Too Many New Programs Springing Up?

[edieb]

It seems like everytime I read a new thread, persons on SDN are posting about new PhD/PsyD programs that are springing up around the country. This really concerns me as it seems the market is already saturated with psychologists, and even more so when collapse all mental health professions into one (LPC, LCSW, PhD, etc.). Does anybody know why there are so many new psychology graduate programs are popping up?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ollie123]

Psychology is a popular topic (hence why we have a trillion undergrad majors at many school) so there is a demand. We've popularized a model that allows schools to claim to provide doctoral education with minimal investment on their part (couple classrooms, hire some adjuncts from the community, farm out all clinical training, don't have research). People think its something anyone can do because, frankly, the undergrad major IS something anyone can do at many places and there is still the pervasive approach within the community that a therapist is little more than someone who is supportive and nice to people and don't realize things like statistics are necessary to be a fully functioning psychologist. APA allows these things to occur because they don't want to "offend" those pretending to be psychologists who pay dues.

I could go on. I'm not happy about it either, but I don't find it surprising.

 

[sacredrage]

Psychology is a popular topic (hence why we have a trillion undergrad majors at many school) so there is a demand. We've popularized a model that allows schools to claim to provide doctoral education with minimal investment on their part (couple classrooms, hire some adjuncts from the community, farm out all clinical training, don't have research). People think its something anyone can do because, frankly, the undergrad major IS something anyone can do at many places and there is still the pervasive approach within the community that a therapist is little more than someone who is supportive and nice to people and don't realize things like statistics are necessary to be a fully functioning psychologist. APA allows these things to occur because they don't want to "offend" those pretending to be psychologists who pay dues.

I could go on. I'm not happy about it either, but I don't find it surprising.

What's worse is the complaining from people on these forums who got a 900 on the GRE and went to Podunk-University-X with terrible APA placement stats. Given the nature of the business the process needs to be more selective.

 

[terrybug]

I wonder why this is happening as well. Here's my guess:

Individuals low in self-awareness and high in self-esteem + predatory financial aid practices + sex appeal of psychology + those in positions of authority not wanting to squash any dreams and look like the bad guy.

You can see it happening right on this site, in fact. In one thread, you'll see people railing against 'the system' that makes the Internship Match process so crazy or allows for so many FSPS schools to rob students blind... and in the next thread you'll see the same people giving encouragement to people who really don't seem to have the qualities needed to succeed in a graduate program.

Everyone talks a big game when the APA or whatever is the enemy. But when it comes down to it, poor regulation on the part of the APA is not the sole reason. I think we're part of the problem as well - I mean that desire to be a "good" psychologist and encourage everyone to stick with it and never give up, etc. As a wise philosopher once said:

I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror
I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways
And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place
Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think we're part of the problem as well - I mean that desire to be a "good" psychologist and encourage everyone to stick with it and never give up, etc.

I think it is actually the opposite. There are people who don't have the background or the stats to make the cut (2.9 GPA, 900 GRE, no research experience, etc)...but they have gumption, and gosh darn it...they will will not accept it! People tell them that they probably aren't a great fit for doctoral training for whatever reason(s) (see above), and they ignore it all and keep pushing. Granted sometimes those people go on and do great things, but most won't make the cut. Those who make the cut, will usually end up in a weak program. Most of those students will go on to be weak graduate students, struggle to get matched, struggle to get licensed, and then struggle to get a job. There have been people on some of the listservs (Post-doc & EPPP in particular) who post, "It took me 3-4 times to pass the EPPP, but I worked hard and I did it!" That scares me.

New programs at established universities that put aside proper funding and staff will attract good talent. New programs that are at stand-alone programs (For-profit & not for profit) that don't have university resources, funding, and staff to support will most likely struggle to attract good talent.

 

[dramaqueen616]

What's worse is the complaining from people on these forums who got a 900 on the GRE and went to Podunk-University-X with terrible APA placement stats. Given the nature of the business the process needs to be more selective.

I think both the good and the bad news is that it is more selective. You have the bottleneck at the funded programs to begin and then a further bottleneck at the internship level. This year the APA and APPIC approved internships will only accommodate 60% of the graduating class. You have to know your stuff and be from one of the better programs to get in because there is a glut of students. I know we complain a lot about the internship crisis, but this reflects market forces trying to shrink these massive diploma mills which are promising successful careers helping people. Ultimately I think that the cream still does rise to the top and determined talented students will rule the day.

 

[edieb]

I think both the good and the bad news is that it is more selective. You have the bottleneck at the funded programs to begin and then a further bottleneck at the internship level. This year the APA and APPIC approved internships will only accommodate 60% of the graduating class. You have to know your stuff and be from one of the better programs to get in because there is a glut of students. I know we complain a lot about the internship crisis, but this reflects market forces trying to shrink these massive diploma mills which are promising successful careers helping people. Ultimately I think that the cream still does rise to the top and determined talented students will rule the day.

Ignoring the toll of the internship crisis on people's lives, I wish I shared your optimism that the internship crisis would solve psychology's problems. However, I have a feeling that the APA will just accredit more internships as a means to partially solve the internship crisis. This will just allow more psyhcologists into the already flooded market place. Furthermore, I don't believe who gets selected for an APA-accredited internship and who does not get selected, really proves who is a quality professional and who is not. Research shows that interviews are very poor indicators of job success.

 

[thepug]

I wonder why this is happening as well. Here's my guess:

Individuals low in self-awareness and high in self-esteem + predatory financial aid practices + sex appeal of psychology + those in positions of authority not wanting to squash any dreams and look like the bad guy.

You can see it happening right on this site, in fact. In one thread, you'll see people railing against 'the system' that makes the Internship Match process so crazy or allows for so many FSPS schools to rob students blind... and in the next thread you'll see the same people giving encouragement to people who really don't seem to have the qualities needed to succeed in a graduate program.

Everyone talks a big game when the APA or whatever is the enemy. But when it comes down to it, poor regulation on the part of the APA is not the sole reason. I think we're part of the problem as well - I mean that desire to be a "good" psychologist and encourage everyone to stick with it and never give up, etc. As a wise philosopher once said:

My long-time gf makes fun of me like twice a week for being a psych major in undergrad.

 

[dramaqueen616]

:

 

[deleted176373]

Does anybody know why there are so many new psychology graduate programs are popping up?

LOL, it's to correct the internship imbalance. Clearly there is a glut of available internships and graduate programs are springing up everywhere to help meet the demand.

Real reason: There is demand from consumers (students) that are not sure what they are buying (a graduate education in psychology with no assurances of a ROI). These consumers may be short on knowledge, insight, ability, and additionally be naive, but they are not short on access to .gov cash. This is the fuel that keeps the machine running, for now.

 

[Huxwell]

This has been spoken to by a few people in this thread, but I think the problem is standards. There seems to be an unspoken sentiment that anyone can be a psychologist and has the right to pursue it. Well, I don't believe that is the case. This attitude does not exist in medicine; why does it exist in psychology? For the health of the field, I want it to be elite.

I realize that the following is a generalization and doesn't apply across the board, but I feel that the PsyD degree has moved away from its intended purpose and now is the target program for individuals who don't have the qualifications to get into a funded PhD program.

 

[erg923]

This has been spoken to by a few people in this thread, but I think the problem is standards. There seems to be an unspoken sentiment that anyone can be a psychologist and has the right to pursue it. Well, I don't believe that is the case. This attitude does not exist in medicine; why does it exist in psychology? For the health of the field, I want it to be elite.

I realize that the following is a generalization and doesn't apply across the board, but I feel that the PsyD degree has moved away from its intended purpose and now is the target program for individuals who don't have the qualifications to get into a funded PhD program.

There was even some recent discussion on the intern network about how all these students are not even filling the need for the anticipated growth for the field of psychology/need for psychologist. Pa-lees!!! I have no idea what world these folks live in but I think it combination of misinformation, wishful thinking, and dough-eyed, liberal naivete that 'there should be a psychologist for every poor/underserved/multicultural/povertycenter/rural/disabled.'

 

[KillerDiller]

Pa-lees!!! I have no idea what world these folks live in but I think it combination of misinformation, wishful thinking, and dough-eyed, liberal naivete that 'there should be a psychologist for every poor/underserved/multicultural/povertycenter/rural/disabled.'

Of course, many of us liberals are also against the spread of sub-par educational institutions . If I really wanted to, I could blame the conservative viewpoint of laissez-faire capitalism--there shouldn't be any restrictions on these schools, because if they aren't truly offering the best product, then demand from students will go down and the market will correct itself. Yeah right .

 

[Zebra F701]

There was even some recent discussion on the intern network about how all these students are not even filling the need for the anticipated growth for the field of psychology/need for psychologist. Pa-lees!!! I have no idea what world these folks live in but I think it combination of misinformation, wishful thinking, and dough-eyed, liberal naivete that 'there should be a psychologist for every poor/underserved/multicultural/povertycenter/rural/disabled.'

Why is 'multicultural' lumped in with "poor" and "disabled?" And what is wrong with access? If doctoral training is limited to the traditional giants in the field (Stanford, Duke, Ivies, etc.) then it is very likely that the populations we naively want to serve will not be reached.

 

[Zebra F701]

I think both the good and the bad news is that it is more selective. You have the bottleneck at the funded programs to begin and then a further bottleneck at the internship level. This year the APA and APPIC approved internships will only accommodate 60% of the graduating class. You have to know your stuff and be from one of the better programs to get in because there is a glut of students. I know we complain a lot about the internship crisis, but this reflects market forces trying to shrink these massive diploma mills which are promising successful careers helping people. Ultimately I think that the cream still does rise to the top and determined talented students will rule the day.

Agreed!

 

[Tesseract18]

I don't want to get into the political back and forth, but, the pure capitalist viewpoint wouldn't include gov backed student loans or restrictive bankruptcy laws, etc . . .. With the default rates for these programs, what private bank would fund it?

 

[erg923]

And what is wrong with access?

Nothin, obvioulsy. But there are limits. Who the hell employs all of them? Think all those private practitioners are seeing the poor, uninsured, SMI population. Not hardly. . Think some positions might be tax-payer funded? So yea, as with everything in life (or at least with tax payer money), cost-benefit analysis becomes a part of the equation.

Moreover, market flooding drives down salaries.

 

[KillerDiller]

I don't want to get into the political back and forth, but, the pure capitalist viewpoint wouldn't include gov backed student loans or restrictive bankruptcy laws, etc . . .. With the default rates for these programs, what private bank would fund it?

I don't want to get into the political back and forth either, and you're right, it was a liberal system that was predictably taken advantage of by corporate businesses. The result doesn't represent the ideal of either party.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

If doctoral training is limited to the traditional giants in the field (Stanford, Duke, Ivies, etc.) then it is very likely that the populations we naively want to serve will not be reached.

you mean state schools across the country like UCLA, Washington, Madison, Berkeley, Minnesota, UNC, Indiana, Penn State, and Illinois?

I would not consider Stanford a giant in the field and only Penn and Yale of the Ivy schools.

 

[MCParent]

There was even some recent discussion on the intern network about how all these students are not even filling the need for the anticipated growth for the field of psychology/need for psychologist. Pa-lees!!! I have no idea what world these folks live in but I think it combination of misinformation, wishful thinking, and dough-eyed, liberal naivete that 'there should be a psychologist for every poor/underserved/multicultural/povertycenter/rural/disabled.'

Ugh. That thread was a challenge for me.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I think both the good and the bad news is that it is more selective. You have the bottleneck at the funded programs to begin and then a further bottleneck at the internship level. This year the APA and APPIC approved internships will only accommodate 60% of the graduating class. You have to know your stuff and be from one of the better programs to get in because there is a glut of students. I know we complain a lot about the internship crisis, but this reflects market forces trying to shrink these massive diploma mills which are promising successful careers helping people. Ultimately I think that the cream still does rise to the top and determined talented students will rule the day.

I think it's a serious problem for this field that we're "bottlenecking" so many people at internship after 4+ years of doctoral training. It would be much more humane to students--and better for the field, IMO--if we "bottlenecked" at the admission stages by shutting down or unaccrediting FSPS with poor match rates (The APA, however, will never do that). The internship imbalance (and job market issues) strongly suggest that these schools aren't even providing "access" to psychology in that, after years of training and six figure debts, their students are often unable to get the required internship training to actually graduate and be in this field. JMHO.

 

[terrybug]

If the bottleneck occurs at the internship phase, does it affect all students equally? Do the sheer numbers drag down students in top-notch programs or only those in programs of dubious merit? Do the training directors at internship sites somehow get pressured or tricked into matching with under-qualified applicants from sub-par programs? It doesn't seem to fair to think that they would be so easily duped, given the effort they put into getting where they are.

Just throwing out ideas here because being anonymous on a website fills me with outrageous courage, but hey, maybe all these new psych programs aren't really a big deal. From what I know, no one ever died from spending time and money on an unaccredited psych program. I'm not saying this is good for self, profession, or society... but is it all bad? Maybe the folks who pay for degrees they can't use at least learn some good therapy skills and a life lesson or two?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

If the bottleneck occurs at the internship phase, does it affect all students equally? Do the sheer numbers drag down students in top-notch programs or only those in programs of dubious merit? Do the training directors at internship sites somehow get pressured or tricked into matching with under-qualified applicants from sub-par programs? It doesn't seem to fair to think that they would be so easily duped, given the effort they put into getting where they are.

Yes...but maybe not in the way you are thinking. I think most will be able to match (though some don't...at least the first time around). The real problem occurs during post-doc and in the job market. For every Mayo or Hopkins position, there are hundreds of other positions that will be okay with "good enough"....as long as they can pay that person less money. The top & bottom 10%'s probably won't be effected, but everyone else in the middle will get squeezed.

There is probably a bell curve of sorts that represents the total # of applicants that apply to a job, in relation to how sought after the position may be....for whatever reason. In California and NY, I've seen positions posts for $50k/yr.....AND you have to find a way to afford housing in NYC, LA, SF, etc. People will line up to apply for those jobs because they value location over a fair wage. If there weren't 50-100+ applicants trying to land the job, then the person receiving the job offer may actually be able to negotiate a better wage. Add on top of all of this the pressure from mid-levels...and you have quite a mess.

 

[Pragma]

Yes...but maybe not in the way you are thinking. I think most will be able to match (though some don't...at least the first time around). The real problem occurs during post-doc and in the job market. For every Mayo or Hopkins position, there are hundreds of other positions that will be okay with "good enough"....as long as they can pay that person less money. The top & bottom 10%'s probably won't be effected, but everyone else in the middle will get squeezed.

There is probably a bell curve of sorts that represents the total # of applicants that apply to a job, in relation to how sought after the position may be....for whatever reason. In California and NY, I've seen positions posts for $50k/yr.....AND you have to find a way to afford housing in NYC, LA, SF, etc. People will line up to apply for those jobs because they value location over a fair wage. If there weren't 50-100+ applicants trying to land the job, then the person receiving the job offer may actually be able to negotiate a better wage. Add on top of all of this the pressure from mid-levels...and you have quite a mess.

+1

 

[Zebra F701]

you mean state schools across the country like UCLA, Washington, Madison, Berkeley, Minnesota, UNC, Indiana, Penn State, and Illinois?

I would not consider Stanford a giant in the field and only Penn and Yale of the Ivy schools.

touche

 

[dramaqueen616]

I think it's a serious problem for this field that we're "bottlenecking" so many people at internship after 4+ years of doctoral training. It would be much more humane to students--and better for the field, IMO--if we "bottlenecked" at the admission stages by shutting down or unaccrediting FSPS with poor match rates (The APA, however, will never do that). The internship imbalance (and job market issues) strongly suggest that these schools aren't even providing "access" to psychology in that, after years of training and six figure debts, their students are often unable to get the required internship training to actually graduate and be in this field. JMHO.

I would agree with you. The bottleneck that existed at the admissions level has been affected by newer, money making programs that are only concerned with bringing in revenue not creating students that will place well and be quality psychologists. Consumers of Psychology PhD degrees need to do their homework and be aware of the challenges posed by paying for a clinical program, and the risk of never receiving an internship at all in the face of so much competition. The APA needs to be more responsible perhaps create two tiers of accrediting, something obvious so that people can recognize that the degree they are getting may not be all that it is cracked up to be. I don't believe they will ever do this, and I believe that we are all responsible to not get duped at this point.

 

[dramaqueen616]

If the bottleneck occurs at the internship phase, does it affect all students equally? Do the sheer numbers drag down students in top-notch programs or only those in programs of dubious merit? Do the training directors at internship sites somehow get pressured or tricked into matching with under-qualified applicants from sub-par programs? It doesn't seem to fair to think that they would be so easily duped, given the effort they put into getting where they are.

Just throwing out ideas here because being anonymous on a website fills me with outrageous courage, but hey, maybe all these new psych programs aren't really a big deal. From what I know, no one ever died from spending time and money on an unaccredited psych program. I'm not saying this is good for self, profession, or society... but is it all bad? Maybe the folks who pay for degrees they can't use at least learn some good therapy skills and a life lesson or two?

You are right no one ever died but I have a tendency to think of these kind of programs in terms of the recent housing crisis. You have the people that could afford to buy houses and they got their home at reasonable rates and are doing somewhat better although there are challenges in the economy (funded programs and some higher tier PsyDs from quality institutions). Then you have the individuals that fell victim to predatory lenders and promises that anyone can own their own home no matter how much money they make, theses people are losing it all right now (every other "pay for a degree" program with their low mach rates and GRE and GPA averages that would make most educators cry). Essentially, If your school advertises on the radio and internet with the popular "make more money...have a more fulfilling career...make a difference" kind of advertising, then maybe you should re-consider attendance and look at the program with more scrutiny. People with good intentions who want a good job and to help people and don't necessarily know the system and the challenges it faces, are being preyed upon. You can lay the blame on them or on the school, but the bottom line is the APA allows it to happen and it is having a negative affect on many of us. This is just my opinion and it may have something to do with the fact that I am still in the application process

 

[KillerDiller]

From what I know, no one ever died from spending time and money on an unaccredited psych program.

There have been several recent studies linking debt load to suicide in Japan, Hong Kong, and Finland. I don't see why the U.S. would be vastly different. Does this translate directly to unaccredited psych programs causing death? No, but it certainly is something to be taken seriously--more seriously than I'd wager most students take these things when they sign the promissory note.

 

[thepug]

There have been several recent studies linking debt load to suicide in Japan, Hong Kong, and Finland. I don't see why the U.S. would be vastly different. Does this translate directly to unaccredited psych programs causing death? No, but it certainly is something to be taken seriously--more seriously than I'd wager most students take these things when they sign the promissory note.

Indeed, they need to publish the risk-ratios of getting a Psy.D. and suicide

 

[KillerDiller]

Indeed, they need to publish the risk-ratios of getting a Psy.D. and suicide

Yep, you nailed it. That's definitely what I was going for.

How about, though, some studies on the modal outcome of starting a career as a psychologist with >200K in educational debt? I think that would be enormously helpful here.

 

[MCParent]

There is work in medicine related to debt-related stress and competency. E.g.:

Leape, L. L., & Fromson, J. A. (2006). Problem doctors: Is there a system-level solution? Annals of Internal Medicine, 144, 107-115.

Collier, V. U., McCue, J. D., Markus, A., & Smith, L. (2002). Stress in medical residency: Status quo after a decade of reform? Annals of Internal Medicine, 136, 384-390.

 

[Rivi]

Does anyone know anything about the progression of professional schools? I know they have been around for a while, but are they increasing, and at what rate? When did they start increasing and what factors lead to this?

I know there used to be more internship slots that applicants in APPIC and that changed sometime in early 2000 I believe (can anyone confirm this?).

 

[MCParent]

Does anyone know anything about the progression of professional schools? I know they have been around for a while, but are they increasing, and at what rate? When did they start increasing and what factors lead to this?

I know there used to be more internship slots that applicants in APPIC and that changed sometime in early 2000 I believe (can anyone confirm this?).

Training and Education in Professional Psychology has a couple dozen papers about the match and its history. I'm a big fan of Stedman's stuff, but the entire journal is great.

 

[Zebra F701]

Yep, you nailed it. That's definitely what I was going for.

How about, though, some studies on the modal outcome of starting a career as a psychologist with >200K in educational debt? I think that would be enormously helpful here.

Is this serious?

 

[KillerDiller]

Is this serious?

You mean the part about the modal outcome studies? ... Yes.

 

[terrybug]

Is this serious?

I think this thread has jumped the shark, so to speak.

 

[Zebra F701]

I think this thread has jumped the shark, so to speak.

Thanks Terrybug! I was beginning to feel stupid for not getting the joke.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Why would outcome studies looking at the impact of large grad school debt on early career psychologists be a joke? There's enough theoretical support for effects of high student loan debt in other professionals and enough interest in the outcome.... I think they would be incredibly interesting and potentially quite useful.