Psychoanalysis -- UCL or Birkbeck?

[CriticalTheory]

Hey all,

I've applied (and been accepted) to some slightly unorthodox master's programs in the UK and I'm hoping to get some advice. The two are an MA at Birkbeck College (University of London) in "Psychoanalysis, History and Culture" and an MSc at the University College of London in "Theoretical Psychoanalytic Studies."

I'm interested in studying psychoanalysis both as it relates to the humanities and potentially to become a practicing clinician. (Might pursue a PhD in English or Cultural Studies afterwards, might go into formal psychoanalytic training, or both). Both programs have great faculty in the field and promise to cater to my interests, though Birkbeck looks slightly more appealing because it's a more interdisciplinary program (set up jointly with the history department).

The biggest difference, however, is cost -- UCL costs almost double the price of Birkbeck (20,000 pounds) for international students. I've won a scholarship to study in London, and will pay for the rest in loans. If I go to Birkbeck, my scholarship covers all but room/board; if I go to UCL, my scholarship won't even cover all of my tuition.

I understand that UCL is a more prestigious institution and, unlike Birkbeck, has name-recognition in the US, but I'm not sure if the prestige is worth 10,000 pounds more of student loans -- especially when Birkbeck's offerings seems just as good or better. In terms of getting into good PhD programs in the States afterwards, do you think it matters which program I choose?

I should add that I was also accepted into Goldsmith's MA in Cultural Studies, which I hear is top-notch (and costs about the same as Birkbeck). I wouldn't be able to pursue psychoanalysis much at Goldsmiths, which is my passion, but it looks like it would also be a great experience.

Thanks in advance!

[wreckofthehope]

Hey all,

I've applied (and been accepted) to some slightly unorthodox master's programs in the UK and I'm hoping to get some advice. The two are an MA at Birkbeck College (University of London) in "Psychoanalysis, History and Culture" and an MSc at the University College of London in "Theoretical Psychoanalytic Studies."

I'm interested in studying psychoanalysis both as it relates to the humanities and potentially to become a practicing clinician. (Might pursue a PhD in English or Cultural Studies afterwards, might go into formal psychoanalytic training, or both). Both programs have great faculty in the field and promise to cater to my interests, though Birkbeck looks slightly more appealing because it's a more interdisciplinary program (set up jointly with the history department).

The biggest difference, however, is cost -- UCL costs almost double the price of Birkbeck (20,000 pounds) for international students. I've won a scholarship to study in London, and will pay for the rest in loans. If I go to Birkbeck, my scholarship covers all but room/board; if I go to UCL, my scholarship won't even cover all of my tuition.

I understand that UCL is a more prestigious institution and, unlike Birkbeck, has name-recognition in the US, but I'm not sure if the prestige is worth 10,000 pounds more of student loans -- especially when Birkbeck's offerings seems just as good or better. In terms of getting into good PhD programs in the States afterwards, do you think it matters which program I choose?

I should add that I was also accepted into Goldsmith's MA in Cultural Studies, which I hear is top-notch (and costs about the same as Birkbeck). I wouldn't be able to pursue psychoanalysis much at Goldsmiths, which is my passion, but it looks like it would also be a great experience.

Thanks in advance!

Hey

I did my MA partly at the Centre for Psychoanalytic Studies at the University of Essex; my sense, while there, was that there was a strong academic relationship with Birkbeck (many students went to Bbeck for their PhD, and many came to Essex from Bbeck and there was a lot of mixing amongst the faculty). UCL did not seem to be as big a presence (not comparable at all).... that could just be a departmental tic, but to me it suggests that Bbeck rather than UCL has the more active department. (for what it's worth Birbeck was oe of my top choices in the UK for PhD... but you're right that it has almost no name recognition outside of the country...for comparison, though, I think CUNY graduate center has a similar sort of reputation/feel).

[Sigaba]

Hey all,

I've applied (and been accepted) to some slightly unorthodox master's programs in the UK and I'm hoping to get some advice.

[...]

I'm interested in studying psychoanalysis both as it relates to the humanities and potentially to become a practicing clinician. (Might pursue a PhD in English or Cultural Studies afterwards, might go into formal psychoanalytic training, or both). Both programs have great faculty in the field and promise to cater to my interests, though Birkbeck looks slightly more appealing because it's a more interdisciplinary program (set up jointly with the history department).

[...]

CT--

It was my good fortune to have as a mentor a professor who held doctorates in a humanity and in psychoanalysis. (He was also a training analyst.)

What I learned from working with him is that the using psychoanalytic theory in an academic setting is drastically different than applying psychoanalytic training in a clinical environment. (He was of the view that the two approaches were increasingly incompatible.) I also learned that debates among clinicians over "best practices" can require a tremendous amount of thought to work out and have political implications.

Consequently, rather than focusing on the relative prestige of your two choices, I recommend that you try to figure out how your potential POIs view clinical psychoanalysis. Specifically, do the programs feature practicing clinicians? Are any of them also training analysts? What are their views of the ongoing debates among clinicians?

Moreover, I urge you to consider carefully that at some point you may have to decide what you are: an academic whose research is informed by psychoanalytic theory or a clinician who is driven by the needs of your analysands.

HTH.

[CriticalTheory]

CT--

It was my good fortune to have as a mentor a professor who held doctorates in a humanity and in psychoanalysis. (He was also a training analyst.)

What I learned from working with him is that the using psychoanalytic theory in an academic setting is drastically different than applying psychoanalytic training in a clinical environment. (He was of the view that the two approaches were increasingly incompatible.) I also learned that debates among clinicians over "best practices" can require a tremendous amount of thought to work out and have political implications.

Consequently, rather than focusing on the relative prestige of your two choices, I recommend that you try to figure out how your potential POIs view clinical psychoanalysis. Specifically, do the programs feature practicing clinicians? Are any of them also training analysts? What are their views of the ongoing debates among clinicians?

Moreover, I urge you to consider carefully that at some point you may have to decide what you are: an academic whose research is informed by psychoanalytic theory or a clinician who is driven by the needs of your analysands.

HTH.

Thanks for the response! Both programs in fact focus on psychoanalysis both clinically and "culturally" -- they both have a link-up that allows students to take an intro course at the British Psychoanalytic Institute (with training analysts). UCL is taught almost entirely by training analysts, whereas, aside from the course at the Institute, I think Birkbeck is mostly academics. Both courses are much more theoretical than practical, though -- I double I'll be gaining any clinical techniques.

I agree with you about the last point, which is why these programs interest me. Although I also think that, while it may not be fashionable, applying clinical psychoanalysis to academia (as do people like Juliet Mitchell and Adam Phillips) could bring some very ideas into the humanities.

I know discussing prestige sounds pretty crude, but in terms of the quality and style of education (from what I've been able to determine), the programs seem equally appealing.

[Olga Childs]

I don't know dude, even though both are essentially UOL , UCL has a perception of so much more prestigious program, that I think the difference is worth 10 000 more (not per year though?). If not, I would just go to Goldsmith maybe.

I respect Birkbeck and thought of going there, but it is marketed within UOL system generally as a part-time evening university for the employed, and not a full-time research institution. Local residents go there when they have no time to take off for their education.

[koil]

I don't know much about psychoanalysis, at least not from a formal point of view. (I was an analysand for 5 years so I know the other side of it, I guess.....and by the way, it was the most transformative and valuable experience of my life - bar none.)

I just want to second the advice to focus on factors other than the cost, if possible. Choose whichever one you think will provide you with the best education for what you want to do with your degree in the future. An extra 10,000 pounds may seem like a lot of money (and, well, it is) but when you look at the return on investment of your education over the course of your career (by way of salary) the 10,000 pound difference is truly negligible if you expect to stay in this field for many years. If you think going to the cheaper one would potentially reduce your career prospects then the more expensive one is actually the financially wise choice. --However I'm not saying the more expensive one will provide you with the better education -- again I know nothing about psychoanalysis departments. I do know that the more prestigious option in other fields isn't automatically the better option. Try not to let cost be the deciding factor.

I know a philosophy prof who turned down an offer from a great university because the funding package wasn't as good and he says it has hindered his advancement throughout his career and he's always regretted the decision. He feels that if he had take loans for the extra $30,000 he would have secured a position he coveted which would have paid an extra $20,000 per year......over 30 more working years. Run the net present value calculations and I'm sure that if his judgement is correct (ie that he really would have secured a more lucrative position as a result of a more prestigious PhD) then the $30,000 would have been an excellent investment.

Not that I cared about the degree as an analysand -- it was more about fit (and luck!)

Good luck in your decision!

[westcoaster]

Hey Critical Theory,

I applied (and was accepted) to Birkbeck's Psychosocial Studies program but deferred. I am still hoping to start in 2013. Did you go and if so, what do you think? The reason I deferred was due to a lack of funding (and very few opportunities there). Did you have any luck getting a studentship or fellowship there?

Thanks for any info you might have.