One consequence of the theoretical and methodological problems in psychology that seems to be discussed less frequently is how this harms the education of undergraduate students, particularly in content courses where they're supposed to develop a certain level of background (1/n)

knowledge. Rozin (2001) discussed a number ways in which how we practice psychology as a science could learn from the natural sciences, particularly molecular biology. This might also translate to how undergraduates should be educated. (2/n)

In particular, an education in other STEM fields will typically have a linear organization of how knowledge is cumulatively built. (Gen Chem to O-Chem to P-Chem). However in psychology, many courses are loosely connected to each other, so students end up memorizing a (2/n)

of theories and phenomena that are tangentially related to one another. If a course is reliant on a textbook, then it's likely many of these theories won't replicate (e.g., the persistence of ego depletion in social psychology textbooks). Thus, students are not only failing (3/n)

to build a clear structure of knowledge in psychology, but are also learning outdated information in upper-division classes. This is particularly frustrating when trying to develop research ideas as an undergrad until you realize that your theories of the world (4/n)

informed by the coursework you've taken and the papers you've read are based on faulty information. Alternatively, a psychology undergrad is supposed to learn the skills to discern these problems, and build strong analytical research skills. In that case, we should (5/n)

be designing more courses that teach these skills (research methods, statistics), and not as much on content courses based on outdated theories. I read a discussion on here earlier about how psychology undergrads can only be expected to do so much, but I would suggest (6/n)

that these skillsets are no more complex than undergrads in other sciences and engineering fields are learning. If a chemical engineer can learn to conduct and apply complex process designs and analyses, why can't a psychology major acquire solid psychometrics training? (7/n)

If a computer science undergrad can learn to work with databases and computational methods, why can't a psychology major learn how to use R or create a DAG? In a majority of programs, these skills are reserved for students who pursue advanced graduate training in psychology (8/n)

or have had the opportunity and the motivation to acquire this knowledge. Perhaps such students should be the standard rather than the outlier. That isn't to say some universities aren't equipping their undergraduates with these skills. However, it would benefit the field (9/n)

of psychology to raise average standards of training for undergraduates across institutions. If undergrads are forced to embrace the very real complexity of psychology, then not only will academia and the workforce have better pool of candidates to sample from (10/n)

but the students themselves will have gained clear value in pursuing a psychology degree. It shouldn't be a degree that requires earning a graduate degree to pursue a reasonable career, especially when graduate programs will be wary of students (11/n)

motivated to pursue a Master's or PhD "solely" for the earning potential. When undergrad programs aren't equipping students with these skills (often necessary for getting a job and surviving), then this motivation is reasonable. There are numerous reasons why embracing (12/n)

this level of rigor is not feasible, especially considering the level of change this would require. Students are hesitant to learn any type of stats or research methods already, so this would certainly alienate a majority of the students. However, psych programs (13/n)

may be participating in a self-fulfilling prophecy by only providing theoretical complexity and useful skillsets to graduate programs. Undergrad programs that don't standardize and nurture this rigor will create students who, without research experience, won't have a (14/n)

realistic idea of the practice and study of psychological science. Of course, such issues will vary by subfield and institution. However, I believe having low standards and outdated content taught to psychology undergrads will harm their education and the field of psychology. END