Cummings Graduate Institute

newly accredited by DEAC and interestingly offering only one degree, the Doctor of Behavioral Health (DBH).

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cummings-graduate-institute-for-behavioral-health-studies-granted-accreditation-300888164.html

https://cummingsinstitute.com/

 

The question is whether a DEAC doctorate in Behavioral Health from the Cummings Institute will have a similar level of credibility, recognition and acceptance as one from a regionally accredited doctorate in the same field from such schools as Arizona State University, Freed-Hardeman University as well as other RA universities?

 

Outside of being accredited, the DBH--no matter where one studies for it--has no strong standing right now as it's a degree program trying to find a place. At the moment, this is more like a resume topper Doctorate.

 

Considering the fact that prior to starting this thread I had never even heard of Cummings, I don't think it's going to be seen as prestigious at all. I also think that no one who enters the program will care about that. They will probably learn some decent stuff and once they graduate they will be a "Dr." from an accredited university. MS' comment about it being a resume topper seems correct and to the point.

 

Comparing itself with RA institutions is misleading.

 

As long as there are some RA schools that won't accept credits from DEAC schools it will be possible to maintain that DEAC degrees/credits are "less useful" than RA degrees/credits. However, we have to admit that the gap has narrowed because now there are quite a few RA schools now accepting DEAC credits, something that was once untrue. Perhaps the proliferation of online degrees throughout the higher education system has contributed to this changing attitude. In any case, if MS is correct in that people earning a Cummings DBH are primarily looking for a resume topper then I think it could be argued that a Cummings DBH is equally useful as an RA DBH. If you're interested in teaching then a Cummings degree might not be very useful although it might be enough to get you an interview at your local CC. Especially if you've got a nice RA Masters.

 

I would hold off and watch what this degree does in the market before jumping in. As Max pointed out, this doesn't look like a degree with much if any footing yet. I saw some in the know on another forum saying it's a degree that has no use and isn't needed because other degrees already do the job, and they have a point. This won't qualify you for any kind of licensure. There are already behavioral health degrees that qualify a person for licensure. You can't counsel anyone. There are no boards, associations or societies to join.

I like to check Indeed because they bring in jobs from so many place across the country and even internationally. A search there turns up nothing besides degrees that pre-date the DBH. Yeah, I'd definitely wait.

 

I think that the idea is the most people earning this degree will already have a license based on their Masters degree.

 

The website even says that:

”The Doctor of Behavioral Health (DBH) Program delivers doctoral training in integrated behavioral healthcare to master’s degree-level clinicians."

 

Kizmet: "now there are quite a few RA schools now accepting DEAC credits, something that was once untrue."

John: May I ask what you base this on? When Rich Douglas and I did our extensive survey on this matter in 2000, about 40% of RA schools accepted DEAC degrees "usually" or "always." I strongly suspect that number has increased since then, but do we have any evidence of that?

 

All big three accepted DETC/DEAC credit for transfer for General Studies or similar bachelor degree.
But they rejected credit for transfer of the same classes into Specialty or Professionally accredited degree program.
While this is anecdotal, coworkers with DEAC accredited degrees transferred their credits to RA schools with roughly 70% success.
For-profits RAs are less restrictive followed by some private, not for profits than state schools and private universities with competitive entry are most restrictive they clearly state they accept only RA or international equivalent.
But slowly the number is growing of NA schools that are gaining programmatic accreditation.

 

While this is wholly anecdotal, there has been a proliferation of (typically for-profit) NA schools having articulation agreements with (typically for-profit) RA schools.

Where once there was a time when Penn Foster's predecessor, Thompson Education Direct, offered the most utility by having ACE recommendation that enabled one to parlay those credits to the big three, now it isn't terribly uncommon to find that these NA schools allow full transfer or grad admission at the RA school owned by the same parent company.

 

To my knowledge no one has repeated that research and so I have no hard data on which to rely. I based my statement on anecdotal evidence gathered on this very site. If 40% was once the baseline then I'd guess it's up over 50% now. I'm not sure that anything has changed except basic attitudes toward distance learning. It's become so common now that I think the default position is to accept the credits rather than reject them.

 

I believe that Dr. Cummings developed the content of the initial doctoral program in Behavioral Health at Arizona State University but it was subsequently replaced by a revised curriculum, resulting in Dr. Cumming's creating his own institute.

 

Which would make me avoid it even more. Why do this when there are other more well-known degrees in this field one could get at the Doctoral level, and from schools with better recognition? Also, even though one can counsel at the Masters level in many states, there are still some things you can't do at the Masters level and many job ads are very clear about wanting a person licensed at the Doctoral level. But you can't get licensed with this, so yet another roadblock.

 

A lot of these people are not looking for jobs. They have a private practice or they're looking to make the jump from Clinical to Admin within an organization where they're already employed. Most client's don't know if their therapist went to a well-known school. Many wouldn't know if a school is well-known or not. They certainly don't understand the nuances of university accreditation. As for licensing, I've been told that a license is a license. It's for insurance reimbursement, that's all. I don't think there are lots of ads requiring licensing at the doctoral level.

 

A license is a license if your state allows you to practice freely at the Masters level and not all do. Last time I looked in New Mexico, for example, you could only be a Psychologist Associate and you have to be supervised.

A quick Indeed search turned up around 7,000 jobs for terms "Doctor Psychology" and "Doctor Behavior". I then searched "Psychologist" and it turned up close to 18,000 jobs (and that's only the jobs the engine brought in so there is almost certainly many more out there), and as we know at the masters level you can only be a counselor in most states, you can't be a Psychologist unless you have an approved Doctorate and this DBH wouldn't qualify you. The Cummings info mentions "master's degree-level clinicians" and most people in that situation work for a mental health clinic rather than independently.

 

My wife is an LMHC. She works as an executive director at a non-profit. If she earned a doctorate, she's still an LMHC. And there are LMHCs with doctorates. There are also a number of people who have degrees that sort of cross into other licensed areas (i.e. an LMHC who also has an MSW in addition to their license qualifying Masters). It really isn't an issue unless you use the words you're not allowed to use.

I'm not sure why you've decided that "Masters level clinicians" refers solely to Masters level psychologists or psychology associates. There are plenty of masters level clinicians and they are pretty universally allowed to practice in every state. LMHCs, LMFTs, LCSW are all masters level clinicians. All are capable of working for a larger institution or being independent practitioners.

The board of psychology doesn't enjoy exclusive use over the term "behavioral health."

 

I haven't, it's just one example. I'd think it would be rather time consuming to look up and confirm the regulations for each state for each type.

Except when they can't like the example I posted?

 

Okay, let’s get back to basics as I list merely a few of the reasons I consider Cummings a degree mill . . .

First, of a five-member board, three of the members are Cummings – the old man (at 94, quite literally old), his daughter, and his wife. That makes this a home-grown institution from scratch. I’ve included a fourth member below simply because he claims an earned doctorate, although he appears to specialize in neuropsychology and psychopharmacology, neither of which a licensure-based fields per se.

Sometimes we need to pay attention not to what is there, but what is not there. Like, where did this joker earn his Sc.D. (presuming the Doctor of Science is an earned, not honorary, degree).

But we also have a basic style issue here: One of the prominent NIFI Criteria over the years is: Does a person list his or her name with both a preceding title and a degree title? If so, the person is not only a bullshit artist but a general asshole. Take it from me, Dr. Steve Levicoff, Ph.D. This dude should be listed as either Dr. Nicholas A. Cummings, or Nicholas A. Cummings, Ph.D. But not both.

A basic and fairly legit bio, but the same ego sin of a doctoral title and a degree title. Thus, the same bullshit.

Again, look at what’s not there. Like where Dorothy earned her M.S.W. And, for that matter, did she actually earn her undergrad degree at Berkeley? It merely says that she attended Berkeley, not that she graduated from there.

Then look at her name headline, which lists (once again) a doctoral title and a degree title – that turns out to be honorary. Sleazy. Downright sleazy.

Again, look at what’s not there – specifically, the source of his “four separate master’s degrees.”

Hmmmmmm . . . Something smells rotten here. Like not knowing the difference between Northcentral University (the for-profit online school) and North Central University (the non-profit Assemblies of God-affiliated university). Somehow I get the impression that the legit AOG-affiliated school never had a “Master of Psychology in Clinical Psychopharmacology” program. And quite frankly, I would question whether the for-profit Northcentral ever had a program by that specific name.

Yet another hmmmmmmmm . . . This is just a rhetorical question, but this dude makes such a big deal on psychopharmacology, it begs to be asked: Are psychologists in California or Arizona permitted to prescribe medications? (I don’t know the answer to that, but the need to ask it is obvious. I’ll leave the answer to people with more knowledge than me in that area, since I have no interest in spending any more time on these jokers.)

As for the notion of the Cummings Foundation PSYCHE Aware asmd its prestigious roster of 14 recipients being “the highest award in mental health,” yeah. Right. (As in, give me a break.)

The web site is also heavy on pushing Cummings’ so-called Biodyne model:

But somehow, they never provide a comprehensive explanation of what the Biodyne model is. In other words, more bullshit.

Of 14 people listed as faculty, 11 of them hold the DBH as their terminal credential. (I didn’t bother to see how many of them earned their DBH’s from Cummings.) Again, that adds up to a homegrown school,which adds up to it being a degree mill.

So what, then, is the purpose of someone earning a so-called DBH degree from this joke of a school? Simple: They want a doctoral title. They want to sit in the chief seats of the synagogue. Period. Because there is no other legitimate reason to earn this so-called degree which will guarantee that the holder will constantly be asked, “DBH? Um, what’s that?” And especially since the lsgitimacy of that degree will constantly be questioned.

As for DEAC accrediting them, there is nothing on the DEAC website yet indicating this. If they did, in fact, accredited Cummings on 7/19/19, it is obviously not reflected by the most recent DEAC report online, which is from June. But assuming that Cummings’ claim is truthful in terms of its accreditation status, the question is then why DEAC would have accredited them.

I have said in the past that, on rare occasion, DEAC gets it right – like when they busted the balls of David Lady and William Loveland College (you can search for the threads here on DI). But all too often, DEAC has blown it by trying to be all things to all people – like accrediting clinical doctoral programs that are a joke. I’ve always taken the position that DEAC should not accredit clinical doctoral programs, let alone doctoral programs at all. I’ve always considered DEAC to be essentially mickey-mouse, and that certainly hasn’t changed if they have, in fact, granted accreditation to Cummings.