CSPPROFILE
Phone: 510-352-0462
E-mail: Rayveronda@aol.com
This Spring 1999 web site is dedicated to students' rights and their struggles to attain them.
California's Schools of Psychology Profile ( CSPPROFILE) specializes in providing free candid information from students to the general public and prospective students to the California School of Professional Psychology (CSPP). Because CSPPROFILE is not affiliated with, or endorsed by CSPP, but works as an independent agent to provide information to help prospective students make informed decisions on their choice of a graduate school, we are able to provide to you candid information from present and former students of CSPP. Information made available at this site may help prospective students in the areas of Clinical and Organizational (Management) Psychology make an informed decision on their choice of a graduate school. To contact CSPPROFILE for other information or to discuss issues, please link to "Contact US" here. You may also call us today! (Links to other important pages.)
The following information was provided by present and former students of the California School of Professional Psychology (CSPP). There are two documents on this page. The first is a survey done at CSPP-Alameda in the Spring of 1996, and the second is a letter from the CSPP Asian Forum written in the Spring of 1997.
The survey was conducted by the Student Association (Student Senate) of CSPP-Alameda. Giving the survey in the Spring allowed the incoming students for that year to participate fully with the other students, having gained some experience at the school. The information was then compiled by Andrea Lockhart, a co-chair to the CSPP Student Association (Student Senate) from 1995 to 1997. This survey may help you develop questions to ask should you still be interested in applying to CSPP.
The following are some general comments by students included on the survey. Immediately following these general ,but candid comments, are the statistical results of the survey questions. Those comments that were addressed in other areas of the survey are not listed. Other comments were very specific suggestions that will be given to the appropriate CSPP administrator.
CANDID STUDENT COMMENTS FROM THE SURVEY:
"This is one angry, dissatisfied customer who will spend very little to financially support this institution in the future."
"Very few of our faculty understand what the students go through here because they attended large universities where their education and living expenses were probably paid for. It is too much to worry about grades, clients and finances."
"I feel like I am not getting my money's worth."
"CSPP is a factory."
"People of Color have a difficult time at CSPP."
"I've encountered a lot of racism at this school."
"Knowing what I know now, I would have chosen another program."
"Students need to be more supportive of each other."
"Quality of education is poor."
"Get your education and go feeling (sic) at CSPP. Seems reflective of a larger societal problem, everyone is out for #1."
"OP comps need to be revamped."
"Nothing is ever done about professor's performance."
"Nothing ever changes."
"OP department has never addressed the issue of racism."
"Curriculum should be evaluated for each class on how well it incorporated cross-cultural work and multicultural issues."
"FSRC (Faculty Standards and Review Committee) should adopt standards which review faculty on how much they are active in promoting diversity-initiating research, initiating forums, participating & hosting diverse student groups, bringing in outside speakers/workshops, grant writing for minority/multicultural students and issues, developing multicultural practicum sites, teaching multicultural classes, and personally assisting minority students."
"Breadth requirement is frustrating."
Most students were somewhat satisfied with the overall admissions process (mean = 3.056). One of the biggest complaints was that application materials weren't received in a timely manner. There was also a feeling that the admission process was too lenient resulting in admission of low quality students. Group interviews were thought by some to be structured poorly, not allowing for group process. Criteria for admission to the OP program was thought to be vague.
Although most students (mean = 3.015) were somewhat satisfied with orientation, many felt it was "overwhelming" and provided "too much information at one time." Many students also felt the written exam should be held at another time such as the first Saturday of classes. Orientation was "scary" and an "early introduction to negativity" for some students. There were many suggestions to have more boding (sic) activities to help students feel more connected. Some OP students felt they should have a separate orientation.
Most student were somewhat to very dissatisfied about the school's addressing of issues of diversity (mean = 2.157). The institution as a whole did not respond to the recent incidents; the Multicultural core faculty have been the one's responsible for any actions. There were many comments like "lots of talk and no action." School catalogs and brochures were also thought to misrepresent the reality for People of Color at CSPP. Furthermore, CSPP doesn't "follow through with meeting the needs of the disabled in a meaningful way." Some students felt that classes considered to be culturally sensitive do not allow for honest discussion. Most students thought that continued dialogue is necessary, although there were concerns that it "always turns into finger pointing" and "polarizes" students. many felt that there is poor integration of multicultural material in classes. The Racism Workshop and Intercultural Lab courses were felt to be "poorly conceived and executed" by many. Reducing class size was suggested as the first step to improving them. Several students addressed the lack of attention to other issues such as ageism, sexism, disability issues, religious affiliations, and sexual orientation. OP students commented on the lack of diversity within its faculty calling into question their qualification to deal with issues of diversity.
Students were somewhat dissatisfied to somewhat satisfied (mean = 2.683) with the curriculum. Many students felt that there is "far too much emphasis on psychodynamic." There was much agreement that there should be more integration in terms of theories, other disciplines, and multicultural issues. More mandatory multicultural classes were also suggested by some. Many also felt that classes were too general and suggested more "technique classes," less lectures," and "process classes." Some students felt there should be less requirements so we can take more electives. Others felt that more theory and technique classes be required or taken for a year instead of a semester. There was much consensus that there is "little continuity across different sections of the same course." Many felt that "availability of classes is horrible and getting worse." There were also many requests for more night classes, classes on Fridays, weekends classes, classes during summer and intercession, and a greater range of times and days for required sections. OP students in particular requested more electives, access to clinical classes, and better quality instruction. Common ideas for content areas that should be taught were: "cognitive/behavioral," health psychology, women's issues, "contemporary," "real world issues," "program development," and "career development."
Student were either satisfied or dissatisfied with the relationship with faculty (mean = 2.663). Many felt faculty are "unapproachable," "overworked," and "invisible," although "some are great and make efforts." A majority of students complained of a lack of mentoring or advising.Some students in the Multicultural emphasis area were very satisfied. Many felt that there were just too many students and too few faculty to promote positive relationships.
Student satisfaction with the computer lab was both satisfactory and unsatisfactory (mean = 2.663). Many students commented on the need for more Macintosh computers and more printers. A majority of students also requested internet access and e-mail capabilities. Some felt that there have been "great improvements" recently. More hours were also requested by many along with handouts about how to use the different software programs, classes about how to use computers and different software programs, more printer memory, more modems, and graphics programs.
Most students were satisfied with staff assistance (mean = 2.944). Many felt that the Registrar was helpful. Financial Aid was cited by some as the most helpful and by others as the least helpful as well as the Curriculum office. OPT (Office of Professional Training) was cited as unhelpful although there were comments that it is getting better. OP staff was seen as helpful. Dean Cedillo was generally seen as unhelpful. Many general comments were made that staff are "not very customer oriented" and have a "bad attitude," although many individual staff persons were cited as helpful. Michael Hall and Don Crewell, staff that are no longer with us, were quite often cited as helpful and student oriented.
Students were equally satisfied or dissatisfied with the library with a mean of 2.629. Many felt that our "library has very little to offer." More up to date journals, "individual help for literature reviews and article searches," "a clock," quieter, "more copiers," "more resources around ethnicity," longer hours, "more computers," and "more tests" were all suggested as improvements that could be made. A majority of students were very enthusiastic about having access to other libraries (mean = 3.805).
Most people were somewhat satisfied with the Financial Aid Office (mean = 3.193). Procedures and time lines were thought to be somewhat unclear by many. Staff were felt to lack necessary knowledge by some. Several comments were made regarding the lack of information about non-government funding. There were some suggestions that it needs "technological investment and reorganization." Some also commented that students should be notified regarding the completeness of our files before deadlines have passed.
Overall, people were satisfied with the school's facilities (mean - 3.029). Bathrooms were thought to be satisfactory (mean = 3.211) although some students said they were "dirty" and lacked functional toilets and toilet paper often. Decor was thought to be generally satisfactory, but some were dissatisfied (mean = 2.87) and said it was "cold," "depressing," "too sanitary," and lacked good lighting. Many people requested more comfortable, spine friendly chairs and desks in classrooms and the library and more couches in the library and hallways. Many said the walls need painting. Most people wanted more lockers and more pay phones. Many people also wanted a student lounge. Having a trophy case was not a priority for most of the students.
Students were generally satisfied with the Student Association Officers (mean = 2.974) although many knew nothing about them. Some felt that there is a lack of communication and they "have not made themselves very accessible." Others felt they "try hard to engage an apathetic student body" and felt they are doing a "good job." Several students criticized the Student Association for its absence during the recent "incidents" last semester.
Students were generally dissatisfied with preliminary exams (mean = 2.296). There was a consensus that students are not prepared equally by professors, and that they lack correspondence with actual material covered in relevant classes. Many felt that the preliminary exams should mimic the licensing exam. Some felt that there should be a final at the end of each core class instead of a separate exam although others felt we need the exams for quality control. Many complained of the "arbitrary cutoff." There were many complaints about the intervention exam. Many questioned whether the exams were a "valid representation of our skills." Several students suggested that essay exams would be a more valuable experience. There were also comments that the questions were "trivial" and "poorly written," the exams are "heavily weighted in some theoretical orientations and not in others," and "too subjective."
Most students were dissatisfied with the CPPR (mean = 2.064). Many felt the CPPR was helpful, but felt it should be more like the oral licensing exam where students are given a vignette. Students complained that it is "too subjective," "anxiety provoking," "inconsistent," "disgusting," "invalid and unreliable," and "abusive." Many students thought that the course was good even though the CPPR was a "waste of time." Many felt that the range of theoretical orientations was too limited and too focused on psychodynamic, and students should be allowed to present from an eclectic/integrationist view (mean = 3.175). Most (mean = 2.99) felt that the same grading system should be used that is used in classes.
Preparation for professional development was either somewhat satisfactory or very unsatisfactory (mean = 2.455). More technique classes and classes on how to run a practice were suggested by many. OP students felt they are left to their own with no assistance or guidance at all, no practical experience the first 2 years, and few connections with local businesses. Many students felt that mentoring was missing. More information about Post Doc employment opportunities was also requested by several. Many felt that there is too much emphasis on psychodynamic and not enough brief therapy or managed care preparation.
The Research Office was generally seen as satisfactory (mean = 2.683) although most didn't have any idea what it was. Some suggested that it should be "more visible." Several people commented on the lack of clarity regarding the Psy.D dissertation. OP students pointed out that they are not involved with this office although their tuition probably helps to support it anyway.
Most students were dissatisfied with emphasis areas (mean = 2.275). Some OP students felt that emphasis areas might be helpful. Most students felt that completion of an emphasis area was impossible to do. There were suggestions to have emphasis area sections of required classes or integrate more into required courses. Emphasis areas help some students "feel more connected to CSPP," especially the Multicultural emphasis area.
Students were either somewhat satisfied or dissatisfied with the social activities at CSPP (mean = 2,487). Some OP students felt the activities were "held at poor times." Others made comments that they were too busy to have a social life at CSPP. There were comments that the softball team is "sexist." Other suggestions included: a welcome in autumn, end of year event, student lounge, stuff in SF or away from CSPP, banquets, multicultural programs, tennis, golf, exercising, walking, clubs, other sports such as women's soccer or water polo, theater, opera, symphony, and parties. Mean ratings for the individual activities were as follows: Winterfest (mean = 2.825), Tied House happy hours (mean = 2.816), student-faculty brown bag lunches (mean = 2.823), Spring Recognition Night (mean = 3.368), and softball team (mean = 2.790).The mean ratings for activities students would be interested in were as follows: semi-formal party (mean = 2.330), ski trips (mean = 2.633), rafting trips (mean = 2.885), bike trips (mean = 2.646), hiking trips (mean = 2.948), wine trips (mean = 3.209), visiting other CSPP campuses (mean = 2.663), and combined social activities with other campuses (mean = 2.640).
Students were either very opposed to having classes begin on the hour and end ten minutes before the hour or they thought it was a good idea (mean = 2.557).
Overall, the Psychedeli was felt to be satisfactory (mean = 2.966). Generally, students loved Doris but felt the prices were too high. A majority of students thought the deli should stay open until at least 8 or 9pm. There were also some suggestions to "have food during weekend workshops." Food selection was satisfactory (mean = 2.833), prices were either very unsatisfactory or satisfactory (mean = 2.518), staff friendliness was very satisfactory (mean = 3.411), and number of hours it's open was satisfactory (mean = 3.043).
Aspects important for the new bookstore were generally the following: "availability," "hours," selection," "buy back policy," service," and "books on time."
Students were very satisfied with the Registrar's office (mean = 3.344). Several comments were made that the staff is very helpful. Some were dissatisfied because they "rarely get their first choice." Students were also very satisfied with registration materials (mean = 3,225) although there were many comments such as: "too much paper," "forms are confusing," "electronic registration would be better," "registration material should be mailed out," "better course descriptions needed," and "color code different areas in the course schedules."
Students were satisfied with the Business Office overall (mean = 3.149). Some made comments that some of the staff is "great," "rude and racist," "uncooperative," and "better if friendlier." Most students would be very satisfied if they could use their credit cards to pay for tuition (mean = 3.515) although there was some concern that tuition would be raised to cover costs or that this would encourage students to accrue unmanageable debt.
Student were either satisfied or unsatisfied with the number of students in each class (mean = 2.626). There was much consensus that the classes are too big. Many classes have "more students than chairs"or have "rooms too small for the number of students." There were many suggestions to limit the number of students in each class to 8-12 with 8 being the most common. OP students said their classes are generally fine.
Most students were satisfied with Teaching Assistants (mean = 3.107). Generally most students felt that the quality of TA's varies a lot. Some felt that TA's should be trained and not be chosen just because they completed the class. OP students pointed out that they don't have TA's.
Tutors were seen as satisfactory (mean = 3.471) by most students. Again, students felt they should be better trained and that passing the class is not adequate qualification to be a tutor. There was a suggestion to have better writing tutors available to everyone. OP students questioned whether tutors were available for them.
Students were very unsatisfied with CSPP's health insurance (mean = 1.897). Most comments suggested some sort of HMO or Kaiser plan. Vision and dental was requested by many. Most felt that the insurance was "too expensive" and "not comprehensive." Those who used the insurance felt the service was very slow. Suggestions were also made to include insurance in our cost and to have an insurance that is more comprehensive with a higher deductible.
Students were generally satisfied with workstudy jobs overall (mean = 2.575) although students were dissatisfied with the salary (mean = 2.093) and felt that there should be "higher pay." Availability of workstudy jobs was more unsatisfactory (mean = 2.373). There were comments that the job openings should be posted regularly.
Students were either satisfied or unsatisfied with the Buddy Program (mean = 2.472). Many people didn't know what it was. Others felt it was a "good idea but some bugs need to be worked out." There were suggestions that current students should make the first contact, and that they should be assigned earlier. Some found it helpful and others didn't participate. One students thought we should get rid of it and felt that the idea was stolen from SOCA, poorly implemented, and shouldn't have been attempted until it was better organized.
Most students were very interested in the establishment of a participant pool for psychological assessment and research (mean = 3.413). Some felt it shouldn't happen, however, unless the participants are paid. Most felt it was a "good idea."
The Chancellor's Office was felt to be satisfactory by some and unsatisfactory by others (mean = 2.460). Many felt that the Chancellor is "not friendly/social with students." Many commented that they "never see him" and questioned what he does for students. Students also questioned his priorities and values. Others felt he was "unresponsive" and "needs to be more visible." There was one comment that "his grammar, punctuation and syntax in his communication (written) is atrocious and an embarrassment to CSPP."
Students were dissatisfied with the PSC (mean = 2.246). They felt it was "difficult to get clients," "horrible," "unprofessional," "there is uneven supervision," "poorly organized and run," "low priority for CSPP," "didactic is good," and some felt it was getting better. There was one suggestion to "have the OP students design a working proposal to change the place or hire an outside consultant."
Overall, Town Hall meetings were felt to be satisfactory (mean = 2.801). Students were also satisfied with the topics discussed (mean = 2.882). However, students were either satisfied or unsatisfied with the effectiveness of the meetings (mean = 2.438) There was concern, that there is "little follow up" and that change rarely results from a meeting. The time the meetings are usually held was unsatisfactory (mean = 2.351). Many OP students are unable to attend because they work during the day. Clinical students said they are often at their practicum. Tuesday from 12-2 was a bad time for most students (mean = 2.245). Some felt the meetings are "overwhelming and depressing" and that the "majority of students" don't attend because they "are apathetic."
Overall, students had mixed feelings about the OPT (Office of Professional Training) with a mean = 2.482. Students were either satisfied or dissatisfied with practicums (mean = 2.432) and internships (mean = 2.453). Many felt the office should do more to make APA internship applications run more smoothly. There was a suggestion to have a list of APA & CAPIC sites available to peruse. Many students were upset about the form letter written for APA applicants that doesn't even have a real signature. Other comments that were made were: "inefficient," "not dedicated to serving students," "needs more organization," "matching process is too rushed," "should be no limit on number of applications," "G1 practicum is poorly run," "limited range," and "improving." OP students do not receive any services from this office even though they are also required to do internships.
Almost all students were highly in favor of providing students with advisors although who that advisor should be was more controversial: Intro professor (mean = 2.665), dissertation chair (mean = 2.946), student's choice (mean = 3.533). Students were concerned that they might not match well with the intro professor and felt they wanted more choice. If students are assigned to a default advisor such as the intro professor, there should be a procedure set up if they want to change advisors. Others thought that having dissertation chairs advise students would be too late, and that dissertation "chairs have a very specific role and should stay focused." Many felt that advising is "sorely needed and a top priority." One student also suggested that "student mentors would be helpful too."
Students were either satisfied or dissatisfied with the dissertation process (mean = 2.419). Many students expressed frustration over finding core faculty who are available and were very dissatisfied with the availability of chairs (mean = 1.907). Others felt that the dissertation "process is unguided from the beginning," and the "process is unclear." There were also many comments about the confusion between a Ph.D and a Psy.D dissertation. Many felt that more variety is needed, possibly from outside chairs. Most students were satisfied with the school's approval of outside chairs (mean = 2.676). There was also a suggestion that "students should be encouraged to start earlier."
Students in general were very satisfied with the 45-hour psychotherapy requirement (mean = 3.476). A majority of the students who commented thought that MFCC's should be allowed. Many felt that the requirement was "too expensive" and should be decreased from 45 hours. Others thought that the requirement should be more hours. Many students felt that the requirement should allow students to do several techniques which add up to 45 hours.
Students were generally satisfied with their program (mean = 2.865). Many commented on the Psy.D degree stating that there is not enough time, there is a "lack of respect," and "dissertation should be scaled back." There was also agreement that the Psy.D and Ph.D degree need further delineation. OP students felt the program lacked "structure" and cohesion." One student commented that "classes, internships & dissertations have been excellent in spite of CSPP not because of CSPP.
Students were satisfied with the survey (mean = 2.942) although there were many suggestions for improvement such as: make it more applicable to OP students, reformat some of the questions, address "qualitative content of thoughts, practices, and conceptualizations of courses." Others were concerned that the survey would not result in change which wold result in furthering student apathy. (For more page links.)
The following is a draft letter from the CSPP Asian Forum. The letter was prompted by an incident on the CSPP-Alameda campus. It was intended to be distributed to the campus community by way of stuffing mailboxes, posting the letter on bulletin boards and to submit it to the Gazette, the campus newspaper controlled by the administration. To the best of my knowledge the letter was distributed to all CSPP-Alameda students in their mailboxes and posted, but the CSPP Gazette did not run it in their publication. Note that this is a draft and the original letter circulated one week later may have some modifications in the language.
The draft letter (quoted exactly) reads as follows:
February 27, 1997
To: Chancellor Sakamoto, Dean Porter, Asst. Dean Hildebrand, CSPP Community
From: The Asian Forum
It has been brought to the attention of the Asian Forum that recent incidents of discrimination and cultural insensitivity occurring in a CPPR course, identified as having a multicultural emphasis, for G3 students this last Fall led to the expulsion from this class of several students, mostly of racial/ethnic minority status. This has the Forum deeply concerned for the welfare of these students, and once again seriously questioning the ethical and professional conduct of the administration and faculty of this institution, and moreover the institution's level of commitment to multiculturalism beyond word.
We are greatly dismayed at the continuing preponderance of such discriminatory acts of cultural insensitivity that boldly contradicts this institution's mission so beautifully scripted in all of its literature to emphasize CSPP's commitment to foster "respect for human diversity in a multicultural society and combating discrimination in all its forms..." The Asian Forum cannot remain a silent body to issues in which discrimination of any form is in question, nor can we support the manner by which this institution and its administrators have chosen to handle this particular incident. Therefore, we have decided to come forth and publicly express our disapproval, and demand that a meeting with the Chancellor and the administrators involved with this incident be given to us in order to address these issues thoroughly and completely. More importantly, we desire the opportunity to work together with administration and faculty to formulate an effective process of communication between students and administration in circumstances of conflict and grievances, in addition to developing and implementing more culturally responsive standards of practice that would help to prevent such incidences from occurring again in the future.
With regard to this specific incident, we strongly believe that essential lines of communication were often made inaccessible, left vague and unclear, appeared inaccurate in representation, and overall lacked the clarity and integrity necessary to respectfully resolve the situation. The fact that there are still gaps and confusion as to the particular exchanges that occurred and whether or not the matter was in fact handled appropriately, warrants immediate clarification by this institution so that we, as well as the larger CSPP community, can be made conscious and accurately informed on matters that carry as serious an impact on our welfare and professional growth and development, as they so directly affect the particular individuals in the situation.
We are hereby also addressing the CSPP community at large in order to raise their consciousness to these more covert issues so that we can all ultimately work together as a culturally diverse yet unified body, and intervene on behalf of discrimination on this campus in effort to bring about greater institutional and social change. For too long, such questionable acts of inequality, not only against those of racial/ethnic minority status, but of other culturally diverse populations as well, have taken place without the general community's awareness of the tremendous struggle and victimization experienced by the individual(s) involved in the circumstances. We hold the institution, and specifically the administrators, accountable for these situations. It is their responsibility to implement policy and to ensure that proper protocol is followed, that the appropriate channels of student support are actually allowed to be utilized by students and not disregarded or sidestepped, and that an atmosphere of genuine respect and appreciation for cultural diversity is indeed promoted.
On a related critical issue, one cannot argue against the clear fact that the available courses and presence of multicultural faculty within the multicultural emphasis track are both presently very few, and there appears to be no institutional commitment to increase either number in the years to come. For many of us, we came to CSPP primarily because of our attraction and commitment to this emphasis area. As consumers of psychological training, our investment is a particularly tremendous and overwhelming one with regard to our financial investment. Yet, we are clearly not receiving what we have paid up front for with regard to our multicultural education and training. Rather, we are told to substitute other courses in lieu of the lack of multicultural courses available to meet the requirements outlined by the multicultural emphasis track. This is not an acceptable way of dealing with the shortcomings of this emphasis track by this institution, and we demand immediate change and improvement. This institution must be made to live up to the standards by which if professes, and to provide to us with the particular education and training for which we paid. Anything short of this is pure negligence and demonstrates a serious lack of responsibility and follow through on the part of this institution.
Respectfully submitted,
The Asian Forum
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." - Martin Luther King, Jr (1929-1968)
| Home | Clients/References | Related Information | Contact Us! |
| What's New | About |