The Enduring Value of the Boulder Model: “Upon This Rock We Will Build”  Christopher Peterson University of Michigan  Nansook Park University of Rhode Island We comment on the article by C.R. Snyder and T.R. Elliott, “Twenty-First Century Graduate Education in Clinical Psychology: A Four Level Matrix Model” (this issue, pp. 1033–1054). We agree with many of the specific sentiments expressed by these authors but not with their dismissal of the Boulder model. We conclude that the Boulder model is as valuable today as when first articulated and that it provides a sturdy foundation upon which to make the sorts of changes the authors suggest. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol 61: 1147–1150, 2005. Keywords: Boulder model; four level matrix model Snyder and Elliott (this issue, pp. 1033–1054) criticized the Boulder model for graduate education in clinical psychology in the United States and went on to propose their own model of clinical training, one that emphasizes human strengths as well as problems and requires four levels of analysis: individual, interpersonal, institutional, and societal– community. Many topics relevant to clinical psychology education—from prescription privileges through the feminization of the field—are discussed. We agree with many of specific sentiments expressed by Snyder and Elliott and find their “four level matrix model” potentially useful in thinking about curriculum revision. However, we take issue with their dismissal of the Boulder model. Here we revisit the original position statement that articulated this model and find it is as valuable today as it was half a century ago. In fact, the Boulder model seems to be an ideal foundation from which to implement many of the specific recommendations made by Snyder and Elliott. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Christopher Peterson, Department of Psychol- ogy, University of Michigan, 530 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1043; e-mail: chrispet@umich.edu. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 61(9), 1147–1150 (2005) © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jclp.20154