One of my supervisors has made a habit of pointing out to me that I have an almost humorous expectation that everything could go horribly wrong at any moment, both with my clients and with my peers. “Yes,” I replied. “Yes it could.”  It was actually in the midst of working through this belief that something rather tragic did happen in my personal life: I was roofied at a neighborhood bar. As I experienced it, one moment I had just started nursing a greyhound, and the next moment I was waking up in my apartment only to find most of my valuables gone. The most terrifying part of this experience was the total absence of memory between these two events, with only my speculation about what might really have happened. Bad things really can happen at any moment.

What followed was both a personal and professional working through of this experience. The personal work came in what I like to think of as discrete phases. It started with denial, which was a delight. “Gee, I can’t seem to feel a thing about this incident happening to me, I must be in denial. This is kind of nice. I want to stay here,” read in a sort of numb monotone. During this time there was an outpouring of support from friends that I was really not ready to take in. My favorite example was the handmade get well card sent by some class members: “Sexy Sparklebreath Unicorn Says, Get Better!” I have photographic evidence that this was a real thing. The next phase was anger, particularly at the theft of time and memory, which bothered me more than anything. This was also a period of walking down the street glaring at random passers-by and thinking, “You! It was you, wasn’t it?” Then came a hypomanic phase, which Kübler-Ross had not prepared me for. One morning I woke up with a stomachache and said out loud to an empty room, “I’m going to go on a fast!” Delight found itself becoming Delirium.

On the professional level, I didn’t realize how relationally I worked as a therapist-in-training until the first client I saw after the incident. That fuzzy little knot of emotional information that sits somewhere in my chest was suddenly so submerged in static that I couldn’t call on it any more. This was the real downside of denial: I couldn’t read myself well enough to read my clients. I got some of this back during the anger phase, but since I was just angry at everything it wasn’t particularly helpful. Fortunately I had amazing supervision, wherein I was able to say, “I’m a hot mess today, here’s how I feel, here’s what I think is what is happening with my clients, help me, please.” Then, without shame or judgment, they did. I left supervision with the sense that even though I was nowhere near my A-game, I wasn’t in the realm of incompetence either. I was finding my way through Rogerian reboot mode, and for the moment that was how I pulled off being a good-enough therapist.

Recovery seemed to come in flashes. At some point towards the end of my hypomanic phase I was sitting on my couch at home zoning out. In retrospect, this might have been related to undernourishment. In its wanderings my mind randomly pulled up the file on a client who had been going back and forth between talking about termination and talking about past issues of abandonment and betrayal. Funny how it didn’t hit me until that moment on the couch: abandonment, betrayal, termination; crap, it was a derivative! While this was in itself a nice bit of tentative insight, what really got me was that for the first time in over a month, my countertransference had emerged from the static and was back in the game.

About a week later I was walking to class, similarly in a state of reverie (which sounds so much nicer than dissociation), when another snippet of client material came to me. One of my clients working through issues of shame kept describing him/herself as “crazy” in our work together. It suddenly occurred to me that what was being called crazy sounded more to me like hunger, whether for connection, love or attention, but a hunger filtered through a self-critical lens. Again, my derivative alarm went off: but I’m feeling crazy! I’m feeling hungry for connection! I actually want to start coming out of my shell! Not everything changed immediately, but in that moment I had a genuinely non-hostile exchange between my super-ego and myself, and it was as lovely as it was novel.

Over the next several weeks I transitioned back to my full emotional range, roughly. My supervision moved away from containment and back towards exploration, and my friends stopped giving me those half-worried, half-assessing stares that are considered mandatory. In that process, I had an experience of being vulnerable to my supervisors and having that managed supportively. I had an experience of distancing myself from my friends and having them be there for me anyway. And I had the experience of walking to the edge in parallel with my clients, and then walking back and even being useful to them in the process. I had an experience of not everything going horribly wrong. It would have been nice to come to that in a less painful way, but all told, it’s a hell of a silver lining.

Epilogue: While I am aware that there is a risk in disclosing something as personal as this in a public venue, I also see a risk in therapists holding too much of our own working through process back in the name of professional identity, as if it were something to be ashamed of. I think of this as an experiment in the appropriate use of self-disclosure, because here I believe that the greatest risk is not to take one.

We are looking forward to seeing CPAGS members at Convention this week!  We have many great activities specifically planned for you!  Be sure to check out the following events:

CPAGS Lounge- (Santa Monica Room)

This is your home base during the convention.  Mingle with other graduate students throughout the course of the weekend, sign up for events, participate in grad student luncheons, network, and simply hang out!  Open to all students!  For CPAGS convention volunteers, this is also where you will pick up your session materials.

Thursday, April 19

5:00 to 6:30 pm—Welcome Reception

We encourage CPAGS attendees to kick-off the convention with 2012 CPA President,Craig Lareau, JD, PhD, ABPP

7:00 to 9:00 pm—Division VII TownHall Meeting on Diversity and Social Justice

Join in an open discussion about CPA’s recent social justice efforts and ideas to increase diversity in CPA leadership.  Your voice is important!

Friday, April 20

10:30 to 11:00 am—Beverage Break (CPAGS Lounge- Santa Monica Room)

Grab a drink or snack from the exhibit hall area and join fellow students for Beverage Breaks in the lounge this year!

12:30 to 2:00 pm—Poster Session

12:45 to 1:45 pm—Internship Talk (CPAGSLounge- Santa Monica Room)

Have a quick lunch with students from across the state!  Get the 411 on internships: Pre and Post Doc.  Our own CPAGS leaders will share their experiences and tips with you. Presenters will be CPAGS Chair – Kasmira Sobkow, M.S., Past Chair – Stephanie Salo, M.A., and Convention Chair – Heather Cuatok, M.Ed.

Lunch is $ 7 for pre-registered students and $12.00 for walk-ins.

Still time to register!!!  RSVP Rebecca Mathew at rebeccarmathew@gmail.com by Wednesday, April 18th!

3:30 to 4:00 pm—Beverage Break (CPAGS Lounge- Santa Monica Room)

Grab a drink or snack from the exhibit hall area and join fellow students for Beverage Breaks in the lounge this year!

6:30 to 9:30 pm—CPAGS Night Out

Meet in the Santa Monica Room at 6:30 pm and head to Cannery Row with your fellow grad students.  Beautiful views of the MontereyBay, fantastic food, and good company make for a fun CPAGS Annual Night Out.  CPAGS buys the appetizers and you pay for your drinks!  The event will be held at the Pacific Courtyard of the Clement Monterey.

Sign up in the CPAGS lounge (Santa Monica Room) – Carpooling options available.

Saturday, April 21

10:30 to 11:00 am—Beverage Break (CPAGS Lounge- Santa Monica Room)

Grab a drink or snack from the exhibit hall area and join fellow students for Beverage Breaks in the lounge this year!

12:30 to 2:00 pm—Poster Session

12:45 to 1:45 pm—Licensing andEarly Career Psychology Luncheon (CPAGS Lounge- Santa Monica Room)

Join us for lunch to learn more about EPPP, the licensing process,and the transition into an Early Career psychologist.  You will be treated to great presentationsfrom the President of AATBS, Mr. Scott Ables, and two Early Career Psychologists,Dr. Rochelle Perper and Dr. Michele Wilkens.

Lunch is $ 7 for pre-registered students and $12.00 for walk-ins.

Still time to register!!!  RSVP Rebecca Mathew at rebeccarmathew@gmail.com by Wednesday, April 18th!

3:30-4:00 pm (Beverage Break)—CPAGSAnnual Update (CPAGS Lounge- Santa Monica Room)

Stop by the lounge for a few minutes before visiting the exhibit hall.  A recap of this year’s events and other information about CPAGS will be available. Our chair, Kasmira Sobkow, M.S. and other officers will be present to answer questions.

6:00 to 7:30 pm—President’sReception

Sunday, April 22

7:45-8:45am – Speed Mentoring (CPAGS Lounge- Santa Monica Room)

This is a great way for graduate students to glean advice from seasoned professionals.  Visit us in the lounge Thursday, Friday, or Saturday to find out more about the mentors and write down some of your questions.  It’s an opportunity you won’t want to miss!

Free conference in La Verne, CA for future and current mental health practitioners working with LGBTQ.

Dear CPAGS,

Would you like to learn how to advocate for issues that are important to you, both personally and professionally, and influence California’s legislative process?

Please consider joining us for a Leadership & Advocacy Training Day at the Wright Institute on Saturday, February 18 from 12pm – 4pm

This is a one-day opportunity to gain knowledge on the legislative process in CA and learn how to lobby elected officials around important issues pertaining to your clinical work, including health care systems, safety laws, psychology privileges, and access to psych assistant opportunities, as well as many other topics.

Students who attend this training day will be prepared to participate in CPA’s Leadership and Advocacy Day on Tuesday, March 27, especially for those who may have missed the CPAGS Advocacy Conference this past year.

Leadership & Advocacy Training Day will include:
A presentation by Dr. Gilbert Newman (a very abbreviated version of what is offered in Dr. Newman’s Advocacy and Public Policy elective), that focuses on Dr. Newman’s expansive experience with advocacy work, info about public policies and the legislative process, CPA’s advocacy efforts, and how this applies to mental health care professionals and the work we do.
Didactic presentation on what Advocacy Day entails, perspectives and tips from former student participants, and role plays of lobbying to legislators.
Break-out sessions so that attendees can practice their new lobbying skills.
This is a very valuable opportunity to gain a new skill, or expand upon previous experiences, and looks great on your CV!

Please RSVP to Ziska West (ziskawest@gmail.com) if you would like to attend and please also feel free to contact me with any questions.

Want to know more? Read Lee Vance’s article on the importance of student involvement in the California Psych Association or Ken Siedler’s article on his first experience participating in CPA’s Advocacy Day.

Sincerely,
Ziska

Ziska West, M.A.

3rd year Doctoral Student of Clinical Psychology (PsyD)
The Wright Institute

Do you have an interest in psychology advocacy issues in California? Are you aware of issues that currently impact the potential license and scope of practice for psychologists? Would you like to join psychologists and fellow psychology students as they use their voices to improve conditions for the state and practice of psychology? If you answered yes to any of these questions then CPA’s annual Leadership & Advocacy Day (LAD) in Sacramento will provide you an opportunity to experience this and much more.

Every spring CPA hosts a Leadership and Advocacy Conference that brings CPA Chapters and Division leaders, as well as CPA members and psychology students from throughout the state to Sacramento, in order to lobby the state legislature on behalf of their fellow psychologists and clients. Whether this will be your first, second, third, or fourth time attending LAD as a student, your attendance and voice is important to the state of California.

WHAT:           Leadership & Advocacy Day

WHEN:           Tuesday, March 27, 2012

WHERE:         Elks Tower, 921 11th Street, Suite 210,Sacramento, CA 95814

REGISTRATION DEADLINE:                                  March 19, 2012

REGISTER HERE! *Note – you will need to first register a CPA member username and password before your register for LAD.
*Limited Stipends Available*
Request Deadline: Wednesday, March 7, 2012
STIPEND REQUEST ELGIBILITY:
I am attending LAD on March 27, 2012 as a CPAGS member.
*Again – please note that you must register on CPA’s website for LAD and already be a CPAGS member to be eligible.

When completing this application please be sure to place emphasis on Question #1 and #2, as they weigh heavily on the selection of stipend recipients. Due to the limited amount of funds available for travel costs reimbursements, CPAGS will not be able to grant reimbursement for every CPAGS members’ participation in LAD. Additionally, stipends may be awarded in partial or in full based on availability of funds. After submission of this request, you will be notified of the status of your selection by Friday, March 9, 2012. Thank you for your participation in CPAGS and commitment to advocacy efforts!

Hello, fellow graduate students!

My name is Heather Cuatok, and I am your 2012 CPAGS Convention Chair.

I invite you to attend the 2012 Convention (Register Here), which will highlight the best of psychological practice today while also addressing the innovative and emerging issues for psychologists on the horizon.  The Convention offers cutting edge CE presentations, nationally and internationally known Master Lecturers and Plenary Speakers.

Do not miss out on the various workshops and events geared towards graduate students and early career psychologists, including two poster sessions showcasing current research findings, two grad student luncheons, a speed mentoring session, and the “CPAGS Night Out!”  The Convention also provides an excellent opportunity to network with many of the top mental health practitioners in our field.

By volunteering your time you can receive reimbursement for the early registration fee of $99, and you will be doing CPA a huge service by helping the convention run smoothly!  There are a limited amount of volunteer positions available; therefore volunteers will be selected on a first-come basis.  Those with more availability will be given priority.

The early registration deadline is March 28, 2012.

How it works:

- You must be a current CPAGS member.

- Indicate that you would like to volunteer by emailing me at psych_hcuatok@yahoo.com

- Register for the convention at www.cpapsych.org and select Yes, under the section “CPAGS members: Check below if you are interested in volunteering at Convention in exchange for free registration”

- Pay the graduate student registration fee.

- Volunteer for a minimum of 6 hours throughout the weekend to monitor workshops, work at the bookstore, and/or register attendees.

- Once your hours have been completed, your reimbursement will be processed and mailed to you following Convention.

Sincerely,

Heather Cuatok, M.Ed.

With the advent of new technology come new oppotunities and responsibilities. As a researcher, educator and therapist, I have become fascinated by the role that technology plays in our lives. From social media networks such as facebook and twitter, to skype and google chat. The way we communicate with others (or fail to communicate) is greatly shaped by the cyber culture we currently live in. As a therapist and future psychologist who strives to be culturally humble and aware, I am intrigued by the ways in which we can use cultural trends to enhance our daily lives and for treatment with our clients.

Personally, I am intrigued by the use of technology in our daily lives. For example, how many of us text or post messages on facebook for our loved ones even when they may be in the other room? To some this may seem unusual or even unhealthy. The answer is much more complex than a simple good or bad. Technology can certainly be used to enhance communication with our significant others on a daily basis. For example, we can send a text during lunch time wishing our loved ones a good day. And, as an older sister of a young woman, texting is the best way for me to communicate with her.

At the same time, if we take this to the extreme and we only communicate with others using technology, this may become problematic. Often the lines of communication can be stunted by technology because we may be spending too much time in front of the computer or on the phone. We may have little to say to others in person or maybe distracted by a text conversation while having dinner with someone else. Where the line is drawn depends on our interpersonal skills and ability to bring balance to our lives. All in moderation!

One great example of this potential problem are the new generation of teenagers whose main mode of communication is through texting or posting messages on social media forums. On the one hand, their brains may become flexible in new ways that we have not yet been able to study. On the other, a more concerning perspective, teenagers may not be exposed to direct face-to-face communication. While, this may not be detrimental, and in fact, may have an evolutionary value within their cohort, as adults, they may lack the social skills needed to build meaningful relationships. This may have serious ramifications when applying to college, interviewing for a job and potentially finding a mate.

Thus, as therapists, when working with clients, especiallly, but not limited to the new generation, it is important that we assess their level of interpersonal skills and screen for potential problematic technology use. This will allow us to gain a better understanding of our clients’ experiences and we may be better able to serve them. This basic assessment should become an essential part of our treatment modality.

Furthermore, technology-informed therapy can be an effective way to connect with our clients. What do I mean by technology-informed therapy? Like any other form of culturally-attuned treatment, technology-informed therapy attempts to understand individuals’ relationship to technology; both the positive and harmful aspects of it.

Furthermore, technology can be used in session as a tool to create rapport and understanding for the other’s experience. By this I don’t necessarily mean we should friend your clients on facebook, text or skype with them (though some therapists are using technology to provide psychotherapy). What I am mainly referring to is using technology in session both literally and symbolically as a way to connect with our clients. For example, when I worked with teenagers, a number of my clients wanted to share youtube videos, online gaming sites, links to an interesting articles, etc. These experiences allowed us to connect in a different way and begin the conversation about interpersonal skill building. Shying away from meeting clients where they are (technologically speaking or otherwise) will inevitably lead to a poor relationship and therapeutic outcome.

I am not suggesting we make radical changes in the way we perceive the world, but, it is important to catch up with the times and become interested in the way that current cyber culture shapes our world view and those of the people we serve.

Poster presentations are an amazing opportunity to showcase your current research. The chance to present is both exciting and rewarding, and yet, it can provoke a certain amount of anxiety at the same time.

Last year at CPAGS was my first opportunity to offer a poster presentation.

Deciding what to present, converting that topic into a poster, and presenting my work on the day of the event was a learning experience. I had always wanted to do a poster presentation to build my resume, but I assumed that only researchers and students who had already published presented. When I learned of the CPAGS conference, I decided to submit a proposal based on a research paper I had written for one of my classes, titled Examining Acculturation & Family as Related to Eating Disorders Among Mexican-American Women. I was proud of my work and knew it would be an important topic of discussion at any cross-cultural event.

On the day of the event I hardly knew what to expect. I was fortunate to have the CPAGS Conference Committee members available to answer all my questions and help me set up my poster.  I soon realized the importance of little things, like heavy-duty tape, thumb tacks, or some type of adhesive to hold up my poster. During one of the speaker’s lectures, I watched a colleague’s poster slowly begin falling and there was very little she could do about it without interrupting the lecture and creating unwanted attention to herself.  When it finally fell, she looked at me and gave me the “what do I do face?” and all I could think was: glad it’s not me!

This learning experience was valuable for preparing me for subsequent poster presentations. Many of you are more then qualified to create your own poster presentations. The first step is to decide which of your work could be converted into a poster. Even seemingly incomplete projects could be a starting point.  For instance, poster topics could include:

• A literature review that has not yet reached the data collection phase;
• A portion of your comprehensive literature review used in doctoral projects; or
• A well-researched course assignment.

All these options could provide the material for an informative and presentable poster.

The next step is reaching out to people who can help. Converting your work into a poster is sometimes the most difficult part of the preparation because there can be so much information that needs to be reduced. Seek out:

• Professors familiar with the work you created (i.e., a research professor or dissertation chair);
• Peers from earlier cohorts with presentation experience; and
• Faculty whose interests are similar to your topic.

Many colleagues and faculty members are willing to help if you just ask. They serve as great resources for advice on how best to summarize your work into a concise and reader-friendly poster presentation.

Once you finalize your poster, presentation day is where the excitement and nerves take over.  So, some items to bring include:

• The time and location of the poster session;
• Contact information of who is monitoring the poster session;
• Pushpins, tape, or heavy duty adhesive (as in the case of my colleague);
• Handouts for peers and colleagues interested in your research;
• Business cards for networking and for potential future collaborators;
• Pen and paper to write down important information (emails and other contact information), and
• Camera (to remember the event).

The more times you present, the more you will perfect the skill. Conferences that display your current findings can range from local conferences like the upcoming CPAGS Cross-Cultural Conference to nationally recognized conventions like the most recent Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. Familiarizing yourself with the process and taking advantage of learning how best to present your work during graduate school will both build your resume and provide great future networking opportunities.

Still wondering if you’re ready for a poster presentation? This year’s Cross Cultural Conference, “Outside the Margins: Ethical Psychological Practice with Historically Marginalized Communities” will have speakers talking about working with immigrants and refugees, members of sexual minority cultures, and people with disabilities. As CPAGS counts down to the Cross Cultural Conference on Saturday, January 28th, 2012, your poster submissions on topics related to multiculturalism are welcome. Registration is now open and available here online. It’s never too early!

The CCC is an annual CPAGS event designed to exchange ideas regarding multicultural issues among professionals and graduate students from across California. We have a bunch of amazing speakers lined up, and hope you will be able to attend!

The 2012 CCC “Outside the Margins: Ethical Psychological Practice with Historically Marginalized Communities” will take place on January 28, 2012 from 8:00am – 4:00pm at The Wright Institute, which is located at 2728 Durant Avenue in Berkeley, CA. Early registration begins on November 6, 2011, and ends on December 11, 2011 at midnight.

Breakfast and lunch will be provided! Cost is FREE for CPAGS members and early registration is $10 for non-members. Annual CPA/CPAGS membership is $42.  To become a CPAGS member click here.

To register for CCC click here.

Presenting Posters at CCC 2012

The 2012 Conference will also provide us with the opportunity for graduate student poster presentations.  The posters can include dissertation proposals, dissertation results, or other scholarly research, with precedence given to those topics related to diversity and multiculturalism.  You must be a graduate student in psychology to submit a proposal.  The posters should consist of key information about your research topic, and may include paragraphs, tables, graphs, images, outlines, and diagrams, or a combination of methods that best represents your findings.  The typical poster is a 24″ by 36″ black foam core board that will remain on display throughout the entirety of the Conference.  During the lunch hour, presenters will have the chance to stand by their posters and answer questions from other attendees.  This will also be a rich opportunity to see what other graduate students are investigating in their research, particularly in regards to issues of diversity and multiculturalism in the field of psychology.

To submit a proposal for the Cross Cultural Conference, please complete this Poster Presentation Form and submit it with an electronic version of your poster materials sent to CPAGraduateStudents@gmail.com.  Proposals are due by January 4th, 2012.  If you have a research topic that you think might contribute to the Cross-Cultural Conference, please do not hesitate to submit a proposal!  We look forward to hearing from you and seeing you on January 28th at the Wright Institute.

Are you a currently enrolled Ph.D. or Psy.D. student in clinical psychology?

Congratulations to the CPA Division I Scholarship Recipient 2011:

Stephanie Salo, M.A.

“Uhh, ugh.”

“Oh no.”

“Oh crap…”

These are not exactly the most sophisticated comments doctoral-level psychology students can utter when facing an unknown situation.  I overheard these, and a lot of nervous laughter, at the state capitol last month as students participating in the CPA’s Leadership and Advocacy Day accepted their lobbying assignments.

Ok, I let slip the third utterance when taking my assignment.  I would be introducing not only my group of (more-or-less) intrepid lobbyists and the bills we were endorsing, but the CPA itself to the staff of Assemblymember Nancy Skinner.  Then I would speak about Senate Bill 105 in particular, otherwise known as the “helmet bill,” with the staff of Senator Ellen Corbett.

What could go wrong?  I had little knowledge of the bills and no familiarity talking with legislative personnel.  I had just joined the CPA a few months prior.  It’s been some time since I felt like such a newb.  In a flash of anxiety I convinced myself I would have been just fine hanging back and observing the more seasoned professionals, discreetly losing myself in the breakfast line, etc.

But I had come because the idea of sharing the responsibility and the privilege of speaking for the state of psychology in California was irresistible.  I had been convinced by the simple argument that psychologists have an ethical duty to be good stewards of psychology.  And that means more than adhering to ethical clinical guidelines, more than paying dues to professional organizations.  Psychologists have to help themselves.  If psychologists stand back while others shape the policies affecting psychological practice, our discipline will become more and more “the discipline formerly known as psychology.”  Consumer-rights activists have an apt saying in this regard: “Nothing about us, without us.”

As it turned out, the more seasoned leaders in attendance were truly superb – warmly welcoming, encouraging and expressing gratitude to the next generation of psychologist-activists that had shown up to share the work.  Legislators and their staff were surprisingly accessible and easy to talk with, and the experience was akin to talking shop with any community stakeholder.  The students in my group were unanimous:  the experience of power sharing while watching our democracy in action was fascinating.  Talking with psychologists tending the well-being of the larger community was inspiring, and keeping track of the bills’ progress afterwards feels organically meaningful. The CPA had organized a truly worthwhile event and all involved had clear intentions to stay involved in advocacy and public policy as part of their professional identity.

I could have ducked out of the day’s activities, but I’m lucky.  My school has a long tradition of staking out opportunities for community leadership, and there is a strong push to integrate training in advocacy and public policy into our curriculum.  Hopefully it is gaining strength at your school, too – in any case I suspect you have similar interests.  The take home lesson from Sacramento was that our interests combined could make all the difference.

The freedom of speech. The right to a fair and speedy trial.  The abolition of slavery. Women’s suffrage.  We have a sense of identity and purpose that is based on those that have fought, corrected our direction as a country and utilized our democratic process to create positive change.  Whether this raises your personal sense of patriotism or not, it stands that we are a people that hold a set of expectations and ideals extolling equality.  It seems that the amending of our country has been a continuous battle and that whether we love it or not, we have a responsibility to continue being involved politically.

Getting fellow colleagues and peers to join CPAGS is slightly less difficult than trying to get friends involved and interested in national politics. As I have pondered and schemed ways in which I could make our grass roots organization appealing, cutting-edge or even sexy, I’ve been repeatedly struck by the apprehension that perhaps I’m going at it all wrong.  Providing networking opportunities, an additional bullet-point to one’s CV and being empowered by the political and advocacy process are hardly opportunities that resonate with busy graduate students that are constantly pinching pennies and minutes.  Nevertheless, why is there a disconnect between our clinical preparation to be psychologists and being involved politically toward advancing our professional organizations?

The desire to help can be and must be done at both the micro and macro-systems level.  I joined this field because I wanted to help, because I had a desire to change lives for the better, to place myself in a position to assist in a reworking of social systems, to empower the marginalized and provide a sense of wholeness and humanity among a continuously divided, compartmentalized and dehumanized society.  Most of us joined the psychology field because we wanted to help.  Upon recognition that our ability to live our convictions and thus provide psychological services is dependant on organizational membership – I have become impassioned to continue the work of CPAGS for our profession and our patients/clients.  CPA/CPAGS serves our convictions and our desire to help.

The California Psychological Association (CPA) advocates, protects, fights for and secures our license, and our ability to practice our convictions.  Our inheritance as graduate students is the responsibility to be involved at least as a paying member.  Paying members are necessary though should be considered meeting our professional responsibility at a minimal level.  It is not enough.  A student who is enthralled by the prospect of social justice, or who is motivated to move the health care profession toward a holistic view of the individual or who dreams of their services as providing a life-changing impact is simply misguided to assume that these things can come to fruition without the impact of an organizational voice.  The opportunities to speak over our legistlative body and create change are available once a year in March (CPA Advocacy Day) and present themselves when action alerts are blasted to our members.  The opportunity exists when we join CPA, when we become vocal in speaking against those stereotypes that threaten our profession and our clients and when we fully embrace our work as having always been dependent upon a larger movement instead of our individual intellect and intuition.

To better understand the extent to which CPA has advocated on behalf of our profession, here is but a brief, non-exhaustive list of proposals CPA has witnessed being written into law as a result of advocacy efforts through the state legislative process.  We could safely consider the following items non-existent if it weren’t for CPA’s advocacy efforts, and the collective contributions of members.

• Enabling a psychologist to be a county mental health program director (1972).
• Recognizing a psychologist’s testimony on a person’s competence to stand trial (1974).
• Psychologist can practice as part of a medical corporation – first of any state (1977).
• Made it possible for psychologists to be included within the definition of “physician” for worker’s compensation and for disability evaluation services (1977).
• Appointment of clinical psychologists to professional staff membership with designated privileges at all health facilities (hospitals, nursing, and rehabilitation). First of any state. (1978).
• Required that all positions of responsibility in local mental health services be equally open to named professions including psychology (1978).
• Enabling doctoral candidates in psychology and as yet unlicensed doctorates to be employed as Psychological Assistants (1983).
• Psychological services are added to those professionals (physicians or psychiatrists only) restricted to working with the Department of Corrections or California Youth Authority (1984).
• Provided psychotherapists with immunity from damages or monetary liability in failing to warn or failing to predict and warn/protect from a patient’s violent behavior except when there’s a prior serious threat of physical violence (1985).
• Assured that psychologists are considered health care providers and their scope includes behavioral health problems (1986).
• Included mental impairment within the definition of handicapped status and to include discrimination in employment or membership in a labor organization (1986).
• Broadened several forensic practices of psychologists (1988).
• Removed the “non-hospital” designation from Psychiatric Health facilities that provide 24-hour acute inpatient services (1996).
• Raised awareness and proper services to those exposed to and suffering from Lyme disease (2002-2007).
• Halted Governor Schwarzenegger’s attempt to dissolve the California Board of Psychology (2009).
• Mandated that children under the age of 18 wear helmets while skiing/snowboarding (not yet passed: in process).
• Parity law requires mental health insurance benefits be comparable to physical care benefits (not yet passed: in process).

Our jobs and those we serve are not properly defined, practiced, or advocated for without CPA.  And so without a show and dance to offer my colleagues and peers, I ask you to consider your involvement and your voice simply as a responsible clinician to your clients and to those whom have paved the way before us.

To learn how to get involved with CPAGS beyond membership, please contact any of your leadership found here.

The early registration deadline for Convention is approaching!  CPAGS early member registration is $99 on or before March 16^th, and $140 after March 16^th. Be sure to register online at www.cpapsych.org and plan for the following events that CPAGS members won’t want to miss!  Want to attend for free?  See how to volunteer for registration reimbursement below!

Thursday, April 7
5:00 to 6:45pm—Welcome Reception We encourage CPAGS attendees to kick-off the convention with 2011 CPA President, Sallie Hildebrandt, PhD

7:00pm to 9:00pm—Division VII Diversity and Social Justice Panel and Town Hall Meeting Graduate students will be part of the panel to discuss multicultural issues as it relates to clinical practice.

Friday, April 8  **Register Online**
12:45 to 1:45pm—Graduate Student Lunch (CPAGS Lounge)
Join us for lunch for networking and to discuss professional development and other hot topics for graduate students.  Lunch is $5 for pre-registered students and $10 for walk-ins.

7:00pm to 9:30pm—CPAGS Night Out
Take a 6:30pm shuttle down to San Diego’s Gaslamp Quarter with fellow grad students.  A great atmosphere, fantastic food and good company makes for a fun CPAGS Annual Night Out. CPAGS buys the appetizers, and you pay for your drinks!

Saturday, April 9

12:00 to 1:30pm—Internship Crisis Talk (CPAGS Lounge) **Register Online**
Have a quick lunch with students from across the state! Get the 411 on internships, and what YOU can do to be a competitive applicant.  Lunch is $5 for pre-registered students and $10 for walk-ins.

6:45 to 8:00pm—President’s Reception

Sunday, April 10

7:45 to 8:45am—Speed Mentoring **Register Online**
This is a great opportunity for graduate students glean advice from seasoned professionals regarding the professional practice of clinical psychology in specialty areas of Child, Adolescent, and Family; Adult; and Health Psychology.  Mentees can remain within one group or move to another group, space permitting. To submit questions in advance, visit the CPAGS table in the Exhibit Hall.  This is one event you will not want to miss!!

Attend the California Psychological Association’s 2011 Convention for FREE!

Volunteer spots are limited and CPAGS members will be placed on a first come basis. Volunteers must register online prior to March 16, and work for a minimum of six (6) hours at convention.  After the volunteer commitment is completed, the registration fee will be refunded after the convention – it’s that easy! Contact the CPAGS Convention Chair, Romi Reyes, at rebreyes@gmail.com for more information.

After our much needed holiday break, I returned to school for our anticipated competency exams.  While I believe I prepared sufficiently enough, the concept of studious dedication seems to be overrated during the holiday season!  Prior to the exam, I sat down to my individual computer as my friend and fellow peer sat next to me.  After several minutes of discussion she made the following comment: “Try not to be an overachiever and let us get a curve on this one!”  While this statement was made in jest, I realized that the comment was not made due to any amazing ability I have to do well on exams.  Presumably, she likely made this comment due to my leadership position and involvement with various student organizations like C.P.A.G.S.  Scholastically I would rank myself as a traditional, hard-working graduate student achieving a decent but certainly not perfect grade point average.  Moreover, I make it no secret that I too dedicate myself to hours of studying and periodically still fall short of the ideal letter grade.  Therefore, am I considered an “overachiever” because I choose to take positions in organizations like C.P.A.G.S. and contribute additional time actively participating in student diversity issues?  Or are students apprehensive that involvement in such organizations is so time consuming that one must be an “overachiever” in order dedicate any spare moment to anything other than graduate work, practicum, and other scholarly projects?

My trepidation is the possible misconception that some graduate students may have regarding leadership involvement in a student organization like C.P.A.G.S.  At present, active student members are frequently granted multiple opportunities to enhance their professional experiences and interact with notable, proficient psychologists.  In turn, these inimitable occurrences will likely expand the student member’s future career goals.  Therefore, I wanted to briefly clarify some of these possible misconceptions by discussing certain  potential concerns students may have when considering joining or taking a position of leadership in an organization like C.P.A.G.S.

1. Time management

I too had my reservations when deciding to run for the C.P.A.G.S. Diversity Chair position last year.  My hesitation was based on whether I would have sufficient and available time to dedicate to the obligatory meetings, conferences, and committees that would be required of me.  I, like many of the other students in the C.P.A.G.S. leadership, still have a full load of coursework and practicum hours to complete.  However, I assumed that if I could manage my time adequately I would be able to complete the tasks that many student leaders accomplished before me.  Surprisingly, I currently find that the time commitment is not exactly overwhelming!  Are there days where we have to meet and attend conferences calls? Yes.  Are there selected reports and updates that are required? Yes.  Does it take up a tremendous amount of time and effort? Not exactly.  Granted, this is my experience and I have not yet discussed this in detail with other fellow C.P.A.G.S. leadership members.  However, I suspect I would gather similar opinions.  I basically presumed I would be overwhelmed.  Yet, I find my participation rewarding, exciting, and very manageable!

On that note, I would constructively recommend consulting with faculty members and other students prior to considering a leadership position.  Every student’s course and work load is highly subjective; therefore, waiting a year may be a wiser choice if your current schedule is already maxed out.  I personally did wait a year until I knew I would be able to handle my course load, practicum obligations, and a leadership position.  Also, if you cannot or choose not to actively pursue a leadership position, you can still benefit from simply attending events like the annual C.P.A. convention and C.P.A.G.S. conventions throughout the year.  By meeting attending these conventions, we are able to network and interact with psychologists from various regions around the state.  This requires no supplementary work or time other than attending the dates of the event.  I strongly encourage this kind of participation as it speaks volumes when considering internship opportunities, additional professional experience, and even letters of recommendation.

2. Student Support

Students may also be anxious assuming that if they apply to a position of leadership that they are “on their own” and will be required to calculate matters alone.  This is simply not the case!  Specifically addressing the C.P.A.G.S. leadership team, we are always supporting each other and offering ideas and assistance whenever possible.  Additionally, faculty members are typically very enthusiastic in assisting students that take on such leadership positions.  Personally, I have found that the faculty members at Alliant – C.S.P.P. San Diego are incredibly supportive and willing to assist in any event planning or additional leadership opportunities on campus.  I will restate that these have been my personal experiences thus far and I cannot speak for everyone in student leadership positions.  However, I encourage asking and requesting information prior to assuming anything!

3. Self Care

Lastly, I was very concerned that my involvement as the C.P.A.G.S. Diversity Chair would not grant me the very precious free time to spend with my loved ones and for my very critical self care.  While the involvement in C.P.A.G.S. and other organizations does require some time, it is not an overwhelming amount of time and I find that I am still able to enjoy my few significant moments of free time however I like.  Remember, all student leaders are first and foremost graduate students working collaboratively on similar goals.  Therefore we all understand the necessity of free time to keep our sanity!

In summation, while I enthusiastically encourage students to participate in leadership positions in C.P.A.G.S. and other local and national professional student organizations, I do believe that consulting with mentors, faculty members, and other student leaders is essential prior to making a formal bid to take on a leadership position of any kind.  Simple planning and understanding of the demands that will be asked of you could prepare you for a role that will open doors and opportunities you had not considered in the past.  All the best and good luck!

There are some psychology programs that require that students attend therapy as a part of their “personal growth” requirement, while others do not. Regardless of program requirements, I believe that it is our responsibility as clinical psychology graduate students to engage in our own therapy. Much of my work as a therapist has been informed by my experiences as the client, and I strongly believe that therapy is an enriching experience that helps shape who we are, or who we will be as therapists. In my opinion, the idea of sitting in the therapist’s chair without having been in the client’s chair is simply irresponsible. How can we truly understand our clients if we don’t know what it’s like to call a therapist and set up the first appointment? Or the thoughts and feelings involved in walking into an office and waiting for the therapist? I recently had the privilege of teaching an undergraduate course and the one thing that helped me truly understand and empathize with my students was my own experience as a student. I think this also applies to being a therapist in that we can better understand our clients if we have been in the client’s chair. As an advocate for personal therapy, I would like to address some common objections from students with regard to seeking therapy. It is my hope to challenge some of these thoughts and concerns and provide an alternate rationale for consideration.

“I don’t need therapy”

Whether or not you can identify a specific “need” for therapy, I am certain that each of us can benefit in some way. Irrespective of your ability to manage your life on your own and successfully work through challenges, there are many advantages to engaging in therapy. First and foremost, you gain the very unique experience of what the therapeutic process entails, beginning with the initial phone call. I remember reaching out for therapy during my first year of grad school. I felt anxious as I drove to my first appointment and remember thinking don’t ever forget this feeling, your future clients may feel similarly anxious on the way to their first appointment to see you too. Then I arrived to the on-campus counseling center. I walked through the door, checked in with the receptionist, grabbed a magazine, sat down, opened the magazine, and pretended to read as the thoughts went through my mind. What will my therapist be like? What will the session entail? Will I like her? Will she like me? Do I really need to be here? I was early and had to wait in the lobby for about twenty minutes, though it felt more like two hours. I heard the entrance door open several times, but I didn’t dare look up from my magazine. The last thing I wanted was to make eye contact with someone I knew because that would be awkward. After all, there is that stigma that comes along with attending therapy, right? I didn’t want anyone to think that I was incapable of handling my own problems or that I was struggling to succeed through my first year of grad school. Finally, after what seemed like forever, my therapist called me in. Being the focus of attention for 50 minutes was more difficult than I had imagined. There I was, sharing my life story and current struggles with someone I didn’t know at all. I feel very vulnerable, anxious, uncomfortable… don’t forget what this feels like. Don’t forget what it feels like to meet your therapist for the first time… to be in the client’s chair…

“I don’t know what to talk about”

If you think you have nothing to talk about in therapy, that in and of itself is worth exploring! Attending therapy involves facing one’s own feelings and beliefs about what it means to engage in mental health services, which can be quite challenging. We are likely going to help our clients face their fears, thus it seems important that we challenge ourselves to face our own. For a moment, think about how you might respond to a client dealing with their own personal or cultural beliefs about attending therapy? I recently had a client disclose that her entire family believes therapy is for “weak” people. Through careful exploration, it became clear that she had her own doubts about therapy. On the one hand, she thinks that therapy can help her and on the other, she believes that she is weak for “needing therapy”. This led to much deeper exploration, and turned out to be a positive turning point in her therapeutic process. I believe that my personal experience as a client allowed me to truly empathize with this client in her own process of exploring feelings and cultural beliefs about being involved in therapy.

Some of my most uncomfortable experiences as a client turned out to be the most valuable for me as a therapist. For example, I learned how to “sit with silence” and tolerate feeling uncomfortable, both of which have come in handy in working with my own clients. I also learned that I felt irritated when my therapist was late to session. Bringing that to her attention was quite uncomfortable, but turned out to be an excellent learning opportunity for both of us. I can proudly say that I am almost always on time to meet with clients, and if I am a few minutes late, I take responsibility and apologize for the wait. We should always remember that our clients’ time is precious too.

“I can’t afford it”

Therapy can be an expensive process, especially for graduate students with a tight budget. The good news is that many therapists offer their services to graduate students at a discounted rate. Additionally, college campuses typically have an on-site counseling center at which counseling services are offered at an affordable rate or free of charge.

Whether it involves exploring deep rooted issues from childhood, or simply discussing your tendency to clean the night before a big exam, getting involved in therapy allows for personal and professional growth in addition to a greater understanding of the full therapeutic process. Simply by recognizing the thoughts you experience while driving to your first therapy session, or the feelings you experience as you wait in the lobby and anticipate meeting your therapist, you are likely to gain extremely valuable knowledge in your experience as the client. It is my hope that you will challenge yourself to personally experience what it is like to be in the client’s chair.

Recently, during a required course at the Wright Institute called ‘Sociocultural Issues,’ we were asked to read “On Becoming a GEMM Therapist: Work Harder, Be Smarter, and Never Discuss Race” by Kenneth Hardy (2008). Within the text, Hardy outlines fifteen ‘helpful’ guidelines for therapists in training who are people of color. Hardy states that because of psychology’s long-standing tradition of being largely populated by Whites, students of color must aim to “be twice as good and work twice as hard to be accepted” (p. 462). He reasons that despite many training programs newfound commitment to being “liberal, self-proclaimed culturally competent, [and] culturally inclusive” (p. 462), these institutions are still so deeply embedded in a system that promotes homogeneity that they cannot help but ‘white-wash’ any student that goes against the predominant cultural norm. Hardy suggests that students of color should strive towards becoming good, effective, mainstream, minority therapists (GEMM) in order to pacify the requirements of these training institutions. While these schools may outwardly promote ideals of social justice and cultural competence, many students of color may regularly find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to deny their own culturally-informed position in order to work within the boundaries of the predominantly White institutions. This may appear in the form of racial microaggressions, having to educate their White peers and supervisors on a non-White perspective, or a pervasive sense of isolation as a minority student.

The following are some excerpts of the steps that Hardy outlines in order to become a Good, Effective, Mainstream Minority therapist, and in his view, may therefore aid students of color in surviving their training experiences:

1) Never discuss race. You may then reveal that you have unresolved racial hang-ups of your own.

2) Accept that the field is color blind, even if most clients of color are referred to you instead of your white classmates. Clearly your supervisor sees you all as just human beings, rather than any particular race or ethnicity.

3) Smile! “No matter how many racial slights or microaggressions you have to endure, stay pleasant” (p. 465). Otherwise, you are likely to be viewed by supervisors as the unnecessarily angry person of color.

7) Embrace the sameness-difference dilemma by learning to “live with the implicit contradictory messages of our field that encourage differences but rewards sameness” (p. 465).

13) Work harder, be smarter, and focus on abolishing your racial hang-ups. This will be the only way to distinguish yourself as a competent clinician of color in relation to your White peers.

15) Develop comfort with being judged by others’ standards, particularly when you are deemed too hostile, too passive, too sensitive, or too emotional. White supervisors may see you as being more qualified to work with minority clients, but feel comfortable in critiquing how you do so in relation to the White standard.

Upon first reading these guidelines, I immediately assumed that Hardy was simply being tongue-in-cheek. As a strong advocate of increasing a systemic social justice viewpoint within the field, Hardy seems the last person to advocate for trainees to simply stay silent during incidents of racial insensitivity during their education. However, he addresses this issue outright: “Although I presented these tips in a sardonic manner with a tinge of levity, they are not funny… and none of this is a joke” (p.468). Hardy is presenting the idea that in order for students of color to be able to change this double-standard that still exists for students of color within the field of psychology, they must first survive their training in order to achieve positions of power. In order to survive, they must assimilate to the White standard. He suggests that if every incident of a racial microaggression was indeed brought up by a person of color to their supervisors or peers, they would quickly be labeled as someone with racial hang-ups of their own and slowly be ostracized and subversively penalized. During the class discussion of this article, students were strongly divided on whether Hardy was legitimately proposing these strategies for students of color, or merely trying to bring attention to the double standard and urging students to do just the opposite of his guidelines. The very tone of his article seemed to emulate the problem itself—this is a serious systemic issue, but should we trainees just ignore it in order to individually survive?

Sadly, I suspect that this is an issue that each student of color (and by extension, each sexual minority/physically disabled/lower socioeconomic class/etc. student) will have to grapple with on their own. The question of how much one ought to raise issues of inequality can bring up very intense, idiosyncratic reactions depending on the particular individual and circumstance. As an added pressure, we must also remember our status as a vulnerable trainee and consider the very real consequences that being labeled “too sensitive” or “too aggressive” can have on our future careers. Is this even an issue that students of color might feel comfortable discussing with their supervisors, given the apprehension for potential negative evaluations as a result? Or, at the very least, one may possibly fear making their supervisor uncomfortable in having to deal with the sensitive topic of race and thereby inviting distance and caution in that extremely important relationship.

I think I can safely state that most minority students (whether through race, ethnicity, ability status, sexual orientation, etc.) have had at least one experience in their training when they have had to weigh the consequences of speaking out over some injustice versus staying silent out of concern for their status as a trainee. I can easily recall of several times during my training experience when a gay slur was uttered by a client, or a supervisor made me wince due to an uninformed slight. My initial reaction to reading Dr. Hardy’s words of advice for situations like these was to believe he was obviously joking, as someone should not and could not be expected to keep all those painful moments locked away. Sadly, however, I did just that. I stayed silent during each incident, not wanting to rock the boat. I deem them each unintentional, or simply ignorant and not the focus of why I was there. I want to say to minority students to fight back against these words, to of course raise the issue each time you’re faced with social injustices, big or small. But I can’t. I feel like I’ve seen just a bit too much of how deeply embedded our field is with social politics and the grand strokes of how a trainee is evaluated.  And the truth is, I don’t want to be labeled the Sensitive Trainee; or the Guy-With-The-Sexual-Identity-Issues; or someone my supervisors possibly dread meeting with, despite their protestations that these are serious issues with which they too are concerned. Instead, I will keep my mouth (mostly) shut until I am the supervisor, and then make sure the cycle stops in whatever way I can. I will take the hits now, because I must, knowing what the payoff will be.

This issue seems enormously significant to the future of the field of psychology, especially as it continues to promote its ideals of social justice and multiculturalism but maintains practices that continually suppress their development in our training, then deny (or at least fail to fully recognize) that such continued injustices persist. I am sure many graduate students will disagree with my stance, and I quite honestly hope that they do. Those souls more brave than I might inspire a bit more courage from those around them. I think the conversation in this area has only just begun for our field, and we as rising clinicians need to ensure that it continues. For those interested in supporting this commitment to multiculturalism in our graduate training, a very exciting event is scheduled next month around these topics. Dr. Kenneth Hardy has been invited by the Alameda County Psychological Association to discuss the issue of supervision from a multicultural perspective on February 19, 2011. Dr. Hardy will be speaking as part of the ACPA’s Continuing Education series, which allows for half-price admission for graduate students (Friday, February 19^th, 9:00am to 5:00pm at The David Brower Center, Berkeley. Click here for details and registration).

For those interested, Dr. Hardy is an accomplished speaker on the topic and would likely be very interested to have the graduate student perspective present during this presentation. Discussions and reactions to this article, as well as Dr. Hardy’s upcoming speech, would be very welcome in the Comments section below.

References

Hardy, K.V. (2008). On becoming a GEMM therapist: Work harder, be smarter, and never discuss race. In M. McGoldric & K. V. Hardy (Eds.), Revisioning family therapy: Race, culture, and gender in clinical practice (pp. 461-468). New York, NY. US: The Guilford Press.

The California Psychological Association’s (CPA’s) annual Leadership and Advocacy Day (LAD) is approaching fast! This is a unique opportunity for graduate students to develop leadership skills, acquire advocacy experience, and establish relationships with seasoned psychologists and state legislators. Attendees will be trained about the legislative process by CPA staff and lobbyists and learn how to actively take part in shaping the future of mental health care in California. The California Psychological Association’s 22nd Annual Leadership and Advocacy Day (LAD) will convene on Tuesday, March 22, 2011 and held at the California State Association of Counties Conference Center (CSAC) located at 1020 11th Street in Sacramento.

Participation in this event by CPA members is critical to provide ensure access for our clients to receive appropriate mental health services in the state of California, and protect the strides that have been made in years past. As in years past, CPA members across the state will meet with their locally elected officials. During these meetings we will have the opportunity to share details about upcoming bills that are important to CPA and explain why, as their constituents, we are asking for their support on these bills. These meetings are essential because Senators and Assembly Members often receive limited information about bills, at times just moments before they must vote on them. By participating in LAD, you will be the “voice” of our profession to help Senators and Assembly Members make informed decisions about bills relating to mental health concerns. Please invite your CPA and CPAGS colleagues to join us in Sacramento on March 22nd to help educate and form relationships with our elected representatives.

Thanks to generous donations from CPA’s Division I, CPAGS members are eligible to attend LAD for FREE with travel stipends!! Students interested in receiving a travel stipend must submit a brief essay (no more than 250 words) detailing his or her experience in advocacy and explaining how attending LAD will contribute to his or her future plans involving advocacy work. Additionally, students are asked to submit anticipated travel expenses for attendance (i.e. airfare, mileage, shuttle/taxi to from airport, etc.). The funds will cover travel expenses only. (Please note that breakfast and lunch are provided as a part of LAD).

The deadline for travel stipend submissions is February 11, 2011. Only CPAGS members are eligible. To join, register and/or apply for the travel stipend, please click here. All applications received by February 11 will be reviewed and recipients will be informed of their selection status by February 17, 2011. Recipients are required to provide original receipts, and will need to make their own travel arrangements to arrive in Sacramento by 8:00 am and depart any time after 6:00 pm on March 22. (Hotel costs are not covered.) CPAGS members are encouraged to attend Happy Hour with free appetizers from 5pm to 6:30pm at the Pyramid Alehouse located at 1029 K Street in Sacramento. For further information please contact Takisha McNeill, CPAGS Advocacy Chair, at takishamcneill@gmail.com.

For more LAD information: LAD Fact Sheet

I went for a walk at night recently.  It was a cool 60 degrees Fahrenheit, the sky was pleasantly overcast, my evening was wide-open, and I was fed up with my indolence after having sat in my home in front of a computer all day.  Activities like this walk outdoors have become a luxury for me of late.  All told, I estimate no less than one month of my life has been spent applying for internships, twenty-four sites in total.  I am not saying this as hyperbole; added up, I am certain I have spent 720 hours in the application process.  Okay, maybe not certain, but I am sure its been at least half that amount of time—or at least close.  My wife, Allison, made fun of me when I was writing cover letters, because I would read over a sentence again, and again, and again, and agonize over whether I liked the way I had worded a sentence, and pounded my temples while questioning if I had included everything I wanted to say.  “Are you obsessing?” she would ask, looking at me askance.  Now was the final deadline for these sites to inform me of whether my application is “still under consideration” for an interview or not.  As you might guess, for those sites who have decided to the negative, I am “no longer under consideration,” they are “declining to offer me an interview,” though I am assured they have received an “unprecedented number of applications,” of “truly exceptional applicants,” many of whom like myself they are, sadly, “unable to offer interviews.”  Despite the overly thick layering of politically correct wax, the condolence is appreciated.  I wondered how many of the directors noticed the carefully crafted sentence I had polished in paragraph three of my autobiographical essay.  I bet some did, I reassure myself.

I do not want to be misunderstood, however.  I am really not complaining; I have fared decently with interviews, and look forward to an invigorating, jet-setting January.  I suppose it all comes down to that old problem that jibes me again and again—the future.  What will tomorrow bring?  What will January bring?  What will the next year bring?  Will I like my internship?  Will I get an internship? Will I be prosperous?  Will I reach my goals?  Will my plane to New York careen into the earth in fulfillment of the foreshadowed, tragic cliché of Alanis Morissette’s song?  These are the questions I wonder about daily.  I project my mind, I stretch it into the dark, imaginary netherworld of the future, and search the scenarios for danger, advantage, and opportunity, trying to eliminate the surprised response of what has always been, and what will always be one’s unanticipated response to the future, Oh my! This internal pull to gain the advantage over the future’s ambush is hard to ignore.  After all, as a friend who has gone before me in this process said recently, “I would like to say it gets easier, but interviews feel freshly terrifying—every time.”  I could hardly agree more.  I imagine all the time and money—oh God the money!—I have put forth in pursuit of becoming Dr. Huett, and wonder, will it all be worth it?  Would I not have been better off becoming an itinerant busker, learning to play cymbals between my knees, while I strum out Hank Williams tunes and wail on a harmonica?  I confess, the imagery captures how I feel on certain days regardless.

So I went on a walk—a long walk, much longer than I anticipated—to clear my mind.  It was a beautiful night.  While the light pollution from Los Angeles is a drag for stargazing, on overcast nights it illumines the bottom of the cloud cover, showing all the wisps and streaks and expanding billows in a surreal glow.  Maybe I have just grown a little too accustomed to Los Angeles, but I really enjoy these nights.  I walked south from my home in Pasadena, into the San Marino neighborhoods.  The mansions in San Marino have been around for decades, and expansive shrubs, elaborate gardens, and towering old trees loom on every street.   The homeowner demographic is probably more than 75% octogenarian, so traffic is scarce, and there is very little noise.  The surroundings were peaceful, the glowing clouds hung low in the atmosphere like blanketed insulation, and there was a slight mist in the air.  It was as though my surroundings called out and said, “Hey! What else we gotta’ do to give you some serenity here?”  But it was hard to notice because I was busy thinking about the future.

Near the end of my walk, an unassuming sight caught my periphery.  During my brisk stroll down the sidewalk, I saw a tiny, dim streak to my left.  Despite the darkness, I recognized the sight immediately—a worm.  I had a good stride going, and I intended to keep heading north, but found myself halted, and staring.  I towered over the infinitesimal creature.  I glared down out of the corner of my eye in dismay at the small, dark worm on the sidewalk.  The sidewalk was three feet across—literally, a steps-width for me.  On my left was a long patch of grass running the length of the sidewalk, and on my right was a small, 10-inch wide flowerbed, complete with dirt, begonias and some lavender.  The worm was smack in the center of the sidewalk, stretching to an improbable length, as by some tiny, invisible rack.  The worm had a rather predictable pattern of effort; it would elongate its threadlike body, wriggle its pin head from side to side, touch the tip of its head to the concrete at the terminus of its stretching capacity, and quickly retract, then repeat—stretch, search, touch concrete; stretch, search, touch concrete; retract.  Stretch, search, touch concrete; stretch, search, touch concrete; retract.  This it did—in the manner as only a worm is endowed—with a sense of composed, yet fervid urgency.  I sighed.  What are you doing worm? I said in my imaginary dialogue between the worm and myself.  How long have you been trying to get across this sidewalk?  And look where you are, the middle! For a moment I felt exultant over the vast gap between myself and this diminutive biota.  In this spirit, I reprimanded the dumb worm.  Don’t you know, worm, that the middle of a sidewalk is the worst place to be?  Imagine if I was a bird, or a raccoon, or even a toddler—you’d be in my mouth in as much time as it took to spot you! But then I reviled the worm: Of course you don’t know that the middle of the sidewalk is the worst place to be.  You’re a worm!  You don’t even know what a sidewalk is, much less a bird or a raccoon or a toddler! I streamed on mercilessly, Unlike me, you lack any capacity to comprehend your larger context.  You don’t even know that you’re on concrete, a completely unnatural compound that my species made, that is part of a street, that is lined with houses where people like me live! You can’t see how far it is to the grass patch.  You don’t even know if you’re going in the right direction!  The only thing that you know is that you aren’t on dirt—not that you ‘know’ what dirt is—but you sense that where you are is not some place you can live.  I mean for god’s sake you can’t even burrow your head in the stuff. I thought about the hundreds of times over my life that I saw worm corpses on sidewalks—either bloated in puddles after rain, or shriveled from the hot, afternoon sun.  Worm! I admonished in the contrived conversation running in my mind, do you realize this thing you worms do is what gets you all killed?  You’ve got a bagillion miles of dirt for the taking, and you want to cross this sidewalk—and without eyes, or ears, or legs or anything that would help you decide if it was even a good idea. Exasperated, I let out a hard breath.  In recalcitrant retort, the worm contested my diatribe in the best way it knew how: stretch, search, touch concrete; stretch, search, touch concrete; retract.  Were I smaller and much nearer to the ground, I am sure I could have heard its defiant, ‘scrape, scrape’ against the pavement.

I watched this pitiable scene play out with all the mounting tension and rate of plot development of a Jane Austen novel.  Worm! I jeered again in my imaginary dialogue, This, this vain attempt to get yourself from a dirt patch to a grass patch—its, its asinine! Stretch, search, touch concrete; stretch, search, touch concrete; retract.  I sighed.  I stared down with both pathos and bewilderment.  Finally, pathos overtook me.  I saw the creature in all its meager life effort straining, in spite of its patent limitations and inability to understand the futility of its compulsive task.  No matter how ludicrous its endeavor, presently the worm’s well-being was, without question, imperiled.  I bent down to help out, to ease its burden, but when I touched the worm, it immediately erupted in a fit of thrashing and writhing and wriggling and violent, spasmodic, convulsing wormish behavior.  I recoiled, shocked.  This worm doesn’t even know I’m trying to help it, I thought, bemused.  Here this little tube of life, tapered at both ends, reddish brown through and through, lacking any semblance of defense for supraterranean existence—no legs, no poison, no noisemaking anatomy, no teeth, no claws—just soft, fleshy tissue wrapped around a gutty pseudocoel, was gripped by the great Life Principle, and let out a primal scream, inasmuch as a worm can, and an obdurate, albeit unnecessary, fight for survival.  The scene was simultaneously admirable and a travesty.  The worm flubbed up and down wildly on the pavement while I stared, aghast.  I had no idea worm, I thought, I had no idea it all meant so much to you. I bent down again and grabbed the worm more determined this time.  The worm, struggling, swirled around in my fingers while I lifted it up off the sidewalk, and into the atmosphere—probably the only time in its short, worm life that it will be suspended in the atmosphere—and flung it over toward the grass patch.  I watched the worm arc in a parabola downward to the earth, and land, softly, onto the stretch of Bermuda grass, and disappear.

I paused for a moment and was struck by a feeling of unease and oddity toward everything that had just unfolded.  Did I just save an enraged, terrified worm? I thought, now reflexively sheepish.  I quickened my pace toward home, amused yes, but more unnerved and de-centered from this strange encounter between myself and a lowly Annelid.

I walked in the door after my long stroll, still admittedly, thinking about the future.  With immediate and instinctive urgency, I pulled up my email.  Another rejection letter, and on the last day at 11 P.M. east coast time!? I puzzled. They really did stretch it out to the end, didn’t they? No matter.  I have plenty else to think about.  I have refreshing to do on case formulations, diagnostic knowledge, review my values, personal strengths, weaknesses, goals for the future, and at least a dozen other things for my upcoming interviews.  And until then, I will wander around feverishly, envisioning all the different possible scenarios, reaching for fertile soil, searching for that which feels penetrable by my meager knowledge and capacities—those times I feel ‘safe’ and ‘competent.’  Perhaps some Great Eye will watch me in dismay while looking on at the relatively miniscule distance between all my importunate travels, and at the even more miniscule, but infinitely more perilous distance between the present from where I’ve ventured out, and onto the future that defies ostensive knowledge, upon which I am merely wandering the surface, comically trying to break through with my man-mind, feeling around for any change in texture that signals I have found terra nova.  And perhaps some Great Voice, confounded, will exclaim, “What are you doing human?  Why did you climb out of the present where you were just fine, and into the middle of what doesn’t even exist yet?  Don’t you know this is how you humans get into trouble?  You don’t even know what the future is; you’ve never even experienced it.  All you know is this present moment, your haphazard remembering of the past, and your imaginings of what the future will be.  You’re just wandering on its flat, cold edges; stupefied by its unfathomable and unforeseeable density.  Why, you can’t even get your mind into it!”  And in my defiant and ill-equipped manner, I will venture still from this very present across the void of infinite possibility in search of some new present, groping hapless and befuddled at the future’s refusal to yield answers to my imploring knock.  In protest I will bump my head against the impervious future again and again, because I can, even if I cannot get into it.  And should in compassion, once I have truly marooned myself on the barren plane of existential angst, this Great Heart try to come to my aid, I will most certainly sense some cosmic disturbance, and feel acutely that I am about to be annihilated.  And I will clench my fists and shake them at the sky, and howl into space about ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ and ‘what is right,’ dammit!  Then I will get on a plane, squirm in my uncomfortable coach seat while I silently exclaim, For the love of sanity what is happening, and what is going to happen!? Then, somehow, by some Great Hand, I will be delivered by quiet, gentle and assured solicitude to a patch of earth and time that I, in my dull, muted senses, recognize as life giving, safe, and well, home.

In the wake of state elections, most of us find ourselves either sighing with relief or throwing out a “don’t go there” statement whenever the topic arises.  Some of us have been engaging in the heat of discussion about how we voted, how others voted, or as in my case, admitting that not much was known about any politics besides the buzz about Whitman vs. Brown and Prop 19.  Although we may be “over it” for the time being, it was refreshing to attend the CPAGS Student Leadership Advocacy Conference at Alliant International University, Sacramento the following weekend.

I found myself getting all pumped up about advocacy of psychology-related issues, propositions and legislature.  Amanda Levy, a lobbyist for CPA, was a guest speaker who focused mainly on how grad students can get involved in protecting our scope of practice as well as promoting its progress in the near future through advocacy.  She mentioned the opportunity to participate in a meet and greet with legislators at the capitol coming up in March.  The idea of my feeble attempt to talk politics with the pros got my palms sweating, but I continued to listen as Amanda reassured us that we were actually the ones with all the know-how.   After a training through CPAGS, we engage in conversation with various legislators with the goal of filling them in on issues within the field of psychology.

The intimidation factor really diminished when I learned that most of the legislators don’t know the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist and that most of the knowledge I would share with them are things I already knew!  This prospect was beginning to sound more and more doable, even enjoyable by the minute.  I could totally see myself spending a day or two learning a few tactics, chatting it up and actually making a difference.  I never thought that a measly little grad student like me could actually have something useful to contribute at the big bad capitol!  Now I can’t wait for March and to spread the word about this exciting opportunity in the meantime.  And I hope to see you there!

This March 2011, CPAGS will participate in the Leadership and Advocacy Conference where students will be trained and prepped to speak to legislators during Advocacy Day.  Please e-mail our advocacy chair or any of your CPAGS leadership with further questions about this upcoming event.  More information on the event will follow at psychgrads.com.

The following paper describes the author’s process of reflecting on the topic of trauma.  Using a documentary film to stimulate his own reflections and reactions, the author presents his own effort and struggle as a training clinician to grapple with the conceptualization and treatment of trauma and its victims, in hopes that fellow trainees can also engage in this exploration as the mental health field strives to find ways to best serve this population.

One of our challenges as clinicians in training is to reconcile the symptoms and experiences we encounter in our work with patients with a way of thinking about what is happening to them, a theory about why it is happening, which helps us reason through the art of diagnosis.  Perhaps no psychological phenomenon is more elusive in the realm of conceptualization and diagnosis than what happens to a person in the aftermath of trauma.  The difficulties of identifying, conceptualizing and diagnosing trauma have imbued the whole of the field of psychology—across history, and regardless of modality or orientation—with continual frustration and perplexing questions.  HBO’s recent documentary, Wartorn: 1861-2010, which aired November 11, depicts precisely this confusion, even as it aims to transcend it.  Though it surveys nearly a century and a half of stories from soldiers and their families for possible explanations and insight into the dark world of post-traumatic stress, it finds only further nuances, confusion, and unanswered questions.

Trauma has been described as a psychotic experience [1]; for one, unthinkably terrifying moment, the horror and drama of one’s deepest fears and wishes find their match in an actual event in the external world.  In this moment, the distinction between inside and outside becomes disorienting, blurred, and loses coherence.  On the whole, these are exceptional occurrences; many people never have this kind of experience.  For those who do, the impact is often indescribable, as is the scope of destruction.  The person’s momentary loss of boundary between fantasy and reality forever alters what it means for them to both perceive reality and to fantasize, to symbolize, to dream.  These are the very processes that make us human, and having lost them, the traumatized person has become dehumanized. [2] He or she is no longer a subject, but an object; the self, as it has known itself, died, and the fragmented bits and pieces that remain are left waiting physical death, entre deux morts.[3] As one heartbroken mother in the film describes her son’s suicide, “The inside died so completely that he put that gun to his head and killed the outside as well.”

Typically, this “second death” has resulted from suicide, a tragedy that is a strong focus of both Wartorn and the military itself, as both search for ways to stanch the bleeding of these “hidden wounds,” as one military psychologist put it.  Watching the documentary, I found myself thinking about how these wounds become hidden.  One WWII-era headline reads, “76,688 Veterans Have Nervous Ills.”  I was struck not only by the magnitude of that figure, but the actual, numerical figure itself, which invites the reader to contemplate each individual as a person.  It looked like an artifact from a time when culture was willing to think about these victims, before they became statistics, percentages, and now the depersonalized descriptions of “rising rates” and a “growing epidemic.”  Despite the efforts of films like Wartorn and similarly concerned news articles, radio interviews, military tribunals, and academic literature that try to capture a helpful way of thinking about PTSD and its suicide victims, it seems, paradoxically, that these individuals get pushed further away, deeper down, beyond our scope of thinking, where thinking cannot or will not go.

Tragically, the loss of capacity for symbolic thinking seems to be contagious where trauma is concerned, affecting not only victims themselves, but also their closest relationships.  It is in part one’s inability to think trauma that destroys victims’ lives, ravages their families, and leaves the social environment—the military, the law, the media, and health services—at a loss for words.  This effect is apparent everywhere in Wartorn.  In one of the most compelling moments, a father reads the military’s psychological evaluation of his then-alive son.  The evaluation states that the soldier did not meet criteria for any major psychological disorder despite his unambiguous indication, in a checkbox, that he was actively contemplating suicide, which he ultimately executed.  “It’s not just the soldier in combat who comes down with PTSD,” states his surviving brother; “it’s the entire family.”  More than any other moment in the film, the DSM-IV and the mental health apparatus seem not just woefully inadequate but morally culpable for what has happened to their beloved soldier, brother, and son.

Throughout Wartorn, the litany of diagnostic terms applied to veterans since the 19th Century flash and recede on the screen: Hysteria.  Melancholia.  Insanity.  Shellshock.  Battle fatigue.  And now, everywhere, PTSD.  But the term itself, as its advocates strive to affirm and legitimate its pervasive presence, obscures more than it elucidates.  For some Veterans, it is the aftershock of witnessing atrocity, the flashbacks, the sense that the past will not get in the past and stay there.  For others, it is more firmly rooted in guilt, the incomprehensibility of having committed acts of which they never dreamed they were capable.  In some, victimhood is most prominent; in others, the strain of hyperarousal over days, months, even years of consecutive deployments.  The struggle to codify this phenomenon parallels the soldiers’ struggle to know what has happened, how far the effects will reach, and what will be left of their lives in the fallout.  In a dozen different ways, the camera tries to point to PTSD—a stutter, a blank stare, tears—but ultimately, cannot quite find it.  Why are we trying to describe this as a unitary phenomenon? I wondered.  Are these soldiers even talking about the same thing?

In this way, Wartorn cannot coalesce itself as a film any more than PTSD can assume status a stable diagnostic entity.  This strikes me as getting at the core of the traumatized person’s experience; the loss of unity.  As I contemplate my own relationship to this phenomenon, I feel mired in my inexperience, my helplessness, and my distance.  These soldiers and their families bear all the cost, not only of defending our country, but of my own defense against having to contemplate the horrors of their sacrifice.  How can I use my feelings to break through these defenses?  As Andrew Bacevich states in The Limits of Power, “Relying on a small number of volunteers to bear the burden of waging an open-ended global war might make Americans uneasy, but uneasiness will not suffice to produce change.” [4] What will suffice?

As the concluding image of Wartorn advertises suicide hotlines and informative websites, I wonder what they offer—whether it is enough.  I was reminded of another narrative about trauma and suicide that has been increasingly visible in culture recently: the deaths of bullied, gay teens.  One of the most inspiring responses to these tragedies has been the website ItGetsBetter.com, which catalogues in YouTube videos the stories of LGB people who have made it safely to the other side of adolescence to safe, whole, and (by comparison) free lives.  They have survived to share their journey.  Crucial to the survival of growing up gay has been their own ability to metabolize what has happened to them, which is contingent upon the culture’s capacity to open up a space for that process to take place.  Suddenly I find myself back at the DSM, which began the process of redressing its unthought, unprocessed misunderstanding of homosexuality in 1973, seven years before PTSD was coined.  Perhaps trauma can benefit from a similar revision.  As the next generation of clinicians, in our own struggle to think through trauma in our various learning environments, we become more available to our patients’ struggles to think their own experiences.  By refusing to collude with trauma’s insistence on not being thought, we can develop new ways of holding it in our minds, and thus holding our patients.  By continuing to expand and deepen, as does Wartorn, the conversation about trauma, we expand and deepen our capacity to help.

[1] Cohen, J. (1980).  Trauma and repression, Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 5, 163-190.  As cited in: Boulanger (2007)

[2] Peskin, H. (2010).  ‘Man is a wolf to man’: Disorders of dehumanization in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy.  Presented at the meetings of the International Association for Relational Psychoanalysis & Psychotherapy (IARPP), San Francisco, CA, February 25, 2010.

[3] Boulanger, G. (2007).  Wounded by reality: Understanding and treating adult onset trauma. Mahwah, NJ: Psychological Press.

[4] Bacevich, A. (2008).  The limits of power: The end of American exceptionalism.  New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.

“So, what’s your orientation?” someone asked me. A bit thrown by the random and blunt nature of the question, I reluctantly replied, “Um, I’m queer?” It was my first day of training at The Wright Institute, and I was suddenly starting to wonder what I had gotten myself into. “No, no. I mean what is your theoretical orientation?” the person countered. “Oh, well, how would I know that yet?” I answered quizzically. And with that, the conversation ended.

I remember at that moment being filled with an odd combination of curiosity, confusion, and shame. I had not come to The Wright Institute with a background in psychology. My undergraduate degree was in Peace and Conflict Studies at UC Berkeley. The majority of my time, prior to entering graduate school, was spent immersed in multicultural conflict resolution trainings and colloquiums about the unintended consequences of modernity and globalization. However, I did enter with several years of clinical experience in working with substance abuse and dual-diagnosis populations. My decision to pursue my doctorate in clinical psychology was shaped by my affinity for clinical work, as well as by the way in which psychology offers a nonviolent vehicle for change at both the micro and macro levels.

Well, here I was, my first day of graduate school and I already felt like a fraud. It was as though I was being asked to write the discussion section of an article, without having first conducted any research. As time went on, I began to feel like a pacifist, sitting on the sidelines of what felt like a civil war, it was “The Battle over Theoretical Orientations.” The CBT-identified proponents spoke ill and dismissively in regards to their Psychodynamic colleagues, and those on the Psychodynamic side spoke of their CBT oriented colleagues in much the same manner.

After hearing both sides I found myself thinking, “Why do I have to choose? They both sound useful, and they both sound limiting.” I could not imagine assigning activity logs or thought records all day with my clients any more than I could imagine breaking down the primitive defenses of a person, who is trying to function without the use of substances for the first time in their life. And despite presentations on the utility of taking an integrative approach, it still seemed as though I was being asked to choose.

Now I will be the first to admit that some theoretical orientations speak to me, while others turn me off. Falling prey to what feels like a true divide and conquer phenomenon, I found myself using the same dismissive tone about object relations theory that I had deplored in others. I found myself in CBT uniform, ready for battle against the whole of psychodynamic theory. Yet I also found that I still appreciated much of what object relations theory has to offer. The pressure to conform as a student and as a professional is very powerful, and I have often found myself disappointed by the ways in which I feel pulled to play the game.

For each person the theoretical orientation that they will most identify with, and that will help inform what they view as being useful, will stem from a myriad of factors: our own therapy, personal demographics and history, spiritual or religious beliefs, philosophy about the nature of change, etc. Early on in my education, I realized that I have a tendency to embrace a more supportive approach to psychotherapy. Simply put, I tend to believe that if a house is on fire then we should grab some water and put the fire out, and then, afterwards, we can figure out the cause.

It is only now, at this point in my training, that I feel compelled to answer the question that was posed to me on my first day of graduate school, “What is my orientation?” Well, when I reflect on my sessions with my clients, I find that I end up pulling from countless theoretical frameworks, including: DBT, multicultural, narrative, CBT, attachment-based, emotionally-focused, psychodynamic, mindfulness-based, feminist, social justice, positive/humanistic, and the list goes on. In other words, I find that I identify as integrative. Does the fact that I find value and borrow from each of these approaches somehow mean that my case conceptualization or clinical work is unsophisticated? Some would argue yes. Perhaps some would say that I am casting my net too wide. However, I feel that there is strength in taking an integrative approach. Being able to pull from different theories provides me with a toolkit that is diverse enough to help a wide range of clients in a variety of settings.

However, with that being said, of all the aforementioned theoretical orientations that inform my case conceptualization and work with clients, I do find that I have a favorite, narrative therapy. I was introduced to narrative therapy in my Family Systems class, and I took an instant liking to it. Marrying social justice theory and psychology, narrative therapy offers a collaborative approach to working with clients, and it views society (not the client) as the primary source of pathology. Last year, I was fortunate enough to do my second year externship at Alameda Family Services in the San Francisco Bay Area. It provided me with the opportunity to work from a narrative model, to receive training that involved weekly reflecting teams, and to provide collaborative treatment planning. And there was a true commitment to working from a multicultural framework. It felt like I had finally found a way to work with clients and be able to incorporate my Peace and Conflict Studies background. It spoke to my whole reason for entering the field of psychology in the first place.

I share all of this with the hope that as graduate students we can help each other find an alternative story to the dominant discourse that would have us believe that there is one, and only one, true theoretical approach. My hope is that together we can help remove the shame that at times can accompany outside-of-the-box thinking, as well as support one another in remaining open-minded and flexible in how we view our clients and our work at large.

Students and practitioners of most health professions never question whether or not they should join their guild organizations.  The expectation of becoming a member is a given.  Why does this not seem to be the case in psychology?  Despite more than a century of progress and development, psychology professionals today tend not to sufficiently support the organizations that advocate on behalf of our profession. There are only three organizations able to address your professional interests at the legislative, legal and regulatory level: your national organization, the American Psychological Association (APA), your state organization, such as the California Psychological Association (CPA), and the local chapter of your state association. Part of the problem may stem from the culture of psychology. We are a profession characterized by a myriad of theoretical perspectives, resulting in a plethora of approaches to how we motivate change in our patients.  As a result, there are literally hundreds of membership organizations representing specialized and particular elements of practice within professional psychology, but lack a great deal of coordination or cohesion.  This translates into significant competition for your membership dollars and participation.  Another issue may be that many psychologists are simply not educated about the purpose of our national and state associations and what these organizations are accomplishing.

What follows are a few key benefits of joining APA, CPA and your local chapter.  This is not an exhaustive list, but I hope these crucial points might communicate the importance of joining these organizations. Association membership dues pay for all of the services mentioned below and more.  Additionally, it should not go unmentioned that the dues paid by members supports all those psychologists who do not pay dues yet who benefit from our association’s efforts.

Access To Care – One role of our membership organizations is to promote the public’s access to psychological care.  APA and CPA open doors for patients who might not otherwise receive psychological help.  For example, this can happen through improving how public and private insurance reimburses mental health professionals, or through using psychological research to promote programs that serve specific populations.  An instance of this happened when APA advocated for the passage of the Garrett Lee Smith Campus Care and Counseling Act.  This legislation provides critical support to college students struggling with emotional problems.  Our associations also improve public health through promoting legislation such as CPA’s recent efforts to establish helmet requirements for youth who downhill ski and snowboard.

Scope and Authority to Practice – APA and CPA advocate for maintaining and expanding your scope of practice (what your education and training experience prepares you to do professionally) and your authority to practice (what legislative, regulatory and judicial permission is provided so you can practice within your scope).  Through working in collaboration with various state associations, APA accomplished the passage of prescriptive privileges in two states, and more recently, passed a national mental health parity bill (which equalizes insurance coverage for mental health diagnoses to the same degree as medical/surgical diagnoses).

Standards for Practice – APA has been at the forefront of health professions promoting multicultural perspectives in serving consumers.  Treatment guidelines and standards are continuously being developed and revised.  Recently, APA has provided standards for the treatment of women and girls, the aging, and many other demographics and treatment populations.  Whether the issue is ethics, record keeping, or evidence-based practice, standards of practice enables psychologists to understand the minimum considerations for responsible care of the public.

Education and Training – Both APA and CPA provide invaluable education and training directly through annual conventions and other workshops.  Moreover, our associations set the standards for what you must learn to become and remain a psychologist.  For example APA recently revised the recommended curriculum for undergraduate psychology degrees.  Our associations work tirelessly to interface with both federal and state regulators to ensure quality of education and training and thus, the quality of services consumers ultimately receive.  APA and some states have also developed highly sophisticated public education resources free to members who wish to provide community forums and workshops regarding violence prevention, the mind-body connection, and resilience, just to name a few.

Social Action – There are many ways in which your national and state associations promote social change.  Perhaps most relevant to students in California would be the recent collaborative efforts by APA and CPA to provide an amicus brief (essentially, an informative research statement) to the California Supreme Court.  This statement was instrumental in the original passage of the same-sex marriage law.  APA and CPA are continuously in dialogue with communities throughout the nation to work toward improving social conditions.

Member Services – APA and the state association provide too many benefits to mention them all here.  However, these include professional, ethical and legal consultation, distressed-colleague assistance, public referral and networking resources, disaster relief, and ongoing access to important information regarding your practice.

The Role of Local Chapters – At the more local level, our chapters provide information and referral services, local professional networking, public services such as depression/suicide screening, professional consultation, and continuing education for members and other clinicians in the area. Perhaps the most important chapter function regards access to the formation of professional relationships with local legislators. Making contact with legislators enables us to work with them on issues that are of great importance to our patients and to our profession.

CPAGS is proud to announce the first event of the 2010-11 year! You are invited to join CPAGS for the 3 Annual Student Leadership and Advocacy Conference (SLAC) to be held at: CSPP at Alliant International University 2030 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 200 Rooms 3 and 4 Sacramento, CA 95833

The 2-day event will begin on November 5th, 2010 with a panel of seasoned professionals led by Dr. Gilbert Newman.  It will kick-off the SLAC that will focus on career development for graduate students of all levels. Presenters will provide tips and insider information about becoming a psych assistant, as well as offer practical advice on how to develop an independent practice. This presentation will also focus on future business development strategies. Speakers will be available to answer questions following the presentation. Day 1 will begin at 6:30pm and continue until 9:30pm.

Saturday, November 6th will begin day two which will focus on empowering graduate students to become leaders on campuses, in communities and in the field of psychology. Panel discussions will focus on CPA’s current advocacy efforts, including parity and licensure issues for psychologists in California, as well as highlighting CPA’s 2011 Governmental Affairs Committee priorities. The conference will conclude with an interactive presentation on advocacy and the legislative process. Lunch is provided. Day 2 will begin at 9:30am and end at 3:30pm.

This conference is FREE, but registration is required. Overnight accommodations and travel between the airport and CSPP-Sacramento Campus may be available upon request. To be considered for a travel scholarship and to register for the event click here.

“I felt like death,” said Dr. Alicia Prado, describing her experience of completing the four-hour long Examination for Professional Practice of Psychology (EPPP). To her audience, a group of Bay Area graduate students, these weren’t the most encouraging words, but they concisely and authentically encapsulate the angst felt by unlicensed psychologists trying to cross the professional threshold of licensing.  By recent statistical reports, this angst seems warranted given that between January 2005 and December 2009, only 66% of California doctoral students passed the 225-item exam.

While the EPPP is difficult, the anxiety that accompanies this exam can be lessened with the appropriate plan.  Recently, The Wright Institute and the Alameda County Psychological Association hosted Robert Kahane, Executive Officer of the Board of Psychology (BOP), and Jeff Thomas, Assistant Executive Officer of the BOP, to talk about the exam.  Dr. Gilbert Newman, the Wright Institute’s Director of Clinical Training and the Wright’s Dr. Alicia Del Prado, were also invited to share their experiences and how best to prepare for the EPPP.  These speakers provided some of the resources that we are passing on to students here.

We in CPAGS have been informed that issues surrounding licensure are not adequately addressed in California’s psychology training programs. We believe that many qualified and gifted people could perform better on the EPPP with a little guidance.  Many graduate programs provide excellent clinical skills training, but do not prepare students with strategies for passing licensing exams.  We at CPAGS want to help provide some resources to assist you in reaching your professional licensing goals.  Therefore, we provide you with a couple of items that may help you in preparing to be one of the 66% – or at least to help that number grow.

The Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards: for general information about licensing, passing the EPPP and what will be required of you:

Click here.

The Licensure Process (CA) is a step-by-step approach written by Amy Wertheimer, Ph.D., a psychologist at UC Berkeley’s Counseling and Psychological Services.  Download The Licensure Process here:

Download PDF

I would like to take a moment to disabuse myself of any sense of objectivity regarding my evaluation of the Danielsen Institute. From the time that I learned of its existence to the day of my interview, I felt a growing sense that this was the place for me. My interview day only served to cement that sense, and I still get slightly giddy when I realize that I am here. I hope that reading about one person’s particular experience can in some way demystify the experience for those of you who are either anticipating or going through the grueling process of applying for internships.

One of the perks that is likely true of many APA internships is that I feel like a professional. That feels amazing. I put in approximately 46 hours per week at an outpatient mental health clinic, where I see 15-18 patients per week, engage in various supervisions and training seminars, and conduct neuropsych/psychological assessments. All of this without the interruptions of classes, papers, or study groups… and I get PAID. I even get to ‘leave work at work’ on occasions, which has taken some getting used to. Additionally, interns are treated like colleagues, and there is an explicit commitment to mutual exploration between supervisors and supervisees regarding the best course of treatment for each patient. In that sense, the internship year marks a significant step in the development of professional identity–a chance to really try on the role of full-time psychologist. Furthermore, if you can finish your dissertation, or at least the bulk of it, before internship, your ability to enjoy your new professional identity will be greatly enhanced (i.e., actual free time).

The Danielsen Institute is unique. It is psychodynamically oriented and attracts the most diverse outpatient population I have ever encountered. Much of the psychotherapy is long-term, with a focus on object-relations, attachment theory, intersubjectivity/relational theory, and existential work.  (However, I have yet to encounter a dogmatic adherence to any of these theoretical traditions.) As a psychodynamically-oriented type, who also has a great appreciation for the subjectively different experience of each and every client, this approach fits me like an American Apparel t-shirt. There are different opinions on the pros and cons of picking internships that fit with a particular theoretical orientation. In my experience (having come from a generalist grad program) it has been invaluable to receive supervision from people who know my preferred theoretical orientation more deeply than I, and have sat with thousands of clients, all of which lends a theoretically robust, yet highly personalized approach to formulation and treatment. I encourage each of you to pay close attention to the supervision offered at the sites to which you apply. Nothing beats the clinical wisdom of a supervisor who has sat with a hundred clients who in different ways resemble the client for whom I am seeking supervision.

The Danielsen Institute is also uniquely devoted to the exploration of SERT (Spiritual, Existential, Religious, and/or Theological) issues, as they relate to the health, pathology, meaning, and personhood of our clients. As a staff with a diverse set of SERT backgrounds ourselves, we meet for an hour and a half on a weekly basis to specifically examine how our clients’ SERT backgrounds and our own SERT backgrounds are impacting the intersubjective field that makes up psychotherapeutic work. In my experience thus far, the opening up of these deep repositories of meaning has a profound impact on our work with clients and on staff cohesion. There may be something to be said for getting an internship (any internship!) and plugging away until you finish your requirements. However, if you can find a place that resonates with your own passion, the internship experience will some day be a rich and meaningful memory.

Of course, it is not all champagne and caviar. I’m not particularly drawn to assessment work, and I still long for the day when I can bid the Rorschach and WAIS-IV adieu. There is also a steep learning curve regarding the pains of managed care and the administrative side of caring for our clients, all of which is excellent experience in this day and age, but not particularly interesting to me. Still, I think that most of you will find the internship year to be a time of rejuvenation and reconnection with the ideals and passions that attracted you to this field in the first place. I wish the best of luck to each and every one of you. Your hard work is going to pay off.