Psy.D. Programs Continue to Flood Market

Discussion in 'Psychology [Psy.D. / Ph.D.]' started by positivepsych, May 13, 2007.

  1. positivepsych

    positivepsych Member
    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Psychologist
    Psy.D. Programs are continuing to flood the market by taking on more students (for their tuition $$$) than the market can bear. This is an excerpt from an e-mail (de-identified) was written by a Psy.D. student to express concerns to the Council of University Directors of Clinical Psychology (CUDCP), that this student saw in the the field and their own program.

    Student e-mail:

    "I am not coming to you as a liaison, but as a concerned student who is advocating for my program and fellow students. As you probably know, my program has a large clinical psychology graduate program, which has its advantages as well as disadvantages. Since I have been involved with this program, we have had on average over 70 students enter the program each academic year. This coming year, however, this number will be increased to over 110, which is I believe to be the cut-off point that keeps our campus within APA regulations regarding the student-faculty ratio. The program has increased the number of both full-time and adjunct professors. However, with this recent increase of admits, it seems as though the resolution they enacted is no longer effective as we are back to the strained student-faculty ratio.

    As you can imagine, our training suffers due to the large number of students being admitted to the program. The quality of teaching suffers due to the large class sizes. There is no intimacy or true cohesion among faculty, staff, and students. There are not enough faculty to chair our master's thesis and doctoral dissertation. Obtaining a practicum is challenging because we are flooding the area market, causing other local programs to "jump the gun" so to speak and apply earlier to get ahead of the game. Not that I blame them, but this puts our students at a severe disadvantage thus affecting our quality of training and internship competitiveness. We even have students driving out of state for pracitcums because there are not enough sites in the local area to meet our needs. And, all of this is occurring prior to the increase of student admits, which begins this coming fall. Because our administration is mandated to allow a specific number of students to enter the program, the quality of incoming students has decreased, therefore decreasing the quality of student performance and output. The cost of tuition goes up each year, and now they are increasing the number of students. It seems as though our program is more interested in their profits than the quality of training their students receive. Although our program may be within APA guidelines as far as the actual number of students and faculty are concerned, meaning that APA believes this ratio to be adequate for superior training, the reality of the matter is that it is not... "

    Second student e-mail:

    "This is a huge concern amongst clinical psychology students in California. Alliant/CSPP and other Psy.D. programs that operate on a business model rather than a true university model are taking in more students to raise tuition funds, without any concern over the supply/demand the market will bear. As it is, there are already too many psychologists in California, and research shows that its going to get worse in the coming years:
    http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/38/7/13

    The APA needs to take a stance and stop accrediting questionable Psy.D. programs. You cannot get a medical degree online, so why should you be able to get an online Psy.D.? In an age where we are fighting for equity for mental health services, continuing to accredit programs that operate for profit instead of the interests of the field, is akin to the APA committing career suicide on our behalf.

    The APA needs to take a strong stance in not accrediting schools with low internship match rates and cap incoming class sizes, so that in the future, 90%+ of students can match to internships (unlike the current situation, where some schools have match rates as low as 10-20%). The American Medical Association and American Dental Association actively cap the number of graduating doctors and dentists to ensure quality of training, available number of post-graduate training opportunities, and keeping supply and demand in equilibrium. The APA needs to follow suit, or high-quality students will continue to forgo entering clinical psychology for other more viable career paths."
     
  2. Note: SDN Members do not see this ad.

  3. Therapist4Chnge

    Therapist4Chnge Neuropsych Ninja Faculty
    Faculty Moderator Emeritus 10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    21,320
    Likes Received:
    2,213
    Status:
    Psychologist
    I don't understand the relevance of this link.....?

    *edit*

    Ok...the new link makes more sense. :laugh:

    How do you think prescription privileges would effect the current shortage in psychiatry (a major reason why there is an active bill for RxP in CA)?

    -t
     
  4. positivepsych

    positivepsych Member
    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Psychologist
    As I recall, the current RxP push in CA was instigated by a lawsuit over a patient in a prison not getting adequate services. Well, that's not a big surprise, over 2/3 of psychiatry positions in prison are unfilled. Even if you pay more, there's still not a lot of people willing to work with convicted felons in a prison and the safety risks that entails. There was a recent story of a psychiatrist that had to have facial reconstructive surgery after getting attacked by an inmate he was interviewing. Sure, a prison guard can subdue the guy after a few seconds, but often times a few seconds is too late...

    Back to your question, I don't think RxP is going to happen in CA anytime soon. Hawaii began looking into legislation for prescriptive authority in 1985, its now 2007 (that's 22 years). And they have a particularly strong shortage in rural areas and a former APA president turned senator spearheading the legislative effort. If it took 22 years in Hawaii, I don't see how its going to be that much faster in CA. RxP in CA has already failed for the last five years in a row, if I recall correctly. If it does pass eventually, I'm not sure how it will affect the shortage. It depends on what the legislation is like, how medical psychologists will practice, and the future of psychopharmacology (because the current SSRIs aren't that much better than placebo).

    The bottom line is that RxP is NOT an answer to oversupply. Structure and standards are the answer to oversupply. The APA needs to step in an start being a real advocate for the field.
     
  5. Therapist4Chnge

    Therapist4Chnge Neuropsych Ninja Faculty
    Faculty Moderator Emeritus 10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    21,320
    Likes Received:
    2,213
    Status:
    Psychologist
    There is a shortage AND they can't get people to work in the prisons....that is a costly combination. I heard figures of close to $300k trying to get psychiatrists to do the work, and they didn't want to work in them.

    There are some major differences...first off, there is a healthcare CRISIS in CA. They have a plethora of problems related to cost of service, quality of service, and availability of service. The lawsuit mentioned above is a telling example. The ratio of providers to patients is very much out of wack. (I understand there are pockets of over-saturation in CA, but they all seem to have work).

    They now have the backing of the largest union (IIRC), some publicity becaue of the prison deaths, and a viable solution. The AMA and APA need to come together and figure it out. The only concern I have with CA is that there is such a plethora of current psychologists, I don't want them all to get training (which still needs to be hammered out, improved, and standardized) and then flood THAT market.

    I am in agreement. I think they need to tighten the reigns for ALL clinical programs. Top to bottom there is too much variance (not just in larger programs). Obviously no online programs, and also a refocus by the APA to meet the needs of the future of clinical studies. I still think there is not enough attention paid to the hard sciences. There are some who are afraid to go that direction, but more and more research is headed that way....there is no sense trying to fight something that the research supports.

    -t
     
  6. RayneeDeigh

    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,346
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    Kind of a side note, but this always bothers me so much.

    I WANT to work in US prisons. That is my DREAM job. But because I happened to be born in Canada, I likely will never be able to because of the stupid "you must be a US citizen" policy.

    I'll never understand the point of that. Good shrinks don't come out of other countries?

    /rant
     
  7. Therapist4Chnge

    Therapist4Chnge Neuropsych Ninja Faculty
    Faculty Moderator Emeritus 10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    21,320
    Likes Received:
    2,213
    Status:
    Psychologist
    Never! We are never wrong either. I mean, who really thinks that Freud guy was any good?!

    :laugh:

    -t <--fan of Freud
     
  8. psychwhy

    psychwhy Simply disillusioned
    2+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Post Doc
    Pity that a perfectly legitimate point, once again has to illogically expand to rehash the "only conventional programs = valid." Again with red herring the "you can't earn a medical degree online"?

    T4C, the only thing "obvious" about calling for the banning online programs is that prejudice and ignorance are alive and well in the field of psychology. (Seriously, there has been plenty of information provided on these boards about the nature and quality of online training but the most often repeated line here is: "I don't care what you say, I still won't accept it". Such enlightenment!)

    Yes, 100% true some programs by letting enrollment expand unchecked have overloaded the existing capacity. Number of admissions is certainly something worth investigating and, perhaps, controlling. However -- and I know this will send some people into fits -- larger classes do not automatically result in lower quality. (And before Jon Snow blows another blood vessel, of course, a larger incoming class statistically results in a lowering of average entrance requirements, but 1) no one has demonstrated anything other than elistism by insisting that that artificially high (i.e. too few seats) standards of conventional programs actually produces better psychologists; and 2) a mathematical leveling of average entrance standards is not the same as "write us a check and you're in.")

    It is curious that the underlying point -- larger enrollments result in a drought of clinical training placements -- invariably results in people screaming that academic programs be eliminated. "Obviously" enrolling more students has to only be due to unfettered greed of program adminstrators. Everyone is so concerned about what's going on at the front door, the back door (where the log jam actually is) is ignored.

    Instead of regurgitating the "my program's better than yours so yours needs to be shut down" screed, why isn't anyone advocating for more funding for clinical psychology training? You all keep comparing psych to medicine. Psychology placements lag subtantially behind those available for medical training. Secure parity for mental health programs and then there wouldn't be a overloading of capacity -- there would be ample capacity (and better intern pay).

    PW <- US citizen who externed at US federal prison but cannot work there because too old!
     
  9. paramour

    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,979
    Likes Received:
    7
    I still do not quite understand why it is so obvious that there should be no online programs. Yes, I know this has been hashed and re-hashed again in other threads. But, arguments seem to be akin to the "why there should be no Psy.D." programs. I will be the first to admit that I don't know jack about the vast majority of online programs. However, I also know that there are students who come out of at least one of those so-called cursed programs that do receive adequate clinical/research training. I suspect that many advocates against online programs do not realize that everything is NOT done online. There are students that come out in the same 5-7 years that a "traditional" program student would, with equivalent research & clinical experience. So why discriminate? If it was truly an online-only experience, I could understand the prejudice, but for the APA-accredited program, it's not the case. Then again, perhaps I'm only familiar with the ones who actually succeed because they put into it what they need in order to gain what they desire when they leave.



    I'm curious as to how old is "too old" to work in a US federal prison? Feel free to give a general figure if you wish (or PM!).
     
  10. Ollie123

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,614
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    Not surprising in any way though I find it interesting these emails came from students of said programs...certainly lends them more credibility.

    I'm not delving into this again because I've got too much else to get done, so if anyone wants to know details of my opinion they can search for my other posts;)

    The summary is, I am all about stricter national standardization and strict entrance requirements. I'm of the opinion that doctorates should not be accessible by anyone, and I worry that psychology is moving in that direction and I'll end up having to spend another decade in school sometime down the road to get my ultra-doctorate (or whatever it will be called) because the bar was lowered and PhDs now mean less to the job market.
     
  11. JockNerd

    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    9
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    Despite the title of the original post, which was probably just shortened for space reasons, neither the OP nor anyone else came down against PsyD programs themselves, but against professional schools. There are several great PsyD programs (coincidently, they're the funded ones). I think most of the board members have no problem with the PsyD itself. But, going into crushing debt to pay full tuition at a for-profit private institution while you and your 50+ classmates (many of whom who got a combined 1000 on the GREs) flood the job market is not part of the Vail model.

    I strongly object to business-model programs intent on cranking out graduates while providing inferior training, not what letters come after someone's name.
     
  12. Jon Snow

    Jon Snow Senior Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,089
    Likes Received:
    371

    There should be no for-profit programs and/or they should be more highly regulated. . . I agree there should be no online programs in clinical psychology. It's not an established method of training health professionals or any other scientific discipline. Experiment in someone else's backyard.

    We don't need to fix the logjam at the back end. We need less psychologists and we need to ensure the quality level of psychologists. As I've said many times, kill Alliant and Argosy, don't let anyone take their place, and you solve a huge part of the problem in clinical psychology.. .. not to mention you'd save many many students from huge debt.
     
  13. psychwhy

    psychwhy Simply disillusioned
    2+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Post Doc
    Need less psychologists?
    Are you preparing for RxP by consuming your own recreational pharmaceuticals?
    (Small word translation: Are you high?)

    The shortage of psychologists -- particularly in specialty disciplines and outside metro areas -- is well documented.

    Absolutely, there should be a maintenance of standards.
    But the answer is not to artificially create a "small front door" so as to not overload the woefully inadequate number of training opportunities.

    Jon, if you really are so adamant about protecting your prestige by limiting the number of people who become psychologists after you perhaps you should have continued as a rock musician. I hear Simon Cowell is doing a pretty good job of keeping the "less deserving" from that career path!
     
  14. Quynh2007

    Quynh2007 the oracle of destiny
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    3
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    okay, well, then why shouldn't we call out schools that have *extremely* low match rates for internship? If they were already having problems in the "back door" then why are they making the "front door" bigger? In my opinion, they should *match* the front door to decrease the back door jam. but that is not the case because these for-profit school...would well, lose their profits.

    I go to a school that has an extremely high student body, so i'm not saying that smaller is necessarily better since my experience has been great, but if you increase class size but don't increase resources for it, then obviously these students will suffer.

    We should wonder...why are these schools having a worse time matching for internships when so many schools have 80-100% matching rates? Don't say all those students that couldn't match were just unlucky? Consistently, year after year, these schools have horrible match rate and other schools have extremely high match rate. this shows that students who go to these for-profit schools could not compete with students from other schools for spots, so to me, that shows that they could not demonstrate they were as qualified at that time, which might indicate a less than adequate training or a lower caliber of incoming students. either way, it needs to be addressed and resolved.

    it's not about "elitism" that people want to shut down these programs. If these schools could increase their class size AND their match rate to much higher levels, then I doubt anyone here would be complaining. you are lucky many of the students who could not match for internships don't come on this board. I wonder what they would say....
     
  15. Ollie123

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,614
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    Well said Quynh.
     
  16. Neuro-Dr

    Neuro-Dr SDN Advisor
    SDN Advisor 5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    324
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Psychologist
    So was the student in the first quote from ISPP-Chicago or the Chicago School of Professional Psychology????

    I fthose of you on this list have these concerns about size and quality as well, why not produce your own letters to the CoA at APA???

    You can work in a non-federal prison as a Canadian citizen with a proper visa particularly if you are employed by an outside contractor, which is common for MH services in the DOC in many states.
     
  17. RayneeDeigh

    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,346
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    Yeah, I wanna work in a federal prison though. I just think it's so unnecessary that federal prison psychologists need to be citizens. A criminal record check and VISA eligibility should be enough, especially given the shortage.

    EXCELLENT point. I really don't agree with Psychwhy's view that we're hard on online programs because we're scared of new things. I'm hard on online programs because of the match rate, the often for-profit design, and the application standards that are in a lot of cases significantly lower than traditional PhD programs. If an online program had a great (or even good) match rate, reasonable funding, and standards that reflected a doctoral level rather than an undergrad one, I'd support it as a viable option.
     
  18. Spector

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Status:
    Other Health Professions Student
    I interviewed for a position at maximum security prison which happened to house death row. It was a creepy experience to walk amongst the prisoners. I can only imagine what daily face to face contact would be like...guard or not. I was thinking to myself "uhh, you sure this is a good idea?". The degree of manipulation exerted on staff by inmates in immense. The impression I get is that the prison psychologist is there to sort out who needs medication versus those who want medication. Not an easy task. More power to you for wanting to do that for a living! Not for me!

    Sorry for being off topic. This area of interest would probably make a good thread.
     
  19. Therapist4Chnge

    Therapist4Chnge Neuropsych Ninja Faculty
    Faculty Moderator Emeritus 10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    21,320
    Likes Received:
    2,213
    Status:
    Psychologist
    My opinion is based on the OUTCOME data available.....internship placement rates, publication #'s, post-doc placements, faculty positions at other universities, etc....similar to what RayneeDeigh brought up in her post.

    That is a major concern. There are ALREADY problems with quality control for traditional programs, why go down the road of UNPROVEN training for clinical pyschology. He may want to quote me on this...since I don't say it often..... I'm with Jon Snow on this one. Let other fields validate online training, don't do it in our field, we already have enough issues with ensuring quality training across programs.

    Here are a few reasons.....

    1. Psychology in general sucks at lobbying. Anyone who understand public policy would CRINGE at our lackluster efforts, yet applaud the AMA's much more visible and influential role. Nursing is also quite effective in this area.
    2. The general public STILL doesn't understand much of what we do, therefore they cannot assign appropriate value to it.
    3. Supply vs. Demand.....we are competing with MS/MA level people, who undercut part of our area of practice. (Much like PA's cutting into GP salaries)

    Correct, but there needs to be a SHIFT of over-saturation to those areas, not more psychologists. My example of RXP is slightly different in that there really isn't an over-saturation of psychiatrists (outside of isolated areas), but an actual lack of enough practitioners, even when you account for a more even distribution. There has been a slight increase in the # of applicants compared to last year, but I don't think that put a dent in the need.

    Exactly. I do it often. There are small and large programs that place poorly (not limited to PsyDs)....they all should be called out and questioned about their placement rates. Placement is a major hurdle towards licensure (you NEED a placement ot get licensed). I pick on Capella often....at 29% over a 5-6 year period. TWENTY NINE PERCENT!

    -t
     
  20. psychwhy

    psychwhy Simply disillusioned
    2+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Post Doc
    In other words, you'd accept alternatives if they were just like your program?

    Wouldn't be very alternative, now would they?

    Yes, it is simple to point to Match rates and declare any beneath a certain value as being "unsatisfactory."

    Two glaring problems with that approach:

    1) The rates are HIGHLY variable because of the myriad of "back door" issues. Even being in one of your vaunted conventional programs with a good percentage is no guarantee that YOU -- when its time to apply -- will actually match.

    2) The fact that most of all of the online programs have low Match rates may indeed be due to producing substandard graduates. However, as the Match is an algorithm predicated on human beings submitting rank ordered lists, it is also just as plausible that the pervasive and intractable prejudice against online programs that is repeated here is playing out with DoTs who just will never accept an online student. (I once was actually told that by a senior psychologist at a leadership meeting.)

    So, invite a couple of online students for interviews so it appears you are being equitable, but reflexively (and secretly) rank them at the bottom -- voila -- online program has a miserable Match rate.

    I was actually encouraged to sue the US Bureau of Prisons for doing this very thing -- not over online education, but age discrimination.

    APPIC requires that internship programs not discriminate due to age. So, officially, the US Bureau of Prisons has to consider intern applicants over their age limit. However, as the BOP likes to hire staff psychologists from their intern ranks, amazingly not many overage applicants are asked to interview/match.

    I was an award winning extern at another BOP facility but didn't match for a BOP internship. Why?
    Age? Online program? Hair style?
    We'll never know -- the decision information is secret!

    Poof -- they abide by a requirement by working around it.

    (Oh RD, it is rather odd that you continue to rail against online programs, because you don't understand/accept them. Simultaneously, you are infuriated that the US government would stipulate that only US citizens can work for the US government. So, a prejudice is legitimate but only when you agree with it?)

    And this is a number that I am none to pleased about myself. BUT, you admit "I pick on Capella often ... " ignoring the fact that there are campus-based programs with equally abysmal numbers. In fact, when I posted low numbers from some campus based programs, I was criticized for just data dredging to find numbers that were misleading.

    Can't play both sides of the fence, folks.

    As I said above, it is far too easy to publically claim to be open-minded while simultaneously -- in private -- carefully making sure that candidates from alternate programs never make it past the front door.

    This could be the very reason that your alledged outcome data is skewed.

    Love that you and Jon want to pass on establishing validity to other professions -- since WE are supposed to be the assessment experts.
    And, truth be told, from monitoring discussions on other lists the sort of vitriol spewed here is unique. Most of the other professions where distance learning is available simply do not care that degrees are being awarded in this manner. Congratulations guys, you're fighting this battle all on your own. Another war within a profession that is already too consumed by infighting.

    Perhaps that is another reason why the general public has such a hard time understanding psychology?
     
  21. Therapist4Chnge

    Therapist4Chnge Neuropsych Ninja Faculty
    Faculty Moderator Emeritus 10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    21,320
    Likes Received:
    2,213
    Status:
    Psychologist
    You must attain an internship to get licensed.....so doing poorly in a required area for license is a GLARING problem.

    I don't exclude them, but they don't come up as often. I pick on Capella so much because they not only are in the bottom quartile, they are dead last in placements. When 71% don't place...that is a failure in the program. Those other programs you cited....they should be cut too, I mean....50% and below?

    Just because we assess, doesn't mean we should be the guinea pigs.

    A history or literature PhD degree online isn't a big deal.....but clinical is a completely different animal.

    -t
     
  22. Ollie123

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,614
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    Total side note, but why on earth does BOP have a "max" age? Is it just concern about the health risks involved in working with prisoners (i.e. younger people are "generally" healthier and are more likely to survive an assault?). That's the ONLY explanation I can come up with and its largely BS since a physical exam will tell you alot more than age will.
     
  23. RayneeDeigh

    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,346
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    Actually, the fact that it's ONLINE would make it "alternative". You know, the aspect of it that is supposed to be the most important? Unless you expect "alternative" to mean: low match rate, low admission standards, etc. To me, "alternative" means a different way of doing something.

    A judgment based on low match rates and admission standards, yes. If Canadians had lower match rates and admission qualifications and the US prisons didn't want us there, I'd understand. But we don't, so it isn't the same thing. You're comparing apples and oranges.

    Thank god I'm going on vacation tomorrow so I won't get to see how this thread ends (though I know it'll be just like the old one)
     
  24. LadyInRed

    2+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the Bureau of Prisons website:
    "To be eligible for an entry-level psychology position with the Bureau, [psychology] interns must have completed all doctoral degree requirements, be U.S. citizens, and not have reached their 37th birthday (in accordance with Public Law 100-238) at the time of initial appointment (age waivers may be granted up to the age of 40)."
     
  25. psychwhy

    psychwhy Simply disillusioned
    2+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Post Doc
    True, but as some advocate, it makes more sense to put clinical training AFTER graduation -- as is done in your oft compared medical profession.

    Again, no dispute. But as was carefully illustrated in my previous posts, there are other potential reasons for this. The automatic presumption of low Match rate = substandard graduates is not supported by any measure.


    Completely agree. Still waiting for some evidence that spending years locked in a laboratory (as you all champion as one of the major importances of conventional training) has any influence on clinical competency.

    By all means, lets take people with NO clinical experience (or life experience outside of college -- if you take the majority of people posting on the "Did you apply straight from UG" thread as a representative sample) and force them to be a lab lackey for several years. Yes, they will get some practica experience .. and then go to internship ... but that is their "expansive" preparation. Meanwhile, the average distance learner has been WORKING in a clinical capacity for years and now seek to advance their credential.

    So ... who is more clinically competent: the conventionally trained lab rat?
    Or the distance schooled advancing clinician?

    [insert conditioned lever press here]
     
  26. Jon Snow

    Jon Snow Senior Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,089
    Likes Received:
    371
    at supportive therapy (read: social work). . . neither. . . at anything that requires thinking. . . the former.
    Why, so you can be paid more? That won't happen. We have more students coming out, not less.
    For all intents and purposes, it most likely does. The programs with consistently low match rates share similar characteristics. . . professional schools with low admission standards, lots of students, and no funding. These programs, by definition of who they let in, have lower quality applicants. Internship sites know this. Some will not look at students from these programs because they're making a political statement, i.e. they don't want to support that model. Some won't because the schools are associated with lower quality and letting lower quality students in will scare away the higher quality students. I know when I looked through APPIC's website, if an internship program had psyds in their history, I didn't apply there. If I was able to see "online phd" in there as well, I wouldn't have applied to those programs either. Some won't because they believe these students are less capable and they don't need to select them. In other words, they have the option to select students from better programs so why bother searching for the diamond in the rough from lesser programs?



    Why don't we just take the best and brightest, train them as rigorously as possible in past and current psychological theories, train them to understand research thoroughly so they can evaluate future psychological theories competently, and let them get experience later when they can actually use their knowledge to understand what they are seeing?
     
  27. Quynh2007

    Quynh2007 the oracle of destiny
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    3
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    Here's another anology I'd like to compare it to, the UG experience:

    some of the the best and brighest often end up going to the most prestigious colleges and universities, some end up going to community college to save money. I think we can all agree to that.

    however, if these best and brightest students wanted to go to medical school, they have to make some sacrifices. why? they know that many Medical schools WILL NOT accept anyone graduating from a community college...they MUST have a 4-year college experience. You put yourself at a disadvantage if you think you could save money by going to a community college and still get into a U.S. medical school. while it matters little if you went to Harvard OR Podunk University, it matters if it is university vs. community college. At this point, it is not up to the medical school to prove that community colleges are substandard to university, but rather the students responsibility to prove that they themselves are competent through excelling in other areas, like standardize testing (MCAT), excellent EC and LOR.

    Tying that back into our programs, I'm comparing CC to alternative/profressional schools. Sites (similar to medical schools in this analogy) have certain standards and requirement, and one of them is probably that you wouldn't make it through to the next stage if you were coming from one of professional/alternative schooling unless something on your application OUTSIDE of the schooling appealed to them. Nothing against the person, but that's just how things work somethings. It isn't up to sites to be impartial against schooling and just look at an individual, it's up to the individual to prove they are the best for the job, and if they know that sites may be judgmental of their schooling, since their school had such low match rates, then they should have gone the traditional route or done something to separate themselves from the pack. If they want to become a clinician, and they are bright and go to an alt/professional school, then they will be one of these 30% matching, but as for the rest? thanks for the money. bye.
     
  28. 73BARMYPgsp

    73BARMYPgsp Post Doc
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    673
    Likes Received:
    0
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    All of this may be true, but make sure you leave one professional school out of it--Pacific Graduate School of Psychology. I don't have the link (just a pdf of it) but look up ths recently published article-

    Clinical psychology Ph.D. program rankings:
    evaluating eminence on faculty
    publications and citations

    Carrie J. Malone, Melissa L. Gonza&#180;lez,
    David R. McClure, Rinita B. Laud, Noha F. Minshawi

    PGSP was the only professional school on the list and ranked 69.5 out of a total 157 university programs measured on the dimensions of how many publications and the quality of the journals they were published in. Not too shabby being the only non-university school they considered letting into the study. And yes, I go there, so I am biased! :)
     
  29. psychanon

    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    People have posted that article before, but something about it has always struck me as odd. Why on earth would it be published in the Journal of Developmental Disabilities? And why is Louisiana State, which just so happens to be where the authors are from, ranked number 6 above a bunch of more prominent programs? I like the empirical approach to ranking programs, though--this article seems a little less suspect:

    Research Productivity and Academic Lineage in Clinical Psychology: Who Is Training the Faculty to Do Research? Roy, Kimberlee M.; Roberts, Michael C.; Stewart, Peter K.; Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol 62(7), Jul 2006. pp. 893-905.

    But we are getting off topic.
     
  30. psychwhy

    psychwhy Simply disillusioned
    2+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Post Doc
    Jon, do you fall into many holes as you walk with your nose so high in the air??

    Yes, Jon, we all know how you believe psychology should have nothing to do with clinical practice. But [insert shock and awe] a fair number of people training to be psychologists actually want to provide therapeutic services and not just throw rocks from their ivory towers.

    By YOUR definition -- which, we all know you think was delivered by God -- but it is still your arrogant presumption that only someone worthy of admission to a conventional program is worthy of being a psychologist.

    Rant all you want Jon, this boat sailed LONG ago. Your incessant nattering about the "lesser" people in non-university PhD programs just slaps another ivory colored coat of paint on that impenetrable tower of yours.

    Because you myopic messianic, you have provided absolutely no evidence that only the "best and brightest" are better psychologists. And you most certainly have not demonstrated how immersion in lab/research focused programs produces better psychologists.

    Your lock-step anecdotal devotion to "the method" smacks of classism ...

    ... that you so eloquently share here!

    OMG ... refuse? You are really that much of an arrogant, elitist prig to refer to anyone who didn't do it "your way" as garbage?

    Holding such dismissive attitudes about other people, why you are even IN this profession?

    You wouldn't even apply to internships with PsyDs?
    Any other groups you refuse to associate with Jon?

    I will so love the day when you (or one of your dittoheads) is coming to me looking for an internship/job.
     
  31. psychwhy

    psychwhy Simply disillusioned
    2+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Post Doc
    The analogy is interesting, but as seems so common here, is based upon faulty presumptions:

    That some otherwise qualified people go to community colleges, yes.
    That the only reason they do so is to save money, no, not even close.

    I interned in the rural midwest. The only school within commuting distance is a community college.

    Don't know where you're from, but people around here are not doing so well financially. Little Jimmy or Janey might just start off at the CC because the family cannot afford a big name school or for Jimmy/Janey to live away from home.
    Or perhaps there were some family issues that impacted Jimmy/Janey's HS grades that a couple years of CC will help undo.
    Or maybe Jimmy/Janey can only start part-time because of taking a regular job to help the family financially.
    Or, how's this for a wacky thought? Maybe 18 year old Jimmy/Janey just didn't know what s/he wanted to do and started taking a couple CC classes to get an idea of a life path?

    Bottom line, simply being the "best and the brightest" does not automatically open the doors to the ivory towers and the path is not always perfectly linear.

    It is so refreshing to see that those who have made it through the system have such a global view of the world they can casually dismiss anyone else by saying "that's the way it goes sometimes."

    Yes, the individual has a responsibility to prove his/her worth. No dispute there.

    However, as has been revealed here, several posters would -- reflexively -- dismiss from consideration anyone who didn't meet their definition of "properly trained." Some one coming from a regionally accredited university and holding the appropriate degree would be summarily excluded from consideration because that degree was a PsyD or came from a distance/alternative program.

    The applicant isn't even being given an opportunity to show those "other" factors you mention. The people here would simply look at the app and see "Alt University" or "PsyD", stamp DENIED on it, and file it.

    Yes, we make decisions that impact our lives.

    But it the ultimate of elitist hubris to assume that everyone pursuing an alternate path is doing so to somehow circumvent the "real" way of doing it.

    Your lives may have all chugged along with no major bumps in the road.
    But that is not how it works for everyone.

    I seriously hope this pervasive lack of empathy for fellow students/practitioners does not carry through to future clients!

    How sad for this profession!
     
  32. PsyDwannab

    2+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Status:
    Pre-Health (Field Undecided)
    Do you mean the working adults don't deserve a chance for graduate training? As opposed to the youngsters who were born in the affluent families, the rest of us work multiple jobs to finish undergrad to begin with. My "online" training program includes students with 10-20 years of experience in the field but never want to give up their passionate endeavor: earning a graduate degree in their field.
    As for the quality of the program, the students (whom are over 18 in most cases) are fully reponsible for getting adequate training, career outlook, professional network, publications, and the likes. Condesending comments about the PsyD program exarcebates the situation. Let the job market do its job.
    PsyDwannab
     
  33. Lunabin

    Lunabin New Member
    2+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Status:
    Other Health Professions Student
    Ah, but the cynic would argue that the admission standards at PGSP are quite lax! They don't even have an interview...!!! <Despite this truth, PLEASE NOTE MY SARCASM HERE> Though this fact may be evidence of poor program quality in some eyes, here we have evidence to the contrary...

    So, these arguments, 73BARMYPgsp, simply are NOT true. It is far more complicated than other posts try to make it seem.

    There is very little that can be judged from to 'cover' and label of professional programs. Many on this list argue based on mere assumption, fallacy, and inductive reason (at best).

    And thank you, psychwhy, for your thoughtful comments and for remaining so dedicated to dispelling elitist illusion!
     
  34. Jon Snow

    Jon Snow Senior Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,089
    Likes Received:
    371
    Strawman. . . supportive therapy does not = clinical practice. If it did, there would be no need for clinical psychologists. My point was, at base levels (e.g., supportive therapy), training doesn't matter.


    I shouldn't have to. The bar keeps being lowered with no support that it should be. These programs are the shift. . . I could see the flack if we were constantly increasing reqs, but we're not, we are lowering them for no reason but increasing profit for some opportunistic businesses.

    It's not classism. It's promoting that we maintain high standards for the field.
    Psychology is not social work. Social work programs provide plenty of opportunity already for those with life experiences and a lack of academic accomplishment to go in and help specific communities. Psychology is not the same beast. Unlike social work, we are supposed to be a science.

    My standard expands far beyond my way, just not quite to your way. I changed the statement for you. It was a bit harsh and unfair. My apologies.

    We are talking about standards for being a psychologist. I think that it is important for those we serve that we provide the best caliber of psychologist possible. Lowering the standards to such depths harms the field. Not only does it let in people of marginal ability, it drives away those with high ability.

    No, I wouldn't. . .but it isn't because I refuse to associate with them. It is just easily accessible evidence that the program doesn't have access to the best students, which suggests to me that the best students are not choosing their program for whatever reason. I wanted to go to the most appropriate program for me (mostly clinical science type places). If a psyd is there, unless they're from one of about three schools, I probably don't belong there. That seems fair to me, you disagree?

    Revenge isn't nice.
     
  35. Quynh2007

    Quynh2007 the oracle of destiny
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    3
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    if that was the case, these schools would have......0% internship rate. therefore, since A FEW are getting internships, that shows that many sites DO LOOK at the applications and individuals.

    since I don't know how to break up posts

    "Don't know where you're from, but people around here are not doing so well financially. Little Jimmy or Janey might just start off at the CC because the family cannot afford a big name school or for Jimmy/Janey to live away from home.
    Or perhaps there were some family issues that impacted Jimmy/Janey's HS grades that a couple years of CC will help undo.
    Or maybe Jimmy/Janey can only start part-time because of taking a regular job to help the family financially.
    Or, how's this for a wacky thought? Maybe 18 year old Jimmy/Janey just didn't know what s/he wanted to do and started taking a couple CC classes to get an idea of a life path?"

    last time I checked, if you were pursuing a PhD you are already having an "idea of a life path" not just messing around. this analogy was loosely based. If this Jimmy/Janey figured out eventually that they were pre-med, they would have go to a 4year college/university rather than stay at a CC, which would disqualify them from applying to many medical school. this was the basis for my analogy, not that they go to CC because they couldn't afford something "better"
     
  36. Therapist4Chnge

    Therapist4Chnge Neuropsych Ninja Faculty
    Faculty Moderator Emeritus 10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    21,320
    Likes Received:
    2,213
    Status:
    Psychologist
    I think it is important to look at each school independently. There are larger programs / prof schools that consistently place better than smaller programs. There *is* something to the match rates, post-docs, etc.....though admittedly it isn't the end all and be all.

    -t
     
  37. psychwhy

    psychwhy Simply disillusioned
    2+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Post Doc
    Oh, c'mon ... base rate, error rate, outliers ... there will always be some exceptions.

    And -- thankfully -- not every DoT is as closed minded as the nattering nabobs of negativity who populate this board. Some actually are willing to assess all of a candidate's credentials, not just the name of their program or the letters of their degree.

    The point of this naseuatingly repetitive argument is that PsyD/alternative programs only accept the marginal/unacceptable candidates and you tried to paint an analogy of people who attended community colleges being of forever being ineligible for medical school because "that's the way it is."

    As psydwannab added, we all weren't fortunately enough to go straight from UG to G. Some of us did explored other things. Some of us had to go into the job market.

    The point of the matter is -- there are even some :: gasp :: med students who didn't go straight from UG. Yes, sometimes they go back and complete post-bacc prep programs.

    But the unpleasant reality that you (and Jon Snow) don't want to recognize is that psychology is not particle physics. You do not need a 400 IQ to be an excellent psychologist (and behavioral scientist). Yes, it should be rigorous and :: hello :: it IS! (even for some of us "lowly" alternative program types.)

    Like it or not, you can both keep shouting in the wind all you want ... but I (and an increasing number of alt program graduates) are graduating, interning, post-doc'ing, licensing, practicing ... and the profession hasn't come to a grinding halt.

    It's called evolution (sorry perhaps that is a scientific term with which you are unfamiliar!) :)
     
  38. Quynh2007

    Quynh2007 the oracle of destiny
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    3
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    all I have been questioning in this thread is why are these schools making their classes bigger if they have been having problems allowing students to get their doctorate at the end of their schooling. and if these schools cannot help almost 70% of their students to obtain a doctorate EACH YEAR CONSISTENTLY, then they -- the schools themselves -- should do something about it by increasing their resources, attracting faculty that have and continue to have great credentials, etc. They should not be blaming it on others and asking them to open more sites, arguing for fair representation, and whatnot. If an alt/for-profit school is graduating their students at a rate that traditional schools are, then I would not be complaining and would recommend people interested in PhD and PsyDs to also look into those routes as possibilities.

    For example, I'm okay with DO (which is an alternative to MD) because these schools graduate doctors and place them into residencies at comparable rates to MD.
     
  39. Jon Snow

    Jon Snow Senior Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,089
    Likes Received:
    371
    Yet. . .and if this is the case, what are you complaining about?

    devolution. . . we're going from higher to lower quality because of a different strain.. . it's not the students driving this, but the student loan money (government) and business. . . it is in the best interest of business to lower standards, increase tuition, and increase numbers for profits. . . it's in the best interest of insurance companies for there to be more, cheaper practitioners. None of this is in the best interest of psychology. . .why should we let insurance companies and businesses like argosy mess up our field?

    You said it yourself, psychwhy. . . you think we don't need smart psychologists. If this is so, why bother requiring a doctorate for the field. I don't buy this, btw. As IO psychology has shown us, cognitive ability is a great predictor of performance. Lowering standards, lowers the overall intellectual horsepower in the field. This can only hurt the quality of psychology.
     
  40. 73BARMYPgsp

    73BARMYPgsp Post Doc
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    673
    Likes Received:
    0
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    Here Here! I am not in an online program, but in this changing world, I am not ready to dismiss this avenue for exactly these kinds of reasons. As mentioned before, I go to PGSP (PhD) and I am at school with a bunch of 24 year old, mostly women (girls really) who drive BRAND NEW BMW's that I am pretty sure they didn't work for the money to buy. They all live in the city (SF) where no one in my SES could afford, so again I assume mommy and daddy are paying for that too. I have had a full-time job the entire time I have been in school, including the grueling coursework of the 1st year. My grades are a little below the average (PGSP only gives A, B, B-, F) but in order to get this done, I have to do it this way. At practicum last year none of them could even come close to actually RELATING to the clients in the community mental health clinic we worked in who were all paying 20$ per session on sliding fees.
     
  41. Quynh2007

    Quynh2007 the oracle of destiny
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    3
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    what is your point here? no one will ever be able to relate to anyone 100%. people don't gain understanding for someone else's differences overnight. it takes repeated exposure and patience. they are still in school right now to gain the exposure and experience. in the future, these "girls" will be able to relate to the clients.
     
  42. 73BARMYPgsp

    73BARMYPgsp Post Doc
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    673
    Likes Received:
    0
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    Ok, I guess I'll spell it out. "Not even close" is a long way from "100%" The only way you can relate 100% is if you and the person are the same. Not too hard to understand.
     
  43. JockNerd

    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    9
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    I thought I'd be able to keep out of this one, but the same money issue came up here as in the last thread beating this topic to death. I'd hate for anyone of modest means to be discouraged about entering the field, so here goes:

    Your anecdote is a great example of why the PGSP and its ilk should be dismantled. First, I'll just say that I think those women are the most sensible people in the program-- they're the ones who will be leaving with no debt. Second-- those women you deride would have had an exactly 0% chance of getting into a real grad school, most likely. They're only getting a PhD and driving down the average quality and meaning of the degree because places like the PGSP exist. If they had needed to work for the marks and experience necessary to be qualified to enter a PhD program at a solid, funded school maybe they would have some of that much-vaunted "life experience."

    I loathe, loathe, loathe the idea that affluence can get you anywhere in academia, and the professional schools are a prime example of letting this happen. The reason I love academia is that its the one place left where your class and status mean nothing next to your intellect.

    You think it's a amazing that you worked during your undergrad? Stop holding pity parties and realize that plenty of us did. I worked two jobs for most of the time I was in school, volunteered 6+ hrs per week at a drop-in crisis centre on campus, worked as an RA, tutored, facilitated workshops and seminars all while doing my own laundry, cooking my own food, rocking my coursework (which included, by my choice, the hardest courses available including all the neuropsych my school had to offer even though I'm not going into neuropsych), and doing stellar on the GREs. You'll have to excuse me if I don't attend the pity party for people who found those things inconvenient. I found them necessary to my goals, and so I did what I had to to attain them.

    My reward for those efforts was a free ride at a spectacular grad school, working with my first choice prof. I get a free ride because the school wanted what I'm capable of, not what's in my bank account. You SHOULD have to compete with me. Having a desire to get a grad school degree shouldn't qualify you to get into grad school. Accomplishments should.
     
  44. psychwhy

    psychwhy Simply disillusioned
    2+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Post Doc
    Are you (and Jon) high?

    Well, you are partially right, class and status should mean nothing next to intellect.

    But if you are so naive to believe that is how it works in the real world -- damn!

    No, you're absolutely right ... ambition should always be trumped by access -- something that is not always available for a variety of reasons. Look, we're all proud of you for being a hard working "jock of the people." Congratulations. But -- sorry to burst your bubble -- this isn't about YOU!

    The points that are being made about alternative vs. conventional programs are being made with a large sample size (more generaliziblity -- or didn't they teach that to you at your spectacular grad school?). 73BARMYPgsp's example of Paris Hilton-types at his program may have been unfortunately ripe for parody, but it paints a larger picture -- there just might be something to be said for accepting that actually having some life experience promotes empathy which, it turns out, is rather useful in profession based on human behavior.

    Also, the idea that a future psychologist needs to engratiate him/herself to an individual professor in order to secure admission is out of whack. OK fine, if you want to be a researcher then perhaps that is how it should go. But -- as Jon refuses to acknowledge -- a fair number of psychologists actually want to treat mental illness. In order to learn those clinical skills, a student must convince a researcher that s/he wants to spend the next 5 - 7 years at the researcher's knee? Off the wall bizarre. (Back to your med comparison -- pre-meds don't have to suck up to get in.)

    Here's a wacky thought, while you JN (again N=1) got your "first choice prof," I'll venture a guess that more than a few savvy applicants -- knowing the odds are stacked against them -- make the same "I love your work ... " speech to a half dozen different professors hoping to secure admission to one program.

    Advanced Sycophant 701 -- don't recall seeing that listed as a educational requirement for licensure.

    Which again is how it should go -- theoretically. I know this ruffles the feathers of the straight from UG crowd, but your reaction proves the point. Far too many of you are pouncing all over something unfamiliar and declaring -- by virtue of your lack of experience with it -- that it must be sub-standard.


    And my most "favorite" of all ...
    NOT EVEN CLOSE, Jon!

    I most certainly did not say we don't need smart psychologists. What I have said -- repeatedly -- is that psychologists need a variety of skills many of which are not amenable to the short-cut gatekeeping employed in admissions for conventional programs. What has shown no connection to being a successful psychologist is the sort of uber-nerd, book smart type who is likely to be able to garner the sort of stratospheric GPA/GRE scores and lab experience to be granted admission to your vaunted conventional programs where s/he will be treated to another 5 - 7 years of toiling away in a lab, only coming out to learn how to interact with future clients when on practicum. (Remember, you all are the ones who criticize for distance programs for not immersing students in the campus-based "experience.")

    (Oh, and educational psychology has shown us that cognitive ability is not easily quantifiable.)

    Not revenge, Jon -- karma!

    The intractability of prejudices presented here with a staggering lack of even the slightest moderation of views once presented with other evidence will not be very difficult to draw out in an interview.

    I wonder how you and your crew, sailing along on your smooth sea of life, will react when suddenly the water is inexplicably churned up when a job you thought you were a shoo-in for doesn't materialize. When you don't recognize that your oh-so-pithy comments about "knowing" what's right and wrong for the profession revealed the underlying lack of empirical integrity that supposedly what your "only standard" conventional programs should have taught you.

    Overcoming adversity is a wonderful life learning tool.
     
  45. Jon Snow

    Jon Snow Senior Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,089
    Likes Received:
    371
    Jock is right. Those girls are probably the sensible ones in the program. They also probably don't belong in graduate school (along with the rest of the PGSP crowd).

    Your attitude stinks of classism, as I've been accused of. . .

    So they have money? That doesn't make them lazy or uninformed about the world, it makes them different. There will be clients they will be more easily able to relate to than you. Rich people do use psychologists. Also, it may be easier at this stage in your development to relate to people that are the "same" as you, but, as you gain clinical experience, you'll be able to relate to people that are different. Trust me, MOST will be different. This shows, perhaps, a weakness of experience. You are making assumptions that are actually harmful to clinical comportment in a way.
     
  46. Ollie123

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,614
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    Just popping in to mention that I wonder if this idea that traditional PhD programs are full of wealthy folks with no life experience comes from attending schools like PGSP...in the 3 traditional programs I've interacted with I have met 1 person who was from an affluent family. Most seem to be middle class, with some lower-middle and lower class sprinkled in.
     
  47. KillerDiller

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,560
    Likes Received:
    51
    Status:
    Post Doc
    I agree with this completely. People who are concerned that the Ph.D is available only to those of privileged means should be skeptical of any school that charges its students full tuition. There are funded Psy.D programs and unfunded Ph.D programs, so it's not even a matter of that old debate.

    I have always struggled with having enough money and making it cover my living expenses. I had a job in college and have worked pretty constantly since the time I was 14 years old. That is precisely why I needed to get into a university based Ph.D program. I couldn't afford an alternative. Yet, somehow, I'm supposed to be the one who is a rich, privileged snob because I am in a traditional program? It doesn't make sense to me.

    If people feel that attending a school that charges full tuition is in their best interest, then I don't begrudge them their right to do that. I will never, however, champion that option as the best way for less privileged people to get into the field.
     
  48. Jon Snow

    Jon Snow Senior Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,089
    Likes Received:
    371
    Oh, I agree with the latter statement. we actually overcame adversity, worked hard, planned, and such to get into a real graduate school. Beyond that, just because someone is smart and has attained certain goals, doesn't mean they haven't encountered adversity. You act as if it's all handed to people.

    I have and will probably in the future run into job situations that look locked down and fall apart. The odds that you, or someone like you, will ever hold the keys to a job I seek are pretty much zero.

    There's no lack of empirical integrity to the arguments that have been presented, btw. . .but, nice try.
     
  49. Jon Snow

    Jon Snow Senior Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,089
    Likes Received:
    371
    This, to me, looks like you think we don't need smart psychologists.


    You should have to compete with Jocknerd and myself. There shouldn't be a way to circumvent the system and pay for the doctorate. IT should be about accomplishment. . .but it isn't. Because businesses have stepped in. In psychology, what you can't earn can be bought.
     
  50. Therapist4Chnge

    Therapist4Chnge Neuropsych Ninja Faculty
    Faculty Moderator Emeritus 10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    21,320
    Likes Received:
    2,213
    Status:
    Psychologist
    Jon, I don't think it is that straight forward. There are still standardized hoops everyone needs to jump through, etc. I agree with you that there standards need to be tightened up, and the 'front door' is too open.

    In the end, it isn't direct competition, because many aren't going to cross paths.....that being said, it does irk me that there is such a variance between training. It is like graduating in the top part of a class, and then being compared to the person who graduated last. The 'school' matters less to me than the training....which included BOTH research and clinical work, equally.

    -t
     
  51. Lunabin

    Lunabin New Member
    2+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Status:
    Other Health Professions Student

    But, I think it's fair to say that the market (beyond internship and postdoc) is growing in our field. Hence, the reason the PsyD was created in the first place! There is a demand for licensed psychologists out there. I don't see a problem with unemployed psychologists anywhere...

    One problem is in the fact that there are not enough training programs. It would be helpful to have more internships approved by APA (to keep the quality of training up to par), and more funding to train postdocs (since reimbursements for unlicensed psychologists is pitiful - noone wants to hire one!). Poor match rates are not isolated to professional schools - though, they do suffer the most.

    To speak to the theme here - psychologists should have a certain standard of training - I entirely agree. My understanding, is that professional schools require more clinical practice and training than traditional programs, better preparing students in this area. It's what makes them more competitive later. Though they lack in research areas, this shouldn't be a problem because most professional students aren't aiming for that sector of practice anyway. But it does make it harder for the traditional students to compete. I can appreciate the ill feelings here.

    But, all of this training - through practica, internship, postdocs, licensing, coursework, dissertations - they can be argued as all 'weed out' processes. Professional schools don't make it easy! Though, it makes me wonder what the retention rates for professional schools are...? Just because they get in, doesn't mean they'll finish - but, they will foot the bill in the mean time.

    I agree, another big problem is the WIDE front door. But, if students are making through these programs - despite the many many obstacles that most/all programs offer - then they probably are doing something right; and aren't all complete 'tools' (please forgive the slang).

    If the students are all so poorly trained, then why to they match or get hired at all? What about the training in traditional schools makes it so stellar and superior?
     

Share This Page