Psychology Today: Student Debt as a Moral Issue

[JeyRo]

---

Members do not see this ad.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201208/student-debt-moral-issue

Written by clinical psychologist and Otterbein College psychology professor Norm Shpancer.

 

[wigflip]

I appreciated the post, and liked the sentiment in the title. But I stopped reading after paragraph 3 because I felt like his initial framing of the issue was a bit naive (assertions that uni degree is still passport to the middle class, supply and demand frame for tuition hikes), and ignored the debates and discussions that have been prevalent in recent years on these very issues (NYT, The Chronicle of Higher Education, etc.).

 

[Pragma]

I appreciated the post, and liked the sentiment in the title. But I stopped reading after paragraph 3 because I felt like his initial framing of the issue was a bit naive (assertions that uni degree is still passport to the middle class, supply and demand frame for tuition hikes), and ignored the debates and discussions that have been prevalent in recent years on these very issues (NYT, The Chronicle of Higher Education, etc.).

🙄 It's not exactly a long article...

 

[Sanman]

Well,

I think that there does need to be more transparency for students when is comes to college and higher education. Perhaps, to steal a bit from one of the article commenters, there needs to be an online calculator that gives a prospective student the cost of their education on a standard repayment plan and approximate monthly payments that they will owe. It will give people who have no real idea how much they are spending a clue as to what they will need. I think though that we are likely already too late and this is an education that should have taken place years ago. The truth in that article was in the following paragraph:

"You can probably guess why that is. Private liberal arts universities like mine are tuition-driven. We need that money to survive. Moreover, money matters in the US are private and personal. Adult Americans such as our students are entitled to act however they want with regard to their money. Americans, it is a well established fact, are entitled to do dumb things with their money. And they often take spectacular advantage of that entitlement."

At the end of the day, no one can save someone from themselves. People need to think more about the right financial decision for themselves rather than following the crowd. While I have heard the comments of an education being the ticket to better earnings, U have not heard the numbers that tell you when the numbers stop paying off. That comment is never on the news when some local news caster reads the line 'Reasechers say that a college degree is still the key to higher earnings' or something similar.

That, I feel, is why there is so much talk about salary here. However, people wll always hold on to the hope that they will be the one with the above average job rather than believing that they are going into debt for the average or below average job. At the end of the day, accepting that you will likely be average is something that needs to happen more here and for many people in American society.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

I also think a huge part of the issue is that an 18 y.o. fresh out of high school can commit to a lot of debt without understanding it no matter how much you explain it to them. Even if you are clear with them about monthly payments, they are likely to overestimate their future income and underestimate the expenses associated with being out on their own. This is why credit cards love to target college students. In life sometimes you have to make your own mistakes to learn things. Unfortunately, the consequences of such mistakes can be significant.

Dr. E

 

[Pragma]

I do think that student loan debt is a moral issue.

The fact that we give easy access to over 100K in federal loans to 18 year-olds (who's frontal lobes are still cooking) without anything more than an online counseling session is probably the bigger issue here.

Why anyone would waste such a large amount of money going to a small, expensive liberal arts school for their undergraduate degree makes no sense to me. Those institutions are the ones that need a reality-check - don't offer degrees in basket-weaving that cost $120,000.

While it is someone's individual decision about where to go for college and for what, Universities ought to be realistic about their degree offerings. If the Universities themselves were waiting on students to pay them back (and not getting paid up front by the feds), do you think they'd be handling things differently?

 

[ChildhoodAlumni]

Anyone who doesn't believe that higher education is the next "bubble" isn't paying attention.

 

[ChildhoodAlumni]

I went to a reputable university and majored in psychology:

I was in the honors program, I had 2+ years of volunteer research experience in two different laboratories, presented multiple posters at major conventions, I have an honors thesis that is soon to be published, I graduated summa cum laude, and have multiple famous professors listed as my references...The list goes on and on, I thought I was top notch...I wasn't ****.

It took me so long to find a job that pays 28k, and I feel DEEPLY grateful that I found a job, and that it pays that much, as I'm in tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

I can't imagine the plight of the average run-of-the-mill psychology major as they look for work.

I think this is the generation that breaks the "higher education is THE ticket to the upper middle-class" cliche. The 30-90 thousand dollars in debt that you've accrued while majoring in women's studies, psychology, sociology, African-American studies, philosophy, anthropology...etc...etc...is simply NOT worth it. Sorry.

It's just disheartening to know that if I would have majored in finance or something I would be walking out of undergrad making at LEAST 50k. I wish I could go back to my naive, idealistic, 18-year old self and punch him in the face and tell him to do something more practical lol

I'm also a little annoyed at the protests going on at my school about how education is a "right." I'm not so sure about that. I'm not so sure why the government should pay 100k for your college experience while you major in women's studies...I think another big problem is that a lot of people are majoring in pretty USELESS majors, psychology not excluded lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wGWNnVWXdc

I could talk about this stuff for hours, such an interesting and important issue.

 

[ChildhoodAlumni]

Another great Bill Maher clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t50P1__1l9o

It's great that he attacks psychology 🙂

 

[Pragma]

It took me so long to find a job that pays 28k, and I feel DEEPLY grateful that I found a job, and that it pays that much, as I'm in tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

It's just disheartening to know that if I would have majored in finance or something I would be walking out of undergrad making at LEAST 50k. I wish I could go back to my naive, idealistic, 18-year old self and punch him in the face and tell him to do something more practical lol.

That sounds about right for an entry level job with a bachelor's degree in psychology. Some people may do a little better (I was making in the low 40's before I applied for grad school).

I wouldn't assume that a business or finance degree is a ticket to that type of starting salary you are mentioning. I've known some folks that started at a bit less entry-level as well (30-40K). For example, my wife has a business degree and her first job out of college only paid low 30's. But raises and bonuses and promotions (with more raises) sure seem to come frequently in that industry.

 

[cara susanna]

I went to a reputable university and majored in psychology:

I was in the honors program, I had 2+ years of volunteer research experience in two different laboratories, presented multiple posters at major conventions, I have an honors thesis that is soon to be published, I graduated summa cum laude, and have multiple famous professors listed as my references...The list goes on and on, I thought I was top notch...I wasn't ****.

It took me so long to find a job that pays 28k, and I feel DEEPLY grateful that I found a job, and that it pays that much, as I'm in tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

I can't imagine the plight of the average run-of-the-mill psychology major as they look for work.

I think this is the generation that breaks the "higher education is THE ticket to the upper middle-class" cliche. The 30-90 thousand dollars in debt that you've accrued while majoring in women's studies, psychology, sociology, African-American studies, philosophy, anthropology...etc...etc...is simply NOT worth it. Sorry.

It's just disheartening to know that if I would have majored in finance or something I would be walking out of undergrad making at LEAST 50k. I wish I could go back to my naive, idealistic, 18-year old self and punch him in the face and tell him to do something more practical lol

I'm also a little annoyed at the protests going on at my school about how education is a "right." I'm not so sure about that. I'm not so sure why the government should pay 100k for your college experience while you major in women's studies...I think another big problem is that a lot of people are majoring in pretty USELESS majors, psychology not excluded lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wGWNnVWXdc

I could talk about this stuff for hours, such an interesting and important issue.

First off, can I ask what your job is?

Second off, most people who major in psych should accept the fact that they'll have to attend grad school.

Third, a lot of the majors Maher is talking about are actually struggling as well. Engineering is one example. Physical sciences isn't exactly doing great, either.

 

[Pragma]

First off, can I ask what your job is?

Second off, most people who major in psych should accept the fact that they'll have to attend grad school.

I am not sure if this information is still accurate, but I recall hearing folks speak at my UG Psi Chi meetings that said 80% of psychology majors don't go into psychology.

So while I agree that if you want to do much in psychology, graduate school is a necessary path, I don't agree with a blanket statement. I've heard of folks going into HR, business/sales, teaching, etc.

Really, undergraduate degrees don't seem to mean a lot these days, at least from my perspective (as long as you have one). After you have a degree, it is all about who has the skills and talent to get the job done. Sadly, an undergraduate degree does not guarantee skills or talent (if the student doesn't work hard), which is another reason that I think it is stupid to pay a lot of money for it.

 

[cara susanna]

I think it'd be nice if there were more information on what you can do with a psych bachelors outside of psychology. My school didn't provide a lot of guidance in that respect.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I'm also a little annoyed at the protests going on at my school about how education is a "right." I'm not so sure about that. I'm not so sure why the government should pay 100k for your college experience while you major in women's studies...I think another big problem is that a lot of people are majoring in pretty USELESS majors, psychology not excluded lol

My opinion is that while education might perhaps be a right to some extent, attending an uber-expensive private college certainly isn't. It's very possible to attend a state university and pay a tenth (or less, with in-state scholarships) of what you would at a private school, all the while earning the same degree and (if you apply yourself) attaining a largely-comparable education.

Let me also say that by "education," I don't strictly mean four-year undergrad programs. I think there's a lot to be said for technical and trade schools, formal apprenticeships, and the like. Just today, I overheard an acquaintance at the gym saying that at his power company, half of all the skilled laborers were in line to retire within the next 10-15 years. I strongly feel that this type of training and work gets short shrift at the earlier levels of education (particularly high school), and that far too much time as been spent pushing kids who might not enjoy, be right for, or be interested in a four-year college in that direction.

As for useless majors, I would imagine that many, many people (not just psychology students) go on to work in a field that's barely if at all related to their major. I know probably a half-dozen friends from my school alone who majored in finance and went on to work primarily in IT, for example. There are definitely degrees that better-prepare you to directly enter the workforce than psychology, but that's not to say a psych degree is worthless.

 

[JeyRo]

My opinion is that while education might perhaps be a right to some extent, attending an uber-expensive private college certainly isn't. It's very possible to attend a state university and pay a tenth (or less, with in-state scholarships) of what you would at a private school, all the while earning the same degree and (if you apply yourself) attaining a largely-comparable education.

You can probably get a (say) an MBA from no-name state school in some-random-midwestern-state that's of comparable quality to an MBA from Harvard or Whorton. However, people don't go to the uber-expensive private or Ivy League schools for the quality classes only - they go for the connections. The Harvard alumni and faculty can deliver a powerful social network of industry and business connections. The Reed College alumni and faculty can deliver the same kind of powerful academic network. Some random state school, not so much.

 

[Pragma]

You can probably get a (say) an MBA from no-name state school in some-random-midwestern-state that's of comparable quality to an MBA from Harvard or Whorton. However, people don't go to the uber-expensive private or Ivy League schools for the quality classes only - they go for the connections. The Harvard alumni and faculty can deliver a powerful social network of industry and business connections. The Reed College alumni and faculty can deliver the same kind of powerful academic network. Some random state school, not so much.

No, but is that what you are paying for?

The state school might have solid local connections.

 

[FadedC]

I guess the question is whether they are going into those fields because they have a psych undergraduate degree, or despite it. At least when I was in undergrad, the degree that people got in school didn't necesarily have much relation to the job they got when they graduated. It didn't matter if their degree was in psychology, economics, chemistry or English, if they weren't going to grad school, then they just found whatever job was hiring recent college graduates and worked there.

I am not sure if this information is still accurate, but I recall hearing folks speak at my UG Psi Chi meetings that said 80% of psychology majors don't go into psychology.

So while I agree that if you want to do much in psychology, graduate school is a necessary path, I don't agree with a blanket statement. I've heard of folks going into HR, business/sales, teaching, etc.

Really, undergraduate degrees don't seem to mean a lot these days, at least from my perspective (as long as you have one). After you have a degree, it is all about who has the skills and talent to get the job done. Sadly, an undergraduate degree does not guarantee skills or talent (if the student doesn't work hard), which is another reason that I think it is stupid to pay a lot of money for it.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

No, but is that what you are paying for?

The state school might have solid local connections.

That would be my response, yes. I do of course realize that many people attend expensive private schools for reasons other than "just" the education, with networking opportunities being foremost among them. But at the same time, given the sheer size of many public undergraduate schools, the networking offered through them isn't exactly shabby, either. Heck, I attended both types of schools (insanely private and small; very large and public) for undergrad, and at least in my own experience, for the truly invested and proactive student, the overall level of various opportunities was relatively equal.

Edit: At the same time, an MBA is a unique beast, where the price difference between Wharton and the business school at State U might not actually be all that great. Additionally, I'd make the argument that much like law school, for an MBA, both where you attended and whom you met while attending are of a much greater degree of importance than would be the case for the average undergraduate student.

 

[ChildhoodAlumni]

Let me also say that by "education," I don't strictly mean four-year undergrad programs. I think there's a lot to be said for technical and trade schools, formal apprenticeships, and the like. Just today, I overheard an acquaintance at the gym saying that at his power company, half of all the skilled laborers were in line to retire within the next 10-15 years. I strongly feel that this type of training and work gets short shrift at the earlier levels of education (particularly high school), and that far too much time as been spent pushing kids who might not enjoy, be right for, or be interested in a four-year college in that direction.

A fantastic point. I think that's the direction of the future, and with good reason.

Technical and trade schools are so inexpensive, practical, and useful. I watched a report on 20/20 that interviewed a host of kids who were in 100k+ debt from private colleges with degrees in fields like, well, psychology, who were working for 10-11 dollars an hour with NO idea how they would ever pay back their loans. Almost ALL of them wished they could go back in time and go to a trade/technical school. I think the biggest thing is to encourage kids to not major in STUPID majors! I know it sounds harsh but I just think that's what it comes down to. So many kids in my psychology classes had NO plans (or the grades) to go to graduate school. I just don't know what they will do with their lives.

It's funny though because you have these idealistic humanities professors who believe so strongly in "learning for learning's sake" and expanding critical thinking through a broad liberal-arts based education with a host of classes that don't relate to peoples career goals in the slightest. But I think it's time to really evaluate whether it's fair to the professors or the students to have these kids pay 3-5k to take a general education REQUIRED class where 90 percent of the class just reads the Spark-notes on the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Odyssey or some ****.

Another really interesting thing to me is the Two Cultures and our focus on the humanities over the sciences in our educational system which is also reflected in peoples majors choices and the lack of skilled American workers in the STEM field where there are a TON of OPEN jobs right now, but NOBODY in America qualified to fill them. I think I had a different experience than some of the people one here, I never had any friends in finance, or anything practical. I went to a large urban campus with more of a bohemian culture, so like 90% of my friends majored in creative writing or philosophy or some ****, and it's just so bizarre. But the statistics are real that Bill's talking about, we graduated 100,000 dance performance majors last year and like 30,000 engineers/computer science people. Is this an unintended consequence of a society where every kid thinks that they're a special snowflake?

A great clip about the Two Cultures:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX7csqVBzQE

I have a bunch of jumbled thoughts about higher education, but they're not very clear. I don't know exactly what's going on, but I do know one thing. There's something not quite right about the way it's going, it's not going to be sustainable. Something is wrong with it.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

A fantastic point. I think that's the direction of the future, and with good reason.

Technical and trade schools are so inexpensive, practical, and useful. I watched a report on 20/20 that interviewed a host of kids who were in 100k+ debt from private colleges with degrees in fields like, well, psychology, who were working for 10-11 dollars an hour with NO idea how they would ever pay back their loans. Almost ALL of them wished they could go back in time and go to a trade/technical school. I think the biggest thing is to encourage kids to not major in STUPID majors!

It's funny though because you have these idealistic humanities professors who believe so strongly in "learning for learning's sake" and expanding critical thinking through a broad liberal-arts based education with a host of classes that don't relate to peoples career goals in the slightest.

I went to a large urban campus with more of a bohemian culture, so like 90% of my friends majored in creative writing or philosophy or some ****, and it's just so bizarre. But the statistics are real that Bill's talking about, we graduated 100,000 dance performance majors last year and like 30,000 engineers/computer science people. Is this an unintended consequence of a society where every kid thinks that they're a special snowflake?

I agree with you in many ways, especially in regards to the value of trade school. In a free enterprise system, skills win, hands down. I'm conflicted, though, because I don't necessarily think that a humanities degree, for example, is a totally useless **** degree. Okay, so the degree isn't the square peg for the square hole, but I get sad thinking about a world that is devoid of humanities and arts--which is what we will be if we only value degrees and education that are profitable in a market economy. It just makes me sad. I also think there is great value in a well-rounded education, so that we're not teaching our populous to be automatons but rather independent thinkers and citizens. I would hope that there is a good mix that can be had here. I personally think that getting a bachelor's degree + attending a trade school can be a great experience. I did that, before deciding on graduate school (which, thankfully, I could attend much easier with an UG degree), and it lead to many opportunities. Kids with psych, communications, or humanities degrees would do well to learn a trade after they graduate--or even before, in order to fund their undergraduate education. I saw many people do that. There are so many options. I think this board can be a little narrow because so many college graduates only know college graduates and don't see the other options. But, they are there.

 

[mewtoo]

Another really interesting thing to me is the Two Cultures and our focus on the humanities over the sciences in our educational system which is also reflected in peoples majors choices and the lack of skilled American workers in the STEM field where there are a TON of OPEN jobs right now, but NOBODY in America qualified to fill them. I think I had a different experience than some of the people one here, I never had any friends in finance, or anything practical. I went to a large urban campus with more of a bohemian culture, so like 90% of my friends majored in creative writing or philosophy or some ****, and it's just so bizarre. But the statistics are real that Bill's talking about, we graduated 100,000 dance performance majors last year and like 30,000 engineers/computer science people. Is this an unintended consequence of a society where every kid thinks that they're a special snowflake?

There are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many reasons for the gap in STEM majors. It starts all the way back in elementary school with science not being taught enough and advanced math not being taught soon enough. I know, personally, from seeing my sister (who is entering the 4th grade) and the work she would bring home. Her class has been going over basic math skills for the past 2 years and the extent of the science she has learned is the name of the planets and a some extremely basic anatomy (like, this is your eye not- this is your cornea and optical nerve, etc.). This kind of stuff goes on until you graduate high school.

Then you get dumped off in college and the ones that haven't already been turned off of STEM subjects go into classes like biology or chemistry and have to work really hard for a C while their creative writing or criminal justice major friends got to party and get an A. I personally know, as a former bio major, that its very discouraging. The average GPA of a STEM major is much lower than that of "easy" majors like education or english. I had to work very hard in my biology and chemistry classes to get a C (which was actually higher than the average grade!). Its very discouraging when in a class of 60 only 2 people get an A, 4 people get a B, 12 get a C, and the rest failed. That's a real example too. That is what happened in my Introduction to Cellular and Molecular biology class which is the first class you take as a bio major! I was one of the lucky 4 that got a B and I worked my ass off to get it. Waaaaaaay harder than I have for any of my psych classes (which I have a 3.99 gpa in, BTW, versus my 2.8 bio gpa). One of the reasons I switched to majoring in psychology is because I actually felt like I was getting payoff for my work. When you are spending night and day studying for a class and only get a C it feels like you might as well give up. I have many STEM major friends that feel the same way. Most of them have changed majors to something easier too (a large amount to psych, specifically). Many people don't think about how much harder STEM classes are than things in the humanities and I've noticed that programs (at least in clinical psychology) don't take this sort of stuff into consideration when looking at applicants. Yeah, sure I have a lower GPA than the average applicant, but how many of these applicants have a BA and a minor is something like sociology or english versus my BS with a minor in biology? I would have a 3.7 gpa too if I minored in women's studies. 🙄 I'm not saying to make STEM classes easier by my rant, but rather make all majors more on a level playing field. I think if they brought up other fields of study to anywhere near the hardness of a STEM major there may be less attrition or just deflate the grades for easy majors. Yeah, I know, I know that's never going to happen. 😛

There is a very interesting news article about this phenomena:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-37241878/5-hardest-and-easiest-college-majors-by-gpas/

Also see: "Science and math is haaaaaaaaaaaaaard," said by everyone everywhere to children since birth.

Edit: Oh, and I just wanted to add- did you know psychology is actually considered a STEM major?

 

[Pragma]

I agree with you in many ways, especially in regards to the value of trade school. In a free enterprise system, skills win, hands down. I'm conflicted, though, because I don't necessarily think that a humanities degree, for example, is a totally useless **** degree. Okay, so the degree isn't the square peg for the square hole, but I get sad thinking about a world that is devoid of humanities and arts--which is what we will be if we only value degrees and education that are profitable in a market economy. It just makes me sad. I also think there is great value in a well-rounded education, so that we're not teaching our populous to be automatons but rather independent thinkers and citizens. I would hope that there is a good mix that can be had here. I personally think that getting a bachelor's degree + attending a trade school can be a great experience. I did that, before deciding on graduate school (which, thankfully, I could attend much easier with an UG degree), and it lead to many opportunities. Kids with psych, communications, or humanities degrees would do well to learn a trade after they graduate--or even before, in order to fund their undergraduate education. I saw many people do that. There are so many options. I think this board can be a little narrow because so many college graduates only know college graduates and don't see the other options. But, they are there.

Trade school is fabulous. The era of "you can be anything you want to be" has come to fruition in the form of these disparate numbers. It's not to say that people shouldn't major in the humanities or other "worthless" degrees. It's just that given a choice, most people would pick something like dance performance over mathematics, and that doesn't add up in the job market. I know I'd prefer to sit at home and read rather than calibrate machines on the graveyard shift, but sadly some of us are going to have to do those other jobs.

I am very interested in how things work out for this generation. As an educator, I try to stay focused on the practical application of things for students, but I am not sure if I can say the same thing for a lot of other educators.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

There is a very interesting news article about this phenomena:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-37241878/5-hardest-and-easiest-college-majors-by-gpas/

Also see: "Science and math is haaaaaaaaaaaaaard," said by everyone everywhere to children since birth.

Edit: Oh, and I just wanted to add- did you know psychology is actually considered a STEM major?

I did find it interesting that psychology was listed in the "5 lowest GPAs" category. Then again, all the data is from a single university.

 

[Rivi]

Trade school is fabulous.

Agreed. In my experience, education was pushed strongly by family, teachers, etc. yet trade school was never really mentioned, and it seemed to be looked down upon. There are certainly problems with trade schools, but they provide the best return on your investment (in many cases).

There is a lot of good discussion in this thread thus far. As far as the "special snowflake" theories, I think that really puts the blame on "kids these days" when most of the blame lies elsewhere. Universities have created numerous "attractive" majors without collecting or publishing data on employment, etc. to help students make informed decisions.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Agreed. In my experience, education was pushed strongly by family, teachers, etc. yet trade school was never really mentioned, and it seemed to be looked down upon. There are certainly problems with trade schools, but they provide the best return on your investment.

In the back of my mind previously, I was thinking that this was a class issue. It really is. If trade school is looked down upon in some families and cliques, yet in others it is the way of the land (in one part of my family, there are no college graduates and an abundance of technical school--working class family), it means that we are now in a place where people value something that isn't guaranteed to perpetuate their class status or economic security. Fascinating!

 

[Doctor Eliza]

Then you get dumped off in college and the ones that haven't already been turned off of STEM subjects go into classes like biology or chemistry and have to work really hard for a C while their creative writing or criminal justice major friends got to party and get an A. I personally know, as a former bio major, that its very discouraging. The average GPA of a STEM major is much lower than that of "easy" majors like education or english. I had to work very hard in my biology and chemistry classes to get a C (which was actually higher than the average grade!). Its very discouraging when in a class of 60 only 2 people get an A, 4 people get a B, 12 get a C, and the rest failed. That's a real example too. That is what happened in my Introduction to Cellular and Molecular biology class which is the first class you take as a bio major! I was one of the lucky 4 that got a B and I worked my ass off to get it. Waaaaaaay harder than I have for any of my psych classes (which I have a 3.99 gpa in, BTW, versus my 2.8 bio gpa). One of the reasons I switched to majoring in psychology is because I actually felt like I was getting payoff for my work. When you are spending night and day studying for a class and only get a C it feels like you might as well give up. I have many STEM major friends that feel the same way. Most of them have changed majors to something easier too (a large amount to psych, specifically). Many people don't think about how much harder STEM classes are than things in the humanities and I've noticed that programs (at least in clinical psychology) don't take this sort of stuff into consideration when looking at applicants. Yeah, sure I have a lower GPA than the average applicant, but how many of these applicants have a BA and a minor is something like sociology or english versus my BS with a minor in biology? I would have a 3.7 gpa too if I minored in women's studies. 🙄 I'm not saying to make STEM classes easier by my rant, but rather make all majors more on a level playing field. I think if they brought up other fields of study to anywhere near the hardness of a STEM major there may be less attrition or just deflate the grades for easy majors. Yeah, I know, I know that's never going to happen. 😛

I think you are over-simplifying here. And devaluing your own field!! A big part of whether a major is hard or easy for you has to do with fit for your own talents. For example, when i was an UG, several of my engineering and computer science buddies decided to take abnormal psych with me to fulfill a requirement. They were brilliant people, but while I was acing every test, they were getting C's!

Different subject areas have different attitudes toward grading. This is particularly true of majors where they want to "weed out" students. I will buy into the idea that majors like bio have lower GPA's, but i also think that grad schools are aware of this trend.

Have pride in your field. Not just anyone can succeed in this career.

Best,
Dr. E

P.S. I absolutely agree that what is happening in grades K-12 is hugely problematic. Teaching kids only to pass standardized tests will be the undoing of this country.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

No, but is that what you are paying for?

The state school might have solid local connections.

I think a big consideration with regard to connections is what sort of field you want to go into. I went to an expensive, medium-sized, competitive undergrad with fiercely loyal alumni. I have no doubt that I could have benefited from this if I did not go straight to grad school. We had many students who got good generic business jobs based on connections and the school's name. On the other hand, I did grad school at a huge state school. From what I saw of the UG's there, there were some opportunities for connections (e.g., active alumni clubs and listserves), but you had to fight a little harder to get noticed and put a lot of effort.

However, with regard to a future in clinical psychology grad school, I was in a much, much better position to apply than the UG's at the state school where I got my PhD. In undergrad, my classes were taught by professors. They knew me and I knew them. i worked closely with professors in their labs and they had a good basis for writing my letters of rec. The profs and the psych adviser were able to give me good advice about applying to grad school. At the state school, many of even the very talented UG's didn't know 3 psych profs well enough to ask for letters. Their info on grad school came almost exclusively from us grad students. Many of those guys ended up doing an RA for a year or two and got to grad school eventually, but I certainly had an easier path.

I had a wonderful undergrad experience and wouldn't trade it for anything. It provided me with a good education and good opportunities. It was also probably a little cushy and we were pretty spoiled by a lot of bells and whistles (fancy facilities and such). That said, it would not have been a wise decision if I personally had to pay for it. It is a balancing act for sure.

Best,
Dr. E

 

[dumbledoresgirl]

I agree with you in many ways, especially in regards to the value of trade school. In a free enterprise system, skills win, hands down. I'm conflicted, though, because I don't necessarily think that a humanities degree, for example, is a totally useless **** degree. Okay, so the degree isn't the square peg for the square hole, but I get sad thinking about a world that is devoid of humanities and arts--which is what we will be if we only value degrees and education that are profitable in a market economy. It just makes me sad. I also think there is great value in a well-rounded education, so that we're not teaching our populous to be automatons but rather independent thinkers and citizens. I would hope that there is a good mix that can be had here. I personally think that getting a bachelor's degree + attending a trade school can be a great experience. I did that, before deciding on graduate school (which, thankfully, I could attend much easier with an UG degree), and it lead to many opportunities. Kids with psych, communications, or humanities degrees would do well to learn a trade after they graduate--or even before, in order to fund their undergraduate education. I saw many people do that. There are so many options. I think this board can be a little narrow because so many college graduates only know college graduates and don't see the other options. But, they are there.

+1 👍

 

[Pragma]

However, with regard to a future in clinical psychology grad school, I was in a much, much better position to apply than the UG's at the state school where I got my PhD. In undergrad, my classes were taught by professors. They knew me and I knew them. i worked closely with professors in their labs and they had a good basis for writing my letters of rec. The profs and the psych adviser were able to give me good advice about applying to grad school. At the state school, many of even the very talented UG's didn't know 3 psych profs well enough to ask for letters. Their info on grad school came almost exclusively from us grad students. Many of those guys ended up doing an RA for a year or two and got to grad school eventually, but I certainly had an easier path.

I had a wonderful undergrad experience and wouldn't trade it for anything. It provided me with a good education and good opportunities. It was also probably a little cushy and we were pretty spoiled by a lot of bells and whistles (fancy facilities and such). That said, it would not have been a wise decision if I personally had to pay for it. It is a balancing act for sure.

Best,
Dr. E

I went to a huge state school for undergrad and had all of the things you said you had at your school. One did have to be proactive, but I did not see any barriers. On the contrary, my institution had lots of resources for research. I got exposed to a lot of great methods and had good opportunities to publish. I had professors and psychology advisors attend my wedding...letters were plenty personal.

I got into a PhD program first try. Before I applied, I used my state school connections to get a good job after graduating.

At the expensive private school 5 minutes away, there was much less available for research. I had a lot of friends that went there. They paid more than triple what I paid. Not all of them even used "connections."

My wife went there and we have been paying those loans for years. She got into a great industry, but it had nothing to do with school connections. Just friend connections.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

On the contrary, my institution had lots of resources for research. I got exposed to a lot of great methods and had good opportunities to publish

I did want to say that I highly agree with this part of the post. I was lucky and my school had psychology doctoral programs in a number of areas (including clinical) so I had research opportunities. However, smaller private schools might not have such opportunities available. I might look less fondly on my education if I hadn't had good lab experiences.

I also agree with the idea you expressed that, in the end, any school is what you make of it. All the connections in the world won't help if you don't tap into them.

Best,
Dr. E

 

[Pragma]

I also agree with the idea you expressed that, in the end, any school is what you make of it. All the connections in the world won't help if you don't tap into them.

Best,
Dr. E

Oh I definitely agree. I think it is easier to get lost in the crowd at a larger institution, so you do have to make your efforts to get to know profs, etc. Maybe I was lucky that mine were so personable and inclusive, as I am sure that isn't the case everywhere.

I am not completely down on private schools for undergrad. I just think that, if mommy and daddy aren't paying for it, it is a waste of $ (particularly if you intend to go to graduate school).

My parents and I had that conversation early on. While I was enamored with the idea of going to Harvard, it seemed pretty clear to me that since I wanted to do graduate school, it was a better to save on costs. I would never had done it a different way, and I'll have the same conversation with my kids. (Well, hopefully since I am a prof myself now, I'll get a big discount for them).

Part of my bias against expensive UG education is because I have seen firsthand people struggle to pay their loans. It might be one thing if you are going into an industry where the salary outlook is pretty good (investment bankers I know are doing just fine), but the folks I knew who got social science degrees are very restricted by their UG loan payments.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Oh I definitely agree. I think it is easier to get lost in the crowd at a larger institution, so you do have to make your efforts to get to know profs, etc. Maybe I was lucky that mine were so personable and inclusive, as I am sure that isn't the case everywhere.

I am not completely down on private schools for undergrad. I just think that, if mommy and daddy aren't paying for it, it is a waste of $ (particularly if you intend to go to graduate school).

My parents and I had that conversation early on. While I was enamored with the idea of going to Harvard, it seemed pretty clear to me that since I wanted to do graduate school, it was a better to save on costs. I would never had done it a different way, and I'll have the same conversation with my kids. (Well, hopefully since I am a prof myself now, I'll get a big discount for them).

Part of my bias against expensive UG education is because I have seen firsthand people struggle to pay their loans. It might be one thing if you are going into an industry where the salary outlook is pretty good (investment bankers I know are doing just fine), but the folks I knew who got social science degrees are very restricted by their UG loan payments.

I would agree. I don't have anything at all against small, private, "upper-tier" undergrad schools (heck, as I mentioned above, I attended one myself for part of my education). But perhaps because of my experiences there and at a large state school, I just can't justify spending that much money for a bachelors in the majority of situations, particularly given that many public institutions are nearly free with the scholarships many states are offering nowadays. There were certainly benefits I noticed at the private institution--classes were tiny by comparison and were at least semi-frequently more rigorous, professors taught most everything other than labs, said professors were often very well known in their fields, campus resources on a per-student basis were very strong, etc. However, many of those benefits, as Pragma mentioned, were available at the large state school I transferred to if the student so desired (particularly via honors programs and the like). The few that didn't cross over, at least in my opinion, just weren't worth the $35k/year difference in tuition.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

I think you are over-simplifying here. And devaluing your own field!! A big part of whether a major is hard or easy for you has to do with fit for your own talents. For example, when i was an UG, several of my engineering and computer science buddies decided to take abnormal psych with me to fulfill a requirement. They were brilliant people, but while I was acing every test, they were getting C's!

Different subject areas have different attitudes toward grading. This is particularly true of majors where they want to "weed out" students.

My own personal experience, FWIW, is that STEM classes do try to "weed out" students and they also have some horrible teachers (both in quality and content), which makes it easy to not only get a bad grade but to end up hating the subject. Perhaps this is all part of the same problem--not enough people graduating, poor education that steers the subject towards those who only have a natural instinct toward it, producing professionals and instructors who have no idea how to teach it, and the world goes 'round.

Seen from another perspective, teachers in the humanities and particularly psychology, tend to be (but, of course are not always) very personable and caring--and this inspires students. There's more to learning than just memorizing concepts and acing tests, and some fields really get this more than others or are more well-suited to such an approach.

 

[Sanman]

Having started as a pre-med and science oriented guy, I can tell you the weeding out has effects. I have a chronic medical condition that is exacerbated by stress and not taking care of yourself. My first year as a pre-med I did pretty well, but there were significant downsides that brought me over to psychology. Having bio and chem classes schedule tests (all of them including finals) back to back on the same day and not allowing any human bio courses to count on the major (only cell and plant courses) really turned me off. I switched to psych and spent most of my time taking bio related psych courses (physio and neuroscience classes). In most cases it was not easier material, they just did not beat you up as much and the material was interesting. On the flip side, I know a good number of psych majors ran from hard science courses like the plague and wanted nothing to do with it. That to me is a shame and one of the problems with the American university culture. People being able to tailor majors to make them as easy as possible and avoiding any struggle. Some struggle is good, but punitive weed out measures for no reason really do not make sense.

 

[FadedC]

For the record, trade schools can have their problems too One of my biggest mistakes between undergrad and grad school was going to a trade school to get my MCSE, basically a computer networking certification that was in high demand at the time (and perhaps it still is, I don't know). While I was able to get certified, I wasn't able to find any work because the school I went to wasn't viewed in very high regard, and I completely lacked relevent hands on experience. So there's definitely a major potential for buyer beware there as well.

 

[JeyRo]

For the record, trade schools can have their problems too One of my biggest mistakes between undergrad and grad school was going to a trade school to get my MCSE, basically a computer networking certification that was in high demand at the time (and perhaps it still is, I don't know). While I was able to get certified, I wasn't able to find any work because the school I went to wasn't viewed in very high regard, and I completely lacked relevent hands on experience. So there's definitely a major potential for buyer beware there as well.

Caveat emptor. There's always risk, impossible to get rid of. However, I do think there's a problem that our culture is so credential-obsessed (do you really need a college degree for a data entry position?), and also that what seem to be well-intentioned government programs (e.g., stafford loans, perkins, etc.) seem to have distorted the market to such an enormous degree that what before might have been a risk to some of your time and a risk of a modest degree of capital on an UG or professional degree (not speaking of clinical psych. per se) is now in many cases an astoundingly enormous risk of capital.

 

[LETSGONYR]

Caveat emptor. There's always risk, impossible to get rid of. However, I do think there's a problem that our culture is so credential-obsessed (do you really need a college degree for a data entry position?), and also that what seem to be well-intentioned government programs (e.g., stafford loans, perkins, etc.) seem to have distorted the market to such an enormous degree that what before might have been a risk to some of your time and a risk of a modest degree of capital on an UG or professional degree (not speaking of clinical psych. per se) is now in many cases an astoundingly enormous risk of capital.

That's why I like the model some schools (e.g., Drexel University) are implementing. They basically alternate between semesters in the classroom, and full-time internships/field placements. That way, you get both applied and theoretical knowledge... you can learn real skills, recognize if you like/don't like a field, and make connections for future employment, while earning your bachelor's. I think it's a great model and I hope other schools follow suit.

From their website: "Most students in Drexel's more than 70 undergraduate majors alternate periods of full-time classroom study and full-time professional employment. Depending on their college and program, students can repeat this cycle up to three times, gaining up to 18 months of real-world, professional work experience and erasing the line between theory and practice."

 

[mewtoo]

I think you are over-simplifying here. And devaluing your own field!! A big part of whether a major is hard or easy for you has to do with fit for your own talents. For example, when i was an UG, several of my engineering and computer science buddies decided to take abnormal psych with me to fulfill a requirement. They were brilliant people, but while I was acing every test, they were getting C's!

Different subject areas have different attitudes toward grading. This is particularly true of majors where they want to "weed out" students. I will buy into the idea that majors like bio have lower GPA's, but i also think that grad schools are aware of this trend.

Have pride in your field. Not just anyone can succeed in this career.

Best,
Dr. E

P.S. I absolutely agree that what is happening in grades K-12 is hugely problematic. Teaching kids only to pass standardized tests will be the undoing of this country.

In regard to the standardized testing thing, I heard a terrifying thing about the state tests in my state. They discovered that what a student scored the first time was the same they would make for the rest of their k-12 education. It didn't matter how much you learned the content or actually knew the content, it was basically testing how well you could take standardized tests! 😱 Luckily they caught on (mostly because the PhD that made up the math objectives noticed that even with him personally tutoring classes their scores weren't improving) and are redeveloping the state tests.

For devaluing the field, I guess I was being too general. At my school (which has a very beefy bio department) a psychology major is much easier. I'm sure at other schools, especially ones that have neuroscience or neuropsych classes offered (which I'm totally jelous of because my school doesn't have anything like that), the psych major isn't as much of a cakewalk. Perhaps I am letting my microbiologist uncle get to me too much. He's a fan of saying psych is a pseudoscience and basically devalued the research I've done, saying the independent project I completed was basically "pretend research." 😡 Yeah, I about kicked his arse on that one... But hes also the one that scoffed and said med school was "basically a trade school for for those not smart enough to cut it in biology" when I was pre-med. So... 🙄

 

[mewtoo]

My own personal experience, FWIW, is that STEM classes do try to "weed out" students and they also have some horrible teachers (both in quality and content), which makes it easy to not only get a bad grade but to end up hating the subject. Perhaps this is all part of the same problem--not enough people graduating, poor education that steers the subject towards those who only have a natural instinct toward it, producing professionals and instructors who have no idea how to teach it, and the world goes 'round.

Seen from another perspective, teachers in the humanities and particularly psychology, tend to be (but, of course are not always) very personable and caring--and this inspires students. There's more to learning than just memorizing concepts and acing tests, and some fields really get this more than others or are more well-suited to such an approach.

I can attest to the bolded! One of my bio professor told me once that the chemistry requirements in the bio major was mainly used to weed out people (which is probably what actually "weeded me out" because the thought of taking organic chemistry made me want to shoot myself in the head). It also seems they save the worst professors for the intro classes. So far all my upper level bio professors have been much better.

 

[mewtoo]

Having started as a pre-med and science oriented guy, I can tell you the weeding out has effects. I have a chronic medical condition that is exacerbated by stress and not taking care of yourself. My first year as a pre-med I did pretty well, but there were significant downsides that brought me over to psychology. Having bio and chem classes schedule tests (all of them including finals) back to back on the same day and not allowing any human bio courses to count on the major (only cell and plant courses) really turned me off. I switched to psych and spent most of my time taking bio related psych courses (physio and neuroscience classes). In most cases it was not easier material, they just did not beat you up as much and the material was interesting. On the flip side, I know a good number of psych majors ran from hard science courses like the plague and wanted nothing to do with it. That to me is a shame and one of the problems with the American university culture. People being able to tailor majors to make them as easy as possible and avoiding any struggle. Some struggle is good, but punitive weed out measures for no reason really do not make sense.

So apparently this a universal pre-med experience? I had the same problems as you, even the chronic health problem exacerbated by stress. I sometimes wonder if my particular diseases could have laid dormant a few more years if not for all that extreme stress. My bio department doesn't let you count things like A&P for the major or minor either. Only thing remotely like that was Human Physiology, but it was still 99% cell and 1% anatomy. I like cell, though (it was my concentration in my major back then) so it doesn't bother me. They do offer things like comparative vertebrate anatomy, but still that's mostly cell structure too. I know someone who is going to a bigger uni and they actually had a concentration in macro-structures (basically just human bio classes).

I run into those anti-hard science psych majors all the time. They always look at me like I'm crazy because I'm getting a BS and a biology minor. You tell them about chemistry (and not the baby ones) or microbiology and they think you are some sort of crazy genius for a) wanting to take those classes and b) being able to take them with out epic failing. I just don't understand, do these people not realize that for the most part psychology is science? Its like the guy I met who was getting a BA in psych with a creative writing minor, with no research experience, and was retaking abnormal psych because he failed it the first time who told me he wanted to get a phd in clinical psych. 🙄

 

[sabaijae]

There are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many reasons for the gap in STEM majors. It starts all the way back in elementary school with science not being taught enough and advanced math not being taught soon enough.

Also see: "Science and math is haaaaaaaaaaaaaard," said by everyone everywhere to children since birth.

I'll chime in here out of the blue just to say that, FWIW, almost the exact opposite can be said for many of the high school students I encountered in China (based on a teaching stint over there).

The hard stuff for many of them: creative/critical writing (well, basically anything "creative/critical"), social sciences, etc.

The easy stuff: math, science, STEM subjects, etc.

Several of the students got into decent American universities due to acing - and I mean completely acing - the math and science portions of the ACT or SAT (and basically bombing most other portions).

And regarding arts/humanities subjects being ****: There needs to be an appreciation in a culture/society in order for such things to have a "value", or whatever (or, in order for a value to be created for those subjects). America has capitalism/democracy/pragmatism (which are nice), but in comparison to other places, not much of a history/appreciation in terms of the arts and certain philosophy. Government (& non-profit) funding for such subjects could create more value/appreciation (such as what takes place in some European countries), but that probably aint happening in the US any time soon ... /random rant