The Capella University Experience

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
In fact, many of the classes at MY school were so awful I would even consider Capella superior. Yes, the internship and practicum component are subpar (the application process, anyway) and the research component cannot compare to "traditional" PhD programs, but maybe traditional isn't what some people are searching for? There are merits to online programs, and I also agree that it is an unavoidable part of the future of education.

Let people do what they want to do. If you really want to hear what folks like or don't like, fine--listen. Otherwise, project your anger elsewhere.

As Ollie likes to point out, this is a typical response from those who are involved in online programs. "But the classes are so hard...they're just like traditional universities."

Yes, yes, that great and all, but thats a very "undergraduate" attitude toward doctoral education...and thats rather frighterning to me. The doctorate is NOT about more classes and how hard or easy they are. I dont really care how hard they are. You openly admit that "the research component cannot compare to "traditional" PhD programs." Ok, well, that IS the doctorate. Its a research degree for goodness sake! If you don't have research as a major componet, then it really is a bastardized version of the doctorate..which happens to be the way many traditional academics and psychologists view the Cappela Ph.D.

You say "maybe traditional isn't what some people are searching for"...Well, our argument is that doing this the "nontraditional" way omits (or provides limited or low quaility training in) the fundamental element of the degree.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
Without derailing the thread too much, I'm kind of curious about how most schools do go about evaluating practicum sites. I'm a little unclear about how my school does it, but I think student evaluations are a part of the proccess. But I'm also a school psych student which means our practicum environment is presumably very different....it's primarily schools with a single psychologist working there who only take 1 student at a time.
 
As Ollie likes to point out, this is a typical response from those who are involved in online programs. "But the classes are so hard...they're just like traditional universities."

Ah, but I am not an online student or a Capella student. I am simply trying to balance the argument here. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Yes, yes, that great and all, but thats a very "undergraduate" attitude toward doctoral education...and thats rather frighterning to me. The doctorate is NOT about more classes and how hard or easy they are. I dont really care how hard they are.

See. This is what I mean. Name-calling is not appropriate, nor is making yourself seem more mature (and therefore better) by attacking someone's perspective.

You openly admit that "the research component cannot compare to "traditional" PhD programs." Ok, well, that IS the doctorate. Its a research degree for goodness sake! If you don't have research as a major componet, then it really is a bastardized version of the doctorate..which happens to be the way many traditional academics and psychologists view the Cappela Ph.D.

You say "maybe traditional isn't what some people are searching for"...Well, our argument is that doing this the "nontraditional" way omits (or provides limited or low quaility training in) the fundamental element of the degree

Just because the research is different doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is inferior to the research you are doing in your PhD program. This is the snobbery everyone talks about in this field. Plenty of PhDs do research that is qualitative or otherwise not "traditional".

Listen, I'm not a Capella student. I'm on the same track as you--doing empirical research under mentorship, etc. But that's not the only way. Why does it have to be an inferior way to yours? Why the judgment? Perhaps you should be happy that you'll be such a better person as a result of your superior experience. Or are you not so sure about that?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Perhaps you should be happy that you'll be such a better person as a result of your superior experience. Or are you not so sure about that?

Person? No.

A more marketable, and likely better and more rigorously trained clinical psychologist? Yes.
 
I am finishing my dissertation, and for the greater part of 2yrs (after finishing course work), I have been conducting my research with my mentor. I believe I have had to adhere to the same scientific expectations of any other program. I believe the courses set the foundation for my research topic, and after finishing comps, I began working on my own research. It was required to be new, valuable to the scientific community, and rooted in concrete scientific arguments. I am conducting quantitative research, and I would imagine it may look similar in design to what some of you are doing in your traditional programs. I am certainly more quantitative in orientation than my other classmates. It's what I do for a living.

For me, this part has been challenging, but not impossible. I am involved in clinical research as part of my career, and the dissertation independent research has taken an identical path as that in pharmaceuticals. One of the greatest challenges was finding a mentor who shared the same passion for my topic as I did. He is very analytical, and pushes me for better methods and research, and for that I am thankful. I am responsible for the design, IRB approval, ICFs, participant safeguards, data collection, analysis, and results of my research. It is quite comparable to the experiences I had the pre-clinical neuropharmacology lab in a traditonal educational setting.

The coursework prepared me for many of the aspects of my research, and fostered the interest in my topic. I believe it provided me with the ability to develop and defend my ideas and to significantly add to the body of literature on my topic. Did I need to attend a B&M school to do that, not necessarily. In some ways I believe it may have helped me, since I was allowed the lattitude to develop my own ideas, and not be biased bases upon the particular slant of the school. My traditional education came from a school in which BF Skinner formerly headed up the Psychology program. As you can imagine, it was skewed toward behaviorism, and the thought process of most, if not all at the university, was slanted toward that discipline.

Bear in mind, I am not seeking licensure, or studying clinical psychology. My current position coupled with my education provides me the background and innovation I feel needed to succeed in what I choose to do. In my opinion of course. I had the desire drive to do it, and I believe Capella helped me get there....mostly.
 
Yes, yes, that great and all, but thats a very "undergraduate" attitude toward doctoral education...and thats rather frighterning to me. The doctorate is NOT about more classes and how hard or easy they are. I dont really care how hard they are. You openly admit that "the research component cannot compare to "traditional" PhD programs." Ok, well, that IS the doctorate. Its a research degree for goodness sake! If you don't have research as a major componet, then it really is a bastardized version of the doctorate..which happens to be the way many traditional academics and psychologists view the Cappela Ph.D.

THIS. :thumbup: Don't get me wrong - I've learned in my classes. I think there should be minimum standards for classes. But in the end, research research research.
 
I wish she'd come back. Oh well, if we're being featured on Capella's forum another one's bound to come along!

This is madness!... No, this is CAPELLA!

(Apparently I'm all about the movie quotes lately).

Winning!!! That was awesome.

I might add a comment regarding Capellastudent's posts: FAIL!
 
RSDBP - What you say may all be true, but doesn't really address the issues at hand. Is your dissertation the "norm" or is it above and beyond? Do most people work closely with research mentors on projects besides their own dissertations, publish multiple papers in good journals, present at major conferences, etc.?The presence of exceptions does not mean that these are requirements, so one person (particularly one currently working in research) doing that at Capella does not really provide useful information. Most of us are arguing that those should be expectations/requirements for ALL students at legitimate schools, not just options for some.

I'm also curious for details on how you work with your mentor if you are not at the same location. Again, it certainly would greatly limit the type of research you can be exposed to if you are off-site.

IHrt - if Capella students made such an argument, I think this discussion would have gone down a different path but instead a sizable portion chose to scream and cry and make outlandish claims without any logical basis or attempt to back up their statements with actual information. That said, I agree that psychology certainly encompasses much more than just quantitative analysis. However, if the argument is for "equivalence" they would first need to prove that their students are BETTER trained in things like systematic/qualitative reviews, critical analysis of the literature, etc. I haven't seen any evidence or even suggestion that this is the case (at least at the population-level). Even if true, the argument that they are able to produce training that is "just as good" for some things is not enough for a degree to be equivalent, just like I don't get to claim to be "just as good" as a full carpenter no matter how good I get at hammering two boards together. A real carpenter is capable of that and much much more. That is our concern, particularly as I would argue many of the areas Capella is leaving out are among the most critical components of doctoral-level training that truly defines the profession. Almost all of us will have one expertise or another, but I think a big part of being a doctoral-level psychologist is demonstrating that you have at least a basic level of competence across ALL the important domains.
 
As a Capella graduate, I would like to share some thoughts about my experience with Capella. Everyone's situations and experiences are likely to be different. To me, I have an exceptional experience with Capella. I graduated in 2005 from the Clinical Psychology programme. I became licensed as a clinical psychologist in 2007. Given that I am in Canada, I am also registered with the Canadian Registered Health Services Providers in Psychology, which is equivalent to the credential offered by the National Registered Health Services Providers in Psychology in the U.S.

My jurisdiction is notorious for being one of the most stringent jurisdictions in Canada in admitting anyone into the practice of psychology. While the licensure process was probably not as smooth as other APA- or CPA-accredited programmes graduates, I obtained my license here with no significant problems as a Capella graduate. I passed my EPPP in one sitting. Capella has prepared me well for all this. The amount of support and guidance that I had received from the Capella staff in getting my license here was phenomenal!! Without them, I would not have been able to do this on my own.

I currently work in a government setting. In order to get a job with the government here, we have to pass through a series of exams and interviews to demonstrate our clinical skills and knowledge and to compete with lots of candidates for a limited number of positions. Again, without my Capella experience, I wouldn't have got this job. At work, I feel confident about my clinical skills and knowledge as a clinical psychologist because I know that I have received my training from a very robust programme. I do testing on a regular basis. I provide treatment. I provide crisis intervention. I give community consultation. In fact, I don't see how my quality of service and clinical competence any different than any of my colleagues who are from APA- or CPA-accredited programmes. I am also confident that my fellow colleagues can attest to this as well. In addition to working for the government, I have been teaching part-time at a medium-size, local university. I was also a sessional instructor at a large, research university last year. Again, I am able to do all this because of my Capella experience.

While Capella is not a research institution, it does not stop anyone from doing research. I graduated from the old PhD programme, instead of the new PsyD programme. So, perhaps, that gave me a bit more opportunity to do research than the learners now. My research was on the psychometric properties of a drug screening tool using structural equation modeling. I have published in peer-review journals. I have presented in annual conventions at various professional psychological associations. While I am not some five-star researcher, I feel that my training from Capella has prepared me well in exceling in all these different areas.

In any event, I just wanted to share my experience and I hope that this will give you a more balanced view about my alma mater.

Cheers,

Dr. TM Young =)
 
Hello all,

I found this feed via Capella's community discussion board and I must say that the conversations here are eye-opening. I finished my Master's degree in Educational Psychology with Capella and decided to go straight into working on a PhD in the same field and chose to continue with Capella. I've been on the fence in terms of applying at a B&M school for my doctoral program, primarily because I felt like I was missing out on working with folks in my respective field while completing my Master's degree, and I'm very leery of starting this program based on the information I've read. I just wanted to say that I appreciate the comments everyone has posted and I'll keep reading and thinking about my decision to continue with Capella. It's a huge investment of time and money and I really hope that it pays off one day.
 
Sounds like a diamond in the rough here. do you have a website or vita you could share? feel free to PM if you prefer.

I'm a scientist -- show me, don't tell me :)

As a Capella graduate, I would like to share some thoughts about my experience with Capella. Everyone's situations and experiences are likely to be different. To me, I have an exceptional experience with Capella. I graduated in 2005 from the Clinical Psychology programme. I became licensed as a clinical psychologist in 2007. Given that I am in Canada, I am also registered with the Canadian Registered Health Services Providers in Psychology, which is equivalent to the credential offered by the National Registered Health Services Providers in Psychology in the U.S.

My jurisdiction is notorious for being one of the most stringent jurisdictions in Canada in admitting anyone into the practice of psychology. While the licensure process was probably not as smooth as other APA- or CPA-accredited programmes graduates, I obtained my license here with no significant problems as a Capella graduate. I passed my EPPP in one sitting. Capella has prepared me well for all this. The amount of support and guidance that I had received from the Capella staff in getting my license here was phenomenal!! Without them, I would not have been able to do this on my own.

I currently work in a government setting. In order to get a job with the government here, we have to pass through a series of exams and interviews to demonstrate our clinical skills and knowledge and to compete with lots of candidates for a limited number of positions. Again, without my Capella experience, I wouldn't have got this job. At work, I feel confident about my clinical skills and knowledge as a clinical psychologist because I know that I have received my training from a very robust programme. I do testing on a regular basis. I provide treatment. I provide crisis intervention. I give community consultation. In fact, I don't see how my quality of service and clinical competence any different than any of my colleagues who are from APA- or CPA-accredited programmes. I am also confident that my fellow colleagues can attest to this as well. In addition to working for the government, I have been teaching part-time at a medium-size, local university. I was also a sessional instructor at a large, research university last year. Again, I am able to do all this because of my Capella experience.

While Capella is not a research institution, it does not stop anyone from doing research. I graduated from the old PhD programme, instead of the new PsyD programme. So, perhaps, that gave me a bit more opportunity to do research than the learners now. My research was on the psychometric properties of a drug screening tool using structural equation modeling. I have published in peer-review journals. I have presented in annual conventions at various professional psychological associations. While I am not some five-star researcher, I feel that my training from Capella has prepared me well in exceling in all these different areas.

In any event, I just wanted to share my experience and I hope that this will give you a more balanced view about my alma mater.

Cheers,

Dr. TM Young =)
 
The bar isn't set at "Is it possible for anyone at all to succeed coming out of Capella?" Clearly some can. All programs with dismal statistics graduate some competent professionals.

The fact remains that Capella has not designed a system that is likely to produce such a competent professional.

Case studies of success are great for one thing: marketing. The stats of the program and analysis of what the program does and doesn't do reveal a dismal excuse for a doctoral education, especially for a student straight out of undergrad.
 
The bar isn't set at "Is it possible for anyone at all to succeed coming out of Capella?" Clearly some can. All programs with dismal statistics graduate some competent professionals.

The fact remains that Capella has not designed a system that is likely to produce such a competent professional.

Case studies of success are great for one thing: marketing. The stats of the program and analysis of what the program does and doesn't do reveal a dismal excuse for a doctoral education, especially for a student straight out of undergrad.

would love to see how capella doctoral students perform statistically over a period of time actually...but that's just me
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The bar isn't set at "Is it possible for anyone at all to succeed coming out of Capella?" Clearly some can. All programs with dismal statistics graduate some competent professionals. The fact remains that Capella has not designed a system that is likely to produce such a competent professional.

Exactly.:thumbup: Yet discussions of the program (at least specifics) are generally avoided. This seems to happen in the prof. school discussions as well, but its even more extreme once online education enters into the mix.
 
RSDBP - What you say may all be true, but doesn't really address the issues at hand. Is your dissertation the "norm" or is it above and beyond? Do most people work closely with research mentors on projects besides their own dissertations, publish multiple papers in good journals, present at major conferences, etc.?The presence of exceptions does not mean that these are requirements, so one person (particularly one currently working in research) doing that at Capella does not really provide useful information. Most of us are arguing that those should be expectations/requirements for ALL students at legitimate schools, not just options for some.

I'm also curious for details on how you work with your mentor if you are not at the same location. Again, it certainly would greatly limit the type of research you can be exposed to if you are off-site.


That is a good question. I would guess, from the discussion here, I may be a bit of an exception to the rule. I meet with my mentor, both face to face, and remotely (Telecons, email, etc. ) to discuss my ideas, and get clarification. My participants for my research are local to me, so having the mentor in another location has not proven to be problematic for me. As mentioned, I have experience both pre-clinically, and in clinical research, so I am sure my challenges are not as great as others. I also have a firm grasp on statistics, which affords me to tackle more challenging research, i.e. quantitative methodology.

I think for my purposes, and background, Capella has been good. Bear in mind I already had a huge skill set in research prior to attending Capella, so I may not be the best example of other students. Education is a lot like medicine, it has to be student focused. What works for one doesn't guarantee success for another. I am sure my dissertation falls into the above and beyond category. I thought most people would be doing something similar to what I am doing, but I may be guilty of availability heuristic in this case.

Good questions.
 
First off.....60 hours a week is possible when you are not working full time. I was stating that you still achieve your 600 hours of observation at some point or another before receiving your M.S from Capella. Along with these hours three residencies are required, each one week at a time. I have not been working full time and taking 18 credits per quarter, so it was possible for me to dedicate 60 hours a week to school. Now that I'm coming towards the end of my degree I need to gain 600 hours of accredited observation within one year of finishing my course work and the three separate colloquium.

All in all that is what I meant by having to accomplish the same amount of observation time on top of the coursework to obtain an M.S. If someone is going for licensure they are looking at 3,000+ hours for they're state, along with the appropriate degree level (M.S, PhD, PsyD). This shows that getting an accredited PhD or PsyD by the APA is absolutely essential if required, as Capella cannot offer this. They can offer CACREP certified programs although, and be able to apply to those states that require such programs. I haven't posted in a while but it looks like people actually replied, and got frustrated at the same time....Why be so defensive? What is there not to understand about how Capella students still have to achieve the same amount of on-site training during their degrees and after to pursue licensure if applicable?
 
Why be so defensive? What is there not to understand about how Capella students still have to achieve the same amount of on-site training during their degrees and after to pursue licensure if applicable?

See....this. This is exactly why people get defensive. It is a common party line, but the notion that it is the same amount on-site during the degree (licensure is a separate issue) is quite clearly an outright lie pulled from Capella's advertising materials by those seeking to make it sound equivalent to degrees from traditional programs. This is what frustrates me - Capella students present that information as factual but the information is always very vague and on its face, pretty obviously not even approaching on equivalent. It makes it very difficult to debate these matters when one side seems like it is cloaking everything in smoke & mirrors while insisting that 2 + 2 = 10.

Again: How much time are Capella students expected to spend in a research lab throughout their time? How are practica sites evaluated by the school to make sure they provide appropriate and quality training? How is the amount of face-to-face training equivalent to that in traditional programs? I'm open to discussion on it, but you're going to need to provide details...

We seem to be creating some confusion surrounding master's vs. doctoral level here, but let's keep this clear - I (and I suspect most others here) are referring to the doctorate. 600 hours + 3 on-site weeks means what, about 720 hours? I think you were discussing master's, so even assuming it is a bit more intense for the doctorate, that is roughly equivalent to one semester's worth of on-site training at a traditional program - I probably spent a good bit more time on campus earlier in my training when I had more classes and the like, a bit less now that I can work from home more often. Either way, I'm unclear how it even approaches the amount of on-site training a student at a traditional university gets.

RE: 60 hours/week being possible if you don't work. Fair enough, but again, this isn't about what you did, its about what the program expects. Is the expectation that everyone enrolled is not working outside the program and devoting 60 hours/week to their studies consistently for 5-6 years? Based on previous posters, it sure doesn't seem like it. Again, the question is not whether it is possible for a person to be competent after attending Capella, but whether graduating from Capella sufficiently guarantees someones competence.
 
Last edited:
To make it easier, I'll keep a running list so we can just quote it for future reference:

1. How much time are Capella students expected to spend in a research lab throughout their time?

2. How are practica sites evaluated by the school to make sure they provide appropriate and quality training?

3. How is the amount of face-to-face training equivalent to that in traditional programs?

4. What are the clinical psychology doctoral program requirements for hours of direct patient contact and supervision?

5. What are the research requirements? Thesis? Dissertation? Qualitative/Quantitative/Etc?

6. Is the expectation that everyone enrolled is not working outside the program and devoting 60 hours/week to their studies consistently for 5-6 years? If not, what are the time requirements, and how do they impact the length of training for the program?

7. What does a 'Residency Week' look like for a typical session? What kind of material is covered? How are students evaluated? How much time is spent in training during the week?

8. Where are former graduates working? Research? Hospitals? Private practice? Other?
 
If you feel like unearthing it (I'm too lazy) there should be a few threads floating around where I was just copying/pasting a series of questions over and over again on here and/or the MA forum trying to get answers about these schools. For now, I'm done procrastinating;)
 
To make it easier, I'll keep a running list so we can just quote it for future reference:

1. How much time are Capella students expected to spend in a research lab throughout their time?

2. How are practica sites evaluated by the school to make sure they provide appropriate and quality training?

3. How is the amount of face-to-face training equivalent to that in traditional programs?

4. What are the clinical psychology doctoral program requirements for hours of direct patient contact and supervision?

5. What are the research requirements? Thesis? Dissertation? Qualitative/Quantitative/Etc?

6. Is the expectation that everyone enrolled is not working outside the program and devoting 60 hours/week to their studies consistently for 5-6 years? If not, what are the time requirements, and how do they impact the length of training for the program?

7. What does a 'Residency Week' look like for a typical session? What kind of material is covered? How are students evaluated? How much time is spent in training during the week?

8. Where are former graduates working? Research? Hospitals? Private practice? Other?

can I add this to the first page?
 
Last edited:
I'd suggest forwarding these questions to Capella, or searching their site. All of the detailed info for M.S, PhD, PsyD is listed on the site. It would be a lot easier than asking the questions over and over in this thread. The requirements are all there, and consistent with those required by CACREP and/or state requirements. They also allow you to add or make adjustments to your degree programs with the ever changing requirements from state to state. Call the school and ask these specific questions to them, then reply to this thread.

612-977-5000

It's better to get the answers right from the source, I'd reccomend speaking to someone in the appropriate level of degree your concerned with. Just ask for masters or doctoral advising, then let the questions go! I don't have the time to answer everything for you, but I'm sure they would be happy to. Plus, it's coming from the school itself and not me....someone who could possibly be "paid to post" for Capella.

Have fun, I'm sure all of your questions will be answered appropriately.
 
Actually, every programs practicum requirements vary. Yes, 600 hours of observation on top of 3 one week sessions of residency for the M.S programs. The sites are examined by Capella, in order to make sure they are appropriate, with the supervisor being a license holder in the state (they prefer only doctoral level supervisors). 60 hours a week is impossible for most masters/doctoral learners so they are only able to take one class at a time while balancing their practicum/current employment requirements.

The residencies are actually very intense, and follow a lengthy checklist of essential techniques evolving around APA guidelines. The days are from 8-5 and involve some lecture, mostly face to face interaction, role playing, and observed mock sessions with feedback from instructors. They also allow special interest training, hypnosis, sexual compulsivity, psycho-dynamic therapy, etc. in one hour sessions during certain days and allow students to choose an area of interest. It is mostly interaction, and not much sitting and observing the instructors. I must say that it was quite intense, especially if your taking classes while in attendance. They allow students to ask any and every question to the doctoral level instructors who are mostly are established professionals in private or other practice in the field. They break the residencies into three stages, and require students to apply the skills from the previous sessions in order to obtain credit for attendance.

An impressive example from this residency experience was having Dr. Sarnoff do a hypnotism exercise with the entire class, which showed remarkable effects on some students. Some actually admitted to showing relief of what they were focusing on with Dr. Sarnoff, and he inspired many students....along with the others who provided a rich learning environment despite the strenuous schedule and demand from the students, most of which who were balancing regular coursework outside of the residency.
 
So Capella students have a high degree of suggestibility. Got it.

And I don't think any of us want to contact Capella with these questions, they'll assume we're interested in their program and we'll never stop receiving emails or brochures from them.
 
And I don't think any of us want to contact Capella with these questions, they'll assume we're interested in their program and we'll never stop receiving emails or brochures from them.

How will you get the proper info, then? It seems like this thread just wants to find fault in the mystery of unproven information. If you really want to know what the program is about, what would it hurt to contact them and request no further contact? Copy and paste those questions into an email, and boom...answers.
 
How will you get the proper info, then? It seems like this thread just wants to find fault in the mystery of unproven information. If you really want to know what the program is about, what would it hurt to contact them and request no further contact? Copy and paste those questions into an email, and boom...answers.

We already know what their marketing department would like us to know about the school, contacting them would only get a repeat of that.
 
I also think the point is that we don't trust Capella's "contact" person to provide that information, given a big part of our problem is the marketing strategies. We'd prefer to hear it from the students, but they generally seem unable to provide details. It is true we are finding fault in unproven information, but I think that's perfectly reasonable given students of the school are unwilling or unable to provide sufficient details. Your post also provides some examples of this...we're not interested in what Capella "allows" people to do. We are interested in what it "requires" people to do. Those are very different things.

Furthermore, why is the responsibility on us to make sure Capella is doing their job? Shouldn't the students be capable of answering questions about what their education consists of? In all the discussions we've had about the school, I find it hard to believe the answer is anything other than embarrassment. The fact that this continues is again quite telling.
 
Furthermore, why is the responsibility on us to make sure Capella is doing their job?

I agree, it's not your responsibility. But this thread is asking those questions. Whose responsibility is it, then, to get the right info? I doubt that Capella is looking to students of other schools to validate its program. Then again, perhaps some peer pressure will influence them to be transparent.

I have taken a few classes there, which transferred successfully into my traditional graduate program, and I never found them to be overly pushy with their marketing, more than any other school. What's a few unsolicited emails (which you have legal rights to refuse and/or unsubscribe from), if they even appear, in pursuit of the truth?

Shouldn't the students be capable of answering questions about what their education consists of? In all the discussions we've had about the school, I find it hard to believe the answer is anything other than embarrassment. The fact that this continues is again quite telling.

If you're the one asking the questions (and by "you," I mean all of the askers on this thread), then the onus is on you to find the answers. If you won't even ask the source, what's the point? Are you only interested in Capella students' complaints, then this is the path to take. So far that seems the case.
 
Quite a fascinating discussion. I haven't really followed this topic in...years now (god, where does the time go) but the debate is still interesting. I used to be fairly defensive of these online schools and online programs in clinical psychology, but I have had a bit of a change of heart. After actually receiving graduate level, clinical training, psychology and otherwise, I don't see how you could do it online. So much of this kind of training involves face to face interaction, a trusted expert monitoring you, correcting you, in real time. How can you get that over a computer or at a few weekend seminars? How can you develop those interpersonal skills, the professional skills, the confidence, the judgment of correct and incorrect, if you are working mostly on simulations in front of a computer screen? How can you feel confident, as a clinician, sometimes dealing with life and death issues, if that is your training?

And one thing I didn't understand when I was an undergrad, defending online training, is the time commitment of this type of training. I am no longer involved with psychology but in my current program, between classes, studying, clinical training, I am spending 65+ hours a week on school. How can you learn the necessary skills and have a thorough understanding of the science behind them, if you are also holding down a full time job that has nothing to do with your future career? It might work if you were getting your B.S. in psychology but earning a doctorate is nothing like that.

Can we really say that you can spend your day working as an accountant and spend your evenings and weekends training to be a psychologist? This isn't like learning how to play the guitar. Becoming a psychologist isn't a hobby or a side project. The idea that you work full time and earn your PsyD is completely ridiculous. Even considering that is nuts and actually doing it is quite scary. The point is, in order to be good at what you do and even to just be minimally component, you need to be fully immersed in your training. You can't have your attention scattered in 10 different directions.


Now, I am sure there are some doctorates you could earn online and it would make no difference. Maybe getting a doctorate in art history or something online would be good enough. And I certainly think there are some limited aspects of becoming a health care professional, psychologist, medical doctor, dentist, whatever, that could be done online. We dont' have to shun online training 100%. Maybe a few courses or something but the whole damn thing? I can't see how that would actually work well. There is a bigger picture. It isn't all about you, the student, and you fulfilling your life time goal of getting your PsyD or whatever. Other people's lives are at stake. Your clients, their friends, their family, their children. All of that has to be taken into account, as well. Sure you can get your degree and earn that fancy title but what about the people that will depend on you? You need to wonder if that online training you get, will help them and if not, then your what you are doing is quite dangerous.



End rant.


I also have this interesting video, if any of you have never seen it. It is a PBS documentary about for-profit colleges. It is probably a bit more negative than it needs to be but still some relevant insight into discussions like this.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/
 
If you're the one asking the questions (and by "you," I mean all of the askers on this thread), then the onus is on you to find the answers. If you won't even ask the source, what's the point? Are you only interested in Capella students' complaints, then this is the path to take. So far that seems the case.

We aren't asking those questions because we want to go there, we are asking those questions because we are debating the merits of the school. If a reviewer asks me if the results would be different if I conducted a different analysis, sending a response that says "I dunno - you go do that" isn't exactly a convincing argument.

If people have a vested interest in proving Capella provides a quality education, they have to answer questions posed about the quality of the education there. Students being unwilling to answer these questions basically tells me everything I need to know.
 
If people have a vested interest in proving Capella provides a quality education, they have to answer questions posed about the quality of the education there. Students being unwilling to answer these questions basically tells me everything I need to know.

The original post was by someone unfamiliar with the program. Students who happened to see the thread chimed in to give their opinions. That's not factual information. Hell, I'm tempted to copy that list of questions and send it in myself to stop this madness! If you all finally have some answers, this debate of opinions can stop once and for all.
 
We already know what their marketing department would like us to know about the school, contacting them would only get a repeat of that.

Well, that would be the point, yes? Don't you want to expose what their program really entails, so that an objective comparison can be made? Sock it to 'em. Make them spend crucial marketing dollars satisfying your critiques, when you have every intention of spreading the truth and making them transparent.
 
The original post was by someone unfamiliar with the program. Students who happened to see the thread chimed in to give their opinions. That's not factual information. Hell, I'm tempted to copy that list of questions and send it in myself to stop this madness! If you all finally have some answers, this debate of opinions can stop once and for all.

The original post was by a Capella student.
 
One week of 8-5 training, yearly? Am I supposed to be impressed by that?

And it probably works like some hokey workshop.

With 100 or so kids at once, how does that work? What do they do, round up all the crazies in the area at once? OMG I bet they pay them to come...

Hah here is a new job. Be a Capella patient.
 
And here I thought the thread finally died to greener pastures...
Actually, every programs practicum requirements vary. Yes, 600 hours of observation on top of 3 one week sessions of residency for the M.S programs. The sites are examined by Capella, in order to make sure they are appropriate, with the supervisor being a license holder in the state (they prefer only doctoral level supervisors).

But that makes very little sense considering the "intent" provided by the MS program. Students are required to have a doctoral level supervisor at a MS level (severely cutting the options of many sites) and when there is one facility that will perform that task, you see the "bull" of Capella University. In fact, I still have no idea what are the requirements besides doctoral level supervisor...and that's from my intern hunting experience. (no I still don't have one)

The residencies are actually very intense, and follow a lengthy checklist of essential techniques evolving around APA guidelines. The days are from 8-5 and involve some lecture, mostly face to face interaction, role playing, and observed mock sessions with feedback from instructors. They also allow special interest training, hypnosis, sexual compulsivity, psycho-dynamic therapy, etc.

And while that's understandable, for the proverbial bang for buck, I would really prefer students to see actual clients and/or increased face time. The special training allowed is a seminar, it's not training, very little training occurs. Let's keep some facts here. Maybe a round table discussion is a better description of the special topic, but very little as far as applicability is learned. Now POSSIBLE applicability is spurred through the seminar experience but that's about it.

An impressive example from this residency experience was having Dr. Sarnoff do a hypnotism exercise with the entire class, which showed remarkable effects on some students. Some actually admitted to showing relief of what they were focusing on with Dr. Sarnoff, and he inspired many students....along with the others who provided a rich learning environment despite the strenuous schedule and demand from the students, most of which who were balancing regular coursework outside of the residency.

Personally attending that seminar for my first colloquium, I found it interesting yes. But essentially, it provided me the whole dynamic of more face time is necessary to be at the level of our peers.

And snide comments aside, that is the crux of my argument. Capella students need to be on par with peers in the profession in order for the school to at least feign competence. And, understandably, it is impossible to provide that at the MS level. But what about the doctoral level? Isn't there some magical set of rules that mandate that a school adheres to the minimum set of requirements to indicate that the level of instruction is at least on par with other programs? Man I wish that existed...

Oh wait...it does...

So Capella students have a high degree of suggestibility. Got it.

And I don't think any of us want to contact Capella with these questions, they'll assume we're interested in their program and we'll never stop receiving emails or brochures from them.

They are pretty pushy...

How will you get the proper info, then? It seems like this thread just wants to find fault in the mystery of unproven information. If you really want to know what the program is about, what would it hurt to contact them and request no further contact? Copy and paste those questions into an email, and boom...answers.

Experiences differ. I think we've all been exposed to an admission representative that gives a school a rousing review, but then realize the school is absolute crap. I think that's why...

Plus, what's wrong with a dialog like this? I mean there has to be a student's POV, both positive and negative experiences to get a balanced view.

The original post was by someone unfamiliar with the program

I still go to the school. Why else do you think I made this topic? It wasn't to say that the school is bad at everything. It's not and I've said that ad nauseum. The problem is competence. I am not going to call a pig with lipstick on and a fancy dress a lady. It's still a pig. Same here. I don't think Capella provides competent psychologists solely on their program alone especially for an early graduate professional.

One week of 8-5 training, yearly? Am I supposed to be impressed by that?

It really isn't...
 
One week of 8-5 training, yearly? Am I supposed to be impressed by that?

That can't be right. There is no way they are only getting 3 weeks of face to face training, in the entire program. That is pure insanity. Someone needs to double check those numbers because having psychologist out there practicing, with such a small amount of training, is too disturbing to think about. Maybe I have just completely forgot about how these online programs work but that is far less than I remember reading about.
 
One week of 8-5 training, yearly? Am I supposed to be impressed by that?

HEY....they got hypnotized! What are you complaining about? :laugh:

Actually, every programs practicum requirements vary. Yes, 600 hours of observation on top of 3 one week sessions of residency for the M.S programs. The sites are examined by Capella, in order to make sure they are appropriate,

Seriously, are we understanding you correctly here? Correct me if I'm misinterpreting.

I don't know what kind of training experience one can get in 3 one week sessions. Obviously, one can't conduct treatment with patients in a goofy set up like that. And how on earth would watching your classmates get "hypnotized" by a supervisor help you with your patients!? What clinical skill set does that develop exactly?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the Frontline link, interesting stuff.

I actually think at one point they profile a woman that received her clinical PsyD from one of the Argosy campuses that isn't APA accredited. The entire segment she talks about how she can't find a job, she can't get a license, and her student loan debt is extremely high. And that is someone that received training that was far more traditional than Capella but the lack of accreditation and the debt has completely crippled her. So the professional schools are bad enough but add the problems that Capella has, on top of the already grim situation at a professional school, and I don't see how anyone is getting out of there in even a minimally acceptable position; at least not in a mental health field. Maybe they do have other graduate programs that are worth it, but you would almost certainly be better off just ending with a bachelors than earning your masters or doctorate in clinical or counseling psychology, from any of these online colleges.
 
Last edited:
I think we can sum this up as...If you went to Capella, you got served

served, swerved and all of the above
I have a few things to do to the opening post
I'm thinking if this thread is a resource, make it one.

One plan is to include exactly where you can get licensed at both Master's and Doctoral level State by State by going to Capella University. Unfortunately no license in IL for Clinical Psychology for LPC. Now surprisingly, there was this supposed big wig lawyer said yeah IL will get licensed. So with that said, I am posting a huge sheet of where a person may or may not get licensed at both levels so no one else makes the mistake of going to Capella University
 

Graduated with a PhD from Capella University in Minnesota and attended Harvard for a graduate study in psychology

I may be nitpicking, but this sounds a little...misleading. It's an online program -- why is the location of its headquarters stated? Seems like this may lead a reasonable layperson to believe that it's a B&M program. Also, if "a graduate study in psychology" is important enough to list in the same sentence with your PhD and isn't included just to name drop, you may want to clarify what it means. :rolleyes:
 
I may be nitpicking, but this sounds a little...misleading. It's an online program -- why is the location of its headquarters stated? Seems like this may lead a reasonable layperson to believe that it's a B&M program. Also, if "a graduate study in psychology" is important enough to list in the same sentence with your PhD and isn't included just to name drop, you may want to clarify what it means. :rolleyes:

I agree with you about the Harvard thing--but "attended" (without a degree) really doesn't mean much of anything and I think most people realize that.

As for Capella, that's a tough one--it is, indeed, located in Minnesota and accredited there. It's not a lie. Not sure it's necessary to put a location, though. It's an accredited degree, and anyone who knows the field will know what/where it is.
 
Harvard also wasn't APA-accredited until June 4, 2008. They are extremely research-focused and I've heard that students who went there had no need for APA-accreditation as they pursued academic careers.
 
Harvard also wasn't APA-accredited until June 4, 2008. They are extremely research-focused and I've heard that students who went there had no need for APA-accreditation as they pursued academic careers.

I've never seen a tenure-track faculty position advertisement that didn't require applicants to have attended both an APA program and an APA internship though...hmmmm
 
Top