PhD/PsyD Wisconsin School of Prof. Psych and Other Programs in Midwest

[TDpsy23]

Hey all,

So I have an upcoming interview at the Wisconsin School of Professional Psych and was wondering if anyone has any experience with their Psy.D program. I'm attempting to compare the following programs and am feeling pretty lost on where I could see myself (I've either been accepted/waiting on decision/upcoming interviews with all of the programs):

Wisconsin School of Prof. Psych
Chicago School of Prof. Psych
Chestnut Hill Psy.D (I know this is not in the Midwest lol)
Midwestern University
Illinois School of Prof. Psych @ Argosy

I've taken a look at each programs licensure rating and APA match rates, but I'd like any more information that any of you may have on the programs.

Thanks so much!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

I did graduate school in Wisconsin. Most of the practicum sites that I know in the area that I was in would not take students from this program into their practica. And I know of 2 internship sites in the state that will not take their students as interns.

 

[TDpsy23]

I did graduate school in Wisconsin. Most of the practicum sites that I know in the area that I was in would not take students from this program into their practica. And I know of 2 internship sites in the state that will not take their students as interns.

Are you aware of their reasoning for refusing practica opportunities? Does it have something to do with the school's credibility?

 

[erg923]

Are you aware of their reasoning for refusing practica opportunities? Does it have something to do with the school's credibility?

All of your schools have terrible reputations, generally (except maybe Chestnut...never heard of it). Not to say you cant be successful from one of them, just means you have challenges that most others wont. That would include being saddled with 100s of thousands in student loan debt for starting salary around 60-70k and median lifetime salary below 100K

 

[WisNeuro]

Are you aware of their reasoning for refusing practica opportunities? Does it have something to do with the school's credibility?

Pretty much all about the credibility.

 

[psych.meout]

Is this going to be another one of those threads where some people get indignant and offended because others bring up the real issues and concerns about funding?

 

[TDpsy23]

Is this going to be another one of those threads where some people get indignant and offended because others bring up the real issues and concerns about funding?

I'm just looking for information to help me make the best decision for my future. I'm a little confused about some of the shade that's thrown at schools like The Chicago School of Prof. Psych. APA match rates and licensure ratings aren't bad, although the tuition is significant. I want to make a more informed decision, which is why I created this thread.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It is well earned shade. -The Psych Community

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Simply put, the type of programs (freestanding, for-profit) you are interested in have been shown empirically:
1) to lead to MUCH higher debt
2) to have poorer APA internship match rates
3) to have MUCH higher cohort sizes
4) to have lower admission standards
5) to provide less science training but NOT more clinical training

Anecdotally, it seems these programs:
1) have large variability in professionalism
2) have difficulty getting students practica and jobs due to stigma
3) have much more student complaints

Please search this forum for the debate about these types of programs and about the programs you are interested in specifically.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Chestnut Hill College's standards for a dissertation:

Each student must complete a dissertation, which may consist of an original empirical research study, an extensive critical review and integration of the literature on a topic in the field, or a detailed clinical analysis of a series of cases representing a particular problem or diagnosis.

 

[psych.meout]

I'm just looking for information to help me make the best decision for my future. I'm a little confused about some of the shade that's thrown at schools like The Chicago School of Prof. Psych. APA match rates and licensure ratings aren't bad, although the tuition is significant. I want to make a more informed decision, which is why I created this thread.

I wasn't alluding to you specifically. There are some usual suspects who pop into threads like these.

I'm a little confused about some of the shade that's thrown at schools like The Chicago School of Prof. Psych. APA match rates and licensure ratings aren't bad,

It's not "shade," it's reality.

https://www.thechicagoschool.edu/ps...l-psychologystudent-admissions-outcomes-data/

Three years ago, they had a 68% match rate, which is quite abysmal, especially with the absolute number of students who didn't match (28) and a full 10% of the students that started that year have since dropped out of the program.

They had massive cohorts (~100), which is partly responsible for their problems, e.g., poor mentoring. It seems like they have reduced these, but the most recently reported cohort (38) is larger than the entire student populations at many funded programs, mine included.

As far as licensure goes, their 10-year licensure rate is 81%. This might be good at a clinical science program or even a balanced scientist practitioner program, but in a program that is geared towards producing clinicians, this sure seems low.

Also, consider the relative quality of the program. You'll be competing against many other programs in the area for external practica, some of which are very high quality, e.g., UIC, Loyola, DePaul, Northwestern (both the Feinberg and Evanston programs). Hell, even students from Marquette, UW-Milwaukee, and other schools further away come to Chicago for practica.

although the tuition is significant. I want to make a more informed decision, which is why I created this thread.

Considering the tuition is an important part of making an informed decision. The first year tuition alone is nearly $52,000. I don't know if you're familiar with the Chicagoland area, but it's not exactly cheap to live there, let alone doing it while accruing debt from tuition and trying to get through grad school.

 

[psych.meout]

Chestnut Hill College's standards for a dissertation:


No wonder the field is full of pseudoscience quackary.

That's embarrassing.

 

[PsyDr]

That's embarrassing.

So snobby. Next you’ll want to discredit raven therapy.

 

[erg923]

Chestnut Hill College's standards for a dissertation:

So one could psychobabble on about some patients for 20 pages and say they did a doctoral dissertation? Good God what a joke.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

So snobby. Next you’ll want to discredit raven therapy.

There are some SDN jokes that stand the test of time....

 

[Lurking Oracle]

There are some SDN jokes that stand the test of time....

And our souls from out that joke meme shall be lifted - nevermore.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

I often wonder if that individual knows about how famous (or infamous) they are on this board. I remember reading about 20 pages of it a few years ago for some laughs, but was also left deeply saddened at how the three people at the beginning had signed off on it.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I often wonder if that individual knows about how famous (or infamous) they are on this board. I remember reading about 20 pages of it a few years ago for some laughs, but was also left deeply saddened at how the three people at the beginning had signed off on it.

I looked up the author once, and she somehow ended up in a very fancy postdoc and then a solid job working for the state.

 

[deleted656923]

I looked up the author once, and she somehow ended up in a very fancy postdoc and then a solid job working for the state.

Good for them for getting the last laugh.

 

[WisNeuro]

I looked up the author once, and she somehow ended up in a very fancy postdoc and then a solid job working for the state.

I was curious, I wonder if we found the same person. The one I found is working for the state, but the salary is not great.

 

[foreverbull]

Hey all,

So I have an upcoming interview at the Wisconsin School of Professional Psych and was wondering if anyone has any experience with their Psy.D program. I'm attempting to compare the following programs and am feeling pretty lost on where I could see myself (I've either been accepted/waiting on decision/upcoming interviews with all of the programs):

Wisconsin School of Prof. Psych
Chicago School of Prof. Psych
Chestnut Hill Psy.D (I know this is not in the Midwest lol)
Midwestern University
Illinois School of Prof. Psych @ Argosy

I've taken a look at each programs licensure rating and APA match rates, but I'd like any more information that any of you may have on the programs.

Thanks so much!

I'd be interested to hear from folks in the area who graduated from any of those programs and could speak to their reputations. Any folks here who can speak to that?

 

[brainguy0203]

I’ve been meaning to but this week has been hectic. Long time lurker, recently decided to chime in. I went to Chestnut Hill so I can speak to that. Before we go any further, I’m not going to argue the typical talking points. If I did it again, I would have shot for a funded program. That would have been more financially sound, obviously.

That being said, I feel that the training itself was very good. CHC is pretty well-known as a quality source of training in the area. I was actually surprised that the case series was listed on the website as I have never heard of it myself. I checked my old materials and the dissertation requirements were listed as 1. Quantitative or 2. Qualitative empirical research. There is a third option for a theoretical integration and contribution to literature, which I imagine would have been something that would be submitted to something like a dynamic or analytic journal (I don’t know one person in recent history that did that). Otherwise, APA match rates have been solid (I know we have an APA-accredited consortium, but many have not stayed in the consortium and have been otherwise competitive). Good professors and mentorship, active in local psych orgs.

I’m not going to lie, there were some things I felt the program was lacking in. Some individuals have had questionable work ethic that somehow get through. But all in all I feel like I was well prepared, we have a pretty good local rep, and gained good skills for my practice.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm not sure about accredited match rates there being "solid." According to APPIC, last 6 years prior to 2017 were 25, 45, 50, 21, 47, 50%. I'd call 90% solid. Sub 50 is definitely no bueno.

 

[brainguy0203]

I'm not sure about accredited match rates there being "solid." According to APPIC, last 6 years prior to 2017 were 25, 45, 50, 21, 47, 50%. I'd call 90% solid. Sub 50 is definitely no bueno.

You’re not wrong. Just saying recently it’s on the upward trend, including non-consortium. It’s not an ideal training program, just has a good local reputation. Plus the consortium was only recently accredited, I believe the entirety of the 2016 year graduated with an APA internship.

 

[WisNeuro]

It doesn't seem to be on much of a trend, though. You can go back to earlier APPIC data and they always seem to waffle around the 40-50% range. That's not really a trend, more of a stagnation. And, if that is including a captive internship site for some students, it's especially egregious.

 

[WisNeuro]

For example, in 2016, only 10 students matched to an accredited site, the captive internship has 10 spots. That means that only students who made it into the captive internship, got accredited internships.

 

[brainguy0203]

I edited my post: the internship was accredited early 2017. The 10 were probably outside of the consortium.

I’m not going to argue it was an excellent program. Just not near the worst.

 

[psych.meout]

I'd be interested to hear from folks in the area who graduated from any of those programs and could speak to their reputations. Any folks here who can speak to that?

I know some people who graduated from ISPP and CSPP. They agreed that they did well in spite of their programs, not because of them. There's such great heterogeneity in student quality that the people who succeed are already talented and would do well in any program, but there is not great support for those that really need it.

For example, in 2016, only 10 students matched to an accredited site, the captive internship has 10 spots. That means that only students who made it into the captive internship, got accredited internships.

I get that the internship process really sucks. My program has had a 100% match rate for quite some time and the students who applied this year are still fretting about it.

But this doesn't really excuse the practice of using captive internships. Not only does it limit the kinds of training students get on internship, it's also gaming the system instead of actually doing something to improve their programs. It offers the veneer of a better program without actually changing the substance of the training.

 

[brainguy0203]

I would agree with that. Honestly I was probably one of them that did well despite the shortcomings, I definitely had classmates that I still question the decision-making of letting them through.

If we get down to, should OP go there? If they can do better, no, don’t sell yourself short and do much more research than i did. Does it have a good local reputation? Yeah. While I disagree that options for a consortium (which is not required, just available) may not necessarily be a bad thing, I agree with your reasoning that it’s a bandaid rather than a true fix.

 

[foreverbull]

Match rates aside, which the OP already has access to, I am more curious about the aftermath/career trajectory of graduates from those programs (i.e. happy with career outcomes and current reputation after having graduated there? Did it limit/benefit you in any way career-wise?).

 

[WisNeuro]

I'd also be interested to hear what the 28% who haven't gone on to be licensed are doing career-wise?

 

[brainguy0203]

I had a document about that but can’t find it. I can’t speak for that 28% but the rest I know are working in private practice, community mental health, hospitals, or on recognized post-docs (APA, APPCN, etc.)

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I know some people who graduated from ISPP and CSPP. They agreed that they did well in spite of their programs, not because of them. There's such great heterogeneity in student quality that the people who succeed are already talented and would do well in any program, but there is not great support for those that really need it.


I get that the internship process really sucks. My program has had a 100% match rate for quite some time and the students who applied this year are still fretting about it.

But this doesn't really excuse the practice of using captive internships. Not only does it limit the kinds of training students get on internship, it's also gaming the system instead of actually doing something to improve their programs. It offers the veneer of a better program without actually changing the substance of the training.

Personally, I don't inherently have a huge problem with captive internships. If they're accredited, they should theoretically be offering the same quality of training as any other accredited internship. It also saves trainees the somewhat ridiculous requirement of needing to relocate for one year before potentially needing to do so again. And to their credit, at least programs that develop captive (accredited) internships are attempting to do their part to limit the strain placed on the system by their students. Although ideally, they'd do this while also limiting class sizes and addressing other areas of concern.

Getting breadth of training (e.g., in different training environments) is great, but this could potentially also be worked into a captive internship by having it remain organizationally separate from the grad program. Which already happens at non-captive internships which are located near or at existing grad programs.

 

[cara susanna]

I literally was just looking at a behavioral health program in a hospital/healthcare system and most of the psychologists had degrees from Wisconsin School of Prof. Psychology. Keep in mind that this wasn't in exactly what I'd consider a prime geographical location.

I'm always going to discourage professional schools if not just because of the debt alone. I've posted numerous times about this, but I'm still in debt after a full year of my first real psychologist job and I did everything "right" in terms of attending a fully-funded program. This field is not kind to your finances what with the years of low paying training gigs and constant relocation.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It’s an uphill climb in most settings, particularly outside of private practice. Some students think they can just do private practice, but that’s a tough go just bc of the learning curve.

There can be outliers at programs, but most/every student incorrectly assumes THEY will be the outlier and best the odds, whether it be for internship/fellowship/competitive job. Given the over-saturation in many markets, that is a very dangerous proposition to take on.

 

[Meteora]

I think everyone here has made good points that OP should at the least be cognizant of. It IS possible to still be successful in less reputable programs, but there will be more obstacles, potential limits in terms of employment opportunities, and will require a lot of self-driven effort. Having said that, I have a really good friend who graduated from the Chicago School. She told me they essentially accept anyone, and that she was pretty disturbed by the attitudes and goals of a lot of her peers there. My friend, however, sought out research experience and developed specific skillsets, and did not have difficulties finding work after graduation. But again, she was very driven.

 

[erg923]

I think everyone here has made good points that OP should at the least be cognizant of. It IS possible to still be successful in less reputable programs, but there will be more obstacles, potential limits in terms of employment opportunities, and will require a lot of self-driven effort. Having said that, I have a really good friend who graduated from the Chicago School. She told me they essentially accept anyone, and that she was pretty disturbed by the attitudes and goals of a lot of her peers there. My friend, however, sought out research experience and developed specific skillsets, and did not have difficulties finding work after graduation. But again, she was very driven.

Hence why we say you can be "successful "in these programs...and simultaneously why we say these programs are an abomination.

We need highly intelligent, driven, diciplined, empathic, and science minded people's in this field for it to continue to be valuable/relevant/prosperous. Not just people who want to be psychologists and volunteered in a lab or at crisis line in undergrad.

This is is not a common combination of traits though. Hence the selectiveness of clinical PhD programs.

 

[brainguy0203]

Agreed. Like has been said, I think the training itself for my program has been good. The outcomes, less so. I think a large portion of that is the large class sizes that aren’t very selective. I succeeded but it was tough, to be fair. I needed to take a great deal of work on my own to make it happen.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I think everyone here has made good points that OP should at the least be cognizant of. It IS possible to still be successful in less reputable programs, but there will be more obstacles, potential limits in terms of employment opportunities, and will require a lot of self-driven effort. Having said that, I have a really good friend who graduated from the Chicago School. She told me they essentially accept anyone, and that she was pretty disturbed by the attitudes and goals of a lot of her peers there. My friend, however, sought out research experience and developed specific skillsets, and did not have difficulties finding work after graduation. But again, she was very driven.

This still doesn't eliminate the massive debt issue, though...

 

[Lyra33]

I graduated from CSPP and would be happy to answer any specific questions about that program. I have a job at a hospital now, working as a psychologist. I know CSPP has made a number of changes to their program when I was in my later years in the program and since I have graduated. I am not sure if these changes have improved things (aside from making the cohort sizes stronger). If I could go back and redo my decision, I'm not sure I would choose to go to a PsyD program. I am very happy with my current job and the opportunities I had while in graduate school, but I had to work hard and seek things out that I think some of my classmates were unwilling to do. I ended up matching with an APA-accredited internship and from there was able to stay in the area and find a job. The other concern is the massive debt issue, which other posters have mentioned. Think carefully about how much it will cost you to attend graduate school. I worked during every single break from classes in an outside job and had a work-study position while in school to try to offset some of my costs, but these student loans are still a HUGE financial burden, and I don't even have the number many of my classmates do. Please feel free to message me if you have more specific questions about the program, area, etc.