Postdoc from non-accredited internship program

[ItsNotMe_ItsYou]

.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Depends on your postdoc, I guess. My sites either wouldn't, or could not accept by policy, people from non-accredited internships. At my current site, we will not accept them. If we ever decide to change that policy, I will promptly tender my resignation.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

My prior employers (AMCs) couldn’t hire ppl from non-acred sites for fellowship bc they wouldn’t pass the credentialing process for hospital privileges.

 

[WisNeuro]

Hard to know how I'd respond without knowing the specifics here. If the person actually lied, or "unknowingly fabricated information," on their application I'd want this brought up to HR. If it was for my personal program, I'd make sure that we rescinded the offer based on faulty information. I'd rather just not have a postdoc for a year than take someone from an unaccredited internship.

 

[temppsych123]

I know how people feel about un-accredited internships on the board (and I generally agree), but it sounds like you weren't part of the hiring process for this person, so it's hard to know if the individual did or didn't clearly tell people about the internship situation, or why they might have been hired anyway. It seems like your main concern is working with someone who isn't competent; has this person behaved in ways that make you put their competence into question? I feel like, if so, THAT is a clearer way to proceed with higher ups. Point being that, while generally speaking, unaccredited internships aren't going to provide the same caliber of training that accredited sites are, there is certainly no rule that says that all unaccredited sites provide abysmal training, and accredited sites all start out at some point as unaccredited sites...

 

[PsyDr]

I can say as fact that JCAHO doesn't care about this. Too many older people, whose training occurred when there were no such things, at play for this stuff to matter yet.

 

[dynamicdog]

I know how people feel about un-accredited internships on the board (and I generally agree), but it sounds like you weren't part of the hiring process for this person, so it's hard to know if the individual did or didn't clearly tell people about the internship situation, or why they might have been hired anyway. It seems like your main concern is working with someone who isn't competent; has this person behaved in ways that make you put their competence into question? I feel like, if so, THAT is a clearer way to proceed with higher ups. Point being that, while generally speaking, unaccredited internships aren't going to provide the same caliber of training that accredited sites are, there is certainly no rule that says that all unaccredited sites provide abysmal training, and accredited sites all start out at some point as unaccredited sites...

I agree. It's absurd to automatically assume this person is not up to par based solely on them attending an unaccredited internship. I would probably give them (and your program) the benefit of the doubt unless their performance proves otherwise. There are myriad reasons why a perfectly qualified person attended an unaccredited internship; perhaps ones that you are not privy to.

 

[foreverbull]

I agree, but if you knew the circumstances you’d understand.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

All you've shared so far is that someone was hired with a non-APA accredited internship and you suspect it was via deliberate omission of facts.

If there's more to the story, then what is the real issue at hand other than just asking a general question about sites accepting non-APA accredited internships?

Is it incompetence? Unethical behavior? Wondering if you should speak up at your workplace about it?

 

[Justanothergrad]

I agree. It's absurd to automatically assume this person is not up to par based solely on them attending an unaccredited internship. I would probably give them (and your program) the benefit of the doubt unless their performance proves otherwise. There are myriad reasons why a perfectly qualified person attended an unaccredited internship; perhaps ones that you are not privy to.

There are two issues here you are conflating.
1. Assuming that someone's training is not as good because that person did not attend an accredited program has consistently been supported strongly. Its not absurd in any way. In fact,giving people the 'benefit of the doubt' about why they may not have been able to achieve a standard of training for the field undercuts the ENTIRE purpose of accreditation and works to delegitimize our professional standing. We have accreditation so we don't have to make case by case decisions and inferences; we have it so that we may have a standard of training. Its possible that their training is good, but that is not what has been shown consistently. Sure, there may be good clinicians that pop through (just like bad ones may go through accredited programs), but the starting assumption SHOULD BE that one provides better training and that competence is different between the two. Thats fair, reasonable, and exactly why we have it.

2. I agree with you that as a trainee its not possible to know the factors that occur behind the screen and that it may be beyond the scope of what a trainee is privy to assume they know all factors involved in decisions. Like others have said, the details provided (and those likely known by trainees) are limited. It is not entirely possible (or appropriate) for the trainee to evaluate their peer with regards to clinical competence for many reasons and why that should fall to the site (they are not around each other for all tasks, they do not have the full information about the other trainee's history and experience, their training is more limited for trainees than for trainers.. by definition, etc etc.) . This does not make it reasonable to assume that unaccredited training should be considered equal.

 

[psych.meout]

OP, it really seems like your posts here tell us a lot more about you than it does this person to whom you are referring.

 

[erg923]

I cannot speak about anyone's intentions. Ultimately, this person's intentions have no relevance to my primary concern. In all actuality, the actual person is of no particular relevance. It is more what this person represents.

For goodness sakes son, move on.

I don't think many people on this board believe that there should be an accredited training programs, but they exist and their alumni do inevitablely go on to post-doc. You know what else exists? Really terrible psychologists! This is the reality of an imperfect world. If you were not prepared for this reality by now, start accepting. If you don't, you will be miserable once you are out of training and meet your community colleagues.

 

[psych.meout]

Point taken. As always, thank you for your candor, @erg923. I am keenly aware of the fact that we live in an imperfect world, with imperfect people, myself being one of them. While I recognize that perfection is impossible, I do believe that there are basic, fundamental standards that important to consider in accordance with certain areas of practice. While I did not explicitly state that I accept this, I felt that my acknowledgment and expression of disappointment reflected my acceptance. In talking this out and having time to reflect upon all that was discussed, I also became more aware of my underlying concern and inability to do anything about it, not that I was planning to in the first place. I was ready to put this conversation to bed until the previous poster felt compelled to leave a passive-aggressive remark that probably had more to do with his/her emotional reactivity towards me than the topic at issue.

This thread can be locked.

Whoosh