Palo Alto University

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
SpacePsych said:
Interesting information regarding the PhD program on Wikipedia:
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pal...at least amongst FSPS programs). Interesting.
Click to expand...
Members don't see this ad.
 
Are the "faculty" really faculty or are they paid Stanford faculty who just get paid to put their names on the website to up the program's prestige? I just cannot imagine this program being in the top 25 programs in terms of research productivity. Who are these uber productive faculty members?
 
I can't believe Wikipedia is being quoted as reputable here. I didn't notice that when I bought into that paragraph.

When I went to the actual article cited (well, wiki actually cites the PAU website) there is absolutely no mention of PAU. Thus, my guess is that PAU is giving certain faculty members some cash so that they can make absurd claims like this. Phil Zimbardo may take money for PAU to put his name on the website, but he does not lend credence to PAU as everyone knows he's from Stanford not PAU.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
ResearchGirlie said:
I can't believe Wikipedia is being quoted as reputable here. I didn't notice that when I bought into that paragraph.

When I went to the actual article cited (well, wiki actually cites the PAU website) there is absolutely no mention of PAU. Thus, my guess is that PAU is giving certain faculty members some cash so that they can make absurd claims like this. Phil Zimbardo may take money for PAU to put his name on the website, but he does not lend credence to PAU as everyone knows he's from Stanford not PAU.
Click to expand...

Actually, Phil Zimbardo teaches in the Psy.D. program and maintains an active research program at PAU. He has both Psy.D. and Ph.D. students in his lab. I am not exactly sure how it works for the Ph.D. program, but for the Psy.D. program faculty are from both the PAU and Stanford sides. 50% of our classes are taught at Stanford by Stanford faculty, and the other 50% are taught at PAU by PAU faculty. I hope this is helpful.
 
CaliPsych said:
Actually, Phil Zimbardo teaches in the Psy.D. program and maintains an active research program at PAU. He has both Psy.D. and Ph.D. students in his lab. I am not exactly sure how it works for the Ph.D. program, but for the Psy.D. program faculty are from both the PAU and Stanford sides. 50% of our classes are taught at Stanford by Stanford faculty, and the other 50% are taught at PAU by PAU faculty. I hope this is helpful.
Click to expand...

I have heard Phil speak many times and he always claims Stanford as his affiliation. Same for a number of the other faculty I saw on that list that are actually really based in Stanford or UCSF. If the faculty don't claim the school affiliation there's something wrong.
 
ResearchGirlie said:
I have heard Phil speak many times and he always claims Stanford as his affiliation. Same for a number of the other faculty I saw on that list that are actually really based in Stanford or UCSF. If the faculty don't claim the school affiliation there's something wrong.
Click to expand...

Your claims about faculty pretending to work at PAU in order to earn money are completely false. Are you really publicly accusing eminent professors in our field of misrepresenting themselves? That seems like a pretty heavy accusation to make without proof.
 
CaliPsych said:
Your claims about faculty pretending to work at PAU in order to earn money are completely false. Are you really publicly accusing eminent professors in our field of misrepresenting themselves? That seems like a pretty heavy accusation to make without proof.
Click to expand...

Who are the core faculty?

I don't care if Dr. Z works there. I care if 6 million in annual revenue buys you some other perks.
 
Pragma said:
Who are the core faculty?

I don't care if Dr. Z works there. I care if 6 million in annual revenue buys you some other perks.
Click to expand...

Isn't he also almost 80 now? How much longer is he really going to be there?
 
roubs said:
How does the Ph.D. program have between 45-82 people applying for internship each year in the past 3 years if their cohort sizes are 6-10?

per: https://www.paloaltou.edu/sites/default/files/2012-Sept PhD IRC-20 Final.pdf
Click to expand...

I'm confused as well. I don't have strong feelings about the program, but their own website clearly lists 82 students applying for internship in 2011-2012, with 43 matching to an APA/CPA site. Plus, 86 students enrolled for the first time in 2011-2012.

Like I said, I don't care about the program, but those numbers don't add up. And I've heard similar things about some faculty members - they have limited involvement with the program but are listed as faculty.
 
CaliPsych said:
Your claims about faculty pretending to work at PAU in order to earn money are completely false. Are you really publicly accusing eminent professors in our field of misrepresenting themselves? That seems like a pretty heavy accusation to make without proof.
Click to expand...

I am claiming that I know of several of the faculty on the PAU list and have never heard of them being affiliated with your school until now. Perhaps they are working tirelessly at PAU but when they give talks they are not giving them under the PAU name. I find that incredibly fishy. I don't think any of these faculty are in on some big money making scam, no, but if I were a student at a school where the well known faculty weren't proud to have the school name associated with them then I'd wonder what was going on.
 
ResearchGirlie said:
I can't believe Wikipedia is being quoted as reputable here.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia generally is reputable overall. Generally.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

[edit] I'm willing to believe PAU tends to be reasonably productive in terms of research. I would figure that the expensive joining-at-the-hip they did with Stanford and the VAPAHCS had to have bought them something (and having heavies like Beutler and Zimbardo there no doubt helps). My main criticism isn't that PAU doesn't tend, on the whole, to churn out relatively competent (if not occasionally stellar) scholar-practicioners - overwhelmingly my main criticism is cost.

Despite being a relatively well-regarded FSPS program, and with decent match rates - particularly for the PsyD program - I'm really hesitant to recommend such a program. First, they have the unavoidable stink of FSPS on them, which follows a grad for life (although that could be mitigated by a student landing a stellar internship and postdoc). Furthermore, there is no way for me to see how 300K+ of debt (with interest rates upwards of 6-7 percent) can be manageable in any way, shape, or form - regardless of the existence of federal repayment schemes like IBR.

If by some crazy restructuring PAU was able to reduce the average debt load of their students to, say, 50-80K upon graduation (e.g., the median salary for psychologists, IIRC), I'd be far more willing to recommend it. With at least a partial funding package in place, they could potentially be competitive with some of the more upper-tier professional programs (Bayler, Rutgers). But again, with this kind of blistering cost associated with it, regardless of the arguable outcomes, it's in some ways as bad a deal as some of the more maligned programs around here (Alliant, Argosy, etc). The cost-benefit ratio of attending PAU is disturbingly out of whack by any sane reading of things.
 
Last edited:
ResearchGirlie said:
I am claiming that I know of several of the faculty on the PAU list and have never heard of them being affiliated with your school until now. Perhaps they are working tirelessly at PAU but when they give talks they are not giving them under the PAU name. I find that incredibly fishy. I don't think any of these faculty are in on some big money making scam, no, but if I were a student at a school where the well known faculty weren't proud to have the school name associated with them then I'd wonder what was going on.
Click to expand...

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this. I don't think that what you are claiming is true, but there's no way for me to disprove it, and I really don't want to argue. My intention is just to do my best to dispel misinformation about the Consortium. I don't want to get caught up in responding to inflammatory statements.

The Consortium has several high-profile faculty members with affiliations at both Stanford and PAU. This is a fact that is clearly demonstrated with even a cursory glance at the website. I think that that high caliber faculty is a major strength of the program, and leads to excellent learning and mentorship opportunities for students.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
JeyRo said:
Wikipedia generally is reputable overall. Generally.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

[edit] I'm willing to believe PAU tends to be reasonably productive in terms of research. I would figure that the expensive joining-at-the-hip they did with Stanford and the VAPAHCS had to have bought them something (and having heavies like Beutler and Zimbardo there no doubt helps). My main criticism isn't that PAU doesn't tend, on the whole, to churn out relatively competent (if not occasionally stellar) scholar-practicioners - overwhelmingly my main criticism is cost.

Despite being a relatively well-regarded FSPS program, and with decent match rates - particularly for the PsyD program - I'm really hesitant to recommend such a program. First, they have the unavoidable stink of FSPS on them, which follows a grad for life (although that could be mitigated by a student landing a stellar internship and postdoc). Furthermore, there is no way for me to see how 300K+ of debt (with interest rates upwards of 6-7 percent) can be manageable in any way, shape, or form - regardless of the existence of federal repayment schemes like IBR.

If by some crazy restructuring PAU was able to reduce the average debt load of their students to, say, 50-80K upon graduation (e.g., the median salary for psychologists, IIRC), I'd be far more willing to recommend it. With at least a partial funding package in place, they could potentially be competitive with some of the more upper-tier professional programs (Bayler, Rutgers). But again, with this kind of blistering cost associated with it, regardless of the arguable outcomes, it's in some ways as bad a deal as some of the more maligned programs around here (Alliant, Argosy, etc). The cost-benefit ratio of attending PAU is disturbingly out of whack by any sane reading of things.
Click to expand...

I think I have said before that I completely understand your hesitation about the cost of the program. There is no question that the program is expensive, and that it requires a significant financial commitment. I think where my perspective differs from yours is that I do believe that this debt is manageable, and worth it for those who truly value the training that the Consortium offers. I think that the program sets itself apart from other professional schools in numerous ways, including high APA match rates, top notch faculty, excellent practicum opportunities, and multitudes of opportunities for research involvement at PAU and Stanford. I am happy to communicate more in depth via PM with prospective students about these financial concerns.
 
CaliPsych said:
I I think where my perspective differs from yours is that I do believe that this debt is manageable, and worth it for those who truly value the training that the Consortium offers. I think that the program sets itself apart from other professional schools in numerous ways, including high APA match rates, top notch faculty, excellent practicum opportunities, and multitudes of opportunities for research involvement at PAU and Stanford. I am happy to communicate more in depth via PM with prospective students about these financial concerns.
Click to expand...

I would encourage prospective students to talk to several graduates of this program before seriously considering PAU PsyD or PhD program. A current student is usually not in the best position to evaluate whether the debt is going to be manageable or what employment prospects are exactly. Also, calipsych seems to be providing only a positive view of the program and not a very balanced view in my opinion. For example, he/she is claiming very high APA match rates (and initially said 93%, which includes APPIC). The program actually has an APA match rate ranging from 60-82% since 2006. This is a pretty decent match rate, but not stellar/high by any means. She was also claiming that students from the PsyD get AMC/VA positions, and at least locally this doesn't seem to be the case when I checked out the VA staff in the area (Palo Alto VA has only 1 staff psychologist who is a graduate of this program, which is surprising given its affiliation). I don't have data on employment rates nationally. I would encourage people to do a ton of research and speak to alumni.
 
Last edited:
CaliPsych said:
I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this. I don't think that what you are claiming is true, but there's no way for me to disprove it, and I really don't want to argue. My intention is just to do my best to dispel misinformation about the Consortium. I don't want to get caught up in responding to inflammatory statements.

The Consortium has several high-profile faculty members with affiliations at both Stanford and PAU. This is a fact that is clearly demonstrated with even a cursory glance at the website. I think that that high caliber faculty is a major strength of the program, and leads to excellent learning and mentorship opportunities for students.
Click to expand...


Yes, let's agree to disagree. I have no reason to want PAU to be a less than stellar school, I just don't want people to assume that things on wikipedia or a for-profit school website are accurate. I hope for the sake of all of the students that I am incorrect.
 
Member6523 said:
Isn't he also almost 80 now? How much longer is he really going to be there?
Click to expand...

He is definitely getting up there. Personally, I don't really care for him. I used to show some videos about the SPE in class. He seems to have kind of sold out these days (e.g., "the demise of guys") and I don't find his arguments particularly strong.
 
CaliPsych said:
I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this. I don't think that what you are claiming is true, but there's no way for me to disprove it, and I really don't want to argue. My intention is just to do my best to dispel misinformation about the Consortium. I don't want to get caught up in responding to inflammatory statements.

The Consortium has several high-profile faculty members with affiliations at both Stanford and PAU. This is a fact that is clearly demonstrated with even a cursory glance at the website. I think that that high caliber faculty is a major strength of the program, and leads to excellent learning and mentorship opportunities for students.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you considered my statements inflammatory or not, but I was only commenting on the amount of revenue that must be brought it to your program. Of course, I'm not privvy to the operating costs.

I don't have a beef with your school in particular, but the for-profit higher education entities in general. I think it is imperative that prospective students understand the costs associated with attending a for-profit program, both short-term and long-term. I don't think the rose-colored glasses perspective is very helpful for people who need to make very serious financial decisions.
 
Pragma said:
Not sure if you considered my statements inflammatory or not, but I was only commenting on the amount of revenue that must be brought it to your program. Of course, I'm not privvy to the operating costs.

I don't have a beef with your school in particular, but the for-profit higher education entities in general. I think it is imperative that prospective students understand the costs associated with attending a for-profit program, both short-term and long-term. I don't think the rose-colored glasses perspective is very helpful for people who need to make very serious financial decisions.
Click to expand...

Agree with the "rose-colored glasses perspective."

BTW, technically, PAU is a not-for-profit private school. Not that it matters in my view.
 
Isn't Stanford associated with a couple of professional schools? I'm so confused. What is PGSP and why does it also have a Stanford component?? Or is it the same as PAU?
 
Psychadelic2012 said:
Isn't Stanford associated with a couple of professional schools? I'm so confused. What is PGSP and why does it also have a Stanford component?? Or is it the same as PAU?
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, as it seems somewhat confusing, but I believe PAU and PGSP are one and the same. Or maybe PGSP is a specific program offered by PAU. Or something like that.
 
AcronymAllergy said:
I could be wrong, as it seems somewhat confusing, but I believe PAU and PGSP are one and the same. Or maybe PGSP is a specific program offered by PAU. Or something like that.
Click to expand...

I'm a first-year student with the Consortium and can answer the few preceding questions. PGSP -- the Pacific Graduate School of Psychology -- is the historical name of the institution currently known as PAU (a.k.a., Palo Alto University). My understanding is that they changed the name because the institution expanded to offer undergraduate psychology education as well, and hence it could not be known as exclusively a graduate school.

The Consortium began as a partnership between Stanford's Psychiatry department and PGSP. When the institution's name changed to PAU, the PsyD program leaders considered changing the PsyD program's name to the PAU-Stanford PsyD Consortium. However (according to one of our DCTs), they thought this would dilute the brand equity built up under the program's classic name, and hence it was kept as is.

On this general note, I would add that a consortium's essence is to assemble people from at least 2 standalone organizations to form a third unit. Across contexts, it is rare for that third unit to serve as anyone's primary point of identification unless that unit becomes their sole source of income (which I perceive is not the case for the vast majority of professors we have). So I think the criticism above regarding how professors publicly affiliate is fundamentally off-base.
 
AcronymAllergy said:
I could be wrong, as it seems somewhat confusing, but I believe PAU and PGSP are one and the same. Or maybe PGSP is a specific program offered by PAU. Or something like that.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto_University#History

"The Pacific Graduate School of Psychology was founded in 1975 and has been accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), since 1988. The university is not affiliated with the similarly named Pacifica Graduate Institute, located in Carpinteria, California.

In August 2009, PGSP officially reincorporated and changed its name to Palo Alto University. In 2009, it moved to a new campus on Arastradero Road, formerly occupied by the American Institutes for Research, which it had purchased the previous year.[2][3] The university also offers classes for students in the Monterey Bay area at the Cabrillo College campus in Scotts Valley.[4]"
 
He is definitely getting up there. Personally, I don't really care for him. I used to show some videos about the SPE in class. He seems to have kind of sold out these days (e.g., "the demise of guys") and I don't find his arguments particularly strong.
Click to expand...

I've never been a fan of his--which probably doesn't surprise anyone who's ever read my comments or heard me talk about him.
 
cara susanna said:
I've never been a fan of his--which probably doesn't surprise anyone who's ever read my comments or heard me talk about him.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I think some of his work probably has merit, but he's largely a textbook example of "becoming famous by being REALLY unethical," which we as a field should not be championing, IMO.
 
AcronymAllergy said:
I could be wrong, as it seems somewhat confusing, but I believe PAU and PGSP are one and the same. Or maybe PGSP is a specific program offered by PAU. Or something like that.
Click to expand...


PGSP just changed it's name to PAU recently. AFAIK, it was nothing more than that.
 
Kriya said:
On this general note, I would add that a consortium's essence is to assemble people from at least 2 standalone organizations to form a third unit. Across contexts, it is rare for that third unit to serve as anyone's primary point of identification unless that unit becomes their sole source of income (which I perceive is not the case for the vast majority of professors we have). So I think the criticism above regarding how professors publicly affiliate is fundamentally off-base.
Click to expand...

How are the professors invested in the students if they have 2 or more affiliations and do not get their primary income from PAU? I don't know if I am misinterpreting your post.
 
PHD12 said:
How are the professors invested in the students if they have 2 or more affiliations and do not get their primary income from PAU? I don't know if I am misinterpreting your post.
Click to expand...

I will say that for internship consortiums, it's very common for supervisors at other facilities to be very invested in the training of students. Also, I'd imagine it's very common in grad schools for supervisors (although not primary advisors) who aren't paid through the university/grad program to be rather heavily involved in training.

However, I can also see how this could potentially be problematic (although not necessarily so) for grad school, depending on how it's handled.
 
PHD12 said:
How are the professors invested in the students if they have 2 or more affiliations and do not get their primary income from PAU? I don't know if I am misinterpreting your post.
Click to expand...

I think that your frame of reference -- to paraphrase, that one needs to have a singular affiliation to be invested in students -- is just different from mine. But I don't blame you, as I also found this a bit confusing until I got here and got more exposure to the fluid nature of consortia.

For example: my advisor is a professor at PAU, does clinical supervision at the VA, and has a busy private practice. The PI of my Stanford research lab provides top-notch research training to Consortium students and also teaches a few of our formal courses at Stanford (among many other things). They both demonstrate their investment in me by providing high-quality opportunities, feedback, and general mentorship. I have no idea how they primarily identify (as PAU/Stanford or as PGSP-Stanford PsyD Consortium) or where their bread gets the most butter; nor do I really care.

FWIW, this reminds me of why it doesn't resonate with me when people suggest that our cohort size (30) means that we get a sub-par experience as compared to that of a more typically scaled program. Resources and opportunities are scaled to meet the cohort size, and our dual affiliation with PAU and Stanford plays a big part in this. I only wish I had more time to take advantage of everything that's available to me.
 
Kriya said:
I have no idea how they primarily identify (as PAU/Stanford or as PGSP-Stanford PsyD Consortium) or where their bread gets the most butter; nor do I really care.
Click to expand...

For anyone who doesn't know the program well, it makes sense for the faculty there (PAU or Stanford) to identify themselves as Stanford for obvious reasons.
 
I agree with AA...having multiple affiliations is quite common, and some of the best people to have as a supervisor may very well come from outside of the university, though roles and responsibilities are different as a supervisor at a practica and as a mentor at your program.

Putting aside supervision, clinical training, and whatever else....the cost is just untenable. I'm not sure most students really understand what that level of debt means. I don't mean that in a patronizing way, but I have spent quite a bit of personal and professional time researching the debt & income data (and been asked to present on it), and the numbers just don't add up.

It does not make any fiscal sense to take on $200k+ in tuition (+school fees, living expenses, etc.) when the projected starting salary is <$100k. I have consulted with multiple financial planners and a number of wealth management experts, and the assumed debt to earning potential is literally 2-3:1 too high. Assuming a debt of $200k only starts to make sense when your income is $175k/yr (on the low end) to $250k/yr (more manageable), and that is with a %-rate far lower than the current 6.8% going rate for SM.

Assume your salary is $175k, that means your gross income is ~$14.6k/mon, which makes your 30yr $200k @ 6.8% loan about 10% of you salary. Once you take out taxes (Thanks Obama!!), 15%-20% 401k/Pension/Retirement (or more if you are playing catch up and on the other side of 30), healthcare expenses (rising), and etc....your actual take home is almost in line w. the suggested maximum debt to income ratio. If you stick $75k into that equation...it gets ugly.
 
Put another way:

I have an absolute love for high-performance cars, and while the driving experience may be amazing and it would be incredibly fulfilling to own/drive one for the next 6-8 years, there is no legitimate financial institution in the world that would consider giving me a $200k+ loan to buy it. It would also fulfill a dream I have had since I was a kid, though sadly those aren't sufficient enough reasons for a bank to give me a loan because they know it isn't a good financial decision for anyone involved if I'm only making $75k/yr. Just because Sallie Mae (and private lenders) are willing to lend someone $200k for a graduate education....that doesn't mean people should take it.

ps. I can still own a high performance car one day...but my plan for getting it will have to be different.

pss. Crunching the #'s...I could do it new for $175k if I shop around, or ~$80k if I find one that is 3-4yrs old. If you invest in me, I'll totally take you for a ride at the track, no problemo!
 
Therapist4Chnge said:
I agree with AA...having multiple affiliations is quite common, and some of the best people to have as a supervisor may very well come from outside of the university, though roles and responsibilities are different as a supervisor at a practica and as a mentor at your program.

Putting aside supervision, clinical training, and whatever else....the cost is just untenable. I'm not sure most students really understand what that level of debt means. I don't mean that in a patronizing way, but I have spent quite a bit of personal and professional time researching the debt & income data (and been asked to present on it), and the numbers just don't add up.

It does not make any fiscal sense to take on $200k+ in tuition (+school fees, living expenses, etc.) when the projected starting salary is <$100k. I have consulted with multiple financial planners and a number of wealth management experts, and the assumed debt to earning potential is literally 2-3:1 too high. Assuming a debt of $200k only starts to make sense when your income is $175k/yr (on the low end) to $250k/yr (more manageable), and that is with a %-rate far lower than the current 6.8% going rate for SM.

Assume your salary is $175k, that means your gross income is ~$14.6k/mon, which makes your 30yr $200k @ 6.8% loan about 10% of you salary. Once you take out taxes (Thanks Obama!!), 15%-20% 401k/Pension/Retirement (or more if you are playing catch up and on the other side of 30), healthcare expenses (rising), and etc....your actual take home is almost in line w. the suggested maximum debt to income ratio. If you stick $75k into that equation...it gets ugly.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm saying. Assume you really do as well at PAU as they say you can and you get the VA job - in the bay area your salary as a grade 13, step 1 is about 96K. Sounds great until you realize you're paying 1000 dollars per month (assuming no children) on your 200K+ loan (that is, assuming you're on IBR - your payments could be substantially higher if you're on a standard plan). That's scary.
 
AcronymAllergy said:
$1k/month at $96k, if my math is right, works out to about 15-20% of your take-home pay at that point. It's doable, but it's a good chunk of money.
Click to expand...

You have to consider that this is one of the higher paying jobs for psychologists and is also located in the most expensive regions of the country. Plus, in CA i believe you are paying the highest state income taxes in the country (if you income is greater than 48K you are already paying 9.3% in state taxes and this is expected to go up next year).

If you are single, you are paying 28% in federal taxes on that income and then additional 9.3% for california state tax, then adding $1,000-1500 in loans per month. This is under the best of circumstances. You can easily also end up earning 60K at a college counseling center or 50K during your first 2 years of private practice.
 
AcronymAllergy said:
$1k/month at $96k, if my math is right, works out to about 15-20% of your take-home pay at that point. It's doable, but it's a good chunk of money.
Click to expand...

Do you live in the Bay Area? Highest tax burden in the country, and delivers some of the worst social services in the country. Gas is ridiculous here. If you live in the Golden State, you need every spare dollar you can hold on to. If I was smart, I'd have left for New Hampshire or Oregon or something years ago.
 
Trust me, wasn't trying to say it was ideal; was just giving the raw percentage of your take-home income that $1000/month would gobble up before you were able to spend it on anything else IF you earned $96k/year upon becoming licensed (which we all know isn't the norm).

After living on just over $1k/month for umpteen years in grad school, I can certainly understand just how much money that is to essentially be giving away. Without another income, I'd imagine it would be very difficult to stay in a high cost of living area while also attempting to save for retirement, pay health insurance, own a car, buy a house, possibly raise a family, etc.
 
Last edited:
jon snow said:
pgsp graduate student business plan= be a pretty young woman. Debt management plan = marry young stanford physician in training.
Click to expand...

29270527.jpg
 
Last edited:
Jon Snow said:
Pgsp graduate student business plan= be a pretty young woman. Debt management plan = marry young stanford physician in training.
Click to expand...

300K debt is going to be a deal breaker for most men/women. You didn't read the article where men are apparently looking at credit score ratings and student loan debt before committing to someone. I wonder how often this is happening these days.
 
JeyRo said:
http://www.npr.org/2012/07/16/156736915/call-me-maybe-when-your-school-loan-is-paid-in-full
Click to expand...

LOL

"I just usually wait until it comes up and kind of clench my teeth," says
Craig Pfeister, a 29-year-old craftsman who makes guitars in Denver. He has north of $100,000 in student loans, and has grown used to the reaction that gets from dates.

"Generally, it starts with an awkward look, like, 'What have I gotten myself into?' " he says. Pfeister has come to realize that he's more comfortable dating women who also have lots of student debt.

And if Pfeister ends up marrying more debt? Sure, it would add to his financial stress. But, he says, at least the stigma would not be just on him.
 
JeyRo said:
To CaliPsych: I would still like to see official acceptance rates, rather than numbers overheard from "a friend" or unofficially reported numbers found on a third-party site. Would think it would be something that could be found out officially - I'm sure PAU keeps those numbers somewhere. Same with the number of students who match to Bay Area or California APA sites. I actually know personally a PAU student who matched to the Palo Alto VA several years back (back when it was PGSP). He currently works as a real estate mogul, BTW. :)
Click to expand...

When I saw your comment the other day, I asked one of our program leaders for official admissions data that could be shared. I just got her response. For the 2017 cohort (ie, the group that entered last fall), the program received 300 applications and made 51 admission offers for a incoming cohort of 31. I have heard that this type of information (across cohorts) will be communicated in the future as part of our general program stats, though I am not sure when that will occur. I understand that it would engender more confidence in the "officialness" of these stats to see them on the program's website itself.

In any case, I share this info in hopes that it'll be useful to people who are considering the program. Feel free to PM me with any questions.
 
I will say that the two PAU students who have responded to this thread seem to really like their school and want to defend it. That's something. Even after my 1st year, I knew I would never encourage others to attend my grad school (for completely different reasons than are being discussed here).

Dr. E
 
Doctor Eliza said:
I will say that the two PAU students who have responded to this thread seem to really like their school and want to defend it. That's something. Even after my 1st year, I knew I would never encourage others to attend my grad school (for completely different reasons than are being discussed here).

Dr. E
Click to expand...

Cognitive dissonance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

T
CONCEPT/Palo Alto University Professional Development Courses
Replies
0
Views
587
texanpsychdoc
T
FredBerfil
For VHA employees only - rare Psychology Service Chief opportunity at Palo Alto VA
Replies
30
Views
2K
AcronymAllergy
AcronymAllergy
F
Palo Alto Ph.D vs NOVA Ph.D
Replies
7
Views
1K
PsychPsyance
P
S
PhD/PsyD William James College PsyD, Pacific University PsyD, or Palo Alto PhD?
2
Replies
54
Views
9K
chicandtoughness
chicandtoughness
S
Palo Alto University Thoughts
Replies
5
Views
4K
erg923
erg923
Top