I Didn't Get Into Grad School, and So Can You

[CKAW]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey Guys,

Not gonna write a long diatribe on here, but I do feel compelled to post something around this time of year. I sunk ~3 years of my life into pursuing a doctoral program in clinical psych, applied to 8 places and got 6 interviews, went to 5, and didn't end up anywhere. I was totally grossed out by the process and the people I interacted with both in labs at my university and at the places I interviewed, and ultimately decided not to continue seeking. I am doing work that I'm much happier with now and mostly just wish I got out sooner.

Anyway, I do remember perusing this forum and thinking, "Wow, there are 50 people on here for every 1 on the other side of the application process." So I promised that I'd come back in a year whatever happened and report in. So, no regrets in this life, but I will say that preparing for grad school was a thoroughly miserable process and I never worked a minimum wage job where I was considered as disposable as I was as an undergrad psychology RA. The people I was surrounded with were mercilessly overworked and had serious mental health issues of their own brought on by the conditions in which they lived and worked. At least 50 percent of the other grad students were, shall I say, a bit hyper-competitive and and seemed to have a view of the world where anybody else's gain was their loss. I worked in maybe 6 labs across 3 universities, as well as interviewing at 5, and this seemed to be a rule and not an exception.

I remain fascinated by the field of clinical psych and still read new literature for personal interest, but I would definitely say that I am happier now and also make maybe $10,000 less than the average starting salary a clinical psychologist would make after 4 or 5 years of grad school. My point: Do this if it is good for you. Some people seemed to be very much in their element in the environment I've described; I was not. Do not pursue this if it is a goal, pursue it if you are totally in love with the process. One of the areas I published research in was Personality and Individual Differences, and I came away with a strong sense that humans have some permutation of traits that is beyond their control, and which they would do well to order their lives around highlighting. Listen to yourself and ask what world you would feel natural in, and go live there. There is a very large world outside this bubble and you'll be fine if you do end up cutting your losses and, quite possibly, parlaying your experience in academic psychology into something outside institutional academia.

Nonetheless, good luck with applications.

 

[deleted656923]

If you truly want to experience what it means to be grossly overworked and disposable, try working for minimum-wage in retail during the holidays.

 

[erg923]

Hey Guys,

Not gonna write a long diatribe on here, but I do feel compelled to post something around this time of year. I sunk ~3 years of my life into pursuing a doctoral program in clinical psych, applied to 8 places and got 6 interviews, went to 5, and didn't end up anywhere. I was totally grossed out by the process and the people I interacted with both in labs at my university and at the places I interviewed, and ultimately decided not to continue seeking. I am doing work that I'm much happier with now and mostly just wish I got out sooner.

Anyway, I do remember perusing this forum and thinking, "Wow, there are 50 people on here for every 1 on the other side of the application process." So I promised that I'd come back in a year whatever happened and report in. So, no regrets in this life, but I will say that preparing for grad school was a thoroughly miserable process and I never worked a minimum wage job where I was considered as disposable as I was as an undergrad psychology RA. The people I was surrounded with were mercilessly overworked and had serious mental health issues of their own brought on by the conditions in which they lived and worked. At least 50 percent of the other grad students were, shall I say, a bit hyper-competitive and and seemed to have a view of the world where anybody else's gain was their loss. I worked in maybe 6 labs across 3 universities, as well as interviewing at 5, and this seemed to be a rule and not an exception.

I remain fascinated by the field of clinical psych and still read new literature for personal interest, but I would definitely say that I am happier now and also make maybe $10,000 less than the average starting salary a clinical psychologist would make after 4 or 5 years of grad school. My point: Do this if it is good for you. Some people seemed to be very much in their element in the environment I've described; I was not. Do not pursue this if it is a goal, pursue it if you are totally in love with the process. One of the areas I published research in was Personality and Individual Differences, and I came away with a strong sense that humans have some permutation of traits that is beyond their control, and which they would do well to order their lives around highlighting. Listen to yourself and ask what world you would feel natural in, and go live there. There is a very large world outside this bubble and you'll be fine if you do end up cutting your losses and, quite possibly, parlaying your experience in academic psychology into something outside institutional academia.

Nonetheless, good luck with applications.

This is great that you have reflected and made the decision that fit with your values and will further your quality of life. Going back in time, I would probably entertain many more options than I did.

I would like to mention that competitive and aggressive (not physical) personality, along with healthy levels of narcissism are generally very adaptable in academia, and probably should be viewed as individual differences rather than pathology.

 

[Pragma]

If I worked in 6 labs across 3 universities, I'd probably be freaked out by psychologists too. It's a large enough n for someone to meet at least 1-2 total weirdos.

That said, you might be unlucky because I can't really remember anyone nicer than the folks I worked with as an undergrad getting psych research experience.

 

[PsyDr]

I would like to mention that competitive and aggressive (not physical) personality, along with healthy levels of narcissism are generally very adaptable in academia, and probably should be viewed as individual differences rather than pathology.

I am PsyDr and I approve this message.

 

[deleted343839]

Listen to yourself and ask what world you would feel natural in, and go live there.

I agree about the importance of the environment. Some people overlook environmental/organizational factors that will affect their day-to-day well being in favor of setting themselves up to achieve longer-term career goals. I think this is true of many academics, who for all their quirks (and outright nastiness at times) are sort of pitiable for the working conditions that many of them will accept. Ideally, you could work in a setting that is conducive to both your career success and well-being, but most of us end up making some sort of trade-off by necessity.

On that point, this recent op-ed in the NY Times resonates: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/o...stion-you-should-ask-about-every-new-job.html

No one really enjoys the process of applying to graduate school, but if it's just a gut-wrenchingly awful experience for someone then I agree that graduate school might be a bad idea for him or her.

 

[hamsterpants]

I would like to mention that competitive and aggressive (not physical) personality, along with healthy levels of narcissism are generally very adaptable in academia, and probably should be viewed as individual differences rather than pathology.

I spent 12+ years in the corporate world (marketing/ advertising) and these traits are actually as much or more adaptive there as in academia. I don't what field the OP is in but many of the negatives that can be seen in academia (at least from the perspective of an undergrad RA) are as common in corporate- land, if not more so. Every dysfunctional lab I witnessed in my 10+ years of undergrad and grad life has been an order of magnitude less nasty than the many dysfunctional industry environments I witnessed first-hand or through the eyes of loved ones (non-profits actually tended to be worse than for-profits). Believe it or not, climbing the corporate ladder can be 10x more miserable than working minimum wage.

I eventually ended up in a fantastic working environment with wonderful people but I left to pursue this degree as I was bored. I've never regretted it (although I do miss my co-workers sometime). In short, the grass is always greener so keep your eyes and ears open wherever you are and make a change if you are truly unhappy. The lab/ program I'm in has its faults but is nothing like what you describe, maybe we tend to accept those who fit the culture but I have never been surrounded by such collaborative, cooperative folks (there are a couple hypercompetitive souls but they are either ignored or good naturedly tolerated). YMMV.

 

[hamsterpants]

I agree about the importance of the environment. Some people overlook environmental/organizational factors that will affect their day-to-day well being in favor of setting themselves up to achieve longer-term career goals. I think this is true of many academics, who for all their quirks (and outright nastiness at times) are sort of pitiable for the working conditions that many of them will accept. Ideally, you could work in a setting that is conducive to both your career success and well-being, but most of us end up making some sort of trade-off by necessity.

On that point, this recent op-ed in the NY Times resonates: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/o...stion-you-should-ask-about-every-new-job.html

This is a fabulous article. Thanks for sharing!

 

[smalltownpsych]

Hey Guys,

Not gonna write a long diatribe on here, but I do feel compelled to post something around this time of year. I sunk ~3 years of my life into pursuing a doctoral program in clinical psych, applied to 8 places and got 6 interviews, went to 5, and didn't end up anywhere. I was totally grossed out by the process and the people I interacted with both in labs at my university and at the places I interviewed, and ultimately decided not to continue seeking. I am doing work that I'm much happier with now and mostly just wish I got out sooner.

Anyway, I do remember perusing this forum and thinking, "Wow, there are 50 people on here for every 1 on the other side of the application process." So I promised that I'd come back in a year whatever happened and report in. So, no regrets in this life, but I will say that preparing for grad school was a thoroughly miserable process and I never worked a minimum wage job where I was considered as disposable as I was as an undergrad psychology RA. The people I was surrounded with were mercilessly overworked and had serious mental health issues of their own brought on by the conditions in which they lived and worked. At least 50 percent of the other grad students were, shall I say, a bit hyper-competitive and and seemed to have a view of the world where anybody else's gain was their loss. I worked in maybe 6 labs across 3 universities, as well as interviewing at 5, and this seemed to be a rule and not an exception.

I remain fascinated by the field of clinical psych and still read new literature for personal interest, but I would definitely say that I am happier now and also make maybe $10,000 less than the average starting salary a clinical psychologist would make after 4 or 5 years of grad school. My point: Do this if it is good for you. Some people seemed to be very much in their element in the environment I've described; I was not. Do not pursue this if it is a goal, pursue it if you are totally in love with the process. One of the areas I published research in was Personality and Individual Differences, and I came away with a strong sense that humans have some permutation of traits that is beyond their control, and which they would do well to order their lives around highlighting. Listen to yourself and ask what world you would feel natural in, and go live there. There is a very large world outside this bubble and you'll be fine if you do end up cutting your losses and, quite possibly, parlaying your experience in academic psychology into something outside institutional academia.

Nonetheless, good luck with applications.

Sometimes I regret not pushing harder to get into a funded program, but a story like this makes me wonder if I am better off with the debt than the alternative which may have been out of reach anyway. Not to say that the proliferation of FSPS and rising student debt is a good thing, but just makes me think that there might be a middle ground we could work toward.

 

[Peacemaker36]

From what I understand, some of the original FSPSs were founded by counterculture folks rebelling against the (sometimes) toxic and cutthroat nature of academic psychology. I had an interesting talk with a senior psychologist once who graduated from a strong PhD program and then spent his career teaching at a FSPS and doing clinical work at an AMC. He had a pretty low opinion of the personalities of typical students coming out of top PhD programs.

I don't say this to be inflammatory. It's an angle that doesn't get discussed much here on SDN. I think it's worth mentioning. There are reasons for choosing a FSPS other than not wanting to do research.

 

[Pragma]

From what I understand, some of the original FSPSs were founded by counterculture folks rebelling against the (sometimes) toxic and cutthroat nature of academic psychology. I had an interesting talk with a senior psychologist once who graduated from a strong PhD program and then spent his career teaching at a FSPS and doing clinical work at an AMC. He had a pretty low opinion of the personalities of typical students coming out of top PhD programs.

I don't say this to be inflammatory. It's an angle that doesn't get discussed much here on SDN. I think it's worth mentioning. There are reasons for choosing a FSPS other than not wanting to do research.

How would he even know if he taught at a FSPS? Everyone is at least partially biased by their experiences.

 

[clinpsyc87]

How would he even know if he taught at a FSPS? Everyone is at least partially biased by their experiences.

It says he graduated from a PhD and so did most of his fellow professors. It was an evaluation of his colleagues, not students.

 

[Pragma]

So based on their cohort.

 

[bcliff]

.

 

[Peacemaker36]

I think he supervised students from a variety of programs at his AMC. But I'm not positive about that.

Of course I'm not saying he's right. I do think the cultures are so different from program to program. I have noticed some of what the OP mentions, particularly from a few of the so-called top programs in my area. That's why I think it is so important to feel that your school is a good fit. I loved mine, thankfully. Grad school was a great time in my life.

 

[smalltownpsych]

It's like politics - the problems tend to be found at the extremes. I have seen examples of both the over the top neurotic and out of touch academic types at top schools and the poorly trained clueless moonbeam therapy from the big FSPS's. Also, like politics, the dichotomous setup tends to polarize viewpoints as people join one camp or the other. I forget what the effect is called although I used to teach it where your biases are reinforced and made more extreme by associating with like-minded individuals. Extra credit for whoever gets the term without googling!

 

[modestmousktr]

I think it's nice to see this thread, and that you came back to post about how you're doing after making that decision. I think it's something that a lot of students struggle with, and it's wonderful you're doing and feeling well!

Would love to add one little comment... although many programs appear cutthroat and competitive, and are, some programs specifically go out of their way to discourage this. I receive less funding in my stipend now than I would have if I had attended a different doctoral program, but I adore the attitude of the faculty, the current students during interview day, and now that I'm there, my cohort. The typical "Type A", use you/abuse you, publish or perish, looking out for themselves students quickly find themselves feeling aloof and a bit alienated (although we do try to be friendly and explain why!). Anyway, I'm rambling because I'm procrastinating sleep, haha, but some programs really do make it a priority to seek out candidates who are NOT competitive for a friendlier work environment. And we still manage to get work done, somehow 😉

 

[Pragma]

I'd agree with the above poster. My PhD program downright discouraged competitive behavior between students. It was a collaborative and supportive environment and many of us are lifetime friends.

I contrast that to local FSPSs, where the few students I have spoken with describe no cooperation, backstabbing, and sabotage in the name of getting placements, passing quals, internship interviews, etc. I know most of that is the product of the broader context and oversupply of students from huge programs. But the differences with a small n are striking. That said, my program may have been more "middle of the road" in the frame of what smalltown described earlier.

I think a program's development of professional skills, communication, and self care has a lot to do with the quality and personalities of their faculty. Graduate school is a major growth opportunity, and it'd be sad to see it missed.

Happy holidays all.

 

[Nahsil]

I go to a humanistic program where there's very little if any competition. Also cheap/I've got full funding. It's nice 🙂 Masters though. We do have a PhD program but it's academic/non-clinical.

There are programs that encourage a different ethical viewpoint, for sure. I think psychology should be revolutionary, so ethics is near the top of my priorities. I can't imagine going to one of these cutthroat programs, but it's definitely the field I want to be in.

 

[erg923]

I go to a humanistic program where there's very little if any competition. Also cheap/I've got full funding. It's nice 🙂 Masters though. We do have a PhD program but it's academic/non-clinical.

There are programs that encourage a different ethical viewpoint, for sure. I think psychology should be revolutionary, so ethics is near the top of my priorities. I can't imagine going to one of these cutthroat programs, but it's definitely the field I want to be in.

I think collaboration is by and large good, but I hope we aren't demonizing "competition" here either. Competition drives innovation, creates talent (athletic and professional) and generally speaking, is the basis of our whole economy. I think that, beyond the physical health aspect, there is reason why youth sports are so popular and encouraged in this country.

 

[Nahsil]

to me (and my revolutionary sentiments), the competitive drive and its whole ideological underpinning (each of us as competing isolated, individual islands) is one of the biggest contributors to mental illness. I'm actually doing research for a paper right now on psychology and individualism. Looking at things like narrative therapy that try to get out of that individualist mindset/paradigm.

which isn't to say that competition is inherently bad or anything (same goes for individualism actually), just the way it's been valorized and taken up in this culture, as a value beyond many other values.

"Man's will to profit and will to power are natural and legitimate as long as they are tied to the will to human relations and carried by it. There is no evil drive until the drive detaches itself from our being; the drive that is wedded to and determined by our being is the plasma of communal life, while the detached drive spells its disintegration." Martin Buber

 

[smalltownpsych]

Our cohort had a few super-competitive academic types, a lot of middle of the road types, and a few who were iffy as far as being able to make the grade. The super competitive types were forced by the training process to tone it back and become more collaborative. The ones who struggled needed to learn to toughen up a bit. For most of us it was a mix of learning when to play well with others more and learning when to kick some a$$!

 

[erg923]

to me (and my revolutionary sentiments), the competitive drive and its whole ideological underpinning (each of us as competing isolated, individual islands) is one of the biggest contributors to mental illness. I'm actually doing research for a paper right now on psychology and individualism. Looking at things like narrative therapy that try to get out of that individualist mindset/paradigm.

which isn't to say that competition is inherently bad or anything (same goes for individualism actually), just the way it's been valorized and taken up in this culture, as a value beyond many other values.

"Man's will to profit and will to power are natural and legitimate as long as they are tied to the will to human relations and carried by it. There is no evil drive until the drive detaches itself from our being; the drive that is wedded to and determined by our being is the plasma of communal life, while the detached drive spells its disintegration." Martin Buber

High school Football made me better person...is my response to this. 🙂

 

[psych844]

High school Football made me better person...is my response to this. 🙂

That's a highly debatable statement. 😉

 

[bburr]

This is a good post

 

[Chalupacabra]

I think collaboration is by and large good, but I hope we aren't demonizing "competition" here either.

I think my master's program did this to an extent and it's the one major criticism I had of it. The real world is competitive. You will be competing with classmates for internships, postdocs and jobs. Teaching people how to be competitive without being a jerk is a valuable skill.

 

[Nahsil]

High school Football made me better person...is my response to this. 🙂

isn't bad in itself 😛 one of my best undergrad professors was a total hardass, and sometimes I miss being challenged in particular ways in a humanistic program. But I do think it underlines a pointed aspect of U.S./Western culture that causes problems for a lot of people...in its broader manifestations, in the economy/consumerism, in how we think of ourselves and others, etc.

 

[erg923]

Not sure what to think of a practicing psychologist making a statement that is purely subjective in response to an objective statement. Just knowing you think that football actually made you a better person, and didn't just make you one of the cool kids on campus, will make me take your future comments with a grain of salt, no offense.

Well, I guess you can think I'm human first and a psychologist second. No one is immune to subjective data and impressions, so you can go ahead and step off the high horse. The statement could have said a variety of sports, football was the personal example.

Teamwork/collaboration, competition, discipline, sacrifice, integrity, and the pushing of self and others toward a common goal are common factors among all youth sports. My son is 4, and I can see the benefits already. If you dont believe me, you can ask him.

I'm sure varsity letters were responsible for more than a few sexual advances I experienced during my high school days (I went to an all male high school though), so I will give you that. It also made me appealing to variety of colleges as well. 🙂

 

[erg923]

Erg,

IMO, that is all just hyped nonsense when it comes to team sports. You and I both know the starters and especially star players on the team became celebrities, and the non-starters ended up as meaningless and inconsequential as kids who never played. I'm glad you had a positive experience for yourself on a personal level, but "common factors" you cite about team sports are just more of your subjective personal experience, and seem to only be things adults cite after they have grown and need a reason to defend their subjective positive youth experiences because most kids do not benefit from team sports because most of them cannot play, and even the ones who do either feel largely left out or end up suffering from blown up egos.

Again, my opinion, but the "common factors" are not things you will find any high school football player talking about, unless given a sound bite by his coach that is.

And this is coming from a guy who has found the psychology profession to be an anti-male hyper feminized environment where even the hint of masculinity is seen as an evil to be extinguished, so I would love to agree with you, I just don't.

High horse comment taken into account and I will now dismount.

You never played competitive sports as a youth. You can go ahead and admit it.

 

[PsyDr]

One time I met Ron Jeremy out. We shared a drink. Shot the breeze, just about normal dude stuff (e.g., sports, hopes, dreams, vacations, politics). And then he started crying and telling me about how no one talked to him like a regular human being. Things got weirder from there.

My point? Those that do, don't need to talk about it.

Im off to make love to a model from Ohio whose real name I don't know.

Bonus points if you can recognize the quote

 

[bburr]

Erg,

IMO, that is all just hyped nonsense when it comes to team sports. You and I both know the starters and especially star players on the team became celebrities, and the non-starters ended up as meaningless and inconsequential as kids who never played. I'm glad you had a positive experience for yourself on a personal level, but "common factors" you cite about team sports are just more of your subjective personal experience, and seem to only be things adults cite after they have grown and need a reason to defend their subjective positive youth experiences because most kids do not benefit from team sports because most of them cannot play, and even the ones who do either feel largely left out or end up suffering from blown up egos.

Again, my opinion, but the "common factors" are not things you will find any high school football player talking about, unless given a sound bite by his coach that is.

And this is coming from a guy who has found the psychology profession to be an anti-male hyper feminized environment where even the hint of masculinity is seen as an evil to be extinguished, so I would love to agree with you, I just don't.

High horse comment taken into account and I will now dismount.

I'd like to see evidence that "most kids do not benefit from participating in team sports"? I don't fully understand how you can disregard the entire experience as meaningless and/or somewhat negative. I've found that one's experience is largely dependent on the context and the environment in which the sport is played. Your comment seems about as subjective as the comment you were responding to.

 

[erg923]

I'd like to see evidence that "most kids do not benefit from participating in team sports"? I don't fully understand how you can disregard the entire experience as meaningless and/or somewhat negative. I've found that one's experience is largely dependent on the context and the environment in which the sport is played. Your comment seems about as subjective as the comment you were responding to.

I think the translation is that he was not any good at them, thus he did not benefit. Of course, this misses the point of organized athletic engagement completely.

Oh, and subjective statements are just awful-what kind of psychologist are you...

 

[erg923]

to me (and my revolutionary sentiments), the competitive drive and its whole ideological underpinning (each of us as competing isolated, individual islands) is one of the biggest contributors to mental illness. I'm actually doing research for a paper right now on psychology and individualism. Looking at things like narrative therapy that try to get out of that individualist mindset/paradigm.

which isn't to say that competition is inherently bad or anything (same goes for individualism actually), just the way it's been valorized and taken up in this culture, as a value beyond many other values.

"Man's will to profit and will to power are natural and legitimate as long as they are tied to the will to human relations and carried by it. There is no evil drive until the drive detaches itself from our being; the drive that is wedded to and determined by our being is the plasma of communal life, while the detached drive spells its disintegration." Martin Buber

The competitive drive has been around since the dawn of man. I suppose we have a few natural drives/instincts that can become maladaptive, I'm not arguing that, bit I am at a loss as to what to do about it.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Erg,

IMO, that is all just hyped nonsense when it comes to team sports. You and I both know the starters and especially star players on the team became celebrities, and the non-starters ended up as meaningless and inconsequential as kids who never played. I'm glad you had a positive experience for yourself on a personal level, but "common factors" you cite about team sports are just more of your subjective personal experience, and seem to only be things adults cite after they have grown and need a reason to defend their subjective positive youth experiences because most kids do not benefit from team sports because most of them cannot play, and even the ones who do either feel largely left out or end up suffering from blown up egos.

Again, my opinion, but the "common factors" are not things you will find any high school football player talking about, unless given a sound bite by his coach that is.

And this is coming from a guy who has found the psychology profession to be an anti-male hyper feminized environment where even the hint of masculinity is seen as an evil to be extinguished, so I would love to agree with you, I just don't.

High horse comment taken into account and I will now dismount.

Most kids can't play sports? Why not? I work with kids and most play something. I also work with a bunch of kids who are involved in the arts. I have a few who are exceptional academically. Some of the kids also like to build stuff. The ones who really struggle are the ones who are not involved in anything. Maybe you went to some hateful high school where the star athletes were put on pedestals and everyone else was looked down on, but that is a completely different issue than to say team sports are not a beneficial endeavor.

I also believe that I grew from the experience of competition and was involved in both individual and team sports. I was never a star and sometimes even sat the bench. I definitely learned how to manage my emotions and think under pressure. I also leaned to persevere and I learned to withstand physical pain and to channel aggression.

One final note, it really is sort of ridiculous to think that humans could evolve past the need for competition since the whole foundation of evolution is competition. Probably the biggest aspect of human competition is the social stuff that the "non-popular" are losing. Trying to wish it away by saying that this is somehow "wrong" or "it shouldn't be that way" just feeds the frustrations of those who are losing the game. The teens I work with need to focus on how to build their own relationships more than they need to focus anger and frustration on the "evil popular kids".

 

[WisNeuro]

Ah, I missed you, SDN during my short vacation visiting family. I love how this thread devolved into some drivel about anti-team sports/popularity/societal norm bull****.

 

[erg923]

Ah, I missed you, SDN during my short vacation visiting family. I love how this thread devolved into some drivel about anti-team sports/popularity/societal norm bull****.

I'm offended. Please be "nicer"

 

[erg923]

Most kids can't play sports? Why not? I work with kids and most play something. I also work with a bunch of kids who are involved in the arts. I have a few who are exceptional academically. Some of the kids also like to build stuff. The ones who really struggle are the ones who are not involved in anything. Maybe you went to some hateful high school where the star athletes were put on pedestals and everyone else was looked down on, but that is a completely different issue than to say team sports are not a beneficial endeavor.

I also believe that I grew from the experience of competition and was involved in both individual and team sports. I was never a star and sometimes even sat the bench. I definitely learned how to manage my emotions and think under pressure. I also leaned to persevere and I learned to withstand physical pain and to channel aggression.

One final note, it really is sort of ridiculous to think that humans could evolve past the need for competition since the whole foundation of evolution is competition. Probably the biggest aspect of human competition is the social stuff that the "non-popular" are losing. Trying to wish it away by saying that this is somehow "wrong" or "it shouldn't be that way" just feeds the frustrations of those who are losing the game. The teens I work with need to focus on how to build their own relationships more than they need to focus anger and frustration on the "evil popular kids".

Well, I am admittedly curious what Nahsil means by "responsible for mental illness." I have to admit that sounds a bit silly to me, at least if we are using the same definition of mental illness. Is it responsible for criminal behavior? I can certainly see that.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm offended. Please be "nicer"

Oops, I forgot I was supposed to tell people that they could all be astronaut doctors who also play professional basketball if they just "want it" hard enough.

 

[bburr]

Sorry, missed this. And again if anyone who knows me knew I was the one using and defending feminist theory they would shat themselves, but that is what explains this. Not subjective at all, actually quite objective and well beyond my own thoughts. Isn't it even an accepted clinical orientation?

So no bburr, you're wrong.

I mean, just stating that "feminist theory" explains how "most kids do not benefit from participating in team sports" does not make it so. You'll have to give me a little more there for me to understand what you mean. Also, emotion regulation is a skill.

 

[erg923]

And more narcissistic subjective bull**** from the resident smoker. Feminism is not something I can stand up for, but feminist theory explains all of this perfectly. I am right, you are wrong, you are a keyboard warrior punk, end of thread.

My translation of everything you have said here? You are just another keyboard warrior who uses the internet to feel good about himself, since he would never run his mouth like this to someone's face. Supposed to work through that crap in grad school tough guy, you failed.

This is good post. Angry. Good linebacker **** talk material.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I never said any of what you are trying to imply I said. I only noted what is, not what should be. Big difference, surprised you don't see it.

You did say that most kids can't play sports and that only the star players benefit. That is what I was challenging and I also made an interpretation of what you meant by star players benefitting. It just sounded like you were conflating social
status with competitive sports.

I was also pointing out that kids participate in many organized and competitive activities besides sports and questioning how they are not beneficial. They sure seem to help the kids that I work with. Or is there something about sports in particular that makes them less beneficial?

Also, I'm not familiar with feminist theory as I am from a hetero cis male should be in charge of everything background.

 

[Nahsil]

competition has arguably taken on a different hue within certain socio-economic-political systems like modern industrial/post-industrial capitalism. I'd recommend Ian Parker's book Revolution in Psychology: From Alienation to Emancipation. Although, he's not kind to mainstream psychology so I don't expect anyone to like it 😉

 

[Ollie123]

I'm wildly unclear how feminist theory provides objective evidence that most people don't benefit from team sports. That seems equally or more ridiculous than erg's (presumably tongue-in-cheek) comment. I'm admittedly not an expert on it, but what I have read seems peripherally relevant to the topic at best. Furthermore - a theory is a theory and even properly applied (which I'm not convinced this was) is a long ways off from proof.

I imagine like everything else in our field, the picture is complicated. It likely depends on the comparison (team sports vs. no exercise -> team sports is good!; team sports vs. individual sports -> no difference?), a host of moderators (some kids benefit more than others) and context (self-selection vs. forced participation, emphasis of coaching, nature of social interaction outside the sports). Categorically accepting or rejecting anything seems silly.

The above can be generalized to my feelings about competition as a whole. Personally, I do much better in cooperative environments than competitive ones. I've been fortunate to train and work pretty exclusively in these types of environments (minus internship). Its been R1 academics across the board for me, so these places clearly exist. That said - I do think a lot depends on who you surround yourself with. There are many subcultures within universities and often even subcultures within departments (particularly larger ones).

 

[Nahsil]

I'm familiar with some feminist theory and I'm not sure what's being talked about either.