label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
B | POST: Professors of Reddit- Do you dislike students who perform poorly? To the Professors of Reddit, I was wondering what the general opinion was of poor performers. Is it dislike? Indifference? If someone who had an F or a D came to office hours in the middle of the semester, would this annoy you?
RESPONSE A: I would like to think that I treat/think of all student equally, regardless of grade. If anything, I have respect for ANY student who makes the effort to come to office hours, no matter what they want to talk about (unless it's something inappropriate).
RESPONSE B: I can honestly say some of my favorite students of all time were "C" students. They were funny, they were interesting, and I usually got to know them as humans in smaller classes so they were more than just a letter grade to me. They just weren't great at studying and/or turning in all their work. But I really enjoyed them as people. The "bad" students I don't like were the ones who did not own their own failures. The students who come in mid-semester or even late in the semester and somehow manage to blame me and take zero personal responsibility for the situation they are now in. I actually have respect for students who say "look, I fucked up and now I'm trying to fix it." Particularly if there is more than two weeks left in the semester to fix it in.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: career progression. But I just don't know how. At this point, any help is welcomed. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: Look, this is hard, and you’re not alone. But if you are not exaggerating the scale of your reaction to writing, you seem to be experiencing great anxiety, which a therapist may be better able to help you with. Honestly, it sounds like you’re putting a lot of judgement and value statements behind the act of writing, and shooting yourself in the foot before you can start. You might want to explore why that is and how to mitigate it. As for my own strategies: - start with an outline. Every bullet is a point you want to make. Once you have those in order - I find I have to reorder things a lot - you can expand each point into a paragraph. - talk at someone. Writing is asynchronous communication, but communication nonetheless. It’s easy to get bogged down in words and forget about the audience. Telling someone directly about what you are thinking helps with that. I will sometimes play out giving a talk on a subject because my brain works like that. - give yourself permission to write a shitty first draft. The first version doesn’t have to be polished, or even good. Just write. DO NOT give into the temptation to stop and edit, or even read what you write. Once you have some terrible text down, you can go and edit it without the blank page problem.
RESPONSE B: Ugh I know the struggle, I'm in a research oriented 6 months internship in cs and will soon be looking for a job as a research engineer. I love what I do but the hardest part for me is being consistent with writing. Now that I work from home, I get distracted watching movies and reading about turtles and orcas lol just to escape the agony. The only thing that works for me now is taking small 10 min breaks every one to two hours of writing to do something fun but once the break is over it's OVER that extra minute becomes an hour. If you have other tasks try to switch between tasks so that you don't get bored. I'm not an expert researcher but I hope my millennial advice help :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: the past two months, I have been toiling with the idea of starting my own blog on a topic I like. But my brain shuts down at the thought of it. If anyone can provide pointers or some sort of advice to get out of this funk. I genuinely want to be more disciplined about my writing because it is about career progression. But I just don't know how. At this point, any help is welcomed. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: I'm having the same problem. Sometimes I feel that there is too much writing getting published. It should not be the benchmark for research. I have read quite a few papers that are not much more than restating in 30 pages what can be said in 1 page. Practically, I found I got more productive when rather than read a series of papers and trying to distill an argument after reading all of them and taking notes, I started to wrote my paper right away. Sure, it is very chaotic and I will have to delete lots of stuff but it helps against forgetting things, which happens when you read a lot. Even extensive notetaking or highlighting won't help you a lot. I have Scrivener for years and only last years I really started to appreciate the application: being able to put something in a sidebar makes it easier to write short passages and still keep an overview of your whole project. Have a look at it. https://www.literatureandlatte.com/scrivener/overview
RESPONSE B: This procrastination sounds a lot like ADHD and/or stress. The pandemic has caused a lot of people to complain about being distracted, brain fog--essentially, it has *given* them ADHD. Consider addressing stress in your life, getting regular exercise, 20 min of meditation a day (the length most strongly associated with neurological changes), and pursuing creative hobbies. These things don't directly address your writing problems, but there is ample evidence that such changes will increase your focus, clarity of thought, and productivity. It also sounds like you may be actively avoiding due to stress related to the project, so consider confiding in a trusted friend or colleague about it. Perhaps just getting it off your chest will ease the anxiety that is keeping you from doing the thing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: doc with glaucoma and 2 research articles as a first co-author (my advisor likes to mess with me by adding on additional authors as co-first authors to undermine my work). 3 review articles Numerous research articles as co-authors, many of which I was responsible for basically rewriting, reorganizing, or completely writing myself for publications. ​ I feel exhausted and lost about my future. This postdoc position is keeping me afloat, but I feel the need to get out of this lab asap. I have been applying for research positions in the US without landing an interview. I had one interview last week with a biotech startup, which I don't think went too well. I may be just feeling burnt out, but I am so sick of everything. I'm at a loss here and feel like I need to do some soul searching. Thanks for listening to my jumbled rant.
RESPONSE A: Jobs applications can be excruciating. You think you fit the bill and put your heart in that application, only to be rejected without any meaningful feedback. I am preparing to leave academia in the coming years. I invested a bit in the stock market that is starting to pay off and also am helping a friend build a company. Academia sucks life out of you and makes you feel miserable. Good luck with the job search.
RESPONSE B: I don’t have any wisdom to offer on practical front because I’m merely a masters student. I do however sympathize strongly with your situation as I am a Korean myself trying to deal with the military. (I myself was an undergraduate researcher for 2 yrs before leaving to get my masters somewhere else outside the country for similar reasons you’ve stated) Good news I suppose is that you’re now not tied down by your citizenship. Bad news is having to reconcile with the current job market and your academic network now being mostly in Korea. But for once, your outlook in life is no longer tied down to your passport. I hesitate to tell you to just take a break. We both know how that looks to most Korean professors. Just know that there are options out there even if that means burning the bridge you have with your PI.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: back I should've just enlisted and done my two years. Long story short. Now, I am a postdoc with glaucoma and 2 research articles as a first co-author (my advisor likes to mess with me by adding on additional authors as co-first authors to undermine my work). 3 review articles Numerous research articles as co-authors, many of which I was responsible for basically rewriting, reorganizing, or completely writing myself for publications. ​ I feel exhausted and lost about my future. This postdoc position is keeping me afloat, but I feel the need to get out of this lab asap. I have been applying for research positions in the US without landing an interview. I had one interview last week with a biotech startup, which I don't think went too well. I may be just feeling burnt out, but I am so sick of everything. I'm at a loss here and feel like I need to do some soul searching. Thanks for listening to my jumbled rant.
RESPONSE A: I don’t have any wisdom to offer on practical front because I’m merely a masters student. I do however sympathize strongly with your situation as I am a Korean myself trying to deal with the military. (I myself was an undergraduate researcher for 2 yrs before leaving to get my masters somewhere else outside the country for similar reasons you’ve stated) Good news I suppose is that you’re now not tied down by your citizenship. Bad news is having to reconcile with the current job market and your academic network now being mostly in Korea. But for once, your outlook in life is no longer tied down to your passport. I hesitate to tell you to just take a break. We both know how that looks to most Korean professors. Just know that there are options out there even if that means burning the bridge you have with your PI.
RESPONSE B: Sending virtual hugs. Your journey sounds quite rough, but friends of mine have been slowly getting jobs in the path month or two (in the US) so things are picking up if not quite slow. Have u checked 3M for any positions? All the research is in Minneapolis I think but they seem quite keen on hiring people
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Looking back I should've just enlisted and done my two years. Long story short. Now, I am a postdoc with glaucoma and 2 research articles as a first co-author (my advisor likes to mess with me by adding on additional authors as co-first authors to undermine my work). 3 review articles Numerous research articles as co-authors, many of which I was responsible for basically rewriting, reorganizing, or completely writing myself for publications. ​ I feel exhausted and lost about my future. This postdoc position is keeping me afloat, but I feel the need to get out of this lab asap. I have been applying for research positions in the US without landing an interview. I had one interview last week with a biotech startup, which I don't think went too well. I may be just feeling burnt out, but I am so sick of everything. I'm at a loss here and feel like I need to do some soul searching. Thanks for listening to my jumbled rant.
RESPONSE A: Don't worry much. You should travel and meditate a while. I am sure you will feel better and open new avenues. Else go into a production facility job away from Research for some weeks and you will be better. Best wishes and good luck.
RESPONSE B: I feel your pain, my buddy. Postdocing is the worst form of being a scientist. You're basically propping up the project for those graduate students. Once your seed project starts working, your PI add more graduates in terms of helping you, but in fact, it's an incentive to recruit more graduates into the lab. If the project doesn't work, you're in line to get fired any time soon. Postdocs are hanging by the contract. You should definitely leave the postdoc career. It's always the case. You'd often hear a similar situation across the world, in Spain, UK, US anywhere. The same shit, abusive PIs, churning out the papers hoping to get funded, while squeezing the postdocs. They won't get fired. They have tenure. Get out of academic lab asap. They are toxic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: and for some schools required) to reach out to potential advisors before applying so that they can support your application and accept you into the program as a student in their lab. So lately I've been reaching out to potential advisors and doing zoom meetings with them. However, I feel a little intimidated and confused by this process of basically committing to an advisor and *then* getting in to the program/starting a PhD. For one, while I've written up a strong research proposal (for NSF GRFP) and reflected on potential research questions, I'm definitely not 100% sure of the exact project I would want to pursue in my PhD. Also, while I have a general idea of the subfield I'm interested in, I'm eager to learn more about the other subfields and understand how various subfields relate to one another before becoming specialized in a single area. So my question: what are these faculty members expecting when I reach out as a prospective student? Are they expecting me to have a clear, specific research question and be able to explain how it relates to their current projects? Or are these meetings usually more about generally discussing backgrounds/interests, getting a feel for the prospective student's curiosity and intellect, and seeing if the prospective student/potential advisor get along and communicate well.
RESPONSE A: From my experience as a prospect PhD candidate and interviewing incoming PhD candidates, generally the main thing the faculty members look for is a fit - is your research style in line with theirs ( independent or do you require constant supervision)? Are you a weirdo? General vibes. After chatting about your background and general interest, they may introduce a project to you to see whether or not you'd like it. Eventhough this can be one of many project you work on throughout the years, it should be your deciding factor (in my opinion) to join a lab or not. Your starting project will definitely set the tone of your PhD career and usually subsequent projects will be around the same concept so choose wisely!
RESPONSE B: Don't worry. It will be fine. Just show and ask questions about their work, prospects and qualities they are looking for. In the meanwhile do share your skills and experiences. Good luck fella.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: potential graduate student? I'm an undergraduate senior currently applying to PhD programs. In my field (Theoretical Ecology), it is common (and for some schools required) to reach out to potential advisors before applying so that they can support your application and accept you into the program as a student in their lab. So lately I've been reaching out to potential advisors and doing zoom meetings with them. However, I feel a little intimidated and confused by this process of basically committing to an advisor and *then* getting in to the program/starting a PhD. For one, while I've written up a strong research proposal (for NSF GRFP) and reflected on potential research questions, I'm definitely not 100% sure of the exact project I would want to pursue in my PhD. Also, while I have a general idea of the subfield I'm interested in, I'm eager to learn more about the other subfields and understand how various subfields relate to one another before becoming specialized in a single area. So my question: what are these faculty members expecting when I reach out as a prospective student? Are they expecting me to have a clear, specific research question and be able to explain how it relates to their current projects? Or are these meetings usually more about generally discussing backgrounds/interests, getting a feel for the prospective student's curiosity and intellect, and seeing if the prospective student/potential advisor get along and communicate well.
RESPONSE A: RemindMe! 10 Days "Check Answers"
RESPONSE B: From my experience as a prospect PhD candidate and interviewing incoming PhD candidates, generally the main thing the faculty members look for is a fit - is your research style in line with theirs ( independent or do you require constant supervision)? Are you a weirdo? General vibes. After chatting about your background and general interest, they may introduce a project to you to see whether or not you'd like it. Eventhough this can be one of many project you work on throughout the years, it should be your deciding factor (in my opinion) to join a lab or not. Your starting project will definitely set the tone of your PhD career and usually subsequent projects will be around the same concept so choose wisely!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What do faculty members expect when meeting with a potential graduate student? I'm an undergraduate senior currently applying to PhD programs. In my field (Theoretical Ecology), it is common (and for some schools required) to reach out to potential advisors before applying so that they can support your application and accept you into the program as a student in their lab. So lately I've been reaching out to potential advisors and doing zoom meetings with them. However, I feel a little intimidated and confused by this process of basically committing to an advisor and *then* getting in to the program/starting a PhD. For one, while I've written up a strong research proposal (for NSF GRFP) and reflected on potential research questions, I'm definitely not 100% sure of the exact project I would want to pursue in my PhD. Also, while I have a general idea of the subfield I'm interested in, I'm eager to learn more about the other subfields and understand how various subfields relate to one another before becoming specialized in a single area. So my question: what are these faculty members expecting when I reach out as a prospective student? Are they expecting me to have a clear, specific research question and be able to explain how it relates to their current projects? Or are these meetings usually more about generally discussing backgrounds/interests, getting a feel for the prospective student's curiosity and intellect, and seeing if the prospective student/potential advisor get along and communicate well.
RESPONSE A: If you really aren’t sure of your area of research, consider doing a masters first then your PhD. You learn a LOT in the two years of an MS both about your research interests and what kind of a relationship you want with a major professor.
RESPONSE B: Don't worry. It will be fine. Just show and ask questions about their work, prospects and qualities they are looking for. In the meanwhile do share your skills and experiences. Good luck fella.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What do faculty members expect when meeting with a potential graduate student? I'm an undergraduate senior currently applying to PhD programs. In my field (Theoretical Ecology), it is common (and for some schools required) to reach out to potential advisors before applying so that they can support your application and accept you into the program as a student in their lab. So lately I've been reaching out to potential advisors and doing zoom meetings with them. However, I feel a little intimidated and confused by this process of basically committing to an advisor and *then* getting in to the program/starting a PhD. For one, while I've written up a strong research proposal (for NSF GRFP) and reflected on potential research questions, I'm definitely not 100% sure of the exact project I would want to pursue in my PhD. Also, while I have a general idea of the subfield I'm interested in, I'm eager to learn more about the other subfields and understand how various subfields relate to one another before becoming specialized in a single area. So my question: what are these faculty members expecting when I reach out as a prospective student? Are they expecting me to have a clear, specific research question and be able to explain how it relates to their current projects? Or are these meetings usually more about generally discussing backgrounds/interests, getting a feel for the prospective student's curiosity and intellect, and seeing if the prospective student/potential advisor get along and communicate well.
RESPONSE A: If you really aren’t sure of your area of research, consider doing a masters first then your PhD. You learn a LOT in the two years of an MS both about your research interests and what kind of a relationship you want with a major professor.
RESPONSE B: RemindMe! 10 Days "Check Answers"
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: along and communicate well.
RESPONSE A: I am in a different field (Psychology) but I have had different experiences depending on the PI that I was meeting with. One PI (at an Ivy League school) that I talked to asked me for specific research questions, with IVs and DVs, my hypothesis/prediction, and how it related to her research. I was not prepared for this, but was able to sort of come up with something on the spot. We also talked about general research interests, questions about the program, etc. but the research question thing was a big part of the conversation. Another PI I met with (at an R1, but not an ivy) asked me a lot about my interests, we talked about what projects she was working on and what parts of that I may be interested in, info about the lab and the school, and she flat out said she did not expect me to have concrete questions this early in the process. It seemed like she cared way more about personality and research fit than me being able to come up with questions on the spot (probably because you can teach research, but you can't teach personality connections). She is now my advisor and I feel really supported so I am glad that she focused so much on the personal fit. I think ultimately it depends on the school and the PI, but it never hurts to be prepared. Even tho this may be sort of an "informal" conversation before applications, this is the first impression they will have of you and will likely use it as they go into reviewing the apps and the interview process. edit: I think it probably also depends on the field. If you are admitted directly to an advisor vs. admitted to the program in general and doing some sort of rotation that may change how they approach the chats and also future interviews.
RESPONSE B: They want to know that your research interests are a good fit for the program. So be prepared to tell them what your thesis topic will be (even if you aren't sure or plan to change it later - just have a sketchy idea and a research topic interest). It also looks good if you have a career plan. You don't go to grad school just for the sake of it, you go for your career.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: several pop up meetings a week. All of this would be without pay until my contract begins. I've raised the possibility of an independent contractor position as a holdover, but that hasn't happened. So I'm not sure what to do. I don't want my boss to jettison my new contract because I don't want to work in the meantime without pay, but also I don't want to work a lot without pay. My lab is the type to not really be concerned about people working without compensation for short periods, and I don't want the work to pile on just because I agree to a few meetings. Does anyone have any insight about how I should handle this? Should I just bite the bullet and do the hours?
RESPONSE A: I would ask him how you are supposed to pay rent and eat during that period. My university actually would not allow this if we knew about it. We would make him backdate your start date to whenever you started working. That’s what you should ask for.
RESPONSE B: I'm really not sure what I'd do in your situation because that's a really tough decision. One way of thinking about it that I heard recently and I think fits is this. In academia you aren't really thought of as a worker. Instead you are sort of an independent researcher who is in the lab because the research you want to perform lines up well with their goals and resources. So, you don't really work for them, but rather with them. The money is there so you don't starve to death. From that perspective, I'd say that if you want to complete your research and can afford a month without pay, then go for it. On the other hand, I feel like universities often exploit grad. students, and postdocs. You shouldn't need to starve yourself for the "privilege" of doing research at their institution. Maybe there's some sort of middle road? Like if you aren't getting paid anyways, maybe you could take the time off from the lab and focus on your research by yourself? Or, if there's department responsibilities that you'd be expected to perform, then don't do them since you aren't getting paid by the department?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: My boss wants me to start my postdoc without pay I know this pandemic is a weird time, but there's somethings that's hitting a little weird about my situation. I just graduated my PhD, and my boss has me starting a postdoc after. The problem is the HR arm of the university is stalling applications, so it's going to be about a month before my new contract begins, and a little longer before I get paid. My boss wants me to continue to do the weekly meetings, and several pop up meetings a week. All of this would be without pay until my contract begins. I've raised the possibility of an independent contractor position as a holdover, but that hasn't happened. So I'm not sure what to do. I don't want my boss to jettison my new contract because I don't want to work in the meantime without pay, but also I don't want to work a lot without pay. My lab is the type to not really be concerned about people working without compensation for short periods, and I don't want the work to pile on just because I agree to a few meetings. Does anyone have any insight about how I should handle this? Should I just bite the bullet and do the hours?
RESPONSE A: Would there be the ability for you to get paid back in the form of extra vacation days or getting an extra paycheck at the end? I'm sure neither of these would be acceptable to HR, but I've worked out both off the books with supervisors in the past due to situations like this.
RESPONSE B: I would ask him how you are supposed to pay rent and eat during that period. My university actually would not allow this if we knew about it. We would make him backdate your start date to whenever you started working. That’s what you should ask for.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: tison my new contract because I don't want to work in the meantime without pay, but also I don't want to work a lot without pay. My lab is the type to not really be concerned about people working without compensation for short periods, and I don't want the work to pile on just because I agree to a few meetings. Does anyone have any insight about how I should handle this? Should I just bite the bullet and do the hours?
RESPONSE A: I'm really not sure what I'd do in your situation because that's a really tough decision. One way of thinking about it that I heard recently and I think fits is this. In academia you aren't really thought of as a worker. Instead you are sort of an independent researcher who is in the lab because the research you want to perform lines up well with their goals and resources. So, you don't really work for them, but rather with them. The money is there so you don't starve to death. From that perspective, I'd say that if you want to complete your research and can afford a month without pay, then go for it. On the other hand, I feel like universities often exploit grad. students, and postdocs. You shouldn't need to starve yourself for the "privilege" of doing research at their institution. Maybe there's some sort of middle road? Like if you aren't getting paid anyways, maybe you could take the time off from the lab and focus on your research by yourself? Or, if there's department responsibilities that you'd be expected to perform, then don't do them since you aren't getting paid by the department?
RESPONSE B: I can share my perspective. If they can't pay you due to reasons out of the professor's control, you have to decide if working without pay is beneficial for your career. If this one month of work accelerates a project / publication, that's a good addition to your resume. I'm assuming this will impact your future job positions, as you may be applying for assistant professor jobs in the future. That is if you have nothing better to do in these few months. Or you could just ask for an "unpaid vacation" lol.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: My boss wants me to start my postdoc without pay I know this pandemic is a weird time, but there's somethings that's hitting a little weird about my situation. I just graduated my PhD, and my boss has me starting a postdoc after. The problem is the HR arm of the university is stalling applications, so it's going to be about a month before my new contract begins, and a little longer before I get paid. My boss wants me to continue to do the weekly meetings, and several pop up meetings a week. All of this would be without pay until my contract begins. I've raised the possibility of an independent contractor position as a holdover, but that hasn't happened. So I'm not sure what to do. I don't want my boss to jettison my new contract because I don't want to work in the meantime without pay, but also I don't want to work a lot without pay. My lab is the type to not really be concerned about people working without compensation for short periods, and I don't want the work to pile on just because I agree to a few meetings. Does anyone have any insight about how I should handle this? Should I just bite the bullet and do the hours?
RESPONSE A: Would there be the ability for you to get paid back in the form of extra vacation days or getting an extra paycheck at the end? I'm sure neither of these would be acceptable to HR, but I've worked out both off the books with supervisors in the past due to situations like this.
RESPONSE B: I can share my perspective. If they can't pay you due to reasons out of the professor's control, you have to decide if working without pay is beneficial for your career. If this one month of work accelerates a project / publication, that's a good addition to your resume. I'm assuming this will impact your future job positions, as you may be applying for assistant professor jobs in the future. That is if you have nothing better to do in these few months. Or you could just ask for an "unpaid vacation" lol.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: My boss wants me to start my postdoc without pay I know this pandemic is a weird time, but there's somethings that's hitting a little weird about my situation. I just graduated my PhD, and my boss has me starting a postdoc after. The problem is the HR arm of the university is stalling applications, so it's going to be about a month before my new contract begins, and a little longer before I get paid. My boss wants me to continue to do the weekly meetings, and several pop up meetings a week. All of this would be without pay until my contract begins. I've raised the possibility of an independent contractor position as a holdover, but that hasn't happened. So I'm not sure what to do. I don't want my boss to jettison my new contract because I don't want to work in the meantime without pay, but also I don't want to work a lot without pay. My lab is the type to not really be concerned about people working without compensation for short periods, and I don't want the work to pile on just because I agree to a few meetings. Does anyone have any insight about how I should handle this? Should I just bite the bullet and do the hours?
RESPONSE A: I can share my perspective. If they can't pay you due to reasons out of the professor's control, you have to decide if working without pay is beneficial for your career. If this one month of work accelerates a project / publication, that's a good addition to your resume. I'm assuming this will impact your future job positions, as you may be applying for assistant professor jobs in the future. That is if you have nothing better to do in these few months. Or you could just ask for an "unpaid vacation" lol.
RESPONSE B: See if it's possible to start now and defer payment for a month, assuming you can make it work financially. If not, I'd get a part-time job at Home Depot, or really anywhere, and tell your boss you're limited by financial considerations.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: The UC System screws workers, customers, and management Grad students, post docs, workers: progress disrupted and pay lost Undergrads: pay tuition and dont get taught PIs: fight for grants and then lose your researchers Trying to figure out who the real winners are
RESPONSE A: Tenured professors benefit from cheap labor and papers which are based on other’s expertise and work. Universities benefit from „great“ professors and science output (and teaching, depending on the place).
RESPONSE B: A lot of professors do want to pay their students, postdocs, and staff more, but aren't able to because of rules. They often lose the recruitment battle to other universities because of these issues.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: The UC System screws workers, customers, and management Grad students, post docs, workers: progress disrupted and pay lost Undergrads: pay tuition and dont get taught PIs: fight for grants and then lose your researchers Trying to figure out who the real winners are
RESPONSE A: I was a staff (read:non-senate) researcher at a UC for a couple years. To say I was treated like a second class employee by the university’s administration is an understatement.
RESPONSE B: A lot of professors do want to pay their students, postdocs, and staff more, but aren't able to because of rules. They often lose the recruitment battle to other universities because of these issues.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: The UC System screws workers, customers, and management Grad students, post docs, workers: progress disrupted and pay lost Undergrads: pay tuition and dont get taught PIs: fight for grants and then lose your researchers Trying to figure out who the real winners are
RESPONSE A: As a post doc at UC Berkeley, I really don’t know. I think this is short term thinking, with each passing year they are having harder and harder time getting talented individuals to join. There are a LOT of Post docs from third world countries, who come, stay 2 years and leave for industry with Berkeley on the CV. PhD students are mastering out, RAs are leaving quickly to other places, etc. I heard my PIs about post docs staying 5-9 years, but nowadays almost everyone is leaving after 2-3 years, the only people staying are the one half-assing it and working 25 hours a week.
RESPONSE B: Diane Feinstein’s husband and his construction companies 🤷♂️
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: The UC System screws workers, customers, and management Grad students, post docs, workers: progress disrupted and pay lost Undergrads: pay tuition and dont get taught PIs: fight for grants and then lose your researchers Trying to figure out who the real winners are
RESPONSE A: Obviously stipends need to increase, but I really do think students and post-docs need to learn about grant management. You get a flat rate (that has not changed in 20 years). If suddenly your expenses double, the number of people you can support halves. The issue here is that the UC administration can say “pay people X” but if they are not giving the funds, the number of openings will just decrease.
RESPONSE B: >Undergrads: pay tuition and dont get taught That's a weird thing to say, in what sense are UC undergrads not getting taught?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are the tools you use most when teaching and researching? I use the following programs and I'm curious about your recommendations: As a digital library : **Zotero** For note-taking (Also compatible with Zotero) : **Obsidian** To read and edit pdf: **Pdf Expert** To prepare when I need to print out paper: **Create Booklet 2** To create syllabus or some diagrams of the topics in the lecture notes: **Figma** For better communication with students (classes are crowded): **Discord** I will also create better course videos for students. I'm learning to use **DaVinci.**
RESPONSE A: I use procrastination the most, I’d say.
RESPONSE B: Interesting, I am going to look some of these that I don't know. In my case: As a digital library and note taking : Zotero Writing: Scrivener and in a later stage Word or Pages PDF edit: Apple Preview
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are the tools you use most when teaching and researching? I use the following programs and I'm curious about your recommendations: As a digital library : **Zotero** For note-taking (Also compatible with Zotero) : **Obsidian** To read and edit pdf: **Pdf Expert** To prepare when I need to print out paper: **Create Booklet 2** To create syllabus or some diagrams of the topics in the lecture notes: **Figma** For better communication with students (classes are crowded): **Discord** I will also create better course videos for students. I'm learning to use **DaVinci.**
RESPONSE A: LaTeX, R and R markdown baby. All I need.
RESPONSE B: I’m an art history PhD. I use Zotero as my “inbox” to rename and move PDF files and manage citations. I use DevonThink to organize my PDFs and for reading, highlighting, and markup. It syncs with my iPad. I can’t recommend DevonThink highly enough for its advanced PDF text searching. Starting to use Obsidian for note taking and research organization. I mainly use Word for writing and editing because of Zotero integration
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are the tools you use most when teaching and researching? I use the following programs and I'm curious about your recommendations: As a digital library : **Zotero** For note-taking (Also compatible with Zotero) : **Obsidian** To read and edit pdf: **Pdf Expert** To prepare when I need to print out paper: **Create Booklet 2** To create syllabus or some diagrams of the topics in the lecture notes: **Figma** For better communication with students (classes are crowded): **Discord** I will also create better course videos for students. I'm learning to use **DaVinci.**
RESPONSE A: 'For better communication with students (classes are crowded): Discord'...........are you sure discord is a good place? Better run through the chair.
RESPONSE B: LaTeX, R and R markdown baby. All I need.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are the tools you use most when teaching and researching? I use the following programs and I'm curious about your recommendations: As a digital library : **Zotero** For note-taking (Also compatible with Zotero) : **Obsidian** To read and edit pdf: **Pdf Expert** To prepare when I need to print out paper: **Create Booklet 2** To create syllabus or some diagrams of the topics in the lecture notes: **Figma** For better communication with students (classes are crowded): **Discord** I will also create better course videos for students. I'm learning to use **DaVinci.**
RESPONSE A: 'For better communication with students (classes are crowded): Discord'...........are you sure discord is a good place? Better run through the chair.
RESPONSE B: Zotero, R, OneNote, Word, PowerPoint
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are the tools you use most when teaching and researching? I use the following programs and I'm curious about your recommendations: As a digital library : **Zotero** For note-taking (Also compatible with Zotero) : **Obsidian** To read and edit pdf: **Pdf Expert** To prepare when I need to print out paper: **Create Booklet 2** To create syllabus or some diagrams of the topics in the lecture notes: **Figma** For better communication with students (classes are crowded): **Discord** I will also create better course videos for students. I'm learning to use **DaVinci.**
RESPONSE A: 'For better communication with students (classes are crowded): Discord'...........are you sure discord is a good place? Better run through the chair.
RESPONSE B: To everythung mentioned before I'd add Dropbox, we just discovered their new dropbox paper for notetaking, deadlines, links to files etx. We are loving it for meeting protocols and task division in the team. I'l add though I'm not a teacher but a junior researcher.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do we hate Elsevier so much? What exactly don't we like about them? And are they really that much worse than other publishers? I've always heard people don't like them, but I've not really heard much about why.
RESPONSE A: Oh, where does one start? The core issue is that they have been lobbying and pushing against open access. In my opinion, they have done so with both direct and indirect means. Direct means include submitting evidence in policy meetings, claiming how open science is ‘bad science’ and spending millions in lobbying. They have been exploiting their dominant position—which is further established through indirect means—to push-up prices. Sweden and Germany couldn’t reach an agreement with them and have cancelled subscriptions to them. If not mistaken, they are the only major publisher we (Swedish academics) can’t pay any open access fees through our national OA scheme. They have sued ISPs to block Sci-Hub and overly engaged in an overzealous campaign to keep everything behind their paywall. Indirect means include pushing tools like *Scorpus* and *CiteScore* for an overall ’quantification’ of science that has led to people preferring existing non-OA journals and venues with high impact factor. This, of course, has other consequences in the lives of academics as we are now playing a MinMax game every time we apply for a promotion or a new position. Do other publishers use a dubious paywall model exploiting academic labour? Yes, they do. Do they go around to enforce their paywall to the same extent as Elsevier? No, they do not --at least, not to my knowledge.
RESPONSE B: Is thre a difference? springer is selling articles by "evil nazi doctors" today for 37 Euros: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01793795
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do we hate Elsevier so much? What exactly don't we like about them? And are they really that much worse than other publishers? I've always heard people don't like them, but I've not really heard much about why.
RESPONSE A: Most research is publicly funded. Elsevier takes the results of that research (for free) and sticks it behind paywalls so the people who funded the research can't read the results unless they pay Elsevier for the privilege.
RESPONSE B: I just hate not being confident in how to pronounce it correctly. Is it Elseveer, or kinda French like Elsev-ee-aye? Or something altogether different?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why do we hate Elsevier so much? What exactly don't we like about them? And are they really that much worse than other publishers? I've always heard people don't like them, but I've not really heard much about why.
RESPONSE A: Not aware of them necessarily being seen as worse than other for-profit publishers, but they're a common figurehead of the major problems with scientific publishing because they're such an enormous and broad publisher.
RESPONSE B: Most research is publicly funded. Elsevier takes the results of that research (for free) and sticks it behind paywalls so the people who funded the research can't read the results unless they pay Elsevier for the privilege.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do we hate Elsevier so much? What exactly don't we like about them? And are they really that much worse than other publishers? I've always heard people don't like them, but I've not really heard much about why.
RESPONSE A: Most research is publicly funded. Elsevier takes the results of that research (for free) and sticks it behind paywalls so the people who funded the research can't read the results unless they pay Elsevier for the privilege.
RESPONSE B: Is thre a difference? springer is selling articles by "evil nazi doctors" today for 37 Euros: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01793795
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why do we hate Elsevier so much? What exactly don't we like about them? And are they really that much worse than other publishers? I've always heard people don't like them, but I've not really heard much about why.
RESPONSE A: https://paywallthemovie.com/
RESPONSE B: Most research is publicly funded. Elsevier takes the results of that research (for free) and sticks it behind paywalls so the people who funded the research can't read the results unless they pay Elsevier for the privilege.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How to ask critical questions nicely at a conference When I ask a question after a conference presentation, sometimes it’s critical in nature, but I don’t want to sound too aggressive or hurt the presenter’s feelings. So I want to sound as nice as possible and add comments like “thank you for your presentation, it’s very interesting...” before getting into the question. But sometimes this feels too superficial, and I was wondering what would be a more natural way to sound nicer when asking a critical question at a conference.
RESPONSE A: Go into it with the assumption that they considered what you're about to ask and have a good reason for having done it their way instead. Instead of essentially phrasing "I think you should have done Y instead of X" as a question, ask "can you elaborate on your rationale for doing X instead of Y" or "what are your thoughts on also attempting this via Y" or "what do you think are the pros and cons of doing this via X vs Y." I've seen questions asked this way a lot and answers ranged from a jovial "great idea, let's collaborate" to a thorough explanation that probably left the questioner feeling quite stupid because they were wrong (lol), to an interesting discussion about data availability/integration issues (I got to a lot of talks that are studying very large public datasets) that is helpful for many in the audience and occasionally helpful to the author as well.
RESPONSE B: Not really helpful, but I remember a presentation where the authors proposed a new set of heuristics based on X’s work but were very critical of the original. The first question from the audience was: ”Hi, nice work. My name is Dr. X and I’d like to …”
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How to ask critical questions nicely at a conference When I ask a question after a conference presentation, sometimes it’s critical in nature, but I don’t want to sound too aggressive or hurt the presenter’s feelings. So I want to sound as nice as possible and add comments like “thank you for your presentation, it’s very interesting...” before getting into the question. But sometimes this feels too superficial, and I was wondering what would be a more natural way to sound nicer when asking a critical question at a conference.
RESPONSE A: Go into it with the assumption that they considered what you're about to ask and have a good reason for having done it their way instead. Instead of essentially phrasing "I think you should have done Y instead of X" as a question, ask "can you elaborate on your rationale for doing X instead of Y" or "what are your thoughts on also attempting this via Y" or "what do you think are the pros and cons of doing this via X vs Y." I've seen questions asked this way a lot and answers ranged from a jovial "great idea, let's collaborate" to a thorough explanation that probably left the questioner feeling quite stupid because they were wrong (lol), to an interesting discussion about data availability/integration issues (I got to a lot of talks that are studying very large public datasets) that is helpful for many in the audience and occasionally helpful to the author as well.
RESPONSE B: Start with a compliment about the paper. Something you found exciting they did, or that they did real well, etc. Make it meaningful. Everyone thinks their own research is awesome. We don’t want to deflate people who are legitimately intrigued in furthering human knowledge.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How to ask critical questions nicely at a conference When I ask a question after a conference presentation, sometimes it’s critical in nature, but I don’t want to sound too aggressive or hurt the presenter’s feelings. So I want to sound as nice as possible and add comments like “thank you for your presentation, it’s very interesting...” before getting into the question. But sometimes this feels too superficial, and I was wondering what would be a more natural way to sound nicer when asking a critical question at a conference.
RESPONSE A: Go into it with the assumption that they considered what you're about to ask and have a good reason for having done it their way instead. Instead of essentially phrasing "I think you should have done Y instead of X" as a question, ask "can you elaborate on your rationale for doing X instead of Y" or "what are your thoughts on also attempting this via Y" or "what do you think are the pros and cons of doing this via X vs Y." I've seen questions asked this way a lot and answers ranged from a jovial "great idea, let's collaborate" to a thorough explanation that probably left the questioner feeling quite stupid because they were wrong (lol), to an interesting discussion about data availability/integration issues (I got to a lot of talks that are studying very large public datasets) that is helpful for many in the audience and occasionally helpful to the author as well.
RESPONSE B: "I know this is still a developing field, what do you think about ......?"
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How to ask critical questions nicely at a conference When I ask a question after a conference presentation, sometimes it’s critical in nature, but I don’t want to sound too aggressive or hurt the presenter’s feelings. So I want to sound as nice as possible and add comments like “thank you for your presentation, it’s very interesting...” before getting into the question. But sometimes this feels too superficial, and I was wondering what would be a more natural way to sound nicer when asking a critical question at a conference.
RESPONSE A: If you have a question that you don't know the answer to, ask it. If you found flaws in the presentation, keep it to yourself if you can't pose it like an open question.
RESPONSE B: Go into it with the assumption that they considered what you're about to ask and have a good reason for having done it their way instead. Instead of essentially phrasing "I think you should have done Y instead of X" as a question, ask "can you elaborate on your rationale for doing X instead of Y" or "what are your thoughts on also attempting this via Y" or "what do you think are the pros and cons of doing this via X vs Y." I've seen questions asked this way a lot and answers ranged from a jovial "great idea, let's collaborate" to a thorough explanation that probably left the questioner feeling quite stupid because they were wrong (lol), to an interesting discussion about data availability/integration issues (I got to a lot of talks that are studying very large public datasets) that is helpful for many in the audience and occasionally helpful to the author as well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How to ask critical questions nicely at a conference When I ask a question after a conference presentation, sometimes it’s critical in nature, but I don’t want to sound too aggressive or hurt the presenter’s feelings. So I want to sound as nice as possible and add comments like “thank you for your presentation, it’s very interesting...” before getting into the question. But sometimes this feels too superficial, and I was wondering what would be a more natural way to sound nicer when asking a critical question at a conference.
RESPONSE A: Not really helpful, but I remember a presentation where the authors proposed a new set of heuristics based on X’s work but were very critical of the original. The first question from the audience was: ”Hi, nice work. My name is Dr. X and I’d like to …”
RESPONSE B: Start with a compliment about the paper. Something you found exciting they did, or that they did real well, etc. Make it meaningful. Everyone thinks their own research is awesome. We don’t want to deflate people who are legitimately intrigued in furthering human knowledge.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: [STEM] What's the most exciting research being done in your field? I just received my bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, and I'm thinking about going back to pursue a PhD at some point. I'm curious to hear from you: what are the most exciting areas of research in your field right now, and what technologies could it enable in the future? How could someone learn more about this research if they were interested? Thanks!
RESPONSE A: The most interesting research is what everyone else in lab is working on :P
RESPONSE B: Quantum Computing: In the four years of my PhD we went from quantum computers having 5 qubits, to quantum computers having 50-ish qubits, and the first demonstrations of them doing stuff that couldn't be done on a classical computer have already happened. It is now only a matter of time before we can do actually useful things on them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: [STEM] What's the most exciting research being done in your field? I just received my bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, and I'm thinking about going back to pursue a PhD at some point. I'm curious to hear from you: what are the most exciting areas of research in your field right now, and what technologies could it enable in the future? How could someone learn more about this research if they were interested? Thanks!
RESPONSE A: I’m still psyched about the directed evolution method developed by Frances Arnold (2018 chem Nobel) to create de novo enzymes optimized to have certain biological activity, using series of random mutations and choosing the most functional enzyme in each “generation” to move forward in the process
RESPONSE B: The most interesting research is what everyone else in lab is working on :P
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: [STEM] What's the most exciting research being done in your field? I just received my bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, and I'm thinking about going back to pursue a PhD at some point. I'm curious to hear from you: what are the most exciting areas of research in your field right now, and what technologies could it enable in the future? How could someone learn more about this research if they were interested? Thanks!
RESPONSE A: The most interesting research is what everyone else in lab is working on :P
RESPONSE B: In engine research; everyone alternates between laughing at Volkswagen and laughing about their grad students being utterly terrified of HCCI/PCCI/RCCI combustion. Largely, though; we're stuck until either the engine manufacturers start cramming more computational power into Engine Control Units, or people iron the kinks out of additively-manufactured (i.e. 3D printed) engine components. Also; people are waiting for California and/or the Biden Administration to come to their senses and realize that a 100% BEV economy isn't going to work, at which point they'll start back up with the million mile engine mandates.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: [STEM] What's the most exciting research being done in your field? I just received my bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, and I'm thinking about going back to pursue a PhD at some point. I'm curious to hear from you: what are the most exciting areas of research in your field right now, and what technologies could it enable in the future? How could someone learn more about this research if they were interested? Thanks!
RESPONSE A: The most interesting research is what everyone else in lab is working on :P
RESPONSE B: Bioinformatics: 1. Transformers approach practically solved protein folding in fall, will allow to model whole organisms in silico. 2. First actual whole human genome was sequenced last summer by PacBio new sequencing tech. Together with CRISPR/RNAi, this will be a step towards new cancer therapies. 3. Ancient DNA. During the last decade we have managed to determine DNA from ever more ancient bones. This is gonna turn into jurassic Park pretty soon.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: [STEM] What's the most exciting research being done in your field? I just received my bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, and I'm thinking about going back to pursue a PhD at some point. I'm curious to hear from you: what are the most exciting areas of research in your field right now, and what technologies could it enable in the future? How could someone learn more about this research if they were interested? Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Quantum information. Extremely hot topic because so many govts and all top computer related companies are actively interested for the security aspects of it. And you can approach it from so many different angles: algorithms, fabrication, electrical engineering, materials design, optics...!
RESPONSE B: The most interesting research is what everyone else in lab is working on :P
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What's the difference between calling someone "Dr. Name" vs "Professor Name" This might be a stupid question, but I'm that meme of the guy being like "I don't know what xyz thing is and at this point I'm afraid to ask." I did my MA at an R1 public university, where all the faculty I encountered had doctorates. We called them by their first names after we had been invited to do so, but the polite, formal thing was to refer to faculty as "Dr. Name." Now, I'm doing my PhD at a different R1 public university, where all the faculty I have encountered have doctorates. Again, we call them by their first names on invitation, but the formal thing to do is to call them "Professor Name." Is this just a department culture thing? Or is there a functional difference?
RESPONSE A: These are two different titles. Now, it depends a lot on the country (I'm Italian), however usually someone has the title "professor" if they are either associate professor or full professor, while everyone who has a Ph.D. can be called "Doctor". This is the basic explanation, however as I mentioned before a lot depends on the country (for example, in Italy even people with a bachelor degree can be called "doctor", which in my opinion is ridiculous, but that's a different topic....)
RESPONSE B: I teach at an R1 and my job title is lecturer, not professor. *Technically* that makes me Dr. X and not Prof. X, at least here. But I think it can be a cultural thing or vary by field. Search the post history of this sub and you'll see some other answers to this question. For example my wife had a biology prof in undergrad who insisted that people call her Dr. and not Prof.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What's the difference between calling someone "Dr. Name" vs "Professor Name" This might be a stupid question, but I'm that meme of the guy being like "I don't know what xyz thing is and at this point I'm afraid to ask." I did my MA at an R1 public university, where all the faculty I encountered had doctorates. We called them by their first names after we had been invited to do so, but the polite, formal thing was to refer to faculty as "Dr. Name." Now, I'm doing my PhD at a different R1 public university, where all the faculty I have encountered have doctorates. Again, we call them by their first names on invitation, but the formal thing to do is to call them "Professor Name." Is this just a department culture thing? Or is there a functional difference?
RESPONSE A: I teach at an R1 and my job title is lecturer, not professor. *Technically* that makes me Dr. X and not Prof. X, at least here. But I think it can be a cultural thing or vary by field. Search the post history of this sub and you'll see some other answers to this question. For example my wife had a biology prof in undergrad who insisted that people call her Dr. and not Prof.
RESPONSE B: 'Professor' is a job title; 'Doctor' is a degree title. If you have both, the preference is cultural, I think. But as others have explained, you can be one and not the other.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What's the difference between calling someone "Dr. Name" vs "Professor Name" This might be a stupid question, but I'm that meme of the guy being like "I don't know what xyz thing is and at this point I'm afraid to ask." I did my MA at an R1 public university, where all the faculty I encountered had doctorates. We called them by their first names after we had been invited to do so, but the polite, formal thing was to refer to faculty as "Dr. Name." Now, I'm doing my PhD at a different R1 public university, where all the faculty I have encountered have doctorates. Again, we call them by their first names on invitation, but the formal thing to do is to call them "Professor Name." Is this just a department culture thing? Or is there a functional difference?
RESPONSE A: >Is this just a department culture thing? Probably. Some of it will also be personal preference. >Or is there a functional difference? In some cases, yes. Not all professors have a PhD, depending on the field. In those cases, it would be inappropriate to refer to them by Dr. XXX if they do not have a doctoral degree. Professor XXX would be a more appropriate choice. In your case, it's probably just the preference thing.
RESPONSE B: 'Professor' is a job title; 'Doctor' is a degree title. If you have both, the preference is cultural, I think. But as others have explained, you can be one and not the other.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What's the difference between calling someone "Dr. Name" vs "Professor Name" This might be a stupid question, but I'm that meme of the guy being like "I don't know what xyz thing is and at this point I'm afraid to ask." I did my MA at an R1 public university, where all the faculty I encountered had doctorates. We called them by their first names after we had been invited to do so, but the polite, formal thing was to refer to faculty as "Dr. Name." Now, I'm doing my PhD at a different R1 public university, where all the faculty I have encountered have doctorates. Again, we call them by their first names on invitation, but the formal thing to do is to call them "Professor Name." Is this just a department culture thing? Or is there a functional difference?
RESPONSE A: 'Professor' is a job title; 'Doctor' is a degree title. If you have both, the preference is cultural, I think. But as others have explained, you can be one and not the other.
RESPONSE B: I am a professor in music. It is quite common to have faculty without doctorates. (This is especially true in the performance areas. There are even well-known teachers with no degrees at all.) In my unit, faculty with doctorates (even lecturers and adjuncts) are referred to as "Dr. Name" while others are "Professor Name". Of course, having lecturers and adjuncts with earned doctorates is an entirely different discussion...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What's the difference between calling someone "Dr. Name" vs "Professor Name" This might be a stupid question, but I'm that meme of the guy being like "I don't know what xyz thing is and at this point I'm afraid to ask." I did my MA at an R1 public university, where all the faculty I encountered had doctorates. We called them by their first names after we had been invited to do so, but the polite, formal thing was to refer to faculty as "Dr. Name." Now, I'm doing my PhD at a different R1 public university, where all the faculty I have encountered have doctorates. Again, we call them by their first names on invitation, but the formal thing to do is to call them "Professor Name." Is this just a department culture thing? Or is there a functional difference?
RESPONSE A: At my university the tenure track faculty members who have their PhDs are usually called Dr (last name) but the adjuncts and the grad students who teach are called Professor (last name) but I think it also might be a cultural thing.
RESPONSE B: 'Professor' is a job title; 'Doctor' is a degree title. If you have both, the preference is cultural, I think. But as others have explained, you can be one and not the other.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I am so excited, I got my first bite from the applications I sent in for TT positions in STEM. I've been shortlisted, and invited to a phone screening on zoom for 20 minutes. The people who invited me are related to my subfield. What should I prepare? Any tips greatly appreciated!!!
RESPONSE A: I always prep a word doc that has all the relevant info I need. I have the mission, vision, etc on there. I have the data on the department (number of students, majors, research areas, etc). I especially make a list of every faculty member in the department and their research and I write out how we can collaborate. Any other info I can find on the school I will put down as notes. Then I write out every question I think of so they are there and I don’t forget them. Usually they answer 99% of the questions. Interviews are every bit as much about you getting to know them as them getting to know you. So don’t stress too much. I have had interviews I felt like I nailed only to be told I wasn’t selected for the next round. I’ve had interviews I thought I fumbled through only to find out I made the top 2. A lot of it comes down to match. I was on 2 searches last year and being on the other side definitely makes me wayyyy less stressed about it. Good luck! Edit: also ask questions!!! Not asking is a red flag.
RESPONSE B: Depends on the level of the institution, but if the position is researched-based, obviously be able to talk about your research (and also teaching). If it's teaching-based, be prepared to talk about your teaching style, how you assess and grade students, how you've dealt with problems in class, student evaluations, and so on. When we interviewed people in my discipline (psychology) we always asked about a particular topic that students have difficulty with. It was a core question that was always asked and it went a long way toward our evaluation of a candidate. If there is such an area of difficulty in your field, be prepared to talk about how you've successfully taught it. Also gather some information about the institution so you can be knowledgeable about the place and your discipline's place there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Got invited for a phone interview for TT position! What should I prepare? I am so excited, I got my first bite from the applications I sent in for TT positions in STEM. I've been shortlisted, and invited to a phone screening on zoom for 20 minutes. The people who invited me are related to my subfield. What should I prepare? Any tips greatly appreciated!!!
RESPONSE A: Most of these tips are right. One thing that threw me off a little in one TT interview I had was that the panel had read my research and teaching statements in detail and drilled down into the minutiae of my research. It was no big deal but didn’t expect it because most guides suggest that there would be little time for that. You might expect something like this too especially if the panel is in your sub discipline.
RESPONSE B: Depends on the level of the institution, but if the position is researched-based, obviously be able to talk about your research (and also teaching). If it's teaching-based, be prepared to talk about your teaching style, how you assess and grade students, how you've dealt with problems in class, student evaluations, and so on. When we interviewed people in my discipline (psychology) we always asked about a particular topic that students have difficulty with. It was a core question that was always asked and it went a long way toward our evaluation of a candidate. If there is such an area of difficulty in your field, be prepared to talk about how you've successfully taught it. Also gather some information about the institution so you can be knowledgeable about the place and your discipline's place there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Got invited for a phone interview for TT position! What should I prepare? I am so excited, I got my first bite from the applications I sent in for TT positions in STEM. I've been shortlisted, and invited to a phone screening on zoom for 20 minutes. The people who invited me are related to my subfield. What should I prepare? Any tips greatly appreciated!!!
RESPONSE A: I don't have any tips, but I'm just dropping by to congratulate you and wish you good luck!
RESPONSE B: Most of these tips are right. One thing that threw me off a little in one TT interview I had was that the panel had read my research and teaching statements in detail and drilled down into the minutiae of my research. It was no big deal but didn’t expect it because most guides suggest that there would be little time for that. You might expect something like this too especially if the panel is in your sub discipline.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: are heavily rooted in research, which again I have no problem with doing, but I'm wondering if this path is necessary if I'm interested more in teaching.
RESPONSE A: Take this for what it’s worth as I’m speaking from a social sciences perspective. I’m an academic who strongly favors teaching and I knew that since I was in grad school. In my field, it is increasingly, and already very difficult, to obtain any sort of teaching gig without a PhD. With higher ed finances the way they are now, I don’t see this changing. I was hired about 4 years ago on the tenure track at a teaching focused university. They still expect us to be professionally engaged in research (although the expectations are very different than what you would find in a research focused school.) Even though teaching ability was central to the hire, all serious candidates were involved in both high quality teaching and research. I’ve seen a lot of friends with strong teaching and research abilities struggle to find jobs, so the competition is very strong. My research centers on student engagement/learning, so I’m able to intertwine the two to an extent and still enjoy both. Even if you’re not looking for a tenure track role, full-time lecturer positions are hard to find and very competitive. The other option is to adjunct but those positions are being cut, increasingly competitive, and not stable at all - every semester is a crap shoot to what classes you might be assigned and if you’ll even get any classes, the pay is an abomination to the amount of work you do, and you’re not guaranteed great benefits. With the market the way it is, I expect higher expected qualifications from adjuncts and other part-time lecturers. The most success I’ve seen from people moving into full time lecture or “more secure” adjunct work is from people who invested greatly into the teaching they do at the institution where they are working toward their degree and after time, securing the golden egg lecture position created for them to stay (this is anecdotal.)
RESPONSE B: Both my own uni and our local cc hire folks with master's degrees to teach classes with no scholarship and little service expectations, but they pay very little and offer no benefits.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Interested in teaching, less interested in research Currently pursuing a master's degree in media that is heavily research-focused. I have no problem with my research or the field I'm in, but I prefer plain old teaching over teaching and research. I was contemplating applying to schools for a PhD once I graduate, but I'm wondering if I need to. Can I teach at the university level without one? I understand PhD programs are heavily rooted in research, which again I have no problem with doing, but I'm wondering if this path is necessary if I'm interested more in teaching.
RESPONSE A: I'm at a teaching focused school. you can get an MA and be on the lecture track...but the pay tops off really fast. Schools want the PhD for accreditation reasons.
RESPONSE B: You might be interested in this article: https://community.chronicle.com/news/881-only-writers-left-alive. You can skim the first half, which is pretty in line with the previous comments on this thread. But the second half might be relevant for you -- he unpacks that "I just want to teach" position a bit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Interested in teaching, less interested in research Currently pursuing a master's degree in media that is heavily research-focused. I have no problem with my research or the field I'm in, but I prefer plain old teaching over teaching and research. I was contemplating applying to schools for a PhD once I graduate, but I'm wondering if I need to. Can I teach at the university level without one? I understand PhD programs are heavily rooted in research, which again I have no problem with doing, but I'm wondering if this path is necessary if I'm interested more in teaching.
RESPONSE A: The irony is that while teaching colleges usually require a phd, the classes you teach will be at such a low level that you will quickly get bored. I’m stuck in a hell of having a doctorate and teaching the same gen ed class 8 times a year for 13 years. Don’t be me.
RESPONSE B: Look up the difference between a PHD and PsyD. As I understand it, a PsyD is more clinical work rather than research based.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: in the same flask. So now I pretty much only have four CRISPRi lines for downstream experiments. I have lentivirus in the -80 so I can just reinfect and have the two lines ready within the upcoming week. But I just feel so dumb and so awful. I haven't told my PI yet as this happened Friday evening, I definitely will let him know on Monday. I don't know him that well and he is a little bit intimidating, which he is aware of and told me not to be intimidated by him. But I just feel so stupid and so scared to tell him. I know that he won't yell at me or anything, I just feel like he might regret hiring me. How bad is this?
RESPONSE A: Everyone makes mistakes at all levels of expertise. It's how you handle them that should be the difference as a student vs postdocs vs PI. As the postdoc, it is your responsibility to keep your PI informed of any major setbacks. If you have regular meetings, you bring those up if they aren't urgent are the meetings. If it's an urgent mistake like equipment failure you bring it up asap. If it's minor and unimportant, just correct and move on. The tone of your disclosure should be appropriate. A student should to a certain extent be remorseful to show they understand the gravity of their mistakes. A postdoc need not apologize as much as acknowledge the consequences and either lay out their plan for fixing the mistake or explain how the mistake has already been fixed and will be avoided in the future. A PI that makes a mistake also needs to acknowledge and give clean plan for correction.
RESPONSE B: If you can generate the cell lines again within a week then why do you even need to tell your PI? I know some PIs are more involved than others, but even as a PhD student I only really go to my boss with results; she's not interested in every little technical problem I have along the way and can easily solve myself. I wouldn't lie about a mistake or actively hide it if asked, but everyone makes mistakes, it's not a big deal. No need to broadcast them though.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: first postdoc position three weeks ago. It's a bit of a shift for me; my PhD was in protein-RNA interaction biochemistry and crystallography, very in vitro, and I'm now shifting to a cell culture and bioinformatics lab. Well, I was doing great, but yesterday I made such a DUMB mistake... I generated six CRISPRi knockdown lines, and I was subculturing at the end of the day when I mixed two of them together in the same flask. So now I pretty much only have four CRISPRi lines for downstream experiments. I have lentivirus in the -80 so I can just reinfect and have the two lines ready within the upcoming week. But I just feel so dumb and so awful. I haven't told my PI yet as this happened Friday evening, I definitely will let him know on Monday. I don't know him that well and he is a little bit intimidating, which he is aware of and told me not to be intimidated by him. But I just feel so stupid and so scared to tell him. I know that he won't yell at me or anything, I just feel like he might regret hiring me. How bad is this?
RESPONSE A: If you can generate the cell lines again within a week then why do you even need to tell your PI? I know some PIs are more involved than others, but even as a PhD student I only really go to my boss with results; she's not interested in every little technical problem I have along the way and can easily solve myself. I wouldn't lie about a mistake or actively hide it if asked, but everyone makes mistakes, it's not a big deal. No need to broadcast them though.
RESPONSE B: On the plus side, facing this mistake and coming out the other side will be data point your brain can use to actually understand that your PI isn't as intimidating as you thought. It takes a few experiences like this to train yourself that way. Hopefully your PI will be thinking the same thing (sounds like he's already aware that he has an intimidating aura), and will use this chance to show gentleness to help that along.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it normal to still make silly mistakes as a postdoc? Started my first postdoc position three weeks ago. It's a bit of a shift for me; my PhD was in protein-RNA interaction biochemistry and crystallography, very in vitro, and I'm now shifting to a cell culture and bioinformatics lab. Well, I was doing great, but yesterday I made such a DUMB mistake... I generated six CRISPRi knockdown lines, and I was subculturing at the end of the day when I mixed two of them together in the same flask. So now I pretty much only have four CRISPRi lines for downstream experiments. I have lentivirus in the -80 so I can just reinfect and have the two lines ready within the upcoming week. But I just feel so dumb and so awful. I haven't told my PI yet as this happened Friday evening, I definitely will let him know on Monday. I don't know him that well and he is a little bit intimidating, which he is aware of and told me not to be intimidated by him. But I just feel so stupid and so scared to tell him. I know that he won't yell at me or anything, I just feel like he might regret hiring me. How bad is this?
RESPONSE A: Oh my god yes. I forgot to put a filter on a device and dumped two weeks worth of protein purification onto the Lab floor when I was a postdoc
RESPONSE B: If you can generate the cell lines again within a week then why do you even need to tell your PI? I know some PIs are more involved than others, but even as a PhD student I only really go to my boss with results; she's not interested in every little technical problem I have along the way and can easily solve myself. I wouldn't lie about a mistake or actively hide it if asked, but everyone makes mistakes, it's not a big deal. No need to broadcast them though.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: a postdoc? Started my first postdoc position three weeks ago. It's a bit of a shift for me; my PhD was in protein-RNA interaction biochemistry and crystallography, very in vitro, and I'm now shifting to a cell culture and bioinformatics lab. Well, I was doing great, but yesterday I made such a DUMB mistake... I generated six CRISPRi knockdown lines, and I was subculturing at the end of the day when I mixed two of them together in the same flask. So now I pretty much only have four CRISPRi lines for downstream experiments. I have lentivirus in the -80 so I can just reinfect and have the two lines ready within the upcoming week. But I just feel so dumb and so awful. I haven't told my PI yet as this happened Friday evening, I definitely will let him know on Monday. I don't know him that well and he is a little bit intimidating, which he is aware of and told me not to be intimidated by him. But I just feel so stupid and so scared to tell him. I know that he won't yell at me or anything, I just feel like he might regret hiring me. How bad is this?
RESPONSE A: I am a postdoc and I went to the post office for the first time in my life last month and I didn't know how to mail a letter. Sooooo I think you are in way better shape than me :-) That being said, I think one of the things that distinguish a postdoc/senior phd from a junior PhD is that we learn from our mistakes
RESPONSE B: If you can generate the cell lines again within a week then why do you even need to tell your PI? I know some PIs are more involved than others, but even as a PhD student I only really go to my boss with results; she's not interested in every little technical problem I have along the way and can easily solve myself. I wouldn't lie about a mistake or actively hide it if asked, but everyone makes mistakes, it's not a big deal. No need to broadcast them though.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it normal to still make silly mistakes as a postdoc? Started my first postdoc position three weeks ago. It's a bit of a shift for me; my PhD was in protein-RNA interaction biochemistry and crystallography, very in vitro, and I'm now shifting to a cell culture and bioinformatics lab. Well, I was doing great, but yesterday I made such a DUMB mistake... I generated six CRISPRi knockdown lines, and I was subculturing at the end of the day when I mixed two of them together in the same flask. So now I pretty much only have four CRISPRi lines for downstream experiments. I have lentivirus in the -80 so I can just reinfect and have the two lines ready within the upcoming week. But I just feel so dumb and so awful. I haven't told my PI yet as this happened Friday evening, I definitely will let him know on Monday. I don't know him that well and he is a little bit intimidating, which he is aware of and told me not to be intimidated by him. But I just feel so stupid and so scared to tell him. I know that he won't yell at me or anything, I just feel like he might regret hiring me. How bad is this?
RESPONSE A: If you can generate the cell lines again within a week then why do you even need to tell your PI? I know some PIs are more involved than others, but even as a PhD student I only really go to my boss with results; she's not interested in every little technical problem I have along the way and can easily solve myself. I wouldn't lie about a mistake or actively hide it if asked, but everyone makes mistakes, it's not a big deal. No need to broadcast them though.
RESPONSE B: My supervisor, a senior Postdoc, has submitted dna samples for sequencing using both primers in the same well :D I explicitly told him that we would need both indeed, but that’s not what I meant...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: . Any other grad students or newly minted PhDs like myself please feel free to chime in as to your strategies and thoughts during these trying times. Best wishes and good health to you and yours.
RESPONSE A: When this is over, we will be wounded and unmotivated for some time. I reckon it will take at least 2 years to stabilize and another 5 years to recover. At this time, the most important asset is the flexibility. Keep your options open.
RESPONSE B: Honestly, the next year is going to be a shit show. I've seen big colleges--Yale and Stanford--cancel some job applications. If you have a $30 billion endowment and you're freezing hires, that's not good. Then I've seen flagship public ones freeze all spending (not just hires, but research funds, etc). Smaller and struggling colleges have outright closed. This means shit is going to be dicey for 2020/21, and probably a year or two after. There will be budget shortfalls 20/21 that will have to be made up the next couple of years. Even if you can't get a job somewhere, you might check at your PhD-granting institution (or a nearby university) if you can get some sort of "visiting scholar" status. Usually, this only amounts to a library card and getting on some mailing lists for events. But it can be something on the CV. But as /u/phonograhy said, people know this is a shit market, and they're not going to hold it against you. I'm not sure from your post, but finishing your PhD is the most important thing. If you've done that, you've already set yourself apart from many candidates. Anything more--books, journal articles, etc.--will just be bonus. It's brutal. But you knew that. Do as much as you can. But don't forget to live. There's more than academics. And it's not a meritocracy. Do as much work as you can tolerate, and make sure not to let your friendships and family life go to shit. Best of luck. <3
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Coronavirus and PhDs This is a tough time for everyone, especially those on the job market. Faculty - do we think normalcy will return this following academic year? I know a lot of this is speculative but any inner anonymous conversations and insights you can relay would be appreciated. Sadly, one of the positions I applied for cancelled their search due to Corona. What do you suggest I (and those in the same situation) do? Unfortunately post-doc positions are tough to come by due to lack of funds for programs. I can live with a family member and publish while working a part time job. Will this hurt me though if I don’t have these papers to count towards tenure somewhere? Should I just aim high and ensure the acceptance process drags out while getting some coals in the fire? Or should I instead try to get as many pubs as I can in the meantime? This situation is unprecedented to be sure, but seems to have some parallels to 2007-2009. Any advice would be welcomed. Any other grad students or newly minted PhDs like myself please feel free to chime in as to your strategies and thoughts during these trying times. Best wishes and good health to you and yours.
RESPONSE A: I wish I could be optimistic, but this is bad and to be honest it does not resemble 08-09 at all and is in fact much worse. We will obviously know more once the smoke clears, but I think everything from closing depts, laying off tenured faculty and administrators, to lacs/unis going belly up is on the table. At the very least, with the job market 20-21 likely nonexistent, there will be a backlog of talented candidates that will take years to clear. It will be a bloodbath.
RESPONSE B: When this is over, we will be wounded and unmotivated for some time. I reckon it will take at least 2 years to stabilize and another 5 years to recover. At this time, the most important asset is the flexibility. Keep your options open.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: especially those on the job market. Faculty - do we think normalcy will return this following academic year? I know a lot of this is speculative but any inner anonymous conversations and insights you can relay would be appreciated. Sadly, one of the positions I applied for cancelled their search due to Corona. What do you suggest I (and those in the same situation) do? Unfortunately post-doc positions are tough to come by due to lack of funds for programs. I can live with a family member and publish while working a part time job. Will this hurt me though if I don’t have these papers to count towards tenure somewhere? Should I just aim high and ensure the acceptance process drags out while getting some coals in the fire? Or should I instead try to get as many pubs as I can in the meantime? This situation is unprecedented to be sure, but seems to have some parallels to 2007-2009. Any advice would be welcomed. Any other grad students or newly minted PhDs like myself please feel free to chime in as to your strategies and thoughts during these trying times. Best wishes and good health to you and yours.
RESPONSE A: There are some really grim possibilities that nobody is rooting for, but which may result in more jobs: The disease is predicted to infect the majority of Americans over the next year, with a 5% mortality rate (or higher) for people between 60 and 70. There may be openings simply because a significant number of professors die. So stay in touch with your supervisor and mentors - depending on their age, they are at tremendous risk this year, and they might need your support.
RESPONSE B: 1. Talk to your department and see if they can keep you around for a year as a visiting lecturer. Given that some searches have been cancelled and international grad students are up in the air, if you’re in a big department there’s a chance that some TA positions are uncovered even if (as it’s likely) fall enrollment were down. 2. Given that online teaching has emerged overnight as the only viable alternative and it’s likely here to stay, Instructional design might be another field to look into. There’s a dedicated sub on reddit where you could look for some starting information.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: tenure somewhere? Should I just aim high and ensure the acceptance process drags out while getting some coals in the fire? Or should I instead try to get as many pubs as I can in the meantime? This situation is unprecedented to be sure, but seems to have some parallels to 2007-2009. Any advice would be welcomed. Any other grad students or newly minted PhDs like myself please feel free to chime in as to your strategies and thoughts during these trying times. Best wishes and good health to you and yours.
RESPONSE A: There are some really grim possibilities that nobody is rooting for, but which may result in more jobs: The disease is predicted to infect the majority of Americans over the next year, with a 5% mortality rate (or higher) for people between 60 and 70. There may be openings simply because a significant number of professors die. So stay in touch with your supervisor and mentors - depending on their age, they are at tremendous risk this year, and they might need your support.
RESPONSE B: I'm wrapping up my postdoc right now and am/was on the market. I had about half a dozen places I applied to send me emails that this round of hiring was being canceled and that they hope I will submit my application in the future. My friend in biology experienced the same. A third friend actually had her offer rescinded, not for anything she had done, but because that university put out a statement saying that all hiring was frozen unless a contract had already been signed. My current institution released a similar statement (unless the contract was signed, discontinue the hiring process), we are also on a hard spending freeze. I wound up taking a job at the K-12 level, and next year will be teaching high school physics. It was not my first choice, and it's not ideal, but I'd rather be employed come August at this stage in the game. I still would like to be in higher ed, and maybe in a few years, I will be able to make that transition back. But, I agree with many of the other comments here, there will be many of us graduating PhDs and finishing post-docs who will have to look for alternative career paths for the next year or two at least.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you ever feel like your research is pointless? Hi everybody. I'm in the middle of writing my Masters dissertation (in International Relations) and I'm feeling pretty hopeless. Do you ever feel like your research is pointless? Or not worth the time you've given it? Are your expected outcomes obvious, or just not that important anymore? Feeling down. Need a pick me up. At the very least, it'd be nice to know I'm not alone.
RESPONSE A: I am also writing a Masters dissertation in IR and feeling pretty hopeless! A lot of the research in my subject seems to be: here's a way in which the world is super bleak and dark, and research into the specifics of that doesn't feel like it's actually... doing anything? Like it's not going to make an impact and probably nobody other than the markers is doing it. But it's valuable to me, to my personal development, and I care about it. That's enough for now.
RESPONSE B: “No single raindrop feels responsible for the flood.” - Douglas Adams Though this quote originally most likely had a different meaning/intention, it makes me feel better that my work may be a part of this ‘flood’. Just being a part of this upward march of humanity gives me more satisfaction than working to help a company make a profit ever could.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you ever feel like your research is pointless? Hi everybody. I'm in the middle of writing my Masters dissertation (in International Relations) and I'm feeling pretty hopeless. Do you ever feel like your research is pointless? Or not worth the time you've given it? Are your expected outcomes obvious, or just not that important anymore? Feeling down. Need a pick me up. At the very least, it'd be nice to know I'm not alone.
RESPONSE A: I’m writing a master’s thesis in history and am feeling the same way. In a strange way it helps knowing I’m not alone in this.
RESPONSE B: “No single raindrop feels responsible for the flood.” - Douglas Adams Though this quote originally most likely had a different meaning/intention, it makes me feel better that my work may be a part of this ‘flood’. Just being a part of this upward march of humanity gives me more satisfaction than working to help a company make a profit ever could.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you ever feel like your research is pointless? Hi everybody. I'm in the middle of writing my Masters dissertation (in International Relations) and I'm feeling pretty hopeless. Do you ever feel like your research is pointless? Or not worth the time you've given it? Are your expected outcomes obvious, or just not that important anymore? Feeling down. Need a pick me up. At the very least, it'd be nice to know I'm not alone.
RESPONSE A: I’m writing a master’s thesis in history and am feeling the same way. In a strange way it helps knowing I’m not alone in this.
RESPONSE B: Always remember that a thesis is not necessarily there for you to bring ground-breaking ideas into the field, particularly at MA level. Focus on all of the skills that you are acquiring thanks to the writing up and research - those are the most valuable assets of the whole process in my opinion. Then, of course, if your research ends up being internationally acclaimed, then that's a bonus. Selfishly, we have to accept that, most often than not, research might simply be a pleasurable thinking exercise and we should embrace it as such.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do you ever feel like your research is pointless? Hi everybody. I'm in the middle of writing my Masters dissertation (in International Relations) and I'm feeling pretty hopeless. Do you ever feel like your research is pointless? Or not worth the time you've given it? Are your expected outcomes obvious, or just not that important anymore? Feeling down. Need a pick me up. At the very least, it'd be nice to know I'm not alone.
RESPONSE A: Always remember that a thesis is not necessarily there for you to bring ground-breaking ideas into the field, particularly at MA level. Focus on all of the skills that you are acquiring thanks to the writing up and research - those are the most valuable assets of the whole process in my opinion. Then, of course, if your research ends up being internationally acclaimed, then that's a bonus. Selfishly, we have to accept that, most often than not, research might simply be a pleasurable thinking exercise and we should embrace it as such.
RESPONSE B: I’m currently writing my master thesis as well. I had a similar feeling last year when I was writing a short research paper for an award. I was just half a year into the program at the time. I started feeling like my contribution was insignificant. Which, it’s expected to be imo. I was a first year master student. How am I to solve challenges in a technology that has been in the interest of researcher for decades? If you’re exceptional, then maybe you’ll get the attention of a few people. Sometimes you have to be lucky, I guess. But normally, master students are going through a learning process, and they don’t have significant contributions. Research is new to us. We haven’t experienced it before (at least myself). So, it’s an opportunity for us to learn how to do research, so that in our next stages we can do better. I don’t believe getting a degree should to be a goal for us. It should be an intermediate stage for whatever our actual goal it, and whatever that goal is for you is, you have acquired enough skills from your research to have more significant contributions to it. Cheers and good luck with writing!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you ever feel like your research is pointless? Hi everybody. I'm in the middle of writing my Masters dissertation (in International Relations) and I'm feeling pretty hopeless. Do you ever feel like your research is pointless? Or not worth the time you've given it? Are your expected outcomes obvious, or just not that important anymore? Feeling down. Need a pick me up. At the very least, it'd be nice to know I'm not alone.
RESPONSE A: Sometimes I do feel a sense of pointlessness with my field, where there are so many relatively low quality papers published (almost all yet another unquestioning application of a particular theory to a marginally different case study) that get zero citations. But at the same time, there are people who have done really high-quality research that has had an impact on professional practice.
RESPONSE B: Always remember that a thesis is not necessarily there for you to bring ground-breaking ideas into the field, particularly at MA level. Focus on all of the skills that you are acquiring thanks to the writing up and research - those are the most valuable assets of the whole process in my opinion. Then, of course, if your research ends up being internationally acclaimed, then that's a bonus. Selfishly, we have to accept that, most often than not, research might simply be a pleasurable thinking exercise and we should embrace it as such.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: This might sound really stupid, but can I still submit abstracts to conferences call for papers after graduating and no longer being a graduate student? Please forgive me if this is the wrong space to post this. I finished my MA degree a few years ago, and I have been doing work unrelated to my degree since. Today my former second reader professor forwarded me a call for papers for a special conference about a very specific niche, on which I wrote my MA thesis. I really want to be a part of this conference, but I only submitted and presented papers while I was a student, and I no longer belong to an organization or school. Is it allowed for a regular "no-longer-a-student" person to participate? Will they welcome my submission? The call for papers said, "Early career scholars and graduate students are very welcome."
RESPONSE A: Go for it. There's usually no requirement that you have a current university affiliation in order to present at a conference. It's not extremely common for a variety of reasons, but people do present papers and publish as "independent scholars".
RESPONSE B: Of course.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: This might sound really stupid, but can I still submit abstracts to conferences call for papers after graduating and no longer being a graduate student? Please forgive me if this is the wrong space to post this. I finished my MA degree a few years ago, and I have been doing work unrelated to my degree since. Today my former second reader professor forwarded me a call for papers for a special conference about a very specific niche, on which I wrote my MA thesis. I really want to be a part of this conference, but I only submitted and presented papers while I was a student, and I no longer belong to an organization or school. Is it allowed for a regular "no-longer-a-student" person to participate? Will they welcome my submission? The call for papers said, "Early career scholars and graduate students are very welcome."
RESPONSE A: Of course.
RESPONSE B: Yes, you’d likely be categorised as an Independent Scholar.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: This might sound really stupid, but can I still submit abstracts to conferences call for papers after graduating and no longer being a graduate student? Please forgive me if this is the wrong space to post this. I finished my MA degree a few years ago, and I have been doing work unrelated to my degree since. Today my former second reader professor forwarded me a call for papers for a special conference about a very specific niche, on which I wrote my MA thesis. I really want to be a part of this conference, but I only submitted and presented papers while I was a student, and I no longer belong to an organization or school. Is it allowed for a regular "no-longer-a-student" person to participate? Will they welcome my submission? The call for papers said, "Early career scholars and graduate students are very welcome."
RESPONSE A: You definitely can; you will just have to consider that you will be paying "non-student" prices which are often ridiculous
RESPONSE B: On a side note how do you find conferences to attend?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: This might sound really stupid, but can I still submit abstracts to conferences call for papers after graduating and no longer being a graduate student? Please forgive me if this is the wrong space to post this. I finished my MA degree a few years ago, and I have been doing work unrelated to my degree since. Today my former second reader professor forwarded me a call for papers for a special conference about a very specific niche, on which I wrote my MA thesis. I really want to be a part of this conference, but I only submitted and presented papers while I was a student, and I no longer belong to an organization or school. Is it allowed for a regular "no-longer-a-student" person to participate? Will they welcome my submission? The call for papers said, "Early career scholars and graduate students are very welcome."
RESPONSE A: Why should that not be possible? From the perspective of the organizers, every submission is a good thing.
RESPONSE B: You definitely can; you will just have to consider that you will be paying "non-student" prices which are often ridiculous
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do I come up with a research topic for my PhD? I want to start a PhD but I am having trouble with coming up with a research proposal. I have a vague idea about what I want my research to be about but I can't come up with a concrete research topic. All suggestions are welcome!
RESPONSE A: Hello there! Research is a matter of momentum (or inertia if you will), topics will come to you by themselves while you keep reading literature. You can't find a topic by sitting on a desk and asking yourself what to write. If you ask your mentor, you'll probably end up with a topic you aren't really curious about (and believe me, curiosity is very important for a PHD thesis!). Think about a general topic in your area, even an abstract one. Start to read without a real purpose, just read what you want to read. If something catches your attention, go deeper. Rinse and repeat. Keep doing this and you'll have *more than one* topic in no time and these will not be just any topics, these will be the ones that keep you interested! Edit: Thanks for the hug! :)
RESPONSE B: Try to catch up on the recent literature on that topic. You'll quickly recognize gaps in the knowledge, sometimes they're even pointed out directly by the authors 'xyz is currently understudied', 'this is not yet well understood', 'more research is needed on this'
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do I come up with a research topic for my PhD? I want to start a PhD but I am having trouble with coming up with a research proposal. I have a vague idea about what I want my research to be about but I can't come up with a concrete research topic. All suggestions are welcome!
RESPONSE A: Hello there! Research is a matter of momentum (or inertia if you will), topics will come to you by themselves while you keep reading literature. You can't find a topic by sitting on a desk and asking yourself what to write. If you ask your mentor, you'll probably end up with a topic you aren't really curious about (and believe me, curiosity is very important for a PHD thesis!). Think about a general topic in your area, even an abstract one. Start to read without a real purpose, just read what you want to read. If something catches your attention, go deeper. Rinse and repeat. Keep doing this and you'll have *more than one* topic in no time and these will not be just any topics, these will be the ones that keep you interested! Edit: Thanks for the hug! :)
RESPONSE B: Talk to your peers and mentor about it a lot! You don’t need a perfect idea when you start (or even when you finish) just a good one. And then work to make it better and better as you go.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do I come up with a research topic for my PhD? I want to start a PhD but I am having trouble with coming up with a research proposal. I have a vague idea about what I want my research to be about but I can't come up with a concrete research topic. All suggestions are welcome!
RESPONSE A: Hello there! Research is a matter of momentum (or inertia if you will), topics will come to you by themselves while you keep reading literature. You can't find a topic by sitting on a desk and asking yourself what to write. If you ask your mentor, you'll probably end up with a topic you aren't really curious about (and believe me, curiosity is very important for a PHD thesis!). Think about a general topic in your area, even an abstract one. Start to read without a real purpose, just read what you want to read. If something catches your attention, go deeper. Rinse and repeat. Keep doing this and you'll have *more than one* topic in no time and these will not be just any topics, these will be the ones that keep you interested! Edit: Thanks for the hug! :)
RESPONSE B: Find the boundaries of your current field of interest. Find what lies beyond those boundaries. Pick one of those topics. Current (2020) *good* long reviews are very helpful. Find one from a giant in your field and dig into a nice 10-90 page review. They’ll point out what’s missing or elude to it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do I come up with a research topic for my PhD? I want to start a PhD but I am having trouble with coming up with a research proposal. I have a vague idea about what I want my research to be about but I can't come up with a concrete research topic. All suggestions are welcome!
RESPONSE A: Hello there! Research is a matter of momentum (or inertia if you will), topics will come to you by themselves while you keep reading literature. You can't find a topic by sitting on a desk and asking yourself what to write. If you ask your mentor, you'll probably end up with a topic you aren't really curious about (and believe me, curiosity is very important for a PHD thesis!). Think about a general topic in your area, even an abstract one. Start to read without a real purpose, just read what you want to read. If something catches your attention, go deeper. Rinse and repeat. Keep doing this and you'll have *more than one* topic in no time and these will not be just any topics, these will be the ones that keep you interested! Edit: Thanks for the hug! :)
RESPONSE B: I always found review current dissertations a great way to understand what research exist out there and were the gaps are.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do I come up with a research topic for my PhD? I want to start a PhD but I am having trouble with coming up with a research proposal. I have a vague idea about what I want my research to be about but I can't come up with a concrete research topic. All suggestions are welcome!
RESPONSE A: Try to catch up on the recent literature on that topic. You'll quickly recognize gaps in the knowledge, sometimes they're even pointed out directly by the authors 'xyz is currently understudied', 'this is not yet well understood', 'more research is needed on this'
RESPONSE B: Talk to your peers and mentor about it a lot! You don’t need a perfect idea when you start (or even when you finish) just a good one. And then work to make it better and better as you go.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How bad is it to be a "Jack of all trades" in academia? Hey! While I think I'm doing relatively OK in terms of the sheer number of publications, something that's been bugging me lately is the fact that my publication are far from being concentrated around one topic (or even area within the discipline). Due to the fact that my country has a somewhat messy academic system, I found myself working on project A (one area within my discipline) and project B (another area within my discipline) for financial reasons, while trying to conduct my own PhD-thesis related research (let's call this "project C" - again, another area within my discipline). The situation becomes even more complicated because of additional random collaborations and because I also work on some extra stuff with my academic advisor (this stuff is a bit closer to my PhD-thesis than other projects). So... How bad is it to be a "Jack of all trades" in academia? Does it look a bit better if you are only the first author of publications that are close to your area of interest (and a middle author on other publications)? Can it even be advantageous to be a "generalist"? What would you suggest?
RESPONSE A: Following - I basically could have written this post! But have spanned disciples 😏just finishing up PhD now, have a post doc but a bit worried about how settling in to a career will go.
RESPONSE B: So long as you can spin a yarn about how some top-level theoretic perspective ties together all your work you're fine. If you can't do that - find a way to do it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How bad is it to be a "Jack of all trades" in academia? Hey! While I think I'm doing relatively OK in terms of the sheer number of publications, something that's been bugging me lately is the fact that my publication are far from being concentrated around one topic (or even area within the discipline). Due to the fact that my country has a somewhat messy academic system, I found myself working on project A (one area within my discipline) and project B (another area within my discipline) for financial reasons, while trying to conduct my own PhD-thesis related research (let's call this "project C" - again, another area within my discipline). The situation becomes even more complicated because of additional random collaborations and because I also work on some extra stuff with my academic advisor (this stuff is a bit closer to my PhD-thesis than other projects). So... How bad is it to be a "Jack of all trades" in academia? Does it look a bit better if you are only the first author of publications that are close to your area of interest (and a middle author on other publications)? Can it even be advantageous to be a "generalist"? What would you suggest?
RESPONSE A: it’s quite bad because hiring tends to be within traditional disciplinary fields. Maybe you are the only person out there doing X and Y together: the trouble is that hiring committees from Dept X and Dept Y may not think you are a good enough fit for them.
RESPONSE B: SLAC here and we tend to hire generalists because we don't have enough faculty to specialize
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How bad is it to be a "Jack of all trades" in academia? Hey! While I think I'm doing relatively OK in terms of the sheer number of publications, something that's been bugging me lately is the fact that my publication are far from being concentrated around one topic (or even area within the discipline). Due to the fact that my country has a somewhat messy academic system, I found myself working on project A (one area within my discipline) and project B (another area within my discipline) for financial reasons, while trying to conduct my own PhD-thesis related research (let's call this "project C" - again, another area within my discipline). The situation becomes even more complicated because of additional random collaborations and because I also work on some extra stuff with my academic advisor (this stuff is a bit closer to my PhD-thesis than other projects). So... How bad is it to be a "Jack of all trades" in academia? Does it look a bit better if you are only the first author of publications that are close to your area of interest (and a middle author on other publications)? Can it even be advantageous to be a "generalist"? What would you suggest?
RESPONSE A: The part I don't get is how knowledge in A, B and C would make you the jack of all trades. More likely, you will be perceived as an individual who has some expertise in three particular topics. Three topics still seems like a good number to develop a reasonable level of expertise in all of them. I would be more suspicious if your number of topics rises to 5 and more (as an early-career researcher).
RESPONSE B: it’s quite bad because hiring tends to be within traditional disciplinary fields. Maybe you are the only person out there doing X and Y together: the trouble is that hiring committees from Dept X and Dept Y may not think you are a good enough fit for them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How bad is it to be a "Jack of all trades" in academia? Hey! While I think I'm doing relatively OK in terms of the sheer number of publications, something that's been bugging me lately is the fact that my publication are far from being concentrated around one topic (or even area within the discipline). Due to the fact that my country has a somewhat messy academic system, I found myself working on project A (one area within my discipline) and project B (another area within my discipline) for financial reasons, while trying to conduct my own PhD-thesis related research (let's call this "project C" - again, another area within my discipline). The situation becomes even more complicated because of additional random collaborations and because I also work on some extra stuff with my academic advisor (this stuff is a bit closer to my PhD-thesis than other projects). So... How bad is it to be a "Jack of all trades" in academia? Does it look a bit better if you are only the first author of publications that are close to your area of interest (and a middle author on other publications)? Can it even be advantageous to be a "generalist"? What would you suggest?
RESPONSE A: Interdisciplinary is highly regarded in many universities. However it sounds like you are staying within your discipline. I would say that having a wide ranging publication record is an advantage for getting and keeping academic jobs as it shows you can teach and research more things than someone with a narrower focus would; this means that whilst you could get asked to teach disparate things you can also go after many different opportunities
RESPONSE B: it’s quite bad because hiring tends to be within traditional disciplinary fields. Maybe you are the only person out there doing X and Y together: the trouble is that hiring committees from Dept X and Dept Y may not think you are a good enough fit for them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How bad is it to be a "Jack of all trades" in academia? Hey! While I think I'm doing relatively OK in terms of the sheer number of publications, something that's been bugging me lately is the fact that my publication are far from being concentrated around one topic (or even area within the discipline). Due to the fact that my country has a somewhat messy academic system, I found myself working on project A (one area within my discipline) and project B (another area within my discipline) for financial reasons, while trying to conduct my own PhD-thesis related research (let's call this "project C" - again, another area within my discipline). The situation becomes even more complicated because of additional random collaborations and because I also work on some extra stuff with my academic advisor (this stuff is a bit closer to my PhD-thesis than other projects). So... How bad is it to be a "Jack of all trades" in academia? Does it look a bit better if you are only the first author of publications that are close to your area of interest (and a middle author on other publications)? Can it even be advantageous to be a "generalist"? What would you suggest?
RESPONSE A: it’s quite bad because hiring tends to be within traditional disciplinary fields. Maybe you are the only person out there doing X and Y together: the trouble is that hiring committees from Dept X and Dept Y may not think you are a good enough fit for them.
RESPONSE B: When my partner was interviewing for jobs, someone actually said "jack of all trades, master of none" during the interview. He was pretty pissed about that. Long story short, though, he interviewed for 3 tenure track jobs and got offers from all 3.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I had to contact them to get another letter with exactly the same content but a more recent date. Which is silly. They are busy people, and it took me about a month to get this letter. Now I would like to send more than one application in case I don't make it into the one I'm interested in, but as it turns out some universities have a recommendation letter system where you have to *invite* your recommenders to a platform and they have to submit the recommendation themselves. Yeah, sure. Like, who has the time to do that? Certainly not the organisation that sent me this updated recommendation letter after a month. I don't feel comfortable asking for this, and I honestly think it's ridiculous. Does this whole system work this way because I'm not supposed to know what they say about me? I know they are going to be positive recommendations, otherwise I wouldn't submit them. And it's already not that easy to get a recommendation letter in countries where it's not a thing - like I had to explain to them what it was and I almost had to write it myself, so anything that needed more effort would definitely be a no. I feel like I'm cut out from applying to certain universities because of this. Already asking a professor I haven't had contacts with in six years feels weird, since I do have her letter and I could just submit it anytime. But no, *she* has to do it or it's not valid. If I wanted to send three applications, just to make sure I make it into one, should I ask her to do this three times? It honestly feels like bullshit. Sorry for the rant, but I needed to get it out.
RESPONSE A: Something like what you are proposing already exists (Interfolio Dossier), but sadly it isn't cheap and a lot of universities don't accept it. While a couple years ago they actually marketed that you could use it for grad admissions, they largely have backtracked from it - but the platform can support it.
RESPONSE B: I have no advice for you but just wanted to chime in that that does suck and I agree with you it's not a good system.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Has anyone here NOT had significant issues completing their PhD? Genuinely curious how many individuals here didn't face significant issues with advisors, cohorts, labs, course failures, mental health, etc. I've noticed the majority of posts speaking negatively about all facets of pursuing a PhD and honestly, I want to hear the positive parts for once.
RESPONSE A: I didn’t care much for the location of my grad school, so was happy to get out of there in 5 years (included my master’s along the way). Had a baby right after I finished coursework (advisor was awesome and let me just work on papers from home to finish out my GRA that semester). I got married right before moving for grad school, and we were both pretty lonely that first year. Then met some great friends and enjoyed the rest of the time. The last year, I did find the job market to be stressful. Fortunately, it worked out. My field is a social science. I’ve been out for more than a decade now, though. I try really hard with my own advisees to help them have a good experience in grad school, and I’m not alone in that. I think a supportive advisor is critical.
RESPONSE B: PhD in criminal justice, full stipend and tuition waiver throughout. Finished in 5 years, immediately got a tenure-track job after. No major problems, am lifelong friends with several folks from grad school, didn’t get divorced in grad school, didn’t contemplate suicide, had a hell of a good time surrounded by the smartest people I’ll ever meet. Don’t get me wrong. It was hard. But grad school was a fun job.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Has anyone here NOT had significant issues completing their PhD? Genuinely curious how many individuals here didn't face significant issues with advisors, cohorts, labs, course failures, mental health, etc. I've noticed the majority of posts speaking negatively about all facets of pursuing a PhD and honestly, I want to hear the positive parts for once.
RESPONSE A: I had a very enjoyable PhD experience in Canada. Finished my courses and comprehensive exams at the end of year 1, defended my proposal in the middle of year 2. Finished data collection and cleaning by middle of year 3, and finished just under 4 years. My PhD was in health sciences, and I was working as an epidemiologist 75% FTE at a hospital as well through the whole time (used my holidays for comps and proposal defence). My work paid for my PhD as well. I used my work data for my PhD research so that was probably a huge contributing factor to why it was easy. I also did my thesis through 3 articles which meant I do don't have a giant thesis to deal with. Got 3 papers published at the end of my PhD, did a postdoc, and now I'm 2nd year into a tenure track job in a medical science department.
RESPONSE B: PhD in criminal justice, full stipend and tuition waiver throughout. Finished in 5 years, immediately got a tenure-track job after. No major problems, am lifelong friends with several folks from grad school, didn’t get divorced in grad school, didn’t contemplate suicide, had a hell of a good time surrounded by the smartest people I’ll ever meet. Don’t get me wrong. It was hard. But grad school was a fun job.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Has anyone here NOT had significant issues completing their PhD? Genuinely curious how many individuals here didn't face significant issues with advisors, cohorts, labs, course failures, mental health, etc. I've noticed the majority of posts speaking negatively about all facets of pursuing a PhD and honestly, I want to hear the positive parts for once.
RESPONSE A: I feel like I had a nice experience. I'm still quite close with 2 of my committee members - my chair and methodologist. Everytime I'm in town we do lunch! I also call and email them with updates. I also loved most of my classes, like thouroughly enjoyed them. Only a few classes, less than a handful I didn't. Writing the dissertation was the hardest part because you feel like it could never end and when your a perfectionist you hate seeing the red ink. But I truly feel like I grew not only professionally, but as a person. I started to realize just how much knowledge is out there that I don't know, that it's ok to not have all the answers, but that being a contribution to society of what I truly want. I matured a lot in I think great ways. Still also keep in contact with many of my program mates. I think it helped that I was a grad assistant and had another part time job so that I didn't feel overwhelmed. I also successfully dated and former a relationship during my studies so I have had the opposite experience than most on that end as well. Part of my success was being at an institution I was already very familiar with, being settled in the city, and having a good support network in friends and family.
RESPONSE B: PhD in criminal justice, full stipend and tuition waiver throughout. Finished in 5 years, immediately got a tenure-track job after. No major problems, am lifelong friends with several folks from grad school, didn’t get divorced in grad school, didn’t contemplate suicide, had a hell of a good time surrounded by the smartest people I’ll ever meet. Don’t get me wrong. It was hard. But grad school was a fun job.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Has anyone here NOT had significant issues completing their PhD? Genuinely curious how many individuals here didn't face significant issues with advisors, cohorts, labs, course failures, mental health, etc. I've noticed the majority of posts speaking negatively about all facets of pursuing a PhD and honestly, I want to hear the positive parts for once.
RESPONSE A: Also did anyone complete with a family or similar additional responsibilities or as a single parent with minimal setbacks?
RESPONSE B: PhD in criminal justice, full stipend and tuition waiver throughout. Finished in 5 years, immediately got a tenure-track job after. No major problems, am lifelong friends with several folks from grad school, didn’t get divorced in grad school, didn’t contemplate suicide, had a hell of a good time surrounded by the smartest people I’ll ever meet. Don’t get me wrong. It was hard. But grad school was a fun job.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Has anyone here NOT had significant issues completing their PhD? Genuinely curious how many individuals here didn't face significant issues with advisors, cohorts, labs, course failures, mental health, etc. I've noticed the majority of posts speaking negatively about all facets of pursuing a PhD and honestly, I want to hear the positive parts for once.
RESPONSE A: Yeah, I completed my Chemistry PhD fairly quickly (a semester faster than the department average). My adviser set up fruitful collaborations throughout my time in grad school so I had several publications, which made it easy to get a great postdoc, which was also a great time.
RESPONSE B: I feel like I had a nice experience. I'm still quite close with 2 of my committee members - my chair and methodologist. Everytime I'm in town we do lunch! I also call and email them with updates. I also loved most of my classes, like thouroughly enjoyed them. Only a few classes, less than a handful I didn't. Writing the dissertation was the hardest part because you feel like it could never end and when your a perfectionist you hate seeing the red ink. But I truly feel like I grew not only professionally, but as a person. I started to realize just how much knowledge is out there that I don't know, that it's ok to not have all the answers, but that being a contribution to society of what I truly want. I matured a lot in I think great ways. Still also keep in contact with many of my program mates. I think it helped that I was a grad assistant and had another part time job so that I didn't feel overwhelmed. I also successfully dated and former a relationship during my studies so I have had the opposite experience than most on that end as well. Part of my success was being at an institution I was already very familiar with, being settled in the city, and having a good support network in friends and family.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What is the worst thing you have heard an academic say in a highly public, professional setting? I just want some good stories. Outrageous, blunt, callous, etc. I think they are hilarious.
RESPONSE A: At a very large event for new faculty, our college president called one dean by the wrong name. When corrected, he said "sorry, I can't tell my black deans apart." Not sure if it's "funny" but definitely memorable...
RESPONSE B: Not something I "heard" but a couple of our math professors, including the dean, were quite heavily insulting and attacking each other via mass email lists that were sent to all grad students and all faculty staff. It was pretty infantile, honestly, and not worthy of their positions. If they have beef with each other they should carry those fights out in private \- in fact many people asked them in the email list publicly to do it in private and they explicitly refused to do so.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What is the worst thing you have heard an academic say in a highly public, professional setting? I just want some good stories. Outrageous, blunt, callous, etc. I think they are hilarious.
RESPONSE A: I was once at a beginning of the year do where the Dean was introducing new faculty and he introduced our new female faculty member as male, and then ARGUED WITH HER when she corrected him.
RESPONSE B: Not something I "heard" but a couple of our math professors, including the dean, were quite heavily insulting and attacking each other via mass email lists that were sent to all grad students and all faculty staff. It was pretty infantile, honestly, and not worthy of their positions. If they have beef with each other they should carry those fights out in private \- in fact many people asked them in the email list publicly to do it in private and they explicitly refused to do so.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What is the worst thing you have heard an academic say in a highly public, professional setting? I just want some good stories. Outrageous, blunt, callous, etc. I think they are hilarious.
RESPONSE A: We have a distinguished professor in our uni who is probably suffering from a motor neuron disease (idk the details, upshot is he can't do fine control like write, type or walk etc.), and had just completed writing his first book. During the unveiling ceremony a senior Prof. goes up to the stage and starts a dedication speech with "Even though he is disabled, xyx has been able to complete this book, which is commendable..." Cringe af.
RESPONSE B: I was once at a beginning of the year do where the Dean was introducing new faculty and he introduced our new female faculty member as male, and then ARGUED WITH HER when she corrected him.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What is the worst thing you have heard an academic say in a highly public, professional setting? I just want some good stories. Outrageous, blunt, callous, etc. I think they are hilarious.
RESPONSE A: I was once at a beginning of the year do where the Dean was introducing new faculty and he introduced our new female faculty member as male, and then ARGUED WITH HER when she corrected him.
RESPONSE B: My advisor publicly acts like he doesn't give a shit about other fields, so there's that..
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What is the worst thing you have heard an academic say in a highly public, professional setting? I just want some good stories. Outrageous, blunt, callous, etc. I think they are hilarious.
RESPONSE A: Not something I "heard" but a couple of our math professors, including the dean, were quite heavily insulting and attacking each other via mass email lists that were sent to all grad students and all faculty staff. It was pretty infantile, honestly, and not worthy of their positions. If they have beef with each other they should carry those fights out in private \- in fact many people asked them in the email list publicly to do it in private and they explicitly refused to do so.
RESPONSE B: I feel like I have many, but the *worst* would have to be the professor who stated, "Well there wasn't any culture in Canada before the settlers arrived," and refused to back down when the First Nations were brought up.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What non-academic achievement did you complete during your PhD? As somebody who will be embarking on a PhD in the fall, I'd like to hear a little bit more about what people have accomplished in their personal lives during graduate school. Did you write a fictional novel? Did you make a video game? Have you gotten married or traveled the world? Did you run a marathon? What personal goals did you achieve during your PhD that helped you escape from the research from time to time? Share any stories here - big or small!
RESPONSE A: Finished nanowrimo twice, finally stopped a lifelong cycle of fear and confusion and came out as trans, and crocheted a blanket. Pretty mixed bag!
RESPONSE B: I didn't commit suicide from the isolation, stress, and ex's affair.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What non-academic achievement did you complete during your PhD? As somebody who will be embarking on a PhD in the fall, I'd like to hear a little bit more about what people have accomplished in their personal lives during graduate school. Did you write a fictional novel? Did you make a video game? Have you gotten married or traveled the world? Did you run a marathon? What personal goals did you achieve during your PhD that helped you escape from the research from time to time? Share any stories here - big or small!
RESPONSE A: I didn't commit suicide from the isolation, stress, and ex's affair.
RESPONSE B: Played a band of 10 years' last show. Got a backyard chicken flock. Got engaged. Got married. Sold a house. Bought a house. Bought a car. Sued dealership. Bought another car. Built a woodshed.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What non-academic achievement did you complete during your PhD? As somebody who will be embarking on a PhD in the fall, I'd like to hear a little bit more about what people have accomplished in their personal lives during graduate school. Did you write a fictional novel? Did you make a video game? Have you gotten married or traveled the world? Did you run a marathon? What personal goals did you achieve during your PhD that helped you escape from the research from time to time? Share any stories here - big or small!
RESPONSE A: I didn't commit suicide from the isolation, stress, and ex's affair.
RESPONSE B: I'm a professional artist outside my PhD, so I'm working around the clock. I've had lots of little achievements for my art business (some of which actually crossed over with my academic work): - Illustrated 19 artworks for a book written by an ecologist at our university, and published by Cambridge Unievrsity Press! Having a book launch + art exhibition for it in less than a fortnight! - Illustrated an entire mural (digitally) for one of the new labs here at our University, and got to talk about it on the lab opening. It was a collaborative art piece with another designer and she was awesome! - Drew a portrait of David Attenborough, which got left in his dressing room while he was on tour in Australia (I knew someone at the venue) and I am 99% certain he has it. - I got to talk about climate change for my friend's climate change art exhibition, which was great. - I moved in with my partner of 8 years, bought my first car and a custom PC. - I dived in some new spots in Australia, and got to add manta rays, lionfish and leopard sharks to my ever-growing list!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What non-academic achievement did you complete during your PhD? As somebody who will be embarking on a PhD in the fall, I'd like to hear a little bit more about what people have accomplished in their personal lives during graduate school. Did you write a fictional novel? Did you make a video game? Have you gotten married or traveled the world? Did you run a marathon? What personal goals did you achieve during your PhD that helped you escape from the research from time to time? Share any stories here - big or small!
RESPONSE A: I didn't commit suicide from the isolation, stress, and ex's affair.
RESPONSE B: Met a nice guy during my first semester, got engaged the summer after 2nd year, and should be defending my dissertation within a couple weeks of the wedding if all goes according to plan next spring!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What non-academic achievement did you complete during your PhD? As somebody who will be embarking on a PhD in the fall, I'd like to hear a little bit more about what people have accomplished in their personal lives during graduate school. Did you write a fictional novel? Did you make a video game? Have you gotten married or traveled the world? Did you run a marathon? What personal goals did you achieve during your PhD that helped you escape from the research from time to time? Share any stories here - big or small!
RESPONSE A: I didn't commit suicide from the isolation, stress, and ex's affair.
RESPONSE B: I've gotten into rock climbing and backpacking! I'm now in the best shape of my life and it feels great to get outside and conquer mountains.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Being a professor and the "gay voice" and manneirism (26M gay) I've always had a concern abou my voice sounding too gay but only about dating and hooking up. Now I have this concern about the classroom too. Is it something bad to have a gay voice while being a professor? Read something about it being unprofessional and makes you being disrespected. I have this memory about all my male teachers and professors being a bit feminine even thought they're all straight. So is it ok maybe?
RESPONSE A: Pretending I don't have a "gay voice" is exhausting and never worth it. If others don't like it, too bad. I'd rather lead by example for other queer folks (and non-queer folks who may share similar traits)
RESPONSE B: I had two professors during my undergrad who had the "gay voice." Didn't think twice about it. One was really really great, and the other was below average as a lecturer. But their voices had nothing to with the quality of their teaching or how seriously the class took them. Universities (especially the new batches of students) tend to be really progressive and accepting of LGBTQ people. Just be yourself and focus on the quality of the material you present and you will be absolutely fine.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Being a professor and the "gay voice" and manneirism (26M gay) I've always had a concern abou my voice sounding too gay but only about dating and hooking up. Now I have this concern about the classroom too. Is it something bad to have a gay voice while being a professor? Read something about it being unprofessional and makes you being disrespected. I have this memory about all my male teachers and professors being a bit feminine even thought they're all straight. So is it ok maybe?
RESPONSE A: Pretending I don't have a "gay voice" is exhausting and never worth it. If others don't like it, too bad. I'd rather lead by example for other queer folks (and non-queer folks who may share similar traits)
RESPONSE B: (37M straight)Just be yourself. If you get discriminated against by your employer for “gay” attributes then get a lawyer. Personally, your voice is your voice. To me someone’s voice is neither gay or straight, it’s just their voice. If people don’t like it, oh well. Try not to stress yourself out over this.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Being a professor and the "gay voice" and manneirism (26M gay) I've always had a concern abou my voice sounding too gay but only about dating and hooking up. Now I have this concern about the classroom too. Is it something bad to have a gay voice while being a professor? Read something about it being unprofessional and makes you being disrespected. I have this memory about all my male teachers and professors being a bit feminine even thought they're all straight. So is it ok maybe?
RESPONSE A: Pretending I don't have a "gay voice" is exhausting and never worth it. If others don't like it, too bad. I'd rather lead by example for other queer folks (and non-queer folks who may share similar traits)
RESPONSE B: The reality of the matter is anybody who isn't a straight white cis male is seen as less competent in student evals (even among students who hold beliefs in equality). That said your voice "sounding gay" is probably the least of it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Being a professor and the "gay voice" and manneirism (26M gay) I've always had a concern abou my voice sounding too gay but only about dating and hooking up. Now I have this concern about the classroom too. Is it something bad to have a gay voice while being a professor? Read something about it being unprofessional and makes you being disrespected. I have this memory about all my male teachers and professors being a bit feminine even thought they're all straight. So is it ok maybe?
RESPONSE A: Pretending I don't have a "gay voice" is exhausting and never worth it. If others don't like it, too bad. I'd rather lead by example for other queer folks (and non-queer folks who may share similar traits)
RESPONSE B: Many things are "unprofessional" not because there is anything wrong with them but because the people saying "unprofessional" are biased or bigoted. Your voice is influenced by multiple aspects of your physiology. It's not something you have a lot of choice in like clothing, punctuality, hygiene, etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Being a professor and the "gay voice" and manneirism (26M gay) I've always had a concern abou my voice sounding too gay but only about dating and hooking up. Now I have this concern about the classroom too. Is it something bad to have a gay voice while being a professor? Read something about it being unprofessional and makes you being disrespected. I have this memory about all my male teachers and professors being a bit feminine even thought they're all straight. So is it ok maybe?
RESPONSE A: Be yourself.
RESPONSE B: Pretending I don't have a "gay voice" is exhausting and never worth it. If others don't like it, too bad. I'd rather lead by example for other queer folks (and non-queer folks who may share similar traits)
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.