How does it feel to be in a profession dominated by women? :p

[Pragma]

I know a prof who would strongly disagree with the flexibility part of this. Granted, this professor also believes that everyone should be bent on research, only research, and research 100% of the time. This prof has given advice (to multiple individuals) that if you have familial obligations (say, oh, a spouse, child, etc.) that you really need to choose between the academia/research and the family because you can't do both properly and . . . well, academia/research just isn't for everyone if you don't have the time to commit. So either abandon your family or leave your program. Take your pick.

Absolutely there are positions like that which are very demanding. But many people adjunct or take lighter teaching contracts. Some tenure-track positions are quite family friendly depending on the department you are in. Imagine summers off without the pressure of obtaining funding...usually this is going to be found at a teaching-oriented institution. Don't expect to work a 9-5 with summers off at a place expecting a high amount of research productivity.

But those jobs are really hard to get even if you WANT them...

Then consider the part-time clinical positions some people take. I know a few female psychologists who do part-time private practice or contract at hospitals, and spend the rest of the time at home with their children. I know a female psychologist who teaches as an adjunct in the evenings (when her partner takes care of the kids) while she takes the kids during the day and her partner is at work. There are tons of options for how and when to work.

Some of the male psychologists I know also are taking on schedules like this and are playing a larger role in childcare than their partners.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[paramour]

Absolutely there are positions like that which are very demanding. But many people adjunct or take lighter teaching contracts. Some tenure-track positions are quite family friendly depending on the department you are in. Imagine summers off without the pressure of obtaining funding...usually this is going to be found at a teaching-oriented institution. Don't expect to work a 9-5 with summers off at a place expecting a high amount of research productivity.

But those jobs are really hard to get even if you WANT them...

Then consider the part-time clinical positions some people take. I know a few female psychologists who do part-time private practice or contract at hospitals, and spend the rest of the time at home with their children. I know a female psychologist who teaches as an adjunct in the evenings (when her partner takes care of the kids) while she takes the kids during the day. There are tons of options for how and when to work.

Ah, yes, but this professor tells students this.

 

[Pragma]

Ah, yes, but this professor tells students this.

Isn't that why SDN is here?

 

[paramour]

Isn't that why SDN is here?

Alas, not everyone knows about SDN.

We should have posters. Or t-shirts. Or buttons. Or something...
I'm going to start putting sticky notes up on the mirrors in the bathrooms on-campus in the psych building.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Really, the whole "Can you do it all?" debate for women is totally personal, based on individual experience and belief, rather than field-dependent. Why can't we all just realize that different folks have different strokes? No one is ever happy that others have different ways of doing things, are they?!

 

[Pragma]

Really, the whole "Can you do it all?" debate for women is totally personal, based on individual experience and belief, rather than field-dependent. Why can't we all just realize that different folks have different strokes? No one is ever happy that others have different ways of doing things, are they?!

Personally I think it's cool to hear how people make things work for them and their goals. As someone who is planning to start a family, I also am quite intrigued with how people make that work.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Personally I think it's cool to hear how people make things work for them and their goals. As someone who is planning to start a family, I also am quite intrigued with how people make that work.

Well, yes, me too. I'll clarify--by "no one," I meant, those who have strong opinions one way or the other .

 

[Ollie123]

More issues here than I have time to respond to but a couple random thoughts:
1) I always find the "You can't be a researcher and have a life" mentality strange. Perhaps I have just been very lucky in who I have been exposed to. I've worked with a number of senior people (R01-funded) over the years, many of whom are not just earning 6 figures, but are often well into that. They certainly work hard, but it doesn't seem like a bad lifestyle at all. I'd be thrilled to end up in that position someday.

2) I'm male though am in a doctoral program with a slightly heavier male presence (still only about 1 in 4, but not as unbalanced as some). Probably a function of being research-heavy (and basic science oriented at that). I've never had an issue with it. To me, the only real issues are public need and autonomy. If for some reason or another a male/female clinician is preferred and the imbalance is so extreme that isn't feasible, that would be a problem, but I have little reason to think that is the case. Similarly, if the imbalance is a cause or symptom of pressures that make it so one cannot pursue what they otherwise would...that is certainly a problem. I don't know that the "perfect" scenario would be all careers being exactly 50% male/female ratio or that we need strive towards that.

3) I didn't see anyone outright saying this, but BA undervaluation seems both cause and symptom. I agree that it isn't all that meaningful or helpful a credential for many. However, a big part of that is that it CANNOT be by nature of the fact that we want to give one to everyone. Anyone has taught can tell you some "Ridiculous student" stories. I'm at a large state school and can definitely guarantee we are putting people through who simply should NOT get college degrees. Its harsh, but true.

The problem isn't linear. I don't know that we need a full-on shift to making college be all about practical training. I think humanities degrees absolutely have their place. In my ideal world, college would be all about developing/refining critical thinking and problem-solving skills. That can be done through a variety of mediums, and as others have suggested - often speaks to differences between entry level positions and management. Instead, I can barely do any critical thinking activities in my class because most students are of the "Tell me how to follow the step-by-step instructions" variety and having to come up with an answer I didn't give them previously is a totally foreign concept to most of them. That is (unfortunately) what college has generally become. I guess my point is that I don't think its a matter of BAs not being "worth it" and so more people should go to trade school. I also think more people going to trade school might ironically help make BAs MORE "worth it".

 

[TNS1991]

1) I always find the "You can't be a researcher and have a life" mentality strange. Perhaps I have just been very lucky in who I have been exposed to. I've worked with a number of senior people (R01-funded) over the years, many of whom are not just earning 6 figures, but are often well into that. They certainly work hard, but it doesn't seem like a bad lifestyle at all. I'd be thrilled to end up in that position someday.

3) I didn't see anyone outright saying this, but BA undervaluation seems both cause and symptom. I agree that it isn't all that meaningful or helpful a credential for many. However, a big part of that is that it CANNOT be by nature of the fact that we want to give one to everyone. Anyone has taught can tell you some "Ridiculous student" stories. I'm at a large state school and can definitely guarantee we are putting people through who simply should NOT get college degrees. Its harsh, but true.

The problem isn't linear. I don't know that we need a full-on shift to making college be all about practical training. I think humanities degrees absolutely have their place. In my ideal world, college would be all about developing/refining critical thinking and problem-solving skills. That can be done through a variety of mediums, and as others have suggested - often speaks to differences between entry level positions and management. Instead, I can barely do any critical thinking activities in my class because most students are of the "Tell me how to follow the step-by-step instructions" variety and having to come up with an answer I didn't give them previously is a totally foreign concept to most of them. That is (unfortunately) what college has generally become. I guess my point is that I don't think its a matter of BAs not being "worth it" and so more people should go to trade school. I also think more people going to trade school might ironically help make BAs MORE "worth it".

I think the whole research/life debate has to do greatly with the institution you work with. My school is not too research heavy and many of my professors seem to have a pretty good work/life balance. Those that want more research opportunities often leave for more research heavy schools after a few years. Basically, I think the whole thing is what you make of it.

As for the whole BA debacle, I think for humanities to survive in higher education they need to totally revamp their system. Professors need to realize that "a well rounded" liberal arts education is not that special anymore. Sure, a degree may get you farther in life in the long haul. But how many people actually get a job in the english, psychology, history field, etc with their BAs? Not very many. Instead professors need to teach their students what kind of jobs use the skills that their degree will give them. Instead their attitude is, "Thanks for spending $50,000 on us. Now go fend for yourself in the job market!" I've seen many examples of people gaining employment just on the sole fact they had a degree, no matter the subject. Just look at my previous posts if you need proof. And while I think this is the case today, it probably won't be like this in 20 years unless the BA in specialized (e.g nursing, accounting, human resources) where only people with those certain skills will get certain jobs. Not that the BAs in general will lose value, but those in the humanities will. With humanities having no jobs that are available to only those that have a BA in history or any other field, plus the fact that many Ph.D's (with the example of Psychology, where we have several other options to us besides academia) not finding work due to cuts in humanities higher education, I don't see how humanities will have a place in college with they way things are now.

 

[Ollie123]

I think the whole research/life debate has to do greatly with the institution you work with. My school is not too research heavy and many of my professors seem to have a pretty good work/life balance. Those that want more research opportunities often leave for more research heavy schools after a few years. Basically, I think the whole thing is what you make of it.

Actually that was my point - I'm at a research-intensive clinical science program and have primarily worked with research powerhouses (the folks who typically have millions of dollars of funding at any given time) throughout my undergrad, post-bac, and grad training. I've still found them to be some of the most normal, well-balanced individuals I know. Much moreso than many far less successful individuals. Maybe I've just been fortunate.

 

[KillerDiller]

Instead professors need to teach their students what kind of jobs use the skills that their degree will give them. Instead their attitude is, "Thanks for spending $50,000 on us. Now go fend for yourself in the job market!"

This is assuming that people think that the value of an undergrad education in the liberal arts/humanities lies solely in its ability to provide them with employment. It's a shame that students are graduating with degrees and feeling that they've wasted their money. Honestly, though, I would prefer we work on changing these assumptions instead of changing the nature of the degrees themselves. Not all BAs should to be catered toward on-the-job skills. If we start making them into this, then there's no longer a difference between universities and trade schools.

 

[TNS1991]

This is assuming that people think that the value of an undergrad education in the liberal arts/humanities lies solely in its ability to provide them with employment. It's a shame that students are graduating with degrees and feeling that they've wasted their money. Honestly, though, I would prefer we work on changing these assumptions instead of changing the nature of the degrees themselves. Not all BAs should to be catered toward on-the-job skills. If we start making them into this, then there's no longer a difference between universities and trade schools.

I'm not necessarily saying to change all BAs to cater job skills and make them exactly like trade schools. However, I think the attitude within humanities needs to change in order for them to survive. For example, an English major knows how to critique the written word and to write well-rounded reports. There are many jobs where these skills would be useful and professors need to make sure their students know which jobs these are and how to sell the skills they learned in their education to potential employers. Many people who receive humanities and fine arts degrees are completely lost because they cannot find jobs where they can draw a picture or write a report on Shakespeare. They instead take jobs at Starbucks and this is when the value of a humanities degree deteriorates. They will still get the same education as they always have, but more students and professors need to learn how to sell their humanities degree to a changing workforce. If not, they may be in trouble.

Also, if a young 20 something is graduating with a liberal arts degree under the assumption that they will not gain employment after graduating, then what was the point of spending four years and tons of money earning the degree? If everyone that graduated with a liberal arts degree felt that way, the value of a BA in those fields would not have deteriorated.

 

[cara susanna]

There's a book called The Five Year Party that talks about how most college students are there nowadays for the experience instead of the education. I think that's one of the problems. People push their kids to go to college because back in the day, it did mean a better job. Kids also want to go to college because it's fun and you get to party a lot. And like Ollie said, because our current system allows it, these kids who party constantly still pass their classes and get that degree.

 

[Pragma]

Actually that was my point - I'm at a research-intensive clinical science program and have primarily worked with research powerhouses (the folks who typically have millions of dollars of funding at any given time) throughout my undergrad, post-bac, and grad training. I've still found them to be some of the most normal, well-balanced individuals I know. Much moreso than many far less successful individuals. Maybe I've just been fortunate.

I am sure it is possible, but that has to be the exception and not the norm. I think life like that can be possible at an R2 school, but most powerhouses I know at R1 institutions have divorces and bad relationships. You've got to be good at delegating (and have adequate resources to delegate) if you want to run multiple R01 grants at a time and still have a family that you spend time with.

 

[Ollie123]

Quite possibly...like I said, maybe I've just been lucky but this is across multiple institutions. Admittedly, this has primarily been in academic med, which alleviates some of the teaching burden. Regardless, most of these folks are pulling in ~150k (with some in the 200-300 range), definitely working harder than your average Joe, but nothing outlandish. Take time off for vacations quite regularly, travel on weekends, get lots of work done but do much of it from home so they can spend time with their families, etc. One of these folks is PI on 2 R01s, primary Co-I on 2 others, is involved in a ton of other smaller grants, and always reminds us not to live for the work and make sure we are enjoying our lives. I got engaged around the same time I got a good score on a fellowship - and he definitely broke the "PhD Comics Advisor" stereotype and made it quite clear the grant was of trivial importance by comparison. Quite the role model in that regard.

These are the sorts of folks I've worked with throughout my academic career. This may have something to do with my willingness to pursue a career in academia

 

[Sanman]

I presume you're suggesting that the first group of careers (or as is implied, mere jobs) are "mommy-track" options that are embraced by women, while the latter are higher powered career opportunities...embraced by whom? The remaining men and select group of women who are "really taking advantage of the their [sic] doctoral training and title"? You're not explicit, but that seems to be the implication.

I have not mentioned sex because there are men an women found in both tracks. Certainly, there are more women found on the "mommy-track", as you put it, due to traditional gender roles and the larger number of women in the field. As Pragma mentioned, it really depends on what your spouse is doing. Most of the people doing the part-time thing (male or female) have spouses making six figure salaries. I am personally dealing with the duel career problem. My gf does make a bit more than me currently, but we can both be in the six figure range in the next few years. However, there is a geographic issue and one of us will need to move in the next year or two. This may entail a pay cut for one of us. At the end of the day, people need to eat and care for children. Whether you are a part-timer or a bread winner really seems to depend on life circumstances. I have a colleague that is geographically limited due her spouse's job. He makes $200k a year. She took a local UCC position for $35-40k. Life will likely take her in the into the former track due to her circumstances. Most of my colleagues and mentors in behavioral medicine/neuropsych/ VA or military positions have more breadwinner status. However, these people bring in at least $80k and most are in the six figure range. It has to do with chance, life circumstance, and the path you choose for yourself.

 

[Pragma]

Quite possibly...like I said, maybe I've just been lucky but this is across multiple institutions. Admittedly, this has primarily been in academic med, which alleviates some of the teaching burden. Regardless, most of these folks are pulling in ~150k (with some in the 200-300 range), definitely working harder than your average Joe, but nothing outlandish. Take time off for vacations quite regularly, travel on weekends, get lots of work done but do much of it from home so they can spend time with their families, etc. One of these folks is PI on 2 R01s, primary Co-I on 2 others, is involved in a ton of other smaller grants, and always reminds us not to live for the work and make sure we are enjoying our lives. I got engaged around the same time I got a good score on a fellowship - and he definitely broke the "PhD Comics Advisor" stereotype and made it quite clear the grant was of trivial importance by comparison. Quite the role model in that regard.

These are the sorts of folks I've worked with throughout my academic career. This may have something to do with my willingness to pursue a career in academia

Well that certainly is the way it should be, but in my experience in AMCs (really just with neuropsychologists), everyone complains about being way too overworked. I am sure a lot of it has to do with how your contract is distributed.

For having R01s, I guess my perspective is skewed as I have known people who PI 4 or 5 at a time. Depending on the nature of the research, I suppose some may require less oversight or will be more amenable to delegating/hiring staff. For most R01s I have been a part of, staffing is less than ideal and the paperwork burden is significant. It probably also depends on how many pubs per year the stage of your career dictates. Most folks who have yet to get tenure work more hours than they did in grad school, from what I have heard.

Some AMCs may have less pressure in this regard if they don't include tenure. But there is a lot of grantwriting pressure if you are going to be a primary researcher. When your salary is contingent on soft money, you need to keep writing those nonstop.

I am guessing some people find a great niche where it all comes together, but I would maintain that it is the exception for most earlier career stages as least, purely based on my own experiences in multiple academic and medical settings.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Well that certainly is the way it should be, but in my experience in AMCs (really just with neuropsychologists), everyone complains about being way too overworked. I am sure a lot of it has to do with how your contract is distributed.

For having R01s, I guess my perspective is skewed as I have known people who PI 4 or 5 at a time. Depending on the nature of the research, I suppose some may require less oversight or will be more amenable to delegating/hiring staff. For most RO1s I have been a part of, staffing is less than ideal and the paperwork burden is significant. It probably also depends on how many pubs per year the stage of your career dictates. Most folks who have yet to get tenure work more hours than they did in grad school, from what I have heard.

Some AMCs may have less pressure in this regard if they don't include tenure. But there is a lot of grantwriting pressure if you are going to be a primary researcher. When your salary is contingent on soft money, you need to keep writing those nonstop.

I am guessing some people find a great niche where it all comes together, but I would maintain that it is the exception for most earlier career stages as least, purely based on my own experiences in multiple academic and medical settings.

That's been my (limited) experience as well. The neuropsychologists with whom I've worked in an AMC setting either frequently mention how much work they have to do, or show it by consistently pulling five to six 10- to 12-hour days per week, nearly every week. Then again, many of these individuals are either new faculty and thus trying to make a name/secure their employment, or are well-established and heads of departments. I haven't yet worked with many who are at the in-between stage.

 

[Pragma]

Quite possibly...like I said, maybe I've just been lucky but this is across multiple institutions. Admittedly, this has primarily been in academic med, which alleviates some of the teaching burden. Regardless, most of these folks are pulling in ~150k (with some in the 200-300 range), definitely working harder than your average Joe, but nothing outlandish. Take time off for vacations quite regularly, travel on weekends, get lots of work done but do much of it from home so they can spend time with their families, etc. One of these folks is PI on 2 R01s, primary Co-I on 2 others, is involved in a ton of other smaller grants, and always reminds us not to live for the work and make sure we are enjoying our lives. I got engaged around the same time I got a good score on a fellowship - and he definitely broke the "PhD Comics Advisor" stereotype and made it quite clear the grant was of trivial importance by comparison. Quite the role model in that regard.

These are the sorts of folks I've worked with throughout my academic career. This may have something to do with my willingness to pursue a career in academia

One other point, and I am sure it varies based on your contract and the nature of your research.

"Research" can look different from place to place. Some people, perhaps on K grants or working as a part of larger studies where they are not PI, often have more run-of-the mill clinical responsibilities and are not necessarily as involved as much of an administrative capacity. They may do clinical work as a part of their study.

As a part of the many grants I have been a part of writing, you specify what percentage of your time you are going to be compensated for. For the PIs I have worked with, that has ranged from 5 to 15 percent of their time for an R01 (Once again, I have worked with people who have several grants and buy out of all non-research responsibilities). Now, these studies generally have project directors that manage most day-to-day implementation issues, but can you imagine that you REALLY spend a half a day per week running an R01? Obviously your distribution of time is going to be different in reality.

How this ultimately looks is probably institution-specific. If they stick to their guns and really fill up that other 85-95% of your time that you are not being compensated for through the grant, you can imagine how the extra hours pile up. Now, add some more grants into the mix, and you can see how it would be tough to be at your kids' basketball games.

A lot of the neuropsychologists I know are primarily on clinical contracts and obtain IRB approval to collect data on their regular clinic patients. This is great, but it certainly is quite limited and isn't the most rigorous research, You also are conducting those studies on your own time.

A lot of how life will be for an academic researcher is also contingent on getting people to help you out. Those that get volunteers, grad students, and research assistants trained up and committed can delegate a lot of the smaller tasks. That is harder to do in some places than others, but the ones that I know who are not in the office/working 7 days a week are the ones who do a good job of recruiting a functional research team.

 

[JeyRo]

the ones that I know who are not in the office/working 7 days a week are the ones who do a good job of recruiting a functional research team.

I completely agree, you have to know how to delegate, recruit, and work in a team in order to be really successful and satisfied in this biz.

I've met some psychologists who are very smart and hard-working, but are kind of a-holes (and some who just don't work well in teams). If they're successful in research I imagine they would be the ones slaving away doing 7-day workweeks, because no one wants to work with them, and yes, I've heard of more than a few productive researchers like this, who land and manage big grant-funded projects who are chronically stressed and unhappy because of all the pressures of what they do.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

She took a local UCC position for $35-40k.

Yikes. Is that a typical UCC psychologist's salary?!

 

[zensouth]

Yikes. Is that a typical UCC psychologist's salary?!

According to this other thread, yeah . . .
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=810122

 

[Psychadelic2012]

According to this other thread, yeah . . .
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=810122

Actually, according to that thread & the link provided, the 30-40k range is more appropriate for postdocs and licensed psychologists make considerably more.

 

[Sanman]

Yikes. Is that a typical UCC psychologist's salary?!

I'm not sure what the average is as I am really not interested in working at a UCC. For a first-year, newly-licensed person I have seen salaries ranging from $35-$50k at some UCC job postings. The person I am speaking of also accepted the position in 2010 when there were simply no job openings to speak of in that city. I know several people that accepted starting positions in the $40-50k range, newly licensed, at either a ucc or cmhc. Keep in mind that all of these people accepted positions at their post-doc facility without doing a real job hunt. I also know several colleagues at the VA, medical centers, and other facilities that started at $70-90k as well. Most of those people did job hunt and some moved to take such a position. Moral of the story? Do a job search and get some offers.

 

[FemmeFeline]

The 4-year college focus debate is really interesting to me. I am not 100% how I feel about this anymore. I've worked in two separate jobs that emphasized access to and success in a 4-year college education for low SES students. I come from a low SES background and environment in which, anecdotally, at least, a 4-year degree was positively correlated with a major quality of life improvement.

Sure, I know at least a hundred people at home who are working full time without a college degree. But how would they rate their quality of life? Even if we determined that the threshold for a positive quality of life begins at a $20,000 salary, how many say that they are doing what they want to be doing, or feeling able to do what they want? How many can say that they made a deliberate decision to work in the field or position in which they're working?

All of these are very personal, cultural, and psychological (!) questions. I'd like to see this type of data --- life quality satisfaction, income levels, and educational attainment. I think that often, it is the educated or those from more advantaged backgrounds with greater social mobility that like to talk about how BAs are a waste of money or a waste of time. The youth I work with now that come from severely disadvantaged backgrounds like my own are much more likely to say "I don't think I can get a degree" or "My family can't afford college" or "I am not smart enough to be successful" than "I am not going to go to college because it's a waste of my money and energy --- I'd be much better off investing in XYZ and getting experience in the XYZ field so I can make projected earnings of XYZ."

Whenever I do hear my youth get into the "I have a friend/family member who never went to college and makes $$$ doing XYZ awesome job" line of thought, I genuinely fear for them. Because I honestly think it's dangerous to assume that fulfilling, high-paying, high quality jobs that have no entry level edu requirement are readily available and plentiful to these groups of youth now or in the near future. Many of them are not equipped or prepared with the academic skills they need to succeed in the working world beyond the entry level position.

There's also extensive data on earnings according to degrees, here's one resource: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=77

Any thoughts about this? I am mostly concerned about and focused on low income, diverse youth and their upward mobility. Is education really a "bad deal" for them? Sorry for my rambling... I'm tired today.

 

[deleted176373]

You can look at the data and project trends all day long, but individual success or failure is NOT the result of having or not having a college education.

What do I mean by this?

Take the following list of billionaires, every last one a college dropout.

1. Bill Gates [5] - US
2. Mark Zuckerberg [6] - US
3. Lawrence Ellison [7] - US
4. Eike Batista [8] - Brazil
5. Michael Dell [9] - US
6. Marc Rich [10] - US
7. Ty Warner [11] - US
8. Gautam Adani [12] - India
9. Micky Jagtiani [13] - India
10. Azim Premji - India
11. Shahid Balwa [14] - India
12. Subhash Chandra [15] - India
13. Vinod Goenka [16] - India
14. PNC Menon [17][18] - India
15. Roman Abramovich [19] - Russia
16. Sheldon Adelson [20] - US
17. Amancio Ortega [21] - Spain
18. Kirk Kerkorian [22] - US
19. Donald Newhouse [23] - US
20. François Pinault [24] - France
21. Jack Taylor [25] - US
22. Joaquín Guzmán Loera [26] (Mexican drug lord) - Mexico
23. Dawood Ibrahim [27] (Indian crime-boss) - India
24. Li Ka-shing - Hong Kong
25. David Geffen [28] - US
26. David Murdock [29] - US
27. Ted Turner [30] - US
28. Henry Fok [31] - Hong Kong
29. Ralph Lauren [32] - US
30. Micky Arison - US
31. Mohammed Al Amoudi [33] - Saudi Arabia
32. Stanley Ho [34] - Hong Kong
33. Andrew Lloyd Webber - UK

That's 33 people who are wealthy beyond any reasonable standard. Now, while these people are certainly outliers in a ridiculous sort of way, anecdotal evidence suggests that intelligent motivated people can and will make money commensurate with their intelligence, desire to work hard, unique traits or attributes of value, and some random error variance.

This doesn't mean a person can jump into a profession that at a minimum requires a level of training a person does not have, but rather that there are careers and opportunities that do not require a college education as a pre-requisite to entry. Having made 6 figures without a college education and knowing many others who have done the same, I am convinced that an education is not a substitute for any of the above values save for perhaps traits/attributes of value (as an education may give one potentially knowledge, skills, and abilities that they may not have innately possessed).

Academic skills, while useful, will not make or break the career of someone sufficiently intelligent, hardworking, and talented. It just won't. I was never in fear when I didn't have a degree, I knew that I had the intellect, work ethic, and talent to make as much as I needed. Individual results are going to be very different than the population statistics because the average non-college educated person is not running around with a 120-160 IQ, a compulsive work ethic, and a skill set that is valuable to employers. Take a woman I know, she worked for 15 years in tech, no degree. She made $10/hr starting and by the end of year 3 was making over $60k. At year 10 she averaged about $100k over the past 5 years. Still no degree. She has an estimated IQ in the 140-150 range, works hard, has skills that are valued, and had a bit of luck to jump out of the $10/hr tech support job to a $15/hr junior engineer position. From there, she made her own luck.

Back to the statistics, how do you think IQ would fare compared to educational attainment? Do you think that there might be a strong correlation between those to constructs? I certainly would bet on it being significantly higher with educational attainment. This article, albeit old, provides support for that hypothesis - Griliches, Z. & Mason, W.M. (1972) Education, Income, and Ability. Journal of Political Economy Vol. 80, No. 3, pp. S74-S103

"Each point increase in IQ test scores raises income by between $234 and $616 per year after holding a variety of factors constant. Regression results suggest no statistically distinguishable relationship between IQ scores and wealth." - Zagorsky, J.L. (2007) Do you have to be smart to be rich? The impact of IQ on wealth, income and financial distress, Intelligence, Volume 35, Issue 5, Pages 489-501

 

[roubs]

I'm not sure it's contested that people with exceptional intelligence, work ethic, and/or other talents can excel without higher formal education. The reality that professional athletes can earn a comfortable living without college degrees would have about as equal relevance to the average high school senior, who is way more toward the average on all the traits we are talking about, as your nice list of 33 people.

It doesn't help answer the questions FemmeFeline brought up about how kids she works with can make the best choice. Dunno if "Mark Zuckerberg is making a killing" would be the best mentoring. Cool that the list included the drug and crime lords though

 

[deleted176373]

As you noted, persons involved in drugs (both illicit and licit), other crime, and people without degrees in trades could all potentially make a prosperous livelihood. Welders, plumbers, electricians, and mechanics can all have comfortable lives, and those at the top of their game can make exceptionally good money. The idea that a college education and the associated opportunity costs are the only way forward is fundamentally flawed. I would not be surprised if plenty of trades people made more than Ph.D. level psychologists when the opportunity costs are factored in and we control for other factors like intelligence.

 

[FemmeFeline]

As you noted, persons involved in drugs (both illicit and licit), other crime, and people without degrees in trades could all potentially make a prosperous livelihood. Welders, plumbers, electricians, and mechanics can all have comfortable lives, and those at the top of their game can make exceptionally good money. The idea that a college education and the associated opportunity costs are the only way forward is fundamentally flawed. I would not be surprised if plenty of trades people made more than Ph.D. level psychologists when the opportunity costs are factored in and we control for other factors like intelligence.

I'm trying really hard not to, but I am hearing two alarming things from you:

1. We should focus on the high IQ/intelligence population, since they are most likely to succeed (NOT my low income youth).

2. Instead of telling my youth that college will open doors for them, I should encourage them to become involved in drug trade because it is far more prosperous...

I'm really, really glad that I'm going into the field. It sounds like we're in desperate need of other researchers interested in bridging the achievement gap.

It doesn't help answer the questions FemmeFeline brought up about how kids she works with can make the best choice. Dunno if "Mark Zuckerberg is making a killing" would be the best mentoring. Cool that the list included the drug and crime lords though

I'd be much more depressed and frightened if roubs hadn't said something.

 

[roubs]

As you noted, persons involved in drugs (both illicit and licit), other crime, and people without degrees in trades could all potentially make a prosperous livelihood. Welders, plumbers, electricians, and mechanics can all have comfortable lives, and those at the top of their game can make exceptionally good money. The idea that a college education and the associated opportunity costs are the only way forward is fundamentally flawed. I would not be surprised if plenty of trades people made more than Ph.D. level psychologists when the opportunity costs are factored in and we control for other factors like intelligence.

I fully expect to be out-earned by an enterprising electrician. A cold economic analysis suggests I made a mistake somewhere but I really don't think I did.

It should be obvious to all of us who follow this board that the choice of a career involves intangibles. But I agree people should be informed and encouraged to consider non-college options. Still, a lot of people who point out how college is oversold are at risk of underselling it. The 33 people you listed obviously had their s*** together in some way or another at age 18. The people FemmeFeline work's with don't and college is the obvious place to turn things around, establish their bona fides, start networking etc. Do you think they could do this more easily at a dead end fast food job?

I think the real danger for individuals like this is being fleeced by for-profit schools, having paid in all the costs for education and receiving few if any of the benefits.

 

[deleted176373]

I'm trying really hard not to, but I am hearing two alarming things from you:

1. We should focus on the high IQ/intelligence population, since they are most likely to succeed (NOT my low income youth).

Absolutely not what I said. Intelligence/ability is not an SES issue. There are plenty of disadvantaged smart young kids who need opportunities to exploit their natural abilities. Where you got the idea that I said we should focus only on high IQ kids is a little worrisome.

I would rather see a kid succeed at a vocation than to buy into the idea that college is the only way forward in this world, only for it to end in failure. My point was that success can be had with or without a college education. There is nothing wrong with vocational training, especially when it leads to a successful career in a recognized profession.

Anecdotally, my grandfather, an immigrant to this country, had only an 8th grade education, but by any measure was a successful man. He worked as an auto mechanic, provided for his family, built two homes, raised 4 children, enjoyed 14 grandchildren. He arrived here in the US with damn near nothing. What isn't honorable about that?

How are you measuring success?

2. Instead of telling my youth that college will open doors for them, I should encourage them to become involved in drug trade because it is far more prosperous...

I'm really, really glad that I'm going into the field. It sounds like we're in desperate need of other researchers interested in bridging the achievement gap.

I'd be much more depressed and frightened if roubs hadn't said something.

College may or may not open doors for them. Clearly I am not suggesting that low income/at risk youth consider the illicit drug trade as an honorable vocation. However, I would venture to state that not everyone is cut out for college (many simply do not thrive in that environment) and that other paths to success exist. Many of which do not involve academia at all.

1. Do you believe that without a college degree success is not attainable?

2. Do you feel that a college degree will automatically translate into more earned income?

My point is that outcomes, while generalizable, are not necessarily applicable to individuals. What might work for the vast majority of middle income white kids may be a poor choice for a low SES (minority or non-minority) population without additional support or guidance that may or may not be available to that population. You are making an assumption that what has generalized in the majority culture will hold true in other socioeconomic groups without regard to cultural differences and stresses. I think that's a dangerous position to take without knowing if the phenomenon generalizes to the population being discussed.

I do know that many persons from low SES populations have found career satisfaction and advancement following an academic education. I also know many who have failed to complete that education and wasted thousands, and those who have completed and have been unsuccessful in marketing themselves following completion of their degrees. I will concede that I am not up on the literature in this area and would certainly appreciate informed responses.

 

[deleted176373]

. Do you think they could do this more easily at a dead end fast food job?

Over 70% of McD's managers started from behind the counter at McDonalds. McD's reports an average salary of $35k-$47k according to payscale.com, is that all that dead end? These are just store managers, not regional managers.

As I stated above with my tech support example, you can often find ways out of dead end jobs. If you don't think that the tech support desk at a modem manufacturer is not a "dead end" job, then you have never worked tech support. It's worse than being the fry cook at McD's.

Another example would be Enterprise Rent-a-Car, which also promotes from the ground up... Not as dead end as you might think.

Finally, there are also other opportunities. Laugh all you want but the military has been changing lives for people raised in low SES communities for quite some time (admittedly some outcomes are better than others and it's not without danger).

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Absolutely not what I said. Intelligence/ability is not an SES issue. There are plenty of disadvantaged smart young kids who need opportunities to exploit their natural abilities. Where you got the idea that I said we should focus only on high IQ kids is a little worrisome.

I would rather see a kid succeed at a vocation than to buy into the idea that college is the only way forward in this world, only for it to end in failure. My point was that success can be had with or without a college education. There is nothing wrong with vocational training, especially when it leads to a successful career in a recognized profession.

Anecdotally, my grandfather, an immigrant to this country, had only an 8th grade education, but by any measure was a successful man. He worked as an auto mechanic, provided for his family, built two homes, raised 4 children, enjoyed 14 grandchildren. He arrived here in the US with damn near nothing. What isn't honorable about that?

How are you measuring success?

College may or may not open doors for them. Clearly I am not suggesting that low income/at risk youth consider the illicit drug trade as an honorable vocation. However, I would venture to state that not everyone is cut out for college (many simply do not thrive in that environment) and that other paths to success exist. Many of which do not involve academia at all.

1. Do you believe that without a college degree success is not attainable?

2. Do you feel that a college degree will automatically translate into more earned income?

My point is that outcomes, while generalizable, are not necessarily applicable to individuals. What might work for the vast majority of middle income white kids may be a poor choice for a low SES (minority or non-minority) population without additional support or guidance that may or may not be available to that population. You are making an assumption that what has generalized in the majority culture will hold true in other socioeconomic groups without regard to cultural differences and stresses. I think that's a dangerous position to take without knowing if the phenomenon generalizes to the population being discussed.

I do know that many persons from low SES populations have found career satisfaction and advancement following an academic education. I also know many who have failed to complete that education and wasted thousands, and those who have completed and have been unsuccessful in marketing themselves following completion of their degrees. I will concede that I am not up on the literature in this area and would certainly appreciate informed responses.

This was the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread. I really feel that vocational education is currently getting a major short-shrift in the U.S., and needs to be seriously pushed at all levels as a viable education and career path. College is NOT the best endgame/goal for everyone, and I feel that we (generic "we") need to stop force-feeding the idea that it is.

I think one of the issues in low-SES communities is simply a lack of ideas of what the options actually are. I attended high school in a predominantly low-SES area, and saw first-hand some of the issues FemmeFeline mentions. That being said, our school also did a decent job of educating us about non-college/non-four-year options that were available, such as local trade schools and community colleges (for associate's-level degrees in various areas as well as affordable college-prep for individuals who thought they might want to go to college, but weren't sure just yet if it was for them).

 

[roubs]

I think one of the issues in low-SES communities is simply a lack of ideas of what the options actually are. I attended high school in a predominantly low-SES area, and saw first-hand some of the issues FemmeFeline mentions. That being said, our school also did a decent job of educating us about non-college/non-four-year options that were available, such as local trade schools and community colleges (for associate's-level degrees in various areas as well as affordable college-prep for individuals who thought they might want to go to college, but weren't sure just yet if it was for them).

Agree that 4-year college shouldn't be mindlessly pushed as it is now. There should be more discussion of the opportunity cost starting with lost wages for 4-5 yrs. It'd be good if a full evaluation of the pros/cons results in more people choosing vocational training. The military and promotion within a company from entry level are also good options. Of course many of the high growth employment areas require a college degree, if a person has an interest and the apparent ability to excel in a high skill / professional field then they should be encouraged to go for it.

 

[cara susanna]

http://www.psychologicalscience.org...-pictures-of-women-as-objects-not-people.html

A new study suggests that people see sexy pictures of women as objects but sexy pictures of men are still viewed as people. This is what I mean when I talk about objectification of women--yes, we see scantily-clad men often, but they are not being portrayed as sexual objects like women are.

 

[Pragma]

http://www.psychologicalscience.org...-pictures-of-women-as-objects-not-people.html

A new study suggests that people see sexy pictures of women as objects but sexy pictures of men are still viewed as people. This is what I mean when I talk about objectification of women--yes, we see scantily-clad men often, but they are not being portrayed as sexual objects like women are.

I believe it, but obviously it does not generalize to all situations.

 

[Sanman]

This was the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread. I really feel that vocational education is currently getting a major short-shrift in the U.S., and needs to be seriously pushed at all levels as a viable education and career path. College is NOT the best endgame/goal for everyone, and I feel that we (generic "we") need to stop force-feeding the idea that it is.

I think one of the issues in low-SES communities is simply a lack of ideas of what the options actually are. I attended high school in a predominantly low-SES area, and saw first-hand some of the issues FemmeFeline mentions. That being said, our school also did a decent job of educating us about non-college/non-four-year options that were available, such as local trade schools and community colleges (for associate's-level degrees in various areas as well as affordable college-prep for individuals who thought they might want to go to college, but weren't sure just yet if it was for them).

The problem is that there is no single silver bullet to solve the problem. In reality, vocational training, military service, higher education, and a number of different avenues will all provide ways for a person from a lower SES to have better life than their family of origin. Perhaps, for example, a high-end custom cabinet maker will do better for a certain individual than going to a third rate college with little guidance or help. However, that does not mean every person can become a cabinet maker and that they will all be okay. One of the things that I think you will find is that regardless of formal education or SES, one of the keys to success in life is good mentorship. Being the first in your family to go to college is great, but unless you are smart enough to learn from others you are at a disadvantage compared to others. You may learn the hard way that you should have taken XYZ graduate entrance exam months before applying to graduate school or that you should have done an internship in college to give you some experience when applying for that first job. You may not know the best way to negotiate your first salary or the importance of benefits, pensions, or matched 401k contributions. This mentorship is the true difference between SES classes. For example, I grew up in a family of very successful healthcare professionals and practice owners (upper middle class to rich). I know that having these skills is just the beginning and there is a certain level of business acumen needed to be successful in healthcare. I also know that being the best does not mean being paid the most.

 

[FemmeFeline]

Absolutely not what I said. Intelligence/ability is not an SES issue. There are plenty of disadvantaged smart young kids who need opportunities to exploit their natural abilities. Where you got the idea that I said we should focus only on high IQ kids is a little worrisome.

Then I do not see how your posts about IQ/intelligence and success correlation and outliers add to my open questions about the best mentoring model for low SES kids. Or how they are relevant. Like I said, the youth I am targeting aren't necessarily going to score high on IQ tests.

How are you measuring success?

As I mentioned, I want to look at data that describes quality of life ratings, earnings, and educational attainment. I expect you can choose to measure "success" from these types of variables, especially the self-rated quality of life.

College may or may not open doors for them. Clearly I am not suggesting that low income/at risk youth consider the illicit drug trade as an honorable vocation. However, I would venture to state that not everyone is cut out for college (many simply do not thrive in that environment) and that other paths to success exist. Many of which do not involve academia at all.

My point is that outcomes, while generalizable, are not necessarily applicable to individuals. What might work for the vast majority of middle income white kids may be a poor choice for a low SES (minority or non-minority) population without additional support or guidance that may or may not be available to that population. You are making an assumption that what has generalized in the majority culture will hold true in other socioeconomic groups without regard to cultural differences and stresses. I think that's a dangerous position to take without knowing if the phenomenon generalizes to the population being discussed.

I honestly think that you ignored my entire opening post about this issue. I am asking questions about a target population, not the general population. My whole point was that when people throw around the ol' "BA is a waste of time and money" comments, they are usually coming from a middle class white perspective. I believe that those with more advantageous backgrounds have more freedom to explore financially and become entrepreneurs than those who are starting from nothing. Rags to riches stories don't provide realistic pathways to success with specific suggestions that any kid from a low SES background could follow. It's great that people make a ton of money as entrepreneurs, drug traffickers, crimelords, and celebrities. How do these facts translate to a proper mentorship model for the average youth from disadvantaged backgrounds, unless you're suggesting they're viable career pathways for these youth?

I obviously don't have the answers, and I appreciate discussion about this target population, but I frankly don't think that it's helpful to throw out red herring statistics that distract from coming to a solution. I agree that the 4-year college model isn't right for every student. I do think we need education reform, and reform in how we frame pathways to career success. I just wonder how to do it, and I worry a lot about the cost of underselling a college education to those low SES youth whom may benefit the most from that type of experience/education. While BAs may cost a family money, vocational schools aren't necessarily non-profit, either. And if you are looking at a low income population, chances are they will benefit greatly from federal/state/institutional financial aid and their actual cost to degree completion is much, much, MUCH less than the sticker price, which middle class families are subject to pay.

Again, I'm not interested in mindlessly pushing for the BA, but looking for a more in-depth look at how we can properly mentor this specific population. And the questions about how to define success are relevant to this conversation. I think we mostly agree about these concepts, I just disagree that it's helpful to look at IQ and outliers of financial success for solutions.

 

[FemmeFeline]

The problem is that there is no single silver bullet to solve the problem. In reality, vocational training, military service, higher education, and a number of different avenues will all provide ways for a person from a lower SES to have better life than their family of origin. Perhaps, for example, a high-end custom cabinet maker will do better for a certain individual than going to a third rate college with little guidance or help. However, that does not mean every person can become a cabinet maker and that they will all be okay. One of the things that I think you will find is that regardless of formal education or SES, one of the keys to success in life is good mentorship.

I couldn't agree more. This is exactly why I am interested in studying the effectiveness of different mentorship models, and how schools can implement low cost mentorship interventions without distracting from academically preparing students. The school I currently work in focuses a lot on mentorship but largely fails to prepare its students academically, as well as build in the stamina of their students. Because of this, we send a lot of students to college or community college unprepared, something colleges and universities have identified as a problem for a long time. Yet we keep doing it --- what is it we're doing wrong? How do we choose the right mentorship for the right individual? Are we not pushing our low SES kids enough, or are we misunderstanding their needs? Maybe vocational school is a much more viable option. All of these are real questions I'm concerned about.

 

[Pragma]

I couldn't agree more. This is exactly why I am interested in studying the effectiveness of different mentorship models, and how schools can implement low cost mentorship interventions without distracting from academically preparing students. The school I currently work in focuses a lot on mentorship but largely fails to prepare its students academically, as well as build in the stamina of their students. Because of this, we send a lot of students to college or community college unprepared, something colleges and universities have identified as a problem for a long time. Yet we keep doing it --- what is it we're doing wrong? How do we choose the right mentorship for the right individual? Are we not pushing our low SES kids enough, or are we misunderstanding their needs? Maybe vocational school is a much more viable option. All of these are real questions I'm concerned about.

There are people doing exactly this research (mentorship models among low-income, urban minority youth) at present.

 

[FemmeFeline]

There are people doing exactly this research (mentorship models among low-income, urban minority youth) at present.

Yes! I actually worked with a large scale project involved in this research (though they did not budge on the 4-year college = best option route). I'm really excited about being able to explore it further in grad school as well. Do you have any specific people/projects in mind? I'd love to look at them.

 

[Pragma]

Yes! I actually worked with a large scale project involved in this research (though they did not budge on the 4-year college = best option route). I'm really excited about being able to explore it further in grad school as well. Do you have any specific people/projects in mind? I'd love to look at them.

I'll PM you some ideas

 

[LivingOffLoans]

"How does it feel to be in a profession dominated by women?"

It is more isolating, you become more aware of your gender on a regular basis, and you have few same-sex companions (if any, because men often compete with each other, if not for the recognition and internships, then for the women. Dumb.). God forbid that certain women develop a crush on you and you don't have feelings for them in that way (and if you do...you should not get involved!). They will find a way to rally other women in the department against you. Strength through numbers by mere affiliation. You'd be amazed how quickly your reputation can get wasted. I have seen it happen to multiple men.

I think the experience varies by institution and region. So much is contextual. But generally speaking, no doubt, I have had multiple experiences where I felt discriminated against based on the body I exist in. I have no problem with working in a profession where my sex is the minority, but I do have a problem with being the 'slave' in Hegel's dialectic here when I expected to find 'synthesis' in this field. *sigh* And I can't open my mouth about it, or it makes things worse.

For all the touting in this field for equality in race, gender, and class, I find that people generally do not like when the straight white guy takes on any position other than the oppressor. You'll get a 'know your role and shut your mouth' kind of treatment. At least that has been my experience.

My advice: Mind your own business, smile often, be nice, do your work, keep a safe distance, and do not get involved either personally or romantically with anyone (or potentially anyone, for that matter) in your program. Make sure you have a strong support network/life outside of academia and the profession.

I am not surprised by the male suicide rate in this profession at all.

But I don't think that women are the problem. It is the culture. You will find similar problems like this in any profession. These are just the specifics that come to mind when I read the question.

 

[wigflip]

And I can't open my mouth about it, or it makes things worse.For all the touting in this field for equality in race, gender, and class, I find that people generally do not like when the straight white guy takes on any position other than the oppressor. You'll get a 'know your role and shut your mouth' kind of treatment. At least that has been my experience.

Ummm...maybe this has something to do with the issues you've been experiencing?

I don't like/don't do well working under others.

post #7
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=11780124#post11780124

 

[AcronymAllergy]

"How does it feel to be in a profession dominated by women?"

It is more isolating, you become more aware of your gender on a regular basis, and you have few same-sex companions (if any, because men often compete with each other, if not for the recognition and internships, then for the women. Dumb.). God forbid that certain women develop a crush on you and you don't have feelings for them in that way (and if you do...you should not get involved!). They will find a way to rally other women in the department against you. Strength through numbers by mere affiliation. You'd be amazed how quickly your reputation can get wasted. I have seen it happen to multiple men.

I think the experience varies by institution and region. So much is contextual. But generally speaking, no doubt, I have had multiple experiences where I felt discriminated against based on the body I exist in. I have no problem with working in a profession where my sex is the minority, but I do have a problem with being the 'slave' in Hegel's dialectic here when I expected to find 'synthesis' in this field. *sigh* And I can't open my mouth about it, or it makes things worse.

For all the touting in this field for equality in race, gender, and class, I find that people generally do not like when the straight white guy takes on any position other than the oppressor. You'll get a 'know your role and shut your mouth' kind of treatment. At least that has been my experience.

My advice: Mind your own business, smile often, be nice, do your work, keep a safe distance, and do not get involved either personally or romantically with anyone (or potentially anyone, for that matter) in your program. Make sure you have a strong support network/life outside of academia and the profession.

I am not surprised by the male suicide rate in this profession at all.

But I don't think that women are the problem. It is the culture. You will find similar problems like this in any profession. These are just the specifics that come to mind when I read the question.

As you mentioned, it's likely program-dependent, as I can honestly say I've experienced none of what you've recounted either during my grad school days or on internship.

 

[LivingOffLoans]

As you mentioned, it's likely program-dependent, as I can honestly say I've experienced none of what you've recounted either during my grad school days or on internship.

Very jealous over here. My graduate training experience has been very unfortunate and bizarre. I am trying to keep my head above water and hope that the actual profession outside of graduate training provides a different experience than what I've seen.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

That's been my (limited) experience as well. The neuropsychologists with whom I've worked in an AMC setting either frequently mention how much work they have to do, or show it by consistently pulling five to six 10- to 12-hour days per week, nearly every week.

I think many faculty are just indoctrinated into this lifestyle, and while it can be very rewarding, it definitely is not for everyone. The tenure clock for my university is 8 years, with the option (dept. discretion) for 10. Nuts.

 

[LivingOffLoans]

I think many faculty are just indoctrinated into this lifestyle, and while it can be very rewarding, it definitely is not for everyone. The tenure clock for my university is 8 years, with the option (dept. discretion) for 10. Nuts.

I have a professor who got his PhD in Neuropsych and he has frequently told us that it is hell, both to get the degree and the work that comes with it.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I think many faculty are just indoctrinated into this lifestyle, and while it can be very rewarding, it definitely is not for everyone. The tenure clock for my university is 8 years, with the option (dept. discretion) for 10. Nuts.

Agreed. Most of the faculty I know (about whom I wrote) were reportedly borderline-manic workaholic-types in grad school as well, so the AMC workload didn't represent much of a change for them. This is particularly the case with the higher-up supervisors who were heading one or more multi-site research studies in addition to handling clinical work for an entire inpatient rehab or tbi wing, for example.

The newer-hires related experiences fairly similar to those you've described for yourself, T4C. Very rewarding overall, but a high (and relatively unyielding/unforgiving) demand for output.

 

[erg923]

As you mentioned, it's likely program-dependent, as I can honestly say I've experienced none of what you've recounted either during my grad school days or on internship.

That's because you are the "oppressor."

When my wife was getting get teaching certification at a large state school in CA, many of her classmates turned against her when they found out that she frequented blogs, and had her own blog, that centered around how to be a proper wife, in the christian view. Apparently, this automatically made her a dishrag with "out of date" notions of marriage and relationships.