I disagree that admission to a funded program implies more competitive. Oftentimes, it refers to a match in research interests. It's simply inaccurate to assume that students choosing to do nonfunded psyd programs are less competitive, and is often based on hearsay rather than evidence. Furthermore many people in non funded psyDs are young, have had strong and promising careers before, and are incredibly bright. They might like the clinical training offered in a particular program and so on. People are willing to pay 300,000 for their first house, dropping a third of that on an incredible education is a much better investment .
No, admission to funded programs is, by definition, more competitive than unfunded programs. Just look at the admission rates, which are the number of matriculated students (i.e., the cohort) divided by the overall number of applications.
Ergo, applicants who are admitted to funded programs are necessarily more competitive than those who are not and those who are admitted to and attending unfunded programs.
Moreover, that unfunded programs admit students who, on average, have lower stats is also indicative that their students and programs overall are less competitive. You can easily verify many of these by looking at the stats programs post on their own websites, especially for GPAs and GRE scores.
And we also know why funded programs are more competitive. Funded programs can only take on as many students as they can financially support. They can't just take on huge numbers of students like many unfunded programs do (Most unfunded programs I've seen have cohorts as large as my entire program). Thus, they want to pick the most qualified applicants to get the most out of their money and avoid attrition. Conversely, unfunded programs take on many more students, including those who are far less qualified, because they aren't shouldering any of the financial burden, the students are.
How much money do people invest in weddings? Homes? There is a cultural value placed on where investment happens. Education is a significantly better investment than the above.
I'd also advise people to not spend vast sums of money on opulent weddings. That people
do certain things because of cultural and social pressures doesn't mean they
should. That some people are making these bad financial decisions in the same or different domains isn't a good justification for others to also make bad financial decisions. It's the proverbial "Would you jump off a bridge if everyone else was doing it?"
As for homes, those generally generate equity and increase in value over time. Yes, you could lose money as well, but you can sell your home and recoup some of the purchase price, so it's not necessarily a total or huge loss. Can you sell your doctorate to recoup the cost of tuition and attendance?
If you stop making payments on your mortgage, the bank can foreclose and repossess it. You could also file for bankruptcy if you happen to accrue other debt in trying to stay afloat on your mortgage. Can the federal government or institution behind your student loans repossess your doctorate and get rid of the debt? I'm not familiar with that and I know you can't discharge student loans in bankruptcy.
Yes, education is often a good investment, but that doesn't mean all educational investments are created equal. Some people take on debt during their fully funded doctoral programs, which isn't a terrible idea, especially if it's for some important purpose, like credit card debt to pay for internship interview expenses. That there are some good reasons to take on debt in this field is not a justification to take on $200,000-300,000 in debt for an unfunded program.
Up until a few years ago, it was not required that wright students go complete an APA internship. Now it is and nearly 100% of students have attended in the last few years. Students have ended up at Harvard, UCLA, USC affiliated hospitals and so on. Students are working at the SFVA and other top teaching hospitals. These numbers need to be interpreted in the context of the program as it has evolved. I am not sure where you are getting EPPP licensure scores but I question these as well, as a former student who has seen many people who are driven and successful. I have worked alongside students from many other programs in the years - funded and unfunded- and find many showing up with basic CBT skills. The wright provides sophisticated clinical training that many programs lack. I think it's a shame if people read these boards and take opinions from people without concrete evidence of the program itself, and who seem invested in bashing programs different than theirs.
That logic doesn't bear out. If the students of unfunded programs are as competitive as students from funded ones, why would they put their entire careers at significant disadvantages by not completing accredited internships? Even if they are geographically inflexible, they would still be bale to match to nearby accredited internships if they were as competitive as their funded counterparts.
And no one is saying that no good psychologists come from these programs or that none of them have great careers. Instead, we're talking about modal outcomes. What is the typical student like and where do they end up? More importantly, why do they end up where they do? Is it because of the program or is it in spite of it? Did they get to where they are because of what the program did for them or is it because they are already superstars and would excel regardless of what program they attended?
It's the same as for the admissions and competitiveness. Yes, there are some amazing people that apply to and attend unfunded programs, but what is the typical student like?
Here are the EPPP scores:
And here are the licensure stats:
More than 1 out of 5 graduates of this program is not licensed. It's a clinical practice-focused PsyD program, i.e., without as much versatility as funded programs (e.g., TT faculty positions). What are these people doing if they can't get licensed?
For the internship stats, as others have noted, it appears that the program has a captive internship network, which is a disingenuous means to game the stats.
