Kitty -
> Considering the not-so-helpful replies I've received, I'm
> just going to do what most of you imply - manipulate the student into
believing their
> interests are not valid nor respected by academics thereby
> forcing them to do something that is NOT their passion. Me thinks maybe
some
> of your were victims of this rigid philosophy. Pity.
It appears to me that you actually got some pretty useful advice
here. If the student is a serious student with the kind of curiosity we
value, the psychoimmunology direction that Pam Shapiro suggested is probably
the best line of research, and offers the best chance at a well-rounded and
well-respected graduate education. The pastoral programs that Gary Peterson
suggested also offer opportunities for students who are motivated by
religious belief for that area of psychology - I've got a reasonably strong
senior with interests in that direction who has already chosen a "pastoral
counseling" program, and it seems a good fit.
John Kulig's suggestion that the student be explicit about her
definitions is also an excellent one. The terms "mind" and "spirit" are
often used as shorthand for "everything that I don't understand and am not
willing to try to understand". If your student suffers that problem, she's
going to be mighty frustrated when her graduate advisor requires her to
think through her claims and measures. That particular "rigid philosophy"
has caused a lot of problems for students I've worked with (as instructor,
advisor, and peer during my own graduate work), who clearly believed that
their interest in "the mind-body connection" or "spirituality" meant that
they didn't have to define their terms concretely.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
