Psy.D. - The Wright Institute

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
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.

My site does something similar and does not consider applications from practitioner-scholar programs period. This is partly because we have a program evaluation component integrated within the internship year.

Members don't see this ad.
 
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!

As is usual on SDN, most of the commentary in response to your question has been sub-par to say the least. The issue of low match rates can be complex. However, match rates themselves are in no way a measure of program quality. The implicit assumption that match rate is a direct reflection of program reputation which in turn is a direct reflection of program quality is a specious argument. I would bet that most training directors across the country and almost certainly none of the sneering commentators here on SDN have ever met a student from or graduate of the Wright Institute. In fact, most TD's have probably never even heard of it and therefore have no basis upon which to judge the quality of the program or its graduates. Some internships may simply not take students from scholar practitioner programs.

In the case of the Wright Institute, there are some selection biases that likely influence their match rates. The student body is significantly older than at a more traditional program. A huge proportion of the students at Wright come from the Bay Area and have masters degrees and established careers and licenses to practice as clinical social workers or counselors. Students such as this are typically restricted geographically. Geographic restrictions are the one factor that empirical research has shown will significantly reduce chances of matching. Many of these students will have less of a need to go to an APA accredited site instead of an APPIC site. It is only logical that a institution that primarily serves a middle aged, more geographically restricted population will have selection biases that ultimately will impact the match.

One would think that the concept of "selection bias" might cross the minds of some of our SDN commentators from scientist practitioner programs. But that would involve the use of critical thinking rather than mindless heuristics whenever the issue of a free standing professional school is discussed. This brings up my next point which is systemic bias. Many in the field, utilize a heuristic that goes something like this: Ph.D. = good Psy.D. = bad; university-based psychology department training = good, free standing institute = bad; scientist- practitioner = good; scholar-practitioner = bad and even California = bad, generic state university outside California = good. A whole host of implicit assumptions can be and are made on the basis of irrational prejudices and heuristics which have no basis in reality but are part and parcel of the ways some persons impute program quality. Simply review the truly sophomoric comments here and you will see irrational bias it in all its glory. Being originally from the town of Coral Springs in South Florida, I remember how mention of the local Nova University used to bring snickers and eye rolls even when I was in high school. A bias against Nova trained psychologists clearly existed then and probably still exists. And yet they seem to produce very very well-trained psychologists.

Another factor is age. Older students tend to have more difficulty matching. The average age at the Wright institute is late 30's early 40's. Another issue that can influence match rates is the degree to which the institution makes match an institutional priority and provides institutional support for students undergoing this process. One of the things which became real obvious to me this past month while flying all over the country interviewing for internship is how students are frequently vetted extensively by their programs to prepare for the match. The result I have observed from completing my interviews is that intern applicants all seem very "cookie cutter" and over prepared with canned answers.

There is also the issue of the "good old boy" network. For example, Professor Smith at particular scientific practitioner program supervised the dissertation of Dr. Jones who is now the training director at a VA hospital or an academic medical center... or Professor Smith and his grad students publish extensively with training director Jones. Before the match season begins, phone calls get made, discussion happen at conferences etc ... Informal connections between faculty at universities and training directors at training sites has a role here. If the Wright Institute has not cultivated those relationships, then their students and by extension you may be at a disadvantage. Before deciding to go there, you should explore this issue of match rates more fully since the COA is changing its rubrics. That being said, the Wright Institute has an extremely interesting training model and a strong psycho dynamic emphasis so I would not rule them out completely..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
:laugh: I'm pretty sure the term selection bias isn't too difficult of a concept for people to follow.

I actually do know several people at the Wright so your assumption is incorrect. While those that I know seem like very smart capable people, every single one regrets going to the Wright for just the reasons you pointed out. For better or worse name recognition means a lot in this field. Going to a university based program carries far more weight than going to an FSPS. That is not going to change anytime soon. In the meantime students at that school (and other FSPS schools) have to battle their school's negative reputation for the entirety of their career.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
As is usual on SDN, most of the commentary in response to your question has been sub-par to say the least. The issue of low match rates can be complex. However, match rates themselves are in no way a measure of program quality. The implicit assumption that match rate is a direct reflection of program reputation which in turn is a direct reflection of program quality is a specious argument. I would bet that most training directors across the country and almost certainly none of the sneering commentators here on SDN have ever met a student from or graduate of the Wright Institute. In fact, most TD's have probably never even heard of it and therefore have no basis upon which to judge the quality of the program or its graduates. Some internships may simply not take students from scholar practitioner programs.

In the case of the Wright Institute, there are some selection biases that likely influence their match rates. The student body is significantly older than at a more traditional program. A huge proportion of the students at Wright come from the Bay Area and have masters degrees and established careers and licenses to practice as clinical social workers or counselors. Students such as this are typically restricted geographically. Geographic restrictions are the one factor that empirical research has shown will significantly reduce chances of matching. Many of these students will have less of a need to go to an APA accredited site instead of an APPIC site. It is only logical that a institution that primarily serves a middle aged, more geographically restricted population will have selection biases that ultimately will impact the match.

One would think that the concept of "selection bias" might cross the minds of some of our SDN commentators from scientist practitioner programs. But that would involve the use of critical thinking rather than mindless heuristics whenever the issue of a free standing professional school is discussed. This brings up my next point which is systemic bias. Many in the field, utilize a heuristic that goes something like this: Ph.D. = good Psy.D. = bad; university-based psychology department training = good, free standing institute = bad; scientist- practitioner = good; scholar-practitioner = bad and even California = bad, generic state university outside California = good. A whole host of implicit assumptions can be and are made on the basis of irrational prejudices and heuristics which have no basis in reality but are part and parcel of the ways some persons impute program quality. Simply review the truly sophomoric comments here and you will see irrational bias it in all its glory. Being originally from the town of Coral Springs in South Florida, I remember how mention of the local Nova University used to bring snickers and eye rolls even when I was in high school. A bias against Nova trained psychologists clearly existed then and probably still exists. And yet they seem to produce very very well-trained psychologists.

Another factor is age. Older students tend to have more difficulty matching. The average age at the Wright institute is late 30's early 40's. Another issue that can influence match rates is the degree to which the institution makes match an institutional priority and provides institutional support for students undergoing this process. One of the things which became real obvious to me this past month while flying all over the country interviewing for internship is how students are frequently vetted extensively by their programs to prepare for the match. The result I have observed from completing my interviews is that intern applicants all seem very "cookie cutter" and over prepared with canned answers.

There is also the issue of the "good old boy" network. For example, Professor Smith at particular scientific practitioner program supervised the dissertation of Dr. Jones who is now the training director at a VA hospital or an academic medical center... or Professor Smith and his grad students publish extensively with training director Jones. Before the match season begins, phone calls get made, discussion happen at conferences etc ... Informal connections between faculty at universities and training directors at training sites has a role here. If the Wright Institute has not cultivated those relationships, then their students and by extension you may be at a disadvantage. Before deciding to go there, you should explore this issue of match rates more fully since the COA is changing its rubrics. That being said, the Wright Institute has an extremely interesting training model and a strong psycho dynamic emphasis so I would not rule them out completely..

[deleted my entire post - Jon Snow covered it better]

Look, if you're saying Wright's low APA/CPA match rate and the other few objective indicators out there (which all aren't very good for Wright, as Jon points out) aren't worth using as a basis for recommending for or against attending Wright, then what do you recommend using as a basis? That it has an "extremely interesting" training model? That its grads and students are nice people? That it's campus looks attractive (which it does)? What?

None of this may be nice for Wright students or grads, or students / grads from uncompetitive (overwhelmingly FSPS) programs to hear, this is very important stuff for prospective students to hear.
 
Last edited:
Argosy, Alliant, Fuller, Fielding, Wright, Califonia Institute of Psychic Studies, etc = bad, yes.
.

Otherwise known as...WACK

W(wright) A (argosy, alliant) C (california institute for integral studies, carlos abizu) K (kennedy, john f)
 
As someone going through the internship match this year, I'm in the midst of experiencing the disappointing reality that not only is the current match rate unacceptable, but that APA sites are even more difficult to come by. I consider myself lucky that I interviewed only at sites that are APA-accredited. However, the overall message from our program (a very small, APA-accredited, university-based Psy.D. program) was that we should absolutely strive for APA and prioritize those sites, but that there is nothing wrong with training at a site that is only an APPIC member. The advice I have been given from multiple supervisors both at my university and practicum sites is that, unless you are hoping to work for the BOP (my goal) or the VA, this will not have much bearing on your career.

Also, I encountered a lot of sites, and have heard of others, that are APPIC members but are in the process of obtaining APA accreditation, or plan to do so in the very near future. Of course, there is always the chance that you are taking a risk when applying for jobs, as whoever is in charge of hiring may count your non-APA internship against you. I'm sure some on this thread have experienced that and may be against non-APA sites for that reason.

I may have misread something, but I believe a couple of posts on this thread or elsewhere on this forum stated that APPIC internships are unpaid, which is absolutely not true. Supervisors seem much more concerned with dissuading students from so much as considering creating their own internship site, which definitely could have implications later on. Also, these sites typically do not pay a stipend.

Am I wrong about any of this?
 
As someone going through the internship match this year, I'm in the midst of experiencing the disappointing reality that not only is the current match rate unacceptable, but that APA sites are even more difficult to come by. I consider myself lucky that I interviewed only at sites that are APA-accredited. However, the overall message from our program (a very small, APA-accredited, university-based Psy.D. program) was that we should absolutely strive for APA and prioritize those sites, but that there is nothing wrong with training at a site that is only an APPIC member. The advice I have been given from multiple supervisors both at my university and practicum sites is that, unless you are hoping to work for the BOP (my goal) or the VA, this will not have much bearing on your career.

Also, I encountered a lot of sites, and have heard of others, that are APPIC members but are in the process of obtaining APA accreditation, or plan to do so in the very near future. Of course, there is always the chance that you are taking a risk when applying for jobs, as whoever is in charge of hiring may count your non-APA internship against you. I'm sure some on this thread have experienced that and may be against non-APA sites for that reason.

I may have misread something, but I believe a couple of posts on this thread or elsewhere on this forum stated that APPIC internships are unpaid, which is absolutely not true. Supervisors seem much more concerned with dissuading students from so much as considering creating their own internship site, which definitely could have implications later on. Also, these sites typically do not pay a stipend.

Am I wrong about any of this?

I believe the individual may have been referring to CAPIC internships, which can indeed be unpaid and/or part-time over two years. APPIC internships, like APA internships (as you've said, are paid.

APPIC can indeed be a fine way to go. The associated restrictions (e.g., no VA or BOP work, potential trouble getting licensed in a couple states) are just things students need to keep in mind when considering that route. Having looked over both APA and APPIC's requirements, though, I can see how APPIC but non-APA sites could offer great training opportunities (particularly and preferrably with those sites being in the process of applying for APA accred).
 
I believe the individual may have been referring to CAPIC internships, which can indeed be unpaid and/or part-time over two years. APPIC internships, like APA internships (as you've said, are paid.

APPIC can indeed be a fine way to go. The associated restrictions (e.g., no VA or BOP work, potential trouble getting licensed in a couple states) are just things students need to keep in mind when considering that route. Having looked over both APA and APPIC's requirements, though, I can see how APPIC but non-APA sites could offer great training opportunities (particularly and preferrably with those sites being in the process of applying for APA accred).

I personally don't recommend APPIC because of the difficulty it can place in landing a postdoctoral position to get your hours for licensure (in addition to later career implications). I cannot imagine competing in the post-doc market without an APA-Accredited Internship. I would have had to eliminate 80-90% of employers in my state so I would basically have very limited places to even consider (maybe only community mental health centers). Do a post-doc search in the state that you want to apply to after internship and see what entry level requirements are. Also, some sites may not say that they require an APA internship, but then only interview people with APA internships because they need to eliminate applications efficiently.
 
Last edited:
I personally don't recommend APPIC because of the difficulty it can place in landing a postdoctoral position to get your hours for licensure (in addition to later career implications). I cannot imagine competing in the post-doc market without an APA-Accredited Internship. I would have had to eliminate 80-90% of employers in my state so I would basically have very limited places to even consider (maybe only community mental health centers). Do a post-doc search in the state that you want to apply to after internship and see what entry level requirements are. Also, some sites may not say that they require an APA internship, but then only interview people with APA internships because they need to eliminate applications efficiently.

I agree that APPIC-only internships can make it very difficult to find more formal postdocs. I'm sure my APA internship helped a lot when I applied for postdocs last year. But I know plenty of people - whether from APA or APPIC internships - who did not go the formal postdoc route, instead opting for employment where they could receive the supervision necessary for licensure (either at their place of employment, or, more commonly, on the side).
 
It really depends on what you want to do. If you aspire to become a famous neuropsychologist based in San Diego, don't go for the Wright Institute. If you want a tenure-track position at the University of Wisconsin, don't go for the Wright Institute. If you want to be boarded in any capacity and make connections with the top scientist-practitioners, don't go for the Wright Institute.

But if you want to hang a shingle and can't relocate (and married a 1 percenter), then by all means, go for the Wright Institute!
 
I personally don't recommend APPIC because of the difficulty it can place in landing a postdoctoral position to get your hours for licensure (in addition to later career implications). I cannot imagine competing in the post-doc market without an APA-Accredited Internship. I would have had to eliminate 80-90% of employers in my state so I would basically have very limited places to even consider (maybe only community mental health centers). Do a post-doc search in the state that you want to apply to after internship and see what entry level requirements are. Also, some sites may not say that they require an APA internship, but then only interview people with APA internships because they need to eliminate applications efficiently.

Very good advice, and I'd only add a suggestion to also broaden that search to include job postings in the area (while understanding that many positions may not be formally posted, at least in the typical sense).
 
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.

Neuropsych2be is right -- the Wright Institute's psychodynamic training is considered top tier, even among the top three, nationally. Unfortunately that might not carry much weight here in the hallowed halls of SDN University :)laugh:). On one of the PAU threads currently generating a lot of posts, someone pointed out the biases and thinking errors that tend to proliferate here at SDNU. I would add one more: Psychoanalysis = bad, CBT = good. In any case, the low APA match rates are also somewhat attributable to the fact that a significant proportion of students at the Wright Institute are looking to continue their training in what is unfortunately, in APA circles at least, considered a quaint, if not irrelevant, model.
 
Last edited:
Neuropsych2be is right -- the Wright Institute's psychodynamic training is considered top tier, even among the top three, nationally.

Based on what, and why should that matter to a prospective student more than internship match rates (for example)?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
...the Wright Institute's psychodynamic training is considered top tier, even among the top three, nationally.

I'm baffled by posters who keep highlighting the quality of the training of these schools as a defense for their existence. Every thread about FSPS/for-profits comes to this. Even assuming that's true, how does this justify the cost and poor match rates? Let's say the training is fantastic. Students still go unmatched and are in tons of debt. Why would you recommend that to anyone?

Time to drag out the Hyundai-for-the-price-of-a-Porsche analogy again. A Hyundai can be a great car, but don't go into debt for one. And don't tell other people that your overpriced Hyundai was worth it and that they should buy one, too.

(Also, citation for the Wright Institute being considered top-tier for psychodynamics?) EDIT: JeyRo beat me to it.
 
Neuropsych2be is right -- the Wright Institute's psychodynamic training is considered top tier, even among the top three, nationally. Unfortunately that might not carry much weight here in the hallowed halls of SDN University :)laugh:). On one of the PAU threads currently generating a lot of posts, someone pointed out the biases and thinking errors that tend to proliferate here at SDNU. I would add one more: Psychoanalysis = bad, CBT = good. In any case, the low APA match rates are also somewhat attributable to the fact that a significant proportion of students at the Wright Institute are looking to continue their training in what is unfortunately, in APA circles at least, considered a quaint, if not irrelevant, model.

If you are talking psychodynamic training, there are a number of university based programs that are primarily psychodynamic and provide solid training. I have yet to see any objective data that suggests the Wright Institute provides better psychodynamic training than many other programs. If you are talking psychoanalysis, you need to attend a psychoanalytic institute for training and it does not require you to be a psychologist. You can easily get an MSW and come to train at one of the major institutes. That also costs money, though the institutes are starting to waive fees due to (I believe) a lack of trainees at their programs and their interest in training more analysts for the future.
 
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.

Have you all ever thought it's problematic that only 10 students are accepted at many of the "perfect" universities that you all applaud? Have you ever considered that there are many, many well qualified people who would make great psychologists and because it's so competitive are denied this ability.

Competitive doesn't mean better. It just means fewer spots, less funding. There's no shame in accepting more people as the other universities do. If you have such a problem with places like the Wright Institute take that out on the APA as they just accredited them for another 7 years. North America is a unique market and is uniquely competitive. Why don't you diversify your opinion by researching universities in Europe, Australia and their PsyD programs.

There are "better rated" psyD universities out there, such as Nova southeastern. They have about a 45% APA internship placement rate, only about 10% greater than the Wright Institute.

Why would the Wright Institute be granted a 7 year renewal by APA if it wasn't providing quality programs?
 
Have you all ever thought it's problematic that only 10 students are accepted at many of the "perfect" universities that you all applaud? Have you ever considered that there are many, many well qualified people who would make great psychologists and because it's so competitive are denied this ability.

Competitive doesn't mean better. It just means fewer spots, less funding. There's no shame in accepting more people as the other universities do. If you have such a problem with places like the Wright Institute take that out on the APA as they just accredited them for another 7 years. North America is a unique market and is uniquely competitive. Why don't you diversify your opinion by researching universities in Europe, Australia and their PsyD programs.

There are "better rated" psyD universities out there, such as Nova southeastern. They have about a 45% APA internship placement rate, only about 10% greater than the Wright Institute.

Why would the Wright Institute be granted a 7 year renewal by APA if it wasn't providing quality programs?

No, I do not think thats problematic at all. Restricting the supply insures only top quality product enters (because we can be more choosey), and it guards against market flood and salary suppression due to market flooding.

APA accrediation is about consistency and meeting a minimun bar of standards, not "quality of training" and it never has been. Does the program have and do what it purports to do AND do they have the bare bones elements of a doctoral curriculum? If yes, congrats, you got seven years.
 
Last edited:
Why would the Wright Institute be granted a 7 year renewal by APA if it wasn't providing quality programs?

APA gets money from accrediting programs. It's a big problem.
 
And how would you compare the American system to that of Europe and Australia in regards to competition and quality of programs? In the UK it's far less competitive, the curricula are the same, the programs are shorter.

Finally specifically in regards to stats and internship match rates, the Wright Institute's is consistently being criticized on this forum but it's only 10% approx lower than Nova Southeastern (which has good reviews for some reason). How can you justify that comparison and still criticize Wright?
 
And how would you compare the American system to that of Europe and Australia in regards to competition and quality of programs? In the UK it's far less competitive, the curricula are the same, the programs are shorter. ?

Then you should move to Europe.

Finally specifically in regards to stats and internship match rates, the Wright Institute's is consistently being criticized on this forum but it's only 10% approx lower than Nova Southeastern (which has good reviews for some reason). How can you justify that comparison and still criticize Wright?

Nova's Psy.d. program also sucks, although I would recommend it over Wright.
 
Ok so clearly you've studied at all of them and are qualified to say this... I just met a number of psyDs from Nova and they were incredibly happy with their experience. They have talented staff with great resumes- look at their website yourself. They are also ranked well in terms of PsyDs. You know 420 people applied to the Denver PsyD this year and 35 were invited for an interview. All talented candidates. Just not specifically what the faculty wanted.

Just saying... You seem to have a specific set of experiences and are making judgments on virtually everything even if it's outside of your actual set of experiences. Frankly I think you're freaking a lot of potential psyDs out when maybe it's not fair or right. You made it into a PhD at a great school, congratulations. No one is inferior to you for not taking this path.
 
Ok so clearly you've studied at all of them and are qualified to say this... I just met a number of psyDs from Nova and they were incredibly happy with their experience. They have talented staff with great resumes- look at their website yourself. They are also ranked well in terms of PsyDs. You know 420 people applied to the Denver PsyD this year and 35 were invited for an interview. All talented candidates. Just not specifically what the faculty wanted.

Are you a recruiter for Nova?

No one is inferior to you for not taking this path.

I have never made, nor infered, such a statement.
 
Nope not a recruiter for Nova. A third party observer. :)

And yes it seems implied despite the many "evidence based" assertions. No offence.
 
And yes it seems implied

Is that your problem, or mine?

I could "infer" that when a job selects another candidate, that they are telling me I am not smart enough or talented enough to work for them. But, I dont. And if I did, that would be on me, not them.
 
Unfortunately NSU's match numbers have steadily declined in the past 10-15yrs, while tuition has more than doubled. Students can still receive a quality education there if they are in the top portion of their cohort, but it is a constant battle for resources and access to good mentorship should not be presumed (in both the Ph.D. & PsyD programs). I'm a graduate, though the numbers (match rate and cost) were much better when I compared training programs 10+ years ago than what I see today. They still have some wonderful faculty members teaching in the program (despite the passing of Drs. Azrin and Orvaschel in more recent years), but the other aspects of the program cannot be ignored. An APA-acred. match rate of <50% is unacceptable, I had no idea it had gotten that bad. Their match rate used to be 70%-75%, right in line with the national average.
 
Last edited:
As someone who has literally viewed 100's of applications for either internship or postdoc, I can say that the general acceptance rates for accredited internships are fairly representative of the quality of applications we receive from that site. They usually range from downright terrible, to forgettable. Every now and then a gem shines through, but they are rare. I'm all about maximizing my chances personally, so I don't recommend anyone even consider a program with a sub 80% accredited match rate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
RE: the number of psychologists currently being graduated, it's been my personal experience (so this is entirely anecdotal) that there's no shortage of folks applying for jobs. Heck, I looked in some fairly unpopular geographic areas, and even the HR folks in those spots told me, "we don't have any trouble filling psychologist positions." Those spots that do go unfilled usually remain as such because of some combination of A) they don't pay well, B) the work is highly undesirable and/or workload is enormous, C) the geographic location is very remote or rural. Graduating more psychologists doesn't really directly address A, B, or C.

Conversely, there may indeed be a relative shortage of well-trained psychologists. But again, graduating larger cohorts wouldn't inherently address this issue, and would actually appear to do just the opposite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Conversely, there may indeed be a relative shortage of well-trained psychologists. But again, graduating larger cohorts wouldn't inherently address this issue, and would actually appear to do just the opposite.
100% agree.

Like our colleagues in medicine, there tends to be plenty of providers in desirable cities (e..g NY, BOS, SF, etc) and less in more rural and/or less desirable locations. Producing more psychologists doesn't meet the rural need or the well-trained need, it just adds to the surplus of psychologists in the major cities. There are programs that actually try and address this need (e.g. the newish Ph.D. program up in Alaska, not sure if it is APA-acred. yet..it might be too new) and then there are the Argosy/Alliant/Online School of Magic & Witchcraft programs that are trying to line their pockets by opening up additional training programs in SF, LA, and CHI. If Argosy wants to add a program they should do it in the Kentucky foothills or maybe in rural Texas where there isn't a provider for 100+ miles in any direction, but something tells me that isn't in their plans...
 
I just met a number of psyDs from Nova and they were incredibly happy with their experience...
No one is inferior to you for not taking this path.
Hi chme,

First, I want to apologize on behalf of the users on this site. Sometimes, the shortcuts or heuristics people use on the forum definitely give off a judgmental stance or impression of superiority for one path of training versus another. I think, in general, the longtime posters on SDN understand and believe that competent clinical psychologists can come from a variety of training institutions. I am sure that we all came from differing programs.

At the same time, the reasoning behind the heuristics is based on aggregate data. On average, programs with higher debt, lower accredited internship match rates & EPPP pass scores, and large cohorts tend (again on average) to lead to poor outcomes (e.g., burdensome debt, delay in graduation, lower salaries, glut of psychologists in a region) for their trainees . So, on average those types of programs are warned against on this forum.

At the same time, depending on a person's individual situation (e.g., wealthy/not concerned about debt, looking for a career that does not require accredited internship, predetermined job prospects) the aforementioned program-types can be a very good fit. Unfortunately, on this forum we hear from a lot of people that chose the wrong type of program for their needs. This happens for the "top rated" fully funded programs as well. Trainees realize that they signed up for too much academic activities and really should have attended a different type of program.

In summary, there are important, empirically-derived concerns that users on this site have about certain program-types. This can often come off as derision and the intention is more of a warning to less informed individuals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ha no need to apologize but nice message!

I completely understand the stats, the messages. Just saying that this is a prominent online message board. A lot of potentially talented students are referring to it in their (miseducation) journey towards deciding where to study. It has an impact. Regardless of the intent or not the veneer of derision is impactful, very impactful.

As everyone on this forum should know, stats need to be questioned and considered in a broader context.

Something to muse on: as I'm sure you know, Canadians use CPA accreditation which is virtually the same as APA. It's a lot more competitive as there are fewer schools and only 2 PsyDs in the country. You could graduate from a top-rated Counselling Psych PhD and not get a CPA accredited internship- most placement sites in particularly the West are only taking PhDs in Clinical psychology because it's that competitive. The lack of a CPA internship thus doesn't prove anything about the quality of program.

My point is that- basing judgment of a program on stats alone without considering broader factors and analyses can be problematic. I'm not saying this to argue with anyone frequently using this message boards but only to encourage potential PsyDs to make their own judgments based on their own career goals. Terms like "diploma mill" float around- although I don't disagree that not all schools have the most perfect intentions in mind many universities are becoming increasingly corporatized and driven for profit goals, despite their ranking or status. This message board occupies a prominent space online and again impacts a lot of potential students.
 
I would assume that people are trying to make an impact with their advice. The advice I give on here is the same advice I give to students I supervise in real life. We see how this plays out in real life. I've been an active member on selection committees for interns, postdocs, and job applicants. I see who gets chosen and who doesn't even get looked at. That's the broader context. Sometimes it's a numbers game, my advice to others is to play those numbers the best you can to maximize opportunities.
 
Something to muse on: as I'm sure you know, Canadians use CPA accreditation which is virtually the same as APA. It's a lot more competitive as there are fewer schools and only 2 PsyDs in the country. You could graduate from a top-rated Counselling Psych PhD and not get a CPA accredited internship- most placement sites in particularly the West are only taking PhDs in Clinical psychology because it's that competitive. The lack of a CPA internship thus doesn't prove anything about the quality of program.

There are about 27 (I may be off by one or two) accredited clinical psych programs in Canada, and only 5 in Counselling Psychology. So unless "top-rated Counselling psych program" means that you did it at one of those 5 Uni's, then you are in no way guaranteed to get a spot. In fact, I'm not sure you are even eligible if you didn't do your graduate work at an accredited program..pretty sure you are not.

Also, there is a reason we don't have a internship crisis. All the Universities accredited in Canada are public. Government reports as a result impact how many people can enroll at the Uni's. There was a report in the 1990's that made all the Canadian uni's restrict how many people get into medical school..so there is a focus on supply/demand. Education, much like healthcare, are not viewed as things that should be made a profit on. The Uni's still do well financially, but that cannot be the only consideration.

I personally think that it is awesome that the govt works along with the Uni's to make sure that once you are done. your education wasn't a waste. And I'm proud that Canada accepts fewer applicants into med school, psych graduate programs, etc.
 
Last edited:
Concerning the number's game I was speaking about and maximizing your chances. Look at the split between types of programs on the most recent match. 94% to 65%. That is a 30 point difference. That's why we give the advice we do.

It'd be interesting to see the splits within programs, the handful of good PsyD's compared to the diploma mills, you'd see stark difference there as well. Some good people don't match, that is true, but inevitable in any system such as this. But there are many ways to maximize your chances.
 
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!
The reason is because APA internships were not required by the school previously. To require APA internships for graduation means that students have to move all across the country and leave their families/ lives behind- this is previously why they were not required. This year these are required. Take a look at the stats next year and you'll see a substantial increase.
 
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!

Sorry to respond to an old thread, but this is still the top result for the Wright, and much of the information included on this thread is inaccurate. As a current Wright student, I had no difficulty receiving internship interviews at VA sites and other APA accredited sites. The reputation of the Wright may have changed somewhat within the past several years, as its focus has shifted towards teaching Evidence Based Practices. At my practicum, I work primarily with students from the Stanford Psy.D. program, and while their program has stronger research training, they've told me that the neuropsychology training at the Wright is superior. Despite the lack of research occurring within the school, I'm leaving the Wright with multiple paper publications, and I'll soon be presenting papers or posters at SPA, APA, APA Div. 50, APS, and other conferences. If you are interested in research, there are strong connections between the Wright and specific labs within the SFVA. Most of the research I completed was in association with a county hospital.

As mentioned in this thread, the reason why internship match rates are lower is that many Wright students are second career students with families. Some of these students prioritize staying the Bay Area over APA internships. Students who seek APA internships have little difficulty obtaining them (in 2014/2015 59% of students obtained APA internships).

The Wright's primary focus is training clinicians to work in community mental health. The program is ideal for anyone with an interest in social justice or who is seeking training that focuses on multicultural considerations. There is also psychodynamic training for those who are interested--but you can go through the school with a CBT focus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Students who seek APA internships have little difficulty obtaining them

59% of students obtained APA internships


Evidently 41% had some difficulty obtaining them. I don't know if I buy that almost half the students just want to stay near family as an excuse for that match rate.

I'm sure the program has evolved somewhat, but the ideas from this thread hold true: a poor APA match rate isn't worth the debt Wright places students into. Hell, even if their match rate was 100% it wouldn't be worth the price of Wright.
 
Pgsp-Stanford consortium. Listed on Stanford's website

I think the clarification is that Stanford psychology dept does not have a psy.d program. The consortium uses stanford med school clinician and faculty only.
 
So almost a coinflip....sounds like great odds to bet one's future and employment prospects on

I think you are missing the point. Schwan Song's point is that at Wright, many of the students don't apply for APA internships. Therefore the 59% match rate is actually very high; it implies that close to 100% of the Wright applicants who applied for APA matched.

I think most people on SDN would agree that APA internships are a pretty low bar. Personally I think every psychologist should complete one. But I also think there are some fine psychologists out there who received strong training from non-APA approved internship sites.

In my city, there is a storied community mental health center with a city-wide reputation for excellent training. They are not applying to become an APA site because the cost of doing so (including paying intern salaries) is prohibitive for a CMHC running on a shoestring budget. It's fine to object to that decision by the CMHC, but I think it's nonsensical to argue that the training would be better if the APA came in and rubber-stamped everything.
 
I think you are missing the point. Schwan Song's point is that at Wright, many of the students don't apply for APA internships.

This is a problem. Would you not agree?
 
but I think it's nonsensical to argue that the training would be better if the APA came in and rubber-stamped everything.

But that's not how accreditation works, right? Its not a rubber stamp. In fact, it's a collaborative effort, with a predetermined set of guidelines and requirements that helps make training better. That the whole rationale for it.
 
Last edited:
Bottom line, it's expensive, only about half of the students get an apa accredited internship, and the students generally struggle to pass the EPPP. Seems that people succeed in spite of this program, not because of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Burt that's not how accreditation works, right? Its not a rubber stamp. In fact, it a collaborative effort, with predetermined set of guidelines and requirements that helps make training better. That the whole rationale for it.

I think a site has to be exceptionally weak for APA to come in and fail it. Is there data on the percentage of site reviews that end in failure? Not only is the bar low, but failure means less money for APA and more work for the reviewers.

I agree that it's a problem that many Wright students don't apply for APA. I think something is horribly wrong with that, and I blame APA for allowing it to happen. But I'm also sure that some individual students from Wright are independently wealthy/supported by a spouse, graduate with no debt, receive strong non-APA training, and go on to make fine psychologists and colleagues. Do those successes make up for the Wright students whose professional and economic lives are in shambles? No, and I blame APA.
 
I agree that it's a problem that many Wright students don't apply for APA. I think something is horribly wrong with that, and I blame APA for allowing it to happen.

I think there is something wrong with it too, but I don't see how blaming APA alone is going to fix a systemic, program-level problem. In my training program, it was an expectation that all students would apply for APA-accredited internships. This was basically unquestioned and was an expectation set by our program director, faculty, and DCT, all of whom made it their jobs to make sure their trainees were prepared to apply. Nearly all of the attrition in my program happens by the second year because no one wins by stringing along students who will not be able to meet this and other milestones. We did not have students who believed that opting out of the accredited internship system was a viable option; any such notions would have been quickly remediated.

I think that APA should pull accreditation from low performing sites whose student consistently do poorly in the match. On that front I do think APA shares some responsibility. But the argument that "APA doesn't force me to, so I won't" is pretty weak. Programs can and do tighten their standards and improve themselves.
 
I think a site has to be exceptionally weak for APA to come in and fail it. Is there data on the percentage of site reviews that end in failure? Not only is the bar low, but failure means less money for APA and more work for the reviewers.

What experience do you have in this area? Because I am in the middle of this now as a TD.

And yes, there is.
 
I think there is something wrong with it too, but I don't see how blaming APA alone is going to fix a systemic, program-level problem. In my training program, it was an expectation that all students would apply for APA-accredited internships. This was basically unquestioned and was an expectation set by our program director, faculty, and DCT, all of whom made it their jobs to make sure their trainees were prepared to apply. Nearly all of the attrition in my program happens by the second year because no one wins by stringing along students who will not be able to meet this and other milestones. We did not have students who believed that opting out of the accredited internship system was a viable option; any such notions would have been quickly remediated.

I think that APA should pull accreditation from low performing sites whose student consistently do poorly in the match. On that front I do think APA shares some responsibility. But the argument that "APA doesn't force me to, so I won't" is pretty weak. Programs can and do tighten their standards and improve themselves.

I agree with you in principle. I just don't think it's realistic to hope that under-performing schools will admit fewer students, or "stop stringing people along," or in fact do anything that will result in less money for the school. Hoping that places like Wright will tighten things up is like asking a big business corporation to stop taking advantage of tax loopholes.

That's why the APA needs to do a better job of regulation.
 
Top