It’s been officially two years and one day since I came out to Oregon for an interview for the School Psychology program; two years since I told Allie and Elise that Oregon was the place that I would likely go to if I got an invite to go there; and it’s been about one year and 363 days since Ken gave me a call to extend an invitation to come work for him and study here.
It’s been such a long amount of time since those days, but I can still remember the interview process quite well. I was ridiculously nervous—as I was at all of my interviews—but perhaps a little bit more confident in my answers and opinions after going through a series of previous interviews. But the strong desire to be in Oregon, to study some cool things, and do some research to would lead to better outcomes for children regardless of their background or social situation.
Looking back on myself from two years ago, I am still surprised that I got into the program. (I am only semi-joking when I say that I got into the program because I enjoyed Settlers of Catan.) I was very impressed with the quality of the candidates that came in to interview yesterday, many of them much more qualified than I was at the point in time, with more related research experience, more defined (and compatible) research interests, and a seemingly better fit with our program as it currently stands that I do.
A difficult part of this year has been reconciling the super-behaviorally-oriented psychology that some of our professors use as the lenses through which they conduct research. I find behavioral psychology to be a useful tool to address some of the issues that students face within schools, a great way to define problems, to monitor progress, and to use data to make decisions. However, I have had a harder time seeing how my interests will fit into the general research program, mainly because I am also interested in seeing how cognition and emotions can influence behavior (some of my professors may argue that since we can’t measure these concepts, then why bother?). This, coupled with the condescending attitude that (some of) my professors have towards those that don’t have a behavioral orientation, has been very frustrating to wrap my head around. Cognitive dissonance, like whoa.
So I guess it was refreshing to see individuals that were “ready to go” (italicized, with Kevin Baier’s emphases) with our program. But, I was honest with my own appraisals as well when conversing with some of these students. Since losing Ken, I could see a large gap in our program go unaddressed when dealing with students’ social and emotional learning-related needs. I think that our research has been skewed towards working only with individuals with developmental disabilities (which is great work, yes, but we need to be broader when working with all individuals at a school population level, in my opinion).
But the most interesting development was that the students that were in my group interview wanted to be researchers first and foremost. This wasn’t the case on my interview day, nor last year’s, when I sat on the interviewer side of the table for the first time.
This is interesting because our program has been going under a large identity crisis. We are seeking to expand to a 6 year program for those that want to have an APA accredited internship experience. The first two years the only practical experience that newcomers have will either be through research or through a field study experience. This is contrasted to last year, when we brought in a majority of Masters students for the first time in a while, where it is evident/critical that you need practical experiences to perform your job well. We thought the program was going to be more focused on Masters students, and this year it veered back in the other direction towards becoming scientists.
This is such a weird change for me because a) I don’t think I would have gotten into the program two years ago and b) I’m not sure UO would have been my first choice as it was just two years ago. At this point, I don’t know if I should draw any conclusions from that statement, but I think it demonstrates that I still feel a bit out of my element (even a year and a half into the program) and that I don’t necessarily agree with the changes that are being made to the program.
Do I stick it out? Do I look elsewhere? Do I make the best of a situation that is no longer quite as ideal as I thought it was going to be? Or do I recognize that it is the middle of winter quarter and that I am halfway done and I need more Vitamin D?