Walden and Capella?

[greenfiremajick]

I'm confused....If Walden and Capella's clinical psych, PhD programs are not APA accredited programs, how are the graduates finding their jobs???? I mean, who's hiring them?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

I have always wondered the same thing, although, I think its the stigma of having an "online degree" that really kills them in the job market. I'm sure some go into private practice, or maybe community mental health centers. I'm not really sure though.

 

[greenfiremajick]

I have always wondered the same thing, although, I think its the stigma of having an "online degree" that really kills them in the job market. I'm sure some go into private practice, or maybe community mental health centers. I'm not really sure though.

Yeah, I looked into them and then started seeing all these ads for prospective employees, that were required to have finished their degree with an APA accredited school, as well as internship....So how in the world are these people getting jobs?

I've also read some of the threads on here, concerning Capella and Walden....I keep thinking about how distance programs are now CACREP accredited, in regards to mental health and marriage and family therapists......
I wonder how much these programs were disregarded, etc??

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

A search in the Clinical forum will bring up some good discussions about both of those schools. In short....run far far away from them.

 

[greenfiremajick]

A search in the Clinical forum will bring up some good discussions about both of those schools. In short....run far far away from them.

So what's your opinion on their CACREP accredited program for marriage and family therapy? And anyone else's that would like to contribute....

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

So what's your opinion on their CACREP accredited program for marriage and family therapy? And anyone else's that would like to contribute....

From my understanding, CACREP is a legit counseling accreditation, and as long as the person can get their hours in for the licensure, I don't see a problem....BUT, you'd still be stuck with being from an online program. It isn't like it will say, "ONLINE" on the diploma, but since both of those are online Uni's (or largely so), the stigma could still come along. Ultimately you need to find something that meets your needs, and go from there.

As an aside, I am admittedly biased against most/all online training....so take all of my comments with a large grain of salt.

 

[PsyDr]

i looked at their alumni stuff:

they report their alumni working in such places as:

-private practice
-NYPD
-NY state office of mental health
-some hawaiian hospital
-dean of judicial affairs for UT arlington

saybrook also reports having alumni work as professors and private practice and such.

however, most frightening is that saybrook reports that one of their alumni RAN AN APA APPROVED INTERNSHIP SITE AND TAUGHT MEDICAL SCHOOL.

 

[JockNerd]

however, most frightening is that saybrook reports that one of their alumni RAN AN APA APPROVED INTERNSHIP SITE AND TAUGHT MEDICAL SCHOOL.

Many already-established PhDs and MDs get a distance degree from Saybrook out of interest in humanistic psych. This is how they get away with that 0% internship rate. Could be one of those folks.

 

[JockNerd]

Oh, and "taught medical school" isn't necessarily prestigious

 

[PsyDr]

Jocknerd,

i was not speaking as to prestige. Rather, i meant to convey concern that individuals with online degrees may give negative impressions of the profession to other health care providers.

 

[psychwhy]

For the love of empiricism, T4C will you ever get off your soapbox and maybe -- just maybe -- admit you might be wrong?
Or maybe you should actually finish school and work in the profession before making global pronouncements about program quality.

Therapist4Change? Do you even see the irony in that?

Therapist4Chnge: In short....run far far away from them.

and then ...

Therapist4Chnge: As an aside, I am admittedly biased against most/all online training....so take all of my comments with a large grain of salt.

What? Is that supposed to be some sort of disclaimer?

Greenfire, to answer your question -- Capella and Walden grads work in all of the places other grads do. With the exception, of course, of those which require APA programs and/or internships. But other than the VA system, there aren't as many as you might think.

The truth of the matter is the "stigma" plays out mostly in rarefied places like this board. Out there in the real world, most people only care that you have a doctorate from a regionally accredited university.

Personally, I externed at a federal prison, interned at state forensic center, worked at a different state forensic center and now work for an agency that places clinicians in health care centers. Oh, I also hold adjunct appointments to two universities, am license eligible, and my dissertation won the annual award from an APA division.

A Capella grad who is doing just fine

 

[deleted176373]

The truth of the matter is the "stigma" plays out mostly in rarefied places like this board. Out there in the real world, most people only care that you have a doctorate from a regionally accredited university.

A Capella grad who is doing just fine

I wouldn't call most federal positions (e.g. all VA psychologist positions, all military psychologist positions) and a whole host of other places as "rarefied". It seriously limits your marketability, but as you note, does not prevent success. Even some entire states require an APA accredited degree (Florida, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Utah come to mind.) to become licensed as a psychologist.

Maybe in your mind eliminating entire federal sectors and large geographic sections of the country = "rarefied", I see as a little limiting to be honest. You should be honest with yourself and others, as there are positions that you will never be qualified to hold because your degree lacks the appropriate accreditation.

I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between those who clamor that APA accredited programs are the legitimate path to professional certification and smart people like yourself who see value and opportunity in non-APA accredited degrees.

Mark

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Greenfire, to answer your question -- Capella and Walden grads work in all of the places other grads do. With the exception, of course, of those which require APA programs and/or internships. But other than the VA system, there aren't as many as you might think.

I've consulted with a number of people in the field (academic, pp, and hospital) and they've all recommended not only APA programs, but APA internships, and preferably formal post-docs. This isn't always possible, it gives the person the option to be the most competitive out in the field.

The reason why I caution against non-apa programs is that off the bat it limits where a person can train, and then where a person can work. After going through 5, 6, etc. years of training, I wouldn't want to find out that I am not qualified/allowed to work in certain areas.

As mentioned, there are some states where the person can't get licensed, and many gov't jobs (outside of the VA) that won't hire a non-APA program grad. In private practice it won't matter, but any relatively competitive placement will have APA accreditation as the first rule out, since that is seen as the standard in the field.

Obviously it is still possible to be successful, but considering the field is already competitive, adding another hurdle (that can typically be avoided) should at least be discussed.

 

[psychwhy]

I wouldn't call most federal positions (e.g. all VA psychologist positions, all military psychologist positions) and a whole host of other places as "rarefied". It seriously limits your marketability, but as you note, does not prevent success. Even some entire states require an APA accredited degree (Florida, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Utah come to mind.) to become licensed as a psychologist.

Maybe in your mind eliminating entire federal sectors and large geographic sections of the country = "rarefied", I see as a little limiting to be honest. You should be honest with yourself and others, as there are positions that you will never be qualified to hold because your degree lacks the appropriate accreditation.

Actually, Mark, I have always been honest with myself and others who ask about the marketability of non-APA degrees ... it is forums like this which have resorted to all sorts of character-bashing and hyperbole.

You seem to forget I DID spend a year in the federal bureau of prisons. In fact, I had a job waiting for me after internship if it had not been for my AGE! (No problems with my degree!). As for the "entire states", yes there are some that require APA accreditation. But that does not speak to Capella, Walden and other distance delivered programs directly. The truth that is overlooked by many distance naysayers is that there are some CAMPUS-based programs which are not APA-accredited -- the reasons for which run the gamut from being substandard to not wanting to capitulate to APA politics.

For those of you who unwaveringly declare that APA accreditation is a standard of quality, are you members of APA/APAGS? Do you even know what the accreditation standards are? Are you involved in APA and/or your state association? It is rather disingenuous that many people accept the mantra that "only APA accredited = good" with little or no understanding of what it actually means!

As for "entire federal sectors," the ONLY one which is unyielding is the VA. I have first hand knowledge of several people who have been granted waivers in many other federal agencies for the simple fact that there is a shortage of trained psychologists! And, hold on to your ivory towers, many of you APA-program students will likely not be able to work for the VA because you are not going to be able to secure an APA-accredited INTERNSHIP. (Check other threads for the discussions about the disparity of intern positions to applicants.)

So, yes, absolutely caveat emptor.

By all means, let's have a frank and honest discussion about the inherent risks in pursuing a career in psychology. But please could we stop with the reflexive and unsubstantiated "distance = bad"? I have yet to see anyone supply anything other than personal opinion and/or emotional rhetoric in declaring distance programs unsatisfactory.

 

[psychwhy]

Obviously it is still possible to be successful, but considering the field is already competitive, adding another hurdle (that can typically be avoided) should at least be discussed.

Thank you for finally backing off of your previously absolute anti-distance statements. This sentiment is one that has been shared repeatedly, usually by those of us from non-APA programs. We are not naive as to the hurdles but that is not the same as bashing different programs.

Let's have the discussion, absolutely. But let's base it on evidence, not innuendo.

I've consulted with a number of people in the field (academic, pp, and hospital) and they've all recommended not only APA programs, but APA internships, and preferably formal post-docs. This isn't always possible, it gives the person the option to be the most competitive out in the field.

Well, duh ... and we'd all benefit from graduating from Harvard or Yale, but for the vast majority of us that isn't likely to happen.

The harsh reality is that we all start with an Plan A but as most everyone who's made it through to becoming a psychologist, they will tell you they ended up at Plan H or J by the time they finished.

What distresses me is the incessant drum beat on this forum that it must be "Plan A or nothing."

Real life will likely intrude for many of us. Fortunately, even in psychology, there are alternate pathways which permit us to achieve personal and professional goals.

The reason why I caution against non-apa programs is that off the bat it limits where a person can train, and then where a person can work. After going through 5, 6, etc. years of training, I wouldn't want to find out that I am not qualified/allowed to work in certain areas.

Ah, T4C, wake up and smell specialization.

Truth is you will spend > 5 years training and already be limited in your professional scope (assuming you are going to adhere to the code of ethics regarding competency).

You probably will not be qualified as a child, forensic, health, gero- or neuropsychologist. You will need to secure additional training if you are truly going to be qualified in one of those sub-specialties.

Try applying for a job as a forensic evaluator after interning in a child program. Heck, try getting a health INTERNSHIP after externing in a college counseling center.

Specialization begins limiting your choices during training not after it.

As mentioned, there are some states where the person can't get licensed, and many gov't jobs (outside of the VA) that won't hire a non-APA program grad. In private practice it won't matter, but any relatively competitive placement will have APA accreditation as the first rule out, since that is seen as the standard in the field.

Actually it is not a "standard in the field" it is a shortcut in evaluation.
The explanation for the VA is that they want APA accreditation/internship because then the psychologist (theoretically) is license eligible in all 50 states. However, in the Bureau of Prisons, as a federal agency, all they require is that you are able to be licensed in ANY of the 50 states.

Care to explain why those two agencies chose to be on opposite ends of the strict/liberal interpretation of qualification? I can't.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Real life will likely intrude for many of us. Fortunately, even in psychology, there are alternate pathways which permit us to achieve personal and professional goals.

I understand that 'real life' gets in the way, but my issue with distance learning is that I don't believe clinical psychology training can be translated using that medium, and I think it is irresponsible for programs to offer it.

Actually it is not a "standard in the field" it is a shortcut in evaluation. The explanation for the VA is that they want APA accreditation/internship because then the psychologist (theoretically) is license eligible in all 50 states. However, in the Bureau of Prisons, as a federal agency, all they require is that you are able to be licensed in ANY of the 50 states.

Care to explain why those two agencies chose to be on opposite ends of the strict/liberal interpretation of qualification? I can't.

Supply and demand. VA hospitals can require higher standards because many people want to work at a VA (good hours, nice benefits, stable, etc)....while the BOP needs to pay more and be more flexible on their requirements because they can't get enough people to work.

As for APA-acred, it is a shortcut for licensing boards, but I think amongst professionals it is considered the standard. Obviously there are people who go a less traditional route and do just fine, they are just in the minority.

I think most non-APA programs are being irresponsible by handcuffing their students in regard to job opportunities and often in training. There are some programs that don't go for APA-acred because they want to produce researchers and their clinical degree is actually research only (akin to a Ph.D. in Experimental Psych, etc), but that still can be a problem because many programs still want their profs to have licenses so they can supervise students, and not just produce research and teach classes.

 

[PsyDr]

I would remind everyone that ad hominem are recognized as the lowest form of argument and are considered unsuitable for professional debate.

this board and the profession at large has always advocated for the highest standards in education. As a result distance ed, programs that advocate non EVTs, programs with low match rates , etc have been looked down upon by this board.

If we truly wish to have a debate about how good distance ed programs are, let's open up a new thread and quote research.

 

[psychwhy]

PSYDR: this board and the profession at large has always advocated for the highest standards in education. As a result distance ed, programs that advocate non EVTs, programs with low match rates , etc have been looked down upon by this board.

Excuse me, but when did you come to "speak" for the "this board" and the "profession at large"? If you have been in this profession for more than a minute, you should have noticed that it has trouble coming to consensus on practically any issue. Many sincere and well established psychologists have serious reservations with your so-called "highest standards" in education and yes, even EVTs. And "this board" is hardly a representative cross-section of the profession being as the most vocal participants are primarily pre- and current graduate students.

If ad hominem is the "lowest" form of argument then many forum participants should be chastized (not just the ones' whose opinions/perspectives differ from yours) and how low is grandstanding by presuming to speak for the board and the profession?

PSYDR: If we truly wish to have a debate about how good distance ed programs are, let's open up a new thread and quote research.

You mean like:

Therapist4Chnge: I don't believe clinical psychology training can be translated using that medium, and I think it is irresponsible for programs to offer it.

and

Therapist4Chnge: I think most non-APA programs are being irresponsible by handcuffing their students in regard to job opportunities and often in training.

(emphasis added)

Don't know how long you've been a member of the forum, but this has been discussed -- repeatedly. And T4C quotes above pretty much encapsulate the standard retort of the standard bearers. And what chance is there of a truly impartial and empirical discussion when the forum moderator has already very clearly stated an unsubstantiated, yet entrenched, bias?

Therapist4Chnge: VA hospitals can require higher standards because many people want to work at a VA (good hours, nice benefits, stable, etc)....while the BOP needs to pay more and be more flexible on their requirements because they can't get enough people to work.

Uh, T4C, you might want to take some time away from the forum and actually pay attention to what's happening out there in the real world. The VA is not the jewel of the federal system you presume it is. Have you been paying attention to the abysmal conditions found at many of the VA facilities -- particularly psych units? People are not flocking to VAs because they are pretty and represent the highest professional standards, it is -- as you point out -- for the benefits.

And the benefits of which you speak are given to ALL federal civil service employees -- including BoP. Yes, some people may not want to work in a prison, but trust me as one who's worked in both -- federal prisons are MUCH nicer than state ones.

But this is not just VA vs. Bureau of Prisons. There are DOZENS of federal agencies which hire psychologists. Let us not forget the Uniformed Service of the Public Health Service (which actually has a better benefit package than the federal civil service).

So, back to the original question -- why does the VA go for the only APA program/internship when other federal agencies only want a psychologist licensed in ONE state.

 

[PsyDr]

-the first statement in my post was ADDRESSED TO EVERYONE. i simply noticed that individuals were personalizing their arguments and wanted this to remain professional. take it however you wish. i will add that i have made this same statement in several other threads, of which you were not a participant. i will also state that i have not at any point made an attack on your character and would appreciate the same professional courtesy.

-as for the hierarchy of arguments, please refer to any text in logic to determine the consensus of the state of this hierarchy. it should be under formal errors or logic. if you feel i am unbiased in that area, i would be more than happy to direct you to recognized texts in that area. if you do not, feel free to find it yourself.

-for my call for a professional debate: i was challenging EVERYONE to utilize scientific evidence to base their arguments. i was not singling you out. i was, in fact, supporting up your initial call to base statements on empirical evidence. again, take that support however you wish.

-as for my barnum statement that our profession advocates the highest educational standards possible: i was making a general observation which i believe everyone could agree with. those programs, tx's etc that do not meet the highest level of evidence are regularly looked down upon in this board and our profession, despite others stating the contrary. please see the entire phd vs psyd discussions in this board, on professional list servs, and in the professional literature. or rxp, or abpp boards or crystal healing ppl or whatever other professional education area you can think of. again, while this affects you, the argument is not based upon you. simply an observation on the nature of this board and the professional discourse.

- you are correct in that there are disagreements in our professions about standards of education and evt's. however, there is evidence to support one position or another. the manner in which these debates are largely solved is based upon empirical evidence.

-as for my membership: i have been a member of this board sine 2005.

-if you are concerned that the moderator is biased, i would be happy to serve as a moderator under the conditions that all base their statements on published research. which was my initial point.

 

[deleted176373]

As for "entire federal sectors," the ONLY one which is unyielding is the VA.

Sorry, the military is also "unyielding", so I know of at least 2, and I am sure that there are more that are not going to accommodate those from non-APA accredited programs... distance or otherwise.

And, hold on to your ivory towers, many of you APA-program students will likely not be able to work for the VA because you are not going to be able to secure an APA-accredited INTERNSHIP. (Check other threads for the discussions about the disparity of intern positions to applicants.)"

While some graduates of APA accredited programs may in fact have these difficulties, nearly 100% of graduates from non-APA accredited programs will have to face these difficulties. Considering that roughly 25% of the APPIC internships are NOT APA accredited, it's not pretty... So why stack the deck against yourself? Even if you do get an APA accredited internship slot you still haven't graduated from an APA program, so what does it matter you are in the same position either way.

Now, while you might be correct in that APA internships are more difficult to come by for some graduates; I haven't heard of people struggling tremendously after graduating from top programs. We all know that the people taking the brunt of the blow are those in professional programs.

So, yes, absolutely caveat emptor.

By all means, let's have a frank and honest discussion about the inherent risks in pursuing a career in psychology. But please could we stop with the reflexive and unsubstantiated "distance = bad"? I have yet to see anyone supply anything other than personal opinion and/or emotional rhetoric in declaring distance programs unsatisfactory.

Right, because the 25% APPIC match rate out of Capella means nothing at all? Seriously? The average of ALL programs was a 75% match rate. That's real data... You can make excuses for it all day long but there is a disparity! It's not a rarefied stigma, it's real! This is not to say you didn't recieve a good education, but that real bias against your degree exists and it is not rare!

Mark

 

[erg923]

A Capella grad who is doing just fine

But this would make you the exception, not the rule. Barely 1/4 of your graduates can get an APA internships, right? This makes the odds 75% (i.e.,very likely) that my career will be limited in comparison with graduates of other programs, no?

 

[deleted176373]

A Capella grad who is doing just fine

But this would make you the exception, not the rule. Barely 1/4 of your graduates can get an APA internships, right? This makes the odds 75% (i.e.,very likely) that my career will be limited in comparison with graduates of other programs, no?

Not quite, 25% get APPIC internships... Not APA, not unless all of them are getting into those "ivory tower" internships.

Mark

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

if you are concerned that the moderator is biased, i would be happy to serve as a moderator under the conditions that all base their statements on published research. which was my initial point.

That's okay, though thank you for the offer.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for reasons why I think online learning is not appropriate for clinical psychology, I found an interesting article that seems pretty balanced in their approach to the issues. The research looks at some of the positive findings of online learning (satisfaction of training, grading, etc), as well as a couple areas of concern...which are particularly relevant to clinical psychology training. There are some obvious limitations (undergrad only, excluded fully-online institutions, etc).

SOURCE: Chen, P., R. Gonyea, and G. Kuh. 2008. Learning at a distance: Engaged or not?. Innovate 4 (3).

1. For distance learners, postsecondary education is but one of many priorities in their lives. Distance learners tend to be older; most work and care for dependents and enroll in online courses because such classes fit more easily into busy, demanding schedules. The top three reasons cited for pursuing learning at a distance—convenience, self-pacing, and self-directed learning—suggest that many of these students were looking to advance their education in the context of their current lifestyles. It is possible that without a distance learning option, many of these students would not be enrolled in postsecondary education at all.

I'm not sure that the amount of time and energy needed to complete doctoral training is condusive to what in essence is a part-time commitment. Being able to learn on your own schedule makes me wonder if the total learning experience is comparable, as the person is most likely splitting time with other responsibilities in their lives. Trad. students obviously have commitments, but it seems that they are secondary to their training.

2. The engagement of distance education learners compares favorably with that of campus-based learners. Distance learners are generally as engaged and often more engaged than their campus-based counterparts, with the exception of engagement in active and collaborative learning activities. In addition, the self-reported gains of distance learners tend to be greater than those reported by their campus-based counterparts.

Okay, so in general the student self-report was favorable, but lacking in active and collaborative learning is concerning in regard to clinical psychology, as a great deal of learning happens OUTSIDE of the classroom, and cannot be truly replicated online. In many programs classes are treated secondarily to collaboration, research, and mentoring...particularly after the initial couple of years of foundational courses.

3. Older distance learners differ from younger online students in noteworthy ways. Older students report greater gains and are more likely to engage in higher order mental activities such as analysis and synthesis as part of their studies. However, they are less involved in activities that depend on interacting with others, such as working with other students on problems or assignments.

Interesting, but not surprising between younger and older learners....but again the problem is lower interaction with other students. It would be one thing if the training was for creative writing, which is typically a solitary endeavor. Clinical Psychology has a much greater focus on collaboration, which is ultimately where distance learning falls short.

 

[JackD]

I'm confused. Are most of you arguing that receiving a degree from a University like Capella or Walden is undesirable because a graduate will get a lot of grief and discrimination in the job market or that these programs are of terrible quality? Or both, i guess?

Do you feel that the quality of an non-apa accredited, online degrees (online is a bit of a misnomer since it appears that large portions of the learning in these programs are in person) are so bad that other people in the profession are going to look at them as a joke or is it being argued that there is a lot of unjustified discrimination, which makes having one of these doctorates difficult.



Also, does anyone have any actual proof that it is very difficult to find a job with an psyd from capella or a phd walden? I'll accept that it is more difficult to find a job but how much more difficult? It is a little more difficult, drastically more difficult? It was said that psychwhy was one of the lucky few who graduated from capella and wound up successful. How do we know how well his fellow graduates from capella are doing? Is there any source material that shows high unemployment or even high levels of underemployment for graduates of capella or walden?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I was reading through a study by Anstine & Skidmore (2005) and they had a few interesting things in their lit review worth mentioning. I also included their conclusion section of their study below.

Anstine, J., Skidmore, M. A Small Sample Study of Traditional and Online Courses with Sample Selection Adjustment. Journal of Economic Education. Washington: Spring 2005. Vol. 36, Iss. 2; pg. 107, 21 pgs

A few studies suggest that learning outcomes in the online environment are inferior or similar to those in the traditional environment. Hiltz et al. (2000) asked professors to describe how students learn best in virtual classrooms. Their results suggest that if students are actively involved in the class material, then students in an online class learn as much as they do in a traditional class. However, if students are just responding to posted material, doing assignments, e-mailing them, and having them graded, or otherwise following correspondence-type class work, they do not learn effectively.

Harrington (1999) taught two statistics classes as part of a Master of Social Work program. She found that students with a high GPA (grade point average) that were enrolled in a distance-education statistics course did as well as those in a similar traditional class. However, students with a lower GPA in the online class did not do as well as their counterparts in the traditional statistics class. Her study was constrained by a relatively small sample (94 students) and by not having much information about student characteristics. In addition, she noted that a limitation of her study was that there may have been some systematic differences between the students taking the classes in the two learning environments for which she did not control.

Cooper (2001) surveyed students in both a traditional class and an online class she taught, asking them to evaluate their learning experiences. The class, management computer systems (MCS), combines business information with computer information systems material. Some students in the online class (31 percent) said they would have learned more in a traditional class environment, whereas 12.5 percent said that they learned more in the online class. Cooper also compared grades in the two classes and determined that students in an online class learned as much as students in the same in-class MCS course. This conflicting information about learning online is not unique. Most studies to date have yet to determine whether online classes are inferior to their traditional counterparts.

The findings of Harrington (1999) and Cooper (2001) echoed the majority of current literature comparing traditional classes to distance-education classes: There was no large difference between the two approaches to learning. In a comprehensive study, Russell (1999) compiled dozens of studies on distance education. The findings indicated no difference in student learning, and thus his book was entitled, The No Significant Difference Phenomenon.

Although these studies indicate that researchers have examined learning outcomes, very little research specifically examines economics classes in the two teaching formats. However, the limited existing evidence suggests a difference in student learning between traditional classes and online classes. Vachris (1999) described her online experience in the introductory economics class she teaches at Christopher Newport College (CNU), but the question of student learning was only addressed indirectly. CNU gives students surveys at the end of each class that are used to evaluate teaching. In general, the teaching evaluation scores in the online classes at CNU were lower than they were in the equivalent in-class evaluations.

Most recently, Brown and Liedholm (2002) found significant differences in the teaching formats. They examined student scores in three different introductory microeconomics classes-a live class, a hybrid class, and a virtual class. Their results showed that scores on simple test questions were similar for the three classes, but students in the traditional class did much better on questions involving complex material. Some of this learning differential was attributed to the in-class students spending more time on the class work.

Most of the literature on distance-education classes had described professors' experiences teaching the classes. The little research to date that compared online and traditional courses had used student evaluations, grades given in the classes, and surveys asking students how much they learned. The majority of the research on distance education had not compared student learning while controlling for prior knowledge of the material and taking other student characteristics into account. More important, none of the existing research addressed the potential endogeneity of learning environment choice.

CONCLUSIONS
In this article, we examined the effectiveness of the online learning environment relative to the traditional learning environment. We used exam score averages of students taking statistics foundations and managerial economics at the UWW College of Business and Economics M.B.A. program. A simple comparison of average exam scores revealed little difference in learning outcomes for both the statistics and the managerial course in the two learning environments. However, an OLS regression showed that holding other factors constant, online students scored nearly 5 percentage points lower than did students in the traditional class. However, separate regressions for the statistics and managerial economics courses showed, that the difference was significant only in the statistics course.

Because of concerns about the possible relationship between the choice to take an online course and learning, we estimated learning environment choice and outcomes simultaneously. We used a two-stage least squares procedure and a regression with endogenous switching. The two-stage least squares estimates indicated that the online environment yielded learning outcomes that were more that 6.5 percentage points lower than for the traditional environment. However, when we ran separate regressions for the statistics and managerial course, again the online indicator variable was only significant in the statistics course. The probit estimates of learning environment choice indicate that students who have children in the home are more likely to take an online course. This suggests that the online M.B.A. program is reaching students who might not otherwise be in a graduate program, at least not at this time. Our findings also demonstrate that an examination of learning outcomes in the two learning environments may require separate regressions to identify more accurately the underlying determinants of learning in the two environments.

The estimates from the switching regression model show that the online learning environment was substantially less effective than classes in the traditional format. From the switching regression estimates, the predicted online score was significantly lower than the actual average online exam score, and the predicted traditional exam score was significantly higher than the actual average traditional exam score; this pattern suggests that the unobservable characteristics are systematically related to outcomes. However, despite the limitations of the online learning environment, online students rely on intangible (unobservable) characteristics, which enables them to perform about as well as students in a traditional class environment.

 

[erg923]

Although Ill admit that as a graduate student I am trapped in the world of mostly academic clinical psychology (i.e., university program and practicums at academic affiliated med centers) I have never met a clinical supervisor or professor who advocates this as a legitimate approach. Mostly because that the standards for admission are below those acceptable at traditional programs, not too mention the questionable gaps in training. And second, yes, also because one would face numerous uphill battles getting internships and having employers take you seriously. The latter may not be as be as wide spread outside academically affiliated clinical settings, but who knows? I'm sure it varies. I'm just not sure why you would want to take the risk. The fact is. almost all your potential employers come from the traditional model and will probably have a great deal of respect for it, and would be skeptical of anything else. Even if the empirical evidence was good for online doctoral education (the scant literature in the subtext is not encouraging however), historically, the scientific and educational communities are slow to accept alternate methods of education, especially ones that lower the bar for entrance into the field. The fact is, they (and employers) will be slow to accept no matter what the evidence says because of the stigma attached to it. To most, on-line education is sill the peddler of the "anyone can do it" philosophy. This runs contrary to the field's view where ones needs to prove their worth first. I am of the opinion that, despite the popular notion in todays society, just because you want to do something, doesn't necessarily mean you can/should. I do not see alot of online or distance learning medical schools, and if there were, would you go to one of their practitioners? I wouldn't.

Although alot of this may come off as pure bias, remember, your potential employers will likely have the same biases. Even if its not as widespread as some of us think, I still don't think I'd want that gamble after I put in all that time and money. I think alot of people like to make it a black or white issue, as in, "its all fine and dandy", or "its all bad." Can you do it and be successful from an online degree? Sure you can. But its one hell of gamble. Life is full of risk-benefit analysis, and this option certainly doesn't past that test.

 

[deleted176373]

Also, does anyone have any actual proof that it is very difficult to find a job with an psyd from capella or a phd walden? I'll accept that it is more difficult to find a job but how much more difficult? It is a little more difficult, drastically more difficult? It was said that psychwhy was one of the lucky few who graduated from capella and wound up successful. How do we know how well his fellow graduates from capella are doing? Is there any source material that shows high unemployment or even high levels of underemployment for graduates of capella or walden?

According to Mayne, T., Sayette, M. A., & Norcross, J.C. (2006) The insiders guide to graduate programs in clinical and counseling psychology. Guilford Press.

Page 10 - "Most internship and employers feel likewise; Graduates of non-APA programs are experiencing difficulties in licensure and employment as psychologists."

Mayne et al. have been studying this area of research (graduate study in psychology) for years. I don't see any reason to doubt their assessment of the situation.

Mark

 

[JackD]

Most internship and employers feel likewise; Graduates of non-APA programs are experiencing difficulties in licensure and employment as psychologists

But what does "experiencing difficulties" amount to exactly? Does it mean that almost no graduate of Capella or Walden's clinical program is going to ever find a job as a psychologist? Does it mean crippling debt, homelessness, and unemployability are what the majority can expect upon graduation? Or does "difficulties" mean making a little less than average for a psychologist, not rising through the ranks as quickly, settling on a job where you have to work an occasional weekend? Does "difficulties" mean making $75,000 a year as opposed to $85,000 a year or does it mean that these grads are likely to make minimum wage for the rest of their lives? Does that mean it will take slightly longer to find a job after your internships are done or does it mean that it will take years or decades to finally land a position somewhere? Does it mean a capella grad will have to live in the suburbs of Chicago instead of living in a penthouse downtown or does it mean that most of these doctors will be living under a bridge for the rest of their lives?

Seriously, what is meant by "difficulties"? That could really mean anything and it is tough to say what kind of potential problems one of these university programs have if the difficulties encountered are not actually specified.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Seriously, what is meant by "difficulties"? That could really mean anything and it is tough to say what kind of potential problems one of these university programs have if the difficulties encountered are not actually specified.

Obviously it is unique to each student, and some of these may be addressed by 'in-house' placements or pre-existing relationships, but off the top of my head:

1. Securing practicum placements. Some places will not accept students from non-APA acred. programs. This has been mentioned before in regard to some of the CA programs.

2. Securing an internship placement. There may be non-APA and non-APPIC placements available...but that adds to the hurdles and/or adds limitations to licensure. Some APPIC and APA sites accept applications from non-APA programs, but considering 700-800 people have failed to match each of the last 2 years....it can be difficult to secure quality placements.

3. Securing a post-doc placement. A person can get hours through informal post-docs or formal ones....though formal post-docs tend to be more competitive, particularly in specialty areas like neuro, health, and forensics.

4. Licensure. Possible in most states, though not all. I looked up the licensure information for FL (LINK), and they require a degree from an APA-accredited program, though not an APA-internship. Some states require the applicant to log hours for non-APA/APPIC internships.

5. Competitiveness. Some jobs off the bat require applicants to be from APA-accredited programs and internships, while others may not make a distinction but may consider this further along in the interviewing process. This is where the opinions of other professionals can be influential. The further out from school, this may not be an issue, but considering a person's first few jobs rely on training and related references and less on as person's professional body of work.

6. Stigma. Whether it is from a non-APA acred. or from online. Academia in particular, but also out in the 'real' world as anything different from the norm will be questioned. A person starts out having to prove themselves, which I think would get old after awhile.

Some of these concerns may be addressed by these programs, but these are just some things off the top of my head. Overall I think internship, licensure, and competitiveness are the biggest problems, because it deals with having to prove yourself before even starting.

 

[JackD]

T4C, i understand the potential problems. I think we can all agree there is a greater potential for more hurdles when going the capella or walden route but i think the real question is, in the end how severe are these problems for the average doctor coming out of these universities? How bad is the job market for them, how much less would they potentially make, how much discrimination would they actually face?

Are these grads facing high levels of unemployment or are they making next to nothing? Does it take them a long time to find a job or will they spend decades doing grunt work while people are promoted past them? Are they going to end up regretting their decisions, are they worse off than if they had just never went to grad school at all?

I think there are a lot of unanswered questions about the supposed flaws of these programs and whenever these debates come up, it seems like most people just take accept the idea that are "more difficult" without really figuring out what that means.




Also, Mark, you have the insider's guide. I read it awhile back but i don't' actually own a copy. Doesn't it say something in it about capella and walden grads performing similarly on aptitude tests and whatnot as those who graduate from traditional programs?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The more competitive jobs and opportunities are probably going to be harder/impossible to get...things like: Tier 1 and more trad. research programs are off the table, academic teaching hospitals (which are very competitive AND can be snooty about training), VA, military, and more competitive private facilities because they have the luxury of cherry-picking. For your average group practice, CMHC, undergrad/CC class....probably not a big deal. It isn't the end of the world, but I think there are less opportunities because people (right or wrong) get tossed before being evaluated. The stigma is still there and being that the profession changes at a glacial pace....it's probably going to be awhile (if ever) that non-acred and/or non-residential programs are treated as on par with traditional programs. It is a bit of a catch-22, as there isn't enough research yet to support it in the clinical setting, but it is hard to get research because of the limitations of access to training, etc.

 

[deleted176373]

Also, Mark, you have the insider's guide. I read it awhile back but i don't' actually own a copy. Doesn't it say something in it about capella and walden grads performing similarly on aptitude tests and whatnot as those who graduate from traditional programs?

It says, "comparable outcomes on academic skills and acquiring knowledge" whatever that means. There is also a caveat that states that the research is sparse and still in its infancy. I haven't been questioning the quality of education, I have been stating that there is a bias against such education... there is a big difference. I was very well educated prior to getting my degree, however I experienced a lot of bias because I didn't have one!

Mark

PS - I looked it up online.
http://books.google.com/books?id=o-...&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

 

[Ollie123]

The way its worded I also can't tell if that statement has been shown specifically in psychology, or more generally. Makes a big difference given the nature of our field.

What T4C said - it was simply not an option for me since I basically could not get hired anyplace I actually want to work (prof at a research university or academic medical center, as T4C mentioend). Your mileage may vary.

 

[PsyDr]

aren't EPPP scores published by program?

i recall there was some research in that line...

 

[JackD]

Just in case anyone is curious, i was sent a pdf version of the university guide for capella in January, which describes the courses and training and whatnot for their PsyD program (along with all of their other programs). If anyone wants more details on how their program works, how someone they teach clinical skills, and how it compares to traditional psychology grad schools, here is a link to their university catalog.

http://www.capella.edu/inc/pdf/cata...Ascending=False&InboxSortBy=Date&n=1284123961

 

[Ollie123]

aren't EPPP scores published by program?

i recall there was some research in that line...

They are, but the lists I've seen have only included APA programs.

From what I remember, Fielding's average was mid-low but still passing. I was amazed at the number of clinically oriented schools that actually had an AVERAGE of failure. At a research program you MIGHT be able to get away with it if you go a pure research route, but what on earth do you do coming out of a clinically-oriented program if you can't pass the exam?

 

[deleted176373]

For others in APA accredited programs did you have to do anything like this?

"Learners may not enroll in a Capella University degree
program for which licensure or certification may ultimately
be required without signing a statement of agreement
acknowledging that compliance with state or professional
licensure and certification requirements is the learner’s sole
responsibility.
As with all programs involving endorsement, licensure, or
certification, individual states have varying requirements.
Capella University cannot guarantee that licensure,
endorsement, or certification will be granted. For this reason,
it is important that learners interested in these programs
contact the appropriate authorities in their state."

I know I didn't.

Mark

 

[psychwhy]

For others in APA accredited programs did you have to do anything like this?

"Learners may not enroll in a Capella University degree
program for which licensure or certification may ultimately
be required without signing a statement of agreement
acknowledging that compliance with state or professional
licensure and certification requirements is the learner’s sole
responsibility.
As with all programs involving endorsement, licensure, or
certification, individual states have varying requirements.
Capella University cannot guarantee that licensure,
endorsement, or certification will be granted. For this reason,
it is important that learners interested in these programs
contact the appropriate authorities in their state."

I know I didn't.

All this means Mark is that YOUR school isn't being honest with you.

The sad truth is -- owing to the myriad of idiosyncratic licensing laws -- NO program can guarantee you the ability to be licensed, save for their home state. That is all that is required.

I know someone who graduated from a Tier I midwest school (yes, APA accredited) then interned at an APA-accredited internship at a medical center in the northeast. Lo and behold, when she tried to LICENSE in that northeastern state, she was DENIED!

Turns out her midwest school didn't include a class the northeast state felt was essential. Her university, now alma mater, said she was no longer their responsibility because she had graduated.

Yeah, know what? Folks from non-APA and/or distance programs have an uphill battle. I don't think any of us who have attended such programs are (were) unaware of that. But, the system has more than a few landmines buried throughout that can put a serious dent in ANYone's career aspirations.

As for licensing board decisions, Kansas also denied a Capella grad. They based their entire decision on a super-strict interpretation of "residency." (Yes, even distance programs have face-to-face components!) The Kansas licensing law permits out-of-state programs only if they are "equivalent" to a Kansas state program. The Kansas programs require a "year in residence" which most moderately intelligent people understand means a year of ENROLLMENT. I don't care how wonderful your APA programs are -- NONE of you are literally spending 365 days in class.

But that was precisely what the Kansas court said in their decision; the Capella program cannot provide a YEAR of face-to-face instruction.

Good luck to you all!

 

[JockNerd]

I know someone who graduated from a Tier I midwest school (yes, APA accredited) then interned at an APA-accredited internship at a medical center in the northeast. Lo and behold, when she tried to LICENSE in that northeastern state, she was DENIED!

What's a "Tier 1" school? This isn't law; we don't have Tiers.

Yeah, that does suck for your friend. I see a difference, though, between a program grad who has trouble getting a state license because he or she is missing a class and a program grad who has trouble getting a state license because of the nature or the program he or she graduated from. The one is alterable by the program making a small adjustment and can be fixed (I actually know for certain that this happens a lot, mostly with states that require a multiculturalism course with grads from programs in states that don't require the course) with the student taking another course. Certainly not convenient, but possible. The other is not.

Did you see my post in the other thread with minutes from the TN board, denying license to a Capella grad? They mentioned it happening in Iowa, too. That seems like more than creative interpretation of rules to me. Although it's been said several times on the thread, again; the degree just seems to come with far, far too many strings attached, with no serious personal benefits, too many viable alternatives, and significant potential damage to the profession.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

There are states that have some quirks like requiring an additional ethics course or maybe a multi-cultural class then the APA may require as part of the curriculum (particularly as of late as people who started awhile back didn't have to take certain classes that may be needed now)....but that usually isn't a big deal. I know someone that got licensed in NY, and they had an additional req. like that.

 

[JackD]

Yes, even distance programs have face-to-face components!

It seems to be a point that is often lost when people ask "how can you learn clinical skills over the internet?" I suppose you can wonder if the training is adequate but it is important to remember that at places like capella, there are classes that are taken in person, there is a practicum that lasts about a year, and there is the standard pre-doctoral internship and post-doctoral supervised period, built into the training. I suppose if you are looking at it as 100% online, places like capella and walden do look reckless and inadequate but that isn't what they actually do. From what i can tell, of course i haven't actually attended the university, the courses that are online are more of the lecture hall style courses, learning about history and psychological theories, not the actual hands on aspects. The clinical skills are saved for in person, supervised training.

 

[JockNerd]

It seems to be a point that is often lost when people ask "how can you learn clinical skills over the internet?" I suppose you can wonder if the training is adequate but it is important to remember that at places like capella, there are classes that are taken in person, there is a practicum that lasts about a year, and there is the standard pre-doctoral internship and post-doctoral supervised period, built into the training. I suppose if you are looking at it as 100% online, places like capella and walden do look reckless and inadequate but that isn't what they actually do. From what i can tell, of course i haven't actually attended the university, the courses that are online are more of the lecture hall style courses, learning about history and psychological theories, not the actual hands on aspects. The clinical skills are saved for in person, supervised training.

...And even the online courses at Capella include a sort of interaction through mandatory forum postings. I'm aware of all that, but it doesn't alter my opinion; I still see multiple cons and no real pros.

 

[Ollie123]

There are states that have some quirks like requiring an additional ethics course or maybe a multi-cultural class then the APA may require as part of the curriculum (particularly as of late as people who started awhile back didn't have to take certain classes that may be needed now)....but that usually isn't a big deal. I know someone that got licensed in NY, and they had an additional req. like that.

Yeah, NY is the state I thought of as well.

Valuable lesson for those who may end up in NY - Save your syllabi!

If you show the multicultural curriculum was infused to the material across multiple courses, NY is okay with that - its just tracking down syllabus or two from several years ago that usually poses a problem We've had a couple students from here head to NY who were able to do this since most of our classes have some substantive coverage of cultural issues but there's only one elective class that's offered every 2-3 years that covers it entirely. So far I think everyone has been able to get licensed without having to retake a class.

 

[deleted176373]

All this means Mark is that YOUR school isn't being honest with you.

As for licensing board decisions, Kansas also denied a Capella grad. They based their entire decision on a super-strict interpretation of "residency." (Yes, even distance programs have face-to-face components!) The Kansas licensing law permits out-of-state programs only if they are "equivalent" to a Kansas state program. The Kansas programs require a "year in residence" which most moderately intelligent people understand means a year of ENROLLMENT. I don't care how wonderful your APA programs are -- NONE of you are literally spending 365 days in class.

But that was precisely what the Kansas court said in their decision; the Capella program cannot provide a YEAR of face-to-face instruction.

Good luck to you all!

Maybe my school isn't being "Honest" with me... but here is what Kansas would have done with my APA accredited credentials.

"EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
The educational requirements for psychology licensure are contained in K.S.A. 74-5310 (a) (3) and defined in K.A.R. 102-1-12. The board has adopted educational standards that are consistent with APA at the time your degree was conferred; the board will accept your education as satisfying the statutory requirement if you have graduated from an APA program and met the minimum 24 semester credit hour, or the academic equivalent, residency requirement.

If you did not graduate from an APA accredited program, it is your responsibility to demonstrate to the board that the program from which you graduated satisfies the current requirements set forth in K.A.R. 102-1-12. You will need to complete Attachment A-Education Worksheet and submit all supporting documentation listed on that from."


Can you not see the difference? Yes, the APA accreditation does not guarantee that you can get a license in any state, but it sure goes a long way to making it easier.

Mark

 

[NeuroPhD]

The truth of the matter is the "stigma" plays out mostly in rarefied places like this board. Out there in the real world, most people only care that you have a doctorate from a regionally accredited university.

I don't think that is accurate at all. The stigma against online/distance training exists at every level of professional work. Having recently started practicing, I am frequently asked about my training. I'm asked informally by patients/referral sources, and I'm asked formally by agencies, insurance companies, and professional organizations. People who are in the profession are aware of the controversial aspects of training. This in itself is incredibly limiting, but the stigma is far more pervasive. Educated consumers are not willing to accept a degree and title as sufficient proof of competence. They often ask about my training or comment on my diplomas. I am sure that training at a program that is only known to a patient because their marketing fills the patient's spam folder does not boost confidence. I am sure that there are successful clinicians who have trained in online/distance programs, but the barriers and limitations are very real.

It would be inaccurate to give students on this board the impression that the "stigma" of online training is isolated to a particular area of the profession.

 

[erg923]

I find this to me the case as well. Patients can care, but it is mostly employers. Trust me, I have sen it first hand, they will talk about your program and pour over your qualifications. Especially when you are trying to build a referral base using the help of physicians and other psychologists in the community. It helps that they have confidence in your program.

 

[inu27]

I'm confused....If Walden and Capella's clinical psych, PhD programs are not APA accredited programs, how are the graduates finding their jobs???? I mean, who's hiring them?

I spoke with the Florida state board of licensing yesterday on this issue. They stated that Walden was perfectly fine for their licensing. All states will take these online schools from what i have heard as long as you meet the states requirements of supervision, core requirements and internship.
Anyone have a different view?
thanks

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I spoke with the Florida state board of licensing yesterday on this issue. They stated that Walden was perfectly fine for their licensing. All states will take these online schools from what i have heard as long as you meet the states requirements of supervision, core requirements and internship.
Anyone have a different view?
thanks

Some states will not license someone from a non-APA accredited program (regardless if it is online or not).

 

[JackD]

Some states will not license someone from a non-APA accredited program (regardless if it is online or not).

Yeah, I think it is about nine or ten now where they will automatically reject you if you are from a non-APA program. I would imagine that number will continue to go up in the coming years. From the prospective of getting licensed, being from an online school won't technically disqualify you anywhere, at least not that I am aware of. However, only one 100% online/distance program is APA accredited, so if you are in an online program and not from Fielding, you won't qualify for licensure in those nine or ten states.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Which states? I've looked at the ABPP guidelines, and they all seem to say "APA-accredited or equivalent," IIRC...

Thanks!