Pslf proposed elimination

[PsyDr]

Trump’s first full education budget: Deep cuts to public school programs in pursuit of school choice

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Glad I wasn't trying to go that route to try and pay off my loans. I have already cashed the checks from the NHSC program and paid down the loans with it and I don't think they could get that money back from me. I did look into PSLF, but I didn't trust it. I really don't trust any promises from anyone in the government. I might be inclined to trust drug dealers on the street more than any government agency. They might actually hand over the promised drugs after I gave them the money from time to time.

 

[ForensicPsychMinded]

If this program does indeed make it, and we legit start to see people getting their stuff forgiven this year, it will be such a steal for psychologists, as well as myself. As it pertains to myself, I had a 4.0 and 1300ish GRE when I applied to grad schools, but slacked off all throughout undergrad and didn’t procure the requisite research to get into a phd. Still wanted to be a psychologist (I know here come the “well you know what just because you wanted to be one doesn’t mean that you should; not everyone can be one if they don’t put in the work; you are an example of whats wrong with this generation; blah blah blah blah blah”) anyway, I got into a solid uni-based psyd in spite of no research, but still racked up a bunch of debt. Ended up getting great training, apa internship (which was lucky cause I still slacked off all through grad school), and a solid fellowship, which led to both my current private practice and government employment. I make solid money now as a result, but let’s say this thing does come to fruition, it will legit be like winning the lottery for psychologists like myself, in that the “public service” sector for psychologists, unlike many other professions, can be quite legit for pay (especially if you stick it out 10plus years).

 

[psych.meout]

If this program does indeed make it, and we legit start to see people getting their stuff forgiven this year, it will be such a steal for psychologists, as well as myself. As it pertains to myself, I had a 4.0 and 1300ish GRE when I applied to grad schools, but slacked off all throughout undergrad and didn’t procure the requisite research to get into a phd. Still wanted to be a psychologist (I know here come the “well you know what just because you wanted to be one doesn’t mean that you should; not everyone can be one if they don’t put in the work; you are an example of whats wrong with this generation; blah blah blah blah blah”) anyway, I got into a solid uni-based psyd in spite of no research, but still racked up a bunch of debt. Ended up getting great training, apa internship (which was lucky cause I still slacked off all through grad school), and a solid fellowship, which led to both my current private practice and government employment. I make solid money now as a result, but let’s say this thing does come to fruition, it will legit be like winning the lottery for psychologists like myself, in that the “public service” sector for psychologists, unlike many other professions, can be quite legit for pay (especially if you stick it out 10plus years).

But do you understand how you are kinda hurting the argument in favor of the program?

That you made the choices to "slack off" during both undergrad and grad school and ended up with "a bunch" of debt that will be forgiven on the public dime while now making "solid money," even without debt forgiveness, irks many people within and outside of the psychology community. It also feeds into the argument that the program shouldn't exist, because other people should not pay for these choices you made, especially when so many other psychologists didn't make your choices and deferred gratification until they gained the requisite experience to get into fully funded programs.

Do you not see how these circumstances alone can aggravate people and then you describe the program as "winning the lottery?" Not the greatest messaging.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I don't know if it'll ultimately be outright eliminated (although I wouldn't be surprised), but I could see the government attempting to significantly limit the eligibility criteria for a job to count as "public service."

 

[erg923]

If this program does indeed make it, and we legit start to see people getting their stuff forgiven this year, it will be such a steal for psychologists, as well as myself. As it pertains to myself, I had a 4.0 and 1300ish GRE when I applied to grad schools, but slacked off all throughout undergrad and didn’t procure the requisite research to get into a phd. Still wanted to be a psychologist (I know here come the “well you know what just because you wanted to be one doesn’t mean that you should; not everyone can be one if they don’t put in the work; you are an example of whats wrong with this generation; blah blah blah blah blah”) anyway, I got into a solid uni-based psyd in spite of no research, but still racked up a bunch of debt. Ended up getting great training, apa internship (which was lucky cause I still slacked off all through grad school), and a solid fellowship, which led to both my current private practice and government employment. I make solid money now as a result, but let’s say this thing does come to fruition, it will legit be like winning the lottery for psychologists like myself, in that the “public service” sector for psychologists, unlike many other professions, can be quite legit for pay (especially if you stick it out 10plus years).

Why would you brag about other people paying your slack-off bills?

 

[PsyDr]

If this program does indeed make it, and we legit start to see people getting their stuff forgiven this year, it will be such a steal for psychologists, as well as myself. As it pertains to myself, I had a 4.0 and 1300ish GRE when I applied to grad schools, but slacked off all throughout undergrad and didn’t procure the requisite research to get into a phd. Still wanted to be a psychologist (I know here come the “well you know what just because you wanted to be one doesn’t mean that you should; not everyone can be one if they don’t put in the work; you are an example of whats wrong with this generation; blah blah blah blah blah”) anyway, I got into a solid uni-based psyd in spite of no research, but still racked up a bunch of debt. Ended up getting great training, apa internship (which was lucky cause I still slacked off all through grad school), and a solid fellowship, which led to both my current private practice and government employment. I make solid money now as a result, but let’s say this thing does come to fruition, it will legit be like winning the lottery for psychologists like myself, in that the “public service” sector for psychologists, unlike many other professions, can be quite legit for pay (especially if you stick it out 10plus years).

So you "slacked off" in both undergraduate and graduate school, chose to go to an expensive school with eyes wide open because of the "slacking", have since done well for yourself where you "make solid money", and now want the consequences to be paid from someone else's pockets?

And you can't be bothered to read the article.

This is shameful.

 

[foreverbull]

Coming from a different perspective, I believe that PSLF should not be eliminated, as a student who did not "slack off" but still accrued quite a bit of debt (no I don't personally utilize the program at present, and no, I'm not from a PsyD program). I have always believed that education should be free, particularly if you work hard and do well academically. In my case, I had to take more credit hours every year than my assistantships covered. Also, on internship year, you have to take 5 credit hours of internship whilst being paid so low that you have no extra money to cover the course credits (I didn't even get paid enough to cover anything beyond rent and a few bills), hence one of many reasons for taking out loans. And then costs to fly back to the university to defend dissertation, etc. etc. etc...

I do not believe that the majority of students are fiscally irresponsible and should just suffer indefinitely for taking out loans at all; I believe that dutifully paying for several years is shows fiscal responsibility and is enough. These folks have to put off buying houses, starting families, etc. and are already at a disadvantage when they exit graduate school compared to those without loan debt. They do end up paying for it in many ways, indirectly and directly.

Also, just want to note that loan servicers are also notoriously dishonest and not acting in the best interest of borrowers, even when borrowers try to pay extra. Navient was recently hit with a lawsuit for dishonest practices, doing things like applying extra money paid in loan payments to future monthly payments only rather than to the current loan principal, so that the loan would not decrease faster as intended by the borrower. So even with regard to repayment, borrowers sometimes get tricked and lied to.

At any rate, I've heard of many people working underpaid jobs that they wouldn't necessarily have chosen to do otherwise in the hopes that the remainder will be forgiven after the 10 years, and they were guaranteed this via the PSLF program. To see it crumble and fall apart when it's time for the government to keep their word would be heartbreaking for these folks, and they don't deserve it.

 

[WisNeuro]

Good riddance. If they get rid of pslf, it'll likely be the only move of trump and deposit that I actually support.

 

[erg923]

I have always believed that education should be free,

Accept that its not, right? Someone pays for it. In this case, everyone. I don't understand all this talk about "free stuff." Just because the government gives it to you does NOT mean it's "free."

Why the hell would I want my taxes going to pay for grossly inflated Bachelor degree costs at quality places like Capella?!

 

[deleted106747]

- Why should all education be free? We have free education (pre-K, K-12) in the US. We have subsidized education for undergrad. Some fields have subsidized education for grad school. But, why should it all be "free?" By the way, it is impossible for it to truly be free. In the student doesn't pay scenario, it has to be covered by something (e.g., taxes). Some people get through internship and grad school with no loans. They work to minimize expense. By making it "free" you disincentivize people to minimize cost and this will accelerate inflation of educational costs. For example, if you finish your dissertation before internship, there's no cost to fly back to defend it.

I think the majority of PsyD students are fiscally irresponsible. I think that the majority of students who make fiscally responsible decisions likely do not have large loans. If the cost of your education = suffering then it should not be undertaken. It is, by definition, an irresponsible decision.

Yes, educational debt like incurred in a PsyD program can result in putting off buying a house, starting a family and so on. This was an individual choice. Why should they get to make this choice for the taxpayer? My tax bill is the size of a new, nice car every year. Why should I have to subsidize someone's choice to go to California School of Professional Psychology and their living expenses while they have fun in Los Angeles or San Francisco? Is it worth it to the taxpayer to pay for these people to live well past their means, while getting a doctorate they otherwise wouldn't be qualified to get weren't it for the government subsidizing/providing easy access to money? I.e., Our current loan system allows schools like Alliant to exist in places like San Francisco. Rather than have the tax payer pay for this, if we just denied access to loans for these schools, we'd be in a better place, financially.

"Navient was recently hit with a lawsuit for dishonest practices, doing things like applying extra money paid in loan payments to future monthly payments only rather than to the current loan principal, so that the loan would not decrease faster as intended by the borrower. So even with regard to repayment, borrowers sometimes get tricked and lied to."

Are they lied to? Is it in the loan contract?

I don't know about completely free. But without some forms of assistance, or less expense, those from lower SES backgrounds will have an extremely difficult time getting ahead.

I find your definition of "irresponsible" to be simplistic. It's easy to call it irresponsible, but I think there are complexities that have to do with race, gender, and SES. For some, the cost of not educating is equal to suffering.

I don't think we should necessarily be subsidizing someone's education to go to CSPP and party on the beach, but that's also a simplistic argument. I'm not in favor of degree mill schools that admit everyone to get these kinds of monies.

As for Navient, I do not know if they expressly lied in their loan contracts. But before I was fortunate enough to find a position with EDRP, I tried to pay $4000 on my loan. I clearly told them that I wanted it applied to my principal. They instead applied it to future monthly payments, and I was never able to undo this. Not after 10+ separate phone calls. That may not have been a lie in the loan contract, but they certainly told me they would apply it to the principal, did the opposite, and refused to undo it.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Good riddance. If they get rid of pslf, it'll likely be the only move of trump and deposit that I actually support.

trump and deposit?
Is your smartphone auto-correcting or am I missing something?

 

[WisNeuro]

trump and deposit?
Is your smartphone auto-correcting or am I missing something?

Whoops, meant DeVos, and yeah, autocorrect error.

 

[deleted480308]

PSLF should be cancelled

 

[Mad Jack]

A big problem with the program right now is that they can retroactively decide certain nonprofits don't count toward your ten years. Was reading a story about a lawyer that got screwed because his nonprofit was declared to no longer be valid retroactively, which cost him the majority of what he needed for eligibility.

 

[smalltownpsych]

trump and deposit?
Is your smartphone auto-correcting or am I missing something?

Ahh...Devos. I'm usually pretty good at deciphering those because my wife is the world's worst mistexter , but I was drawing a blank on that one.

 

[G Costanza]

Deleted.

The Russians hacked my account.

 

[foreverbull]

- Why should all education be free? We have free education (pre-K, K-12) in the US. We have subsidized education for undergrad. Some fields have subsidized education for grad school. But, why should it all be "free?" By the way, it is impossible for it to truly be free. In the student doesn't pay scenario, it has to be covered by something (e.g., taxes). Some people get through internship and grad school with no loans. They work to minimize expense. By making it "free" you disincentivize people to minimize cost and this will accelerate inflation of educational costs. For example, if you finish your dissertation before internship, there's no cost to fly back to defend it.

I think the majority of PsyD students are fiscally irresponsible. I think that the majority of students who make fiscally responsible decisions likely do not have large loans. If the cost of your education = suffering then it should not be undertaken. It is, by definition, an irresponsible decision.

Yes, educational debt like incurred in a PsyD program can result in putting off buying a house, starting a family and so on. This was an individual choice. Why should they get to make this choice for the taxpayer? My tax bill is the size of a new, nice car every year. Why should I have to subsidize someone's choice to go to California School of Professional Psychology and their living expenses while they have fun in Los Angeles or San Francisco? Is it worth it to the taxpayer to pay for these people to live well past their means, while getting a doctorate they otherwise wouldn't be qualified to get weren't it for the government subsidizing/providing easy access to money? I.e., Our current loan system allows schools like Alliant to exist in places like San Francisco. Rather than have the tax payer pay for this, if we just denied access to loans for these schools, we'd be in a better place, financially.

I think this is getting at political/economic philosophy, which some of us fundamentally disagree on. I'd be happy to pay extra taxes to support others' education and healthcare, particularly if my own loan debt was nonexistent. If private schools didn't have tons of students pouring in because graduate school at public schools was free for all who qualified and were accepted, they might not be such attractive options. I also wonder if more close oversight and regulation by either APA or some other body would be helpful...not necessarily just denying loans to students at the schools, but shutting them down if they're not affordable or if they're at a student-advisor ratio that is unethical. I'd be a fan of more oversight and aggressive regulations and policies to reduce the damage they can cause and weed out the decent schools from the diploma mills, for sure.

Even if graduate school were free; I don't think tuition being fully covered would encourage laziness at that point. Students would clearly still have to work to survive even with free tuition. I worked assistantships throughout graduate school and still needed loans to cover partial tuition and living expenses. My classes were not "free" by any means in my Ph.D. program, although it was a reputable, publicly-funded state school. Living in metropolitan areas is not cheap; you can be very prudent with what you're earning but still come up short when all your stipend covers is bills alone. Frugality is only one factor in the mix.

 

[ForensicPsychMinded]

From this point, it is what it is. I make enough to pay them off, and will (due to having multiple income streams from my clinical practice), but I know plenty that are doing income based repayment that work at UCC's or prisons, with the hope that all is forgiven. If I have a little left over at the end of 10 years, and this thing is still kicking, I'm not going to lose sleep over it potentially getting wiped clean. Call that whatever you will (i.e., shameless, short-sided, egocentric, longitudinally problematic to the field, etc.). I've been lucky enough to have had great training, just got boarded, and am happy. Cue the comments regarding anecdotes/n of one. And another thing, somewhat of a side comment: Even with all my debt, I didnt seem to have a problem securing a home loan. All the bank seemed to care about was how much i was bringing in, and that 20%.

 

[psych.meout]

A big problem with the program right now is that they can retroactively decide certain nonprofits don't count toward your ten years. Was reading a story about a lawyer that got screwed because his nonprofit was declared to no longer be valid retroactively, which cost him the majority of what he needed for eligibility.

That's not what happened. The loan servicer sent out letters telling applicants that their non-governmental nonprofit employers were acceptable for the program without actually getting final approval from the Department of Education. Everyone whose employer was actually approved by the DoE (e.g. actual government agencies) is fine. It's the loan servicer's error, but everyone is blaming the DoE, because they are refusing to pay for things that they never agreed to in the first place.

 

[erg923]

From this point, it is what it is. I make enough to pay them off, and will (due to having multiple income streams from my clinical practice), but I know plenty that are doing income based repayment that work at UCC's or prisons, with the hope that all is forgiven. If I have a little left over at the end of 10 years, and this thing is still kicking, I'm not going to lose sleep over it potentially getting wiped clean. Call that whatever you will (i.e., shameless, short-sided, egocentric, longitudinally problematic to the field, etc.). I've been lucky enough to have had great training, just got boarded, and am happy. Cue the comments regarding anecdotes/n of one. And another thing, somewhat of a side comment: Even with all my debt, I didnt seem to have a problem securing a home loan. All the bank seemed to care about was how much i was bringing in, and that 20%.

I do appreciate the honesty. I am bit baffled by the attitude though. Not sure if that's generational thing or just how you were raised?

 

[deleted106747]

Why would people from lower SES backgrounds have a harder time getting ahead without PLSF or making school completely free for all?

At private schools like Harvard, people from lower SES don't pay tuition.

Public universities tend to be relatively cheap for in state students, but, even so, there are things like Pell Grants, work study programs, and so on that make college more affordable. The issue is that an industry of exploitation has sprung up centered around scams like PsyD programs and the University of Phoenix in which people, often from lower SES backgrounds, are given voluminous amounts of loan money to get either a worthless degree or a degree they otherwise wouldn't qualify for at a huge premium.

In my experience working with people from lower SES, many sign up for "college" (little private schools, or community colleges) and max out loans for another source of income while they are a "student." There's no intention to graduate, not really. It's just a source of "free money" they have no intention of paying back. The problem here also is financial illiteracy. This is partially why you see higher borrowing rates in lower SES populations, a misunderstanding of how much is necessary to borrow and that borrowing has consequences, and poor choices on school.

In this thread, we have someone who stated they were lazy in undergrad and grad school and amassed a lot of loans. We see people post on here all the time that they don't want to move from [insert big city here] or that haven't done their due diligence on the field and parrot arguments that PsyD = clinical, and PhD = research, or that don't have good GRE scores, or don't have research experience, etc . . . that take out huge loans to go to psyD programs. Search for PGSP on this site (the Stanford psychiatry department affiliated private psyd program with the ridiculous tuition in palo alto) and how people rationalize cost and going 6 figures in debt for that education. What's simplistic about that? What is a degree mill in the context of this?

We're agreed on the FSPF or PGSP or UP issue. If it were up to me, they'd all be barred by APA. I do not have a large amount of debt, comparatively, but without EDRP I would see a significant impact on my quality of life. I can't imagine the impact of the kind of debt a FSPS graduate is saddled with.

I haven't met as many people from lower SES trying to scam the college system. I've more met people whose lower SES caused them myriad problems from the start, from lower quality or poor preschool, to lower functioning public schools, and so on. I did see the person on this thread, but I think that's the exception to the rule. Or if it's not, that's not the person I'm concerned with here.

My concern is that without some way for people from lower SES to get to college, financially speaking, you will end up with a lot of white, upper class psychologists, physicians, and so on who simply can't understand the experience of poverty enough to treat someone holistically who struggles with poverty - unless they are helped to understand it by peers who can help them because of their own experience.

My vote would be for taxpayer subsidized college for high quality undergrad and grad schools/medical schools. I also think this would help eliminate some of the mind boggling entitlement that I've seen among undergraduates. I taught kids who saw themselves as my customers. They actually planned to sue if they didn't pass a class.

 

[psych.meout]

We're agreed on the FSPF or PGSP or UP issue. If it were up to me, they'd all be barred by APA. I do not have a large amount of debt, comparatively, but without EDRP I would see a significant impact on my quality of life. I can't imagine the impact of the kind of debt a FSPS graduate is saddled with.

I haven't met as many people from lower SES trying to scam the college system. I've more met people whose lower SES caused them myriad problems from the start, from lower quality or poor preschool, to lower functioning public schools, and so on. I did see the person on this thread, but I think that's the exception to the rule. Or if it's not, that's not the person I'm concerned with here.

My concern is that without some way for people from lower SES to get to college, financially speaking, you will end up with a lot of white, upper class psychologists, physicians, and so on who simply can't understand the experience of poverty enough to treat someone holistically who struggles with poverty - unless they are helped to understand it by peers who can help them because of their own experience.

My vote would be for taxpayer subsidized college for high quality undergrad and grad schools/medical schools. I also think this would help eliminate some of the mind boggling entitlement that I've seen among undergraduates. I taught kids who saw themselves as my customers. They actually planned to sue if they didn't pass a class.

I don't think this is a valid argument. Can we treat someone with schizophrenia "holistically" (however you operationalize that) if we don't have schizophrenia or have peers who do? Can male practitioners "holistically" treat female patients?

Isn't empathizing, assessing, and treating our patients under a biopsychosocial framework, regardless of our differences, while maintaining proper boundaries and professionalism already a core part of the skills taught to psychologists?

 

[deleted106747]

I don't think this is a valid argument. Can we treat someone with schizophrenia "holistically" (however you operationalize that) if we don't have schizophrenia or have peers who do? Can male practitioners "holistically" treat female patients?

Isn't empathizing, assessing, and treating our patients under a biopsychosocial framework, regardless of our differences, while maintaining proper boundaries and professionalism already a core part of the skills taught to psychologists?

Perhaps I should have used the word "biopsychosocial" to better operationalize the concept than "holistic" which I realize activates the flakiness radar of the medical community. Do I think someone without schizophrenia can treat someone with it, within a biopsychosocial model? Yes, from the bio- and psycho- standpoint. But the social standpoint, in my opinion and in terms of research, is harder for people without those experiences to work within. So, therefore, we need people with those experiences to help those without to understand them - through research, shared experiences, and so on. I believe the history of our profession illustrates this well, unfortunately.

 

[mlwg1]

I don't think this is a valid argument. Can we treat someone with schizophrenia "holistically" (however you operationalize that) if we don't have schizophrenia or have peers who do? Can male practitioners "holistically" treat female patients?

Isn't empathizing, assessing, and treating our patients under a biopsychosocial framework, regardless of our differences, while maintaining proper boundaries and professionalism already a core part of the skills taught to psychologists?

I think that most professional schools have had a negative impact on the field.

I agree that as psychologists our job involves providing effective therapy to people who are different from
us. The research shows that cultural sensitivity and basic rapport are much more important than being of the same background as your patients.

That being said, I find cultural diversity inherently valuable. The apa ethics code implores us to be aware of the role cultural issues when working with patients from diverse backgrounds -"Psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual and role differences, including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language and socioeconomic status" - and I think this perspective can be applied when considering the training and education of future psychologists.

Somewhat of a tangential point imo as having schizophrenia is a different story from being low SES, but I believe that representation from persons with mental illness can positively impact the development of interventions that psychologists from all backgrounds can utilize (Marsha Linehan and Elyn Saks come to mind).

In my ideal world, minority/low SES aspiring psychologists would be reached before they're at the point they get to college/grad school applications. Much of the information mentioned in this thread may seem obvious, but i know from personal experience so many people aren't even aware that funded programs are an option for getting a doctorate degree. Not everyone has access to the resources needed to make decisions that we consider obvious (e.g., knowledgeable & supportive mentors, access to books, financially literate parents/family members, computer/internet/library access, access to people who have been to college before).

Back to the topic of pslf, I hope that ultimately we develop solutions that allows us to address this gap in knowledge through outreach to underrepresented groups prior to grad school applications, rather than throwing money at loan programs after the fact.

 

[deleted106747]

I think that most professional schools have had a negative impact on the field.

I agree that as psychologists our job involves providing effective therapy to people who are different from
us. The research shows that cultural sensitivity and basic rapport are much more important than being of the same background as your patients.

That being said, I find cultural diversity inherently valuable. The apa ethics code implores us to be aware of the role cultural issues when working with patients from diverse backgrounds -"Psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual and role differences, including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language and socioeconomic status" - and I think this perspective can be applied when considering the training and education of future psychologists.

Somewhat of a tangential point imo as having schizophrenia is a different story from being low SES, but I believe that representation from persons with mental illness can positively impact the development of interventions that psychologists from all backgrounds can utilize (Marsha Linehan and Elyn Saks come to mind).

In my ideal world, minority/low SES aspiring psychologists would be reached before they're at the point they get to college/grad school applications. Much of the information mentioned in this thread may seem obvious, but i know from personal experience so many people aren't even aware that funded programs are an option for getting a doctorate degree. Not everyone has access to the resources needed to make decisions that we consider obvious (e.g., knowledgeable & supportive mentors, access to books, financially literate parents/family members, computer/internet/library access, access to people who have been to college before).

Back to the topic of pslf, I hope that ultimately we develop solutions that allows us to address this gap in knowledge through outreach to underrepresented groups prior to grad school applications, rather than throwing money at loan programs after the fact.

I am completely agreed with this. I'll add that I think cultural sensitivity is impossible without cultural diversity.

 

[psych.meout]

Perhaps I should have used the word "biopsychosocial" to better operationalize the concept than "holistic" which I realize activates the flakiness radar of the medical community. Do I think someone without schizophrenia can treat someone with it, within a biopsychosocial model? Yes, from the bio- and psycho- standpoint. But the social standpoint, in my opinion and in terms of research, is harder for people without those experiences to work within. So, therefore, we need people with those experiences to help those without to understand them - through research, shared experiences, and so on. I believe the history of our profession illustrates this well, unfortunately.

I am completely agreed with this. I'll add that I think cultural sensitivity is impossible without cultural diversity.

So, you're just doubling down on this invalid and borderline offensive argument?

Care to cite any sources that it's "harder" (again, however you operationalize that) for people to work within social contexts outside of their own or that they "need" (again, please operationalize that) others from that context to understand them?

And are you insinuating that someone can't do or understand research into the sociocultural variables affecting mental health issues without having someone from a particular sociocultural context understand them? E.g. white psychologists researching disparities in care for non-white patients?
Do we need patients with schizophrenia to do schizophrenia research or to help us understand it?

 

[erg923]

So, you're just doubling down on this invalid and borderline offensive argument?

Care to cite any sources that it's "harder" (again, however you operationalize that) for people to work within social contexts outside of their own or that they "need" (again, please operationalize that) others from that context to understand them?

And are you insinuating that someone can't do or understand research into the sociocultural variables affecting mental health issues without having someone from a particular sociocultural context understand them? E.g. white psychologists researching disparities in care for non-white patients?
Do we need patients with schizophrenia to do schizophrenia research or to help us understand it?

It's a classic liberal way of thinking. "They" can't possibly be capable of working hard and persevering. Insulting. And Ridiculous.

 

[foreverbull]

Just observing this and many other threads I've participated in over the past few years in this forum of highly trained psychologists who should be sensitive to issues of SES, elitism, diversity, etc., I've noticed that for some topics, the loudest voices can sometimes be the most extreme, as well as elitist, judgmental, and narrow in perspective.

Simply say the word "PsyD" and you'll get someone saying "diploma mill," which is offensive to the PsyDs in here who actually came from good programs (and elitist). Simply say the words "student loans" and you'll get several people saying "irresponsible," without any regard for factors like SES, etc. Simply say "sometimes it's better to have people who have experienced X,Y,Z in the field," and you'll get people who immediately say "you don't need to experience X,Y, or Z to treat this or that" and start nitpicking semantics, etc. I sometimes find myself in awe of how quickly the judgments come out and how something I think is benign gets picked apart
semantically.

We have several people who don't speak who have less extreme opinions and could offer their insights to challenge the loudest voices, but they don't, and usually it's just one or two people with the opposite opinion trying to challenge a group of loud voices. I think this is an interesting microcosm, and is certainly not lost on me. Reality can be objective or subjective, but we have a lot of people who simply think that their own experience is the best way to be, do things, etc. rather than taking broader perspective.

I'd be interested in some unofficial research to see people's motivations for actively participating in this forum (i.e. mentorship and helping, seeking advice, debating/"proving" people wrong, expanding awareness of the field, etc.), as well as their backgrounds of childhood SES, income level, ethnicity, sex, political views, etc. Who are the people who have the most extreme opinions and what attracts them to this forum?

 

[MAClinician]

So, you're just doubling down on this invalid and borderline offensive argument?

Care to cite any sources that it's "harder" (again, however you operationalize that) for people to work within social contexts outside of their own or that they "need" (again, please operationalize that) others from that context to understand them?

And are you insinuating that someone can't do or understand research into the sociocultural variables affecting mental health issues without having someone from a particular sociocultural context understand them? E.g. white psychologists researching disparities in care for non-white patients?
Do we need patients with schizophrenia to do schizophrenia research or to help us understand it?

There are many communities (such as the VA Peer Support - VA Careers) and even states (such as MA) that are incorporating peer support as part of treatment options to increase compliance and effectiveness of treatment. NAMI advocates for the use of "lived experience" peer support to help those who struggle the most with engaging in treatment and to help providers understand where clients are coming from. The use of "shared experience " has been increasing over the years and doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon, as indicated by SAMHSA resources.

 

[MCParent]

We have several people who don't speak who have less extreme opinions and could offer their insights to challenge the loudest voices, but they don't, and usually it's just one or two people with the opposite opinion trying to challenge a group of loud voices. I think this is an interesting microcosm, and is certainly not lost on me. Reality can be objective or subjective, but we have a lot of people who simply think that their own experience is the best way to be, do things, etc. rather than taking broader perspective.

Ugh, more of this tone nonsense. I'd like it to be explained to me how "voices" can be "loud" on an Internet forum. Most of the time this is said, it is because someone posted facts that are inconvenient to what someone who posted chooses to believe, and that is now perceived as offensive.

 

[foreverbull]

Ugh, more of this tone nonsense. I'd like it to be explained to me how "voices" can be "loud" on an Internet forum. Most of the time this is said, it is because someone posted facts that are inconvenient to what someone who posted chooses to believe, and that is now perceived as offensive.

You just confirmed what I was saying. You focused on semantics rather than addressing the point of my post at all.

 

[MCParent]

You just confirmed what I was saying. You focused on semantics rather than addressing the point of my post at all.

It wasn't possible for me to parse the parts of your voice that I was supposed to have attended to. /s

Three paragraphs of that post were about tone in the forum. I suppose I could have just said I agree with JS on the rest, but would that not make me guilty of "using my voice" along with the privileged elders to drown out others? Or whatever people who disagree are guilty of?

 

[deleted106747]

So, you're just doubling down on this invalid and borderline offensive argument?

Care to cite any sources that it's "harder" (again, however you operationalize that) for people to work within social contexts outside of their own or that they "need" (again, please operationalize that) others from that context to understand them?

And are you insinuating that someone can't do or understand research into the sociocultural variables affecting mental health issues without having someone from a particular sociocultural context understand them? E.g. white psychologists researching disparities in care for non-white patients?
Do we need patients with schizophrenia to do schizophrenia research or to help us understand it?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, if you read my post with less of a reactionary view.
I'm saying that race and gender as sociocultural constructs would not be studied as they are now without the contributions of pioneering female and racial minority researchers. I'm saying that the lived experiences, of, for example, Kenneth & Mamie Clark provided them with the context to even know what questions to ask. And I'm moving from that to say that higher level education needs to have avenues for historically oppressed populations to succeed, otherwise you can end up with Tuskegee.

 

[PsyDr]

There are many communities (such as the VA Peer Support - VA Careers) and even states (such as MA) that are incorporating peer support as part of treatment options to increase compliance and effectiveness of treatment. NAMI advocates for the use of "lived experience" peer support to help those who struggle the most with engaging in treatment and to help providers understand where clients are coming from. The use of "shared experience " has been increasing over the years and doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon, as indicated by SAMHSA resources.

This is political. Not science based.

Just observing this and many other threads I've participated in over the past few years in this forum of highly trained psychologists who should be sensitive to issues of SES, elitism, diversity, etc., I've noticed that for some topics, the loudest voices can sometimes be the most extreme, as well as elitist, judgmental, and narrow in perspective.

Simply say the word "PsyD" and you'll get someone saying "diploma mill," which is offensive to the PsyDs in here who actually came from good programs (and elitist). Simply say the words "student loans" and you'll get several people saying "irresponsible," without any regard for factors like SES, etc. Simply say "sometimes it's better to have people who have experienced X,Y,Z in the field," and you'll get people who immediately say "you don't need to experience X,Y, or Z to treat this or that" and start nitpicking semantics, etc. I sometimes find myself in awe of how quickly the judgments come out and how something I think is benign gets picked apart
semantically.

We have several people who don't speak who have less extreme opinions and could offer their insights to challenge the loudest voices, but they don't, and usually it's just one or two people with the opposite opinion trying to challenge a group of loud voices. I think this is an interesting microcosm, and is certainly not lost on me. Reality can be objective or subjective, but we have a lot of people who simply think that their own experience is the best way to be, do things, etc. rather than taking broader perspective.

I'd be interested in some unofficial research to see people's motivations for actively participating in this forum (i.e. mentorship and helping, seeking advice, debating/"proving" people wrong, expanding awareness of the field, etc.), as well as their backgrounds of childhood SES, income level, ethnicity, sex, political views, etc. Who are the people who have the most extreme opinions and what attracts them to this forum?

So other people's perspectives are bad unless they are your perspective? It's bad to be judgmental but when you cal people elitist it's okay. Other people thinking their experience is superior is bad, but saying anything bad about your experience is not okay. Picking apart arguments is bad, but you questioning the motivations of others is okay.

 

[deleted106747]

It's a classic liberal way of thinking. "They" can't possibly be capable of working hard and persevering. Insulting. And Ridiculous.

I never said anything of this sort, so please do not revert to the straw man.

 

[foreverbull]

This is political. Not science based.

So other people's perspectives are bad unless they are your perspective? It's bad to be judgmental but when you cal people elitist it's okay. Other people thinking their experience is superior is bad, but saying anything bad about your experience is not okay. Picking apart arguments is bad, but you questioning the motivations of others is okay.

Absolutely not what I've said. All perspectives are fine until they become attacking or become reductive to a fault based on judgment/assumption alone rather than consideration of contextual factors (i.e. "irresponsible" people take out loans, people who can't get into decent programs go into PsyD programs, intelligent people wouldn't choose a program that isn't fully funded, etc.). When you cast a generalizing judgment, it ignores facts altogether.
For example: "It's a classic liberal way of thinking. 'They' can't possibly be capable of working hard and persevering. Insulting. And Ridiculous."
Is an assumption and an attacking way to create an "us vs. them" mentality. Totally unnecessary.

I pointed out a clear pattern of behaviors I've observed (one perspective of which does appear to be elitist given that it puts down people who pursue a slightly different doctoral degree), so I'm not sure what validity there is in your argument that I'm being hypocritical by calling it out with facts.

 

[deleted106747]

This is political. Not science based.




So other people's perspectives are bad unless they are your perspective? It's bad to be judgmental but when you cal people elitist it's okay. Other people thinking their experience is superior is bad, but saying anything bad about your experience is not okay. Picking apart arguments is bad, but you questioning the motivations of others is okay.

Absolutely not what I've said. All perspectives are fine until they become attacking or become reductive to a fault based on judgment/assumption alone rather than consideration of contextual factors (i.e. "irresponsible" people take out loans, people who can't get into decent programs go into PsyD programs, intelligent people wouldn't choose a program that isn't fully funded, etc.). When you cast a generalizing judgment, it ignores facts altogether.
For example: "It's a classic liberal way of thinking. 'They' can't possibly be capable of working hard and persevering. Insulting. And Ridiculous."
Is an assumption and an attacking way to create an "us vs. them" mentality. Totally unnecessary.

I pointed out a clear pattern of behaviors I've observed (one perspective of which does appear to be elitist given that it puts down people who pursue a slightly different doctoral degree), so I'm not sure what validity there is in your argument that I'm being hypocritical by calling it out with facts.

This is absolutely what happens. The complexities and nuances get completely lost to political philosophy. In that case, my position that avenues need to continue to be generated/upheld to keep historically oppressed groups in the picture somehow gets flipped on its side and changed to believing that members of historically oppressed groups can't work hard and persevere.
My position is not opposed to personal responsibility. Personal responsibility does not, however, equate to NO institutional responsibility.

 

[WisNeuro]

Is there any data that shows that disadvantaged groups are using thing like pslf more than advantaged groups? Anecdotally, I really don't see it. I just see people who actively chose a very expensive program because they didn't want to put in the work to get into a fully funded program and wanted an easy way in to be a "doctor." I'mm willing to change my mind if there is compelling data, but until then, I'd rather not subsidize someone else's terrible life choices.

 

[deleted106747]

Is there any data that shows that disadvantaged groups are using thing like pslf more than advantaged groups? Anecdotally, I really don't see it. I just see people who actively chose a very expensive program because they didn't want to put in the work to get into a fully funded program and wanted an easy way in to be a "doctor." I'mm willing to change my mind if there is compelling data, but until then, I'd rather not subsidize someone else's terrible life choices.

I don't know that there are any data at all yet, since the program hasn't yet come to fruition. Anecdotally, I've seen a mix of people use it, from the situation you mentioned, to people taking public service jobs that they may not otherwise have taken. In the situation you mentioned, I've not found it to be as simple as people not wanting to put in the work, in the majority of cases. Other factors were at play like geographic limitation, poor financial acumen, family stressors, etc.

Before anyone quotes me and says they don't want to pay for someone else's geographic limitation, poor financial acumen, or family stressors - that is NOT what I'm saying. I just think we need to be careful not to attribute everyone' choices to laziness or some shallow desire to be called doctor. If it were that simple, it would be a lot easier to overcome it.

I'm not necessarily for PSLF. I do think that the bait and switch thing is pretty awful, though, and those who were led to believe they met the criteria should be allowed to partake in the program.

I'm with the poster above who said that the interventions need to come earlier. Far earlier - infancy earlier.

 

[WisNeuro]

Sure, I'm all for interventions earlier to level the playing field. But the PSLF does not appear to do that. All it appears to do is benefit diploma mills to a great extent. It's one thing to discuss institutional privileges. It's quite another to try and say that this terrible program does anything to correct them. These are two separate issues at the moment, and people seem to be trying to connect them with the most brittle of threads.

 

[deleted106747]

Sure, I'm all for interventions earlier to level the playing field. But the PSLF does not appear to do that. All it appears to do is benefit diploma mills to a great extent. It's one thing to discuss institutional privileges. It's quite another to try and say that this terrible program does anything to correct them. These are two separate issues at the moment, and people seem to be trying to connect them with the most brittle of threads.

I'm not sure that's true, in terms of benefitting diploma mills. I've seen it happen, sure, but I've also seen it not happen and people sign up for lower paying jobs in order to qualify for PSLF. I've also seen this in professions other than our own. I think a lot is unclear about it, but I also think pulling a switch is problematic.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm not sure that's true, in terms of benefitting diploma mills. I've seen it happen, sure, but I've also seen it not happen and people sign up for lower paying jobs in order to qualify for PSLF. I've also seen this in professions other than our own. I think a lot is unclear about it, but I also think pulling a switch is problematic.

If it ain't working, time to try something new. If it is working and you want to keep it, convince us why it's worth keeping. There are enough people enrolled in this that there is data available to see who is using it and why. From what I've seen, far too many people are using it to rack up >200k in debt for careers that can't reasonably pay that debt off. It makes sense for physicians, not so much for psychologists making 70k.

 

[deleted106747]

If it ain't working, time to try something new. If it is working and you want to keep it, convince us why it's worth keeping. There are enough people enrolled in this that there is data available to see who is using it and why. From what I've seen, far too many people are using it to rack up >200k in debt for careers that can't reasonably pay that debt off. It makes sense for physicians, not so much for psychologists making 70k.

It seems like the data need to be analyzed before anyone can conclude whether it's working or not. I'm not in favor of changing it and leaving people who reasonably relied on being told that they qualified holding the bag, however, even if it shows that it's not working.

 

[WisNeuro]

It seems like the data need to be analyzed before anyone can conclude whether it's working or not. I'm not in favor of changing it and leaving people who reasonably relied on being told that they qualified holding the bag, however, even if it shows that it's not working.

Grandfather the people already enrolled, and just do not allow new enrollments. I'm ok with honoring agreements, just not with continuing this flawed program using my tax dollars in a wasteful way to profit predatory "academic" institutions.

 

[deleted106747]

Grandfather the people already enrolled, and just do not allow new enrollments. I'm ok with honoring agreements, just not with continuing this flawed program using my tax dollars in a wasteful way to profit predatory "academic" institutions.

I'd rather wait for the data, but I can't really argue with this standpoint.

 

[PsyDr]

Absolutely not what I've said. All perspectives are fine until they become attacking or become reductive to a fault based on judgment/assumption alone rather than consideration of contextual factors (i.e. "irresponsible" people take out loans, people who can't get into decent programs go into PsyD programs, intelligent people wouldn't choose a program that isn't fully funded, etc.). When you cast a generalizing judgment, it ignores facts altogether.
For example: "It's a classic liberal way of thinking. 'They' can't possibly be capable of working hard and persevering. Insulting. And Ridiculous."
Is an assumption and an attacking way to create an "us vs. them" mentality. Totally unnecessary.

I pointed out a clear pattern of behaviors I've observed (one perspective of which does appear to be elitist given that it puts down people who pursue a slightly different doctoral degree), so I'm not sure what validity there is in your argument that I'm being hypocritical by calling it out with facts.

In fairness, I also pointed out a pattern of behavior. Calling people "elitist" while saying that it is not okay to attack people is not consistent. Saying my point is invalid while saying an us vs them mentality is unnecessary is not consistent.

I think you have a point in addressing false reduction, and there is a technical term for this in logic. While there is validity to this complaint, you destroy it by engaging in ad hominems and other logical fallacies. If I say you're a doodooo head and you say I'm a poop face, we both look like children who need a shower at best.

Part of professional debate is acknowledging the limits of your opinions. I don't necessarily think you are wrong. But if you create an argument wherein things are okay for you but not for them, you look intellectually dishonest. If you have facts, cite them. It creates an intellectual superiority.

 

[foreverbull]

In fairness, I also pointed out a pattern of behavior. Calling people "elitist" while saying that it is not okay to attack people is not consistent. Saying my point is invalid while saying an us vs them mentality is unnecessary is not consistent.

I think you have a point in addressing false reduction, and there is a technical term for this in logic. While there is validity to this complaint, you destroy it by engaging in ad hominems and other logical fallacies. If I say you're a doodooo head and you say I'm a poop face, we both look like children who need a shower at best.

Part of professional debate is acknowledging the limits of your opinions. I don't necessarily think you are wrong. But if you create an argument wherein things are okay for you but not for them, you look intellectually dishonest. If you have facts, cite them. It creates an intellectual superiority.

Establishing intellectual superiority is not what I'm here for, and if there are psychologists/grad students here for that purpose, it would answer my original question.

I'm simply asking for reflection on the kind of climate that can be created in this community. Whether or not you believe there is a culture of elitism in these forums, if looking for facts to your standards, I challenge you to peruse the threads carefully and look for the things I mentioned (as well as rebuttals that use the word "ridiculous," etc.). I would hope that people in here would be open-minded enough to consider how their words might sound to others from different backgrounds and with completely different views and experiences. Psychologists are trained to develop awareness of underlying themes that pervade an environment (i.e. things like microaggressions as subtle racism, group therapy dynamics, body language, etc.), and we know better than to play naive. To be fair, I can and should also look into how my words affect others as well (as you mentioned) and how I can sometimes perpetuate elitism. I would hope others who have been trained in this field would be willing to do the same.

 

[deleted106747]

Establishing intellectual superiority is not what I'm here for, and if there are psychologists/grad students here for that purpose, it would answer my original question.

I'm simply asking for reflection on the kind of climate that can be created in this community. Whether or not you believe there is a culture of elitism in these forums, if looking for facts to your standards, I challenge you to peruse the threads carefully and look for the things I mentioned (as well as rebuttals that use the word "ridiculous," etc.). I would hope that people in here would be open-minded enough to consider how their words might sound to others from different backgrounds and with completely different views and experiences. Psychologists are trained to develop awareness of underlying themes that pervade an environment (i.e. things like microaggressions as subtle racism, group therapy dynamics, body language, etc.), and we know better than to play naive. To be fair, I can and should also look into how my words affect others as well (as you mentioned) and how I can sometimes perpetuate elitism. I would hope others who have been trained in this field would be willing to do the same.

Again, I agree with this. I'm surprised that psychologists and future psychologists cannot better engage in discussion with regard to issues on which they do not fully agree, without the intensity of language that I've seen here. In my own case, I do not believe I was inflammatory. I was expressing an opinion contrary to several others in the thread, and in response posters said such things as "invalid and borderline offensive" and "ridiculous" (the latter in reference to something I did not even express). I am aware that in US culture, debate has taken a downturn toward ad hominem and insult-heavy, but I am disappointed to see it here. There are legitimate viewpoints in both cases, and the ability to express them without inflammatory language or insult should be something that we are able to do - constructive disagreement vs. desultory and argumentative.

 

[deleted106747]

1. PsyD programs did this to themselves. It's not an "elitist" comment, in my opinion.
2. Student loan debt is a huge problem and one that is largely unnecessary to the extent that it currently exists. The context in which "irresponsible" was raised was psyd programs. It's justified, in my opinion.
3. The statement regarding better to have people who have experienced x,y,z begets the latter because it is an issue in which there has been much energy and is often not backed up by data. It's actually a fairly interesting area of research and complex. There is substantial heterogeneity. But, breaking it down to minorities are better at treating minorities is kinda wrong.

What is an extreme opinion and who is the judge? Is the opinion extreme if you really, really don't agree with it? How does one have a "loud" voice on a forum? Are you saying this is an issue of majority opinion? i.e., more people express the view that PsyDs are bad on this forum than don't, therefore this is a "louder" position?

What is a broader perspective in this context? How do you know people are saying that their own experience is the best way? How are you different in that regard?

childhood SES = upper (multi-generational college grads [I cannot think of a relative within the past several generations that did not graduate from college], various professions = professors, nuclear physicists, engineers, corporate executives, writers, professional musicians, ivy league grads, etc).
income level = high
ethnicity = white, european
sex = male
politics = classical liberal

Why I post? Changed over time to some degree. Originally, I was a student. I was looking up info on jobs, EPPP, and so on. Then, I was interested in discussing philosophy of training and some of the problems I saw in the field. This was partially sparked by my experiences on internship and postdoc and then additional reading and reactions on the forum. Lots of posts early on, when I started posting, were from people looking for PsyD programs. The dominant view on the forum at the time was PsyD = research, PhD = clinical, and there wasn't a a lot of discussion or value placed on consideration of cost, or training quality. I do admit that I like to argue. Why? It's good mental exercise, I suppose. I don't care about winning or proving someone wrong. I did think it was important to change the milieu here as I perceived the information that was being presented here as often incorrect and that this was a website that a lot of people came to in considering psychology. Now, I check in here periodically when I am procrastinating because I know a few of the people that post here, and sometimes there is an interesting discussion to be had.

I freely admit that earlier in my posting history, I was purposefully and flagrantly inflammatory in my approach. Mostly, this was reactionary. I really don't like poor arguments. I think I've . . . matured in that regard.

Addressing your point 3, which is more about my posts than foreverbull - I in no way said that minorities are better at treating minorities. I said that people without those social backgrounds are made better at treating people with them when they have the benefit of the people with the backgrounds' experience in the following manner: the experience of racism, sexism, and poverty lead to both research and professional discourse that help majority providers to understand concepts like racism and locus of control. It takes the background to know what questions to research. Boiling down what I said to "minorities are better at treating minorities" misses the whole point.