SDN profile on Jennie Kaufman Singer?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

futureapppsy2

Assistant professor
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
7,641
Reaction score
6,376
Adjustment Bureau says November 24, 2011 at 11:35 am:
Just what we need: more non-science/technology/engineering/math PhDs chasing a dream on the parole unit.
PSA: you won't get a solid job with a psych phd. The field is glutted. You'd be better off in plumbing or electrical or HVAC.


Um... pretty sure even the bleakest SDNer here thinks that you can at least get a solid job.
 
Well, I absolutely would not go to private school again. It’s like buying a house but having no house to show for it. I graduated in 1995, and by 1999 I was drowning in intense debt—and I had a good job! Literally because of two people who decided to save me I have paid off my school debt.
Unless you’re independently wealthy, I would think about why you want to go into this field. If you’re just interested in helping people and working with people, I’d recommend becoming a social worker. I wanted to work in a clinical setting, and during my second year internship at a clinic, the director was a social worker. There are social workers in prisons, too. As long as you’re focused on assessment, clinical psychology is good. But if you want to work with families, get an MFT—you’ll make less but you’ll also have less debt. And there are jobs to get. It takes at least 10 years to gain the financial advantage of a PhD or Masters. But at this moment in time, because I’m a professor, I’m glad I got my PhD.




And I continue to wonder how professional schools manage to exist... ANYONE reading this and considering a professional program should really, really think about what this woman has said.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
She sounds pretty ignorant of the current state of our field, tbh.
 
her point about sticking with niche areas within clinical (assessment) is a valid one, but most folks prefer to focus on talk therapy, which puts them in direct competition with tens of thousands of other therapists in their local market who also do it. I don't want people trying to come into the assessment world "on the side", which I see happening more and more.
 
A relatively poor reflection of the current state of the field. Why did SDN choose her?
 
Specifically, what did you guys think she was ignorant of? Do you guys think things are worse than what she is saying?
 
A relatively poor reflection of the current state of the field. Why did SDN choose her?

On a related note, if anyone has any suggestions for psychologists who might be willing to be profiled, please shoot me a PM, and I'll pass it along to the rest of the editorial board. Thanks. :)

I'm honestly not sure how Dr. Singer was selected.
 
I'm fairly certain she's the daughter of Alan and Nadeen Kaufman, aka the guy who co-wrote the WISC-R and all the other Kaufman achivement/aptitude tests.
 
Wow, that never occurred to me. I think you're right!


Kaufman taught at CSPP San Diego I believe. Say what you will about them, but professional schools can garner very well known faculty.
 
I believe in her profile it says that her parents created some IQ assessments.
 
With her numbers and experience Dr. Kaufman probably could have gone to a funded Ph.D. program if she had applied to any. Personally I liked how candid she was about the drawbacks of FSPS with the quote Markp posted.

I read the whole article and I'm not sure how she's ignorant of the profession or a poor reflection of the field. Perhaps those posters could elaborate? Obviously most of us don't have well known psychologist parents but her own experience of working as a prison psychologist and then transitioning into academia seems well within the mainstream of the profession.
 
She just didn't really seem aware of the difficulties a lot of people are having in our field (FSPS aside). Or, if she is, she didn't mention them.
 
She just didn't really seem aware of the difficulties a lot of people are having in our field (FSPS aside). Or, if she is, she didn't mention them.

Which difficulties? You're right she didn't hit on several, but she talked about a few that applied to her. Some of them like the internship crisis wouldn't have affected someone who graduated in 1995. Being profiled implies talking about your own experience, she wasn't asked to do a Q&A on what ails the profession. Implied in this is that they should profile several individuals who represent a range of the field, for example profiling a recent graduate would highlight the issues that will be impacting those of us still in our programs.
 
Top