Take a look at her blog, Skies. I would have compassion--I guess I feel a combination of pity and dislike for her more than compassion--if she were not so strident in her beliefs that clients who don't change under her "expert" guidance in 12 sessions or less (I don't remember if it was actually 12, but a very short term, nevertheless) aren't working hard enough. She just seems to me to have a giant chip on her shoulder that she can't seem to recognize or shift and so it plays out in a very grandiose impression of herself and less than insightful treatment of her clients.

One could also say that she is the one in control of her practice philosophy, and if she is going to believe that clients should be out the door in relatively few sessions (and she doesn't accept insurance and explains why in a lengthy rant), then she is, by design, going to have a practice with high turnover. She apparently doesn't have clients beating down her door for her services, so her income will be limited. She seems angry that others (including some within her profession) don't see the miracle of her approach and talents.

ETA: I think Universities assume that researchers in the sciences will be getting some of their compensation from grants they bring into the University. At least at research universities, it's very difficult to get hired in the hard sciences without grant-attracting experience.