Clinical Psychology is indeed not an easy ride --the course admission criteria alone make your eyes water. If you specialise in issues like psychosis, personality disorders or rehabilitation or neuropsychology, severe learning disability or dementia, things really get complex (in the more research-based fields of cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics things are not exactly simple either). Those are the intellectual challenges, but then there are the psychological challenges: life-and-death decision making and human suffering stuff you get to deal with on a regular basis; whether it is suicide (or violence) risk assessment and prevention in forensic or mental health, serious physical disfigurement or disability (I mean, serious missing significant parts of the body stuff), chronic pain, or death and dying in psycho-oncology. Ever talk a person down from killing themselves? Ever unflinchingly look a man in the eyes when half his face is missing? Ever held the hand of a dying person? Regular fare in our line of work. And we have to hold ourselves as well --in our line of work you have to be human, but at the same time can't be too human... It can never be about you, yet at the same time, it's all about you... Be careful. Be very, very careful. This ride is not for the weak. Psychology is often mistaken for an easy ride, which is why it gets many eager students signing up. But the drop-out rate is staggering. In Holland, of the 200 people signing up in my first year, only 37 made it to the second. In the UK, only one in 15 applicants makes it on the Clinical course.
This BBC News article would suggest otherwise (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4459922.stm). In any case, your argument "Of course the study of the mind is not worthless, but for the most part at secondary school levels they don't actually teach anyone all that much they couldn't find out just be reading the subject a little themselves" is fundamentally flawed, as I'm sure any intelligent person could pass Chemistry A-level if they read the relevant materials. First, could you please define these elusive "hard subjects"? As dragontail indicated above, it is somewhat subjective what one finds both difficult and interesting. In any case, your argument presupposes the supremacy of non-"funky" subjects (another elusive term) and is therefore circular. Why is doing a subject few others study per se better than a more ubiquitously followed one? Are you saying that if everyone did Physics it would be worth less (surely not!). Furthermore, to address all these claims about scientists working harder, I think you'll find that at Oxbridge and other premier institutions, everyone has to work damn hard. I don't know where you've been though.
Interestingly, I read an article a while back in which several Fortune 500 CEOs placed a higher value on Liberal Arts degrees than hard science degrees. Their reasoning: A Liberal Arts graduate (presumably) will have had a more diverse education, and (presumably) will have had a wider field of experience on which to draw to make important business-related decisions. If the CEOs' perspective is correct, you might be first in line to get that high-paying engineering job, but the Sociology major will be your boss. Personally, I think the field of study is irrelevant. I would say that hard work in general is its own reward, not hard work in a "hard" science. In other words, success is not determined by a college degree. Rather, it is how you apply yourself in your particular field. I think obtaining a college degree is a good measure that a person is willing - and able - to learn. What that person does later may not be related at all. For example, one of my good friends from college double-majored in Psychology and Latin. He now works in IT and has numerous certifications as the result of hard work. A good number of journalists do not study journalism. Instead they studied History or other such subjects (I'm sure you can see how History or Sociology might be a good basis for journalist). -monkey
I would say the sciences, languages(including English), some of the more vocationally directed studies, are the harder ones. The "funky" term is pretty much covered by the original article, I would say. Feel free to read it I didn't say better, I said that commonly taken degrees had more value. I'm sure you're perfectly aware the two are not one in the same. Graduates are like anything else, there's supply and demand. Little supply means more value put on things where a greater supply is desired. Plenty supply means less value put on the same things(things being graduates, in this case). So in a few years, when there's a glut of sociology graduates, they're going to be tripping over each other to find places that would normally consider a sociology graduates for employment. Of course that's working on the assumption that people are going to university with the main purpose of getting a good job afterward, but I'd be surprised if that's not why the majority of people go to university. Maybe thats the case, but there aren't a whole lot of premier institutions are there now? The majority of undergraduates are going to be going to regular uni's that don't have a name recognised anywhere, and I think that study I linked pretty much covers the sort of hours people doing the more recently popular subjects like social sciences do compared with the ever active med-student.
My dad finds physics hard but he couldn't actually do it, whereas I find it quite easy not ridiculously hard (when I do any sort of reasonable work at it ) but not (at the moment) thoroughly interesting. There is a differance between understanding and being interested, but if they intertwine its very handy.
All I can say to this is "awww c'mon" you don't seriously want me to believe that media studies is on the same difficultly level as mathematics? Bloody hell a load of tripe is uttered on these forums some times. My younger brother studies 'Computing' at university... another one of those vague popular 'funky' subjects. I do all his course work for him. I help him get very good grades. I've never done any computing-type studies in my life. I doubt he could reciprocate in the same manner or with similar a degree of success with my degree (engineering and finance). I also studied science and mathematics based subjects at A-Level. My 5th subject was Design and Communication and I took A-Level art as an extra-curricular subject. They were a piece of piss compared to the sciences... literally little or no thinking involved to get a good mark. Using that as my standard for grading subjects; it is a definite tell tail sign that not all subjects are created equal.
Well don't because it doesn't help him AT ALL - nor does it help society. Also... computing? Funky?! Also where does he study? Here at edinburgh 'Informatics' carries a pretty hefty maths course along with it.
The question I have, Nexxo, is how well does your formal training prepare you for those expieriences? As you know I'm a volunteer firefighter in a busy department and so I've had many of those same expieriences, but without the years of training and schooling. In fact, aside from Critical Incident Stress Management for respondsers, we don't have access to any psychological training for dealing with patients. Despite this handicap, we deal with these and similar incidents on a regular basis in a field, as opposed to clinical, enviroment. Conversley, I'd wager that you have some associates who are well educated and highly respected acedemically, but who you wouldn't let near a patient. My point is that I think that the skills in question are not so directly related to the degree program as to individual expierience and empathy. THis is by no means intended to denigrate your profession or education, but to point out that many others who haven't had that education deal with the same circumstances daily.
Firstly, just because you choose to form your sentences like a Shakespearian extra, does not mean that us 'scientists' are devoid of the capability to 'marshal an argument'. That statement is pretty unfair and misplaced. So get down off your horse. Synonymously, there's no justification for you to come along and start b*tchslapping people after we've already established that serious literary subjects are not on the same level as the 'funky' subjects that are the brunt of this thread. No one's calling you stupid. That said, I fully agree with the formal report. There aren't enough young people doing sciences. As far as I'm concerned, New Labour has practically demolished the British comprehensive school system. There needs to be radical changes over the next few years or there's going to be a generation of children who just don't bother even going to school.
Right, so you took an easy A-level in art and therefore art-related studies are easy? I aced geometry in high school and never took home any work. Likewise, anatomy and physiology was one of the easiest courses I have ever taken. I suppose by your logic architecture and medical school can't be that hard. By contrast, my advanced-placement high school art courses were much more difficult, and required much more of my free time. It didn't matter that the inside angles of a regular, planar triangle added up to 180. I couldn't simply open a ferret and identify the major components of the skeletal system. With art, I had to deal with the subjective opinions of art teachers. If the basic art students could draw a circle, well that was good. In the advanced classes, we were expected to produce advanced work; emphasis was placed on photo-realism. We were creating the portfolios that would get us into art school. The hard sciences require much more academic learning. I won't argue that (though, you could ask pookyhead to discuss the technical aspects of photography). But there is a reason that many art students keep a cot in their studios. Just because they don't learn as many facts about the periodic table doesn't mean that they don't have difficult work to do. Just like Nexxo's psychology students, very few art students go on to be full-time artists. It's difficult to maintain consistently good work, especially since the work is being judged by a completely subjective system. All that aside, it appears as though the thread has wandered a bit to each of us defending our particular fields of study. I don't think kids are moving away from science because it's difficult. Rather, I think it's because there is a lack of interest; there's more sex appeal to being a rock star or pro athlete than a geek with thick glasses tucked away in a lab somewhere. -monkey
Thanks for reminding us that many not-so-academically prestigeous professions do indeed routinely deal with very challenging and complex stuff that requires the sort of skill and experience many PhD's sorely lack... Formal training prepares us (as far as any training can) with frameworks and models, but the real training is mainly experiential. Hence Clinical Psychology training involves a lot of working experience and in-depth supervision of this experience (or should). Darn tootin'. And a point well made. Clinical psychologists are priviliged in that we get a lot more training, I suspect, than emergency services ever do. But we also (should) train and support such services; we are the ring-bearer, so to speak. And we are expected to go well beyond empathy. We have to understand. We get to deal with the extreme and the abnormal. We do not just get to hold people, but get to hold people that may shout and scream and swear and try to kick and bite and kill us. We get to hold people who see monsters and demons, or who occasionally are monsters and demons; who have done outrageous things, or have had outrageous things done to them. We have to be human, but not all too human... We have to watch our own thoughts and feelings and behaviours as well as those of the patient. We have to be empathic, but not collude; to maintain boundaries, but not be harsh and uncaring; to know the patient, and know ourselves. We have to offer stability, and offer change. It's a whole different level.
I didn't suggest that eloquence and the ability to marshal an argument are coterminous factors, so that generous inference is all yours. Bowled over were you? Perhaps I put the point a little insensitively though, but I was a little taken aback by the intellectual snobbery. Have we? I asked specofdust to define his notion of "hard" subjects, and he neglected to mention English Literature, History or Politics etc. All of these I would consider "hard". No one else has cared to define what they mean. Secondly, I was responding to a specific point there, and your not quoting what I was referring to pulls the remarks out of there original context, thus altering their meaning. For example, when I said "Of course, all people not doing sciences are stupid!" this was in response to specofdust's offensive remark that "That’s just downright offensive. Doing hard subjects [which he defines as everything excluding: 'the sciences, languages(including English), some of the more vocationally directed studies'],is it's own reward imo, that and you don't have to put up with all the work-shy egits." I think the irony was appropriate in this instance, but wouldn't have written in the context of what other people have said. Indeed, no one directly has. This is what we call an inference (we looked at these above, remember). It was a pretty easy one too, considering the meaning of "egit". Agreed. I think a lot of it stems from having a generous welfare state. In America, people don't mess around as much, and if you fail, then there's no council to give you a house or benefit office to pay for the fags. Perhaps if we didn't have benefits, people would realise what precious lifelines schools are.
So you jump to the conclusion that by me saying I want to avoid certain people doing specific courses(which quite frankly I do, I hate people wasting everyones time when I'm trying to learn things, and picking harder subjects is a great way of avoiding said people) that I think all people doing said courses are stupid? I think perhaps you take offence a little too easily, if that is the case. Oh and the "That's just downright offensive." line was yours I assume, certainly I didn't write it but you've quoted me as saying it twice now.
Computing students in general are on the decline. Probably because people see it as a "tech support" or "code monkey" type degree. Basically limiting your job prospects once you leave. Also its harder than say an Art degree or history of art. Maybe its because computers/technology are no longer "new and scary" anyone can use a PC. Or rather anyone thinks they can use a PC. Word does NOT equal using a PC. Not trying to knock down other peoples degree's, just wondering exactly what some students plan to DO with their degree once they graduate... We only need so many art teachers or artists or new upcoming boy/girl bands... Then again most will put "PC skills" down on their CV and end up getting a job in some tech dept somewhere due to being cheaper than a computing graduate... The government seem to be pushing "everyone go get a degree or education" really hard at the moment, and people seem to be jumping on the bandwagon. A degree opens up new opportunites soon the UK will be populated with educated shop assistants. Maybe you can strike up an informed conversation with the checkout assistant in Tesco's in a few years time.... Ah well, least with less people doing computing degree's it's easier to get a job out of uni! As for your bro, erm don't help him... Your only doing him a dis-service by doing his work for him. Making him lazy etc. Your not going to be there forever helping him with coursework/exams are you... (or maybe you will be....)
A-levels aren't too easy, GCSE's are! the gap is way too big, i got all A's and B's at GCSE without doing any work (literally, no homework at all and the absolute bare minimum in class) then i get to A-level and its a completely different ballgame
I can honestly say my school does not discriminate against achievement in subject availability. Just do the best you can seems to be the motto here, although a C is the minimum at GCSE to pick any subject up at A level. I take A2 Chemistry, Physics and Maths. Woo! my subjects worth more... . I would argue that Chemistry and Physics are harder as they require an understanding of theory and not just knowledge of a particular topic. Oh and for you Jerby, I got a B in AS History purely from memory with a scribe to write my exam paper. Lots of science based students take a social science to AS level.
I'm flattered that you edited your post just for me. But anyway, I think it's good that you did History. More people should take a blend of Arts and Sciences, hence getting a more balanced education. I personally wish I'd done Maths at A-level as it would be bloody useful for Economic History. Also, as my regret points out, disciplines feed into one another, and our education system doesn't acknowledge that at the moment. Finally, you seem to imply that AS History was easy because you achieved a B in it "purely from memory with a scribe to write my exam paper". I'm not quite sure what you mean, as most exams are done from memory, and surely having a scribe is irrelevant?
Shall we read what the original article said again? We're talking about A-level subjects here. The people in my triple maths set (of which most are doing chem and or physics too) would agree that the other subjects they're doing (politics, economics, electronics, etc.) are easier than chem/phys/English which are far easier than the maths. Well, that's quite a problem: apparently, people get a degree (from Luton or wherever) and then reckon they're a bit too good to be doing secretarial work and end up unemployed or unsatisfied with their job. I heard someone say it'd be better if more people did apprenticeships, then there'd be more plumbers and they'd be cheaper. But I think they might have been joking. And, Jerby:
