Experimental vs Cognitive?

[TheLocust3]

Would anyone please illuminate any reason for choosing one over the other, if my goal is to study learning and memory? There seem to be so few 'cognitive psychology' programs, but far more 'experimental psychology' programs. If the faculty at a given school is doing research in that area anyway, would it make a difference which path I took?

[DarwinAG]

I actually don't think it would matter that much. In my experience, there are far more cognitive psychologh programs than pure experiemental psychology programs. What would matter more is the methodology and the interest of your POI.

[lewin]

I'm confused about the difference. Developmental, social, neuroscience, clinical -- any area of psychology, really, can be "experimental".

...though the cognitive psychologists in my department would like to think they have the market cornered on rigorous experiments

Edited August 12, 2012 by lewin00

[stereopticons]

A lot of places have a PhD in Experimental with a specialization in whatever field you choose (developmental, social, cognitive, etc.), which is usually separate from the Clinical PhD. I don't think the programs like that and the ones that are specifically PhD in Cognitive, etc. really have any substantial differences. It seems to have more to do with how the program and the department is organized. It probably doesn't matter much--I suspect you'll be doing the same work and same research regardless.

[lewin]

That makes complete sense. I had forgotten that many programs have that "expermental/clinical" divide in labelling, in the sense that everything non-clinical is "experimental".

[TheLocust3]

I have read books here and there that explain within the book the amount of neuroscience or general biology necessary to understand the rest of the book. However, my majors are in philosophy and psychology, and my biological knowledge is not deep compared to someone who majored or even minored in biology. If I were interested in researching sleep and memory, which can best be understood and discussed through neuroscience, is my entering such a program: a) highly unlikely because no one would accept me wbased on that deficit, a bad idea anyway because I will be behind and crushed by the workload + "catching up," or c) workable and a good idea if that is my interest because not everyone has the most apposite undergrad degree, and I could learn along the way, because learning along the way is essential what school means?

Im asking because I don't know if I'll have to be familiar with neurophysics or the like in order to do cognitive rearch.

Sorry for the naivete.

[Quant_Liz_Lemon]

At my school, our psych department does a LOT with memory/cognitive research. For undergrad involvement, you don't need to be familiar with neuroscience. They're usually content with a major in psychology or any prior experience in lab work. When I got involved with my lab, I was still just an econ major.

On a semi-relevant note, one of our cognitive profs did his undergrad in mechanical engineering with only two undergrad courses in psych.

My general sense is that you don't need a major in neuro or psych to do research, but to be a competitive grad school applicant, you'll need research experience. Does that make sense?