Palo Alto University

[leftbrian]

It is important to think about these things. However, not having a mentor has not been an issue for me or any of my peers. We have a research advisor (mine has been amazing) and an internship advisor. I have worked closely with my dissertation committee and have been very pleased with the amount of support that I have received. You are making an assumption based on size, without looking into the actual program. I understand that the program may not be for you (and I am not advocating that anyone come here, just giving another view on my experience) but assumptions without further information is unfair.

It's great that you receive sufficient attention from your research advisor and your internship advisor. It would be even better if this is the norm for larger programs. The truth is, even in smaller programs, big name mentors might not spend any time at all with 1 or 2 mentees. However, why set oneself up for the greater likelihood of not receiving this necessary attention by entering a large program? It's math.

Also, I agree that the person factor is huge in any selection process (internship/job). But before employers can use their Axis II/no people skills checklist on their candidates, one still needs to make it to that stage in the first place. And it seems that carrying a the professional school name tag tends to hinder one from reaching that stage to show your true skills and talents.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jenna1]

I am not making an assumption. You can be satisfied with your mentorship, but satisfaction does not necessarily reflect the quality of the mentorship training. You are making the assumption that it is fine without ever knowing how it might be in a small cohort. See? Accusing people of assuming things is fun.

But admissions standards and field stewardship are clearly things that limiting the size of a cohort supports. Programs that don't do this (in my view) are not focused properly.

How did you measure the quality of your mentorship? I measure mine by my placements, dissertation defense (and awards), internship interviews and supervisor feedback from practicum (at 3 VA's).

 

[Pragma]

I appreciate what you are saying but again, case examples. I can list many students getting placed in amazing postdoc positions and being hired at those same sites. We both will not state the names (for privacy) but I cannot agree that we do not have many success rates. However, I do agree that there are individuals that believe if they do the 'minimum' requirements, that they will be successful. People have to work hard at achieving a specific goal. This field is competitive whether you are from a private OR professional school.

Every institution I have been at as a part of graduate training has had multiple psychologists that have expressed a disdain for FSPS students as well as a general bias against Psy.D. students (less marked). Every supervisor, and some nonsupervisors at every externship site, APA-accredited internship, Houston Conference postdoc, and now my present academic institution where I hold a faculty appointment. Case examples? It is everywhere.

 

[jenna1]

It's great that you receive sufficient attention from your research advisor and your internship advisor. It would be even better if this is the norm for larger programs. The truth is, even in smaller programs, big name mentors might not spend any time at all with 1 or 2 mentees. However, why set oneself up for the greater likelihood of not receiving this necessary attention by entering a large program? It's math.

Also, I agree that the person factor is huge in any selection process (internship/job). But before employers can use their Axis II/no people skills checklist on their candidates, one still needs to make it to that stage in the first place. And it seems that carrying a the professional school name tag tends to hinder one from reaching that stage to show your true skills and talents.

Our program is set up where it is mandatory that students are placed into smaller research groups (there are over ten) and we have to have met specific requirements (which includes meeting with research, 'regular' and internship advisor). This is true for everyone at the school.

 

[NotTheHoff]

I appreciate what you are saying but again, case examples. I can list many students getting placed in amazing postdoc positions and being hired at those same sites. We both will not state the names (for privacy) but I cannot agree that we do not have many success rates. However, I do agree that there are individuals that believe if they do the 'minimum' requirements, that they will be successful. People have to work hard at achieving a specific goal. This field is competitive whether you are from a private OR professional school.

There is a big difference between using case examples to exemplify a position based on other data (e.g., student:mentor ratios) and theories (e.g., poor student:mentor ratios are likely to hinder overall training) vs. using case examples as the basis for a position.

 

[bmedclinic]

The girl with the Christmas Sweater (and lights) at an interview (from private university) really put the icing on the cake. That made me feel WAY more comfortable with the process. I guess, to each their own.

Wasnt at that interview... but I agree.. there are some characters out there, regardless of what university they come from.

 

[jenna1]

Every institution I have been at as a part of graduate training has had multiple psychologists that have expressed a disdain for FSPS students as well as a general bias against Psy.D. students (less marked). Every supervisor, and some nonsupervisors at every externship site, APA-accredited internship, Houston Conference postdoc, and now my present academic institution where I hold a faculty appointment. Case examples? It is everywhere.

Case examples are also everywhere where many of our work is highly respected. Many older individuals are less likely to look into the actual training. This was true from older theorists who got ANGRY when the research no longer supported their findings. This will always be true within our field.

 

[Pragma]

How did you measure the quality of your mentorship? I measure mine by my placements, dissertation defense (and awards), internship interviews and supervisor feedback from practicum (at 3 VA's).

Well I suppose it depends on what type of mentorship you are thinking about first and foremost.

I measured my research mentorship by quality of opportunities (e.g., grants, manuscripts, conferences, supervision, etc), publication count, $ awarded from external funding, and future career opportunities. I have a TT job at an R2, and if you pay any attention to that job market, that is tough to do.

For clinical supervision, things like practicum evaluations, internship experiences (I matched at my #1 site, APA-accredited, in a very popular city), postdoctoral interviews and acceptances (I've acknowledged that my clinical mentors really helped me along this process and I got a solid neuro postdoc in the same city), licensure (I'm licensed), job opportunities (I work at a PP with a great split), opportunities for boarding (I'm eligible) - and eventually, how well I do on the boarding evaluations. Note - much clinical mentorship didn't really have much to do with my program, aside from the DCT making sure we went to appropriate settings.

At any of these milestones, being a FSPS student would have been a huge hurdle to overcome.

 

[jenna1]

Case examples are also everywhere where many of our work is highly respected. Many older individuals are less likely to look into the actual training. This was true from older theorists who got ANGRY when the research no longer supported their findings. This will always be true within our field.

Honestly, I don't like knowing doors are closed based on what school I chose (hasn't happened yet but I should prepare for this). However, (as I learned during internship) working with people who I feel comfortable with is JUST as important. If they are not willing to look at my work and abilities due to a bias, than I am comfortable going elsewhere.

 

[jenna1]

Well I suppose it depends on what type of mentorship you are thinking about first and foremost.

I measured my research mentorship by quality of opportunities (e.g., grants, manuscripts, conferences, supervision, etc), publication count, $ awarded from external funding, and future career opportunities. I have a TT job at an R2, and if you pay any attention to that job market, that is tough to do.

For clinical supervision, things like practicum evaluations, internship experiences (I matched at my #1 site, APA-accredited, in a very popular city), postdoctoral interviews and acceptances (I've acknowledged that my clinical mentors really helped me along this process and I got a solid neuro postdoc in the same city), licensure (I'm licensed), job opportunities (I work at a PP with a great split), opportunities for boarding (I'm eligible) - and eventually, how well I do on the boarding evaluations. Note - much clinical mentorship didn't really have much to do with my program, aside from the DCT making sure we went to appropriate settings.

At any of these milestones, being a FSPS student would have been a huge hurdle to overcome.

You sound like a wonderful clinician (no sarcasm coming through, I am serious). Our goals are different, and so far I have obtained ever training and research experience that I have wanted. I am not top in the country, and that is not my goal. I love what I do and I am on the path to obtaining the goals I have set up for myself.

 

[Qwerk]

There is a big difference between using case examples to exemplify a position based on other data (e.g., student:mentor ratios) and theories (e.g., poor student:mentor ratios are likely to hinder overall training) vs. using case examples as the basis for a position.

University students/grads: [Numbers that show FSPS/Psy.D. program compares unfavorably to other programs]

FSPS students: [Anecdotes about how they've seen many good mentorship/internships/grad jobs/post-docs in their program]

University students/grads: [Numbers]

FSPS students: [Anecdotes]

University students/grads: [Numbers]

FSPS students: [Anecdotes]

No matter how bad a program is, someone will always claim to be happy and satisfied with it, and there will always be great students in subpar programs. Personal experiences ≠ program averages. I don't think we've heard any non-anecdotal evidence of PAU's quality in this thread. Have I missed something?

 

[jenna1]

University students/grads: [Numbers that show FSPS/Psy.D. program compares unfavorably to other programs]

FSPS students: [Anecdotes about how they've seen many good mentorship/internships/grad jobs/post-docs in their program]

University students/grads: [Numbers]

FSPS students: [Anecdotes]

University students/grads: [Numbers]

FSPS students: [Anecdotes]

No matter how bad a program is, someone will always claim to be happy and satisfied with it, and there will always be great students in subpar programs. Personal experiences ≠ program averages. I don't think we've heard any non-anecdotal evidence of PAU's quality in this thread. Have I missed something?

No discussion when a mind is already made up. Where has the non-anecdotal evidence against PAU? We already addressed the 'against' PAU 'case examples.' We already addressed the comparable match rates. the 'I meet people who know it has a bad reputation." What is it that makes your 'side' any different?

 

[leftbrian]

Our program is set up where it is mandatory that students are placed into smaller research groups (there are over ten) and we have to have met specific requirements (which includes meeting with research, 'regular' and internship advisor). This is true for everyone at the school.

I actually like this set-up where there are expectations for the designated mentors, which can get wishy-washy in funded PhD programs. Wish I knew this earlier!

 

[jenna1]

No discussion when a mind is already made up. Where has the non-anecdotal evidence against PAU? We already addressed the 'against' PAU 'case examples.' We already addressed the comparable match rates. the 'I meet people who know it has a bad reputation." What is it that makes your 'side' any different?

I also never can be fully accurate in these *um* conversations b/c I do not want to name the people I know. It does seem fair that 'strangers to the program' can discuss "I knew a person and he's not doing well" as evidence. I've been accused of 'covering' my ears during the entire discussion. It really seems that it would not matter what the situation, merits of the program will not be heard.

 

[jenna1]

I actually like this set-up where there are expectations for the designated mentors, which can get wishy-washy in funded PhD programs. Wish I knew this earlier!

I do like this aspect. It is difficult to switch a 'regular' advisor, but if you have a new research interest you can switch into a new group (which 5 of my cohorts have done).

 

[PHD12]

No discussion when a mind is already made up. Where has the non-anecdotal evidence against PAU? We already addressed the 'against' PAU 'case examples.' We already addressed the comparable match rates. the 'I meet people who know it has a bad reputation." What is it that makes your 'side' any different?

At least try be honest when discussing "comparable match rates." You are in the PhD program at PAU which consistently has an apa internship match rate of only 50%. This is below average and abysmal overall. Half the students from your program are not even meeting minimum standards for internship and are starting their careers at a huge disadvantage with many closed doors. Without an APA internship, you are not even eligible for most post-doctoral positions these days and can never work at any VA, military setting etc. Why do you keep disregarding this fact in assessing the quality of your program? Your assertion that people are getting good post-doc positions is not supported by this data.

 

[jenna1]

At least try be honest when discussing "comparable match rates." You are in the PhD program at PAU which consistently has an apa internship match rate of only 50%. This is below average and abysmal overall. Half the students from your program are not even meeting minimum standards for internship and are starting their careers at a huge disadvantage with many closed doors. Without an APA internship, you are not even eligible for most post-doctoral positions these days and can never work at any VA, military setting etc. Why do you keep disregarding this fact in assessing the quality of your program? Your assertion that people are getting good post-doc positions is not supported by this data.

I know many older individuals at my school who applied to both but really wanted to work in community settings and/or private practice (and nothing wrong with having a different goal). The goals are different for many of us. Am I supposed to discount my peers internship or postdoc acceptance? However, I am done with this thread and wish you the best Happy Valentines to everyone.

 

[jenna1]

At least try be honest when discussing "comparable match rates." You are in the PhD program at PAU which consistently has an apa internship match rate of only 50%. This is below average and abysmal overall. Half the students from your program are not even meeting minimum standards for internship and are starting their careers at a huge disadvantage with many closed doors. Without an APA internship, you are not even eligible for most post-doctoral positions these days and can never work at any VA, military setting etc. Why do you keep disregarding this fact in assessing the quality of your program? Your assertion that people are getting good post-doc positions is not supported by this data.

Well, almost done (;-D). While that was lower 50% (it's been higher for the last three years). That is over 20 people getting placed into hospital and VA settings. May not be the ideal, but that still meant there are people being placed. I guess it's okay at a private school where you have only 5 students and only 3 of them get placed (go back and do your research).

 

[Qwerk]

Am I supposed to discount my peers internship or postdoc acceptance?

No, you're supposed to look at it in the context of the other data you have.

 

[jenna1]

No, you're supposed to look at it in the context of the other data you have.

So although I am most likely getting placed (had 12 interviews) I am supposed to still ignore this b/c of the low placement? I am just not that objective, I guess ;-p

 

[PHD12]

I know many older individuals at my school who applied to both but really wanted to work in community settings and/or private practice (and nothing wrong with having a different goal). The goals are different for many of us. Am I supposed to discount my peers internship or postdoc acceptance? However, I am done with this thread and wish you the best Happy Valentines to everyone.

Next you are going to tell me that they turned down APA internships to attend unpaid, unaccredited positions (like CAPIC) that will significantly limit their employment and post-doc opportunities. That seems very likely.

btw, university based PHD programs do not have 50% match rates. Free standing schools are responsible for the vast majority of unmatched applicants. Everywhere I applied had a 90% or above apa match rate and my program is usually around 100%. Its not uncommon for university programs to be at 90-100%.

 

[Qwerk]

So although I am most likely getting placed (had 12 interviews) I am supposed to still ignore this b/c of the low placement? I am just not that objective, I guess ;-p

You might be getting placed, but this thread was started by someone who wanted to know more about PAU and was considering applying. I'm not saying that you, personally, should not be going to PAU. I'm saying that anyone reading this thread and considering applying should pay more attention to the data available about the school and less attention to stories about people who are apparently doing fine there.

 

[jenna1]

Next you are going to tell me that they turned down APA internships to attend unpaid, unaccredited positions (like CAPIC) that will significantly limit their employment and post-doc opportunities. That seems very likely.

btw, university based PHD programs do not have 50% match rates. Free standing schools are responsible for the vast majority of unmatched applicants. Everywhere I applied had a 90% or above apa match rate and my program is usually around 100%. Its not uncommon for university programs to be at 90-100%.

That is there choice. I don't agree with it but many had the plans to do private practice from the beginning. Three students already worked at a practice and wanted the degree. I think CAPIC is NOT a good choice, but I'm not going to get into that. And refer to the APA website that I posted a link to. That is untrue about the occurrence of high match rate among all private schools (I guess the numbers only work when using against PAU).

 

[jenna1]

You might be getting placed, but this thread was started by someone who wanted to know more about PAU and was considering applying. I'm not saying that you, personally, should not be going to PAU. I'm saying that anyone reading this thread and considering applying should pay more attention to the data available about the school and less attention to stories about people who are apparently doing fine there.

I can talk about the program (and they can talk with professors). The idea I thought was to learn about the school...but I guess summing it up with comparable match rates (again, refer to the website) is the only way to talk about PAU, then I guess this was a trap from the beginning.

 

[jenna1]

You might be getting placed, but this thread was started by someone who wanted to know more about PAU and was considering applying. I'm not saying that you, personally, should not be going to PAU. I'm saying that anyone reading this thread and considering applying should pay more attention to the data available about the school and less attention to stories about people who are apparently doing fine there.

I guess when you made your decision, you had NO interest in the students. I made sure that at the sites I ranked for internship, the interns were happy and appreciated their training. Yes, that counts for nothing.

 

[Qwerk]

I guess when you made your decision, you had NO interest in the students. I made sure that at the sites I ranked for internship, the interns were happy and appreciated their training. Yes, that counts for nothing.

It counts for something, but a program's metrics and cost would outweigh happy, smiling students for most people. (Or, at least, they should given the economic realities of being a mental health professional.) Who knows -- they might even outweigh it for you by the time you graduate.

 

[PHD12]

That is there choice. I don't agree with it but many had the plans to do private practice from the beginning. Three students already worked at a practice and wanted the degree. I think CAPIC is NOT a good choice, but I'm not going to get into that. And refer to the APA website that I posted a link to. That is untrue about the occurrence of high match rate among all private schools (I guess the numbers only work when using against PAU).

Actually, compare PAU (PhD) to university based programs in CA and there is a huge difference in match rates. USC, UCLA, UCSD, UC Berkeley are all at about 90% or above, some of these schools are even at 100%.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

That is there choice. I don't agree with it but many had the plans to do private practice from the beginning. Three students already worked at a practice and wanted the degree. I think CAPIC is NOT a good choice, but I'm not going to get into that. And refer to the APA website that I posted a link to. That is untrue about the occurrence of high match rate among all private schools (I guess the numbers only work when using against PAU).

I'm guessing by "private schools," you're referring to the more "traditional" programs housed in a university setting (whether it be public or private)? Just wanting to clarify. If so, I'd be interested in which schools you're looking at that have ~50% match rates (i.e., if there were any that jumped out at you, or if you had thus far just had a chance to briefly scan the list).

Setting the PAU debate aside for a moment, match rates of 50% would be pretty bad anywhere; I don't know that anyone here would disagree with that. Nearly every traditional clinical program I've looked at on APPIC's list has a 75-80%+ match rate. It's also important to remember that at most of these sites, the listed match rate truly reflects APA-only matches (rather than APPIC+APA, which is actually what the list includes), as that's typically what's required by the programs.

In my opinion, I feel that individuals simply shouldn't have the option to complete non-accredited internships, as this necessarily circumvents the accreditation process and can lead to highly-variable training standards. Do I think such a rule would be realistic or humane in the current internship imbalance environment? No, but I certainly think it's something toward which we should be working. Thus, regardless of what school it is, if they're sending out comparatively large numbers of individuals to non-accredited internships (and are perhaps even encouraging such paths), I find that to be problematic behavior that's bad for the field as a whole.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

You might be getting placed, but this thread was started by someone who wanted to know more about PAU and was considering applying. I'm not saying that you, personally, should not be going to PAU. I'm saying that anyone reading this thread and considering applying should pay more attention to the data available about the school and less attention to stories about people who are apparently doing fine there.

I think this is a good take away message. The data points ppl have highlighted don't tell the whole story (in support or opposition of attending the program), but I think looking at the data across quite a number of years will give a much better idea of how the "average" student will do. Match rate, EPPP pass rate, publication rate of faculty, graduation rate, etc...those are all objective data points worth considering. As an outlier myself (a Psy.D. in the R1 world), I definitely know that the "average" data doesn't always apply to everyone, it really is the best estimate we have to reference to help decide if a program is a good fit. As for money....in an ideal world the choice of which program to attend should be based on things like fit, interest, etc...but money matters. 6-figures of debt is tough to get out from under. I'm there, and it definitely impacted what jobs I considered, where I lived, and a number of other "life" decisions. Best of luck w. match, it sounds like you put yourself in a great position going 12/15 w. interviews.

 

[cara susanna]

I didn't mean to be rude by saying people are putting their hands over their ears. But that is the way it comes across to us when we keep providing evidence and people just keep saying "But *I've* had a good experience there." I'm betting that you think we're doing the same thing.

 

[futureapppsy2]

So although I am most likely getting placed (had 12 interviews) I am supposed to still ignore this b/c of the low placement? I am just not that objective, I guess ;-p

Given the horrific imbalance, NO ONE should be counting unhatched chickens, regardless of the number of interviews (although 12 is a good sign). No one can count on being matched until they get that email.

 

[Pragma]

I didn't mean to be rude by saying people are putting their hands over their ears. But that is the way it comes across to us when we keep providing evidence and people just keep saying "But *I've* had a good experience there." I'm betting that you think we're doing the same thing.

Given the horrific imbalance, NO ONE should be counting unhatched chickens, regardless of the number of interviews (although 12 is a good sign). No one can count on being matched until they get that email.

Okay give her a break!

Remember, most people still do match. It is just the quality of the site that is a big issue. Even in the absence of a match, it happens to a lot of good people and often there is a good placement to find. 12 is a solid number, but of course we all worry until we get that email...

 

[CaliPsych]

Hi everyone,

Sorry I've been away from this thread for a few days.... I've been trying to get caught up at practicum after missing a lot of time for internship interviews. Good luck to those who are waiting anxiously for the match results next week!

Someone asked whether I could provide more complete information about our internship match rates. I have attached a document with some additional information. Feel free to let me know if you have additional questions. I will be traveling over the weekend but will try to check back to see if anyone posts or PMs me with questions.

 

[PHD12]

Hi everyone,

Sorry I've been away from this thread for a few days.... I've been trying to get caught up at practicum after missing a lot of time for internship interviews. Good luck to those who are waiting anxiously for the match results next week!

Someone asked whether I could provide more complete information about our internship match rates. I have attached a document with some additional information. Feel free to let me know if you have additional questions. I will be traveling over the weekend but will try to check back to see if anyone posts or PMs me with questions.

Thanks for posting. It seems like they have more of a relationship with the southern california VA hospitals (Loma Linda, LA, Sepulveda) than the northern california ones. There are a range of sites, which is good for prospective students to see.

 

[NeuroTrope]

My experience with PGSP students is that there are plenty of talented, intelligent members who go on to have very productive careers. Great faculty there if I recall. The price is high but that's the only drawback.

 

[PHD12]

My experience with PGSP students is that there are plenty of talented, intelligent members who go on to have very productive careers. Great faculty there if I recall. The price is high but that's the only drawback.

From my experience, the majority of kaiser psychologists seem to be from PGSP ( others from CSPP). At one point, I considered a position there so I did a ton of research into it and literally most of their psychologists were from PGSP (luckily i ended up getting a position that was a better fit for me). If Kaiser is your thing, it seems like a common path for PGSP graduates in this location (or private practice).

 

[JeyRo]

From my experience, the majority of kaiser psychologists seem to be from PGSP ( others from CSPP). At one point, I considered a position there so I did a ton of research into it and literally most of their psychologists were from PGSP (luckily i ended up getting a position that was a better fit for me). If Kaiser is your thing, it seems like a common path for PGSP graduates in this location (or private practice).

Kaiser pay is too low and private practice out of the gate sounds like death to me (unless you're some sort of driven, brilliant businessperson).

 

[futureapppsy2]

Okay give her a break!

Remember, most people still do match. It is just the quality of the site that is a big issue. Even in the absence of a match, it happens to a lot of good people and often there is a good placement to find. 12 is a solid number, but of course we all worry until we get that email...

I promise we didn't coordinate that, really.

I think it's a good point that most people end up at a good site, especially with 12 interviews. Otoh, a sizable number of qualified people don't match, and that's something to be prepared for. I can think of two extremely well-qualified SDNers who didn't match or find a match through Clearinghouse (this was pre-Phase II) despite excellent credentials, and in one case, a lot of interviews. Both found great sites the second time around, so all ended well, but I think it's important to keep the possibility of not matching in the back of your head. The same goes for anyone applying to grad school or faculty jobs, IMO--give Plan A your all but always keep a Plan B and C in place, too.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

From my experience, the majority of kaiser psychologists seem to be from PGSP ( others from CSPP). At one point, I considered a position there so I did a ton of research into it and literally most of their psychologists were from PGSP (luckily i ended up getting a position that was a better fit for me). If Kaiser is your thing, it seems like a common path for PGSP graduates in this location (or private practice).

Coincidentally, the one PGSP person I know of who's working is indeed employed by Kaiser. This person did, I believe, have relatively solid credentials, but I think the primary goal was to be in CA if at all possible.

 

[bmedclinic]

Gotta admit- there are some pretty impressive internships on CaliPsych's list.

 

[NotTheHoff]

Gotta admit- there are some pretty impressive internships on CaliPsych's list.

Not to mention only one student matching at a CAPIC internship since the program was accredited. Those APA-accredited match numbers are not stellar, but they're not bad either. There are far worse out there.

 

[jenna1]

Okay give her a break!

Remember, most people still do match. It is just the quality of the site that is a big issue. Even in the absence of a match, it happens to a lot of good people and often there is a good placement to find. 12 is a solid number, but of course we all worry until we get that email...

Thank you Of course there is a chance of not matching, but I'm trying to stay hopeful (and busy) until Match Day. My fingers are crossed but I am very nervous!

 

[jenna1]

I also think that all of our national schools have a problem with pricing education as a whole. A complete overhaul should happen for all higher education. Think of how expensive a BA costs today. Not even sure that a BA degree can justify the pricey $100K price tag. I agree that our education is expensive. However, I do believe that our training (at least from my experience) is great. I wish ALL education would lower their prices (even some A.S. degrees are getting up there). Anyway, thank you for some of your kinder (in tone and content) posts. I wish ALL of us luck who are waiting for match day.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I also think that all of our national schools have a problem with pricing education as a whole. A complete overhaul should happen for all higher education. Think of how expensive a BA costs today. Not even sure that a BA degree can justify the pricey $100K price tag. I agree that our education is expensive. However, I do believe that our training (at least from my experience) is great. I wish ALL education would lower their prices (even some A.S. degrees are getting up there). Anyway, thank you for some of your kinder (in tone and content) posts. I wish ALL of us luck who are waiting for match day.

I whole-heartedly agree (and would say that in the majority of circumstances, $100k for a bachelor's is not worth it).

As has been mentioned above, the internship placement list for PAU has many solid sites on there, which goes along with one of the themes I think I'd mentioned earlier--that few people are necessarily questioning the general quality of training at PAU, particularly in the PsyD program; the PhD program does still have less-than-ideal APA internship match rates (although the overall rates are fine) along with rather large cohort sizes (70+ for the past few years).

The trouble is that the school is continuing to further the cycle of increasing program costs as well as turning out large numbers of graduates to an already-saturated geographic market. That'd be my biggest gripe. If the program were fully- or partially-funded, for example, I'd likely have no qualms.

Edit: As an aside, best of luck with internship. I know all of us "on the other side" of the table can relate to how stressful the process truly is.

 

[docma]

As has been mentioned above, the internship placement list for PAU has many solid sites on there, which goes along with one of the themes I think I'd mentioned earlier--that few people are necessarily questioning the general quality of training at PAU, particularly in the PsyD program; the PhD program does still have less-than-ideal APA internship match rates (although the overall rates are fine) along with rather large cohort sizes (70+ for the past few years).

The trouble is that the school is continuing to further the cycle of increasing program costs as well as turning out large numbers of graduates to an already-saturated geographic market. That'd be my biggest gripe. If the program were fully- or partially-funded, for example, I'd likely have no qualms.

Edit: As an aside, best of luck with internship. I know all of us "on the other side" of the table can relate to how stressful the process truly is.

Viewing this from a training site's perspective, I'd add that, relative to many FSPSs PAU does partially fund students, requires and provides multiple research and publication opportunities in their Ph.D. program and devotes a lot of attention to students' preparation for internship application and selection. Their match rate is also affected by a number of students who decide not to re-locate geographically and choose regional internships, as well as their too-large cohorts.

 

[cara susanna]

I know all of us "on the other side" of the table can relate to how stressful the process truly is.

I think that even people who haven't gone through it realize it once they've seen their cohort go through it (most of my mine are applying this year, but I decided to wait a year.) My friend told me that I am not allowed to be stressed about it until June.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I also think that all of our national schools have a problem with pricing education as a whole. .

Absolutely. The out of control tuition increases have been at SLACS, state schools, large private unis, etc. The 'cheap' student loan system is a HUGE racket for the gov't and backers. Doubling dipping on fees, backing up bad money (loaning too much) with good money (guaranteeing loans to private banks), and then spinning it as "providing an opportunity for every student in America to get a college education." I'll leave the politics out of it....and I'll just say that it is bad business.

The trouble is that the school is continuing to further the cycle of increasing program costs as well as turning out large numbers of graduates to an already-saturated geographic market. That'd be my biggest gripe. If the program were fully- or partially-funded, for example, I'd likely have no qualms.

The same issues are present in NYC, Chicago, and FL. Being fully-funded (enough to offset some of the ridiculous cost of living issues those places have) would be a great start, but the cohort sizes are still too large for the markets. I think PAU gets singled out because it is the most expensive and it is in the most over-saturated state in the country for psychologists.

 

[cara susanna]

Btw, jenna1, you work with Greene? That's really awesome, I have one of his MMPI-2 books.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

The same issues are present in NYC, Chicago, and FL. Being fully-funded (enough to offset some of the ridiculous cost of living issues those places have) would be a great start, but the cohort sizes are still too large for the markets. I think PAU gets singled out because it is the most expensive and it is in the most over-saturated state in the country for psychologists.

Agreed. My thinking was that by having the program switch to a fully-funded model, the cohort sizes would likely necessarily significantly decrease.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I also think that all of our national schools have a problem with pricing education as a whole. A complete overhaul should happen for all higher education. Think of how expensive a BA costs today. Not even sure that a BA degree can justify the pricey $100K price tag. I agree that our education is expensive. However, I do believe that our training (at least from my experience) is great. I wish ALL education would lower their prices (even some A.S. degrees are getting up there). Anyway, thank you for some of your kinder (in tone and content) posts. I wish ALL of us luck who are waiting for match day.

I agree that higher education costs are an issue, and I think that goes even moreso when you're looking at fields like psychology with lower salaries on average. An engineer may be able to handle 100k of debt for a BA; an English major likely won't.

I also think there are some good points to PAU (faculty, etc) and actually think it's the among the most respectable FSPS that I know of. However, the cost and lack of funding would keep me from recommending it to people without serious reservations. There are other schools (including some university-based programs) about which I would say the same. Crushing debt can be, well, crushing.