I was going to offer the advice of hiring someone with experience,
whatever the specific area of expertise you decide on. The likelihood
is great that someone who has been in the classroom for some number of
years will be able to competently address a greater proportion of the
curriculum. As Paul says, no one can do it all, but some can do more
than others.
I also wonder if a clinician isn't the one area that you just cannot do
without, for most undergrad curricula (most undergraduates study
psychology with an eye toward one helping profession or another). Not
being clinically trained, clinical issues/skills represent a whole area
of knowledge and expertise that I (as a science-y psychologist) find
very dark and mysterious and wouldn't have a clue how to present with
any degree of competence.
m
--
Marc Carter
Baker University Department of Psychology
Assistant Professor, Itinerant Scientist,
Inveterate Skeptic, Former Surfer.
---
...asked Wednesday whether it would fair to describe the proposed
accounts as having "no effect whatsoever on the solvency" of Social
Security, a senior administration official said, "That's a fair
inference."
---- LA Times, 3 Feb 2005
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Brandon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 10:23 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Subject: RE: Psych Curriculum with 2 folks
One way of looking at it might be:
What courses are absolutely necessary for the Psychology degree that you
offer.
Which of those can you teach; which will have to be taught by the new
person?
There's no way that two people can competently cover all areas of
psychology unless they've been trained as generalists (a rare breed when
doctoral programs sui generis require specialization).
At 9:48 PM -0600 2/10/05, Paul Norris wrote:
>Dear colleagues,
>
>I am the person referred to in Chuck Huff's email (included below), one
>of two people in a psych department in a small 2-year school, whose
>colleague is retiring. My academic experience is limited, so I'm
>trying to gather different perspectives on directions a 2-person
>department can go.
>
>Chuck mentioned two possibilities -- covering the two sides of the
>natural science/social science division, or taking a developmental
>perspective on everything (that would never have occurred to me, but
>then I'm not a developmental psychologist). Part of why I'm asking
for
>input is that there are other divisions of coverage that I would have
>thought might be equally compelling, particularly the academic/clinical
>and counseling division, and I don't have any idea how to choose
between
>them. Also (primarily because my graduate training was at a large
>university with four psychology programs, one of which combined
>cognitive and developmental psychology), I thought that it might make
>sense to look for someone with a cognitive/developmental background.
>But do these combinations and divisions actually describe the training
>of people currently on the job market? And would they meet the needs
>of our students?
>
>Any input you have would be greatly appreciated!
>
>Thank you very much,
>Paul Norris
--
"No one in this world, so far as I know, has ever lost money by
underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain
people." -H. L. Mencken
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mnsu.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To
unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
