- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Messages
- 379
- Reaction score
- 3
Reading this thread is like reading through my med-student friend's text book on deadly diseases and symptoms... wishing I never did!! 
The Ugly Truth about the Clinical Psychology PhD
- Thread starter GabaTherapy
- Start date
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 1
Look you guys are really overestimating the potential of MD/DO. Have you even been in this process? Maybe you have, if so you would know that:
1) It is as competitive if not more competitive to get into med school, plus you dont have the luxury of "matching"
2) Unless you are extremely lucky you wont get funding, so you will accrue 200k+ debt, that is wayyy more than you would in psych, possibly even more than in a psyd program. DO programs accrue just as much debt.
3) Dont forget that the income numbers reported will not correctly represent the income of physicians over the next several years, with new health bills passing, changes to medicare/medicaid, etc physicians will be making significantly less.
4) Med students face the same if not worse difficulties we do, taking extremely hard tests, USMLE steps 1 and 2 which determine your future in a residency, and btw a number of students dont match to residency's because they didnt do well enough, so then what do they do? research?
5) going into medicine seems all well and good, maybe going into psychiatry seems all well and good to, but before you try and claim one profession is economically better than the other, you MUST consider all aspects of the economy.
Now I will grant you this, chances are having an MD you will always have some sort of job security, maybe not making the money you want, but its there.
Irrespective of this, BOTH MD and Phd/Psyd degrees afford opportunities for loan repayment programs through the government, both research or clinical based, you just have to be willing to give 2 years (or more if you have a little more debt than normal) of clinical service.
I THOROUGHLY agree with the poster that you have to think these things through, the application process wasnt bad at all, way easier then med school was. I am also not worried about internship BECAUSE I have done my research, learned from others mistakes, and will do my best to best equip myself as an applicant, but since I too am not trying to apply in the east coast, but rather stay in the pacific northwest I feel I will be fine (tons of programs in Washington and Oregon, and if absolutely necessary go back to my hometown in Alaska and do it there)
The poster argues certain things that are apparent in ALL professional schools, they dont teach accounting and basic business practices in med school or law school either, that isnt their job, its yours to learn.
Realistically, who in their right minds expects grad school to be a cake walk? I guess some of us are at an advantage having to have already lived on small wages or live as a "graduate student" for the last few years, so it will be nothing new. It also depends on where you go, i.e., new york city vs. small town texas as to the comfortability of living. I have lived in the DC area now 2 years on minimal pay and tight living, its doable without causing too much life stress (even with a child support payment
).Simply put, sort of, yes people should worry, but I think people worry too much, enough people out there get there degrees, get jobs, work happily and make the money they expected. I am not trying to offend people who have not been successful at landing a job, but I mean come on, if you really wanted to work, just hop onto government jobs (www.usajobs.gov) and apply, there are 100s of jobs on there if not more, in all sorts of specialties.
OH, and please stop saying that going into medicine is better, it 1) gives a false impression that getting into med school is easy and 2) gives false hope that medicine will be "the way" in the future, when in reality it is in as much if not more trouble as psych.
Cheers
edit: that is not true about residents making 40-50k, that is IF you are lucky, many residents make 20-30k, work ridiculous hours, have no lives, live in slums, etc. Its not as glorified as this guy makes it seem to be.
When I compared my graduate program to our local medical school, it really seemed that my graduate program required more work that the local med school. I think medicine likes people to think that med school is THAT bad as a tactic to rule the roost.
While the med students were going off to Galveston or Florida during Spring Break, I was forced to work in my professor's lab running statistics. While the med students could fail a bunch of classes and simply re-take them the next year, people in my program were being kicked out of the program for failing one class with a 79.4. While all medical students match somewhere for residency, many psychology graduate students have remained unmatched for many years.
While the med students were going off to Galveston or Florida during Spring Break, I was forced to work in my professor's lab running statistics. While the med students could fail a bunch of classes and simply re-take them the next year, people in my program were being kicked out of the program for failing one class with a 79.4. While all medical students match somewhere for residency, many psychology graduate students have remained unmatched for many years.
Honestly, reading this and other posts you have written, I think it's safer to say that it isn't clinical psychology that's the problem, but moreso your graduate program. From your perspective, it sounds very miserable - but *nothing* like my experience in graduate school. I worked my arse off and had to make sacrifices - for sure. But it was just as rewarding as it was grueling, and I am happily on the "other side" now.
Personally, I have never had a desire to go into medicine/psychiatry. Given my personal strengths/weaknesses, I absolutely think med school would have been harder for me than grad school in clinical psychology. I think I could have done it if I wanted - I have always been a strong student, across the board. But coursework aside, the thought of some of those rotations makes me cringe - standing for hours in a surgery while an attending humiliates you in front of others? No thank you! And what's the point?
Meanwhile, grad school in psychology lets you jump right into the meat and potatoes of psychopathology, assessment and therapy training, and (of course) research. They are totally different. I really respect my psychiatry colleagues, and have strong working relationships with them. But we bring something different to the table, and I'm happy to be on our "side" of that table.
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 1
this must have been a pretty weak med school to allow kids to fail several classes and just retake them.... doesnt work that way and I would beg you to prove me otherwise. Maybe your program was ridiculous, but med school is so time intensive, having to study hours on end. Even people like myself that got through UG without having to study, HAVE to study in med school. I think although you might have a proper conception of your graduate program, I seriously doubt your conception of medical school, I just do not think you have a proper notion of how life is for a medical student. no offence.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,504
- Reaction score
- 992
I don't want this to turn into a med school vs. grad school thread. that said, I'm doing about as much work as my friends in med school.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 29
Is it totally impolite and small of me to take a moment to point out the irony of the above numbering system??
Just knew it was going to be an awesome thread as soon as I saw that. And the opinions and speculations represented here have not disappointed. Overall an awesome thread. I laughed and cried over my homebrew coffee. I love the characters in this forum even as I suspect there have not been nor will there ever be any easy alliances to be made amongst psychologists -- even amongst the monastic/reduce/reuse/recycle/holistic/slow food/peace loving/DIY/permaculture/martyr set...
Can't wait to get out there and start stirring isht up amongst disciples, traitors and ******...
Your profile says "Pre-psychology" but you say you're in med school??? Anyway, you can easily fail many courses in medical school and re-take them the next year. My ex-fiance plus several members of my family are doctors, and they all corroborate this. Additionally, here is an outside link corroborating this fact:
http://www.valuemd.com/st-georges-u...e/178586-what-happens-if-you-fail-course.html
Additionally, I didn"t say med students don't study a lot, but I also know that many MDs/DOs try to act like they receive the most rigorous training and should supervise everybody, including PhDs. I have even see MDs give neuropsychological tests after taking a weekend course and then try to tell the neuropsychologists how to operate within their own specialty.
This "master of all" mentality is fostered by the fact that MDs/DOs try to act like their training is so much more rigorous than everybody else's and then try to convince the general public of this fact; however, that just isn't true.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 1
Value md what is that? check the AMA website for more info on failed classes.
Anyways I am not in med school I decided to go psych, for various reasons. I dont disagree that it is possible med students and medical doctors alike have a complex of being more well trained and that isnt true, my argument was simply saying that clinical phds arent better trained or have to work harder? Pretty sure I was arguing an equal-opportunity of crappy work hours and low pay/high debt?
Anyways
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2010
- Messages
- 9,352
- Reaction score
- 5,646
In all honesty, graduate school--much like anything else in life--is what you make of it. I know plenty of miserable clinical psych students, and I conversely know plenty who view grad school as an enjoyable experience.
It's not easy, and you like will work harder than you ever have in your academic past, but those don't have to be bad things. Beyond that, the sheer number of unique opportunities (externship sites, symposia, etc.) is often more than enough to make up for your indentured servant status.
However, I definitely agree that not enough importance is placed on the economic aspects of the profession. I'd be thrilled to see clinical and counseling psych programs offering business-related classes. Heck, even if none currently do, that doesn't necessarily mean you can't go off on your own and audit a b-school course or two.
It's not easy, and you like will work harder than you ever have in your academic past, but those don't have to be bad things. Beyond that, the sheer number of unique opportunities (externship sites, symposia, etc.) is often more than enough to make up for your indentured servant status.
However, I definitely agree that not enough importance is placed on the economic aspects of the profession. I'd be thrilled to see clinical and counseling psych programs offering business-related classes. Heck, even if none currently do, that doesn't necessarily mean you can't go off on your own and audit a b-school course or two.
Hello AcronymAllergy, I'm not sure I agree with this statement, respectfully. The Ph.D. is rooted in the mentor/apprentice tradition. So your opportunities for externship and symposia often depend quite a bit on that factor alone. Sure, for most its fine. For some its not. The jury really is still out on whether it "more often than enough" makes up for "indentured servant status." I think the stats presented in this thread arguing against this assumption are compelling.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,179
- Reaction score
- 5
Here's another example of something frustrating about becoming a psychologist -- postdoc year. Most states still require us to complete an entire additional year of supervised client hours AFTER the internship and receipt of our degree. So here you are, finally finished and able to call yourself [at last!] "doctor", and you're thrilled to find a postdoc making maybe 35k if you're lucky. I just talked to someone at a well-respected counseling center doing a postdoc for 24k. Wow! Quite a disappointment after 5-7 yrs of doctoral education. I'm told to just "hang in there" because it gets much better once you're licensed. Maybe so, but come on -- isn't this postdoc thing just another excuse to maintain us as indentured servants?It's a good thing I love the clinical work, or I'd be even more upset.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 268
- Reaction score
- 2
Maybe so, but come on -- isn't this postdoc thing just another excuse to maintain us as indentured servants?
I agree, but we wouldn't be putting ourselves through all of this if it didn't result in something we (potentially) love in the end.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,179
- Reaction score
- 5
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 119
- Reaction score
- 0
I wish this every time I come to SDN. There should be an "emphasis" field below the "Psychology Student" area. Any time I participate in a grad school thread, I get people who have no desire to do clinical how "lame" clinical is and how I should "stick with an MA" if I want to do clinical work.
What a bunch of downers. This is why I get most of my recommendations from people in the field, not random people on a message board.
And while I agree that the OP's words might be "a downer" they are also realistic. If you go for a research-oriented program (BA, MA or PhD), you're basically signing up to be someone's research bitch for 5-8 years. You're generating tens of millions in grant money, endowments, donations etc with your research. Most research programs have ZERO drive to graduate you in 5 years. That is straight from an RU admissions counselor. Unless you come in with substantial research exp and at least an MA, you should expect to be there for 7 years.
And the only reason you are being admitted to [program]? They need more researchers.
You have to wonder about how much perception really matters and how much good PR is worth. I hear people talk up Rutgers' doctoral programs, but in all honesty Argosy DC has a much more interesting Practicum and (IMO) much better internship opportunities than RU. The effect of all this info was an epiphany. These two programs are worth about the same to me now, despite Argosy's decidedly "meh" reputation (and added cost).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 119
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree totally!Maybe so, but come on -- isn't this postdoc thing just another excuse to maintain us as indentured servants?
It's a good thing I love the clinical work, or I'd be even more upset.
Luckily we all love the work, but I remember when I was a kid and the idea of a post-doc fellowship (etc) was like the pinnacle of academic/career achievement. It's still pretty surprising to me that it's downright routine nowadays to have a post-doc.- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,383
- Reaction score
- 4,331
Very good point.I agree totally!
Of course, with all of the work required to secure a formal post-doc (pretty much Internship V2.0), it seems far less glamorous and just another step in the process. The training opportunities all sound phenomenal, which I guess attempts to make up for the generally poor pay.
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 1
There is something to be said about the clinician (I do not give a ____ what degree you are) that applies a translational framework to their practice. This was a big point of my PS (and a huge point of the addresses by Pres. Obama and NIH director Francis Collins, both talks here at the NIH), the idea of a decade of translational research in all fields, not just a merger between basic science and mediccine, but in the behavioral and social science fields, biostat/epidemiology, etc...
I do see A LOT of the chiasm between PsyD and PhD people, and then the chiasm between clinically minded vs research oriented people, and its kinda sad, especially when so many of you worry about the future of psych, THIS is one problem that should be addressed first and foremost before you can even begin to complain about insurance companies, you need to solve the divide (and no the few evidence-based practices/treatments already out there do not cut it)...
Imagine a collaboration, an institute lets say, dedicated to a single disease, say autism, that has a representative from all disciplines, solely focused on that disease.... yes bits and pieces of this pop up here and there (i.e., here at the NIH in the NIMH) but even still you are lacking the total package of professionals... This would be how to tackle such a disease...
anyhoo one can only hope...
***Disclaimer: I view PsyD and PhD students equally, assuming they meet the same qualification standards etc etc... I view these two degrees like I view the MD and DO, PhD or DPT, etc... just two options slightly different... I personally chose PhD because of funding, and that I can tolerate a little research.
Cheers
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 7,600
- Reaction score
- 6,840
Grif: I'm in a PhD program and they want you to graduate in 5 years. In fact, you get sort of punished if you don't maintain their idea of progress.
Plus... some of us like being people's research monkeys.
Plus... some of us like being people's research monkeys.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,179
- Reaction score
- 5
Agreed. At some point we have to move on from academia and "trainee" status (although I think I may miss supervision, seminars, etc) once they're no longer required. I'd just like to be paid a living wage soon.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,179
- Reaction score
- 5
So Jon, I guess you'd disagree with the whole Vail model then? Is this correct? Most people won't come right out and say that they wish the Psyd never existed, arguing instead that they just hate the bad psyd programs in the professional schools. It sounds like you go farther than that... at least you're honest about it (although I strongly disagree).
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 461
- Reaction score
- 10
The enormous irony in this is that the Vail model was developed using medical education as a model. Many who object to the idea of the Psy.D. would never state that the non-academic training of physicians results in a sub-par end product. So Jon would you advocate that physicians ditch the MD and get Ph.D.s instead if a "professional" doctorate is inappropriate
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 119
- Reaction score
- 0
The enormous irony in this is that the Vail model was developed using medical education as a model. Many who object to the idea of the Psy.D. would never state that the non-academic training of physicians results in a sub-par end product. So Jon would you advocate that physicians ditch the MD and get Ph.D.s instead if a "professional" doctorate is inappropriate
The doctor is IN!
The time to completion range varies by school -- Harvard's PhD program will boot you if you don't complete within 5 years. But more and more I see about 25% completing in 5 years, which is kind of scary to me
You've got to find a prgram that you really fit with. I know some people just love research. I like research too, but the idea of all research all the time, where the practicums are mostly research and you're funding depends on your research etc. It just doesn't appeal to me that much. I am leaving the tech field hehe
For me, a healthy mix of clinical, research production and research consumption is the best. So I look for programs where clinical training and exp is prioritized, and research is then secondary. Ironically, this is where a lot of programs just don't make the cut for me. You've got to have all three to really fit with me.
I just hate getting the "yeah well you're considering psyd progs cuz you suck" line any time there's a discussion about programs of any type. And it's really only here that I get that.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 461
- Reaction score
- 10
I think you are creating a false dichotomy here. You seem to imply that "science" students are somehow better equipped to become psychologists. The corrolary of this argument is that broadly educated students with degrees in the humanities or other social sciences are somehow less well equipped to conduct research or to be psychologists than persons with a "science" background.
Is not the converse true?? Anyone can conduct research, run stats and publish a paper on a topic. But students with a background in the humanities or other social sciences may be far better at understanding the meaning and implications of research because their world view is broader and more comprehensive. I have a masters in psychology and have work mainly as a therapist but I also have a doctoral degree in social anthropology from a world class British institution (from back in the stone age of the 1980's). The central question that anthropology asks as a discipline is "what does it mean to be a human being." Would not someone like myself be able to understand psychological research from a vastly broader and more comprehensive worldview than a person with a degree in chemistry?? I should also note that persons active in other social and behavioral sciences such as anthropology or sociology don't engage in this incessant neurotic hand wringing over professional roles and educational models. In contrast to the other disciplines, psychology seems wracked by identity crises.
To some degree this is because specialists in the other social sciences are far less fixated on experimental methodologies and have made extensive use of ethnography and other more qualitative methods. Sociocultural anthropologists are quite confident in ethnography as a methodology and are not particularly concerned about the "science" in the field. I have the feeling that psychologists are so deeply concerned about "science" because psychologists perceive themselves as falling short in relation to the physical and biological sciences. Some have dubbed this as "physics envy" on the part of academic psychology.
Conversely, many psychologists in academe (Timothy Baker and Richard McFall perhaps) regard fields that don't use experimental methods as something less than scientific (ignoring the reality that fields such as astronomy and astrophysics use observational rather than experimental data). The flip side of the inferiority complex is a sense of superiority with regard to other disciplines such as sociology and anthropology and their associated methodologies. Of course professional applied roles are different. Applied anthropologists and sociologists also do not to work in health care as "providers" but instead function as consultants and researchers and so they don't have an inferiority complex vis a vis medicine. Of course, psychology's inferiority complex with medicine is directly related to its longstanding inferiority complex vis a vis physics and biology. Psychology as a field needs to "grow a pair" and regard itself and its methodologies with true confidence while conversely appreciating data generated from other fields. It also should have the confidence to embrace multiple visions of itself. Dysfunctional systems have enormous difficulty embracing more than one worldview so in this sense the field of psychology is dysfunctional and the endless angst is a reflection of this.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,383
- Reaction score
- 4,331
Agreed.
Many people leading the research teams are psychologists, they act as the experts for the design, development, and implementation....yet they are paid far less than a run of the mill medical professional who hasn't differentiated themselves from their peers, but they still benefit from their guild's (better) protection of salaries and standing.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 7,661
- Reaction score
- 6,412
I'm a researcher AND a member of a sorority... These are not mutually exclusive categories.
Actually, a surprisingly small percentage of BSW and MSW students I know want to be therapists--most seem to want do administrative, case management, and/or policy work, though I'm sure that a significant number of people do go into social work wanting to do therapy.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 7,661
- Reaction score
- 6,412
? I was responding your comment that jocks and sorority members are a sign of the "dumbing down" of psychology.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 7,661
- Reaction score
- 6,412
For what little it's worth, I'm the only sorority member psych major that I know and also one of the only published psych undergrads (that I know of, anyway) at my school. My decision to join and sorority and my decision to go for a PhD are not contradictory nor connected (e.g., I didn't do either one out of "ditziness" or "academic laziness") --in fact, grades, involvement, drive, etc., are key criteria in sorority recruitment in general.
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 1
Usually I agree with you, but this time I think you are completely wrong. Having just recently gone through the premed requirement classes as well as bupper level biology classes, I was astounded at the "dumb jock" and "dumb sorority" cliche types in these classes.... FAR worse than most of my psych classes... I would argue that its easier to get through premed and other professional programs... or at least equally...
I will concur there are plenty of less motivated people in introductory classes... but that doesnt hold any weight on anything...
Also, have you not seen some of the stats of Div I collegiate athletes? A lot of these athletes are very intelligent, to be able to travel constantly for their sport and maintain grades. I know my hockey team was full of smart people.
Now if you want to say the same about business degrees.... then you may have an argument... otherwise your logic is as dumbfounded as those people you so often criticize.
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 1
btw how can you even begin to compare anything to a field like physics? You know how few people go into physics to begin with? lol
And also having gone to a school with a huge engineering program, they too have a large proportion of lazy kids just doing that program cause they heard its easy and they can make lots of money... good try though
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,383
- Reaction score
- 4,331
Jon, while we agree on a need to strengthen the undergraduate psychology major, I too take offense to the jock comment, as many college athletes also excel in the classroom.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,179
- Reaction score
- 5
I really like this post. There's so much more to clinical psychology than the experimental method. It's an important part, but this worldview is no less limited than any other.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,504
- Reaction score
- 992
Another sorority girl in a research-oriented PhD program signing in... Oh and I get to do my own research, too! So much for being a mindless research "b*tch".
It's a good thing there are lots of types of programs to suit everyone's differing needs and foci.
Oh and I get to do my own research, too! So much for being a mindless research "b*tch".It's a good thing there are lots of types of programs to suit everyone's differing needs and foci.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,179
- Reaction score
- 5
Of course, Jon,you're right in saying that the undergrad major of psychology is not populated only with brilliant intellectuals. Some are; some are not. This does not bother me so much because the less than stellar have little hope of making it into most psychology doctoral programs (psyd or phd).
I'll agree on one point with you -- the standards for admission could be tightened in a few of the very large professional school programs. By and large, though, I've been rather impressed with my fellow doctoral psychology students. And this comes from someone with an Ivy League law degree. Believe me, not everyone in the legal profession is a "shining light" intellectually. So what? Cream generally rises to the top.
I'll agree on one point with you -- the standards for admission could be tightened in a few of the very large professional school programs. By and large, though, I've been rather impressed with my fellow doctoral psychology students. And this comes from someone with an Ivy League law degree. Believe me, not everyone in the legal profession is a "shining light" intellectually. So what? Cream generally rises to the top.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,383
- Reaction score
- 4,331
This is something that has always bugged me. It seems that many believe if they work hard enough, they deserve to get in and be able to complete a doctorate on their terms (part-time, online, etc). I think the field has suffered because there have been too many compromises already.Another sorority girl in a research-oriented PhD program signing in...
It's a good thing there are lots of types of programs to suit everyone's differing needs and foci.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
- Messages
- 290
- Reaction score
- 0
As being an (ex) sorority girl, I am agreeing with Jon..
I am not saying they are dumb, but athletes and those in frats and sororites tend to pick the major because it is seen as an easy major and one you do not have to do much work in to graduate..
I am not saying they are dumb, but athletes and those in frats and sororites tend to pick the major because it is seen as an easy major and one you do not have to do much work in to graduate..
But Jon and you would also be comparing a population whose time to devote to studies is demonstrably constrained as compared to a random sample of student population. That's just not a fair comparison, and therefore your conclusions would be also suspect. Rather, the successful athlete who maintains a moderate GPA should be valued over the student who has a similar or even greater GPA because of the evidence for capable time management and balance of multiple demands.
As many in this thread have pointed out, success in clinical practice or academics is contingent upon more than test grades. In my undergraduate student assistants I value the different perspectives that others bring to my lab which enhances our creative output.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 7,661
- Reaction score
- 6,412
Not what I've seen in my sorority, but YMMV, I guess.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2009
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 0
I think there are students of all abilities and motivations in all majors. Also, this varies tremendously by school. At my undergraduate institution, Psychology 101 was the most commonly failed class.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 7,661
- Reaction score
- 6,412
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2009
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 1
I think a big problem with psychology is that it has an identity crisis. Yes, psychology can be very science oriented but it can also be very theoretical and wishy washy.
Example: Student A is a psych major that takes classes like behavioral neuroscience, cognition, and assessment to fulfill the psychology major.
This student is actively involved in research as well.
Student B takes classes like psychology of prejudice, personality,and psychology of women to fulfill the major. This student completed an internship shadowing a therapist.
Both are studying psychology and both can go on pursuing advanced degrees clinical psychology. However, one is more science oriented, does this make them better?
I think the point Jon Snow and others make in regards to jock/greek life students is that most of those students are like student B. They can get by by taking fluff classes and still be just as much as a psych student and student A.
It is a stereotype but I do think it is the majority. At my school it is heavily biased as all the sorority and frat students who are psych majors take the easier classes and the people who are not take the harder ones. The path of student B is definitly easier and not as challenging so it is just hard to say that that kind of psychology coursework in B is equal to A.
Other sciences don't really have this problem. Most/all chemisty courses are hard. You either take them and do well/do ok/ or fail. You can't take fluffy chem/math/phyiscs courses but you can in psych at least in my experiences.
ps again i don't mean to offend people that are jocks/greek. i know there are execeptions but it definitly seems to be the average. especially at my college.
Example: Student A is a psych major that takes classes like behavioral neuroscience, cognition, and assessment to fulfill the psychology major.
This student is actively involved in research as well.
Student B takes classes like psychology of prejudice, personality,and psychology of women to fulfill the major. This student completed an internship shadowing a therapist.
Both are studying psychology and both can go on pursuing advanced degrees clinical psychology. However, one is more science oriented, does this make them better?
I think the point Jon Snow and others make in regards to jock/greek life students is that most of those students are like student B. They can get by by taking fluff classes and still be just as much as a psych student and student A.
It is a stereotype but I do think it is the majority. At my school it is heavily biased as all the sorority and frat students who are psych majors take the easier classes and the people who are not take the harder ones. The path of student B is definitly easier and not as challenging so it is just hard to say that that kind of psychology coursework in B is equal to A.
Other sciences don't really have this problem. Most/all chemisty courses are hard. You either take them and do well/do ok/ or fail. You can't take fluffy chem/math/phyiscs courses but you can in psych at least in my experiences.
ps again i don't mean to offend people that are jocks/greek. i know there are execeptions but it definitly seems to be the average. especially at my college.
Agree that there are students of varying abilities in all majors, but I do think psychology as a whole tends to attract a larger number of less-serious students than many other areas. Business was the same way (I doubled in psychology and business).
This may not be true at all institutions but it certainly was at my undergrad, it seems to be the case at my grad institution as well. On the other hand, these are both large state universities - I imagine its less likely to be the case at smaller schools that can emphasize writing, rather than simply having 90% of coursework be large lectures and multiple choice tests. I think any degree that emphasizes multiple choice tests is a recipe for disaster.
I have to admit I'm also a bit surprised at the reaction to Jon's comments about jocks/sorority folks. I played damn near every sport there is at some point in my life, and I'll be the first to admit its a stereotype that has some merit. Do people not learn about distribution curves anymore? Jon seems to be saying its shifted to the left for some groups of college students. I don't disagree. I certainly had similar reactions to frats/sororities...many are brilliant and some of my closest friends were members of greek organizations. Overall, the reputation tends to skew towards borderline alcoholism, minimal effort in academics, and general idiotic behavior. This really seems like the prof school debate all over again (albeit I don't know if there is empirical evidence to back it up in this case). Comments about the distribution are not personal attacks, nor can they be refuted with "I know someone who...". I'm male. However I do not particularly enjoy fart jokes. That doesn't mean I would take offense at a comment about how men generally enjoy fart jokes more than women. Its probably true (anyone want to run a study? ).
Edit: Also just wanted to comment on the earlier discsussion regarding the use of qualitative methodologies. I generally agree that we have been far too reluctant to use qualitative methods, though with the caveat that while there is much that can be learned from ethnography-type research, it is important to keep in mind the sorts of questions qualitative and quantitative methods are best suited to answering. I view both as equally important, but I think each has advantages and disadvantages, and questions that can or cannot be answered legitimately using those methods. For example, I fully believe that there can be great value in publishing a case study. Its great at answering "Can a person get better under these circumstances?" or illustrating a treatment protocol, among other things. However, I don't think its good at answering other questions like "Which treatment gives the client the best chance of success?"
This may not be true at all institutions but it certainly was at my undergrad, it seems to be the case at my grad institution as well. On the other hand, these are both large state universities - I imagine its less likely to be the case at smaller schools that can emphasize writing, rather than simply having 90% of coursework be large lectures and multiple choice tests. I think any degree that emphasizes multiple choice tests is a recipe for disaster.
I have to admit I'm also a bit surprised at the reaction to Jon's comments about jocks/sorority folks. I played damn near every sport there is at some point in my life, and I'll be the first to admit its a stereotype that has some merit. Do people not learn about distribution curves anymore? Jon seems to be saying its shifted to the left for some groups of college students. I don't disagree. I certainly had similar reactions to frats/sororities...many are brilliant and some of my closest friends were members of greek organizations. Overall, the reputation tends to skew towards borderline alcoholism, minimal effort in academics, and general idiotic behavior. This really seems like the prof school debate all over again (albeit I don't know if there is empirical evidence to back it up in this case). Comments about the distribution are not personal attacks, nor can they be refuted with "I know someone who...". I'm male. However I do not particularly enjoy fart jokes. That doesn't mean I would take offense at a comment about how men generally enjoy fart jokes more than women. Its probably true (anyone want to run a study?
).Edit: Also just wanted to comment on the earlier discsussion regarding the use of qualitative methodologies. I generally agree that we have been far too reluctant to use qualitative methods, though with the caveat that while there is much that can be learned from ethnography-type research, it is important to keep in mind the sorts of questions qualitative and quantitative methods are best suited to answering. I view both as equally important, but I think each has advantages and disadvantages, and questions that can or cannot be answered legitimately using those methods. For example, I fully believe that there can be great value in publishing a case study. Its great at answering "Can a person get better under these circumstances?" or illustrating a treatment protocol, among other things. However, I don't think its good at answering other questions like "Which treatment gives the client the best chance of success?"
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 268
- Reaction score
- 2
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 7,661
- Reaction score
- 6,412
True, but in my experience, at least with sorority members (not so much fraternity members), the distribution leans the OTHER way--most of the sorority members I know have entered competitive post-grad programs. So, I guess my objection is more a question about whether we're talking about the CORRECT distribution.
I'll always have a large amount of respect for qualitative research (the first psych research work I did was qualitative), but I think quantitative or mixed methods research is much more efficient at driving change in the field, and, similarly, getting funding. I think quantitative research is far easier to digest quickly and draws from bigger N's. Qualitative research, in my experience, is used more as a "stepping stone" to guide future quantitative research.
Last edited:
I view as psychology as something that can be incorporated in and out of the academic arena. The qualitative method can be utilized in every day life as long as we are conscious of the psychosocial forces that are taking place. What I love about psychology is that once I leave the classroom, all the abstract concepts have many real world applications. Many documentaries are an extension of the case study method . I am really enthralled with Louis Theroux's work as he infiltrates himself into subcultures that are deemed abnormal and uses his innocent curiosity to try and understand why such environments prevail. I think as a society, we have become too self-focused and spend less time understanding those around us. I think I am just babbling, but the reason why I initially chose to go towards this route was simply out of the pursuit of understanding people and using this knowledge to help others. The work and dwindling career opportunities are to be noted, but I can vouch for many of us that our true motivation for going to grad school in the field of psychology stems from a selfless intent that supersedes the problems and setbacks that are anticipated in this field. Just my two cents.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,179
- Reaction score
- 5
Yup.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 7,600
- Reaction score
- 6,840
Someone in my cohort was in a sorority.
Anyway, at UW Madison the psych 101 class is graded on a bell curve because they try to weed out the fluffy potential psych majors. My family members who went there all got C's in that class and they are no slouches academically.
Anyway, at UW Madison the psych 101 class is graded on a bell curve because they try to weed out the fluffy potential psych majors. My family members who went there all got C's in that class and they are no slouches academically.
