Author Archives: David A. Meyerson, Ph.D.

About David A. Meyerson, Ph.D.

David is a postdoc fellow in child neuropsych at Columbia University Medical Center. A dedicated advocate for students, he served on the APAGS Committee as Member-at-Large for Practice.

Author photo courtesy Dr. Gardner.

Dear me, future psychologist. Yours truly, Dr. Howard Gardner

It’s time for the second installment of Dear me, future psychologist, a gradPSYCH Blog exclusive in which a prominent psychologist writes a letter to his/her 16-year-old self. We hope you enjoy these letters and glean some invaluable wisdom and guidance as you decide whether to enter graduate school in psychology, as you navigate the challenges of graduate school, and as you make decisions about your career and life.

Author photo courtesy Dr. Gardner.

Howard Gardner (source: author’s own).

This letter is from Howard Gardner, PhD. Dr. Gardner is the Hobbs Professor of Cognition and Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, and Senior Director of Harvard Project Zero. He is best known for his theory of multiple intelligences, a critique of the notion that there exists but a single human intelligence that can be adequately assessed by standard psychometric instruments. During the past two decades, Gardner and colleagues at Project Zero have been involved in the design of performance-based assessments; education for understanding; the use of multiple intelligences to achieve more personalized curriculum, instruction, and pedagogy; and the quality of interdisciplinary efforts in education. For more info, please visit Dr. Gardner’s website.

DEAR-ME

FROM THE DESK OF HOWARD GARDNER:

Dear Howie,

For your bar mitzvah, cousin Walter gave you book plates decorated with three pictures: a book cover (you love to read); a musical score  (you are an avid classical pianist); and a spade (you are a gard(e)ner). Those icons capture you: not athletic, not particularly social (though you have close friends), eager to go to college and to test yourself in a world wider than Scranton, Pennsylvania.

This year, Uncle Fred gave you a psychology textbook. I doubt that you knew about this subject—except for Fred, your family is not oriented toward academics. But as you leafed through the book, a picture caught your eye: the Ishihara test for color blindness. Severely color blind, you have pondered how the world looks to others. But you had not realized that scientists can study color-blindedness and elucidate what you can and cannot see.

I became a research psychologist. Though color blind, myopic, without stereoscopic vision, and prosopagnosic (all intriguing conditions!), I nonetheless elected to study artistic vision. I wrote my doctoral thesis on how individuals recognize the styles of visual artists; I was a founding member of Harvard Project Zero, a research group focused on artistic cognition; and I belong to two artistic boards (the Boston Landmarks Orchestra and New York’s Museum of Modern Art). Clearly the seed planted by Uncle Fred benefited from the gardening suggested by cousin Walter.

“Howie” in his school yearbook (source: author’s own).

By no means do I urge you to become a psychologist. (Even twenty-five years ago, I realized that neuroscience and genetics were equally germane for my scholarly interests).   I urge you not to take the line of least resistance for a bright Jewish boy— becoming a doctor or a lawyer. I’d add that you should not unreflectively follow those of your peers who feel that they need either become a management consultant (McKinsey) or an investment banker (Goldman Sachs).

I know that you don’t believe in reincarnation or in an afterlife. You only get one shot on earth, and it could terminate at any time. I have two recommendations that you’ve heard from others. But since they come from someone who shares your DNA, I hope that they have added credibility:

1. Follow your passion, your love, do what you most want to do vocationally and avocationally. Don’t worry about how much money you will make or what others will think.  If you embrace your interests and follow them well, you will be fine.

2. Think beyond your own needs and desires; serve the wider community. Following my quarter century of psychological research, I’ve spent the last twenty years trying to understand how individuals become good workers and good citizens and trying to help people your age pursue and embrace these broader forms of service.

Given your many talents and your supportive family, I have full confidence that you’ll make us proud of what you accomplish and how you accomplish it.

Howard

 

Editor’s Note: Dear Me, Future Psychologist is inspired by the Dear Me book series by Joseph Galliano. Special thanks to David A. Meyerson, Ph.D. for curating these.

 

sternberg

Dear me, future psychologist. Yours truly, Dr. Robert Sternberg

If I knew then what I know now… If I could do it again… If I could go back in time…

We’ve all had these thoughts: What we’d do differently if given the opportunity. Would we have spent our time the same way? Would we have entered/ended that relationship? Would we have studied psychology? Would we have gone to graduate school?

If you could send a letter to your 16-year-old self, what would you say? What advice would you give yourself to prepare for the future? To my fellow nerds out there: Yes, we’re talking about parallel universes and warping the space-time continuum.

Dear me, future psychologist is a new feature exclusively on our blog. We will periodically publish a letter written by a prominent psychologist to his/her 16-year-old self. We hope you enjoy these letters and glean some invaluable wisdom and guidance as you decide whether to enter graduate school in psychology, as you navigate the challenges of graduate school, and as you make decisions about your career and life.

sternbergOur first letter is from Robert J. Sternberg, PhD. Dr. Sternberg received his PhD from Stanford University in 1975 and spent most of his career as a Professor at Yale University. More recently, he served as a Dean at Tufts University, Provost at Oklahoma State University, and President at the University of Wyoming. He also is a Past President of the American Psychological Association. He is currently Professor of Human Development at Cornell University. He is best known for his research on intelligence, creativity, wisdom, thinking styles, leadership, ethics, love, and hate. He is the founder of the triarchic theory of intelligence and the triangular theory of love, as well as co-creator of the investment theory of creativity. For more info, please visit Dr. Sternberg’s Wikipedia page.


DEAR-ME

FROM THE DESK OF ROBERT STERNBERG: 

Dear Me at 16,

I am not sure whether you will receive this letter, at least in a timely fashion, but I thought I would give it a try anyway. Here are three pieces of advice I hope you will find useful, ideally, sooner rather than later.

1. You will underestimate the importance of family and friends. You soon will come to believe that, through your work, you can achieve immortality, and that the shot at immortality is the meaning of your life.  Wrong.  First, very few psychologists achieve immortality through their work—perhaps Freud, James, Skinner, Piaget, and a few more.  But most psychologists are forgotten quickly starting with the day they announce their plans to retire. You will watch many of your famous Yale colleagues retire and see that what is left to them is not their work, which is quickly forgotten, or even their friends from work, most of whom are busy advancing their careers.  Rather, what remains is their family and true friends, if they have any.  You will discover that your meaning in life is making the world a better place, and that the main way you will do that is through your family, especially your five beautiful children and their children and onward through the generations.

2. You will overestimate people’s willingness to change.  You will enter a field, intelligence research, in which many people believe that traits are relatively fixed.  You will argue, correctly, that people are far more modifiable than many intelligence theorists give them credit for.  But what you will not realize until much later is that the main problem is not people’s inability to change, but rather, their unwillingness to do so.  People, including you, will make all kinds of excuses to stay just as they are.  They cling to their weaknesses, often inventing stories to justify doing so, and for them, their stories are their reality.  Institutions are the same way:  Mediocre ones desperately cling to their mediocrity, often inventing stories about their unappreciated excellence, and excellent ones cling to what they have done before in the hope that what once made them great will continue to do so, despite the rapid pace of change in the world.  Creativity often is appreciated in word, but not in deed.  The problem for psychologists is not so much increasing people’s ability to change as increasing their willingness and courage to do so.

3. Intelligence is not the invaluable commodity you think it is.  You, like most of our society, believe in the great importance of intelligence, although at least you realize it is much broader than just IQ.  But what most is lacking in the world is not intelligence, but rather, creativity, common sense, wisdom, and high ethical standards.  So please, do your work on intelligence, but remember that what the world needs most are motivated, creative, wise, and ethical people, not just smart ones.

Hoping you get this letter soon,

Me at 64


Editor’s Note: Dear Me, Future Psychologist is inspired by the Dear Me book series by Joseph Galliano. Special thanks to David A. Meyerson, Ph.D. for curating these.

I Love Nadine Kaslow!

I love Nadine Kaslow. There, I said it. It’s true. I do.

And so do you.

On New Years Day this year, Nadine Kaslow, PhD, ABPP took the reigns of APA as its 2014 President. If you don’t know Nadine (she’ll tell you to call her Nadine), you’re missing out. Her list of awards, publications, and leadership roles would make your brain explode. So, to keep your noggin from cloggin’, I distilled the best parts for you. I present to you: 3 Reasons Why I Love Nadine.

1. She Loves YOU

Nadine is as student-oriented as they come. Every APA President chooses three presidential initiatives during their tenure in the position. Nadine’s first initiative is what she calls the “Opening Doors Summit.” The purpose of the Summit is to aid students and early career psychologists (ECPs) in the transition from doctoral education to their first jobs. Issues to be addressed include the Internship Crisis, postdoc positions, and job availability. Oh, and ALL of her presidential initiative committees are co-chaired by an ECP.

If you think that’s cool…

After Hurricane Katrina hit, she took a pivotal role in finding the psychology interns affected by the natural disaster and then either quickly matching them to new internship sites or assisting their existing program in modifying their training.

It’s amazing feats like this one, her “Students First” mentality, and her natural knack to treat students like colleagues that likely led to her being awarded the Grady Health Foundation Inspiring Mentor Award – and is one of the reasons why I Love Nadine.

2. She Loves Everyone

Not only is she a staunch supporter of students, she is a fierce fighter for the underserved.

To start, Nadine is chief psychologist at Grady Health System in Atlanta, GA, an inner-city hospital serving economically disadvantaged and primarily minority populations. As a professor at Emory University School of Medicine, her current research focuses on culturally competent assessment and treatment of suicidal behavior and intimate partner violence in African-Americans, with a focus on women, as well as the impact of intimate partner violence on children, family systems medicine, and education and training.

In her new role as APA President, she brings her bleeding heart with her. One of her three presidential initiatives focuses on Patient-Centered Medical Homes, with the goal of advocating for psychologically informed child- and family-centered health care that is accessible for all.

When it comes to social justice and issues of diversity, she walks the walk – and this is one of the reasons why I Love Nadine.

3. What She Brings to the Table

APA President Nadine Kaslow, PhD ABPP, introduced herself at a recent meeting by doing a split.

APA President Nadine Kaslow, PhD, ABPP, introduced herself at a recent meeting by doing a split.

No, you don’t need glasses. What you’re seeing is real.

On January 31, 2014, in the APA Board of Directors conference room, at a meeting of the Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice (CAPP), committee members and liaisons went around the room introducing themselves and saying something unique about themselves. (Don’t you just love a good icebreaker?) When Nadine’s turn was up, she stepped on her chair, climbed on the conference table, dropped into a split, and said, “My name is Nadine Kaslow, and I’m APA President.”

Something you might not have known about Nadine is that she is a ballerina. She danced with the Philadelphia Ballet, she was a ballerina during her doctoral studies with the Houston Ballet, and she is currently the resident psychologist for the Atlanta Ballet. As APA President, her extra, “fourth initiative” is to promote the arts in psychology and among psychologists. Projects include collecting pictures and videos of students’ and psychologists’ art, as well as developing an interactive, collaborative art project at APA Convention this August.

Her dance background makes her an interesting and well-rounded person, but the third reason I love Nadine is not her ability to do a split or stand in second position. I love Nadine Kaslow because she is energetic, daring, and not afraid to break the mold. She is a leader in the truest sense of the word.

Are the Courts in Our Future?

Vintage Balance ScalePsychology doctoral program at Argosy University Denver held responsible for lying. University ordered to pay millions to its students.

The State of Colorado and its Attorney General prosecuted Argosy-Denver on behalf of 66 students who enrolled in Argosy’s EdD in counseling psychology (EdD-CP) program. According to the Attorney General’s Office, “Argosy is accused of deceiving, misleading, and financially injuring students seeking doctorate of education in counseling psychology degrees in violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. Under the settlement terms, Argosy will pay approximately $3.3 million in restitution and fines,” of which approximately $2.8 million will go directly to the aggrieved students.

What happened?!

Argosy students were explicitly and implicitly led to believe that their EdD-CP program was seeking APA accreditation, when in fact, the program was not. “Argosy-Denver’s EdD-CP program would ultimately fail to fulfill a promise made to its students – eligibility to become licensed as psychologists in Colorado,” the Attorney General’s Office stated in its Complaint to the Denver District Court.

Students’ attempts to challenge their schools through the court system have historically been unsuccessful, until recently. The Argosy case is not the first occasion in which students were fruitful in seeking redress by the Courts. Here are four examples, with a fifth new case:

1. In Russell v. Salve Regina College (1989), a nursing student was dismissed on the basis of her obesity. Her academic performance was satisfactory except in one course where her grade was related to weight, not performance. The Court ruled that the college had breached its contract with Russell and awarded her monetary damages.

2. In Elliott v. University of Cincinnati (1999), a doctoral student who failed his oral examination claimed breach of contract because only four committee members were present at his examination; the Graduate Student Handbook required a five-member committee. The court found that the Handbook was contractually binding on the university, and that a four-member committee violated that contract. The university had to give the student another oral exam.

3. In Sharick v. Southeastern University of the Health Sciences (2000, 2008), a fourth-year medical student was dismissed after failing his last course in medical school. Sharick sued the university for breach of contract. After dismissal by a trial court, reversal by the appellate court, and a hearing by a second trial court jury, Sharick was awarded $813,000 for past lost earnings and $3.5 million for lost future earnings.

4. In Gauthier c. Saint-Germain, Boudreau et L’Université d’Ottawa (2010), a student sued her university for educational malpractice after failing to receive her doctorate. The appeals court ruled that if the case was pleaded with specific evidence of what the contracts and breaches were, her claims could lead to an award of damages.

5. Similar to the Argosy-Denver case, five former and current Globe University/Minnesota School of Business students filed a class-action lawsuit against their school on October 2, 2013, claiming that Globe misled students about its accreditation and post-graduate employment rates. Judgment TBD.

What do these cases mean for you, the Psychology Graduate Student?

What the above cases teach us is that there is a contractual relationship between students and schools, and both sides must work to fulfill the explicit and implied promises they make to one another. Just as schools should make sure their students work hard and attain programmatic goals and competencies before graduating and becoming psychologists, students should feel empowered to make sure their schools are living up to their end of the bargain by providing students with high quality education and training experiences, as well as an avenue toward graduation and licensure.

Would a student win a case against his or her school for losing accreditation, providing inadequate supervision, or failing to place students in externships or internships? That may be for the Courts to decide.

Hopefully, students and schools can resolve these and other key issues collaboratively, making legal recourse unnecessary.

This article was co-written with Lawrence N. Meyerson, JD, EdD.