Online Programs- Pros & Cons

[Eruca]

Just making a comment about diversity. 50% is fine, but it's not going to stay there. Look at the rest of the field. In other words, I think our diversity is shrinking with the domination of the field by women.

I'm not anti-woman. But, I do wonder a bit about the nature/reason for the shift and, specifically, what appears to be a disproportionate shift in psychology. I wonder (and I don't have the data) if professional schools have something to do with it.

Well, for one you are speculating. So maybe it won't stay at exactly 50%.. welcome to the last 200+ years of women's history, where jobs in teaching, nursing, & secretarial work were dominated by women, and jobs in science, engineering, medicine, business, and law (not to mention the military) were dominated by men, not to mention discouraged and in many cases involved blatant discrimination against women. This was the whole reason for the women's movement..maybe you've read of it? There is still current and ongoing social & political actions going on for the gender wage gap. You can find quite a good deal of data on the subject. http://www.pay-equity.org/info-time.html There is a great deal of reseach, discussion & education around gender issues, and by no means will I even be able to do it justice on a thread such as this. I suggest you do some reading on your own. This applies to the field of psychology & academics as well.

You didn't site where your neuropsych salary numbers came from, but yay!, that's good news indeed. I also wouldn't want psychology to be dominated as a whole by women, for the record. But so far I don't see a problem. Insofar as prof schools being a problem, how does that account for the greater number of female psych majors in undergraduate institutions?

Is that because of discrimination or differences in choices/priorities?

Not sure if this is a real question, a rhetorical one, or if you're insinuating something. They are both, in part, true. However, it is an extremely complicated question and does not just boil down to choices or priorities. The infrastructure for women to pursue both tenure-track positions and have a family is simply not there. Many women make it happen, and we have seminars with these women to see just how they were able to navigate it. This is an important issue considering one should not have to choose one or the other, and women cannot delegate the pregnancy to her spouse, nor can she delegate much in early infancy. Hopefully she has a spouse willing to make sacrifices, so that all members of the family can succeed. If you have any knowledge of the social systems of scandinavia, you will see that some countries have responded to this problem (e.g., supplying paid maternity AND paternity leave). Have you heard of paid paternity leave in the US? Do you know how quickly women have to get back to work after having a child in order to keep their jobs in the US? Sometimes as few as THREE weeks. This also applies to academia, albeit sometimes in a more duplicitous manner

Sure, but not as a function of sex or race or ethnicity or any of the other protected/defined categories. ...So, the privilege piece is about early environment in my opinion. And, yes, because of historical issues, some of our minority populations (and I don't include women in this), are demographically at a disadvantage. However, I think most of those that are making it to the doctoral level are not coming from that disadvantaged situation.

I appreciate your opinion, although I would argue it's misinformed. As for sex or race, see above link to wage gaps (EDIT: sorry, I posted a diff link above, there are also data on wage disparities in regard to race & gender). Convenient to leave women out of historical issues of disadvantage. I do think you need to read up on the socioeconomic status of single black women in particular. There are so many responses to this, my brain may actually implode, so I'll refrain. Seriously, there are entire semesters of college courses taught on gender equality issues and on multiculturalism & hundreds of thriving social justice organizations. I feel disheartened that you seem to understand so little about the greater social issues going on in this country, many of which apply to our field and particularly to those we serve.

To make matters more complicated, psychologists are also studying attitudes associated with the wage gap, I thought this Time article was food for thought: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1843323-1,00.html

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

You give me the following data point. . .

Robert is a 26 year old black man from San Diego California.

I can make what assumptions about this person?

He thinks anything below 65 is cold.

.....and I happen to agree.

 

[Eruca]

Some of what psychologists, economists, sociologists, etc. study deal with group differences, not necessarily one-to-one individual differences. (this often gets confused, particularly with behavioral genetics data) Using an anecdotal n of one, tells you nothing about the state of affairs for the group as a whole. It is one data point. That is all. So should we ignore the group as a whole issues based on whether or not we can make assumptions about one individual? Guess we're done then. No need to work on social justice issues at all.

My neighbor down the street did not get laid off due to cut-backs, his house isn't foreclosed, his 401k didn't tank, and he owns a BMW. I guess the economy is fine.

You tell us about a successful affluent black woman you know, and you really want to talk about simplistic fluff? Hm.

 

[Eruca]

. . . and the converse is also true.

I've seen some pretty stupid things from the social justice crowd, blatantly displayed in front of the folks they were making assumptions about. It's the heart of racism. . . generalizing from group data on what amount to proxy variables.

Yes, I've seen mistakes from all types of groups, social justice and otherwise. You were the one asking for assumptions based on one data point. I was actually saying the opposite. It doesn't take away the fact that when you see a troubling group as a whole effect, that awareness and steps to deal with it need to happen.

Why else would we be so concerned with a 7%+ and rising unemployment rate? As a group, 7% of us do not have jobs. That is alarming and I may not be able to assume my neighbor's job status based on this information, but I can make a prediction about the chances that he/she may or may not have a job. It also speaks to a large number of people that are in trouble. This alone is enough for me, no matter the context.

This has been the whole basis of arguments about prof schools to begin with! That certain practices are impacting the group as a whole! Is it that when it's applied to something more distal to you personally, that you break down the argument, and spin it... I'm awfully confused about why one set of group data (e.g., appic match rates) matters, while other group data sets do not.

 

[Eruca]

more Eruca. . .

You assumed, "whether I know it or not" that I come from privilege. Now, I'm guessing this is because you think I'm male. Beyond that, I'm a white male. My point was that while you're assumption was correct, it had nothing to do with my being male. It had to do with my individual circumstances. You assumed that I was privileged though based on that one data-point. So, I took a group that you designated (black female) and gave you another n of 1 data-point in response. I am not, absolutely not, privileged because I am male or white. Just as my friend is not, absolutely not, disadvantaged because she is a black female.

Ah, indeed. And you speak to the complexities of privilege. It is not dichotomous. You are a white male. In some ways, you are privileged. I am a white female, so in some ways I am privileged as well. I'm also educated, so in another way I'm quite privileged. I'm the 1st in my immediate family to graduate high school, so in some ways I was less privileged than my peers who had doctors, lawyers, or business-people as parents. Again, there is a lot of complexity to this argument, and I didn't mean to imply it was simple. It is not. In some ways your black friend has been privileged (e.g., SES), and in some ways not, as racism still exists, no matter the SES background. To say otherwise is just naive.

 

[Eruca]

For example, I don't know many women that would want a husband that stayed at home with the children (some exist, I'm sure), but both the woman and the man would likely get more than a few odd looks with that arrangement. That's a social issue, but I'm not sure, or at least I'm not convinced, that's necessarily a discrimination issue. There are some things that go deep into our social consciousness with regards to attraction.

Odd looks for a stay-at-home dad?

I am at a loss for words, except.. Ugh. and (sigh).

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Be careful where you take this argument. You are speaking from a place of privilege. Whether you realize it or not.

While there should be some consideration of individual experience, the idea of "obviously you won't fully understand everything because you haven't been there" is a straw man argument. If this were the case, we couldn't "properly" provide services to our pts without also sharing the same challenges.

As for diversity issues in the field....I think there is a far greater split economically than on race/religion/age/etc. I believe it was Jon who gave the example of economic privilege early on, and I fully agree.

 

[Eruca]

"obviously you won't fully understand everything because you haven't been there" is a straw man argument.

First of all, this is bit of a misinterpretation of what I said and meant. Some of the things mentioned in previous posts were very much views coming from a place of privilege (in my opinion). I can be guilty of it myself. If you want more in regard to what this means exactly, you may want to refer to the vast amount of social justice & multicultural literature on the subject. I no longer have the energy to defend something that is quite accepted among a vast group of activists in this area.

No doubt I don't subscribe to the idea of the "have to have been there" attitude. I do not have OCD or Bipolar, I'm not a man, nor a person of color - but I seem to treat my clients with these characteristics quite effectively. To basically accuse me of believing otherwise is a bit offensive. My apologies if my statements were said in a way to be interpreted in such a manner.

At this point, I'm going to agree to disagree, as it seems quite apparent that we have some social and world views (and I would bet political ones as well) that are quite different.

 

[cardamom]

more Eruca. . .

You assumed, "whether I know it or not" that I come from privilege. Now, I'm guessing this is because you think I'm male. Beyond that, I'm a white male. My point was that while you're assumption was correct, it had nothing to do with my being male. It had to do with my individual circumstances. You assumed that I was privileged though based on that one data-point. So, I took a group that you designated (black female) and gave you another n of 1 data-point in response. I am not, absolutely not, privileged because I am male or white. Just as my friend is not, absolutely not, disadvantaged because she is a black female.

No, you do have certain privileges precisely because you are both male and white. Both of those things confer their own sets of privileges, most of which you may not be aware of because that's the nature of having privilege (you don't have to deal with the inequality or even realize it's there unless you put effort into it). For instance, besides what should be really obvious manifestations of those privileges (not having to deal with the many existing forms of racism and sexism), on a professional level I imagine you have never had anyone wonder if your achievements were just because of affirmative action (white privilege) and that you haven't had to worry (or worry to the same extent) about if you will be able to take the necessary time off in your career to have a child and if you will be taken less seriously because of it (male privilege). If you honestly don't think you have some major race and gender privileges, I recommend reading the articles about unpacking the white privilege backpack (google that) which will explain the concept better than I can.

And t4c, pointing out the realities of privilege isn't really the same as saying you can't understand if you haven't been there, though I do think knowing the limitations of one's own perspective is important when you are going to empathize with and help people whose experiences are outside your own. You can certainly still do a good job of relating to those problems, but it seems like recognizing one's privileges is a key part of that. I know it's been a process for me to become more aware of my privileges (I'm a white, non-Christian woman who has had good economic support, so I'm on different sides of it, depending on the issue), and it's one that I consider forever on-going and something I can continue to do better with.

x-post with Eruca, who seems to be on a similar wavelength, and maybe is right that we should agree to disagree...

 

[Eruca]

Thanks cardamom, I was feeling quite out on my own.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Btw, to Eruca and Cardamom,

I mean no insult, I like to debate and I'm a bit aggressive in style.

Jon's style is more Ragin' Cajun, and less Dahli Lama.

 

[cardamom]

In my understanding of it, the privilege thing isn't about being a victim, but rather recognizing certain biases in our society, and there are a ton of different forms of privilege that intersect in complicated ways. Saying you have privileges isn't the same as saying you've had it particularly easy or great--your (generic your) life as a white male may well have sucked because of other factors. But what is still true is that you do escape, and are likely unaware of, are the specific systemic prejudices that people who are non-white and female face, and those are very real and very significant for the people who do deal with them.

This is a key issue for clinical psychologists to understand because whether in research or clinical work, those same factors affect, well, everything, and if you haven't spent some time thinking about and recognizing the forms privilege takes, as well its affects, you might miss some important aspects of the problems we look at. An obvious one is eating disorders--I think most people would agree that the disproportionate amount of pressure on women to conform to a generally unrealistic body type is why that is way more common in women than men, and understanding those difference in societal pressures and influences seems important in understanding the disorder. Or in working with DV victims--understanding the way women get taught from a young age to defer to men and not to assert their own needs is important (among many other things) when trying to figure out why she just won't leave him.

And Eruca, you're welcome, and Jon, I'm happy to debate--it's how I often learn things.

Edited to add: this also seems in part a debate of semantics and in part one of weighing the importance of these group identities. I do think it's much easier to say they aren't as important of an issue (vs solely individual factors) when you fall on the privileged side of them though, and that's something that when we are on that side, we ought to challenge our assumptions about, and generally listen more to the people who aren't privileged as to how it works.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

This is slightly tangential, but rarely do people talk about my area of work, so pardon my slight digression.....

An obvious one is eating disorders--I think most people would agree that the disproportionate amount of pressure on women to conform to a generally unrealistic body type is why that is way more common in women than men

There is a growing body of literature that speaks to similar body image concerns with males (check out Pope et al's, "The Adonis Complex" for some of the basics), and while there are a host of contributing factors, I'd argue that "societal pressures" is far down the list both as the primary contributor as well as a difference between the sexes. The overall manifestation of EDs in my experience have been rooted in far more individual experiences and not as much in achieving the "perfect body" (Slim, toned v. V-shaped / buff), though that is the most obvious part of the disorder. Body image issues are typically part of the deal, thoug sometimes they aren't.

(I can split this out if anyone is actually interested in this stuff...if not, consider this a small sidebar to an otherwise unrelated topic)

ps. I believe there has been an increase in the # of reports of Female v. Male DV. It is still a under-represented area (much like male EDs), but the stats are starting to come out to support higher prevelance rates.

 

[Eruca]

beware crazy progressive liberal

The fact that you would throw out this label already says something about your biases. No matter the differences of opinion, I don't throw around disparaging remarks or labels about conservatives.

. . . or the fact that about 50% of DV acts are perpetrated by women.

Source please. I'm sorry but this is a definite misinterpretation of some data from who knows where. If it's based on legal data or arrests, it is an extremely misleading statistic. As many women get arrested only after they have already suffered and decide to hit back, or in many cases, defend themselves. In a DV arrest situation, history of violence is not taken into account, and defense is applied subjectively by the arresting officer, and an arrest is made even if the officer determines it was in defense (this is part of the law). I worked for 2 years as a women's & children's counselor for victims of domestic abuse. I also worked as a liason with the County police where I was paged by the local PD to assist victims immediately after the DV incident (at the home with police on-scene, sometimes in jail in the case of a female arrest). I worked directly with the police around this. And this 50% of DV acts is a misrepresentation of grand proportions.

 

[JockNerd]

This is slightly tangential, but rarely do people talk about my area of work, so pardon my slight digression.....



There is a growing body of literature that speaks to similar body image concerns with males (check out Pope et al's, "The Adonis Complex" for some of the basics), and while there are a host of contributing factors, I'd argue that "societal pressures" is far down the list both as the primary contributor as well as a difference between the sexes. The overall manifestation of EDs in my experience have been rooted in far more individual experiences and not as much in achieving the "perfect body" (Slim, toned v. V-shaped / buff), though that is the most obvious part of the disorder. Body image issues are typically part of the deal, thoug sometimes they aren't.

(I can split this out if anyone is actually interested in this stuff...if not, consider this a small sidebar to an otherwise unrelated topic)

ps. I believe there has been an increase in the # of reports of Female v. Male DV. It is still a under-represented area (much like male EDs), but the stats are starting to come out to support higher prevelance rates.

I am literally finishing a project on this right now for publication.

So, see the sex equality: pressure to conform to an ideal body type. But see the sex difference (as I note in the paper): What's the ideal for men? A body that's strong, powerful, and (generally) healthy. What's the ideal for women? A body that's frail, weak, emaciated, and sickly.

 

[psychmama]

Odd looks for a stay-at-home dad?

I am at a loss for words, except.. Ugh. and (sigh).

Stay at home Dads? I know a bunch, including my spouse. Can it be that you really don't know any of these? May I ask where you live?

 

[Aggieanthony]

Stay at home Dads? I know a bunch, including my spouse. Can it be that you really don't know any of these? May I ask where you live?

Eruca was responding to Dr. Snow's comment about how stay-at-home fathers "would receive odd looks" at the arrangement, speaking to a greater societal issue of women cast in the role of caretaker merely because biology chose her to carry the child.

Eruca was not stating that the stay-at-home father would receive "odd looks" and it can be assumed she does not find "that arrangement" to be deviant and/or unusual.

Hopefully. ^_^

 

[psychmama]

Eruca was responding to Dr. Snow's comment about how stay-at-home fathers "would receive odd looks" at the arrangement, speaking to a greater societal issue of women cast in the role of caretaker merely because biology chose her to carry the child.

Eruca was not stating that the stay-at-home father would receive "odd looks" and it can be assumed she does not find "that arrangement" to be deviant and/or unusual.

Hopefully. ^_^

Oh, I see how my response would have been unclear. I was actually responding to Jon's statement, not Eruca's. I was just surprised that JS seemed to think SAH Dads were such a big deal. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

So, see the sex equality: pressure to conform to an ideal body type. But see the sex difference (as I note in the paper): What's the ideal for men? A body that's strong, powerful, and (generally) healthy. What's the ideal for women? A body that's frail, weak, emaciated, and sickly.

If you want to further confuse things...look at what happens when sexual orientation is thrown into the mix. Seiver (1994) has an interesting study on this.

.Siever M.D. (1994). Sexual orientation and gender as factors in socioculturally acquired vulnerability to body dissatisfaction and eating disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology; April 1994; 62; 2; 252-260....

 

[Aggieanthony]

Oh, I see how my response would have been unclear. I was actually responding to Jon's statement, not Eruca's. I was just surprised that JS seemed to think SAH Dads were such a big deal. Sorry for the confusion.

He lives in an Ivory Tower, I'm not surprised.

 

[Aggieanthony]

. . . says he who thinks that 250,000 of debt for school isn't so bad. Heh.

Because of my white privilege, it isn't so bad!

I do apologize that I read your comment about "SAH" dads incorrectly. It seemed quite plain, and congruous with your other views, that you would think SAH dads could be/would be viewed in a disparaging manner.

 

[psychmama]

I have to say, this thread has been great fun, giving me a means to express my pent-up aggression!

By the way, I still think I'm right . There are some things I just don't need to prove empirically. My own phenomenology may not make for a good research study, but it is quite valuable nonetheless. But then again, I believe there are multiple ways of knowing -- science is just one path.

Okay, go ahead and react with horror! I know I'm stepping into the firing line with that one!

 

[Eruca]

key word being activists. . .

Not sure of your point..?

I think being male and white may introduce a different set of variables from which I must approach various internal and external scenarios; just as being female and white, being black and male, etc. . . do. Just as being left or right handed, having a high or low IQ, and high or low social monitoring capabilities all introduce different variables (advantages, disadvantages, and just plain differences) from which we approach the world. The sum of our parts is much more important on an individual level than any one particular variable, especially a proxy such as visually identified racial category. ...

This will undoubtedly be provocative... but I'm disturbed by this view of race as a "proxy variable". The research may deal with statistics, but the point is to be able to translate this into real-life applicability. I challenge you to find a person of color who considers their race/ethnicity to be summed up as a proxy.

Also, please show me the case where left/right-handedness or low social monitoring was the root cause for random beatings, civil right movements, promotion oversights, rape/sexual assault, and other forms of oppression. I concede, it may have gotten a few quips in grade school.

 

[Eruca]

via quick pubmed/google search


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Dating violence among university students is only one small part of the picture.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Sigh. You can say that jesus was really a hamster and probably find a reference for it in google. (in fact you could add it yourself in wikipedia!)

Point is, I could find just as many sources that cite arguments and statistics to counter the nice long easily googled reference list you pulled up. Go work in a domestic abuse shelter and come back and tell me what you saw. What you heard. For two years, every week. And yes, we did have some men call in, and we referred them to a local men's outreach center. I'm not saying that women never batter. They do. At 50%? I still don't buy it, and neither did the police I worked with on domestic response units. And I should mention we were paged for EVERY domestic abuse call, not just when the victim was female. But I'll tell you, the number of pages I got where a man was a victim, far less than 50%, and when I did jail visits with female defendants... nearly every one had a documented history of being battered by her male partner. For the record, I also worked with clients in same-sex relationships who were victims of domestic violence. Yup, you're right, that unfortunately happens too. No one is denying that here. And yes, it harms everyone involved. Is the next step to find me stats to show that men are raped/sexually assaulted as often as women? Go ahead...

You're gonna stat and google yourself into 'being right' every time. Of course we all have our agendas, or our pet causes. Seeing hundreds of battered women sure put it into perspective for me.

Peace out.

 

[cardamom]

via quick pubmed/google search


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum




http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm


I think the consequences of DV perpetrated by men and women are potentially different. Men obviously, on average, are more powerful and more prone to cause damage. But, I see no reason to believe women are any less likely to initiate violence or controlling behaviors. In fact, take a look at the homosexual DV rates (lesbian couples). In any case, it's a dangerous situation for a man to be in, dealing with a violent woman. There are many biases in the system that could potentially be used by an abusive women (see Borderline Personality Disorder as an example of a potential correlate) against a man including taking advantage DV resources via false accusation, etc. . .My point is DV is not a male issue. It's a horrible sitaution for anyone dealing with it.

Actually, if you look at the stats for all violent crime, not just DV and sexual assault, it becomes clear that violence is indeed a male issue. (Victims are most commonly men as well, except in DV and sexual assaults.) That doesn't mean there aren't violent women or that those situations shouldn't be taken seriously when they occur, but when the majority of violent crime is committed by men by a huge margin, there clearly is a gendered aspect to the problem. Citing individual examples of female violence doesn't change that.

It doesn't mean that men are in any way inherently violent, but it suggests something is going on that deserves examination. And when you do examine it, the phenomenon is not that surprising given the messages men get. While women are taught to be accomodating and vulnerable and weak, men are told (sometimes very subtly) to be tough, invulnerable and to express little emotion except anger. That seems like a recipe for violence to me (and to many, many far more credentialed people who research the topic). I highly recommend looking at Jackson Katz's work (such as his documentary Tough Guise) for a good starting point.

 

[Eruca]

Exactly, you don't buy it and neither do the police.

So, where does that leave males dealing with this?


You are just perpetuating these issues by automatically believing every woman that comes before you.

I did NOT say that I don't buy it when a man says he's been battered! I said I don't buy it that 50% of DV is perpetrated by women.

I also did NOT say that I "automatically" believe every woman that comes before me.

Do NOT put words in my mouth.

You seem to take what people say and make sweeping, generalized and oftentimes misconstrued interpretations of the words, comment, or sentiment. This conversation is beyond reproach. I'm truly grateful for the male colleagues I work with, and those men I consider my friends. I really never knew how grateful. Thanks for that.

 

[compassionate1]

I have to say, this thread has been great fun, giving me a means to express my pent-up aggression!

By the way, I still think I'm right . There are some things I just don't need to prove empirically. My own phenomenology may not make for a good research study, but it is quite valuable nonetheless. But then again, I believe there are multiple ways of knowing -- science is just one path.

Okay, go ahead and react with horror! I know I'm stepping into the firing line with that one!

**************************
I agree with you, although it may not be a popular thing to say....

The highlight of my week was getting an e-mail from a former student, saying that she is interviewing with several solid clinical programs.

Why is this so special? Because I teach in a community undergrad college for women, which I also attended as a student. Even though I now live in the States, where women of my religion have greater freedoms, they are still limited in many ways -- which are just more subtle and harder to observe. Many of the women in my community compromise on career paths which are well below thier capacity. As someone who had to fight for my right to attend college, I've taken it upon myself to mentor and encourage women from the community to strive for their dreams.

The above mentioned student got accepted last year to two well-known MSW programs. But she shared with me her deep-rooted aspiration of becoming a psychologist. So I encouraged her to take a year off and apply to PhD programs this year. Although i supported her application, I was not too hopeful as her GREs scores were mediocre and she lacked research experience. Yet, to my delight she did get interviews! I hope and pray that she gets in. This is extremely rewarding for me and encourages me to keep working with other women.

And now that my students are 'getting in'; it is my turn to apply next...

Compassionate1

 

[buddingpsyd]

Why fuss just keep trying.

 

[PsyDr]

empty

 

[cara susanna]

The lazy young adults in class that I was almost always teamed with to do projects.

The know it all immaturity

And you're complaining about generalizations regarding non-traditional students?

 

[FloridaState]

No offense, what if a student cannot make it to the classroom because of having to work for a living and take care of a family, and the only alternative is the online program? I think that there are good online doctorate programs which bears the same amount and perhaps even more strict course workload. So please, do not put the negatives out first -- all of us do not have the same easy lifestyle to just focus on getting an education with a silver spoon in our mouths.

 

[KillerDiller]

No offense, what if a student cannot make it to the classroom because of having to work for a living and take care of a family, and the only alternative is the online program? I think that there are good online doctorate programs which bears the same amount and perhaps even more strict course workload. So please, do not put the negatives out first -- all of us do not have the same easy lifestyle to just focus on getting an education with a silver spoon in our mouths.

Here we go again. Silver spoon? Please. The online programs are unfunded. Must be nice to be able to drop a hundred thousand or more on an education. A lot of us at traditional programs certainly can't swing that.

As for the course load, how is it more strict?

 

[FloridaState]

Thanks for putting it in clear ENGLISH to some of the ELITISTS!

 

[FloridaState]

How dare you malign my program in such a manner. My training is equal to any person in any other doctoral program. I am in a practicum alongside students from a more traditional program and my skills easily match theirs. The average Fielding student is mid forties, and has 10 to twenty years of professional experience. You are clearly pontificating without knowledge or comprehension about this issue. As I have said in previous posts Fielding is NOT online. Fielding was founded before the invention of the personal computer and we received our APA accreditation before the invention of the internet. One of my Fielding colleagues is currently on internship at Duke medical school, another is at Vanderbilt. One of my friends who just went through the match received 14 interviews at APA sites after applying to 16 sites and received his top choice. Simply because the learning model is different, it does not follow that the product is inferior in any way.

Thanks for telling the elitists!!!

 

[FloridaState]

Here we go again. Silver spoon? Please. The online programs are unfunded. Must be nice to be able to drop a hundred thousand or more on an education. A lot of us at traditional programs certainly can't swing that.

As for the course load, how is it more strict?

It is called working on independently (on your own) not copying, not getting the exams in advance to memorize, no plagiarism, no sucking up to the professor, NONE OF THAT STUFF!

 

[KillerDiller]

It is called working on independently (on your own) not copying, not getting the exams in advance to memorize, no plagiarism, no sucking up to the professor, NONE OF THAT STUFF!

I'm going to operate under the assumption that you're a troll. That assumption brings me comfort, as the alternative is simply ridiculous. Copying? Getting exams in advance to memorize? Who has tests that require rote memorization in graduate school?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It is called working on independently (on your own) not copying, not getting the exams in advance to memorize, no plagiarism, no sucking up to the professor, NONE OF THAT STUFF!

I'd think that would be more of a problem in the online environment, as there isn't really "oversight" as people are left to act independently....good or bad.

 

[futureapppsy2]

maybe we can do a really, really easy program for decorticate babies

I know this is in gest, but not all babies with damage (as indicated by decorticate posturing) have cognitive deficiets. Some even have exceptional intelligence.

But I agree, FloridaState=troll.

 

[JockNerd]

No offense, what if a student cannot make it to the classroom because of having to work for a living and take care of a family, and the only alternative is the online program? I think that there are good online doctorate programs which bears the same amount and perhaps even more strict course workload. So please, do not put the negatives out first -- all of us do not have the same easy lifestyle to just focus on getting an education with a silver spoon in our mouths.

Sometimes I wonder how I would react to posts like this if I were one of the many, many students I know who have kids, babies, families, sick & old parents, or have to work outside of school, and still excel in their undergrad and graduate/medical school work at a traditional institution because they were motivated, hardworking, and willing to realize that sometimes you have to give up (a) for (b).


I think I would be angry.

 

[Ollie123]

I swear half the posts people make on this board trying to defend certain programs end up having the opposite effect.

 

[Wildcat06]

Sometimes I wonder how I would react to posts like this is I were one of the many, many students I know who have kids, babies, families, sick & old parents, or have to work outside of school, and still excel in their undergrad and graduate/medical school work at a traditional institution because they were motivated, hardworking, and willing to realize that sometimes you have to give up (a) for (b).


I think I would be angry.

Thanks JockNerd. I am one of those people. I have tried so hard to stay out of these arguments because they just seem to go nowhere but I am so sick of people throwing the word "elitist" around.

Yes, I was lucky enough to go to a great private university for undergrad ON SCHOLARSHIP. Yes, I am lucky enough to be going to another great private university for my PhD, IN A FUNDED PROGRAM. I've been working since I was 16 years old, including working two jobs at one point in undergrad and many times since since then. I have worked by butt off to get where I am right now, both in and out of school.

I know that not everyone can take the traditional path, and I would never hold it against them. But not all of us traditional students are privileged. And even those who could be defined as being from "privileged" backgrounds still have to work their butts off. No one was just handed the key.

 

[FloridaState]

I know this is in gest, but not all babies with damage (as indicated by decorticate posturing) have cognitive deficiets. Some even have exceptional intelligence.

But I agree, FloridaState=troll.

SO SAD TO KNOW HOW THE FUTURE YOUNG PSYCHOLOGISTS ARE THINKING!

 

[Cosmo75]

When I was working on my masters degree in information systems in the early 00's, they offered some courses online. I ended up taking 2 in that format. They were a joke compared to the classroom courses I took, and certainly a joke compared to classes I took when getting my doctorate. I basically took a class online because I knew I would have to do minimal work. One of these was I/O psychology (sorry T4C ). I figured since I had a psych degree I could blow through that class online, and was correct. You just do not get the interaction with peers and instructors that you get when going to a class. Maybe the technology is better now than when I experienced it, and you are forced to have discussions using your mouth versus your fingers. Considering clinical psychology is about learning how to interact with people, you know...in person, I think online degrees are a bad idea. Unless you're going to open up a tele-psychology practice only

For those on this thread who don't know, I'm a PsyD at a professional school. So I don't think I'm an "elitist" in the sense that that term is thrown around to attack more "traditional" students (which is completely ridiculous). I cringe when people can't support their arguments in a coherent manner, because as others have pointed out it only serves to support the bias. Believe me, I don't like being categorized and judged based on my program. But please write like you've taken at least 1 graduate course.

I too hope we're dealing with a troll.

 

[psychmama]

Sometimes the arguments on this board really are over the top. One that I really object to is the "elitist" vs "real folks" dichotomy. I think it amounts to a bunch of us sounding like old grandpas telling our progeny "When I was your age I had to walk 10 miles to school barefoot, in the snow."

Please people, does anyone really think things are this simple?

 

[erg923]

No offense, what if a student cannot make it to the classroom because of having to work for a living and take care of a family, and the only alternative is the online program? I think that there are good online doctorate programs which bears the same amount and perhaps even more strict course workload. So please, do not put the negatives out first -- all of us do not have the same easy lifestyle to just focus on getting an education with a silver spoon in our mouths.

HUH? Why is that the only alternative option? If you cant dedicate the appopriate time to something, dont do it! plain and simple! You wouldn't suggest the reverse of this would you (ie., Take all the parenting shortcuts you can so you dont have to sacrfice your career)?

I would also like to add that while "buddingpsyds" story of altrusitic professors and free computers is very moving and all, it does nothing to contribute to the notion that online doctoral training in psychology is on the same footing as the more accepted route. In fact, it is accomplishing the opposite, as the argument is based simply upon one case (N=1) and uses emotional appeal and sweeping generalizations drawn from individual personal experiences/biases. I do not find this to be very scientifically compelling. This is NOT how an well-trained clinical scientist presents an argument. The faculty in my program would have a field day with us if we tried to give an argument for a particular position using such poor "straw man" arguments. Perhaps this speaks to the scientific rigor and research requirements of her undergrad training program? Perhaps not, I dont know. However, I really think posts like that tend to backfire.

 

[erg923]

It is called working on independently (on your own) not copying, not getting the exams in advance to memorize, no plagiarism, no sucking up to the professor, NONE OF THAT STUFF!

Is this your notion of how learning takes palce at the doctoral level? Courses provide a foundation of scientific psychology from which to build upon. You need them, but the higher level conceptualization that makes one a doctoral level professional does not come from courses, so I am not sure I understand your focus on them. Lecture and test, lecture and test, is NOT the learning model of doctoral level study, so it's kind a moot point anyway. No one I know memorizes anything at this level, with the exception of maybe drug names and brodmann's map.

Lastly, I think "sucking up to the professor" is actually wise, as it allows you enormous opportunities for research, clinical work, and networking with other professionals in the field. "Sucking up" has a different feel at the doctoral level, as you are more of a junior colleague than undegrads are, so it not bad..... If you do not enjoy humoring and/or trying to impress those who occupy higher power positions than you, you will not go far in any career. This is not something that is only present in academia. Unless you are the CEO, "playing nice" (even if the person is kinda a jerk), and being a "go-getter" is the key to success in the 40/week rat race. It's just part of life, i suppose

 

[Ollie123]

This is NOT how an well-trained clinical scientist presents an argument.

I'm glad someone said it. Every time I see posts like that, it just makes it even more clear to me that these schools are giving degrees to people who probably shouldn't be getting them.

 

[KTpsych]

I'm glad someone said it. Every time I see posts like that, it just makes it even more clear to me that these schools are giving degrees to people who probably shouldn't be getting them.

To be fair, poorly written/reasoned posts by a few individuals don't indict all online schools/courses (just as one shining example of online courses doesn't make all of them good).

I can't imagine learning as much from online courses, since so much of what I got out of courses was the immediate back and forth questioning and discussions, rather than the material actually presented. I imagine it would be harder to create such good discussions online, though probably not impossible.

And I have no idea why the above poster thought that memorized exams were the norm in graduate school. Didn't even have many of those in college.

 

[Ollie123]

To be fair, poorly written/reasoned posts by a few individuals don't indict all online schools/courses (just as one shining example of online courses doesn't make all of them good).

Agreed, which is the major reason I've restrained myself Still, I don't know why people think barely coherent, irrational screaming is the best way to convince people that they are just as qualified as everyone else.

 

[253698]

couple of words -
United Kingdom - Best Universities in the world
Open University - Distance learning courses in the UK
Open University - some of the most highly regarded degrees in the UK

this included the phd in clin psych, why? becuase any employer knows that anyone who has slogged their guts out getting a degree while working and doing it from home with minimal support will more times than not be way better then a B&M phd.