What is the Role of APA?

[foreverbull]

I am curious to hear people's thoughts about APA and its role in social justice/advocacy (and in representing its constituents across the country), or does APA essentially just reflect personal/professional interests (i.e. prestige, power)?

When I attended my first and only APA conference a few years back, I went to a gathering of Division 17 and watched in awe as professionals and graduate students networked for professional gain. In addition, I noticed that those in my grad program who involved themselves most heavily in APA graduate leadership positions were the most driven toward prestige and recognition in their careers. Essentially, it seemed to me that APA was about image, not substance. Perhaps my experience was an exception rather than the norm? I'd be curious to hear if any others had a different experience joining APA during graduate school or after.

Overall, however, it seems to me that APA generally gives lip service to several issues without actually acting on the words (i.e. the psychology student loan debt crisis - they offered a presentation/lecture that emphasized budgeting and resources that early career psychologists are already aware of, if they've done a simple google search), and APA remains silent on many other salient issues. It tends to follow hot topics and trends in research and practice, as long as they don't rock the boat too much.

As we all know, some of its highest ranking members were complicit in torture during the Bush Administration. Fewer of us know about APA misleading its own members into thinking they had to pay optional fees in the past (per the Washington Post): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-will-repay-members-9-million-in-settlement/. Both of these issues highlight corruption within APA and that those in power don't necessarily reflect our long-held values in this field. Like any organization, APA reflects the interests of those in power.

In light of this, I am curious to hear what others think about:
(1) what they believe APA's role should be these days, and
(2) whether APA is serving the interests of its constituents who are more social-justice oriented.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

(1) what they believe APA's role should be these days, and
(2) whether APA is serving the interests of its constituents who are more social-justice oriented.

#1 first and foremost is to represent membership, as is the goal of most professional "associations". The tricky part is in the details.

The APA is somewhat of an odd duck in that it gets a larger % of $'s outside of membership dues (publushing royalties), so this may or may not impact the foci of the organization bc it may not be as reliant on membership to stay viable.

I think they should exist to primarily support their divisions and to stay out of the way otherwise...much like how our gov't should handle Fed v. State issues.

 

[bmedclinic]

APA's role to me is to take my money and allow me to access professional listservs (or normally, professional list-servs that are currently in post-trumpian emotional disarray).

Then they "use" my money and make terrible advocacy and policy decisions with it.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Then they "use" my money and make terrible advocacy and policy decisions with it.

..at least 6 months too late.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I don't think you'll find a lot of soft hearts for the upper leadership of APA here. There are a number of problems with how the organization has been run. That said, there are some difficulties with trying to balance the responsibilities of the organization with the promotion of social justice and I'm not sure that should be its primary goal. The APA is also a composition of smaller entities, so there is a balance there as well. I'm not sure what the right balance is for promoting social justice versus coordinating the other core issues (licensure issues, journal dissemination, mental health funding advocacy, training requirements, etc.), but I would lean towards APA being focused on the promotion of science and how that science should be interpreted in legislation etc. They've done a good job working to improve some of those core areas of focus. For example, the internship imbalance is much better than it was and continues to improve. APA is a slow cog (many will argue too slow) because its a giant organization (some are likely to also argue too large), but I think there are a number of areas that it is doing well. Others it needs to continue to work on. Still others need to be hit with a stick until they change. It's not all good nor is it all bad.

As to d17 and social hour criticism:
Social hours are about networking. Its pretty much in the name of the event. If you saw people doing that, it is because that is the purpose of brining together like minded people of a similar division. Its a great time to catch up and meet new people. I don't think that's a bad thing. Its possible that it was all for personal gain, but it may be that those folks are also trying to promote issues that matter or meet others to work with on projects. As someone who goes to div17 socials regularly, I would be skeptical of the claim that everyone there is just trying to gain power and prestige. Much of the conversation is just shooting the breeze and catching up. I'm sure there are some trying to promote (after all, this is a professional meeting that impacts jobs so that wouldn't be abnormal), but I feel like psychology is generally composed of people who are interested in the welfare of others. I think you can do well and still help others. As I'm sure you're aware, there is a lot of conversation about social justice on the d17 listserv right now from all sorts of individuals of all different levels of leadership. I can't speak for other divisions, but I've found that div17 has been very focused on social justice and very aware of how our role as psychologists intersects broader cultural problems. The balance is always hard to maintain because we only have so much energy as an organization and it has to be spread to a variety of areas.

 

[smalltownpsych]

From the APA website:

Our mission is to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people's lives. We do this by:

• Encouraging the development and application of psychology in the broadest manner.
• Promoting research in psychology, the improvement of research methods and conditions and the application of research findings.
• Improving the qualifications and usefulness of psychologists by establishing high standards of ethics, conduct, education and achievement.
• Increasing and disseminating psychological knowledge through meetings, professional contacts, reports, papers, discussions and publications.

The way I take this is that the advancement of the science of psychology as a profession will benefit society. In my mind, it is not a social advocacy organization. Rather, it is a professional science organization. I concur that the best way we help society is by maintaining the highest scientific and ethical standards and disseminating that knowledge to the various stakeholders and policy makers. I try to put that into practice in my own community as well.

 

[Peacemaker36]

I think the most important function of APA (and local state associations) is lobbying so that psychology has a seat at the table. That's why I give them money.

 

[MCParent]

I am curious to hear people's thoughts about APA and its role in social justice/advocacy (and in representing its constituents across the country), or does APA essentially just reflect personal/professional interests (i.e. prestige, power)?

It's our accreditation organization. Professions have one organization that is empowered to accredit education programs for professional practice. The government generally dislikes having more than one accreditation body for a profession; that doesn't lead to healthy competition so much as confusion.
How does the organization involve itself in "social justice"? The APA is not a monolithic entity with a hive mind. Not all members hold the same positions on social justice issues, nor should they. In my experience, calls for this have generally been toward a very specific form of "social justice" (look up the horseshoe theory of politics).

When I attended my first and only APA conference a few years back, I went to a gathering of Division 17 and watched in awe as professionals and graduate students networked for professional gain.

If the idea of using a professional meeting to network professionally shocks you, I have bad news for you.

 

[erg923]

When I attended my first and only APA conference a few years back, I went to a gathering of Division 17 and watched in awe as professionals and graduate students networked for professional gain.

The purpose of networking IS professional gain. How do you think people get jobs, build reputations, build referral bases, get consulting work, write book chapters, recruit grad students or post-docs, build research collabrations, etc? What exactly is the problem here?

I work at the VA medical center in the same city where I grew up. I met one of my bosses when I was an assistant prof and he was adjunct clinical training faculty, and then we started home brewing together. My other boss here I happened to know from summers at the swimming hole down the street from where I grew-up and from local neighborhood parties. Yes, beer and spin the bottle parties helped further my career. I would hope none of this shocks you. And I'm not clear why it makes a difference where the networking takes place (APA convention vs backyard BBQ)?

Overall, however, it seems to me that APA generally gives lip service to several issues without actually acting on the words (i.e. the psychology student loan debt crisis - they offered a presentation/lecture that emphasized budgeting and resources that early career psychologists are already aware

I have no idea why APA would/should have any involvement or sense or culpability or responsibility for the irrational financial decisions of individuals entering overpriced graduate programs? Whether those programs should be barred from APA accreditation because of their price tag is another question.

I do not advocate professional organizations like APA rock the boat for the sake of social justice warrioring- I do not pay them for moral lecturing and positioning. I pay them to advocate for the advancement of my profession-both the bench science and clinical service arms. Sometimes that might rock the boat, and if it does, I'm fine with that.

 

[erg923]

.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Mainly: development, maintenance, and enforcement of educational accreditation standards and advocacy for the profession.

 

[foreverbull]

The purpose of networking IS professional gain. How do you think people get jobs, build reputations, build referral bases, get consulting work, write book chapters, recruit grad students or post-docs, build research collabrations, etc? What exactly is the problem here?


I have no idea why APA would/should have any involvement or sense or culpability or responsibility for the irrational financial decisions of individuals entering overpriced graduate programs? Whether those programs should be barred from APA accreditation because of their price tag is another question.

I do not advocate professional organizations like APA rock the boat for the sake of social justice warrioring- I do not pay them for moral lecturing and positioning. I pay them to advocate for the advancement of my profession-both the bench science and clinical service arms. Sometimes that might rock the boat, and if it does, I'm fine with that.

I hear you on the networking being beneficial and a large part of what organizations provide in general. APA serves as a governing body over psychology, and that was something that I left out because I was more interested in the other aspects given that I've seen many people riled up about the lack of social advocacy lately.

As to the other piece, you clearly have strong opinions about student loans and "irrational financial decisions" of students. I respectfully disagree in that I and several people I know attended public institutions (state schools) that were "fully funded" grad programs the first year and then students were left to find their own assistantships. These were not "overpriced" programs by any means. Never did I or my colleagues go without an assistantship, but those without family money still needed several thousands in loans to cover living costs that were not covered by the low-paid assistantships. Tuition was not fully covered/remitted by the assistantships; only partially. In addition, few students taking out loans fully understand how interest compounds over time and student loan interest rates are exorbitant, but the bottom line of 5% or 8% looks pretty good when you don't understand that you'll be paying double or more what you ended up taking out in loans or how the interest keeps compounding while you're attending graduate school. In sum, the cost of education, even PUBLIC education, is pretty high when you factor in living costs. It would be great if we all had access to full funding that included full tuition remission and enough money to live off of, but that is not realistic for most grad programs. It sounds like you found a program in your specialization that would pay for everything, which is great, but not everyone is that fortunate.
The bigger issue is the cost of education itself. Should students be penalized for seeking ways for loan forgiveness or support if they couldn't get through grad school without loans? I don't believe so. I made a decision to take out loans to get through my program with the basic necessities to survive. I believe that it falls upon our society as a whole to support education costs for those who are capable but less fortunate. Perhaps that's where we fundamentally disagree?

 

[WisNeuro]

If tuition was not paid by the assistantships, and they were not guaranteed, that is not a fully funded program. It's fully possible to get out of graduate school with 0 debt without "family money." As with others, I have little empathy for those with >50k in graduate school debt. There are plenty of options out there, they chose one that I would consider poor. They should be responsible for those decisions.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I hear you on the networking being beneficial and a large part of what organizations provide in general. APA serves as a governing body over psychology, and that was something that I left out because I was more interested in the other aspects given that I've seen many people riled up about the lack of social advocacy lately.

As to the other piece, you clearly have strong opinions about student loans and "irrational financial decisions" of students. I respectfully disagree in that I and several people I know attended public institutions (state schools) that were "fully funded" grad programs the first year and then students were left to find their own assistantships. These were not "overpriced" programs by any means. Never did I or my colleagues go without an assistantship, but those without family money still needed several thousands in loans to cover living costs that were not covered by the low-paid assistantships. Tuition was not fully covered/remitted by the assistantships; only partially. In addition, few students taking out loans fully understand how interest compounds over time and student loan interest rates are exorbitant, but the bottom line of 5% or 8% looks pretty good when you don't understand that you'll be paying double or more what you ended up taking out in loans or how the interest keeps compounding while you're attending graduate school. In sum, the cost of education, even PUBLIC education, is pretty high when you factor in living costs. It would be great if we all had access to full funding that included full tuition remission and enough money to live off of, but that is not realistic for most grad programs. It sounds like you found a program in your specialization that would pay for everything, which is great, but not everyone is that fortunate.
The bigger issue is the cost of education itself. Should students be penalized for seeking ways for loan forgiveness or support if they couldn't get through grad school without loans? I don't believe so. I made a decision to take out loans to get through my program with the basic necessities to survive. I believe that it falls upon our society as a whole to support education costs for those who are capable but less fortunate. Perhaps that's where we fundamentally disagree?

To the bolded point, my response would be no, although I don't know in what ways they're penalized currently.

However, my next response would be that I don't know that I necessarily believes it's a primary role of APA to advocate RE: costs of higher education in general. I would prefer they advocate for, say, increased reimbursement of various psychological services.

 

[SLB-CO]

Great questions! APA is broken up into four directorates - Education, Science, Practice, and Public Interest - and each has their own Government Relations Office, which essentially are the advocacy arms of the administration (i.e., some of the people within those offices are registered lobbiests who spend a great deal of time on Capitol Hill). And, each GRO is meant to serve the directorate. So, when there is pressure from the directorate to make certain actions, the GRO works on them. Public Interest is the most social justice oriented side of the APA, with their description being "PI applies the science and practice of psychology to the fundamental problems of human welfare and social justice. Through education, training and public policy, we: promote equitable and just treatment of all segments of society; encourage the advancement of equal opportunity; foster empowerment of those who do not share equitably in society’s resources." Each staff member in the GRO holds a certain portfolio and works with the directorate on the whole to address those issues in policy. The staff work with the directorate and the division to choose policies to work on, keeping in mind the (a) likelihood of them actually being able to pass in such a divisive Congress, (b) the broad membership that make up the APA, and (c) basis in science. In my experience, APA wants to make sure everything they share is backed up by psychological research and to make sure they are viewed as non-partisan. Because of all of these pieces, work at APA can be incredibly slow-moving; however, with ACTION from individuals, you can push APA to make stances - often, the stances aren't as strong as we'd/I'd like, given all the red tape and bureaucracy and what I outlined above, but in my view, they're better than nothing. For example, thanks to lobbying from members and entire divisions, APA recently wrote a letter to Obama re: DAPL. Was the letter as strong as I hoped? No. Was the process as fast as I hoped? No. BUT, it was better than nothing and, in my experience, APA continues to be more respected on the Hill than *some* organizations who are intensely values-driven and seen as not as science-based. It's complicated.

I won't get into governance structure here (it's here: http://www.apa.org/about/governance/), but I want to encourage people to continue to lobby the APA and ask them to take stands. If you want to see APA work more on social justice issues, tell the Public Interest Directorate! Write to them. Contact APA staff. Tell them what you want to see. Do guest posts on https://psychologybenefits.org/. Tell them what you care about. Get your division to connect with them. They have to be reminded what their membership cares about, and the best way you can do that is by continuing to contact them. If you have certain legislation and actions in mind, be sure to tell the directorate's GRO.

Of note, I share lots of views published on this thread. Full disclosure - I used to work in one of the said directorates in their GRO. It provided me a lot of insight about the APA. To protect my identity here, I'm not going to go into my position, but if you have specific questions, please feel free to PM me. I'm happy to share general observations here. (And I take absolutely no offense to criticisms of the APA - I share in many of them. It's a beast.)

 

[Member1928]

Seems like the OP just realized that the emperor has no clothes.

Once you accept reality you can get back to making things better!

 

[LAPsyGuy]

The purpose of networking IS professional gain. How do you think people get jobs, build reputations, build referral bases, get consulting work, write book chapters, recruit grad students or post-docs, build research collabrations, etc? What exactly is the problem here?

I work at the VA medical center in the same city where I grew up. I met one of my bosses when I was an assistant prof and he was adjunct clinical training faculty, and then we started home brewing together. My other boss here I happened to know from summers at the swimming hole down the street from where I grew-up and from local neighborhood parties. Yes, beer and spin the bottle parties helped further my career. I would hope none of this shocks you. And I'm not clear why it makes a difference where the networking takes place (APA convention vs backyard BBQ)?


I have no idea why APA would/should have any involvement or sense or culpability or responsibility for the irrational financial decisions of individuals entering overpriced graduate programs? Whether those programs should be barred from APA accreditation because of their price tag is another question.

I do not advocate professional organizations like APA rock the boat for the sake of social justice warrioring- I do not pay them for moral lecturing and positioning. I pay them to advocate for the advancement of my profession-both the bench science and clinical service arms. Sometimes that might rock the boat, and if it does, I'm fine with that.

It all makes sense now.

 

[erg923]

It all makes sense now.

The personal jabs are getting old. Take it back channel if you continue to find them irresistible, k?

 

[Sanman]

APA's role to me is to take my money and allow me to access professional listservs (or normally, professional list-servs that are currently in post-trumpian emotional disarray).

Then they "use" my money and make terrible advocacy and policy decisions with it.

Sounds about right. Social justice and promoting science are nice. However, as an ECP, being able to fix structural issues related to licensing and careers are more important. Then again, the more I dive into my career the more I find myself agreeing with Nicholas Cummings (excepting the sexual reorientation stuff) on the direction things should have gone in some ways.

 

[foreverbull]

If tuition was not paid by the assistantships, and they were not guaranteed, that is not a fully funded program. It's fully possible to get out of graduate school with 0 debt without "family money." As with others, I have little empathy for those with >50k in graduate school debt. There are plenty of options out there, they chose one that I would consider poor. They should be responsible for those decisions.

I'd like to see statistics on # of fully funded programs vs. non-fully funded (through all 5-6 years) that are APA-accredited in clinical or counseling psychology in this country. I'd also like to see statistics of how many psychology grads from Ph.D. programs come out debt free. For many, it's not realistic, but I'm guessing the numbers would speak for themselves.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I'd like to see statistics on # of fully funded programs vs. non-fully funded (through all 5-6 years) that are APA-accredited in clinical or counseling psychology in this country. I'd also like to see statistics of how many psychology grads from Ph.D. programs come out debt free. For many, it's not realistic, but I'm guessing the numbers would speak for themselves.

APPIC survey for each year of interns gives an idea of the debt. Although not entirely accurate because school isn't 'over', I would expect it's a rough estimate. From 2015 (latest up) its about 20% emerge with zero debt.
http://www.appic.org/match/match-statistics

 

[WisNeuro]

I'd like to see statistics on # of fully funded programs vs. non-fully funded (through all 5-6 years) that are APA-accredited in clinical or counseling psychology in this country. I'd also like to see statistics of how many psychology grads from Ph.D. programs come out debt free. For many, it's not realistic, but I'm guessing the numbers would speak for themselves.

Last APA salary survey compiled data about debt only from graduate school. If I remember correctly, something like a third had zero grad school related debt. It's possible for many. And many others also manage with minimal debt. It's a choice. Some choose unreasonable debt.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

The personal jabs are getting old. Take it back channel if you continue to find them irresistible, k?

No thanks.

 

[foreverbull]

Last APA salary survey compiled data about debt only from graduate school. If I remember correctly, something like a third had zero grad school related debt. It's possible for many. And many others also manage with minimal debt. It's a choice. Some choose unreasonable debt.

If I'm to believe this statistic or the one from Justanothergrad (at 20% debt free, per APPIC), that means that it's somewhere around 20-30% at most debt-free. That isn't anywhere near the majority if 70 to 80% come out with student loans, which strengthens my point that most people will come out with student loans, and it isn't realistic to think that all grad students can be debt-free if they just pick the right program.
I think you have demonstrated very black and white thinking about this issue and have failed to take into account several factors, i.e. fit of program being a consideration, competition for fully-funded positions, location/cost of living, etc. The fact that you acknowledge that you have little empathy for people who take out loans past a certain point is concerning to me given the field that we're in. I hope you don't judge your clients the way you judge graduate students with few financial resources who take out loans past your acceptable cutoff.

 

[WisNeuro]

Taking out 20-30k in loans is vastly different than taking out six figures in loans. Fact of the matter is, too many people treat those numbers as meaningless, and fully expect someone else to bail them out. Fit has nothing to do with the proliferation of diploma mills and predatory programs. Those poor life choices are just as much of teh consumer's fault as it is of that shady program.

The fact that you are conflating my views on excessive loans and predatory programs with my ability to empathize with my patients is concerning to me considering we shoudl all be trained in understanding biases and logical fallacies.

 

[erg923]

The fact that you acknowledge that you have little empathy for people who take out loans past a certain point is concerning to me given the field that we're in. I hope you don't judge your clients the way you judge graduate students with few financial resources who take out loans past your acceptable cutoff.

Sigh.

First of all, what wiseneuro said.

Second, sometimes its good for people.... yes even your patients, to hear that they have made poor decisions and are now reaping the natural consequences of that decision/behavior. I think this can be done therapeutically and have a powerful therapeutic effect-"victims" don't have any power.

Some people's problems are largely of their own doing, and the enabling of diffusion of responsibility and blame is often a barrier to recovery from the chronic mental health problems that result.

 

[smalltownpsych]

As a psychologist who is paying back big debt. I have to agree with erg and wisneuro on this one. The APA had nothing to do with my financial decisions and they sure as hell aren't going to make my payments. I made the choices and it is my responsibility to deal with the consequences. I was an adult when I made the choice. Now should the APA do a better job of regulating large cohort low match programs? Yes.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

If I'm to believe this statistic or the one from Justanothergrad (at 20% debt free, per APPIC), that means that it's somewhere around 20-30% at most debt-free. That isn't anywhere near the majority if 70 to 80% come out with student loans, which strengthens my point that most people will come out with student loans, and it isn't realistic to think that all grad students can be debt-free if they just pick the right program.
I think you have demonstrated very black and white thinking about this issue and have failed to take into account several factors, i.e. fit of program being a consideration, competition for fully-funded positions, location/cost of living, etc. The fact that you acknowledge that you have little empathy for people who take out loans past a certain point is concerning to me given the field that we're in. I hope you don't judge your clients the way you judge graduate students with few financial resources who take out loans past your acceptable cutoff.

I think everybody is right. Some people can be successful with these loans, while it may be a lifetime slog for others. Some will make decisions they either didn't or couldn't think out. AND I agree that some here seem very judgmental in surprising and disappointing ways.

 

[MAClinician]

As to the other piece, you clearly have strong opinions about student loans and "irrational financial decisions" of students. I respectfully disagree in that I and several people I know attended public institutions (state schools) that were "fully funded" grad programs the first year and then students were left to find their own assistantships. These were not "overpriced" programs by any means. Never did I or my colleagues go without an assistantship, but those without family money still needed several thousands in loans to cover living costs that were not covered by the low-paid assistantships. Tuition was not fully covered/remitted by the assistantships; only partially. In addition, few students taking out loans fully understand how interest compounds over time and student loan interest rates are exorbitant, but the bottom line of 5% or 8% looks pretty good when you don't understand that you'll be paying double or more what you ended up taking out in loans or how the interest keeps compounding while you're attending graduate school. In sum, the cost of education, even PUBLIC education, is pretty high when you factor in living costs. It would be great if we all had access to full funding that included full tuition remission and enough money to live off of, but that is not realistic for most grad programs. It sounds like you found a program in your specialization that would pay for everything, which is great, but not everyone is that fortunate.
The bigger issue is the cost of education itself. Should students be penalized for seeking ways for loan forgiveness or support if they couldn't get through grad school without loans? I don't believe so. I made a decision to take out loans to get through my program with the basic necessities to survive. I believe that it falls upon our society as a whole to support education costs for those who are capable but less fortunate. Perhaps that's where we fundamentally disagree?

Majority of applicants are at least 21 years old when they apply to grad school. if you haven't taken the initiative to become financially literate by adulthood then that is on YOU, not APA, ACA, NASW or any other professional membership organization. If you need to take out loans it is your responsibility to understand the bottom line of what you owe when you pay it back. Anyone who takes out loans in undergraduate are required to go through exit counseling to understand this. If you didn't need loans then there are resources available to help you understand. In this day and age with the amount of information available online, I believe it is unacceptable to not know what you are getting into before you accept an offer from a school. As @WisNeuro already indicated, "fully funded" means full tuition remission and a stipend. FWIW, my program provided both, made it clear they could not guarantee full funding but had historically done so for all students through 4 years on campus for many many years. I did take out loans as my stipend covered my rent, utilities food, car insurance but did not cover conference travel costs, trips home, or spending money to relax. I can't imagine having to take out more to cover tuition.

As to the second point I bolded, free education is only guaranteed through high school. Graduate education is not a "right". It is not for everyone. If you (generally not you specifically) want it, it is up to you to research how to make it happen. There are financial supports available for many but it requires effort and interest to find them.

 

[MCParent]

Majority of applicants are at least 21 years old when they apply to grad school. if you haven't taken the initiative to become financially literate by adulthood then that is on YOU, not APA, ACA, NASW or any other professional membership organization. If you need to take out loans it is your responsibility to understand the bottom line of what you owe when you pay it back. Anyone who takes out loans in undergraduate are required to go through exit counseling to understand this. If you didn't need loans then there are resources available to help you understand. In this day and age with the amount of information available online, I believe it is unacceptable to not know what you are getting into before you accept an offer from a school. As @WisNeuro already indicated, "fully funded" means full tuition remission and a stipend. FWIW, my program provided both, made it clear they could not guarantee full funding but had historically done so for all students through 4 years on campus for many many years. I did take out loans as my stipend covered my rent, utilities food, car insurance but did not cover conference travel costs, trips home, or spending money to relax. I can't imagine having to take out more to cover tuition.

As to the second point I bolded, free education is only guaranteed through high school. Graduate education is not a "right". It is not for everyone. If you (generally not you specifically) want it, it is up to you to research how to make it happen. There are financial supports available for many but it requires effort and interest to find them.

Dead on. Unfortunately...

 

[Sanman]

Agreed with all of the above. I took out loans for living expenses as my stipend was not enough to cover all my expenses in grad school. With a spouse that earns a significant salary and less in loans than most of these programs that make you pay tuition, I still feel it.

Add to that, many of these people want to do private practice. Additional business loans are necessary if you don't want to be low earning employee for the rest of your life. People can do as they please, but being out in the real world it seems that an MSW has more options with less debt than a PsyD in many settings. Admin and clinical jobs are an option.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Majority of applicants are at least 21 years old when they apply to grad school. if you haven't taken the initiative to become financially literate by adulthood then that is on YOU, not APA, ACA, NASW or any other professional membership organization. If you need to take out loans it is your responsibility to understand the bottom line of what you owe when you pay it back. Anyone who takes out loans in undergraduate are required to go through exit counseling to understand this. If you didn't need loans then there are resources available to help you understand. In this day and age with the amount of information available online, I believe it is unacceptable to not know what you are getting into before you accept an offer from a school. As @WisNeuro already indicated, "fully funded" means full tuition remission and a stipend. FWIW, my program provided both, made it clear they could not guarantee full funding but had historically done so for all students through 4 years on campus for many many years. I did take out loans as my stipend covered my rent, utilities food, car insurance but did not cover conference travel costs, trips home, or spending money to relax. I can't imagine having to take out more to cover tuition.

As to the second point I bolded, free education is only guaranteed through high school. Graduate education is not a "right". It is not for everyone. If you (generally not you specifically) want it, it is up to you to research how to make it happen. There are financial supports available for many but it requires effort and interest to find them.

If only it was that clear. I like concrete truths, too, but they don't really exist.

 

[MCParent]

If only it was that clear. I like concrete truths, too, but they don't really exist.

In what way is it not that clear? Aside from the few FSPSs people have posted about on here where they may have been actively deceived during their applications/interview.

 

[erg923]

Financial savvy is one thing (I am still learning) but high school level math, as in and interest and compound interest, is another. No reason adults need be protected from the latter. That's there choice. But is has consequences that is no one else's fault or responsibility, and certainty not the APA's.

There are some psychology programs that are egregious in this regard, and I would argue some oversight and regulation of their practices is warranted, however.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

I think it's more than just math skills. That's really oversimplifying these types of decisions. It's a problem of forecasting and imagination skills, and it's contextual and life experience based. If one had never had to manage all these variable Los at once, it's even more difficult to project into the future.

Even the notion that once adults, they should know better, is an odd position to hold. Like somehow flipping the page on the calendar makes them qualitatively different.

We now know that maturity, at least brain wise doesn't set in until 25. Most don't receive any money related education in school and many families don't address it. I'm noticing a change in this upcoming generation. They were nearly traumatized by the recession and are very concerned with money, often to the point of putting earning potential exclusively ahead of interest when picking college majors.

 

[MCParent]

often to the point of putting earning potential exclusively ahead of interest when picking college majors.

Thank goodness.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Thank goodness.

Really? So interest in the subject matter ought not matter? I'm sure we'll all enjoy their spate of midlife crises.

 

[erg923]

They were nearly traumatized by the recession and are very concerned with money, often to the point of putting earning potential exclusively ahead of interest when picking college majors.

Responsible parenting should seek to blend "dreams" with the pragmatic realities of being an adult who has to pay bills.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Responsible parenting should seek to blend "dreams" with the pragmatic realities of being an adult who has to pay bills.

Agreed. What in seeing is now on the extreme end of leaving out interests and dreams.

 

[erg923]

Agreed. What in seeing is now on the extreme end of leaving out interests and dreams.

1. I dont know if there is actually any evidence of that. You're seeing this where, exactly?

2. The WWII generation, who grew up during the great depression, seems to have adopted a fiscal attitude/approach that served them well in life.

 

[MCParent]

Really? So interest in the subject matter ought not matter? I'm sure we'll all enjoy their spate of midlife crises.

1. Midlife existential crisis due to pursuing a career that has less meaning but good pay
2. Midlife existential crisis due to not being able to afford what you want to give your family

Pick one.

Srs, though, citation needed for the idea that this is somehow (a) pervasive and (b) significantly detrimental.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

1. I dont know if there is actually any evidence of that. You're seeing this where, exactly?


Srs, though, citation needed for the idea that this is somehow (a) pervasive and (b) significantly detrimental.

Never claimed i was quoting a study, and I think it was clear I was sharing anecdotal and theoretical ideas. So, I can't fill the request for citations. I work at a large UCC and even long term staff (over a decade) have noticed these changes. The kids talk about the recession as a driver for almost entirely or entirely discounting their own interests and desires. Feel free to ignore, if my musings don't meet your epistemological standards.

 

[erg923]

Never claimed i was quoting a study, and I think it was clear I was sharing anecdotal and theoretical ideas. So, I can't fill the request for citations. I work at a large UCC and even long term staff (over a decade) have noticed these changes. The kids talk about the recession as a driver for almost entirely or entirely discounting their own interests and desires. Feel free to ignore, if my musings don't meet your epistemological standards.

This may be a trend.... or it may not be. We often like to think we observe trends in our clinical work (I do too). Some are probably real and some are probably a combination of our imagination and cognitive biases. Either way, I would not poo-poo a generation of individuals that are becoming more financially responsible and less prone to blindly entering into vocations without knowledge or care for the financial realties and ramifications because mommy and daddy said I can do anything my little heart desires.

 

[smalltownpsych]

On a related note to this tangent, my brother and I spent quite some time good naturedly mocking our millennial relatives over the thanksgiving holiday. Much hyperbole and overgeneralization was used for comedic effect. I did not pretend that it was scientific in any way. We provided them with a safe place and a therapy pet to assuage their sensitive and bruised feelings afterwards.

 

[MCParent]

The kids talk about the recession as a driver for almost entirely or entirely discounting their own interests and desires.

This might be one time where "check your privilege" is actually good advice. The vast majority of the world, even the developed world, does not get to pick their jobs based on their interests or desires.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

This may be a trend.... or it may not be. We often like to think we observe trends in our clinical work (I do too). Some are probably real and some are probably a combination of our imagination and cognitive biases. Either way, I would not poo-poo a generation of individuals that are becoming more financially responsible and less prone to blindly entering into vocations without knowledge or care for the financial realties and ramifications because mommy and daddy said I can do anything my little heart desires.

Agreed. I've been open about it being just one site's unscientific observations. I think the downside is that possibly they're acting from fear instead of measured notions of responsibility.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

This might be one time where "check your privilege" is actually good advice. The vast majority of the world, even the developed world, does not get to pick their jobs based on their interests or desires.

Fascinating response. I think you may have misunderstood my posts. I've been talking about students' perceived sense of freedom to choose based on interest. I've not been advocating one way or the other, except to note that perhaps the shift is due to an outward movement of the locus of control because of their perceptions of the dangerousness of the economy. I'll check my privelege if you check your projections.

You do, indirectly, bring up another important source of changes in the population I mentioned. The demos for this particular university have change, making it generally more inclusive. The changing demos could be driving our perceived changes in selection of major based on interest.

 

[MCParent]

I've been talking about students' perceived sense of freedom to choose based on interest. I've not been advocating one way or the other, except to note that perhaps the shift is due to an outward movement of the locus of control because of their perceptions of the dangerousness of the economy. I'll check my privelege if you check your projections.

"Really? So interest in the subject matter ought not matter? I'm sure we'll all enjoy their spate of midlife crises."

If you think your position on the issue isn't apparent, I have bad news. You're clearly not dispassionately assessing this while surrounded by a teeming horde or insensitives.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

"Really? So interest in the subject matter ought not matter? I'm sure we'll all enjoy their spate of midlife crises."

If you think your position on the issue isn't apparent, I have bad news. You're clearly not dispassionately assessing this while surrounded by a teeming horde or insensitives.

Again, I think you may be misreading what I wrote. I was talking about changes WITHIN a group. You then attacked me for not comparing that group to others. I had and have no reason to compare the group to others. My focus was on the in-group changes. Yes, that group has been historically privileged, but that's a tangent. I'm sorry if you don't get that point.

 

[Pragma]

I wish the APA did not get involved in as many political issues as they do. I'd prefer it to focus predominantly on accreditation and professional advocacy only.