SCUPS news bites of interest

According to their web site, www.scups.edu SCUPS has just hired a new President with significant credentials.

They are also announcing that Alberta and Virginia have each licensed SCUPS Psy.D. graduates as clinical psychologists and that another SCUPS Ph.D. received a California psychology license.

Whether one likes this unaccredited school or not, they DO seem to offer a viable approach to clinical psychology licensure.

SCUP's law school, meanwhile, continues to produce very few lawyers indeed if one can trust recent CalBar statistics for the FYLEX and California Bar exam.

Odd, considering that it is much harder to become a clinical psychologist than it is to become a lawyer!

 

scups psy d program

Hello all.

If you recall, I have stated that I have a friend who is working on the Psy D with SCUPS. He has shown me most all of the syllabi for each course he has taken thus far (11 so far). They are pretty demanding. I wouldn't want to go that route. He says he spends about 30 hours a week on the course work to include online research in various topics. I asked Tony why he chose SCUPS over other universities online. He said that he had talked with a few of the psych grads and the professors and was very pleased with the findings. He applied to both Northcentral U and Capella and was accepted to both. The cost was a big factor in making his decision in addition to NCU only offered a nonclinical degree and Capella was pricy and required travel that is also expensive. In addition, the cost of the degree and the "nontraditional" semester cut offs fit his busy work schedule. The semesters are 16 weeks but he said they will grant extensions up to two months if you get behind. I hope SCUPS gets accredited for my dear ol' friend's best interest.

Robbie

 

Nosborne48 signs himself "LL.M. student U of London (moribund at the moment)"

Bear asks: Would that be you or the University or both?

 

Doctor Oso,

No, the school is not moribund; their newly regalvanized program addresses many of the old program's shortcomings.

The problem is exactly what they warned me might be the problem; library access.

The University gives its students access to decent legal research services on line and I hazard the opinion that this access, together with Internet UK government sites, is adequate to support the LL.B. program.

But on line resources for LL.M. study are wildly, frustratingly inadequate. Part of this has to do with the complete isolation of the U.S. legal academy from the rest of the common law world; even if I were in Albuquerque next to my law school, it wouldn't help that much. Therefore, articles and books must be purchased from England at considerable expense and causing enormous delay.

The new program apparently provides more extensive materials but it is ALSO so much more expensive that I have to think carefully whether I want to incur considerable debt to continue with my study.

So this is a time for reflection and priority setting.

 

hint

...ons vir jou Suid Afrika.

 

Uncle,

Yes, I know, but wouldn't I have the same problem with UNISA?

South Africa is a "mixed" jurisdiction but it still participates, along with a LOT of the rest of Africa, in the common law world. I can't see that my problems would be any less; indeed, academic sources on Dutch Civil Law would be even HARDER to locate, and in Dutch to boot!

Dutch is to German (which language I have at times been able to read, write and speak) as Aramaic is to Hebrew; you are reading along and everything sounds familiar and THEN you realize that you don't understand a blessed THING! Afrikaans would, I assume, be even worse.

UNISA is cheap, no doubt of that, and enjoys a worldwide reputation for excellence. But I am seriously questioning right now whether ANY American lawyer can reasonably undertake a foreign LL.M.

This probably explains, BTW, why there are so few Laws students fron North America in the London program.

Depressingly yours,

 

SCUPS may not produce many lawyers. But the statistics at the California Psychology Board indicate that SCUPS doesn't actually produce many licensed psychologists either. During the four years from 2001-2004, only 6 SCUPS graduates were licensed as psychologists in California.

For comparison, the regionally-accredited Alliant University system (including the California School of Professional Psychology) had 835 students licensed during this time period.

It's somewhat revealing that SCUPS issues a press release if an alumnus qualifies for a state license, and highlights the fact on its home page. At other schools, this would not be regarded as headline news.

I don't necessarily object to unaccredited psychology or law schools. But I do think that they should be required to disclose some basic statistics on enrollment vs. attrition vs. licensure. I suspect that the odds of eventually achieving professional licensure through unaccredited programs are generally low -- and in some cases, shockingly low.

In fact, accredited schools should be required to disclose such statistics as well. But for accredited schools, the odds of eventual licensure will generally be much better.

 

CalDog,

DEFINITELY good points!

But we shouldn't compare apples and oranges; does Alliant offer its Psy.D. via D/L or is it a B&M operation?

I have no great affection for SCUPS. I have always said that a would be lawyer is MUCH better off studying in a resident school and I assume that the same probably applies to psychology.

But if resident study is just not possible, a D/L program might be viable alternative.

 

DL pathway: the downside

Alliant is a large B&M operation, with several campuses statewide, not a DL operation like SCUPS. My point in bringing it up was simply to show that SCUPS is a very small player in the California licensed pyschologist game.

There is a natural tendency for DI members to highlight the advantages and successes of DL. And there is no doubt that DL programs can be viable pathways to state licensure in California. But there is a catch, which is not always stressed here: the odds of eventually earning a license by the DL route are typically much lower than by the traditional B&M route. In practice, it's true that DL programs can be viable pathways to licensure...but only for a few people.

For example, the numbers for the 02/05 and 07/04 California Bar exams show that 83 DL law graduates passed and became California-licensed attorneys. That's well and good, and those people should be congratulated. But let's also recognize that the DL grads are just a drop in the bucket relative to the 5,697 total who passed the Bar during those two sessions. And let's also keep in mind that those 83 DL grads are only a small percentage of the people who began DL law programs a few years ago. The vast majority dropped out, lost interest, failed the FYLSX, or will never pass the General Bar.

DL programs may be giants when you look at the number of enrolled students (the DL Concord Law School, for example, now has ~50% more students than any B&M law school in California). Yet they are pygmies when you look at the number of licensed graduates. There is an important lesson here about DL program attrition rates.

 

Quite so. Most D/L law students (possibly to include ME; I haven't decided yet) do not complete their degrees.

Most law students at ABA schools certainly DO.

I'd guess that completion rates at CalBar accredited schools are pretty high as well but are much lower at unaccredited California schools.

Now, David Boyd says that Taft does all it can to accept all qualified students. Whether the student is likely to complete the program isn't perhaps quite as significant a factor in admissions as it could be?

At least two California unaccredited B&M law schools eschew CalBar accreditation for the same reason. CalBar strongly encourages its accredited schools to use the LSAT in making admissions decisions and equally strongly condemns schools that accept too many students who then don't finish. Since the LSAT is a VERY accurate predictor of law school success AND first time Bar pass rates, it's pretty hard to argue that a school's admissions decisions are made COMPLETELY in the dark; which policy to adopt is a clear decision.

Which is better? Is admitting unlikely candidates a form of exploitation as CalBar and the ABA maintain? Or do schools with more "open" admissions policies better serve the community by giving virtually everyone the chance to "try his luck"?

Some unaccredited schools, i.e. the Peoples' College of Law in Los Angeles SPECIFICALLY reject the LSAT because, so they say, it is culturally biased against racial minority applicants. (I've never seen any real study showing this to be true, BTW. It sure doesn't seem like it here in New Mexico!)

But how many 1Ls at Peoples' College complete the program? And of them, how many pass the Bar?

I'm off track here. The bottom line is, I think, that the quality of the STUDENT is a factor that should be addressed in any comparison of success rates of schools.

 

Re: Re: SCUPS news bites of interest

After seeing SCUPS ads in the NASW News for years (that's the National Assoc. for Social Workers national newsletter) I've come to realize that many of their graduates do not require licensure as a Psychologist because they are already licensed Social Workers. They don't need a license to practice or receive reimbursements from insurance companies, they already have all that. They are primarily interested in obtaining a new set of letters after their names, some increase in prestige that comes with those letters and maybe they even learn some good stuff in the process.
Jack

 

JAck,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think an LISW can do psychometric testing?

 

You are correct. Standard psych testing batteries are off limits to Social Workers. However, there are fewer and fewer Psychologists who actually do psych testing as a regular part of their practice and many Psychologists that I know have little interest in this aspect of their profession. If a Social Worker went to SCUPS to earn a PsyD I'd bet that they'd have little or no interest in doing psych testing anyway.
Jack

 

Ah yes but, that sword cuts both ways. Is the unaccredited school just taking advantage of this type of marginal student? Giving them false hope, taking their money, and wasting their time?

 

Bill,

Well, that's what CalBar and the ABA refer to as "exploiting students". That, I suspect, is the rationale underlying the recent failed attempt to strip Western State of its provisional ABA accreditation and the current placement of Whittier on ABA probation; too many of their graduates weren't passing the Bar.

On the OTHER hand, it does seem a little paternalistic; "You aren't intellectually equipped to be a lawyer according to our tests. Run along and play."

 

FYLSX

In California, students at unaccredited law schools are required to pass the "First Year Law Student Examination" (FYLSX, or "baby bar") before continuing with their studies. Presumably this is supposed to serve as a "reality check" for those students who don't belong in law school; it is supposed to prevent them from wasting more than a year's worth of time and tuition.

In practice, FYLSX pass rates for unaccredited DL programs seem to be in the 30-40% range, so it apparently does eliminate most DL students. FYLSX pass rates are even lower for unaccredited B&M schools, around 10-20%.

Students at accredited schools are normally exempt from the FYLSX, although sometimes it is required for students with unusually weak academic records.

 

True. But that attitude is hardly unique to law programs. Engineering and pre-medical programs, for example, are notorious for "weed-out" courses.

 

FYLEX

Not QUITE;

You have to pass the FYLEX to get credit for the first year of law study BUT if you pass it during the first three times it's offered after you first become eligible, you receive credit for all law study to that point.

Soooo...you COULD rack up not ONE year but TWO years, HALF the program in other words, of law study before being compelled to abandon the project...

But that first unsuccessful attempt would be a very cold shower, I agree.

There are some who say that the FYLEX is culturally biased; I really can't see how that could be but I found an article from Southern University School of Law that made some very interesting points. I'll see if I can find it.

 

psych licensure stats

I read the postings here. I called Tony to ask about the stats. He said that SCUPS provided all of that information up front as required by California laws in reference to the number of psych graduates sitting for the licensure exam and the number passing the exam. (?) From his information, there are not that many psy doctorate students compared to other schools.

 

I have no issue with distance learning although I’m glad I was able to receive my professional training B&M. It seemed to me that comparing the pass rate of psychologists who receive their training by way of DL but who graduate from accredited v. non-accredited programs might be interesting. The California Psychology Board provides this information so I compared the results for the EPPP, the national exam, and the California Jurisprudence exam for SCUPS and Fielding Institute, the only APA-approved DL program, and just for grins I threw in my school, Indiana State. I included data for the years 2002, 2003 and 2004. I quit there because my eyes were starting to cross not for any scientific reason. I don’t have the energy to create a spreadsheet this evening and I just made hash marks on a tablet so there may be errors. There were 52 total examinees for the EPPP and 20 for Jurisprudence. For the EPPP, 19 (36%) passed. Everybody passed Jurisprudence. For the EPPP, Fielding had 26 examinees of which 10 (38%) passed. SCUPS had 24 examinees of which 7 (29%) passed and both ISU examinees passed.