Are science courses really necessary for clinical programs?

[clinicalhopeful]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'm currently finishing up my freshman year in college and am trying to plan my course schedule for future semesters. I am committed to applying to clinical doctoral programs in a few years and am wondering if taking courses in the "hard" sciences (biology, chemistry, physics) is crucial in being admitted to a prestigious Ph.D. program. I honestly do not enjoy the traditional sciences, except when they have to do with neuroscience, and that is unfortunately not a part of intro courses. I am going to be taking many "sciencey" psychology courses (starting with physiological psychology in the fall) and I'm also working with two different professors doing ERPs and fMRIs this summer and will continue with that kind of neuroscientific work in the coming years. Would this suffice or is it sort of an implicit requirement for clinical Ph.D. programs that you should have a strong background in the physical sciences?

 

[Sorg1123]

Sounds like your off to a good start. The lab/research exp you described will go a long way toward increasing your odds of getting in to a good program. As for the need to take hard science courses, I did not take biology or chemistry and I did fine with acceptances. I did take a couple physics courses, but only to meet my school core reqs. Whether or not the content of such courses helps your application I cannot say for sure, but I think these courses are typically thought of as 'hard" and doing well in them (i.e. getting an A) can show off your smarts. Also, way to go knowing what you want to do after your first year in school. It took me a while to settle on psych and I didn't even decide on neuropsych until after I graduated.

 

[psychanon]

Some may disagree with me, but I don't think they're necessary. I didn't take any "hard" science courses and I still go into a really good program (I did take some science courses as was required by my university, but i took the easy way out and did all guts-- nutrition, anyone?). Then again, maybe some programs didn't bother with me because of that. Also, my research area is not at all biological. And I wish I had a better understanding of the biological aspects of psychology. So the bottom line is, if you're not interested doing neuro research, it's not necessary, but it wouldn't hurt (but I disagree with the notion that you would need a pre-med type curriculum-- that just seems like overkill).

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'll speak from the other camp......I think hard science courses are even MORE important now, because they will become a foundation that will be/is necessary to better understand the implications of psychological dx. The more research that is done, the more science is able to explain parts of psychology.

I believe there will always be areas that can't be fully explained (by science), but I believe people who choose to ignore the harder science implications in our field, are going to be at a severe disadvantage.

-t a.k.a......that psychodynamic guy who believe in using science to inform. 😉

 

[JockNerd]

I'll take neutral!

The courses won't make or break your application BUT Organic Chem and Human Physiology look better to most programs than The Philiosophy of Metaphysics in the 1970's or Icelandic History, 12th-14th Centuries.

The programs in Insider's Guide often responded that they liked applicants who took some bio or chem. More frequently, they liked people who took stats. If you have electives to fill, and you hate the natural sciences, how do you feel about math?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Statistics......Winnah!

If you are going into neuropsych/health psych, the hard sciences should be a must....but statistics should be a fan favorite of most/all programs.

-t

 

[paramour]

Stats is indeed impressive but I received the impression that a few programs were even more impressed with the math courses I took beyond Algebra I (Algebra II, Trig, Calculus I, Calculus II) for some reason. I got more comments on those than the 2 years of stats that I have.

 

[chaos]

Yeah I feel this is a major weakness of mine...I've way way overspecialized in psych classes...aside from a semester of zoology and one of human biology, the only non-psych courses I've taken have been English classes and one philosophy class. And I only have two semesters left...well, three since I'll need to get those last few credits via summer 2008 courses....that doesn't leave me a lot of time to get a good foundation in chemistry and biology, much less physics and math. Plus I have a 4.0 GPA for the past 2 years, 3.6 overall (very bad first semester...American Sign Language...C-) and I basically suck at everything that isn't psychology and english and I don't want anyone to know it...I got an A in behavioral neuroscience but any class that isn't prefaced PSYCH or ENG gives me panic attacks.

 

[nobleheart]

I am not sure whether or not they are necessary, but the hard science courses...chemistry, physics, bio, and combos therin, are without a doubt required if one wants to have an appreciable understanding of what it is to be a human. These three clusters form the foundation for all science. Psych is the unique contributor, in that it provides the transition, bridge, and/or amalgamation between the complicated mechanical science and beatiful/fragile humanity that is the fabric of our being.

 

[PsyKardinal]

clinicalhopeful

I would recommend beginning to get some of the hardcore sciences under your belt. As Therapist4change said that as science develops it will explain more and more about human behavior. Also something to think about and I do not want this to be taken as a go do pre-med/psychiatry, I am an LPCintern btw, but the hard sciences will give you more options in the future should you have a change of mind and decide to go to med school, PA, NP, or if psych RXP goes through. Good luck clinical psych is an awesome field.

jeff

 

[Lunabin]

After all, some of us would like to argue psych. is a science - would be nice if we knew something outside of our box. Having gone to a liberal arts undergrad, I took 2 years of bio, chem, calculus, as well as a good mix of English lit, poli-sci, administration of justice, sociology, religion - and somewhere in there I took a modern dance class! All on top of my psych. curriculum - where I did much more than the minimum requirements.

I personally feel that my bio, chem and calc classes in particular helped me later in my career. Now that I'm doing neuropsych (even in my therapy cases) I am much more informed and aware of the impacts of physiologic factors on emotional and behavioral functioning. It helps greatly in my individual therapy, as I can better appreciate the spectrum of issues impacting a client, and better help them cope/recover/etc.

Wow, I'm feeling geeky! 😛

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

After all, some of us would like to argue psych. is a science - would be nice if we knew something outside of our box. Having gone to a liberal arts undergrad, I took 2 years of bio, chem, calculus, as well as a good mix of English lit, poli-sci, administration of justice, sociology, religion - and somewhere in there I took a modern dance class! All on top of my psych. curriculum - where I did much more than the minimum requirements.

I personally feel that my bio, chem and calc classes in particular helped me later in my career. Now that I'm doing neuropsych (even in my therapy cases) I am much more informed and aware of the impacts of physiologic factors on emotional and behavioral functioning. It helps greatly in my individual therapy, as I can better appreciate the spectrum of issues impacting a client, and better help them cope/recover/etc.

Wow, I'm feeling geeky! 😛

That was very much my experience also (YAY Liberal Arts!)....though instead of dance I took feminist studies, philosophy, etc.



-t

 

[KillerDiller]

The only science class I took in college was a chemistry class called, no joke, "Measurement and Quality in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". It was awesome. Anyway, I definitely shied away from taking courses in both math and the hard sciences in undergrad. I felt I had had enough of that in high school, when I took those courses because they were supposed to help me get in to undergrad. Instead, once in college, I opted for a curriculum more centered in literature and the fine arts and I don't think I'm any worse off for it. I really believe that undergrad should be a time to explore what interests you without worrying too much about what you need to take for graduate school. By doing this, you will find how you yourself want to relate to the discipline of psychology. If chemistry intrests you, take chem, if Russian literature is more your thing, I happen to think Dostoevsky would have made an excellent psychologist.

For the record, I happen to now be very into neuroscience, but I honestly think I would have been turned off if I had taken biology classes too soon and struggled to relate them to what I thought I wanted to be doing.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

KD brings up a great point about being turned on/off by certain classes. I took an upper-level research class (in a diff department) my freshman year, and I was completely turned off by the process. Only after taking a number of psych classes and the psych research/stats classes did I realize that it wasn't the class I didn't enjoy, but the way in which it was taught. The profs went at it completely differently, and that made a big difference in how I interpreted the material.

[So my bias is known] I am a strong supporter of a liberal arts education, but I still think people should stretch their learning opportunities, and challenge themselves in different areas. I was able to audit classes and take as many as I wanted (set tuition, not per credit)...so it was a bit easier to accommodate the range of classes I took each semester. My GPA suffered a bit, but it allowed me to be well versed in a number of areas.

-t

ps. KD...I took a class that was nicknamed, "Math For Plants"...it was a class on logic, systems, binary, etc. It was for people who didn't want to take Calc and etc. I tested out of my math requirements, but took it so I could work on logic problems for credit!

 

[PsyKardinal]

I think that Kd and Therapist4change have the right prespective, a wide background allows you to relate to clients from differant cultures and prespectives. Therapy is all about the healing aspects of a relationship, the better able you are to communicate with your client the better the outcome of therapy will be.

jeff

 

[perfektspace]

I'll take neutral!

The courses won't make or break your application BUT Organic Chem and Human Physiology look better to most programs than The Philiosophy of Metaphysics in the 1970's or Icelandic History, 12th-14th Centuries.

Now wait just a minute! The course I took on The Crusades was very relevant...I even got a publication out of it! I know more about the Knights Templar than any of my incoming classmates (except the guy who plays Dungeons & Dragons).

 

[RayneeDeigh]

Add me to the stack of votes for a well-rounded courseload.

In undergrad I took all kinds of things... Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Anatomy, Physiology, Anthropology, Creative Writing, and two religion courses on world views of death and evil. Most of these (perhaps with the exception of Physics) help me either a) understand how the world works and therefore the people in it, or b) understand the views that people may have whether they're different from mine or not. I definitely recommend anthropology or religions courses as much as I recommend the hard sciences... especially if you can get something like the "anthropology of illness" course that I took, which I have a feeling will be very helpful in the Psych profession.

Psychology is (I think) veering towards a very hard-science approach which is good in that it will help the field gain more respect but it has to be balanced by some of the Humanities.

 

[paramour]

Add me to the stack of votes for a well-rounded courseload.

In undergrad I took all kinds of things... Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Anatomy, Physiology, Anthropology, Creative Writing, and two religion courses on world views of death and evil. Most of these (perhaps with the exception of Physics) help me either a) understand how the world works and therefore the people in it, or b) understand the views that people may have whether they're different from mine or not. I definitely recommend anthropology or religions courses as much as I recommend the hard sciences... especially if you can get something like the "anthropology of illness" course that I took, which I have a feeling will be very helpful in the Psych profession.

Psychology is (I think) veering towards a very hard-science approach which is good in that it will help the field gain more respect but it has to be balanced by some of the Humanities.

Um, I actually find that my two Physics courses helped me tremendously--sensation & perception anyone?? Both of these can be found directly related to psychology.

 

[Demosthenes]

Maybe because I'm older, I am strongly in favor of taking science classes. Here are some of my reasons for saying so:

1. It might just turn out that you enjoy it! That happened to me -- I swore that I'd take minimal math and science as an undergrad, but ended up LOVING bio and algebra and -- well, OK, I only tolerated Calculus...

2. Taking bio and chem helps in understanding some of the physical changes associated with psychological states. That's often quite helpful in clinical practice. (Then again, I'm such a dork -- maybe I only think it's helpful?)

3. Much psychology is moving towards more integration with psychiatry, neuroscience, etc. It's good to have a strong grounding in science in order to keep up.

4. Liberal Arts bias here, too.

5. There are clients out there whom you'll have an easier time communicating with if you have some basic knowledge of sciences. (Mostly dorks like me, I suppose.)

6. Many science courses improve study habits -- and thinking habits. Algebra and bio were both wonderful for that, for me. I'm sure others will say the same, if they think of it. I learned to think much more productively once I had a few semesters getting better acquainted with the scientific method. And that helps a lot.

7. Taking something you don't especially want to take can be good practice in self-discipline. It's easy to do well in classes you enjoy -- it's much more difficult when you actually have to work at it.

8. There's great trivia to be found in science classes...

OK, I'm reaching now, but I strongly believe that taking science classes cannot damage your outcome in life. Maybe it won't materially affect your application to grad school, but is that really the only consideration?

OK, I'll head back to my cave now...

 

[LadyInRed]

I strongly believe that taking science classes cannot damage your outcome in life. Maybe it won't materially affect your application to grad school, but is that really the only consideration?

For what it's worth, having graduated from one of the most "hard science"-based schools in the country, I could not agree more.

 

[brightness]

I've so far (and I think I'm going to become a psychologist...maybe....lol) taken bio 101, nueroscience, zoology, conservation bio, and a course based mostly on genetics/principles of inheritance- plus stats. Still, I'm weak in the chemistry area, so I am going to take a survey course- and lots more nueroscience/anatomy classes. I dunno....I've thought extensively about nursing and medicine but ending up deciding that the human touch of psychology really appeals to me, but I would love to get involved with nuero research- so I better stay at least somewhat in the loop with the sciences.

 

[Ollie123]

Some schools actually do require hard science classes to get into their PhD program (I believe Wash U does). Its not really a question of prestige so much as it is how biologically-oriented their program is. It can't hurt for getting into one of the top programs but I'm convinced its such a crapshoot for most people that any one thing short of curing cancer won't contribute THAT much to someones acceptance. And even if you do cure cancer, be prepared to answer why you were doing cancer research instead of focusing on mental health😉

In hindsight I actually seriously regret how I went about my undergrad. My second major was business...at the time I was contemplating entering into corporate law which is why I did business. If I could do it again, despite my interest in consulting, I would still DEFINITELY have chosen biology/biochem/neuroscience or something like that instead of business.

I just flat out don't feel like I know enough about the biological end of things. In all the grad programs I looked at, I didn't see a single clinical program that I felt would adequately cover that end of things (save of course for those who have it as their research focus). I'm sure there is one out there somewhere though. I've worked with neurologists and I'm lost within minutes of any discussion.

Then again, I'm several steps beyond nerd, so I don't feel anything short of omniscience is "enough" knowledge. Would having taken cell bio or organic chemistry make me a better therapist? Probably not, and if it did I doubt by any margin worth mentioning. Would it help me better understand the underlying causes and allow me to pursue more directed research topics? Maybe.

Its by no means necessary to get in. I'd strongly encourage anyone still in undergrad to take as many relevant science classes as you can though. Especially if your school is like my undergrad where psych classes are kind of a joke. I almost wish I'd subjected myself to orgo just for the sake of developing some kind of work ethic. But that's a discussion for another day😉

 

[Te7]

funny! I subjected myself to orgo, loved it despite the 30 something hours that it required of me every week. (forget second semester, I lost track of the time I spent!) But, I feel like after that I had this "ah-haa" moment with biology, because it is in organic your develop a keen appreciation of the structure of things and requires such a unique problem solving method. Many problems are presented as a vague set of symptoms in which you have to try quite hard to fit many, many non-linearly related pieces together. I feel like I went into the class with a certain set of preconceptions and left with a more keen understanding of science. Just wouldn't advise doing it for your ego, but because your heart is in this type of understanding of the world.