarantee that you are providing optimal training.

I'd argue that things like APA match rates, licensure outcomes, and job placements are collectively going to be the best proxy for quality of training provided at an institution. Of course there are other factors and also variability by student as well (i.e., some students would do well anywhere).

It may seem elitist to you, but I also judge program quality based on cohort size. Even if you have a lot of resources, there is greater potential for poor mentorship and to me it reflects having lower admission standards. Plus, these programs that are admitting large cohorts are doing a disservice to the field by saturating the market, despite whatever nonsense rationalizations they come up with. To me that reflects poorly on the intent and integrity of the program, even if that exists due to larger systemic institutional pressure to generate more revenue. It shows you where priorities are. By the same token (and as I have mentioned before), philosophically I'd say that institutions that provide funding seem more committed to training in general than institutions that use student tuition as a revenue source.

If I were making a decision about where to apply to and where to accept an offer from, all of these factors would/should be very important to me.

It is important to think about these things. However, not having a mentor has not been an issue for me or any of my peers. We have a research advisor (mine has been amazing) and an internship advisor. I have worked closely with my dissertation committee and have been very pleased with the amount of support that I have received. You are making an assumption based on size, without looking into the actual program. I understand that the program may not be for you (and I am not advocating that anyone come here, just giving another view on my experience) but assumptions without further information is unfair.

 

[jenna1]

I think that most people take on a snarky tone because in the past they've tried to sound very polite and make a lot of couching statements, but it's always taken the same way (either people getting outraged or people putting their hands over their ears and not listening).

I appreciate your sentiment but isn't it presumptuous to assume that b/c someone does not agree with every point that is brought up, that THEY have their hands over their ears?

 

[jenna1]

FWIW jenna, I think I'd be feeling defensive if my own program were being criticized, although the funding situation was entirely different.

But resorting to name-calling and personal attacks really doesn't represent you or your program very well.

This thread is definitely a two-way street. But there are some of us that are already licensed and in various positions within the field (including at least one poster evaluating/supervising PAU students in clinical placements). Some of us have watched contemporaneous graduates of programs like yours struggle mightily after they hit the real world. You may not agree with it, but I think a number of us view the realistic criticism levied against high-cost programs as necessary (and not nearly enough) to combat the "flowers and gumdrops" discourse and marketing that is dished out in favor of these programs. Some of us had some first-hand experience with this type of marketing and in my case, I had very little warning about it and luckily was accepted to a funded program.

I apologize for any frustration I may have caused you with any of my posts. But I cannot help what I know and have experienced (including hearing statements from hiring decision-makers in the field) and I do feel obligated to at least share some counterbalancing information. If you'd like to dichotomize that and color me an elitist troll, then I'll wear that as a badge of honor in this case.

I appreciate what you are saying but again, case examples. I can list many students getting placed in amazing postdoc positions and being hired at those same sites. We both will not state the names (for privacy) but I cannot agree that we do not have many success rates. However, I do agree that there are individuals that believe if they do the 'minimum' requirements, that they will be successful. People have to work hard at achieving a specific goal. This field is competitive whether you are from a private OR professional school.

 

[Pragma]

It is important to think about these things. However, not having a mentor has not been an issue for me or any of my peers. We have a research advisor (mine has been amazing) and an internship advisor. I have worked closely with my dissertation committee and have been very pleased with the amount of support that I have received. You are making an assumption based on size, without looking into the actual program. I understand that the program may not be for you (and I am not advocating that anyone come here, just giving another view on my experience) but assumptions without further information is unfair.

I am not making an assumption. You can be satisfied with your mentorship, but satisfaction does not necessarily reflect the quality of the mentorship training. You are making the assumption that it is fine without ever knowing how it might be in a small cohort. See? Accusing people of assuming things is fun.

But admissions standards and field stewardship are clearly things that limiting the size of a cohort supports. Programs that don't do this (in my view) are not focused properly.