What will be the consequence of forgetting what is learnt and ineffective study?

[psychstudent90]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi everyone,

I'm currently a third year psychology student, and I've recently finished all of my psychology units. The units I've taken are: Psychology A, Psychology B, Biological Psychology, Lifespan Development, Social Psychology, Psychology of Learning, Theories of Personality, Psychological Testing, Cognitive Psychology and Abnormal Psychology. We have also covered a lot of statistics.

I worry that either a) I'll forget what I've already learnt, or b) I ineffectively studied, and didn't learn anything properly in the first place. I don't remember much of what I've learnt over my undergraduate years.

I'm interested in a career as a health psychologist. How will what I've forgotten from my undergraduate years affect my career as a health psychologist, or even as a psychologist? Will it affect me at all? If so, how??

A lot of what we're leant isn't all that practical, so I figure that I may be okay - it's more theoretical.

I'll be interested to hear everyone's opinions.

Thank you!

 

[Psychadelic2012]

You have a LOT of years ahead of you to integrate what you've learned. You absolutely have no need to learn everything you need to know about psychology (or health psychology) just through college classes.

 

[haner2]

You have a LOT of years ahead of you to integrate what you've learned. You absolutely have no need to learn everything you need to know about psychology (or health psychology) just through college classes.

+1

Undergrad programs typically don't do much applied/practical stuff, so no worries there. In many grad programs the first year is more about relearning a lot of that stuff, the idea being that when you hear a concept you at least have some vague recollection of it and not necessarily an accurate definition. Most of what you do in grad school would be about integrating that into professional work.

 

[psychstudent90]

All makes sense. Thanks.

It's a shame that undergraduate programs don't have more practical application though - could get interesting.

 

[KillerDiller]

All makes sense. Thanks.

It's a shame that undergraduate programs don't have more practical application though - could get interesting.

In defense of undergraduate degrees, teaching practical skills in a field like psychology would be useless--you're not allowed to do much with just a bachelors. Much better to teach things like critical thinking and a scientific mindset that can serve students who take any number of career paths.

 

[voyeurofthemind]

You will essentially relearn it all during graduate school. You will eventually keep what you need and is essential and shed the rest. Don't stress over it - it will fall into place.

 

[aequitasveritas]

If you want to be a clinician, take philosophy classes. To this day my undergraduate classes in phenomenology and metaphysics guide my thinking more than any other class; even those from grad school.

 

[cara susanna]

Grad school is even worse when it comes to feeling like you haven't studied effectively and have just forgotten the information.

What's weird is how much it sticks despite this.

 

[Ollie123]

I've found that grad school school is not so much about memorizing things. It is mostly about getting a strong background for "fast" future learning, aggregating resources for later use, refining critical thinking skills, and "learning to learn" so to speak. Some folks certainly remember more than others, but I've also found that the folks that "seem" to know the most are often just overstating the things they do know. Not to stereotype but I've actually seen this most frequently amongst the pure clinicians I've worked with. Every time I describe a study (even if it is pre-clinical), it immediately turns into "How do I modify my practice based on this" without any consideration of the broader literature, need for replication, etc. Obviously I appreciate the desire to improve practice and openness to doing so, but it really speaks to a poor understanding of how science operates and how it should be used to inform practice. Knowledge is cumulative and studies are not discrete building blocks that say exactly what to do. When pressed for why something is being done a certain way, I often get the same thing...a single article that they know VERY well that may have showed something, but little attention to the broader literature, controversy on the topic, often relying completely on the abstract/intro/discussion with minimal ability to evaluate the methods/results.

This, in my opinion, is why research training is so critical to what we do. People familiar with the scientific process (should) know better than to engage in the above, better understand the limitations, etc. I've met some big name folks, and trust me, they didn't get there by memorizing everything. They have a good general sense of the literature, know its strengths, know its weaknesses and most of all, know how to approach things, think through problems, and come up with solutions.

I suppose that was a bit of a tangent, but its been on my mind today as I've been reviewing some animal research that has previously resulted in the conversation noted above. Not completely tangential though...OP, I also think this is one of the reasons why undergraduate psychology is not very applied. A little knowledge can be dangerous, and there needs to be a foundation first. I can certainly see undergrads falling even more easily into the trap above...suddenly that one thing learned in "Interventions" class is being used on friends/family, strangers, pets, and potentially causing a great deal of harm. Being a psychologist should be far more than learning a bunch of techniques for x, y, z. I agree with AQ - focus on learning how to think at this stage. In grad school, you will get more into applied elements (though even then it will not be "applied" in the way that many people - including myself - expected). Critical thinking is a far more valuable skill, and the best clinicians and researchers alike are people who have mastered it.

 

[psychstudent90]

In defense of undergraduate degrees, teaching practical skills in a field like psychology would be useless--you're not allowed to do much with just a bachelors. Much better to teach things like critical thinking and a scientific mindset that can serve students who take any number of career paths.

That's true, but if more practical skills were taught in the undergraduate degree, then maybe we wouldn't need to study for as long - perhaps an undergraduate degree and honours would be plenty!

 

[psychstudent90]

You will essentially relearn it all during graduate school. You will eventually keep what you need and is essential and shed the rest. Don't stress over it - it will fall into place.

Thanks 🙂

 

[KillerDiller]

That's true, but if more practical skills were taught in the undergraduate degree, then maybe we wouldn't need to study for as long - perhaps an undergraduate degree and honours would be plenty!

Applied skills are just icing on the cake. There is no way students should be let loose to practice on patients with only a few years of icing (e.g. listening skills, reflections) and no cake. That would be a recipe for disaster.

Graduate school itself isn't about learning applied skills either. Like Ollie said, it's about learning how to learn. You get more scientific and theoretical training than applied training. This is a good thing because it's this type of education that makes for skilled and knowledgeable practitioners--practitioners who will keep up with the research even as trends in therapy change.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

That's true, but if more practical skills were taught in the undergraduate degree, then maybe we wouldn't need to study for as long - perhaps an undergraduate degree and honours would be plenty!

Absolutely not.

There are already enough "shortcuts" people try and take, so we do not need to support an additional one. Undergraduate training is necessary to learn how to learn, and graduate school takes that ability further by overlaying a strong basis in research and methodology. Learning techniques and interventions is not that difficult, but the underlying training to know when/where/why the interventions is still needed.

 

[Ollie123]

Yeah...that sounds like a recipe for disaster. Again...you don't build a house without a foundation. If you are in a hurry I'd recommend looking into a master's (MSW, Clinical Psych, ABA, etc.). That's at least going to get you out a little sooner, and if you are primarily interested in being a "therapy technician" rather than a psychologist per se (which is the impression I'm getting), it is certainly far more than sufficient for that.

 

[psychstudent90]

You will essentially relearn it all during graduate school. You will eventually keep what you need and is essential and shed the rest. Don't stress over it - it will fall into place.

Makes sense. Thanks.

 

[psychstudent90]

If you want to be a clinician, take philosophy classes. To this day my undergraduate classes in phenomenology and metaphysics guide my thinking more than any other class; even those from grad school.

I actually took a couple of philosophy classes in my first year - was interesting I guess, but can't really say that it's guided my thinking.