Joe Hatcher wrote:
> We have talked in the past about setting up a two-track
> major, one track for those interested in research, the other for those
with other
> interests (keeping, of course, some level of research in that track as
> well). My question, I suppose, is should we set up our
> curriculum as if all of our students are future doctoral students? What
should we
> teach them?
I'm glad that you made that two separate questions. I think that the
answer to the first is a clear "no". IMHO, it doesn't serve students to
teach as if they're all going to be doctoral students, and it also doesn't
serve the future of psychology. We (my institution, but I believe it true
for the field in general) have an ongoing problem with unrealistic student
expectations in that area, and with student denigration of the alternatives
(there isn't anything at all wrong with pursuing different directions). I
imagine that graduate education would be improved if students had a better
notion of their interests and levels of achievement and understanding before
applying for graduate programs, rather than simply assuming that graduate
work necessarily follows from undergraduate work in psychology.
On the other hand, I think that a solid understanding of the
purposes of psychological research methods is important to all students,
even those who do not pursue the graduate degree. I certainly didn't have
any such understanding until my graduate program, and I shudder to think
about how narrow my worldview would be right now if I hadn't gone on. I
don't suppose that other types of employment (non-research oriented) are
likely to request or require or even necessarily respect a good
understanding of research methods, but I'm quite sure that they would be
better off if they did, and if the B.A. and B.S. students that wound up in
those positions had that understanding.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
