This is the first of many posts about this topic. I have yet to flesh out my ideas, but I wanted to start off with some thoughts.
Academia makes us aggressive. We are competing for the same scholarships, internship sites, and jobs. I've experienced a range of how programs deal with peer competition and I have to say, some do it significantly better than others.
I've noticed more competition in the field of psychology than in STEM fields. I don't think it is a secret that psychologists and other mental health professionals harness more narcissism than many professionals in other fields. This narcissistic vulnerability could be an artifact of wanting to be in a "helping" role, wanting to be the one holding the keys to someone's recovery, or needing to feel like we are changing others lives. However, I think the competitive feel to many psychology programs extends beyond the fragility of one's ego.
I haven't completely thought through these ideas, but I'm willing to have a dialogue. However, I do have a few thoughts to start off the conversation.
First, it's important to delineate research-oriented programs from clinical-oriented programs. Though I was in a research field prior to my current program, I do not know what the research field looks like in psychology, so I cannot speak to what occurs. In my previous experiences, student-researchers were EXTREMELY collaborative. I do not know if this happens in psychology graduate programs that are research-based. Please comment if you have experiences in a research-focused psychology program - I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Clinical-oriented programs are exactly what it sounds like, clinical/intervention focused. Everyone, in spite of their theoretical orientation, needs to complete, and do well, in certain classes. Say there are 15 students in a cohort; each of those 15 students are going to be evaluated on specific intervention and assessment skills. Those 15 students will be evaluated as though they are all the same person (though inherently, we know everyone has a nuanced approach to therapy or assessment). There is little to no room for idiosyncrasies.
Insert competition here. If every individual is aiming for the "same" thing, there is little room for personal growth and development. Everyone needs to learn the WAIS-IV, R-PAS, or whatever other instrument. How you learn the instrument does not matter as much as how you perform with the instrument. We are ultimately evaluated on the outcome, not the process of learning a specific skill or technique.
STEM fields allow student researchers to "rally" around an idea or concept in a lab (e.g., research project). The success of the rally depends on the level of cohesion in that particular lab. Clinical programs rarely have a similar phenomenon; there is nothing to rally around and there is very little "lab cohesion," if at all. Without an idea or concept, each student is fighting for her/him/themselves.
When in EEB (ecology and evolutionary biology), my lab had cohesion and we are working toward a better understanding a specific idea. Yes, we were still applying for the same grants and scholarships, and perhaps even the same post-docs and jobs. In spite of this, the environment felt different.
Please comment and create a dialogue. Peer competition has been something I've been thinking about for several years, especially since switching to the field of clinical psychology. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Disclaimer: "Kin selection" is used very loosely in the title.
- cg
Comments