<p>I think Psych and Child Psych are weak relative to other programs at Cornell which are very strong. So, I meant that Psych areas were not as strong as others at Cornell. I have heard that Human Development has not been the same since Urie Bronfenbrenner left many years ago. The attachment theory you mention belongs to Mary Ainsworth although Hazen may have done work on it. I don't want to get into details but I have heard negative comments. Like one faculty member in the later years of her career who spent all her time as a liason with China...no research, little teaching...in a state funded college. Yes, James Maas' Intro Psych is very popular. Cornell's Psych is probably in the top 40 but not in the top 20. It's good but not great. Please don't be mad. Do you agree with my assessment?</p>
<p>not when psychology students at cornell only need a 3.3 to get into a good PhD program for clinical psych when the overwhelming majority need 3.8...(out of the mouth of Prof. Harry Segal, advisor of Psi Chi, and one of the best at balancing research, teaching, and clinical work).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well sakky, I'm someone who would prob never go to MIT or Caltech. I'm one of those idealist liberal "learn for the sake of learning" "value different perspectives" quacks... so there's prob not much common ground upon which we could have this debate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, ecape, the point is that there is a wide variety of grading philosophies out there. Some schools and some departments grade hard, others don't. What that means is that if you are going to take a stand on the issue, you have to be prepared to declare that certain schools/departments are wrong. You gotta have the courage of your convictions.</p>
<p>For example, I believe that MIT and Caltech are wrong in their grading philosophy. And I will come right out and say so. That's why I've floated this idea of the 'pseudotranscript', where MIT and Caltech can provide to their students a vastly cleaned up (and grade-inflated) transcript to their students for the purposes of getting into med or law school, or things like Rhodes Scholarship competitions, etc. I see no reason for MIT and Caltech students to lose out on stuff like that just because their schools want to grade hard. They can still provide 'real' transcripts for their students who want to get admitted to engineering or science graduate school. But for those things that reward grade inflation (like med/law school admission), why not arm your students with the same advantages that the grade-inflated schools do?</p>