"Profiling" the Master of Arts Program in Forensic Psychology

By David A. Arena, J.D., Psy.D., M.B.A.

Vital Program Statistics
In recent years, shows such as Criminal Minds and CSI have grown in popularity, often confusing forensic science and forensic psychology into a curious mix of fact and fiction. The Master of Arts
Program in Forensic Psychology (MAFP) at Argosy University has exploded onto the graduate academic scene during the past year. As of December 2009, the program has an amazing 755 students. The MAFP program is Argosy University's largest, its students compromising 54 percent of the graduate student population.

Students in the MAFP program have a variety of work experiences and career interests, including mental health and substance abuse counseling, military and government, corrections and law enforcement, and child welfare and crime victims’ counseling/advocacy. Some students have been working in related jobs for many years, while others aspire to a career change through an education from Argosy University.

Comprehensive Examinations
During the Summer I 2009 session, the MAFP program graduated its first two students following their successful completion of the required comprehensive exam. During Fall I and Fall II of the same year, 35 more students took the comprehensive exam; of those, 21 received a full pass, six received a conditional pass, and eight failed their first try. Students who receive a conditional pass are provided a mentor and are required to rewrite the sections that did not meet proficiency. Those who fail are scheduled retake the comprehensive exam during the next term. Students are given three opportunities to pass comprehensive exams.

The “CSI Effect”
The “CSI Effect” has been offered up by the media and some legal professionals as a valid real-world phenomenon whereby jurors are influenced by watching popular legal dramas on television to expect and perhaps even demand the high- tech forensic evidence that is portrayed as so readily available on these shows. Without this kind of evidence, these jurors are said to be more likely to find defendants not guilty. Though to date there is no direct evidence of the “CSI Effect” on jury verdicts, Tyler (2006) concludes that the premise is consistent with existing psycholegal studies of the effect of media influence and pretrial publicity on juror behavior. Tyler (2006) offers an alternative hypothesis in which he proposes that the “CSI Effect” could actually lower rather than raise juror standards for conviction “by creating a mystification of the scientific evidence” so that validity and reliability of the data is ignored if it appears consistent with their collective hunger for high tech expert testimony. At present, it seems that the jury is still out on the “CSI Effect” phenomenon.

Tyler, T. (2006). Viewing CSI and the threshold of guilt: Managing truth and justice in reality and fiction.
Yale Law Journal, 115, 1050-1085