PsyD Neuropsychology Track Programs

[Aexander]

Hello everyone,

I'm very interested in applying to clinical psychology PsyD programs that emphasize neuropsychology, preferably through a set track of some sort. Anywhere in the country is fine as long as it's not a diploma mill. My search for this emphasis/ track is more out of a personal fascination than career choice per se, though the post doc specialization is very tempting. I've looked all over here and haven't been able to find much and was hoping someone could help me out.

Thanks a lot!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Kadhir]

My search for this emphasis/ track is more out of a personal fascination than career choice per se, though the post doc specialization is very tempting.

I'm sure people here will be happy to help, but you're going to have to clarify that. If you're not interested in a neuropsych career, why is it important to have a track (you can read about tracks elsewhere on this board)? Also, post-doc specialization for neuro is not only "tempting," it's required!

 

[smalltownpsych]

Any reputable doctorate will provide exposure to neuropsych and if it interest you then you shape your training and research experiences in that direction. Tracks are usually just marketing. Also, a fully funded phd program is what you should be trying to get into if your goal is to be a psychologist. PsyDs, even the more reputable, are still all about the money. I'm speaking from experience since I went to a PsyD program and regret the debt.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Most neuro people I know do not/did not do a 'neuro track' during their doctoral programs. They engaged in training consistent with a generalist approach and did practicum to build assessment knowledge/skills then specialized during internship/post-doc. The neuro folk here can speak better to this than I can, but I would encourage you to look for a strong generalist training model first and foremost and, as @Kadhir said, you may want to clarify why you are interested in a neuro track of training if not for a career.

 

[WisNeuro]

Do a search, there are like 20 threads that have covered this.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Agreed that most folks don't go through explicit tracks, although there are a few solid Ph.D. programs I can think of off the top of my head that either do have a track or allow for an emphasis (i.e., UHouston, UAB, UFlorida). For the Psy.D., Nova Southeastern either has a track or allows for a focus in neuropsych (can't remember which), although it's an expensive program. Palo Alto University may also as well, although like Nova, is very expensive.

As others have said, probably the modal course is to attend a program without an explicit track, but to work in a lab/with an advisor focused on areas of neuropsych that interest you.

 

[erg923]

http://www.artsci.uc.edu/departments/psychology/grad/phd/clinical.html

The University of Cincinnati is a perfect example of program that enables ample training in neuropsychological research and practice without having a "track."

 

[Doctor-S]

Hello everyone,

I'm very interested in applying to clinical psychology PsyD programs that emphasize neuropsychology ... My search for this emphasis/ track is more out of a personal fascination than career choice per se, though the post doc specialization is very tempting. I've looked all over here and haven't been able to find much and was hoping someone could help me out.

Thanks a lot!

Neuropsychology is a sub-specialty of "clinical psychology."

So, "track" or "emphasis" style psychology programs might sound intriguing, but those programs don't really provide a comprehensive introduction to neuropsychology, as a sub-specialty of clinical psychology. Instead, those introductory track programs might simply include a few courses naming "neuropsychology, brain, or behavior" as required track/emphasis courses.

Based on your original post, it is advisable to first earn your clinical psychology degree (PhD or PsyD) from an accredited clinical psychology program (i.e., first be a generalist) - especially since you stated that your interest in neuropsychology "is more out of a personal fascination than career choice per se." Then, you can later apply for a fellowship in clinical neuropsychology if you decide you want to pursue specialized training.

You might also want to review Division 40 of the American Psychological Association for further information related to education and training in clinical neuropsychology (or see link below).

http://training.scn40.org/pdf/Tip_Sheet_Graduate5132014.pdf

Thank you.

 

[Aexander]

Thank you everyone for taking the time to help me out!

Neuropsychology is a sub-specialty of "clinical psychology."

So, "track" or "emphasis" style psychology programs might sound intriguing, but those programs don't really provide a comprehensive introduction to neuropsychology, as a sub-specialty of clinical psychology. Instead, those introductory track programs might simply include a few courses naming "neuropsychology, brain, or behavior" as required track/emphasis courses.

Based on your original post, it is advisable to first earn your clinical psychology degree (PhD or PsyD) from an accredited clinical psychology program (i.e., first be a generalist) - especially since you stated that your interest in neuropsychology "is more out of a personal fascination than career choice per se." Then, you can later apply for a fellowship in clinical neuropsychology if you decide you want to pursue specialized training.

You might also want to review Division 40 of the American Psychological Association for further information related to education and training in clinical neuropsychology (or see link below).

http://training.scn40.org/pdf/Tip_Sheet_Graduate5132014.pdf

Thank you.

Hugely helpful link, I can't thank you enough, I was able to find exactly what I was looking for through that. If anyone else is curious here's the link I found that gives a solid list: http://www.neuropsychologycentral.com/training_links.html#b

 

[WisNeuro]

Please verify with site materials. There are some on that list that do not really offer neuro training, and I know of a few that are missing.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Yep, always verify. The list could be a good place to start, and you can also see where the faculty neuropsychologists completed their own training, as that may give you ideas on additional programs.

 

[PSYDNEUROGUY]

Hello everyone,

I'm very interested in applying to clinical psychology PsyD programs that emphasize neuropsychology, preferably through a set track of some sort. Anywhere in the country is fine as long as it's not a diploma mill. My search for this emphasis/ track is more out of a personal fascination than career choice per se, though the post doc specialization is very tempting. I've looked all over here and haven't been able to find much and was hoping someone could help me out.

Thanks a lot!

The program I attend (Carlos Albizu University) has a neuropsychology track, along with several other tracks such as forensic, health psychology, child psychology, etc. CAU has a sequence of 5 courses (i.e., Functional Neuroanatomy, Fundamentals of Neuropsychology, Neuropsychological Assessment w/lab, Advanced Neuropsychology, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation and Treatment). Our program has close connections and have placed several current and former students at practicum, internship and post-doc sites such as Cleveland Clinic, Dartmouth University (Geisel), NYU's Rusk Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Miami (both in rehabilitation, pediatric and clinical neuropsychology areas), Miami VA, and several VA centers around the country. Our neuropsychology students do very well; majority of us have presented several times at NAN, INS, etc. Our neuropsychology faculty are Ph.D. clinical neuropsychologists with significant research foci, so that helps provide some contrast in such an applied environment often seen within Psy.D. programs.

 

[WisNeuro]

If you point out the good, also point out the horrendously, embarrassing bad of Albizu. Like the never above 50% accredited match rate for the last compiled numbers, and the 40% EPPP pass rate for the last year reported.

 

[Neuroplast]

I was looking at CAU while back as one of my colleague clinical raters at our inpatient site got her Psy.D from there. She did an internship at University of Miami and Jackson Memorial Hospital, she's not a certified psychologist so that may explain the low pass rate. Thanks for shedding this info about the school. I'm more interested in UM and UF for the Clinical Psy program though as I'm in Miami. Good to know.

 

[PSYDNEUROGUY]

If you point out the good, also point out the horrendously, embarrassing bad of Albizu. Like the never above 50% accredited match rate for the last compiled numbers, and the 40% EPPP pass rate for the last year reported.

You are very correct in saying these are important, but for the sake of my point, I was alluding to the general aspects of our program, the data itself is readily available and accessible to anyone who has a computer and internet access. Accordingly, we have had a 54-55% match rate to APA-accredited internship sites for the past two cycles. Our license pass rate is currently at 58%.

http://albizu.edu/Portals/0/Documents/cau/mia/MIA_C20.pdf

According to the more recent data, the past two years has shown a slight increase above 50%. We have a brand new clinical director who has served on several committees with APA, including the CoA. She has also been a site reviewer/visitor. As such, her focus has been increasing this number exponentially. For example, we are reducing our class sizes to not be any larger than 30 per cohort (this is on par with many reputable Psy.D. programs that cap it around 25-30 per cohort). Additionally, our program is currently under review to have the Goodman Center become an APA-accredited pre-doctoral internship site (currently awaiting a site visit date).

I take it you have a bias or a skewed perspective towards this program without fully knowing the current operations and changes being made, but, as a student in the program, I can attest to these changes.

I was looking at CAU while back as one of my colleague clinical raters at our inpatient site got her Psy.D from there. She did an internship at University of Miami and Jackson Memorial Hospital, she's not a certified psychologist so that may explain the low pass rate. Thanks for shedding this info about the school. I'm more interested in UM and UF for the Clinical Psy program though as I'm in Miami. Good to know.

I wouldn't discount the program if there was an initial interest in the first place. Having worked around town with some NSU students, I have collaborated with some who just opted to be clinical raters or wanted to teach without going through the licensing process (yet). Again, I wouldn't use these instances as exclusive indictors about the quality of ours or NSU's program. Both have many strengths. I particularly was drawn towards the placement of the neuropsychology students for practicum, internship and post-doc. Some of our students had been placed at Yale for internship within the child/adolescence track, a lot of our forensic students are placing with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Some are currently working for the DoD both state-side and internationally. We have several alum who are serving as military psychologists. Additionally, we have several board certified alum. Again, it's an option, by no means is it the most lucrative institution in the country, it has a lot of strengths, especially the ratio between students and faculty. Within my first 3-4 weeks of the semester, I immediately was able to engage in grant writing opportunities since we collaborate a lot with FIU, UM and Mt. Sinai Hospital, in addition to some abstract and manuscript co-authorships. This may or may not be feasible in programs that have such a huge cohort.

 

[PsyDr]

oh god. None of that crap matters.

 

[erg923]

You are very correct in saying these are important, but for the sake of my point, I was alluding to the general aspects of our program, the data itself is readily available and accessible to anyone who has a computer and internet access. Accordingly, we have had a 54-55% match rate to APA-accredited internship sites for the past two cycles. Our license pass rate is currently at 58%.

http://albizu.edu/Portals/0/Documents/cau/mia/MIA_C20.pdf

According to the more recent data, the past two years has shown a slight increase above 50%. We have a brand new clinical director who has served on several committees with APA, including the CoA. She has also been a site reviewer/visitor. As such, her focus has been increasing this number exponentially. For example, we are reducing our class sizes to not be any larger than 30 per cohort (this is on par with many reputable Psy.D. programs that cap it around 25-30 per cohort). Additionally, our program is currently under review to have the Goodman Center become an APA-accredited pre-doctoral internship site (currently awaiting a site visit date).

I take it you have a bias or a skewed perspective towards this program without fully knowing the current operations and changes being made, but, as a student in the program, I can attest to these changes.



I wouldn't discount the program if there was an initial interest in the first place. Having worked around town with some NSU students, I have collaborated with some who just opted to be clinical raters or wanted to teach without going through the licensing process (yet). Again, I wouldn't use these instances as exclusive indictors about the quality of ours or NSU's program. Both have many strengths. I particularly was drawn towards the placement of the neuropsychology students for practicum, internship and post-doc. Some of our students had been placed at Yale for internship within the child/adolescence track, a lot of our forensic students are placing with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Some are currently working for the DoD both state-side and internationally. We have several alum who are serving as military psychologists. Additionally, we have several board certified alum. Again, it's an option, by no means is it the most lucrative institution in the country, it has a lot of strengths, especially the ratio between students and faculty. Within my first 3-4 weeks of the semester, I immediately was able to engage in grant writing opportunities since we collaborate a lot with FIU, UM and Mt. Sinai Hospital, in addition to some abstract and manuscript co-authorships. This may or may not be feasible in programs that have such a huge cohort.

So...aside from your anecdotal reports of neuropsych student success, the larger N objective data reports that half the students do fairly well and half can't get internships worth a **** (APA match rate) and don't/can't even practice the profession in which they are supposedly trained (licensure failure rate).

While I would appreciate a mention that they are working on improving this, let's not put lipstick on the pig just yet, mmmk. These outcomes are about on par with schools like ITT Tech.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

No joke, CAU applicants were always in the first group on the garbage bin during my time helping with internship applications while on fellowship. take from that what you will.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I was looking at CAU while back as one of my colleague clinical raters at our inpatient site got her Psy.D from there. She did an internship at University of Miami and Jackson Memorial Hospital, she's not a certified psychologist so that may explain the low pass rate. Thanks for shedding this info about the school. I'm more interested in UM and UF for the Clinical Psy program though as I'm in Miami. Good to know.

I've known and reviewed neuropsych applicants from UM and UF for both internship and fellowship. I likely don't need to say it, but both programs have solid reputations, and their trainees have all been very well-prepared. USF, at least previously, also had neuropsych-oriented faculty. And FSU is a very solid program, but I don't know if anyone there is neuro.

 

[WisNeuro]

You are very correct in saying these are important, but for the sake of my point, I was alluding to the general aspects of our program, the data itself is readily available and accessible to anyone who has a computer and internet access. Accordingly, we have had a 54-55% match rate to APA-accredited internship sites for the past two cycles. Our license pass rate is currently at 58%.
.

No, the % of people from the program who are licensed is 58%, your EPP pass rate is much lower, meaning that many people have to take it more than once. Also, a 58% licensure rate for a program is very low. That figure would be low even for a more research oriented program. It essentially means that about half of the people coming out of that program are not licensed psychologists.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Wait. People at schools with these types of outcomes /actually/ believe they are getting good/sufficient level of training despite the match rates, licensure rates, etc.?

If cognitive dissonance werent discovered already, I would have a sample...

 

[gzaz1914]

Wait. People at schools with these types of outcomes /actually/ believe they are getting good/sufficient level of training despite the match rates, licensure rates, etc.?

If cognitive dissonance discovered already, I would have a sample...

Well, as a student at "that school" who secured an APA accredited site and in the process of applying for APPCN cites with strong rec letters, I'd say I just might have been trained well. Not sure, but I think so.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Well, as a student at "that school" who secured an APA accredited site and in the process of applying for APPCN cites with strong rec letters, I'd say I just might have been trained well. Not sure, but I think so.

But that's simply not what the data shows about students at those schools. Your case study aside, the numbers (match, licensure, EPPP pass rate, etc) don't support good training.

 

[psych.meout]

Well, as a student at "that school" who secured an APA accredited site and in the process of applying for APPCN cites with strong rec letters, I'd say I just might have been trained well. Not sure, but I think so.

So, do they teach you that anecdotes are more important than statistics, too?

 

[PSYDNEUROGUY]

So, do they teach you that anecdotes are more important than statistics, too?

It's a catch 22; we are taught to rely on statistically significant evidence while also appreciating that not everybody can and will be perfectly boxed into a category. Some people thrive in certain conditions vs. others for which they become an outlier in context to the normal bell curve. Several people in my program have been matching to APPCN post docs at Emory, Dartmouth, Hopkins and several VAs. Our program just put up a map of the U.S. in the doctoral office with colored pins to denote the locations and names of the internship where our students are placing. Out director started in 2015 and implemented a requirement for all students to get APA internships (as opposed to it being highly suggest as it was before apparently). Several of my fellow neuropsychology colleagues placed at Rusk Rehabilitation at NYU, one just got accepted at the VA in Oregon who has traditionally only accepted Ph.D. students (we had a celebration for her). On the flip side, I've already identified the students in my program who barely get by, who are struggling, and that's terrible. I think with some work and guidance they can bounce back, I really do. My husband is in a Pharm.D. program for which he also has several classmates that do just enough to get by, some even fail their courses too, so, it's not just isolated to the profession of psychology.

 

[psych.meout]

It's a catch 22; we are taught to rely on statistically significant evidence while also appreciating that not everybody can and will be perfectly boxed into a category. Some people thrive in certain conditions vs. others for which they become an outlier in context to the normal bell curve. Several people in my program have been matching to APPCN post docs at Emory, Dartmouth, Hopkins and several VAs. Our program just put up a map of the U.S. in the doctoral office with colored pins to denote the locations and names of the internship where our students are placing. Out director started in 2015 and implemented a requirement for all students to get APA internships (as opposed to it being highly suggest as it was before apparently). Several of my fellow neuropsychology colleagues placed at Rusk Rehabilitation at NYU, one just got accepted at the VA in Oregon who has traditionally only accepted Ph.D. students (we had a celebration for her). On the flip side, I've already identified the students in my program who barely get by, who are struggling, and that's terrible. I think with some work and guidance they can bounce back, I really do. My husband is in a Pharm.D. program for which he also has several classmates that do just enough to get by, some even fail their courses too, so, it's not just isolated to the profession of psychology.

I understand and appreciate that you have a new director who is trying to improve the program. That is likely a very good thing and I hope for the best for the program and its students. The problem is that you're perpetuating more of this fallacious anecdotal reasoning in the face of statistical evidence of the program's quality, or lack thereof.

The part I bolded is nonsense. It's an attempt to rationalize the poor quality of the program by abusing statistics. You're asserting that these outliers are arguments for the quality of the program, but you're talking about tiny fractions of the overall population at one extreme of the distribution, i.e. not a representative sample. Thus, these cases should not be taken as typical of the program's quality, but rather as anomalies whose outcomes are not necessarily determined by the program itself.

 

[PSYDNEUROGUY]

I understand and appreciate that you have a new director who is trying to improve the program. That is likely a very good thing and I hope for the best for the program and its students. The problem is that you're perpetuating more of this fallacious anecdotal reasoning in the face of statistical evidence of the program's quality, or lack thereof.

The part I bolded is nonsense. It's an attempt to rationalize the poor quality of the program by abusing statistics. You're asserting that these outliers are arguments for the quality of the program, but you're talking about tiny fractions of the overall population at one extreme of the distribution, i.e. not a representative sample. Thus, these cases should not be taken as typical of the program's quality, but rather as anomalies whose outcomes are not necessarily determined by the program itself.

I think you might have misinterpreted that statement. What I was saying was, that some folks might actually do best in a certain program or condition when that condition or program appreciates their differences. I am literally referring to the admissions aspect of the program, so, for example, if someone who had applied to programs that were notorious for relying upon higher GRE scores and they lacked such scores, they shouldn't give up on the idea of becoming a psychologist because of that, there are by far other predictors and other variables that speak about that particular person in the admissions process that would show good potential. Simply trying to box them into a category and not looking at them as an individual dismisses a very real viable candidate they could have taken in. We need new psychologists who can approach the field with a new perspective, with different insight, with their own "quirks" that can propel the field even further. Right now we have a system that recruits in a homogenous way hoping for heterogenous results (i.e., producing psychologists with new and different ways in discovering and/or treating behavioral phenomena).

I am aware that the system we have now is the best we've got, but as a science (especially within the behavioral sciences), we can't settle for that, we should be actively looking for a way to change and question phenomena. Outliers matter as well, we can't just give up on them or tell them they should go do something else or that they should be like everybody else should they want to go into graduate school. That is roughly the point of that bolded statement. The other thing to consider is, the "negative" outcomes you speak of; while they are important to identify, they don't necessarily identify the etiology of the problem(s) the data is showing. We can look at APA match rates, license rates, retention rates, etc. but they don't show us what specifically in that program is perpetuating sub-par results. It could be related to the whole program, certain professors, the content and depth of coursework taught, the student body, graduates who don't want to get their license, etc. For example, the program I attend is in Miami, and it is rooted in Afro-Carribean culture in many ways, so, one central them I have noticed is the fact that people want to stay in the area for internship and post-doc to be near family. This effectively limits their abilities to get APA internships. In these cultures cultures, family is going to matter the most to them, so their decisions will revolve around that variable. In this case, the data isn't showing us those types of decisions and people aren't being made aware of that. There are a number of things that these published data don't show, so it's also important to keep that in mind when making an informed and/or discriminating decision of one program over another.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

We need new psychologists who can approach the field with a new perspective, with different insight, with their own "quirks" that can propel the field even further. Right now we have a system that recruits in a homogenous way hoping for heterogenous results (i.e., producing psychologists with new and different ways in discovering and/or treating behavioral phenomena).

I'm not sure that this is the case.

Diversity is an ongoing goal of many programs, and the field is more diverse than many other fields in regard to gender mix, ethnicity, etc. It seems like what you are arguing for (in the other part of your statement) is that students who have lower grades should be considered and not just higher achieving ones. I'm not sure I want that in my field.

Would you want to be represented in a court case by a lawyer who didn't really have the grades and was "quirky"? How about if you need to have a life-saving surgery…would you want the surgeon who had new perspectives about how the field of surgery should go….but was a standard deviation below his/her classmates on a bunch of objective measures utilized in his/her training? There are equivalents in the psych field: forensic evaluation to assist with a competency hearing for a first degree murder case or evaluating if a physician can continue to practice following a brain injury or if a person has the ability to make their own medical decision (to stop life saving treatment, leave AMA, etc).

I'm all for diversity, but I'm not a fan of lowering standards to maybe (and this is a big maybe) find that one outlier who might contribute more than the tried and true people, at the expense of taking in mostly sub-par students who wouldn't be able to get in the door otherwise.

 

[barryggg]

Sorry but I wouldn't trust someone who went to Carlos Albizu University.

 

[PSYDNEUROGUY]

I'm not sure that this is the case.

Diversity is an ongoing goal of many programs, and the field is more diverse than many other fields in regard to gender mix, ethnicity, etc. It seems like what you are arguing for (in the other part of your statement) is that students who have lower grades should be considered and not just higher achieving ones. I'm not sure I want that in my field.

Would you want to be represented in a court case by a lawyer who didn't really have the grades and was "quirky"? How about if you need to have a life-saving surgery…would you want the surgeon who had new perspectives about how the field of surgery should go….but was a standard deviation below his/her classmates on a bunch of objective measures utilized in his/her training?

I'm all for diversity, but I'm not a fan of lowering standards to maybe (and this is a big maybe) find that one outlier who might contribute more than the tried and true people, at the expense of taking in mostly sub-par students who wouldn't be able to get in the door otherwise.

Lol. I can appreciate that idea and the very real implication of my statement. You are absolutely correct in wanting to maintain good quality, we should definitely strive for good quality control, after all, potential students admitted into these programs will eventually be tasked with treating clients. In my example, what I am advocating for is essentially, a re-vamping of the process that selects candidates. This reminds me of signal detection theory in that we are trying to identify correctly (correct hits) the best candidates while also identifying and denying inappropriate ones (correct rejections). However, there is still that smaller group of people, the "misses" that we incorrectly reject from a program. This idea could be conceptualized on the basis that a life guard is tasked with identifying correctly those who are in danger of drowning vs. those who are just playfully lashing around the water. In this case, the life guard should be able to correctly identify the victim while suppressing the tendency to falsely identify other people who show similar characteristics of the victim. I am seeing several programs that are voiding the GRE requirement should they possess a previous graduate degree. With the GRE predicting only the likelihood of success in the first year of graduate school, the supposition follows that if they can complete a 2 or a 3 years master's degree, they would have exceeded that expectation. This is a good example of what I am advocating for.

I think as psychologists and psychologists in training, we should recognize that talent, intellect and capabilities cannot be finely identified in a single test score. While admissions programs like to publicly announce they view the whole application in its entirety, the reality of it is, the other aspects of the application that are not the GRE, such as the essay, transcripts, LOR, etc. won't be viewed if they get cut prematurely due to a GRE score. It is counterintuitive to the very real nature of a committee viewing the application as a whole.

 

[PSYDNEUROGUY]

Sorry but I wouldn't trust someone who went to Carlos Albizu University.

That's a very judgmental remark to make, especially if you don't know anything about them, nor their background.

 

[barryggg]

That's a very judgmental remark to make, especially if you don't know anything about them, nor their background.

To be fair..if you're my Psychologist, the only way I can really find out who you are is by where you got your education.

 

[PSYDNEUROGUY]

To be fair..if you're my Psychologist, the only way I can really find out who you are is by where you got your education.

Then I would suggest you know everything about me, which you don't. You don't know my background, or my previous graduate training. You should also look at their internship and post-doc training as well. I am hopeful that in this hypothetical scenario, you would do your homework as a consumer and recognize those are also part of the education a clinician receives. The experiential component more-so as it's the place for them to practice what they've studied in the books.

As a consumer, I look at where they received their education, but also their residency, their publications and involvement as a scientist as well. I look at places they've worked because it's an indirect measurement for me to see what quality positions they've sustained. That tells me that those organizations felt they were competent enough to practice with them. I look at duration of practice as well. Again, not everything can be neatly packaged up or boiled down to one variable.

 

[erg923]

Then I would suggest you know everything about me, which you don't. You don't know my background, my previous graduate training. You should also look at their internship and post-doc training as well. I am hopeful that in this hypothetical scenario, you would do your homework as a consumer and recognize those are also part of the education a clinician receives. The experiential component more-so as it's the place for them to practice what they've studied in the books.

I would just stop if I were you. You have no control over how other people form their opinions. I would not be so sweeping in my generalizations as barryggg, but I would also encourage you to accept the reality that the reputation of your graduate training program it the most readily available metric consumers have to judge the likely quality of their provider, so it should not surprise you in the least that people (including some professionals) will indeed make these generalizations.

Your program has a poor reputation nationally and your outcome data doesn't help matters-this is not really debatable. You chose the program, so now you will have to deal with the consequences, whether you think they are fully informed or fair or not.

 

[PSYDNEUROGUY]

I would just stop if I were you. You have no control over how other people form their opinions. I would not be so sweeping in my generalization as barryg is, but I would also encourage you to accept the reality that the reputation of your graduate training program it the most readily available metric consumers have to judge the likely quality of their provider, so it should not surprise you in the least that people (including some professionals) will indeed make these generalizations.

Your program has poor reputation nationally and your outcome data doesn't help matters-this is not really debatable. You chose the program, so now you will have to deal with the consequences, whether you think they are fully informed or fair or not.

It's so funny how we are in a field that so blatantly is the worst offender at judging others and uses a very elitist perspective. I honestly have no regrets going to the program I go to. At first, I was apprehensive, I listened to the advice that people gave and had to think about the situation I was in, my abilities to succeed with the education I would get from there, their placement of their neuro students for internship and post doc and their faculty. At the end of it, I made the decision and believe I made a good one. As you said, I can't help what others will think, including yourself should they/you take on that perspective. I will leave it that because I honestly don't feel this needs further justification. I believe the results come from how "you" as a practitioner function, that is where the true results of the training one receives becomes evident the most.

 

[erg923]

I believe the results come from how "you" as a practitioner function, that is where the true results of the training one receives becomes evident the most.

Potential patients and hiring officials don't know "you" or your "results."

But they do know where you want to graduate school.

 

[Justanothergrad]

We can look at APA match rates, license rates, retention rates, etc. but they don't show us what specifically in that program is perpetuating sub-par results.

As a potential employer/client/etc., does it matter to me about what part is causing the failure or do I just care that the program doesn't produce good (or acceptable) outcomes related to quality of training considered standard by the field?

 

[PSYDNEUROGUY]

Potential patients and hiring officials don't know "you" or your "results."

But they do know where you want to graduate school.

Very true, I can't argue with that. I think/hope that those who have a more analytical mind in researching their future provider also have the skills to know that the residency part of training is also important, so, if one goes to a school that isn't a top school, they could supplement that with a great residency program. I remember when I was looking for orthopedic surgeons for my father, I looked at their CV, I looked at their education first, and went through where they completed their residency. One person went to a medical school in Ohio, I am sure it's a good university, but medical innovation doesn't scream out to me from that particular university. The caveat was, he attended two residency programs, one was in ortho. surgery at Johns Hopkins and the second was a clinical-research residency at Oxford University. I saw the hospitals he worked a previously, I saw that he was highly published, so, these for me were the selling points more so than his M.D. from the university there in Ohio. Perhaps that's just isolated to me, but I tend to appreciate as a consumer everything that makes up the "whole" (all the constituent parts). Again, I would hope that those who are more critical in analyzing their potential psychologist will have the skills to look into those variables I gave an example of. One can only hope, other than that, you move on.

 

[PSYDNEUROGUY]

As a potential employer/client/etc., does it matter to me about what part is causing the failure or do I just care that the program doesn't produce good (or acceptable) outcomes related to quality of training considered standard by the field?

Very good point; of course in that context, the easy answer to say is "no." The flip side to this is, that decision making process excludes the other components the applicant has. I would hope when one receives my CV, they see that in addition to my Psy.D. being from CAU, that my externships were at well-established programs and rotated through neuropsychology and rehabilitation psychology giving myself more diversity in depth and breadth of training. I would hope they see that my previous work prior to the Psy.D. was instrumental in my development as a professional where I worked for UTSW as a researcher, and that I received a master's in cognitive neuroscience, and that I have several presented abstracts and currently working on several manuscripts that will (hopefully) be published, and, that I have been an ad-hoc peer reviewer for several journals in neuropsychology and for JAMA Neurology. I would hope all of this gets factored into my evaluation for internship, post-doc, and employment. If it doesn't, that speaks to the level of judgment being made on the end of the evaluator, not on me, and perhaps if that's the style of evaluation being made, then perhaps that's not a person or an environment I would work well with.

When we talk about "fit," it goes beyond just the fundamental aspects of "does this person have the same professional or research interests that we have?" Other factors including the dynamic in the organization is very important as it is a place you will likely spend more time in than with your family or loved ones. You would want to attend an internship/post-doc/job that "gets you," and appreciates your individual talents. If that individual component doesn't get factored into there, then (at least for me), I am glad it didn't work out.

 

[Ollie123]

Again, I would hope that those who are more critical in analyzing their potential psychologist will have the skills to look into those variables I gave an example of. One can only hope, other than that, you move on.

From the perspective of patients, I think this is more work than 99% of them will put into choosing a therapist. For many, its going to be more a matter of office location, who their primary care doc suggests, who their insurance takes (if using insurance), etc. This would seem to work in the favor of someone attending a program with poor outcomes, save for the fact that many of those things become more difficult coming out of such a program. Those people are generally not going to be at the top of someone's referral list right away. It seems like many will struggle to even obtain a license.

I think we're all on board with the fact that the current admissions system isn't perfect, but the solution is not "Everyone gets to be a psychologist - no matter how grossly incompetent they may be" and that is unfortunately how many of these schools are staying in business. The stats suggest that a large portion of their students aren't even able to achieve what are intended as bare minimum standards for the field (APA internship, passing the licensing exam, etc.). The result is that graduates from those programs will be presumed barely competent or incompetent until proven otherwise.....versus presumed competent until proven otherwise. Is that fair? At least to some extent, I think the answer is yes. Past behavior matters, its really as simple as that. Are there smart people at ITT tech? Sure. If I'm hiring for a programming job, would I pick the person from ITT over the one from MIT? Only if the person from ITT has done a LOT more to convince me that they're qualified. And reality is that more often than not...that hasn't happened. Even if they were the "best" student in their class...they probably still lack the credentials of a middle-of-the-pack MIT student. A few might and those will be exceptions. We can talk all we want about the role of privilege, how they might have built those credentials, etc. but the reality is that an employer is looking for the best employee and broader systemic problems will require systemic solutions.

Nothing is absolute and it doesn't mean that everyone who graduates from university X is a complete fool who is destined for failure or even that in certain cases it wasn't the best choice for that individual. It does mean that one takes a big risk by doing it and is setting themselves up for an uphill battle. I also believe it causes bigger problems for the field by driving down standards, expectations, salaries and outsider perceptions.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It's so funny how we are in a field that so blatantly is the worst offender at judging others and uses a very elitist perspective.

It's not an "elitist" perspective though…I think the majority of people are arguing that the minimum standard at some programs is not sufficiently high enough. No one is saying that patients should *only* see board-certified clinicians from the top 25 programs and everyone else is deemed inadequate. My concern isn't for the top 10-20% at a given program, it's for the clinicians that barely squeaked by and are now licensed.

 

[PSYDNEUROGUY]

It's not an "elitist" perspective though…I think the majority of people are arguing that the minimum standard at some programs is not sufficiently high enough. No one is saying that patients should *only* see board-certified clinicians from the top 25 programs and everyone else is deemed inadequate. My concern isn't for the top 10-20% at a given program, it's for the clinicians that barely squeaked by and are now licensed.

No arguments from me on that, like I said, I agree that there needs to be quality control. When I refer to the term "elitist," I see it more often in the sense that there is a biased skew towards a certain cluster of programs (whether they are Ph.D. or Psy.D.). I think this deviates from the idea of keeping good standards as it places more of a condition of worth from individuals who come from those programs. An example I have is from a mentor I had back in Texas who is a high ranking member on the admissions committee for their Ph.D. program; he literally had stated that one of the things he looks at is pedigree and qualified it with (Yale, Harvard, Northwestern). That in itself is the epitome of showing favoritism or at least the predisposition in filtering out "quality" candidates on the contingency that they come from such programs. I think this topic has the potential to evolve into a much deeper debate, so I will leave it at that. The point being made with this example is, that I find it interesting that professionals in the program operate like that. In that example, he too went to a top 10 Ph.D. program (UT Austin) and understandably has developed such a perspective.

Again, I don't want to branch that out into another debate, but that is an example of what I mean by "elitist" tendencies. It effectively negates any and all other factors that person might have that could/will/does make them a competent professional. I think I mentioned this earlier, that my husband attends the Pharm.D. program at Nova. Everyday (almost) I hear him talk to me about classmates of his that came from places like Columbia and Northwestern, several already having a master's in pharmacy yet are doing terrible in the Pharm.D program. According to their test data, they should be performing optimally in their first year but are not. Why? We don't know. I have a family member at Northwestern's medical school and we talked a lot about his application process, especially when he applied to some top tier D.O. programs. I remember him telling me that for him, D.O. schools were his safety schools because he knew his MCAT and GPA would not be an issue for those programs. So, in that context, you also see a stratification in "academic quality" vs. those from a M.D. program. It doesn't mean his GPA or MCAT score is alluding to him being an incompetent person, it means he might need to find a program that appreciates his qualities and qualifications, and lucky for him, Northwestern of all places did!

From the perspective of patients, I think this is more work than 99% of them will put into choosing a therapist. For many, its going to be more a matter of office location, who their primary care doc suggests, who their insurance takes (if using insurance), etc. This would seem to work in the favor of someone attending a program with poor outcomes, save for the fact that many of those things become more difficult coming out of such a program. Those people are generally not going to be at the top of someone's referral list right away. It seems like many will struggle to even obtain a license.

I think we're all on board with the fact that the current admissions system isn't perfect, but the solution is not "Everyone gets to be a psychologist - no matter how grossly incompetent they may be" and that is unfortunately how many of these schools are staying in business. The stats suggest that a large portion of their students aren't even able to achieve what are intended as bare minimum standards for the field (APA internship, passing the licensing exam, etc.). The result is that graduates from those programs will be presumed barely competent or incompetent until proven otherwise.....versus presumed competent until proven otherwise. Is that fair? At least to some extent, I think the answer is yes. Past behavior matters, its really as simple as that. Are there smart people at ITT tech? Sure. If I'm hiring for a programming job, would I pick the person from ITT over the one from MIT? Only if the person from ITT has done a LOT more to convince me that they're qualified. And reality is that more often than not...that hasn't happened. Even if they were the "best" student in their class...they probably still lack the credentials of a middle-of-the-pack MIT student. A few might and those will be exceptions. We can talk all we want about the role of privilege, how they might have built those credentials, etc. but the reality is that an employer is looking for the best employee and broader systemic problems will require systemic solutions.

Nothing is absolute and it doesn't mean that everyone who graduates from university X is a complete fool who is destined for failure or even that in certain cases it wasn't the best choice for that individual. It does mean that one takes a big risk by doing it and is setting themselves up for an uphill battle. I also believe it causes bigger problems for the field by driving down standards, expectations, salaries and outsider perceptions.

I'd like to think that I am not just some random low achieving guy wanting to be a psychologist. I made fantastic grades in my undergrad and master's, and achieved a lot research-wise during grad school. To be honest, when I was younger, I was very much the type of person who was selective in where I wanted to go to school. I had started my undergrad off at one of the world's leading conservatories of music (New England Conservatory of Music). I accomplished a lot as a professional musician and that sense of accomplishment and drive carried through when I switched careers to becoming a psychologist. However, it's been a little over 7 years since making that change and over those 7 years, I've evolved on how I looked at education. It wasn't that I became lazy (by any sense of the word), but that I appreciated other means to achieve goals. I also understand "life happens" and certain options are no longer on the table, so, things have to adapt accordingly.

Your example was one I was hoping you would give, in the sense that, most people that approach finding a healthcare provider will do so in a less-analytical way. They will, as you said, more than likely be referred to a psychologist for which possibly the educational institution they attended is a factor, or perhaps it's the rapport built between the referring physician and the psychologist for which a referral is made. I agree that for some folks, such as myself who are coming from an institution with a not-so-great reputation amongst other psychologists will have an up-hill battle. That is a trade off when one has to adapt and make a decision to still maintain their goal of becoming a psychologist. On a personal note, I'd like to think the ambition and unique combination of my previous education and current scholastic endeavors will serve me well in the future. I can't rely upon my school's brand name to do the work for me, but I have to go out there and prove it by securing great practicum spots, internship and post-doc. I am certain of it that I will come across those who will immediately dismiss me just on the basis that "Carlos Albizu University" shows up on my CV, and that's a shame (for them), because they will miss out on me and what I bring to the table. It's literally judging a book by its cover.

 

[psych.meout]

No arguments from me on that, like I said, I agree that there needs to be quality control. When I refer to the term "elitist," I see it more often in the sense that there is a biased skew towards a certain cluster of programs (whether they are Ph.D. or Psy.D.). I think this deviates from the idea of keeping good standards as it places more of a condition of worth from individuals who come from those programs. An example I have is from a mentor I had back in Texas who is a high ranking member on the admissions committee for their Ph.D. program; he literally had stated that one of the things he looks at is pedigree and qualified it with (Yale, Harvard, Northwestern). That in itself is the epitome of showing favoritism or at least the predisposition in filtering out "quality" candidates on the contingency that they come from such programs. I think this topic has the potential to evolve into a much deeper debate, so I will leave it at that. The point being made with this example is, that I find it interesting that professionals in the program operate like that. In that example, he too went to a top 10 Ph.D. program (UT Austin) and understandably has developed such a perspective.

Again, I don't want to branch that out into another debate, but that is an example of what I mean by "elitist" tendencies. It effectively negates any and all other factors that person might have that could/will/does make them a competent professional. I think I mentioned this earlier, that my husband attends the Pharm.D. program at Nova. Everyday (almost) I hear him talk to me about classmates of his that came from places like Columbia and Northwestern, several already having a master's in pharmacy yet are doing terrible in the Pharm.D program. According to their test data, they should be performing optimally in their first year but are not. Why? We don't know. I have a family member at Northwestern's medical school and we talked a lot about his application process, especially when he applied to some top tier D.O. programs. I remember him telling me that for him, D.O. schools were his safety schools because he knew his MCAT and GPA would not be an issue for those programs. So, in that context, you also see a stratification in "academic quality" vs. those from a M.D. program. It doesn't mean his GPA or MCAT score is alluding to him being an incompetent person, it means he might need to find a program that appreciates his qualities and qualifications, and lucky for him, Northwestern of all places did!



I'd like to think that I am not just some random low achieving guy wanting to be a psychologist. I made fantastic grades in my undergrad and master's, and achieved a lot research-wise during grad school. To be honest, when I was younger, I was very much the type of person who was selective in where I wanted to go to school. I had started my undergrad off at one of the world's leading conservatories of music (New England Conservatory of Music). I accomplished a lot as a professional musician and that sense of accomplishment and drive carried through when I switched careers to becoming a psychologist. However, it's been a little over 7 years since making that change and over those 7 years, I've evolved on how I looked at education. It wasn't that I became lazy (by any sense of the word), but that I appreciated other means to achieve goals. I also understand "life happens" and certain options are no longer on the table, so, things have to adapt accordingly.

Your example was one I was hoping you would give, in the sense that, most people that approach finding a healthcare provider will do so in a less-analytical way. They will, as you said, more than likely be referred to a psychologist for which possibly the educational institution they attended is a factor, or perhaps it's the rapport built between the referring physician and the psychologist for which a referral is made. I agree that for some folks, such as myself who are coming from an institution with a not-so-great reputation amongst other psychologists will have an up-hill battle. That is a trade off when one has to adapt and make a decision to still maintain their goal of becoming a psychologist. On a personal note, I'd like to think the ambition and unique combination of my previous education and current scholastic endeavors will serve me well in the future. I can't rely upon my school's brand name to do the work for me, but I have to go out there and prove it by securing great practicum spots, internship and post-doc. I am certain of it that I will come across those who will immediately dismiss me just on the basis that "Carlos Albizu University" shows up on my CV, and that's a shame (for them), because they will miss out on me and what I bring to the table. It's literally judging a book by its cover.

That's a poor metaphor and an incorrect usage of the word "literally." Judging the quality of a psychologist by their doctoral program is more like judging a book by its author and the previous books they have published. You know the quality of the other books they have written and their style, so it's a fair assessment to say that their new book will likely be similar to their previous works. Could Jackie Collins have gone from romance novels to hard scifi, a la Heinlein? Could an author's new book be a masterpiece and totally unlike their other work? Sure, but it would uncharacteristic of their previous work and quite the gamble to expect something different.

Again and again, you keep presenting these anecdotes and are ignoring the quantitative measures assessing the quality of your program. You're abusing statistics and probability, because you don't think it's fair to judge you based on the program you chose to attend. It's not impossible for you to receive good training in your program, it's just that the typical student, based on more objective metrics, isn't receiving this training or demonstrating it. This is why you'll have to spend much of your career proving that you have the requisite training and qualifications, as opposed to someone from a more reputable program where it can be fairly assumed.

 

[WisNeuro]

When you are below 50% for both accredited match rate and EPPP pass rate there is a problem. I'm sure there is the occasional diamond in the rough. But I don't want to sift through piles and piles of garbage to find that one adequate person. In a numbers game, whether it be admissions, finding a therapist, etc, I'm going to maximize my chances, not minimize them.

 

[barryggg]

That's a poor metaphor and an incorrect usage of the word "literally." Judging the quality of a psychologist by their doctoral program is more like judging a book by its author and the previous books they have published. You know the quality of the other books they have written and their style, so it's a fair assessment to say that their new book will likely be similar to their previous works. Could Jackie Collins have gone from romance novels to hard scifi, a la Heinlein? Could an author's new book be a masterpiece and totally unlike their other work? Sure, but it would uncharacteristic of their previous work and quite the gamble to expect something different.

Again and again, you keep presenting these anecdotes and are ignoring the quantitative measures assessing the quality of your program. You're abusing statistics and probability, because you don't think it's fair to judge you based on the program you chose to attend. It's not impossible for you to receive good training in your program, it's just that the typical student, based on more objective metrics, isn't receiving this training or demonstrating it. This is why you'll have to spend much of your career proving that you have the requisite training and qualifications, as opposed to someone from a more reputable program where it can be fairly assumed.

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[psych.meout]

When you are below 50% for both accredited match rate and EPPP pass rate there is a problem. I'm sure there is the occasional diamond in the rough. But I don't want to sift through piles and piles of garbage to find that one adequate person. In a numbers game, whether it be admissions, finding a therapist, etc, I'm going to maximize my chances, not minimize them.

Whether it's admission to doctoral programs, internship matching, or post doc applications, there are going to be many, many times more applications than available spots. The committees at these institutions need some way of separating the wheat from the chaff. Unfortunately for some people, being particularly deficient in one aspect of their resume, e.g. low GRE scores, can get them cast off with the latter. It's not the case that only one metric is used in isolation, it's more that one would have to overcompensate in other areas to substantially make up for any deficiencies.

All other things being equal, when you have applicants who performed well or even excelled in that same area where others were deficient, it makes logical sense to differentiate between these groups. Why take the chance on an applicant with any sub-par stats when you have many more who don't have these same problems?

And this is not to say that these committees are ignoring diversity. Regardless of the stage in training to which one is applying, breadth and depth of background and experience are explicitly sought after. It's unfair and inaccurate to insinuate that they are not looking holistically at candidates.

 

[gzaz1914]

So, do they teach you that anecdotes are more important than statistics, too?

NO, they didn't teach me that. They did teach me that in-person interviews matter more than paper applications, but I'm sure you're already aware of that. I don't need to justify my training to anyone not interviewing me. My CV also says University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, so I'm good regardless. Thanks for your concern, though.

 

[WisNeuro]

NO, they didn't teach me that. They did teach me that in-person interviews matter more than paper applications, but I'm sure you're already aware of that. I don't need to justify my training to anyone not interviewing me. My CV also says University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, so I'm good regardless. Thanks for your concern, though.

I/O research would generally argue against this.

 

[gzaz1914]

I/O research would generally argue against this.

Oh. I see. So when two candidates both meet qualifications but one has a better interview, research shows that it has no impact. Understood, let me update my knowledge with this new information.

 

[Justanothergrad]

My CV also says University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, so I'm good regardless.

*insert duke joke*