Alliant PsyD SF

[pkg123]

I got an interview for alliant in sf for the PsyD. Can anyone tell me about their experience without interview if they have been through the process? I know everyone is gonna talk about how much they dislike alliant. Financially, my parents have it covered. Their 2017 apa match rate is 94%. I just want some pointers for the interview! Thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[super.ego]

Their 2017 apa match rate is 94%.

Looks like 67% to me. https://p.widencdn.net/lr7izb/2017-SF-PsyD-C26D

 

[pkg123]

Looks like 67% to me. https://p.widencdn.net/lr7izb/2017-SF-PsyD-C26D

So is this false?
CSPP San Francisco Clinical Psychology Program’s 2017 APA-internship match rate was 94% - Alliant International University

 

[MAClinician]

“Any” internship =/= APA internship.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

That certainly seems problematic, as the information appears to be inaccurate. The match rate to APA-accredited internships exclusively for their Ph.D. program was 94%, but that was in 2016; in 2017, it was 88% (or 94% for any internship). The linked page/article also doesn't indicate whether it's talking about the Psy.D. or Ph.D. program (or both). But in either case, for 2017, it seems to be wrong.

 

[MCParent]

So is this false?
CSPP San Francisco Clinical Psychology Program’s 2017 APA-internship match rate was 94% - Alliant International University

I’d use the term “intentionally misleading.”

 

[PsyDuck90]

Cost is only one factor for why people on here caution prospective students away from for-profit schools. I would suggest you read through the recent Argosy threads that have surfaced.

 

[GradStudent2020]

I got an interview for alliant in sf for the PsyD. Can anyone tell me about their experience without interview if they have been through the process? I know everyone is gonna talk about how much they dislike alliant. Financially, my parents have it covered. Their 2017 apa match rate is 94%. I just want some pointers for the interview! Thanks

You may consider deleting your question and asking again without sharing the program. Just from lurking on these threads it seems very unlikely that long-term members are going to answer the question you are asking. Instead, this will be used as an opportunity to “educate” you about how bad your choices are. If you insist that you are comfortable with the cost and match rates, they will let you know that their comments ignoring your question are for the benefit of hypothetical other readers.

Good luck!

 

[WisNeuro]

Someone sure is salty
Cognitive dissonance will do that.

 

[futureapppsy2]

You may consider deleting your question and asking again without sharing the program. Just from lurking on these threads it seems very unlikely that long-term members are going to answer the question you are asking. Instead, this will be used as an opportunity to “educate” you about how bad your choices are. If you insist that you are comfortable with the cost and match rates, they will let you know that their comments ignoring your question are for the benefit of hypothetical other readers.

Good luck!

Yes, shame on us for dissuading people from programs with bad reputations, insanely high price tags, and consistently poor outcomes.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Merely trying to help the OP get actual answers/support. OP isn’t asking for opinions on the program, but is asking for interviewing tips.

There’s really no need to resort to criticisms. It’s unprofessional and doesn’t help anything (except maybe your ego?) It also makes it hard to take any possibly decent advice seriously.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Mod Note: I know opinions can run strong regarding specific programs, but let's try to remain helpful/professional. Thanks all.

Also, if there are specific members whose messages/replies you would prefer not to see, you have the option of blocking them.

------

To the OP: As others have mentioned, if you would like information regarding the program or others potentially like it as a whole, there are other past threads you're certainly welcome to search for and review. The reason there tends to be a sharp response at times is a concern for students who may be choosing a program without having all pertinent information at hand, and a concern for training standards and the health of the field. There are probably other factors at play as well.

I don't have any experience with Alliant's interviews specifically, but some general tips:

1) Get ample rest the night before and eat breakfast the morning of the interview
2) Consider running through a few mock interviews with friends/colleagues discussing things such as your research and future practice interests, reasons for wanting to enter grad school for clinical psych, academic/research/volunteering experiences, etc.
3) If you know the faculty with whom you'll be interviewing, you can read up on them a bit to know their research/practice interests and activities
4) Even if you don't know your interviewers, know as much as you can about the program itself, what opportunities and experiences you'd be interested in, and with which professor(s) you might like to work.

I believe there have been a few generic interview tip threads in the past as well, that likely have more exhaustive lists than the one I've thrown together.

 

[psych.meout]

Merely trying to help the OP get actual answers/support. OP isn’t asking for opinions on the program, but is asking for interviewing tips.

If you look back at the OP post, they cited an incorrect internship match rate, which other posters corrected and discussed. You're just upset that you did not receive information that confirmed your decision to rank or attend an unaccredited internship site.

There’s really no need to resort to criticisms. It’s unprofessional and doesn’t help anything (except maybe your ego?) It also makes it hard to take any possibly decent advice seriously.

Isn't this what you're doing here and elsewhere with your posts criticizing other people?

 

[GradStudent2020]

If you look back at the OP post, they cited an incorrect internship match rate, which other posters corrected and discussed. You're just upset that you did not receive information that confirmed your decision to rank or attend an unaccredited internship site.


Isn't this what you're doing here and elsewhere with your posts criticizing other people?

I’m sorry, but what? I got very little information about what states require an APA-accredited internship for licensure (which was my question). I wasn’t upset at all about the responses that question.

I was not commenting on the back and forth regarding match rate. That may be helpful to the OP. I was suggesting to the OP that they may get more useful responses to the question they had if they post without the program info.

I’ve asked questions, and am definitely going to consider the comments on this forum with a critical eye as many of them are opinions, exaggerated half-truths, or outright false. I have not resorted to name calling or insinuating that other commenters are stupid or uneducated. It’s not behavior I would want to model to my peers as a colleague in this profession.

 

[WisNeuro]

 

[foreverbull]

This goes beyond “PsyD” threads; I call this out frequently. If the moderator has to come in and remind psychologists to remain professional on the regular, we’re definitely crossing the fine line between “helping” and “schooling.”

Notice that not a single person answered the original question with direct knowledge about that interview experience, which is what the OP asked. It’s fine to clarify/challenge the incorrect statements, of course, but the OP wanted someone with direct experience to answer.

Then folks who point this stuff out get called “salty” and have “cognitive dissonance.”

I’ll just keep pointing it out in the hopes that we”ll stop patronizing our posters and then subsequently rationalizing it away.

OP and folks with interview experience at the school, I’d suggest a PM or feel free to respond here, but let’s not crack sarcastic/patronizing jokes if they do. Let’s remain respectful.

 

[WisNeuro]

Ah, I love the hypocrisy show, it's my favorite program here on SDN.

 

[GradStudent2020]

This goes beyond “PsyD” threads; I call this out frequently. If the moderator has to come in and remind psychologists to remain professional on the regular, we’re definitely crossing the fine line between “helping” and “schooling.”

Notice that not a single person answered the original question with direct knowledge about that interview experience, which is what the OP asked. It’s fine to clarify/challenge the incorrect statements, of course, but the OP wanted someone with direct experience to answer.

Then folks who point this stuff out get called “salty” and have “cognitive dissonance.”

I’ll just keep pointing it out in the hopes that we”ll stop patronizing our posters and then subsequently rationalizing it away.

OP and folks with interview experience at the school, I’d suggest a PM or feel free to respond here, but let’s not crack sarcastic/patronizing jokes if they do. Let’s remain respectful.

Thank you. I have read a lot of posts where it has been pointed out as problematic and the response is snark or defense of the behavior. I cringe every time I see a post like this now. I hope the OP (and others new to this field) do not think this type of interaction is the norm. Mentors or more experienced clinicians should not mock you, your concerns, or your questions.

 

[psyche27]

As a side note, talk to the current students in the program. My interns consistently talk about the decline in training at that site over the last few years. It may be different now, but make sure you have some open and honest conversations as a part of your interviewing them process.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I think this thread raises an interesting point about to what extent we should support trainees--both here and in real life--in making what we view as not wise education and training decisions (going an FSPS, ranking an unaccredited internship). I've known people IRL who've attended unfunded FSPS and done well, but they said it was mostly in spite of their program, not because of it. That, plus the other red flags, makes it hard for me to feel ethical about not strongly cautioning someone against those programs.

 

[foreverbull]

I think this thread raises an interesting point about to what extent we should support trainees--both here and in real life--in making what we view as not wise education and training decisions (going an FSPS, ranking an unaccredited internship). I've known people IRL who've attended unfunded FSPS and done well, but they said it was mostly in spite of their program, not because of it. That, plus the other red flags, makes it hard for me to feel ethical about not strongly cautioning someone against those programs.

Not to divert too much from the thread, but because this comes up so often (the for-profit institutions/disreputable programs issue), my suggestion would be that we:

1. Have a generic copy/paste statement on hand about for profit colleges/disreputable programs that mentions costs, acceptance rates/training issues/cohort sizes, match rates, etc. to just drop in when someone asks about programs like this to keep "saltiness" out of it. We can still communicate the information that we believe is important for applicants to know, while still respecting folks' agency.

And/or:
2. Have a sticky for a "Read This If Applying to Psy.D./For Profit Institutions" thread for easy access with links to threads about these colleges. I think that would be really helpful so that folks can drop in the link to that thread and say "please peruse this thread if you're pursuing program X" and then return to the original question.

That way we can post the information neutrally (while making sure it's out there for everyone to see) and then leave the remainder of the thread to those who can address the OP's question directly.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Not to divert too much from the thread, but because this comes up so often (the for-profit institutions/disreputable programs issue), my suggestion would be that we:

1. Have a generic copy/paste statement on hand about for profit colleges/disreputable programs that mentions costs, acceptance rates/training issues/cohort sizes, match rates, etc. to just drop in when someone asks about programs like this to keep "saltiness" out of it. We can still communicate the information that we believe is important for applicants to know, while still respecting folks' agency.

And/or:
2. Have a sticky for a "Read This If Applying to Psy.D./For Profit Institutions" thread for easy access with links to threads about these colleges. I think that would be really helpful so that folks can drop in the link to that thread and say "please peruse this thread if you're pursuing program X" and then return to the original question.

That way we can post the information neutrally (while making sure it's out there for everyone to see) and then leave the remainder of the thread to those who can address the OP's question directly.

I especially like the #2 suggestion. Of course threads that ask questions such as “what do you think of xyz program” or “what are the pros and cons of a non-apa internship” should be fair game for (professional and helpful) feedback. It would be great if every thread that mentions these issues isn’t immediately derailed, especially when that is not the question the trainee or student is asking for help with.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think this thread raises an interesting point about to what extent we should support trainees--both here and in real life--in making what we view as not wise education and training decisions (going an FSPS, ranking an unaccredited internship). I've known people IRL who've attended unfunded FSPS and done well, but they said it was mostly in spite of their program, not because of it. That, plus the other red flags, makes it hard for me to feel ethical about not strongly cautioning someone against those programs.

As long as it's a threat to the stature of our field, as well as predatory to the financial interests of some, there are those of us who will be vocal about this issue.

 

[boomshakalaka]

I think this thread raises an interesting point about to what extent we should support trainees--both here and in real life--in making what we view as not wise education and training decisions (going an FSPS, ranking an unaccredited internship). I've known people IRL who've attended unfunded FSPS and done well, but they said it was mostly in spite of their program, not because of it. That, plus the other red flags, makes it hard for me to feel ethical about not strongly cautioning someone against those programs.

AMEN.

I do not think the predatory nature of these programs can be overstated. I personally feel we have a responsibility to caution students (who otherwise might be very capable of gaining admission into traditional programs) from pursuing FSPS’s like Alliant or Argosy.

I’ve developed a nice income stream undoing the work of graduates from these very same programs. While I’d love for this to continue, some of their practices are truly abhorrent and a disservice to families, courts, other stakeholders.

 

[StellaB]

That, plus the other red flags, makes it hard for me to feel ethical about not strongly cautioning someone against those programs.

This, exactly. It feels shady to respond to questions like that posed by the OP without discussing the fact that these schools are borderline scams that leave people in truly hellacious amounts of debt, frequently without a degree at the end and/or very poor career prospects. That said, the level of snark could be dialed down. I get why those of us who have seen dozens of these threads over the years get jaded and frustrated about it, but if the goal is to persuade prospective victims of FSFP schools to take a closer, more realistic look at these predatory programs, snark isn't going to accomplish that goal. The tone of the board can be overly negative and cold, which in my experience is not representative of our professional field.

 

[WisNeuro]

Can we assign people a quantitative "Snark" rating?" Like something that could go below Likes Received or something?

 

[GradStudent2020]

This, exactly. It feels shady to respond to questions like that posed by the OP without discussing the fact that these schools are borderline scams that leave people in truly hellacious amounts of debt, frequently without a degree at the end and/or very poor career prospects. That said, the level of snark could be dialed down. I get why those of us who have seen dozens of these threads over the years get jaded and frustrated about it, but if the goal is to persuade prospective victims of FSFP schools to take a closer, more realistic look at these predatory programs, snark isn't going to accomplish that goal. The tone of the board can be overly negative and cold, which in my experience is not representative of our professional field.

I appreciate this! I don’t think anyone feels there is no room for criticism of some programs, or that negative opinions shouldn’t be shared. I completely agree that the snark and cold responses don’t encourage people to take thoughtful concerns seriously. Plus, it creates such a hostile environment that trainees may not feel comfortable asking questions.

 

[singasongofjoy]

And/or:
2. Have a sticky for a "Read This If Applying to Psy.D./For Profit Institutions" thread for easy access with links to threads about these colleges. I think that would be really helpful so that folks can drop in the link to that thread and say "please peruse this thread if you're pursuing program X" and then return to the original question.

Yes to this, especially considering the high frequency of such related threads.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Thank you. I have read a lot of posts where it has been pointed out as problematic and the response is snark or defense of the behavior. I cringe every time I see a post like this now. I hope the OP (and others new to this field) do not think this type of interaction is the norm. Mentors or more experienced clinicians should not mock you, your concerns, or your questions.

Many clinicians out there won’t bother to even engage about Alliant, so at least ppl on here will provide feedback. Many ppl who provide feedback on here are also responsible for hiring psychologists, so their feedback is relevant in that regard.

 

[pkg1234]

I really want to stay local (bay area) and unfortunately my grades are not good enough to go to the Stanford consortium in Palo Alto (under 3.0 gpa) . My number one choice is The Wright Institute but I haven't heard back from them yet. From my research, Wright usually sends out invitations the end of January. I really don't want to move from the bay, which means my only options are WI, Alliant, and Stanford consortium (which would never happen ) I am an undergrad at UC Davis, and got pretty bad grades during my time as a pre med student. I realized med school was not for me. I always wanted to be a psychiatrist but I was terrible at Chemistry, physics, and Bio and got many failing grades from those classes. I was so determined to go to med school that I kept retaking the pre reqs, and failing them over and over again. So last quarter, I changed my major to Psychology and did my research to find that I could work as a Psychologist by pursuing a PsyD.Now i'm on my last quarter of undergrad which means my chances of raising my GPA are all gone. So from here, I don't have much options. If i don't hear back from Wright, Alliant is the only place I can attend. I mean I could take the year off and work, but that won't change my gpa, and I don't see how it will help me get in anywhere the next year. I tried to make up what I lack academically through work experience, ( I work at a senior living facility and as a behavior therapist) and I also volunteer as a crisis counselor. If I dont get into Wright, and instead get into Alliant, lets say I take the year off and apply to Wright again next year, it isn't even guaranteed that I would get into Wright the next year. The way I see it is, atleast through Alliant I could be working towards my goal. Idk what else to do.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Many clinicians out there won’t bother to even engage about Alliant, so at least ppl on here will provide feedback. Many ppl who provide feedback on here are also responsible for hiring psychologists, so their feedback is relevant in that regard.

Feedback is very different than snark, mocking, name-calling, criticism, and refusal to answer direct and clear questions.

 

[StellaB]

I really want to stay local (bay area) and unfortunately my grades are not good enough to go to the Stanford consortium in Palo Alto (under 3.0 gpa) ... The way I see it is, atleast through Alliant I could be working towards my goal. Idk what else to do.

Here are your other options:
1. Pursue a master's degree in counseling or social work. They take less time, cost less, and are less likely (but not guaranteed - you need to do homework here too) to leave you with a devastating amount of debt. The vast majority of graduates coming out of Alliant/Argosy/WI just do therapy for their careers. You can get a much better, less expensive education that will leave you in a far better position to do this. Psychology school is not the only way.

2. Pursue a doctorate *after* obtaining your master's degree. You will have more experience, a graduate GPA to point to, and plenty of time to obtain research publications and other relevant experience.

What makes schools like Alliant predatory is that they have incredibly low standards to get in. The problem with this is that not everyone is up to the task of obtaining a doctorate, and what these schools do is essentially let you figure out for yourself whether you make the cut or not over the course of the first four years of the degree program, during which you will easily rack up well over $100k in debt. If you can't make it at that point, then you are truly up a creek with no real remedy. It is hard to overstate how devastating this is for people, and how common. Imagine your undergrad experience except instead of being left with a poor GPA, you're left with a load of debt you can't possibly pay off in your lifetime, which will change the entire course of your family planning, ability to stay in the Bay Area, etc.

You might not have the stats/background that other programs are looking for right now - so go and get them first. Get a master's degree that will enable you to do a related job, and then decide later if you really want to keep going with your education, and if so do it after you graduate. That is a far less risky endeavor than going to a predatory school that will let you figure out whether you can truly pursue this in sink or swim fashion.

As an aside, psychology is a career that for almost everyone involves a lot of moving around. You typically move for grad school, again for internship, possibly again for post-doc, and then you move to where there are job openings in your specialty area. If that doesn't sound like what you want, a master's-level counseling, MSW or MFT degree is nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[Seven_Costanza]

I really want to stay local (bay area) and unfortunately my grades are not good enough to go to the Stanford consortium in Palo Alto (under 3.0 gpa) . My number one choice is The Wright Institute but I haven't heard back from them yet. From my research, Wright usually sends out invitations the end of January. I really don't want to move from the bay, which means my only options are WI, Alliant, and Stanford consortium (which would never happen ) I am an undergrad at UC Davis, and got pretty bad grades during my time as a pre med student. I realized med school was not for me. I always wanted to be a psychiatrist but I was terrible at Chemistry, physics, and Bio and got many failing grades from those classes. I was so determined to go to med school that I kept retaking the pre reqs, and failing them over and over again. So last quarter, I changed my major to Psychology and did my research to find that I could work as a Psychologist by pursuing a PsyD.Now i'm on my last quarter of undergrad which means my chances of raising my GPA are all gone. So from here, I don't have much options. If i don't hear back from Wright, Alliant is the only place I can attend. I mean I could take the year off and work, but that won't change my gpa, and I don't see how it will help me get in anywhere the next year. I tried to make up what I lack academically through work experience, ( I work at a senior living facility and as a behavior therapist) and I also volunteer as a crisis counselor. If I dont get into Wright, and instead get into Alliant, lets say I take the year off and apply to Wright again next year, it isn't even guaranteed that I would get into Wright the next year. The way I see it is, atleast through Alliant I could be working towards my goal. Idk what else to do.

Hi pkg1234 - it is not hopeless at all! You deserve to give yourself a chance to get into a program you can feel good about. I've known people who received low grades in undergrad and decided to get a master's in psychology (from a good program). If you can do a bang-up job on your master's, you can apply in a couple years with a better GPA and recommendation letters, and get into a more respected program in the area. I believe SFSU has a solid clinical psych master's program. There may be better/more affordable options near Davis/Sacramento.

Please don't settle - this is a massive chunk of your life and you don't want to put in all of this effort to have limited options later on.

 

[Seven_Costanza]

As an aside, psychology is a career that for almost everyone involves a lot of moving around. You typically move for grad school, again for internship, possibly again for post-doc, and then you move to where there are job openings in your specialty area. If that doesn't sound like what you want, a master's-level counseling, MSW or MFT degree is nothing to be ashamed of.

100% agree with this. The MSW is a wonderful degree you can do a lot of interesting things with, as well as getting licensed to provide clinical mental health treatment. I often suggest this to my students who don't want to do research but also don't want to incur a lot of debt from a PsyD program.

 

[StellaB]

I believe SFSU has a solid clinical psych master's program. There may be better/more affordable options near Davis/Sacramento.

Please don't settle - this is a massive chunk of your life and you don't want to put in all of this effort to have limited options later on.

This is solid advice. SFSU's program is good (and as an added bonus, it's a master's in clinical psych that actually prepares you for licensure, which is rare.) Sonoma State also has a good program - and both of these options are affordable. I'm sure there are other CalState programs that are worth looking into, depending on where you are in the Bay. If I were recommending a therapist to someone, I would hands-down recommend a master's level clinician from one of these schools over a doctorate from Alliant, because while Alliant grads can be okay, the variance is all over the place with some graduates just being a complete embarrassment. CalState master's degree holders are far more consistent in quality, and in my personal experience are really quite good.

 

[pkg123]

Thanks for the alternative suggestions! Originally I was planning on going the masters route and then applying for a PsyD. On campus we had a recruiting event where Wright institute was also present. The admissions director advised me that they look more into work experience and that a masters gpa doesn’t mean much to them. He advised me to instead focus on work experience and making my application stronger in that sense. He even advised me to take the year off and work and apply again if a PsyD is really what I want. He said that since this is more clinical based, having clinical experience counts more to them than a masters gpa. Now I’m so confused

 

[WisNeuro]

Thanks for the alternative suggestions! Originally I was planning on going the masters route and then applying for a PsyD. On campus we had a recruiting event where Wright institute was also present. The admissions director advised me that they look more into work experience and that a masters gpa doesn’t mean much to them. He advised me to instead focus on work experience and making my application stronger in that sense. He even advised me to take the year off and work and apply again if a PsyD is really what I want. He said that since this is more clinical based, having clinical experience counts more to them than a masters gpa. Now I’m so confused

Do you have a sense of what you want to be doing on a day to day basis? That may help to guide what kind of path may be the best bet.

 

[pkg123]

Do you have a sense of what you want to be doing on a day to day basis? That may help to guide what kind of path may be the best bet.

I envision myself working as a psychologist at Kaiser or some other hospital and providing individual therapy to children and families. I’m not interested in research or teaching so I don’t want a PhD. I’ve been involved in research this quarter with a UCD professor, and while I’m learning a lot, I’m sure that research is not for me. I want to still fulfil my dream of being able to help others through conducting therapy in a hospital setting. The admissions director told me “ I often see students who waste so much money on terminal masters programs only to apply here for their PsyD. I think getting a master is a waste of your time and your money. I think it’s smarter to take the year off, work full time and make some money while also gaining more experience and applying again next year”. This is what I was planning on doing considering Wright is my first choice. But now I’m confused on what the right thing to do is.

 

[erg923]

I envision myself working as a psychologist at Kaiser or some other hospital and providing individual therapy to children and families. I’m not interested in research or teaching so I don’t want a PhD. I’ve been involved in research this quarter with a UCD professor, and while I’m learning a lot, I’m sure that research is not for me. I want to still fulfil my dream of being able to help others through conducting therapy in a hospital setting. The admissions director told me “ I often see students who waste so much money on terminal masters programs only to apply here for their PsyD. I think getting a master is a waste of your time and your money. I think it’s smarter to take the year off, work full time and make some money while also gaining more experience and applying again next year”. This is what I was planning on doing considering Wright is my first choice. But now I’m confused on what the right thing to do is.

There is really nothing most Psy.Ds do that you can't do with a licensable masters degree (LCSW, MFT, LPCC, etc). Psychological/Neuropsychological Testing evaluations but that's about it.

 

[WisNeuro]

I envision myself working as a psychologist at Kaiser or some other hospital and providing individual therapy to children and families. I’m not interested in research or teaching so I don’t want a PhD. I’ve been involved in research this quarter with a UCD professor, and while I’m learning a lot, I’m sure that research is not for me. I want to still fulfil my dream of being able to help others through conducting therapy in a hospital setting. The admissions director told me “ I often see students who waste so much money on terminal masters programs only to apply here for their PsyD. I think getting a master is a waste of your time and your money. I think it’s smarter to take the year off, work full time and make some money while also gaining more experience and applying again next year”. This is what I was planning on doing considering Wright is my first choice. But now I’m confused on what the right thing to do is.

Quick point of clarification, vast majority of PhDs are doing primarily clinical work. The whole "only for research and teaching" thing is a myth. Second, I think the social work or masters level is the way to go as it's the most efficient way for what you want to do, and the way that hospital systems are going. Check with a few hospitals in the areas you want to be in and see who is working there to get an idea of what it's like there. We have several mental health outpatient clinics and several inpatient units with embedded mental health. 90%+ of the therapists in these clinics and units are social workers or masters level therapists.

 

[pkg123]

There is really nothing most Psy.Ds do that you can't do with a licensable masters degree (LCSW, MFT, LPCC, etc). Psychological/Neuropsychological Testing evaluations but that's about it.

Well I really want to have a doctoral degree. My family is really well educated and all have doctoral degrees so I would like the same for myself. Besides that, The pay is higher for a PsyD than at the masters level. And my parents are paying for my education so I don’t see why I should stop at the masters level when they are willing to pay for school to help me become a doctor or psychology. At wright they give you a masters wile pursuing the PsyD which is exactly what I’m looking for.

 

[WisNeuro]

Take the additional money that the degree will cost, invest it, and you'll more than make up the salary difference.

 

[pkg123]

Quick point of clarification, vast majority of PhDs are doing primarily clinical work. The whole "only for research and teaching" thing is a myth. Second, I think the social work or masters level is the way to go as it's the most efficient way for what you want to do, and the way that hospital systems are going. Check with a few hospitals in the areas you want to be in and see who is working there to get an idea of what it's like there. We have several mental health outpatient clinics and several inpatient units with embedded mental health. 90%+ of the therapists in these clinics and units are social workers or masters level therapists.

I have gone onto the Kaiser website and just looked at current PsyD’s working there. When I look at their education, literally over 50-75% of them went to alliant CSPP. Which is why I applied there. But then I come onto these threads and hear about how terrible alliant actually is. How is it that everyone says such negative things about it, but when I look at who’s actually employed as Kaiser as a PsyD and most of them are alliant CSPP grads. It just adds to my confusion and further makes me question who to believe. People on these threads, or actually clinical PsyD’s that I see employed at local Kaiser hospitals?

 

[erg923]

Well I really want to have a doctoral degree. My family is really well educated and all have doctoral degrees so I would like the same for myself.

Then just get a license plate with Doc1 on it or something. It will serve the same superficial, self-satisfying purpose.

 

[erg923]

I have gone onto the Kaiser website and just looked at current PsyD’s working there. When I look at their education, literally over 50-75% of them went to alliant CSPP. Which is why I applied there. But then I come onto these threads and hear about how terrible alliant actually is. How is it that everyone says such negative things about it, but when I look at who’s actually employed as Kaiser as a PsyD and most of them are alliant CSPP grads. It just adds to my confusion and further makes me question who to believe. People on these threads, or actually clinical PsyD’s that I see employed at local Kaiser hospitals?

There are people that drop out of high school and then go on to become millionaires too, right? You are also sampling a small region of the country that is saturated with these grads.

 

[WisNeuro]

I have gone onto the Kaiser website and just looked at current PsyD’s working there. When I look at their education, literally over 50-75% of them went to alliant CSPP. Which is why I applied there. But then I come onto these threads and hear about how terrible alliant actually is. How is it that everyone says such negative things about it, but when I look at who’s actually employed as Kaiser as a PsyD and most of them are alliant CSPP grads. It just adds to my confusion and further makes me question who to believe. People on these threads, or actually clinical PsyD’s that I see employed at local Kaiser hospitals?

Things will vary in region. CA is saturated with the diploma mills, so they tend to cluster there. Portability is difficult, though. If you want to stay in teh Bay area, it'll probably be fine, Kaiser is used to getting a ton of diploma mill apps. Outside of some areas in CA, much different story. Believe the attrition rates and the match percentages relative to other programs. Those are verifiable facts.

 

[pkg123]

There are people that drop out of high school and then go on to become millionaires too, right?

Are you saying that those people are outliers? I would get it if I saw like one or two alliant grads but like I said over half of the clinical PsyD’s employed there were from alliant so I don’t see how your comparison makes any sense. Millionaires to PsyD’s employed at Kaiser. I don’t see it

 

[erg923]

Were from alliant. So I don’t see how your comparison makes any sense in this situation

see post number 46.

 

[pkg123]

Things will vary in region. CA is saturated with the diploma mills, so they tend to cluster there. Portability is difficult, though. If you want to stay in teh Bay area, it'll probably be fine, Kaiser is used to getting a ton of diploma mill apps. Outside of some areas in CA, much different story. Believe the attrition rates and the match percentages relative to other programs. Those are verifiable facts.

I do want to stay locally in the Bay Area and I do hope to work at Kaiser or a similar hospital in the area.

 

[erg923]

I do want to stay locally in the Bay Area and I do hope to work at Kaiser or a similar hospital in the area.

Life happens. People marry. People make sacrifices for children, spouse, etc. Interests change. Opportunities arise. I'm not sure how many people are doing at 42 what they thought they would be doing at 22. So, I would back off on being so confident about this if I were you. I'm sure my California native wife never thought she would be living in the midwest, but here we are.