Entering the Workforce or Going to Graduate School: Themes in Psychology Alumni Decision Making

Abstract

The goal of the current study was to explore how psychology majors decide whether to enter the workforce or attend graduate school. Thirty-two psychology alumni, including 22 women and 10 men (Mage = 28.88 years, SD = 5.25) participated in semi-structured interviews about their ending time as an undergraduate and figuring out next steps. Using consensual qualitative research (CQR) themes emerged related to gaining experience, relationships, uncertainty, and self-knowledge. Alumni entering the workforce reflected on internship experiences, uncertainty, and finances, while alumni entering graduate school emphasized first-hand experiences, self-knowledge, goals, and location. Additional differences emerged for alumni identifying as first-generation students. Results highlight diverse factors influencing the decision to enter the workforce or attend graduate school.

Keywords

psychology majors career decisions workforce graduate school

One of the most common questions facing psychology students is what to do following graduation. How do students decide whether to attend graduate school or enter the workforce? What factors are considered in decision making? Answers to these questions deserve more research since psychology continues to be one of the most popular undergraduate majors in the United States (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018).

Understanding how students decide whether to enter the workforce or go to graduate school is important for several reasons. First, we know that psychology majors may enter the workforce with limited or inaccurate information creating additional barriers to securing employment (Martini et al., 2015). At the same time, many faculty advisors feel unprepared to provide career information for workforce graduates (Halonen & Dunn, 2018). Facilitating the school to work transition requires knowledge of factors students identify as important to choices (i.e., relationships) and how planning influences these choices (i.e., job search timelines) (Hettich, 2010; Vespia et al., 2018). Second, we know very little about why psychology majors choose to attend graduate school (Lancaster & Smith, 2004; Zimak et al., 2011). Since psychology majors attend graduate school at higher rates relative to other majors (APA, 2016) we need more research about factors relevant to choosing this path. Third, we know little about how finances influence career plans even though most college students graduate with an average of $28,500 debt (College Board, 2017). Given that psychology majors overestimate salary for careers in the field (Briihl, 2001; Nauta, 2000), it is critical to know how finances may influence career choices. Fourth, some research suggests that psychology majors have difficulty with career decision making since there is no well-defined script or job title corresponding to the major (Hettich, 2010; Landrum, 2018). If psychology majors experience uncertainty as they transition away from college, a more directive and prescriptive approach to career advising may be needed (Vespia et al., 2018). Finally, first-generation students, undergraduates who are the first in their family to attend college, need more help with career development (Tate et al., 2015a). First-generation students are majoring in psychology more frequently than in the past (Trejo, 2016), yet no research focuses on this group. Given that 40% of undergraduates at our institution identify as first-generation students (Oregon Higher Education Coordinating Commission Report, 2016), we were interested in understanding how first-generation psychology majors transition into the workforce or decide to pursue graduate school.

Several theories provide insight into factors relevant to psychology majors’ career decision making (Bandura, 1997; Krumboltz, 2009; Pryor & Bright, 2003). These theories differ with respect to importance placed on knowledge, goal setting, planning, and certainty. Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy (1997) suggests that belief in one’s ability to succeed influences choices, performance, and persistence. Students with higher career decision making self-efficacy understand personal strengths and weaknesses, have spent time gathering information about careers in the field, are able to select a career goal, engage in planning, and take steps toward a career goal (Lent & Brown, 2013). Other approaches emphasize chance and uncertainty in the career development process. According to happenstance learning theory (Krumboltz, 2009) careers cannot be planned in advance. Uncertainty and anxiety about career decision making are normal and should be reframed as remaining open to new opportunities, as career decision making is not a single decision, but a series of unplanned steps taken to achieve a meaningful life. Likewise, chaos theory of careers (Bright et al., 2005) emphasizes the unpredictable nature of career development and the role of contextual factors (i.e., input from parents), interacting with personal traits, skills, and interests. Chance events such as being in the right place at the right time, or obstacles in an original career plan a large role in career development.

While there is no prior research examining why psychology majors choose to enter the workforce or go to graduate school, a few studies shed light on factors related to choices. Prospective studies comparing undergraduates planning to attend graduate school with those who intend to enter the workforce show differences in personality, beliefs, and behaviors. For example, students who plan to attend graduate school scored higher on dimensions of conscientiousness, openness to experience, they reported higher levels of in-class participation (Scepansky & Bjornsen, 2003), they score higher in personal belief in their own academic success, beliefs about adequacy of undergraduate training, importance of outside activities, and were more likely to hold an internal locus of control relative to students who planned to enter the workforce (Landrum, 2010). Unfortunately, for many students plans change with one study finding that only one third of students planning to attend graduate school in psychology were actually enrolled in a graduate program a year later (Lancaster & Smith, 2004).

Likewise, no prior research examined why psychology alumni chose to enter the workforce or attend graduate school. Psychology workforce alumni typically report low satisfaction with undergraduate preparation for entering the workforce (Ogletree, 1998), low relatedness between their undergraduate major and employment post-graduation (Borden & Rajecki, 2000), they desire more support for the transition to the workforce (Landrum et al., 2010) and emphasize the importance of being adaptable to diverse job paths (Landrum, 2009). Alumni with lower undergraduate GPAs may need even more support with career preparation and transitions (Landrum & Bowers, 2009). For psychology alumni attending graduate school, higher family income, perceived quality of interaction with an undergraduate mentor, and participation in undergraduate research activities were related to perceived preparedness (Huss et al., 2002). In another of study of graduate students enrolled in clinical psychology PhD programs, Zimak et al. (2011) assessed rationale for timing of graduate school. They compared students who delayed entry, those who completed a terminal master’s degree first, and those who entered the PhD program right after completing the bachelor’s degree. Postponing graduate school was associated with wanting more research experience, needing a break, and being unsure about graduate school. Students completing a terminal master’s degree first wanted more research experience, and felt certain about career goals, however some students indicated they were not sure why they had completed a master’s degree. Students going directly into the PhD program, believed it was the next logical step, they felt prepared, and were certain about their goals, however, some reported going to graduate school because they were not sure what else to do.

Summary and Research Questions

Despite the popularity of the psychology major, and increased emphasis on career advising and planning, we know little about factors influencing choices as students approach graduation. The goal of the current study was to provide descriptive information regarding the experience of ending time as an undergraduate and figuring out next steps. With limited prior research, and the mismatch between intention to pursue graduate education and outcomes (Lancaster & Smith, 2004), we asked alumni to reflect on their ending time experiences. We used consensual qualitative research (CQR; Hill et al., 1997, 2005) as a framework to examine ending time narratives without making judgements about expected findings. Thus, we used CQR to answer three main research questions: a) What themes emerge when psychology alumni reflect on their ending time as an undergraduate and figuring out next steps?, b) Do workforce alumni differ from graduate school alumni with respect to ending time narratives?, and c) What factors appear in the narratives of first-generation psychology alumni?

Method

The study design consisted of an in-depth examination of narrative text collected for a larger qualitative investigation of career stories for psychology alumni. The original study involved semi-structured interviews with 61 alumni representing different identities and following diverse career paths within 10 years of completing an undergraduate degree in psychology from Western Oregon University (Hoover et al., 2018). For the current study, we selected a subsample of including alumni within 5 years of graduation at the time of the interview. We believed that the most recent alumni might have the most accurate recollection of feelings and experiences (Landrum et al., 2010) and be more likely to share challenges associated with the transition (Landrum & Bowers, 2009).

Participants

Alumni

Participants were 32 Western Oregon University Psychology alumni graduating within 5 years of interviews (2009–2013). Participants included 22 alumni who entered the workforce following graduation and 10 alumni who entered a graduate program. Thirteen alumni identified as being a first-generation student. Demographic information appears in Table 1. For workforce alumni, all but one were employed, and had been with their current employer for an average of 2 years (SD = 1.5, range 0–7 years). Seventeen reported working full-time (30 or more hours per week), and four reported working part-time (less than 30 hours per week). Job titles included Bilingual Financial Aid Counselor, Counselor III, Social Service Specialist, Market Research Analyst, Director of Community Education, Regional Director, Family Health Services Supervisor, Residential Services Coordinator, Marketing Director, Alternative Instructional Strategies Program Instructional Assistant, Program Coordinator for a Marriage and Family Therapy program, Dependency Case Manager, Child Welfare Caseworker, Residential Counselor, and Head of Children’s Education and Services.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics for Alumni.

Characteristics of Sample	Overall(n = 32)	Work(n = 22)	Graduate School (n = 10)
Age Mean	28.88	27.86	31.1
SD	5.25	3.23	7.91
Identities
Gender
Female	22	16	6
Male	10	6	4
Racial Identity¹
American Indian or Alaska Native	2	1	1
Biracial/Multiracial	2	0	2
White	24	17	7
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latina/o	6	5	1
Not Hispanic/Not Latino	26	17	9
Self-Reported Disabilities¹
Learning Disability	3	1	2
Mental Disability	2	2	0
Physical Disability	1	0	1
None	25	18	7
First-Generation Student²	13	11	2
Non-Traditional Student ³	12	8	4
Transfer Student⁴	19	13	6
Participation in Undergraduate Activities
Careers Course	7	4	3
Graduate School Prep Course	8	3	5
Internship through Psy Department	21	15	6
Research Assistant/Teaching Assistant	17	10	7
Psi Chi	13	8	5

Note. ¹ Racial Identity and Self-Reported Learning Disabilities: Some participants did not respond to these questions. ² First-Generation Student defined as student for whom parents have not earned an associate’s degree or higher. ³Non-Traditional Student defined as student who was 25 years or older or has children or is returning after a break from school. ⁴Transfer Student defined as student who transferred from another school.

For alumni who went to graduate school, five were pursuing or had completed master’s degrees in Rehabilitation Counseling, Marriage and Family Therapy, Clinical Neuropsychology, and Clinical Mental Health Counseling. Three alumni were enrolled in doctoral programs including Experimental Psychology, JD Law, and Marriage and Family Therapy. Two alumni were working on degrees in nursing and alcohol and drug addiction certification.

Researchers

This project involved collaboration between the principal investigator (PI) and teams of undergraduate psychology majors involved in interviewing alumni, transcription and deidentification of interviews, and coding and data analysis. Details regarding the undergraduate interviewers appears in Hoover et al. (2018). Seven undergraduate psychology majors were involved in transcription checks and deidentification of transcripts. Four undergraduate students participated in the data analysis team.

Measures

Demographic questionnaire

We used a questionnaire to collect demographic information including gender, race, ethnicity, age, self-reported disabilities, and other possible identities including nontraditional student, first-generation student, and transfer student. Alumni were asked about participation in two career related courses, participation in department sponsored internships, participation as a research assistant, or teaching assistant, and involvement in the Psi Chi honor society. Participants were asked about current employment and if they had pursued any additional education. See Table 1.

Interview protocol

The purpose of the interview was to elicit an alumni career story including information about decision making. In the current study we focused on participants’ responses to the following prompt “Tell me about your experience ending your time as an undergraduate and figuring out your next steps when you were graduating.” Probes included asking about anticipated work, plans, preparation for first job, difficulties, challenges. Participants who attended graduate school were asked about how they made the decision to attend graduate school and to describe the graduate school experience. Emphasis was on the collaborative nature of the interview and alumni were encouraged to share any information that they felt was relevant.

Procedure

Recruiting alumni

Several strategies were used to identify alumni from diverse career paths. In prior assessments, some alumni volunteered to participate in research regarding career paths. Psychology faculty nominated alumni who went to graduate school or entered the workforce. The alumni association provided contact information for psychology alumni within 10 years of the study. The PI used social network sites (i.e., Facebook, LinkedIn) to secure recent email contact information. After gaining approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB), alumni (N = 141) were contacted via email and invited to participate in the study. We emphasized wanting to hear from diverse voices. Emails were returned as undeliverable for 11 alumni. Sixty-five alumni expressed interest in participating, with 61 alumni completing the interview process. For the current data analysis, we included alumni within 5 years of graduation. The demographic composition of the current sample reflects the larger sample of alumni interviews and matches overall demographics for graduating alumni.

Interviews

Interviews were conducted by an undergraduate researcher by phone or in person at an agreed upon quiet location (i.e., the campus library, private meeting room in local coffee shop) (Hoover et al., 2018).

Transcribing and deidentifying the interviews

A professional transcription service transcribed the interviews. Transcription checks for accuracy were performed by trained undergraduate research assistants to ensure that discipline specific terminology was accurately transcribed and transcripts were de-identified to maintain confidentiality of participants.

Results

Data Analysis

Data analysis with consensual qualitative research (CQR) was conducted using procedures recommended in the literature (Hill et al., 2005). First, we reviewed all ending time narratives and developed a starting list of themes or domains. The team met to discuss themes generating an initial list of domains. Each member independently coded each block of transcript into the initial domains. The team then met to discuss coding and argued to consensus regarding the initial domains and adding new domains. The team argued to consensus over what label best fit each domain. The team continually revised and regrouped the domains to further clarify and distinguish domains and eliminate overlap. Next, the team developed core ideas or categories for each domain and argued to consensus about wording. The codes were sent to an outside auditor who examined the domains and core ideas, returned her comments and met with the team to clarify disagreements. Cross analysis was done such that the team independently reviewed the categories under each domain across the cases and looked for additional ways to group ideas into categories. The final version of codes appears in the results below.

Six domains emerged in narratives. Under each domain, categories were generated that captured the core ideas in the data. Following the CQR procedures (Hill et al., 1997), we considered a category to be general if it applied to all the cases, typical if it applied to more than half of the cases, and variant if it applied to less than half but more than two cases. Categories with only one or two cases were not included in the analysis. Table 2 shows the data for the sample grouped into alumni who entered the workforce (WF) or went to graduate school (GS). Table 3 shows the data for the sample grouped by alumni who identified as first-generation (FG) or non-first-generation (NFG). Table 4 shows supporting statements for domains and categories. Specific information that could be linked to participant identity appears as NR—Name Removed. χ² tests of independence were used to evaluate patterns across groups using α = .05 and reported with Cramer’s V as a measure of effect size.

Table 2.

Domains and Categories for Alumni Narratives By Career Path of Entering the Workforce or Attending Graduate School.

Domains and Categories	Overall(n = 32)	Workforce(n = 22)	Graduate School(n = 10)
Gaining Experience
Undergraduate experiences (RA, TA, class)	Variant	Variant	Variant
Work related experiences (Internship, job)	Typical	Typical	Variant
Networking/Seeking out advice	Variant	Variant	—
Relationships
Receiving information/support from relationship	Typical	Typical	Variant
Influenced by family situation	Variant	Variant	Variant
First-hand experience	Variant	—	Variant
Uncertainty
Unsure what to do	Typical	Typical	Variant
Unsure about graduate school	Variant	Variant	—
Exploring Options
Graduate school options	Variant	Variant	Variant
Job options	Variant	Variant	Variant
Before something else	Typical	Typical	Variant
Self-Knowledge/Certainty
Knew likes/dislikes	Typical	Variant	Typical
Knew strengths/limitations	Variant	Variant	Variant
Satisfaction with choice	Variant	Variant	Variant
Awareness of goals	Typical	Variant	Typical
Ready for next step	Variant	—	Variant
Other Themes
Identity	Variant	Variant	—
Finances	Variant	Variant	—
Emotions	Variant	Variant	—
Location	Variant	—	Variant
Chance	Variant	Variant	—

Note. We considered a category to be general if it applied to all 32 cases, typical if it applied to more than half of the cases, and variant if it applied to less than half but more than two cases. Categories with only one or two cases are represented with dashes.

Table 3.

Domains and Categories for Alumni Narratives Based on First-Generation Identity.

Domains and Categories	Overall (n = 32)	First- Generation(n = 13)	Non-First- Generation(n = 19)
Gaining Experience
Undergraduate experiences (RA, TA, class)	Variant	Variant	Variant
Work related experiences (Internship, job)	Typical	Typical	Typical
Networking/Seeking out advice	Variant	—	Variant
Relationships
Receiving information/support from relationship	Typical	Typical	Variant
Influenced by family situation	Variant	Variant	Variant
First-hand experience	Variant	Variant	Variant
Uncertainty
Unsure what to do	Typical	Variant	Typical
Unsure about graduate school	Variant	Variant	Variant
Exploring Options
Graduate school options	Variant	Variant	Variant
Job options	Variant	Variant	Variant
Before something else	Typical	Variant	Typical
Self-Knowledge/Certainty
Knew likes/dislikes	Typical	Variant	Typical
Knew strengths/limitations	Variant	Variant	—
Satisfaction with choice	Variant	—	Variant
Awareness of goals	Typical	Typical	Typical
Ready for next step	Variant	Variant	Variant
Other Themes
Identity	Variant	Variant	Variant
Finances	Variant	Variant	Variant
Emotions	Variant	—	Variant
Location	Variant	—	Variant
Chance	Variant	—	Variant

Table 4.

Domains and Categories with Supporting Statements from Alumni Narratives by Workforce (WF) or Graduate School (GS) Alumni and First-Generation Identity (FG).

Domains and Categories
Gaining Experience	Supporting Statements
Undergraduate experiences	And I was looking for what to do with a psychology degree, and looked around at things I might be interested in. And I thought graduate school would be a big one, so I was like what do I need to be in graduate school? The number one thing is research experience, so I started doing research projects. (GS)
Work related experiences	The place where I did my internship, that’s the agency where I’m working now. It’s just a different county. And the neat thing about it is just from the work and the recommendations I was able to get from my internship I was able to kind of get my foot in the door. (WF)
Networking/Seeking out advice	So, I met with (NR—Name of administrator) and said “Hey, I’ve heard about your company, heard you’re an administrator, I just want to learn about what you do.” And then I said “Hey, can I volunteer here?” And then I said “Hey, I’m actually trying to apply for a job, what should I do? Who should I talk to? What should I say?” (WF)
Relationships
Receiving information/support from relationship	I was part of the student enrichment program (SEP) here on campus and that advisor presented the program that I didn’t know existed. I think if it wasn’t for that SEP advisor, I probably wouldn’t have ever found out about that program, but yeah, I’m glad that I did. (WF, FG)
Influenced by family situation	As I was graduating, I was guaranteed active duty at the top third of the class, but we had things going on with my oldest son at the time. So, we really wanted to make sure we could provide him more continuity of care. We ended up staying and going into the guard instead. (WF)
First-hand experience	One of my childhood friends went through an addiction to meth and going through that and she went through treatment and she eventually relapsed. Just going through that experience and seeing all of those different things she had to face influenced my plans. (GS, FG)
Uncertainty
Unsure what to do	I think I had a common panic moment like a lot of students do when they’re like AHH! What am I doing next? (WF, FG)
Unsure about graduate school	I mean it was just kind of scary, because it was like “okay, I’ve got my degree. Now what do I do?” So, I kind of had this conflict of do I go to grad school or do I just go try to find a job to see what’s out there? For me it was really scary, because I was like, I’m a planner and I really like to know what’s going to happen next and I didn’t know what was going to happen next, so it was kind of scary. (WF)
Exploring Options
Graduate school options	I knew that my ultimate goal was to be a counselor, that was my ultimate goal since high school. And I knew I had to go on to graduate school, but I wasn’t sure which degree to choose, because there are so many within counseling, so I just started looking up different options, you know, what is an LPC, what is a MFT, what are the LCSW, what are they? (GS, FG)
Job options	Yeah so I honestly at that point, I was just like “I need a job. So, what do I do? So, I was looking at like, what are the different options? So, I started working at a residential treatment facility, a psychiatric residential treatment facility for children and adolescents. (WF, FG)
Before something else	I knew I would be wanting to…or I had a desire to go to grad school in the future, but I really wanted to get a job first and have some experience and that’s where I ended up at a residential treatment facility for at risk youth just a few months after I graduated. (WF)
Self-Knowledge/Certainty
Knew likes/dislikes	I was very interested in grief work. I was very interested in addiction work. I was interested in a lot of different types of fields. Most all kind of pertained to being a therapist or counselor, but it was kind of wide spanning. (GS)
Knew strengths/limitations	I’m really bad at math so that was a really bad idea, that was an unrealistic idea from the get go. (WF, FG)
Satisfaction with choice	So randomly I got licensed to sell insurance. That was probably like the dumbest year ever. It was an awful gig. (WF)
Awareness of goals	I was so focused on working and going to the next step, which was for me, I always wanted to get my master’s and then my doctorate. So, my next step was like getting into graduate school. I knew my ultimate goal was to be a counselor, that was my ultimate goal since high school. (GS, FG)
Ready for next step	It was a transition. Like you’ve reached the end of –there comes a point where you know you’ve been at a place and you’ve enjoyed your time there but you understand that you need to—there’s different things you need to do. And I was ready to go to graduate school. (GS)
Other Themes
Identity	I’m no longer a football player, but you know, but someone with a psychology degree and where do I go to now? It was scary just because I was coming off of playing football and kind of going through an identity-uh kind of who I was. (WF, FG)
Finances	It just financially didn’t make a lot of sense to me. I’m a first-generation college graduate so I didn’t really have all the funds I would have needed to go. (WF, FG)
Emotions	Gosh, it was scary. It was really scary to graduate, cause I didn’t really feel like I, I mean I was already working kind of in the field that I wanted to be in, so as a student, yeah, I was working full-time too. So that wasn’t, yeah, I mean it was just kind of scary, because it was like, “Okay. I’ve got my degree. Now what do I do? (WF)
Location	With everything going on my family life I really wasn’t ready to make the commitment of going to get my Ph.D. and postgrad and all that stuff and that most likely would have required me to move out of state. So, then I started to look into something that I could use some of my psychology interests and still stay around here. (GS)
Chance	I ended up, kind of, by chance getting a job working for the court system, so I worked as a criminal court clerk for about 4 years, which was a very exciting and very, very interesting job, but, kind of, pushed me toward wanting to do a job where I was able to more directly to help people. (WF)

Gaining experience

Alumni described being actively involved in experiences during their ending time. Experiences included a) participation in undergraduate experiences (i.e., being a research assistant); b) participation in work related experiences (i.e., having a job); and c) networking/seeking out advice. WF and GS alumni were equally likely to talk about undergraduate experiences in their ending time narrative. FG and NFG alumni included undergraduate experiences in their narratives. More than half of the sample talked about work related experiences. WF alumni shared work related experiences more so than GS alumni did χ² (1, n = 32) = 3.86, p < .05, V = .347. Networking occurred more frequently in the narratives of WF alumni relative to GS alumni χ² (1, n = 32) = 4.61, p < .05, V = .379. Additionally, NFG alumni engaged in networking more than FG alumni χ² (1, n = 32) = 6.23, p < .05, V = .441.

Relationships

Alumni reflected on relationships across three categories a) receiving information from a relationship (i.e., being offered information about a career option); b) influenced by family situation (i.e., getting married); and c) first-hand experiences (i.e., seeing someone else go to graduate school). Receiving information from the relationship appeared in more than half of the cases in the sample. WF alumni talked about receiving information more than GS alumni χ² (1, n = 32) = 4.76, p < .05, V = .385. Additionally, FG alumni included receiving information more than NFG alumni did χ² (1, n = 32) = 4.27, p < .05, V = .365. WF and GS alumni, FG and NFG alumni, all talked about being influenced by a family situation. GS alumni talked about the first-hand experiences more than WF alumni did χ² (1, n = 32) = 9.32, p < .05, V = .539.

Uncertainty

Uncertainty was a common theme in alumni interviews. We observed two categories of uncertainty including a) unsure about next steps (i.e., what to do with a degree in psychology); and b) uncertainty regarding graduate school. Being unsure about next steps appeared in more than half of our sample. WF alumni expressed uncertainty more than GS alumni. χ² (1, n = 32) = 5.23, p < .05, V = .404. Additionally, NFG alumni talked about uncertainty more than FG alumni χ² (1, n = 32) = 4.81, p < .05, V = .388. Being unsure about graduate school appeared in many narratives of WF alumni. Both FG and NFG alumni noted uncertainty regarding graduate school.

Exploring options

This domain included researching options and was grouped into a) exploring graduate school options; b) exploring job options; or c) exploring before something else (i.e., getting a job before going to graduate school). GS and WF alumni, FG and NFG alumni were equally likely to discuss researching graduate school options. GS and WF alumni were equally likely to describe exploring job options. Both FG and NFG alumni reflected on exploring job options. Finally, more than half of the sample talked about exploring prior to something else. Exploring before something else appeared predominantly in WF and NFG alumni narratives.

Self-knowledge/certainty

This domain emerged as a contrast to uncertainty and included the a) knew likes/dislikes; b) knew strengths/limitations; c) satisfaction with choice; d) awareness of goals; and e) ready for next step. More than half of the sample included knowledge of likes/dislikes in narratives. GS alumni talked about likes/dislikes more than WF alumni χ² (1, n = 32) = 5.24, p < .05, V = .405. NFG alumni talked about likes/dislikes more than FG alumni χ² (1, n = 32) = 5.16, p < .05, V = .401. FG alumni included strengths/limitations in their narratives more than NFG alumni χ² (1, n = 32) = 7.17, p < .05, V = .473. GS and WF alumni talked about satisfaction with choices. NFG alumni were more likely to include satisfaction relative to FG χ² (1, n = 32) = 3.92, p < .05, V = .350. GS alumni talked about awareness of goals more than WF alumni χ² (1, n = 32) = 4.12, p < .05, V = .358. GS alumni talked about being ready for next steps more than WF alumni χ² (1, n = 32) = 6.73, p < .05, V = .459.

Other themes

Several other categories did not fit into the above domain including a) identity (i.e., first-generation); b) finances; c) emotions; d) location; and e) chance. WF alumni noted identity more than GS alumni χ² (1, n = 32) = 4.73, p < .05, V = .384. WF alumni talked about finances more than GS alumni χ² (1, n = 32) = 4.69, p < .05, V = .383. WF alumni who were NFG included emotions in their narratives. While we did not categorize distinct emotions, most related to uncertainty about next steps. GS alumni talked about location more than WF alumni χ² (1, n = 32) = 9.50, p < .05, V = .545. NFG included location in narratives more than FG χ² (1, n = 32) = 3.86, p < .05, V = .347. WF participants who were NFG indicated chance or the random nature of the path taken.

Discussion

The goal of the current study was to provide descriptive information regarding psychology majors’ ending time experiences. In the paragraphs that follow, we examine differences for workforce and graduate school participants, and for those who identified as first-generation students. Then we highlight common themes as we integrate findings with prior research and make recommendations.

Workforce Alumni

Workforce alumni talked about work-related experiences (i.e., internships) and networking, suggesting that they understood the importance of these experiences for career development (Landrum, 2009). Workforce alumni passively received information from people in relationships (i.e., advisors, parents). Some psychology majors may appreciate a more directive approach to advising (Vespia et al., 2018). Workforce alumni were unsure about next steps and felt worried and anxious. This is not surprising given that career options for psychology majors may be less obvious than other majors (Peterson et al., 2014). While an elective careers course is available for psychology majors at our institution, only 22% of alumni in the sample had taken this course, with a larger percentage representing graduate school alumni. Additionally, many workforce alumni described uncertainty about graduate school. Uncertainty regarding graduate school may be associated with gaining more experience and applying to graduate school in the future (Zimak et al., 2011). Workforce alumni described identities related to ending time decision making. Culture, relationships, and identity interact in complex ways to influence career decision making (Pryor & Bright, 2014). Workforce alumni talked about finances more than graduate school alumni. In other research, family income was associated with feeling prepared for graduate school (Huss et al., 2002). Finally, workforce alumni talked about how chance or something unplanned occurred during their ending time. Prior research highlights the importance of chance in the career development process (Krumboltz, 2009), with chance events triggering important career transitions (Williams et al., 1998).

Graduate School Alumni

Graduate school alumni reflected on first-hand experiences such as seeing a friend struggle with addiction, watching a peer go through graduate school, or having family members in counseling. While these experiences may be idiosyncratic, they highlight the role of contextual factors in career decision making (Pryor & Bright, 2003). Graduate school alumni reflected on how preferences affected choices. Prior research emphasized the importance of self-knowledge in career decision making (Lent & Brown, 2013). Additionally, graduate school alumni discussed goals and readiness for next steps more than workforce alumni. Zimak et al. (2011) also found that students directly entering graduate school were more certain about goals and felt more prepared relative to peers who delayed graduate school.

First Generation Alumni

Participants who identified as first-generation students were less likely to talk about networking relative to non-first-generation peers. First-generation students have less social capital (Tate et al., 2015a) and may be less familiar with strategies for finding a job (Tate et al., 2015b). Additionally, first-generation alumni were less likely to talk about exploring options before something else. First-generation students may feel pressure to complete an education, get a job, and build assets for the family (Leyva, 2011). First-generation alumni did not talk about personal preferences, and they were less likely to include satisfaction with choices relative to non-first-generation alumni. Conversely, first-generation narratives included more reflection on strengths and limitations. Perhaps first-generation alumni are focused on practical concerns (i.e., finances) more than personal interests or satisfaction in career transitions (Blustein et al., 2002).

Common Themes of Psychology Alumni

Despite differences, we observed commonalities in alumni narratives. Prior research showed that psychology majors planning to attend graduate school rated undergraduate experiences such as being a research assistant as more important than psychology majors planning to enter the workforce (Landrum, 2010). Our findings suggest that both workforce and graduate school alumni recognize the value of these activities. Additionally, first-generation and non-first-generation narratives included participation in undergraduate experiences. Historically, first-generation students were less likely to be involved in undergraduate research (Willison & Gibson, 2011). First-generation alumni talked about work related experiences to the same extent as non-first-generation peers, indicating that they understood the value of gaining hands-on experience. Alumni across all groups discussed how family situations influenced choices. Alumni talked about exploring graduate school and job options. Graduate school alumni explored job options, and workforce alumni explored graduate school options. Clearly alumni were gathering occupational information (Savickas, 1999), and open to alternative career options (Krumboltz, 2009).

Implications for Faculty Advisors and Career Planning Curriculum

Synthesis of the findings suggests two recommendations for supporting psychology majors’ career development. First, many students feel uncertain and anxious about career decision making and are open to exploring diverse options. While some uncertainty might be expected developmentally (Atwood & Scholtz, 2008; Hettich, 2010), we need to normalize career uncertainty or reframe it as being open-minded (Krumboltz, 2009). Normalizing feelings of uncertainty may alleviate any expectation that students “should” have it all figured out, and lead to productive conversations that clarify the nature of uncertainty and prompt action (Ludwikowski et al., 2009). Students may be uncertain about various aspects of career development at different points in their academic career (Ciarocco, 2018; Schwartz et al., 2018), and career decision making is a process, not a “one and done” decision (Pryor & Bright, 2014). The faculty advisor can serve as a point person to different resources depending on the needs of the student, and availability of departmental and campus resources.

Faculty advisors should also recognize that some graduate school bound students experience uncertainty. Students may have been accepted to a graduate program without a career in mind or because they were unaware of other career options (Zimak et al., 2011). Students may believe that graduate school will help them figure out a career not understanding that content becomes more specialized and less transferable to another field (Ciarocco, 2018). We should encourage graduate school bound students to continue learning about career options associated with the intended degree through professional organizations associated with their graduate program (i.e., American Psychological Association (APA), American Counseling Association (ACA)). Going to graduate school for the wrong reasons can set the student on the wrong career path, and waste time and money (Walton, 2012).

Additionally, career planning curriculum needs to carefully balance gathering occupational information and committing to a career path (Atchley et al., 2012) with exploration of diverse options, and remaining flexible to changing plans (Krumboltz, 2009). While some approaches encourage specialization as students progress through the degree (Ciarocco et al., 2016; Schwarz et al., 2018), plans change for many students. Career planning curriculum needs to include opportunities for students to change paths, to change their mind, to respond to changing circumstances, and failure, as these will all occur (Pryor & Bright, 2006).

Second, faculty advisors need to recognize that students are making important career decisions within the context of complex lives and diverse identities. They are choosing to enter the workforce or go to graduate school with relationships in mind (Whiston & Keller, 2004a). Within this study, psychology students made decisions within the context of having children, getting married, dealing with family member illness, navigating romantic relationships, serving as a caregiver to a parent or a child, or being a trailing partner. These contextual factors are affected by culture, race, ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic status (Tate et al., 2015b). Alumni cited multiple identities affecting choices. Being a first-generation student, being in the military, being a student athlete, or identifying as student with a disability were all cited as relevant to decision making. Students do not fall into “neat little boxes,” and multiple identities affect career decisions (Whiston & Keller, 2004b). Family and relationship support may play a more critical role in career development of African American, Latinx, and first-generation students (Leyva, 2011; Tate et al., 2015b; Whiston & Keller, 2004a). Psychology is fourth most popular undergraduate majors for all racial and ethnic groups in the United States (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Psychology majors are increasingly likely to be first-generation students (Trejo, 2016). Career planning curriculum that includes consideration of diverse identities and family impact on decision making would benefit students who need it the most (Ciarocco et al., 2016; Peterson et al., 2014).

Limitations and Future Directions

The present study examined ending time narratives for a convenience sample of psychology alumni from a small liberal arts college in the Pacific Northwest. Given that many of our alumni were non-traditional students (38%), they identified as first-generation students (40%), and had transferred from another institution (60%) we urge caution in generalizing these results to alumni from other institutions. Additionally, we solicited alumni following diverse career paths but heard from very few who were unemployed or working at home. We considered retrospective accounts of alumni within 5 years of graduation, but longitudinal or time lag research examining decision making and transitions for psychology undergraduates becoming alumni may provide more accurate information about factors influencing choices (Lancaster & Smith, 2004; Seibert et al., 2013). Some have argued that career decision making appears logical, and planned when reviewed retrospectively (Bright et al., 2005; Williams et al., 1998). Chance events may have played a larger role than observed (Pryor & Bright, 2014).

We encourage researchers to employ qualitative or mixed methods to examine changes in career decision making across time. Qualitative inquiry is well suited to incorporate the voices of students, promote dialogue, and offer culturally contextualized knowledge (Hoover et al., 2018). Psychology majors will continue to ask what to do following graduation. Understanding factors important to choices (i.e., finances, undergraduate experiences, relationships), helps answer this question. Knowledge of diverse factors influencing decisions enables psychology programs to develop curriculum relevant to career decisions across time (APA, 2013; Krumboltz, 2009), it facilitates productive faculty-student dialogues about career plans (Halonen & Dunn, 2018; Vespia et al., 2018), and helps undergraduates transition from students to professionals well equipped to navigate changes within their own career story (Ciarocco, 2018; Hettich, 2010).

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

We are grateful to Stephanie Hoover and Lauren Roscoe for development of the interview protocol, training of the interview team and the transcription and deidentification team, recruitment of participants, and assistance with data auditing. We acknowledge Danica Drapela, Marsha Warren, Kimberly Lanning, Ashley Flores, Cierra Henderson, and Isabel Dryden who provided invaluable assistance in transcription checks and deidentification of transcripts.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

American Psychological Association (2013). APA guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major: Version 2.0. https://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/about/undergraduate-major

American Psychological Association (2016). By the numbers: How do undergraduate psychology majors fare? APA Monitor, 47(2), 11. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/02/numbers

Atchley

Hooker

Kroska

Gilmour

(2012). Validation of an online orientation seminar to improve career and major preparedness. Teaching of Psychology, 39(2), 146–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312437719

Atwood

J. D.

Scholtz

(2008). The quarter-life time period: An age of indulgence, crisis, or both? Contemporary Family Therapy, 30(4), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-008-9066-2

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.

Blustein

D. L.

Chaves

A. P.

Diemer

M. A.

Gallagher

L. A.

Marshall

K. G.

Sirin

Bhati

K. S.

(2002). Voices of the forgotten half: The role of social class in the school to work transition. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49(3), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.49.3.311

Borden

V. M. H.

Rajecki

D. W.

(2000). First-year employment outcomes of psychology baccalaureates: Relatedness, preparedness, and prospects. Teaching of Psychology, 27(3), 164–168. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2703_01

Bright

J. E. H.

Pryor

R. G. L.

Harpham

(2005). The role of chance events in career decision making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(3), 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.001

Briihl

D. S.

(2001). Life after college: Psychology students’ perceptions of salary, business hiring criteria, and graduate admission criteria. North American Journal of Psychology, 3(2), 321–330.

10.

Ciarocco

N. J.

(2018). Traditional and new approaches to career preparation through coursework. Teaching of Psychology, 45(1), 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628317744963

11.

Ciarocco

N. J.

Dinella

L. M.

Hatchard

C. J.

Valosin

(2016). Integrating professional development across the curriculum: An effectiveness study. Teaching of Psychology, 43(2), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316636217

12.

College Board. (2017). Average cumulative debt levels in 2017 dollars: Bachelor’s degree recipients at four-year institutions, 2001-02 to 2016-17. https://research.collegeboard.org/trends/student-aid/highlights

13.

Halonen

J. S.

Dunn

D. S.

(2018). Embedding career issues into advanced psychology major courses. Teaching of Psychology, 45(1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628317744967

14.

Hettich

(2010). Helping undergraduates transition to the workplace: Four discussion starters. In Dunn

D. S.

Beins

B. C.

McCarthy

M. A.

Hill

G. W.

(Eds.), Best practices for teaching beginnings and endings in the psychology major (pp. 299–318). Oxford University Press.

15.

Hill

C. E.

Thompson

B. J.

Hess

S. A.

Knox

Williams

E. N.

Ladany

(2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.196

16.

Hill

C. E.

Thompson

B. J.

Williams

E. N.

(1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25(4), 517–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000097254001

17.

Hoover

S. M.

Strapp

C. M.

Ito

Foster

Roth

(2018). Teaching qualitative research interviewer skills: A developmental framework for social justice psychological research teams. Qualitative Psychology, 5(2), 300–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000101

18.

Huss

M. T.

Randall

B. A.

Patry

Davis

S. F.

Hansen

D. J.

(2002). Factors influencing self-rated preparedness for graduate school: A survey of graduate students. Teaching of Psychology, 29(4), 275–281. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2904_03

19.

Krumboltz

J. D.

(2009). The Happenstance learning theory. Journal of Career Assessment, 17(2), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072708328861

20.

Lancaster

Smith

(2004). Psychology down under: Career and training decisions of Australian psychology graduates. North American Journal of Psychology, 6(1), 71–84.

21.

Landrum

R. E.

(2009). Finding a job with a psychology bachelor’s degree: Expert advice for launching your career. American Psychological Association.

22.

Landrum

R. E.

(2010). Intent to apply to graduate school: Perceptions of senior year psychology majors. North American Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 243–254.

23.

Landrum

R. E.

(2018). Affordances and alignments: Continuing challenges in advising undergraduate psychology majors. Teaching of Psychology, 45(1), 84–90. http://doi.org/10.1177/0098628317745462

24.

Landrum

R. E.

Bowers

(2009). The post-baccalaureate perceptions of psychology alumni. College Student Journal, 43(2), 676–681.

25.

Landrum

R. E.

Hettich

P. I.

Wilner

(2010). Alumni perceptions of workforce readiness. Teaching of Psychology, 37(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986281003626912

26.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

(2013). Social cognitive model of career self-management: Toward a unifying view of adaptive career behavior across the life span. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 557–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033446

27.

Leyva

V. L.

(2011). First-generation Latina graduate students: Balancing professional identity development with traditional family roles. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 127, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.454

28.

Ludwikowski

W. M. A.

Vogel

Armstrong

P. A.

(2009). Attitudes toward career counseling: The role of public and self-stigma. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(3), 408–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016180

29.

Martini

T. S.

Judges

Belicki

(2015). Psychology majors’ understanding of skills-based learning outcomes. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(2), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000019

30.

Nauta

M. M.

(2000). Assessing the accuracy of psychology undergraduates’ perceptions of graduate admission criteria. Teaching of Psychology, 27(4), 277–280.

31.

Ogletree

S. M.

(1998). Using alumni surveys to evaluate and improve the psychology major. College Student Journal, 32(2), 215–221.

32.

Oregon Higher Education Coordination Commission. (2016). Disparities in higher education workgroup: Report and recommendations. https://www.oregon.gov/HigherEd/Documents/HECC/Reports-and-Presentations/LegReports/HB3308-Final-Report-Jun-16.pdf

33.

Peterson

J. J.

Wardell

Will

Campana

K. L.

(2014). Pursuing a purpose: The role of career exploration courses and service-learning internships in recognizing and developing knowledge, skills, and abilities. Teaching of Psychology, 41(4), 354–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628314549712

34.

Pryor

R. G. L.

Bright

J. E. H.

(2003). Order and chaos: A twenty-first century formulation of careers. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55(2), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530412331312984

35.

Pryor

R. G. L.

Bright

J. E. H.

(2006). Counseling chaos: Techniques for practitioners. Journal of Employment Counseling, 43(1), 2–16.

36.

Pryor

R. G. L.

Bright

J. E. H.

(2014). The chaos theory of careers (CTC): Ten years on and only just begun. Australian Journal of Career Development, 23(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1038416213518506

37.

Savickas

M. L.

(1999). The transition from school to work: A developmental perspective. The Career Development Quarterly, 47(4), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.1999.tb00741.x

38.

Scepansky

J. A.

Bjornsen

C. A.

(2003). Educational orientation, NEO PI-R personality traits, and plans for graduate school. College Student Journal, 37(4), 574–582.

39.

Schwartz

B. M.

Gregg

V. R.

McKee

(2018). Conversations about careers: Engaging students in and out of the classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 45(1), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628317745247

40.

Seibert

S. E.

Kraimer

M. L.

Holton

B. C.

Pierotti

A. J.

(2013). Even the best laid plans sometimes go askew: Career self-management processes, career shocks, and the decision to pursue graduate education. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030882

41.

Tate

K. A.

Caperton

Kaiser

Pruitt

N. T.

White

Hall

(2015a). An exploration of first-generation college students’ career development beliefs and experiences. Journal of Career Development, 42(4), 294–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845314565025

42.

Tate

K. A.

Foud

N. A.

Marks

L. R.

Young

Guzman

Williams

E. G.

(2015b). Underrepresented first-generation, low-income college students’ pursuit of graduate education: Investigating the influence of self-efficacy, coping efficacy, and family influence. Journal of Career Assessment, 23(3), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714547498

43.

Trejo

(2016). An econometric analysis of the major choice of first-generation college students. The Developing Economist, 3(1). http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1407

44.

U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS), “Degrees and Other Formal Awards Conferred” surveys, 1970-71 through 1985-86; Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), “Completions Survey” (IPEDS-C:91-99); and IPEDS Fall 2000 through Fall 2016, Completions component. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_322.10.asp?current=yes

45.

U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups U.S. Department of Education, Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2016, Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 322.30. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_REF.asp

46.

Vespia

K. M.

Freis

S. D.

Arrowood

R. M.

(2018). Faculty and career advising: Challenges, opportunities, and outcome assessment. Teaching of Psychology, 45(1), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628317744962

47.

Walton

A. G.

(2012). Are you on the right path? Five bad reasons to go to psychology grad school—and a few good ones. Grad PSYCH Magazine, 11, 26. https://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2012/11/right-path

48.

Whiston

S. C.

Keller

B. K.

(2004a). The influences of the family of origin on career development: A review and analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 32(4), 493–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000004265660

49.

Whiston

S. C.

Keller

B. K.

(2004b). Expanding research concerning family influences on career development: Cultivating a number of brown spots. The Counseling Psychologist, 32(4), 612–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000004266009

50.

Williams

E. N.

Soeprapto

Touradji

Hess

Hill

C. E.

(1998). Perceptions of serendipity: Career paths of prominent academic women in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.45.4.379

51.

Willison

Gibson

(2011). Graduate school learning curves: McNair scholars’ postbaccalaureate transitions. Equity & Excellence in Education, 44(2), 53–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2011.558416

52.

Zimak

E. H.

Edwards

K. M.

Johnson

S. M.

Suhr

(2011). Now or later? An empirical investigation of when and why students apply to clinical psychology PhD programs. Teaching of Psychology, 38(2), 118–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628311401585