PsyD cohort sizes/Nova

[futureapppsy2]

Out of curiosity due to the recent Argosy closure, I've been looking up cohort sizes for PsyD programs. The Argosy and Alliant campuses generally had yearly cohorts in the 50-60 range at the beginning of this ten-year span, and they seem to have leveled off to around 25-35 or so in recent years. Chicago School started higher but is at the same 20-30 student per cohort level now. I also looked at other PsyD programs for comparison, and they tend to have yearly cohort sizes of about 20-30 per year, with some going from the high to low end of that range over the ten year span. One glaring exception to this is Nova, which has cohort sizes of about 85 students consistently over the past ten years! These are the highest numbers I've seen, with even Fielding having cohorts of 50-60 or so for their PhD (and like 25% attrition in the first year, so... yeah). According to their disclosure data, Nova's graduated 709 PyDs in the past ten years (plus another 139 PhDs). Even among FSPS, most schools report somewhere between 300-400 graduates over ten years. Even combining Alliant's San Diego PhD and PsyD graduates, you "only" get about 630 graduates total over the ten year span, less than Nova's PsyDs alone.

I've known some excellent Nova graduates, but what gives with these abnormally large cohort sizes?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PsyDuck90]

The Wright Institute also appears to have cohorts ranging from 59-69 students within the last 10 years and lists 416 graduates within 10 years.

I just don't get how these large cohorts function. I'm in a university-based PsyD and our cohorts cap at 10, and my cohort has a few less. I definitely wouldn't be getting the individualized attention I get from such a huge cohort. I guess they've figured out an effective formula to just crank out graduates?

 

[Justanothergrad]

Because, money. And it's working for them right now so no incentive to change. 10ish programs likely make up a large portion of our yearly field entries.

I've also known a ton of horrible nova folks (as well as some good ones). Guess that's one advantage of larger samples/classes- more room for student level deviations. You simply cant get the same level of individual training.

 

[MAClinician]

William James College has cohorts of around 100(!) in recent years, and also have a captive, part time 2 year internship consortium (with some well known sites in the Boston area I might add, wtf?)
Clinical PsyD Student Admissions, Outcomes, and Other Data at William James College
I had a client evaluated by their assessment center and the report was thorough and covered several tests/assessments but I still wonder how someone can get good support in a class that size!

 

[futureapppsy2]

William James College has cohorts of around 100(!) in recent years, and also have a captive, part time 2 year internship consortium (with some well known sites in the Boston area I might add, wtf?)
Clinical PsyD Student Admissions, Outcomes, and Other Data at William James College
I had a client evaluated by their assessment center and the report was thorough and covered several tests/assessments but I still wonder how someone can get good support in a class that size!

I do wish we could get students to honestly talk about their experiences wit these ultra-large programs, because I legitimately wonder how they function day to day.

 

[MCParent]

A couple of the programs did appear to scale back their incoming class sizes in response to the clear statistics that they would never match as many people as they were taking yearly. Unfortunately, a few responded to that by picking up the slack and increasing class sizes (Nova, Adler, a few others)

 

[futureapppsy2]

A couple of the programs did appear to scale back their incoming class sizes in response to the clear statistics that they would never match as many people as they were taking yearly. Unfortunately, a few responded to that by picking up the slack and increasing class sizes (Nova, Adler, a few others)

It looks like Adler's numbers peaked in in 2010-2014 with around 100-110 students a year but are now around 60 per year (which is still quite high, of course).
Student Admissions & Outcomes Data | PsyD Clinical Psychology

William James (formerly Mass School of Professional Psychology) appears to be increasing their cohort sizes still and are now up to 119 students in the most recently reported cohort.
Clinical PsyD Student Admissions, Outcomes, and Other Data at William James College

The Wright Institute seems to vary between the high 50s and high 60s per year.
News and Events about The Wright Institute Graduate School of Psychology

 

[MCParent]

I wasn’t even aware the Massachusetts SPP was even still operating, even under a different name. Those cohort sizes are insanity.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I'd pay money to see the syllabus for a feedback intensive course, like assessment

 

[AbnormalPsych]

I'd pay money to see the syllabus for a feedback intensive course, like assessment

Teaching this would be hell on earth

 

[psych.meout]

Do students at these programs just not know better? Do they know and just rationalize it away or count their blessing, because it's the only way they have a chance to become psychologists? All of the above?

 

[psydstudent2020]

I’m at a PsyD program that takes cohorts in the 20-30 range, although we have 100% apa accredited match rates as well as high EPPP pass rates, you can definitely feel that the cohort size affects your individual experience. For instance, my dissertation advisor recently told me that they don’t know if they could commit to meeting on a weekly basis because they have a lot of other dissertation students.

 

[MiniLop]

I do wish we could get students to honestly talk about their experiences wit these ultra-large programs, because I legitimately wonder how they function day to day.

I've known students from William James and have heard complaints about lack of support and about it requiring a lot of hussle to get things that should be expected from a program (such as support with securing prac placements). They also have a shocking amount of course work, which I always assumed was the school's way of justifying the absurdly high tuition.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Do students at these programs just not know better? Do they know and just rationalize it away or count their blessing, because it's the only way they have a chance to become psychologists? All of the above?

My experience has been that the MSPP/WJU students and grads are aware of the limitations of their school and often joke about it. They are also aware of the tuition (though it was often not a concern as family was paying for them). For many of those I’ve met and worked with, it was the only option for grad school that they had. Practicum is tricky, andd they have to hustle to get a good one, often requiring a 1-2 hour drive. I’ve heard stories of professors who really work hard to provide a lot of individualized attention. They also have a beautiful new building.

As an aside, something went on (or didn’t go on) at WJU last year or so and their APA accreditation is now on probation.

 

[SoPSYcheD2020]

My experience has been that the MSPP/WJU students and grads are aware of the limitations of their school and often joke about it. They are also aware of the tuition (though it was often not a concern as family was paying for them). For many of those I’ve met and worked with, it was the only option for grad school that they had. Practicum is tricky, andd they have to hustle to get a good one, often requiring a 1-2 hour drive. I’ve heard stories of professors who really work hard to provide a lot of individualized attention. They also have a beautiful new building.

As an aside, something went on (or didn’t go on) at WJU last year or so and their APA accreditation is now on probation.

The received their accreditation back

 

[GradStudent2020]

I do wish we could get students to honestly talk about their experiences wit these ultra-large programs, because I legitimately wonder how they function day to day.

I think that is sadly unlikely. There is so much negative bias against these programs, and often explicit criticism of people that choose these programs. This forum is not going to be a comfortable place for students to discuss or defend the models. I’ve seen students from these program pop on every once in awhile and their comments get completely torn apart.

 

[CatLover&PsychEnthusiast]

For instance, my dissertation advisor recently told me that they don’t know if they could commit to meeting on a weekly basis because they have a lot of other dissertation students.

Wow

 

[GradStudent2020]

I’m at a PsyD program that takes cohorts in the 20-30 range, although we have 100% apa accredited match rates as well as high EPPP pass rates, you can definitely feel that the cohort size affects your individual experience. For instance, my dissertation advisor recently told me that they don’t know if they could commit to meeting on a weekly basis because they have a lot of other dissertation students.

Yikes. Did they have suggestions/ideas about how you could get the dissertation support and feedback you need? IIRC you are going on internship this year so probably trying to wrap it up ASAP?

 

[Temperance]

Do students at these programs just not know better? Do they know and just rationalize it away or count their blessing, because it's the only way they have a chance to become psychologists? All of the above?

The programs advertise that they have low student-to-faculty ratios, similar to undergraduate programs. Argosy University has an image on their front page boasting that they have 14 students to each faculty member:

For students who don't know any better, this sounds great. It's probably why Alliant takes their students around the building to show them the "small" class sizes. What they don't necessarily hear is that doctoral cohorts are supposed to be smaller than that.

 

[GradStudent2020]

The programs advertise that they have low student-to-faculty ratios, similar to undergraduate programs. Argosy University has an image on their front page boasting that they have 14 students to each faculty member:

For students who don't know any better, this sounds great. It's probably why Alliant takes their students around the building to show them the "small" class sizes. What they don't necessarily hear is that doctoral cohorts are supposed to be smaller than that.

I’m a student in a program with large cohorts each year. I’ve never been in a class with more than 12 students, although typically there’s less. I have never had difficulty getting individualized support and detailed feedback from instructors. I received much less individual support and mentorship while obtaining my Master’s from a more typical, low cohort, highly respected program.

 

[WisNeuro]

For students who don't know any better, this sounds great. It's probably why Alliant takes their students around the building to show them the "small" class sizes. What they don't necessarily hear is that doctoral cohorts are supposed to be smaller than that.

We get a fair deal of applicants from one of the large cohort programs that has fallen into less than mediocrity in recent years. A fun game to play is to try to spot the differences in letters of rec from their one big name faculty. It's like Where's Waldo because the letters of rec are almost identical for each and every student!

 

[GradStudent2020]

We get a fair deal of applicants from one of the large cohort programs that has fallen into less than mediocrity in recent years. A fun game to play is to try to spot the differences in letters of rec from their one big name faculty. It's like Where's Waldo because the letters of rec are almost identical for each and every student!

Wow, that seems so unprofessional of the faculty member. If they don’t know the applicant well enough to individualize the letter, shouldn’t they decline to write it?

This is such a good example of why “big name” doesn’t mean a lot to me in terms of quality of person.

 

[WisNeuro]

Wow, that seems so unprofessional of the faculty member. If they don’t know the applicant well enough to individualize the letter, shouldn’t they decline to write it?

This is such a good example of why “big name” doesn’t mean a lot to me in terms of quality of person.

This is a common occurrence with the mills and other large cohort programs. We saw the same thing from the local Argosy. When you are "supervising" dozens of students, this is what happens. When it comes to the students, it's probably this letter or no letter. So I guess they take mediocre boiler plate over nothing.

 

[GradStudent2020]

This is a common occurrence with the mills and other large cohort programs. We saw the same thing from the local Argosy. When you are "supervising" dozens of students, this is what happens. When it comes to the students, it's probably this letter or no letter. So I guess they take mediocre boiler plate over nothing.

That wouldn’t make any sense for my large cohort program. I have a faculty advisor/mentor that knows me very well, and they provide mentorship for a group of students. However, only 2 of us in that group were headed to internship this year. It would be unlikely that any one faculty member at our program would be writing so many letters in one application cycle.

Are some of these programs chronically understaffed? Why wouldn’t multiple faculty members be responsible for advising/supervising small groups of one large cohort?

 

[WisNeuro]

Are some of these programs chronically understaffed? Why wouldn’t multiple faculty members be responsible for advising/supervising small groups of one large cohort?

From my definition of understaffed, most definitely. This is not an uncommon occurrence. Ask around to people who have been doing this for years. After reading thousands of letters of rec, you learn who the bad actors are, and they are usually not a surprise. It's funny to see "top 5% of students supervised" for every letter someone writes.

 

[GradStudent2020]

From my definition of understaffed, most definitely. This is not an uncommon occurrence. Ask around to people who have been doing this for years. After reading thousands of letters of rec, you learn who the bad actors are, and they are usually not a surprise. It's funny to see "top 5% of students supervised" for every letter someone writes.

Out of curiosity, when did you become licensed in the field?

 

[WisNeuro]

Out of curiosity, when did you become licensed in the field?

Thousands of years ago, before Sigourney Weaver...(ATHF ref for you millennials). But, generally speaking, back when there actually was an internship imbalance.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Thousands of years ago, before Sigourney Weaver...(ATHF ref for you millennials). But, generally speaking, back when there actually was an internship imbalance.

Lol, ok. So somewhere between 3 and 15 years? That’s quite a range.

 

[voyeurofthemind]

I am a Nova Grad and my experience was good and positioned me well for internship applications and my later career. The cohort size was a big draw back when I originally looked at the program (I applied primarily to University Based PsyD programs) but circumstances at the time dictated me moving to the South Florida area. The program is large but also has a large faculty.

I would agree with the large amount of variability in quality of students - there were some members of my cohort I would never refer to as professional and others who are undoubtedly fantastic clinicians. Class size was typically 20-25 people. I had the opportunity to work within a lab throughout my four years there and that definitely made the program smaller, provided tailored feedback, and strong mentorship.

Practicum opportunities were numerous including both on-campus (with opportunity for niche clinical training) and off campus clinics. I published and presented while I was there. I had 9+ interview offers at academic medical centers and large VAs (all APA accredited) and secured my first choice internship site. In the end, I would completely do it over again. That being said, I worked really hard and was mindful of using every opportunity available to add to my vita and overall training. It can be easy to get lost in the shuffle if you don't have a clear plan...

Afterwards I completed an APA fellowship at my first choice location. I currently work for government and maintain a private practice.

Nova can offer a lot although, I realize I am a sample of one and that others may not have / had the same experience. For the most part though there is opportunity to make that large program feel small.

I'm not going to get involved in a discussion regarding funded / non-funded programs etc. Are there potential disadvantages to large programs such as this, yes. Would Nova have been the same experience without the large cohort sizes, no.

 

[GradStudent2020]

I am a Nova Grad and my experience was good and positioned me well for internship applications and my later career. The cohort size was a big draw back when I originally looked at the program (I applied primarily to University Based PsyD programs) but circumstances at the time dictated me moving to the South Florida area. The program is large but also has a large faculty.

I would agree with the large amount of variability in quality of students - there were some members of my cohort I would never refer to as professional and others who are undoubtedly fantastic clinicians. Class size was typically 20-25 people. I had the opportunity to work within a lab throughout my four years there and that definitely made the program smaller, provided tailored feedback, and strong mentorship.

Practicum opportunities were numerous including both on-campus (with opportunity for niche clinical training) and off campus clinics. I published and presented while I was there. I had 9+ interview offers at academic medical centers and large VAs (all APA accredited) and secured my first choice internship site. In the end, I would completely do it over again. That being said, I worked really hard and was mindful of using every opportunity available to add to my vita and overall training. It can be easy to get lost in the shuffle if you don't have a clear plan...

Afterwards I completed an APA fellowship at my first choice location. I currently work for government and maintain a private practice.

Nova can offer a lot although, I realize I am a sample of one and that others may not have / had the same experience. For the most part though there is opportunity to make that large program feel small.

I'm not going to get involved in a discussion regarding funded / non-funded programs etc. Are there potential disadvantages to large programs such as this, yes. Would Nova have been the same experience without the large cohort sizes, no.

Thank you for sharing your experience here!

 

[WisNeuro]

Lol, ok. So somewhere between 3 and 15 years? That’s quite a range.

There hasn't been an appreciable internship balance in at least 5 years. But, I assume that you are questioning my assertion of having read in the 4 digit range of letters of rec? To put things in perspective, our site receives over 60 applications a year over the past couple of years. I review all of them, and we require 3 letters. I have always worked at sites with training programs for prac students/interns/postdocs, or some combination of the three.

 

[psych.meout]

I had the opportunity to work within a lab throughout my four years there and that definitely made the program smaller, provided tailored feedback, and strong mentorship.

Doctoral programs are supposed to work like this, not that it's some kind of rare opportunity that you have to take advantage of. This is a microcosm of why these large cohort PsyD programs shouldn't exist.

 

[GradStudent2020]

There hasn't been an appreciable internship balance in at least 5 years. But, I assume that you are questioning my assertion of having read in the 4 digit range of letters of rec? To put things in perspective, our site receives over 60 applications a year over the past couple of years. I review all of them, and we require 3 letters. I have always worked at sites with training programs for prac students/interns/postdocs, or some combination of the three.

No, I was actually asking the question that I asked. You often reference “years” of experience so I’m curious what that is.

There’s still an imbalance...more applicants than APA accredited internships. Not imbalanced if you consider non-accredited internships as a valid option, but I thought you did not hold that opinion.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Doctoral programs are supposed to work like this, not that it's some kind of rare opportunity that you have to take advantage of. This is a microcosm of why these large cohort PsyD programs shouldn't exist.

I don’t think they were describing this as some outlier experience. It seemed like they were pointing out that the same experiences and mentorship can be available at large cohort programs.

I have similiar opportunities at my large cohort school.

 

[WisNeuro]

No, I was actually asking the question that I asked. You often reference “years” of experience so I’m curious what that is.

There’s still an imbalance...more applicants than APA accredited internships. Not imbalanced if you consider non-accredited internships as a valid option, but I thought you did not hold that opinion.

There are plenty of accredited spots for qualified individuals. We just happen to still have some diploma mills pumping out students, and some students applying too early, or without the pre-requisite experience needed for internship (e.g., too few hours). Trying to spin an "imbalance crisis" into a saturated field is simply inaccurate.

 

[GradStudent2020]

There are plenty of accredited spots for qualified individuals. We just happen to still have some diploma mills pumping out students, and some students applying too early, or without the pre-requisite experience needed for internship (e.g., too few hours). Trying to spin an "imbalance crisis" into a saturated field is simply inaccurate.

Who’s spinning an imbalance crisis?

I’m pointing out it is inaccurate to say that there is not an imbalance. APA, TD’s, and seasoned clinicians in the field frequently assert that qualified applicants wind up in Phase II, post-match vacancy, or re-applying after an additional year. Not every applicant in that goes unmatched is unqualified.


Again, though, my question was just how many “years” of experience as a licensed clinician you have. It’s ok if you don’t feel comfortable sharing that information. I was just curious.

 

[mlwg1]

Aside from the training issues, I don’t understand how the market can possibly require/absorb so many psychologists on an annual basis. It seems inevitable that salaries and the general prestige of the field will continue to decline unless something is done at a national level (not holding my breath for APA to step in tho).

 

[WisNeuro]

Again, though, my question was just how many “years” of experience as a licensed clinician you have. It’s ok if you don’t feel comfortable sharing that information. I was just curious.

Why is years in scare quotes there? And, more than 5, less than 15.

 

[WisNeuro]

Aside from the training issues, I don’t understand how the market can possibly require/absorb so many psychologists on an annual basis. It seems inevitable that salaries and the general prestige of the field will continue to decline unless something is done at a national level (not holding my breath for APA to step in tho).

Short answer, at least in its current form, it can't. Especially as mid-levels are replacing therapy positions in many systems, and there's only so much market share for PP individuals.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Why is years in scare quotes there? And, more than 5, less than 15.

LOL, not scare quotes and not insinuating you have not been licensed for years. Just to show I am using your words.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Aside from the training issues, I don’t understand how the market can possibly require/absorb so many psychologists on an annual basis. It seems inevitable that salaries and the general prestige of the field will continue to decline unless something is done at a national level (not holding my breath for APA to step in tho).

I’ve worked in primarily underserved markets or adjacent to underserved markets. Wait lists for therapy at the doctoral level and assessments are ridiculous in many areas. Especially for specialty assessments (I.e., neuro, ASD).

As a field we do a terrible job incentivizing clinicians to rural/underserved areas and populations. MD’s can find positions in underserved areas with amazing salaries, benefits, and student loan repayment. On the other hand, clinicians in our field all compete for the most financially lucrative jobs in the same urban markets, leading to saturation in some areas and lack of services in others.

 

[mlwg1]

I’ve worked in primarily underserved markets or adjacent to underserved markets. Wait lists for therapy at the doctoral level and assessments are ridiculous in many areas. Especially for specialty assessments (I.e., neuro, ASD).

I agree that certain geographical areas are underserved, but between the large institutions discussed in this thread we’re talking hundreds and hundreds of psychologists. It is not sustainable in the long term.

Plus, at least on SDN, people who seek out programs with large class sizes often do so because they want to stay in an urban area, and near family. We get sooo many threads on this board from students who *must* pursue their degree in or near San Francisco. As a result, they abandon considerations re: class size and finances. Programs with large cohorts contribute to the problem because they set up shop in desirable markets to attract students.

In the VA at least, telehealth is increasingly being used to reach underserved areas. I actually had a telehealth appointment with a mainstream insurer a few weeks ago and it was awesome. It will likely be more widely available in coming years.

Pumping out more and more psychologists will not address the problem of treating underserved populations, especially with mid-levels continuously expanding their skillsets to fill the gap.

 

[psych.meout]

I’ve worked in primarily underserved markets or adjacent to underserved markets. Wait lists for therapy at the doctoral level and assessments are ridiculous in many areas. Especially for specialty assessments (I.e., neuro, ASD).

That assumes these graduates are proficient in these specialty areas to competently provide serves in them. Weren't you the one arguing that the internship imbalance and matching to unaccredited sites is at least partially due to students not having the background or interest for specialty sites, instead seeking generalist training? Isn't it hypocritical to make both these arguments?

As a field we do a terrible job incentivizing clinicians to rural/underserved areas and populations. MD’s can find positions in underserved areas with amazing salaries, benefits, and student loan repayment. On the other hand, clinicians in our field all compete for the most financially lucrative jobs in the same urban markets, leading to saturation in some areas and lack of services in others.

But isn't the rationale given by many people for attending diploma mills or large cohort programs, completing unaccredited internships, etc. that they have life circumstances or even just made informed choices that prevent them from having the flexibility and resources to attend high quality, funded programs, complete accredited internships, etc? If that's valid reasoning, why/how would these people be able to or even want to move somewhere to work with underserved populations post-licensure? Yes, things can change over time, but it seems unlikely that people who can't or won't relocate for a few years of training are going to relocate long-term for their careers afterwards.

As for incentives, if people weren't incentivized away from their high debt programs in the first place, are financial incentives to less desirable career options really going to be effective?

 

[GradStudent2020]

That assumes these graduates are proficient in these specialty areas to competently provide serves in them. Weren't you the one arguing that the internship imbalance and matching to unaccredited sites is at least partially due to students not having the background or interest for specialty sites, instead seeking generalist training? Isn't it hypocritical to make both these arguments?


But isn't the rationale given by many people for attending diploma mills or large cohort programs, completing unaccredited internships, etc. that they have life circumstances or even just made informed choices that prevent them from having the flexibility and resources to attend high quality, funded programs, complete accredited internships, etc? If that's valid reasoning, why/how would these people be able to or even want to move somewhere to work with underserved populations post-licensure? Yes, things can change over time, but it seems unlikely that people who can't or won't relocate for a few years of training are going to relocate long-term for their careers afterwards.

As for incentives, if people weren't incentivized away from their high debt programs in the first place, are financial incentives to less desirable career options really going to be effective?

I don’t understand why you think my comments are hypocritical. It can be true that applicants don’t match because of geographic restriction and/or lack of specialized training while also true that wait lists for services in underserved areas are long.

I didn’t speak to the fact that clinicians that are geographically limited in their studies may also be geographically limited in their practice. That obviously contributes to the saturation in certain urban areas.

I don’t find working in rural areas or underserved populations to be “less desirable.” Even with minimal or no student loan debt, clinicians want to be paid well for their services. Salaries are better in urban areas, which contributes to saturation in those areas.

 

[GradStudent2020]

I agree that certain geographical areas are underserved, but between the large institutions discussed in this thread we’re talking hundreds and hundreds of psychologists. It is not sustainable in the long term.

Plus, at least on SDN, people who seek out programs with large class sizes often do so because they want to stay in an urban area, and near family. We get sooo many threads on this board from students who *must* pursue their degree in or near San Francisco. As a result, they abandon considerations re: class size and finances. Programs with large cohorts contribute to the problem because they set up shop in desirable markets to attract students.

In the VA at least, telehealth is increasingly being used to reach underserved areas. I actually had a telehealth appointment with a mainstream insurer a few weeks ago and it was awesome. It will likely be more widely available in coming years.

Pumping out more and more psychologists will not address the problem of treating underserved populations, especially with mid-levels continuously expanding their skillsets to fill the gap.

I completely agree. Large cohort sizes don’t address the lack of services in many areas of our country. Students that won’t move for school probably aren’t willing to move to practice.

 

[WisNeuro]

I don’t find working in rural areas or underserved populations to be “less desirable.” Even with minimal or no student loan debt, clinicians want to be paid well for their services. Salaries are better in urban areas, which contributes to saturation in those areas.

This isn't necessarily accurate, especially for specialty services. There are at least 5 jobs I could go to in rural areas that pay about 20k more than what I make now, with lower COLs. My physician spouse could get a job paying 30k+ in a heartbeat in these areas. People don't pass up these jobs because of the pay, they pass them up because they don't want to be 3 hours from a metro area. That part won't change with saturation.

 

[GradStudent2020]

This isn't necessarily accurate, especially for specialty services. There are at least 5 jobs I could go to in rural areas that pay about 20k more than what I make now, with lower COLs. My physician spouse could get a job paying 30k+ in a heartbeat in these areas. People don't pass up these jobs because of the pay, they pass them up because they don't want to be 3 hours from a metro area. That part won't change with saturation.

I’d be interested to see comparable job postings in our field paying that much more in urban vs. rural areas. $20k wouldn’t get me out of an urban area without many more factors in the pro column. That may be enough to incentivize some clinicians, but with a spouse in a field that requires urban living it would murder our bottom line.

I’ve seen physicians offered up to six figures more (especially considering loan repayment benefits) 90 minutes outside a major metropolitan area vs. in it. I get that the scale is different for MD’s.

 

[WisNeuro]

I’d be interested to see comparable job postings in our field paying that much more in urban vs. rural areas. $20k wouldn’t get me out of an urban area without many more factors in the pro column. That may be enough to incentivize some clinicians, but with a spouse in a field that requires urban living it would murder our bottom line.

I’ve seen physicians offered up to six figures more (especially considering loan repayment benefits) 90 minutes outside a major metropolitan area vs. in it. I get that the scale is different for MD’s.

Easy enough to find them, and when you're boarded, you get recruited for these jobs fairly often in your home and neighboring states. Former postdoc of mine walked into a 115k position right out of postdoc in rural Northern WI. May be different for general therapy positions, but lower pay in these areas is not the limiting factor.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Easy enough to find them, and when you're boarded, you get recruited for these jobs fairly often in your home and neighboring states. Former postdoc of mine walked into a 115k position right out of postdoc in rural Northern WI. May be different for general therapy positions, but lower pay in these areas is not the limiting factor.

I really don’t think the financial incentives compare to other fields. I just looked at a major Midwest city vs. a rural city 2 hours out. The annual starting salaries for similiar positions are within $300 dollars of each other. There are probably outliers, but I don’t see a broad trend in our field.

Do you really disagree with my comment that our field does not incentivize clinicians to underserved areas and populations?

 

[erg923]

Do you really disagree with my comment that our field does not incentivize clinicians to underserved areas and populations?

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Our field (psychology) can do no such thing. Where on earth would that power come from? What incentives could psychology, or APA, or whomever you mean actually provide?

If you mean insurance companies, CMS, and/or the larger healthcare system, that's a different story.