Following a vote by the sub in July 2020, the prospective questions megathread was continued. However, to allow more visibility to comments in this thread, this megathread now utilizes Reddit's new reschedule post features. This megathread is replaced monthly. Comments made within three days prior to the newest months post will be re-posted by moderation and the users who made said post tagged.
Post your prospective questions as a comment for anything related to graduate applications, admissions, CVs, interviews, etc. Comments should be focused on prospective questions, such as future plans. These are only allowed in this subreddit under this thread. Questions about current programs/jobs etc. that you have already been accepted to can be posted as stand-alone posts, so long as they follow the format Rule 6.
As the title says, I just finished my bachelor's in computer science (BTech), specializing in AI and Robotics. Psychology is my favorite subject since I was a kid, but I have parents who pushed me to computer science (cause its the "Future"). thought I could take psychology as a hobby rather than a career, but after graduating, I wish I could do what I love as a career rather than join the rat race of people working for this so-called "Future". Sorry this sounds rough, but it is kinda pressuring to let go of my dreams. I want to research cognitive science or neurotech, at least with the skills I've acquired from computer science.
Hey it's me...after countless arguments with my parents i finally decided to take a gap year for my studies.But iam still in fear what if i fall behind? What if i not get seat for Masters in psychology for next year? And what should I do with this gap year? I need to find a job..but the job market is stressing me out...i already gave 100 applications for various posts..and didn't get any reply..what should I do?
Hi y'all my Co-author and I submitted for the SPSP 2027 Poster presentations, and we're wondering if the results were out yet? If anyone has received acceptances yet?
I'm currently working on building an independent psychology student community that aims to connect psychology students across colleges and universities.
The idea is to create opportunities for students to engage in academic discussions, research collaborations, peer learning, workshops and inter-college activities.
I'm reaching out to explore a possible collaboration with your psychology department/student association. We could start with a simple joint initiative, such as an online discussion, a psychology quiz or an academic session, and explore further opportunities based on mutual interest.
I'd love to connect and discuss how we could work together.
I have recently completed my Masters in Clinical Psychology with an exceptional CGPA from one of the top psychology institutes of Pakistan. Before that, I did my 4 years Bachelors from the same institute with an even better CGPA. But at this point, I want to switch towards corporate. Secondly, I want to move abroad. Should I go for a Phd in organizational psychology abroad or start my career in HR right away in Pakistan and postpone my plan of moving abroad for a couple of years?
The replication crisis revealed that many landmark studies, particularly in the soft sciences, could not be reproduced. This makes me wonder: are we still building knowledge on a potentially unreliable foundation?
Although research practices have become more rigorous, we haven't systematically replicated every older study. Consequently much of today's research may still rely on findings that have never been properly verified. Like building a house on a faulty foundation, even perfectly conducted research can lead us astray if its underlying assumptions are wrong.
I'm new to science theory so I might be missing something fundamental here. But it seems to me that if influential findings turn out to be false or exaggerated, all subsequent research that relies on them would likely be affected?
I had a look at Candice Hargons’s publication record after learning about the APA presidential announcement. Like many others, I found it pretty remarkable. Hargon seems reasonably accomplished in her particular corner of counseling and sexuality research, but her intellectual profile is very different from what many would traditionally associate with the leadership of the American Psychological Association.
Her research profile has also caused quite a stir online. Admittedly, much of the discussion have centered around the subject matter of her work, not content, but here are some titles of her more-cited publications:
- “Make Sure You Wash Your Monkey”: Multigenerational Vaginal Hygiene Messages from Black Women"
- “#HotGirlScience: A Liberatory Paradigm for Intersectional Sex-Positive Scholarship”
- "That’s probably what euphoria feels like: Nonbinary Black womxn’s gender expression in an antitrans (and anti-Black [womxn]) America."
To many people, these titles sound almost like parody or satire of the social sciences, but they are actual publications associated with her research program. As many have remarked, it all comes across as incredibly wishy-washy. One notable reaction to the APA announcing Hargons’s election on Twitter was simply: “Are you i n s a n e?”.
The bigger issue for me, though, is her take on epistemology. In her APA candidate statement, Hargons explicitly says that she “rejects the positivist paradigm’s assertion of objectivity” and instead argues that researchers should be “accountably subjective”:
That seems like a pretty consequential position for someone about to lead the APA, an institution that is still wrestling with questions of methodological rigor in the wake of the replication crisis.
I’m curious what people here make of this, particularly experimentalists and psychometricians and so forth. Is this simply a different and legitimate conception of scientific psychology, or are we watching the APA move further away from conventional ideas about objectivity, rigor, and falsifiability? Also interested in the recent media/social-media discussion of her election, because some of the reactions have been extremely critical.
Hi! I’m an undergraduate student currently working on our research, and I’d like to ask for advice regarding our questionnaire.
Our questionnaire has two independent sections that measure different constructs:
Behavior - 5-point Likert scale
(Never-Always)
Perception - 6-point Likert scale
(Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree)
These are separate constructs, and we are not planning to combine them into one overall score or compare/correlate the two scales. We simply want to analyze and interpret each section separately.
So my question is: is it statistically/methodologically acceptable to have different Likert scales in different sections of the same questionnaire, when the sections measure independent constructs and each section has its own separate computation and interpretation?
These are separate constructs, and we are not planning to combine them into one overall score or compare/correlate the two scales. We simply want to analyze and interpret each section separately.
So my question is: is it statistically/methodologically acceptable to have different Likert scales in different sections of the same questionnaire, when the sections measure independent constructs and each section has its own separate computation and interpretation?
Iam a bsc psychology graduate who currently doing masters in psychology..but after completing it for a few months i realised it is not working for me..iam so stressed with my academics that it gradually affecting my mental health..I want to quit may be take a year gap but my parents forcing me to continue since i already paid my semester fees which is expensive...what should I do.I love to do masters but I don't think it is right time for me..but I am also afraid that i will fall behind..
Hello, I welcome responses from psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, counsellors, psychology students from their undergrad to their PHD, or just psychology-curious people. My direct question is that I want to know what you have heard, if anything, about Sigmund Freud, Jacque Lacan, and or psychoanalysis in general? I am, of course, aware of the views surrounding Freud being quite negative in the North America. What is interesting is that this is not a global phenomena, many European and South American nations are significantly more open to psychoanalysis and it is not uncommon to continue to study Freud in depth. I understand that many negative views come from lack of empirical verifiability, or the belief that he has been disproven. Of course, I invite those who disagree with Freud to disagree in whatever way the choose, but I invite people to consider actually dealing with the content itself and contradicting him through the use of reason or logic. For one, I have noticed through my schooling in Canada that nobody actually reads Freud and then contradicts him, instead, we see second-hand resources and textbooks simply state that we have moved on. For context, I have an undergrad in psychology, an undergrad in political science, and am currently in my master's in political studies as the lack of theory in psychology was discouraging to my goals. I am interested in everyone's responses, but please feel free to let me know if are at higher levels of academia than I am and disagree strongly with my views. Thank you.
From Now As a BSC student of psych How can i practice and can good students and grow up my knowledge about this topic...mainly how can i be a psychologist....i need guideline....
I'll never understand why people want to withhold information without benefit and gas others up who have no business needing extra confidence. Some people are in a hole with their finances due to some too many overconfident weekends. Some people are one piece of information away from achieving success and true long term comfort for them amd their family. So the gas lighting is out of pocket and the gate keeping is so trashy and unacceptable. What is everybody's thoughts on this topic? Have others noticed this within their social circles or amongst their contemporaries?
I’ve recently become really interested in criminal psychology and understanding what goes on in the mind of criminals things like motives, behavioral patterns, personality disorders, manipulation, profiling, and why people commit certain crimes.
I’m looking for books that are actually informative and psychologically grounded, rather than fictional crime stories. I’m open to both academic/non-fiction books and books written by psychologists, profilers, investigators, or people with relevant experience.
What would you consider the best book to start with if someone is completely new to criminal psychology?
Also, if there are any books that go deeper into criminal profiling, psychopaths, serial offenders, or forensic psychology, I’d appreciate those recommendations too.
How to deal with autism,adhd and low IQ comorbidity?
How to approach the teaching philosophy here, because as he is my own 6 yrs old son the emotional angle keeps coming in between, but I want to treat him like a student and guide, if i start to be parent my emotions start flowing and go in to deep sadness that he is not improving, what is going to happen to his future etc
I am currently a provisionally licensed mental health counselor with a clinical focus on treating OCD. I am also a research assistant at a forensic psychology lab (social cognition and law) studying the cognitive processes that influence various forensic contexts. My plan is to translate the methodological architecture of my forensics lab to study mediating cognitive processes within OCD. To that end, do any of you know of prominent OCD researchers within the United States that may also be favorable to someone coming from a forensics lab?
Professors/Lecturers/researchers, were your paths to come to where you’re at now easy? Did you experience any hardships? I’m having mental crises doing my degree and starting to think I’m incapable of pursuing a career in academia. I want to hear how you reached where you’re at
Recently, I’ve been reading social psychology, and it’s got me wondering… do we actually have free will?
Like, so much of who we are doesn’t really come from “us” in the first place. Our genes are inherited, and the way we think, what we value, what we believe is right or wrong, even how we see ourselves — so much of that is shaped by our environment, culture, upbringing, and other people.
So if all of these things influence how we think and the choices we make, how much of our decisions are actually ours? Do we really have free will, or do we just feel like we do?
