Agree with several recent posts. Disagree with some others, and think others need clarification.
1) Therapy outcome should definitely not be the only metric we consider for someone licensed as a psychologist. It is one (admittedly very important) area of a diverse skill-set we are supposed to possess. I agree that we could definitely do more to measure many of these things, however I have seen lots of "Should-ing" with little discussion of how. We "Should" do lots of things, but the devil is in the details
I have some ideas about how we can study these areas. None are easy, none are perfect, all rely on proxies and are not things I can easily implement at this stage in my career due to funding eligibility, time, etc. If people have ideas than share, but as I said before, calling for better research does not mean we ignore what we currently have and by most measures, professional schools are graduating weaker students than other institutions.
2) I am once again seeing the straw-man appear where people think folks are saying that NO ONE at professional schools is qualified, or that ALL students there have bad GRE scores, etc.. This has happened time and time again on this board, but it has little to do with the point those of us against these schools are making. A low bar does not mean ONLY unqualified people surpass it. I think everyone is aware there are likely some pretty highly qualified people at these schools. They are not who we worry about. If the poster with high GREs, multiple presentations, etc. who did not get in anywhere else was representative of the type of student at these institutions I think this discussion would likely be very different. That person is clearly not the "typical" student there, the data shows us that, plain as day.
3) Several have emphasized the importance of these schools having "Different" standards for admission. I haven't seen anyone explain what "Different" means. Different implies separate but equal. If these schools are weighting different parts of an application, than explain this. Thus far, it has just seemed like a marketing scheme to avoid saying "Lower standards". Different standards and lower standards are not synonymous. Calling it different when it really means lower is just political spin.
4) Not all FSPS's are the same. This is simple fact, I wouldn't disagree. Some may require a dissertation. Some do not. I haven't gone through and named each and every institution in my posts. Do we really believe prof school is not a reasonable proxy for the issues we discuss? Its a label...I can go through and list all the things I believe are problems with these institutions and say any school with 4 or more is "bad" and should be shut down, but posts are going to get longer and I suspect we would not see much of a difference in the end.
An earlier poster mentioned that requiring a dissertation was a "draw" to that program. I find this very sad, akin to being "drawn" to a current house/condo/apartment by the fact that it was not on fire at the time you went to look at it. That should be an expectation, not a draw. Similarly, yes, there is perhaps some stereotyping going on about these schools. Not all are equally bad. However, if I log into Proquest and pull a random sample of 50 dissertations from Argosy/Alliant/etc. and 50 from mid-range university programs, does anyone honestly believe we couldn't tell which group was which? There may and likely will be some overlap in the distribution. I'm concerned with where they don't overlap.
In short, for me the question boils down to "Is it worth it to get the good graduates of this program who for whatever reason did not attend a university program into the field, if it means the bad ones come in as well?". My answer is a resounding no. We might get more people in the field this way to fill a gap in care (this likely ties in to what buzzword was saying many pages back when I said I'd reply and then got busy writing lectures and forgot). It would be great if more people had access to services. However I'm not convinced there is a true "shortage" as much as there is a distribution problem (i.e. some areas are over-saturated, others are under-saturated). That's an empirical question though, and not one I have an answer to. Assuming it is a distribution problem, I'm not convinced upping the numbers we produce is a good solution. Similarly, even in the event of a shortage I'm not convinced lower (or "different") standards is the way to resolve that. For one, it presumes people are choosing between psychology or, I don't know, banking? There may be alternative paths where these people can make a very real difference and their experiences/credentials are more in line with the field. If we start lowering the standards of psychology it will likely:
1) Lead the MORE qualified individuals to pursue other career paths due to diminished pay, diminished status, etc. We like to act as though this is calling, but I think we all know there is more to it than that.
2) Lead to decreased respect from the general public. This could in turn lead to people being less likely to seek our services who truly need them.
3) Make it more difficult to raise standards in the future. This is my biggest concern. Right now I feel as though the standards in many community settings is already too low. People provide absolutely whacky treatments on a regular basis out in the field. I perceive the field as needing to raise standards...we need people that approach things more scientifically, that are more thorough, etc. What will happen if we try and raise the standards of care while simultaneously lowering the standards for who we deem qualified to provide the care? If we decide we want to make the EPPP much more difficult, who is going to be most hurt by this? Do we think Yale is going to be the one fighting against making the licensing exam more difficult?
Its unfortunate that some good students struggle to get in, it truly is. I'm willing to lose some good ones for what I perceive as the greater good of the profession.
