Psy.D. Programs Continue to Flood Market

[Quynh2007]

depends on the context. . .

If I'm dealing with something medically serious, I want to know that the MD is competent. If I don't have personal access to his track record, the best evidence is her credentials (where'd he go to school, where'd she do her residency).

If I'm ordering a drink at the bar, I don't care where the bartender went to school.

well, medical doctors have pretty strict and high standards. furthermore, it begs me to say that I would never go to someone who has suspect credentials. I see those tv shows where people go to doctors who claim to be plastic surgeons but only really had 6 weeks of workshops or whatnot amd end up being screwed because of mistakes. if they couldn't get into a surgery residency, then perhaps they should not be doing surgery! same thing with our situation here at hand.

p.s. i'm not even close to being rich. in fact, I'm wearing clothes that I have had since the 7th grade and my family drives a car that's as old as I am. so i'm going to take offense to being called a brat because I happen to go from UG to G with no "life experience"

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bananaface]

Let's keep it collegial in here, please.

 

[amy203]

What about the training in traditional schools makes it so stellar and superior?

One obvious comparison is how many people can attend professional programs and still work full-time. Students in traditional programs are in school (this includes courses, research, and clinical training) between 60 and 80 hours per week. It would be impossible to have a full or even a part-time position while attending one of these programs (a few people pick up teaching positions, etc. while they work on their dissertations, but these jobs are always strongly related to the field of psychology). A few schools actually forbid outside jobs, but it isn't usually necessary - adding a job to the workload would be physically impossible. The fact the so many people attending professional schools can manage to work even part time suggests that they aren't working as hard in grad school.

I know I'm going to get blasted for being elitist, but I'm about to give up 5 years of my life to grad school - working long hours and living off a tiny stipend. And when I get out, I expect to be more competitive for internships and job opportunities than someone who went to a professional school that they got to treat as part-time commitment. I think it would be pretty unfair if that wasn't the case.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

One obvious comparison is how many people can attend professional programs and still work full-time.

I know I'm going to get blasted for being elitist, but I'm about to give up 5 years of my life to grad school - working long hours and living off a tiny stipend. And when I get out, I expect to be more competitive for internships and job opportunities than someone who went to a professional school that they got to treat as part-time commitment. I think it would be pretty unfair if that wasn't the case.

Is that possible?

From everything I've seen/heard.....it is very much a full-time commitment. I don't know anyone who is in a professional / traditional program who can work full time. Admittedly, I don't know anyone at Argosy, Alliant, etc....but from what I've heard from the Chi School and a couple others, this isn't the case. Students still have research, classes, practicum, etc.

Do any programs offer classes that aren't just in the day time? I know my program may offer an elective or two in the late-afternoon/night....but 95% of the other classes are during the day.

Thoughts?

-t

 

[amy203]

Is that possible?

From everything I've seen/heard.....it is very much a full-time commitment. I don't know anyone who is in a professional / traditional program who can work full time. Admittedly, I don't know anyone at Argosy, Alliant, etc....but from what I've heard from the Chi School and a couple others, this isn't the case. Students still have research, classes, practicum, etc.

Do any programs offer classes that aren't just in the day time? I know my program may offer an elective or two in the late-afternoon/night....but 95% of the other classes are during the day.

Thoughts?

-t

Someone stated in this thread that they work full time (I have double checked the post, but would rather not give the name - this isn't personal). I'm pretty sure I've seen other people post it as well, especially for online programs. A lot of people were discussing having to get part time jobs around the time of admissions. I probably shouldn't have generalized to all professional programs, though. Let's see what people's experiences have been...

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

Someone stated in this thread that they work full time (I have double checked the post, but would rather not give the name - this isn't personal). I'm pretty sure I've seen other people post it as well, especially for online programs. A lot of people were discussing having to get part time jobs around the time of admissions. I probably shouldn't have generalized to all professional programs, though. Let's see what people's experiences have been...

That was me. Since about 1/3 of the way through my 1st year, I worked at 2 jobs. Job 1 was as a facilitator for state-mandated domestic violence group therapy--at night. (about 25 hours a week+5-10 hours for writing reports on clients) Job 2 was the National Guard--about 16 hours a month plus my drills were about 2 hours away so usually just stayed the whole weekend up there in Sacramento. Not quite full time, but close. I also mentioned my GPA suffered for it. Coursework, studying for tests, comps, keeping up wth assigned readings accounted for about 40-50 hours. I am at the end of my third year now. I was (and still am) very tired. It is not an online program, and they don't just give you the PhD for the money.

 

[amy203]

That was me. Since about 1/3 of the way through my 1st year, I worked at 2 jobs. Job 1 was as a facilitator for state-mandated domestic violence group therapy (about 25 hours a week+5-10 hours for writing reports on clients) Job 2 was the National Guard--about 16 hours a month plus my drills were about 2 hours away so usually just stayed the whole weekend up there in Sacramento. Not quite full time, but close. I also mentioned my GPA suffered for it. Coursework, studying for tests, comps, keeping up wth assigned readings accounted for about 40-50 hours. I am at the end of my third year now. I was (and still am) very tired. It is not an online program, and they don't just give you the PhD for the money.

Wow... We're you getting any clinical hours for the therapy hours?

I don't mean to dismiss your accomplisments, because you've obviously worked really hard, but I'm not that impressed by your courseload. If those flitty little rich girls you described are only spending 40-50 hours on coursework, they are aren't working as hard as people in other PhD programs. Also, you're doing more than coursework, right? How many hours are you required to spend on research (the program I'm starting in the fall requires 20/week, but it sounds like most people are expected to spend far more time than that) and what about clinical practica? Unless they got some kind of credit for the therapy position, students in traditional programs wouldn't be able to work the extra 25 to 30 hours per week.

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

Wow... We're you getting any clinical hours for the therapy hours?

I don't mean to dismiss your accomplisments, because you've obviously worked really hard, but I'm not that impressed by your courseload. If those flitty little rich girls you described are only spending 40-50 hours on coursework, they are aren't working as hard as people in other PhD programs. Also, you're doing more than coursework, right? How many hours are you required to spend on research (the program I'm starting in the fall requires 20/week, but it sounds like most people are expected to spend far more time than that) and what about clinical practica? Unless they got some kind of credit for the therapy position, students in traditional programs wouldn't be able to work the extra 25 to 30 hours per week.

Basically it looks like this:

1st year-All coursework. You take the clinical and research comps at the end of that year, and apply to a research group by April 15th.

2nd year--combination of coursework (10-12 units), research (although 2nd years don't do much, they basically help the 3rd and 4th years) and (on site) practicum. You take the assessment comp at the end of 2nd year.

3rd year--about 9 units of coursework, your research has to start looking serious--maybe publish if you are in a hard-charging group and 3rd year (off site) practicum. You take the orals at the end of 3rd year, and advance to candidacy (Masters Degree completed).

Summer between 3 and 4--Dissertation proposal defense, start getting ready to apply to internship. Our school requires you to have written your essays, ranked your sites, and tracked all your hours to date before you finish 3rd year.

4th year--all research and a practicum if you need the hours. Some 4th years take a few elective classes if they have not completed the 18 units required before leaving for internship.

Edit--And no, I am not getting hours for the D.V. group, because my supervisor is an LMFT. It looks really good in the "other relevant hours" section and on your C.V. I have sent my C.V. to a couple of sites who said they would already take me based on my C.V. However, I have a lot of quasi-mental health practice from when I was active duty, as a 91X-(Mental Health Specialist) and I had a MA in Christian Counseling before I ever joined the Army. That helps me quite a bit. Don't worry, you couldn't dismiss the hard work I have done if you tried. I know who I am.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Our school requires you to have written your essays, ranked your sites, and tracked all your hours to date before you finish 3rd year.

Ugh!!

I would pull out my hair if I had to do that!! I started to informally review and rank my programs, but I won't be finalizing it (and completing the apps) until atleast Aug/Sept.

My research is owning me right now, and I'm preparing for a mock defense of a case...blah.

-t

 

[thewesternsky]

Going back to the very first post in this thread....

"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."

Am I the only one completely flabbergasted by these numbers? What is APA's cut-off student-faculty ratio? I'm completely amazed by this.

Most faculty members that I talked to have 3-4 current graduate students. Only one had five, and *he* didn't end up taking students last year. Most of the programs I applied to took 4-10 students per year. Even with those numbers, I was pretty amazed with the amount of work the clinical professors do (which at the very LEAST includes teaching, supervising students' clinical work, and running a lab.) How do programs ten to twenty times this size function?

 

[Quynh2007]

Going back to the very first post in this thread....

"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."

Am I the only one completely flabbergasted by these numbers? What is APA's cut-off student-faculty ratio? I'm completely amazed by this.

Most faculty members that I talked to have 3-4 current graduate students. Only one had five, and *he* didn't end up taking students last year. Most of the programs I applied to took 4-10 students per year. Even with those numbers, I was pretty amazed with the amount of work the clinical professors do (which at the very LEAST includes teaching, supervising students' clinical work, and running a lab.) How do programs ten to twenty times this size function?

I don't know if you cared to read the banter back and forth in this thread (I don't blame u if you don't) but that has been my question the entire time...why are they making their classes bigger if they can barely place their current students into an approved site for internship, and it looks like they aren't increasing their resources if they are now going to be barely making the "cut-off" for APA approval...barely getting by...and I doubt most of the new incoming $$ is going to be allocated to increase resources. why increase class size if you aren't going to increase profits? that's just that much more work for you and your staff if you aren't going to be making huge profits off those extra 40 people.

 

[positivepsych]

why increase class size if you aren't going to increase profits? that's just that much more work for you and your staff if you aren't going to be making huge profits off those extra 40 people.

They DO make huge profits off those extra 40 people. If each person is $40k in tuition, that's $1,600,000. If they have to hire an extra faculty member for each student, they hire an adjunct and pay them for each course they teach. They pay adjuncts poorly, maybe $1,000 per full course (if that). So you get $40k in tuition for about $1k in paying a psychologist. It's always about the money for a business.

 

[Ollie123]

Is it really only $1000 per class for an adjunct? Do universities tend to pay more or is it that bad everywhere?

Here's hoping I find something tenure-track right after post-doc! Given the time/effort that goes into a class I can't imagine getting that little for it. I would probably do better going back to teaching tennis...

 

[thewesternsky]

Ollie: It doesn't seem to be as bad as $1000 per course... According to a report in GradPsych ( http://gradpsych.apags.org/nov05/report.html)

The median fee (per course for adjuncts) for 2003–2004 was $3,500 in doctoral departments and $2,400 in master's departments.

 

[Ollie123]

That seems much more reasonable to me (though god-willing I still won't end up stuck being an adjunct). Still, $1000 per course puts you in like...poverty range.

I was wondering who on earth you could find to teach a course for that little. I'm probably doing better per-hour now as an RA!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

<---will not be teaching for the money. (I still would like to do a class here or there)



Even $3500 doesn't sound like much, but everything is relative. I still need to wrap my head around academia and the differences between there and the corp world. $3500 is 1 full-time employee's weekly billing!

-t

 

[Ollie123]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm still hoping my research/grants will get me the tenure track job and that is what will pay the bills

Given that adjunct work is a nice side-job and/or a fail safe since it seems to be easy as hell to get, its nice to know I will make "slightly" more than I would at a fast food joint

You're right about it being vastly different than corp. though. If I get a nice 50k/9-month salary at a university, I will be as happy as can be even if I would have made triple that if I went into one of the other fields I'm interested in

 

[positivepsych]

According to the Chronicle for Higher Education, adjuncts are paid $750 to $3500 per course. I've heard that professional schools of psychology tend to pay on the lower end of that scale however. People don't teach there to make serious money, its mostly clinicians who do it so they can have some variety in their schedule, they enjoy teaching students, and a little extra money.

However, there's no question about it. The tuition money a professional Psy.D. program makes off a student is FAR MORE than how much it costs to hire an adjunct. They're not called 'degree mills' for no reason.

 

[Ollie123]

Oh, wasn't intending to imply that they wouldn't make money off the deal

I was just trying to figure out if adjunct work was really THAT ridiculously low paying since I like to keep tabs on these things in case I ever end up doing adjunct work.

 

[Sanman]

Well,
Now that comps are over (and I passed god willing), I'll throw in my two cents.

1. Based on the letters that were posted by the OP, I honestly feel that this is turning into an ethical issue. Are these programs really doing the best for their students or informing them of the reality they face?

2. The issue I have with prof. schools and online programs is this: how are these programs ensuring standards? If you are getting your own practica or just taking what is there, who is ensuring that they are teaching you the correct things? At my program all of the practica and supervisors are screened prior to any students being there and are dropped if there are issues that a student has. The truth is that it is easy to say that clinical hours are completed, the question is at what level of competence. Also, how well do these programs know their students? It is the job of a program to hold back those students that are not fit to practice, how are they doing this if they do not know their students well?

The reason I have issue with this is that many of the barriers to practice are determined by the institution and not an independent board (comps, dissertation, clinical competence prior to internship). So, it is a question of how well they are setting standards. By objective standards (internship placement and EPPP scores), they are not doing well in comparison to more traditional programs.

3. I go to a funded program and have worked since I was 14. I worked through college and am funded now. So, it isn't all rich kids. In fact, the poorest psychology grad students I know go to funded programs because it is more affordable. If you go to an unfunded program and passed on a funded one, you obviously are rich enough to forego the money for some reason and have the resources to pay. I didn't have the option to go unfunded, I needed the cash. If that meant doing more research than I wanted to, so be it.

4. When we speak of internships, we are only looking at APA accredited ones , correct? Since there are numerous issues with unaccredited ones that affect licensure.

5. As for there being no starving psychologists, that is largely due to the ever growing glut of students without an internship. If we just give everyone an internship, it may come to that. I have two un/underemployed lawyer friends who can attest to what happens when there is an oversupply of a certain profession and you go to a poorly rated school.

 

[amy203]

This is an interesting article. It came out in 1998, when the bottle-neck issue with APA internships was just becoming apparent.

Oehlert, M. E. & Lopez, S. J. (1998). APA accredited internships; An examination of supply and demand issues. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29(2), 189-194.

It confirms that the bottleneck effect does exist (which, of course, we all know by know) and offers some suggestions. One solution would be to create more internship sights, but the authors express some concern with the solution because it might "sustain the bottleneck occurring on the other side of internship, the job market."

Thus, they suggest that the demand issue (i.e. number of students seeking internships) be addressed. One possibility would be to force all APA accredited institutions to reduce their incoming class-size by %10 for the next 3 years. This approach probably wouldn't be eagerly embraced though, and isn't really fair to schools with small class sizes and high internship placement rates. Another option would be to deny program reaccredidation to schools with a pattern of low placement rates. Finally, program admissions could be limited to the number of students placed - so a school that only placed 25 of their 100 person class could only admit 25 students the following year.

The last option sounds a bit arbitrary to me but, overall, I like the idea of holding schools responsible for their low placement rates. That way, it doesn't matter if a school is for profit or non-profit, PsyD or PhD. If they're placing students and students are completing their degrees in a timely manner, than it's not an issue.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

....deny program reaccredidation to schools with a pattern of low placement rates. Finally, program admissions could be limited to the number of students placed - so a school that only placed 25 of their 100 person class could only admit 25 students the following year.

These are both great ideas (the former more than the latter). PLACEMENT MATTERS. Re-accreditation happens every 5-10 years, no? (I think it depends on how well you score, I know it can range how often you get reviewed) There should definitely be some kind of contingency based on the # of students you are allowed to have, based on placement rates.

-t

 

[JockNerd]

...Finally, program admissions could be limited to the number of students placed - so a school that only placed 25 of their 100 person class could only admit 25 students the following year...

I think that's a decent idea, but I'm wondering about the rate. 25% match is pretty abysmal, so I think it's reasonable to move that up quite a bit (glancing at the APPIC data, I think a 25% cutoff would exclude about 5 or so schools).

There should definitely be some kind of contingency based on the # of students you are allowed to have, based on placement rates.

THAT'S a neat idea.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

There should definitely be some kind of contingency based on the # of students you are allowed to have, based on placement rates.

THAT'S a neat idea.

Let's hypothesize for a moment.....these are just my musings, I'd love to hear what people think.

How can we measure programs? The most obvious to me is match rate. Internship is required for licensure, so I'd consider that an important part of the process.

The current national match rate average is 75%. I'm sure with all of the stats brain power we have here, we could probably slice and dice up the internship rates up into deciles without much effort, maybe over the last 5 years (large enough amount of data? 7 years? 10 years?)

Instead of cutting ALL programs 10%, how about looking at the bottom 10% (10th decile) of performing programs. My guess, it would take a lot of under-performing to fall into that category. I understand there are programs that acknowledge they don't go a long with the APPIC matching program, so this would be problematic with that view....i'm not sure how to rectify that, or if it should be rectified.

Now we have a group that falls far below the 'average' performance. How can we fix the problem? I don't want to look it as a punishment, but it would be a disservice to their students to continue to function at this level. If a program can't place half of their students each year....there is an exponential effect, none of which helps their students....nor the other students in the process.

What would be fair.....probation for the program? Limiting of incoming class? Some type other restrictions? Loss of accreditation? Any other options?

I'd think something should be done, it isn't like they would have a bad year.....projected over 5-10 years, that isn't a anomaly, that is the way it is done.

For full disclosure, I'm not standing in an ivory tower, I come from a university based prof program (equal emphasis on research and clinical experience). I think there is room for a range of programs, but not for programs that do such a poor job of preparing their students for internship.

-t

 

[JockNerd]

Instead of cutting ALL programs 10%, how about looking at the bottom 10% (10th decile) of performing programs. My guess, it would take a lot of under-performing to fall into that category. I understand there are programs that acknowledge they don't go a long with the APPIC matching program, so this would be problematic with that view....i'm not sure how to rectify that, or if it should be rectified.

I agree; consistently floating in the bottom 10% speaks to serious flaws in the program.

If they don't care about whether students get APA/APPIC internships or not, then why do they care about APA accreditation?

...it would be a disservice to their students to continue to function at this level...
What would be fair.....probation for the program? Limiting of incoming class? Some type other restrictions? Loss of accreditation? Any other options?

I guess we'd have to establish some sort of absolute minimum so as to not eternally have a bottom 10% in need of this.... 50%? I still think that's inexcuseably low for any program, but it might be an ok absolute lower limit for this.

Probation with limitations on incoming class size gets my vote (until I hear something better). Averaging incoming class size over the last few years and then cutting that in half seems reasonable to me. Give them... 5-6 years for this (enough time for the first students from the smaller class sizes to graduate and try to get internship). If they're still not performing, pull accreditation.

I wholeheartedly agree that maintaining a horrid level of placement is a disservice to the students.

Has anyone running for APA Pres. mentioned ANYTHING about internship match rates, or anything near this topic? I just read through the little blurbs they had in the Monitor and no one really seemed to mention anything of substance....