Possible overhaul to the professional school system

[CharmedDiamond]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Thought I'd share this article. Apparently even the government is realizing these schools are trouble!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/etc/synopsis.html

 

[PerhapsMaybeOk]

Thought I'd share this article. Apparently even the government is realizing these schools are trouble!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/etc/synopsis.html

That came out last year, guess that didnt work so well did it?

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

Thought I'd share this article. Apparently even the government is realizing these schools are trouble!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/etc/synopsis.html

I respectfully ask that the title of this thread be changed -- the article is not about professional schools, but about for profit schools.

 

[aequitasveritas]

I second the request to change the title

 

[CharmedDiamond]

I respectfully ask that the title of this thread be changed -- the article is not about professional schools, but about for profit schools.

Fair enough, will do, but I'm not quite sure how.

 

[CharmedDiamond]

That came out last year, guess that didnt work so well did it?

Nothing with the government ever works quickly, unfortunately. I was just happy that the government is realizing there is a practice of predatory "education" and contemplating solutions! First step = acknowledgment of problem 👍.

 

[roubs]

Nothing with the government ever works quickly, unfortunately. I was just happy that the government is realizing there is a practice of predatory "education" and contemplating solutions! First step = acknowledgment of problem 👍.

Don't worry, the for-profit system has deployed an army of lobbyists to ensure they are allowed to continue their feeding off the taxpayers and churning out students who default on their loans.

Also, look at all the google ads in this article about the crackdown 😀

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/06/business/la-fi-for-profit-colleges-20110206

And look, the same Republicans who style themselves are guardians of taxpayer funds quickly cave to the lobbying of a private industry. When you worship at the altar of "privatization = good" it quickly becomes clear who the politicians real constituents are.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11050/1126585-84.stm

(In fairness, 231 Republicans voted to block, and so did 58 Democrats)

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

Fair enough, will do, but I'm not quite sure how.

Hi -- It's a moderator's choice/function.

 

[busybusybusy]

Not trying to be a jerk here - legitimately have this question...

Is there a difference btw an FSPS and a for profit school? Are there prof. schools that are non profit?

 

[stigmata]

What is wrong with making a profit?

 

[futureapppsy2]

Just FYI--you all can report posts to mods by pressing the red triange ! button or by PMing me or nononora, 🙂

Busybusybusy, yes, there are--Alliant and PGSP are not for profit,

 

[CharmedDiamond]

Not trying to be a jerk here - legitimately have this question...

Is there a difference btw an FSPS and a for profit school? Are there prof. schools that are non profit?

'

Ask Jon Snow, he seems to be the master of that information, from what I've read on the board.

What is wrong with making a profit?

Profit isn't bad. The insane default rate on the loans that gets eaten by the American government and thus the tax payers is.

 

[aequitasveritas]

'

Ask Jon Snow, he seems to be the master of that information, from what I've read on the board.



Profit isn't bad. The insane default rate on the loans that gets eaten by the American government and thus the tax payers is.

There is no coveted information. It's simple.

There are pro-schools like Alliant and PGSP that are non-profit, meaning they aren't explicitly motivated to put in as little as possible to the educational process. Argosy, for example, is a business plan that requires the shareholders to make dividends. To do this Argosy has to keep costs as low as possible. This is why they fork out degrees in over 35 campuses in the US, operate in skeevy little office parks, and don't care if they have accred.

If you look at the other threads in SDN, including Snows and mine, you see another point.
....Pro-schools have no endowment; rely solely off of federal loans to keep afloat. They may not be for profit, but the presidente of Alliant makes over 400,000/yr...nearly as much as the chancellor of the entire UC system. They are motivated to beef up costs actually...even if costs are promotions, fabricating administrative positions to give to your friends (Alliant has more Provosts of this and that than I can count..they don't do %*&$...just collect a paycheck).
...so there are some major differences between for profit schools and NFP. However, the problems with NFP pro-schools abound, as you can see.

 

[futurepsydoc]

There is no coveted information. It's simple.

There are pro-schools like Alliant and PGSP that are non-profit, meaning they aren't explicitly motivated to put in as little as possible to the educational process. Argosy, for example, is a business plan that requires the shareholders to make dividends. To do this Argosy has to keep costs as low as possible. This is why they fork out degrees in over 35 campuses in the US, operate in skeevy little office parks, and don't care if they have accred.

If you look at the other threads in SDN, including Snows and mine, you see another point.
....Pro-schools have no endowment; rely solely off of federal loans to keep afloat. They may not be for profit, but the presidente of Alliant makes over 400,000/yr...nearly as much as the chancellor of the entire UC system. They are motivated to beef up costs actually...even if costs are promotions, fabricating administrative positions to give to your friends (Alliant has more Provosts of this and that than I can count..they don't do %*&$...just collect a paycheck).
...so there are some major differences between for profit schools and NFP. However, the problems with NFP pro-schools abound, as you can see.

Would you consider programs like, Baylor, Rutgers, or Wiedner to be poor non-profit schools (NPF)?

 

[PsyDLICSW]

Would you consider programs like, Baylor, Rutgers, or Wiedner to be poor non-profit schools (NPF)?

I consider Baylor, Rutgers, Weidner, Indiana State, IUP, Marshall, Xavier and the like to be university based PsyD programs which are non profit and not considered free standing professional schoole.

 

[2012PhD]

I consider Baylor, Rutgers, Weidner, Indiana State, IUP, Marshall, Xavier and the like to be university based PsyD programs which are non profit and not considered free standing professional schoole.

Rutgers and Baylor accept few students, provide funding, and have close to 100% APA match rate. Rutgers match rate is better that many university phd programs. These schools are in a different league.

 

[aequitasveritas]

Would you consider programs like, Baylor, Rutgers, or Wiedner to be poor non-profit schools (NPF)?

That's an interesting question.

Rutgers & Baylor are different from Wiedner.

If I recall accurately, Wiedner is outrageously expensive; I don't believe there is funding. So IMO, they are as much a violation as other pro-schools.

I believe Rutger and Baylor have funding for a portion of their students, but certainly not all.

In any case, we are witnessing the training model take over psych, much like they do it in Law. The criminal difference is that we have no where near the return on investment. We have no cache to speak of.

 

[aequitasveritas]

I consider Baylor, Rutgers, Weidner, Indiana State, IUP, Marshall, Xavier and the like to be university based PsyD programs which are non profit and not considered free standing professional schoole.

Most pro-schools are NFP. In fact, Argosy is the only for profit doctoral program that I am aware of.

"Free standing" should have no stigma attached to it. Many law schools are free standing.

 

[Ollie123]

"Free standing" should have no stigma attached to it. Many law schools are free standing.

I actually have to disagree with this. Part of the benefits of a traditional university are the cross-department collaborations, resources, and other opportunities that simply won't exist in a free-standing school unless there is another school nearby willing to work with them.

Outside our department, i have access to faculty in education, criminology, public health, biostatistics, chemistry, engineering, biology/genetics, exercise/sports science, medicine, etc. I've taken classes in some of these departments, attend talks there, collaborate with those faculty, have them serve on committees, etc. Given the increased emphasis on transdisciplinary work (especially at the federal grant level), I think its entirely fair for their to be somewhat of a stigma attached to a school comprised entirely of psychologists. Perhaps it is somewhat less critical for a purely clinical PsyD model where no one plans to do any research at all after graduating, but for a school offering a PhD that is any way claiming to provide strong (or even mediocre) research training I think it is becoming increasingly the norm. That doesn't mean everyone necessarily takes advantage of them or even that its feasible at all traditional institutions, but its something that is pretty much ruled out at an Argosy-like school where they only offer psychology and maybe a handful of other programs.

Edit: Its also worth considering the rankings of law schools (since rankings actually do matter for getting jobs MUCH more for law school grads than for us, from what I've heard from friends in the legal world). To my knowledge, the freestanding law schools are usually pretty far down in the rankings...

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Outside our department, i have access to faculty in education, criminology, public health, biostatistics, chemistry, engineering, biology/genetics, exercise/sports science, medicine, etc. I've taken classes in some of these departments, attend talks there, collaborate with those faculty, have them serve on committees, etc.

This is something that rarely gets mentioned by applicants/1st/2nd year students, and I think that is a shame. Collaboration across departments allows for pooled funding AND more innovative teams/approaches to solve increasing complex problems. My first research team consisted of clinical psychologists, school psychologists, OTs, and speech therapists. We most likely would not have been able to secure the grant funding or collaborate if we didn't already have connections through the university.

 

[aequitasveritas]

Good points raised above.

I concede.