Psyd- U. of Denver or PGSP/Stanford?

[psyd_student]

I am having a hard time deciding which program to attend-- and I need to make a final decision soon! Please let me know if you have been accepted to or interviewed at either program. Here are my pros/cons:

U. of Denver pros: a year shorter, therefore cheaper, lower tuition, lower cost of living, well-established program which probably means more organized, good practica supervision, broad practica selection, and supposedly rated in the top 3 psyd programs, smaller focus on dissertation, can choose an area of emphasis in which to specialize, affiliated w/ university

U. of Denver cons: location (a big one for me; not a huge fan of denver), just hired several new professors so I don't know much about them and not as 'accomplished' as some of the stanford profs, not assoc w/ an ivy league

pgsp/stanford pros: associated with stanford name (although unclear as to how much that would really help within this profession), location (love palo alto), assoc. with med school so more biologically based/cbt oriented, renowned stanford faculty,

pgsp/stanford cons: year longer, higher tuition, high cost of living in bay area, not sure how the quality of the pgsp part of it would be, many unknowns since it's a new program (ie pending apa accrediation, quality of practica supervision, apa internship stats),don't have full access to stanford campus, year long dissertation

would love some feedback from anyone who is familiar with these programs. thanks!!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Noah333]

I am not familiar with the Denver program, but I considered the Stanford program very carefully. I really liked the people, the courses, the location, etc. But, in the end, I had to take a pass becuase of the tuition. I already have a graduate degree; when I graduated I had $28,000 in debt and I was making $125,000 a year. Sounds like I should have erased that debt rather quickly, yes? No! After taxes and the cost of housing in a big city, etc., it still took me several years to pay off that debt. So consider what will happen if you come out of school with $100,000+ in debt and you are making $50,000 a year (or thereabouts). It will surely affect every choice that you make for a long, long time.

Now if you are lucky enough to have someone who will foot the bill, I say go to Stanford as the program, cost aside, is quite impressive. I was told that they placed interns at Harvard and Duke, locations that never take PsyD candidates (and they were able to do this before they even got accreditation). Also I think the quarter system sounds appealing.

Good luck to you.

 

[psychchic]

I am having a hard time deciding which program to attend-- and I need to make a final decision soon! Please let me know if you have been accepted to or interviewed at either program. Here are my pros/cons:

U. of Denver pros: a year shorter, therefore cheaper, lower tuition, lower cost of living, well-established program which probably means more organized, good practica supervision, broad practica selection, and supposedly rated in the top 3 psyd programs, smaller focus on dissertation, can choose an area of emphasis in which to specialize, affiliated w/ university

U. of Denver cons: location (a big one for me; not a huge fan of denver), just hired several new professors so I don't know much about them and not as 'accomplished' as some of the stanford profs, not assoc w/ an ivy league

pgsp/stanford pros: associated with stanford name (although unclear as to how much that would really help within this profession), location (love palo alto), assoc. with med school so more biologically based/cbt oriented, renowned stanford faculty,

pgsp/stanford cons: year longer, higher tuition, high cost of living in bay area, not sure how the quality of the pgsp part of it would be, many unknowns since it's a new program (ie pending apa accrediation, quality of practica supervision, apa internship stats),don't have full access to stanford campus, year long dissertation

would love some feedback from anyone who is familiar with these programs. thanks!!

I applied to the denver psyd program as an alternative to phd programs. I was very impressed with the specialization opportunities within the program. They have forensic and disaster management, both cutting edge specialities. They also had an opportunity to do practicum abroad. I got an interview but after getting into a phd program on the east coast where I am from, I decided to withdraw. However, if I was doing a psyd it would have been top on my list. I also liked the application essays, which were far less cookie cutter than all of the other programs. Overall sounds like you have some great choices, keep us posted. Good luck.

 

[irish80122]

I can't help with the question but I just have a question of my own... how can you not be a big fan of Denver? Ahh, I love the city (then again I am a Colorado native).

 

[psyd_student]

I live in San Francisco and absolutely love its energy, charm, diversity and beautiful outdoors. I would be so saddened to leave. However, I don't like the price tag or my small apartment. I know denver is nice but it lacks the charm of sf. Too many stripmalls, chain restaurants and suburbs! I love to ski though. . .

 

[congo_man]

As fate would have it, I was surfing the Net this weekend to see what additional bits of info were out there that might sway my decision one way or the other about "which school" when I came across your message. You see, I'm in the identical dilemma: Denver or the PGSP PsyD !

I say "stuck" as it is really is not so bad, as far a predicaments go. Either way, we'll have a winner -- accepting the caveats from our colleagues about the mega bucks involved (and, unfortunatley, Denver tuition is not exactly small change either).

I'd stick with a thorough reviews of the "pros" in your deliberation (which you have spelled out very well), and let those results drive your decision. The "cons" will always be there in one form or another and in varying degrees, school-by-school -- and if we're not careful a 2x2 decision matrix can spiral into a endless do-loop (Been there. Done that).

In any event, that's the strategy I'm using, but I would be stretching the truth to say that I'm completely out of the woods. I've therefore tried to have a few quiet moments to get it together, pull up the socks, and review what prompted me to start down this path in the first place.

In my case, the Disaster Psych at DU was, and remains, a major draw to the program there. The program at DU also allows quite a bit of flexibility (didn't PGSP-Stanford seem a bit formal ?) -- and I really go for that. 4 years is also a big plus for me as I have a rather large family and need to get the workforce mojo going as soon as I can. Top it off, I really like the four-corner states, especially the high country in CO. .... I'm getting carried away....

I guess my point in all this rambling is that you may likely have great reasons for doing the PGSP route when you stack up the attributes they have there --and they certainly do have a lot going for that program -- and compare those with DU. (I was kind of picking up your preference between the lines, no ?)

This is my first posting on this forum and I am really amazed by the energy of the folks involved, and the diversity of viewpoints. Hope my brief comments are of some benefit, and GOOD LUCK !

 

[psypsypsy]

I have a friend who decided on to the University of Denver psyD program a couple of years ago, and she loves it! I mean, this is one person's opinion, but she applied/interviewed to a number of the psyD schools, I think including PGSP/Stanford, and UD was a clear favorite. I get the opinion that it's really attached to the university, with all the perks a university-associated psyD program has. Additionally, it's reputation is excellent among psyD programs, while I think that PGSP/Stanford has yet to really establish it's reputation.

 

[lfeiner]

I am in the same predicament as you guys were last year. I have been accepted in the Denver Univ Psy.D. and the Pgsp-Stanford Psy.D. I am having the HARDEST time deciding between the two. Denver was my top choice until Stanford became accredited (this year) and now that MIGHT be my top choice. I'm not sure. I was so excited to get into Denver...and to think I might be turning it down sucks. I am trying to think this all the way through before i make a decision, but any advice would help greatly!

thanks🙂
​

 

[CAB481]

I'm in a very similar situation - PGSP-Stanford, or Widener (in Pennsylvania). While Widener is one of the oldest program, PGSP is one of the newest. For me honestly the best aspects of PGSP are its association with the Stanford name and also the location. However, being so new is a huge negative for me. Does anyone know if it's accredited yet? I'm just not sure how that will impact applying for internship later on. I think Widener has a pretty good reputation already and has an internal intership program (which means you don't need to do the whole application process) but I can't help but be disappointed with the location. I'm from the east coast and would like to try something new. I'm just concerned about taking a chance on PGSP when I've already been accepted to an accredited, established program. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance

 

[NYCPsych]

I've definitely looked at both of these programs too (UD & PGSP.) I actually think they're both in amazing locations, so you can't lose on that. Both are near great cities, as well as some of the best national parks & nature in the world. Urban & outdoorsy people win either way!

The PGSP accreditation thing worries me, too. Here's what the website says:
"The COA will meet to vote on our program's suitability for accreditation at it's next scheduled meeting March 29-April 1, 2007."
http://www.pgsp.edu/about_pgsp_licensing_and_accreditation.php
So, fingers crossed, and again, as long as it's accredited by the time you're ready to graduate... but that's a risk, of course.

Otherwise, the opportunities associated with Stanford are pretty convincing, I'd say... (Then again, it's still a free-standing school, whereas UD is a solid university. Arg!)

 

[CAB481]

I actually just met with a professor about my dilemna and he said you really can't beat the resources that would be available as a student at PGSP-Stanford. Apparently the VA there is one of the top internship sites. While it is a new program he said he wouldn't worry about the accredidation and thinks the quality of life would be better out there compared to my other choice in Pennsylvania. However, living in Palo Alto is expensive and the tuition is more. So now I am more confused than ever!

 

[patgizzy]

the pgsp-stanford program just got its' accreditation this week. just thought you'd want to know. 🙂

 

[Orbitofrontal]

Anyone make a firm decision yet between Denver and PGSP? IF so, why?

 

[psyd]

This is way after the original post, but I just sent in my application to the University of Denver's PsyD program. I'm just kind of wondering from someone who has gone through the process if I could get some more information.

After the applications are in (they're due tomorrow,) what happens? When do I hopefully hear back about an interview? After the interview what happens? How many people roughly get interviews? I know that last year like 370 applied, 70 got offered admissions and only 38 or so accepted, so I'm freaked out that I won't get accepted, but I'm just wondering when I'll hear one way or the other.

Thanks!

 

[islandgirl1]

according to the calendar, interviews are the last 2 wknds in Feb. given the deadline was yesterday, i'd give them about 3 weeks to start sending invites.

 

[teammonkeys123]

I know this is an old thread, but if anyone has more updated opinions on PGSP-Stanford (esp. since accreditation is not a problem), I would love to more them!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I know this is an old thread, but if anyone has more updated opinions on PGSP-Stanford (esp. since accreditation is not a problem), I would love to more them!

I'd much rather people bump old threads that already have a discussion going, instead of having 14 threads with 2 replies each. 👍

 

[terpskins10]

To those who were accepted into the PGSP-Stanford program (or anyone who wants to chime in): how strong were you as applicants? Do you think having research experience in a clinical lab would be just as much of an assest as having hands on clinical experience?

 

[lilies05]

FYI - stanford isn't an ivy league

 

[deleted176373]

FYI - stanford isn't an ivy league

LOL, they like to think they are.

Mark

 

[jpaquette]

I don't know if this is a deciding factor for anybody, but the diploma will say Pacific Graduate School of Psychology only. There will be no mention of Stanford on the actual diploma.

As much as I'm sure everyone appreciates the input from various sources, let's keep the information accurate, shall we? The Consortium's diploma has the logo from both schools (PGSP and Stanford), and is signed and endorsed by the President of PGSP and the Chairman of the Stanford Psychiatry Department. Don't know where the above information comes from, but it's inaccurate.

I haven't come on this forum in awhile, but looking at some previous threads regarding the program it's been a bit disappointing to see the level of false information floating around here. From the "Zimbardo is not a real faculty member," to "all the internships are at non-APA or college counseling centers and not med centers," let's just say I think people should do their homework before posting gross inaccuracies. So far, other than the cost of tuition, I don't think I've seen one legitimate criticism of the Consortium. I'm all for open dialogue and debate, but spreading lies isn't fun for anyone. I don't mean to call out the previous poster, since this goes beyond that comment. This has been a trend that's gone on for a long time now, and it would be nice to see valid criticisms on this forum rather than the typical misrepresentations and insinuations.

 

[NewPsychStudent]

I appreciate you clearing some things up, but I think some people are concerned about others thinking they made it into any "Ivy League" or Top-Tier program because "Stanford" is in the name. I think some people have become frustrated with others because the name itself is misleading. While it may be a decent program, you have not made it into Stanford University if you go to this program. Do not base your decision off of that.

As much as I'm sure everyone appreciates the input from various sources, let's keep the information accurate, shall we? The Consortium's diploma has the logo from both schools (PGSP and Stanford), and is signed and endorsed by the President of PGSP and the Chairman of the Stanford Psychiatry Department. Don't know where the above information comes from, but it's inaccurate.

I haven't come on this forum in awhile, but looking at some previous threads regarding the program it's been a bit disappointing to see the level of false information floating around here. From the "Zimbardo is not a real faculty member," to "all the internships are at non-APA or college counseling centers and not med centers," let's just say I think people should do their homework before posting gross inaccuracies. So far, other than the cost of tuition, I don't think I've seen one legitimate criticism of the Consortium. I'm all for open dialogue and debate, but spreading lies isn't fun for anyone. I don't mean to call out the previous poster, since this goes beyond that comment. This has been a trend that's gone on for a long time now, and it would be nice to see valid criticisms on this forum rather than the typical misrepresentations and insinuations.

 

[jpaquette]

As much as I appreciate a good Seinfeld reference when I see one, I'll have to disagree on the opinion that the conversations regarding PGSP-Stanford have been "fair." If anything, as I said earlier, they appear to be mostly comprised of people spouting off opinions that are untrue while claiming them as fact. And as far as any "misleading" that has been done in terms of the name, I don't think many people deny that this is a consortium between 2 schools. In fact, I think most people feel pretty lucky to have opportunities from both sides of the program.

As far as the whole Ivy League thing goes, I guess I'm not really sure where that came from. Stanford University isn't an Ivy League school, so why would people think they were getting into an Ivy League program through the PsyD program? As far as quality goes though, I would say that it's one of the very best clinical programs out there. Yes, the cost is high, but I'll repeat what I said earlier: I'd like to see one legitimate criticism of the program based on something other than the tuition for once, which is something that anyone with internet access can find within minutes.

I'll only mention the Zimbardo thing because there again seem to be some misconceptions here. I'm not going to delve into the ethical dilemmas that you seem to think exist here, but I will say that in addition to teaching classes, Dr. Zimbardo serves as an active research mentor for several students and serves on people's dissertation committees in the program.

Finally, as someone in the program, I think it would be good to finally clear up some of the misconceptions regarding the relationship with Stanford. We take approximately 75% of our classes at Stanford with Stanford professors, many of our research opportunities are through Stanford, many of us have advisors at Stanford, and we have use of many (not all) Stanford facilities. In addition to all that, we have many resources and opportunities at our disposal at PGSP. Contrary to what some might say on this board, we consider that a strength of the program as well. As I have said earlier, excluding tuition, I would put the training and opportunities at our program against any other clinically oriented program in the country. So for people who may be considering applying, feel free to PM me and I am happy to give an informed and balanced assessment of the pros and cons of the Consortium.

 

[NewPsychStudent]

I'm not sure if I was unclear or if you are intentionally misstating what I said, but I am well aware that Stanford is not an Ivy League school. My criticism stemmed from the fact that others seemed to have the impression this Consortium was on that level (and putting far too much emphasis on the affiliation when choosing between programs), thus the quotations around "Ivy League".

Anyways, I can honestly say I am glad you are proud to be attending the institution--it is important when attending any institution. However, I feel the central point of this forum is for people get as much factual information as possible concerning programs they will potentially attend. Opinions are fair game, but it is critical they are objective, well-informed, and as fair as they can be. It is irresponsible to blindly defend any institution, even if your program has many advantages to it. The idea of brushing cost aside as a minor detail is also irresponsible. You go on to ask us for legitimate criticisms of the program besides that legitimate criticism? Hmmm, that doesn't make much sense to me.

However, if cost does not suffice, only 60% of students obtainined APA-approved internships last year. In the year before that it was even lower with 53%. That is something I would want to know if I was considering a program that cost over $200,000 to attend.

I love having an honest discourse with people regarding everything psychology, but I have to ask that if you respond to this, please stick to facts or opinions based on facts. Do not refute other people's assertions or criticisms of the program without factual evidence to back up your claim. Anything else will just muddle the matter.

And I could be wrong, but someone disputed the claim that when you received your degree, it only has Pacific Graduate School of Psychology on the diploma. Aside from being a grossly superficial concern, IMHO, I found this off of the website. Again, if I am wrong, I apologize, but when I read this it sure seemed to imply that Stanford will not make the diploma as far as the top school name on the actual degree.

"Upon completion of all requirements for the Psy.D.program, students will earn their degree through the Pacific Graduate School of Psychology and upon completion of the five-year training sequence will be clearly identified as having completed all requirements of the PGSP-Stanford Psy.D. Consortium."

As much as I appreciate a good Seinfeld reference when I see one, I'll have to disagree on the opinion that the conversations regarding PGSP-Stanford have been "fair." If anything, as I said earlier, they appear to be mostly comprised of people spouting off opinions that are untrue while claiming them as fact. And as far as any "misleading" that has been done in terms of the name, I don't think many people deny that this is a consortium between 2 schools. In fact, I think most people feel pretty lucky to have opportunities from both sides of the program.

As far as the whole Ivy League thing goes, I guess I'm not really sure where that came from. Stanford University isn't an Ivy League school, so why would people think they were getting into an Ivy League program through the PsyD program? As far as quality goes though, I would say that it's one of the very best clinical programs out there. Yes, the cost is high, but I'll repeat what I said earlier: I'd like to see one legitimate criticism of the program based on something other than the tuition for once, which is something that anyone with internet access can find within minutes.

I'll only mention the Zimbardo thing because there again seem to be some misconceptions here. I'm not going to delve into the ethical dilemmas that you seem to think exist here, but I will say that in addition to teaching classes, Dr. Zimbardo serves as an active research mentor for several students and serves on people's dissertation committees in the program.

Finally, as someone in the program, I think it would be good to finally clear up some of the misconceptions regarding the relationship with Stanford. We take approximately 75% of our classes at Stanford with Stanford professors, many of our research opportunities are through Stanford, many of us have advisors at Stanford, and we have use of many (not all) Stanford facilities. In addition to all that, we have many resources and opportunities at our disposal at PGSP. Contrary to what some might say on this board, we consider that a strength of the program as well. As I have said earlier, excluding tuition, I would put the training and opportunities at our program against any other clinically oriented program in the country. So for people who may be considering applying, feel free to PM me and I am happy to give an informed and balanced assessment of the pros and cons of the Consortium.

 

[jpaquette]

I think when applicants and students consider the affiliation with Stanford, they are doing so in a realistic way. Being accepted into the program does not make you a full-fledged Stanford University student, but I'm not sure where this perception came from, and I can't seem to find any prior posts of applicants or students from the program claiming that in fact they attend Stanford. As far as the caliber of the program, I won't get in the whole Ivy vs. non-Ivy debate, because I think that as far as graduate schools go, the distinction can often be meaningless. There are wonderful programs scattered around the country, regardless of affiliation, and I believe this is one of them. As mentioned, our faculty includes great people from both schools, most courses taught by Stanford, clinical and research opportunities through Stanford, the Palo Alto VA, and various other top-notch placements, etc. As far as clinically oriented programs are concerned, I would find that combination hard to beat.

As far as blindly defending the institution, I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I think there are definite drawbacks to any program, including cost in this case, as I'm sure you would agree. The reason why I asked for criticisms other than costs is that anyone can look at a website and find out the cost of tuition, and yet whenever people ask for opinions on the program on this forum, they are barraged by responses regarding cost. Nonetheless, I'm glad that you brought some other points to discuss, and I am happy to stick to facts if you are.

You mentioned that internship-placement issue, and I think you're right that this is an important thing to look at. However, bear in mind that the statistics you cited come from the years prior to the program obtaining APA-accreditation. Mind you, a program cannot be accredited until it has students in every cohort, meaning that this past year was the first possible year it was eligible for accreditation. When the APA reviewed the program, it was granted 5 years accreditation, which is somewhat unheard of for a new program. This year (the first since receiving accreditation), the program placed 26/28 (93%) applicants on internship. 5 people chose to not pursue APA-accredited internships for geographic reasons (i.e. family, etc.). Of those who pursued APA spots, 21/23 (91%) were successful. As far as the caliber of placements, these have included places like Harvard/Mclean, Duke Medical Center, Yale Medical Center, etc. I believe this is a more accurate reflection of the program, in light of the recent accreditation, since as you mentioned this is something worth knowing when one is applying to a program.

As far as the diploma goes, you are wrong (and right). The diploma is created and "granted" through the trustees of PGSP. The diploma itself, however, is endorsed and signed by both the president of PGSP and the chair of Stanford Psychiatry. Logos from both sides of the program are on the diploma across from one another. Essentially, the diploma makes very clear that you graduated from a Consortium between the 2 schools, and emphasizes each equally.

I, too, love having an honest discourse about these things, and I hope this helped clear up any misconceptions you or others may have had.

I'm not sure if I was unclear or if you are intentionally misstating what I said, but I am well aware that Stanford is not an Ivy League school. My criticism stemmed from the fact that others seemed to have the impression this Consortium was on that level (and putting far too much emphasis on the affiliation when choosing between programs), thus the quotations around "Ivy League".

Anyways, I can honestly say I am glad you are proud to be attending the institution--it is important when attending any institution. However, I feel the central point of this forum is for people get as much factual information as possible concerning programs they will potentially attend. Opinions are fair game, but it is critical they are objective, well-informed, and as fair as they can be. It is irresponsible to blindly defend any institution, even if your program has many advantages to it. The idea of brushing cost aside as a minor detail is also irresponsible. You go on to ask us for legitimate criticisms of the program besides that legitimate criticism? Hmmm, that doesn't make much sense to me.

However, if cost does not suffice, only 60% of students obtainined APA-approved internships last year. In the year before that it was even lower with 53%. That is something I would want to know if I was considering a program that cost over $200,000 to attend.

I love having an honest discourse with people regarding everything psychology, but I have to ask that if you respond to this, please stick to facts or opinions based on facts. Do not refute other people's assertions or criticisms of the program without factual evidence to back up your claim. Anything else will just muddle the matter.

And I could be wrong, but someone disputed the claim that when you received your degree, it only has Pacific Graduate School of Psychology on the diploma. Aside from being a grossly superficial concern, IMHO, I found this off of the website. Again, if I am wrong, I apologize, but when I read this it sure seemed to imply that Stanford will not make the diploma as far as the top school name on the actual degree.

"Upon completion of all requirements for the Psy.D.program, students will earn their degree through the Pacific Graduate School of Psychology and upon completion of the five-year training sequence will be clearly identified as having completed all requirements of the PGSP-Stanford Psy.D. Consortium."

 

[NewPsychStudent]

I appreciate the updated statistics regarding internship placements. It will definitely help others in deciding which program to attend. As far as my concern about others thinking they are making it into Stanford, there are related posts concerning PGSP/Denver where posters debated whether or not they should attend Denver or Stanford. This, along with the diploma issue, does concern me somewhat, as I feel people are basing their decision on the fact that the name Stanford is in the school title. Again, it is misleading because it is simply not Stanford, as the admission criteria/cut-offs are far lower than those of top-tier schools and Stanford itself. In my opinion, people should concern themselves with finding the right fit, quality faculty to work with, and great APA match rates, among other factors (I'm not saying PGSP does not have these, in fact, I think they have all of them now that we know their recent match rates). But any discussion of what will be on the diploma makes my stomach turn a little. If this is anyone's concern I think they need to re-evaluate careers.

I think when applicants and students consider the affiliation with Stanford, they are doing so in a realistic way. Being accepted into the program does not make you a full-fledged Stanford University student, but I'm not sure where this perception came from, and I can't seem to find any prior posts of applicants or students from the program claiming that in fact they attend Stanford. As far as the caliber of the program, I won't get in the whole Ivy vs. non-Ivy debate, because I think that as far as graduate schools go, the distinction can often be meaningless. There are wonderful programs scattered around the country, regardless of affiliation, and I believe this is one of them. As mentioned, our faculty includes great people from both schools, most courses taught by Stanford, clinical and research opportunities through Stanford, the Palo Alto VA, and various other top-notch placements, etc. As far as clinically oriented programs are concerned, I would find that combination hard to beat.

As far as blindly defending the institution, I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I think there are definite drawbacks to any program, including cost in this case, as I'm sure you would agree. The reason why I asked for criticisms other than costs is that anyone can look at a website and find out the cost of tuition, and yet whenever people ask for opinions on the program on this forum, they are barraged by responses regarding cost. Nonetheless, I'm glad that you brought some other points to discuss, and I am happy to stick to facts if you are.

You mentioned that internship-placement issue, and I think you're right that this is an important thing to look at. However, bear in mind that the statistics you cited come from the years prior to the program obtaining APA-accreditation. Mind you, a program cannot be accredited until it has students in every cohort, meaning that this past year was the first possible year it was eligible for accreditation. When the APA reviewed the program, it was granted 5 years accreditation, which is somewhat unheard of for a new program. This year (the first since receiving accreditation), the program placed 26/28 (93%) applicants on internship. 5 people chose to not pursue APA-accredited internships for geographic reasons (i.e. family, etc.). Of those who pursued APA spots, 21/23 (91%) were successful. As far as the caliber of placements, these have included places like Harvard/Mclean, Duke Medical Center, Yale Medical Center, etc. I believe this is a more accurate reflection of the program, in light of the recent accreditation, since as you mentioned this is something worth knowing when one is applying to a program.

As far as the diploma goes, you are wrong (and right). The diploma is created and "granted" through the trustees of PGSP. The diploma itself, however, is endorsed and signed by both the president of PGSP and the chair of Stanford Psychiatry. Logos from both sides of the program are on the diploma across from one another. Essentially, the diploma makes very clear that you graduated from a Consortium between the 2 schools, and emphasizes each equally.

I, too, love having an honest discourse about these things, and I hope this helped clear up any misconceptions you or others may have had.

 

[jpaquette]

And the broken record plays again. I believe everyone on this forum has heard your beliefs regarding this topic ad nauseum. Yes, it's expensive, and yes, there are reasons not to attend the program including the cost. But at the end of the day, much like our decision to enter the field, it is a personal choice made for personal reasons. You want a guarantee? Go into another field. Perhaps there are too many psychologists, just as there are too many lawyers, too many people in finance (given the recent layoffs), and too many people in any number of fields. If you're good at what you do, you'll do fine. If you're not, then you won't. End of story. The scare tactics have gone on for too long. For some odd reason, graduates of places like PGSP and many other programs don't seem to regret their decision, and yet you seem to regret their decision a great deal, as if you know what is better for them than they do. How about we start treating people like adults and drop the parental b.s.?

You say that as if all drawbacks are equal. The cost of the program is a catastropic failing, not a drawback. It's an unmitigated disaster. Some might defend under the logic of, well you'd pay 44,000 a year to go to Johns Hopkins. . . But, we know your major and the average income for it is fairly low. It's not a reasonable decision. It is perpetuating/legitimizing (by association with Stanford) a model for psychology that is not economically sustainable.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

jpaq: Jon can be blunt at times, but he didn't make it personal. Please keep this a professional discussion.

 

[crdslper]

As far as my concern about others thinking they are making it into Stanford, there are related posts concerning PGSP/Denver where posters debated whether or not they should attend Denver or Stanford. This, along with the diploma issue, does concern me somewhat, as I feel people are basing their decision on the fact that the name Stanford is in the school title.

I appreciate your concern here, however I think it might be misplaced. I am really not sure that one or two posters on SDN referring to the consortium as "Stanford" rather than "PGSP-Stanford" is indicative of a widespread identity problem. I also strongly doubt that people are choosing to attend the program based exclusively on the fact that Stanford is in the school title.

In my opinion it is far more likely that applicants are basing their decisions on the fact that students in the consortium have access to a wide range of academic, clinical, and research opportunities at both Stanford and PGSP (i.e. the merits of a consortium model). Both institutions are highly involved in the PsyD program, and this is reflected in the school title. I do not find it at all misleading.

I do agree 100% with your other points concerning the importance of student fit, match rates, and faculty quality!

 

[NewPsychStudent]

I am not sure where you are getting that I feel it is a widespread identity problem, considering I never said it and any perceived implication of such absurd. The vast majority of students entering into graduate school are smart, capable students who can base their decision on where to attend on more than a name. My response was meant to address the posts of the people who I felt over-emphasized the affiliation with Stanford in the making of their decision.
Clearly, we don't read the posts of people in this forum and say to ourselves "Wow, they are misinformed, but I'm sure not everyone feels that way, so I'm not going to respond." We are all trying to get the facts out and help others, no matter how much of the minorirty they are in.

I appreciate your concern here, however I think it might be misplaced. I am really not sure that one or two posters on SDN referring to the consortium as "Stanford" rather than "PGSP-Stanford" is indicative of a widespread identity problem. I also strongly doubt that people are choosing to attend the program based exclusively on the fact that Stanford is in the school title.

In my opinion it is far more likely that applicants are basing their decisions on the fact that students in the consortium have access to a wide range of academic, clinical, and research opportunities at both Stanford and PGSP (i.e. the merits of a consortium model). Both institutions are highly involved in the PsyD program, and this is reflected in the school title. I do not find it at all misleading.

I do agree 100% with your other points concerning the importance of student fit, match rates, and faculty quality!

 

[jpaquette]

I think in this case, your friend may have been given false information regarding the Consortium in general, or the diploma in particular. That being said, I think the diploma issue as a whole is a bit of a silly one, and no one should make their decisions one way or another based on this type of issue. As the previous poster said, any decision needs to be a personal one based on fit, faculty, finances, etc. If anyone has any other questions or concerns about the program, I'd be happy to answer them.

I got my information from a current PGSP student...

 

[eastbaygrease]

You say that as if all drawbacks are equal. The cost of the program is a catastropic failing, not a drawback. It's an unmitigated disaster. Some might defend under the logic of, well you'd pay 44,000 a year to go to Johns Hopkins. . . But, we know your major and the average income for it is fairly low. It's not a reasonable decision. It is perpetuating/legitimizing (by association with Stanford) a model for psychology that is not economically sustainable.

I hope, Jon Snow, that I do not come off as argumentative because I've found your posts in this thread to be extremely helpful, accurate, and informative. It would seem to me that the PGSP's high tuition can be reasonably justified by their affiliation with Stanford. After all, Stanford is one of the most expensive colleges in America with an annual undergraduate tuition of $35,000. Any degree at Stanford, whether its an MBA or a Masters in Icelandic Folk Dance, is going to cost an arm and a leg, regardless of prospective salary. Though I'm not arguing it's so, it can be reasonably concluded that the PGSP's high tuition is not necessarily the "PsyD for sale" deal offered by most free standing psych schools, but rather is the result of their affiliation with Stanford.

I suppose one could answer this by looking back at what tuition at the PGSP was prior to their Stanford affiliation.

Previously in this thread, there was mention of the JFK Psych School in Campbell, CA. I worked at a social work agency located around the corner from the JFK campus, and numerous staff from this social work agency enrolled in JFK. From what I observed, admittance was not competitive at all. 7 people from my office applied at the same time, and all were accepted. I recall one person who was allowed to apply (and who was eventually accepted) to the PsyD program significantly past the application deadline. That school, IMO, falls solely into the court of "PsyD For Sale".

 

[erg923]

The affiliation with Stanford has nothing to do with the tuition cost. As with most professional schools, the school relies solely on tuition and donation for its operating cost. The Ph.D. program at PGSP, which is not affiliated with Stanford, has the same 30k cost. There was no Psy.d program offered before the consortium was developed. Moreover, Alliant (formerly CSPP) has a similar astronomical cost. Second, the cost of a school's undegrad tuition does not factor into the level of support provided to its clincial psych Ph.D student, as many expensive school's (ie., Yale, Harvard) have fully funded programs, same as most university based Ph.D programs do. Most Ph.D students do not pay tuitions to their programs at all. Most Ph.D program provide tuition remission (partial or full) as well as a stipend between 10k and 20K. Stanford's graduate programs in psychology provide full remission and stipend, as most other do

 

[Ollie123]

Agreed.

Pretty tough to argue its Stanford doing that when Stanford psychology students go for free.

http://www-psych.stanford.edu/Forms...duate Program/06-07/GFS Funding FAQ 06-07.pdf

(ahhh, my giant folder of website links from when I was applying - and I thought I'd never open it again!)

That being said, at least they have a somewhat reasonable admissions rate last I checked, so they're really the least of my concerns.

 

[LalakingPsych]

Hello everyone. I would like to bump up this thread so folks who chose/didn't choose U of Denver's PsyD Program could maybe help us current aspiring students in our selection process!

As an overview, I am deciding between University of Denver's PsyD program and Palo Alto's Ph.D Program. I'm really stuck between choosing the two, so if anyone could help shed some light about their experience in either program, I would be very grateful! Thanks in advance!

 

[WisNeuro]

Well, as long as you don't mind sending half of your future income to loan payments and not retiring, they both have decent match rates at least.