- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 461
- Reaction score
- 10
Yet another article on how our graduate schools are broken.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110420/full/472261a.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110420/full/472261a.html
Reform the Ph.D. system or shut it down
- Thread starter Neuropsych2be
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,084
- Reaction score
- 5
Phew, glad I chose a Ph.D. with significant job potential outside academia.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 0
A well thought out multiple-dimensional article concerning the increasing number of doctoral degrees in a flooded market with some practical solutions included. This is much more interesting than the one-dimensional, self-preservational (and narcissistic) garbage I've seen posted by a great number of members of this forum. Thanks for posting it!
Happy Easter everyone!
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 0
+1
This article would have been a bit more informative if it were more specific. The points made seem most pertinent to hard science/experimental degrees. License-eligible degrees like clinical, counseling, and school psych. have tons of options outside academia.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,084
- Reaction score
- 5
Did you even read the article?
Glad I could get some trash talk directed at me before he got banned. Now I feel like I'm in the club!
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2010
- Messages
- 9,358
- Reaction score
- 5,666
Did you even read the article?
The article actually does explicitly mention that Ph.D. programs (or "programmes") should focus on broader and more applicable training, which clinical and counseling psych do at least somewhat entail. Psych, as a whole, can be one of the more "practical" degree areas, though I definitely agree that a greater focus on breadth and real-world applicability would be a good thing for all doctoral students.
Interesting stuff, I agree with a lot of what it says. I do think being in a more "applied" field helps a great deal...the author is a humanities professor. As much as we may complain about our job market, I know VERY few PhD psychologists who have anywhere near the difficulties of PhDs in philosophy, religion, etc. Basic sciences are also much more difficult, where it is commonplace to see post-docs lasting for 5-10 years - and they usually get paid much less than we do.
I've still got my fingers crossed for an academic job, but I think we need to realize that we actually get incredibly diverse training in this field and that our options SHOULD be much larger than "Therapist/Assessor" or "Academic/Researcher". I agree our training is often not structured in a manner conducive to that, but I think we need to look at how our roles might train us for administrative-type roles in any number of different settings....pharmaceutical industry (for those who don't believe they are the devil), any number of business settings, various non-profit or government agencies...the list goes on.
I've still got my fingers crossed for an academic job, but I think we need to realize that we actually get incredibly diverse training in this field and that our options SHOULD be much larger than "Therapist/Assessor" or "Academic/Researcher". I agree our training is often not structured in a manner conducive to that, but I think we need to look at how our roles might train us for administrative-type roles in any number of different settings....pharmaceutical industry (for those who don't believe they are the devil), any number of business settings, various non-profit or government agencies...the list goes on.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 7,616
- Reaction score
- 6,868
Keep in mind that the author of the article is in the humanities, where the situation is much more dire (not that ours is great, of course).
I think the article makes a strong appeal for all psych programs to "dip" into other interests that can enhance one's research and (perhaps more so) clinical skills. Its no secret that clinical psychology is greatly limited to private practice and administrative positions, while the actual therapy-oriented positions within the under-served (and typically more severe populations) are reserved for MA clinicians and MSW's.
Yes, working within more severe settings can be difficult and does not produce as nice of an income. However, I feel this article serves as a consideration on how we can serve such populations and how can we prove our effectiveness within environments were income, government assistance, and frequent hospitalizations are typical occurrences within treatment. Do we want to perform as case managers and informally "monitor" changes? No. But we can explore the pathology and circumstances that cause such incidents in order to provide treatment that recognizes an individual's triggers and other biopsychosocial changes.
Yes, working within more severe settings can be difficult and does not produce as nice of an income. However, I feel this article serves as a consideration on how we can serve such populations and how can we prove our effectiveness within environments were income, government assistance, and frequent hospitalizations are typical occurrences within treatment. Do we want to perform as case managers and informally "monitor" changes? No. But we can explore the pathology and circumstances that cause such incidents in order to provide treatment that recognizes an individual's triggers and other biopsychosocial changes.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 461
- Reaction score
- 10
Good points as usual Ollie. Psychology is in a better position than most fields: however we sell ourselves short if we see ourselves as only therapists or academicians. We should be continually branching out and creating new roles for ourselves. The other social sciences such as anthropology and sociology continue to find ways to expand their roles in society. We could learn a lesson from our sister disciplines. One might posit that suckling on the breast of health insurance reimbursement has been a mixed blessing for applied psychology. It has brought in income but in some ways instilled rigidity within the field in that we choose to define ourselves as "mental health professionals" when we could be so much more. Furthermore, now that the milk is drying up, some respond with narcissistic injury. Primary process thinking emerges. Defense mechanisms kick in such as projection of blame, denigration of others (Psy.D's MSW's, LPC's nontraditional programs etc ...), inflation of the self, and object splitting etc ... The less than edifying and often nasty discussions on these boards here on SDN are clear examples of this. None of us likes reality to intrude on our narcissistic fantasies but as a field we need to learn to adapt to the changing demands being placed upon us.
Last edited:
