College enrollment crisis

[Sanman]

So, this popped up in my email recently and I was curious to get opinions here. While this is certainly not good for academia and will likely lead to fewer PhD programs and more PsyDs due to lack of funding, I think the rest of it is rather unsurprising and due to the field being out of touch with the needs of graduates and clinicians. A lot of older folks with cushy jobs maybe panicking about how well their 401ks are funded. Maybe the focus should be on more straight-forward, available training paths and better reimbursement.


Psychology programs prep for steep drop in college students

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Combine that with this and you have even more issues:

College will cost up to $95,000 this fall. Schools say it's OK, financial aid can numb sticker shock

As more than 2 million graduating high school students from across the United States finalize their decisions on what college to attend this fall, many are facing jaw-dropping costs that can be as much as $95,000.

apnews.com

Even if rates/salaries go up for psychologists, there's still the issue of pay for BA level psychologists (ETA- as pointed out in comment below, there is no such things as a "BA level psychologist". This should read "individuals only with a BA in Psychology), is not close to covering undergrad debt, rent, etc.- stuff you need to pay for between undergrad and grad, as well as during grad. When there are other professions that pay better and don't require grad school, a smart person may be less inclined to choose psych.

Also- ~400K for an undergrad education!! While some of those schools have some top notch faculty and facilities, freshmen are still in a 50-100 student lecture hall for the intro classes, maybe even taught by a TA. Any marginal differences in education quality between that and, say, a directional state school, don't justify such a big difference in tuition (and the directional state schools aren't cheap!). Aid is certainly there for lower SES students, but somebody pays the difference.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Even if rates/salaries go up for psychologists, there's still the issue of pay for BA level psychologists is not close to covering undergrad debt, rent, etc.- stuff you need to pay for between undergrad and grad, as well as during grad. When there are other professions that pay better and don't require grad school, a smart person may be less inclined to choose psych.

No. There is no such thing as a BA level psychologist, but I agree that a bachelors in psych is not that useful. If the profession was serious, it’d require multiple stats courses, a required thesis, and have better integration w the working world after graduation. Instead, you get a bunch of kids taking psych courses w zero plan for after graduation. Being a psych major is a joke at most universities.

 

[PsychSupreme]

I'm not sure this is such a terrible thing for psychology, specifically. I don't think it will influence the proportion of PsyD programs--it may even reduce the pressure for more to pop up if fewer folks overall are graduating from undergrad and seeking doctoral training. This could pose an interesting inflection point for our field to deeply reform how we teach psychology at the undergraduate level and increase the focus on harder, more practical skills like data analytics. This may be an exciting opportunity to reform the idea that "psychology = mental healthcare" and increase the overall quality of student declaring the major.

 

[Sanman]

Combine that with this and you have even more issues:

College will cost up to $95,000 this fall. Schools say it's OK, financial aid can numb sticker shock

As more than 2 million graduating high school students from across the United States finalize their decisions on what college to attend this fall, many are facing jaw-dropping costs that can be as much as $95,000.

apnews.com

Even if rates/salaries go up for psychologists, there's still the issue of pay for BA level psychologists is not close to covering undergrad debt, rent, etc.- stuff you need to pay for between undergrad and grad, as well as during grad. When there are other professions that pay better and don't require grad school, a smart person may be less inclined to choose psych.

Also- ~400K for an undergrad education!! While some of those schools have some top notch faculty and facilities, freshmen are still in a 50-100 student lecture hall for the intro classes, maybe even taught by a TA. Any marginal differences in education quality between that and, say, a directional state school, don't justify such a big difference in tuition (and the directional state schools aren't cheap!). Aid is certainly there for lower SES students, but somebody pays the difference.

No. There is no such thing as a BA level psychologist, but I agree that a bachelors in psych is not that useful. If the profession was serious, it’d require multiple stats courses, a required thesis, and have better integration w the working world after graduation. Instead, you get a bunch of kids taking psych courses w zero plan for after graduation. Being a psych major is a joke at most universities.

This is why I have often encouraged those young people that are financially strapped to think about nursing or social work instead of psychology. Both those professional pathways have jobs for every level of education, we do not. Nursing for example, HS grad (nursing assistant) LPN (AA), RN(B.A.), NP (masters/doctorate). You can stop at any level for however long you need and work. Then continue on. I know an NP that just finished up in her 60s after starting out as a nursing assistant and working her way up as she got the money. There is something to be said for this model.

 

[Freud’sMommy]

Do we really need so many psych majors as a society? Too many people go to college now such that it's an extension of high school. If they're not cut out for the rigors of academia, better they cut their losses early or don't enter college in the first place. Well administered programs will survive and the rest will perish. The reduction in negative-value psych majors will be a boon in the long run as people select for other meaningful professions that don't require starting life $200k (or more) in the hole. The remaining psych students with genuine aptitude to thrive in graduate education will be greeted with higher quality training and less competitive post-grad opportunities.

 

[cara susanna]

Now how will we get research samples?

 

[Sanman]

Do we really need so many psych majors as a society? Too many people go to college now such that it's an extension of high school. If they're not cut out for the rigors of academia, better they cut their losses early or don't enter college in the first place. Well administered programs will survive and the rest will perish. The reduction in negative-value psych majors will be a boon in the long run as people select for other meaningful professions that don't require starting life $200k (or more) in the hole. The remaining psych students with genuine aptitude to thrive in graduate education will be greeted with higher quality training and less competitive post-grad opportunities.

Of course we don't. But there are going to be a lot of bitter midlevel and full professors if departments and colleges shut down?

 

[ClinicalABA]

Do we really need so many psych majors as a society?

Regardless of the answer to this question, we DO need more carpenters, plumbers, electricians, HVAC technicians, auto mechanics, etc. Pushing kids away from trades towards college prep in middle school is just ridiculous. That it is done based on some measure of academic performance or ability is even more ridiculous. My friends who ended up in vocational programs in high school got to tour the different shops, experience the work done in each, and choose (or at least rank order) what they wanted to do in high school. I was "smart", so was never even given the option to explore or even consider the trades.

 

[PsyDr]

The article says that the declining enrollment is due to declining birth rates. If so, psychology is the least of our worries because the entire economy and US infrastructure is going to collapse. Since the US Census says the US's population should increase through 2100, methinks they are misrepresenting the problem.

What's more likely:
a. the APA knows something the US government does not
OR
b. Schools don't want to reduce tuition or use their money to lobby for higher reimbursement, so they're pawning this problem onto the rest of us?

 

[Sanman]

The article says that the declining enrollment is due to declining birth rates. If so, psychology is the least of our worries because the entire economy and US infrastructure is going to collapse. Since the US Census says the US's population should increase through 2100, methinks they are misrepresenting the problem.

What's more likely:
a. the APA knows something the US government does not
OR
b. Schools don't want to reduce tuition or use their money to lobby for higher reimbursement, so they're pawning this problem onto the rest of us?

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the world's population has passed 8 billion

The population will increase, but the birth rate is decreasing in most countries including the U.S. The answer to most of these problems will be immigration. The irony here is that student loans likely had a significant impact on decreasing birth rates to begin with, their greed will cause their own demise.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The quiet part that no one but the white supremacists and Project 25'ers (same circle, no overlap) are saying out loud is the declining birth rate is most problematic for WHITE PEOPLE in the United States. We could streamline legal immigration, prioritize high-value immigrants, and re-adjust the ratios of who we let in (asylum & otherwise) and the problem will solve itself rather quickly. All of the EU does this already, but the USA's immigration policies are severely lagging behind them. If we really cared about strengthening our country, we would make these changes, but the politics keep getting in the way. We could have a thriving country that is truly a melting pot of the best of the best (regardless of race, religion, etc), but that would require a much more diverse population and less white supremacists, bigots, and racists in elected offices.

 

[Sanman]

The quiet part that no one but the white supremacists and Project 25'ers (same circle, no overlap) are saying out loud is the declining birth rate is most problematic for WHITE PEOPLE in the United States. We could streamline legal immigration, prioritize high-value immigrants, and re-adjust the ratios of who we let in (asylum & otherwise) and the problem will solve itself rather quickly. All of the EU does this already, but the USA's immigration policies are severely lagging behind them. If we really cared about strengthening our country, we would make these changes, but the politics keep getting in the way. We could have a thriving country that is truly a melting pot of the best of the best (regardless of race, religion, etc), but that would require a much more diverse population and less white supremacists, bigots, and racists in elected offices.

That is because the U.S. has always existed with a semi-permanent underclass to prop up the country and economy. From slaves picking cotton to Chinese building the railroads and, currently, it is the Latin/Hispanic population that cuts your grass and picks your fruit. The difference is that until recently, there was no risk that any of those people were White. As the population shifts to a White minority that may change.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

We’ve been below replacement level for how long now? See South Korea in the next 20 years for a sneak peek at us in 60. Psych enrollment will be the least of our worries.

 

[Ollie123]

Yeah....being below population replacement level causes an obscene number of ripple effects through society that will extend far beyond college enrollment in the long-term. Both social security and retirement accounts writ large have more of a "pyramid scheme" element then they should. I'm not at all confident we can bank on continued stock market growth with a declining population (obviously global trade complicates this matter a bit), but at the same time I also don't really see any alternatives. I'm basically all-in on TSM in my retirement accounts.

More on the point of college enrollment, I do think we have some reason to be worried. For better or worse, I think making psychology undergrad include more "practical" training will be important. We can emphasize research design, measurement and statistics. I'm on a health campus that doesn't have much in the way of undergraduate education, but have wanted to work with a local community college to develop a formal undergraduate program in clinical research coordination (which may be relevant to psychology and provide new job paths in the tech sector as FDA takes greater oversight of mobile health interventions). I don't think psychology is going away any time soon, but I do think it is a particularly scary time to be in a primarily teaching-oriented institution. Particularly small state or expensive-but-not-prestigious private schools, which are likely to be first to go. Research-heavy and flagship state schools should have more opportunities to pivot and at least enable people to coast to retirement rather than cutting entire departments to stay afloat.

I would worry about folks with a longer horizon right now (e.g. current undergrads considering paths to faculty) as I see the job market becoming even more competitive in 10ish years. I think it is more important than ever to diversify skillsets as a hedge. A clinician with skills in data management/analysis, grant writing, mobile app development, etc. and content knowledge related to human behavior is still going to have opportunities for a middle/upper-middle class lifestyle for the foreseeable future. Someone who can teach a few psych courses and that's it? Someone who is an average or even above-average therapist but has nothing else to fall back on? Probably fine for the next 10 years. 20-30? I'm not so sure....

 

[Sanman]

Yeah....being below population replacement level causes an obscene number of ripple effects through society that will extend far beyond college enrollment in the long-term. Both social security and retirement accounts writ large have more of a "pyramid scheme" element then they should. I'm not at all confident we can bank on continued stock market growth with a declining population (obviously global trade complicates this matter a bit), but at the same time I also don't really see any alternatives. I'm basically all-in on TSM in my retirement accounts.

More on the point of college enrollment, I do think we have some reason to be worried. For better or worse, I think making psychology undergrad include more "practical" training will be important. We can emphasize research design, measurement and statistics. I'm on a health campus that doesn't have much in the way of undergraduate education, but have wanted to work with a local community college to develop a formal undergraduate program in clinical research coordination (which may be relevant to psychology and provide new job paths in the tech sector as FDA takes greater oversight of mobile health interventions). I don't think psychology is going away any time soon, but I do think it is a particularly scary time to be in a primarily teaching-oriented institution. Particularly small state or expensive-but-not-prestigious private schools, which are likely to be first to go. Research-heavy and flagship state schools should have more opportunities to pivot and at least enable people to coast to retirement rather than cutting entire departments to stay afloat.

I would worry about folks with a longer horizon right now (e.g. current undergrads considering paths to faculty) as I see the job market becoming even more competitive in 10ish years. I think it is more important than ever to diversify skillsets as a hedge. A clinician with skills in data management/analysis, grant writing, mobile app development, etc. and content knowledge related to human behavior is still going to have opportunities for a middle/upper-middle class lifestyle for the foreseeable future. Someone who can teach a few psych courses and that's it? Someone who is an average or even above-average therapist but has nothing else to fall back on? Probably fine for the next 10 years. 20-30? I'm not so sure....

TSM? You mean TSMC?

As far as the therapy job market, I think it will depend on what happens in the future and how education is managed. If there are fewer schools and clinicians in the pipeline, less competition. Judging from what I see now? I will have no competition doing dementia evals as none of the new grads know how to do assessment. As the population ages, I think that will bring with it a shift in the economy that focuses on healthcare and the needs of that population, at least for the next 20-25 years with the baby boomers. Healthcare already props up the U.S. economy. I imagine that means more nursing aides and McDonalds will be more computerized and have fewer workers. Beyond that, I could see there being a population decline overall. Now, school psychologists and pediatric therapists? That might be an issue in 10 years. That may also be a big problem for school psych departments.

Bigger picture, with Mexico also having reduced fertility, there is going to be a problem with finding cheap labor in this country to cook meals or or do basic labor. Manufacturing is going to be a problem as well and the only source of cheap labor is really Africa.

 

[tr]

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the world's population has passed 8 billion

The population will increase, but the birth rate is decreasing in most countries including the U.S. The answer to most of these problems will be immigration. The irony here is that student loans likely had a significant impact on decreasing birth rates to begin with, their greed will cause their own demise.

I don't think it's the student loans. Pretty much every developed nation is below replacement fertility rates now, including all the European nations with state-sponsored higher education.

Once you provide women with education and birth control, and improve pediatric health care to the point where most children will survive to adulthood, it turns out nobody actually wants to have 7-8 kids anymore.

 

[tr]

Bigger picture, with Mexico also having reduced fertility, there is going to be a problem with finding cheap labor in this country to cook meals or or do basic labor. Manufacturing is going to be a problem as well and the only source of cheap labor is really Africa.

The robots can do all that stuff. Do we really need to continue to subject human beings to picking fruit and cleaning toilets?
Personally I'm looking forward to the Keynesian revolution, UBI and the 15-hour workweek.

 

[Ollie123]

TSM=Total Stock Market (index fund)

It will be interesting to see how the therapy market evolves as it is definitely not going to be linear across age cohorts. I don't have a great sense of how the complexities of the insurance market will play out in this regard as there are also a lot of moving parts here (i.e., at least for commercial insurance, younger subsidizes older). Medicare is obviously a separate matter, but reimbursement rates continue to decline. Will reduced competition change that or just create unreasonably long lines? Politics is also a total wild card in my mind as to whether we move towards universal health.

To be clear, I don't think any of these things will "go away" in the near future. I do think the number of jobs and the salaries for those jobs are more...uncertain...then they were previously.

 

[Sanman]

I don't think it's the student loans. Pretty much every developed nation is below replacement fertility rates now, including all the European nations with state-sponsored higher education.

Once you provide women with education and birth control, and improve pediatric health care to the point where most children will survive to adulthood, it turns out nobody actually wants to have 7-8 kids anymore.

I'm not saying it is only student loans. You certainly have a point. However, in most developed countries the cost of starting a family have increased. Housing, urbanization, the concentration of jobs in and around cities, and the need for dual incomes has meant that is harder to justify having more children/larger families. The cost of education in the United States is an additional factor. There is a difference between 7-8 kids and 2-4. Student loans often mean starting families later with reduced resources. This can be the difference between having 1 child and 2-3. It certainly factored into the decision for my wife and I as well as many others we know. This is in a social circle with almost exclusively six figure incomes. It is that much harder for those closer to the median.

 

[Sanman]

The robots can do all that stuff. Do we really need to continue to subject human beings to picking fruit and cleaning toilets?
Personally I'm looking forward to the Keynesian revolution, UBI and the 15-hour workweek.

, I'll believe that when it happens. The promise of prosperity for all and reduced work hours has been talked about for 100 years without a change. We are not just talking about picking fruit and cleaning toilets. Eating a meal in restaurant, landscaping, stocking grocery shelves and many other basic things we take for granted can become very expensive. Most businesses rely on human capital and it is one of the most expensive costs already. We already got a preview of this during the pandemic.

 

[cara susanna]

We’ve been below replacement level for how long now? See South Korea in the next 20 years for a sneak peek at us in 60. Psych enrollment will be the least of our worries.

As someone who watches a lot of Korean dramas, I can definitely understand the systematic issues behind their low birth rate

 

[BuckeyeLove]

As someone who watches a lot of Korean dramas, I can definitely understand the systematic issues behind their low birth rate

Oh for real I'm curious! Housing affordability has to be high on the list right? (I'm thinking mostly about Seoul here).

 

[ClinicalABA]

I'm not saying it is only student loans...

Housing costs for everyone, including college graduates, are a huge limiting factor as well. I live in the same college town as I did when I was an undergrad. All - literally every single one- of the cheap apartments where I lived reasonably affordably (splitting the rent with a few other) as a 20-something is now an insanely priced condo. Two bedrooms are renting for $3500+, whereas a four bedroom unit (5, if you count the big closet that I slept in) cost us a little over $2000 in 2024 dollars. Forget about buying a house! In my town (nice college town, but not overly fancy), there is one house on the market (in my neighborhood of what used to be starter ranch homes) listed at 400K. Next lowest priced house on the market is over 800K. My college grad is back living at home while in grad school, as is my other child who is currently in community college (because they had the good sense not go to 75K program just because that's what you're supposed to do). I left home for college at a few weeks older than 18, and never lived home again, being able to work and make enough for rent, cheap beer, a serviceable vehicle, and some student loan payments. It wasn't fancy, but it was ok and- more importantly- possible. The same type of BA in psych/sociology human service job that I got paid $11/hour for in 1993 pays $24/hour today, barely keeping up with inflation. Life is way too expensive. I can't imagine either of them even considering having a child anytime soon.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

Housing costs for everyone, including college graduates, are a huge limiting factor as well. I live in the same college town as I did when I was an undergrad. All - literally every single one- of the cheap apartments where I lived reasonably affordably (splitting the rent with a few other) as a 20-something is now an insanely priced condo. Two bedrooms are renting for $3500+, whereas a four bedroom unit (5, if you count the big closet that I slept in) cost us a little over $2000 in 2024 dollars. Forget about buying a house! In my town (nice college town, but not overly fancy), there is one house on the market (in my neighborhood of what used to be starter ranch homes) listed at 400K. Next lowest priced house on the market is over 800K. My college grad is back living at home while in grad school, as is my other child who is currently in community college (because they had the good sense not go to 75K program just because that's what you're supposed to do). I left home for college at a few weeks older than 18, and never lived home again, being able to work and make enough for rent, cheap beer, a serviceable vehicle, and some student loan payments. It wasn't fancy, but it was ok and- more importantly- possible. The same type of BA in psych/sociology human service job that I got paid $11/hour for in 1993 pays $24/hour today, barely keeping up with inflation. Life is way too expensive. I can't imagine either of them even considering having a child anytime soon.

This bubble has to burst at some point right? Like...this isn't tenable. But what bursts?

 

[DynamicDidactic]

This thread is like a personality test

 

[Sanman]

This bubble has to burst at some point right? Like...this isn't tenable. But what bursts?

The problem you have is that it is not a bubble.

 

[ClinicalABA]

This bubble has to burst at some point right? Like...this isn't tenable. But what bursts?

You'd think it'd be housing, right? Yet even with increased interest rates, there really wasn't much change in the local market. Very little inventory, and it's immediately snatched up by cash buyers offering more than asking. The ability to work remotely has definitely impacted things here, as we are within a few hours of NYC and a lot of people making NYC salaries have been able to buy up here and work from home most of the time, popping down to the city for a few days a month (or even a week). Also, a lot of the rental market has shifted Air-BnB/Verbo- you can more, with less use and abuse of your property than you could renting to 20 somethings, and it generally doesn't piss off the neighbors as much. With some impending changes in real estate procedures (see the National Association of Realtors settlement), less funded buyers may be pushed further out of the market if they have to pay their owner buyer's agent fees (as opposed to current trend of sellers paying the buyer's agent).

 

[R. Matey]

It will be interesting to see how the therapy market evolves as it is definitely not going to be linear across age cohorts. I don't have a great sense of how the complexities of the insurance market will play out in this regard as there are also a lot of moving parts here (i.e., at least for commercial insurance, younger subsidizes older). Medicare is obviously a separate matter, but reimbursement rates continue to decline. Will reduced competition change that or just create unreasonably long lines? Politics is also a total wild card in my mind as to whether we move towards universal health.

If you mean robot therapists, it will likely mostly eat the midlevels whom already struggle to make a living.

 

[Sanman]

If you mean robot therapists, it will likely mostly eat the midlevels whom already struggle to make a living.

I don't think Ollie is referring to robot therapists. Rather, the insurance markets (including health insurance) only work when those that don't utilize it subsidize those that do. In a gray population, the risk is inverted. This may mean less benefits. Perhaps no mental health coverage without an additional benefit, at least outpatient.

 

[R. Matey]

I don't think Ollie is referring to robot therapists. Rather, the insurance markets (including health insurance) only work when those that don't utilize it subsidize those that do. In a gray population, the risk is inverted. This may mean less benefits. Perhaps no mental health coverage without an additional benefit, at least outpatient.

Got it. Thanks. I can't imagine a future where insurance companies suddenly stop covering MH altogether, but I also tend towards optimism.

 

[The Cinnabon]

As someone who watches a lot of Korean dramas, I can definitely understand the systematic issues behind their low birth rate

Completely off topic

But I recently learned that Samsung owns and runs an entire hospital in SK. I mean, I know that Samsung is a crazy high percentage of their economy ... but that was a bit jarring to learn.

 

[Sanman]

Got it. Thanks. I can't imagine a future where insurance companies suddenly stop covering MH altogether, but I also tend towards optimism.

It may mean no health coverage altogether. Already happening with homeowners insurance in several states due to the risk level.

 

[cara susanna]

Oh for real I'm curious! Housing affordability has to be high on the list right? (I'm thinking mostly about Seoul here).

Yup, exorbitant housing prices, long work hours, for women there's also this expectation that they'll stay home and raise the children, not to mention in many cases also do things for their in-laws (that's also why a lot of people aren't getting married). At the same time, people also like their daughters-in-law to have prestigious degrees, so you're basically working your butt off to get a good job, just to become a stay-at-home mother. There's a drama that showed a lot of these issues, Doctor Cha, and it got HUGE ratings, probably because it was so relevant to its audience.

Completely off topic

But I recently learned that Samsung owns and runs an entire hospital in SK. I mean, I know that Samsung is a crazy high percentage of their economy ... but that was a bit jarring to learn.

Oh yeah, chaebol families pretty much run everything.

 

[Ollie123]

I don't think Ollie is referring to robot therapists. Rather, the insurance markets (including health insurance) only work when those that don't utilize it subsidize those that do. In a gray population, the risk is inverted. This may mean less benefits. Perhaps no mental health coverage without an additional benefit, at least outpatient.

Yes indeed. I was actually a bit confused and had to re-read my post as I was trying to figure out where I had even referenced robots.

Mental health is also a bit of an odd duck on its own and that's part of why I think some hedging is critical. For medical, absolutely the younger subsidize the older. Most of the epi work I'm seeing suggests that the younger generations have profoundly high rates of mental health concerns though. Will that change as they age? How much is secondary to "coming of age" during COVID? How will commercial (and public) insurances respond to this?

 

[WisNeuro]

Oh for real I'm curious! Housing affordability has to be high on the list right? (I'm thinking mostly about Seoul here).

What about daycare? Just finished taxes, we spent 40k on daycare for two kiddos last year.

 

[Sanman]

What about daycare? Just finished taxes, we spent 40k on daycare for two kiddos last year.

That is a large problem in Korea (and other parts of the world) as well. The economics of certainly create an issue. Same with eldercare.

 

[WisNeuro]

That is a large problem in Korea (and other parts of the world) as well. The economics of certainly create an issue. Same with eldercare.

Crazy stuff, 1 year of daycare is the equivalent of my four years of undergrad.

 

[Sanman]

Crazy stuff, 1 year of daycare is the equivalent of my four years of undergrad.

Yup, I pay about $28k/yr for one. That was more than two years of college for me. Luckily, we can afford it.

 

[The Cinnabon]

Today I learned that I need to start a daycare!

 

[WisNeuro]

Today I learned that I need to start a daycare!

I imagine the insurance on that alone, and mandated staffing levels eats into that profit pretty quickly.

 

[Sanman]

Today I learned that I need to start a daycare!

May want to take a listen to this first:

 

[cara susanna]

After working with children who experienced sexual abuse, I always tell everyone to avoid home-run daycares

 

[WisNeuro]

After working with children who experienced sexual abuse, I always tell everyone to avoid home-run daycares

Yeah, we could get much cheaper going that way, but like you say, less protection in terms of having multiple providers who are supervised and have background checks periodically, and daycare having a decent curriculum or learning.

 

[tr]

This bubble has to burst at some point right? Like...this isn't tenable. But what bursts?

The population. It's the millennial bulge. The very same phenomenon that led to jubilant enlargement and enhancement of undergraduate institutions in the 2010s, which they will now have to figure out how to walk back.

Housing is tight right now because there is a huge population bulge of millennials in their 30s needing starter family homes.
This is compounded by the clampdown on new construction that followed the 2008 crash.
It's going to be tight for a while.
When the upcoming smaller generations of zoomers and alphas hit homebuying age, there will be plenty of options for them.

 

[Sanman]

The population. It's the millennial bulge. The very same phenomenon that led to jubilant enlargement and enhancement of undergraduate institutions in the 2010s, which they will now have to figure out how to walk back.

Housing is tight right now because there is a huge population bulge of millennials in their 30s needing starter family homes.
This is compounded by the reduction in new housing stock that followed the 2008 crash.
It's going to be tight for a while.
When the upcoming smaller generations of zoomers and alphas hit homebuying age, there will be plenty of options for them.

Combine that with Boomers that want to downsize and the market is more likely to exhibit a compression rather than a decline.

 

[R. Matey]

Yes indeed. I was actually a bit confused and had to re-read my post as I was trying to figure out where I had even referenced robots.

Mental health is also a bit of an odd duck on its own and that's part of why I think some hedging is critical. For medical, absolutely the younger subsidize the older. Most of the epi work I'm seeing suggests that the younger generations have profoundly high rates of mental health concerns though. Will that change as they age? How much is secondary to "coming of age" during COVID? How will commercial (and public) insurances respond to this?

I think I may have been reacting to your earlier 'therapists needing secondary skills' comment and blending them in a weirdly complex way. Regardless, as you pointed out, the risk for MH seems to be more on the front end of development and I'm not so sure that's contextual (i.e., neurodevelopmental disorders; adolescent suicide).

 

[Ollie123]

Yeah

I think I may have been reacting to your earlier 'therapists needing secondary skills' comment and blending them in a weirdly complex way. Regardless, as you pointed out, the risk for MH seems to be more on the front end of development and I'm not so sure that's contextual (i.e., neurodevelopmental disorders; adolescent suicide).

Yeah, not because robots. Just because population decline and lack of clarity what reimbursement structure will look like on longer (20-30 year) time horizons.

That said, I'm definitely risk averse. It could all be fine?

 

[R. Matey]

Yeah, not because robots. Just because population decline and lack of clarity what reimbursement structure will look like on longer (20-30 year) time horizons.

That said, I'm definitely risk averse. It could all be fine?

Temperamentally, I am the same way. Let's hope so! 😬😬😬

 

[futureapppsy2]

FWIW, this enrollment crisis doesn't seem to be evenly geographically distributed, at least as of yet--institutions in the Northeast and Midwest definitely seem to be feeling it, as do expensive LACs without big prestige and well-funded endowments (the lack of substantial money in a school's endowment seems to be particularly big risk factor, as does smaller enrollment numbers to begin with). Most large R1s and hence most psych PhDs programs will likely be fine overall, at least based on current trends. Of course, there may be some exceptions, like WVU (which has just been a mess all around with their current president, sadly), but I predict we'll mostly see a lot of small LACs close and merge and some regional/directional bachelors- and masters-level state universities shrink and cut programs and faculty (closing state universities entirely is often political suicide, so state legislators tend to avoid it).