Non APA-Accredited Programs

[AspenE]

I'm in the process of applying to a few non APA-accredited programs in California and would like to solicit some advice/input from students or graduates of programs that are not APA-accredited. I'm not so much interested in a debate on the merits of APA accreditation (I've already read several such discussions), but rather, what the experience is like for students of non APA-accredited programs, both while in school and post-graduation as practitioners.

For my part, the two programs I am most interested in are not APA-accredited. My end goal in attending grad school is to open a private practice. As such, I'm not particularly interested in accreditation for the purpose of working at the VA or other agencies. I'm also a working professional and already have a graduate degree in another field. The programs that I'm most interested in are particularly appealing due to their orientation towards older/working professionals and the fact that I could pursue my degree without too much interference in my work and family life. Given that my goal is to go into private practice, these programs seem to be the path of least resistance in terms of obtaining a degree and licensure.

I've met and spoken to a few graduates of these programs who have good reputations and successful private practices, but I would love to hear from students/practitioners on here about their experiences and reflections (good and bad).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[theSteppenwolf]

Just FYI

As of 2017, only students of APA accredited doctoral programs can participate in the APPIC internship match. That will draw a bright line between accredited and non-accredited doctoral programs.

As of 2018, in order to be considered a "health-service psychologist" by APA (which would also be expected to affect licensing in those states that designate psychologists as health-service providers) one would have to graduate from an APA-accredited doctoral program, and by 2020 also have completed an APA-accredited internship."

 

[erg923]

There's no real reason or benefit to get or pursue a doctorate given you stated career goal.

 

[AspenE]

Just FYI

As of 2017, only students of APA accredited doctoral programs can participate in the APPIC internship match. That will draw a bright line between accredited and non-accredited doctoral programs.

As of 2018, in order to be considered a "health-service psychologist" by APA (which would also be expected to affect licensing in those states that designate psychologists as health-service providers) one would have to graduate from an APA-accredited doctoral program, and by 2020 also have completed an APA-accredited internship."

Thanks - yes, I read the thread addressing this topic on that forum. I understand why many individuals value APA accreditation, but since my goal is solely to open a private practice, it is not so much of a concern to me as it might otherwise be. Also, as I understand it, the changes would not alter the ability to become licensed in California.

I appreciate your bringing it to my attention, though. I would love to hear what students currently attending non-APA accredited programs think about this!

 

[AspenE]

There's no real reason or benefit to get or pursue a doctorate given you stated career goal.

Yes, I've considered an M.A. in clinical psych as well. In my conversations with other mental health professionals, I've garnered that the doctorate carries more gravity - and that if you're in private practice and licensed, no one really asks you where you went to school. The doctorate programs I'm looking into also seem more focused on individual counseling as opposed to the masters programs that could lead to an MFT, focusing more on families, or an LCSW, focusing on social work. There are a few other reasons why the doctorate is more appealing to me at this time... however, choice of degree is something I have been contemplating.

Which is why I'd really love to hear from students or graduates of non APA-accredited programs have to say about their experience both as students and as practitioners.

 

[deleted343839]

Which is why I'd really love to hear from students or graduates of non APA-accredited programs have to say about their experience both as students and as practitioners.

Do a board search. There have been a few posts that meet your criteria. I haven't seen @xXIDaShizIXx much lately but he had a pretty interesting experience at an unaccredited program.

I've garnered that the doctorate carries more gravity - and that if you're in private practice and licensed, no one really asks you where you went to school.

I refer patients out for psychotherapy frequently, and I do care. I would much rather see someone placed with a well-trained master's level therapist than with a poorly trained psychologist. Someone who attended an online degree program, for instance, will never see a referral from me. If I can't find anything at all about a professional's training, same.

Give some thought to whether you find the training experiences themselves or the marketing/lifestyle aspects more compelling. Choose wisely.

 

[erg923]

Yes, I've considered an M.A. in clinical psych as well. In my conversations with other mental health professionals, I've garnered that the doctorate carries more gravity

Not sure what "carries more gravity" means, but com insurance carriers pay 90834 at about 10 bucks more for doctoral level providers. I would not call 10 extra bucks "gravity." There is no difference in remuneration with between degree for medicare and medicaid plans or TPAs.

You are right that patients generally do not care where you went to school. Similarly, they dont care what your degree is. So not much gravity there either.

What are these "other reasons" you speak of? I would reconsider your need (ie., the practical payoff) for a doctorate in your situation. And, I would not expect any one here to validate attending a program that has not bothered to subject itself to independent quality control methods by the governing body of the profession you seek to be a part of.

Thanks - yes, I read the thread addressing this topic on that forum. I understand why many individuals value APA accreditation, but since my goal is solely to open a private practice, it is not so much of a concern to me as it might otherwise be. Also, as I understand it, the changes would not alter the ability to become licensed in California.

I appreciate your bringing it to my attention, though. I would love to hear what students currently attending non-APA accredited programs think about this!

What does it matter what they "think" about it? Im sure they dont like it, but what does that matter???

I would also be so bold to suggest that many here will find the statement below from you to be ridiculous, as well as offensive. Keep in mind that this statement clearly shows how uninvested you are in the process (ie., "i want a doctorate long as it doesn't interfere with the rest of my life). This type of attitude will not serve you well in training, or working in this field. Pretty much all your competition in the business world of private practice will be much more motivated than this:

I'm also a working professional and already have a graduate degree in another field. The programs that I'm most interested in are particularly appealing due to their orientation towards older/working professionals and the fact that I could pursue my degree without too much interference in my work and family life.

 

[psych844]

I would also be so bold to suggest that many here will find the statement below from you to be ridiculous, as well as offensive. Keep in mind that this statement clearly shows how uninvested you are in the process (ie., "i want a doctorate long as it doesn't interfere with the rest of my life). This type of attitude will not serve you well in training, or working in this field. Pretty much all your competition in the business world of private practice will be much more motivated than this:

It's human nature to want to find the easiest route to a given goal. I think it's harsh to judge him on that aspect. With advances in technology we have more flexibility in our life than ever before. That's a good thing. I say this as a Canadian who sees some awesome non-traditional Psych grad programs in Canada. I see respected/well-regarded Universities providing flexible programs that have mixed-distribution (part online, part in person, evening classes, etc), that don't leave the student with tons of debt, and the students get solid training. It can be done. Now I'm sure there will be disagreements from people here if these programs are any of the things I mentioned, part of the criticisms may be warranted, but imo, most aren't. (just to be clear not referring to USA programs, as I know most of those are provided by for-profit "colleges", they leave the student with tons of debt, and offer poor training). I'm just saying that I can see what I view as some pretty solid/flexible Canadian programs also being a reality in the USA at some point.

So, if we are to judge this guy for anything, it is that he wants to go to to a for-profit college, that he has no issue with taking on loads of debt, and that he doesn't care about his training quality. But I don't buy into the idea that program flexibility is necessarily indicative of a poor program. In fact, we should head in that direction. It is not necessarily rational or correct to believe that not having life = good training.

 

[erg923]

It's human nature to want to find the easiest route to a given goal. I think it's harsh to judge him on that aspect.

Why?

 

[psych844]

Why?

There is some research on this, and I'm sure there are people on here that can explain it better than me. But essentially, there are two parts of our brain that compete for control over our behavior..the cortex (which is in charge of our higher level processing..decision making, judgement, reasoning, etc) and sub-cortical regions (emotion-related parts). Essentially, a logical part of the brain and the emotional. The emotional part wants immediate gratification. It's primitive. We want the emotional reward as soon as possible. I think it's fair to say that our ancestors had more primitive brains, and that as our environment has changed, (gotten more complex) we are relying more on the cortex than ever before..but we are by no means beyond being ruled by emotion in many ways.

So wanting to finish school quicker, (be a Masters level Psychologist) and wanting flexibility (ie i want to be able to play golf, and do other activities during my Phd, and not have it interfere with the "fun" part of my life), fits into this nicely. The "fun" stuff activates the reward system in our brains.

 

[erg923]

There is some research on this, and I'm sure there are people on here that can explain it better than me. But essentially, there are two parts of our brain that compete for control over our behavior..the cortex (which is in charge of our higher level processing..decision making, judgement, reasoning, etc) and sub-cortical regions (emotion-related parts). Essentially, a logical part of the brain and the emotional. The emotional part wants immediate gratification. It's primitive. We want the emotional reward as soon as possible. I think it's fair to say that our ancestors had more primitive brains, and that as our environment has changed, (gotten more complex) we are relying more on the cortex than ever before..but we are by no means beyond being ruled by emotion in many ways.

So wanting to finish school quicker, (be a Masters level Psychologist) and wanting flexibility (ie i want to be able to play golf, and do other activities during my Phd, and not have it interfere with the "fun" part of my life), fits into this nicely. The "fun" stuff activates the reward system in our brains.

So, because it exists, we shouldnt "judge" it? Is this the logic you really want to go with here?

 

[psych844]

So, because it exists, we shouldnt "judge" it? Is this the logic you really want to go with here?

I made two statements in what you quoted. I wasn't certain which part you were referring to. So to summarize my last two posts.

Post 1.(#8 in this thread) I'm simply arguing that having flexibility in how you attain your education (yes, even your Phd), is not necessarily a sign of a poor training/education. So I'm simply refuting the notion that a Phd in Psychology has to equal = no life outside of your grad work/many hours/that it has to be 100% in person, etc. So to the extent that you are judging him on the fact that he still wants to maintain some semblance of a normal life, THAT PART is unfair imo. What's happening in Canada gives me hope that grad school in the future can be a lot more flexible, while maintaining high educational standards and not straddling students with a lot of debt. We have such programs. If this person had the option to enter such a program, I don't think there is anything wrong with him wanting to have a fairly normal life while getting his training.

But in the USA, such options don't exist, and it's fair to judge him on going to a for-profit college, judge him on the fact that the program will straddle him with tons of debt, and judge him on willing to accept poor training. That is fair game. I'm just saying that flexible training does not necessarily = bad training.

Post 2. (#10 in this thread). I was simply explaining why it is in many ways "natural", or human nature, to think short-term and want to have this flexibility in training.

 

[erg923]

Straw man. Never said anything remotely approaching "Ph.d in Psychology has to equal = no life outside of your grad work/many hours/that it has to be 100% in person, etc."

He didn't say he wants "balance." He said he wants minimal interference to his current life demands and structure while he pursues the highest level degree on the planet and cares for the most vulnerable members of society. This is not realistic, nor is this an attitude that is conductive to maximal learning.

I am sure the posters is a stand up guy. I simply think the expressed attitude is detrimental to the demands of training in this field.

 

[psych844]

He didn't say he wants "balance." He said he wants minimal interference to his current life demands and structure while he pursues the highest level degree on the planet and care for the most vulnerable members of society. This is not realistic, nor is this an attitude that is conductive to maximal learning.

Sure. I can agree that he is not only being unrealistic overall, but especially in the current climate where there are no good programs in the USA that are very flexible.

Having said that, I do think that a lot of people here (based on past discussions) are very much against any kind of change in Clinical Psych training that would bring flexibility. The thought of online freaks out a lot of people, or some form of mixed-distribution, when it shouldn't. And imo, in a lot of cases, it has little to do with concerns over training, but more just "I had to do it this way..I had to take the more difficult road..so do you!".

 

[erg923]

The burden is on new models (hybrid, online, etc) to show equililance in outcome data before they are adopted/accepted without bias. Not the other way around. So far, They do not.

 

[psych844]

The burden is on new models (hybrid, online, etc) to show equililance in outcome data before they are adopted/accepted without bias. Not the other way around. So far, They do not.

Agreed.

And these new models will NEVER be proven until respected institutions start trying to make such models work. A respected College/University taking on the challenge of making a hybrid/online program changes EVERYTHING. First, it will give legitimacy to a new model. Second, it will attract better students. Third, the training is guaranteed to be better because faculty will be objectively better. (regardless of other factors- ie teaching method). Finally, cost of program will make sense. Before such a model became the standard (where there would be full tuition remission just like in the standard programs now, etc), you would see well-regarded public research colleges charging a fair rate, and you'd see well-regarded private institutions charging and arm and leg (but it's still better than what we have now...being charged and arm and leg by for-profit colleges and objectively getting worse training because of bad faculty)

 

[Justanothergrad]

Agreed.

And these new models will NEVER be proven until respected institutions start trying to make such models work. A respected College/University taking on the challenge of making a hybrid/online program changes EVERYTHING. First, it will give legitimacy to a new model. Second, it will attract better students. Third, the training is guaranteed to be better because faculty will be objectively better. (regardless of other factors- ie teaching method). Finally, cost of program will make sense. Before such a model became the standard (where there would be full tuition remission just like in the standard programs now, etc), you would see well-regarded public research colleges charging a fair rate, and you'd see well-regarded private institutions charging and arm and leg (but it's still better than what we have now...being charged and arm and leg by for-profit colleges and objectively getting worse training because of bad faculty)

I'm not sure why a traditional college would have to adopt the model if the outcome variables of interest (match rate to accredited sites, license rate, etc etc) can be measured (and are measured now) without them being that way.

 

[FirstYearPsyD]

I see respected/well-regarded Universities providing flexible programs that have mixed-distribution (part online, part in person, evening classes, etc)

Don't want to sway this post too far from the OP's goal but can I interject a quick question about this? I'm starting a respected, APA grad school in the Fall which has implemented a handful of online summer classes for some random electives I am interested in that I don't need in order to graduate but would be interesting to learn more about to me personally (courses that integrate philosophy and theology). The current students I have talked to who took advantage of this option last year said it really helped them get through these classes faster (more time for another practicum if you don't have to drive to school for class and can work from anywhere) while still gaining as thorough a grasp of the material. I don't know if my transcript would show "online" next to a course, but if it does, will that look bad when it comes to applying for an APA internship or is it a non-issue?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[erg923]

Don't want to sway this post too far from the OP's goal but can I interject a quick question about this? I'm starting a respected, APA grad school in the Fall which has implemented a handful of online summer classes for some random electives I am interested in that I don't need in order to graduate but would be interesting to learn more about to me personally (courses that integrate philosophy and theology). The current students I have talked to who took advantage of this option last year said it really helped them get through these classes faster (more time for another practicum if you don't have to drive to school for class and can work from anywhere) while still gaining as thorough a grasp of the material. I don't know if my transcript would show "online" next to a course, but if it does, will that look bad when it comes to applying for an APA internship or is it a non-issue?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Dont think one or two (non-applied) online courses during your doctoral training would be a big deal.

 

[erg923]

Second, it will attract better students.

I agree this is pitfall of current online advanced/graduate education models. It draws/pulls for an under-qualified applicant pool that is simply not competitive at other programs.

 

[FirstYearPsyD]

Thanks! Yeah no psych courses, just extra ones you're allowed to take if you want to integrate philosophy so it wouldn't even be from the psych department. If they start to offer any psych courses online too, should I avoid them and only take on campus ones or is it okay to avail of an additional few of those too?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[deleted343839]

I don't think taking a few online electives would raise any eyebrows.

 

[bmedclinic]

Heck, OP- since your stated goal is to open a private practice, dont even worry about a degree. Just get $7k and open a thriveworks. Blamo- so many years saved! #winningbutnotwinning

 

[smalltownpsych]

I don't think you will hear from any of those grads on this board. I used to work with a grad from one of those programs. It was Cal Southern U and they would intentionally make it sound like USC. They also could not get a license in the state they were working in so operated under an LCPC license but still called themselves a psychologist all day long.

Maybe not everyone who attends a program like this is as sketchy as this person was, but I am completely against this type of institution and the loophole in California law that they are purporting to exploit. I say purporting because even with the "degree", there are still other hoops to jump through to get the license which may be extremely difficult. I take what we do for our patients and the field of psychology very seriously and I abhor these types of programs. I have problems with and am critical about lower tier APA-accredited programs which are often mentioned on this site, but I don't despise them the way that I do these types of exploitative programs that are a setup for misrepresentation.

 

[Lurking Oracle]

Why?

Yeah... I'm with erg on this one. Thought question: Would anyone really be OK with going to the colo-rectal surgeon who, from the outset, aspired to find the easiest route to the given goal? Of course, this is purely rhetorical. For as much as we psychologists rail on physicians about many things (and rightfully so), U.S. medical schools and residencies have far greater consistency and rigor in their training standards.

 

[Anthropopsychophile]

Yes, I've considered an M.A. in clinical psych as well. In my conversations with other mental health professionals, I've garnered that the doctorate carries more gravity - and that if you're in private practice and licensed, no one really asks you where you went to school. The doctorate programs I'm looking into also seem more focused on individual counseling as opposed to the masters programs that could lead to an MFT, focusing more on families, or an LCSW, focusing on social work. There are a few other reasons why the doctorate is more appealing to me at this time... however, choice of degree is something I have been contemplating.

Which is why I'd really love to hear from students or graduates of non APA-accredited programs have to say about their experience both as students and as practitioners.

I am a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist in California for the past 18 years. I have had a successful private practice and also worked for numerous agencies. Given your goal to become an independent practitioner, a license as either a social worker or Marriage and Family Therapist will meet the goal very well without you having to spend the amount of time or money for a psychology degree or license. In California and in many states, Marriage and Family Therapists make the same or close to the same money for providing counseling and therapy services. The difference is scope of practice. A psychology license will give the latitude to do testing and certain assessments like intelligence and personality tests in addition to therapy. However, if you have little interest in testing, why bother? As an MFT I make the same money and when I need testing done I refer to one of my psychologist colleagues that is happy to oblige.

Another question is what if you change your mind? Suppose at a later date you want to do something else besides private practice. A non apa accredited psychology degree will lock you out of many academic settings, most federal govt settings such as VA. You could work for federal prisons depending on age. if you want to do clinical work with possibly the most flexibility if you change your mind, and have no interest in testing and want to do just counseling, an accredited MSW program and gain LCSW license would probably give most bang for the buck as its HIGHLY accepted and well regarded.

Incidentally I am in a non apa accredited psy.d program and like it, although I accept that will have to move to a non apa state or work as an LMFT with a doctorate in states that require APA.

 

[Anthropopsychophile]

Yeah... I'm with erg on this one. Thought question: Would anyone really be OK with going to the colo-rectal surgeon who, from the outset, aspired to find the easiest route to the given goal? Of course, this is purely rhetorical. For as much as we psychologists rail on physicians about many things (and rightfully so), U.S. medical schools and residencies have far greater consistency and rigor in their training standards.

The one thing erg doesn't consider is that colorectal surgery is finite and has an absolute answer based on biology, whereas psychology is infinite and diverse, and the power of the therapist is in the person, not the degree. I know many non-apa accredited psychologists who do just do fine as a busy and lucrative practitioner.

 

[WisNeuro]

The one thing erg doesn't consider is that colorectal surgery is finite and has an absolute answer based on biology, whereas psychology is infinite and diverse, and the power of the therapist is in the person, not the degree. I know many non-apa accredited psychologists who do just do fine as a busy and lucrative practitioner.

Anecdotes are great and all, but I'll go with the numbers on what the most likely outcome is in these situations. People should succeed with the aid of their programs, not in spite of their programs.

 

[erg923]

The one thing erg doesn't consider is that colorectal surgery is finite and has an absolute answer based on biology, whereas psychology is infinite and diverse, and the power of the therapist is in the person, not the degree. I know many non-apa accredited psychologists who do just do fine as a busy and lucrative practitioner.

What?

 

[ClinicalABA]

whereas psychology is infinite and diverse, and the power of the therapist is in the person, not the degree.

What is your basis for this statement?

 

[Lurking Oracle]

What?

I think the poor thing is confused. I (Lurking Oracle) made the the colo-rectal surgery comparison, not erg923. But, I am sure that I will be soundly "corrected" about this, and somehow it will be APA's fault.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think the poor thing is confused. I (Lurking Oracle) made the the colo-rectal surgery comparison, not erg923. But, I am sure that I will be soundly "corrected" about this, and somehow it will be APA's fault.

The APA was on the grassy knoll back in 1963...

 

[psych.meout]

The APA was on the grassy knoll back in 1963...

Milhouse: The APA, in conjunction with the saucer people...
Bart: Thank you.
Milhouse: ...under the supervision of the reverse vampires...
Lisa: [sighs]
Milhouse: ...are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner!

 

[Anthropopsychophile]

It's human nature to want to find the easiest route to a given goal. I think it's harsh to judge him on that aspect. With advances in technology we have more flexibility in our life than ever before. That's a good thing. I say this as a Canadian who sees some awesome non-traditional Psych grad programs in Canada. I see respected/well-regarded Universities providing flexible programs that have mixed-distribution (part online, part in person, evening classes, etc), that don't leave the student with tons of debt, and the students get solid training. It can be done. Now I'm sure there will be disagreements from people here if these programs are any of the things I mentioned, part of the criticisms may be warranted, but imo, most aren't. (just to be clear not referring to USA programs, as I know most of those are provided by for-profit "colleges", they leave the student with tons of debt, and offer poor training). I'm just saying that I can see what I view as some pretty solid/flexible Canadian programs also being a reality in the USA at some point.

So, if we are to judge this guy for anything, it is that he wants to go to to a for-profit college, that he has no issue with taking on loads of debt, and that he doesn't care about his training quality. But I don't buy into the idea that program flexibility is necessarily indicative of a poor program. In fact, we should head in that direction. It is not necessarily rational or correct to believe that not having life = good training.

Milhouse: The APA, in conjunction with the saucer people...
Bart: Thank you.

Milhouse: The APA, in conjunction with the saucer people...
Bart: Thank you.
Milhouse: ...under the supervision of the reverse vampires...
Lisa: [sighs]
Milhouse: ...are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner!

Milhouse: ...under the supervision of the reverse vampires...
Lisa: [sighs]
Milhouse: ...are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner!

Ahhhh.....so easy to mock what we don't understand......incidentally Matt Groening is a successful, near genius that everyone here would probably benefit from listening to.....

 

[Anthropopsychophile]

Do a board search. There have been a few posts that meet your criteria. I haven't seen @xXIDaShizIXx much lately but he had a pretty interesting experience at an unaccredited program.



I refer patients out for psychotherapy frequently, and I do care. I would much rather see someone placed with a well-trained master's level therapist than with a poorly trained psychologist. Someone who attended an online degree program, for instance, will never see a referral from me. If I can't find anything at all about a professional's training, same.

Give some thought to whether you find the training experiences themselves or the marketing/lifestyle aspects more compelling. Choose wisely.

Very sound points that are unfortunately seldom heard as to well trained masters therapist over poorly trained psychologist. Most people will assume that doctoral level clinician got more and better training over a Master's level clinician as they think Dr trumps Master's. Many psychologists have little or no training in psychotherapy or are poor ones at best.

This exactly is my point about accreditation in that there are non-accredited psychology programs that are very sound with good training and create good clinicians. Not all, but some.

 

[Anthropopsychophile]

The APA was on the grassy knoll back in 1963...

The members literally probably were.....

 

[WisNeuro]

 

[Anthropopsychophile]

What is your basis for this statement?

The basis of the statement is the existence of 1) countless psychological orientations, all of which carry some validity and value, and 2) countless numbers of people (actually 7.5 billion) who have yet to converge on ideas as basic as how to dress

 

[Justanothergrad]

You are conflating arguments and incorrectly inferring meaning again in an attempt to support your unsupported statements. Your logic skips twice as many beats as it hits. This many mental gymnastics should be saved for Toyko 2020.

 

[WisNeuro]

The basis of the statement is the existence of 1) countless psychological orientations, all of which carry some validity and value, and 2) countless numbers of people (actually 7.5 billion) who have yet to converge on ideas as basic as how to dress

Rebirthing therapy? Primal Scream Therapy? Gay Conversion therapy? This statement is patently false. Orientations have to prove themselves, they are not all valuable. If anything, you are doing a good job of arguing why we DO need an accreditation body like the APA, rather than letting it be a cluster**** free for all of pseudoscience.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Rebirthing therapy? Primal Scream Therapy? Gay Conversion therapy? This statement is patently false. Orientations have to prove themselves, they are not all valuable. If anything, you are doing a good job of arguing why we DO need an accreditation body like the APA, rather than letting it be a cluster**** free for all of pseudoscience.

I wrote a book on "ravenmind theory".

Is this a bad time to ask for you to endorse it on the back cover?

 

[ClinicalABA]

The basis of the statement is the existence of 1) countless psychological orientations, all of which carry some validity and value, and 2) countless numbers of people (actually 7.5 billion) who have yet to converge on ideas as basic as how to dress

Ok. Thanks for your reply. As any retort would need to be at the level of epistemology (vs., say, clinical best practices), further dialogue is unlikely to be in line with the stated mission of this forum, and thus benefit few, if any, visitors to this site. Best of luck to you (and to those who choose to debate/argue/trade barbs with you).

 

[Anthropopsychophile]

Sure. I can agree that he is not only being unrealistic overall, but especially in the current climate where there are no good programs in the USA that are very flexible.

Having said that, I do think that a lot of people here (based on past discussions) are very much against any kind of change in Clinical Psych training that would bring flexibility. The thought of online freaks out a lot of people, or some form of mixed-distribution, when it shouldn't. And imo, in a lot of cases, it has little to do with concerns over training, but more just "I had to do it this way..I had to take the more difficult road..so do you!".

I think most would agree that all of your points here are valid (except old school APA psychologists) and just as you said about being against change....its human nature and change is a hard pill to swallow for someone who his embedded in the mold of rigidity. Personally I don't know what that is about other than fear......of what I don't know..........personally I call it protectionism or territoriality..........and I would think that anyone who is confident in their abilities would encourage competition.....

 

[Anthropopsychophile]

I wrote a book on "ravenmind theory".

Is this a bad time to ask for you to endorse it on the back cover?

Don't know anything about ravenmind theory and never heard of but if its your area of expertise shouldn't you be endorsing it?......I practice CBT you might have heard of it......as to Gay Conversion Theory,,,wasn't that an APA recommended treatment for homosexuality back in the DSM-III when homosexuality was an Axis I diagnosis?

 

[Anthropopsychophile]

Ok. Thanks for your reply. As any retort would need to be at the level of epistemology (vs., say, clinical best practices), further dialogue is unlikely to be in line with the stated mission of this forum, and thus benefit few, if any, visitors to this site. Best of luck to you (and to those who choose to debate/argue/trade barbs with you).

wow...thanks...that sounds final...sorry that dialogue offends you...good luck to you also

 

[WisNeuro]

Doubt it offended him. Knowing him, he just no longer felt like playing chess against a pigeon.

 

[Anthropopsychophile]

Rebirthing therapy? Primal Scream Therapy? Gay Conversion therapy? This statement is patently false. Orientations have to prove themselves, they are not all valuable. If anything, you are doing a good job of arguing why we DO need an accreditation body like the APA, rather than letting it be a cluster**** free for all of pseudoscience.

Orientations are accepted and theories are to be disproven, not proven, no? Isn't that scientific method, disproving a null hypotheses?...... Wow what a convoluted discourse all stemming from the premise that maybe the APA could improve something...nobody suggested getting rid of the APA or any other accrediting body.........how easily some seem to be offended......and someone said psychologists are not lions.....

 

[Justanothergrad]

Orientations are accepted and theories are to be disproven, not proven, no? Isn't that scientific method, disproving a null hypotheses?...... Wow what a convoluted discourse all stemming from the premise that maybe the APA could improve something...nobody suggested getting rid of the APA or any other accrediting body.........how easily some seem to be offended......and someone said psychologists are not lions.....

Literally, no. Learn to science. This post is the definition of a null hypothesis.

 

[ClinicalABA]

wow...thanks...that sounds final...sorry that dialogue offends you...good luck to you also

Not offended in the least! In fact, don't think I've ever been offended by anything in my life.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Doubt it offended him. Knowing him, he just no longer felt like playing chess against a pigeon.

Actually, just didn't want to play checkers against somebody playing chess, debating the micro when we disagree on the macro.