The report highlighted in the April 5 Business article “Study: Advanced degrees in some popular fields often don’t pay off” not only mischaracterized the vast and complex field of psychology but also excluded data from psychologists, who have doctoral degrees, from the assessment altogether. The conclusions presented by the study create a distorted picture of psychology graduate education and career outcomes.
Psychologists are professionals trained at the doctoral level, yet these individuals are absent from the study’s dataset, even though doctoral-level psychology is licensed and practiced in the state examined. Drawing conclusions about whether psychology pays off, while excluding the professionals who define the field, produces an incomplete and misleading result. And collapsing Texas psychology master’s programs into a single category ignores substantial differences in training requirements, labor market demand and long-term earnings across the field.
The question students deserve answered is not whether psychology is “worth it,” but how different degrees and career paths perform over time and under what conditions. Conclusions drawn from the selected data diminish a field responsible for understanding and advancing the science of human behavior to improve the human condition. That does a disservice to students, to the profession and to a public that needs to understand the value of the many things psychology offers.
Arthur C. Evans, Washington
The writer is a psychologist and the CEO of the American Psychological Association.
A new study based on graduate students at Texas public universities excluded from its “output earnings” those who earned PhDs. This is a rather odd omission when comparing disciplines since the PhD in the sciences opens up more lucrative job opportunities in a way that a PhD in business does not.
The headline and article implied that the value of a graduate degree can be measured by potential lifetime earnings. Here I was thinking that my PhD in social psychology was valuable because I learned about the way societies function, and how I could apply the critical thinking and analytical skills I developed to my four decades as a government researcher. Silly me.
I didn’t earn as much money as many others in my age group, but I did have a career that I loved. I also got to work with interesting people investigating meaningful policy questions with often surprising and influential results. I wouldn’t trade that for all the money in a business school graduate’s bank account.
Don’t get me wrong. I think way too many people are striving for advanced degrees because they’re in it for their money. If they aren’t in it for the education, they are wasting their professors’ and classmates’ time as well as their own.
Barbara Meierhoefer, Arlington
Social work is one of the most essential yet least understood professions. Social workers support individuals and communities pushed to the margins, and they make far less than the well-paid peers they work alongside (like physicians and lawyers). They are the largest group of mental health service providers in our country. We need more, not fewer, social workers.
Social workers are also researchers, agency leaders and policymakers. Their training leads to diverse career paths and national impact beyond the focus of this specific study and its narrow dataset.
The report’s authors acknowledged that “money isn’t everything,” reinforcing that people pursue different careers for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, many students in social work master’s degree programs are career changers, often from some of the more well-paid professions — something I have witnessed firsthand as dean of the Columbia School of Social Work. Rewards come in many forms.
This article also told another story: The profession is not valued nearly enough for the enormous benefits social workers offer to society, and it shows in how they are paid. Compensating social workers fairly and offering pathways to education (including reinstated access to expanded federal loans) are about safeguarding a workforce that’s critical for our communities to thrive.
Melissa D. Begg, New York
Opt out of school screens
After reading Lindsay Lieberman’s April 3 Friday Opinion essay, “Why is my kindergartner watching ‘KPop Demon Hunters’ in school?,” concerned parents might be asking themselves how they can reduce their child’s exposure to screens at school. Parents can choose to “opt out” their children from using technology in school.
There are many free templates available for parents to send to teachers and administrators to communicate that they want to opt out of edtech in the classroom. For example, the Screen Time Action Network and the Unplug Edtech tool kit provide resources such as sample letters. Sending letters to schools might also have the added benefit of motivating administrators to consider guidelines around screen use.
Parents have a legal right to opt out. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 requires operators of websites, apps and online services to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using or disclosing personal information from children under 13. Thus, D.C. Public Schools’ technology policy includes “a process through which parents may opt out.”
Prior to opting out completely, I encourage parents to work directly with their school to address their concerns. This will help ensure there aren’t unintended consequences for kids or teachers. This effort is not about disparaging teachers or making their work more difficult.
It will be difficult and time-intensive to change D.C. Public Schools’ policies on edtech, but parents should feel empowered to protect their children’s exposure to screens.
Michelle Harburg, Washington
The post Students are asking the wrong questions about advanced degrees appeared first on Washington Post.
