It's weird I feel like years ago the board was more equally divided with Ms first students but it anecdotally seems to have shifted over time. Or the threads I read just attracted a lot of ms first researchers and a lot of defensive direct admits lacking self awareness.Oh and I am not hating you for saying it. I didn't go either route so I have my own opinions on what makes me a good clinician. Of course, I might be a bit biased about that.
Of course they're measurable. I haven't seen them measured though
For a guy whose argument is substantiated by anecdotes you are pretty aggressive against anecdotes. Let me use my magic powers and speculate that you didn't get a master's before phd.
It's anecdotal from multiple programs and I'm welcome to incorporating anecdotes from others. It is what it is, just my experience across programs. I find direct admit peers a drain as they struggle to graduate on equal footing. Anyway assuming they spent those two years of ms coursework actively doing research a bit different than their doctorate... it's hard to say this provided no lasting value not gained by those without an intensive ms
The data on frequency of output is available. I've seen plenty of garbage research and so have you, and faculty who are just machines and crank out research does not indicate diverse knowledge for a more valuable article with a better written, more valuable discussion. That data is not available.
Are measurable is not the same thing as "data is available." I teach research methods too, and I encourage my students to make hypotheses but not be wedded to them until data slowly supports or discomfirms it, and even then identify limitations of what data we have. And right now, all we have is anecdotes suggesting hypotheses.
Just for my knowledge, so I understand where you are coming from, you are a PHD plus MD student, right as your profile claims. Have you finished your PHD already?
I made an observation, the argument formed in response to it
Working on it. The mph (and similar masters programs) are actually a pretty common pathway for people who didn't get in the first round and working in a medical research setting *anecdotally* is a boon and sets us up to teach students without
It was more of an opinion or inference than an observation.
Speaking of more ego than skill..
I would love to have my hypothesis that you were direct admit and would be SO EASY for a scientist to test in a few seconds confirmed or deniedSpeaking of ad hominems..... Want to whip out our CV's/Phallus and have a sword fight?
It also doesn't answer if there is a common neurological pathway between ADHD and autism. There are infinite hypotheses it doesn't answer. You can resolve that particular hypothesis though, though I suspect you are actively doing so.
Gentlemen, please, one test at a time. First neuro
I would rather have the dependent variable be annual salary than publications though.
Well you are well aware of the need to control for extraneous variables! I worked with a particularly skilled PsyD graduate who said she made more stripping than her first year PsyD salary. So let's identify additional income factors first please!I would rather have the dependent variable be annual salary than publications though.
Or am I just compensating for my own sense of inadequacy?
Great, let's address them after you confirm or deny the hypothesis that you did not complete a master's.
Hmmmm, this coupled with your statements about "more valuable research" and your statements about ego.....Seems you are really bitter about this issue on a personal level. I found a new bias to add to the bias I have so far observed - phd vs psyD
. Now its MS vs non-MS.
Let's start a new thread if you want to continue. I would love to hear the debate!
.... no thanks.
