APA Passes Resolution on Non accredited programs and internships

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
This is a HUGE step forward. Licensed psychologists will have to graduate from an accredited program AND an accredited internship. This may take care of the CPA cluster****, and hopefully prevent more students from getting screwed. This seems reasonable to me, as long as the imbalance is improved and doesn't screw over a ton of students. Undoubtedly, Argosy and Alliant will find a way to protect their interests, but things like this will make it harder for them to do so, and they may eventually say that it isn't worth it for them, when they could pump out MBA's, etc. without the hassle.

Another reason that I am optimistic about this is that the APA is taking steps (although small) to require certain internship match rates to meet accreditation. These two forces working together could actually improve things.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Rivi said:
This is a HUGE step forward. Licensed psychologists will have to graduate from an accredited program AND an accredited internship. This may take care of the CPA cluster****, and hopefully prevent more students from getting screwed. This seems reasonable to me, as long as the imbalance is improved and doesn't screw over a ton of students. Undoubtedly, Argosy and Alliant will find a way to protect their interests, but things like this will make it harder for them to do so, and they may eventually say that it isn't worth it for them, when they could pump out MBA's, etc. without the hassle.

Another reason that I am optimistic about this is that the APA is taking steps (although small) to require certain internship match rates to meet accreditation. These two forces working together could actually improve things.
Click to expand...

This. Its good to finally see psychologists stand up for their profession.
 
This seems reasonable to me, as long as the imbalance is improved and doesn't screw over a ton of students.
Click to expand...

To me, this is the issue. APA has accredited a bunch of substandard and huge FSPS, so now all the bottlenecking takes place at the internship level, after students have invested years of their life--and if they went to an unfunded program, $150k+. That is totally backwards, IMO, but I sincerely doubt APA will actually do something substantial to crack down on FSPS themselves. I hope I'm wrong.
 
futureapppsy2 said:
To me, this is the issue. APA has accredited a bunch of substandard and huge FSPS, so now all the bottlenecking takes place at the internship level, after students have invested years of their life--and if they went to an unfunded program, $150k+. That is totally backwards, IMO, but I sincerely doubt APA will actually do something substantial to crack down on FSPS themselves. I hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree, except for bolded. As I've said before--there is no ephemeral "the APA." There are a bunch of psychologists (and students, in APAGS). You can join a board or committee, and hound them about these issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
MCParent said:
I agree, except for bolded. As I've said before--there is no ephemeral "the APA." There are a bunch of psychologists (and students, in APAGS). You can join a board or committee, and hound them about these issues.
Click to expand...

Maybe those on this board don't know how or are not willing?
 
This is a step in the right direction, for sure. However, my concern is that this is going to move the bottleneck to internship even more. When only about 50% of applicants get APA accredited internships, I can't even imagine how this will look in a few years when APA only is required.
 
MCParent said:
I agree, except for bolded. As I've said before--there is no ephemeral "the APA." There are a bunch of psychologists (and students, in APAGS). You can join a board or committee, and hound them about these issues.
Click to expand...

Good point. Hounding APA is my new hobby these days :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
MCParent said:
I agree, except for bolded. As I've said before--there is no ephemeral "the APA." There are a bunch of psychologists (and students, in APAGS). You can join a board or committee, and hound them about these issues.
Click to expand...

Good point, but the APA also has a vested interest in keeping FSPS admins happy--they supply a ton of student members, heavily sponsor annual conferences, etc. Even if they're bad for the profession, they're quite good for the APA as an organization. If APA leadership--no matter who that is--takes action that directly hurts FSPS, it would likely be a huge monetary loss for the organization, which is terrible business scene from that POV.
 
futureapppsy2 said:
To me, this is the issue. APA has accredited a bunch of substandard and huge FSPS, so now all the bottlenecking takes place at the internship level, after students have invested years of their life--and if they went to an unfunded program, $150k+. That is totally backwards, IMO, but I sincerely doubt APA will actually do something substantial to crack down on FSPS themselves. I hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree, although I don't really know if there's a way to not potentially end up hurting students at some of the more frequently-offending programs. If we're serious about enacting/enforcing stricter standards and holding such programs accountable for their actions, then there's likely going to be some fallout, which is also likely to include at least a few students.

That could potentially very strongly motivate said students to initiate a lawsuit against said programs, though, particularly if deceptive practices were used in convincing the students to attend.

All in all, though, I feel like this (the APA's resolution) is a great thing, and a step in the right direction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Oh, and get on state boards too! They're the ones who will actually enforce this so that's vitally important. You can bet FSPS are pushing their students to get on the boards.

AcronymAllergy said:
I agree, although I don't really know if there's a way to not potentially end up hurting students at some of the more frequently-offending programs. If we're serious about enacting/enforcing stricter standards and holding such programs accountable for their actions, then there's likely going to be some fallout, which is also likely to include at least a few students.
Click to expand...

There's a grandfathering clause. In every area, there are some people who go to online programs without the right accreditation (Phoenix, shady Caribbean med schools). There's not really much to do about that but have more leadership on informing applicants about it--some people will do the "listen to your feelings about it" thing that people say on these boards so often, and make bad decisions.
 
Are the unaccredited programs really the ones majorly contributing to the imbalance though? Call me cynical, but I can't help but see this as a way of APA removing the onus of change from themselves (accreditation of programs) and placing it on the students/programs (internship match).
 
DynamicDidactic said:
are we seriously this forgetful? We already had this discussion on here.
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=14419058

the resolution means nothing practically. Not a single state law has changed, thus nothing will be different.

The only difference will be in the APPIC match process.
Click to expand...

Well, the APA can't change state licensing laws (neither can the AMA for that matter, as far as I know). I think the idea is that if the APA formally makes this resolution, there's then pressure (and support) for state boards to enact clauses that are in line with this resolution.

Although as cara mentioned, I don't know that the biggest part of the problem is from unaccredited doctoral programs. Rather, it's accredited programs that contribute to the issue by churning out large numbers of students. By requiring APA accred. at the internship level, you're indirectly addressing this issue, although you're also going to get fall-out from folks at non-"offending" programs who happen not to land an APA internship.
 
cara susanna said:
Are the unaccredited programs really the ones majorly contributing to the imbalance though? Call me cynical, but I can't help but see this as a way of APA removing the onus of change from themselves (accreditation of programs) and placing it on the students/programs (internship match).
Click to expand...

I think some of these diploma mills are a large part of the problem. When you churn out 70+ poorly trained students a year, of course you're going to have an internship imbalance. Those students shouldn't be getting good internships. The goal shouldn't be to create enough slots to accommodate every applicant. The goal should be to have enough internships slots for every qualified applicant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
cara susanna said:
Are the unaccredited programs really the ones majorly contributing to the imbalance though?
Click to expand...

Nope.

APPIC Survey said:
3. Is your doctoral program APA- or CPA-accredited?

Yes 2558 94 %
No 160 6 %

Source: http://www.appic.org/Match/MatchStatistics/ApplicantSurvey2011Part1.aspx
Click to expand...

*edit to add*

What is not captured in these data are all of the people who skipped the APPIC Match all together. For instance, there are some applicants who only go through CAPIC, but I'm not sure what those numbers would be each year.
 
Last edited:
I think some of these diploma mills are a large part of the problem. When you churn out 70+ poorly trained students a year, of course you're going to have an internship imbalance. Those students shouldn't be getting good internships. The goal shouldn't be to create enough slots to accommodate every applicant. The goal should be to have enough internships slots for every qualified applicant.
Click to expand...

It should, yes, but the imbalance is also impacting qualified students. This resolution could easily hurt students from the "non-offending" programs.
 
It's clearly not the solution to everything. But, it IS a step toward accountability, which leadership of this profession has run from in the past. Clearly more needs to be pushed for.
 
Yes, I just wish it would happen more at the program accreditation level. If they combined this with removal of accreditation from programs with poor APA match rates, that would be a very effective solution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A few years back I proposed only allowing programs to have as many students as they have been able to match to APA-acred programs over the prior (5?) years. A reasonable cap is needed, though I think that would mostly self-regulate. If APA-acred. is linked to meeting a certain threshold this should address much of the imbalance within 5-6 years (or enough time for caps to go into effect and have that initial cohort of students apply to match).
 
Therapist4Chnge said:
A few years back I proposed only allowing programs to have as many students as they have been able to match to APA-acred programs over the prior (5?) years. A reasonable cap is needed, though I think that would mostly self-regulate. If APA-acred. is linked to meeting a certain threshold this should address much of the imbalance within 5-6 years (or enough time for caps to go into effect and have that initial cohort of students apply to match).
Click to expand...

It looks to me like a version of this got into the accreditation guidelines (where it went from "75% match rate" without specifying match to what, or consequences for not) to specifying APA internship match rate, though it again got watered down with no clear consequence. Stedman et al., and John Williamson and I, have outlined in the literature how to tie accreditation and match rates. It is NOT, as some authors have written (without reference to any relevant case law) antitrust violation to link accreditation to relevant outcome variables. This is totally doable, it's a matter of getting people into APA who want to get it done.
 
LOl APA--what a loser organization. With them at the helm, the income for psych majors has fallen below that of history and sociology majors. Ha ha. That organization could not be more lame. So they have new guidelines. Goodie! They are overstepping their jurisdiction. They should remind themselves that they only accredit clinical, counseling and school programs. Being rendered impotent by APS should not send them looking for other ways to exert influence. It is an organization that should have disbanded long ago or maybe it did and that is why it is so ineffectual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
MCParent said:
It looks to me like a version of this got into the accreditation guidelines (where it went from "75% match rate" without specifying match to what, or consequences for not) to specifying APA internship match rate, though it again got watered down with no clear consequence. Stedman et al., and John Williamson and I, have outlined in the literature how to tie accreditation and match rates. It is NOT, as some authors have written (without reference to any relevant case law) antitrust violation to link accreditation to relevant outcome variables. This is totally doable, it's a matter of getting people into APA who want to get it done.
Click to expand...

Where is the disconnect with the field then? Any idea why the CoA didn't push this and actually add some teeth to their changes?
 
Therapist4Chnge said:
Where is the disconnect with the field then? Any idea why the CoA didn't push this and actually add some teeth to their changes?
Click to expand...

It became professional mythology at some point. Someone wondered aloud about it, and also actual antitrust violation (arbitrarily capping program size, which would absolutely be illegal) was mixed up with things that are totally legal (linking outcomes to class sizes and accreditation). Then people just cited that nonsense without looking it up for themselves, and the myth was born.

Why didn't CoA push it? I was in a BEA meeting 3 years ago at which two members of the board didn't know there WAS in internship imbalance. The new BEA chair is doing things to actually change up the situation, but I'm sure is encountering challenges from people who are too disconnected to realize the problem, or for whom solving the problem would conflict with their own personal self-interest (read the comments from David Cimbora, president of NCSPP, on revisions to the G&P (http://apaoutside.apa.org/AccredSurvey/Public/ViewComments.asp?t=115822) to see examples of self-interest that are detrimental to the field).
 
Last edited:
AcronymAllergy said:
although you're also going to get fall-out from folks at non-"offending" programs who happen not to land an APA internship.
Click to expand...

This is what concerns me. I know plenty of competent clinicians from APA-approved small PhD programs who have failed to get APA internships. Until the imbalance is addressed, I can't help but think this kind of proposal is punishing students who are unable to meet the requirement through no fault of their own.
 
dasherva13 said:
This is what concerns me. I know plenty of competent clinicians from APA-approved small PhD programs who have failed to get APA internships. Until the imbalance is addressed, I can't help but think this kind of proposal is punishing students who are unable to meet the requirement through no fault of their own.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the fairest way (and/or the option that would most limit the unintended fall-out) would be to grandfather in all students currently enrolled in accredited doctoral programs (and especially folks who're already graduated and out practicing somewhere). All new students, though, would need to be held to the new standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
dasherva13 said:
This is what concerns me. I know plenty of competent clinicians from APA-approved small PhD programs who have failed to get APA internships. Until the imbalance is addressed, I can't help but think this kind of proposal is punishing students who are unable to meet the requirement through no fault of their own.
Click to expand...

The imbalance could be resolved tomorrow if large programs decided to be responsible and accountable, and shrink program size. I've played with the numbers, and if the 6 or so largest doc programs vanished tomorrow, the appic-match imbalance would reverse direction (the apa match would take a bit more). But, as those programs are motivated to continue to sustain class sizes as large as possible, the association has to step in. Yes, this will harm some students; the apa and large professional schools shoulder most of the blame for that.
 
AcronymAllergy said:
Perhaps the fairest way (and/or the option that would most limit the unintended fall-out) would be to grandfather in all students currently enrolled in accredited doctoral programs (and especially folks who're already graduated and out practicing somewhere). All new students, though, would need to be held to the new standard.
Click to expand...

That sounds fair to me, provided there's also clear explanation to incoming students of the "new rules" and what's being done to address it.
 
MCParent said:
The imbalance could be resolved tomorrow if large programs decided to be responsible and accountable, and shrink program size. I've played with the numbers, and if the 6 or so largest doc programs vanished tomorrow, the appic-match imbalance would reverse direction (the apa match would take a bit more). But, as those programs are motivated to continue to sustain class sizes as large as possible, the association has to step in. Yes, this will harm some students; the apa and large professional schools shoulder most of the blame for that.
Click to expand...

Heck, not even sustain, but increase.
 
MCParent said:
The imbalance could be resolved tomorrow if large programs decided to be responsible and accountable, and shrink program size. I've played with the numbers, and if the 6 or so largest doc programs vanished tomorrow, the appic-match imbalance would reverse direction (the apa match would take a bit more). But, as those programs are motivated to continue to sustain class sizes as large as possible, the association has to step in. Yes, this will harm some students; the apa and large professional schools shoulder most of the blame for that.
Click to expand...

But will these large programs actually feel the accountability?
 
Therapist4Chnge said:
A few years back I proposed only allowing programs to have as many students as they have been able to match to APA-acred programs over the prior (5?) years. A reasonable cap is needed, though I think that would mostly self-regulate. If APA-acred. is linked to meeting a certain threshold this should address much of the imbalance within 5-6 years (or enough time for caps to go into effect and have that initial cohort of students apply to match).
Click to expand...

I think this would be very helpful if it was enforced strictly. Due to the financial reward of more students resulting in more tuition dollars, I do not think that large programs will self-regulate unless it is necessary in order to keep APA accreditation. But as others have said, they will fight APA policy that forces them to be accountable for their outcomes.
 
What do you guys think about the dip in applicants this year? Things have modestly improved this year, which is great, but I don't think that this strongly relates to any of the APA's initiatives, and chances are the positive changes won't continue IMO. See the email (copied from APPIC listserv) below for more info:

"APPIC MATCH NEWS
---

As of December 31, 2013, the total numbers of applicants and internship sites registered to participate in the 2014 APPIC Match were:

• 4,252 registered applicants
• 3,522 positions offered by 749 registered internship sites (712 of these registered sites are APPIC members)

These numbers reflect a decrease of 132 applicants and an increase of 187 positions as compared to last year at this time. The increase in positions is the largest seen since the APPIC Match began in 1999. The decrease in the number of registered applicants is only the third such occurrence since 1999.
Furthermore, the number of participating internship sites increased by 24, all of which reflect an increase in APPIC membership (from 688 to 712). There is no change in the number of participating non-member sites (37) as compared to last year.

IMPORTANT NOTE: These numbers change daily and are only a "snapshot" as of December 31 of each year. The final numbers of participating sites, positions, and applicants will be significantly different from those presented above. For example, in every APPIC Match to date, more than 200 applicants withdrew from the Match after registering (applicants withdraw from the Match for a variety of reasons, such as not having received any interview offers, deciding to delay their internship until another year, seeking or obtaining a position outside the APPIC Match, etc.).

The table below presents the registration numbers from the past sixteen years (since the APPIC Match was initiated), as of December 31 of each year, along with the change from the previous year:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
APPIC MATCH REGISTRATION NUMBERS AS OF DECEMBER 31

---Applicants--- ---Positions--- -----Sites-----
Reg Chg Reg Chg Reg Chg
================ =============== ===============
Dec 31, 1998 3,119 2,659 609
Dec 31, 1999 3,147 +28 2,773 +114 623 +14
Dec 31, 2000 3,180 +33 2,771 -2 625 +2
Dec 31, 2001 3,039 -141 2,766 -5 617 -8
Dec 31, 2002 3,146 +107 2,774 +8 619 +2
Dec 31, 2003 3,230 +84 2,753 -21 628 +9
Dec 31, 2004 3,360 +130 2,778 +25 621 -7
Dec 31, 2005 3,432 +72 2,811 +33 630 +9
Dec 31, 2006 3,620 +188 2,904 +93 641 +11
Dec 31, 2007 3,671 +51 3,057 +153 666 +25
Dec 31, 2008 3,759 +88 3,136 +79 687 +21
Dec 31, 2009 3,737 -22 3,157 +21 690 +3
Dec 31, 2010 4,104 +367 3,214 +57 705 +15
Dec 31, 2011 4,358 +254 3,210 -4 712 +7
Dec 31, 2012 4,384 +26 3,335 +125 725 +13
Dec 31, 2013 4,252 -132 3,522 +187 749 +24
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For comparison purposes, here are the final numbers of registered applicants and participating positions from each of the fifteen previous APPIC Matches. Note that the numbers are as of Match Day in February for each year, rather than for the preceding December 31. Applicant numbers include those who withdrew or did not submit a Rank Order List.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBER OF REGISTERED APPLICANTS AND PARTICIPATING INTERNSHIP POSITIONS
IN PREVIOUS APPIC MATCHES

Applicants Positions Difference
1999 Match 3,135 2,631 -504
2000 Match 3,174 2,713 -461
2001 Match 3,204 2,763 -441
2002 Match 3,073 2,752 -321
2003 Match 3,174 2,718 -456
2004 Match 3,258 2,732 -526
2005 Match 3,389 2,757 -632
2006 Match 3,479 2,779 -700
2007 Match 3,698 2,884 -814
2008 Match 3,759 3,058 -701
2009 Match 3,825 3,051 -774
2010 Match 3,890 3,101 -789
2011 Match* 4,199 3,166 -1,033
2012 Match* 4,435 3,190 -1,245
2013 Match* 4,481 3,376 -1,105
* = Data from 2011 through 2013 is from Phase I of the Match
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional statistics from previous matches can be found at www.appic.org -- click on the "Match" pull-down menu, then on "Match Statistics."

CANADIAN APPLICANTS AND PROGRAMS: The table below presents the registration numbers from the past four years for Canadian applicants and programs, as of December 31 of each year, along with the change from the previous year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
APPIC MATCH REGISTRATION NUMBERS AS OF DECEMBER 31
FOR CANADIAN APPLICANTS AND PROGRAMS

---Applicants--- ---Positions--- -----Sites-----
Reg Chg Reg Chg Reg Chg
================ =============== ===============
Dec 31, 2010 176 131 37
Dec 31, 2011 213 +37 146 +15 39 +2
Dec 31, 2012 197 -16 151 +5 40 +1
Dec 31, 2013 187 -10 165 +14 43 +3
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIAL NOTE TO INTERNSHIP TRAINING DIRECTORS: Even though there are more applicants than positions, this does NOT mean that all positions will be filled in the Match (e.g., the 2013 Match left 282 positions unfilled). Our experience with previous Matches tells us that: (1) some positions will remain unfilled, and (2) Training Directors who submit relatively short Rank Order Lists will increase the likelihood of one or more of their positions remaining unfilled. Of course, you should only rank those applicants to whom you would be comfortable being matched"​
 
Rivi said:
What do you guys think about the dip in applicants this year?
Click to expand...

Hitting the market saturation ceiling?

There is some evidence, if you look at NCSPP programs, that among the worst offenders there have indeed been decreases in enrollment over the last couple years. There are a few that have increased enrollment, which has mitigated the benefits from the responsible programs. But that happened too recently to really affect this.

Applicants this year would have entered grad school in 2008-2009ish; national economics is probably more responsible than the APA.

One year is not good data in the face of a very clear multiyear trend (the dip in 2001 is generally attributed to general chaos following the terrorist attacks; the other dip is probably a nonsignificant minor aberration). If some of the voluntary reductions really did help it would shop up in 2-3 years.
 
In the other thread where this was mentioned it was posited that perhaps more people are going outside of APPIC. That could be it as well.
 
cara susanna said:
In the other thread where this was mentioned it was posited that perhaps more people are going outside of APPIC. That could be it as well.
Click to expand...

This would be my guess. Some programs already strongly encourage their students to forego APPIC (usually for CAPIC), so I'd hypothesize that this is becoming more common. One reason may be because of the APPIC fee structure that discourages a "shotgun" approach to applying.
 
Therapist4Chnge said:
This would be my guess. Some programs already strongly encourage their students to forego APPIC (usually for CAPIC), so I'd hypothesize that this is becoming more common. One reason may be because of the APPIC fee structure that discourages a "shotgun" approach to applying.
Click to expand...

Ugh, CAPIC, what a joke. CAPIC makes me skeptical of the training of any grad out of California.
 
WisNeuro said:
Ugh, CAPIC, what a joke. CAPIC makes me skeptical of the training of any grad out of California.
Click to expand...
If I ever meet a psychologist from, or who trained in, CA, I will always have questions about their ability to perform services in a competent and ethical manner. California just sucks in general (personal opinion) and the standards are lower for a lot of these programs. The sad part is that there are some really great psychologists that come out of CA programs, and they just have to get used to explaining where they came from because of the awful ones.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Pragma said:
If I ever meet a psychologist from, or who trained in, CA, I will always have questions about their ability to perform services in a competent and ethical manner. California just sucks in general (personal opinion) and the standards are lower for a lot of these programs. The sad part is that there are some really great psychologists that come out of CA programs, and they just have to get used to explaining where they came from because of the awful ones.
Click to expand...

Well, be fair and see where they trained. I'd be critical of folks passing off as psychologists who trained here: http://www.ryokan.edu/ as opposed to here: http://dornsife.usc.edu/psyc/ o_O
 
MCParent said:
Hitting the market saturation ceiling?

There is some evidence, if you look at NCSPP programs, that among the worst offenders there have indeed been decreases in enrollment over the last couple years. There are a few that have increased enrollment, which has mitigated the benefits from the responsible programs. But that happened too recently to really affect this.

Applicants this year would have entered grad school in 2008-2009ish; national economics is probably more responsible than the APA.

One year is not good data in the face of a very clear multiyear trend (the dip in 2001 is generally attributed to general chaos following the terrorist attacks; the other dip is probably a nonsignificant minor aberration). If some of the voluntary reductions really did help it would shop up in 2-3 years.
Click to expand...
I basically agree with MC.

I also want to point out that the increase in positions is probably short lived as well. A big push in funding by the APA and other funding agencies (e.g., VA) created additional internship positions in the past 2 years. However, its doubtful whether these funding lines will remain long term. If this is indeed a statistical blip or even just a sign of the internship imbalance reaching a plateau, then once these positions go away we will continue to see a "growth" in the internship imbalance. However, coming up is the transition that will prevent non-accredited individuals from the APPIC process. Its a relatively small group of people but that will make it appear as if the imbalance is being rectified. However, as mentioned this is more indicative of interns using a non-APPIC route and thus reducing the ability to accurately track training in the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Rivi said:
This is a HUGE step forward. Licensed psychologists will have to graduate from an accredited program AND an accredited internship. This may take care of the CPA cluster****, and hopefully prevent more students from getting screwed. This seems reasonable to me, as long as the imbalance is improved and doesn't screw over a ton of students. Undoubtedly, Argosy and Alliant will find a way to protect their interests, but things like this will make it harder for them to do so, and they may eventually say that it isn't worth it for them, when they could pump out MBA's, etc. without the hassle.

Another reason that I am optimistic about this is that the APA is taking steps (although small) to require certain internship match rates to meet accreditation. These two forces working together could actually improve things.
Click to expand...

The APIC and CAPIC match program is a joke, and the APA has done nothing to alleviate the discrepancy in supply and demand as numerous students of APA doctoral programs wait years or sometimes never get an APIC matched internship.

There has been a mental health crisis in the US for sometime, as the demand for competent mental health practitioners has far outpaced the available supply of competent clinicians. The APA has done little or nothing to increase accessibility to training programs to increase the number of competent clinicians because by regulating the pace of available clinicians, they decrease competition and protect their jobs. This is in direct contrast to the APA's own Ethical general principles of Beneficence, Nonmaleficience, Integrity, and Responsibility.

Hate to sound cynical, but this is the system APA has created.


WisNeuro said:
This is great! Unless, of course, they loosed standards just to let all of the Alliant's and Argosy's into the fold due solely to lobbying pressure and money.
Click to expand...
 
Anthropopsychophile said:
The APIC and CAPIC match program is a joke, and the APA has done nothing to alleviate the discrepancy in supply and demand as numerous students of APA doctoral programs wait years or sometimes never get an APIC matched internship.
Click to expand...

There was a surplus of internships to applicants this year. What exactly are you gripping about?

Are you that "modern psychologist" dude again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

E
Is APA accreditation on contingency hard to get?
Replies
1
Views
597
AcronymAllergy
AcronymAllergy
P
APPIC match when PhD program has APA accreditation site visit during interviews?
Replies
4
Views
684
niceman
N
thisisjustatest
Appic member post doc not APA accredited
Replies
7
Views
913
summerbabe
summerbabe
E
Not yet APA Accredited?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Epak333
E
AbnormalPsych
ResearchGate and APA Collab
Replies
2
Views
401
Ollie123
O
Top