Therapy Acronyms

Welcome and even though you have been a member for a year now thank you for letting us know you are here.

I personally have no problem with professionals being on the on line groups that I am on. In fact I told my last therapist and my present one what groups I am on and how to "find" me and my posts, threads and blogs. I figure what better way for professionals to understand the clients they see then to be a part of the on line groups too. Glad your here and -

Yes I know that in the therapy field SI stands for Su$$$$$ Ideations but when I tried using SH on my on line groups people thought I was saying SHOIT (take out the o) So I have chosen to use SI for "self Injury" and S for "Sui$$$$ Ideations" that way people on line can understand me and not be confused about how SHOIT fits in with the sentence that I write.

Again Welcome.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I took a human development paper or two from over there...


</div></font></blockquote><font class="post"> Did they make you take them back?

Well folks reading, for ME SI is suicidal ideation...and that's what it is in the professional field. ED is erectile dysfunction. If you have an eating disorder, then you call it bulemia/anorexia etc.

In fact, while I'm thinking... Ben, what do you think... when is it NOT a good time to use an acronym? I think sometimes ppl use the intials to keep from facing the truth of their disorder...or something along those lines.

BTW there's also the AACC American Association of Christian Counselors.

Personally, I use the initials because I don't feel like typing out the name of the disorder.

Just my .02.

C.

Yep. me too.

MD Medical doctor (writes scripts)
MD, PhD psychiatrist (also) (write scripts)
DMD Medical Doctor of Dentistry (while we're talking about scary doctors )
NOS Not otherwise specified (another words, they got the general idea but no clue on anything further )

me too.

also i guess my placing of "SI" and "ED" were typical chat/forum usages from my experiences for the terms/disorders, and not what was being discussed here.

in the chat/forum (again, in my experience) world i've always known those as self injury and eating disorder, so the appropriate therapy acronyms would be as otherwise stated.

KD

> The reputation of a department (and of the entire school for that matter) has much more to do with research than teaching, in my opinion.

Hmm. I guess here I was thinking of the Philosophical Gourmet Report. It provides a ranking of philosophy departments in the English speaking world both overall:

http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/overall.htm

And by breakdown of speciality areas within the department:

http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/breakdown.htm

It is based on reputational survey. That is what I meant by reputation. Note that some Universities that feature highly in lists of research overall are not ranked any where near as well in philosophy (e.g., Harvard). It has indeed been noted that the reputation of philosophy departments can piggy back on the reputation of the university as a whole and one of the aims of the report is to correct those misconceptions.

Reputational survey is indeed strongly correlated with research output. But then... One would expect that to be the case in philosophy because the field is one that embraces the 'publish or perish' ideology. That is the nature of the subject.

I would have thought that psychology would have reputational rankings also (somewhat correlated with research output, and also by specialities within the subject). I would have thought that Doctor of Psychology Programs would have comperable reputational rankings and would expect that those would be less correlated with research output. Though that being said even if you don't want to do research yourself if you wanted to specialise in seeing clients who were chronically suicidal (for example) then it would make sense to try and get into a department where there are a couple of 'experts' in that area.

But maybe reputational rankings are of more importance in Philosophy where (for example) over half the people who complete never find a job in the field. University affiliation is taken very seriously indeed when it comes to job applicants and (though this is arguable and is allegedly anonymous) with respect to having prospective publications read and not rejected out of hand (where some journals have over 95% rejection rate, for example).

But yeah, the gormet report has indeed inspired criticism (see for example):

http://web.archive.org/web/200411270...heck/aboutpgr/

(Though at the risk of an ad homenim attack note which university the website is affiliated with)

;-)

With respect to teaching... The notion is that that is more important for undergraduates. At graduate level people are expected to more self directed and independent with their learning anyway. Better to be told something that is more likely to be true in a way that is harder to understand than something that is less likely to be true in a way that is easier to understand. I think that is the rationale behind forgetting about teaching and worrying about peer reviewed research output (where experts critique each others work and some people become known for good work and others are less well known because they make fundamental errors, for example).

But that being said... Friendliness can be important too. The gormet report makes it clear that students should only use the gormet report as a guide and that they should contact students within the department to find out such things as:

- how friendly / vs hostile / competitive the dept is.
- how available staff are (pointless going to study with someone who locks themselves in their office all the time and won't talk to students)
- the student / staff ratio (pointless being one of a hundred students being supervised by someone who locks themselves in their office all the time and won't talk to students)
-completion rates (high drop out? average completion time? - some departments inundate students with undergrad teaching requirements / fieldwork and students are still there 10 years later).

etc
etc.

right back at ya sweetie...

heh heh. no i didn't have to take them back ;-)
lots of people were taking them from all over the uni :-)
very popular papers...

bumping up

These are helpful!