Thoughts on the tone here/people feeling attacked

[PSYDNEUROGUY]

It's been a while since I've posted, but I saw the topic and wanted to contribute.

I've probably visited this site intermittently over the years, especially before I entered into my doctoral program. It feels like its been months since I've been on, but I tend to avoid coming on here. I know when I was looking for doctoral programs, I looked to SDN as a resource and it was not the most pleasant of experiences to say the least. The other option is to just stay away; unfortunately, that means others who come on here with similar questions or pursuits may not get the most representative opinions depending on the topic as there tends to be a cluster of folks who tend to provide personal opinions regarding a myriad of topics while others with differing perspectives and experiences feel compelled to leave or avoid the forum. It's interesting too how we might say "let's be respectful and professional in how we speak to each other," yet some might respond with "I'm not their therapist or supervisor, etc." Yet...some of the comments from some of these users are "this guy comes on here thinking he is right about everything and someone like me who has X amount of years of experience doesn't know anything..." Which is it? Do you project a purely personal approach to online conversations and advisement or a professional one? It can seem confusing.

I would say I am glad that I stuck to my instincts overall; sure there have been some things I wish could be better, but based on who I am, what I want, what my goals are and the overall context of my life, my decisions have more or less played out the way I wanted them to. This I can attribute to the fact that not all opinions on here are going to be "right" for you and knowing that is very important to keep in mind when people are making very important career-related decisions. So, regarding the OP's comments on "tone," I absolutely think it's important to keep that in check (not saying I've been an angel in the past). I've gone to some conferences recently where...there are actual licensed professionals who have some personality styles that are an acquired taste to put it nicely.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Sanman]

1. As evidenced by today's posts: I have, and will continue to watch my "tone."

2. Most don't know this, but @AcronymAllergy is actually...

I heard AA was Keyser Soze...

 

[GradStudent2020]

@LadyHalcyon, you tried and I appreciate it. I have spoken to some other students that are more “lurkers”, and this convo was warranted. It’s too bad that it wasn’t taken seriously.

I agree with your comments about feedback/self-reflection being a two way street. Sadly, I don’t think it’s going to happen on SDN.

 

[WisNeuro]

Oh, the irony with some of these comments

 

[ClinicalABA]

@LadyHalcyon, you tried and I appreciate it. I have spoken to some other students that are more “lurkers”, and this convo was warranted. It’s too bad that it wasn’t taken seriously.

I agree with your comments about feedback/self-reflection being a two way street. Sadly, I don’t think it’s going to happen on SDN.

While the optics of the recent posts (e.g., joking) are a little bad given the subject matter of the OP, I know that many of us take these concerns seriously. I do want to emphasize that- even with the snarky, jerky, or rude posters- the information they provide regarding training programs/risks/etc. is pretty accurate, even if delivered with a "tone" and in a manner that you (and me, at times) do not feel is warranted. Hopefully some of the "old timers" will be a little more cognizant of the effects of how they say things (though I wouldn't count on it from some!). Whatever- it's free advice from a stranger on the internet. Taking it personally is probably not a good idea.

On another note, I'd encourage to re-read the Alliant thread that prompted this one. The original poster in that thread, imho, did a very good job job of responding to the message rather than the way it was delivered. I think that's a great strategy for users of online forums such as this.

 

[GradStudent2020]

While the optics of the recent posts (e.g., joking) are a little bad given the subject matter of the OP, I know that many of us take these concerns seriously. I do want to emphasize that- even with the snarky, jerky, or rude posters- the information they provide regarding training programs/risks/etc. is pretty accurate, even if delivered with a "tone" and in a manner that you (and me, at times) do not feel is warranted. Hopefully some of the "old timers" will be a little more cognizant of the effects of how they say things (though I wouldn't count on it from some!). Whatever- it's free advice from a stranger on the internet. Taking it personally is probably not a good idea.

On another note, I'd encourage to re-read the Alliant thread that prompted this one. The original poster in that thread, imho, did a very good job job of responding to the message rather than the way it was delivered. I think that's a great strategy for users of online forums such as this.

There is definitely some good information shared on the forum. I’m just not sure it’s worth weeding through the negativity and flat-out inaccurate information often presented as fact.

This forum in particular highlights the importance of forming and maintaining real-life support in the field, with colleagues and mentors.

I’ve appreciated several of your comments on this thread, @ClinicalABA, thank you for sharing your thoughts.

 

[MCParent]

There is definitely some good information shared on the forum. I’m just not sure it’s worth weeding through the negativity and flat-out inaccurate information often presented as fact.

This forum in particular highlights the importance of forming and maintaining real-life support in the field, with colleagues and mentors.

I’ve appreciated several of your comments on this thread, @ClinicalABA, thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Poisoning the Well

 

[WisNeuro]

Poisoning the Well

This is Murrica in 2019. Feelz over Realz.

 

[PsyDr]

 

[ClinicalABA]

... flat-out inaccurate information often presented as fact.

I'd suggest some caution with this position- While factual innaccuracies do pop up, they are usually corrected quickly. I do, however, think that some times people are pointing out trends or statistical likelihoods (e.g., such as those related to published outcome data from certain FSPSs) and this is interpreted (and responded to) as if it were an absolute rule. For example, saying that "enrolling in a program like Alliant is a a crapshoot, with high percentages of students not able to complete their training adequately" is not incompatible with "many Alliant grads have decent jobs at places like Kaiser." Other times I think people just don't get the response they want and thus argue that the facts are opinions.

 

[GradStudent2020]

I'd suggest some caution with this position- While factual innaccuracies do pop up, they are usually corrected quickly. I do, however, think that some times people are pointing out trends or statistical likelihoods (e.g., such as those related to published outcome data from certain FSPSs) and this is interpreted (and responded to) as if it were an absolute rule. For example, saying that "enrolling in a program like Alliant is a a crapshoot, with high percentages of students not able to complete their training adequately" is not incompatible with "many Alliant grads have decent jobs at places like Kaiser." Other times I think people just don't get the response they want and thus argue that the facts are opinions.

Anyone in this field would be well served by being able to understand the statistics and numbers made available by various programs.

I’ve seen posters completely misrepresent statistics to make their point (ex. Comparing statistics from a 10 year span on one program vs 1 year of all APA schools). I’ve also seen outright lies (ex. Fielding students do not have access to research labs). Verifiable lies if you know where to look.

These are just two recent examples, and no, they are not usually corrected. The posters most often misrepresenting information to prove their point are also the ones with “tone” issues that will immediately attack anyone that points out these innaccuracies. Many (most?) posters on this forum are not going to subject themselves to that.

In case I’ve been misunderstood, there are absolutely concerns with some of these programs that should be shared and discussed with potential students. However, the fact that the legitimate concerns are mixed with inaccurate information, “tone” issues, snark, etc.... makes it hard to take many of these posters seriously.

 

[MCParent]

I’ve seen posters completely misrepresent statistics to make their point (ex. Comparing statistics from a 10 year span on one program vs 1 year of all APA schools). I’ve also seen outright lies (ex. Fielding students do not have access to research labs). Verifiable lies if you know where to look.

Which threads were those in?

 

[GradStudent2020]

Which threads were those in?

The first example is in the thread titled “Fielding Graduate University”. The second one may be also, I don’t have time to dig for/confirm right now.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Which threads were those in?

It may have been in the “help me decide” mega thread.

 

[WisNeuro]

I don't recall anyone providing inaccurate numbers of match rates in that thread. Could you point it out?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I’ve seen posters completely misrepresent statistics to make their point (ex. Comparing statistics from a 10 year span on one program vs 1 year of all APA schools). I’ve also seen outright lies (ex. Fielding students do not have access to research labs). Verifiable lies if you know where to look.

I posted this comparison, and the data were not substantially different. I couldn’t find an updated 10yr data analysis, so I used the most recent data point provided by APPIC; I wrote as much in the follow up post(s).

I believe this was in regard to Fielding’s trash match %’s for APA-acred in the post-internship imbalance era of APPIC match. Looking at their match rates for APA-acred internship over the past 10 years and their ridiculously high attrition rate, I stand by my comments that it is a malignant program that preys on students, leaving many saddled w debt and nothing to show for it. I’m not going to apologize for my opinion; the data are not substantially different, and in that thread I explained where I got the data.

These are just two recent examples, and no, they are not usually corrected. The posters most often misrepresenting information to prove their point are also the ones with “tone” issues that will immediately attack anyone that points out these innaccuracies.

I’m not sure if this is also directed at me, but I won’t apologize for my tone. Compared to other areas of SDN, posters in this forum wear kid gloves. Go check out pre-Allo and tell me the Clinical Psych forum is bad for SDN, let alone the Internet. Sometimes posters want an echo-chamber to validate their opinions. When data are presented in contrary to what they wanted to hear, the response is often (but does not always) about tone. Data are data.

I post on here bc it has helped dozens (more?) students over the past decade. I have less patience for things in recent years bc I have seen how malignant programs damaged my/our profession, but that doesn’t invalidate the data I present in addition to my opinions. Posters are welcome to ignore me and others, but it is at their own peril, as there are plenty of programs willing to saddle prospective students with $200k-$400k in debt. There are “consultants” that charge hundreds of dollars an hour for what the licensed posters on here share for free. I used to lecture on information I give away on here bc I want to help the field.

I speak the same way in person and i’ve had dozens of students I helped successfully complete training, get licensed, and thank me years later. I’m not going to sugar coat the message bc that can obscure the data bc the student often wants to hear what they want to hear. Not all of the time, but those who have been around for 3-5+ years often comment on the pattern.

Feel free to block me if you don’t want to read my posts, but i’m not going to ignore predatory programs that harm the field.

 

[GradStudent2020]

I posted this comparison, and the data were not substantially different. I couldn’t find an updated 10yr data analysis, so I used the most recent data point provided by APPIC; I wrote as much in the follow up post(s).

I believe this was in regard to Fielding’s trash match %’s for APA-acred in the post-internship imbalance era of APPIC match. Looking at their match rates for APA-acred internship over the past 10 years and their ridiculously high attrition rate, I stand by my comments that it is a malignant program that preys on students, leaving many saddled w debt and nothing to show for it. I’m not going to apologize for my opinion; the data are not substantially different, and in that thread I explained where I got the data.



I’m not sure if this is also directed at me, but I won’t apologize for my tone. Compared to other areas of SDN, posters in this forum wear kid gloves. Go check out pre-Allo and tell me the Clinical Psych forum is bad for SDN, let alone the Internet. Sometimes posters want an echo-chamber to validate their opinions. When data are presented in contrary to what they wanted to hear, the response is often (but does not always) about tone. Data are data.

I post on here bc it has helped dozens (more?) students over the past decade. I have less patience for things in recent years bc I have seen how malignant programs damaged my/our profession, but that doesn’t invalidate the data I present in addition to my opinions. Posters are welcome to ignore me and others, but it is at their own peril, as there are plenty of programs willing to saddle prospective students with $200k-$400k in debt.

I speak the same way in person and i’ve had dozens of students I helped successfully complete training, get licensed, and thank me years later. I’m not going to sugar coat the message bc that can obscure the data bc the student often wants to hear what they want to hear. Not all of the time, but those who have been around for 3-5+ years often comment on the pattern.

Feel free to block me if you don’t want to read my posts, but i’m not going to ignore predatory programs that harm the field.

Yes, when I mentioned in that particular thread that those comparisons did not make sense you responded that you couldn’t find similar time frames in the moment. I don’t think that actually excuses a poor comparison to beef up your argument. There are plenty of factual ways to point out concern with these programs.

 

[WisNeuro]

I posted this comparison, and the data were not substantially different. I couldn’t find an updated 10yr data analysis, so I used the most recent data point provided by APPIC; I wrote as much in the follow up post(s).

I believe this was in regard to Fielding’s trash match %’s for APA-acred in the post-internship imbalance era of APPIC match. Looking at their match rates for APA-acred internship over the past 10 years and their ridiculously high attrition rate, I stand by my comments that it is a malignant program that preys on students, leaving many saddled w debt and nothing to show for it. I’m not going to apologize for my opinion; the data are not substantially different, and in that thread I explained where I got the data.
.

Ah, I did find it, also where you clearly state the numbers that you were using. I fail to see what the misrepresentation is when you clearly stated what numbers you were using and where you pulled them from.

 

[GradStudent2020]

I don't recall anyone providing inaccurate numbers of match rates in that thread. Could you point it out?

I don’t recall anyone asserting someone had provided innacurate numbers of match rates. Could you point that out?

 

[WisNeuro]

I don’t recall anyone asserting someone had provided innavueatw numbers of match rates. Could you point that out?

Ok, to be more accurate, where is the misrepresentation? As all stats were clearly articulated as to where they came from?

 

[GradStudent2020]

Ok, to be more accurate, where is the misrepresentation? As all stats were clearly articulated as to where they came from?

Comparing a 10-year time frame to a 1-year time frame is misleading. The poster “explained” why this was done only after it was pointed out.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Comparing a 10-year time frame to a 1-year time frame is misleading. The poster “explained” why this was done only after it was pointed out.

Were the data substantially different? The point was pointing out how bad the Fielding outcome data were compared to ALL match programs.

 

[WisNeuro]

Comparing a 10-year time frame to a 1-year time frame is misleading. The poster “explained” why this was done only after it was pointed out.

Yet, you claim that these things are not pointed out/corrected. The post was pretty clear about what it was doing. But, I guess misrepresenting things works better for your arguments about misrepresenting things. It's like an Inception of misrepresentation.

 

[Pragma]

Yet, you claim that these things are not pointed out/corrected. The post was pretty clear about what it was doing. But, I guess misrepresenting things works better for your arguments about misrepresenting things. It's like an Inception of misrepresentation.

And, in response to the "tone" issue, I thought T4C acknowledged that you (GradStudent, not Wis) made a good point. What a tone-insensitive jerk for doing that!

Fielding Graduate University

 

[GradStudent2020]

And, in response to the "tone" issue, I thought T4C acknowledged that you (GradStudent, not Wis) made a good point. What a tone-insensitive jerk for doing that!

Fielding Graduate University

The tone comments were not directed at Therapist4Change. No need to imply they were. I used his fast math as an example because it is a recent one that came to mind. It was corrected explained because I commented on it. No one else challenged the innacuracy and here you are arguing that it shouldn’t have been challenged because it proved a point you agree with.

Thank you for illustrating my concerns in real-time.

 

[Pragma]

The tone comments were not directed at Therapist4Change. No need to imply they were. I used his fast math as an example because it is a recent one that came to mind. It was corrected explained because I commented on it. No one else challenged the innacuracy and here you are arguing that it shouldn’t have been challenged because it proved a point you agree with.

Thank you for illustrating my concerns in real-time.

I wasn't even a part of that thread - I'm confused?

I was just looking at what you were saying was a negative tone towards you. The data were presented accurately. You didn't like that it was a 10 year timeframe for the program and a 1 year timeframe for the aggregate, and T4C acknowledged that this was a fair point.

How is this a problem? Sure maybe T4C could have looked up just past year data (and 59% isn't good anyhow), but perhaps they were getting at trends anyways. Wasn't that one of the points of discussion, that it had improved in recent years? Also, where did I ever say that a point shouldn't be challenged? That's the cool things about data, you can present data and then you can talk about it and challenge inferences made based upon it.

Still confused about why someone throwing around data is a problem. They never mischaracterized what the data were.

 

[MCParent]

I posted this comparison, and the data were not substantially different. I couldn’t find an updated 10yr data analysis, so I used the most recent data point provided by APPIC; I wrote as much in the follow up post(s).

I believe this was in regard to Fielding’s trash match %’s for APA-acred in the post-internship imbalance era of APPIC match. Looking at their match rates for APA-acred internship over the past 10 years and their ridiculously high attrition rate, I stand by my comments that it is a malignant program that preys on students, leaving many saddled w debt and nothing to show for it. I’m not going to apologize for my opinion; the data are not substantially different, and in that thread I explained where I got the data.



I’m not sure if this is also directed at me, but I won’t apologize for my tone. Compared to other areas of SDN, posters in this forum wear kid gloves. Go check out pre-Allo and tell me the Clinical Psych forum is bad for SDN, let alone the Internet. Sometimes posters want an echo-chamber to validate their opinions. When data are presented in contrary to what they wanted to hear, the response is often (but does not always) about tone. Data are data.

I post on here bc it has helped dozens (more?) students over the past decade. I have less patience for things in recent years bc I have seen how malignant programs damaged my/our profession, but that doesn’t invalidate the data I present in addition to my opinions. Posters are welcome to ignore me and others, but it is at their own peril, as there are plenty of programs willing to saddle prospective students with $200k-$400k in debt. There are “consultants” that charge hundreds of dollars an hour for what the licensed posters on here share for free. I used to lecture on information I give away on here bc I want to help the field.

I speak the same way in person and i’ve had dozens of students I helped successfully complete training, get licensed, and thank me years later. I’m not going to sugar coat the message bc that can obscure the data bc the student often wants to hear what they want to hear. Not all of the time, but those who have been around for 3-5+ years often comment on the pattern.

Feel free to block me if you don’t want to read my posts, but i’m not going to ignore predatory programs that harm the field.

Is cbt or clinical hypnosis recommended for severe burns?

 

[Pragma]

The posters most often misrepresenting information to prove their point are also the ones with “tone” issues that will immediately attack anyone that points out these innaccuracies.

The tone comments were not directed at Therapist4Change. No need to imply they were. I used his fast math as an example because it is a recent one that came to mind. It was corrected explained because I commented on it.

Am I missing something here?

 

[memedoctor]

This is Murrica in 2019. Feelz over Realz.

Ah- perhaps the real debate here should be about whether it is to tap into the fabric of the universe and access objective truth without our mental models of the world getting all muddied by those dirty dirty feelings!!

 

[psych.meout]

For everyone complaining about "tone" and civility, I present this example from a recently closed thread, presented in its entirety (bolding is mine):

Curiosity killed the cat... sigh. Fine, I'll bite, just because your post is the perfect example of what my post was talking about.

First of all, you're simply wrong, that wasn't the argument being made. The argument was quite plainly that if you can't get into a funded program you shouldn't become a psychologist and you even go on in your post to admit that, so you're just making crap up to argue with me saying that wasn't the argument.

Second, I assume you've never attended one of these "terrible" programs so you're just talking out your ass. Argosy is but one group of schools. You can't say "look at Argosy" in order to say "Alliant needs to be shut down." That is grade school level stupidity and makes your actual argument here quite plain no matter how much you try to deny it. Any half-educated person would know all of these programs can't be terrible. My Argosy campus was, very much so. That was one campus in one group of schools and even I with my first hand experience at one of these schools know better than to claim that is the case for all such schools, yet you can claim that without any experience at any of them... I mean, you can do that if you want but you're really foolish to do so because well, no half-educated person would make such a preposterous claim that is so easily proven false.

Furthermore, if these programs are as terrible as you claim none of their grads would ever pass the EPPP, so just stop with your nonsense, it's too easy to see through. You are the narcissistic hoity toity type my other post was talking about. You are furious that an Argosy or Alliant grad is perfectly equal to you and makes just as much money when they were so beneath you they couldn't get into a funded program. Pardon me while I enjoy your impotent rage for a moment because with Argosy going down schools like Alliant will just see higher numbers of students in their programs.

As far as going to unfunded programs being a financial disaster... methinks all the Alliant and Argosy and other such program graduates who are doing just fine financially would tell you to spare yourself the embarrassment of talking out your ass and confine yourself to things you actually know something about. All graduates of any program at any school in any discipline who had the audacity to pay for their own education run into financial difficulties because people in general are stupid and bad with money. Those that are not do not run into financial difficulties. This is true across the board and true at Argosy. If people subscribed to your clueless way of thinking about education we would have a crisis shortage of professionals in all areas. Veterinarians would cease to be a thing, as they take on more debt than an Argosy grad and make even less money unless they are very lucky. Your cry of "financial disaster" is as fake as Trump's national emergency and betrays your true motive here-to keep as many people out of the profession as you can. It's not working and it's not going to work. With every Argosy campus that closes another such program will open up and you couldn't care less about the students that go there so that part of your argument, "save the students"... oh please.

So just stop, you are wrong about everything you've said, lied about other things that have been said, and have so little understanding of how professional education works in the U.S. I'm left shaking my head at you. What it must be like to be able to keep my funded program nose in the air and see nothing but clouds... must be nice.

And since I'm sure I've violated numerous rules around here with my honest, direct, non-PC post-the kind of language mental health professionals shreek in horror about-I imagine I'll be banned soon and you can go back to not having truth dropped in your face.

So write up that response I'll never see so your like-minded ilk around here can be proud of you and pretend you are right. Seriously, they need it and so do you. The cognitive dissonance is too much for you and you need something to pull yourself back from abyss with.

Okay, really am out this time so you can all breathe easier now. This place can go back to being the sickeningly passive aggressive bastion it is.

The last sentence really is the best.

 

[GradStudent2020]

For everyone complaining about "tone" and civility, I present this example from a recently closed thread, presented in its entirety (bolding is mine):


The last sentence really is the best.

That entire thread is very illustrative of the tone and civility issues. The OP may have gone off the rails there at the end, but this was after multiple posts (some now deleted) where direct criticism of their personal choices was poorly disguised as “advice” for other students.

This rant is also a great example where the tone and word choice makes it hard to take the poster seriously, but taken in context there are some valid concerns shared.

 

[Sanman]

That entire thread is very illustrative of the tone and civility issues. The OP may have gone off the rails there at the end, but this was after multiple posts (some now deleted) where direct criticism of their personal choices was poorly disguised as “advice” for other students.

This rant is also a great example where the tone and word choice makes it hard to take the poster seriously, but taken in context there are some valid concerns shared.

Tempers get inflamed and that is what happens. I'm curious as to why we are not allowed to criticize other people's choices? In this particular case, the OP came on here to criticize his/her own program. People can have strong opinions, I know I have some. Getting frustrated and throwing around personal attacks is not appropriate, IMO

 

[psych.meout]

That entire thread is very illustrative of the tone and civility issues. The OP may have gone off the rails there at the end, but this was after multiple posts (some now deleted) where direct criticism of their personal choices was poorly disguised as “advice” for other students.

This rant is also a great example where the tone and word choice makes it hard to take the poster seriously, but taken in context there are some valid concerns shared.

Their argument was not that people were criticizing their personal choices, but rather that posters were saying that anyone attending Argosy and kinds of programs shouldn't be in graduate school at all. I politely disagreed with them, after which they launched into a diatribe filled with insults directed at me. My point in posting it was that it is illustrative of where the tone and civility problems, if any, actually lie.

Regardless, there is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing someone's choices, especially if those choices are contrary to quantifiable facts, are leading other impressionable applicants and students astray, and/or are the reasons that posters come here for advice, help, or to vent. That poster in particular dropped out of their program and kept posting threads about Argosy only to delete them. Their choices led to their situation, which is something people here discuss nearly every day, but somehow we're not supposed to point this out and help other people avoid this situation?

 

[memedoctor]

Their argument was not that people were criticizing their personal choices, but rather that posters were saying that anyone attending Argosy and kinds of programs shouldn't be in graduate school at all. I politely disagreed with them, after which they launched into a diatribe filled with insults directed at me. My point in posting it was that it is illustrative of where the tone and civility problems, if any, actually lie.

Regardless, there is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing someone's choices, especially if those choices are contrary to quantifiable facts, are leading other impressionable applicants and students astray, and/or are the reasons that posters come here for advice, help, or to vent. That poster in particular dropped out of their program and kept posting threads about Argosy only to delete them. Their choices led to their situation, which is something people here discuss nearly every day, but somehow we're not supposed to point this out and help other people avoid this situation?

In the original thread, I made the observation that some people were making insulting and myopic characterizations of student loan borrowers and how much responsibility they bear for the student loan debt problem and the larger impact that it has on society and "taxpayers." These posts were reflective of the kinds of attitudes that put the onus of responsibility on the very same individuals who are getting most screwed by the system, tossing stigma and blame onto the pile of bull**** they're already having to deal with. Some of the characterizations of borrowers being financially illiterate, irresponsible, or just plain stupid were not just insulting, it's reductionistic. It atomizes the problem by rendering it a "behavioral issue" as opposed to an economic or policy issue -- which is admittedly a pretty understandable fall-back for psychologists considering the focus of our training. Those systemic issues were eventually acknowledged and better fleshed out, but they were not the first things criticized. I think we need to be better as a field about not falling into that trap, and pay the hell attention to the much bigger sources of responsibility for the way our society is organized, and not add to the general mental health problems of the populations most affected by these predatory systems.

So I see where that poster was coming from and I don't think you were being hostile or deserved to be berated; but I also think you were not acknowledging the legitimate frustration that the original poster was expressing and so you got the brunt of it.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Tempers get inflamed and that is what happens. I'm curious as to why we are not allowed to criticize other people's choices? In this particular case, the OP came on here to criticize his/her own program. People can have strong opinions, I know I have some. Getting frustrated and throwing around personal attacks is not appropriate, IMO

Did someone say you are not allowed to criticize personal choices? I’m interested in what (in your opinion) is the difference between criticizing other people’s choices and personal attacks. One you are *for*, and one you feel is not appropriate.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Their argument was not that people were criticizing their personal choices, but rather that posters were saying that anyone attending Argosy and kinds of programs shouldn't be in graduate school at all. I politely disagreed with them, after which they launched into a diatribe filled with insults directed at me. My point in posting it was that it is illustrative of where the tone and civility problems, if any, actually lie.

Regardless, there is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing someone's choices, especially if those choices are contrary to quantifiable facts, are leading other impressionable applicants and students astray, and/or are the reasons that posters come here for advice, help, or to vent. That poster in particular dropped out of their program and kept posting threads about Argosy only to delete them. Their choices led to their situation, which is something people here discuss nearly every day, but somehow we're not supposed to point this out and help other people avoid this situation?

I read the now deleted threads in their entirety. I’m not faulting anyone for people discussing the issues with problematic grad programs. I do think that the way certain posters discuss the the issues is problematic. I think those threads are particularly illustrative of the “tone” and “snark” issues. You can agree to disagree, but my comments are not a personal attack or even critique of your interactions with that OP.

 

[memedoctor]

Honestly, while I'm not opposed to the use of snark, my big concern here was the frankly pretty arrogant and myopic analysis that ends up distributing too much attention to the wrong parts of the problem, especially when the quality of attention is more unhelpful than not. I guess you could argue that it's worth saying screw you to the large chunk of people out there straddled with student loan debt right now and setting them up as examples for who not to be, but I think that's pretty bad practice, personally.

 

[Sanman]

Did someone say you are not allowed to criticize personal choices? I’m interested in what (in your opinion) is the difference between criticizing other people’s choices and personal attacks. One you are *for*, and one you feel is not appropriate.

It was suggested in your comment that people incited the personal attacks by criticizing life choices.The difference, IMO, is that one can be a topic of debate.

It is one thing to say going to a for-profit school or unaccredited anything is a poor decision. It is another to call that person an idiot. The former reflects an opinion that is up for debate and the latter is just name calling. If you can't take criticism of your own decisions/opinions without resorting to name-calling, stay out of the debate.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Honestly, while I'm not opposed to the use of snark, my big concern here was the frankly pretty arrogant and myopic analysis that ends up distributing too much attention to the wrong parts of the problem, especially when the quality of attention is more unhelpful than not. I guess you could argue that it's worth saying screw you to the large chunk of people out there straddled with student loan debt right now and setting them up as examples for who not to be, but I think that's pretty bad practice, personally.

I’m a huge fan of snark when it’s not used to ridicule someone.

 

[GradStudent2020]

It was suggested in your comment that people incited the personal attacks by criticizing life choices.The difference, IMO, is that one can be a topic of debate.

It is one thing to say going to a for-profit school or unaccredited anything is a poor decision. It is another to call that person an idiot. The former reflects an opinion that is up for debate and the latter is just name calling. If you can't take criticism of your own decisions/opinions without resorting to name-calling, stay out of the debate.

I didn’t suggest that, but it’s always interesting to see how others interpret comments.

I agree with your opinion of those differences. That summarizes nicely what contributes to thoughtful discussion vs. what shuts it down, IMO.

 

[memedoctor]

It was suggested in your comment that people incited the personal attacks by criticizing life choices.The difference, IMO, is that one can be a topic of debate.

It is one thing to say going to a for-profit school or unaccredited anything is a poor decision. It is another to call that person an idiot. The former reflects an opinion that is up for debate and the latter is just name calling. If you can't take criticism of your own decisions/opinions without resorting to name-calling, stay out of the debate.

I agree, but you should also be able to acknowledge that when someone gets mad at indirectly being called an idiot for their decisions, that maybe they're not just pooping their diapeys because they're babies.

 

[Sanman]

I agree, but you should also be able to acknowledge that when someone gets mad at indirectly being called an idiot for their decisions, that maybe they're not just pooping their diapeys because they're babies.

Bad decisions are bad decisions. I've made many in my life and been made fun of for it. Learning to separate your self-worth from a singular decision and learning to control the anger you feel are important life skills. Feeling mad that others are saying you made a poor decision does not entitle one to a lack of self-control. Sure, we are all human and it happens. On the flip side, you can't tell a professional to be the bigger person because they are the professional then. Either we all have self-control or personal attacks are fine for everyone.

 

[MAClinician]

I agree, but you should also be able to acknowledge that when someone gets mad at indirectly being called an idiot for their decisions, that maybe they're not just pooping their diapeys because they're babies.

In regards to the poster who posted the rant in the now closed thread, that poster has previously posted nasty messages in response to people providing feedback on questions being asked. In looking at that poster’s post history last week, it was quite interesting that the poster had been cautioned multiple times about the very issues he/she complained of prior to enrolling in Argosy. One person even predicted poster would end up with a third graduate degree that would not be used (had previously obtained grad degree in unrelated field). Name calling is not ok, and sometimes a spade is a spade. It’s unfortunate that poster learned a costly and difficult lesson. I tried to search for the past post but the account has been removed, and I guess all postings associated with that account were removed as well.

 

[memedoctor]

Bad decisions are bad decisions. I've made many in my life and been made fun of for it. Learning to separate your self-worth from a singular decision and learning to control the anger you feel are important life skills. Feeling mad that others are saying you made a poor decision does not entitle one to a lack of self-control. Sure, we are all human and it happens. On the flip side, you can't tell a professional to be the bigger person because they are the professional then. Either we all have self-control or personal attacks are fine for everyone.

I think "bad decisions" are much more complex than you're making them out to be and that gets at the very heart of the critique I'm making here.
I don't think that personal decisions are above criticism, and there were plenty people who engaged in a respectful enough way to honestly explore the pros and cons of that decision without adding to the psychological burden of people in that position. I agree with those things you're advocating, but making insulting categorical claims about the people who made the decisions to take out loans is already going beyond simple criticism of the decision itself. It also reveals that some of you are not critically engaging with the complex myriad of reasons people would make that decision; just because it often has a precarious financial outcome and you personally wouldn't make it does not automatically render it a categorically bad decision. A simplistic characterisation of a decision that people make for a wide variety of reasons betrays bad analysis - but when it's also insulting, then that bad analysis takes on a much more pernicious quality.
Saying "I think it's a bad idea to take out student loans for x, y, and z reasons" is very different than talking about how people who take out student loans are irresponsible idiots.

I don't think that this particular issue that I'm challenging some posters in here on is just a matter of "being a bigger person" - I think the attitude I'm challenging here has very real clinical implications and make me question the capacity of people who hold it to work with people who are struggling with or affected by this issue, or more broadly, by poverty.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm still squarely in the camp that taking out loans that you cannot conceivably pay back in your lifetime is a categorically stupid decision. Especially considering the vast amounts of other paths, both within and outside of the field that do not require such a categorically stupid decision.

 

[memedoctor]

In regards to the poster who posted the rant in the now closed thread, that poster has previously posted nasty messages in response to people providing feedback on questions being asked. In looking at that poster’s post history last week, it was quite interesting that the poster had been cautioned multiple times about the very issues he/she complained of prior to enrolling in Argosy. One person even predicted poster would end up with a third graduate degree that would not be used (had previously obtained grad degree in unrelated field). Name calling is not ok, and sometimes a spade is a spade. It’s unfortunate that poster learned a costly and difficult lesson. I tried to search for the past post but the account has been removed, and I guess all postings associated with that account were removed as well.

That's an interesting observation that I agree provides relevant context, so thank you. Though while I don't generally endorse their response, I do think the situation highlighted a conflict that cannot be boiled down to their individual behaviour problems.

 

[memedoctor]

I'm still squarely in the camp that taking out loans that you cannot conceivably pay back in your lifetime is a categorically stupid decision. Especially considering the vast amounts of other paths, both within and outside of the field that do not require such a categorically stupid decision.

Do you think that they are therefore categorically stupid people and a burden on society?

 

[WisNeuro]

Do you think that they are therefore categorically stupid people and a burden on society?

Everyone makes stupid decisions here and there, and it's ok to acknowledge when you do. Helps you not make similar stupid decisions. As for the burden on society, yes, out of control student loan debt is a burden on society, and some of these people are blithely complicit.

 

[deleted480308]

Do you think that they are therefore categorically stupid people and a burden on society?

They shouldn’t be, they should be on their own to bear the consequences

 

[memedoctor]

Everyone makes stupid decisions here and there, and it's ok to acknowledge when you do. Helps you not make similar stupid decisions. As for the burden on society, yes, out of control student loan debt is a burden on society, and some of these people are blithely complicit.

I think that this is a myopic analysis of a huge social problem, and your conceptualization of what complicity is is troubling.