Why are universities starting new post-bacc programs?

[LlamaMama]

This is sort of off-topic, but does anyone have an idea of why universities are adding post-bacc programs rather than accepting more students into actual grad programs? It seems like there are already too many qualified undergrads applying--why add to that pool? There seems to be a huge need for SLPs and not enough new grads every year. Do ASHA's policies on accreditation make it prohibitively difficult to increase cohort size? It's frustrating to see so many qualified candidates being turned down when the demand in the field is so high. Any thoughts?

[combustiblecake]

I noticed that too. It seems like a way to make more money :/

 

It's a combination of many things, there is also a lack of people interested in PhD programs and placements are few, so schools have to compete against each other often.

[Chandru1]

I think that the only way for the admissions shortage to be solved is to provide more opportunities for faculty positions (without taking pay cuts, as they would now). With more professors, programs would be allowed to expand. 

[ImHis]

It's a combination of many things, there is also a lack of people interested in PhD programs and placements are few, so schools have to compete against each other often.

 

THIS. After speaking to my friends who are already in the field, it was the frontline interaction that appealed to them at the beginning.

 

Also, research is not something that comes easy or naturally for some people. I had to take a statistics and a full year research methods course and, volunteering in a lab just to make sure I reached a level where I felt comfortable reading studies. Then, I proceeded to carry out my own research. It's very fulfiling, but at times, can be very isolating and frustrating, since it's very independently driven. I think departments should work on developing more strategies to recruit and retain people in research at the UG level.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Articklish

[CBG321]

It is a mixed bag like the other poster's have said.  I will say (biased since I am one) that some schools appreciate the life experience and different backgrounds that post-bacc students can offer. This isn't my background but a SLP with an undergrad degree in Psychology or childcare has that background which is amazing PLUS post-bacc coursework etc.

 

I'm not negating that there are a large amount of overqualified/qualified people in both categories working their butts off!  

 

But here is what is the major breakdown.  Post-bacc's mean extra money for the university and all they have to do is increase their class size.  They get extra tuition with no extra cost.  

 

Master's Programs are extremely expensive and cost universities so much money to run.  They also cannot increase cohort size or class size due to PhD shortages nationwide.  Each professor has classes to teach along with research (sometimes) and also have to contribute to clinical training and observation hours.  Graduate students are not allowed to work with clients without a PhD with them watching them and guiding them.  (exception being CFY).

 

Each student has a PhD professor assigned to them to watch their clinic hours and mentor them.  You wouldn't be getting a quality education, and the poor Professors would be burnt out if they started adding extra Master's students to each program just b/c they need them in the field.

 

So long story short, until they have more PhD Professors class sizes will remain low.   I am equally bummed out, but having this explanation finally explained to me after wondering why the situation stunk so much helped me at least realize they weren't being jerks on purpose!

 

And glass half full, you won't have to fight for a job once you get a Master's which sounds pretty great and unique to me!  MASSIVE perk!

[combustiblecake]

I want to do a PhD but one of the program director told me I needed a clinical master's first. It kind of makes sense but at the same time it just makes it even more difficult/frustrating to get in.

Edited February 11, 2015 by waitwhichgaby

[SLPosteriorCricoarytenoid]

I too am interested in doing a PhD eventually. I know ASHA recently published an article about the shortage of professors in this field. They broke down the numbers and outlined the whole supply/demand aspect of the professor-to-student ratio. It is interesting that other fields that require somewhat similar demands (student supervision, close contact, etc.) on professors don't seem to be suffering as much. I know ASHA is currently trying to get the government to allocate funds for students in the field who want to get their PhD. Who knows what will happen or if anything will come of it. It's not looking promising considering all of the education cuts.  

 

I am a post-bacc currently, and I get the impression that allowing more post-baccs is another way for the university to get money. I know some post-bacc programs have a certain number of students they take, and others don't. The place I'm at has no cap on number of post-baccs they'll take. If you're willing to pay to take classes (with no guarantee of acceptance into the master's after taking courses) they'll gladly take the money. I also think that not many people are aware of the option to do a post-bacc. There are only two students other than myself who are doing a post-bacc year at my school. 

Edited February 11, 2015 by neuronparty

[CBG321]

I didn't know you needed a master's first that does seem like a roadblock how annoying!

[sayjo]

I don't know if you do actually need a clinical master's first.  One of the professors at my school doesn't have her CCCs and (obviously) has never been a practicing clinician.  However, I don't really think this is a good thing.  It's important to have your CCCs if you're going to be teaching others how to be clinicians.

 

I do want to add that I, personally, am glad that graduate schools don't accept many applicants for two reasons:

1. Applicants that are accepted are the cream of the crop.  If everyone could get accepted into a graduate program, you'd probably end up with a lot of mediocrity.  Example: Teaching.  I hate to bash on teachers (I was one myself, and I know about the hard work they do) but just about anyone can get accepted into a teaching program.  The result?  You end up with a lot of great teachers, but a lot of sub-par teachers too.

 

2. Job availability.  Again, coming from teaching, it is SO DIFFICULT to get a teaching job because there are a ton of applicants out there!  In addition, schools don't have to pay their teachers good salaries because of supply and demand.  I've been paying a lot of attention to job websites (like Indeed) and it seems there are always SLP jobs available.  It will be so nice to be able to pick from an array of jobs once I graduate, rather than just taking whatever I can get.  

 

I don't have a problem with post-bacc programs, because I was a post-bacc student myself and found it difficult to find a program near me.  However, I DO feel like schools need to be up front with students about the difficulty about getting into graduate school, so that students don't feel blindsided if they are unable to get in.  Just my two cents.

[selbstverteidigung]

I think that the only way for the admissions shortage to be solved is to provide more opportunities for faculty positions (without taking pay cuts, as they would now). With more professors, programs would be allowed to expand.

The # of faculty has very little to do with it. The primary reason is clinical placement availability. Some programs are now outsourcing beyond the university clinic and placing students with private practices for both intern- and externships, enabling them to accept more students into their program. Universities that only place students in university clinics have limited space and can only accommodate very few students. Edited February 12, 2015 by gendertreachery

[selbstverteidigung]

It is a mixed bag like the other poster's have said.  I will say (biased since I am one) that some schools appreciate the life experience and different backgrounds that post-bacc students can offer. This isn't my background but a SLP with an undergrad degree in Psychology or childcare has that background which is amazing PLUS post-bacc coursework etc.

 

I'm not negating that there are a large amount of overqualified/qualified people in both categories working their butts off!  

 

But here is what is the major breakdown.  Post-bacc's mean extra money for the university and all they have to do is increase their class size.  They get extra tuition with no extra cost.  

 

Master's Programs are extremely expensive and cost universities so much money to run.  They also cannot increase cohort size or class size due to PhD shortages nationwide.  Each professor has classes to teach along with research (sometimes) and also have to contribute to clinical training and observation hours.  Graduate students are not allowed to work with clients without a PhD with them watching them and guiding them.  (exception being CFY).

 

Each student has a PhD professor assigned to them to watch their clinic hours and mentor them.  You wouldn't be getting a quality education, and the poor Professors would be burnt out if they started adding extra Master's students to each program just b/c they need them in the field.

 

So long story short, until they have more PhD Professors class sizes will remain low.   I am equally bummed out, but having this explanation finally explained to me after wondering why the situation stunk so much helped me at least realize they weren't being jerks on purpose!

 

And glass half full, you won't have to fight for a job once you get a Master's which sounds pretty great and unique to me!  MASSIVE perk!

Ok maybe the shortage of PhDs in the field has something to do with it, but it's not the primary reason. There are some programs with the same # of faculty who accept 3 times as many applicants as the other program. I believe the discrepancy is most related to clinical placement availability.

[CBG321]

Just clarifying my response was info taken from professors and grad students at public universities with on site clinics. Schools that only trust their own Phd faculty to be responsible for grad students, so for that specific group I am trusting what they told me. So at those specific schools there is a direct relationship with the shortage of slots. It is of course correct that finding outside placements is also an issue for programs that offer one or both. Something we can all remember during the application cycle I suppose.

[selbstverteidigung]

Just clarifying my response was info taken from professors and grad students at public universities with on site clinics. Schools that only trust their own Phd faculty to be responsible for grad students, so for that specific group I am trusting what they told me. So at those specific schools there is a direct relationship with the shortage of slots. It is of course correct that finding outside placements is also an issue for programs that offer one or both. Something we can all remember during the application cycle I suppose.

Good points. I find that in the interest of meeting the rising demand for qualified SLPs, the move to off site placement is a very positive one indeed.