Jump to content

Reading Terminal

Members
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Reading Terminal

  1. I am interested in opinions about GRE prep books that would help steer a reader towards high GRE scores. I have what I'll call thorough experience with the LSAT, where I managed a 96th percentile, so I feel pretty familiar with testmanship, like pacing and utilizing my own strengths and that sort of thing. The LSAT was a beast. No one is born good at the LSAT, you have to grind your way up there and really get to know that test intimately, and in a sense, the test-makers. I think the LSAT must be a more process-driven test than the GRE, but I don't think it's likely that the GRE doesn't involve constantly evaluating what the test-maker's goals are for every question. I used the powerscore LSAT bibles, and I feel that they were very helpful in bringing me up to speed, but there was a pretty hard plateau around the 70-80th percentile and the reason I was able to work up to 96th was because I took literally every LSAT practice exam available, some 20-25 tests. Every time I got a question wrong, I'd look up that question to understand why. I am concerned about taking the GRE because there are a very limited number of practice exams available, so my LSAT strategy will not work. Does anyone have any insight about GRE books that could help me? I'm looking for books (or even online courses, if I must) that offer a very comprehensive overview.
  2. Alright, this has been fantastic, once again I'd like to thank you all! If I may, I'd like to ask more naive questions and steer us back towards the discussion about obtaining the right master's. That feels like the challenge ahead and PsychMama's experience of getting a master's in counseling first seems like a good way to go, since I'll have to get the core psychology coursework behind me one way or another. SoundofSilence spoke of a strategic master's, and I think that is spot on. What kind of master's should I be looking at? Does a master's in forensic psychology pigeonhole me into PhD programs that explore that field, or would I be able to come out of a forensic psychology program with my own interests unrelated to forensic psychology in mind? Let's assume I can articulate a good application and target the right mentor. Would they care if my master's or research experience is in something unrelated? Spring2000 mentioned independent research experience and products. As credit to my inexperience, I've never heard the word products used that way. What does quality research look like? Is sticking to a legitimate university enough? Also, I might be operating under an incorrect assumption about clinical psychology versus say social or educational psychology. Is a PhD in clinical psychology the only type that can lead to working one-on-one with patients in a generalist way? Is a social psychologist educated in largely the same way as a clinical psychologist? For example, and I have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm more interested in working with what I'll call soft-skill personality disorders like obsessive-compulsives than I am something more neurological or "hard" like deep schizophrenia or brain injuries. Is clinical psychology even what I'm looking for? I see that there are some blurry lines between PhD programs and PsyD programs. And to explore some options, I'll admit that raw research without ever working with patients doesn't seem like what I want, and that if I found myself with a PhD, I probably wouldn't stay in academia forever. This pipeline toward being a clinician is so odd! There are PsyD programs that conduct research, are they easier to get into? Would a PsyD program frown on an MSW in the same way a PhD program would? From a networking standpoint, do you all think it is wise to pursue a masters at a school I would want to get the doctorate from? Rutgers, for example, offers a master's in applied psychology and a PsyD. Would getting to know the teaching staff while working on the master's help with a later PsyD application, assuming I impressed them?
  3. Wow! Thank you all for replying so thoughtfully. I steeled myself for tumbleweeds. I see a few threads here, and I feel challenged to explain why I want to do this, and taking that as an invitation to, I hope you'll indulge me. I promise I'll try not to bore you! I'll be honest and submit myself for inspection. I chose law because I wanted to advocate for women and children who are emotionally abused. People have been telling me for years that I should be a psychologist, but I saw a lawyer as a sort of fighting psychologist, and in a position where I could do more practically than simply plugging my finger in the dyke. The law is very poorly equipped to remedy emotional abuse, if it is at all, and the law changes only from within. I believed I had to be participant to do so. I was emotionally abused as a kid, and in the tragically typical fashion, I in turn emotionally abused people myself in my 20s. I saw two LCSWs and a PsyD after recognizing my problem, but I identified a real lack of knowledge in psychology about what that kind of trauma does to people. It usually took months to explain what had even happened to me (I didn't even know myself), and surprisingly even these clinicians were at first dismissive about how profound and insidious that abuse can be. To me, there was a lot more literature about narcissistic personality disorder itself than about what impact those people have on others, for example. I also didn't find real success in therapy until I sought out a doctor and asked him directly for psychoanalysis and to help me purposefully decompensate and get to a better place. This has certainly colored my perception that a master's alone might not equip me to help others in the way I'd like to. The notion that doctors are somehow better than LCSWs seemed validated. I read a British study a long time ago about procrastination, and how they found that the best way to overcome it is to imagine yourself having completed the proposed task. We procrastinate to soothe stress, because putting off the task feels better than confronting it. But if you can imagine the task done, you've reframed the binary choice: now, starting feels better than procrastinating. I personally find this incredibly effective, almost like magic, and I love that psychological research could have true pragmatic value beyond just identifying characteristics of a disorder or seeing what treatment is most effective. Getting to the meat of questions surrounding abuse, why we passively accept abuse, and why the damage persists even after the abuse has ended is what I'm interested in doing. I know a lot of research has been done there, but I think there must be tools, like that procrastination trick, that can help people climb out of the hole abuse has placed them in so that they can actualize and get on with their life. With the perspective I have, I see people around me struggling in a similar way that I had (though not as severely since they weren't abused), where I avoided getting myself in order until I was into my 30s. I see it as "being afraid to think". I want to find practical solutions through research, not for consumption only by psychologists, but for everyone. What did people who self-actualized do? How do we make that solution persuasive to people who still refuse to self-actualize? As for the law, I see it as broken because of the rise of professional admissions officers. Three hundred years ago, the legal tradition as we know it was born in dim, wooden rooms where exceptionally boring men in wigs carved out a philosophical space for themselves and outlined a set of virtues that created something beautiful and special. And for hundreds of years, that tradition was carried forward by similarly boring men in a space that really didn't permit getting rich or famous. It was very genuine, and we can all look back on old cases and people writing constitutions and see virtue because the only people involved in the law were themselves stale and principled. Today, the prestige schools - the holders of true legal wisdom - haven't increased the size of their classes in decades, even though the population has since exploded. To get in, one must become a sort of hyperachiever student, someone who is almost pathologically ambitious. That's the mark of a great person, sure, but those people aren't the people who shepherded the legal tradition into today. I think that since law schools select for hyperachievers, they're at the same time selecting for people who view obstacles as something to push out of their way, and in law, those obstacles are virtues themselves. An overwhelming majority of law school admissions officers are not lawyers, and I think that's alarming. This is a new problem, starting around 1980, and I think we can see its consequences in how politicized judicial appointments have become, the rise of BigLaw, or how law schools openly have political groups like the federalist society or american constitution society. Law schools are even developing deep political reputations as conservative or liberal. I'm just disgusted with it, and I realize how naive I was. It's not about justice at all anymore. I think the tradition is on life support. I'm not sure I would truly describe my interest in psychology as "sudden", but the idea of actually persuing it is indeed new. Perhaps you'll all think of me as naive. But I'm certainly at a crossroads. I am not at all tied down by family or obligation, I would go anywhere. I don't need to go to a prestigious school. But I am, rightly it seems, intimidated by the competitiveness and I appreciate that some of you have tried to take a discouraging tone. Law school admissions is very numbers based (the LSAT is everything), and I see that I'm having a tough time letting that go. Do I sound like someone who has a shot here?
  4. I've been trying to make this happen, but I'm feeling a tad overwhelmed and I want to check with you all to see if I'm being sensible about this. I dearly appreciate any thoughts! After dedicating myself for years towards going to law school, I was accepted, but I've chosen to defer attending for a year. As I got closer, seeing the state of our society, I don't think the law is going to be the vehicle for social benefit I thought it would. I think they've ruined it. Plus doing it over zoom seemed crazy. My undergrad GPA was 4.0 in a Labor Relations degree from Rutgers, and I managed a 97th percentile on the LSAT. I'm a non-traditional applicant, over 30. Suddenly, I want to pursue psychology. Without any background in psychology or research, I sense I will need to get a master's first. I am wary about choosing the right master's. I presume it would be best, if a doctorate and clinical practice is the goal, to stick to a master's that is more general or one specifically designed for people pursuing a doctorate. There is a risk here, though, since doctoral programs seem extraordinarily competitive. What if I get this non-terminal master's and never get into a PhD program? Should I hedge my bets and get a master's that has a master's level career offramp? Like an MSW or one in behavior analysis or something? Are all master's degrees seen as equal? Should any be avoided? How far can one's degree stray from traditional psychology before a doctoral admissions officer has a hard time with it? Also, for this cycle, I'm not sure I have time for the GRE, knowing first-hand the horrifying grind a high percentile score requires. Perhaps I can try and add a note about the LSAT, since it's such a tragic score to throw away? How obsessed with pedigree is the psychology world? What type of research is seen as stand-out? Is a master's thesis seen as research? Are non-GRE or GRE-waived programs going to be an issue down the road somehow? Basically, given how competitive doctoral programs are, if I go to a modest, respected master's program, put my head down, network, and 4.0 it again, would I be able to more or less assume admission to a doctoral program afterwards? I know I'll have to apply to over a dozen and do that whole "fit" legwork, but I just want to know if this is a pipe dream. I'm worried about not appearing competitive beside young people who've worked their whole lives towards it, despite having a master's. What do all the people who get rejected from PhD programs end up doing with their lives? There seem to be maybe 300-400 seats nationwide, and I would guess that over a thousand apply for them. Is it reasonable to do this or am I bound for disappointment?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use