Hi, I am currently in my final year BSc Psychology and I am consider to apply for the new route 1+3 PhD next year or Clinical (after few years) or maybe do Clinical after PhD... The problem is I have a lot of different research interests and I struggle to choose a topic... Also, I enjoy working with patients so I am not sure what I want to do... As you can probably imagine am confused.. The other problem I am not quite sure if I am good enough for PhD..
I am expected to have first and my supervisor expects me to win the project prize as apparently my project "is over undergraduate level", but I disagree.. To be honest, my class are not the brightest, I don't even know how some of them managed to get to uni... But to the point as I was working during my whole degree 35 - 50 hours a week term time, to support myself, I kind of feel like I know nothing... I spent most of my free time (mainly nights :D)doing coursework and missed half of the lectures... Don't even know how I managed to get first... I feel like I missed 2/3 of my degree ad that's why I am unsure if I will be good enough for a PhD..

Is there anyone else who is or has been in the same situation or felt the same or similar way? Any advice? Should I try and hope and do my best not to fail, or wait few years to dig a bit more in my areas of interest and hope to feel a bit more confident .. or just give up and forget about it..?

I am sorry if this looks like dumb question I just don't know who I can speak with for advice...

It may help you to have a look at the careers information on the BPS website, http://bps.org.uk/careers-in-psychology

I'd also suggest speaking to the careers advice service at your university. Both clinical psychology and PhDs are competitive areas and you'll need to remain focused and motivated for 3 or more years, so my advice to you would be to gather more information or take whatever time you need to get information/experience to decide on the best course for you.

It sounds like you are underestimating yourself. If your supervisor thinks you are good enough to do a PhD you probably are. Now you just need to decide whether you want to do one or not. And we all feel like we know nothing, and that feeling is often exacerbated when doing a PhD, so be prepared for that.

Hmm, I could get into the eternal argument of "easier degrees", students given too much of a helping hand compared to the past, modular assessment rather than exams at end and reduced exam contribution to the overall mark making courses easier to pass, however, the arguments are far more complicated than that. As it happens, the old exam-based system to me tested memory rather than critical analysis. Whilst exams have their place, I'm more interested in the critical analysis skills of a person than some obscure fact they crammed for an exam that they'll never use again. I'm therefore a fan of coursework and think the problem lies in difficulty setting and possibly over lenient marking in the case of a very few members of academic staff.

Whatever the content and assessment regime of your course, you still have a first class degree and that is an achievement in itself. You therefore already have a set of background research, the motivation to seek out extra information above and beyond that lectured to you (the difference between 2(i) and a first) and critical assessment skills that will help you in your PhD that you will have used to achieve your first. So if you want to do a PhD, give it a shot as I think you're worrying unnecessarily.

If this is down to not being sure what a PhD entails, have a look at my blog and have a read through.

http://www.wearthesis.talktalk.net

Ian

Hi, first thank you all for the replies.

Chickpea - I am familiar with what both PhD and Clinical involve and that's why I did concentrate on getting as much experience as possible during my undergrad. I know it is competitive and I do know that it may actually take me few years until I manage to get on either as my only way of affording it is funding. I don't lack the motivation that's why I came to UK. For me it doesn't matter how long it will take me to complete either or even both... I may be 50 when I finish I don't care that's what I have always wanted and I would regret all life I don't do it. And I do love learning, so basically being paid to do so is like my little utopia...

Treeoflife- thank you it's good to know that I am not the only one who feels like I know nothing. Most of my friends are satisfied with BSc and with their standard of work and feel really proud and confident about it even though in my opinion it is often of quite low quality...

Mackem_Beefy - I do agree with you about the "easier degrees". In my course the assessment is largely based on loads of coursework or portfolios or just a a big 3000 - 5000 words "project" on a topic covered in specific course... About the marking, I have always felt that marking actually kills students confidence as it makes them feel as worthy as their grades...However I guess it should be done even tough some lecturer appears not to be sure how to do and offer very vogue feedbacks. I see fellow students and friends spending 10 times more than me in the library going trough books reading, but still unable to grasp basic concepts...

The reason why I am not sure what I want to do it, is because I love research and there are potentially a lot of topics I would love to research but also I can't imagine my whole life in academia as I do enjoy working with service users. Second thoughts I have for Clinical come from the fact that I did have the chance to meet and speak with few Clinical Psychologists and all of them agreed that they do supervise research but don't really have the time to put their hands on it - something that I wouldn't be happy with.

But my biggest problem I think is the confidence. The fact that I didn't manage to get the depth on certain topics that I wanted to during my undergraduate degree makes me feel as if I don't deserve to do a PhD as I don't have the knowledge for it.. And I guess there are people out there who did feel the same way, so that's why I decided to ask you guys here if you have how did you cope with these feelings and thoughts as they appear to be the biggest enemy?

Thanks

Hi Darky,

My comment about focus and motivation was not intended as a comment on your work for your degree (I can see from what you've said about working all those hours and still heading for a first that you have been very motivated indeed). My comment was more in response to the fact that you said you had a lot of research interests and didn't know what to do for your PhD, or whether to go for clinical instead. As you will know, a PhD involves exploring one topic in a very in-depth way over a number of years, and that is what I meant by focus and motivation and being sure about what you want to do. Similarly, in clinical psychology you will find people who have known that they wanted to do that for their whole lives, as it is so difficult to get into. As you will be looking at funded places, you will probably find that the options are narrowed a little anyway, which may help.

I can tell you that at the end of my BSc in Psychology, I felt I had a very general knowledge of lots of things and no in-depth knowledge of any of them. I think Psychology degrees are a bit like that, as it is such a diverse field. I hope it will reassure you to know that much of a PhD involves learning your niche area as you go, and you are not expected to have a perfect knowledge of it to begin with. You get a lot of time to read, to specialise and to develop the skills you need - your degree is just the beginning.

Thanks. It is good to know that you are not alone in the way you feel.. :)

if your research interests are in Clinical Psychology then do think about (& discuss) the Clinical route. The advantages of Clinical first is that it will give you a break from academia (which is a world of its own), contact with other health professionals and service users and you can make sure your research is relevant to the people you want to reach. It also gives you a profession and access to the NIHR Clinical Academic Training scheme (amongst others). I suspect too, that if you were to do a PhD first and then try to do Clinical you'd risk losing touch with the academic side afterwards and people may regard you more as a failed academic who is trying to get into clinical work as a fall-back. If you already have a clinical qualification and are moving into research then you're working towards becoming a clinical academic and that sounds so much better!

Just ignore the little voice in your head that tells you you aren't clever enough or don't know enough. That's normal and you just have to work hard and pretend you are good enough and you will be as good as anyone else. PhD funding, clinical training posts, Fellowships are all competitive but someone has to get them so why not you?

Hi Darky. Doing a Masters may be helpful. The first year of the 1+3 would allow you to learn more about research methods and gain confidence for the PhD. That is what I am doing and it is great! Also, it is not guaranteed that you will get funding - so perhaps apply, see what happens and then go for it if successful!

The point of marking is to evaluate your work and prepare you for academia in which your work will be heavily critiqued and reviewed. While grading can be rather arbitrary, it is meant to provide guidance. Students are not the sum of their marks, but marking in itself does not produce low-self esteem or kills confidence. The point of a mark is to highlight the value of your work, which yes, will have value, especially if you are preparing for academia. Students who place their self-worth on their grade, as opposed to taking a step back to understand how their work has been evaluated and how they can learn from this evaluation is what is killing their confidence, not marking in of itself. Of course, it is very, very hard to separate yourself from your work and I am no stranger to the feelings of low confidence/inadequacy after a particularly bad review. But one of the things you'll learn (it takes time!) as you go through is to separate your self-worth from the work you produce.

If a lecturer tells you that you have the potential to pursue graduate study, and this is something you want to do, go with it. Lecturers do not tell every student that they have potential, as a lecturer myself I encourage students that I think show aptitude towards graduate study. These students are rare.

A second note about vague feedback, a few things occur here:

1. Not enough time to provide adequate feedback. Marking a paper properly can take about an hour or more, but markers/lecturers are paid by a particular number of words per hour, which often equates to three or more papers. There is not enough time to provide detailed feedback. If unit enrolments are not capped (an occurrence at my uni now) you might go from a manageable 30-50 students to 100 or more.

2. Backlash from students. Lately, markers have found that the increased backlash from students when provided detailed feedback has been so hostile that the university may have adopted a vague feedback policy. At my uni we don't even mark up papers, students only get a qualitative rubric and comments on the rubric. Only honours and above will get mark ups. It's frustrating for sure. We've had students attack every comment we've made, as opposed to learning from it.

3. Vague feedback is actually quite common, and while not helpful, a skill you'll learn is how to decipher this feedback. This can be common with PhD examination reports, or journal articles, industry reports, you name it. I've encountered vague feedback not just in Academia, but in the industry research work I do as well.

4. Not every student, even if they spend hours and hours in the library, will grasp the material. Some individuals are more adept at critical thinking and research than others, just like some are more adept at performing arts, or visual arts, or sports, or business savy, etc. If you're not spending as much time but are getting it, that's fantastic, be proud of yourself!

5. Sometimes, vague feedback is because we just don't know how to say it's a bad paper (or, if it's a really good paper, we don't highlight this enough). I've marked papers where it's been very difficult to pinpoint why it's a bad paper, other than it's a bad paper.