label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
A | POST: What do academics in humanities and social sciences wish their colleagues in STEM knew? Pretty much the title, I'm not sure if I used the right flair. People in humanities and social sciences seem to find opportunities to work together/learn from each other more than with STEM, so I'm grouping them together despite their differences. What do you wish people in STEM knew about your discipline?
RESPONSE A: I’m in physics (obviously STEM), and there is a funny thing that happens where established physicists get kind of bored with their discipline and all of a sudden start becoming self-proclaimed experts in psychology / philosophy / history / linguistics. It seems that when people are really good at one thing, they often overestimate their abilities at everything else. PhD students do this too to some extent.
RESPONSE B: We don’t have labs or PIs, and we don’t need grants to cover our salaries or get tenure. Most of our publications are single-author, and are much slower than most STEM fields. Single-author monographs (books) published by university presses are the gold standard. Impact factor is not a thing. Postdocs are much more rare, not part of the standard career trajectory.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What do academics in humanities and social sciences wish their colleagues in STEM knew? Pretty much the title, I'm not sure if I used the right flair. People in humanities and social sciences seem to find opportunities to work together/learn from each other more than with STEM, so I'm grouping them together despite their differences. What do you wish people in STEM knew about your discipline?
RESPONSE A: That all forms of instruction are political. You can hide it better in STEM, but to think there are not political, ethical, and moral implications of what you do is deeply neoliberal - which IS a political ideology.
RESPONSE B: I’m in physics (obviously STEM), and there is a funny thing that happens where established physicists get kind of bored with their discipline and all of a sudden start becoming self-proclaimed experts in psychology / philosophy / history / linguistics. It seems that when people are really good at one thing, they often overestimate their abilities at everything else. PhD students do this too to some extent.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What do academics in humanities and social sciences wish their colleagues in STEM knew? Pretty much the title, I'm not sure if I used the right flair. People in humanities and social sciences seem to find opportunities to work together/learn from each other more than with STEM, so I'm grouping them together despite their differences. What do you wish people in STEM knew about your discipline?
RESPONSE A: I’m in physics (obviously STEM), and there is a funny thing that happens where established physicists get kind of bored with their discipline and all of a sudden start becoming self-proclaimed experts in psychology / philosophy / history / linguistics. It seems that when people are really good at one thing, they often overestimate their abilities at everything else. PhD students do this too to some extent.
RESPONSE B: Every person has an opinion on the economy. Most are idiotic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What do academics in humanities and social sciences wish their colleagues in STEM knew? Pretty much the title, I'm not sure if I used the right flair. People in humanities and social sciences seem to find opportunities to work together/learn from each other more than with STEM, so I'm grouping them together despite their differences. What do you wish people in STEM knew about your discipline?
RESPONSE A: The challenges of measurement. I focus on educational psychology and I am helping one of my university’s STEM organizations develop an assessment for graduate students. They already had a foundational rubric started that they want to build from. Holy crap do I wish they’d brought in help beforehand. This thing is messy and complicated and their original plan for validity evidence skipped so many steps. Assessing learning is hard and making a good measure is even harder. Add in natural measurement error, and it’s a field that people make careers out of. You can’t just jump in and understand it
RESPONSE B: I’m in physics (obviously STEM), and there is a funny thing that happens where established physicists get kind of bored with their discipline and all of a sudden start becoming self-proclaimed experts in psychology / philosophy / history / linguistics. It seems that when people are really good at one thing, they often overestimate their abilities at everything else. PhD students do this too to some extent.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What do academics in humanities and social sciences wish their colleagues in STEM knew? Pretty much the title, I'm not sure if I used the right flair. People in humanities and social sciences seem to find opportunities to work together/learn from each other more than with STEM, so I'm grouping them together despite their differences. What do you wish people in STEM knew about your discipline?
RESPONSE A: That the need to talk with students and mentor them is critical and not some fad from Gen Z that will go away. I'm aware STEM classes have some huge numbers and giving each student one-on-one time isn't always plausible and it isn't in the job description. But, if your school/state has garbage mental health resources then your students are going to lean on you sometimes. I don't have a solution, just know there IS a social aspect to the job. If you're only interested in padding your CV you will soon be seen as an ineffective educator. As student enrollment declines and retention rates drop, administration will look at student reviews closer to improve those numbers.
RESPONSE B: I’m in physics (obviously STEM), and there is a funny thing that happens where established physicists get kind of bored with their discipline and all of a sudden start becoming self-proclaimed experts in psychology / philosophy / history / linguistics. It seems that when people are really good at one thing, they often overestimate their abilities at everything else. PhD students do this too to some extent.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: defend online, alone at home, and maybe have an at-home dinner with my boyfriend afterwards rather than the giant party I always dreamed of. I also had to leave the university quite quickly after my PhD contract ended because of a job opportunity, and I was counting on my thesis defense to properly say goodbye to my research group + everyone else in the department. Not going to happen now... and I have to leave the country for a postdoc in January 2021 so I can't postpone the defense to next year. I am kind of devastated. Does anyone have any advice? I am so sad about this but I don't think there are any other options for me.
RESPONSE A: I'm sorry that's happened to you, but perspective is critical here. You've completed your PhD. A lot of people are struggling to do that under the circumstances, and have limited access to resources they need, or have legitimate fears about how to pay rent or get groceries. You have a job lined up in a desperately depressed market, where thousands of new graduates saddled with debt have found their prospects dissipated or the positions they were promised gone because funding has evaporated. Although things aren't perfect, and you can't have the party that you were looking forward to, there is a lot of privilege in your post, and you should be pleased that so much *has* worked out for you despite the circumstances. There will be time and opportunity to make up for what you missed out on later.
RESPONSE B: I was in the same boat as you, but I actually loved defending my thesis online. There were like 60 people watching the stream, and I had relatives and friends watching that wouldn’t have been able to otherwise. You’ll be able to celebrate with your friends and family in person next year, and you have a job lined up which is awesome. Just be proud of your accomplishment, and make sure you practice your talk beforehand to get used to the format. When I did my presentation, I just got into a nice zone of focusing in on my slides and talk and not worrying about the audience. Anyways, at least in our department, most people end up scuttling off to their meetings and to do work afterwards anyways, and we just have an awkward celebration after.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Anyone else depressed about defending their thesis online because of COVID? For YEARS, basically since I started my PhD, I have been dreaming about my thesis defense. I was going to invite all my friends and family and have a giant party afterwards. I have been working so hard for months now and I haven't seen most of my friends for ages, so I was really looking forward to my thesis defense to see them again at last. And now... all that is gone. I have to defend online, alone at home, and maybe have an at-home dinner with my boyfriend afterwards rather than the giant party I always dreamed of. I also had to leave the university quite quickly after my PhD contract ended because of a job opportunity, and I was counting on my thesis defense to properly say goodbye to my research group + everyone else in the department. Not going to happen now... and I have to leave the country for a postdoc in January 2021 so I can't postpone the defense to next year. I am kind of devastated. Does anyone have any advice? I am so sad about this but I don't think there are any other options for me.
RESPONSE A: I’m just ready to be done. Don’t care how it’s done or where I am as long as it’s over.
RESPONSE B: I was in the same boat as you, but I actually loved defending my thesis online. There were like 60 people watching the stream, and I had relatives and friends watching that wouldn’t have been able to otherwise. You’ll be able to celebrate with your friends and family in person next year, and you have a job lined up which is awesome. Just be proud of your accomplishment, and make sure you practice your talk beforehand to get used to the format. When I did my presentation, I just got into a nice zone of focusing in on my slides and talk and not worrying about the audience. Anyways, at least in our department, most people end up scuttling off to their meetings and to do work afterwards anyways, and we just have an awkward celebration after.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Anyone else depressed about defending their thesis online because of COVID? For YEARS, basically since I started my PhD, I have been dreaming about my thesis defense. I was going to invite all my friends and family and have a giant party afterwards. I have been working so hard for months now and I haven't seen most of my friends for ages, so I was really looking forward to my thesis defense to see them again at last. And now... all that is gone. I have to defend online, alone at home, and maybe have an at-home dinner with my boyfriend afterwards rather than the giant party I always dreamed of. I also had to leave the university quite quickly after my PhD contract ended because of a job opportunity, and I was counting on my thesis defense to properly say goodbye to my research group + everyone else in the department. Not going to happen now... and I have to leave the country for a postdoc in January 2021 so I can't postpone the defense to next year. I am kind of devastated. Does anyone have any advice? I am so sad about this but I don't think there are any other options for me.
RESPONSE A: I'm in the exact same boat right now and still working through it as well. It really, really sucks, but it won't make the PhD any less valid when you get it
RESPONSE B: I was in the same boat as you, but I actually loved defending my thesis online. There were like 60 people watching the stream, and I had relatives and friends watching that wouldn’t have been able to otherwise. You’ll be able to celebrate with your friends and family in person next year, and you have a job lined up which is awesome. Just be proud of your accomplishment, and make sure you practice your talk beforehand to get used to the format. When I did my presentation, I just got into a nice zone of focusing in on my slides and talk and not worrying about the audience. Anyways, at least in our department, most people end up scuttling off to their meetings and to do work afterwards anyways, and we just have an awkward celebration after.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: of my friends for ages, so I was really looking forward to my thesis defense to see them again at last. And now... all that is gone. I have to defend online, alone at home, and maybe have an at-home dinner with my boyfriend afterwards rather than the giant party I always dreamed of. I also had to leave the university quite quickly after my PhD contract ended because of a job opportunity, and I was counting on my thesis defense to properly say goodbye to my research group + everyone else in the department. Not going to happen now... and I have to leave the country for a postdoc in January 2021 so I can't postpone the defense to next year. I am kind of devastated. Does anyone have any advice? I am so sad about this but I don't think there are any other options for me.
RESPONSE A: I was in the same boat as you, but I actually loved defending my thesis online. There were like 60 people watching the stream, and I had relatives and friends watching that wouldn’t have been able to otherwise. You’ll be able to celebrate with your friends and family in person next year, and you have a job lined up which is awesome. Just be proud of your accomplishment, and make sure you practice your talk beforehand to get used to the format. When I did my presentation, I just got into a nice zone of focusing in on my slides and talk and not worrying about the audience. Anyways, at least in our department, most people end up scuttling off to their meetings and to do work afterwards anyways, and we just have an awkward celebration after.
RESPONSE B: I'm so sorry, I would be in the same boat as you. It just sucks. Maybe you can tell yourself that despite all the shit going on, and everyone around the world having their plans disrupted, you managed to achieve something incredible. And it gives kind of a historical significance to the event, and a good story to tell in the future. Try and make the most of it, have an online defense party with your coworkers and friends. This is still a happy occasion even though it doesn't follow your expectations. Not perfect things can be good, in a different way. You rock and it should be celebrated.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Anyone else depressed about defending their thesis online because of COVID? For YEARS, basically since I started my PhD, I have been dreaming about my thesis defense. I was going to invite all my friends and family and have a giant party afterwards. I have been working so hard for months now and I haven't seen most of my friends for ages, so I was really looking forward to my thesis defense to see them again at last. And now... all that is gone. I have to defend online, alone at home, and maybe have an at-home dinner with my boyfriend afterwards rather than the giant party I always dreamed of. I also had to leave the university quite quickly after my PhD contract ended because of a job opportunity, and I was counting on my thesis defense to properly say goodbye to my research group + everyone else in the department. Not going to happen now... and I have to leave the country for a postdoc in January 2021 so I can't postpone the defense to next year. I am kind of devastated. Does anyone have any advice? I am so sad about this but I don't think there are any other options for me.
RESPONSE A: I'm in the exact same boat right now and still working through it as well. It really, really sucks, but it won't make the PhD any less valid when you get it
RESPONSE B: I'm sorry that's happened to you, but perspective is critical here. You've completed your PhD. A lot of people are struggling to do that under the circumstances, and have limited access to resources they need, or have legitimate fears about how to pay rent or get groceries. You have a job lined up in a desperately depressed market, where thousands of new graduates saddled with debt have found their prospects dissipated or the positions they were promised gone because funding has evaporated. Although things aren't perfect, and you can't have the party that you were looking forward to, there is a lot of privilege in your post, and you should be pleased that so much *has* worked out for you despite the circumstances. There will be time and opportunity to make up for what you missed out on later.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why are American public universities run like businesses? In the US, many universities are public in that they're theoretically owned and operated by the government. Why is it then that they're allowed to set their own policy, salaries, hunt for alumni donations, build massive sports complexes, and focus on profitability over providing education as a public service and being more strictly regulated like elementary and high schools?
RESPONSE A: I mean... it’s the government that wants them to do those things? Public universities are run by the government, through appointed boards of regents/trustees. There is a public desire for them to be run in a way that minimizes the need for public funds, and sports and alumni donations are a huge part of that. Policies and salaries of public institutions are largely controlled by the state government. Public will for increased funding isn’t generally there. In fact, states are consistently cutting back on investment in higher education because it’s politically unpopular many places. It’s not as regulated as K12 because it doesn’t deal with minors, but rather adults. Moreover, public universities aren’t about profiting: they’re about breaking even on the costs and minimizing the amount of subsidy necessary. Not sure why you think they’re trying to be “profitable” or what you mean by that. In fact, most universities including private are non-profit entities.
RESPONSE B: Money, dude. It's money.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: are American public universities run like businesses? In the US, many universities are public in that they're theoretically owned and operated by the government. Why is it then that they're allowed to set their own policy, salaries, hunt for alumni donations, build massive sports complexes, and focus on profitability over providing education as a public service and being more strictly regulated like elementary and high schools?
RESPONSE A: I mean... it’s the government that wants them to do those things? Public universities are run by the government, through appointed boards of regents/trustees. There is a public desire for them to be run in a way that minimizes the need for public funds, and sports and alumni donations are a huge part of that. Policies and salaries of public institutions are largely controlled by the state government. Public will for increased funding isn’t generally there. In fact, states are consistently cutting back on investment in higher education because it’s politically unpopular many places. It’s not as regulated as K12 because it doesn’t deal with minors, but rather adults. Moreover, public universities aren’t about profiting: they’re about breaking even on the costs and minimizing the amount of subsidy necessary. Not sure why you think they’re trying to be “profitable” or what you mean by that. In fact, most universities including private are non-profit entities.
RESPONSE B: For many of us in the USA, the proportion of our budget that comes from the state has dropped below 10%. It used to be 30-40% a few decades ago. We gotta keep the lights on, so there's been a big shift to keep patents, get grants, partner with business, and any other way to generate revenue. Many colleges at R-1 universities have faculty that average over $500k in external funds per year. Back in the day, tax money enabled state unis to be substantially cheaper than posh private schools. Those days are long gone, and the relentless drive for revenue is the only way to keep from having sky high tuition. The crappy thing is even though the state doesn't pay much for public universities, they still retain governance authority. With the anti-science/anti-reality shift in US politics, it's quite bad in some areas.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why are American public universities run like businesses? In the US, many universities are public in that they're theoretically owned and operated by the government. Why is it then that they're allowed to set their own policy, salaries, hunt for alumni donations, build massive sports complexes, and focus on profitability over providing education as a public service and being more strictly regulated like elementary and high schools?
RESPONSE A: It also kind of baffles me how many years of study you ask of your students in some fields. For example, a capable 18 year old can start medical school in most countries straight from school. In the US you must be a postgraduate. That's either a money making scheme or a problem with the public education system.
RESPONSE B: For many of us in the USA, the proportion of our budget that comes from the state has dropped below 10%. It used to be 30-40% a few decades ago. We gotta keep the lights on, so there's been a big shift to keep patents, get grants, partner with business, and any other way to generate revenue. Many colleges at R-1 universities have faculty that average over $500k in external funds per year. Back in the day, tax money enabled state unis to be substantially cheaper than posh private schools. Those days are long gone, and the relentless drive for revenue is the only way to keep from having sky high tuition. The crappy thing is even though the state doesn't pay much for public universities, they still retain governance authority. With the anti-science/anti-reality shift in US politics, it's quite bad in some areas.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why are American public universities run like businesses? In the US, many universities are public in that they're theoretically owned and operated by the government. Why is it then that they're allowed to set their own policy, salaries, hunt for alumni donations, build massive sports complexes, and focus on profitability over providing education as a public service and being more strictly regulated like elementary and high schools?
RESPONSE A: For many of us in the USA, the proportion of our budget that comes from the state has dropped below 10%. It used to be 30-40% a few decades ago. We gotta keep the lights on, so there's been a big shift to keep patents, get grants, partner with business, and any other way to generate revenue. Many colleges at R-1 universities have faculty that average over $500k in external funds per year. Back in the day, tax money enabled state unis to be substantially cheaper than posh private schools. Those days are long gone, and the relentless drive for revenue is the only way to keep from having sky high tuition. The crappy thing is even though the state doesn't pay much for public universities, they still retain governance authority. With the anti-science/anti-reality shift in US politics, it's quite bad in some areas.
RESPONSE B: It's interesting what's happened with the American university system in the last 30 years. They are run like businesses because they are. But they are also incredibly bloated and not suffering the consequences that normal businesses would in the same circumstances. It will be fascinating to see how this develops in the next 10-20 years.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why are American public universities run like businesses? In the US, many universities are public in that they're theoretically owned and operated by the government. Why is it then that they're allowed to set their own policy, salaries, hunt for alumni donations, build massive sports complexes, and focus on profitability over providing education as a public service and being more strictly regulated like elementary and high schools?
RESPONSE A: Everything in America is run like a business. Money and business are the cultural gods that are worshiped, sacrificed for, and offered all that we have of value to.
RESPONSE B: For many of us in the USA, the proportion of our budget that comes from the state has dropped below 10%. It used to be 30-40% a few decades ago. We gotta keep the lights on, so there's been a big shift to keep patents, get grants, partner with business, and any other way to generate revenue. Many colleges at R-1 universities have faculty that average over $500k in external funds per year. Back in the day, tax money enabled state unis to be substantially cheaper than posh private schools. Those days are long gone, and the relentless drive for revenue is the only way to keep from having sky high tuition. The crappy thing is even though the state doesn't pay much for public universities, they still retain governance authority. With the anti-science/anti-reality shift in US politics, it's quite bad in some areas.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Accidentally outed a top student During lecture yesterday I was engaging with students and accidentally let slip that one of the students that answered a question had a perfect score on the midterm. Instant regret - but I can’t take that back obviously. I feel like I should write the student an email apologizing, is that sufficient? What would y’all do?
RESPONSE A: I would make the apology face to face. It is more personal and does not leave a paper trail. In my institution we are cautioned against ANY discussion of grades via email.
RESPONSE B: In Brazil, some years ago, grades would be publicly posted, for all students in a session. I think it really depends much on cultural aspects and/or legislation
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Accidentally outed a top student During lecture yesterday I was engaging with students and accidentally let slip that one of the students that answered a question had a perfect score on the midterm. Instant regret - but I can’t take that back obviously. I feel like I should write the student an email apologizing, is that sufficient? What would y’all do?
RESPONSE A: I would not admit to a FERPA violation in writing
RESPONSE B: In my Diff EQ class the first test had a student who had a perfect score, he had her come up and get her test first and made a big deal out of it. I don't think she minded, she was beaming, and I had always interpreted it as a kudos, good job sort of deal, not really a singling out sort of thing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Accidentally outed a top student During lecture yesterday I was engaging with students and accidentally let slip that one of the students that answered a question had a perfect score on the midterm. Instant regret - but I can’t take that back obviously. I feel like I should write the student an email apologizing, is that sufficient? What would y’all do?
RESPONSE A: I would not admit to a FERPA violation in writing
RESPONSE B: This happen to me in my differential equations class. It was hilarious, I had skipped class after the exam, and didn't come in until Wednesday. The professor in front of the class said, just because you got a 100% doesn't mean you can skip class. I blushed and my friends cracked up laughing. I even had a bet with another friend that I beat him on the exam, and he got a 97, going into class I was like, fuck I'm gonna have to buy him a 6 pack. It's a fond memory.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Accidentally outed a top student During lecture yesterday I was engaging with students and accidentally let slip that one of the students that answered a question had a perfect score on the midterm. Instant regret - but I can’t take that back obviously. I feel like I should write the student an email apologizing, is that sufficient? What would y’all do?
RESPONSE A: I’m not sure if there’s a cultural difference or not here cause… what’s the big deal?
RESPONSE B: I had a professor in from an American university. He made it as a tradition to share three top scores on tests/exams/etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Accidentally outed a top student During lecture yesterday I was engaging with students and accidentally let slip that one of the students that answered a question had a perfect score on the midterm. Instant regret - but I can’t take that back obviously. I feel like I should write the student an email apologizing, is that sufficient? What would y’all do?
RESPONSE A: I had a professor in from an American university. He made it as a tradition to share three top scores on tests/exams/etc.
RESPONSE B: I don't think outing is the right term for this cause I thought you were talking about them being gay lmao
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do professors appreciate simple email replies such as just a "thank you"? On one hand I would assume sending a quick "thank you" or a one-sentence appreciation would be polite. On the other hand I wonder if this would be annoying as it just clutters up your email more. So are there any guidelines on how I should respond to a professor's reply when only a simple appreciation/thank you is warranted?
RESPONSE A: Prof here. A quick thank you is always appropriate. It can be a nice way to acknowledge receipt of the message you got, especially if it was a longer one.
RESPONSE B: My prof tell ma me she always appreciate thank you emails
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do professors appreciate simple email replies such as just a "thank you"? On one hand I would assume sending a quick "thank you" or a one-sentence appreciation would be polite. On the other hand I wonder if this would be annoying as it just clutters up your email more. So are there any guidelines on how I should respond to a professor's reply when only a simple appreciation/thank you is warranted?
RESPONSE A: My prof tell ma me she always appreciate thank you emails
RESPONSE B: I’ll be disappointed if OP doesn’t reply thanks to each comment
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do professors appreciate simple email replies such as just a "thank you"? On one hand I would assume sending a quick "thank you" or a one-sentence appreciation would be polite. On the other hand I wonder if this would be annoying as it just clutters up your email more. So are there any guidelines on how I should respond to a professor's reply when only a simple appreciation/thank you is warranted?
RESPONSE A: A note of thanks regarding some particular kindness is nice, but please don’t send “thanks “ when for example you ask a question like, when is the assignment due and I say Tuesday.
RESPONSE B: I’ll be disappointed if OP doesn’t reply thanks to each comment
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do professors appreciate simple email replies such as just a "thank you"? On one hand I would assume sending a quick "thank you" or a one-sentence appreciation would be polite. On the other hand I wonder if this would be annoying as it just clutters up your email more. So are there any guidelines on how I should respond to a professor's reply when only a simple appreciation/thank you is warranted?
RESPONSE A: I’ll be disappointed if OP doesn’t reply thanks to each comment
RESPONSE B: Communication is *super important* \- letting us know you got our email is extremely helpful, esp. when it leaves a paper trail for *you* as well as *us.* I have had to send students reminders about assignments or whatever and the difference between making or not making a grade adjustment is that student demonstrates responsiveness and engagement. I get not every student has equal email access and some Professors explicitly *don't* like email, but in my class if I send you an email and you can respond, it goes a long ways.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do professors appreciate simple email replies such as just a "thank you"? On one hand I would assume sending a quick "thank you" or a one-sentence appreciation would be polite. On the other hand I wonder if this would be annoying as it just clutters up your email more. So are there any guidelines on how I should respond to a professor's reply when only a simple appreciation/thank you is warranted?
RESPONSE A: I’ll be disappointed if OP doesn’t reply thanks to each comment
RESPONSE B: Professor here - thank you emails are somewhat rare and always appreciated by me at least!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do you switch off your brain and resist the constant urge to be productive in your free time? For context, I recently finished a PhD in a subject I absolutely love and my graduate studies went really well, but I am frustrated with the academic lifestyle and moving to industry. But all those years in grad school, I developed unhealthy feelings of guilt any time I wasn't trying to "get ahead" somehow in my spare time. Even after finishing the PhD and having some free time on my hands, I can't switch off. I constantly feel the need to be learning something new or doing something productive, and it causes me a ton of stress, guilt and anxiety if I don't. I learned to live with it during grad school, but I'm surprised to find it still gets to me. How do you guys switch that part of your brain off?
RESPONSE A: I learned a trick in grad school that helps. If I put my leisure activities of choice in my to-do list, right alongside my work goals, then it's still something to check off. This helps me remember to see those activities as also required. So I check off yoga, bike rides, walks, video games, reading for fun, etc. This has helped me immensely. Good luck!
RESPONSE B: Some ideas to focus on something else: - get some fun videogame to play, - call your parents more often, - watch some shows on Netflix with your s.o., - have a baby - start an arts project, - exercise, cook, and eat healthy - let yourself dive into the depths of Reddit and find an obscure, yet interesting, topic to talk to other kind strangers However, it is likely that you are feeling that you are not doing enough in your work time. Perhaps you can keep track of your tasks during the week to remind you of your hard work so far? Then, you can rest assured that you have done your best during the week, and you cannot possibly do better than your best. Therapy and meditation can also help with that. Science and results are really nice, but they are only a small fraction of all the world has to offer. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do you switch off your brain and resist the constant urge to be productive in your free time? For context, I recently finished a PhD in a subject I absolutely love and my graduate studies went really well, but I am frustrated with the academic lifestyle and moving to industry. But all those years in grad school, I developed unhealthy feelings of guilt any time I wasn't trying to "get ahead" somehow in my spare time. Even after finishing the PhD and having some free time on my hands, I can't switch off. I constantly feel the need to be learning something new or doing something productive, and it causes me a ton of stress, guilt and anxiety if I don't. I learned to live with it during grad school, but I'm surprised to find it still gets to me. How do you guys switch that part of your brain off?
RESPONSE A: I learned a trick in grad school that helps. If I put my leisure activities of choice in my to-do list, right alongside my work goals, then it's still something to check off. This helps me remember to see those activities as also required. So I check off yoga, bike rides, walks, video games, reading for fun, etc. This has helped me immensely. Good luck!
RESPONSE B: I haven’t found the solution myself, but spending time with others and getting back into old hobbies are two strategies to help me feel more balanced. Part of it is recognition that the old way of constant work is unhealthy. I’m trying to remind myself that, at the end of my life, I probably will wish I worked less, and I try to think about hoe I could spend my time in a way that adds to my health, not my CV. And, Draw strong boundaries (e.g. no weekend work) and try to add new things to your life to fill that time, perhaps starting with activities that used to give you joy but that you haven’t put a lot of time into in recent years.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you switch off your brain and resist the constant urge to be productive in your free time? For context, I recently finished a PhD in a subject I absolutely love and my graduate studies went really well, but I am frustrated with the academic lifestyle and moving to industry. But all those years in grad school, I developed unhealthy feelings of guilt any time I wasn't trying to "get ahead" somehow in my spare time. Even after finishing the PhD and having some free time on my hands, I can't switch off. I constantly feel the need to be learning something new or doing something productive, and it causes me a ton of stress, guilt and anxiety if I don't. I learned to live with it during grad school, but I'm surprised to find it still gets to me. How do you guys switch that part of your brain off?
RESPONSE A: "Healthier" Ways: Exercise, pick up a new hobby, play board games, garden, spend time with people I love "Less Healthy" Ways: Alcohol
RESPONSE B: I learned a trick in grad school that helps. If I put my leisure activities of choice in my to-do list, right alongside my work goals, then it's still something to check off. This helps me remember to see those activities as also required. So I check off yoga, bike rides, walks, video games, reading for fun, etc. This has helped me immensely. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you switch off your brain and resist the constant urge to be productive in your free time? For context, I recently finished a PhD in a subject I absolutely love and my graduate studies went really well, but I am frustrated with the academic lifestyle and moving to industry. But all those years in grad school, I developed unhealthy feelings of guilt any time I wasn't trying to "get ahead" somehow in my spare time. Even after finishing the PhD and having some free time on my hands, I can't switch off. I constantly feel the need to be learning something new or doing something productive, and it causes me a ton of stress, guilt and anxiety if I don't. I learned to live with it during grad school, but I'm surprised to find it still gets to me. How do you guys switch that part of your brain off?
RESPONSE A: Some ideas to focus on something else: - get some fun videogame to play, - call your parents more often, - watch some shows on Netflix with your s.o., - have a baby - start an arts project, - exercise, cook, and eat healthy - let yourself dive into the depths of Reddit and find an obscure, yet interesting, topic to talk to other kind strangers However, it is likely that you are feeling that you are not doing enough in your work time. Perhaps you can keep track of your tasks during the week to remind you of your hard work so far? Then, you can rest assured that you have done your best during the week, and you cannot possibly do better than your best. Therapy and meditation can also help with that. Science and results are really nice, but they are only a small fraction of all the world has to offer. Good luck!
RESPONSE B: This is why I smoke weed.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do you switch off your brain and resist the constant urge to be productive in your free time? For context, I recently finished a PhD in a subject I absolutely love and my graduate studies went really well, but I am frustrated with the academic lifestyle and moving to industry. But all those years in grad school, I developed unhealthy feelings of guilt any time I wasn't trying to "get ahead" somehow in my spare time. Even after finishing the PhD and having some free time on my hands, I can't switch off. I constantly feel the need to be learning something new or doing something productive, and it causes me a ton of stress, guilt and anxiety if I don't. I learned to live with it during grad school, but I'm surprised to find it still gets to me. How do you guys switch that part of your brain off?
RESPONSE A: This is why I smoke weed.
RESPONSE B: I haven’t found the solution myself, but spending time with others and getting back into old hobbies are two strategies to help me feel more balanced. Part of it is recognition that the old way of constant work is unhealthy. I’m trying to remind myself that, at the end of my life, I probably will wish I worked less, and I try to think about hoe I could spend my time in a way that adds to my health, not my CV. And, Draw strong boundaries (e.g. no weekend work) and try to add new things to your life to fill that time, perhaps starting with activities that used to give you joy but that you haven’t put a lot of time into in recent years.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do I cite a transgender author's name Hi, everyone! I am trying to cite an old article by an author who has since come out as transgender and changed their name. Do I cite the text using the name which appears on it (essentially deadnaming them), or do I use their new name? I feel like this is kind of a tricky situation because, on the one hand, I want to respect the author's new name, but I also want my citations to be "correct" for plagiarism's sake.
RESPONSE A: A quick google suggests that you should use their preferred name, in the MLA style at least: https://style.mla.org/citing-author-who-has-transitioned/ I have also seen that there is some new process to allow a simplification of the name-change process, which is being implemented. Might cause some problems with understanding the lineage of your academic ideas though. Sorry to give both answers!
RESPONSE B: Here’s what MLA 9 (idk about other style guides, sorry) says in section 5.15 If you are writing about or working directly with an author whose name changed and you know they do not use their former name in references to their work—for example, trans authors—list their works under the name they use, regardless of the name that appears in the source. Do not supply information about the name change or cross-reference entries, and avoid using the former name in your prose.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do I cite a transgender author's name Hi, everyone! I am trying to cite an old article by an author who has since come out as transgender and changed their name. Do I cite the text using the name which appears on it (essentially deadnaming them), or do I use their new name? I feel like this is kind of a tricky situation because, on the one hand, I want to respect the author's new name, but I also want my citations to be "correct" for plagiarism's sake.
RESPONSE A: Here’s what MLA 9 (idk about other style guides, sorry) says in section 5.15 If you are writing about or working directly with an author whose name changed and you know they do not use their former name in references to their work—for example, trans authors—list their works under the name they use, regardless of the name that appears in the source. Do not supply information about the name change or cross-reference entries, and avoid using the former name in your prose.
RESPONSE B: Are you just talking about citing the article, or referring to the article in your text? The purpose of a citation is so other people can look up your references. You cite what someone would use to search for the article, so the citation itself should use the name on the published article. The author can ask the publisher to change their name on the article.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do I cite a transgender author's name Hi, everyone! I am trying to cite an old article by an author who has since come out as transgender and changed their name. Do I cite the text using the name which appears on it (essentially deadnaming them), or do I use their new name? I feel like this is kind of a tricky situation because, on the one hand, I want to respect the author's new name, but I also want my citations to be "correct" for plagiarism's sake.
RESPONSE A: A quick google suggests that you should use their preferred name, in the MLA style at least: https://style.mla.org/citing-author-who-has-transitioned/ I have also seen that there is some new process to allow a simplification of the name-change process, which is being implemented. Might cause some problems with understanding the lineage of your academic ideas though. Sorry to give both answers!
RESPONSE B: Are you just talking about citing the article, or referring to the article in your text? The purpose of a citation is so other people can look up your references. You cite what someone would use to search for the article, so the citation itself should use the name on the published article. The author can ask the publisher to change their name on the article.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I cite the text using the name which appears on it (essentially deadnaming them), or do I use their new name? I feel like this is kind of a tricky situation because, on the one hand, I want to respect the author's new name, but I also want my citations to be "correct" for plagiarism's sake.
RESPONSE A: There should be uniformity in how we cite people who have changed their names since the publication, regardless of whether they transitioned, got married, or just wanted to change their name for another reason. Since it is impractical to keep track of who changed their names, the simplest way to do this is to stick with the name in the original publication. We are citing a paper of the past (a paper that has been published), often with many authors that are literally dead. Some of these authors might have even changed their names while they were alive. This is different than referring to a living, breathing person with the name they currently have. The whole point is to refer to something written in the past.
RESPONSE B: Speaking as a trans researcher, you should ALWAYS cite trans people by the name they CURRENTLY use, regardless of what name the paper was originally published or cited under. It is often very difficult to change your name on all copies of a prior paper, especially if it is widely cited. The process for updating your name on old publications varies widely from journal to journal, and some won't even permit you to do it at all. It's logistically difficult and emotionally taxing. Also, tools like Google Scholar are extremely slow to update names even if the author has already gotten a paper updated with the original publication venue. Not citing someone under their chosen name is as you correctly said an act of deadnaming; it outs the person, reassociates them with an identity they're uncomfortable with, exposes them to potential harassment and future deadnaming, and makes it harder for them to get credit for their work by splitting up their citation counts. Citing people by the name they currently go by allows them to exist in academia as themselves with dignity and respect, and there's nothing "incorrect" about doing it since they're still the same person who authored that original paper.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do I cite a transgender author's name Hi, everyone! I am trying to cite an old article by an author who has since come out as transgender and changed their name. Do I cite the text using the name which appears on it (essentially deadnaming them), or do I use their new name? I feel like this is kind of a tricky situation because, on the one hand, I want to respect the author's new name, but I also want my citations to be "correct" for plagiarism's sake.
RESPONSE A: There should be uniformity in how we cite people who have changed their names since the publication, regardless of whether they transitioned, got married, or just wanted to change their name for another reason. Since it is impractical to keep track of who changed their names, the simplest way to do this is to stick with the name in the original publication. We are citing a paper of the past (a paper that has been published), often with many authors that are literally dead. Some of these authors might have even changed their names while they were alive. This is different than referring to a living, breathing person with the name they currently have. The whole point is to refer to something written in the past.
RESPONSE B: I use the name the author uses and when in doubt, they in the singular. I'm old and hope that's OK.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: ? How do you find meaning in your work?
RESPONSE A: Realize there are more career options than being an academic. Even in industry, you are not locked into R&D positions. Of friends I have with STEM PhDs: one is in sales of high-end research equipment. One does a kind of technical support, company buys his company's product and he goes on-site until everything is working, he gets to travel all of the time and loves it. Another is basically a high level recruiter and talent scout for PhDs for R&D. Another has a job where she just reads articles and attends conferences, her job is stay on top of the literature and the latest/greatest and send reports to the R&D staff so they don't have to waste time doing that stuff. Another works for a large academic group writing policy related to STEM. If you are in biomedical, look into being a Medical Science Lesion (it is what I would probably be doing if I was not in academics). Another got a fellowship (with congress I think) to work on governmental policy (lost track of her). Another works doing grants congruency at a university (there is the whole world of research oversight, IRB, IACUC, Bio/Radiation Safety, post-award, etc.). I interviewed for a job with the government to be a grants officer (giving out grants rather than writing them). I also interviewed with the military to do evaluations on trainees (the military seemed to take a very broad view of what a PhD qualified you to do). And another friend busted is butt working as hard as possible for about 10 years in industry, getting lots of stocks, etc., retired early and is now a documentary film maker. This is on top of getting jobs that are teaching oriented, such as small liberal arts colleges and community colleges. The first job I was offered at a liberal arts college didn't even have a publication requirement for tenure, just giving research presentations at regional conferences would have been enough. My point is, you do not have to become your advisor. Being an academic at a research university is only one option. Good luck!
RESPONSE B: What field are you in if I may ask?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: spectacular than it should. I loved my field when I decided to pursue a PhD. And then I started getting worn out. I dropped out because I was having too much trouble working with other graduate students. I found a job in the field, and seeing how my profession works in practice killed any last passion I had remaining for the subject. I ended up losing my job during the pandemic and decided to finish my degree. It was the easiest option, and an option that meant I could stay at home. The passion never came back, but I was able to finish writing and defend my dissertation. So, now what? I'm working for my advisor and will do so for the next couple of months. I hate every minute of it. Doing anything feels like a hassle. The thing I hate doing most is *writing*, which is not a good omen for a future academic career. I can't imagine doing this for the rest of my life. I feel trapped. I know I can't be the only person who's gone through this. How did you pivot to something else? How do you find meaning in your work?
RESPONSE A: I felt similar when I got my PhD. When I started, it seemed like this fantastic thing, to put dr. in front of my name. But after a while, you realize that the title is just that: A title. I always figured that was part of the process, and that's why getting a PhD takes such a long time: You become so intimately familiar with what is known overall about some small part of human knowledge, that it becomes almost mundane. So, what to do? First, take a step back: You've done a great thing! Be proud of your accomplishment. And secondly: Start living the rest of your life, whether that's inside or outside of academia. Industry isn't all that bad: You can make more money, enjoy shorter deadlines, and more free time.
RESPONSE B: Congratulations. I finished my Materials Science PhD in November 2019 and felt the exact same. It's a terrible time looking for a job right now and I'm doing some living-wage work in politics for a bit while I try to have a rethink about what I want to do next.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Just got my PhD. Now what? It all feels less spectacular than it should. I loved my field when I decided to pursue a PhD. And then I started getting worn out. I dropped out because I was having too much trouble working with other graduate students. I found a job in the field, and seeing how my profession works in practice killed any last passion I had remaining for the subject. I ended up losing my job during the pandemic and decided to finish my degree. It was the easiest option, and an option that meant I could stay at home. The passion never came back, but I was able to finish writing and defend my dissertation. So, now what? I'm working for my advisor and will do so for the next couple of months. I hate every minute of it. Doing anything feels like a hassle. The thing I hate doing most is *writing*, which is not a good omen for a future academic career. I can't imagine doing this for the rest of my life. I feel trapped. I know I can't be the only person who's gone through this. How did you pivot to something else? How do you find meaning in your work?
RESPONSE A: What field are you in if I may ask?
RESPONSE B: I felt similar when I got my PhD. When I started, it seemed like this fantastic thing, to put dr. in front of my name. But after a while, you realize that the title is just that: A title. I always figured that was part of the process, and that's why getting a PhD takes such a long time: You become so intimately familiar with what is known overall about some small part of human knowledge, that it becomes almost mundane. So, what to do? First, take a step back: You've done a great thing! Be proud of your accomplishment. And secondly: Start living the rest of your life, whether that's inside or outside of academia. Industry isn't all that bad: You can make more money, enjoy shorter deadlines, and more free time.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I just saw an advertisement embedded as the first page of a journal article PDF This made me grumpy. The journal is not an open access so my institution gets to pay for the pleasure of me seeing ads. Thanks Wiley!
RESPONSE A: I've never seen this inside the PDFs of a single paper. But in journals or in websites often. Especially if they're relevant and inoffensive like the one you mention (for a scientific conference!!) I don't see any issue.
RESPONSE B: AIP journals do it all the time - the first page of *Applied Physics Letters* is an ad too.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: literally added a new statistical test that is not part of the assignment, and makes no sense with the data. The last email especially was honestly very rude, and I'm not sure how to proceed. I'm leaning towards just leaving it alone, since he apparently cares so much about having the last word, but I'm worried about grading his final paper if he continues to double down on this. Has anyone else encountered something like this, and what did you do?
RESPONSE A: I've encountered students like this in the past, and I honestly email my supervisor with a heads up and then forward the email chain or BCC them so they'll have it for documentation. I'd recommend this as a CYA move regardless. I had a student a about 3 years ago that I caught plagiarizing. I emailed my direct supervisor about it the night before I returned papers. When the student questioned me on it, he became so hostile that he tried to corner me so I couldn't leave, then demanded to follow me to my next class. When I refused, he went immediately the department chair and told him that I'd failed him on "common knowledge." (It was a straight copy and paste from the internet.) By the time I came out of my next class, I already had an email and a missed call telling me I needed to see the department chair. If I hadn't already given my direct supervisor a heads up, there would have been an issue. If there's a potential problem, ALWAYS CYA and let your supervisor know.
RESPONSE B: I generally see back and forth engagement over email is a waste of time. That said, leave it alone, grade his paper, and if he complains tell him that you have no intention of changing it because it was graded correctly and fairly. If he persists just end the conversation by telling him that he’s welcome to appeal his grade. Let the professor know that this particular student is stubborn and ignorant so he/she won’t be surprised when the student emails them to complain about you. Sadly you should also expect a poor evaluation, but that’s better than wasting time on someone who refuses to learn from you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: xyz but I guess I just won't include how we got our results." To be clear, he literally added a new statistical test that is not part of the assignment, and makes no sense with the data. The last email especially was honestly very rude, and I'm not sure how to proceed. I'm leaning towards just leaving it alone, since he apparently cares so much about having the last word, but I'm worried about grading his final paper if he continues to double down on this. Has anyone else encountered something like this, and what did you do?
RESPONSE A: If I am working with someone passive aggressive I parse their sentences into explicit and implicit comments, things that they wish to be noted, tasks for me and questions. I just break it al down and say what I agree with or disagree with. Like robotically candid. Including, “I sense you are implying that x; I believe not x. Unless this is an urgent or very serious question I do not wish to discuss it further.” Just get all the bullshit in the open and refute it. You mark him.
RESPONSE B: I've encountered students like this in the past, and I honestly email my supervisor with a heads up and then forward the email chain or BCC them so they'll have it for documentation. I'd recommend this as a CYA move regardless. I had a student a about 3 years ago that I caught plagiarizing. I emailed my direct supervisor about it the night before I returned papers. When the student questioned me on it, he became so hostile that he tried to corner me so I couldn't leave, then demanded to follow me to my next class. When I refused, he went immediately the department chair and told him that I'd failed him on "common knowledge." (It was a straight copy and paste from the internet.) By the time I came out of my next class, I already had an email and a missed call telling me I needed to see the department chair. If I hadn't already given my direct supervisor a heads up, there would have been an issue. If there's a potential problem, ALWAYS CYA and let your supervisor know.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: was honestly very rude, and I'm not sure how to proceed. I'm leaning towards just leaving it alone, since he apparently cares so much about having the last word, but I'm worried about grading his final paper if he continues to double down on this. Has anyone else encountered something like this, and what did you do?
RESPONSE A: I've encountered students like this in the past, and I honestly email my supervisor with a heads up and then forward the email chain or BCC them so they'll have it for documentation. I'd recommend this as a CYA move regardless. I had a student a about 3 years ago that I caught plagiarizing. I emailed my direct supervisor about it the night before I returned papers. When the student questioned me on it, he became so hostile that he tried to corner me so I couldn't leave, then demanded to follow me to my next class. When I refused, he went immediately the department chair and told him that I'd failed him on "common knowledge." (It was a straight copy and paste from the internet.) By the time I came out of my next class, I already had an email and a missed call telling me I needed to see the department chair. If I hadn't already given my direct supervisor a heads up, there would have been an issue. If there's a potential problem, ALWAYS CYA and let your supervisor know.
RESPONSE B: I deal with it by treating them like they're insecure and need a lot of reassurance (which is generally the case), and also by refusing to engage if they decide they want to argue. Don't get sucked into long back-and-forths with a student who just wants to argue - it's fine to ignore emails that don't contain a question. It's also fine to ignore every part of an email but the questions. If he doubles down on it, pass him along to the professor of record for the class, and let them deal with him. It's probably wise to forward the whole exchange to the professor in advance, to let them know this is going on and that they might have to deal with it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: ing his final paper if he continues to double down on this. Has anyone else encountered something like this, and what did you do?
RESPONSE A: I've encountered students like this in the past, and I honestly email my supervisor with a heads up and then forward the email chain or BCC them so they'll have it for documentation. I'd recommend this as a CYA move regardless. I had a student a about 3 years ago that I caught plagiarizing. I emailed my direct supervisor about it the night before I returned papers. When the student questioned me on it, he became so hostile that he tried to corner me so I couldn't leave, then demanded to follow me to my next class. When I refused, he went immediately the department chair and told him that I'd failed him on "common knowledge." (It was a straight copy and paste from the internet.) By the time I came out of my next class, I already had an email and a missed call telling me I needed to see the department chair. If I hadn't already given my direct supervisor a heads up, there would have been an issue. If there's a potential problem, ALWAYS CYA and let your supervisor know.
RESPONSE B: Kill him with kindness, but at a certain point you just give him the tools and enough rope to hang from and leave it at that. He can choose what to do with the rope. You could, this time, dedicate a portion of class to reminding the students why we use the analyses we use for different situations. You could also ask if his major is stats. If it is. Good luck, I have met a few who dont understand that in many applied fields we have very noisy data and must do things to deal with that. The only thing I have to add is that, if you want to bring up him being rude to you via email as a learning opportunity you can phrase it to come from a place of concern. I.e.: "Hey is everything ok? The tone of your email came off like you were pretty stressed. You cant get any body language across, so it might help you to choose your words more carefully in that format. Otherwise people may think things are not OK."
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: he is FULLY incorrect, but has continued doubling down no matter what I say (or how many resources I send him). Finally he wrote back something along the lines of "fine I still think it means xyz but I guess I just won't include how we got our results." To be clear, he literally added a new statistical test that is not part of the assignment, and makes no sense with the data. The last email especially was honestly very rude, and I'm not sure how to proceed. I'm leaning towards just leaving it alone, since he apparently cares so much about having the last word, but I'm worried about grading his final paper if he continues to double down on this. Has anyone else encountered something like this, and what did you do?
RESPONSE A: I've encountered students like this in the past, and I honestly email my supervisor with a heads up and then forward the email chain or BCC them so they'll have it for documentation. I'd recommend this as a CYA move regardless. I had a student a about 3 years ago that I caught plagiarizing. I emailed my direct supervisor about it the night before I returned papers. When the student questioned me on it, he became so hostile that he tried to corner me so I couldn't leave, then demanded to follow me to my next class. When I refused, he went immediately the department chair and told him that I'd failed him on "common knowledge." (It was a straight copy and paste from the internet.) By the time I came out of my next class, I already had an email and a missed call telling me I needed to see the department chair. If I hadn't already given my direct supervisor a heads up, there would have been an issue. If there's a potential problem, ALWAYS CYA and let your supervisor know.
RESPONSE B: I think the biggest mistake here is pressing the 'reply' button. I've had a student looking for a MSc project supervisor. He wad quite open about being very picky about it. I told him straight about his attitude and the reason he's in the uni. Never seen him again.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Did you buy yourselves a nice gift when you defended your PhD? I was talking to a fellow grad student recently and she told me she’s been planning to buy herself a really nice pair of shoes when she defends, as a gift to herself for making it through. I defend in a little over a month and I can’t stop thinking about this. I feel like I should commemorate this milestone with something that I can hold onto forever but I’m at a loss for ideas. Have you ever given yourself a really nice gift either for defending or reaching some other academic milestone? If so, what was it?
RESPONSE A: I bought a copy of my thesis and a frame for my diploma. It was a two panel frame. I was going to put my undergraduate diploma in one and doctorate in the other, but then my dog graduated obedience school so I put her certificate by my doctorate. I want her to know I'm proud of her.
RESPONSE B: I buy myself a small gift after every milestone. Often it’s affordable jewelry that I can then wear when I’m feeling like an imposter. It’s like armor, reminding me of my successes. After I defended my PhD I did a long road trip to celebrate. I have no regrets and many amazing memories from that trip.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Did you buy yourselves a nice gift when you defended your PhD? I was talking to a fellow grad student recently and she told me she’s been planning to buy herself a really nice pair of shoes when she defends, as a gift to herself for making it through. I defend in a little over a month and I can’t stop thinking about this. I feel like I should commemorate this milestone with something that I can hold onto forever but I’m at a loss for ideas. Have you ever given yourself a really nice gift either for defending or reaching some other academic milestone? If so, what was it?
RESPONSE A: I bought a copy of my thesis and a frame for my diploma. It was a two panel frame. I was going to put my undergraduate diploma in one and doctorate in the other, but then my dog graduated obedience school so I put her certificate by my doctorate. I want her to know I'm proud of her.
RESPONSE B: "I'm going to buy a nice mechanical watch" That was four years ago, still haven't gotten around to it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Did you buy yourselves a nice gift when you defended your PhD? I was talking to a fellow grad student recently and she told me she’s been planning to buy herself a really nice pair of shoes when she defends, as a gift to herself for making it through. I defend in a little over a month and I can’t stop thinking about this. I feel like I should commemorate this milestone with something that I can hold onto forever but I’m at a loss for ideas. Have you ever given yourself a really nice gift either for defending or reaching some other academic milestone? If so, what was it?
RESPONSE A: My husband bought me the full set of Roald Dahl children's books when I completed. Love them.
RESPONSE B: I bought a copy of my thesis and a frame for my diploma. It was a two panel frame. I was going to put my undergraduate diploma in one and doctorate in the other, but then my dog graduated obedience school so I put her certificate by my doctorate. I want her to know I'm proud of her.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Did you buy yourselves a nice gift when you defended your PhD? I was talking to a fellow grad student recently and she told me she’s been planning to buy herself a really nice pair of shoes when she defends, as a gift to herself for making it through. I defend in a little over a month and I can’t stop thinking about this. I feel like I should commemorate this milestone with something that I can hold onto forever but I’m at a loss for ideas. Have you ever given yourself a really nice gift either for defending or reaching some other academic milestone? If so, what was it?
RESPONSE A: My partner is entering his PhD this year. Some ideas I have for him: quality leather satchel/laptop bag (will last forever), shadow box containing his graduation regalia and degree, bound copy of thesis, etc. The leather bag is probably the best “gift to self” idea on the list because you can use it daily in your work and it will only become better with use.
RESPONSE B: I bought a copy of my thesis and a frame for my diploma. It was a two panel frame. I was going to put my undergraduate diploma in one and doctorate in the other, but then my dog graduated obedience school so I put her certificate by my doctorate. I want her to know I'm proud of her.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Did you buy yourselves a nice gift when you defended your PhD? I was talking to a fellow grad student recently and she told me she’s been planning to buy herself a really nice pair of shoes when she defends, as a gift to herself for making it through. I defend in a little over a month and I can’t stop thinking about this. I feel like I should commemorate this milestone with something that I can hold onto forever but I’m at a loss for ideas. Have you ever given yourself a really nice gift either for defending or reaching some other academic milestone? If so, what was it?
RESPONSE A: I won't defend until next summer, but I plan on getting myself a tattoo.
RESPONSE B: I bought a copy of my thesis and a frame for my diploma. It was a two panel frame. I was going to put my undergraduate diploma in one and doctorate in the other, but then my dog graduated obedience school so I put her certificate by my doctorate. I want her to know I'm proud of her.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: feel the need to destroy students passions by telling them to drop the majors/minors? From personal experience I've had professors tell me to not pursue STEM careers because I wasn't cut out for it. I was so distraught and hate myself for listening to them. I'm studying environmental policy now and am doing a minor in IR and I've spent the majority of my free electives taking the courses to complete it, the issue is that I've been struggling a bit trying to grasp the understanding of IR theory and I ask for help from the professor quite a bit, recently he asked why I was taking the course and I told him that I was pursuing a minor in it, he looked surprised and then told me it would be best if I dropped the minor, since I didn't seem "cut out" for it. I really admire the work this professor does in the field, hearing that just broke my heart that I cried after ending the zoom call with him.
RESPONSE A: I wanted to be a dancer (I am not, I am a biologist) and it was because I simple did not have enough talent as a dancer. I can enjoy it, I can still take classes, but there was no way I was good enough to ever do anything real with it. The person who told me the did me a favor.
RESPONSE B: I largely do agree with the other commenters -- a professor says something like this because they believe that you are not meeting the kind of benchmarks they would reasonably expect out of someone who will go on to be successful in the field. At the same time, I would never tell a student directly that they aren't cut out for a field. It's unnecessarily harsh and the phrasing suggests that there's an inherent, unmodifiable suitability factor to each person. But, I think it would be appropriate (and important) for a professor to say, for example, "You are \[underperforming in/struggling with\] \_\_\_\_, and this is an important \[concept/skill\] for \[field\]. This is concerning, because it only gets harder from here."
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why do professors feel the need to tell students they aren't cut out for certain careers or them to pursue something else? I know it's not all professors, but why do some professors feel the need to destroy students passions by telling them to drop the majors/minors? From personal experience I've had professors tell me to not pursue STEM careers because I wasn't cut out for it. I was so distraught and hate myself for listening to them. I'm studying environmental policy now and am doing a minor in IR and I've spent the majority of my free electives taking the courses to complete it, the issue is that I've been struggling a bit trying to grasp the understanding of IR theory and I ask for help from the professor quite a bit, recently he asked why I was taking the course and I told him that I was pursuing a minor in it, he looked surprised and then told me it would be best if I dropped the minor, since I didn't seem "cut out" for it. I really admire the work this professor does in the field, hearing that just broke my heart that I cried after ending the zoom call with him.
RESPONSE A: Not everyone is cutout for everything. Some professors can be too harsh and unreasonable but unfortunately some people simply don’t cut it. As a professor that has success in their respective field you know what it takes and can likely pinpoint someone that doesn’t have it
RESPONSE B: On the flip side, encouraging students that show obvious bad habits and qualities does them no favors. Some careers require a long, competitive road, and it is wrong to tell students their chances are better than they are. Check out r/gradschool for some testimonials. If one person telling someone that they can’t do a thing is enough to dissuade them, how strong a dream could it have been?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: drop the majors/minors? From personal experience I've had professors tell me to not pursue STEM careers because I wasn't cut out for it. I was so distraught and hate myself for listening to them. I'm studying environmental policy now and am doing a minor in IR and I've spent the majority of my free electives taking the courses to complete it, the issue is that I've been struggling a bit trying to grasp the understanding of IR theory and I ask for help from the professor quite a bit, recently he asked why I was taking the course and I told him that I was pursuing a minor in it, he looked surprised and then told me it would be best if I dropped the minor, since I didn't seem "cut out" for it. I really admire the work this professor does in the field, hearing that just broke my heart that I cried after ending the zoom call with him.
RESPONSE A: On the flip side, encouraging students that show obvious bad habits and qualities does them no favors. Some careers require a long, competitive road, and it is wrong to tell students their chances are better than they are. Check out r/gradschool for some testimonials. If one person telling someone that they can’t do a thing is enough to dissuade them, how strong a dream could it have been?
RESPONSE B: I agree with the other professors on this thread. While it might sound a bit harsh to hear a professor say “they aren’t cut out” for a field, it’s probably because the professor has some idea what the major and/or career entails and doesn’t see passion from the student. I teach technical writing. I once had a tech writing major tell me that she didn’t see any reason to do an audience analysis that she was late turning in. She couldn’t imagine ever having to do an audience analysis after graduation. I told her that audience analysis is the most basic job duty of a technical writer, and if she couldn’t bring herself to do it as a student, she would struggle in the profession. She was offended, but I was trying to help her avoid pursuing a degree and career that she didn’t seem to want.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why do professors feel the need to tell students they aren't cut out for certain careers or them to pursue something else? I know it's not all professors, but why do some professors feel the need to destroy students passions by telling them to drop the majors/minors? From personal experience I've had professors tell me to not pursue STEM careers because I wasn't cut out for it. I was so distraught and hate myself for listening to them. I'm studying environmental policy now and am doing a minor in IR and I've spent the majority of my free electives taking the courses to complete it, the issue is that I've been struggling a bit trying to grasp the understanding of IR theory and I ask for help from the professor quite a bit, recently he asked why I was taking the course and I told him that I was pursuing a minor in it, he looked surprised and then told me it would be best if I dropped the minor, since I didn't seem "cut out" for it. I really admire the work this professor does in the field, hearing that just broke my heart that I cried after ending the zoom call with him.
RESPONSE A: Anyone can learn and become an expert in anything, with enough time, the right teachers, and the right teaching processes. Your professor probably feels like you have or will struggle too much in their program. This doesn't mean you can't do it. If you don't want to give up, let their doubt motivate you to prove you are capable.
RESPONSE B: On the flip side, encouraging students that show obvious bad habits and qualities does them no favors. Some careers require a long, competitive road, and it is wrong to tell students their chances are better than they are. Check out r/gradschool for some testimonials. If one person telling someone that they can’t do a thing is enough to dissuade them, how strong a dream could it have been?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: There are so many people complaining about academia, being overworked and underpaid, not having work-life balance,... Why do people actually want to work in academia? I left academia 5 yrs ago, after 2 postdocs. I loved my research but wasn't interested that much in teaching, so I didn't really try to get a job in academia.
RESPONSE A: I could make a lot more money in the industry, but I can't stand the 'professional' approach to work: 8 to 5, wearing a shirt, working on stuff because it's what the company wants and not because it's what you find interesting. So yeah, I'm overworked (but that's my own fault), underpayed and stressed out about what my next position will be, but I get to be all that from my bed, doing what I love.
RESPONSE B: I get paid to teach and research about Vikings... when there isn’t a Global pandemic I get to fly to England every year or so and hang out with other folks who do the same and drink and argue and visit castles and stuff. I get to have interesting conversations with enthusiastic young adults who remind me that not everyone is an irretrievable monster and I get to watch them transform from little gangly baby deer doofuses to fully functional adult doofuses. Obviously there are a lot of stressors, it requires a tremendous amount of luck **and** effort to succeed, and not every day or every interaction is positive by a long shot but still, how many people actually get to say they are doing what they actually want to do for a living?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: There are so many people complaining about academia, being overworked and underpaid, not having work-life balance,... Why do people actually want to work in academia? I left academia 5 yrs ago, after 2 postdocs. I loved my research but wasn't interested that much in teaching, so I didn't really try to get a job in academia.
RESPONSE A: There are people complaining about academia, but there are also people complaining about just about every other job out there. I think people naturally complain about work. That being said, from my perspective, I like academia way more than the alternative (for me, that is practicing law).
RESPONSE B: I get paid to teach and research about Vikings... when there isn’t a Global pandemic I get to fly to England every year or so and hang out with other folks who do the same and drink and argue and visit castles and stuff. I get to have interesting conversations with enthusiastic young adults who remind me that not everyone is an irretrievable monster and I get to watch them transform from little gangly baby deer doofuses to fully functional adult doofuses. Obviously there are a lot of stressors, it requires a tremendous amount of luck **and** effort to succeed, and not every day or every interaction is positive by a long shot but still, how many people actually get to say they are doing what they actually want to do for a living?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: There are so many people complaining about academia, being overworked and underpaid, not having work-life balance,... Why do people actually want to work in academia? I left academia 5 yrs ago, after 2 postdocs. I loved my research but wasn't interested that much in teaching, so I didn't really try to get a job in academia.
RESPONSE A: Uh, because not everybody is miserable. I love my TT AP job, my department and colleagues are great, and our school takes care of us. My work life balance is great, I make good money, and get to work on research I love and control 80% of the time. Even teaching is fun and engaging, albeit draining, when I actually have to do it. Yes, I know I’m very very lucky, but just wanted to make a point that not everyone is miserable or unhappy.
RESPONSE B: I get paid to teach and research about Vikings... when there isn’t a Global pandemic I get to fly to England every year or so and hang out with other folks who do the same and drink and argue and visit castles and stuff. I get to have interesting conversations with enthusiastic young adults who remind me that not everyone is an irretrievable monster and I get to watch them transform from little gangly baby deer doofuses to fully functional adult doofuses. Obviously there are a lot of stressors, it requires a tremendous amount of luck **and** effort to succeed, and not every day or every interaction is positive by a long shot but still, how many people actually get to say they are doing what they actually want to do for a living?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: There are so many people complaining about academia, being overworked and underpaid, not having work-life balance,... Why do people actually want to work in academia? I left academia 5 yrs ago, after 2 postdocs. I loved my research but wasn't interested that much in teaching, so I didn't really try to get a job in academia.
RESPONSE A: Lack of (awareness of) alternatives is a big one; but also some combination of being fanatic about the particular job, ego, brainwashing, over-identification with the job, self-delusion. And, very importantly I think - it's not the same experience for everybody, like, at all. Some people are lucky in terms of privilege/connections/savvy and hence access to grants etc, and have a wonderful time; and there are presumably some actually nice departments out there that haven't been corrupted by marketization. So I think people see that and sort of have the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" thing, as if it's in reach for them. And people vary in how much they're bothered by the downsides. The old "you don't have to be a sociopath to thrive in academia, but it helps" thing holds too true, too often.
RESPONSE B: I get paid to teach and research about Vikings... when there isn’t a Global pandemic I get to fly to England every year or so and hang out with other folks who do the same and drink and argue and visit castles and stuff. I get to have interesting conversations with enthusiastic young adults who remind me that not everyone is an irretrievable monster and I get to watch them transform from little gangly baby deer doofuses to fully functional adult doofuses. Obviously there are a lot of stressors, it requires a tremendous amount of luck **and** effort to succeed, and not every day or every interaction is positive by a long shot but still, how many people actually get to say they are doing what they actually want to do for a living?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: There are so many people complaining about academia, being overworked and underpaid, not having work-life balance,... Why do people actually want to work in academia? I left academia 5 yrs ago, after 2 postdocs. I loved my research but wasn't interested that much in teaching, so I didn't really try to get a job in academia.
RESPONSE A: Lack of (awareness of) alternatives is a big one; but also some combination of being fanatic about the particular job, ego, brainwashing, over-identification with the job, self-delusion. And, very importantly I think - it's not the same experience for everybody, like, at all. Some people are lucky in terms of privilege/connections/savvy and hence access to grants etc, and have a wonderful time; and there are presumably some actually nice departments out there that haven't been corrupted by marketization. So I think people see that and sort of have the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" thing, as if it's in reach for them. And people vary in how much they're bothered by the downsides. The old "you don't have to be a sociopath to thrive in academia, but it helps" thing holds too true, too often.
RESPONSE B: I could make a lot more money in the industry, but I can't stand the 'professional' approach to work: 8 to 5, wearing a shirt, working on stuff because it's what the company wants and not because it's what you find interesting. So yeah, I'm overworked (but that's my own fault), underpayed and stressed out about what my next position will be, but I get to be all that from my bed, doing what I love.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Are those of you on the US job market worried about job prospects post Roe v Wade? I'm a young (28 yo) woman currently in a VAP position and a year out from my PhD. I'll be hitting the job market hard again this Fall with the hopes of landing a TT job. But I can't help but feel like my options will be EXTREMELY limited, especially if I decide not to apply in an states with current/forthcoming abortion bans, which is a high possibility for me as a childfree person. As if the the TT market wasn't competitive enough, now most academics will be clamoring (even more than usual) to apply to jobs in blue states and it just makes me wonder if it's even worth it anymore. I just saw my dream job posted at a school in St. Louis, MO. Prior to Roe being overturned, my partner and I were actually talking about St. Louis being an ideal place for us to end up because of the low cost of living but high cultural value. Dream job + dream place, but it doesn't even really make sense to apply in a place where I don't have rights to life-saving healthcare. I guess I'm just looking to vent or perhaps looking for support or just wanting to see if other academics are overwhelmed/upset about this particular aspect of the current fucked up situation in the US.
RESPONSE A: Absolutely. I'm in a red state and have an academic job I really wanted. I am now considering leaving academia just so I can escape this state.
RESPONSE B: It's a huge issue. I'm in a red state and it was already difficult. This will make the market even more skewed and harder to manage.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Are those of you on the US job market worried about job prospects post Roe v Wade? I'm a young (28 yo) woman currently in a VAP position and a year out from my PhD. I'll be hitting the job market hard again this Fall with the hopes of landing a TT job. But I can't help but feel like my options will be EXTREMELY limited, especially if I decide not to apply in an states with current/forthcoming abortion bans, which is a high possibility for me as a childfree person. As if the the TT market wasn't competitive enough, now most academics will be clamoring (even more than usual) to apply to jobs in blue states and it just makes me wonder if it's even worth it anymore. I just saw my dream job posted at a school in St. Louis, MO. Prior to Roe being overturned, my partner and I were actually talking about St. Louis being an ideal place for us to end up because of the low cost of living but high cultural value. Dream job + dream place, but it doesn't even really make sense to apply in a place where I don't have rights to life-saving healthcare. I guess I'm just looking to vent or perhaps looking for support or just wanting to see if other academics are overwhelmed/upset about this particular aspect of the current fucked up situation in the US.
RESPONSE A: I'm also in a Visiting position and am applying everywhere I can. Though, due to my SO's job and kids, can't move to get a full time. I'm stuck applying in Florida and worried about a 15 week ban or worse.
RESPONSE B: Absolutely. I'm in a red state and have an academic job I really wanted. I am now considering leaving academia just so I can escape this state.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Are those of you on the US job market worried about job prospects post Roe v Wade? I'm a young (28 yo) woman currently in a VAP position and a year out from my PhD. I'll be hitting the job market hard again this Fall with the hopes of landing a TT job. But I can't help but feel like my options will be EXTREMELY limited, especially if I decide not to apply in an states with current/forthcoming abortion bans, which is a high possibility for me as a childfree person. As if the the TT market wasn't competitive enough, now most academics will be clamoring (even more than usual) to apply to jobs in blue states and it just makes me wonder if it's even worth it anymore. I just saw my dream job posted at a school in St. Louis, MO. Prior to Roe being overturned, my partner and I were actually talking about St. Louis being an ideal place for us to end up because of the low cost of living but high cultural value. Dream job + dream place, but it doesn't even really make sense to apply in a place where I don't have rights to life-saving healthcare. I guess I'm just looking to vent or perhaps looking for support or just wanting to see if other academics are overwhelmed/upset about this particular aspect of the current fucked up situation in the US.
RESPONSE A: It's a huge issue. I'm in a red state and it was already difficult. This will make the market even more skewed and harder to manage.
RESPONSE B: The question before you, imo, is whether or not you would live in a red state. If you get a TT job you’ll be financially privileged enough to get abortion care in another state or find a work around. This is super shitty but I think it is your reality (financial privilege)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Are those of you on the US job market worried about job prospects post Roe v Wade? I'm a young (28 yo) woman currently in a VAP position and a year out from my PhD. I'll be hitting the job market hard again this Fall with the hopes of landing a TT job. But I can't help but feel like my options will be EXTREMELY limited, especially if I decide not to apply in an states with current/forthcoming abortion bans, which is a high possibility for me as a childfree person. As if the the TT market wasn't competitive enough, now most academics will be clamoring (even more than usual) to apply to jobs in blue states and it just makes me wonder if it's even worth it anymore. I just saw my dream job posted at a school in St. Louis, MO. Prior to Roe being overturned, my partner and I were actually talking about St. Louis being an ideal place for us to end up because of the low cost of living but high cultural value. Dream job + dream place, but it doesn't even really make sense to apply in a place where I don't have rights to life-saving healthcare. I guess I'm just looking to vent or perhaps looking for support or just wanting to see if other academics are overwhelmed/upset about this particular aspect of the current fucked up situation in the US.
RESPONSE A: I'm also in a Visiting position and am applying everywhere I can. Though, due to my SO's job and kids, can't move to get a full time. I'm stuck applying in Florida and worried about a 15 week ban or worse.
RESPONSE B: The question before you, imo, is whether or not you would live in a red state. If you get a TT job you’ll be financially privileged enough to get abortion care in another state or find a work around. This is super shitty but I think it is your reality (financial privilege)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Are those of you on the US job market worried about job prospects post Roe v Wade? I'm a young (28 yo) woman currently in a VAP position and a year out from my PhD. I'll be hitting the job market hard again this Fall with the hopes of landing a TT job. But I can't help but feel like my options will be EXTREMELY limited, especially if I decide not to apply in an states with current/forthcoming abortion bans, which is a high possibility for me as a childfree person. As if the the TT market wasn't competitive enough, now most academics will be clamoring (even more than usual) to apply to jobs in blue states and it just makes me wonder if it's even worth it anymore. I just saw my dream job posted at a school in St. Louis, MO. Prior to Roe being overturned, my partner and I were actually talking about St. Louis being an ideal place for us to end up because of the low cost of living but high cultural value. Dream job + dream place, but it doesn't even really make sense to apply in a place where I don't have rights to life-saving healthcare. I guess I'm just looking to vent or perhaps looking for support or just wanting to see if other academics are overwhelmed/upset about this particular aspect of the current fucked up situation in the US.
RESPONSE A: I'm a male, but this is absolutely a factor I am taking into account. I've been thinking about switching jobs recently, and for a number of reasons (family, COL, etc.) certain options in the South looked worth considering. I am no longer considering those particular options, because I don't want to drag my SO into a place where it might become an issue.
RESPONSE B: If you're open to it, you moving to a red state means you are one more Dem voter. If you don't, that's one less educated person in that state. This is easy for me to point out, because I live in a blue state.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Editor is "strongly" encouraging me to cote his papers. I received my review comments for a recent manuscript. The comments were addressable, but the editor sent a LIST of 15 of his papers asking to cite them. Some of the papers are somewhat relevant, so I cite 4 of them. The manuscript came back, and the editor says it will be accepted once I fix some "citation issues" My advisor told me to just cite every paper on the list and send it back. I did, and the paper got accepted. Does this not seem a bit shady? Seems like the editor is using his position to boost his citations.
RESPONSE A: Fuck that. I would contact the Editor in Chief. This editor is riding roughshod over the reputation of the journal - if the EiC does nothing, then frankly spend the rest of your career not publishing there and making sure everyone you work with knows why.
RESPONSE B: This is certainly unethical, particularly as these comments are usually the purview of the reviewers and not often made by editors. If you're willing to pursue this, it may be worth contacting the journal offices (of course not the same editor) and indicating this kind of unethical behavior, but that's not a sure thing - some journals may act to preserve their academic integrity, others may be more protective of their editors and not take action.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Editor is "strongly" encouraging me to cote his papers. I received my review comments for a recent manuscript. The comments were addressable, but the editor sent a LIST of 15 of his papers asking to cite them. Some of the papers are somewhat relevant, so I cite 4 of them. The manuscript came back, and the editor says it will be accepted once I fix some "citation issues" My advisor told me to just cite every paper on the list and send it back. I did, and the paper got accepted. Does this not seem a bit shady? Seems like the editor is using his position to boost his citations.
RESPONSE A: Contact the other editors about this
RESPONSE B: Fuck that. I would contact the Editor in Chief. This editor is riding roughshod over the reputation of the journal - if the EiC does nothing, then frankly spend the rest of your career not publishing there and making sure everyone you work with knows why.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Editor is "strongly" encouraging me to cote his papers. I received my review comments for a recent manuscript. The comments were addressable, but the editor sent a LIST of 15 of his papers asking to cite them. Some of the papers are somewhat relevant, so I cite 4 of them. The manuscript came back, and the editor says it will be accepted once I fix some "citation issues" My advisor told me to just cite every paper on the list and send it back. I did, and the paper got accepted. Does this not seem a bit shady? Seems like the editor is using his position to boost his citations.
RESPONSE A: 15?!! Haha what a POS. Even if your manuscript is a review, this is insane. Your advisor must have seen these sorts of things before to act so lackadaisical.. either way, congratulations on your manuscript being accepted
RESPONSE B: your advisor is shady as well. And that editor should be removed from whatever journal this is. Forcing other authors to include these "fake" citations as a criteria for publication is completely unacceptable. If you want to go nuclear (and I do not advise this) but one could withdraw your paper from the journal with the reason that the editor forced unnecessary citations into it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Editor is "strongly" encouraging me to cote his papers. I received my review comments for a recent manuscript. The comments were addressable, but the editor sent a LIST of 15 of his papers asking to cite them. Some of the papers are somewhat relevant, so I cite 4 of them. The manuscript came back, and the editor says it will be accepted once I fix some "citation issues" My advisor told me to just cite every paper on the list and send it back. I did, and the paper got accepted. Does this not seem a bit shady? Seems like the editor is using his position to boost his citations.
RESPONSE A: 15?!! Haha what a POS. Even if your manuscript is a review, this is insane. Your advisor must have seen these sorts of things before to act so lackadaisical.. either way, congratulations on your manuscript being accepted
RESPONSE B: Shady, but surprisingly common. Often times reviewers will try the same thing. The most vicious reviews I ever got were two reviewers for a pretty crappy book. They were clearly personally offended and both ripped into the work in a way I'd never seen before or since. I was scratching my head, but one of them suggested I should have cited a particular PhD THESIS (which had never been cited before), instead of the work by that person's advisor, which I did cite. Looking at the editorial board, it turned out the author of that thesis and her husband were on it. I didn't bother revising it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Editor is "strongly" encouraging me to cote his papers. I received my review comments for a recent manuscript. The comments were addressable, but the editor sent a LIST of 15 of his papers asking to cite them. Some of the papers are somewhat relevant, so I cite 4 of them. The manuscript came back, and the editor says it will be accepted once I fix some "citation issues" My advisor told me to just cite every paper on the list and send it back. I did, and the paper got accepted. Does this not seem a bit shady? Seems like the editor is using his position to boost his citations.
RESPONSE A: I think it is things like these that make academia lose credibility and drive the public distrust in science. Unless we actively take measures to address these actions, distrust will continue to grow, understandably and justifiably so, and so will the consequences of this on scientific progress and it’s practical implications. The pandemic is a perfect example of this.
RESPONSE B: 15?!! Haha what a POS. Even if your manuscript is a review, this is insane. Your advisor must have seen these sorts of things before to act so lackadaisical.. either way, congratulations on your manuscript being accepted
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I notice a lot of things are different between USA academia and "rest of the world" academia. Should we split up askacademia? Or make a rule that you have to specify country with each question? Gets confusing otherwise. In true academia fashion we should not endeavour to improve anything and leave it as broken as it was
RESPONSE A: Is it possible to include [Country] and [Field] in the submission title text box by default? E.g. [Country] [Field] - POST TITLE [USA] [Humanities] - How many hours a week do you spend at work? [Australia] [STEM] - What the hell is a qualifying exam??? I think this fixes the problem, without applying flairs to the *user*. That way if I have experience/questions in more than one country, I can respond without having to change my flair or causing confusion.
RESPONSE B: We have some questions that are country specific but a lot are about teaching, generally transferrable. Plus, I like seeing how things may be done in different places.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I notice a lot of things are different between USA academia and "rest of the world" academia. Should we split up askacademia? Or make a rule that you have to specify country with each question? Gets confusing otherwise. In true academia fashion we should not endeavour to improve anything and leave it as broken as it was
RESPONSE A: Then we also have to split the USA into R1, Rh2, community college, etc. so... no. Added: R2 not Rh2...
RESPONSE B: Is it possible to include [Country] and [Field] in the submission title text box by default? E.g. [Country] [Field] - POST TITLE [USA] [Humanities] - How many hours a week do you spend at work? [Australia] [STEM] - What the hell is a qualifying exam??? I think this fixes the problem, without applying flairs to the *user*. That way if I have experience/questions in more than one country, I can respond without having to change my flair or causing confusion.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I notice a lot of things are different between USA academia and "rest of the world" academia. Should we split up askacademia? Or make a rule that you have to specify country with each question? Gets confusing otherwise. In true academia fashion we should not endeavour to improve anything and leave it as broken as it was
RESPONSE A: Is it possible to include [Country] and [Field] in the submission title text box by default? E.g. [Country] [Field] - POST TITLE [USA] [Humanities] - How many hours a week do you spend at work? [Australia] [STEM] - What the hell is a qualifying exam??? I think this fixes the problem, without applying flairs to the *user*. That way if I have experience/questions in more than one country, I can respond without having to change my flair or causing confusion.
RESPONSE B: There is r/AskAcademiaUK, could direct people there too? Otherwise, country specification or flag flairs would be helpful.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I notice a lot of things are different between USA academia and "rest of the world" academia. Should we split up askacademia? Or make a rule that you have to specify country with each question? Gets confusing otherwise. In true academia fashion we should not endeavour to improve anything and leave it as broken as it was
RESPONSE A: Is it possible to include [Country] and [Field] in the submission title text box by default? E.g. [Country] [Field] - POST TITLE [USA] [Humanities] - How many hours a week do you spend at work? [Australia] [STEM] - What the hell is a qualifying exam??? I think this fixes the problem, without applying flairs to the *user*. That way if I have experience/questions in more than one country, I can respond without having to change my flair or causing confusion.
RESPONSE B: Yeah, flairing country or at least by discipline (even if it's just major streams e.g STEM/Humanities/SocSci) would help tremendously in getting answers rather than the typical 'ymmv' disclaimer.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I notice a lot of things are different between USA academia and "rest of the world" academia. Should we split up askacademia? Or make a rule that you have to specify country with each question? Gets confusing otherwise. In true academia fashion we should not endeavour to improve anything and leave it as broken as it was
RESPONSE A: Food for thought, adding more flair options would solve this issue.
RESPONSE B: Is it possible to include [Country] and [Field] in the submission title text box by default? E.g. [Country] [Field] - POST TITLE [USA] [Humanities] - How many hours a week do you spend at work? [Australia] [STEM] - What the hell is a qualifying exam??? I think this fixes the problem, without applying flairs to the *user*. That way if I have experience/questions in more than one country, I can respond without having to change my flair or causing confusion.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: unfortunately. The student, let's call them P, has had 4 years to improve on things like writing, communication, technical skills, and programming but has fallen short on all of them for where they need to be to be competitive for postdocs. That being said, P is a hard worker, super enthusiastic about research, and has been a good member of my group. P has gotten some interviews, but often gives extremely technical talks with no introduction (despite many rounds of feedback on this from me and others) and has tripped up when asked about the deep details of their work. Unfortunately, I see almost no way of them making it through the whole tenure track (postdoc, postdoc, faculty, building a group) without a quantum leap in their skills, even if there was an offer this year. P is understandably very upset about not getting any offers but continues to say that all they want is a career as a researcher and to stay in academia. This doesn't seem realistic and I want to start gently steering them towards the idea of looking for opportunities in industry or policy, especially since their PhD funding runs out later this year. But I'm not at all sure how to have this conversation without dashing their dreams. They're really eager and dead-set on this line of work, but I just don't see a path. Any advice for how to steer this conversation and offer constructive suggestions? I feel terrible that I have to deliver this news, and I've never done it before.
RESPONSE A: Perhaps you could lay out a series of job options in an honest and helpful way. That would include other types of academic positions (teaching heavy jobs), industry, and anything else the student may fit. I think most importantly you should sit this student down and tell them in detail exactly where they are behind and where they would need to be for a research job. Type up bullet points and print it out and give it them. We've all had people tell us we can't accomplish things, and sometimes that discussion provides motivation for the next step in someone's life, regardless as to which direction they decide to go.
RESPONSE B: Research scientist is a legit academic career, but it is not TT. In the absence of a post-doc, they should be applying for these positions.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: for how to steer this conversation and offer constructive suggestions? I feel terrible that I have to deliver this news, and I've never done it before.
RESPONSE A: This is exactly what I'm worried about. I apologize for not answering your question but I'm hoping you may consider my dilemma. I'm a physics masters student interested in advanced theoretical physics. Though I'm doing masters right now, I don't think I'm competent enough do any kind of research in the field I'm interested in. I haven't solved any problems from books or assignments. I have ok grades. I don't think I'm a dumbass and consider myself to be reasonably good at things which I've studied properly which is not much. But I doubt I can do research in string theory if I didn't even read Sakurai/Goldstein properly. I admit all my problems are due to procrastination. I'm in a serious dilemma. Should I just try to do some small lame master's thesis and apply for grad school or should I leave masters and start masters all over again in a different uni to properly study? I may procrastinate once again but I'm really worried I would not be able to do any good research if I don't know the basics and regret later in life. Some information: I get paid while doing masters in my country so money is not an issue. I sincerely can't imagine myself not learning physics or science in general to understand the world. I don't know what else is there other than understanding the world and I think physics is the one I love the most because I believe in reductionism and believe that everything should be understood from the absolute fundamental ideas. My school has nothing to do with it. It's me and my fucking procrastination. I'm hoping that the result would be different this time. I might be wrong and waste another couple of years, but is there any other option I have? Appreciate any response. Thanks.
RESPONSE B: Research scientist is a legit academic career, but it is not TT. In the absence of a post-doc, they should be applying for these positions.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: , and has been a good member of my group. P has gotten some interviews, but often gives extremely technical talks with no introduction (despite many rounds of feedback on this from me and others) and has tripped up when asked about the deep details of their work. Unfortunately, I see almost no way of them making it through the whole tenure track (postdoc, postdoc, faculty, building a group) without a quantum leap in their skills, even if there was an offer this year. P is understandably very upset about not getting any offers but continues to say that all they want is a career as a researcher and to stay in academia. This doesn't seem realistic and I want to start gently steering them towards the idea of looking for opportunities in industry or policy, especially since their PhD funding runs out later this year. But I'm not at all sure how to have this conversation without dashing their dreams. They're really eager and dead-set on this line of work, but I just don't see a path. Any advice for how to steer this conversation and offer constructive suggestions? I feel terrible that I have to deliver this news, and I've never done it before.
RESPONSE A: Research scientist is a legit academic career, but it is not TT. In the absence of a post-doc, they should be applying for these positions.
RESPONSE B: There is a wide range of caliber of colleges. I’m not sure what level you are at now but are they so bad they couldn’t get a job at even the bottom of the barrel colleges? Is it possible to recalibrate on what realistic level of university they could work at aka at the bottom? Perhaps when they realize what their academia prospects are they will change course. I wasn’t prime academia material and had itty bitty colleges invite me to recruitment days and positions for post docs. My roommate had a post doc position basically guaranteed the moment she inquired about it (sounds crazy but it actually paid less than our PhD and was at a teeny college ) In some ways getting an industry job can be harder. While my research advisor networks and advocates any time a PhD student goes to academia or national lab when it comes to industry job hunting students were on their own.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 't see a path. Any advice for how to steer this conversation and offer constructive suggestions? I feel terrible that I have to deliver this news, and I've never done it before.
RESPONSE A: This is exactly what I'm worried about. I apologize for not answering your question but I'm hoping you may consider my dilemma. I'm a physics masters student interested in advanced theoretical physics. Though I'm doing masters right now, I don't think I'm competent enough do any kind of research in the field I'm interested in. I haven't solved any problems from books or assignments. I have ok grades. I don't think I'm a dumbass and consider myself to be reasonably good at things which I've studied properly which is not much. But I doubt I can do research in string theory if I didn't even read Sakurai/Goldstein properly. I admit all my problems are due to procrastination. I'm in a serious dilemma. Should I just try to do some small lame master's thesis and apply for grad school or should I leave masters and start masters all over again in a different uni to properly study? I may procrastinate once again but I'm really worried I would not be able to do any good research if I don't know the basics and regret later in life. Some information: I get paid while doing masters in my country so money is not an issue. I sincerely can't imagine myself not learning physics or science in general to understand the world. I don't know what else is there other than understanding the world and I think physics is the one I love the most because I believe in reductionism and believe that everything should be understood from the absolute fundamental ideas. My school has nothing to do with it. It's me and my fucking procrastination. I'm hoping that the result would be different this time. I might be wrong and waste another couple of years, but is there any other option I have? Appreciate any response. Thanks.
RESPONSE B: ITT: Anxious grad students looking through OP's post history to see if it's them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Bad news Hey everyone I went to the Dr a few days ago and she found a mass on my humerus. She was reluctant to officially diagnose but it seems that it is osteosarcoma. I was wondering if this is something I should tell my grad advisor. I’m hesitant because I’m afraid she might tell me to quit to be with my family. In all honesty I want to keep going until it gets bad enough I can’t leave my bed. The reason I’m inclined to telling here is because I might be spotty quite a Few days because of imaging testing and who knows,maybe even bone autopsies.
RESPONSE A: I would wait until the diagnosis is confirmed, and then tell her something. You have a right to privacy, but as an advisor I find it much easier to be understanding of someone’s absences, lack of progress, etc. when I know what is going on. Even just saying, “I am dealing with a serious medical issue,” is better than nothing.
RESPONSE B: i think it would be helpful create an open dialogue now as this may become something you’ll be dealing with for a while. you may need some allowances in the future for doctors appointments or recovering from treatment so if your advisor is aware of this, they can help you. im really sorry youre going through this and i think continuing your work could help a lot throughout your treatment. be kind to yourself though, your limits and energy levels may change and you may need to rest more often, so just listen to your mind and body.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Bad news Hey everyone I went to the Dr a few days ago and she found a mass on my humerus. She was reluctant to officially diagnose but it seems that it is osteosarcoma. I was wondering if this is something I should tell my grad advisor. I’m hesitant because I’m afraid she might tell me to quit to be with my family. In all honesty I want to keep going until it gets bad enough I can’t leave my bed. The reason I’m inclined to telling here is because I might be spotty quite a Few days because of imaging testing and who knows,maybe even bone autopsies.
RESPONSE A: 1. Get it properly diagnosed 2. Tell your advisor 3. Screw Grad school, do all available treatments. Are you insane? Your life is more important than finishing some research
RESPONSE B: Don't wait until you're too sick to get out of bed. I've been getting sicker for months (still trying to figure out why), and I've now hit that point. Trying to deal with logistics of medical leave/administration is a nightmare when you barely have the energy to move.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Bad news Hey everyone I went to the Dr a few days ago and she found a mass on my humerus. She was reluctant to officially diagnose but it seems that it is osteosarcoma. I was wondering if this is something I should tell my grad advisor. I’m hesitant because I’m afraid she might tell me to quit to be with my family. In all honesty I want to keep going until it gets bad enough I can’t leave my bed. The reason I’m inclined to telling here is because I might be spotty quite a Few days because of imaging testing and who knows,maybe even bone autopsies.
RESPONSE A: I'm so sorry, I can't imagine how stressful it must be for you right now. Hope it turns out to be something benign. If your advisor is a decent human being, I'm sure she'll be supportive of you no matter what you do and decide in this difficult situation. Sending lots of good thoughts.
RESPONSE B: 1. Get it properly diagnosed 2. Tell your advisor 3. Screw Grad school, do all available treatments. Are you insane? Your life is more important than finishing some research
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Bad news Hey everyone I went to the Dr a few days ago and she found a mass on my humerus. She was reluctant to officially diagnose but it seems that it is osteosarcoma. I was wondering if this is something I should tell my grad advisor. I’m hesitant because I’m afraid she might tell me to quit to be with my family. In all honesty I want to keep going until it gets bad enough I can’t leave my bed. The reason I’m inclined to telling here is because I might be spotty quite a Few days because of imaging testing and who knows,maybe even bone autopsies.
RESPONSE A: 1. Get it properly diagnosed 2. Tell your advisor 3. Screw Grad school, do all available treatments. Are you insane? Your life is more important than finishing some research
RESPONSE B: I would encourage you to look into your institutions resources for students with disabilities. Best wishes!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Bad news Hey everyone I went to the Dr a few days ago and she found a mass on my humerus. She was reluctant to officially diagnose but it seems that it is osteosarcoma. I was wondering if this is something I should tell my grad advisor. I’m hesitant because I’m afraid she might tell me to quit to be with my family. In all honesty I want to keep going until it gets bad enough I can’t leave my bed. The reason I’m inclined to telling here is because I might be spotty quite a Few days because of imaging testing and who knows,maybe even bone autopsies.
RESPONSE A: 1. Get it properly diagnosed 2. Tell your advisor 3. Screw Grad school, do all available treatments. Are you insane? Your life is more important than finishing some research
RESPONSE B: I had a lymphoma scare recently and my postdoc advisor was very supportive. Hopefully yours will be the same. Check out support groups too. I was surprised that many lymphoma patients continued to work/stay in school during treatment with only a few weeks off during the worst parts.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What obscure skill have you picked up as a grad student/academic? I'm doing a biology PhD, and know exactly how to empty a mortar of powdered plant material suspended in liquid nitrogen into a tiny vial without it exploding (easier said than done), an obscure "skill" I've picked up doing hundreds of DNA extractions. Purely our of curiousity, what's your obscure skill?
RESPONSE A: I study bird song diversity across different habitats and now have the curse of knowing when bird songs in movies and games are ecologically inaccurate...
RESPONSE B: Not really relating to my MA degree, but been a TA for a couple of years and doing lots of copy-editing work, I can tell if someone's margins (in WORD) are not standard just by looking (even if it's a really small change). Useful in my line of work (checking students papers and tests), completely unnecessary in any other way.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What obscure skill have you picked up as a grad student/academic? I'm doing a biology PhD, and know exactly how to empty a mortar of powdered plant material suspended in liquid nitrogen into a tiny vial without it exploding (easier said than done), an obscure "skill" I've picked up doing hundreds of DNA extractions. Purely our of curiousity, what's your obscure skill?
RESPONSE A: Coding in Fortran. (Not that Fortran is obscure *per se* by any means, but the most common reaction I get from people both in and outside of my field is, "Why is anyone still coding in that?!")
RESPONSE B: I study bird song diversity across different habitats and now have the curse of knowing when bird songs in movies and games are ecologically inaccurate...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What obscure skill have you picked up as a grad student/academic? I'm doing a biology PhD, and know exactly how to empty a mortar of powdered plant material suspended in liquid nitrogen into a tiny vial without it exploding (easier said than done), an obscure "skill" I've picked up doing hundreds of DNA extractions. Purely our of curiousity, what's your obscure skill?
RESPONSE A: I mean, I can draw blood from and dissect an entire mouse in about 3 mins... making sure the organs are undamaged and harvested whole. (For later analysis. I obviously don’t do this for fun.) I’m also quite good at estimating volumes of liquids by eye, opening doors without my hands, and have an unusual tolerance for handling very hot and/or cold items.
RESPONSE B: I study bird song diversity across different habitats and now have the curse of knowing when bird songs in movies and games are ecologically inaccurate...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What obscure skill have you picked up as a grad student/academic? I'm doing a biology PhD, and know exactly how to empty a mortar of powdered plant material suspended in liquid nitrogen into a tiny vial without it exploding (easier said than done), an obscure "skill" I've picked up doing hundreds of DNA extractions. Purely our of curiousity, what's your obscure skill?
RESPONSE A: I study bird song diversity across different habitats and now have the curse of knowing when bird songs in movies and games are ecologically inaccurate...
RESPONSE B: > how to empty a mortar of powdered plant material suspended in liquid nitrogen into a tiny vial without it exploding (easier said than done) Can confirm, had one of these bitches explode in a course. Not only half of the vial was gone but our sample as well. Mine is probably reading monkey body language and face gestures. I am so used to communicate with them that I once started to lip smack at a (human) baby because it's a soothing gesture. Thankfully nobody saw that (besides the baby, who was unimpressed).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What obscure skill have you picked up as a grad student/academic? I'm doing a biology PhD, and know exactly how to empty a mortar of powdered plant material suspended in liquid nitrogen into a tiny vial without it exploding (easier said than done), an obscure "skill" I've picked up doing hundreds of DNA extractions. Purely our of curiousity, what's your obscure skill?
RESPONSE A: I study bird song diversity across different habitats and now have the curse of knowing when bird songs in movies and games are ecologically inaccurate...
RESPONSE B: I can give fish tattoos with insulin syringes. I needed to track individuals in a tank to calculate growth rates and they were too small to tag with other methods.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you think research results in STEM should be published regardless of negative or positive conclusions? Researchers in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Exeter believe that publishing scientific articles is not an end unto itself. In a recent opinion piece, they state that researchers should not be disappointed or frustrated by negative results but strive to reach unbiased conclusions driven solely by the data. Thoughts?
RESPONSE A: I think the results should be published, and I also think they shouldn't be paywalled, particularly if the research were publicly-funded.
RESPONSE B: I think they probably should, but they don't warrant the full effort of an academic paper. One solution might be if journals had a "negative notes" section that left people publish very short briefs about the findings. This prevents having to read and write full length papers with zero impact, but also puts it in the scientific record to advise future studies.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you think research results in STEM should be published regardless of negative or positive conclusions? Researchers in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Exeter believe that publishing scientific articles is not an end unto itself. In a recent opinion piece, they state that researchers should not be disappointed or frustrated by negative results but strive to reach unbiased conclusions driven solely by the data. Thoughts?
RESPONSE A: I'm actually writing an editorial for my journal as we speak about the peer review process. Part of it will be to not allow our personal biases taint our view of the contrarian results and conclusions of a paper. That is followed by a tip to the authors to acknowledge the other perspective and emphasize that the contrarian results do not invalidate prior research but simply indicate a discrepancy that deserves further investigation for potential boundary conditions.
RESPONSE B: Really weird for the article to use the term "negative finding." The commonly used term is "null finding," i.e., "our research design did not produce credible and informative results." Null findings should be publishable. So should replications. There are also what are called "informative null findings," which means your model credibly demonstrated that there is no effect.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do you think research results in STEM should be published regardless of negative or positive conclusions? Researchers in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Exeter believe that publishing scientific articles is not an end unto itself. In a recent opinion piece, they state that researchers should not be disappointed or frustrated by negative results but strive to reach unbiased conclusions driven solely by the data. Thoughts?
RESPONSE A: Really weird for the article to use the term "negative finding." The commonly used term is "null finding," i.e., "our research design did not produce credible and informative results." Null findings should be publishable. So should replications. There are also what are called "informative null findings," which means your model credibly demonstrated that there is no effect.
RESPONSE B: I think the results should be published, and I also think they shouldn't be paywalled, particularly if the research were publicly-funded.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you think research results in STEM should be published regardless of negative or positive conclusions? Researchers in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Exeter believe that publishing scientific articles is not an end unto itself. In a recent opinion piece, they state that researchers should not be disappointed or frustrated by negative results but strive to reach unbiased conclusions driven solely by the data. Thoughts?
RESPONSE A: I don't think this only applies to STEM. In linguistics it's extremely hard to publish negative results, and often to do so you need to introduce either a new method or a new dataset.
RESPONSE B: Really weird for the article to use the term "negative finding." The commonly used term is "null finding," i.e., "our research design did not produce credible and informative results." Null findings should be publishable. So should replications. There are also what are called "informative null findings," which means your model credibly demonstrated that there is no effect.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you think research results in STEM should be published regardless of negative or positive conclusions? Researchers in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Exeter believe that publishing scientific articles is not an end unto itself. In a recent opinion piece, they state that researchers should not be disappointed or frustrated by negative results but strive to reach unbiased conclusions driven solely by the data. Thoughts?
RESPONSE A: I think the results should be published, and I also think they shouldn't be paywalled, particularly if the research were publicly-funded.
RESPONSE B: Honestly, I feel that null results are just as important as significant results because 1) it's important to rule alternatives out, rather than only looking for evidence in favor of your hypothesis, and 2) if something doesn't work, please publish it so future researchers don't attempt the same thing and also fail. I do think the emergence of Bayesian statistics has been helping with that lately (at least in my field) because it's providing evidence *for* the null, rather than simply failing to reject it. It's making it easier to publish null results.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: you get to be creative and use your unique view on the world to enhance the knowledge of the human population. I wish you all the best of success and all of the grants and papers your hearts desire. I'm not bitter of any of you, just a bit disappointed in myself. But hey that's life. Thanks academia, I've learned lots not only about my subject matter, but also about myself.
RESPONSE A: Congrats on finding your footing on a path that appears to work for you. Having worked in industry and academia, I know first-hand that neither one is "better," they are just different career paths, with different advantages and disadvantages. I know brilliant, successful people that never tried to earn a Ph.D., that tried and chose not to finish, that finished and chose to go into industry, and that finished and stayed in academia. Leaving academia and going into something that works for you is absolutely not a failure, it is a success. I'm not disappointed in you--nor in any of my students who chose a different path than I did (in fact, I have counseled some of them not to follow my path)--and you absolutely need not be disappointed in yourself. If you are happy with where you are now, that's all that matters.
RESPONSE B: There is so much I want to say to you. But I'm gonna start with the most important. You did NOT fail. You took control of your mental health, and frankly, that's so much more important than a degree. I need you to understand how utterly brave and strong that choice was. There are many of us didn't make that choice. I remember having a nervous breakdown 6 months before I defended, like on the brink of committing myself to a psych ward. If it hadn't been for a bit of luck and a kind committee member, I wouldn't have finished either. The other thing I need you to understand is that Academia isn't the great answer. You can save the world without ever taking another foot on a campus. I wish you the best of all the world in your new career. And I don't know you at all, but I'm very proud of you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Have you ever seen anyone fail a PhD Defense? Per the title. I defend my dissertation in a few days, and I feel like my defense is shaping up to be very... Unimpressive for a variety of reasons. My committee gave me the green light to look for jobs and write a dissertation. I turned in the document a few days ago, and I have a job lined up, but I'm growing nervous about my defense because, well, it feels like it's garbage. I'm largely asking because I want to know just how bad I need to do in order to actually fail.
RESPONSE A: I have failed a student once, but the reasons were not related to the results. The reasons were (a) the manuscript was very badly written and (b) the work was blatantly unfinished. The reason why the supervisor let this student defend were related to the rules of the university (you had to defend after N years) rather than being an official "green light". The student failed that time, but we gave them a second chance after one year of extra work, which ended up in a successful attempt and graduation. None of this applies to you. You'll pass!
RESPONSE B: No. If they don't want to give you the degree they won't let you schedule it. It would be as much an embarrassment for your advisor as for you. People are usually screened out at candidacy, or sometimes asked to leave after. In practice this just doesn't happen (at least in the US/Canada).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Have you ever seen anyone fail a PhD Defense? Per the title. I defend my dissertation in a few days, and I feel like my defense is shaping up to be very... Unimpressive for a variety of reasons. My committee gave me the green light to look for jobs and write a dissertation. I turned in the document a few days ago, and I have a job lined up, but I'm growing nervous about my defense because, well, it feels like it's garbage. I'm largely asking because I want to know just how bad I need to do in order to actually fail.
RESPONSE A: I have failed a student once, but the reasons were not related to the results. The reasons were (a) the manuscript was very badly written and (b) the work was blatantly unfinished. The reason why the supervisor let this student defend were related to the rules of the university (you had to defend after N years) rather than being an official "green light". The student failed that time, but we gave them a second chance after one year of extra work, which ended up in a successful attempt and graduation. None of this applies to you. You'll pass!
RESPONSE B: In every program I know of, it's the responsibility of the chair/adviser to have a private sit-down talk with the candidate if they're not ready. Most committees have read most (or all) of the dissertation prior to the defense, and they pretty much know if it's going to pass. Candidates get varying levels of revisions, but the pass/fail is decided before you enter the room.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Have you ever seen anyone fail a PhD Defense? Per the title. I defend my dissertation in a few days, and I feel like my defense is shaping up to be very... Unimpressive for a variety of reasons. My committee gave me the green light to look for jobs and write a dissertation. I turned in the document a few days ago, and I have a job lined up, but I'm growing nervous about my defense because, well, it feels like it's garbage. I'm largely asking because I want to know just how bad I need to do in order to actually fail.
RESPONSE A: You're stressed— it's natural, but it's going to be fine. Are you going in person or are you doing it via Zoom? If going in person, focus more on where you want to get lunch/dinner after (if safe to do so) and not the event itself. The day after, you'll be asking yourself what you were so stressed about, I promise :)
RESPONSE B: I have failed a student once, but the reasons were not related to the results. The reasons were (a) the manuscript was very badly written and (b) the work was blatantly unfinished. The reason why the supervisor let this student defend were related to the rules of the university (you had to defend after N years) rather than being an official "green light". The student failed that time, but we gave them a second chance after one year of extra work, which ended up in a successful attempt and graduation. None of this applies to you. You'll pass!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Have you ever seen anyone fail a PhD Defense? Per the title. I defend my dissertation in a few days, and I feel like my defense is shaping up to be very... Unimpressive for a variety of reasons. My committee gave me the green light to look for jobs and write a dissertation. I turned in the document a few days ago, and I have a job lined up, but I'm growing nervous about my defense because, well, it feels like it's garbage. I'm largely asking because I want to know just how bad I need to do in order to actually fail.
RESPONSE A: In every program I know of, it's the responsibility of the chair/adviser to have a private sit-down talk with the candidate if they're not ready. Most committees have read most (or all) of the dissertation prior to the defense, and they pretty much know if it's going to pass. Candidates get varying levels of revisions, but the pass/fail is decided before you enter the room.
RESPONSE B: At my school you have to collect the 5 signatures like a quest in an RPG. They wouldnt let you do that part if you wernt ready. The quals is where they beat you senseless. The defense is more of a formality. If you did your work, if your adviser thinks it's sufficient, it is. Think of it more like your first time being a colleague and not a student. You did some research. It's original. They've never seen it before. They arnt quizzing you on info they know and you might. They're questioning you about a topic they dont know and you do. You are the instructor and they are your very very curious and demanding students. You are the worlds leading expert on whatever. Bring them up to speed.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Have you ever seen anyone fail a PhD Defense? Per the title. I defend my dissertation in a few days, and I feel like my defense is shaping up to be very... Unimpressive for a variety of reasons. My committee gave me the green light to look for jobs and write a dissertation. I turned in the document a few days ago, and I have a job lined up, but I'm growing nervous about my defense because, well, it feels like it's garbage. I'm largely asking because I want to know just how bad I need to do in order to actually fail.
RESPONSE A: You're stressed— it's natural, but it's going to be fine. Are you going in person or are you doing it via Zoom? If going in person, focus more on where you want to get lunch/dinner after (if safe to do so) and not the event itself. The day after, you'll be asking yourself what you were so stressed about, I promise :)
RESPONSE B: At my school you have to collect the 5 signatures like a quest in an RPG. They wouldnt let you do that part if you wernt ready. The quals is where they beat you senseless. The defense is more of a formality. If you did your work, if your adviser thinks it's sufficient, it is. Think of it more like your first time being a colleague and not a student. You did some research. It's original. They've never seen it before. They arnt quizzing you on info they know and you might. They're questioning you about a topic they dont know and you do. You are the instructor and they are your very very curious and demanding students. You are the worlds leading expert on whatever. Bring them up to speed.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour!
RESPONSE A: 1. Start therapy. Mental health is the most important thing and imo the best determinant of success in grad school and in life. Also student insurance is sweet. 2. Network network network. Don't assume you will stay in academia. And don't look at the PhD as an end in itself. Think about what you want once you are done and prepare for it. You might change your views along the way but better start the process early than in the last 1 year. 3. Stick to a 9-5 routine if possible and actually socialize on days off. Don't let anyone push your boundaries. People will try to make you feel bad for not slaving away. Recognize it for the dysfunctional way of life it is. Work smart and work consistent. This is your degree, don't follow anyone blindly if you don't agree.
RESPONSE B: I would have a clearer focus - the PhD is the time to learn one subject well and not get too distracted by shiny side-track ideas.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour!
RESPONSE A: When I thought about forming my dissertation committee, I thought exclusively about whose scholarship matches up with my topic and methods. I did not think enough about my personal relationship with these scholars and importantly their relationships with each other. Faculty in departments can have personal feuds and epistemological differences that may play out during the defense hearing. Expertise is important, but so is the social dynamic of the committee. If at all possible, you want faculty on your committee who care about your success and get along with each other.
RESPONSE B: 1. Start therapy. Mental health is the most important thing and imo the best determinant of success in grad school and in life. Also student insurance is sweet. 2. Network network network. Don't assume you will stay in academia. And don't look at the PhD as an end in itself. Think about what you want once you are done and prepare for it. You might change your views along the way but better start the process early than in the last 1 year. 3. Stick to a 9-5 routine if possible and actually socialize on days off. Don't let anyone push your boundaries. People will try to make you feel bad for not slaving away. Recognize it for the dysfunctional way of life it is. Work smart and work consistent. This is your degree, don't follow anyone blindly if you don't agree.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |