What are the repercussions of completing a non-APA accredited internship?

[InYourHead]

If one graduates from an APA acccredited doctoral program but then is one of the hundreds who do not match to an APA accredited internship, what happens next? What are the options?

Also, I know you need to complete an APA accredited internship to work for the government or in a VA, but what other opportunities are closed off if one completes a non- APA internship?

Hopefully this won't apply to any of us, but it's a late, depressing night of studying (and feeling unprepared for the exam!), so I figured I'd put the question out there.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

If one graduates from an APA acccredited doctoral program but then is one of the hundreds who do not match to an APA accredited internship, what happens next? What are the options?

Also, I know you need to complete an APA accredited internship to work for the government or in a VA, but what other opportunities are closed off if one completes a non- APA internship?

Hopefully this won't apply to any of us, but it's a late, depressing night of studying (and feeling unprepared for the exam!), so I figured I'd put the question out there.

Many post-doctoral positions (particularly academic med centers, large hospitals, and college counseling centers, and VAs of course) and jobs (again, mostly academic med centers, hospitals, and counseling centers).

The option is to wait and try again next year. Taking an unaccredited internship closes doors, no doubt about it...but those who desire start or work in private practices or CMH work can come through pretty unscathed.

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

After not matching in Phase I, you get to do Phase II (which I enjoyed because of the shortened timeline and the "surprise" to find certain sites available). Last year, applicants submitted TONS of applications in Phase II and flooded the market but I think it was a significant improvement over the clearinghouse, based on what I've heard about that system. If you still don't match, you get on the Post-Match Vacancy Service email list and/or check the match site for new positions or updates. There were maybe one or two dozen vacancies available, including a couple APA accredited ones, this year.

An APPIC member internship may be a pretty safe choice depending on what you want to do. If you want to work in a VA, APPIC member sites aren't an option. But if you want to get licensed in most states and not work in a VA (ever) and you are prepared to carefully document your internship experiences, you should be okay. That's assuming that your grad program allows you to complete a non-APA accredited internship, which many programs don't permit. You should also check the licensing laws in the state(s) where you want to eventually practice. They're pretty specific about requirements.

I personally would not take a non-APA, non-APPIC member internship because there is no oversight by APPIC or the APA and you could be signing up for a year (or more) of harassment and exploitation. If it didn't work out, you would have little recourse. I would take an APPIC member internship if my program allowed it because APPIC membership indicates that there's consistency and certain standards in the internship program. If these aren't lived up to and it's a negative experience, you can (after going through appropriate channels at the internship) alert APPIC to the problem. This means the site has a similar investment in making the internship work out. But that's just me.

I didn't match last year and I've had to put my life on hold (e.g., I will not start a family for at least another year, won't have a sustainable paying job for another 2 years) and explain to people that I'm still in school, technically, even if it doesn't look like that. If I don't match again, I will leave grad school and pursue other goals. It's sad but after I saw the average debt for Psy.D. students upon applying for internship ($120,000 ) and the median salary for psychologists (<$70,000), I realized that being a psychologist is not as important to me as my other life goals right now. I could not have imagined saying that 2 years ago but I guess stuff happens.

On a positive note, more than 3 of every 4 applicants match, so everyone has a pretty good chance.

 

[wigflip]

Many post-doctoral positions (particularly academic med centers, large hospitals, and college counseling centers, and VAs of course) and jobs (again, mostly academic med centers, hospitals, and counseling centers).

The option is to wait and try again next year. Taking an unaccredited internship closes doors, no doubt about it...but those who desire start or work in private practices or CMH work can come through pretty unscathed.

What about gigs with Kaiser (or similar)?

(I don't know if my marriage can take another year or physical separation, so if I take the PsyD leap, I'd probably have to do so knowing that I might have to resort to local APPIC internships).

 

[erg923]

What about gigs with Kaiser (or similar)?

(I don't know if my marriage can take another year or physical separation, so if I take the PsyD leap, I'd probably have to do so knowing that I might have to resort to local APPIC internships).

I think some of the Kaiser's internships may be accredited. Maybe not, Im not positive. Same restrictions apply as stated earlier. I personally would not want to work at/for Kaiser. If I am following the business model (whiCH they do), I would much prefer to do it on my own in a PP or group PP where I can actually reap the financial rewards of seeing high volumes and doing brief evals.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Be aware that many programs only allow their students to apply to APA-acred sites, so you may not have the option of an alternative site. If you do, I'd strongly suggest learning as much as you can about the limitations and implications of not going the APA-acred site route. You want to make an informed decision because there is no back door for the vast majority of jobs with strict requirements. Most people can still get licensed, but the job hunt can be much harder.

I looked a position at a Kaiser facility in CA a few months ago, and I don't believe they required an APA-acred internship. There are two caveats though: 1. Competition is stiff, and many hospitals are looking for reasons to cut down on their application pool. 2. Certain speciality areas (Neuropsychology, Rehabilitation Psychology, and some Forensic sites) are going to be much more strict about your internship and post-doc/fellowship training.

You should investigate the requirements of some of the places you'd like to work.

 

[stigmata]

I wonder what people who were licensed before APA-accred existed do??

 

[sydb1367]

kaiser (at least in CA) requires an APA internship for their post-docs, but doesn't require it for employment (go figure).

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I wonder what people who were licensed before APA-accred existed do??

I think we can safely assume those folks have been grandfathered into the system.

The Puget Sound pre-doc internship site has some good information about the impact of APPIC v. APA acred. for internship.

http://www.pugetsound.edu/student-l...octoral-psychology-intern/appic-and-apa-faqs/

 

[FadedC]

I think we can safely assume those folks have been grandfathered into the system.

The Puget Sound pre-doc internship site has some good information about the impact of APPIC v. APA acred. for internship.

http://www.pugetsound.edu/student-l...octoral-psychology-intern/appic-and-apa-faqs/

Thanks for the link, it's helpful. How does one even go about getting an APPIC but non APA internship? Do you get it through the match proccess or outside the match proccess? As a school psychology student I've been trying to decide between APA and non APA for awhile, since an APA internship is not as important in our field and I have the misfortune to be geographically limited to NYC where I'm told it's insanely competitive.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Thanks for the link, it's helpful. How does one even go about getting an APPIC but non APA internship? Do you get it through the match proccess or outside the match proccess? As a school psychology student I've been trying to decide between APA and non APA for awhile, since an APA internship is not as important in our field and I have the misfortune to be geographically limited to NYC where I'm told it's insanely competitive.

Non-APA sites are a part of the match, yes. There might be ways to apply to sites that don't apply to the match independently of the entire APPIC system (such as via the internship system CA has in place), but the vast majority of sites, and all accredited (APPIC and APA) sites are a part of the match.

Geographical limitation is rough, as I believe that's the primary reason people don't end up matching. But sometimes it is what it is; given that APA-accred isn't quite as necessary for your field it sounds like, especially if you plan on practicing predominantly in schools or private practice, that could at least help your odds somewhat.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Taking an unaccredited internship closes doors, no doubt about it...but those who desire start or work in private practices or CMH work can come through pretty unscathed.

This may be true, with the caveat that your non-APA approved internship may not meet the licensure requirements of the state in which you want to practice. As an example, you can find the licensure application for MA (my home state) at http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/dpl/boards/py/99pyap.pdf

I encourage you to take a look at the "Internship Director Form." If the internship was APA approved, the director checks a box and then signs off. It it wasn't APA approved, they have to fill out the next section, with certain attestations that the internship training met certain standards. If you go to a non-APA approved internship, you need to be darn sure that it meets this standards (and that the director will attest to this). APA approval basically requires that these standards are met.

Licensure standards may differ slightly from state to state, but not drastically. If you MUST consider a non-APA approved site (and my advice would be to not consider one- it's tough out there and entering the post-doc and job market with one strike already against you is tough), do yourself a favor and review the licensure requirements for the state you envision yourself practicing in to make sure that the internship would minimally qualify you for licensure.

 

[wigflip]

All very helpful, folks, thanks.

 

[aagman01]

If your happy working in schools for your career, then just go for a school psych position in the NYC public schools. The one stumbling block, from what I understand, is that they only provide stipends to bilingual school psychs for internships in the NYC public schools.

Also, here is a listing of school psychology internships put out specifically for school psychology. Some of the listings are APA or APPIC sites, though many are neither. There are a few districts in the NY area listed.

http://www.ed.psu.edu/educ/epcse/school-psychology/s-psy-resources/2011-12-internship-directory.pdf

Also, I believe that the Newark Public schools higher a half dozen or so interns per year. They are at least an APPIC site. So is "The School" at Columbia.

Thanks for the link, it's helpful. How does one even go about getting an APPIC but non APA internship? Do you get it through the match proccess or outside the match proccess? As a school psychology student I've been trying to decide between APA and non APA for awhile, since an APA internship is not as important in our field and I have the misfortune to be geographically limited to NYC where I'm told it's insanely competitive.

 

[FadedC]

Thanks for the link, I will definitely take a look at it. I'm not sure yet if I will be happy working only in schools, although purely from a career perspective it does seem like an increasingly good option compared to trying to break into clinical work.

If your happy working in schools for your career, then just go for a school psych position in the NYC public schools. The one stumbling block, from what I understand, is that they only provide stipends to bilingual school psychs for internships in the NYC public schools.

Also, here is a listing of school psychology internships put out specifically for school psychology. Some of the listings are APA or APPIC sites, though many are neither. There are a few districts in the NY area listed.

http://www.ed.psu.edu/educ/epcse/school-psychology/s-psy-resources/2011-12-internship-directory.pdf

Also, I believe that the Newark Public schools higher a half dozen or so interns per year. They are at least an APPIC site. So is "The School" at Columbia.

 

[RockwallPhD]

I am investigating PhD Programs - not sure if online or face to face is the best choice. However, I am very confused as to the importance of graduating from an APA accredited program. The last thing I want is another diploma to hang on the wall - I want something that will be of utility. I am torn between clinical and forensic psychology and would want to be able to be board certified in whatever field I decide upon. Any thoughts/advice?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Online is not presently viewed as a reputable/equivalent means of doctoral-level training in psychology, and particularly clinical/counseling/school psychology. Face-to-face is what you would want, especially if desiring board certification. Forensic psychology programs often aren't license-eligible; you would instead want to attend a clinical/counseling/possibly school psychology program that would prepare you for licensure, and that would allow you to gain experiencing in forensic settings/work. You'd ideally also want to do the same during internship and postdoc.

And plan for APA-accredited when it comes to a doctoral program. An unaccredited grad program would present a number of obstacles to overcome, not least of which would be convincing the boarding organization that you should be board-eligible.

 

[WisNeuro]

DO NOT do an online PhD. It will hinder your job prospects, and I can almost guarantee you that it will be near impossible to get boarded. Also, if you plan on doing forensics, prepare to never get any decent paying work as you will get shredded upon cross examination of credentials.

 

[deleted343839]

I am investigating PhD Programs - not sure if online or face to face is the best choice. However, I am very confused as to the importance of graduating from an APA accredited program. The last thing I want is another diploma to hang on the wall - I want something that will be of utility. I am torn between clinical and forensic psychology and would want to be able to be board certified in whatever field I decide upon. Any thoughts/advice?

The OP's question was in regard to APA accredited internships. It is possible to attend an APA accredited doctoral program but not an accredited internship, and still manage to have a career (albeit with more headaches for licensure and more limited employment prospects).

There is a much, MUCH lower likelihood of attending a non-APA accredited doctoral program and emerging with anything like a viable career. You will be virtually unemployable. You will never be board eligible. Look, just read recent threads where people caution against programs that have relatively low internship match rates and/or don't provide funding support. In almost all cases, even the less favorable options being discussed are still in the universe of APA accredited programs. Don't waste another moment thinking about a non-accredited program.

 

[barryggg]

InYourHead,

The problem is not so much that the program is online, it's much more to do with who's providing the education. The technology/logistics are there to create a very successful blended (online and some in-person components) Phd program.

If Harvard was offering this type of program for the very first time, I very much doubt you'd have many people telling you to stay away.

 

[PsyDuck90]

InYourHead,

The problem is not so much that the program is online, it's much more to do with who's providing the education. The technology/logistics are there to create a very successful blended (online and some in-person components) Phd program.

If Harvard was offering this type of program for the very first time, I very much doubt you'd have many people telling you to stay away.

The problem with online PhD programs extends way further than just which institution is providing the program. The main problem is that you simply cannot get the appropriate training for clinical work in an online setting. You have no access to research labs. You have no instution-based supervision for your practicum sites. I can only imagine how difficult it is to get practicum sites to begin with. Simply put, you cannot get a degree working with people by avoiding interaction with people.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Not to completely derail the thread, but I do think there's presently a significant limiting factor in terms of the structure, support, and resources of online programs. Identifying which aspects (e.g., specific classes) can successfully be completed predominantly online vs. those that need to be managed in-person, etc.

I don't think anyone would just automatically assume this type of program at Harvard would be equivalent, but Harvard has the advantage of substantial resources (monetary, instructional, etc.) to be able to devote to such a project, which could carryover to its planning and potential success.

As things presently stand, it's not a viable option for doctoral training, and attending a non-accredited doctoral program has the significant potential to drastically limit your career.

 

[cara susanna]

Every single job application that I've filled out asks about program APA accreditation.

 

[psych.meout]

InYourHead,

The problem is not so much that the program is online, it's much more to do with who's providing the education. The technology/logistics are there to create a very successful blended (online and some in-person components) Phd program.

If Harvard was offering this type of program for the very first time, I very much doubt you'd have many people telling you to stay away.

This is absurd. Maybe undergraduate education could be done in an online or blended modality, but the technology and structure (e.g., how do you compensate for the difference between online and in-person courses? Message boards? That is woefully insufficient based on my experience in grad school) are not there for doctoral programs and it has nothing to do with the prestige or cache of the institution.

 

[WisNeuro]

This is absurd. Maybe undergraduate education could be done in an online or blended modality, but the technology and structure (e.g., how do you compensate for the difference between online and in-person courses? Message boards? That is woefully insufficient based on my experience in grad school) are not there for doctoral programs and it has nothing to do with the prestige or cache of the institution.

I could see a blended program that was really only like 25% online, and that blended component would be weighted towards early coursework in certain areas. But still fairly unwieldy.

 

[barryggg]

This is absurd. Maybe undergraduate education could be done in an online or blended modality, but the technology and structure (e.g., how do you compensate for the difference between online and in-person courses? Message boards? That is woefully insufficient based on my experience in grad school) are not there for doctoral programs and it has nothing to do with the prestige or cache of the institution.

Message boards? Do you live in the early 90's or something?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I could see a blended program that was really only like 25% online, and that blended component would be weighted towards early coursework in certain areas. But still fairly unwieldy.

There is a misconception that the majority of learning is class-based like at the undergrad (and often MA/MS) level, when in reality it is only a small % of learning; this is one of many reasons why online learning is a bad fit for psych training. There is also that having to interact closely with people thing...

 

[barryggg]

There is a misconception that the majority of learning is class-based like at the undergrad (and often MA/MS) , when in reality it is only a small % of learning; this is one of many reasons why online learning is a bad fit for training.

Maybe some people have that idea. I don't. I still don't see why a large portion could not be online.

 

[WisNeuro]

There is a misconception that the majority of learning is class-based like at the undergrad (and often MA/MS) , when in reality it is only a small % of learning; this is one of many reasons why online learning is a bad fit for training.

Yeah, there are some classes like History of Psych, and maybe some of the neuroscience courses I took that would have been fine in an online environment. But the majority of clinically focused classes would have been very difficult in an online environment.

 

[psych.meout]

Message boards? Do you live in the early 90's or something?

Yep, I used my DeLorean to travel 25 years into the future and speak with you on this message board for aspiring healthcare professionals.

Maybe some people have that idea. I don't. I still don't see why a large portion could not be online.

Maybe that's the same reason why you think you could do neuropsych assessment at the master's level?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Maybe some people have that idea. I don't. I still don't see why a large portion could not be online.

So it would have been feasible in your clinical/counseling psych doctoral training program? How did you meet with your mentor, squeeze in TA/RA duties, etc?

I just don’t see how it is remotely feasible for most classes, let alone all of the other training that occurs between/after classes, in research meetings, in mentor meetings, in lab work, in direct observation during practica training, when you are practicing the various assessment measures with classmates, etc.

 

[psych.meout]

Yeah, there are some classes like History of Psych, and maybe some of the neuroscience courses I took that would have been fine in an online environment. But the majority of clinically focused classes would have been very difficult in an online environment.

It might be fine for some of the breadth courses required by the APA (e.g., social, history, developmental), but the core clinical courses (e.g., assessment and intervention) still really need to be in-person.

 

[barryggg]

Yeah, there are some classes like History of Psych, and maybe some of the neuroscience courses I took that would have been fine in an online environment. But the majority of clinically focused classes would have been very difficult in an online environment.

Why would they be difficult?

in direct observation during practica training

Also, maybe I'm misunderstanding how online phd degrees work..but I assume these people still have to do clinical work in person? lol

 

[Justanothergrad]

Why would they be difficult?

Also, maybe I'm misunderstanding how online phd degrees work..but I assume these people still have to do clinical work in person? lol

Because clinically focused classes require interaction to practice the skills, typically under close supervision during the class time with very directive feedback on how you do something correctly. I will have my students replay the roleplay if they didn't do it right, in the case of a theories and skills intervention course I'm teaching now. I'll stop them in the roleplay, have them explain the theory and talk through what they are trying to implement, then have them repeat. Between classes, students often get together and practice to get better and to rehearse. Neither of this things would occur in an online setting, and even if they did occasionally happen it would be to a much less degree.

A better question is 'how could these learning experiences be the same?' You are also misunderstanding how non-online degrees PhDs work, likely as a function of your limited experience in one (read: you have no experience in this domain).

 

[smalltownpsych]

Why would they be difficult?


Also, maybe I'm misunderstanding how online phd degrees work..but I assume these people still have to do clinical work in person? lol

Throughout our doctoral program we would discuss clinically relevant cases in almost every class. We would also talk about emotional reactions that we observed and ways that we came across interpersonally. Important stuff if you are going to be treating real patients.

Also, you are misunderstanding how online PhD programs work. They are primarily a means to mislead and bilk student loan money out of uniformed students. In a slightly better light, they are a way for master's level clinicians to get letters behind their name so they can call themselves a doctor and mislead patients into thinking that they are a clinical psychologist. They also don't have relationships with practicum to ensure training fidelity. If there is external practica, the onus to ensure adequate training is on the site and the student so not much quality control there.

 

[barryggg]

Because clinically focused classes require interaction to practice the skills, typically under close supervision during the class time with very directive feedback on how you do something correctly.

This can certainly be done online. The technology is there. It already happens in Canada at the Masters level.

 

[barryggg]

I'm sort of confused why you guys think that an online class automatically means no case conceptualization, role play, one on one time with the professor, live group work, etc. Such classes have been taught online in Canada for quite some time, at reputable Universities.

 

[psych.meout]

This can certainly be done online. The technology is there. It already happens in Canada at the Masters level.

Emphasis on "master's level."

I'm sort of confused why you guys think that an online class automatically means no case conceptualization, role play, one on one time with the professor, live group work, etc. Such classes have been taught online in Canada for quite some time, at reputable Universities.

Do you realize that you're only supporting our arguments and refuting your own? If these kinds of online or hybrid programs in Canada lead to the conclusions you draw (e.g., ones about neuropsych assessment, doctoral programs in general), then they are clearly deficient.

 

[barryggg]

Emphasis on "master's level."


Do you realize that you're only supporting our arguments and refuting your own? If these kinds of online or hybrid programs in Canada lead to the conclusions you draw (e.g., ones about neuropsych assessment, doctoral programs in general), then they are clearly deficient.

Even if I was not trolling half the time, to conclude that said programs must be deficient because of an experience with one random person on the internet (n=1), does not bode well for your argument that Phd trained Psychologists are more prepared/better.

 

[psych.meout]

Even if I was not trolling half the time, to conclude that said programs must be deficient because of an experience with one random person on the internet (n=1), does not bode well for your argument that Phd trained Psychologists are more prepared/better.

Ah yes, the "I'm just trolling now that you called me out on my obviously wrong statements" escape clause.

 

[barryggg]

Ah yes, the "I'm just trolling now that you called me out on my obviously wrong statements" escape clause.

My point still stands.

 

[WisNeuro]

PM each other or create a new thread kids, otherwise I imagine this thing is getting locked as it has strayed far afield of it's original purpose.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I'm sort of confused why you guys think that an online class automatically means no case conceptualization, role play, one on one time with the professor, live group work, etc. Such classes have been taught online in Canada for quite some time, at reputable Universities.

Because we, as the professors and people who have taught/taken the classes you are making assumptions about, see the limitations of such methods given our experience. and knowledge of teaching. Those things are simply facts of instruction. I'm sort of confused about why you keep telling us what training is sufficient for our training models without any experience at our level of expertise.

 

[deleted343839]

Medical students at my institution stream most of their lectures during M1-M2 and only have to show up in person for labs and problem-based discussion sections. I think this works well if the purpose of training is to absorb and recall a large amount of factual knowledge or basic know-how that you could demonstrate on a written exam (more or less the point of the first couple years of medical school, before clinical training begins). I don't think this would work well in psychology training or, for that matter, in any scientific training. It's mostly about competency development. We spend only a small fraction of our time in a classroom and the remaining time is more akin to an apprenticeship. I don't know how one would begin to replicate that experience online.

 

[psych.meout]

Because we, as the professors and people who have taught/taken the classes you are making assumptions about, see the limitations of such methods given our experience. and knowledge of teaching. Those things are simply facts of instruction. I'm sort of confused about why you keep telling us what training is sufficient for our training models without any experience at our level of expertise.

And to take it one step further, consider it from a scientific perspective. It's fine to argue a particular point, including that online or hybrid programs are feasible alternatives to traditional programs. The problem is that the onus is on the person making this argument to produce evidence supporting this claim, not for the skeptics of these non-traditional programs to prove why they are not equivalent alternatives.

It's also disingenuous to argue that the only reason people are skeptical of these programs is that they don't have the name or cache of a well-regarded institution like Harvard behind them.

Medical students at my institution stream most of their lectures during M1-M2 and only have to show up in person for labs and problem-based discussion sections. I think this works well if the purpose of training is to absorb and recall a large amount of factual knowledge or basic know-how that you could demonstrate on a written exam (more or less the point of the first couple years of medical school, before clinical training begins). I don't think this would work well in psychology training or, for that matter, in any scientific training. It's mostly about competency development. We spend only a small fraction of our time in a classroom and the remaining time is more akin to an apprenticeship. I don't know how one would begin to replicate that experience online.

I agree, but I'd argue the didactic training in the classroom is still very important and very different from med school training. At least from what I've experienced in my first year, the classes are much more focused seminar, discussion, and practical skill development than simple learning and regurgitation. This is not a knock against the formulation of coursework in med schools, it's just a different model and skill set.

Maybe my stats courses could be done in an online or hybrid format, but I don't think the clinical courses are amenable to it. I think part of this comes from psychology's science-training perspective and how cognizant it is of potential biases. E.g., if the instructor teaching an assessment course focuses on SMI in their own research, their examples and orientation are going to focus on their own research and clinical perspective. The in-person seminar format allows for divergent applications and perspectives that probably wouldn't be as extensively discussed, if at all, in an online program.

 

[deleted343839]

Maybe my stats courses could be done in an online or hybrid format, but I don't think the clinical courses are amenable to it. I think part of this comes from psychology's science-training perspective and how cognizant it is of potential biases. E.g., if the instructor teaching an assessment course focuses on SMI in their own research, their examples and orientation are going to focus on their own research and clinical perspective. The in-person seminar format allows for divergent applications and perspectives that probably wouldn't be as extensively discussed, if at all, in an online program.

Maybe. I'm not sure. I don't really know the literature on the efficacy of online delivery for discussion-focused didactics. I still favor face-to-face interaction for most courses, but I am biased to prefer what I know firsthand. I can entertain the possibility that a holding a small class via a well designed web-based platform could work well. If we can provide psychotherapy via webcam and retain efficacy, then I would think it possible to facilitate a small group discussion with a similar modality. This isn't unheard of in graduate training in other fields. The context would matter a lot.

But - this is where my reservations start - I don't know what the rationale would be for offering all or most courses online, since even in the best case scenario this still just applies to didactics, and that's only a small part of the overall training experience. I mean, when I was in grad school it often felt as though class was a distraction from whatever I was doing in my lab at the time. My concern isn't about the modality itself so much as it opening a door to less face time on campus in general, and possibly cutting back on other resources and training experiences.