Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You sound like you might want to steer clear of counseling psychology (what most people think of when they hear 'psychology'), and go more for cognitive experimental and/or quantitative psychology. People who can accurately predict the future behavior of other people will always be in demand (think advertising, production planning, risk management, organizational strategy, etc.) . A good psych curriculum (undertaken by a reasonably smart and driven individual) lays the groundwork for these kinds of professions. If you follow that path you will find yourself competing with software engineers, data scientists, and cut throat financial analysts. But you will have an advantage in that you will be able to create more nuanced models of prediction and classification, layering on factors that take into account latent constructs such as personality, intelligence, or memory. Cog-sci is at the forefront of AI and machine learning. There are no stupid people pioneering those fields.
That was not my experience but I am 65 so went to college a long time ago.
Not my experience either. I have a masters in Experimental Psychology, and the the courses were hard, to say the least. This was back in the 80's/early 90's, btw.
You sound like you might want to steer clear of counseling psychology (what most people think of when they hear 'psychology'), and go more for cognitive experimental and/or quantitative psychology. People who can accurately predict the future behavior of other people will always be in demand (think advertising, production planning, risk management, organizational strategy, etc.) . A good psych curriculum (undertaken by a reasonably smart and driven individual) lays the groundwork for these kinds of professions. If you follow that path you will find yourself competing with software engineers, data scientists, and cut throat financial analysts. But you will have an advantage in that you will be able to create more nuanced models of prediction and classification, layering on factors that take into account latent constructs such as personality, intelligence, or memory. Cog-sci is at the forefront of AI and machine learning. There are no stupid people pioneering those fields.
I am not studying bachelor of arts line in psychology, or clinical psychology.
Psychology is either an art or a science from my experience. Like the restaurant business you've got your "front of the house" folks who keep the books and your "back of the house" gang who cook and serve the food. They are often at odds with one another.
If you want to do research and develop theories you'll need the hard sciences but to be a good clinical psychologist you'll need a totally different group of skills, many of them instinctual. These often can't be learned through study. Testing for them is even more problematic.
It's very similar to teaching. You not only have to know your subject matter but be able to communicate it in such a way that it is digestible. One is intellectual and the other is interactional and social. All the knowledge in the world is useless if you are unable to present it in a way that is accessible to your students. And woe be to the rigid instructor who will not accept alternative viewpoints in the soft sciences. I think this is a veritable scourge today.
At very least a good teacher should be aware of various approaches to the subject matter, be competent in the language in which he is teaching, and encourage exploration and discussion of the efficacy of what may be conflicting practices. Like a good psychologist - a neutral stance, presenting information and stimulating self-discovery.
Again, this is criticism towards bachelor of science, not arts.
I could give a laundry list but here are some of the substandard features of the psychology department I study at.
*No requirement to deduce anything by hand mathematically, to actually demonstrate an understanding of what it is you are doing and seeding out the good from the bad
* Only requirement in terms of algebra is to recognize the symbols for different meanings (for an example correlation coefficients) and learning how to type it into SPPS. Not actually recalling and writing them yourself.
* Lax exams, criterias and gradings (I worked on one exam as an undergrad for 1 hour intending to get an E, received a B)
* Lecturers are of mediocre intelligence both verbally and mathematically, yet somehow became professors and researchers in a respected university
* Some of the natural sciences and medical information is incorrect due to lazy confirmation (claiming in the PSYCH litterature that Kim Peek was autistic, when he in fact had a brain abnormity, never diagnosed or suspected of having autism, or that austism could account for his unhuman memory feats). Also relaying popular science myths such as that aspergers don't have empathy (I could sue this ignoramus for defamation if I cared to).
I am interested both in the present and the past, why are social sciences saddled with these typical characteristics. I have studied for several years, and not once have I noticed a break in the pattern).
And yes, they are by an large of inferior intelligence, sorry to say. And that includes the slacker students. The GRE data also have them at rock bottom accordingly.
The natural sciences aren't without faults but they are rarely plagued by these things in particular. I even took some philosophy courses, and every single lecturer in that light weight discipline were of superior intelligence (still not to the point that I felt intimidated, but much smarter than PSYCH professors.
Undergrad programs are much different that graduate-level courses. If you're still studying for your bachelor's, you'll be going through motions to make sure everyone knows statistics, how to conduct empirical studies, and some history lessons.
I imagine people take the most fulfilling or lucrative role they can interview into (depending on their motives). I'd try to "feel out" the psych professors and see if most are graduates of that same college, how advanced is THEIR education, do they care about publishing works, etc.
Two more interesting names who not only help fund public education but also influence it came up in this thread - Carnegie and Mellon. There are also the Rockefellers.
Undergrad programs are much different that graduate-level courses. If you're still studying for your bachelor's, you'll be going through motions to make sure everyone knows statistics, how to conduct empirical studies, and some history lessons.
I imagine people take the most fulfilling or lucrative role they can interview into (depending on their motives). I'd try to "feel out" the psych professors and see if most are graduates of that same college, how advanced is THEIR education, do they care about publishing works, etc.
I know from people with interdisciplinary studies at undergrad level, that psychology was a vacation for them in terms of work effort and getting high grades.
There is a larger picture here of the direction of education of which most posters seem oblivious. It benefits all of us to know why things that seem counterintuitive exist.
Remember those who pay get the say. Or, follow the money.
Again, this isn't a personal issue between students and instructors. It's a national issue of who is pulling the strings and why.
Please take time to find out the politics behind your education. You do understand that you are being prepared to do something for society? What exactly is that and will it fit your ideology?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
