Was Your Undergrad Program Like This

[JackD]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I was looking through the course catalog for my school to make my schedule for next semester. I have finally reached the top level psychology courses, the "400" level at my school. These are the ones that require a lot of prerequisites. We have the "100" and "200" level which are just intro classes and non-psychology major psyc classes. "300" level classes are a bit more specific and are classes like "developmental psychology", "social psychology", "psychopathology".

I have never really looked at what the 400 level courses were about, i just assumed it would be a lot of independent study, honor thesis, internship courses, things like that. Plus two or three "lab" courses. However, i found a bunch of highly specific courses that i am wondering if they are common among undergrad programs. Courses like "I/O Psychology", "Clinical Psychology", "Health Psychology", "Experimental Psychology". Plus a number of history courses and so called "Advanced" courses, like "Advanced Developmental Psychology".

I assumed that the 300 level courses were sort of the end of the road, since psychology majors are not generally required to take the 400 level courses (just two labs but those are nothing special). Clearly that isn't right. Are kinds of classes commonly held at universities or is this sort of unique to have classes in things like "I/O Psychology"?

Even if it isn't unique, it is still exciting.

 

[RayneeDeigh]

My undergrad 400 level courses were a) my thesis class, b) cross-cultural social psychology, c) a cognitive course about the processes related to remembering. There were also things like advanced physiological psych, advanced child development, etc. Of course there were also independent study 400-level courses but we were required to take at least two of the specific seminar-type classes.

CPA requires (I'm doing this from memory so I could be wrong) one grad-level course in social/cultural psych, cognitive psych, physiological psych, history and systems, personality, and abnormal psych. At my grad school if we've taken two senior-level (300/400) courses in social, cog, or phys, we can submit our syllabi and get credit for one of those areas. So for that reason I'm glad they were very specific subject areas.

 

[Boston2k]

At my undergraduate institution it was the same, with three 400-level classes required. The special seminars were 500 level, and graduate was 600 and above.
​

 

[erg923]

Yes, it's pretty common place. My senior capstone class was "Personality Disorders." I think they offered advanced topics in clinical psych, neuroscience of consciousness, I/O psych, health psych, etc.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think 300's were advanced seminar classes, and 400's were reserved for independent research and thesis projects.

When I arrived at grad school I realized that I had a lot more exposure to particular areas, as we had a strong faculty with a clinical focus. The more hardcore research was done at a brother school with whom we often shared classes. They'd come to our campus for the more theory based courses, and we'd take classes over there in regard to statistics, research, etc.

 

[KillerDiller]

I'm fairly certain we had most of those classes at my undergraduate program as well. And if you think classes like "Clinical Psychology" are highly specific now, just wait until you get to grad school 😉. I'm taking an entire course next semester on a single assessment.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm fairly certain we had most of those classes at my undergraduate program as well. And if you think classes like "Clinical Psychology" are highly specific now, just wait until you get to grad school 😉. I'm taking an entire course next semester on a single assessment.

Are you going to get up close and personal with the Rorschach?

 

[JackD]

My senior capstone class was "Personality Disorders."

That sounds like it would be awesome. Unfortunately nothing like that exists at my school.

 

[erg923]

It was..and it was taught by "the man" himself...Thomas Widiger. Open up the DSM-IV and look who the head of research and the head of the PD work group was...... Lots of good inside info about the working and politics of DSM in that class. Very enlightening to say the least.

 

[KillerDiller]

Are you going to get up close and personal with the Rorschach?

Indeed.

I'm not really sure how I feel about that yet, but as several east coast internship sites require it, I figure I'd better be familiar with it.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Indeed.

I'm not really sure how I feel about that yet, but as several east coast internship sites require it, I figure I'd better be familiar with it.

Some interviews give you a structured summary and ask you for your opinions on it. 😱 I have issues with the Extner system, though everyone needs to come to their own conclusions with the method, research, and whatnot behind it. Have fun!!

 

[Ollie123]

Indeed.

I'm not really sure how I feel about that yet, but as several east coast internship sites require it, I figure I'd better be familiar with it.

My solution to that problem was deciding "Welp, guess I won't be applying to those internship sites" 😉

To be honest, I'm not even sure where I COULD get trained on it if I wanted to.

 

[erg923]

I actually didn't realize any programs (except for maybe Minnesota and the like🙂) DIDN'T teach the Rorschach, even if they were biased against it. A professor of mine once told me "if you buy the premise, you buy the whole joke,"...obviously meaning, if you don't buy into psychoanalytic theory, you can not buy into the Rorschach. They way it was taught us (Exner system), I don't quite see it that way anymore. Anyone feel this way? I still don't know if I'd ever want to use it in clinical settings though (I can think of plenty of other ways to get the info that is less controversial)...so I guess that says alot doesn't it....

 

[Ollie123]

We got one class (e.g. 2-3 hours) on it in assessment, that was it. I'm not positive of this since I haven't had reason to look into, but I'm also fairly certain they won't even approve a practicum site if they're using the Rorschach. I think there's SOME way to get trained on it since they said if we want to do internship in NYC we should find some way to do one, but they didn't elaborate on that at all, and it was said with a grimace😉

I'm not as against it as some in my program since I don't think we should completely stop doing research on it,mostly because I find it hard to ever justify putting such an artificial constraint on what scientific discoveries could come about.

I can't imagine actually utilizing it as anything but an absolute last resort though. Even just from an economic standpoint, the time spent to administer and score the damn thing just doesn't seem worth it given the fact that it tends to provide suspect results under the best of circumstances.

Anyhow, back on the original topic - my classes actually got even more specific than that as an undergrad. Things like "Clinical psychology" and"I/O psychology" were actually 300-level. 400-level was "Mood disorders", "Anxiety Disorders", "Small group processess", etc.

 

[JackD]

my classes actually got even more specific than that as an undergrad.

Thats fine, i'm really happy for you.

Now if you excuse me, i have something in my eye :cry:

 

[Ollie123]

Thats fine, i'm really happy for you.

Now if you excuse me, i have something in my eye :cry:

If it makes you feel better - the topic was narrower but I still didn't learn much! I actually wish I had taken more general classes as an undergrad. I could have used substantially more broad overview classes since I feel like my background in certain areas is pretty inadequate and there's simply not enough time to get it in graduate school.

 

[erg923]

Just hop back on the Rorschach thing for one more post....the Rorschach was discussed on the npsych listerver just a few weeks ago (a graduate student on there asked for opinions and had a list of questions, because she was doing some survey research on the issue for a poster). It was interesting to hear the varying opinions from NP practitioners throughout the country, everything from "almost useless," to "used often and very valuable." Overall, the feedback wasn't near as negative as I would have thought (especially since these were NPs). It seems its used alot more than I thought it was too. Most hoped grad students were a least "familiar" with its administration.

 

[joshie6891]

I go to a really huge school... so I guess things are different here. 200s are stuff like intro, stats and experimental. 300, 400, 500 are midrange stuff like abnormal, neuroses, psychoses, behavioral neuroscience, social, cultural, perception, etc but upper level stuff is mixed in. 600s are some stuff like upper level stat analysis for undergrads, and all the research/independent study numbers are there. 700 and above is all graduate level, but it's possible for undergrads to take some things with professor approval.

 

[Ollie123]

I don't find that completely surprising. The concern that people seem to have for evidence-based practice in this field is actually pretty appalling.

We had a lengthy discussion in one class about a translational conference that was held here a few years back. One of the hot issues was that practitioners were leaving many area practices that had a strong emphasis on a scientific approach because they didn't find evidence-based assessments and treatment "as fun". Direct quote. Its a completely foreign concept to me given the educational environment I grew up in, but there are a disturbingly large group of people who seem to think mucking around with clients brains without any real plan and just going off pure intution is a perfectly acceptable practice.

I'm not sure if they mean familiar as in "able to give one" or familiar as in "know what it is". I'm certainly closer to the latter. Given my career goals the chances of it ever being an issue for me are near zero, so unless there is a major breakthrough in Rorschach research sometime in my lifetime, I doubt I will ever end up giving one and I'm not terribly worried about that🙂

 

[JackD]

The concern that people seem to have for evidence-based practice in this field is actually pretty appalling.

You know i read that incorrectly and was about to go off on you for lack of interest in science but it turns out that you are on the same page as me, so you know you are on the right path. 👍

Now i may not be in grad school or have any kind of "college level degrees" but it seems to me that this field would do itself a favor by embracing the scientific aspect of psychology, like your cognitive-behavioral, experimental, and biological psychology, and largely reject the ideas and theories of the likes of Freud and the psychodynamic and perhaps even humanistic crowd. Dream analysis, unconditional positive regard, object relations, psychosexual development? Please, what in god's name is that? Frankly i am tired of every semester having to mesmerize the age when every little boy and girl wants to have sex with their parents. You know what, i have a theory, maybe magical unicorns cause depression. Prove me wrong! Any other non-falsifiable theories you would like to pull out of your...well you know what i am getting at. If this field is in fact a science then it needs to be approached as such, in a strict, systematic, falsifiable manner.

 

[erg923]

"If this field is in fact a science then it needs to be approached as such, in a strict, systematic, falsifiable manner."

I agree with you, but unfortunately, clinical psychology doesn't really work like that just by its nature. Its a "soft science" branch of psychology (along with social) and always will be. Neuroscience, animal learning, etc are the hard branches. How do you observe unconsciousness? But, I'm sure most of us aren't naive enough to think that all cognitions and emotions lie on the surface. You'd be hard pressed to find clinical psychologists (except radical behaviorists) that deny unconscious motivations/drives these days. How do observe love for example? You can't, but I'm sure you think it exists.

When I first began reading some of Meehl's work (he was as empirical as it gets), I was astonished that he held Freud in high regard. I don't think its wise to dismiss theories of Freud, even though I might not buy into alot of it (and I don't). I think graduate level exposure to psychoanalytic theories of personality/behavior is necessary before one can make an educated decision on this. It's much more than psychosexual stages and sex. Unconditional positive regard and Rogerian theories of personality and psychotherapy form the foundation of graduate training in the basics of psychotherapy, and are very useful with clients actually. You certainly cant dismiss these when you star your first practicum.

 

[JackD]

You certainly cant dismiss these when you star your first practicum.

Yes i can but when that time comes i will be wise and just play along 😉

 

[erg923]

lol..ok fair enough. What do you find wrong about having "unconditional positive regard" for your client exactly though? This principle forms the backbone of psychotherapy whether you are Rogerian in your therapy style or not.

 

[JackD]

lol..ok fair enough. What do you find wrong about having "unconditional positive regard" for your client exactly though? This principle forms the backbone of psychotherapy whether you are Rogerian in your therapy style or not.

I think taking the exact opposite approach is the way to go. I feel that verbally abusing your clients until they behave in the way you want is the best way to treat those who may have disorders. Really give them the kick in the *** they need. "Stop hallucinating god damn it!" Are you telling me that wouldn't work? I will take an Anti-Rogerian approach to therapy, if you will.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Albert (E)......is that you?!!

 

[myelin]

I think taking the exact opposite approach is the way to go. I feel that verbally abusing your clients until they behave in the way you want is the best way to treat those who may have disorders. Really give them the kick in the *** they need. "Stop hallucinating god damn it!" Are you telling me that wouldn't work? I will take an Anti-Rogerian approach to therapy, if you will.

see: countertransference.

😉

 

[KillerDiller]

"When I first began reading some of Meehl's work (he was as empirical as it gets), I was astonished that he held Freud in high regard.

I didn't know this. Meehl is my hero. 😍

I don't find that completely surprising. The concern that people seem to have for evidence-based practice in this field is actually pretty appalling.

Agreed. My concern about the Rorschach comes from a slightly different place, though. There actually is empirical support for the measure, but it all comes directly from Exner, the same company who controls the publication of all of the materials. This seems like a gigantic conflict of interest to me.

it seems to me that this field would do itself a favor by embracing the scientific aspect of psychology, like your cognitive-behavioral, experimental, and biological psychology, and largely reject the ideas and theories of the likes of Freud and the psychodynamic and perhaps even humanistic crowd. Dream analysis, unconditional positive regard, object relations, psychosexual development? Please, what in god's name is that?

I agree with you in general. I don't think all of the things you mention here are created equal, however. I'm not an expert on the psychodynamic orientation by any means, but my impression was that several techniques have met some or most of the criteria for empirically-supported treatments. Someone please chime in if they know. In my opinion, some of the psychodynamic ideas even sneak over to the CBT camp and try to pass themselves off as being behavioral or cognitively oriented (cough couch, schema therapy). Anyway, I guess my main point is that there is a large gap between object relations theory and dream analysis.

Oh, and as someone who is really into DBT, I have sort of a weird relationship with the idea of unconditional positive regard. 🙂

 

[Ollie123]

How do you observe unconsciousness?

With an EEG😀

Seriously though, I don't think we need to dismiss all of that out of hand. My concern is that there is a prevailing attitude of ignoring research, acting on a whim, etc. among many practitioners in this field. I've said before I think those folks are unethical and should have their licenses revoked and that turned into quite the interesting discussion😉 Its one thing to utilize a less empirically supported approach for a good reason. Its done in medicine too...when normal meds aren't working they try the new drugs that might not be proven yet. I think that's the approach we need to be using. Not "I like this one better so I do it this way". This is supposed to be about the client, not the therapist!

I do agree that I wish psych textbooks focused a bit more on modern psychology. Students introduction to this field should not come through a semester of learning things we already know are wrong (e.g. development stages). I'm all for learning the history of psychology, I just find it frustrating that most intro textbooks will spend huge amounts of time discussing things like that, and almost no time on what real psychologists are actually doing. Its the equivalent of evolutionary bio spending half the semester talking about creationism.

One last thing - I have to disagree that even the Exner system is empirically supported. CERTAINLY more so than the original system, but I haven't even seen a terribly convincing argument made for the Exner system. Though if you have some readings that ARE convincing I wouldn't object🙂 All the stuff I've read has still been very controversial with a fair amount of the pro-Rorschach stuff still seeming to be driven by poor research designs.

 

[erg923]

"I didn't know this. Meehl is my hero. 😍
Yes indeed, Freud lived on in dustbowl empiricism, sort of anyway. Meehl's psychotheraputic frame was largely guided by psychoanalytic principles in the 40s and 50s, although he moved away from it in his later years and was a big proponent of Ellis's Rational-emotive therapy. Although Minnesota was of course behaviorist back then (40's), most of his clinical training was done by psychiatrists, because in those days, there simply were very few "clinical psychologists," and only some of them were doing therapy. These were the days when clinical psychologists were still mostly researchers and psychometrists. He did a series of attempts with Cronbach and MacCorquodale in the 50's to try to quantify some psychoanalytic theories, but came to the conclusion that they just could not figure how to test the "damn thing" as he put it, and nothing was published. Nevertheless, he remained convinced that Freud has discover some universal truths with his work. He has a couch and picture of Freud in his office until he died. He spent years in psychoanalytic therapy himself actually. He was also a strong proponent of the Psy.D training model, but in classic Meehl style, commented that he probably wouldn't enjoy teaching these students...lol

He was a very, very interesting man, and one of the most underrated psychologists in history I think. His 1954's Clinical vs Statistical Prediction is a classic and is mandatory reading in our program, not sure about anyone else's. "Why I don't Attend Case Conferences is probably my fav, and is an absolute riot to read (i.e., uncle George's pancakes fallacy).

 

[KillerDiller]

He was a very, very interesting man, and one of the most underrated psychologists in history I think. His 1954's Clinical vs Statistical Prediction is a classic and is mandatory reading in our program, not sure about anyone else's. "Why I don't Attend Case Conferences is probably my fav, and is an absolute riot to read (i.e., uncle George's pancakes fallacy).

"Clinical vs. Statistical Prediction" is required reading in my program too and I'm so grateful for that. I haven't read the case conferences paper yet, but will make sure to pick it up since you mention it. Actually, my first encounter with Meehl was reading a collection of tributes to him after his death. I wish I could remember the name of the collection or where it was published, it was quite insightful. It was also my first introduction to Bayesian statistics.

 

[JackD]

If we are going to turn my thread into a discussion of our heroes then i am obligated to weigh in. Of course i have more but my top two are:

Albert Ellis
Martin Seligman


I read a good portion of one of Seligman's books for my personality psychology class and the way him and Ellis transformed the field was amazing. The way they challenged the behaviorist's narrow view of human nature, despite the fact that they totally dominated american psychology, was very impressive.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

This would be an interesting topic to split out....

Mine:

Freud
(Harry) Stack Sullivan
(Carl) Rogers
Yalom

 

[JackD]

Mine:

Freud

Despite my anti-psychodynamic rant yesterday (i feel more like a nerd everyday, i swear to god) i have to agree, what freud did to the field should make him a hero to all of us. Not because of what he believed about psychology, which i feel is mostly bull but because of what he did. He attempted to organize and clarify what psychology is. His specific theories may not have been all that correct but he did something that needed to be done in order to really advance this field. Without him, it would have taken god knows how long to make psychology a cohesive field. Look at psychology from 1915 and it was a total mess. Compare it to psychology in 1940 and they aren't even in the same league and Freud is largely to thank for that. So i agree, Freud was a great man.

 

[erg923]

It is interesting to ponder the influence of Freud, and why he seemed to be more influential in American psychiatry than in Europe. Obviously he influenced psychiatry throughout the developed world, but the US seemed to run with his theories far more than Europe (much to our demise I think). Psychiatry in the US, largely because of Krapelin, was very biologic up until Freud visited Clark U, and the word spread around the turn of the century. And of course, we have turned full circle again since then, very interesting.

I wouldn't really say psychology was a "mess" at this time though, as it was still primarily an academic discipline and had little in common with psychiatry before the birth of "clinical psychology" proper. Many of the breakthroughs in learning theory, intelligence, psychometrics, came in the early part of the century and were largely totally separate endeavors from what Freud was doing. I think Pavlov and the early experimenters in the early 1900s like Witmer, James, Thorndike, Woolworth, Watson, Tolman, Hull deserve alot of credit for pulling psychology together into a cohesive academic discipline.

 

[shock-me-sane]

I think taking the exact opposite approach is the way to go. I feel that verbally abusing your clients until they behave in the way you want is the best way to treat those who may have disorders. Really give them the kick in the *** they need. "Stop hallucinating god damn it!" Are you telling me that wouldn't work? I will take an Anti-Rogerian approach to therapy, if you will.

If you are single, we totally need to date
😍