Undergraduate Courses for Clinical Psy PhD

[Kb1234]

Hi,

I was wondering what are generally the required undergrad courses for phd programs in clinical psychology.

I've already taken intro to psych, research methods, statistical techniques, abnormal psych, cognitive psych, and an psych class under social psych. And other classes that fall in one of those categories.

I'm planning on taking personality psych and development psych. and possibly psychobiology.

I think that covers all a wide spectrum of psychology discipline, and most of what phd programs look at. However, I'm debating about psychobiology. I dislike biology, and whenever anything biology related comes up in any of the previous classes I've taken (ex. biological paradigm in abnormal psychology) I'm always so uninterested.

I don't want to take it if I don't have to, but if it's advisable that I should, just in case, then I will.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

If you don't understand the basics of psychobiology, you will be a terrible psychologist. Especially with the focus of the NIH on biomarkers, if you don't know this stuff you will be left behind in the field.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I agree that it is crucial to understand the underlying biological mechanisms of behavior. I don't know if you can really be a psychologist without a love for the human brain. Maybe that's just my bias. Also, maybe your instructors in those classes were boring and tried to just emphasize a lot of rote memorization sometimes that can turn one off. In undergrad, that is a lot of what you are doing anyway, grad school is where you really start to understand how it all works.
Now when I am working with patients, I conceptualize what is going on with them at a neurological level. Sometimes it is important to educate them about the dopaminergic system, serotonin, the limbic system - especially hypothalamus and amygdala, reticular activating system, frontal cortex, hippocampus, cortisol, endorphins, and how these different systems, neurochemicals and structures relate to their clinical issues/disorders. I chose all of these terms right off the top of my head because these are from real discussions with real patients about all of the following: PTSD, ADHD, Substance Abuse, Depression, Schizophrenia, Parkinsons, Anxiety, Borderline Personality Disorder, TBI.

So you darn well better study the brain!

 

[QAsPsych]

There is a strong bias towards biological models on SDN (possibly the medical connection) so I'd say the others here are way overstating the importance of this. It's the flavor of the day and a lot of research dollars are being thrown at it, but there are a lot of other areas of psych, some with their own growing pools of money.

THAT SAID, a basic understanding is important for understanding some research and there is an expectation for you to know and take courses in this area. Biopsychology in undergrad is just the underpinning for more advanced courses in this area you'll have to take in graduate school. You have to be able to have at least enough interest to learn and retain a fair bit of information in this area. It's kind of like med school; you don't have to love basic chemistry or physics, but you have to be able to do it at least well enough to get through.

I don't know if you can really be a psychologist without a love for the human brain. Maybe that's just my bias.

Gosh, I better inform most of the people in divisions 24, 27, 32, and a considerable portion of 44 and 45 that they aren't really psychologists, including a number of eminent researchers Need to consider and have a basic understanding of the brain, maybe, but love it? Come on.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

Hi,

I was wondering what are generally the required undergrad courses for phd programs in clinical psychology.

I've already taken intro to psych, research methods, statistical techniques, abnormal psych, cognitive psych, and an psych class under social psych. And other classes that fall in one of those categories.

I'm planning on taking personality psych and development psych. and possibly psychobiology.

I think that covers all a wide spectrum of psychology discipline, and most of what phd programs look at. However, I'm debating about psychobiology. I dislike biology, and whenever anything biology related comes up in any of the previous classes I've taken (ex. biological paradigm in abnormal psychology) I'm always so uninterested.

I don't want to take it if I don't have to, but if it's advisable that I should, just in case, then I will.

Taking a non-biased perspective here, I would say that if you have a preference in clinical psychology paradigm (i.e. positive psychology, etc.) other than the biological side, you should consider emphasizing your knowledge-base in that paradigm. However, you do need a general grounding in the major paradigms offered or practiced in psychology to be at least somewhat competent. Other than that, if you have a heavy interest in another growing paradigm such as Positive Psychology, I would go after additional coursework or a research lab to where you can get exposure to that paradigm even more so. While I was an undergrad student, many undergrads took part in research and they all selected a lab respectively that fit their desires and interests (HIV/AIDS research, biopsychology/health, neuropsychology, etc.). I think if you prefer a more theoretically-oriented program, you will need to curtail your applications to co-inside with their practices and expectations of their students they admit (seeing how most Ph.D. program will admit between 5-12 students a year, give or take).

Take personality and developmental and psychobiology, I loved those classes and it really turned me on to psychology, I actually didn't take one biopsychology class in my undergrad and decided to jump right into a master's program in neuroscience (another story for another time). I too thought I would not understand anything they were saying nor would care, and it is completely the opposite for me presently. A lot of your Ph.D. programs will want personality, abnormal, general, experimental design, statistics, developmental, social and biopsychology. So, I would take it for that purpose alone if nothing else can motivate you.

There is a strong bias towards biological models on SDN (possibly the medical connection) so I'd say the others here are way overstating the importance of this. It's the flavor of the day and a lot of research dollars are being thrown at it, but there are a lot of other areas of psych, some with their own growing pools of money.

THAT SAID, a basic understanding is important for understanding some research and there is an expectation for you to know and take courses in this area. Biopsychology in undergrad is just the underpinning for more advanced courses in this area you'll have to take in graduate school. You have to be able to have at least enough interest to learn and retain a fair bit of information in this area. It's kind of like med school; you don't have to love basic chemistry or physics, but you have to be able to do it at least well enough to get through.



Gosh, I better inform most of the people in divisions 24, 27, 32, and a considerable portion of 44 and 45 that they aren't really psychologists, including a number of eminent researchers Need to consider and have a basic understanding of the brain, maybe, but love it? Come on.

This is a pretty accurate depiction; there are a good deal of us neuro-oriented folk on here, so I think it often clouts the perspectives and opinions one might get in terms of advice. My undergrad was in sociology with a psychology minor, so I have a high amount of respect for the more qualitative and theoretically-driven perspectives of behavior, however, I also knew that if one is going to talk about PTSD, knowing the actual part of the body responsible for processing and perceiving this state of mind is very important, even if all you are going to do is assess or provide therapy. That is why I jumped into a neuroscience master's program.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yeah, you don't need to know the brain on the level of a neuropsychologist, but if you're going to be treating things like depression and anxiety, you better have a little more than just a basic understanding of the neurobiological underpinnings of the disorders. This knowledge informs the empirically supported treatments for these disorders.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Ok, so maybe you don't need to love it. I told you I was a bit biased. I still think regardless of your area of focus in psychology, it is essential to have an understanding of the organ responsible for it IMO.

As to the various divisions thing, I am well-versed in humanistic psychology and believe it brings a lot to the table. I also know that Rogers conducted quite a bit of research and that some of Maslow's stuff has been tested empirically, as well. I believe we do ourselves a disservice when we set up everything in a dualistic either/or approach which is the trap that I see many of these discussions fall into. In other words, you are either CBT and take a "pure" research and bio-medical approach or you are free thinker who appreciates the nuances of psychology and the significance of trying to understand the full-range of human experience.

Maybe I am just schizophrenic enough to think I can embrace both paradigms.

 

[QAsPsych]

Ok, so maybe you don't need to love it. I told you I was a bit biased. I still think regardless of your area of focus in psychology, it is essential to have an understanding of the organ responsible for it IMO.

As to the various divisions thing, I am well-versed in humanistic psychology and believe it brings a lot to the table. I also know that Rogers conducted quite a bit of research and that some of Maslow's stuff has been tested empirically, as well. I believe we do ourselves a disservice when we set up everything in a dualistic either/or approach which is the trap that I see many of these discussions fall into. In other words, you are either CBT and take a "pure" research and bio-medical approach or you are free thinker who appreciates the nuances of psychology and the significance of trying to understand the full-range of human experience.

Maybe I am just schizophrenic enough to think I can embrace both paradigms.

I would argue strongly that an understanding of the brain is not essential, any more than an in-depth understanding of organic chemistry or biophysics is, which after all underlie and are "responsible for" the brain. And again you can think that but many important people past and present in psychology make no reference to the brain and do not use anything about the brain in their work yet make breakthroughs in psychology broadly and in mental health specifically by considering the psychological, sociological, and cultural levels. The fact that the field of sociology has made substantial gains in our understanding of group-level human behavior and impacted approaches to medicine and mental health without including anything regarding the brain speaks to this as well. The brain is just one level of consideration.

I think it is possible to incorporate both and do good work; I think it is possible to focus only on the brain and do good work; but where I break from a lot of what is said here is that I think it is possible to think very little/not at all about the brain and do good work in psychology (but again, not possible to get through a solid worthwhile graduate training in psychology without it and I advise students at the undergraduate level to be aware of this and consider it). But I also think that focusing on a bio-medical approach biases one to not consider "the full range of human experience" as you put it and thus puts up strong barriers to anybody attempting to embrace both.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I would argue strongly that an understanding of the brain is not essential, any more than an in-depth understanding of organic chemistry or biophysics is, which after all underlie and are "responsible for" the brain. And again you can think that but many important people past and present in psychology make no reference to the brain and do not use anything about the brain in their work yet make breakthroughs in psychology broadly and in mental health specifically by considering the psychological, sociological, and cultural levels. The fact that the field of sociology has made substantial gains in our understanding of group-level human behavior and impacted approaches to medicine and mental health without including anything regarding the brain speaks to this as well. The brain is just one level of consideration.

I think it is possible to incorporate both and do good work; I think it is possible to focus only on the brain and do good work; but where I break from a lot of what is said here is that I think it is possible to think very little/not at all about the brain and do good work in psychology (but again, not possible to get through a solid worthwhile graduate training in psychology without it and I advise students at the undergraduate level to be aware of this and consider it). But I also think that focusing on a bio-medical approach biases one to not consider "the full range of human experience" as you put it and thus puts up strong barriers to anybody attempting to embrace both.

It almost appears as though you are arguing against me saying that knowledge of neurobiology is more important than something else and I am just saying it is important knowledge for a psychologist to have. Just like I have some knowledge of forensic assessments or organizational psychology even though I don't practice either of those. What the hell does organic chem or biophysics have to do with it? I am simply talking about having a good understanding of how the brain works and what the major parts are. I also need to have a fundamental understanding of research methodology to be a psychologist, and of pathology, psychological assessments, and of cultural/diversity stuff, etc.. It is part of APA accredited education. and there are questions about the biological basis of behavior in the EPPP. It is 12% per https://psychprep.com/about-the-eppp/ I would argue that some knowledge of the biological basis of behavior will also help in some of the other domains, too.

 

[Kb1234]

Thank you guys for your responses!!

I suppose I'll take the class to be more informed on the specific area, and I won't lose anything I take the class. And since it will be discussed in grad school, might as get some experience in it.

I suppose I have been biased towards certain approach in the field. I've always focused my attention more on humanistic, CBT, etc approaches and just always ignored other aspects that didn't interest me.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

Thank you guys for your responses!!

I suppose I'll take the class to be more informed on the specific area, and I won't lose anything I take the class. And since it will be discussed in grad school, might as get some experience in it.

I suppose I have been biased towards certain approach in the field. I've always focused my attention more on humanistic, CBT, etc approaches and just always ignored other aspects that didn't interest me.

Good luck...my bet is you won't like everything in psychology; I personally HATE cognitive psychology. I have taken several doctoral level cognitive psychology/ cognitive science/ memory courses and just hate it...subject is fascinating and did very well, but not my cup of tea. I think if you decide to still hold your same opinion on the psychobiology-related course work, at least you have a basic grounding in it. My husband is a pharmacist, he has taken so many types of chemistry courses during his undergrad and graduate training beyond the typical pre-med courses most people are used to taking and made A's in everything but still loathes chemistry.