I wanted to address several ideas that were discussed, but in no way do I suggest, through quotation that any post was more or less indicative of any particular point. I merely used the quoted sections as a jumping off point for discussion. Please don't feel selected or left out. That wasn't my intention, rather my intent was to more fully explore the issue, and offer my own suggestions.
Well said, with a small objection to the idea of individualizing expectations for each student. I do not believe this should be done at the classroom level (for numerous reasons with feasibility being high on the list), though at the program level and with a mentor's support I think it is more realistic and useful.
This is done at the classroom level. That's what grades are, basically. And the mentor system does act in this way, and I do appreciate that. It is valuable, but I don't think it goes far enough.
It wasn't my intention to suggest that work shouldn't be kept to a specific schedule. It's true of any job that on time is the right time, and before time is better. However, what I take issue with is the amount of time necessary on site on a day to day basis. A non-trad cannot compete with a 22 year old in this area no matter how well one manages their time. When children are added, it becomes more than merely comical, but tragic. This should be obvious from undergrad study.
When we're talking about 12 hour days, 5-6 days per week, I think we're talking about more than what is appropriate for any individual. Such is beyond the reasonable expectations of any job or training curriculum. If it were a job, it simply wouldn't be legal. How is education somehow different? Because it's contractual? Or merely because it's an inappropriate measure of competition that is essentially unethical?
I've spent a long time in the working world, and while the suggestion of any job is to fulfill one's duties, there are also levels of redundancy added to any system to insure appropriate production is achieved. If not, failure is inevitable, and often with dramatic consequences. Suggesting that a single student comprises a full and functional system is silly considering the field of study we're talking about. This sounds much more like saying that the outliers in the system don't fail, so why should we change it?
Meaning that if we know a person performs best with x amount of sleep, self-care, study time, etc., why design a system that is at odds with optimum, or even reasonable performance? In Psychology?
If we're talking about a minimum set of standards, in what way would a Maslow been precluded from making a substantial contribution? What if Maslow had in fact been a single parent? A C student and a whiny, entitled incorrigible?
Online classes, for example, have obviously gained quite a bit of traction at the undergraduate level. Doctoral education in psychology, on the other hand, is a fairly special and unique undertaking that, up to this point, has required a large in-person and on-campus component in order to ensure appropriate training. At least until now, there isn't anything I've seen that compares to spending time working with patients and participating in collaborative research in person and while consistently being around other students and supervisors.
Personally, although this is just a personal opinion, I don't think online classes teach much at all. I don't think they're an effective means for any degree, precisely because of the points you've made. They are not a silver bullet to rely on to fix the education system by any means. For that matter, I don't think technology will ever surpass the classroom, or the lab. However, that doesn't negate the argument that the amount of time required is itself exclusionary.
The current system supports the ideal that psychologists only work during the day. Is this necessarily true? No. Why should professors be any different? And, for that matter, why should 12 hour days be the standard by which both students and Professors are judged? This, if we really look at it, is a holdover from an anachronistic ideal of the professional class that doesn't fit modern times or modern lives at all.
This is true of any market. As consumers change, so must providers. It's precisely because graduate education does not have broad competition that it has not changed already. Some graduate programs have, in fact, changed to better serve the market. Some of that change, notably online classes, has been significantly detrimental. Some has not.
I agree that this is a problem - it makes things much more difficult for people in the situation you described and I believe that something should be done about this. However, this doesn't have anything to do with the educational system. I still don't think that the actual conditions under which you receive your education should be different in any way from the education that your average worry-free 18yo college student receives. It would be unfair and most likely devalue the degree of those who are able to honor their commitment
The suggestion, in this day and age, that finance has nothing to do with education is ludicrous. An increase of over 1200% in the last 20 years in tuition, and an over 800% increase in books is not only substantial, it determines one's choices particularly when the majority of that cost is fulfilled in loans that must be repaid. It is intrinsically a part of the educational system. Saying it isn't is denying the bursar's office. One doesn't deny the authority of the bursar's office.
And so, another deterrent, or rather a financial exclusion. The wealthy, or the young and credit-worthy, are the only populations deserving of an education. How is that different from an aristocracy? Doesn't that merely avoid the question of equality by predetermining outcomes? Only the outliers in the system prevail, and increasingly so as incomes have grown less and less equal.
In what way would an extension in time spent in a graduate program reduce the value, or efficacy of a program? If what we know about virtuosity is true, that it takes approximately 10 years of persistent practice to attain, wouldn't that be a good thing?
Essentially by definition, being able to invest the "appropriate time" is a necessary component of graduate training in psychology. Looking at your examples, a working student still invests as much on-campus and off-campus time as is necessary to pass their classes and fulfill their school-related responsibilities; they don't receive special accommodations or separate standards in that sense. Rather, they find a way to make the existing educational opportunities and system fit into their schedule.
If the above were true, night classes would not exist in any graduate program or any degree program at all. The fact they do exist means that market was willing to become more flexible. Why not psychology? Or is psych an area where flexibility isn't both necessary and desirable?
The appropriate amount of time spent in each area of study and practice can be better suited to modern student's lives. The reason it's not is quite probably bureaucratic. No offense intended.
Time in reading, time in thinking, time in synthesis, all these are immensely important, certainly. However, by emphasizing production diversity is lost, and I don't mean just physical. A diversity of ideas is lost. The Maslows of tomorrow are lost. It is precisely this diversity that is cut away when a system becomes inflexible.
I don't see why 10 years on just a Ph.D. isn't out of the question considering the amount of information that must be processed to get to the forefront of modern research. But I don't think 12 hour days are necessary, or even indicated. I think, and this is just my opinion, such a system produces more look-a-like research that's simply the same ideas getting transmitted back and forth, over and over until someone either makes dramatic changes or has a divine inspiration. Not all great ideas come from a lone guy in Moravia poring over the same plant for 12 years with only his peas to talk to.
We know that mixing teams, and adequate downtime are necessary to produce a diversity of quality synthesis. So, why not here? Why are we stuck on the "all day or you don't play" system? To benefit students or haze them? How does what any one person went through to attain their degree define the process for anyone else?
I wanted to address one more point, and that was a broader freedom in overall degree design. While it's true that before one knows what one doesn't know, one doesn't know what to study, that doesn't necessarily mean that more freedom in a specialization path is automatically suspect. I think we need more specialization within graduate studies in psych. Let the MA and PsyD focus on counseling. The trend is moving there anyway. Psych, however, has grown to encompass not enough of the right things, namely neuroscience, and some of the wrong things, namely antiquated theory. Focus on maths is necessary for research, but is it necessary for counselors or educators?
The current system of specialization of selecting a specialized mentor doesn't do enough to broaden the scope of psych in general and discourages original theory and research. It is a disservice to students to define what one wants to study by who they study with and all the personality drama that goes with it. No offense to any particulars intended, or implied. Merely the suggestion that even great men and women are still human and suffer the same vices and bias that everyone else does.
By offering more freedom to self-select and autodidact we fertilize genuinely original and valuable ideas. In this I think the business model has, and is, killing education. An ends-obsessed process is stifling the very nature of science in general and encourages abuse.
