Psy.D. - The Wright Institute

[bhamstudent]

I've been invited for an interview at The Wright Institute for their Psy.D. program. Can anyone shed some light on why their students have trouble obtaining APA internships? In 2012, only 36% of students received an APA- accredited internship. Any info would be helpful!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

Last year, my internship site (a VA medical center) tossed the applications of students from this program (as well as all the Argosy ones) without even looking at them.

 

[PHD12]

I've been invited for an interview at The Wright Institute for their Psy.D. program. Can anyone shed some light on why their students have trouble obtaining APA internships? In 2012, only 36% of students received an APA- accredited internship. Any info would be helpful!

Its very smart that you are looking at the APA internship rates when selecting a program. I would encourage all prospective applicants to think of this as an employment statistic (basically you are shut out of most early career jobs and post-docs without one). You want to select a program that has a rate of about 85-90% or above for apa internships. Good thing you are doing your research!

Reputation of the program is a big reason. It is known as a diploma mill among psychologists in our field (kind of like the Devry stigma). Internship directors have hundreds of applications for a few spots so they typically toss out the ones that are from professional schools since they have plenty of well-trained people from funded, university based programs to select from. Wright will accept basically anyone who applies and has a huge class size (65-70+). Most university based programs accept less than 10 applicants. With such a large class size, you cannot provide good training and mentoring in our field.

These programs market themselves pretty well and will even get you in touch with several alumni who are doing well so just be careful! Getting naive student to pay their outrageous tuition (150-200K over 5 years) for horrible outcomes is big business so keep that in mind when you interview.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I will say that even though I'm sure what erg mentioned happens at more than just his site, often times TDs of internships and postdocs won't necessarily automatically toss applications from these programs without even looking at them. However, many of these TDs do have algorithms they'll use to make the first series of cuts so that the number of applications moved on for further review is manageable, and these algorithms often end up eliminating most/all applicants from these programs.

 

[psyman]

.

 

[psyman]

Last year, my internship site (a VA medical center) tossed the applications of students from this program (as well as all the Argosy ones) without even looking at them.

Is that ethical?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Is that ethical?

Sure...why not? There are programs that offer captive internship sites and don't accept outside applicants. There are other sites that will not accept anyone from a school psych program. The VA sites will only accept applications from US-citizens.

 

[JeyRo]

Last I checked, graduates of FSPS programs were not a protected class. From a program perspective, I see no reason to wade through tons of less competitive applications when there is an easy marker to gauge how good an applicant is going to be compared to others based on training.

I can't see why it wouldn't be ethical. It may not be fair, strictly speaking, to the tiny handful of grads from the Arosys, Alliants and Wrights of the world that may be quality and competitive, but if you have a thousand applicants for a half-dozen slots it really helps to winnow things down in a helpful manner if you toss a few dozen / hundred of apps from clearly substandard programs.

 

[psyman]

I think you guys are rationalizing. It may be what happens, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[PHD12]

Just from seeing the reactions and stigma against this program, I wouldn't even consider an interview. After paying 5 years of tuition, the outcome is a 36% accredited internship rate! This means that the majority of the graduates are getting unpaid, unaccredited full-time positions that limit their employment prospects (CAPIC). Would you go to a program where the majority of the students do not get paid jobs? This is a worse outcome that someone graduating with an AA degree.

 

[Rivi]

I've been invited for an interview at The Wright Institute for their Psy.D. program. Can anyone shed some light on why their students have trouble obtaining APA internships? In 2012, only 36% of students received an APA- accredited internship. Any info would be helpful!

Bhamstudent,

It is a diploma mill. Programs like that are not worth the debt load. Be prepared for them to sell you on the program when you go to the interview.

 

[erg923]

Is that ethical?

Unethical? What code are you claiming in violates?

How is that different than not interviewing someone for a doctorate program with a GRE score you deem not up to par? How bout throwing people with below a 3.3 in the garbage at first cut? How bout the wall street CEO who tosses an app in the garbage because the person got their MBA at the University of Phoenix? Do you really think this doesn't happen in the real world? Is this rationalizing, or it making decisions based on a known pieces of data (prior experience, reputation, curriculum )?

 

[psyman]

Unethical? What code are you claiming in violates?

How is that different than not interviewing someone for a doctorate program with a GRE score you deem not up to par? How bout throwing people with below a 3.3 in the garbage at first cut? How bout the wall street CEO who tosses an app in the garbage because the person got their MBA at the University of Phoenix? Do you really think this doesn't happen in the real world? Is this rationalizing, or it making decisions based on a piece of data (prior experience)?

I clearly said it is in fact what happens. The ethics code I'm referring to is one of personal ethics.

Hmm, I wonder how they get ANY APA internships in the first place? If they are so poorly trained it doesn't seemed they'd be able compete.

Okay my fault. All applicants from "said" programs are lesser qualified by default. How dare I suggest otherwise. Here is another obnoxious discussion on this board from those more enlightened.

 

[erg923]

I clearly said it is in fact what happens. The ethics code I'm referring to is one of personal ethics.

Hmm, I wonder how they get ANY APA internships in the first place? If they are so poorly trained it doesn't seemed they'd be able compete.

Okay my fault. All applicants from "said" programs are lesser qualified by default. How dare I suggest otherwise. Here is another obnoxious discussion on this board from those more enlightened.

My "personal ethics" if I am on admissions committee is to get the best candidates possible using the most time efficient methods possible. Large sweeping cuts at first are necessary when you have 200 people apply to your site. When you sit on an admissions committee one day you will start to understand. Not everybody gets looked at. That's what happens when there is large supply and limited demand. Why you think psychology would be exempt from this is beyond me?

I have no doubt many places don't do this to Wright, but mine did. One reason was likely because we are academically affiliated, had a scientist-practitioner training philosophy/model, and wanted people with at least the ability (if not the explicit interest) to contribute to ongoing research projects one half day per week.

 

[PHD12]

Hmm, I wonder how they get ANY APA internships in the first place? If they are so poorly trained it doesn't seemed they'd be able compete.

Okay my fault. All applicants from "said" programs are lesser qualified by default. How dare I suggest otherwise. Here is another obnoxious discussion on this board from those more enlightened.

They aren't able to compete if a minority get APA internships...that is the whole point (and i bet they are at less preferred sites or geographical locations). If you don't agree with what people are saying, why don't you present data that shows this program is worthwhile.

What is unethical to me is for people to recommend this program despite the horrendous outcomes and crushing levels of debt (200K).

 

[AcronymAllergy]

To be fair, I don't know that anyone has said a program such as the Wright Institute doesn't have any "worthwhile" students/graduates at all; that'd be a silly argument to attempt to make. Rather, it's essentially a matter of looking at the typical graduate of each individual program, as that's what you have to go on when making the initial "phase" of cuts.

In actuality, ALL students are affected to some degree by the reputation of their programs and/or by the relationships their programs and faculty members have with specific sites. No one is immune to this, it's just that certain programs carry larger bonuses or stigmas than others.

Heck, there are likely more than a handful of university-based PhD programs that have poor relationships with various internship sites (usually as a result of the site having recently been burned by an intern or applicant from said program), and as such, their applications can sometimes be quickly tossed out as well. At least in my own experience, this type of situation is what has led to programs such as Wright having its applicants not receive serious consideration, rather than the internship/postdoc site simply taking peers at their word and throwing out applications with any having any direct interactions themselves.

Edit: As for feeling elitist, as I mentioned above, keep in mind that the same thing sometimes happens to more "traditional" university-based PhD program applicants as well.

Also, many sites prefer to only take one or perhaps two applicants from any one school per year. Thus, if you have a multitude of students from a particular site applying, it makes sense to essentially immediately cut the bottom 2/3 or 3/4 of those applicants prior to investing time in a more thorough credential review.

 

[psyman]

The necessity of making sweeping cuts is one thing, but it feels elitist to throw out entire programs by default from an applicant pool. That's all I'm saying. Clearly I'm wrong.

 

[erg923]

The necessity of making sweeping cuts is one thing, but it feels elitist to throw out entire programs by default from an applicant pool. That's all I'm saying. Clearly I'm wrong.

I think it is in the sense that you make assume the "eliteness" (in the sense of better experience, higher level skills, better research training) of those at other programs.

 

[ResearchGirlie]

My "personal ethics" if I am on admissions committee is to make get the best candidates possible using the most time efficient methods possible. Large sweeping cuts at first are necessary when you have 200 people your site. When you sit on an admissions committee one you will start to understand. Not everybody gets looked at. That's what happens when there is large supply and limited demand. Why you think psychology would be exempt from this is beyond me.

I have no doubt many places don't do this to Wright, but mine did. One reason was likely because we are academically affiliated, had a scientist-practitioner training philosophy/model, and wanted people with at least the ability (if not the explicit interest) to contribute to ongoing research projects one half day per week.

It's my understanding that internships, just like grad school, are looking for a good fit. A site that really values science and research is just inherently at odds with the majority of professional schools that were created for those that don't care for the research aspect of the field. Similarly, college counseling centers tend to cut applications from people who have no CC experience. Are they likely missing out on some great applicants? Of course! But it's a long process and there needs to be a way to weed people out.

 

[Jxz]

It's just so typical of this website. Some newbie makes a general question about one of those programs and within a day everybody has vomited all over her.

 

[JeyRo]

It's just so typical of this website. Some newbie makes a general question about one of those programs and within a day everybody has vomited all over her.

Wright has a 36% match rate. That sucks. Mediocre APA accredited internships have to wade through hundreds of applications. Wright isn't even in PAU territory in terms of their match rate. Their numbers are just plain terrible.

 

[Jxz]

There was something similar on the DO forum but I guess we should help people here making the same decision in psychology.

Janitor versus PsyD What should I do?

OMFG I'M STUCK BETWEEN BECOMING A JANITOR AT A MIDDLE SCHOOL AND BECOMING A PsyD!!!

HELP Me! WHAT DO I DO?!

Janitor Pros:
Free mop and glow
Access to closets
No overnight call

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

There was something similar on the DO forum but I guess we should help people here making the same decision in psychology.

Janitor versus PsyD What should I do?

OMFG I'M STUCK BETWEEN BECOMING A JANITOR AT A MIDDLE SCHOOL AND BECOMING A PsyD!!!

HELP Me! WHAT DO I DO?!

Janitor Pros:
Free mop and glow
Access to closets
No overnight call

If it was in the Political Forum people would only care if the janitorial job was a union job or not.

 

[Sanman]

If you say it is a bad program, people say you are elitist and being mean. If you say it is a good program, people accuse you of sugar coating it. So, can someone tell how many other APA programs have a match rate below 36%? My bet is few if any. Numbers do not lie.

 

[erg923]

If it was in the Political Forum people would only care if the janitorial job was a union job or not.

Pinko commie rag!

 

[erg923]

It's just so typical of this website. Some newbie makes a general question about one of those programs and within a day everybody has vomited all over her.

For goodness sake son, the question was basically "what is the deal with this program?" What did you think we the person wanted hear...sugar coats and farts!?

Get real....

 

[psyman]

It's just so typical of this website. Some newbie makes a general question about one of those programs and within a day everybody has vomited all over her.

Current topic aside, the tone/attitude of some specific users really turns me off of this board.

 

[PHD12]

The demand and market conditions for DO degrees are nothing like that for PsyD degrees from professional schools. Its not a reasonable comparison at all. There is a huge shortage of physicians actually, which is the opposite state of affairs in psychology. Plus, if you go to a DO program in the US, the match rates are extremely high (over 95% for US med schools overall). The PsyD from an unfunded, professional school (including Wright, Alliant, Argosy, etc etc) is the worst deal out there when it comes to any graduate degree. I have never heard of a degree that requires 5 to 6 years of graduate school, costs 200K+, and leads to a full-time unaccredited, unpaid internship for most degree holders. oh..and graduates from these programs resort to unpaid post-docs afterwards because they are limited from applying to pretty much all post-docs & positions in CA.

If you have such a strong reaction to what others are saying, please post data to support an alternative view. We are commenting on outcomes from this program based on data that the APA requires every program to collect for full disclosure (including the 36% rate for accredited internships).

 

[Jxz]

You guys aren't just "post[ing] data to support an alternative view".

You vomit it. And the tone is just what I react to whenever I see somebody ask a question about these programs. I just know that in 24 hours the whole thread is going to be trashed by Senior Members and people who have been posting the same stuff for 3+ years, which is why in all that time, I've only now said something about it.

Somebody said I should get real, get a grip. You're supposed to be psychologists-in-training.

 

[PHD12]

You guys aren't just "post[ing] data to support an alternative view".

You vomit it. And the tone is just what I react to whenever I see somebody ask a question about these programs. I just know that in 24 hours the whole thread is going to be trashed by Senior Members and people who have been posting the same stuff for 3+ years, which is why in all that time, I've only now said something about it.

Somebody said I should get real, get a grip. You're supposed to be psychologists-in-training.

It sounds like you are taking things way out of context and personally. Nobody ever said that graduates of this program were incompetent or unskilled as a whole. From my experience, the only people that react strongly to these posts are current professional school students, but they never seem to point out anything that isn't correct about what is posted above.

I know you don't like the tone, but what is incorrect/inaccurate about the posts on this thread???

 

[Psychadelic2012]

I have never heard of a degree that requires 5 to 6 years of graduate school, costs 200K+, and leads to a full-time unaccredited, unpaid internship for most degree holders. oh..and graduates from these programs resort to unpaid post-docs afterwards because they are limited from applying to pretty much all post-docs & positions in CA.

Well, I know of some degrees/fields that fit this description. They do exist. I'm not saying they're smart, in many ways I'm not sure. I think the black-or-white nature of posts like this can get pretty out of hand. I do understand the skepticism, trust me (I join you in it), but blasting away with hypberbolic statements won't win the argument. I, like others, considered applying to FSPS's on the first round, so we all know that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of people who are incurring this massive debt and then going out into the world to work as psychologists. It does happen. It's confusing to applicants, because they don't really understand the real drawbacks and I guess they don't believe it, either--"if they can go to a FSPS, accumulate this debt, and end up okay, why not me?" I really do think a rational explanation will do the trick here.

 

[PHD12]

Well, I know of some degrees/fields that fit this description. They do exist. I'm not saying they're smart, in many ways I'm not sure. I think the black-or-white nature of posts like this can get pretty out of hand. I do understand the skepticism, trust me (I join you in it), but blasting away with hypberbolic statements won't win the argument. I, like others, considered applying to FSPS's on the first round, so we all know that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of people who are incurring this massive debt and then going out into the world to work as psychologists. It does happen. It's confusing to applicants, because they don't really understand the real drawbacks and I guess they don't believe it, either--"if they can go to a FSPS, accumulate this debt, and end up okay, why not me?" I really do think a rational explanation will do the trick here.

Please point out what is hyperbolic? If the program has a very low APA match rate, In California this means that the students are going through CAPIC (this is the case at Wright) and thus end up doing unpaid internships or internships that offer a stipend of 3,000 per year. If you want a post-doc in CA so that you can get your hours for licensure, you would have basically nowhere to apply to because you are barred from all VAs, Kaiser, vast majority of counseling centers. Its quite horrible actually for these folks. There is a market for unpaid post-docs in CA due to these programs.

I would be very interested in seeing data on professional school PsyD graduates, including median starting salary, unemployment rate, % licensed. This doesn't exist as of yet but I think it would be very helpful to help people make better decisions. A number of them actually don't ever get licensed as psychologists and end up using the MFT licensure from what i've seen.

 

[Jxz]

I did not say that anything was incorrect or inaccurate. I stated that invariably someone new to the forums posts a simple question regarding such a program. This questions is met with an avalanche of vomit.

I don't disagree with any of the facts that you have posted--when these facts are based on statistics that are readily available. PHD12 admits in his most recent post that he'd like to see more data (and then immediately starts with another supposition with the phrase "a number of them don't ever get licensed...from what i've seen"--actually that data is probably readily available--% licensed on their website).

I don't go to Wright and I don't know anyone who does.

The tone is what bothers me in these posts. It bothers me because if this language were used in regards to a specific person, for example, "Dr. X went to Wright, which is a diploma mill that has a horrible reputation and training directors see the applications of graduates from that program they toss them in the trash, and blah, blah, blah." Dr. X would probably have pretty good cause for a libel lawsuit and a complaint to the professional ethics board.

I wonder if the people on this board posting these things year after year were dropped on their heads by a PsyD in their childhood or something? Like I said, we're psychologists in training we're supposed to make measured reasoned decisions based on data. It doesn't look good when we run around making these determinations and take pot-shots at each other based on limited data.

But maybe I am wrong. Maybe you guys are right, if fact you've convinced me. If you go to Wright, it's got a low APA match rate, which means you'll have to go to CAPIC, which means that you'll get an unpaid internship, which means you'll never get a post-doc in CA, which means you'll never get license because you'll be blackballed from anyplace that hires post-docs. It's quite horrible for all these people who would all be better off becoming a janitor in a middle school.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Please point out what is hyperbolic? If the program has a very low APA match rate, In California this means that the students are going through CAPIC (this is the case at Wright) and thus end up doing unpaid internships or internships that offer a stipend of 3,000 per year. If you want a post-doc in CA so that you can get your hours for licensure, you would have basically nowhere to apply to because you are barred from all VAs, Kaiser, vast majority of counseling centers. Its quite horrible actually for these folks. There is a market for unpaid post-docs in CA due to these programs.

I would be very interested in seeing data on professional school PsyD graduates, including median starting salary, unemployment rate, % licensed. This doesn't exist as of yet but I think it would be very helpful to help people make better decisions. A number of them actually don't ever get licensed as psychologists and end up using the MFT licensure from what i've seen.

Well, if the data doesn't exist, then how can you generalize as you do in the first paragraph? I've noticed this is common in your posts (i.e., "basically nowhere to apply to," "banned from all VAs..."). I'm just trying to help this argument. If there's no data, there's no data. No need to catastrophize, unless you're stating your opinion. We're all freaked out by the possibilities and don't get me wrong, I agree that it's not the best financial choice to go to a FSPS, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen like this for every single person:

If you go to Wright, it's got a low APA match rate, which means you'll have to go to CAPIC, which means that you'll get an unpaid internship, which means you'll never get a post-doc in CA, which means you'll never get license because you'll be blackballed from anyplace that hires post-docs. It's quite horrible for all these people who would all be better off becoming a janitor in a middle school.

(FYI, note that I'm also not painting unicorns...I'm just advocating for balance...)

 

[PHD12]

You are seeing things in all or nothing terms. I never said that it was impossible to get licensed. There are just way more hurdles. In Ca at least you are barred from applying to most of the post-docs out here and i've seen many job postings requiring an APA accredited internship. You can find other ways to get your hours, but its tricky in CA because you need 4 hours of supervision per week. You may be able to move out of state (not sure how other states perceive CAPIC though) or piece something together. I've met some people over the years who were trying to get hours in private practices in CA. However, this is tricky because of the supervision requirement and because you can't advertise your services as a psych. assistant or pay for supervision (look at the board of psychology website if you don't believe me).

 

[PHD12]

Well, if the data doesn't exist, then how can you generalize as you do in the first paragraph? I've noticed this is common in your posts (i.e., "basically nowhere to apply to," "banned from all VAs..."). I'm just trying to help this argument. If there's no data, there's no data. No need to catastrophize, unless you're stating your opinion. We're all freaked out by the possibilities and don't get me wrong, I agree that it's not the best financial choice to go to a FSPS, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen like this for every single person:

I never said they were "banned form all VA's."

Psychadelic, I don't see anything incorrect in this paragraph above. There is data from the program that shows that majority of students who do complete APA internships in CA, go the CAPIC route (which is mostly unpaid). Please do a search for post-docs in CA (which I have done extensively and am interviewing now) and you will see that all the employers that I cited do not accept CAPIC internships, including VAs, Kaiser, most counseling centers out here. When i did my post-doc search I also found many unpaid opportunities in hospitals including one at UCSF (obv I didn't apply). You obviously do not live in CA so I don't think you know the state of affairs out here.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

But maybe I am wrong. Maybe you guys are right, if fact you've convinced me. If you go to Wright, it's got a low APA match rate, which means you'll have to go to CAPIC, which means that you'll get an unpaid internship, which means you'll never get a post-doc in CA, which means you'll never get license because you'll be blackballed from anyplace that hires post-docs. It's quite horrible for all these people who would all be better off becoming a janitor in a middle school.

That is basically what the data suggests. The latest APA-acred. match rate is 36% (per an earlier post). Here is the most recent data from 2012-2013 CAPIC about funded v. unfunded internship sites. It looks like CAPIC has been able to secure more funding for some students (mentioned towards the end), though on average students who go through CAPIC and match will still be more likely to be unfunded than funded. I'm not sure if there is a minimum stipend or not, I just skimmed the document.

52% of FT CAPIC internship matched spots were unfunded.
64% of Half-Time CAPIC internship matched spots were unfunded.

225 FT
241 Part-Time
--------------------
466 Total matched spots (funded & unfunded)

A common assumption many prospective students make about training is that they will be the exception and they will perform better than average, and that can be a problematic way to approach graduate training. I'm just trying to post as much data so prospective students can make an informed decision. For those interested, there is a breakdown of how many applicants matched by program.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

because you are barred from all VAs

I never said they were "banned form all VA's."

Okay, barred. My old eyes were blurred out by the computer screen.

The point is, I'm not trying to say you are wrong. I'm just pointing out that arguments, such as yours, that are extreme black-white (all this, none of that) without data (as you pointed out) are going to alienate who you're arguing with. Saying that I'm obviously not from CA so I couldn't understand--that's one example. Not everyone lives in CA or wants to. Rules are obviously different there, so the fact that you are steeped in CA is just as alien as someone who has never schooled/lived there. No need to be extreme. Just represent your experience, because it is valid, and leave the discussion open for other possibilities. Again, I agree with your premise.

 

[NotTheHoff]

I get why some would consider the general tone of these discussions as elitist or off-putting, but at its core people on this site are very passionate about the big picture of clinical work. Responses to these questions are both about the poster and the field. It's an issue people are very adamant about because it's a key factor in the current state of our profession, one that could definitely use a facelift. I think it's understandable that people have such strong views about certain types of programs, so what some see as elitist views about what training should be I see as a passionate approach to informing potential psychologists about the pitfalls of going certain routes for training.

We're all scientists here. Does going to a program like The Wright Institute mean you will have a bad life and career? No. Does going to a program like The Wright Institute increase the probability of entering the workforce in a poorer position in terms of job prospects, flexibility, and debt? Yes.

 

[erg923]

Somebody said I should get real, get a grip. You're supposed to be psychologists-in-training.

I already am one.

And yes, i think you need to develop thicker skin and realize that the while some may see good aspects of such programs, the OP asked why the low match rate? We answered based on inside knowledge of the internship selection process and provided data for said answer.If you would like to provide alternative data and explanatations, feel free.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I get why some would consider the general tone of these discussions as elitist or off-putting...

I disagree that the tone is "elitist". I think that is a position that is often claimed to deflect that the underlying argument is still quite valid and applicable. I don't think most posters on here are arguing that a program needs to have 100% APA-acred match rate or else a program should be shut down, but most do want some sort of metric for programs. I personally believe that APA-acred. match rate is one of the most obvious and applicable standards since this is *still* the standard for the field. The increased competition does not change this standard. The APA is proposing the initial floor be set at 50%, which is still too low IMHO, but at least it is something. I'm not sure how wanting to require half of a program's students meet what used to be the minimum standard for training at the doctoral level for a psychologist.

 

[PHD12]

Okay, barred. My old eyes were blurred out by the computer screen.

You are banned from ever working at a VA if you don't complete an APA internship and go the CAPIC route. This is not an extreme view.

 

[JeyRo]

I was browsing through the Wright Institiute website just for s**ts and giggles and I found this page which lists "graduate profiles." All of them feature stories of students who have landed APA internships and what sound like paid postdocs. Given their APA match rate is at 36% (at best) this strikes me as rather misleading advertising.

Re. the "elitist" or "off putting" message - it may put of some people (probably current Wright students or other current FSPS students in particular) but it also may be really helpful for prospective students to see these posts.

 

[Qwerk]

I was browsing through the Wright Institiute website just for s**ts and giggles and I found this page which lists "graduate profiles." All of them feature stories of students who have landed APA internships and what sound like paid postdocs. Given their APA match rate is at 36% (at best) this strikes me as rather misleading advertising.

The advertising that comes out of these programs is something that should tip most people off. You just don't see this volume of (or type of) advertising from good schools. Common sense says to be wary of excess promotion. It's one of those "if it's so good, why do you have to sell it so hard?" types of things.

 

[NotTheHoff]

I disagree that the tone is "elitist". I think that is a position that is often claimed to deflect that the underlying argument is still quite valid and applicable. I don't think most posters on here are arguing that a program needs to have 100% APA-acred match rate or else a program should be shut down, but most do want some sort of metric for programs. I personally believe that APA-acred. match rate is one of the most obvious and applicable standards since this is *still* the standard for the field. The increased competition does not change this standard. The APA is proposing the initial floor be set at 50%, which is still too low IMHO, but at least it is something. I'm not sure how wanting to require half of a program's students meet what used to be the minimum standard for training at the doctoral level for a psychologist.

I 100% agree. I get why people would construe the tone as elitist, but I neither read it as elitist nor agree that it is.

 

[PHD12]

I was browsing through the Wright Institiute website just for s**ts and giggles and I found this page which lists "graduate profiles." All of them feature stories of students who have landed APA internships and what sound like paid postdocs. Given their APA match rate is at 36% (at best) this strikes me as rather misleading advertising.

Interesting. I didn't see that any of their star students profiled getting internships or jobs at a VA or an AMC (these are usually high paying positions for psychologists). I looked up some of the fellowships they got after graduating and some pay only 21,000 or 30,000, some more. I wonder what the average is getting if these are the super stars of the program from the last few years. The APA needs to mandate that programs include median starting salary, including percentiles.

 

[Pragma]

Re. the "elitist" or "off putting" message - it may put of some people (probably current Wright students or other current FSPS students in particular) but it also may be really helpful for prospective students to see these posts.

Totally agreed. Right or wrong, these posts reflect conversations actual employers will have with each other when considering applicants for jobs. Like it or not, this perspective on programs like Wright exists out there and it is something a graduate of their program is likely to encounter. It's just how it is.

 

[Qwerk]

I 100% agree. I get why people would construe the tone as elitist, but I neither read it as elitist nor agree that it is.

The word is used incorrectly nine times out of ten on this board, IMO. It's only elitist if you consider it elitist to say here are your job prospects, here is your debt, here is your chance of getting matched, here is your program's reputation among professionals. Which only sounds elitist to people who don't want to believe it.

OP: Please consider your other options if you want to become a clinician. Tens of thousands in debt is not an easily fixable mistake. [Standard pitch for the M.S.W. here. Standard warning about diploma mill marketing. Standard debt vs. earnings warning.]

 

[Pragma]

The word is used incorrectly nine times out of ten on this board, IMO. It's only elitist if you consider it elitist to say here are your job prospects, here is your debt, here is your chance of getting matched, here is your program's reputation among professionals. Which only sounds elitist to people who don't want to believe it.

Yeah, I don't understand why people giving an honest assessment of the perception of these programs is considered elitist. Generally people who accuse others of that on this board are being defensive, IMO.

Yeah some people do post like jerks from time to time (I am sure I am guilty), but really, that is how people talk about these programs. Any amount of sugar-coating is unethical, IMO.

 

[Sanman]

The truth about this is the same as any other degree program and the fight from the other side is the same as well. If the person came here and asked about podunk private college's MBA program and people stated that it was not a very good school and very expensive, someone would stand up and say that the program teaches you everything a Harvard MBA does and the professors are great. That may or may not be true, but you might be paying more than the Harvard guy and the job/salary prospects once you get out are not going to be the same. My take on it has always been that if you can't get into a respected program in any field, find something else to do. I have yet to see how going to a third tier program of any sort has really benefited the bulk of said graduates.