Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
I am wondering if lacking math skills is detrimental to passing a statistics course in Psychology?

The reason I ask is because SAT scores show that that Psychology students are below average in both mathematics (492) and writing (496):

http://www.joshuakennon.com/sat-scores-ranked-by-intended-college-major-show-teachers-are-below-average/


This indicates to me: a) You don't need to be very bright to study psychology, and

b) You don't need much of mathematic ability at all.

Yet, I have read of statistics being quite demanding.

So, will I, a mathematical noob, be fine in a psychology statistics course, or do I need preparation? SAT scores suggests that one doesn't even need to be average at math.
 

WisNeuro

Board Certified Neuropsychologist
10+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2009
10,218
8,905
Somewhere
Status
Psychologist
To pass the minimum undergraduate statistics courses, one does not need to be very math savvy. This is the case with many undergraduate degrees. Although, you may want to brush up on your basic statistics as a score of 492 would actually be considered average. Regardless, if you're planning on graduate level work, there is a huge jump up in statistics difficulty, where some of those math concepts will be very handy, not too mention the math portion of the GRE, which you will need to do well on to get into grad school in the first place.
 

Ollie123

10+ Year Member
Feb 19, 2007
4,801
1,366
Status
Psychology Student
Depends what you mean. As long as you can do algebra and basic computation, you won't run into many barriers with UG stats. As Wisneuro said, grad work is a whole other ballgame. Not knowing matrix algebra/advanced calculus can be limiting (I wish I'd taken more advanced math as an UG).

My general takeaways from undergraduate was that most people in any major are not all that bright. Probably depends on what school you attend though. Psychology certainly isn't considered a "difficult" major at many places, which is part of the reason grad school is so hard to get into and such a shock for many upon learning about it and trying to gain acceptance.
 
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
as a score of 492 would actually be considered average..
Not true. 492 math is below average, old scoring system:

"Below Average Scores
These scores may be enough to get into a wide variety of college programs, but will be below average compared to the testing population

READING: 490 or lower

MATH: 510 or lower

WRITING: 480 or lower"

http://grockit.com/blog/whats-a-good-sat-score/

Furthermore, Psychology majors total combined score was below average, as the chart demonstrated.

Regardless, if you're planning on graduate level work, there is a huge jump up in statistics difficulty, where some of those math concepts will be very handy, not too mention the math portion of the GRE, which you will need to do well on to get into grad school in the first place.
Do I need to be able to use SPSS for the basic courses in Psychology? I don't need to take a GRE test to get into a graduate course in Psychology in Sweden, do I? I just need the university points required.
 
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
Depends what you mean. As long as you can do algebra and basic computation, you won't run into many barriers with UG stats.
I can't do either. That's the problem. But why do I need to know algebra when the program performs the calculations for me? I just need to understand what it reports back?
 

WisNeuro

Board Certified Neuropsychologist
10+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2009
10,218
8,905
Somewhere
Status
Psychologist
A score of 490 on math is about the 44th percentile compared to the national sample. While it is below the 50th percentile, the average moniker spans a range, not one number. Now, if you compare that number to a different subgroup, the percentiles will change according to that specific group mean, but, when compared to everyone, still, quite average.
 
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
A score of 490 on math is about the 44th percentile compared to the national sample. While it is below the 50th percentile, the average moniker spans a range, not one number. Now, if you compare that number to a different subgroup, the percentiles will change according to that specific group mean, but, when compared to everyone, still, quite average.
But they clearly aren't good at it. If the students are subpar, the discipline is logically a reflection of a not very high difficulty level.
 

WisNeuro

Board Certified Neuropsychologist
10+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2009
10,218
8,905
Somewhere
Status
Psychologist
Good is a subjective term, but yes, if you are talking about all undergraduates in psychology nationally, I would not call them good at statistics. But, I would not call them below average based on the actual statistics. You'll learn all about means and standard deviations in your stats class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: singasongofjoy

Ollie123

10+ Year Member
Feb 19, 2007
4,801
1,366
Status
Psychology Student
I can't do either. That's the problem. But why do I need to know algebra when the program performs the calculations for me? I just need to understand what it reports back?
That heavily depends on the program/course/instructor. Many stats courses will require you to do calculations in addition to using the program in order to understand what is going on "under the hood" so to speak. Moreover, the things that come back will be very difficult to understand without at least a basic understanding of algebra. We had some issues in my grad program since an advisor for another major on campus found out psych stats could be "counted" as a math course and was sending people who hadn't taken algebra to the class. The failure rate was ~50% that semester. Doesn't mean your experience will be the same, but it could be. I'd strongly recommend some remedial math courses before attempting stats if algebra is a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indiana_Jane0411
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
Good is a subjective term, but yes, if you are talking about all undergraduates in psychology nationally, I would not call them good at statistics. But, I would not call them below average based on the actual statistics. You'll learn all about means and standard deviations in your stats class.
Good is relative to the general population.Psychology majors are below average in math and overall SAT score. Period. If they are below by a small or low margin is very uninteresting to me. What does interest me is that it suggests that one can actually be poor at math and still pass statistic courses. Is this not a valid deduction, based on SATs?

I would be very appreciative if you could speculate on my chances. I am very disciplined and verbally gifted but pretty much mathematically challenged. I grasp mathematical concepts easily, but can't for the life of me do independent calculations or solutions to problems. Some systematic parts of mathematics appeal to me however. So I am not a total monkey.

I love science and REALLY want to graduate in Psychology.
 
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
That heavily depends on the program/course/instructor. Many stats courses will require you to do calculations in addition to using the program in order to understand what is going on "under the hood" so to speak. Moreover, the things that come back will be very difficult to understand without at least a basic understanding of algebra. We had some issues in my grad program since an advisor for another major on campus found out psych stats could be "counted" as a math course and was sending people who hadn't taken algebra to the class. The failure rate was ~50% that semester. Doesn't mean your experience will be the same, but it could be. I'd strongly recommend some remedial math courses before attempting stats if algebra is a problem.
But does this also apply for General Psychology, 30 credits? It's includes an introduction to statistics, but does say: Demonstrate T-test analysis OR One-way analysis of variance ... Demonstrate how, is my question.
 
Last edited:

WisNeuro

Board Certified Neuropsychologist
10+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2009
10,218
8,905
Somewhere
Status
Psychologist
Good is relative to the general population.Psychology majors are below average in math and overall SAT score. Period. If they are below by a small or low margin is very uninteresting to me. What does interest me is that it suggests that one can actually be poor at math and still pass statistic courses. Is this not a valid deduction, based on SATs?

I would be very appreciative if you could speculate on my chances. I am very disciplined and verbally gifted but pretty much mathematically challenged. I grasp mathematical concepts easily, but can't for the life of me do independent calculations or solutions to problems. Some systematic parts of mathematics appeal to me however. So I am not a total monkey.

I love science and REALLY want to graduate in Psychology.
At the moment, my speculation is not good. There are some statistical concepts put forward in this thread that you seem to be having a difficult time grasping. I would concur with Ollie that some foundational math courses would be extremely helpful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sunbodi
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
At the moment, my speculation is not good. There are some statistical concepts put forward in this thread that you seem to be having a difficult time grasping. I would concur with Ollie that some foundational math courses would be extremely helpful.
I do know that 44 percentile is less than half of the population. Half being 50%. If you wish to compare psychology majors to martians or infants, they may very well be average.
 

Ollie123

10+ Year Member
Feb 19, 2007
4,801
1,366
Status
Psychology Student
They are not below average. They scored below the mean, but that is not the same thing as "below average" performance. Period. You will understand why if/when you take statistics and/or psychometrics. It will take too long to explain here given your background. The gist is that the test is that if an "average" person took comparable tests with different questions a dozen times, they wouldn't get the exact same score every time. 492 is "close enough" to 500 its within the range we would expect someone average at math to get.

The deduction is not valid for several reasons regardless though. For one - at the college level even "below average at math" still generally means someone is able to do at least basic algebra. That is typically taught around ages 12-13. Calculations are taught much earlier. So it sounds like we are talking about being many, many grade levels behind in math.

I have no way of predicting your performance or knowing how your 30 credit general psychology program (that might not even be in the US system?) is going to be set up. You could always contact the school or instructors and ask. The textbook they use may help give a sense of how mathematical it will be.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: thewesternsky
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
The textbook used is: Aron, A., Aron, E., & Coups, E. J. (2014). Statistics for psychology (6th editionl.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall..

Does this perhaps clarify the issue?
 

Ollie123

10+ Year Member
Feb 19, 2007
4,801
1,366
Status
Psychology Student
500 is not average. The average math score is 511.
I think you missed the point on that one. Regardless, your belaboring this point suggests to me that if this is your attitude towards learning math, you are going to struggle immensely. To the degree that this attitude bleeds over to other domains, it will hurt you there too. We are both being very patient, but you are self-admittedly "bad at math" and trying to convince two people who almost certainly know quite a bit more about testing/psychometrics/statistics that you know better based on what is clearly a very naive understanding of how the SATs work.

I don't have the book and even if I did, I couldn't tell you if it contained math that YOU would be comfortable with. You will need to buy/borrow a copy and make that determination yourself. If it seems okay that is promising, but even if it doesn't there are no guarantees that the instructor won't require/expect students to go above and beyond the textbook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: singasongofjoy
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
The frustrating part is that statistics is only one part of Psychology. I am absolutely certain that I could do quite well in every other area, but what good does that do if I flunk the statistic courses?

The meager SAT scores from the intended Psychology majors do provide me with some hope though. 492 math, 496 writing, 502 critical reading. Intended Psychology majors don't excel at anything. My writing is much better than a 496 score. I aced the SAT verbal, despite being a swede. (took it online).

I do need basic knowledge of algebra, but it still gets progressively harder at graduate level. Could you please elaborate in what sense, given that the math remains at the same level?
 
Last edited:

Ollie123

10+ Year Member
Feb 19, 2007
4,801
1,366
Status
Psychology Student
If you are considering graduate school, also keep in mind that the "average" psychology major also has no hope of going to graduate school in psychology in the US. Many programs accept less than 1 in 50 applicants at the graduate level - these are usually not the folks whose performance was "average" and statistics/research methods are often two of the more critical course grades.

I'm not sure what sort of elaboration I can provide that would be helpful. A typical graduate program requires far more statistics (my program required 4 courses). Anything less than a "B-" is failing in graduate school and would need to be retaken, so scraping by is less of an option. One doesn't necessarily "need" much beyond algebra, but the concepts/applications/expectations are much higher. More advanced knowledge (calculus, matrix algebra) can be very helpful, even if not necessary. There will be zero tolerance of someone not being comfortable with basic math since it will be pretty integral to your day-to-day life as a graduate student in most areas of psychology, unless you are on the history or ethics side of things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psychRA
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
If you are considering graduate school, also keep in mind that the "average" psychology major also has no hope of going to graduate school in psychology in the US. Many programs accept less than 1 in 50 applicants at the graduate level - these are usually not the folks whose performance was "average" and statistics/research methods are often two of the more critical course grades. .
That still doesn't answer it, since those students are part of same pool taking the SAT. So.... If a minority had an excellent quant score it should have raised it well above 500, if most of the other ones were within the range of average. Otherwise you would need to assume that a large group of the participants inflated the result, being complete idiots, and that the high performers saved it to a 492 score. I Think I will go on the assumption that most of them were mediocre, rather than a large group being grossly ignorant/stupid.

492 and 511 is a difference of 19 points. Is that not a statistically significant difference? 511 is the average test score for the nation in math.

I'm not sure what sort of elaboration I can provide that would be helpful. A typical graduate program requires far more statistics (my program required 4 courses). Anything less than a "B-" is failing in graduate school and would need to be retaken, so scraping by is less of an option. One doesn't necessarily "need" much beyond algebra, but the concepts/applications/expectations are much higher. More advanced knowledge (calculus, matrix algebra) can be very helpful, even if not necessary. There will be zero tolerance of someone not being comfortable with basic math since it will be pretty integral to your day-to-day life as a graduate student in most areas of psychology, unless you are on the history or ethics side of things.
Is there really no room for extrapolations? Fleshing out theorys of the human mind within a scientific perspetive - biological roots. I don't need to perform calculations in evaluating correlation analysis, surveys, or whatever psychology researchers use, do I? Please enlighten me if I that's the case.
 
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
Could someone answer if 19 points difference is statistically significant in this case? Some psychologists in here refuse to accept that intended majors are below average.

I repeat, nation average is 511.
 

Ollie123

10+ Year Member
Feb 19, 2007
4,801
1,366
Status
Psychology Student
You are correct that the "majority" of students NATIONWIDE probably cluster around 511. My point is that the students who go on to graduate school are probably those who: 1) Are at "better" schools where the typical psychology major might be more like 550 or 600; and 2) Are probably even "above average" at those schools and likely did better than their peers.

That is exactly right that 492 vs. 511 is not a meaningful difference (statistically significant isn't the right term to use in this context when discussing above/below average - think "clinical significance"). You can think of it this way. If we had a magical person who we somehow knew was EXACTLY average and he/she took 1000 equivalent versions of the SAT....they'd get a score of 490 pretty frequently.

I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at with your second question. No, I don't sit around plugging numbers into a calculator all day. However, I do spend an inordinate amount of time doing things like plotting data and using visual cues to understand what implications that may have for predictions. So for instance, I might graph how a variable changes over the course of years. If I notice that line is "curved," I need to know that means I should consider adding squared/cubed terms into my regression equation. That's just an example and an incredibly simplistic one at that, but it illustrates my earlier point about how at least a basic foundation in algebra is very necessary for statistics.

Long-term, there are people out there whose work is more theory-driven. However, even these people usually had to get through statistics in graduate school because they need it to be able to understand the scientific literature that inevitably shapes their theories. If you are comfortable with the idea of working at a small liberal arts college or community college focused on teaching with minimal research, it may be more feasible. There are very few big universities that would even consider someone whose work was purely theoretical and wasn't conducting original research. Theory of mind and biological roots are actually great examples of why that is the case - the "hot" areas there right now are actually HEAVILY mathematical (i.e. wayyyy beyond the simplistic things I discussed above) and involve things like building biologically plausible mathematical models of neural systems. Do you need to specialize in exactly that? No, but if you want to be a respected scholar in that field you will need to know enough to at least be comfortable with it.
 
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
Do you need to specialize in exactly that? No, but if you want to be a respected scholar in that field you will need to know enough to at least be comfortable with it.
Is Psychology suddenly hardcore science? How much of Freuds theories were scientificly based? People have mocked Psychology for not being a science for decades (still a very interesting discipline). Now you are telling me there is very little place for pure theoreticans in modern day research?
 
Last edited:

Ollie123

10+ Year Member
Feb 19, 2007
4,801
1,366
Status
Psychology Student
Is Psychology suddenly hardcore science? How much of Freuds theories were scientificly based? People have mocked Psychology for not being a science for decades (doesn't mean it's a very interesting discipline). Now you are telling me there is very little place for pure theoreticans in modern day research?
I wouldn't say suddenly, but its been moving increasingly in that direction since a paradigm shift in the 50's and 60's. The last few decades have seen a further uptick. Psychologists themselves bash Freud more than the general public does these days, largely for that reason. There is certainly room for theoretical work, but it is incredibly difficult to build a career off it in psychology - particularly if one wants research to be a primary component of their job.

Wis - I have my suspicions, but its a slow day in the clinic;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: singasongofjoy
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
Well, you paint a very bleak picture for a philosophy undergraduate.... Which I am. I so much want out of it, do some hard science and get a "real" degree. Do you happen to know if it comes in handy at any point being a philosophers soul?
 
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
How about "within the margin of error" instead of statistically significant?
 

psychRA

Psychologist
10+ Year Member
Mar 8, 2007
457
200
How about "within the margin of error" instead of statistically significant?
I think part of your confusion is stemming from a misunderstanding of statistics. A numerical average (the mean score) on a given test is not the same thing as a score that falls within the average range (the range of scores that are considered 'average' or normal) of scores on that test. The average score is a numeric value, while the 'average' or normal range is both a numeric and a conceptual construct.

For example, take IQ assessment. Assuming that scores on an IQ test like the WAIS are normally distributed, the average (as in, the mean) full scale IQ should be 100. But that doesn't mean that any score below 100 is below average, while any score above 100 is above average. If that were the case, only people whose IQ is exactly 100 would be considered to be of average intelligence, and that's only going to be a small percentage of the total population. The average score may be 100, but the range of scores that are considered to reflect average IQ is 90-109.

Setting aside the fact that most peoples' performances on IQ tests (and other tests) vary from administration to administration, an IQ classification system in which 100 is the only score that is considered 'average' - while every other possible score is either below or above average - is simply not a very helpful classification system. Same with a test like the SAT - those math scores aren't officially broken down into formal groups, but college admissions offices will generally have ranges of scores that they consider to be average/normal for their admitted applicants, rather than assuming that anyone with a score that's above the mean score is good at math while everyone with a score that's below the mean score is bad at math.
 
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
I think part of your confusion is stemming from a misunderstanding of statistics. A numerical average (the mean score) on a given test is not the same thing as a score that falls within the average range (the range of scores that are considered 'average' or normal) of scores on that test. The average score is a numeric value, while the 'average' or normal range is both a numeric and a conceptual construct.

For example, take IQ assessment. Assuming that scores on an IQ test like the WAIS are normally distributed, the average (as in, the mean) full scale IQ should be 100. But that doesn't mean that any score below 100 is below average, while any score above 100 is above average. If that were the case, only people whose IQ is exactly 100 would be considered to be of average intelligence, and that's only going to be a small percentage of the total population. The average score may be 100, but the range of scores that are considered to reflect average IQ is 90-109.

Setting aside the fact that most peoples' performances on IQ tests (and other tests) vary from administration to administration, an IQ classification system in which 100 is the only score that is considered 'average' - while every other possible score is either below or above average - is simply not a very helpful classification system. Same with a test like the SAT - those math scores aren't officially broken down into formal groups, but college admissions offices will generally have ranges of scores that they consider to be average/normal for their admitted applicants, rather than assuming that anyone with a score that's above the mean score is good at math while everyone with a score that's below the mean score is bad at math.
Allow me to clarify: intended Psychology majors perform in the lower average at SAT, and SAT correlates highly with IQ (0.82). This entails that most undergraduates in Psychology are not of superior intelligence, let alone gifted. It also means that being mediocre at math only puts me in good company.
 
Last edited:
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
And that's why I cheerish these findings, since I am in the "low average" category in intelligence myself (88 IQ). I misread the original posters claim. I know what average range is, but this is not my native language. Sorry about that.
 

psychRA

Psychologist
10+ Year Member
Mar 8, 2007
457
200
Allow me to clarify: intended Psychology majors perform in the low average at SAT, and SAT correlates highly with IQ (0.82). This entails that most undergraduates in Psychology are not of superior intelligence, let alone gifted. It also means that being mediocre at math only puts me in good company.
I think you're getting closer to an accurate interpretation, but I would caution you against using SAT math scores alone as a proxy for intelligence. The fact that psych undergrads as a group don't excel at SAT math doesn't support your conclusion that most psych undergrads are not of superior intelligence. Most members of any given group are not of superior intelligence, but that's because superior IQ is statistically rare for reasons that aren't necessarily related to math ability alone.

Here's a brief popular press article that touches on the relationship: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-perfect-score-project/201107/is-the-sat-iq-test. I'd interpret what she has to say with caution, as she's basing a lot of what she has to say on her own experiencing with taking "a battery of IQ and achievement tests" that she doesn't name, and she doesn't explicitly state that IQ and achievement don't measure the same things. While achievement tests may include things like math, and the SAT math section does assess algebra, data analysis, and geometry, the gold standard IQ tests do not. The WAIS only uses math on one subtest, and those are very basic problems that are used to measure processing speed and not math ability.

Some studies have found correlations between total SAT scores and IQ, and there's certainly overlap between the two, but I would guess that the Critical Reading section (formerly SAT Verbal) and the Writing sections play a more important role in that correlation than the math section. Both of those non-math sections measure command of written English as well as vocabulary (which reflect academic achievement as well as other factors related to education, and are less directly related to intelligence), but they also measure the ability to comprehend written passages, apply reasoning and meaning to that information, and present and support an argument, and those are skills that are conceptually similar to some of the skills that are measured by IQ tests.
 

psychRA

Psychologist
10+ Year Member
Mar 8, 2007
457
200
I don't need to take a GRE test to get into a graduate course in Psychology in Sweden, do I? I just need the university points required.
I don't know anything about grad school in Sweden. In the US, students who are admitted to grad programs will most likely have higher GRE scores (and probably had higher SAT scores) than the entire US population of undergrad psych majors. Using my grad program as an example: over the last few years, students admitted to the program had average GRE Verbal scores above the 90th percentile, Quantitative scores in the 75-80th percentiles, and Analytical scores in the low 80's. In general their GRE scores were in the 75th-90th percentile, so we can assume that their SAT scores were probably well above the mean SAT scores of psych majors as a whole group.
 
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
I would caution you against using SAT math scores alone as a proxy for intelligence. The fact that psych undergrads as a group don't excel at SAT math doesn't support your conclusion that most psych undergrads are not of superior intelligence. .
You need to go back to my original link. They performed average range in every section, including Critical Reading. I for one believe logical/mathematical intelligence to be the most Culture fair measure of intelligence that there is. Knowing lots of words is not a sign of intelligence, as I can attest, with my 88 IQ. It's simply an emulation process. Logical/mathematical ability and IQ correlate very much, as you very well know.

Want to know your IQ? Check your math skills as a pretty good indicator.
 
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
I don't know anything about grad school in Sweden. In the US, students who are admitted to grad programs will most likely have higher GRE scores (and probably had higher SAT scores) than the entire US population of undergrad psych majors. Using my grad program as an example: over the last few years, students admitted to the program had average GRE Verbal scores above the 90th percentile, Quantitative scores in the 75-80th percentiles, and Analytical scores in the low 80's. In general their GRE scores were in the 75th-90th percentile, so we can assume that their SAT scores were probably well above the mean SAT scores of psych majors as a whole group.
But the fact that people with such dismal math skills even attempt at it must indicate that the math is not very difficult, or else they wouldn't even try. No?

I have an SAT study where Physics/Astronomy (it was grouped together with physical sciences in my posted link, and thus lower), as a stand alone subject, produced an average math score of 736. That is very much in line with the difficulty level of the math involved, and competency required. You understand my reasoning now?
 
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
What I am getting at is if you need to be brainy to get through the math. I have to learn algebra as an adult to pass the statistic course. There is no indication so far that I have any competency in math. I am willing to give it a shot, but if there is too much to learn for me at this stage, I would appreciate to know in advance. I don't want to waiste my time.
 
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
. Using my grad program as an example: over the last few years, students admitted to the program had average GRE Verbal scores above the 90th percentile, Quantitative scores in the 75-80th percentiles, and Analytical scores in the low 80's. In general their GRE scores were in the 75th-90th percentile, so we can assume that their SAT scores were probably well above the mean SAT scores of psych majors as a whole group.
Makes no sense why that wasn't reflected in SAT scores, since that group of people within psychology take those too. 492 is very unimpressive.
 

PsychPhDStudent

7+ Year Member
Sep 5, 2009
1,041
238
Status
Post Doc
Not going to fight with you over some of your inaccurate statements. I really hope for you that you take a stats course, learn stuff, and then reevaluate the statements you're making.

I will, however, address the main question I think you're trying to ask: Can I succeed in an introductory level stats for psych course without being good at math? I'm not sure. The best way to make this determination is to get a copy of the textbook and see how much you understand. Then go speak with the professor teaching the course. Since we have access to neither the book, the instructor, or your capabilities, we can't really advise.
 
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
Not going to fight with you over some of your inaccurate statements. I really hope for you that you take a stats course, learn stuff, and then reevaluate the statements you're making.

I will, however, address the main question I think you're trying to ask: Can I succeed in an introductory level stats for psych course without being good at math? I'm not sure. The best way to make this determination is to get a copy of the textbook and see how much you understand. Then go speak with the professor teaching the course. Since we have access to neither the book, the instructor, or your capabilities, we can't really advise.
I understand that no correlation is 0. Perfect correlation is 1. My knowledge ends there.

My question is if I can learn the basics required in advance to taking the course, that other people already learned in high school or does this take several years?

How much do I need to know in math to be able to pass the exams? This is an objective question.
 

PsychPhDStudent

7+ Year Member
Sep 5, 2009
1,041
238
Status
Post Doc
I understand that no correlation is 0. Perfect correlation is 1. My knowledge ends there.

My question is if I can learn the basics required in advance to taking the course, that other people already learned in college or does this take several years?
Depends on the level of your deficiency. Like others have said, you'll need to be able to do some basic computation (mean, following formulas) at minimum.

Seriously, do you have a certain course with a certain instructor in mind? Go ask them! I used to meet with students who were considering enrolling in my classes to figure out if it was a good fit or not. It's part of the job.

Also, you can try reviewing some basic stats course materials online (Coursera, Khan Academy) and see how it goes.
 
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
Depends on the level of your deficiency. Like others have said, you'll need to be able to do some basic computation (mean, following formulas) at minimum.
.
I can probably do that. What buggs me is that there is no definitive answer to if I need to perform any individual calculations, even at basic course. People are very hard to get a hold of. I want to know before I start. What if I get humiliated in front of the entire class? It is a very interactive discipline, which suits me verbally but not mathematically.
 
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
For an example: The regression line is represented by an equation. In this case, the equation is -2.2923x + 4624.4. That means that if you graphed the equation -2.2923x + 4624.4

This is like reading chinese to me....
 

MamaPhD

Psychologist, Academic Medical Center
7+ Year Member
Aug 2, 2010
2,085
1,953
Status
Psychologist
What buggs me is that there is no definitive answer to if I need to perform any individual calculations, even at basic course. People are very hard to get a hold of. I want to know before I start.
For intro psych, unlikely. For statistics, perhaps. I took my first stats course almost 20 years ago. At the time we had to perform simple statistical tests by hand for exams. I'm not sure whether students are expected to do that anymore.

Regardless, college is a good opportunity to overcome a fixed mindset about your abilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: singasongofjoy
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
11
For intro psych, unlikely. For statistics, perhaps. I took my first stats course almost 20 years ago. At the time we had to perform simple statistical tests by hand for exams. I'm not sure whether students are expected to do that anymore.

Regardless, college is a good opportunity to overcome a fixed mindset about your abilities.
To be clear, this is a basic course in psychology, coverering all central domains, including statistics (scientific metod). I was told now that SPSS will be part of it.
 
Dec 4, 2014
786
511
Status
Psychologist
If you're this worried about the math, I suggest you consider taking a statistics course at a community college over the summer to give yourself a leg up and then try taking the regular stats class as that would probably make it a bit easier. You could also consider auditing the statistics course first (you sit in on the classes and complete classwork but don't take the tests or get a grade in it) and then take it for real with the same teacher the next semester. I think that's going to be the only way to help you answer your questions about the content of the class and how hard it will be for you- to give it a try. You can find ways to give it a try before actually taking it at your college.

Ultimately asking the questions you are currently asking here are not going to answer the question for you about whether you'll be able to make it through the class. The degree to which you will have to perform the basic calculations versus going more conceptual will likely depend on which individual is teaching the class, although you'll certainly need to do some basic numeric operations (e.g., division) in order to grasp the concepts.

Regarding your above quote that "This entails that most undergraduates in Psychology are not of superior intelligence," my bet would be that at the undergraduate level, if you look at people on the whole, hardly any majors would be composed primarily of "people of superior intelligence." I bet the majority would be in the average or above average range, depending on which field you were looking at and at which school. Also, if you are not going to get a masters' degree, the types of jobs you would get with a philosophy undergraduate degree versus a psychology undergraduate degree (especially if you're going for a psych degree with a minimum of math and research experience as it sounds) are not going to be that different, in my opinion, and will depend more on your outside experiences (jobs, volunteer work, working in various labs, etc) showing an interest in the type of jobs you end up applying for. You won't be doing any psychological therapy with an undergraduate degree.
 
Dec 4, 2014
786
511
Status
Psychologist
I agree with mamaphd that if you're taking an intro to psychology course, not a course that is all statistics, you should be fine if your only worry is the math. In an introductory course, the stats/math computation part will be such a very small element of the course (when I taught intro, it was like 3 questions on an exam) that even if you have significant difficulty with the math, the vast majority of the content will not be math. And some of the stats related questions will be more conceptual, like explaining what a positive correlation is and looking at a graph and interpreting whether the correlation is positive or negative and applying that to a hypothetical scenario.
 
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
I agree with mamaphd that if you're taking an intro to psychology course, not a course that is all statistics, you should be fine if your only worry is the math. In an introductory course, the stats part will be such a very small element of the course (when I taught intro, it was like 3 questions on an exam) that even if you have significant difficulty with the math, the vast majority of the content will not be math.
True, but it does say among the formal requirements: "estimate correlation wih the use of correlation analysis, demonstrate ability to estimate median differences between T-test analysis and one way variance analysis."

Does this not contradict the other part which reads introduction to scientific method? It sounds very much like application to me, and not just a mere intro...
 
Dec 4, 2014
786
511
Status
Psychologist
True, but it does say among the formal requirements: "estimate correlation wih the use of correlation analysis, demonstrate ability to estimate median differences between T-test analysis and one way variance analysis."

Does this not contradict the other part which reads introduction to scientific method? It sounds very much like application to me, and not just a mere intro...
what is the actual name of the class?
 
OP
Prototype123
Aug 8, 2016
1,149
78
Status
Psychology Student
I am told many people seek advice on using SPSS outside of class. From what I've seen it looks pretty straight forward once you know what to plug into it. What are people exactly struggling with in this program?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.