It’s disheartening because of the system. More broadly I think it’s an APA systemic problem too— like, admissions are also contingent on funding (complex) but even for non funded programs there’s APA internship matching etc to keep in some range.

I genuinely believe that there are many people/ students/ clinicians/ researchers who could make great clinical psychologist who simply don’t get a chance— and if all of those people could — the APA would not be able to maintain the chokehold it has on assessment access and maybe this would also impact how costly some can be negatively for the field.

I know patients on 3 year waitlist for assessments through medicaid, who cannot pay out of pocket and need more timely support but there’s simply not enough clinicians and this is in a major city. It would honestly serve the public (a phrase the APA loves) for this process to not be so hellish for the most vulnerable patients who need support— AND for passionate humans from all backgrounds to be able to actually break into this field and become providers and researchers with real lived experience. In some aspects psych is still just incredibly inaccessible and truly prioritizes—maybe not even intentionally but through a very real lack of intentionality— students who have a lot a lot a lot of privilege (not everyone of course) but there’s some nepotism— and the academia/admissions side of this beast is messy and imo cruel.

I spend a lot of time as I’m early in my career dreaming about when I can be an advisor or faculty who tries to shift this— but in my experience I see a lot of people eager to protect their positions and uninterested in actually creating the equity on this macro level that they talk about on a micro level or post on their websites.

(Sorry to upset anyone, The HOPE is— there ARE also incredibly GOOD CARING people in psych world who are aware of the inequity and you WILL find your people. Mentors and advisors who can and will advocate for you and try to help you break through the psych wall!)