label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
B | POST: If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour!
RESPONSE A: Hire a personal trainer before I started and learned how to work out and build muscle. Then add the gym to a daily habit alongside my studies. I started to develop back problems from sitting reading all day and it really put me out. Also, I’d force myself to socialise more without using my phd as an excuse not to. I really kept to myself and got lonely toward the end. Two easy things!
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 |
B | POST: If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour!
RESPONSE A: Not choose research topics based on perceived difficulty as a personal challenge. Is there a dissertation proposal version of 'post-nut clarity'? Because I have that.
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 |
B | POST: If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour!
RESPONSE A: Probably try harder for grants, maybe look for less competitive ones and work to focus the impact of my research. I took loans to cover research costs and it’s biting me in the ass now. Also I’d work harder to network. It’s something I’m still terrible at and connections can make a big difference on the job market.
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 |
A | POST: People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university?
RESPONSE A: In my experience, it's usually 1/3. We usually have some random people submitting apps, like medical doctors that think they should now be a professor in a completely unrelated field. The next 1/3 is usually missing something big, like pubs or teaching experience. The last 1/3 are where most of the attention is focused, and the difference between those applicants is usually quite nuanced.
RESPONSE B: 100-150. We scan the list based on university, CVs, references, and bear in mind candidates who come particularly highly recommended. So, you can be considered from a low ranked institution if someone is willing to make calls for you to say you're the best thing since sliced bread, and we also won't really consider people from the top universities either unless they have something special going for them (a comment from faculty or great references/pubs). Field matters for some searches, but not all.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university?
RESPONSE A: In my experience, it's usually 1/3. We usually have some random people submitting apps, like medical doctors that think they should now be a professor in a completely unrelated field. The next 1/3 is usually missing something big, like pubs or teaching experience. The last 1/3 are where most of the attention is focused, and the difference between those applicants is usually quite nuanced.
RESPONSE B: I recently hired another assistant professor. Pool of ~30 applied. ~15 were actually qualified. ~6 were good fits for short list. 3 made final short list.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university?
RESPONSE A: I served on a search committee as an advanced student and we had about 40 applicants. 6 made it to phone interviews and 3 to on-campus lectures. Our search was a joint appointment between two schools so we had to find the best fit for the joint placement, an increasingly difficult task. We had candidates from multiple subfields within psychology. Two of the finalists had next to no teaching experience and the winner has next to none. They had quite a few publications though. Some of the phone interview finalists did not have many publications/came from lower ranking universities. It all depends on the search and search committee on disqualifications. One of the biggest ones was incomplete applications or applications that seemed like a one-size-fits-all (reused for many positions and not much thought into tailoring it to the specific search). Our university is a public state university with ~15k students.
RESPONSE B: In my experience, it's usually 1/3. We usually have some random people submitting apps, like medical doctors that think they should now be a professor in a completely unrelated field. The next 1/3 is usually missing something big, like pubs or teaching experience. The last 1/3 are where most of the attention is focused, and the difference between those applicants is usually quite nuanced.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university?
RESPONSE A: I did two postdocs, the first one had 5 applicants, the second was 3 lmao. (Also, both insitutes are great, the 3 applicant one is number 4 in the world for my field... It's just so niche within the field that no one really does it. It's good that whenever I apply it'll probably be less than 10 people, but bad because I only see a handful of jobs per year.)
RESPONSE B: I’ve been on med school faculty search committees for a few years. We get 200-400 applications for open calls, with the vast majority applying for their first faculty job. There’s usually around 75-100 “reasonable” applications - a complete application, post-doc experience, reasonable evidence of research productivity (med school so teaching is less important). These are usually easy to narrow down to 10-15 with really good past research (number and quality of papers) and reference letters, with maybe half of those having a truly competitive research statement. We interview 5-10, and offer second visits to 1-3 depending on the year. Most get through the scripted talk on their past research just fine, but fail at the chalk talk where they have to give a reasonable account of what they want to work on, why they think it’s important, and some outline of what they think they should tackle first. These are usually candidates whose research statements weren’t particularly strong, but who we thought worth looking at more carefully. It’s the damnedest thing, but in a pile of several hundred applications from a lot of smart and driven people, you can usually find a handful whose ideas stand head and shoulders above the rest. TL;DR it’s usually the research statement. Very few people can give a coherent account of an interesting problem, explain why they think this is a deep issue, and propose some reasonable approaches.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours?
RESPONSE A: Ohhhhh.... I like this one. I'm here for the stories, but let me grab a glass of wine or something.
RESPONSE B: They had a grant that paid for most of their starting salary for two years.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours?
RESPONSE A: Administrative pressure, sigh
RESPONSE B: They had a grant that paid for most of their starting salary for two years.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours?
RESPONSE A: Wasn't on the committee but when I was a candidate for a TT position at one of the schools where I adjunct, I was told by two separate people who were on the committee (although I can't imagine they were allowed to tell me this but they did) that the committee was divided over whether or not to hire me or someone else because I am a single Mom and several committee members didn't think a single Mom could handle a full time TT position. One of the people who voted against me was my Department Chair at the time (also a Mom). She asked me to stop by her office so she could be the one to tell me I wasn't chosen and why because she thought it would make me feel better to know that it wasn't *me* they didn't like. Narrator: It did not. ​ edited: typo
RESPONSE B: We interviewed and hired people in spite of them being waaay down the ranked list of initial candidates because they were local; their spouse worked in a much better job in our city and would definitely accept the offer because they had no other options. To be fair we made offers to other, higher ranked candidates first but they didn't accept because we don't pay them the going market rate in our field. We are desperate for faculty to teach classes as we've run out of capacity but their research potentials are very much in doubt.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours?
RESPONSE A: Wasn't on the committee but when I was a candidate for a TT position at one of the schools where I adjunct, I was told by two separate people who were on the committee (although I can't imagine they were allowed to tell me this but they did) that the committee was divided over whether or not to hire me or someone else because I am a single Mom and several committee members didn't think a single Mom could handle a full time TT position. One of the people who voted against me was my Department Chair at the time (also a Mom). She asked me to stop by her office so she could be the one to tell me I wasn't chosen and why because she thought it would make me feel better to know that it wasn't *me* they didn't like. Narrator: It did not. ​ edited: typo
RESPONSE B: Diversity. It’s both spoken and very much unspoken.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours?
RESPONSE A: Wasn't on the committee but when I was a candidate for a TT position at one of the schools where I adjunct, I was told by two separate people who were on the committee (although I can't imagine they were allowed to tell me this but they did) that the committee was divided over whether or not to hire me or someone else because I am a single Mom and several committee members didn't think a single Mom could handle a full time TT position. One of the people who voted against me was my Department Chair at the time (also a Mom). She asked me to stop by her office so she could be the one to tell me I wasn't chosen and why because she thought it would make me feel better to know that it wasn't *me* they didn't like. Narrator: It did not. ​ edited: typo
RESPONSE B: Availability. Having worked on a VERY related project. Being the “safe” and known choice. Straight number of pubs. The discussion is always enlightening.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: , or am I just seriously disillusioned/too cynical? TL;DR starting to feel like my entire field desperately needs to go touch grass and talk to people, is that normal?
RESPONSE A: I came from history now I'm doing a PhD in IR and I'm not a fan of the discipline, so I get your point! But if you want to go for it you gotta reframe some things for yourself. While most education programmes still assign the "Great Debates" from the 1990s, that's not at all representative of the type of stuff that gets published these days. Thank God we're not in the 1990s anymore.most people in practice work on mid range theory on a specific subject. Then it becomes a lot more concrete.But beyond the Great Douchebags they're also a ton of of amazing scholars - but I don't know what area you work on so I can't recommend much Have you read beyond the classic theoretical debates and looked into other approaches? Postcolonial IR, queer IR, critical IR, Foucault, poststructuralism, grams I, bourdieau, Latour, etc etc? Try to read broad and wildly and especially read stuff you're unfamiliar with and that's outside your comfort zone I get the sense that you're frustrated that people dress up their opinion as an IR theory? It drives mental too, but remind yourself that all science is ideological, as the sociology of scientific knowledge has shown us. Have you looked into qualitative methodologies too? Europeans are much more into qual while Americans love quant, if you're frustrated with the US empirical slant
RESPONSE B: I've always viewed this kind of academia vs real world as being like haute couture vs high street fashion. You're not supposed to wear haute couture it's an exercise in skill and creativity to the extreme. And although haute couture isn't meant to be worn it does influence what the next high street fashions will be. Academia is kind of the same, it's an exercise in itself but it does influence and trickle down to the real world in real and important, albeit in unpredictable, ways.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: it's grown rather than diminished, and I'm now actually worried whether or not I'll be able to put any conviction whatsoever in my master's thesis next year. Is this just a natural side effect of learning more about your field's theoretical frameworks and therefore being exposed to case studies where they *don't* work more, or am I just seriously disillusioned/too cynical? TL;DR starting to feel like my entire field desperately needs to go touch grass and talk to people, is that normal?
RESPONSE A: I'm not in IR, I'm an American and a historian trying to wrap up my dissertation, and while the theories and methodology we use make sense to me, I'm working on something rather obscure to Americans and I can't help but feel like it *doesn't mean anything* when I compare my work to Americanists whose subjects deal with the most politically charged debates of the day. I can't help but admire those who work on the American West, American South, and the Civil Rights Movement. That isn't to say that I don't love my topic--I work on French colonialism in North Africa--nor that it lacks continuing relevance in the Mediterranean, but it just *feels* unimportant from my vantage point, and that's ok. Knowing that I feel this way, my aim is to get a job outside of research when I finish it, whether in teaching or some other, non-academic field. I know that it's normal to feel this about our research and work, but it's not something that I can digest as easily as many other academics can.
RESPONSE B: I've always viewed this kind of academia vs real world as being like haute couture vs high street fashion. You're not supposed to wear haute couture it's an exercise in skill and creativity to the extreme. And although haute couture isn't meant to be worn it does influence what the next high street fashions will be. Academia is kind of the same, it's an exercise in itself but it does influence and trickle down to the real world in real and important, albeit in unpredictable, ways.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: , but only in the context of academic bickering about pointless minutae that do not matter outside the walls of the faculty - the more I've studied IR theories, the less my remarks of "we're a humanities field trying to masquerade as a hard science" and "if you open the dictionary to 'Ivory Tower Academia' you'll find a picture of our faculty" have become jokes. I know there's always going to be a difference between academic theory and practices in reality - you clearly *need* to perform abstractions when creating a theory, but several of the main theories in my field just feel like they fall apart at the first dose of being exposed to the outside. I've always had this feeling to some extent, but it's grown rather than diminished, and I'm now actually worried whether or not I'll be able to put any conviction whatsoever in my master's thesis next year. Is this just a natural side effect of learning more about your field's theoretical frameworks and therefore being exposed to case studies where they *don't* work more, or am I just seriously disillusioned/too cynical? TL;DR starting to feel like my entire field desperately needs to go touch grass and talk to people, is that normal?
RESPONSE A: I've always viewed this kind of academia vs real world as being like haute couture vs high street fashion. You're not supposed to wear haute couture it's an exercise in skill and creativity to the extreme. And although haute couture isn't meant to be worn it does influence what the next high street fashions will be. Academia is kind of the same, it's an exercise in itself but it does influence and trickle down to the real world in real and important, albeit in unpredictable, ways.
RESPONSE B: I think most in the field are probably aware and working towards creating better theories, or more predictable ones. Based on a theory, we can expect something to happen, but even a cancer doctor has to make the treatment based on the type of cancer, the body of the person, and cancer response to treatment. It is a human making decisions, not a theory.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: of our faculty" have become jokes. I know there's always going to be a difference between academic theory and practices in reality - you clearly *need* to perform abstractions when creating a theory, but several of the main theories in my field just feel like they fall apart at the first dose of being exposed to the outside. I've always had this feeling to some extent, but it's grown rather than diminished, and I'm now actually worried whether or not I'll be able to put any conviction whatsoever in my master's thesis next year. Is this just a natural side effect of learning more about your field's theoretical frameworks and therefore being exposed to case studies where they *don't* work more, or am I just seriously disillusioned/too cynical? TL;DR starting to feel like my entire field desperately needs to go touch grass and talk to people, is that normal?
RESPONSE A: I'm not in IR, I'm an American and a historian trying to wrap up my dissertation, and while the theories and methodology we use make sense to me, I'm working on something rather obscure to Americans and I can't help but feel like it *doesn't mean anything* when I compare my work to Americanists whose subjects deal with the most politically charged debates of the day. I can't help but admire those who work on the American West, American South, and the Civil Rights Movement. That isn't to say that I don't love my topic--I work on French colonialism in North Africa--nor that it lacks continuing relevance in the Mediterranean, but it just *feels* unimportant from my vantage point, and that's ok. Knowing that I feel this way, my aim is to get a job outside of research when I finish it, whether in teaching or some other, non-academic field. I know that it's normal to feel this about our research and work, but it's not something that I can digest as easily as many other academics can.
RESPONSE B: Well the main problem is IR, which is not only detached but also theoretically, methodologically, and normatively bankrupt lollll
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: from practical reality the more you study it? I know this might read as a trollish post, but I *promise* I'm serious. So, I'm currently halfway through my Adv. MSc. International Relations & Diplomacy, and while my undergrad was a Liberal Arts BA, that was also heavily IR-focused. Honestly? I love it, but only in the context of academic bickering about pointless minutae that do not matter outside the walls of the faculty - the more I've studied IR theories, the less my remarks of "we're a humanities field trying to masquerade as a hard science" and "if you open the dictionary to 'Ivory Tower Academia' you'll find a picture of our faculty" have become jokes. I know there's always going to be a difference between academic theory and practices in reality - you clearly *need* to perform abstractions when creating a theory, but several of the main theories in my field just feel like they fall apart at the first dose of being exposed to the outside. I've always had this feeling to some extent, but it's grown rather than diminished, and I'm now actually worried whether or not I'll be able to put any conviction whatsoever in my master's thesis next year. Is this just a natural side effect of learning more about your field's theoretical frameworks and therefore being exposed to case studies where they *don't* work more, or am I just seriously disillusioned/too cynical? TL;DR starting to feel like my entire field desperately needs to go touch grass and talk to people, is that normal?
RESPONSE A: I think most in the field are probably aware and working towards creating better theories, or more predictable ones. Based on a theory, we can expect something to happen, but even a cancer doctor has to make the treatment based on the type of cancer, the body of the person, and cancer response to treatment. It is a human making decisions, not a theory.
RESPONSE B: Well the main problem is IR, which is not only detached but also theoretically, methodologically, and normatively bankrupt lollll
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Just saw that the research paper I have been working on for a year is published by someone else. Whats should I do? I have been told to post on this subreddit. Looking for advice on what should be the best course of action and if any one ever faced this issue I would like to learn from their experience. I have been working on a project and hoping to publish a paper for more then a year. I have been often asking about advice regarding it on a fee subreddits because my uni professors did not had expertise in this field. As a result I made mistake of asking stranger in internet if they could go over my paper and review it since I could not get it reviewed from my uni. I shared the paper with 2 people via email but they are the not the one to publish. Today I saw someone has it published on Hindawi.com I am shocked and heartbroken. The paper contains images of my home. It mentions a custom dataset that I never made public and only reside with me. I have pushed this paper to a private github repo before it was submitted here. I also own the overleaf doc on which it was written and it contains history of it. I have also have history of conversation with a researcher on whose method it was inspired from. I planned to submit my paper to upcoming CVPR. What would be the best course of action for me to take it down and claim ownership? Thank you
RESPONSE A: Had something similar happen to a colleague. Being brief, your chances are slim. Do not ever share your research with anyone not involved, the academic community is usually not so morally inclined as some make it to be.
RESPONSE B: You should talk to your university's legal department. They might be able to help.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: still justified. If anyone has examples of successful campaigns to increase stipends, or relevant statistics or other readings, that would also be great. We don't have a student union but are currently recruiting as many students as we can to a Facebook group to share information and grievances, and hopefully organize some action in the future.
RESPONSE A: Others have gone into funding barriers, but let's not forget there is some toxic classism inherent in academia. A few years ago when I was still a postdoc, I was in a discussion about the pending unionization of postdocs and how they and the grad student union were fighting for increases in wages. It was disheartening and astounding to hear a postdoc in the department claim that "postdoc wages aren't meant to be self-sufficient" and go on about how we're trainees so we deserve to be paid less, the work is it's own reward, and how raising trainee salaries would "ruin" labs so we should all be willing to sacrifice for the greater good, etc. Then you have higher ups chiding us that "if you're looking for money, you shouldn't be in science." Never mind that we're not asking for six figures or anything outrageous, just enough that we're not constantly living paycheck to paycheck and on the verge of crisis when something unexpected happens. I'm constantly bumping into these attitudes more and more when I bring up things like paying undergraduates, increasing funding for grad students and postdocs, etc and it's infuriating.
RESPONSE B: As a reference: in Austria, where I did my PhD, PhD students are usually employed under a collective agreement contract as a "project assisstant", but officially only 30h / week. This still amounts to \~30k € (\~45k CAD) per year before tax/social insurance. So, luckily, fairly decent for PhD. In Austria we have very strong unions (in this case, not only for students, but for all university employees), which is why these collective agreements are possible. I don't know the situation in Canada, but I guess that similar agreements via unions (for university of public sector in general) would be ideal.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: n of good advice, and some requests for an update. Long story short, I "met" (remotely) with my PI and some muckety-mucks from my graduate program, and it was painfully awkward but ultimately fine. They had a "not angry, just disappointed" tone. Most of the meeting was logistics about how to recoup the lost money. It turns out I have some funds from a fellowship that I didn't realize could be used this way, and they made sure I had all the necessary permissions to get reimbursed that way. But each one of them made sure to remind me how important it is to maintain composure, to represent the program well, etc. They presented it like "just trying to help you out here" as if I had no idea that I had fucked up. But I just took the note and didn't argue with them. There was one more uncomfortable but nice(ish) coda to the whole situation. An even higher higher-up called me on the phone after the meeting. He said my email debacle had made its way to him. At first my stomach sank and I thought this was the moment they were going to actually reprimand me in some way. Instead, he said he had no idea I was going through so much, and asked if he could help. I nearly started crying but I just thanked him and tried to get off the phone as quickly as possibly. I know he meant it kindly but to be honest I just want the whole thing to go away and I felt even more embarrassed that it clearly was getting forwarded around. But it is nice to know there are some actual human beings running this show. Anyway, thanks for all the advice. Now to put this all behind me.
RESPONSE A: Now you know why that higher higher up has that job. Be sure to send him a nice note of thanks. And don’t be embarrassed to reach out for help. Good people help each other in times of need.
RESPONSE B: Glad to hear that you were able to recuperate the funds and that they were generally understanding. Remember you're still learning your way around academia, so hopefully you'll know how to better approach this kind of situation if it comes up in the future.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: UPDATE: LWIFU. How did I recover? (Translation: Last Week I Fucked Up.) I posted this last week and got a ton of good advice, and some requests for an update. Long story short, I "met" (remotely) with my PI and some muckety-mucks from my graduate program, and it was painfully awkward but ultimately fine. They had a "not angry, just disappointed" tone. Most of the meeting was logistics about how to recoup the lost money. It turns out I have some funds from a fellowship that I didn't realize could be used this way, and they made sure I had all the necessary permissions to get reimbursed that way. But each one of them made sure to remind me how important it is to maintain composure, to represent the program well, etc. They presented it like "just trying to help you out here" as if I had no idea that I had fucked up. But I just took the note and didn't argue with them. There was one more uncomfortable but nice(ish) coda to the whole situation. An even higher higher-up called me on the phone after the meeting. He said my email debacle had made its way to him. At first my stomach sank and I thought this was the moment they were going to actually reprimand me in some way. Instead, he said he had no idea I was going through so much, and asked if he could help. I nearly started crying but I just thanked him and tried to get off the phone as quickly as possibly. I know he meant it kindly but to be honest I just want the whole thing to go away and I felt even more embarrassed that it clearly was getting forwarded around. But it is nice to know there are some actual human beings running this show. Anyway, thanks for all the advice. Now to put this all behind me.
RESPONSE A: Now you know why that higher higher up has that job. Be sure to send him a nice note of thanks. And don’t be embarrassed to reach out for help. Good people help each other in times of need.
RESPONSE B: Glad it worked out. Thanks for the follow up.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: of the meeting was logistics about how to recoup the lost money. It turns out I have some funds from a fellowship that I didn't realize could be used this way, and they made sure I had all the necessary permissions to get reimbursed that way. But each one of them made sure to remind me how important it is to maintain composure, to represent the program well, etc. They presented it like "just trying to help you out here" as if I had no idea that I had fucked up. But I just took the note and didn't argue with them. There was one more uncomfortable but nice(ish) coda to the whole situation. An even higher higher-up called me on the phone after the meeting. He said my email debacle had made its way to him. At first my stomach sank and I thought this was the moment they were going to actually reprimand me in some way. Instead, he said he had no idea I was going through so much, and asked if he could help. I nearly started crying but I just thanked him and tried to get off the phone as quickly as possibly. I know he meant it kindly but to be honest I just want the whole thing to go away and I felt even more embarrassed that it clearly was getting forwarded around. But it is nice to know there are some actual human beings running this show. Anyway, thanks for all the advice. Now to put this all behind me.
RESPONSE A: Glad to hear that you were able to recuperate the funds and that they were generally understanding. Remember you're still learning your way around academia, so hopefully you'll know how to better approach this kind of situation if it comes up in the future.
RESPONSE B: Good for you. For what it's worth, the higher up is the only one who seems human. Are you I'm the US? This is such odd behaviour to me, maybe I'm just lucky but all the supervisors I've had would focus on the personal first and ensure your okay mentally before advising you gently on how to better conduct yourself in emails. Bottom of the priorities is how you represent the programme. You're human, you were grieving, for apologised, now forgive yourself and move on. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: if I had no idea that I had fucked up. But I just took the note and didn't argue with them. There was one more uncomfortable but nice(ish) coda to the whole situation. An even higher higher-up called me on the phone after the meeting. He said my email debacle had made its way to him. At first my stomach sank and I thought this was the moment they were going to actually reprimand me in some way. Instead, he said he had no idea I was going through so much, and asked if he could help. I nearly started crying but I just thanked him and tried to get off the phone as quickly as possibly. I know he meant it kindly but to be honest I just want the whole thing to go away and I felt even more embarrassed that it clearly was getting forwarded around. But it is nice to know there are some actual human beings running this show. Anyway, thanks for all the advice. Now to put this all behind me.
RESPONSE A: Quite frankly, the higher up is the only one who seems like a decent human being. I know you feel like you got off lightly but if I was your advisor my concerns would be (in order): 1. Your well-being. 2. Impressing on you the fact that you didn’t do anything wrong (even if it would be polite to pretend you did). 3. Dragging the conference chairs’ ass over hot coals. **They used a national disaster as an excuse to steal money from grad students.** I know you said that they had legalese to cover their asses, but all that means is that you can’t sue them. It definitely doesn’t mean you can’t drag their names all over the academic world. They used a national disaster as an excuse to steal money from grad students, and then used a moment of weakness to make the student they were stealing from feel like shit. They’re the bad guys in this story.
RESPONSE B: Glad to hear that you were able to recuperate the funds and that they were generally understanding. Remember you're still learning your way around academia, so hopefully you'll know how to better approach this kind of situation if it comes up in the future.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: . But each one of them made sure to remind me how important it is to maintain composure, to represent the program well, etc. They presented it like "just trying to help you out here" as if I had no idea that I had fucked up. But I just took the note and didn't argue with them. There was one more uncomfortable but nice(ish) coda to the whole situation. An even higher higher-up called me on the phone after the meeting. He said my email debacle had made its way to him. At first my stomach sank and I thought this was the moment they were going to actually reprimand me in some way. Instead, he said he had no idea I was going through so much, and asked if he could help. I nearly started crying but I just thanked him and tried to get off the phone as quickly as possibly. I know he meant it kindly but to be honest I just want the whole thing to go away and I felt even more embarrassed that it clearly was getting forwarded around. But it is nice to know there are some actual human beings running this show. Anyway, thanks for all the advice. Now to put this all behind me.
RESPONSE A: Glad it worked out. Thanks for the follow up.
RESPONSE B: Quite frankly, the higher up is the only one who seems like a decent human being. I know you feel like you got off lightly but if I was your advisor my concerns would be (in order): 1. Your well-being. 2. Impressing on you the fact that you didn’t do anything wrong (even if it would be polite to pretend you did). 3. Dragging the conference chairs’ ass over hot coals. **They used a national disaster as an excuse to steal money from grad students.** I know you said that they had legalese to cover their asses, but all that means is that you can’t sue them. It definitely doesn’t mean you can’t drag their names all over the academic world. They used a national disaster as an excuse to steal money from grad students, and then used a moment of weakness to make the student they were stealing from feel like shit. They’re the bad guys in this story.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: and never actually checked. Still, it hurts to not have even had the opportunity to interview, after all that time building an expertise on the subject. I've also been applying for any and every researcher or consultant role I can find, but I'm turned down at the first stage every time. To be honest, I'm starting to get really scared. It's been almost 12 months since I graduated and I don't feel like I'm any closer to a career. I spent six years in some truly awful conditions, sacrificing a lot to get my doctorate finished. The thing that kept me going the whole time was the idea that a PhD would be valuable, prestigious, and make it easier to find a job. Now I look at my testamur and I just want to burn it. It feels like all the suffering was meaningless and has no context. My self-worth, mental state and finances are rapidly deteriorating and I'm not sure what to do next. Is anyone able to give me some advice on leaving academia and finding a job?
RESPONSE A: Can you get someone who's familiar with hiring PhDs into non-academia jobs to review your CV and a sample of your cover letters? You'll need to include the job ads with the cover letters for review, because each cover letter needs to be tailored specifically to the job, especially if you're applying for things that aren't the 100% obvious next step for your career path. You talk about applying but not about networking. If you haven't already, I'd suggest you put some of this effort into finding out what professional associations or meetings are relevant to the people you want to work for and attend those. Ask them what they need from candidates in these roles. Lastly, if you haven't already, you should be looking up the people who currently do the kinds of jobs you're applying for. Check out their educational path and experience and see if you can spot something that you're missing.
RESPONSE B: Hey, I'm in the same boat right now. Don't have anything too helpful to say unfortunately, but hit me up if you want to practice consulting cases for the interviews. And try to post your CV to r/resumes for feedback.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Those of you who don't fit into the typical profile of someone in your area of study, have you had others show skepticism about your knowledge or abilities due to your age, race, gender, etc? One of my friends from undergraduate is a super bubbly blonde girly girl (think Reese Witherspoon from Legally Blonde) who also happened to graduate valedictorian in engineering and then went on to a top graduate school. She would get some funny reactions when telling people what she did for a living, but the neat thing about engineering is its objectivity: she could *prove* her competence. How about you?
RESPONSE A: I’m a formerly undocumented, later DACAmented, immigrant from El Salvador with a supremely unique first name. I’m also in a PhD in Economics, which rarely sees anyone from my country, let alone Central America, let alone with my immigration background. I have faced a lot of skepticism and prejudice before people find out what I do, but I carry myself well and try to teach them that stereotypes only make them look foolish.
RESPONSE B: I’m a (white, cis) woman in Computer Science. My favorite example: Toward the end of grad school, I was chatting with some male labmates at a multidisciplinary conference when a very friendly first year grad student from another university came to introduce himself. He was in one of the non-computational disciplines that fit the conference and was very excited to hear that my labmates were in CS and who their advisor was (never gave me a chance to introduce myself). He started asking them about a particular algorithm he’d heard of that might be useful for modeling his work. My labmates suggested something else might work better—at which point the student turned to me. “So XYZ algorithm is a computational technique...” I interrupted him, told him that I knew very well what that algorithm was, and finally introduced myself. He was clearly surprised and embarrassed. He may have even apologized. But that incident really made it clear to me that the default assumption would never be that I am an expert in my field.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: profile of someone in your area of study, have you had others show skepticism about your knowledge or abilities due to your age, race, gender, etc? One of my friends from undergraduate is a super bubbly blonde girly girl (think Reese Witherspoon from Legally Blonde) who also happened to graduate valedictorian in engineering and then went on to a top graduate school. She would get some funny reactions when telling people what she did for a living, but the neat thing about engineering is its objectivity: she could *prove* her competence. How about you?
RESPONSE A: Yes, I’m a mathematician. No, I’m not socially incompetent. Yes, I’m autistic. No, whatever it is that you’re thinking right now is wrong. Also, if you say the word “rain man” I might punch you. Yes, I’m very good at what I do. No, I’m not a savant and I’m not only good at mathematics because I have autism superpowers. I have these other superpowers called “hard work” “studiousness” and “intelligence.”
RESPONSE B: I’m a (white, cis) woman in Computer Science. My favorite example: Toward the end of grad school, I was chatting with some male labmates at a multidisciplinary conference when a very friendly first year grad student from another university came to introduce himself. He was in one of the non-computational disciplines that fit the conference and was very excited to hear that my labmates were in CS and who their advisor was (never gave me a chance to introduce myself). He started asking them about a particular algorithm he’d heard of that might be useful for modeling his work. My labmates suggested something else might work better—at which point the student turned to me. “So XYZ algorithm is a computational technique...” I interrupted him, told him that I knew very well what that algorithm was, and finally introduced myself. He was clearly surprised and embarrassed. He may have even apologized. But that incident really made it clear to me that the default assumption would never be that I am an expert in my field.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Those of you who don't fit into the typical profile of someone in your area of study, have you had others show skepticism about your knowledge or abilities due to your age, race, gender, etc? One of my friends from undergraduate is a super bubbly blonde girly girl (think Reese Witherspoon from Legally Blonde) who also happened to graduate valedictorian in engineering and then went on to a top graduate school. She would get some funny reactions when telling people what she did for a living, but the neat thing about engineering is its objectivity: she could *prove* her competence. How about you?
RESPONSE A: A atheist layperson told me I didn’t know anything about science because I am an orthodox Christian (I can’t remember what the initial discussion was). When I pointed out that I actually have a PhD in physics and have published papers in good journals he said he didn’t respect me as a scientist. Well, at least I *am* one.
RESPONSE B: I’m a (white, cis) woman in Computer Science. My favorite example: Toward the end of grad school, I was chatting with some male labmates at a multidisciplinary conference when a very friendly first year grad student from another university came to introduce himself. He was in one of the non-computational disciplines that fit the conference and was very excited to hear that my labmates were in CS and who their advisor was (never gave me a chance to introduce myself). He started asking them about a particular algorithm he’d heard of that might be useful for modeling his work. My labmates suggested something else might work better—at which point the student turned to me. “So XYZ algorithm is a computational technique...” I interrupted him, told him that I knew very well what that algorithm was, and finally introduced myself. He was clearly surprised and embarrassed. He may have even apologized. But that incident really made it clear to me that the default assumption would never be that I am an expert in my field.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Stock phrases to answer talk questions Just met with a graduate student who was concerned that a recent talk had been derailed by a persistent questioner. I told them that question management is a skill that develops over time, but also provided a few stock phrases that can be used to deflect questions when you don't have a good answer. Here are some of mine - any suggestions? * For interrupters: "I might address that later in the talk - could you ask me again at the end if I haven't answered the question by then?" * For repeated questioners who won't stop: "This is a really interesting exchange but just because we're short on time and I want to give others a chance to ask questions, can we talk about it afterwards?" * For people who offer dumb criticisms of your methods: "That's an interesting point, what would you have done differently?" * For questions that are nonsensical: "That's an interesting point, what are your thoughts?" * For questions that point out limitations: "That's something I've thought a lot. Although this study wasn't set up to address that comprehensively, it's something we're going to look at in future studies." For context, I'm in social psychology and do quantitative research.
RESPONSE A: I’ve had to use that last one quite a lot so far. Sometimes the comment is surprisingly insightful - even ended up collaborating with a group after discussing the matter after the session.
RESPONSE B: I like the idea of having some of them ready beforehand, and I have used the first two many times. The only difference is that I do not ask if we can talk about it later, I assert it. I generally allow clarification questions during my talks, but defer discussion questions to the end with something like, "That's a great question. I want to make sure I make it through my prepared material, but there should be time for some discussion at the end of my talk."
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Stock phrases to answer talk questions Just met with a graduate student who was concerned that a recent talk had been derailed by a persistent questioner. I told them that question management is a skill that develops over time, but also provided a few stock phrases that can be used to deflect questions when you don't have a good answer. Here are some of mine - any suggestions? * For interrupters: "I might address that later in the talk - could you ask me again at the end if I haven't answered the question by then?" * For repeated questioners who won't stop: "This is a really interesting exchange but just because we're short on time and I want to give others a chance to ask questions, can we talk about it afterwards?" * For people who offer dumb criticisms of your methods: "That's an interesting point, what would you have done differently?" * For questions that are nonsensical: "That's an interesting point, what are your thoughts?" * For questions that point out limitations: "That's something I've thought a lot. Although this study wasn't set up to address that comprehensively, it's something we're going to look at in future studies." For context, I'm in social psychology and do quantitative research.
RESPONSE A: This is why I like engineering conferences, as they always seem to have moderators. For interrupters, you don't have to say anything, you let the conference organizers skin them alive for the interruption.
RESPONSE B: Another strategy is to preemptively explain how you will deal with questions. Sometimes the person introducing the speaker will do that formally other times it's left up to the speaker to say something like "Today I'll be sharing some developments in Advanced Basket Weaving. My presentation will be about 15 minutes and then we'll have time for questions at the end. If you have clarification questions, please let me know, but other discussion we'll save for the after the presentation." \[or not include that last sentence\]
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Stock phrases to answer talk questions Just met with a graduate student who was concerned that a recent talk had been derailed by a persistent questioner. I told them that question management is a skill that develops over time, but also provided a few stock phrases that can be used to deflect questions when you don't have a good answer. Here are some of mine - any suggestions? * For interrupters: "I might address that later in the talk - could you ask me again at the end if I haven't answered the question by then?" * For repeated questioners who won't stop: "This is a really interesting exchange but just because we're short on time and I want to give others a chance to ask questions, can we talk about it afterwards?" * For people who offer dumb criticisms of your methods: "That's an interesting point, what would you have done differently?" * For questions that are nonsensical: "That's an interesting point, what are your thoughts?" * For questions that point out limitations: "That's something I've thought a lot. Although this study wasn't set up to address that comprehensively, it's something we're going to look at in future studies." For context, I'm in social psychology and do quantitative research.
RESPONSE A: Some advice I got early on as a grad student was the following. When someone asks you a completely stupid question, find some way to "misunderstand" it as a good question and answer that instead.
RESPONSE B: Another strategy is to preemptively explain how you will deal with questions. Sometimes the person introducing the speaker will do that formally other times it's left up to the speaker to say something like "Today I'll be sharing some developments in Advanced Basket Weaving. My presentation will be about 15 minutes and then we'll have time for questions at the end. If you have clarification questions, please let me know, but other discussion we'll save for the after the presentation." \[or not include that last sentence\]
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Stock phrases to answer talk questions Just met with a graduate student who was concerned that a recent talk had been derailed by a persistent questioner. I told them that question management is a skill that develops over time, but also provided a few stock phrases that can be used to deflect questions when you don't have a good answer. Here are some of mine - any suggestions? * For interrupters: "I might address that later in the talk - could you ask me again at the end if I haven't answered the question by then?" * For repeated questioners who won't stop: "This is a really interesting exchange but just because we're short on time and I want to give others a chance to ask questions, can we talk about it afterwards?" * For people who offer dumb criticisms of your methods: "That's an interesting point, what would you have done differently?" * For questions that are nonsensical: "That's an interesting point, what are your thoughts?" * For questions that point out limitations: "That's something I've thought a lot. Although this study wasn't set up to address that comprehensively, it's something we're going to look at in future studies." For context, I'm in social psychology and do quantitative research.
RESPONSE A: Here's the other thing. If someone is doing this to a speaker, esp. a junior speaker, tell them to STFU. Esp. if you're a senior academic.
RESPONSE B: Some advice I got early on as a grad student was the following. When someone asks you a completely stupid question, find some way to "misunderstand" it as a good question and answer that instead.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Stock phrases to answer talk questions Just met with a graduate student who was concerned that a recent talk had been derailed by a persistent questioner. I told them that question management is a skill that develops over time, but also provided a few stock phrases that can be used to deflect questions when you don't have a good answer. Here are some of mine - any suggestions? * For interrupters: "I might address that later in the talk - could you ask me again at the end if I haven't answered the question by then?" * For repeated questioners who won't stop: "This is a really interesting exchange but just because we're short on time and I want to give others a chance to ask questions, can we talk about it afterwards?" * For people who offer dumb criticisms of your methods: "That's an interesting point, what would you have done differently?" * For questions that are nonsensical: "That's an interesting point, what are your thoughts?" * For questions that point out limitations: "That's something I've thought a lot. Although this study wasn't set up to address that comprehensively, it's something we're going to look at in future studies." For context, I'm in social psychology and do quantitative research.
RESPONSE A: Some advice I got early on as a grad student was the following. When someone asks you a completely stupid question, find some way to "misunderstand" it as a good question and answer that instead.
RESPONSE B: I certainly agree that asking or suggesting that they discuss with you after the talk can be a good idea if the questioner is persistent, or the answer genuinely requires a long technical explanation. But I do find it rather annoying when some speakers immediate response to an interesting question is to discuss it after the talk. That's all well and good but I also wanted to know the answer. It sometimes seems to be prepared as a stock response to avoid embarassment.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: couldn’t answer a question a student had (I did answer it later though). I found out the topic yesterday so I didn’t have enough time to prepare. I’m not sure how to deal with this. This was their first impression of me and I’m a little worried that I’ll make things worse for them. Was anyone ever in a similar situation? How do I recover from this?
RESPONSE A: Own it. Don't marinade in it. It happens. Rolling into the next class with some version of "Full disclosure guys, I don't know what you thought but I felt like last class was rough. That's not my usual style. Here's how today is going to go differently ... " Praise them for asking good questions that stumped you. That means their listening and thinking critically. Don't make excuses or ask for forgiveness but take some reasonable steps to do better using your personal strengths. If they ask a question and I don't know the answer, I tell them it's a great question and ask if anyone else in the class knows. If not, I joke "me neither - haha! Let's find out. Who can search up the answer fastest?" Edit: now that a re-read your post Idk. Opening the door for possibility while maybe not your ideal lecture, it wasn't as bad as it seems? We're often our own worst critic, especially when we're nervous and being observed. None of what you've described sounds terrible. You didn't insult anyone or make them cry ... Ive had professors do that and still recover. This will be okay for you too.
RESPONSE B: I don't think that's very representative of most first experiences, I started giving short guest lectures in my supervisors classes, then doing seminars discussing their lectures, then later my own lectures on content I had made myself; that way is a much more smooth transition. So don't take it as a bad sign for the future, just be honest about your experience with whoever assigned you to teach something you didn't know so it doesn't happen again. It might be harder to build up relationship with students again, but you still have the whole semester to do so. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Conducted my first lecture today. It did not go well I’m a TA and this term I am conducting classes for one of the intro lectures for first years. It’s like a general knowledge module on my country (so we cover history, econ, politics etc). I had my first independent lecture today on a topic I’m not familiar with at all. And it was so bad. I couldn’t pronounce a few names (it was on the origin of our language), my explanations were all over the place and I couldn’t answer a question a student had (I did answer it later though). I found out the topic yesterday so I didn’t have enough time to prepare. I’m not sure how to deal with this. This was their first impression of me and I’m a little worried that I’ll make things worse for them. Was anyone ever in a similar situation? How do I recover from this?
RESPONSE A: Hopefully this is reassuring. I remember being a student when what you described happened to an T.A. (I'm sure everyone else forgot it, but it was a field I was thinking of going into and I wanted to know what the heck a first job looked like.) I thought "Wow, I feel kinda bad for them." And then two days later they got up again, did fine, and they became one of my favorite people to learn from. So the first impression doesn't stick. Students'll remember how well you went on to do.
RESPONSE B: Honestly: no one will remember. one lecture over the course of an academic year? they hear literally hundreds of lectures, it all blurs together. they won't have any recall of it in two weeks. Just be better moving forward.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: well I’m a TA and this term I am conducting classes for one of the intro lectures for first years. It’s like a general knowledge module on my country (so we cover history, econ, politics etc). I had my first independent lecture today on a topic I’m not familiar with at all. And it was so bad. I couldn’t pronounce a few names (it was on the origin of our language), my explanations were all over the place and I couldn’t answer a question a student had (I did answer it later though). I found out the topic yesterday so I didn’t have enough time to prepare. I’m not sure how to deal with this. This was their first impression of me and I’m a little worried that I’ll make things worse for them. Was anyone ever in a similar situation? How do I recover from this?
RESPONSE A: As my professor said to me when I first started teaching (with 11 days notice, 4 classes, I had never taught before), "you only have to be one chapter ahead of the students". I gave a lecture once somewhere in my 3rd year of teaching and realized that it made no chronological or thematic sense. I made a mental note to fix it for next time and then a few years later *gave the same lecture without the corrections*. I also gave a lecture at the beginning of the semester, and realised halfway through that I had lost them (the curse of teaching non-history majors!) and the class was an absolute nightmare for the entire semester, so you just have to soldier on. Sometimes you are Principle Skinner, sometimes it's the kids.
RESPONSE B: Hopefully this is reassuring. I remember being a student when what you described happened to an T.A. (I'm sure everyone else forgot it, but it was a field I was thinking of going into and I wanted to know what the heck a first job looked like.) I thought "Wow, I feel kinda bad for them." And then two days later they got up again, did fine, and they became one of my favorite people to learn from. So the first impression doesn't stick. Students'll remember how well you went on to do.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Conducted my first lecture today. It did not go well I’m a TA and this term I am conducting classes for one of the intro lectures for first years. It’s like a general knowledge module on my country (so we cover history, econ, politics etc). I had my first independent lecture today on a topic I’m not familiar with at all. And it was so bad. I couldn’t pronounce a few names (it was on the origin of our language), my explanations were all over the place and I couldn’t answer a question a student had (I did answer it later though). I found out the topic yesterday so I didn’t have enough time to prepare. I’m not sure how to deal with this. This was their first impression of me and I’m a little worried that I’ll make things worse for them. Was anyone ever in a similar situation? How do I recover from this?
RESPONSE A: It happens. Reflect on what you could do differently or something that would have helped given the circumstances. Remember that and do a little better next time. Your first lecture is a starting point, not representative of your ability as a lecturer.
RESPONSE B: Hopefully this is reassuring. I remember being a student when what you described happened to an T.A. (I'm sure everyone else forgot it, but it was a field I was thinking of going into and I wanted to know what the heck a first job looked like.) I thought "Wow, I feel kinda bad for them." And then two days later they got up again, did fine, and they became one of my favorite people to learn from. So the first impression doesn't stick. Students'll remember how well you went on to do.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: - I am good at what I do..I've published in top journals, won many awards, and this prestigious postdoc fellowship - but I've come to realize that I am appalled by the sloth and inconsistency with which I approach it. I feel ashamed of talking about this with anyone else. I feel like I'm in 30s (and not an undergrad) and I should have figured out this by now. I get so queasy thinking..if I were in a tenure tracked job as an assistant professor and continued with these habits, that would be simply be awful! I'm just wondering if anyone has had a similar experience and how they turned it around. More importantly, how they remained consistent about it.
RESPONSE A: "other 30 year olds in other fields working their ass of 10 -12hours a day for a living, with a serious work ethic" This is an unrealistic expectation of work ethic. Academia sets us up for outrageous burnout. The fact that you are 'cycling' in your ability to focus is actually a symptom of chronic burnout. I have moved from academia to industry, and am noticing a stark difference in the way people protect their off-work time. I work 7.5 hours a day, monday to friday, no more, no less (and if more, claim overtime) and am far more effective day after day than I was in academia pulling 12-16 hr days. As is a constant theme in these subreddits and I'm sure you know - A lot of aspects of academia are extremely toxic. I think a way to 'turn it around' is to realize that the expectations are unreasonable and that it's okay if it doesn't work for you. Work for a few isolated hours a day. Build those up if you can. If you can't but are still productive, that's fine. Lower the bar to something reasonable for you, because you are your own worst critic.
RESPONSE B: Why does it matter if others work more hours than you? As long as you're getting your shit done, the "work ethic" isn't an issue. Hell, your work ethic sounds much healthier.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Don't get me wrong - I am good at what I do..I've published in top journals, won many awards, and this prestigious postdoc fellowship - but I've come to realize that I am appalled by the sloth and inconsistency with which I approach it. I feel ashamed of talking about this with anyone else. I feel like I'm in 30s (and not an undergrad) and I should have figured out this by now. I get so queasy thinking..if I were in a tenure tracked job as an assistant professor and continued with these habits, that would be simply be awful! I'm just wondering if anyone has had a similar experience and how they turned it around. More importantly, how they remained consistent about it.
RESPONSE A: Sounds a bit like me. I was recently diagnosed with ADHD which probably at least partially explains my productivity problems. I have found I need external deadlines and accountability to keep me on track.
RESPONSE B: "other 30 year olds in other fields working their ass of 10 -12hours a day for a living, with a serious work ethic" This is an unrealistic expectation of work ethic. Academia sets us up for outrageous burnout. The fact that you are 'cycling' in your ability to focus is actually a symptom of chronic burnout. I have moved from academia to industry, and am noticing a stark difference in the way people protect their off-work time. I work 7.5 hours a day, monday to friday, no more, no less (and if more, claim overtime) and am far more effective day after day than I was in academia pulling 12-16 hr days. As is a constant theme in these subreddits and I'm sure you know - A lot of aspects of academia are extremely toxic. I think a way to 'turn it around' is to realize that the expectations are unreasonable and that it's okay if it doesn't work for you. Work for a few isolated hours a day. Build those up if you can. If you can't but are still productive, that's fine. Lower the bar to something reasonable for you, because you are your own worst critic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: be simply be awful! I'm just wondering if anyone has had a similar experience and how they turned it around. More importantly, how they remained consistent about it.
RESPONSE A: I’m here to tell you I do struggle with the same things. When I work “full-on” I feel like I’m a beast. Great presentations, reports what not. And then there are days that are so slow I want to do nothing but binge watch or scroll through Reddit. My husband is a workaholic constantly powering through but he is on the verge of a serious breakdown if he doesn’t stop. So I’m not sure which is worse, to be honest. I have noticed, I work better with white noise in the background, taking regular breaks & accepting that there are certain days of the month that I’m going to be “hazy”. It does coincide with my PMS dates and I’m trying to make my peace with that.
RESPONSE B: "other 30 year olds in other fields working their ass of 10 -12hours a day for a living, with a serious work ethic" This is an unrealistic expectation of work ethic. Academia sets us up for outrageous burnout. The fact that you are 'cycling' in your ability to focus is actually a symptom of chronic burnout. I have moved from academia to industry, and am noticing a stark difference in the way people protect their off-work time. I work 7.5 hours a day, monday to friday, no more, no less (and if more, claim overtime) and am far more effective day after day than I was in academia pulling 12-16 hr days. As is a constant theme in these subreddits and I'm sure you know - A lot of aspects of academia are extremely toxic. I think a way to 'turn it around' is to realize that the expectations are unreasonable and that it's okay if it doesn't work for you. Work for a few isolated hours a day. Build those up if you can. If you can't but are still productive, that's fine. Lower the bar to something reasonable for you, because you are your own worst critic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: alled by the sloth and inconsistency with which I approach it. I feel ashamed of talking about this with anyone else. I feel like I'm in 30s (and not an undergrad) and I should have figured out this by now. I get so queasy thinking..if I were in a tenure tracked job as an assistant professor and continued with these habits, that would be simply be awful! I'm just wondering if anyone has had a similar experience and how they turned it around. More importantly, how they remained consistent about it.
RESPONSE A: "other 30 year olds in other fields working their ass of 10 -12hours a day for a living, with a serious work ethic" This is an unrealistic expectation of work ethic. Academia sets us up for outrageous burnout. The fact that you are 'cycling' in your ability to focus is actually a symptom of chronic burnout. I have moved from academia to industry, and am noticing a stark difference in the way people protect their off-work time. I work 7.5 hours a day, monday to friday, no more, no less (and if more, claim overtime) and am far more effective day after day than I was in academia pulling 12-16 hr days. As is a constant theme in these subreddits and I'm sure you know - A lot of aspects of academia are extremely toxic. I think a way to 'turn it around' is to realize that the expectations are unreasonable and that it's okay if it doesn't work for you. Work for a few isolated hours a day. Build those up if you can. If you can't but are still productive, that's fine. Lower the bar to something reasonable for you, because you are your own worst critic.
RESPONSE B: Hey have you considered PMDD? It is very common for mensturating women to go through changes in motivation, energy throughout their cycle and it can be quiet drastic for women with PMDD. I find it very hard to stay focused or exert energy in the 7-10 days before my period and even my cognitive skills drop a few notches during this time. Often resorting to low energy activities like scrolling the internet etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: this is goddamn real job with real money. It's hitting me that there are other 30 year olds in other fields working their ass of 10 -12hours a day for a living, with a serious work ethic. I guess part of being an academic is that you set your own milestones and there is a very little accountability to others. Everyone in my work place kinda works remotely (theoretical astrophysics) and so I don't have a community around me. I am not lonely. I am currently staying with parents (Asian fam here), eat well and excercise regularly. Yet, this last 10 days, when I go back to my computer I have found every excuse to not work (even with all SM blocked). I am sitting here feeling so alarmed because I realize this is an unhealthy work ethic. Don't get me wrong - I am good at what I do..I've published in top journals, won many awards, and this prestigious postdoc fellowship - but I've come to realize that I am appalled by the sloth and inconsistency with which I approach it. I feel ashamed of talking about this with anyone else. I feel like I'm in 30s (and not an undergrad) and I should have figured out this by now. I get so queasy thinking..if I were in a tenure tracked job as an assistant professor and continued with these habits, that would be simply be awful! I'm just wondering if anyone has had a similar experience and how they turned it around. More importantly, how they remained consistent about it.
RESPONSE A: Sounds a bit like me. I was recently diagnosed with ADHD which probably at least partially explains my productivity problems. I have found I need external deadlines and accountability to keep me on track.
RESPONSE B: Hey have you considered PMDD? It is very common for mensturating women to go through changes in motivation, energy throughout their cycle and it can be quiet drastic for women with PMDD. I find it very hard to stay focused or exert energy in the 7-10 days before my period and even my cognitive skills drop a few notches during this time. Often resorting to low energy activities like scrolling the internet etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do you ever feel "reviewer's guilt"? Recently reviewed a paper and couldn't help but give it a very critical review with a recommendation to the editor to reject. I gave a very detailed review with both specific and general comments, and tried to write something constructive. I can't help but empathize with the writer. Probably a PhD student trying to get published, worked hard and did what his advisor suggested and likely poured his guts in to it. I couldn't suggest to accept it but I can't help feeling guilty for "being mean" to the authors and ruining their day/week/month. Anyone else feel this? How do you deal with it?
RESPONSE A: I am the student you speak of. As long as there is feedback I can use please don't feel guilty. Obviosuly publishing is the best outcome for me, but having someone read your paper, actually care and provide feedback is a good 2nd.
RESPONSE B: Maybe inspect your review for tone and see if you really are being “mean,” or just responding to a lot of things that need work. There are constructive ways to say pretty much everything, and knowing how to frame things is important. If you think that article is written by a grad student, well, would you say those same things in a meeting with your own student? It’s not that you have to be nice exactly, but people are more likely to take constructive feedback. if you truly want to help them make the manuscript better, being constructive is more likely to do that. The anonymity of the peer review process turns some people into total assholes, saying things they’d never say to a colleague. You can get away with it, of course, but there’s a higher road than taking out personal frustrations via peer review.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you ever feel "reviewer's guilt"? Recently reviewed a paper and couldn't help but give it a very critical review with a recommendation to the editor to reject. I gave a very detailed review with both specific and general comments, and tried to write something constructive. I can't help but empathize with the writer. Probably a PhD student trying to get published, worked hard and did what his advisor suggested and likely poured his guts in to it. I couldn't suggest to accept it but I can't help feeling guilty for "being mean" to the authors and ruining their day/week/month. Anyone else feel this? How do you deal with it?
RESPONSE A: I often feel guilt for not understanding a paper well enough or not having spent enough time on a paper to give it a very helpful review. Most of the time I still recommend acceptance or if not, then I give the authors the opportunity to resubmit their work. This probably does not apply to you, but perhaps it can help. I have a mental health condition (OCD) that makes me prone to guilt. I sometimes tell myself this and remind myself that the guilt is not real. Of course, it is not possible to be 100% certain if guilt is warranted or not. The idea is to accept that uncertainty and do/think about something else in the present moment
RESPONSE B: I am the student you speak of. As long as there is feedback I can use please don't feel guilty. Obviosuly publishing is the best outcome for me, but having someone read your paper, actually care and provide feedback is a good 2nd.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you ever feel "reviewer's guilt"? Recently reviewed a paper and couldn't help but give it a very critical review with a recommendation to the editor to reject. I gave a very detailed review with both specific and general comments, and tried to write something constructive. I can't help but empathize with the writer. Probably a PhD student trying to get published, worked hard and did what his advisor suggested and likely poured his guts in to it. I couldn't suggest to accept it but I can't help feeling guilty for "being mean" to the authors and ruining their day/week/month. Anyone else feel this? How do you deal with it?
RESPONSE A: The way I see it, you're providing a great service to others and society by doing your work this way.
RESPONSE B: I am the student you speak of. As long as there is feedback I can use please don't feel guilty. Obviosuly publishing is the best outcome for me, but having someone read your paper, actually care and provide feedback is a good 2nd.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do you ever feel "reviewer's guilt"? Recently reviewed a paper and couldn't help but give it a very critical review with a recommendation to the editor to reject. I gave a very detailed review with both specific and general comments, and tried to write something constructive. I can't help but empathize with the writer. Probably a PhD student trying to get published, worked hard and did what his advisor suggested and likely poured his guts in to it. I couldn't suggest to accept it but I can't help feeling guilty for "being mean" to the authors and ruining their day/week/month. Anyone else feel this? How do you deal with it?
RESPONSE A: Your main objective as a reviewer is to help authors to enhance the paper. If you provide constructive feedback and suggest ways of improving it then there is nothing really to feel guilty about. You should feel that you have provided help. Just avoid comments such as "the paper does not meet the quality standards of this journal" or similar :) That would be perceived as mean especially coming from an anonymous reviewer.
RESPONSE B: Maybe inspect your review for tone and see if you really are being “mean,” or just responding to a lot of things that need work. There are constructive ways to say pretty much everything, and knowing how to frame things is important. If you think that article is written by a grad student, well, would you say those same things in a meeting with your own student? It’s not that you have to be nice exactly, but people are more likely to take constructive feedback. if you truly want to help them make the manuscript better, being constructive is more likely to do that. The anonymity of the peer review process turns some people into total assholes, saying things they’d never say to a colleague. You can get away with it, of course, but there’s a higher road than taking out personal frustrations via peer review.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you ever feel "reviewer's guilt"? Recently reviewed a paper and couldn't help but give it a very critical review with a recommendation to the editor to reject. I gave a very detailed review with both specific and general comments, and tried to write something constructive. I can't help but empathize with the writer. Probably a PhD student trying to get published, worked hard and did what his advisor suggested and likely poured his guts in to it. I couldn't suggest to accept it but I can't help feeling guilty for "being mean" to the authors and ruining their day/week/month. Anyone else feel this? How do you deal with it?
RESPONSE A: I often feel guilt for not understanding a paper well enough or not having spent enough time on a paper to give it a very helpful review. Most of the time I still recommend acceptance or if not, then I give the authors the opportunity to resubmit their work. This probably does not apply to you, but perhaps it can help. I have a mental health condition (OCD) that makes me prone to guilt. I sometimes tell myself this and remind myself that the guilt is not real. Of course, it is not possible to be 100% certain if guilt is warranted or not. The idea is to accept that uncertainty and do/think about something else in the present moment
RESPONSE B: Your main objective as a reviewer is to help authors to enhance the paper. If you provide constructive feedback and suggest ways of improving it then there is nothing really to feel guilty about. You should feel that you have provided help. Just avoid comments such as "the paper does not meet the quality standards of this journal" or similar :) That would be perceived as mean especially coming from an anonymous reviewer.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: oldest, 2 post-docs, and my advisor - working on a multi-institution project. We're the only group in the collaboration responsible for our component, and it's pretty mission-critical. I am, to put it bluntly, terrified. The most experienced post-doc, who helms the group when our advisor isn't available and holds a major leadership role in the collaboration, is in a tenuous position w.r.t. their visa. The other post-doc will leave for industry if our advisor passes. Neither of the other grad students have finished their qual or formed an advisory committee, the youngest barely has her project started. No one else at my institution can support me staying on this project - I'd have to transfer to another group/institution on our collaboration to have a prayer of finishing my degree, and if our post-doc leaves for industry it *still* may not be possible. This man took a risk on me no one else was willing to take. He's a second father to me. I have never been so scared, I have no idea what I'm doing, I desperately need *any* kind of advice. How do I support the younger grad students? How do I navigate our funding? What do I say to collaboration leadership (who are all in the dark)? How would I even approach an advisor at another institution about picking up the pieces of our shattered little team? Please help me, I feel like I'm drowning.
RESPONSE A: Your advisor should be working on ensuring that all of you will finish. Yes, he has a lot on his plate but if he is an experienced mentor you all are the first thoughts after his family. That said...4th year? Get writing man. I had one of my committee die suddenly and 2 of the remaining 3 were in their 60s. Put the fear of God into me and I holed up and wrote my thesis in 3 weeks after not having been in any hurry for the past 3 years.
RESPONSE B: This happened recently in my field. I’m assuming your professor is reasonably well established. Reach out to former students of your professor who are now faculty themselves: you might be surprised by the amount of support you may receive from them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: if our advisor passes. Neither of the other grad students have finished their qual or formed an advisory committee, the youngest barely has her project started. No one else at my institution can support me staying on this project - I'd have to transfer to another group/institution on our collaboration to have a prayer of finishing my degree, and if our post-doc leaves for industry it *still* may not be possible. This man took a risk on me no one else was willing to take. He's a second father to me. I have never been so scared, I have no idea what I'm doing, I desperately need *any* kind of advice. How do I support the younger grad students? How do I navigate our funding? What do I say to collaboration leadership (who are all in the dark)? How would I even approach an advisor at another institution about picking up the pieces of our shattered little team? Please help me, I feel like I'm drowning.
RESPONSE A: I'm sorry you are going through this. Has the Director of the graduate program contacted you? They will likely have a plan in mind for you and the other graduate students. Since you are further along, its possible you can finish your current project while being mentored by another group (weekly meetings with PI and attending lab meetings). I have seen this sort of arrangement happen in the past. Given the other graduate students are early on, they are more likely than not starting over in another lab. You can support them by being there, encouraging them, and perhaps suggesting some labs they could pivot to, if that is what they want. But, its the graduate program administration's job to support the students. They should take care of it. Deep breaths!! It's not your responsibility to figure out funding, or how to break the news to collaborators. The department chair and perhaps the postdocs will take care of these things. I am trully sorry you are going through this- this is just brutal to read. Just know you are not alone!
RESPONSE B: This happened recently in my field. I’m assuming your professor is reasonably well established. Reach out to former students of your professor who are now faculty themselves: you might be surprised by the amount of support you may receive from them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Neither of the other grad students have finished their qual or formed an advisory committee, the youngest barely has her project started. No one else at my institution can support me staying on this project - I'd have to transfer to another group/institution on our collaboration to have a prayer of finishing my degree, and if our post-doc leaves for industry it *still* may not be possible. This man took a risk on me no one else was willing to take. He's a second father to me. I have never been so scared, I have no idea what I'm doing, I desperately need *any* kind of advice. How do I support the younger grad students? How do I navigate our funding? What do I say to collaboration leadership (who are all in the dark)? How would I even approach an advisor at another institution about picking up the pieces of our shattered little team? Please help me, I feel like I'm drowning.
RESPONSE A: As a 4th year, you *should* be able to complete your PhD at that university given these circumstances. The younger students, especially the one that has barely started, may not be able to complete at all. In their cases, (particularly the newer of the two students), they'll likely need to start over or maybe continue what they've started under the guidance of another advisor. Basically, once you're far enough along in a PhD program, even if your advisor dies/leaves/quits, you can often get some grace provided to you from your department and allow you to finish. If you're relatively new to a PhD program (haven't completed quals in particular), you're more likely to have to restart in a new lab.
RESPONSE B: Your advisor should be working on ensuring that all of you will finish. Yes, he has a lot on his plate but if he is an experienced mentor you all are the first thoughts after his family. That said...4th year? Get writing man. I had one of my committee die suddenly and 2 of the remaining 3 were in their 60s. Put the fear of God into me and I holed up and wrote my thesis in 3 weeks after not having been in any hurry for the past 3 years.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: scared, I have no idea what I'm doing, I desperately need *any* kind of advice. How do I support the younger grad students? How do I navigate our funding? What do I say to collaboration leadership (who are all in the dark)? How would I even approach an advisor at another institution about picking up the pieces of our shattered little team? Please help me, I feel like I'm drowning.
RESPONSE A: As a 4th year, you *should* be able to complete your PhD at that university given these circumstances. The younger students, especially the one that has barely started, may not be able to complete at all. In their cases, (particularly the newer of the two students), they'll likely need to start over or maybe continue what they've started under the guidance of another advisor. Basically, once you're far enough along in a PhD program, even if your advisor dies/leaves/quits, you can often get some grace provided to you from your department and allow you to finish. If you're relatively new to a PhD program (haven't completed quals in particular), you're more likely to have to restart in a new lab.
RESPONSE B: I'm sorry you are going through this. Has the Director of the graduate program contacted you? They will likely have a plan in mind for you and the other graduate students. Since you are further along, its possible you can finish your current project while being mentored by another group (weekly meetings with PI and attending lab meetings). I have seen this sort of arrangement happen in the past. Given the other graduate students are early on, they are more likely than not starting over in another lab. You can support them by being there, encouraging them, and perhaps suggesting some labs they could pivot to, if that is what they want. But, its the graduate program administration's job to support the students. They should take care of it. Deep breaths!! It's not your responsibility to figure out funding, or how to break the news to collaborators. The department chair and perhaps the postdocs will take care of these things. I am trully sorry you are going through this- this is just brutal to read. Just know you are not alone!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: in a tiny research center. My advisor is super catholic and Russian and a lot of the people I work with are also pretty religious. I'm only a year away from graduating and am thinking that I should just suck it up and then leave this bad situation when I get my degree. However, I also feel like such a coward for not being able to speak up about this and having to pretend that everything is great when I am literally fantasizing about leaving the field I am in to be around more accepting researchers. **What do you think Reddit? Has anyone dealt with a similar situation and what did you do?**
RESPONSE A: You shouldn’t do this alone, look for two other people you are sure will support you. Also, if they behave like this toward gays they are likely also racist and sexist so talk to the women and colored and see if it’s something systemic and then start gathering evidence, record them. Forget about the NSF, send this to the media and then share it here and we will all go up in arms online to criticize the center, and we will demand that its head step down since he has enabled a climate of fear and abuse to flourish. Just an idea :)
RESPONSE B: I am an older lesbian working in higher education admin. Here's my take:its not you responsibility to tank your life o er this situation. Survival is key. If it were me, I would probably tough it out while building a case to submit to the institution and government agency after I left. I mean daily documentation of dates and times and actors and passive observers of each incident in the notes in my phone that I would transcribe to a document. Then the hot second I either found a better environment or finished and left off it would go to both of those entities. I'd also find out how to get representation through the aclu and or glaad or whomever. Then I'd go on about my damn life and let those folks Duke it out. At that point you have essentially provided a dossier and insulated yourself from repercussion. But again. You are under no obligation to take any action which threatens your safety or well being if it goes against who you are to do so.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: center. My advisor is super catholic and Russian and a lot of the people I work with are also pretty religious. I'm only a year away from graduating and am thinking that I should just suck it up and then leave this bad situation when I get my degree. However, I also feel like such a coward for not being able to speak up about this and having to pretend that everything is great when I am literally fantasizing about leaving the field I am in to be around more accepting researchers. **What do you think Reddit? Has anyone dealt with a similar situation and what did you do?**
RESPONSE A: Does your Center have an anonymous suggestion ox? Is there someone (like head of outreach) you feel comfortable speaking with? Without bringing this up to someone in the Center first, and bringing this to external evaluators before anyone else in the Center may, sadly, cause you a lot of (undeserved) continued or worsened discomfort (ex. External evaluation presents anonymous findings, everyone is taken aback, you sit there silent, knowing it’s true, but worried you will be found out, and you feel some (undeserved) blame for the negative impression of your Center and source of funding)
RESPONSE B: I am an older lesbian working in higher education admin. Here's my take:its not you responsibility to tank your life o er this situation. Survival is key. If it were me, I would probably tough it out while building a case to submit to the institution and government agency after I left. I mean daily documentation of dates and times and actors and passive observers of each incident in the notes in my phone that I would transcribe to a document. Then the hot second I either found a better environment or finished and left off it would go to both of those entities. I'd also find out how to get representation through the aclu and or glaad or whomever. Then I'd go on about my damn life and let those folks Duke it out. At that point you have essentially provided a dossier and insulated yourself from repercussion. But again. You are under no obligation to take any action which threatens your safety or well being if it goes against who you are to do so.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: everything is great when I am literally fantasizing about leaving the field I am in to be around more accepting researchers. **What do you think Reddit? Has anyone dealt with a similar situation and what did you do?**
RESPONSE A: I am an older lesbian working in higher education admin. Here's my take:its not you responsibility to tank your life o er this situation. Survival is key. If it were me, I would probably tough it out while building a case to submit to the institution and government agency after I left. I mean daily documentation of dates and times and actors and passive observers of each incident in the notes in my phone that I would transcribe to a document. Then the hot second I either found a better environment or finished and left off it would go to both of those entities. I'd also find out how to get representation through the aclu and or glaad or whomever. Then I'd go on about my damn life and let those folks Duke it out. At that point you have essentially provided a dossier and insulated yourself from repercussion. But again. You are under no obligation to take any action which threatens your safety or well being if it goes against who you are to do so.
RESPONSE B: Hey just wanted to say I'm really sorry this is happening to you and not all academia is like this. I'm bi and my department has 2 other gay men and used to have a bi woman adjunct married to a woman. My school even has a "queer faculty and staff caucus" where we get together (well, over zoom now) and hang out with other queer faculty/staff. One thing I love about academia is that I can be myself after growing up super religious so it makes me so sad to hear this. I like the suggestion of reporting witnessing harassment and not saying it was you. But if you have less than a year to go I might stay quiet and report it on my way out personally. I don't think either is the wrong decision and it is fine to work in your best interest even if you don't save your whole center from homophobia in the future...that is not actually your job. There is a a great group on facebook called Queer PHD network.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: could be seen by the administrators as me sabotaging the center's funding, but I am mainly concerned about what would happen if people in my home lab learn that I am gay from the report. They don't know about me, but if people hear about someone complaining in the center then it wouldn't be hard to find out who it is since I'm the only gay one in a tiny research center. My advisor is super catholic and Russian and a lot of the people I work with are also pretty religious. I'm only a year away from graduating and am thinking that I should just suck it up and then leave this bad situation when I get my degree. However, I also feel like such a coward for not being able to speak up about this and having to pretend that everything is great when I am literally fantasizing about leaving the field I am in to be around more accepting researchers. **What do you think Reddit? Has anyone dealt with a similar situation and what did you do?**
RESPONSE A: Your center has a diversity office and/ or a title IX office ( whomever deals with such things in your school). And HR. They are the ones that need to know and can implement change.
RESPONSE B: I am an older lesbian working in higher education admin. Here's my take:its not you responsibility to tank your life o er this situation. Survival is key. If it were me, I would probably tough it out while building a case to submit to the institution and government agency after I left. I mean daily documentation of dates and times and actors and passive observers of each incident in the notes in my phone that I would transcribe to a document. Then the hot second I either found a better environment or finished and left off it would go to both of those entities. I'd also find out how to get representation through the aclu and or glaad or whomever. Then I'd go on about my damn life and let those folks Duke it out. At that point you have essentially provided a dossier and insulated yourself from repercussion. But again. You are under no obligation to take any action which threatens your safety or well being if it goes against who you are to do so.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Trying to change toxicity in Academia Hello all. Myself and a group of faculty and students are trying to get together a group of signatures from faculty, postdocs and trainees in multiple institutions in the USA. Our goal is to ask NIH to make public the names of PIs that have been found guilty and fired (or asked to retire) after being found guilty of harassment (sexual or not). There are too many stories where PIs move from institutions, repeating the toxic behaviors and maintaining their reputation and ability to keep NIH dollars. It's time the NIH takes a bold approach at stoping toxic environmemts. If you want to be part of this movement, please send me a private message. We plan to make calls for media attention, get in contact with NIH leadership (we have already started this), make a web page and use social media. We need as many signatures as possible to make our voices heard. We look forward to hear from you!
RESPONSE A: If they already got fired or forced to retire, then they won’t be making the environment toxic. Am I missing the point? I’m not pro harassment, of course. I just don’t know if this will achieve anything. If any of these cases went to court, you can access the court files and publish the names if you want to. However, if the person was accused but the case never went to court, there are no records and for all practical purposes, the harassment didn’t happen or it’s hearsay.
RESPONSE B: This is a terrible idea. The NIH will not defame PIs who have never been convicted of anything in a court of law. You may as well ask them to make public the names of students who have been found guilty of academic honesty or conduct violations so that PIs know to avoid them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Trying to change toxicity in Academia Hello all. Myself and a group of faculty and students are trying to get together a group of signatures from faculty, postdocs and trainees in multiple institutions in the USA. Our goal is to ask NIH to make public the names of PIs that have been found guilty and fired (or asked to retire) after being found guilty of harassment (sexual or not). There are too many stories where PIs move from institutions, repeating the toxic behaviors and maintaining their reputation and ability to keep NIH dollars. It's time the NIH takes a bold approach at stoping toxic environmemts. If you want to be part of this movement, please send me a private message. We plan to make calls for media attention, get in contact with NIH leadership (we have already started this), make a web page and use social media. We need as many signatures as possible to make our voices heard. We look forward to hear from you!
RESPONSE A: If they already got fired or forced to retire, then they won’t be making the environment toxic. Am I missing the point? I’m not pro harassment, of course. I just don’t know if this will achieve anything. If any of these cases went to court, you can access the court files and publish the names if you want to. However, if the person was accused but the case never went to court, there are no records and for all practical purposes, the harassment didn’t happen or it’s hearsay.
RESPONSE B: how would the NIH know this? the government isn't all seeing and all knowing. these things happen behind closed doors at the unviversity
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Trying to change toxicity in Academia Hello all. Myself and a group of faculty and students are trying to get together a group of signatures from faculty, postdocs and trainees in multiple institutions in the USA. Our goal is to ask NIH to make public the names of PIs that have been found guilty and fired (or asked to retire) after being found guilty of harassment (sexual or not). There are too many stories where PIs move from institutions, repeating the toxic behaviors and maintaining their reputation and ability to keep NIH dollars. It's time the NIH takes a bold approach at stoping toxic environmemts. If you want to be part of this movement, please send me a private message. We plan to make calls for media attention, get in contact with NIH leadership (we have already started this), make a web page and use social media. We need as many signatures as possible to make our voices heard. We look forward to hear from you!
RESPONSE A: If they already got fired or forced to retire, then they won’t be making the environment toxic. Am I missing the point? I’m not pro harassment, of course. I just don’t know if this will achieve anything. If any of these cases went to court, you can access the court files and publish the names if you want to. However, if the person was accused but the case never went to court, there are no records and for all practical purposes, the harassment didn’t happen or it’s hearsay.
RESPONSE B: No thanks. Keeping lists of harassers (accused or otherwise) unless they’ve actually been found guilty in a court of law is a really bad idea. Something like this could easily be abused by trainees that think they were treated unfairly from their perspective but just maybe didn’t gel with a PI who is highly motivated and a bit pushy. If a PI is victimizing people, let the institution and authorities deal with it rather than keeping a list like some vigilante.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Trying to change toxicity in Academia Hello all. Myself and a group of faculty and students are trying to get together a group of signatures from faculty, postdocs and trainees in multiple institutions in the USA. Our goal is to ask NIH to make public the names of PIs that have been found guilty and fired (or asked to retire) after being found guilty of harassment (sexual or not). There are too many stories where PIs move from institutions, repeating the toxic behaviors and maintaining their reputation and ability to keep NIH dollars. It's time the NIH takes a bold approach at stoping toxic environmemts. If you want to be part of this movement, please send me a private message. We plan to make calls for media attention, get in contact with NIH leadership (we have already started this), make a web page and use social media. We need as many signatures as possible to make our voices heard. We look forward to hear from you!
RESPONSE A: Just sharing this since it is relevant to the post: https://academic-sexual-misconduct-database.org/incidents
RESPONSE B: uh why/how would the NIH even know this?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Trying to change toxicity in Academia Hello all. Myself and a group of faculty and students are trying to get together a group of signatures from faculty, postdocs and trainees in multiple institutions in the USA. Our goal is to ask NIH to make public the names of PIs that have been found guilty and fired (or asked to retire) after being found guilty of harassment (sexual or not). There are too many stories where PIs move from institutions, repeating the toxic behaviors and maintaining their reputation and ability to keep NIH dollars. It's time the NIH takes a bold approach at stoping toxic environmemts. If you want to be part of this movement, please send me a private message. We plan to make calls for media attention, get in contact with NIH leadership (we have already started this), make a web page and use social media. We need as many signatures as possible to make our voices heard. We look forward to hear from you!
RESPONSE A: Even if this would work, it wouldn't tackle the problem because OP assumes only PIs are toxic. Moreover, it assumes universities care about toxicity versus, for example, grant funding., This is like making drug dealers' names public. Sure, they might be part of the problem but doing that doesn't solve the problem as long as there is a need for them.
RESPONSE B: I’d use a different word than toxic since that can mean things as small as being rude to coworkers or more broadly a competitive, up or out atmosphere, you are clearly interested in different stuff. That said, I don’t know if moving to a trial by the court of public opinion is a great idea long term.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Accessing Elsevier papers First of all: F**k you Elsevier, for making contributions and most importantly access to science damn expensive, especially for the students (such as me) that really need these papers. This leads me directly to my question: Unfortunately in my field a lot of relevant papers are constantly published in Elsevier Journals, which I can’t access through my university, Sci-Hub also doesn’t help with these in a lot of cases. Any further ideas? I do not endorse piracy, but it drives me nuts if I can’t access the relevant papers in my niche research field close to the end of my PhD. Especially for my theoretical part I would need this access.
RESPONSE A: 1) Email the authors directly or via social media 2) Request through research gate 3) Embrace the pirate life
RESPONSE B: If you have time, just email the researcher. I've done this a handful of times and it gives me an excuse to establish a new professional connection. Researchers are always delighted to share their papers for free; the only entity who benefits from these paywalls is Elsevier.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you find that many people in academia have "tunnel vision" where they are excessively preoccupied with their field of study and that critical thinking doesn't transfer to other domains? It would appear at first glance that the skills of reading a technical paper and logically critiquing it would generalize to thinking rationally in other areas of life as well. However, I've increasingly seen that many professors are often able to be brilliant in their own field, while having silly opinions in real life, apparently without experiencing much cognitive dissonance (of course, this is a generalization...). The kinds of arguments that they advance for their opinions in real life would get them laughed out of the park if they were applied to their own field of scientific inquiry. I have a strong suspicion that academia self-selects for those people who are highly intelligent but have "tunnel vision" in the sense of having singular interests (or very narrow interests) and are rather conformist in their beliefs otherwise. Is it just me? What has been your experience? Have you felt the same way? (For my background: I'm a STEM masters student, and this came up quite often in a group consisting of masters and PhD students.)
RESPONSE A: Judging from: * my one colleague insisting that artificial sweeteners "give you cancer" * my colleagues that ignore decades of evidence-based educational knowledge in the design of their courses * my colleagues utterly incapable of seeing the relative merits of methodological approaches from other domains I'd say... yeah.
RESPONSE B: Relevant comic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do you find that many people in academia have "tunnel vision" where they are excessively preoccupied with their field of study and that critical thinking doesn't transfer to other domains? It would appear at first glance that the skills of reading a technical paper and logically critiquing it would generalize to thinking rationally in other areas of life as well. However, I've increasingly seen that many professors are often able to be brilliant in their own field, while having silly opinions in real life, apparently without experiencing much cognitive dissonance (of course, this is a generalization...). The kinds of arguments that they advance for their opinions in real life would get them laughed out of the park if they were applied to their own field of scientific inquiry. I have a strong suspicion that academia self-selects for those people who are highly intelligent but have "tunnel vision" in the sense of having singular interests (or very narrow interests) and are rather conformist in their beliefs otherwise. Is it just me? What has been your experience? Have you felt the same way? (For my background: I'm a STEM masters student, and this came up quite often in a group consisting of masters and PhD students.)
RESPONSE A: Relevant comic.
RESPONSE B: "\[T\]he typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. He becomes a primitive again." \- Joseph Schumpeter, *Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy* (1942)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do you find that many people in academia have "tunnel vision" where they are excessively preoccupied with their field of study and that critical thinking doesn't transfer to other domains? It would appear at first glance that the skills of reading a technical paper and logically critiquing it would generalize to thinking rationally in other areas of life as well. However, I've increasingly seen that many professors are often able to be brilliant in their own field, while having silly opinions in real life, apparently without experiencing much cognitive dissonance (of course, this is a generalization...). The kinds of arguments that they advance for their opinions in real life would get them laughed out of the park if they were applied to their own field of scientific inquiry. I have a strong suspicion that academia self-selects for those people who are highly intelligent but have "tunnel vision" in the sense of having singular interests (or very narrow interests) and are rather conformist in their beliefs otherwise. Is it just me? What has been your experience? Have you felt the same way? (For my background: I'm a STEM masters student, and this came up quite often in a group consisting of masters and PhD students.)
RESPONSE A: Relevant comic.
RESPONSE B: I've noticed this quite often. I admit that I am this way too. For me, I try to have hobbies and do activities unrelated to my field of study. For instance, I study earth sciences, but I've been reading some Greek mythology and philosophy lately. I think that opens the mind up to different ways of thinking. But yes, over the years, I've experienced some people, from postdocs to professors, who spend their whole life doing one thing - their work - and don't really have any life outside of that, and it's difficult to carry on conversations with them about anything other than work. Some just don't want to talk about anything other than work, even when we're having beer in the evening after a conference, they still talk about nothing but their research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you find that many people in academia have "tunnel vision" where they are excessively preoccupied with their field of study and that critical thinking doesn't transfer to other domains? It would appear at first glance that the skills of reading a technical paper and logically critiquing it would generalize to thinking rationally in other areas of life as well. However, I've increasingly seen that many professors are often able to be brilliant in their own field, while having silly opinions in real life, apparently without experiencing much cognitive dissonance (of course, this is a generalization...). The kinds of arguments that they advance for their opinions in real life would get them laughed out of the park if they were applied to their own field of scientific inquiry. I have a strong suspicion that academia self-selects for those people who are highly intelligent but have "tunnel vision" in the sense of having singular interests (or very narrow interests) and are rather conformist in their beliefs otherwise. Is it just me? What has been your experience? Have you felt the same way? (For my background: I'm a STEM masters student, and this came up quite often in a group consisting of masters and PhD students.)
RESPONSE A: I see you've met my MIL.
RESPONSE B: Relevant comic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you find that many people in academia have "tunnel vision" where they are excessively preoccupied with their field of study and that critical thinking doesn't transfer to other domains? It would appear at first glance that the skills of reading a technical paper and logically critiquing it would generalize to thinking rationally in other areas of life as well. However, I've increasingly seen that many professors are often able to be brilliant in their own field, while having silly opinions in real life, apparently without experiencing much cognitive dissonance (of course, this is a generalization...). The kinds of arguments that they advance for their opinions in real life would get them laughed out of the park if they were applied to their own field of scientific inquiry. I have a strong suspicion that academia self-selects for those people who are highly intelligent but have "tunnel vision" in the sense of having singular interests (or very narrow interests) and are rather conformist in their beliefs otherwise. Is it just me? What has been your experience? Have you felt the same way? (For my background: I'm a STEM masters student, and this came up quite often in a group consisting of masters and PhD students.)
RESPONSE A: I see you've met my MIL.
RESPONSE B: Judging from: * my one colleague insisting that artificial sweeteners "give you cancer" * my colleagues that ignore decades of evidence-based educational knowledge in the design of their courses * my colleagues utterly incapable of seeing the relative merits of methodological approaches from other domains I'd say... yeah.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why has college become so expensive over the last 40 years? How and why could the price of attending college rise over 5x the rate of inflation- where does all the money go? What’s changed between now and then in the university business model?
RESPONSE A: 1. Steadily less state funding in UK and US 2. Ever-increasing administrative strata 3. Increased pay and benefits for executive class 4. Massive infrastructure investment to attract and accommodate ever-increasing intake
RESPONSE B: This is something specific to the US, not college in general. In most countries tuition fees for public colleges/universities are tightly regulated and either modest or nothing. The reason is supply and demand: people have more money than they used to, more people want a college education, but the number of places at reputable colleges has not increased that much. At the same time, local governments in the US have often scaled back financial support of higher education.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why has college become so expensive over the last 40 years? How and why could the price of attending college rise over 5x the rate of inflation- where does all the money go? What’s changed between now and then in the university business model?
RESPONSE A: 1. Steadily less state funding in UK and US 2. Ever-increasing administrative strata 3. Increased pay and benefits for executive class 4. Massive infrastructure investment to attract and accommodate ever-increasing intake
RESPONSE B: \*American college
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why has college become so expensive over the last 40 years? How and why could the price of attending college rise over 5x the rate of inflation- where does all the money go? What’s changed between now and then in the university business model?
RESPONSE A: A lot of the answers here are good and it's likely that most of them have merits. Colleges are charging more just because they can and administrators know they can squeeze every dime out of students. Student loans are a blank check to them. Not to mention many jobs require a degree even if you don't need one to do the job so there is way more demand than in the past. Colleges offer much more than just an education. Amazing dorms. State of the art gyms. Beautiful buildings. Leisure pools. Decent food. Concerts and events. These things attract students but they also cost money. There are more administrators/non-academic staff and they get paid more than in the past. This is a huge expense. Schools get less money from the government, including state governments. It's my understanding that Gen Z will attend college at a much lower rate than Millennials. I wonder if that and the growth of community colleges will even out the costs.
RESPONSE B: 1. Steadily less state funding in UK and US 2. Ever-increasing administrative strata 3. Increased pay and benefits for executive class 4. Massive infrastructure investment to attract and accommodate ever-increasing intake
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why has college become so expensive over the last 40 years? How and why could the price of attending college rise over 5x the rate of inflation- where does all the money go? What’s changed between now and then in the university business model?
RESPONSE A: 1. Steadily less state funding in UK and US 2. Ever-increasing administrative strata 3. Increased pay and benefits for executive class 4. Massive infrastructure investment to attract and accommodate ever-increasing intake
RESPONSE B: Coming from a country where university is free, can’t tell you how astonished I was when finding out how messed up the situation is in the US
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why has college become so expensive over the last 40 years? How and why could the price of attending college rise over 5x the rate of inflation- where does all the money go? What’s changed between now and then in the university business model?
RESPONSE A: 1. Steadily less state funding in UK and US 2. Ever-increasing administrative strata 3. Increased pay and benefits for executive class 4. Massive infrastructure investment to attract and accommodate ever-increasing intake
RESPONSE B: I work at a state university, and I've thought about this a lot. ​ My take is because of what the students demand. The university I work at recently built a library. Did they build a normal library? Nope. Every part of it was turned up to an 11. They also recently built a brand new recreation center. Did they build an average recreation center? Nope. They built one of the nicest ones in all of the country. Then they built a lot of new dorms. Did they build typical dorms? Nope. They built what essentially look like luxury dorms. Add in all of the costs of maintaining these places and staffing them and whatever else is required and you can start to imagine why the prices rise quickly. ​ If they didn't build these, though, the students would go somewhere else where these are already built. After all, wouldn't you want to live in a luxury dorm while studying at a luxury library and working out (maybe?) at a luxury gym if your parents or future you is paying for it? ​ If the students demanded low cost amenities for low cost education then they'd get that. But they don't. So they get high prices with luxury amenities. I think that makes sense, but they should be more honest about what they are demanding when they look at the costs. If you complain about it while reluctantly writing the checks, then the checks are still being written and nothing will change.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you handle unsupportive parents? Hello! I'm a microbiologist who's about to begin my PhD next fall (yay!). I've had a very successful undergraduate career, including working on science outreach. My parents always act/say that they are so proud of me but their actions state otherwise. I've had several science-derived arguments with my parents whom are not scientists and don't know even basic biology. Flash forward to the present; I'm putting on a virtual course as a part of my certificate/fellowship that discusses pandemics. My parents both signed up for the course and have helped advertise the class. My aunt recently warned me that my dad said he was studying up so that he could 'call me out' if he didn't agree with anything I said in the course. In the entrance poll, he wrote he was hoping to learn proof that masks don't work. So, obviously his participation in this course is for the purpose of digging at me. I've resolved to the fact that though my parents want to act supportive and I've felt like I've made breakthroughs with them, at the end of the day they don't really care how they make me feel. Nor do they truly believe in or support science, my work, or me. I don't want to spend the emotional labor to truly cut off my parents, but it's exhausting constantly getting picked on by them. Has anyone else dealt with a similar situation? I feel so alone because all of my academic friends' parents are either academics themselves or are so so supportive.
RESPONSE A: the ideal would be to communicate this with them... but if they cant seem to be supportive, I feel like not talking about your job with them could be less bad
RESPONSE B: I find it very weird that your parents would sign up for your course. It's a recipe for disaster to mix a teaching relationship with a family relationship even if the latter is good, so in your case...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you handle unsupportive parents? Hello! I'm a microbiologist who's about to begin my PhD next fall (yay!). I've had a very successful undergraduate career, including working on science outreach. My parents always act/say that they are so proud of me but their actions state otherwise. I've had several science-derived arguments with my parents whom are not scientists and don't know even basic biology. Flash forward to the present; I'm putting on a virtual course as a part of my certificate/fellowship that discusses pandemics. My parents both signed up for the course and have helped advertise the class. My aunt recently warned me that my dad said he was studying up so that he could 'call me out' if he didn't agree with anything I said in the course. In the entrance poll, he wrote he was hoping to learn proof that masks don't work. So, obviously his participation in this course is for the purpose of digging at me. I've resolved to the fact that though my parents want to act supportive and I've felt like I've made breakthroughs with them, at the end of the day they don't really care how they make me feel. Nor do they truly believe in or support science, my work, or me. I don't want to spend the emotional labor to truly cut off my parents, but it's exhausting constantly getting picked on by them. Has anyone else dealt with a similar situation? I feel so alone because all of my academic friends' parents are either academics themselves or are so so supportive.
RESPONSE A: I'm pretty much on team, "cut out anyone who costs you emotionally." I hope things work out well for you but they don't seem like the type I'd keep around.
RESPONSE B: Part of growing up is realizing that our parents can be f\*\*\*ing idiots and that there is no way of changing that. Move along and carve your own path. Congrats on starting your Ph.D.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: up so that he could 'call me out' if he didn't agree with anything I said in the course. In the entrance poll, he wrote he was hoping to learn proof that masks don't work. So, obviously his participation in this course is for the purpose of digging at me. I've resolved to the fact that though my parents want to act supportive and I've felt like I've made breakthroughs with them, at the end of the day they don't really care how they make me feel. Nor do they truly believe in or support science, my work, or me. I don't want to spend the emotional labor to truly cut off my parents, but it's exhausting constantly getting picked on by them. Has anyone else dealt with a similar situation? I feel so alone because all of my academic friends' parents are either academics themselves or are so so supportive.
RESPONSE A: Part of growing up is realizing that our parents can be f\*\*\*ing idiots and that there is no way of changing that. Move along and carve your own path. Congrats on starting your Ph.D.
RESPONSE B: I'm sorry that you're dealing with this. The disparity between their outward support versus what clearly is not supportive sounds particularly taxing. One thing to consider is having some ground rules / boundaries with your parents. For example, a boundary may be that you do not discuss your work with them, given your parents going to lengths most would not to attack your work. If all of you were to agree to that, then you could discuss all sorts of things (TV shows/movies, food, nature, relationships, etc.) without getting into a topic that requires so much emotional labor on your part. (How practical that is depends upon to what extent this is an isolated incident, e.g., you have a decent relationship with your parents outside of their anti-scientific attitudes, versus whether their boundary crossing and putting down of what you do is more pervasive.) Ultimately, it is up to you to decide what kind of relationship you would like with your parents going forward. But you do not have to let them into every part of your life, especially parts of your life in which they are hostile.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are some websites every researcher should know? I wanted to actually ask how popular and useful are websites like ResearchGate and Academia, but just wondering what are some social websites you recommend every researcher should know. Thanks.
RESPONSE A: https://www.researchprofessional.com/ A good resource for research funding one might not have thought of. Also Science Magazine careers website is full of excellent advice. https://www.science.org/careers
RESPONSE B: https://www.researchrabbit.ai/ Add papers to a collection and it'll start suggesting related ones. Good for writing reviews or exploring fields that are new to you. It's also completely free.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are some websites every researcher should know? I wanted to actually ask how popular and useful are websites like ResearchGate and Academia, but just wondering what are some social websites you recommend every researcher should know. Thanks.
RESPONSE A: https://www.researchrabbit.ai/ Add papers to a collection and it'll start suggesting related ones. Good for writing reviews or exploring fields that are new to you. It's also completely free.
RESPONSE B: consensus
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are some websites every researcher should know? I wanted to actually ask how popular and useful are websites like ResearchGate and Academia, but just wondering what are some social websites you recommend every researcher should know. Thanks.
RESPONSE A: https://www.researchrabbit.ai/ Add papers to a collection and it'll start suggesting related ones. Good for writing reviews or exploring fields that are new to you. It's also completely free.
RESPONSE B: European Research council
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are some websites every researcher should know? I wanted to actually ask how popular and useful are websites like ResearchGate and Academia, but just wondering what are some social websites you recommend every researcher should know. Thanks.
RESPONSE A: https://www.researchprofessional.com/ A good resource for research funding one might not have thought of. Also Science Magazine careers website is full of excellent advice. https://www.science.org/careers
RESPONSE B: Zotero (not exactly a website, but essential all the same)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are some websites every researcher should know? I wanted to actually ask how popular and useful are websites like ResearchGate and Academia, but just wondering what are some social websites you recommend every researcher should know. Thanks.
RESPONSE A: Zotero (not exactly a website, but essential all the same)
RESPONSE B: Crossref to search DOIs https://www.crossref.org
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do you get jealous of people who study what you don't? I am a doctoral student studying climate change. I know academicians aren't supposed to be experts on all topics out there. Although, I have this constant thought in the back of my head that it's sad that I don't know topics such as machine learning, quantum mechanics etc in detail although I don't have to. Does anybody here feel the same way? That we are missing out on 'cool stuff'?
RESPONSE A: every time I look at job listings.
RESPONSE B: Assistant Prof here. Yes. I feel like I know nothing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do you get jealous of people who study what you don't? I am a doctoral student studying climate change. I know academicians aren't supposed to be experts on all topics out there. Although, I have this constant thought in the back of my head that it's sad that I don't know topics such as machine learning, quantum mechanics etc in detail although I don't have to. Does anybody here feel the same way? That we are missing out on 'cool stuff'?
RESPONSE A: every time I look at job listings.
RESPONSE B: Yep. Becoming an expert in one area necessarily means you can keep up with developments in another, but there will be time to catch up later! This is why it's good to have colleagues from other specialties, other people may actually be interested to hear what the other are working on.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you get jealous of people who study what you don't? I am a doctoral student studying climate change. I know academicians aren't supposed to be experts on all topics out there. Although, I have this constant thought in the back of my head that it's sad that I don't know topics such as machine learning, quantum mechanics etc in detail although I don't have to. Does anybody here feel the same way? That we are missing out on 'cool stuff'?
RESPONSE A: Yep. Becoming an expert in one area necessarily means you can keep up with developments in another, but there will be time to catch up later! This is why it's good to have colleagues from other specialties, other people may actually be interested to hear what the other are working on.
RESPONSE B: Yes. Damn cancer researchers, soaking up all that valuable funding for unimportant things like "saving lives" and "making the world a better place". *I'm not bitter I swear*
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you get jealous of people who study what you don't? I am a doctoral student studying climate change. I know academicians aren't supposed to be experts on all topics out there. Although, I have this constant thought in the back of my head that it's sad that I don't know topics such as machine learning, quantum mechanics etc in detail although I don't have to. Does anybody here feel the same way? That we are missing out on 'cool stuff'?
RESPONSE A: Yep. Becoming an expert in one area necessarily means you can keep up with developments in another, but there will be time to catch up later! This is why it's good to have colleagues from other specialties, other people may actually be interested to hear what the other are working on.
RESPONSE B: Assistant Prof here. Yes. I feel like I know nothing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: average was A-minus or higher. Yet in 2009, 41 percent of students reported as same. During the same period, the percentage of C grades given dropped from 25 to five percent." ​ "Under legislation proposed in the House of Representatives, the Texas “Contextualized Transcript” bill calls for adding to transcripts the average grade given to the entire class for each of the courses on a student’s transcript. This would apply to all Texas public, two-year and four-year colleges and universities." ​ ​ I teach a required course with about 15 sections that is loosely coordinated in our college. We are the notorious grade-inflaters, in part due to the nature of the course (i.e., it's not BIO101 or ECON101). We've gotten the very clear, unambiguous message from the dean that our classes are too easy and need to become more rigorous (which of course would reduce inflation). ​ At first I resisted but now I see the point. It's not doing students any favors, and apparently many P&T committees are wary of grade inflation and student evals that are TOO high. ​ What are your universities doing about grade inflation? ​
RESPONSE A: I wish grades would be just defined as percentiles. Either the grade would *be* a percentile (maybe rounded to 10-point increments), or everyone just agreed that A is top 15%, B is top 25% or whatever, etc. Of course this kind of standardization would take time and effort to coordinate, but everyone has already in the past agreed to a 4-point scale, so surely this is doable.
RESPONSE B: Non-dischargeable student loans incentivize this sort of behavior. If you instituted even stricter academic standards, thousands and thousands of academically weak students would fail out of school and be saddled with life long debt. Ultimately, the only solution is to tie college acceptance to much higher academic standards. Of course, this will further entrench class divisions, cause many low ranked institutions to close, and significantly worsen the academic job market.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: the Texas “Contextualized Transcript” bill calls for adding to transcripts the average grade given to the entire class for each of the courses on a student’s transcript. This would apply to all Texas public, two-year and four-year colleges and universities." ​ ​ I teach a required course with about 15 sections that is loosely coordinated in our college. We are the notorious grade-inflaters, in part due to the nature of the course (i.e., it's not BIO101 or ECON101). We've gotten the very clear, unambiguous message from the dean that our classes are too easy and need to become more rigorous (which of course would reduce inflation). ​ At first I resisted but now I see the point. It's not doing students any favors, and apparently many P&T committees are wary of grade inflation and student evals that are TOO high. ​ What are your universities doing about grade inflation? ​
RESPONSE A: When I've TAed, my colleagues and I have often been told "you can't give much below a B." My students turned in an assignment the other week. If they attempted to answer the prompt, they got at least 8/10. It's absurd, but continued TAing depends on my receiving above a certain score on evaluations, so I have to bite my tongue and go along with it. The whole farce has created a huge number of students who have 4.0 GPAs (or damn close), but whom I wouldn't write letters for. My academic reputation is way more important than their desire to get into law school.
RESPONSE B: I'm proud to say that my particular department - physics - does not inflate grades. A typical sophomore-through-senior course (i.e., after the freshmen are "weeded out") for me might lead to an average of 2.7, with <20% As. That said, we are under a lot of pressure to improve passing rates in lower level courses, especially service courses, but faculty aren't compromising on expectations.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: in the House of Representatives, the Texas “Contextualized Transcript” bill calls for adding to transcripts the average grade given to the entire class for each of the courses on a student’s transcript. This would apply to all Texas public, two-year and four-year colleges and universities." ​ ​ I teach a required course with about 15 sections that is loosely coordinated in our college. We are the notorious grade-inflaters, in part due to the nature of the course (i.e., it's not BIO101 or ECON101). We've gotten the very clear, unambiguous message from the dean that our classes are too easy and need to become more rigorous (which of course would reduce inflation). ​ At first I resisted but now I see the point. It's not doing students any favors, and apparently many P&T committees are wary of grade inflation and student evals that are TOO high. ​ What are your universities doing about grade inflation? ​
RESPONSE A: I was told (at my last position), by the chair and implicitly supported by the dean and a program advisor, to give out 1/3 As, Bs and Cs, with the strong implication not to fail anyone unless it was an extreme case. That being said, it actually seemed as if I would not cause any trouble if I guaranteed no grade lower than a C-. I guess that would permit for some combating of grade inflation.
RESPONSE B: When I've TAed, my colleagues and I have often been told "you can't give much below a B." My students turned in an assignment the other week. If they attempted to answer the prompt, they got at least 8/10. It's absurd, but continued TAing depends on my receiving above a certain score on evaluations, so I have to bite my tongue and go along with it. The whole farce has created a huge number of students who have 4.0 GPAs (or damn close), but whom I wouldn't write letters for. My academic reputation is way more important than their desire to get into law school.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: s are wary of grade inflation and student evals that are TOO high. ​ What are your universities doing about grade inflation? ​
RESPONSE A: I'm proud to say that my particular department - physics - does not inflate grades. A typical sophomore-through-senior course (i.e., after the freshmen are "weeded out") for me might lead to an average of 2.7, with <20% As. That said, we are under a lot of pressure to improve passing rates in lower level courses, especially service courses, but faculty aren't compromising on expectations.
RESPONSE B: When I was in grad school I saw this primarily at the low end of the grade curve. In upper division classes we weren't really under pressure to give out good grades, but there was a strong reticence to outright fail people. As to what we did to combat it, in freshman labs (the only lower division classes I ever TA'd for), there was a multiple choice final exam that was tightly guarded (no one got to take an exam or any scrap paper home) and variations of the same questions would be asked every term, so the relative performance of each class was measured and considered when assigning final grades. I thought this was a really good system, because it both helped normalize grades between different TA's and helped avoid giving students taking labs off-sequence an advantage by only being compared with students who'd already failed the lab once or more. There were other problems with rich kids' parents complaining to the lab coordinator rarely (Yay California!) but for the most part this didn't help people. Though I do know of at least one escaping expulsion for cheating on exams because their rich parents threatened to sue the school. Got a chemical engineering degree from a highly ranked school without being able to do simple stoichiometry problems. There are other stories, but none that scare me more than that one. I also never taught them, but I knew several other grad students who did and eventually they were just told by faculty to pass the kid for that reason. That one is really scary.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: to transcripts the average grade given to the entire class for each of the courses on a student’s transcript. This would apply to all Texas public, two-year and four-year colleges and universities." ​ ​ I teach a required course with about 15 sections that is loosely coordinated in our college. We are the notorious grade-inflaters, in part due to the nature of the course (i.e., it's not BIO101 or ECON101). We've gotten the very clear, unambiguous message from the dean that our classes are too easy and need to become more rigorous (which of course would reduce inflation). ​ At first I resisted but now I see the point. It's not doing students any favors, and apparently many P&T committees are wary of grade inflation and student evals that are TOO high. ​ What are your universities doing about grade inflation? ​
RESPONSE A: I was told (at my last position), by the chair and implicitly supported by the dean and a program advisor, to give out 1/3 As, Bs and Cs, with the strong implication not to fail anyone unless it was an extreme case. That being said, it actually seemed as if I would not cause any trouble if I guaranteed no grade lower than a C-. I guess that would permit for some combating of grade inflation.
RESPONSE B: I have mixed feelings. I teach a small class sometimes and I have clear ideas in my head about what information I want students to learn. My goal is to teach it to them. If all of the students master the material to my satisfaction, isn't that good? Haven't we both succeeded? At the same time, it also means that I can push and challenge the students more, raise my expectations, and cover more material in depth next time I teach the class. I think this is good, but even then my goal is never to have a "hard class" from a grades perspective. I want all of my students to get As (that they deserve). I don't see why I would want only a fraction of my class to master the material.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything.
RESPONSE A: Hot air https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=bacteria+splatter+ring&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1668669637678&u=%23p%3DSlI0Wds9PIAJ Coughs and sneezes spread diseases, but what about farts? My favourite quotes from this research include "a volunteer farted onto a petri dish with his trousers down" and how they analysed the outcome using the terms "initial impact zone" and "splatter ring". Not to mention the entire project arose because a nurse asked if she was contaminating the operating theatre by cracking them out silently at work.
RESPONSE B: Survival time of chocolate on hospital wards. Christmas research from BMJ 2013.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything.
RESPONSE A: The funniest with good research methods: the teaspoon paper. God, I love that paper (my current institute is dominated by coffee drinkers, so our limiting silverware reagent is forks...time for a followup study?). The funniest "how did this crank get published": the velvet worm hybridogenesis paper that led PNAS to change their editorial policy. Responses to that one are also pretty great, especially the Giribet one.
RESPONSE B: Are anime tiddies aerodynamic? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322530755\_Analysis\_and\_Qualitative\_Effects\_of\_Large\_Breasts\_on\_Aerodynamic\_Performance\_and\_Wake\_of\_a\_Miss\_Kobayashi's\_Dragon\_Maid\_Character It's actually well made, the topic is just absurd. 2.1 million reads and 1 citation!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything.
RESPONSE A: Survival time of chocolate on hospital wards. Christmas research from BMJ 2013.
RESPONSE B: Are anime tiddies aerodynamic? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322530755\_Analysis\_and\_Qualitative\_Effects\_of\_Large\_Breasts\_on\_Aerodynamic\_Performance\_and\_Wake\_of\_a\_Miss\_Kobayashi's\_Dragon\_Maid\_Character It's actually well made, the topic is just absurd. 2.1 million reads and 1 citation!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything.
RESPONSE A: Chicken Chicken Chicken: Chicken Chicken
RESPONSE B: Not paper, but a conference poster. http://prefrontal.org/files/posters/Bennett-Salmon-2009.pdf They put a dead salmon in a fMRI machine (brain scan) and show it images of humans showing emotions and find that the DEAD salmon reacts to those emotions. In the end the researcher make a huge point about correctly analyzing the data.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything.
RESPONSE A: An In-Depth Analysis of a Piece of Shit Figure 1 and 2 are amazing
RESPONSE B: Not paper, but a conference poster. http://prefrontal.org/files/posters/Bennett-Salmon-2009.pdf They put a dead salmon in a fMRI machine (brain scan) and show it images of humans showing emotions and find that the DEAD salmon reacts to those emotions. In the end the researcher make a huge point about correctly analyzing the data.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place?
RESPONSE A: Interesting, because all the doctors and soliders (I'm a assuming that's what you mean by vet - i dont know any veterinarians) I know also complain about their jobs about as much as academics. People complain about their jobs that's the way it is, also many answers here are directed at students and there an attempt possibly even a responsibility to provide a reality check to them.
RESPONSE B: Also, this is reddit. People come here to complain. People who are happy with their jobs are, well, happy practicing their jobs. Don’t think reddit provides a full picture.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place?
RESPONSE A: Also, this is reddit. People come here to complain. People who are happy with their jobs are, well, happy practicing their jobs. Don’t think reddit provides a full picture.
RESPONSE B: The analogy I can make is politics; just because a country is politically divided and you see protests doesn’t mean people “hate” their country; in fact most of those people wouldn’t even imagine living anywhere else. We often time vent about many shortcomings in our fields and how to improve processes, but many of us wouldn’t trade a second of our job, whether it’s conducting research in our private time or helping our students, with any other job. Witnesses how this pandemic has made many of us immensely miss our office and conversations with our students.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place?
RESPONSE A: Also, this is reddit. People come here to complain. People who are happy with their jobs are, well, happy practicing their jobs. Don’t think reddit provides a full picture.
RESPONSE B: Well, I complain because our administration constantly pays lip service to student success and demands faculty do more and more to prevent any student losses, meanwhile systematically slashing any resources that would help this cause by removing teaching assistant funding, increasing class sizes, lowering standards, tightening department budgets, bloating administration salaries and positions, reducing full time faculty, eliminating or "streamlining" technical supports (to the point now where you have to log in each time you would like to access the unreliable internet that times out within an hour), funneling money into sports and another new "virtual reality" lab that no one will use while the advising office has caseloads of 500+ students for each position, etc. etc. I'm sorry to say that I believe the president of our university almost identically mirrors the president of our country, but in a 5 foot tall woman's body. Higher education is run like the rest of the failing, greedy, capitalist corporations in our country, and it is not a model that is sustainable longterm for the mental health of those involved.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place?
RESPONSE A: Also, this is reddit. People come here to complain. People who are happy with their jobs are, well, happy practicing their jobs. Don’t think reddit provides a full picture.
RESPONSE B: I work at a vet school, and the vets complain just as much about hours and pay and the way clients treat them... like academics, just because you complain doesn’t mean you don’t love your job and believe your work makes a difference.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper?
RESPONSE A: Looking at papers that cite mine, there are many where it’s clear they have only read the title and misinterpreted it.
RESPONSE B: I've always wondered about this myself. In my case, what typically ends up happening is that I would have read about 30% of the papers I cite in detail and are closely related to the central points being made in the paper. Another 30% that I have read but not in great detail. This leaves about 40% of the papers where I have only read the "relevant bits" and are my attempt to situate my work in a broader setting. If the paper has a large number of authors, then sometimes coauthors cite papers I have never read based on their expertise and I trust that they are relevant and cited appropriately. I'm not saying this is the right/good way and I do worry I somehow screwed up in the citations I did not read in great detail.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper?
RESPONSE A: Looking at papers that cite mine, there are many where it’s clear they have only read the title and misinterpreted it.
RESPONSE B: It really differs based on the field, even subfield. Some fields you are expected to cite every paper you looked at while writing, others you only cite papers that you take exact quotes from. It also depends what you’re citing it for; if it’s a situation where you’re citing work on an algorithm by someone you’ve previously collaborated with, you’ve probably read the paper in-depth and perhaps even discussed it with the author. If it’s the equivalent of a footnote where you just cite the paper in the introduction as evidence that someone else has looked at a similar topic before, you might have only even read the title. There isn’t really a single answer to this question.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper?
RESPONSE A: For long time, I thought I must read and understand every bit of the paper. It was a kind of idée fix for me. This was utterly devastating, and sometimes I couldn’t finish one paper in a week: it always felt that I didn’t read enough, that I don’t understand it fully, so I reread, start to procrastinate - and... you know the rest. Anyway, I guess, the most efficient way is to read diagonally and try to find the bits that suit tour purpose, not the rest of it. Most usually, I spend now from 15 to 40 minutes for one paper
RESPONSE B: It really differs based on the field, even subfield. Some fields you are expected to cite every paper you looked at while writing, others you only cite papers that you take exact quotes from. It also depends what you’re citing it for; if it’s a situation where you’re citing work on an algorithm by someone you’ve previously collaborated with, you’ve probably read the paper in-depth and perhaps even discussed it with the author. If it’s the equivalent of a footnote where you just cite the paper in the introduction as evidence that someone else has looked at a similar topic before, you might have only even read the title. There isn’t really a single answer to this question.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |