PBS Frontline - For Profit Universities

[FadedC]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Next time, not sure when, I will finally explain the reasons why Fielding has not done well in the Match for internships. To give you a hint, Fielding didn't require it before this year. Remember, Fielding students are, on average 43 years old. So, we either have our own practices, or know others that do, or create our own internship modlels. Moroever, most Fielding students go to Fielding for a reason; they are bound to a geographical location. As a result, they chose not to compete in the Match.
MFP 👍🙂😱 YOU!

Well I have no opinion about Fielding and I'm more open minded then many about professional schools. But I will say that this argument makes no sense for explaining a low match rate. A low match rate doesn't mean that few people apply. It means that most of the people who do choose to apply are rejected. People who don't apply at all are not counted.

 

[Ollie123]

I'll repeat myself here...because it seems necessary.

Most attempts people seem to make to "defend' these schools seem to just dig them in deeper. Posts like these convince me even further that certain schools have a generally weak student body and are not adequately training people. Though I'm beginning to understand why Fielding requires an entire course in critical thinking...maybe they should think about making it a sequence? I'm not sure one was enough.

 

[olychick65]

fund them with what money? I'm not being snippy, just ignorant.

No, that's a good question.

My automatic response was "grant money, of course!" but... most of these schools (I'm thinking of the Argosy school in the special) don't have much if any grant money because they're not doing very much (any?) funded research.

Maybe that gets to the crux of the issue: when schools are dependent on their students' money to stay in business, they will take more students than they can conceivably train with ethical standards- because how else will they make the money they need to make?

So, maybe the schools should have to take out federal loans themselves to pay for the upfront costs & student fees until they're accredited if they can't pay for students using grants and other research/practicum money. Smaller class sizes, schools really motivated to move for accreditation...

 

[olychick65]

I'll repeat myself here...because it seems necessary.

Most attempts people seem to make to "defend' these schools seem to just dig them in deeper. Posts like these convince me even further that certain schools have a generally weak student body and are not adequately training people. Though I'm beginning to understand why Fielding requires an entire course in critical thinking...maybe they should think about making it a sequence? I'm not sure one was enough.

I just think this needs to be posted twice for good measure.👍

 

[erg923]

Hey, it's me again. The Fielding student. I'm sorry that my schedule hasn't afforded me the time you folks seem to have to hang out on this "wanna-be" Dr. chatter board," but some of us actually work with patients, publish articles and strive to advance the field. So, forgive me for not being able to designate much time to what I like to call the "chatter of fools."

Why are you on here? To discuss psychology, perhaps like Freud and his colleagues did in their Wednesdy gatherings in the late 19th century. Or, do you do it to placate your deepest, most personal fears and insecurities. I would suggest, no, not suggest, STATE, that the latter is true for a great many of you. (NOT all of you; by the time I am done, you will know who I mean).

What a joke, I have looked at comments made by the same few of you over the last several years, and it most certainly evidences my hypothesis. You trash this school and that school, or this degree or that degree, and you never, ever say where you go to school. Moreover, some of you write precisely the same thing, every time you "get up to bat," whether the issue is "bash a PsyD program" or "make myself feel better about myself feel better by degrading Fielding, yes, my school. In one case, an esteemed "two year- senior member," who apparently has a "following" or "fan base," states over and over "not everyone has the right to be called a psychologist". How axiomatic, not! Who are you? Who gave you permission to proclaim rights for anyone other than yourself? Who are you kidding, yourself? I suggest you, and several others like you, are insecure, paranoid and belong in a differnet school of higher learning - they call it High School. Moreover, what clinical psychology programs are you in, what pubs have you authored recently? OH, that's right, this fourm is your publisher.

I am sure there are several of you out there who would agree with my critique. Don't be spineless. Like all egotists, these wannabes simply regurgitate the same, baseless information time and time again. I would like to make a recommendation to the one's of you I've exposed in my post. Figure out what is eating you!! You know what I mean, stuff like being teased in high school because you were losers, or not having the ability to stand up for yourselves and discover your own beliefs, or the even darker aspects of your personalities that engages your crowd mentality and deep selfishness which yields deep immaturity. "Come on, let's all throw rocks and hide behind Mr. John O. Therapist. Do you like that name? I have taken the liberty to take two or three profile names, and turn them into one antogonist name that represents the top two or three biggest wannabes on the board.

In the final analysis, the fact that clinical psychology is merely a soft science that will never make anyone rich, on its own, remains. The individuals who will succeed are the same people who have succeeded all their lives. I am talking about applying innate skills, such as character, passion, creativity and ingenuity and the ability to write. You know, the kinds of students that attend Fielding (which has an acceptance rate of somewhere around 18%, DOES not market or advertise for its clinical psychology program, that is NOT-for-Profit, AND, that has created and built the first media psychology program anywhere in the world, which has turned into a joint endavor with USC - LA. And, it's not going away.

Also, I must share one more piece of information with you. The APA looks to Fielding to offer respecialization programs for those who have PhD degrees in another disciplines of psychology, and put them through a respecialization program that lasts 3 years. Not only is it highly sought after by professionals from around the globe, but it allows students who who work toward their first PhD to learn, intreact and study with an excellent mixture of students. In my cluster: here is where master's degrees were earned: Oxford, Columbia, Bucknell Universtiy, Dickinson College, University of Michigan (PhD in Evolutionary Psychology), Case Western Universtiy, Williams, and Swarthmore. This is a very typical cross-section of our students.

Next time, not sure when, I will finally explain the reasons why Fielding has not done well in the Match for internships. To give you a hint, Fielding didn't require it before this year. Remember, Fielding students are, on average 43 years old. So, we either have our own practices, or know others that do, or create our own internship modlels. Moroever, most Fielding students go to Fielding for a reason; they are bound to a geographical location. As a result, they chose not to compete in the Match. This year the rules have changed. So, look out, you will be working with us, and for us, at some point to boot.

MFP 👍🙂😱 YOU!

I don't really know what the point of the above ramble is, but lets just say that it never really matters what YOU think of your program- The hard (admittedly unfair) reality is that it only matters what OTHERS (i.e., employers and other psychs) think of your program.

As an aside, although people on here tend to be opinionated and sometimes paint too broad of a stroke with their statements, the fact is that the people that you speak of so negatively are generally the most scholarly and productive members on this forum. They have been a great help to many who want to learn about the ins and out this field and have provided countless pieces of both statistical and clinical insight/advice over the years.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Yeah, I think that in order to deal with the major issue here, which seems to be supply/demand, we have to cut off the excess supply. If students going to schools that are charging high tuition, etc. etc. can't get federal loans, maybe that will help.

Maybe no federal loans to schools without APA-accred?

(I can feel apppsy yelling, "then how will any schools get APA-accred???")

Well, maybe they'll have to fund students until then?

Politely, WHAT?

I NEVER said I was pro-unfunded schools! In fact, I strongly advise my students NOT to go to unfunded programs, and I myself will be going to a funded, accredited, university-based PhD program. I was just mentioning the APA rule--and I hope most psych students DON'T have to take out federal loans, regardless!

I think professional schools, as a whole and noting that there are strong students that come out of them, hurt their students and the profession because they lack the structure given by a university in terms of funding, mentorship, class sizes, etc., to ensure strong training. Even those students who manage to get good training in professional schools are still faced with the issue of huge debt in a mid-to-low-paying field.


Nice job of not reading my post, though.

 

[deleted176373]

Hey, it's me again. The Fielding student. I'm sorry that my schedule hasn't afforded me the time you folks seem to have to hang out on this "wanna-be" Dr. chatter board," but some of us actually work with patients, publish articles and strive to advance the field. So, forgive me for not being able to designate much time to what I like to call the "chatter of fools."

Yes, that's right, I go to such an easy program and that's why I have all the time in the world to play "wanna-be" Dr. Surprise, I have actually published, I have worked with patients, and I have worked to advance the field and yet, despite my limited abilities still manage to find time to engage in discourse here. If it is such foolish chatter, why even grace us with your opinion? You're clearly intelligent, but for some reason you feel a need to remind us that you're clearly above this sort of diatribe, why?

Why are you on here? To discuss psychology, perhaps like Freud and his colleagues did in their Wednesdy gatherings in the late 19th century. Or, do you do it to placate your deepest, most personal fears and insecurities. I would suggest, no, not suggest, STATE, that the latter is true for a great many of you. (NOT all of you; by the time I am done, you will know who I mean).

Yes, I realize that you're not aiming this at me, but why do you feel the need to beat those who do harbor these insecurities like Rodney King at an LA traffic stop?

What a joke, I have looked at comments made by the same few of you over the last several years, and it most certainly evidences my hypothesis. You trash this school and that school, or this degree or that degree, and you never, ever say where you go to school. Moreover, some of you write precisely the same thing, every time you "get up to bat," whether the issue is "bash a PsyD program" or "make myself feel better about myself feel better by degrading Fielding, yes, my school. In one case, an esteemed "two year- senior member," who apparently has a "following" or "fan base," states over and over "not everyone has the right to be called a psychologist".

As one of those "two year senior members", I probably should pipe in, although I don't have a fan base or following so to speak.

It's called consistency of belief. Given the lack of evidence to change our beliefs, why would we?

I have always said where I go to school, I am proud of where I go to school. Bring on the trash talking... I go to USUHS.

How axiomatic, not! Who are you? Who gave you permission to proclaim rights for anyone other than yourself? Who are you kidding, yourself? I suggest you, and several others like you, are insecure, paranoid and belong in a differnet school of higher learning - they call it High School.

Actually, from a legal standpoint, not everyone who wants to call themselves a psychologist has the right to do so. Masters level clinicians, clinical social workers, people who are not licensed in many states regardless of their academic credentials, etc cannot call themselves psychologists and more than I can call myself a Medical Doctor, a CPA, or an attorney. It is a LEGALLY protected term.

Moreover, what clinical psychology programs are you in, what pubs have you authored recently? OH, that's right, this fourm is your publisher.

As I said, USUHS is the program, below is my most recent publication.

Calvio, L., M. Peugeot, et al. (2010). "Measures of Cognitive Function and Work in Occupationally Active Breast Cancer Survivors." Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 52(2): 219-227 210.1097/JOM.1090b1013e3181d1090bef1097.

I am sure there are several of you out there who would agree with my critique. Don't be spineless. Like all egotists, these wannabes simply regurgitate the same, baseless information time and time again. I would like to make a recommendation to the one's of you I've exposed in my post. Figure out what is eating you!! You know what I mean, stuff like being teased in high school because you were losers, or not having the ability to stand up for yourselves and discover your own beliefs, or the even darker aspects of your personalities that engages your crowd mentality and deep selfishness which yields deep immaturity. "Come on, let's all throw rocks and hide behind Mr. John O. Therapist. Do you like that name? I have taken the liberty to take two or three profile names, and turn them into one antogonist name that represents the top two or three biggest wannabes on the board.

Who knows if I am being included or not... Don't really care. Whether or not, I happen to agree with both points made by them and others. However, I'll stand on my own two feet and call things the way I see them.

In the final analysis, the fact that clinical psychology is merely a soft science that will never make anyone rich, on its own, remains. The individuals who will succeed are the same people who have succeeded all their lives. I am talking about applying innate skills, such as character, passion, creativity and ingenuity and the ability to write. You know, the kinds of students that attend Fielding (which has an acceptance rate of somewhere around 18%, DOES not market or advertise for its clinical psychology program, that is NOT-for-Profit, AND, that has created and built the first media psychology program anywhere in the world, which has turned into a joint endavor with USC - LA. And, it's not going away.

It's funny that you feel so compelled to carry the torch for Fielding, as if the fact that you feel that it has been some how maligned by those who don't feel that Fielding is a good value. I'm sorry, but when your match statistics are in the toliet and you can't even get more than 2/3's of a class into funded internships, that's a problem. I have no idea what students attend, but I can tell from the numbers that they aren't competitive in general for APA internships (whether that reason has to do with a self-selection bias among the students or a bias that APA sites holds agains Fielding graduates is another matter altogether.)

Also, I must share one more piece of information with you. The APA looks to Fielding to offer respecialization programs for those who have PhD degrees in another disciplines of psychology, and put them through a respecialization program that lasts 3 years. Not only is it highly sought after by professionals from around the globe, but it allows students who who work toward their first PhD to learn, intreact and study with an excellent mixture of students. In my cluster: here is where master's degrees were earned: Oxford, Columbia, Bucknell Universtiy, Dickinson College, University of Michigan (PhD in Evolutionary Psychology), Case Western Universtiy, Williams, and Swarthmore. This is a very typical cross-section of our students.

Let me ask you this... if names are so not important (e.g. Fielding) then why are the names of where these students attended their master's or other ph.d. studies? You're trying to raise the status of Fielding by association, which is itself sorta bogus... because if Fielding was such a top notch university along with U of M, Columbia, Oxford, etc, there would be little need to even bother.

Look I have no doubt that some very smart people attend Fielding for their own personal reasons, but that does not make Fielding a competitive school because a handful of bright people are in your particular cohort.

The stats are dismal, 334 applied in 08-09 with 110 (33% roughly) accepted? Seriously, this you're proud of??? 74 started the program and then 50 people dropped?? That's staggering and sobering!

Next time, not sure when, I will finally explain the reasons why Fielding has not done well in the Match for internships. To give you a hint, Fielding didn't require it before this year. Remember, Fielding students are, on average 43 years old.

Match statistics are only based on those who applied to the match. This is a thin excuse. A more reasonable excuse is that this population is geographically locked into a small area, but perhaps that's a reason that these people should not be considering psychology. They simply don't have the ability to fulfill the program requirements when it comes to internship. I am 43 myself, and I will be moving for internship and I will be leaving my family to do so... it is a sacrifice that I decided to make when embarking on this journey.

So, we either have our own practices, or know others that do, or create our own internship modlels. Moroever, most Fielding students go to Fielding for a reason; they are bound to a geographical location. As a result, they chose not to compete in the Match. This year the rules have changed. So, look out, you will be working with us, and for us, at some point to boot.

Yes, but the 29 last year who did chose to compete in the match could not even get APA internships with any great regularity. Only 2/3's got internships with pay, and only 50% of them got APA accredited internships. Locked to a location or not, that's still pretty sad. I wouldn't brag about the 08-09 cohorts 10.5 mean years to completion either.

Lets pretend that 6 years completion is pretty normal in the world of Psychology... because it really is... From 2001-2004 Fielding accepted and ENROLLED 279 people, of which... 21, yes 21 have actually graduated, 150 are still enrolled (including 20 from 2001!!!), and 108 have DROPPED OUT!!!

Look, I am not knocking Fielding or the students, but the numbers are discordant with your assertion that Fielding is somehow a top tier program. Maybe it is, I don't know, I don't go there... All I can tell you is that when I was asking about internship with the military, I was warned that it would not enhance my chances of securing an internship with the military.

Mark

 

[olychick65]

Politely, I don't believe you read/understood what I was referring to.

My point was that if students can't get loans to schools that aren't funding them at all or enough to fulfill a decent grad student lifestyle (which is true of even many funded, already accredited, university-based PhD programs- thank God I got a fellowship!), they won't be able to go to those programs, no one will graduate from those programs, and so those programs will never get accredited.

It was not even related to unfunded programs specifically or your opinion about them.

Politely, WHAT?

I NEVER said I was pro-unfunded schools! In fact, I strongly advise my students NOT to go to unfunded programs, and I myself will be going to a funded, accredited, university-based PhD program. I was just mentioning the APA rule--and I hope most psych students DON'T have to take out federal loans, regardless!

I think professional schools, as a whole and noting that there are strong students that come out of them, hurt their students and the profession because they lack the structure given by a university in terms of funding, mentorship, class sizes, etc., to ensure strong training. Even those students who manage to get good training in professional schools are still faced with the issue of huge debt in a mid-to-low-paying field.


Nice job of not reading my post, though.

 

[jonathansmith86]

I have to agree with the Fielding student in saying, essentially, that this forum does have the tendency to do what all other forums do, which is devolve into petty bickering and insults. That's disappointing because at other times it serves a real purpose. I joined when I was applying to grad schools and have gotten a lot of information and participated in some useful discussion. I've also read really negative comments that only echo the PhD vs PsyD, university vs. free standing, and psychology as a science vs. psychology as quackery debates. I wouldn't even mind that so much if there was new evidence by informed people, but it seems a lot of the time to be the repeating of popular talking points, and that's getting us nowhere.

At the same time, I don't know that the Fielding student did anything to elevate the discourse.

 

[Neuropsych2be]

I have to agree with the Fielding student in saying, essentially, that this forum does have the tendency to do what all other forums do, which is devolve into petty bickering and insults. That's disappointing because at other times it serves a real purpose. I joined when I was applying to grad schools and have gotten a lot of information and participated in some useful discussion. I've also read really negative comments that only echo the PhD vs PsyD, university vs. free standing, and psychology as a science vs. psychology as quackery debates. I wouldn't even mind that so much if there was new evidence by informed people, but it seems a lot of the time to be the repeating of popular talking points, and that's getting us nowhere.

At the same time, I don't know that the Fielding student did anything to elevate the discourse.

I am another Fielding student who posts here. I find the tone on SDN to be a prime example of finding from the social psychology literature that interpersonal aggression increases in situations of anonymity. Many of the participants act and post in ways things they would never say in a non-virtual environment. This discussion is merely the latest round in very old set of dreary arguments. For example, I have tried explaining on these boards that my program is not online. I have explained that we have at least the same degree of face to face contact with faculty that students from more traditional programs; the difference being how this time is structured. All to no avail. It is like speaking to a succession of brick walls. The same thing happens with the Psy.D. versus Ph.D debate, the student loan issue etc ... Open minded dialogue is essential to psychological practice and this is precisely the element frequently missing from these forums. The capacity for reflection and modification of one's beliefs and hypotheses as well as openness to new ideas is essential for scientific research. It is unfortunate that many members of SDN from the highly traditional, scientist-practitioner research-oriented programs consistently fail to exhibit these traits on these boards. Oh the irony!

 

[futureapppsy2]

Politely, I don't believe you read/understood what I was referring to.

My point was that if students can't get loans to schools that aren't funding them at all or enough to fulfill a decent grad student lifestyle (which is true of even many funded, already accredited, university-based PhD programs- thank God I got a fellowship!), they won't be able to go to those programs, no one will graduate from those programs, and so those programs will never get accredited.

It was not even related to unfunded programs specifically or your opinion about them.

Yes, I think you misunderstood my point--an unfunded program is very different from an unaccredited program. Many just getting-started-and-thus-unaccredited programs fully fund students, and many accredited ones don't. Your proposal wouldn't eliminate new programs from accredition, just new unfunded ones.

Your proposal would draw away students with pre-existing financial obligations, and is probably too extreme. If you capped federal loans at non-accredited programs at, say, $10-15k a year, you would allow students to adjust for higher COL but not allow professional school level debt.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I am another Fielding student who posts here. I find the tone on SDN to be a prime example of finding from the social psychology literature that interpersonal aggression increases in situations of anonymity. Many of the participants act and post in ways things they would never say in a non-virtual environment. This discussion is merely the latest round in very old set of dreary arguments. For example, I have tried explaining on these boards that my program is not online. I have explained that we have at least the same degree of face to face contact with faculty that students from more traditional programs; the difference being how this time is structured. All to no avail. It is like speaking to a succession of brick walls. The same thing happens with the Psy.D. versus Ph.D debate, the student loan issue etc ... Open minded dialogue is essential to psychological practice and this is precisely the element frequently missing from these forums. The capacity for reflection and modification of one's beliefs and hypotheses as well as openness to new ideas is essential for scientific research. It is unfortunate that many members of SDN from the highly traditional, scientist-practitioner research-oriented programs consistently fail to exhibit these traits on these boards. Oh the irony!

I value your posts, Neuropsych. I may still think there are some gaps in Fielding's training model as I understand it, but I find your posts on the program very enlightening.

I also agree that posters can tend to conflate PsyD=professional school=bad when that isn't necessarily the case--I myself applied to two university-based PsyDs. However, I do think professional schools have some serious drawbacks (namely debt and match rate) that really need to be considered by applicants/potential students.

 

[deleted176373]

I am another Fielding student who posts here. I find the tone on SDN to be a prime example of finding from the social psychology literature that interpersonal aggression increases in situations of anonymity. Many of the participants act and post in ways things they would never say in a non-virtual environment. This discussion is merely the latest round in very old set of dreary arguments. For example, I have tried explaining on these boards that my program is not online. I have explained that we have at least the same degree of face to face contact with faculty that students from more traditional programs; the difference being how this time is structured. All to no avail. It is like speaking to a succession of brick walls. The same thing happens with the Psy.D. versus Ph.D debate, the student loan issue etc ... Open minded dialogue is essential to psychological practice and this is precisely the element frequently missing from these forums. The capacity for reflection and modification of one's beliefs and hypotheses as well as openness to new ideas is essential for scientific research. It is unfortunate that many members of SDN from the highly traditional, scientist-practitioner research-oriented programs consistently fail to exhibit these traits on these boards. Oh the irony!

I don't think that it's limited to the members of SDN, but rather that this is a microcosm of what is seen in general. As you note rather keenly, you feel like you are speaking to a succession of brick walls, why is that? Is it just here on SDN? I somehow doubt it.

While visible aggression certainly increases in cases where anonymity exists, the underlying values of the people who are willing to exhibit more aggression in these situations is unchanged when confronted face to face. If you think those underlying values change, I would challenge that. Like I said, I don't think it is limited to SDN.

You didn't have to swim upstream, you chose to go to Fielding. Who created this perception regarding Fielding... I don't think it was the students here that organically decided that professional programs were somehow flawed. There has been resistance throughout the profession to these schools and their graduates, but it didn't start here.

Mark

 

[PhishGirl]

I am another Fielding student who posts here. I find the tone on SDN to be a prime example of finding from the social psychology literature that interpersonal aggression increases in situations of anonymity. Many of the participants act and post in ways things they would never say in a non-virtual environment. This discussion is merely the latest round in very old set of dreary arguments. For example, I have tried explaining on these boards that my program is not online. I have explained that we have at least the same degree of face to face contact with faculty that students from more traditional programs; the difference being how this time is structured. All to no avail. It is like speaking to a succession of brick walls. The same thing happens with the Psy.D. versus Ph.D debate, the student loan issue etc ... Open minded dialogue is essential to psychological practice and this is precisely the element frequently missing from these forums. The capacity for reflection and modification of one's beliefs and hypotheses as well as openness to new ideas is essential for scientific research. It is unfortunate that many members of SDN from the highly traditional, scientist-practitioner research-oriented programs consistently fail to exhibit these traits on these boards. Oh the irony!

If you feel like you are talking to brick walls, then why are you still trying to convince everyone on here that your program is so great? Who cares what we think?

Though I will say that the tone of both Fielding students was, in my personal opinion, condescending and unhelpful to the general direction of the discussion. Insulting many of us by saying that we don't exhibit the traits that you have deemed key to psychological training is in poor taste. If you feel personally threatened by people's opinions on the for-profit university that you attend, then perhaps you should address that with yourself.

 

[jnine]

An alternate way of looking at this situation is: in the face of all the evidence, people hold a reasoned belief that Fielding is bad for psychology. Explaining Fielding's distributed learning model probably won't change that. There is still a significant online component to the program so opinions that Fielding is "online" are supported.

I personally feel that schools like Fielding are important to the field. They provide talented non-traditional students a way in. Many non-traditional students have something to offer in the way of diverse perspectives and training experiences. Many of these people would not be able to get/advance in the field otherwise, given the uber-competitive and sometimes cookie-cutter nature of traditional program admissions. To cut off opportunities for non-traditional people is to limit the field.

Fielding provides opportunities for Mr Perls the neuro, or for example, the talented BS/MS counselor w/ a great job but who needs a doctorate to advance. I think it's good to have these opportunities and get this cross-pollination.

The flipside is that Fielding lets in a lot of unqualified students. I keep referring to the "3/4 of admitted students drop out" stat because it's so surprising to me. It's strong evidence of Fielding's lax admissions. In light of evidence like this and in addition to the other issues frequently raised, I would be surprised if anyone didn't understand where the Fielding negativity was coming from. Best case scenario- even if those who defend Fielding are correct and persuasive, they will spend a lot of time explaining themselves to people who raise a suspicious eye. And that's probably what needs to happen.

Regarding the dialogue on these forums: with the increase in aggression comes an opportunity to trade genuine opinions. Here we cut through the need to be entirely PC while trying to remain professional. I have no love for the aggression but still see it as a unique opportunity and a great thing.

J9

I am another Fielding student who posts here. I find the tone on SDN to be a prime example of finding from the social psychology literature that interpersonal aggression increases in situations of anonymity. Many of the participants act and post in ways things they would never say in a non-virtual environment. This discussion is merely the latest round in very old set of dreary arguments. For example, I have tried explaining on these boards that my program is not online. I have explained that we have at least the same degree of face to face contact with faculty that students from more traditional programs; the difference being how this time is structured. All to no avail. It is like speaking to a succession of brick walls. The same thing happens with the Psy.D. versus Ph.D debate, the student loan issue etc ... Open minded dialogue is essential to psychological practice and this is precisely the element frequently missing from these forums. The capacity for reflection and modification of one's beliefs and hypotheses as well as openness to new ideas is essential for scientific research. It is unfortunate that many members of SDN from the highly traditional, scientist-practitioner research-oriented programs consistently fail to exhibit these traits on these boards. Oh the irony!

 

[phillydave]

I'm still trying to figure out who even mentioned Fielding in this thread before the diatribe began above. A very strange defense of a school that wasn't even even attacked.

 

[Ollie123]

I have...repeatedly...asked pointed questions on this forum and the master's forum about these programs - I believe I posted them in relation to another school, but I think most commentsstill relate to Fielding. Maybe the repetition is because no one answers them? To again repeat myself from something I said in the other section...

So far all anyone has managed to do when I ask is 1) Disappear, 2) Call me an elitist 3) Tell me I'm behind the times and that I have to accept this as "progress" without providing any convincing argument that it is or 4) Try to convince me that these things aren't THAT important.

So ball is in your court. I'm all for increased utilization of technology in every area possible. Only if I'm convinced it actually is progress though, and not just lowering standards to appease individuals who think its unfair that little things like "concern for client welfare" and "Professional responsibility and concern for the field as a whole and not just oneself" stop them from achieving their career goals.

What lab do these students work in? Where are they conducting their experiments? Who is providing oversight there? Where are they doing practicums and how is the school providing oversight? How does the school know what practica sites are providing legitimate practice and supervision if they have students scattered across the entire US, making it difficult to establish relationships with sites? If one is able to work a full-time job in addition to going to grad school, how can they possibly be learning as much? We're all bound by time, and even if I worked 100 hours a week I don't feel like I would be able to learn all that I should be learning.

As I said, I have ....repeatedly...tried to get answers to these questions. I have also...repeatedly...asked for a more detailed explanation of how it is possible Fielding students get just as much face to face time with faculty. People keep saying this, but whenever I press for more information, they fall back to one of the above four canned responses. In addition to class time, I get 2-4 hours of supervision per week. Anywhere from 2-10 hours worth of in-person meeting with my advisor, the research team, and other collaborating faculty depending on the week. This only includes the formal stuff...not even the frequent "Drop by with a question" kind of thing that is occurring constantly.

Grand total, across five years, I'll hazard a guess we're looking at several thousand hours of face-to-face interaction. So explain it to me...I would actually love to hear it. Explain to me how Fielding students spend several thousand hours in the same room as faculty members over the course of their degrees.

Psychologists/Academics are supposed to be open to new ideas, I agree. However, they are also supposed to approach ideas with a healthy amount of skepticism. If a single one of you would actually provide even half-legitimate, well-reasoned responses to these sorts of questions, you might have actually won me over by now. I'm willing to hear answers, but in several years worth of having this discussion, not a single answer has been provided. Instead, people usually just scream like little children about how unfair myself and others are for asking these questions. Which believe me, has been a spectacularly effective way to convince me that the folks at Fielding are smart, educated, and capable professionals.

 

[phillydave]

Gotcha, but still, no one (that I can find with a quick scan of the thread) has mentioned Fielding. The long winded, arrogant, nervously self-conscious, self-reassuring, and cartoonishly hypocritical speech about Fielding above was unsolicited.

 

[phillydave]

I did.

"I'm not sure I see a huge difference between the for-profit and the not-for-profit programs. Take Alliant, Argosy, and Fielding as examples. All three are standalone programs. All three have mostly subpar EPPP scores and match rates along with high admittance rates, high tuition and hence, debt. I don't know which one of those is for profit and which ones are designated not for profit. It doesn't really matter; that's a tax designation. The functional reality is that all exist and flourish based on tuition payments. I think you can go in to university based Vail model programs and find the same issues (e.g., Yeshiva, FIT et al. . .)."

Ah, just found it, should have used the actual search function. Well, my description of the defense still stands.

 

[progter]

I believe when Fielding students say "we spend more face to face time with our faculty than traditional students do."

Traditional programs take 4-6 years on average to complete. Fielding takes what, 10.5? That's where they are getting all those extra hours

=]

 

[psich]

Coming across students like "MrFritzPerls" really turns me off to their respective institutions. Does he think he is representing Fielding in a positive light by acting this way?

 

[docjohng]

What I still find astonishing in threads like this after all these years is how scientists-to-be and professionals so often argue from anecdotes and opinion rather than the data.

There's a few who do a good job sticking to the data (I'm looking at you Jon Snow!), which makes for far more interesting discussions and reasonable debate. But there's a lot of folks who come in here arguing from faulty perceptions, stereotypes or innuendo. Psychologists and psychologists-to-be should be the most aware of making such "arguments from emotion" rather than arguments from data.

Anecdote has a place in our world -- it helps fill in the details and give empirical data some color and context. But on its own, we all recognize such arguments as a single, lone data point that have little generalizability or scientific validity.

John

 

[futureapppsy2]

I have...repeatedly...asked pointed questions on this forum and the master's forum about these programs - I believe I posted them in relation to another school, but I think most commentsstill relate to Fielding. Maybe the repetition is because no one answers them? To again repeat myself from something I said in the other section...






As I said, I have ....repeatedly...tried to get answers to these questions. I have also...repeatedly...asked for a more detailed explanation of how it is possible Fielding students get just as much face to face time with faculty. People keep saying this, but whenever I press for more information, they fall back to one of the above four canned responses. In addition to class time, I get 2-4 hours of supervision per week. Anywhere from 2-10 hours worth of in-person meeting with my advisor, the research team, and other collaborating faculty depending on the week. This only includes the formal stuff...not even the frequent "Drop by with a question" kind of thing that is occurring constantly.

Grand total, across five years, I'll hazard a guess we're looking at several thousand hours of face-to-face interaction. So explain it to me...I would actually love to hear it. Explain to me how Fielding students spend several thousand hours in the same room as faculty members over the course of their degrees.

Psychologists/Academics are supposed to be open to new ideas, I agree. However, they are also supposed to approach ideas with a healthy amount of skepticism. If a single one of you would actually provide even half-legitimate, well-reasoned responses to these sorts of questions, you might have actually won me over by now. I'm willing to hear answers, but in several years worth of having this discussion, not a single answer has been provided. Instead, people usually just scream like little children about how unfair myself and others are for asking these questions. Which believe me, has been a spectacularly effective way to convince me that the folks at Fielding are smart, educated, and capable professionals.

I have the same questions about Fielding's face-to-face time, Ollie. I understand the theoretical model of Fielding's seminars but question if they actually get the same amount of face-to-face time or how they can, practically.

 

[deleted176373]

Anecdote has a place in our world -- it helps fill in the details and give empirical data some color and context. But on its own, we all recognize such arguments as a single, lone data point that have little generalizability or scientific validity.

John

Ahh, but the opposite can be true as well. A single data point can possibly have infinite generalizability or robust scientific validity, the problem is that without experimentation we will never know how valid that single, lone data point may or may not be.

Just the Devil's advocate.

Mark

 

[futureapppsy2]

Interesting to note that Fielding is now requiring that students apply for APPIC internships:

Clinical Internship

Your clinical internship consists of a planned, integrated sequence of clinical and educational experiences. Your internship provides sufficient training and supervision so that you can perform responsibly as a clinical psychologist after you have completed the program. You complete your internship as a 1-year, full-time experience or in 2 consecutive years, half-time.
All students apply to internship sites that are approved by the American Psychological Association (APA) or the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC) or comparable sites.
All students are required to apply for internships through APPIC Match. Those who are not geographically mobile must apply to at least seven APA, APPIC or CPA sites that are within 100 (driving) miles of their place of residence and for which they are eligible.

http://www.fielding.edu/programs/psy/psy/requirements/default.aspx

Also, here's their curriculum... the required number of clinical hours doesn't look half-bad, actually (from what I've seen,1000 pre-internship hours is on the high-end in terms of requirements), though the 200 hour research requirement seems a bit light... I probably spent around 700 hours on research this year as an undergrad. But, then again, I guess Fielding isn't a research intensive program by design,...

http://www.fielding.edu/programs/psy/psy/curriculum/sequence.aspx

Anyway, food for thought...

 

[turtleturtle]

Fortunately we do earn our reputations in the work environment. I work with over 35 psychologists, PsyDs, PhDs, non profit, for profit, accredited, and non-accredited. We all make the same salary. From my limited sample, the school clearly does not make the psychologist 🙂.

This is so true. I am applying to grad school now but working at a substance abuse clinic. Everyone has a different degree and varying amounts of experience. Sometimes it is the peer-counselors who have the best touch with the clients. The degree or where it came from does not make a psychologist.

I am confused why this board always devolves into this argument. I don't know anything about Argosy but for another take on for-profit universities: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126564748. I went to an Ivy League school for undergrad. Yeah, it is non-profit but that doesn't mean a whole lot of people aren't making a lot of money of its billion dollar endowment. I often felt that the quality of instruction was low on its priority list. Marketing was certainly higher. Since undergrad when taking classes for fun, I have had infinitely better instruction at my local community college and at for-profit educational facilities. To boot I didn't have to spend a lot of emotional and mental energy plus time applying and hoping I would be that one out of many to be accepted.

 

[RileyG]

This is so true. I am applying to grad school now but working at a substance abuse clinic. Everyone has a different degree and varying amounts of experience. Sometimes it is the peer-counselors who have the best touch with the clients. The degree or where it came from does not make a psychologist.

I am confused why this board always devolves into this argument. I don't know anything about Argosy but for another take on for-profit universities: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126564748. I went to an Ivy League school for undergrad. Yeah, it is non-profit but that doesn't mean a whole lot of people aren't making a lot of money of its billion dollar endowment. I often felt that the quality of instruction was low on its priority list. Marketing was certainly higher. Since undergrad when taking classes for fun, I have had infinitely better instruction at my local community college and at for-profit educational facilities. To boot I didn't have to spend a lot of emotional and mental energy plus time applying and hoping I would be that one out of many to be accepted.

Am I reading this right - are you saying it's a plus that you don't have to spend a lot of "mental energy" at your community college and for-profit institution...and that makes it better than the ivy league undergrad school you attended? I hope I'm reading that wrong...

The link you had said for-profits are good at making profits. That's not really another take on for-profit universities. I think we all could agree that these schools are good at making profits...the controversial issue is whether students benefit. That link didn't list any benefits for students, just those making money off the students.

 

[Sky75]

Absolutely. How does anyone (and I mean any person over the age of let's say 16, no need to know very much about psych at all) think that a practicum experience without therapy is a practicum experience? I don't understand why these people continued on with their educations, forked over thousands of dollars, after receiving ... field trips, when they were supposed to be learning how be professional psychologists.

You are forgetting that this was a nursing program and not a Psy.D. program that did rotations at a museum and a day care. They didn't become nurses or psychologists.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

This is so true. I am applying to grad school now but working at a substance abuse clinic. Everyone has a different degree and varying amounts of experience. Sometimes it is the peer-counselors who have the best touch with the clients. The degree or where it came from does not make a psychologist.

Actually, training is a large part of becoming a competent psychologist. Other professions may want to marginalize a psychologist's training, but it is far more involved than being able to develop a good therapeutic relationship.

 

[PsychGraduate]

This is a major area of concern when it comes to higher education and the for profit movement. When the for profit is operating well, not only generating a profit, but in general, behaving ethically and supplying a quality educational product, all is well. However, as highlighted by the PBS Frontline program, when profit motives outstrip educational efforts and financial aid practices are completely manipulated we get a horror story to say the least. Unfortuantely non-profit Universities and colleges are greatly suffering financially and in terms of educational quality, partly stemming from the aformentioned budget cuts and partly from hiring some excellent researchers who either cannot teach or who have general communication issues.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is no cure for human greed.

In the 1950's the US had what is termed the "social contract" where undergraduate education was 100% paid through grants for lower class, working class and middle class students. There were no subsidized or unsubsidized loans at all!!!!😱 When that changed and grant funds were reduced and interest loans were introduced fewer people could become students and those who did began to get themselves into debt😕 Prior to this higher education, well, atleast the first four years was a right and NOT a privilege

Big government and big corporations are both detriments as each lobbies and funds their own agendas and necessarily so make alliances and back room deals. This is the world we live in, unfortunately University of Pheonix has always seemed to me to be not quite in step educationally to where they should be, but what is worse is the market share they have with so many restrictions imposed on the students acting in synergy to reduce their reasonable, but not stellar educational model quality further.

Ashford I know from personal experience and past dealings years ago. The education is fine, the library is too small, the financial aid department is unethical, and the enrollment advisors are truly sales people.

Then again so called high quality schools like Stonybrook are overpriced, have many professors who do not communicate the material well at all, belittle their undergraduate and graduate students, and do not teach well in hands on applications in medicine or neuroscience because the professors are too busy with their own research. This coming from a very highly ranked and rated University in NY, no less. I had students who left Stonybrook with high GPA's and those with low, and they had the same exact complaints. I also have been on the campus and met some of the professors from there. Many of the questions in the neuroscience classes are made complex for no reason, are not research or clinically relevant and do not add to the general knowledge of the student.

Old Westbury is a cheap state school in Westbury LI NY and offers a quality education and getting into the bachelor's program is very easy while many of the master's programs are quite, albeit variably, accessible.

CSU Monterey is a quality school at a cheap tuition rate for CA residents and also offers good degree programs. Non-profits are also variable in quality even if they have a household name.

Capella is an excellent for profit school with excellent job placement rates as is Walden University, depending upon what your specific goals are.

I love PBS as they are the highest quality and most accurate television medium in the world😍 This is where more people should be getting their information and education from. I always had my suspicions about Argosy in certain regards, although the classes they offer are of high quality in general.

When the subprime mortages and collatoralized debt obligations imploded necessarily so, this country went into a deep tailspin to be sure. There is some potential here with some of these for profits, but a 4 year education should be a right for all US citizens; a higher education is beneficial psychologically, economically and can reduce crime rates. However, the degree does need to lead to better employment outcomes in general and au above 50% of its graduates and some for profit schools do just that.
Just as some quality non-profits do as well. It is a shame that higher quality for profits were not also included in the Frontline piece,but that will happen in time with more exposure to proper educational and business practices in that medium. Academia is also big business and many medical schools are influenced by the drug companies. Psychology practice is not as empirically and data validated as we like to think either, depending upon the subdivision we are in of course, but this is also a scary realization to face.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

When the subprime mortages and collatoralized debt obligations imploded necessarily so, this country went into a deep tailspin to be sure. There is some potential here with some of these for profits, but a 4 year education should be a right for all US citizens; a higher education is beneficial psychologically, economically and can reduce crime rates.

Unfortunately it is this kind of thinking that has propelled most of the fringe and alternative programs out there. They use this rallying cry to recruit anyone and everyone into high-tuition programs, typically setting them up for failure. The attrition rates are high, but so are the profits. Higher education is not and should not be a right of every citizen; it needs to be earned through effort and sometimes sacrafice.

 

[PsychGraduate]

Unfortunately it is this kind of thinking that has propelled most of the fringe and alternative programs out there. They use this rallying cry to recruit anyone and everyone into high-tuition programs, typically setting them up for failure. The attrition rates are high, but so are the profits. Higher education is not and should not be a right of every citizen; it needs to be earned through effort and sometimes sacrafice.

In the program in question there should be rigor and hard work yes, agreed. Not everyone does well in high school but they then do well later in life in college. Studies show that adult learners returning to college do better the second time around. However, this does not mean they have a lot of resources in their return either. An associates or a bachelors must be earned through being present in class, studying, doing the homework and passing tests; also agreed. However, access to an associates or a bachelor's should be a fundamental right so as long as the individual is not failing a bunch of classes over and over, and they are progressing on a reasonable timeline as measured against credits attempted and credits earned. Some of these schools rallying are actually very affordable actually.

 

[DrGero]

I wonder if ever the pool of federal money out there dried up (e.g., Stafford loans, PLUS loans) if we would see a significant decrease proportion of the for-profit schools out there. It seems like all that cheap money distorts the market, and one of the distortions artificially driving up demand for advanced degrees, which is what produces the "diploma mills."

 

[PsychGraduate]

I wonder if ever the pool of federal money out there dried up (e.g., Stafford loans, PLUS loans) if we would see a significant decrease proportion of the for-profit schools out there. It seems like all that cheap money distorts the market, and one of the distortions artificially driving up demand for advanced degrees, which is what produces the "diploma mills."

Probably and it would most likely devastate the state and community colleges as well, being that more than 50% of the student populations there also rely upon Stafford loans. I think that the non profit institutions should be 100% paid for by grants up to a bachelor's degree, as long as the student stays in good academic standing, and the for profits should only get loans and the student should still be in good academic standing. Imagine how much for profit would have to either/or lower their tuition and/or succumb to more stringent federal and accrediting body regulations and guidelines.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I wonder if ever the pool of federal money out there dried up (e.g., Stafford loans, PLUS loans) if we would see a significant decrease proportion of the for-profit schools out there. It seems like all that cheap money distorts the market, and one of the distortions artificially driving up demand for advanced degrees, which is what produces the "diploma mills."

Yes, that would be one of the results. Most/All of those for-profit schools rely heavily on loans (80%+), so they would be closed in a matter of months. False markets are being pushed to bolster degrees and encourage degree creep. It isn't just happening in psychology, fly-by-night MBA programs have popped up, as well as a host of other technical programs and "fluff" degrees aimed at less competitive people in the workforce.

 

[PsychGraduate]

Yes, that would be one of the results. Most/All of those for-profit schools rely heavily on loans (80%+), so they would be closed in a matter of months. False markets are being pushed to bolster degrees and encourage degree creep. It isn't just happening in psychology, fly-by-night MBA programs have popped up, as well as a host of other technical programs and "fluff" degrees aimed at less competitive people in the workforce.

Most colleges in this country heavily rely upon loans. With classism, ageism and racism as it is we cannot remove federal financial aid from the schools. The poor and working class who make up the majority of this country benefit from financial aid, forget profit versus non-profit, I am speaking in terms of smart and hard working students from indigent backgrounds who deserve to go to college. In turn this country benefits from them. Create some more laws to keep schools more honest, like the profits, sure I support that,however, we should not target the under represented from obtaining an education. Not all of them get scholarships, or substantial scholarships, even with 4.2 HS GPA's and high undergrad grads. Very few people actually pay for undergraduate all on their own or for masters or PhD's for that matter, but I digress.

 

[teo3099]

.

 

[DrGero]

The problem is that for-profit schools take advantage of these "indigent" students by taking their money and leaving them with an incredible debt burden and a degree that may not help at all with meaningful, longterm employment (because there are too many MBAs/PsyDs/whatevers now because of professional schools or the degree isn't taken seriously by employers or because the for-profit school didn't adequately equip students for work in their field or provides no help finding a job post-graduation).

So let's say our society then forgives that debt because the needy have been taken advantage of. Well, now society is effectively handing over millions of dollars to rich, corrupt institutions so everyone can have a degree. We've taken from society as a whole, taken from the poor, and given to the rich, white guys that are apparently holding the status quo for the lower classes.

That's that plan? That's how you help minorities? These private institutions should be replaced in society with legitimate schools that provide actual skills which would enable students to pay back their loans after graduation. I'm not saying ignore inequalities in our country. I'm saying help people help themselves and give them self-esteem by making them capable, hard-working, and self-sufficient. And this goes for the "privileged" as well. We need less people in college overall probably. If the aimless, partying college student wasn't taking up space, there might actually be more ways to include people who deserve to be there.

*As a note,

I hope this doesn't sound in any way disparaging of minorities, majorities, or whatever. I honestly feel its unethical and despicable the way people who are desperate for college are taken advantage of by institutions. The entire education enterprise has significant issues and the people who are least able to protect themselves are preyed upon the most. I think people in need deserve better assistance from society and not to be suckered by institutions that capitalize on dreams or desperation.

Hmmm. So rich banks are encouraged to loan federally-guaranteed money to students for useless degrees. Because there's suddenly a lot of cheap money sloshing around to pay for advanced degrees, a lot of fly-by-night diploma mills pop up to take advantage.

Between the loan guarantees and the debt forgiveness, it just sounds like yet another bailout for rich people. Wish I had bought stock in the Apollo Group 10 years back.

 

[aequitasveritas]

Profit incentive = maximize profits and minimize costs = produce at optimum capacity for maximum return on each unit.

Now apply to education. Student= unit; Quality of education including salary (do away with tenure! wtf), investment in an actual campus and additional educational resources = overhead to be minimized.

Result = crapacation, which I have just coined and it means the maximum crap load of degrees in things like ice sculpting and non acred. psych doctorates that for profits and onlines can possibly crap out in a given quarterly report to stock holders.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

An adjustment to the ratio of Federal Loans: Donations/Endowments/Other would eliminate many of the more questionable institutions and/or make them conform to more traditional ratios found at state institutions. The PBS special made reference to the difference in ratios, some going as 85:15, which is obscene. Requiring institutions to find other funding sources will decrease their reliance on Federal monies.

 

[leahyhl]

I would like someone to argue against these concrete advantages of the Psy.D. program at Argosy, D.C.:

1) EPPP pass rates on par with all top programs in the country
2) Class of 100 students per year: lifelong networking potential with a large cohort
3) Professors with teaching experience at tier one schools: Georgetown University, for example
4) Consortium of APA/APPIC internships for 20 students per year, specifically reserved for Argosy D.C. students
5) APA/APPIC internship match rate of 87%
6) All professors doing minimal research, not teaching undergraduates, and not teaching students in any other programs, hence all energy is focused on teaching Psy.D. students
7) Business class designed explicitly for aspiring private practitioners that creates tangible, specific, and applicable business plan for hanging a shingle: down to cost of furniture
8) Study abroad programs that offer supervised training and/or classroom instruction
9) Five year APA accreditation, the longest accreditation APA gives at a time
10) Multiple sections of the same course in one semester: allowing students to manage a job or family while in school

This post has been a barrage of opinions and little facts. Why is no one pointing out the advantages of the professional school model?

 

[PsychGraduate]

http://chronicle.com/article/For-Profit-Colleges-Change/64012/

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/02/attacks-against-for-profit-schools-dont-add-u/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-06-16-forprofit16_ST_N.htm

Some profits do real well, some do not in terms of educational quality and job placement.

 

[Ollie123]

Let me preface this by saying, from what I have heard it sounds like Argosy DC has a "better" reputation than most of the Argosy's. That said.

1) EPPP pass rates on par with all top programs in the country

Couldn't find anything more recent than 2006. These were decent, but I wouldn't say quite on par with the top programs. That said, better than most Argosy campuses.

2) Class of 100 students per year: lifelong networking potential with a large cohort

I mean I guess its an advantage though I'd argue that networking quality trumps quantity...I'd say the value of this is contingent on the others - I think a few connections in high places trumps a lot of connections.

3) Professors with teaching experience at tier one schools: Georgetown University, for example

Know what other schools have professors with teaching experience at tier one schools? Tier one schools😉

4) Consortium of APA/APPIC internships for 20 students per year, specifically reserved for Argosy D.C. students

. Glad they are being more responsible than the rest of the Argosy system and at least trying to accomodate the glut of students they produce. That said, Argosy students (as a whole across the system) make up an incredibly large portion of unmatched applicants. I'd say this makes it "less bad", but I wouldn't go so far as to call it an advantage.

5) APA/APPIC internship match rate of 87%

Actual APA match rate last year was under 50%. So although it is better than some other Argosy campuses, it is still WAY below average - not what I would call an advantage.

All professors doing minimal research, not teaching undergraduates, and not teaching students in any other programs, hence all energy is focused on teaching Psy.D. students

I can see how this holds some advantages, but I think this is more of a mixed bag. Faculty may have more time to devote to teaching, but may not have the experience and credentials relative to faculty with active research programs. Personally, I feel the primary role of faculty is mentoring more than didactic instruction (though both are important), so as I said...mixed.

7) Business class designed explicitly for aspiring private practitioners that creates tangible, specific, and applicable business plan for hanging a shingle: down to cost of furniture

Excellent. More schools should do this.

8) Study abroad programs that offer supervised training and/or classroom instruction

Excellent. More schools should do this.

9) Five year APA accreditation, the longest accreditation APA gives at a time

Actually the max is 7 years, and many programs would actually be upset to get 5 years. Either way, this is a minimum standard and not what I would call an "advantage" over respected schools.

10) Multiple sections of the same course in one semester: allowing students to manage a job or family while in school

Good-ish. Class-time flexibility is certainly nice, though I would argue anyone who is spending < 40-50 hours a week on training and still planning to graduate on time is probably not getting a real doctorate (as I define it anyways) so I have mixed feelings on the "job" side of things - especially if job means full-time.

This post has been a barrage of opinions and little facts. Why is no one pointing out the advantages of the professional school model?

Only a handful of the advantages you pointed out are actual advantages upon closer examination, and I fail to see how some of the ones that are actual advantages happen to be contingent on the professional school model (i.e. non-professional schools could also offer courses on the business side of practice).

Argosy DC is not the worst of the Argosy's, but Argosy as a whole certainly has one of the worst reputations of all accredited programs. While it may be unfair to assume all campuses are equal, it shouldn't be terribly surprising that this happens. This again doesn't mean that no one that comes out of Argosy is competent, but I'd define a good school as one that can guarantee EVERYONE (or nearly everyone - no school will be perfect) who comes out will be a great psychologist, not one that merely provides opportunities so that some of its graduates can become great psychologists. At the doctoral level, there should be some reasonable amount of quality assurance - that is what I think is lacking at most professional programs.

 

[teo3099]

.

 

[PsychGraduate]

http://gradworks.umi.com/3355024.pdf

 

[aequitasveritas]

http://gradworks.umi.com/3355024.pdf

Kinda long for some sdn reading on my end at least. What was the point that you wanted to get across with this qualitative literature review from an online university?

 

[aequitasveritas]

I would like someone to argue against these concrete advantages of the Psy.D. program at Argosy, D.C.:

1) EPPP pass rates on par with all top programs in the country
2) Class of 100 students per year: lifelong networking potential with a large cohort
3) Professors with teaching experience at tier one schools: Georgetown University, for example
4) Consortium of APA/APPIC internships for 20 students per year, specifically reserved for Argosy D.C. students
5) APA/APPIC internship match rate of 87%
6) All professors doing minimal research, not teaching undergraduates, and not teaching students in any other programs, hence all energy is focused on teaching Psy.D. students
7) Business class designed explicitly for aspiring private practitioners that creates tangible, specific, and applicable business plan for hanging a shingle: down to cost of furniture
8) Study abroad programs that offer supervised training and/or classroom instruction
9) Five year APA accreditation, the longest accreditation APA gives at a time
10) Multiple sections of the same course in one semester: allowing students to manage a job or family while in school

This post has been a barrage of opinions and little facts. Why is no one pointing out the advantages of the professional school model?

I agree that there are some advantages of pro schools. I go to one in fact. The applied training, the professional practice preparation, the range of depth in clinical inference and psychotherapy/theories, as well as assessment training are some things that are usually well above university affiliated programs. Most research based program supporters on this site have disagreed with that but they usually fail to produce evidence of any verifiable school training anywhere near on par with my program at least. Common retorts are the "real learning takes place outside the classroom" etc.

However, the argument is whether these schools should be able to exist on such extravagant federal loan totals per student. Moreover, there are businesses profiting from obscene amounts of tax money, which is why I abhor Argosy.

 

[DrGero]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/TheB...s-subprime-mortgages/story?id=10949046&page=1

I thought one of the reform suggestions at the end of the article was fascinating. What if for-profits were required to be on the hook for students if they defaulted on their debt, say, to the tune of 50% of their loan principal for starters? That might go a long way towards for-profits dialing back the number of students they enroll in useless programs.

 

[deleted176373]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/TheB...s-subprime-mortgages/story?id=10949046&page=1

I thought one of the reform suggestions at the end of the article was fascinating. What if for-profits were required to be on the hook for students if they defaulted on their debt, say, to the tune of 50% of their loan principal for starters? That might go a long way towards for-profits dialing back the number of students they enroll in useless programs.

That is an interesting idea... the shared risk model would go a long way to fixing the problem and would hold schools responsible for the outcomes. Still the students still need to not be allowed to walk away from their bad decisions completely free and clear either.

Mark

 

[PsychGraduate]

Kinda long for some sdn reading on my end at least. What was the point that you wanted to get across with this qualitative literature review from an online university?

You do not need to read it all and I certainly see the points that there are disadvatages to graduating with a PhD from a for profit online Uni. My only point without rehashing the other thread that is closed, is that an online degree is not "worthless" and that there are quality PhD dissertaions with good research methods and solid points backed by evidence and established theoretical frameworks. I am not trying to restart a full debate either at this point. All I am showing, with just one of hundreds of examples is that the research for the dissertation process and the resulting quality of the dissertation is very high and consistent. There is no doubt other issues which I cannot argue against, because you guys are right; the Frontline episode on PBS is very accurate and the facts are very disturbing. I do not think for profit Uni's should go away either as they serve a purpose, but there needs to be better laws enforcing oversight. I agree 100%. What I do know is that even those psychology majors who work hard in online school and do not go the clinical route usually get well paying and reputable jobs as well, atleast at the schools I am knowledgeable of, like Walden (for profit) and Fielding (non-profit). Some also go on to become APA accred and run reputable practices or work in a reputable clinic or hospital, etc... I repeat I concede to the major points that Frontline discussed and I understand that for profits have certain disadvantages. However, at the more rigorous online institutions and the distributed model schools (online with more face to face time) the people who obtain graduate degrees tend to be very focused on specific career goals and are not of lower calibar than those from the traditional route. There are also many issues with trad schools too and at times graduates are not well equipped though they went to a 'good' school and had the right mentors. Anyways, I am not arguing that the for profit model is not flawed or that Everest college is not crap, because it is, or that Phoenix is too big and has lost individual quality assessment, because it has, I also know from going to the department of education and CHEA that all of the for profits period have had some issues with financial aid practices not legal. I also know that there is a perception in some higher education that somehow online coursework is less rigorous at ALL online schools, but that is NOT true. At any rate, I have not lost respect for a student who receives a PhD from a mid tier Uni and busted their ass to get it, all I am saying is do not think that all or even most online Uni's have bad professors accross the board or easy to pass, irrelevant classes, but nothing could be further from the truth. Even Phoenix which I never attended or taught at has many great courses and textbooks. I just think they have gotten too big without enough outside regulation. I am not a fan of big gov either, but here gov should step in and assess their claims.

Some for profits do a good job policing themselves, and since I know them well, Walden does a good job. Laureat International University owns them and they are publicly traded but they also have more rigourous curriula and the costs are cheap. 260 a credit for undergrad and 300 and change per credit for grad which is very competitive; this is not a commercial, just saying.