The argument seems to be, I'm paraphrasing, "psych people can't deal with complex stuff" which really boils down to "I can't teach them complex stuff". Taken at face value the argument is psych researchers are not clever — reality of course is not aligned really with that view.
There are a lot of overlapping issues. I think "psychologists will never learn to code, so modellers can only talk to each other" which is a standard one I have heard is full of many deep misunderstandings not just about teaching.
-
-
I think the key question is whether you read "psych students can't/won't learn to code" as an observation about aggregate enrollment in psych majors, or as a claim about any particular individual
-
as the former, I think it's an accurate observation. if you impose higher standards, you will lose a bunch of people who either can't or won't take those courses. but that's different from saying "we shouldn't even try, b/c these people just can't learn this stuff".
-
again though, I think the best response to the latter kind of statement is "well, even if you're right, it doesn't matter if some people can't learn these skills—if we think they're essential in order to do good research, we should teach them anyway."
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.