Palo Alto University

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Otherwise, why would a famous psychologist like Dr. Sue ever accept a job with the university?

There are many reasons why a person changes jobs: better location, family reasons, opportunity, money.... I'm not sure trying to ascribe the motivation is fair or productive.

Questioning a training program with highly known psychologists as the students' mentors is equivalent to saying that those well-known professors' contributions are not good enough.

That is a rather large jump in logic. There are many fine mentors out there, but they are not immune to programmatic and related issues.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
I'd question their ethics for participating in PAU.

Could you flesh that out a bit? It appears one of your primary issues with psychologists on the PAU payroll is that they are directly supporting a venture that saddles students with an objectionable level of debt (which I'm sympathetic to)... what, if any, are the other issues that make it ethically questionable for psychologists to work at PAU? What about psychologists that take on PAU practicum students, or otherwise support PAU in graduating their students, or burnishing the PAU reputation somehow (e.g., having a student on a paper or hiring them as an RA, etc.)? Are they complicit?

But these are consenting adults. It's a voluntary transaction. No one is coerced into attending PAU, and I don't see any evidence they engage in fraud to get students to go. I personally wouldn't work there myself because I largely don't advocate for students to attend there (and they probably couldn't beat my current salary and benefits package besides) - so, it would at least be somewhat hypocritical of me to work there, although I have trouble seeing how it would be "unethical."

But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.....
 
Last edited:
Although it is true that the school accepts a large number of students and that tuition is expensive; I think the training program outweighs its cost.

And this is why this thread is likely to go back and forth forever. There are people on here (perhaps self included) that feel that even the best training in the country in clinical psychology is not worth paying for (other than maybe a negligible amount). On the other hand, there are people willing to pay a lot for what they perceive as a quality education. I can understand that too. I felt that way with regard to my undergrad education.

I'm happy for you that you guys are enjoying your grad school years. Mine were complete hell. It doesn't matter if other posters would make the same choice that you would. It matters that you are happy with your path.

Best,
Dr. E
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
As for the matching rate, the range goes from 80% to 100% in APA accredited sites, which include some of the most respected programs. Also, I personally know many training directors that highly prefer to work with Palo Alto University students to the extent that they only offer practicum and internship positions to them.

The match rates for the PsyD program have been at about 80% consistently the last 3 years. We have no verification that the PsyD program had a 100% APA match rate this year. Students posting anonymously on a public forum is not verification, especially considering that everyone frequently confuse APPIC vs. APA. In fact, earlier on this thread one of the PGSP students posted the match rate at 93% last year for APA, when in fact it was 82%.
 
Hello everyone! I hope that many of you are excited today about your match results. I'm sending my best wishes to those of you who will be going in to Phase 2.

I wanted to let you know that I just found out a very exciting piece of news! The PGSP-Stanford Psy.D. Consortium had a 100% APA match rate this year.

Going back to this for one second - hypothetically, is it legitimate for the PGSP/Psy.D. consortium to forbid fourth-year students from applying to the match if they haven't attained the 500 hour requirement of F2F intervention hours required by APPIC (which would then remove these students from being counted when they predictably don't match?).

I hate to bring that up, but I just heard something from a little bird......
 
Depends whether they are taking the approach of "That means you aren't ready to graduate and need to stick around another year so we can be confident in your training" or just funneling them into CAPIC/alternatives and still letting them graduate. While "forbidding" may be a bit much, I don't think it is at all unreasonable (and in fact - ideal) for schools to make sure students have sufficient experience to be competitive for APA internships before applying. The costs of an extra year there are hugely punitive, which I think has contributed to the formation of things like CAPIC, but in that case I think the onus is on the student. I stuck around in part because I'm so research-focused its taken me longer to accumulate a substantive number of hours. I didn't just cut corners to get out quicker because I want to make sure I'm trained as well as I possibly can be before graduating (and its feasible for me to approach it this way since I'm not accruing debt and am at least making a sorta-kinda-livable wage).

On the other hand, if they match at 100% by funneling the bottom half into CAPIC and not letting them enter the APPIC match in the first place...that is just gaming the system and is a 50% match rate as far as I am concerned. Match rate should be based on the number graduating as schools really should not be encouraging any less than APA.

Note that I'm not suggesting they actually did the latter (I have no way of knowing at this point). Just stating my views on it since I know some other professional schools have tried to manipulate their statistics by doing things like that.
 
Depends whether they are taking the approach of "That means you aren't ready to graduate and need to stick around another year so we can be confident in your training" or just funneling them into CAPIC/alternatives and still letting them graduate. While "forbidding" may be a bit much, I don't think it is at all unreasonable (and in fact - ideal) for schools to make sure students have sufficient experience to be competitive for APA internships before applying. The costs of an extra year there are hugely punitive, which I think has contributed to the formation of things like CAPIC, but in that case I think the onus is on the student. I stuck around in part because I'm so research-focused its taken me longer to accumulate a substantive number of hours. I didn't just cut corners to get out quicker because I want to make sure I'm trained as well as I possibly can be before graduating (and its feasible for me to approach it this way since I'm not accruing debt and am at least making a sorta-kinda-livable wage).

On the other hand, if they match at 100% by funneling the bottom half into CAPIC and not letting them enter the APPIC match in the first place...that is just gaming the system and is a 50% match rate as far as I am concerned. Match rate should be based on the number graduating as schools really should not be encouraging any less than APA.

Note that I'm not suggesting they actually did the latter (I have no way of knowing at this point). Just stating my views on it since I know some other professional schools have tried to manipulate their statistics by doing things like that.

I'm only asking because I heard a rumor (consider it unsubstantiated) that PAU is telling students (maybe not 'forbidding' them) to not apply for the APPIC match if they have less than the 500 F2F hour requirement, which apparently they had not done in previous years. On it's face, that does sound legitimate to me, because I believe that means that these students are simply unqualified to be part of the APPIC match in the first place (as they haven't gotten the requisite hours). Whether they funnel them into other sites (CAPIC or worse) is a different question, I would think that would show up on their official stats somehow?

What they probably do is just have those students wait an additional year, which means paying an additional year of (full? partial?) tuition, which is enormously costly at PAU. At a funded program, probably isn't such a big deal (is it?).
 
I'd question their ethics for participating in PAU.

My grad adviser has a close friend who retired from a tenured slot at a traditional uni-based PhD program, in part because PAU offered him a TON of money to join the faculty. My adviser viewed this decision as selling out, although understandable, given that this person had already established themselves in the field and had kids to put through college. However, my adviser was also super clear about his perception that PAU was putting a lot of cash into bolstering their rep by enticing faculty who would not have otherwise considered them.

I also have a friend in the PsyD program at PAU, and while she's done a few practicums at the Palo Alto VA, her supervisor told her that it was extremely unlikely that she would match there for internship because they don't typically take PAU students (or PsyD students) past practicum level. This is a supervisor who was pleased with her work and was not attempting to discourage her, but wanted my friend to have a realistic sense of her options.

These are still an anecdotal stories from an internet stranger. And like I said, I don't really have a stake in this debate. However, I just wanted to share what I've heard.
 
I'm only asking because I heard a rumor (consider it unsubstantiated) that PAU is telling students (maybe not 'forbidding' them) to not apply for the APPIC match if they have less than the 500 F2F hour requirement, which apparently they had not done in previous years. On it's face, that does sound legitimate to me, because I believe that means that these students are simply unqualified to be part of the APPIC match in the first place (as they haven't gotten the requisite hours). Whether they funnel them into other sites (CAPIC or worse) is a different question, I would think that would show up on their official stats somehow?

What they probably do is just have those students wait an additional year, which means paying an additional year of (full? partial?) tuition, which is enormously costly at PAU. At a funded program, probably isn't such a big deal (is it?).

I'd think it would show in some official stats but I don't know if the numbers discussed here would reflect that (if it is even happening that they are directing people to CAPIC). I agree an additional year of tuition there would be horrific but that's at least primarily a burden on the individual (who made the decision to attend the program in the first place) - pushing unprepared/unqualified people through is a burden on the field and is the reason I'm largely against FSPS in the first place.

I don't think anyone is big fan of having to take an extra year, but at least here its not by any means a catastrophe. We're all anxious to move past a 20k/year salary, but the lost opportunity cost isn't nearly as big a deal as lost opportunity cost + 40k tuition + living expenses would be. I'm on the 7+1 plan (partially for personal, partially professional reasons). I doubt I would have let these factors dissuade me from applying if it meant an extra 100k+ in loans. I still think mine is too long, but much closer to what we should be aiming for than this crazy 3+1 stuff that is coming out now. How any school can claim to provide adequate doctoral-level training in that time is beyond me.
 
To answer JeyRo, this is part of the issue to me. PAU has bolstered its reputation by contracting with a Psychiatry department at a good school, Stanford. What business does a psychiatry department have offering a grad clinical psychology program? But, I digress. They've also paid a ton of money for big name people to give their program legitimacy. They are only able to do this on the backs of the highest tuition in the country, which is only possible via the broken student loan system, which is partially government subsidized. They are charging at nearly the theoretical limits for loans. There is no consideration, in my opinion, of the damage they were doing to their students' financial futures. I do see it as selling out and unethical for the faculty to accept. PAU has no resources, outside of what they are collecting in loans. They don't have any of the usual things that entice top faculty. The way they've done this is to get people that already have a name affiliation (e.g., Stanford) and throw a bunch of money at them with very little in additional work required. The model is terrible and financially exploitative in my opinion. You say they are grown adults, but many have very little understanding of money (clearly) so I see it as similar to usury. It's on a level of a con to me. PAU's board of directors came up with a nice scheme to get legitimacy via proxy (Stanford) and via transferring loan money to people to lend their name to PAU. The entire situations stinks to me. The faculty at these schools know they are supporting a crap system. Very few of them were educated at a similar school and very few paid much in tuition, if anything. It's just pure profiteering. And, mind you, I'm not against profit, just not in this way (f-ing your field in the process, the students, future colleagues, etc. . .). Faculty at PAU, Alliant, Argosy, etc = arse.

I hate to be such a pedant, but I don't think you're really saying that PAU professors are behaving unethically for being part of the PAU faculty - instead, I think you're actually making the case that their behavior is instead immoral.

Also, given the kind of outcomes they seem to be getting of late (for example, 100% APA match rate for the PsyD program) and the relatively small numbers of psychologists they insert into the larger market, I'm not sure you can really say that PAU is "f-ing the field" in the same way that mass diploma mills like Argosy and Alliant are doing.

However, again, I'm 110% in your court when it comes to objecting to the debt load that they are imparting on their students. It should be something that anyone working for PAU should at least be deeply embarassed about, I continue having trouble seeing how anyone can make excuses for it - the math was hard enough to make work 10 years ago (speaking of my situation as a FSPS grad), and given how high debt loads have skyrocketed since then, I don't see how it can at all work now. But that's just me.
 
I'm avoiding thesis work, so I took the bait and looked at Palo Alto's website. Seems they are on the quarter system with summers off. It also seems that dissertation year is a flat rate, as is internship year, with the latter being significantly less than the other years.

At $14k per quarter, but only 3 quarters per year, this would actually come out to be less than the University of Denver's tuition. It's been a few years since I was there, but I recall that it was about $14k per quarter, but they require summers. I also recall speaking with someone at the program who informed me that during interview day, they finagle to seem like you can get out with only $100k of debt, but the reality is that you would have to work yourself into the ground to get anywhere near that, and $150k - $200k is the more realistic number.

That is a lot.

But I also have several friends in the Bay Area who grew up in private schools with $35k/year tuition, so $45k/year for a Ph.D. or Psy.D. is probably just a drop in the bucket.

Not everyone is poor like me (us). :)
 
I'

At $14k per quarter, but only 3 quarters per year, this would actually come out to be less than the University of Denver's tuition. It's been a few years since I was there, but I recall that it was about $14k per quarter, but they require summers. I also recall speaking with someone at the program who informed me that during interview day, they finagle to seem like you can get out with only $100k of debt, but the reality is that you would have to work yourself into the ground to get anywhere near that, and $150k - $200k is the more realistic number.

Yeah, I just checked the website, and I was very surprised to see the University of Denver's tuition at 50K per year for the first 3 years. They do require 4 quarters of coursework per year. After that, its about 1,000 per credit. Therefore, debt from tuition alone will be over150K, but if you include living expenses for 4 years it can get closer to $250K. Both programs have absurdly high tuition rates.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Hi everyone,

I saw that there were some questions about the statistic I posted earlier (100% APA match rate for the Psy.D. program this year). Our DCT just sent out this updated table showing where everybody matched this year and in past years. As you can see, everyone matched at APA this year.... no APPIC and no CAPIC.

I know people were curious about the Ph.D. program stats. Sorry, I don't have access to a similar table for their program.
 

Attachments

  • updatedinternshipplacementsPsy.D.consortium.doc
    211 KB · Views: 153
Thanks for posting. We should keep this table on here for prospective students who are curious about the range of internship sites/locations from the PsyD program. It is very informative and unfortunately most doctoral programs don't post these on the website.

A 100% match rate is very tough to land with 25 students applying---hope they keep the upward trend going.
 
I will put this very bluntly. Anyone that accumulates excessive debt from a doctoral psychology degree is either very uninformed/ignorant or very dense.

Excessive debt in psychology is not good for the individual or the field.

Furthermore, programs with large cohorts are not helpful to the field, especial in an over-saturated market like California.

At the least, I hope that the training of the program is above average, which sounds like it is. But that does not outweigh the overall negative impact on its graduates and the field.
 
I will put this very bluntly. Anyone that accumulates excessive debt from a doctoral psychology degree is either very uninformed/ignorant or very dense.

Excessive debt in psychology is not good for the individual or the field.

Furthermore, programs with large cohorts are not helpful to the field, especial in an over-saturated market like California.

At the least, I hope that the training of the program is above average, which sounds like it is. But that does not outweigh the overall negative impact on its graduates and the field.

That is true. It is also true that if you are going to pay a fortune to go to a professional school, it might as well be pgsp-stanford. Their APA match rates look very impressive for such a large cohort.

But if you are comparing pgsp-stanford to traditional programs, does their excellent internship-match rate justify their price tag, when there are traditional, funded Ph.D. programs and funded Psy.D. programs with comparable outcomes?
 
That is true. It is also true that if you are going to pay a fortune to go to a professional school, it might as well be pgsp-stanford. Their APA match rates look very impressive for such a large cohort.

But if you are comparing pgsp-stanford to traditional programs, does their excellent internship-match rate justify their price tag, when there are traditional, funded Ph.D. programs and funded Psy.D. programs with comparable outcomes?

Basically, if cost is no object, then PGSP-Stanford may be one of the best of all FSP schools out there (IDK).

However, if cost is an object, then PGSP-Stanford performs terribly, absolutely abominably when cost is weighed against expected benefit. Unless they can find a way to get the expected earnings of their students to 250K+ / year upon licensure (as opposed to an optimistic, but maybe not unreachable 50-80K) this is a route to lifetime, crippling debt slavery. Likewise, if they could ever get the expected debt load of their graduating students to (at most) 80K, I could forsee recommending it. Since debt loads for their grads are typically three times that and rising, I don't see my recommendation changing anytime soon.

Leaving aside prospective students of independent means, again, PGSP-Stanford is a school I would not recommend for anyone, period.

And I say that as a psychologist who graduated approximately 10 years ago (from an FSPS) who has pretty intimate knowledge of PGSP / PAU.
 
Last edited:
Basically, if cost is no object, then PGSP-Stanford may be the best of all FSP schools.

I would imagine that the vast majority of the students come from wealthy backgrounds. The graduates i've met all grew up in the most expensive parts of CA and clearly come from $$$, although i'm not sure that even wealthy parents would be willing to shell out this type of money?

I'd be curious to know if they get many minority or first generation college students. Argosy and Alliant seem to get a decent number of students who come from lower SES backgrounds (unfortunately, many of these students are the ones that fall into the debt trap).
 
Last edited:
Basically, if cost is no object, then PGSP-Stanford may be one of the best of all FSP schools out there (IDK).

However, if cost is an object, then PGSP-Stanford performs terribly, absolutely abominably when cost is weighed against expected benefit. Unless they can find a way to get the expected earnings of their students to 250K+ / year upon licensure (as opposed to an optimistic, but maybe not unreachable 50-80K) this is a route to lifetime, crippling debt slavery. Likewise, if they could ever get the expected debt load of their graduating students to (at most) 80K, I could forsee recommending it. Since debt loads for their grads are typically three times that and rising, I don't see my recommendation changing anytime soon.

Leaving aside prospective students of independent means, again, PGSP-Stanford is a school I would not recommend for anyone, period.

And I say that as a psychologist who graduated approximately 10 years ago (from an FSPS) who has pretty intimate knowledge of PGSP / PAU.

And that is about as honest and accurate advice as anyone will ever get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Hello,

I recently signed up for StudentDoctor.net in order to learn more about Palo Alto University's Clinical Psychology PhD program. The plethora of posts on the discussion boards have been extremely informative in trying to decide whether to attend. I am not sure if this thread is still active, but I would like to know if I could contact past or present students to solicit feedback about their research and clinical experiences with the university.

With best regards,
Taylor
 
Hello,

If anyone has questions about the reality of attending Palo Alto University's Clinical Psychology Ph.D. program , please feel free to directly message me. I graduated from this program some years ago and have no problem providing an accurate depiction of the program.
 
Is this university considered a professional school/diploma mill?
It seems to have great match rates but I have heard from some people that it is not a very well respected school.
Actually, I have to say I don't understand where the people below me are even coming from. I would bet that it's probably the same idiot on multiple accounts.

What I will say however, is that I know a young woman that goes to Palo Alto University that graduated top of her class at Cornell, had no problem gaining different research positions at both Palo Alto Univerity and Stanford University. In addition, she won a bunch of APA grants, over hundreds of students in other PhD programs. She also acquired an externship at the VA. I would bet my money she more intelligent than most of these ridiculous people on here. I also know a bunch of students that graduated from Prestigious universities that are PhD students a Palo Alto University. So I don't know what you are even talking about. The course load is just as rigorous as any PhD program in Clinical Psychology, same stats courses, same research methods courses, same same same. Palo Alto also has really interesting courses in neuropsychology, forensic psychology, and mindfulness.

Guaranteed your advisors from this school will be extremely reputable and well known in their field. Also most of the students get their work published which is a big deal. This year they had perfect APA internship acceptance rate. So once again, you're wrong. Palo Alto University also has a PsyD program that is combined with Stanford University. Standford wouldn't want to be associated if the school was not a reputable and admired institution.

In addition, a lot of the faculty are professors at Stanford which means we also have different opportunities through Stanford University.

So, you're wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Is this university considered a professional school/diploma mill?
It seems to have great match rates but I have heard from some people that it is not a very well respected school.

Actually, I have to say I don't understand where the people above me are even coming from. I would bet that it's probably the same idiot on multiple accounts.

What I will say however, is that I know a young woman who is enrolled in Palo Alto University's PhD program. She graduated top of her class at Cornell and had no problem gaining different research positions at both Palo Alto Univerity and Stanford University. In addition, she won a bunch of APA grants, over hundreds of students in other PhD programs. She also acquired an externship at the VA. I would bet my money she has a higher IQ than the rest of you in these posts. I also know a bunch of students that graduated from Prestigious universities that are enrolled as Clinical PhD students a Palo Alto University. So I don't know where you are getting this 'information' from. The course load is just as rigorous as any other PhD program in Clinical Psychology, same stats courses, same research methods courses, same same same. Palo Alto also has really interesting courses in neuropsychology, forensic psychology, and mindfulness.

Guaranteed your advisors from this school will be extremely reputable and well known in their field. Also most of the students get their work published which is a big deal. This year they had a perfect APA internship acceptance rate. So once again, you're wrong. Palo Alto University also has a PsyD program that is combined with Stanford University. Standford wouldn't want to be associated with a school that was not admired and reputable.

In addition, a lot of the faculty are professors at Stanford which means they also have different opportunities through Stanford University. The school is listed as a University, not a professional school.

So, you're wrong on all accounts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jey Ro's exactly what I think should happen. On this board and elsewhere, it used to be that I'd encounter a lot of former Fsps people that would defend the system and paint an unrealistic picture. I've always thought that these people were in the best position to see the problem and advocate for change. I agree completely with Jey Ro's post. There are many quality clinicians that come from that environment but it has serious downsides. Palo Alto is the most expensive professional school program amongst a bunch if really expensive education options placing people into a field with an uncertain situation. Potentially disastrous situations for many involved.

Please, that's student loans in America, not every University has funding, actually on my Clinical interviews, I interviewed at very well known universities and their faculty didn't have funding. It's a gamble sometimes.
 
The PsyD has better match rates than the PhD program. In terms of reputation, all the psychologists in the area know that they accept a large cohort of students and cannot generally provide enough mentoring/dissertation/research support. I've typically heard from people in our field that the top 10% in this program are great. Students from this program do not generally end up working at Stanford or at the VA (they only do unpaid externships here). There are a few that do, but not many considering how many actually graduate from the PhD and PsyD each year. If you don't believe me, look up the psychology faculty at Stanford School of Medicine and you will see that all of them come from funded PhD programs no palo alto university. I also noticed that pretty much all their students go out of state for internship.

This program is also the most expensive professional school. It will cost you 200-250K. This is a nightmare on a psychologist income.

I've seen many graduates from this program in private practice, community mental health centers, and Kaiser.

What are you even talking about? Palo Alto's PhD Program got an 100% APA match rate this past year.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I have to say I don't understand where the people below me are even coming from. I would bet that it's probably the same idiot on multiple accounts.

What I will say however, is that I know a girl that goes to Palo Alto University that graduated top of her class at Cornell, had no problem gaining different research positions at both Palo Alto Univerity and Stanford University. In addition, she won a bunch of APA grants, over hundreds of students in other PhD programs. She also acquired an externship at the VA. I would bet my money she is smarter and has a higher IQ than the rest of you in these posts. I also know a bunch of students that graduated from Prestigious universities that are PhD students a Palo Alto University. So I don't know what you are even talking about. The course load is just as rigorous as any PhD program in Clinical Psychology, same stats courses, same research methods courses, same same same. Palo Alto also has really interesting courses in neuropsychology, forensic psychology, and mindfulness.

Guaranteed your advisors from this school will be extremely reputable and well known in their field. Also most of the students get their work published which is a big deal. This year they had perfect APA internship acceptance rate. So once again, you're wrong. Palo Alto University also has a PsyD program that is combined with Stanford University. Standford wouldn't want to be associated if the school was not a reputable and admired institution.

In addition, a lot of the faculty are professors at Stanford which means we also have different opportunities through Stanford University.

So, you're wrong.

Huh, I know a girl who knows that appeal to authority is a formal error of logic. Also know a girl who knows that unverified anecdotal is less than group stats. I also know a girl who knows that saying "you're wrong" is a formal error of logic. I even know a lot of "girls" who prefer to be called women.

But I know a lot of smart women.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
It's interesting that their Psy.D. consortium program seems to be smaller w/a better match rate than their Ph.D. program. I wouldn't call the Ph.D. accredited match rate of 40-60% "great" by any means. It's actually quite awful.

Actually the PhD program had a perfect match rate this past year for APA internship acceptances, so where are you getting this data from?
 
Huh, I know a girl who knows that appeal to authority is a formal error of logic. Also know a girl who knows that unverified anecdotal is less than group stats. I also know a girl who knows that saying "you're wrong" is a formal error of logic. I even know a lot of "girls" who prefer to be called women.

But I know a lot of smart women.
 
Last edited:
Huh, I know a girl who knows that appeal to authority is a formal error of logic. Also know a girl who knows that unverified anecdotal is less than group stats. I also know a girl who knows that saying "you're wrong" is a formal error of logic. I even know a lot of "girls" who prefer to be called women.

But I know a lot of smart women.
 
Huh, I know a girl who knows that appeal to authority is a formal error of logic. Also know a girl who knows that unverified anecdotal is less than group stats. I also know a girl who knows that saying "you're wrong" is a formal error of logic. I even know a lot of "girls" who prefer to be called women.

But I know a lot of smart women.

Unfortunately, your post had absolutely nothing to do with what I just said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Unfortunately, your post had absolutely nothing to do with what I just said.

I thought that most people would understand that I was pointing out that several arguments you were suing would be considered to be either insulting or de facto evidence that you lost a debate when I suggested that using the term "girl" when referring to adult women was derogatory , using anecdotes when confronted with group stats was not how science works, and that using an appeal to authority is a formal error of logic.

Sorry if I didn't communicate that in a manner you understood.
 
Huh, I know a girl who knows that appeal to authority is a formal error of logic. Also know a girl who knows that unverified anecdotal is less than group stats. I also know a girl who knows that saying "you're wrong" is a formal error of logic. I even know a lot of "girls" who prefer to be called women.

But I know a lot of smart women.

I understood what you had said I just think that instead of focusing on the minute details of my post, you can contribute something more substantial to the conversation- rather than going off on a tangent about something rather insignificant such as a variation of nouns, which you perceived to be politically incorrect.

A little sensitive I see.

Also, you should stop creating multiple accounts on this forum and liking your own posts, it's kind of humorous and at the same time, pathetic
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Actually, I have to say I don't understand where the people below me are even coming from. I would bet that it's probably the same idiot on multiple accounts.

What I will say however, is that I know a girl that goes to Palo Alto University that graduated top of her class at Cornell, had no problem gaining different research positions at both Palo Alto Univerity and Stanford University. In addition, she won a bunch of APA grants, over hundreds of students in other PhD programs. She also acquired an externship at the VA. I would bet my money she is smarter and has a higher IQ than the rest of you in these posts. I also know a bunch of students that graduated from Prestigious universities that are PhD students a Palo Alto University. So I don't know what you are even talking about. The course load is just as rigorous as any PhD program in Clinical Psychology, same stats courses, same research methods courses, same same same. Palo Alto also has really interesting courses in neuropsychology, forensic psychology, and mindfulness.

Guaranteed your advisors from this school will be extremely reputable and well known in their field. Also most of the students get their work published which is a big deal. This year they had perfect APA internship acceptance rate. So once again, you're wrong. Palo Alto University also has a PsyD program that is combined with Stanford University. Standford wouldn't want to be associated if the school was not a reputable and admired institution.

In addition, a lot of the faculty are professors at Stanford which means we also have different opportunities through Stanford University.

So, you're wrong.

This is all anecdotal and speculative evidence, filled with error and common biases and flaws in reasoning and logic.

And "I would bet my money she is smarter and has a higher IQ than the rest of you in these posts." What are you, 8? lol

What point are you making? That your life experience is more important and powerful than modal outcome data? That you can't put a price on "quality?" Some other naive and nonsensical notion?

Please, that's student loans in America, not every University has funding, actually on my Clinical interviews, I interviewed at very well known universities and their faculty didn't have funding. It's a gamble sometimes.

About 90% of ph.d programs in clinical psychology in non professional schools offer a remission (full or partial) and annual stipend according to latest APA survey article. Where are you getting your data from? Speculation again?

Again, beyond being just plain wrong, are you seriously suggesting people resign themselves to over priced degree programs because "that's student loans in America"?!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Whoah, did someone in the recruiting dept at Palo Alto just sign up? Are you guys having trouble finding suckers who are willing to pay 200k+ in loans to you when they could get into a fully funded program elsewhere?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
@Jamesx156 These threads are old. Of course you have a right to defend your opinion, just not sure that the specific people you initially responded to about the program are still here to read your posts.

I'm sure for some people, they sought out this program and felt like it would be the best fit. And yes, it is an expensive program, with an increasingly high match rate (97% at APA-accredited sites for the latest year) and some people would probably argue that the courses and training are great. Some (seemingly those not involved with the program) would argue that the cost is too high for the return. Obviously people feel strongly on both sides and no one is going to change his/her views.

I suggest that we stop patronizing others who hold different opinions. This goes for everyone; both sides have engaged in it. Let's move on.
 
Whoah, did someone in the recruiting dept at Palo Alto just sign up? Are you guys having trouble finding suckers who are willing to pay 200k+ in loans to you when they could get into a fully funded program elsewhere?

erg923 and PSYD are the same person on different accounts commenting on this forum.
 
Last edited:
This is all anecdotal and speculative evidence, filled with error and common biases and flaws in reasoning and logic.

And "I would bet my money she is smarter and has a higher IQ than the rest of you in these posts." What are you, 8? lol

What point are you making? That your life experience is more important and powerful than modal outcome data? That you can't put a price on "quality?" Some other naive and nonsensical notion?



About 90% of ph.d programs in clinical psychology in non professional schools offer a remission (full or partial) and annual stipend according to latest APA survey article. Where are you getting your data from? Speculation again?

Again, beyond being just plain wrong, are you seriously suggesting people resign themselves to over priced degree programs because "that's student loans in America"?!


"PSYDR" and "erg923" are the same person on multiple accounts. @erg923", show me the data you ass
 
Last edited:
@Jamesx156 These threads are old. Of course you have a right to defend your opinion, just not sure that the specific people you initially responded to about the program are still here to read your posts.

I'm sure for some people, they sought out this program and felt like it would be the best fit. And yes, it is an expensive program, with an increasingly high match rate (97% at APA-accredited sites for the latest year) and some people would probably argue that the courses and training are great. Some (seemingly those not involved with the program) would argue that the cost is too high for the return. Obviously people feel strongly on both sides and no one is going to change his/her views.

I suggest that we stop patronizing others who hold different opinions. This goes for everyone; both sides have engaged in it. Let's move on.

Thank you for taking multiple viewpoints into account, you seem to be the only person with some sense. The same person is spewing garbage on multiple accounts on this forum. Sad.
 
This is all anecdotal and speculative evidence, filled with error and common biases and flaws in reasoning and logic.

And "I would bet my money she is smarter and has a higher IQ than the rest of you in these posts." What are you, 8? lol

What point are you making? That your life experience is more important and powerful than modal outcome data? That you can't put a price on "quality?" Some other naive and nonsensical notion?



About 90% of ph.d programs in clinical psychology in non professional schools offer a remission (full or partial) and annual stipend according to latest APA survey article. Where are you getting your data from? Speculation again?

Again, beyond being just plain wrong, are you seriously suggesting people resign themselves to over priced degree programs because "that's student loans in America"?!

@erg923, what are you even talking about? Palo Alto is no longer a professional school, it's a University now. You are trying to attach this stigma onto the school that is completely unwarranted and you just sound like an idiot. Nova South Eastern also used to be a professional school back in the 80's. You're spewing garbage and lies on these sites.
 
I don't know what's funnier, the obtuse reliance upon fallacious arguments (e.g. "my uncle totally worked at Nintendo and my dad could beat up your dad" level anecdotes) or the paranoia that somehow one person has multiple sockpuppet accounts on a tiny internet forum instead of just multiple people disagreeing with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
@Jamesx156 These threads are old. Of course you have a right to defend your opinion, just not sure that the specific people you initially responded to about the program are still here to read your posts.

I'm sure for some people, they sought out this program and felt like it would be the best fit. And yes, it is an expensive program, with an increasingly high match rate (97% at APA-accredited sites for the latest year) and some people would probably argue that the courses and training are great. Some (seemingly those not involved with the program) would argue that the cost is too high for the return. Obviously people feel strongly on both sides and no one is going to change his/her views.

I suggest that we stop patronizing others who hold different opinions. This goes for everyone; both sides have engaged in it. Let's move on.

I don't know what's funnier, the obtuse reliance upon fallacious arguments (e.g. "my uncle totally worked at Nintendo and my dad could beat up your dad" level anecdotes) or the paranoia that somehow one person has multiple sockpuppet accounts on a tiny internet forum instead of just multiple people disagreeing with you.

Multiple people haha, as in you on a few other accounts this thing. These are your other accounts @erg923 and @PSYDR

Interesting... how else do you expect one to convey an argument without going off of personal experience and factual evidence. Paranoid? You are going from one account to the next, using the same words and liking your own posts, which is quite humorous.

It's you and you alone who is 'arguing with me', you have been using multiple accounts all night
 
Last edited:
@Jamesx156 These threads are old. Of course you have a right to defend your opinion, just not sure that the specific people you initially responded to about the program are still here to read your posts.

I'm sure for some people, they sought out this program and felt like it would be the best fit. And yes, it is an expensive program, with an increasingly high match rate (97% at APA-accredited sites for the latest year) and some people would probably argue that the courses and training are great. Some (seemingly those not involved with the program) would argue that the cost is too high for the return. Obviously people feel strongly on both sides and no one is going to change his/her views.

I suggest that we stop patronizing others who hold different opinions. This goes for everyone; both sides have engaged in it. Let's move on.

Not trying to insert myself into this grueling debate, however, a 97% internship acceptance rate is impressive
 
Huh, I know a girl who knows that appeal to authority is a formal error of logic. Also know a girl who knows that unverified anecdotal is less than group stats. I also know a girl who knows that saying "you're wrong" is a formal error of logic. I even know a lot of "girls" who prefer to be called women.

But I know a lot of smart women.

Your sarcasm is very unnecessary for a forum like this, this is a professional site, I would hope that we show compassion and respect for one another. After all, we are in the field of Psychology. I've worked with many of the PAU students and they were nothing but intelligent, diligent and talented clinicians
 
Last edited:
But, patronization is the lifeblood of SDN. We're addicted to it.

Eh, I think all parties involved are a tad condescending. I will say that in my years of being in the field of Clinical psychology, I personally have seen great things come from the Ph.D. students at Palo Alto University, I work in a nearby hospital
 
Multiple people haha, as in you on a few other accounts this thing. These are your other accounts @erg923 and @PSYDR

Interesting... how else do you expect one to convey an argument without going off of personal experience and factual evidence. Paranoid? You are going from one account to the next, using the same words and liking your own posts, which is quite humorous.

It's you and you alone who is 'arguing with me', you have been using multiple accounts all night

Even if this were true, does it diminish the points each poster made?

All posts seemed to pick up upon your flawed reasoning and logic, and this bizarre attempt to focus on it not being a "professional school" when the program website clearly states the opposite. And Its not like anyone actually thinks "Argosy University" isn't a professional school, so what the difference, really?

And the name calling and IQ insults? Whats that about?
 
Last edited:
Top