No, they generally work 60+ hour weeks. I agree that it is a comparison about two different workloads. And most likely in varying quality of training according to available metrics.
Exactly what I was getting at. The quality of training at these kinds of schools, including Wright Institute, CSPP, and MSPP, is clearly inferior by all available metrics and all that @
CWard12213 and their other defenders can do is deflect with worthless arguments about the "freedom" of not being funded or not caring about APA accredited internship, because it's not necessary for a few, very narrow avenues of employment.
Same world, clinical psychology. Different outcomes in terms of debt load, salary, and job opportunities.
And this is something that @
CWard12213 is tacitly admitting to. They keep touting the overall match rate including non-APA internship sites, because the types of places these students want to work don't require APA-accredited internships. The problem is that those types of employment (e.g. private practice therapy) are generally equating to lower earnings and thereby negatively skewing average compensation for psychologists. Why would someone who owns and operates private practice pay you above a mid-level practitioner if they know you don't have many other options, because you didn't get an APA-accredited internship? Why would you get offers for forensic work opportunities over all the people with APA-accredited internships?
Quality of training is really debatable and I don't think metrics tell the full story. Comparing an N of 4 or so to an N of 30 is a difficult comparison. Funded PhD programs typically have stiffer admission requirements, therefore even when their outcome data appears better it is difficult to attribute that to the quality of the program. I would say it probably has just as much to do with pre-existing student variables
Except that is directly a result of the quality of the program. Funded programs have better quality control and choose students that have proven track records of success (e.g. GPA + GRE, research experience, publications, posters, clinical experience, etc.), rather than just anyone who has a heartbeat, meets the most minimal standards, and will get them the money required to pay tuition. Again, this goes back to my first question to you about whether your personal story is typical of a graduate from an FSPS (or at least your program in particular) or if you are an outlier. No one is saying that no successful psychologists have ever come out of FSPS programs or other unfunded clinical programs. Our general point is that they are the exceptions and that they are succeeding
in spite of, not
because of, the training they received at their grad programs, and the data bears this out.
I will check those out, but again, all of this data is irrelevant to someone who hasn't actually been offered a funded position at a PhD program. These types of threads pop up regularly and invariably the same few posters telling the person all the reasons their program is terrible compared to a funded PhD program, with no regard whatsoever for whether that is actually an option for said individual. It is completely unhelpful.
The data is most definitely relevant. Instead of looking at these programs in isolation and making a decision between two bad choices, applicants can see what good programs actually look like and what they offer to their students. They can see how poor these choices in unfunded programs are, especially those at FSPS. Without knowing what else is out there, they might have misconceptions that these are normal, typical, or acceptable programs and there is nothing wrong with attending them. It's analogous to showing students the difference between University of Phoenix and any other quality undergrad, both in terms of education and cost.
So what would you do if these were the only two programs who offered you admission? Because a lot of people are saying "don't attend either one" and if they are indeed the only two schools who have offered the OP placement you are essentially telling that person to give up on their current career path and not become a psychologist. I question how many of you would actually go that route if you were in this position.
That's a false choice. No one is telling them to give up on being a psychologist. People here are telling OP and other applicants to reapply to good, funded programs in a year or two, when they have had a bit of time to improve their application packages.
