Why is there a negative view towards Argosy University?

[erg923]

---

Members don't see this ad.

yes, my "personal intertest" is what is best for ther profession. No shame in that at all. And yes, if you have no interest in research at all, I would rather them get masters. Masters-level providers have different roles than doctoral level providers and many are great therapists. Both of these (doctoral and masters level people) serve the public well in their own right, and i work well with them. What is the problem here? Where is this harm to the public that you speak of?

 

[RileyG]

I will alter my question:

Assuming that the bulk of individuals in psyd programs want to get involved in practitioner-orientated careers
+
assuming that such individuals would not enroll in phd programs otherwise + assuming that they would earn solely a masters degree in a related helping profession (i.e. counseling, clinical social work) before getting involved in counseling/mental health

Would phd people who seem to hate the professional schools rather individuals get less training (by only getting a masters degree)? Would that really be best for the general population? Or are you putting your personal interest, of upholding the elitism of the traditional terminology of the (phd) psychologist to further your own personal interests (rather than what is best in terms of care for the general population)?

your question seems to also assume psyd = professional school

i have a problem with professional schools...i have absolutely no problem with the psyd

 

[cara susanna]

Haha, I love the comparison of PhDs' views on professional schools to segregation. Awesome.

 

[JockNerd]

Ignore the imbecilic posts in opposition of professional schools. The fact is that a similar mindset that opposes expansion of the psychology profession today is the same narrow rigidness that proclaimed that universal education for all children would be harmful. Its the same mindset that believed in separation and then seperate but equal. Its the same mindset that opposed the GI Bill in the 1940s.

This is a pretty ridiculous take on the situation. Maybe it would be apt if universal education cost the student $100k, had lower standards for incoming students, and systematically had weaker outcomes for graduates. The analogies to segregation and the GI bill are lost on me.

This has been discussed ad naseum, so I will end my posting with this question to the phds who oppose professional schools: Many phds do not want to practice or work with actual clients

Most do.

- is it not better to have more highly trained psyds than less trained bachelor or master level practitioners?

Obviously, false dichotomy fallacy, and a fallacy to assume that all psyds (or all phds) are "highly trained." And, this is only tangentially related to the thrust of the negativity toward prof. schools.

Assuming that the bulk of individuals in psyd programs want to get involved in practitioner-orientated careers

...erroneously. I actually heard this TWICE at the apa convention, once from a PsyD program graduate and once from a professional school student. Wanting to be a practioner is not a good reason to go to a psyd program; most phds become practioners.

assuming that such individuals would not enroll in phd programs otherwise

They would be poorly informed. Even at my research-focused phd program, a large number of students want to practice and are moving in that stream. And they're doing it for free.

Would phd people who seem to hate the professional schools rather individuals get less training (by only getting a masters degree)? Would that really be best for the general population?

Again, false dichotomy. Generally, the folks on the board who are negative toward prof. schools favor much, much more rigorous standards for the degrees.

Or are you putting your personal interest, of upholding the elitism of the traditional terminology of the (phd) psychologist to further your own personal interests (rather than what is best in terms of care for the general population)?

This makes me think that you didn't actually *read* any of the posts by people who have problems with professional school training models, because it's so far removed from the actual points put forward.

 

[erg923]

Haha, I love the comparison of PhDs' views on professional schools to segregation. Awesome.

I dont get it either, but i think I can see where is comes from.

Individuals who are have not yet begun, or have just begun graduate training are in no way prepared to think about the larger professional and business issues that are the reality of the working world. I suppose to them, all this comes off as arbitrary discrimination, elitism, or whatever, but the fact is that they are not yet in a position where they have to confront or think about anything beyond psychology. The practical business aspects that the actual practice of clinical psych is confronted with in the real world (ie., salary supression, image and rep to other professions, supply-demand imbalances) is yet to be appreciated. They will see it later as their trianing and careers progress. But right now, they are still insulated in the protective graduate school shell, which, unfortunately, does a terrible job or informing grad students on the realties of the professional working world/environment.

 

[Love4Psyc]

Hey everyone, I am going to be as nice as possible on this because I have read some pretty horrible things about Psy.D. programs and that is very disappointing. There are pros and cons of Ph.D and Psy.D.

I am writing this for any student that is considering Argosy University Washington DC campus. I am a current student at this campus and love it. I have learned a lot so far in my time here at the school and wouldn't have changed my mind if I had a chance to pick another program. I actually just learned the other day, that our campus, ARGOSY, WASHINGTON DC was one of the highest ranked Psy. D. programs in the country and that we recently received 7 year APA accreditation until 2016 which is actually very uncommon among Psy. D. and Ph. D. programs. The professors are very dedicated to our understanding of the material and they are genuinely nice people. This program is not an easy one. From day one, I have been busy and have busted my butt to get my grades. Don't think for one second that this will be an easy ride like some say it is. Yes, it is expensive to go here but I am okay with paying for a good education. I was once told that you should do anything to get your degree. Well I am doing anything and I like it.

So if you are a student who is considering Argosy University, I would highly recommend Washington DC campus. I know the other campus are not as highly ranked but I am sure some are better than others. Don't get wrapped up in all of these postings because I almost did myself. Go with your gut feeling and do what is best for you.

I really hope this helps some people who are considering this program.

Sincerely,
A current Argosy University, Washington DC student

 

[cmuhooligan]

t we recently received 7 year APA accreditation until 2016 which is actually very uncommon among Psy. D. and Ph. D. programs.

Actually, I believe that is the standard (i.e., if a program is accredited, it is for a 7-year period). Further, APA accreditation is woefully easy to achieve; I would not flaunt that as an indication of a program's quality.

 

[JockNerd]

Hey everyone, I am going to be as nice as possible on this because I have read some pretty horrible things about Psy.D. programs and that is very disappointing. There are pros and cons of Ph.D and Psy.D...

No one is saying that Prof. school programs will make a person miserable. I'm sure many people are happy with theirs. But that's beside the point. The real take-home messages are things like massive class sizes that can let weak students slip by (Argosy DC cohorts have gone up from 33 for the 2002 internship application cohort to 78 (!!!) in 2008; and that's WITH attrition that looks to be around 20%), and weaker outcomes for students (only a 46% APA-approved match rate last year), and overal effect on the field (ridiculous cohort sizes again).

I've found that many times people who post on this topic either misread or read what they want to into posts of people who are against professional schools. I certainly don't think every prof. school students is incompetent or stupid. I do, though, think incompetent and stupid people can slip by really easily in the programs. I've met a few and others have posted in threads about their weak classmates. Larger than that are the concerns for the future of the field. So, whether prof. school students are "happy" is prettymuch my smallest concern on the issue.

Argosy data:
http://www.argosy.edu/pdf/psydinfo/attritionWDC.pdf
http://www.argosy.edu/pdf/psydinfo/InternshipWDC.pdf

 

[ilikeeepsycheee]

JockNerd;8786442]No one is saying that Prof. school programs will make a person miserable. I'm sure many people are happy with theirs. But that's beside the point. The real take-home messages are things like massive class sizes that can let weak students slip by (Argosy DC cohorts have gone up from 33 for the 2002 internship application cohort to 78 (!!!) in 2008; and that's WITH attrition that looks to be around 20%), and weaker outcomes for students (only a 46% APA-approved match rate last year), and overal effect on the field (ridiculous cohort sizes again).

I've found that many times people who post on this topic either misread or read what they want to into posts of people who are against professional schools. I certainly don't think every prof. school students is incompetent or stupid. I do, though, think incompetent and stupid people can slip by really easily in the programs. I've met a few and others have posted in threads about their weak classmates. Larger than that are the concerns for the future of the field. So, whether prof. school students are "happy" is prettymuch my smallest concern on the issue.

Argosy data:
http://www.argosy.edu/pdf/psydinfo/attritionWDC.pdf
http://www.argosy.edu/pdf/psydinfo/InternshipWDC.pdf[/QUOTE]

 

[aagman01]

UW-Madison matched at basically the same rate. Does that mean UW-Madison is not a school you would consider "good". Seriously. There are many factors that go into these figures. Ideally, no one would like to pay for grad school with the enormous debt levels that the professional schools require. But, that doesn't make the professional schools bad or the students in them bad.

I do personally have a problem with for-profits running professional schools, though. The profit motive, I beileve, could trump ethical training practices and the like. Anyone know why APA doesn't just require that an institution must be "non-profit" in order to receive APA accredition?

Illinois School of Professional Psych match rate is 70%. Higher than the other Argosy campuses, but not what I would consider "good."

Match rates are here http://www.appic.org/downloads/APPIC_Match_2000-06_by_Univ.pdf for anyone who hasn't seen them.

You know, it really seems to me that often the APPIC match rate given to the Insider's Guide didn't match what APPIC reported. Same goes for the Insider's Guide data not always matching full disclosure data on financial support.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Anyone know why APA doesn't just require that an institution must be "non-profit" in order to receive APA accredition?

My cynical answer would be because it would inhibit proliferation of their organization.

 

[Neuropsych2be]

UW-Madison matched at basically the same rate. Does that mean UW-Madison is not a school you would consider "good". Seriously. There are many factors that go into these figures. Ideally, no one would like to pay for grad school with the enormous debt levels that the professional schools require. But, that doesn't make the professional schools bad or the students in them bad.

I do personally have a problem with for-profits running professional schools, though. The profit motive, I beileve, could trump ethical training practices and the like. Anyone know why APA doesn't just require that an institution must be "non-profit" in order to receive APA accredition?

Match rates are not necessarily an indication of educational quality. My program at Fielding has historically had lower match rates because the student body is composed of middle aged mid-career people who are very restricted geographically. The Wright Institute in Berkley has had historically low match rates despite being a very good psychodynamically oriented program for the same reasons. The average age at Fielding is 47. I think the average age at the Wright Institute is 40. Most students I know of who go the The Wright Institute are San Fran Bay residents who tend to stay in that area. Geographic restrictions regarding internship are a real issue for 40-somethings who have homes. mortgages, kids in school, spouses with careers, aging parents for whom they are the caregivers, long-standing ties to a community etc. Much younger students in their 20's are less likely to have restrictions because of the phase of life they are in.

Until this year, my program has never required people to go through the match and many of my middle aged peers would tend to get internships outside the match process that would still qualify them for licensure. However, this has the function of greatly skewing the data. One acquaintance of mine who graduated with his Ph.D. from Fuller applied only to internships in my area, did not get into any, and had to go through the clearinghouse. He ended getting an internship in an area he hated but had no choice. To maximize the probability of placement, students have to apply across a wide geographic area. There is just no getting around that problem.

However, I agree with you that for profit schools should not be given APA approval. Medicine had a debate about this issue a century ago. The Flexner report that came out in 1910 (I think) led to medical schools in this country being non-profit organizations, even free standing professional schools such as osteopathic medical schools. That was not always the case prior to the Flexner report when many medical schools were profit making institutions. The APA should take a long hard look at what our medical colleagues have done with regard to this issue. Of course, APA is more than an academic and scientific organization. As T4C stated, APA is a guild organization and as such it continually seeks to expand its control while concurrently being so badly organized and incompetently run that it fails to advocate well for the profession.

 

[psychmama]

Neuropsych2be, while they may be older cohorts, they also appear to be weaker students, Wright Institute, Fuller, and Fielding all have a few things in common. . . high admission rates, low EPPP scores, low match rates, high tuition, and large cohorts.

I fear I know where this is heading if I reply, but I'll chime in anyway...

Jon, yes and no. The high admission rates, made possible in part by the large cohorts, do contribute to a class that, on average, has weaker stats. However, don't forget that some of those students are likely to be every bit as smart and well-prepared as the ones in university-based programs. For one thing, a good chunk are older folk who might have been able to get into a more competitive program but for their geographic restrictions. Also, while I'd never assert that life experience substitutes for academic preparation, an older cohort can enrich the field of clinical psychology precisely because older students have a rich frame of reference that informs their research and practice interests.

I'm not in favor of Argosy's large classes, and I believe the admission criteria should be strengthened. I also think that if for-profit Psyd and Phd programs are to merit accreditation, they should find ways of providing adequate internship opportunities for their students. I'd be in favor of requiring them to offer captive internships, as Widener and some others do.

 

[JockNerd]

UW-Madison matched at basically the same rate.

No, it didn't.
http://www.appic.org/downloads/APPIC_Match_2000-06_by_Univ.pdf
http://glial.psych.wisc.edu/index.php/psychgradprospective/psychgradabout/172

Ideally, no one would like to pay for grad school with the enormous debt levels that the professional schools require. But, that doesn't make the professional schools bad or the students in them bad.

Did I say anything about the tuition costs? Did I not JUST write that I don't think all students in prof. schools are bad or weak?? Did I not JUST write my main problems with prof. schools, which are entirely divergent from what you seem to be contending I had written? Did you even read my post?? 😕

 

[Ollie123]

However, don't forget that some of those students are likely to be every bit as smart and well-prepared as the ones in university-based programs. For one thing, a good chunk are older folk who might have been able to get into a more competitive program but for their geographic restrictions.

I think this was exactly the sort of thing JN was referring to when he said people read in what they want to in these posts. Jon didn't say every single student was bad. He has (repeatedly) made it abundantly clear that he doesn't think that. I'm sure I can say "Somali citizens are worse off financially than US citizens" without everyone pointing out that the Somali President (do they have a President? I'm not up on my African politics) is doing well enough for himself, or mentioning their US neighbor who is destitute from medical bills, yet many people will do exactly that in the prof school discussions.

The issue in my mind, and I suspect the minds of others, is where to draw the line. Is it worth it to have one more person with great potential if it means 2 more who should never have been allowed near graduate training will also get in? What about 5? What about 50?

You said you'd like to see tighter standards at those schools too, which I think is a great start (albeit not the only problem with them). In all honesty, it really sounds like you and Jon are saying the same thing so I'm not sure where the "yes and no" came from.

 

[psychmama]

I think this was exactly the sort of thing JN was referring to when he said people read in what they want to in these posts.

In all honesty, it really sounds like you and Jon are saying the same thing so I'm not sure where the "yes and no" came from.

Ollie - I agree that this is less an outright difference of opinion and more shadings of grey.

I realize neither Jon nor most of us are saying that all students from professional schools are bad. I just think that cream rises to the top in any profession, and believe the market usually sorts out who's well trained and competent. I would like to see Argosy and its ilk adopt tighter standards. On the other hand, I don't feel it's my place to sit in judgment on individuals who chose this route of preparation. I may not agree with it, but it's their life and they're going to live with the consequences of high debt and the challenges of lower match rates. If they graduate from Argosy and are every bit as competent and qualified someone from a more prestigious program, then good for them. If they can't cut it, that's their headache.

 

[erg923]

I may not agree with it, but it's their life and they're going to live with the consequences of high debt and the challenges of lower match rates. If they graduate from Argosy and are every bit as competent and qualified someone from a more prestigious program, then good for them. If they can't cut it, that's their headache.

No, no, no, no. Its does affect you........and this profession as a whole. Think about it for a minute. Wake up people!

 

[aagman01]

The University of Wisconsin's match rate is 73.9%, not much different than the 70% rate you critiqued as not being too good. On another note, the professional psych programs at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee all have APA/APPIC placements substantially higher than at Madison (i.e. the clinical program at Milwaukee has a placement rate almost 20% higher than at Madison; similarly higher rates for counseling and school psychology at Milwaukee over Madison). My point is that there are a lot of factors that go into what comprise a quality program, and merely looking at APA/APPIC placements alone is not an indictor of quality. Others in this thread have discussed this, so I won't go any farther now.

No, it didn't.
http://www.appic.org/downloads/APPIC_Match_2000-06_by_Univ.pdf
http://glial.psych.wisc.edu/index.php/psychgradprospective/psychgradabout/172



Did I say anything about the tuition costs? Did I not JUST write that I don't think all students in prof. schools are bad or weak?? Did I not JUST write my main problems with prof. schools, which are entirely divergent from what you seem to be contending I had written? Did you even read my post?? 😕

 

[psychmama]

No, no, no, no. Its does affect you........and this profession as a whole. Think about it for a minute. Wake up people!

I know it affects me. I'd just rather devote my energies to being the best psychologist I can be and leave the arguing to other people.

I agree this is an important issue. I also think that the professional schools aren't going away. Even as we work to change the system, we may as well accept the people who attend the professional schools and treat them with respect. After all, they're just working the current system in the way that's best for them. They are not the enemy.

 

[docjohng]

Neuropsych2be, while they may be older cohorts, they also appear to be weaker students, Wright Institute, Fuller, and Fielding all have a few things in common. . . high admission rates, low EPPP scores, low match rates, high tuition, and large cohorts.

Too bad none of these things are correlated with successful client outcomes, success in a psychology career, or greater well-being amongst graduates. In fact, Sharpless & Barber (2009) had some not-so-nice things to say about the EPPP and its lack of empirical validity. I wouldn't be hanging my hat on the value of the EPPP, or GPA, or even acceptance rates into an internship (unless internship is the end of your career).

It's all fine and good to take arbitrary statistics and pretend they mean something. But without empirical data to back up one's assumptions, they have little relevance in the real-world.

John

 

[socialcog]

Hey all. I'm a first year at Palo Alto University (formerly PGSP) and I thought I'd share a dint of my experience thus far. We are on the quarter system, so it's quite intense in terms of pace and volume. The material itself is not too difficult to clarify, but rather the process is what is taxing. I wish I could say otherwise, but the first couple of months are kicking my @$$, surprisingly. Not sure what that might say about me, if anything at all.

The cohort is ridiculously huge. We started at 85 and are now approaching 20% attrition within a 2 month time parameter. At that rate, my graduating class will resemble a wee fraction of what it once was. I've been told that this incoming cohort is half again as large as the previous years. There are a wide constellation of students, some impressive and others less so. The same can be said of the professors. I loved Dr. Bruce Bongar's History class. The emphasis on research is real, with professors urging students (who are clinically focussed) to attend conferences, present posters and publish. Personally, research is what drove this endeavor so I find this comforting.

I am not sure if Palo Alto University still considers itself a professional school or not. I think the faculty wanted to move away from that (and the stigma it can carry) to a full standing university that equally emphasizes science and practice.

Just wanted to share. Don't know if this is helpful.

 

[psychmama]

SocialCog - thanks for sharing your experience. Wow! I cannot imagine a cohort that size or a 20% attrition rate. My cohort is 16, and there's no attrition since our admittance year (2004). Do you feel the size is a problem? It sounds like there's some good teaching there, so why couldn't the school tighten its admission standards a bit?

Anyway, good luck in your endeavors. Thanks again for posting.

 

[aagman01]

The article you cite is advocating for mitigation of educational debt for future academic surgeons. While this is laudable, I fail to see how an article on academic surgeons has anything to do with a discussion on "objective standards" in psychology programs. What exactly is your logic connecting the two?


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

Ok, you got another objective standard we can compare with (in lieu of match rate, EPPP scores, undergraduate GPAs, GRE scores, research productivity, attrition rates, cohort sizes, endorsement of eclectic therapy "models," debt accrued, etc. . .)? All of these suggest a problem.


Arbitrary? These are fairly standard measures of student quality.


Here, try this. . .

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess indebtedness among academic surgeons and its repercussions on personal finances, quality of life, and career choices. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The influence of educational debt on academic surgical career choices and quality of life is unknown. We hypothesized that educational debt affects professional choices and quality of life. METHODS: A web-based survey was designed to assess respondent demographics, educational and consumer indebtedness, and the influence of educational debt on career choices and quality of life among academic surgeons. RESULTS: Five hundred fifty-five surgeons responded (20.6% response rate). Two hundred seventy-four (66%) respondents finished postgraduate training with educational debt, 139 (34%) reported no debt, and 142 (26%) did not respond. Among those with educational debt, mean educational debt was $90,801 and mean noneducational consumer debt was $32,319. Individuals without educational debt reported a mean of $15,104 of noneducational consumer debt (P < 0.001) and had higher mean salaries (P = 0.017) versus those with educational debt. Eighty-seven percent of respondents with educational debt would make the same career choice again. However, 35% acknowledged it placed a strain on their relationship with their significant other, 48% felt it influenced the type of living accommodations they could afford, and 29% reported it forced their significant other to work. Alarmingly, 32% of academic surgeons would not recommend their career choice to their children or medical students. CONCLUSIONS: Many academic surgeons reported that their educational debt affected their academic productivity, career choices, and quality of life. Consequently, efforts to mitigate the impact of educational debt on academic surgeons are required to ensure medical students continue to pursue academic surgical careers.


This is in surgeons. Notice the debt levels are right around what PsyDs have from professional schools, maybe even a bit less. Yet, surgeons make a substantially greater income than psychologists. Yet, the financial strain appears to have a significant impact on quality of life. DocJohn, why don't you care about our fellow man?[/QUOTE]

 

[aagman01]

So your saying quality of life is an important indicator of a good graduate program? I would certainly agree. Who wouldn't? Again, I question the relevance of the article you post about QoL of surgeons with regards to the wider point you are trying to make.

I mentioned quality of life as an outcome measure for program quality. . . connect the dots.

 

[FadedC]

Hmm....well I'm not sure that I'm a big fan of professional schools either, but I think trying to use that study as evidence that they are bad is seriously pushing things. They don't use a control group for things like marital strain so there's no evidence that it's actually higher then the non debt group. The only thing it really shows is that people with higher academic debt tend to have lower salaries and higher non academic debt. This is purely correlational though and there are any number of explanations for this beyond cause and effect (for example if I can pay for my training out of my own pocket I'm less likely to need to go into debt about other things).

Even if the study was good though I still think it's a major stretch to generalize it to professional schools hurting psychology. Note that this doesn't mean that I necesarily disagree that they are hurting it. Just that I don't think the study presented is good evidence of it.

 

[aagman01]

A questionable cog at best.

Why are you so worried about the debt levels of professional school students, anyways? From what I have read of your postings on this forum, you (like others) are highly opposed to professional schools. You should applaud the high costs and what not - certainly, the high costs of many of the professional schools reduces a good number of the future psychologists who would have otherwise come out of these programs.

By itself, no, it's not a smoking gun by any stretch of the imagination. . . just another cog in the wheel.

 

[psychmama]

I don't think it reduces the number of psychologists, I think it contributes to lower quality future psychologists. . . because you have to be a little screwy to take on that kind of debt to become a psychologist.

Well Jon, at least you're not pathologizing whole segments of the profession, or anything like that.🙄

 

[aagman01]

The article investigating the impact of low salaries on QoL is, at best, a marginal part of the larger discussion that was occurring.

How do costs not impact the total number of professional students? These schools often have 30-40% attrition rates - are you arguing that if these professional schools enjoyed funding mechanisms similar to those at research universities that the attrition rates would not be lower??

{I don't think it reduces the number of psychologists, I think it contributes to lower quality future psychologists. . . because you have to be a little screwy to take on that kind of debt to become a psychologist.[/QUOTE]}

 

[Cosmo75]

Y
I don't think it reduces the number of psychologists, I think it contributes to lower quality future psychologists. . . because you have to be a little screwy to take on that kind of debt to become a psychologist.

Well sign me up for the nut house!

I've noticed there are some fiscal conservatives on this board, who tend to dominate some of the discussions (like this one). I'm not sure it's valuable to allow your biases about debt and what you see as good financial practice to guide your argument. I understand it's not your entire argument. But you open up a whole other can of worms about the level of debt people have and what exactly they spent their money on to get to that point. There are people from unfunded non-professional school programs that are considered quality schools that come out with a lot of debt. There are also people who come out of undergraduate programs with more debt than I have. There are also people with $50,000 in credit card debt and all they have to show for it are a flat panel TV and 100 pairs of shoes.

 

[JockNerd]

There are people from unfunded non-professional school programs that are considered quality schools that come out with a lot of debt. There are also people who come out of undergraduate programs with more debt than I have. There are also people with $50,000 in credit card debt and all they have to show for it are a flat panel TV and 100 pairs of shoes.

What's modal?
APPIC 2008:
5. Debt accrued to date as a consequence of attending
GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PSYCHOLOGY, including tuition, fees,
living expenses, books, etc. Includes all forms of
debt; does not include undergraduate debt or debt that
is unrelated to graduate training.

Ph.D. Median = $ 40,000
Mean = $ 51,117
S.D. = $ 53,036

Psy.D. Median = $ 110,000
Mean = $ 109,534
S.D. = $ 58,460

Percent of applicants with:

No debt Ph.D. = 22% Psy.D. = 7%
Debt <= $50,000 Ph.D. = 62% Psy.D. = 17%
Debt >= $100,000 Ph.D. = 19% Psy.D. = 64%

The MODE for a PsyD is over 100k in debt. Insanity. And of course, PsyD is only a proxy variable; I'm willing to be the prof. school vs. non prof school difference is more staggering.

As for the financial ideology piece, it seems to me that ideologies related to finance, education, professional practice, etc, would all logically be linked if someone had a cohesive personal philosophy. I'm not sure why that would be a problem.

 

[Cosmo75]

What's modal?
APPIC 2008:
5. Debt accrued to date as a consequence of attending
GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PSYCHOLOGY, including tuition, fees,
living expenses, books, etc. Includes all forms of
debt; does not include undergraduate debt or debt that
is unrelated to graduate training.

Ph.D. Median = $ 40,000
Mean = $ 51,117
S.D. = $ 53,036

Psy.D. Median = $ 110,000
Mean = $ 109,534
S.D. = $ 58,460

Percent of applicants with:

No debt Ph.D. = 22% Psy.D. = 7%
Debt <= $50,000 Ph.D. = 62% Psy.D. = 17%
Debt >= $100,000 Ph.D. = 19% Psy.D. = 64%

The MODE for a PsyD is over 100k in debt. Insanity. And of course, PsyD is only a proxy variable; I'm willing to be the prof. school vs. non prof school difference is more staggering.

As for the financial ideology piece, it seems to me that ideologies related to finance, education, professional practice, etc, would all logically be linked if someone had a cohesive personal philosophy. I'm not sure why that would be a problem.

So because I assumed the median PsyD debt to finance my education and am perfectly comfortable with that, what does that say about my personal philosophy about being a psychologist? I think I've demonstrated that I do not fit the typical stereotype that is perpetuated on this board of professional school students. I know, I know. N=1.

As for the stats, there is a huge range in debt if you look at the standard deviations. Of course PsyD is higher. I never said that it wasn't. I did, however, point out that there are many people who come out of good programs with significant debt. I was addressing the statement about being "a little bit screwy" to take on that kind of debt to be a psychologist, regardless of where you do your training.

 

[aagman01]

Well Jon Snow,

You can relax and no longer have to worry about the QoL of your professional school colleagues.

As this forum has discussed on a few threads, Congress has passed both an income based repayment (IBR) program and a loan forgiveness program. The two can be combined to ensure peace of mind for all of your colleagues with high debt burdens.

(a) Income Based Repayment (IBR)
and
(b) Loan Forgiveness

(a)
IBR guarantees that loans never exceed 10% of total annual gross income (and is normally actually less, depending on # of dependants and what not)

(b)
Loan forgiveness kicks in when you make 120 consecutive re-payments (at that 10% 0f your annual salary). As long as you are working in non-profit or government institution. These include a wide array of such work sites, including as a researcher or academic in college/university, as a psychologist in a school or 501 (3c) , as a psych in the armed services/VA hospital, or in a non-profit organization that can be documented as such.


Basically, this new legislation guarantees you pay no more than 10% per year of your salary for 10 years, and then everything is forgiven.

Here is information on the loan forgiveness & income based repayment:

http://www.ibrinfo.org/what.vp.html

or for q/a section

http://www.ibrinfo.org/faq.vp.html

Lastly, please rest assured that these provisions were written into law in such a way as to make it very difficult to end. So, now you no longer have to worry about the financial plight of your colleagues 😎

I don't agree, several people brought up cost and I think we should consider what that means on a more expansive level, hence my points.


They keep bringing in more students, so I don't think it's having much impact on limiting the #s of professional school students, limiting the quality of professional school students. . . probably, but not the #. Further, the professional schools could not exist if they funded students like those at research universities. The students are the revenue source at professional schools.

 

[cara susanna]

No, I think he does have to worry about it considering he most likely pays taxes.

 

[aagman01]

With his deep empathy for the well being and QoL of his colleagues regarding the piling up huge debt burdens, I would think he would be glad to pony up what likely amounts to a few cents per year to support his psychology colleagues!

No, I think he does have to worry about it considering he most likely pays taxes.

 

[futureapppsy2]

As someone who originally considered professional schools (of the Forest, not Argosy variety), maybe I can shed some light. I'm a very debt-averse person, honestly, but I don't have a whole lot of options at the BA-level--the only job at that level (and I'm counting unrelated jobs, such as department store worker and waitress, in here) that I could do would be to work as an RA, and we all know how competitive those are. I'm pretty unambitious when it comes to life goals (I want to be employed and self-supporting), and tenure at Harvard is not one of my goals. I want to be a talented and skilled clinician.

Why did I decide not to consider prof schools? I realized that I love research, would be unhappy if I couldn't do what I love in grad school, and want to make research s part of my career. This is, of course, a far riskier endeavor, even though I'm applying to a slightly less competitive group of programs (School v. Clinical/Counseling). People that get rejected from PhD programs are often outstanding candidates (see last years rejection thread), and sometimes, getting in has a lot of luck involved once an applicant has a solid enough application.

Just my $.02.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Statistically speaking, Argosy/Alliant have a non-significant impact on admission rates, GPAs, etc. That doesn't speak for the "real world" impact, I know, but just thought I'd throw that out there, seeing as I just calculated the data.

 

[RileyG]

Unfortunately not everyone can get a job that will qualify them for these government-run programs. And if you aren't able to obtain an APA-accredited internship, I would suspect it would be harder to find a job within a government institution. Additionally, with the high attrition rates these professional schools often have, those who drop out of their programs without obtaining a degree will still have the debt associated with their time in the program, without a degree (and a job that qualifies them for the IBR and loan forgiveness programs). Sounds pretty risky.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Unfortunately not everyone can get a job that will qualify them for these government-run programs. And if you aren't able to obtain an APA-accredited internship, I would suspect it would be harder to find a job within a government institution. Additionally, with the high attrition rates these professional schools often have, those who drop out of their programs without obtaining a degree will still have the debt associated with their time in the program, without a degree (and a job that qualifies them for the IBR and loan forgiveness programs). Sounds pretty risky.

It is absolutely required for the VA (one of the largest trainers of psychologists), and I'd think a challenge to compete against others who completed APA-accredited internships.

 

[aagman01]

These days? The programs I linked above all just went into effect within the past several months.

If one is making $50,000 after taxes, the figure comes out to $5,000. Divided by 12, thats roughly $420 per month. While you are right in that 10% is not "nothing", it is actually a manageable debt level. I am certainly not advocating that people go into debt - all I am saying is that it is possible for people to go through a professional school garnering substantial debt and still serve the community (either though a government job such as the VA or NIMH, a non-profit community health/mental health, hospital, university, etc).

So your position is that you've found a way where the individual doesn't actually have to pay for it, so it doesn't matter? 10% is still a big number, btw.

The gov changes things frequently. Further, it's a gamble that a person will be able to meet all of the criteria necessary. You also may be mis-interpreting the forgivness and income based repayment policies (though I confess, I don't know what they are these days).

 

[psychmama]

These days? The programs I linked above all just went into effect within the past several months.

If one is making $50,000 after taxes, the figure comes out to $5,000. Divided by 12, thats roughly $420 per month. While you are right in that 10% is not "nothing", it is actually a manageable debt level. I am certainly not advocating that people go into debt - all I am saying is that it is possible for people to go through a professional school garnering substantial debt and still serve the community (either though a government job such as the VA or NIMH, a non-profit community health/mental health, hospital, university, etc).

And I'd add that the top 50% at the professional schools are not the ones who are likely to worry about dropping out, not getting good internships, and such. Moral of the story -- do your homework before applying. Be honest about your strengths, limitations, and professional goals. Above all, know thyself and have a plan🙂.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

And I'd add that the top 50% at the professional schools are not the ones who are likely to worry about dropping out, not getting good internships, and such. Moral of the story -- do your homework before applying. Be honest about your strengths, limitations, and professional goals. Above all, know thyself and have a plan🙂.

If the bottom 50% could be cut, I think that would improve the overall quality of clinicians coming out, but unfortunately that won't be happening.

 

[deleted176373]

No, I think he does have to worry about it considering he most likely pays taxes.

Your conservative roots are showing again, go back and dye yourself liberal again. 😉

You hit the nail on the head, it affects us all in a number of ways.

1. There are people who are so desparate to get into the field that they will do everything in their power to gain admission to it, including debt ratios that would be unsustainable save government intervention. More than likely these people are not you, but I am sure that you may have seen someone who fits this discription, at some time, in some program.

(Disclosure - I considered going down this road after my first year interviews until someone slapped some sense into me. I wanted to be in a program badly.)

2. These same people who were desparate enough to endure these unreasonable debt loads and exploitive programs are now competing for jobs... How do they do it? By accepting lower salaries and placing downward pressure on the job market through saturation. Our world is one that operates on supply and demand for services, when we have an excess supply of psychologists, we all suffer.

3. Finally my earnings further subsidize this mess through the taxes I pay each year. I am not judging those who take advantage of the LRP program, hell, if I were faced with a crippling debt and a low paying job (compared to time and dollars invested in education with other fields) I would take advantage of every opportunity to reduce that drag. I do however disagree with those who put the system in place.

Mark

 

[aagman01]

Again, I will have to disagree. There are many people who go to professional schools for a variety of reasons other than because they could not get into a phd program (i.e. geographical necessity, preference for an applied career and geographic need to stay in one location, etc.). Secondly, discussing those who have lower GREs/GPAs who are enrolled in professional schools - I would just say that one of the great things about life should be the opportunity to reinvent or better oneself.

With that said, while I am personally opposed to for-profit professional schools (as I am opposed to for-profit institutions health care, which put profits ahead of quality of care or health) - I am surpised that some of the more, uh, conservative individuals on this site do not support professional schools. Its supply and demand, right? If people are willing to pay $150,000 to pay for tuition, that is what the market allows.....right? Why not let them pay what the market will bear, right (forgetting about the new, large federal loan forgiveness program that just went into effect this past summer, as that occurred well after professional schools have established themselves)? Just like health care to the conservatives - let those who can afford to get quality care, and screw everyone else to preserve the "market" (even though that is, admittedly, an unfair comparison, as national health care will likely result in net savings over the long term for taxpayers).

Your conservative roots are showing again, go back and dye yourself liberal again. 😉

You hit the nail on the head, it affects us all in a number of ways.

1. There are people who are so desparate to get into the field that they will do everything in their power to gain admission to it, including debt ratios that would be unsustainable save government intervention. More than likely these people are not you, but I am sure that you may have seen someone who fits this discription, at some time, in some program.

(Disclosure - I considered going down this road after my first year interviews until someone slapped some sense into me. I wanted to be in a program badly.)

2. These same people who were desparate enough to endure these unreasonable debt loads and exploitive programs are now competing for jobs... How do they do it? By accepting lower salaries and placing downward pressure on the job market through saturation. Our world is one that operates on supply and demand for services, when we have an excess supply of psychologists, we all suffer.

3. Finally my earnings further subsidize this mess through the taxes I pay each year. I am not judging those who take advantage of the LRP program, hell, if I were faced with a crippling debt and a low paying job (compared to time and dollars invested in education with other fields) I would take advantage of every opportunity to reduce that drag. I do however disagree with those who put the system in place.

Mark

 

[cara susanna]

I won't address your disparagement towards conservatives' views of universal healthcare because we've been down that road before.

I am not against the existence of professional schools. I am against people deciding to attend them. If there were no market for them, they would not exist, like you said. So if people just wouldn't go to them, it would be okay. Or if the APA wouldn't accredit them.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Or if the APA wouldn't accredit them

I really think this would be the best approach, though unlikely.

 

[aagman01]

While I personally like that idea of APA not accrediting for-profit professional schools, isn't that also hypocritical (again, regarding the conservatives on here)?

I would like the federal government to not accredit health insurance companies that drop individuals for "pre-existing" conditions. Pre-existing conditions that have recently warranted a drop of individuals include:

--experience by women of a previous sexual assault
--two-year old child being overweight
--two-year old child being underweight

Why is it ok to NOT accredit for-profit professional schools, but unacceptable to remove accredition from health insurance companies that take advantage of the public to maximize profits?

I really think this would be the best approach, though unlikely.

 

[cara susanna]

Because the APA isn't the government, it's an organization with the right to accredit whatever the heck it wants.

 

[edieb]

While I personally like that idea of APA not accrediting for-profit professional schools, isn't that also hypocritical (again, regarding the conservatives on here)?

I would like the federal government to not accredit health insurance companies that drop individuals for "pre-existing" conditions. Pre-existing conditions that have recently warranted a drop of individuals include:

--experience by women of a previous sexual assault
--two-year old child being overweight
--two-year old child being underweight

Why is it ok to NOT accredit for-profit professional schools, but unacceptable to remove accredition from health insurance companies that take advantage of the public to maximize profits?

Would you please stop bringing healthcare reform into every single post you write? It is SO axis II!

 

[aagman01]

The APA is in theory is administered by numerous elected board, accountable to the electors (i.e. APA membership).

How is government in theory administered?

Because the APA isn't the government, it's an organization with the right to accredit whatever the heck it wants.

 

[cara susanna]

That's not the point. The point is that if a government does not accredit something it essentially is illegitimizing it. If an insurance company were not accredited, it essentially could not function.

When the APA does not accredit something it doesn't look good, but that organization can still function and exist.