- Joined
- Jul 27, 2017
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 1
Ok, so everyone familiar with the field might already know some obvious answer to this but I am quite clueless here about the issue CACREP has with faculties that are primarily (but not solely) composed of psychologists. Many excellent masters programs in counseling that are housed in psychology and counseling psychology departments are automatically disqualified from CACREP accreditation. Why?
I see that CACREP is lobbying hard to have their accreditation become synonymous with state licensing board requirements, and I understand that it would be foolish to undertake an MA in counseling where CACREP accreditation mattered that much. But my query is with the initial anti-psychology stance: Where does it come from?
Presumably because of that stance, the rival Masters in Psychology and Counseling Accreditation Council - MPCAC (and MCAC) - emerged in 1995, and gaining traction. MPCAC, not CACREP, accredit NYU and Columbia's MA programs in counseling, for example, whose doctoral programs in the same specialization (counseling), taught by the same staff - are accredited by the APA (who do not accredit masters degrees at all). So, the doctoral graduates of these programs can go on to become counselors/therapists in private practice, no problem. But the masters graduates of the same school and the same staff, and many of the same courses, graduating without the compulsory component of producing original research (PsyD, PhD) - those masters graduates are not recognizable by CACREP as coming up to scratch, and so they are subject to all the increasing deprivations of being non-CACREP accredited. Why would the wannabe 'gold standard' accreditation agency for masters degrees - CACREP - freeze out psychologists, accepting only programs with staff that primarily identify as counselors? Whereas the gold standard for doctoral level degrees in the same specialization, at the same school - the APA - has no such qualm? I'm genuinely confused. As the APA plainly recognizes, there is an enormous amount of overlap between psychologists and counselors, there are many excellent teachers and therapists who identify as psychologists and counselors, and their qualifications and experience reflect excellence in both competencies. The fact that a doctoral student of the same school and staff and same courses (sans original research components and courses related to the same) can go on to be a therapist in private practice, but a masters student cannot in CACREP's eyes, is straightforwardly nonsensical, by my lights. Am I missing something? In my search for answers to this quandary of mine, I came across this study on CACREP v MPCAC in terms of each state's laws for licensing, which might be of interest.
I see that CACREP is lobbying hard to have their accreditation become synonymous with state licensing board requirements, and I understand that it would be foolish to undertake an MA in counseling where CACREP accreditation mattered that much. But my query is with the initial anti-psychology stance: Where does it come from?
Presumably because of that stance, the rival Masters in Psychology and Counseling Accreditation Council - MPCAC (and MCAC) - emerged in 1995, and gaining traction. MPCAC, not CACREP, accredit NYU and Columbia's MA programs in counseling, for example, whose doctoral programs in the same specialization (counseling), taught by the same staff - are accredited by the APA (who do not accredit masters degrees at all). So, the doctoral graduates of these programs can go on to become counselors/therapists in private practice, no problem. But the masters graduates of the same school and the same staff, and many of the same courses, graduating without the compulsory component of producing original research (PsyD, PhD) - those masters graduates are not recognizable by CACREP as coming up to scratch, and so they are subject to all the increasing deprivations of being non-CACREP accredited. Why would the wannabe 'gold standard' accreditation agency for masters degrees - CACREP - freeze out psychologists, accepting only programs with staff that primarily identify as counselors? Whereas the gold standard for doctoral level degrees in the same specialization, at the same school - the APA - has no such qualm? I'm genuinely confused. As the APA plainly recognizes, there is an enormous amount of overlap between psychologists and counselors, there are many excellent teachers and therapists who identify as psychologists and counselors, and their qualifications and experience reflect excellence in both competencies. The fact that a doctoral student of the same school and staff and same courses (sans original research components and courses related to the same) can go on to be a therapist in private practice, but a masters student cannot in CACREP's eyes, is straightforwardly nonsensical, by my lights. Am I missing something? In my search for answers to this quandary of mine, I came across this study on CACREP v MPCAC in terms of each state's laws for licensing, which might be of interest.
Last edited:
