Undergrad Psych Discussion

[WannaBeDrMe]

If you can find something that says I'm wrong, DEFINITELY let me know so I don't say it again. I hate being wrong... but I can take it.

That said, one of my graduate professors attended a number of her workshops and apparently it came up or was mentioned at one of them. But now I'm trying to find something written down that says she was diagnosed, and if she were diagnosed it would have had to have been after she started her career because BPD was added in 1980. So... trust that I will be following up on my "source," ha!

Side note: Isn't it sad that you have follow a question with "I'm not disputing, just genuinely curious," shouldn't we just give people the benefit of the doubt?

Ha, yeah, we should, but I take nothing for granted in this highly sensitive group of individuals. Hope you are well, happy holidays!! If I find anything on it, I'll let you know... I've just never heard it before and was curious to find out more.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[racek]

Cosmo, thanks for the report....really interesting. I wonder if anyone is thinking of doing more studies on the issue.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I had an interesting discussion about the rigor of undergrad psych education in one of my social work classes (double major). A couple of the students were talking about how people always think a social work major is just fluff, when parts of it (see practicum) can actually be quite challenging. One of the students, another psych double major, said, "Yeah, psych is a joke major." My immediate response? "Not if you do it right." Her response: "Well, unless you're [futureapp], anyway." (I'm well-known among my social work cohort as the "research one.")

I think the problem with psych is not that it lacks rigor, per se, but that students (and faculty,to some extent) don't treat it correctly. Lots of psych students run from research and stats and thinks that's just a minor, albeit "painful," part of the major. Students here who take advanced research methods and put in a semester or two in a lab are considered to have a "research emphasis," which I think is a bit sad, actually. Not that that's not good experience, but it's just a start, and students need to see that.

I've made my undergrad experience rather research heavy (multiple labs, multiple theses, PI'd project, a peer-reviewed publication, etc), and I have hard time even thinking of that as a "research emphasis." There's so much more I could--and want--to do and learn in research, and I feel that I've honestly just touched the tip of iceberg. How students could think that they "know research" with just a semester in a lab or a methods class or two honestly boggles my mind.

I'm not saying every psych undergrad needs to be published or anything like that, but it just seems to me that undergrad psych is NOT taught in a way that gets students to truly know or appreciate research and what an important part of the field this is. I think the faculty here is good and that we get an excellent grounding in theory and some minor practical things, but I wish psych was taught and viewed more as the research-heavy field it is.

I think psych *can* be a rigourous major--I certainly consider my experience to have had rigor, though only the smallest fraction of what grad school probably has--but that it's not taught or viewed in the right way. Research needs to emphasized more from the beginning; psych is wonderful, rigourous science, and it's a shame that most undergrads aren't being trained to see it that way.

Just my $.02.

 

[krisrox]

I had an interesting discussion about the rigor of undergrad psych education in one of my social work classes (double major). A couple of the students were talking about how people always think a social work major is just fluff, when parts of it (see practicum) can actually be quite challenging. One of the students, another psych double major, said, "Yeah, psych is a joke major." My immediate response? "Not if you do it right." Her response: "Well, unless you're [futureapp], anyway." (I'm well-known among my social work cohort as the "research one.")

I think the problem with psych is not that it lacks rigor, per se, but that students (and faculty,to some extent) don't treat it correctly. Lots of psych students run from research and stats and thinks that's just a minor, albeit "painful," part of the major. Students here who take advanced research methods and put in a semester or two in a lab are considered to have a "research emphasis," which I think is a bit sad, actually. Not that that's not good experience, but it's just a start, and students need to see that.

I've made my undergrad experience rather research heavy (multiple labs, multiple theses, PI'd project, a peer-reviewed publication, etc), and I have hard time even thinking of that as a "research emphasis." There's so much more I could--and want--to do and learn in research, and I feel that I've honestly just touched the tip of iceberg. How students could think that they "know research" with just a semester in a lab or a methods class or two honestly boggles my mind.

I'm not saying every psych undergrad needs to be published or anything like that, but it just seems to me that undergrad psych is NOT taught in a way that gets students to truly know or appreciate research and what an important part of the field this is. I think the faculty here is good and that we get an excellent grounding in theory and some minor practical things, but I wish psych was taught and viewed more as the research-heavy field it is.

I think psych *can* be a rigourous major--I certainly consider my experience to have had rigor, though only the smallest fraction of what grad school probably has--but that it's not taught or viewed in the right way. Research needs to emphasized more from the beginning; psych is wonderful, rigourous science, and it's a shame that most undergrads aren't being trained to see it that way.

Just my $.02.

I agree that psych can be a rigorous major, but as a former bio major, it definitely isn't the coursework that makes it so. It really is the extra things, like research, theses, that make the major difficult, but I believe any major can be hard if you do extra work with it. I have about a third as much work in my psych of perception class than in my ecology class, but 4 times as much work in my thesis course!

 

[Psychology 76]

I had an interesting discussion about the rigor of undergrad psych education in one of my social work classes (double major). A couple of the students were talking about how people always think a social work major is just fluff, when parts of it (see practicum) can actually be quite challenging. One of the students, another psych double major, said, "Yeah, psych is a joke major." My immediate response? "Not if you do it right." Her response: "Well, unless you're [futureapp], anyway." (I'm well-known among my social work cohort as the "research one.")

I think the problem with psych is not that it lacks rigor, per se, but that students (and faculty,to some extent) don't treat it correctly. Lots of psych students run from research and stats and thinks that's just a minor, albeit "painful," part of the major. Students here who take advanced research methods and put in a semester or two in a lab are considered to have a "research emphasis," which I think is a bit sad, actually. Not that that's not good experience, but it's just a start, and students need to see that.

I've made my undergrad experience rather research heavy (multiple labs, multiple theses, PI'd project, a peer-reviewed publication, etc), and I have hard time even thinking of that as a "research emphasis." There's so much more I could--and want--to do and learn in research, and I feel that I've honestly just touched the tip of iceberg. How students could think that they "know research" with just a semester in a lab or a methods class or two honestly boggles my mind.

I'm not saying every psych undergrad needs to be published or anything like that, but it just seems to me that undergrad psych is NOT taught in a way that gets students to truly know or appreciate research and what an important part of the field this is. I think the faculty here is good and that we get an excellent grounding in theory and some minor practical things, but I wish psych was taught and viewed more as the research-heavy field it is.

I think psych *can* be a rigourous major--I certainly consider my experience to have had rigor, though only the smallest fraction of what grad school probably has--but that it's not taught or viewed in the right way. Research needs to emphasized more from the beginning; psych is wonderful, rigourous science, and it's a shame that most undergrads aren't being trained to see it that way.

Just my $.02.

Well said futureapppsy2. I completely agree. I feel that the psychology is a bit more flexible than other majors in regards to how hard it is. At my school, since we stress academics a lot, most majors are hard especially science majors. However, there a lot of people who can major in psych and not put much into it and not get much out of it. I am constantly involved in the psychology department getting as much as I can out of my undergrad years. But there are other psych majors who can just do the minimum which is a lot easier. I hope though that the difference between someone puts in a lot of effort in their undergraduate years shows in grad school application because I'm sure it will show in career and life skills.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I agree that psych can be a rigorous major, but as a former bio major, it definitely isn't the coursework that makes it so. It really is the extra things, like research, theses, that make the major difficult, but I believe any major can be hard if you do extra work with it. I have about a third as much work in my psych of perception class than in my ecology class, but 4 times as much work in my thesis course!

As another former bio major/current bio minor, I completely agree!