Wendi K. Born wrote:
I have enjoyed this debate, but have found it difficult to get invested.
Those of us who are clinicians familiar with the clinical research, have
had to come to terms with the knowledge that having a Ph.D. does not
necessarily make us any better at clinical practice than practitioners
with masters degrees (or even less in some studies - EEK). MANY people
were very invested in the idea that more education would make you a
better clinician, but the data did not support their position.
This is undoubtedly true, but the comparison is specious because it is
not the function of the clinician to instill knowledge (whether through
transmission, eduction, or whathaveyou) in the student. Just to be clear
(since several people in this discussion have taken pains to distort my
claim in order to "refute" it with truisms), I do not doubt that there
are things about teaching that have little to do with PhD training. What
I do doubt (indeed, know to be flatly false) is that one can teach what
one does not know, regardless of how pedagogcially-skilled, empathetic,
or whatever-else one may be. People with PhDs know things about their
topics that people without PhDs do not know. (If not, then the PhD is
scam, pure and simple.) The PhD doesn't automatically make them great
teachers. It does give them, however, a knowledge base to work from that
non-PhDs don't have. I don't see how anyone can seriously attempt to
deny that this is advantageous.
Regards,
--
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.yorku.ca/christo
Office: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164
Fax: 416-736-5814
=========================
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
