Is an undergraduate scientfiic grounding important for Parapsychology?

[Dr B]

I would like to ask everyone’s opinion on something. Is it a good thing, for people to be allowed to do a PhD, without a mainstream undergraduate scientific background first? In addition, are there any implications for our future parapsychologists (or any scientist really) that come down this route? Will the quality of research be reduced or increased? Maybe there are no real implications at all!

Let me explain. Some students, usually ones who are older or have been in a profession for some time, can get onto a PhD without a formal BSc (hons) / BA degree or an MSc. The argument goes that they might find the undergraduate degree non-demanding and their experience of the world may have prepared them for a PhD. I can see some merit in this for certain subjects and in certain cases – but I remain unconvinced that this is a good thing for science students and even more so for parapsychology students.

I can see how a business person might want to take an MBA say – five years after establishing themselves in the commercial world – but is it the same for academic / research sciences where the skill and knowledge base is so vast? Maybe it is. :-\

Only some universities endorse this approach – others take a very dim view of it.

In relation to Parapsychology, it is a controversial area as it is – do these shortcuts really help? At a time when many universities are talking about extending their undergraduate degrees to 4 years (and their PhDs to 4 years) is providing this short cut a good thing? It is good for the university in one sense – as they get fees for the student. However, there may be problems in the future – in terms of the quality of the science / scientist.

I can see an argument for some people to jump onto an MSc before a PhD – but I cannot really see a good argument for jumping straight to PhD – with no formal background at all in experimental science.

If you cut out this basis in say Psychology, then you throw away, research methods, statistics, analytical thinking, not to mention some philosophy, critical thinking and logic. As such the student may not have as solid a basis in science as perhaps they should have. If the undergraduate degree is non-demanding then thats as much an argument to make it harder as it is to let some jump in at PhD level. Thoughts anyone?

hhhmmmmm

[Allo Allo]

"Some students, usually ones who are older or have been in a profession for some time, can get onto a PhD without a formal BSc (hons) / BA degree or an MSc."

Blast! I didn't know this! I should be doing a doctorate instead of "Introduction to Science" or "Discovering Science" whatever. I already have a BA, I'm an older person, and I have successfully established two businesses..... I wish you'd posted this before I signed up with the Open University!!!!!

[Dr B]

No..no...sounds to me like your 'grounding' is spot on. I am not convinced in all cases, that short cuts are a good thing.

I would do it your way - trust me. The early parts of ones journey into science are by far the most crucial. You need to make sure that the quality of the information you deal with (and the courses) is high.

Most take a dim view of the short-cut route (though it can be justified in certain cases - depending on the existing knowledge and skills base of the applicant).

[Mongrel]

I would do it your way - trust me. The early parts of ones journey into science are by far the most crucial. You need to make sure that the quality of the information you deal with (and the courses) is high.

Most take a dim view of the short-cut route (though it can be justified in certain cases - depending on the existing knowledge and skills base of the applicant).

I think this is one of those questions where there's no absolute Yes\No answer, each case would have to be judged on the applicants merits and experience.

[Dr B]

I totally agree - but in principle and on the whole - do you think taking a short-cut around all the information contained in a science degree - is a good thing for our future parapsychologists?

[vbloke]

I totally agree - but in principle and on the whole - do you think taking a short-cut around all the information contained in a science degree - is a good thing for our future parapsychologists?

No.

[Nicky]

I think absolutely not. If you want to study science at postgraduate level I fail to comprehend how this can be successfully achieved with a firm scientific research grounding at undergraduate level.

People may argue that they have read science books, ethics books, research methods etc., but that's nothing compared to having to apply it within academia, within BPA or APA confines etc.

I graduated 3 years ago, and already I've lost a lot of learning. I try to keep it fresh and relevant through the research we do with PSI, keeping up to date with others research etc., but its nothing compared to how on the ball I was a few years back. I'm not saying it would take a lot to get back up to scratch, but I don't think get there at all if it wasn't for my initial BSc.

Parapsychology is possibly one of the less respected and recognised disciplines and I cannot see how anyone entering the field at PhD level without a firm grounding in scientific method, critical thinking, research methodology and statistical analysis can positively enhance its reputation or, indeed, its work.

But, as I often get told .. I'm an academic snob ..

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I graduated 14 years ago, and although I have forgotten almost everything I learnt (those fluid dynamics were tough!), I do still constantly apply the methods and thought processes I learnt at University to my job.

I work in an IT department, and probably only about half the graduates taken on have a technical or scientific degree. The IT work we do isn't hardcore or incredibly technically complex, however it still requires the ability to think logically and in a structured manner.

Without doubt, most of the people who have struggled in this type of role have arty type degrees. Having IT knowledge isn't a big advantage due to the amount of training you would receive and the difference in the working environments compared to what people would have learnt on IT courses.

One of the guys I work with who has a MSc in Computing (and a degree in Politics ), and he struggles sometimes in a technical role.

Many of the people who don't have an aptitude for the technical side migrate to project management or other such roles.

Of course this is mostly anecdotal type information, but what I would say from my 14 years of working experience, is that people who haven't been exposed to the scientific method at a detailed enough level, would probably not on the whole be equiped with the right skills to understand and work through complex scenarios in a logical and scientific manner.

Art degrees do have a place - however I don't think they are an ideal introduction to further work in the scientific field.

I would have to question some of the teaching and courses I took at university though, the standard and quality was at times serverely lacking. However looking back now, I can see that what I learnt was the ability to think scientifically, not the ability to work out 10 page long calculus equations!

[median]

I would like to ask everyone’s opinion on something. Is it a good thing, for people to be allowed to do a PhD, without a mainstream undergraduate scientific background first?

No, not really. You have to pay your dues.

those fluid dynamics were tough

[In best Homer voice]......ahhhh...fluid dynamics...mmmmm

[Cuddles]

I will add my voice to the "no" camp. If anything, I think a solid grounding in science is more important for parapsychology than other sciences. If you are working as, say, a physicist, either you know the work or you don't. In more complex work it might not be immediately obvious to everyone if your answers are right, but anyone can work through to check the answers or compare your model with reality. In fact, if you don't know what you are doing, you are unlikely to even get an answer in the first place. This means that your actual level of qualification is largely irrelevant, all that matters is that you can do what you are supposed to be doing (although obvoiusly qualifications are a good way of showing that you can do so).

Parapsychology, and probably some other softer sciences, don't have this. Whether you know what you are doing or not, you can take some measurements, claim they show a ghost and publish your work. This makes qualifications and training much more important, since it is useful to be able to tell the difference between a postgrad doing real research and some crank making stuff up in their back garden.

An analogy with kayaking would be the difference between white water and flat water paddling. If you're on white water, qualifications are largely irrelevant. Either you can get down it or you can't so it is obvious who actually has useful knowledge. On flat water however, pretty much anyone can get on and paddle around, so qualifications are needed to tell the real paddlers apart from the wannabees.

Incidentally, I don't actually have a PhD, but I am working in a technically postdoc position. I don't have any kayaking qualifications either.

[Matt]

Obvoisuly a scientific grounding is essential. I'm in tow mind whether that scientific grounding needs to take the form of a BSc. I can imagine few other opportunities to gain such a grounding but can't dismiss the possibility.

[Dr B]

So I would take it by all of the above, most of us would be horrified to learn such things are happening?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Horrified or surprised?

[vbloke]

So I would take it by all of the above, most of us would be horrified to learn such things are happening?

No, not really, given the rubbish a lot of them tend to come out with.

[Dr B]

Horrified - this is the quality of science we are duscussing here!