Originally posted by ZanMD
Ok I'm not even in psych yet and I can field this one.
This is the inherent difference between physical science and social sciences. Physics is quantitative. you can observe protons quarks and other phenomenon at any time of your choosing. Behavioral science is dependant upon the human variable, which at times is unquantifiable. It's situational, and dependant upon the manifestation of circumstance to be utilized.
In other words, you can pull a slide under the old electron microscrope anytime, but you have to observe human reaction and interaction to make an observation. And that is dependant upon the human being, not on an inanimate object which you have control over. In many ways it's more challenging, and requires more patience. If you want an answer in physics, you just bang out a few equations and have your answer. If you want answers in psychology, you wait, and observe.
Any other psych majors wanna back me on this?
I'll back you on this. This was precisely my point. I didn't say the BSing was easy; I said that it wasn't necessarily honest, and that the best grades don't necessarily go the the smartest or the hardest workers. That non-quantifiable aspect is what opens the door to subjectivity, and that subjectivity is what invites BS artists.
Psych doesn't make you think. Neither does physics, or underwaterbasket weaving, or poli sci, or philosophy.
You make yourself think. You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him think. Any major will allow you to go through as a regurgiatator, because regurgitation is easy to grade, and your check will still clear. That's the education business. If you want to do some thinking in college, then the major you select doesn't matter--all that matters is the attitude you take in regards to your field. You can do a great deal of thinking and a great deal of real-life application in any field.
If you didn't do any thinking in your chemistry class, it's because you didn't apply your skills of analysis. I personally have been grilled by many professors, where they have asked my to explain what I did in an experiment, why I did what I did, and what I might expect if I were to change a parameter. If you approach this through memorization, you're going about it the hard way.
But what I like about chem, bio, physics, and engineering is taht these classes give me the opportunity to walk out saying, "I know this, not because I read it in a book or because someone told me, but because I have personally observed it to be true." As a PhD, you can do this with psych, but not as an undergrad. An undergrd in one of these above mentioned fields has that opportunity. I've personally observed organic synthesis tested by MP, IR, NMR, refractive index, and GC. I've observed trends in solubility, viscosity, porosity, rates of radio active decay, rates of reaction with temperature, melting points with purity, electron deflection by magnetic fields, material strength with changes in annealing temperature, and respiration with variation in light exposure of homeotrophs. I've done fly labs. I've designed dozens of experiments. I've built and tested electrical circuits. I've designed and debugged programs. I've done RT-PCR, immunofluorescence staining, protein quantification, Western blots, tissue culturing, and gel electrophoresis. I've measured the speeds of light and sound. I've dissected numerous animals and plants. I have learned through my senses, and that has been the most valuable part of my college experience.
Psychology is innately limited with the degree to which you can actually engage in experiments as an undergrad due to ethics. This is why I think that the above mentioned science convey an advantage when learned in school, while there is little that a school can offer psych majors that a book cannot offer just as well.
