label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
A | POST: Is it appropriate for me to contact professors from 3+ years ago for letters of recommendation? I applied to grad schools right out of undergrad but didn’t get in anywhere. Waited a year and I’m trying again to different places, and I’m going to need to ask the same professors again. Not asking for anything to do with admissions, just etiquette. Is it appropriate for me to contact these professors?
RESPONSE A: Yes, totally acceptable. I've done it, and former profs have also done it for me. One thing that would be very helpful if they say yes would be to share the pertinent information with them, like your CV, or resume, what classes you took with them and your grade, a sample assignment, and anything else that can be of help.
RESPONSE B: Yep. Totally acceptable. I’ve written many a letter for a former student. Just maybe remind them of some classes you took of theirs, maybe a presentation you gave or paper you wrote, to help refresh their memory.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it appropriate for me to contact professors from 3+ years ago for letters of recommendation? I applied to grad schools right out of undergrad but didn’t get in anywhere. Waited a year and I’m trying again to different places, and I’m going to need to ask the same professors again. Not asking for anything to do with admissions, just etiquette. Is it appropriate for me to contact these professors?
RESPONSE A: You might as well. They may not answer email till the new year. Most profs know that deadlines are around this time. The more info you can give them about yourself (personals statement, sop, transcripts, classes, resume) the easier it is to write the letter. Also, a list of deadlines and programs. The programs are going to ask the recommender the following questions or something similar: how do you know the student? How long? How would you rank them against other students? How highly you recommend the student. These are the fill-in questions. Then in the letter of Rec they’ll ask that you talk about their strengths and weaknesses, why you think they’ll succeed in the program, etc. So the more information the better. I wrote a letter of Rec for a student. I was once their TA. They gave me past assignments, and all application materials. No problem. They got into the program.
RESPONSE B: I'm in the same boat, but I'm also a little concerned it's too close to Christmas to just ask now. Should I worry about the timing, as in, might it be perceived a little rude?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it appropriate for me to contact professors from 3+ years ago for letters of recommendation? I applied to grad schools right out of undergrad but didn’t get in anywhere. Waited a year and I’m trying again to different places, and I’m going to need to ask the same professors again. Not asking for anything to do with admissions, just etiquette. Is it appropriate for me to contact these professors?
RESPONSE A: I'm in the same boat, but I'm also a little concerned it's too close to Christmas to just ask now. Should I worry about the timing, as in, might it be perceived a little rude?
RESPONSE B: You will remember them better than vice versa, so provide lots of details they can include! When you ask them to write a letter, remind them of a few details. e.g. I got an A in your class in Fall 201X, and we talked about XYZ.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it appropriate for me to contact professors from 3+ years ago for letters of recommendation? I applied to grad schools right out of undergrad but didn’t get in anywhere. Waited a year and I’m trying again to different places, and I’m going to need to ask the same professors again. Not asking for anything to do with admissions, just etiquette. Is it appropriate for me to contact these professors?
RESPONSE A: Yes, that is okay. As long as you don't harass them, it is fine.
RESPONSE B: You will remember them better than vice versa, so provide lots of details they can include! When you ask them to write a letter, remind them of a few details. e.g. I got an A in your class in Fall 201X, and we talked about XYZ.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: The Good, the Bad, and the Bye Bye: A Professor Shares Why He Left His Tenured Academic Job I found this article interesting and wanted to share it with the community, since it could be relevant to many people here: https://reyammer.io/blog/2020/10/03/the-good-the-bad-and-the-bye-bye-why-i-left-my-tenured-academic-job/
RESPONSE A: This is some of the better quit-lit that I’ve read. Acknowledges the good stuff, isn’t too bitter
RESPONSE B: Everyone, please take under **serious** consideration when you read this, his discipline. He is in a very sought after field of computer science/cybersecurity. He can get multiple jobs offers almost anywhere in the world. So his ability to say "goodbye" to academia is somewhat also colored by having multiple, very safe alternatives. So his situation does not really apply to all academics in all disciplines.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: The Good, the Bad, and the Bye Bye: A Professor Shares Why He Left His Tenured Academic Job I found this article interesting and wanted to share it with the community, since it could be relevant to many people here: https://reyammer.io/blog/2020/10/03/the-good-the-bad-and-the-bye-bye-why-i-left-my-tenured-academic-job/
RESPONSE A: Definitely an fascinating and relatable perspective. I think a lot of what he says has merit, but also depends on field/university. It was well written and interesting to read! Thanks for sharing!
RESPONSE B: Everyone, please take under **serious** consideration when you read this, his discipline. He is in a very sought after field of computer science/cybersecurity. He can get multiple jobs offers almost anywhere in the world. So his ability to say "goodbye" to academia is somewhat also colored by having multiple, very safe alternatives. So his situation does not really apply to all academics in all disciplines.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: The Good, the Bad, and the Bye Bye: A Professor Shares Why He Left His Tenured Academic Job I found this article interesting and wanted to share it with the community, since it could be relevant to many people here: https://reyammer.io/blog/2020/10/03/the-good-the-bad-and-the-bye-bye-why-i-left-my-tenured-academic-job/
RESPONSE A: Kind of interesting, but a weird start to tell the reader "it really is a \*job\*!" Who didn't think it's a job?
RESPONSE B: Definitely an fascinating and relatable perspective. I think a lot of what he says has merit, but also depends on field/university. It was well written and interesting to read! Thanks for sharing!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: The Good, the Bad, and the Bye Bye: A Professor Shares Why He Left His Tenured Academic Job I found this article interesting and wanted to share it with the community, since it could be relevant to many people here: https://reyammer.io/blog/2020/10/03/the-good-the-bad-and-the-bye-bye-why-i-left-my-tenured-academic-job/
RESPONSE A: It felt a little bitter. Especially when he was like why can't blog posts be as good as peer review. It just felt very meta bc he posted this on his blog. But tldr: he hates writing papers and the publication process which is ironic bc it's probably the longest blog post I've ever read.
RESPONSE B: Definitely an fascinating and relatable perspective. I think a lot of what he says has merit, but also depends on field/university. It was well written and interesting to read! Thanks for sharing!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: The Good, the Bad, and the Bye Bye: A Professor Shares Why He Left His Tenured Academic Job I found this article interesting and wanted to share it with the community, since it could be relevant to many people here: https://reyammer.io/blog/2020/10/03/the-good-the-bad-and-the-bye-bye-why-i-left-my-tenured-academic-job/
RESPONSE A: Definitely an fascinating and relatable perspective. I think a lot of what he says has merit, but also depends on field/university. It was well written and interesting to read! Thanks for sharing!
RESPONSE B: This is some of the better quit-lit that I’ve read. Acknowledges the good stuff, isn’t too bitter
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I became intimate with my advisor last night Not much more to add. The tension has been building between us as I work on my dissertation and last night things happened. I go back and forth. On one hand, it was absolutely thrilling. On the other, I’m afraid I’ve just torpedoed my academic career. Does anyone have advice on how to navigate this moving forward?
RESPONSE A: This is bad judgement on the part of your advisor
RESPONSE B: Where I work and, I believe, at most universities, this represents a serious violation by your advisor (and not by you) due to the power imbalance between the two of you. If you ever feel the slightest bit pressured or uncomfortable about this in any way, report it to your Dean and your campus Title IX office.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I became intimate with my advisor last night Not much more to add. The tension has been building between us as I work on my dissertation and last night things happened. I go back and forth. On one hand, it was absolutely thrilling. On the other, I’m afraid I’ve just torpedoed my academic career. Does anyone have advice on how to navigate this moving forward?
RESPONSE A: > The tension has been building between us as I work on my dissertation and last night things happened. This is a great opening line for an erotica.
RESPONSE B: At the very, very, very least I would create an anonymous email account and send a message to your ombuds asking for information about policies and procedures at your institution.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I became intimate with my advisor last night Not much more to add. The tension has been building between us as I work on my dissertation and last night things happened. I go back and forth. On one hand, it was absolutely thrilling. On the other, I’m afraid I’ve just torpedoed my academic career. Does anyone have advice on how to navigate this moving forward?
RESPONSE A: So both of you were sober and wanted it? Then congratulations, as for any other consensual, pleasant sex and relationship. Everything else depends on many things, such as any other relationships of both of you, and on where you are - what are the regulations and cultural (un)acceptance about it in your country, school and department. Probably best keep it secret from anyone who can harm you or your advisor with such knowledge, such as his/her other advisees. If relevant, best try to not make babies which would show before you can graduate. Or, if you are early in your degree and want to freely pursue a serious relationship with your advisor without so much waiting, you two may look into a possibility to have you switch to another advisor, if your school requires that to prevent conflict of interest or harassment.
RESPONSE B: At the very, very, very least I would create an anonymous email account and send a message to your ombuds asking for information about policies and procedures at your institution.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I became intimate with my advisor last night Not much more to add. The tension has been building between us as I work on my dissertation and last night things happened. I go back and forth. On one hand, it was absolutely thrilling. On the other, I’m afraid I’ve just torpedoed my academic career. Does anyone have advice on how to navigate this moving forward?
RESPONSE A: So both of you were sober and wanted it? Then congratulations, as for any other consensual, pleasant sex and relationship. Everything else depends on many things, such as any other relationships of both of you, and on where you are - what are the regulations and cultural (un)acceptance about it in your country, school and department. Probably best keep it secret from anyone who can harm you or your advisor with such knowledge, such as his/her other advisees. If relevant, best try to not make babies which would show before you can graduate. Or, if you are early in your degree and want to freely pursue a serious relationship with your advisor without so much waiting, you two may look into a possibility to have you switch to another advisor, if your school requires that to prevent conflict of interest or harassment.
RESPONSE B: Pls stop giving advice until we get more details on what exactly happened.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I became intimate with my advisor last night Not much more to add. The tension has been building between us as I work on my dissertation and last night things happened. I go back and forth. On one hand, it was absolutely thrilling. On the other, I’m afraid I’ve just torpedoed my academic career. Does anyone have advice on how to navigate this moving forward?
RESPONSE A: Honestly this is a story as old as time. Check your hr policy. I don’t think it will ruin your academic career
RESPONSE B: At the very, very, very least I would create an anonymous email account and send a message to your ombuds asking for information about policies and procedures at your institution.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it a career killer to attend the same school as undergrad for a PhD? I've been in my current physics research group at an R1 state school for a year. The problem we're working on is a long-term problem that I find inspiring and important. I've also received really strong mentorship here. I got into another school where they'd like me to work on the same problem, if I choose to go there. They said they'd like to collaborate even if I don't go there. I'm not married to the idea of an academic career, but I would consider it if I felt I was competitive. Logistically, staying at my current school would be easier, and I have momentum. Would staying at my current institution be a bad decision? Or is the important thing that I work with other groups of people and broaden my horizons?
RESPONSE A: many people are saying schools love to hire their own. so, if you do undergrad at one school, grad at another, post doc at a third, that's three schools that would love to hire you because you are one of their own. nice.
RESPONSE B: I can’t answer this generally but my I will give a little of my own experience. I work in both the Microbiology and Food Science departments in a R1 university in the southeast US. Over the past 4 years or so that I have been a grad student I get an email every time a new faculty (teaching and research) is hired by the departments. In these emails they give background for the new hires including where they went to school for undergrad/grad/postdoc. I would say roughly 60% of the hires went to our school for a degree or postdoc and maybe 30% have a degree and postdoc from our school. Maybe it’s a southern thing but my school loves to hire their own. Why wouldn’t they? They know how good you are, they know if you get along with students/faculty, you likely have recommendations from their own faculty, the hiring committee members might know you personally, and they know if you will fit into the school culture better than they ever could from a few interviews.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: an academic career, but I would consider it if I felt I was competitive. Logistically, staying at my current school would be easier, and I have momentum. Would staying at my current institution be a bad decision? Or is the important thing that I work with other groups of people and broaden my horizons?
RESPONSE A: I can’t answer this generally but my I will give a little of my own experience. I work in both the Microbiology and Food Science departments in a R1 university in the southeast US. Over the past 4 years or so that I have been a grad student I get an email every time a new faculty (teaching and research) is hired by the departments. In these emails they give background for the new hires including where they went to school for undergrad/grad/postdoc. I would say roughly 60% of the hires went to our school for a degree or postdoc and maybe 30% have a degree and postdoc from our school. Maybe it’s a southern thing but my school loves to hire their own. Why wouldn’t they? They know how good you are, they know if you get along with students/faculty, you likely have recommendations from their own faculty, the hiring committee members might know you personally, and they know if you will fit into the school culture better than they ever could from a few interviews.
RESPONSE B: Definitely not a killer! I know folks who have done their undergrad and grad degrees at the same institution and done fine. I personally have switched university for each of my degrees (currently doing my master's at a different university than I did my undergrad at and will be starting my PhD in September at yet another university). In my experience, there are few plus sides I've found to changing universities: * more connections with researchers at the new university * while you mentioned they would still want to collaborate, you likely wouldn't get to know other people in their department * opportunity to pick up new skills * while the project sounds as though it would be the same, research groups within the same discipline do things differently * important because you never know what skills you'll need in your career * more "life" experience * experiencing a new city is great, you might find a new hobby or extracurricular
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it a career killer to attend the same school as undergrad for a PhD? I've been in my current physics research group at an R1 state school for a year. The problem we're working on is a long-term problem that I find inspiring and important. I've also received really strong mentorship here. I got into another school where they'd like me to work on the same problem, if I choose to go there. They said they'd like to collaborate even if I don't go there. I'm not married to the idea of an academic career, but I would consider it if I felt I was competitive. Logistically, staying at my current school would be easier, and I have momentum. Would staying at my current institution be a bad decision? Or is the important thing that I work with other groups of people and broaden my horizons?
RESPONSE A: Go with whoever is funding you
RESPONSE B: I can’t answer this generally but my I will give a little of my own experience. I work in both the Microbiology and Food Science departments in a R1 university in the southeast US. Over the past 4 years or so that I have been a grad student I get an email every time a new faculty (teaching and research) is hired by the departments. In these emails they give background for the new hires including where they went to school for undergrad/grad/postdoc. I would say roughly 60% of the hires went to our school for a degree or postdoc and maybe 30% have a degree and postdoc from our school. Maybe it’s a southern thing but my school loves to hire their own. Why wouldn’t they? They know how good you are, they know if you get along with students/faculty, you likely have recommendations from their own faculty, the hiring committee members might know you personally, and they know if you will fit into the school culture better than they ever could from a few interviews.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it a career killer to attend the same school as undergrad for a PhD? I've been in my current physics research group at an R1 state school for a year. The problem we're working on is a long-term problem that I find inspiring and important. I've also received really strong mentorship here. I got into another school where they'd like me to work on the same problem, if I choose to go there. They said they'd like to collaborate even if I don't go there. I'm not married to the idea of an academic career, but I would consider it if I felt I was competitive. Logistically, staying at my current school would be easier, and I have momentum. Would staying at my current institution be a bad decision? Or is the important thing that I work with other groups of people and broaden my horizons?
RESPONSE A: Not if it’s a good school for your PhD area.
RESPONSE B: Go with whoever is funding you
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it a career killer to attend the same school as undergrad for a PhD? I've been in my current physics research group at an R1 state school for a year. The problem we're working on is a long-term problem that I find inspiring and important. I've also received really strong mentorship here. I got into another school where they'd like me to work on the same problem, if I choose to go there. They said they'd like to collaborate even if I don't go there. I'm not married to the idea of an academic career, but I would consider it if I felt I was competitive. Logistically, staying at my current school would be easier, and I have momentum. Would staying at my current institution be a bad decision? Or is the important thing that I work with other groups of people and broaden my horizons?
RESPONSE A: Emphasizing it really depends on the expertise. In my area of archaeology, there’s pretty much one person in the States who has published extensively. I got lucky to have met her in undergrad and continue working with her.
RESPONSE B: Go with whoever is funding you
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: When was/is it time to cash out? For those of you who left for the industry, how did you know it was time? I’ve been on the market for like 5 years now. A dozen journal articles (about half first/sole authored), 50 or so conference papers, and a few book chapters. I was an instructor for 3 years, so I’ve got a ton of teaching experience. I get a fair number of interviews. I used to get a fair number of visits. I’ve literally never gotten an offer. (I think I’m a decent enough person, but maybe I have horrific flaw nobody’s ever told me about.) This year was more of the same. 6 interviews, no visits, obviously no offers, and the candidates getting the jobs generally have much weaker CVs than mine. I just can’t keep doing this. It’s killing me. So for those of you who got out (assuming you wanted in in the first place), how did you know it was time to give up on this stuff?
RESPONSE A: Have you interviewed for any industry positions? Seems like that would help clarify your desires.
RESPONSE B: Over 100 pubs, a couple books, former tenured full prof. We had not gotten merit-based raises in 8 years, I was advising 3 PhD students with no course release, and was graduate director. Those that do, just keep getting asked to do more. I had gotten a decent (but not great) raise only by getting an outside offer. I love my new position in industry; irony is I still get to do research & teach.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: for the industry, how did you know it was time? I’ve been on the market for like 5 years now. A dozen journal articles (about half first/sole authored), 50 or so conference papers, and a few book chapters. I was an instructor for 3 years, so I’ve got a ton of teaching experience. I get a fair number of interviews. I used to get a fair number of visits. I’ve literally never gotten an offer. (I think I’m a decent enough person, but maybe I have horrific flaw nobody’s ever told me about.) This year was more of the same. 6 interviews, no visits, obviously no offers, and the candidates getting the jobs generally have much weaker CVs than mine. I just can’t keep doing this. It’s killing me. So for those of you who got out (assuming you wanted in in the first place), how did you know it was time to give up on this stuff?
RESPONSE A: Over 100 pubs, a couple books, former tenured full prof. We had not gotten merit-based raises in 8 years, I was advising 3 PhD students with no course release, and was graduate director. Those that do, just keep getting asked to do more. I had gotten a decent (but not great) raise only by getting an outside offer. I love my new position in industry; irony is I still get to do research & teach.
RESPONSE B: Very clear that administration's vision was in a direction that was not going to be conducive to the department long-term. Spouse worked in the administration office and was brought on with X title, but generally expected to do lesser Y job, with little growth opportunity and a very toxic work environment. This was a 3rd toxic environment they'd had at the university in a small town, so we pulled the plug to go elsewhere. A consequence was me leaving academia. While I do miss teaching a bit, I don't regret the change. I miss out on the handful of motivated students, but I get to skip out on the much larger percent of students who don't give a damn and put in minimal effort but still want an "A" because otherwise they'll "lose their assistanceship."
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: When was/is it time to cash out? For those of you who left for the industry, how did you know it was time? I’ve been on the market for like 5 years now. A dozen journal articles (about half first/sole authored), 50 or so conference papers, and a few book chapters. I was an instructor for 3 years, so I’ve got a ton of teaching experience. I get a fair number of interviews. I used to get a fair number of visits. I’ve literally never gotten an offer. (I think I’m a decent enough person, but maybe I have horrific flaw nobody’s ever told me about.) This year was more of the same. 6 interviews, no visits, obviously no offers, and the candidates getting the jobs generally have much weaker CVs than mine. I just can’t keep doing this. It’s killing me. So for those of you who got out (assuming you wanted in in the first place), how did you know it was time to give up on this stuff?
RESPONSE A: Are you *enjoying* what you're doing *right now*? Once you find yourself just doing everything "for the CV" or "for the interview", stop. This is your life, and you have to live it on your own terms. There's so much more out there for you. Btw depending on your field you can still apply for faculty jobs when you're in industry, especially if you're in R&D areas, so you're not exactly "giving up". And if you can/want, reach out to some people who have interviewed you for more details. Everything is kind of a gamble since there's only one slot, but they may have specific advice.
RESPONSE B: Have you interviewed for any industry positions? Seems like that would help clarify your desires.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: For those of you who left for the industry, how did you know it was time? I’ve been on the market for like 5 years now. A dozen journal articles (about half first/sole authored), 50 or so conference papers, and a few book chapters. I was an instructor for 3 years, so I’ve got a ton of teaching experience. I get a fair number of interviews. I used to get a fair number of visits. I’ve literally never gotten an offer. (I think I’m a decent enough person, but maybe I have horrific flaw nobody’s ever told me about.) This year was more of the same. 6 interviews, no visits, obviously no offers, and the candidates getting the jobs generally have much weaker CVs than mine. I just can’t keep doing this. It’s killing me. So for those of you who got out (assuming you wanted in in the first place), how did you know it was time to give up on this stuff?
RESPONSE A: Very clear that administration's vision was in a direction that was not going to be conducive to the department long-term. Spouse worked in the administration office and was brought on with X title, but generally expected to do lesser Y job, with little growth opportunity and a very toxic work environment. This was a 3rd toxic environment they'd had at the university in a small town, so we pulled the plug to go elsewhere. A consequence was me leaving academia. While I do miss teaching a bit, I don't regret the change. I miss out on the handful of motivated students, but I get to skip out on the much larger percent of students who don't give a damn and put in minimal effort but still want an "A" because otherwise they'll "lose their assistanceship."
RESPONSE B: I haven't gotten out yet, but I am at the end of the my PhD and I am leaving. My PhD wasn't excellent, and I am aware that the odds are bad even for someone with a wonderful track record of publications. The uncertainty, temporary contracts, bad pay, the constant moving houses and countries... love for science is not enough to tip the balance towards staying in academia. Also, there is still science outside the university walls.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: When was/is it time to cash out? For those of you who left for the industry, how did you know it was time? I’ve been on the market for like 5 years now. A dozen journal articles (about half first/sole authored), 50 or so conference papers, and a few book chapters. I was an instructor for 3 years, so I’ve got a ton of teaching experience. I get a fair number of interviews. I used to get a fair number of visits. I’ve literally never gotten an offer. (I think I’m a decent enough person, but maybe I have horrific flaw nobody’s ever told me about.) This year was more of the same. 6 interviews, no visits, obviously no offers, and the candidates getting the jobs generally have much weaker CVs than mine. I just can’t keep doing this. It’s killing me. So for those of you who got out (assuming you wanted in in the first place), how did you know it was time to give up on this stuff?
RESPONSE A: Whew— nowhere near that far into all of it (defended just before everything went to hell a year ago, graduated last May...) but already debating if I should try to do something else. I know I should give it more time, but seems to me you have given it enough time and tried to make it happen. I think the question about whether you're enjoying the work you're doing now, even if you're not getting the "reward" you feel you deserve, might be worth considering. I'm also wondering if you're surviving right now— like do you have a gig economy teaching job right now or...?
RESPONSE B: I haven't gotten out yet, but I am at the end of the my PhD and I am leaving. My PhD wasn't excellent, and I am aware that the odds are bad even for someone with a wonderful track record of publications. The uncertainty, temporary contracts, bad pay, the constant moving houses and countries... love for science is not enough to tip the balance towards staying in academia. Also, there is still science outside the university walls.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Totally bombed my first TT job interview; advice from those who’ve been there? I didn’t expect to get this interview and it was super last minute. Usually I interview pretty well but it was like the link between my brain and mouth was severed, and also all my neurotransmitters were replaced with molasses. Any tips for moving on? I do have another interview in a couple weeks and I’m feeling a lot more prepared for that one at least...
RESPONSE A: I also didn't do as well as I'd hoped on my first TT interview. I actually began getting a migraine with aura with about 4 hours (including my teaching demo) remaining. I did my best to power though, but I suspect I came across as impatient and perhaps a little drunk? My second and third interviews were better. My fourth interview likely the best. Take a bit of time to write down what you can remember about what they asked you, its all likely to come up again. You can practice answers versions of those questions for yourself, either in writing, or aloud to yourself/pet/partner/friend. I found that once I had confidence in what I saw saying I could think on my feet a bit better. I also spent sometime wearing my interview outfits around so I didn't feel totally non-myself while wearing them. I know that sounds odd. But, I think that made me feel more comfortable with the version of myself I needed to present, and it really helped with my confidence.
RESPONSE B: I’m a tenured faculty member. Been doing this a long time. I’m really good at my job. In the past three years, I’ve bombed two interviews that I was head hunted for. Whoops. Good candidates have bad days. Don’t let it get you down.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Totally bombed my first TT job interview; advice from those who’ve been there? I didn’t expect to get this interview and it was super last minute. Usually I interview pretty well but it was like the link between my brain and mouth was severed, and also all my neurotransmitters were replaced with molasses. Any tips for moving on? I do have another interview in a couple weeks and I’m feeling a lot more prepared for that one at least...
RESPONSE A: I’m a tenured faculty member. Been doing this a long time. I’m really good at my job. In the past three years, I’ve bombed two interviews that I was head hunted for. Whoops. Good candidates have bad days. Don’t let it get you down.
RESPONSE B: Look up the tenure requirements so you can talk about them. Be able to lay out your research agenda in short sound bites- both what you are working on now and how that will build over the 1st six years. Also sound bites on teaching. Of course you’ll take on the huge intro classes, and this is how I plan to make them interesting. But I also see that no one is teaching such and such, and I would like to build a class or classes in that area. Students need to see how your subject area connects to the real world. Will you bring people in, include UGs in research, help them get internships... or whatever works best in your field. If you do a demo class, PRACTICE! Lastly, have the idea in your head that you are interviewing them. Make sure it’s a good fit for you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Totally bombed my first TT job interview; advice from those who’ve been there? I didn’t expect to get this interview and it was super last minute. Usually I interview pretty well but it was like the link between my brain and mouth was severed, and also all my neurotransmitters were replaced with molasses. Any tips for moving on? I do have another interview in a couple weeks and I’m feeling a lot more prepared for that one at least...
RESPONSE A: I've never been invited for a TT interview
RESPONSE B: I’m a tenured faculty member. Been doing this a long time. I’m really good at my job. In the past three years, I’ve bombed two interviews that I was head hunted for. Whoops. Good candidates have bad days. Don’t let it get you down.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Totally bombed my first TT job interview; advice from those who’ve been there? I didn’t expect to get this interview and it was super last minute. Usually I interview pretty well but it was like the link between my brain and mouth was severed, and also all my neurotransmitters were replaced with molasses. Any tips for moving on? I do have another interview in a couple weeks and I’m feeling a lot more prepared for that one at least...
RESPONSE A: I’m a tenured faculty member. Been doing this a long time. I’m really good at my job. In the past three years, I’ve bombed two interviews that I was head hunted for. Whoops. Good candidates have bad days. Don’t let it get you down.
RESPONSE B: Agree with others here. I said some stupid shit during my first TT interview.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Colons in article titles: Yes or no? It seems that people have strong opinions about this. Please share yours.
RESPONSE A: Seems like something I should have a strong opinion on but I don't.
RESPONSE B: Boring Article Topics: Liven it up with a Pun
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Colons in article titles: Yes or no? It seems that people have strong opinions about this. Please share yours.
RESPONSE A: Seems like something I should have a strong opinion on but I don't.
RESPONSE B: Is it possible to have a title of an academic article *without* a colon?: A question for the community
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Colons in article titles: Yes or no? It seems that people have strong opinions about this. Please share yours.
RESPONSE A: I love colons. Just so long as you don't reach Victorian level title length, e.g.: *"The Travels Of Hildebrand Bowman, Esquire, Into Carnovirria, Taupiniera, Olfactaria, And Audinante, In New-Zealand; And In The Powerful Kingdom Of Luxo-Voluptot. Written By Himself; Who Went On Shore In The Adventure’s Large Cutter; And Escaped Being Cut Off, And Devoured, With The Rest Of The Boat’s Crew, By Happening To Be A-Shooting In The Woods; Where He Was Afterwards, Unfortunately Left Behind By The Adventure."* https://the-toast.net/2014/08/06/100-actual-titles-real-eighteenth-century-novels/
RESPONSE B: It's an overused trope, but there's a reason why it's a popular trope.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Colons in article titles: Yes or no? It seems that people have strong opinions about this. Please share yours.
RESPONSE A: I love colons. Just so long as you don't reach Victorian level title length, e.g.: *"The Travels Of Hildebrand Bowman, Esquire, Into Carnovirria, Taupiniera, Olfactaria, And Audinante, In New-Zealand; And In The Powerful Kingdom Of Luxo-Voluptot. Written By Himself; Who Went On Shore In The Adventure’s Large Cutter; And Escaped Being Cut Off, And Devoured, With The Rest Of The Boat’s Crew, By Happening To Be A-Shooting In The Woods; Where He Was Afterwards, Unfortunately Left Behind By The Adventure."* https://the-toast.net/2014/08/06/100-actual-titles-real-eighteenth-century-novels/
RESPONSE B: Next year these are all going to be vision puns :2020
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it worth sacrificing your early 20s for a PhD when you can get a Masters? I’m currently 21 (22 early next year) and a Biomed graduate, further planning to continue my studies so I can spend more time researching prognostic biomarkers in cardiovascular disease. So I was considering between taking a PhD or masters; while I would have more creative freedom regarding my research with a PhD, its a long commitment, around 3-4 years, so I’ll have spent nearly all of my early 20s in school without the typical vacations that someone taking a masters would get. Now that wouldn’t be a huge problem since this is something I really enjoy, except that I have a personal philosophy that my early 20s are supposed to be for doing as many adventurous things (e.g. travelling) as I can, so I won’t come to regret not doing those things sooner by the time I have greater responsibilities like a full time job and a family. Now I don’t plan on getting into academia, but I do want to get into an R&D role in industry, where PhD holders are highly sought after, although masters holders are also considered. Looking forward to hearing all of your thoughts!
RESPONSE A: > Is it worth sacrificing your early 20s for a PhD when you can get a Masters? No idea, you tell us. Your priorities are yours. I did my PhD in my 20's and the university paid me to travel and present shit to large audiences of experts - to me that's adventurous enough.
RESPONSE B: If you feel like doing a PhD is a "sacrifice," you shouldn't get one.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it worth sacrificing your early 20s for a PhD when you can get a Masters? I’m currently 21 (22 early next year) and a Biomed graduate, further planning to continue my studies so I can spend more time researching prognostic biomarkers in cardiovascular disease. So I was considering between taking a PhD or masters; while I would have more creative freedom regarding my research with a PhD, its a long commitment, around 3-4 years, so I’ll have spent nearly all of my early 20s in school without the typical vacations that someone taking a masters would get. Now that wouldn’t be a huge problem since this is something I really enjoy, except that I have a personal philosophy that my early 20s are supposed to be for doing as many adventurous things (e.g. travelling) as I can, so I won’t come to regret not doing those things sooner by the time I have greater responsibilities like a full time job and a family. Now I don’t plan on getting into academia, but I do want to get into an R&D role in industry, where PhD holders are highly sought after, although masters holders are also considered. Looking forward to hearing all of your thoughts!
RESPONSE A: In Europe you have to have a Master's degree to apply to PhDs, so I assume you are American? I mean you can still travel in your 30s
RESPONSE B: > Is it worth sacrificing your early 20s for a PhD when you can get a Masters? No idea, you tell us. Your priorities are yours. I did my PhD in my 20's and the university paid me to travel and present shit to large audiences of experts - to me that's adventurous enough.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I can spend more time researching prognostic biomarkers in cardiovascular disease. So I was considering between taking a PhD or masters; while I would have more creative freedom regarding my research with a PhD, its a long commitment, around 3-4 years, so I’ll have spent nearly all of my early 20s in school without the typical vacations that someone taking a masters would get. Now that wouldn’t be a huge problem since this is something I really enjoy, except that I have a personal philosophy that my early 20s are supposed to be for doing as many adventurous things (e.g. travelling) as I can, so I won’t come to regret not doing those things sooner by the time I have greater responsibilities like a full time job and a family. Now I don’t plan on getting into academia, but I do want to get into an R&D role in industry, where PhD holders are highly sought after, although masters holders are also considered. Looking forward to hearing all of your thoughts!
RESPONSE A: As somebody who’s getting their bachelor’s degree at the age of 29 (will be finished by 30), I’d say go for it if you truly believe that the pursuit, unto itself, aligns with your long-term interests overall. I, by all objective measures, lived it up in my early twenties with nothing more than a CS certification as a means to independently support myself financially but now that I’m older and have gotten much of that out of my system, I can’t help but wish I had taken the time to wholly dedicate myself to the academic ventures which I, admittedly, knew that I’d eventually get to. Get it out of the way now so as to legitimately enjoy yourself when not only your ideals are more significantly developed, but also your comprehension of “need” and all the potential ramifications therein. EDIT: syntax
RESPONSE B: > Is it worth sacrificing your early 20s for a PhD when you can get a Masters? No idea, you tell us. Your priorities are yours. I did my PhD in my 20's and the university paid me to travel and present shit to large audiences of experts - to me that's adventurous enough.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it worth sacrificing your early 20s for a PhD when you can get a Masters? I’m currently 21 (22 early next year) and a Biomed graduate, further planning to continue my studies so I can spend more time researching prognostic biomarkers in cardiovascular disease. So I was considering between taking a PhD or masters; while I would have more creative freedom regarding my research with a PhD, its a long commitment, around 3-4 years, so I’ll have spent nearly all of my early 20s in school without the typical vacations that someone taking a masters would get. Now that wouldn’t be a huge problem since this is something I really enjoy, except that I have a personal philosophy that my early 20s are supposed to be for doing as many adventurous things (e.g. travelling) as I can, so I won’t come to regret not doing those things sooner by the time I have greater responsibilities like a full time job and a family. Now I don’t plan on getting into academia, but I do want to get into an R&D role in industry, where PhD holders are highly sought after, although masters holders are also considered. Looking forward to hearing all of your thoughts!
RESPONSE A: A phd is an adventure
RESPONSE B: > Is it worth sacrificing your early 20s for a PhD when you can get a Masters? No idea, you tell us. Your priorities are yours. I did my PhD in my 20's and the university paid me to travel and present shit to large audiences of experts - to me that's adventurous enough.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it worth sacrificing your early 20s for a PhD when you can get a Masters? I’m currently 21 (22 early next year) and a Biomed graduate, further planning to continue my studies so I can spend more time researching prognostic biomarkers in cardiovascular disease. So I was considering between taking a PhD or masters; while I would have more creative freedom regarding my research with a PhD, its a long commitment, around 3-4 years, so I’ll have spent nearly all of my early 20s in school without the typical vacations that someone taking a masters would get. Now that wouldn’t be a huge problem since this is something I really enjoy, except that I have a personal philosophy that my early 20s are supposed to be for doing as many adventurous things (e.g. travelling) as I can, so I won’t come to regret not doing those things sooner by the time I have greater responsibilities like a full time job and a family. Now I don’t plan on getting into academia, but I do want to get into an R&D role in industry, where PhD holders are highly sought after, although masters holders are also considered. Looking forward to hearing all of your thoughts!
RESPONSE A: If you feel like doing a PhD is a "sacrifice," you shouldn't get one.
RESPONSE B: You're asking us about your priorities. They're your priorities. Do the one you feel is the bigger priority. You can get a PhD a few years later. You can also travel a few years later. There's nothing special about your early 20s that means "it's better to travel now than any other time." And taking a break won't lock you out of PhD programs; plenty of people in my PhD program were in their 30s.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Final oral exam (phd) in a few weeks and still making revisions *laughs maniacally* Just wanted to share my slow descent into madness because why not. I wrote so much of this flamin' dorito turd of a manuscript before I got diagnosed with adhd and for a month I have been trying to make sense of the disjointed musings of my premedicated rabid raccoon brain. Whenever I think I am done, I re-read a section and I just start laughing at the monitor. It's scaring my dog. Weeell, I may or may not have earned my PhD at the end of this month. Find out on the next Dragon Ball Z. PS: Any tips for the defense will be greatly appreciated. It will be on Zoom which I still don't know how I feel about but at least I can ghost my committee forever if I feel things are going downhill midway through.
RESPONSE A: Don't use any slide transitions or animations other than 'appear' Starwipes, etc. look awful on a good day, and a laggy stilted mess on zoom.
RESPONSE B: Will the committee you’re presenting to read your updated work before the presentation or have you already submitted it? If your talk is based on what you’ve already submitted don’t focus so much time on revising the manuscript right now, focus on getting the talk perfected. Be aware that they may ask you questions based on the submitted work but just accept that it is what it is, be aware of and prepare explanations about key problems in the submitted work and just focus on getting your talk to show the true scientist you are. Getting hung up on problems with your submitted work and beating yourself up about them will only hurt you. It is what it is. It happened and now we move on to bigger and better.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How to tell my PhD advisor that I don't want to be a professor anymore? In the beginning of my PhD program (Materials Science, R1) I told my PI of my ambition to be a faculty. I'm the first PhD student of my PI, so I know that they put lots of effort and resources for my research training. As a young PI, having a mentee who goes on becoming a faculty seems like a big achievement and a legacy to be proud of for the rest of their career. Now I'm nearing the end of my PhD and, after contemplating, I want to have a comfortable and stable life after PhD. I don't see doing postdoc(s) and looking for non-existent tenure-track faculty jobs as a comfortable/stable life. Although this may not be true if I decide to move elsewhere out of state. With all the sacrifice my PI has given to me (resulting in my super productive outputs, a number of first-authored papers, as well as several fellowships in my belt), how should I respectfully tell my PI that I changed my mind about my future career? What is the best way to explain that I may no longer want to be a professor? I'm not really good at speaking and choosing the right words to say, so your suggestions are highly appreciated.
RESPONSE A: you think they put all that effort into you because you want to be faculty, NO they did it cuz it was their job and they want publications.
RESPONSE B: “Dear prof I’ve been thinking about my future and I’m not as excited about an academic path as before. Instead I want to XYZ. How can I pivot my work to be more competitive in that career trajectory?”
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: it gauche to discuss with a new prof in the dept? I received a tenure track asst prof offer on Fri in chemical engineering at a mid level R1 institute in the US. I am happy! I do not have other offers and 100% plan to take this because my husband is here and there’s no other option within two hour commute. (1) I can see salaries online as they are public. I am very happy with the salary offer. Should I still negotiate? Always? (2) The start up funding is quite low ($25,000) unexpectedly low, for someone who does wet chemistry. I genuinely expected it to be an order of magnitude higher. I cannot buy any piece of equipment or support even one student with this money. Not sure what to even say. I thought about asking another professor who just began in the dept last year what he thought I could negotiate for in funding. Unsure what’s appropriate given the large chasm. Almost want to accept and not deal with it, after I waited 3 months for the offer.
RESPONSE A: Ask for the startup you need to succeed. That is important and it doesn’t matter what anyone else got. The department wants you to be successful, so they won’t mind you asking for this.
RESPONSE B: More money is always better (like if someone said "hey, want $5000", you'd say yes) so no harm in negotiating salary, but I'd start your talks with the priority, and that in this case is your start up. There is the balance of accepting what you can get because the market is taking a tumble right now, but there is also the issue of can you actually be successful with that. I went into my negotiations with the mindset of I had told them my research plans, they had hired me knowing that, so they should want me to be able to be successful. Did you make a list of what you needed/wanted and justified it? If so, time to reiterate with them why you need these things. There might be alternate ways to get things too- shared with other people, institutional grants, teaching release while you get grants to buy these things, students supported by dept/TAships, etc. But make sure you aren't walking into a situation that you cannot be successful in.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: institute in the US. I am happy! I do not have other offers and 100% plan to take this because my husband is here and there’s no other option within two hour commute. (1) I can see salaries online as they are public. I am very happy with the salary offer. Should I still negotiate? Always? (2) The start up funding is quite low ($25,000) unexpectedly low, for someone who does wet chemistry. I genuinely expected it to be an order of magnitude higher. I cannot buy any piece of equipment or support even one student with this money. Not sure what to even say. I thought about asking another professor who just began in the dept last year what he thought I could negotiate for in funding. Unsure what’s appropriate given the large chasm. Almost want to accept and not deal with it, after I waited 3 months for the offer.
RESPONSE A: Ask for the startup you need to succeed. That is important and it doesn’t matter what anyone else got. The department wants you to be successful, so they won’t mind you asking for this.
RESPONSE B: You know that movie trope where someone tumbles off a cliff, falling a frightening distance, but manages to grab on to a slight ledge momentarily stopping a plummet all the way to the bottom? Maybe they'll pull themselves back up or maybe they'll lose their grip and free fall to the bottom. That's where academia (and with it the academic job market) is right now, down and hanging on precariously. Schools are facing significant threats to enrollment, which costs them in both tuition and auxiliary revenue, while having to simultaneously adjust to a new model for their services. Endowments haven taken a hit from the stock market drop. Fear and uncertainty is causing normally very tradition-bound institutions to abandon certain norms, renege on contracts, and eat their own seed corn out of immediate need. And they have the cover of "generational catastrophe" to excuse and rationalize it. If you like the salary, it's in line with published values, and you'd be willing to work at the place, lock that down asap. Get your actual contract or appointment letter signed and hope the school doesn't renege.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I just received tenure track offer and start up package - do I need to negotiate? Is it gauche to discuss with a new prof in the dept? I received a tenure track asst prof offer on Fri in chemical engineering at a mid level R1 institute in the US. I am happy! I do not have other offers and 100% plan to take this because my husband is here and there’s no other option within two hour commute. (1) I can see salaries online as they are public. I am very happy with the salary offer. Should I still negotiate? Always? (2) The start up funding is quite low ($25,000) unexpectedly low, for someone who does wet chemistry. I genuinely expected it to be an order of magnitude higher. I cannot buy any piece of equipment or support even one student with this money. Not sure what to even say. I thought about asking another professor who just began in the dept last year what he thought I could negotiate for in funding. Unsure what’s appropriate given the large chasm. Almost want to accept and not deal with it, after I waited 3 months for the offer.
RESPONSE A: I do think it is gauche to ask other people in the department what they got (unless you were friends with them before you interviewed there or something). Talk to your peers about what they were offered at other institutions or talk to your mentors about how to approach negotiations.
RESPONSE B: Ask for the startup you need to succeed. That is important and it doesn’t matter what anyone else got. The department wants you to be successful, so they won’t mind you asking for this.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: of their way to always call attention to our gender. For example, they constantly refer to us as “girls” or “ladies,” express actual surprise that the female students are able complete work by deadlines and meet/exceed expectations, remark that it’s so unfair that a female TT “will get tenure only because she’s female”—I could go on but you get the idea. I don’t understand why our gender always has to be mentioned in every conversation. I voiced my reaction (“it makes me feel uncomfortable when male students and faculty members constantly remind me that I’m female. I don’t understand why every sentence has to end with “girls” or “ladies.”) to one of the students in a graduate student seminar when we were discussing inclusivity in the classroom, and he didn’t even try to understand where we were coming from (“But if you’re talking to a group of girls, what’s the problem with stating that?”) and it has only gotten worse since then. There isn’t a female professor that I can go talk to for advice, so I came to you, R/AskAcademia. These are good people with good intentions, but they don’t realize how the words they choose on a daily basis reinforce the “boys’ club” feeling of our department. What can we do to encourage them to think about it from our perspective?
RESPONSE A: You're right. I've seen this behaviour by a PhD student in my lab, he calls all women scientists no matter how accomplished or senior they are, girls. It's fucking stupid.
RESPONSE B: A few people here are missing the point. The fact that they say things like "women will get tenure just because they're women" is incredibly off. There's a blatant disregard for/dehumanisation of a person based on gender at play here. It rings starkingly similar to the way people denigrate race inclusivity programs. The "ladies" and "girls" remarks seem innocuous if taken as just that but if it's coming from people who partake in and condone that kind of discussion, there is a problem.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: But if you’re talking to a group of girls, what’s the problem with stating that?”) and it has only gotten worse since then. There isn’t a female professor that I can go talk to for advice, so I came to you, R/AskAcademia. These are good people with good intentions, but they don’t realize how the words they choose on a daily basis reinforce the “boys’ club” feeling of our department. What can we do to encourage them to think about it from our perspective?
RESPONSE A: This is unfortunately pretty common in all of the departments I've been in and it's hard to have a real conversation about it without immediately being discounted as a "snowflake" or oversensitive. IMO it comes off as borderline patronizing when men approach a group of female colleagues/students/whatever and start out with "ladies." I can't really put my finger on it but it just doesn't seem necessary to refer to people's gender in a professional context when there isn't a good reason for it. Even if you don't want to accept that it can be harmful, I think anyone would agree that it's at best not necessary. I think you put it best as reinforcing the "boys' club" feeling. Lots of people justify it by pointing out that it's okay to use gendered comments with groups of men, but I think that ignores the fact that women have historically (and still are) been excluded from science, had their ideas discounted, and faced unparalleled scrutiny in their work just because of their gender.
RESPONSE B: A few people here are missing the point. The fact that they say things like "women will get tenure just because they're women" is incredibly off. There's a blatant disregard for/dehumanisation of a person based on gender at play here. It rings starkingly similar to the way people denigrate race inclusivity programs. The "ladies" and "girls" remarks seem innocuous if taken as just that but if it's coming from people who partake in and condone that kind of discussion, there is a problem.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: me that I’m female. I don’t understand why every sentence has to end with “girls” or “ladies.”) to one of the students in a graduate student seminar when we were discussing inclusivity in the classroom, and he didn’t even try to understand where we were coming from (“But if you’re talking to a group of girls, what’s the problem with stating that?”) and it has only gotten worse since then. There isn’t a female professor that I can go talk to for advice, so I came to you, R/AskAcademia. These are good people with good intentions, but they don’t realize how the words they choose on a daily basis reinforce the “boys’ club” feeling of our department. What can we do to encourage them to think about it from our perspective?
RESPONSE A: This reminds me of my roommate's advisor. My roommate was telling me ( we are both guys) that his (male)advisor treats one of their female undergraduate students in a very sexist way. For example, the advisor would often not give her work and often says things like "It's a labor intensive work. You'll probably not be able to do it". After a few months of these remarks, the female undergraduate left his lab. My roommate felt very disappointed in his advisor. ​ Our graduate school has something called Graduate Women in Science (GWIS). It's basically an organization that promotes equal opportunities for all in science, that is for both men and women. Maybe you can start to implement this idea in your University ?
RESPONSE B: A few people here are missing the point. The fact that they say things like "women will get tenure just because they're women" is incredibly off. There's a blatant disregard for/dehumanisation of a person based on gender at play here. It rings starkingly similar to the way people denigrate race inclusivity programs. The "ladies" and "girls" remarks seem innocuous if taken as just that but if it's coming from people who partake in and condone that kind of discussion, there is a problem.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: remark that it’s so unfair that a female TT “will get tenure only because she’s female”—I could go on but you get the idea. I don’t understand why our gender always has to be mentioned in every conversation. I voiced my reaction (“it makes me feel uncomfortable when male students and faculty members constantly remind me that I’m female. I don’t understand why every sentence has to end with “girls” or “ladies.”) to one of the students in a graduate student seminar when we were discussing inclusivity in the classroom, and he didn’t even try to understand where we were coming from (“But if you’re talking to a group of girls, what’s the problem with stating that?”) and it has only gotten worse since then. There isn’t a female professor that I can go talk to for advice, so I came to you, R/AskAcademia. These are good people with good intentions, but they don’t realize how the words they choose on a daily basis reinforce the “boys’ club” feeling of our department. What can we do to encourage them to think about it from our perspective?
RESPONSE A: A few people here are missing the point. The fact that they say things like "women will get tenure just because they're women" is incredibly off. There's a blatant disregard for/dehumanisation of a person based on gender at play here. It rings starkingly similar to the way people denigrate race inclusivity programs. The "ladies" and "girls" remarks seem innocuous if taken as just that but if it's coming from people who partake in and condone that kind of discussion, there is a problem.
RESPONSE B: Try adding 'boys' to the end of your sentences addressing them. When they finally ask why you're doing that, point out they've been doing the same to you. But yeah, they don't notice these things, even when pointed out, and don't see the problem. Make sure you use 'boys' and not 'men' or 'guys'; it needs to be fairly insulting for them to notice.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is academia underpaid in the US? For most skilled jobs, the US have higher salaries than pretty much everywhere else in the world across the board. Sometimes the gap is massive at least for gross amounts, especially in tech. But academia seems to be a major exception. PhD stipends are ridiculous and barely allow students to scrape by. Postdoc salaries vary a lot but most of the positions I've come across were in the range of $45k-$60k. I guess you can live relatively comfortably in most of the US with that, but it's peanuts compared to what you'd get in the industry, and about the same as what you'd get in a country like Germany - not to mention Switzerland where postdocs usually start from $80k and can go up to $100k in the best institutions. You never get rich anywhere in academia - but in other countries academia seems to be less underpaid compared to non-academia. Given the amount of debt so many grad students in the US get themselves into, it really doesn't seem worth it. Granted, US academia can be the gateway for top paying non-academic jobs, and you can make good money in tenure track positions, but those are hard to come by. Is there something I'm missing here?
RESPONSE A: Swiss is probably the only place (in its face value) that makes academia \_seems\_ adequately paid. In fact, most of the places in the world are underpaying postdocs and also APs. Right now in the US we are admitting even more Ph.D. students (in my case, 2x), and that means the job market will be more competitive after \~5 years...
RESPONSE B: A big issue is simple economics: the supply of graduate students in certain disciplines far outstrips the demand in academia AND industry, combined. That, in part, explains some of the low wages many face (or less than desirable positions).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is academia underpaid in the US? For most skilled jobs, the US have higher salaries than pretty much everywhere else in the world across the board. Sometimes the gap is massive at least for gross amounts, especially in tech. But academia seems to be a major exception. PhD stipends are ridiculous and barely allow students to scrape by. Postdoc salaries vary a lot but most of the positions I've come across were in the range of $45k-$60k. I guess you can live relatively comfortably in most of the US with that, but it's peanuts compared to what you'd get in the industry, and about the same as what you'd get in a country like Germany - not to mention Switzerland where postdocs usually start from $80k and can go up to $100k in the best institutions. You never get rich anywhere in academia - but in other countries academia seems to be less underpaid compared to non-academia. Given the amount of debt so many grad students in the US get themselves into, it really doesn't seem worth it. Granted, US academia can be the gateway for top paying non-academic jobs, and you can make good money in tenure track positions, but those are hard to come by. Is there something I'm missing here?
RESPONSE A: Well, the humanities, fine arts, and social sciences are very underpaid, yes, but as someone else mentioned there is a supply/demand issue. For business and STEM at some top-tier universities, you can do really well if you’re tenured. But this is also part of why many folks are leaving academia lately.
RESPONSE B: Academia is underpaid EVERYWHERE. Show me another profession where you are expected to become an internationally renowned expert in your field within 3-4 years by expanding the limits of human knowledge but still have to come up with your own funding.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: especially in tech. But academia seems to be a major exception. PhD stipends are ridiculous and barely allow students to scrape by. Postdoc salaries vary a lot but most of the positions I've come across were in the range of $45k-$60k. I guess you can live relatively comfortably in most of the US with that, but it's peanuts compared to what you'd get in the industry, and about the same as what you'd get in a country like Germany - not to mention Switzerland where postdocs usually start from $80k and can go up to $100k in the best institutions. You never get rich anywhere in academia - but in other countries academia seems to be less underpaid compared to non-academia. Given the amount of debt so many grad students in the US get themselves into, it really doesn't seem worth it. Granted, US academia can be the gateway for top paying non-academic jobs, and you can make good money in tenure track positions, but those are hard to come by. Is there something I'm missing here?
RESPONSE A: Academia is underpaid EVERYWHERE. Show me another profession where you are expected to become an internationally renowned expert in your field within 3-4 years by expanding the limits of human knowledge but still have to come up with your own funding.
RESPONSE B: Looking at this from the biomedical sciences (probably applies to most STEM) perspective: the problem is that academic postdoc salary doesn't scale with cost-of-living. For some college towns, $55K is enough to buy a house and live comfortably. But $55K hardly covers rent in some cities. The pay scales with experience, but not the location, which is the issue. And for postdoc pay to scale with location, the budget for research grants (i.e. NIH R01s) needs to scale with location, but it obviously doesn't. In Europe, postdoc pay seems to scale by country's COL. At least in the biomedical sciences, once you become a PI, you can make good money - pretty close to industry. And PIs often spin off companies or consult for companies so you can do well financially as an academic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is academia underpaid in the US? For most skilled jobs, the US have higher salaries than pretty much everywhere else in the world across the board. Sometimes the gap is massive at least for gross amounts, especially in tech. But academia seems to be a major exception. PhD stipends are ridiculous and barely allow students to scrape by. Postdoc salaries vary a lot but most of the positions I've come across were in the range of $45k-$60k. I guess you can live relatively comfortably in most of the US with that, but it's peanuts compared to what you'd get in the industry, and about the same as what you'd get in a country like Germany - not to mention Switzerland where postdocs usually start from $80k and can go up to $100k in the best institutions. You never get rich anywhere in academia - but in other countries academia seems to be less underpaid compared to non-academia. Given the amount of debt so many grad students in the US get themselves into, it really doesn't seem worth it. Granted, US academia can be the gateway for top paying non-academic jobs, and you can make good money in tenure track positions, but those are hard to come by. Is there something I'm missing here?
RESPONSE A: Academia is underpaid EVERYWHERE. Show me another profession where you are expected to become an internationally renowned expert in your field within 3-4 years by expanding the limits of human knowledge but still have to come up with your own funding.
RESPONSE B: A big issue is simple economics: the supply of graduate students in certain disciplines far outstrips the demand in academia AND industry, combined. That, in part, explains some of the low wages many face (or less than desirable positions).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is academia underpaid in the US? For most skilled jobs, the US have higher salaries than pretty much everywhere else in the world across the board. Sometimes the gap is massive at least for gross amounts, especially in tech. But academia seems to be a major exception. PhD stipends are ridiculous and barely allow students to scrape by. Postdoc salaries vary a lot but most of the positions I've come across were in the range of $45k-$60k. I guess you can live relatively comfortably in most of the US with that, but it's peanuts compared to what you'd get in the industry, and about the same as what you'd get in a country like Germany - not to mention Switzerland where postdocs usually start from $80k and can go up to $100k in the best institutions. You never get rich anywhere in academia - but in other countries academia seems to be less underpaid compared to non-academia. Given the amount of debt so many grad students in the US get themselves into, it really doesn't seem worth it. Granted, US academia can be the gateway for top paying non-academic jobs, and you can make good money in tenure track positions, but those are hard to come by. Is there something I'm missing here?
RESPONSE A: Yes. Especially in any support roles.
RESPONSE B: Academia is underpaid EVERYWHERE. Show me another profession where you are expected to become an internationally renowned expert in your field within 3-4 years by expanding the limits of human knowledge but still have to come up with your own funding.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it normal to be put down in your first year of a PhD? I won't lie, there's been a massive learning curve for me this year to get used to how things are done at this level. Even simple things like writing papers, reports and presentations demands a standard I'm not very used to. Maybe I'm just being self-conscious and potentially reading the situations wrong but I always leave supervisor meetings feeling exhausted and somewhat put down if that makes sense? Like yesterday, my supervisor seemed very cold and distant, only offering criticisms of my work. Maybe it's just me?
RESPONSE A: To be blunt, having read your responses in this thread alone, you seem to already have a *very* defensive mindset, which indicates a fairly high likelihood that you are reading your supervisor's criticism as hostile when it is not meant to be. You also complained that your supervisor tells you where you've gone wrong, but doesn't tell you what to do to fix it. This is because you are a graduate student; you are expected to already have the skills you need to find out, and it is typically expected that you will go to your supervisor or more senior students only if you get stuck in the process. Grad school really is a whole different beast from undergrad. However, if you are diligent, by the end of your first year you should have the technical aspects (formatting, expectations) mastered to the point where they are very nearly automatic, and can then focus on content.
RESPONSE B: Your supervisor's job is to criticize your work, in order to help you make it better. That aspect of the PhD is a huge part of your training. Be mindful that this is work that your supervisor is putting into your training; it is meant to benefit you. One of the things about graduate school is that many of the aspects of training require you to leave your ego at the door when it comes to having your work criticized. It's not about *you, the person*; it is about training you to make your work better. That's it. I have found that accepting criticism with an attitude of gratitude for the work people have put into helping me is the most productive way to manage it. Being defensive about my work doesn't help me grow.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it normal to be put down in your first year of a PhD? I won't lie, there's been a massive learning curve for me this year to get used to how things are done at this level. Even simple things like writing papers, reports and presentations demands a standard I'm not very used to. Maybe I'm just being self-conscious and potentially reading the situations wrong but I always leave supervisor meetings feeling exhausted and somewhat put down if that makes sense? Like yesterday, my supervisor seemed very cold and distant, only offering criticisms of my work. Maybe it's just me?
RESPONSE A: Am I the only one who read this as "euthanized"?
RESPONSE B: To be blunt, having read your responses in this thread alone, you seem to already have a *very* defensive mindset, which indicates a fairly high likelihood that you are reading your supervisor's criticism as hostile when it is not meant to be. You also complained that your supervisor tells you where you've gone wrong, but doesn't tell you what to do to fix it. This is because you are a graduate student; you are expected to already have the skills you need to find out, and it is typically expected that you will go to your supervisor or more senior students only if you get stuck in the process. Grad school really is a whole different beast from undergrad. However, if you are diligent, by the end of your first year you should have the technical aspects (formatting, expectations) mastered to the point where they are very nearly automatic, and can then focus on content.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it normal to be put down in your first year of a PhD? I won't lie, there's been a massive learning curve for me this year to get used to how things are done at this level. Even simple things like writing papers, reports and presentations demands a standard I'm not very used to. Maybe I'm just being self-conscious and potentially reading the situations wrong but I always leave supervisor meetings feeling exhausted and somewhat put down if that makes sense? Like yesterday, my supervisor seemed very cold and distant, only offering criticisms of my work. Maybe it's just me?
RESPONSE A: To be blunt, having read your responses in this thread alone, you seem to already have a *very* defensive mindset, which indicates a fairly high likelihood that you are reading your supervisor's criticism as hostile when it is not meant to be. You also complained that your supervisor tells you where you've gone wrong, but doesn't tell you what to do to fix it. This is because you are a graduate student; you are expected to already have the skills you need to find out, and it is typically expected that you will go to your supervisor or more senior students only if you get stuck in the process. Grad school really is a whole different beast from undergrad. However, if you are diligent, by the end of your first year you should have the technical aspects (formatting, expectations) mastered to the point where they are very nearly automatic, and can then focus on content.
RESPONSE B: A lot of speculation when the answer could simply be you’re not that great at this. This is pretty out there but asking your supervisor point blank. It’s frustrating to watch people struggle at every point because it is ultimately detrimental to the integrity of the unit as a whole. Will you be able to adequately critique papers when you’re in that role? It’s unsettling that you do research full time right now and this is where you came to find out what your supervisor is thinking
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
RESPONSE A: Oh hell naw
RESPONSE B: If they are placed as co-authors in the said article, researchgate automatically detects RG members to check their authorship and let them tag themselves.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
RESPONSE A: Do you mean they are not co-authors of the publication?
RESPONSE B: Oh hell naw
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
RESPONSE A: SHE DOESN'T EVEN GO HERE!!
RESPONSE B: If they are placed as co-authors in the said article, researchgate automatically detects RG members to check their authorship and let them tag themselves.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
RESPONSE A: SHE DOESN'T EVEN GO HERE!!
RESPONSE B: If you click on the paper, and then on Edit. There is a button to request a change in the list of authors. This request will be evaluated by someone. Did the person also added their name in the paper itself (if available) or just on RG?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
RESPONSE A: Do you mean they are not co-authors of the publication?
RESPONSE B: SHE DOESN'T EVEN GO HERE!!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
RESPONSE A: I think it depends on your area of interest.. I know some disciplines have very active twitter circles that are super fruitful, and it's pretty much expected of you to have one if you're going to be "somebody"
RESPONSE B: No, not necessary. If you like it, do it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
RESPONSE A: Tweeting significantly increases citations https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003497520308602
RESPONSE B: There are some subfields in which Twitter is a really handy networking tool. There are others in which it isn't helpful at all.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
RESPONSE A: It's wack mostly. It's useful to follow for new pubs / books though. Terrible for hot takes about universities, subject matter of ur discipline, and US politics.
RESPONSE B: Tweeting significantly increases citations https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003497520308602
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
RESPONSE A: Tweeting significantly increases citations https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003497520308602
RESPONSE B: No, not necessary. If you like it, do it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
RESPONSE A: I don't use Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn neither privately or professionally and I am doing just fine. (I have Instagram for the cats, though.)
RESPONSE B: It's wack mostly. It's useful to follow for new pubs / books though. Terrible for hot takes about universities, subject matter of ur discipline, and US politics.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I recently graduated from my university with a doctorate degree, and because I am no longer a current student they have removed my access to the library databases. What do I do? I have already sent an email to the library asking what I can do to reestablish my library privileges. I am currently in the middle of writing a manuscript, and of course I was conducting my literature research using my university’s library system. I graduated with my doctorate in August and just yesterday I found out that my privileges have been removed since I am no longer a current student. What in the world do I do if the university does not allow me access to the library system? I am currently working in a public high school, so right now I am not affiliated with any university. Please help!
RESPONSE A: Some universities allow for community & alumni accounts who may have some (but not necessarily all) privileges that faculty/staff/students have. It might be worth looking into what your university can offer.
RESPONSE B: https://sci-hub.se/ It’s a website that allows to you to view every paper for free. Just copy and paste the doi link.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I recently graduated from my university with a doctorate degree, and because I am no longer a current student they have removed my access to the library databases. What do I do? I have already sent an email to the library asking what I can do to reestablish my library privileges. I am currently in the middle of writing a manuscript, and of course I was conducting my literature research using my university’s library system. I graduated with my doctorate in August and just yesterday I found out that my privileges have been removed since I am no longer a current student. What in the world do I do if the university does not allow me access to the library system? I am currently working in a public high school, so right now I am not affiliated with any university. Please help!
RESPONSE A: https://sci-hub.se/ It’s a website that allows to you to view every paper for free. Just copy and paste the doi link.
RESPONSE B: Most universities have some sort of courtesy appointment that they can give to affiliated researchers that provides library access and a few other privileges. Ask your advisor to get you one of those appointments. They generally come with zero pay and no real obligations. It is expected that you will collaborate with someone at some point and perhaps interact with some of the grad students, otherwise you bring no value to the university, but as they are not paying you this is not a heavy obligation. Usually, these appointments need only be signed by the Dean.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I recently graduated from my university with a doctorate degree, and because I am no longer a current student they have removed my access to the library databases. What do I do? I have already sent an email to the library asking what I can do to reestablish my library privileges. I am currently in the middle of writing a manuscript, and of course I was conducting my literature research using my university’s library system. I graduated with my doctorate in August and just yesterday I found out that my privileges have been removed since I am no longer a current student. What in the world do I do if the university does not allow me access to the library system? I am currently working in a public high school, so right now I am not affiliated with any university. Please help!
RESPONSE A: Local Public library card?
RESPONSE B: https://sci-hub.se/ It’s a website that allows to you to view every paper for free. Just copy and paste the doi link.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I recently graduated from my university with a doctorate degree, and because I am no longer a current student they have removed my access to the library databases. What do I do? I have already sent an email to the library asking what I can do to reestablish my library privileges. I am currently in the middle of writing a manuscript, and of course I was conducting my literature research using my university’s library system. I graduated with my doctorate in August and just yesterday I found out that my privileges have been removed since I am no longer a current student. What in the world do I do if the university does not allow me access to the library system? I am currently working in a public high school, so right now I am not affiliated with any university. Please help!
RESPONSE A: If you know what papers or books you want, ask a current grad student or your advisor if they can get you the PDF copies of them. You can also email the authors for a copy since some will send you it themselves.
RESPONSE B: https://sci-hub.se/ It’s a website that allows to you to view every paper for free. Just copy and paste the doi link.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I recently graduated from my university with a doctorate degree, and because I am no longer a current student they have removed my access to the library databases. What do I do? I have already sent an email to the library asking what I can do to reestablish my library privileges. I am currently in the middle of writing a manuscript, and of course I was conducting my literature research using my university’s library system. I graduated with my doctorate in August and just yesterday I found out that my privileges have been removed since I am no longer a current student. What in the world do I do if the university does not allow me access to the library system? I am currently working in a public high school, so right now I am not affiliated with any university. Please help!
RESPONSE A: https://sci-hub.se/ It’s a website that allows to you to view every paper for free. Just copy and paste the doi link.
RESPONSE B: Go to a university library and use the databases or stacks there. It is also possible to access some academic articles from home; check google scholar. Join academia.edu as a lot of researchers post their publications there. Check out CVs of the authors you want to read- sometimes they link papers. You can get some academic books on goofle for free. Jstor lets you sign up for 5 free journal articles. You can always contact authors to ask for a copy. Peer review papers if asked, and sometimes they will give journal access as a perk ( SAGE does that).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do Professors notice how you name your email attachments? I've been emailing potential PhD mentors with a CV pdf that's titled "Grad School CV". Am I risking shooting myself in the foot?
RESPONSE A: Yes- please name it something like First-Last-CV_2020-date.pdf
RESPONSE B: Think of it this way: If they're receiving multiple CVs, do they really want to dig through a digital stack of poorly labeled files? Or would it be better if the filename was First-Last-CV or the like?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do Professors notice how you name your email attachments? I've been emailing potential PhD mentors with a CV pdf that's titled "Grad School CV". Am I risking shooting myself in the foot?
RESPONSE A: Title: Yes. Post: Also yes. As other posters have mentioned, it makes it very difficult to organize and keep track of files if they all have generic names, which will likely darken the mood of any professor reading your attachment. However, you're also shooting yourself in the foot by increasing the chance of a file being lost or unread due to being confused with dozens of other similarly-named files (regrettably, for every person like you who asks, there's a dozen others who assume). As a general rule, any file name should have: your name, some kind of date (year, semester, month-day, etc. depending on what is appropriate), and a short but descriptive name. This lets a professor or any reader know from the file name whose it is, when it's from, and what it is, which tells them all they need to know to figure out if that file is relevant to them.
RESPONSE B: Think of it this way: If they're receiving multiple CVs, do they really want to dig through a digital stack of poorly labeled files? Or would it be better if the filename was First-Last-CV or the like?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do Professors notice how you name your email attachments? I've been emailing potential PhD mentors with a CV pdf that's titled "Grad School CV". Am I risking shooting myself in the foot?
RESPONSE A: Title: Yes. Post: Also yes. As other posters have mentioned, it makes it very difficult to organize and keep track of files if they all have generic names, which will likely darken the mood of any professor reading your attachment. However, you're also shooting yourself in the foot by increasing the chance of a file being lost or unread due to being confused with dozens of other similarly-named files (regrettably, for every person like you who asks, there's a dozen others who assume). As a general rule, any file name should have: your name, some kind of date (year, semester, month-day, etc. depending on what is appropriate), and a short but descriptive name. This lets a professor or any reader know from the file name whose it is, when it's from, and what it is, which tells them all they need to know to figure out if that file is relevant to them.
RESPONSE B: Please make it as easy as possible for the Prof/Admin team to make it easy for you. My CV is labelled- Name_Curriculium_Vitae My cover letter is- Name_(Project_name/number) The job I currently have had an explicit statement for naming documents which they stated within the application documents. Good luck for your applications.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do Professors notice how you name your email attachments? I've been emailing potential PhD mentors with a CV pdf that's titled "Grad School CV". Am I risking shooting myself in the foot?
RESPONSE A: Please make it as easy as possible for the Prof/Admin team to make it easy for you. My CV is labelled- Name_Curriculium_Vitae My cover letter is- Name_(Project_name/number) The job I currently have had an explicit statement for naming documents which they stated within the application documents. Good luck for your applications.
RESPONSE B: I had a student submit an assignment online titled “thebravesplayin5minutesso.” I guess he was telling me why he didn’t do the assignment properly? But your title isn’t a problem, but would be better if your last name was included.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do Professors notice how you name your email attachments? I've been emailing potential PhD mentors with a CV pdf that's titled "Grad School CV". Am I risking shooting myself in the foot?
RESPONSE A: Please make it as easy as possible for the Prof/Admin team to make it easy for you. My CV is labelled- Name_Curriculium_Vitae My cover letter is- Name_(Project_name/number) The job I currently have had an explicit statement for naming documents which they stated within the application documents. Good luck for your applications.
RESPONSE B: PSA: no matter who you are, watch what you name your docs. A colleague of mine (we work in curriculum development at a university) recieved a document from a professor he was working with that had the title of "PPRub." Say it out loud. It was a rubric for a PowerPoint assignment but my colleague wasnt sure if he wanted to open it at first.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: PSA for Students: Talk to your faculty! I've seen a lot of people on here ask questions that they should really be asking their advisors/professors because those are the people that you're working with/ being evaluated by. I'm not saying this because I think you're asking the wrong questions, I'm saying this because you might be getting good answers that still don't work for your situation. It's also good for you. Especially in Grad school or those looking to enter grad school, you need to learn to build relationships with the faculty and communicate about what the expectations for projects, comps, publishing, etc. I've seen students struggle because they failed to ask the important questions of their advisors and then did things incorrectly. Don't let that be you! Always manage your expectations with the faculty you're working with.
RESPONSE A: I did an experiment one semester: a 5-10 minute office hours visit could count for a few points of credit. Talk about class, life, cats, anything; just come by. About 2/3 of the class took me up on it. Had a lot of conversations about life and cats that semester, and a few great ones about random interesting psychology stuff that wasn't part of the class. Final average for the whole class (not counting the extra credit) was significantly higher than prior semesters. There are so many little questions students forget to ask, or think aren't worth asking, but they will if they're in my office anyway. Sometimes it's one of those hand on the doorknob "oh, and one other thing..." Come by just to say hello and you will end up getting more out of it than you expected.
RESPONSE B: Fair point, but my advisor is incredibly busy and reaching him can often be difficult, even when he’s in the country
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: ? Or know someone who did? How did you deal? EDIT: I’m sorry this is the wrong flair. Reddit would not let me post this with “interpersonal issue” flair. But he is in STEM if that’s helpful.
RESPONSE A: I’m in a similar situation to your BF. My wife and I have been together since the end of my undergrad (we moved for my grad school, postdoc, and expect to move for a faculty/industry position afterwards). My wife has a great job who supports her ability to work fully remotely. The compromise to the “trailing partner” dilemma we’ve had is that I’ve made her an important part of every decision to move based on her preferences. I had multiple grad school offers and postdoc offers, in a number of different locations. As long as I was happy with my shortlist of choices, I made sure she had a significant say in where we ended up. I think this way has given her some agency in deciding where to live, even if the list of options had to be compatible for my career. When the time comes for me to decide between faculty and industry, if and where I get faculty options will matter. Because even though it’s my slight preference, a faculty job offer at a university located somewhere she doesn’t want to live in will mean I either keep looking or move to industry (where the hubs are all in mostly nice metropolitan areas she would agree to live in). Long story short, I think if someone on the academic career path is serious about their partner they should consider their preferences even if it means sacrificing your absolute “top” choice from a career aspect.
RESPONSE B: It would be helpful for you to be able to articulate to him how open vs restrictive your geographic preferences are since that's what this boils down to. If your no-go list is longer than your acceptable list, things may not work out for you two. But if your list of places you don't want to end up isn't very long and doesn't include the top areas for his work, this could turn out to be a relationship-strengthening conversation about how you are both willing to compromise to make the relationship with.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: n’t thought of. Have you found yourself in a similar situation? Or know someone who did? How did you deal? EDIT: I’m sorry this is the wrong flair. Reddit would not let me post this with “interpersonal issue” flair. But he is in STEM if that’s helpful.
RESPONSE A: Yeah, you really need to have this conversation with your partner and both be open and honest about it. The reality of an academic career is he's likely to wind up where he winds up and probably won't get to be too picky (and it may take 5-10 years of bouncing around before winding up there). Granted academic careers aren't the be all and end all and he may be willing to make career sacrifices for you but only he can answer that.
RESPONSE B: I’m in a similar situation to your BF. My wife and I have been together since the end of my undergrad (we moved for my grad school, postdoc, and expect to move for a faculty/industry position afterwards). My wife has a great job who supports her ability to work fully remotely. The compromise to the “trailing partner” dilemma we’ve had is that I’ve made her an important part of every decision to move based on her preferences. I had multiple grad school offers and postdoc offers, in a number of different locations. As long as I was happy with my shortlist of choices, I made sure she had a significant say in where we ended up. I think this way has given her some agency in deciding where to live, even if the list of options had to be compatible for my career. When the time comes for me to decide between faculty and industry, if and where I get faculty options will matter. Because even though it’s my slight preference, a faculty job offer at a university located somewhere she doesn’t want to live in will mean I either keep looking or move to industry (where the hubs are all in mostly nice metropolitan areas she would agree to live in). Long story short, I think if someone on the academic career path is serious about their partner they should consider their preferences even if it means sacrificing your absolute “top” choice from a career aspect.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: find a middle ground - I believe there may be something there if he were to go into industry or work somewhere I’d enjoy living. I have read some helpful things on this sub - I know I should talk to him. I just don’t want it to turn into a “we should break up” conversation. I would love to hear some different perspectives that may offer something I haven’t thought of. Have you found yourself in a similar situation? Or know someone who did? How did you deal? EDIT: I’m sorry this is the wrong flair. Reddit would not let me post this with “interpersonal issue” flair. But he is in STEM if that’s helpful.
RESPONSE A: I’m the academic, my partner is the trailing partner. It’s a similar situation: he has worked remotely since the mid 2010’s, when I was still in grad school. We have lived in three different countries. Ever since I accepted my postdoc, then my lectureship, I have made it clear: he always, ALWAYS has a kill switch. If he wants out, to move back to our original country, whatever, he says so, and we make it work. I’m lucky in that a shift to industry would be trivial, and I’m pretty sure I’d be competitive in most mid-tier academic markets. It doesn’t matter though: he still has that wild card. He’s never used it. He is happy where we are, I am happy, we are happy together. Will it stay that way? I hope so. That said, we have talked openly about this ever since I had the idea of moving overseas for a postdoc. Communication is key. Good luck!
RESPONSE B: Yeah, you really need to have this conversation with your partner and both be open and honest about it. The reality of an academic career is he's likely to wind up where he winds up and probably won't get to be too picky (and it may take 5-10 years of bouncing around before winding up there). Granted academic careers aren't the be all and end all and he may be willing to make career sacrifices for you but only he can answer that.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Did any other academics end up taking a more blue-collar career path? I graduated from university with a major in Political Science and a minor in History. I do a lot of work as a Tutor (about 10-40 hours a week, depending on the season and how busy I am with other work) and also occasionally write articles. However, while going to school, I worked in construction to help pay the bills. Even after I graduated, I continued to do a lot of construction work and started my own business (and for the right price, occasionally still help out other companies as well, for the right price). I particularly do a lot of roofing, concrete work, and landscaping. Some people are surprised when they learn about my educational background. While my background helps me get a lot of work during the off-season, the bulk of my income remains from construction work. While I don't really mind the desk work, I love construction because it helps me burn off energy, makes me feel like I'm contributing to society, and keeps me in shape.
RESPONSE A: I know a humanities professor who is also a long-haul trucker. He spends summers on the road. Another I know owns a tree farm and does 95% of the work there himself, but that's arguably a hobby.
RESPONSE B: I have family that uses a HVAC repair guy that is also a tenured biology professor and does AC work on the side.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Did any other academics end up taking a more blue-collar career path? I graduated from university with a major in Political Science and a minor in History. I do a lot of work as a Tutor (about 10-40 hours a week, depending on the season and how busy I am with other work) and also occasionally write articles. However, while going to school, I worked in construction to help pay the bills. Even after I graduated, I continued to do a lot of construction work and started my own business (and for the right price, occasionally still help out other companies as well, for the right price). I particularly do a lot of roofing, concrete work, and landscaping. Some people are surprised when they learn about my educational background. While my background helps me get a lot of work during the off-season, the bulk of my income remains from construction work. While I don't really mind the desk work, I love construction because it helps me burn off energy, makes me feel like I'm contributing to society, and keeps me in shape.
RESPONSE A: I know an anthropologist who quit the biz, got a nursing degree, and is now very happy working as a nurse.
RESPONSE B: I have family that uses a HVAC repair guy that is also a tenured biology professor and does AC work on the side.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Did any other academics end up taking a more blue-collar career path? I graduated from university with a major in Political Science and a minor in History. I do a lot of work as a Tutor (about 10-40 hours a week, depending on the season and how busy I am with other work) and also occasionally write articles. However, while going to school, I worked in construction to help pay the bills. Even after I graduated, I continued to do a lot of construction work and started my own business (and for the right price, occasionally still help out other companies as well, for the right price). I particularly do a lot of roofing, concrete work, and landscaping. Some people are surprised when they learn about my educational background. While my background helps me get a lot of work during the off-season, the bulk of my income remains from construction work. While I don't really mind the desk work, I love construction because it helps me burn off energy, makes me feel like I'm contributing to society, and keeps me in shape.
RESPONSE A: Yep, me. After having two degrees (programming and poltical science) and then working in those careers, I opted to leave them and do business development and be less stressed and more happy.
RESPONSE B: Linguistics major. I had a tech career by accident. Now I'm a distiller. So, yes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Did any other academics end up taking a more blue-collar career path? I graduated from university with a major in Political Science and a minor in History. I do a lot of work as a Tutor (about 10-40 hours a week, depending on the season and how busy I am with other work) and also occasionally write articles. However, while going to school, I worked in construction to help pay the bills. Even after I graduated, I continued to do a lot of construction work and started my own business (and for the right price, occasionally still help out other companies as well, for the right price). I particularly do a lot of roofing, concrete work, and landscaping. Some people are surprised when they learn about my educational background. While my background helps me get a lot of work during the off-season, the bulk of my income remains from construction work. While I don't really mind the desk work, I love construction because it helps me burn off energy, makes me feel like I'm contributing to society, and keeps me in shape.
RESPONSE A: A colleague worked as a contractor between undergrad and grad school. It's great to say 'Hey Paul, can you give me a hand with a thing?' Also Paul rocks...
RESPONSE B: Linguistics major. I had a tech career by accident. Now I'm a distiller. So, yes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Did any other academics end up taking a more blue-collar career path? I graduated from university with a major in Political Science and a minor in History. I do a lot of work as a Tutor (about 10-40 hours a week, depending on the season and how busy I am with other work) and also occasionally write articles. However, while going to school, I worked in construction to help pay the bills. Even after I graduated, I continued to do a lot of construction work and started my own business (and for the right price, occasionally still help out other companies as well, for the right price). I particularly do a lot of roofing, concrete work, and landscaping. Some people are surprised when they learn about my educational background. While my background helps me get a lot of work during the off-season, the bulk of my income remains from construction work. While I don't really mind the desk work, I love construction because it helps me burn off energy, makes me feel like I'm contributing to society, and keeps me in shape.
RESPONSE A: What's a good career for a chap with a bone spur, meaning I suffer severe pain in my foot, and can't walk long distances? Currently I'm a housekeeper at a hospital. I'm considering nursing or radiology, but those entail years of college. Would I be better off getting a business cert?
RESPONSE B: Linguistics major. I had a tech career by accident. Now I'm a distiller. So, yes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: she's arguing with me in front of other people, via email or in online meetings, anything I say is wrong, she's constantly putting me down given the chance and it's awkward and embarrassing. - she argues with me for not telling her absolutely everything, even though I started with the aim to build up to independence. This includes applications for conferences and discussions with other PIs in the institute - she yelled at me several times for spending too much money for my project, whereas another colleague is spending 10x more but that's apparently ok because it's my boss' ideas. We are working in one of the most funded institutes where money shouldn't be an issue - if I confront her about anything she gets super defensive, aggressive even, and I'm afraid to say anything in case it makes things worse. I told her I am applying for faculty positions (with a preprint), and she sent her references, but now I am really worried that she will ruin me. I always had good feedback from other PIs and collaborators but she broke me down so much, I am doubting my abilities as a scientist, and I am getting bitter and jealous of other postdocs who have OK projects but are getting ahead because they have the right support/ contacts (as I said, well funded institute). Ultimately I feel like I am missing out on productive and fun scientific discussion and real mentorship, scientific and otherwise, and I am worried that I am not equipped for the next step because of it. I still have a tiny slither of hope but I don't know for how much longer. Several people have left the lab already for similar reasons apart from her now'star postdoc' who is wasting tons of money. Her PhD students all left (or will leave) academia. Am I doomed?
RESPONSE A: Have a friend at an institution ask for your rec letters. Then you, yourself, can take a look. I uncovered a faculty "friend" who damned me with her letters. No regrets.
RESPONSE B: Oooh, you must be threatening to this PI. Take her sabotage as a mark of your power/potential/intelligence. Then run.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: me for not telling her absolutely everything, even though I started with the aim to build up to independence. This includes applications for conferences and discussions with other PIs in the institute - she yelled at me several times for spending too much money for my project, whereas another colleague is spending 10x more but that's apparently ok because it's my boss' ideas. We are working in one of the most funded institutes where money shouldn't be an issue - if I confront her about anything she gets super defensive, aggressive even, and I'm afraid to say anything in case it makes things worse. I told her I am applying for faculty positions (with a preprint), and she sent her references, but now I am really worried that she will ruin me. I always had good feedback from other PIs and collaborators but she broke me down so much, I am doubting my abilities as a scientist, and I am getting bitter and jealous of other postdocs who have OK projects but are getting ahead because they have the right support/ contacts (as I said, well funded institute). Ultimately I feel like I am missing out on productive and fun scientific discussion and real mentorship, scientific and otherwise, and I am worried that I am not equipped for the next step because of it. I still have a tiny slither of hope but I don't know for how much longer. Several people have left the lab already for similar reasons apart from her now'star postdoc' who is wasting tons of money. Her PhD students all left (or will leave) academia. Am I doomed?
RESPONSE A: Resubmit the big grant with her BS removed. Pursue the industry grant separately. Resubmit the rejected manuscript to a lower tier journal. Don’t forget - as long as it is indexed on pubmed or whatever the standard in your field is, the rest matters a lot less. Read up on narcissism, the grey rock technique, and broken record technique. Check out the book “crucial confrontations”.
RESPONSE B: Oooh, you must be threatening to this PI. Take her sabotage as a mark of your power/potential/intelligence. Then run.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: my project, whereas another colleague is spending 10x more but that's apparently ok because it's my boss' ideas. We are working in one of the most funded institutes where money shouldn't be an issue - if I confront her about anything she gets super defensive, aggressive even, and I'm afraid to say anything in case it makes things worse. I told her I am applying for faculty positions (with a preprint), and she sent her references, but now I am really worried that she will ruin me. I always had good feedback from other PIs and collaborators but she broke me down so much, I am doubting my abilities as a scientist, and I am getting bitter and jealous of other postdocs who have OK projects but are getting ahead because they have the right support/ contacts (as I said, well funded institute). Ultimately I feel like I am missing out on productive and fun scientific discussion and real mentorship, scientific and otherwise, and I am worried that I am not equipped for the next step because of it. I still have a tiny slither of hope but I don't know for how much longer. Several people have left the lab already for similar reasons apart from her now'star postdoc' who is wasting tons of money. Her PhD students all left (or will leave) academia. Am I doomed?
RESPONSE A: Resubmit the big grant with her BS removed. Pursue the industry grant separately. Resubmit the rejected manuscript to a lower tier journal. Don’t forget - as long as it is indexed on pubmed or whatever the standard in your field is, the rest matters a lot less. Read up on narcissism, the grey rock technique, and broken record technique. Check out the book “crucial confrontations”.
RESPONSE B: Avoid getting LORs from this toxic person. They will likely only try and sabotage you...possibly with the hope of keeping you and torturing you more. Get LORs from your collaborators possibly? I know it may be unconventional but this person seems like a nightmare that would definitely be that selfish/does not have the right frame of mind to write you a solid letter. Also, GTFO.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I'm afraid to say anything in case it makes things worse. I told her I am applying for faculty positions (with a preprint), and she sent her references, but now I am really worried that she will ruin me. I always had good feedback from other PIs and collaborators but she broke me down so much, I am doubting my abilities as a scientist, and I am getting bitter and jealous of other postdocs who have OK projects but are getting ahead because they have the right support/ contacts (as I said, well funded institute). Ultimately I feel like I am missing out on productive and fun scientific discussion and real mentorship, scientific and otherwise, and I am worried that I am not equipped for the next step because of it. I still have a tiny slither of hope but I don't know for how much longer. Several people have left the lab already for similar reasons apart from her now'star postdoc' who is wasting tons of money. Her PhD students all left (or will leave) academia. Am I doomed?
RESPONSE A: Your boss sounds toxic. It's hard to really "see" why she does what she does, or how bad her behavior is, because she's the boss (and from the looks of it, exercises power considerably). Unfortunately, this happens. Like the others, I suggest trying to find other jobs. My personal opinion is to stick this out until you have another job to go to (just do the minimum, bear with it a few months while job-hunting). This is so you will have a bargaining chip in your job-hunt (do not bad mouth your current job during interviews). I feel you. I've been there. You can get through this, and from this you'll learn what not to do as a boss.
RESPONSE B: Resubmit the big grant with her BS removed. Pursue the industry grant separately. Resubmit the rejected manuscript to a lower tier journal. Don’t forget - as long as it is indexed on pubmed or whatever the standard in your field is, the rest matters a lot less. Read up on narcissism, the grey rock technique, and broken record technique. Check out the book “crucial confrontations”.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: where money shouldn't be an issue - if I confront her about anything she gets super defensive, aggressive even, and I'm afraid to say anything in case it makes things worse. I told her I am applying for faculty positions (with a preprint), and she sent her references, but now I am really worried that she will ruin me. I always had good feedback from other PIs and collaborators but she broke me down so much, I am doubting my abilities as a scientist, and I am getting bitter and jealous of other postdocs who have OK projects but are getting ahead because they have the right support/ contacts (as I said, well funded institute). Ultimately I feel like I am missing out on productive and fun scientific discussion and real mentorship, scientific and otherwise, and I am worried that I am not equipped for the next step because of it. I still have a tiny slither of hope but I don't know for how much longer. Several people have left the lab already for similar reasons apart from her now'star postdoc' who is wasting tons of money. Her PhD students all left (or will leave) academia. Am I doomed?
RESPONSE A: Leave this bitch behind. And don't despair. Given what you've stated here, you're talented in your own right. These people are always trying to punk out junior researchers and make them think they need them, when often times it's the other way around. Focus on moving on. You can do it. And you will be successful. Strengthen your partnerships with others in your network. And don't let her steal your focus. Think of it this way, she wouldn't have allowed you to stay so long if you weren't valuable. I'm sorry you had to go through this.
RESPONSE B: Resubmit the big grant with her BS removed. Pursue the industry grant separately. Resubmit the rejected manuscript to a lower tier journal. Don’t forget - as long as it is indexed on pubmed or whatever the standard in your field is, the rest matters a lot less. Read up on narcissism, the grey rock technique, and broken record technique. Check out the book “crucial confrontations”.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why do professors ignore letter of recommendation requests instead of just declining? Is it a sign that they simply forgot to reply or missed my email, or is it that they just can't be bothered to reply at all if they aren't interested? ​ **Edit:** When I make requests in the future, would it be appropriate to tack on "just a simple yes or no answer is fine" at the end of the email, to hint that I would appreciate even a very curt refusal rather than silence?
RESPONSE A: They're probably somewhere on the spectrum of wanting to do so but not having the time available for it. While you might appreciate a quick yes/no, it might not be so simple for them to commit. Did you give a clear deadline and provide all the info needed for them to do the request? If not, then a response also has to include time to sort out these details. In my crunch teaching time, I'll ignore emails for weeks to focus on what I have to get done and reply to Reddit questions.
RESPONSE B: No, tacking that on would be passive aggressive. And it's often because the email was lost in the neverending flood of other things, or because it's easier to ignore than deal with the response to a no. Send a single, polite followup or ask them during office hours. If no response then, head elsewhere.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why do professors ignore letter of recommendation requests instead of just declining? Is it a sign that they simply forgot to reply or missed my email, or is it that they just can't be bothered to reply at all if they aren't interested? ​ **Edit:** When I make requests in the future, would it be appropriate to tack on "just a simple yes or no answer is fine" at the end of the email, to hint that I would appreciate even a very curt refusal rather than silence?
RESPONSE A: I think the whole convention is silly. I wish that would be removed from admission processes. Profs get so bombarded with these. Most have a general template that they cut and paste and maybe add in a few specific sentences. I Always seem to get these requests during end of semester/finals week when I’m swamped. I don’t ignore, it’s just not a priority and falls to the bottom of the list often times.
RESPONSE B: When did you send the email? Did you send it from your university address? Our IT department has ridiculous spam filters and unless emails come from a .edu account they're likely to go to spam. Are you asking professors who know you well? Beyond just good performance in one class? You can send a polite follow-up email. And if they still don't respond you can drop by their office hours to ask. Sometimes emails get lost in the shuffle. Sometimes professors won't respond if they feel they don't know you well (your email deserves a response, in my view). Sometimes we thought we responded but did not. Sometimes your email is the lowest priority on my to-do list, and it takes me a while to get to it. You should send a reminder email 1 - 1.5 weeks after the first email.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do professors ignore letter of recommendation requests instead of just declining? Is it a sign that they simply forgot to reply or missed my email, or is it that they just can't be bothered to reply at all if they aren't interested? ​ **Edit:** When I make requests in the future, would it be appropriate to tack on "just a simple yes or no answer is fine" at the end of the email, to hint that I would appreciate even a very curt refusal rather than silence?
RESPONSE A: When did you send the email? Did you send it from your university address? Our IT department has ridiculous spam filters and unless emails come from a .edu account they're likely to go to spam. Are you asking professors who know you well? Beyond just good performance in one class? You can send a polite follow-up email. And if they still don't respond you can drop by their office hours to ask. Sometimes emails get lost in the shuffle. Sometimes professors won't respond if they feel they don't know you well (your email deserves a response, in my view). Sometimes we thought we responded but did not. Sometimes your email is the lowest priority on my to-do list, and it takes me a while to get to it. You should send a reminder email 1 - 1.5 weeks after the first email.
RESPONSE B: Every recommendation letter that I wrote, were for students that have been working on their thesis in our lab. I know the students how they work and can recommend them. If some random student sends me an email asking for a recommendation because they were just in a class I was teaching, without seeing them work on actual problems in laboratory environment, then I decline. And as a few fellow scientists said, often the emails are overlooked because of numerous reasons. Try to see the professor in person.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do professors ignore letter of recommendation requests instead of just declining? Is it a sign that they simply forgot to reply or missed my email, or is it that they just can't be bothered to reply at all if they aren't interested? ​ **Edit:** When I make requests in the future, would it be appropriate to tack on "just a simple yes or no answer is fine" at the end of the email, to hint that I would appreciate even a very curt refusal rather than silence?
RESPONSE A: When did you send the email? Did you send it from your university address? Our IT department has ridiculous spam filters and unless emails come from a .edu account they're likely to go to spam. Are you asking professors who know you well? Beyond just good performance in one class? You can send a polite follow-up email. And if they still don't respond you can drop by their office hours to ask. Sometimes emails get lost in the shuffle. Sometimes professors won't respond if they feel they don't know you well (your email deserves a response, in my view). Sometimes we thought we responded but did not. Sometimes your email is the lowest priority on my to-do list, and it takes me a while to get to it. You should send a reminder email 1 - 1.5 weeks after the first email.
RESPONSE B: Some faculty get flooded with email and things get lost in the shuffle. Or sometimes I want to say yes but need to double check my other commitments to make sure I can do it, and that can that time, i.e., I will wait till I have a block of open time to review my planner, or sometimes we need to wait to hear back from others to confirm meeting times or deadlines, etc. Anyway, there are many possible reasons that have nothing to do with you, so best not to overthink it. Please do not tack on that message at the end of the email. Just follow up if they don't respond in a week or so.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why do professors ignore letter of recommendation requests instead of just declining? Is it a sign that they simply forgot to reply or missed my email, or is it that they just can't be bothered to reply at all if they aren't interested? ​ **Edit:** When I make requests in the future, would it be appropriate to tack on "just a simple yes or no answer is fine" at the end of the email, to hint that I would appreciate even a very curt refusal rather than silence?
RESPONSE A: I think the whole convention is silly. I wish that would be removed from admission processes. Profs get so bombarded with these. Most have a general template that they cut and paste and maybe add in a few specific sentences. I Always seem to get these requests during end of semester/finals week when I’m swamped. I don’t ignore, it’s just not a priority and falls to the bottom of the list often times.
RESPONSE B: Students have no concept of how wildly overwhelming most academics' inboxes are
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is burnout normal in academics? Im a doctoral candidate, (4th year) and though there is the light at the end of the tunnel, I feel like I burnt myself out so hard last year (COVID, grant writing w no laptop, could not go to lab, got married, family disowned me, and threats from family members, took quals twice (failed the first time)). My advisors dont know how hard the last year was for me. My advisors are extremely selfless and wonderful advisors and they are treking out a plan where I can publish 1-2 papers within 20-24 months and graduate on time. Since May, Ive been completely burnt out and disinterested. I never get up on time, and I am going to lab at 2pm and forcing myself to stay there for 8 hours. Even when my body is in lab, my work is not great, and I can hardly motivate myself to thaw out cells. Other people in academia seem to have trials with burn out from time to time. Virtually all PIs are over extended, post-docs too. I was wondering if burnout is a bug or a feature in academia? Does everyone feel burntout from time to time or did I fuck myself? thanks
RESPONSE A: Burnout is common. Try getting a therapist. It may be just what you need to find the right motivation. Sorry to hear about your family disowning you, sounds like a religious thing? Another way therapy might help.
RESPONSE B: It’s sadly very common. Try to prioritize mental health now. Don’t tell yourself to push trough and deal with that stuff after finishing the PhD. I’ve seen many friends where this strategy did not work out well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is burnout normal in academics? Im a doctoral candidate, (4th year) and though there is the light at the end of the tunnel, I feel like I burnt myself out so hard last year (COVID, grant writing w no laptop, could not go to lab, got married, family disowned me, and threats from family members, took quals twice (failed the first time)). My advisors dont know how hard the last year was for me. My advisors are extremely selfless and wonderful advisors and they are treking out a plan where I can publish 1-2 papers within 20-24 months and graduate on time. Since May, Ive been completely burnt out and disinterested. I never get up on time, and I am going to lab at 2pm and forcing myself to stay there for 8 hours. Even when my body is in lab, my work is not great, and I can hardly motivate myself to thaw out cells. Other people in academia seem to have trials with burn out from time to time. Virtually all PIs are over extended, post-docs too. I was wondering if burnout is a bug or a feature in academia? Does everyone feel burntout from time to time or did I fuck myself? thanks
RESPONSE A: It’s sadly very common. Try to prioritize mental health now. Don’t tell yourself to push trough and deal with that stuff after finishing the PhD. I’ve seen many friends where this strategy did not work out well.
RESPONSE B: Burnout is _extremely_ uncommon. You are an anomaly. How in the hell could I (or anyone else) ever get burned out from working 60+ hours a week while raising young kids and trying to grind tenure in one of the most competitive industries in the world? More seriously, of course people get burned out. Spend 3 minutes scrolling through the submissions on any of the academia oriented subreddits and the extreme commonness of burnout should be obvious.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is burnout normal in academics? Im a doctoral candidate, (4th year) and though there is the light at the end of the tunnel, I feel like I burnt myself out so hard last year (COVID, grant writing w no laptop, could not go to lab, got married, family disowned me, and threats from family members, took quals twice (failed the first time)). My advisors dont know how hard the last year was for me. My advisors are extremely selfless and wonderful advisors and they are treking out a plan where I can publish 1-2 papers within 20-24 months and graduate on time. Since May, Ive been completely burnt out and disinterested. I never get up on time, and I am going to lab at 2pm and forcing myself to stay there for 8 hours. Even when my body is in lab, my work is not great, and I can hardly motivate myself to thaw out cells. Other people in academia seem to have trials with burn out from time to time. Virtually all PIs are over extended, post-docs too. I was wondering if burnout is a bug or a feature in academia? Does everyone feel burntout from time to time or did I fuck myself? thanks
RESPONSE A: It's sad, but very common to be burned out, especially in the field you are studying /working. I also worked in an animal hospital and was studying, until I had a collapse and got chronicly ill. I don't say that this will happen to you, but I hope you look after yourself before it's too late. Treat yourself with something nice, do something that's only for you. Don't try to be the best at all time, you don't need to be perfect. I hope this helps 🌈
RESPONSE B: Honest a lot of dissertations are less good than originally imagined. Seriously consider if you can cut anything out.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Has anyone ever reported their academic advisor/supervisor and things actually improved after that? Has anyone ever reported their academic advisor/supervisor and things actually improved after that? From what I've read, it is not uncommon for supervisors to retaliate after they get reported.
RESPONSE A: Reported? Yes. Improved. Not at all. In fact, shit got worse.
RESPONSE B: That’s not going to work. Find a diplomatic way to change supervisors (do you have associate supervisors?). It may depend on what program you are enrolled in and your university, but lodging complaints doesn’t work, so don’t bother.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Has anyone ever reported their academic advisor/supervisor and things actually improved after that? Has anyone ever reported their academic advisor/supervisor and things actually improved after that? From what I've read, it is not uncommon for supervisors to retaliate after they get reported.
RESPONSE A: What are you reporting them for? Discrimination, targeted harassment, sexual harassment, generally being an asshole, not letting students graduate, forcing students out of the group, research misconduct, never meeting with students, and many more things are all possible grounds for reporting someone. The outcome, good or bad, depends very much on your individual situation.
RESPONSE B: If you are making the step of formally reporting something, it's because informal communications have broken down, or that they have committed an act so egregious that it puts them in conflict with institutional ethical guidelines, the law, or something of that ilk. So if you're at the point of reporting someone, you're at the point where you should no longer be working with them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Has anyone ever reported their academic advisor/supervisor and things actually improved after that? Has anyone ever reported their academic advisor/supervisor and things actually improved after that? From what I've read, it is not uncommon for supervisors to retaliate after they get reported.
RESPONSE A: Your university has kept them around this long. You think you're the first to have a problem? Students, especially grad students, have very little agency. You're a number, that professor is an asset to the school. I left a lab, but made it explicitly clear I would not be reporting what I heard or experienced. It's likely the primary reason I was able to make a clean break, because there would've been retaliation if I had. The school would've taken their side.
RESPONSE B: No - every case I have heard of (my research is on why grad students leave their PhD programs), it never got better. :( I agree with some other comments here that changing labs, or even programs entirely was probably the best outcome for the student.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: From what I've read, it is not uncommon for supervisors to retaliate after they get reported.
RESPONSE A: More often than not, no. Some of my peers complained about certain professors, all perfectly good reasons to, and only one or two got a talking to by administration. I, luckily, only ever had good experiences, except for one Gen-Ed nutrition class that was a nightmare. No reason to report, though. My school was pretty good about hiring good professors, for the most part. One got fired for sleeping with a student, I believe.
RESPONSE B: Most posts here seem to involve STEM and lab work; my career was humanities, in the U.S., at a large research university. A couple of thoughts, though... First, surely it would depend on the issues/ personalities/context. In the U.S., universities have changed considerably in recent years and my university has created many new mechanisms for reporting and dealing with complaints about faculty at every level, including both academic and personal issues. Sexual harassment cases in particular have led to much greater awareness and scrutiny of the power dynamics between students and faculty and the need to set behavioral expectations and regulatory mechanisms to enforce them. We now have student and faculty committees, grad student unions (and a host of other mechanisms) to mediate between faculty/the department/students, and students are encouraged to meet directly with faculty and with department chairs if they have issues with professors, teaching assistants, lab supervisors, etc. Conflicts and complaints used to be handled at the department level, which generally meant nothing was ever done, and students who reported issues were often exposed and vulnerable to faculty retaliation. Grad students who were sexually harassed by faculty often ended up leaving the university, and the department kept issues with faculty confidential. Now faculty are expected to listen to students and take them seriously. Departments are obliged to keep some student complaints confidential, to take appropriate action and to refer students to newly created program offices and/or communicate serious issues and complaints to the central administration. Most of these changes are very recent, within the last 2-3 years. So at my university, yes, it is now much more possible to lodge complaints about faculty without fear of reprisal. These issues will never disappear but conditions have improved.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.