General Psychology, 30 credits, for the uniniated in math?

[singasongofjoy]

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?

sounds like you need to talk with the professor who will be teaching the class you are considering signing up for, and talk with some students who have previously taken it with that professor. I don't think anyone here will be able to answer those questions for you. And if you're still concerned consider auditing the class the first time around.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SLB-CO]

When I taught undergraduate research methods and statistics, I found that students struggled most with interpretations rather than calculations. However, if you don't understand the calculations that undergird the outcome and the subsequent interpretations, you'll struggle to make the interpretations (and that's probably why you have heard SPSS is hard for some).

I strongly suggest you talk with the professor, be willing to review the concepts you don't understand and seek out tutoring as necessary, consult with the teaching assistant, and work really hard. The students I have seen NOT pass are the ones who struggle and 'disappear' rather than coming to office hours, doing all of the assigned work, meeting with the TA, etc.

Many of the statements you have made on this thread seem to indicate to me that you aren't really looking to learn. You have stated that you are bad at math/statistics, but then have spent a lot of time arguing about statistics with people who most certainly know more about statistics than you - and who very patiently tried to explain them to you. I am worried that if you take this attitude into the classroom, no, you won't succeed in your course. If you come in understanding that you don't know everything and are open to learning - and ready to work to learn - you can definitely be successful. It is going to take an open mind, time, energy, and work.

 

[Prototype123]

When I taught undergraduate research methods and statistics, I found that students struggled most with interpretations rather than calculations. However, if you don't understand the calculations that undergird the outcome and the subsequent interpretations, you'll struggle to make the interpretations (and that's probably why you have heard SPSS is hard for some).

I strongly suggest you talk with the professor, be willing to review the concepts you don't understand and seek out tutoring as necessary, consult with the teaching assistant, and work really hard. The students I have seen NOT pass are the ones who struggle and 'disappear' rather than coming to office hours, doing all of the assigned work, meeting with the TA, etc.

Many of the statements you have made on this thread seem to indicate to me that you aren't really looking to learn. You have stated that you are bad at math/statistics, but then have spent a lot of time arguing about statistics with people who most certainly know more about statistics than you - and who very patiently tried to explain them to you. I am worried that if you take this attitude into the classroom, no, you won't succeed in your course. If you come in understanding that you don't know everything and are open to learning - and ready to work to learn - you can definitely be successful. It is going to take an open mind, time, energy, and work.

Why should I trust psychology majors with math? They scored as undergraduates below 500 in elementary math. Physists scored 736 by comparison, and 533 verbal comprehension. That's the people I don't argue against. I made it very clear that it was a language issue. I thought they disputed that psychology students scored below average score, and simply forgot about the average range in the heat of the moment.

 

[SLB-CO]

This has been explained to you already. Any of the people who have written to you to explain statistics are either psychologists, hold PhDs in psychology, or are PhD students in psychology. None were undergraduates. They are the people who teach undergraduates. They are fundamentally different than 'psychology majors' who are folks getting BAs or BSs in psychology. They were likely at the upper-end of the bell curve when they took their SATs (I certainly was).

Again, given your responses here, if you take this attitude into the classroom, I don't believe you will pass the course. If you assume your statistics professor is 'below average' at statistics and you don't have anything to learn from him/her because he/she is a psychologist, no, you will not pass your course. If you're open to learning, then yes, you can pass.

 

[Prototype123]

This has been explained to you already. Any of the people who have written to you to explain statistics are either psychologists, hold PhDs in psychology, or are PhD students in psychology. None were undergraduates. They are the people who teach undergraduates. They are fundamentally different than 'psychology majors' who are folks getting BAs or BSs in psychology. They were likely at the upper-end of the bell curve when they took their SATs (I certainly was).

Again, given your responses here, if you take this attitude into the classroom, I don't believe you will pass the course. If you assume your statistics professor is 'below average' at statistics and you don't have anything to learn from him/her because he/she is a psychologist, no, you will not pass your course. If you're open to learning, then yes, you can pass.

Why would you even think that I would be dumb enough to take this attitude in class? Do you think I purposely want to flunk? I mean really.

 

[SLB-CO]

Because I have seen students take the attitude that you have taken here. Instead of admitting that they don't know things and trying to figure them out, they avidly defend their wrong understanding. And that saddens me. I want all of my students to succeed, but I can't teach students who don't want to learn. Good luck to you. I am glad to hear you won't be taking this attitude with your professors. I would encourage you to not take it with the people you have elicited advice from either.

 

[Ollie123]

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....

Any statistics course will be extremely difficult for you. This is pretty much a prerequisite for understanding the material. If it is NOT a statistics course (which you seem to now be implying it isn't?) it may be easier.

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.

We simply have no way of knowing what your specific course at your specific school will involve. Its not like there is a standard international curriculum.

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...

From a statistics standpoint, that would be considered very introductory (i.e. only the most basic of statistical tests/concepts with much more to be learned). I think we also need to be clear about what exactly "average" is. If you cannot do basic calculations (which you said above), that is incredibly far below average for college level courses that include math. An average college student has a basic understanding of algebra and can certainly do calculations. I don't know how they may have updated the SAT, but when I took it I cannot fathom scoring anywhere close to 500 without knowing some algebra.

Why should I trust psychology majors with math? They scored as undergraduates below 500 in elementary math. Physists scored 736 by comparison, and 533 verbal comprehension.

. You are generally not arguing with psychology majors. You are arguing with PhDs. Who were trying to help originally, but many now seem to be thinking you are not worth helping because of your attitude.

I find it somewhat laughable I apparently need to "prove" my mathematical ability to an undergrad who claims to be terrible at math, but I think my SAT quant score was 760 (its been awhile, but it was around that). My GRE quant score was a bit lower at 710. Am I worth listening to now?

 

[Prototype123]

Because I have seen students take the attitude that you have taken here. Instead of admitting that they don't know things and trying to figure them out, they avidly defend their wrong understanding. And that saddens me. I want all of my students to succeed, but I can't teach students who don't want to learn. Good luck to you. I am glad to hear you won't be taking this attitude with your professors. I would encourage you to not take it with the people you have elicited advice from either.

As mentioned, It was a misunderstanding. My point was that performing below average score (though still in the average range) is very indicative of ones (lack) of abilities in math, and therefore the likely difficulty level. It also a worthy debate given that humanities scored higher than intended psychology students, and humanities such as philosophers don't even use math in their field, unlike psychologists.

 

[Prototype123]

Any statistics course will be extremely difficult for you. This is pretty much a prerequisite for understanding the material. If it is NOT a statistics course (which you seem to now be implying it isn't?) it may be easier.

We simply have no way of knowing what your specific course at your specific school will involve. Its not like there is a standard international curriculum.



From a statistics standpoint, that would be considered very introductory (i.e. only the most basic of statistical tests/concepts with much more to be learned). I think we also need to be clear about what exactly "average" is. If you cannot do basic calculations (which you said above), that is incredibly far below average for college level courses that include math. An average college student has a basic understanding of algebra and can certainly do calculations. I don't know how they may have updated the SAT, but when I took it I cannot fathom scoring anywhere close to 500 without knowing some algebra.

. You are generally not arguing with psychology majors. You are arguing with PhDs. Who were trying to help originally, but many now seem to be thinking you are not worth helping because of your attitude.

I find it somewhat laughable I apparently need to "prove" my mathematical ability to an undergrad who claims to be terrible at math, but I think my SAT quant score was 760 (its been awhile, but it was around that). My GRE quant score was 710. Am I worth listening to now?

I don't know algebra for the simple reason that I never took it, and if I did it was for a very limited time. I had special aid for math as a child, and ultimately gave up on it around forth or fifth grade. It's pretty hard to know something you never did, or something you at best glanced at age 12. I am now around age 25. That's a long time never doing any math at all. I did not attend math in high school, no math grade from there. I was accepted into psychology because of my academic merits in Philosophy (undergraduate).

So, is it too late for me catch up in algebra within the term If I get a private tutor? Is the algebra required extensive? I am smarter now than age 12. I was an asperger with huge difficulties. It was a mess...

 

[Prototype123]

Any statistics course will be extremely difficult for you. This is pretty much a prerequisite for understanding the material. If it is NOT a statistics course (which you seem to now be implying it isn't?) it may be easier.

We simply have no way of knowing what your specific course at your specific school will involve. Its not like there is a standard international curriculum..

Dude, I just quoted verbatim the formal requirements. What more do you need to know? To demonstrate t-test analysis and one way variance sounds very much like statistics. Why are you guys hung up on the exact label of the class. The cited excerpt should settle the issue. It's a statistics class in part, and I will not escape it if it's a formal requirement.

 

[Ollie123]

No one is blaming you for not knowing algebra. It really doesn't matter what the reasons are for not knowing it, the fact of the matter is you will need to know it to succeed in psychology - > particularly if you ever intend to work in the field and are not just taking a few classes for fun.

I don't think it is ever "too late" to learn something, but whether or not the time and effort are worth it is up to you. How much algebra is required depends on how far you want to go and what you want to do within psychology. An undergraduate student doing a minor in psychology can get by with the basics. If you want to eventually become a college professor or a doctoral-level psychologist, you will need to know significantly more to make it through graduate school (and possibly for your career beyond that depending on what direction you go).

 

[PsyDr]

You're clearly substantially smarter than every psychologist ever. It would be a waste of your time to pursue the field or even this line of inquiry further.

 

[Prototype123]

No one is blaming you for not knowing algebra. It really doesn't matter what the reasons are for not knowing it, the fact of the matter is you will need to know it to succeed in psychology - > particularly if you ever intend to work in the field and are not just taking a few classes for fun.

I don't think it is ever "too late" to learn something, but whether or not the time and effort are worth it is up to you. How much algebra is required depends on how far you want to go and what you want to do within psychology. An undergraduate student doing a minor in psychology can get by with the basics. If you want to eventually become a college professor or a doctoral-level psychologist, you will need to know significantly more to make it through graduate school (and possibly for your career beyond that depending on what direction you go).

Lets take it one step at a time. My current objective is to get through the basic course. I am asking if that is at all feasible given my starting point.

 

[Prototype123]

You're clearly substantially smarter than every psychologist ever. It would be a waste of your time to pursue the field or even this line of inquiry further.

Why thank you. Remember that a psychologist gave me an IQ of 88, and the average IQ score of a philosophy student is 129. I must be the greatest overachiever of all time, or.... psychologists are a little confused...

Average IQ college major :http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/

 

[Ollie123]

Given what you have said, I would strongly recommend catching up on math before attempting a course like that. At an absolute minimum, you will need to be comfortable with calculations, fractions, probability, understand how to graph data and have at least a general knowledge of algebra. I would invest in an introductory statistics textbook and speak with a tutor to see if they can get you "up to speed" on all the math you would need to pass the class.

The reason we are harping on the name of the class is because it matters whether or not the ENTIRE class is about statistics or that is just 1-2 chapters. Depending on the structure of the class, it might be entirely possible to fail one exam spectacularly, ace everything else in the course and still pass the class. Whether or not you would be happy with such a situation is for you to decide.

 

[Prototype123]

Given what you have said, I would strongly recommend catching up on math before attempting a course like that. At an absolute minimum, you will need to be comfortable with calculations, fractions, probability, understand how to graph data and have at least a general knowledge of algebra.

The reason we are harping on the name of the class is because it matters whether or not the ENTIRE class is about statistics or that is just 1-2 chapters. Depending on the structure of the class, it might be entirely possible to fail one exam spectacularly, ace everything else in the course and still pass the class. Whether or not you would be happy with such a situation is for you to decide.

I have another question for you, given that method is the final class, will I manage the courses preceeding it from a mathemathical perspective, or will I get in trouble even before statistics is formally introduced? Say in a seminar.. (Exams look pretty math free)

 

[Prototype123]

The courses are:

Biology and cognition (6p)
Personality and development (6p)
Psychic health, decease and cure (6p)
Scientific methods in psychology (7.5p)

And they are taught in succession.

 

[Ollie123]

I have another question for you, given that method is the final class, will I manage the courses preceeding it from a mathemathical perspective, or will I get in trouble even before statistics is formally introduced? Say in a seminar.. (Exams look pretty math free)

Again, I have absolutely no way of knowing that. It depends on your school, who is teaching the class and what classes are required vs. what you decide to take. A course in say - cognitive psychology (just an example) could certainly include some math. It also might not. I have no way of knowing that. When I taught behavior modification, I had students calculate inter-observer reliability, plot data, etc. A course labeled something like "psychometrics" or "tests and measurement" will almost certainly involve calculations. Any seminar in experimental design or research methods could very well include calculations.

 

[Prototype123]

Again, I have absolutely no way of knowing that. It depends on your school, who is teaching the class and what classes are required vs. what you decide to take. A course in say - cognitive psychology (just an example) could certainly include some math. It also might not. I have no way of knowing that. When I taught behavior modification, I had students calculate inter-observer reliability, plot data, etc. A course labeled something like "psychometrics" or "tests and measurement" will almost certainly involve calculations. Any seminar in experimental design or research methods could very well include calculations.

Well, I have two weeks left to learn math. They are searching for a private tutor.

 

[Prototype123]

It is cited here that soft sciences, like psychology, have far less extensive use of graphs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

Yet statistics are quite emphasized at graduate level. Anybody care to comment?

 

[Ollie123]

Little to say other than that wikipedia is not a reliable source for accurate information. Most modern psychology papers include graphs, unless it is a review summarizing other papers that had graphs in them. Moreover, graphing and statistics are relatively independent. Either can exist without the other.

 

[PsyDr]

Why thank you. Remember that a psychologist gave me an IQ of 88, and the average IQ score of a philosophy student is 129. I must be the greatest overachiever of all time, or.... psychologists are a little confused...

Average IQ college major :http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/

 

[Prototype123]

Little to say other than that wikipedia is not a reliable source for accurate information. Most modern psychology papers include graphs, unless it is a review summarizing other papers that had graphs in them. Moreover, graphing and statistics are relatively independent. Either can exist without the other.

It was 2 cited sources (one being Cambridge) investigating the difference between soft and hard sciences. I would have never guessed that extensive use of graphs was one of the big differences.

 

[psychRA]

Why should I trust psychology majors with math? They scored as undergraduates below 500 in elementary math.

If you don't trust us with math, why are you asking us for advice about statistics and related coursework? I have no idea whether your specific class will require actual calculations or whether you'll be using a software program, so I can't advise you on that. All of my undergrad stats courses required me to calculate things by hand, as did most of my graduate stats classes (courses on things like SEM, HLM, etc. being the exceptions). Your program may be different.

As for your point about psych majors' math SAT scores: it sounds like you may be forgetting that a group's average score on a test doesn't imply that everyone in that group got a similar score. If psych majors as a group have an average math SAT score of 492, that means that some scored higher while some scored lower. You seem to be assuming that all psych majors are at the same level when it comes to math skills, and that's simply not an accurate interpretation of the data. This is an important aspect of understanding basic descriptive statistics and you will need to know this to do well in any psych stats course, even if you're doing everything using SPSS.

This forum is used primarily by people who are pursuing, completing, or have completed grad school, and so the average SAT scores of this group are likely to be higher than psych undergrads as a whole. My point about my program's GRE scores was that people who get admitted to grad programs in psychology (e.g., nearly every person who's responded in this thread) generally need to get above-average scores on the GRE in order to be admitted to grad school. They also likely had above-average scores on the SAT, because SAT scores and GRE scores are highly related. In general, people don't get mediocre math scores on the SAT and then suddenly get better at math (or any other skill) when they take the GRE. Anecdotally, my SAT and GRE scores were pretty similar. And they were in the 700's on math for both tests, if that makes my advice sound more credible to you.

 

[Prototype123]

I am not entering a bachelors program. It is a basic course which will provide me with the points requried to be eligible for a bachelors program. The math in undergraduate psychology is more extensive since it' a step up from a basic course.

I very much doubt that I will have to calculate by hand. Looking at an exam from a different universitys equivalent course, they were allowed to use a calculator during the exam. Most questions were about knowing the vocabulary of statistics (which I could easily memorize). It's the demonstration aspect of it that I worry about. If it's part of the seminars but not the exams, as an example.

 

[PsyDr]

I am not entering a bachelors program. It is a basic course which will provide me with the points requried to be eligible for a bachelors program. The math in undergraduate psychology is more extensive since it' a step up from a basic course.

I very much doubt that I will have to calculate by hand. Looking at an exam from a different universitys equivalent course, they were allowed to use a calculator during the exam. Most questions were about knowing the vocabulary of statistics (which I could easily memorize). It's the demonstration aspect of it that I worry about. If it's part of the seminars but not the exams, as an example.

 

[Prototype123]

As for your point about psych majors' math SAT scores: it sounds like you may be forgetting that a group's average score on a test doesn't imply that everyone in that group got a similar score. If psych majors as a group have an average math SAT score of 492, that means that some scored higher while some scored lower..

I know what an average score means, and already adressed that objection. To think that even a minority in the group scored 700+ would be very unreasonable, since it would have to mean that some scored very, very low, in order for it to be an average score of 492. There is no way the majority were around 500 while some performed 700, and still reach an average score of 492.

 

[deleted375280]

I know what an average score means, and already adressed that objection. To think that even a minority in the group scored 700+ would be very unreasonable, since it would have to mean that some scored very, very low, in order for it to be an average score of 492. There is no way the majority were around 500 while some performed 700, and still reach an average score of 492.

Except that's how averages and the normal distribution works? I'm baffled that you readily admit that you know nothing about statistics (especially the underlying math), and yet continue to argue about statistics with doctoral graduates who know much more about it than you do.

 

[Prototype123]

Except that's how averages and the normal distribution works? I'm baffled that you readily admit that you know nothing about statistics (especially the underlying math), and yet continue to argue about statistics with doctoral graduates who know much more about it than you do.

It's not very reasonable to assume such a large discrepency among the people applying for a given subject. And why psychology but not some of the hard sciences, producing much more solid average quant scores? Ockhams razor...

 

[deleted375280]

It's not very reasonable to assume such a large discrepency among the people applying for a given subject. And why psychology but not some of the hard sciences, producing much more solid average quant scores? Ockhams razor...

Yep, you're clearly the expert here. What's the point of you asking for advice again?

 

[Prototype123]

Yep, you're clearly the expert here. What's the point of you asking for advice again?

If you think a majority scoring 500 and a minority 700 could produce an average score below 500, you are not competent at basic arithmetic.

 

[deleted375280]

If you think a majority scoring 500 and a minority 700 could produce an average score below 500, then you are not competent at basic arithmetic.

Just as a portion will have very high scores, a portion will have very low scores. This is all factored into the mathematical computation of an average. I suggest that you discontinue insulting the experts here that you are seeking help from.

 

[Prototype123]

Just as a portion will have very high scores, a portion will have very low scores. .

Most definately not in this case. Note that these are intended graduates. It would be highly suspect if even some portions scored catastrophically low and still applied for a bachelor in a subject using mathematics as a tool. That's why the I reject this alternative.

Bare in mind that I am not entering a bachelors with my current mathematical gaps. That would be very silly of me. I am intending on learning during this term.

 

[deleted375280]

Most definately not in this case. Note that these are intended graduates. It would be highly suspect if even some portions scored catastrophically low and still applied for a bachelor in a subject using mathematics as a tool. That's why the I reject this alternative.

Bare in mind that I am not entering a bachelors with my current mathematical gaps. That would be very silly of me. I am intending on learning during this term.

People apply for things all the time that they are woefully unqualified for. Anyone who has sat on an admission committee can attest to this. What you choose to believe has nothing to do with what the actual facts are.

 

[Prototype123]

People apply for things all the time that they are woefully unqualified for. Anyone who has sat on an admission committee can attest to this. What you choose to believe has nothing to do with what the actual facts are.

I subscribe to the alternative that nobody in the group was exceptionally bad or good. What is the fail rate of psychology students in their own statistic courses? Do they have larger dropouts than in other sciences?

 

[PsychPhDone]

 

[CheetahGirl]

What is the fail rate of psychology students in their own statistic courses? Do they have larger dropouts than in other sciences?

What difference does it matter? And what is it to you?

Agreed. Work towards things that come naturally rather than adhering to such defeating challenges, except if it is worth your while. If you are a "mathematical noob" go into the arts or studying constitutional law, for instance.

Critical thinking is a great college course; it teaches logical thought, which can be quite helpful when considering math ascribes to logic.

 

[Prototype123]

What difference does it matter?

If the apologists in here claim that some portions score very low (which I don't buy for a second) it would reflect in the statistics courses, spelling their downfall (the very low scorers that is). And they would have to fail within the same margin as their SAT quant. That's about the only way to prove this hyperbolic claim, aside from getting the individual SAT scores from the psychology group.

The problem is not being a noob from an intelligence perspective, it's the knowledge gap and lack of time to make up for it. I am a fairly systematic and logical thinker, but realise that I have no experience in algebra/equations. And I did not know that you needed algebra to functionally pass a statistics exam in psychology. I thought you only need to learn how to use SPSS, and let that thing do the math for you.

 

[CheetahGirl]

I thought you only need to learn how to use SPSS, and let that thing do the math for you.

Nope. It's much more than that as you may discover.

You could always get a tutor and become self-taught.

Then, the task (e.g., agony to comprehend algebra) becomes worthwhile rather than trying to disprove that psychologists are good or bad at/need/do math. We do it. We need it...and to understand it. And some of us love it, and are quite good at it. (I was initially a math major.) I am N = 1 and perhaps an outlier, but what is the justification for this means (i.e., major premise of your argument and inital inquiry)? To ask for mathematical lenacy?

That's not this field, especially if you want to do well and make a career of it.

IMO, if you like psych..get a math tutor if you need one...learn algebra...and how to intrepret numbers and symbolic meaning. The entire 'math-thing to true psych professionals' (note: Make clear distinction btwn psychology majors) is like 'organic chemistry to pre-med majors'...you either have or you don't and if you don't, you get it (the skills) or move on to different field. Plain and simple.

Understanding how certain data validate behavioral outcomes is the basis of a science (math/interpreting stats in psychology), for example. Just as understanding chemistry and organic interactions is vital to practicing medicine.

Catch my drift?

 

[Prototype123]

Understanding how certain data validates behavioral outcomes is the basis of a science (math/intrepreting stats in psychology), for example. Just as understanding chemistry and organic interactions is vital to practicing medicine.

Catch my drift?

I took a math test about 2 years ago and scored around high school level at number sense, unlike most other areas, and I did not take math in high school at all. So statistics should suit me just fine in the understanding part.

When I do a project work at basic level, what would be a typical topic for me to explore as a psychology student? I am quite curious about this. Is the expectation (since it's a science) that I conduct a study of some sort and evaluate the results?

 

[Prototype123]

Nope. It's much more than that as you may discover.

Well, not currently. The professor informed that the practical application is using SPSS. Calculations by hand are so basic that no calculator is allowed, nor required. No previous knowledge of math is required to take the class either.

 

[deleted375280]

I subscribe to the alternative that nobody in the group was exceptionally bad or good. What is the fail rate of psychology students in their own statistic courses? Do they have larger dropouts than in other sciences?

If the apologists in here claim that some portions score very low (which I don't buy for a second) it would reflect in the statistics courses, spelling their downfall (the very low scorers that is). And they would have to fail within the same margin as their SAT quant. That's about the only way to prove this hyperbolic claim, aside from getting the individual SAT scores from the psychology group.

The problem is not being a noob from an intelligence perspective, it's the knowledge gap and lack of time to make up for it. I am a fairly systematic and logical thinker, but realise that I have no experience in algebra/equations. And I did not know that you needed algebra to functionally pass a statistics exam in psychology. I thought you only need to learn how to use SPSS, and let that thing do the math for you.

You still don't seem to understand the data upon which you're trying to base these conclusions. Just because students self-report what major they would like to pursue while in high school when taking the SAT, it DOES NOT mean that they actually were accepted into that major or even into college in general. So the data you found does not reflect those who are actually psychology majors. It is likely that a large proportion of low scorers never matriculated into any college program and that the average SAT scores for those that did are thus higher. You like to continue to assert your opinion as fact, when you have not bothered to actually look at data that answers the question you're asking. If you want to know how actual psychology majors at 4-years universities do, you should find the data on their SAT scores - not the scores for high school students who think they might want to be psychology majors. The two are different populations. These are all statistical concepts that you continue to fail to grasp. Your responses in this thread are an outstanding example of not knowing what you don't know.

 

[Prototype123]

You still don't seem to understand the data upon which you're trying to base these conclusions. Just because students self-report what major they would like to pursue while in high school when taking the SAT, it DOES NOT mean that they actually were accepted into that major or even into college in general. So the data you found does not reflect those who are actually psychology majors. It is likely that a large proportion of low scorers never matriculated into any college program and that the average SAT scores for those that did are thus higher. You like to continue to assert your opinion as fact, when you have not bothered to actually look at data that answers the question you're asking. If you want to know how actual psychology majors at 4-years universities do, you should find the data on their SAT scores - not the scores for high school students who think they might want to be psychology majors. The two are different populations. These are all statistical concepts that you continue to fail to grasp. Your responses in this thread are an outstanding example of not knowing what you don't know.

How is it possible that one of the most popular programs has the lowest average score of all the sciences, and lower than most humanities too? Shouldn't high competition automatically result in high scoring performers competing to get in, thus producing average SAT scores more in line with Astronomy/Physics, Economics, Math,?

 

[Prototype123]

Just because students self-report what major they would like to pursue while in high school when taking the SAT, it DOES NOT mean that they actually were accepted into that major or even into college in general. .

Of course not, but it demonstrates the level of people applying for it as a hole. If psychology was filled with intelligent people applying, the average score would naturally be raised due to those individuals being in the group. The mediocre people not only have to outnumber the brainy ones, they also have to distort the total average tremendously, in order for the group to score below the national average (which the psychology group did) .

 

[Prototype123]

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,

One is a science (albeit soft) the other is a humanities... A degree in philosophy is meaningless to most job descriptions. A degree in psychology carries with it weight, since it's a degree in a scientific discipline. I do intend on getting a masters if everything goes according to plan, and apply for a postdoc position.

 

[str63]

I think the bigger issue here is that you need to reconsider your major and what you'd actually like to do once you are done. With what you've been saying, you will not succeed. You cannot do much with a psychology degree that you could not do with a philosophy degree. A master's degree will not even offer more job opportunities in many places. And you cannot get a "postdoc position" after a master's degree. A postdoc is after your doctorate. If you cannot do math, you should not be doing an advanced degree in psychology.

 

[Prototype123]

I think the bigger issue here is that you need to reconsider your major and what you'd actually like to do once you are done. With what you've been saying, you will not succeed. You cannot do much with a psychology degree that you could not do with a philosophy degree. A master's degree will not even offer more job opportunities in many places. And you cannot get a "postdoc position" after a master's degree. A postdoc is after your doctorate. If you cannot do math, you should not be doing an advanced degree in psychology.

I have ample time to learn basic math required for the bachelors program. And it is basic. I am curious if the US have any separation between a program in psychology (those interested research) and a program for those wanting to become psychologists?

In my country, we do - Psychology and Psychologist program. How about you guys?

 

[psychRA]

I have ample time to learn basic math required for the bachelors program. And it is basic. I am curious if the US have any separation between a program in psychology (those interested research) and a program for those wanting to become psychologists?

In my country, we do - Psychology and Psychologist program. How about you guys?

I was involved in the graduate admissions process for several application cycles, and I'm not aware of any undergrad programs that has separate majors for people who are interested in psychology and people who want to become psychologists.

As has been said before in this thread, if you want to major in psych (at least in the US) you will likely need to take one or more statistics/research methods courses. Those courses almost certainly require you to calculate some statistics by hand in addition to teaching you how to use SPSS. At a minimum, you will need to be able to do basic math in order to calculate those statistics. There is simply no way around that. If you want to pursue graduate studies (you can't do a postdoc without completing a doctorate), you will absolutely have to take several statistics courses, and you will certainly need to calculate at least some stats by hand for some of those courses.

Your responses in this thread seem to suggest that you aren't grasping some basic stats concepts. Hopefully you will gain a better understanding of those concepts after taking an into research methods course.

 

[Prototype123]

I was involved in the graduate admissions process for several application cycles, and I'm not aware of any undergrad programs that has separate majors for people who are interested in psychology and people who want to become psychologists.

http://www.psy.lu.se/en/study/master-of-science-programme-in-psychology-120-ects-credits

"Note that the programme is not leading to a licence as a clinical psychologist"

Psychology, Bachelor course

http://kursplaner.lu.se/svenska/PSYK11.pdf

 

[Prototype123]

And here is the Psychologist programme: http://www.lu.se/lubas/i-uoh-lu-SAPSP/80402