Am I smart enough to be a Psychology major?

[lightthecandle]

I will be a junior this coming semester at the university, and I will be taking a bunch of Psychology courses. I am so excited, I can't contain myself. However, just the other day, I've heard some argue that Psychology is not that easy of a subject. This really terrified me, and now i'm wondering should I change my major (i've only taken General Psychology in highschool thus far and have done VERY WELL in it and got a 5 in the AP exam for Psychology)

were you guys scared that you wouldn't make it as a Psych major just like I'm freaking out now?!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[nlax30]

If it's what you are interested in then go for it, work hard, and you'll do fine. Each major is going to have it's positives and negatives. And different people will also view "x-major" as being harder or easier then "y" so don't get caught up in trying to compare what's easier/harder than what.

My B.S. is in psych because I just found it very interesting and at my particular school I had a good amount of flexibility in what sort of psych courses I could take.

 

[erg923]

I dont think anyone can answer this question for you really. We dont know you, or your work ethic. As a major, psychology is notoriously easy. Its a broad area, and undergrad level classes are going to be covering alot of areas, but only at skin deep levels. Yes, you will be writing a few papers and you will get a fair dose of statistics, but the classwork itself is not terribly difficult.

However, if you plan to pursue psychology at the graduate level, this requires you to put in ALOT more work during undergrad. You need to get involved in assisting with research within the department, form relationships with professors, and take your classwork SERIOUSLY. This will require lots of reading, and extra reading of the resesrch, or of certain topics, in order to figure out what you are interested in. In this way, it will NOT be an easy "run of the mill" major, because it only the first step in a much longer process. Psychology, clinical psychology especially, is ENORMOUSLY competitive for doctoral level admissions.

 

[lesleeannc]

I think it depends on the teacher. If you have a sweet teacher who really involves you and has you do a lot of critical thinking, research and stimulating conversations... it's not hard even when the content is a little rough because you're so into it! If you get a teacher who doesn't care about teaching and just makes you take notes and won't really engage you, it can be rough depending what level the class is.
I've taken a range of Psych courses at levels 100-500 and Stats and its been good! But I love Psychology and I'm usually thinking about it when I'm not doing it or reading about it, so even when its hard... I don't think if it has hard.

The reading can be a bit arduous if you have more than 1 chapter in 1 sitting. Just a warning.

 

[mslinzyann]

Really I don't think that a psychology major is all that difficult. The general content courses (and this is all at my school, it may be different where you are) such as abnormal psych, social psych, developmental psych, ect., are pretty easy if you just learn the terminology and are able to apply it. Your statistics courses will be a little challenging if you're not a math person, but if I can get through it I'm confident that just about anyone can. I would go for it if you're excited about it!

 

[deleted176373]

I will be a junior this coming semester at the university, and I will be taking a bunch of Psychology courses. I am so excited, I can't contain myself. However, just the other day, I've heard some argue that Psychology is not that easy of a subject. This really terrified me, and now i'm wondering should I change my major (i've only taken General Psychology in highschool thus far and have done VERY WELL in it and got a 5 in the AP exam for Psychology)

were you guys scared that you wouldn't make it as a Psych major just like I'm freaking out now?!

At the undergraduate level, a pulse is all that is needed to be a successful psychology student... things are considerably different at the graduate level.

Mark

 

[MissCaduceus]

I will be a junior this coming semester at the university, and I will be taking a bunch of Psychology courses. I am so excited, I can't contain myself. However, just the other day, I've heard some argue that Psychology is not that easy of a subject. This really terrified me, and now i'm wondering should I change my major (i've only taken General Psychology in highschool thus far and have done VERY WELL in it and got a 5 in the AP exam for Psychology)

were you guys scared that you wouldn't make it as a Psych major just like I'm freaking out now?!

I completed my B.S in psych from George Mason University and am working towards my double major B.S.N. ( My end goal is to be a psychiatric nurse practitioner ) Psychology is all gray and theory. It can be fun, but it can be dry sometimes. Psy degrees alone are a dime a dozen in the work world. So unless you want to build and do something at a Master's level don't major in psy. If you pre-med, consider biology (you can knock out a lot of pre-med reqs in your undergrad and save time). Hope it helps!

 

[thepsychgeek]

I completed my B.S in psych from George Mason University and am working towards my double major B.S.N. ( My end goal is to be a psychiatric nurse practitioner ) Psychology is all gray and theory. It can be fun, but it can be dry sometimes. Psy degrees alone are a dime a dozen in the work world. So unless you want to build and do something at a Master's level don't major in psy. If you pre-med, consider biology (you can knock out a lot of pre-med reqs in your undergrad and save time). Hope it helps!

I don't know if I'd say it's gray and theory, personally. Or dry, for that matter. Psy degrees are pretty common (at the B.A. level, at least) and not the most useful, but master's level isn't that hard to get to. It might've been for you, but this poster seems pretty excited about psych- don't tell them it's boring, I'm sure they'll figure it out all by themselves, IF they do at all

B.A. psych people ARE frequently hired as research assistants and sometimes low-level caseworkers.

 

[Suenya]

Psychology isn't that hard. I took mostly upper level and research focussed classes, which were considered harder at my school, and I thought they were fine.

Now, getting into clinical psych phd programs... That is hard.

 

[MissCaduceus]

I don't know if I'd say it's gray and theory, personally. Or dry, for that matter. Psy degrees are pretty common (at the B.A. level, at least) and not the most useful, but master's level isn't that hard to get to. It might've been for you, but this poster seems pretty excited about psych- don't tell them it's boring, I'm sure they'll figure it out all by themselves, IF they do at all

B.A. psych people ARE frequently hired as research assistants and sometimes low-level caseworkers.

Beg to differ form Gray and Theory? Psy is the only field where you can have two different drs in the field during court and come up with two different opinions. A lot of people view it as a pseudoscience. Sad, but ture. No Master's levels are not hard with the admission process, but clinical or counslering psy is not what is in my heart, medicine is. I need to complete my R.N. in order to gain floor experince for a psy-pracitionar program thus why the double. And good point, B.S/B.A. psy are hired at times for research assistants and caseworkers. Why they have a need to sign thier name with B.S. or B.A. on a professional level is beyond me. Like, OMG my name is John Doe B.S. or Jane Doe B.A. WOW!

 

[erg923]

Beg to differ form Gray and Theory? Psy is the only field where you can have two different drs in the field during court and come up with two different opinions. A lot of people view it as a pseudoscience. Sad, but ture. No Master's levels are not hard with the admission process, but clinical or counslering psy is not what is in my heart, medicine is. I need to complete my R.N. in order to gain floor experince for a psy-pracitionar program thus why the double. And good point, B.S/B.A. psy are hired at times for research assistants and caseworkers. Why they have a need to sign thier name with B.S. or B.A. on a professional level is beyond me. Like, OMG my name is John Doe B.S. or Jane Doe B.A. WOW!

Then apparently you don't have much experience going to Dr.s for anything more complicated than the flu. Medical professionals frequently disagree over diagnosis. Physical medicine has its share of difficult and evasive syndromes that are diagnosed using clinical judgments, with a relative lack of objective pathological evidence or markers. Medical professionals many times have the benefit of laboratory tests as a starting point, but there are still plenty of diseases/syndromes (especially in the early stages) where clinical judgment and the professionals' clinical experiences play a large role in the diagnostic impression they come up with. For example, take Fibromyalgia. Some Dr.s will never diagnose Fibromyalgia (because they dont believe its a true pathology) and some will diagnose it in a heartbeat. Its not an easy call. How bout seizure-like episodes in the absence of objective EEG findings? Epileptologists have varying opinons about what might be going on here and you're likely to get several different opinions depending upon who you happen to see. Idiopathic Parkinson's vs. Parkinson-plus syndromes in early stages? The list goes on.

The initials thing is a legality issue for the most part. When someone is in training and has a supervisor/attending over seeing them, the trainee is required to document reports with their qualifications and training level. It is my understanding that this is a JCOHA policy as well.

I am curious as to why you dismiss the importance of theory in psychology? I can not think of a science that does NOT have strong theoretical underpinnings. And logically, one needs a solid theoretical base to understand how and why we are doing what we are doing in the practice of clincial or experimental psychology. Undergrad education in psychology simply introduces students to this natural starting point.

 

[MissCaduceus]

Then apparently you don't have much experience going to Dr.s for anything more complicated than the flu. Medical professionals frequently disagree over diagnosis. Physical medicine has its share of difficult and evasive syndromes that are diagnosed using clinical judgments, with a relative lack of objective pathological evidence or markers. Medical professionals many times have the benefit of laboratory tests as a starting point, but there are still plenty of diseases/syndromes (especially in the early stages) where clinical judgment and the professionals' clinical experiences play a large role in the diagnostic impression they come up with. For example, take Fibromyalgia. Some Dr.s will never diagnose Fibromyalgia (because they dont believe its a true pathology) and some will diagnose it in a heartbeat. Its not an easy call. How bout seizure-like episodes in the absence of objective EEG findings? Epileptologists have varying opinons about what might be going on here and you're likely to get several different opinions depending upon who you happen to see. Idiopathic Parkinson's vs. Parkinson-plus syndromes in early stages? The list goes on.

The initials thing is a legality issue for the most part. When someone is in training and has a supervisor/attending over seeing them, the trainee is required to document reports with their qualifications and training level. It is my understanding that this is a JCOHA policy as well.

I am curious as to why you dismiss the importance of theory in psychology? I can not think of a science that does NOT have strong theoretical underpinnings. And logically, one needs a solid theoretical base to understand how and why we are doing what we are doing in the practice of clincial or experimental psychology. Undergrad education in psychology simply introduces students to this natural starting point.

I do not dismiss the efforts of the theorist, the fact remains that theory is no more then speculation...mere thought...a guess if you will. While Drs may disagree in the early stages of a diagnosis OR in a case of Fibromyaliga. However, one will have to agree that the apparatus exists in the medical profession to Dx past the point of a mere guess. Can you recall a time when two Drs disagreed in a court of law about a medical Dx?

 

[erg923]

I do not dismiss the efforts of the theorist, the fact remains that theory is no more then speculation...mere thought...a guess if you will. While Drs may disagree in the early stages of a diagnosis OR in a case of Fibromyaliga. However, one will have to agree that the apparatus exists in the medical profession to Dx past the point of a mere guess. Can you recall a time when two Drs disagreed in a court of law about a medical Dx?

Well technically, psychiatric illness are considered medical diagnoses, but I know what your getting at. Buy yes this happens. Why do you believe that it doesn't? Albeit this happens much less than in psych, but the forensic arena is not a good setting to estimate the prevalence of diagnostic disagreements for medical disorders is it? This is because unless the medical illness has caused some sort of sequelae that is relevant to a defendants mental state, medical illnesses are often not relevant in criminal or civil court, and thus non psych MDs are often not utilized as experts for anything in this setting. So I think this is not representative of diagnostic disagreement between medical professionals. I would again argue that the notion of using "clinical judgment" is just as prevalent in med as it is in in psych when there is lack of objective pathologic findings.

I think there is a tendency for rigid science types to try to criticize psychology for not being a "hard" science, like that of physics, where things either exist or don't, and conclusions are black and white and subject to laws of nature. Why should we demand psychology try to be this way? Psychology is is not physics and it will never will be. Human behavior is simply too complex. However, I am curious as to why you view psychological theories as mere "speculation." And your analogy comparing theories to "a guess" is grossly incorrect. This suggests that you feel there is no follow-up or empirical support for psychological theories, is this correct? If so, this is also grossly inaccurate. Keep in mind that the academic psychologists whole job is to test theories. Most peer-reviewed articles in psychological journals are empirical studies that test a theory using experimental paradigms. I am not sure why you have this notion that theories are tossed out and not followed up on. Can you really tell me that there is no empirical evidence for Becks theory of depressive schematas in depression? If you can, than your not reading the literature. There are dozens of studies by numerous groups of experimental psychopatholgists that have found evidence for this. Could you really tell me that there is no evidence for a schizophrenia taxon, or a schizotypic phenotype? Could you really tell me that the efficacy of CBT for anxiety is not tested and empirically supported. Again, If you can, then you're obviously not reading the research literature. Is the the social psych phenomena known as "fundamental attribution" error just "a guess?" There is certainly alot of empirical evidence for it. Please explain your reasoning for this comment and specify which theories you feel are without empirical and/or experimental evidence. With the exception of most aspects of psychoanalytic theory and dream interpretation, I think we are pretty good about developing theories that lend themselves nicely to experimental study. However, please keep in mind that the goal of experimental psychology (and science in general) is not to "prove" anything. You can only disprove alternatives until you find a theory/paradigm that is the best and most parsimonious explanation. If "absolute truth" is what you seek, then psychology is not for you, and neither is any other science for that matter. There might be a philosophy class down the hall if this is the kind of reassurance you seek......

 

[Suenya]

About theory: In psychological and neuroscience research we often use statistics. You should look into understanding why they are a useful way to analyze available data and come to conclusions or new theories. Before you understand that (even if you have criticisms about type1/type2 error, or whatnot) it isn't worth the time trying to explain how social sciences and clinical sciences (such as determining drug efficacy and risk) work. Calling it mere speculation is silly.

About diagnoses: I think you overestimate how much disagreement there is between psychiatrists and psychologists, however, especially in their specialty (such as depression, schizophrenia, or PTSD) even without lab tests. Part of the problem is the arbitrary nature of diagnoses in this field (which are like the diagnosis of high blood pressure, for a nonpsych example). Someone may have many of the same symptoms and a similar underlying problem, but not meet all the criteria, or the same criteria as someone else. Most (but not all) diagnoses are on a continuum from normal to abnormal. I've had some involvement (only as a spectator) in forensic work, and I haven't seen a difference in diagnosis yet.

 

[alibai3ah]

If you are able to handle pre-med material such as o chem and physics, I'm sure u'll do fine in psychology. I think it may be challenging in the sense that most science majors do not think like that. We are use to just memorizing copious amounts of information and applying it to tests. Psychology major is I believe a social science and I think their is much more reading and writing involved (depending on if you are doing the BS or BA version). But if you are planning on becomming a doctor and succeeding, I am sure you'll be fine