Boy trouble

A discussion of Kay Hymowitz’s Manning Up and Leonard Sax’s Boys Adrift.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

The Strong Man of the Police School (1906) - TIMEAWhile men have long been stereotyped as perpetual teenagers, a swath of recent books and articles have expressed rising concern about the failure of boys and young men in the United States to achieve traditional markers of adulthood. Young men appear to be falling behind young women in educational achievement, meaningful careers, and social relationships, and often seem unmotivated to move forward in their lives.

I have been reading both Kay Hymowitz’s Manning Up and Leonard Sax’s Boys Adrift, two books that take jarringly different perspectives on what is happening to boys and young men in America, and what needs to be done about it.

As a social critic, Hymowitz is unconvincing. Manning Up reads like more like the off-the-rails final essay from her Marriage and Caste in America than the sharp, concise and well-supported other essays that led up to it. In Manning Up, Hymowitz far too frequently relies on anecdotes as evidence, as if Sex and the City reflected the average American woman’s daily life. Manning Up displays assumptions about feminism and suggestions about men that Hymowitz never bothers to defend, like the notion that men marrying at later ages is bad for women and society. The book is not as shrill as some of its Amazon reviews would have you believe, but neither is it particularly strong in landing its argument. That argument essentially is that feminism is to blame for the struggles of boys and young men, but it is up to men to adapt to the changing world, and they’re dropping the ball so far.

Boys Adrift is a welcome contrast. It frames the problems American boys are facing in the context of five causes: Video games, teaching methods, prescription drugs, environmental toxins, and devaluation of masculinity. Some of those proposed causes may strike you as questionable at first (that was certainly my reaction), but Sax lays out the research on each quite well.

Perhaps more importantly, the tone of the book is right. Sax strikes the difficult balance between objective researcher and social activist, landing somewhere in the neighborhood of a concerned, but not panicked, parent. Boys Adrift is clear and convincing, and while it makes a number of public policy arguments, it focuses primarily on what parents and family members can do to ensure their own sons are the motivated and active young men we would all want them to be.

By simply confirming what some may want to believe about men, Hymowitz is likely to enjoy higher sales. But Sax wrote the better book.

# # #

What are your thoughts on the struggles boys are facing in the United States? Have either of these books, or others, changed your thinking? Your comments are welcomed. You can also email me at ben[at]bencaldwell[dot]com, or share your reactions via Twitter.

Four myths about MFT licensing exams

Go ahead and be anxious about your licensing exam process — it’s a big deal! But don’t buy into grumbling falsehoods about it. Test items are written by actual MFTs, and there are no trick questions.

Every person who becomes a licensed marriage and family therapist has to go through an examination process. In most states, that means passing the National MFT Exam. Many states also supplement the national exam with a second exam covering areas of state law (for example, ensuring that therapists are familiar with that state’s requirements for child abuse reporting). In California, the exam process is a bit different; California MFTs must pass two state-run exams, the MFT Standard Written Exam and the MFT Written Clinical Vignette Exam. [Update: The California MFT licensing exams change structure on January 1, 2016.] The overall content and structure of California’s exams are similar to the National MFT Exam — they’re multiple-choice tests that use a combination of factual questions and case-vignette-based questions.

Regardless of what state you’re in, if you haven’t taken the exam(s) yet, you may be dreading them. Even if you have gone through the exam process, you may not have fond memories of it. I hear complaints about the licensing exam process on a regular basis — most of them based on total mythology. It’s as if we (quite understandably) have anxiety-based associations with our testing process, past or future, and then (far less understandably) conjure up rational-sounding but totally baseless complaints about the process in an attempt to justify those fears.

It’s okay to be anxious about the process on its own merits. The exams are high-stakes; if you fail, you typically have to wait several months to try again. That impacts your standing among your peers, your employment options, and potentially your income. I still remember completing California’s Written Clinical Vignette exam and feeling certain I had failed. In a matter of moments, I was mentally planning how I would explain the failure to my employer, and how I would plan to do better next time. It turned out I had passed, but the memory of those anxious moments before getting my results stays with me.

If I had failed, I wanted to blame someone else: How dare that test be too hard for me! It must be the test’s fault! I’m glad I didn’t take much of a walk down that road, but if I had, I would have had plenty of company. Once a rumor has started that serves to explain why the tests feel so frightening and why we feel so unsure of ourselves going into them, it is easy for that rumor to be perpetuated. Such stories are factually wrong, and ultimately do more of a disservice to future test-takers by making the exams look cruel and unpredictable. But to someone who has failed a test (or is worried they might), the stories offer comfort — and someone else to blame. So they live on each year.

Here are the four myths I hear about MFT licensing exams the most:

  1. There are trick questions. Simply put, a licensing exam that uses trick questions would not be legally defensible. Test developers go to tremendous lengths to make sure any potential exam item works well, through several layers of review and pilot testing. If too many people are missing a question, it gets flagged for even more review. If a question appears to be tricking people, either by design or by accident, it is removed.
  2. There is secret knowledge. Test-prep companies make a lot of money perpetuating the mythology that they can provide you with “secrets” or other insider knowledge to help you pass the tests. Nonsense. Both California and AMFTRB (developers of the national exam) offer study guides that say what will be covered on the exams, and they ultimately draw their questions from the same textbooks and journal articles that graduate programs use to teach their students.
  3. They are meant to assess whether you are a good therapist. If I may be blunt, your licensing board does not care whether you are a great therapist or a lousy one. They only care about whether you can practice marriage and family therapy competently enough so as to not be a danger to the public. That’s what the exams are meant to assess. Yes, it is sometimes true that ineffective therapists pass their licensing exams, and effective therapists fail. But effectiveness and potential dangerousness are two different things. If you want an outside evaluation of your quality as a therapist, look elsewhere. (Back in 2008, I examined in more detail the question of whether licensing exams lead to better quality therapists.)
  4. They are written by people who aren’t therapists. Both California and the AMFTRB use licensed therapists to write their test items. In California, you can apply to be a subject matter expert involved in writing the exams. Elsewhere in the country, AMFTRB intermittently recruits MFTs with relevant expertise. Every test item on both the California and National MFT Exams is written by one or more practicing MFTs.

If you’re anxious about your own upcoming exams, instead of buying into the falsehoods above, you’ll likely be better off to do something about that anxiety. Maybe that means simply more studying, or maybe it means more directly addressing the anxiety through meditation, therapy, or other means. (Test-prep programs may be of questionable value overall, but if they can help you feel more knowledgeable and less anxious as you take the tests, they may well be worth your time and money.) Rest assured the exam process, and those who designed it, are not out to get you or to trick you. With the right preparation, you can do well on exam day.

If you know someone else who is anxious about their exams, or even who has failed an exam, by all means, comfort them and empathize with them. Sometimes we just have bad days. But please don’t support any of the mythology above — those ideas just make the testing process look bigger, scarier, and less under your control than it really is.

MFT student alleges racial discrimination kept her from degree

A former MFT student at Southern Mississippi has sued the university, claiming their discrimination made it impossible for her to complete her practicum hours.

JudgesTools IconAccording to a report in Monday’s Hattiesburg American, former MFT student Maria Salcido has sued the University of Southern Mississippi over alleged racial discrimination. Salcido, who is Hispanic, alleges that she was told by faculty that she needed to secure a practicum working with Hispanic clients, and that the program then failed to find her such a placement. Salcido left the program in 2009 and moved to Wisconsin, though it is unclear from the newspaper report whether she left the program voluntarily or was kicked out.

Salcido appears to have completed all the rest of her academic coursework; the report indicates that both sides agree she only needs to complete the practicum to complete her masters degree. Salcido is seeking compensation, punitive damages, and the opportunity to finish her degree.

The newspaper attempted to reach the university’s lawyer for a response, but had not been successful as of Monday. According to a response the university filed in court, the university and its employees consistently acted legally and properly within their professional roles, and Salcido’s claims of racial discrimination are not accurate.

The case is currently at the District Court level as Salcido v Southern Mississippi et al. I’ll be keeping an eye out for more information as the case progresses.

Update: Salcido’s case was dismissed.

# # #

Comments are welcome below. In addition, you can email me at ben[at]bencaldwell.com, or educate me via my Twitter feed.

Eight interview tips when applying to an MFT graduate program

Don’t call yourself a perfectionist, for one thing.

              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              

Wikipedia-academy-2009-nih-tim-interviewAs the academic year begins, we also rapidly approach the time of year for admissions interviews, those high-pressure days when prospective MFT graduate students have anywhere from just a few minutes to a full day to impress their chosen programs. I have been doing admissions interviews for six years now. Along the way, I have seen marginal students get into their desired program on the strength of a good interview — and I have seen academically strong students whose poor interviewing ultimately kept them out of the programs they sought.

There are a number of good guides out there that can help with general interviewing skills. This post is intended to highlight those behaviors that, in my opinion, can have particular (and sometimes unexpected) weight in interviews specifically for family therapy graduate programs.

Please bear in mind that all of this is simply my own opinion and experience. Every interviewer and every program is different. Still, I hope these help in your preparation. They are in no particular order. If you are interviewing soon, good luck!!

Assume that the whole time you are on campus is your interview. In other words, remain your charming, professional self even in times that seem more informal, such as meal breaks or meetings with current students. Many programs use these opportunities to gain a more complete impression of applicants, and do consider feedback from everyone who has met you in the admissions process when making their decisions.

Be specific. Sometimes, interviewees keep their answers short and simple to avoid saying anything the interviewers may find off-putting. This strikes me as unwise. The interview is the chance for the program to get to know you; take it! If you’re still a mystery after the interview, they might rightly wonder how successful you would be at building relationships with other new people (namely, clients). Talk in specific terms about your skills, your goals, and your experience. If your answers lead the program to turn you down, then you weren’t a good fit in that program anyway — and better to know in advance.

Set yourself apart. A lot of candidates spend time highlighting traits that are generally positive, but common in the pool of applicants you’re competing with. Talking up common strengths (like organization, multitasking, working well with others, and having a passion for the field) is unlikely to hurt you, but does little to help. Be prepared with specific examples of you demonstrating those strengths, and spend a majority of your time talking about pieces that make you unique. These might include specific work, research, or volunteer experiences relevant to the field; international or multicultural experiences that led you to develop specific skills (if you are multilingual, particularly highlight that); or other skills or experiences you have that others in the applicant pool probably don’t have. The more of these kinds of traits you can highlight, the more the program may see you as a uniquely qualified candidate instead of just one among many.

If your interviewer asks what your flaws or struggles are, do not say you are a “perfectionist.” It sounds at first like a good answer — after all, it means you are driven to succeed, right? In fact, interviewers may see it as a red flag. It looks like you could be trying to dodge the question with salesmanship instead of just answering it, like the interviewee for a corporate job who says his biggest problem is that he just. cares. too. much. about the company. If you do label yourself a perfectionist in an interview, hope that the interviewers see it as a dodge; that is actually the friendlier interpretation. Because if you are telling the truth about being a perfectionist, you are admitting that you are the kind of student who suffers paralyzing anxiety at the thought of screwing up anything, large or small. That does not leave a good impression among those who would be trying to teach you. Ideally, therapists (and students) want to do well, but also allow themselves the freedom to learn from their mistakes without doing what true perfectionists do: getting defensive or down on themselves in the face of even mild criticism or failure. Simply put, wanting to do well is a desirable personality trait in an applicant. Desperately needing to be perfect is not.

Avoid platitudes. Presumably you would not be applying to an MFT program if you did not want to “help people.” If you want to show your kind and generous spirit, be specific: Who in particular do you want to help, and why them? Similarly, it is safe to assume that all the applicants with whom you are competing would like to “make a difference.” Using phrases like these on their own is just wasting words; they do nothing to set you apart, and if anything, they can arouse skepticism on the part of your interviewers. Be prepared to explain such statements in greater depth. Better yet, avoid the platitudes entirely and cut to the chase.

Know your interviewers. If you know in advance who will be interviewing you, look online to see what you can learn about their research interests, the classes they teach, and their recent presentations or publications. (In smaller programs, learn what you can about *all* the faculty; that way you can talk intelligently about whose interests most closely align with yours.)

Be direct and brief with any negative discussion. Interviewers may ask about prior struggles you have had, especially if they see a low GPA on your transcript or see that you left prior work positions abruptly. Family therapy faculty are going to be particularly interested in how you handled such difficult personal interactions, knowing that managing conflict professionally and respectfully is a major part of what you will be expected to do as a student and as a therapist. When discussing other people or institutions with which you have had conflict, keep your discussion of others’ actions short, factual, and fair. Take responsibility for your part in the problem. And talk in specific terms about what you learned from it, and how you have put those lessons into action.

Ask questions. The admissions interview is a two-way street. A program that accepts you only benefits if you actually enroll in classes. Come to your interview prepared with at least 2-3 questions about the program (here are a few things worth asking an MFT program about), the faculty, or other students. Of course, keep time constraints in mind when determining just how much to ask about during the interview process. Understand if your interviewers can’t answer all of your questions right away, or if they deflect some questions to program staff; they are under a time schedule, and no one person is likely to know every detail of program information. If they offer the opportunity to follow up via phone or email to get those questions answered, take them up on it.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, every program and every interviewer is different. If you have other tips you can share with future interviewees, including tips on interviewing at specific programs, please feel free to share them in the comments.

On ethics and CAMFT’s record of published statements about AAMFT

In their own words.
                                                                      
                                                                                                                                            
                                                                
All bold text is my emphasis added.

===

“Marriage and family therapists, when acting as teachers, supervisors, and researchers, stay abreast of changes in the field, maintain relevant standards of scholarship, and present accurate information.”
CAMFT Code of Ethics, principle 3.5

===

On AAMFT and AAMFT-CA’s legislative interest

CAMFT statement: “The opposition [to the LPC bill] in California from AAMFT and AAMFT-CA never surfaced until 2007 and their legislative interest was limited to this single effort – this single piece of legislation.”
– CAMFT Feature Article, The Therapist magazine, March/April 2008

Fact check 1: “Assembly bill 894, introduced last year, would create a professional counselor (LPC) license in the State of California. While AAMFT-CA has no objection to the licensure of mental health professions, we had major concerns with the content of this bill, and therefore took a position of opposition. […] I spoke to the legislature’s Joint Committee on Boards, Commissions, and Consumer Protection in November [2005] to let them know our position and the reasoning behind it.”
– AAMFT-CA newsletter, Legislative and Advocacy column, Spring 2006

Fact check 2:Among our accomplishments in 2007, we have worked with the BBS to improve license portability into California. […] We also helped to defeat the bill that would have created an LPC (licensed professional counselor) license in California […] We are not opposed in principle to counselor licensure […] We also have been very vocal with the BBS in helping shape the new educational requirements for MFT graduate programs, which are likely to be put into legislation next year.”
AAMFT-CA newsletter, Legislative and Advocacy column, Fall 2007

Fact check 3:In 2007 the AAMFT experienced many successes on important advocacy initiatives. In particular, the AAMFT is pleased to announce that we were successful in obtaining participation for MFTs in the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA) Minority Fellowship Program. […] Also, for the first time, the US House of Representatives passed a bill including MFTs in Medicare.”
– Membership renewal message from the AAMFT Executive Director, 2008

===

On working collaboratively

CAMFT statement: “CAMFT has approached the [AAMFT-CA] division about legislative issues that CAMFT is sponsoring to involve them in joining our efforts — efforts to work together to further the interests of the profession. There has been no willingness or interest in working with CAMFT on these legislative matters.
– CAMFT Feature Article, The Therapist magazine, March/April 2008

Fact check: “With the resources I have available [through] AAMFT, I think that a joint and collaborative effort would be valuable. If you let me know when and where the meeting is taking place, I would like to make arrangements to join you.”
– Email regarding counselor legislation from AAMFT-CA Executive Director Olivia Loewy to CAMFT Executive Director Mary Riemersma, March 27, 2007

===

On AAMFT’s interest in federal legislative matters

CAMFT statement: “Historically, AAMFT, at the federal level, had no interest in legislative matters. It was actually Richard Leslie at CAMFT who pushed AAMFT, thereby turning the tide on their involvement in federal legislative matters to attempt to advance the MFT profession.”
– CAMFT Feature Article, The Therapist magazine, March/April 2008

Fact check 1: “The association not only incorporated as a trade organization in Washington, but also began a long association when it hired Steven L. Engelberg as legal counsel for Washington (federal) affairs in 1974. […] Failing to make progress in two months of negotiations with the Department of Defense [after CHAMPUS reimbursement for MFTs had been eliminated], the AAMFT sued the DoD for reinstatement on April 26 [1975].”
– William C. Nichols, The AAMFT: Fifty Years of Marital and Family Therapy, pp. 41, 63.

Fact check 2:CAMFT contracted with Richard S. Leslie, Attorney, in 1976.”
– CAMFT Executive Director Mary Riemersma, “The building of a profession”

===

On correcting false information, Part I

My correction request: “At the article’s conclusion, Ms. Riemersma writes, “No one gains by steadfastness, an unwillingness to negotiate, and casting barbs at the perceived opposition.” With this, I would agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, much of the Feature Article appears to be an attempt to cast barbs at AAMFT – an organization that, like CAMFT, has the best interests of the profession at heart. Even when the organizations disagree, it serves us best to present information that is clear and accurate.”
– My May 7, 2008 Letter to the Editor requesting CAMFT correct the provable factual errors detailed above

CAMFT response: “Your letter will not be printed in an upcoming issue of The Therapist due to the fact that members are troubled by the debate and do not benefit from it.”
CAMFT response to my request

===

On CAMFT informing the legislature (and its members) about a one-license future

CAMFT magazine: “I attended the AAMFT Long Beach Conference where their president Mike Bowers made a pronouncement at a conference forum of about 500 people that Mary Riemersma of CAMFT informed the California legislature that all therapists will hold the same license in the near future! I became alarmed. […] I knew Mary. This could not have been accurate. I called Mary and she quickly informed me of this misinformation.”
– Letter to the Editor, CAMFT’s The Therapist magazine, Jan/Feb 2011, p. 5

Fact check: “CAMFT states, “At some time in the future, we project that there will only be one masters level profession in California, with individuals specializing within that license. Thus, those who wish to specialize in systems work will do so; those who wish to specialize in art therapy will do so, etc. The current system with a variety of acronyms is confusing for consumers who just want to be helped and do not perceive greater value from one professional compared to the next.””
California Senate Committee Analysis of AB1486, July 2007
– Same text appears in a CAMFT email to members, May 24, 2007

===

On correcting false information, Part II

My request for correction: “Michael Bowers [is] AAMFT’s Executive Director, not its president […] It is true that Riemersma’s letter refers to “some time in the future,” and not the “near future” as the letter writer wrote – but this minor difference is an error on the part of the letter writer, not Bowers. Bowers quoted, in his speech and in his presentation slides, the exact text the legislative report quoted.”
– My Letter to the Editor again requesting CAMFT correct provable errors of fact

CAMFT response: “Your request to print the proposed correction was denied.”
– CAMFT response email

===

Marriage and family therapists treat and communicate with and about colleagues in a respectful manner and with courtesy, fairness, and good faith, and cooperate with colleagues in order to promote the welfare and best interests of patients.”
CAMFT Code of Ethics, principle 5