From the Editor

Cynthia McLoughlin, Ph.D.

In mid-January, when the last issue of the News went to print, there was much uncertainty about the status of a mandatory continuing education requirement for the licensure of psychologists in Michigan. In the past few months, some things have been clarified. Others remain somewhat mysterious.

We’ve done our best in this issue to update information about the current status of MCE (in short, it is not the law, but its proponents continue to press for its passage—see page 4 for details) as well as to let our readers know what’s been going on during the past four months surrounding this controversial issue.

The biggest mystery about MCE is that no one knows what most of the psychological community thinks about this proposal. There are approximately 6,000 psychologists in the state, and it’s my guess that most them have never even heard that mandatory continuing education is being considered. There may be many others out there who read or heard about the MPA’s announcement last winter that MCE was now the law and have never heard that this announcement was incorrect. Are they out there buying unnecessary CE credits?

Among those of us who are aware of recent events surrounding MCE, there is tremendous diversity of opinion about what its adoption would mean to professional life as we have known it. Proponents generally argue that it will have little or no effect on those who already participate in continuing professional education. Opponents frequently see it quite differently, saying that there will be many unforeseen consequences (see the President’s column for an interesting presentation of this view). In this issue are a number of letters and a couple of brief articles on MCE. Help solve the mystery by letting us hear from you on this question.

Also in this issue is a truly hair-raising article that originally appeared in the newsletter of the Southeastern Florida local chapter of Division 39. It was written by a doctoral student who is fed up with being taught what he calls “Monkey Psychology.” And the Academy has contributed a thought-provoking paper (presented at this year’s Spring Meeting) on the looming issue of psychologist prescription privileges and its implications for the future of the profession. As always, I am interested in hearing what our readers think about any and all of what’s printed here.