- Joined
- Jan 11, 2011
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 34
- Points
- 4,651
- Psychology Student
Has anyone heard from PCOM PsyD? I haven't been invited for an interview or rejected, but I called and they said they "interview until the cohort is filled, up until July". What's up with that? Anybody decline/waitlist/rejected from PCOM?
Thanks so much!
Just wanted to address this piece of it--La Salle also has you pay per credit.PCOM's is the only program where you pay per credit.) They have a great reputation in the greater Philadelphia area, as well.
I'm currently in greater Philadelphia area and have worked in a variety of settings with folks from PCOM. My impression has always been that they are definitely skilled with the more cognitive therapies, especially manualized treatments. If your goal is to work for the Beck Institute that may be something that serves you well. Though the CBT training is intensive at this institution, the reputation over the past few years from supervisors and colleagues in the field is that folks from this program tend not to be well-rounded clinicians and there is difficulty with flexibility when patients present with severe and persistent mental illness due to not having exposure to other modalities. Keep in mind that practica and internships in the area tend to be more based in community mental health clinics, where SPMI is pervasive. I think this is an important aspect to consider when investing your time/money in training, especially if you plan to stay in the Philadelphia area.
If you're open to exploring your options, many of the other programs you have listed have great reputations. Many prominent psychologists in the area have attended Immaculata and Widener.
Thanks for your input! I definitely appreciate it. Your view points are definitely informative. Immaculata is another top choice of mine. I interview there 2/20, so I'm very excited. Unfortunately, I cannot go to Widener because I have a conflict of interest of knowing someone who teaches there.
Uh, what? Since when does knowing a faculty member prohibit someone from attending a clinical program? There are clinical programs with students who attended the same university's undergrad program and worked in their grad mentor's lab or attended classes with them as undergrads.
Perfect example of what I was talking about.I worked for two of the faculty of my grad program before becoming a grad student there. This happens all the time.
Considering the OP mentions her employer offers tuition remission it sounds like OP plans to still work (full time?) while trying to earn a PsyD. Possible ignorance indeed. Wonder how that works when practica start.Well, it's more of a deep misunderstanding of how conflict of interest works in this setting. If it's perpetuated by the programs, shame on them, but I imagine it's just ignorance of the admissions process in general, which is understandable to an extent.
Perfect example of what I was talking about.
I'm not sure where NotAnElephant got that from, but it makes me wonder what else all these terrible programs are telling prospective students.
Considering the OP mentions her employer offers tuition remission it sounds like OP plans to still work (full time?) while trying to earn a PsyD. Possible ignorance indeed. Wonder how that works when practica start.
I'm curious to hear how either one of your comments could remotely be perceived as constructive. The point of this forum, and the responsibility of professionals in the field who use this forum, is to assist students who may have questions in a civil and respectful manner.
You are not here to brashly cut others down by taking quotes out of context and derailing threads because he or she doesn't ascribe to your model.
This type of behavior only further perpetuates "ignorance".
I was accepted to PCOM, really like their program, but am curious as they are unfunded -- do we consider them on the same tier as schools like Argosy? They have a great reputation and their graduates are doing amazing work. I saw they had 100% of internships APA accredited in 16-17.
I wonder if there is anyway to discuss merits of a program and the success of its graduates without getting into a whole debate over funding. I imagine those who talk about it don't intend it to come out this way, but it often borders on infantilizing. Obviously funded programs are better in a lot of ways than unfunded or partially funded programs. No one is denying this as it is essentially a truism. I'm also not saying it isn't important for an applicant to consider, but for many, and for a variety of reasons, it is not a factor, or at least not the most important factor, and that is ok and up to them. Jumping down anyone's throat who dare consider an unfunded program is getting old and can feel more protective of the decisions made by the writers than an earnest concern for the applicant.
We can for sure talk about the success of the graduates and such. People are free to bring those factors up. But, if one can be just as successful without 200k+ in loans, why not advocate for that? Additionally, I imagine many of us bring out the funded/unfunded thing for several reasons. One being the wellbeing of the applicant. I know many people who hate their jobs, but won't leave because they rely on repayment programs. Also, these people are putting off things like serious retirement planning and house buying due to their debt. Secondly, many of us see this as damaging to the field as a whole. When diploma mills pump out mass numbers of people willing to work for almost anything, it leads to an oversupply of individuals and drives down our salaries. There is no supply shortage of psychologists, and in the majority of markets, there is a significant surplus. So no, my only reason for the argument is not merely concern for the applicant. I am allowed to be concerned for the applicant and the field.
Supply of psychologists vary greatly by geographic region. Where I live it is extremely difficult to find a psychologist who sees patients under 18 and when you do find one, they often have a wait of 3-5 months for an appointment.
Is it shown that those who graduate from these schools are willing to accept lower pay? I am genuinely curious. It isn't something I have heard of before.
I do understand the previous poster's comment regarding infantilizing. It can come across condescending to those who have carefully considered their options and chosen one of these programs for any myriad number of reasons.
I wonder if there is anyway to discuss merits of a program and the success of its graduates without getting into a whole debate over funding. I imagine those who talk about it don't intend it to come out this way, but it often borders on infantilizing. Obviously funded programs are better in a lot of ways than unfunded or partially funded programs. No one is denying this as it is essentially a truism. I'm also not saying it isn't important for an applicant to consider, but for many, and for a variety of reasons, it is not a factor, or at least not the most important factor, and that is ok and up to them. Jumping down anyone's throat who dare consider an unfunded program is getting old and can feel more protective of the decisions made by the writers than an earnest concern for the applicant.
I guess my point was more about what seems like a reputable program, specifically in regards to PCOM in looking at their outcomes, APA accredited internships, albeit middle of the pack license rate. I know the financial implications of an unfunded program, and I'm heavily weighing it, believe me, but was more just curious about the reputation of this particular school given what seems like a strong program regionally. It's a professional school, so of course it will not be a fully funded program as there isn't the same research expectations as a PhD
But I appreciate all of your valid discussion points