PsyD vs PhD: Addressing Anti-Psyd Sentiments

[Savagebee]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I went through pre med anatomy last semester, and busted my rear. I have found it immensely helpful in understanding information given to me at work, as well as a better grasp of physiological reactions. Working in a hospital/NH setting I have been very glad I sufferred through that class.

I plan on going through histology and physiology soon, but depends on my course load in grad school. I have no plans of being an MD, but it helps me be a better clinician, IMO

 

[AgapeBlue]

I went through pre med anatomy last semester, and busted my rear. I have found it immensely helpful in understanding information given to me at work, as well as a better grasp of physiological reactions. Working in a hospital/NH setting I have been very glad I sufferred through that class.

I plan on going through histology and physiology soon, but depends on my course load in grad school. I have no plans of being an MD, but it helps me be a better clinician, IMO

These types of courses can only serve to improve our abilities as both a clinician and as researchers.

My UG was not in psychology, and I was unable to take many of the physio and nuero courses that I wanted to during my post-bacc work. I'm on my 4th study and working on my 2nd manuscript for publication....man, am I playing catch working to obtain the knowledge I would have gained in those classes.

I do plan on taking as many of these types of courses as I can in grad school depending on my course load, much like yourself. Although I'm going into counseling psychology and not clinical, I too believe we can all benefit from a heavier emphasis on science, as long as it doesn't overshadow the theoretical and "touchy feely" stuff.

I'm a huge fan of balance 😀

 

[cara susanna]

I think a lot of people are ignoring the fact that many balanced PhD programs do exist. Granted, eventually you will have to make some sort of decision in this type of program as to which to focus on, but you can get solid clinical and research training in these programs. And I think that the Vail model is kind of redundant when we have these balanced programs. I understand that many research-focused programs provide poor clinical training, but we need researchers just as much as we need clinicians and AFAIK we don't have any data to demonstrate that graduates from research-focused programs are clinically inadequate or incompetent. Sure, it does suck if you want to be a clinician and your program is employing you as a research monkey to some big name, but you're the one who chose to go there. It's up to the applicant to figure out which programs are appropriate for their needs.

Disclaimer: I do not hate PsyDs. I met several LaSalle students at a conference once and was very impressed. I just disagree with the Vail model. Also, I am terrible at math, but I like to think that I am a good researcher. 😉

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I think a lot of people are ignoring the fact that many balanced PhD programs do exist. Granted, eventually you will have to make some sort of decision in this type of program as to which to focus on, but you can get solid clinical and research training in these programs. And I think that the Vail model is kind of redundant when we have these balanced programs. I understand that many research-focused programs provide poor clinical training, but we need researchers just as much as we need clinicians and AFAIK we don't have any data to demonstrate that graduates from research-focused programs are clinically inadequate or incompetent. Sure, it does suck if you want to be a clinician and your program is employing you as a research monkey to some big name, but you're the one who chose to go there. It's up to the applicant to figure out which programs are appropriate for their needs.

Disclaimer: I do not hate PsyDs. I met several LaSalle students at a conference once and was very impressed. I just disagree with the Vail model. Also, I am terrible at math, but I like to think that I am a good researcher. 😉

I have absolutely no data to back this up, but based on my own experiences, I've gotten the feeling that the majority of Ph.D. programs fall more into the "balanced" category than the "research-heavy" category. This is perhaps even more true now that there are designated clinical scientist programs available. My own university, for example, while having labs that produce relatively staggering numbers of publications, nonetheless also has us involved in direct patient/client care from about the second month of our first year onward.

I'm generally baffled at how the "Ph.D. = less emphasis on clinical work" mantra keeps getting perpetuated.

 

[Ollie123]

I'm generally baffled at how the "Ph.D. = less emphasis on clinical work" mantra keeps getting perpetuated.

Especially given that the average face-to-face clinical hours is higher for PhD students🙂 Not that raw hours are everything...

I think some if it might be people who did undergrad at a wisconsin/minnesota type-program and assumed they were all like that.

 

[AgapeBlue]

I'm a huge fan of balance 😀

I wanted to clarify that when I spoke about balance I was referring to undergrad program requirements, not graduate programs.

With the large number of reputable doctoral programs available, I wouldn't dream of making sweeping generalizations regarding their emphasis (clinical v. research oriented).

I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion....

AB🙂

 

[Slarterbartfast]

This thread, or rather the last few pages or so, reminds me of something my friend said to me:

"Why are arguments between academicians so vicious? Because there is so little at stake..."

I suppose he learned it as Sayre's Law: "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the stakes at issue," and "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."

 

[erg923]

This thread, or rather the last few pages or so, reminds me of something my friend said to me:

"Why are arguments between academicians so vicious? Because there is so little at stake..."

I think many people would find that insulting. Being invested in the training model(s) and the competencies of future colleagues in your profession should be viewed as very important. If you have no "stake" in this profession (and its future) then you shouldn't be in it. In fact, that attitude is probably why psychology is where it is today.

 

[Slarterbartfast]

I think many people would find that insulting. Being invested in the training model(s) and the competencies of future colleagues in your profession should be viewed as very important. If you have no "stake" in this profession (and its future) then you shouldn't be in it. In fact, that attitude is probably why psychology is where it is today.

Hopefully they will get over themselves... 😀

 

[psychmama]

Hopefully they will get over themselves... 😀

I think he has a point. Why must we always take ourselves so seriously? I love the profession of psychology and care quite a bit about the issues. But at the end of the day it's just...work.😛 If we can't laugh at ourselves the future is grim indeed.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

I'm insulted that one would be insulted by being compared to Karl "beard to end all beards" Marx. No excuse for the ladies, either. Body hair can be epic, too.

I one could do alot worse than Karl Marx...AND the Marx beard is just epic...

 

[futurepsydoc]

It only took three pages for this thread to devolve. I am not surprised, but sort of disheartened. I had high hopes.

 

[O Gurl]

It only took three pages for this thread to devolve. I am not surprised, but sort of disheartened. I had high hopes.

I agree. Personally, I was happy that so many members were engaged in a respectful discussion about our field and as soon as I saw someone willfully turn it back to a Boulder vs. Vail attack I knew it was derailed. For the record, I really hope that people keep the present issues in mind before diverting into theoretical debates solely to make themselves feel superior. It was highly disrespectful of the efforts of many other forum members.

 

[cara susanna]

What? I hope that isn't referring to my post. I thought that I presented my opinion respectfully. And I don't really think it's off-topic to discuss the virtues and flaws of the Vail model when talking about PsyD vs. PhD.

But, fine, feel free to dismiss my post as "devolved" instead of addressing what I actually said.

 

[Phipps]

I agree. Personally, I was happy that so many members were engaged in a respectful discussion about our field and as soon as I saw someone willfully turn it back to a Boulder vs. Vail attack I knew it was derailed. For the record, I really hope that people keep the present issues in mind before diverting into theoretical debates solely to make themselves feel superior. It was highly disrespectful of the efforts of many other forum members.

Also, a brief 'after thought'/contribution (I have been too busy to actively take part in this crucial discussion), BUT:

As a former international student (now naturalized citizen) who received part of her academic education back in Europe:

if one checks the official ANABIN web-page (evaluates foreign credentials), the equivalent of a Psy.D. degree from an US institution is a BA/MS in many European countries. I think, taking into consideration the very rigorous academic requirements for a psychology degree in Europe, it is probably indeed appropriate to consider a US Psy.D. the BA/MS degree equivalent in Europe.

Now, since the system is different across the ocean, BA/MS studies are strictly related to the realm of psychology (of course, research, stats included, and the option to specialize). All other topics are taught in High-school, I believe. There is mostly one degree in psychology (BA/MS with thesis; never without!). The Psy.D. degree DOES NOT exists in Europe in the form it does here. A Ph.D. in Psych. is called a Habilitation and rather an exception, a degree one would obtain in ADDITION to the BA/MS in order to teach, not necessarily to practice outside of academia.

Maybe, the fact that other countries do it differently, puts things here into perspective?? Maybe not. Just wanted to share anyway 🙂

 

[Psych 111]

What is the opinion of The Chicago School as a psychology institution? They are free standing, have rather large cohorts (16:1 student/professor ratio), are expensive, APA accredited, mean EPPP = 144.2, APPIC 2000-2010 = 78.5%.

 

[AgapeBlue]

What is the opinion of The Chicago School as a psychology institution? They are free standing, have rather large cohorts (16:1 student/professor ratio), are expensive, APA accredited, mean EPPP = 144.2, APPIC 2000-2010 = 78.5%.

If a PsyD in clinical psychology is your ultimate goal, you'd be better served (academically and financially) by attending a respected university-based program.

AB🙂

 

[Phipps]

What is the opinion of The Chicago School as a psychology institution? They are free standing, have rather large cohorts (16:1 student/professor ratio), are expensive, APA accredited, mean EPPP = 144.2, APPIC 2000-2010 = 78.5%.

Re: APA accr'd re: Clinical Psych Psy.D. depends on the campus. The D.C. campus program is NOT APA accredited.

 

[Psych 111]

Re: APA accr'd re: Clinical Psych Psy.D. depends on the campus. The D.C. campus program is NOT APA accredited.

My post is in reference to the Chicago campus, but you are correct.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Also, a brief 'after thought'/contribution (I have been too busy to actively take part in this crucial discussion), BUT:

As a former international student (now naturalized citizen) who received part of her academic education back in Europe:

if one checks the official ANABIN web-page (evaluates foreign credentials), the equivalent of a Psy.D. degree from an US institution is a BA/MS in many European countries. I think, taking into consideration the very rigorous academic requirements for a psychology degree in Europe, it is probably indeed appropriate to consider a US Psy.D. the BA/MS degree equivalent in Europe.

...yet almost without exception anyone being educated outside of the USA need to complete additional classes/training/supervision before they can be considered equivalent and able to sit for licensure. I'm not really sure your point, other than to take a shot at Psy.Ds.

 

[Phipps]

...yet almost without exception anyone being educated outside of the USA need to complete additional classes/training/supervision before they can be considered equivalent and able to sit for licensure. I'm not really sure your point, other than to take a shot at Psy.Ds.

Sounds like you feel offended. I didn't intend to critique the educational system in the US or anything like that. My only point was to contribute a piece of information in regards to how other countries evaluate a Psy.D. degree evidenced by an official side like Anabin. This is meant for those who f.i. obtain a Psy.D. in the US and then move to Europe and not the other way around.

Sorry if I offended you or your educational system. Just wanted to contribute some information. Nothing else, nothing more, no shooting at Psy.Ds.; I am one to-be myself, starting in Fall. Sometimes, some individual poster assume things. Sometimes, hostility surfaces unnecessarily -where there is no.

 

[O Gurl]

What? I hope that isn't referring to my post. I thought that I presented my opinion respectfully. And I don't really think it's off-topic to discuss the virtues and flaws of the Vail model when talking about PsyD vs. PhD.

Not sure if you were asking me, but if so, I have no problem stating that I was referring to AlaskanJustin, who a page or so back, decided to launch into an attack on all PsyDs by essentially accusing them of not being smart enough to get into a PhD program. This was after many, many, many posts went into people clarifying that at the current moment, with the internship imbalance and market flood, that the largest offenders are the FSPSs. The convo was far beyond Vail vs. Boulder. In truth, regardless of how someone views the models, the Vail model itself is not the tangible reason we are producing 2x as many psychologists as we were in the 90's or that so many of them are being trained at for-profit businesses. I think your point was spot-on in that choosing a PsyD today over a balanced PhD is redundant. However, we are talking about 2011 when there are more balanced PhD programs. Who's to say that was the case in the 70's when the Vail Conference was called? All indicators are that PhD programs had moved into a strict, mentorship based, heavy research, academic track arena and that people who wished to practice clinically did not have many routes to becoming a psychologist. I'm beyond thrilled that balance has been restored to our training model, b/c as I said before, I attend a balanced clinical PhD program with an extraordinary about of clinical and research training (due to its location and joint sponsorship). I may be biased, but if I ruled the world of psychology ALL programs would be modeled this way. I don't. I view current training on a continuum, from the very research heavy to the very clinical. Where a person chooses to train is up to them and their career goals. I think the thing we can all agree on is that FSPSs are off the continuum and not offering a single positive thing to psychology. They are killing the field at this moment. And I still hope that PhDs and PsyDs from reputable university programs will join together to call for action/sanction against them.

 

[cara susanna]

Oops... my bad. Thanks for clearing that up and sorry for my jumping to conclusions. Seems that we ultimately agree, that's a good point about not having many balanced programs back in the day.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

...I was referring to AlaskanJustin, who a page or so back, decided to launch into an attack on all PsyDs by essentially accusing them of not being smart enough to get into a PhD program. This was after many, many, many posts went into people clarifying that at the current moment, with the internship imbalance and market flood, that the largest offenders are the FSPSs. ...[snip]...I think the thing we can all agree on is that FSPSs are off the continuum and not offering a single positive thing to psychology. They are killing the field at this moment. And I still hope that PhDs and PsyDs from reputable university programs will join together to call for action/sanction against them.

Compared to this, AJ was being downright saintly...

Seems somewhere on this forum it was already settled that the true evil Dewars were the FPPS (For Profit Professional Schools). Come to think of it, weren't the ancient Greeks warning us about that scourge?

Your claim that the free standing professional schools are killing the field is just a bit too too. Are MSPP, PGSP, the WI, and ChicagoSPP, for example, really such threats? From your posts it seems you've made it your pet project to survey the work being done there (or at any of your other targets, for that matter), and have the incontrovertible proof showing none of it amounts to a positive contribution to psychology. Well I wish you did, because otherwise I'm afraid (yes, afraid -- elitism is too dam*ed scary a trait for our field to model) most of the folks on this thread are preaching to the choir while the choir is grasping at straws and the straws are sitting ducks, to put it kindly. When you refuse to be more careful with your analysis it's really just so much demagoguery.

But there was one interesting/telling snippet in your post -- the "largest offenders are the FSPS"...which leaves me wondering who rounds out the list of suspects. What about the more slight offenders? In your opinion, what role have the university based programs played in psychology's suicide?

That said, OG, I do want to get back to your initial questions of me... Who knows where all our days go?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Compared to this, AJ was being downright saintly...

Seems somewhere on this forum it was already settled that the true evil Dewars were the FPPS (For Profit Professional Schools). Come to think of it, weren't the ancient Greeks warning us about that scourge?

Your claim that the free standing professional schools are killing the field is just a bit too too. Are MSPP, PGSP, the WI, and ChicagoSPP, for example, really such threats? From your posts it seems you've made it your pet project to survey the work being done there (or at any of your other targets, for that matter), and have the incontrovertible proof showing none of it amounts to a positive contribution to psychology. Well I wish you did, because otherwise I'm afraid (yes, afraid -- elitism is too dam*ed scary a trait for our field to model) most of the folks on this thread are preaching to the choir while the choir is grasping at straws and the straws are sitting ducks, to put it kindly. When you refuse to be more careful with your analysis it's really just so much demagoguery.

But there was one interesting/telling snippet in your post -- the "largest offenders are the FSPS"...which leaves me wondering who rounds out the list of suspects. What about the more slight offenders? In your opinion, what role have the university based programs played in psychology's suicide?

That said, OG, I do want to get back to your initial questions of me... Who knows where all our days go?

Let's approach it from a slightly different angle, then--I think everyone can objectively agree that there's a supply/demand imbalance in terms of the current internship training system (e.g., there are 25-30% more students than internship spots). In addressing this problem, what would be your proposed solutions?

The idea put forth in this thread thus far is that the largest "offenders" seem to be a handful of schools that, despite this growing imbalance, still pump large numbers of internship applicants into the already-overburdened pool while simultaneously matching relatively low proportions of said students. These same schools, coincidentally or no, also appear to saddle their students with large amounts of debt while exercising lower (again, relatively) admissions standards.

Thus, these schools have been targeted in this and other threads as disproportional contributors to the internship problem. However, if focusing on them specifically is in your opinion unfounded, unfair, or unwarranted, what would you suggest as alternatives?

 

[ciru]

Way too much anxiety here. the PhD's are anxious about their turf and think they are magnificent, the U based PsyD's are defensive about theirs and the free standing PsyD's are quiet because you all make them feel uncomfortable. Not the job of a real psychologist. Some people spend way too much time on these threads proclaiming to be experts about things they really don't know that much about. Possibly myself included. Go have a life. Everyone should go out and be the best darn professional they can be and that will be an asset to the field. There are many PhD's out there who are useless and many who are strong. Move on folks. And best of luck to all of you. Enjoy your success and try to uplift not downgrade others.
Just because you believe it, doesn't mean it is true.

 

[DrGero]

the PhD's are anxious about their turf and think they are magnificent, the U based PsyD's are defensive about theirs and the free standing PsyD's are quiet because you all make them feel uncomfortable.

I don't know if you'll get a lot of support for the rest of your post but I'd say this is otherwise almost humorously spot on.

 

[O Gurl]

Your claim that the free standing professional schools are killing the field is just a bit too too. Are MSPP, PGSP, the WI, and ChicagoSPP, for example, really such threats? From your posts it seems you've made it your pet project to survey the work being done there (or at any of your other targets, for that matter), and have the incontrovertible proof showing none of it amounts to a positive contribution to psychology. Well I wish you did, because otherwise I'm afraid (yes, afraid -- elitism is too dam*ed scary a trait for our field to model) most of the folks on this thread are preaching to the choir while the choir is grasping at straws and the straws are sitting ducks, to put it kindly. When you refuse to be more careful with your analysis it's really just so much demagoguery.

But there was one interesting/telling snippet in your post -- the "largest offenders are the FSPS"...which leaves me wondering who rounds out the list of suspects. What about the more slight offenders? In your opinion, what role have the university based programs played in psychology's suicide?

Again, we are talking about the top level of training in mental health. We are talking about the highest educational degree in the US. It is elite by nature. The public expects a certain *something* when someone introduces his/herself as Dr. X. And I am sure that *something* is not that this person attended a "school" (well, business, not university) that admits over half of applicants, did not ask for a GRE, allowed them to write a blurb explaining away a low undergraduate GPA, required no dissertation (who needs a scholarly mind to pursue a doctorate?), and that this person took 3 years to secure an internship. A doctorate represents a certain level of rigor. Psychology has forgotten that. We have moved into this realm where: "I want to help people" should just yield a doctorate. I have no problem admitting that if I am waiting in my GYN's office or optometrist's office, for example, and I see that they got their degree from a vocational school, I am running for the hills. Vocational and technical schools were never designed to produce doctors. They were designed to train skilled assistants. The most common retort is that it is not all about the program (true) and that as long as a trainee works hard and seeks the best training possible for them, then they have earned their position. My question is: when should the hard work begin? Should we expect a person who bombed undergrad, did poorly or omitted the GRE, and failed to seek prior research/clinical experience to suddenly straighten up and find their scholarly bone AFTER being admitted into a doctorate program?

And finally, yes, I said "largest offenders" because it is true that not all PhDs or university based programs are solid. All it takes is a look through a Nova Southeastern thread to see that many people take issue with their gianormous class sizes and relatively low admissions standards.

 

[O Gurl]

Way too much anxiety here. the PhD's are anxious about their turf and think they are magnificent, the U based PsyD's are defensive about theirs and the free standing PsyD's are quiet because you all make them feel uncomfortable. Not the job of a real psychologist. Some people spend way too much time on these threads proclaiming to be experts about things they really don't know that much about. Possibly myself included. Go have a life. Everyone should go out and be the best darn professional they can be and that will be an asset to the field. There are many PhD's out there who are useless and many who are strong. Move on folks. And best of luck to all of you. Enjoy your success and try to uplift not downgrade others.
Just because you believe it, doesn't mean it is true.

So is the internship imbalance not true? Is the stagnant/decreasing average salary for psychologists a figment of our imaginations? Are we concocting all of these job postings that equate a doctorate in psychology with a master's in social work?

There is a real problem facing our field. Perhaps if I skated in through a FSPS I would be more inclined to turn a blind eye and put my head in the sand. Unfortunately, I worked hard, love what I do, and am a truly bothered by what is happening to my profession.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

Way too much anxiety here. the PhD's are anxious about their turf and think they are magnificent, the U based PsyD's are defensive about theirs and the free standing PsyD's are quiet because you all make them feel uncomfortable. Not the job of a real psychologist. Some people spend way too much time on these threads proclaiming to be experts about things they really don't know that much about. Possibly myself included. Go have a life. Everyone should go out and be the best darn professional they can be and that will be an asset to the field. There are many PhD's out there who are useless and many who are strong. Move on folks. And best of luck to all of you. Enjoy your success and try to uplift not downgrade others.
Just because you believe it, doesn't mean it is true.

Appreciate the calming words, ciru, though you may be interested to see a thread in this forum, by the members of a shadowy group called PATUTOSOP 🙂laugh🙂, with the aim of drafting a petition to the APA to regulate, sanction and ultimately purge the evil ones. It's tragically comical -- the letter acknowledges that students of prof. schools are noobs with little clue about matters of professional identity, then boldly asserts, based on a handful of articles, the natterings of their preferred professors, and a whole lotta SDN group think, that they have the lowdown on what it'll take to fix the field.

As one PATUTOSOP said to me, "Good luck with that."

 

[ciru]

So is the internship imbalance not true? Is the stagnant/decreasing average salary for psychologists a figment of our imaginations? Are we concocting all of these job postings that equate a doctorate in psychology with a master's in social work?

There is a real problem facing our field. Perhaps if I skated in through a FSPS I would be more inclined to turn a blind eye and put my head in the sand. Unfortunately, I worked hard, love what I do, and am a truly bothered by what is happening to my profession.

The internshhip imbalance may also be a result of there not being enough internships. That is not a professional school problem. That may be an APA accreditation issue. The average salary may be also related to general economic conditions, and the fact the MSW is clinically liscensed speaks to providing opportunity for thousands of underserved psychologically distressed and financially stretched individuals to get help. I am not sure what the real problem really is.

 

[erg923]

Way too much anxiety here. the PhD's are anxious about their turf and think they are magnificent, the U based PsyD's are defensive about theirs and the free standing PsyD's are quiet because you all make them feel uncomfortable. Not the job of a real psychologist. Some people spend way too much time on these threads proclaiming to be experts about things they really don't know that much about. Possibly myself included. Go have a life. Everyone should go out and be the best darn professional they can be and that will be an asset to the field. There are many PhD's out there who are useless and many who are strong. Move on folks. And best of luck to all of you. Enjoy your success and try to uplift not downgrade others.
Just because you believe it, doesn't mean it is true.

Its funny because its exactly this Laissez-faire attitude in psychology that sickens me so much. Its really a turn-off for me. This "only worry about yourself" mantra is naive, and again leads us to too much tolerance for things that shouldn't be tolerated within a scientific dicipline. In this instance, I am actually thinking more about the prevalence of junk science and poor practice than the training model debate though. I dont think good scientists should be shy about standing up and proclaiming that the "Emperor has no clothes"

 

[erg923]

The internshhip imbalance may also be a result of there not being enough internships. That is not a professional school problem. That may be an APA accreditation issue. The average salary may be also related to general economic conditions, and the fact the MSW is clinically liscensed speaks to providing opportunity for thousands of underserved psychologically distressed and financially stretched individuals to get help. I am not sure what the real problem really is.

Supply follows market demand, NOT the other way around. Thats very basic economics...and thats what the working world (including internship) revolves around.

 

[DrGero]

Supply follows market demand, NOT the other way around. Thats very basic economics...and thats what the working world (including internship) revolves around.

That assumes there are no artificial constraints on supply.

That being said, there are obviously a lot of artificial incentives that encourage an (over)supply of psychologists - primarily because of all of the easy money flowing around due to federal loan programs. Which is what drives the creation of the Argosys and Alliants of the world.

Overall, I think free-market analogies to what goes on in the world of doctoral clinical psych. programs, internship imbalances, and the like are difficult to make, precisely because the market is so artificially distorted by thinks like easy money, accreditation, licensure, etc. It's not like a market for pork-bellies.

 

[docjohng]

You know, other professions that are engaged in professional practice -- such as medicine and law -- have professional degrees, not research degrees. It seems to work for them (especially medicine).

I think it's a bit old-fashioned to believe that empirical research -- with all of its biases, flaws, and hidden agendas -- is something we need to focus on in training when training people to be clinicians (hence the Vail model). Research, and keeping connected with research is important for therapy and for medicine. But that doesn't mean we need to train all practitioners in these fields as researchers first, and clinicians or medical doctors second.

And all this talk of one type of program churning out higher quality practitioners -- measured in actual patient outcomes, please -- is moot and a little silly without actual data. Finger-pointing about who is responsible for producing such data is childish. If the field doesn't have the data, that suggests an obvious area of research for an enterprising student reading this post.

John

 

[erg923]

That assumes there are no artificial constraints on supply.

That being said, there are obviously a lot of artificial incentives that encourage an (over)supply of psychologists - primarily because of all of the easy money flowing around due to federal loan programs. Which is what drives the creation of the Argosys and Alliants of the world.

Overall, I think free-market analogies to what goes on in the world of doctoral clinical psych. programs, internship imbalances, and the like are difficult to make, precisely because the market is so artificially distorted by thinks like easy money, accreditation, licensure, etc. It's not like a market for pork-bellies.

I think thats a good point.

 

[O Gurl]

That assumes there are no artificial constraints on supply.

That being said, there are obviously a lot of artificial incentives that encourage an (over)supply of psychologists - primarily because of all of the easy money flowing around due to federal loan programs. Which is what drives the creation of the Argosys and Alliants of the world.

Absolutely. The federal loan system is outrageous and is a major contributing factor. The others are the self-focused and/or naive trainees who just want to be psychologists without bothering to put together a strong app and the fact that the APA accredits these businesses.

 

[cara susanna]

The student loan market bubble is the next one about to burst, too.

 

[DrGero]

The student loan market bubble is the next one about to burst, too.

It's already happening with law school, reportedly:

http://www.slate.com/id/2288751/

I expect clinical psych. programs will see something like this soon. Something's gotta give.

 

[DrGero]

Absolutely. The federal loan system is outrageous and is a major contributing factor. The others are the self-focused and/or naive trainees who just want to be psychologists without bothering to put together a strong app and the fact that the APA accredits these businesses.

Honestly, what's the point of the dig at the naive and self-focused? It's not they'll change just because a bunch of funded doctoral program trainees wag their fingers disapprovingly at them.

The point is, if you get rid of the easy money, they would have to work out their egocentrism and naivete some other way, without the Alliants and the Argosys of the world preying on them.

I say this as one of the former members of the naive and self-focused of America.

 

[ciru]

Its funny because its exactly this Laissez-faire attitude in psychology that sickens me so much. Its really a turn-off for me. This "only worry about yourself" mantra is naive, and again leads us to too much tolerance for things that shouldn't be tolerated within a scientific dicipline. In this instance, I am actually thinking more about the prevalence of junk science and poor practice than the training model debate though. I don't think good scientists should be shy about standing up and proclaiming that the "Emperor has no clothes"

I mean this in the most respectful way when I say that how can anyone take seriously anything you would say about "laissez-faire", when you represent yourself with picture of a cigarette hanging out of someone's mouth. If anything suggests a "laissez-faire" attitude that ignores empirical evidence it is that. What you do is pontificate and use no research to back up what you are saying. That is fine, but at least acknowledge it.
There is no suggestion in my post about worrying about oneself. The post is meant to suggest consideration for others, and when one has some real evidence to back up their opinions, then share it. There is no reason to put others down when you have no facts to support your opinions about quality in the field. There is a fair amount of personal depth and compassion that makes any helping professional a quality professional. It is worth investing some time and effort into that part of one's personal education.

 

[erg923]

I mean this in the most respectful way when I say that how can anyone take seriously anything you would say about "laissez-faire", when you represent yourself with picture of a cigarette hanging out of someone's mouth. If anything suggests a "laissez-faire" attitude that ignores empirical evidence it is that. What you do is pontificate and use no research to back up what you are saying. That is fine, but at least acknowledge it.
There is no suggestion in my post about worrying about oneself. The post is meant to suggest consideration for others, and when one has some real evidence to back up their opinions, then share it. There is no reason to put others down when you have no facts to support your opinions about quality in the field. There is a fair amount of personal depth and compassion that makes any helping professional a quality professional. It is worth investing some time and effort into that part of one's personal education.

I am a drummer. Keith moon was a drummer...and ****ing Awesome one at that!!! Let's leave the avatars out of this and focus on the content.

I will say that you are wrong about Mr. Moon. He was passionate about the science of percussion. In fact. I might venture to say that he was the scientist-practitioner of The Who.

 

[O Gurl]

Honestly, what's the point of the dig at the naive and self-focused? It's not they'll change just because a bunch of funded doctoral program trainees wag their fingers disapprovingly at them.

The point is, if you get rid of the easy money, they would have to work out their egocentrism and naivete some other way, without the Alliants and the Argosys of the world preying on them.

I say this as one of the former members of the naive and self-focused of America.

My point is that people have to be accountable for their own actions. It is almost sad that in 2011 people are having to call for a deaccreditation of these programs in order to save others from their own bad decisions. These programs have been around for over 10 years now and have built very poor reputations. Yet students either fail to research them beforehand or throw caution to the wind and attend anyway. Yes, pulling the reigns on loan practices would make attending Argosy/Alliant nearly impossible for most and put an end to them, but these schools would also not be here if people were not still matriculating in droves. That part is their fault.

 

[O Gurl]

I am a drummer. Keith moon was a drummer...and ****ing Awesome one at that!!! Let's leave the avatars out of this and focus on the content for goodness sake!

Crap! I thought that was the guy from No Country for Old Men.

 

[ciru]

🙂 Agreed on the Who. But stalemate otherwise.

I am a drummer. Keith moon was a drummer...and ****ing Awesome one at that!!! Let's leave the avatars out of this and focus on the content.

I will say that you are wrong about Mr. Moon. He was passionate about the science of percussion. In fact. I might venture to say that he was the scientist-practitioner of The Who.

 

[DrGero]

My point is that people have to be accountable for their own actions. It is almost sad that in 2011 people are having to call for a deaccreditation of these programs in order to save others from their own bad decisions. These programs have been around for over 10 years now and have built very poor reputations. Yet students either fail to research them beforehand or throw caution to the wind and attend anyway. Yes, pulling the reigns on loan practices would make attending Argosy/Alliant nearly impossible for most and put an end to them, but these schools would also not be here if people were not still matriculating in droves. That part is their fault.

What practical effect does it matter whether some individual student is "taking responsibility" for their actions? They're bearing the brunt of the responsibility anyways with crushing six-figure debts.

Reminds me somewhat of the counterargument I got when I used to get into arguments with people about drug prohibition. I would always argue about how drug prohibition makes drug use more dangerous, fosters violence, etc. And then the frequent counterargument would be, "well, if only people took responsibility for their actions and stopped taking drugs, then we wouldn't have a problem with all that." Again, I suppose on a purely logical basis that kind of argument has merit, but for all practical purposes it's really useless for coming to any kind of helpful way of addressing these kinds of societal problems. People will still take drugs and people will also make bad choices about educational debt.

We can tell both drug users and psychology professional school students "take responsibility" for their actions and feel duly shamed for their poor choices, but that doesn't do anything useful except ideally make one group of people feel shamed and less-than, and the other group feel righteous, and the damage done by poor policies continues.

 

[O Gurl]

I know that telling people they are part to blame will not make them change, but I am not comfortable with speaking of them as victims either. Not at this stage. Some here have even defended their irresponsible borrowing with income based repayment plans-- and even tried to make that sell to new applicants. Accepting the fact that if they unable to pay it off after a while, the tax payer gets stuck with the bill. The shift in our society to "whatever I want by any means necessary" is toxic. Even with the housing market implosion, one has to recognize that homeowners who accepted interest only terms to move into their oversized home are part to blame. No. Telling them makes no difference. I am only describing the issues accurately. On your comparison with the drug debate, it is funny that most addicts will even admit that drug dependence is bad for society. There are still quite a few FSPS students/graduates who haven't gotten that point yet.

 

[AgapeBlue]

My issue is not only with the for-profit, free-standing professional schools of psychology...I take issue with all of them (Webster, Argosy, Phoenix, Kaplan..et al). As a some-day psychologist, I'm understandably more passionate about those that prey upon my field specifically.

There are changes coming to deal with these schools sometime this summer, but I'm not sure they will be enough as I've not read through the changes personally. I learned of the issues when I lived in Florida as much of the uproar was started by the Florida attorney general.

The numbers are sickening: One report says that 11% of students in higher education attend one of these schools. 43% defaulted loans come from these students. That means 11% are responsible for 43% of loan defaults.

"...Many former students said the costs of their education far exceeded what they agreed to. Several students said they believe their degrees are worthless because they can't find jobs and other schools aren't accepting their credits."

Really?

Links to articles on open sites:
For Profit Misconduct/Complaints
Misconduct/KaplanEverest

That these types of schools can attain accreditation through the APA is beyond comprehension.

 

[KayJay85]

My issue is not only with the for-profit, free-standing professional schools of psychology...I take issue with all of them (Webster, Argosy, Phoenix, Kaplan..et al). As a some-day psychologist, I'm understandably more passionate about those that prey upon my field specifically.

There are changes coming to deal with these schools sometime this summer, but I'm not sure they will be enough as I've not read through the changes personally. I learned of the issues when I lived in Florida as much of the uproar was started by the Florida attorney general.

The numbers are sickening: One report says that 11% of students in higher education attend one of these schools. 43% defaulted loans come from these students. That means 11% are responsible for 43% of loan defaults.

"...Many former students said the costs of their education far exceeded what they agreed to. Several students said they believe their degrees are worthless because they can't find jobs and other schools aren't accepting their credits."

Really?

Links to articles on open sites:
For Profit Misconduct/Complaints
Misconduct/KaplanEverest

That these types of schools can attain accreditation through the APA is beyond comprehension.

WOW! These articles are shocking. Thanks for sharing. I am glad the Obama administration is tackling this. I had no idea it had gotten this bad. 😱

 

[AgapeBlue]

WOW! These articles are shocking. Thanks for sharing. I am glad the Obama administration is tackling this. I had no idea it had gotten this bad. 😱

It is really sad what these businesses are allowed to do.

This article on a class-action site discusses DeVry's issues from November and focuses on recruiting practices. Not sure it is relevant to this discussion, but it is interesting nonetheless in terms of how far they're willing to go to get students to sign up. Only 38% of students are repaying DeVry's loans.

"But after new government regulations were established recently as a result of an industry-wide investigation into recruiting and lending practices in the for-profit education sector, DeVry’s revenues are now in jeopardy because it is now unable to continue with its previous recruitment practices..."

Their stock fell over 8% after the news was released. Poor things.

"New rules proposed by the DOE indicates that institutions would be eligible for federal student loan aid if at least 45% of their former students were paying off the principal on their federal loans, or graduates had a debt-to-earnings ratio of less than 20% of discretionary income or 8% of total income."

Yes, so glad that someone is trying to change the way these businesses operate.

I would like to find something that discussing the loan repayment numbers for these psychology based schools as I think it would be more relevant to this discussion...