Over the past 5-10 years I have had professional relationships with practicum students from a semi-local, large cohort professional school (granting a PsyD), as well as students from a local state-U based clinical Ph.D. program (full disclosure- it’s my graduate and undergrad Alma Mater). Additionally, several of my coworkers- including my direct administrative supervisor, are grads of the professional school, as was the training director and my direct supervisor at my APA-approved internship. A few observations:
Firstly- my experiences with Alumni of the FSPS
-The licensed professionals I do and have worked with who came from the professional school have all been competent-to- highly skilled clinicians. I have- and continue to receive- high quality clinical training, consultation, and mentorship from these individuals and gladly receive it, regardless of the the initials after their name or the name on their diploma.
-Based on direct discussions on the topic, my direct clinical training and experiences in my scientist practitioner phd program was more extensive (quantity-wise) than what they received at the FSPS
-anecdotally, it seems like they had to work MUCH harder to identify quality practicum sites, with a great deal of the work done on their own, at times competing with dozens of Other students from their and other programs. My program, in contrast, vetted and maintained exclusive training relationships with a variety community-based clinical sites.
-Practicum in my program were almost all paid positions with a university set minimum stipend (which qualified students for a tuition waiver). In fact, students need a review and waiver from the DCT to participate in a non-paid practicum. Practicum for the FSPS student were, with very few exceptions, unpaid
-Practicum at my program were, as I mentioned before, vetted by the program and delivered in regards to the training plan, supervision requirements, etc. While there were certainly placements and supervisor matches that turned out to be poor fits for various reasons, there was not "weirdness" regarding supervision quantity, inappropriate clinical responsibilities, etc. (if there was, historically, the DCT/Practicum director played an active role in resolving the issue or the site was taken of the list). Anecdotally, the students from the FSPS all reported that these "weird" situations at practicum happened to many students, and assistance from the FSPS was hit or miss (with some reporting that they felt like the school's primary goal was to protect the relationship with the site, vs. assure quality training for the student).
-FSPS alumni colleagues almost universally complained about the cost of their training. Many joke about "buying their degree" and talk of how the school was in it primarily for the money.
Now my observations from interactions with practicum students/applicants from State-U and FSPS, in my role as primary/or secondary practicum supervisor
-Same observations as above regarding ease of getting a quality practicum experience- FSPS students have to do much more of the work in finding, securing, and maintaining external practicum
-When comparing applicants from both sites, the State-U students, at the time of application (generally in 3rd-5th year of training), have at least equal (but typical more) direct clinical experience as the students from the FSPS (whose website, curiously, touts that their students get more direct clinical experience earlier in training than Ph.D. students- regardless, it has all evened out or been surpassed by practicum application time).
-MANY of the applying students from the FSPS are strong candidates for our training position (e.g., good background in theory; some relevant clinical experience; ability to speak on how our site can help meet their training goals). MANY of the students from the FSPS are not strong candidates for our training position. SOME of the students from the FSPS are, in my opinion, not strong candidates for ANY practicum training positions.
-ALMOST ALL applying students from the State-U are strong candidates for our training position. For those who aren't, it's typically an issue of training/career goals, and they typically have several other more appropriate practicum opportunities.
- The FSPS students have much less (mode=none) experience with clinical research, while all of the State-U students have such experience and are actively involved in ongoing research of their own design (Obviously, this is related to the type of grad program and is not a surprising observation). It may or may not have any bearing on their abilities to perform well in my setting.
-ALL State U students and MANY FSPS students who come to my programs have basic writing abilities (e.g., style; grammar; freakin' proofreading skills) that I expect from a 3rd year+ graduate student (actually, what I'd expect from a first year grad student). MANY FSPS students do not have these abilities, and this very much gets in the way of them getting the most out of the practicum experience, as they have to spend a lot of time revising the words in the reports, vs. focusing on the clinical content of the reports.
-My experience with State U practicum students has been universally positive. My mode experience with FSPS students has been positive, though there was more than one exception.
-Average practicum commute time to my practicum site for State U students is 15-20 minutes. For FSPS students it's 60-90 minutes.
-FSPS students universally complain about the costs of their training. State U students universally complain about the amount of work required of their program.
In summary, while I have had many good experiences with Alumnin and practicum students from this FSPS, I get a sense that the training and the abilities of the students is highly variable, and the ones who do well have had to "hustle" to overcome some of the inadequacies of the program. I have had universally positive experiences with practicum students from the FSPS.
Take all this for what it is- observations of one guy about two different training programs. I've tried to be objective, though as I am a human operating off memory and , it is certainly not free of bias. It's been my observation that both programs produce competent clinicians who I have enjoyed and surely will continue to enjoy working with and learning from. My overall opinion is that the mode training received at State U is more intensive and comprehensive (yet highly focused where it needs to be) than at the FSPS, and the mode student is going to do well in my setting. Students from the FSPS require much more vetting as their is much more variability in training and outcomes. It's also my opinion that training at the FSPS is a HUGE financial gamble, an in way too many cases ends up not being worth it.
I’m pretty excited about that!
