Been intrigued by this post over on ClinPsy about the reality of graduate life. Clearly the writer is feeling they have worked hard, and had little to show for their efforts and has become disillusioned about their journey to getting fulfilling work.

So far, so 2013. However, what really struck me is the idea that they put forward that people higher up the food chain “owe” those coming up something, and that it was easier back in the day.

Bottom line is there are numerous psychologists who live in a bubble, comfortable in their own jobs and completely ignorant to the problems faced by psychology graduates and are therefore unwilling to help any of us. They don’t care, so long as they have money in the bank and aren’t interested in giving anything back to the profession that has given them a career. Either that or they graduated in a time where psychology opportunities were ripe and can’t really relate to what we’re going through. I know there will be many people on this forum and beyond who won’t be happy with what I’m saying but ultimately, it’s a truth that many professionals in the field are avoiding.

This isn’t something I had really considered before. I think my first instinct was to dismiss the concept as vaguely preposterous. Surely, none of us have signed up to give unconditional support to crowds of nameless, faceless younger graduates. The journey has always been hard, with far more graduates than training places (and no other pathways like IAPT at the time). Isn’t this just another example of entitlement and ranting? Not to mention a sweeping generalisation, and very unfair to those of us who either do take time in our own personal lives to give talks, or struggled to get where we are?

Thinking about this a bit longer, I wondered if there wasn’t something broader at play. While all of the above may play a part, there is also some truth that the average graduate of today is in a hugely different position to those of us who are on the other side of clinical training. Most of the qualifieds I know escaped paying tuition fees, had a shot at home ownership etc. More importantly when they went to university they were a fairly small percentage of the general population and a defacto elite of somekind. Even if they didn’t get exactly what they wanted they would be generally okay.

Speaking generally, this is still true for graduates. Reports suggest that graduates get better pay than non-grads, are more likely to be in employment and are in more skilled work. However, Psychology has been one of the undergraduate subjects that has traditionally been linked with lower pay. This could be because it is non-vocational, female dominated (who are notably paid less), and that most subsequent career options require entry level work. Or it could also be the kind of work psych grads to on the whole attracts less pay, unless you manage to get one of the few decently paid roles.

Which brings us back my reflection on the original post. While I don’t necessarily agree with the OP entirely, I do think the price of failure was lower in the past. In a fairly good economy, if you didn’t get your first choice, you had every chance to get something else good. That’s not the case today, when jobs are hard to come by and you and everyone applying for those entry level posts are way overqualified. In that kind of situation I can appreciate the resentment that someone may have had for those that have it better. Not because it was easier, but because the penalty of “not making it” seem far tougher in a time when inequality is even higher.

In that regard I think those of us who are in a better position do owe those under us something. Not guaranteed jobs, nor infinite clinical training places for all that want them. Certainly not exploitative honorary positions that continue to widen the inequality. But perhaps some empathy and appreciation of the current state of affairs, and some psychological containment that it is tough, but all those bright young things do have options and the economy won’t stink forever. That any time actively engaged in education is never wasted and you can’t measure the value of a human being on what they earn, even if that isn’t enough to pay the rent. Probably not what the original writer had wanted, but perhaps what he needed?