Buzzwordsoldier, all my experiences with people from free standing professional schools are based on numerous experiences with them and not simply seeing them on TV. I live in a state where 80% of the psychologists are from these programs. There are stark differences between the CLINICAL and research training that I received and anyone else that i've met from professional schools--and i've met hundreds of people since I belong to networking groups and go to state association events. There are simply too many students in these programs to provide for the type of mentoring and training that is required to be competent in this field. There are no shortcuts. For example, all my clinical practica and my training on internship relied heavily on videotape review and I was given extensive supervision (4-6 hours per week of supervision for literally 4 to 6 patients at practica). Many of my supervisors throughout my training listened to therapy tapes outside of supervision. I was also a therapist on research studies where I received 1 hour of supervision with feedback per patient. Ratio of training to client hours was mostly 1 to 1. I don't know anyone from a professional school that got this level of training and mentoring. Most do not even get any audiotape review throughout training and work at low quality training sites where the supervisor is poor and they are basically slaves. I've met many licensed psychologists from professional schools who have never had anyone review a therapy tape for them! Also, i've met numerous professional school students that had practica at places where they do not get ANY supervision from a licensed psychologist (they only get supervision for 1 hour from an intern and nothing else).
All my negative opinions about professional schools come directly from graduates of these programs who readily admit that there program was a joke and that they didn't get their "act together" to get into a better program or were limited geographically.
PHD12, my main complaint is that folks here have tended to treat all professional schools the same. There are differences, and I recognize these differences based, for the most part, not on hearsay, not even on the research I did as an applicant, but on my own observations of students in the field who attend the different programs in my area. As for your observations, can you say whether the programs you take issue with attempt to train their students for the kind of work people in your professional circles do?
The same could be said for you, Buzz. Really, can you cut it out with the psychobabble? If you go to a FSPS, doesn't it piss you off that you pay so much money to be such a small fish in a large profit pond? That's what most people here, when it comes down to it, really despise about those schools. There is no valid reason for attacking the people who graduate from FSPS's, except that we all are just so frustrated that the schools are creating this new world for psychology that is largely not good for the people involved in the profession. If there is a valid reason to defend these schools, I think it is worth hearing--good points have been brought up in the past, such as a variety of clinical classes, a variety of instructors, perhaps more incentive to work really hard at being a good business person, etc. However, being defensive and attacking the scientist-practitioner model (which existed first and has a great history behind the current model of psychology) just doesn't make sense. Worthless back-and-forth banter is so tiring. And that's not just directed at you, Buzz.
Psychadelic 2012 -- Thank you for at least pointing out a few of the possible merits of the model. I wonder if you would go so far as to allow that there are PsyD programs in schools not named Baylor or Rutgers that a) manage to do a good enough job at what they've identified as their missions, missions which are not at all about riding a student loan bubble, and b) are taking the lead in addressing some of the problems gripping the discipline of psychology, problems which they did not create.
Now, I wonder if my "psychobabble" (I assume you mean such terms as object relations, shadow, splitting?) is not to your taste because it stems from a totally different tradition from yours. It may be of limited value to you, but I find it's well suited to help understand ways that a discussion about the possible merits of professional schools has been derailed by folks who dress up their ill will (you did use the word "despise") via overintellectualized research, stats, and science constructs -- so much technobabble.
I have not attacked the scientist practitioner model so much as questioned peoples' unwavering endorsement of it as the be all and end all of psychology. I may not be the most tactful person here. But I will not stand limply by while people heap scorn on my passion, my intelligence, and my investment of time and money.
I wonder why such otherwise intelligent people have not yet recognized that the barely concealed vitriol they have expressed here could instead be trained on creating win-win solutions to the problems facing psychology. Pick a problem – internship imbalance? Crappy training in practitioner-scholar programs? Business leaders worth their salt will tell you such "problems" are unrecognized growth opportunities, in a very real dollars and cents way. Oh, wait, no – gosh darn it – I'm simply a pro-school sunshine pumper… Whimper.
Sorry dude. I have to agree that this "super insightful psych student" thing and the overintellectualization via use of Breaking Bad quotes and metaphorical writing is tiresome. I kinda wish you would just answer the questions.
erg, in the psychological tradition I find most useful, it's all grist for the mill -- people's breaking bad quote siggies, included. Anywho, I did answer at least one of your questions – I gave an example of a non-quantitative empirical research methodology, and an example of a specific piece of work utilizing that methodology, that I find meaningful. But……maybe that wasn't
your question, after all. Sorry if I got you confused with someone else. In the chorus of self-righteous technobabble you and others threw up, I might have lost track of who asked what. Sigh. Maybe I shouldn't expect you to notice how ironic it is for scientists such as yourself to question anything
except science.
