On Psychology Graduate Programs

My favorite part of these meetings is when the faculty, having identified the problematic student, work to select the form letter that will ultimately traumatize the student with news of the new-fangled asterisk (*) he will wear on his chest like the Scarlet Letter. The faculty will select the form letter with a description of the student that best approximates his perceived level of threat to the integrity of the program and the profession. The letter may also include what the student will need to do to fulfill requirements of the probation, but noticeably absent from the letter are detailed findings from the meeting. The Devil is in these details, and if he wants answers to the really important questions about the meeting, such as “Who had a problem with me?” and “What exactly did they say?” – well, you better hope your major advisor feels like talking.

While an issue may be raised on academic grounds (e.g. triggered by a substandard grade), at many institutions students with impeccable academic performance are placed on one of several categories of conduct probation for having deviated from norms ranging from conventional practices to ideologies to the preferences or peccadilloes of a professor. Once a professor submits the name of a student for this kind of banter, other professors, individually and as a group, are asked if they had noticed anything odd or out-of-the-ordinary about the student. These forums support the dissemination of vague, unsubstantiated, and unscrupulous inferences violently drawn about a student's attitudes and professionalism.

On Psychology Graduate School: Student Ethics & Evaluation Or Something Like It

Some faculties meet so informally to evaluate its students or behind doors so closed, that the students may not even be aware they are being discussed, that is, unless there is a problem, and even THEN many embattled students are not aware their political problems originate in these meetings. Other programs assign a name to the faculty meeting, referring to it as the Student Ethics & Evaluation Committee (SEEC), for example. And then there are evaluation venues somewhere between the pomp and circumstance of an SEEC and the cloak-and-dagger of another institution. By any name, an evaluation meeting can be both insidious and ceremonious. According to many practices, discussion commences when a department head or SEEC chair opens the floor to faculty with a request for the names of students about whom they have cause for concern. Under more structured systems, faculty are asked to submit to all relevant parties in advance of the meeting progress reports that contain some indication of what issues, if any, are likely to be raised.

Having reviewed an older draft of the report you are reading now, one reader – let’s call him Dr. Reader – writes: “I was just trying to strike up a conversation with a professor. My wife and I were enrolled in the school’s clinical respecialization program and already had our research PhDs, so we were the same age as the young professor. My wife could frequently be seen talking to this professor. One day after class, I found my wife and the young female professor engaged in conversation. I decided to mention casually to the young female professor that she appeared in a dream I remembered earlier in the week, a dream in which I asked the professor to explain the meaning of six French fries I arranged on her desk. Weeks later, I received a letter describing the outcome of an end-of-semester faculty meeting in which I was placed on probation for a “pattern of poor judgment.” The female professor did not initiate the discussion about me, but when the faculty as a whole was asked whether “anyone else had a problem with the student,” the young female professor mentioned that I made her feel uncomfortable when I dreamed about her. The young professor did not mention that I explained the dream to her, which would have made it clear to the faculty that this was not a sexual dream. I mean, it’s not like I said, “I dreamed about you last night” and walked away to allow her imagination to run wild. Hell, my wife was present! The faculty’s reason for vetting their students like they do is that they want to ensure that students of questionable mental health do not earn the qualifications that would allow them to treat clinical populations. But the way I see it, they already have someone on staff with issues. To have reacted with such sensitivity to my dream as this young female professor did … what more can I say?”

Dr. Reader may not have had anything more to say about the “young female professor,” but I would question whether the professor really did have a problem with the disclosure of this dream. Of course, the alternative offers no greater comfort to Dr. Reader. But the professor may have simply been waiting all meeting for an opportunity to make the kind of contribution that would get her remembered come tenure review. An opportunity to speak presented itself to her, and she made the most of it. She would have also been one of Dr. Reader’s instructors the following semester. Just how comfortable was Dr. Reader knowing she would have been asked to provide progress notes on him for the next evaluation meeting? Not very. Dr. Reader withdrew from the program prior to the next semester.

But this was the least of Dr. Reader’s problem with this evaluation format. Over the course of the semester, Dr. Reader was taken to task for “inappropriate disclosure” during a classroom role play exercise. Apparently, Dr. Reader volunteered to role play a therapy client for extra credit. Every student had volunteered, coveting the opportunity to act out some DSM disorder for their professor in front of the class. But Dr. Reader did not choose your cookie-cutter DSM disorder. He did not play to a script of symptoms from the DSM. He invented a complex but relatively normal neuroses, a 17-year-old male who suffered from a phobia, nightmares, and expressed that he felt alienated from his parents and from members of the opposite sex. He also added that he derived enjoyment from proving to other members of his high school class that even though he was short, he could match the level of physical intensity of his largest peers in phys ed.

Dr. Reader was acclaimed by the students for his imaginative client, but when asked if there was anything he felt he needed to add after the role play (apparently students-in-role-play need help after losing themselves in the role), Dr. Reader fatally remarked that the client was based on his own character. Even if the apples fell too close to the tree, Dr. Reader would have been role-playing himself at age 17 (over 10 years ago!). In any event, the professor was distressed by what she considered “hostile content” in the client as well as by the original disclosure that the client was based on the Mr. Reader’s own life, an admission from which Mr. Reader has been unable to escape ever since. Over the course of three policy-driven and highly-documented meetings triggered by this “disclosure,” Mr. Reader attempted to reassure faculty that the professor responded to a time-limited sound bite that required qualification. Specifically, he stated that he used his imagination to exaggerate the severity and duration of the symptoms. Privately, Mr. Reader did not think the qualification should have even been necessary, that his client consisted of traces of normal and quite routine psychopathology and that the DSM disorders he was expected to role play are far more disturbing. The following week, a competitive student, widely regarded as a professor’s pet and not to be outdone, role played an original client with obsessions of skinning his neighbor alive and ego-syntonic dreams (what would seem like nightmares to us) of being buried alive. The professor rolled her eyes during the role play as if she were thinking “uh oh” but never reported this student. Incidentally, the student who modeled an even more disturbing client also made an even more disturbing post-role play disclosure, indicating that the client is a person she has treated. Knowing this, it occurred to Dr. Reader that the student provided demographics that an acquaintance of the client would have found sufficient to identify the client. This is a breach of confidentiality.”

Despite the fact the meetings ran their course and that the attendants agreed the matter had been resolved, the professor still thought there was unfinished business and initiated the discussion about Dr. Reader in the end-of-semester evaluation meeting, prompting the input from the young female professor about the dream and prompting the program’s training director, who confused Dr. Reader with another student, to credit him with an inappropriate phone call to a training site supervisor. Dr. Reader received his form letter in the mail two days before Christmas over the Winter break. Unable to follow up for at least a couple weeks, Dr. Reader stewed in his own juices over the holidays. It was a coal-filled stocking from clinical psychologists who enjoy disseminating, among other Psychology trivia, that the holidays is a peak time for depression.

Many students are harassed or traumatized by an SEEC, some of whom are asked to withdraw from the program but the vast majority are discouraged from continuing by the gloomy outlook and learned helplessness. Like children who are punished for every little impropriety, beleaguered students are often resigned to the fact that there is no way to predict or prevent a complaint. Rather than using the forum as a means to provide feedback about specific habits, the committee is often co-opted by certain professors for the purposes of waging psychological warfare on students they do not like or do not think belong in the field due to some opposing point of view. The constant evaluation apprehension, coupled with the knowledge that a critical mass of red flags will just as effectively disqualify the student as so many poor grades, is often sufficient motive for the withdrawal of any student coping with the usual but high number of variables affecting his or her future (e.g., publishing). The prospect of being unable to meet a loan burden with doctoral-level earning potential is too great a risk to endure, even without the nebulous and free-floating hostility, the venom clouds that waft through the halls disguised as a concern for public welfare, professional development, and scientific standards.

Faculty want to make sure their students comport themselves like professionals, and so each faculty brings his or her interpretation of professionalism to bare on the student body. My withdrawal from a program in response to my first referral to the SEEC was dubbed 'precipitous.' But what I deemed precipitous was their first-semester flogging of a student for violation of some arbitrary norm in which he had not yet been trained. While disputing accusations is generally regarded as political suicide (because it publicly questions at least one department professor), perhaps the most obvious reason not to engage the committee is its evasive logic.

"And when you question a professor about this, he or she usually responds by saying something to the effect of, 'well, none of the other students in your class made this choice,' recounted Ehrenfels. "I was fortunate enough at one school to have an advisor to took it upon himself to defend when my professionalism was questioned. He pushed the issue to its limit, but our adversaries ultimately settled on the argument that a pattern (two or more) atypical choices qualified me as 'unconventional,' and to be 'unconventional is to be unprofessional.' This argument revealed the essentially social or lodge-like nature of professionalism."

Personal insecurities and an ever-widening and, in my opinion, strictly ornamental nucleus of vaunted norms, which do not leave much to latitude, account for much of the hypervigilance and hypersensitivity. But institutional priorities (e.g., solidarity, perceived legitimacy and reputation) also instigate accusations of deviation and complicate due process. Ehrenfels cites a 1996 JPSP article by Thompson, Petersen, and Brodt discussing the tendency of discussion in groups to thwart the goal of accuracy to preserve group harmony. (I mean, it was not specifically about end-of-semester evaluation meetings, but you'd think they'd be able to take a concept and apply it across analogous instances. No, I guess not). The most surprising fact surrounding the issue of the evaluation meeting is the hypocrisy, the violation by psychology professors of such coveted norms of ethics, evidence, and empathy and the paroxysmal amnesia for such ingrained concepts as groupthink, self-fulfilling prophecy, and independence of observations.

On Psychology Graduate School: Comparisons to Basic Training

Most of the psychology graduate students I have met enter their first year with a proper attitude, asking -- no, demanding -- that their professors subject them to a rigorous and protocol-driven training process. "Just tell me what to do!" they snarl under their breath when a professor digresses onto a theoretical or historical tangent. The psychology graduate student has wrung their bloated sponge, freeing themselves to absorb as much as possible. These tightly wound wind-up dolls are in a state of readiness, eager to imitate the behaviors of their supervisors. For every professor anxious to avoid the more menial interactions with undergraduates (i.e. collecting data, lecture, office hours), there are five graduate students waiting to serve as a surrogate. With drill & ceremony comes pomp & circumstance, and like any 20th Century Communist military, graduate students in psychology enjoy rolling out their armaments like floats in a Rose Bowl parade. My undergraduate psychology professors often searched for ways other than ape sign language to convey the secret mystical knowledge of graduate school life to their favorite undergrads. And when they tire of the 'dog-eat-dog' metaphor, they move effortlessly to a slightly less hackneyed expression in 'sink-or-swim.' But it was not until I actually started my graduate career that I learned they were referring to synchronized swimming, at which point I realized that, having been voted 'least likely to impress superiors with my obedience' by my high school yearbook committee, that I would surely drown. (I find my hydrophobia a rather astonishing coincidence). What is it about cadence, and for that matter, about keeping ourselves buoyant and superficial, that impresses us? For what they call 'drowning' I call a disposition to depth.

If you happen to be original, you will likely commit a foul for 'uncoventional thinking,' which is a 5-yard penalty, or if it was deemed the unconventional act was premeditated (i.e. you intended to think or act that way), you would draw a flagrant foul (the 15-yard variety) for 'pattern of poor judgment.' I am being facetious, but it is important to bear in mind that there are many other considerations for the sake of which you may run afoul of the faculty's top priority: the social norms. Of these pitfalls, the pursuit of truth is probably the biggest. The single greatest cause of death among the careers of graduate students in Psychology is the thinking that this or that is the most effective way to learn about something. The most effective way for you to learn about the phenomenon your researching. The most effective way for your students to learn from you. The most effective way for you to learn how much your students have learned. Chances are, if this is how you're thinking, you are going to do something other than what is expected or dictated by conventional practice. And once you've crossed this line, there's no turning back, because you've already emitted a signal (which is amplified one-hundred-fold in the acoustic arena of the SEEC meeting) that you are not like them, do not like them, that you're not a team player, or fit to be a professional. The process of training graduate students for membership in an academic and professional community, in the words of author Jeff Schmidt, about disciplining minds. Call it what you will. Indoctrination. Socialization. Cloning. But know that all other considerations are not only secondary, but often subversive. Do not put anything before (or ahead of) the inculcation, imitation, and celebration of the department's social norms.

And that you have all those individual battles/skirmishes where you have to adjust to the subjective judgment of the individual psychology professor. Suffice it to say that if the faculty -- or even one professor -- has an axe to grind with Sigmund Freud, that person or persons will do all they can to cast aspersions on the professionalism of a student about whom they can in the very least construe/detect trace elements of Freudian leanings. The only question that remains is whether they will directly attack the Freudian orientation of the student and make the case that it is unprofessional or whether they will bypass the appearance of politics and accuse the Freudian student of other unsavory qualities. I use Freud as an example here, but the possibilities are unbounded. The psychology professor may muddy up the situation with some pretexts. But it is not always as obvious as theoretical alignment. A professor may be distressed by a student who did not attend a colloquium at which his assistant is speaking. While attendance at colloquia may be non-mandatory or suggested, the professor may supplement his case against the student by citing the absence as evidence that the student is not committed to the broader department or profession beyond his or her own research interests. Some faculty may look favorably upon the assignment of a non-mandatory label to department functions like colloquia because it enables them to entrap students. If the functions were mandatory, and all students participated, how would faculty know who is really one of them. How would they tell the professionals from the imposters?

The bottom line is that a professor who doesn't like you personally finds a way to cast aspersions on your professionalism -- some of the dislike is motivated in punctilious demagogues by innocuous deviations of unwritten rules and some of the dislike is motivated by bias and prejudice, you know, personality conflicts and differences in views of human nature. Human nature is such a personally charged, sensitive subject, and some professors do not care to admit that they take it quite personally when he or she discovers a student who does not subscribe to his or her worldview. The student may not have verbally or explicitly communicated this worldview, or he or she may have hinted at it in a term paper, all the while unaware of the professor's own point of view, and yet out of nowhere this 'difference' balloons into a political firestorm. Other professors feel they are policing a community -- invoking such terms as public welfare, mental hygiene, and scientific standards -- and protecting the reputation of the school (with which their own identity is bound up). It could also be that the professors have such a high opinion of themselves and their program that they fear the student reflects a less-than-perfect embodiment of the standard they want to project for the community. According to this model, students are treated as ambassadors, representatives, or extensions of them.

On Psychology Graduate School: Censuring Students on Spec

A professor may even object to opinions a student keeps to him- or herself or divine in a student opinions he or she does not really have or may be likely to develop in the future or exhibit in professional settings. There is a lot of interpretation and guesswork involved and professors often react with tremendous uncertainty to impressions they have of a student who presents an ambiguous or unique personality. Often, students are unaware that they somehow remind the professors of a person in the field with whom that professor once had an unpleasant encounter. If you are a student, you can give yourself away and get on the bad side of a professor not by saying something they don't want to hear, but by failing to voice resonantly and resolutely what they DO want to hear -- by failing to allay their basic insecurities that what they are doing is right. As a student -- and for that matter colleague -- you are asked to contribute to the Professor Insecurities Fund, which is to say you are there to help them with their self-esteem problem. In any of these scenarios, I see a lot of insecurities and delusions on the part of professors. The fact they act on them -- the fact there are consequences to others -- in my estimation makes those delusions and insecurities pathological.

Conversely, I have evidence that these professors overlook similar violations of professionalism in their favorite students -- in students they DO like personally. And I'm talking about some fairly obvious and egregious misconduct. This is all beside the fact that their favoritism has aided and abetted students who can barely write and think. The school with an SEEC program also has a remedial writing lab -- yes, you heard right -- a remedial writing course for doctoral candidates -- to which they refer students who annoy professors with substandard writing. Some students have escaped the course because of favoritism and some have graduated with PhDs despite having been required to take the course 2-3 times without noticeable improvement. They can bend over backwards to admit, train, and overlook students who cannot write, and yet they fail intellectual students who do not share in their ideology.

On Psychology Graduate School: Weeding the Garden

I have also consulted with a member of the adjunct faculty who was asked to make a special appearance at an SEEC meeting to testify about the attitude of a student a full professor was attempting to discredit. The adjunct was appalled by the atmosphere of the meeting, which she claimed alternated between one of a trial to one of a general witch-hunt. Students were chided for all sorts of characteristics, ranging from accusations of arrogance to cases where students were chastised for being too 'self-deprecating.'

Most of the professors in the meeting who witness the accusation have never interacted with the student before -- they are the student's future professors. In the case of the SEEC meeting, I have been told by my informant that the professors are actually told to 'watch out' for this student -- to 'watch out' for these same behaviors and attitudes so they can report on their progress in the next meeting. The problem with that is that they come to look for evidence of the problematic attitude and behavior, seeing it where it does not exist in many instances. They are sensitized to it. This whole thing deprives a student of the opportunity to establish his or her own relationship with that professor, to start fresh every semester. I suspect in many instances that when a student is accused for a second consecutive semester within an SEEC climate, it is usually because of the first accusation. The professor acting as the referral source is emboldened by the memory of the initial criticism.

fireflySun.com Report List

16 Points Memo: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Authors, Scholars Unite to Support Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Dream Researcher Gail Bixler: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Exposes Our Fear of Exposure Therapy: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Interviews with Internal Correspondent: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Psychology Professors Suffer from Professional Analogue of Borderline Personality Disorder: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Student Defies Psychology Professor's Warning Not to Correspond with Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Chides Daniel Dennett for Evangelical Atheism in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Argues Psychology Graduate Education Not Worth the Money: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology Professors Acknowledge Student Complaints about Curriculum: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Answers Critics, Campaign of Diversionary Tactics: Wyatt Ehrenfels

American Psychological Association Denies Listserv Members Access to Wyatt Ehrenfels OKTV Broadcast Report: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Talks about the Dissertation Experience: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Discusses a Methodology for Dream Research: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Defends Dreaming from Psychologist Negative Thinking: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Urban E-Zine Entelechy Publishes Wyatt Ehrenfels Essay: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Defends Dream Research against Vaunted Psychology News Group Moderator: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Customizes Probe to Explore Dreaming-Waking Interface: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Kindred Critic Dennis Fox: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Psychotherapist Elio Frattaroli: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Political Scientist John Freie: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Biologist John Hewitt: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Shows Support for Embattled Psychology Graduate Student: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Counsels Students on True Callings: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Amuses with Proposal of Psychology Graduate Program Insurance: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Corrective Statistical Procedure Emblematic of Psychology's Flaws: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Brad Jesness Target of Malicious Psychologists on Usenet: Brad Jesness

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Medal-Winning Author M.J. John: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Critical of Vaunted Cornell Research Claiming Opposites Do NOT Attract: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Criticizes Berkeley Psychology Professors for Left Wing Bias: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Links to Education and Appropriations Subcommittees: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Thunders Away at Psychology's Load-Bearing Premises: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Counsels High School Students on Choice of College Major: Wyatt Ehrenfels

APPIC Match Service Helps Veterans Hospital Psychologists Discriminate against Applicants w/ Disabilities: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology Professional Development at Odds with Adult Maturation: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Republishes Work of College Curriculum Critic and FOX News Writer Wendy McElroy: Wendy McElroy

Wyatt Ehrenfels Likens Psychological Research to Premature Ejaculation: Wyatt Ehrenfels

According to Social Psychologist Wyatt Ehrenfels, Diversity Is Skin Deep, Black-and-White at University of Michigan: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Dismantles Psychology's Standard Defenses against Criticism: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Points to Hypocrisy in Terror Management Research: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Releases Revitalized Pocket Memo: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Publishes Critique in Revolution Issue of New Therapist Magazine: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Is Psychology at Odds with Itself?: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Campaign Not Intend to Offend Psychology Majors: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Why Community Access Television Is Coming Around to Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Overview of Wyatt Ehrenfels's Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Onion of Obstacles Awaits Psychology Majors: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Depicts Psychology Prejudiced against Psyche: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Newsweek Report Surveys Dream Research Wasteland: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Assails Culture of Student Character Assassination in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Depicts Psychology as Bloated Minor: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Multicultural Fetish Belies Suppression of Individual Freedom, Ideas in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Depicts Psychology Research as Games without Frontiers, ADHD Science: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Uses Evolutionary Theory, Natural Selection to Impugn D-Volving Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Reveals American Psychological Association as Lobbying Tour de Force: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Shares Bizarre Tale of Application for University Position: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Discusses Predictive Power of Tornado Dreams: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Releases Preface to Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

In a Drugged States, New Mexico Legislators Give Psychologists Prescriptive Authority: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun Press Release: Katheryn Moyer

Brad Jesness Exposes Malicious Stalking by Psychologists on Usenet: Brad Jesness

Psychology Majors Respond to Wyatt Ehrenfels fireflySun.com: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Personality Taxonomy: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Blueprint for Blighted Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

From Position of Ignorance, APA Official Diverts Attention from/Urges Skepticism for, Wyatt Ehrenfels APPIC Discrimination Report: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Comes to Terms with Roiled Psychology Graduate Student and News Group Moderator: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Brad Jesness Deals Counselors & Therapists Some Major Blows: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Responses to Wyatt Ehrenfels Campaign to Reform Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Independent Publisher Offers Glowing Review of Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Psychotherapist Robert Roerich: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Psychology Professors Play Games with Rules: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Physicist Jeff Schmidt: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Malicious Stalking by Psychologists Abusing Psychotherapy News Group: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Reveals Groupthink, Abuse in Psychology Faculty Evaluation of Graduate Students: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Begins Sequel to Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Exposes Counseling Center Hiring Preference for Gays, Lesbians: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Diagnoses the Diagnosticians with the Shadow DSM: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Prominent UC-Davis Dream Researcher Dodges Wyatt Ehrenfels Draft of Reformers: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Management Consulting Maven R. Mallory Starr: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Overview of Wyatt Ehrenfels Dream Research with Cancer Patients: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Comments on the Short Falls of Teaching in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Popular Psychotherapy All about Controlling Chaos: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Washington National Cathedral Site of Synchronicity in Novel by Social Psychologist: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Comments on the Value of a Degree in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Strategy for Self-Science of Dreams: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Attacks Psychology on Two Fronts: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Connie Vaughn Teams with Wyatt Ehrenfels to Explain Why She Is Not a Psychology: Connie Vaughn

Benjamin Willard Elected President of Wyatt Ehrenfels Fan Club: Benjamin Willard

Wyatt Ehrenfels Identifies Flaws in U.S. News Report of Psychology Employment Prospects: Wyatt Ehrenfels